John Hayes
Main Page: John Hayes (Conservative - South Holland and The Deepings)Department Debates - View all John Hayes's debates with the Cabinet Office
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way once more: to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes).
Sir John Hayes
I am immensely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The last time we exchanged comments in the Chamber, I think they were about Asquith, but I cannot match that today.
The right hon. Gentleman is making some sensible points about trusted traders and easing barriers at the border, but he will know, when he speaks of safety and security, that our key security relationship is the Five Eyes relationship: with America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Of course we co-operate with Europe, but any changes to our relationship around security with Europe would endanger the security of this country, if we compromised that core relationship. In particular, given that those Euro-enthusiasts on the continent have always wanted a pan-European army and a pan-European security policy, will he talk a bit about defence and defence procurement?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First of all, there is absolutely no compromise on the core principles of our defence, which we have had since NATO was founded in 1949. Far from any weakening, we are producing the opposite. This would be the worst possible moment to fragment European defence. That is not what this Government are doing. I dismiss any suggestion of a European army in the way that I think the right hon. Gentleman means it. This is a crucial moment for our continent. It is about leadership and peace on our continent, and strengthening and complementing NATO—absolutely not weakening it in any sense. I hope he will take that reassurance.
I have to go back to the point about businesses, because businesses themselves are speaking out. Businesses such as Marks and Spencer have been up front about how real the challenges are. Its head of food said recently:
“paperwork takes hours to complete and demands detail as niche as the Latin name for the chicken used in our chicken tikka masala.”
It is not just M&S. All supermarkets have said the same, as recently reported in the Financial Times. Just yesterday, I was in Edinburgh hearing from businesses about the difficulties they face—difficulties that we could resolve with some ruthless pragmatism and a better deal.
James MacCleary
I think the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that the regulations he references are not the only barriers to export in this country. I mentioned Calais; the port of Dover currently sees massive delays in getting any goods through the port because of the additional bureaucracy and security that are necessary as a result of Brexit. Newhaven port in my constituency, which I know very well—in fact, I humbly suggest that I know it better than other hon. Members—has had to spend millions of pounds simply putting in place more barriers in order to move goods through the port, and that is what is slowing things down. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about equivalence, but at the end of the day, it is not the only output of Brexit that is harming our industries.
With its half-measures, Labour seems so afraid of its Reform-shaped shadow that it has ruled out bold measures to set free British business and stimulate growth. Britain cannot afford such timidity; our businesses cannot afford it, and our young people, who face a future with fewer opportunities than their parents, absolutely cannot afford it.
Sir John Hayes
I assume the hon. Gentleman is not advocating returning to the common fisheries policy, which, with its ludicrous quotas and equivalence, was bad for fish, which were discarded live, and bad for fishermen, who were limited by quotas. It was a disaster that had a detrimental effect on the fishing industry across this country. Surely he does not want a return to that.
James MacCleary
Absolutely not. The common fisheries policy did a lot of damage to British fishing, as the common agricultural policy did to farming.
Ben Coleman
Oh, it was sarcasm.
As I was saying, I am very pleased, as many are, with the Government for being cool-headed and having a common-sense approach. We are going to reset our relationship with the European Union and put Britain first. Putting Britain first has to also mean putting our young people first, so I am excited by the opportunity for young people in my constituency and every constituency to take advantage of a time-limited, controlled visa-based youth system, which we already have with a dozen countries.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman will know that thousands of young people—perhaps not in Chelsea but in most of the country—are NEETs, meaning they are not in education, employment or training, and that number is growing. Why should those young people, who are desperately seeking access to education or jobs, have to compete with large numbers of people from abroad? Is that what the people in Chelsea and Fulham really want for the people who live in the rest of Britain?
Ben Coleman
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman what people in Chelsea and Fulham really want. They do not want a Prime Minister like the last one—a business Prime Minister—who said that we would level up to help people across the country but then did nothing about it. What they want is a Prime Minister who will invest in increasing skills and apprenticeships right across the country, as ours said yesterday that he will. That is what we need, and that is what we are getting now.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I agree with my right hon. Friend. The important point is that we do not have a written constitution, but we do have in our minds a hierarchy of legitimacy on which, in the end, the democratic credibility of the House depends. The fact is, a referendum represents a superior mandate on a single issue and, with a great struggle, the pro-EU majority eventually aligned itself with the decision that the British people had taken on our membership of the European Union.
