Debate on the Address

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Davey]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The majority of people in Scotland voted for parties who want to preserve the Union. I get a sense that right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches should also note that the majority of people voted for parties who wanted to give the people a final say on the European Union.

We needed a Queen’s Speech that would truly keep our country together, heal the divides and tackle the challenges of inequality, lack of opportunity and climate change. However, I fear the Prime Minister’s Queen’s Speech will only undermine our united country’s great traditions. I fear that, with this Government’s programme, we will become a more inward-looking, more illiberal and less compassionate country. The one nation rhetoric of the Prime Minister is not matched by his actions. Let me start with Brexit.

Let us be clear that the Prime Minister and the Conservative party now own Brexit. It is their total and complete responsibility. They cannot blame anyone else any more. They have become the Brexit party from top to bottom. The question, of course, is this: will the Prime Minister get Brexit done? More precisely, will he get it done by the end of the year, so we can avoid the disaster of a no-deal Brexit? Well, we shall see.

The Prime Minister’s biggest weapon in his Brexit deal endeavour is surely his unmatched flexibility with the truth. His so-called triumph of achieving a deal for Brexit phase one was possible only because he betrayed his big promise to the Democratic Unionist party, his erstwhile big supporters. His willingness to jump unashamedly over every red line he had previously been willing to die in a ditch for will have been noted in Brussels by Europe’s rather more skilful negotiators.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fairly accurate assessment of the communication between the Conservative party, its leader and my party, but does he agree that there is still the opportunity and time for redemption?

[Sir Edward Davey]

There is always time for redemption, but if the hon. Gentleman is hoping for it in this case from this Prime Minister, I wish him well.

Some of us have led successful negotiations, pan-Europe, in Brussels—difficult negotiations that I won for Britain—on everything from economic reform of the single market to climate change. I did not succeed by adopting this Prime Minister’s tactics of bulldog bluster combined with the record of a turncoat. I do not believe that that is the right approach, and I do not believe that he will succeed without reneging on all, or most, of his previous promises to leave voters. My parliamentary interest in this is whether or not, in the dark Conservative forests of the Brexit Spartans, his erstwhile friends have yet smelt betrayal. We shall see, but as we oppose Brexit and continue to point out the extra costs, economic damage and loss of influence, we will also remind Government colleagues of the previously unthinkable concessions that now need to be made for any chance of a deal next year.

I turn to the NHS, which the Prime Minister has made so much of. Every Member of the House was elected on a manifesto committed to increasing spending on the NHS in real terms—maybe there is a little political consensus there. I, for one, am relaxed about putting a spending commitment for the health service into law, but that prompts one question: is the spending enough? I do not want to repeat the election debate, where the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats were arguing for higher health spending than the Government. Instead, let me approach it in a rather different way, in terms of what our medium-term NHS spending target should be.

Most health analysts tend to talk, not as the Prime Minister does, in the abstract—in total spending, which is bound to go up with an ageing population and economic growth—but in comparisons between similar countries: on spending per person, on the percentage of the national income. If we compare the UK’s health spending in these ways—even with the Prime Minister’s rises—against the world’s other largest developed countries, the UK fares badly. In the G7, our health spending per person is the second lowest—lower than Germany and France. As a share of national income, in the G7, the UK again performs badly, with Italy the only country that is spending less.

I readily admit that the NHS is far more efficient as a health service than, say, the health system of the United States, but surely we should be really ambitious for the NHS, and the factual evidence shows that this Government and this Queen’s Speech are not. As we legislate for future NHS spending targets, why do we not take the opportunity to be really ambitious? Why do we not aim to spend 10% of our national income on the NHS, as a minimum? That would bring us up to G7 comparators, and I think that the British people would back a policy where £1 in every £10 of the national cake was spent on the nation’s health. I accept that the Government may be nervous about spending targets based on national income because their economic policies look set to fail so badly and national income will grow very slowly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

This should apply to all national infrastructure projects. I am pleased to see, for example, that even with an infrastructure project such as the third runway at Heathrow, there is a commitment to ensuring that some of the benefits are spilled out across the rest of the United Kingdom through various Heathrow hub projects, which I hope Northern Ireland will benefit from. There are ways of dispersing the expenditure on those major projects, even if they do not physically run through some parts of the United Kingdom.

