European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

The Bill will have profound economic, social and political consequences for our country for decades. The jobs and livelihoods of our constituents depend upon our deliberations on the Bill and on our ability to look carefully at its profound consequences. I have listened carefully to over 30 contributions from the Back Benches and commend in particular those from my right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and my hon. Friends the Members for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and for Leicester West (Liz Kendall).

The Government, having tried unlawfully to shut down Parliament altogether, now try to shut down the ability of Members to properly scrutinise the most important piece of legislation that has been brought to this House for generations. Weariness with the politics of the last three years is no good reason to wave through a Bill of such huge significance in less than 36 hours. Rather, it is our duty to subject every clause of this monumental Bill to close examination and to understand its full impact on people’s lives up and down the country.

There was and is no good reason for the Government not to have extended the time allocated. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister comes in at an opportune moment: it was at his behest that we sat last Saturday, when it suited him, yet this week we are closing down deliberations on Thursday. It is not only unnecessary; it is reckless and an abomination to this House of Commons. The treaty of Rome had 22 days in Committee, Maastricht 23 days. Whatever one’s view of the Bill, the Government’s conduct is totally and utterly unacceptable.

I have read the Bill. It is no wonder that the Government and the Prime Minister are trying to ram it through in three days with so little scrutiny. Whatever people’s views across the House, the papers before us do not represent a secure future for our constituents.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman says we are not giving enough time for this discussion. Can he explain therefore why in this very important Second Reading debate the Labour party ran out of speakers some hour ago?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

There were over thirty contributions from the Back Benches, including some excellent contributions from the Benches behind me.

The withdrawal agreement and the Bill, even if passed, do not end matters. Rather, they open up a whole new series of disputes, and what do we hear today? The party that championed employment tribunal fees now asks us to trust them on workers’ rights. The Foreign Secretary at the weekend told us of smart regulations. Let me translate that: this Tory Party does not want to protect our rights; it wants to shred them. I quote:

“the weight of employment regulation is now back-breaking”,

and that includes

“the collective redundancies directive, the atypical workers’ directive, the working time directive and a thousand more”.

Who said that? The man sitting opposite me: the Prime Minister himself. He wants us to take his word on employment laws, but he mocks them when he gets the chance. He will never care about the working people of this country. The Prime Minister promised virtually everything in the debate earlier today, but if he was so concerned about protecting workers’ rights and about safeguarding our environment, he would have left those provisions in a legally binding withdrawal agreement and would not have shifted them to the non-binding political declaration. Why should we believe a word that he says now? That is why the TUC, Unison, Unite and the GMB all recognise that his eleventh-hour comments today are worthless.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Does he agree that, as there is no mention of environmental rights in the Bill, there will be no surety in regard to the environment? Should that provision not be put back into legislation?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The damage that the Bill does to workers’ rights is just the tip of the iceberg. It will create a border in the Irish sea and impose burdens on Northern Ireland-Great Britain trade, something that the Prime Minister himself promised would never happen. Clause 21 makes that explicit, yet, extraordinarily, the Prime Minister continued to deny it when he opened the debate. What did he talk about? Light-touch measures to deal with illegal trade in endangered animal species and to ban firearms. That completely contradicts what the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union eventually told the House of Lords European Union Committee yesterday:

“The exit summary declarations will be required in terms of NI to GB”.

I do not know why the Prime Minister is shaking his head. That is what the Bill says. The Prime Minister should read the Bill.

[Alan Brown]

I agree that we cannot trust this Prime Minister when it comes to workers’ rights. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the TUC. Is he disappointed that so many Labour Back Benchers seem happy to take the Prime Minister’s word? It looks as though they will go into the Lobby and vote for the Bill.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have respect for all Members who wish to try to change the Bill in Committee, but that only reinforces the point that a proper Committee stage should be allowed for the Bill. As it stands, the Bill reduces Parliament to the role of observer in the next phase of the negotiations. Clause 31(3), if the Justice Secretary wishes to read it, makes it very clear that nothing would be accepted as inconsistent with the existing political declaration. As the Justice Secretary has the Bill in front of him, he will see that clause 30 also includes the trapdoor to no deal at the end of the transition period. Anyone who thinks that the Bill is a way to end no deal should read that clause and think again.

