Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

That will depend on decisions and arrangements with individual countries. The UK has made a big, bold offer to EU nationals in this country, and I encourage those countries to reciprocate.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his post. As he will know, over the summer recess a Home Office advertisement relating to settled status was banned for being misleading. The uncertainty created by conflicting messages is causing real fear among EU citizens in the UK and the British in Europe.

On 21 August, I wrote to the Secretary of State seeking clarity on five key issues. I have not received a reply, so I wonder whether the Minister can answer one of those questions now. I am reassured by his indication that he likes to engage in detail. EU citizens were promised that if the UK left the EU without a deal, their rights would be the same as they would be under the withdrawal agreement. Can the Minister confirm that, despite previous indications to the contrary, the Government will retain the right to appeal against settled-status decisions in the event of a no-deal Brexit?

[James Duddridge]

The settled status scheme is working very well: more than 1 million of the 3 million people have applied, nobody has been rejected, and people may apply all the way up to 31 December 2020.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

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

One thing that this Bill has done today is to show the progress that can be made when Members of Parliament work together and overcome our political divides. Something that is also clear is that nobody seems to be arguing that leaving the European Union is a good idea.

I am not sure how to follow the last contributions, or how to talk about issues such as democracy when we have a Government who want to ignore laws that get passed by this place, who already ignore motions on crucial issues such as pensions fairness for the WASPI women and who want to stuff the unelected House of Lords full of pro-Brexit peers. The idea that that is somehow democratic and bringing back control defies belief.

Worst of all is the prospect of a no-deal Brexit for which there is no mandate—no one voted for it. In fact, the Prime Minister told us that it would be the easiest deal in the world and there would be no chance that this would ever happen.

Many Members on the Government Benches understand that, and I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who made a fine contribution earlier today and who was a fine Minister, but for whom there is no space left in the Conservative party. But the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) told us everything we needed to know. When he talked of a mandate, he talked in terms of a Conservative party leadership election in which 0.1% of the population, if that, could vote. That is not a mandate; that is not democracy. Let me say to such Members—I have tried to say it gentle terms but I will do so in the strongest terms possible—that given the harm caused to everybody by the Government’s no deal, Brexit is bigger than the Conservative party, and bigger than every single party in this place. When Members think about this tonight, they would do well to remember that.

Members such as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), among others, have had good intentions in what they try to do, but this is a Government who have no idea what they are doing, and we must—must—take no deal off the table. I thank the Members who have backed our Bill tonight for their contributions. We will not be backing any amendments because we need to get this Bill through and take no deal off the table.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate, because it has been largely thoughtful and reasoned, both in Committee and on Second Reading. It has been the sort of debate that we could usefully have had more often over the past couple of years. I recognise that the amendments, particularly those tabled by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), are put forward with good intentions and to seek to assist the process. However, our view on all the amendments is determined by the objective of the Bill itself, as was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on Second Reading.

The Bill has one clear purpose, which is to prevent a disastrous no-deal Brexit on 31 October. An extraordinary coalition has been brought together over the past few weeks to put the Bill forward in the spirit of consensus. We know that no deal would be a disaster for jobs, for the NHS, for policing and for security. The Government’s own papers from Operation Yellowhammer made that clear.

In addition, there is real anxiety about the lives of EU citizens in the UK and those who are too often forgotten, UK citizens in the EU, being thrown into uncertainty and potential legal jeopardy. Of course, as many have pointed out, no deal would not be the end of Brexit, quite the opposite: it would be the beginning of years of long negotiation over our future relationship in which we would start from a significantly disadvantaged position.

When we make the arguments against no deal, we are speaking not only on behalf of the coalition in this House but for many beyond. The CBI has called no deal

“a tripwire into economic chaos”.

The TUC has said it would be “a disaster” for working people. This is our last chance to avoid no deal. The House has voted against it three times, but we need this legislation because the Prime Minister and his Government cannot be trusted to enact the will of the House without it. Parliament is sitting today only because of the amendments to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). The Prime Minister made it clear that he saw this September sitting period as a nuisance, saying that the

“whole September session…is a rigmarole”.

