Brexit Readiness: Operation Yellowhammer

Lord Gove Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Michael Gove)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on our preparations to leave the European Union and the steps that we are taking to be ready for every eventuality.

Some 17.4 million people voted in the referendum in June 2016 to leave the European Union—more than have ever voted for any proposition in the history of our democracy—and this Government are committed to honouring that verdict. The Government are determined to secure a good deal with our EU partners. Negotiations have been led by the Prime Minister, the Brexit Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, and those negotiations have seen significant movement over recent weeks. Until recently, the EU has maintained that the withdrawal agreement was sacrosanct, but now it has acknowledged that it can be changed. Up until this point, the European Union has also said that the backstop was inviolable, but again, European leaders have said that they are not emotionally attached to the backstop and hat there are other ways of ensuring that we can safeguard the gains of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and also ensure smooth trade flows across the island of Ireland.

I want to commend the Prime Minister and his colleagues for the progress that has been made in those negotiations, and I hope that everyone in the House will agree that it is better for all of us if we can leave the EU with a withdrawal agreement in place, but Government need to be prepared for every eventuality. Since the PM took office, he has created a new Cabinet structure to ensure that, across Government, we take all the steps necessary to prepare for exit. A new Cabinet Committee—XO—has met 48 times and brought greater focus and urgency to our preparations. Our top economic priority is to ensure that we can maintain a smooth and efficient flow of goods and people from the UK into the EU and vice versa. We need to make sure that businesses are ready for changed circumstances and new customs requirements. There are, of course, some goods that require not just customs checks but other procedures—particularly food and products of animal origin—and we have been working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the relevant sectors to ensure that those businesses are ready.

We take very seriously our responsibility to ensure that the rights of millions of EU citizens in this country are protected, and we are working with our European partners to ensure that UK nationals in EU nations also have their rights safeguarded. The XO Committee has also taken steps to safeguard and enhance national security and the operation of our criminal justice system, to enhance the free flow of personal data across borders, to ensure that we can support the devolved Administrations in their work and, in particular, to support the Northern Ireland civil service in its vital work.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to go into a little more detail about how we can facilitate the free flow of goods across borders, and it is in that context that I would like to explain the role of Project Yellowhammer in the Government’s planning. If the UK leaves the European Union without a withdrawal agreement, we will be a third country, subject to the EU’s common external tariff and trading on World Trade Organisation terms, and exports will be subject to new customs and sanitary and phytosanitary checks. These are unarguable facts, they pose specific challenges, and they constitute the base scenario with which we all have to work.

The Government’s Civil Contingencies Secretariat has used these facts to develop a reasonable worst-case scenario of what might happen, including in cases where appropriate mitigations are not put in place and readiness measures are not implemented. That reasonable worst-case scenario and the steps required to mitigate it are the work undertaken under the name Operation Yellowhammer. As the National Audit Office reported in March, work on Operation Yellowhammer has been going on since June 2018. The NAO made it clear then that

“Departments are working on the basis of a reasonable worst case scenario.”

Many of the challenges that Operation Yellowhammer identifies relate specifically to flow at the border. It contains careful estimates of how flow might be affected through a range of factors, including if steps are not taken to help businesses to be ready. That is why this Government have taken significant steps to ensure that businesses are ready. Specifically, we know that in adjusting to this new situation, businesses require support to deal with those new customs procedures, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has acted to support traders. Importers will have access to transitional simplified procedures, which ensure that businesses have time to adjust to new duties. Businesses exporting to the European Union will need a specific economic operator registration and identification number from HMRC, and HMRC has already allocated EORI numbers to 88,000 VAT-registered businesses that currently trade with the EU and not beyond it.

We have introduced postponed accounting for import VAT and negotiated access to the common transit convention, so that both imported and exported goods can continue to flow across international borders without the payment of any duties until they reach their final destination. We have established new transit sites in Kent and Essex, to ensure that trucks can flow freely, carrying goods into France and beyond to the wider EU. We are also providing tailored information to hauliers and businesses through a range of sites across the country, to ensure the greatest level of readiness. We have funded business representative organisations to share information with enterprises large and small, and they are preparing for exit. We have also worked with the authorities in both Dover and Calais to smooth trade, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the French authorities for the work they have done to ensure the operation of a smart border at Calais, so that compliant consignments should experience no delay.

The steps we have taken are designed to ensure that businesses are ready for exit without a deal on 31 October, but these steps will in any case be necessary for life outside the single market and the customs union when we secure a new free trade agreement with the EU. Thanks to work undertaken under the previous Government, and accelerated under this Administration, many businesses are already well prepared. For any business that is in any doubt about what is required, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is conducting roadshows and visiting businesses in their premises, and gov.uk/brexit provides all the information required.

As I mentioned, there are specific additional requirements for those who are exporting food and products of animal origin, with sanitary and phytosanitary checks. Traders will require export health certificates for food and catch certificates for fish. Hundreds of vets have now been trained to issue those certificates and additional personnel certified to support them. Again, the French authorities have taken steps to ensure the smooth flow of critical produce. They have specifically created a new border inspection post at Boulogne-sur-Mer to ensure that fish and shellfish products can be caught in the UK today and be on sale in the European Union tomorrow.

Of course, as well as making sure that commerce flows, we must safeguard the rights of individuals. That is why this Government have provided the most comprehensive and generous offer to EU citizens in this country, in order to guarantee their rights. It is already the case that under the EU settlement scheme, more than 1 million people have been granted status, and the Home Office is helping thousands of new applicants every day. If any Member of Parliament finds that any of their constituents are having difficulties with that process, I would welcome their getting in touch directly with me and the Home Secretary.

In the same way, we have taken steps to secure the rights of UK nationals in the EU, including access to healthcare after exit, and we will continue to work with our partners in member states to provide further protection for UK nationals. It is important that UK citizens in those countries register with the appropriate authorities. On gov.uk/brexit details are outlined, member state by member state, to enable every citizen to have the rights they deserve.

Also this month, the Government committed to increasing the UK state pension, which is paid to nearly half a million people living in the EU every year, for three years after a no-deal exit. Previously the commitment was solely for the financial year 2019-20. As well as making sure that UK nationals in the EU, and EU citizens in the UK, have their rights protected, we want to make sure that UK citizens can continue to travel in the EU without impediment. That is why UK nationals will have visa-free travel into the EU. We are also talking to member states to understand how people who provide professional services can continue to do so, member state by member state.

On security, it is vital to ensure, as we leave the EU, that we have the right approach to safeguarding citizens. That is why we have been talking to the EU about making sure we continue to have access to law enforcement and national security instruments. It is also important to recognise that, as we leave the EU, new tools will be available to ensure that we can better deal with people trafficking, smuggling and other criminal activity.

On the situation in Northern Ireland, the Government are absolutely committed to the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, absolutely determined to ensure there will be no infrastructure at the border, and absolutely determined to uphold the functioning of the all-Ireland economy. That is why we will have no checks at the border and no tariffs. We wait to see what Ireland and the EU Commission will decide, but we stand ready to work with them to help to safeguard commerce and rights across the island of Ireland.

I do not shirk from the fact that leaving the EU without a deal provides economic challenges, but it is also provides economic opportunities. There is the opportunity to secure new trade deals and become a strong voice for free trade at the WTO; the opportunity to develop new technologies that will help feed the world and enhance the environment; the opportunity to overhaul Government procurement to better support growing British businesses; the opportunity to introduce a fairer, more efficient and more humane immigration system; the opportunity to deal more effectively with cross-border crime; the opportunity to invest more flexibly and generously to support overlooked communities; and the opportunity to strengthen our democratic institutions.

The British people gave us a clear instruction to leave the EU. This House now has a clear choice. Do we honour that instruction, or do we continue to delay and seek to frustrate the British people’s vote? The Government are clear that we must honour that decision. I commend this statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for an advance copy of his statement. Let us get to the detail and test what he says.

First, the right hon. Gentleman says that the negotiations have seen significant movement over recent weeks. Will he confirm that three papers were submitted to the EU last week and one was submitted today, but they are what the EU called non-papers, because they are for discussion and do not commit the member state to the policy outlined in them, and at the moment they are being kept secret from the EU27? What is the thrust or gist of those papers? If we are to assess the likelihood of success in negotiations, we need to know.

Secondly, may I challenge the right hon. Gentleman’s statement that many businesses are already well prepared for no deal? At 3 o’clock last Wednesday, I sat round a table with the leaders of pretty well all the business sectors, and the one message they wanted to get across was how concerned they were that businesses were not prepared for a no-deal Brexit. I do not believe those businesses are saying one thing to me and another thing to the Government. Will he therefore clarify what he meant?

The statement significantly and studiously avoids giving any detail of the scenario that we are told the Government’s civil contingencies secretariat has drawn up. On 9 September, just before we were shut down, an order was made that all the documents prepared within Her Majesty’s Government since 23 July relating to Operation Yellowhammer and submitted to Cabinet or a Cabinet Committee should be laid before the House by 11 o’clock on 11 September. The Government are spending a lot of money telling businesses and the country to get ready, and they want to know what they are to get ready for. They need to know what could happen so that they can prepare. On 11 September, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wrote to the Chair of the Brexit Select Committee,

“I thought it would be helpful to publish the Operation Yellowhammer document based on assumptions drawn up by the last Government.”

I have that document in my hand; it was the only document disclosed. He went on to say,

It is…my intention…to publish revised assumptions in due course”.

Nothing else has been produced.

The document disclosed to the Chair of the Select Committee is dated 2 August. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explain how it is a document of the last Government, not this one? As he knows, it was leaked pretty well in full to The Sunday Times. Just so that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does not try to avoid this by saying that he will not comment on leaked documents, I understand that it also went to the Welsh Government. In response to that leak, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said on the Marr show on 1 September that the document

“predated the creation of this new government”

and that its predictions were the “worst possible eventuality.” The impression he was trying to create was that it is an old document and a worst-case scenario. [Interruption.] Thank you—that is exactly the point I want to come on to: the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster went on to say that it is “constantly updated”. Given that the document is dated 2 August, was it produced for this Government, the last Government or both? If it was for the last Government, have this Government produced any documents of their own since 23 July relating to Operation Yellowhammer? It is no good saying, “We are going to produce them.” This Government have been in place for nine weeks, and there are only five weeks and two days to go until 31 October.

If it is an old document and it was produced for the last Government, why did somebody change the title after the leak to The Sunday Times? It used to be branded the “base scenario”. Somebody got hold of an old, apparently irrelevant document and changed the title, so it is now called, “HMG Reasonable Worst Case Planning Assumptions”. Why was it changed if it is out of date and an old document? Who did it?

Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirm that the rebranded document has 20 substantive paragraphs, each word for word the same as those in the document leaked to The Sunday Times? If it is constantly updated, where are the constant updates? This is the only document we have. Will he confirm that, according to this document, there will be “significant and prolonged disruption” at ports; that the “worst disruption” to the channel straits will last “up to 3 months”; and that there will be “significant queues in Kent” and delays of up to two and a half days at the border for HGVs attempting to use the channel route to France? If the answer is no, what is that based on if there is not another document in existence that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has not disclosed in accordance with the order of this House? The answer is either yes or no, based on a document that has not been disclosed.

Paragraph 18 has not had the attention it should have had. It centres on the impact of no deal on Northern Ireland. I know that this is a matter that the House takes extremely seriously. It sets out the Government’s planned model. It states:

“The agri-food sector will be the hardest hit… Disruption to key sectors and job losses are likely to result in protests and direct action with road blockages. Price and other differentials are likely to lead to the growth of the illegitimate economy.”

It also mentions severe disruption at the border. The document itself concludes that the pressure will be such—[Interruption.] Northern Ireland happens to be extremely important to many people in this House. [Interruption.] We are here to scrutinise the Government; let us get on with it. This document indicates that the Government’s proposed model will come under such pressure that it is unlikely to survive for more than a few days or weeks. The Government’s preferred model for Northern Ireland is unlikely, according to their own assessment, to survive for more than a few days or weeks. A model that will not last more than a week is not a plan. There must be an update. Where is it?

Has the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster received any representations from the energy sector about the impact on oil and gas supplies to the UK in the event of no deal?

Anyone watching today’s proceedings and still thinking that somewhere lurks a clever and cunning plan to get through the chaos of the Government’s making needs to think again. The Government have lost six out of six votes in Parliament and the Prime Minister has lost his majority and his case in the Supreme Court. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said on the radio this morning that the Prime Minister is a born winner. I am glad that he has not lost his sense of humour. However, this is not a game, and for the Government to be five weeks away from leaving the EU without a plan is unforgiveable.

[Michael Gove]

I welcome the shadow Brexit Secretary back from Brighton and to the House of Commons. One thing about the House of Commons is that, whether we lose or win votes, at least they are recorded accurately.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman repeated on several occasions that he believed in constant updates. What a pity he did not update his list of questions in the light of the points that I made in my statement. What a pity he relied on a list that he had drafted many hours earlier.

On the first point, which was about negotiations, there have been detailed negotiations with the European Commission and EU member states. The Commission briefs the EU27 on those negotiations. As a result of those briefings and conversations, we have made the progress that I charted earlier. I hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have been generous enough to acknowledge that the withdrawal agreement is now in play and the backstop can be replaced by alternative arrangements.

The shadow Brexit Secretary asked about business readiness. He said that he met some business organisations and they kept him up until 3 o’clock in the morning with a single message. I imagine that it was, “Whatever you do, please replace your leader.” [Interruption.] I will treat the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s comments with the seriousness they deserve. The automotive sector, which I met earlier this week, confirmed that it was ready. The retail sector has confirmed that it is ready. Ninety per cent. of the companies measured by value that trade with the EU also trade with countries outside the EU and they are in a position to be ready.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the Operation Yellowhammer document, but he seemed to miss the point that the National Audit Office appreciated earlier this year and that has entirely passed him by. Operation Yellowhammer is a reasonable worst case scenario. The Government have taken and are taking steps to mitigate it and the XO Committee has authorised more than 300 actions since we started meeting in August to mitigate the consequences. We will update the House on all the steps that we have taken, many of which are listed in my statement and none of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about, from transitional simplified procedures to the application of EORI numbers. The shadow Brexit Secretary asked not a single question about all the things that business needs to get ready. His pretensions to speak for business are exposed as a hollow sham.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about clever and cunning plans. I suppose he was thinking about the Labour party’s position on Brexit. In February 2017, he said that

“politically the notion that the referendum was merely a consultation exercise… holds no water… we in… Labour… have to accept the result. —[Official Report, 31 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 825.]

Now, in some sort of political equivalent of VAR, he wants to annul that result. Now Labour’s policy is to delay Brexit further, seek an extension of indefinite duration, renegotiate a new deal, then put it to the country in a new referendum, with the deputy leader saying, “Vote remain”, many Back Benchers saying, “Vote leave” and the Labour leader undecided. Labour’s position on Brexit is as solid as a blancmange in a hurricane and as coherent as an apology from Vicky Pollard.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

When my right hon. Friend refers to Operation Yellowhammer as a document that was introduced by the previous Administration but is being read and updated by the current Administration, does he also recognise that its purpose was to advise the Government of what more they needed to do to be ready? It was not meant to be an assistant to the Opposition spokesman, who struggles hard to get his lines right. It was there for a purpose, which is being met.

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for advance sight of the statement. That allows me to begin by pointing out the glaring omission in what he told the House a few moments ago. He really ought to have started by thanking Lady Hale and her fellow judges in the Supreme Court for the decision they took yesterday because, without that judgment, he would not have had the opportunity to come to the House today and explain the Government’s preparations, and we would not have the opportunity to see in all its glory just how woefully inadequately prepared the Government actually are.

I do not put this down to a lack of effort on the Government’s part. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman’s XO committee is in permanent session, almost, and we know from the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) that the Government are fixated, almost to the exclusion of everything else, on preparations for no deal. The fact that we are so far away from concluding those preparations is simply testament to the enormity of the task and the fact that it is simply not doable in the next five weeks.

As a result, rather than being honest with the House, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is indulging in euphemisms, wishful thinking, banter and jokes. The truth of the matter is that he is trying to sugar coat a disastrous situation, and that begins with the very title of the document. I return to the point raised by the Opposition spokesperson. The First Minister of Scotland has confirmed that the document—the very same document—given to the Scottish Government was referred to as a “base scenario”, yet several days later, when it is published, it is referred to as a “worst-case scenario”. That is an attempt to suggest that there are of course much better scenarios and there is nothing to see and no need to worry.

I ask again, and I do not want a joke in response: who made the decision to change that title and why? There are other things throughout the document that show the degree of sugar feeding as well, but probably one of the most bizarre things that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has just said—he said it just a few moments ago—is that UK citizens would have visa-free travel throughout the EU in the event of a no deal. That is just rubbish. That is nonsense. The very fact of a no deal means that there will not be that—that is what no deal means. This is either an exercise in self-delusion or a wilful attempt to mislead the House, but it is most certainly not the truth. We ought to be hearing the truth.

This is my principal question for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Surely the time has now come to assess whether it is realistically possible to get a deal to leave the European Union on 31 October. The House has considered this question and come to a judgment that it probably would not be possible, and that therefore it is necessary for the Government to apply for an extension of the process. Will he accept that mandate from this Parliament? Will he act as a member of this Government to make sure that it is implemented, or will he continue to flout the will of the House and proceed with preparations for a situation that is now frankly unlawful according to the law of the land? This is what I want to know: will he commit to discharging the mandate given to him, will he follow the law of the land, and will he confirm to the House whether he has had discussions with the Prime Minister about doing anything other than that?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions, and may I also say that I am grateful to the Supreme Court for the clarity of its judgment. I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the Scottish Government for the extensive work they have done along with colleagues from the other devolved Administrations to help us prepare for a no-deal exit. Only yesterday, I was chairing a committee meeting at which the Scottish Cabinet Secretary responsible for agriculture and rural affairs was, along with other Ministers from the devolved Administrations, actively taking steps to ensure that his constituents were actively ready to prepare for a no-deal Brexit. It is only right that we should record our thanks to the civil servants of the devolved Administrations for that work, too.

