UK-EU Summit

Ben Coleman Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

Many people may still be finding things a little bit gloomy and challenging as a result of the mess left by the previous Government, as I am after 10 months of being a Member of Parliament, but today I am incredibly heartened. It is probably the happiest day I have spent in the House yet, because we have a real opportunity to be hopeful and positive about the future of this country. The ideology and chaos that have caused so much damage, with the Conservative Government running frit from the Reform party, have now given way to a party that is pragmatic and has proven itself to be competent.

I would love at this stage to congratulate the Government on their tremendous securing of trade deals with India and the USA. I am looking forward to the hat-trick, where we secure a trade deal with the European Union that is even bigger and better than either of those two, and all in the British interest.

What is absolutely clear to me—everybody knows this in the Labour party and it runs through everything the Prime Minister has said—is that this country needs growth. Over the last 14 years, services have been decimated. Every time the new Government open a cupboard, we find it bare. We have to rebuild our public services, and the swiftest way to get growth in the economy is by having a good trade deal with the European Union. Nothing will guarantee swifter growth for the economy.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

What is the hon. Member’s analysis of why growth projections have been halved since Labour came in?

[Ben Coleman]

I find it very hard to take anything that the Conservatives say with any degree of seriousness. What is their explanation for why, after 14 years, public services are on their knees and we have seen a collapse in the economy? We even heard a Conservative Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), say that there has been growth since leaving the European Union despite Brexit—even the Conservatives admit that it was a disaster.

Nothing will deliver the growth that this country needs faster than signing a good deal with the European Union, slashing red tape and reducing regulation with the biggest market on our doorstep. Opening up markets, kick-starting growth, boosting exports and investments and reducing prices at home—this prize would be welcomed by anyone who is not a crazy ideologue. We on the Government side are not crazy ideologues or prisoners of our past—or of a television programme from the past. The actions that the Conservatives took while in government have damaged the British people.

Businesses across the country, and in Chelsea and Fulham, want us to get a good deal from the European Union. People in my constituency do not want us to rejoin the EU, and I am not talking about rejoining. They would like us still to be in it, and they think it has done them damage. The importer of wine in my constituency who has to pay £160 for every consignment he now brings in would like us still to be in the EU and to not have to face that. But they do not want us to spend the next five years renegotiating the deal.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Constituents and small and medium-sized businesses are crying out for this Labour Government to come forward and renegotiate a good trade deal so that businesses can thrive. Does he agree that this Government are taking the right pragmatic approach in wanting to deliver growth for our country?

[Ben Coleman]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for stressing that point. She is absolutely right; we have a Government who have replaced chaos and ideology with cool-headed, pragmatic determination. We have a trade deal with India and with the US, and we are going to get a good trade deal with the European Union. That is why it is a day for rejoicing, not for doom and gloom and people rehashing the past. Not a single one of the Conservatives, except the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar on the Front Bench, who accepted that despite Brexit the economy grew a little bit—

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Sarcasm!

[Ben Coleman]

Oh, it was sarcasm.

As I was saying, I am very pleased, as many are, with the Government for being cool-headed and having a common-sense approach. We are going to reset our relationship with the European Union and put Britain first. Putting Britain first has to also mean putting our young people first, so I am excited by the opportunity for young people in my constituency and every constituency to take advantage of a time-limited, controlled visa-based youth system, which we already have with a dozen countries.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman will know that thousands of young people—perhaps not in Chelsea but in most of the country—are NEETs, meaning they are not in education, employment or training, and that number is growing. Why should those young people, who are desperately seeking access to education or jobs, have to compete with large numbers of people from abroad? Is that what the people in Chelsea and Fulham really want for the people who live in the rest of Britain?

[Ben Coleman]

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman what people in Chelsea and Fulham really want. They do not want a Prime Minister like the last one—a business Prime Minister—who said that we would level up to help people across the country but then did nothing about it. What they want is a Prime Minister who will invest in increasing skills and apprenticeships right across the country, as ours said yesterday that he will. That is what we need, and that is what we are getting now.

[Stephen Gethins]

On that point, because rhetoric is important, does the hon. Member agree with Lord Dubs, who said that what the Prime Minister said yesterday was outrageous, or does he agree with the Alternative für Deutschland leader, who agreed with the Prime Minister?

[Ben Coleman]

I have to say, when you ask about Lord Dubs—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The hon. Member said “you”, but I did not ask the question.

[Ben Coleman]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member touches a soft spot when he mentions Lord Dubs, who is a great friend and a doughty campaigner in my constituency. Lord Dubs will have his views, but I was talking about the Prime Minister setting out an absolute commitment to increase the skills of young people right across the country, and that is in no way undermined by the prospect of a controlled visa-based youth experience scheme.

In such unstable times, it is right that we should seek a closer relationship with the European Union that will strengthen defence and security alongside our commitment to NATO. I am hopeful that the Government will pull off an agreement that, as hon. Friends of mine have said already, will bring new jobs in the defence industries of this country. We are facing the starkest, most serious defence challenge that we have faced for decades, and we have to meet it together with the European Union. Having spoken to many ambassadors here, I know that they welcome Britain playing its full role in defending our shared continent.

That is what we are doing as a Government. That is why it is so disappointing, with all the prospects and excitement ahead of us, to hear the Conservatives and Reform still putting ideology first, ahead of growth and security. They are failing to say what they would do instead and just want to continue with the status quo.

The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) talked about the chaos that was brought to Kent, where trucks backed up for miles near Dover because the infrastructure for customs checks was never ready, and fresh produce rotted in the queue. That was under the Conservative Government. They jeopardised car manufacturing in Birmingham and the west midlands, which is a region that relies on just-in-time EU supply chains. It was hit with rules of origin checks, rising costs, and delayed parts—thanks to the Conservatives. They sold out Cornwall’s poorest communities by moving out of European structural funds that has millions in them, replacing them with a shared prosperity fund worth far less. That was the Conservative Government’s failed Brexit.

They weakened Port Talbot and the south Wales steel industry, made exports harder and reduced competitiveness in what was already a challenging global market. They undermined Scottish farmers and distillers by erecting barriers to their largest export market. This is all part of the record that the Conservatives are delighted to defend. I would not be delighted to defend such a record, but they are—so much so that they have brought forward this ridiculous motion today.

I am delighted by the amendment that the Government have tabled. The contrast between our pragmatic, cool-headed approach and these ideologues could not be starker. It is refreshing.

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Member has criticised the Opposition for the motion but, to give them their due, at least they have turned up. They delivered Brexit, but none of its architects, who would usually be sitting on the Benches behind me, have shown up. Does that not show the contempt in which those Members hold us, and voters as well?

[Ben Coleman]

I agree with the hon. Member. If the Reform party’s entire shtick for getting elected is being anti-EU and thinking that it can defend the interests of the British people better by continuing the chaotic, unfavourable system we have, with that being its entire reason for existence, it is not okay for one of its Members of Parliament to ask a couple of questions and skedaddle. As for the hon. Member for Clacton—and for Florida—I do not know what he is doing today, but he ought to be here.

