Achieving Economic Growth

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

The sad truth is that the Government used to agree. Introducing an employment Bill was in their manifesto; in fact, they have been promising it for five or six years. Let us have that employment Bill to protect people at work, so that working people do not have to resort to food banks, and so that they have the security and dignity that work should provide.

April’s International Monetary Fund data show that families in Britain are more exposed to the cost of living crisis than countries such as Germany, France and the US because of depleted savings. Savings are declining and household debt is on the rise, not because millions of people can no longer manage a budget, but because millions of people cannot afford a Conservative Government. Working families are increasingly struggling with their budgets because the Chancellor has failed to act in his Budgets. The Food Foundation believes that since January, 2 million people have not eaten food for at least a whole day, because they could not afford to.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies).

[Geraint Davies]

My hon. Friend knows that food banks were used by something like 26,000 people in 2010 and are now used by 2.6 million people—100 times as many. Does she agree that the economy’s growth now contrasts dismally with its 40% growth in the 10 years to 2008 under Labour? The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that if we were on the same growth trend, the average person would be £11,000 better off and could therefore weather the storms that we are suffering because of the Tory Government.

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the Tory growth penalty—the effect of the lack of growth in the economy. Average earnings are £11,000 less than if growth had stayed at the same rate as under the last Labour Government.

My hon. Friend mentioned a hundredfold increase in food bank use. This is not normal; it is the consequence of Conservative Governments’ choices. Meanwhile, what have we heard in recent weeks? We have heard suggestions from Ministers about what people can do in their own lives to deal with the cost of living crisis. The Prime Minister thinks that a 77-year-old pensioner who rides on the bus all day to keep warm should be grateful for her discounted fares; the Environment Secretary has lectured people struggling with the cost of food, telling them to “buy own brands”; and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has treated the need for an emergency Budget as if it were an audition for a comedy club. Another out-of-touch Minister has told people, just this week, that if they are struggling financially they should simply work more hours or get another job—as if it were as easy as that. The Chancellor continues to insult the public’s intelligence by suggesting that a compulsory £200 loan—a loan that must be repaid—is somehow not a loan, and now blames a computer system for his decision not to help the least well-off. What planet are they on?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

Some of it falls due as cash payments and some of it is rolled over. The reality is that, when we are running an £83 billion interest payment on an annualised basis, we will not be in a position to maintain market confidence unless we set out a sustainable trajectory to address it. A sustainable solution cannot be to borrow our way out of the situation; it must be to grow our economy and to create high-skilled, high-waged jobs, and we have a comprehensive plan to do so. That is the choice we have made as a Government and it is absolutely the right one.

[Geraint Davies]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury mentioned that there are 500,000 more people on payrolls, but he neglected to say that that does not include self-employed people. Will he confirm that, according to the Office for National Statistics, there are, in fact, 444,000 fewer people in work than before the pandemic, not, as he implied, half a million more?

[Mr Clarke]

There are half a million more people on payrolls, and I was very clear about that. The headline unemployment rate is 3.7%, which we should celebrate. It is a genuine public policy success and contrasts starkly with the situation we inherited in 2010. I, certainly, am determined to continue supporting it by making sure our economic policy is the right one.

The Labour party has only one answer to every problem: spending more. It has made, by our calculations, £418 billion-worth of spending commitments, while setting out precisely how £8 billion would be funded. The scale of spending that Labour would undertake is vast, but what concerns me, and should concern us all, is the lack of seriousness with which Labour considers how to fund its commitments. That is the luxury of being in opposition, whereas in government there is no ducking away from the big challenges with which we are grappling.

Achieving economic growth is not as simple as putting one’s foot down on the accelerator. It is a far subtler and more balanced enterprise that includes multiple carefully weighed decisions that are designed to mutually reinforce each other over time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but we should recognise that these issues of conversion therapy and transsexuality are very important to certain sections of society. They need to be addressed, but we need to be sure that we address them in the right way.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I will, but I do not want to give way too often because we are not time-limited.

[Geraint Davies]

Some years ago, I brought forward a Bill on the regulation of psychotherapists, which recommended banning conversion therapy. There was a conference that 100 conversion therapists attended, so this is a widespread and abhorrent practice. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those who say that transsexuality should not be included seem to be those who think that people would go through the process of becoming a transwoman in order to rape another woman? There are a lot of male rapists out there. It seems to be a lot of effort for someone to have their head kicked in by other men. Transgender people should be included in the Bill.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I had not intended to make a great speech about this subject. I note the point that the hon. Gentleman has made and I wish to move on.

I welcome the forthcoming legislation to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I say to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who spoke a few moments ago, that perhaps we agree a great deal about the future of the Northern Ireland protocol. The question is whether we can make it happen unless we have some legislation coming down the track as well, because the EU has not changed its mandate.

I want to concentrate today on much more immediate challenges. Covid supply chain disruption persists in many parts of the world, notably China, and now we have Russia’s dreadful war against Ukraine, which frankly has shattered the geopolitical order that we have become used to for decades. We all used to believe in what the Germans called, “Wandel durch Handel”—the mistaken faith that nations that trade together would never go to war with each other. President Putin has smashed that confidence.

Business and Governments are reducing their exposure to dependency on all autocratic regimes. That is throwing globalisation into reverse, creating massive price increases and shortages. Poorer nations are acting to keep their food affordable for their own people. For example, India has just banned wheat exports, following Indonesia, which banned palm oil exports. We have an acute, growing and potentially far greater energy supply crisis in Europe. Europe cannot continue to rely on supply from Russia. This crisis requires a vast reorganisation of Europe’s energy supply and trading arrangements, and this massive adjustment will take years and is unprecedented. Only major food and energy producers in the world, such as Canada and the US, will avoid the worst kind of recession.

