Afghanistan

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Some moments in this debate were among the most harrowing I can remember in 11 years in Parliament. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) and for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), and in particular to the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). They make me proud to be a Member of this House. No matter how painful and difficult it has been for them to speak up over recent weeks, they have done it. They have done the veterans of Afghanistan proud and they have shown themselves to be true friends to the Afghan people. They have refused to despair, even at the darkest moments, because they know better than most of us that despair is a luxury that Afghans, and the world, simply cannot afford.

Those hon. Members have given voice to something that tens of thousands of families in Britain are feeling—our friends, neighbours and constituents who served, lost loved ones or suffered life-changing injuries, and are wondering now what it was all for. They should not accept that this is the end of two decades of sacrifice, or that the degradation of terrorists, the hard-won progress for women and girls, the landmine clearance programme, the access to healthcare, the clean water and the emergence of fragile democracy can be allowed to unravel in just a few days while the world looks away. Like so many of us who have spoken in this debate, they find it impossible to reconcile where we are now, and how it could possibly have come to this.

We recognise that the decision by the United States to withdraw its military presence created an impossible situation for the United Kingdom. As the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, NATO’s intention was always to withdraw, but it was to withdraw in a planned and orderly way, linked to conditions. This has failed all those tests. Some 18 months after the decision was made to withdraw at Doha and four months after the timetable was established, the airport is overwhelmed, paperwork cannot be processed, and Ministers openly admit that people will be left behind and that some of them will die.

This is an unparalleled moment of shame for this Government. Security at the airport is now in the gift of the Taliban, and it appears that the Government have no agreement beyond 31 August, in just 12 days’ time. Is it correct that we are wholly reliant on a fragile agreement between the United States and the Taliban, a deal that offers no guarantees that UK evacuations can continue if the US withdrawal is completed before that date and ours is not? Is it correct that no conversations have taken place between the UK and Taliban leaders about that access? Does the Foreign Secretary realise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said, his own Department is still advising British nationals remaining in Afghanistan to shelter in place unless further flight options become available, and to keep an eye on Twitter for updates?

The tragedy of all this is that even those people the Government recognise, such as the Chevening scholars who the Prime Minister made a personal promise to this week and this morning, have told us they cannot get through the Taliban roadblocks to the airport and they will be abandoned. This has so much significance for those young Afghans. They represent a generation of promising leaders who are watching the future that they worked and hoped for unravel in front of their eyes.

People—especially women—have burned documents that link them to the UK for their own safety, and so are being turned away at airport perimeters. A British national has been sheltering in a park in Kabul with her young children in recent days because her house was burned down and local people are too scared to offer them shelter. Their MP was promised a phone call from the Foreign Secretary’s private office two days ago. It has not come. What use are promises that are never kept?

The Prime Minister made promises this morning that practically, at this time, he knows the Government cannot fulfil. The Foreign Secretary must address that today. As many hon. Members have said, one of the consequences of the chaos that Ministers have allowed to engulf us is that people will not trust us again. What can he tell them today that will start to put that right?

He will have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) talk about the number of people who helped us but who the Government still refuse to recognise. How have we become this country that drags its feet on saving the lives of those who supported us and stands by while the refugee crisis unfolds? The Prime Minister said last night that we would take 20,000 refugees, but how can anyone believe him? He has made promises before. He promised he would protect the Alf Dubs scheme and give sanctuary to child refugees, and then he closed it. We are better than this.

The Government have given us a press release when what we need is a plan. What is the scale of the refugee crisis that the Government anticipate? What efforts have they made through the United Nations to co-ordinate a global response that is based on a clear assessment of the needs of Afghans, not on numbers plucked out of thin air with no plan for implementation? If I were in the Prime Minister’s shoes, I would be moving heaven and earth to ensure that we live up to our obligations and show the world that we can be relied on—not least by the women and girls who we encouraged and supported to take on positions of authority but who now find themselves the targets of Taliban brutality. Where is the message from the United Kingdom that they are not alone?

