Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I know what an indefatigable campaigner he is for the UK leaving the European Union, and his expertise on this issue is well known. At the end of the day, the common rulebook is going to be subject to a parliamentary lock, and it also reflects rules on goods that have not changed for many decades.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Minister rightly points out that the White Paper proposes non-regression clauses on environment regulations and on social and employment protections. In 2016, however, the Secretary of State wrote in The Times that Brexit was an opportunity to

“ditch”

the

“100 most burdensome EU regulations”.

He took exception to the agency workers regulation, for example, on the grounds that it

“gives agency workers the right to the same basic employment and working conditions as full-time staff”.

Does the Minister agree with the White Paper or with her Secretary of State?

[Suella Braverman]

The Government have been clear in the White Paper that our commitment to rights protection is unequivocal and that how those rules are applied is ultimately a decision for Parliament. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that rights do not emanate from the EU? We have our own rich and proud tradition of civil liberties, such as the Race Relations Act 1965 or the Equal Pay Act 1970, and we acceded to those critical pieces of legislation before our accession to the European Economic Community.

Future Relationship Between the UK and the EU

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

After the last couple of days, today’s debate has something of the feel of the morning after the night before. Indeed, it has been a sobering debate, reflecting the depth of the crisis that we are in. Two years on from the referendum, the Government are still unable to speak on behalf of the British people. The most important negotiations the country has faced since the second world war are being led by the most dysfunctional Government in living memory.

It does not have to be like this. The Prime Minister was right at Mansion House to say we had to face up to hard facts, but that meant facing down those in her party who put their ideological hostility to the EU before the interests of the country. If she had faced up to the facts two years ago—if she had said then that the country had voted to leave the EU but by a painfully close margin, and that it was a decision to depart but not to destroy our economy, and if she had said that we would leave the EU but remain in a customs union and close to the single market and the members of the agencies and partnerships we had built together—she could have secured a clear majority in this House and built a consensus in the country, which had been so bitterly divided by the referendum.

But she did not. Instead, she handed a veto to the European Research Group—the people who have sought to undermine not just herself at every step but every one of her predecessors. They are, as John Major commented recently, even more hard-line than those he faced. They are less than 10% of this House but are calling the shots. The tail is wagging the dog. They are demanding the red lines that have held us back—no single market, no customs union, no European Court of Justice, no agencies. To be fair to the Prime Minister, she put that proposition to the British people in last June’s general election. She sought a mandate for an extreme Brexit, but she did not get it. She went into that election with a majority and came out without one.

I remind the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who sought to misquote our manifesto, as others have done, that at that election we said:

“We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper”—

as we would this one—

“and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses”.

[Mr Baron]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will not, because I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s points and we cannot get into a detailed exchange.

The result of the Prime Minister’s approach has been paralysis, not simply on Brexit but on the other crises facing our country. The Government have neither the authority to deal with Brexit nor the ability to tackle the issues that led to it. There has been a dawning realisation from the Prime Minister that those early red lines were a mistake, but each time she tries to step over them, she has been hauled back by the extremists within her party.

At Chequers, it did seem that the Prime Minister was beginning to face up to the hard facts—to break free from the icy grip of the European Research Group. Not far enough, not soon enough, but tentative steps towards reality, towards a customs settlement and a regulatory alignment demanded by business—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden)—and also necessary to resolve the issue of the Northern Ireland border.

Of course, the former Brexit Secretary was right when he endorsed Donald Trump's view that the plan would “kill” the prospect of a US-UK deal; and of course, it was just a starting point, not the end point of negotiations. It would inevitably involve further movement by the Government. Knowing that, the ERG tore it to shreds, and Monday night’s debacle was the last nail in the coffin. Rather than defeat the amendments—as they could have, overwhelmingly—the Government rolled over and accepted wrecking amendments that left their White Paper dead in the water. The Minister shakes his head, but if there was any doubt about its death, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) laid it to rest today in what was, frankly, a chilling contribution.

While the Prime Minister turns on those in her own party who would welcome the Chequers plan, threatening them, she embraces those who would destroy her, and she continues to bring them into the Government. Having resigned, the hon. Member for Wycombe was succeeded as a Brexit Minister by his predecessor as chair of the ERG, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) —who, of course, joins another former chair, the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman). It is beginning to look as if there is a secondment scheme going on between the ERG and the Brexit ministerial team.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

No, I will not; I have not the time. I would love to, but I have not the time.

As I say, it is beginning to look as if there is a secondment scheme. So we may yet see the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) make his way down to the Front Bench—or perhaps he thinks he has more power where he is.

Sixteen months into the negotiations, the White Paper says that the Government will now

“charge the UK’s negotiating team to engage with the EU’s at pace”.