At least the United Kingdom can produce some of our own gas and oil and can continue to expand renewables, but why are we pumping our surplus gas out to Europe this warm spring to fill EU storage capacity, when we should be filling our own? The Government shut it down, and we need to reopen our gas storage capacity as quickly as possible. I fervently hope that we can achieve net zero by 2050 without excessive cost. The Government are right to see gas as the essential transition fuel, but why import gas when we can produce our own more cheaply?

Meanwhile, we must all recognise the cost of living crisis—yes, crisis. Even before today’s shock rise in CPI to 9%, the Commons Library had given me striking projections for the effect of this crisis on households. The full-year cost of just energy and food prices will rise by well over £1,000 a year for the lowest 20% of households by income and by £1,500 a year for pensioner households. A summer package to rescue the most vulnerable households is needed to avoid real financial distress and personal anguish and to support the economic demand of the most vulnerable households, or we will be creating possibly a worse recession than is already expected.

I welcome the suggestion in The Times today that the Government are considering a package. The spring statement represented peacetime thinking. Like after the unforeseen covid crisis, the Treasury must adapt to this unexpected war in Europe and accept that this new global energy and economic crisis also requires a very substantial policy response. I have to say that is far greater than the £3 billion package that the Labour party has offered us, though I do not subscribe to the rest of its fiscal profligacy.

I suggest that the £20 uplift in universal credit should immediately be restored. The abolition of VAT on domestic fuel would abolish a regressive tax that hurts the poorest households the most. We can do that now we are outside the EU. The Government should abolish the green levies on energy bills and fund them from the Exchequer, as recommended by Professor Dieter Helm. The Government should provide pensioners and poorer families with the confidence they can afford to stay warm. We should double the warm home discount and treble the winter fuel payment.

This package would cost not £3 billion, but £13.5 billion from July in this current tax year, but that is still less than the recent tax increases we have seen, and it is about 0.6% of GDP and affordable. Now or later, we should also consider relief for middle-income households. The lower 40% of households will feel severe stress from energy and food costs alone. We could start reindexing tax thresholds, or more, and that would have the advantage of incentivising work and productivity.

I have watched Governments—and Oppositions, I think we saw it today—blindsided by their own commitment to outdated thinking and policies of the past. There is no excuse for another such episode. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is right to sound cautious, but we can see what is coming, and I am confident that this Government will act as they must.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson). Today, we listened again to the Prime Minister telling us that we had a strong economy, yet when Labour left office only 26,000 people a year were going to food banks and now there are 2.6 million—100 times as many. We heard that 500,000 more people are in work than before the covid pandemic, but according to the ONS there are 444,000 fewer people in work—the Prime Minister conveniently missed out the self-employed. He said, “We are the low-tax party,” but taxes are now at a 50-year high and the Chancellor increased taxes by £40 billion last year. The tax share of GDP is at a level not seen since Attlee, when we were coming out of the second world war and we needed to charge such taxes.

Inflation is at a 40-year high. There is a departmental freeze on spending, so there are savage cuts across the board. [Interruption.] I see the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—the Minister for Brexit opportunities and Government inefficiency—chattering away, living up to his title in the delivery of inefficiency. The truth is that inflation, ironically, is helping the Government’s revenues. They have a four-year freeze on personal allowances and tax thresholds, which means a creeping increase in tax as people sink into tax thresholds and allowances go down in real terms. They are planning a cynical attempt to drop tax before the next election in 2024 or 2025. That will be gobbled up by that inflationary clawback. People will think that they are getting a tax cut, but will lose twice the amount.

Is there an alternative? The answer, of course, is yes, and the evidence is that in the 10 years to 2008, when Labour was in power, the economy grew by 40%. We did not just give the proceeds away; we used them to double investment in the health service, double investment in education and bring millions of young people and pensioners out of poverty. We bequeathed a debt-to-GDP ratio of 45%; it is now 90%, so the share of debt has doubled. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that, if our trend of growth had continued, people would be £11,000 better off than they are today. They would be much more resilient to the global shocks that we have all seen, including Ukraine and covid.

There has been catastrophic mismanagement since 2010. It started with Osborne’s austerity, which simply did not work: it just drove down growth, because people were expecting that they might be one of the 400,000 people he said he was going to sack. We then had the stupidity of hard Brexit, when we decided that we would all be outside the single market. There is no move now for product realignment or a minimum amount of worker movement to allow lower-cost market access, which is what businesses want, so a third of businesses that have been exporting to the EU now say that they will not do it at all.

We have a low-growth, high-cuts, high-tax, wage-cutting Government—a complete failure. I appreciate that a windfall tax is not the complete answer, but let us understand what a windfall tax is. The oil companies worked on a marginal profit that was quite healthy; then, all of a sudden, Putin invaded and there was an escalation in the price and a massive profit over the cost of production that the companies did not do anything to deserve. That is Putin’s profit, and people here deserve it to help them through the hard times that we are going through because we are imposing sanctions. Sanctions, of course, take time; the IMF says that sanctions will cut the Russian economy by 8.5%, but they will not stop a Russian tank. The war needs to be won to sort the situation out, but that is another story.

We certainly need to increase productivity, but the reality is that the Chancellor’s ambition is to bring investment per child in education by 2024 up to Labour’s 2010 levels. Our young people need to be invested in now.

There is talk of everyone having to go back to the office. Indeed, the Minister—that man sitting on the Front Bench—has said, “We have all got to go back to work in the traditional way.” However, a study by the Office for National Statistics shows that there would be a considerable increase in productivity and a delay in retirements if people were allowed to work from home. In particular, women, carers and people looking after families could work flexibly. Furthermore, people being at home for one day in five would take 20% of the traffic and 80% of the congestion off the roads, so we would spend less on roads and it would be carbon-friendly.

