0ui our union . And i were essentialfor our union . And secondly, it is our country going to abide by the rule of law . Of all Space International orders for which we are famous around the world and have always stood up . Does make a rules based International Order for which we are famous around the world and have always stood up. These are not small questions but go to the heart of who we are as a country and the character of this government. Let me start with the first question. An internal market is vital for trade question. An internal market is vitalfor trade and jobs question. An internal market is vital for trade and jobs at home but also for our ability to strike teenage eels and it is the responsibility of the uk government at westminster to say glad that market and legislate. In this reading of the government but, madam Deputy Speaker, it must be carried out understanding that the government understanding has changed in the last two decades. Two decades of devolution settlement is whether a decision that we would share power across our four nations, including devolving key powers of issues like Animal Welfare, food safety, and
aspects of environmental legislation. So we should be legislating for an internal market but in no way that respects the role of devolved governments in having of those, advice on setting those standards. That is respecting the devolution settlement, and what we have heard from across the uk is that the government is not doing that, that they want to legislate with a blunderbuss approach that does not do that, and simply says the lower standard it in one Parliament Must become the standard for all. With no proper voice for devolved governments. Even having a discussion about those standards because they decided not to legislate i give way. Standards because they decided not to legislate i give way. Im very grateful to the right honourable member, and i must say hes getting to the nub of this. Because madame Deputy Speaker, what we have is joint Ministerial Committees. Agreeing on frameworks that allow us to do with the honourable minister has asked us for. Not this race to the bottom that we will get with the governments bill . He and i come from different positions in the following respect. I want to respect the devolution, he has a different point of view. But on this point, we should be legislating for common frameworks, that would be the way to respect devolution. And i dont know whether the Prime Minister even understands this legislation, but im sorry, im sorry, i know he has many things on his plate come up on this issue, the government has been cavalier in its approach. Because since 2017, there has been the development of common frameworks, and they couldve legislated for that. And that is what we will be seeking to do in the passage of this bill. Madame Deputy Speaker, these issues were prefigured in the white paper. But since then, we have an
even bigger question to confront. Let me say right now, we want the smoothest train across our uk, including Northern Ireland. There is a way to resolve these issues in the joint committee set up for this purpose. But i have to say, madame Deputy Speaker, from a man who said he wanted to get by exit done and w011 he wanted to get by exit done and won an election on it, this bill gets brexit undone by overturning key aspects of the protocol that we re key aspects of the protocol that were agreed. And i do say to the Prime Minister, while i have been pa rt Prime Minister, while i have been part of many issues of contention across this dispatch box, i never thought to respecting International Law would in my lifetime be a matter of disagreement. I stood opposite his predecessor for five years. Of disagreement. I stood opposite his predecessorforfive years. I dont know what hes rolling his eyes, madame Deputy Speaker, i disagreed with him profoundly on
many issues. But i could never have imagined him coming along and saying we will legislate to break International Law on an agreement we have signed less than a year earlier asa have signed less than a year earlier as a country. But that is what this bill does in the governments own words, i want to address three questions at the heart of this issue. Is it right to break the law in the way the government proposes . Is it necessary to do so . And with the help of a country . The answer to each question is no. Lesser member the context of this and the principle here. If theres one thing we are known around the world, it is the rule of law. The country of the magna carta, being the mother of all parliaments, the country that out of the darkness of the Second World War helped found the united nations. 0ur global reputation for rule making, not rule breaking, is one of the reasons we are so respected around the world. And when you ask people
to think of britain, they think of the rule of law. And lets be clear after the Prime Ministers beach, despite what he said this is not an argument about leavitt or remain. This is about right or wrong. Lord lamont says the bill is impossible to defend. The brexiteer and former attorney general who helped negotiate and sign this deal as attorney general says this bill is unconscionable. In the brexiteer lord howard, his former boss, said this. I never thought it was a thing id hear a british minister, far less a conservative minister, say, that the government was going to invite parliament to act in breach of International Law. We have a reputation for probity, for upholding the rule of law, and it is
a reputation which is very precious and ought to be safeguarded. And im afraid it was severely damaged by the bill. I will give way. Afraid it was severely damaged by the bill. Iwill give way. Does afraid it was severely damaged by the bill. I will give way. Does he think the eu has been negotiating in good faith . Its very interesting that the right honourable gentleman should say that, because theres a report that came out from the Northern Ireland select committee, chaired by conservatives today. And this is what it said. These talks began in march and continued throughout the summer in the spirit of good faith and usual respect for the delicate arrangements in Northern Ireland. Thats what the conservative controlled select Committee Says about this issue. Now mr speaker, the Prime Minister has said many times he wants to bring unity to the country during his premiership. I therefore
