United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

William Cash Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

It would be unconscionable for us to have left the EU lawfully, which the EU has accepted, and then allow it to threaten us and strangle our jobs and businesses by imposing unfair state aid rules that go much wider than traditional subsidies, and then for it to seek unwarranted legal action when we are properly defending our national, economic and political sovereignty. If so, we would become a neutered, trivial Lilliput—an enslaved economic satellite of the EU. No UK Parliament could allow itself to be so prostrated. We won the referendum and the general election across the country because voters wanted to leave the EU and free ourselves from undemocratic rule from Brussels and from majority voting, and to regain our right to govern ourselves and our economic freedom. This Bill guarantees that promise to them and maintains the Union.

International law comes in all shapes and sizes. There are many instances of express override in UK statute law. The EU itself sometimes breaks international law, including refusing certain compliance with World Trade Organisation rules. EU retaliation by a blockade would be utterly unlawful. Even the Belfast agreement contains “notwithstanding” provisions, as does USA statute law. The express powers in the Bill, which constitute the taking of powers rather than actual implementation, are justified precautions against the risk of an expansionist interpretation of article 10 of the protocol, which would lead to great uncertainty, litigation risk and a serious threat to the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom into the indefinite future.

There has never been a level playing field in the EU. Its cardinal objective in these negotiations from the outset has included preventing us from being able to compete fairly. That is not good faith. Under the protocol, the EU would even control our legal tax freedom to create freeports and enterprise zones. All of this would massively undermine our businesses and jobs and therefore our voters.

Let us consider the wide legal sphere of EU state aid regulation. It is concerned with not only subsidies but tax reliefs; taxation favouring particular sectors or undertakings; remission of national insurance contributions; bank bail-outs such as those of RBS and Lloyds, where contrived, draconian EU legal conditions were imposed; and a raft of other measures too numerous to list, including gas tariffs for horticulture, airport landing fees, private health insurance, carbon trading emission certificates for free, failing to follow public procurement procedures and so on. By contrast, more recently, the German Government have procured approval for vast amounts of aid, notably for Lufthansa, and this is a pattern that has continued for decades across many commercial sectors. I recommend that people read Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s article today in The Daily Telegraph.

Mr Šefčovič has outrageously dared to threaten the UK Parliament itself if we do not remove the clauses, and he misrepresents our position on the Good Friday agreement. This contradicts our sovereignty and autonomy, which the EU accepted. The EU seeks to subject us to a foreign regulator, taking essentially political decisions and armed with undemocratic prohibition powers and authorisations. It would be unconscionable and utterly naive for us to allow that to happen. It would be contrary to our national interests at this time of economic instability generated by coronavirus.

I remind the House that section 38 of the 2020 Act was passed without a single person in either House formally objecting, either on Second Reading or in Committee. The Bill is needed as an insurance policy and as a guarantee of our national sovereignty within the meaning of the Vienna convention, and our national security.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

William Cash Excerpts

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

[Paul Scully]

I very much do not hold the devolution settlement in contempt. It is right that we work together. I believe that the UK is stronger together. It is important that we give Scottish businesses—just as much as Welsh, Northern Irish and English businesses—the certainty that they want to be able to trade, so we will continue to engage with the Scottish Parliament and officials and politicians up there to achieve legislative consent.

Hundreds of powers will flow from the EU to the devolved nations and the UK Government in an unprecedented transfer. As we recover from covid, we must ensure that our economy is stronger than ever. That is why the Government have introduced this Bill and why it is essential that we pass it. We want to guarantee the continued functioning of our internal market, to ensure that trade remains unhindered in the UK.

I will begin by speaking to the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, starting with those that strengthen the Bill’s measures relating to the governance and functioning of the Office for the Internal Market. The office will sit within the Competition and Markets Authority to monitor and report on the internal market on an equal basis for all Administrations. The Competition and Markets Authority has a strong reputation for independence and impartiality. The Government have strived to preserve that reputation in setting out the functions to be carried out by the Office for the Internal Market. By providing non-binding, expert reporting and technical monitoring on regulations and proposals, it will provide robust evidence on the actual or potential impact of regulatory measures.

New clause 4 gives the Competition and Markets Authority the objective of supporting the effective operation of the UK internal market through the provision of economic and technical advice and expertise. That will exist in parallel to the existing objective of the Competition and Markets Authority to promote competition for the benefit of consumers.

New clause 5 enables Competition and Markets Authority functions under part 4 of the Bill to be carried out by an Office for the Internal Market task group and introduces a new schedule setting out the Government’s arrangements for the Office for the Internal Market panel and task groups. That mirrors the existing arrangements for the establishment of panels and groups that it has in place.

New schedule 1 establishes a panel of experts to lead the work of the Office for the Internal Market. The Secretary of State will appoint a chair and further members, following consultation with Ministers from all three devolved Administrations.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that the arrangements under the Bill regarding the CMA guarantee that we will not have any jurisdiction by the European Union or the European Court over the CMA and, furthermore, that one of the cardinal principles on which the European Union and the Commission are taking their stand is that they insist that we should not benefit competitively from leaving the European Union and we should not be able to compete with them on reasonable terms?

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful for that typically wise intervention. I am happy to provide that confirmation.

Amendment 1 provides absolute privilege against defamation for the Competition and Markets Authority when carrying out its functions under part 4. That will ensure that it can report and provide advice independently without needing to expend resources on preparing to defend litigation, and that businesses with deep pockets cannot sue or threaten to sue the CMA to obstruct it from carrying out its functions.

I shall set out briefly for the House the amendments that will improve the Bill’s drafting. Through amendments 31 to 34, we are taking the opportunity to put it beyond any possible doubt that alcohol minimum unit pricing-type regulation and any other sales requirements are not in the scope of the mutual recognition principle, unless they amount in practice to a total ban on a good being sold. That came up in Committee. We want to make sure that rather than politicking, we can return to a business continuity approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Like him, I had a wry laugh when I saw that advert.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lucy Powell]

I will just make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

Those noble contributions aside, we really have heard it all from those on the Government Benches during these debates. In trying to justify their latest cack-handed approach to public relations ahead of crunch trade talks with the EU, they have come up with a whole menu of reasons to support the Bill as drafted. Here is the highlights package. Do the Government break an international agreement—an agreement that the Prime Minister signed a few months ago? Do they break the law? Apparently, this Bill only breaks the law in a “limited and specific way”. Others on the Government’s own Benches, as we have already heard today, disagree. Some Members said that the Bill does not break the law in any way, but the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said that it was okay because other people break the law, too. So which is it?

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Lucy Powell]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might be able to answer that question. Which is it?

[Sir William Cash]

I would just like the hon. Lady to answer a simple question. Is she aware that, when in power, the Labour party frequently overrode treaties and has, therefore, in her own terms, broken international law. Is she aware of the number of times that that has happened and how egregious it was? The same applies to many of the matter to which she has just referred.

[Lucy Powell]

The hon. Gentleman has failed to give me an example, so I am not sure what he is referring to. He has spent his whole political career campaigning for us to leave the EU treaties, and the withdrawal agreement, which he supported and which his Government signed, did exactly that, and he is still not happy with it, so I do not know which it is.

The former Prime Minister said in a powerful speech last week that this Bill will tarnish and do “untold damage” to our reputation and weaken the UK in the eyes of the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill]

One of the most salutary but, in retrospect, useful put-downs I ever had when I was a young barrister came when I perhaps overindulged in hyperbole in advancing arguments to the Court of Appeal and Lord Justice Cumming-Bruce said to me, “There’s no jury here, Mr Neill, you can cut out the hyperbole and stick to the arguments.” He was right and perhaps it is not a bad thing to try to do in the Committee on the Bill, as there has been a deal of hyperbole surrounding its passage, coming from those in all parts of the House. We might be better off cutting it out a little and getting back to the nuts and bolts of what we are discussing, because a lot of the Bill is perfectly reasonable and necessary. It is not a necessity I particularly like, because I wish we were not leaving some of the arrangements we currently share, but it has to happen as we exit the transition period. The real difficulty comes from the issues in part 5, which we have discussed on a number of occasions, so let me just return to them.

