Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

The hon. Lady is correct that it was a key area of debate during the referendum, and that is why it is also one of the key wins that the Prime Minister has secured in the withdrawal agreement. She has made it clear that freedom of movement is coming to an end and that we will put in place a skills-based system, so that we can recruit on the basis of what our economy needs, whether that is in social care, health or other sectors such as fintech. We can recruit on the basis of skills, rather than nationality. It is one of the key wins secured by the Prime Minister, and that is why this is a good deal.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State has acknowledged, those campaigning for Brexit made controlling immigration central to their case. The Government have put it top of the 40 reasons to back the Brexit deal. Yesterday was assigned for Parliament to debate the issue, but the Home Secretary was unable to give any indication of the Government’s plans. The promise to publish the White Paper before Tuesday has been broken, apparently because Ministers have deeply conflicting views and cannot agree a policy. Blindfold on our future economic relationship and blindfold on migration, how can they expect the House to support them on Tuesday?

[Stephen Barclay]

The exact opposite is the case. The clarity of the Government’s objective on immigration is signalled by the way that in the withdrawal agreement we have control of the way forward. That is why we will be able to take forward a skills-based system. It is for the Home Office to set out through the White Paper its approach. That is what it will do shortly, as I said a moment ago.

EU Membership: Second Referendum

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), to his place in the Department for Exiting the European Union team. Taking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (John Grogan), I shall be impressed if the Minister knows the Government’s plan B; he will be the first Minister to have achieved that objective if he does. I look forward to hearing from him later.

I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for opening the debate. He made an important point on public polling reflecting his friend’s opinion that everybody is fed up with hearing about Brexit. There is almost a momentum behind the current process of people looking forward to 29 March, because then it will all be over. However, as he rightly pointed out, it will not be. We are certainly not nearing the end, and we are not really nearing the end of the beginning. The biggest discussion is yet to be had, because the declaration on our future relationship is so lacking in detail. He also made the important point that this is a critical moment in our history. The decisions that we take over the next few days will shape our country for generations. The situation could not be more serious.

The Labour party campaigned in the referendum to remain, because we believed that it was right, economically and politically, for our country and for the continent that we share, but we accepted that we lost, which is why we voted to trigger article 50, to begin the negotiations to leave. However, the last two years have been largely squandered, with negotiations within the Conservative party taking precedence over the negotiations that needed to take place with the EU27. I understand the predicament of the Government and the warring factions within the Conservative party, but it has left us in a difficult position, and the country is paying the price.

It did not have to be like this, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) indicated. The Opposition urged the Prime Minister to reach out two years ago to the majority in Parliament in favour of a sensible Brexit and, in the spirit of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), to look towards national reconciliation by saying that, yes, people voted to leave the European Union, but by the closest of margins. The referendum gave a mandate that we should no longer be members of the EU, but not that we should rupture that relationship, which was built over 45 years.

If the Prime Minister had said then that she would seek a deal that was right for the people of this country and their livelihoods, she could have begun to pull together the 48% and the 52%. If she had said that that would have involved a customs union, a close relationship with the single market and continued participation in the agencies and partnerships we built together with the EU, I think she could have achieved that. She would have had a clear majority in Parliament and united the country, and the Northern Ireland border, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, would certainly not have been an issue.

However, the Prime Minister instead let the Brexit extremists within the European Research Group shape the agenda. She set her red lines and boxed herself in, and the result is this doomed deal that satisfies nobody. We face a vote next Tuesday in which the Government are likely to be defeated, and we will then move into uncertain territory. It appears that a clear majority in Parliament will reject the deal and, while there is also certainly a majority in Parliament that will ensure that we do not leave without a deal, it is not clear whether there is a majority for any other outcome. Parliament, like the people we represent, is conflicted.

When the deal is voted down, we will need maximum flexibility. The Opposition will demand a general election, as we have made clear. I hope that, despite their experience in the general election last year, Conservative Members may yet come to recognise that an election to break this deadlock would be in the interests of the country. If they do not, other options must be kept open, including a public vote.

I understand the concerns of the petitioners who made the case against a public vote, which have been reflected by hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). However, it is interesting that, as we move towards the Brexit endgame, the debate is changing fundamentally. Some honesty is finally beginning to break out. Those who spent the last two years endlessly repeating the mantra that no deal is better than a bad deal have been hitting the TV studios over the last couple of weeks to urge MPs to back the Prime Minister’s deal because, they argue, the alternative is no deal, which they rightly say would be a catastrophe.

Even more significantly, claims that the country will be more prosperous have been abandoned, including by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Instead they argue for the Prime Minister’s deal on the basis that failing to deliver on the 2016 referendum would have serious social and political consequences. That serious point has been made in the debate and it should not be lightly dismissed. However, we should also recognise that there will potentially be even more serious social and political consequences if Parliament votes for a damaging Brexit on a false prospectus.

The Government have confirmed that we will be economically worse off, to varying degrees, under every Brexit option. Instead they say that the Prime Minister’s deal deserves support because it delivers on other pledges, with a particular focus on taking back control of our borders. On the Government’s website, “40 reasons to back the Brexit deal”, the top reason is on migration, with a promise that free movement will come to an end once and for all.

However, the expectations unleashed by the rhetoric of taking back control are a long way from the reality. The Government have had complete control of non-EU migration for the last eight years. In every one of those years, net migration from outside the EU was higher than from within it, and it has stayed at a steady level. As last week’s figures from the Office for National Statistics show, the recent decline we have seen in EU migration has simply been replaced by rising numbers from beyond the EU, with non-EU migration hitting a 14-year high. But on that central issue, the Home Secretary has said this morning that we are unlikely to see the Government’s plans before next Tuesday’s vote; the much-promised White Paper on immigration has apparently been delayed again—and beyond next Tuesday.

We potentially face a future that is poorer, with less money for public services, and with migration numbers changing little. That is a long way short of the wild promises made during the Brexit campaign, and potentially the social and political consequences of people being in that position five years down the road are very serious.

Therefore, when the Prime Minister’s deal is inevitably voted down, all options have to remain open. As I said, that includes a further public vote. That is not something on which there are divisions between Opposition and Government Members. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) made the case for a public vote when he resigned as Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation on Friday. His predecessor as Universities Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), has also made the case, as have former Conservative Cabinet members and the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, saying that a public vote may be the only way out of the predicament in which we find ourselves.