The Prime Minister has told the House that he is pursuing a deal with the EU, but he has equally told the House that nothing has been proposed to it, and the EU has, in effect, confirmed that. We heard the devastating critique from the former Chancellor earlier today. European officials have told the press:

“There was literally nothing on the table, not even a sketch of what the solution could look like.”

The Prime Minister’s closest adviser has apparently called the talks “a sham”—he got that right, at least. The Government’s current working alternative to the backstop is simply taking the backstop out. Nothing new is being proposed. But if, by some miracle, there is some deal negotiated with the EU, then the Prime Minister can bring it back to the House for us to vote on; that is incorporated in the Bill. Let me turn to the amendments to the Bill.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no mandate in this place for no deal, just as there is no mandate for remain? In that spirit, will he and those on the shadow Front Bench support our compromise amendment, which looks to bring Members across the House forward to get a compromise deal and get the House and the country out of this crisis?

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend pre-empts the point that I was about to make, as I was coming on to talk about the amendments. She is right to say that there is no mandate for no deal. All those who campaigned so vigorously for leaving the European Union in 2016 made it absolutely clear that they were doing so with the intention of securing a deal—a better deal, and a deal that would be available in months. The voters who cast their ballots back in 2016 were given the clear impression that that would involve a relationship described by the current deputy Prime Minister—if that is still the description that goes with his Cabinet Office post—as broadly similar to what we have at the moment. There is no mandate for no deal. Clearly, people voted to leave, but by a painfully—

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Ind)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will.

[Ian Austin]

Like me, my hon. Friend stood on a manifesto that promised to respect the referendum and to implement the outcome of that referendum, yet it is absolutely clear that what those on the Labour Front Bench have done during this process is frustrate the entire exercise, create as much chaos as possible and prevent any prospect of a deal being implemented. If he wants people to believe that he is in favour of a deal, can he update the Committee on what work those on the Labour Front Bench are doing to put forward constructive proposals to uphold the mandate he was given at the last election, which was to find a way of leaving the EU?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I am happy to do that. We stood at the last election on a commitment to respect the result of the referendum but to rip up the negotiating mandate that the Tory Government had, which we felt failed the British people. I said from this Dispatch Box on 4 December 2018, when winding up the debate that the Prime Minister opened on the withdrawal deal, that if only she had seized the opportunity to be straight with the British people that they had voted to leave but by a painfully close margin and that the mandate was that we would no longer be members of the European Union but that we could retain a close relationship—in a customs union, aligned with the single market and part of the agencies and partnerships that we had built together—then we could have secured a deal. We entered into the cross-party talks in that spirit.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Paul Blomfield]

I am conscious of the need to give the Secretary of State time to speak and the Chair’s beady eye, so I will not. I have taken a number of interventions. I will finish the point, which relates to the last intervention.

The point about the cross-party talks was that we entered into them in good spirit and with clear proposals. The Prime Minister refused to budge on her red lines, and those talks broke down. I listened carefully to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, and I listened carefully to him on the radio this morning. The difficulty with the amendment he has tabled is not his intention, but some of the practicalities of it, because he is proposing an amendment for something that does not really exist—a withdrawal agreement plus points to which the Government did not agree.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

Briefly, on that point.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I accept that we do not have an officially published withdrawal agreement Bill, but we do have a clear commitment from the Government based on the cross-party talks, which would be easily encapsulated in a Bill that was ready to be put forward to Parliament—I know, because the former Chief Whip showed it to me.

[Paul Blomfield]

I think my hon. Friend is talking about the Theresa May Government, which is a very different proposition from the one we face at the moment. We were not at that stage of agreement. If there had been the basis for an agreement, we would have seized that opportunity in the talks. Although I have sympathy with what he says, and those proposals could be part of the discussions that we need to have in the extended period that we will secure when this Bill is passed, as will the proposals that other Members across the Committee have made, we need the space to have those discussions, and we can only achieve that space by voting for the Bill.

