Debate on the Address
Debate between Graham Stuart and Keir Starmer(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I do welcome this, and I know that it is an issue across the whole House—I do not think there is a single Member who does not care about child poverty. The point of the taskforce is to devise a strategy, as we did when we were last in government, to drive those numbers down. It cannot be a single issue, but one that crosses a number of strands, and we will work with people across the House in order to tackle it. What matters is the commitment to drive those numbers down. That is what we did when last in government, and we will do it again.
The Prime Minister
I will make some progress and then give way.
I respect the tone of the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution, but I cannot stop my mind from wandering back to nine months ago when he was at this Dispatch Box. His great political hero, Nigel Lawson, once said, “To govern is to choose.” Every day serving the people of this country is a chance to make a difference for them. The last King’s Speech was the day when the veil of his choices slipped, and we all saw his party content to let our country’s problems fester and to push aside the national interest as they focused almost entirely on trying to save their own skins.
We will have time over the weeks, months and years ahead to debate the measures in this King’s Speech and the choices of this Government, but I defy anyone on the Opposition Benches or elsewhere to look at the ambition and purpose of our intent and not to see a return to the serious business of government. No more wedges issues; no more gimmicks; no more party political strategy masquerading as policy. This is an agenda focused entirely on delivering for the people of this country—legislation for the national interest that seeks only to fix our foundations and make people better off, and to solve problems, not exploit them.
The Prime Minister
I will just make some progress.
With each day that passes, my Government are finding new and unexpected marks of their chaos: scars of the past 14 years, where politics was put above the national interest, and decline deep in the marrow of our institutions. We have seen that in our prisons, writ large. We have seen it in our rivers and seas, even worse than we thought. We have seen it in our councils, pushed to the brink by the previous Government and now unable to deliver even basic services to children with special educational needs. We have already taken the first steps on so many of the priorities we put before the British people. The work of change has begun, but we know—as they do—that national renewal is not a quick fix. The rot of 14 years will take time to repair.
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. He talks about priorities. Of course, people in rural communities around the country see the vast majority that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has assembled, and they are afraid. They see a manifesto in which just 87 words are about farming. They see a King’s Speech with no mention of rural communities or priorities. Will the Prime Minister please take this opportunity to reassure people in rural and farming communities that his Labour Government will take notice of them?
EU Withdrawal Agreement
Debate between Graham Stuart and Keir Starmer(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
Support the deal!
Keir Starmer
The cries to support the deal would have a lot more authority if those on the Government Benches were supporting the deal. The Government are utterly split on this. Last Wednesday’s no-confidence vote exposed the fracture, and there is no point pretending it is not there.
Over the summer, the previous Brexit Secretary published 106 technical notices setting out the Government’s case for preparing for no deal. They did not get a huge amount of attention at the time, but it is worth reading and re-reading them, as my team and I have done, and as the Institute for Government has done. Those technical notices make it clear that the Government’s managed no deal would require the creation or expansion of 15 quangos, further legislation in 51 areas, the negotiation of 40 new international agreements with either the EU or other countries and the introduction of 55 new systems and processes. That is the analysis of the 106 technical notices—the Government’s own assessment.
The case I am making is that the argument that there should or could be no deal on 29 March is completely lacking in any viability whatsoever. The very idea that there could be legislation in 51 areas, 40 new international agreements, 15 new quangos and 55 new systems and processes in the next three months only has to be spelled out. That is not my assessment; it is the Government’s own assessment. It is not credible to pretend that that can be done by 29 March.