Debate on the Address
Ben Bradley Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on the first day of the Queen’s Speech debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley)—he is also my actual friend, regardless of the labels we have to give each other in this place—on moving the Loyal Address. His speech was an excellent example of his advocacy for his constituency. I always take great interest in his speeches because he happens to be my nan’s MP and she likes to hear about everything he says in the Chamber about Dronfield. I listened intently to him and I will feed back to her that he has done a fantastic job for his constituents today. She is probably watching Parliament TV; she is that kind of nan.
The key thing laid out at the start of the Gracious Speech is that we need to get Brexit done on 31 October. Despite the challenges put in the way of that by Opposition Members, nobody in my constituency, as far as I can tell, is desperate for more delay and uncertainty. Mansfield and Warsop voted 71% to leave. People tell me all the time that they are desperate to get the thing done and to get out, come what may. A handful of people tell me that they do not want to leave but would like a decision to be made. However, I have yet to meet on the doorstep in my constituency anyone who is desperate for a further six, nine or 12 months of delay and non-decision from this place over something that they decided three years ago.
The Queen’s Speech lays out the opportunities to make the most and take advantage of being outside the European Union. It seeks to legislate on agriculture, trade, financial services, immigration and lots of other issues that we can tackle, with our own interests at heart, outside the European Union. That is the right thing to do—to leave at the end of this month and to embark on a brave new era of global Britain, as it is often called, outside the European Union.
I want to focus on the domestic policies in the Queen’s Speech. As the co-chair, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Ms McVey), of the Blue Collar Conservatism group in Parliament, I want to celebrate in particular the focus on crime and policing, which is the issue that most regularly crosses my desk as the Member of Parliament for Mansfield and Warsop. We have pushed for more officers on the streets and for the police covenant, which seeks to protect and support the mental health of officers in the back room and behind the scenes. They are both now Government policy, which is fantastic. For those priorities to have come from my constituents is amazing. That is how our Blue Collar Conservatism movement works. We went out and asked people across the midlands and the north of the country what they wanted to see, and those issues were at the top of the agenda. Now they are Government policy and we are genuinely driving forward to improve people’s safety in our communities to make sure that we feel safer on the streets and in our homes than we do now. That is fantastic.
The focus on ensuring that sentencing truly fits the crime, particularly in the most serious violent and sexual offences, is hugely important to my constituents. Equally, I advocate the additional rights of and security for victims of crime, as outlined in the Gracious Speech. I think that its priorities are absolutely right. That is my own personal perspective, but they are also important for the country.
I am also pleased that education in schools continues to be at the top of our agenda. Before I came to this place, I wanted to be a teacher. I failed miserably, so I became a politician. Since I have been here, I have talked consistently about the need for more resources for our schools. I think that is the right thing to do. I personally thank the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary for announcing this week that every single school in my constituency will receive a significant increase in funding from September. In some cases, it will be as much as an 11% increase in per pupil funding, which will be fantastic. Those receiving the highest increases tend to be from the most deprived parts of my constituency, where the funding will be most effective and most needed.
Not only that, but there is £700 million in additional funding for special educational needs; in Mansfield and Warsop, we have a particularly high concentration of those additional challenges on our educational resources, which have impacted on school budgets in recent years. The extra breathing space will allow local schools to give those kids from deprived communities the experiences that they need from our education system—sport, art and school trips: the things that most of us in this place will probably have taken for granted, but that so many at schools across the country do not get to experience. That is hugely important.
Among the other Bills of note in the Queen’s Speech is the one relating to fairness in employment practices. That will also hit home with many of my constituents. A huge proportion of the workforce in my constituency are in retail, where wages are not high compared with the national average. That security and fairness in both work and pensions arrangements in today’s Queen’s Speech will be important.
I turn to the environment, which is important to us all. We have all recently been reminded of the challenge by the goings on outside this place. I, for one, believe that we can improve our environment in a positive way, through channelling and investing in modern, clean technologies, changing consumer habits and looking at the long-term routes to delivering on the zero carbon emissions target. We can do that without glueing ourselves to vehicles and telling all our children that we are doomed. There is a positive way forward to deliver on that agenda. As has been pointed out by many in this debate, we are doing that—we are among the leading countries in the world in seeking to improve and safeguard our environment for future generations.
I sat here listening to the Leader of the Opposition’s speech. It is difficult to say what a Labour Government would be for; I hear more about what they would be against. I surmise from his speech today that he is for shorter sentences for vicious criminals; for uncontrolled immigration; for more schoolkids going on strike; for a free ride on electoral fraud; for seizing private property, from private schools initially—the thin end of the wedge, which should put fear into the hearts of anybody who owns anything in this country; and for more Brexit delay and uncertainty. I hate to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that none of those things is going to go down particularly well in my constituency and many others like it across the country.