When the Prime Minister took office two years ago, we led the world in development assistance, but even now, after the Taliban have taken control, there is no urgency or seriousness about addressing the humanitarian crisis that confronts us. Can we be honest? It is not honest to claim to be doubling aid to Afghanistan when just a few months ago it was cut by half. The Prime Minister should remember that, given that the only statement he made to the House on Afghanistan was when he came to tell us he was cutting the aid budget. I wonder if, after this debate is over, he will reveal that the refugee programme the Government unveiled this morning will be paid for by raiding the aid budget.

[Alicia Kearns]

You raise how many times the Prime Minister has spoken on Afghanistan in the Chamber—[Hon. Members: “You!”] Sorry: the shadow Foreign Secretary mentions the number of times the Prime Minister has spoken about Afghanistan in this House. Will she remind us how many times she has mentioned Afghanistan in this place since coming to the Front Bench?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is not my responsibility. Please try not to use “you”, because I am not the example.

[Lisa Nandy]

I am glad the hon. Lady raises that point, Mr Speaker, because it is a sign of an increasingly desperate Government that they launch that sort of attack. Let me tell her what we have been doing in recent months. In April, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) told the Defence Secretary:

“Now, with the full withdrawal of NATO troops, it is hard to see a future without bloodier conflict, wider Taliban control, and greater jeopardy for those Afghanis who worked with the west and for the women now in political, judicial, academic and business roles.” —[Official Report, 20 April 2021; Vol. 692, c. 853.]

Last month, my right hon. Friend the shadow First Secretary of State said that if we simply wash our hands and walk away—[Interruption.] The Government do not want to hear it because they have been warned and warned and warned about the consequences by Members on both sides of the House, but they have ignored us and their own Back Benchers. They have abandoned the people of Afghanistan. It is a moment of shame and they should apologise.

It is dishonest to claim to be doubling aid to Afghanistan when it was previously halved. I wonder if we will find out after this debate is over that the refugee programme the Government unveiled this morning will be paid for by raiding the aid budget. The Foreign Secretary says that we cannot just hand over funds to the Taliban. He is right, but that means we have to work harder and smarter. Has he mapped the capacity across Afghanistan to deliver aid? Has he spoken to the United Nations, which intends to provide a presence on the ground? When did he talk to the UN and what has it agreed? Has he spoken to the international NGOs that have been there for years? Why has he not yet agreed a common approach with the American Government, who I spoke to last night?

Forgive me, but no one will be reassured by the Prime Minister’s remarks this morning. There was no serious plan to deal with the reality of Taliban rule or the threat to the UK. We went into Afghanistan to degrade the capability of al-Qaeda—[Interruption.] A bit of humility from the Defence Secretary might be in order, given what is unfolding before our eyes at Kabul airport. We went into Afghanistan after 67 British citizens were murdered in the 9/11 attacks, and thanks to the success of our armed forces, no terrorist attack has been launched from Afghanistan for 20 years. But now we have been chased from the country by the Taliban, giving encouragement to those who wish us harm, and our counter-terror operation appears to have collapsed.

What can the Foreign Secretary tell us that he is doing to build up the intelligence picture beyond Kabul and share intelligence with international partners? He needs to outline a strategy today for dealing with the new reality in which we find ourselves. What leverage do the Government think, in practical terms, we can exert over the brutal Taliban regime that took power through violence and displaced a democratically elected Government? The regime persecutes women, journalists, LGBT and religious minorities, to name but a few. We should be identifying any leverage we have: freezing the assets of the Afghan Government or central bank that are in UK accounts or financial institutions; developing sanctions with our partners; and making clear the consequences of Afghanistan once again becoming a safe haven for international terrorism.

We are witnessing the absence of leadership. We hold the presidency of the G7, and we are permanent members of the UN Security Council and leading members of NATO, but the Government are behaving as if they have no agency and no power. They were missing in action when it mattered, and have been dragged to the Chamber today to account for the greatest foreign policy crisis of our generation. It should be sobering for the Government that not one single speech has been uncritical of their approach. In the cold, hard light of the catastrophe unfolding in Afghanistan, their approach to the world looks so much less palatable than the global Britain gloss they have tried to coat it with: slashing aid with shameful slogans such as the “giant cash machine” in the sky, which pulled the rug out from under people who relied on us; promising to maintain the size of the armed forces in the election, and then cutting them to their smallest size for 300 years; needlessly, repeatedly, trashing the alliances that we need in the world, and our reputation; deliberately violating international law; and shutting down safe and legal routes to asylum. Who can say now that that is not a shameful decision, given what we are witnessing in Afghanistan?