This Bill has successfully brought Members across the House together around a single, clearly focused objective. We are united behind the need to avoid a no-deal Brexit. We need to keep our focus very narrowly on that when we vote and ensure that we achieve that objective because we know—a clear majority know; a growing majority within this House know—that if we allow ourselves to stumble into a no-deal Brexit, it will be a disaster for the country.

[The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)]

The principle of this Bill in seeking an extension is wrong. The Government opposed it on Second Reading and we will oppose it on Third Reading. Indeed, it is so flawed that we have not bothered to table amendments to it; we oppose it in all forms.

This Bill cannot be improved because it goes against the democratic wish of the British people, the vote of 17.4 million of our citizens and the strong desire of many up and down this land who want certainty and clarity and who want Brexit done so that we can get on to the wider domestic agenda, as set out by the Chancellor in the spending review earlier today: 20,000 more police officers, with recruitment starting in Yorkshire tomorrow; a record increase of £6,000 on starting salaries for teachers; levelling up opportunity for those who warrant it; and supporting the economy through the tough decisions we took in 2010, which allows the record investment in our NHS, with 20 new hospital upgrades.

The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) spoke with sincerity and I do not question the spirit in which he brings new clause 1 to the Committee this evening, but he also spoke of compromise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) correctly identified, the reality is that the hon. Member for Aberavon voted against the deal all three times—all three times.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

We are absolutely mindful of the risk that the hon. Gentleman describes. He knows that the Government are fully committed to ensuring that the dark days of the 1970s do not return to Northern Ireland.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I see that yesterday the Minister tried to mitigate fears about a no-deal departure by saying that it

“is not a world war.”

That might be an insight into his thinking, but is “less damaging than a world war” really a benchmark for success? Does he agree with the Security Minister, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), who said:

“A no-deal situation would have a real impact on our ability to work with our European partners to protect the public”?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s questions, as always, but I would like to point out that he has wrenched my comments completely out of context, and they were made not yesterday but on Monday. I was merely echoing what the former Governor of the Bank of England, the highly respected economist, Mervyn King, has said about our GDP growth since 1800. On an annualised basis, there would be very little impact, even in the case of no deal.

EU/British Citizens’ Rights

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend rightly calls on us to ratchet up the pressure, and I assure him that we will. I also assure him that, whoever takes forward the leadership of our party and our country, will feel pressure not only from him but from Back Benchers on both sides of the House to continue pressing on this issue. Of course, we made a commitment to him and to British in Europe that we would respond to Mr Barnier before the next European Council on 20 June. I am glad that we have been able to deliver on that commitment today.

As hon. Members on both sides of the House will know, the European elections were held between 23 and 26 May and Government activity had to respect the purdah period imposed because of those elections, but it is right that we pressed forward swiftly after that to ratchet up the pressure on ring-fencing, as my hon. Friend said.

Meanwhile, I assure my hon. Friend that there is a large citizens’ rights team in my Department that is working closely with colleagues in other Departments, including the Home Office. The team has been working tirelessly to ensure that citizens are given the certainty they need to plan for life once the UK leaves the EU. Our no-deal policy paper confirms that EU citizens resident in the UK by exit day can apply to the settlement scheme to secure their status in a no-deal scenario. As I mentioned earlier, the settlement scheme, which launched on 30 March, has had over 750,000 applications. Almost 700,000 of those applications have been concluded, with none being refused.

The UK pushed hard in negotiations for reciprocal voting rights, but as my hon. Friend knows, they did not form part of the withdrawal agreement. We have set out that we will seek to agree bilateral deals with all member states to secure those rights for the future. We are pleased to have now made significant progress on bilateral agreements, having signed agreements with Spain, Portugal and, today, Luxembourg. The Secretary of State signed the latter just a few hours ago, and we hope it will set a strong precedent for reaching agreements with other EU neighbours and friends to protect the right of UK nationals to continue voting in local elections.