I listened with care to the Minister, and I do not doubt his sincerity and good intentions in this regard. He must have thought it a pretty rum do when, as a trade Minister, he found himself in the middle of a lawyers’ argument, but that has never stopped the lawyers making that case. I recognise that the Government have endeavoured to shift to try to make clear some of their intentions in relation to the difficult and sensitive matters that part 5 threw up. I will not pretend that we should have started from here; it might have been better to have contemplated the idea of some emergency legislation should we be confronted by what, I am glad to say, the Minister says is an unlikely eventuality, as this is what we all want to avoid if at all possible. I can see arguments the other way as well, so I welcome the constructive approach the Government have adopted towards myself and a number of my hon. Friends who had significant reservations with the Bill, as tabled, to try to make it clear that it is not the Government’s intention to act in a way that would undermine our reputation as a nation and jurisdiction that supports and upholds our obligations in international as well as domestic law.

[Sir William Cash]

I am glad my hon. Friend is referring to a constructive role. I gather from what he said the other day that he was talking very much in terms of last resort, and I want to be constructive, too. As he knows, I have already made the point that the Labour party has been passing Acts of Parliament that clearly and unequivocally override international law and that this has also happened in relation to other legislation in the UK, as I pointed out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). So will my hon. Friend bear that in mind when he is considering the question of last resort, the threshold he referred to the other day and the fact that this is more common and happens more frequently than he may appreciate and that sovereignty, above all else, is the keystone upon which the whole of Brexit depends?

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am not sure whether or not that is an argument for Brexit; on that basis, the Don Pacifico affair was a great statement of national sovereignty, but I do not think it was a great triumph of intellect, integrity or national interest. Leaving that to one side, I accept that there will be a number of occasions when Governments may have departed from their international obligations, but that does not make any of them desirable and it does not mean that we should not seek to limit the circumstances in which that might occur to the barest necessities. So I think we have some common ground there, or at least I hope that we have. That is why I welcome the statements the Government have made to flesh out their intentions on the way in which part 5 would be used.

I say to Opposition Members that I accept that there are certain circumstances in which we might find ourselves in difficulty because of the attitude of our counterparties in the EU. I hope that that will not come to pass and that we are seeing just a matter of the rhetoric of negotiation. There is, however, a respectable legal argument, which has not been ventilated before, although it is held by a number of senior lawyers I have spoken to, to say that, as we all know, the withdrawal agreement is binding on the UK as a matter of international law—that must be right—but that that is based upon the true construction of the withdrawal agreement.

The withdrawal agreement is clearly subject to the provisions that stipulate that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. There is an obligation on the parties in good faith to negotiate a free trade arrangement between the UK and the EU such as would render the need for checks on goods passing between the UK and Northern Ireland largely, if not completely, unnecessary. Provided that is done, I do not think any of us get into any difficulties. I accept that in negotiations there has been some language—I hope it is no more than the language of negotiation at this stage, a posture—that might suggest that the EU could argue for a substantial array of checks that might go beyond that which is compatible with the true construction of the agreement in so far as it must respect the role of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill]

I recognise that that is a widely held argument.

[Sir William Cash]

Total tosh.

[Sir Robert Neill]

With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not regard it as total tosh. I happen not to agree with it in totality, but I do not think that we should ever dismiss serious legal argument from serious practitioners on either side of the question as being out of consideration. It is a matter that we ought to weigh carefully. I do think that there is an answer. Part of that answer is the one I have just been formulating, which suggests to me that there can be certain circumstances in which the breach of the true meaning of the agreement is such that the UK itself will be entitled to use its international law right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I just wonder whether my hon. Friend would consider that bringing in a Bill was a matter of privilege for the House.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am sure that it is a matter of privilege for the House, but I just come back to the point: I do not think that that engages with the issue we are concerned with here. Of course, it is perfectly within the rights of the House to bring forward any legislation it likes. I know my hon. Friend played a role in having section 38 inserted into the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, but, with respect, that simply restates that which we already knew and probably picked up in the first week of the law course; that, essentially, Parliament is sovereign and of course it can legislate in the way that it wishes. It can legislate in a way that is incompatible with international law. That does not make it a desirable course to go down. I think that is the point that needs to be said. Of course, it may be possible and I do not think privilege is engaged. The point I am seeking to make is that the UK should be very wary about doing anything that breaches its international obligations. I do not think it has yet and there are reasons why we may be able to avoid that, but that is why I think we need to keep the debate a little more calm in terms of what the rights are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

Of course, the hon. Member is entirely wrong with his selective quoting. This absolutely underlines why the Tories have not won an election in Scotland since 1959. You have to be about 90 years old to remember voting in an election that the Tories won. Why? Because they do not listen to the people of Scotland and they do not have their interests at heart. Using this Bill, they are able to lower standards by holding a veto over Scottish Parliament decisions. The mutual recognition mechanism in the Bill starts a race to the bottom on standards, with the UK Government imposing their will.

As we heard, clauses 2 to 9 contain sweeping powers on animal welfare, food safety, environmental protections —every single aspect of Scottish life: the water we drink, the food on our table, the buildings we construct, and even our NHS. We know that chlorinated chicken is on the table and that it will be bloating our tables as a result—[Interruption.] They groan, but Donald Trump said that

“everything is on the table”—

and that means products from the States, including that and hormone-injected beef. What else will be presented to us while the UK Government desperately scratch around for a trade deal, leaving no stone unturned regardless of who or what is underneath it?

The Bill hamstrings the Scottish Parliament from protecting the highest standards of food safety, from protecting Scottish farmers’ livelihoods, and from protecting the highest standards in our environment and our building control. It hampers the Scottish Government’s ability to keep public companies in public hands, including preventing attacks on the NHS. Worse still, as I said earlier, it puts the power to overrule Scotland’s Parliament in the hands of one Tory Minister. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has the

“power to alter these exclusions”.

Professor Michael Dougan has warned of the impact of the mutual recognition principle and the effect that it will have on Scottish produce:

“The impact in practice of this Bill in many of the proposed exercises of devolved competence in relation to trading goods or services is to effectively penalise domestic producers or traders and not be able to enforce the same standards against imported goods or service providers.”

As I mentioned earlier on the teaching council, Scotland requires secondary teachers to have a relevant degree in the subject that they teach. However, part 2 of the Bill, on professional qualifications, forces Scotland to accept teachers with lower qualifications. The chief executive of the General Teaching Council for Scotland, Ken Muir, said that

“our key concern about the Bill is the extent to which we ourselves, and parents, and users of the education system would feel that”—

it—

“would be watering down the teaching profession in Scotland”.

The Minister mentioned that the Government have tabled a new technical amendment, amendment 32, with the purpose of

“further clarifying the freedoms of all parts of the UK to regulate pricing and manner of sales policies as long as they are non-discriminatory.”

Of course, that is the key line—

“as long as they are non-discriminatory”—

and they say that “we have now acted to provide increased legal certainty around this point”. The Minister conceded earlier that that was in relation to alcohol minimum unit pricing. I remind hon. Members that Ministers had told us that that was not affected by the Bill and did not come into account in it, and now they are admitting that it does and they have put this absolute sham of an amendment in place to cover that. All it does is leave this open to be overridden by the non-competitive clause.

We heard about financial assistance. In case anyone is seduced by the spending promises, I have been calling for clarity on the so-called shared prosperity fund since 2017 along with my SNP colleagues. As the Financial Times reported, an individual close to the discussion said:

“The current plan is an odd combination of reserving state aid [for control from London] but then agreeing to a free-for-all. They just want to be able to bung money at things and do not want UK internal market legislation cutting across that.”

