EU Exit: End of Transition Period
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(4 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
May I thank the hon. Lady for her questions and also for her commitment to working collaboratively to ensure that we get the best possible deal in our negotiations with the European Union. Progress has been made, but there are still significant differences between ourselves and the European Union. None the less, I did think it was significant and welcome that, for example, in the Joint Committee, Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič conceded that it would be no longer appropriate for the EU to have an office in Northern Ireland. That is an example of the flexibility that I know Michel Barnier and others are applying in the broader negotiations, and I will seek to update the House on progress in those negotiations at an appropriate time.
The hon. Lady asks about the compliance of our approach with our legal obligations under the WTO. We are absolutely certain that, having taken legal advice, we are compliant. Indeed, Lars Karlsson, a customs expert who appeared before the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union recently, said that the issue raised was “not a problem” and that there was no
“violation of international customs principles and the international legislation that the UK is part of under the WTO.”
Of course, it will be removed—the correct process we are taking—on 1 July.
The hon. Lady asks about infrastructure at EU-facing ports. I stress that there are no plans to build a new lorry park at Dover. Indeed, the chief executive of the port of Dover, Tim Reardon, said—again, to the Select Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)—that it is
“fair to say”
that traders are
“likely to be ready for the paperwork required to get into and out of France, because those requirements have been set out very clearly for some time now.”
The hon. Lady asks about the danger of lost tariffs. There is no danger of lost tariffs. Every importer will have to pay tariffs; we are simply making sure that the process is staged. It is also important to stress, as a number of those involved in the haulage and freight industries have emphasised, that this phased approach is a sensible and pragmatic way to ensure that we can be in a stronger position.
On the situation in Northern Ireland, the hon. Lady asks whether the EU tariff is the default. No, it is not. She also asks about state aid. State aid subsidy control support for businesses is important, but it is also a reserved matter.
Finally, I quote again from the chief executive of the port of Dover, because the hon. Lady is understandably anxious to ensure that business has all the opportunities we would want to see in the covid recovery. He said that
“being outside the European Union customs code puts the UK in a position where it can develop processes that suit the UK in the 21st century. We do not need to stick with a legacy customs process whose origin can be found in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in the year 789.”
It is time that we modernised our border and time that we took back control, and that is what today’s announcement will do.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I have just stepped out of a meeting with the British Chambers of Commerce, and it very much welcomes the acceleration in implementation, investment and certainty for British business, although it wants as much of that as quickly as possible.
I ask for clarification on two technical matters, and I shall choose my words carefully. First, as long as the Joint Committee is satisfied that goods in transit from GB to Northern Ireland are not at risk of travelling on to the Republic of Ireland, while there may need to be some data transfer, there will be no need for a full import customs declaration to cross from GB to Northern Ireland.
Secondly, now that the implementation of the final UK-EU border will be effectively phased to July 2021, which could violate WTO rules, there will be legal certainty that there will be no extension beyond July 2021, and Parliament can provide that legal certainty in UK primary legislation if it is required.
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the Chair of the Liaison Committee for his thoughtful and detailed questions. On the first, which relates to the Northern Ireland protocol, there will need to be the provision of certain information to ensure that the UK plays its part in the implementation of the protocol by helping to protect the EU single market. We will say more about that later this month.
We are entirely satisfied that the phased implementation of controls is compliant with WTO procedures, but my hon. Friend is right to stress that that is because it is a temporary regime, and we will ensure that there is no alteration to the timetable we have set out.
Veterans’ Mental Health
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Johnny Mercer
I am not going to comment on individual cases because some are very difficult. The aspiration is absolutely there to provide a wraparound service. I am not sure that providing a house for individuals when they leave service is necessarily the nirvana that people think it is. The single biggest factor that will improve veterans’ life chances is having a job, and we can do more in that area. I am more than happy to have a conversation with the hon. Member about this issue.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his evident personal commitment to the mental health of veterans and members of the armed forces. This is a very big change and we very much appreciate it. I also thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the contribution he is making through the Budget and the £10 million he has allocated for this purpose.
Will the Minister expand a little on what he said about his efforts to
“accelerate the introduction of a…high-intensity service for those in most acute need, following the challenges faced by Combat Stress”?
I am a vice-president of Combat Stress. For all the efforts of Combat Stress to change its organisation to a hub-and-spoke model, which is being supported by charities such as the Royal British Legion, the anxiety is that the withdrawal of a large chunk of NHS funding—we are grateful for the new contract that has been granted, but it is a very much smaller one—will mean that there will be veterans who slip through the cracks. Some 1,500 or so veterans will now be entirely dependent on going through their GP and into the veterans services provided by the NHS, and there is a deep anxiety that people will not get the treatment they need, albeit that we very much applaud the efforts of the NHS to improve what it offers to veterans.