This whole approach to productivity, green investment, and cognisance of those matters, is completely ridiculous. Macron, along with Italy and Germany, has asked why we cannot take a more collaborative approach to trade with Britain—and, indeed, bring in Ukraine, because it shares the same values. All we are doing is starting a trade war on the back of the very sensible arrangement that Ireland should be in the single market to protect it. That is what the Government agreed and that is what should continue to operate.

Apart from the economic catastrophe, to which there is a clear solution, I fear that there are attacks on the fundamental rights of democracy. The Queen’s Speech contains all this stuff about reducing the power of an independent judiciary. Obviously the Government are very angry with Miller because the judiciary in that case gave us a vote on the Brexit deal, and they are very angry with the judiciary for allowing democracy to be reconvened after the Prime Minister had tried to abandon it for a long period. The composition of the Supreme Court has been changed and seven of its key decisions have been reversed. It has been intimidated by the media, and by Ministers sitting there slagging it off—particularly, the Lord Chancellor who is supposed to defend it. The average tenure of a Lord Chancellor is now one and a half years; it used to be four years. The Lord Chancellor used to be a senior judge, or a member of the judiciary who was respected, rather than someone who just wants to proceed to the next ministerial position. Our independent judiciary is under attack, our rights are under attack, and our democracy is under attack.

I respect what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) said about the rolling authoritarianism that we see in the contexts of poverty, the economy, and the democracy that we fundamentally are. We are better than this. We deserve better than this. We do not want low growth, large cuts and low wages; we want high growth, and a fairer and stronger economy in the future. Let us roll forward and deliver that—with a Labour Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Unfortunately, as so often, the hon. Gentleman has not been paying proper attention to the day’s debate. If he had, he might have heard an authority greater than I am answering half a dozen questions on that very issue from the Leader of the Opposition slightly earlier. The authority in Her Majesty’s Government is obviously the Prime Minister, of whom I am a humble servant.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) raised the issue of disruption in supply chains. This is a fundamental problem, and until supply chains are restored, inflation is likely to be difficult. The contributions have ranged widely. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) and for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), as well as from my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths), whom I was pleased to visit last week. We had the pleasure of going to the Elkes Biscuits factory. If you want a better biscuit, buy Elkes biscuits. They are absolutely delicious. I helped—I was not very good at helping, but I did help—and they sent me home with a packet of Bourbon creams, which have never been devoured faster than they were by my children. I thank my hon. Friend for having me on that visit.

We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who insisted that we stick to the title of the debate, which is “Achieving economic growth”. He is almost always absolutely right, but on this occasion he was particularly absolutely right. We want to stick to the issue of economic growth. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake).

I do not know whether to be delighted or somewhat miffed at my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), because in one short speech she made a point that I have been trying to make for about 20 years and she made it more pithily and better than I have ever done. She used a cricketing metaphor, which is that the Government are the groundsmen, and the most they can do is to prepare the pitch for the bowlers and batsmen—the businesses across the country who provide the economic activity. We are not the players in the game; we are the groundsmen. As I say, that is a point that I have been trying to make for a long time, and I am going to steal my hon. Friend’s pithy aphorism shamelessly. I hope that I have her permission to do so.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), and also from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), who said that growth was everything, agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) might need to contact the Boundary Commission, because during his speech he decided to rename his constituency the “Silicon Valley of Europe”. For that to be officially approved, I think it would have to go through the proper processes, but it seems to me a jolly good idea that we should have the Silicon Valley of Europe in Milton Keynes, with robots going around showing how modern and technologically sophisticated they are.

I was also delighted by the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder). I visited his constituency recently, and he generously provided me with the most excellent cake. Hon. and right hon. Members will think that wherever I go I am provided with confections of the most delicious kind, but that is not compulsory, and I would happily go without the cake to visit Poundbury, which is the most amazing success of planning in providing the things that people want. It is beautiful and elegant, and it achieves a density that other places do not achieve.

I also listened to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) with pleasure.

[Geraint Davies]

Will he give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

How could I refuse such an eloquently phrased request?

[Geraint Davies]

I am listening to this very amusing after-dinner speech, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the serious issue here is that, had we continued on the growth trend of the last Labour Government, people would have an extra £11,000 to work with? We have the highest tax rate since world war two, the highest inflation rate for 40 years and 2.6 million people going to food banks. Does he agree that is a complete catastrophe? He is making a big joke out of it, which shows he should not be in office.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman must think there has been a collective outbreak of amnesia not just in the House but across the nation. He seems to forget that the country was bankrupt when the coalition came to office in 2010, and it had been bankrupted by the “spend now, find the money later” approach of the socialists. Was it not Margaret Thatcher who so rightly said that, ultimately, they run out of other people’s money? They ran out of other people’s money.

Growth has been lower because of the utter irresponsibility of the socialists prior to 2010, and the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury left a little billet-doux, did he not, saying:

“I’m afraid there is no money.”

[Hon. Members: “It was 12 years ago.”] Yes, it was more than 12 years ago, but we will not let them forget because socialism always leads to economic failure. Every socialist Government there has ever been has led to economic failure, devaluation, high taxes and low economic growth, and then the Conservatives come in to clear things up.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong: House of Commons & Ping Pong
Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire]

That is spot on. It is why many EU citizens in my constituency say they feel singled out—because they do not have what other non-UK citizens have, which is a physical document.

I turn to the CJEU and Lords amendments 2 and 3. In clause 26, the Government signal their intention to create chaos and uncertainty in our legal system. I can do no better than quote from the noble Lord Pannick, who said he supported the amendment for the following reason:

“Clause 26 is fundamentally objectionable, because it would give the Minister a delegated power to decide which courts should be able to depart from judgments of the Court of Justice and what test those courts should apply.”