The decision to withdraw troops did not need to lead to this. I have heard the Foreign Secretary say in recent days that there was no alternative but to leave like this, but that is not true. We could have used the past 18 months to plan our exit and make it clear to the Afghan people that we had no intention of walking away from them or their ongoing aspiration for democracy, but that we would withdraw with care, with planning and with redoubled efforts to be a long-term partner to the Afghan people, even without our troops on the ground. The alternative to a chaotic exit is not endless war, as the Foreign Secretary has tried to argue, but a patient, tireless, pursuit of peace and a Government who have the stamina to commit.

We should be inspired by the troops, aid workers, journalists, photographers, support staff, civilian contractors, armed forces who returned to evacuate people in recent days, diplomatic staff—most of all the ambassador, who has embodied what courage looks like—and those who have remained to help those who are trying to exit. They stand for something important. They stand for a country that feels a deep sense of responsibility to our fellow human beings and believes that when we make promises, we should keep them. They stand for a country that knows that the world beyond our shores shapes the lives of people in villages, towns and cities across this country and that we cannot ever afford to turn away. They are supported, as it turns out, by very many more people than we ever knew.

In every nation and region, people believe that we can be a force for good in the world, and through this awful crisis they have found their voice. They are women’s groups raising the alarm for their brave Afghan counterparts, journalists trying to get Afghan colleagues to safety, and local leaders across this country standing up to welcome refugees. They know it is hard and that we have to be in it for the long haul. They know that it relies on give, not just take, to build friendships and alliances that we can call on in times like this. A Government who were honest with themselves would see that, alongside the United States, we must have a broader set of alliances so that we can operate an independent foreign and security policy again. We should not lecture EU countries to show leadership over refugees, but do that ourselves. We should lead by example with generosity and decency, and step forward when it matters, not go missing when things get tough. A self-confident country is one that goes out with courage and conviction and sheds light, not just might, around the world. That is the light that we showed for two decades in Afghanistan. In short, it is everything that this Government are not.

Today the Foreign Secretary has a choice. He can read out the notes that he holds in front of him, or he could tear them up and tell us the truth. How will we help? How will we repair this? How will we rise to the scale of this challenge and show that we are a serious country again, prepared to engage in the world and to stand up for values, especially when that is hard? He has hours, not days, to make this right with so many Afghan people and to repair our reputation around the world. We have so much to be proud of as a country—can it again include our Government?

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

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

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend perfectly understands what we need to do to restore to this country the advantages of its spectacular marine wealth, and that is exactly what we will do, once we become an independent coastal state. I remind the House and Opposition Members that one party in this House of Commons is committed to not just reversing the will of the people, but handing back control of Scotland’s outstanding marine wealth to Brussels, and that is the Scottish National party—that is what they would do. I look forward to hearing them explain why they continue to support this abject policy and abject surrender.

Under this Bill, this House also regains the authority to set the highest possible standards, and we will take advantage of these new freedoms to legislate in parallel on the environment, and on workers’ and consumers’ rights. I reject the inexplicable fear—

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I give way, with pleasure, as I think the hon. Lady may want to talk about this inexplicable fear.

[Lisa Nandy]

The Prime Minister is right to say that he has won a mandate to get Brexit done, but what he has not earned is the right to shoehorn into this legislation measures that are a direct attack on some of the most vulnerable children in the world. If he thinks that people in towns such as mine, who believe that we should deliver Brexit, want to see us turn our back on decency, tolerance, kindness, warmth and empathy, he is wrong. Will he take these measures about child refugees out of this Bill?

[The Prime Minister]

I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from but, like the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), she is wrong on this point. We remain absolutely committed to ensuring that this country will continue to receive unaccompanied children. We have led Europe and received thousands already—this country has a proud record—and we will continue to do so.

