Net Zero Emissions Target

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend answers his own question in giving me some examples. It is important to acknowledge that each place has different challenges and different opportunities. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) talked about the potential for the exploitation of lithium in Cornwall, for example. Every part of the country will have its role to play. One of the areas in which local authorities have a signal role to play is charging for electric vehicles. If people have the confidence to accelerate the take-up of electric vehicles, that will make a big contribution to decarbonising the economy.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome this announcement. This is a significant day on the journey that our country must make towards a zero carbon future, although we recognise that some of the steps we have yet to take will be a little more challenging than the ones we have already taken. May I pick up the point that the Secretary of State just referred to? Part of the green revolution will have to be built on electric vehicles, not least because a third of our remaining emissions come from transport. We are seeing new electric cars being developed and the range extending, but having talked about responsibility of local authorities, will he explain who is going to pay for the charging infrastructure, particularly in residential areas, as this will be essential if consumers are to have the confidence to buy the cars, which will lead the manufacturers to make more of them?

[Greg Clark]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. This is a shared responsibility, and part of the funding that we have made available—more will be needed—is to ensure that both the private and public sectors contribute to establishing a network that is not only available but dependable and also rapid in its ability to charge. That network needs to cover every part of the country—cities as well as rural areas.

Tuition Fees: EU Students

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore]

I thank my predecessor for his remarks. The work that he did so soon after we voted to leave the European Union, making the Government guarantee in July 2018 and extending student finance for home fees last year, has set us in a position that is welcome among our European partners. I would also like to put on record my thanks for the work he did in establishing the high-level group on EU exit, which meets monthly. It gives the opportunity for university professionals, including the Russell Group, the University Alliance and MillionPlus, to meet and discuss issues of concern and to ensure that those are fed in internally and that we listen to those points—and we are listening.

We are listening when it comes to the consultation on the immigration White Paper. We are listening when it comes to ensuring that we have a sustainable future with our relationship with the European Union. We are listening when it comes to working on our plans for future association with and participation in the International Science Council, including on making guarantees about Horizon 2020 and looking at association on Horizon Europe. It is right that the Government do this, in tandem with working across all Departments with a cross-Government approach to looking at how we exit the European Union, and I will continue to make sure that I play my role as Universities Minister in backing our universities.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

The political declaration agreed between the EU and the UK talks about establishing

“general principles, terms and conditions for the United Kingdom’s participation in Union programmes…in areas such as science and innovation, youth, culture and education”.

Do I take it from the reply the Minister has given this afternoon that the question of tuition fees—fees charged to EU students studying here in the UK and to UK students studying elsewhere in the EU—does not come within the terms of that wording, and that if that is the case, there is no bar to the Government choosing to increase those fees before any negotiations on the future partnership with the EU have even begun?

[Chris Skidmore]

I think the right hon. Gentleman is pointing to paragraph 61—is it?—of the political declaration on the future partnership with the EU. I wish he would support the political declaration, alongside voting for the deal, because we could then get on with discussing those issues with our European partners.

When it comes to Horizon and Erasmus, part of the reason why we find ourselves in difficulties is the uncertainty that there is without knowing whether we are in a deal or a no-deal situation. For all the Opposition Members talking about instability and the lack of certainty, it is on their backs that this is taking place. Those voting against the deal have prevented us from moving on to phase 2 of the negotiations.

We have made commitments on 2019-20 student finance, and we will shortly be making an announcement for 2020-21, ready for applications opening in September 2019. Obviously, any future financial obligations will be part of the spending review, and it is right that they are looked at by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Climate Action and Extinction Rebellion

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s mentioning an independent report which shows that we have decarbonised, as a proportion of our economic growth, faster than any other country in not just the G7 but the G20. We continue to work to accelerate our carbon reduction. He is right to focus on heating, which is a major problem for a centralised gas-based heating economy such as ours. Innovation is happening in Keele, Leeds and other areas to see how we might safely introduce hydrogen into the heating system. Of course, we then have to produce hydrogen in a low-carbon emissions form, which is an opportunity to use excess renewable energy, and particularly offshore wind. This is an incredibly innovative time. By the way, if we can help the world migrate to hydrogen boilers and make those boilers in the UK, we can export them and create a competitive advantage as part of this transition.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Looking at the climate science, I do not suppose that a single Member of the House does not ask themselves, “How can we make the changes that are needed?” The Minister will be aware that the Committee on Climate Change said in November that emissions from homes are off track and we will need to replace gas with hydrogen boilers and supplementary electric heating. Given that about 80% of homes depend on gas for heating or cooking, how will that change happen?

