Select Committee Membership

Debate between Anna Soubry and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I rise to speak because one of the motions before the House affects the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Our Committee has discussed the proposal that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) be removed; I put on record the strong support expressed by all Committee members for his work, particularly on county lines and counter-terrorism. I must express our disappointment in the motion.

I do not want to get into a wider debate about the way in which places for Select Committee members are allocated, which our Committee has not discussed. Nor do I want to raise any questions about the hon. Members who have been put forward to serve on the Committee, both of whom are excellent Members of this House. I simply want to record, on behalf of the Committee, its concern and its recognition of the important work that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness has done.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Change UK)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I was not planning to say any more, but I give way to the right hon. Lady.

[Anna Soubry]

Given what the right hon. Lady says, especially in the light of her prominence and her chairpersonship of the Committee, it seems unfortunate that she cannot speak to the Labour Whips—because that is what it comes down to—and secure the presence of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on it. If the entire Committee thinks that he should remain on it, why on earth can he not?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will not discuss on the Floor of the House the private discussions that I have had. I am simply expressing the views of our cross-party Committee on its behalf.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Debate between Anna Soubry and Yvette Cooper

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

[Yvette Cooper]

Let me say something about the Prime Minister’s process, and then I will give way again.

The Prime Minister has announced her intention to pursue an extension, but the reason for continuing with this Bill is that there is no clear process for how the decisions will be taken about the length of the extension and the context, and this Bill does the following. It provides some clarity about how those decisions about the length of the extension will be taken. It gives a role for this House in that process. It also ensures we do not just slip back into facing that no-deal cliff edge almost by accident because of the nature of the difficult conversations and the complexity of what we are all facing. Crucially, it will demonstrate to the EU parliamentary support for what the Prime Minister is asking for, and to be fair to the EU, given the turbulence we have had in this House at every stage of this process, it is quite reasonable for it to ask whether the Prime Minister has the support of the House in the things she is asking for.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her Bill and the progress she has made thus far. She speaks clearly, based on evidence, and I am delighted that, as I expected from her, she has clearly listened to business. Does she agree that we can only assume that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has also listened to business, and of course he has looked at the Government’s own impact assessment of no deal and he claims it would be “ruinous” for our country? Does she think he is right?

[Yvette Cooper]

I think we should take seriously that assessment, and not just from Government Ministers but also from the CBI and the TUC, who have come together in a powerful way to say very strongly the damage that would be caused by us being simply left with no deal. Therefore many of us have been trying to make this process work and trying to come together, whether through proposals we have made through Select Committees for different Brexit policy options or the work we have done calling for consensus or putting forward indicative votes and options. A lot of work has been done but I hope we all share the view that we should avoid a no-deal Brexit.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Anna Soubry and Yvette Cooper

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The same cheery optimism that the hon. Gentleman and others have expressed that everybody will suddenly magically come to an agreement once we are through this phase and if we are on WTO terms is exactly the same cheery optimism they had that we were going to end up with a deal by now—and we have not, because it is actually a lot tougher than hon. Members suggest. The reality is that we are going to have a big hike in prices in April if we have no deal, and that has consequences for our manufacturers, businesses and consumers right across the country.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I shall be supporting the right hon. Lady’s amendment. She talks about the manufacturing sector and I believe that there are a number of manufacturing jobs in her constituency. Has she heard any argument that falling back on WTO rules would ensure that those critical, just-in-time supply chains are able to continue, and does she agree that this issue is very important to the many millions of people across the country who rely on those just-in-time supply chains, because if we fall back on WTO rules, it is they who will be losing their jobs, not hon. Members?

[Yvette Cooper]

I completely agree with the right hon. Lady. What I am saying just comes from listening to employers in my constituency who have told me that they have bought all the storage capacity they can find in order to stockpile, but they cannot stockpile more than 10 days’ worth of some of their products, and they are really concerned about the impact of the delays on just-in-time technology.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Debate between Anna Soubry and Yvette Cooper

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

It is interesting to follow the former Brexit Secretary and to reflect on the speech he has just given. It explained why he resigned from the Government but, in the end, it just clashes with reality—that is the unfortunate detail of the evidence he has put to the House today.

I shall speak in support of new clause 1, but also to my new clause 6 and amendment 9, which relate to conducting an impact assessment on the effect of leaving the common external tariff. I shall also speak against amendment 73 and new clause 36. We have heard why the former Brexit Secretary believes that any kind of customs union would somehow be bad for Britain and why we would be better off without it, and I will first address the fallacies in his argument. He was extraordinarily dismissive of the impact of checks at the border and of delays and additional costs, particularly for manufacturers and just-in-time production.

I make no bones about the fact that I am speaking strongly in support of manufacturing industry in my constituency. I will resist the temptation to go off on a tangent about Haribo and the Starmix I am sometimes allowed to test when I go to visit, but people there do tell me how important it is that they can bring ingredients to and fro smoothly across the border and talk about the impact of such delays.