A public vote would not be without difficulties, and nobody could predict the outcome. However, the public do have information that was not available two years ago. They can see now, in contrast with then, what Brexit looks like, so there is a case for giving them a chance to reject Brexit or give informed consent to the Prime Minister’s deal. We will explore all the options available, but we believe that we should not rule out the chance to give the people the final say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I will absolutely make the comparison and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Economic Community and now the EU had been a top-line issue for 45 years. If it had not been, why was there a referendum in 1975, the year I was born? This issue has gone on for two generations, so I suggest respectfully to the hon. Gentleman that the electorate did have a sense of what they wanted.

We cannot go down the route of simply relitigating referendums when we do not like the result, because that essentially is what this boils down to. That is essentially what is driving the call for a second vote—the so-called people’s vote. Former Prime Minister Mr Blair has said as much. He makes no bones about the fact that he thinks that Brexit is a disaster and the way to reverse Brexit is by means of a second referendum. It is an instrument by which one can reject the will of the people as expressed in June 2016. Let us not be fastidious or naive about this. The people who generally are driving for a people’s vote and a second referendum want to reverse the result. They think—mistakenly, in my view—that the way to reverse the result is to get a second referendum, which will confirm or reconfirm our membership of the EU. I think they are wrong and, as I have said, the Government have made a clear undertaking that we will not have a second referendum.

The question on 23 June 2016 was clear; it was absolutely unequivocal. The question was simply:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

Many of us in the Chamber took part in the referendum campaign—some with Vote Leave and some with the Stronger In or remain campaign. It was a very hard-fought and widely trailed discussion. Some people have said that the quality of the debate was not good enough or that some pieces of information were withheld, but generally it was an extraordinary exercise in democracy. As has been said many times, it was the single biggest vote that this country had ever seen in a general election or any other kind of election. And as we all know, 17.4 million votes were cast to leave the EU. That was the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history.

What those calling for a second vote—the so-called people’s vote—are saying is that the people should think again. Essentially, they are saying, metaphorically, to the electorate, “Your homework was not good enough. Please do it again.” As the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton suggested, the electorate—certainly in my constituency—are quite a cussed lot. I do not see the floods of support for remain described by others. I strongly suspect—this is my personal view—that a second referendum would not deliver a different result.

That is irrelevant, however, because the Government are tasked to enact the will of the majority of the people, as expressed in the 2016 referendum. All major political parties were committed to respect the outcome. We fought a general election on the basis that we would leave the EU. As has been said, 499 Members of this House voted to invoke article 50, which we all knew would involve a two-year process, at the end of which we would leave the EU. All of that is in the public record and everyone understood the consequences of it. Furthermore, the Labour party committed in its 2017 manifesto to leave the EU and the customs union. More than 80% of the British people voted either Conservative or Labour in the general election. They voted for parties that were absolutely committed to respect the 2016 referendum result. That is exactly what the British people expect us to do.

I fully understand the emotional impetus behind the call for a second referendum, but I think it is a ruse by which people seek to stay in the EU. We are pledged to leave the EU. The full democratic process of the referendum delivered a clear directive, which this Government hope to deliver. The call for a second referendum opens up a huge question about the levels of trust in our Government and our democracy. We have to respect the will of the people. To do otherwise and say, “We will have a second referendum and try to reverse the result of the first referendum, because you got the wrong answer first time,” is not only an abnegation of democracy, but profoundly disrespectful of the electorate. As a Minister, I would not want to see that.

We have to look at the nature of the referendum itself. It was a long, four-month campaign, but we cannot just think of the referendum as those four months in 2016, because this debate had been going on for decades, not only in my party but in the Labour party. I am old enough—just—to remember the 1983 general election, in which the Labour party was pledged to leave the EEC. That created great divisions and caused great debate within the Labour party. My own party has been a scene of great discussion and lively debate on this issue. It is not right to say that those four months of the referendum campaign in 2016 encapsulated the whole debate, because it has been ongoing for 45 years and more.

I sense that I am in a room of clairvoyants, because everyone has told me that the Government will lose the vote on Tuesday. I have been in the House long enough—let us see what happens. People have asked, “What about plan B?” If I knew plan B, I would not divulge it in this Chamber—I assure hon. Members of that—so the question is redundant. I remind hon. Members that the choice is between a deal and no deal, because, as others have suggested, the hourglass is running quickly. We are running out of time. Article 50 was invoked on 29 March 2017. It does not take a mathematician to work out that 29 March 2019 will be the end of our formal membership of the EU. Nor does one have to be mathematically gifted to work out that there are fewer than four months between today and exit day. In that timeframe, the notion that the Government will throw off their policy of the last two and half years and then bring in some parliamentary device for a second referendum to take place before the exit day is, frankly, ridiculous. We do not have the time to do it and people would feel that it would be extremely irresponsible to do so.

I could spend the next hour and three quarters trying to convince hon. Members of the merits of the deal. I do not want to do that, because they probably want to do other things. However, I will say that the deal does precisely what the electorate voted for. On immigration, we have heard about restrictions to freedom of movement.

[Paul Blomfield]

Given that the Minister has raised the question of immigration, does he agree that it is incumbent on the Government to do as they previously promised and publish the immigration White Paper before we vote on the deal?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The shadow Minister is trying to tempt me down paths I do not want to go down. We will have a plan. At the moment, the Government are focused on winning the vote on Tuesday and getting on with Brexit, as so many of our constituents want them to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam said that someone was bored of Brexit. I have used that phrase myself—not of me: I love Brexit and am fascinated by it, but a lot of my constituents want to get the ball rolling. They want to get on with wider political debate and to get on with their lives. They see that the deal is a way of getting to the finishing post of 29 March. Anything we do to jeopardise that would not only frustrate Brexit, but be a great abnegation of democracy.

The debate about our relationship with Europe will not end with our formal exit from the EU. There will be all sorts of ongoing discussions and debates about bits of the EU that we might want to pay into and others that we might not. That is the nature of democracy: we can debate it. It will not be set in stone, but we will have an evolving and, I hope, co-operative and fruitful relationship with the EU. However, we seek to close the question of membership of the EU and we will formally end it on 29 March.

People have talked about the money—the £39 billion. The figure of £35 billion to £39 billion has been quoted as a divorce payment. That is actually a small fraction of the £100 billion that we saw in the newspapers and the other huge amounts that were trailed across the media. Looking at our 46-year commitment to the EU, we see that £39 billion works out as four years of net payments to the EU—what I call the annual subscription.

