Draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(5 days, 8 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
I do not have the full Murphy review to hand, but I am happy to respond in detail. I have tried to set out to the Committee why we think that this change does not in any way take away from the force of the arrangements in place, and why it is a reasonable change to better enable scrutiny of measures as they come through.
Let me explain in more detail how the instrument meets its purpose. First, it is in response to recommendations made by the independent review. I hear the anxiety of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim to see exactly where in the review those recommendations are made. I hope he will excuse me for not having the papers to hand, but I am happy to write to him in further detail, with quotes, if he would like.
We are committed as a Government to providing greater flexibility to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee in conducting its examination and consideration of EU legislation relevant to Northern Ireland. We judge that the committee plays a very valuable role in scrutinising regulations of relevance to Northern Ireland, and its reports and engagement with affected stakeholders inform the work of the Government, just as they inform the work of many Members of the Assembly. The changes to schedule 6B of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are aimed at providing the Assembly with greater latitude in conducting its work within the two-month window following the publication of a relevant EU Act, if it wishes to use it.
A timeframe for the scrutiny of EU Acts under the Windsor framework is provided for in law so that everyone—Members of the Legislative Assembly, businesses and civil society—is clear about how the process works and the impacts of those enactments. Currently, the committee has five working days to vote on whether to hold an inquiry into a replacement EU Act. If an inquiry is held, a report must be produced no later than 15 working days before the end of the two-month scrutiny period, which begins on the day the EU publishes the Act in its Official Journal.
The instrument gives the committee greater flexibility by expanding the inquiry decision window to 10 working days, and it moves the publication deadline for inquiry reports to no later than 12 working days before the end of the scrutiny period. Those changes will allow the committee greater latitude to choose how to run any inquiries it conducts into relevant EU legislation, take evidence and report on them.
Secondly, the instrument takes account of the need to ensure continuing effective governance arrangements for the UK-EU withdrawal agreement that are also fit for the future. As the Prime Minister set out on Monday, that future includes the vital deals on the table for the upcoming summit in Brussels on 20 November, spanning agrifood trade, linking emissions trading systems and energy co-operation.
This change, to support the governance of the withdrawal agreement and the future agreements we are seeking with the EU, is made by omitting section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It reflects our strengthening relationship with the European Union and will allow the UK to agree to decisions at the Joint Committee between meetings. This process will enable decisions to be made by written procedure, which cannot currently happen because of domestic law. The Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee typically meets only twice a year, so this change will enable the UK to take necessary and time-sensitive decisions as needed, which it currently cannot.
The change will also allow the Government to ensure that, where relevant EU legislation is applicable in Great Britain under future agreements, Northern Ireland can keep pace. That will be an important factor both for the implementation of relevant rules and for allowing businesses the maximum amount of time to adapt. It is a relevant consideration as the Government take forward future agreements with the EU on agrifood, emissions trading and electricity. For instance, on electricity, the proposed arrangement could cut wholesale energy prices in Northern Ireland by 20%, including lower bills for households and businesses alike, while protecting the smooth operation of Northern Ireland’s dual market access and its place within the UK market.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Can the Minister just explain how it would cut electricity bills in Northern Ireland by 20%? The Government keep asserting that but have not explained how it would happen.
Mr Falconer
I am looking forward to the conversation about the electricity provisions and a future arrangement with the EU, but I am not sure that that is relevant to the changes before us.
Mr Falconer
We hope that, in a future arrangement with the EU, on which we have not yet concluded negotiations, the changes that I am proposing will enable us to operate the existing arrangements more smoothly, so that we might be able to adopt new ones with speed. Conscious of the Committee’s time, I do not think it is wise at the moment to go through all three of those agreements in great detail.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
On a point of order, Mr Efford. The Minister appears to be making assertions that he cannot substantiate. Is that in order?
The Chair
Heaven forfend that someone should do such a thing in Parliament, but I do not think that is a matter for the Chair at the moment. What is a matter for the Chair is that we do not go down this rabbit hole, which is not within the scope.
Mr Falconer
I hosted some of my constituents earlier and they asked me what parliamentary debates were like. I did not tell them that “He started it” was a regular feature, but now I will.
Let me emphasise that, as with the modifications to the Democratic Scrutiny Committee’s procedures that I have already set out, the use of written procedure will be optional and not used for every decision at the Joint Committee. I emphasise that the instrument does not amend the process for scrutinising the decisions that the Government propose to take at the Joint Committee, where the Government maintain obligations to Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The scrutiny process remains as it is today, including where it is provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Government’s EU scrutiny arrangements with Parliament. By removing this restriction, the governance of the withdrawal agreement will be aligned with that of the trade and co-operation agreement, which has no similar restriction on the use of written procedure. As with the UK-EU partnership council established under the TCA, the Joint Committee will remain the default forum for UK-EU decision making in relation to the withdrawal agreement and will continue to meet, just as the partnership council does.
Finally, the instrument provides for and clarifies the responsibilities that Northern Ireland Departments and Ministers are already under to the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. This is aimed at supporting the work of the committee and the governance arrangements of which it forms part. The instrument clarifies the duty on those authorities to comply with a reasonable request for information from the committee and that it should not be regarded as unreasonable solely on the grounds that a Northern Ireland Department or Minister lacks primary responsibility for the EU Act in question. This change is made in response to recommendations in the independent review on how Northern Ireland Departments should be empowered to provide evidence and support to the committee.
I also note for completeness that the instrument makes some technical amendments to existing legislation. Specifically, it amends outdated references within the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 so that they now refer to the Windsor framework. This minor change achieves greater clarity on the statute book.
This instrument clearly shows that the Government are committed to implementing the recommendations of the independent review of the Windsor framework. We are making every effort to ensure that Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements work for its people and businesses to deliver growth in every postcode, and to facilitate a future relationship for the UK with the EU that takes the country forward.
As the Prime Minister set out on Monday, building that future relationship with the EU is vital if we are serious about promoting growth, controlling immigration, and upholding our values and our security. How we build that future is a conversation that we must have, and one that the Government will approach with care and transparency. Part of that is about ensuring that the arrangements we have in place for Northern Ireland work effectively, just as it is about preparing for the new agreements that are on the table at the UK-EU summit. For those reasons, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.
