European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Ian Paisley

Committee: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

The hon. Lady deals with the point incredibly well.

If we end frictionless trade or introduce barriers, with potentially the return of a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, very significant problems will arise. The Government are either deluding themselves by saying, “There’s some miraculous blue-skies technological solution to all these things”, or deluding others because of the fudging and obfuscation that is going on, when, in moving from the phase 1 to the phase 2 process, they put in a form of words that seems to be interpreted in almost as many different ways as there are people reading them. They have kicked the issue into the long grass for now, but we are not going to be able to get to a decent deal without this unravelling.

[Ian Paisley]

The long list of checks that the hon. Gentleman read out that would be applicable are, as he knows, currently applied. That is done in a very mechanical way, often by computer through a trusted trader-type scheme. A lot of the mechanisms, procedures and protocols that he read out, especially for food and medical products, are already applied. What would lead to new and additional checks is a change in tariffs between our exports and imported goods. Therefore, surely the imperative for everyone in this House is to urgently get on to the part of the negotiations where we can get a tariff-free deal with the EU. Otherwise some of the issues that he highlighted will need to be covered.

[Mr Leslie]

I agree that we want to have a tariff-free relationship with our European neighbours—that much we can all agree on. However, the hon. Gentleman should look at the circumstances where we export to third countries outside the European Union that are not part of the free trade agreements that we have accrued over the 40 years of our membership of the European Union. Those free trade agreements are there for a reason. As we heard earlier, the reason people want out of the pure WTO arrangement and into an FTA is precisely that they want to minimise many of the transactional barriers and the inertia that can be there.

Let us take the car industry as an example. The chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the car industry’s own representative, is now voicing concerns about investment in the sector gradually beginning to ebb away, partly because of the uncertainty of this whole situation. The level of investment in the industry in the UK was £2.5 billion in 2015, then £1.6 billion in 2016, and it is heading to less than £1 billion this year. Car companies are “sitting on their hands”, according to the chief executive of the SMMT.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Gentleman has highlighted this contradiction, so will he explain why the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) has not signed new clause 13—after all, he is on the record as saying that staying in the customs union would be a “disaster”—and why, given that Labour Members were whipped to vote against staying in the customs union, they have now made a volte-face and decided that staying in it is a possibility? What actually is the decided and determined policy of the Labour party on this issue?

[Mr Leslie]

I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) can speak for himself; he has done in the past and will do so again. I take the view that we should not shilly-shally on this issue, but stand up and say that there are risks to business and to our borders from our ports and airports being clogged up. We should also say that there is an economic cost—revenue costs for the Treasury—that could mean years of Brexit austerity ahead. All hon. Members, whichever side of the House we are on, need to recognise that some of the responsibility for these things will fall on our shoulders if we do not stand up now and say that staying in the customs union is the right way to proceed.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Ian Paisley

Committee: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 6th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Martin Whitfield]

That clearly must be the case. There is an expectation on us to explain how the pounds, shillings and pence are spent, rather than just say, “Oh, it was just nodded through,” and when asked how much it cost, say “I have no idea.” That is unacceptable to those who send us here, and rightly so, because it is their taxes that pay for this; it is their work, their productivity and their hard graft—to use a phrase I heard earlier today—that raises the money to meet these bills.

The draft of the instrument in new clause 17 and of the regulations in new clause 80 are put there on the expectation that there is some transparency. The events of the last few days, weeks, and certainly months would have seriously benefited from having had far more transparency about what is happening. It is not necessarily the case that keeping hidden a sector title of “Forestry” aids our negotiations. If there were more transparency, the Government would have had far more useful and sensible advice from various industries around the UK. If they consider, even or stumble upon the idea of, an impact assessment for the regions, and perhaps if they share with the regions that that is being carried out, the regions—and indeed the devolved powers—could share some of their expertise, so that, as with these amendments, when measures come back to this House we may make a reasoned decision based on facts, influenced by our constituents’ views and genuinely aiming to make the best of a situation that, much like the vaunted driverless cars, could be heading for an absolute disaster.

[Ian Paisley]

When the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) moved new clause 17 he made a number of worthy points that need to be addressed. I will obviously be voting against the new clause if it is pressed to a vote, and I hope that that is the point, but in terms of the raison d’être of all of these amendments, the cat has been let out of the bag: the hon. Gentleman wishes to revoke article 50 and thereby overturn the will of 17.4 million people. That is the be-all and end-all—that is the raison d’être of what we have heard tonight. The whole tactic of these amendments—no matter how reasonable they might sound and how powerfully supported by some Members—is essentially to do-over the will of the British people.