He went on:

“These are powers which step well over the important boundary between the Executive and the judiciary. They are matters which should not be decided by Ministers.”

Later he said—and he was absolutely right—that

“once they are conferred the political and legal constraints if they decide to act unreasonably are limited.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2020; Vol. 801, c. 984.]

The Government ask us to trust that they will not go beyond existing constraints, but that is not good enough. Clause 26 would lead to different interpretations of the law in higher and lower courts, greater uncertainty and therefore more litigation. That cannot be what the Government want. Amendment 2 therefore simply deletes the entire provision.

Amendment 3 was a compromise proposed by a Conservative former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay—surely a man whom Government Members would want to listen to. He tried to find a compromise whereby the ministerial right to make regulations would be removed. Instead, any court could consider the possibility of departing from case law but would have to set out its reasons and refer the case to a higher court. What on earth could be the problem with that?

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Surely my hon. Friend accepts that ultimately the test of when courts can diverge from EU law should be set in this Parliament and applied by our courts and that, if there is any question, it should be referred to the Supreme Court. That would maintain the division between Parliament and the courts.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The problem is that we are allowing Ministers to set the terms and test, which is an unacceptable breach of the boundaries between the Executive and the judiciary.

The Government have had plenty of time to consider the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. If they want more time, just giving Ministers broad and sweeping powers is not the answer. They could, if they wanted, bring a short Bill before Parliament with proposed amendments that we could debate and scrutinise in the usual way. Every Government Member must understand—it seems that several possibly do, although they are no longer in their places—that if they pass the Government’s motions to disagree with amendments 2 and 3, the separation of powers will be blurred, there will be legal chaos and it will be impossible for Parliament to change. These are not powers that should be exercised through regulation. We should not risk ministerial interference in judicial processes. The Government should think again and withdraw their motions to disagree. If they do not, we will vote against them.

Thirdly, I turn to child refugees and Lords amendment 4, to leave out clause 37, which amends clause 17 of the 2018 Act and thus removes the obligation on the Government to negotiate future arrangements to protect unaccompanied child refugees. This is such a modest provision—it also reflects the Government’s own commitment—that it seems extraordinary and inexplicable that they are removing it. I have very dark and deep suspicions about why, though I want to be charitable and I am hoping there may be a good answer.

As Lord Dubs said, it is partly the scattergun of justifications that leads one to be suspicious. He was asked by Ministers to trust them, and he very generously said that as individuals he did trust them but that he did not trust them as a Government—because their predecessor Government had form on this. They promised to take 3,000 children on the Dubs scheme, as originally committed to, but took fewer than 500 in the end. The Government have boasted, as the Secretary of State has just done, about the number of children given refuge in this country, but have ignored the fact that most could not and did not come by the safe or legal routes that currently exist, even when entitled to them under the current law. They were often trafficked or took dangerous journeys in order to reach their family members, because they felt they had no other choice. We are talking about reuniting families, but removing the already restrictive access to safe and legal routes does not decrease the risk of trafficking; it increases the risk.

Oral Answers to Questions

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Government are clear that they wish to continue to attract students from the EU and the rest of the world to study here in the UK. The UK’s higher education institutions have long-established traditions of attracting the brightest minds at all stages of their education and research careers, as we saw yesterday with the alumna of the London School of Economics. This being our last oral questions, I thank civil servants for their support. I particularly thank my private office and Cara Phillips. They have been wonderful.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State knows that Airbus contributes billions of pounds in taxation, employs tens of thousands of people and wants business continuity after a short transition period. Will he give an undertaking today that the European Union Aviation Safety Agency will continue as is—rather than us inventing new, bespoke regulatory systems for the sake of divergence—so that Airbus can plan ahead, invest and continue to make its contribution to our economy?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman correctly draws the House’s attention to an important issue, and one for the future negotiations. As he knows, however, in the political declaration there is scope for such participation. What was constructive and positive about the remarks of the President of the European Commission yesterday, which were reflected in the meeting with the Prime Minister, was the desire to build on that close partnership. The sort of areas where there will be detailed discussion will be on aircraft and other such sectors.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill and Extension Letter

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman will get an opportunity to see the withdrawal agreement Bill once the two urgent questions are finished. On amendments, he will be aware that the scope of the Bill is quite wide, but what amendments are selected will always be for the Chair—the Speaker or, indeed, the Chairman of Ways and Means.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State pretends that the Government are unable to make economic forecasts on a new Brexit deal, on the basis that things may change in the Commission or in the world economic environment, but of course the Treasury consistently makes forecasts on what the size of the economy would be relative to what it would be if we stayed in the EU versus various scenarios, so what he says is clearly false. The projection is that there would be a reduction in the size of our economy of approximately 5%. When will the Treasury and the Government come forward with a detailed analysis of how much poorer the poorest will be, how much more corporation tax businesses will have to pay when they face a huge burden of red tape, how the public accounts will be affected and what the impact will be? That way, people will be able to judge what is on the plate, having ordered it from the menu, and then vote again in a people’s vote, so that they get what they ordered from the menu rather than the Secretary of State’s garbage.

[Stephen Barclay]

I was just pointing out an economic reality. One can set out, as the Treasury frequently does, broad landing zones, but forecasts are inherently difficult because there are so many variables that shape what happens. To say with absolute certainty where things will be in 2033, which is where the forecasts would be trying to determine a precise landing zone, is open to a significant challenge. When the Treasury presented the cross-Whitehall analysis last November, we saw such challenge not only from Government Members; it was also there in the sort of questions that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members were asking.

European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

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

It is a considerable pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), and I commend him for his amendment and for his contribution this afternoon.

