June European Council

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I and the whole Government are working for a Brexit arrangement and deal that will ensure prosperity for our economy into the future and a Brexit deal behind which the whole country can unite.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Are there any circumstances in which the Prime Minister would support the extension of either the article 50 period or the transition period?

[The Prime Minister]

We will be leaving the European Union on 29 March 2019.

G7

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The United States has chosen to reimpose sanctions on Iran and therefore to pull out of the joint comprehensive plan of action—the Iran nuclear deal. We have worked with France and Germany because we continue to believe that, as long as Iran meets its obligations under that deal, it is important to maintain that deal. But we accept—and have been working with those countries, the United States and others—that more needs to be done in relation to Iran’s ballistic missile programme and its destabilising activity in the region. We will continue to work with all partners who want, like us, to ensure that we can take some action to reduce that destabilising activity.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The international rules-based order of which the Prime Minister speaks is under attack from the rise of nationalism in various parts of the world. What does she think about its strength when the President of the United States can call for the readmission of Russia to the G8 just weeks after Russia has used a nerve agent to try to kill people on the streets of the United Kingdom? Even if we do not have the United States as a partner in this endeavour, will she commit the UK Government to working as closely as possible with other like-minded allies to uphold that order?

[The Prime Minister]

I responded earlier to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on the issue of whether Russia should be sitting around the G7 table and we should go back to the G8. On the point that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) makes about the United States and its approach to Russia and the nerve agent attack that took place on the streets of Salisbury, I remind him—as I mentioned earlier—that the United States, together with other international allies, expelled Russian diplomats following the attack. Those allies took action, as we did, to recognise what happened in Salisbury. They have also subsequently introduced tougher sanctions on Russia, which have been having an impact on certain individuals in Russia. We continue to work with our allies and others to ensure that we are dealing with the malign state activity that is being undertaken by Russia and others.

Leaving the EU: Customs

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

The maths in this is pretty clear, and if I were the Prime Minister, I would listen to the majority of people in this House and not to a vocal minority.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) made an excellent contribution, describing all the ways in which our manufacturing business needs a sensible customs arrangement that means we can transfer goods across borders quickly. I simply add that for manufacturing towns up and down Britain that is mission critical. We simply can no longer afford to have places that are left behind, where a factory shuts and is never replaced. Those were the dark days of the 1980s, and we must not have that again, not now.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point about multinational supply chains and how it is important not to have delays, paperwork or checks in the middle of that operation. Does she agree that this is about not just customs, but common standards and rules? Anyone in this House, on any side, who thinks that this is just about customs and not about the adherence to common standards and rules is kidding themselves.

[Alison McGovern]

Perhaps it is because I have learnt a great deal from my right hon. Friend that he pre-empts the next paragraph of my contribution. Labour’s approach has been absolutely sensible to date, but we need one small addition to our policy, which is to support membership of the single market. As he said, other things are needed. We need common standards and, specifically, an agreement on rules of origin, which are necessary to make sure that manufacturing business in this country does not have to expend time, money and energy on constantly calculating volume and what percentage within that will agree with the EU on the EU’s rules of origin requirements. That simply cannot happen, which is why we need membership of the single market.

Finally, this country simply has an ageing population, and although that is a great thing, our country will not financially succeed without a sensible immigration policy. So I simply say to those in this House, and wherever else, who think that the answer to all our woes is to end the approach we have had on immigration to date that we cannot cope with our dependency ratio being as it is. We need a sensible approach to immigration going forward and that should be part of our future relationship with the EU. It is not dramatic or complicated; we just need to take, as the Labour Front Benchers have today, a pragmatic, common-sense approach and listen to the British people.

Tributes: Baroness Jowell

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Tessa Jowell was both a very special person and a very special politician, and the qualities of one reinforced the brilliance of the other. She was the best friend that anyone could wish for: loyal, true, uplifting and empathetic. There are many people in this House and outside it who, when they found themselves at a low ebb, would know that Tessa was there for them, holding out love and support: never your judge and jury, always your friend and shelter in a storm.