The time for “pace” was long ago, but better late than never. It is 16 months since the House set the clock ticking, and in three months we need to resolve the deal. Whatever the polls say now, the public will not thank politicians who deliver a damaging Brexit based on false promises.

Without the threats and bullying that Members faced last night, there was a majority across the House in favour of a sensible approach—one that respects the referendum result, one that protects our constituents’ jobs and livelihoods. If the Government are not willing or are not able to deliver that sensible result, in the months ahead it will be the duty of this House to step in.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

Again—the hon. Lady is wrong. The Government have provided 250 hours of debate on this Bill alone, and there are probably a dozen other pieces of primary legislation, including the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill later this year. There is a huge range of areas in which Parliament has had its say and will have its say. To come to the point about business investment, in the past year high-tech investment alone—the most important for our future in many ways—was three times in the UK that of any European country. Indeed, it was as much as the next three countries put together.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Political leadership in negotiations is clearly key to their success, but in response to a question I tabled, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), informed me that until last Monday the Secretary of State had met Michel Barnier only twice since December—once in February and once at a press conference in March. Two meetings in six critical months. Can the Secretary of State explain his absence? Does paralysis in the Cabinet leave him with nothing to say? Or has he simply been sidelined by officials closer to the Prime Minister?

[Mr Davis]

Is it not wonderful to have the Labour party, of all people, accusing us on this? I am looking at the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman)—don’t worry. I read a tweet only this morning in which the Labour Whips Office was celebrating the fact that only 75 Labour Members rebelled against the amendment yesterday.

Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to wind up the debate on behalf of the Opposition with you in the Chair, Mr Austin. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on the thoughtful way in which she presented the feelings of the petitioners. I also congratulate the petitioners on their engagement in this process.

The debate is timely—that is an understatement, given the week that we have ahead. Tomorrow the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill returns to the Commons, and this issue will be at the very heart of those discussions, because it is critical. The petitioners could have expected many more colleagues from all parties and a much longer debate had we not been preparing for discussion of the Bill this week. If anyone gets bored with that, we also have Brexit oral questions on Thursday, so it is a Brexit-packed week in Parliament.

The current situation is clearly something of a national disaster. We are having the most important negotiations for our country since the second world war, but we are being led by the most dysfunctional Government in our lifetimes. The uncertainty created by that was highlighted powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) in terms of the impact on our economy. We have four months to go until the October conclusion of the negotiations. After two years, with just four months left, we see open warfare in the Cabinet. The Government are still incapable—this is quite extraordinary—of publishing the negotiating objectives White Paper they promised only four weeks ago.

[Catherine West]

Is my hon. Friend surprised that foreign direct investment has dropped by 90% from 2016 to today?

[Paul Blomfield]

I am not surprised, frankly. A couple of weeks ago, I was in Strasbourg talking to colleagues from different parties and countries, and they are shocked by Britain at the moment. Whatever their differences have been with us in the past, they always respected Britain as having an effective Government with a well-oiled diplomatic machine and being clear on their objectives and how to achieve them. They cannot believe the Government’s shambles, creating the uncertainty that my hon. Friend spoke about.

We still have no solution to the Irish border and to fulfilling the obligation made by the Government. We are no further forward on plans to protect what was originally described as frictionless trade—the Government are now backtracking on that and talking about a more limited ambition. We certainly have no clarity on how they will achieve the exact same benefits that we now enjoy in the single market and the customs union—a negotiating aim that they set for themselves and that the Prime Minister has repeated.

[Geraint Davies in the Chair]

The open warfare is incredible. Only last week the Foreign Secretary unfavourably compared the Prime Minister’s negotiating approach with that of Donald Trump. Is that what we have come to? The holder of one of the key offices of state is undermining his own Prime Minister and, indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said a little while ago on national television that he was being openly undermined and briefed against by other members of the Cabinet. This is a shocking position to be in.

With the Government paralysed by their own divisions, it looks increasingly as if Parliament will need—to coin a phrase—to take back control. It is ironic that some of the most vocal supporters of leaving the European Union, who made grand demands about parliamentary sovereignty central to their campaign, are so reluctant to concede that parliamentary sovereignty at this vital time. Those who cried foul about being a vassal state during the transition period seem to want a vassal Parliament in these vital negotiations. At this critical juncture, they say yes, they want parliamentary sovereignty—but not just yet, and not if it undermines their desire for the most extreme Brexit.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does that not demonstrate that the hard Brexiteers want Brexit at any cost, including the cost of democracy?

[Paul Blomfield]

That is a point that I have made on the Floor of the House: there are those within the governing party—though clearly a minority—who want Brexit at any cost to the political stability of our continent and to the economy of this country. They are driven by Brexit above everything, and the Labour party and I do not believe that that is in the interests of this country.