[Anna Soubry]

Did the right hon. Lady notice that there was no detail about the reality of the America-Canada border, which took 10 years to construct, cost £10 billion, deals with facial recognition and involves 100 companies in the automotive sector of Detroit and nothing more? Does she think that such a model would not provide the frictionless trade that our manufacturing sector needs?

[Yvette Cooper]

I completely agree with the right hon. Lady. The former Brexit Secretary seems to be arguing that because companies trade across borders that involve customs checks, we should rip up our customs-free borders. He is saying that because those trades take place, it is okay somehow to add costs to our trading process. Why on earth would we do that? Why on earth would we add burdens to businesses that do not face them at the moment? Why on earth would we make the process difficult and more costly for them? It is not that we think all trade will stop—of course it will not—but the point is that that trade will become more costly and burdensome, and our businesses and manufacturers will be at a disadvantage compared with their European neighbours and competitors. That is unfair on our manufacturers, which we in this House should be standing up for. I certainly believe in standing up for Yorkshire manufacturing.

The former Brexit Secretary also seemed to be arguing that, because we coped with Operation Stack before, let us have more delays again. Yes, we can cope, but Operation Stack cost businesses coping with those long delays a fortune.

Customs and Borders

Debate between Anna Soubry and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I think the right hon. Gentleman is simply making the point that our trade was growing, within the current arrangements, with the rest of the world. That seems to be a good thing, and suggests that perhaps, therefore, we can carry on increasing our international trade and our global trade, even within customs union arrangements.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Would it not also be the case that, as a country that champions free trade, we have seen the reduction of barriers with those other non-EU members, which may explain the growth? Does the right hon. Lady agree that it seems rather perverse that, at a time when we want to increase free trade, we are going to put up a whole load of barriers to stop access, in the best existing free trade area in the world?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Lady is exactly right. Where we currently have good free trading arrangements we should cherish them, because the truth is that it is getting harder to negotiate new trade deals. The politics of trade deals has become more complex, as communities across different countries become more worried about the losers and winners of big changes to trade arrangements. At a time when it could take very many years to negotiate new trade arrangements, if we pursue the idea of ripping up our existing ones before the conclusion of such negotiations it will be deeply damaging to many of our jobs and communities.

Refugees (Family Reunion) (No.2) Bill

Debate between Anna Soubry and Yvette Cooper

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. I pay huge tribute to the work he has been doing.

Secondly, the current system encourages trafficking. It encourages illegal routes and dangerous routes because there is not a safe and legal route for people to travel on. The concern of the family I spoke to whose daughter is in Lebanon—this was some time ago—was that they were going to face a choice about whether to try and find a route through with smugglers or with traffickers to get her reunited with them because they did not have a legal route. The problem is that we are already driving people into the arms of traffickers and exploitation, and we should not do that.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way; it is very kind of her. When I was in Jordan—I am sure that she has had experience of this as well—I saw that magnificent efforts are being made to settle refugees. However, I also came across a family where the elderly parents, or grandparents, were going to Austria and the youngest son and his wife and children were going to Canada. That situation would encourage them to look at those illegal ways to stay together, which, as the right hon. Lady rightly says, we all want to do with our families.

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Lady is exactly right. When people have been through such difficult experiences, and lost the home that they all shared, to be separated across the globe is so much harder—and at a time when they need their family the most.

My third response to the pull factor argument is that we are, in effect, saying to people, “You have to suffer more in order to deter others.” We are saying to those who have suffered the most already that they have to suffer more by not being reunited with their families because we are convinced that that might deter some fictional people who we think are going to respond in a particular way, when there is no evidence to show that. When there is real hardship and real hurt for families who are not being reunited, let us not make them suffer more for the sake of deterring others when there is no evidence that that will happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

We have to remember that what happened in Germany was at a time when we had huge migration out of Syria by people desperately fleeing at the height of the conflict and a lack of proper support in Turkey, so a huge number of people were crossing the Mediterranean at that time. It was very unusual circumstances and an unusual period.

I think all of us would want to ensure that migration, in particular for those who are fleeing, should be provided through legal, safe and settled routes. That is why I support the Government’s Syrian resettlement scheme. It is far better to have legal, safe routes than unmanaged or illegal routes through trafficking and so on. All of that must be right. However, we can ensure that we have a legal, managed scheme to help refugees, and that is exactly what the Bill is all about. It is about having a legal settlement route, not unmanaged migration routes. We know that if we do not have legal family reunion resettlement routes, that is when we get people falling into the hands of traffickers, and that is what increases the number of illegal and dangerous journeys.

For example, on all the visits that I took to Calais, which was an awful and bleak place with so many young people, pretty much every young person I spoke to had family in Britain. They were trying to get to Britain through these awful, dangerous routes because they were trying to be reunited with family and with people to keep them safe. They were not trying to make the journey to bring other people; they were trying to be reunited. The current system, without that legal family route, is what is causing so many problems.

[Anna Soubry]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Yvette Cooper]

I want to conclude, because I know that many Members want to speak.