I want to say a few words, as the Minister did, about the context of these regulations. The history of our relationship with the European Union was that, whenever a Minister brought a proposal to the House to increase the powers of the European Union or to enlarge its activities in our own jurisdiction, it was always, “There’s nothing to see here. This is already being done. This proposal just recognises what is already happening. There is no change.” By increment, we got further and further away from democratic accountability, which led to the British public deciding that they wanted to leave the European Union.
This statutory instrument is another chip being taken out of our democratic process. The Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework are about as undemocratic as one could possibly imagine—that is, there is no direct possibility of intervention by the people of Northern Ireland in the lawmaking process for their own Province. Incidentally, if we have dynamic alignment in the UK as a whole, that will apply in the UK. No Member of Parliament, no majority of the House of Commons and no majority of both Houses will have the power to block or stop a new regulation being applied by the European Union if we cement ourselves into a process of dynamic alignment.
The sanitary and phytosanitary agreement is meant to generate an extra £10 billion of economic activity in the UK over the period to 2040—I think I have that correct. Well, that adds up to barely more than £700 million a year. That is a peanut in the overall scheme of things. What is holding back the economic activity in this country is excessive regulation and excessive taxation. [Interruption.] I note what you are indicating, Mr Efford. My point is that the trade-offs for agreeing to the SPS agreement are not matched. As the Secretary of State for Business and Trade said recently, were we to join the customs union, it would have an adverse effect on the trading arrangements we have agreed with the rest of the world.
These regulations seem to embed Northern Ireland further into an undemocratic regulatory process with the EU, by removing the safeguard of section 15C of the 2018 Act. The Minister has not provided an explanation for why that is going to happen. I reinforce the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim: it is not in the review to which the Minister referred. If it is in the review, please can he quote from it? If it is not, what is the justification for doing it? He has not given an explanation, and it is time that he did.
Rejoining the EU
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Listening to this debate is amusing, but rather depressing in other ways. There is a heartfelt hope among a great many people here that rejoining the EU would somehow be transformative for the British economy, which they think has done much worse as a result of being outside the EU. [Interruption.] That is the thesis, isn’t it? Let’s look at the facts.
The UK economy has outgrown France and Germany since we left the EU in 2021. In fact, some of our economic growth is a direct result of leaving the EU. We have not over-regulated our tech sector in the way that the EU has, so we are getting the lion’s share of inward investment and far greater gross value added in that sector than France or Germany. Interestingly, the tech sector has been excluded from the EU reset talks.
Before covid, the City of London employed some 500,000 people. Today, over 680,000 people are employed in the City. The financial services sector is booming outside the EU because we have scrapped MiFID II, the bonus cap and regulations on derivatives trading, and all the people who left because of the fear campaign are coming back.
What is the basis for saying the EU has damaged our economy except for these two forecasts, which are conjectural projections and not things that have happened? They are not facts. They are quoted by the OBR and the Treasury and the Prime Minister believes them, and I am sure there is sincere belief in those figures across Westminster Hall today, but they are not facts. The only facts are that the UK economy has grown by 7.9% over that period, while France’s economy has grown by 6.8% and Germany’s economy has grown by only 1.1%. I was not aware that Germany or France had left the EU and that their economies had been damaged by their leaving, but that is the basis on which we are being told that we have damaged our economy.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
No, I will not give way; I am going to be very brief.
Services exports to the EU have rocketed, because there is no single market in services and we export a huge amount to the EU, as we do to the rest of the world. Overall, our trade has boomed since Brexit; our trade with the EU and the rest of the world combined has grown very substantially.
Does anybody know what proportion of GDP is represented by goods exports to the EU? Hon. Members are quoting all these businesses from their constituencies, but how representative are they of the economy as a whole? The EU may be our single biggest export market, but it represents only 6% of our GDP. Hon. Members are looking very puzzled, because people have brainwashed themselves. They think that trade is the entire economy, but it is not; trade is only a proportion of the economy.
Our trade with the rest of the world has expanded much more in comparison with our period in the single market. For example, between 1997 and 2019, when we were in the single market, goods exports to non-EU countries grew by 85%, but goods exports to the EU fell from 10% to 7.8%. Our exports to the EU were already declining. Why was that? It was because the internal market is a failure. The countries that form the internal market today represented 30% of global GDP when we joined the single market in 1992. These are Library figures that I am citing, by the way; Members can go and check them out. Today, the EU represents 17.3% of global GDP. It is declining; it is losing global share.
The United States had 25% of global GDP in 1992 and it still has 25% of global GDP. Why is that? It is because its economy is much less regulated, it has much lower taxes, it rewards enterprise and risk, and it is not mired in the Code Napoléon and the way of cautiously regulating everything that the EU is. If the EU could deregulate, it would possibly be in our economic interests to join it, but it is incapable of deregulating. Therefore, the case for joining the single market has collapsed in the few minutes in which I have been speaking.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.
I hate to bring real people into this argument and into the statistics. However, there is a Spanish-Italian delicatessen in my constituency—I am sorry that for some people it has no importance—and it has gaps on its shelves. I asked the staff why, because their customers are there and the owner is there. What they told me is missing is the food, and that is because the small supplier of this Spanish-Italian deli has had enough of the reams of EU red tape that he has had to deal with since we left. The gaps on that deli’s shelves are what leaving looks like to its owner and to me.
As we have heard, more than 111,000 people have signed this petition to say that it does not have to be this way, and many of my constituents have urged me to support it. I agree with them. Since attending my first Prime Minister’s questions I have made one case and I will continue to do so: the fastest way for this country to grow is to lift the barriers that came down on British firms when we left the European Union.
Consequently, I welcome the Prime Minister’s readiness to look at every option: a customs union, a single market and full membership. All these things should be looked at in an honest way. The closer we get back to the EU, the quicker the shelves in my local deli will fill up again.
Some people worry about the considerable cost of rejoining the EU. A chunk of that money will come straight back to farmers, regions and our scientists. In addition, the boost to trade—despite what is being claimed about GDP growing internationally—would bring in billions more in tax for our NHS, our police, our schools and our defence. Those are all the things that we need to spend money on, but we in Labour found the cupboard was bare when we came in after 10 or 12 years of Tory misrule.