That is odd, or is it just convenient?

The Tories’ Communities Secretary has spent millions of pounds from the towns fund on 61 towns, 60 of which happen to be Tory marginals, including his own seat. In the highlands, we understand that directly, because in 1992, Prime Minister John Major took money from the highlands to shore up flagging support in the south-east of England. We have experienced the altruism of Tory Governments.

The flood of amendments to fundamental aspects of the Bill, including from UK Ministers, shows that it is completely bad and shoddy. Clause 5 transfers the CMA functions to the OIM. Drafting errors abound throughout. Amendment 15 actually attempts to further undermine the rule of law. It says:

“No court or tribunal may entertain any proceedings for questioning the validity or lawfulness of…section 42(1) or 43(1).”

That is dangerous and toxic stuff. That follows an absolutely useless and terrible consultation that failed to include and engage the devolved Governments on aspects of the Bill that see the Government strip powers from Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff. The legislation was shared with the devolved Governments only hours before publication.

The recklessness of the Tory Government only creates more uncertainty. When their reasonable worst-case scenario is two-day delays to freight on the channel and 7,000 lorries in Kent, with an estimated 275 million new customs declarations each year post Brexit that will cost about £15 billion, they can add the words “absurdly” and “tragically” to reckless.

Poll after poll now shows that people in Scotland understand that the only way to protect their democratically elected Parliament, to protect standards and to keep their waters and NHS safe is through Scotland becoming a normal independent nation and taking its place in the international community. This Bill insults Scotland. We will not vote for this Bill.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

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

[Sir William Cash]

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

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

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

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir William Cash]

I do not have time, I am afraid.

At the same time, there have been a number of UK precedents, which I have explained already. I do not have the time to go into them; I will attempt, as other Members will have to, not to go into huge detail, but I will give a few examples. In 1945, a Finance Act passed by the Labour party overrode international law. The same applied to the Indian Independence Act 1947 and the Burma Independence Act 1947. In fact, in the case of India, more than 400 treaties were broken.

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir William Cash]

I assure the hon. and learned Lady that I am not giving way. I am very happy to do so normally, but not today.

Furthermore, a Conservative Government, in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, provided clauses that were notwithstanding anything contrary to the arrangements of the Act. It goes on. It is a substantial list.

I will go further. Those who are interested can look at my previous contributions to other debates, where I extensively describe the myriad occasions when the EU itself has broken international law and, furthermore, when EU member states have egregiously broken international law and admitted it in their own Parliaments. For example, Helmut Schmidt, in the Bundestag, could not have been clearer, going through every single treaty that Germany deliberately broke in defence of its own vital national interest, because that is itself a reason why national law can have a degree of predominance over international law.

National and constitutional law, in certain circumstances —where it affects sovereignty, as in this case in the United Kingdom—can prevail against international law. I am extremely grateful to my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who I know recognises this. It has taken a bit of time for us all to come to terms with that, because it is a bit complex, but the reality is that it is well established in international law itself. The German federal court confirmed this as recently as 2015. I quoted the court in a previous debate, so it is already on the record that it is well within the framework of international law for a country—a democratic country, I hasten to add—to actually override international law in its own vital national interest, and most specifically, as in this case, on questions of sovereignty.

I will therefore just touch on my exchange with the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). With regard to Miller 1, the Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that, under the dualist approach, treaty obligations only become binding in the UK system to the extent that they are carried out in domestic legislation, and that whether to enact or repeal legislation, and the content of that legislation, is for Parliament alone.

This principle was approved unanimously by the Supreme Court in Miller 1.

[Sir Robert Neill]

indicated assent.

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend is nodding his head because he knows this is the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

There is an important point here. To take the example of animal welfare or food safety, those powers remain devolved, but they are devolved in name only, because by imposing the minimum standard as the lowest standard for all legislatures, those powers are seriously undermined. I have to say to the Business Secretary that I fear that the Bill will only strengthen the hand of those who want to break up the UK.

On international law, nobody should be in any doubt about the damage already done by the Bill. I do not blame the Business Secretary, but this law-breaking Bill has been noticed around the world by not just the Irish Government, not just our EU negotiating partners, and not just Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, who the Government can dismiss. Even President Trump’s Northern Ireland envoy Mick Mulvaney visited the Republic of Ireland yesterday and said:

“I think anyone who looks at the situation”—

with the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill—

“understands there could be a series of events that could put the Good Friday Agreement at risk.”

When the Trump Administration start expressing concern about your adherence to international agreements and the rule of law, you know you are in trouble. That is how bad this Bill is.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Miliband]

I am going to carry on.

It is important to hear the words of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in her coruscating and brilliant speech in Committee. Government Members are rolling their eyes about the former Prime Minister. She said that,

“the Government are acting recklessly and irresponsibly, with no thought to the long-term impact on the United Kingdom’s standing in the world.”—[Official Report, 21 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 668.]

That is what a former Prime Minister—the previous Prime Minister—of this country said.

[Sir William Cash]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in fact, in the past, there have been substantial breaches of international law by Labour Governments as well as by other ones? Furthermore, does he believe that the Iraq war was lawful?

[Edward Miliband]

This is unprecedented in the following sense: the Government are coming along and breaking an international agreement they signed less than a year ago. I have heard the hon. Gentleman, and I have read the debates on the issue, and he certainly has not produced an example in any way remotely similar to what is happening in the Bill.

I want to develop my argument, because an important point has been understated in the debate since Second Reading. The clauses are not simply wrong, as so many hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise; they are not simply unnecessary, because the protocol has mechanisms to deal with the issues at hand; but there has been a notable event since Second Reading that has exposed the Government’s strategy even further, which is the cancellation of the Budget.

Let us recall the Government’s fig leaf designed to hide their embarrassment. The issue was at-risk goods travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The whole case made by the Prime Minister was that the Bill was necessary to prevent the blockade of goods from GB into NI. The threat was described as “extraordinary” and the very reason to break international law, but the measures, as we now know, to break the law in this Bill, do not, as he had to admit at Second Reading, deal with the issue of GB to NI trade.

The excuse was that GB to NI issues would be dealt with in the Finance Bill, as was explicit in the statement put out on 17 September by the Government, which said:

“Further measures will be set out in the Finance Bill, relating to tariffs on GB-NI movements, including the same Parliamentary process that the Government has committed to for the UKIM Bill.”

In case it escaped the House’s attention, the Budget has been cancelled and so has the Finance Bill. So where now is the mechanism to deal with the extraordinary threat that we face as a country? Can anyone on the Government side tell me where it is? The country faces an extraordinary threat that has to be dealt with, but the legislation we are considering does not cover it, nor does any legislation even in view.

I will give way to the Business Secretary if he would like to tell me how this will be dealt with. There is no answer—he would prefer not to. I do not blame the Business Secretary, because let us be clear what has happened here: the legislative hooligans in Downing Street who dreamed this up have moved on to something else, but the Bill is still with us, and so we are going through all this pain, all this grief, all this damage to our international reputation, and the central argument on which it is based is not even covered by any legislation.

What are we to conclude? Was this all a charade—a “dead cat” strategy, as I think it is known—to distract attention? Was it a trap designed to pretend that we were rerunning remain versus leave? Was it perhaps a Government strategy to pretend to their Back Benchers that the Government are willing to break the law in order to soften them up on accepting concessions in the endgame of the negotiations with the EU. Whatever the excuse, all of them reflect so badly on the Government.

We are at a grave national moment—our gravest for a generation, because of coronavirus. We are trying to conclude a Brexit deal, which is vital for our country. We need new trade deals, in which our word is our bond. Yet the Government play these appalling games, thinking so little of their Back Benchers that they think they can pull the wool over their eyes; willing to resile from a treaty that they signed, for a day’s headlines; playing fast and loose with the law for short-term gain.

