The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
()
For centuries, the United Kingdom’s internal market has been the
bedrock of our shared prosperity, with people, products, ideas
and investment moving seamlessly between our nations,
safeguarding livelihoods and businesses and demonstrating that,
as a union, our country is greater than the sum of its parts.
Today, I am publishing a White Paper on the
Government’s plans to preserve the UK internal market after the
transition period. Since the Acts of Union, the UK internal
market has been the source of unhindered and open trade across
the country, one which pulls us together as a united country. I
know that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North () cares as much about our precious union as I do.
Since 1973, EU law has acted as the cohering force for the UK
internal market. In 2016, the British people voted to repeal this
legislation, allowing us now to articulate the continued
functioning of the internal market. The Union’s economic strength
is unrivalled. Since the Acts of Union, the size of our economy
has multiplied over 170-fold. Successive UK Governments have
legislated to share this prosperity and protect workers’
rights—for example, through the introduction of the national
minimum wage and now the national living wage, and by providing
for more generous holiday and maternity leave than required by
the EU. Today we are announcing plans to continue this hugely
successful economic Union. We will legislate for an internal
market in UK law, as we leave the transition period and the EU’s
single market. Our approach will give businesses the regulatory
clarity and certainty they want. It will ensure that the cost of
doing business in the UK stays as low as possible.
But let me be clear: preserving the coherence of the UK internal
market will be done in a manner that respects and upholds the
devolution settlements. On 1 January 2021, hundreds of powers
previously held by the EU will rightly flow directly back to
devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom. For the first
time, because of our approach, the devolved Administrations will
be able to legislate on a whole range of policy areas. Each
nation that makes up our United Kingdom will hold an
unprecedented level of powers after the transition period.
To respect devolution and uphold our internal market, we propose
to legislate this year. Businesses across the UK will be given a
market access commitment. That will be underpinned by the
principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination, which
will guarantee that goods and services from one part of the
United Kingdom can always be sold into another. The simple
principle at the heart of this approach is a continuation of our
centuries-old position that there should be no economic barriers
to trading within the United Kingdom.
The economies of our four nations, within one United Kingdom, are
strongly integrated. At the time of the last census, 170,000
workers commuted daily from one part of the UK to another.
Scotland makes over £50 billion of sales per year to the rest of
the UK, accounting for over 60% of all exports. Indeed, Scotland
sells three times as much to the rest of the UK than to the whole
EU put together. About 50% of Northern Ireland’s sales are to
Great Britain, and 75% of exports of Welsh final goods and
services are consumed in other parts of the UK. In some parts of
Wales, over a quarter of workers commute across the border. It is
in the clear economic interest of the whole United Kingdom that
its internal market continues to function successfully and
seamlessly, as it has done for centuries.
As part of our proposals, we will also clarify in law the
position that subsidy control is a reserved matter for the whole
United Kingdom. This has never been a devolved matter. The
Government have been clear that, after the end of the transition
period, the UK will have its own domestic subsidy control regime.
We will develop our policy proposals on this in due course,
consulting widely.
We will only recover from covid by working together. Just over
two weeks ago, the Prime Minister set out how we would strengthen
the incredible partnership between England, Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland through our economic recovery. That will be
underpinned by a strong UK internal market and avoid the damaging
uncertainty for businesses of a fractured economy. It will
provide the unquestionable advantages of continued open trade. It
will benefit businesses, workers and consumers across the country
through lowering trading costs and allowing different regions to
specialise in sectors where they enjoy a comparative advantage.
Our proposals are designed for co-operation between all four
nations. We invite all devolved Administrations to work together
and to agree common approaches to cross-cutting issues such as
regulatory standards.
The UK economy has some of the highest standards in the world. We
go beyond EU rules in many areas, including health and safety in
the workplace, workers’ rights, food, health and animal welfare,
consumer protections, household goods, net zero and the
environment. We will maintain our commitment to high standards,
as we negotiate trade agreements that will provide jobs and
growth to the United Kingdom. Through our common frameworks
approach, we will support regulatory consistency across our
internal market, so if the devolved Administrations seek to agree
standards across the UK economy, I say simply this: come and work
with us.
