Leaving the EU: Preparations

Debate between Jon Trickett and John Bercow

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

This is the first opportunity that I have had to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. He may regard it as a poisoned chalice, but no doubt the Prime Minister thought it appropriate that he took it.

I thank the Minister for his courtesy in providing advance sight of the statement—it was rather vacuous, but we did have a good chance to study it carefully. He makes much of the work that has been carried out by civil servants who have been working under intense pressure preparing businesses, individuals and wider society for Brexit. We acknowledge the very hard work of all those civil servants and thank them for their service, and we welcome the work that the Government are doing in that respect. However, the truth is that £6.3 billion is being spent on Brexit preparations, yet it is too little now, because it is too late. Even if all the preparations had been carried out in time and in a more comprehensive way, the country would still have no idea whether we will leave with a deal or with no deal.

Let me come straight to the point, because there are significant omissions in the Minister’s statement. There is no mention, for example, of medical supplies, but in the past 24 hours serious-minded health leaders have warned that no deal could result directly in medical shortages, affect treatment for UK nationals in Europe and exacerbate the already difficult NHS crisis. It has been reported that the Government are now stockpiling body bags because of concerns that there may be an increase in the mortality rate. Will the Minister assure the House that that is not the case, but if it is, will he explain what he is doing about it?

The statement mentions that 1 million EU citizens have been given settled status. We welcome that, but there are more than 3 million here. The Government’s prevarication over time and their inadequate preparations right from the beginning have caused great anxiety and left millions of people who live here, pay taxes here, have made their lives here and have their children here wondering what their future holds. It is a mark of the slow progress that is being made that the Government still have not resolved the status of UK citizens who are living in Europe, as the Minister said.

The Minister talks about getting businesses ready, yet it is only a few weeks ago that these serious-minded business leaders demanded an independent inquiry into what a no-deal Brexit would consist of, amid accusations that vital information about potential problems was deliberately being held back by the Government—that was from the business community itself.

In the early part of his statement, the Minister made much of trust—trust in this House and trust in democracy—but the truth is that the Government are playing fast and loose both with democracy and with the House. I say that because of the proposal that the House be prorogued and because the Prime Minister’s staff are now hinting at a possible cynical general election, which we are ready for. One way or another, the Government are set on closing down the House of Commons for weeks when the country is facing one of the most difficult times in our recent history. If there is an election—this is a very important point—the direction of the country and its relationship with the EU will be hotly debated. We and the country will need full access to all the relevant information. The Minister’s statement conceals more than it reveals, but can he confirm that, during an election period or a Prorogation period, whichever it is, civil service preparations for Brexit will continue through the election purdah if necessary? Can he confirm whether, during the purdah, Ministers will continue to provide political guidance to civil servants on Brexit? I give notice now that the Opposition will seek immediate access to the civil service and ask to be kept fully informed, as is the convention, of all the information that the House and the country have been denied about all developments. That request must be responded to the minute the election is called.

Just eight weeks ago, the current Prime Minister told his party and the country that the chances of a no-deal Brexit were a million to one against. Yet this morning, the former Chancellor, who is no longer in his place, stated that no progress has been made and that there are no substantive negotiations going on. Is that true? The two positions cannot be easily reconciled. Either there is progress or there is not. Having heard the Prime Minister in the Chamber just now, it is clear that most people still have no idea.

To most informed observers, however, it appears that the Government’s favoured deal—whatever they say—is no deal, so let us listen to the Minister’s own words from earlier this year. He said:

“Leaving without a deal…would undoubtedly cause economic turbulence. Almost everyone in this debate accepts that.”

He went on to say:

“We didn’t vote to leave without a deal”.

That was from the man who led the whole campaign to leave the European Union. He was for May’s deal and against no deal, but now he is the Minister for no deal. How does he reconcile the progress of his career?

The House must be allowed to see the detailed assessments contained in the Yellowhammer dossier. The truth is that the Minister is hiding it, but why? The media are reporting that the Yellowhammer papers—even the watered-down versions that he is working on—paint such a disastrous picture of the country after no deal that the Government dare not publish them. Yet shockingly, leaked excerpts talk of potential shortages, delays and even protests on the streets.

Is it not a disgrace that the Government intend to close Parliament down for five weeks without allowing the House to scrutinise their detailed preparations for no deal? Members have a right to know what those preparations are, as has the country. After all, it was this Minister who said:

“We are a parliamentary democracy, and”—

listen to this—

“proroguing Parliament in order to try to get no deal through…would be wrong.”

Those were his exact words. But that is precisely what the Government are now trying to do. How can he justify the amount of resources being spent on preparations for no deal without any scrutiny or accountability to this House? It is simply unacceptable.

