EU Exit Negotiations

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

The basis of the limitation at the moment is the duty of sincere co-operation. That arises from membership of the European Union, and we will not be a member. I would, however, give my hon. Friend one word of caution. In the event that we have an open customs border for the duration—if there is some sort of short-term customs agreement—there will be limitations on what can be done, so the entry into force of such an agreement is unlikely unless it is parallel to the ones between, let us say, Japan and the European Union or South Korea and the European Union. There will be limitations, but he has made the point: we should be able to negotiate during that time.

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

The Foreign Secretary has publicly proclaimed that the EU can “whistle” for a divorce payment and the Secretary of State for International Trade has accused the EU of blackmailing the UK. How helpful has the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union found those comments in underlining the UK’s commitment to a “flexible and imaginative” approach, which he claims to be the basis of our approach?

[Mr Davis]

That just goes to show how lucky it is that I am such an amiable person.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

I will make some progress. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) pointed out, the only real way to reduce numbers substantially is to crash the economy; that may be the effect of the Government’s negotiations, but assuming that that is not their plan, they need to come clean to the British people. As the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) argued last week, and as the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) argued over the weekend, they need to come clean about this red line. What is their plan? If taking control of immigration defines this Government’s approach to Brexit, the Minister needs to make the Government’s intentions clear in his closing remarks.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that UK trade delegations to China and India have made it clear that any trade deal with those countries will almost certainly involve a relaxation of the visa regime, so all we are doing is displacing migration, not cutting it?

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think the Prime Minister was quite shocked to discover, when she went to India seeking a trade deal, that one of the first things that the Indian Government wanted to put on the table was access to our labour markets and for students. My hon. Friend was right to cite other countries, but he missed Australia off his list. Australia is much heralded as a future trading partner, but it also wants to make the movement of people part of any settlement.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

Of course there is a dispute resolution procedure when we enter a free trade agreement or any other trade arrangement. There is a very clear one in the WTO. We will register the best deal we can get with the EU under our WTO membership and it will be governed by normal WTO resolution procedures, with which we have no problem. The problem with the ECJ is that it presumes to strike down the wishes of the British people and good statute law made by this House of Commons on a wide range of issues, which means that we are no longer sovereign all the time we are in it.

[Mr Bailey]

The right hon. Gentleman argues that our membership of the EU inhibits our ability to trade with the expanding economies of the rest of the world. If so, will he explain why Germany exports nearly four times as much as we do to China and exceeds our exports to both India and Brazil, the other fast-growing economies, and why France also exports more to China and Brazil than we do? What is it that they do in the EU that we will do when we come out?

[John Redwood]

It is quite obvious that Germany will export more at the early stages of development in an emerging market economy, because it tends to export capital equipment of the kind that is needed to industrialise, which is what China bought in the last decade. Now that China is a much richer country, she is going to have a massive expansion of services and that is where we have a strong relative advantage, in that if we have the right kind of arrangement with China we will accelerate the growth of our exports, which China will now want, more rapidly. The hon. Gentleman must understand that the EU imposes massive and, I think, dangerous barriers against the emerging market world for their agricultural produce. The kind of deals we can offer to an emerging market country, saying that we will buy their much cheaper food by taking the tariff barriers off their food products in return for much better access to their service and industrial goods markets where we have products that they might like to buy—[Interruption.] I hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) express a worry about British farmers, and British farmers, would, of course, have a subsidy regime based on environmental factors, in the main, which we would want to continue.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st February 2017 Commons Chamber

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

When I campaigned as one of a fairly beleaguered minority in the Labour party in the 1970s to join the EU, little did I think that many years hence I would be standing up today to vote in favour of triggering the negotiations for our exit, but I am. It is against all my historical instincts and my preference for an international way of delivering our business, and it is also against the economic logic that says that a large and uniformly regulated home market is a prerequisite for a fast-growing economy and the benefits that accrue from it.

I am going to vote this way for three reasons. The first is the democratic argument that has been articulated by many. There is a lack of faith in Parliament and our democratic institutions, and for Parliament and politicians to win an election on a promise of a referendum, to hold that referendum, and then to not implement the result of that referendum would have profound implications in terms of faith in our democratic system.

I also believe that, given the complexities and difficulties of the negotiations we are going to be confronted with, the public will expect this Parliament to do its very best to implement the will that they have expressed. I do not want conspiracists to be able to blame the very real problems that will arise from the negotiations on the reluctance of Parliament, rather than the difficult issues that will be confronting us.