We should be cheered—it is refreshing—so let us be a little more optimistic as we look to next week and not say, “We’re always going to be out-diddled by French and Germans.” That counsel of despair is pathetic. We are perfectly capable of negotiating trade deals, as we have shown with deals with the US and India, to get the best for the British people, and that is what we will do with the European Union. That is what the people of this country voted for at the last election: an end to failed ideology, and the start of applied, cool-headed, determined common sense. As a result, at the end of the meeting next week and in future years, the British people will benefit. We should all be delighted about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

It is wonderful to hear from the acclaimed globalists from both the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Labour Benches who cannot wait to bring us back into the EU. For the record, I am opposed to doing so not only because the British people voted the opposite way and we should honour the referendum, but because, as Labour Members seem to have forgotten, we actually negotiated a trade deal with Europe.

What I am interested in is the evasive nature of what the Minister said from the Dispatch Box, which committed us to nothing other than resetting our relationship with the EU. I would like reassurances on what that means. What strategic partnership with the EU was he referring to? What concessions is he planning on making? Will some kind of new EU treaty renegotiation come out of this? What kind of active or passive role is the UK planning on taking at this summit? None of that has been made clear.

[Ben Coleman]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Joy Morrissey]

In a moment—I want to make some progress.

While none of that has been made clear, we have heard from quite a lot of Back-Bench Labour MPs that we will have a wonderful new trade deal and a great new visa system for young people, which gives me pause. Either we are not being told fully what is going to happen at this summit, or there is such anticipation for back-door EU realignment that the Labour party cannot contain itself, and its Members cannot help but tell us what they are planning on doing.

My biggest concern in all this—forgive me for wanting reassurance from the Dispatch Box—is that the outcome of the summit might involve concessions of jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice, or the application of any of the principles of supremacy of EU law. I would like a guarantee from the Minister, on the Floor of the House, that that will not be the case. There can be no question of the European Court of Justice being brought back via the back door through dynamic realignment with EU law.

I want to hear reassurances from the Minister that nothing will be discussed or renegotiated at this summit that would tear apart all the work we did, through the withdrawal agreement and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, to ensure that our laws have supremacy over EU law. That was the point. Many of us voted for Brexit because we wanted to see our sovereignty and our borders restored; we wanted to see our laws brought back under our sovereignty. We want to ensure that we honour the commitments that we made, with both the Retained EU Law Act and the withdrawal agreement, to move forward with the EU.

I welcome trade deals all over the world; I want us to be as successful as we can be. Praise where praise is due: if the Labour party has achieved a trade deal, fine—I am happy to acknowledge that and to say “Well done”. We should be trying to get trade deals with any country that we can.

The reason I am asking for assurances from the Dispatch Box is that I have seen the Labour party change its view on so many things: on Brexit, on Trump, on scrapping winter fuel payments, on energy bills—

--- Later in debate ---

[Joy Morrissey]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We need to protect our Brexit freedoms and make sure that we hold the Labour party to account.

We heard a lot from the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) about all the wonderful things he has planned for our free trade deal. However, I am concerned that we are going to rewrite history; that we are going to ignore the British people again and allow for dynamic back-door realignment with the EU without giving Parliament or the British people a say.

[Ben Coleman]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Joy Morrissey]

The hon. Gentleman had a long time to speak, but I will give way once.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Coleman]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I took a third of the time that her colleague, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), took for his speech. Is she genuinely suggesting that we should tell this House right now what we will be negotiating in Brussels next week—that we should give away the full details of our strategy? Perhaps that is the attitude that the Conservative Government took when they were negotiating the trade deal with Australia; the Conservative former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that it was a poor deal that let our farmers down. Given her approach, no wonder that happened.

[Joy Morrissey]

The hon. Gentleman should allow us to fulfil the deal to which we are committed. We have put in place a trade deal and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Unless there are new negotiations to be had, what exactly is the purpose of the summit?

I was going to end my speech, but the hon. Gentleman has inspired me to continue. The Government’s amendment relates to NATO, but NATO has nothing to do with the EU; it is a completely separate entity. Talk of dynamic realignment on defence came about after we left the EU. Ensuring an ever closer Union, through military, policing and social policy, has always been part of the plan of the European Union. That is welcome to internationalists, Liberal Democrats and Labour Members. I am sure that they would all love to have another way of binding us to the EU. NATO is separate; it has one document that has been agreed in the post-war period—

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I am delighted to contribute to the debate. I was really pleased to hear the Minister say from the Dispatch Box that, at the EU summit, we will focus on safety, security and growth. And, boy, don’t we need growth, after 14 years of chaos and disaster from the Conservative party. Since leaving the EU in 2020, businesses in Monmouthshire and across the UK have faced the many barriers that resulted from the Tories’ botched Brexit deal.

I must declare an interest: I am a big fan of the EU. No, that does not mean that I want to rejoin the EU, contrary to what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) said. We need a better trading deal for our farmers, and for businesses in Monmouthshire. I was lucky enough, when I was at Middlesex Polytechnic many years ago, to take part in the Erasmus scheme. I went to Europe for two years; I studied in France. I learned French and did my finals in French. That cultural exchange—that ability to go to another country—is so important for our future, and for our young people. That was even before I met my Catalan husband, so now I have lots of family in Barcelona. It is so important to have close ties with the European Union.

As a member of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, I was delighted that we were received with open arms in Brussels earlier this year. Our trading relations with our nearest and largest partner are too important to be taken over by playground politics from the Conservative party. I am so pleased that the new Labour Government are seeking a more co-operative and mature relationship with the EU. As one MEP said, “Thank goodness the grown-ups are back in charge”.

Wales has a unique relationship with the EU, especially regarding our world famous, delicious and best-tasting Welsh lamb. Farmers and National Farmers Union Cymru have told me that we need a new SPS deal. In 2023 alone, Wales exported £600 million of food and drink to the EU, and a large proportion of that was red meat, but UK exports to the EU overall were down 19% in 2023.

[Ben Coleman]

On the subject of lamb, will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact—I asked this of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey)—that the previous Government negotiated a trade deal with Australia that a former Conservative Environment Secretary described as a disaster for our farmers, not least those farming lamb?

[Catherine Fookes]

Absolutely, I remember that well.

The reduction in exports is mainly due to the increase in paperwork, form-filling, and checks and barriers to trade. Some companies have simply given up because they have had such a difficult time dealing with the red tape. Companies have also had to put up prices, which has impacted consumers. For farmers, businesses and consumers, we need a strong, beneficial SPS agreement. I am so pleased that the Minister is working hard on this. Our Government’s No. 1 priority is economic growth, and that would be supported by growing co-operation with the EU.