The annual subscription in the 2014 to 2020 budget period was about £10 billion a year net, depending on how it is calculated. After the payment and the implementation period, we will not have to pay a penny piece. The golf club subscription, as one of my constituents once referred to it, will be over. We will not be paying into the common kitty to the tune of £10 billion a year. We will secure—we hope and confidently expect—a free trade deal. We will be able to co-operate with the EU, but our formal membership and the annual tribute or payment that we used to make will be over.

My last point is about sovereignty, which was raised by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton. People wanted to have a sense that they were electing to this Parliament Members who would exercise the sovereign will of the British people and make our own laws. That is a fundamental point that cannot be captured in trade deals, money or economics; it is about fundamental independence and sovereignty. That was a big driver of the vote and this deal delivers it. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Government in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam on introducing it and I look forward to his concluding remarks.

[Paul Scully]

I thank the Minister for his reassuring remarks. It was remiss of me not to have welcomed him to his place for his first Westminster Hall debate. He gave a good amount of reassurance that we will not get distracted from our important task by the so-called people’s vote. We need to concentrate on making sure that we deliver for the people of this country.

In the last couple of years, the Government and the Prime Minister have had the incredibly difficult job of squaring seemingly impossible circles. It is impossible to find a solution to the Labour party’s six tests when the last one says that leaving must deliver the exact same benefits as membership. Clearly, at the golf club that the Minister referred to, pay-as-you-play is not the same as membership.

[Paul Blomfield]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Prime Minister said that she was determined to meet the six tests set by the Labour party?

[Paul Scully]

The Prime Minister will go as close as she can, but that last one is clearly impossible. She is working to satisfy as many people as she can in incredibly difficult times.

We then have the Liberal Democrats, who want to have their Bobby Ewing moment and pretend this all away, frankly. Those are the dynamics that we have been working on.

We are now at the dénouement—the end of the first part of the process. Let us try to get through this week and a half, get the vote next Tuesday, and move on to the exciting, optimistic global Britain thing that we can do—trade with the rest of the world and with our European partners. I look forward to the fact that our 40 or 50-year decision will allow us to make sure that our best days are still ahead of us.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 226071 relating to not holding a second referendum on EU membership.

Leaving the European Union

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to wind up the debate for the Opposition with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, as it was to listen to much of it with Sir Roger in the Chair.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for the way in which she introduced the debate and framed the discussion. I join her in congratulating Ciaran O’Doherty, who initiated the petition. Whatever else we think, I am sure we all celebrate the fact that a young man, 15 years old, wanted to participate in the discussion that is going on across our country and raise the concerns from his part of it.

I understand those concerns. I spent a fair amount of time in Northern Ireland in the summer and I have to admit that it was the first time I had been there for 40 years, when, at the height of the conflict, I organised students across the sectarian divide and it was a part of the country at war, with the war spilling over into the rest of the country, and I was struck by how far things have changed, but also by how fragile the peace is and how much the need to address the issues of the border must be a central part of these negotiations.

I sympathise with Ciaran’s frustration, and the frustration felt by the signatories to the petition, about the way the negotiations have been proceeding and the risks for us as a country. The hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who was formerly the Transport Minister, and was also the Universities Minister, was right when he said recently that we are facing the biggest crisis since the second world war. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) made that point in a different way and reflected on a different aspect of the crisis: the way the binary and angry discourse on the issue opened up by a binary and angry referendum made it difficult for us to navigate the choices ahead of us. We have to be honest. As she said, we do not want simplistic arguments on either side. There is no easy way forward from the position we are now in as a country.

This is one of the most significant moments in recent British history. One of the things about history is it does not feel historic when people are in the middle of it. They are living their lives in an ordinary way, alongside making the decisions. However, the decisions that we make in the next few weeks will shape our country for generations. It is a heavy responsibility on us, and it is one on which the Government have been failing. We have seen two years of internal conflict for the Government, and external chaos, until, last Thursday, they finally brought us a draft withdrawal agreement that, predictably, unleashed another wave of ministerial resignations. However, perhaps even more extraordinarily, within 24 hours of signing up to it, five members of the Cabinet were openly plotting against it. It is a deal that, on the basis of last Thursday’s statement, cannot command the support of Parliament, so the situation could not be more serious.

It did not have to be this way. If the Prime Minister had reached out at the outset after the referendum and said, with honesty, not some of the nonsense that was said about the nature of the vote—that it was a historic mandate and the biggest vote ever, and so on—but that the people had voted to leave the European Union only by the closest of margins, that it was a mandate for an orderly withdrawal but not an opportunity to burn every remnant of 45 years of co-operation and partnership, and that we would seek a closer relationship that was right for the economy, no longer as members but as partners, putting the livelihoods of people in this country first in a customs union close to the single market and in the agencies and partnerships we have built together for 45 years, she could have secured a majority in this House and united the country that was so bitterly divided by the referendum. With that sort of deal the Northern Ireland border would not have been an issue.

Instead, the Prime Minister pandered to the Brexit extremists of the European Research Group in her party—people like the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) who said his ambition was to destroy the European Union.

[Andrea Jenkyns]

On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. Earlier, there was talk about respect for people. Is it acceptable for a shadow Minister to call people extremists?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I am happy to do that. I do think that those who have defined their politics by their desire to take us out of the European Union at whatever cost to the economy of our country and the stability of our continent are taking an extreme position. I think we need a more sophisticated debate and the word “extreme” is a reasonable one within the vocabulary of our language.

I just wish that the Prime Minister had set out at the beginning of the process a negotiation agenda that would have brought people together, instead of drawing red lines in the interests of party management rather than the country; then we would be in a different position. The schism that has divided the Conservative party has blocked effective negotiations at every turn. What has been happening would be almost forgivable if it was based simply on ideology, but now it is as much about personal ambition in the Tory party. Obviously everyone acknowledges the brazen ambition of the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), which determined everything he said on Brexit, but now others are reinventing themselves with a clear eye to the pending leadership election they want to prompt.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) said, Opposition MPs could stand back and enjoy it while the Conservative party tears itself apart, but it is too important, because the future of our country is being sacrificed on the altar of Conservative battles and personal ambition. Parliament must not let that happen. The Prime Minister has finally managed to secure a majority in this House—against the deal she presented to us last week. It fails the Opposition’s six tests, which—I see the Minister smiling—she at one stage embraced and said she was “determined to meet”. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) set out with some clarity the way the deal fails the tests, and fails the country. Those who voted leave, and there is no significant indication that views have shifted dramatically, as my hon. Friend pointed out, will not ultimately thank politicians who deliver a damaging Brexit on a false prospectus.

