Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Suella Fernandes]

Well, being in the customs union also puts up prices for consumers in food, footwear and clothes. I am often surprised that the Opposition do not champion the benefits of leaving the customs union, which this Government are doing.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I do not often cite the International Trade Secretary favourably, but he was right when he was in China with the Prime Minister in February and accepted that a customs union with the EU “self-evidently” does not prevent us from increasing bilateral trade with countries such as China. What assessment have the Government made of the comparative benefits for the UK of being in a customs union and not being in a customs union when it comes to trade with non-EU countries?

Leaving the EU: No-deal Alternatives

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a delight to wind up for the Opposition with you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach). A large majority in this House respects the outcome of the referendum, but wants to ensure that we leave the EU on terms that protect the economy and people’s jobs and livelihoods, as well as the rights and protections that we gained through 43 years of membership. It is a majority that recognises our future lies in a close and collaborative relationship with the European Union. The hon. Lady is very much part of that majority, and she has done us all a service by securing this debate and in the way she opened it.

There is a heavy responsibility on this Parliament, on all our shoulders. We face the most important choices in our lifetimes that will affect generations to come. That demands that we are honest and open in evaluating the decisions we face. That is why Labour has consistently pushed for the publication of impact assessments and economic analyses so that we have the information we need to inform our decisions. We need to avoid what the Prime Minister’s former deputy, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), described on Monday as the

“problem of politicians who won’t accept evidence.”

He was also right when he said:

“If analysis is being produced, then publish it. And frankly there will be a big political debate...Let’s have this argument in public, that’s what democracies do.”

The referendum was a clear decision, but it was a painfully close vote that we should implement in a way that unites the country, which involves the sort of compromise that many Members have talked about. Whether people voted remain or leave, they will not thank politicians who lead them into a Brexit on a false prospectus that fails their expectations and damages their prospects. We need to be honest about the expectations created by the referendum. Everybody now recognises that £350 million will not be released for the NHS, or for anything else, as the Chancellor confirmed in his 2016 autumn statement.

Nor will taking back control mean a significant change in migration. As the Environment Secretary told the National Farmers Union yesterday,

“agriculture needs access to foreign workers...both seasonal and...permanent.”

He echoed the Brexit Secretary who said in Estonia last year that the door will not “suddenly shut” on EU immigration, as it will take “years and years” for British citizens to fill the employment gaps.

On the ECJ we need to recognise that any trade agreement will involve ceding sovereignty to bilateral or transnational bodies. People need to know that trade deals will have consequences. The US Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, has made it clear that a

“critical component of any trade discussion”

with the UK would be the scrapping of EU food rules. And for what? For 0.2% growth anticipated by the Government. So open discussion of all the options is vital as we move forward.

I have been to the reading room and I should make it clear that I am complying with the confidentiality requirements, so I quote from information in the public arena. We should pay attention to the Government’s own analysis that EEA membership would see 2% lower growth than otherwise projected over 15 years. A comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU would result in 5% lower growth, and no deal would almost double that: an entire 8% lower growth.

No deal is, of course, the most damaging of all the options. The hon. Member for Eddisbury made that case extremely clearly and well. We should look at everything. The Labour party wants to keep a customs union and a new relationship with the single market on the table. We want to consider the EEA-EFTA model, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) argued when we last debated the issue.

[Vicky Ford]

Did the hon. Gentleman say he wants to keep membership of “a” customs union or “the” customs union on the table?

[Paul Blomfield]

I really love the pedantry of this. I was clear that we are talking about a customs union that serves the needs of the British economy and British manufacturing.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich argued previously, the EEA-EFTA model raises challenging issues and would need to be supplemented by customs arrangements, but it should not be lightly discounted, because there are features of the EEA-EFTA model that we would want to see as part of any final deal.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

I was just about to mention the hon. Gentleman, so I am delighted to give way.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I await with anticipation what the hon. Gentleman will say. When he said he would not lightly discount EFTA and the EEA, does that mean the official Opposition are not discounting it as an option?