In the end, this is about our humanity. We all believe that the close relationships of love, family, commitment and a sense of obligation are at the heart of what makes us human beings and at the heart of who we are. That is at the heart of the values that brought all of us, from both sides of the House, into this place, to have debates like this and argue about issues like this. We should keep those values of commitment, obligation to one another, love, respect and support for our families at the heart of our refugee programme. That is all the Bill is trying to do. If Members want to amend it or add some safeguards, they by all means should do so in Committee, when we get to that stage, but let us support the values of family now.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Anna Soubry and Yvette Cooper

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman has himself been a strong advocate of the responsibilities and powers of Parliament, but it does not take long for him to become completely lost down a sidetrack and start talking about what our relationship with the EU has been for very many years. The point is that this process is about how that relationship will change. We know that it is due to change as a result of the referendum and the article 50 negotiations, but the responsibility for all of us is to determine how it should change. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do, and as well as every other Member in the House, that the giving of powers in secondary legislation concentrates powers in the hands of Ministers, and does not receive the same scrutiny. Furthermore, this is not just about the concentration of power through clause 9; it is also about the process through which the Government want to make the decisions on the withdrawal agreement in order to trigger clause 9.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will, but then I want to make some more progress.

[Anna Soubry]

I assume that the right hon. Lady has read clause 9. Does she share my concern about the fact that some people seem not to have done so? Am I right to conclude that the clause means that the Government negotiate a withdrawal agreement—arguably one of the most important things that have happened for decades—which will not come to us here, but will be implemented by Ministers? As the Bill stands, that is it: apparently there will be no further involvement of this sovereign Parliament.

[Yvette Cooper]

I do agree, and I think that goes to the heart of our concern.

It ought to be possible for the Government to agree to my new clause 3, or to amendment 7. Let us think about the points that they have already made. First, they have recognised that there is a problem if too much power is concentrated in the hands of the Executive. They said so yesterday during the debate on clause 7, and I think that they recognise the importance of safeguards on the use of Executive powers. Secondly, they have said that there will be a meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement. I welcome that, but I think there is still a difference between us on what counts as a meaningful vote. Thirdly, they have said that there will now be primary legislation on the withdrawal agreement, and I welcome that as well. If we put all those three things together in the right way—the commitment to primary legislation, the commitment to a proper vote and say for Parliament, and concern about the concentration of powers—we get amendment 7 or new clause 3. It is the same thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

That is clearly a possibility, but I think we should trust in the maturity of Parliament. It is possible for people to vote in different ways, but we have long-standing processes between our two Houses for resolving differences and debating them. My problem is that we are not actually being given the opportunity to have those proper meaningful votes through legislation, and instead we just have these motions, which have no constitutional status.

[Anna Soubry]

Can the right hon. Lady confirm that it is Government policy that this place will be given, to use their expression, a meaningful vote? For example, as the talks progress, some hon. Members might say, “Well, hang on a moment; my pharmaceutical industry is being excluded from this arrangement on trade under this particular head of agreement.” That is an example of doing something “meaningful”—the ability of those of us in this place, acting on behalf of our constituents, to change some of the drift of the negotiations, to get a deal that suits everybody in our country.

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree: it is hugely important that this vote has the proper status in Parliament, as well as our being able to debate the detail.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Anna Soubry and Yvette Cooper

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend, because this should be about the whole of Parliament, just as when we had the responsible debate on article 50. We know it is complex. It is our job and our responsibility in a democracy to deal with that complexity, and not just to abdicate our responsibility and hand it over to Ministers because, somehow, it is too difficult for us in Parliament to deal with. Of course it is not too difficult, and of course we are capable of dealing with the complex situation we face.

[Anna Soubry]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that we simply have not had the debates? That, of course, is not lost on the European Union, and it is also not lost on the people of this country. If we had those debates and if we had a real say on what Brexit will look like, we would begin to form a consensus and we would begin to bring people together across the United Kingdom in getting that good deal, reuniting so many divided communities, families and even friends.

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with the right hon. Lady. The truth is that the plans for our Brexit future have to be sustainable and have to command consent. The plans will have implications for many decades to come. They have to give us the chance to heal the Brexit divide across the country from the referendum, and they have to give Parliament the chance to debate the details and to have a proper, honest debate about what it will mean across the country.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Anna Soubry and Yvette Cooper

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I want to abandon this language of failure and success, and I say, with great respect to the hon. Gentleman, that I am not going to be playing that game.

I want us to come together and to get the best deal, and in the even that we do not get a deal, I want to make sure that this place absolutely gets that say and that vote. On that basis, I will continue to listen to the debate, but I have to say that I am minded to vote in favour of this amendment and make that clear not for any design to cause trouble or anything else, but to stand up for what is right for all my constituents.

[Yvette Cooper]

I commend the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) for her speech, much of which I agreed with. Like her, I voted to trigger article 50 on Second Reading because I think we should respect the referendum result, but like her, I campaigned for us to remain. I also agree that we have a responsibility across Parliament to get the best possible Brexit deal, and that we should all be involved in the process because so much has yet to be decided about the kind of deal we will get and the terms on which we will leave the EU. That is why I support new clauses 1, 99 and 110.