division_name: United Kingdom Internal Market Bill &#8212; After Clause 10 - Further exclusions from market access principles
motion: <p class="indent" pid="a169.4/2" pwmotiontext="yes">That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 1F, 1G, 1H, 1K, 1L and 8M.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a175.1/4" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;interpreted in conformity with the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a176.1/5" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;The power to control state aid is not reserved. If it were, these amendments would be unnecessary&#8230;I ask why the UK Government would not work together with them, consult them before the Bill was produced and try to find a common solution&#8230;I fear it is an example of Westminster saying that it knows best, rather than working with the devolved Administrations.&#8221;&#8212;[Official Report, House of Lords, <phrase class="date" code="2020-12-14">14 December</phrase> 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1486.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a176.1/8" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;the market access principles, which operate automatically, too narrow and too prescriptive. That would fatally undermine the opportunities for devolved Administrations to diverge&#8221;.&#8212;[Official Report, House of Lords, <phrase class="date" code="2020-12-14">14 December</phrase> 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1457.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a176.1/10" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;As the Bill stands, a measure that gives effect to an agreed decision to diverge can be ignored by traders bringing goods in from other areas. This undermines the opportunity to diverge, rendering it worthless and ineffective.&#8212;[Official Report, House of Lords, <phrase class="date" code="2020-12-14">14 December</phrase> 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1446.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a176.1/12" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;When the case for Brexit was all about &#8216;taking back control&#8217;, we failed to understand that the Government meant taking control to themselves, even over issues that were fully devolved.&#8221;&#8212;[Official Report, House of Lords, <phrase class="date" code="2020-12-14">14 December</phrase> 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1447.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a178.0/2" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;In the UK, England has 85 per cent of the population so&#8230;it will be English standards, set by the UK Government, that prevail.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a179.0/4" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;the catastrophic result for our union if the Government did not adhere to the principles that have been explained&#8221;.&#8212;[Official Report, House of Lords, <phrase class="date" code="2020-12-14">14 December</phrase> 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1480.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a179.0/8" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;A pound spent in Croydon is of far more value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a180.0/2" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;It was because of devolution that the common frameworks process, and the opportunity for policy divergence, was instituted with the encouragement of the UK Government in the first place. Their support for that process must involve support for policy divergence too.&#8221;&#8212;[Official Report, House of Lords, <phrase class="date" code="2020-12-14">14 December</phrase> 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1446.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a181.0/5" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;The Secretary of State has been very clear he wants to deal direct with local authorities&#8221;&#8212;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a183.0/2" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;The Bill&#8217;s provisions replace the existing limits on the effect of legislation made in exercise of devolved legislative or executive competence&#8221;.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a183.1/4" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;constitutional tinkering has weakened our Parliament and has helped to divide the United Kingdom&#8221;&#8212;[Official Report, <phrase class="date" code="2020-11-26">26 November</phrase> 2020; Vol. 684, c. 989.].</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a183.1/7" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;the points made by the Minister on the shared prosperity fund were sufficient to ensure that we do not need to go back over this again. It is not our view, as Her Majesty&#8217;s loyal Opposition, that we need to divide the House on this issue again.&#8221;&#8212;[Official Report, House of Lords, <phrase class="date" code="2020-12-14">14 December</phrase> 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1476.]</p>