Budget Resolutions

Catherine West Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Before I begin, I pass on my best wishes and those of my colleagues to the hon. Members for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—we are thinking of them and, indeed, all those who are caught up in this terrible virus.

The scale and seriousness of the coronavirus demand a collective response. As I said last week, this virus requires all of us to demonstrate calm and practical leadership. This is the very least the public deserve from us at a time of deep and natural worry. SNP Members are committed to that approach. That example of leadership has been clearly embodied by our First Minister of Scotland, and I welcome the close co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments on this matter.

The first priority in dealing with the crisis has to be about maintaining the health of all our people. The scale of the coronavirus has and will put added pressures on the NHS in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. I take this opportunity to thank all our NHS staff for everything they do, but most especially now, as they deal with the outbreak of this virus.

I welcome the fact that the Chancellor has committed to providing additional funding, but I wonder whether he will take the opportunity to tell the House how much of that additional spending on the coronavirus will come to Scotland. I also urge him to go further—the SNP Scottish Government have ensured that frontline health spending in Scotland is £136 higher per person than it is in England. Social care funding is £130 per capita higher than it is in England. Matching Scottish per capita NHS spending would provide health services across the UK with the resources, equipment and staff that needed now during this crisis and in the longer term. It would also allow Holyrood to increase funding for NHS Scotland by over £4 billion by the end of this Parliament.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman take an intervention?

[Ian Blackford]

I will not.

We believe that that is the only adequate and prudent response to this unprecedented health crisis. As part of the Budget package, we also need to recognise the deep worry that people are experiencing about the impact of its consequences on their incomes, employment, rights and benefits. Just as our health response must be led by the best scientific advice, our economic response must be guided by the need for an appropriate fiscal stimulus that ensures that the economy is not tipped into recession. The employed and the self-employed need to be aided through the crisis. I acknowledge many of the measures taken today by the Chancellor to do just that, but more urgent and more targeted action is also required.

In particular, urgent measures are needed to help the tourism and hospitality industry, above and beyond what has been offered today. Industry leaders are already warning of the consequences of the coronavirus, with a raft of booking cancellations and a significant drop in numbers. The SNP is advocating a package of measures, including a temporary drop in the VAT rate to 5% to help businesses to reduce their costs—[Interruption.] I can hear the Prime Minister saying, “We’ve cut interest rates,” but—[Interruption.] Business rates, rather, but the problem, Prime Minister, is that these businesses are facing a crisis not of their own making.

Many of the businesses in my part of the world, in the highlands of Scotland, come through a fallow period over the winter. It is not just an issue of their seeing a reduction in business; in some cases, they are going to be desperately short of cash coming in through the door. Let us not forget that many of these businesses have relied on an EU workforce over the last few years. In anticipation of what is happening with the migration proposals from the Government and of the difficulty of recruiting labour, they have had to staff up. They have additional costs, but their revenues are about to fall through the floor. That is why I have written to all the major UK banks to ask them to support businesses and households through this period to make sure that working capital is extended to all businesses, and that no business—no good business in the hospitality and tourism sector—should be pushed to the wall as a consequence of what is happening.

Chancellor, a temporary drop in VAT would allow business to weather the storm as people follow public health advice and tourist numbers drop, but let me say, on the basis of the scientific advice that we have today, that Scotland is well and truly open for business, and I encourage people to come and experience the breadth and depth of our tourism offering. VAT was reduced in Ireland and it helped to boost both employment and tourist numbers. I urge the Chancellor, in the strongest possible terms, to consider a similar policy to help our tourism and hospitality sectors to come through this crisis.

Let me turn to the other measures in the Budget. The Chancellor has just delivered his first Budget speech—I welcome him to his position—and I give him credit for one thing: he did really well in fluently reading out Dominic Cummings’ handwriting. It is a strange irony that those who were most obsessed with taking back control from Brussels are now at the heart of the unelected, centralised elite who have grabbed control, not just in Downing Street but in the Treasury. Today they have produced a half-baked Budget thrown together by a bunch of Vote Leave campaigners drowning in the responsibility of government. I am talking about a group of ideologically driven campaigners—let us be charitable—so distrustful of Europe and the benefits it might have brought, economically, socially and culturally, and so caught up in their own meaningless slogans that they are blinded by the damaging reality they have caused. People are not fooled. The slogan “take back control” does not work when you have been in power for the last decade. We have not forgotten that the Tories have been in control and that we are all the worse for it. If the Chancellor really thinks that this Budget levels up after a decade of austerity, he must have bought himself a wonky spirit level. After delivering a decade of cruel cuts, the Tories are now offering a new decade of political and economic isolation outside the European Union.