I will also vote this way because it is in the interests of business. A decision has been made, and my discussions with businesses run along the lines of, “We’d prefer to remain in, but we recognise we are coming out, and what we want is certainty about our future trading relationships.” That will depend on investment decisions and recruitment decisions, and until we start to negotiate and try to shape the future that our business is going to be confronted with, that uncertainty will continue, and it will severely affect our economy.

I want to make it clear that in voting to trigger article 50, I am not committing myself to accepting the final outcome. I will work with others to ensure that we shape the negotiations in a way that will be beneficial, and I reserve the right to vote against the subsequent outcome if I do not feel that that has been achieved.

Leaving the EU

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Peter Grant]

On a point of order, Mr Bailey. I do not think I have ever raised a point of order since becoming a Member of Parliament. Is it in order for us to comment on the merits of a case that is sub judice before the Supreme Court? Should we not wait for the Supreme Court to decide before we comment on whether or not article 50 needs parliamentary approval?

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

I do not really feel legally qualified to give a ruling on that, so I will permit the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) to continue with his contribution.

[Gordon Henderson]

Thank you, Mr Bailey. My comments were in no way designed to influence whatever the Supreme Court decides, but it is fairly common knowledge that it will give its ruling. My views are irrelevant to it.

The people I was talking about dress up their subversion with weasel words that would do credit to a used car salesman. They claim not to oppose UK exit, but their actions belie those words. I have no respect for those who say they want to abide by the referendum result but are desperately trying to find ways to somehow delay triggering article 50, in the hope that a way can be found to have a second referendum or a general election. As it happens, I think they are clutching at straws if they believe that voters would change their minds. In my view, if there was another referendum, the result would be an even more resounding vote to leave, because the “Project Fear” fox has been well and truly shot. In addition to realising that they were lied to by some remainers, the voting public do not like cheats and whingers, as those with a long political memory will know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Henderson]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s intervention, and I have a very easy answer for her. My experience in business is that shareholders elect a board of directors. The board of directors then employs people to manage the business, including negotiators, and does not expect to be kept informed of what is going to happen. If a negotiator messes up on a deal, they get the bullet. It is exactly the same thing here: if the Government mess up on this deal, they will not get re-elected at the 2020 election. That is the deal.

One thing I learned as a contracts officer was never to enter into any negotiation without a line beyond which I was not prepared to go, and to be prepared to walk away rather than cross that line. The Prime Minister said yesterday that in her view, no deal is better than a bad deal. I hope our negotiators remember her words and are prepared to walk away rather than accept a bad deal.

We often hear remainers talking about hard Brexit and soft Brexit. No one has explained to me exactly what those terms mean. I am assuming that by “soft exit” the remainers mean we should remain in a single market, even if that means we have to accept the free movement of labour in exchange. I also assume that they are happy for us to continue paying the EU billions of pounds a year for the privilege of having full access to the single market and accepting all the obligations that come with being a full member. If that is the case, soft exit means no exit and they should be honest enough to admit it. As for me, exit means exit. Full stop.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, I want to inform hon. Members that I have sought legal opinion on the point of order raised by Peter Grant. The situation is that even if the House sub judice resolution did apply to the case before the Supreme Court, I judge that the risk of any prejudice from this debate be so small that I would waive the sub judice resolution. Members should, of course, refer respectfully to the judges involved in the case.

Two Back Benchers have indicated that they wish to contribute to the debate. Ordinarily, the Front-Bench spokesperson would have five minutes and the Minister would have 10 minutes. If the Back Benchers are so generous as to give a little more time to the Front-Bench spokesperson, I will enable them to have more time.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on what is a hugely important issue—the issue of our generation.

It is fair to say that, as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) said, we should put the various political platitudes and soundbites of hard Brexit, soft Brexit and red, white and blue Brexit to one side and realise they are pretty meaningless to voters and the people who elected us. We must stop patronising the people of the UK and letting this Tory Government off the hook by trivialising or minimising this complex issue to pitiful political platitudes. It is hugely important to have debates such as this as we go through the process and to remind ourselves that exiting the EU will be hugely complex and time-consuming; in fact, to quote the now Chancellor of the Exchequer, it could take

“longer than the Second World War.”