I thought that the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) was going to say that this House would be unable to legislate or regulate on the environment in a way that is superior to the European Union, but that is what we will now be able to do. I reject the idea that our proceedings must somehow be overseen and invigilated by the EU and measured against its benchmarks. The very essence of the opportunity of Brexit is that we will no longer outsource these decisions; with renewed national self-confidence, we will take them ourselves and answer to those who sent us here. It was this Parliament, and this country, that led the whole of Europe and the world in passing the Factory Acts and the clean air Acts of the 19th century, which improved industrial working conditions by law.

This House should never doubt its ability to pioneer standards for the fourth industrial revolution, just as we did for the first.

That epoch-making transformation, as with all the pivotal achievements of British history, reflected the combined national genius of every corner of this United Kingdom. In this new era, our success will once again be achieved as one nation. This new deal in the Bill ensures that the United Kingdom will leave the EU whole and entire, with an unwavering dedication to Northern Ireland’s place in our Union.

Election of Speaker

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2019 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That Sir Lindsay Hoyle do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.

I am delighted to propose someone who has been a great friend, not just to me but for many of us from all parts of the House. When I arrived in this place nearly 10 years ago as a newly elected MP, it was a daunting experience. For those of us who have not spent most of our lives in buildings like these, it can be incredibly overwhelming. As the former Member for North West Durham, Laura Pidcock, said when she arrived, this place reeks of privilege. Finding our confidence and our voice for our constituents takes practice and time, but it also takes friendship and support from other people.

It should be of comfort to all new Members of this House to know that they will find a great friend in our Speaker. With his typical Lancashire warmth, Members will always find his door open for a mug of Yorkshire tea—[Interruption]—and, of course, a Hobnob. A few years ago I was told the story of when Lindsay arrived unannounced, as he often does, in another MP’s office. He sat down and said, “Right, put the kettle on then.” “Yorkshire tea?” said the MP. “Absolutely,” said Lindsay, with enthusiasm, adding, “There are only two good things about Yorkshire: the tea and the M62 taking you back to Lancashire.” [Laughter.] If any Yorkshire MPs would like to change their minds, now is the time, but I am sure they will not, because above all else Lindsay has always been a fair and non-partisan Deputy Speaker, even to those who hail from God’s own country. He knows that to privilege some voices over others is to silence people in our communities up and down the country.

Lindsay can take his lack of partisanship a little bit too far. In 2017, he asked me to come and launch his general election campaign in what was then his marginal constituency of Chorley. It is one junction on the motorway from Wigan to Chorley. I was driving down the motorway and I started to see these enormous billboards looming up out of the distance: great big blue billboards saying, “For a strong and stable Chorley”. I started to panic and thought, “My God, they are targeting this place. Lindsay hasn’t got a hope. I have to get there, motivate his supporters and get people out.” Then, I looked closer, and on these billboards was Lindsay’s face: “Vote Lindsay Hoyle for a strong and stable Chorley”. I think the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) will be pleased to have inspired such mischief. That slogan may not have worked out so well for the other side, but it certainly worked out well for Lindsay, who was returned to this place and became Deputy Speaker again.

Lindsay has always made the effort to work with people and respect people from all sides of the House. Many of us on the Opposition Benches are deeply saddened by the loss from this place of our friend, the former MP for Bolsover, but it is a comfort to know that Lindsay has a cat named Dennis Skinner. The House should be reassured that he never picks sides: he also has a parrot called Boris.

There is a more serious point to make. When we chose Lindsay Hoyle to be our Speaker, someone back home said to me, “I can’t believe that he was allowed to do it.” Wigan and Chorley are right next door to each other, and they are towns where people have felt for a very long time that things are not working for them. Just let that sink in for a moment: “I can’t believe that he was allowed to do it.” What does it say about how people feel in those communities—communities that have just sent shock waves through the political system, many changing hands for the first time in 100 years? What does it say that they see Parliament as a whole as a bastion of privilege, where ordinary people like them cannot wield power?