[Claire Perry]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise homes, although they are responsible for only 15% of our CO₂ emissions. In fact, the biggest nut we have to crack is industrial emissions, which is arguably much harder to do. There will be no one-size-fits-all policy on homes. There will be some decarbonisation of gas, some introduction of pure hydrogen, a move to electrification and a use of community heating or heat networks. Some amazingly innovative local authorities—Nottingham and Leeds spring to mind—are trying to design new forms of heating system into their local economies and home building programmes. That is how we will innovate and drive the cost down. I think that the announcement of no fossil fuel heating in new homes from 2025 will kick-start a revolution, particularly in reducing the cost of alternatives such as heat pumps.

Honda in Swindon

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. Although Brexit uncertainty was not cited as one of the factors in the decision, it is evident in investment decisions in the whole industry. I know from regular conversations with investors that it does bear on their minds. Last time I was in the House, I mentioned that Nissan has said that the political uncertainty over a no-deal Brexit, or what kind of Brexit there will be, is “casting a shadow” over its future. When investors that have no political motivation to make such statements issue that advice and warning, we should attend to it. It seems to me that we have the information necessary to conclude these negotiations, and in my view we should do it during the days ahead.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

This is the latest and the most serious in a series of announcements and warnings from the UK car industry about its future operations in this country. I know and the House knows that the Secretary of State fully understands what a dangerous moment this is for the future of that industry. May I therefore simply wish him, and some of his colleagues whom I can see on the Government Benches today, well in persuading the Government to abandon the idea of a no-deal Brexit? He knows probably better than anyone else in this House what a disaster that would be for the future of British car manufacturing.

[Greg Clark]

As I said in my statement, this is a time of change and challenge, but also of opportunity for the automotive sector. I have been proud that in the two or two and a half years since the referendum, notwithstanding the concerns that have always been expressed to me—it is the first thing people have said when I have met boards—we have won every single competitive automotive decision that has taken place in Europe. It is frustrating that this and the X-Trail have gone to Japan, but I think all of us take pride in the fact that the efficiency and the potential of the British manufacturing sector have been recognised in that way. However, it is apparent, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) has said, that although a degree of uncertainty was expected after the referendum decision, this has now got to the point—as I am told time and again in boardrooms in this country and around the world—where the time taken is unconscionable and if we do not act, we will see decisions not simply deferred but moved elsewhere.

Brexit, Science and Innovation

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

I agree that what the Government have said is encouraging but, going back to the report, getting this agreed and ending the uncertainty is important because people want to develop bids now, and every month that goes by causes increased uncertainty. That is the key point I want to make.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one area where continuing uncertainty is a real problem for the future of our scientific research excellence, as mentioned in the report, is access to people? The expertise, the discoveries and the developments that the Exiting the European Union Committee saw on our visit to Cambridge fundamentally rely on the quality of research scientists and others.

One of the United Kingdom’s great strengths is collaboration between people. The Science and Technology Committee reports on people going home and on a decline in applications. Until there is certainty about the continuing flow of the best people from around the world into the UK to carry on that work, will that not be a problem for the future?

[Norman Lamb]

The right hon. Gentleman pre-empts what I was going to say. That was the subject of our second report, and he is right that, whenever we go to a research lab in a university or a research institute, we find a global community—a community not just of Europeans but of people from around the world.

If our pre-eminent position is to be maintained and indeed strengthened, we need to make sure we can continue to attract people to our country.

I have one other point to make about the danger of this uncertainty. Why would anyone risk their bid, which might involve other universities from across the EU, by listing the UK as a lead partner if there are question marks as to whether we can receive funds on behalf of others? The danger of this continuing uncertainty is also that the UK, which has been very good at leading research collaborations, will lose out on the opportunity to do that during this period of uncertainty.