The Bill will get its majority and go to the other place, but their lordships should know that, across this House, there is deep concern about it. That has been shown again and again by good people on both sides of the House in the last few weeks. I urge the other place to bring the Bill into compliance with the rule of law and salvage our reputation. But we in the House of Commons have a chance tonight to show our concern again. It is an indefensible Bill. It damages our country. It is wrong and self-defeating. I urge Members on all sides to oppose it tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) who has just spoken said he was going to push his amendment. I think he pushed the patience of this House to breaking point.

In the very few seconds I have left I will simply say, with regard to the speech by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), that he completely failed to answer my question. The Labour party has, in fact, on a number of occasions broken international law. He knows it. He could not answer, and did not attempt to answer, whether he thought the Iraq war was lawful.

The bottom line is that the completely irrelevant questions raised in relation to breaches of international law are completely unfounded. The reality is that this country has on occasion in the past, in its own national interest for the sake of preserving its sovereignty and its economic sovereignty, had to occasionally break international obligations. There is no doubt about that, but equally and by the same token this Bill is about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and preserving the economic sovereignty of the internal market and doing what it can to preserve the Union in all its character and territoriality. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North shakes his head, but the bottom line is that we have now got this Bill through. It has gone through with 100 votes time and again. That proves the point. This is the endorsement of the referendum. This is the endorsement of the manner in which the British people voted in the general election and that is the truth. We have won, and we will continue to pursue the independence of this country and to maintain its sovereignty.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

William Cash Excerpts

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

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman says that that is completely untrue. I hope it is true, in the following sense: unless we remove the provisions in the Bill on lawbreaking and amend the provisions on devolution, we are massively undermining the Union, because as I will explain, we are departing from the principles of shared governance that we have developed over 20 years.

It is not surprising that the Government top brass are running from this Bill. Has it succeeded in improving our international standing? No—it has been calamitous, embarrassing and toxic for our international reputation. President-elect Biden, among others, is deeply concerned about the Bill. Has it succeeded in upholding and strengthening the United Kingdom, which I know the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) supports? No, it has not—it has given a stick with which those who want to undermine the United Kingdom can beat the Government.

Has the Bill succeeded in getting the Brexit deal that the Government told us it would hasten? Remember what they said—that it would show we were standing up to the EU, show that we meant business and face them down. This is a very important day to be talking about this issue. Where is the deal then, less than a month before the end of the transition period? Where is the deal? As a country, we desperately need a deal for business, workers and our economy. It is 12 weeks since this piece of legislation had its Second Reading and still no deal has been struck. And on this of all days the Government choose to bring this Bill back to the House. Our message to the Government is simple: deliver the deal that they said was oven-ready so that business can plan, even in these short weeks. Deliver what was promised.

Let me turn to the detail of the Lords amendments from the Opposition point of view. I start by going back to the issue of the rule of law. As I said, Members across all parties in the other place worked together to defeat the Government on part 5 of the Bill. I cannot do any better than Lord Howard—I have never said that before—who said:

“I do not want”

the UK

“to be an independent sovereign state that chooses as one of the first assertions of that sovereignty to break its word, to break the law and to renege on a treaty that it signed barely a year ago.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1295.]

That is not some remoaner, as I think the saying goes—it is not some person who voted remain; it is Lord Howard, a Brexiteer and the former leader of the Conservative party.

The House could instead listen to Lord Cormack, who said

“this is shameful; there is no other word for it. I am deeply ashamed that a Conservative Government should have embarked on this course.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1301.]

I am proud to be defending the rule of law.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Would the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to give way on that point?

[Edward Miliband]

It is always a pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman, so I shall.

[Sir William Cash]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman recalls the fact that section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 was passed not only by the House of Commons—by 120 votes—but by the House of Lords itself. That contained the same principle regarding the notwithstanding arrangements specifically in relation to section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

[Edward Miliband]

I think the hon. Gentleman and I have had this exchange before. The fact is that the reason this Bill has caused such concern—among five former Prime Ministers and all the people in the House of Lords I have mentioned—is that it will rip up a treaty that we signed. That message has been sent loud and clear around the world. As I said, there is already provision in article 16 of the protocol for unilateral action in the event of

“serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties”.

The provisions are not only wrong, then, but unnecessary.

I wish to deal with the “insurance policy” argument that has been put forward—the Minister used the term “safety net”. This legislation is not a safety net or an insurance policy; it is a trapdoor for us, and I will tell him why. Let us say that the worst happens and we fail to get a deal, and we then trigger these provisions. What then? We set off an escalating dispute with the EU, and we do not know where that dispute ends; we further alienate President-elect Biden and scupper any chances of a US trade deal; and we destabilise the politics of Northern Ireland. This is no insurance policy; it is a guarantee of the destabilisation of our country piled on to no deal—in other words, the very last thing the country needs. That is why we will vote to uphold the Lords amendments that keep part 5 out of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We will now have a time limit of five minutes.

[Sir William Cash]

When I read the account of proceedings in the House of Lords, I found that the Lords were very strong on assertion, but empty when it came to the question of argument. I found that rather disturbing, because, after all, they have potential power under the Parliament Acts. I also appreciate that, towards the end of the proceedings, in reference to the powers in part 5 of the Bill, and the clauses under discussion regarding “notwithstanding”, Lord Judge said:

“‘We may need these powers at some stage’. Maybe we will; I hope not.”

He then said that it would be

“open to the Government to come back to us, to Parliament, to put before us emergency legislation.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1431.]

The circumstances that we face could not be more important and relevant, and my view is that what he said effectively conceded the principle.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I was going to make exactly that point. Lord Judge, very respected as he is, basically conceded the principle that we might need “notwithstanding” provisions to overturn the provisions in the withdrawal agreement. We are not talking about the principle anymore; we are just talking about when it would be appropriate to introduce the provisions. They might as well be introduced now with the parliamentary safeguard that the Government have conceded.

[Sir William Cash]

More or less the same took place in my exchanges with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who said very much the same. There is a threshold beyond which it would be necessary for us to take such action. Without going into the detail, I just wanted to put those two things on the record.

The issue is, and basically always has been, about parliamentary sovereignty. In the UK context, this is an internal law of fundamental importance, as expressed in article 46 of the Vienna Convention. It is by virtue of parliamentary sovereignty that we have taken the line that we have. I certainly have taken that line on many occasions, including in my proposal for section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which I referred to earlier, and which has the whole concept of “notwithstanding” built into it. Section 7A of that Act also deals with direct effect. Given that the Act was passed with a large majority in the House of Commons, and then passed again in the House of Lords without any dissent of any description, I find it quite extraordinary that this has been turned into a matter of such fundamental anxiety, without any supporting argument that I have ever seen.

When I read the debates, I found there was a great deal of posturing going on. I understand the emotional concern of some people who are quite incapable of accepting that we have lawfully left the European Union; that a series of enactments were passed by both Houses; and that, on top of that, we had a general election—not to mention that under the Salisbury-Addison convention, it would be inconceivable, in the context of a general election manifesto, for the Lords to take a stand against these clauses if the House of Commons passed them again tonight, and perhaps again on another occasion.

Why do I say all this about constitutional and international law? I will deal with that very briefly. First, in my judgment, the European Union has breached article 184 of the withdrawal agreement, which is about negotiating in good faith. It has manifestly multiplied that fault over the past few days by refusing to accept the manner in which the negotiations have been conducted so far. There is also the question of its demand to retain power over crucial aspects of our sovereignty—both economic and relating to our national interest—as a precondition to concessions on trade.