The return would comfortably outweigh the investment. However, EU membership would also mean more than money. One area where I have to declare a personal interest—
Ben Coleman
No, I am sorry, I am not giving way. I have been encouraged by our Chair to move on, so that everyone gets a chance to speak and not just the hon. Gentleman.
One area where I have to declare a personal interest is in enabling our musicians and performers to tour freely again. They are people like my nephew Freddy and his band, Caroline. British acts played 21% fewer shows in Europe in 2024 than in 2019—and that is because we left the EU.
Some worry that free movement means that anybody could come here, stay and claim benefits—well, it does not. In the past, we applied too lightly the rules that say it does not. Belgium and Spain insist on the rules, and so can we if we rejoin. Some worry about sovereignty. Well, our exporters have to follow EU rules, but we have no say in setting them. Membership would give us a seat and a vote—that is more control, not less.
Our partners will want to know that our return is for keeps, and so should we. A decision this big must be the settled will of the British people. That is why I believe we need a manifesto pledge to negotiate joining the European Union and then a referendum on the deal. I realise that other people may have other views, but I think that would be the best thing.
In 2016, people voted on an idea—an ephemeral thought. Next time, they would vote on a deal: they would know what being in the European Union costs and what it buys. Before any of that, of course, I hope that the delayed UK-EU summit, which is now happening on 20 November, will finalise the deal on the table. That will keep down costs on food and drink and energy; it will let young Brits and young Europeans work in each other’s countries, for a limited time; and it will build trust.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
None of us wants to go back to the Brexit debates we had in this place. Looking around, I see that most Members present for this debate were spared the horrors of 27 votes in one night and the fisticuffs that took place—[Interruption.] Yes, not all Members here were spared that. I am grateful that nobody else has to go through that horror, but we do need to look again at Brexit. When we look at the real GDP per capita growth since the vote and see that the eurozone countries—Italy, France and Spain—have all outpaced us, I can only ask the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin): are these Brexit benefits in the room with us now? Can anybody else see them?
Ms Creasy
I will not give way; we have already had to listen to the hon. Gentleman. It would be easy to be angry about our performance in Brexit, but these debates are too often fuelled by blind beliefs rather than careful consideration—witness the hon. Gentleman.
Do we really understand how bad the Tory hard Brexit has been for this country and the scale of the challenge we face? The challenge is not just about the economic impact of leaving the largest trade bloc in the world. I was just shocked by Tory shadow Ministers in the Chamber being surprised to realise that their hard Brexit means that we do not get information in real time from our European counterparts to help British farmers with bio and food security alerts. We also left Eurodac—for all the people who are concerned about stopping the boats and who might want that asylum data—because, again, they hated the term “Europe”. Countless bands will never get the chance to be the Beatles or Oasis because of the 90-day rule, and 20,000 businesses have given up on trading with Europe altogether, because the only Brexit “benefit” that anyone can quantify is the amount of paperwork it created.
The second blind belief, however, is that it would be simple just to go back. We have to be honest. The British problem is that we too often think that the difficult bit is us deciding what our future relationship with Europe should be, and then we tell the Europeans, as if they do not read our newspapers. Some humility is needed, to say the least. In the last 10 years, the continent has faced war and the antics of President Putin and President Trump. It now has new deals on migration and asylum, a new green deal, and trade deals of its own with Canada and the South American Mercosur nations. It has challenged Chinese exports so that “Made in Europe” is now a serious prospect. We are simply an afterthought and casualty of that process.
None of that is an argument against looking to the future, but if the status quo is not acceptable, we have to be honest with our constituents about what is and what we should be fighting for. Frankly, we should look at how others have approached Europe. To go into a negotiation and saying what we do not want—“No, no, no”—is to act like a toddler, yet that is too often what the red line approach has been for this country. Let us contrast that with the approach of Mark Carney, who has talked about the shared challenges and the issues facing all of us in the world today. Perhaps the biggest lie of all those told to us in this place was about cakeism and cherry-picking, as if Europe is not flexible and does not want to find ways forward, when it is very clear that it does.
The truth that must now be told is that we need to do more than repeat the mistakes of the past. We left the European Union without knowing what leaving would entail. We must not make that mistake again. We must seek the consent of the British people and ask them what rejoin would be and about our future relationship with Europe. That is exactly what the Prime Minister is talking about doing. Twenty-one nations have been through accession, taking an average of nine years to do so. This country deserves better. We need to take the Brexit blinkers off and look to our future—a future that is clearly with Europe.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
It is a pleasure, Mrs Barker, to serve under your chairship; I believe that it is for the first time, so it is a particular pleasure. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for so expertly opening this debate, and I thank the petitioners for bringing this issue to our collective attention today. It is wonderful to see so many of them here in the Public Gallery.
The petition asks whether Britain should seek to return to being a member of the European Union at the earliest opportunity. I am very proud to say that the Liberal Democrats have been clear about our long-term ambition. We believe that Britain’s future lies at the heart of Europe, helping to shape its institutions and decisions rather than watching from the sidelines. However, we must also be serious about how we get there.
Britain desperately needs growth to raise living standards, rebuild public services, support businesses and strengthen our defences. Can a family afford their weekly shop? Can a small business take on another employee? Can a manufacturer invest in a new production line? After years of weak growth, stagnant productivity and squeezed living standards, those questions demand serious answers and any serious answer must involve our having a better relationship with Europe.
Before entering Parliament, I spent more than 20 years researching and teaching geopolitics—studying borders, territorial disputes and international crises. If those years taught me one thing, it is that geography matters. Just 21 miles separate Britain from mainland Europe and no referendum can change that; our economies, history and security remain deeply connected. The European Union remains our largest trading partner, taking more than 40% of all British exports. Our factories depend on European supply chains, our farmers sell into European markets and our businesses compete for European customers. Yet for the past decade we have made trading with our largest market harder.