The Budget is a warning of what may be ahead of us and a reminder of Scotland’s need to choose a different future. It has never been more stark: Scotland’s economic interests are not served by being part of this UK union. Rather than the instability and limitations imposed by the UK, independence now offers the Scottish people the chance to build a better, more prosperous and safer future. The 2016 Brexit referendum was the moment when our political futures met a point of divergence, and we are now on the cusp of the moment of decision for Scotland’s people. The Conservatives may have delayed our democratic right, but they cannot indefinitely block the voices and votes of the Scottish people. Scotland’s future will be ours to choose, and we will very shortly make that choice. I am more confident than ever that the Scottish people will choose to be an independent, equal and European nation.

As I have said, this is a Budget produced by a group of people who are expert in fabricating slogans but amateurs in delivering competent government. The Tories have a new slogan about levelling up funding and living standards. Let us judge them on their record. A reasonable place to start is basic income. The Office for National Statistics recently confirmed that the median income for the poorest 20% fell by 4.3% per year between 2017 and 2019. Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis shows that since 2010 the poorest 10% of households have lost an average of 11% of their income. That is £1,200 per year. For those with children the average loss was up to 20%, or £4,000. That is the cost of Tory Government to people in Scotland and the United Kingdom. That is the true Tory record: falling wages and growing hardship. While the gap between rich and poor grows, last month the ONS revealed that income inequality was as much as 2.4% higher on average than official figures had suggested over the decade since the financial crisis in 2008, and this Budget does not help by failing to implement policies that deal with growing inequality. The Tories still refuse to raise their pretend living wage to the real living wage and refuse to end the age discrimination that penalises our young people.

Another reasonable place to judge their levelling up record is overall public spending. Let us not be fooled by some of the rhetoric in the statement today. Since 2010, aside from health spending, the Tories have cut per person spending on public services by a whopping 21%. This Budget comes nowhere near either closing or reversing that devastating legacy. By any standard, by any measure, by any objective acknowledgement of fact, this Tory Government have failed to level up for anyone anywhere. They cannot be allowed to hide from these facts, just as they cannot be allowed to hide from their legacy.

Let us be clear: the poor becoming poorer was a Tory political choice. The Resolution Foundation has said that the fall in income for the poorest

“has been driven by policy choices, with gains from higher employment more than wiped out by benefit cuts.”

Why did the Conservatives take these political choices? As ever, they were serving their own interests and the interests of those they serve. For them, it is a simple and cynical calculation. A Government who rob Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. As far as the Tories are concerned, everyone else can go whistle.

I suppose we should not be surprised. This is a Budget advocated by a Prime Minister who once eulogised:

“some measure of inequality is essential for the spirit of envy and…is, like greed, a valuable spur to economic activity.”

Greed—a valuable spur to economic opportunity! That is the reality of the vision of the Prime Minister. That does not sound like a man determined to level up. The honeyed words and new slogans in the Budget will not change the long and bitter experience of Tory economics. People in Scotland know that they cannot believe their words, they cannot believe their promises, and they cannot believe that they will ever change—not ever.

If this really was the great investment Budget the Chancellor heralds, he should have started by paying up the moneys the Tories have been holding back from Scotland for years. I am grateful to a Scottish Parliament Information Centre—[Interruption.] I hear the Prime Minister talking about grievance. This is not about grievance; this is about the facts of what a Conservative Government have done for the people of Scotland. The Scottish Parliament Information Centre has confirmed that Scotland would be owed about £5.8 billion if the proper Barnett consequentials were applied to the DUP Brexit bung and the additional moneys since. That is the reality. That is added, of course, to the £175 million still owed to the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—money that was stolen from our vital public services. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) saying it was against all the advice. It was the vindictiveness of his Government that took these funds from the Scottish public services. That is the reality. Let us be crystal clear: the UK Government have chosen to rob Scotland’s public services of that money, and the silence from the Scottish Conservatives—their failure to stand up for our police and firemen—is audible to all.