The UK internal market is a historic achievement for the United
Kingdom, which for 300 years has supported unrivalled economic
growth and innovation within our great Union. That has
underpinned the best of our United Kingdom’s innovation and
prosperity: the Scottish enlightenment, the steam engine, the
world’s first vaccine, the telephone, the electric tramway,
penicillin, radar, pneumatic tyres, the breaking of the Enigma
code, the sequencing of DNA, and the world wide web. As we
rebuild and recover from covid, we will work together as one
United Kingdom to support jobs and livelihoods across our whole
country. We will maintain high standards for consumers, and
deliver our commitment to devolution by giving more power to the
devolved legislatures. I commend this statement to the House.
12.16 pm
(Doncaster North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We support the
principle of maintaining the UK’s internal market, which is vital
for trade, jobs, and prosperity across the whole United Kingdom.
The way the Government go about that has profound implications
for whether we drive up standards across the UK, or drive them
down, and for whether that issue becomes a source of tension
across the four nations of the UK. We believe in our United
Kingdom, and there is a big responsibility on the Government to
seek to build consensus, and ensure that we do not drive a wedge
between our nations or give an excuse to those who wish to do so.
By those standards, there are significant problems in the
announcement. On the process, for example, the Welsh Government
were promised a draft of this White Paper last March, yet when I
talked to the Welsh First Minister yesterday afternoon, the
Government had still not shared it with him. That approach does
the Secretary of State and the Government no good. On the
substance, we should be honest that there is a real challenge
regarding how we maintain an internal market without barriers in
the UK as we leave the European Union, while at the same time
respecting devolution when issues such as food standards and
labelling, animal welfare, and other important environmental
issues are devolved.
For the past 40 years, including 20 years of devolution, that has
been achieved by the EU setting minimum standards, which all four
nations had to abide by. The crucial question is not whether we
have an internal market, which we need, but how we now set
minimum standards to ensure that each nation has a proper voice
in doing so, and a means of resolving any disputes that arise. By
answering those questions, we can do what we need to do, which is
both keep the internal market and respect devolution.
Unfortunately, despite the warm words from the Secretary of
State, the approach of the White Paper as presented for England,
Scotland and Wales appears to be simply to legislate that the
lowest standard chosen by one Parliament must become the minimum
standard for all.
The risk is that one legislature would be able to lower its food
safety standards and animal welfare standards, and force the
other nations, which would have no recourse, to accept goods and
services produced on that basis—in other words, a race to the
bottom. The Secretary of State talks about levelling up, but
there is a real risk of levelling down. That is not in the
interests of consumers, workers or businesses, and it does not
adequately respect devolution. For Northern Ireland, if standards
in the UK diverge significantly below those of the EU, there is a
real risk that checks on food and other products going from Great
Britain to Northern Ireland would increase in parallel.
The Secretary of State must, in the course of this consultation,
provide better answers for how we avoid that race to the bottom,
so let me ask him four specific questions. First, will he explain
what is the mechanism, if any, by which the four nations of the
UK will agree minimum standards that respect the voice of each
nation? He mentions the common frameworks process and an ongoing
process of dialogue, but he must realise that that is superseded
by the White Paper, which simply states that the lowest standard
among the nations wins. If the framework process is to prevent
that danger, how will it be incorporated into legislation?
Secondly, there needs to be a means of resolving disputes that
can command confidence. The White Paper states:
“The Government will consider tasking an independent, advisory
body to report to the UK Parliament”.
That is far too weak. Surely the Secretary of State must
recognise that any independent body, if it is to respect
devolution, must be accountable to all four nations, with its
functions agreed by all four nations.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State must understand that the anxiety
caused by the White Paper is partly due to the gap between the
Government’s warm words about raising standards—we heard them
again today—and their deeds. They had a chance in the Agriculture
Bill to agree that no trade deal would be signed that lowered
animal welfare, environmental protection or food safety
standards, through an amendment tabled by their own side, but
they refused to do so. The spectre of a Trump trade deal that
would drive down standards and be imposed on the whole of the UK
hangs over this White Paper. For years they have denied that
their real agenda is a bonfire of much-needed standards. Great,
but if they do not plan to lower standards, why cannot the
Secretary of State agree to legally binding commitments?
Fourthly, the state aid rules need to be in place in just five
months’ time, but even after this White Paper we still do not
know any details about how they will work. Will the Secretary of
State tell us when we will get the Government’s plans?