I do not shirk the fact that there are serious challenges. We are all aware of them, and we would all much prefer to leave with a deal. The hon. Gentleman asked what preparations are being made to secure a deal. I listed some of the advances that have been made in negotiations earlier, but one thing that I would say is that we have had a chance in this House of Commons to vote for deals before, and it was the choice of his party resolutely not to vote for a deal. We could have—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman should plough on.

[Michael Gove]

We could have had a withdrawal agreement if only Scottish National party Members had been as good as their word and put the interests of Scotland ahead of narrow sectarian, secessionist and separatist arguments.

The hon. Member also asked about the Yellowhammer document. As I mentioned earlier, the NAO confirmed earlier this year that it was a reasonable worst-case scenario, and it is one that, as I mentioned in response to both the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), we have taken steps to mitigate. Those steps, many of which have been taken in co-ordination with devolved Administrations, extend to everything from the provision of infrastructure to ensure catch certificates for the Scottish fishing industry to the licensing of new people to ensure export health certificates for other areas of agriculture.

Finally, the hon. Member made a point about lawfulness. It is vital that we all uphold the law in this House of Commons, but it is also important that we recognise that we passed a Bill in order to create a referendum in which we said that the people’s verdict would be respected. Our democracy depends not just on respect for the rule of law but on respect for the people’s verdict.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the information he shared with me and other Kent MPs earlier this week about the accelerating preparations for ensuring that freight traffic approaching the port of Dover can run smoothly. I am sure he agrees that avoiding chaos on the roads in Kent will be one of the key indicators of smooth planning for Brexit, however it takes place. Can he give the House his assessment of how well the haulage industry across Europe is responding to the British Government’s information about the paperwork necessary to make sure that the short strait crossing in the channel works as efficiently as possible after Brexit?

[Michael Gove]

It was a pleasure to meet my right hon. Friend and other Kent MPs earlier this week. More than 80% of the hauliers who ply their trade through the short strait come from EU countries, which is why we have created offices in those EU countries to provide hauliers and traders with information, why we have published guidance in more than 10 EU languages, and why we are contacting traders in the UK who use those hauliers to make sure they are ready. Steps are also being taken to ensure that the traffic management in Kent under the aegis of the Kent resilience forum is as effective as possible. That said, further steps do need to be taken, and I hope to update him and the House as they are taken.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

How will the British people be safer than ever before if we lose access to EU crime-fighting databases in a no-deal scenario?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

Because Border Force will have considerable new powers to intercept people smugglers, human traffickers and those dealing in organised crime.

[Sir David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir David Lidington]

While completely supporting the need to engage in rigorous contingency planning, as my right hon. Friend is doing, can I ask him also to confirm that in Northern Ireland, in the absence of an Executive, the civil service there lacks the necessary powers to take the mitigating measures that he is rightly putting in place for England, and will he say what plans the Government have to introduce the necessary steps, including legislation, to ensure that guidance and direction are available in Northern Ireland?

[Michael Gove]

I will take a little longer than I would ordinarily want to because I first want to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his knighthood and to thank him for his years of Government service. He was an outstanding Minister in a number of offices. For my part, I particularly recognise that as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster he did so much to prepare us for EU exit and to advance negotiations with the EU.

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point about Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland civil service and the Police Service of Northern Ireland have done an enormous amount to prepare for the contingencies of no-deal exit. We should all be grateful to them for the work they do. He is right, however, that in the absence of a functioning Executive, they lack ministerial direction. It is important that we do everything we can to restore a functioning Executive. If no Executive is in place, we will have to consider in the House and in discussions with our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland what steps might be required to ensure that we can give appropriate support to the Northern Ireland civil service.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Paragraph 18 of the Operation Yellowhammer document states that the Government’s current plans to manage the Northern Irish border after no deal—which are no new checks or tariffs on goods coming in from the Republic of Ireland—are

“likely to prove unsustainable due to significant economic, legal and biosecurity risks and no effective unilateral mitigations to address this will be available.”

That is not a description of a worst-case scenario; it is a description of what is likely to happen because, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster knows, Northern Ireland businesses will all face tariffs from the very first day.

Given that, earlier this year, the right hon. Gentleman wrote that the United Kingdom

“didn’t vote to leave without a deal”,

are the Government really prepared to allow their willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit to jeopardise the peace and security that have been achieved in Northern Ireland as a result of the Good Friday agreement?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Exiting the European Union Committee for making that point. Let me stress again that Operation Yellowhammer is a reasonable worst-case scenario. The scenarios that it outlines are those that would happen if no mitigation steps were taken. However, he is right to say that Northern Ireland businesses would face specific challenges in the event of a no-deal exit as a result of having to face a common external tariff. Indeed, agri-food businesses across the UK would face those challenges. There are steps that we can take—economic interventions and others—to help those businesses, and it is important that we do so. It is also important that we continue our conversations with the European Commission and the Irish Government about making sure that the position of businesses and individuals in Northern Ireland is safeguarded.

The right hon. Gentleman made a broader point about no deal. A deal is preferable, which is why I hope that he will vote for one in the future, having not been able to do so in the past.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I very much agree with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that it is essential for us to agree a deal with the EU, but while we are making those preparations for a no-deal Brexit, can he assure the leaders of the NHS in Cornwall that his plans will include social care services alongside NHS services, because they too are so essential?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend was a very distinguished and effective Minister, and she is absolutely right to focus on some of the challenges that the NHS and, indeed, social care will face in the future. We have taken steps—the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has taken steps—to make sure that we can have all the medicines that we require, both by ensuring that we have unimpeded flow in the short straits and by ensuring that we can procure additional freight capacity.

The broader adult social care sector does also require close attention. In leaving the EU, we must take account of both the impacts on the labour market and the potential impacts of any devaluation of sterling. We are taking a close look at that particular sector, and at the vulnerable people who should be our first concern.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has just claimed that Border Force will have new powers to carry out checks and that that will make us safer, but can he confirm that under no deal it will no longer have most of the information that it needs to carry out those checks, because it will lose access to the SIS II database, which contains more than 70 million pieces of criminal information, whereas the replacement Interpol database has only several hundred thousand?

The Home Office has also told the Select Committee that the border crossing arrangements will remain unchanged in the event of no deal. Given that the Cabinet Secretary, the National Security Adviser, top police officers and counter-terror chiefs have all said that in the event of no deal we will be less safe, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us which of those individuals have now told us we will be safer, and if not, will he withdraw that claim to the House?

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Lady is right about the Schengen Information System. If we leave without a deal and the EU does not put provisions in place, we will lose access to that database. However, I have had an opportunity to question people who have been involved in national security and individuals who work for Border Force. Appropriate mitigations are place, and, indeed, new powers are available.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that in the case of our current borders with the EU—our currency borders, VAT borders, excise borders—all the calculations and payments that those require take place away from the border; and so will not customs also be handled electronically, away from the border, not leading to queues?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is the case that for most companies, the customs procedures that they will now need to engage in will be conducted away from the border, at offices of departure, by authorised consignees, and as a result, with the operation of the smart border that the French put in place in Calais, that should lead to as smooth as possible a flow of trade.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Irish Government have made it clear that they intend to impose full tariffs on goods coming from Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic, yet without border checks. If that is the case, why is the Minister insisting that no taxes will be imposed on goods coming from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland? Does he not recognise that, first, that places businesses in Northern Ireland at an unfair disadvantage; that it will lead to a loss of tax revenue; that it will make Northern Ireland a back door to GB; and lastly, that it will put no pressure at all on the Irish Government, who have adopted an intransigent position in these negotiations?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend of course makes a very strong case for a particular approach, but we believe that the approach we are taking is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland; and of course what will be in the interests of everyone—including the people of Northern Ireland—is for us to secure a deal, so that these mitigations are not required.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I suspect that my constituents in Gainsborough, who voted 62% to 38% for Brexit, are just fed up with this process carrying on—unless they enjoy root canal treatment every other day—so they are not fussed about what deal we get. They would take any deal—they just want the House to compromise, come together and get a deal. But they tell me that if we cannot get a deal, we have to leave on 31 October. I want an absolute commitment from this Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box that, no matter what, we are leaving on 31 October; otherwise, this Government are dead in the water.

[Michael Gove]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his point. He speaks very effectively and clearly for the people of his constituency. I can confirm that that is Government policy. May I also say that the way in which he shaped his question, in a balanced, thoughtful and reasonable way, recommends him as a successor for your office, Mr Speaker?

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that according to the Government the food sector, which employs around 12,000 people across Leicester and Leicestershire, will be hardest hit by no deal, and that people on low incomes will be disproportionately affected by any rises in food prices? Have the Government done any planning on how on earth we are going to support the thousands of food banks in this country, which tell me they are desperately worried that no deal will threaten the supply of surplus food that we, tragically, now depend on to feed the poor?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady raises three important points. The first is whether the food or agrifood sector, in the event of a no-deal scenario, is likely to be the worst affected. It is certainly the case that our agrifood exporters will face the highest tariffs if we leave without a deal, and in this job and my previous job, when at the Dispatch Box, I have not shied away from the consequences. There are risks and challenges; that is why DEFRA has taken steps in order to be able to mitigate those risks and challenges.

The hon. Lady asks about the impact on the vulnerable of a rise in prices. It may well be that some food commodity prices rise; others are likely to fall overall. She makes the point about food banks. It is vital that we support those who work with food banks, but I have seen no evidence or indication so far—I am very happy to talk to the hon. Lady—that the supply of food to food banks would be affected in any scenario, deal or no deal.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Ind)]

I always enjoy listening to my right hon. Friend, but I am always slightly conscious when he moves from answering questions to displacement activity. Can we go back to the issue of base case and worst case? Quite specifically, when were the words “base case” changed to “worst case”—the precise date, please, and who authorised the change? When was it done? That is the first question, because I think the House needs to be able to understand why that decision was made.

The second issue concerns the Schengen database. I am fascinated to hear about these measures of mitigation; I am familiar with the database in my role as Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. This is undoubtedly a key piece of data for the security of the United Kingdom. What exactly are the mitigations that my right hon. Friend is talking about that will be an adequate substitute for the loss of access to this database on a no-deal Brexit?

[Michael Gove]

It is always a pleasure to hear from my right hon. and learned Friend. In my statement, I drew a distinction between the base scenario, which involves those unarguable facts that we can all agree in this House will be the consequence of a no deal-exit, and a reasonable worst-case scenario. Operation Yellowhammer uses those base facts to draw up what a reasonable worst-case scenario might be. That is the distinction between them.

With respect to the Schengen information system, I would say, in fairness to my right hon. and learned Friend, that that is not the only law enforcement or national security tool that we will lose access to in a no-deal Brexit. There are others as well, but I have had an opportunity to talk to people who are involved in the provision of our national security, and I recognise that there are appropriate steps that we can take.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (IGC)]

I am going to remind the Minister that he has yet again not answered the question about when the name on the Yellowhammer document was changed and by whom, so I would like to ask him that as well. Please will he answer the questions that he did not answer from the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and from the shadow Brexit Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer)? Could he also confirm the existence of Operation Kingfisher and Operation Snow Bunting? There is a bird theme in all this. I do not know whether there is also an operation dodo, covering his plans for a no-deal Brexit, or an operation ostrich, involving the communal sticking of heads in the sand as the realities of no deal dawn—or, indeed, an operation blue tit, upon which I will make no comment. My final question is this: does Operation Yellowhammer still exist, or has it also had its name changed? If he could answer those specific questions, we would all be very grateful.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful for that ornithological outing from my right hon. Friend. The first thing to say is that Operation Yellowhammer absolutely does exist. It is the reasonable worst-case scenario, and the planning assumptions, as the National Audit Office has outlined, are those which we seek to, and have taken steps to, mitigate. She also referred to Operation Kingfisher, which is the programme led by the Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in order to ensure that we can intervene as appropriate in particular sectors in the event of no deal. I am afraid that there is no operation dodo, although I can well understand why the Independent Group for Change would be interested in such an exercise.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Ind)]

Taxpayers are funding the £100 million Get Ready for Brexit publicity campaign, but the reality is that they do not actually know what Brexit is going to mean. It is difficult for them when the two prime scenarios we are faced with are no deal and a negotiated deal. On no deal, as we have just heard, there are no real details that the Government are prepared to divulge on Operation Yellowhammer. In relation to a negotiated deal, our Government have given papers to the European Union to negotiate a settlement that the British people will have to live with, even though the British people themselves are not being allowed to see what is being negotiated on their behalf. My question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is: what is the problem? Is there some need for secrecy? If there is, he should explain it, but I do not think the British people want to have a secret Government. They want openness. Or is it a fact that there simply is no plan for no deal and that there is not really a plan for getting a deal? If that is the case, we ought to know about that, too.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the points she makes. With respect to the preparations for no deal, I listed some of them in my statement. I would welcome any Member of this House who would like to visit the Cabinet Office and the Department for Exiting the European Union to be taken through the extensive preparations that we are taking. As I mentioned earlier, it is the case that on everything from the provision of transitional simplified procedures and the allocation of EORI—economic operators registration and identification —numbers to the traffic management steps that we are taking in Kent, and indeed the information that exists on gov.uk/brexit, there is plenty of information that enables businesses to prepare for no deal. And, as I mentioned in my statement, that preparation will not be wasted in the case of a deal, because we are securing—well, we are seeking to secure—a free trade agreement with the European Union. With respect to negotiations, the Prime Minister, the Brexit Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and I have been clear: we are seeking to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements on the island of Ireland, and in any withdrawal agreement we want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens and move towards a future economic partnership that is based on a best-in-class free trade agreement.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

In the Minister’s statement, he rightly praised the work of the PSNI in Northern Ireland. He will know that the new Chief Constable of Northern Ireland warned just a week ago that any deployment by the PSNI to monitor checkpoints or cameras at or near the border would risk his officers being killed by dissident republicans. Can the Minister offer a guarantee to the people of Northern Ireland that that will never happen, that those officers will not be asked to patrol a hard border and that he will not be putting their lives at risk?

[Michael Gove]

I thank the hon. Gentleman because he gives me an opportunity once again to record my thanks to the Police Service of Northern Ireland—a brave group of men and women who do so much to keep not just the people of Northern Ireland but the people of the whole of the United Kingdom safe. We have absolutely no intention of erecting infrastructure at or near the border that would require the PSNI to place its officers at risk. Moreover, I want to underline the point that the threat from dissident republicans remains, whatever future relationship we have with the European Union. It is important that we all remain vigilant and support the PSNI in its valuable work against those who would seek to disrupt the peace process.

[Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Will he update the House on the advice and funding that are available to ensure that businesses, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, are ready for Brexit on 31 October?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has significantly increased the amount of money available. He has tripled the amount of money available specifically to ensure that customs agents are trained. Money has also been supplied to business representative organisations to ensure that the information that it is necessary should be ready is widely available, in particular to SMEs, which are the backbone of our economy.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

May I return to the concerns about lack of access to the Schengen information system and the 70 million pieces of data it contains, compared with other databases that contain very much less data? Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster guarantee that no vulnerable person, in particular no vulnerable child who may be missing, abducted or at risk of criminal exploitation, will be put in any danger by the loss of access to that system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. We have talked to the EU because it is in the collective interests of the UK and the EU to make sure that law enforcement and national security instruments which work to the benefit of both of us are shared. That is what we seek to do.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments in his statement on the provision of training and resources for the production of catch certificates for seafood. I presume that he is talking from the point of view of DEFRA and England, because the devolved Administration in Scotland, through Marine Scotland, are responsible for catch certificates in Scotland. What assurance has he received from the Scottish Government that adequate resources and training have been and will be provided to allow all catch certificates to be in place in time for 31 October?

[Michael Gove]

I know how effectively my hon. Friend stands up for the fishing sector—the catching sector and the processing sector. I have been talking to the Scottish Government and the relevant Cabinet Secretary, Fergus Ewing, to ensure that we do everything we can. We want to remain closely in touch not just with the Scottish Government but with good constituency Members like my hon. Friend and local authorities to ensure that the resources are there. Of course, if specific concerns have been expressed by Aberdeenshire as a local authority or by individual businesses, I hope he will bring them to my attention.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The chief executive of the Dale Farm dairy co-operative, who speaks for 1,300 dairy farmers across the United Kingdom, says that leaving the European Union without a deal would “wipe out” all profitability in the dairy sector. Cumbrian dairy farmers know that too, yet there is not a single explicit mention of the dairy industry in the Yellowhammer document. Is that because the truth of how badly hit dairy farming in Cumbria and elsewhere will be is so serious that it is not even written down, or is it that the Government have overlooked the interests and needs of Britain’s dairy industry?

[Michael Gove]

No and no.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

On Monday there was a welcome announcement by the Department of Health and Social Care that, for up to six months, certain British citizens living in the EU—about 180,000 retirees and others—will have the cost of access to healthcare services in the EU met by the UK Government. What message does my right hon. Friend have for those vulnerable and elderly British citizens living in the EU who might fall ill after the six-month period and who cannot afford health insurance?

[Michael Gove]

I thank my hon. Friend for his outstanding advocacy on behalf of EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU.