The Committee also argued that it was important to try to separate out science and innovation from the rest of the process so that it does not become collateral damage. The no deal technical note shows why that is a pressing issue; science could suffer as a result of a no deal scenario, and it is in no one’s interests to let that happen. I would like to hear the Minister’s views on the possibility of creating an accord on science and innovation that could withstand a no deal scenario. I hope he will address that during the debate.

Access to funding has clearly been a big issue in this report, but we are also clear that a science and innovation pact—this relates to the point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)—has also fully to cover the people element. We were told that a pact that did not address the need to attract and retain the people needed to support science and innovation would be of limited value. We were given the clear message that access to the best people is the most important priority; beyond the collaboration and the funding issues, we have to be able to bring in the best people for research in this country.

At the time, the Migration Advisory Committee’s report on immigration and the UK economy was many months away. We were told it was due in September, so, presumably, it is due any day now. We recommended in March that the MAC should be asked to bring forward its conclusions relating to the migration of scientists and researchers so that the comprehensive pact could be agreed early on. The Government rejected that recommendation in their response. We were told that agreeing a pact—now described as one of the “accords” in the most recent Brexit White Paper—remained an ambition but that we would have to wait until September for the MAC to produce its report before anything relating to immigration could be considered. We are in September now and this becomes a pressing issue.

Leaving the EU: Airbus Risk Assessment

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Is it not pretty damning that the Secretary of State has had to come to the Dispatch Box today to say that Airbus should be treated with respect when it tells the truth, rather than be criticised? Since the whole House knows that he understands what is at stake here, does he agree that the fact that the Cabinet is still arguing about what kind of customs arrangements it wants two years after the referendum is why a growing number of businesses despair at the Government’s inability to get a grip of this issue?

[Greg Clark]

I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. On the first point, we are an open economy. Businesses that employ people here are perfectly free to speak out and have a right to do so. It is incumbent on the Government to listen to what they say and factor that into the negotiations we are having. We have been very clear about that.

When it comes to the negotiation of our future customs arrangements, the right hon. Gentleman knows, as Chair of the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union, which has given this extensive scrutiny, that up to now we have been discussing the terms of our withdrawal. We are coming on to talk about the future economic partnership. We are negotiating and setting out what we want to achieve through that, and this was always the time when that would be done. For evidence from Airbus and other companies to come forward at this time is to be expected, given the focus of the discussions over the weeks ahead.

Sainsbury and Asda Merger

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) is a regular visitor to all those retail outlets in his constituency, and doubtless those shopping alongside him are veritably delighted to brush shoulders with their local Member of Parliament.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central (Lab)]

Asda said this morning that it will continue to be run from its head office in the centre of Leeds, where just over 2,000 people are employed. Given that in the last few months there have been two rounds of job losses at Asda’s head office, and in the light of what the Minister has just said about the merger providing an opportunity to cut costs, what assurance can he give staff in the head office that their jobs are safe?

[Andrew Griffiths]

The right hon. Gentleman will understand that any merger will be designed to improve efficiency, productivity and value for money for shareholders. So far, we have been given reassurances by Asda and Sainsbury’s that there will be no store closures and no job losses in stores. I cannot confirm to him as yet the impact that the merger will have on the head offices, other than to repeat the confirmation that we have been given that both head offices will be kept open. However, this is a decision for the CMA. I urge the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members to bear in mind that the CMA will make a decision based on the evidence. If right hon. and hon. Members have evidence to contribute, they should make their case to the CMA to ensure that it considers all this on the facts.

Budget Resolutions

Hilary Benn Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

When the British people voted to leave the European Union, they did not vote to damage the Good Friday agreement, they did not vote to undermine the public finances, they did not vote to run the risk of falling off the edge of a cliff without a deal, and they certainly did not vote to end the benefits to Britain of the customs union and the single market. None of those things are inevitable consequences of the vote in June 2016: they are the result of political choices, made by the Government, that will have profound consequences for the future of our economy, our public services and the people we represent. Those choices and consequences dwarf this Budget and will determine the shape of just about every Budget in the years ahead.

The truth is that the Government have been far from transparent and open about those consequences. The simple question for the House is “Why not?” Why have the Government been so unwilling to acknowledge that the decisions that they have made will produce that result, and why have they been so reluctant to share that analysis? We know what the benefits of the customs union are: it gives us frictionless trade. The Government say they want frictionless trade, but we have it now through the customs union. We know it gives us access to a load of agreements with other countries in the world negotiated by the EU. We know—referring to the point made by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins)—that it enables the lorries that come off the ferries at Dover to move out seamlessly to help to turn the wheels of industry and stock our supermarket shelves.