That is why it still seems to me—and, I am sure, to many people across these islands of the UK—incredible that ahead of the EU referendum vote the Tory Government had no plans and nothing written down about the options and plans.

For a number of years before coming to Parliament, like the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, I worked in the oil and gas sector, particularly in areas of business change. Like any business, when we embarked on large-scale change we drew up a road map of where we wanted to go. We started with where we were, what we wanted to do and how we would do it. Along with that were extensive details of what departments of the business would be affected, who might lose their jobs and how we could mitigate and protect any threats to our business. I can almost see the coloured Post-it notes and the mind maps.

I am pretty certain that every business person, organisation and individual across the UK looked at the proceedings and the details that came out in the press in the run-up to the Brexit vote—or, it would be fair to say, lack of detail—and assumed that at the very least the Tory Government had a basic analysis of the impact of exiting the EU and what the processes would be. However, it seems that the nation was mistaken. The press reported:

“Civil servants will be secretly working on ‘Brexit’ plans but not writing them down”.

Can anyone imagine a CEO going to the board of a company and saying, “Don’t worry. Our company won’t fail. I have been doing lots of thinking and it’s all in my head. Success means success, it will be red, white and blue and you can all now vote on whether you are with me or against me”? They would be laughed out of the boardroom.

Even the First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, thought the former Prime Minister was pulling her leg when he said that he did not have a plan for the UK if it should vote to leave the EU. However, he was not kidding, and we now know what happens to Prime Ministers who do not have a plan.

By contrast, when we held a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, we did have a plan. We consulted people the length and breadth of the country. We even wrote things down. We may not have had all the answers, but we engaged and prepared, and presented a pretty extensive White Paper that people could read, digest and consider before they were taken to the polls on such an important issue. We felt that we had set the gold standard for referendums. When the then Prime Minister bumbled into Brexit without any proper forethought, he put the economy of the United Kingdom, people’s livelihoods and our international reputation on the line. I hope that as the Government enter into the process of exit from the EU they will reflect long and hard on how badly they have failed the people of the UK with respect to a proper planning process.

There are questions that are important to people and businesses across the nations of the UK, about the working of the process but also about what it means for their lives and livelihoods. We so often get caught up in technical jargon and doublespeak. Brexit has been the ultimate case in point. People and businesses need to be able to plan for the future, and the Tory Government need to be open and transparent about what they are doing and how they are doing it, and to ensure that, as they promised, they will consult all the nations of the United Kingdom.

To use my own constituency as an example, Livingston was a new town, built in the 1950s and designated in 1962. It attracted significant EU structural funding. I have heard from people in my constituency who came from other parts of Europe to set up homes and businesses in Livingston, where business relies particularly on workers from the EU. The town is Scotland’s third major retail hub, with the McArthurGlen outlet drawing in thousands of shoppers every week. The retail sector employs no fewer than 2 million workers in the UK, many of them in my constituency; and many of them are worried about their status.

My constituents and local businesses are not the only ones with concerns. The report published by the Exiting the European Union Committee earlier this month, entitled “The process for exiting the European Union and the Government’s negotiating objectives”, warns of an urgent need to

“provide certainty and reassurance to the individuals, their families and the businesses and services that rely on them.”

JP Morgan commented yesterday, after the Prime Minister’s Brexit speech, that not to have clear details, particularly for trade, was “very dangerous”.

The Prime Minister said yesterday:

“Brexit must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe.”

In Scotland, EU membership supports more than 300,000 jobs directly and indirectly. The Fraser of Allander Institute has predicted that Scotland could lose up to 80,000 jobs.

I know from the cases that come through my constituency office that the Home Office has rules and new regulations coming out of its ears; they change every week. It is so disorganised that there are no proper, efficient systems for dealing with immigration. As the UK sets out the process for exit from the EU, I want to ask the Minister specifically, will the Government review the current processes? It is apparent that those processes are not working and therefore, instead of looking to review and improve them, they are going to close the door and not let in anyone else from the EU. The Minister shakes his head, but the fact is that people do not know what their status is going to be.

Just before we returned from the recess, both the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses expressed serious concern about the lack of clarity as to EU workers, their status, and the impact on business. As we look forward, it is essential that the Prime Minister should stick to the commitment that she gave today in Prime Minister’s questions to work with the devolved nations. She made specific reference to the Scotland plan and gave a commitment to working with the Scottish Government on the way forward. That is welcome news but the process is complex and Scotland’s position and the result of the EU vote in Scotland must be respected.

