Conservatives Compromise

 
 
 

Good afternoon,

Has the Government managed to assuage potential rebellions by Conservative MPs over the Internal Market Bill? A government amendment has been tabled for next week after two votes against the Bill and thirty abstentions this week. Meanwhile the issues with the Bill extend beyond the proposed law-breaking as it centralises power to Westminster away from the devolved administrations. As usual we look ahead to what is in Parliament next week and we have recommended reading for you Friday.

Enjoy,
Jacob

In Politics

Deals With Rebels?

  • Two Conservative MPs voted against the Bill and thirty abstained

  • Government has compromised with rebels promising an amendment next week

  • Amendment would not remove the international law breaking

Another eventful Brexit week in the Commons where the Government faced a rebellion over the Internal Market Bill, the Bill that “does break international law in a very specific and limited way.”Ultimately by the end of this week a potential solution between the Government and the rebels was agreed.

When the Bill received its second reading on Monday two Conservative MPs, Roger Gale and Andrew Percy, voted against the Bill. While this appears an insignificant rebellion, a further 30 Conservatives abstained from the Bill. With a few exceptions, such as Theresa May who was in South Korea, these abstentions were to signal the concerns of Conservative MPs have about the Bill.  Some, such as the ex-Chancellor Sajid Javid, released public statements outlining why they could not support the Bill. 

Abstentious to the Bill included a range of political backgrounds and importantly included supporters of Brexit. This was not a rebellion along the lines of Remain / Leave that often characterised previous Conservative rebellions. Rehman Chishti resigned as the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief in protest of the Bill. 

The most significant intervention though came from Geoffrey Cox. Cox was Attorney General, the chief legal advisor to the Crown, when the Withdrawal Agreement was negotiated and passed. He wrote about his objections to the Bill in The Times on Sunday night, ahead of the debate in the Commons on Monday. Cox argued that the use of the powers within the Internal Market Bill “would amount to nothing more or less than the unilateral abrogation of the treaty obligations to which we pledged our word less than 12 months ago, and which this parliament ratified in February.” He went on to say “It is unconscionable that this country, justly famous for its regard for the rule of law around the world, should act in such a way.” Cox is a committed supporter of Brexit and carries weight among the opinion of Conservative MPs. He went on to abstain from the Bill on the second reading.

The Government did manage to broker a compromise with Conservative MPs by offering to amend the most controversial clause of the Bill. This is similar to the amendment proposed by Bob Neill that would prevent Ministers using the powers without Commons approval. The Neill amendment is where potential rebellions from Conservative MPs would have come. 

The Government has published their amendment which states that the Minister may not use the powers without moving a motion in the Commons and having that motion approved by the Commons. This amendment is potentially enough to satisfy rebels but it is important to note that this parliamentary lock would not remove the law breaking aspects of the Bill merely make it so that a Minister cannot do it without parliamentary approval.

The Bill is now in Committee stage and set to be in the Commons on Monday and Tuesday next week. We wait to see if this amendment is enough to keep Conservative MPs onside. It is not certain that all MPs are happy and votes could still see potential rebellions from Conservative backbenchers. 

In Policy

Devolved Discontent

  • Internal Market Bill would centralise powers to the UK Government

  • Standards across the UK are at risk of being undermined

  • Sewel convention looks to be ignored again

There is more to the Internal Market Bill than the aspects that break international law. The Bill has also been accused of being a power grab by Westminster, consolidating powers from the devolved administrations. 

The devolved administrations are increasingly concerned that this Bill undermines the devolution settlements. The concerns lie in the use of principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination to ensure the integrety of the interal market. This system could lead to a situation where products banned in one area of the UK, such as Wales, can still be sold in that area by a firm based in a different area, such as England, because of mutual recognition.

Charles Whitmore, Research Associate and coordinator of the Wales Civil Society Forum on Brexit, Wales Governance Centre, School of Law and Politics, Cardiff University, gives the following example of this “By way of example – Wales is consulting on a ban on some single use plastic products (a product requirement rule) that is wider than the similar proposals for England and therefore achieves a higher standard of environmental protection. This could lead to a situation where some products are banned in Wales, but not England. However, under these proposals, products that are not banned in England could still be sold in Wales despite restrictions applying to Welsh industry.” He has a full blog examining the various issues of this Bill that are facing the devolution settlements here.

The potential effects on standards due to the mechanisms in the Internal Market Bill are concerning for devolved governments who currently decide their standards in some areas as part of the devolved settlements. Analysis by the Centre on Constitutional Change states that “These rules would not prevent the devolved parliaments from making laws within their areas of competence, as they do now. But they are likely to affect the extent to which these laws could make a difference.”

A further concerning element in the Bill for the devolved settlements is the effect on Sewel convention. This is the idea that the UK Government should seek consent of devolved legislatures when making laws that affect devolved areas. This consent has been ignored through the Brexit process such as the Scottish and Welsh administrations withheld consent to both the EU Withdrawal Agreement 2018 and Withdrawal Agreement 2020. While the Sewel convention does not have legal enforcement, the UK Government’s repeated ignorance of it intensifies the lack of trust between the devolved administrations and Westminster.

In Parliament

House of Commons

Monday 21st
Legislation United Kingdom Internal Market Bill: Consideration in Committee (Day 3)

Tuesday 22nd
Legislation United Kingdom Internal Market Bill: Consideration in Committee (Final Day)

Wednesday 23rd
Prime Minister's Question Time

Northern Ireland Affairs Committee - Oral evidence - Brexit and the Northern Ireland Protocol (at 9:30 am) Location: Virtual meeting

Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union - Oral evidence - Progress of the negotiations on the UK’s Future Relationship with the EU (at 9:30 am) Location: Room 5, Palace of Westminster

International Trade Committee - Oral evidence - UK trade negotiations (at 2:30 pm and at 3:30pm ) Location: Virtual meeting

House of Lords

Tuesday 22nd
Legislation Agriculture Bill - Report stage (day 3)

Debate Report from the European Union Committee 'Brexit: refugee protection and asylum policy'

Wednesday 23rd
Debate UK’s approach to negotiating the future relationship with the EU

Thursday 24th
Legislation Agriculture Bill - Report stage (day 4)

In Events

Brexit, Devolution, and Rights.
The UK Internal Market Bill - A New Brexit Crisis?

A new series of webinars on Brexit, devolution, and rights hosted by the Brexit Civil Society Alliance, the Wales Civil Society Forum on Brexit, the Human Rights Consortiums in Scotland and Northern Ireland and SULNE. 

The series starts looking at how the UK Internal Market Bill presents not only a serious threat to the rule of law, but also to the devolution settlements, the peace process and the maintenance of UK high standards across health, environment, animal welfare and more.

Speakers include:

  • Charles Whitmore, Research Associate at the Wales Governance Centre (School of Law, Cardiff University) and Coordinator of the Wales Civil Society Forum on Brexit - Mutual recognition and non-discrimination

  • Kevin Hanratty, Director, Human Rights Consortium Northern Ireland - Northern Ireland Protocol

  • Aileen McHarg, Professor of Public Law and Human Rights, Durham University  


The session will be chaired by Dr Giada Lagana, Research Associate at the Wales Governance Centre. It will be held on Zoom and the link to join the meeting will be in the booking confirmation email. Get your ticket today!

Recommended Reading