The question now is what happens not if, but probably when, the House rejects the deal. The petition reflects the frustration that people feel about the shambolic handling of the negotiations and the chaos in the Cabinet and Government. However, I will seek to reassure the petitioners that just as there is a majority in Parliament against the Prime Minister’s deal there is also a majority against crashing out without a deal and with no transition.

[Tom Brake]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman has anticipated the question I will ask, because I raised it earlier in the debate. Can he confirm what the Labour party’s position will be when, inevitably, an amendment calling for a people’s vote is tabled to the Prime Minister’s motion, if indeed she brings one forward? Will the Labour Front Bench support that or not?

[Paul Blomfield]

Obviously I did anticipate the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention and he will not be surprised that I intend to answer it in due course. It is part of my speech and clearly a central issue. I remind him that we should be careful in our consideration of the issues in question, and we should have regard to positions adopted in the past. Perhaps we would not be in the position we are in if his party, for example, had not been the first, I think, to call unambiguously for an in-out vote on membership of the European Union, and to condemn the Government for offering only a conditional vote.

[Tom Brake]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to correct the record. He will know, of course, that we promised an in-out referendum in relation to any treaty change. The referendum that we had was not about treaty change, but about whether we should be in the European Union or not.

[Paul Blomfield]

I hate to correct the right hon. Gentleman, but he is wrong. I will send him a copy of his party’s own leaflet, which criticised the Government for offering only a conditional referendum, criticised Labour for not offering one at all and said there should be an in-out referendum and the result should be binding. He should take care, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan pointed out that we should all take care, when reflecting on these issues.

It has been informative to watch as the “No deal is better than a bad deal” mantra has finally been dropped by almost everybody on the Conservative Benches. We have watched people who have been parroting that for quite some time rush into the TV studios over the weekend, seeking to secure support for the Prime Minister’s deal by saying, of course rightly, that no deal would be a disaster for the country.

[Peter Grant]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it is slightly strange that the Prime Minister tries to frighten remainers by saying, “If you vote down the deal, we will leave without a deal,” while at the same time she tries to fight off the ERG by saying, “If you vote down the deal, we don’t leave at all.”?

[Paul Blomfield]

I do; it is a reflection of the corner into which the Prime Minister has painted herself.

Petitioners should be reassured that we, as Opposition parties, will work across the House to ensure that we do not face a no-deal scenario. When the deal is inevitably voted down, the Prime Minister must follow the direction of the House. She has been intent on denying Parliament a truly meaningful vote, just as we have been intent on securing it. We will not accept the premise that she is trying to present —“It is my deal or no deal, take it or leave it, like it or lump it”—and nor will Parliament. When the deal is voted down, we need maximum flexibility and all options on the table.

We will demand a general election, as hon. Members would expect, and I hope that some Conservative MPs, although perhaps understandably reluctant to vote for one after their last outing, may come to realise that it would be in the interest of the country to break the deadlock. If they do not, then all other options must be kept open, including a public vote that would include remain as an option on the ballot paper.

The Government have spent the last two and a half years putting the interests of their party before the interests of the country, pursuing a divisive split from the EU rather than seeking to build a new and close relationship, and negotiating within their warring party rather than negotiating effectively with the European Union. They have failed the country. Our people need and deserve better, and this Parliament will need to ensure that they get it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I would thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene, but he invited me to do so. I simply respond by asking whether he agrees that, as our six tests were ones that the Prime Minister said she was determined to meet, they are a reasonable basis for assessing the deal.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I do, and I believe that the Prime Minister believes that she has not only very firmly hit those six tests on the head, but has planted that nail well into the plank of wood. The question is whether Labour’s is a political choice to try to get a general election, or whether it is interested in delivering the best deal in the national interest.

However, that is a bit too political for the tone I was trying to strike. I will make some points on our contingency planning in case the deal does not work out. While the chances of no deal have been reduced considerably, the Government will always do the responsible thing and prepare for all eventualities in case a final agreement cannot be reached. Extensive work to prepare for no deal has been under way for more than two years, and we are taking the necessary steps to ensure that the country continues to operate smoothly from the day we leave.

Our objective in such a scenario would be to minimise disruption by taking unilateral action to prioritise continuity and stability, wherever possible and appropriate to do so. We recognise that, in a no-deal scenario, citizens and businesses would need time to prepare themselves. We published 106 specific technical notices across the summer to help businesses, citizens and consumers do exactly that. We have already passed laws to ensure that we are ready for such a scenario, such as the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 and the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. We have also signed a number of critical international agreements. On nuclear co-operation, we have signed agreements with the US, Australia and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Every Government Department has been working for nearly two years to prepare for a no-deal scenario, with a huge amount of taxpayers’ money having been spent on this insurance policy. However, there are a number of concerns about how to mitigate some of the potential problems at our borders. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has disappeared; how annoying. I wanted to point out that he was probably the only person in the room who listened to the Senate debate in the French Assembly about what our French partners are doing to prepare for a no-deal scenario. It is actually quite important that we do the same as them. They have given Ministers emergency powers to ensure the flow of trade across the short straits by increasing the number of border officers and border checkpoints, introducing a border inspection point for agri-goods and a whole host of other things. We must obviously take this in the round.

Going back to the petition, I am afraid that I will disappoint the petitioner and the hon. Member for Blaydon, but I do not think that either will be surprised. Britain will leave the European Union on 29 March next year. The people of the United Kingdom gave the Government—all of us—a clear instruction: they want to leave the European Union. The Government respect that decision.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I have had a number of conversations with the Home Secretary and indeed with the Cabinet to ensure that not only the legislation but the operational systems will be in place.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

A technical notice on EU citizens in the UK was expected as part of the no-deal preparations. That was confirmed in a recent technical notice from the Department for Transport, but it has not yet been produced and the Prime Minister’s spokesman apparently told journalists on Tuesday that there were no more notices in the pipeline. Will the Secretary of State clarify which is correct? If there is to be a notice, will he tell us when it will be published?

[Dominic Raab]

Most hon. Members would agree that citizens’ rights are an issue of scale, importance and sensitivity, which means that it will be dealt with not in technical notices, but in a different format. However, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that all the details will be coming along shortly to provide the assurances that I think both sides of the House want to give to EU nationals here. We value their contribution and want them to stay.