This is a flawed Bill that implements a fundamentally bad deal. It would open the door to a low-regulation, low-wage economy. This deal can only lead to a bare bones free trade agreement or to no deal at the end of next year. The Prime Minister is putting his agreement before the House and asking everyone to look away while he pushes it through. If he is so confident about his deal, why is he so afraid of scrutiny of it?

For working people, the rights and protections in our laws have been hard won. Rather than putting all that at risk by waving the Bill through, it needs to be secured for future generations. The country deserves more than this botched deal and rushed legislation. That is why we will vote against the Bill tonight.

Tata Steelworks: Newport

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jessica Morden]

My hon. Friend represents a steel community, too, and I completely agree with his point, as I will make clear in my speech.

With the investment and support it needs—there is a plan, which I will come to later—the plant could and should have a bright future, especially at a time when, due to the growth of electric vehicles and electrification generally, demand for this type of steel is only going to grow. It would be a travesty if we were to lose the plant, and my ask of Ministers—I welcome the Wales Minister here today—is that the Government do all they can with Tata to protect this national asset.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I should declare that my father worked in the steelworks throughout his working life and is a British Steel pensioner. As we speak about the future of our automotive sector and moving to electric cars, does my hon. Friend agree that it is simply short-sighted to be losing Orb at this moment?

[Jessica Morden]

I absolutely agree, and I will make that point later.

Tata announced that it would be closing Cogent Orb steelworks on 2 September, with the loss of 380 jobs. This has come as devastating news for a dedicated, highly skilled workforce and their families, and for the city of Newport as a whole, where Orb has been part of the landscape since 1898. I pay tribute to Community, Unite and other unions for the support they have given and continue to give to the workforce, and for their general fight to save our steel industry.

Welsh Language

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker. Rydw i’n falch iawn o gael y cyfle i wneud araith am yr iaith Gymraeg yn San Steffan heno. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak about the Welsh language here in the Palace of Westminster tonight.

I tabled my request for this Adjournment debate for several reasons: first, because I believe the Welsh language to be of such importance that it should be on our agenda here at Westminster at least once in every Parliament; and for the rather more selfish reason that this may well be my last speech in the House of Commons before I retire at the forthcoming general election, and I wanted to speak on an issue of special personal interest and importance to me.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

First, on a personal level, I want to wish the hon. Gentleman very well in his retirement. I have always enjoyed debating with him over the years we have been together in this House. Secondly, I commend him for his choice of topic for this final debate. Many parents in my constituency—increasing numbers, actually—seek Welsh-medium education for their children, and it is great to see him here putting that forward on a national stage.

[Glyn Davies]

It is good to find myself, and anticipate finding myself, in agreement with quite a few Members in the Chamber, which is probably quite pleasant.

I speak with a special personal interest in that Wales and matters Welsh have been absolutely my focus as an MP, my overriding interest, and almost at times, I think, my obsession since being elected in 2010, as they have been throughout my 40 years in public life before that. Other hon. Members will have their own perspectives, which will inevitably sometimes be different from my own. The first half of my comments will be about the history of the Welsh language and where it has touched on my own life, before I share thoughts about attitudes and investment for the future.

I was born in Montgomeryshire, or Sir Drefaldwyn in Welsh. I have always lived there, and I have no ancestors who were born anywhere except in Sir Drefaldwyn—at least that I know of. More unusual is that I think every single ancestor spoke Welsh as their first language. Again, that is as far as I know, but I have gone to a lot of trouble to try to find out.