Brexit has happened and Brexit has failed. Those who campaigned to leave promised less red tape, but businesses got more; they promised new opportunities, but instead they erected barriers. Of course Brexit does not explain every weakness in our economy, and nor have our European neighbours escaped weak growth and productivity, but the question is not whether Britain has grown faster than France or Germany in any particular year; the question is how much stronger our economy could be today without the barriers that we have imposed upon ourselves.
Research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that Brexit had reduced Britain’s GDP by between 6% and 8% by the end of 2025, and business investment by as much as 13%.
Dr Pinkerton
Not for the first time today, the hon. Gentleman has intervened from a sedentary position, and he says that that figure is a projection.
Dr Pinkerton
Well, it is not, because that information is based on two methodologies: first, a doppelganger economy; and secondly, 11,000 businesses reporting their direct experiences to the Bank of England. It is not a fiction.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
That reporting was from a self-selecting group of businesses. The doppelganger model included the United States, which is not a comparable economy to the United Kingdom. It also included eastern European states like Estonia that are growing very fast, which is not a sensible comparison. But in any case, those figures were just projections.
The facts show that we have grown faster than our two main competitors in the European Union and the hon. Gentleman cannot accept that. He thinks that our economy would have been between 4% and 8% bigger by 2025 than it would have been without Brexit, so we would have been growing even faster than we have grown—that is what he is saying—and very considerably faster than we did when we were in the European Union.
Dr Pinkerton
As ever, I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interventions. He speaks with passion and with some alacrity.
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
Order. Is that an intervention again, Sir Bernard?
Mike Wood
The question was whether I had had the conversations, and I certainly have had them with MEPs and people in the European institutions. We can see what anyone who reads the publicly available opinion polls can see: if asked, “Would you be in favour of the United Kingdom rejoining the European Union?”, a majority in France and Germany may say that they would support it, but if asked, “Would you support the United Kingdom joining the European Union with the opt-outs that it previously enjoyed?”. support goes from about 50% to just over 30%. It is not politically viable in those countries.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the polls. When people are asked about whether particular areas of policy in the United Kingdom should be controlled by the EU, the result is always a negative. Farming, trade policy or financial services—whatever the question, it is a negative. When it comes to the money, if we rejoined, we would probably have to join without any of the rebates that Margaret Thatcher negotiated, so our gross contribution would be something like £30 billion a year—about 0.5% of GDP. The British people would never vote to rejoin the European Union if they thought they would have to prop up the EU budget and subsidise other EU countries.
Mike Wood
My hon. Friend is right. The same polls that show that citizens in France and Germany would support British membership only if it came without those previous opt-outs show that, among British voters, support for rejoining collapses if we do not have those previous opt-outs. If those previous opt-outs and derogations are removed, support again dips to barely 30%.
I wonder how many of the people who signed this petition did so in the eager anticipation of trading His Majesty the King on our banknotes for a fistful of euro cents. Did they sign up to surrender our borders or did they imagine that, if we asked very politely, the European Union would grant us all the privileges of membership while demanding none of the obligations? As the independent economist Julian Jessop recently pointed out, public enthusiasm for rejoining has a funny habit of evaporating the precise moment that voters are confronted with the small print. That is why I am confident that, if the Government were to take up the petitioners’ proposal, and if they had the courage to put that question to the British people, it would be comprehensively rejected.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mark Ferguson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Mrs Barker. You have certainly caught yourself a lively one early on a Monday evening. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for moving the motion on behalf of the signatories of the e-petition relating to the UK applying to rejoin the EU.
Some 10 years ago, the people of the UK voted to leave the EU. That decision was made on the promise that leaving the EU would boost UK growth and reduce immigration. During this debate the clock appeared to turn backwards. That was probably a bit of a heavy metaphor even for this place, but we have had a lot of legacy language. We have had lies and truth, rancour and dispute over facts. Everyone has brought their own version of the polls. We have had surrender, small print and even the odd straw man.
At one point, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) said that we were not having a debate, but exchanging our speeches. If I am honest, that took me back to the way this debate has been conducted for much of the last decade. When my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) described Opposition Members I was worried we had strayed into the realm of unparliamentary language, but I am glad to hear that he in fact said “Cnuts”. It is important always to enunciate that word as my hon. Friend did.
In all seriousness, this debate was called because the British people know that the current arrangements with the EU are not working. Brexit has not given us control. We have lost some of the control we had over our economy. Last year, goods trade with the EU was down 7% on 2018. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said that such trade is 6% of UK GDP. It is 5.96%, so we will allow that 0.04%, but the use of the figure 6% belies its size. According to the ONS, that is £181.4 billion of goods; if we include services, it is £384.4 billion. As the saying goes, if you start adding up the hundreds of billions of pounds, you start talking about real money pretty quickly. The research suggests that more than 16,000 UK exporters stopped exporting to the EU as a result of Brexit.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
On the 6% share of GDP in exports of goods to the EU, what the Government are recommending is that we let the tail wag the dog. For the sake of trying to expand that share of our economic activity, which actually declined while we were in the single market, we are going to regulate the other 94% of the British economy that does not export goods to the EU. Does the Minister not get the point? We expanded our trade with the rest of the world by 85%—that was in the figures I gave earlier—without any free trade deals, or any agreements to abolish tariff barriers or to stop paying tariffs. In share of GDP, the rest of the world is growing and the single market is shrinking. Why are we shackling ourselves to a regulatory regime that crushes innovation and crushes economic growth when the world is our oyster outside the EU? Yes, we have failed to exploit those opportunities, but that is what the Government should be doing and that is what the next Conservative Government will do.
Mark Ferguson
I thank the hon. Member for his optimism about the next Conservative Government. To be serious—and we must be, because this is a serious issue—research suggests that 16,000 UK exporters stopped exporting to the EU as a result of Brexit. That represents businesses in every single one of the constituencies represented in this room today, and across the whole House. Those trading with Europe are paying for the privilege. Since 2023, British businesses have had to obtain over 1 million multi-page export health certificates to trade with the EU and Northern Ireland, at a cost of anywhere between £90 million and £210 million. When it comes to security, opportunities to work more closely together were lost.