[Paul Blomfield]

I think that is fairly clear: we want to keep options on the table, in an economy-first Brexit negotiation. I was going to say that the hon. Gentleman’s points about the political ideology of the EU27 were reflected, ironically, at the weekend in Munich by the Prime Minister, when she warned the European Union not to let “political doctrine and ideology” stand in the way of a good deal on security—the hon. Gentleman is nodding. She was right, but if that is good enough for security, why is it not good enough for the economy? Political doctrine and ideology from the European Research Group has framed the Government’s approach from day one, ignoring not simply the 48%, but so many of the 52% who did not vote for an extreme and destructive Brexit.

We have now had two of the series of Cabinet speeches apparently defining the “road to Brexit”, and they highlight the depth of divisions. We had the Foreign Secretary’s damp squib, setting out his ambition for regulatory divergence, contradicted yesterday by the Brexit Secretary, who tried to reassure everybody that little would change. Tomorrow, of course, the Cabinet will try to resolve the differences.

At this moment, out of the shadows, comes the European Research Group again, with a letter echoing the one co-ordinated by the Minister when she was its chair, seeking to derail the Government’s policy on the transitional period, and with it to ensure that the country stumbles towards the extreme and destructive Brexit that the vast majority of people simply do not want. Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity, having not yet replied to my letter of several weeks ago, to reject that approach, and make it clear that she supports Government policy on the transition.

There has been a lot of common ground in today’s debate. The Opposition hope, even at this late stage, that the Government can reach out to the common ground in Parliament and in the country, with a sensible approach to the negotiations that face us in the few short months that we have left, seeking a Brexit that puts the economy first and keeps all options on the table.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Fernandes]

Norway does not have a seat in the European Parliament. It does not have a vote on whether regulations coming through the EEA agreement apply to it or not. It generally has to follow those obligations in line with its obligations under the EEA agreement. To diverge from that agreement would be a breach and would therefore lead to questions about its membership and subscription to that agreement. That is a fundamental point that makes membership of the EEA and the Norway option not attractive for the UK.

In response to calls from business, the implementation period is there to benefit businesses and individuals, so that they avoid the need for two sets of changes. It will also give them more time to adjust to the new future partnership.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister give way?

[Suella Fernandes]

I will not, unfortunately. I have only six minutes and I have quite a lot to get through. I am sorry; I cannot.

The implementation period will also ensure that businesses have time to adapt to the new relationship between the UK and the EU. Crucially, only under a deal with the EU and the UK can this essential period take shape. None of the alternatives suggested in today’s debate can offer that level of continuity and clarity to businesses and citizens in the short term. That is why the deal that the Government are seeking is the best alternative to a no deal and is an alternative that we are confident of securing.

On EFTA—

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister give way? There is a tradition of accepting an intervention from a shadow Minister.

[Suella Fernandes]

I must continue because I do not have much time, and EFTA has been a big issue in this debate. I will give way if I have time after my comments—I hope the hon. Gentleman will have patience with me.

Several hon. Members have raised EFTA membership today as the main alternative. Although we recognise the benefits of ensuring continuity in our relationships with the EFTA states, we have no plans to seek membership of the EFTA agreement for four key reasons.

First, EFTA is a trading bloc of four countries. Membership of EFTA does not in itself deliver any market access to the EU. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein effectively participate in the EU single market by virtue of the EEA agreement. That would not deliver more direct control over decisions affecting the UK, nor would it deliver control over migration, which is a key aspect of our leaving the EU.

Switzerland participates in some areas of the single market through a series of bilateral agreements with the EU, but many of those do not cover the areas in which the UK has interests. In any case, the Government have made clear on a number of occasions that we are not pursuing an off-the-shelf arrangement; we are not copying and pasting other agreements. We are seeking a particular bespoke agreement relevant to the UK’s economy. The model I have been discussing does not strike the right balance on democratic control and mutual market access that we want in our future partnership with the EU.

Secondly, our ambition as a global trading nation goes beyond the scope of EFTA’s existing free trade agreements with third countries. EFTA’s FTAs are not suited to the size and type of the economy in Britain. They are not with the larger economies of the world—countries and economies with whom we would wish to be pursuing new economic partnerships. They are not in the sectors where our economy has strengths, which are areas in which we would want to pursue new agreements. Leaving the EU offers the opportunity to negotiate our own free trade agreements and to be a positive and powerful force for free trade in the world.