All of us in the House, whether we have won or lost, have done this place a service by electing to be our face and our voice someone who people many miles distant from here see as one of their own. Many of us in this place have known for some time that the system is not working. I have had those conversations in the Division Lobby and behind closed doors with Members of Parliament from all political parties. We can feel the ground crumbling beneath our feet. We have seen it and we have felt it, and we must give voice to it. That is why I am relieved, proud and honoured to propose that Sir Lindsay Hoyle takes the Chair today.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 1A), That Sir Lindsay Hoyle do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.

Question put and agreed to.

Sir Peter Bottomley left the Chair, and Sir Lindsay Hoyle was conducted to the Chair by Lisa Nandy and Mr Nigel Evans.

[Mr Speaker-Elect]

(standing on the upper step): Before I take the Chair as Speaker-Elect, I wish first to thank the House for the honour that it has again bestowed upon me. I am aware that it is the greatest honour it can give to any of its Members. I pray that I shall justify its continuing confidence and I propose to do all within my power to preserve and to cherish its best traditions.

The Speaker-Elect sat down in the Chair and the Mace was placed upon the Table.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

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

[Jeremy Corbyn]

We are challenging this Bill today and that is the whole point of this debate. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, my party’s policy is that we would negotiate an appropriate deal with the EU and allow the people to make the final decision. This deal leaves open the possibility of the UK crashing out of the EU without a deal by the end of next year.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I do not disagree with what my right hon. Friend said, but does he understand why those of us in seats that voted heavily to leave, and who stood on a manifesto in 2017 that said that we would respect the result of the referendum, feel very strongly that this Bill must be allowed to proceed to Committee so that we can engage in the detail and see whether it is possible to get a Brexit deal that protects our constituents? For many people back home in towns such as Wigan, this is an article of faith in the Labour party and in democracy, and those of us who are seeking to engage in the detail do so not because we will support a Tory Brexit—our votes at Third Reading are by no means secure—but because we want to see if we can improve the deal and keep people’s trust in our democracy.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I also thank her and other colleagues, some of whom represent seats that voted heavily to leave, for their engagement, for the discussions and for the constructive way in which all that has been approached. I do understand the concerns in those constituencies and communities. I know that she supports the principle of a customs union, which the Labour party placed in its manifesto and has restated since. My view is that we should vote against this Bill this evening for the reasons that I have set out. I understand her view that it is possible to amend it in Committee—that is always the process in Parliament—but my recommendation would be to vote against this Bill. However, I understand and respect the way in which she has approached this and the way in which she represents her community and her constituency. She will join me in being pretty alarmed at the stress that the manufacturing industry is under at the moment. If we do not have a customs union, manufacturing in this country will be seriously under threat.

Brexit Readiness: Operation Yellowhammer

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

It is my understanding that if we have both fresh fish and fresh shellfish, and also, as it happens—I shall explain the circumstances—day-old chicks crossing the border, there are about 70 lorries daily. Those lorries will be prioritised when they arrive at Calais on a specific route to take them to Boulogne-sur-Mer, where a border inspection post will be in place, and if they have the appropriate documentation, the products can be sold so that French consumers can continue to enjoy them.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

The Minister said that there would be specific measures put in place at many of the ports. The Yellowhammer report said that there would be limited disruption at ports outside Dover and Calais. In today’s Financial Times a report from the Department for Transport reveals why: the Government believe that two thirds of vehicles will not be compliant with the new checks. The right hon. Gentleman has already acknowledged that Portsmouth, in particular, is critical to the import of medicines from across the EU. Can he tell us why he believes that medical supplies and medicines will not be disrupted in the event of a no-deal Brexit? Will he publish those assumptions in full so that I can look my constituents in the eye and tell them that in just a few weeks’ time they will still have access to life-saving medicines?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point. I would want to stress two things. First, we are currently stress-testing the figure for the degree of readiness. It relies on several calculations. In the past, those figures have been signed off by the Office for National Statistics, but we are testing some of the propositions.

[Lisa Nandy]

Will you publish the assumptions?

[Michael Gove]

When we are confident that those figures are accurate, of course we will publish and share them. More broadly, I want to emphasise to the hon. Lady that it is not just through the short straits, but through other ports, including Portsmouth, that we will be bringing in the medicines and other commodities we require.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I came to this debate as much to listen as to contribute, and I am very glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who, in a very rare way in these debates over the past few years, has set out a way in which we might move forward. That may not be comfortable for her and these may not all be her preferred options, but it shows a willingness to listen, to compromise and to move, which has been pretty absent, if we are honest, from this debate so far.

