Early Parliamentary General Election

Debate between Mike Gapes and Kevin Brennan

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (IGC)]

We are apparently approaching the season of good will, when we are supposed to have Christmas parties in our primary schools and wish each other season’s greetings. I hope that people who want a season of good will have not been watching these exchanges.

They say that turkeys do not vote for an early Christmas. That is probably true, but it is also apparent that some people have been on chicken runs from one constituency to another. [Interruption.] No, I am standing in Ilford South; I am not running anywhere. I am standing in my own constituency.

[Kevin Brennan]

I respect the hon. Gentleman. Was he referring to former members of the Independent Group for Change when he talked about those who were on chicken runs from one constituency to another?

[Mike Gapes]

The people who are doing it and who perhaps will do it know who they are; I will not name them.

The only way we are going to end this rancorous, divisive politics is by being realistic. If there is a general election and a party gets a big majority—35% or 40% of the vote—that will still leave a majority in this country extremely unhappy with the outcome. The referendum, in my view, was misguided. It was an advisory referendum, but former Prime Minister David Cameron nevertheless said that it would be binding. He then made his reckless gamble and ran away, leaving his successors to clear up the mess. That referendum got us into the mess. The only way we will get closure in this country is by putting the withdrawal agreement to a confirmatory vote by the people and legislating for the referendum to be legally binding, and unambiguously so.

Local and Regional News

Debate between Mike Gapes and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 30th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan]

Let me quote from another document from 1980. Wyn Roberts, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the Welsh Office, said:

“I travelled home yesterday with Lord Garonwy Roberts who told me that the Shadow Cabinet last week”—

that was the Labour shadow Cabinet—

“decided to put forward an amendment to the Broadcasting Bill in the Lords to concentrate all Welsh language programmes on the Fourth Channel…If the Lords were to carry the amdmt. it would clearly weaken our position very considerably.”

It was that pressure that led to the Government having to fulfil their commitment, which they wanted to renege on at the time.

I will not test your patience any further, Mr Gapes. As a former history teacher—[Interruption.]

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order. I would be grateful if the Minister confined his remarks to his winding-up speech.

[Kevin Brennan]

I accept your ruling, Mr Gapes, although I enjoy the Minister’s sedentary remarks. They liven things up considerably.

That is evidence that S4C is not a priority for the Government. Meanwhile, the Welsh Government are providing a grant to it and supporting Welsh-language papers—the papurau bro, as the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd called them. That is because that Government understand the importance of local news to communities.

I do not want to paint too gloomy a picture. Regional and local news outlets continue to break very important stories, often of national significance, while both entertaining residents and informing them of community events and developments, but they do that despite rather than because of the Government’s action. I encourage the Minister to do more after this debate. He has had encouragement from both sides of the Chamber to do something.

The BBC has announced the local democracy reporter programme, which hon. Members have referred to, and which is going to cost £8 million of licence fee money. BBC reporters will work with local papers. Superficially, that is a welcome initiative, but in effect the Government are outsourcing a complex issue to another body rather than taking charge of the situation. Against that background, we support the call for the Government to carry out a national review into local news and media plurality. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will commit to undertake such a review? Other hon. Members have also called for one.

The NUJ’s research, “Mapping changes in local news 2015-2017: more bad news for democracy?”, which was published this month, shows a net loss of nine regional papers since 2015, and a loss of more than 400 local journalism jobs over a 17-month period. In 2015, two thirds of local authority districts, encompassing more than half the UK’s population, no longer had a local daily newspaper. Between November 2015 and March 2017, the number of local monopolies rose to 170 out of 380 in Wales, England and Scotland.

The Government are in a unique position to pull together views from across the industry—from multinationals to trade unions, civic society groups and the mutual sector—to judge the effect that these changes have on society and to discuss potential solutions. I would be interested if the Minister can tell us how he will respond to the demands set out in early-day motion 1109. Will the Government undertake to launch some kind of national review into what is going on? Setting party politics aside, we are all in agreement about the importance of local news in all its formats. It is crucial to safeguard these precious community assets into the future. The Government have a role to play, and we would be interested to hear from the Minister what role he will play in achieving that.

Intellectual Property: British Economy

Debate between Mike Gapes and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan]

There is no doubt that there are safeguarding issues, because material suitable for young children is presented on illegal set-top box platforms together with material that is suitable only for viewing by adults. Elsewhere in the Digital Economy Bill, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government are, with our support, creating powers to block sites that do not age-verify the sort of content that is restricted to adults. However, the platforms that we are considering are a lawless area—the wild west. The wild west is being imported into homes throughout the country. The problem is that it will become normalised to the extent that the Government will be too scared to do anything. They will be upsetting too many people, unless they act quickly; and that will damage our creative industries significantly. They are a serious, significant export earner. In this deeply regrettable era of Brexit, when we are trying to do individual trade deals around the world, it would be short-sighted for us to damage one of our most significant export earners.