Some 60% of our exports go to Europe and those markets we access through the trade deals. Is it possible to imagine any business saying to its biggest customers, “Well, we’ll try and keep on doing what we are doing with you at the moment, but actually we’re more interested in trying to sell stuff to other people around the rest of the world.”?

The place where this falls into the starkest relief is in Northern Ireland. The Government say that they do not want a border, yet they also say that they want to leave the customs union and the single market. When it is pointed out to Ministers that that could be a bit of a problem, they say that technology will come to their rescue, even though their ideas are untested. One organisation has even suggested that airships and drones could hover above a non-existent border. I hate to say this, but I do not think that tethered Zeppelins or other airships are going to deal with the problem in Northern Ireland. The truth is that, whatever the weather and no matter how radical the technology is or how much the Government spend, it is hard, if not impossible, to see how this problem can be reconciled if we are to avoid a return to a hard border. That is why there is a crisis in the negotiations with the EU, and why the Irish Government are pushing so hard.

This is what lies behind the argument we are having about the impact assessments that apparently never existed. That is what this debate is about. It is not about process, or about what has been released to the Select Committee. We know that what we have been given has been edited, filleted and sanitised. What this is really about is the process by which the Government took the decision to leave the single market and the customs union. Did they consider the fiscal, economic and employment consequences of the two most important decisions that have been taken since the vote in June 2016? If they did not consider them, why not? And if they did, when are we going to see them? None of us knows how this is going to turn out, but frankly, the Government owe it to the House and to the people of Britain to come clean about how they reached that decision.

Royal Mail Delivery Office Closures

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Helen Hayes]

It is a problem across the country that where delivery offices are being closed, the receipts from the sale of that land are recouped entirely for the benefit of shareholders and not reinvested in alternative facilities for customers.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I concur with the congratulations to my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does she recognise that when Royal Mail argues, as it has in the case of the proposed closure of the Holbeck delivery office in my constituency, that it will

“improve facilities for our customers in the LS11 postcode area”,

that kind of comment provokes a hollow laugh on the part of residents who will have to travel much further, taking in some cases not one but two buses to pick up a letter or parcel from the office that Royal Mail now tells them they will have to go to, if the closure goes ahead? We are very much resisting the closure, together with the Communication Workers Union.

[Helen Hayes]

My right hon. Friend is right to make that point. Extended delivery hours at a location very far from where residents live is no substitute for having a facility directly in their community. That is exactly the issue we are debating.

There is also a significant problem for customers who pay to use the PO box service, for the confidentiality and convenience that provides, and for whom Royal Mail appears not to have accounted at all in its plans. Delivery offices are also part of the fabric of our communities. There is a strong relationship between Royal Mail staff and the customers they serve, which makes the institutions more than simply transactional in the role they play.

The closures Royal Mail is proposing in my constituency would severely restrict the accessibility of services for my constituents. Under the proposals, residents in the SE27 postcode area, who currently use the West Norwood delivery office, would be required to travel not to the next nearest delivery office, which is too small to accommodate the work from West Norwood, but to a delivery office three miles away, which requires them to take two different buses on congested roads: a journey that can easily take an hour each way, not accounting for the queuing time that will inevitably result from more mail being delivered at that delivery office.

Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), and I begin by echoing the last point she made: we are a divided nation, and what this referendum result has shown is that we are divided almost entirely down the middle. We in this House have a responsibility to seek to heal the wounds and to reduce the division that has been created by this big choice—like the right hon. Lady, I accept the result, even though I campaigned passionately for remain, although I am not going to say where I would rate on her scale. However, we have to uphold and respect the decision of the British people, and it is very important that we are clear about that. Secondly, I very much support what she said about this being, I hope, the first of many debates in which the House has an opportunity properly to scrutinise the enormous task we have as a country in negotiating our withdrawal from the European Union and in establishing a new relationship with the 27 member states—although we are leaving the institutions, we are not leaving Europe. Therefore, I welcome the fact that we are having this debate.