Sir John Hayes
Since we are straying into political ideas and philosophy, is not the point that the democratic legitimacy we enjoy in this place is on the basis of popular consent, and there is no more direct expression of popular consent than a referendum, which is why its result has to be honoured?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I agree with my right hon. Friend, and that is why it was an extremely ominous portent that the Minister at the Dispatch Box refused to answer him on the question of whether there would be alignment or subjection to the European Court of Justice. If the referendum was about one thing, it was about taking back control of our laws. In fact, many of us in the leave campaign at the time argued that the British people do understand sovereignty—they certainly did by the end of the referendum—and getting into permanent alignment of regulation or subjecting the meaning of laws applied in the United Kingdom to the scrutiny and jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is giving back control. It is a dangerous thing for a Government elected on the principle of honouring the referendum result, and one who are now playing dog-whistle politics with immigration, to be backsliding in secret, with a sleight of hand, into allowing jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and permanent alignment back into our law while pretending that is not happening. That is exactly what the Minister did at the Dispatch Box.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Yes. That promise of creating an EU defence capability has been on the table since the St Malo declaration of 1999, in the aftermath of the Maastricht treaty that first introduced the word “defence” into the EU. That was when France and the United Kingdom, under a Labour Government, declared that the EU would have autonomous military capability, with separable but not separate military forces from NATO.
We still have the absurdity in which the armed forces of the EU countries are allocated to NATO tasks but, at the same time, are ready for EU tasks. There had to be a complicated de-confliction arrangement to try to ensure that an EU defence mission does not conflict with a NATO defence mission. We finished up with something called the Berlin-plus arrangements, which Turkey has never accepted because it is not a member of the EU but is a member of NATO.
There has always been an impasse between NATO and the EU on those two questions, and it is all completely unnecessary because NATO has a military headquarters, it has a political committee and it is an international organisation. Indeed, it is the most successful military alliance in the world. Why is the EU trying to duplicate it just for itself? The EU is more interested in statecraft and state-building than defending our own continent. The anger with which Ursula von der Leyen and Friedrich Merz have attacked Trump reflects a latent anti-Americanism that has always been there and which we could do without at this moment.
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend makes a profound argument. He highlights the EU, which sees itself as a supranational body, and NATO, which, by nature, is anything but that, in that it is a confederation of sovereign nations. That tension lies at the heart of the EU’s ill-concealed and now evident disdain for NATO. I do not know whether the Government are careless or unknowing of that. They are either complicit or ignorant; I wonder which one my hon. Friend thinks it is.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Sadly, European Union defence has always promised far more than it delivers. It was meant to galvanise all the European states into spending more money; it failed and just did not do that. When any serious military operation was required, it was NATO. To the EU’s credit, some EU military operations are taking place, but they are on a very limited scale. The British and the Americans need to reinforce the Balkans now, because the Europeans are not committing enough on their own and are incapable of doing so.
Even if, this time, there were rapid growth in EU military capability to address the crisis that we face, it would take decades to replicate what the Americans currently provide, such as tactical nuclear weapons and air cover. Why does the EU need to have its own air defence policy when that is exactly what NATO does? It does European air defence. We need to bolster NATO. It is encouraging that force planning for a possible peacekeeping force in Ukraine is all being done at NATO and not in the EU crisis management centre or at EU military headquarters. Only NATO has the capability to plan large-scale military activity.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak, and I commend the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on staying on his feet for nearly half an hour—quite an impressive feat. It is an honour to follow him; he was elected 33 years ago, when I was nine. I imagine that he has seen a lot of history over the past 33 years, and over the past nearly 10 years since the referendum.
If we think about the main features of that history, it is indisputable that we live in a new world. We have the illegal invasion of Ukraine; Taiwan is acting as a test point; NATO and the UN are at risk; and there is rising authoritarian populism, which risks democratic backsliding, be that through the undermining of institutions, power being concentrated in the Executive, the dismissal of checks and balances, growing electoral interference, or big tech captains involving themselves in democratic politics like never before. We see economic inequality on an unprecedented scale. That creates a risk of democratic instability, here and around the world. There is also the risk of wealth concentration, unaddressed tax haven networks, rising social inequality, and people feeling left out. Issues of development, aid and debt relief are gone from our political discussions.