We are very aware of my hon. Friend’s key point. His amendment enjoyed the unanimous support of the House, of all parts of the United Kingdom and of all parties from all parts of the spectrum of opinion on Brexit. We remain committed to delivering on citizens’ rights, and we are focused on making sure that we reach an overall agreement to secure an orderly EU exit for the UK, but we remain committed to executing the will of this House and we eagerly anticipate Michel Barnier’s response to our letter on ring-fencing.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), who has won respect on both sides of the House and in the country for the way in which he has championed the cause of EU citizens in the UK and of British citizens in Europe. We were pleased to back his cross-party amendment on 27 February.

The hon. Gentleman is right to be worried that, as Conservative Members apparently prepare to crown a leader who seems willing to take the country to a no-deal Brexit, EU citizens face new uncertainty. Many of the disastrous consequences of a no-deal Brexit have been spelled out, not least by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has talked of the deep damage it would do to our economy and our living standards. It would have helped if the Prime Minister had not spent so long talking up a no-deal Brexit as a viable option, but insufficient attention has been paid to the consequences for citizens’ rights. Lives have been thrown into uncertainty by our current situation.

It did not have to be like this. If instead of making bargaining chips of EU and British citizens, as the hon. Member for South Leicestershire pointed out, the Government had accepted our motion back in July 2016 to provide a unilateral guarantee to EU nationals in the UK, we could have quickly secured reciprocal agreements to protect the rights of Brits in the EU27. Those agreements would have stood ring-fenced, insulated from the calamity of the Government’s withdrawal agreement.

It was clear in December 2018, when the Government backed off from their vote on the deal, that this issue would have to be addressed, so why did it take the action of the hon. Gentleman and the vote of this House to secure that action from the Government? After Michel Barnier wrote to the Secretary of State on 25 March, why did it take three long months for him to reply?

It has taken this urgent question to bring the issue back to the Floor of the House. Why did the Government not report back to the House sooner? The deep uncertainty facing the 3 million EU citizens in the UK and the 1.2 million Brits in Europe, who are by far the biggest national group affected by Brexit, is of huge importance, so why are the Government not treating it with that urgency?

[Mr Walker]

There is a great deal on these issues on which the hon. Gentleman and I agree. I suspect we take the same dim view of the attractiveness of any kind of no-deal exit, but where I disagree is on his narrative about the Government’s urgency. We have always put citizens at the forefront of negotiations, and we reached an agreement with the EU on the detail of a citizens’ rights agreement some time before the House voted on the amendment in February.

The EU has said repeatedly throughout this process that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. We have challenged that in taking up the call of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire for ring-fencing, and we will continue to press the case for ring-fencing, but it is a bit rich for the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) to suggest that the Labour party takes this more seriously than my party does when the Opposition Benches are a gaping empty space for this urgent question.

It is vital that we all work together, reflecting the cross-party nature of the amendment to secure these rights. In that respect, I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome the progress that has been made today and the further progress that we intend to make in the months to come on the issue of voting rights.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

There is nothing elusive about the text of the political declaration, which makes it clear that the Government can negotiate the benefits of a customs arrangement alongside an independent trade policy. The economic analysis shows that that is the best way forward of the options open to the Government.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

On Monday, the Secretary of State’s two predecessors, 11 other former Cabinet Ministers and the Chair of the 1922 Committee wrote to the Prime Minister urging her

“to reject a customs union solution with Labour”.

Many Cabinet Ministers clearly agree with them. Does the Secretary of State?

[Stephen Barclay]

I have been clear throughout that we have an approach that I think is the best way forward. There are conflicting views in all the parties including, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, on his own Front Bench. We are discussing these issues with the Labour party to seek a way forward on behalf of the House that will allow us to deliver on the referendum result. If he is asking about my personal position, I have always been clear that we made a clear manifesto commitment with regards to the single market and customs union, and we are trying to look at how to deliver on the referendum result. As the shadow Secretary of State would say, those discussions are ongoing.

