Northern Ireland

Debate between Hilary Benn and Steve Baker

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Baker]

With the leave of the House, I rise to close the debate on this Humble Address, and I am very grateful to everyone who has participated in it.

This is a Unionist Government, and we are steadfast in our belief that the best future for Northern Ireland will always be as an integral part of a strong and prosperous United Kingdom, even as we respect the legitimate rights of others to pursue another outcome. We are the most successful political and economic Union in the world, something with which a majority of Members of this House would agree. This debate has reiterated the unwavering support for the Union across the House. We have reaffirmed the importance of upholding the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its strands. We have acknowledged the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under article 6—much as I listened to the words of some Members opposite—and we have recognised that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in respect of the UK and Irish Governments.

I am most grateful to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), for his speech. We are united in congratulating the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and we are absolutely united in wishing the First Minister and Deputy First Minister every success in their endeavours. It has been said several times by the shadow Secretary of State and others, but “never again”, and I think we are all united in our hope that never again will Northern Ireland go without an Executive.

The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the all-island economy, which is a matter that has particular sensitivity for DUP Members, and made reference to the joint report. He asked about the effect of repealing the relevant section. As he knows, the joint report and its provisions predated our departure from the EU. Now that we have left the EU, the withdrawal agreement makes provision in fulfilment of many of those matters. The joint report to which the shadow Secretary of State referred has been superseded by the withdrawal agreement and by the trade and co-operation agreement. Of course, I know I have not taught him anything he did not know already. At the moment, we are of course in regular dialogue with the EU, and as far as we are aware, the EU is satisfied with the way we are proceeding. What I would say to him is that, at the moment, I have no reason to believe there will be any significant consequences of the repeal of that section.

[Hilary Benn]

I am very grateful to the Minister for that explanation, and of course I am aware that the joint report predated the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, but if it was in effect rendered redundant by that Act, why did that Act make specific provision to have regard to the joint report?

[Mr Baker]

Elements were relevant at the time, as the Secretary of State has just mentioned to me, but, alas, I was not the relevant Minister at the time. I did the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, not the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. However, if I am advised otherwise by officials after this debate, I shall certainly write to the shadow Secretary of State and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House. I am not expecting to be advised that there would be significant consequences, but I shall certainly take advice.

I particularly appreciated the shadow Secretary of State’s exegesis of the Acts of Union. I am not a great historian, and I appreciated his running through those things. We are of course all absolutely united in our desire for a better future for Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) welcomed the compromise and the pragmatism of everyone involved. I do not think I will tease him, as he has teased me, on that particular point. He made a very thoughtful speech about people’s ability to indicate their consent or otherwise to membership of a particular state, and he raises some important matters that I will not have time to go into.

I particularly appreciated, of course, the leader of the DUP’s speech. I think this is a very good day for Unionism. Speaking as an English MP, even though I have been choosing to go to Northern Island since 2013, it is very easy as an English MP to neglect the Union. What we have seen through this process is that the whole Government and the whole House have come far more deeply to appreciate the need to nurture the Union. I think today is a good day for the Union, and I think the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have done a service to the whole Union by highlighting these issues and forcing us all to confront the need to nurture the Union, even if, as I think it is fair to say, it is not one of the most prominent issues in English constituencies. I certainly pay tribute to him and his DUP colleagues for what they have achieved.

As the right hon. Gentleman made a point about the red lane, and the need to improve further and move more goods out of it, which I am absolutely all for doing, I think it is worth reminding everyone of who voted for the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. I believe everyone in the DUP voted for the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Steve Baker

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I join the Secretary of State in his remarks about all those who lost their lives in the terrible Birmingham pub bombings. We remember them.

Last week, in Downpatrick, Newry and Portadown, I saw the terrible effects of the flooding on businesses and households, many of whom cannot get flood insurance and therefore face huge losses. Can the Minister assure us that once the initial £7,500 has been paid out to all businesses from the money that the Secretary of State announced during his visit, the Treasury will approve proposals for the use of the rest of the money quickly so that businesses affected can receive help and get back up and running again? If more is needed, will he provide it?

