Early Parliamentary General Election Bill
Geraint Davies ExcerptsTuesday 29th October 2019
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The question that we are grappling with in this House and, indeed, in the wider country is not just a narrow matter of our relationship with the European Union, although this debate on Brexit has exposed significant differences in how people feel about that. People’s identities of remain or leave run deep, because this is not only about whether we remain in the EU or leave; it is about who we are as a country. It is about our values. It is about whether we are open, inclusive and internationalist in our outlook, facing the future, or whether we are closed and insular, wanting to pull up the drawbridge and look to the past. That is the key question that we, as a country, need to resolve.
The Prime Minister talked about “one whole United Kingdom”. I thought he had a cheek, because he has not been acting in a way that protects our whole United Kingdom. He has sold out the people of Northern Ireland with the deal he has done with the EU. This is a man who said that no Conservative Prime Minister should ever accept a border in the Irish Sea, yet that is exactly what he has done. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I think that our United Kingdom is something precious that is worth protecting, and that Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are stronger together.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
If there was a vote across the whole country—one person, one vote—on the Prime Minister’s deal, my view is that the majority of people would vote remain. Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a great fear that, with a minority of votes, the Tories could get a majority of seats if the remain side splits, and we will end up with Brexit, thanks to her provocation?
Jo Swinson
The hon. Gentleman and I have both been campaigning for a people’s vote. I believe that the ideal way to resolve this issue is to put this specific Brexit deal to the public. He is right; I think that the public would be likely to reject this bad Brexit deal, because it is a bad deal. If we look at the polls, we have to go back some way to find the leave vote being ahead of remain, and that has been an increasingly consistent pattern in the last couple of years.
People who support Brexit struggle to agree among themselves what Brexit should look like—we see it day in, day out in this Chamber. To some people, the Prime Minister’s deal is not Brexity enough, and other people want to see a softer Brexit. The suggestion that there is a majority in the country for this specific Brexit path is wrong, which is why this needs to be put to the people for a final say. But I have campaigned for that. I have marched for that. We have argued for that. We have tabled amendments for that. We have not been able to secure it, and my fear is that we will not in this Parliament. We do not have the luxury of time, because the EU has given us an extension to 31 January. We need to resolve how we will use that time, because further extensions should not be guaranteed.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am in favour of a general election: a general election on 7 May, when the sun is shining, when 16-year-olds are included, and when we can get over Brexit by having a referendum—a referendum on the deal. The Brexiteers have been arguing for three years about what the deal should be, and now that we have a deal, we should put it to the people. Why are we not putting it to the people? Because the Prime Minister knows that people will not agree with it. There is a majority in the country in favour of remain, but he knows that he may get a majority of MPs, or a small minority of MPs if the remain vote splits. That is not democracy and, with his Brexit, and any Brexit, we will be poorer, weaker, more divided and isolated.
I very much regret that we are hurtling in this direction, thanks to the Liberal Democrats giving up the public vote and to the SNP; basically there is an unstoppable momentum towards an election. We will probably have an election now. The Labour party will be talking about a better Britain, a fairer Britain, a greener Britain, addressing climate change and not just Brexit, fundamentally giving that vote back to the people, so we are the party of democracy. The Tories will give Brexit at any cost. The Liberals will basically say “Remain, whatever you think.” We will provide democracy, a better Britain and the fourth Prime Minister in four years with Jeremy Corbyn.
Debate on the Address
Geraint Davies Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The destruction that Labour would do to business is, I think, the single gravest concern that this country faces—far greater than any fears that business may have had about a no-deal Brexit.
Worst of all for the certainty and confidence of business is what this Opposition would do were they ever to obtain power, because they would simply delay Brexit with yet more paralysis and pointless procrastination. I say let’s not wait—we cannot wait. Let’s get Brexit done so that we can take back control of our money, our borders and our laws. Let’s get Brexit done so that we can regulate differently and better: getting life-saving medicines faster and more cheaply to market for the NHS; galvanising coastal areas with a constellation of new free ports; and organising our immigration system ourselves so that we are open to talent and open to scientists.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister talks about getting Brexit done, but he knows it is a painful journey and not an end point. Why has he not included a trade Bill to enable this House to scrutinise the trade bills that will come week after week? We will not be able to see those bills, so we will end up importing hormone-impregnated food, asbestos and the like. Where is the trade Bill?
The Prime Minister
I reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that the trade Bill is in the Queen’s Speech, so I very much hope that we can count on his support in voting for any deal we might secure and in getting Brexit done.
Ian Blackford
Absolutely—and pensioners will be better off in an independent Scotland than they are under this Conservative Government.
What a missed opportunity the Queen’s Speech has been! Although the SNP welcomes progress on bringing forward legislation on the pensions dashboard, the Bill falls short in a number of areas. We have discussed the 1950s women: the Government have a responsibility to address the hardship visited on hundreds of thousands of those women. It must be addressed in this legislation. It simply cannot go on any longer.
Moreover, the Scottish National party has consistently called for the establishment of an independent pensions and savings commission to deal with policy gaps in delivering dignity in retirement. If the Prime Minister and his Government are really interested in delivering on preparation for later life, they need to get real. Not everyone has a Tory trust fund to fall back on. We need robust and responsive policy to deal with the crisis in pensions saving that we simply cannot wait for. I therefore plead with the Government: do not mess this up; establish the commission and use the opportunity to deliver a pensions Bill that actually delivers fairness for older people, rather than uncertainty, complexity and hardship.