Under normal purdah rules, the Select Committees looking at Brexit preparations and Yellowhammer could also be suspended, leaving absolutely no scrutiny by Members of the Government’s plans. When it comes to Yellowhammer, the media appear to be better informed than the House, so let me briefly ask the Minister some questions.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman, who is well in excess of his time, can ask two or three questions, but they need to be in a sentence or two.

[Jon Trickett]

What assessments has the Minister received about disruption at the ports? What assessments have been made and reported to him about the situation in Ireland? What assessments has he received about the impact of no deal on food prices? All these matters must be addressed by the House, so let him place the documents in the Library so that we all can explore them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jon Trickett and John Bercow

Monday 1st July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Okay, I will take the point of order now. The hon. Gentleman has been jumping up and down like a veritable Zebedee, and so I shall accommodate him on this occasion, but I advise him that in the ordinary course of events points of order tend to be taken after statements. [Interruption.] It is not obligatory, and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care can wait for his statement. I know he has all sorts of other activities in which he wishes to be busily engaged, but I am afraid he will have to wait.

[Jon Trickett]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for finding the time for this. I am standing next to the Leader of the Opposition, whose fitness is legendary. I wonder whether you have received an application by a Minister to make a statement to the House on the principle of civil service neutrality. I ask following the undemocratic and unconstitutional public intervention attributed to senior civil servants and based on a falsehood printed in Saturday’s The Times. No doubt you will agree that since the 1854 Northcote-Trevelyan reforms the professionalism and objectivity of our public servants has been admired throughout the world, and it is a cornerstone of our democracy. But there must be no hesitation at all in condemning the kind of behaviour reported, and I would hope that the Government will root out any miscreants who have behaved in this way. Finally, I wonder whether you can do anything to encourage Ministers, if they have not already approached you, to make a statement in the House or arrange time for a debate about this very important principle.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have not received any indication that a Minister is planning to make an oral statement in the House on this matter, although it is perfectly open to a Minister to offer to do so. The Northcote-Trevelyan principles are of the utmost importance, and I hope they will be upheld by Governments indefinitely. They have existed for a long time because the principles involved—permanence, anonymity and neutrality—are absolutely sacred. I simply suggest that the hon. Gentleman pursues the matter with his characteristic persistence and vigour, and I feel sure that, using the Order Paper and the resources provided by the Table Office, he will be happy to do so.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Amber Rudd)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to reassure the House that we have complete confidence in the fairness and independence of the civil service. It has said that it will respond and I frankly question the good judgment of the shadow Minister for bringing this up in the House at this stage, before it has had the chance to do so.

[Jon Trickett]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I do not want to dwell on this matter. Suffice it to say that the Leader of the Opposition looks perfectly healthy to me; I have known him a long time and he is a very healthy-living fellow in my experience. On a serious note, I do think that the convention is sacred and it really should not brook of any dispute across the House. It might be best to leave it there. I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he has made his point with considerable lucidity and let us leave it there.

We come now to the statement from the Health and Social Care Secretary, which he has been eagerly awaiting. I know that he will want to deliver his own words with every ounce of aplomb at his disposal. I call Secretary Matt Hancock.

Capita

Debate between Jon Trickett and John Bercow

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am keen to accommodate the substantial interest in this matter, but may I remind the House that there is the business question to follow, and thereafter two debates to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee? I am anxious that time for those debates should not be artificially truncated, so pithy questions and pithy answers, please, and we will make progress.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

I will take your advice, Mr Speaker.

Only two weeks ago, I warned that there was a danger that this whole outsourcing problem would become a set of dominoes, with one falling after another. I believe the House will conclude that the Government’s behaviour in response, and the Minister’s response today, has been marked by indifference to corporate mismanagement, incompetence in office and complacency in the face of a crisis.

The Minister will not tell the House, but I will: Capita was given 154 Government contracts last year. Only last week, Carillion contracts were being re-brokered to Capita, yet the company was clearly in trouble. Share values were plummeting and profit warnings were being issued. There was short selling on the stock market and allegations against Capita of fraud in the handling of public contracts. Yesterday, Capita’s total value on the exchange was barely much more than its total debt. The company is in serious trouble. It is a familiar tale of woe, with strong echoes of Carillion.

We want to know that the Government’s contingency plans in relation to Capita will assure jobs for current employees and protect the pensions of those employees and the pensions of the public sector workers that the company is managing. Will the Minister confirm that the public services that Capita manages will be protected in the event of a corporate disaster? Does the Government’s contingency plan allow for that? What will be the common impact of the problems at Carillion, and now Capita, on the spiralling costs of HS2? Does the Minister agree with the Opposition that not a single penny should be used to prop up badly managed outsourcing companies?