The EU has also, in my judgment, breached article 184 on the basis of the recognition, as it puts it, of our internal market. I believe in the basic principle that one party to a treaty cannot obtain from the other the execution of its obligations if it does not respect its own commitments. If the EU continues to act as it has done in the negotiations, particularly over the past few days, the United Kingdom would be entitled to terminate the withdrawal agreement on the basis of the EU’s breach of article 184.

Lastly, as I said in Committee and on Report, there is a long list of occasions when Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems, as part of the coalition, have agreed to override treaties. There are not just one or two quite explicit examples, but hosts of them. In infinite Finance Bills and Independence Acts, and in relation to prisoner voting and various other things, there have been quite clear and deliberate overrides of treaties. The EU, as well as the EU member states, frequently violates international law; the Western Sahara case, the defiance of security council rulings, and breaking the Lisbon treaty are a few examples.

Indeed, in conclusion, the EU grants supremacy to its own constitutional principles when they are in conflict with international law. In the Kadi case, the European Court stated:

“The obligations imposed by an international agreement cannot have the effect of prejudicing the constitutional principles of the…Treaty”.

So there it is. I say again that I strongly support the Government’s position, and reject the amendments by the House of Lords.

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

In. Out. Reinstate? As the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has pointed out, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have dropped this, and it is left to the Minister to hold Dominic Cummings’s baby, and to front this up in Parliament. I almost feel sorry for him, but then I remember that both the Treasury solicitor and the Advocate General for Scotland have already resigned over this, because it is such a terrible move by the Government.

The House of Lords, as we have heard, has rightly carved up this disastrous, petty, grubby, law-breaking, power-grabbing Tory Bill—and after the announcement made just an hour before we came in here tonight, we can add “shambolic” to that as well. We welcome the Lords’ removing a number of threats to devolution from the Bill. We already know that the Tories hate devolution, as the Prime Minister has made clear.

Clause 42 authorises the UK Government to spend on devolved areas. The UK Government intend to use clause 42 for the purpose of a shared prosperity fund. However, as we have heard, we have yet to see details of that. I personally have been asking about it since 2017, yet we have heard nothing on it. As we have heard, we have also yet to see any sign of the long-promised consultation. It has been repeated over and over that there will be a consultation, but we have not seen it. Lord Thomas confirmed in the other place:

“It is therefore plain that the purpose of Clause 42 is to cut across the powers of the devolved Governments to provide financial assistance in areas such as economic development and commercial activities”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 2020; Vol. 808, c. 276.]

That takes away a power from the Scottish Parliament. Baroness Finlay said that

“Clause 42 would enable the Government to work around, rather than work with, the devolved Governments”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 2020; Vol. 808, c. 280.]

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I will try to be as brief as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to say to the Minister that we should note the progress made in the removal of the law-breaking clauses from part 5. What has essentially happened here is that the Joint Committee set up to deal with the outstanding issues on the Northern Ireland protocol has dealt with the issues on the Northern Ireland protocol. We are in a slightly through-the-looking-glass world here. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster this week described Maroš Šefčovič, the Vice President of the Commission, and his team as displaying

“pragmatism, collaborative spirit and determination to get a deal done that would work for both sides.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 847.]

These are the same people the Prime Minister described in his Second Reading speech in September as being

“willing to go to extreme and unreasonable lengths”.—[Official Report, 14 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 42.]

He also said that they had engaged in an “extraordinary threat” and refused to take the “revolver off the table”.

There are two conclusions we can draw from this sequence of events. The first is that Mr Šefčovič has changed his whole character, attitude and personality in three months; the other is the Prime Minister has a man who will make up any old nonsense for political advantage. I tend to the latter view.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Miliband]

I am going to make some progress; lots of people want to speak and there is not much time.

With the law-breaking powers that undermined our reputation in the world gone, we are left with the legal but, I believe, deeply flawed proposals for undermining our shared governance at home. I am glad that the other place has, by large majorities, stuck with the insistence on upholding the devolution settlement, particularly in respect of common frameworks. I say to the Minister that this is absolutely critical to the kind of country we want to build post Brexit. We want a functioning UK internal market, but we believe that can be achieved in a way that upholds high standards and allows devolved Governments both to have a voice in setting those standards and to make choices in devolved areas appropriate for each nation. The principle is clear: we have a system of governance based not any more on power hoarded at Westminster but on power shared. That should be respected.

All of that brings me to Lords amendments 1B, 1C and 1D. I hope that in the course of the coming days the Minister, with his colleagues, will reflect on this: the Government say that they support common frameworks, that they are a great innovation and that they are proud of them—and they are a good innovation in many senses—so why not give them legislative backing?

This is quite an arcane debate, so I wish to make it as simple as I can and return the example of single-use plastics, which I mentioned on Monday, to show the difference between the common frameworks approach proposed by Lord Hope and others and the Government’s approach. Environmental policy, including on plastics, is a devolved question. Under the EU rules we currently have, the Welsh Government, for example, could ban the production and sale of single-use plastics in Wales; under the Bill as it stood when it went to the other place, the Government of Wales would not be able to ban their sale because the UK Government do not propose to ban such plastics themselves. Because of the market access principle and the way it is implemented, the lowest standard in one Parliament will be the standard for all, which means that Welsh shops will have to stock these plastics. I do not believe that that respects the devolution principle. The power may be formally devolved, but in essence it is rendered ineffective by the approach taken in the Bill, which takes control back to Westminster. If the Minister can explain why it does respect devolution, perhaps he should do so, but I have not heard a good explanation.

What is the alternative to that? The alternative is the common frameworks approach, which provides a different way forward by attempting to find consensus for high standards among the four nations while respecting devolved powers and the ability to diverge through agreement. That is what Lord Hope’s amendments seek to do, which is why we support those amendments and will, indeed, seek a vote on them.

Lords amendments 8L, 13 and 56 also seek to preserve the ability for there to be higher standards in different nations, where they can be justified. Again, this is about our vision for the future. Instead of a race to the bottom, we want to see a race to the top on standards. We have seen this over the course of devolution: on the smoking ban, plastic bags and a whole range of issues, we have seen experimentation in different nations drive up standards. I say to the Minister that both sets of amendments are the right thing to do to respect the devolution principle, and I believe they are consistent with the internal market that we want to see.

I turn briefly to Lords amendments 48B and 48C, which would oblige agreement with the devolved Administrations before there was spending in devolved areas. If anything, this is a clearer and more simple test of the Government’s real intentions. They say that they believe in devolution. The city deals are worked out jointly with the devolved Administrations; the Government are taking enormously wide powers in the Bill on spending in devolved areas. If this is not about hoarding power to Westminster, the Government can surely agree to the proposal that such spending should have the consent of devolved Administrations. This is about the principle of shared governance. I make the point that that was certainly the case in relation to EU structural funds. The Minister set out some proposals on the shared prosperity fund, but the Bill proposes much wider powers in relation to spending in devolved areas. If this is not a power grab and is not about hoarding power to Westminster, surely it is possible to say, “Yes, this spending should be agreed with the devolved nations.” If the Government refuse to accept the amendment, they slightly give the game away.

I think there is a big picture here, which is that, as I said on Monday, all of us who believe in the United Kingdom must, I believe, go the extra mile to protect devolution. I think it is incredibly important. It is the key to keeping our United Kingdom together, in my view. While we welcome the removal of the offending parts of part 5, this Bill just does a bad job of doing that, I am afraid, and I think the other place is telling the Government that loud and clear. I am very struck, by the way, that the Conservatives who voted for the amendments yesterday—Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Dunlop, to take two examples—are people who are steeped in this issue as Conservatives and are incredibly keen to protect both the devolution settlements and the Union.

I say to the Minister that we want the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to reach the statute book. It must happen, however, in a way that does not ride roughshod over the way we are governed. I hope very much, for the sake of the United Kingdom and for the sake of respecting the devolution settlements, that the Government will reflect on this over the coming days.