The Budget also turns its back on the oil and gas sector in the north-east of Scotland. These industries face months of instability and uncertainty in the aftermath of the latest collapse of an OPEC deal to stabilise prices. The oil price has plunged, yet there was not a mention of it from the Chancellor. The impact of the global oil price slump will reverberate around the world, including hitting Scotland’s vital oil and gas sector. The oil and gas sector has generated £334 billion of net tax revenues for the UK Government since 1970. Having used the sector as a cash cow, the Treasury must support it in its time of need. The UK Government must deliver crucial support for the sector as part of a just transition to net zero emissions. Scotland still bears the scars from rapid de-industrialisation under previous Conservative Governments. That must never happen again, and it must not happen to north-east Scotland.

The failure of the Government’s investment strategy— the Chancellor admitted it today, and we see it in the productivity record—has unfortunately failed to diminish their arrogance in trying to dictate the investment needs of the devolved Administrations. We are told that the Treasury is considering an intra-UK connectivity study, which sounds suspiciously like another Tory power grab on the devolved Parliaments. Chancellor, how can people be expected to have faith in a Prime Minister who cannot build a bridge between London and London, and a Scottish Secretary who thinks a bridge is a euphemism for a tunnel? Having ripped up the Sewel convention, the Tories are on a mission to level down devolution. Chancellor, your Government are neither competent enough nor trusted enough to invest in infrastructure in Scotland. Go back and think again, and allow the Scottish Parliament to use extra capital resources to provide for Scotland’s infrastructure needs. We will deliver for the people of Scotland.

The Budget fails to attempt to fix, or even to acknowledge, the underlying fundamental problem of the economy. For the past decade, the Conservatives have presided over a crisis in productivity. Only last year, about 6,000 companies revealed that uncertainty over leaving the European Union had lowered capital spending by about 11% on average. That is what is really going on in the economy. According to the Bank of England, that has cut overall UK productivity by between 2% and 5%—a reduction in productivity created by the Conservative Government in power in Westminster. The overall perception of the UK’s productivity is not helped by the Prime Minister’s productivity levels; he downs tools and hides away whenever the going gets tough.

Static productivity is a direct consequence of choices made during the financial crisis. There was a massive quantitative easing splurge in the wake of the crash, but there has been no real return on that investment for ordinary workers. It did do one thing, though; a Bank of England analysis of the impact of quantitative easing showed that between 2006 to 2014, the 10% least wealthy households saw a marginal increase in wealth of around £3,000. The wealthiest 10% saw a £350,000 increase. In other words, printing money for the financial services industry ended up helping only those working in the financial services industry. Improved productivity, and capital investment for wider society, never got a look-in. I challenge the Chancellor: will he commit to a review of the impact of the bonus culture in financial services and its effect on general economic activity?

As I have said, the decade of Tory austerity and the inequality it inflicted has hit the poorest hardest. The brutal cuts have targeted children and the most disadvantaged. The benefits freeze, universal credit sanctions, disability assessments, the cruel two-child limit, the rape clause—the list of failed and punishing policies goes on and on. It is a legacy the Tories should be ashamed of, and should have the basic decency to apologise for.

If the Chancellor is serious about looking after those who have been left behind, he can begin to prove it by committing to four things. Will he increase the monthly allowance for universal credit and end the benefit cap; increase benefits above inflation and restore their value after the four-year freeze; scrap once and for all the two-child cap on tax credits and the rape clause; and follow the lead of the Scottish Government and bring in a child payment scheme similar to theirs, which has lifted 30,000 of our children out of poverty? If the Chancellor cannot commit to those four basic measures, which would reduce poverty and bring compassion into the social security system, his words and promises of levelling up will be shown to be hollow.