The Government are blind to the corporate greed of these outsourcing companies. Does the Minister agree that it is clear that, as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), said only the other day, the Government should be driven by the “evidence, not dogma” on outsourcing?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jon Trickett and John Bercow

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

We have learnt today that Uber’s suppression of a database hack involving tens of millions of people is to be investigated, but there were 9,000 data breaches by the Government in a single year, according to the National Audit Office, although they notified the Information Commissioner’s Office of only 14 of them. Such contraventions clearly pose questions about our personal privacy and security. Given the scale of what is happening with the internet, action is clearly needed for further protection of the public. But last year the Government spent only—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are very pressed for time. We need a sentence and a question. We have to press on because we have a lot of people to accommodate.

[Jon Trickett]

Last year, the Government announced that they had spent only £230 million of the £1.9 billion allowance that had been made. Will the Minister get on with spending that money to protect our citizens?

Industrial Action

Debate between Jon Trickett and John Bercow

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his courtesy in letting me have advance sight of the statement, which I received 20 minutes ago.

Clearly, the whole House regrets that industrial action is taking place today and that millions of families now face disruption to the services on which they rely and depend. Strikes are always a sign that negotiations have broken down, and if a deal is to be reached it is essential that both sides—let us be clear that that includes the unions, but the bulk of the responsibility lies with the Government—get around the negotiating table and show willingness to give ground.

Is it not true that the Government bear the greatest burden of responsibility for what is happening today? We accept that there is a need to continue the reform of public service pensions, which we in fact began when we were in office. We found the unions to be tough but ultimately reasonable negotiators. and we achieved a settlement without any industrial action.

The Government refer to Lord Hutton. He provided rigorous analysis of the current situation, laid out the ground rules for the negotiations, and persuasively argued that there was a need for further change. For example, he was right when he suggested we should look again at career average schemes, which might be fairer in many cases.

The unions need to show they accept the need for change, and indeed they have said they accept the continued need for negotiation and further change. The Government arbitrarily announced a 3p in the pound levy on the incomes of public sector workers, but this imposition has nothing whatever to do with Hutton. Is it not the case that the money that will be garnered from that 3p is not going to the pension schemes but is instead going into the pockets of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The Minister says negotiations are ongoing, but will he tell us whether or not the 3p imposition, which is a form of tax on public sector workers, is negotiable? It clearly is not in the Government’s mind. Will he also respond to the question about when he last met the unions as part of the negotiation, and when Treasury Ministers last met them, as the leader of Unison said today he had not met them at all since 2 November? It is remarkable that the Government can say negotiations are ongoing when the key Departments have never met the trade unions.

At the core of today’s industrial action are 750,000 low-paid workers. These people provide daily services to all of us and to all the people we serve in our constituencies. They are mainly women, they are almost exclusively low paid, and they provide the essential services on which our whole country depends: they are school dinner ladies, teachers, nurses and others. The House must not underestimate the difficult decisions each of those people must make in deciding whether to take action. Many of them never thought, when they entered the service of the public, that they would have to go on strike. It is a difficult personal decision for each of them, and I assure the House that they take it only with the greatest reluctance. They feel a burning sense of injustice that, low paid though they are, an additional burden is now being imposed on them. Equally, they face a significant deterioration in their pensions, which is why 750,000 low-paid workers—mainly women—have taken that difficult personal decision.

There is a risk that many of those people will opt out of their pensions.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently say that I know that in pretty short order the shadow Minister will want to come to his questions on the statement?

[Jon Trickett]

I thought I was asking questions as I was going along.

What estimate have the Government made of the number of people who might opt out of their pension schemes, and what damage might the schemes incur?

It has been suggested that the Prime Minister thinks he can gain political advantage from the strike. He told The Daily Telegraph that he was delighted that a strike would take place. What is the Minister’s strategy? Will he and the Treasury again meet the trade unions to begin negotiations? We have consistently argued that negotiations should be ongoing. Will he call the unions today to ask for meetings tomorrow?

Let me turn to the disruption that has been caused today. How many people are staffing the borders? Will the Minister confirm that there has been no relaxation of border checks?

This is a strike that did not need to happen—nobody wants strikes. The Government must show that they are willing to negotiate sensibly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jon Trickett and John Bercow

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Is it not true that the national citizen service requires that the voluntary sector has adequate capacity to deliver additional volunteering, which is contrary to the unequivocal statement made at the last Cabinet Office questions by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), that the sector would expand? Will the Minister now admit that that statement was untrue. The latest figures for the voluntary sector show a decline of 13,000 jobs in a single quarter. Does he agree that the House was misled and that the statement—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman meant to say “inadvertently misled”.

[Jon Trickett]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The House was inadvertently misled, even though the facts show what actually happened. Finally, would the Minister say that the job losses are a clear disaster for his big society aspirations?