[Sir William Cash]

In a nutshell, I am concerned about the fact that the Government have not insisted on this disagreement with respect to the notwithstanding clauses. I do not have time to go into all the detail, but I would simply say this. They remain needed, and I have put down amendments this afternoon to the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill for next week for the same reason.

The first thing is that this is to do with sovereignty and with judicial powers. It is to do with the fact that the notwithstanding clauses, with the use of the words “notwithstanding” and “whatsoever”, actually deal with the job effectively, and we should not take them away when we do not even know what the text from the Joint Committee is and we have just in effect been told that decisions are taken. There is this new clause talking about guidance. Guidance on what—on what agreement? We have not seen it, and we do not know what it means. I shall therefore almost certainly abstain on that at the very least.

The second thing is the question of what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said yesterday—he knew perfectly well when he used the word “Factortame” what he meant. It is what I have been talking about in respect of, for example, the quashing of Acts of Parliament: the ability of the courts under the rubric of European law to be able to take action to strike down UK law. Those principles may be retained—indeed, I believe it is more than possible that that would actually happen. There is a necessity to ensure that it does not happen when we have had a referendum, we have had Acts of Parliament and we have had section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Act) passed, all of which enables us to be able to provide for these notwithstanding clauses.

We should not remove these clauses on the basis of a jeu d’esprit or leave them out on the basis that everything is now all right in respect of these absurd allegations over breaches of international law, which are complete nonsense. Nobody has put forward a single argument in the House of Lords to substantiate the allegation that there is a breach of international law. In fact, the reality is that article 46 of the Vienna convention deals with these matters, and it is therefore perfectly proper for us to keep the clauses. I believe that we need to retain them not just as a safety net or as belt and braces, but because it may well turn out to be necessary to avoid, for example, either the House of Lords or the courts, in extremis, taking action the effect of which would be to undermine the Brexit process. That is the key issue. It is about sovereignty, which the British people have made clear is what they want—the same applies to the red wall seats, as the Labour party knows only too well.

The bottom line, therefore, is that I want an assurance from the Minister that measures will be taken in legislation—in primary legislation—to restore those notwithstanding clauses. I have discussed this with our team in the Whips Office today. I hope the Minister will simply say, “Yes, we will take note of what my hon. Friend has said, and indeed will give effect to it if we find that, at the end of this weekend, it is necessary to return those clauses to the taxation Bill and also, if necessary, to this Bill,” but without prejudicing the safety of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill in its entirety as it stands at the moment.

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

This shabby, shambolic, pernicious Bill should never have seen the light of day. It has already been delivered a historic defeat in the Lords—they rightly tore it apart—yet this Government overturned all their amendments and sent the Bill back. No sooner had they done that than there came the press release—as ever, bypassing this House—to say that the Government would be retreating from breaking international law with clauses that should never have been in the Bill in the first place, and that have only served further to diminish this Government and the UK’s already tattered international reputation. They are now reinstating these amendments.

Of course, it is not just the other place that this Tory Government ignore; it is almost everybody. When it comes to devolution and the nations of the UK, they are still determined to ignore the democratically elected Parliaments. As we have already heard, both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd have voted to withhold legislative consent on this Bill, yet this Government say that it is about working with the devolved Governments. It is not.

Lords amendments 48B and 48C pretty much deal with the shared prosperity fund that we have heard about. Under these amendments, the Government would have to agree with the devolved Governments on the way in which and where funds would be spent for matters within the devolved competences—roads, health and education, for example. The Government have said that the devolved nations will be represented, but Lord Thomas did not fall for that smoke and mirrors approach from the UK Government. He noted that,

“the clause without my amendments would enable the UK Government to spend in devolved fields and bypass the devolved Governments and Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who have been elected to be responsible for those fields. It would, in effect, hollow out the devolution settlements.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1293.]

It is disgraceful that we still do not have details of the shared prosperity fund, just weeks before we leave the EU. I was asking about this in 2017, and we have still not had anything from the Government.

Lords amendments 50B and 50C set out an attempt to agree a common framework, which is a regime that can govern the control of subsidies. Lord Thomas warned that, without this,

“Having changed the settlement for a policy that they have not yet devised, the Government then wish simply to consult…and then announce their decision. That is what I would call ‘way one’—the UK Government way.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1309.]

The SNP will not accept this brazen power grab. State aid must remain a devolved competence.

We welcome the changes through motion C1 in the Lords. The amendment removes the law-breaking clauses from part 5 of the Bill. Lord Judge said:

“They were constitutionally improper and a constitutional aberration. They subverted the rule of law.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1277.]

They have even been knocked down by former Tory leader, Lord Howard.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Drew Hendry]

I am not going to take interventions. We are very short on time, so I am going to press on; sorry.

Lords amendments 8B to 8L, 13A and 56A require the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations before exercising the powers, setting a time limit for that and a process if consent is withheld. Lord Stevenson said:

“The purpose of our amendment is to preserve the potential for managed policy divergence that is central to the devolution settlement.”

Again, the UK Government just ignore that. Lord Stevenson also noted:

“The Government have failed to explain properly why their list of exceptions is so much more restrictive than that of the EU—well, we can probably work that one out”. —[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1268-69.]

Let us not forget that this covers a huge range of effects for people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland:

“environmental standards and protection…animal welfare…consumer standards, including digital and artificial intelligence privacy rights…employment rights and protections…health and life of humans, animals or plants…protection of public health…equality entitlements, rights and protections.”

It has a massive impact on Scottish public society.

Lords amendments 1B, 1C and 1D seek to protect the role of the common frameworks in the Bill. The Minister thanked Lord Hope, but he was the one who pointed out that

“if there really is a will on the Government’s part to make this system work, a solution can be found.”

He also said:

“Traders from other parts of the UK who had no regard for the higher standard could simply ignore it, irrespective of how simple and easy it was to comply with. That is not where we should be going.”

He concluded:

“A balance needs to be struck here, if devolution is to be respected.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1249-50.]

Time after time after time, Members of the Lords pointed out the massive disrespect and contempt the Government have for the devolution settlement. Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town warned the Government

“to be very careful about clawing back decisions from our now quite long-established devolved settlements.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1256.]

The Scottish Government, by the way, remain fully committed to the common frameworks process, as this Minister knows. I cannot use the language I would like to use in this House about what the Minister repeated, but he knows that the Scottish Government have remained 100% committed to the agreement that was set up to take the process through, and he should correct the record.

This Bill is unwanted and unwarranted and unashamedly undermines devolution. It is an attack on the democratically elected Scottish Parliament and the vast majority of the Scottish public who value it. Since 2014, promises to them have been routinely broken in this place. Their votes and their views have been ignored over Brexit. Now, Scotland will be the only country not to get what it voted for in that referendum. They will in the next one. They know that. The only way to protect their rights and their Parliament is for them to take the next logical step and for Scotland to become an independent nation.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted that it was unwise, if I can put it charitably, to have certain clauses in this Bill that might have impugned our international reputation for supporting the rule of law. I welcome the Minister’s approach and that of his colleague Lord True in the other place. The Bill is better off without those clauses. I had sought at the very least to ensure there was a parliamentary lock should such clauses ever be needed, but I hope that through the agreement achieved in the Joint Committee, thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, they are not needed at all. It is better, therefore, to leave the Bill clean in that way to serve the other important purposes that it does have to achieve.

That is why, with all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), I trust that the Minister and colleagues will firmly resist any temptation to try to reinstate such clauses, which would be unnecessary, provocative in more ways than one, and unhelpful to the purpose we all seek to achieve.

