Oral Answers to Questions

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Not only was our deal oven-ready, but anything that goes into UK ovens will always meet high quality standards. More to the point, the Paymaster General and I, and the whole of Government, are like peas in a pod. We are committed to making sure that high animal welfare and environmental standards continue to characterise British farming, which is the best in the world.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

We all know that the right hon. Gentleman is not very keen on economic forecasts, but given the growing warnings from business—the latest today has come from the CBI—he must be aware of the damage that would be inflicted on businesses by red tape, tariffs and loss of access if there is no agreement reached with the European Union in the next four months. We all want a deal, but, with British businesses already reeling from coronavirus, what does he propose to say to those businesses come January if the Government’s gamble does not pay off?

[Michael Gove]

The Government are not gambling. The Government are holding the European Union to account for its commitment to secure a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal and to use its best endeavours, and I have confidence that the European Union will do that.

EU-UK Partnership: EU’s Mandate

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)]

I beg to move,

That this House, having regard to the constitutional and legal functions enshrined in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, urges the Government to conduct its negotiations with the European Union with the fullest possible transparency to facilitate essential parliamentary scrutiny; also urges the Government to make regular progress reports on the negotiations, including on stakeholder contributions to the consultation on The Future Relationship with the EU: the UK’s Approach to Negotiations, and to address the issues identified by the European Scrutiny Committee in its Fifth Report of Session 2019–21, HC 333, as matters of vital national interest.

I am delighted to be opening this important debate. In particular, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I am sure the House will be aware that, having first been elected in 1984, he has been a distinguished campaigner on a number of issues, including improving the UK’s role in overseas development. Above all, he will be remembered for his commitment to restoring the sovereignty of this House. For more than 35 years he has served on the European Scrutiny Committee, which he now chairs. Having served on it for a brief period when I was a Back Bencher in the 2005 to 2010 Parliament, I can say that his attention to detail, his commitment to this House and his service to the country are things that all of us should recognise and applaud.

The motion we are considering today asks the Government to do three things: to negotiate transparently in order to ease the way for essential parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive; to provide regular reports on the progress of the negotiations; and to address the issues raised specifically by the European Scrutiny Committee about the impact of legislation being passed at European Union level while we are in the transition period, not fully part of the EU but of course subject to its acquis.

With respect to the transparency of our negotiations, it is the case that a Command Paper was published earlier this year outlining the approach that the UK Government would take towards the negotiations. I made an oral statement in this House to outline our approach. Since that time, the UK Government have outlined their approach in detail by the publication of draft texts covering not just our future economic partnership but areas such as fisheries and security. The publication of those draft texts has also been accompanied by my appearance alongside David Frost, the Prime Minister’s sherpa and EU negotiator, in front of the Select Committee of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on the future relationship with the European Union on three occasions, in front of the House of Lords Select Committee covering European affairs on two occasions and, of course, in front of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on one occasion as well.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

The document to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred makes it clear that the Government want an agreement that involves no tariffs, but in the interests of transparency, will he explain to the House why the Government are prepared to contemplate tariffs being imposed from 1 January next year, when he will know that the president of the National Farmers Union has described that prospect as catastrophic for the industry, and that only this week the chief operating officer of Nissan has warned that the Sunderland plant would not be sustainable if tariffs on car exports transpire?

[Michael Gove]

The right hon Gentleman is right; it is our intention. Indeed, it is a commitment in the political declaration that accompanies the withdrawal agreement that both sides will work towards ensuring that we have a zero-tariff, zero-quota approach. One of the problems we face is that the European Union is placing an unprecedented demand on the United Kingdom, which is that in order to secure that zero-tariff, zero-quota approach, we accept a suite of commitments—the so-called level playing field commitments—that would place obligations on the UK Government and our institutions to follow EU law in a way that no other sovereign nation would and in a way that no other free trade agreement requires. That takes us to the heart of the UK’s approach.

In all these appearances and opportunities in which the House has allowed me, on behalf of the Government, to explain our approach, we have taken a consistent line, and that is in keeping with the political declaration. We want a free trade agreement with the European Union, and the free trade agreement that we seek is built on precedent. There is nothing novel, outrageous or excessive about our requests, and the free trade agreement that we seek is, as I say, one that builds on precedents from Canada, Japan and South Korea and agreements that other sovereign nations have entered into with the EU.