She was quite simply full of love—full of love for her family, her friends, and the causes she believed in. She loved London, our great capital city. She loved it for its openness, its diversity, its endless opportunities, and its focus on tomorrow rather than yesterday. As a politician, she was a change-maker, a moderniser. Her mission was not to preserve Britain or seek illusory solace in nostalgia but to change it for the better—and always, always in a progressive direction. For her, Sure Start—the mission to give every child from whatever background the best possible start in life—was not just a Government programme but a symbol of what she believed the United Kingdom should stand for.

For the London Olympics, she not only played a vital role in winning the bid but helped to shape the character of what, for many of us, was the greatest moment of Britishness and the coming together of the country in our lifetimes. She understood more than anyone that how we hosted the games was as important as what happened in the competition itself. She gave us our golden summer. She gave the country our united golden moment.

Her love and empathy were there for the families of the victims of terrorism on 9/11 and in the 7/7 London underground bombings. There was Tessa, full of love and the desire to help—the human embodiment of the total antithesis of the hatred that had caused those people their grief.

And in her final illness, she was determined not to go quietly into that good night. She fought for better treatment for cancer sufferers and for international collaboration on how to treat the disease, and—as the Secretary of State can testify—used all her firmness and charm to ensure that Ministers backed their words of support with the very welcome new resources announced for cancer research today. She was both proud of what she had achieved and immensely grateful for having had the opportunity to achieve it. She was thankful for the era that she lived through—the modernising movement for progressive change and social justice of which she was such a vital and brilliant part.

At a time when there is so much that divides the country, and when demonisation of others is all too readily reached for and transmitted in the world of politics, we should remember that Tessa Jowell represented the opposite of all that. Let us give thanks and remember her not only for the wonderful things that she did, but for the way that she did them, and for the many lives that she changed for the better along the way.

Syria

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I want the OPCW to be able to continue its investigations unhindered, but my hon. Friend puts his finger on it: unless the Russians are willing, within the Security Council, to put aside the position they have taken previously and accept it is important that we re-establish the international rules-based order, we allow the investigations to take place and we hold the Syrian regime accountable for its actions.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

This debate is heavily coloured by the vote that took place in this House in 2013 against the use of military action, after the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons at that time. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how many times the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons against its own people since we took that vote and since Russia promised to oversee the elimination of the Syrian chemical weapons programme?

[The Prime Minister]

I made reference in my statement to a number of occasions on which the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons, as evidenced and accepted by the United Nations. This is exactly the problem. The Syrian regime said it would get rid of its chemical weapons and the Russians said that they would guarantee that that would happen. It did not happen. Chemical weapons have been used on a number of occasions since.

Salisbury Incident

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I say to my right hon. Friend, who also, as a former Security Minister, has a particular knowledge and understanding of these issues, that I entirely take the point that he has made. We constantly ensure that the balance is right between counter-terrorism and counter-espionage, and we will of course continue to ensure that that balance is maintained properly.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Responding with strength and resolve when your country is under threat is an essential component of political leadership. There is a Labour tradition that understands that, and it has been understood by Prime Ministers of all parties who have stood at that Dispatch Box. That means when chemical weapons are used, we need more than words, but deeds. May I ask the Prime Minister what more she can do to enhance our solidarity with our allies, particularly at a time when nationalist forces are trying to drive wedges between democratic countries, with some of those forces backed and supported by the Russians themselves?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there is a strong tradition in the Labour party of recognising the importance of acting in the national interest and acting when our national security is under threat. We have seen that from Governments of all complexions over the years. In relation to the point about international activity and the deeds that we need to take, it is right—we will be continuing to talk. We have been speaking to our allies, even before this event took place, about the ways in which we could deal with and address some of the activities and actions that Russia is taking across the continent of Europe and elsewhere, but we will of course redouble those efforts now.

Salisbury Incident

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to give my right hon. Friend the confirmation that we have engaged with our allies and will continue to engage with them on this important issue.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for coming to the House with this very important, but sadly not surprising conclusion today. She is going to make a further statement on Wednesday, but can I ask her to say a bit more about the possible responses and to ensure, at a time when voices and forces are trying to erode confidence in open democratic societies, that those responses will place us firmly and foursquare behind the solidarity and security of the west?

[The Prime Minister]

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not set out today what the response will be. We obviously need to consider the response from the Russian state and then put together the appropriate further measures to ensure the robust response that I and other Members have called for. He can rest assured, however, as can other Members, that we see a Russia that is flouting the international rules-based order—we have been very clear about that—that we will stand up for democracy, the rule of law and the international rules-based order and the values that underpin it, and that we remain committed to the security and defence of Europe and to defending the values that underpin the west.