[Paul Blomfield]

Both sides of the House certainly do want those assurances, but I am unsure whether that answer provides them, so let me try with another issue. The Prime Minister said that, in the event of no deal, she will make a unilateral offer to EU citizens remaining in the UK, but the right to remain in itself does not provide the reassurance that they need. Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that, in those circumstances, their rights will be identical in every respect to the provisions in the withdrawal agreement as currently drafted?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the Prime Minister made that commitment after the Salzburg summit. We are going to set out all the details in due course, but I can give him some reassurance right now, because the healthcare Bill, which is due to be introduced shortly, will provide reassurance, for example, in the context of reciprocal healthcare for UK nationals who live in, work in or visit the EU, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait just a bit longer for all the details.

Vote Leave Campaign: Electoral Law

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to be able to speak for the Opposition with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for the way he opened the debate. At a time when much of the debate in this place on this issue lets us down, I thought he made a very balanced, informed and at times entertaining contribution, for which I am grateful.

Some 671 of my constituents signed the petition, many of whom probably campaigned alongside me to remain in the European Union. I have been in correspondence with a number of them on this issue. I understand the anger and frustration that they feel about cheating in the referendum—feelings that have been worsened by the deepening chaos of the Government’s handling of the negotiations and the growing risk of a disastrous no-deal Brexit. That, of course, has been anticipated with some excitement by the extremists of the European Research Group, although I note, as others may have, that the Secretary of State for International Trade confessed this morning in an article in The Times that he cannot promise that life will be “rosy” after Brexit—something of a contrast with the pledges made during the referendum.

Labour backed remain, and I campaigned relentlessly to stay in the European Union, but the majority did not agree. It was a painfully close vote, but it was a decision to leave. However, the closeness of the vote indicates that it was not a decision to rupture our relationship with the EU or to trash our economy. Had the Prime Minister said in July 2016, “We recognise the country is divided. We will leave, but remain close—staying in a customs union, staying close to the single market, and remaining members of the agencies and programmes we have built together over 45 years,” she would have had an overwhelming majority in this House, united the country so bitterly divided by David Cameron’s ill-conceived referendum, and avoided some of the anger and frustration behind today’s petition.

Instead, the Prime Minister set red line after red line—putting the interests of her warring party before those of the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) pointed out in relation to article 50. Incidentally, my hon. Friend was also right to highlight the tragedy of the Prime Minister now setting something better than the end of the world as the benchmark for her negotiations with the EU27.

As other hon. Members have said, as we speak a general debate has just started in the House on legislating for the withdrawal agreement, which will in itself unpick parts of the Bill that we spent a year debating and now forms the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Some 27 months after the referendum, and one month before the planned deadline for a deal—although that deadline is slipping—we are still no closer to knowing whether there will be a withdrawal agreement or, if there is, what will be in it.

Chequers seemed to mark a change of policy from the Prime Minister—too little, too late, but at least a direction. Yet barely a week later, the Government whipped intensively to defeat an amendment to the Trade Bill that endorsed the Chequers plan, and embraced European Research Group amendments to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill that were designed to torpedo it. It is clear that Chequers has no support in the House, in Brussels or even in the country. The most important negotiations this country has seen since the second world war are being led by the most dysfunctional Government any of us can remember.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—

[Wera Hobhouse]

Thank you, Sir Roger. I fully accept your guidance. I had another engagement that I could not get out of. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most reckless thing was the premature triggering of article 50? That is why I welcome this petition.

[Paul Blomfield]

I take your point, Sir Roger. I think every aspect of the Government’s handling of the negotiations and the post-referendum process has been reckless, so I sympathise with the petitioners’ frustration. I now turn to the subject of the petition.

The Electoral Commission’s serious findings about Vote Leave have to be and are being fully investigated by the police. All those who are running the organisation or are associated with it at its heart should co-operate fully with the inquiry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge pointed out, they did not do so during the Electoral Commission’s investigation. I hope the Minister agrees that sitting and former Ministers who worked with Vote Leave during the referendum campaign must co-operate fully with the police investigation, and that their adherence with the ministerial code during their time working with Vote Leave should be the subject of a full investigation. I look forward to hearing his comments on those points.

It is vital that the investigation is allowed to take its course, and there must be the possibility of criminal charges. Trust in politics is low—a number of hon. Members made the point that fake news and disinformation pose a very real threat to our democracy—so we cannot brush aside dishonesty in our political system.

Article 50 has been triggered, beginning the two-year process of our withdrawal—my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge spent some time talking about that. I recognise that there is discussion around the question, but I accept the view that, legally, it could be revoked if there were political consensus that it should be. However, we cannot revoke it on the basis of this petition. It is difficult to know exactly what influenced voters. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) said—I think I am quoting him rightly—that the referendum was won by cheating. Clearly there was cheating, but it is not clear that the referendum was won by it. We cannot be certain, and we cannot credibly say that overspending in the region of half a million pounds definitely swung the result one way or the other.

We need tough sanctions on those who break the law. The Electoral Commission is right to seek much larger fines and much greater retribution against those who bring our democratic system into disrepute, and there must be criminal prosecutions where appropriate. I understand why the petitioners feel it is nonsense—the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk made this point—that the result should stand if there has been cheating. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge cited the example of the parliamentary election of Oldham East and Saddleworth that was overturned, but he also made the point that we have to be guided by the law. Although the law provides for that option in relation to parliamentary elections, it does not provide for it in relation to referendums. There is a case for having a much wider inquiry, but as it stands the case for overturning the referendum has not been made.

Far from strengthening our democracy, disregarding the vote simply on the basis of this issue risks further undermining trust in our political system. That is why the Opposition’s focus is on pressing the Government to reach out to the majority in the country, not the minority in their party, and to reach a deal in the country’s interest. The Opposition have ruled nothing out, but our focus is on ensuring that the divisions in the Conservative party do not lead us to crash out of the European Union without a deal in the autumn. If the deal does not meet our six tests on co-operation, the economy, migration, rights and protections, national security and the interests of the regions and nations, we will vote it down. The Prime Minister said she accepts those tests, but time is running out for her to meet them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I know what an indefatigable campaigner he is for the UK leaving the European Union, and his expertise on this issue is well known. At the end of the day, the common rulebook is going to be subject to a parliamentary lock, and it also reflects rules on goods that have not changed for many decades.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Minister rightly points out that the White Paper proposes non-regression clauses on environment regulations and on social and employment protections. In 2016, however, the Secretary of State wrote in The Times that Brexit was an opportunity to

“ditch”

the

“100 most burdensome EU regulations”.