The challenge that we face, however, is that the European Union argues that, because of the size of our market and our geographical proximity, we should be subject to rules of the club that we have left, which they impose on no other sovereign nation. At the same time, the EU insists that in the hugely important area of fisheries, it should continue to have access on terms that are similar, if not identical, to the common fisheries policy, which so many people in this country recognise as having worked against the interests of our coastal communities and of marine conservation.

It is on that basis that the fourth round of negotiations is currently being conducted. David Frost, our negotiator, is negotiating hard today, and I am sure that Michel Barnier will update us with his perspective on these negotiations tomorrow. We will also be laying a written ministerial statement next week and, of course, should the House require any further updates on the progress of the negotiations, I would be delighted to give them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I welcome the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has adopted, on behalf of the Government, the motion proposed by the European Scrutiny Committee, which I have the honour to chair. This motion derives from section 13A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as provided for by the 2020 Act. I emphasise that, because it was passed on Second Reading in this House by a majority of no fewer than 124 Members.

Under the motion, my European Scrutiny Committee has the duty of reviewing EU laws made and proposed during the transition period that affect UK vital national interests. In pursuance of that, and our report of 11 March, the motion is concerned with the Council decision in February that sets out the EU’s negotiating mandate, instructing Michel Barnier, which raises clear matters of our own vital national interests. We left the European Union on 31 January. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has special responsibilities in relation to these negotiations, consistent with those of his distinguished predecessor John Bright, who coined the expression “the mother of Parliaments”.

The 2020 Act passed following the general election last December, and it contained in section 38 the historic affirmation of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, to rectify the failure of successive Government policies on the EU, including the European Communities Act 1972 itself. Now that we have left the EU as the result of a succession of Acts of Parliament, including the referendum Act itself and the result of the referendum to leave, endorsed by the general election last year, we have a Conservative majority of 81. That endorsed Brexit, and left the other parties floundering in the wake of the democratic will of the British people, in line with the Conservatives’ commitment to our democratic self-government.

My Committee’s report on the EU’s negotiating mandate noted that, on the one hand, the EU recognises the autonomy of the UK, as well as our right to regulate economic activity as we deem appropriate. That is then contradicted by the EU proposing draconian conditions of UK compliance with what the EU describes as

“robust level playing field commitments”.

These include massive EU tax, social, employment and environmental standards, and EU state aid laws, as well as a fisheries deal with the EU enjoying pre-Brexit access to UK waters—not to mention the vexed Northern Ireland protocol.

That protocol was badly conceived by the previous Administration and included concessions on EU jurisdiction and the status of Northern Ireland. There were even reports that Martin Selmayr, the then deputy to Mr Juncker, regarded Northern Ireland as the price that the UK would have to pay for leaving the EU. Furthermore, there never has been a level playing field. For example, the subsidies in relation to steel and coal generally have always been continuously distorted against the interests of the UK.

I can remember raising these questions over 20 years ago in relation to, if I may say to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), my experience having been brought up in Sheffield, which was surrounded by coal communities and, of course, was the engine of the steel industry of the United Kingdom and the world. It was quite clear that the European Coal and Steel Community was operating on a basis that, for example, gave the German nation £4 billion a year in authorised subsidies, which put it in a hopelessly advantageous position as against us. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and a list of other great economists have continually made clear the distortions in relation to state aid that have such a devastating impact upon us. We cannot allow ourselves to be drawn back into the framework of state aid prescribed by the European Union.

Indeed, according to The Brussels Times a few days ago, the German economy is receiving 52% of the total state aid approved by the European Commission under the EU coronavirus package. Similarly, the EU insisted on law enforcement and criminal justice conditional on our continuing with the European convention on human rights and personal data law along EU lines. It went further, insisting on an overall governance framework that would include a continuing role of the European Court of Justice. What planet are they living on?