The attitudes out there in the country are hardening. Constituents of mine who told me three years ago that they voted leave and that they were happy to leave on whatever terms Parliament deemed necessary, as long as we respected the result, are now telling me daily that they want to cut all ties and leave with no deal at all. Constituents who voted to remain and who said that we had had the debate, that the other side had won fair and square and that we just had to get on with it are now telling me that they want to halt the process altogether and remain in the EU. Having spent a lot of time with colleagues trying to find a way through this in here and behind the scenes over the past few weeks, I feel that exactly the same thing is happening in Parliament. If we do not start to move, they will not start to move and there is absolutely no prospect of repairing this country.

That is why I very much welcome what the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) has done with the amendment, particularly the way in which he presented it. He is not seeking to control the outcome of this process. He is not seeking to do what many of his colleagues on each extreme of this debate have done for several years, which is to knock out any preferred option that is not theirs and undermine any of us who are trying to find a solution by questioning our good faith, intentions and motives.

As somebody who represents a constituency where two thirds of people voted to leave—they did so largely in full knowledge of what they were doing and still feel strongly about it—but where a third of people also voted to remain and have every bit as much of a stake in the future of this country as the rest, I have to say that that bad faith is operating on both sides of this debate. Those threats and the abuse are coming from both sides. I and many hon. Members face them daily, and to seek to pretend, as some Members just did in this debate, that it comes only from one side is quite simply not true. It is insulting and it will not stick.

I am very dismayed today about the Government’s position. I do not think that Ministers understand how little trust there is left. As we stand here in this Chamber, right now—according to lobby journalists who are briefing things out over social media—the Government are sitting in closed rooms trying to persuade Members on their own side to vote down this amendment in favour of guarantees. We have been here before. Time and again, they come to the Dispatch Box and they tell us they are serious. They tell us they are listening and that the House must make a decision, and then, when we get up and speak with one voice about what we want, they say, “Okay, we will go away and think about it.” They make some promises and pick off Members on their own side, and then, lo and behold, where are those promises when they most count? They are nowhere to be seen.

Given the mess that has been created in this country, what is wrong, honestly, with giving Parliament the right to consider the options that we want to put forward? We speak for very different communities in this country. When the Government seek to deny us a voice, they are not denying me a voice—who cares whether I have a voice?—they are denying the 75,000 people I represent in Wigan a voice and all other hon. Members besides.

I say to both Front-Bench teams that if we are to consider the options in good faith, given the very different needs and priorities of constituencies, a free vote has to be offered on those options. I understand the discomfort. I have served in the shadow Cabinet. It is not an easy thing to do, but when we have this strength of feeling and these very divergent views and experiences across the country, all those have to be heard if we are going to find a way through this.

I say to Ministers, too, that almost entirely absent now is not just the trust, but the good will. Last week, I could not believe what I was seeing when the Prime Minister took to the steps of Downing Street and tried to pit the people against Parliament. The public follow our lead. When we stand in here using language such as “betrayal” and “traitors”, is it any surprise that we step outside and find that same language levelled back at us? If she wants to restore good will, the first thing that she must do is apologise to Members of this House, who are all, in our very different ways and positions, trying to find a way through this in good faith. She must rule out no deal.

We will not believe that the Prime Minister is serious about the interests of the country if she is not—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) is asking me why. Last week, I had a constituent on the phone whose son was in line for a clinical trial in the European Union that could save his life. They do not know now whether he will get it. This is a child who has no certainty about what is going to happen next. I have a constituent who is on dialysis, who rang me to say that she has been told to expect some disruption in the event of no deal. When I went to a Minister to ask what the advice was, he said, “We are doing our best, but we cannot make any guarantees.” My sister is diabetic and has not slept for months because she does not know whether she will be able to access insulin. People can accuse me of scaremongering all they like, but the Government’s technical notice cannot tell us what will happen in the event of a no-deal Brexit. What sort of Government cannot guarantee access to medicines in just a week’s time?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Chris Heaton-Harris)]