[Mr Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair. He should look at the text of the amendment, which simply says that the consequences of Brexit—the costs to the public and his constituents, who might have to fork out £1,000 per man, woman and child—should be authorised by this Parliament; we should take back control. The hon. Gentleman can imply all sorts of motives on my shoulders for tabling it, but it would be honourable if we could address the topic at hand.

[Ian Paisley]

I am addressing the topic. Does the hon. Gentleman deny that he wishes to revoke article 50 and turn over the will of the British people?

[Mr Leslie]

The point that I made was that article 50 can be revoked if the British public wish that to be the case. The Prime Minister has not denied that is the case; she might say that it is Government policy not to revoke article 50, but she has not said that it is impossible to do so. I was simply pointing out a legal reality.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Gentleman says he has pointed out a legal reality, but the Labour party’s position on all of these matters is now no clearer than mud. Are we ultimately going to honour the will of the British people, enact this Bill, and withdraw from the EU? That is the bottom line. All these amendments are slowly but surely being exposed as having a different motivation. It was said earlier that there was a need to put the Brexit Members of Parliament on the spot and get them to vote for the consequences of Brexit. I will happily walk through the Division Lobby tonight to vote down new clause 17, for the very reason that I wish to put into practice and into law the will of the British people. They voted to leave, and we must bring it on and allow them to leave. Confusion has been allowed to reign as a result of the proposed amendments.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Ian Paisley

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Absolutely. When hon. Members are asked by their constituents, “What time did you have to debate financial services?”, they will have to say, “There was only a couple of hours or maybe just a few minutes. I didn’t say anything about it because of the ridiculous programme order that we put in place to curtail debate.”

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Is it right that the hon. Gentleman talks down the City of London in this way? We all know about the threats that have been made, but not one of those jobs has left the City of London. The fact is that, given a choice between London, Frankfurt, Dublin or Paris, those companies will choose London every time.

[Chris Leslie]

I really hope that that is the case. I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s aspiration, but he should look at the press releases from HSBC, Lloyd’s of London, UBS and J.P. Morgan. These are not alternative facts; this is the real truth. These are people’s jobs and this is revenue for our country that we will potentially lose.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Debate between Chris Leslie and Ian Paisley

Monday 22nd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

I have given way enough to Conservative Members and I want to make some progress because it is important to bottom out these specious arguments that the Minister can barely grasp.

Lord Hutton said that the reasons for giving uniformed forces a lower normal pension age is the

“simple argument that the nature of their service is unique and should be reflected in the pension arrangements that we make for them. ”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 520.]

In his report he recommended that the Government set a new normal pension age of 60 across the “uniformed services”. That was the phrase that he used. He did not refer to the type of pension they were in; instead he referred to “uniformed services”, and argued that they deserved to be singled out because of the nature of their work. The spirit of Lord Hutton’s recommendation clearly applies to MOD firefighters and police officers. Lord Hutton said:

“The nature of the work the uniformed services perform is unique and this needs to be reflected in their Normal Pension Ages. The modernised firefighters scheme has struck a balance between recognising these changes in life expectancy, but also recognising the unique nature of the service provided by scheme members. The Commission’s view is that the Normal Pension Age in this scheme, 60, should be seen as setting a benchmark for the uniformed services as a whole.”

We agree with Lord Hutton’s reasoning that the amendment was merely intended to correct an oversight that has occurred in drawing up the Bill. He supports the amendment and the reform is based on his idea. He said that

“if, during the course of my inquiry, I had known about the unique circumstances of the MOD firefighters, I would have referred specifically to them in my report…Sadly, this issue was not drawn to my attention, so it did not make any specific recommendations about the MOD firefighters or the MOD police. If I had known about it, I certainly would have done so.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 570.]

It is important to mention this. We are towards the end of the Bill’s passage and we have not had much opportunity to debate it. This has been brought to my attention during the course of turning the pages on the detail of this pension legislation. The Opposition say the same as Lord Hutton. This is just one of those anomalies that we should be big enough to admit was wrongly overlooked in previous reforms.