The Scottish National party strongly believes that the best way to build a more prosperous and equal Scotland is to be a full member of the EU, and certainly advocates staying within the single market, even if the rest of the UK leaves. According to the UK Government’s own analysis, leaving the single market could lower Scotland’s GDP by more than £10 billion. Furthermore, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggests that Scotland’s exports could be cut by more than £5 billion if we lose access to the single market. The EU is the main destination for Scottish exports; it receives 42% of Scotland’s international exports. As the negotiations take place, it is vital that there is a more transparent process than we have seen today and that there is greater detail.

Triggering article 50 will directly affect devolved interests and rights in Scotland. The UK’s current constitutional arrangements are underpinned by membership of the EU. Leaving the EU therefore requires reconsideration of the devolution settlement. Critically, the Exiting the European Union Committee report commented on the work that the Government still need to do before triggering article 50. It stated that

“it is essential that all the devolved governments, and the different regions of England, are duly involved in the process and have their views taken into account.”

Separately, there is a need to devolve more powers to Scotland, in order to safeguard current EU rights and social protections in areas such as employment and to allow the Scottish Parliament to protect Scotland’s wider interests, including any differential relationship with Europe.

The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union told me directly in the Chamber yesterday that he wanted to ensure that there was no detriment to workers in Scotland from other parts of the EU. Yet the Tory Government have pursued pernicious and damaging policies such as those set out in the Trade Union Act 2016. Many of us wonder what they will do when the powers are transferred from Europe.

Of course any proposal to remove Scotland from the EU will need legislation from Westminster, but the First Minister of Scotland has made it crystal clear that any such legislation would require the consent of the Scottish Parliament. The people of Scotland voted, by a majority, to remain in the EU. As we go through the process of exiting the EU, the UK Government must take account of what the people of Scotland voted for. They must not take us off a cliff edge into a hard Tory Brexit. They must do everything they can to accept the will of the people of the devolved nations by considering the plans that have been put forward.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespersons by 5.10 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his great persuasive powers in achieving that result. I delicately remind him that I did not say 62% in my constituency; I said 62% in my country. There is an important difference.

The final comment that I will make in relation to the hon. Gentleman is that I share his distaste and despair at the tone of some of the debate before, during and after the referendum, and I certainly completely distance myself from the description that he referred to, which was used against all of the 17 million people who voted to leave the EU. I respect the right of people to take their own decisions. I may sometimes be horrified, dismayed, appalled or disappointed by the decisions that they take, but I will respect the decision that the people of England have taken and I also respect the decision that the people of Wales have taken. I ask Members to respect the views that have been expressed by the people of Scotland.

However, I gently have to remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not the first time in the last few years that opponents of change have told packs of lies to the population during a referendum, and I also have to say that I do not remember him protesting as loudly the last time it happened, which was in Scotland.

The debate is about the process for leaving the European Union, but it would be foolish to try to talk about the process without talking about where we want to be at the end of it, because knowing where we want to be can have a huge impact on the process that we choose to follow, and the way that we implement the process can significantly affect our chances of getting the results that we want.

What are the objectives and how have they been arrived at? Well, we have got some clarity on the first question, but not a great deal of clarity on the second. We now know something about the objectives. We now know that the Prime Minister’s objective is not to have free movement of people, but we do not know exactly what she wants instead. We now know that the Prime Minister does not want to be part of the single market; we just do not know what she wants to be part of instead. And we now know—well, we knew already—that when we negotiate this avalanche of new trade deals with everybody and their dog, who, according to the Foreign Secretary, are queuing to do deals with this wee pocket of land in the north Atlantic, those deals will not be subject to adjudication by the Court of Justice of the European Union; we just do not know whose jurisdiction they will come under. In other words, we know a great deal about what the Prime Minister does not want, but we are not an awful lot further forward in knowing what she does want.

Shortly after the referendum, the Liberal Democrats—yes, they do sometimes have their uses—came up with the phrase that the referendum result told us that people wanted to leave but we did not really have any idea about where they wanted to go, and I am not convinced that things have changed very much since then.

