Leaving the European Union

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Tom Brake

Monday 19th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing forward this debate and allowing us to consider, with only months to go, what the impact of a no-deal Brexit would be on this country. I have to admit that, in eight years in Parliament, I have never been more worried—not just about the potential impact on this country, but about the state of British politics and our apparent inability to listen to one another, to work constructively together and to find a way out of this mess.

Although I understand the passion and sincerity with which people have conducted themselves, this debate has drawn attention to many of the reasons why we are unable to find a way through this mess: entrenched positions, more talking than listening, and the repeated use by a number of people of the word “betrayal”, which only a few years ago was reserved for people on the far right but now seems to be part of our modern lexicon, with hugely damaging results. Our political debate has become angry, divisive and violent at the exact time that we should be taking a lead in trying to calm this down.

It is in that spirit that I congratulate the young man, Ciaran O’Doherty, for the way he has put together and presented this petition, because the real human implications of what we potentially are about to do to people like him must be heard and considered by all of us. Should Parliament not reach agreement either on this withdrawal agreement or on an alternative course of action in a few months’ time, and if the Government do not sit up, listen and take action, we will leave without a deal. I share the view of many colleagues who have spoken today: that would be an absolute disaster for this country.

I am really concerned to hear—from Opposition Members as well as Government Members—the idea that a no-deal Brexit is a political hoax. I share the view of the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) that many of the people who are pushing the idea that no deal would not be a problem or that, somehow, it cannot happen are incredibly protected from the impact of those decisions. They are wealthier and more privileged, have more access to power in all its forms, and have options for what they and their families do next. I want to put on record that for the vast majority of people whom I represent, the situation is much more terrifying than that. For all the anger and bluster in Parliament, the thing I hear most from my constituents as we approach the deadline in March 2019 is genuine anxiety about what will happen to them, their jobs and their children’s future.

As this debate becomes angrier and angrier as we get closer to the deadline, and as we continue to talk past one another and to lecture one another about what is in the moral interest of this country, I say to colleagues who make a very passionate case for a second referendum that my in-box in Wigan is filling up with messages from people who tell me that they voted leave, that they want the result to be respected, and they now want no deal at all with the European Union. That is a much stronger assertion even than just a few months ago, when it felt like the debate was starting to calm down. The debate has become angrier, and those people have decided that they want to raise their voices loudly at this time and set us on a disastrous course for them, their families and my community, because they feel that that small bit of control that they exerted two and half years ago is in danger of being taken away.

To my colleagues who sincerely and passionately make the case for a second referendum, I say that that is only part of the solution. If they genuinely want to heal the divisions in this country and provide a sustainable future, this cannot be a tug of war between two groups of people who cannot co-exist. Democracy is not the tyranny of the majority; the 48% and the 52% must be heard. This is their country, and the future must belong to both groups.

[Tom Brake]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady welcomes the fact that those people involved in the people’s vote campaign, which includes Members from all political parties apart from the DUP, are actively working to draw up an offer that would address the legitimate concerns that leave voters had? Should we get into a people’s vote campaign, we can then say that these are the things that we would do to address some of the key concerns that people who voted leave had—it would not address all concerns—about things such as investment in infrastructure, skills, training and quality jobs.

[Lisa Nandy]

Having had some quite tough words for people making that case, it is right to acknowledge how positive that contribution is and how important that work is. I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that if the starting point for a campaign is that “you are wrong, and we are right”, it is very unlikely to get a hearing. I can see some hon. Members shaking their head, and I accept that there are different nuances to that campaign. I accept that there are activists and spokespeople for the campaign who do not take that approach, but some of the right hon. Gentleman’s leading advocates and spokespeople take that exact approach and have spent two and half years telling 52% of the country that they have betrayed a generation and that they are wrong.

It is with sadness rather than anger that I say that it is not going to work. It will not provide a sustainable future for this country, just as the words of the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) do not provide any comfort or reassurance to the 48% of people, including a number of her own constituents, who voted remain and who feel passionately that the future is being taken away from them and their children.