I am not entirely sure what the Leader of the Opposition is for, but I do know that this Parliament is fundamentally broken, as we have said many times over recent months. It has not been able to make a decision and, given a majority of minus 43, it is unlikely now to be able to make a decision on anything. At times, the atmosphere in this place has been absolutely toxic, particularly on Brexit. The reality is that a lot of things coming forward in the Queen’s Speech and the long-term issues that affect our country cannot be decided in this environment—they need long-term collaboration and cross-party working, which has been impossible in recent months.
Social care, for example, needs a long-term solution—we need to get together across the House and agree a plan. In recent years, such issues have been weaponised and turned into election issues. A number of Members have said that the Government have not come forward with any plans on social care. That is not true: we did during the 2017 election. A policy that said we would keep more of our money through a new form of funding was dubbed “the dementia tax”, shot down and made politically impossible, rather than there having been a sensible conversation about the pros and cons of the policy and how we might move it forward. Until we get Brexit done and we can change the atmosphere and have a new election and a new Parliament, which might be more conducive to those discussions, these things will be incredibly difficult. I hope that that will happen over the next few months.
I welcome the positive domestic agenda, which includes key priorities such as crime, schools and regional investment that are so important to my constituents in Mansfield and Warsop. I live for the day, post Brexit, when we can get on with delivering it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ben Bradley Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady knows, we are already putting more money into our schools. We are already putting more funding into special educational needs. I recognise the importance of ensuring that special educational needs are properly catered for, and that the needs of those children can be properly supported. That is why I am proud of the fact that we have been putting more money into our schools. What is also important, of course, for schools is what standards of education are provided within those schools—[Interruption.] Well, the hon. Lady talks about teaching. Yes, teaching is an important element of that, and we thank all our teachers, both in mainstream schools and in special educational needs schools, for the work that they do, day in and day out. I am pleased that we are seeing improved standards in our schools. That means more young people, whether they are in mainstream schools or with special education needs, having an opportunity to go far in life.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
The consequences of not leaving the European Union are profound, from the loss of trust in our democracy and institutions to the economic impact of civil unrest. Can my right hon. Friend help to dispel the myth peddled by some in this House that we could simply go back to the way things were, and could she share what assessment the Government have made of these risks?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is imperative for this House to deliver on the vote of the British people in 2016. I have said that on many occasions, standing at this Dispatch Box and elsewhere. I think it is important that we do that. We could already have done that—I am sorry, but I am going to return to this theme. We could already have done that, had this House supported the deal. It will be up to my successor to find a way through this to get a majority in this Parliament, but I agree that it is important that we do deliver trust in politics by saying to people, “We gave you the choice, you told us your decision, and we will now deliver on it.”
Oral Answers to Questions
Ben Bradley Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman says to me, “bring about peace in the Yemen”. That is exactly what we are working with our international partners to do through the United Nations and the Yemen Quad. He talks about our relations with Saudi Arabia. That relationship has saved lives of British citizens in the past, but let us look at some of the relationships the right hon. Gentleman supports. When people were killed in Salisbury, his sympathies were with Russia. When terrorists were killing our people, his sympathies were with the IRA. And in the recent tanker attacks in the Gulf, his sympathies were with Iran. He never backs Britain and he should never be Prime Minister.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important issue, including the importance of the proper training of youth workers. We are absolutely committed to a properly qualified and trained youth sector. Subject to a business case, we have committed to renewing funding for these qualifications and reviewing the youth work curriculum. I know that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is in very close contact with the National Youth Agency, is aware of the timing issues and hopes to make an announcement in the near future.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ben Bradley Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
When I became Prime Minister, I was very clear that I wanted a country that worked for everyone, and that was the entire United Kingdom. I note that in her question the hon. Lady failed to recognise that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. We want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. I also say to her that democracy is not defunct. Democracy in this country will be shown by this House recognising the vote that took place in 2016, delivering on the result of the referendum and voting for a deal for us to leave the EU.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
Despite our comparative size, the UK has more Government Departments than even the USA. We hear in this place all the time about the challenges of cross-departmental working. Will my right hon. Friend commit to looking carefully in the spending review at opportunities to shrink the size of government and instead focus our spending on public services?
The Prime Minister
The question of the size of government is something that several colleagues raise from time to time. I must put my hand up and admit the role that I played in that by creating the Department for Exiting the European Union and the Department for International Trade, and of course we are also employing more civil servants to ensure that we deliver on Brexit, something which I believe is close to my hon. Friend’s heart.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act
Ben Bradley Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
It is unfortunate that I rise to speak against the approval of this withdrawal agreement, which does not represent the best deal for the United Kingdom or fulfil the spirit of the referendum result. It ties us to EU rules and regulations for the long term while removing our ability to influence those rules. It ties us to a backstop arrangement that would create different circumstances for Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the UK and that we cannot leave of our own volition. It ties our hands to prevent us taking advantage of the full extent of independence over our international trade policy. For that reason, I feel that it is worst of all worlds; it is a state of purgatory, which, as the Attorney General made clear yesterday, has no fixed end point.