congratulate him on having just one short year united his five predecessors. Unfortunately, their point of agreement is that he is trashing the reputation of this country in trashing the reputation of his office. And why are these five former Prime Ministers so united on this point . Because madame Deputy Speaker, they know our moral authority in the world comes from our commitment to the rule of law in keeping our word. We rightly condemned china when it writes roughshod over the treaties dictating the future of hong kong. We say they signed them in good faith, we say they are going back on their word. We say, madame Deputy Speaker, that they cant be trusted. In his defence dont worry, i cant be trusted either. And what will they say to us . Will leave a thorough us the macro back at us . That we dont honour international
law. Did the Party Opposite keep their word to the british voters . Actually, yes we do, and ill tell her why we respect the fact that the conservative party won this election. He got his mandate to deliver is by exit deal, the thing he said was, im sure shell remember, oven ready. Its not me coming on saying its half baked, its him hes coming along and saying the deal he signed is actually, whats the word . Ambiguous, problematic. Iwonder actually, whats the word . Ambiguous, problematic. I wonder if he actually read the deal in the first place. Yes, ill give way to my honourable friend. First place. Yes, ill give way to my honourable friendlj first place. Yes, ill give way to my honourable friend. I think my right honourable friend forgiving way, hes making an extremely good speech. But could perhaps till house who on earth might have signed this terrible deal with so many
ambiguities less than nine months ago . I do believe my honourable friend makes the point, its the Prime Minister who signed this deal. In fairness to the Prime Minister, i wa nt to in fairness to the Prime Minister, i want to deal with each of the governments arguments that theyve made in the last few days for this action. And its quite hard to keep count of these different arguments. You know youre losing the argument when you keep making different arguments. But i want to give the house the top five. First lets deal with the argument of blockades. That argument made its first outing in the telegraph on saturday from the Prime Minister, and it made a big appearance today. I have to say, madame Deputy Speaker, i dont like the wrapping up of the rhetoric from the wrapping up of the rhetoric from the European Union that was, on thursday, following the Prime Ministers publication of this bill. But even by the standards of the Prime Minister, this is as ridiculous an argument as ive ever heard of it even by his standards. And let me explain to him why. The point was very well made by the former attorney general at this point this is what article 16 of the protocol says. If the application of the protocol leads to serious economic, societal, or environmental difficulties, that are liable to persist the diversion of trade, the union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguarded measures. In other words, let us just say that this threat somehow materialises, and by the way, its for officials to implement this threat, making it even more absurd that it would happen lets say this threat materialises. Its not overturning the protocol that is the right thing to do, madame Deputy Speaker, but upholding the protocol because, as article 16 and dont take my word
for it, take the word of the former attorney general who definitely read the protocol and group this morning, andi the protocol and group this morning, and i quote, there are clear and lawful responses available to her majestys government. Then the perimeter tried to slip this in, i dont know if the house noticed, there is an irony here that, as if this wasnt enough, this bill does precisely nothing to address the issue of the transport of food from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. It is about two issues where they will override International Law. It is about exit declarations, Northern Ireland to gb, and the definition of state aid relating to Northern Ireland. Now if the Prime Minister wa nts to ireland. Now if the Prime Minister wants to tell us theres another pa rt wants to tell us theres another part of this bill i havent noticed, that we will deal with the supposed threat at the blockade, ill happily give way to him so he can tell us, and im sure hes read it, im sure he knows it in detail because hes a
details man come on, tell us, what clause protects the threat that he says hes worried about gb to Northern Ireland exports . I give way to him. There you have it, he didnt read the protocol, he hasnt read the bill, he doesnt know his stuff. Right, lets deal with the second bogus argument. Second, he claimed on wednesday it was necessary to protect the good friday agreement. Thats the first outing i have to say id rather trust the authors of the good friday agreement, but this is whatjohn major and tony blair wrote. The bill puts the good friday agreement at risk because it
negates the predictability, the political stability, and legal clarity that is integral to the delicate balance between the north and south of ireland that is at the co re and south of ireland that is at the core of the peace process. These are very important words from two former Prime Ministers, both of whom help to win us peace in Northern Ireland. He may not went to believe them, but he will hopefully believe himself, because this is what he said maybe not, because is what he said maybe not, because is what he said about the Northern Ireland protocol. Their particular circumstances in Northern Ireland at the border that deserve respect and sensitivity. And that is what they have received in the deal. Its a great dealfor northern have received in the deal. Its a great deal for Northern Ireland. Have received in the deal. Its a great dealfor Northern Ireland. I dont understand this, madame Deputy Speaker. He signed the deal, its his deal, its a deal he said would protect the people of Northern Ireland. And i have to say to him, this is not just
ireland. And i have to say to him, this is notjust legislative hooliganism on any issue. It is on the most sensitive issues of all. And i think we should take the word of two former Prime Ministers of this country who helped secure peace in Northern Ireland. I will give way. Before he lectures the Prime Minister about reading documentation and he starts lecturing us about the good friday agreement, does he recognise first of all, the good friday agreement talks about the principle of consent, about changing the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, which this protocol does, and the good friday agreement has within it a mechanism to safeguard the minorities in Northern Ireland through a Cross Community vote, which again the protocol removed. So before he sta rts protocol removed. So before he starts talking about the threats to the good friday agreement, does he not realise the protocol was a threat to the good friday agreement in the first place . The honourable gentlemen didnt like the protocol