Recently, I met people from businesses in my constituency that export to the EU for a proper discussion about what Brexit has meant for them. Sadly, I was unsurprised by what they had to say. I have already mentioned the increase in admin, which has hit their productivity; they are doing more work for less reward. Requirements for product information and documentation are creating a time-consuming and costly burden. Once the paperwork is all done, there is another set of challenges. One person I met said that delays at Calais were borderline unmanageable. That is especially impacting the small and medium-sized enterprises of Monmouthshire.

One person I spoke to at the roundtable said:

“The biggest issue currently is that inspections at Calais for our products are very slow and at the same time we are restricted in terms of time spent at the port due to dangerous goods that are included in the load. This is a balance that is barely manageable for us.”

A person from another company said:

“What a disaster Brexit was for the import/export business: for my company, although through the agreement we are now back to ‘zero tariff’, the net result is simply a huge increase in admin and transport costs, for which ultimately the consumer pays.”

Finally, a person said:

“Exhibiting in the EU is much more complex and requires greater admin”.

They gave this example: if a business takes as much as a screwdriver to an exhibition in the EU, it must fill in a form for that screwdriver, even though it is to be used only to put up an exhibition stand. They said that every single piece of equipment must be counted in and counted out.

Three overall strands emerged from my roundtable: we must remove trade barriers; we must have dynamic alignment of standards; and businesses in my constituency would like a return to some kind of youth exchange scheme, like the one I benefited from. Trade is one of the most pressing issues at hand as we seek to rebuild our relationship at the summit next week. Removing barriers to export will be essential for farmers, businesses and consumers in Monmouthshire as the Government pursue their vital mission of economic growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

All sorts of things go wrong when we mention Reform, so we had best leave that topic.

I pay tribute to the Conservative Front-Bench Members, who have put forward an important and principled statement of the declaration that our party will stand for. We support the decision of the British people to leave the European Union, repeated in multiple general elections. It is a great shame that we cannot hear the Labour party make the same pledge.

[Ben Coleman]

I am trying to understand if, at some point, we will hear anything from the Conservative party about what its Members think could be improved in the Brexit agreement that has been so bad for their party. We are talking about getting a better Brexit agreement than the one they negotiated. Are they saying that what they did was perfect, or can it be improved on? If it can, how? Everything else the hon. Gentleman has said has been negative.

[Danny Kruger]

There are two things. First, we could do better on Northern Ireland, but let us leave that whole topic for another day. Secondly, the Brexit agreement that we negotiated was absolutely right, but the problem is the EU and the fact that it is a protectionist bloc. We decided to leave because we believe in sovereignty and leaving a declining quarter of the world’s economy. The problem is the trade barriers that the EU erected unnecessarily and which are harmful to both parties. I will leave it there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Lady pre-empts me. If she will give me a moment, I will get to fishing very shortly.

The TCA—part 2, heading 5—contains transition arrangements relating to fishing. In essence, the TCA allowed for a period of over five years during which there would be temporary arrangements on access to UK waters by EU fishing fleets. After that, under international maritime arrangements, the United Kingdom would become solely responsible for its own territorial waters, out to 200 nautical miles in some places. As this transition period is now approaching its expiration in 2026, the EU is pushing very hard to maintain its access to our fishing waters and—it would seem—even to expand its access in certain cases, were we naive enough to give in. It would be a complete betrayal of our fishermen if the United Kingdom Labour Government were now to grant major concessions to the EU in what will become indisputably our own sovereign waters once again come 2026.

[Ben Coleman]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a second—the bourgeoisie will have to wait. While our sovereign rights are enshrined in both the TCA itself and wider maritime law, we have yet to see the final details of whatever Faustian pact the Government have agreed with the EU on fishing. However, our fishermen and those of us on the Opposition Benches —although not Reform Members, who are not here—will be watching the Government very closely, and will be highly alert to the prospect of a sell-out on fish.

We then come to veterinary matters and SPS—and ultimately, therefore, food—which would involve the United Kingdom in a process known as dynamic alignment. In essence, this means that if the EU were in any way to change or modify its rules in those areas, we would in turn be compelled to follow the EU, regardless of the wishes of our own Parliament. In other words, we would become a “rule taker” in those areas, even though we have left the European Union. Moreover, it seems that these arrangements would apply throughout the United Kingdom, and in the event of a dispute, that would be arbitrated by the European Court of Justice rather than the UK Supreme Court or even an international tribunal.

[Mr Francois]

In a moment.

To have left the EU but submit to becoming a passive rule taker would be entirely contrary to the spirit of the 2016 referendum. That is why, time and again today, no Minister will admit that the Government are going to do it next week.

[Ben Coleman]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

No.

When Labour talked about a “reset” in its general election manifesto, there was absolutely no reference to rule taking as part of any such accommodation. Labour would therefore be giving away our rights, entirely without the consent of the British people. That must be fiercely resisted and, if necessary, overturned. Moreover, there is the prospect of additional concessions over everything from so-called youth mobility schemes—a euphemism for a return to freedom of movement in another guise—to capitulation over net zero mechanisms and, specifically, the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM, which would make our remaining industries even more internationally uncompetitive than the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) has achieved to date.

As someone who sat here during the last Parliament—as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) kindly mentioned—and witnessed, night after night and week after week, the then Labour shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, now the Prime Minister, pulling every procedural trick from the depths of Erskine May in order to try to keep the United Kingdom in the European Union at almost any price and despite the referendum, I am in no way surprised that his Government are now attempting this act of capitulation. Our Prime Minister has always been a passionate Europhile; in short, he remains a remainer in his heart of hearts, and he always will.

What the Labour Government are up to—and I say again that they will try to use a defence pact in order to hide it—is beginning a process of gradually taking us back towards and even back into the European Union, if they think they can get away with it. They will never risk another referendum, because in 2016, almost up to the last minute, the polls were showing that remain might win, but when it came to it, the British people had the temerity to vote to govern themselves, despite the best efforts of the British Establishment and “Project Fear”. What they will do is try to take us back in very gradually, via a process of grandmother’s footsteps, or, to make another analogy, trying to boil a frog slowly. If they get away with submission next week, despite their manifesto commitments, they will eventually try to take us back into the single market—although, no doubt, under some other name—and if they can get away with that, they will suggest that we might as well rejoin the customs union. They will put the argument to the British people that we are so far back into the blooming thing that we might as well go the whole hog and rejoin it entirely—all without a vote or the consent of the people of the United Kingdom, at any stage, whatsoever.

[Mr Francois]

It would be far better to do this via a process of mutual enforcement, of which my right hon. Friend has always been a staunch advocate. When the Minister sums up the debate, we will ask him if he will rule out, very clearly, any prospect of dynamic alignment at the summit next week.

[Ben Coleman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a moment.