[Mr Baker]

The rest of the money is within the power of the Northern Ireland civil service to spend, because it is reallocated funding. Alas, the Treasury is not under my control—all I can say is that I look forward to the day.

[Hilary Benn]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Traders will expect to see the money spent. There will have to be a review of what happened during the floods to learn lessons for the future, including things such as the need for a warning system—there is not currently one in Northern Ireland—better flood defences, and flood protection, which will all need funding in the years ahead. In the continuing absence of the Executive, which is really needed at a time like this, does the Minister agree that there should be a review? Does the Northern Ireland civil service have the power to establish such a review? If not, will the Secretary of State do it?

[Mr Baker]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a review is needed. I believe that it is possible for the Northern Ireland civil service to get on with that work under the powers that we have given it. If it transpires that that is not the case, I will write to him and put a copy of the letter in the Library. He is right—the insights he provides are wise and necessary—that we all want to work together to see a restored Executive, because it is for Northern Ireland Ministers to work with their Department for Infrastructure to deal with such matters.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Debate between Hilary Benn and Steve Baker

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The Prime Minister will accept an extension because she has asked for one. It is the existence of this Bill that has led her, in advance of the Bill being approved by the House, to write to the President of the European Council seeking an extension, because twice, much to the unhappiness of certain Members on the Government side of the House, she has been faced with this choice: either to take the country over the edge of a no-deal cliff, or to apply for an extension.

The reason I think some Members are very cross about that—I accept that they are cross—is that on both occasions the Prime Minister, facing both this Bill and a revolt by her Ministers, decided to act in the national interest by making that application. I hope very much that on Wednesday the European Council will grant more time, because whatever one thinks about the Prime Minister’s deal, one thing is clear: a no-deal Brexit would be disastrous for our country. That is why I hope the House will vote for the Bill tonight.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

May I begin by saying how pleased I was to learn, when my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) mentioned the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, that so many Opposition Members voted for that Act on the basis that they took on trust the success of a Conservative Prime Minister? I am pleased that they have so much confidence in us. When they voted for that Act, they either did or did not know the terms of article 50. If they did know the terms, then they voted to leave the European Union potentially without a withdrawal agreement; and if they did not, then clearly they were ignorant of one of the most important matters of the moment. Perhaps instead they were just voting for short-term political expediency. In any event, it is not very credible for Members now to be panicking and seeking to overturn what they previously legislated for, with great care and over a considerable period of time.

I turn my attention to Lords amendment 5, which I find rather surprising, because it seeks to restore the prerogative to the Government, provided they seek a long extension. Of course, this House resoundingly defeated the Government on that very point. I am therefore very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone has tabled amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 5, to rule out European elections. It states:

“No extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union may be agreed by the Prime Minister if as a result the United Kingdom would be required to prepare for or to hold elections to the European Parliament.”

This House united around what was known as the Brady amendment, to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements. I cannot think how many times I and other Members have tabled the so-called Malthouse compromise, to limit the implementation period, replace the backstop and, in the latest incarnation, get rid of the single customs territory. We have tried and tried to give the Government the way to get a deal.

[Mr Baker]

It is a big reverse. Do Opposition Members seriously think that we should participate in the European elections after so long? It is a ridiculous escapade. Members should have known what they were doing when they voted to trigger article 50—[Interruption.] I see the right hon. Gentleman the Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee looking quizzical and shaking his head, or perhaps nodding along.

[Hilary Benn]

I am listening.

[Mr Baker]

I am delighted that he is, but I think he voted to notify the EU of our withdrawal. If he did, he voted to leave without an agreement.

The fundamental point of the amendments to Lords amendment 5 is that the time has come, after every effort that we have made to enable the Government to secure a withdrawal agreement to which this House could give its assent, to say enough is enough. The Government should reject Lords amendment 5, accept the amendment in lieu from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and move heaven and earth to get out on Friday without a withdrawal agreement.

Future Relationship Between the UK and the EU

Debate between Hilary Benn and Steve Baker

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

May I begin by apologising to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the Secretary of State and to the shadow Secretary of State for not being present at the start of the debate? As Mr Speaker was aware, I was questioning the Prime Minister as a member of the Liaison Committee on the subject we are debating now.

I listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and respect the passion with which he advocates his position, although I profoundly disagree with it. I do, however, gently say to him that I think it is unfair to seek to blame civil servants for the situation in which we find ourselves as a nation when for two years they have had to watch the spectacle of Ministers, including Cabinet Ministers, openly arguing among themselves about the right course of action, and it was not until Chequers that the Prime Minister tried to bring them together.

[Mr Baker]

I did not mean to blame civil servants. I mean to blame the broadest governing class, the establishment, which is well represented in here and which clearly does not believe in leaving the European Union. I have paid tribute to civil servants over and over again. The people I have worked with have been the most outstanding professionals and I am proud to have worked with them.

Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Scrutiny

Debate between Hilary Benn and Steve Baker

Thursday 28th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to present the sixth report of the Exiting the European Union Committee, on parliamentary scrutiny and approval of the withdrawal agreement and negotiations on a future partnership. I am grateful to all those who gave evidence to the Committee, including two Ministers from the Department for Exiting the European Union—and it is good to see a third here today. I am also grateful to the terrific team who support us in our work, and to all the members of the Committee. On occasion we are not able to agree on everything, but that is the nature of Brexit.

The Committee thought that it would be helpful to the House to set out the task that will face us as the process of leaving the European Union unfolds, and that is what the report covers. Let me say first that time is very tight. Even if we secure a withdrawal agreement and a political declaration at the October Council—and that must now be in doubt—the Committee will expect to take evidence from the Secretary of State as soon as possible thereafter so that we can report to the House. That would probably take us to about mid-November for Parliament’s debate and meaningful vote to approve the agreement. We recommend that the debate should last at least five days, which is the amount of time that was provided in 1971 for the House to debate whether we should join the common market.

This will be a very important moment, and the Committee believes that the debate will need to be managed in a way that gives the House an opportunity to express its opinion clearly. We recommend that the Business of the House motion should make it possible for the Speaker to select a series of different amendments, and we are asking the Procedure Committee to advise on how that could best be done.

If this House and the other place approve the withdrawal agreement, the Government will introduce a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill to give effect to it in UK law. The Bill will have to receive Royal Assent before we leave the EU, because otherwise the UK would be bound by the agreement without the legislation to implement it. That would put the country potentially in breach of international law, and would create legal uncertainty for businesses and citizens.

We could have just three to four months, or approximately 60 to 70 sitting days, in which to pass the Bill. Given that it took more than 11 months for the European Withdrawal (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to complete its passage, that is not a lot of time for the scrutiny that will be required. We then need to add to that the 21-day CRaG process—which relates to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—for the ratification of treaties, which is likely to take place in parallel with the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, and the time required for other Bills to do with Brexit, and statutory instruments that will need to be passed before exit day. We shall be legislating for a new immigration system, a new customs system, new systems for agricultural support, a new legal basis for management of our fisheries, and lots of other things. When we consider all that, the scale of the task becomes very clear.

Now, let us imagine for a moment that the withdrawal agreement and political declaration are not finalised at the October Council. Given where we are, that would not be surprising. Indeed, the draft conclusions from the European Council suggest that there will not be a breakthrough in negotiations today or tomorrow. On the contrary, the EU is saying that we need to speed up the process—although I would observe that it takes two to move faster—and it wants much greater clarity about what the UK is seeking for the future partnership.

The fact that, two years after the referendum, Ministers have yet to reach agreement on what kind of customs arrangements they would like with our biggest, nearest and most important trading partner reminds us how much more is still to be done. It is also a cause of growing concern to business, as we have seen in the last couple of weeks, and there is still no agreement on the backstop to prevent the return of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Today’s European Council was once billed as a “make or break” meeting on the Irish border, on which progress would be needed to keep the negotiations on track, but that does not seem likely either now.

If there is no agreement until November or the end of the year, that will leave even less time for Parliament properly to scrutinise the proposed deal and to put in place the required legislation by March 2019—and, of course, we are not the only Parliament that must approve the agreement. As the Committee heard from Guy Verhofstadt MEP last week, the European Parliament needs three months in which to consider and give its consent to the agreement before the EU can conclude it. He said that the Parliament must receive the deal by the end of this year, or it will not have enough time to vote on it by March next year.