We have heard already that membership of the European Union has made a significant contribution to the development of rights and protections for workers in the UK. I am bound to reflect on the fact that that played an important part in changing the attitude of the party of which I am proud to be a member, and of the trade union movement, towards Europe. One could trace that back to a particular moment: the speech Jacques Delors, the President of the European Commission, gave to the Trades Union Congress in 1988, when he laid out before delegates the vision of a social Europe—I think he was named Frère Jacques because of that speech. The Labour party and the labour movement, which had been Eurosceptic, began moving towards a strongly pro-European position, as the Conservative party, which had been pro-European, passed us in the other direction, heading towards being a predominantly Eurosceptic party.

The Government have given a commitment to maintain employment rights and workers’ rights, and I am absolutely sure that the House will hold Ministers to that commitment. I want briefly to raise four issues in relation to that. The first is the relationship between the great repeal Bill and those rights. As all Members of the House know, those rights are already enshrined in our law, but some are to be found in primary legislation—for example, the equality rights in the Equality Act 2010—so they can be amended only by primary legislation. Others—for example, working time rights and the protection of agency workers—were implemented by means of secondary legislation, and can therefore be more easily changed and repealed. There are also some EU rights that have direct effect because they are derived from the treaty.

Therefore, there is a serious question to the Government, which I hope the Minister will address in responding to the debate. Given the different basis of these rights—my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) made this point forcefully in his opening contribution—how exactly will they be given equal status and equal protection in the great repeal Bill? In particular, what will be the mechanism for making any changes to the different types of legislation? Could that be done by amending statutory instruments in the case of those rights that have been put in place by that means, or would primary legislation be required to entrench them and therefore give greater reassurance?

Obviously, it remains to be seen what is in the great repeal Bill, which is actually the great retrenchment Bill, because the only repeal bit will be the very last stage of the process, which is repealing the European Communities Act 1972 to take us out, but the rest of it will entrench in legislation these rights and many others, as well as environmental protections and so on. However, I just say to Ministers that the House will need to be reassured that there will be full and proper parliamentary scrutiny of any proposal to undo or change legislation.

Given the nature of the reassurance that Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have given, there is also the related question of what will happen to the body of European Court of Justice judgments that have interpreted the way in which legislation has been applied, and of whether anyone, once we have left the European Union, will seek to re-litigate some of the judgments that the Court has made, which some people in this country have taken exception to—wrongly, in my view.

The second issue I want to raise is the relationship between our potential future access to the single market and the further development of workers’ rights in the European Union pending our departure from it and after we have left. As we know, the Government have yet to make a decision about the nature of our continuing access to that market, but there is a question as to what would happen if and when the 27 member states, after we have left, decide to change or improve workers’ rights inside that market, and the UK, for the sake of argument, has access to it, but is not a full member of it. Understandably, in those circumstances, other member states might be worried that the UK, by not applying those rights if we do not follow suit, is in some way undercutting those other member states or engaging in a race to the bottom. Therefore, in terms of arguing for the fullest possible access to the single market, which I presume is what Ministers will eventually conclude is the right thing to do, not least because of the assurances they have given to Nissan to secure future investment, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister what approach Ministers would intend to take in the eventuality I have described.

The third issue is the Government’s negotiating objectives, which we dwelt on to a great degree in the Secretary of State’s statement earlier today. The truth is that we now know what the Government’s negotiating objectives are in relation to workers’ rights and employment protection, because those have been set out in the debate so far: we are going to move them into domestic legislation. We therefore now know what the Government want to do on that. We also now know what their negotiating approach is to the motor manufacturing industry, because of the commitments set out clearly to Nissan. In particular, we know that their negotiating objectives for the industry are not to have tariffs, but also to ensure that there are no bureaucratic impediments—those were the words of the Secretary of State—that make it more difficult for trade to be undertaken, whether that is rules of origin, or greater certification or product standards. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate for the rest of industry and our service sector—80% of our economy is services, and we have 1 million jobs at least in financial services—to ask, as I suspect they will, “So what are the Government’s objectives for our industry, our sector, our future, our concerns and the reassurance we are looking for?” I gently say to Ministers that I really do not think they are going to be able to sustain the position they are currently taking, which is to resist such requests in the face of what will be a growing queue of people who will be looking for facts, reassurance and a plan.