The devastating Tory legacy on social security has especially hit pensioners, who still receive the lowest state pension in the developed world, according to the OECD. They have also been denied their full rights. I am proud that the Scottish National party, with others, has stood shoulder to shoulder with 1950s-born women since the beginning of their campaign, and we stand with them still. They deserve justice, and it is disgraceful that their plight continues to be ignored in yet another Budget.

Another Tory attack on pensioners, and another broken promise, is of course the removal of free TV licences for the over-75s. This will hit 240,000 households in Scotland and 3 million across the United Kingdom. Chancellor, this is your Government’s responsibility, not the BBC’s. It is time to pay up. Stop punishing pensioners, and keep the free TV licence for all those over 75.

By far the biggest budgetary and economic decision that confronts these islands—[Interruption.] We are talking about some of the poorest in our society, and women who have been denied their pensions. I say to the Prime Minister that when I knocked on doors in the election campaign, I found that a great number of elderly people were alarmed by the loss of their TV licence. That is what we get from the Conservatives, but they sit laughing and scoffing. I find it remarkable. It is okay for them; the rest of the population can go hang.

By far the biggest budgetary and economic issue that confronts these islands remains our relationship with the European Union. We hope that the negotiations on our future relationship can be successfully concluded, but all the signs from this Tory Government are that instead of co-operation and close relationships, they are heading for divergence and deregulation. The UK Government’s negotiation mandate all but confirmed that choice. The consequences for workers’ rights, environmental protection, the shape of our economy and the nature of our society will be profound, and—this will be of little interest to this Tory Government—the impact will be felt most by those who already have the least: the vulnerable and the poor. Scotland will end up paying a heavy price for a future we did not back.

Our Government’s modelling shows that even if the UK Government secure a basic free trade agreement, Scottish GDP would be 6.1%, or £9 billion, lower by 2030 than if we had retained full EU membership. We heard from the Chancellor about the impact of a slowing global economy, and have heard about the impact that coronavirus may have on us, yet the Government are prepared to crash our economy and put Scottish workers on the dole. Not in our name! The harsh reality is that that lost GDP—let us put it in cash terms—amounts to £1,610 per person. A no-deal Brexit—heaven help us—will raise that figure to £12.7 billion, equivalent to £2,300 per person. This Tory Government will sacrifice our economic health. Why? For an ideology––the narrow ideology of the Brexit fanboys, led by Dominic Cummings, now running the Treasury. As the trade negotiations unfold in the coming months, the numbers are worth reflecting on, because it is worth reflecting on the fact that the Westminster Government are actively choosing to make Scotland’s people poorer. It is not an accident; it is by design.

On top of all that, the National Audit Office—[Interruption.] I find it remarkable to watch the reaction of the Prime Minister. I challenge the Prime Minister to tell me that the figures that I have just given on the impact of a free trade deal or a no-deal Brexit are wrong. The Prime Minister knows, just as I know—just as we know—that the Scottish economy is going to be harmed by what he wants to do in these trade negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), with whom I agree on so many issues; although I perhaps disagree on others, it was good to hear his speech. He is right on transport for Bournemouth and some of our coastal areas: it is not good enough.

Let me set the scene by reading from the Haringey fairness commission report. The commission undertook a year-long listening exercise on what it is like to live in an inner-London borough with real inequality, listening to what some of our residents said. The commission heard about

“young people attending school in shoes lined with plastic bags to protect against water which might otherwise seep through the holes in their shoes, depriving them of dignity at a time when their sense of self is being formed.”

It also heard about

“physically disabled residents unable to leave their homes due to inaccessible housing and the inability to afford suitable equipment, meaning that they were left isolated and unable to participate in day-to-day activities. It heard about low-income…workers living in overcrowded, unsanitary accommodation with little chance of saving enough money to improve their situation.”

The reason why I began with that is because when I last spoke in the Chamber, I spoke about the health inequalities in Haringey borough highlighted by the fairness commission. If someone catches the 41 bus from Turnpike Lane to Highgate, each time they go west one stop, the people there live another year longer. That disparity between rich and poor within one constituency is very disconcerting, because in unequal communities we end up with some of the worst outcomes. My question is not necessarily about the elements of today’s almost emergency Budget, but about the long-term strategic view and how that might answer some of the questions raised by the fairness commission that the House heard in my introduction.

