Ministerial Code

Debate between Michael Gove and Wes Streeting

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. It was the case, entirely legitimately and appropriately, that Opposition Members were criticising us for the slow procurement of PPE, and that the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) wrote to me to encourage us to go faster and made a number of suggestions about companies that we should follow up, which we did. Now the allegation is that, when political figures pressed us to procure PPE more quickly for those at the frontline, that was a mistake. Either Labour’s position last spring was wrong, or its position now is wrong; they both cannot be right.

May I conclude by wishing my hon. Friend a happy birthday? It is, I understand, a very significant date, but the Official Secrets Act forbids me from revealing how significant.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

We all know that the delay in locking down the country in lockdown one, lockdown two and lockdown three led to a higher toll in both lives and livelihoods. What I do not think anyone expected was to read on the front page of the Daily Mail today that the Prime Minister had said:

“Let the bodies pile high in their thousands.”

The claim has been subsequently verified independently by other journalists. The Minister takes statements that he makes at the Dispatch Box more seriously than the Prime Minister does, so may I ask him again to be absolutely categorical that he has never heard the Prime Minister say those words, that the Prime Minister did not say those words, and that, prior to arriving in the House this afternoon, he received assurances from the Prime Minister that he did not use those words? Can he be absolutely clear, straightforward and honest about that?

[Michael Gove]

Totally. As I pointed out earlier in response to the question from, I think, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), I had been in a meeting in the Cabinet Room with the Prime Minister. I would not ordinarily go into discussions that take place in Cabinet Committees, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman will well understand, but I never heard the Prime Minister say any such a thing. We were all wrestling with an incredibly difficult decision—the decision to lock down necessarily imposes costs in other ways, as we are all aware. The Prime Minister concluded at the end of our discussion, which was a sober, serious and detailed discussion, that it was necessary not only to have that second lockdown but, sadly, to have a third lockdown as well.

EU Exit: End of Transition Period

Debate between Michael Gove and Wes Streeting

Monday 13th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who does a brilliant job standing up for his constituents. It is not the case that any specific site has been absolutely confirmed. We are in commercial negotiations with a number of sites, and as and when they are confirmed I will let him know. It is also the case, as he rightly points out, that some of the infrastructure will be temporary and some will be permanent. May I extend to him and to all Kent Members of Parliament an opportunity to come into the Cabinet Office to discuss with me and officials the approach that we are taking? I hope that I can provide him and other colleagues with reassurance in that process.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

There are five and a half months to go and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster still cannot even confirm the site. Will he at least reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who asked specifically whether there will be checks at the lorry park on goods moving to the European continent and coming into the UK? My right hon. Friend also asked—this goes to the heart of the concern raised by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green)—whether the lorry park will be operational along with the goods vehicle movement service IT system by the end of the year. Can the right hon. Gentleman at least give us that assurance?

[Michael Gove]

It is the case that the GVMS will be in place, as all the systems will, so that we can have a fully operational border, and of course the additional infrastructure—the £705 million that we have announced today will ensure that it is in place in time—will be there specifically to ensure that when vehicles arrive in Calais they have passed through all the necessary checks and can then proceed smoothly to market.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Gove and Wes Streeting

Monday 4th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Yes, of course. We have been working with 11 new potential, or existing potential, suppliers, but more than 5,000 businesses have been involved, offering to provide services, because, of course, when producing a complex machine such as a ventilator, we need to make sure that we source everything from the appropriate batteries, the appropriate valves and the appropriate other technology. As I say, 5,000 businesses, including Rolls-Royce, have been involved in the manufacture.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

What assessment he has made of the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on the Government’s ability to implement and apply the withdrawal agreement by 31 December 2020.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)]

From 20 to 24 April, a full and constructive negotiating round took place, with a full range of discussions across all workstreams. Our next scheduled round of talks with our EU friends will take place in the week beginning 11 May.

[Wes Streeting]

Everyone will understand that we have left the European Union and everyone will understand that the impact of covid-19 might have an impact on the timetable for negotiating our future relationship, so why will the Minister not give businesses the reassurance they need that if the Government need more time, they will take more time? Is it dogma; is it vanity; or is it paranoia?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman provides a helpful list of conditions, but it is none of those. It is plain prudence. Were we to perpetuate our membership of the European Union-lite through the transition period, we would end up spending more taxpayers’ money, which could be spent on the NHS. We would have to accept new EU rules that might constrain our ability to fight covid-19 and to deal with other crises, and we would, of course, be unfortunately and unfairly trespassing on the EU’s need to concentrate on other vital priorities.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Michael Gove and Wes Streeting

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). My speech will follow in a similar vein, except to say that it is the duty of every Member of this House to do what they believe to be in their good conscience. Whether that is supporting or opposing the Bill, I will respect each and every Member for the decision that they reach.