This is encapsulated by the difference in language between the EU and the UK in relation to these negotiations. It speaks about a new partnership. Our White Paper refers to the future relationship. The EU is not a sovereign state. We are, and we have a sovereign Parliament. We have decided to leave, and we have left. It is bound to recognise us as such, but it refuses to do so.

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman has set out the clear Government policy that they will not accept the adjudication of the European Court of Justice, but in any agreement—and we all hope an agreement is reached—there will have to be a dispute resolution mechanism. It would be helpful if he could tell the House his views on what kind of mechanism that would be and whether there might be a place within that for independent arbitration to deal with disputes. Given that he has just argued that EU member states have got away with state aid to the disadvantage of the UK, is he satisfied that the Government are asking for sufficient reassurance from the European Union that that will not happen in future under any agreement that is reached?

[Sir William Cash]

To answer the second point first, I am, of course, very conscious of what is going on in the negotiations. I hear what has been said repeatedly by the Government with respect to maintaining and protecting our vital national interests, and I believe that that will be the outcome—namely, we will ensure that we are not made subject to EU state aid in the way in which we have experienced it in the past. I have made the case. I can say more about it, but I do not need to for the moment.

With respect to the question of arbitration, it refers back in a funny way to my reference to John Bright, who was one of the initiators of the notion of international arbitration in the Alabama case. I will simply say this. I believe that the European Court’s jurisdiction cannot be allowed, but I go further: I think that some form of arbitration may be necessary, but not, under any circumstances, including our being subjugated to the rules and jurisdiction of the European Court.

I will now move on. For our report, my Committee consulted with 24 Select Committees, and we are immensely grateful to all of them for their contributions. The Prime Minister, in a written statement, followed by a Command Paper in February, made it clear—in line with Acts of Parliament that had already been passed, not to mention the outcome of the general election—that there would be no rule for the European Court of Justice, nor any alignment of our laws with the EU, and nor would any of the European institutions, including the Court, have any jurisdiction in the UK. Those statements and policies are entirely consistent with the democratic will of the British people. We asked the Government to publish their draft legal text, and I am glad to say that that has been done.

The timing of this debate is crucial because the Prime Minister will engage in a high-level meeting towards the end of this month. I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for the exact date when that will take place, the agenda that will be before the meeting and who will attend on behalf of the EU and the EU27. This, in turn, is crucial, because Germany takes over the presidency on 1 July and there is all the sensitive history associated with Germany’s engagement with the EU, which I have debated and written about since April 1990, and have discussed face-to-face with many of its leading politicians, including Helmut Schmidt and others. My approach has been demonstrably justified by events. For example, the coronavirus package would move the EU towards greater EU fiscal and political integration, which the Germans would influence much more heavily than even they do today. Their slogan for the presidency is:

“Together. Making Europe Strong Again”

I simply add that we were not a minute too soon in leaving the EU.

The Government, in their Command Paper, say that by the end of June there is the opportunity for the

“outline of an agreement…capable of being rapidly finalised by September. If that does not seem to be the case...the Government will need to decide whether the UK’s attention should move away from negotiations and focus solely on…preparations to exit the transition period in an orderly fashion.”

Recent correspondence between our chief negotiator, David Frost, and Michel Barnier indicates that there is no real progress in the negotiations, because the EU is invariably asking for the impossible and, as correctly indicated by David Frost, the EU is not offering a “fair free-trade relationship” but a

“low-quality trade agreement…with unprecedented…oversight of our laws and institutions..”

Our vital national interests, which derive from our democracy and self-government, which is what this debate is about, are paramount.

I was extremely glad to hear what the Leader of the House said at today’s business questions on the issue of the extension of the transitional period, because he used the hallowed words of the late Margaret Thatcher, “No, no, no.” I am delighted to hear similar sentiments expressed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster this afternoon. Any extension of the transition period, through which Mr Michel Barnier is outrageously trying to seduce remainers, would simply prolong negotiations; as David Frost stated, it would create more uncertainty, leaving us paying far more to the EU and binding us to EU laws, when we have democratically and lawfully decided to leave the EU by our own sovereign decision and our own sovereign legislation.