On the covid-19 emergency, I wish to take a moment in my speech to put on record our commitment as a House: the fact that covid-19 originated in China does not mean that Chinese people are in any way to blame for the disease. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I know that everyone in the House will agree with me and will be worried about their constituents from the far east who are currently being very badly treated. Chinatown in central London has closed down completely, and a lot of Chinese takeaways are being discriminated against because they serve Chinese food. There is some of the most incredible ignorance. I know that each person in this House thinks that is deplorable and will agree that whether someone comes from China, Italy or somewhere else, this is not their fault. This is a terrible illness that afflicts each of us as human beings, and that is how we must address it, in a public health way.

The Bank of England has announced some measures to deal with the emergency caused by this terrible illness, and I wish to pick up on some of them. First, the 0.25% lending rate is a positive step. I am not sure how much it will help, because so much in respect of lending and business confidence comes from people’s confidence to be able to go out and purchase things and then take out loans. I am not sure that that is where people’s thoughts are at the moment—I am not sure that the confidence level is high enough.

Secondly, we hope that the cheap funding to the real economy will happen, but I have to say that 10, 11 years or 12 years on, the confidence in the banking sector, at least among a lot of my constituents, is not necessarily there yet.

Thirdly, even though there might be £100 billion for small businesses to borrow and so on, I worry about how people will know that those loans are available to them. I wonder whether Treasury Ministers could tell us about that challenge. How are they telling small businesses about the £100 billion that might be there to ease capital expenditure and to make changes?

Fourthly, the Bank of England announced today the dividend freeze, which is a positive step. It is about the first time that I have ever heard anything just a little bit hard for a sector of the economy that, over the 12-year period, got away with less harm than my constituents. I am pleased that the Bank of England has decided to freeze dividends.

On the question of the European Union and our membership thereof, The Guardian today cited the fact that since the referendum in 2016 we have lost £26 billion of GDP. I wonder whether we will reflect on that and on how we will make up for that in the medium to long term, because we have a lot of productivity challenges. I am not sure that just saying, “Well, we won’t have to pay as much into the pot,” does it. I am very worried about our medium to long-term relationship with Europe, particularly if the transition period is complicated by the covid virus and by the negotiating style of some of our Ministers.

The third and final thing I want to talk about is the defining challenge of our time—that is what António Guterres has called the climate change challenge, and I could not agree more with the head of the UN’s description. The measures announced today do not go far enough—they are very timid—particularly when we think how frightening the climate change challenge really is.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) pointed out that the ambitious-sounding carbon capture and storage facilities suggestion, while it might sound good on paper, has been announced several times now and has not actually changed anything. The proof is in the pudding on that one.

There are also some real mixed messages. Freezing fuel duty is a mixed message, and new roads are a mixed message, when Parliament has decided that climate change is an emergency. What is the message? Is it that this is an emergency, or is it that we can just keep building more roads and freezing fuel duty forever?

There is a real missed opportunity in the Budget around the climate change agenda and the role of local government. If we give half of the money for the carbon capture experts to local government, they will insulate properties, prevent heat loss, ensure lower bills for millions of low-income people, introduce the proper cycle lanes the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East mentioned, and develop highly skilled green jobs in a micro way. A lot of the climate agenda and the climate challenge is very localised.

In conclusion, despite the Chancellor’s Panglossian tone when he delivered his Budget speech at lunch- time, I am worried about the mixed messages on the environment. I am also worried about the lack of measures to tackle inequality in a genuinely energetic way. When the comprehensive spending review comes up, I hope we will look at the role of local government and at the way local government can really take on the climate challenge.

Local Government Finance

Catherine West Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that the Government’s proposed changes to local authority funding will dramatically downgrade the importance of deprivation in deciding the distribution of funding to local authorities and will have a devastating effect on local adult social care funding; further notes that proposed changes will cause even greater reductions in foundation funding and children’s social care; and calls on the Government to scrap its Review of Local Authorities’ Relative Needs and Resources and to ensure that local authorities are properly funded through a fairer system that properly takes account of deprivation, need and differing council tax bases.