I want to end by saying to the right hon. Gentleman that we
absolutely need to maintain the internal market from 1 January,
but it is time the Government showed—in deeds, not just in
words—their commitment to levelling up, not levelling down. It is
time, too, that they showed a desire to build constitutional
consensus, rather than risking constitutional conflict, and the
White Paper is not a good start. The Secretary of State and the
Government must do better in the weeks and months ahead.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and for his
support for the principle of the UK internal market. I hope that
that is something we will hear echoed across the House as we open
up to questions. Let me address some of the points that he has
raised. The first thing worth noting is that he talked about
anxiety. The real issue at the moment is giving certainty to
businesses, so that they know from day one that they are able to
operate as they do now within a coherent, seamless internal
market. That is what this White Paper proposal absolutely gives
them. I have spoken, as I am sure he will have done, to business
representatives and organisations over the last 24 hours, and
they have told me that this is one big issue off the risk
register of companies.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about standards. I would point
out to him once again that the UK has some of the highest
standards in the world across a whole range of areas. I have
listed issues around maternity and paternity pay, around the
exclusions and around zero-hour contracts. I say to him once
again—I am sure that this issue will be raised by others as
well—that we are not going to be compromising our high
environmental standards, our high animal welfare standards or,
indeed, our high food safety standards in the deals that we do.
The right hon. Gentleman then raised the issue about working
together. He will know that the common frameworks programme has
been running for some time, and we have had consultations and
discussions around that. If colleagues in the devolved
Administrations want to have a discussion about standards, that
is absolutely the right forum in which to do it. He also
mentioned the state aid rules. I know that he will understand the
reason that we want to continue to have this as a reserved
matter. We want to ensure that there is effectively equality
across the whole of the UK and that there are no distortions. I
understand his desire for us to set out the details on this, and
that will come.
In conclusion, the White Paper gives certainty to businesses. It
is about protecting jobs and livelihoods, and about supporting
businesses in making their investment decisions. That is good for
consumers as well. It is about underpinning our recovery from
covid as we seek to work together. I say to all colleagues that
this is about businesses and people, not about politicians, and I
hope that that is the spirit in which we will conduct the rest of
this debate.
(Truro and
Falmouth) (Con)
Nothing is currently more important for our whole United Kingdom
than the protection of public health and the support of our
economic recovery. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the
proposals in the White Paper will ensure that all four
nations—indeed, all four corners—of our United Kingdom can
overcome this crisis by working together and promoting good
co-operation between Westminster and the devolved
Administrations?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: that is precisely what I want
to do. This is a consultation; we are consulting and we want to
get people’s views. My door is very much open to having a
dialogue and discussion with anyone who wants to come forward.
(Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement.
What we have seen put forward by the Tory Government is the
biggest assault on devolution since the Scottish Parliament
reconvened in 1999. It is clear that the Government either do not
get Scotland or cannot even be bothered to get it, so let me
remind those on the Government Benches that in 1997 more than 75%
of Scots voted to establish the Scottish Parliament. The Tories
at the time were hostile to the establishment of that Scottish
Parliament; they were out of step with Scotland. Plus ça change.
Today, the Tories want to strip our Scottish Parliament of its
powers.
Let us myth-bust some of the lies that have been circulated this
morning. Scotland is not getting 70 new powers. The UK Government
say that new powers are coming on animal welfare, energy
efficiency and land use; has the Secretary of State not heard?
The Scottish Parliament already has those powers: just last month
the Scottish Parliament passed a Bill on animal welfare; last
year, the Scottish Parliament passed a Bill on forestry; and
energy efficiency was part of the Climate Change (Scotland Bill)
in 2009, more than a decade ago. We have these powers.
The Secretary of State’s proposal will impose what is being
called a mutual recognition regime. The only recognition here is
that it is a plan for a race to the bottom on standards. It will
mean a reduction in standards in one part of the UK driving down
standards elsewhere, even if that is in direct contradiction of
the devolved Administrations and their rights and powers.
We all know how desperate this Tory Government are to sell out
food standards in return for a US trade deal. There we have it:
no new powers and a plan to destroy Scotland’s world-class food
and drink standards—not a Parliament in Edinburgh of equals, but
one where we legislate only with the approval of Westminster. I
have to say to the Secretary of State: this is not a good look.
Will he guarantee to the House that these plans will not be
imposed on Scotland and that he and his Government will respect,
as the Prime Minister often says, the Scottish Parliament’s
decisions on them as an equal?
The right hon. Gentleman talks about understanding Scotland; the
one thing that is clear from the statements he has just made is
that he certainly does not understand business in Scotland and he
certainly does not understand the people of Scotland on this
issue. The UK internal market—[Interruption.] The UK internal
market is about—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. Mr Blackford, I can hear what you are shouting. Please,
desist.