The Government have said that as part of their efforts they will bring forward a new environment Bill to set legally binding targets to reduce the use of plastics, restore biodiversity, improve water quality and cut air pollution. We on the SNP Benches say about time. The Government might at last have woken up to the reality of the climate crisis, but the devil will be in the detail. Already, the United Kingdom Government are lagging behind the Scottish Government in their commitment to ending the climate crisis. The SNP Scottish Government already have more robust targets in place, so I say to the UK Government that if they are ready to face the reality that our world demands action now, then they should follow the lead of the SNP Scottish Government.
Members across the House know that the single market has been achieved by removing barriers to trade and having a single set of trade rules across all member states.
Ian Blackford
I want to move on, because I am conscious that other right hon. and hon. Members want to speak.
For businesses in Scotland, that means being able to sell their goods and services to 500 million people, without paying any tariffs and without having to adhere to completely different rules in each country. An estimated 300,000 jobs in Scotland rely on our trade with the rest of the EU. A Tory trade Bill will end all the economic progress that has been made.
Furthermore, not unexpectedly, the Government have announced a Bill on the withdrawal agreement, an agreement this Government have yet to reach with the European Union—or indeed with this House. Let us call it a fantasy Bill. Yet media reports suggest that the Prime Minister is looking possibly to legislate for the agreement on 19 October. That is this Saturday. Announcing on Monday a Bill on an agreement that does not exist and expecting it to pass through this House on Saturday —Mr Speaker, what recklessness!
The Prime Minister has offered a Queen’s Speech today not to set out his vision to protect our economy and communities from a disastrous no-deal Brexit, but to platform his election campaign days before he intends to drive the UK off the cliff edge. The Prime Minister is fooling no one. This is not the beginning of a new Parliament; it is the end. We in the SNP are crystal clear that we want it to end on our terms, not on the Prime Minister’s. Deal or no deal, the Prime Minister is driving Scotland and the UK into economic catastrophe. His proposals do not keep Scotland in the single market and the customs union, and that will cripple our economy, risking jobs, livelihoods and delivering a race to the bottom on fundamental rights. These are not acceptable to the SNP; nor should they be acceptable to this House.
There is a piece of legislation that should focus the minds of all Members today: the Benn Act. In just five days, the Benn Act legally requires the Prime Minister to ask for an extension. His public utterances suggest that that will not happen. We all know that we cannot trust this Prime Minister to act in accordance with the law. We cannot even trust him to turn up to Parliament. I have to say that I am sceptical about the possibility of compromise. What exactly is the Prime Minister compromising and who is he compromising with? Internally, the Prime Minister is seeking to play a crude numbers game, hoping that a number of Labour Back Benchers come to his rescue for any shoddy deal that he might be able to force through at the final hour.
I want to make the opposition of the Scottish National party clear for the House, and I hope that the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats listen carefully: only by taking control of the House this week can we bring down and end the days of this Government. That is the only way that we can ensure that we can secure an extension and make sure that no deal cannot become a reality. We cannot wait and trust the Prime Minister and his cronies in No. 10. Any Member in this House who caves in on bended knee to a deal cooked up by the Prime Minister is trying to escape the inescapable reality that any Brexit will destroy opportunities and the totality of relationships across these islands as we know them. We must stop this Government riding roughshod over the rights and freedoms of all our citizens. We cannot allow a dangerous Prime Minister to remain in office. We cannot allow the Vote Leave campaign to suffocate Parliament into submission. We must resist.
If Opposition parties come together, we can take no deal off the table and resolve the deadlock once and for all by holding a general election to clear the decks. We must put our trust in the people. We must trust that after years of uncertainty, chaos and instability, the public want something better than this Tory Government. That is our job. That is the job of any Opposition—to oppose the Government—and to offer a better way.
The SNP will not play into the Prime Minister’s hands and partake in his charade. We will vote down this Queen’s Speech. We are not in the business of backing Tory manifesto pledges; nor should others be on these Benches.
Tracey Crouch
I was very pleased to support the hon. Gentleman in that piece of legislation—the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018—and I now have a vested interest, in that my nephew has joined the police. It is very important that we protect not only our police officers but all our emergency workers, who do an absolutely fantastic job as first responders, so I support the hon. Gentleman very much in that initiative.
As someone who is working on a project to green a school in one of the most polluted parts of my constituency, as a signatory to The Times clean air pledge and as a member of the Conservative Environment Network, I very much welcome that the environment Bill will set out binding clear air targets as well as cutting plastic use, protecting biodiversity, reducing our carbon footprint and investing in better, cleaner technology. I hope that the Bill will get full cross-party support to make its passage through Parliament swift for the benefit of those—such as some of my constituents—who live in unacceptably highly polluted areas, as well as for the future generations of this country.
Geraint Davies
The hon. Lady will know that 2.6 million children go to polluted schools. Does she accept that if we are to meet the World Health Organisation guidelines by 2030, we will have to ban the sale of new diesel and petrol cars by 2030 and not 2042, as has been agreed in Sweden, Ireland and many other countries? Does she agree that it should be 2030 if we are serious?
Tracey Crouch
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work that he has done on the Clean Air Bill, and I was pleased to attend an event he sponsored in the House to sign up to the pledge in The Times on that. I agree with him about how we can protect children, especially around schools, from high pollution. One school in my constituency is planning a protest to stop parents driving their children to school, and that is something that he has campaigned on as well. I appreciate that a lot more work remains to be done.
I also welcome plans in the Queen’s Speech to update the Mental Health Act, but I hope that it will include measures to ensure that no person can be discharged from residential care without a care plan, as unfortunately I have several such cases in my constituency. It leads to heightened pressure on the families of those suffering from severe poor mental health.