This is a yes or no question. Perhaps the Minister, at that time—because he would not answer my right hon. Friend’s question yesterday—will give us an honest answer to an honest question. In fact, if he wants to do it now I will give way to him. A stunning silence! Well, as he has not the guts to get up, I will give way to his Back Bencher.

[Ben Coleman]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his nomenclature, and I am most grateful to my Jacobin friend for taking my intervention. I did not want him to finish without having the opportunity to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) put to him. Exports of UK seafood to the European Union have fallen by 80% since Brexit, and there have been lots of new checks, and there is lots of new paperwork and bureaucracy. What does he put that down to? Exports of seafood have collapsed. Does he put that down to Brexit, or to something else?

[Mr Francois]

People have made market choices, but under the common fisheries policy, we had the absurdity of so-called discards. Our fishermen had to throw fish, many of which were already dead, back into the sea in order to comply with the absurdities of the CFP. Hopefully, we will never return to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

It is typical of my hon. Friend’s humility and good humour that he should acknowledge that in the Chamber in such an open and frank way, and I pay tribute to him for it.

The scepticism that I have described and tried to articulate takes the form of real doubts about what realignment will really mean. Let me just deal with three or four specifics. I spoke earlier in an intervention about security and defence. Of course, it is right that we have a continuing relationship with our neighbours in those terms. We do work with the agencies across Europe, but the critical security relationship we enjoy is with the Five Eyes countries—by the way, we also enjoy relations with many other countries in the world outside the Five Eyes and Europe—and it is vital that we reinforce that relationship. That, of course, overlaps with our commitment to NATO and defence.

There may be some virtues in information sharing—indeed, there certainly are virtues in various kinds of co-operation—but anything that undermines the sovereignty of that security and defence alliance seems to be highly questionable and also risky, which is worse.

Let me turn now to free movement. Although the referendum was not all about immigration, immigration was perhaps the most pressing and salient matter during those times. People resented and resisted free movement and they wanted to bring it to an end. For many, the term “take back control” epitomised the need to control our borders—to decide who came here and who did not. Although it may be understandable that people want to wax lyrical about young people being able to travel across the continent, what they say less enthusiastically, or do not say at all, is that young people from the entire continent will want to travel here. Until we know the terms of that, that could easily mean those people competing with Britons for scarce jobs.

We have large numbers of young people not in education, employment or training. No Government have dealt with that satisfactorily. I started speaking about this more than 20 years ago. Previous Labour Governments and, indeed, Conservative Governments did not really grasp that nettle as firmly as they should have done. Disturbingly, the trend is upwards, and so I do not want people in my country to have to compete for education and training places and for other opportunities with possibly tens of thousands of people who have entered the country by those means. There will be suspicions that it is the beginning of a return to free movement.

What did mass immigration do? The Prime Minister was right about this yesterday. He is a very late convert, but the Bible says that we must welcome all converts with enthusiasm. What mass immigration did was to displace investment in recruitment, training and retention of workers and in automation and improving workplaces, making us ever more dependent on low-skilled labour. It had the effect of stultifying the economy. Any suggestion that we may return to that will inhibit—perhaps ruin—the Government’s intention of improving productivity. If we really want to deal with productivity, we have to create a high-tech, high-skilled economy. I am fearful that that broader consideration will not necessarily hold sway when we get into negotiations with the EU on this issue of some relaxation of the bar on free movement, which was brought by the referendum.

Mindful that there are enthusiastic, insightful and bright colleagues on all sides of the House, but mainly on the Conservative side, who want to contribute to the debate, I will draw my remarks to a close. I can hear colleagues saying, “No, go on”, but I am going to resist those overtures and finish with this thought: C.S. Lewis said, “We are what we think we are”. I think we are a proud, independent nation that has made a disproportionate contribution as part of western civilisation to world history. I think that our past is noble and should give us a sense of achievement and pride. I do not buy the self-loathing that seems to have taken hold with too much of the very establishment that I derided earlier.

[Ben Coleman]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will happily give way—let us see whether the hon. Member is a self-loathing individual.

[Ben Coleman]

I trust that I am not. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman appreciated when I said earlier how excited I was for the prospects ahead of us. I want to thank him for identifying me a couple of times and associating me with my constituents, which I am certainly proud of. I also thank the right hon. Gentleman and a number of his colleagues for making me feel like I have been in this place not for 10 months but for 10 years, and for giving me the privilege of seeing the Brexit debate live, writ large again. It is a rare opportunity that I did not know I would get as a Member of this House, and I am most grateful.

[Sir John Hayes]

I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at it through this prism: for all intents and purposes, I am Brexit, I stand for Brexit: I am a patriot, proud of my working-class origins; I am determined to do my best for my constituents and my country; and I am driven by a combination of the national interest and the common good. That was the spirit that inspired Brexit. It inspired those of us who campaigned for it, and those who voted for it, which 75% of my constituents in South Holland and the Deepings did. I am a bit resentful that Boston and Skegness next door had an even higher percentage, but it was only by 1%.

As I said, C.S. Lewis said that we are what we think we are. I think that we are a proud country who can stand in the world, in collaboration with other nations, of course, but free and sovereign. Labour cannot have it both ways. It cannot say that we have done a great deal with India because we did not have to kowtow to the EU and that we have done a great deal with the US because we escaped the clutches of the EU, while at the same time saying that we want to creep back in and for them to have more say in any future deals we might do.

Let me end with the words of one of my political heroes, Joseph Chamberlain, who understood that to protect our economy we need to protect the jobs, industry and enterprise that are part of it and not to give in to the free trade liberals. He said:

“a democratic Government, resting on the confidence and support of the whole nation, and not on the favour of any limited class, would be very strong. It would know how to make itself respected, and how to maintain the obligations and the honour of the country.”

No Member of this House should do less than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Charters]

My hon. Friend is spot on. That is why the Conservative party is completely irresponsible. Conservative Members are so out of step with reality that I may as well be asking them to take advice from the stone age. They said that they wanted to take back control once upon a time, but the reality is that over the last eight years they completely lost control of our economy, of our borders and of our future. They do not want the pragmatic, sensible summit next week that will be focused on the future, not the past—a far cry from the chaos and Conservative circus they presided over.

Let me move on to something we should all be welcoming: a youth mobility scheme. It is important that we strike the right balance with that, just like we have with other countries we already share deals with. But unlike Conservative Members, who focus on themselves rather than the public, let us talk about how such a scheme would matter to ordinary people. Nobody would want an 18-year-old at the start of their adult life, eager to explore the world, to be limited to just 90 days in Europe. It is natural for young people to swap Bishopthorpe in my constituency for Barcelona for a year or so, or Copmanthorpe for Copenhagen.

As a parent in York, I would love for my children to have the privilege to enjoy an experience like the youth mobility scheme: an opportunity that can open minds and broaden horizons. Research from the University of Oxford has shown that mobility schemes lead to returnees who launch their own enterprises, start social ventures, reform hospital practices and launch tech start-ups—that sounds good to me.