This Government are choosing to take another path. The previous Administration made significant progress in strengthening relations with the EU, announcing a new common understanding at the first ever UK-EU summit in May last year. At the summit, the UK secured a new security and defence partnership agreement with the EU—a partnership that represents our joint commitment to the important issue of European security, which has been mentioned many times today. That is built on the long-standing commitment by the UK to support Ukraine, which is shared, I think, by all those in this House today and complements our cross-continent work to protect our NATO allies.
That co-operation has been further strengthened by the recent agreement for the UK to join the EU’s Ukraine support loan initiative, which will bolster Ukraine’s defence while creating new opportunities for British defence firms, jobs and investment. The UK and the EU also agreed to work towards a sanitary and phytosanitary deal—what a tongue-twister that is! It is nearly as difficult as CPTPP, which I have managed to get out in one go.
Tony Vaughan
I thank all hon. Members for turning up today and speaking in this debate. It is interesting that we have had one Conservative MP, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), a Reform MP—the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) is almost out the door, but I am going to acknowledge him all the same; he has left his colleague the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) in his place—and the shadow Minister speak up to defend the status quo. Their defence of the current Brexit rules referred to evidence that, I think it is fair to say, was selectively referenced and in denial of where the weight of the evidence is.
I will start with the remarks of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, who challenged the idea that Brexit has damaged our economy and referred to the fact that the GDP of other countries is lower than ours. But that is not the point: the comparison is with the situation that we would have had if we had not left the European Union. That point was made earlier. The National Bureau of Economic Research has found that our GDP was 6% to 8% lower by the end of 2025 than it would have been if we had not left the EU. It also found that investment in the UK was 12% to 13% lower, employment was 3% to 4% lower and productivity was 3% to 4% lower; the OBR agrees.
The hon. Member also minimised the significance of individual examples given by numerous hon. Members in this room about Brexit-related red tape and British exporters. But the evidence is clear: our trade volumes are billions less than before Brexit. For example, a study by the LSE found that in 2022, there was £27 billion less in goods exports, which is a 6% reduction compared with the no-Brexit counterfactual, and 14% of firms stopped exporting to the EU altogether after post-Brexit trading arrangements came into force. That research found that smaller firms were particularly affected by those arrangements, whereas larger firms were able to absorb the additional costs. That is what hon. Members are seeing all over the country.
Tony Vaughan
I fear that the hon. Member’s points have not moved with the evidence, but I will give him a chance to respond.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The logic of the Government’s position is that because Canada sends 75% of its exports to the United States of America, they had better join the United States and give up their sovereignty in order to get rid of barriers to trade. The idea that Canada will become an associate member of the EU and that the EU is going to be able to get a grip of Canada seems rather fanciful, but can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Carney logic about the UK being in the single market does not apply to his own country?
Tony Vaughan
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention but as far as I can see, none of what he said is relevant to the question of whether any of his points are well founded. The evidence is as I have read out. He needs to engage with the weight of the evidence, not the selective examples that those who oppose a closer relationship with Europe ultimately rely on.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Despite long and historic disagreements between successive UK Governments and Israel, it has remained a steadfast ally in counter-terrorist efforts to keep our people safe in this country. We are now embarked, it seems, on a full diplomatic dispute with Israel and tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats. What advice was the Foreign Office giving Ministers on this matter, and what advice were the security services giving about our national security interest before this decision was taken?
The Prime Minister
We gave the most careful consideration to all of the issues involved, and indeed all of the risks. The Foreign Secretary and I took close advice from the security services and, of course, officials in the Foreign Office and in our embassies. The risk of the collapse of the two-state solution and the effect that would have on the middle east should concern us all. The risk is that it is dying before our eyes, and that requires us to have the courage to act. In the world that we are in, if Britain loses the confidence to lead on the world stage, where will we be? Where will this country be? It is right that we have taken this action. The Father of the House said yesterday that he “absolutely and fully” supports what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is doing,
“standing up for freedom, for morality and for justice for all people in this world.” —[Official Report, 8 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 891.]
Those were his words, and we take great heart from them.
EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
As a rather lone voice in this debate, I do not complain that it is not going to be a balanced debate, but somebody has to make the case.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Indeed, there are a few of us, but what we are hearing is a group of aggrieved remain supporters who have never come to terms with their grief and remain ideologically committed to rejoining. To anybody who wants to have another referendum, I do not say, “Bring it on,” because that is the last thing the public want, but I say that we would win again. When it comes down to the crunch, the British public do not want to hand back control of our laws to the European Union, and all the polls show that. If we ask them in a poll, “Do you want Westminster or Brussels to control farming policy?”, or whatever policy it is, people always vote for Westminster to maintain control.
Rachel Gilmour
The hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall the pleasant experience we had in Odesa recently, with Russian drones almost falling on our heads. Reports from Germany suggest that the recent drone attack on Leipzig airport was indeed coming from Moscow. Does he not agree that dealing with and having a good relationship with our nearest allies is the safest route to our national security?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I totally agree. Defence is a reserved matter for member states in the European Union. The European Union does not have any troops. NATO is the forum through which we operate, and it is NATO to which we should be committed, rather than setting up a rival defence organisation in the European Union.
I will also point out the contributions. According to a table from the House of Commons Library, we were making a gross contribution of £16 billion or £17 billion a year, but, with the rebate, the net contribution was £9.4 billion in the last year of membership. Our latest contribution was £103 million. To all those people who advocate for rejoining or for the reset, where will the money come from? Will it come out of defence or welfare, or will there be more taxation to generate the extra revenue needed once we start making increased contributions to the European Union?
There is also the myth-making. There is a myth that there were no small boats until Brexit—what rubbish. The small boats started in 2018, before we left, and by 2020 there were more than 8,500 crossings. That is not due to Brexit. The Dublin regulation was useless. It was in place during those years and it was never enforced.
I will finish on the question of forecasts, which are all conjectural. They are all based on what the British economy might look like compared with a basket of other economies, including the United States, which has had a huge fiscal stimulus and an AI boom, and has more free enterprise policies. The fact is that since we left the European Union, Wolfgang Münchau, who somewhat reluctantly voted remain, has made it clear that leaving was an economic non-event. We were growing at about the same rate of France and Germany, and we still are. There has been no smashing disaster in the economy. There is a disaster in Scotland, where the SNP is campaigning against reopening the North sea and supports the high energy costs imposed by the ridiculous dash to net zero—the Government are doing that too—but the fact is that we are better off outside the EU in the long term.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate.