The UK internal market is about preserving jobs across the United
Kingdom. It is about making sure that investment can come in,
confident in the knowledge that we have a level playing field—an
internal market in which businesses can sell services and
products across the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the powers that will be
coming back at the end of this year—at the end of the transition
period. It will be the biggest transfer of powers in the history
of devolution. I do, though, agree with him that it is not going
to be 70 powers coming back to Scotland; I think it is closer to
111. His colleagues in the Scottish Parliament will have an
opportunity to set rules and regulations. The problem, of course,
is that SNP Members are not interested in that—they are not
interested in taking control; they are interested in being ruled
by the European Union.
The right hon. Gentleman should spend more time talking to
businesses and to people whose jobs would be at risk if we did
not have this seamless internal market in the United Kingdom.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman talks about standards. I have
already explained to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North
() that we have some of the highest standards in the
world, and we are not going to compromise on that. The right hon.
Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber () talks about wanting to have a dialogue. I
respectfully remind him that it was the Scottish Government who
walked away from the discussion that we were having on the UK
internal market last year, so, in the spirit of co-operation, I
hold out my hand to him and say, “Let us talk. Let us continue
the discussion. Come back to us on the consultation and continue
to work with us on the common frameworks programme.”
(Hyndburn) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend assure me that Scotland, England, Wales
and Northern Ireland will also see more powers coming back to
them as a result of these proposals when the transition period
ends?
Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: powers will flow
back to all the devolved Administrations—around 70 to Wales and
around 150 to Northern Ireland.
(Richmond Park) (LD)
This talk of powers being returned disguises the fact that the
Government are denying us all here a much more important
power—that of scrutinising the trade deals that are struck in our
name. The British people used to have this power through their
elected representatives in Brussels, but the Trade Bill comes
back to the House on Monday and there is no provision in it for
this Parliament to have scrutiny of the trade deals that are
being struck in our name. Will the Secretary of State accept that
trade flows throughout the United Kingdom can best be secured by
instituting a robust and respected dispute resolution process,
and will he confirm that implementing such a mechanism will be a
priority as he progresses his plans?
I say respectfully to the hon. Lady that she needs to move on.
The British people decided that we were leaving the European
Union in 2016 and we are implementing that vote.
(Stockton South) (Con)
Scotland sells more to the rest of the UK than it does to the
entire rest of the world put together. Does my right hon. Friend
agree that preserving the UK’s internal market is vital to
protecting jobs, businesses and livelihoods in all four nations
of the UK?
I could not agree more. Modelling shows that Scotland would
suffer a GDP loss of four times higher than the UK as a whole
from unmitigated differences in regulations.
(Ilford North) (Lab)
When the UK Government seek to strike trade deals with the rest
of the world, they need to be able to speak with one voice for
the whole United Kingdom, so will the Secretary of State commit
in the Bill that he brings forward to making sure that
arrangements are in place for proper consultation with all the
devolved Administrations and proper scrutiny by this Parliament
and the elected representatives of the British people?
I have just said that the White Paper is indeed a consultation
and he, along with everyone else in our country, is able to set
out his views.
(South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
On 17 March, the Chancellor said that companies such as Square
One in Leighton Buzzard in the events industry
“that have business properties will be eligible”—[Official
Report, 17 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 964.]—
for business rates relief. Local authorities do not seem to have
got that message, so will the Business Secretary stick up for the
events industry and make sure that what the Chancellor said
should happen will happen?
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know that this is a
very difficult time for very many businesses up and down the
country, and that is why we have supported them with a whole
range of measures, including grants and loans that they have been
able to get. He will also know that I set out a £617 million
discretionary grant fund for local authorities. I hope that local
authorities will have used that discretion to support local
businesses, but I am happy to take up that individual case if he
would like.
(Rhondda) (Lab)
The thing is that there are lots of people who have been excluded
from all those. There are about 3 million people who have
recently become self-employed or are company directors of small
limited companies—people who have not received a single penny
from the Government—and their business has really suffered. I
just hope that the Government still have something more to say
about those people because they are in real financial trouble and
they need support now. My local authority still needs £2.5
million to make sure that Tylorstown tip does not fall further
into the river, and that is the responsibility of the Westminster
Government. Will he please guarantee that that money happens now?
I completely understand that, as my hon. Friend the Member for
South West Bedfordshire () and the hon. Gentleman have said, some businesses and
individuals are facing real difficulties at this point. We have
provided £160 billion-worth of support in the past few months and
the Chancellor announced another £30 billion. I say to the hon.