at all, hed rather have not had the protocol. He and ijust have a disagreement on this issue. I believe it was necessary to make special arrangements for Northern Ireland orfor the special arrangements for Northern Ireland or for the uk special arrangements for Northern Ireland orfor the uk to be in the Eu Customs Union to avoid a hard barter and ireland. Thats why the Prime Minister came along and said the protocol was the right thing to do. Let me deal with the third excuse that we heard. It was all a bit of a rush. 0r excuse that we heard. It was all a bit of a rush. Or as the Prime Minister said in his article, times we re minister said in his article, times were torrid and there were serious misunderstandings. Madame were torrid and there were serious misunderstandings. Madame Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister tries to pretend this is some new issue, but theyve been warned for months about theyve been warned for months about the way the protocol would work. The chancellor of the duchy of lancaster who is sitting in his place was warned that the select committee in march was asked about these issues. The business secretary was written to by the house of Lords Committee in april. And letsjust to by the house of Lords Committee in april. And lets just get this straight because i think its
important to take a step back. With the premise is coming to this house to tell us today is his flagship achievement, the deal he told us was achievement, the deal he told us was a try meant triumph, the deal in which he fought and won the general election is now contradictory and ambiguous. Madame Deputy Speaker, what incompetence. What failure of governance. And madame Deputy Speaker, how dare he try and blame eve ryo ne speaker, how dare he try and blame everyone else . Can i say to the Prime Minister, this time he cant blame the right honourable member from maidenhead, he cant blamejohn major, he cant blame the judges, the Civil Servants, he cant sack the Civil Servants, he cant sack the cabinet secretary again. Theres only one personal responsible for it, and thats him this is his deal, his mess, his failure. Forthe first time in his life, its time to ta ke first time in his life, its time to take responsibility. Its time to confess. Leave it there he wasnt
straight with the country about the deal in the first place, or he didnt understand it. A competent government would never have entered into a government would never have entered intoa binding government would never have entered into a binding agreement with conditions he couldnt live with. And if such a government somehow missed the point but woke up later, it wouldve done what any competent business would do after he realises he cant live with the terms of a contract. It would negotiate in good faith. And thats why, madame Deputy Speaker, this is also unnecessary. Because there is a mechanism designed for exactly this purpose in the protocol, in the agreement. The joint committee on the Northern Ireland protocol. What are the duchy of the. Say at the Brexit Select Committee . He was asked about the state aid issue, he said and i quote, the effective working of the protocol is a matter for the joint committee to resolve. The remaining
issues to which this bill speaks insignificant, but insurmountable. And that is the right way to pursue them, not an attempt at illegality. Let me come back to the excuses. Fourth, on sunday, thejustice secretarys fire alarm defence says we dont want to have to do this, but we might have to. I want to be clear but the house about something very important about a decision to pass this bill. And i have Great Respect for the honourable member from bromley and chisel hearse. But i want to make this point. The very act of passing this bill is itself a breach of International Law. And i think its very i think it would be wrong for honourable and right honourable members on either side of the house to be under any illusions about this as they decide which
lobby to go into tonight. If we pass this bill, even if there is a nod and a week from the Prime Minister to the honourable memberfrom bromley and chisel hurst, we equipped the government with the power to break the law. That in itself is a breach of the Northern Ireland protocol, and therefore a breach of International Law. I listen carefully to his formulation andi listen carefully to his formulation and i understand much of what he says. However, an act passed by this house only becomes law when it comes into force. He would be right to say that as soon as any of these provisions came into force, we would potentially be preaching International Law. Thats not quite the same thing, as i think he would fairly concede. Thats not a risk we are going to take, madame Deputy Speaker. So the fire alarm defence simply doesnt work. Finally, i want to deal with the last defence. This
was floated as a trial balloon by the Northern Ireland secretary i believe last tuesday. He said it was a breach of the law in a specific and limited way. Madame Deputy Speaker, this is a new way of thinking about legal questions. It now turns out that breaking the law specifically and in a limited way is a reasonable defence for this government. Weve all heard of self defense, the alibi defence, the innocence defence. Now we have the johnson defence. You can break the law but in a specific and limited way. In madame Deputy Speaker, think about the current context we face. The home secretary out today in the newspapers, warning everyone, you must abide by the law. 0n this, the home secretary is absolutely right, and he says this. I know that as part of our national
effort, the law abiding majority will stick to these rules. But therell be a small minority who do not. You therell be a small minority who do not. You couldnt therell be a small minority who do not. You couldnt make up, madame Deputy Speaker. What she didnt say in this article but what we now know about this government is that the johnson defence means something very specific there is one rule for the British Public and another rule for this government. Pioneered by dominic cummings, implement it by borisjohnson. That dominic cummings, implement it by boris johnson. That is dominic cummings, implement it by borisjohnson. That is thejohnson rule. Madame Deputy Speaker, this is the wrong thing to do, it is a unnecessary clause and deeply damaging for the country. Lets think about the impact of the negotiations. The governments hope as this will make a deal more likely. But that relies on the notion that reneging on the deal we made less than a year ago with the party we are negotiating with, or make them more likely to trust us,