The impact of the 2016 EU referendum is felt particularly sharply in our fields, glasshouses and farming communities. For agriculture and horticulture, leaving the EU has fundamentally changed access to labour. The end of free movement has effectively ended the dependable flow of workers from the EU, on which many growers rely to plant, tend and harvest their crops. The result has been greater complexity and cost, and many farmers and growers cannot afford that cost.
We have replaced the common agricultural policy with the environmental land management scheme and sustainable farming incentive. I strongly support paying farmers to look after the countryside, but we must be honest about the consequences of an all-or-nothing approach. Global shocks have driven up the cost of energy, fertiliser, feed and other inputs. As a result, there are crops that are simply no longer profitable to grow. What happens then? Either farms are amalgamated into larger operations, potentially owned by distant multinational corporations, or crops simply stop being grown in the UK. Neither outcome is good for our food security. I believe that we need a mixed system that rewards farmers for producing the food we need while also supporting them to protect and improve our land.
Brexit has brought new trade barriers. Tariffs, paperwork and non-tariff barriers have disrupted what were once smooth trading relationships with our nearest market, while new trade deals bring both opportunities and uncertainties.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Which goods does the EU charge tariffs on? The hon. Member said that it charges tariffs; which goods are they on?
Ben Goldsborough
I say to the hon. Gentleman that, as he was a member of the Government who signed up to the dodgy trade deal with Australia and New Zealand that sold our farmers down the river, he has single-handedly undermined the sheep and cattle industry in the UK—something he can be very proud of.
That is why I welcome the Government’s efforts to reset relations with the EU and pursue an SPS agreement, but I have one further warning to the Minister: in seeking closer alignment, we cannot lose Britain’s first-mover advantage on precision breeding. In South Norfolk, our scientists and growers are leading the way. Precision breeding is already showing enormous promise, including with sugar beet and other crops. Climate change, pests, diseases, drought and flooding are already threatening our food security. If we are serious about producing more food at home, we must allow our farmers to use every tool in the chest. We must learn from the impact of Brexit, address its consequences honestly, and build a system that backs British farmers and growers to give us the food security we need.
On a wider issue, Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster for many of my constituents in South Norfolk. It has led to divided families, businesses not being able to thrive as much as they want to and a tidal wave of red tape that has harmed the UK economy. I urge the Minister to explain in his wind-up remarks how Labour will push forward to remove that red tape and those barriers so that we can have a faster and more productive economy for all.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing the debate and on the vim and vigour with which he introduced it. Ten years on, we can now see the devastating impact that the referendum had on this country—not just on our economy, but on the integrity of our democracy and political debate. Since June 2016, we have had seven Prime Ministers in a decade. We have had a Parliament that could not resolve the question in front of it, a Government who prorogued this House unlawfully to get round it and a public who have watched the whole spectacle and drawn the obvious conclusion that our political system is broken.
The Conservatives put a question to the country that they had not thought through. They lost control of the answer and then spent years arguing among themselves about what it meant while the rest of the country paid for it. Into that vacuum walked the people who benefit from it. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has built an entire career on a promise he never had to deliver and now takes no responsibility for. He and others like him told the public that leaving would let us take back control of our borders. Since then, over 200,000 people have crossed the channel in small boats. Before the referendum, there were no small boat crossings. They created the conditions, and they now travel to Dover to be photographed pointing at the result.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The referendum was in 2016, but all the legalities of membership of the European Union, including the Dublin convention, applied until 2021. The small boat crossings were rocketing before Brexit. They have nothing to do with it.
Lisa Smart
My point is that there were no small boat crossings before the 2016 referendum. I think the hon. Gentleman is agreeing with me on that.
British GDP is between 6% and 8% smaller than it would otherwise have been. Investment has been reduced by between 12% and 18%. Employment and productivity are each down by 3% to 4%. Estimates from the House of Commons Library, those well-known doughty remain campaigners, put the cost to the Exchequer somewhere in the region of £90 billion a year in tax revenue that is simply not there. Every Minister who stands at the Dispatch Box and says that money is not available is describing a hole that has been enlarged as a result of Brexit. That is £90 billion a year that could be used for projects across the country to support our constituents. It could be used to fund renovations to my Stepping Hill hospital, the rail services my constituents wait for every morning or cleaning up our waterways so that sewage stops being pumped into the Goyt or the Mersey.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) mentioned the nearly 2 billion extra pieces of paperwork that now sit on British firms—enough to wrap around the world 15 times. Tighter border restrictions with our European neighbours devastated our hauliers, with more than double the number of insolvencies seen between 2021 and 2025 than in the previous five years. In our food and farming sector, exports to the EU have fallen by 22% since 2018, which is close to £4 billion in lost trade.
The question for the House is, “What do we do now?” Ministers know that the relationship with Europe is the biggest lever available to them. Their response so far has been to make small adjustments around the edges of a bad deal. They have ruled out the single market and a customs union, drawing red lines around two things that would make a material difference.
On fisheries, the Government have made things worse. The EU came asking for a five-year extension to the arrangements in the 2020 trade and co-operation agreement, and this Government agreed to 12 years. That is a loss worth around £6 billion over the period at today’s prices, down not only to the previous Government but to this Labour Government. Being timid is a political choice, and it has political consequences. When mainstream parties refuse to name the cause of a problem, the field is left to those who offer easy answers and no substantive solutions.
The Lib Dems are offering something different. We want a growth and defence partnership with Europe. That would mean joining the single market and a UK-EU customs union, so that our businesses can trade again without drowning in red tape. It would mean a proper UK-EU defence pact. We currently sit outside EU decision making and outside funding streams such as the European Defence Fund and the Security Action for Europe loan programme, at the precise moment when Vladimir Putin is testing this continent’s resolve and the White House is reneging on international commitments. We want a new European security council, British participation in SAFE and a European rearmament bank to support collective rearmament. Our security does not stop at Dover, and it never has.