The rise of technology risks creating democratic threats. Artificial intelligence and social media create the potential for deepfakes, automated disinformation, cyber-attacks and the development of lethal systems with no human oversight. There are health challenges, such as the global pandemic that we have been through. Climate change continues unabated and remains unaddressed at the scale needed, creating the possibility of resource conflicts, climate refugee flows and stresses on nature and wildlife. If that has not convinced the House that I am a fun time down the pub, I do not know what will.
I say all that because those are the major threats that have emerged in the past 10 years—and that is not an exhaustive list. If I carried on, Members would want me to sit down faster. We have to face reality. All of us in this place were elected to behave like grown-ups—to face the facts, debate on the basis of reality, and come up with common-sense solutions. Given that we face those threats—I have not even mentioned the lion’s share of threats in the UK, which I would say we inherited from the previous Government—it is no wonder that people outside the walls of Westminster feel that we go too slow and do not focus on the things that they care about. It is no wonder that people are succumbing to hopelessness, and feel that politics is not meeting their needs.
A question was asked earlier about what was on the ballot paper. I accept that the European Union was not on the ballot paper as an existential question. However, what was on the ballot paper was quality of life in our country, the state of our economy, and the possibility that generations will be locked out of the democratic agreement and social contract on a fair chance at life. We Labour Members are saying that trade is a solution to some of those challenges.
As I was saying, people outside the walls of this Palace feel frustrated by the slowness of our debates.
Tom Hayes
I will come to you shortly.
We must recognise the importance of urgency. That is why I am genuinely extremely pleased that we have a Government who have moved forward in recent days and weeks with two significant trade deals. The first, with India, was achieved in 10 months, after the Conservatives had spent eight years saying that they would get a deal. We rolled up our sleeves and got a deal that will put more money into people’s pockets, create jobs here, and benefit our economy. The trade deal with the United States is not what we would have got had Kamala Harris been elected President; it is the deal we could get with Donald Trump as President, and I think that it shows realistic, common-sense negotiation.
Sir John Hayes
I am extremely grateful to my namesake for giving way. He is making an interesting speech. He is right that global power and its growth is making people feel that they cannot affect decision making; that is a profound point, but we need to root power closer to people, not detach it from them, as happens when power is given over to foreign potentates, whether in the EU or any other part of the world.
Tom Hayes
I agree with the right hon. Member. With the UK a sovereign, independent trading nation, we in this place are able to shape the debate and conditions of trade. We have the prospect of an EU trade deal before us, and we must grasp it. If we do not, we will see our country fall further behind. There are areas of possibility for that trade deal. For example, there is a need for the transfer and exchange of clean energy between the UK and France and the European Union on a larger scale. I had the privilege of visiting Gosport recently to see IFA2—Interconnexion France-Angleterre 2—where the subsea interconnector is exchanging clean energy between the UK and France, ensuring that we can keep the lights on not only here but in France and across the European Union. Surely energy security is an important feature of our democracy, in an age where we are threatened by Putin and other dictators.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Unlike many Opposition Members, my constituents have little appetite for a relitigation of the Brexit debates of 2016. Back at the time of referendum, 66% of them voted to leave the European Union; there is scant desire for us to rejoin, and even less desire for a return to embracing freedom of movement. I will always put my constituents first, and these are red lines that I understand, honour and respect.
However, my constituents also see the changing world around us, and recognise that the world has been transformed immeasurably since 2016. The terms on which we left the European Union do not match the global moment that we face today. President Trump’s tariffs have rocked the international economic order. War has broken out in Europe, and there is a need for dramatically increased defence spending and new methods of working with international colleagues. A new wave of mass migration from the middle east and Africa, and the small boats crisis in our channel, can only be properly handled through further co-operation with our international partners.
Basically, my constituents are patriotic. They want their country to be resilient to new threats, and prosperous in a chaotic world. While any future with the European Union must respect critical red lines on controlling borders and protecting ultimate sovereignty in Westminster, there is now scope for a new thread, a new relationship, to embolden our security and economic interests in a volatile world. This new approach can, should and will, I believe, overcome the increasingly desperate, archaic, old-fashioned attacks from some Opposition Members about the so-called Brexit betrayal, and the British public know that.