We cannot even get reliable and consistent answers from the Government about how they will decide on their objectives. Yesterday, in answer to my question about the Scottish Government’s paper, “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union told the House:

“I gave him”—

That is, Mike Russell MSP—

“an undertaking that we would debate that paper at the next JMC (EN), as it is known in Whitehall jargon, and that is what we will do. I have been very careful not to comment publicly on it”.—[Official Report, 17 January 2017; Vol. 619, c. 798.]

He was referring to the Scottish Government’s paper—

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Matthew Pennycook.

The Government's Plan for Brexit

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I support the motion and, after some consideration, the Government amendment. I am prepared to support the Government amendment because it refers to the motion agreed on 12 October, which called on the Prime Minister

“to ensure that this House is able properly to scrutinise that plan for leaving the EU before Article 50 is invoked”.

I make it clear that, while accepting 31 March 2017 as the deadline for invoking article 50, my support for that action is contingent on being satisfied that the first part of the provision has been satisfactorily implemented. I will reserve my view until that date and until such time as I have had the opportunity to make a judgment. I assume that proper scrutiny and debate imply an attempt to get some sort of consensus and the capacity of the Opposition to make amendments, along with a genuine attempt to arrive at a position that commands the full support of Members on both sides of the House. I stress to the Government that their position when negotiating with the EU will be improved immeasurably if they can secure that degree of unity.

Another reason for supporting the amendment is that we must end uncertainty. It locks the Government into an obligation to put plans before the House by early January that will at least begin to address some of the issues that we are being asked about on the doorstep and that, to date, have not been dealt with by the Government. Genuine questions about our future—key issues that affect local industries, the aspirations of local people, jobs, civil liberties and so on—have been met hitherto by “Brexit means Brexit” and other vacuous phrases that do not address people’s genuine concerns, such as

“red, white and blue Brexit”

or, if the Chancellor has his way, grey Brexit.

To continue the colour metaphor, I see this as forcing the Government to nail their colours to the mast and to start to bring before the House some genuine proposals in response to the genuine questions that are being asked—questions such as those that local businessmen ask me: “Will we be part of a single market?” They need to know before investing: “Will we be able to recruit labour in order to meet the additional demand incurred by being in the single market?” Still no answer from the Government. We need an answer. Until this is done, I will not give that support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and of course one benefit of leaving the European Union is that not only will we be able to adhere to stringent environmental requirements, but we will be able to design those so as best to suit the needs of this country and the agricultural industry.

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

Both Nissan and Jaguar Land Rover have made it clear that access to the single market is crucial to their future investment decisions in this country. What discussions has the Minister had with those companies to give them reassurance that access to the single market is the Government’s highest priority?

[Mr David Davis]

More important than me, the Prime Minister had a meeting with Nissan only this week, and the communiqué that came out after it was extremely positive on both sides.

Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I am a passionate pro-European, and I campaigned very hard for the remain cause. In common with the constituencies of my fellow black country representatives, my constituency voted by something like two to one to leave. I would ignore that result at my peril, and I would not disrespect it anyway. However, I represent a constituency that has more foundries in it than any other in the United Kingdom. They are closely integrated into the automotive and civil aviation supply chain, which not only depends on the single market to sell its products but is part of a highly integrated process that also depends on being part of a single market. The dilemma that I face—which is reflected to a certain extent in the challenge facing the Government—is how to reconcile the genuine fears of the public with the needs of those who are working in those industries and are dependent on their success, which is in turn dependent on the single market.

In debates about Europe during previous Governments, the previous Prime Minister might have been keen to criticise the EU for domestic political reasons, but he was adamant that remaining part of the single market was very important for the future of this country. During the referendum campaign, an argument was peddled by the leavers that Britain was so important to the EU’s trading relations that the EU would not dare to insist that we leave the single market. I have some private sympathy with that argument. Once we got past the initial shock and the immediate adverse economic reaction to our leaving the EU, business and the economy recovered almost instinctively, because the mood music suggested that that would indeed be the situation.

As the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) explained, the situation unfortunately changed as a result of comments by Ministers at the Tory party conference. Having said in September that they were not going to spell out their negotiating position in the Chamber, they appeared to take very hard public positions at conference on their negotiating stance with the EU. That completely changed the balance of the public’s and business’s perception of what the Government’s approach was going to be. It came across that the priority was immigration, immigration, immigration, not the single market.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Bailey]

No, I am not taking interventions.