On the broader point, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has written in precisely those terms, but we are also taking additional steps, member state by member state, to ensure access to healthcare. The NHS also stands ready to ensure that any UK national can get the treatment they need.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

When the Minister appeared before the Brexit Committee on 5 September, he was unable to answer my question about what the reaction has been in Ireland to the UK Government unilaterally reneging on the commitments around the Irish border found in the joint report of December 2017. He did say, though, that he was looking forward to meeting the Tanaiste—the Irish Deputy Prime Minister —and other Irish politicians that weekend. Now he has had a chance to meet them, can he tell us what the reaction is of the Irish Government and of the politicians who represent the majority of the population in Northern Ireland to that unilateral reneging by the UK Government?

To be fair to the Minister, I should warn him that I met the Tanaiste last week on a cross-party delegation in Dublin, so I know the answer. I would like him to tell the House what Ireland thinks of how the UK is behaving.

[Michael Gove]

It is always good to ask a question to which you already know the answer.

I have had cordial conversations with the Tanaiste and, indeed, other Irish politicians about the vital importance of making sure that we do everything possible to underpin the gains made by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Those gains are not simply in the economic life of the island of Ireland but, as the hon. Gentleman says, in human flourishing and in stronger cultural and personal relationships. I had the opportunity at the British Irish Association conference to underline this Government’s commitment to strengthening all those relationships.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for so clearly setting out the contingency planning he is doing, but I am deeply concerned about the way in which leaked information has sometimes wilfully been used or misinterpreted to cause anxiety among our constituents. Can he reassure parents in my constituency whose children rely on short shelf-life medicines and liquid medical foods, which cannot be stockpiled, that those supplies will not be stopped when we leave the EU?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes two very good points. I understand that, in the political to and fro, people do not always look at the detail in every document, but she is right that it is important for all of us that we do not turn a sliver of a leak into an exaggeration. We face undoubted challenges in leaving the European Union, but one area where the greatest amount of mitigation has been taking place is in making sure that we can continue to provide all our constituents and the NHS with the drugs and medical supplies they need to maintain good health.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

As the Minister knows, the Freight Transport Association says that long delays at Dover are inevitable after a no deal because hundreds of non-compliant trucks will continue to arrive. Those trucks will have lengthy inspections in a lorry park in Calais that has only 300 spaces. When the lorry park is full, the ferries will stop. On what grounds does he reject that assessment?

[Michael Gove]

I do not. The Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and other organisations have been invaluable in making sure that the Government can take steps to communicate with individual hauliers, companies and traders about the steps they might need to take to obviate those risks. If traders ensure their goods have the appropriate transit accompanying documents or movement reference number barcode, they will smooth their passage through Calais without needing to go into any car park at all.

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

While Scottish Conservative Members actively want a deal, Scottish nationalist Members are actively pursuing no deal, because they have no desire to support any deal put to this House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is better that the two Governments of Scotland work together? Will he explain what conversations he has had with the Scottish Government? Does he know how much of the no-deal planning and preparation money of the Scottish Government has been spent in Scotland?

[Michael Gove]

It is an interesting feature of this House that whenever a Scottish Conservative Member makes an important and honest point, the decibel level from the Scottish nationalist party Members rises to the sort of pitch normally heard at Parkhead when Celtic scores a goal. The truth is that my hon. Friend is absolutely right: while the Scottish Government have taken some steps to mitigate the consequences, there is more that they can and must do. I salute the work of Scottish Ministers such as Humza Yousaf and the Deputy First Minister, who have taken a pragmatic approach, but it is critical that the First Minister and representatives here live up to their responsibilities to the people of Scotland and support a deal.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

The Government are spending £100 million on the Get Ready for Brexit campaign—the largest ad campaign for 70 years, which is clearly intended to provide a party political, partisan drumbeat to the general election that the Prime Minister has twice tried and twice failed to get through this House. An article on Buzzfeed reveals that the data collected through the Get Ready for Brexit campaign is being collected centrally, and I have been inundated by communications from concerned civil servants who are worried about what this Government are asking them to do. When was it decided to collect that data, by whom, and with what purposes? What security is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster providing to the 15 million citizens who use the gov.uk each week? What help has he given the Information Commissioner, who at my request is now investigating?

[Michael Gove]

I hope that as a result of the hon. Lady’s question, for which I am grateful, more of her constituents and others will visit the Brexit pages on the gov.uk website. The Government Digital Service has done a wonderful job in making sure that we provide information. As a result of the information campaign, which is authored, directed and supervised by civil servants, many more businesses are better prepared. It is the case that we make sure that the data we have is used better to serve our citizens.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

One area of risk not mentioned in the redacted Yellowhammer documents relates to the UK oil-refining sector. Since my right hon. Friend and I last spoke about this, have the Government had a chance to develop their thinking on how best to protect UK oil refineries if they are to face new tariffs for selling product into EU markets?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. If we leave without a deal, refineries in this country will face a new tariff for selling fuel into the EU, which inevitably will have an impact on their business mode. The Business Secretary and I have been in touch with those companies to ensure that we are in a position to support them. It is vital that we recognise that those refineries, as well as being key distribution hubs for fuel, rely on exports to the EU and beyond as part of their current business model, which is why we are so anxious to support them.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Although the Yellowhammer report refers to the channel ports, it does not mention the Welsh ports of Fishguard and Holyhead, even though Holyhead is the second-busiest roll-on roll-off port in the UK. In August, Department for Transport documents marked “Officially sensitive” said that following an abrupt exit from the European Union, two thirds of vehicles would not be allowed into the ports. Why did Holyhead and Fishguard not warrant inclusion in Yellowhammer, or are the five pages crowbarred from the Government’s hands merely dust thrown into our eyes?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to say that I was discussing precisely how we can ensure the free flow of goods from Holyhead into the Irish Republic and vice versa with representatives of the Welsh Assembly Government earlier this week. I had the opportunity to visit Holyhead and to talk to the port authorities, ferry companies and hauliers, to bring them up to speed with the Government’s preparations and to learn from them what more the Government could do to help them.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the detail he has given today, but before he gives Derek Mackay another £52 million, can he find out what has happened to the £92 million he has already had, because Scotland’s local authorities are getting precious little sight of it?

[Michael Gove]

I am disappointed to hear that Scotland’s many excellent councils are not receiving the money the Scottish Government have been allocated to pass on to them. Once again, even though there are many good Ministers in the Scottish Government, with whom it is a pleasure to work, it is a pity that the First Minister consistently puts the narrow political interests of the Scottish nationalist party ahead of the interests of Scottish citizens, for which Scottish Conservative MPs are such effective advocates.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

Regarding the preparations for Brexit, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told “The Andrew Marr Show” on 1 September that there “will be no shortages of fresh food”. He was absolute and resolute. However, the Yellowhammer documents, which we have now seen, reveal that no deal will “reduce availability and choice” of fresh products. My question is, who should the public believe—the Minister or his Department?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. It is important to recognise that, in the event of a no-deal exit, we will have means by which we can ensure that there is a wide choice of products on our shelves and that, thanks to the efforts made by our retailers, we continue to enjoy the choice, range and plenitude of products we have grown used to.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

I met local farmers recently. Like me, they generally support Brexit and are frustrated by those in this House who will vote against any Brexit deal, no matter how good it is. However, they want to know what is happening with the Government’s published no-deal tariff. They want to know whether it will be revised, whether the agriculture section will change and whether we will have a debate on it.

[Michael Gove]

That is a very good point. We published a no-deal tariff schedule in March, and it is going to be updated. It is important to recognise that there was specific protection in that no-deal tariff schedule for agrifood, as a vulnerable sector that requires that additional protection.

One thing I would say, and this question gives me the opportunity to do so, is that there are sometimes those who actively embrace no deal and think it would be the best of all possible worlds. I think that is absolutely not the case; it is far better that we have a deal. There are others who say that, in no deal, there will be consequences that are almost biblical in their horror. The truth is that no deal will generate challenges, particularly for the agrifood sector. That is why the Government are taking steps to mitigate them, and those steps are along the lines that I have outlined today. However, there is much more that DEFRA is doing, which the Secretary of State in that Department, and other Secretaries of State, will have the opportunity to acquaint the House and the public with in the days and weeks to come.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Earlier, the Minister said the Government were talking with the industry concerning the effects of EU tariffs on petrol exports. What he did not say is that the UK is proposing to have a zero tariff on petrol imports. That could result in the closure of two oil refineries, the loss of £50 million a year to the industry, the loss of 2,000 jobs and a potential loss of fuel availability. Will he be more specific and say what the Government will do about that?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Where we look at tariff schedules, there are things that we have to balance. One is appropriate protection for sectors, and that is why the agrifood sector, because of the vulnerabilities and the level of the EU’s common external tariff, is one sector that we have sought particularly to protect. However, we also need to have regard to the interests of the consumer and of industry overall. We need to make sure that we keep access to fuel at a level and a price that ensure that our economy continues to motor ahead.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

A decisive majority of my constituents expect us to leave the European Union on 31 October, in accordance with that historic Brexit vote. However, they do expect the Government to take care of supplies of medicines and to ensure that our health services are protected. Can my right hon. Friend give assurances specifically on the supply of hormone replacement therapy medicines, which are so important for women?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The availability of HRT medicine has made a dramatic and beneficial difference to the lives of women in this country. It has been a medical breakthrough over the past few decades, which has to be celebrated. It has been the case, even before we have left the EU, that there have been particular problems with HRT supply in certain areas, and that underlines the fact that, occasionally, there can be interruptions in supply of particular medicines, which are completely unrelated to Brexit or other challenges. We are doing everything that we can to ensure that we have a free flow of medical products through the short straits and also additional capacity to ensure that medical products, including HRT treatments, are available as before after we leave.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (IGC)]

As the Minister has dodged the specific questions from the right hon. and learned Members for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), he is giving the House the impression that those Yellowhammer document versions were improperly manipulated by the Government from the ones that were leaked to the ones that were eventually published. May I now ask him very specifically for the fourth occasion: when was the title changed from base case to worst case?

[Michael Gove]

As I have said on more than four occasions, it is the case that the base scenario relates to the unalterable facts; a reasonable worst-case scenario relates to the Yellowhammer assumptions.

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

In his statement, my right hon. Friend referred to the measures that were taken to ensure that fish caught today along the coast of Cornwall would be sold the following day in the EU. This welcome statement will reassure fishermen in Newlyn, but uncertainty, lack of investment, and concerns over ownership of the quota are already causing problems. Will my right hon. Friend say something to reassure fishermen that we can get on with this, so that they can know exactly where their future lies?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is a brilliant advocate for the fishing industry. It is the case that, in the event of a no-deal exit, we anticipate that we will be able to negotiate as an independent coastal state at the Fisheries Council in December 2019. It is also the case that, if we do leave without a deal on 31 October, we anticipate that the current level of access to particular stocks should be maintained in a continuity approach.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

In response to written questions, the Government had this to say in the event of a no-deal Brexit:

“A system of hardship payments, benefit advances and budgeting loans will be available for those who need them.”

Operation Yellowhammer warns of food and medicine shortages and soaring prices. That will drive thousands of the most vulnerable people in our society into debt—debt with loans—and despair. How will people qualify for these hardship payments and loans, and when will they be made available to them?

[Michael Gove]

It is important to make two points. The first is that Operation Yellowhammer, as I have pointed out, deals with a reasonable worst-case scenario for which mitigating steps have been taken since it was first drawn up. On the second point, of course Government and the Department for Work and Pensions always stand ready, in the event of any change in economic circumstances which has an adverse effect on vulnerable people, to step in and to help. None the less, the steps that we are taking in order to mitigate those impacts will, I hope, ensure that we do not need to intervene in that way.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Ind)]

What assurances has my right hon. Friend been able to give the port of Portsmouth, which is, as he knows, a roll-on roll-off port? He is aware of my concerns about lorries parked on the M27 and the A31 in my constituency in particular. Hampshire County Council has already invested significant amounts of my constituents’ money in preparatory work. Can he reassure me that his Department will see that Hampshire gets its share of this new welcome Government investment to prepare for a no-deal exit if it happens, and, specifically, that the very latest DFT modelling is with the local resilience forum in Hampshire so that it can plan practically and responsibly for whatever scenario comes forth?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Portsmouth is one of our most important ports. It is important for a host of reasons—for the commercial life of this nation, for access to medical supplies and, of course, for access to our Crown dependencies and the Channel Islands. It is the case that we need to work closely with the local resilience forum in Hampshire to ensure that it understands what our modelling assumptions are and take appropriate steps. I know that it is the case that both the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have been in touch with the LRF recently, but obviously more work needs to be done.

[Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

The recent Operation Yellowhammer report notes that low-income groups will be disproportionately affected by any price rises in food and fuel. What plans have the Government put in place to offset the effect on low-income families in the event a no-deal Brexit on 31 October?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She is absolutely right that it is the most vulnerable who should be at the forefront of our minds in the event of price rises in any commodity. As I mentioned in response to the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), one reason that we have taken the overall approach to tariffs that we have is that we want to ensure that the impact of leaving means that we can keep tariffs as low as possible so that we can keep prices as low as possible. Although it may be the case that one or two specific commodities will see price rises, we also anticipate that prices will drop for some other food commodities.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

It is essential that we prepare fully to avoid any congestion around the port of Dover that could be caused by lorry drivers arriving without the necessary customs paperwork. Could the Minister therefore please confirm that HMRC in particular is doing all it can in this regard, and specifically that it is recruiting and training sufficient numbers of staff to cope with the process?

[Michael Gove]

HMRC is not only recruiting and training staff for itself; money has also been made available by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that business has the support and staff that it needs to be ready. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the things we need to do is contact those businesses that do the most trade with the EU. There are some 3,000 businesses over a particular size that are responsible for a significant amount of trade with the EU, and HMRC is in touch with them this week to ensure that they fully understand what is required of them by way of customs procedures.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The Minister has said that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, people will have “the food they need”, raising the terrifying spectacle of him deciding what we in the north-east should be eating. What actually puts food on the tables of many people are our excellent manufacturers with their closely-integrated European supply chains. That is why Make UK has said that we stand to lose the most from a no-deal Brexit. What specific financial support is available for north-eastern manufacturers facing a no-deal Brexit?

[Michael Gove]

I would never seek to tell anyone in the north-east what they should eat. Having spent five happy months working in the north-east, I know that the range and quality of cuisine offered to the people of Newcastle and the surrounding area is second to none.

On the hon. Lady’s specific point about manufacturing, I had the opportunity earlier this week to meet manufacturers in the west midlands that represent companies with manufacturing interests across the United Kingdom. One of the things that I underlined there is that money is available through business representative organisations and others to help such companies to prepare. If, in the event of no deal, businesses that are fundamentally viable experience any particular economic turbulence that requires us to step in to see them over that turbulence so that they can survive in the future, we stand ready to do so.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is a former DEFRA Secretary, so will he confirm once again the pivotal importance of securing a deal for our British farmers and food producers? May I also gently nudge him on the rather lackadaisical approach to the pressing needs of Northern Ireland in the absence of Stormont—just waiting to see what might turn up, when businesses and individuals across Northern Ireland are now starting to panic as 31 October looms large? This rather lackadaisical approach of “Let’s wait and see what happens” is no longer sufficient.

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely take my hon. Friend’s points. First, I think it has been the case that farmers’ unions across the UK—the Ulster Farmers’ Union, NFU Scotland, the Farmers’ Union of Wales and the NFU in England—have been clear that they would infinitely prefer a deal, as would I. As I had occasion to state earlier and will happily repeat again, the sector that is most vulnerable in the event of no deal is the agrifood sector, which is why we need to be conscious of its concerns.

With respect to Northern Ireland, I hope that nothing I have said suggests or implies that the Government take a lackadaisical approach. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Northern Ireland Secretary, Home Office Ministers and I have made regular trips to Northern Ireland, and are in contact with the Northern Ireland civil service. We are acutely aware of the difficulties that the Northern Ireland civil service would be in under a no-deal situation if the Assembly were not restored. I would also say that we need—and I hope we can get—greater clarity about what might happen on the other side of the Irish border, but that is a sovereign matter for the EU and the Irish Government. I do not make any criticism of them, but obviously it would be in all our interests if we were able to work to mitigate the impacts in the event of no deal.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Eighty per cent. of cheddar cheese is from dairy farms in Northern Ireland. It is manufactured in Ireland and then comes across at Holyhead into other parts of the UK. What assessment has been made of the impact on the dairy industry across Ireland and the UK? Can the Minister rule out food riots as a result of a lack of basics like cheddar?

[Michael Gove]

That was a very serious point but the final twist, I felt, was wrong. [Interruption.] The reason it is a serious point, to be fair to the hon. Lady, is that a significant amount of raw milk from Northern Ireland is processed south of the border. The two most vulnerable agrifood sectors in the UK are sheep meat, across the UK, and the Northern Ireland dairy sector. She is absolutely right to raise that. As for the prospect of food riots, I am afraid that that is precisely the sort of exaggerated language that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) pointed out, does nothing to enable us to focus on the real risks and challenges and the importance of mitigating them.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments that our one united civil service is preparing for Brexit. Can he reassure the House that there will be direct due diligence in Scotland to make sure that companies, community groups and Government agencies are getting the support they need to prepare for Brexit? Can he also confirm how much of the £90 million given to the devolved Administration in Scotland has been spent on supporting frontline services there?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We are doing everything possible to make sure that the funding is there. If there are community groups and others in Scotland who are not receiving the funding from the Scottish Government that they should, I hope he will bring that to my attention. I know that Scottish Government Ministers would never want to stand in the way of helping Scottish citizens.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The Minister’s statement suggests that progress has been made since the Operation Yellowhammer document was leaked, but it is a little bit difficult to check against delivery, so when will he publish the most up-to-date version?