Gentleman that through the self-employed scheme we have supported
about 2.6 million individuals, and of course businesses are able
to get bounce-back loans, more than 1 million of which have been
approved. Again, if he has individual cases to raise, I am happy
to look at them.
(Fylde) (Con)
[V]
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement on the internal
market, but may I press him to ensure that the interests of small
food producers, particularly those in Lancashire, are given equal
weighting to all these additional powers that have been given to
the Scottish Parliament, because we do not want any part of the
United Kingdom to be left behind?
My hon. Friend is right to say that we do not want any part of
the UK, or indeed any business across the UK, to be left behind,
which is precisely why we have set out our proposals on mutual
recognition and non-discrimination.
(East
Lothian) (SNP) [V]
Words such as “mutual recognition regime” sound benign, yet some
1 million people have signed a National Farmers Union petition
and organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals and Compassion in World Farming have expressed
their fears, so why should my constituents believe the Minister’s
promises of munificence? To paraphrase the old adage, should we
beware this time not of Greeks but of the British bearing gifts,
less than a Trojan horse but this time for Trump’s America?
I am not sure how I respond to all that, except to say that the
proposal we are putting forward is about protecting businesses
and jobs across the whole UK.
(Wealden) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Does he agree that these
proposals will maintain current economic freedoms, which are
vital to ensure that all of our nations survive and thrive post
covid? This is good news for business and for job security, and,
fundamentally, it enables us to level up across our great United
Kingdom.
Absolutely. As ever, my hon. Friend speaks a great deal of sense.
This is about levelling up and making sure there is an equal
opportunity for businesses across our country to be able to sell
and trade.
(Coventry South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talked about the economic recovery after
coronavirus, about which my constituents and I have immediate
concerns. In the past week alone, more than 8,000 jobs have been
lost in the west midlands, manufacturing and higher education
sectors have been particularly hit, and in Coventry we fear an
unemployment tsunami when the furlough scheme ends. Will the
Government extend the furlough scheme on a sectoral basis, invest
in green manufacturing in the west midlands, and provide a plan
for higher education that protects jobs and funding?
The Chancellor set out the position on the furlough scheme
clearly. As the hon. Lady knows, he announced the job retention
bonus. On green jobs, she will also know that in his summer
statement he announced an extra £3 billion for energy efficiency
in homes and in public buildings, and that will support about
140,000 green jobs.
(West Dorset) (Con)
This White Paper, in ensuring the seamless internal market within
the UK that this Government are delivering, is an excellent
thing, particularly given that we are delivering the democratic
will of the people in leaving the EU. Does my right hon. Friend
agree that it is particularly good for small and microbusinesses
in vast rural constituencies such as mine, where 97% of
businesses are small or micro-sized?
Yes, indeed, because if there were regulatory barriers, for
instance, if there were even small differences on things such as
food labelling requirements, costs would of course be raised for
small businesses, which they ultimately may pass on to consumers.
Therefore what we are proposing is good not only for businesses
of all sizes, but for consumers.
(Warley)
(Lab)
These structural arrangements are enormously important, but they
only go so far because so are political culture and drive to
ensure that we get Britain back to work. Yet Government
purchasing rules and practice still grovel to so-called EU
rules—unlike, incidentally, most other EU countries. Now the
Government are free of those rules, when are they going to
actively back British business and British workers in England,
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? There are no more EU
excuses. Act now!
The right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have enormous respect, as
ever makes his case very forcefully. He talks about public
procurement, and I look forward to his thoughts as part of the
consultation.
(Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. The internal
market could not be more important to my constituents. Their
businesses and jobs and, crucially, our economic recovery from
covid depend on seamless trade throughout the UK, particularly
because of the border we share with England. Will my right hon.
Friend ignore any hysteria from the Labour party in Wales and
press full steam ahead with the Bill, because my constituents
will welcome it?
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She will also know that
almost three times as many intermediate inputs used by businesses
in Wales come from the rest of the UK than from the rest of the
world put together. That is why it is important that we continue
with a seamless internal market, which is good news for her
constituents. I would just say to her that I am not prone to
hysteria.
(Stirling)
(SNP)
The European Parliament, the Court of Justice and the European
Commission have 60 years of jurisprudence for how to deal with
these issues. The reality is that under the proposals every
single power, budget and competence, not just of the Scottish and
Welsh Parliaments and the Northern Ireland Assembly but of local
government in each of those countries, will be subject to a
politically appointed panel that has no jurisprudence whatever.