Since First Reading, having a meaningful vote for Parliament on the final deal has been one of the Labour party’s key tests for the withdrawal Bill. We have been clear that a binary “take it or leave it” vote, in a zero-sum game tactic from the Government, will in no way constitute a meaningful vote. Crucially, that view unites Members across parties, and that is why the House voted last December for the amendment moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), to give Parliament a meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement—to the consternation of the Government.

The Government immediately looked for wriggle room to avoid meeting that ambition of Parliament. The Lords therefore added greater clarity about what constitutes a meaningful vote, by accepting the amendment moved by the Conservative peer, Viscount Hailsham, which provides for a motion and an Act and, in the event of the motion not passing, for any decision on the next steps to be firmly in Parliament’s hands. With two defeats under their belt on the issue, the Government have now moved their own amendment—but they have not moved far enough.

[Peter Grant]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think it slightly ironic that the Government and their friends at the Daily Mail are decrying the anti-patriotic behaviour of lordships who agreed 15 amendments that the Government did not like at the same time as agreeing 160-plus amendments that the Government did like?

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. There has been a series of contradictions over the years in the position that some extreme Brexiteers have taken on the House of Lords—some have been its greatest champions and opponents of its reform.

Let me come back to the Government’s amendment. If the House was to vote down a motion under their proposals, Parliament would lose all influence. We would get no more than a statement from the Government informing us how they will proceed, frustrating the ambition of the vote that we had in December. Let us be clear: the Government’s amendment does not stop them sidelining Parliament from a crucial decision that will determine our future relationship with the EU, and nor does it prevent us from crashing out without a deal.

Viscount Hailsham’s amendment is explicit that if we do not accept the Government’s deal, it is for Parliament to determine the next steps. We will not be boxed into accepting “take it or leave it” options. We support the amendment because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) pointed out, it is Parliament that is elected to determine the country’s future. Viscount Hailsham's amendment would ensure Parliament directs the Government on how to proceed in the article 50 negotiations, in whatever way it sees fit at that time.

It is right that, in the words of the petition,

“A lesser of two evils choice between a bad deal and no deal is not acceptable. Our country deserves better than Hobson's choice”.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) is no longer in his seat; it is unfortunate that he misrepresented the petition’s objective and the use of “evil”. I do not think that the petitioners mean that a deal of some sort would in no sense be acceptable; their words were simply that the

“choice between a bad deal and no deal”

is not.

When Parliament makes a decision, all options have to be open, but the petitioners need to recognise that Parliament does not have the political mandate to overturn the referendum. To do so would create a democratic crisis. Clearly, some argue for a further referendum—those arguments were exercised today by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse); the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), although at one point he seemed confused about which petition he was talking about; and, in a different way, by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. But there is no indication of majority public support for a further referendum. There is growing support for a public vote on the final deal, but when polled, people do not want staying in the EU necessarily to be an option on the ballot paper—they are seeking a choice between that deal and a better deal, without looking back at the original referendum choice.

[Tom Brake]

If the hon. Gentleman has ruled out the option of a referendum on the deal, what solution does he see to the problem that he has identified? If Parliament makes a decision that stops the process, how will the country get out of that democratic dilemma?

[Paul Blomfield]

I appreciate the Liberal Democrats’ love of referendums, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, as far back as 2010, it was the Liberal Democrats who called for a referendum on our membership of the European Union—at the time, the Labour party opposed it—for that to be a decisive vote and for Parliament to accept the outcome. They are in a bit of a difficult position as they argue their point.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman answered my right hon. Friend’s question, so it would be nice to hear his answer. Precisely because we believe in debate and in the sensible arguments coming forward in the end, there is no contradiction in our saying, “Let’s discuss it to the end and take it to the people in the end.” That is the most democratic way forward.

[Paul Blomfield]

Let me return to the right hon. Gentleman’s question: it is not possible for us at this stage to predict how Parliament should exercise its response to the final deal. We need all the options to be available. I was simply pointing out that when the Liberal Democrats called for the 2016 referendum, they said that the results should be binding. It is a little ironic that, just as they jumped on that bandwagon, they are jumping on this one.

Mr Austin—sorry, Mr Davies—

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I am the new Dr Who.

[Paul Blomfield]

That was a seamless transition, Mr Davies.

The majority in Parliament respect the referendum result and those who voted in it, too. That majority knows that people voted to get out of the EU but that they did not vote to lose out. The majority wants a sensible approach to Brexit—no longer being in the EU but being in a customs union, with the closest possible relationship with the single market and continuing membership of the agencies that we built together.