There were two main reasons why my five sisters and I were the first generation not to be bilingual—we were Davieses, Lloyds and Evanses, and everyone was bilingual until my generation. First, my parents moved from the Welsh-language villages of Llanerfyl and Pontrobert to the predominantly English-language villages of Castle Caereinion and Berriew. The second reason was more significant and pertinent to this debate. At that time, and for some time before, Welsh was seen as the language of failure. It was simply not encouraged. It was the age of the Welsh not. I do not remember hearing my parents, both first-language Welsh speakers, ever speak Welsh in front of the children. That is not in any way a criticism; it was not at all unusual at the time. That had an impact on all of us.

I left education aged 16, to join my father on the family farm, during a long period of his illness. However, I fancied myself as a writer, and in the early 1960s I wrote an essay for an eisteddfod competition, “The Future of the Welsh Language”. We could write in either English or Welsh, it was 20,000 words—quite significant—and it involved weeks of research. My reward was to win the chair and to be crowned bard, but the key point that I want to make is that my essay predicted the end of Welsh as a spoken language—not at all an uncommon belief at the time. Many academics would have taken the same view. But time has proven my conclusion to be too pessimistic. The future, as it so often does, decided to take a rather different course.

Throughout the period of my youth, the inevitable reaction was a strong pro-Welsh language protest movement, in response to the long-term decline. There were marches and protests, and even properties burnt down. There were Saunders Lewis, Lewis Valentine, Gwynfor Evans and others well known in the history of Wales. There was also the early development of the political voice of Wales, and of Plaid Cymru. In fact, as I have admitted in this Chamber before, the first time that I voted it was for Plaid Cymru, as it happens—[Interruption.] I have told my own party, so it will not come as a shock.

Crucially, from the mid-20th century, there was a change of political attitude. I have no desire to make any partisan or political points, except to record my pride that my party played a significant and proactive part in that change. Mrs Thatcher’s Government established S4C with what I shall call encouragement from the great Gwynfor Evans, who went on hunger strike to support the cause. The biggest advance, in my view and that of many others, was the Welsh Language Act 1993, when Lord Wyn Roberts was such a key player.

Today, we have reached the stage in the recovery of the Welsh language at which the Welsh Government have formally adopted the aim of there being 1 million Welsh speakers in Wales. That is beyond the imagination of any of us 20 years ago. I do not know how realistic that aim is, but 20 years ago it would have been laughed out of court. We can now have that sort of serious prediction, which is unbelievable for those of us who care so much about the language.

Today, yr iaith Gymraeg is in a far better place than anyone could have predicted in the middle of the last century, but those who want to see the Welsh language succeed cannot be complacent. Across the world, there is always ongoing pressure on all minority languages. Survival depends on continuing support, battling against political and economic pressures.

G7 Summit

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I can, and the surest way to deliver Brexit with a deal is to vote with the Government, both tonight and tomorrow.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

For automotive manufacturers in my constituency and beyond, the WTO tariffs that would apply in the case of a no-deal Brexit would not only wipe out their profits but often exceed them. Why should anyone take what the Prime Minister says about jobs and investment seriously when he has been so reckless with people’s livelihoods?

[The Prime Minister]

We are working with all sectors, including automotive supply chains, to protect their interests, but of course the best way to ensure that we do not have a no-deal Brexit is to support the Government and to oppose the measures that the Leader of the Opposition is putting forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We wish my hon. Friend the very best for the upcoming birth. I feel a certain satisfaction, having played a little role in ensuring that she and her husband got married, as she has acknowledged.

As for my hon. Friend’s point about Ruby, it is very good to see young people caring passionately about their local area and campaigning for it, and it is vital that children go to school in a safe environment. This is, of course, an issue for the local authority, but I wish Ruby the very best for her campaign.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Q3. Universal credit is causing great hardship in my constituency. It is driving up debt and increasing food bank use. It is making people who are out of work worse off, and making people who are in work worse off. In her final weeks in office, will the Prime Minister act to halt the roll-out of this failed policy, or will she simply leave the injustice burning?