Then we come to the meaningful vote in the House. If we approve the agreement, matters can progress, but what if we choose to place some conditions on our approval? What if we reject the agreement? What if the European Parliament rejects it? The Secretary of State has previously said that the House of Commons voting down the deal would mean the UK leaving without a deal, but the Committee does not accept that.

In considering an amendable motion, the House of Commons would have the opportunity to make its reasoning clear in any decision to reject the agreement or to place conditions on it. In such circumstances, the House would surely expect the Government to take full account, to seek to re-enter negotiations if required, and then to come back to the House with a further motion. That is why we say in our report that it is important for Parliament to be able to express its view clearly and advise the Government on how to proceed. The Government would then need to return to the House with any renegotiated text and resubmit the motion, because they cannot introduce the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill until Parliament approves the agreement.

The Committee remains concerned that the looming deadline of March next year leaves very little room for manoeuvre. We call on the Government to publish details of their intended legislative timetable, the publication dates of any White or Green Papers, and any contingency plans for handling a no-deal outcome. We reiterate the recommendation in our third report that the Government should be prepared to seek a limited extension to the article 50 period in the event that substantive aspects of the future relationship remain to be agreed, or if there is a lack of parliamentary consent to the withdrawal agreement, or if there is no deal. However, we do recognise that it is by no means certain that the EU would respond positively to such a request.

Finally, I turn to the negotiations on the future relationship. Assuming that a withdrawal agreement and political declaration is concluded, we will have only 21 months from the date of our withdrawal to the end of the transition period in December 2020 in which to turn a political declaration into legal text on the future relationship and for such a treaty—and it could be more than one treaty—to be ratified. I think we all know that the negotiators will be dealing with a task that is frankly unparalleled in its scope and complexity and in the detail that will be required. There is a possibility that this will prove insufficient time to do all that work. We therefore call on the Government to seek that a mechanism be put into the withdrawal agreement for the extension of the transition period if that is required. We also call on the Government to ensure that Parliament is given a meaningful vote on the final text of the agreement with the EU that will cover the UK-EU relationship in the years ahead.

The report says:

“The debate on the motion for approval of the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration will be one of the most significant parliamentary debates in a generation.”

We all want to do that moment justice, and I hope that our report will assist the House in doing precisely that.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)]

The Government are pleased to welcome the statement made by the Chairman of the Exiting the EU Committee. The Government extend our thanks to the members of the Committee for the time and consideration that they have invested in producing this report and in reflecting on the issues that the Chairman has so ably and clearly set out. I look forward to reading the report and assure the Committee and the House that a Government response will be forthcoming in the usual way.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I thank the Select Committee Chair for his statement and for his heroic efforts to reach consensus when at times that is never going to be possible. I also endorse wholeheartedly his gratitude for the efforts of the Committee staff, who have done a fantastic job in serving the Committee.

Paragraph 17 of the report points out that Parliament currently has a role in scrutinising any EU external agreements, including trade agreements. As things stand, when we start to negotiate trade deals on our own, there is no such role for Parliament in scrutinising those deals. Is the report saying that as a result of Brexit, the important parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals will be less than it is just now?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Steve Baker

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Trade continues all around the world on a free and fair basis, particularly under free trade agreements. It is our expectation and intention to secure a free trade agreement of unprecedented scope and ambition, which should meet just the criteria that she sets out.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), told the House yesterday that the document that I hope will shortly be handed over to the Exiting the European Union Committee

“does not yet reflect this Government’s policy approaches”—[Official Report, 31 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 834.]

Given that the Secretary of State has just claimed from the Dispatch Box that everybody knows what the Government’s position is, will the Minister explain why lots of analysis has been done of the options that the Government do not want when apparently no analysis has yet been done of the option that the Government do want?

[Mr Baker]

As I said when I answered the urgent question on Tuesday, the Government cannot control the timing of leaks. The preliminary analysis is a work in progress that does not yet reflect the Government’s policy. Once the analysis has been carried through, I am sure that it will do.