The hon. Member for Bolton West was wrong in his characterisation of Labour’s position; our position was clear in our manifesto at the last election. The Prime Minister should reach out to the majority in Parliament and the majority in the country. If she comes back in October with a deal that fails the British people, it will be Parliament’s duty to set the direction for the next steps.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman]

I will not, because I need to get on with my speech and I have given way many times. Those are the objectives of the Government and of the Prime Minister.

As I have said, the Government recognise the strength of feeling on this issue. That is why we know that it is incumbent on us to secure a deal that works for all of the United Kingdom and one that Parliament will want to support. As the Prime Minister has said, our decision to leave the EU does not mark an ending; it marks a new beginning for our relationship with our European allies. This is where I diverge from right hon. and hon. Members and their pessimistic view of negotiations so far: we have made significant progress on the negotiations. We have agreed the terms of a time-limited implementation period.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister acknowledge that when Labour, echoing the views of business, the trade unions and many across the country, first floated the idea of a transitional period, the Prime Minister said she did not want that, so she defines progress as embracing Labour’s aspirations?

[Suella Braverman]

I do not think the Government have embraced Labour’s aspirations for a long time, and long may that continue. The implementation period was requested by the business community and the Government responded in kind. We have agreed the terms of a time-limited implementation period, and on the wider withdrawal agreement we have locked down entire chapters on citizens’ rights and the financial settlement. As to our future relationship, we are confident that we will secure an ambitious future partnership with the EU, covering both a significant economic relationship and a deep security relationship. I look forward to the forthcoming publication of our White Paper, which will set that out in detail.

On the economic side, we want the broadest and deepest possible partnership, covering more sectors and co-operating more fully than any free trade agreement anywhere in the world today. We want the greatest possible tariff and barrier-free trade with our European neighbours as well as the freedom to negotiate our own trade agreements around the world. That is why we are leaving the customs union and the single market. We want to ensure that UK companies have the maximum freedom to trade with and operate within European markets, and to let European businesses do the same in the UK. We therefore propose a unique and ambitious partnership, based on our rules and regulations being the same at the start and on maintaining our commitment to free trade and high standards while allowing for us both to make changes where we want to in a stable and orderly way.

On security, we have been clear that we must do whatever is most practical and pragmatic to provide security for our citizens. We must not allow competition to inhibit our co-operation and jeopardise the security of our citizens.

To return to the detail of the petition, the Government have committed to holding a vote on the final deal in Parliament as soon as possible after agreement has been reached on the withdrawal agreement and the terms of our future relationship, and the negotiations have concluded. The House will know that the Government have tabled an amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill for consideration this week, which will write into law our existing commitment on the vote on the final deal.

Some reference has been made to amendment 19—the Hailsham amendment—which is of concern. The Government’s amendment in lieu will write into law our existing commitment on the vote in the final deal. The problem with the Hailsham amendment is that it would remove Parliament’s ability to direct the Government in the negotiations—sorry, the amendment we have tabled will remove Parliament’s ability to direct the Government in the negotiations, which is a dangerous element contained in Viscount Hailsham’s amendment. It is important that I get that right.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister has, on the second attempt, defined what the Government’s amendment seeks to do: to remove from Parliament the opportunity to direct the Government in the event of not accepting the deal. Does she not recognise that that would leave the Parliament of the United Kingdom powerless in the most important negotiations facing our country?

[Suella Braverman]

I disagree. The Hailsham amendment would set a dangerous constitutional precedent that would limit the Government’s prerogative in the act of international treaty negotiation. That would reduce the flexibility necessary for a successful negotiation, which is essential for the Government if we are to get the best deal possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman]

No, not at all. The Government amendment writes into law our existing commitment on the vote on the final deal. It makes it clear that that is the case. In no way does it reduce the opportunity for and power of Parliament to have a meaningful vote on the final deal.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister is of course right that the Government’s amendment does not remove Parliament’s power to have a vote. However, will she not accept, addressing her remarks to those behind the petition as well, that the Government’s amendment takes all meaning out of the word “meaningful”? It simply provides for Parliament to have a take it or leave it, like it or lump it, no real choice vote.

[Suella Braverman]

The Government will present to both Houses of Parliament the terms of the withdrawal agreement as agreed between the EU and the UK. We will also present the terms of our future economic partnership. There will be considerable opportunity for scrutiny of the terms of our final deal, and the motion will be presented to both Chambers. That will provide Parliament with the opportunity to accept or reject the deal—there is nothing more meaningful than that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My right hon. Friend is correct: what we are doing, after all, is carrying out the judgment of the referendum, which was to take back control of borders, laws and money. During the referendum, both sides made it very plain that real removal from the EU means real removal from the customs union and the single market.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

They might be over-represented in the Secretary of State’s ministerial team, but supporters of the European Research Group constitute less than 10% of the membership of this House. Why are the Government putting their red lines before the interests of the country?