I read with care the speeches of two former Lord Chief Justices and the former leader of my party, my noble Friend Lord Howard of Lympne, who himself was a distinguished Queen’s counsel with many years in practice before he came into this place. They certainly were not talking nonsense; they were making legitimate and fair points about areas of concern, even though I perhaps was more content to go with the view of David Wolfson QC, who was quoted by Lord Naseby, that the taking of such clauses into the Bill was not of itself a breach of international law until such time as they were brought into force. We are none the less better off not going down that route, so I hope the Minister will resist any temptation to put anything of that kind back into this Bill or into the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill, because that would muddy the waters needlessly, legally and politically.

We are going to require political goodwill on all sides to make the coming days and weeks work. Were it ever to be necessary to take such extreme measures in such extreme circumstances that might occur, immediate primary legislation on an emergency basis could of course be done, and that would give the parliamentary lock that I was concerned should exist, but through another form. It is not necessary for us to go down that route now, because, frankly, to try to reinstate the clauses would be fatal to the progress of the Bill, and that would not be in the interests of the Government or anyone else. I thank the Minister for the way in which he and his colleagues have approached this matter.

[Sir William Cash]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Robert Neill]

Nobody else has been giving way, with every respect to my hon. Friend. Other people want to get in. I have said what I have to say. In fairness, he and I could happily go on all day about this in a friendly manner of disagreement, but I think possibly that is for outside the Chamber, rather than in it. I say that in the nicest possible way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I appreciate everybody who has taken the time to speak today. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) spoke about the “notwithstanding” paragraphs in the Bill. Clearly, we have made the arrangements. We have found an agreement with the Joint Committee, and I sincerely hope that that will continue through to the next stage, which will be getting a free trade deal, on which the Prime Minister is working very hard with Lord Frost and his counterparts in Brussels. We will always make sure that we look after unfettered access for Northern Ireland into GB, which comes to the points that my hon. Friend made.

[Sir William Cash]

I did ask for an assurance in general terms that the necessary measures would be taken in primary legislation if things were to go wrong for the future. That is all I am asking for. It is not very much, but it is really important in relation to the potential striking down in legislation.

[Paul Scully]

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I think we will give the appropriate measures and protections, whatever form that comes as—if it is indeed needed; I hope that it is never needed in the first place. We will look to make sure that we protect Northern Ireland and its unfettered access.

My hon. Friend talked about state aid rules in Northern Ireland. They will apply to Northern Ireland as agreed under the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, but they are not the same state aid rules that apply today, because there are new flexibilities of service providers. We welcome that agreement in principle in the Joint Committee, which was about managing the risk of reach-back into Great Britain and guards against the Commission taking an extreme or irrational interpretation of article 10 of the protocol. That means that there is no longer a need for the safety net.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) talked about the common frameworks and Scotland’s involvement. I hope I was correct in saying that I believed that the Scottish Government pulled away from discussions about the internal market, not common frameworks. I hope that is clear; if I did mis-speak, that was exactly what I meant to say.

We have now had 90 hours of scrutiny on this Bill across both Houses. I reiterate that I am grateful for how right hon. and hon. Members in this place have debated, scrutinised and engaged on the Bill. I said on Monday and again emphasise that we have been and will continue to be reasonable in discussions on this Bill. Since Monday, we have had a lot of good, positive movement and agreement and we welcome that, but ultimately, Government need to balance this with the need to deliver a Bill that provides the certainty that business wants and needs to invest and create jobs.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 15th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman needs to speak to Scottish businesses more to see that they are concerned. They want to have the Bill in place to have the certainty, with 17 days to go until the end of the transition phase.

It is important to reiterate that the common frameworks are processes, not outcomes, and therefore broad exclusions are not suitable in this legislation. That leads me to amendments 1F, 1G, 1H, 1J, 1K and 1L. The common frameworks programme facilitates a conversation about a common approach and thus provides for consensus-based decision making in sectoral areas of the economy. However, it is neither the purpose nor in the purview of common frameworks to determine whether matters should or should not be in the scope of the market access principles. It is only right that the UK Parliament and parliamentarians from across the UK have the final say on this matter.

The Government also believe that the system that they have designed creates a proper balance between the independent operation of devolved powers and the automatic application of the principles that protect the market and give certainty.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has quite properly said that it is a matter for Parliament to make these judgments. As Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, I had hoped that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would come before my Committee. The Standing Orders quite clearly give us the right to examine questions relating to matters that are politically or legally important, and to report to Parliament accordingly. The problem that we have is that he has declined to do so three times in response to our written requests, and now this morning I have heard that he is not going to appear before the Committee. Would the Minister be kind enough to take that back where it belongs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

I disagree with the point that the right hon. Lady makes. We have been making the weather on the Bill, both in this place and the other place, which I will come on to discuss. We have been seeking safeguards for consent from the devolved Administrations when it comes to financial assistance powers. Now that we are trapped in groundhog day, perhaps today and tomorrow will be the moment when the Government listen and take on board some of the amendments from the other place.

[Sir William Cash]

The question of state aids very much lies at the heart of much of these debates. Does the hon. Lady accept that the EU state aid rules are a racket? I know very well the areas around Sheffield, Yorkshire and the midlands, where the coal and steel communities were destroyed, effectively, by the application and the discrimination that was made against—[Interruption.] And in Scotland. Does she accept that is why we need our own sovereign state aid rules, as I said yesterday on the Floor of the House?

[Lucy Powell]

It would be really nice if the Government used the powers that they already have, let alone those that it will soon acquire, to invest once and for all in British industry and British manufacturing. I am afraid that the Conservative Government do not have a great record when it comes to supporting our industrial heartlands, and that is plain for everyone to see.

I hope the Government will take on board the amendments from the other place, especially those in the name of Lord Hope and Lord Stevenson,  which have received clear support on each occasion.

In normal times it would be Christmas party season—I am sure we will debate that again at some point—but the Government’s hokey-cokey on the Bill really needs to end. We had part 5 in; now we have part 5 out. We were told the Bill would create a thriving internal market that would strengthen the Union and keep Scotland in, yet the reality is that it could lead to Scotland being out—something that Members on both sides of the House do not want to happen. The Government have been shaking it all about with the legislative games they have been playing in respect of the Bill, and I am not sure that has been good for anybody. I really hope that we can now see the end to some of these shenanigans.

On the amendments, I will not rehearse the arguments: we have heard them put eloquently by their lordships and Members of this House on previous occasions. [Interruption.] Sorry, did somebody want to intervene? Or is the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) just trying to sledge me from behind? Just the usual.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

No, I am afraid I will not; I am finishing.

I sincerely hope that the Government will reflect on that approach in future.

[Sir William Cash]

I have already made my point about the European Scrutiny Committee. I would now like to turn quickly to the issues that face us in these negotiations, because what is going on in the Bill is mirrored by the negotiations. We have not yet had a draft treaty text in black and white. We need to see it. We wish the negotiators well. As far as I am concerned, along with my colleagues who support my propositions, it is essential that we get this right, because it is about our national interests and the future of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am glad that the hon. Member has highlighted the role that the EU would have in state aid, not only in Northern Ireland but in Scotland, Wales and England where those firms have any connection with Northern Ireland. Does he therefore find it surprising that, while Opposition parties have been complaining about state aid rules not being devolved to them, they are quite happy to have the EU plunder through any support given to industries in their own country?

[Sir William Cash]

They do not have a clue. They are going to get clobbered—they really will—and they do not get it. They just want to go on about devolution without regard to the effect that all this will have. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

The Bill itself defines aid with reference to EU law—it refers to article 107 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. This is something that we will be affected by, because that amendment is not sufficient to enable us to maintain our sovereignty on all the matters relating to state aid rules. I look to the Prime Minister, I look to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I look to the Government and the negotiators to get this right. This is the moment to do it. We are at a crucial moment. I trust the Prime Minister. I believe he will deliver. He said he will, and we will hold him to that promise.