I want to turn my attention to a no-deal outcome, because it is increasingly likely that that will be the default option as we approach March 2019 and as we prove unable to agree on an alternative course of action. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on the impact that this would have, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) as well. The businesses in my constituency that will be most affected by this, by tariffs and by problems at borders are, like his, not the big companies—for example, the Heinz factory that employs 1,200 people in my constituency and more in the supply chain—because they have the ability to plan for what comes next and have been doing contingency planning for some time. They have political clout: should there be queues at lorry parks, they will be able to get their products through. The hardest hit will be the smaller companies that have perishable goods and do not have the clout and contingency funds, such as the Kings Quality Foods meat production company in my constituency. I agree with the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington that many of these very good companies will go under if we do not take action now to prevent a no-deal Brexit.

On the way down here last week, I was stopped at the train station in my Wigan constituency by a mum whose son has a life-limiting illness: Duchenne muscular dystrophy. That young boy, Jack, has become extremely well-known in Wigan. His parents have founded a charity called Joining Jack and have been campaigning for a cure. There is no cure as yet, but there is medication that can delay the degenerative effects of this horrible, cruel illness. She is desperately worried about what is about to happen; like many families around the country, they are discussing stockpiling medicine. Every dose that that young boy misses knocks weeks off his life. Conservative Members on the hard end of Tory Brexit are playing serious, high-stakes poker with people’s lives, and we should be concerned about how to stop it.

I am also concerned about food. Some 30% of our food comes from the EU, and many of my constituents, like those of many other hon. Members, are already accessing food banks because they cannot afford food prices. What do we do when inflation and the price of food goes up as the value of the pound falls?

Like Ciaran, I am concerned about the impact of what we are doing to Ireland and Northern Ireland. It is often called “the Ireland problem”, but as they rightly keep telling us, it is a problem that we created for them. I was serving in the shadow Cabinet in the run-up to the referendum, and I spent months going around the country, mostly in northern towns, trying to convince people that remain was the best option. Apart from the times when we raised it, the issue of Northern Ireland and the border came up only once. Here we are with just days to go until we leave the European Union, and it seems that there is a group of people who think that that is not an issue. Ciaran can tell them that it absolutely is.

There are profound questions to ask about the implications for energy and our pensions. We ought to work together to ensure we have the legal tools available to prevent the outcome of no deal.

[Lisa Nandy]

I could not agree more. As we approach Brexit, far too many people are making false promises or are being far too complacent about the potential impact of what we are going to do. I have spent time talking to our counterparts who are about to bear the brunt of it. They know the cost of it, and we should too.

Still now, given everything we know about what is about to hit us, the Government are refusing to be honest. I say this to the Minister as somebody who indicated from the outset that I was prepared to consider the Government’s withdrawal agreement—I have read every page of it and the seven-page political statement that goes alongside it. They cannot ask Members of Parliament like me, who are prepared to put the country’s interests first, to vote for a withdrawal agreement while withholding information about what its impact will be.

The Minister will not tell us what the economic impact is of the various options available—no deal, this deal or remaining in the EU. That is one of the reasons why I and almost every single Member of Parliament in this Chamber support the amendment to the Finance Bill that would force the Government to reveal that information, which we will vote on later. Why should we have to drag the Government to the House and force them to reveal information that should have been ours by right? The Government have no right to withhold that information from the people and Parliament. We are about to embark on a course of action that could be destructive to this country, so the Government have a duty and a responsibility to put that information before the House.

[Tom Brake]

Like the hon. Lady, perhaps I can speculate on the reason why the Government are seeking to withhold this information. Is it not simply because they will be extremely embarrassed when it confirms that the Prime Minister’s deal, no deal, Canada plus plus plus, Norway minus minus minus, or whatever else, is worse economically than staying in the European Union? That is why they do not want the information out there.