We heard, “An equal partner within the Union, and a nation within the European Union,” but the broken promises of 2014 from this Government and the Better Together campaign could not be starker than they are today. Scotland has been totally and utterly shafted by this Prime Minister and this Tory Government. Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom where democratic rights are not being respected. England voted leave, Wales voted leave, and Northern Ireland gets to remain in the EU single market and customs union—a special arrangement to protect its interests and people. Scotland, however, has been ignored. Scotland is being dragged out of the European Union against its will.

Sixty-two per cent. of Scotland voted to remain, yet this Tory Government and this Brexit fanatic Prime Minister have ignored Scotland’s wishes and interests by bringing forward a deal that will weaken our economy. The Scottish National party categorically rejects this appalling Brexit deal, and we will vote it down today. Not only would it be devastating for Scotland, dragging us out of the European Union, the single market and the customs union against our will, but it is clear that the right-wing Brexiteers have been assured by senior Tory Ministers that backing this deal could lead to a no-deal crash out if trade talks fail next year.

Anyone tempted to vote for this deal today needs to be warned that it is a blank cheque for the Vote Leave campaign that is now running the Tory Government to crash us out of the European Union on a no-deal basis at the end of the transition next year. The Prime Minister’s deal is not a deal at all. It is the gateway to a no-deal Brexit, taking us off the cliff edge not at the end of October, but at the end of 2020. Let me be clear that any Brexit would have disastrous implications for Scotland’s economy.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Although I agree with amendment (a) and the idea that it will stop a no deal, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in this deal, we have no guarantee from the Prime Minister that he will avoid crashing out after the transition period? Any trade deal will take longer than a year to put together, as we know, so is this not really a death row deal? We will be crashing out in a year, which is why it is our duty to vote against it.

[Ian Blackford]

The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State were both given the opportunity to rule that out, and neither did. Colleagues right across the House who are tempted to vote for this deal today should take note, because there is a very real risk of a no-deal Brexit by the back door.

Irish Border: Customs Arrangements

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

Unlike the hon. Lady, I do not want to put a border in Northern Ireland or in Scotland. I believe full-heartedly in the Union. It creates a risk in terms of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement because it puts Northern Ireland into a different position if alternative arrangements are not dealt with, and that is unacceptable. The Government believe that that would cause problems in relation to the Good Friday agreement.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will know that the Good Friday agreement provides for a referendum for the people of Northern and southern Ireland on reunification if they so want. He will also know that 58% of the people in Northern Ireland voted to remain. Given that we have this problem with an open border with open migration, and with a closed border in breach of the Good Friday agreement, would it not be best for the Prime Minister to come forward with his agreement, which I assume will be the backstop within Ireland itself, and put it to the people in a public vote so that we can get Brexit done by finding once and for all whether we want this Brexit mess or not—as opposed to his divided kingdom?

[James Duddridge]

The hon. Gentleman accused me of dividing the kingdom, but he asked specifically in the same sentence for a vote on parting the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom, as one—the Union—has voted, and it voted for Brexit. That is what we are going to deliver.

Leaving the European Union

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Monday 1st April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Ind)]

The petition that I particularly wish to address is that signed by over 6 million members of the public, calling on the Government and Members of Parliament to be prepared to revoke article 50 in the face of a Brexit catastrophe and support remaining in the European Union. Over 8.6% of my constituents—some 9,500 people in my constituency—have signed that petition. In December, I and other Members whose constituencies will come back to me—I could name them, but I am trying to think of their constituencies —took a case to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. We took a risk and prosecuted the case that, as the United Kingdom, we had the unilateral right to rescind the notification of article 50 if we needed to do so. We took that case despite many people saying that we should not do it, that it was impossible, or that the decision to trigger article 50 was a one-way street.

We expected that once the mythology of Brexit—the unicorns—was held up to the light, and once Members of Parliament and other people looked at this question, we would find ourselves in the situation that we are in this week. We predicted that the concept of a jobs-first Brexit, or a Brexit that promised all of those wonderful things that were on the side of the big red bus, was a mirage that would prove impossible to deliver. There was a notion that Britain could pull up the drawbridge and everything would be fine: that we did not need to worry about our European alliances, or care particularly about the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, because these things could all be ironed out and it would be sorted out. We now know that is not the case.

Many of my constituents, and many hon. Members present, have looked at some of the options that we are debating in the other Chamber today: a customs union, the Norway option, the Canada option, or a supposed managed no deal. They have looked at the evidence, as they should, and have concluded that every single form of Brexit will make our constituents worse off. Therefore, how can I in good conscience say to my constituents, “That’s fine—no problem at all,” especially as they voted for remain? How can I possibly allow that situation to continue without giving them, at the very least, the right to sign it off through a form of final consent? They should have the final say.

I found myself finally having to leave the Labour party because I could no longer continue with the charade that somehow the Labour party was going to eventually get to the position of offering the public a vote. That option has remained on the ballot paper; it looks as though there has been some movement, and many good Labour MPs have been trying their best to get their Front-Bench team to support it. However, that was one of the reasons why I could no longer stay in the Labour party and had to join the Independent Group. Our view is that the public, if they so choose, should have the right to instruct their Government to revoke the article 50 notice and support remaining in the European Union. We are in a difficult set of circumstances, but if we want to truncate them and bring this situation to a conclusion sooner, a referendum is the best way to do so, rather than entering into four, five, six or seven years of long negotiations about our future relationship with the European Union.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman may know that I tabled the Terms of Withdrawal from the EU (Referendum) Bill on 6 July 2016, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) is putting forward that proposal now. It is taking time, but we are getting there.

[Mr Leslie]

My hon. Friend has been very prescient on this issue. He has been consistent throughout—as have many hon. Members present—and I give him credit for that.