He took exception to the agency workers regulation, for example, on the grounds that it

“gives agency workers the right to the same basic employment and working conditions as full-time staff”.

Does the Minister agree with the White Paper or with her Secretary of State?

[Suella Braverman]

The Government have been clear in the White Paper that our commitment to rights protection is unequivocal and that how those rules are applied is ultimately a decision for Parliament. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that rights do not emanate from the EU? We have our own rich and proud tradition of civil liberties, such as the Race Relations Act 1965 or the Equal Pay Act 1970, and we acceded to those critical pieces of legislation before our accession to the European Economic Community.

Future Relationship Between the UK and the EU

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

After the last couple of days, today’s debate has something of the feel of the morning after the night before. Indeed, it has been a sobering debate, reflecting the depth of the crisis that we are in. Two years on from the referendum, the Government are still unable to speak on behalf of the British people. The most important negotiations the country has faced since the second world war are being led by the most dysfunctional Government in living memory.

It does not have to be like this. The Prime Minister was right at Mansion House to say we had to face up to hard facts, but that meant facing down those in her party who put their ideological hostility to the EU before the interests of the country. If she had faced up to the facts two years ago—if she had said then that the country had voted to leave the EU but by a painfully close margin, and that it was a decision to depart but not to destroy our economy, and if she had said that we would leave the EU but remain in a customs union and close to the single market and the members of the agencies and partnerships we had built together—she could have secured a clear majority in this House and built a consensus in the country, which had been so bitterly divided by the referendum.

But she did not. Instead, she handed a veto to the European Research Group—the people who have sought to undermine not just herself at every step but every one of her predecessors. They are, as John Major commented recently, even more hard-line than those he faced. They are less than 10% of this House but are calling the shots. The tail is wagging the dog. They are demanding the red lines that have held us back—no single market, no customs union, no European Court of Justice, no agencies. To be fair to the Prime Minister, she put that proposition to the British people in last June’s general election. She sought a mandate for an extreme Brexit, but she did not get it. She went into that election with a majority and came out without one.

I remind the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who sought to misquote our manifesto, as others have done, that at that election we said:

“We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper”—

as we would this one—

“and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses”.

[Mr Baron]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will not, because I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s points and we cannot get into a detailed exchange.

The result of the Prime Minister’s approach has been paralysis, not simply on Brexit but on the other crises facing our country. The Government have neither the authority to deal with Brexit nor the ability to tackle the issues that led to it. There has been a dawning realisation from the Prime Minister that those early red lines were a mistake, but each time she tries to step over them, she has been hauled back by the extremists within her party.

At Chequers, it did seem that the Prime Minister was beginning to face up to the hard facts—to break free from the icy grip of the European Research Group. Not far enough, not soon enough, but tentative steps towards reality, towards a customs settlement and a regulatory alignment demanded by business—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden)—and also necessary to resolve the issue of the Northern Ireland border.

Of course, the former Brexit Secretary was right when he endorsed Donald Trump's view that the plan would “kill” the prospect of a US-UK deal; and of course, it was just a starting point, not the end point of negotiations. It would inevitably involve further movement by the Government. Knowing that, the ERG tore it to shreds, and Monday night’s debacle was the last nail in the coffin. Rather than defeat the amendments—as they could have, overwhelmingly—the Government rolled over and accepted wrecking amendments that left their White Paper dead in the water. The Minister shakes his head, but if there was any doubt about its death, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) laid it to rest today in what was, frankly, a chilling contribution.

While the Prime Minister turns on those in her own party who would welcome the Chequers plan, threatening them, she embraces those who would destroy her, and she continues to bring them into the Government. Having resigned, the hon. Member for Wycombe was succeeded as a Brexit Minister by his predecessor as chair of the ERG, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) —who, of course, joins another former chair, the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman). It is beginning to look as if there is a secondment scheme going on between the ERG and the Brexit ministerial team.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

No, I will not; I have not the time. I would love to, but I have not the time.

As I say, it is beginning to look as if there is a secondment scheme. So we may yet see the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) make his way down to the Front Bench—or perhaps he thinks he has more power where he is.

Sixteen months into the negotiations, the White Paper says that the Government will now

“charge the UK’s negotiating team to engage with the EU’s at pace”.

The time for “pace” was long ago, but better late than never. It is 16 months since the House set the clock ticking, and in three months we need to resolve the deal. Whatever the polls say now, the public will not thank politicians who deliver a damaging Brexit based on false promises.

Without the threats and bullying that Members faced last night, there was a majority across the House in favour of a sensible approach—one that respects the referendum result, one that protects our constituents’ jobs and livelihoods. If the Government are not willing or are not able to deliver that sensible result, in the months ahead it will be the duty of this House to step in.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

Again—the hon. Lady is wrong. The Government have provided 250 hours of debate on this Bill alone, and there are probably a dozen other pieces of primary legislation, including the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill later this year. There is a huge range of areas in which Parliament has had its say and will have its say. To come to the point about business investment, in the past year high-tech investment alone—the most important for our future in many ways—was three times in the UK that of any European country. Indeed, it was as much as the next three countries put together.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Political leadership in negotiations is clearly key to their success, but in response to a question I tabled, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), informed me that until last Monday the Secretary of State had met Michel Barnier only twice since December—once in February and once at a press conference in March. Two meetings in six critical months. Can the Secretary of State explain his absence? Does paralysis in the Cabinet leave him with nothing to say? Or has he simply been sidelined by officials closer to the Prime Minister?

[Mr Davis]

Is it not wonderful to have the Labour party, of all people, accusing us on this? I am looking at the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman)—don’t worry. I read a tweet only this morning in which the Labour Whips Office was celebrating the fact that only 75 Labour Members rebelled against the amendment yesterday.

Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to wind up the debate on behalf of the Opposition with you in the Chair, Mr Austin. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on the thoughtful way in which she presented the feelings of the petitioners. I also congratulate the petitioners on their engagement in this process.

The debate is timely—that is an understatement, given the week that we have ahead. Tomorrow the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill returns to the Commons, and this issue will be at the very heart of those discussions, because it is critical. The petitioners could have expected many more colleagues from all parties and a much longer debate had we not been preparing for discussion of the Bill this week. If anyone gets bored with that, we also have Brexit oral questions on Thursday, so it is a Brexit-packed week in Parliament.