That brings me to my final point, which is about transitional arrangements. Given that the Government have not ruled out transitional arrangements—if we believe today’s report in The Times, those are under active consideration—what approach will they take to such arrangements, including in so far as they affect employment rights, pending the negotiation of a new trade and market access deal? It may be that the Government will be able to pull off the divorce negotiations, which is what article 50 is really all about—the parallel would be dividing up the CD collection and deciding who is going to pay the outstanding gas and electricity bill—in under two years. The Prime Minister has said that she wishes to trigger article 50 by the end of March. However, there are elections in France and in Germany, and in all probability we will not know the nature of the new Governments—certainly in the case of Germany—until the autumn, and it may well be hard to start substantive negotiations until such time as there is clarity about the position of the German Government. If article 50 is triggered at the end of March, we could therefore have just over a year and a half to complete all of this. If it is not going to be possible to do it all—the divorce settlement and negotiating a new trade and market access agreement—then it would be very wise for the Government to look to negotiate a transitional arrangement, and even more wise for them to say now that that is what they intend to do.

[Anna Soubry]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Should we trigger article 50, very simply through a very simple piece of legislation, as soon as possible, and then look at the other arrangements that he is talking about, or does he fear, as I do, that we will have no option as soon as this place has triggered article 50—if it does so—or the Government do so in March, since the clock will start ticking as soon as that happens?

[Hilary Benn]

I have consistently made clear my personal view—the Select Committee has not yet considered this—that it is wise to separate out the issue of triggering article 50 and the Government publishing their negotiating objectives, for the reason the right hon. Lady gave in her speech. Those of us who campaigned for remain lost the referendum, and we have to uphold the result. I fear that bringing the two things together—conflating them—would inevitably turn any vote on the triggering of article 50, if it is allied with conditions, requirements or whatever, into what the public would see as a vote about whether we are going to uphold the outcome of the referendum. We should deal with the two things separately.

When the time comes, I shall, as I have already said, vote in favour of triggering article 50. The referendum decision having been made, the only way in which we can honour that—the only way for us to leave—is for the article 50 button to be pressed; there is no other mechanism. We are therefore bound to vote in that way. I know that not all Members will share that view, but I believe that the vast majority will accept the logic of the argument. We should keep separate our request to the Government, which we will hear increasingly in all parts of the House, to tell us what the plan is. I am sorry that earlier today we were still hearing the argument that in asking the Government to publish a plan we are somehow trying to undermine the outcome of the referendum. No we are not—we are accepting the outcome of the referendum. We are leaving, and it is therefore really important that the House and the public know what the plan is. This is a serious business with very important consequences for the nation.

The reason for announcing that transitional arrangements will be sought in the event that this cannot all be tied up within two years is that, in particular, it will offer some reassurance to industries that are thinking, “Crumbs, we might tumble out in as little as two years with no agreement.” We know what that would mean for trade under World Trade Organisation terms. Some businesses—one thinks of parts of the financial services industry—will say, “We can’t face that possibility because it creates huge uncertainty and might affect our ability to carry on doing our business.” They will therefore start working backwards and say, “We can’t possibly get into a situation where we tumble out and we can’t do the business we are doing at the moment so we need to make contingency plans now.” That may lead them to decide to do things that have consequences for jobs and employment here in the United Kingdom.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I am grateful to my Committee Chair for giving way; he is making a sterling argument. Are not transitional arrangements so important because there are strong noises coming from Europe that it will not even begin discussing the new relationship until the exit procedures are completed?

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and important point. The question in these negotiations will be the extent to which the 27 are willing to talk informally about tying up these arrangements. If the argument in Europe is, “We should leave that until later”, the need for transitional arrangements becomes even more urgent because otherwise we are left with a cliff edge, as many people have described it. If one is going to fall off the edge of a cliff, which is not something I have ever done, it is probably wise to plan where it is one is eventually hoping to land. That is a very strong argument for this.

It is not seeking to undermine the referendum result, it is not unpatriotic, it is not demanding a running commentary, it is not trying to tie the Government’s hands, and it is not trying to box in the Prime Minister and the Ministers who are going to negotiate this to say to the Government, “Please share your plan with this House.” Parliament would like to be a participant in this process, which is the most important task that we have faced as a nation for decades. I sincerely hope that it will not be too long before we get a chance to see that plan.

[Several hon. Members rose—]