[Michael Gove]

I have just updated the House on the many, many steps that we have taken in order to ensure that we are better prepared.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Ind)]

On 19 August, I tabled a question asking the Minister to publish his no-deal planning, so I am very grateful for his invitation to MPs to attend his Department to view that. On 9 September, I received an answer to that question saying that due to Prorogation it was not possible to respond. I have also asked that the up-to-date Yellowhammer document be published and that each version of it be published. The written answer to that question was the same—that due to Prorogation it was not possible to respond. Will he now commit to publishing the various versions of Yellowhammer?

[Michael Gove]

I am very sorry that the hon. Lady’s questions were not answered. We will and we have published extensive information about our preparations for exit, and I would be more than happy to direct her to those. However, I would stress that Yellowhammer—a reasonable worst-case scenario—is just one aspect of the preparations that we have undertaken, and it would be wrong to think that it was the only thing that the Government were concentrating on.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)]

The Minister has repeated his assertion that in the event of a no-deal Brexit some food prices will go up and some will go down, but our constituents deserve a straight answer. Will the cost of the weekly food basket of an average low-income family be higher, lower or the same in the event of a no-deal Brexit?

[Michael Gove]

That is a very fair point, but it is one of those questions that it is impossible to answer, because none of us can predict the variety of factors, from fluctuations in exchange rates to harvests to world grain prices, that will all affect the price of food. The one thing that I would say is that the Government are doing everything they can, and everything all of us can, in order to ensure, through application of the correct tariffs and through making sure that we have correct flows at the border, that people can continue to have access to not just plentiful but competitively priced and healthy food.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I should probably declare an interest, as the parliamentary RSPB species champion for the yellowhammer. The Minister has sought to give assurances about the transportation of goods and the status of people in particular but has given little detail on services, so can he answer a question from a solicitor constituent of mine who uses European enforcement orders for legal judgments against companies registered in other EU countries? In the event of no deal, will existing EEOs remain enforceable after no deal, and after no deal, how will people be able to enforce judgments against EU-registered entities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

That is a very good point. I believe it is the case that work is going on with individual EU member states to provide reassurance and guarantees on that, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the situation that pertains to the provision of services in each of those member states and the impact it will have on UK businesses and citizens.

[Mr Speaker]

He was an hon. Friend, and I very much hope he still is.

[Michael Gove]

He is a very honourable Friend.

[Mr Speaker]

It is good to hear it. Not merely an hon. Gentleman, but an hon. Friend—I am sure the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) will rejoice in the fact of that approbation.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster may recall that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, representing the UK auto industry, described the prospect of a no-deal Brexit as an “existential threat” to their sector. Nobody could complain that they have not made preparations for a no-deal Brexit—they have spent millions of pounds in so doing—but I have not heard them say anything that indicates that they have changed their mind about the severity of the threat they face in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Has he?

[Michael Gove]

I had the opportunity to meet representatives of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and of others in the automotive sector earlier this week, and it is fair to say that the hon. Gentleman makes a very good point in saying that those businesses have undertaken extensive preparations. We heard earlier some doubt from the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) about the extent to which business is prepared. Extensive preparations have been undertaken, but it is the case that in the event of no deal, there will be particular challenges in making sure that we have the effective flow of products to the just-in-time supply chains of these companies. That is why we are taking the steps we are, to ensure that we have effective border flow. The steps that I have outlined and other steps that Government are taking are designed explicitly to ensure that the highly skilled, highly talented and hugely valuable workforces in all those companies can continue to produce the automobiles that are the envy of the world.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Was there a plan equivalent to Operation Yellowhammer back in 2016 to deal with the widely predicted run on the pound and financial catastrophe if the country dared to vote for Brexit, and is there any reason to believe that our current worst-case scenario is any more likely to materialise than that which applied three years ago?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes a characteristically elegant point, and it goes to the heart of this. None of us can predict with absolute accuracy what will happen in the future. During the run-up to the 2016 vote, a number of people made lurid predictions about what a vote to leave might lead to, and those lurid predictions were not found to be true. Government can take and have taken steps to mitigate the impacts of a reasonable worst-case scenario.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Like the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), I am concerned about the supply of medicines in the event of a no-deal Brexit, especially when a constituent of mine, Des, tells me that his local pharmacy is not receiving certain prescriptions because the suppliers say they are not sure what will happen after 31 October. What would the right hon. Gentleman say to my constituent, and what steps is he taking to ensure the supply of medicines for hospitals and independent pharmacies in the event of a no-deal Brexit?

[Michael Gove]

I am disappointed to hear that Brexit is being cited in these circumstances, because obviously it has not yet happened, and we enjoy the free flow of goods through the short straits and elsewhere. I would be interested to know further details, and I hope that I can put the hon. Lady’s constituent’s mind at rest; it is important that people have peace of mind when we are talking about these important issues. It is the case that appropriate steps have been taken to ensure that we have the maximum level of flow at the short straits. That is why I stressed earlier that business readiness is so important. If all businesses are ready, it means that flow for everyone is easier. It is also the case that the Department for Transport and the Department of Health and Social Care have put in place provision to ensure that there is additional freight capacity specifically for what are called category 1 goods, and those include the medicines that her constituents rely on.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of ferry and port capacity in the UK, and in EU ports, for transporting goods to and from the UK after we leave the European Union?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are a number of ports through which companies in the UK and the EU can find alternative routes to the short straits to ensure their goods can find a way to market. The British Ports Association and others emphasise that there is significant additional capacity that can be utilised. It is the ingenuity of the private sector that will help us in government to ensure that trade and commerce succeed in the future.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has clearly not complied with the terms of the resolution of 9 September, because he has not provided all the documents. My constituents listening to this statement will feel that the Government are not being clear with them about the impact on food, medicines and security. Is it true that, within the Yellowhammer documents, there are extensive plans to redeploy police from their home constabularies to London, the borders and Northern Ireland?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman can reassure his constituents, as I know would always be his first intention, by drawing their attention to gov.uk/brexit on which there is a wealth of information that will provide them with the means to ensure that the businesses for which they work, or that they own, can be ready. Operational decisions about police resources are of course a matter for chief constables.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Given my right hon. Friend’s apparent close and positive relationship with the Scottish Government, will he ask on our behalf how much of the £92 million that has been sent up to the Scottish Government is being given to local authorities, specifically Aberdeenshire? When we ask the question, the answer is not forthcoming.

[Michael Gove]

I am disappointed to hear that. I will use the good offices I have with Scottish Government Ministers to make sure that the money is spent. It is absolutely vital that the money raised by the Exchequer and shared with the Scottish Government is spent for Scottish citizens, especially to ensure that local authorities have everything they need to do their valuable work. In particular, I commend Aberdeenshire Council, which has an inspirational leader and a fantastic team of Conservatives who are responsible for delivering services.

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

Picking up on the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), Primary Care Network Leeds has told me that shortages are already being caused by the stockpiling of HRT and Naproxen, a painkiller, and the health unions say that no deal could devastate the NHS and cause fatal shortages of medicines. Can the Minister tell us now that the health of no one in this country will suffer because of a no-deal Brexit?

[Michael Gove]

Yes.

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

Although Opposition Members have rightly raised serious concerns about the possible impact of no deal, it is a shame those concerns have not been accompanied by an awareness of their own role in rejecting a perfectly good deal three times and leading us to this point. If we achieve a deal with the EU, Yellowhammer will not be necessary, so does my right hon. Friend envisage that, between now and 31 October, MPs will get a chance to vote on a withdrawal agreement package?

[Michael Gove]

I sincerely hope so. My hon. Friend makes a very acute point, which cannot be made often enough. If people want to avoid a no-deal exit, there is an easy way of doing so, and that is to vote for a deal. He did so, as I did, on three occasions. Some Opposition Members also voted for a deal. I would encourage them all to vote for a deal in order to ensure that we can leave with one.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

Let me be generous to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster: let us imagine that his no-deal preparations are successful and that if we were to leave, we would do so in a benign way. Is he aware that in its “Fiscal risks report”, published in July, the independent watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility, said that a benign no deal would cost the public purse £30 billion a year for the next four years? What preparations have the Government made to plug that £120 billion gap of a benign no-deal Brexit?

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. One of the things that I think any forecaster would say is that when someone makes forecasts, of course they look at a variety of different factors, but facts and forecasts can change. The Office for Budget Responsibility has in the past made forecasts, with the best will in the world and the best minds available, and the outcome has not necessarily always been exactly as predicted. Of course, economic forecasts are helpful, but it is always appropriate to balance them by recognising the many other variables in our economy.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

We have, understandably, concentrated on the movement and supply of goods in the case, which I hope never happens, of no deal. However, data flow is the lifeblood of businesses and, indeed, public services, and we have heard very little about that. What assessment does my right hon. Friend have of data flows immediately after 31 October in the case of no deal, and what is the state of data adequacy preparations? How long will it take to get there?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. If we leave without a deal, it will be the case that we will have to wait some time before data adequacy is granted. It should be granted, because it is the case that similar jurisdictions outside the EU, like the Crown dependencies—the Channel Islands and so on—have data adequacy ratings. It is also the case, however, that companies can take steps by having standard contractual clauses with their counterparties in the EU in order to ensure the uninterrupted flow of personal data. I encourage companies in that position to look at the information on the Information Commissioner’s website, which can help them.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

My constituent Jenny is currently undergoing treatment for cancer and has been seeking reassurances from local health trusts about the continuation of cancer treatment in the event of a no-deal exit from the European Union. As her constituency MP, I have also submitted freedom of information requests, including to Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, seeking the risk assessments in the event of a no-deal exit, but it has not shared that information with me. My constituent Jenny is also concerned about the capacity of UK ports to bring in nuclear medicines in the event of a no-deal exit. What assessment has the Minister made of the capacity of UK ports to bring in important medicines, including for cancer treatment, insulin for diabetics and formula milk for formula-fed babies?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right: we need to make sure that not just individual medicines but medical products, including radioisotopes, are available for the NHS to use. Extensive steps have been taken, not just, as I mentioned earlier, to ensure the smooth flow of goods through the short straits, but to ensure that there is additional capacity at other ports and that that capacity can be provided by a variety of different modes of transport.

[Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Ind)]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is deliberately dodging questions this afternoon, which suggests that he still has not got his head around the House’s scrutineering role over the Government. Perhaps he should refer again to yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling. I would have liked to have asked him a couple of difficult questions about statutory safeguards for EU citizens in the UK in the event of no deal, and about the fact that being determined not to have a hard border in Ireland is no solution at all and that the Government have still not made any practical proposals. Instead, I will ask him a really simple question: for the fifth or sixth time of asking, what was the date on which the Government changed the title of the Yellowhammer document?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for reminding me of the vital role that this House plays in scrutiny, which I take exceptionally seriously. It is and always has been the case that we have a base scenario based on unarguable facts and a reasonable worst-case scenario. That has always been the case.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I recently visited farmers in my constituency, including Jim Cowan, to discuss the impact of Brexit on their already fragile business. They and the National Farmers Union are worried sick that farms will close down and are not convinced by the Government’s rhetoric. The Minister has said that they are mitigating the effects on farmers, but how?

[Michael Gove]

There are several steps that we can take. The first and most important is ensuring that we have an appropriate tariff regime, which makes sure that we safeguard the sector. There is a variety of ways in which DEFRA can intervene to help any hard-hit sector. We can also ensure, as the Department for International Trade has been doing, that there are new markets for our farmers’ excellent produce.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I hold the Minister in the highest regard, but I was disappointed that so little about Northern Ireland was reflected in his statement. I pay tribute to him for putting on the record yet again his commitment—indeed, his words were “absolutely committed”—to the Good Friday agreement, but does he agree that actions speak louder than words? The Yellowhammer document dated 2 August 2019 explained and warned about the real risks of the disruption of a no-deal Brexit in Northern Ireland. I will quote a particular sentence that I want the Minister to address. It states that the disruption

“will be particularly severe in border communities where both criminal and dissident groups already operate with greater threat and impunity.”

How is the Minister mitigating that threat? He boasted about conducting roadshows and visiting businesses. If he tells me that he is sending roadshows to Crossmaglen and South Armagh, I will be amazed, but I will welcome them.

[Michael Gove]

I have several things to say to the hon. Lady, for whom I have enormous respect and whose commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and to peace and progress in Northern Ireland is second to none in this House. She is absolutely right. Roadshows and other activities were to ensure that businesses throughout the UK were prepared for exporting. Critically, I had the opportunity to visit border communities with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and others. She is right that one of the big risks of leaving without a deal is the progress that has been made in those communities on either side of the border. That is why it is critical that we all do everything we can to support a deal. In particular, we need to recognise in the language we use as Ministers and in our co-operation with partners in the Irish Government the importance of operating in a way that promotes and underpins peace.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster understands the importance of my constituency and the port of Holyhead to trade to and from the Republic of Ireland. I was disappointed that, when he visited, he did not arrange to meet me. I could have given him the benefit of my experience of not just serving in this House but working in the port of Holyhead for more than a decade before coming to this place. He did not explain in a previous answer why the port of Holyhead was omitted from the Yellowhammer document. Will he please tell the House why that was the case?

[Michael Gove]

It was a pleasure to visit Holyhead and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s hard work not just on behalf of his constituents but in that port. I pay tribute to those who work there. Again, I stress that Yellowhammer is a reasonable worst-case scenario, which looks at a particular set of challenges. The Government have taken many other steps, including communication with the Welsh Assembly Government and their Labour Ministers, to ensure that we can support the port of Holyhead in its vital work.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

The Minister told us that HMRC has allocated EORI numbers to 88,000 VAT-registered businesses that currently trade with the EU. However, two years ago, HMRC told the Treasury Committee that 130,000 such businesses need them. What has happened to the other 42,000?

[Michael Gove]

Many of them had applied beforehand for EORI numbers.

[Jane Dodds (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

Operation Yellowhammer states that delays to animal medicines could

“reduce our ability to prevent and control”

animal

“disease outbreaks”.

What reassurances would the Minister give to livestock farmers such as those in my constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire that Brexit will not have an impact on access to those medicines?

[Michael Gove]

I welcome the hon. Lady to the House and congratulate her on her victory. In the run up to that victory, I had the opportunity to visit her beautiful constituency and talk to farmers, and one of the things that I was able to reassure them of was that vet medicines are part of the category 1 set of goods that are absolutely prioritised for entry into this country because, of course, we want to make sure that we can deal effectively with any threats to animal health.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

A few weeks ago, I went with a parliamentary delegation to visit the port of Rotterdam. That port is trying to recruit more than 100 vets to do checks on animals, food and other related products. We were also shown where they are going to build major lorry parks to deal with the knock-on effects of those checks, and they confirmed that that will result in delays in fresh products getting across to the United Kingdom. If there will be delays in fresh products leaving the port of Rotterdam, how can the Minister say that that will not result in a shortage of those fresh products in UK shops?

[Michael Gove]

It is important to state that it would actually be sanitary and phytosanitary checks undertaken in the UK that would delay those products, and we are not undertaking SPS checks in the UK because of our continuity approach.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

Picking up on the points well made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), I, too, appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman’s comments have been much more thoughtful than many made about Ireland from others on his Front Bench and in the rest of his party. However, his statement today was very banal. Can he specifically tell us what the Government are now doing to enhance those provisions in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement that develop a relationship based on mutual respect, recognising our mutual interest in the people of Northern Ireland? What, specifically, are the Government now doing with the Irish Government?

[Michael Gove]

Talks are taking place at a number of levels. I had the opportunity to meet the Tánaiste and other TDs recently, and the Brexit Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have all met representatives of the Irish Government and the Dáil over recent weeks.

One thing I want to emphasise is that, of course, negotiations over our future withdrawal agreement are taking place through the European Commission. The Republic of Ireland, as an EU member state, recognises that, but the strong bilateral links we have are critical. One thing we want to ensure is that not just through the formal relationship we have as a result of a new deal with the EU, but through a plethora of relationships, bilateral and multilateral, we do everything we can to recognise how close a relationship there is between Ireland and this country.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

With regard to the earlier exchange about veterinary medicines, which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster knows a good deal about, it is all well and good saying he would give a guarantee if there was an emergency, but I am led to believe that two operators have already relocated to the EU. What priority will British farmers get not just in the event of an emergency but regarding the normal supply of veterinary medicines? Can he give some guarantees on that?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. If we maintain effective flow at the border, there should not be any interruption. I would be interested to know from him—I would be grateful if he wrote to me—about the two companies he mentions, as I would want more closely to investigate the situation in which they find themselves.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

How many fish lorries—fresh, frozen and vivier—are crossing the channel at the moment? If a no-deal Brexit comes along, how many fish lorries—fresh, frozen and vivier—can be processed by French border teams and at which ports?

[Michael Gove]

It is my understanding that if we have both fresh fish and fresh shellfish, and also, as it happens—I shall explain the circumstances—day-old chicks crossing the border, there are about 70 lorries daily. Those lorries will be prioritised when they arrive at Calais on a specific route to take them to Boulogne-sur-Mer, where a border inspection post will be in place, and if they have the appropriate documentation, the products can be sold so that French consumers can continue to enjoy them.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

The Minister said that there would be specific measures put in place at many of the ports. The Yellowhammer report said that there would be limited disruption at ports outside Dover and Calais. In today’s Financial Times a report from the Department for Transport reveals why: the Government believe that two thirds of vehicles will not be compliant with the new checks. The right hon. Gentleman has already acknowledged that Portsmouth, in particular, is critical to the import of medicines from across the EU. Can he tell us why he believes that medical supplies and medicines will not be disrupted in the event of a no-deal Brexit? Will he publish those assumptions in full so that I can look my constituents in the eye and tell them that in just a few weeks’ time they will still have access to life-saving medicines?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point. I would want to stress two things. First, we are currently stress-testing the figure for the degree of readiness. It relies on several calculations. In the past, those figures have been signed off by the Office for National Statistics, but we are testing some of the propositions.