We are also calling for the UK to join the EU’s migration and asylum pact, so that we can return people who arrive by small boat to the first EU country they entered, and so that we can see the biometric data that tells us whether someone has already been refused asylum elsewhere. That is how we actually take back control of our borders, rather than shouting about it on a beach.
Finally, we should fix the politics that produced this. A system that hands total power to a party with a minority of the vote and then dares it to govern for everyone will keep generating exactly this kind of instability. The Liberal Democrats want proportional representation through the single transferable vote at local and general elections. We want a second Chamber with a democratic mandate. We want the big money taken out of politics. We want the Electoral Commission protected from ministerial direction and serious measures against foreign interference in our elections and referendums.
From the cost of living to our broken public services, the result of the 2016 EU referendum stands in the way of making things better, and we have to fix it. Ten years on, it is clear that it has negatively impacted the UK, and I would be really grateful if the Minister could tell us today just what it would take for this Government to move their red lines.
Mr Falconer
I am glad that someone is grateful for my coming back, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s courteous tone. Of course, the Windsor framework is important. As he and many people across this House know, it is an incredibly complex arrangement that seeks to preserve the delicate balance in Northern Ireland. I have heard comments from all sides of the debate. I look forward to visiting Northern Ireland soon. It is vital that the people of Northern Ireland get the benefits of both. I understand the criticisms that he made during his remarks, but at the moment it is the one part of the UK that benefits from both, and I want to see that benefit maximised to the absolute fullest.
I was saying a little about European challenges. As the Prime Minister was clear yesterday, there are challenges for our economy, as there are for other European economies—I discussed that during my time in Austria, and the Foreign Secretary will discuss it with his counterparts. There are of course real conversations to be had with our European friends on the whole range of issues that have been discussed.
I want to confirm a few things. First, to colleagues who spoke up for their farmers, I understand the pressures on British farmers. I understand the support that I have heard this morning for concluding an SPS deal. I intend to do so with British farmers’ interests at its very heart. I heard some of the specifics, including the barriers and costs that have accrued when seeking to export. I do not like to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), but there was a suggestion that sausages were not the most important thing. As a Lincolnshire MP, I would like to say that they are, and their easy export is a priority for me and would benefit not just Lincolnshire and Europe, but the whole of the UK.
I also heard the other important points that were made. I will again try to strike a brief moment of unity with the Opposition: we have great strengths in services. Many European firms look to the UK for those strengths. It is a shame that those arrangements and services remain as immature as they are. That was a frustration before 2016 and it remains a frustration afterwards. It is in the whole of Europe’s interest to free up the services trade within Europe. I discussed that with my counterparts just this week.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The question of scrutiny was raised by the Minister’s colleagues. In the absence of a European Scrutiny Committee, how is this stuff going to be scrutinised if he brings in direct applicability and direct effect of European laws?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot provide much comment on the structures of parliamentary scrutiny, which are obviously not a question for me, but I can confirm that if we are able to conclude the ambitious deal that I hope we will be able to in the months ahead, I will of course return to Parliament and there would be a full scrutiny process. He refers to changes in the law. That happens in this place, and I would expect proper scrutiny processes of any legislation that was required to enact the Bills in question.
I was talking about services, and I pay tribute to the musical talents in this place. It is not just the Prime Minister who knows how to play a guitar. It is a great shame for Europe and Britain that touring is not easier for British bands in Europe. I discussed those issues this week. It is a source of frustration to me that it has not been possible to make faster progress. I heard the Liberal Democrat advice to change our manifesto commitments, but I would question the political wisdom of doing so. It is a manifesto commitment for us to make progress on this issue, and we will continue to do so. There are a range of complex issues being raised by the European Union about securing the changes that we want to see. I am sure it is a sentiment shared right across the House that music should flow freely, and that the UK and Europe benefit from the closeness of those relationships.
Some questions were raised about the timing of the summit and the negotiations. Obviously, we will need to agree timing with our friends in Europe and announce it in the usual way, but I want to be clear to the House that I am ambitious to move quickly and I would like to see progress within the coming months.
There was much else upon which I could touch. I will leave the debate about the statistical doppelganger proxy method for checking whether the British economy could have grown more or less quickly than other European economies to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire. All I will say is that our relationship with Europe is absolutely vital for our economy. In our constituencies, we will all have experienced businesses that are finding exports and recruitment harder; a whole range of issues have been made more difficult by the poor deal that we were left with. I would like to reassure the House that it is my intention during my time in this role to make it easier for the whole of the UK.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The common understanding that we agreed with the EU last year allowed for particular carve-outs, which the Government are negotiating. I will say to the hon. Gentleman, though, that the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement—the food and drink agreement—will mean that we will be able to export to the EU products that we are currently unable to export, and will take away costs and fees that businesses have to pay. I used to think that the Conservatives were the pro-business party—they might want to actually approve of that.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Is the House right to understand that the Government believe that the economy has grown significantly less—measurably less—as a result of leaving the EU, and that this is one of the purposes behind the reset? [Hon. Members: “Yes!”] I hear Government Members saying yes. Could the Government then set that out, with all the evidence and arguments proving the case? Looking at the evidence, the British economy grew at about the same rate as France and Germany when we were in the EU and, since we left, we have been growing at about the same rate as France and Germany; in fact, this year, the British economy is growing faster than Germany’s. Where is the evidence that Brexit was economically damaging? Will the Minister publish a proper statement on that?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Gentleman and I work very well on other issues; I suspect that over the next 12 months, this is an issue on which we are going to disagree. If he is genuinely asking me at the Dispatch Box to provide evidence to the country about the lamentable performance of the economy in the latter years of the previous Conservative Government, then what a pleasure it will be!
Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(5 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). On the point he made latterly about the economic situation we find ourselves in, I would say that the Prime Minister is absolutely focused on that, and has been from day one. There are these distractions—it would be great to move on from them, but of course we are entitled to the debate—but I do believe that the Prime Minister wanted to bring order to our trade arrangements, and that was why he was persuaded into appointing Peter Mandelson. I am not a big fan of Peter Mandelson—I assure the House of that—but just a short year ago many people in the House and around the world were fêting him for the deal that he had managed to strike with the United States.