The reaction of business, higher education and the markets since then has potentially caused us huge problems. That underlines the need for the Secretary of State for Brexit to reverse his position and come to this House to spell out priorities that emphasise our commitment, as a Chamber, to being part of the single market. Without that, we might go into the negotiations with our negotiating parties thinking we have no such commitment.

Next Steps in Leaving the European Union

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I would simply add one other word. They would be not mad or bad, but simply unwise.

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

The tone and content of the Home Secretary’s speech to the Tory party conference were profoundly hostile to the recruitment of international students, who are estimated to be worth £40 billion to the economy and represent a valuable growth market. Will the Secretary of State explain whether he backs the Home Secretary, and will he give assurances that in the Brexit negotiation on EU students, he will do nothing to damage their access, our world-class higher education system or the wider economy?

[Mr Davis]

Yet again, the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. We have already instructed the Student Loans Company to underpin loans for foreign students to 2016-17. That is an action designed to help students to get here, not the opposite.

EU Exit: Devolved Governments

Adrian Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Order. I should make it clear that I intend the Front-Bench contributions from the SNP, Labour and the Government to start at 2.30 pm. I will give the Front Benchers 10 minutes each, and I would be grateful if they were flexible, so that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has time to sum up briefly at the end. It would be helpful if speakers confined their remarks to a maximum of eight or nine minutes; otherwise, I shall start getting rather agitated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on securing the debate; it is a real pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) in his place. It is 33 years since I was secretary to the Back-Bench energy committee when his father was Energy Secretary—that was my first official position here—and it is a great pleasure for many of us that my hon. Friend is in his place.

I make no secret of the fact that I am a reluctant Brexiteer. I am not even sure whether I can acually be classed as that. I campaigned to remain in the EU and I am very disappointed with the result, but like all of us here, I am a democrat and—to use those wonderful words—we are where we are. As we have heard today, the referendum result is clouded, because it has raised so many more questions than have been settled. I am also here because I am British—mother from Dundee, father from Fife; I am classic British.

Although some of the questions that hon. Members have raised will be settled in relation to their own territories, how they are settled does concern Westminster. Over the years, I have been as much a plumber here, interested in the mechanics of how things work and how questions are settled, as I have been concerned with the results themselves. There are some questions that will not be for us to settle, but ensuring that in this process Westminster speaks clearly, effectively and fairly with the devolved Administrations will be really important. The bulk of my remarks relate as much as anything else to that process and how we get it right.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South focused rightly on the key issue in relation to Scotland—its vote to remain in the EU and how that is to be taken into account—but the exchange between him and the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) makes it clear that the Minister will have to give us some idea over time of how the conundrum of the Scottish position, with the issues that have been raised in relation to independence, will be taken into account by Westminster in the negotiations.

There are clearly regional distinctions in how matters affect different parts of the UK. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) spoke about the issues affecting Wales, including agriculture and the balance of exports. Scotland has its own sectoral interests, which are powerfully important. Will that in any way dictate the order in which the United Kingdom tries to deal with trade negotiations, for example? Some countries are more important to some parts of the UK than others. Will there be an order of preference for trade negotiations? We already know that we have a shortage of negotiators. As we start to get more, will all the countries that we are seeking trade deals with be dealt with at the same time and under the same conditions, or will some be seen as more important than others because of their importance to different parts of the UK? If so, precisely how will that be handled?

It would seem that there was no comprehensive planning for how to deal with that by either those who advocated a leave vote or the Government. Is that true? Was there more planning than we were made aware of? There has been no manifesto setting out quite what model we are after and what model will suit not just England but the different devolved Administrations. Will it be the Norwegian model, or will it be the more bilateral Swiss model? Will the World Trade Organisation model benefit certain parts of the UK? If so, how will we all handle that?

As the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber and I think also the hon. Member for Edinburgh South mentioned, immigration is seen differently in Scotland from in England because of the numbers and the ways in which people have moved. Again, if we are to negotiate in relation to trade deals, and trade deals vis-à-vis free movement, will that be handled differently in relation to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales than it will be in England? If so, what is the mechanism for doing that?

What about the repeal of some legislation on the back of our EU negotiations? It was said during the course of the debates on leaving that some social legislation, perhaps affecting health and safety, and workers regulations would come into the negotiations. Really? Surely Parliament has a say on that. Can negotiations on that be conducted before Parliament has had a voice or even a vote on those matters, or are they to be conducted and then brought to Parliament for some sort of endorsement? If so, what happens if Parliament, which at the last count was weighted rather against leaving, does not feel that that base of negotiation is actually in the best interests of all the British people? How is the process to be managed?