[Paul Blomfield]

I guess that might have come close to a suggestion that the Secretary of State does agree with those who are opposing the Prime Minister’s position. But this is, after all, a Secretary of State who voted with those two predecessors against his own Government’s proposal on extending article 50, even after he had recommended it to the House, so I think we deserve some clarity on these issues. The authors of Monday’s letter also said of any agreement that is reached:

“No leader can bind his or her successor…so the deal would likely be…at best temporary…at worse illusory.”

Does he agree with that?

[Stephen Barclay]

It is not a revelation to this House that I supported leaving in the referendum, that I still support leaving, that I have voted consistently on every occasion to leave, that I have voted against extending article 50 and that I have stood by the manifesto on which I was elected. The question for Labour Members is why they repeatedly—at every opportunity—refuse to stand by their manifesto commitment. Why will they not honour their promises to the electorate? Yes, I do support leaving. I support leaving with a deal, and I have made it clear that if we do not leave with a deal, of the two alternative options I would leave with no deal. My position has been consistent. Why hasn’t theirs?

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

Thanks to the hon. Gentleman’s friends, I have little time to speak and I do not want to take up time that the Minister will want towards the end.

The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), whom I have a great deal of respect for, for the length of service that he has given to this House, simply got his facts wrong. He spoke about when Oliver Cromwell addressed this Parliament. Oliver Cromwell had been dead for 50 years before this Parliament existed. That is even if “this Parliament” means the Parliament of Great Britain, because the Parliament of the United Kingdom did not come along for another 100 years after that. Even with the protection of the Almighty, Oliver Cromwell would not have smelt too nice if he had come here 150 years later.

As for the nonsense that because an Act of Parliament was passed in a previous Parliament, this Parliament does not like to do anything about it, what happened to the sacred principle that no Parliament can bind a successor? If that principle did not exist, we would not need elections at all, but some people on the Conservative Benches think that having elections is some kind of democratic outrage—“They shouldn’t be allowed”, or, “People don’t need the chance to change their minds.”

The same people also say that in the 2017 election, over 80% of people voted for the two major UK parties whose manifestos said they would respect the result of the referendum—I think that was a mistake by Labour, but it cannot be changed now. In 2015, however, 85% of people voted for parties that said they wanted to stay in the European Union. How can it be that between 2015 and 2017, 80% of the people were allowed to change their minds, but between 2016 and 2019, 3% are not allowed to change their minds?

As for that idea that everyone knew what they were doing in 2016, no less a person than the Attorney General admitted this weekend that he had misunderstood and that the Government had underestimated just how complicated it was going to be. If the Government’s chief legal adviser did not realise how complicated it was going to be, what chance did 33 million other people have in casting their votes?

It is right that Labour supported article 50 at the time, but Labour made a lot of mistakes at the start of the process—serious tactical mistakes—and I am pleased that a lot of them are coming around to understand and to make good those mistakes. I am a bit worried that their leader might be about to make the biggest tactical mistake on Brexit of the whole lot, but I hope he can be pulled back from that.

The single biggest difficulty, as has been said, is that the Prime Minister has made a mess of the negotiations from day one. Conservative Members complain about the number of times that she promised, “We’re leaving on 29 March”, as if that was some kind of day handed down on tablets of stone from Mount Sinai, but it is just another example of the Prime Minister creating utterly impossible expectations. I am sorry, but if the Prime Minister’s impossible expectations cause problems for the Conservative party, that is not my problem, and I want to see the day when it is no longer Scotland’s problem.

Far too much of the debate about Brexit has not been about what is in the best interests of this generation; it has paid no regard at all to the interests of future generations—it has been all about what is in the best interests of the Conservative party. It might be best for us all if the Conservative party’s existential crisis came to its natural conclusion and the rest of us could get on with building a better nation, a better set of nations and a better society for us and our descendants.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I thought I would inject a new tone into the debate and focus on the amendments. I will be brief.