not less. If i think about our everyday lives and if we think about an agreement we made a year ago with somebody, and we were seeking to have another negotiation with them, and we came along and unilaterally reneged on the first deal we made, would it make them more or less likely to trust us . 0bviously would it make them more or less likely to trust us . Obviously it would make them less likely to trust us. And we know the risks. I very much hope the Prime Minister gets a deal. We absolutely need a deal as a country. We know the risks of a no deal strategy, if this deal goes wrong. The Prime Minister last week said no deal was a good outcome. Its wrong. I hearfrom business all the time, and im sure the business secretary sitting his place does to worry about the danger of no deal. I know what he thinks of his views because of his four letter brand. Four have said no deal would be disastrous, the nephew says it would be disastrous. The duchy of lancaster, he said the same thing. We are in the biggest economic crisis of 300 years, the biggest Public Health crisis in 100 years. No deals about no game, it is about the livelihood of millions across our country. What about uprise trade deal with the us . I know the premise or thinks he has a friend with donald but even he must realise he needs to be able to deal with both sides. This is what nancy pelosi said. The uk must respect Northern Ireland protocol. If the uk violates the treaty, therell be no chance of a us the treaty, therell be no chance of a us uk the treaty, therell be no chance of a us uk agreement passing the congress. This is a signal we are sending to ourfriends congress. This is a signal we are sending to our friends and allies around the world. The country known for the rule of law. The country that abides by the law. The country
that abides by the law. The country that founded International Law. This isa that founded International Law. This is a signal we are sending. Madame Deputy Speaker, that is why we cannot support this bill, and we will oppose it tonight. The government must go back, remove the sections breaking International Law, ensure the bill works in a way that respects the devolution. That is what a competent law abiding government would do. This is a Pivotal Moment in determining the future of our country and how we operate. In shaping the future, we have to stand up for the traditions that matter. This bill speaks of a government, it Prime Minister that is cavalier and reckless about the gravity of issues he confronts. He should be focusing on securing a brexit deal, not breaking International Law and risking no deal. He is cavalier on International Law, he is cavalier on our traditions. This is not the serious leadership we need, thats
why we will oppose this deal tonight. The original question was that this bill now be read a second time since an amendment has been proposed. As on the order paper. The question is that the amendment be made. Now before i call the chairman of the select committee, i should draw to the attention of the house that 101 members are hoping to catch my eye from the back benches. It wont be possible to call everyone but, in orderto wont be possible to call everyone but, in order to try to allow as many people as possible to participate in such an important debate, we will have a time limit with immediate effect of four minutes. Sir william cash. What would be unconscionable would be for us would be unconscionable would be for us to have left the eu lawfully, which the eu has accepted, then
allow them to threaten us and strangle ourjobs allow them to threaten us and strangle our jobs and allow them to threaten us and strangle ourjobs and businesses by imposing unfair state aid rules which go much whiter than traditional subsidies, and then for them to seek unwarranted legal action when we are properly defending our National Economic and political sovereignty. If so, we would become a neutered trivial little about, and enslaved economic satellite of the eu. I Uk Parliament could allow itself to be so prostrated. No Uk Parliament. 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 economic freedom. This bill guarantees this promise to them and to maintain the union. 0n the question of International Law, such law comes in all shapes and sizes. There are many
instances. The eu itself does sometimes break International Law, including refusing certain compliance with wto rules. Eu retaliation by blockade would be utterly unlawful. Even the belfast agreement contains notwithstanding agreements, as does us statute law. The express powers in the bill which constitute the taking of powers, rather than actual implementation, are justified rather than actual implementation, arejustified precautions rather than actual implementation, are justified precautions against the risk of an expansionist interpretation of article ten 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. The objection has included
preventing us from being able to compete fairly. This is not good faith. Under the protocol, they would even control our legal tax freedom to create free ports and enterprise zones. All of this would massively undermine our businesses and jobs, massively undermine our businesses andjobs, and massively undermine our businesses and jobs, and therefore our voters. Consider the wide legal sphere of any eu state aid regulation. It is concerned not only with subsidies but tax reliefs, taxation favouring particular sectors or undertakings, remission of National Insurance contributions, Bank Bailouts such as those of rbs and lloyds, where contrived, draconian eu legal conditions were imposed in a raft of other measures too numerous to list, but they include guest terrace for horticulture, airport landing fees, private health insurance, Carbon Trading emissions for treat them like free, failure to follow public procedures and so on. By contrast, more recently the german government
has procured approval for vast amounts of aid notably for lift anza. In this is a pattern that has continued for decades across many commercial sectors. And i would recommend people to read ambrose evanss article today in the daily telegraph. They have outrageously dared to threaten the Uk Parliament itself if we do not remove the clauses, and he misrepresent our position on the good friday agreement. This contradicts our sovereignty and autonomy which the eu accepted. They seek to subject us toa eu accepted. They seek to subject us to a foreign regulator, taking essentially political decisions and armed with undemocratic prohibition powers and authorizations. It would be unconscionable and utterly naive for us to allow this to happen, contrary to our National Interests and at this time of economic instability generated by coronavirus. I would instability generated by coronavirus. Iwould remind instability generated by coronavirus. I would remind the house that section 38 of the 2020