[Lisa Nandy]

The difficulty is that we do not know, and we should know. It is our right to know. More importantly, the people we represent have a right to know before we potentially embark on a course of action that could be deeply destructive to their lives in the ways I outlined a moment ago.

The state of this debate is an absolute disgrace. It needs to be reset with honesty and clarity. That begins with the Government setting out their plan B to avoid a no-deal Brexit if, as seems likely, the withdrawal deal does not secure the consent of the House. What legal advice have the Government had about the mechanism to revoke article 50? Without knowing that, we do not even know whether there is a clear route to prevent no deal at all. What discussions have they had with the EU about extending article 50? Is there a willingness to do so? Do they intend to do so if this deal does not succeed?

The lesson that should have been learned in the past two and a half years is not only that we should have done the referendum differently but that we need a completely different approach to the way we have done politics over the past two and a half years. We have collectively let this country down with the angry shouts of betrayal and the inability to listen to people who do not share our point of view. The only mandate that came out of that very divisive referendum was for compromise. That is what the House of Commons needs to start doing now.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Tom Brake

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that I have not finished commenting on special advisers, so perhaps I should pursue that. There might be further interventions, but let us wait and see.

Special advisers are defined by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which includes the requirement that they are a person

“appointed to assist a Minister of the Crown after being selected for the appointment by that Minister personally”.

The Act also provides for a statutory code for special advisers that makes it clear that they may not authorise the expenditure of public funds, exercise any power in relation to the management of any part of the civil service of the state or otherwise exercise any statutory or prerogative power.

As the code makes clear, the employment of special advisers adds a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers. They are an additional resource for the Minister, providing assistance from a standpoint that is more politically committed and politically aware than would be available from the permanent civil service. I must restate this: unlike a Minister or permanent secretary, a special adviser is not a decision maker, even if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) says, they are attached to the Minister’s hip. We are aware, however, that there are those in this House who agree—[Interruption.] Members need to listen.

We are aware that some Members agree with the conclusion of the House of Lords that communications with special advisers should be captured. Indeed, many Liberal Democrat peers and Members of Parliament agree that they should be captured, but no amendments were tabled to extend the scope of the register in such a way when the issue was discussed in this House. In the House of Lords, Lord Tyler’s amendment was agreed to, but by a small majority.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Can the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that Lynton Crosby would be covered both by the code of conduct and the amendment that the Government have tabled today?

[Tom Brake]

That matter has been raised on a number of occasions. If he were involved in a firm of consultant lobbyists, absolutely, he would have to register as a consultant lobbyist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend, who has long been a champion of that sector, is absolutely correct. She shares my bewilderment at the Government’s target in the Bill.

As Lord Tyler made clear when the Bill was considered in another place,

“two of the big lobbying scandals in this Parliament… would probably never have got to this stage had encounters between close ministerial advisers and outside groups been a matter of public record.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 29.]

There are 98 special advisers across Whitehall but, as we have learnt through the dialogue with the Deputy Leader of the House today, there are many others who are considered to be advisers and are, like special advisers, the first, if not the only, port of call for lobbyists. As was said earlier, the process of arriving at decision making matters as much as the decision itself.

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Lady is obviously a strong advocate of transparency. One of the things that the Government have asked the Opposition to do, in the interests of transparency, is make available information on meetings that shadow Ministers have. Is that something they will do?

[Lisa Nandy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that question, because it gives me an opportunity to say that, unlike the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives when they were in opposition, we publish details of meetings on a regular basis. In fact, we are the most transparent Opposition ever. I find it absolutely astonishing that, three and a half years after the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, made a commitment to shine a spotlight on the shadowy world of lobbying, the Government have climbed down on all the measures that we have been urging them to accept and the only thing that they can do is challenge us on our shadow ministerial diaries. The Deputy Leader of the House’s own argument was that the Government are responsible for making decisions. My point to him is that the Government are responsible for making decisions, and for the process by which they are made. We would like the measures that we have proposed to be put into the Bill. We can still see no good reason why the Government are resisting those calls.