I make the point gently that there was a written ministerial statement that did make those guarantees only three weeks ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

And I can tell the Minister that I was here on Monday when we were debating plans to allow pharmacists to limit access to medication in the event of no deal in just a few weeks’ time. I went to my local pharmacist and had a conversation with him a couple of days later and he had never heard anything about it, so to pretend that this is a responsible course of action is, frankly, a disgrace. The Minister can roll his eyes at me all he likes, but this is an absolute disgrace. The Government have driven this country to the brink and they are not learning. Every Member sitting in this House right now will look at that Minister sitting on that Bench and realise that this is a Government who are not serious about safeguarding the welfare of their citizens.

I will finish with this point, because I know that many Members are desperate to speak. In the next stages, if we get to them—if this shabby Government somehow manage to cobble together a majority for the withdrawal agreement and get us into the next stages—I would just say to hon. Members: look at what we have just witnessed in this House. Do not trust that they are acting with the interests of the whole country in mind. This House has no guaranteed role in those next stages of negotiations. If we do not insist on that right now, we will not get it.

For four months, I have been talking to the Prime Minister and to Government Members about giving Parliament the right to set out the terms of the negotiating mandate in the next stages and to guarantee a vote about the future relationship at the end of that process. They have resisted that. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and I will be bringing forward an amendment on that when the meaningful vote materialises, because we have to have a reset. If we are going to get to the next stages of those discussions, that discussion has to involve every single part of this House. We cannot allow the Prime Minister, whoever he or she may be by that point, to go off and negotiate away our rights, freedoms and protections that have been hard fought for for 100 years without any say in it.

This has become a tug of war between two groups of people who I know, from speaking to them every day in my constituency, are quite reasonable people who want this resolved. We are breaking our democracy. I commend the right hon. Member for West Dorset for tabling amendment (a) because he is seeking a way to bring the House together, to compromise and to find a way through this impasse. We as a House have to rise to the occasion, because, my God, I have just seen a perfect example from the Government Benches of why they are not capable of doing it.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

It was embarrassing to be part of the pantomime that started this debate earlier and that could not contrast more with the levels of anxiety that I hear out there in the country whenever I am allowed to go home. These debates have largely generated far more heat than light, and I have been glad to hear many Members, in the debate that has ensued, recognise that we are breaking our democracy. We urgently have to build common ground. That is why amendment (f) in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), which seeks to narrow down the options with a series of indicative votes, is an incredibly helpful suggestion. So, too, is amendment (h) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), along with myself and many others, proposing a citizens’ assembly. This has been used as a mechanism in many other countries, including Ireland, to break similarly controversial deadlocks.

The importance of amendment (h) is that the 46 MPs who are signatory to it come from all different Brexit positions and none. That proves that there are a number of us in this House who are willing to step out of the trenches and start to compromise. This matters because HOPE not hate produced a report today that clearly shows that attitudes around the country are hardening and people’s willingness to compromise is being reduced. We are seeing fear, anger and a rise in activity from the far right in that fertile ground in a way that I have not seen since I was growing up as a child in the 1980s.

It is astonishing that the Prime Minister came here today still talking to the House as if she can have it both ways. She told my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) that she is seeking to strengthen workers’ rights, but then she told this House that she is backing the Baker plan, which on page 31 junks the non-regression clause and seeks to dilute existing employment rights protections. The Prime Minister seems determined to tilt right and try to get this through with a small group of hard Brexiteers in her own party, but how does she honestly think that she is going to maintain that fragile coalition all the way through the legislation that will be required to pass this?

That is why, reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that today I will support amendment (b) in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). That is not because I think that extending article 50 to the end of the year is by any means sustainable; it is not and the public will not accept it. They will not forgive us if we go over the summer and try to re-elect MEPs to a Parliament that we were supposed to have left three months before.