act was passed without a Single Person formally objected in either house. This bill is needed as an insurance policy, and i guarantee of our National Sovereignty of the vienna convention, and also of our national security. Ian blackford. Thank you, madame Deputy Speaker. 0ver thank you, madame Deputy Speaker. Over the last few years, weve witnessed this Tory Parliament plunging our parliament into deeper chaos and disgrace. In that time, scotla nd chaos and disgrace. In that time, scotland has been dragged out of the eu against our will. It is almost a year to the day when this parliament was illegally per road. In in recent months, a raft of senior civil serva nts months, a raft of senior Civil Servants have been forced out the door. The instability is this Uk Parliaments new door. The instability is this uk pa rliaments new normal. Door. The instability is this Uk Parliaments new normal. It is now pa rt parliaments new normal. It is now
part and parcel of a broken westminster system. Here we are again, having dragged us deeper and deeper into the dangerous agenda for the last four years. Today this right wing brexiteers cabal has reached rock bottom. Madame Deputy Speaker, the internal market bill is the greatest threat to devolution that scotland has faced since our parliament was reconvened with the overwhelming support of the scottish people in 1999. We are discussing the details of a bill that the Prime Minister admits violates international and domestic law. A bill that cynically uses the precious piece of the heart of the good friday agreement is nothing more than a brexit bargaining chip. Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill runs up madam Deputy Speaker, this bill runs up to 50 pages, the people across these isles have a right to know. They need to know exactly what it
proposes to do. It does two fundamentally dangerous and un democratic things. It breaks International Law and it breaks devolution. These two facts explain why there has been such a widespread chorus of opposition to this bill. That opposition comes from every profession, every sector and every corner of these islands. Its why this legislation should and must be resisted by anyone who claims to respect the rule of law and by anyone who claims to respect the current devolution settlement. As we know, there is opposition on the conservative benches. In the other place, the former tory leader told the government that the legislation would result in a uk showing as having scant regard for its treaty obligations. Madam Deputy Speaker, when your government is getting verbally slaughtered by a brexit tear who, how shall i say, has
something of the night about him, that it something of the night about him, thatitis something of the night about him, that it is as clear as day that the brick tories have gone way beyond the pale. The law society of scotla nd the pale. The law society of scotland have commented on the bill, stating the following. This bill asa stating the following. This bill as a metal of principle, this bill should as a matter of prince bo comply with public International Law. Adherence to the rule of law underpins our democracy and our society. We believe that to break with the uks reputation for following public International Law could have far reaching economic, legal and political consequences and should not be taken lightly. Madam Deputy Speaker, to knowingly break International Law. Im asking each member to think on this tonight. Every member has a choice, we know that this bill breaks international
law. So many individuals including the last attorney general have told us the last attorney general have told us this. Tonight, this house can tell the government that it is not on. That this house is not going to be complicit in a breach of International Law. And i would venture this as the responsibility that each member has, every member, every member, madam Deputy Speaker, should examine their conscience. This is about a bill that breaches the terms of a treaty where the ink is barely dry, on a treaty that the governing party fought an election on delivering on. I will give way. |j would like to thank the honourable memberforgiving way. Would like to thank the honourable member forgiving way. He would like to thank the honourable memberforgiving way. He is making points that go to the very heart of this bill. Does he come and i share his worries about them, but does he share my worries that there is also an attempt in the bill to curtail or
prevent entirelyjudicial review on ones that law has been broken. Well, i think the right honourable lady is quite correct. We know that they have been in trouble in the past, and indeed, iwill come on they have been in trouble in the past, and indeed, i will come on to talk about that. The right honourable member who spoke for the opposition was quite correct when he said that the Prime Minister cannot pretend that he didnt know the terms of the treaty or its obligations when he signed it. That simply beggars belief. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a test for the house this evening. Do not wait for the committee stage. Legally, morally, ethically, the right thing to do is to vote down this bill tonight in this house and this house must be comfortable. Do not follow the Prime Minister in acquiescing in breaking the law. Because if he had been at second reading tonight, thats exactly what you are all doing. Thats exactly what you are all doing. So this is a test, and i understand the challenge that conservative members face. Dont support the Prime Minister by breaking the law this evening. It is as simple as that. Of course, the Prime Minister, a year ago, he went to the queen to prorogue parliament. Thats an illegal act that the courts forced him to reverse. Here he is again, although in this case, hes not, because hes runoff. Laughing willfully breaking International Law this time. Seeking to ask the queen to enact legislation that breaks International Law. We have the power individually and collectively to stop the Prime Minister in this
active madness this evening. This is active madness this evening. This is a matter of principle, it is about this house saying not to breach our legal obligations. And i implore the house to do exactly that. Madam Deputy Speaker, we were expecting that the secretary of state would have drawn the short straw, having to come here to strive for this peaceful legislation, but he withstood down. But we all know who the parcel of rogues are who are actually behind this legislation. This bill has the fingerprints of the Prime Minister, the Cabinet Office minister and of course dominic cummings. We havejust heard the bluff and bluster of the Prime Minister in seeking to defend the indefensible. The Prime Minister can try all he likes to dress this up as a business bill, but no amount of dressing up will hide the fact that this is a naked power grab. The tories are fooling no one. Least of