There are many questions about the deal struck by Peter Mandelson, but for the purpose of this debate I want to turn to some of the points made by the Leader of the Opposition. I did not intervene on her because I felt it was absolutely fine for her to continue, but yesterday she amply demonstrated that she was not capable of prosecuting an argument. She emphasised process, but if there is one thing I would say about this Prime Minister, it is that he is absolutely rock solid when it comes to process. [Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh, but for those of them who backed Boris Johnson and accepted his lies in this place, or who accepted the word of Liz Truss and that catastrophic kamikaze budget, there is a question of judgment. On process, this Prime Minister is absolutely rock solid.
Secondly, the Prime Minister is a man of the utmost decency who would never, ever lie, because he knows that his credibility rests on that.
Matt Western
In a moment—I am just beginning to make my speech. There is the point about some sort of conspiracy or cover-up at No. 10 on which I can disabuse the Leader of the Opposition. The point is to differentiate between the team around the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister himself.
Matt Western
I will bring in the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) shortly to ease your patience, Mr Speaker.
When the Prime Minister sacked Morgan McSweeney, it was because he realised that there were problems within his team at No. 10. The Leader of the Opposition may claim that somehow the No. 10 leadership was the worst in living memory. I am not sure how far back living memory goes for her, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said, we do not have to go back very far. I would say 2022, with a certain Liz Truss and her No. 10 operation, or that of Boris Johnson and the three years of his pathological lying that we endured in this place.
The Leader of the Opposition said that the biggest decision a Prime Minister can make is about the security of this country. Just a few short weeks ago, she was talking about how the United Kingdom should be drawn into the war in Iran, and in that she was proven absolutely wrong. I will give way to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whom I know as a friend across the House, as we have worked together positively on many things.
I served on the Privileges Committee that studied the Boris case and reached a conclusion upon it. If the hon. Gentleman wants to help the Prime Minister, I would be rather wary, if I were him, about drawing parallels between Boris Johnson and the present Prime Minister.
Matt Western
I thank the hon. Gentleman, my friend. I was simply addressing the point made by the Leader of the Opposition, who suggested that the operation at No. 10 was the worst in living memory. It is quite obvious that that is absolutely not the case. We have had two very recent examples, in 2019-22 and then 2022-23, under Johnson and Truss.
I want to make it quite clear that the way I see it, the mistake that may have been made by No. 10 is the clear delegation to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, who was at the heart of an inner circle in No. 10 that no longer exists of Peter Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney and Matthew Doyle. As has come to light just this morning, Matthew Doyle was also part of the problem.
Security Vetting
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(5 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Let me be clear. We have thousands of civil servants who act with integrity and professionalism every day and do the job to the very best of their ability. As I understand it, what Sir Olly is saying is that he believed that he could not give me this information—that he was prohibited from doing so. I disagree with him; I think he could and should have given me the information. But I do not think that is any reason to suggest that across the civil service, people act for any improper motive.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I just point out that the developed vetting process has always been highly protected because otherwise it would not work? People would not give information to the developed vetting process if they thought that any detail of it was likely to be disclosed, or even if they thought that the result—the assessment of low, medium or high risk—was likely to be exposed. That is why the previous Labour Government wrote section 3 into the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010: in order to prohibit that disclosure. If the Prime Minister is saying that developed vetting information will now be available to Ministers on a routine basis, would he not be undermining the very process upon which we depend for our national security?
The Prime Minister
With respect, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. I certainly agree that the information that is provided into the process by the applicant has to be protected; as anybody who has been through the process will know, it is incredibly detailed and intrusive, and it is very important that individuals give full and truthful accounts for all the questions they are asked. That is why that information needs to be protected. I do not accept that that means that the recommendation of UKSV cannot be shared with Ministers, including the Prime Minister. I think there is a distinction between the two; I accept the first, but I utterly reject the second.
Middle East
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
We have about 300,000 British civilians in the Gulf region, and they are at risk because of Iran’s actions. It is my duty to ensure that we protect them. That is why we have taken action in our own right, particularly with our pilots. It is also why I have allowed the bases to be used for defensive purposes to prevent attacks on our civilians, as much as anything else, who are in the region. We are never going to abandon them to their fate when missiles and drones are incoming into the areas where they live and work. It is my duty to protect them, and I will continue to do so.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister remind some of his colleagues that the United States is a democracy and an ally, and Iran is an odious regime that could have ended the war this weekend had it agreed to give up its ambitions for nuclear weapons and to cease supporting its proxy terrorist organisations around the middle east? Would it not be helpful if the Prime Minister criticised the Iran regime a bit more, rather than supporting his colleagues in criticising the United States?
The Prime Minister
In fairness, I have been very clear about the Iranian regime—it is odious and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, it is really important that it does not have a nuclear capability and that we deal with its proxies. That has been the consistent position of this Government—and previous Governments, to be fair—and it has been the way that I have put it from the Dispatch Box on many, many occasions.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
It is a reflection of the depth and extent of the work being undertaken by Government to comply with the Humble Address that it is taking some time to be able to process the documents. We moved at pace to publish the first tranche of documents last week and, as I have said to the House, we are going to publish the second tranche as soon as possible.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) referred to very specific documents—meeting notes and decision notes—that have not been disclosed. May I point out that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister himself must not mislead the House? So, do these documents actually exist? Are there decision notes and meeting notes that have been withheld, or do they not exist?
Darren Jones
Documents owned by the Government that are within the scope of the Humble Address have been published, as I have set out.
Standards in Public Life
Bernard Jenkin Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
As I have repeated to the House, there must be rules that apply in all circumstances, to all people, in respect of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and to appointments to such roles, as well as clear consequences for people who lie or breach those rules. Those are the reforms that the Government are bringing forward.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister’s adviser, Morgan McSweeney, resigned because he had advised the Prime Minister to make this appointment. What advice did the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, give the Prime Minister? If he gave the same advice, should he not resign as well?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member will know that it would not be appropriate for me to speak from the Dispatch Box on behalf of civil servants and special advisers. The statements released by Morgan McSweeney and Keir Starmer yesterday answer his questions about Morgan McSweeney’s decision to resign from his post.