As for the Labour amendment to this motion, it completely turns the purpose of the “good faith” and “best endeavours” in article 184 of the withdrawal agreement, which places an obligation on the EU to enshrine European sovereignty, on its head. The amendment would betray that and with it the democratic will of the British electorate. In conclusion, I urge the Government to review the Northern Ireland protocol, which raises concerns about EU law and European Court jurisdiction, and the status of Northern Ireland. I look to the Government to ensure that the whole UK leaves on our own terms, because our sovereignty and self-government is an absolute bulwark of our freedom and our democracy.

Northern Ireland Protocol: UK Approach

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

We will of course work to make sure that IT systems are efficient and compatible and consult with business. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a business roundtable this afternoon. Engagement with Northern Ireland’s citizens and its many small and medium-sized enterprises is critical to making everything work.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]]

We all hope there will be an exit agreement with the EU, but if there is not, how will the Government stop goods, such as cars made in the EU, which in those circumstances would attract a 10% tariff, from entering Great Britain tariff-free via Northern Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman has told the House that goods would have unfettered access moving from Northern Ireland to GB. Would there in fact have to be checks if people tried to do that?

[Michael Gove]

We will have market surveillance, and if people try to break the law, they will face the consequences.

Ministerial Code

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The key—[Interruption.] I see no reason why, in a debate in which we are considering the importance of civility, people should attempt to criticise my hon. Friend for asking a fair and robust question. She has made a critically important point. It is Ministers who are publicly and electorally accountable. Ministers hold office as a result of a general election, and it is important that we respect the popular will and the popular mandate of any Government in making sure that the people’s priorities are delivered.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Were any complaints received by Downing Street in respect of the conduct of the current Home Secretary when she was Secretary of State for International Development or when she was a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, and if so, were they investigated?

[Michael Gove]

The inquiry that is proceeding will look at all complaints that may have been made. I cannot say more than that.

European Union: Future Relationship

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Yes, that is absolutely right. As I mentioned, a number of EU leaders have said that a deal is doable because we are operating on the basis of precedent, and it should then be possible to conclude all the necessary agreements. Having concluded these agreements by the end of this year, we can then move on to deepening the many bilateral and multilateral relationships that we have with our friends and partners in Europe to the benefit of all.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman referred to other deals that he is hoping to emulate. He will be aware that the EU’s deal with South Korea took eight years from the start of negotiations to implementation and that the Canada deal took seven. Given that the Government are seeking a much more comprehensive arrangement than either of those, his optimism that it can be done and ratified in 10 months remains to be proven, but will he confirm that if it is not possible to conclude a deal, we will exit the transition period on 31 December with no agreement whatsoever?

[Michael Gove]

We already have an agreement—a withdrawal agreement that safeguards the rights of UK and EU citizens, settles our financial obligations and makes provision through the protocol for Northern Ireland’s position. As for the free trade agreements to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, it is more difficult to begin when one is designing a prototype; now that the prototypes exist and have become precedents, it is much easier to replicate their provisions.

Transport Infrastructure

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Absolutely; on Handsacre, my hon. Friend has my full support.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement but, given what he has said about reviewing phase 2b, could he tell the people of Leeds when he now expects the new HS2 station to open?

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Hilary Benn Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons & Money resolution & Programme motion & Ways and Means resolution
Friday 20th December 2019 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). I agree with her argument that we need to be able to disagree agreeably, as I think President Obama once put it.

If the Secretary of State is looking for some consolation for his Department being abolished at the very moment that we leave the European Union, let me tell him that it will also mean that he will no longer have the untrammelled joy of appearing before the Brexit Select Committee. I thank all Members who have served on the Committee and our wonderful team of Clerks and advisers, who have supported us with their expertise.

At the heart of this Bill is a gamble—a gamble with our nation’s economy. The Prime Minister has so much confidence in the Government’s ability to finalise a new relationship with the European Union by this time next year that this Bill will prevent, by law, any extension of the transition period beyond December 2020. If he succeeds, his gamble will have paid off—although I wonder how detailed an agreement he will manage to achieve in that time—but if he fails, the cliff edge of a no-deal Brexit beckons in just 12 months’ time.