UK/EU Future Economic Partnership

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are in a negotiation. Both sides put their positions at various stages. Just as the European Commission chose to put that position forward, so it was absolutely right for this Government to be clear—I repeated it last week in Prime Minister’s questions and I am happy to do so again—that the suggestion that there should be a border down the Irish sea separating Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom is completely unacceptable to this Government and, I believe, to any Government in the United Kingdom.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

On Friday and today, the Prime Minister said that our access to one another’s markets would be less than it is now. This is the public burial of the claim made by her Brexit Secretary a year ago in this House that the Government’s aim was to secure the “exact same benefits” as we now enjoy. The Prime Minister has admitted to the country that there is an economic cost to Brexit, so will she now tell us what is that economic cost, when the public will be told about it, and who will pay it?

[The Prime Minister]

Life is going to be different in the future because we will have a different relationship with the European Union. While the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party consistently focus only on our relationship with the European Union, we, as a Government, are ensuring that we get the best possible trade deal with the European Union, together with trade deals with countries around the rest of the world, and that we develop our economy so that we have a Britain fit for the future.

Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: Border Arrangements

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

It is the Government’s hope that the political parties in Northern Ireland can agree to reconstitute the Executive and the Assembly as soon as possible. I think there is agreement across the political parties in Northern Ireland that that is what they would want to do, and I hope that the remaining differences can be overcome.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Why does the Minister for the Cabinet Office think that the Foreign Secretary wrote this letter? Was it because he did not know that the Government had committed in paragraph 49 of the December agreement to

“its guarantee of avoiding a hard border”

or was it because any commitment can be set aside in the service of the cause that the Foreign Secretary really cares about: the furtherance of his own career? Or was it something more sinister than Boris’s self-love, which is that faced with the incompatibility of red lines around the customs union and the single market and the commitment to no hard border, there is a concerted ideological attack on that commitment and, indeed, on the Good Friday agreement itself?

[Mr Lidington]

I do not think that I could be clearer than I have been so far. The Government are absolutely resolved to stand by both the Belfast agreement and all parts of the joint report of last December.

Carillion and Public Sector Outsourcing

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

No, and he ceased to be an adviser after the Prime Minister took office.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned that the Government are funding the cost of the liquidation. What is the Government’s estimate of that cost?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Carillion’s problems have been well trailed: major construction projects running over budget and leaving the company with losses; a huge pension deficit; and work done overseas for which it has not been paid. All that ultimately led to the company’s creditors losing confidence and its collapse into liquidation.

As has been said, the corporate headquarters is in Wolverhampton, where it employs some 450 people. What reassurance can the Minister give to the staff at the HQ, who have been described as the nerve centre of the company? I understand the implications of an insolvency, but an assurance that they will be employed until the end of the month is not good enough when there is only one week of the month left. The staff need more than that.

There are other critical questions about pensions, subcontractors and those who were charged with the stewardship of the company, but in the two minutes I have left I want to concentrate on the collapse itself. Court documents filed by the chief executive last week show that Carillion was engaged in a desperate effort to keep open lines of credit with its banks. From the outside, it is of course difficult to judge whether those efforts may have borne fruit or whether they were always a lost cause. In any case, the liquidation has decided the outcome. However, those discussions involved not just Carillion and the banks; the Government were involved, too.

What exactly did Carillion ask the Government for in the days running up to liquidation? In what form was that help asked? Was it a loan, or was it the underwriting of activities in case cash-flow projections did not materialise? How did the Government take the decision to refuse these requests? Which Ministers were involved, and what was the process for ultimately saying no? Crucially, when the decision to refuse was taken, was any comparison made between the likely cost to the public purse of keeping the company going and the cost of turning down the request for financial help and seeing the company collapse?

Much has been said about the wrongness of using public money to bail out companies. Company failure is, of course, an inescapable feature of any market economy, but in this case the taxpayer was not free to walk away, as we have seen and as has been confirmed. The taxpayer is paying the costs of liquidation.

We want answers to those questions, if not today then certainly in the Select Committee inquiries that follow.