A really important topic that we must address in the forthcoming summit is defence.

[Ben Coleman]

Before we leave young people, Opposition Members have said that we are not doing enough for our young people and that a scheme would cause problems. Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that yesterday the Prime Minister said that we must put British young people at the front of the queue for skills and training? The Government have already committed £625 million for training up 60,000 young engineers, chippies and brickies—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Coleman Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

I can assure the hon. Lady that the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has a remit across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, has already committed to supporting service providers with updated guidance. I assure the hon. Lady that we are talking to colleagues in Scotland and that we will also be talking to colleagues in Wales and, indeed, in Northern Ireland.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to assist local authorities in using public procurement to help create economic growth.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

I welcome the House’s continuing passion for procurement, and my hon. Friend has helped to lead the way in this area at Hammersmith and Fulham council. I have seen how much energy there is in local government to use procurement to deliver jobs and growth. The Government are working on plans to allow local authorities to reserve contracts for local employers. Public procurement can be a key tool in driving growth and supporting businesses across the economy. Our new national procurement policy statement looks to maximise spend with small businesses and asks contracting authorities to work collaboratively on local and regional growth plans.

[Ben Coleman]

I thank the Minister for her reply and for the excellent work she has done in putting together the procurement strategy. It has been a passion of mine for many years that we do not use procurement just to get extra social value but extra economic value, which will help local firms and local growth. That is what this statement does, and I hugely welcome it. May I ask the Minister whether she intends to issue guidance to local authorities so that they know how best they can achieve economic value? For example, they could proactively tell small firms what contracts are coming up or train them in how to tender, which is very difficult for them. They could also encourage small firms to break procurement into lots, so that they have a better chance of bidding. Finally, they could stop requiring an unreasonable number of years of accounts to be shown before small firms are permitted to bid.

[Georgia Gould]

Growth is the No. 1 mission for this Government. We have learned from local authorities such as Hammersmith and Fulham, which built economic value into procurement. The Procurement Act 2023 makes new tools available, but what is critical is how they are used to deliver innovation and growth. The Government will be consulting on new plans to set targets for small and medium-sized enterprise use for the wider public sector. We have delivered extensive training and developed new communities of practice to help make the most of this huge opportunity. As my hon. Friend has said, much of this is about culture and the use of the tools. We will be working with local authorities around the country to deliver on this enormous opportunity.

EU Trading Relationship

Ben Coleman Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

I am most grateful to you, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on calling this important debate, which I am pleased about; as Members of Parliament, it is not often that we get a chance to speak so clearly about what we do to represent our constituents’ interests and the British interest.

Our job as Members of Parliament is to keep our country strong and secure, with a strong economy and strong defence, and to provide opportunity to everyone, not least our young people. That is what this debate is about: promoting the British interest. That lies at the heart of why we need to get a better deal from the European Union that gets growth for our country in the swiftest way possible, at a time when this Government are so committed to growth, by lowering the barriers and removing the red tape that have come out of the hopeless deal patched together so feebly by the last Government.

As has been said, we especially need to lower the barriers for small and medium-sized firms, which have been hit the hardest. I think of the specialist wine importer in my constituency that has to pay an extra £160 for every shipment.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

Following the Tory Brexit deal, we have seen lorries backing up from Dover, through my constituency and deep into Kent now that we have customs and immigration checks. Does my hon. Friend agree that a deal to eliminate barriers on food and drink being exported to the EU would help to reduce friction at Dover and throughout our road network?

[Ben Coleman]

I absolutely agree. We need a veterinary agreement to improve the situation in our country. I agree with the proposal to allow British bands and creatives to tour more easily and that we should have more mutual recognition of professional qualifications to support our service industries. We should be as ambitious as we can. We should therefore start talking about a deal to end regulatory divergence, so that companies do not have to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on two sets of standards and two sets of testing regimes.

The situation we face as a result of the deal that the Conservative Government negotiated is not patriotism: it is self-sabotage, and we need to do something about it. Part of that is about us needing to do more to give opportunity to our young people, which is why I support having a controlled youth visa scheme that provides just that opportunity.

Finally, I turn to defence, which some of my colleagues have mentioned. The UK has a huge role to play in the defence of our continent; I do not think any European countries doubt that. It is clearly in all our interests across Europe for the UK and the European Union to sign a new security agreement. We need stronger defence and new jobs in the UK and right across the continent, and that is why our Government must be absolutely clear with some other countries in the European Union. Defence and security co-operation are too fundamental to dealing with the challenges that our countries face, and they must be decoupled from other political negotiations. They are too important to be tied to debates about fishing rights or quotas.

We need cool-headed, determined and ambitious negotiations with the European Union that back Britain. In that way, we can get the better deal that my constituents in Chelsea and Fulham and the British people deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing this debate. I thank the many colleagues who contributed, and commend your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, in giving so many colleagues the chance to do so. I also commend the efforts of the Business and Trade Committee, which has come up with a report containing many worthy and sensible suggestions.

We owe it to the British businesses that create growth, jobs and the wealth of our country to secure for them the most favourable terms for the UK in the tapestry of global trade, wherever the markets may be. That means focusing on areas of maximum opportunity wherever they are, and on sectors where we can benefit from growing markets, innovation and indeed our shared values.

We all seek more trade with our European neighbours, but we already have a tariff-free deal for the export and import of goods. There are some wins to be had: the European Central Bank, for example, is restoring clearing to the UK, which is pragmatic, sensible and a reflection of the facts on the ground; but those opportunities do not appear to us to be what the Government are focused on. Perhaps the Minister will correct us on that.

It is clear that Labour’s EU reset—perhaps to the welcome of many of the Minister’s colleagues—is actually a plan carried forward from Opposition dating back to the referendum in 2016, with the objective of overturning that referendum in substance, if not in name.

[Ben Coleman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

I will not give way, as everyone has been very good on timing. I will get through my speech to give the Minister as much time as possible to deal with all of the points raised.

In all seriousness, across all western European economies, we face a real crisis of trust in politics and a rise in extremism among people who do not necessarily see the solutions to the problems their countries face in arguing them out reasonably, as we are doing today. Why any genuine democrat, whatever their personal views, could possibly think that reversing a decision made by the people in 2016 is the right approach—[Interruption.] Although it is refreshing to make common cause with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy),who indeed does not do that, it is also refreshing, sort of, to hear the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) set out the misguided but at least honest approach of desiring to return to the rule of Brussels via a full customs union, which I understand is not on the Government’s agenda.