[Lisa Nandy]

Will you publish the assumptions?

[Michael Gove]

When we are confident that those figures are accurate, of course we will publish and share them. More broadly, I want to emphasise to the hon. Lady that it is not just through the short straits, but through other ports, including Portsmouth, that we will be bringing in the medicines and other commodities we require.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of the strategic importance of the Petroineos refinery at Grangemouth in my constituency. What comfort can he give my local community, who know that the redacted paragraph 15 in the Yellowhammer report warns of a potential 2,000 job losses and two refinery closures?

[Michael Gove]

Grangemouth is a vital part not just of Scotland’s but of the UK’s infrastructure, and it is important that we do everything we can to support the workers in that refinery, as we do those in the five other major refineries in the UK.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has obliquely conceded that fresh perishable food supplies will be adversely affected by a no-deal Brexit, but he seems to be dismissive of the idea that this could cause civil disruption. It does cause civil disruption; it has been widely observed in the UK that unexpected disruption to food supplies causes civil unrest. In my experience—and his probably—of working in a supermarket, that can happen. Carrot shortages caused by flooding resulted in the police having to split up fights over carrot supplies in supermarkets. He has to address this seriously. Will he do that? Will he also look at using the fall-back in state aid rules to ensure that businesses are properly compensated for those shortages of vital food supplies?

[Michael Gove]

When I was a food hall porter at British Home Stores in Aberdeen, I never saw any violence when the last lettuce was taken off the shelves, but maybe people are politer in Aberdeen than elsewhere.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

On 10 September, the Treasury’s official account tweeted that beer, wine, spirits and cigarettes would all be duty-free for people travelling to the EU if we left without a deal. Does the Secretary of State seriously think that promoting cheap booze and fags is a good use of public money, or does he believe that the hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs could be affected by our exiting the EU without a deal should drown their sorrows to recover from the blow?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point, but we have a responsibility to explain what the duty-free regime will be in the event of a no-deal exit. As I pointed out earlier, a no-deal exit without mitigations would have an adverse economic impact, but we are taking steps to mitigate those and to exploit the opportunities of exit in order to be in the strongest possible position to safeguard jobs in her constituency and to provide new opportunities for the next generation.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

We are well aware of the impact of high tariffs on agrifoods, but organic farmers and food producers will not be able to export at all until UK certifiers are approved and registered. That will affect food producers in my constituency and across the UK, particularly those who export across the Irish border. Will that be sorted by the end of next month, or will they just have to accept the impact on their businesses?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Food producers will be able to export, but the organic certification under which they secure a particular benefit at the moment will not automatically be granted on 1 November. Some agri-food sectors—not just organics, but seed potatoes, for example—will experience a particularly adverse effect. We are seeking to ensure that the EU recognises that and moves rapidly to mitigate it, but I am grateful to her for having given me an opportunity to put it on the record that yes, the organics sector will be among those that face the strongest headwinds if we leave without a deal.

[John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)]

I read the document on Operation Yellowhammer. Part of it reminded me of a hooded crow masquerading as a swan—otherwise known as a special adviser—but may I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to the part that states that the French authorities have taken steps to ensure the smooth flow of critical produce? He has told us that he has visited ports. Can he also tell us whether any extra reefers have been put in place to ensure that the critical flow of produce continues from those ports to Boulogne-sur-Mer?

[Michael Gove]

We are doing everything we can to ensure that, through the provision of information and additional personnel and resources, we can have that smooth flow.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Paragraph 10 of the document shows that law enforcement agencies and information exchange will be disrupted. Given that that covers child protection issues, drug trafficking, terrorism and international crime, what level of risk increase has the right hon. Gentleman assessed, and is that disruption worth it?

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Gentleman was a very distinguished Minister, with great experience of criminal justice. He is right—those law enforcement and national security tools are definitely assets—but, having talked to national security and law enforcement professionals, I know that there are steps that we can take, and have taken, to safeguard UK citizens.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The Yellowhammer document states that, in the event of a no-deal crash-out, a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland would be inevitable, but the right hon. Gentleman has dismissed that out of hand. The Government have also pledged to end freedom of movement. We have heard about this mythical technology; can the right hon. Gentleman explain what technology will end freedom of movement by checking people’s passports and visas, and will also check customs arrangements and tariffs on goods moving backwards and forwards between the different markets, without as much as a camera at the border in question?

[Michael Gove]

I think it is the case that we are absolutely committed to there being no hard border. One of the reasons is that—certainly governing the United Kingdom and Ireland, Great Britain and the island of Ireland—we have had a common travel area since 1922, and we are pleased to be able to maintain that. It is not the case that people will require any checks to travel between these two islands.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I wish that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had been able to join me over a Welsh cake last week in the kitchen at Llwyncelyn Farm, where I met farmers from the Rhondda and nearby. They do not have biblical concerns—they are not worried about plagues of locusts, or anything of that kind—but they have genuine concerns about what will happen to Welsh lamb, because 35% of it is sold in the European Union at the moment, and they fear that if there is a 48% tariff on it, they will end up having to burn carcases. They are also worried that there are not enough UK and national vets in the abattoirs and elsewhere to ensure that they can continue their business into the future. We are relying on migrants from elsewhere in the EU. Will the right hon. Gentleman come to the Rhondda to meet those farmers again, just to make sure that he really has everything in place to protect them if there is a no-deal Brexit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman has made a series of very good and absolutely critical points. One of the sectors that would be most adversely affected by no deal is the sheepmeat sector, and the points that his farmers made to him and he has made here are entirely right. The common external tariff, and the amount of sheepmeat that we export to the EU, will create potential economic disruption. That is why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has plans to intervene to support farmers in the way to which I alluded earlier.

I believe that we have a significant number of additional vets with the capacity to export health certificates. The hon. Gentleman is also absolutely right about abattoirs. A significant number of those who work in our abattoirs are EU nationals; we value them, which is why I am so pleased that, so far, so many people have been granted status through the EU settlement scheme.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman said in his statement that compliant consignments should experience no delay. However, non-compliant consignments have the potential to cause serious traffic jams and delays.

An issue about which I have been asking for a number of years is the transport of radioactive isotopes, which come through Calais. If they are caught up in delays at Calais owing to non-compliant consignments, they will lose all their useful life. What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to ensure that that does not happen? We were previously told that the isotopes would come in through Coventry airport, but we have now been told that that will not happen. What will happen about those radioactive isotopes, which are so important to cancer treatment?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. I would say two things. First, we want to minimise the number of non-compliant consignments of all kinds, which is why we are spending so much on readiness, and why businesses have responded so well. However, radioisotopes and other vital medical supplies are category 1 goods, and as well as ensuring that we have the maximum possible flow over the border, through the short straits, we are providing additional freight capacity. The Department for Transport will update the House on that shortly.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

The Yellowhammer report warns of shortages of key drugs and medicines. Can the Minister supply the House with a list of those medicines that are likely to be in short supply? If there is scarcity, what measures are in place to ensure fair and equitable distribution of those scarce medicines across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom?

[Michael Gove]

The first thing to stress yet again is that it is a reasonable worst-case scenario and we have taken steps to mitigate it. In terms of the fair and equitable distribution of medicines across the UK, the system we have, and one I am proud to uphold, is the NHS.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I rise again to mention heat-treated pallets. Twenty-two days ago I asked a question on those, and the right hon. Gentleman confirmed that

“we have been working with the industry in order to ensure that we can mitigate the consequences of that.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 61.]

Since nothing can be exported from the United Kingdom into the EU if it is not on a heat-treated pallet, can he give me one example of the mitigation he has discussed in the last 22 days?

[Michael Gove]

Yes: more pallets.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Operation Yellowhammer highlights that HGVs could be delayed by two and a half days at the border, and although we have heard about medicines and foods and disruption to business, we have not heard about the impact that that will have on lorry drivers. Clearly, there is such inadequate planning that it will be very disruptive to recruitment into the sector, and to the lives of people who work in that industry. What additional steps have the Government taken to support the staff working in the sector?

[Michael Gove]

Again, I stress that we have taken steps to contact hauliers, not just in the UK but in the EU, in order to ensure that they and traders are ready to export; that should significantly reduce the risk of any delays. There are facilities in Kent to ensure that, should there be queueing of any kind, those who are caught in those queues who are hauliers can get the services they need.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and indeed the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster all pledged during the referendum campaign that the rights of EU citizens would be protected automatically after Brexit—in other words, without the need for any application at all. Will he now fulfil that pledge, as recommended by the Home Affairs Committee and the3million, or is he prepared to see tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of EU nationals miss the Government’s deadline and be left without any status in this country at all?

[Michael Gove]

As I mentioned earlier, more than a million people have been granted status. Tens of thousands of people are applying every day, and the process, as far as I know, is working well. The process will continue right up until the end of next year, and we are providing people in this country who are EU nationals with a guarantee of their rights that no other EU nation is matching for UK nationals. It is the most generous offer, and I am delighted that the Home Secretary is presiding over a system that works in the interests of our friends and neighbours.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Because BMW Cowley’s shutdown was brought forward, many workers in my constituency had to choose between missing a rent or mortgage payment and missing a family holiday. So please, can the Minister be specific? Will Operation Kingfisher cover the costs of an additional shutdown if that is necessary because of no-deal chaos? Please tell us: will it be covered or not?

[Michael Gove]

I had the opportunity to talk to executives from BMW, and they explained to me, among other things, the particular challenges that they face. Of course the Treasury will review any requests for support. However, the hon. Lady can obviate the need for that if she, like me, supports and backs the deal that the Prime Minister brings back.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Mark Sedwill, the National Security Adviser and Cabinet Secretary, said in a letter in April regarding no deal:

“'Our national security would be disrupted. The UK would forfeit access to criminal justice levers. None of our mitigation measures would give the UK the same security capabilities as our current ones.”

Can the Minister say what mitigation measures are now in place, or he is aware of, that did not exist when Mark Sedwill wrote that letter? Would Mark Sedwill write this letter again today?

[Michael Gove]

The Cabinet Secretary and National Security Adviser does wonderful work, but I shall not speak for him; he will speak for himself. We have had a significant number of meetings, not just with those in the national security community but with those in policing and other areas, in order to ensure that steps are taken to keep people safe.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State please confirm that, as stated on the Cabinet Office website, he has oversight of all Cabinet Office policies, including data protection, elections and the Government Digital Service?

[Michael Gove]

That is the work of the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden).

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

The Government’s plans for 0% import tariffs on petrochemicals will see a flood of cheap products coming from Russia and the middle east and make UK producers such as the Lindsey oil refinery uncompetitive. Are the Government planning to cut excise duty in a domestic sector-specific arrangement, and will that result in a loss to the Treasury? If so, how much? Is there a risk to fuel security if we become dependent on volatile regions for supply?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady raises an important point, but I stressed earlier that some prices will rise and others will fall, not just in the event of a no-deal Brexit but in the event of global economic circumstances. If prices fall for consumers, that is good for them and good for business.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State envisage using powers available to him under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, and if so, what might he use them for? In those circumstances, can he guarantee that Parliament will remain open to ensure that there is scrutiny of those powers?

[Michael Gove]

I am tempted to say don’t tempt me, but actually I have no plans to use those powers.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

Operation Yellowhammer highlights a range of issues. Can the right hon. Gentleman remind me: at what point during the referendum campaign were the public told that there was a possibility of delays at borders, shortages of medical supplies, fuel shortages, food shortages, food price increases, clean water shortages, civil disruption, losing access to the single market for all goods and services or, indeed, reigniting unrest in Northern Ireland? For the life of me, I cannot remember any one of those outcomes being painted on the side of a bus.

[Michael Gove]

I certainly recall many of them featuring in the speeches of those who were campaigning for remain.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Minister, to the Front-Bench spokespersons including the shadow Secretary of State, and to the 87 Back Benchers who posed questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman can table questions, if he wishes. I heard the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who I think advised the House that the Minister with responsibility for the particular matters to which he referred was the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden). It has always been my understanding that the right hon. Member for Hertsmere was one of the Minister for the Cabinet Office’s junior Ministers and that, therefore, overall the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) has top-level responsibility, but if I am wrong I am sure that we will all be disabused of our error.

[Michael Gove]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity once again to underline the division of responsibilities in the Cabinet Office. It is my responsibility to prepare the Government for Brexit, both deal and no deal, but the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, sits around the Cabinet table and has direct responsibility for the issues to which the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) referred.

Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications)

Lord Gove Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Grieve]

I agree wholeheartedly, and I do worry, because this Prorogation is, to my mind, a most regrettable event. It will prevent the House from giving proper scrutiny to what is, as I have said, an evolving situation that has critical importance to the future of our country.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Michael Gove)]

I do not know whether my right hon. and learned Friend has had a chance to look at the transcript of the evidence that I supplied to the Exiting the European Union Committee last week. In my evidence I gave some undertakings about publications related to Yellowhammer. If carried out, would those assurances be sufficient for my right hon. and learned Friend?

[Mr Grieve]

I rather hope that the assurances and the terms of the motion would prove to be entirely identical. I see no reason why not, and such documents that have been revealed so far do not suggest to me that they contain any material that touches on essential issues of national security. It is entirely about the day-to-day life of this country in the immediate aftermath of departure. Of course, if there were national security implications, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be able to raise them and they could be dealt with.

[Michael Gove]

I hope that before this debate concludes my right hon. and learned Friend will have an opportunity to look at the evidence submitted to the Select Committee, and I hope that, on that basis, he will be able to take those assurances as appropriate. I should be very grateful for his indication that he would do so.

[Mr Grieve]

If I may say this to my right hon. Friend, I think not. I think that the terms of the motion cannot be abandoned unless the House wishes to abandon them. I cannot believe, on the basis of what he so graciously said to the House a moment ago, that the terms of the motion will be significantly dissimilar. In those circumstances, I very much hope that we will get the documentation relating to Yellowhammer, in the way in which it was presented to him and his colleagues, on the basis of which they are taking the decisions that they are taking, which are of great importance to the future of our country, its wellbeing, and the wellbeing of every citizen.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Michael Gove)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate after a number of important, serious and passionate speeches. It is important that we pay appropriate regard to this Humble Address, standing as it does in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and supported as it has been by three distinguished QCs in two of the three jurisdictions of these islands.

Important issues are raised by this Humble Address. There is a request implicit in it for full information for this House about the consequences of leaving the European Union. I would emphasise that the opportunity for not just Members of this House but citizens in this country to make sure that they are familiar with all the consequences—and, indeed, the opportunities—of leaving the European Union is at the heart of the Government’s information strategy. Some have suggested that it is somehow propaganda. Far from it: it is an effort to ensure that the facts are laid out in an accessible way to every citizen. So whether it is a simple matter of individuals knowing what their rights might be if they happen to be UK nationals abroad, or businesses who require to know what the customs procedures are in order to export, that is all in the public domain.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Gove]

Not at this point.

Indeed, that is not the only thing that is in the public domain. As a result of a court case that has been brought by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and others, we also have in the public domain the submission that went to the Prime Minister on which he made his decision. Submissions such as this, and Government policy that rests on them, are not ordinarily made public, but, quite properly, following the duty of candour in respect of that judicial review, that information was published. There it is in black and white: the reasons that were put to the Prime Minister for going down this course of action, and indeed the reasons that led him to make that decision. I would say that it is not unprecedented, but rare, that such a degree—

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I am always happy to give way to the hon. Lady.

[Lady Hermon]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on him. He will of course be entirely aware that last Thursday, during an urgent question, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is a very good appointment indeed, made it quite clear that he had not been consulted by the Prime Minister about the plan for Prorogation; he was told only just before it was publicly announced. Therefore, we have a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who is facing a perfect storm of the possibility of a no-deal Brexit and no functioning Assembly—and no expectation of one any day soon. How can it possibly be that the Minister is telling the House that the Prime Minister had a paper that he did not even share with the Cabinet?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady raises at least two important points. First, we are of course absolutely aware that whatever the impacts of a no-deal Brexit, they are likely to be more acute, in a number of ways, in Northern Ireland. She is absolutely right that that extends not just to the economy of Northern Ireland but to security considerations. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, who have been very clear about what the risks are and their attempts to mitigate them.

On the broader point, submissions that would go to the Prime Minister would not normally be circulated to the whole of the Cabinet, any more than submissions that go to an individual Minister would. This goes to the very heart of what is being requested. That submission is already there, but we are now being asked to give this House and, indeed, the world not just those submissions but every possible communication that any civil servant might have entertained beforehand in helping to advise the Prime Minister on the correct course of action. It is a basic principle of good government observed by Governments—Labour, Conservative and Scottish National party—that there should be a safe space for the advice that civil servants give.

[Anna Soubry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Gove]

No.

The Cabinet Secretary, when he appeared before the Procedure Committee, made it clear that this convention that advice should be private has applied to Governments of all parties throughout the history of the civil service. He said that the Humble Address—the particular procedure that we are debating today—has a chilling effect that is to the severe detriment both of the operation of government and the public record of Government decisions. That is the Cabinet Secretary’s view. It is interesting that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said that of the nine people whom he names, only one was a civil servant. Four are civil servants, including the Cabinet Secretary, and he has been clear, as Administrations of every colour have been clear, that they do not disclose this information.

Indeed, sometimes—I listened with care to what the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South said—there are Administrations who say that they do not reveal legal advice even when it does not exist. She told us that if we had an independent Scotland, the rules, procedures and practices in an independent Scotland would set an example to us here. But the former First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, told the BBC that he had legal advice on the impact of Scotland being independent in Europe, and then, when he was asked to publish that legal advice, spent £20,000 of Scottish taxpayers’ money fighting that and saying that no freedom of information requests should be granted. Then eventually, when the court found out what had happened, there was no legal advice at all. So I will take no lectures from the Scottish National party about trust or transparency.