I thank the peers for their work on the Bill in an exceptionally short time, reflecting the exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves. Since we last debated it, the Prime Minister has—later than we would have liked—reached out to the Opposition, and we are engaging fully in that process. In that spirit, we are pleased to join the Government in accepting all the amendments. Amendments 1 to 3 tidy up the Bill to ensure that the motion is put to the House tomorrow. Amendment 5 makes a significant but helpful change to the Bill. Events have overtaken us since it was presented last week, and the Prime Minister has already written to the President of the European Council indicating her intention to seek an extension to the article 50 process until 30 June.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what there is in the Bill that the Prime Minister has not already said she will do in relation to an article 50 extension? Given that she has already said that she will seek an article 50 extension, is it not the case that this entire Bill is nothing more than an extended vanity exercise?

[Paul Blomfield]

I assume that, in that case, the hon. Gentleman has no objection to the Bill.

The other important development since last week is that the Prime Minister has made clear her opposition to leaving the European Union without a deal. Amendment 5 enables her to agree to a different extension provided that it is a date after 22 May.

Amendment 4 deletes clause 1(6) and (7). Like other Members, I am conscious that last week this House voted against an identical amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). However, that deletion must now be read alongside amendment 5. These amendments, taken together in the Lords, were tabled in recognition that time is of the essence if we are to avoid leaving the European Union without a deal on Friday. We therefore now support amendment 4. We oppose the amendments tabled by Conservative Members that repeat attempts made last week and seek to frustrate the objectives of the Bill.

Finally, I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) for their work on the Bill. I thank the staff of both Houses for everything they have done to enable speedy consideration of it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)]

I regret that we are debating this Bill, as it is unnecessary and has been progressed through Parliament without due and necessary time for debate or scrutiny. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that it is a matter of deep regret that we are considering the Bill this evening. Given that the other place has given it a great deal more consideration than this House, we should reflect on its amendments.

As the House is aware, the Government have already set in train the process to achieve a short extension. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) pointed out, the Bill is not necessary to do that. When this House approved the Bill, I pointed out that it was being passed in haste. We had a heavily truncated Second Reading, a short Committee stage and no debate on Report or Third Reading. That was followed by an unusually expedited process in the other place, where there was an unprecedented use, much remarked on by the noble Lords, of closure motions during the debate on the business motion. No Government or Parliament should welcome this unhealthy state of affairs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 4th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

As the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) knows, we had discussions yesterday and there will be further discussions today. I am sure that workers’ rights will be among a range of issues that we will discuss. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Prime Minister has already said that she will bring forward a package of measures to strengthen enforcement of workers’ rights, and that is in part following discussions that we have had with a number of Opposition Members.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State talks about the Government being committed to exceeding EU standards, but practice does not seem to match his words. His Conservative colleagues in the European Parliament voted against the amendment to the posting of workers directive, which strengthens workers’ rights and addresses many of the concerns expressed about freedom of movement during the referendum. He will know that our obligation to transpose it into domestic law continues as long we are EU members and during the transitional period. When are the Government going to do that?

[Stephen Barclay]

There is a real inconsistency here. Night after night we are told that we should trust the votes of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has made a commitment not to lower standards below the current levels for workers’ rights and the environment, and our proposals on immigration go further than the commitments found in standard free trade agreements. It is odd that Opposition Members have so little faith in this House to protect the rights that workers need.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

Absolutely. As for the idea that we should not take part in the elections because we do not know how long our MEPs will be there, let us remember that some of them are never there anyway. I remember the Scottish regional elections in 1994, which we knew were for councils that would exist for a very limited time, but they actually had a higher turnout than was previously the case, because people were energised and motivated and understood what they were about. If the hard-line Conservatives do not want to take part in European parliamentary elections, that is entirely up to them, but I do not want my constituents to be denied an opportunity to vote for their representatives in Europe, whether that is for two days, two years or a full parliamentary term.