I will not dwell on that because time is short, but there are other sectoral issues to consider, such as manufacturing, which affects all of us. One of the phrases most commonly picked out during the debate was from Patrick Minford, who said, in effect, that the consequence of leaving would be that manufacturing would be all but eliminated,

“But this shouldn’t scare us”.

I suspect some people might well be scared of that. How is that to be taken into account in the negotiations?

The key for me is that all the options require detailed parliamentary scrutiny, certainly from a Select Committee, and possibly a measure of parliamentary action in terms of votes and legislation. Do we have any commonality among ourselves about how that will be taken forward and what the process will be? We need to start there.

I spent some years in the Minister’s position, so I will not say “Can the Minister answer this?” and “Can the Minister answer that?” because he cannot answer all the questions asked in the debate at present. However, the debate has been a very valuable first step, and I hope it is helpful to know that even though some of us are not physically located in the devolved Administration areas, we care very much about how the process is handled by Westminster as a whole. We are just as interested in the outcomes, and I want to ensure that the Westminster mechanism fairly and effectively covers all the ground that needs to be covered. I am sure the Minister has that in mind. If he cares to venture any answers to some of the questions I have raised, I will be pleased, but I suspect that some of the answers will come out over time.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

I would not normally allow a person who was not here at the beginning to participate in the debate, but as Mr Fitzpatrick did submit an application to speak and I know he was participating in a debate in the Chamber, I will give him a maximum of five minutes to contribute. I want to give as much time as I can to the Front-Bench spokespersons.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I hope I can stay inside that time and leave a few minutes for the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), who is also standing. I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution on behalf of London. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and I welcome the Minister to his new position. I wish him well.

Mayor Sadiq Khan is aiming to reach broad agreement for further devolution of London government in the aftermath of the EU referendum result. He wants to secure for City Hall and the boroughs significantly more control over the taxes raised in the capital and how public services are run. He wants to protect Londoners from the economic fallout of leaving the EU by creating more autonomy for London government. He says:

“This is essential to protecting Londoners’ jobs, wealth and prosperity.”

He believes that greater devolution for the capital will benefit not only London but the whole country.

Councillor Claire Kober, the chair of London Councils, said:

“We are united with the Mayor in calling for the greater devolution of powers from Whitehall.”

The Mayor says:

“I’m not asking for London to get a bigger slice of the British pie. That wouldn’t be fair. All I’m asking is that we get more control over the slice of the pie”,

referring to that which London produces.

The Mayor has made five demands of the Government. He calls on the Home Secretary to guarantee that EU citizens already in the UK can stay once Britain leaves. He asks for a commitment to make staying in the single market and the retention of passporting rights a top priority during talks with Brussels. He wants London to have a seat at the negotiating table. He asks for guarantees that key security and policing systems built up with European partners over many years are retained to help keep London and Britain safe, and he calls for discussions on more powers to London to start straightaway.

I recognise that many will have perceived this debate as being about Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, but London has very important, specific issues that need to be addressed. I am grateful for the opportunity to put the Mayor’s comments on the record, and I look forward to hearing the responses from the Front Benchers.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Stewart McDonald, I will give you three minutes.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I am very grateful to you, Mr Bailey. May I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on securing the debate, welcome the Minister and say what a pleasure it is to follow a fellow south-sider from Glasgow? I think it was Winston Churchill who said:

“The trouble with committing political suicide is that you live to regret it.”

It feels as though we are living through a long political suicide at the moment.

The Brexit masochists have utterly ruined politics and turned it on its head. I will not allow my country—nor will my colleagues who join me on these Benches—to bear the brunt of that, because on the back of a Brexit result that Scotland did not vote for, the behaviour and response of the political establishment here in London has been shambolic. The Government and Opposition parties have decided to turn in on themselves and go on a back-stabbing regime that even Shakespeare would have thought had gone too far.

People not just in Scotland but in all parts of the UK—not least here in London—have looked on aghast at the abdication of responsibility, largely of people such as the new Foreign Secretary. They toured around the country on a big red bus, telling us to vote leave and take control, but when it came to it they could not get away from taking control far enough. And my goodness, what a sense of humour the new Prime Minister has in appointing who she has appointed to certain offices of state, such as our new Environment Secretary—now she will have to go and tell the farmers why Brexit was such a good idea. I would love to be a fly on the wall for that.