all businesses in scotland. If this uk government were actually serious about delivering an ounce of business confidence, then they wouldnt be threatening to blow apartany wouldnt be threatening to blow apart any hope of a future trade deal with the European Union. Im grateful to him. He clearly shares many of the concerns of the labour front branch in the speech given so far, so can he confirm on that basis that he will be supporting the reasoned amendment in the name of the leader of the 0pposition . Front bench. The name of the leader of the opposition . Front bench. Im grateful for the question and we will be voting against this bill this evening. We will not be supporting the reasoned amendment because of some of the other conditions which are attached to it, not least the fact that there should bea not least the fact that there should be a Single Market act that doesnt enshrine the rights of the devolved nations to be able to protect their own interests. That is a fundamental
difference that we take this evening. And i asked the house to oppose the bill and vote down the bill at the second reading stage. Hear, hear the provisions of this bill recklessly on increasingly the economic devastation of a no deal. You cant claim to support business whilst at the same time pursuing a bad brexit. You cant claim to support business by burdening them with yet more Economic Uncertainty in the face of a global pandemic. A global pandemic. We know the challenges that we face, and yet, in the midst of this, the Prime Minister brings this bill. And you cant claim to support the scottish economy by taking more economic powers away from scotlands democratically elected parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me turn to some of the contents of the bill, specifically the numerous aspects that will undermine the powers of
authority of Scotlands Parliament. It contains sweeping powers which could act to compel scotland to accept lower standards such as elsewhere in the uk. That means standards and Animal Welfare, food safety a nd standards and Animal Welfare, food safety and environmental protection. Thats to name a few. We all know the risk and threat that it will bring, especially for scotlands farmers and consumers. This law is a tory invitation for chlorinated chicken and hormone injected beef in our supermarkets. Well, you know, we can hear the guffawing, we can hear the guffawing from the conservative benches, but yesterday morning on politics scotland, a treasury minister more or less admitted that they could not stop chlorinated chicken coming into. Go and check the tapes. Its there. I will give way. Im very grateful to him. The tapes. Its there. I will give way. Im very gratefulto him. I share im sure he shares my
dismay that popular policies already made by Welsh Government to do with the smoking ban from of the ban on plastic bags and also organ donation, those could have been called in and not been valid under this legislation. My honourable friend makes a very good point. And that our policies that we are very proud of that we introduced in scotland, like a minimal alcohol pricing which was so critical, so critical in dealing with misuse of alcohol in scotland, but there is no guarantee that we would have the ability to bring in such initiatives in the future. We would have to go cap in hand to westminsterfor authority, you know, the days of us being too weak, too poor and too stupid, madam Deputy Speaker, are well and truly over. Part four, provision is made for the establishment of a. This sneering
co nte m pt establishment of a. This sneering contempt that we get from the cabinet secretary, he really ought to be ashamed of himself. Hear, hear and part four, provision is made for the establishment of a new unelected monitoring body called the office of the internal markets. The bill proposes to hand this unelected body, we well often hear about unelected bureaucrats, yet here we are, madam Deputy Speaker, and unelected body that will have the power to passjudgement unelected body that will have the power to pass judgement on devolved laws, directly, directly over the heads of the scottish peoples chosen government. It will also lead to an open invitation for businesses with deep pockets to challenge the democratic decisions of our scottish parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker, clause 48 reserves state eight, one of the most blatant power grabs in this bill. That is a very high bar. We know that the stated provisions
will merely mirror those of the wto. This will inevitably make a deal with you even more difficult and provide little or no scrutiny. Finally, clause 46. The ultimate insult and the ultimate attack on devolution. If this legislation is forced through, powers will be given to uk government ministers to design and imposed for placements for eu spending programmes in devolved areas, infrastructure, economic development, culture and sports, education and training, all of it, the agenda is clear. The transport minister would have input and Decision Making powers over road building in scotland, over the heads of the scottish parliament. You know, we want a referendum in 1977, 70 5 of the people of
scotla nd 1977, 70 5 of the people of scotland voted in that referendum to have a parliament. We have elections every five years. 75 . Manifestos are put in front of the scottish people, it is the settled will of the people that parliament has control over health, education, over housing and transport. How dare, how dare this tory government feel that it can come in and it can impose its will on these areas of democratic accountability in scotland. What an insult what an insult to our parliament in edinburgh, to our parliament in edinburgh, to our parliament in edinburgh, to our parliament in wales and i will say this to our government. We will stand up against this attack on our parliament and those enshrined in the scottish parliament. The agenda of the conservatives is clear, the tories will seek to bypass democratically elected mps and ministers in scotland, unionjack badge projects will be paid for and prioritised ahead of the priorities of our parliament. Better experience