Mr Mitchell
To be fair, across the House, nearly all of us are doing what we think is in the best interests of our constituents. In my judgment, the best interests of my constituents are represented by drawing a line and moving on. There are tremendously important negotiations to come, of course, but once we have left the European Union, as we are bound to do following the referendum, we can start to repair two key things that need so much to be repaired. The first is the deep, deep divisions that run throughout our society, throughout all our constituencies and throughout the four kingdoms of the United Kingdom. A second referendum, which will clearly be very much in contention over the next few days, is a ghastly prospect, particularly as it would put back yet further the important and necessary act of healing the terrible divisions that disfigure our country.
Geraint Davies
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that people out there are saying they want Brexit to be over? They do not want to get Brexit done; they want to get it over. The simplest way to get it over is to put the deal to the people, and then we could see Brexit as it really is, warts and all. The people could then decide, once and for all, whether this is what they want. Is it more money, more control and more jobs? No. People do not want it. Let us get it over, and let us have that vote. Otherwise we will not be getting it done; we will have years and years of trade negotiation and poverty.
Mr Mitchell
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think he is arguing for a second referendum—a confirmatory vote. I cannot think of anything more likely to exacerbate and perpetuate these deep, deep divisions that disfigure our country than going on, month after month, for a second referendum. It is now for the House to decide whether we can secure a deal, and I very much hope the House will decide that on Saturday.
The second thing, and it bears upon the Gracious Speech, is that a resolution to Brexit at the weekend will allow Britain to re-engage internationally. As the House will be aware, our reputation has plummeted over the past three years. We have been absent from parade on a number of big issues where Britain had previously shown great leadership, such as migration, climate change, protectionism, terrorism and the desperate threats that the Kurds face today. Britain’s voice needs to be heard trenchantly on these issues and, over the past three years, Brexit has prevented that from happening.
Climate change, for example, was mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. I have talked to some of the Extinction Rebellion people who blockaded the streets around Westminster over the last week or so. It is easy to mock these people, but there is something rather noble about the cause they espouse. Talking to some of them while negotiating my way through Trafalgar Square on my bicycle has been interesting and constructive, but the problem is that, in attacking this Government, they are attacking the wrong target.
Britain has been a leader in tackling climate change at the major international forums of the UN and elsewhere. I pay particular tribute to important work by Lord Turner and his colleagues on the Committee on Climate Change. Britain has put its money where its mouth is in tackling climate change internationally, as well as domestically. Starting with the coalition, when I had some responsibility for these matters, we allocated some £7 billion for the international climate fund. For 2016 to 2021 we allocated £5.8 billion, from our hard-pressed taxpayers, for adaptation and mitigation of climate change. As the Prime Minister said, we are projected to spend £11.6 billion between 2021 and 2026. In addition, we are streets ahead of some of our European friends and neighbours in developing the technology, and here I highlight the Ayrton fund, which has allocated £1 billion for innovative technology. Britain has standards and an approach to climate change, both in adaptation and mitigation, that have been enormously effective. It is also worth bearing in mind that, this year, for the first time since the industrial revolution, we will consume more energy from renewables and nuclear power than from coal and gas.
Mr Ellwood
That is for another day and another debate, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. China dominates on a scale that we simply cannot comprehend over here. Its technological capabilities and its investment in quantum computing, and so on, mean it already owns 40% of the world’s data, and it is moving further afield. Once a country moves into the Chinese way of thinking—Huawei, and so on—it is very difficult to get out.
It is only a matter of time before countries that are already financially compelled or obliged to support Chinese methods and systems will have to move over to China’s global positioning system, and so on. Then they will have to move over to the Chinese reserve currency, instead of the dollar. We will potentially see the world split into two huge domains unless we check it, but that is for another debate.
Back to Turkey and Syria, I make it clear that the Syrian Democratic Forces were our allies. They were our boots on the ground, and now we see them pivoting towards the Assad regime—a regime against which we rightly launched weapons strikes because it was using chemical weapons and barrel bombs against its own people.
This has been a disastrous week for international foreign policy. We are losing any leverage in pursuing a peaceful outcome in Syria, so I cannot stress enough the implications of Turkey’s incursion. I simply ask the Government to lead calls for Turkey to withdraw, and I call on them to impose an arms embargo until that happens. Let us lead Europe. Let us stand up and bring America with us, if it will not lead on this front.
We cannot complain about the erosion of the international rules-based order if we are not willing to defend it. Ironically, as the west becomes more risk averse, the world is becoming more unstable, giving space for our competitors to avoid effective scrutiny and to advance their own interests illicitly beneath the threshold of any international response. Simply put, the old Bretton Woods organisations that stood us well after the second world war are now out of date, and they are being rejected by newer nations, too. We need to step up to the plate, recognise what is actually happening and lead on updating the standards and norms by which we expect nations to abide.
I make it clear that the threat picture has also changed, as illustrated by the rise of non-state actors such as Islamic State. Their ability to recruit and finance themselves through the internet, and so on, will not go away. We need to recognise that we had no viable plan for the aftermath of the combat phase in Iraq and Syria. Thousands of hard-line jihadi fighters, who for months sat behind barbed wire guarded by the SDF, are now able to escape and our counter-Daesh partners are being attacked by a NATO ally.
It is not enough for Britain to deny dual-national fighters any right to return to the UK, while expecting the SDF to process them and their families. We are now seeing orphans caught up in this with nowhere to go. If the United States, to give it its due, can take back youngsters and orphans who are caught up in the mess over there, so can we. Let us get on the front foot and lead by example. Let us show other nations around the world what we can do.