[Mr Davis]

I wish the hon. Gentleman a happy May Day this week, but he is basically putting—how can I express this in parliamentary language?—a non-fact in front of the House. The case is very simple: the Government are deciding on the future customs arrangements on the basis of the best interests of the United Kingdom.

[Paul Blomfield]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s May Day wishes, and I am sure that he will be celebrating as well. The Engineering Employers Federation says that being outside a customs union

“would condemn the manufacturing sector to a painful and costly Brexit.”

Does he really think that is a price worth paying to keep the ERG happy?

[Mr Davis]

I am not going to take lectures from a party that has had 11 different positions on this so far and whose own—[Interruption.] I am speaking through the Speaker, thank you very much. And a party whose own policy has been roundly criticised in singularly unparliamentary language by its own shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner).

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Suella Fernandes]

Well, being in the customs union also puts up prices for consumers in food, footwear and clothes. I am often surprised that the Opposition do not champion the benefits of leaving the customs union, which this Government are doing.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I do not often cite the International Trade Secretary favourably, but he was right when he was in China with the Prime Minister in February and accepted that a customs union with the EU “self-evidently” does not prevent us from increasing bilateral trade with countries such as China. What assessment have the Government made of the comparative benefits for the UK of being in a customs union and not being in a customs union when it comes to trade with non-EU countries?

Leaving the EU: No-deal Alternatives

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a delight to wind up for the Opposition with you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach). A large majority in this House respects the outcome of the referendum, but wants to ensure that we leave the EU on terms that protect the economy and people’s jobs and livelihoods, as well as the rights and protections that we gained through 43 years of membership. It is a majority that recognises our future lies in a close and collaborative relationship with the European Union. The hon. Lady is very much part of that majority, and she has done us all a service by securing this debate and in the way she opened it.

There is a heavy responsibility on this Parliament, on all our shoulders. We face the most important choices in our lifetimes that will affect generations to come. That demands that we are honest and open in evaluating the decisions we face. That is why Labour has consistently pushed for the publication of impact assessments and economic analyses so that we have the information we need to inform our decisions. We need to avoid what the Prime Minister’s former deputy, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), described on Monday as the

“problem of politicians who won’t accept evidence.”

He was also right when he said:

“If analysis is being produced, then publish it. And frankly there will be a big political debate...Let’s have this argument in public, that’s what democracies do.”

The referendum was a clear decision, but it was a painfully close vote that we should implement in a way that unites the country, which involves the sort of compromise that many Members have talked about. Whether people voted remain or leave, they will not thank politicians who lead them into a Brexit on a false prospectus that fails their expectations and damages their prospects. We need to be honest about the expectations created by the referendum. Everybody now recognises that £350 million will not be released for the NHS, or for anything else, as the Chancellor confirmed in his 2016 autumn statement.

Nor will taking back control mean a significant change in migration. As the Environment Secretary told the National Farmers Union yesterday,

“agriculture needs access to foreign workers...both seasonal and...permanent.”

He echoed the Brexit Secretary who said in Estonia last year that the door will not “suddenly shut” on EU immigration, as it will take “years and years” for British citizens to fill the employment gaps.

On the ECJ we need to recognise that any trade agreement will involve ceding sovereignty to bilateral or transnational bodies. People need to know that trade deals will have consequences. The US Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, has made it clear that a

“critical component of any trade discussion”

with the UK would be the scrapping of EU food rules. And for what? For 0.2% growth anticipated by the Government. So open discussion of all the options is vital as we move forward.

I have been to the reading room and I should make it clear that I am complying with the confidentiality requirements, so I quote from information in the public arena. We should pay attention to the Government’s own analysis that EEA membership would see 2% lower growth than otherwise projected over 15 years. A comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU would result in 5% lower growth, and no deal would almost double that: an entire 8% lower growth.

No deal is, of course, the most damaging of all the options. The hon. Member for Eddisbury made that case extremely clearly and well. We should look at everything. The Labour party wants to keep a customs union and a new relationship with the single market on the table. We want to consider the EEA-EFTA model, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) argued when we last debated the issue.

[Vicky Ford]

Did the hon. Gentleman say he wants to keep membership of “a” customs union or “the” customs union on the table?

[Paul Blomfield]

I really love the pedantry of this. I was clear that we are talking about a customs union that serves the needs of the British economy and British manufacturing.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich argued previously, the EEA-EFTA model raises challenging issues and would need to be supplemented by customs arrangements, but it should not be lightly discounted, because there are features of the EEA-EFTA model that we would want to see as part of any final deal.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

I was just about to mention the hon. Gentleman, so I am delighted to give way.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I await with anticipation what the hon. Gentleman will say. When he said he would not lightly discount EFTA and the EEA, does that mean the official Opposition are not discounting it as an option?