When I was first elected to this House, I made my maiden speech on the European Union Referendum Bill. I made the point back then that Tory Members had on glasses that were so rose-tinted that they could not see the problem they were walking into, so nobody can say they were not told that, in trying to kill one union, they may end up killing two, because all options are on the table.

I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) said. If it comes to a second independence referendum, that will have to be fought on different grounds and in a different way. We will have to give serious consideration to where we went wrong last time round, and I accept that we got some things wrong last time round. We failed to convince a majority of people to vote for independence. It was not the BBC or the Daily Record that managed to sneak in that result; we failed to convince enough people. But my goodness the mood has changed now, because my hon. Friend was also right that the UK that people voted for no longer exists.

I want to finish with an appeal to the Minister and to Members from other parts of the UK. Please try to understand the political mood in Scotland. That involves not just listening to what we in the Scottish National party have to say or what the hon. Member for Edinburgh South has to say. Try to engage with people in Scotland, because the farce that is Westminster politics is looking less and less appealing.

The farce that is Westminster politics is something that fewer people are willing to put up with, because as this place makes our country smaller and makes us look in on ourselves more, people will demand to do what was on the side of that big red bus, and that was to vote leave and take back control—to re-establish ourselves as a contributing European nation. We are in uncharted and potentially even dangerous waters, but nobody can say they were not told at the time. I hope the Minister can give us some assurance—

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West]

I am an immigrant myself, and there is a slight sense that people are not welcome. Indeed, we have seen an increase in violent abuse against people from abroad. All Members of this House certainly would want to stamp that out; I think we are united on that point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) made some excellent points about agriculture and fisheries. It is very important for Welsh farmers to be right at the front of these negotiations. I am sure that she, through her offices, will be making the point again and again about the importance of the tariff situation being clarified as soon as possible for basic products such as fish, beef, lamb and other exports. We know what a fragile situation many farming communities find themselves in. It is crucial that we in this House put their case again and again, because a lot of false arguments were made in the debate on the referendum. Farmers were told they were going to get part of the £350 million a week, as were the NHS and a number of other priority areas. We all know that money cannot be spent twice. We seek urgent clarification on agriculture, which is such a precious sector and yet is constantly being eroded and corroded. I look forward to the Minister clarifying his position on that.

I was also pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli speaking in support of universities in Wales. We know what a crucial area of the economy education is as an export for Wales. There is a question mark over the position of EU nationals throughout Wales, be they teachers, students or in the workforce, where security is desperately needed. There is a delicate balance needed between the workforce not only in slaughterhouses and in fruit picking, but in more skilled occupations—for example, for nurses and doctors in the national health service. In some areas, up to 50% of the workforce are EU nationals—the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) could probably tell me the exact figure. We have a very high number of EU workers across the UK, and their position needs clarification.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli mentioned steel investors. We want to know exactly how the UK will replace the high-level negotiations that the EU undertakes on behalf of its members on steel. We would not want any sense of uncertainty to give an excuse to potential investors not to invest in our steel industry in Wales and other regions.

I know you want us to be brief, Mr Bailey, so I will be. The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire made a number of important points and was super understanding of the Minister—I am not quite as understanding; I want answers. The shortage of negotiators is appalling. That is what I meant by a lack of planning. If we know we will have to make changes, we should get people on board to do that. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is very hard-pressed, and I would like to see much more funding for it. I am worried about the separate Departments mushrooming, competing and all saying slightly different things. That is a risk for what the right hon. Gentleman called the plumbing—I used to call it re-wiring—in terms of the way things are done, not only in the Palace but across the piece in the senior civil service. This debate has led, I am afraid, to a shopping list of issues for the Minister, but I know he will be up to the task.

Finally, as a London MP, it was a delight to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). We are very proud of our new Mayor, Sadiq Khan, who is quite right to say that taxes raised in London—or a small proportion of them, anyway—could be spent more effectively in London. London Councils, which is now chaired by Councillor Claire Kober from the Borough of Haringey, says that we need to see more money that is raised in London spent on vital infrastructure such as transport and housing, because we know it contributes in the longer term to the prosperity of the whole United Kingdom.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Minister, if you could leave a little time at the end for Mr Murray, that would be helpful.