The issue of special advisers is so important to the House because of the decision that we are being asked to make in less than an hour. I would like to ask the Deputy Leader of the House a series of questions that I have come up with in the last two hours, since the Government decided to table their somewhat bizarre and obscure amendments. First—I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)—what is the difference between what they have tabled and the amendment proposed in the other place? The answer to my hon. Friend appeared to be that the Government are simply kicking it into the long grass. Will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that that is the case? Is this a guarantee that it will happen? The Government amendment states that the Government “may amend regulations”. Why use “may”?

The Deputy Leader of the House said that there was a need to reach consensus. I can tell him, because, unlike the Government, I have been listening to the clamour outside this place, that there is consensus. In fact, the only people who do not appear to have reached consensus on the issue are sitting on the Government Front Bench. If he looks behind him, I think he will find that many Government Members are as concerned as we are. Are Ministers planning to introduce the proposed measure in regulation? Do they have a time frame for doing so? Why is it not being introduced now? What are the Government worried about? We urgently need to clear up the lack of understanding about the definition of special adviser.

The Government’s amendments refer to the definition in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. I asked the Deputy Leader of the House whether Lynton Crosby would be covered by that. Would it cover Adam Smith, Adam Werritty or any other Government adviser who has been involved in the plethora of scandals in recent years? [Interruption.] The Leader of the House is shaking his head and muttering under his breath. I can tell him that this matters not only to Members of the House, but to people outside this place. He will know that because he will have received hundreds of e-mails about the Bill from constituents, as we all have.

My reading of the amendment is that Lynton Crosby would not be covered, because he does not adhere to the special advisers code of conduct. If that is correct, it is a disgrace. The Deputy Leader of the House, in answer to an earlier question, did not seem at all clear about who was covered by his own amendment. I am not surprised, because it was made available to us only at 11 o’clock this morning, and he expects us to vote on it shortly.

The Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee asked about senior civil servants. If Ministers are conceding—I am still not sure if they are—that the requirements in the clause can be extended to special advisers, they can also be extended to senior civil servants. It is fairly obvious that permanent secretaries are rarely lobbied, whereas senior civil servants and special advisers are. Ministers do not have to believe me; they can listen to the deputy chair of the Association of Professional Political Consultants, Iain Anderson, who said:

“The vast majority of lobbying is not about meeting Ministers or permanent secretaries”.

The TUC, Spinwatch and other lobbyist groups have made the same point. The truth is that there is no reason at all not to support the sensible amendment tabled by the Chair of the Select Committee.

The Prime Minister used to be fond of quoting US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Perhaps he ought to reflect on something else Mr Justice Brandeis said:

“People who feel uncomfortable under the bright light of scrutiny and criticism often have something to hide.”

Are the Government afraid of challenge? Let us consider the evidence: the right to challenge cut back through legal aid restrictions, employment tribunal fees and restrictions on migrant appeal rights; an Education Secretary who is fighting the Information Commissioner tooth and nail to block information from the public domain; and a scandal involving the use of private e-mail accounts at the heart of the Department for Education. Only this week Downing street refused to reveal how many guests were hosted at Chequers. The Prime Minister released a partial list that excluded special advisers, officials and, it seems, Conservative party donors. Without the amendment tabled by the Chair of the Select Committee and the important change on special advisers made in the other place, the Bill will do absolutely nothing to increase the transparency of lobbying.

During the 47 minutes of the Deputy Leader of the House’s speech, the only reason that I could understand for why he objects to that sensible measure is his claim that it would impose additional costs and bureaucracy. I simply do not understand how the Government have the nerve to talk about costs and bureaucracy when they are placing unnecessarily restrictive, expensive and onerous burdens on charities, grass-roots campaigners and trade unions, who are the lifeblood of democratic debate in this country.