I encourage the Government to show much needed international leadership and help to update international protocols so that all countries can take responsibility for their own nationals and dual nationals, rather than abandoning them to fate, with the very real prospect of allowing them to regroup to fight another day. This is about national security. Please do not say I am making Britain less safe. This is at the forefront of my mind, not just from a personal perspective but because of my interest in Britain’s national security. We need to sort out this problem. It is not an unconditional surrender, as we saw in the past; it is a new phenomenon that we need to get our heads around.
Changing technologies are another critical aspect of the Bill that is affecting the threat picture. Over the next decade, technology will advance to dominate our lives, with machines talking directly to machines, smart city infrastructure, artificial intelligence and automation. Our reliance on the infrastructure supporting this new technological world is critical, so I am pleased that we are investing in this area and that we have leading businesses capable of doing so.
Our ever greater reliance on technology comes with a risk. Cyber and space capabilities are so integral to civilian, commercial and military applications that a total or even partial loss of their use would have an instant and dramatic impact on our lives. Our ability to communicate, share information, conduct transactions, use the internet, fly planes or predict the weather would all be severely affected.
I welcome the 2% commitment, but it will soon be inadequate to meet the wide spectrum of threats that we face, especially our technological vulnerability. Data is now taking over terrain as the arena of choice to disrupt an enemy. Why resort to conventional attacks when greater devastation can be caused to an economy or an electoral outcome simply with a laptop?
We are now also seeing the weaponisation of space. In military terms, space has become the ultimate high ground. We require a space command, so we need to follow the United States and France. We saw the evolution of the Air Force 100 years ago and we now need to do the same for space, because both Russia and China have reorganised their military structures to include space as a fighting domain. We need to recognise the changing parameters of conflict and adapt in that area, too.
We also need to invest in our conventional forces. On a day when we have seen the F-35 land on the aircraft carrier, we can be very proud. In the Gulf War we had 36 fast-jet squadrons, but today we have just six. Our main battle tank is now over 25 years old and is in dire need of an upgrade. Our Navy is getting smaller and smaller, and China is increasing its navy by the size of our Navy every single year. If we want to protect our trading routes after Brexit, we need a surface fleet that is able to do that.
Listening to this debate, I feel that colleagues, in some cases, are not even aware of what is actually happening this week. There is a small possibility that we will strike a deal—not a no deal, as SNP Members spent their entire time talking about—but I stress this is part 1. This is getting us to the transition. Part 2 is the relationship beyond that.
I am pleased that last week we saw some consensus, a sense of compromise, with people being willing to step forward from their original anchored positions to say, “This has gone on long enough. Let’s move forward.” I wish more colleagues were able to think that way, rather than going back to their original position and saying, “I am not willing to discuss this.”
Mr Ellwood
I will not give way, because I am running out of time. I do apologise.
The nation has now watched this debate continue for three years, and there is now talk of dragging it beyond 31 October. I have made my views on a no deal absolutely clear. I do not want a no deal, but the SNP Members spent their entire time saying that it is our objective. It is not my objective. I want to get this across the line, and it can happen. The planets are aligning, and we are hearing voices from the EU saying that it is possible. Technical talks are taking place, so let us wish them the best at the EU summit. Let us come back on Saturday and get this deal done.
We have to conclude that Brexit has damaged the reputation of this Parliament and has not been good for the country, the Government or the Conservative party. I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister speak about the importance of one nation, because the complexion of my party has been challenged a bit during this difficult period. I am a Conservative. I believe in fiscal responsibility. I believe that a right-of-centre Government are good for Britain in their approach, being progressive, modernist and willing to speak for and represent the entire country. We cannot do that if my party moves to the right, and becomes smaller and more condensed. We can do it if we remain a broad church, and I am pleased to see the Prime Minister articulate that very message.
We should also remind ourselves that we are good at things in this country and we have much to be proud of. We lead in oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, creative industries, life sciences, aerospace and financial services. Those are things we do well. Not only that, but this is a great place to invest: we are a champion of free trade; we have a legal and justice system that people can rely on; we have low corporation tax; and we have stable governance. We should be proud of who we are, but perhaps in all this debate we have lost sight of that.
If global Britain is to mean anything, let us step forward with international reach and resolve, to confirm and update the respected standards for the rule of law. We must start with a sober view of the Bretton Woods organisations, recognising that the world is changing from a technological perspective and that this is a crucial week. This is the biggest week for me as a parliamentarian and it is arguably our biggest week for a generation. It is up to us in this House to take a binary decision: do we want Brexit to continue and pursue our own pure form, or do we call an end to this, support this deal and allow the nation to move forward?
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan). I very much sympathise with her points about identity cards, given that, we are told, about 11 million people may not have passports or driving licences. It is important that these people can participate in democracy.
I sympathise with many of the points the right hon. Lady makes about HS2. From a Swansea perspective, it takes three hours by train to get from London, two hours to get to Manchester—it will be one hour after HS2—and four hours to Edinburgh. Why do people have to travel more frequently and further when we have the internet? Why do we not spend some money on building regional economies?
At one point, I was leader of Croydon Council and pioneered a 26 km-long tramlink, linking Beckenham, Croydon and Wimbledon. It cost £200 million, half of which was paid by the private sector. For HS2’s £80 billion, we could do 800 of those schemes, clustering regional economies. I have to ask whether, strategically, it is a good idea to enable people to live further and further from London, so that they can go back and forth to work. In our infrastructure review, we should look at the matter across the piece.
I will briefly mention, as other Members have, Paul Flynn, who was a good friend and a great man. He was a man of great warmth, integrity, humour and distinction, and he is a sad loss for the House and particularly for colleagues across Wales.