The commitment to the application of the armed forces covenant is especially important in Northern Ireland, given the number of people who served through the troubles. Tens of thousands are still living with the consequences, and they do not have access to services on the same basis as in other parts of the United Kingdom. We look forward to the commitment on that and on the promise that legacy issues will be dealt with, so that soldiers are not dragged through the courts for things that happened 40 years ago, while, incidentally, terrorists walk free as a result of arrangements made by the Labour party during the Belfast agreement negotiations.

We are happy to support the benefits that high streets will see from changes to business rates. I have seen the devastation done by high rates to businesses across town centres in my constituency. Business rates relief is, of course, only one part of the solution to the changing retail environment right across the United Kingdom. Promoting business through tax incentives for research and development, for training and for opening up new markets will be especially important as we look to the wider global benefits that we can take when we leave the EU and can do our own trade deals.

Those are the things to which we can give our support. Throughout many of today’s speeches, including the Prime Minister’s, people have talked about the Government party being a one nation party. However, if we are to talk about a one nation party, it must not be one nation just in terms of bringing forward policies that affect all the social layers in the economy and in the country; it must also extend to all parts of the United Kingdom. The Conservative party wants to be the party of the Union and I noted that the Prime Minister said that he would not allow anyone to rip up the UK—one of the most successful political unions. Yet one of the first things mentioned in the Queen’s Speech is the pushing through of the withdrawal agreement Bill, the content of which will, in effect, leave Northern Ireland behind the EU’s customs frontier. It will leave us outside UK customs arrangements and inside the EU customs arrangements. In effect, when it comes to trade and the economy, the European boundary will be extended around the outside of Northern Ireland, which will have economic consequences for businesses in Northern Ireland: increased costs, delays in goods going through customs, or extra bureaucracy. Of course, it will also affect trade from Northern Ireland into Great Britain, which is our biggest market. Those are only the immediate economic consequences; there will also be long-term political consequences.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the Government proceed with getting Brexit done in the course of 2020, which many people will be content with, the bigger picture beyond that will be the unity of the United Kingdom and increased prosperity? It has to flow—the Prime Minister alluded to this—not just to the south-east of England, but to all the United Kingdom.

[Sammy Wilson]

That is the other argument: not just that the Prime Minister would not allow the UK to be ripped up, but that he wanted to extend UK prosperity to every part of it. I understand that many people in Northern Ireland will never share the view of the Union that my party and I have. They may not look at it from a cultural or historical point of view, but they understand the importance of being part of the fifth biggest economy in the world. They understand the value of that, how it benefits them economically and how it shelters them from the economic storms that affect the world economy from time to time. We would not have survived the banking crisis, for example, had we not been part of the United Kingdom. It is significant that some of those who aspire to a united Ireland turn a blind eye to the fact that the Irish Government had to seek a multibillion-pound loan from the United Kingdom because they could not survive the economic storm of the world banking crisis. Being part of the United Kingdom has huge economic benefits, and not only for Northern Ireland but for Scotland.

The Scottish National party, because of its electoral success, is now pushing for a second referendum. The SNP says the situation has changed. Ironically, of course, the situation has changed since the last once-in-a-generation referendum. The SNP now has fewer MPs and a lower share of the vote than in 2015. What has changed is that there is now less support. If anything, this agitation for another referendum is not based on the democratically expressed views of the people of Scotland. In that absence, it is right that referendums should not be continually offered year after year just because a party claims its electoral fortunes have gone up or down a little. Otherwise, we could have demands after every election.

It is now important for this Government to sell the benefits of the Union right across the United Kingdom and to act so that people see those benefits. Where the Government have acted, they should talk up what they have done. As I know from having been a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, there is a tendency for devolved Administrations, both Unionist and nationalist, to claim all the good things that happen and to say that all the bad things are because of what Westminster has done. If we are to spend more money on projects that benefit the whole United Kingdom, and if we are to put more money into the health service and into education, Ministers should make it clear by going out across the United Kingdom to sell that it has happened because of decisions made in London, where the centre of government rests in the United Kingdom. Let us be bold in selling the Union.

Before the Government can do that, they must address what their current agreement will do to Northern Ireland. The Conservatives cannot claim to be a Unionist party while cutting Northern Ireland off.