What will be the rights of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh
Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly to input people on
to that panel, and what dispute resolution mechanisms will they
use? If this is not a fair and impartial arbiter, it is a power
grab over every single competence that we have.
Perhaps I can clarify once more, in case it has not been clear
enough, that there is no power grab; this is a power surge. We
are ensuring that all devolved policy areas stay devolved, and
additional powers are returning to the devolved Administrations.
(Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and welcome the
White Paper. Like thousands of my constituents, my dad and
brother work in the building sector and travel to their jobs in
England every day. I implore my right hon. Friend to ignore the
attempts by the Welsh Labour Government to hold our Union and
constitution to hostage over political points, and to crack on
with building the single market that is essential to my Welsh
constituency.
My hon. Friend speaks a great deal of sense. As I said at the
start of the statement, I want to work co-operatively with
colleagues across the devolved Administrations. That is precisely
what we have been seeking to do over the past period, and we will
continue to do that. I look forward to their representations as
part of the consultation.
(Pontypridd) (Lab)
It has been eight weeks since the Prime Minister of this country
has bothered to contact the First Minister of Wales—eight weeks
during a global pandemic that for many has felt like a lifetime.
It has been a lifetime for the hundreds of workers at General
Electric in Nantgarw in my constituency, who have just been
served redundancy notices due to the lack of support from this UK
Tory Government. The 2019 Conservative and Unionist party
manifesto stated that the Conservatives were committed to
strengthening the Union between all four nations of the UK, but
we have actually seen this UK Tory Government completely ride
roughshod through devolution. The White Paper is yet another
assault on Welsh powers. Could the Secretary of State tell the
House precisely when the White Paper was presented to the Welsh
First Minister?
May I just say to the hon. Lady that I want to work
collaboratively with all colleagues across all the devolved
Administrations? She talks about the First Minister of Wales, and
I can tell her that the Secretary of State for Wales has tried on
two occasions recently to get a meeting. I think that one was due
to take place in the last 24 hours, which unfortunately did not.
There may be perfectly good reasons why that did not happen, but
my commitment is to speak to my counterparts in Wales, for us
from a UK Government perspective to speak to our counterparts and
there is a consultation. The hon. Lady should look at the
document and then respond.
(Milton Keynes North) (Con)
For centuries, the internal market has ensured that the British
people have the right to sell their wares and move freely between
any nation in our United Kingdom. Does my right hon. Friend agree
with me that we must do everything in our power to protect the
status quo and those ancient rights? There must be no border at
Berwick. Welsh lamb should be sold in Scotland. English barley
should supply Scotch whisky.
Quite simply, yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that
is why we are putting forward proposals to ensure that we
continue with our seamless internal market in the United Kingdom.
(Luton South) (Lab)
Since I was elected, many of my constituents have written to me
about their concerns for food standards, whether they are people
who eat food or even the 20 or so members of the National Farmers
Union in my constituency who produce it. In the White Paper, the
Government make several references to past action on standards,
but the future-focused language is extremely weak. Will the
Secretary of State commit to minimum standards, which people can
improve on but not go below?
As I have noted, and as a matter of fact, we have had very high
standards when it comes to food safety and animal welfare in the
United Kingdom. The best way to ensure that we have the same
standards across the United Kingdom is to work together to the
common frameworks programme, which is what I would like us all to
do.
(Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
In this Chamber over the past few weeks, I have heard Members on
both sides talking about the need to preserve and create jobs as
we recover from covid. There are financial barriers, but there
are also regulatory barriers, and these proposals ensure that
they do not arise as a result of our leaving the European Union.
Does the Business Secretary agree that his proposals will help to
preserve jobs throughout every nation in the United Kingdom, and
any approach that seeks to fragment our internal market—largely
due to ideological obsessions of members of the Scottish National
party—would make our jobs recovery after covid harder, not
easier?
My hon. Friend is right. This is not about ideology; it is about
pragmatism and about supporting businesses, supporting jobs and
supporting livelihoods. That is why we have put forward these
proposals.
(Eltham) (Lab)
Many of us are alarmed at the prospect of standards being lowered
to allow things such as chlorine-washed chicken to come into our
market, particularly as the requirement to wash chicken in
chlorine comes from the fact that sometimes the meat is marinated
in the animal’s own guano. Some of us would rather avoid the risk
of buying such products, so will the Secretary of State ensure
that the devolved powers include the right to label food so that
we can be warned about the prospects of buying those sorts of
products?