In her Lancaster House speech, the Prime Minister was clear: she said simply that we would seek to negotiate a bold and ambitious free trade deal with Europe that would also give us the ability to strike out around the world. She was honest with us, and did not pretend that this would have all the same benefits of full membership. We were leaving so things would have to be different, but we could still have a positive relationship built around free trade. She aimed to take back control of our money, our borders and our laws. She was quite right that those were at the heart of why people voted to leave. She said that no deal was better than a bad deal, and that if the EU would not give us something that worked for the whole United Kingdom, we could walk away and succeed on our own merits.
Looking back, it is hard to understand how we have ended up here, particularly when our manifesto in 2017 committed us to so much more. My Labour predecessor in Mansfield held the seat for 30 years, longer than I have been alive, but, more recently, the constituency has shown its appetite for change. Local people voted Conservative for the first time in 2017, sick of decades of representatives moaning about the past, but having no plan for the future. They also voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU in 2016, fed up with being forgotten by the establishment and eager to take back control of their destiny.
I am under no illusion that each of my constituents—in fact, most people in the country—have dissected the details and come to a conclusion on their preferred customs arrangements; some have, but the vast majority have not. That does not mean that they did not know what they wanted when they were voting. I have had this conversation on literally thousands of occasions now with local people who felt—to coin a phrase—that leave meant leave. It meant not being part of the institutions, not being tied to their rules, and not paying into their budgets. We were leaving, in the English dictionary sense, which is “to depart from permanently, to cease to be a part of” the European Union. I think that it is a fundamental misunderstanding by many, not just in this place, but out there, that it might be possible to make it look like leaving while actually seeking continuity. At Lancaster House, the Prime Minister did not phrase things in that way. She accepted that our relationship would change, that it would be a different and a looser one, and that it would give us the freedoms that we wanted. At that time, I am fairly certain—and the votes back it up—that she had the support of the majority in this House for that kind of deal.
I draw the comparison, an overly simplistic one perhaps, between the referendum and a game of cards—a choice between stick or twist. Voters knew, and they were told each and every day throughout that campaign, of the risks of voting to leave. They were told all the horror stories. Things were overblown and exaggerated, just as they are now, but they voted to leave anyway, because the status quo does not work for them. In the choice of stick or twist, they opted for twist, recognising the consequences and the uncertainty, but wanting to take that risk in order to seek new and different opportunities. Having ticked a few boxes that looked a bit like leaving, they did not want to try to replicate the status quo; they wanted change, because they felt that the status quo did not work for them. We cannot deliver an outcome that meets the “spirit” of the referendum result if we remain tied, possibly indefinitely, to the institution that we promised to leave and if we compromise on all the things that mattered in that decision. It cannot be boiled down to a spreadsheet with data on economic forecasts; the decision was so much bigger than that. It was about the heart as well as the head; the outcome was for change.
Lilian Greenwood
I am listening with interest to one of my Nottinghamshire neighbours. When the hon. Gentleman’s constituents voted to leave, does he think that they voted to be poorer, because we have heard that every Brexit scenario will leave people in Nottinghamshire poorer?
Ben Bradley
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. People did not see it in those terms. Part of the fundamental misunderstanding of the Government and of this House is that people saw it solely as an economic transaction. As I have just said, it was about more than that. Despite the forecasts and the doom and gloom that is discussed in this place and in the media, the vast majority of people who come to me—75% in local polling—say “Reject this deal and seek a looser relationship.”
Mr Paterson
Thinking about the previous intervention, does my hon. Friend agree that his constituents and mine were very sensible and completely ignored these ludicrous forecasts, which are all part of “Project Fear”? Our constituents have been bombarded with further utter nonsense forecasts this week, but they do not believe them; they see real opportunities for this country when we get our freedom back.
Ben Bradley
I totally agree. The more obscene these forecasts become, the less they are believed. My favourite was that we are all going to get super-gonorrhoea if we leave the European Union. This week, the story is that babies will die through milk shortage because of leaving the European Union. These are the stories that exist in the media, and people out there give them no credence or credibility. It was interesting to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) making many similar arguments earlier today. However, I would argue that the right conclusion is not a second referendum; it is to deliver on what we promised.