We will certainly support the drafting amendments tabled by the right hon. Members who introduced the Bill—given how many Lords amendments are often required to sort out the mistakes in Government legislation, despite all the resources that the Government have at their disposal, it is a bit much to be nitpicking about the fact that there were a couple of drafting errors in this Bill. It would have been nice not to have to rush the Bill through the House in such a hurry. It would have been nice if the Government had actually listened to what Parliament has been saying, in Back-Bench business debates and Opposition day debates, for the past three years. They have refused to listen, which is why the only way to make them listen is by Act of Parliament. That is why we will support the two amendments I have mentioned, and I hope to see the Bill go through to Third Reading.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I will not repeat the general points I made on Second Reading, but I want to briefly outline the Opposition’s views on the amendments.

We will obviously support amendments 13 and 14, which are helpful drafting amendments, and will vote for clauses 1 and 2 to stand part of the Bill. We will support the Government’s new clause 13 with a clarification from the Minister. Normally we would support the affirmative procedure, but we accept the Government’s reasoning in this case, given the fast-moving situation and the need to ensure consistency between EU and UK law. We will support the new clause subject to an assurance from the Minister now that if one of the principal Opposition parties prays against the statutory instrument, the Government will urgently facilitate a debate on the Floor of the House.

We will oppose all the other amendments. Let me explain briefly why. Amendments 20 and 1 and new clause 5 seek to impose different dates. We should have learned from the withdrawal Act that putting exit dates in statute denies the flexibility we might need, and those amendments are clearly designed to frustrate the Bill’s objectives. We oppose amendment 21 because we believe it is right for the Government to come back to the House if the EU offers a different date. We oppose Government amendment 22 because it undermines the purpose of the Bill in relation to parliamentary approval to seek or agree an extension.

We oppose amendment 6 because it is designed to frustrate the process and, as Members have pointed, the Northern Ireland Assembly is not sitting. We oppose new clause 4 because it would limit Parliament’s opportunity to shape decisions. I am surprised that, after his lengthy contribution, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is not here to hear our views on these points.

We oppose new clause 7 because it seeks to put a date in the Bill without saying so. It puts the cart before the horse. We should determine what extension we need and then deal with the consequences—even if that means elections, although that is not ideal—and not limit ourselves in that way. If we need a longer extension, we will presumably want the UK to have a voice in EU institutions—not simply the Parliament, but the Council and the Commission—and a judge in the Court of Justice. On that basis, we oppose that new clause and the other amendments that I have identified.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)]

I shall be brief, as this briefest of Committee stages demands. The Government continue to oppose the Bill, but given that it has reached Committee, I will speak to the Government amendments.

As the Secretary of State set out earlier, the Government have no choice but to improve the Bill and limit its most damaging effects. Our amendment 22 addresses the dangerous and perhaps unintended constitutional precedent that could be set by the Bill, which calls into question the Government’s ability to seek and agree an extension with the European Union using the royal prerogative. It is a well-established constitutional principle that Heads of Government are able to enter into international agreements without preconditions set by the House that constrain their ability to negotiate in the national interest. The Government’s authority in this matter must not be undermined, as the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) said.

Exit day in international and domestic law is 12 April. The Bill creates a real risk that we could be timed out and be unable to agree an extension with our European partners and implement it in domestic law. The Bill as drafted actually increases the likelihood of an accidental no deal—an outcome that the House has repeatedly voted against. The new process created by the Bill could mean that we are timed out and no extension could be agreed. For example, on 10 April, the EU could propose an extension of an alternative length. Under the Bill, the Prime Minister must then return to the House to put forward that proposal, but by 11 April—by the time the House has had time to consider that—the Council would be over. We would need to confirm UK agreement to the EU proposal and get an EU Council decision before 11 pm on 12 April, and I struggle to see how we could carry out such a negotiation through correspondence in the 24 hours before we leave. The Bill therefore increases the likelihood of an accidental no deal. We seek to avoid that through amendment 22, which would ensure that the Government can agree an extension, regardless of the process set out in the Bill, in the national interest.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) for their work on the Bill, and the way in which they introduced both the business motion and the Bill to the House.

Labour supports the Bill because it is necessary to fulfil the wishes of the House, which has voted down the Prime Minister’s deal on three occasions and has also voted against leaving without a deal on three occasions.