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Ian C. Lucas]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

No, no—absolutely not. [Interruption.] No—no, thank you.

What is being asked of this House is more than just the publication of advice: private communications of a variety of public servants are about to be published if this Humble Address is published. My right hon. and learned Friend did not ask specifically in this Humble Address—

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Gove]

No. [Interruption.] No, thank you.

He did not—[Interruption.] I am not scared of the truth—Alex Salmond was scared of the truth, which is why he spent my mum and dad’s money to hide the truth.

[Ian C. Lucas]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

No, I will not give way.

If the Humble Address had been shaped in such a way as to say that official advice was requested, the Government would have sought to collaborate that—co-operate, I should say—with my right hon. and learned Friend. But this is a trawl—a fishing expedition in which every single communication from public servants is being requested if it has anything to do in any way with Prorogation. If there are officials or special advisers who are communicating with one another about personal matters, then that would be within the scope of this Humble Address. It is unprecedented. It takes a coach and horses through our data protection legislation. It is questionable in terms of the article 8 rights that individuals have under the European convention on human rights, and it would, for the first time, say—

[Ian C. Lucas]

Give way!

[Michael Gove]

No, no.

It would, for the first time, say that the House of Commons, by a simple majority vote, can say that any individual’s communications should be rendered transparent. Do Members realise what they are doing? No criminal offence is alleged. The sole purpose of this is to determine what may or may not have been the private opinion of civil servants and special advisers. The idea that, in order to discern exactly what they thought, we will trample over data protection law, ECHR rights and the principle of safe space is an unprecedented example of those who claim to revere—

[Christian Matheson]

rose—

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (LD)]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

No, no, no. [Hon. Members: “Give way.”] Mr Speaker, I reserve the right to take any intervention I wish, and I will in a second. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is so much noise that it would be understandable if the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were unable to hear the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who was bidding to intervene. Whether he accepts the intervention is a matter for him, but it is important that attempted interventions are audible.

[Michael Gove]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall not take any interventions because it is important that I make progress.

I want to underline that these propositions are being put forward by people who say—and I believe them—that they take the rule of law seriously, but in their desire to rifle through the private correspondence of individuals, they set aside legal precedent, set aside the good workings of government, and set aside the rights of individuals.

Let me turn briefly to the particular part—

[Ian C. Lucas]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Persist, man! Persist by asking further questions or sending follow-up letters—keep buggering on at all times.

[Michael Gove]

In his speech, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) answered his own question. He explained that I had said to Dermot Murnaghan on Sky News exactly when I knew about these payments. He can ask as many times as he likes for me to repeat the answer, but I gave the answer months ago.

Talking of politicians who cannot see what is in front of them, we come to Yellowhammer. The point has been made that it is critical that we share with this House as much as we can, and I am absolutely committed to that. In the evidence that I gave to the Exiting the European Union Committee last Thursday—

[Mr Grieve]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Gove]

No. In the evidence that I gave, I made it clear—I am grateful to the Chairman of that Committee for allowing me to do so—that we wanted to publish and would publish a revised Yellowhammer document. It is also important to recognise that the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), described Yellowhammer as both an “impact assessment” and a “likely scenario”. I was clear in the evidence, which was accepted by the Chairman in that Committee, that it was neither an impact assessment nor a likely scenario. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he wants scrutiny of our no-deal assumptions, but when that scrutiny is given and when the facts are in front, he seems not to be interested, not to read it or not to know what has been said. He says he wants scrutiny, but when he gets scrutiny, he cannot be bothered to take account of it.

[Mr Grieve]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I am sorry to take him back to the issue about Prorogation and its origins. Would he like to explain at the Dispatch Box why no affidavit was filed by any official relating to the circumstances in which Prorogation was decided upon? He will understand that the suggestion is that, in fact, the explanation given by the Government is inaccurate, that the decisions and work on proroguing this House to prevent us from scrutinising the Brexit process were taken earlier and that there is evidence of it in the interchange of communications between special advisers and others in government.

[Michael Gove]

I know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman suspects, and he has been fair in laying it out clearly, but the question that this House has to ask is, are we prepared—[Interruption.] The question before the House is this—[Hon. Members: “Answer the question!”] I am answering the question. The question before the House is this. We know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned about, and we know what his concerns are, but are we willing, in order to satisfy his curiosity on this point, to make sure that data protection legislation, the EHRC and the standard practices of government are overturned? I should say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we have published in unprecedented detail, in conformity with the duty of candour, all the information required—

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question put accordingly.

Points of Order

Lord Gove Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. I just say to the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, that he is very much more experienced and senior than I, but I think that as Back Benchers in our respective parties we did have quite a lot in common. Certainly, speaking for myself, as a Back Bencher, and frequently as an Opposition Front Bencher, I found that I had a relationship with my Whips characterised by trust and understanding—I didn’t trust them and they didn’t understand me.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Michael Gove)]

Further to that a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like, perhaps for the first time, to associate myself wholeheartedly with the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. Since you entered the House of Commons in 1997, it has been clear to everyone who has seen you work as a diligent constituency MP, an effective Back Bencher, and also a tenacious Front Bencher in your time, that you love this House of Commons, you love our democracy, and your commitment to your principles and your constituents is unwavering and an example to others.

This evening I shall vote with many of my colleagues for an early general election. I hope you will not take that personally, Mr Speaker, because I have no wish to prematurely truncate your time in the Chair. However controversial the role of a backstop may be in other areas, your role as the Back Benchers’ backstop has certainly been appreciated by individuals across this House. I have spent much, though not all, of the last 10 years as a member of the Executive, but I have also been a Back Bencher in this House, and I have personally appreciated the way in which you have always sought to ensure that the Executive answer for their actions. History will record the way in which you have used the urgent question procedure and other procedures to hold the Executive to account and have restored life and vigour to Parliament, and in so doing, you have been in the very best tradition of Speakers.

From time to time, those of us on the Government Benches might have bridled at some of the judgments you have made, but I have never been in any doubt that you have operated on the basis that the Executive must be answerable to this House in the same way as this House is answerable to the people. You have done everything in your power to ensure not just the continued but the underlined relevance of this place. Your love of democracy is transparent in everything that you say and do, and as such, I want, on behalf of myself as an individual and on behalf of the Conservative party, to thank you. As a fellow parent of pupils at a distinguished west London comprehensive, may I also say how important it is that discipline is maintained in this House? Your energetic efforts to do so are appreciated even by those of us who may not always be the best behaved in class.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. That was characteristically generous and gracious of him. At the risk of inflicting some damage upon his otherwise flourishing political career, I have on more than one occasion paid public tribute to the quality of the right hon. Gentleman. One of the reasons why he does not complain about urgent questions being granted, to which he has at short notice to answer, is that he is quick enough, bright enough, sharp enough, fair-minded enough, articulate enough and dextrous enough to be able to cope with whatever is thrown at him. I do not want this to become a mutual admiration society, because I am not sure whether it would be more damaging to him or me, but I thank him for what he said, for the way in which he said it and for the spirit that his remarks embody.

Leaving the EU: Preparations

Lord Gove Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Michael Gove)]

This is the first time I have appeared at the Dispatch Box since I moved on from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the superb team of civil servants at that Department, who do so much to improve the lives of so many across this country.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about preparations for our departure from the European Union. More than three years ago, in the biggest exercise in democracy in our country’s history, the British people voted to leave the EU, but so far this Parliament has failed to honour that instruction. Now, our Prime Minister has made it clear that we must leave by 31 October, and so we must. Trust in this House depends on it and trust in our democracy depends on it.

Of course, this Government are determined to secure our departure with a good deal, one that paves the way for a bright future outside the single market and the customs union, and the response the Prime Minister has received from European leaders shows that they are ready to move—they want a deal, too. And they are moving because the Prime Minister has been clear that matters must be resolved by 31 October. If we drift, the incentive on them to deliver will quickly dissipate, so I hope that my colleagues in the House of Commons will give the Prime Minister the time and the space he needs to pursue the opening he has secured and to get a good deal that we can all support.

But of course we must be prepared for every eventuality; the European Union may not change its position sufficiently before 31 October, and it may be that a deal is not secured. So we must be ready to leave without a deal on 31 October. Leaving without a deal does not mean that talks with our European partners end altogether. In those circumstances, after we depart without a deal in place, we will all want to discuss how we can reach new arrangements on trade and other issues. But while those conversations go on, we must ensure that we are ready for life outside the EU as a third country, trading on World Trade Organisation terms.

There has been extensive speculation about what leaving without a deal might mean for businesses and individuals. Moving to a new set of customs procedures, adjusting to new border checks and dealing with new tariffs all pose significant challenges, and nobody can be blithe or blasé about the challenges we face or the scale of work required. But provided the right preparations are undertaken by government, business and individuals, risks can be mitigated, significant challenges can be met and we can be ready. Leaving without a deal is, of course, not an event whose consequences are unalterable; it is a change for which we can all prepare, and our preparations will determine the impact of the change and help us also to take advantage of the opportunities that exist outside the EU.

We have, of course, to prepare for every eventuality, and that is the function of Operation Yellowhammer. It is an exercise in anticipating what a reasonable worst-case scenario might involve and how we can then mitigate any risks. Operation Yellowhammer assumptions are not a prediction of what is likely to happen; they are not a base-case scenario or a list of probable outcomes. They are projections of what may happen in a worst-case scenario, and they are designed to help government to take the necessary steps to ensure that we can all be ready in every situation.

Since the new Government were formed, at the end of July, new structures have been put in place to ensure that we can be ready in every situation and that we can accelerate our preparations for exit. Two new Cabinet Committees have been set up—XS and XO—to discuss negotiating strategy and to make operational decisions about exit respectively. XO meets every working day to expedite preparations for exit, and we are in regular contact with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations, including the Northern Ireland civil service, and thousands of the best civil servants across the UK are working to ensure the smoothest possible exit.

We have all been helped by the Chancellor’s move to double Brexit funding for this year, announcing an additional £2.1 billion, on top of expenditure already committed. So £6.3 billion in total has been allocated to prepare for life outside the EU. That money is being used to provide practical help to businesses and to individuals.

Guaranteeing the effective flow of goods across our border with the EU is, of course, central to our preparations, and that will require action by business, to adjust to new customs procedures, and intervention by government, to ensure the freest flow of traffic to our ports. That is why Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has announced an additional expenditure of £16 million to train thousands of customs staff, traders and hauliers, so that trade with the EU continues as smoothly as possible. It is also why today we are announcing £20 million more to ensure that traffic can flow freely in Kent and trucks arriving at Dover are ready to carry our exports into the EU.

On business, we have automatically allocated an economic operator registration indicator—EORI—number to 88,000 companies across the UK, and businesses can also register for transitional simplified procedures to delay the submissions of customs declarations and postpone the payments of duties. New transit sites have been built in Kent to smooth the flow of goods into the EU, and we are recruiting 1,000 new staff to help to maintain security and to support flows at the border.

The Government will do all that we can to support businesses to get ready, but many of the steps required to ensure the smooth flow of trade fall to business. We will provide advice, finance and flexibility over how revenue payments may be settled, but it is important that businesses familiarise themselves with the new requirements that exit will involve. That is why we have launched a public information campaign, “Get ready for Brexit”, to give everyone the clear actions that they need to prepare. As well as TV and radio advertising, there is now a straightforward, step-by-step checker tool, available on the Government’s website at gov.uk/brexit, so we can all identify quickly what we may need to do to get ready.

The Government have also acted to provide assurance that business and individuals can have the maximum level of confidence about the future. We have signed continuity agreements with countries, covering more than £90 billion in trade. We have replacement civil nuclear energy trading agreements with Canada, America, Australia and the International Atomic Energy Agency. We have secured aviation agreements with 14 countries, including the US and Canada, and we also have arrangements with the EU on aviation, roads and rail to ensure smooth travel between the UK and European nations. We also have arrangements on education exchanges, social security, fisheries, climate change and a number of other areas. Agreements are in place covering financial services, so that transactions can continue to take place and financial and market stability can be underpinned. Of course, we have a robust legal framework in place: six exit-related Bills that cater for different scenarios have been passed, and the Government have also laid more than 580 EU-exit statutory instruments.

Of course, the Government are determined to ensure that we protect the rights both of UK nationals in the EU and of EU citizens in the UK. I personally want to thank the more than 3 million EU citizens who live and work here for their positive contribution to our society: you are our friends, family and neighbours—we want you to stay and we value your presence. Under the EU settlement scheme, more than 1 million EU citizens have already been granted status. Let me be clear: EU citizens and their family members will continue to be able to work, study and access benefits and services in the UK on the same basis as now after we exit the EU.

The Government will of course do everything in our power to make sure that UK nationals can continue to live in the EU as they do now, but the Government cannot protect the rights of UK nationals unilaterally. We welcome the fact that member states have drafted or enacted legislation to protect the rights of UK nationals; today, we call on member states to go further and fully reciprocate our generous commitment to EU citizens, so that UK nationals can get the certainty they deserve.

There are other decisions that the EU and member states have said they will take that will have an impact on us all if we leave without a deal. The EU’s commitment that we will be subject to its common external tariff in a no-deal scenario will impose new costs, particularly on those who export food to Europe. Indeed, the EU’s current approach to the rules of the single market will, as things stand, require the Republic of Ireland to impose new checks on goods coming from Northern Ireland. For our part, we will do everything that we can to support the Belfast agreement, to ensure the free flow of goods into Northern Ireland and to mitigate the impacts on Northern Ireland, including by providing targeted support for our agriculture sector and for Northern Ireland’s economy.

Although there are risks that we must deal with, there are also opportunities for life outside the EU. We can reform Government procurement rules, get a better deal for taxpayers and forge new trade relationships. We can innovate more energetically in pharmaceuticals and life sciences, develop crops that yield more food and contribute to better environmental outcomes, manage our seas and fisheries in a way that revives coastal communities, and restore our oceans to health. We can introduce an immigration policy that is fairer, more efficient and more humane, improve our border security, deal better with human trafficking and organised crime, open new free ports throughout the country to boost undervalued communities, and support business more flexibly than ever before.

There are undoubted risks and real challenges in leaving without a deal on 31 October, but there are also opportunities and new possibilities for our country outside the EU. It is my job to mitigate those risks, overcome those challenges and enable this country to exploit those opportunities and extend to every citizen those new possibilities. That is why I commend this statement to the House and why I am confident that as a nation our best days lie ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett]

What assessments has the Minister received about disruption at the ports? What assessments have been made and reported to him about the situation in Ireland? What assessments has he received about the impact of no deal on food prices? All these matters must be addressed by the House, so let him place the documents in the Library so that we all can explore them.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I am also grateful to him for asking me how I reconcile the progress of my career—it is a question my wife asks me every night, so I am grateful to him for repeating it. I have enormous respect and affection for the hon. Gentleman. We both represent constituencies that voted to leave the European Union, and both of us are impatient to see us do so. When a Brexit delay was suggested in January 2019, he said that it

“sounds like the British establishment doing what it always does, which is ignoring the views of millions of ordinary folk, and that I am not prepared to tolerate.”

Comrades, neither am I, which is why we have to leave on 31 October.

The hon. Gentleman said that civil servants are doing a fantastic job in the preparations, and I join him in paying tribute to them for their work. He asked about medical shortages. Sadly, medical shortages sometimes occur, whether we are in or out of the European Union, as we have seen recently with the hormone replacement therapy shortages, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is doing so much to help counter. But that is a shared issue for us all. Two thirds of the medical supplies that reach the Republic of Ireland pass through the narrow straits. That is why it is so important that we secure a deal, not only to safeguard our superb NHS, but to help citizens in Ireland, who are our brothers and sisters, too.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the EU settled status scheme. He made the point that 1 million people have received the status so far, and he asked about progress. Every day, 15,000 more people are applying. The settled status scheme is working. He is absolutely right that now is the time for our European partners to extend the same generosity to UK citizens as we are extending to EU citizens.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the money being spent. At the beginning of his questions, he said that £6.3 billion was too little, too late, but subsequently at the end of his statement he asked how we can justify such expenditure. I think that is the fastest U-turn in history, in the course of just six minutes. He also talked about our contemplation of a “cynical” general election. I thought it was the policy of the Opposition—certainly the Leader of the Opposition—to welcome a general election at the earliest possible opportunity. [Interruption.] I see the Leader of the Opposition seeking guidance on this question from Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know the Minister will not want to mislead the House. The Leader of the Opposition was simply alerting me to his experience of visiting Romania, which is somewhat tangential to—indeed, entirely divorced from—the Minister for the Cabinet Office’s ruminations and lucubrations, which we do not need.

[Michael Gove]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We all know how much the Leader of the Opposition enjoyed seeing Celtic play in Romania.

The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) asked me about the extent of our negotiations, and they are extensive; the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the Prime Minister’s sherpa have been visiting every single European capital to ensure that we can advance our negotiations. But one thing is critical: if we are to succeed in these negotiations, we need to get behind the Prime Minister. If the motion before the House is passed tonight and the legislation that it gives effect to is passed tomorrow, we will be allowing the European Union to dictate the length of any extension and to put any conditions it wishes to on that extension. That would totally undermine the Government’s capacity to negotiate in the national interest.