isa of our parliament. Better experience is a good teacher. Tory governments cannot be trusted to spend money in scotland. We remember what happens when the tories control state aid spending. In 1992, john majors government diverted cash from the highlands to try and boost dwindling tory support in southeast england. We havent forgot that this legislation comes from a Prime Minister who bragged that a pound spent in croydon is far more value to the country than a pound spent in stratham plate. Thats the way that the conservatives look upon scotland. The tories will look after their own interests, they will never, not ever, support scotlands interests. This bill would allow them free reign to serve their own narrow needs. Madam Deputy Speaker, at its heart, this bill confirms the centralising of session of this uk government. Those in number ten who,
not so long ago, made a living by stripping endless newspaper articles about a suppose its centralised brexit brussels elite are now attempting to centralise and grab every devolved power that they can get their hands on. Apparently the tories are not only determined to preside over the death of devolution, they are clearly determined to oversee the death of irony too. The real reason behind their hunger to pursue this paragraph is what should concern us most. Paragraph 26 of explanatory notes makes it clear that the business secretary will be given the power to change exemptions from the bill at any time. In effect, this is a trojan horse, allowing tory ministers to encroach even further on devolution. We know where that will inevitably lead. In order to deliver bad trade deals, the only
deals they can realistically gets, the tories want private Health Companies to have a guaranteed right to trade in scotland and across the uk, but no protections for our parliament. This would fundamentally wea ken parliament. This would fundamentally weaken and undermine our National Health service in scotland, the same is true for private Water Companies with the same threat of undermining standards and raising prices in scotland. The real agenda is about imposing the creeping privatisation and rampant deregulation that they are already implementing in england. Madam Deputy Speaker, i am heartened by one thing, the scale of the threat of this legislation has been equalled by the scale of opposition that has been met across scottish society. The opposition benches, especially the scottish tories would do well to listen to this, mind you, there is only one of them in here. Nsu scotland confirmed that that the proposals propose a significant threat to the development of common frameworks into devolution. Chair of the Scottish Federation expressed that the proposed threatening our high standards and food and vitamin to an Animal Welfare and thus damaging the image of scottish produce. She concluded that the standards are best safeguarded by the scottish parliament. You know, shouting from their position, dont let the facts get in the way. That isa let the facts get in the way. That is a statement. That is a statement, madam Deputy Speaker from the chain of thus crafting crafting federation, it may not suit the trade benches, but thats the reality. The Scottish Council for development and industry believe that mutually agreed carbon frameworks should be the foundation of the uk internal markets, rather than the imposition of a single approach across the uk in devolved policy areas. And i have to say, the
cdi are absolutely right. Why isnt joint Ministerial Committee finish the work it was engaged on in delivering those frameworks on a consensual basis, but, of course, that doesnt suit the tory government. They want to attack our democratic institutions. The general teaching for scotland said supporting the bill would undermine the four uk nations devolved education functions. 0n the four uk nations devolved education functions. On its impact on, well, i hearthe education functions. On its impact on, well, i hear the cabinet secretary shouting out, but perhaps he should go and talk to the General Teaching Council and they will give him their views directly. You know, really . We have got the minister who is supposed to be taking this bill through sitting, laughing, laughing at the legitimate comments, laughing out legitimate comments made by stakeholders in scotland. Its little wonder, it is little wonder,
madam Deputy Speaker, that the tories have rejected the way they are at the polls in scotland. On its impact on devolution, professor michaela mcewan, co director for the centre of constitutional change, found that the internal markets bill limits policy and the stu stated that the Prime Minister, his uniting political parties, trade unions and the wider Civil Society against of paragraph which would say uk government interference in previously devolved matters, and are rolling the rolling back of the devolution settlement that we voted for in 1997 madam Deputy Speaker, what is happening is that the tories are uniting civic scotland against this attack on our parliament and its powers. Farmers, crafters, teachers, industry, academics and trade unions, a coalition of opposition to this bill and this tory agenda. Civic scotland has made
their voices and used it crystal clear, anyone supporting this bill will be ignoring their interests. Madam Deputy Speaker, we all have a responsibility to listen to these voices. The new scottish tory leadership have been running around half the summer telling anyone who would listen just how keen they were to stand up to the Prime Minister when he thinks hes wrong. Well. You have that chance tonight. Listen to the coalition of opposition in scotla nd to the coalition of opposition in scotland rather than your masters in downing street. If the scottish tories fought with their colleagues into the lobby of support of this, they will expose themselves as being wea ker they will expose themselves as being weaker than ever. 0f they will expose themselves as being weaker than ever. Of failing to stand up for scotlands interests against a london power grab. The very first test of the new scottish tory leadership will have turned out to be its biggest and they will have
failed. They will simply have shown themselves to be the Prime Ministers puppets, turning their back on scotlands interests. They will have failed once again to stand up will have failed once again to stand upfor will have failed once again to stand up for scottish democracy. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is also a special responsibility that falls on the labour party. Much of the devolution project is a legacy of its government in 1997. This bill is a direct attack on that legacy. We must collectively oppose this bill. Iam merging must collectively oppose this bill. I am merging the labour party, at every parliamentary stage, to take full responsibility for and work collectively with us to hold this government to account. The welsh Labour Government are advising the same. They have said the uk government plans to sacrifice the future of the union by stealing powers from devolved administrations. The welsh labour