[Paul Blomfield]

I think that is fairly clear: we want to keep options on the table, in an economy-first Brexit negotiation. I was going to say that the hon. Gentleman’s points about the political ideology of the EU27 were reflected, ironically, at the weekend in Munich by the Prime Minister, when she warned the European Union not to let “political doctrine and ideology” stand in the way of a good deal on security—the hon. Gentleman is nodding. She was right, but if that is good enough for security, why is it not good enough for the economy? Political doctrine and ideology from the European Research Group has framed the Government’s approach from day one, ignoring not simply the 48%, but so many of the 52% who did not vote for an extreme and destructive Brexit.

We have now had two of the series of Cabinet speeches apparently defining the “road to Brexit”, and they highlight the depth of divisions. We had the Foreign Secretary’s damp squib, setting out his ambition for regulatory divergence, contradicted yesterday by the Brexit Secretary, who tried to reassure everybody that little would change. Tomorrow, of course, the Cabinet will try to resolve the differences.

At this moment, out of the shadows, comes the European Research Group again, with a letter echoing the one co-ordinated by the Minister when she was its chair, seeking to derail the Government’s policy on the transitional period, and with it to ensure that the country stumbles towards the extreme and destructive Brexit that the vast majority of people simply do not want. Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity, having not yet replied to my letter of several weeks ago, to reject that approach, and make it clear that she supports Government policy on the transition.

There has been a lot of common ground in today’s debate. The Opposition hope, even at this late stage, that the Government can reach out to the common ground in Parliament and in the country, with a sensible approach to the negotiations that face us in the few short months that we have left, seeking a Brexit that puts the economy first and keeps all options on the table.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Fernandes]

Norway does not have a seat in the European Parliament. It does not have a vote on whether regulations coming through the EEA agreement apply to it or not. It generally has to follow those obligations in line with its obligations under the EEA agreement. To diverge from that agreement would be a breach and would therefore lead to questions about its membership and subscription to that agreement. That is a fundamental point that makes membership of the EEA and the Norway option not attractive for the UK.

In response to calls from business, the implementation period is there to benefit businesses and individuals, so that they avoid the need for two sets of changes. It will also give them more time to adjust to the new future partnership.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister give way?

[Suella Fernandes]

I will not, unfortunately. I have only six minutes and I have quite a lot to get through. I am sorry; I cannot.

The implementation period will also ensure that businesses have time to adapt to the new relationship between the UK and the EU. Crucially, only under a deal with the EU and the UK can this essential period take shape. None of the alternatives suggested in today’s debate can offer that level of continuity and clarity to businesses and citizens in the short term. That is why the deal that the Government are seeking is the best alternative to a no deal and is an alternative that we are confident of securing.

On EFTA—

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister give way? There is a tradition of accepting an intervention from a shadow Minister.

[Suella Fernandes]

I must continue because I do not have much time, and EFTA has been a big issue in this debate. I will give way if I have time after my comments—I hope the hon. Gentleman will have patience with me.

Several hon. Members have raised EFTA membership today as the main alternative. Although we recognise the benefits of ensuring continuity in our relationships with the EFTA states, we have no plans to seek membership of the EFTA agreement for four key reasons.

First, EFTA is a trading bloc of four countries. Membership of EFTA does not in itself deliver any market access to the EU. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein effectively participate in the EU single market by virtue of the EEA agreement. That would not deliver more direct control over decisions affecting the UK, nor would it deliver control over migration, which is a key aspect of our leaving the EU.

Switzerland participates in some areas of the single market through a series of bilateral agreements with the EU, but many of those do not cover the areas in which the UK has interests. In any case, the Government have made clear on a number of occasions that we are not pursuing an off-the-shelf arrangement; we are not copying and pasting other agreements. We are seeking a particular bespoke agreement relevant to the UK’s economy. The model I have been discussing does not strike the right balance on democratic control and mutual market access that we want in our future partnership with the EU.

Secondly, our ambition as a global trading nation goes beyond the scope of EFTA’s existing free trade agreements with third countries. EFTA’s FTAs are not suited to the size and type of the economy in Britain. They are not with the larger economies of the world—countries and economies with whom we would wish to be pursuing new economic partnerships. They are not in the sectors where our economy has strengths, which are areas in which we would want to pursue new agreements. Leaving the EU offers the opportunity to negotiate our own free trade agreements and to be a positive and powerful force for free trade in the world.

It is also worth mentioning that membership of EFTA would not be the quick and easy solution that some here have argued. Even if EFTA members were to welcome us back into EFTA, we would not have immediate or automatic access to their 27 FTAs. Our entry into each one would need to be negotiated individually with the third countries involved.