Let me address the point that the hon. Gentleman raises about
chicken. He refers to chlorine-washed chicken: as he knows, it is
illegal in the United Kingdom, and as a Government—as I have said
earlier—we have been very clear that we will not sign up to trade
deals that would compromise our high environmental protection,
animal welfare and food safety standards. We are a world leader
in those areas, and that is not going to change.
(Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that uncertainty is the enemy
of investment, of employment and of consumer confidence? He
should like to know that the businesswomen and men that I have
been speaking to today have welcomed today’s certainty that goods
and services from one part of the kingdom can continue to be sold
in another and that employers in one part can continue to provide
jobs to residents in another.
My hon. Friend has had a glittering career in business, and more
than some Opposition Members, he understands what uncertainty
means for businesses. It means that they do not employ people and
they do not invest, and at the end of the day that impacts on the
growth of our economy. What these proposals give is that
certainty and clarity that businesses want.
(North
Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The unelected body that the UK Government plan to establish will
determine whether Bills passed in the Scottish Parliament meet a
new test before they can be considered competent. The Minister
has described this, in Orwellian fashion, as a devolved power
surge. Had this situation existed earlier, it would have
prevented Scotland’s smoking ban, minimum unit pricing of alcohol
and free tuition. Can he explain why he thinks it is a good idea
for a Government who Scotland has rejected to seek to diminish
the powers of Scotland’s democratically elected Parliament?
Let me emphasise once more that all devolved policy areas are
going to stay devolved. What is going to happen at the end of
this year—the end of the transition period—is that powers will
flow back to the devolved Administrations. The hon. Lady talks
about minimum alcohol pricing. She will know that the Scottish
Government had to fight in the courts to get that through. Under
our proposals, they would have been able to make that change.
(Luton North) (Lab) [V]
Vauxhall in Luton proudly produces one of the best-selling vans
in all regions and nations in the UK. This is part of the £10.5
billion-worth of goods that are imported into Northern Ireland
from Great Britain each year. All this is reliant on frictionless
trade. Does the Secretary of State agree that the commitment to
frictionless trade across the UK, as set out in the White Paper,
is essentially meaningless given that the Government have
admitted that the protocol will introduce new requirements on
trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
We published our Command Paper in May, as the hon. Lady knows,
and we said in that that there will be unfettered access for
goods from Northern Ireland to GB. Certainly, the discussions
that I have had suggest that businesses understand that the
proposals in the White Paper give them further certainty.
(Hazel Grove) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. It is patently
obvious that a Unionist and a nationalist cannot agree on a
constitutional settlement, but it is none the less perfectly
possible to have constructive conversations and good working
relationships through proper channels. With that in mind, will he
undertake to speak to his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that Lord
Dunlop’s review is published?
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The review conducted by
is, I
understand, set to come to the Prime Minister in the autumn. I am
sure that we will review it and look forward to it with some
interest.
(High Peak) (Con)
The internal market has long been a cornerstone of our shared
prosperity. Does the Secretary of State agree that we are
stronger together and that we need to take steps to ensure that
Peak district hill farmers can still sell their world-class lamb
to all four corners of the United Kingdom?
I thank my hon. Friend, who speaks up at all times for businesses
in his constituency. I agree with him: we are absolutely stronger
together as one United Kingdom.
(Warrington North) (Lab)
The White Paper states the Government’s intention to develop a
replacement for the EU state aid regime. Can the Secretary of
State confirm when legislation will be brought forward with
regard to state aid, and whether it will be primary or secondary
legislation? Does he accept that this needs to provide confidence
to the devolved nations by being administered through an
independent body as opposed to his own Department?
I can confirm to the hon. Lady that the new domestic subsidy
control regime will be a modern system that will be there to
support British businesses in a way that benefits all within the
United Kingdom. I know that she is interested in further details
on this, and we will share those in due course.
(Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Businesses in Runnymede and Weybridge benefit from access to
across the UK by plane, road and rail. Does my right hon. Friend
agree that while much focus is given to international trade,
seamless internal trade is crucial for our ongoing prosperity
across all four nations of the UK?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When companies are looking to
invest in the United Kingdom, the fact that we will continue with
a seamless UK internal market will give them significant
confidence.
(Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
The 70 so-called new powers for Scotland are in areas that are
already devolved. They include matters such as food safety,
public procurement and environmental standards, all of which are
at the very core of devolution. With Scottish Parliament
elections scheduled for next year, does the Secretary of State
not agree that it would be a democratic abomination for Scots to
have to vote for parties whose policies could only be enacted
subject to the provisions of the latest UK race-to-the-bottom
trade deal?