It is true that the last Government raised the normal pension age for the civil service to 65 for post-2007 entrants, and that included Ministry of Defence staff. However, I am now convinced that had we known then about the small group of firefighters and police officers who are technically on the civil service payroll rather than employed by police or fire authorities, we would have taken account of these groups, and an exception could have been carved out. There should be no embarrassment inside the Treasury in admitting that this was an oversight. Regarding this previous change, even the Defence Police Federation said that the

“Council of Civil Service Unions did not consult the DPF, and we did not have the opportunity to make the above points about the physical demands of being an MDP officer”.

The issue was not raised or considered when it should have been. Those staff should not be punished because of that particular oversight. If Lord Hutton is able to admit the oversight and if Opposition Members in this Chamber are able to admit the oversight, the Economic Secretary should be big enough now to do the same. Rather than just read out the brief provided to him, he should engage his brain, use his own judgment and discretion, and do the right thing. If he engaged the brain of the Chief Secretary, who is sitting alongside him, that might go some way towards a solution.

There is the cost to the public purse argument, but as I understand it, only 56 people have joined the Ministry of Defence police, and fewer than 300 have joined the defence fire and rescue service since 2007. So the anomaly could be easily corrected by bringing a small minority of pensioners back into line with the pre-2007 entrants’ normal pension age of 60. We are not talking about a large number of firefighters or police officers here. Sadly, we have had to get to the Floor of the House of Commons to put the pressure on the Government. What the Government have tried to present as a cost is in reality a reduction in the predicted saving from this overall package of changes. They overestimated the savings to be made by overlooking the existence of this particular group of fire and police officers and failed to include them in the definition of uniformed services.

The Minister might put up various arguments, but the question of physical burden cannot be overlooked. A worker for the Ministry of Defence police may be required to wear 11 stone-worth of kit, and a normal shift will involve wearing 5 or 6 stone-worth of equipment for up to 11 hours. Workers in the Ministry of Defence fire service carry out the already difficult and dangerous job of firefighters, but do so in war zones and other extremely hazardous conditions around the world.

The fact that these workers are labelled civil servants should not blind us to the reality of what their jobs entail. Along with the police and the armed forces, they are the only public service workers who have to undergo regular fitness tests. In fact, the majority retire before 60 because they are unable to meet the high demands their jobs entail. They are also recognised as uniformed forces in the civil service pension scheme, and there is a small reflection of that already. Unlike civilian police forces, there is no option in the MOD police for officers to move to unarmed work if they struggle to cope physically. Even when mainstream police officers are armed, they are not expected routinely to carry guns around beyond the age of 55.

Another point that has been brought to my attention today—I imagine that this is something none of us is massively familiar with—is that many MOD firefighters have to work alongside colleagues who will qualify for retirement at 60. Royal Air Force firefighters—I think that they are called Trade Group 8—will often be on similar operations with service colleagues, working in the field together. One colleague will retire at 60, whereas another standing next to him will be required to work to 65, 66, 67 or beyond. The same applies to Royal Navy firefighters, who are regarded in their classification as armed forces. This is riddled with anomalies, and it would be very simple for Ministers to overcome them. They really ought not to have allowed this to become such a large point of debate.

[Ian Paisley]

It should also be pointed out that many of those personnel also serve in war zones, are deployed overseas and have been decorated for their service, which I think sets them apart, with regard to the changes that the Government are refusing to make.

[Chris Leslie]

Absolutely. Sadly, there is also an argument that the Government, by holding out in this way, are letting down those serving in our armed forces. They are giving the impression that they think they can sweep the issue under the carpet and let it ride. There are already concerns that they might be increasing the risk to national security by cutting the number of MOD police officers—from 3,600 to 2,400 by April 2016—and in many ways a feeling of betrayal is starting to accumulate.

This matter might be an irritant for the Minister, whom we know is looking for a pat on the head from his betters higher up the food chain, but it would be nice if he, rather than trying to deliver a neat and perfect Bill with no loose ends by resisting any issues that annoyingly come up in the course of debate, used his position to take account of the important questions that come up. I have encountered a number of such issues in my time at the Opposition Dispatch Box and as a Minister, and it is quite plain that at some point in the next few weeks Ministers will have to put their hands up and admit that they will back down. It would be far neater and quicker, and to the Minister’s credit, if he said so now.

This matter needs to be resolved. Telling MOD firefighters and police officers to stop rocking the boat and to accept a half-baked assurance that the Government might enter into some negotiations on whether the pension age should be 65 gives them no way to protect their situation beyond the short duration of the Minister’s tenure in office. We need to correct that glaring error in the Bill. I commend Lords amendments 78 and 79 and urge the House not to disagree with them.