Thirdly, membership of EFTA means accepting free movement between EFTA member countries, as the EFTA convention provides for free movement of EFTA nationals. Liechtenstein has been raised as a derogation, but it is not a comparable example. Liechtenstein is a country with a population that numbers less than that in almost every constituency in the UK, at 37,000. It is very difficult to see how the example of Liechtenstein can be applied to the UK, with its population of 65 million.

Finally, although we want to maintain our deep and historic relationships with the EFTA states, the UK is in many ways different from those countries. The EFTA states have a combined population of 14 million people, compared with our population of 65 million. The EFTA bloc’s combined GDP in 2015 was around £710 billion, in comparison with the UK’s £1.9 trillion. The UK’s participation in EFTA would fundamentally change the nature of that group.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

As my right hon. Friend well knows, we are going into negotiation on this matter almost as we speak. During that period, my primary concern is any new laws coming into effect over which we have had no say, and we will aim to set up arrangements to ensure that they do not harm the United Kingdom.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

After the Prime Minister’s Florence speech, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), who I welcome to the Front Bench, co-ordinated a letter from the European Research Group describing the Government’s policy on the transitional period as staying in the EU “by stealth”. She has not yet replied to my letter of 14 January, offering her the opportunity to retract that view. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is these divisions at the heart of the Government that jeopardise our negotiations? Will he confirm that all his Ministers support Government policy on the transition?

[Mr Davis]

It is almost sine qua non that all my Ministers support Government policy, which is more than I can say for Opposition Front Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend’s account is essentially correct. At the time I considered it implausible because my direct experience is that civil servants are extraordinarily careful to uphold the impartiality of the civil service. We must proceed with great caution in this matter, but I have heard him raise the issue. We need to be very careful not to take this forward in an inappropriate way, but he has reminded me of something that I heard. It would be quite extraordinary if it turned out that such a thing had happened.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

You said it was correct.

[Mr Baker]

I did not say it was correct. I said that the account that it was put to me is correct. It was put to me, and I considered it an extraordinary allegation—I still consider it an extraordinary allegation. [Interruption.] To be absolutely clear, I said it was correct that the allegation was put to me. I did not in any way seek to confirm the truth of it. What I would say is that we need to proceed with great caution, because it is essential that we continue to uphold and support the impartiality of the civil service.

Government’s EU Exit Analysis

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to wind up this debate. It is one of a series that reflect the historic period this is for our country. In the decisions we are making, we are shaping the future of this country for generations to come. Nobody in this House should underestimate that responsibility. It is unfortunate that today’s debate appears to have been largely boycotted by both the mainstream Conservative party and, unusually, by the ideologues of the European Research Group, with the exception of its two former chairs, who were careful to flank the Minister in his opening remarks.

I guess that we had much of the real debate yesterday, in response to the urgent question tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), so I want to make reference to some of those comments, too. There have been moments during the past couple of days when the debate has risen to meet the responsibility that we have to the country, but too often it has fallen short. Accusing Members of being saboteurs or mutineers, or of thwarting the will of the British people, for wanting information released is as unhelpful as it is dishonest; this is a little ironic coming from people who have spent much of the past 43 years seeking to overturn the will of the British people as expressed even more strongly in 1975. Releasing information is not about whether we leave the EU, as the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) argued yesterday—that was settled when this House voted to trigger article 50. The debate now is about how we leave, and clearly a small minority in this House are so dogmatic in their hostility to the EU that they would crash out at any cost. But they are, as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) pointed out, a very small minority. So it falls to the majority of us in this House to ensure that that does not happen, and being provided with the information that we need to inform our decisions is crucial.

The Opposition are therefore pleased that the Government have recognised that that majority would have found its voice this afternoon and supported our motion, and they have therefore pre-empted this by accepting the proposal we have put before the House. However, let me seek reassurance on the nature of the release of those papers. The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), set out terms along the lines of those set out on the last occasion—this very much has a sense of déjà vu—but he will know that those documents were rewritten before they were released. So I hope that the Minister who concludes this debate will confirm that the papers to which this motion refers will be released in full and unamended. That should not be a problem because they are already in the public arena.

The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester, in opening the debate, described the papers as “work in progress”. In order that we do not have to keep repeating this farce, will Ministers commit to releasing the final versions of the papers following the discussions with members of the Cabinet, which, apparently, they were prepared for? Will they also commit to releasing future analyses as they are completed, so that this Parliament can fulfil our responsibility to make informed decisions?