It is right that people are sick of this debate and want to get it done, but this proposal does not allow us to do that. Instead, the debate rolls on for another year or 18 months as we try to agree a future relationship. It offers little certainty to business and almost guarantees that we will be back here again in 2020, having an equally divisive and difficult debate. As it stands, the withdrawal agreement does not end the problem—far from it. The only way to truly get it done, put it in the rear-view mirror and get on with talking about a positive domestic agenda, which Opposition Members have mentioned, is to accept that we cannot agree on a specific deal. Then we can go back and talk to the European Union about how to agree on all the things that we can actually agree on, including issues such as citizens’ rights, security, travel and all the rest, and carefully manage a transition to World Trade Organisation terms.
The only way to have certainty at this point is to have a clean break. I would prefer us to seek a more positive free trade arrangement first and to be strong in that approach, because that is what we promised in our manifesto and at Lancaster House, but we should not fear leaving on the same terms that govern 98% of global trade. It may be true that better relationships can be agreed further down the line, with or without this withdrawal agreement, but our hand is most certainly strengthened by being true to the mantra laid out in the Lancaster House speech—no deal is better than a bad deal—rather than being held over a barrel throughout the coming year and being threatened with this backstop arrangement, as President Macron has already told us he will do.
After months of saying that it could not be done and it was impossible, the withdrawal agreement accepts in black and white that the Irish border situation can be resolved through technological solutions. It is a political problem, not a practical one, and again, we are better prepared for that debate if we leave and come at it from a position of strength.
The World Trade Organisation has been clear that its rules would not require a hard border, and HMRC on both sides has said the same. If the barrier to achieving this is a political one and the Prime Minister is right that there is no deal without the backstop, we have to take charge of that debate in the interests of the whole UK, put ourselves in the driving seat and say, “This is not acceptable, so how do we handle that no deal scenario, because we are not going to agree to something that is detrimental to the United Kingdom?” That is the only way to force the issue that currently dictates this entire arrangement, which has always been built around the problem, rather than around the positive outcomes that we all want to see. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), who has great experience of this issue, said earlier, customs has moved on. We have to embrace that, as does the EU.
This is a divisive issue and reaction is of course mixed. I have had constituents ask me to support the deal and to support remaining, but as I said to the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the overwhelming majority of my constituents—collaring me in the street, answering me on social media or writing to me—want us to be stronger and to agree a looser arrangement with the European Union that gives us the freedom that they sought.
We have to start from the premise that we are a free and independent nation seeking a trade deal with Europe as we laid out at Lancaster House, not from the position of seeking continuity with our existing arrangements as this agreement does. If we do that, and if we truly take back control and deliver on the referendum result, we would restore the brittle faith in democracy that led to that outcome in the first place. It would prove to people in constituencies like mine that the Government do listen and act on their decisions, and that they do have a voice. Brexit presents a huge opportunity to give people who have felt forgotten for a long time a chance to believe in government and to believe in a country that is proud, independent and embracing new opportunities across the whole world, but I regret that this withdrawal agreement cannot deliver that outcome.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ben Bradley Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman’s interpretation is not correct. It will be possible for people to access the information that they need. He mentioned the issue of EU citizens. There is a real difference between that case and the situation where people came to this country but were not given documented status here. That is the issue with which we are dealing regarding the Windrush generation. They have contributed to this country and lived here, but when they came here they were not given that documentary evidence. There is a difference in the system that we are putting in place for EU citizens, who are being encouraged and asked to apply for settled status, so that they have evidence of their status. We are ensuring that this problem will not occur in relation to EU citizens.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
This week in this place, we have been talking about higher education. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the action the Government are taking shows that a Conservative Government are committed to delivering for students, working with them and treating them as adults, in stark contrast to Opposition Members, who look to win votes from young people by offering illogical and undeliverable free stuff?
Voter ID Pilots
Ben Bradley Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chloe Smith
People voting twice is not what this policy is about. I wish that the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) on the Front Bench knew their policies better.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
We have heard countless stories about voter fraud in 2017, so does my hon. Friend agree that, far from showing the issue to be small scale, as Opposition Members seem to be suggesting, the fact that there has been only one conviction shows just how difficult it is to enforce a law when there is no identification requirement at polling stations?
Chloe Smith
It is right to make that broader point. We want a democracy in which everybody can have confidence. Voting twice in one election is absolutely illegal. It is, indeed, an example of an electoral crime; there are other examples as well, including bribery and impersonation. We need to make sure that everybody can have confidence in their system and, crucially, that those who would be victims of such a crime are protected from it. The idea that we should simply allow a crime to happen until it reaches a certain level is ludicrous.
Syria
Ben Bradley Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I have already set out the basis on which we took the decision: the need for timeliness and an opportunity for proper planning to ensure that we were able to act in a way that would be effective.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister do me the service of responding to some concerns raised by my constituents over the weekend drawing a comparison with the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan by explaining to them precisely what the UK action was—how many missiles has the UK launched in Syria this weekend—and by explaining to them why that comparison is without foundation?