I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition to the first motion.

Questions the necessity of the proposed measures in light of recent developments and expresses concern over sovereignty implications, particularly regarding the withdrawal of 'notwithstanding' provisions from the internal market Bill.

Highlights concerns about IT systems and processing procedures not being ready to implement the Northern Ireland protocol by 1 January, urging the Government to provide updates on their efforts to ensure readiness.

Questions whether special arrangements are necessary for VAT and excise adjustments given that these usually take place via computer systems rather than at ports of entry.

Raises concerns about the dual VAT regime under article 8 of the Northern Ireland protocol, questioning if the proposed provisions exempt traders in Northern Ireland from such rules and what implications this has for sovereignty.

Phillipson expresses concerns over the lack of clarity regarding future trade relationships with the EU, criticises the government's approach to Brexit negotiations, and emphasises the potential negative consequences for businesses and people living near borders due to uncertainty. She also raises issues related to international law and the integrity of agreements.

Hollinrake questions Phillipson about who is responsible for the late stage of negotiations.

Redwood asks if Labour will support UK's independent lawmaking rather than backing EU positions.

Norman inquires whether there are any EU treaties that have not been concluded at the last minute, challenging Phillipson on her criticism of timing.

Browne welcomes the Government's recent agreement reached through a Joint Committee, suggesting Phillipson should do the same despite concerns over international law breaches.

Wilson expresses concern that adherence to the protocol could lead supermarkets to withdraw from Northern Ireland, questioning how Phillipson can support such a protocol.

Expressed concerns about the Ways and Means resolution for the Taxation Bill, noting that the full Bill had not been seen yet. Criticised the breadth of provisions to be debated without the actual Bill in hand. Emphasised the importance of sovereignty in relation to Brexit legislation and the need for clear explanations from the Government on why certain clauses, such as the 'notwithstanding' provisions, were being withdrawn.

Critiques the UK Government's handling of Brexit negotiations, emphasising their chaotic approach and lack of transparency. Highlights concerns over the VAT resolutions being debated without proper scrutiny or details available to MPs. Criticises the Prime Minister for undermining trust in the negotiation process and disregarding the interests of businesses and constituents. Expresses support for the EU’s patience during negotiations but criticises UK Government's failure to reach an agreement despite multiple general elections and changes in leadership.

The debate lacks vision for post-Brexit Britain, focusing instead on increasing VAT revenue rather than transformative tax changes. The Government should lower and simplify taxes to promote economic recovery and level up the country.

Intervened to emphasise the importance of sovereignty in Brexit, suggesting that control over legislation is fundamental to democracy and self-governance. The EU cannot dictate laws for member states as it does not apply its own laws uniformly.

Questioned whether the way the Government is handling the VAT legislation demonstrates parliamentary sovereignty, suggesting that fast-tracking major financial legislation without proper debate undermines this principle.

Asked if making better laws starts with allowing MPs to see a Bill before it is introduced, questioning the Government's approach to legislative transparency and scrutiny.

Challenged Redwood on the causes of economic disparity, suggesting that over 300 years of union are more significant than EU or devolution issues in requiring levelling-up initiatives.

The Member argues that despite the complexity of Brexit negotiations, the Government have been negotiating in good faith. He emphasises the importance of protecting peace in Northern Ireland through the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. He welcomes the Chancellor's announcement on Joint Committee issues but notes that these 'notwithstanding' clauses are no longer needed as an agreement has been reached. Browne also discusses the necessity of continuity for businesses affected by Brexit, highlighting the need to ensure unfettered access between Northern Ireland and Great Britain without tariffs. He supports provisions in the Bill related to VAT on goods bought online from overseas and insurance premium tax to prevent tax evasion.

I am concerned about the withdrawal agreement's impact on Northern Ireland, particularly regarding economic protections and market access. I believe that parts of the legislation being introduced seek to manage aspects of the withdrawal agreement that harm Northern Ireland’s economy and its relationship with Great Britain. The EU has taken a very strict interpretation of the agreement, causing issues such as unnecessary tariffs and bureaucratic hurdles for businesses and individuals moving goods between GB and Northern Ireland. For instance, under article 5 of the protocol, which outlines exemptions based on final destination and use, the EU insisted that supermarket goods from GB to Northern Ireland would be treated as at risk despite clear evidence against this. This undermines Northern Ireland's interests by placing undue restrictions on trade and increasing costs for businesses and consumers. I urge the Government not to remove protections before understanding their full implications.

I agree with my colleague that the EU's role in negotiations has been challenging, and it is concerning how little criticism there was from the SNP or Labour regarding the EU’s stance. This highlights a potential lack of support for UK interests within the Opposition.

When I asked Opposition Members to support any part of the UK's negotiating position, they were unable to do so. This suggests that there is little alignment between their stances and what would be beneficial for the country as a whole in these negotiations.

My colleague raises valid concerns about how the Republic of Ireland's interests may conflict with Northern Ireland’s economic well-being. The withdrawal agreement could further enable predatory practices that hinder competition and stifle the economy, affecting businesses across the region.

Mr. Jones supports the continuation of preparations for the end of the transition period, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland and ensuring smooth trade continuity across the UK. He highlights reforms to the VAT system to ensure a level playing field for domestic businesses against international competitors, tackles tax evasion in the insurance sector, and addresses taxation implications from legacy state aid decisions.

Mr. Hendry criticises the Government for lack of clarity on the Bill's contents following a significant announcement earlier in the day. He expresses concern over supply chain issues affecting food and essential goods availability due to potential delays even with an agreed deal. He emphasises the need for better planning involving logistics experts like those from the Road Haulage Association, noting that Northern Ireland and Scotland never voted for Brexit.

Shaun Bailey expressed the core of the debate as being about ensuring a fair and efficient VAT system for domestic retailers and businesses moving forward post-Brexit. He emphasised the importance of balancing the playing field between domestic and foreign businesses, especially in light of the new relationship with the EU after leaving it. Bailey highlighted the need for consistency and clarity in regulations to ensure manufacturers and engineers can still access markets effectively. Additionally, he addressed the practical implications on individuals' livelihoods and families, advocating for innovative uses of VAT freedoms such as zero VAT on sanitary products to close digital gaps and enhance educational opportunities.

Expressed optimism about Brexit's future, supported measures in the proposed Bill aimed at creating a fairer playing field for SMEs. Criticised opposition members for prioritising party interests over national unity during negotiations with the EU and emphasised the need for a united front to negotiate an effective trade deal.

Phillipson expressed concern about the lack of visibility on the proposed Bill, citing only 23 days until the end of the transition period. She criticised the Government's assurances and argued that trust in the Government has diminished over recent months.

The debate was wide-ranging, covering diverse opinions. The speaker acknowledged the complexity of negotiating with another party while making legislation and recognised the contributions from hon. Members for Houghton and Sunderland South and Thirsk and Malton. He disagreed with the notion that this is the most important constitutional moment since 1688 but suggested alternative significant moments like the Acts of Union in 1707 or 1801. The speaker emphasised the need to wait until after the transition period for imaginative tax measures, focusing on orderly implementation requirements. He also addressed criticisms from hon. Members regarding the rules and 'notwithstanding' clauses, defending their necessity against an absurd outcome for goods brought into Northern Ireland. Withdrawing these clauses was seen as a positive step.