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Debate between Hilary Benn and Steve Baker

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

My hon. Friend makes a point that is very much in line with his long-held views. I should reaffirm that I am proud of the officials with whom I work. Irrespective of how they voted, they are demonstrating commitment to delivering on the decision of the British people. The intention of our current analysis is to improve on what has gone before and, as I set out in my initial response, we recognise that there were flaws in the previous approach.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

A lack of transparency is not in the national interest. On 6 December, I asked the Brexit Secretary,

“have the Government undertaken any impact assessments on the implications of leaving the EU for different sectors of the economy?”

He replied, “Not in sectors.” Now we learn that that work has been done, and it is reported that chemicals, clothing, manufacturing, food and drink, cars and retail will be the hardest hit sectors. Will the Minister offer the House an explanation for the discrepancy between what the Exiting the European Union Committee was told and what we now know?

[Mr Baker]

As I have explained, we have always said that our economic analysis was continually evolving across a wide range of activities—[Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh, but what else would they expect but for the Government to work continually on a developing analysis? As I may not have said in my opening remarks, I know that the Secretary of State only saw this particular document last night—I saw it this morning—and I think that that will explain the answers he has given.

Exiting the EU: Sectoral Analysis

Debate between Hilary Benn and Steve Baker

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—he is exactly right. Our purpose as a nation is to go forward and maximise our negotiating capital to deliver the best possible deal for all people in the United Kingdom.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

We now know what this material consists of, but I am concerned to read in a letter that the Secretary of State sent me that Ministers now intend

“to collate and bring together this information in a way that is accessible and informative for the Committee.”

I would expect the Committee to receive these documents in the form they were in when the motion was carried—in other words, unamended. As I made clear in my letter to the Secretary of State, I think it is for the Committee to decide in what form they are published. We are conscious of our responsibilities, in the same way as the whole House is. Can the Minister therefore confirm that that is what will now happen, and that there will be no further undue delay?

[Mr Baker]

The material that we hold includes commercially sensitive material and material that is relevant to our negotiating position. The House has previously voted not to release information that would be prejudicial to our negotiating position. If we were to give the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee the original reports commissioned at the beginning of the Department’s life, he would find that that material was incomplete and out of date. It is our intention to satisfy the motion by providing to him information that is relevant, timely and correct.

Britain in the World

Debate between Hilary Benn and Steve Baker

Monday 1st June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I am setting out for the right hon. Gentleman what the policy of Her Majesty’s Opposition is, and I know he takes a different view, but a decision about the defence of the nation is not a matter for any one part of the United Kingdom: it is a matter for the whole of the United Kingdom and for this House.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I am going to make a little more progress as there are many who wish to speak.

The crisis in Ukraine, which the Foreign Secretary referred to, has demonstrated how an aggressive Russia can threaten its neighbours and reminds us of the importance of NATO and of the EU in standing up to external threats in Europe’s eastern and southern neighbourhoods. As he said, the Minsk agreement represents the best hope of progress, but it needs to be implemented.

We support the action the Government have taken to participate in the high readiness NATO force in eastern Europe, including sending four RAF Typhoon jets to be part of the Baltic air policing mission, because that is a clear demonstration of the UK’s commitment to collective security.

The threat from al-Qaeda and the growth of ISIL and other Islamic jihadist groups not just in the middle east but in Somalia with al-Shabaab and in Nigeria with Boko Haram, represent a considerable threat to global and domestic security. The flow of young British men and women into Syria via Turkey, some of their own volition and others having been groomed, is as inexplicable to their parents as it is alarming to this House. Recent advances by ISIL in Iraq, in particular the seizure of Ramadi, reveal the continuing weakness of Iraqi forces and of the Baghdad Government’s capacity to deal with this threat, despite the aerial support the Foreign Secretary referred to. Sectarianism has caused great suffering to the people of Iraq and only an inclusive politics can overcome it. Back in October the Foreign Secretary told the House that, while there would be tactical ebb and flow in Iraq, the coalition air campaign had “stabilised the strategic picture”. Is that still his view given that what is being done at the moment does not seem to have halted ISIL’s advance?