Towards the end of the Lords debate on the Digital Economy Bill, the Minister indicated that the Government might be able to consider further changes to the Bill, at some point—the stages of a Bill in the House of Lords are different from ours. I understand that there is still an opportunity, under Lords procedure, for further changes to the Bill. My noble Friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara pointed out at column 371 the danger that the Bill will run out of time in the Lords before the Government have an opportunity to consider what to do about the issue. Another legislative vehicle may not come along for some time. Bills of this kind are not like buses; they do not come along that often. My plea to the Minister is that he should talk to his DCMS colleagues about something that it is unusual for Opposition Members to suggest to the Government—whether it is time to take Henry VIII powers. Will he talk to Ministers about taking the present opportunity to pass the necessary measures to stop something that will seriously damage the creative sector?

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order. I hope to call the Front-Bench speakers just before half-past 10, so that there will be sufficient time for the winding-up speeches.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Mike Gapes and Kevin Brennan

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

I am not replaying the arguments. I am dealing with realities. It is interesting to note that, at the last general election in 2015, the hon. Gentleman may have stood on a manifesto in which his party said yes to the single market. It also said that it would hold a referendum: it had a mandate to do that. But as the former Europe Minister, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), said in June 2015:

“The referendum is advisory, as was the case for both the 1975 referendum on Europe and the Scottish independence vote last year.”—[Official Report, 16 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 231.]

This Parliament must decide how, when and if the referendum should be implemented. The problem with the position that is being taken by both Front Benches is that triggering article 50 early will place us on an escalator travelling in one direction, with no ability to get off. A legal process is taking place in the Irish courts at this moment about whether—about the possibilities, the implications—article 50 is reversible. We do not know the judgment yet. Why on earth are we triggering before we know the legal position on article 50? Why have our Government decided to go for the hardest possible leaving of the EU—no customs union, no Euratom, problems for Gibraltar, and problems for the Northern Ireland peace process and the Good Friday agreement? All those things have been done before we know whether we could decide in a year’s time, or perhaps in two years’ time, before this process is complete.

We need not be on this escalator. We need a means to stop this process, and that is why we need clarity before we start triggering it. We did not need to trigger it in March this year; we could have waited. This did not need to be done before the French election and the German election.

The reality is that the ratification process requires decisions in 27 national Parliaments, in the regional Parliaments of Wallonia and elsewhere in Belgium, and in the European Parliament. If we have that process, we will have a narrow window of opportunity—perhaps just about a year from the autumn of this year to the autumn of 2018—and then there will have to be a ratification process. We will not get a good agreement. We could be in the disastrous position of going off the cliff with no agreement at all—with the terrible economic consequences of World Trade Organisation terms only. That would be an unmitigated disaster for my constituents and for the country.

I am doing what the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) talked about yesterday: I am voting as Members of Parliament should—I am following my own judgment and I am listening to my constituents and to the country.

[Kevin Brennan]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mike Gapes]

No, I have to conclude.

I will not be voting to trigger article 50 at any stage.

Money Transfer Accounts and Remittance Sector

Debate between Mike Gapes and Kevin Brennan

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am sure that that was why the International Development Secretary acknowledged, at least in words, the importance of the matter. Today we are seeking to poke the Government into quicker action than we have seen so far.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

In my constituency I have a large Somali community whose members send remittances to different parts of the world, as do other people. I want to supplement what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said. Remittances do not just add to international development assistance because, globally, they are of greater value. If we cut them off, we will do serious damage to a number of countries and some of the poorest people in the world.

[Kevin Brennan]

If I keep taking interventions, I fear that my comments will become less fresh and novel to listeners because my hon. Friends, with their expertise on this matter, are anticipating many of my points. Nevertheless, I thank my hon. Friend for what he said.

Sadly, following the withdrawal of banking services by Barclays, my constituent, Mr Anwar Ali, had to run down his business severely, and I understand that if he is unable to find a solution to this banking problem, the business may have to close. It is one thing for large banks to refuse to lend to small businesses—we all know about that—but it is another to deny to legitimate, law-abiding small businesses the basic service of a bank account. The banks casually say that they are making a commercial decision, but to small businesses it is a commercial death sentence. Let me remind hon. Members of the importance of such remittances, especially to developing countries.

According to a United Nations Conference on Trade and Development report in 2012, in 48 of the least developed countries, remittance receipts climbed from £3.5 billion in 1990 to more than £27 billion in 2011—that figure might be much higher. In Somalia alone, the authorities said in 2012 that around one third of the country’s GDP—$2 billion—came through small money transfer agencies, and that 40% of people in Somalia depended on remittance flows.

A major multinational bank, which in recent years was heavily fined for wrongdoing, is operating in a market dominated by a small number of players of its kind and has withdrawn, mainly from small businesses, a service vital to their existence and crucial to some of the most vulnerable people in the world. It is difficult to get to the bottom of exactly why that has happened, because it has not made its reasons clear. Are they commercial reasons, as it blithely says, or are they fears about terrorism and money laundering? There is a lack of clarity about the reasons.