The state of local government finance is desperate. Our councils are not just at breaking point; many of them are broken. The Government’s so-called fair funding review could be about to make matters worse for some of them.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent start to his speech. How many councils does he think will fall like Northamptonshire County Council, in the next five years?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Of course that is the worry, because several councils are edging ever closer to the cliff edge, and the number that will drop over that cliff edge is very much dependent on the actions of this Government. If they honour their word and put resources into the local communities that need them most, hopefully we can avoid more Northamptonshires. However, if they continue along the lines that I fear they will, removing resources from the areas with the greatest need but the least ability to raise their own finances, I fear for the future of the local government sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine West Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I thought he was going to ask about the hospital in Watford, which I am delighted to say is going to be rebuilt, along with many others across the country. I congratulate him on being the Conservative Member of Parliament for Watford. I am delighted with all the work he has done for his constituency.

On the Bill, I am delighted that the House voted in favour of it. Unfortunately, as I say, it willed the end but not the means. The House of Commons has, alas, voted to delay Brexit again. We must now see what the EU says about that request for a delay, and I will be studying its answer very closely to see how we proceed.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Q11. Last Saturday, Haringey Borough football club players experienced racist slurs, were spat upon, and experienced the most disgusting behaviour during a grassroots football match. Will the Prime Minister congratulate the manager, Tom Loizou, on taking the players off, which was a very courageous decision, and can he explain to the House why bigotry has been emboldened under the current Government?

[The Prime Minister]

I was with the hon. Lady until her last point. I certainly think that racism in football is utterly disgusting and should be stamped out at every possible opportunity. She will have seen what happened in Bulgaria. I am delighted to say that the head of the Bulgarian football association was dismissed from his position as a result of what happened in that match. We will certainly be making sure that we do everything we can to stamp out racism of any kind, wherever it takes place in this society and whatever form it takes.

Debate on the Address

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is completely right. What we have is a choice between a semi-Marxist, if not Marxist, Opposition that would set this country back decades and a one nation Government who understand the vital importance of wealth creation.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I am very grateful that the Prime Minister has given way to a woman MP. In the Queen’s Speech there was very little information about the climate change emergency; will he give a little more detail on what the Government will do in relation to this pressing issue that is affecting so many young people and their mental health?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She raises a very good point. At the heart of the Queen’s Speech is provision for a new independent environmental regulator that will invigilate this Government and any Government in the future as we achieve our climate change targets. That is how this country can hope to be carbon neutral—to be net zero—by 2050, and that is what we are going to achieve. That is our programme.

Brexit Readiness: Operation Yellowhammer

Catherine West Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely take my hon. Friend’s points. First, I think it has been the case that farmers’ unions across the UK—the Ulster Farmers’ Union, NFU Scotland, the Farmers’ Union of Wales and the NFU in England—have been clear that they would infinitely prefer a deal, as would I. As I had occasion to state earlier and will happily repeat again, the sector that is most vulnerable in the event of no deal is the agrifood sector, which is why we need to be conscious of its concerns.

With respect to Northern Ireland, I hope that nothing I have said suggests or implies that the Government take a lackadaisical approach. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Northern Ireland Secretary, Home Office Ministers and I have made regular trips to Northern Ireland, and are in contact with the Northern Ireland civil service. We are acutely aware of the difficulties that the Northern Ireland civil service would be in under a no-deal situation if the Assembly were not restored. I would also say that we need—and I hope we can get—greater clarity about what might happen on the other side of the Irish border, but that is a sovereign matter for the EU and the Irish Government. I do not make any criticism of them, but obviously it would be in all our interests if we were able to work to mitigate the impacts in the event of no deal.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Eighty per cent. of cheddar cheese is from dairy farms in Northern Ireland. It is manufactured in Ireland and then comes across at Holyhead into other parts of the UK. What assessment has been made of the impact on the dairy industry across Ireland and the UK? Can the Minister rule out food riots as a result of a lack of basics like cheddar?