The current situation is clearly something of a national disaster. We are having the most important negotiations for our country since the second world war, but we are being led by the most dysfunctional Government in our lifetimes. The uncertainty created by that was highlighted powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) in terms of the impact on our economy. We have four months to go until the October conclusion of the negotiations. After two years, with just four months left, we see open warfare in the Cabinet. The Government are still incapable—this is quite extraordinary—of publishing the negotiating objectives White Paper they promised only four weeks ago.

[Catherine West]

Is my hon. Friend surprised that foreign direct investment has dropped by 90% from 2016 to today?

[Paul Blomfield]

I am not surprised, frankly. A couple of weeks ago, I was in Strasbourg talking to colleagues from different parties and countries, and they are shocked by Britain at the moment. Whatever their differences have been with us in the past, they always respected Britain as having an effective Government with a well-oiled diplomatic machine and being clear on their objectives and how to achieve them. They cannot believe the Government’s shambles, creating the uncertainty that my hon. Friend spoke about.

We still have no solution to the Irish border and to fulfilling the obligation made by the Government. We are no further forward on plans to protect what was originally described as frictionless trade—the Government are now backtracking on that and talking about a more limited ambition. We certainly have no clarity on how they will achieve the exact same benefits that we now enjoy in the single market and the customs union—a negotiating aim that they set for themselves and that the Prime Minister has repeated.

[Geraint Davies in the Chair]

The open warfare is incredible. Only last week the Foreign Secretary unfavourably compared the Prime Minister’s negotiating approach with that of Donald Trump. Is that what we have come to? The holder of one of the key offices of state is undermining his own Prime Minister and, indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said a little while ago on national television that he was being openly undermined and briefed against by other members of the Cabinet. This is a shocking position to be in.

With the Government paralysed by their own divisions, it looks increasingly as if Parliament will need—to coin a phrase—to take back control. It is ironic that some of the most vocal supporters of leaving the European Union, who made grand demands about parliamentary sovereignty central to their campaign, are so reluctant to concede that parliamentary sovereignty at this vital time. Those who cried foul about being a vassal state during the transition period seem to want a vassal Parliament in these vital negotiations. At this critical juncture, they say yes, they want parliamentary sovereignty—but not just yet, and not if it undermines their desire for the most extreme Brexit.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does that not demonstrate that the hard Brexiteers want Brexit at any cost, including the cost of democracy?

[Paul Blomfield]

That is a point that I have made on the Floor of the House: there are those within the governing party—though clearly a minority—who want Brexit at any cost to the political stability of our continent and to the economy of this country. They are driven by Brexit above everything, and the Labour party and I do not believe that that is in the interests of this country.

Since First Reading, having a meaningful vote for Parliament on the final deal has been one of the Labour party’s key tests for the withdrawal Bill. We have been clear that a binary “take it or leave it” vote, in a zero-sum game tactic from the Government, will in no way constitute a meaningful vote. Crucially, that view unites Members across parties, and that is why the House voted last December for the amendment moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), to give Parliament a meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement—to the consternation of the Government.

The Government immediately looked for wriggle room to avoid meeting that ambition of Parliament. The Lords therefore added greater clarity about what constitutes a meaningful vote, by accepting the amendment moved by the Conservative peer, Viscount Hailsham, which provides for a motion and an Act and, in the event of the motion not passing, for any decision on the next steps to be firmly in Parliament’s hands. With two defeats under their belt on the issue, the Government have now moved their own amendment—but they have not moved far enough.

[Peter Grant]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think it slightly ironic that the Government and their friends at the Daily Mail are decrying the anti-patriotic behaviour of lordships who agreed 15 amendments that the Government did not like at the same time as agreeing 160-plus amendments that the Government did like?

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. There has been a series of contradictions over the years in the position that some extreme Brexiteers have taken on the House of Lords—some have been its greatest champions and opponents of its reform.

Let me come back to the Government’s amendment. If the House was to vote down a motion under their proposals, Parliament would lose all influence. We would get no more than a statement from the Government informing us how they will proceed, frustrating the ambition of the vote that we had in December. Let us be clear: the Government’s amendment does not stop them sidelining Parliament from a crucial decision that will determine our future relationship with the EU, and nor does it prevent us from crashing out without a deal.

Viscount Hailsham’s amendment is explicit that if we do not accept the Government’s deal, it is for Parliament to determine the next steps. We will not be boxed into accepting “take it or leave it” options. We support the amendment because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) pointed out, it is Parliament that is elected to determine the country’s future. Viscount Hailsham's amendment would ensure Parliament directs the Government on how to proceed in the article 50 negotiations, in whatever way it sees fit at that time.

It is right that, in the words of the petition,

“A lesser of two evils choice between a bad deal and no deal is not acceptable. Our country deserves better than Hobson's choice”.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) is no longer in his seat; it is unfortunate that he misrepresented the petition’s objective and the use of “evil”. I do not think that the petitioners mean that a deal of some sort would in no sense be acceptable; their words were simply that the

“choice between a bad deal and no deal”

is not.

When Parliament makes a decision, all options have to be open, but the petitioners need to recognise that Parliament does not have the political mandate to overturn the referendum. To do so would create a democratic crisis. Clearly, some argue for a further referendum—those arguments were exercised today by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse); the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), although at one point he seemed confused about which petition he was talking about; and, in a different way, by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. But there is no indication of majority public support for a further referendum. There is growing support for a public vote on the final deal, but when polled, people do not want staying in the EU necessarily to be an option on the ballot paper—they are seeking a choice between that deal and a better deal, without looking back at the original referendum choice.

[Tom Brake]

If the hon. Gentleman has ruled out the option of a referendum on the deal, what solution does he see to the problem that he has identified? If Parliament makes a decision that stops the process, how will the country get out of that democratic dilemma?

[Paul Blomfield]

I appreciate the Liberal Democrats’ love of referendums, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, as far back as 2010, it was the Liberal Democrats who called for a referendum on our membership of the European Union—at the time, the Labour party opposed it—for that to be a decisive vote and for Parliament to accept the outcome. They are in a bit of a difficult position as they argue their point.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman answered my right hon. Friend’s question, so it would be nice to hear his answer. Precisely because we believe in debate and in the sensible arguments coming forward in the end, there is no contradiction in our saying, “Let’s discuss it to the end and take it to the people in the end.” That is the most democratic way forward.