Johnny Mercer
I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to Combat Stress for the work that it does. For many years—over 100 years—mental health in this country was not taken seriously, and almost alone Combat Stress held a candle for some of our most injured service people. There is no doubt that veterans’ care is changing. Although £10 million on its own looks like a small contribution, we are actually putting over £200 million into veterans’ mental health over the next 10 years. There is a very clear, defined and important role for people such as those at Combat Stress, who have a specialist, important contribution to make in the area of complex PTSD and things like that. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk about this further offline, but there should be no misunderstanding at this stage. Combat Stress is going through a change, but we must all change to adapt to the challenge that is in front of us. Combat Stress has a special place in this nation’s heart, and a full and important role to play in future.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that question. Civil servants must of course abide by the civil service code, and we deprecate the leaking of any Government information. I will reflect hard on the point behind her question.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I declare an interest as a vice-president of Combat Stress. May I point out that Combat Stress is facing a crisis because the Government are withdrawing funding for the 1,200 or so veterans who use its services every year? There is now an instance of a veteran taking their own life because they were refused treatment by Combat Stress and referred back to their GP. This is a very serious situation. Will my hon. Friend please ensure that Combat Stress gets the funding it needs to deliver the care to the veterans it looks after?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his work with Combat Stress. The reality is that Combat Stress is facing challenges at this time, and not exclusively because of issues with Government contracts. These challenges are reflected across the third sector because mental health care is changing. We must always be driven by the evidence about what works when it comes to accessing and treating more and more people, as the awareness of mental health goes up. I have met Combat Stress a number of times, and I have met my hon. Friend to discuss this issue. I am happy to continue meeting to find a solution to this very difficult problem, the answer to which is not always throwing money at it and hoping that it gets better.
Debate on the Address
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I could not find the result as I listened to the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), but I think the Brexit Party received substantially more votes than the margin of his majority—do correct me if I am wrong—so he was saved, if you like, by a split in the Brexit vote. I hope that he will reflect on how little his voters respected the Labour party’s position on Brexit.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your sudden elevation, and may I also congratulate Mr Speaker on his election? I also congratulate the Prime Minister not just on achieving a stunning outturn to a difficult election, but on striking such a sensible and moderate tone at the moment of victory. He humbly accepted the responsibility, and his comments were far from the triumphalism that he might have indulged in and that, in fact, is not part of his character.
There has been much speculation about the long-term significance of this result. Is 2019 going to be like a 1945, 1979 or 1997 watershed? It is far too soon to be certain about that, but it is rightly the Government’s ambition to make it a watershed by changing the nature of the Conservative party, with its new intake and the new constituencies that we represent, ensuring that we deliver in constituencies that have not been represented by the Conservative party for a very long time, if ever.
It is certain, however, that this is a watershed moment in our relationship with the European Union. I still hear among many of the comments a reluctance, perhaps, from the Opposition parties to accept this, but the election result represents a substantial consolidation of what was decided in the referendum. Incidentally, the effect of leaving the European Union will be far less about economic and social matters. It is far more significant in terms of its political and constitutional intent. It is about the intent of the British people and a signal of our national determination to be a self-confident country, to take control of our own affairs, to make our own laws, and to navigate our own way in the world, as the sixth largest economy in the world is perfectly capable of doing. Yes, there will be problems of transition, but most countries are not in the EU and they are absolutely fine. We will find our way out of the European Union probably in a manner that most people in this country will not even notice in terms of immediate policy effects, but they will understand that they voted for us to be a self-governing nation.
The election converted the direct mandate of the 2016 vote to leave into a clear representative mandate, and that was always going to have to happen, because direct democracy does not sit comfortably in our system of representative government. This election represented that transition: not just to leave the EU in principle, but a mandate to deliver the deal negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The election decided how we are going to leave the EU, as set out in our manifesto.
Incidentally, we are leaving with a deal. It is quite extraordinary that a narrative is developing that we will somehow leave without a deal in a year’s time. We might leave without a free trade agreement, and the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that we are leaving at the end of 2020 come what may, but that puts us in a far stronger negotiating position than we would be in if our hands were still being cuffed by a House of Commons determined to inflict defeat on the Government at any cost and to subvert the referendum result and the election result. We are now in a position to negotiate more effectively than we have ever negotiated before and, with the experience of the previous negotiation, is it not apparent that there has been a sea change in the attitude of the other members of the European Union? They want to get this done. They are not against free trade. They are not in favour of protection for its own sake. They are not in favour of inflicting some kind of vengeance Brexit on the United Kingdom. They will want their exporters to benefit just as much as our exporters will benefit, and we are in a strong position to achieve that.