We Conservatives have set out five clear tests to protect people’s trust and confidence. There must be no backsliding on free movement, no new money paid to the European Union and no reduction in our fishing rights, including—I will take an intervention from the Green party’s hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) on this if she would like—no backsliding on the environmental protection for sand eels that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says is vital to the protection of British seabirds and puffins. I see no intervention coming, so I will move on, but the EU is litigating against the British Government right now to prevent that environmental protection measure from being implemented. The last two tests are: no rule taking, dynamic alignment or ECJ jurisdiction; and, notwithstanding working with anybody on a defence pact—I agree with the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) that there must be no linkage between defending European soil and the transactional approach to British fishing taken by some countries—no undermining of or compromise on the primacy of NATO. Those are the tests that, in our view, will maintain the trust of the British people. I hope that the Minister will put our fears to rest.

The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill currently before Parliament is perhaps one of the most blatant examples of how a Government may fail the test. It is a Trojan horse, a blank cheque forcing this Government to become a rule-taker. I realise that many colleagues are new to this place, although many are not and have much more distinguished service histories than myself, but I hope that when colleagues look at that Bill and it is scrutinised in the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the Commons legislative Committees, they will look at the deficiencies of that Bill under this or any other Government going forward.

We have heard calls for a return to open borders via a youth mobility scheme. While previous Governments have put in place youth mobility schemes of a certain volume, as the Government considers that return, it would be interesting to hear what the impact would be on British graduates, whose wage premium is the lowest it has ever been. What impact would opening the floodgates have on the rental crisis in London, or on the burdens of the NHS? There was some talk about improving education, but we already have visa schemes for work and visa schemes to come here to study. What will be the incrementality of a youth mobility scheme?

We have heard a number of times about this being a moment for cool heads, not for piling on retaliatory tariffs in a global trade war, and Members will commend themselves on how progressive and level-headed they are, but let us take a balanced view. It was not the US that unilaterally threatened to invoke article 16 to prevent British citizens having access to vaccines; it was not the US that kicked the United Kingdom out of Horizon, a scheme entirely separate from our membership of the European Union; and it is not the US that is still depriving British citizens of the use of e-gates when they travel—an opportunity that we afford visitors from the EU coming to this country, so let us just have some balance in that debate.

To be clear, given the relative scale of the opportunity and the fact that we already have a free trade goods deal with the European Union, were we in government, the Conservatives would have prioritised—right now—a US trade deal. It has been 170 days since President Trump was elected, but the Government have yet to publish any objectives for their negotiations with the US. Whatever we might think about those objectives, British exporters today are paying the price for the absence of that agreement. Through that absence of transparency, Parliament is being disrespected and none of us has any idea which businesses or farm sectors may pay the price for that deal in future.

Our hard-won freedoms offer us the unrivalled chance, if we seize it, to steer our own course in a difficult and uncertain world. We can have the best of all worlds: trade with Europe, North America, the gulf, Asia and Africa. The Conservatives would not pursue one of those many attractive opportunities in a prejudiced way at the expense of others, and I hope that is also the Government’s position.

European Union: UK Membership

Ben Coleman Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

Banbury has a proud history as a hub for industry and manufacturing, from the aluminium works, which were crucial to the construction of aircraft during world war two, and which my grandfather later worked at, to the automotive supply chains, green tech start-ups and Formula 1 teams that call my constituency home today. Those companies and many others rely on smooth, efficient trade with the European Union.

The psychodrama of the final eight years of the last Conservative Government culminated in a botched Brexit deal that put up barriers to trade, soured relations with our closest allies and ultimately left our constituents out of pocket, so I welcome the reset in relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union that has taken place since the general election. We have a real opportunity to forge a new, more constructive relationship with our European friends.

Hundreds of constituents have written to me, signed petitions—including this one—and spoken to me on the doorstep about the damage that Brexit has caused. I have also had the privilege of hearing from and meeting business owners across Banbury who once enjoyed seamless access to European markets but now feel buried under the very paperwork and bureaucracy that Brexiteers once promised to eliminate.

Take, for example, Electric Assisted Vehicles Ltd, an exciting Banbury-based company manufacturing electric-assisted bikes. Those bikes represent the future of urban green transport, a sector in which the UK could be leading. However, instead of expanding easily across Europe, as EAV once could, it now faces an avalanche of paperwork. It has told me that what was once a single-page document is now 20 pages. That is a clear and direct demonstration of the previous Government’s failure to deliver a Brexit deal that works for British business.

Consider the BMW plant down the road in Oxford, a cornerstone of the UK automotive industry. When I spoke to workers alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) a few weeks ago, it became clear that Brexit was a key factor in BMW shifting production away from the UK and towards the EU and China. The reality is that multinational manufacturers now find it cheaper and easier to downsize their workforces in the UK than in European counterparts. That is not a situation we should accept.

Banbury is home to a network of key automotive suppliers, including Magna Exteriors, Faurecia, HBPO and Borg & Beck, all of which rely on just-in-time supply chains in Europe. When delays at borders increase costs, additional import-export paperwork slows down deliveries, and rules of origin requirements limit market access, it is British workers who suffer.

Under the current UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement, goods must comply with certain rules of origin regulations to qualify for tariff-free trade. That is creating new challenges for businesses, particularly manufacturers, that previously enjoyed seamless trade with the European Union. For example, a UK-based bus manufacturer exporting to the EU must ensure that at least 55% of the vehicle’s value is derived from UK or EU components, but many manufacturers rely on parts from outside the UK and the EU, making it harder to meet that requirement. Rejoining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention would ease those constraints, keeping manufacturers in European and global markets. If we rejoined the PEM, components sourced from all 51 PEM countries would count as local content, making it easier for British businesses to qualify for tariff-free trade. That would be particularly beneficial for the automotive, chemical, pharmaceutical and machinery sectors.

Although rejoining the PEM will not solve all the post-Brexit trade issues, it is a practical and immediate step towards restoring smoother trade flows. It would signal to the EU that the UK is serious about improving trade relations while staying outside the customs union and the single market, which were referred to earlier.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

I support my hon. Friend’s encouragement for the UK to accede to the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. I was at a meeting last week of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in Brussels, which issued a recommendation to explore options for closer customs co-operation and alignment of regulatory standards—that goes further than the current UK Government position—to facilitate trade and economic growth. That could include, for example, UK accession to the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, so I hope very much that my hon. Friend is pushing at an open door with both the UK and the European Union.

[Sean Woodcock]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. As I said, we have an opportunity to reduce barriers to trade, support manufacturing, attract investment and rebuild a closer relationship with Europe. The Government have rightly set a mission of making the UK the fastest-growing economy in the G7 by the end of this Parliament, and I believe that joining the PEM would be a logical step towards achieving that goal.