Anthony Jenkins, the chief executive officer of Barclays, said that it was stopping offering bank services to such business because they

“don't have the proper checks in place to spot criminal activity and could unwittingly be facilitating money laundering and finance terrorism”.

In a letter to Dahabshiil, which is one of the larger payment firms and is located, I believe, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, Barclays said that the decision was

“not a negative reflection of your anti-money laundering standards, nor a belief that your business has unwittingly been a conduit for financial crime. It is, however, a commercial decision that we have taken due to the risks of the sector”.

Perhaps the Minister can explain—I know he talks to these big banks—what he thinks is behind the fact that every single major UK bank refuses to provide banking services to the sector, effectively financially excluding the firms, without considering each of them on its merits. Does he believe that that is purely commercial coincidence, or is it—[Interruption.] I wonder whether those in the civil service Box would stop talking while I am addressing the Chamber.

Does the Minister believe that that situation is a commercial coincidence, or is it another aspect of the overall lack of competition in the banking sector that the Government are failing to address? What can he tell us about the role of the National Crime Agency in this matter? In effect, the uncompetitive major banks have erected a complete barrier to the financial sector for some of its smallest members. Does the Minister think that is acceptable?

Dahabshiil was able to win an injunction against Barclays in the courts in October, so its account remains open for the time being, at least. Unfortunately, however, many other firms, including the one in my constituency, have not benefited from the development, because their accounts have already been closed by Barclays. Does the Minister believe that Barclays should offer to reopen the accounts that it closed before the court’s decision so that the account holders are able to carry on their business until the case is finally settled? Does he agree that that would be an entirely reasonable thing to do? It would allow businesses such as the one in my constituency to get on with the business that they were doing perfectly legitimately and legally beforehand so that money transfers could take place. Will he call on Barclays to reopen those accounts until the court decision is made? I understand that so far Barclays has refused to reopen those accounts, so I hope that the Minister will condemn that.

I pointed out in the 2013 debate that there seems to be a different set of rules for large banks and financial institutions, such as Barclays and Western Union, which stand to benefit from the situation. It has been proved that Western Union helped to facilitate money laundering in Mexico—it paid a fine to the Arizona state authorities in relation to that—yet it stands to inherit a lot of the business of small firms against which nothing has been proved. In recent years, almost all the large banks and institutions have been found guilty, in one way or another, of financial misdemeanours, and they have sometimes been fined—[Interruption.] I wonder whether I could ask you, Mr Owen, to appeal that those in the civil service Box do not interrupt the debate.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Mike Gapes and Kevin Brennan

Friday 22nd November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak to a number of amendments in this group standing in my name. [Interruption.] Given that you ruled on this matter previously, Mr Speaker, I should also make it clear to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who is shouting at me from a sedentary position, that these are not frivolous amendments. They are serious amendments. Some are intended to probe the Government’s position; some are amendments that I will wish to put to a vote. In the last few days I have also added my name to two other amendments—amendment 77, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) and amendment 3, in the name of the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie)—because it is important that the House should make clear its views about those matters as well as the others.

I have tabled a number of the amendments in this group: amendments 9 to 13, 21 to 33, and 58 and 59. They cover different aspects of this important debate about the timing of the referendum—if it is to be held—as well as related matters, such as the number of days on which the referendum would be held. The Minister—who I assume was speaking for the Conservative party and not the Government—made it clear previously that he believes there are problems with holding a referendum in 2014. One of his arguments is that the choice should simply be between a hypothetical and at this stage undefined renegotiated position and total withdrawal. However, we do not yet know what that renegotiated position will be.

I have received representations, including from people who disagree with my pro-European approach, arguing that the choice should be between the status quo and complete withdrawal. Rather than buying a pig in a poke, we would at least know what the status quo was. That would mean that those who are hostile to the European Union can vote to leave, while those who support it as it is, but with a commitment to work to change it—there are always changes; it is not constant—will know that what they are voting for is something like what we have today.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I have studied my hon. Friend’s amendments, in particularly amendment 21, which calls for the referendum to be called on 7 May 2015. Would it not be a major error to confuse a European referendum with a general election?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I understand the point my hon. Friend is making, but in practice would it not be confusing for hon. Members to be campaigning on behalf of their political parties one moment, but in another moment having to form alliances with colleagues from other political parties on the issue of Europe? Is that not a proposition that would simply not work in practice?

[Mike Gapes]

I understand my hon. Friend’s sympathy for those Conservative Members of Parliament who might find themselves having to campaign alongside UKIP, but we know that many Conservative MPs are already trying to reach local arrangements with UKIP so that they will be unopposed at the next general election. My proposal would be a fulfilment, in practice and openly, of what is already happening under the radar.