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

Can my hon. Friend think of another time when the TUC and the CBI have both been as emphatic as they have been about the dangers of a no-deal Brexit?

[Paul Blomfield]

I cannot, and that underlines the importance of this Bill, which provides for the further extension of article 50, which is now inevitable. The Bill offers a legislative framework through which the House can have an effective role in the process of determining that extension.

Clearly, the Bill sits in the new context of the Prime Minister’s statement late last night, in which she said that she was seeking talks with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Those talks have now begun. We welcome what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) described as a “late conversion to compromise”, although we regret the damage that has been done to the economy and the credibility of this House by the Prime Minister not compromising sooner. It is an approach that she should have adopted long ago.

The Prime Minister could have adopted this approach almost three years ago, after the referendum, when the country decided by a painfully narrow margin to leave the EU, but not to rupture our relations with our closest neighbours, key allies and most important trading partners. She could have done so after the election, when she went to the country saying that Parliament was obstructing her and seeking a mandate for a hard Brexit, but lost her majority and failed to get the mandate. She could also have done so on any of the three occasions when her deal was defeated by the House, but she chose not to. We have consistently called on the Prime Minister to reach out to the sensible majority in the House and to unite the country, recognising that the people of this country include both the 52% and the 48%. But better late than never.

We also welcome the way in which the Prime Minister distanced herself last night from those kamikaze colleagues who, as she said,

“would like to leave with No Deal next week.”

The House has expressed its clear view on leaving without a deal, and this Bill provides the legislative lock to ensure that the will of our sovereign Parliament is not frustrated. It also provides for the flexibility to ensure that we can accommodate whatever comes from the discussions between our parties and across the House over the next few days.

We have set out clearly the framework on which we will be seeking the compromise that the Prime Minister talked about last night: a permanent and comprehensive customs union; close alignment with the single market; dynamic alignment on rights and protections; clear commitments on participation in EU agencies and funding programmes; and unambiguous agreements on future security arrangements. We have also been clear in our support for a confirmatory public vote on any deal that comes about at this very late stage. We look forward to the further discussions on these issues, and we are pleased to give our full backing to this Bill.

No-deal EU Exit Preparations

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I found it interesting that my hon. Friend was barracked by Opposition Members for pointing out how strong our country’s economy was. I would have thought they would be proud of that.

I hope that in my opening answer I gave the House a sense of how much preparation the Government have done since August 2016, although preparations have of course been ramped up in the last few months. I will list a handful of points: more than 550 no-deal communications have been sent out since August 2018; we have had 300 stake- holder engagements since February; we have been signing international agreements with our trading partners and rolling over others; 11,000 people are working on EU exit policy and programmes across Government; a number of IT programmes are ready to go should we need to activate them; and we have published the HMRC partnership pack containing more than 100 pages of guidance for businesses on process and procedures at the border in a no-deal scenario. The Government have been preparing assiduously and quietly behind the scenes for no deal, but we want to get a deal over the line; that is the most important thing for us.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question.

The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) talked about the wishes of the House, and he was right to do so, but the House has twice ruled out leaving the EU without a deal and twice rejected the Government’s deal by historic margins. It is simply unacceptable that the Prime Minister continues to doggedly press ahead with her Hobson’s choice of her deal or no deal. Resilience is an admirable quality; obstinacy is not. Does the Minister recognise that by their approach the Government risk being considered in contempt of the House yet again?

The Government’s energy at this critical time should be going to find a way forward that can command the support of the House and the country and that is not the Prime Minister’s flawed deal, which the Government themselves have said would shrink the economy by 4%. The situation requires flexibility and the Government reaching out across the House, and that includes flexibility on the length of the extension of article 50. The Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster said last Thursday of a 30 June extension:

“In the absence of a deal, seeking such a short and, critically, one-off extension would be downright reckless and completely at odds with the position that this House adopted”—[Official Report, 14 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 566.]

Does the Minister agree that rather than this focus on no deal, the Prime Minister’s priority should now be to create opportunities for the House to consider all the options available to get the country out of the impasse she has created?