Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Given the importance of this point, I would be grateful if the Minister put on the record his acknowledgment that dynamic alignment is an ask from our European Union partners in the negotiations ahead of next week’s summit.
The Minister just clarified for the record that, although it is not his or the Government’s intention to use the Bill in the way we have highlighted, those powers exist should they wish to exercise them. Both he and I have read about this in the media, as neither of us is privy to the discussions behind closed doors, but it is clearly a request from our European Union negotiating partners. This week, the Government voted down our Opposition day motion that would have given the Minister the opportunity to rule it out. In the light of that, and given the importance of the issues highlighted in new clause 3, as well as the fact that the Bill simply gives the Minister and his colleagues the chance to legislate in exactly the way they have been speaking about, I will press the new clause to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 5 is designed to obtain clarification on the record from the Minister about how Government new clause 1, which was agreed to earlier, will interact with the provisions in the Windsor framework to do with the Stormont brake. As hon. Members will be aware, if Northern Ireland Assembly Members initiate the procedure under regulation 11 of the Windsor Framework (Democratic Scrutiny) Regulations 2024 in relation to an EU law affecting product regulation or metrology, the Secretary of State must not take any steps to implement that law in Great Britain until the Secretary of State has taken a decision under part 3 of those regulations. The new clause would make the position clear. As colleagues will be aware, dynamic alignment of product regulation effectively already applies in the Northern Ireland economy. An update to the Windsor framework was agreed in Parliament last year, with Government support, regarding the democratic oversight of the 2024 regulations. The Northern Ireland Assembly has the important democratic right to trigger the Stormont brake, with the assurance that no UK regulations are aligned with the European Union following that decision in Stormont. Will the Minister put on the record that, should a piece of regulation be highlighted by the Stormont brake, and we were in a pending period while the UK Government negotiated with the European Union about its application, it would not be imposed in Great Britain during that period? Great Britain is united with Northern Ireland, and we must ensure that our ties and duties to Northern Ireland are set out clearly in the Bill. Government new clause 1 goes some way to doing that, but new clause 5 would help to clarify the situation further. When the Prime Minister was recently asked in the Chamber whether he is a Unionist, he refused to confirm that he is. When asked after Prime Minister’s questions whether the Prime Minister is a Unionist, his official spokesperson said: “I think the Prime Minister said before that, of course, he is the Prime Minister for the whole of the UK, including in Northern Ireland.” If the Prime Minister and the Government want to make that very clear, they should have absolutely no problem with backing our clarifying new clause. I hope that the Minister will agree with the principles behind new clause 5: that democratic consent must be sought in all parts of the United Kingdom, as set out in Government new clause 1; that we must ensure that the UK’s internal market continues to function effectively; and that, if the Stormont brake is pulled, it should also be pulled in Great Britain. That is the purpose of new clause 5.
I think I heard the Minister say that, were the Northern Ireland Assembly to pull the Stormont brake, the Secretary of State would potentially continue to apply EU regulation in GB under the powers in this Bill. If that is what I heard the Minister say—I think it is definitely what he said—it is important that I press the new clause to a Division. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for moving the new clause and giving the Committee the opportunity to hear from the Government on this issue. The matter was raised extensively during proceedings on the Bill in the other place, and in the evidence that the Committee has received from members of the public and important public bodies, including fire services across the UK. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister about the existing scope in UK law to regulate lithium-ion batteries, as well as the power that the Bill gives the Minister to address a product that all too often causes horrendous fires. Many of our constituents will have heard of or have been affected by this issue, so I look forward to hearing from him.
I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for raising this incredibly important and wide-ranging issue. He touched on some of its growing importance in the UK, where consumers are buying more and more products online. The hon. Gentleman brings his valuable expertise from the toy and hobby sector to the discussion. Above all, we would be particularly concerned if harmful toys were to find their way to consumers, and indeed they do. Some 80% of the toys purchased from online marketplaces that were tested by the British Toy & Hobby Association were found to be illegal due to missing warning signs. As this issue has been included in the Bill, I know that the Government intend to use this legislation to deal with it. From the many speeches made on Second Reading, I know that this subject exercises colleagues across the House. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how he will use the powers in the Bill to deal with this important issue.
On Tuesday, on multiple occasions I made the point about how widely the Bill is drawn in terms of the bodies responsible for enforcement. I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Member for Wokingham’s points about a trading standards enforcement review, which we think would be an important part of the ongoing scrutiny of the Bill’s impact, so we are minded to support the new clause.
On a point of order, Ms Vaz. I am grateful for the opportunity to thank you for chairing, and Sir John for chairing Tuesday’s morning sitting. I thank the Committee members, particularly the Minister and his officials for their engagement on the important issues that have been raised, and I thank my colleagues. In order to get her name into Hansard, I thank Eleanor Munro from my office, who has been heroic in supporting me during the deliberations. I look forward to continuing our discussions on Report. I also thank the Clerks.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
I call the shadow Minister.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts: Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Act 2025 Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act 2025 Great British Energy Act 2025.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
I commend the Leader of the House for her very full answers, but there are many Members standing and to get everyone in we will need very short questions and short answers, please.
Order. I have no choice but to impose a three-minute time limit on speeches after the Father of the House.
Order. We will have a two-minute time limit from after the next speaker. I call Llinos Medi.
Order. We really must have short interventions, or I will not be able to get every Member in.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.
I call the shadow Minister.
Order. I am sure that the shadow Minister will bring her remarks to a close very shortly.
Dr Caroline Johnson has one minute to wind up.