The Queen started her speech today as all good speeches really start—with a joke: “My Government’s priority is to leave the EU by 31 October 2019”, but it does not look at all likely that that is going to happen. It is an interesting contrast to her opening words in the 2017 Queen’s Speech, when she said that the priority was
“to secure the best possible deal as the country leaves the European Union…working with…the devolved Administrations, business and others to build…consensus”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 2017; Vol. 783, c. 5.]
That idea has been swept away and we are now rushing towards this deadline—to get Brexit done, do or die. But in our hearts we all know that we cannot just get Brexit done. It will be a series of painful negotiations with deals down the way.
The next part of the Queen’s Speech was on the commitment to financial stability, so it is a strange irony that many of the hedge funds that supported the Prime Minister’s leadership have been betting on no deal.
The next part of the speech was on fiscal responsibility. Government debt is now 90% of the size of the economy. When Labour left government, it was half that figure. After years of austerity crushing the poorest, we are now being told that there is loads of money in the magic money tree for the Prime Minister to spend on all sorts of things. The fact is that the current Government have failed to grow the economy. To be fair, that is largely due to Brexit and the waiting period. However, it is not just the uncertainty of Brexit that is contributing to this economic situation; it is also the reality of Brexit, which will shrink our economy by a further 10%.
The expression “get Brexit done” is very appealing to people because they are sick and tired of talking about Brexit. They want to “get Brexit over with”—so do I, but my contention is that people have now seen what Brexit is likely to be like and they want to have a final say. People who voted leave in my constituency said that they voted for more money, more control and more jobs, but they are now seeing that they will have less money, whether that is through the divorce bill or the shrinking economy. There will also be fewer jobs, whether that is through car companies pulling out of Bridgend, Tata Steel making cuts because of Brexit or Airbus pulling out of the area. There will be less control; people cannot control the laws in Europe that will ultimately affect us, and they want to have a final say.
Conservatives who have traditionally been in favour of the Union and business are basically turning their back on these things. It is all very well the Prime Minister talking about how he values the Union, but if Brexit happens and Scotland pulls out of the UK and becomes part of the EU, much of the industry in England will move to Scotland. We are talking about a divided kingdom, not the United Kingdom, and people should wake up to that. The Government pretend that democracy consists of listening to the result of a referendum some three years ago—since when we have had a general election—with a result that was based on false promises and which is seen to be false. People should have another vote—a vote on the deal in front of them. There is this crazy notion that some deal that no one has seen should be rushed through the House on Saturday just because the Prime Minister said that we would leave the European Union on 31 October “do or die”. That is frankly absurd.
Let me turn to what was good in the Queen’s Speech. I welcome the focus on mental health because I have my own Counsellors and Psychotherapists (Regulation) Bill. You may know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the current situation is that you or I could set up as psychotherapists tomorrow, without any training and without practising any evidence-based treatment. The problem is that many people have been abused as a result of this situation. Many individuals with mental health problems go to people who call themselves psychotherapists because it sounds like a professional qualification is needed to be a psychotherapist, but these individuals are basically abused—for example, in conversion therapy or when war veterans are asked to relive their trauma, making their problems worse. This needs to be embraced in the mental health Bill.
Primarily, I want to focus—albeit briefly—on the Environment Bill and on clean air. I have the privilege of chairing the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution. Hon. Members may know that 64,000 people die prematurely every year as a result of air pollution, and that 2.6 million children go to schools polluted with toxic air. That is simply not acceptable. Air pollution affects people’s mental health, contributing to depression, anxiety and psychosis, and giving rise to dementia. It also affects physical health, giving rise to heart attacks, lung problems, strokes and so on. This has to be sorted out. It is good that it has been mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, but of course the devil is in the detail.
What we need in the Environment Bill is specific targets and timetables that include enforcement action. I am particularly talking about PM 2.5 particulates, which are small enough to penetrate women’s wombs and to affect the babies they are carrying. PM 2.5 levels should be at World Health Organisation standard by 2030. The only way to do that is to outline a trajectory to get to the required level of 10 micrograms per cubic metre; we could bring our current levels down to 20 micrograms by 2020, to 15 micrograms by 2025 and to 10 micrograms by 2030. That would require a ban on new fossil-fuelled cars—diesel or petrol—by 2030, instead of by 2042. This is not a new idea. Other places are doing it: Paris is doing it; Rome is doing it; Denmark is doing it; Sweden is doing it; Ireland is doing it. We can do it if we are serious. We can also create the conditions that help to spark new, modern cars, and provide the incentives and direction to have a modern public transport system.
I published my own Clean Air Bill a week ago, which also requires a fiscal strategy to support incentives and move people towards a sustainable transport future. It requires local parents and local people generally to be given information on the pollution levels at their child’s school, so that they can demand action. The Bill would also require the Environment Bill to include indoor air, which the previous iteration did not. Everybody here spends about 90% of our time indoors. How is it that we can have an Environment Bill that is only for outdoor air and is intended to focus on air pollution, given that these days people unfortunately encounter all sorts of toxins in their own homes—from chemicals in furniture, cleaning products, sprays, candles, you name it? These things actually have a cocktail impact with outdoor air pollution, causing respiratory and inflammatory problems. Indoor air provisions need to be properly integrated in the Bill so that we can all be protected.
I also have a Plastics Bill—I am Buffalo Bill, me!—which provides that we should have clear aggregate targets for the amount of plastics we are allowed to have, as we do for the Climate Change Act for carbon. It also suggests a fiscal strategy, including the taxation of virgin plastic. Quite simply, plastic is too inexpensive. If it cost more to buy a plastic bottle than to get a reusable one, people would obviously not buy plastic ones.