Polling by the Good Growth Foundation shows that 73% of the public support significant co-operation with the EU on trade and the economy, defence and security. More than twice as many adults say that the EU is the UK’s most trustworthy ally, rather than the United States under its current President, and about 60% of the public say that it is imperative for us to have a closer relationship with the European Union in the future. A new, better deal with the European Union is popular because few think that the current relationship is working. Many, while supporting the principle of Brexit and having voted in favour of it in 2016, feel that its execution during the chaotic Conservative premierships has been disastrous.
The public’s desire for change is a reality that the Conservative party cannot seem to wake up to. Although I fundamentally disagree with its principles, it has been a great party. At their best, the Conservatives have been successful in modernising the country in line with global trends. They brought us into Europe, and played a pivotal role in building the single market that so many Europeans enjoy today. Given their track record, it is sad to see that they seem to oppose the notion of negotiating a new and better relationship with Europe. The party of Churchill and Thatcher, who once led on the world stage, is now left to carp from the sidelines, like talk radio commentators from a bygone era. The Leader of the Opposition is busy denouncing every post-Brexit deal that this Labour Government sign as inadequate or a betrayal, including those that she failed to get over the line when she was Trade Secretary.
On this issue, as with so many of the Conservatives’ current fixations, the public have simply left them behind. The Conservatives are fighting yesterday’s battles. Although the themes that won such support in the referendum cannot be ignored, change is required. Any entanglement of political structures, and any notion of increased immigration or a lack of control, will rightly be met with outrage by those who supported Brexit, but the benefits of a closer deal are now clear.
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the Conservative party; it has indeed been a great party and remains so. On entanglement, he makes a valid point about co-operation and collaboration, but that has always been the case. Of course we must work with other countries, but the core issue here is authority. Entanglement means granting authority to a power outside this country. Surely this movement of young people, which is a dressed-up form of free movement, is just that.
Jake Richards
I reject the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the policy. I will come on to that specific policy in a moment, but his characterisation is unfair. I am not in the habit of giving advice to the Conservatives, but my understanding is that at the last general election, the party finished fifth among voters under the age of 35. Looking in the mirror and thinking about how they have ended up in that position might be a worthwhile way to spend some time.
The benefits of a closer deal are now clear: a unified carbon and electricity market could raise billions of pounds in revenue for the Treasury, and more collaboration on defence would ease pressures, enhance capability, and support joint procurement and R&D in key areas. There is also scope—this goes to the right hon. Gentleman’s point—for a capped UK-EU youth mobility scheme to be part of the deal, but it has to be negotiated and the devil will be in the detail. There should be tight limits on the numbers, access to services and duration of stay, and it should be part of an agreement whereby the EU helps the UK with many of the challenges that we face with immigration. This is part of a relationship that does not stop at one moment or at one deal; it is an ongoing relationship. This Government are open, negotiating, listening and getting the best deal for Britain, and it is one that I support.
As so often is the case, the political class is lagging behind public opinion and fighting the last battle. The Brexit paradigm that certainly defined British politics between 2016 and 2020 is history, and the Government are right to look to the future and pursue a better and deeper relationship with our European partners in order to improve living standards, offer economic protection and ensure our country’s security. I am pleased that this Government appear willing to seize the moment, and I look forward to supporting their efforts in that endeavour in the coming weeks.
Joy Morrissey
And on national insurance. Forgive me for needing reassurance from the Dispatch Box that the Minister will not come back with some sort of 1984 doublespeak and expect us to enjoy that.
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend’s scepticism is well founded, because many on the Government Benches—I do not say all—could barely sustain the result of the referendum and regarded it with outrage. The people had spoken and contradicted the long-standing prejudice of the liberal bourgeoisie. That is why they tried to block Brexit—indeed, the Prime Minister tried to block it 48 times. My hon. Friend is right, therefore, to be sceptical about Labour.
Joy Morrissey
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We need to protect our Brexit freedoms and make sure that we hold the Labour party to account.
We heard a lot from the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) about all the wonderful things he has planned for our free trade deal. However, I am concerned that we are going to rewrite history; that we are going to ignore the British people again and allow for dynamic back-door realignment with the EU without giving Parliament or the British people a say.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
It is good to contribute to the debate. On the matter of Churchill, I am of course one of his successors in Dundee, where he was defeated by the only prohibitionist ever elected. It was after his defeat that he went on to make his speeches about Europe, after he had joined the Conservative party.