[Michael Gove]

That was a very serious point but the final twist, I felt, was wrong. [Interruption.] The reason it is a serious point, to be fair to the hon. Lady, is that a significant amount of raw milk from Northern Ireland is processed south of the border. The two most vulnerable agrifood sectors in the UK are sheep meat, across the UK, and the Northern Ireland dairy sector. She is absolutely right to raise that. As for the prospect of food riots, I am afraid that that is precisely the sort of exaggerated language that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) pointed out, does nothing to enable us to focus on the real risks and challenges and the importance of mitigating them.

Prorogation of Parliament

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 269157 and 237487 relating to the prorogation of Parliament.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I will read the wording of both petitions into the official record. The first petition is titled, “Do not prorogue Parliament”, and states:

“Parliament must not be prorogued or dissolved unless and until the Article 50 period has been sufficiently extended or the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EU has been cancelled.”

That petition received 1,721,119 signatures within a very short space of time. The second petition, which has already closed, is titled, “The Prime Minister should advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament”, and says:

“The Prime Minister should advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament suspending the current parliamentary session until 2nd April 2019”—

that is clearly out of date now—

“to prevent any attempts by parliamentarians to thwart Brexit on 29th March 2019. Preparations for no-deal/WTO will continue. The Prime Minister’s deal has been rejected. No further deal is available from the EU. Remaining in the EU is not an option. Extension or revocation of Article 50 is not an option. I believe the British people voted to leave with no mention of a deal and that WTO rules, to which Britain will default on 29th March 2019, are in Britain’s best interests. We may get a better deal after, but not until, we have left.”

As I said, the second petition is out of date; events were moving so quickly at the time that it was difficult to schedule a debate on it and to keep it topical. Naturally, with the Prorogation of Parliament upon us tonight, as I believe has been declared, it was deemed suitable to bring the two petitions together.

It is important that the Petitions Committee should always try to allow people to have their views aired. There is a reason why debates on petitions in Westminster Hall are some of the most read and watched debates: it is because we are talking about what people want us to talk about, rather than what we want to talk about. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the two coincide in this case. I have noticed that over the last three years we have wanted to talk about Brexit quite a lot; and because of the topicality of the issue, and because the Prime Minister has been clear that we will leave the EU by 31 October, come what may, people want to express their opinion, whether they want to stop no deal or stop Brexit in its entirety. It is important that we discuss that in the House of Commons.

There is a clear reason why Prorogation is a sensible idea. The Prime Minister was elected by members of the Conservative party, and people have asked what his domestic agenda will be. It is therefore right that we debate the wider domestic agenda, as well as Brexit, in this place. That can be done through a Queen’s Speech, in which the Prime Minister can set out clearly what he wants to do in the coming year, in a new Session of Parliament, to move the debate on, move Parliament on, and move the bandwidth of the media away from Brexit as we leave on 31 October.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I thank my London colleague for giving way. Does he believe that 100,000 votes from Tory party members is enough of a mandate for making such important decisions?

[Paul Scully]

I will come back to the question of mandate, because in about five hours the Prime Minister will ask Members to vote for a general election. We have all said that we do not want one at this time, because we want to get on with the job in hand, but at the moment, that is the best way not only to resolve the conundrum that we face in the lead-up to 31 October, but to move on and to show that there is a mandate for the domestic agenda.

Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications)

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, may I first associate myself with the many comments about your role as Speaker in this House and the way in which you have performed it, certainly since I have been here? I did not have the chance to speak earlier, but I want to associate myself with those comments.

I rise to support this application in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). At the heart of the application is the simple principle that the Executive should be honest and open with Parliament so as to enable this House properly to scrutinise the Government’s policies and decisions. That should be a given, but it is not, and I am afraid that that speaks volumes. Two important decisions underpin this application. The first is the decision to prorogue the House for five weeks, at what should be the most important and intensive part of the Brexit negotiations. The second is the decision to deny the House the assessment of the preparations for a no-deal Brexit—the Yellowhammer analysis.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, at the very least, Members of this House should be aware of the cost of a no-deal Brexit? That information is crucial to understanding whether the cost is £2 billion or £8 billion.

[Keir Starmer]

I do agree with my hon. Friend.