Faced with this petition, which has been signed by 6 million people, it is our duty to ensure that these views are not pigeonholed and sidelined in Westminster Hall, but that they are heard by the Government. It is not just a junior Minister—with respect to the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris)—who needs to hear the voices of the people, but the Prime Minister and senior Cabinet Ministers. When we come to the end of this debate, I do not believe we should simply nod through the motion that this Chamber, Westminster Hall, has considered this petition. It is important that we fight for those who have signed it, and take this issue to be considered in the main Chamber of the House of Commons. That is the position that I will be taking today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

As I mentioned, on 6 July 2016 I introduced the Terms of Withdrawal from EU (Referendum) Bill to give people a vote on the deal, in the knowledge that what they were voting on in good faith might not be what was delivered. We have certainly found that to be the case. It is now clear from the evidence that Britain will be poorer, weaker, more isolated and more divided if we Brexit.

I stand here on behalf of people in Swansea West who voted to leave. They voted for more money, more trade, more control over migration and our laws, and they are getting none of those things. They see a £40 billion divorce bill and an economy projected to shrink by 10%. It has already shrunk by 2.5%—around £360 million a week, when we were promised £350 million a week for the NHS. Under the Prime Minister’s deal, we will still be controlled by EU laws. Under the absurd and irresponsible idea of no deal, we would be controlled by the WTO, which has 260 members, a massive commission, and an unelected pool of judges who would force various laws on us so that we could not, for example, choose to bring the railways and water into public ownership.

Migration will not be controlled, with an open border in Northern Ireland, and the no-deal scenario is a sort of Evel Knievel irresponsible madness. People who voted to leave did not know that Trump would be elected. They did not know that Trump would undermine trade, whether it is steel or Bombardier, undermine the Paris agreement, or undermine our world security by withdrawing from nuclear deals with Iran and so on. We are in a completely different scenario. They did not know that the Chinese would abolish the limited amount of democracy that they had, and that in any trade deals—

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geraint Davies]

No, I will not give way—we have heard enough from you already, thank you. [Interruption.] We did not know that we would be crushed between China and the United States in terms of the EU’s ability to negotiate.

[Dr Lewis]

Just talk to each other then. [Interruption.]

[Geraint Davies]

I am sorry that Government Members have decided to leave, after multiple interventions to hear some logic. This is not the will of the people; this is a curse on the people by those such as the Members who have now left the Chamber, who do not really agree with democracy at all. We can see the empty Benches. They do not really care about the 6 million people who have seen that this is a complete shambles. Frankly, the people who vote for this will never be forgiven for what they are pushing on the country.

[Heidi Allen]

I appreciate that everybody’s diaries are incredibly busy in Westminster, but I find it extraordinary that there is now literally nobody on the side of the House that is responsible for responding to the petition, given it is of such a size. Does that not tell us how poorly the 6 million people in this country who are terrified by the prospect of Brexit feel? This is supposed to be democracy—I find it absolutely startling.

[Geraint Davies]

I completely agree. We have seen 6 million people in a matter of days saying, “Enough is enough—we want revocation.” A million people were on the streets, and for every one of them, there are probably 20 more. I personally could not make it; due to various commitments, I could not come along. We must have a vote of the people. Clearly there is a crying need for us to move forward.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Further to the previous intervention, in the last debate in Westminster Hall we had exactly the same situation; very few Government Members attended. Does my hon. Friend agree that the petition shows a real passion on the side of people who want to remain? They do not want a fudge. For them, remain means remain, and that is what we should do.

[Geraint Davies]

People have the right to exercise their views, whether to leave or to remain, and increasingly people want to remain. They can see how awful this is. We have been talking about this matter endlessly, and if we do not revoke or have a public vote, we will spend another 10 years talking about it, with ridiculous deals that will push us down the economic toilet in my view. It is time to put Brexit out of its misery. It is time to let the people decide.

Article 50 Extension

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

I agree. Also, it is not very seemly for the United Kingdom to be in a situation in which a deal is simply put and re-put and re-put and re-put. If it eventually got through by just a few votes after many times of trying and with threat levels changing, it would not be a proper basis for the future relationship with the EU because it will have lost all credibility; the meaningfulness is sucked out every time this process is repeated.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Keir Starmer]

No, I am going to make some progress. I will give way in a moment.

We are now acting in the absence of a deal, with the express will of this House to prevent no deal. One of my biggest concerns is that the Prime Minister’s actions make no deal far more likely, not less—and that is the very issue that we were trying to deal with last week. If agreed by the EU, a short extension for the purposes of forcing through this deal would simply push the cliff edge back to 30 June, and we would start down the same track. The Prime Minister is repeating the same flawed strategy that she has been pursuing for two years in order to recreate the binary choice between her deal and no deal that this House rejected last week.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Barclay]

What is remarkable about that intervention is that chambers of commerce up and down the country have been saying, “Back the Prime Minister’s deal” because they want the certainty that it offers. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing the House’s attention to the voice of business. It is not a voice that usually gets much of a hearing on the Opposition Benches. I note that the hon. Lady ducked the challenge. I have still not heard anyone on the Opposition Front Bench tell us how long an extension they seek.

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Stephen Barclay]

We have a volunteer! We look forward to hearing the date from the hon. Gentleman.

[Geraint Davies]

Given that it is clear from the historic votes that we cannot agree the deal in this House, and given that the Government confidently say that they are reflecting what the people voted for, surely they have the confidence to put that back to the people, in which case the extension should be longer than the 22 weeks needed for a public vote—that is five months, of course. I therefore suggest that nine months is an appropriate period to keep all our options open.

