Global Britain

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend invites me to comment on the social distancing rules, and he is wholly right that we will continue to review those rules. I am determined to make life as easy as possible for our retailers and our hospitality industry, but we must defeat this virus, as I am sure he knows and I am sure the people of this country understand. We are making great progress as a country: the numbers of deaths have massively come down; the number of new hospital admissions has massively come down. We continue to make progress, but we must make sure that we get the virus fully under control before we make the change my right hon. Friend wants.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

In his statement, the Prime Minister said that

“a dividing line between aid and foreign policy runs through our whole system,”

but back in 1994, when that dividing line did not exist, we ended up with the Pergau dam scandal, when we poured billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money into a scheme to win a foreign trade deal on arms. That led to the introduction of the International Development Act 2002, to outlaw linking aid to foreign policy. Can the Prime Minister give us a guarantee that that is not his objective?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right; there was a scandal involving the Pergau dam, and he and I remember it vividly. It was wrong that huge sums were given in aid for a project that did not have a good business case, but the International Development Act protects us from that kind of mistake and that kind of approach, and we will not take that approach. Let me stress: this is not a return to the idea of tied aid. It is very important that the House understands that. This is about coherence and projecting our mission abroad; it about projecting the UK abroad.

UK-EU Negotiations

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Yes. My hon. Friend makes a good point. We want to make sure that we have reciprocity in the way in which UK and EU citizens can enjoy sport, leisure and other activities, including business activities, in the future. I also take this opportunity to wish my hon. Friend a very happy birthday.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The covid crisis has demonstrated the need for international co-operation. Is it correct that the Department of Health and Social Care argued that we should remain part of the pandemic warning and response system of the European Union and, if so, why did the Government not listen?

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Clive Efford Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

That is not exactly what I have said. What I will make clear in just a second is that there is a list of factors that the boundary commissions must have regard to in the determination. I am not saying that any one of those factors is better than the others, and neither are the boundary commissions. There is a list of factors set out in the existing legislation dating from the 1980s, and we are simply saying that we leave that as it is. He will find the answer to his concern there.

Let me talk about how the proposed constituencies will be brought into effect. It will be done automatically by an Order in Council, without debate or approval by Parliament. I know that this is of some interest to Members. The purpose of this change is to bring certainty to the boundary review process. It is to give confidence that the recommendations of the independent boundary commissions will be brought into effect without interference or delay. There will be no change to the Government’s obligation to give effect to the recommendations of the boundary commissions. In fact, as part of this measure, the Secretary of State’s current ability to amend the Order in Council if rejected by Parliament will be removed. The Executive’s power will, if anything, be reduced.

If this Bill does not proceed today because it is blocked, as Labour Members want to do, they will leave more power in the hands of the Executive. Of course, they used that power—or, should I even say, abused that power—in 1969, when the Labour party intentionally blocked the independent boundary review’s recommendations. We do not think that that is the kind of thing that should happen.

We think that, first and foremost, the boundary commissions are independent organisations. They develop their proposals through a robust and thorough process involving extensive public consultation. It is really important that their impartial recommendations are brought into effect promptly and with certainty. That avoids wasting public time and money, and it ensures the independence of the process. Countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand use similar approaches to those proposed in the Bill with no interference.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Minister has mentioned several times consultation by the boundary commissions, but if their scope is limited by a plus or minus 5% variation in the size of constituencies, local communities are wasting their time invariably in putting forward those arguments. Is it not more important that people who have common interests and live in a common, identifiable community vote together rather than to meet these tight constraints on the size of constituencies?

[Chloe Smith]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but I think it is a really bad argument. It argues against having equal sized constituencies, which is fundamental. If we want to be able to say that we have a first-past-the-post system that operates as fairly and respectably as it can—as it does in the other countries that I just named, and as it ought to in this country—we need to have equality of seats. It is incredibly disappointing that the Opposition are arguing against that, and I do not really understand why they are. It goes with the other really poor argument in their reasoned amendment, which I just finished dealing with.

Ministerial Code

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

If what the Minister has told us today is correct, then Philip Rutnam is being either severely misleading or widely mistaken. Which of those two is it?

[Michael Gove]

The first point I would make is that because Sir Philip has made a particular statement as a prequel to potential legal proceedings, it would be wrong for me to provide a commentary on his words. What I will say is that he is a distinguished public servant and I thank him for his service. It is also important for me to place on record my knowledge that the Home Secretary is an outstanding Home Secretary who deserves our support.

Lobby and Media Briefings: Journalists' Access

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

I think the hon. Lady knows—or she should know, or she will come to know—that, as a Minister at the Dispatch Box, I speak for myself and I do not need to speak for two more senior colleagues. I speak for myself as part of the Government—as part of collective responsibility. Therefore, all Ministers are part of the same message, and that message is absolutely clear here today. It is that we run routine lobby procedures that are more than adequate for ensuring that, if they wish to, everybody with a press pass can ask any question of the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson. That is how that operates, and we are supplementing that with the additional briefings, which I have now mentioned many times. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, if this is coming across as boring to some opposition Members, but it is the fact.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister’s head of communications, who is a political appointee, tried to fix access to a briefing by David Frost, who is a civil service appointee. That is such a breach of protocol that the entire press lobby refused to attend that little soiree. Can the Minister confirm that Sir Mark Sedwill, the Cabinet Secretary, will be investigating this matter?