[The Prime Minister]

What lay behind universal credit was the need to change our benefits system. Under the legacy system that we inherited from the Labour party, more than 1 million people were left on benefits for nearly a decade. What universal credit does is help people into work, and ensure that when they are in work they are able to earn more. As a result of universal credit, 200,000 more people are in work, 1 million disabled people are receiving more money, and 700,000 people are receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. This is a policy that is working.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for foreign direct investment in his constituency and in all parts. He rightly points out that the Department for International Trade promoted a Wales capital investment programme at the MIPIM conference for the first time. That is a great demonstration of Whitehall Departments working closely with local authorities. There has been extremely positive feedback from both local authorities and investors, and we are working through those leads to see which projects can land.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Not only would no deal have an impact on foreign direct investment; it would also, on the Government’s own figures, leave the Welsh economy 8% smaller over 15 years. Can the Secretary of State clear up any ambiguity about his own attitude to no deal and say clearly today that there are no circumstances whatever in which he would back no deal?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman is quite selective in the quotes that he cites on foreign direct investment. He and the House will be well aware that the latest available figures show that the UK has the third highest stock of foreign direct investment in the world after the US and Hong Kong. Clearly, the UK’s record on FDI is strong, and I suggest that Wales’s record is stronger than most of the rest of the UK.

EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Throughout this well informed debate, we have rightly heard a great deal about the important principle of the confidentiality of legal advice and lawyer-client privilege. However, it also needs to be said that the Government are no ordinary client and the position of the Attorney General, a political appointment, means he is no ordinary lawyer. Let us be clear about the Law Officers convention on not disclosing legal advice and what it actually consists of.

Reference has been made to the Cabinet Office ministerial code, which states:

“The fact that the Law Officers have advised or have not advised and the content of their advice must not be disclosed outside Government without their authority.”

The 24th edition of “Erskine May”, which has been cited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and other Members, states:

“The purpose of this convention is to enable the government to obtain full and frank legal advice in confidence. Therefore, the opinions of the law officers of the crown, being confidential, are not usually laid before Parliament”.

Then, “Erskine May” specifically refers to the situation where

“a minister deems it expedient that such opinions should be made known for the information of the House”.

Put simply, we on this side of the House wholly respect the Law Officers convention, but it is not the case that the convention means the Government shall not disclose legal advice whatever the circumstances; the convention is not an absolute ban on releasing legal advice given. The Government should not hide behind the convention, because there is clear discretion for them to decide whether or not this is a situation when the advice should be laid before Parliament. It is for the Government to tell us why they want to keep MPs, including their own, in the dark about the full content of the legal advice on the withdrawal agreement and why this situation is not exceptional.

I listened carefully to the concessions made by the Minister for the Cabinet Office in his speech, but my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) is entirely right to say that they simply do not go far enough. First, we are told that a statement will be published. As many Government Members said, that statement is different from the legal advice. The safeguard that we have been offered—that the thrust of the two documents will be the same and that all nuances and all other things will be included—is, apparently, the resignation of the Attorney General in circumstances in which they were not the same. The Attorney General was not even present to give that assurance; the person who gave it was actually the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), in his thoughtful speech. That is the only safeguard on that that the House has been offered.

Secondly, we are told that the Attorney General will give an oral statement to the House and be questioned by Members, but that actually means that the Attorney General will have seen a document on which Members of Parliament are expected then to interrogate and forensically question him without seeing the same document themselves. That is exactly what the situation would be. The concessions do not go far enough.

There is no point in saying that the publication of the advice will somehow prejudice ongoing negotiations, because by the time it is published, in time for it to be considered before the House votes, the negotiations on the backstop will be completed—if, of course, the Prime Minister has reached a deal. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) made clear, we are asking not for a blow-by-blow account, every step of the way, but for a specific piece of legal advice on something of profound importance. That is what is crucial.

Our constituents’ jobs, businesses, livelihoods and living standards all depend on the outcome of the negotiations. The issue is one of fundamental importance for this House and its consideration of a matter that is so vital for the future of our country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd put it, the whole constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom is at stake. It is difficult to think of a more compelling case for exceptionality and for the disclosure of legal advice. The idea that disclosing it in these most exceptional of circumstances would somehow damage the Law Officers convention has no credibility at all. Indeed, in these circumstances it is right that all right hon. and hon. Members can see the whole picture—that the Government provide the fullest possible transparency. It is an issue that goes across party lines and that is of great importance to this House and its ability to take decisions on the very best evidence available at the time.