government. Its an attack on democracy in the front on people of wales, scotland and Northern Ireland to voted in favour of devolution. Madam Deputy Speaker, that statement and its analysis comes to the very co re and its analysis comes to the very core of this argument. 0ver and its analysis comes to the very core of this argument. Over the course of the last 21 years of devolution, scotlands people have benefited from the progressive and diversion priorities that our own governments has given us to pursue. They have seen it, theyve experienced it, and they have come to fiercely valuate. Even with limited power, Scotlands Parliament and our government has always sought to mitigate and reject the conservative path set out in westminster. We have forged our own path. If this legislation had been enforced previously, it wouldve presented many progressive policies and divergent choices. 0ver recent months, that conviction and belief in our parliament has grown. People have seen the Exceptional Leadership of our first have seen the Exceptional Leadership of ourfirst minister have seen the Exceptional Leadership of our first minister throughout the course of this terrible pandemic. Its reaffirmed their faith and
confidence in our institutions, in our governments and in our nation. 0ur our governments and in our nation. Our people have come to a simple but powerful conclusion, decisions about scotla nd powerful conclusion, decisions about scotland are best made in scotland. Right now, poll after poll, the latest one only last friday shows that a growing majority have come to the conclusion that all decisions and all powers should now be fully entrusted to the people of scotland. Madam Deputy Speaker, the tories have never been able to reconcile themselves to that truth. As usual, when they are confronted with change, they are in the depths of denial. Instead of excepting the right of scottish people to choose their own future, they are trying to grab the powers back that were returned to scotland 21 years ago. Instead of accepting the right. That is exactly what this laws designed to do. It is a full frontal attack on Scotlands Parliament and an attack on scott ands democracy. Its been stated that power devolved is power retained. It implies that
this tory government can do anything they like with the powers of our parliament. We are going to leave the house of commons now and that debate on the controversial internal market bill which would override parts of the eu withdrawal agreement. We are the Prime Minister, borisjohnson, agreement. We are the Prime Minister, boris johnson, claimed this legislation is needed because he says theres an extraordinary threat from the European Union to blockade food from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. That you said borisjohnson has not taken that revolver off the table. For labour, ed said the governments approach was cavalier. As a country of magna ca rta was cavalier. As a country of magna carta commies that it was wrong to break International Law, not a question of remain against leave, he said, but of right against wrong. Up said, but of right against wrong. Up as said, but of right against wrong. Upasa said, but of right against wrong. Up as a country of magna carta comments. Good afternoon. And indeed the channel islands. This
picture came from ian jersey where temperatures got all the way up to 30 degrees. In fact, just a bit above 30 degrees. 20 of other places not too far behind, 29 in the west of london, 26 there in lincoln. It was a bit cooler the further north and west you wear because we had some extra cloud. You can see that here on the satellite picture. It did give some patchy rain through the day across parts of Northern Ireland and scotland, and if anything, as we go through this evening and two tonight, that rain will pop up a bit. So some heavier bursts of rain drifting through here, could be the odd shower into southwest wales, the southwest of england and a few fog patches across some southern and eastern parts of england. A relatively mild night, lows between 10 14. Tomorrow from another very warm day for most, particularly crossing linnane wales where we see a lot of sunshine. The odd showerfor the where we see a lot of sunshine. The odd shower for the southwest, wales, and opening the nose well. Northern ireland will brighten up through the day with some sunshine and it will turn drier and brighter for day with some sunshine and it will turn drier and brighterfor many parts of scotland. The odd shower
into the afternoon and some areas of rain continuing across the far north, particularly through the northern isles. Could well start to turn quite misty and mercury murky for north seacoast, 22 degrees in belfast. I think the highest temperature likely to be find in east anglia around 30 degrees. But its the last very warm day because as we head through the rest of the week from mid week onwards, while it will stay dry, it will turn cooler as this area of High Pressure builds its way in from the northwest. And with the winds around, High Pressure flowing in a clockwise direction. That will start to bring us some northerly winds and the much, much cooler feel. Those northerly northerly winds and the much, much coolerfeel. Those northerly winds kicking in across Northern Areas on wednesday. A week frontal system bringing cloud and some spots of rain, very little rain on that weather front and some areas of mist and mark for the north seacoast. Look at these temperatures, 30 degrees in aberdeen, 17 in belfast and in hull. The middle 20s looks like the highest temperature we will
see. Then as we have through thursday and friday, well, it stays relatively cool in the north, drive for the most part, bit of rain in the far northwest. It stays dry further south as well, much cooler thanit further south as well, much cooler than it has been and breezy. The coronavirus clamp down the government urges people to report their neighbours if theyre seen breaking the new rules on socialising. From today anyone who breaks the new rule of six could be fined more than £3,000. But theres confusion. It is very difficult to understand because if i allowed to go into a pub with loads of people and i am a metre apart with my kids. Well be explaining the new rules all four nations are different. Also on the programme tonight. No queues, but the coronavirus testing system is under strain amid claims of a shortage of staff at government laboratories. I now call the Prime Minister. Prime minister. The Prime Minister defends proposed legislation giving britain the right