The pillar on which that confidence is built is the argument that because we have been aligned with the European Union for the past 40 or so years, that deal should be easy to reach. That argument would have force only if the Government were planning to stay as closely aligned to the other 27 member states and their rules, but we know that that is not the case. The Government want to move away from European rules and regulations. Indeed, the Prime Minister said it today: no alignment with EU rules. As that intention becomes clear to our EU negotiating partners, it will make the negotiations not simple, but much more complicated.

No doubt the Bill will be passed today. The question that the House has to address is: can a deal be completed when, as we have just heard, it took Canada seven years to reach an agreement? Can it be completed in 12 months, when we know that we have to negotiate not just tariffs and quotas and rules of origin, but services—80% of the British economy is built on the service sector—data, aviation, medicine safety, co-operation on consumer rights, security, access to databases that have helped to keep us safe from terrorism, which we will lose if we do not get this right, foreign policy, co-operation on climate change, and a long list of other matters of huge importance for the British economy and British society?

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has spent the last 12 months claiming that the Prime Minister never wanted to get a deal, and then he got one, and that the Prime Minister was not serious, and therefore he had to produce a Bill to hamstring Parliament and stop it progressing. Can he admit, just for once, that we have a deal—a deal that is going to happen this year—and use all his expertise and good services to rally round this Parliament, this Government and this country to make sure that we agree it by the end of year, so that we can all move on at last?

[Hilary Benn]

The Bill that the last Parliament passed did not hamstring the Prime Minister, because he achieved a renegotiation. However, to be fair, all he did was accept 95% of his predecessor’s deal and replace the previous backstop with a backstop that had been offered the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), but rejected on grounds that were clearly set out by the current Prime Minister to the Democratic Unionist party conference in November 2018—namely, that he would never, ever accept a border in the Irish sea, which is what he has promptly now done, which reminds us that it is not always wise to take the Prime Minister at his word.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has read the Government’s impact assessment for this Bill, which says at paragraph 241:

“Goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will be required to complete both import declarations and Entry Summary…Declarations,”

thereby flatly contradicting what the Prime Minister has been saying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point. We have been told repeatedly that there will be no border in the Irish sea; there is now going to be a border in the Irish sea. That will have consequences for the way in which trade is conducted.

This Bill is also a gamble because of the clause that says that no Minister is able to apply for an extension. Quite why the Government need to legislate to prevent something from happening that they have already made clear they have no intention of allowing to happen—an extension to the transition period—escapes me, but I gently point out to the House that the point of no return will be next June. Under the withdrawal agreement, if a further extension has not been agreed between the parties by then—and the Government are ruling it out—there will be no possibility of extending the period. I say to the Government that they will need to be really, really confident about how the negotiations are going by June next year—not very far away—if they are to be certain that they will not need that additional time to get what they want.

There is no doubt that the Prime Minister is looking for a hard Brexit, because a free trade agreement of the type he has put before the British people—and for which, I grant him, he has won a mandate—has already been assessed by the Government as the second worst outcome for the economy after a no-deal Brexit. It is extraordinary that the House has still not been presented with an economic assessment of the single most important decision that we are going to take and the nature of the future relationship—nothing; silence. History will record that that was an act of irresponsibility.

I say to the House—in particular to new Members on both sides, whom I congratulate on their election—that, as these negotiations unfold, businesses that we represent will be coming to us; they will want issues to be raised in the negotiations and will be concerned about the outcome of the negotiations. Some of the things they are looking for will not be consistent with the policy that the Government have set out. This should not be about ideology; it is about the practical implications of having thrown away—because that is what Brexit does—the best trading relationship we have with any countries in the world. It is about what kind of new long-term arrangements will be put in place, on which our jobs, our factories and our communities depend. If the Government get it wrong, it will be a question not of getting Brexit done but of some industries being done over by Brexit.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I give way for the last time, in view of the time available.

[Matt Western]

My right hon. Friend is making such a powerful speech. Does he not agree that the great concern for this place has to be that it was promised that we would take back control? The greatest deceit of all is the fact that there will be no scrutiny in this place of any element of the trade deals and the impact they will have on our economy.