I suspect that I will in a moment slip into the same levels of exasperation expressed by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—I hope that she does not mind my saying that we agree on so much—but before I do, let me thank the Conservative party for bringing this motion. I have to say, I salute their—how should one put it—courage in securing the debate. Nobody is saying that the Conservatives’ Brexit has been a success. In that context, I feel that they are leading with their chin today. Nobody is arguing that it is something that has gone well. Nobody is arguing that it has become a triumph. Rather, we are debating and discussing today how to tackle a problem that has been well set out by the Government. I am sorry to say that Brexit continues to cast a spell over the political classes at Westminster.
We have heard a rerun of some of the arguments and some of the falsehoods about the European Union, but let us talk about the evidence—I will be brief, as it has been well covered. There is the 4% drop in GDP that the Treasury has outlined, and the 15% drop in trade that was part of the Budget documents. The UK has now lost more than it ever contributed financially, with absolutely nothing in return. There is the loss of jobs, the loss of regional structural funds that were never replaced despite the promises, the loss of opportunities for SMEs and, critically, the loss of opportunities for our young people. I can remember when the Brexiteers told us that lots of countries would follow the UK out the door. Nobody has followed the UK, and I wonder why. It leans into the sense of British exceptionalism that we hear time and again. The UK has been left impoverished as a direct consequence of those arguments.
I have heard the warm words from Labour Members about wanting to be closer to Europe, but they are fundamentally grabbing hold of a hard Tory Brexit. I fail to see why a Labour Government do not stand up for Europe more. Rather than try to imitate failed Conservative policies and failed Reform policies—let us not forget that Reform has a track record, and it is not a good one—Labour should take them on, on that track record.
Stephen Gethins
Before I move on to the Treasury and some of the right hon. Gentleman’s points, I will give way to him.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman was pointing to an empty Bench when he talked about Reform, by the way, because its Members have not turned up.
On the structural funds, I know the hon. Gentleman would not want in any way to say something misleading. After Brexit, my constituency attracted Government funding of something like £60 million or £70 million for roads, a new leisure centre and the regeneration of our town centre. In the last year we were in the EU, does he know that it cost us £17 billion to be a member? What sort of price is that?
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
In human affairs, there is a persistent fascination with novelty. It is curious that people clamour for what is different—for the other, whatever that other might look like. It is this fascination that leads to the similar interest in—indeed, preoccupation with—internationalism, even to the point where that means giving up power to someone beyond these shores. It is a damaging preoccupation. At its most curious, it leads to the peculiarity of—I am sorry the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) is not here, because he made a remarkably articulate speech, as I told him afterwards—a representative of a nationalist party making the case against nationalism, and a Member who believes in sovereignty making the argument that sovereignty does not really matter, although he did qualify that by saying that sovereignty in Scotland meant something different. He and I will no doubt have an opportunity to debate that at some length in future.
That fascination fuelled the sentiment that, after the referendum, pervaded the Labour Benches and the Liberals; it is a matter of record that I do not have a liberal bone in my body of any kind, whether socially, culturally, politically or economically, and I shall make the case against free trade in a few moments. As a result of that fascination, the cadre of people who populate a good deal of the establishment—the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) will know this, because a lot of the establishment live in his constituency; it is not surprising that they picked one of their own, really—could not bear to come to terms with the result of the referendum. For the people had spoken! And of course, the people’s will directly contradicted the assumptions—the presumptions—of that establishment, which they had foisted on the people for donkeys’ years.
I do not say, by the way, that all the guilt lies on the other side of the Chamber. This began with Harold Macmillan, and then was carried on by Ted Heath, who sold out our fishermen. It went on and on; the gallery of villains is almost endless. One thinks of Roy Jenkins. There were noble exceptions, including Labour’s Peter Shore, and Tony Benn, who made the case for national self-government in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) told me was one of the best speeches he has heard in this Chamber in his years here. On our side, there were noble exceptions, too. Enoch Powell stands proud among those, but there were many others. [Interruption.] There was Michael Foot, of course, on the other side. I will not go into the whole list, Madam Deputy Speaker, just in case you thought I was going to. I was thinking of our lamented friend Sir Bill Cash, who gave such great service. He was seen as a bit of an outsider for the great bulk of his career, and then, in the last part of it, was proved right. My goodness, what is better than that in politics? They say all political careers end in failure, but Bill Cash’s didn’t; his political career ended in success.