Covid-19 Inquiry

Ben Coleman Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

The shadow Minister, in his response, also asked about the general question of inquiries. I believe there is a legitimate question to be asked about whether there can be a quicker way for the state to admit when it is wrong and get justice for the victims. However, it is important that in the processes we set up we do not lose the valuable question of independence and the valuable capacity these inquiries have for the victims to have a voice, which has sometimes been denied in other areas. We have to have a system where the state can admit when it gets things wrong and which gets justice for those who have felt the consequences of that.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

I was a cabinet member during covid, responsible for public health. As I listened to my right hon. Friend’s statement, I felt so relieved that we are about to replace the chaos experienced by me and so many people across the country at that time with a forward-looking, orderly and strategic approach. Among the many things that have been mentioned, I was particularly pleased by the idea of creating a national vulnerability map. That is hugely needed. On hearing that the Department will monitor the implementation of the commitments made in response to the inquiry, will my right hon. Friend come to the House regularly to update on that implementation?

[Pat McFadden]

This is just module 1; there are other modules to be published, and I will update the House in some form when the Government respond to those. Of course, on top of that there are regular opportunities to question me and the Ministers in the Cabinet Office either at oral questions or in front of Select Committees.

General Election

Ben Coleman Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

Happy new year, Mrs Harris. I appreciate that everyone is looking forward to the final speech—perhaps this will be the final speech before the Front Benchers.

I did not know how this debate would go, so I was very interested to come here to hear what people would say. I hope it has been somewhat useful to people who are not used to being here, including those who, like me, have been here for five minutes. Like many Members here, I was elected in July, and I have a majority of 152, so I know that what I had to say was not universally popular with the all the people I was standing to represent. As the Member for Chelsea and Fulham, I know that I have a lot of work to do to persuade the people of the country that what the Labour Government hope and plan to do is good, and to prove to them in the long run that we should be re-elected.

I know there is a lot of cynicism out there. We attack each other a lot of the time, but I hope we have learned some things today. How many years are we having to make up for? It is 14 years; I thought Opposition Members might have forgotten that. But today we have not really explored the crux of the motion, which is that our manifesto made promises that we have not kept—although a number of my colleagues addressed that very well in passing. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) said that we must proceed on the basis of facts and that, to paraphrase him, we must be decent in doing so.

Other Members said that we are depressing, that we have talked the economy down and that we are bringing the country to a stalemate, so it is useful to remind them of what is good, positive and exciting about this Labour Government, who were brought in to effect change. I will do that in a very boring way: by reading words from the manifesto.

I used to be the deputy leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council in London. I know that nobody believes what is put in a manifesto—it is almost a given that 10 commandments come down, and the manifesto is full of lies—so we used to stick up our manifesto on the wall of the council cabinet chamber, and tick off items as we went along; anybody who came in could see us doing that. So let me tick off a couple of things that have been mentioned today. We said in the manifesto—these are the words, which I appreciate that very few people other than keen Labour candidates such as me have read—that we will

“immediately abolish Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions”

to deal with the massive problem of the cost of rental and the crap quality of many of the places in which people are forced to live. We said that we will

“prevent private renters being exploited and discriminated against, empower them to challenge unreasonable rent increases, and take steps to decisively raise standards, including extending ‘Awaab’s Law’”—

which is about damp and mould—“to the private sector.” We have done that. We introduced the Renters’ Rights Bill. It was in the manifesto, and we have done it.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Coleman, I remind you that I am the audience, not the Public Gallery.

[Ben Coleman]

Forgive me. Thank you very much, Mrs Harris—I appreciate that reminder. I apologise to those in the Public Gallery for turning my back on them, if I may say that through you, Mrs Harris.

As we are accused of not keeping our promises, I will boringly quote from the manifesto. On new homes, we said:

“Labour will get Britain building again…We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework”

to enable us to build 1.5 million homes. We are bringing in the new planning and infrastructure Bill.

We said that we will

“build an NHS fit for the future…Labour’s immediate priority on health will be to get a grip on the record waiting list.”

I will not list all the things we have done; hon. Members can read tonight’s news. We have done masses and masses, including putting £25.7 billion into the NHS from money raised in the Budget. I appreciate that not everybody has liked the way we raised money in the Budget. They do not have to like it—there will always be differences of opinion—but we have taken the money we have raised and put £26 billion into the NHS.

We also said in the manifesto that we would improve inclusivity for children with special educational needs, ensure that

“special schools cater to those with the most complex needs”,

and improve mainstream education for disabled children. Not everybody likes the way we raised the money in the Budget, but £1 million of that money has gone into improving education in mainstream schools for disabled children and children with special educational needs.

We have a problem that people do not have enough money to live on, and the minimum wage is all that many people rely on, so we said:

“Labour will…make sure the minimum wage is a genuine living wage. We will change the remit of the independent Low Pay Commission so for the first time it accounts for the cost of living. Labour will also remove the discriminatory age bands, so all adults are entitled to the same minimum wage”.

We have raised the national minimum wage and the national living wage; that is a pay boost for 3 million people. We said in the manifesto that we would do it and we kept our promise: we have done it. We have asked the Low Pay Commission to end the discriminatory age bands and to look at including the cost of living. We have talked about Great British Energy; we made pledges there, and we have delivered them by establishing Great British Energy. We said:

“Labour will fund free breakfast clubs in every primary school, accessible to all children.”

We are doing that; we are introducing free breakfast clubs. I am sorry to quote from the manifesto at such length.

[Damian Hinds]

What does the hon. Gentleman think should happen with free breakfast clubs in secondary schools?

[Ben Coleman]

I am not here to say what should happen to the free breakfast clubs in secondary schools—we can have that debate another time. I am here to respond to anybody in this Chamber who says that the Labour party is not keeping its promises; I am reading out those promises word by word.

I will talk about sewage, of which there is plenty. The manifesto says:

“Britain’s coasts, rivers, and lakes are being polluted by illegal sewage dumping… Labour will put failing water companies under special measures to clean up our water.”

We have brought in the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which has had its Second Reading and will strengthen regulation. Water companies and bosses can be fined; we can ban bonuses; and there will be new environmental standards. It is all there in our manifesto and in what we have done.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I want to give the hon. Gentleman a little more time. He is very keen to quote from the Labour manifesto. Will he comment on the third paragraph of the page introducing that manifesto, which states:

“It contains a tax lock for working people—a pledge not to raise rates of income tax, national insurance or VAT.”?

[Ben Coleman]

This is where—[Interruption.] I’m sorry; does the right hon. Gentleman want me to answer the question? [Interruption.]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. Ben Coleman to resume his speech.

[Ben Coleman]

This is where it turns into politics. By that, I mean that we very clearly promised in the manifesto not to raise income tax or national insurance on working people—that was directly understood—but the Labour party did not promise not to raise the national insurance contributions of employers, which is what has happened. I understand the concerns and problems that has raised; I am simply saying that we have done what we said we would do in the manifesto, and we have not broken our promises. [Interruption.] No matter how much you professional gentlemen who have been here for 20 years yell at me—I have been here for six months—it is simply the case that what is in our manifesto, which I am reading out word for word, is what we are delivering.

I will finish by talking about borders. We said:

“Labour will stop the chaos and go after the criminal gangs who trade in driving this crisis. We will create a new Border Security Command, with hundreds of new investigators, intelligence officers, and cross-border police officers.”