It has been said of some in the past that they sent out the captain to the wicket and broke his bat beforehand. Well, Labour’s approach to negotiations is not just breaking the bat; it is blowing up the whole pavilion. It is no surprise that Labour Members want to sabotage our negotiations, because they also want to sabotage their own negotiations. Labour’s policy on negotiation is to have an infinitely long extension, to negotiate a new deal with Europe, to bring it back to this country, and then to argue that people should vote against that deal and vote to remain. How can we possibly have confidence in the Leader of the Opposition to negotiate in Europe when his own party does not have confidence in him to secure a good deal for the British people?

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

Those of us who live in east Kent, where the efficient operation of the Dover-Calais route is essential for the smooth running of our entire road network, have a particular reason to wish my right hon. Friend well in his new task, particularly if we end up with the very undesirable outcome of a no-deal Brexit. In that spirit, I welcome the extra £20 million that he has announced today to ensure the increasingly smooth running of the road network, but can he tell the House what arrangements Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has put in place for customs clearance of lorries coming into this country? Specifically, where is that going to happen?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are two aspects to this issue: lorries coming into this country and lorries leaving this country. When it comes to lorries coming into this country, thanks to the application of transitional simplified procedures, any duty that needs to be paid can be deferred. Of course, we will be prioritising flow over revenue, which means that we will not be imposing new checks, certainly in the first months after any no-deal exit. I agree with my right hon. Friend that a no-deal exit is undesirable. For lorries that are leaving the country, there will be six new transit sites—five in Kent and one in Essex—to ensure that hauliers leaving the UK can take advantage of the common transit convention and its provisions.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

May I put on record my thanks to the officials who have been given the impossible task of trying to make sense of this Government’s plans and to do something that they should never have been asked to do when it comes to no deal? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) may laugh, but these officials are working incredibly hard because of the Government’s ineptitude.

Today in Holyrood, we see a tale of two Governments. Today, the Scottish Government have set out their programme for government to tackle a climate emergency, improve public services and introduce a fairer economy. Yet here we debate food shortages, medicine stockpiling, price increases and job losses; the height of Government ambition is hoping that it will not be as bad as the experts tell them it will.

The Minister talked about a general election. We would welcome a general election. In fact, I am going to take the unusual step of inviting the Minister to come and campaign in my constituency. I would love him to do that, so that people could ask him why he is putting them out of work, why he is hitting our food and drink industry and why he is hitting our university sector. This is the height of political failure. It was only apt that the Minister quoted Geoffrey Howe earlier, who of course was attacking his own Prime Minister during an ongoing Tory civil war. I notice that nobody is arguing that this is a good idea any more. This is a Government who have no idea what they are doing and making it up as they go along. No wonder they want to duck, dive and dodge any kind of scrutiny whatsoever.

We were warned before that Parliament would need to sit. Does the Minister agree with the Health Secretary that prorogation goes against everything that the men who waded on to those beaches in Normandy fought and died for? The Minister likes to quote others; does he still agree with that?

On food prices, what will the impact be on food banks—on the most vulnerable, already hit by austerity from this disastrous Tory Government? What level of medicine shortages is acceptable to the Government? On the £6.5 billion, from which public services is that to be taken? Finally—I cannot quite believe I am asking this question—does the Minister still believe in the rule of law, and will he accept laws passed by this Parliament?

[Michael Gove]

May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position? May I also say that I am very grateful for his invitation to campaign in his constituency at the next general election? Given that he has a majority of just two, he is a brave as well as a principled man.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Tory gain.

[Michael Gove]

I think my hon. Friend is right. In Crail and Anstruther, as well as in St Andrews, I think people are looking forward to Conservative representation in North East Fife in due course.

The hon. Gentleman talks about a tale of two Governments. Even as the Scottish Government are unveiling their programme today, they are doing so, after 10 years in government, with education standards declining and the number of people in the health service, including doctors, declining—and unfortunately, as the recent “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” figures show, Scotland, were it an independent country, would have the biggest deficit of any nation in Europe. That is hardly a record of success.

The hon. Gentleman asks about Prorogation. Prorogation is necessary before every Queen’s Speech. One can no more be against Prorogation in order to ensure a Queen’s Speech than one can be against the functioning of this Parliament, properly constituted.

The hon. Gentleman asks about food prices. Of course food prices fluctuate—some go up and some go down—but the temporary tariff schedule that we have put in place will protect consumers and ensure that in many cases food prices are either stable or drop.

Ultimately, the problem for the hon. Gentleman is that Scottish National party Members may talk about democracy, but we have had two major referendums in this country, both of which they seek to overturn. They want to ignore the vote to stay in the United Kingdom and they want to ignore the vote to leave the European Union. Their policy is take us back into the EU. That would mean abandoning the pound, abandoning coastal communities in Scotland, and once more recognising that the Scottish National party wants separatism and Brussels rule ahead of a strong United Kingdom and the benefits that it brings to the citizens of the whole UK.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that trust—trust in this Parliament and trust in politicians—is the most important thing in any democracy, and that any party that goes out on a manifesto saying that it wants to leave the European Union and does not honour that cannot be trusted ever again in government?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Labour party said on page 24 of its 2017 manifesto that it was committed to leaving the European Union and respecting the referendum result, and the overwhelming majority of Labour Members—not all—voted for article 50, which set this year as the legal default date for departure from the European Union. I absolutely respect the rule of law, and so should the Labour Members who voted to leave the EU.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

There are widespread reports that the Secretary of State is seeking to sanitise the Operation Yellowhammer documents. Can he confirm that any ministerial demand that civil servants water down Operation Yellowhammer would break the ministerial code, that no civil servants risk being disciplined if they refuse to undertake this work and that they will be covered by whistleblower legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

Of course we want to make sure that any documents we publish accurately reflect the range of possibilities that leaving the European Union might entail. Thousands of pages of information were published in the technical notices that were published by my right hon. Friend the Brexit Secretary. It is also the case that on gov.uk/brexit there is much information about what leaving the European Union would entail. The right hon. Gentleman specifically refers to the Yellowhammer document. The point about the Yellowhammer document is that it is an aid to Ministers in order to ensure that we can deal with the reasonable worst-case scenario. Of course, the assumptions in the Yellowhammer document are arrived at independently by civil servants, and rightly so.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

The BBC is constantly engaging with Polish diaspora groups in this country to accentuate potential problems over the EU resettlement scheme. Could the Secretary of State give me an assurance of what money has been afforded to ensure that the maximum number of EU citizens are processed as quickly and efficiently as possible in the event of no deal?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He is a consistent champion for the rights of Polish people in the UK and elsewhere. The largest single community of EU citizens in our country is composed of Polish citizens. We were remembering earlier the anniversary of the second world war. We honour the sacrifice of those Polish soldiers, airmen and sailors who fought alongside us for democracy, and it is our moral duty to ensure that Polish citizens in this country are given the opportunity to stay and to enjoy the rights of which we are all proud and for which their forebears fought so proudly.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

A no-deal Brexit, according to Government messaging, is something we can completely prepare for as long as we spend enough money on advertising, while at the same time so crucial and fundamental that it must be kept on the table as part of the negotiations. It cannot be both. Which is it?

[Michael Gove]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The legal default position is that we leave on 31 October. If the EU will not move and we do not secure a good deal, we need to be prepared for that eventuality. That is the necessary outworking of article 50, for which I think the hon. Lady voted, along with many other colleagues across the House.

[Catherine McKinnell]

indicated dissent.

[Michael Gove]

If she did not, I can only apologise. I think a majority of her Labour colleagues did, but I salute her independence of mind on that issue.

The broader point I would make is that, because it is an eventuality for which we have to prepare, it is prudent that we should prepare, but one thing that I think the hon. Lady and I agree on is that it is infinitely preferable that we leave with a deal. That is why we should give the Prime Minister the space and time to negotiate, which is why I hope that she, along with me, will decline to vote for any motion today that would fetter the Prime Minister’s discretion.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Last week, I visited a logistics business in my constituency that sends parcels to the Republic of Ireland, and I heard about the concerns of its customers about the need for paperwork. The business has offered to do it and charge for the time spent—about 20 minutes per form—but I understand that many businesses simply will not bother, which will lead to a loss of valuable export sales. Clearly, the best thing is to keep the existing arrangements, but what further advice can my right hon. Friend give to my constituent and his customers?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are some specific proposals that help to deal with parcels of a lower value and can facilitate their flow across borders, but I suggest that his constituents contact gov.uk/brexit—the Government Digital Service website—or, indeed, HMRC. If he would care to write to me, I can ensure that all the facilitations and easements available are in place for his constituency’s firms and employees.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Why should anyone believe Government claims that meaningful talks are taking place in Brussels to avoid no deal when the rest of Europe flatly denies that and the Prime Minister’s own chief of staff has said that that claim is a deliberate sham to run down the clock to a no-deal Brexit?

[Michael Gove]

I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but if he were to look at the number of air miles clocked up by my right hon. Friend the Brexit Secretary and talk to those involved in the negotiations with the Brexit Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s official negotiator, David Frost, he would see that there has been intensive negotiation with our EU partners. For example, the Prime Minister just last week spent five days in France talking to not only Emmanuel Macron but other European leaders to ensure that we can leave with a deal.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

As 36,000 delegates gather in Aberdeen to discuss and debate the future of the energy industry, can my right hon. Friend confirm that plans will be put in place in the event of no deal to maintain our just-in-time customs model, on which that industry and so many others in Scotland depend?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is a brilliant advocate for the oil and gas sector, which does so much to ensure that the north-east of Scotland is an economic powerhouse. We are working intensively with those in the energy sector and elsewhere to ensure that their business models can be robust for the future.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

It was reported yesterday that analysis done for the Department for Transport in the last fortnight says that in the worst case, the average delay for lorries and freight at Dover would be one and a half days, and in the best case, there would be a wait of two to three hours—either of which would cause chaos. Can the Secretary of State confirm for the House that the Government have received that analysis? What has the freight industry had to say to him about it? It has been warning for some time that it does not think the Government are prepared.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that representatives of the freight industry have asked us to accelerate preparations for no deal. That is something that I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport have done. On Friday, I had the opportunity to visit Calais to talk to Ministers and the president of the regional assembly. They said that they proposed to take a pragmatic approach to ensure the maximum flow, and we shall be revisiting those assumptions in the light, not just of those talks, but of the other steps we are taking.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

Farming and the food and drinks manufacturing sector matter to the economy of Carlisle and Cumbria. Clearly, future relations with the EU will also be significant to those industries. Can the Minister confirm that he believes that adequate preparations are being made for the eventuality of a no deal, to ensure that both those industries can function properly?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the sectors that we most need to help and support is of course the haulage sector—this follows on from the question asked by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)—and we are moving at pace to meet many of its concerns. However, as I have said at the Dispatch Box today and previously, the sector that faces some of the biggest challenges in the event of a no-deal exit is undoubtedly agriculture, and within agriculture, undoubtedly upland farmers, particularly sheep farmers. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working on steps to ensure that if, as we anticipate, a common external tariff is placed on sheepmeat exports, and therefore the price of sheepmeat falls, we can support hill farmers, who do so much for our country by producing high-quality food and safeguarding the environment we love.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I have been contacted by local manufacturers and food producers who are deeply worried about no-deal tariffs. One, an exporter, says that the price of his exports to the EU will go up by 30%, and he called it “manufacturing suicide.” Another is an importer; the price of his imports will go up by 50%. A third told me that they might have to close down altogether. Can the Secretary of State confirm that all his preparations about public information and committees will not mitigate the impact of those no-deal tariffs? What is the total cost to British industry of those no-deal tariffs?

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Lady makes a very fair point, actually. The single biggest challenge in a no-deal exit is of course the existence of those tariffs—a requirement of the European Union’s single market rules. The common external tariff, which I just alluded to, is particularly high when it comes to the agricultural sector, and therefore, when it comes to exporting food into the European Union, that is a significant barrier. However, the temporary tariff regime that we are consulting on would ensure that in many cases tariffs were lower, to help business and consumers.

On the broader question about attempting to put a figure on the specific costs, that cannot be done in isolation, although I appreciate the sincerity with which the right hon. Lady asks that question.

More broadly, I would welcome the opportunity to talk to the right hon. Lady’s constituents about what we can do, because the Treasury is making money available for companies that are fundamentally viable but may face particular turbulence in the event of no deal, to ensure their survival in the future. I would be more than happy to talk to her about that.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

Thousands of people in the UK, and in my constituency, are dependent on the chemical industry. Much of that, of course, has been previously governed by regulation in compliance with the EU. As we leave, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with those companies and with Europe about UK REACH and its implementation?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Those who work in the chemicals industry are absolutely vital to the health of our economy. Hitherto, the regulation of chemicals within the European Union has been governed by the operation of the REACH directive. We are replicating that in UK law and we have had extensive discussions and are putting in place steps to ensure that the chemicals industry can continue to manufacture and export as before. It is one of those industries whose business model, as we leave the European Union, necessarily requires Government support to ensure its continued health.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Great mention has been made of the freight industry and the importance of guaranteeing the effective flow of goods across the border. Can the Secretary of State explain what has been done since February with regard to the ISPM—international standard for phytosanitary measures—on wood pallets? Two thirds of the pallets in this country do not comply with European Union requirements.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about the nature of wood pallets, and we have been working with the industry to ensure that we can mitigate the consequences.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

Earlier today, the chairman of the British Medical Association in Scotland went on record to say that there are shortages of medical supplies in Scotland due to Brexit. Can my right hon. Friend give assurances that that is not the case and that the Cabinet Office is engaging directly with the devolved Administration, local government and all Government bodies to ensure that no shortages are caused by Brexit?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. To the anguish of many, but to the joy of some, we have not actually left the European Union yet, so it is hard to see how any shortages could be caused by Brexit. The Department of Health and Social Care and others have worked to ensure that in the event of a no-deal Brexit we can continue to have all the medicines and medical supplies that people need. I will look closely at what the Scottish BMA has said and investigate it, but sometimes—I am sure this is not the case with the Scottish BMA—one or two figures attribute to Brexit responsibility for matters that are absolutely nothing to do with our departure from the European Union.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (IGC)]

The Minister caused some concern at the weekend about whether the Government would comply with legislation if it were passed and enacted. Can he, without dodging the question, confirm that if the law requires Her Majesty’s Government to request an extension to article 50, they will comply with the law?

[Michael Gove]

The Government always comply with the law.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

Is the Minister confident that the integrity of our fishing waters can be maintained and enforced regardless of our method of leaving the European Union, and can he give Cornish fishermen an assurance on that point?

[Michael Gove]

That is a very important point. Steps have been taken, including working with the devolved Administrations, to make sure that we have strong maritime security and that the rights of our fishermen can be respected. We want to work in a co-operative way with other European countries, and indeed with countries outside the European Union such as Norway and the Faroes, to ensure that we can manage stocks sustainably and revive coastal communities.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

There have been reports in the newspapers that the reunification of families will cease if we leave the European Union without a deal. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position on that and confirm that all children who are stranded without family in the UK will be able to apply as now, under the Dublin agreement, to be reunited with their families?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that question, and I am disturbed by reporting to that effect. The rights of EU citizens in this country, and of course their dependants, will be protected, but if she wants to furnish me with the report to which she refers, I will look closely into it and, of course, write to her.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

It would be infinitely preferable to secure a deal, which is why I and many hon. Members have voted three times to do exactly that. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that in any circumstances the security of supply of medicines will be assured and that those medicines will be flown into the UK if necessary?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes two characteristically acute points. I voted for the withdrawal agreement on every opportunity presented to the House. I had hoped that more colleagues on the Opposition Benches would have done so. I am grateful to those colleagues on the Opposition Benches who have done so, because it will be infinitely preferable if we leave with a deal. However, my hon. Friend is also right that, as well as ensuring the freest possible flow of goods—including medicines—over the short straits, there should be additional capacity, both at sea and in the air, to safeguard citizens in this country.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

For the last couple of years, along with the president of the Royal College of Radiologists, I have been raising the issue of radioisotopes. I was ignored and patronised, and then reassured at the beginning of this year that it was all sorted and that they had been flown in. However, on 23 July a new contract was put out to tender with a closing date last week, which means that it is not sorted at all. Could the Minister possibly explain what is going to happen about radioisotopes on 1 November?

[Michael Gove]

I would hope that no one would ignore or patronise the hon. Lady, who had a very distinguished record as a physician even before she came into the House. She speaks with great authority on these issues. Unless I misunderstood it, her point refers to the fact that the Department for Transport has issued a new tender for sea freight. I understand that that tender has been well subscribed, and we should have sea freight in place. We will also have air freight in place, as I mentioned in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), to ensure that not just radioisotopes but all medical supplies necessary for the effective functioning of the NHS across the United Kingdom are available. I hope to stay in regular touch with the hon. Lady, because her commitment to the health of our NHS is second to none.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making time to meet me during the recess and for today’s statement. Returning to the issue of medicine supply, one constituent wrote to me recently asking about her epilepsy medication. She said, “If we can’t get it easily, it will tip my life upside down.” She and I, as her MP, do not need ifs and buts or scare stories; we need hard facts. This is not a “nice to have and we’ll do our best to have in the awful event of a no deal Brexit.” This is absolutely critical. We need categorical assurance from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that there will not be a shortage of medicine supply in addition to the shortages there are at the moment—I know that as a former Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care—after Brexit.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend was a brilliant Health Minister and he knows that medical supplies have been termed as category 1 goods. As I mentioned earlier, as well as making sure that we have the freest possible flow across the short straits, there is additional maritime freight capacity and air capacity to ensure that vital drugs will be in place. I can therefore reassure him, his constituent and those living with epilepsy who need that medicine that it will be there.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Having previously worked as a supermarket fruit and vegetable assistant, I know how perishable and fragile supply chains are. I was therefore surprised to hear the Minister say on Sunday that a no-deal Brexit would cause no shortage of fresh food. Sure enough, soon afterwards the British Retail Consortium and the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium said that that, quite simply, was not true. It said:

“it is impossible to mitigate”

as stockpiling is not possible with such perishable produce. Will the Minister therefore accept that his statement on Sunday was inaccurate?