[Stephen Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman has not even persuaded Labour Front Benchers of his position. He says that he wants a nine-month extension, yet we have no clarity from the Labour Front Bench. He also says that he wants time for a second referendum, but I have yet to hear clarity about the question. Would there be two questions or three? Would “remain” and “leave” be on the ballot paper?

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have been given these choices: deal or no deal; and then deal or no Brexit. We now face a situation of chaos. One million people or more will probably be marching over the weekend to ask for the right to have a final say. The Government say that they are implementing the will of the people. If their deal is the will of the people, they should put it to the people to decide. We cannot agree in this place. We voted down this deal by 230 and then by149, and often for opposite reasons. One set of people say that we are not aligned enough with the EU, and the other that we are too much aligned with the EU. We cannot agree, so the deal should be put to the people. If this deal represents the will of the people, the people should decide.

This debate is about how long the extension should be. I put it to the Government that we should be requesting at least 22 weeks—five months—to allow time for a referendum. We probably could do with nine months if we are to look at the options. However, there is a real risk that the Government will go forward without a purpose, and we will simply be rejected by the EU, which will then force us into a situation where we will have either to take a no deal or to revoke article 50. In those circumstances, I very much hope that the Government choose to revoke article 50, because the people want to carry on with business as usual and not to have to face chaos.

In Swansea, people who voted leave voted in good faith for more money, more control, more trade, and more jobs. They are telling me now that they did not vote leave to leave their jobs. They can see that they will not get the trade and they can see that they will not get the control. They will not get the money, because there is a divorce bill. It is a complete shambles. People are not getting what they want. The Government are not representing the leave voters in Swansea and those voters now want the final say and they deserve that final say. That is what democracy is all about. Democracy is the right to change one’s mind. People are dying for that. Keynes famously said:

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”

The facts have changed. When we had that vote, we did not have Donald Trump running around threatening people and undermining trade deals, environmental deals and world security. We did not have the Chinese getting rid of their democracy. We will be smashed between those two powers when we are trying to secure trade deals. We need to be part of Europe and share the values of Europe—of human rights, the rule of law and democracy. We need to work together in an uncertain world. People have woken up to the fact that that means staying in the EU. It is all very well having these stupid populist sayings, such as “take back control” and all the rest of it. People may have voted for that, but they now realise that they are losing control. There are those who say, “Oh, well, people will be angry.” The fact is that people will be absolutely enraged when they lose their jobs.

We are seeing the outbreak of populism, fascism and violence. The Daily Mail reported a case of a woman who was beaten to a pulp by people who said, “You’re from Poland, go home.” This is what is happening as a result of Brexit. It must be stopped. The people demand a final say and it is our duty to deliver it.

UK’s Withdrawal from the EU

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

I think that option has to be open, but it will be very difficult, because the Europeans have already carved up our democratic representation in Europe. I keep an open mind. I want us to continue to be part of the European Parliament and other European institutions. It looks as if, at least in the short term, Scotland will lose that benefit, but I look forward to us getting back in as quickly as possible.

The other amendments that have been selected have a lot of merit to them. I do not think there is anything in them that I would oppose or that is incompatible with our amendment. I would ask the supporters of those amendments to look at our amendment, because extending article 50 has become an urgent prerequisite for anything else. We do not have time to spend tabling motions, having debates or developing substantial legislation, whether on a customs union, a people’s vote or anything else, unless we stop the clock. Contrary to what the Secretary of State said, the Prime Minister has not been trying to stop the clock. She has been trying to let it keep ticking down, while nothing but nothing was happening to prepare us for Brexit.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Speaker has ruled that all these motions are advisory, including the motion rejecting no deal, and that the referendum itself was also advisory? Why are we hurtling over the cliff on an advisory referendum and not accepting the will of this House that it would be calamitous?

[Peter Grant]

I do not accept the argument that says, “Because the vote was close,” or, “Because the legislation did not say it was binding.” I think we have to accept the results of the referendum in each of the four nations of the United Kingdom. That is why, although I sympathise with where my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is coming from, I have some difficulty with his amendment, because I do not think we can permanently revoke article 50 unless we have a revised decision in another referendum.

When I say that we have to respect the result of the referendum, we have to respect the results in the four nations. It would be unacceptable for us to permanently revoke article 50 for England and Wales without asking the people of those nations what they thought. It is equally unacceptable and unconstitutional to ignore the express will of the people of Scotland or indeed Northern Ireland. We have the ridiculous situation where Northern Ireland cannot be made to stay in the United Kingdom against the will of its people and cannot be taken out of the United Kingdom against the will of its people, but can be taken out of the European Union against the will of its people. How does that work?

I cannot see any prospect of the Prime Minister’s deal being accepted by Parliament either before or after 29 March. I cannot see any prospect of the European Union agreeing any significant changes in the next month to a deal that it has spent two years with the Government agreeing to, so we are not going to leave with a deal on 29 March. As the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the Father of the House, has said, there are barely 25 people in this place who would countenance leaving with no deal on 29 March, so surely the only credible, tenable and defensible solution is not to leave on 29 March, but to put back the leaving day until we can sort things out and at least engage in some kind of damage limitation.

Leaving the EU

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

I said to myself, I think about halfway through the debate, that I would keep my remarks brief, because we have had an extensive debate, we have had excellent speeches, and frankly we have rehearsed many of these points—

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

May I say that you have only 45 minutes?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am fully aware of the timescale. You are lucky, Mr Davies, that my hour-long speech will have to be curtailed. I wanted to make brief remarks because many of these points have been rehearsed at length in debates gone by, and I am sure that they will be in the future.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) introduced the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. He read out the petitions and the views of hundreds of thousands of people. It was striking, as he pointed out, that all those viewpoints were, essentially, contradictory. There is a full and wide range of opinion in the country—as evidenced by the petitions—as there are divergent views in the House of Commons. In the Chamber today, with only about nine MPs, we have a wide range of views. We have people who support Brexit but do not like the deal, people who support Brexit but do like the deal, and people who do not like the deal and do not like Brexit. The permutations seem endless, and that is with only nine MPs.