We have already increased the number of enforced returns of those who have committed crimes and have no right to be here; the number is up by nearly 30% on the same period last year. We have also established and invested in the Border Security Command, as we said we would. Hon. Members may disagree with the things that we have done because they do not like them and have never liked them, but do not say that we have not kept the promises in our manifesto, because we have.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Mr Coleman. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Ben Coleman Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

If the hon. Member takes the trouble to read the reasoned amendment, he will know the position of His Majesty’s Opposition. Let me get back to what his Government have not done. Their plan is simply to kick out 92 peers from the other place. I am afraid that just will not cut it.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[John Glen]

No, I will make some progress, as there is not much time.

As with many areas of policy, and as witnessed in these first 100 days, the Bill exposes that, despite all those months sat on the Opposition Benches, the Government do not have a coherent plan with the next steps set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)]

It is a pleasure to close this important debate on the Second Reading of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) reminded us in his contribution that today marks three years since the murder of our friend and former colleague Sir David Amess. I am sure that the thoughts of all of us across the House are with his family.

I thank Members from both sides of the House for their thoughtful and measured—at times—contributions to the debate. It has been a debate many years in the making, and it is an important moment in the history of this country’s legislature.

I want to take the opportunity to congratulate all the Members who made their maiden speeches today: my hon. Friends the Members for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove), for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) and for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone).

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire recalled campaigning at the general election in the great Welsh weather, which reminded me of the rally I did with him in the pouring rain on that first weekend. Happily, I remembered my umbrella.

I am sure that all those who made their maiden speeches today will make a fantastic contribution to this Parliament and to their constituencies, which they talked so passionately about, and I wish them all the best with their parliamentary careers.

As we heard earlier from my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, this important Bill delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment and is the first step in bringing about wider reform to the House of Lords. We firmly believe that the time has now come finally to end the hereditary aspect of the other place—a feature of our constitution that makes us an outlier among nearly all other democracies.

[Ben Coleman]

We are talking not just about today but about what happened 25 years ago. Looking back at today’s debate, has my hon. Friend been struck, as I have, by Opposition Members’ saying that this reform has come too soon, that there has not been enough discussion, that it will cause dire consequences and that we should be looking wider? Those are not arguments from today but from 25 years ago. Does she not think that the Conservatives should be straight and not just fluff things—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Interventions should be short.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report

Ben Coleman Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are taking action on that important point about leaseholders, be it in relation to insurance or in relation to other issues of which the House is well aware. It is important that is included in the work we take forward, and I am absolutely committed to ensuring the quality of council housing and social housing as we build those 1.5 million homes. As the whole House knows, it is not just a number that we are talking about. Each and every person who lost their life is a human being to be respected, cherished and remembered for who they were.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

On the Chelsea council estates that I have the honour of representing, Grenfell and the incompetence and indifference shown by the local council and the tenant management organisation, both before and after the tragedy, are still very much discussed. One of the striking things brought out by the report is the extraordinary response of the local community where the official response failed. It was heartening to hear the Prime Minister talk about a rebalancing of power, which is essential. I hope that we will ensure that councils gather proper information on the disabled people living in social housing, 15 of whom died in the Grenfell fire, to ensure that they can be evacuated safely in such a situation.

As well as taking action against companies, which I fully support, will the Prime Minister commit to working closely with local authorities to implement the report, and to protect our fellow citizens, whether they live in social housing or not, from this sort of thing happening again?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It was really hard to read the part of the report that deals with the indifference and disrespect after the tragedy. I would have thought that after such a tragedy, whatever the failures that went before, these people would at the very least be treated with the utmost respect, yet the same disregard and lack of basic respect and dignity continued. That is part of what this report is about.

It is important that there are plans in place for disabled people, and we have taken that forward for people with disabilities who are housed in circumstances in which they clearly need an evacuation plan. Of course we will work on this with local authorities and all relevant authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Coleman Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

3. What recent estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of fraud in public procurement during the covid-19 pandemic.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

22. What recent estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of fraud in public procurement during the covid-19 pandemic.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out, the previous Government allowed waste and fraud to spiral out of control. Latest estimates show £10.5 billion of estimated fraud and error in the covid-19 schemes. That waste of taxpayers’ money is unacceptable and the new Government are taking action. This week the Chancellor announced that she will appoint a new covid counter-fraud commissioner. It will use every means possible to recoup public money.

[Georgia Gould]

My hon. Friend is right that the previous Government oversaw VIP lanes that led to millions in waste, and we are still unpicking the impact of that lack of oversight. I have met the Public Sector Fraud Authority to set out my commitment to strengthening the counter-fraud approach across Government. As I have said, the counter-fraud commissioner has been introduced to support their work, and will use every means possible to recoup public money, reporting directly to the Chancellor.

[Ben Coleman]

In my corner of London, concerns have been expressed about a particular supplier being awarded contracts worth more than £25 million for useless PPE, after being put forward by a former Minister in the VIP lane. Could the Minister say more about how the Public Sector Fraud Authority and the Treasury will ensure that every penny that can be returned is returned to the public purse?

[Georgia Gould]

I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to hear more about the individual example from their constituency. As I have said, I have met the Public Sector Fraud Authority. We have set out that tackling fraud is an absolute priority for the Cabinet Office, and we will use every lever available to us to get back what is owed to the British people. The Public Sector Fraud Authority is already working closely with the Treasury on the role of the counter-fraud commissioner, and will continue to do so.

Covid-19 Inquiry

Ben Coleman Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue of care homes, where it was such a difficult situation throughout the pandemic. We were trying to get the right PPE to the staff. It was a huge problem during the early weeks of the pandemic. I remember raising questions about that, and it just exposed what a scramble for safety there was, particularly in the early months. She is right to urge us to learn the lessons from that.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Mr Speaker, as you will have noticed, and as other people have referred to, the report states that there was a failure to engage appropriately with local government in preparing for the pandemic. Sadly, that failure continued throughout the pandemic. I had the dubious pleasure of being the cabinet member for health and social care in Hammersmith and Fulham council throughout the pandemic. We had to fight to close our care homes because the hospitals, under instruction from the Government, were discharging residents without testing and would not listen to us and would not stop. We had to fight to get vaccination in our local pharmacies, and we had to fight to establish a local test and trace system, which then reached 99% of people when the Government were only reaching 62%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that further stages of the inquiry, or what the Government now do, should identify and learn from the previous Government’s failure to engage appropriately with the local authorities not only before but during the pandemic?

[Pat McFadden]

The points that my hon. Friend makes about local government are well made. As I have said, my experience in my local authority area was that I thought the local council stepped up. Sometimes the issue of who is vulnerable and where they are is much easier for a local authority to know than central Government. The spirit of co-operation that I called for in my opening statement is in the public interest and the national interest, and it is what we have to do. If we co-operate, we will be stronger.