This is a speech that I had certainly hoped not to make, in a debate that I had hoped would not be necessary. I made my maiden speech in this House on Second Reading of the European Union Referendum Bill. I believe today, just as I believed then, that Britain would be stronger, safer and better off inside the European Union. I made that case on the doorstep in my constituency, in print, on the airwaves, in the Treasury Committee and in the Chamber. I have heard many powerful speeches today, particularly from my right hon. and hon. Friends, reminding me of why I made that case, but ultimately we must accept that the moment to make those arguments was during the referendum campaign, and we lost the debate throughout the country.

In the immediate aftermath of the referendum, I told my constituents that I would honour the result and hold the Government to account to secure the best possible deal for our country outside the European Union. That remains my intention today on a point of democratic principle. I have reflected deeply on the consequences of the decision taken on 23 June, and on what it means for our economy and our security, on what it says about how we see ourselves and our place in the world, and on how difficult it will be to extract ourselves from one of the most sophisticated and successful political and economic alliances in the history of the world, but I have also reflected on the consequences of what would happen if this Parliament overturned the result of a referendum in which a clear choice was offered and a clear verdict was given.

We sometimes underestimate in this place the extent to which this Parliament operates in the context of a political crisis—a crisis of faith and trust in politics and politicians. Across western democracies, we are already witnessing the consequences of what happens when people abandon their faith in mainstream politics to deliver. At a time when liberal democracy feels so fragile and precious, it is hard to overstate the damage that this Parliament would inflict on our democracy were we to reject the outcome of a referendum in which 33.5 million people voted.

This was not an advisory referendum. None of us went to the door asking for advice. We warned of the consequences of leaving, and the majority of voters and the majority of constituencies voted leave with the clear expectation that that would actually happen. I say very simply to those lobbying Parliament to ignore the result, “My heart is absolutely with you, if only that were possible.” Let us be honest with ourselves and with each other: if the vote had gone the other way, we would have expected Parliament to abide by the result.

Just as those of us on the remain side must abide by the decision of the people, so must the victors. Many promises were made during the referendum campaign, so it might be just as well that so many of the leave campaign’s leading lights find themselves around the Cabinet table, well placed to deliver on their promises. Just as Brexit means Brexit, so too does £350 million a week to the NHS mean £350 million a week to the NHS. The right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) said £100 million a week, so perhaps he would like to intervene so that he can address that point. Is it £350 million a week or £100 million a week?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman is making a great speech—I am a huge admirer of his—but I ask him to show fidelity to the record. We actually give more than £350 million every week to the EU. We said that we should take back control of that money and spend it on our priorities. Specifically during the campaign, I argued that £100 million be spent on the NHS. If he wants to be economical with the actualité, that is for him, but fidelity to the record matters.

[Wes Streeting]

That contribution was rather too long to fit on the back of a bus. Leave campaigners do not like being reminded of this promise and they come up with every excuse they can find, but if people were promised a vote to leave and that is what we deliver, the additional funding for the NHS that they were promised should be delivered, too. The NHS message was one of the most prominent slogans of the campaign. It was particularly persuasive to Labour voters and NHS workers, and they expect the promise to be delivered. A heavy weight of responsibility rests on the shoulders of our Prime Minister as she embarks on negotiations that lie ahead. Some of those great enthusiasts for parliamentary sovereignty during the referendum campaign seem to have gone off the idea now that this Parliament demands a role in shaping the future of our country, but we should absolutely shape the future of our country in the interests of not the 52% or the 48%, but the 100% of people whose interests are riding on the success of these negotiations.

Our priority should be protecting jobs and living standards, and the Prime Minister needs to do a hell of a lot better than a bad deal or no deal. No deal is a bad deal. People value our trading relationship with Europe and they were promised that our position in the single market would not be threatened. That is why I have tabled an amendment that would allow Parliament to debate our future relationship with the single market. The Prime Minister has a mandate to leave the European Union. She does not have a mandate to take us out of the single market or to drive our economy off a cliff.

The Prime Minister must maintain Britain’s strong global role and our co-operation with our European partners on defence and security, preventing international terrorism, tackling climate change, supporting science and innovation, and promoting democracy and human rights across the world. She has a duty to safeguard the rights and protections of Brits abroad, and a moral duty to the many EU citizens who have contributed enormously to the success of our country over many years. She also has a duty to this Parliament. It would be totally unacceptable—in fact it would be an outrage—if every other Parliament across the European Union, including the European Parliament, got to vote on the deal before this Parliament. If their voices and votes were to carry more than this Parliament’s, how would that be taking back control? Why will the Prime Minister not make a commitment today?

My party must once again reflect on the painful consequences of defeat at the ballot box. This is not an easy time to be a social democrat. We live in a time of surging nationalism and a growing instinct towards closed economies. We are wrestling with fundamental, profound economic and political change across the world—an industrial revolution of a pace and scale that the world has never seen. It is increasing the risk of inequality within and between nations, and it raises fundamental questions about community, identity and how we live alongside each other in a world with increasingly scarce resources.

I say to my party that if we want to be in government again and to create the world that we want to see, we must first engage with the world as it is. The reality of where we find ourselves today is that people have chosen to put this country on a very different course, outside the European Union. I wish that it was not so, but under the next Labour Government, that will be the reality. We must engage with it, shape it and earn the right to build a future for our country in the interests of everyone.