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with my hon. Friend: that is a matter of great regret.

I come to my final point. Our leaving the European Union will create great cheer on the Government Benches, just as it will sadden many of us on the Labour side. The divisions it has created will not easily be healed: many people still think that this is a terrible mistake that will weaken our economy and our influence in the world.

In the modern age, it is how we use our sovereignty that will determine how well we can advance our interests and protect our citizens. If we have learned anything from the events of recent times, it is that if we are to deal with the great challenges we face as a world—climate change, the movement of people around the globe, threats to peace and security, making sure that the global economy works in the interests of all—we can do it only by working together. We are about to walk away from one of the most important relationships that enables us to do that. I say to the Government that we will hold them to account as the process develops and unfolds.

[Mr Speaker]

I make an appeal to Members: if we all take nine minutes, quite a few of you are not going to get in. Please—I have given an informal limit to give a bit of flexibility, but do not take advantage of Members who come later.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Hilary Benn Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who is the vice-chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee, and with whom I have the pleasure to serve. May I also say to the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir David Lidington) that he is absolutely right that the vast majority of the withdrawal agreement is as it was before, which is why I cannot understand why the Government did not publish in draft the bits of the Bill that have been available in Whitehall for ages so that Members had a chance to read them a long time ago, rather than scrabbling around since eight o’clock last night, because it would have dealt with some of the justifiable objections to the speed with which the Government are trying to push this through?

I do not know whether that earlier draft contained clause 36, but I must say my eyes widened when I read this statement:

“It is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign.”

Do we really need to say that about ourselves in legislation—was that ever in doubt? I suspect the reason it is in there is to soften the blow when certain Government Members realise—although the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) made the point—that the European Communities Act will be repealed and then the provisions will be stuck back in for the length of the transitional period.

The other thing we have learned about is the consequences of the new Irish protocol for trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and I return to the point that was put to the Prime Minister by several Members, but to which there was no answer: the question why goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom will require an exit summary declaration, because, as I understand it, that is only necessary if goods are leaving the customs territory of the European Union. Is that correct, because I thought we were told—it says it in the new protocol—that Northern Ireland will be in the customs territory of the United Kingdom? So the question is this: if Northern Ireland is in the customs territory of the United Kingdom what are those goods exiting, because they are in the United Kingdom customs territory? I am afraid there has been no answer, because I do not think the attempted explanations really square.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend raises the most compelling point about the Northern Ireland protocol. Is he also as astonished as I am that in some of the slight impact assessments on the Northern Ireland protocol everything about customs administration, VAT, tariffs administration, agrifood regulation and manufactured goods regulation is non-monetised—the Government do not even know how much this is going to cost?

[Hilary Benn]

I was surprised when I read that in the impact assessment, and the truth is that a whole load of questions remain about how the system will work. How will we identify goods at risk, as it is described, of passing into the Republic of Ireland? That is for another day.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Hilary Benn]

I will give way one more time.

[Richard Graham]

The right hon. Gentleman wrote in September that it would be

“utterly irresponsible for the Government to be rushing headlong towards”

no deal. Now that the House knows that the Government have a deal on the table, surely he and all his colleagues, who were elected on a manifesto pledge to respect the result of the referendum, should support this deal, rather than risk no deal. Is it not the case that no deal will ever be good enough for him?

[Hilary Benn]

The direct answer to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I also have the pleasure of serving on the Exiting the European Union Committee, is that to attempt to say to Members that the choice has to be between a bad deal—this is worse than the previous Prime Minister’s deal—and no deal is not a very attractive proposition. During the passage of this Bill—if it gets its Second Reading—I hope that we will attempt to improve some elements of it.

Clause 30 goes to the heart of the point about no deal, because the withdrawal agreement makes provision for the possibility of an extension to the transition period, which, at present, will end in 14 months’ time. Clause 30 says that the House can agree to a further extension, but it requires a Minister of the Crown to move the motion in the first place. The situation I am worried about is what if the Minister of the Crown fails to come to the House, does not move a motion proposing that the Government should request to the joint committee that the transitional period be extended, and the answer is that we would fall out without a deal in 14 months’ time if an agreement had not been reached. The House has voted on several occasions to make it clear that it is opposed to leaving with no deal, and there are arguments on either side as to whether people think that is a good thing or a bad thing, so I flag this up at this stage, because we will need to deal with that point—I gather that an amendment is on its way if it has not already been tabled—and to safeguard against it.