I want to make it clear that that degree of divergence in view—the very different opinions expressed right across the country—shows the level of confusion that there might well be if this exercise of Brexit is not concluded in an orderly fashion. As one would expect, my view, and that of the Government, is that the best way of delivering Brexit in a timely, orderly manner is through the deal in the withdrawal agreement. It is not true to say that it does not deliver Brexit. That is a grotesque exaggeration and caricature of the deal.

I fought very hard alongside many MPs, some of whom are in the Chamber, for Brexit in 2016. I was very clear about the three things that I wanted from Brexit. I wanted to see a drastic curtailment, if not an end, to the club membership—the £10 billion net a year that we were paying indefinitely, and that would have increased as we entered a new budget period. The deal completely prevents that. There is no £39 billion figure in the agreement. That is a snapshot, or a shorthand expression.

It is a lot of money, but it actually equates to only four years of net payments. We were in the EU, or the European Economic Community, for 46 years. Everyone understands that to leave such a commitment—to leave that union after such a long period of membership—will take time. The deal recognises that. It curtails the length of the implementation period. It curtails the money. The £39 billion figure is often quoted, but that is against £10 billion every year from today until kingdom come.

Importantly, one of the big issues in the Brexit referendum was freedom of movement from the EU. Many people, particularly among ethnic minority communities, were saying, “How is it that someone from the EU who speaks no English at all can come to Britain without a job, while my relatives from Commonwealth countries outside the EU do not have that opportunity?” Many others in my constituency, including builders and people working in construction, also mentioned freedom of movement. I remember coming out of Staines station and meeting someone who said that he would vote for Brexit because he had not had a wage increase for 15 years. A clever economist might say that that was simplistic, but that was the view—that was how people felt that their professional experience was developing. Freedom of movement was a big issue.

The withdrawal agreement—the deal that we need to vote on—is not perfect; like any deal in history, it includes some give and take. However, it substantially delivers on putting an end to freedom of movement, and that is why we are introducing an immigration Bill. As I recall, the third big issue in the campaign was about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice: would it continue to be sovereign over this Parliament? On that issue, too, the withdrawal agreement delivers. It is a good deal, and it largely delivers on what we campaigned for as Brexiteers.

I say to my Brexit colleagues, as the Prime Minister said in her speech today in Stoke, that there is a marked and strong current of opinion in the House of Commons that wants to subvert or reverse Brexit. I know that those are strong words, and people will say, “Oh, we just want to scrutinise legislation.” Forget all that—it is clear to a child that there are MPs in this House who want to reverse the referendum. They have openly said that the referendum result was a disaster and have pledged to overturn it, but they know that the only way that they can do that is by means of a second referendum. It is not that they like the idea of a second referendum because they want to test the robustness of the decision or celebrate the exercise of democracy, but that the way to reverse Brexit is very clear: it has to be done through a second referendum, to give it the authority that the first had. I do not know about our Scottish National party friends, but it would take a very bold remainer to say that the House of Commons could simply unilaterally disregard the referendum.

If one wants to stay in the EU, one has to accept that the only way of doing so is with a second referendum. Hon. Members who sit on the Conservative Benches or who represent leave constituencies have detected a hardening of public opinion, however. As a Member who represents a leave constituency, I concur: even if a second referendum took place, I do not believe that the remainers would get their wish. Nevertheless, I fully understand that that is their only shot—their only conduit to reversing something that they think is a disaster—so it is the route they want to pursue. The Government’s view is that that would be wholly disruptive, divisive and simply a cheat, because it would be an attempt to circumvent the decision.

The vast majority of Members of this House voted to have the referendum, voted to trigger article 50 and voted to pass the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Let us be under no illusions: the debate on a second referendum is simply about trying to reverse the result of the first. The Government simply cannot accept that. We want to move forward and conclude Brexit in an orderly and managed fashion—I was almost going to say an elegant fashion, but I think that that would be pushing things too far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Jenkyns]

It takes a lot for somebody who has always been loyal to the party over the past decade or so—and since I have been a Member—to vote against the Government. I have never done so, like many of my colleagues who have resigned as Parliamentary Private Secretaries. Let us not forget that it is the remain colleagues in our party who have been thwarting Brexit and who have voted against the Government so far. To return to my previous point, you have not provided the House with a deal that actually represents Brexit. So many constituents have written to me to say, “Please vote that deal down.” It is you, the Government and the Prime Minister who have done the job of uniting Conservative Members against your deal.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Just to clarify, obviously it is not me.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I urge the hon. Lady and her Brexiteer colleagues to vote for the deal. I am not speaking as a Government Minister but as a Brexiteer, and my real worry is that Brexit will be abandoned because the Brexiteers are divided.

I am a historian and someone who loves reading about history. There are countless examples of situations where people have won what they were fighting for and then simply fallen out—there have been divisions. That is a very grave danger for Brexit: having won the argument and the referendum in 2016, we see the Brexit side quite fractured. As a Brexiteer, I support the deal. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, as a Brexiteer, supports the deal. Yet there are other Brexiteers here in Westminster Hall, not to mention in the wider House of Commons, who support Brexit but feel that they cannot support the deal. I urge all Brexiteers, and remainers who want to see their manifesto commitments fulfilled—the entire Labour party, according to its manifesto—to vote for the deal in order to move forward. Any other outcome, as a result of voting down the deal, would add to the chaos and confusion, and it would imperil Brexit.

Thank you very much for your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank all hon. Members for their excellent contributions to this very high-quality debate.