The legal basis for the Northern Ireland backstop—if there is one to be agreed—what it means now, and the implications for what it could mean in future, are central to our considerations. It should be scrutinised and interrogated, and the Government have no good reason to prevent the legal advice from being made available to right hon. and hon. Members so that that can take place. Nor should this House ever be content with edited highlights. We need to see the full consideration of the different arguments provided by the Attorney General. The House should be able to consider every sentence and every nuance.

If a deal is reached, the House deserves to see a properly detailed political declaration, to see a full economic impact assessment that applies both nationally and regionally and covers all parts of the United Kingdom, and to have full time to debate. The legal advice is crucial in informing that debate. This debate has wide implications for our politics and affects the lives of all our constituents. It is about accountability and the Government’s willingness to subject themselves to scrutiny on the most vital of issues. I urge the Government to listen, to respect transparency and openness, and to respect Parliament on an issue of such magnitude. The Government have promised the House a meaningful vote. Such a vote requires Members of Parliament to analyse forensically any deal so that they can fully understand the implications of the Government’s position. The Opposition say publish the full advice, so that Parliament can make an informed decision for the future of this country, to secure our economy, our jobs and our future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

This is an issue on which my hon. Friend has campaigned strong and hard in the interests of her constituents. The NHS in north Cumbria is working on plans for considerable investment in local health services, including the completion of the new build at West Cumberland Hospital and the creation of an academic campus. It is committed to doing all it can to maintain consultant-led maternity services at West Cumberland Hospital. Patient safety is the priority, and the NHS is doing all it can to ensure that a safe and sustainable service can be provided to her constituents and to others.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Q3. There are some beautiful stately homes in this country, but our heritage is equally about the history of working people. Shortly, the all-party parliamentary group on industrial heritage, which I chair, will publish its report into how best we can use that great industrial past for the jobs of the future. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss how best we can implement its recommendations?

[The Prime Minister]

I would like, first, to look at the report that the hon. Gentleman’s group is providing. What he is saying would potentially fit into the modern industrial strategy that the Government have already launched. We want to build on the strengths of our economy, but also to ensure that people in the UK are skilled for the jobs of the future. I am happy to look at the report and to ensure that he can meet me or the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to look at the results.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

My hon. Friend is a great supporter of agriculture across the whole UK and he is right to highlight the importance of the agricultural sector to the Welsh economy. He will also be familiar with our manifesto commitment, as well as statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to fund agriculture on a similar scale up to 2022.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

The US-UK trade and investment working group was set up in July last year. What representations has the Secretary of State made to that group about the impact President Trump’s tariffs would have on the Welsh steel industry?

[Alun Cairns]

I mentioned to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) the direct actions I have taken and the whole host of actions being taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade. This is such a priority for this Government that there is cross-Government action to support the steel industry. As someone whose father was a welder in the steelworks in Port Talbot, I recognise the importance of this industry to Wales.

UK/EU Future Economic Partnership

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us hear from another very well-behaved person—in fact, a cerebral academic, I think. Nick Thomas-Symonds.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I am most grateful for the compliments, Mr Speaker.

The Prime Minister has said that alignment is possible in two ways, either by having the same rules or by having the same consequences flowing from different rules. Which of those two categories will the automotive sector fit into, given that so many jobs in the country depend on it, not least in my constituency?

[The Prime Minister]

It will clearly be up to Parliament to decide which rules apply in the future. As I pointed out in my speech on Friday, the automotive industry is a very good example of what I said in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) about integrated supply chains. We have been clear about this. Choices will be made about the areas where it is right—where Parliament will say that it wants an identical law, and where it wants the same outcome but wants to achieve it by a different means. Many businesses have made it very clear that they want to maintain the same regulatory standards, which is why that is one of the options that will be available.