In this election, people also voted for this rather mobile concept of “one nation”. Actually, one nation, as somebody recently reminded me, was a term coined not by Disraeli but by Baldwin. Disraeli talked about the two nations—the rich and the poor—but Baldwin fused it into a political philosophy about forging one nation, so that the divide does not exist. My right hon. Friend was right to emphasise that that has always been the role of successful Conservative Governments. In fact, poverty has generally declined under the Conservatives, and inequality tends to increase under Labour Governments, because they try to tax people too much and, in the end, the taxes fall on those least able to pay.
This election result was not about those who made the biggest promises. If the party that won the election was always the one that made the biggest promises, we would never win an election. The fact is that some of the Labour party’s promises, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was saying earlier, were irresponsible. They were not credible, and they looked cynical. Those kinds of promises do not work. People vote for a track record. There has never been a Labour Government that did not leave office with a higher rate of unemployment than they inherited from their Conservative predecessors. That is a fact, and people remember that. The election reflected the fact that common sense prevailed over the temptation to allow extravagance that the nation could not afford and over a continuation of the institution-breaking paralysis that a hung Parliament had inflicted on the Government at this particular juncture in our history.
This election result is a defeat for the idea that we should somehow move to a more proportional voting system. The advantage of our voting system is that it distils a decision so that hung Parliaments are rare. This election demonstrated that the nation does not like hung Parliaments. It likes decisive government. The nightmare possibility of a continuing state of paralysis encouraged people to vote tactically and make a judgment about how they wanted the political deadlock to be broken. They did not want it to be left to a lot of politicians on lists filling smoke-filled rooms and stitching things up for themselves. It was not just that period of government that was unpopular, because the coalition between 2010 and 2015 turned out not to be very popular in the end.
I welcome the Gracious Speech. The withdrawal agreement represents a compromise Brexit, which we now all must live with, and all can do so because it is a good compromise. There has been much speculation about the European Research Group, which I do emphasise is primarily a research group, and about whether we should rename ourselves the “manifesto support group” because we are not at loggerheads with the Prime Minister. We are not holding him to ransom. We supported his deal before the election. It was remainers who were trying to destroy his Government before the election, and they will now hopefully lay down their arms and sue for peace, because this has been resolved. That is what our voters expect.
I am just as interested in the proposals in this Queen’s Speech for a constitution, democracy and rights commission, which will have a large agenda after a period of constitutional strain in which so many of the norms and conventions of our constitutional settlement were just simply thrown aside in the battle over Brexit. The Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, which I chaired before the election, has looked at electoral law, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, the role of the Electoral Commission—maybe we should look more at that role—constituency boundaries, the royal prerogative and the Supreme Court judgment, alongside the nature of our civil service. I am pleased the Prime Minister is considering how the effectiveness of Whitehall can be improved.
Now we have a mandate and a majority to address all these matters, we need a careful and consensual approach so that we do not make the mistake of previous changes, like the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. That Act was a rather grubby deal to try to cement the coalition into office, and it had all sorts of unintended consequences. We must legislate on the constitution very carefully to avoid making such mistakes in future.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman mentions the redistribution of boundaries. There was a strong feeling in the previous Parliament that it would be a huge mistake to reduce the number of Members of Parliament and the number of constituencies from 650 to 600. Does he think that ought to be revisited?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I certainly do. On Second Reading of the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill, the private Member’s Bill introduced in the last Parliament, I spoke in favour of the compromise that seemed to be emerging for a variation of 7.5% instead of 5%, so as not to corral constituencies into artificial shapes, and for 650 seats instead of 600. Overwhelmingly, the objective should be to re-establish consensus on boundaries through the usual channels. Boundaries should not have become a politicised issue. We could not get any boundary changes through because it had been politicised—another clumsy mistake by the coalition Government.
We have to recognise that this cavalier fiddling with the constitution and this period of paralysis have left the public with much less confidence in our political institutions. There has always been cynicism about politics, but never about Parliament as an institution. The public were becoming very jaundiced about Parliament as an institution, and this majority Government is an opportunity for all sides to recognise what the rules are and to make this place work for the benefit of our constituents, whether we are in opposition or in government.
I also welcome the emphasis on the national health service in Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech. I was at a roundtable at Conservative conference a couple of years ago to discuss the staffing crisis in the NHS—this was before the staffing crisis had moved up the political agenda—and I asked who is accountable for workforce planning in the NHS. A variety of opinions came from the various professional bodies around the table and, actually, some of us persuaded the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that he should make himself accountable.