Mr Francois
It has not ended yet. Sir Bill is a sprightly 83, and he has been texting some of us throughout the debate. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that Sir Bill’s great success was the sovereignty clause, which finally said, after years of campaigning, that this Parliament is sovereign? That is on the statute book because of Bill.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; Sir Bill’s political career has not ended; his parliamentary one has. I can, like my right hon. Friend, acknowledge that Sir Bill has texted me this afternoon, along with no doubt many others—[Interruption.]—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, I just gathered. This tension—between the will of the people as expressed in the 2016 referendum, and the prevailing assumptions of what I described earlier as the liberal establishment—underpins this debate.
In the spirit of generosity, which I tend to employ—there are exceptions, by the way; Members can intervene on me, if they like—I note that there are those on the Government Benches, such as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who acknowledge, albeit grudgingly, that the referendum result cannot be reversed and that we cannot go back into the EU. That was not what those people said immediately after the referendum, of course. They fought hard for ages to try to frustrate the outcome. They used every parliamentary technique they could conjure, as well as extra-parliamentary techniques, including well-funded legal cases, to try to derail Brexit.
The scepticism personified by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who said she was doubtful about the Government’s intent, is well founded. I know that the Minister will want to reassure us, when he rises at the end of the debate, that that scepticism—in his case, at least—will not prove to be a prediction of what might happen next. Scepticism is well founded, though, because of the history. It was a Labour politician who said, “You don’t need a crystal ball when you’ve got the record book”—Aneurin Bevan, of course. We have the record book when it comes to Labour, and, worse still, when it comes to the Liberal Democrats.
I hope the Minister will be crystal clear, as he has been invited to be throughout the debate, on dynamic alignment, or, as I think it would be better described, dynamic realignment: realigning our relationship with the EU. Such alignment would bring us closer not to our friends and neighbours in Europe—of course, co-operation and collaboration is a natural part of mature policies—but to the EU, in terms of governance, regulation, law, interference in our affairs and, crucially, jurisdiction. It is the exercise of authority that we are really debating here—not the ability or, indeed, the willingness to share, but the danger of succumbing to a power that takes authority further and further from the British people.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) talked about some of the challenges the world faces and the answers to those global challenges. He was right to do so, by the way; I thought the first half of his speech was very good, although it got worse as it went on. The answer to those challenges is not to become more globalist or to give in to the forces he described that exert power in an unaccountable way, but to bring power back to the people.
When those of us who advocated Brexit spoke of taking back control, we did so partly because we wanted power to be vested in this Parliament, which is accountable to the people whom that power affects. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are almost a model for this, and others would do well to follow your model. We are answerable to and known by our constituents; they understand that we make decisions on their behalf. New Members of the House will be coming to terms with what that means and its relentlessness. I do not mind it myself, but I can see how it could wear down souls less forceful and robust than me. It is that constant interaction with our constituents that is the lifeblood of democracy.
Whoever knew who their Member of the European Parliament was? I could not remember who the Tories were, let alone the Members from the other parties. People certainly did not enjoy that kind of intimate relationship and sense of mutual ownership when we were members of the EU. We feel as though we own our constituencies and they feel as though they own us, and quite right too. [Interruption.] I am being chided, Madam Deputy Speaker. I first heard of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) when he arrived here—I never knew who he was before then. I say that without disrespect.
Sir Ashley Fox
My right hon. Friend is correct. While I was in the European Parliament, opinion poll research was conducted into whether people could name their Member of the European Parliament, and only 2% of British people could name any Member of the European Parliament—regrettably, it was not me.
Sir John Hayes
It is typical of my hon. Friend’s humility and good humour that he should acknowledge that in the Chamber in such an open and frank way, and I pay tribute to him for it.
The scepticism that I have described and tried to articulate takes the form of real doubts about what realignment will really mean. Let me just deal with three or four specifics. I spoke earlier in an intervention about security and defence. Of course, it is right that we have a continuing relationship with our neighbours in those terms. We do work with the agencies across Europe, but the critical security relationship we enjoy is with the Five Eyes countries—by the way, we also enjoy relations with many other countries in the world outside the Five Eyes and Europe—and it is vital that we reinforce that relationship. That, of course, overlaps with our commitment to NATO and defence.