There is not enough understanding in this House of how little trust there is that we mean what we say when we say we respect the result of the referendum, and we cannot afford to kick the can down the road any longer. But this amendment is now the only mechanism that this House has to try to avoid a no-deal scenario and to start making real decisions about how we are going to respect the result of the referendum, protect jobs and heal this divided country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Electoral Commission Investigation: Vote Leave

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, I do. That is exactly my view. Investigations should also be done by an independent organisation that is given the space and time to conclude its work.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I never thought that I would see the day when a Government Minister would come to this House and seek to downplay one of the most serious attacks on our democracy in history. This is not just about overspending, as important as that is. This is about dark money, foreign interference in our democracy and serious misuse of data. The Government must commit to a full, police-led investigation of all aspects of this matter. I suspect that I know why the Minister will not commit to that; there are at least four sitting members of her Cabinet who are not here today, but who served on the campaign committee for the organisation in question. That is even more reason why the Government must now stand up for our democracy and against its abuse.

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Lady is quite seriously misrepresenting my words. What I have said today is that these are very serious matters. I have agreed with all right hon. and hon. Members around the House who say that this matters and that it is serious. That is precisely my point. The hon. Lady went on to say that this matter ought to be the subject of a police investigation. It is. Individuals from this investigation are also being investigated by the police. The hon. Lady also said that this is—

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that we are indeed committed. We have given that commitment—we gave it in the December joint report and we have given it in the negotiating stage that was completed last week—to ensure that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and also to ensure that businesses in Northern Ireland can continue to trade freely with the rest of the United Kingdom and vice versa. We are working to ensure that we have tariff-free trade and trade that is as frictionless as possible. As I am sure he will know, trade between the UK and the EU is not completely frictionless today, but we will ensure that trade is as frictionless as possible in the future. We have put forward proposals and we have started discussing them in detail with the European Commission, and I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that the Home Secretary and others are taking the steps necessary to ensure that we have the arrangements in place for when we come to the end of the implementation period.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

It has been four weeks since the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse published a damning report about the treatment of British children sent overseas by their Government. They were physically, sexually and emotionally abused, separated from siblings and wrongly told that their families were dead. Successive Governments supressed information, ignored warnings and continued to send children to harm for decades. The report is unequivocal that compensation is owed and that this is now urgent. Many have died and others are dying, but in the last four weeks the Government have failed to issue a response, to set out any timetable for a response or even to agree which Department is responsible for formulating a response. The Prime Minister commissioned this report. Will she now get a grip on her Government, stand by its verdict and ensure that no more have to die waiting for justice?

[The Prime Minister]

I did indeed commission the work that is being done in looking at the treatment of children and the abuse of children in the past. I think that that was important. I said at the time that I thought that many people would be shocked by some of the results, including, obviously, the issue of former child migrants to which the hon. Lady has referred.

I can confirm that the Department of Health and Social Care is responsible for policy on former child migrants. As the hon. Lady will know, we have funded the Child Migrants Trust since 1990 so that it can expand its work in seeking resolution for former child migrants and their families. It has received more than £7 million, and in the 1990s we provided £1 million for travel to help former child migrants to be reunited with their families. At the time of the Government’s formal national apology to former child migrants in 2010, an £8 million family restoration fund was established.

Prime Minister

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I am happy to join my right hon. Friend in doing that. It is important. I think that everybody across this House will wish those talks well and hope that they will have a successful conclusion.

Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)

- Hansard -

Q14. It has been two years since the Prime Minister set up the child abuse inquiry, which is now on to its fourth chair, and last week the outgoing chair said that it had become inherently unmanageable. Given that the Prime Minister appointed Dame Lowell Goddard to her position, will she insist that she come before this House to explain herself? Surely child abuse survivors deserve an explanation. (906352)

The Prime Minister

- Hansard - - Excerpts

On the process point, it is not for the Prime Minister to insist who attends before a Committee of this House. I understand that Dame Lowell Goddard has been invited to attend the Committee. I think that the hon. Lady and I share, as do many hon. Members across this House, a desire to see the issues of these appalling crimes of child abuse being properly looked into. That is important. Dame Lowell Goddard has set up the inquiry and the truth project. Many aspects of it are already in place and operating, and I am very pleased that Alexis Jay has taken on the role of chairman of the inquiry. She chaired the Rotherham work, and I think that she will do this work extremely well and we will have answers to questions that so many have been asking for so long.