I thank the hon. Member for his point. He will know that it is not a point of order, but a point of debate that perhaps would have been better dealt with in the debate itself by means of an intervention. However, if the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) wishes to respond, she may.
Order. We are not going to have a continuation of the debate via points of order.
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. As I said, these are points of debate, not points of order, and they are certainly not matters for the Chair.
Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced enough parliamentarian to know that that was a very long intervention.
Members will be able to see quite how many are expecting to speak this afternoon, so I am introducing a three-minute time limit immediately.
Congestion on the A38 in Bromsgrove is making it nearly impossible for residents to get around easily—yet, despite current investment, there is widespread scepticism that the Bromsgrove route enhancement plan, known locally as BREP, will improve the situation. Does the Minister agree that investment in transport must deliver a tangible improvement in traffic flow, and will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss investment in Bromsgrove so that we can keep Bromsgrove moving?
The first duty of government is to keep the public safe. I recently met a constituent whose convicted ex-husband is serving a prison sentence, having raped her twice. Despite being in prison, he continues to have indirect access to their children. My constituent thinks that is wrong, and I agree. Does the Minister agree that convicted violent and sexual offenders should serve maximum possible custodial sentences, and lose parental access rights?
Estate management monopolies are blighting the lives of homeowners across the country, including residents of Cofton Hackett in my constituency. The most egregious examples by companies including FirstPort—of which I know many colleagues are aware—represent at best carelessness and at worst a lack of moral ethics. Does the Leader of the House agree that the regulation of estate management companies is essential, and will she update the House on when these essential fleecehold reforms will come forward?
Does my hon. Friend agree that we face a perfect storm of conditions? There is not just a widespread societal push towards net zero, but, with changes to agricultural property relief, a real risk that solar will become the new cash crop, at the expense of valuable food production, which is as essential as energy security.
The hon. Member refers to industrial activity. Does she agree that the predominant industrial activity that solar supports is far-eastern manufacturing of solar PV? What would she say in response to Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, who said in January that by pursuing this route we are in effect ceding control over national security and resilience to foreign powers?
Does the shadow Minister agree that if we continue to permit applications for solar farms in the countryside, including those at Weatheroak and Hunnington in my constituency, we erode our agricultural self-sufficiency, and that it is important that this Government do not betray the countryside any more than they already have done?
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, in the Chamber next week there will be a statement from the Business and Trade Committee. When we come back after the Whitsun recess, if we are granted the time, on 5 June there will be a debate on high street banking closures and banking hubs, followed by a debate on safety regulations in the construction and planning of battery energy storage sites. If we are given the time, on 12 June there will be a debate on the distribution of special educational needs and disabilities funding, followed by a debate on the fifth anniversary of the covid-19 pandemic. In Westminster Hall next week, on Tuesday there will be a debate on pensions for people living overseas, and on Thursday there will be a full three-hour debate on the UK-EU summit results. When we come back, on Tuesday 3 June there will be a debate on the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and on Thursday 5 June there will be a debate on the police presence on high streets, followed by a debate on the contribution of maths to the UK. On Tuesday 10 June there will be a debate on the US aid funding pause and the impact on UK international development, and on Thursday 12 June there will be a debate on the legal recognition of humanist marriages, followed by a debate on long-term conditions. Today is the last day for people to respond to the consultation by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on my private Member’s Bill, which was given Royal Assent in 2023, on supported housing exempt accommodation. Unfortunately, over the last two years rogue landlords have continued to exploit vulnerable people, but I am delighted that the Government have taken up the regulations we had prepared before the general election. I urge individuals who wish to respond to the consultation to do so without delay. Will the Secretary of State make a statement after Whitsun on what action the Government will take, how many responses have been received and when we can expect the regulations to be brought into force, so that vulnerable tenants do not continue to be exploited?
T7. Last month, I visited the Pidley Lorry Group to discuss its campaign to introduce a 7.5 tonne weight limit to prevent HGVs from using the village as a shortcut. Having enforced the use of the self-funded route by Cambridgeshire county council, the cost to the group so has been in excess of £7,000. There are similar examples affecting Upwood and Alconbury, which are also villages impacted by high volumes of HGV through traffic. What are the Government doing to reduce the bureaucracy and expense for our rural communities, so that they can maintain their quality of life and the safety of those who live there?
The new measures announced by the Justice Secretary suggest that the Government have learned nothing from the furore and loss of public confidence that followed last year’s early release debacle. That same Justice Secretary, along with the Victims Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who is in her place, signed the protest letter that led to the convicted child rapist Fabian Henry being removed from a deportation flight. The Prime Minister signed that letter, too. Why do the Justice Secretary and her Ministers appear to have such scant regard for the impact that their management of prison releases will have on the victims of crimes? When will she implement measures that act as a deterrent to recidivism, rather than as a minor inconvenience to the continuation of a criminal career?
I am sure that the Leader of the House, like me, loves a farm shop. Johnsons of Old Hurst in my constituency was last week declared the best farm shop and delicatessen in Cambridgeshire at the Muddy Stilettos awards for independent businesses. The shop offers high-quality, home-grown British produce, and I know from personal experience how busy it is and how difficult it is to get a table in the tearoom there. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Andy and Tracey, and wishing them well for the best of the best national finals next month, where they will be in contention to become the best farm shop and delicatessen in the country—and surely the only one with a lion enclosure?
The Minister and I have had this conversation a number of times. He will be aware that paragraph 2.10.29 of EN-3 states that “best and most versatile” land should not be used for solar farms. He has already informed me that no solar farm in the country uses more than 50% of best and most versatile land; will he commit to a hard limit on how much of that land can be used for a solar project?