There is a second related problem to clause 30. What happens if a deal has not been negotiated by the end of December 2022 when the two-year extension has been applied for and secured? Now we would be facing exactly the same difficulty: the possibility of exiting without an agreement at the end of the transition period. In those circumstances, there is no way under the agreement that the British Government can get a further extension, so we have to find a way of ensuring that a deal is concluded by that time.

Ministers claim that, because of the high degree of alignment, it will all be done really quickly. I would just observe that took three and a quarter years to get to this point, and it took Canada six to seven years to get an agreement. Michel Barnier said this morning that he thought it would take around three years to negotiate such a deal, so we will be looking for assurance from the Minister in Committee that under no circumstances will the United Kingdom leave the European Union at the end of the transition period without a deal. I think another amendment may be on its way about that. The same point is relevant to citizens’ rights, which have not been raised much in the debate so far. We could do with clarification from Ministers, because if the transition is extended, will they also change the deadline by which EU citizens have to apply for settled status?

As I said on Saturday, I will not be voting for the Bill, above all because of the political declaration—I do not have a problem with the withdrawal agreement—which is not the right approach to take, because it is not good for business. I am very surprised, like other hon. Members, that the Government have just blithely said, “We are not going to undertake an economic assessment,” and I assume that the reason for that is simple. They did one before which showed that a free trade agreement is the second-worst outcome up for the economy after no deal, and they do not really want to have to point that out again.

My final point is about clause 31, and it links to the economic impact of the political declaration. The clause deals with the oversight of negotiations on the future relationship, and it appears to give Members some oversight, some say, over the nature of the negotiations on the future relationship, but proposed new section 13C(3) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 says:

“A statement on objectives for the future relationship…must be consistent with the political declaration of 17 October 2019”.

I simply point out that if, in one, two or three years’ time, the House realises that the objectives of such a free trade agreement are not in our economic interests, because we finally realise the damage it will do to the economy—we have seen what businesses have said and the concerns they have expressed—the current wording of the clause gives no opportunity for Parliament to get a Government to change those objectives. I do not think we should accept the Bill on that issue, as it is currently worded.

Preparations for Leaving the European Union

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes a very fair point. If we leave without the withdrawal agreement being ratified, we will leave without that deal. “No deal” is sometimes used to cover that specific outcome, and it is with respect to that widely accepted description that I use the term. He is right to say there are other agreements, and there will continue to be agreements, that we have concluded, both with individual EU member states and with the EU overall, which will govern our relationship. However, I am strongly of the view that a withdrawal agreement which has been ratified in this place will be the best possible way in which we can ensure both that we recognise the Brexit referendum vote and that we continue to have free trade and friendly co-operation.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

One of the main concerns that has been expressed about the consequences of leaving without an agreement is the potential for delay for lorries moving across the channel, an issue on which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has given evidence to the Brexit Select Committee. Will he tell the House what the Government’s latest assessment is of the percentage of lorries leaving the United Kingdom that would have the correct paperwork on 1 November if this eventuality, which none of us wants to see happen, comes to pass, and therefore what kind of delay we might be looking at in those circumstances?

[Michael Gove]

I will share with the House the revised planning assumptions in Yellowhammer very shortly. It is the case that the level of business readiness has increased, and we expect that a significantly increased number of vehicles will be ready. That obviously has an effect on flow at the border, but we are being deliberately cautious. We are copper-fastening those assumptions and I hope to share them with the House very, very shortly.

Prime Minister’s Statement

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly give that commitment.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

This agreement will maintain friction-free access to the European market for Northern Ireland. Can the Prime Minister therefore explain why he is so determined to deny that exact same benefit to the rest of the United Kingdom? If he presses on with this path, he will not heal the rift to which he referred a moment ago; he will only serve to widen it further.