On climate change itself, it is imperative that we move against fracking. The reality is that any extraction that emits more than 2% methane is worse than coal. Methane is about 85 times worse than carbon dioxide for global warming, and satellite imagery tells us that fracking generates 5% of fugitive emissions and leakages, making it nearly twice as bad as coal. It is just not a sustainable way forward. Some 80% of available fossil fuels cannot be exploited if we are to avoid irreversible climate change.
We now know that we are going to hit the 1.5° C change not by 2040, but by 2030. That means that the zero carbon by 2050 target is already out of date. It is no good saying, “Oh well, we have done a really great job in Britain”, because the reason we have got our carbon emissions down so quickly in recent times is that we have closed the coalmines and exported our industry. We need to stop fracking. We need to come forward with a sustainable transport system. We need to have onshore wind. We need Swansea Bay lagoon, in terms of wave power, and other lagoons, and we need to harness the sun’s energy as well.
The right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who sadly is not now in his place, talked about the importance, in a global environment, of holding our own in terms of cyber-attacks, the critical mass of our military, space and so on. All those arguments lent themselves to the need to act collectively within Europe to sustain our common values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It is critically important for our influence, self-interest, security and prosperity, and for being unified, that we remain in the EU. It is incumbent on us to give the final say to the people of Britain: do they want this deal or do they want to stay with the deal they already have? We already know that they prefer to stay where they are, and the growing numbers of young people coming through feel that as well. We should be duty bound to give the deal back to the people for the final say.
Prime Minister's Update
Geraint Davies Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I must respectfully disagree with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. As far as I am concerned, the Government have treated the court with great respect and we intend to respect the judgment.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
On the issue of ideas, if Parliament continues to resist the Prime Minister’s desperate pleas for an election in order to enable him to secure a deal, and if Parliament says it will agree that deal but only if it is subject to a public vote, would he prefer that or to inflict a no deal on Britain, with all the medicine shortages and other problems that would entail? Which would he prefer: his deal with a vote, or no deal?
The Prime Minister
Obviously I would prefer a deal, and I hope I could count on the hon. Gentleman’s support if we were to get one. As for my desperate pleas for an election, actually I am not desperate for an election at all. I rather thought it was the function of the Opposition to be desperate for an election. If he is desperate for an election, perhaps he could communicate with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
Early Parliamentary General Election (No. 2)
Geraint Davies Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has just informed the House that on 31 October he will go to Brussels and ensure that we leave with or without a deal, in contravention of a motion we have just passed that we will obey the law in compliance with that law that has just been passed. Is that out of order?
Mr Speaker
I would be immensely grateful if the hon. Gentleman did not feel it necessary to keep pointing at me. I know he feels strongly, but that is not a point of order. [Interruption.] Order. And I would say in terms of the seemliness of these proceedings, come on, let’s have fair play: the Prime Minister is entitled to make a speech and be heard, as will be the Leader of the Opposition.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is a delight to follow the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), who made a thoughtful contribution to this debate in this important time for Parliament, by stark contrast to the beginning of this debate, which I am afraid was not a very edifying spectacle for our constituents who are watching this, many of whom are worried about what is happening in our country right now. The braying, the bluster—Britain deserves better.
I commend the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) for the brave decision that she took at the weekend. We are in exceptional times, and in the face of a Prime Minister who is prepared not only to shut out of his party more than 20 individuals who have given it great service, but to shut down Parliament, potentially to flout the rule of law and to inflict on the British public the consequences of no deal as outlined in the Yellowhammer report, I think it is time that others in the Conservative party examine their consciences about what they can do and the role that they are playing in all this.
In his speech, the Prime Minister goaded those of us on the Opposition Benches who disagree with his dash for an election and said that it is because we are afraid that he will win. Well, I say to the Prime Minister that people in this country are afraid. They are afraid of a no-deal Brexit: a no-deal Brexit that—according to his own Government’s analysis, which he is trying to keep secret even in the face of this House voting for it to be published—will mean shortages of fresh food, rising prices, delays and disruption to fuel supplies in the south-east, and severe, extended delays for medical supplies. So it is no wonder that people are afraid, and the Prime Minister should treat this matter with more seriousness.
Geraint Davies
Does the hon. Lady agree that, instead of the Government spending £100 million of taxpayers’ money on propaganda, they should disclose Yellowhammer and spend £100 million promulgating that to educate the public about the horror that faces us if we have no deal?
Jo Swinson
It is very clear that the Government should release that report, and they have been instructed to do so by this House.
I want to scotch the myth that the Prime Minister is putting about that a no-deal Brexit is in some way an end to this whole Brexit issue. As Leo Varadkar made clear today, it would be a case of getting back to the negotiating table, as a no-deal Brexit is just the beginning of many further years of negotiations. If people really want an end to this Brexit mire, the way to do it is to stop Brexit.
Oral Answers to Questions
Geraint Davies Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend very much for everything she has done for that cause over many years, and I reassure her that, very shortly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will outline not just more money for primary schools and secondary schools, but also a big investment in schools for special educational needs and disabilities. That is, again, delivering on the priorities of the British people.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Gentleman wants to put that matter to the people, the best thing he can do is persuade his right hon. Friend to summon up his courage and to stop being so frit. If he is going to pass this wretched surrender Bill, at least he should submit it to the judgment of the people in the form of a general election.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to implement the will of the people of Swansea, what he should do is vote with this Government and not for the surrender Bill tonight.