In yesterday’s discussion, it was said that we would weaken our negotiating hand by sharing assessments and that the EU27 would never do such a foolish thing. Oddly, the EU does not seem to see it that way: the European Parliament has published dozens of impact assessments, on a range of sectors and areas; and a number of departments of the Commission have made their Brexit readiness documents available. With a quick search, I was able to find on the internet the Swedish Government’s assessment of the impact on borders and trade, the Danish Government’s report on the fishing industry, the German Economic Ministry’s assessment of the impact of a hard Brexit on German GDP and the Irish Finance Minister’s “Getting Ireland Brexit Ready” document. The transparency that other Parliaments and other Governments are giving to their people should therefore be replicated by our Government.

Without wanting to add to the discomfort of the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester, at the praise heaped on him by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe, I want to welcome the different approach taken today by him in his opening remarks. It marked a sharp contrast with that adopted by the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe yesterday. Denouncing the work of his own civil servants is both unacceptable and dangerous. Does he suggest that the Government should adopt the same approach to all economic assessments? Should we disregard the work of the Department for Transport on infrastructure investment or the modelling done by the Department for Work and Pensions? Should we just reject any economic analysis that suggests there may be post-Brexit options that might not offer the sunny uplands that he promised in a previous life? I have to say that, yesterday, it sometimes looked as if he was not certain whether he was speaking for the Government, or from where his heart is as a former chair of the European Research Group.

The hon. Member for Worcester said today that the end relationship that the Government want has not been modelled. Clearly, that needs to be done, but there is a crucial first step: they need to say where they want to be. As a former DExEU Minister said in another place yesterday,

“there are still no clear answers to those basic, critical questions. All we hear day after day are conflicting, confusing voices.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 1423.]

That option needs to be realistic and honest. In today’s debate and yesterday, there was lots of talk about respecting the British people, and that is absolutely right, but it is about more than respecting the outcome of the referendum. We fulfilled that responsibility by triggering article 50. It is about being honest with the British people about the journey on which we have now embarked, consequent to triggering article 50. It is about setting out the options—realistic options—and sharing the consequences of the different choices available. And there are different choices. There is no evidence that the British people want the extreme Brexit favoured by the European Research Group, and quite a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Those who campaigned so hard for a referendum on our membership of the European Union said that we should trust the people. Now, they should trust them with the information on the consequences of the options before us. They also argued for the importance of parliamentary sovereignty. Now, they should accept that too. The British people have a right to know, and we as their representatives have a duty to know. As the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), said yesterday:

“It’s time for evidence, not dogma, to show the way. We must act for our country’s best interests, not ideology & populism, or history will judge us harshly. Our country deserves no less”.

He is right. The Government need to respond to our motion today not just by accepting it, but by honouring it in full.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

As we have said many times, we conduct a wide range of analysis to support our negotiating position as we proceed through this process.

To reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), I reassure him that we will comply scrupulously with the motion, working with the Chair of the Select Committee. We will ensure that we comply with the confidentiality requirements of the motion and that the House is satisfied. He asked me about future analysis and the reassurance that I gave yesterday stands. We will ensure that, at the time of the meaningful vote, the House is appropriately equipped with the analysis that it needs to make a decision.

[Paul Blomfield]

I just want to be absolutely clear: the papers that we are talking about today are a work in progress and, in discussion with the Chair of the Select Committee, they will be released in full. And given that they are a work in progress and the suggestion is that we should therefore be looking to the final documents as the crucial guidance to this House, will they be released when they are completed?

[Mr Baker]

I heard what the hon. Gentleman said the first time, but the commitments that we are giving are that we will comply scrupulously with this motion and that we will make available to both Houses analysis at the time of the meaningful vote. That is the commitment into which we are entering, but I have heard his request for a continuous evolving analysis. What we have said is that we will not give a continuous rolling commentary on our analysis. We will proceed to ensure that the national interest is protected. We made a commitment to provide Parliament with the appropriate analysis it needs to make a decision on the final deal at the time that we vote, in the way that is set out in the written ministerial statement that we laid.

The Secretary of State has been consistent in stressing the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the Brexit process. We have done this willingly to ensure that the parliamentary process is followed. I endorse the actions that we have taken, as I accept collective responsibility regarding the point that was raised earlier.

Finally, as I reiterated yesterday, the people of this country on 23 June 2016 took the decision to leave the European Union. The purpose of the analysis that we have conducted is not to question that decision—which this House voted to respect when it supported triggering article 50—but to ensure that we have the best possible outcome for the British people. We are accepting this motion today on the exceptional basis of the poor reporting of a leak.

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

That is simply not the case. As I have not hesitated to say several times, the economic analysis does not show the country being worse off; it shows the country being better off under all circumstances. It shows GDP growing—

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Nonsense!

[Mr Baker]

The shadow Minister says it is nonsense, but I can assure him that it is not. The economic analysis shows GDP increasing in all circumstances. The point of the Government’s policy must be to carry through faithfully the decision of the British people and to do so in a way that proves these doom-mongers and naysayers wrong.