It is regrettable that we are compelled to use this process of a Humble Address, but the reason is obvious. Today’s measure speaks to a wide truth, which has been touched on a number of times by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, and I am sad to say that it is the basic lack of trust that now exists between this House and the Executive. That has changed in recent weeks. That lack of trust arises very much from the actions of the Prime Minister over the last weeks, which have contributed hugely to it. That alone should be a profound cause of concern to all Members of this House, because in my experience—only four years plus—this House operates on the basis of trust. That trust is going, day by day, and that is why this application has had to be made. That is a concern to all of us and it should be a concern to the Secretary of State.

Let me take the two issues one by one. At this stage of the Brexit process, the House should be sitting as often as possible. Frankly, we should be sitting every day until 31 October. Instead, we have a five-week Prorogation. The Prime Minister and other Ministers say that this is to allow for a Queen’s Speech and a new legislative agenda. If anybody believes that, they will believe anything. As the Secretary of State is likely to try to make that case—I say “try” because I do not think he will succeed—I have two questions. First, why now? Why prorogue now at such a crucial time? What is wrong with proroguing in November when we know the outcome of the negotiations and have a decision? Secondly, why five weeks? There is no requirement for Parliament to be prorogued for five weeks.

Priorities for Government

Catherine West Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the good work that he has done to promote investment in such start-ups. I look forward to further conversations with him about ways that we may encourage that investment.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister says that he believes in the London living wage, yet so many cleaners in Whitehall are still not paid it. Will he commit today from the Dispatch Box that every single entry-level worker and cleaner in Whitehall will be paid the living wage, regardless of whether they work for the Ministry of Justice, the Department for International Development or any others?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for that important point. I have to say that—[Interruption.] The answer is yes. I was very proud when I was running London that we massively expanded the living wage. We made sure that it was paid not just by Greater London Authority bodies but by their contractors as well, and that is what we should be doing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine West Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I believe that the BBC got a good deal in 2015. Indeed:

“The Government’s decision here to put the cost of the over-75s on us has been more than matched by the deal coming back for the BBC.”

Those are not my words, but the words of the director general of the BBC after the deal in 2015. I think that taxpayers now expect the BBC to do the right thing.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Q10. In February 2018, a homeless man tragically died outside Parliament. Ten months later, another homeless man died in exactly the same place. Will the Prime Minister deal with that terrible Dickensian situation and, in the dying days of her premiership, address the “burning injustice” of homelessness, whereby we have to step over bodies to enter Parliament?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we are all concerned about homelessness and rough sleeping, and when we hear and see the stories that the hon. Lady cited. The latest figures on rough sleeping show that the number of people sleeping on our streets is down for the first time in eight years. That is because action has been taken. It is a step in the right direction, but of course we need to do much more. That is why we have set up the new strategy to end rough sleeping altogether, which is backed by an initial £100 million. We are determined to make sleeping on the streets a thing of the past.

EU Parliament Elections: Denial of Votes

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

Oh dear; well, I will not thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. The reality is that we have an independent Electoral Commission and an independent police force which does not—and should not—operate under political guidance. Despite the right hon. Gentleman’s obvious disagreements with the referendum result, the relevant bodies have obviously looked at the evidence and come to their conclusions. It will be a dark day when Ministers at the Dispatch Box instruct the police and the Electoral Commission how to behave.

As I say, the UC1 form implements a requirement under European Union law. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s figures regarding the vote itself, they are not figures that I recognise because they normally imply that my party is somehow supporting remain.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Seven weeks ago, Mr Speaker kindly granted me an urgent question on this exact topic, but the warnings were not heeded. Scores of EU voters were in touch with my busy office and with the electoral registration officer on Haringey Council on the day, just as predicted by many Members in this House on 25 April. Will the Minister lay out exactly what investigations his team will undertake now to put this situation right once and for all?

[Kevin Foster]

The Electoral Commission will do a report and present its conclusions—as it does with all major electoral events in this country—and it will do so independently, not under the direction of a Minister. We will then consider its conclusions carefully. To resolve the issue completely, we will look to implement the 2016 referendum result, as we have pledged to do.