I really do suggest that the hon. Gentleman gets out and talks
more to businesses in his constituency. I think that they will
tell him that having a unified coherent UK internal market is
good news for them and good news for their workers.
(Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I warmly welcome the White Paper. The self-employed are some of
the main drivers of economic growth in the United Kingdom,
including in Carshalton and Wallington. Some, such as directors
of small limited companies, have had concerns throughout the
pandemic. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give that the
self-employed will continue to be able to thrive and drive
economic growth in the internal market?
As I said in response to an earlier question, we have provided
support to 2.6 million people through the self-employment income
support scheme, and businesses have been able to make use of the
bounce-back loan scheme and the other loan schemes the Government
have made available. Small businesses have also been able to take
advantage of the £10,000 to £25,000 grants that have been put
forward.
(Barnsley
East) (Lab)
South Yorkshire has nearly 1.5 million residents, so what
discussions have taken place with local and regional leaders
across England to ensure their concerns about covid-19 support
are addressed?
I do not know whether the hon. Lady asks that in relation to the
White Paper we have put forward, but as she will know we have
been speaking informally to businesses for a period about the UK
internal market. Of course, there is now an opportunity for
people to respond more formally to the consultation.
(Burton)
(Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement. Does he agree that
stimulating growth and development across our regions is vital to
a well-functioning, highly productive economy? Will he work with
me and others to see how a north midlands manufacturing corridor
could be established to bring the region together and to open up
greater opportunities for businesses?
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and other colleagues
in the region to discuss how her region can benefit from the
support that the Government have to offer.
(Edinburgh
West) (LD)
As Liberal Democrats, we welcome the announcement about internal
trade and protecting the market and protecting those who survive
in that internal market. However, I ask the Secretary of State to
be sure that there is consultation with each of the devolved
Administrations and that we have a dispute resolution mechanism
for when there cannot be agreement. More than anything else,
however, may I please caution the Government that any mistake on
this, any suggestion that this is being imposed on the devolved
Administrations, will be seized on by our colleagues on the
nationalist Benches? That will do damage to the Union, rather
than protect and strengthen it, so will he please bear that in
mind?
I hope that the proposals we are putting forward will strengthen
the Union and strengthen support for business across the United
Kingdom. The hon. Lady talks about consultation. The White Paper
is of course a consultation document and I would welcome her
thoughts.
(Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I welcome the White Paper. As my right hon. Friend said, our
internal markets, which have existed for hundreds of years,
support countless jobs across the four nations. Financial
services and professional services are a very important sector in
my constituency. How does my right hon. Friend see the City of
London, in particular, being able to support millions of jobs
across the four nations within the internal market?
My hon. Friend will know that professional qualifications will be
covered under mutual recognition, which is good news for service
sectors across the United Kingdom, but particularly in the City
of London.
(Arfon) (PC) [V]
Thirty-five years ago, in 1985, the then Tory European
Commissioner’s White Paper detailed 300 legislative proposals to
complete the European single market, and that was with a
seven-year deadline. On the UK internal market, this Tory
Government are giving a four-week consultation over the summer.
That is persuasive evidence, were it needed, that the UK internal
market is first and foremost a convenient headline—a veneer
lacking detail or a legal basis. Will the Secretary of State
concede that the only certainty is that this Bill is a power grab
retaining—yes, retaining—vast powers over devolved areas to Tory
Ministers?
No, this is not a power grab. As I have said, this is a power
surge to the devolved Administrations. The hon. Gentleman talks
about the consultation. I can tell him that the consultation
follows the principles for a Government consultation. Yes, it is
for a four-week period, but very many people and, in particular,
businesses do not routinely close down over the summer. I would
say to him that there is an opportunity for him and others to
feed in to this consultation. I know this will be important for
him and he will do it in a far shorter period time than four
weeks.
(Moray) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the nationalist
narrative of a power grab has been well and truly burst when not
a single nationalist can name a single power that Scotland will
lose as a result of this? Indeed, hundreds—more than 100—powers
will flow to Scotland on day one. Therefore, does the Business
Secretary agree that this is not a constitutional issue, but an
economic issue, and anyone standing in the way of this
legislation is risking jobs, harming businesses and threatening
the economy of our country?
I could not have put it better myself. My hon. Friend is
absolutely right. This is about protecting jobs, protecting
businesses and, ultimately, protecting livelihoods. That is why
businesses across our country—across the United Kingdom—will
welcome these proposals.