We then got an interim people plan for NHS England that was extraordinarily thin on numbers and analysis, so I welcome the breakthrough into numbers that appeared in our manifesto. I am a little sceptical about how easy it will be to achieve 50,000 more nurses, and I immediately pressed the Secretary of State to explain exactly what 50,000 more nurses means and how it will be achieved. That is yet to be fleshed out in hard policy detail, but we have set ourselves the challenge and we have to deliver it.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
No, I promise that it is not made up, but it would be fair to say that a great deal of work needs to be delivered to make it happen, and it may well cost more than the Government expect. We have to deliver it, and I hope the hon. Gentleman supports the objective, even if he criticises how it will be achieved.
Although the Health Service Safety Investigations Bill, which had its Second Reading in the House of Lords at the end of the previous Parliament, was not specifically mentioned in the Gracious Speech, I have had it confirmed that the Bill is in the Government’s programme for a later date. The Bill would introduce a new healthcare investigations body to establish the causes of clinical incidents in the NHS without blame by using a safe space so that people can speak freely without fear of prosecution or attack, in the same manner as the air accidents investigation branch of the Department for Transport. An independent body is required, and it requires legislation. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I chaired, made that proposal, which the Government accepted. I chaired a pre-legislative Committee in the last Parliament, and we have the draft legislation we want. All we are waiting for is for the Government to introduce the Bill, and I hope it comes quickly.
Our greatest challenge in this Parliament is to restore faith in our House of Commons, our Parliament and our democracy. I hope the Gracious Speech will contribute to addressing that, but it depends on our attitudes and our behaviour with each other. I hope we move past previous animosities and rediscover some of the consensus that makes this place work. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the House to that end.
Neil Gray
Absolutely. I am about to make the point that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and my hon. Friend makes that point well.
Our case is made stronger because of the nature of the election campaign we just had in Scotland. Jackson Carlaw, the acting Tory leader in Scotland, said the Union was on the ballot paper. Annie Wells MSP said that if Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP win, “they get their referendum.” I am yet to see a Tory leaflet in Scotland that did not have opposition to a second referendum at the heart of it. The SNP manifesto and all my literature talked about Scotland’s right to choose. I was clear, even with prospective voters who were undecided on voting for me but opposed to independence, that I would campaign for a second referendum if I was re-elected.
The result in Scotland was clear—even clearer than here in the rest of the UK. The Tories lost half their seats in Scotland. Their share of the vote went down and the SNP won more than 80% of the seats we contested. We have a higher share of the vote than the Prime Minister enjoys. In response to my intervention, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), suggested that because we achieved only—only!—45% of the vote in Scotland our mandate can be ignored. She has not really thought that through, has she? Extend that logic to the fact that the Prime Minister achieved only 43% of the vote in the rest of the UK. Nobody is denying the Prime Minister his democratic right to govern, and they should not be denying Scotland’s right to choose any longer.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The fact is that nobody in Scotland can possibly have voted without the knowledge that the Government of the United Kingdom were not going to agree to a referendum, so they could vote for whichever protest party they liked in the full knowledge that the hon. Gentleman’s promise would not be delivered in any case. Also, as was pointed out earlier, the SNP got fewer seats than it got in 2015. Why this result is regarded as a great triumph when the SNP has been going backwards, I do not know.
Neil Gray
The Union was on the ballot paper. No clearer campaign message came from the Scottish Conservatives than that, and it was wholeheartedly and comprehensively rejected by the people of Scotland. It would be wise of a so-called leader—one who aspires to statesmanship—to listen not just to those who voted for him, but those who voted against him, and to listen to the second largest member of this Union, which whole- heartedly rejected the manifesto that he put forward at the general election.
In her entertaining speech, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) suggested that the Prime Minister was oven ready. Well, I say that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Tory Members and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) say that the SNP does not respect the results of democratic events. Well, in 2014 we respected the result of the referendum. Scotland did not become independent against the wishes of the people of Scotland. In spite of the even greater victory in 2015—the general election that saw us return 56 SNP MPs—we did not push in the first part of that Parliament for a second referendum. Then Brexit completely changed the offer of the Union voted on in 2014. In 2017, we lost seats, although we still held a majority of seats in Scotland. We won the election in Scotland, but there was contrition and our campaign for a second referendum after the 2017 general election took a step back.
It is the Tories now who wish to ignore the people and ignore the people of Scotland, but make no mistake: we now have a mandate from four consecutive parliamentary elections, and the result last week is unarguable by any democrat. It is for the Prime Minister to explain in a reasoned way why he would deny Scotland the right to have our say. It is he who now has to justify his unsustainable position. If he continues to refuse our right as the second largest nation in the Union to choose, he will be judged as the one nation Prime Minister he so desperately craves to be. He will continue to be judged as the vote leave, little Englander Prime Minister, and that will not serve him well in Scotland.