[Chloe Smith]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. Mr David Frost is a political appointee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend speaks well for the interests of his constituents, and he is absolutely right. As I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), of course we are rolling out superfast broadband—gigabit broadband. We have put in £5 billion, the legislation is on track, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has given me every assurance that Arundel and South Downs will be very well catered for.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Q4. Research published by Oxford University this week shows that our oceans are heating up at an alarming rate, that the process is accelerating, and that it will lead to more incidents of extreme, catastrophic weather. The Government are on track to miss most of their environmental goals in 2020, and that record looks set to get worse in future years. The Government make the right noises, but fail to come to the right conclusions. Will the Prime Minister commit himself to legally enforceable targets, and give the new Office for Environmental Protection powers to fine the Government if they fail to live up to their promises? It is the Government who should be under scrutiny, not the protesters who expose their shortcomings.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the new Office for Environmental Protection will have powers to hold the Government to account, but let me draw his attention to the record of this Conservative Government. Under this Government, we have seen carbon dioxide emissions fall by 42% from 1990 levels, despite a 75% increase in GDP. On some days, most of our energy now comes from renewable sources. We will be leading the COP26 summit, where we will introduce enforceable limits not just for this country, but for the whole world.

Preparations for Leaving the EU

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that after 10 years of austerity we are back to square one, with no discernible global financial crisis to explain the Government’s incompetent handling of the finances. Would any other Government whose finances were in that state consider a no-deal Brexit?

[Michael Gove]

Business takes a variety of views on Brexit, and indeed on a no-deal Brexit, but I have yet to meet a single business man, woman or organisation that thinks that a no-deal Brexit would be worse than a Jeremy Corbyn Government.

Brexit Readiness: Operation Yellowhammer

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I had the opportunity to talk to executives from BMW, and they explained to me, among other things, the particular challenges that they face. Of course the Treasury will review any requests for support. However, the hon. Lady can obviate the need for that if she, like me, supports and backs the deal that the Prime Minister brings back.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Mark Sedwill, the National Security Adviser and Cabinet Secretary, said in a letter in April regarding no deal:

“'Our national security would be disrupted. The UK would forfeit access to criminal justice levers. None of our mitigation measures would give the UK the same security capabilities as our current ones.”

Can the Minister say what mitigation measures are now in place, or he is aware of, that did not exist when Mark Sedwill wrote that letter? Would Mark Sedwill write this letter again today?

[Michael Gove]

The Cabinet Secretary and National Security Adviser does wonderful work, but I shall not speak for him; he will speak for himself. We have had a significant number of meetings, not just with those in the national security community but with those in policing and other areas, in order to ensure that steps are taken to keep people safe.

Prime Minister's Update

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are all accountable to the people who send us here. If we want to verify whether we still have their confidence, of course the best way to do that is to have a general election.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I did not expect any humility from the Prime Minister today because he has a track record, but given that he was found to be acting unlawfully in the advice he gave to the Queen and to this House, I am stunned that the Conservative party opposite applauded him like a returning hero. It is absolutely shocking and the public will make their own minds up about it. [Interruption.] Yes, let us get to the general election, because what the Prime Minister has been doing consistently, and the reason he was found to be acting unlawfully, is to use every single device to try to take this country out with no deal. He can use words like “surrender Bill” and all the rest of it, but the fact is that taking this country out with no deal is the least patriotic thing he can do. I did not come here to do damage to my constituents and knowingly vote for it with no deal.

The Prime Minister has waved his finger, pointed over here and said, “If I get a deal, will you vote for it?” My question to him is, will the European Reform Group vote for it?

Early Parliamentary General Election

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman can have his beliefs, but he cannot have his own facts. The Bill that we have passed tonight does absolutely nothing unless the Prime Minister fails to come back from the European Council with a deal. If he comes back with a deal, we then vote on it on 19 October. If the House votes for that deal, we leave the European Union with that deal. If that deal does not pass this House, this House has to vote on no deal and, if the House does not agree with no deal, that is when we go for the extension. Those are the facts about what we have done. It does nothing to the negotiations of the Prime Minister. That is a complete fallacy. What is happening here is that this Government are being run by Nigel Farage—that is what is going on here.

[Mr Evans]

What this House did today clearly was to weaken the negotiating position of the Prime Minister. We all know that Michel Barnier and the European Union listen very carefully to this Parliament; in fact some MPs in this Parliament have a direct line to Michel Barnier and Juncker and Tusk. They are in fairly well daily contact with them sometimes—[Interruption]. There is one over there. And we know what they are saying: they are saying, “Don’t give in to the British Prime Minister because we can resist Brexit.” And that is what is going to happen.

We know that the British Prime Minister is already in discussions with people such as Angela Merkel and various others within the European Union to ensure that the problems that existed in the old deal are removed, but the Bill that was passed tonight gives the European Union no incentive whatever to come to the negotiating table and to have a proper negotiation.

The Liberal Democrats are at least honest, as are the Scottish nationalists, in saying that they do not wish to leave the European Union. However, given that we have had the referendum and the people have voted to leave, I just wonder which part of “Liberal Democrat” is actually “democrat”, because they clearly are not interested in what the British people voted for in 2016. They ask for a second vote, but what we are offering tonight is a general election, and that can be a second vote. The people will look at the policies of the Labour party under its current leader and at the policies of my party under its current leader, and they will decide whether the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition should go to Brussels for that negotiation on 17 October.

Part of the problem, as we all know, is that during the 2016 referendum three quarters of the Members in this Chamber voted to remain in the European Union. They do not want to leave the European Union, and they will do anything that they possibly can to frustrate our leaving.