[Michael Gove]

I express my solidarity with the hon. Gentleman. I, too, worked with fresh fruit and vegetables when I was a food hall porter in the Aberdeen branch of British Home Stores in the 1980s, so I absolutely appreciate how important it is to ensure we have a ready supply of fresh fruit of vegetables and a wide range of them. The British Retail Consortium, with which I have worked, has been working incredibly hard to make sure we have access to the full range of foods we currently enjoy. It is the case that while the price of some commodities may rise, the price of other commodities may fall, but I am absolutely certain that consumers will continue to have a wide choice of quality of fresh foodstuffs in the event of no-deal Brexit.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that business leaders and business associations will be listening intently to this afternoon’s debate. They have suffered three years of uncertainty, and endless and pointless Brexit debate. What certainty and reassurance going forward can the Minister give to business leaders who have suffered uncertainty?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that business wants certainty. The best certainty we can give is to make sure we secure a good deal with the European Union, which is why I hope everyone across the House will give my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the time and space necessary to secure that good deal on which he has been working so hard.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Ind)]

Further to the question we have just heard about food shortages, on Sunday the Minister said that there will be no shortages of fresh food. He has just told us that there will be a wide choice. Does he accept what the British Retail Consortium said, which is that his initial claim was “categorically untrue” and that a no-deal Brexit would be

“the worst of all worlds for our high streets and those who shop there”?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady, like me, wants to avoid a no-deal Brexit if at all possible. The British Retail Consortium, supermarkets and others involved in providing our food have been doing important work to make sure we continue to have a wide choice and a ready supply of the fresh food that we all enjoy.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Earlier in the year, when it appeared momentarily that we might leave without a deal, Mr Barnier announced that there would not, after all, be a hard border and that other arrangements would be relied upon. Where could he have possibly got that idea?

[Michael Gove]

I think very possibly from some of the wise and thoughtful speeches that have been made by my right hon. Friend.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Lord Gove Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

So far, the Prime Minister has only doubled down on her own defeated deal, saying at last week’s Prime Minister’s Question Time that her deal delivers

“the benefits of a customs union and the benefits of our own trade policy.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 237.]

It does no such thing. The political declaration fails to deliver on the Chequers promise of frictionless trade—it does not even guarantee tariff-free trade. It means that we lose the 40 to 50 trade agreements we have through the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)]

Why is the right hon. Gentleman scared to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), a member of the Labour party for 37 years?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the Minister for his intervention and his brief statement of his leadership intentions.

As I was saying—[Interruption.]

No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Lord Gove Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)]

As you know, Mr Speaker, having sat throughout this entire debate, it has been a passionate debate, characterised by many excellent speeches. I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), for Bolton West (Chris Green), for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), and for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), and my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), for Dudley South (Mike Wood), for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) on my side for a series of outstanding speeches.

It has also been the case, as the shadow Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), pointed out, that there have been many powerful speeches from the Opposition Benches as well. I, like him, want to pay particular tribute to the hon. Members for Warrington North (Helen Jones), for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) for moving and passionate speeches. Their constituencies are lucky to have them as advocates for their concerns and their needs.

However, perhaps the bravest and finest speech that came from the Opposition Benches was given by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). It takes courage—and he has it, having been elected on a Labour mandate and representing working-class people—to say that the leader of the party that he joined as a boy is not fit to be Prime Minister. He speaks for his constituents, and he speaks for the country.

That takes me to the speech from the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East. He spoke well, but I felt he did not rise to the level of events. One thing that was characteristic of his speech is that he did not once mention in his speech the Leader of the Opposition or why he should be Prime Minister. I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, and we have several things in common: we have both lost weight recently—him much more so; we are both friends of Israel—him much more so; and we both recognise that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is about the worst possible person to lead the Labour party—him much more so.

As well as great speeches from the Back Benches, we had some interesting speeches from the Front Benches. We had a speech of over 20 minutes from my great friend, the leader of the Scottish National party in this place, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). Again, however, in those 20 minutes he did not once mention the common fisheries policy. I think everyone in Scotland who recognises the potential to free ourselves from the common fisheries policy that Brexit provides will note that, in 20 minutes of precious parliamentary time, the SNP did not mention them, is not interested in them and, as far as the fishing people of Scotland are concerned, literally has nothing to say.

I must now turn to the speech from the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable)—someone for whom I also have affection and respect. He made a number of good points, but he also said that he regretted the referendum. This from a party that was the first in this House to say that we should have a referendum on EU membership. Because he does not like the result of the last referendum, he now wants another referendum. The Liberal Democrat policy on referendums is not the policy of Gladstone or Lloyd George; it is the policy of Vicky Pollard—“No, but yeah, but no, but yeah.”

I should also commend the speech given by the leader of the Democratic Unionist party in this place, the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds). He explained that he had been inundated with text messages today from people in this House saying, “Please, please, please back the Government tonight”—and some of those text messages had even come from Conservatives.

Critically, when we think about confidence in this country and in this Government, I think a daily vote in confidence is being executed by the individuals investing in this country, creating jobs and opportunity for all our citizens. Under this Government, this country remains the most successful country for foreign direct investment of any country in Europe, with more than £1,300 billion being invested in the past year. That is why Forbes Magazine says that this country is the best destination in the world for new jobs. It is why the independent organisation JLL says that the best place in the world for the future of services is here in the United Kingdom. It is why, once again, London has been recorded by independent inspectors as the best place in the world for tech investment. We see that when the Spanish rail firm Talgo shortlists six destinations for investment in new rolling stock, and all six are in the United Kingdom; when Boeing opens a new factory in Sheffield to create jobs for British workers; when Chanel moves from France to London to establish a new corporate headquarters, and when Starbucks moves from Amsterdam to London to ensure more investment and jobs. The Opposition should wake up and smell the coffee. All this—in the words of the BBC—despite Brexit.

That investment—those jobs that have been created under my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s inspirational leadership—has been made in public services and social justice. As we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley South (Mike Wood) and for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), there are 1.9 million more children in good and outstanding schools. It is also the case that the gap between the poorest and the richest in our schools has narrowed under this Conservative Government. We have a record level of investment in the NHS and, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, a 10-year plan and £20 billion of investment—£394 million extra every week—for our NHS.

We also invest in our national security. We meet the 2% target for investment in NATO and we have two new aircraft carriers, which are capable of projecting British force and influence across the world in defence of freedom and democracy. By contrast, while we are standing up for national security, what about the right hon. Member for Islington North? He wants to leave NATO. He wants to get rid of our nuclear deterrent. He said recently in a speech, “Why do countries boast about the size of their armies? That is quite wrong. Why don’t we emulate Costa Rica, which has no army at all?” No allies, no deterrent, no army—no way can this country ever allow that man to be our Prime Minister and in charge of our national security.

If the Leader of the Opposition cannot support our fighting men and women, who does he support? Who does he stand beside? It was fascinating to discover that he was there when a wreath was laid to commemorate those who were involved in the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. He says he was present but not involved. “Present but not involved” sums him up when it comes to national security. When this House voted to bomb the fascists of ISIS after an inspirational speech by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), 66 Labour Members, including the hon. Member for West Bromwich East, voted with this Government to defeat fascism. I am afraid the Leader of the Opposition was not with us. In fighting fascism, he was present but not involved.

Similarly, when this House voted to take the action necessary when Vladimir Putin executed an act of terrorism on our soil, many good Labour Members stood up to support what we were doing, but not the Leader of the Opposition. When we were fighting Vladimir Putin—

[Danielle Rowley]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

If the Leader of the Opposition will not stand up against Putin when he attacks people in this country, if he will not stand up against fascists when they are running riot in Syria, if he will not stand up for this country when the critical national security questions are being asked, how can we possibly expect him to stand up for us in European negotiations? Will he stand up for us against Spain over Gibraltar? Will he stand up against the Commission to ensure that we get a good deal? Of course he will not, because he will not even stand up for his own Members of Parliament.

Why is it that a Labour Member of Parliament needs armed protection at her own party conference? Why is it that nearly half of female Labour MPs wrote to the Leader of the Opposition to say that he was not standing up against the vilification and the abuse that they received online which had been carried out in his name? If he cannot protect his own Members of Parliament, if he cannot protect the proud traditions of the Labour party, how can he possibly protect this country? We cannot have confidence in him to lead. We have confidence in this Government, which is why I recommend that the House votes against the motion.

Advisory Committee on Business Appointments/Ministerial Code

Lord Gove Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

That is a niche interest for the Liberal Democrats, all of whom have marginal seats. What I find extraordinary about that question is that there are Members on both sides of the House with safe seats who are incredibly assiduous in how they attend to their constituents—Opposition Members whom I am looking at now and Government Members behind me—and it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to cast aspersions on them.

[Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)]

I commend the Minister for his judicious handling of this question. I underline the importance to us all of respecting constitutional principles. Is it not the case that ACOBA is an independent body? Its independence needs to be respected. Is it not the case that we believe in a free press and that proprietors should therefore have the right to appoint whom they believe is right to be editor, without the Executive or anyone else interfering in that decision? Is it not also the case that whoever represents a constituency should be up to its voters, not for the Opposition or anyone else to decree?

[Ben Gummer]

My right hon. Friend, as ever, is good at making clear the liberties that underpin our democracy and that we too often forget.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Gove Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Docherty-Hughes, you are a very curious denizen of the House. I had you down as a cerebral and academic type, but you are becoming increasingly hysterical—very curious behaviour.

[Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)]

12. The SNP wants to levy the highest level of income tax anywhere in the United Kingdom. It already receives more per capita funding than England, yet Scotland’s schools are conspicuously worse than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Does the Minister put that down to the incompetence of the Scottish Government or their prioritisation of nationalist posturing over proper administration?

[Simon Kirby]

I may not like the Scottish Government’s plans to make Scotland a higher-tax nation, but that is up to them. What they will have to do is explain to the people of Scotland why they are having to pay more tax than their friends and families who have the same jobs south of the border.

Chilcot Inquiry and Parliamentary Accountability

Lord Gove Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alex Salmond]

I very much support the view of my hon. Friend.

[Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a fascinating case, but I do not think he does himself a favour when he refers to this communication with President Bush and says that it was a commitment to military action come what may. There were in fact specific areas where the Prime Minister said that progress would need to be made before he could commit to military action, and he also said that there was a need to commit to Iraq for the long term. I simply say that because, if we are going draw appropriate lessons from history, yes, absolutely, draw critical lessons, but please put them in context.

[Alex Salmond]

The right hon. Gentleman will understand that my point was that no evidence or information about these commitments was ever presented to this House or to the general public. Indeed, it was not, as we know from Chilcot, presented to the Cabinet. Only Downing Street officials saw that letter and advised the Prime Minister, apparently, not to send it, which he did anyway. The Foreign Secretary, Mr Straw, saw it after the event. It has been said by some that that phrase did not mean what it clearly seems to mean. I just point out that after the Foreign Secretary did see the letter to President Bush, he himself wrote in a memo to the Prime Minister on 11 March 2003, when things at the United Nations were not going well:

“We will obviously need to discuss all this, but I thought it best to put it in your mind as event[s] could move fast. And what I propose is a great deal better than the alternatives. When Bush graciously accepted your offer to be with him all the way, he wanted you alive not dead!”

The Foreign Secretary was referring to being politically dead, not really dead like the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. That point shows with absolute seriousness and clarity that there was no doubt in the mind of the then Foreign Secretary of the extent of the commitment that had been made, and there was no doubt in the mind of the Chilcot inquiry when it commented on the range of letters and correspondence to the President of the United States, which it said would have made it very difficult for the UK to pursue any independent policy after the commitment had been made. That is what the inquiry says on the question of prior commitment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)]

I must apologise to the House for being absent during part of this debate. I was called to participate in a delegated legislation Committee upstairs.

It is a great privilege to speak in the same debate as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), who gave an outstanding maiden speech and paid appropriate tribute to his predecessor. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) for the generous words he said about his predecessor.

Talking of distinguished party leaders, the debate was opened in fine style by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), a former First Minister of Scotland. He laid out his case, as he does always, with passion and verve and commitment. Unfortunately, skilled as an advocate though he is, as he was laying out the prosecution case against the former Member for Sedgefield, he did not have the evidence to sustain his case. The truth is that the Chilcot report makes it clear that at no stage was there a deliberate attempt by Tony Blair to mislead the House. More than that, the Chilcot report makes it clear that there was a proper legal basis—a Security Council resolution—for the decision to go to war.

[Joanna Cherry]

The right hon. Gentleman has been out of the Chamber, so he may have missed my contribution. I made the point that papers recently released, as a result of a freedom of information request, clearly show that the inquiry was not charged with looking at issues of blame, accountability or legality. Does he accept that?

[Michael Gove]

It is clear from what was published in the report that a decision was taken by Sir John Chilcot—I will not have any criticism made of him or any of those responsible for the report—that there was no deliberate misleading of this House. It is quite wrong to suggest otherwise. More than that, the right hon. Member for Gordon sought to suggest that the note passed from the former Prime Minister to President Bush saying that he would “be with you, whatever” was the equivalent of a political blank cheque. It was no such thing. When Mr Blair wrote that note he made it clear that there needed to be progress in three key areas: the middle east peace process; securing UN authority for action; and shifting public opinion in the UK, Europe and the Arab world. He also pointed out that there would be a need to commit to Iraq for the long term.

In judging Mr Blair—I think history will judge him less harshly than some in this House—we need to recognise that his decision to join George W Bush at that time was finely balanced. In reflecting on when this House decides to send young men and women into harm’s way, we also need to reflect not just on the consequences of acting but the consequences of not acting—the consequences of non-intervention.

[Alex Salmond]

The right hon. Gentleman will remember Chilcot’s findings on page 112 of the report. The note was not discussed or agreed with any colleagues and led to the possibility of

“participation in military action in a way that would make it very difficult for the UK subsequently to withdraw its support for the US.”

Does he not accept that Chilcot found the note to be of huge significance in binding the UK to George W Bush?

[Michael Gove]

It was not a blank cheque. It was not a binding statement. It was of significance, but, as I have explained, Tony Blair at the time laid out to George Bush that certain steps were required before he would agree.

The point the right hon. Gentleman does not attend to is the consequences of inaction: Saddam Hussein remaining in power in a country he had turned into a torture chamber above ground and a mass grave below. Power would inevitably have passed on to his sadistic children, Uday and Qusay, who would have carried on their genocidal conflict against the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs. They would inevitably have taken advantage of the erosion of international sanctions to restock their chemical and biological weapons arsenal.

Whenever we think about the consequences of action, we very rarely think about the consequences of inaction. In front of us now, however, is a hugely powerful reminder of the consequences of inaction: what is happening in Aleppo at the moment. I was not in this House when the decision was taken to vote on whether to take action in Iraq, but I was in this House in the previous Parliament when we voted on whether to take action in Syria. I am deeply disappointed that this House did not vote to take action then, because as a direct result of voting against intervention we have seen Bashar Assad, backed by Vladimir Putin and the anti-Semitic leadership of Iran, unleashing hell on the innocent people of Aleppo.

I have a lot of respect for the SNP position on many issues, but when asked about what is happening in Aleppo and in Syria it has no answer; it can put forward nothing that deals with the huge, horrific humanitarian disaster that is unfolding. My own view is that there is much that we can do both to relieve suffering and to put pressure on Russia, Iran and Syria, but once again the long shadow cast by Iraq, which certainly should call us all to search our consciences, means politicians are sometimes fearful of making the case for intervention now and certainly those like the SNP who are opposed to intervention are emboldened to make their case for neutrality when we are confronting evil.

[Joanna Cherry]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the House on Monday, but if he was or has read the newspapers he will have seen that I and many of my colleagues signed a letter asking the British Government to take action in relation to Aleppo by way of dropping aid on the city. We are not without answers, and I wonder if he would care to withdraw that suggestion.

[Michael Gove]

I was happy to sign that letter as well. It was initiated of course by the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), both of whom, as I have, have argued consistently for muscular intervention in Syria to help the suffering people of Aleppo, and it is simply not good enough—although I have great respect for the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry)—to say we wish to drop that aid but not to be willing to go further to ensure that appropriate pressure, diplomatic and otherwise, is placed on those people who are responsible for mass murder.

It is all very well to look back on Iraq and say that mistakes were made; of course they were, but if we are going to have an Opposition day debate on foreign policy in this House at this time, it is a dereliction of duty to look backwards and try to blame Tony Blair, when the responsibility on all of us is to do something to help the people of Aleppo who are suffering now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Gove Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

Sectors in Scotland would acknowledge that they have benefited from the devaluation of the pound. The tourism sector, which saw a record attendance at the Edinburgh festival recently, and the agricultural sector would acknowledge it, but I do not see that as being an end in itself. What we need to do is ensure that we get the best possible deal for Scotland and the UK from these negotiations so that Scottish business can flourish.

[Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that we are leaving a dysfunctional union—the European Union—and that that is an opportunity for the people of Scotland. Is it not also the case that if we were to follow the Scottish National party’s advocacy and leave the union that works—the United Kingdom—we would land the people of Scotland with a huge public sector deficit and the prospect of either tax rises or cuts in services?

[David Mundell]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There seems to be a very strange contradiction here: Members on the SNP Benches are rightly concerned about Scotland’s continued trade with the EU, but they disregard the fact that Scotland’s trade with the rest of the United Kingdom is four times as much as with the EU, and that a million jobs in Scotland are dependent on our trade within the United Kingdom—that is the union that matters to Scotland.