Oral Answers to Questions
Geraint Davies Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alun Cairns
I highlight the fact that manufacturing is doing well in the Welsh economy, with 12,000 more manufacturing jobs in the economy now than there were in 2010. There are now 4,000 more manufacturing jobs in the Welsh economy than there were last year. Manufacturing employers would like to see a deal with the European Union; perhaps the hon. Lady should explain why she has voted against a deal with the European Union. Furthermore, she needs to explain why she is rejecting the will of the Welsh people, who voted in stronger numbers than the UK average to leave the European Union.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
The Government are clear that the best outcome for Wales and the Welsh economy is that the UK leaves the European Union in an orderly manner with a deal. That is why I voted for one on three separate occasions.
Geraint Davies
The Secretary of State knows that, if we stay within the EU, British people will get a 20% uplift in structural funding to £440 per person. Will he ensure that, in the event of our leaving with a deal, that money is sustained completely with a new UK prosperity fund? If we have a no-deal outcome, there will, quite simply, be no structural funding and we will hit a cliff edge, and more firms like Tata, Airbus and Ford will leave on his watch.
Alun Cairns
I do not recognise any of the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Let me ask him this one question: does he recognise that Swansea voted to leave the European Union in higher numbers than the national average, and, if so, why does he reject the will of his constituents?
European Council
Geraint Davies Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
There are a number of mechanisms that we can use on the two specific issues my hon. Friend has raised—and on climate change, of course. Hopefully, if we are able to win the bid to host COP 26, that will be an important signal. We want to address this issue globally, not just with the European Union. On internet harms, the UK led the way in, for example, setting up the global forum against terrorist and extremist material on the internet. The UK will continue to play its role in encouraging our European partners, but others around the world as well, on those and other important issues.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I wish you a very happy first decade, Mr Speaker.
The Prime Minister confirmed to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) that in the event of no deal, the UK will not oppose a further £2 billion contribution in November/December as we approach a further payment for the divorce bill. Will she further confirm that convergence funding for Wales will immediately stop in the event of no deal? At a time when we are seeing Ford leaving Bridgend, Airbus leaving Wales and Tata in the balance, is it not time we recognised that the workers in these plants who voted to leave, in good faith for more prosperity, did not vote to leave their jobs and should be given the final say on whether we go ahead with the madness of Brexit or are given the opportunity to remain in the EU?
Leaving the European Union
Geraint Davies Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
We have had discussions with both the Scottish and Welsh Governments about their concerns, particularly around trade across the EU, and our proposals reflect those concerns, together with our discussions with business across the whole UK. As I understand it, the position of the Scottish nationalists now is that they want to revoke article 50. That is not a compromise. It is a position that goes back on the result of the referendum.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
MPs from around the House have suggested that the Prime Minister’s deal is not sustainable because she has announced her resignation and that it is not future-proofed. Does she agree that neither her deal nor any other deal can be future-proofed or sustainable unless entrenched by a public confirmatory vote? On that basis, if she wants to heal the wounds and make it sustainable, she should put that public confirmatory vote in the Bill itself.
European Council
Geraint Davies Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for the support that he has recently shown for the deal. The best way that we can give that confidence to his constituents is by ensuring that, in this House, we agree a deal so that we are then able to deliver on our leaving of the European Union.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister said a moment ago that the European Parliament can vote to ratify the deal before we can in this Parliament. Presumably, during the interlude, there will be further negotiations to change the political declaration. Will she tell me how she intends to entrench any agreements on the political declaration that are made in good faith between the two parties if not by a public confirmatory vote? Such a vote will make the agreements on the declaration sustainable as it will prevent them being ripped up by a future leader.
The Prime Minister
We have already indicated our intention to ensure that Parliament has a greater role in relation to the future relationship by accepting, as we said on 29 March, the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). Elements of this are about the political declaration, but there are also elements that are about what we do here in this House in UK legislation to ensure that we are entrenching objectives for that future relationship. Of course, the negotiation still has to take place with the EU on that future relationship, but there are many steps that we can take here in the United Kingdom to give confidence to Members of this House.
UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union
Geraint Davies Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir William Cash
I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that, having been involved in these European issues for about 34 years and having some knowledge of constitutional law and the way in which these things operate in practice, I am not going to trust anybody or anything until I see a copy of the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, which will be rammed through this House. If we do not have a chance to look at it beforehand, it would put us at considerable risk. That is my point, and I think we need to take it into account.
I now turn to the framework for our leaving the EU lawfully under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. Subject only to the extension of time, this is the law of the land and it is how we assert our sovereign constitutional right not merely to reaffirm but to guarantee in law that we control our own laws in this Parliament as a sovereign nation, in line with the democratic wishes of the British electorate in general elections.
The European Communities Act itself was passed on the basis of the White Paper that preceded it. In that White Paper there was an unequivocal statement that we would retain a veto on matters affecting our vital national interests. Gradually over time, since 1973, there has been a continuing reduction, a whittling away, of that veto to virtual extinction.
Leaving the EU, however, in the context of article 4 of the withdrawal agreement raises this question again as an issue of fundamental importance. We are no longer living in the legal world of Factortame—that was when we were in the European Union. When we leave, the circumstances change. We simply cannot have laws passed and imposed upon us, against our vital national interests, by the Council of Ministers behind closed doors during the transition period, or at any time. That would be done by qualified majority voting or consensus and, as I said to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in my first intervention in the previous debate, it would subjugate this Parliament for the first time in our entire history, as we would have left the European Union. It would therefore be a radical invasion of the powers and privileges of this House, which I believe would effectively be castrated during that period of time. We would be subjected to total humiliation.
I therefore regard it as axiomatic that, in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, we must include a parliamentary veto over any such law within the entire range of European treaties and laws. As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I know that we currently have about 200 uncleared European provisions and, in my 34 years on the Committee, we have never once overturned a European law imposed on us through the Council of Ministers.
Just think about it. This House will accept laws by qualified majority vote without our being there and with no transcript. Where we were once in the EU, we will now have left. Leaving totally changes the basis on which we conduct our business. Under our Standing Orders, my Committee has the task, in respect of European Union documents, of evaluating what is of legal and political importance, and it has the right to refer matters to European Standing Committees or to the Floor of the House, particularly where the Government accept the latter.
We can impose a scrutiny reserve, which means that Ministers cannot, except in exceptional circumstances, agree to any proposed law passed in the Council of Ministers in defiance of our scrutiny reserve. However, that is not a veto. Once a matter has been debated, or once the scrutiny reserve has been removed, any such law becomes the law of the United Kingdom and is thereby imposed on our constituents.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that, after we leave at the end of March, there will be a transition period in which we will have no veto over European laws, which is true. Is he therefore arguing that it would be better to crash out? Does he accept there is a risk that we will not agree anything by the end of March, that we will not have an extended date, that we will crash out and that, under the Good Friday agreement, Ireland could vote to reunify? That would be a complete disaster.
Sir William Cash
The hon. Gentleman is a member of my Committee, so he knows exactly what I am saying, and he understands perfectly well that when we leave we leave. When we do leave, the circumstances under which we currently operate, under our Standing Orders, will change.
When we leave the EU, the situation becomes radically different. I therefore propose—in line with the Prime Minister’s own suggestions as set out in a carefully crafted pamphlet published in 2007 by Politeia, a think-tank—that the European Scrutiny Committee should, upon our leaving the European Union, be able to make recommendations as to how and when our veto should be invoked, as justified by our national interest.
The alternative is that we will just have laws imposed upon us. That will include, for example—I invite the hon. Gentleman and the House to listen to this—matters relating to tax policy. There are now proposals on the table to change tax policy from national unanimity to majority vote. Defence and defence procurement are also included, as is state aid. The list is endless.
Contrary to some assertions that the EU law-making process takes so long that there would be no problem, the European Union is quite capable of accelerating its procedures, and I believe it would do so by putting us at the mercy of our competitors. One recent well-known example is ports regulation. We fought that in the European Standing Committee and, despite the fact that port employers and trade unions were against it, it went through. This would happen in respect of almost any proposed EU law within the vast swathe of competences in the entire corpus of the European treaties. If that happened, we would have no redress. We would not be able to veto it if we do not get a veto, and we would not be able to affect it properly under our current scrutiny arrangements. Furthermore, the British people would be the ones to suffer, and that would include people in Scotland, too. Do not get the idea that this is a free zone situation for Scotland. SNP Members will also be affected, and they had better start taking it seriously.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I wonder why the Conservative Benches are so empty. Is it because Conservative Members are all at the Uxbridge Unicorn Tavern being sold Golden Brexit beer? And when they taste it, does it taste so awful that they spit it out in the street, only for Boris the barman to say, “No, no, no —you ordered it, you’ve got to drink it”?
I stand here speaking on behalf of people in Swansea who voted leave because they were told they were voting for good things such as more money, more trade, more jobs and more control. They are now finding that they are not going to get any of those things. They are going to have to spend another £40 billion on the divorce bill, and the economy is shrinking by 10%. Trade is going to shrink, and we are going to be outside Team EU when we negotiate with China, with Trump and with other countries. We are going to get a worse deal, not a better deal. They voted to control immigration, but immigration will not be controlled with an open border in Northern Ireland. Of course, the risk that we will not have an open border may also put the peace process at risk.
Frankly, any Brexit will make us poorer, weaker, more divided and isolated and will risk environmental rights and workers’ rights, so to go ahead with it, given all the knowledge that we now have, would be a collective act of wilful negligence. It would be a betrayal of those who voted leave and a crime against democracy not to give the people the opportunity to judge whether they are getting what they ordered. If we do not give them that opportunity or just simply revoke article 50, we will never be forgiven. Some say that there will be anger if there is another vote—a vote on the deal as opposed to a vote on the principle—but people will be completely enraged if, having voted leave for more money, more jobs and so on, they find that they lose their jobs. There will be turmoil and carnage, and we will never be forgiven.
We have had referendums throughout Britain over the years, including on Wales, Scotland, mayoral elections and so on, and the people have subsequently changed their minds. In the referendum on whether to have a mayor in Manchester, the people voted not to have one, but the Government imposed one. These referendums are advisory, and the Brexit one was characterised by cheating, lying, betrayal and broken promises. In the name of democracy, the people expect to have a vote and to move forward.
It may be the case that we cannot reach an agreement, and it is obvious that people do not agree with the current deal, because there is either too little or too much alignment with the EU. That is why we keep failing to get an agreement. We are running towards the end, and if we say, “Let’s have an extension,” what if the EU says, “You can’t have an extension because you cannot make your mind up”? The choice will then be between crashing out without a deal, with all the carnage, medicine and food shortages and laws not working that that would entail, or revoking article 50 and continuing as usual. I have supported a public vote on the deal to give the people the final say, but if we end up with the choice that I just outlined, we need to revoke article 50 and stay where we are. The people now know how good the EU is, what a good deal we are getting and what we stand to lose.
In conclusion, we need to have faith in the people to decide on what is now on the table. If they do not want it, we should keep the existing deal, which is a very good one.