It would go against UK national interest to accept EU demands of agreeing to legally binding commitments to mirror the EU state aid regime, given that EU state aid rules are created on the basis of objectives of common interest of EU member states, which no longer includes the UK, and are tested by the Commission on the basis of compatibility criteria that it has developed. They are non-binding guidelines, and therefore they can be changed at will. Under article 132 of the protocol and article 174 of the withdrawal agreement, provisions of the withdrawal agreement and the protocol referring to EU law or to EU law concepts or provisions are to be

“interpreted in conformity with the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.”

That duty continues beyond the end of the transition period on 31 December and includes European case law handed down after the end of that period.

There is a real problem here. This is down to the negotiators as well as to those who are responsible for this Bill. We are faced with a very difficult situation, which impinges on our sovereignty and on our necessity to avoid, indeed to prevent, EU state aid rules from continuing to apply to the United Kingdom. This is a crucial moment in our economic, political and constitutional history. We must maintain the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. That is the message that I send to the Government and I trust that the Government and the Prime Minister will deliver it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

This is what is going to happen. This debate has to finish at 3.10. I want to bring in the Minister at 3.06 to wind up. A lot of hon. and right hon. Members have been sitting in the Chamber from the beginning of the debate. If others come in and intervene, it does take time from those who have been trying to participate and have put their names down to participate. Before I bring in the SNP spokesperson, I have to say that I will now have to reduce the time limit to three minutes and, with that, I still may not get everybody in, so if colleagues want to take fewer than three minutes, I am sure that it would be appreciated by others.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 16th December 2020 Commons Chamber

We accept the improvements to date, but we note that they start from a very bad starting point. Some might describe them, as we say up north, as trying to polish a turd.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I was very taken by the reference the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) made to improvement. Having looked at the Bill and followed it over the last few weeks, I find it difficult to call it an improvement.

However, I want to pay tribute to the Public Bill Office. Given the amendments, and the contortions the Public Bill Office has had to absorb in looking at the Reasons Committee’s consideration of these issues and at the question of what insistence on disagreement or agreement is at a particular point in time before it comes from one House to the other and goes back again, this has been an incredible exercise in complexity—so much so that it would be asking an awful lot to expect anybody, including the Minister, to be able to claim that they really understand what it is that has ultimately arrived. I was going to ask him if he would like to explain exactly what all this means. We will only find out in due course.

I was looking at the reasons for disagreeing only yesterday, and they were very clear. One said that the Government disagreed with the Lords over the question of legal certainty and disruption to business. Suddenly, almost at the wave of a magic wand, all of that has completely evaporated into thin air, and we have ended up with this extremely contorted, extremely confusing and ambiguous series of statements. However, at the heart of it, there is one point that I want to put to the Minister. Does he recall the famous Schleswig-Holstein question? Only three people comprehended what was going on, or they had originally, but unfortunately one had forgotten, one had died and the other had gone mad. [Interruption.] I am not going to attribute any one of those to the Minister. However, right at the heart of this, a lot of very complicated drafting has been put in to try to salvage some face. As I read it, the Secretary of State can make these regulations but—this goes to the heart of it—that process would be subject to the affirmative resolution under clause 10(2), which is mirrored in clause 17. It strikes me that there is one fundamental question: can the Minister effectively veto matters that have been discussed and consulted on with the devolved Administration? If the regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution, it seems that may well turn out to be the case. Who knows? I do not know at the moment, and only when the process reaches its conclusion will we know whether the reserved powers in the Scotland Act 1998 will bite. I cannot be sure of that. I have a feeling that this may end up in the courts, and perhaps the situation will be made clearer. We are at the end of the line for this Bill, and I regard the whole thing as being difficult to plot in terms of a clear path to any conclusion.

[Jonathan Edwards]

In the 10 years that I have been in this place, I think this is the first time that I have agreed with the hon. Gentleman on a substantial point. The concession last night in the Lords opens up a number of new questions, and there needs to be a well thought out process regarding how the common frameworks will work, where power will reside within the frameworks, and who has the power to create them. I would like a far more consensual approach than we have seen today.

[Sir William Cash]

I am glad to hear that. I am not sure—we cannot be sure—whether these provisions might eventually be declared void for uncertainty, and I am not clear about what they will do in practice. At least, however, we have got to the end of the Bill. I am in favour of the Bill in principle, and that is about all I need to say for the moment. As far as I am concerned, the future lies ahead with uncertainty built into these provisions.

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

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

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

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

In welcoming the amendment, Professor Aileen McHarg warned:

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

I suppose it is good to see that the Government have finally admitted that they have to listen to the concerns being raised about their appalling ignorance over devolution and how the UK currently works. Is it not bizarre that the unelected bunch along the corridor had more appreciation of the democratic deficit at the heart of the UK than the Government of “reclaiming sovereignty” fame?

It is appalling too—I have to say this—that the loyal and spineless Opposition betrayed generations of Scottish Labour activists and politicians who fought to establish devolution and battled their own party sometimes, but who learned to work across civic Scotland to deliver it. I think they must not have heard the warnings of Scottish Labour Action that a powerful devolved Administration in Scotland were not a frippery, but an absolutely essential counterpoint to Westminster and Whitehall blindness to issues anywhere outside the south-east of England. I expect nothing better from the Tories, but the Labour party has betrayed its own members and the activists who spent so long on the Calton Hill vigil. This desperate attempt to appeal to Tory values to try to bury the incompetence of the previous leadership might seem a decent old political strategy, but it renders the existence of the Labour party utterly meaningless.

In any case, we finally have a nod to the devolution settlement, even if it has been forced by the House of Lords. In yesterday’s debate, the Minister said this legislation was about devolution, demonstrated that it was about dismantling devolution and failed to answer any of the questions raised during the debate. It seems that Ministers in this UK Government no longer seek to engage in discussion, but instead merely fling pre-written barbs that they clearly think are clever. It is not clear whether they know how to debate and choose not to, or do not actually have command of their brief. Either way, it is unfitting for a Minister and no way to run a Government.

Instead of offering amendments to this elected Chamber yesterday or at any point during the passage of this Bill, the Government arranged their business in the unelected Chamber—somewhere it clearly feels most comfortable, among the privileged and away from the bother of the concerns of the people we represent. Those amendments, I will grant, go a little way towards addressing some of the concerns that have been raised, but I suggest that they were driven more by a desire to mollify cantankerous Lords than by the need to create decent legislation. They are tiny baby steps in the right direction at the time we needed giant strides and they leave, as we have already heard, reams of unanswered questions—how disputes between Governments will be resolved, for example, and how consumers can be protected from unthinking and uncaring Prime Ministers, for another.

The amendments will also embed an imbalance in the framework of a post-Brexit UK that will see England’s Government outweigh the other Governments in any negotiation, as the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) pointed out. He put his finger on the exact nub of this problem. England’s Government will outweigh the other Governments in any negotiation, because it continues to claim overlordship as the supposed Government of the UK. Labour might be interested in looking at that, because it echoes the democratic deficit that drove the creation of the devolved Administrations in the first place.

[Sir William Cash]

I personally have always believed that there should have been a referendum of the whole United Kingdom over the devolution question. I put down my own amendment back in 1997, and half the Conservative party went against a three-line Whip and followed me into the Lobby. That is the real way to get consent. I believe in the Union, and I believe that there should never have been devolution other than through a United Kingdom referendum, if it was going to happen at all.

[Deidre Brock]

I do not want to be rude to the hon. Gentleman, but he presents us with a glorious example of exactly why many on the SNP Benches want to get away from this House of Commons.

Scotland faces the same situation as we did in the last quarter of the last century: a UK Government of a hue that we did not vote for and would not support are riding roughshod over the interests of the Scottish people and will ignore them if they can. This Bill will pass today, but the debate will continue, and we have not yet begun to fight.