[Paul Blomfield]

Let me return to the right hon. Gentleman’s question: it is not possible for us at this stage to predict how Parliament should exercise its response to the final deal. We need all the options to be available. I was simply pointing out that when the Liberal Democrats called for the 2016 referendum, they said that the results should be binding. It is a little ironic that, just as they jumped on that bandwagon, they are jumping on this one.

Mr Austin—sorry, Mr Davies—

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I am the new Dr Who.

[Paul Blomfield]

That was a seamless transition, Mr Davies.

The majority in Parliament respect the referendum result and those who voted in it, too. That majority knows that people voted to get out of the EU but that they did not vote to lose out. The majority wants a sensible approach to Brexit—no longer being in the EU but being in a customs union, with the closest possible relationship with the single market and continuing membership of the agencies that we built together.

The hon. Member for Bolton West was wrong in his characterisation of Labour’s position; our position was clear in our manifesto at the last election. The Prime Minister should reach out to the majority in Parliament and the majority in the country. If she comes back in October with a deal that fails the British people, it will be Parliament’s duty to set the direction for the next steps.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman]

I will not, because I need to get on with my speech and I have given way many times. Those are the objectives of the Government and of the Prime Minister.

As I have said, the Government recognise the strength of feeling on this issue. That is why we know that it is incumbent on us to secure a deal that works for all of the United Kingdom and one that Parliament will want to support. As the Prime Minister has said, our decision to leave the EU does not mark an ending; it marks a new beginning for our relationship with our European allies. This is where I diverge from right hon. and hon. Members and their pessimistic view of negotiations so far: we have made significant progress on the negotiations. We have agreed the terms of a time-limited implementation period.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister acknowledge that when Labour, echoing the views of business, the trade unions and many across the country, first floated the idea of a transitional period, the Prime Minister said she did not want that, so she defines progress as embracing Labour’s aspirations?

[Suella Braverman]

I do not think the Government have embraced Labour’s aspirations for a long time, and long may that continue. The implementation period was requested by the business community and the Government responded in kind. We have agreed the terms of a time-limited implementation period, and on the wider withdrawal agreement we have locked down entire chapters on citizens’ rights and the financial settlement. As to our future relationship, we are confident that we will secure an ambitious future partnership with the EU, covering both a significant economic relationship and a deep security relationship. I look forward to the forthcoming publication of our White Paper, which will set that out in detail.

On the economic side, we want the broadest and deepest possible partnership, covering more sectors and co-operating more fully than any free trade agreement anywhere in the world today. We want the greatest possible tariff and barrier-free trade with our European neighbours as well as the freedom to negotiate our own trade agreements around the world. That is why we are leaving the customs union and the single market. We want to ensure that UK companies have the maximum freedom to trade with and operate within European markets, and to let European businesses do the same in the UK. We therefore propose a unique and ambitious partnership, based on our rules and regulations being the same at the start and on maintaining our commitment to free trade and high standards while allowing for us both to make changes where we want to in a stable and orderly way.

On security, we have been clear that we must do whatever is most practical and pragmatic to provide security for our citizens. We must not allow competition to inhibit our co-operation and jeopardise the security of our citizens.

To return to the detail of the petition, the Government have committed to holding a vote on the final deal in Parliament as soon as possible after agreement has been reached on the withdrawal agreement and the terms of our future relationship, and the negotiations have concluded. The House will know that the Government have tabled an amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill for consideration this week, which will write into law our existing commitment on the vote on the final deal.

Some reference has been made to amendment 19—the Hailsham amendment—which is of concern. The Government’s amendment in lieu will write into law our existing commitment on the vote in the final deal. The problem with the Hailsham amendment is that it would remove Parliament’s ability to direct the Government in the negotiations—sorry, the amendment we have tabled will remove Parliament’s ability to direct the Government in the negotiations, which is a dangerous element contained in Viscount Hailsham’s amendment. It is important that I get that right.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister has, on the second attempt, defined what the Government’s amendment seeks to do: to remove from Parliament the opportunity to direct the Government in the event of not accepting the deal. Does she not recognise that that would leave the Parliament of the United Kingdom powerless in the most important negotiations facing our country?

[Suella Braverman]

I disagree. The Hailsham amendment would set a dangerous constitutional precedent that would limit the Government’s prerogative in the act of international treaty negotiation. That would reduce the flexibility necessary for a successful negotiation, which is essential for the Government if we are to get the best deal possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman]

No, not at all. The Government amendment writes into law our existing commitment on the vote on the final deal. It makes it clear that that is the case. In no way does it reduce the opportunity for and power of Parliament to have a meaningful vote on the final deal.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister is of course right that the Government’s amendment does not remove Parliament’s power to have a vote. However, will she not accept, addressing her remarks to those behind the petition as well, that the Government’s amendment takes all meaning out of the word “meaningful”? It simply provides for Parliament to have a take it or leave it, like it or lump it, no real choice vote.

[Suella Braverman]

The Government will present to both Houses of Parliament the terms of the withdrawal agreement as agreed between the EU and the UK. We will also present the terms of our future economic partnership. There will be considerable opportunity for scrutiny of the terms of our final deal, and the motion will be presented to both Chambers. That will provide Parliament with the opportunity to accept or reject the deal—there is nothing more meaningful than that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My right hon. Friend is correct: what we are doing, after all, is carrying out the judgment of the referendum, which was to take back control of borders, laws and money. During the referendum, both sides made it very plain that real removal from the EU means real removal from the customs union and the single market.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

They might be over-represented in the Secretary of State’s ministerial team, but supporters of the European Research Group constitute less than 10% of the membership of this House. Why are the Government putting their red lines before the interests of the country?

[Mr Davis]

I wish the hon. Gentleman a happy May Day this week, but he is basically putting—how can I express this in parliamentary language?—a non-fact in front of the House. The case is very simple: the Government are deciding on the future customs arrangements on the basis of the best interests of the United Kingdom.

[Paul Blomfield]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s May Day wishes, and I am sure that he will be celebrating as well. The Engineering Employers Federation says that being outside a customs union

“would condemn the manufacturing sector to a painful and costly Brexit.”

Does he really think that is a price worth paying to keep the ERG happy?

[Mr Davis]

I am not going to take lectures from a party that has had 11 different positions on this so far and whose own—[Interruption.] I am speaking through the Speaker, thank you very much. And a party whose own policy has been roundly criticised in singularly unparliamentary language by its own shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner).