Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alistair Burt and Adrian Bailey

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The UK made clear some time ago that we would oppose matters under item 7 of the Human Rights Council’s determination, and we expect to do that. On Gaza, the international commission was unable to investigate non-state actors, but there is no doubt that the situation was serious, as Israeli authorities have also determined. The UK will maintain its position in relation to that.

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

In the case of a no-deal Brexit, the Secretary of State has given some limited assurances to NGOs accessing funds from the EU’s humanitarian fund that the Government will underwrite them in future. Are they prepared to do the same for NGOs that access funds for broader humanitarian work?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alistair Burt and Adrian Bailey

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that programme. In fact, my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa visited the programme recently and was able to see its valuable work on both AIDS and Ebola. That sort of ministerial commitment demonstrates our support on the ground, which will continue and intensify.

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

4. What steps her Department has taken to provide humanitarian support to civilians from the Hazara community displaced by the Taliban’s recent offensive in central Afghanistan.

EU Exit: Devolved Governments

Debate between Alistair Burt and Adrian Bailey

Thursday 21st July 2016 Westminster Hall

[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.