There may be some virtues in information sharing—indeed, there certainly are virtues in various kinds of co-operation—but anything that undermines the sovereignty of that security and defence alliance seems to be highly questionable and also risky, which is worse.
Let me turn now to free movement. Although the referendum was not all about immigration, immigration was perhaps the most pressing and salient matter during those times. People resented and resisted free movement and they wanted to bring it to an end. For many, the term “take back control” epitomised the need to control our borders—to decide who came here and who did not. Although it may be understandable that people want to wax lyrical about young people being able to travel across the continent, what they say less enthusiastically, or do not say at all, is that young people from the entire continent will want to travel here. Until we know the terms of that, that could easily mean those people competing with Britons for scarce jobs.
We have large numbers of young people not in education, employment or training. No Government have dealt with that satisfactorily. I started speaking about this more than 20 years ago. Previous Labour Governments and, indeed, Conservative Governments did not really grasp that nettle as firmly as they should have done. Disturbingly, the trend is upwards, and so I do not want people in my country to have to compete for education and training places and for other opportunities with possibly tens of thousands of people who have entered the country by those means. There will be suspicions that it is the beginning of a return to free movement.
What did mass immigration do? The Prime Minister was right about this yesterday. He is a very late convert, but the Bible says that we must welcome all converts with enthusiasm. What mass immigration did was to displace investment in recruitment, training and retention of workers and in automation and improving workplaces, making us ever more dependent on low-skilled labour. It had the effect of stultifying the economy. Any suggestion that we may return to that will inhibit—perhaps ruin—the Government’s intention of improving productivity. If we really want to deal with productivity, we have to create a high-tech, high-skilled economy. I am fearful that that broader consideration will not necessarily hold sway when we get into negotiations with the EU on this issue of some relaxation of the bar on free movement, which was brought by the referendum.
Mindful that there are enthusiastic, insightful and bright colleagues on all sides of the House, but mainly on the Conservative side, who want to contribute to the debate, I will draw my remarks to a close. I can hear colleagues saying, “No, go on”, but I am going to resist those overtures and finish with this thought: C.S. Lewis said, “We are what we think we are”. I think we are a proud, independent nation that has made a disproportionate contribution as part of western civilisation to world history. I think that our past is noble and should give us a sense of achievement and pride. I do not buy the self-loathing that seems to have taken hold with too much of the very establishment that I derided earlier.
Sir John Hayes
I will happily give way—let us see whether the hon. Member is a self-loathing individual.
Ben Coleman
I trust that I am not. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman appreciated when I said earlier how excited I was for the prospects ahead of us. I want to thank him for identifying me a couple of times and associating me with my constituents, which I am certainly proud of. I also thank the right hon. Gentleman and a number of his colleagues for making me feel like I have been in this place not for 10 months but for 10 years, and for giving me the privilege of seeing the Brexit debate live, writ large again. It is a rare opportunity that I did not know I would get as a Member of this House, and I am most grateful.
Sir John Hayes
I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at it through this prism: for all intents and purposes, I am Brexit, I stand for Brexit: I am a patriot, proud of my working-class origins; I am determined to do my best for my constituents and my country; and I am driven by a combination of the national interest and the common good. That was the spirit that inspired Brexit. It inspired those of us who campaigned for it, and those who voted for it, which 75% of my constituents in South Holland and the Deepings did. I am a bit resentful that Boston and Skegness next door had an even higher percentage, but it was only by 1%.
As I said, C.S. Lewis said that we are what we think we are. I think that we are a proud country who can stand in the world, in collaboration with other nations, of course, but free and sovereign. Labour cannot have it both ways. It cannot say that we have done a great deal with India because we did not have to kowtow to the EU and that we have done a great deal with the US because we escaped the clutches of the EU, while at the same time saying that we want to creep back in and for them to have more say in any future deals we might do.
Let me end with the words of one of my political heroes, Joseph Chamberlain, who understood that to protect our economy we need to protect the jobs, industry and enterprise that are part of it and not to give in to the free trade liberals. He said:
“a democratic Government, resting on the confidence and support of the whole nation, and not on the favour of any limited class, would be very strong. It would know how to make itself respected, and how to maintain the obligations and the honour of the country.”
No Member of this House should do less than that.
Several hon. Members rose—