It is also worth mentioning that membership of EFTA would not be the quick and easy solution that some here have argued. Even if EFTA members were to welcome us back into EFTA, we would not have immediate or automatic access to their 27 FTAs. Our entry into each one would need to be negotiated individually with the third countries involved.

Thirdly, membership of EFTA means accepting free movement between EFTA member countries, as the EFTA convention provides for free movement of EFTA nationals. Liechtenstein has been raised as a derogation, but it is not a comparable example. Liechtenstein is a country with a population that numbers less than that in almost every constituency in the UK, at 37,000. It is very difficult to see how the example of Liechtenstein can be applied to the UK, with its population of 65 million.

Finally, although we want to maintain our deep and historic relationships with the EFTA states, the UK is in many ways different from those countries. The EFTA states have a combined population of 14 million people, compared with our population of 65 million. The EFTA bloc’s combined GDP in 2015 was around £710 billion, in comparison with the UK’s £1.9 trillion. The UK’s participation in EFTA would fundamentally change the nature of that group.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

As my right hon. Friend well knows, we are going into negotiation on this matter almost as we speak. During that period, my primary concern is any new laws coming into effect over which we have had no say, and we will aim to set up arrangements to ensure that they do not harm the United Kingdom.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

After the Prime Minister’s Florence speech, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), who I welcome to the Front Bench, co-ordinated a letter from the European Research Group describing the Government’s policy on the transitional period as staying in the EU “by stealth”. She has not yet replied to my letter of 14 January, offering her the opportunity to retract that view. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is these divisions at the heart of the Government that jeopardise our negotiations? Will he confirm that all his Ministers support Government policy on the transition?

[Mr Davis]

It is almost sine qua non that all my Ministers support Government policy, which is more than I can say for Opposition Front Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend’s account is essentially correct. At the time I considered it implausible because my direct experience is that civil servants are extraordinarily careful to uphold the impartiality of the civil service. We must proceed with great caution in this matter, but I have heard him raise the issue. We need to be very careful not to take this forward in an inappropriate way, but he has reminded me of something that I heard. It would be quite extraordinary if it turned out that such a thing had happened.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

You said it was correct.

[Mr Baker]

I did not say it was correct. I said that the account that it was put to me is correct. It was put to me, and I considered it an extraordinary allegation—I still consider it an extraordinary allegation. [Interruption.] To be absolutely clear, I said it was correct that the allegation was put to me. I did not in any way seek to confirm the truth of it. What I would say is that we need to proceed with great caution, because it is essential that we continue to uphold and support the impartiality of the civil service.

Government’s EU Exit Analysis

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to wind up this debate. It is one of a series that reflect the historic period this is for our country. In the decisions we are making, we are shaping the future of this country for generations to come. Nobody in this House should underestimate that responsibility. It is unfortunate that today’s debate appears to have been largely boycotted by both the mainstream Conservative party and, unusually, by the ideologues of the European Research Group, with the exception of its two former chairs, who were careful to flank the Minister in his opening remarks.

I guess that we had much of the real debate yesterday, in response to the urgent question tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), so I want to make reference to some of those comments, too. There have been moments during the past couple of days when the debate has risen to meet the responsibility that we have to the country, but too often it has fallen short. Accusing Members of being saboteurs or mutineers, or of thwarting the will of the British people, for wanting information released is as unhelpful as it is dishonest; this is a little ironic coming from people who have spent much of the past 43 years seeking to overturn the will of the British people as expressed even more strongly in 1975. Releasing information is not about whether we leave the EU, as the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) argued yesterday—that was settled when this House voted to trigger article 50. The debate now is about how we leave, and clearly a small minority in this House are so dogmatic in their hostility to the EU that they would crash out at any cost. But they are, as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) pointed out, a very small minority. So it falls to the majority of us in this House to ensure that that does not happen, and being provided with the information that we need to inform our decisions is crucial.

The Opposition are therefore pleased that the Government have recognised that that majority would have found its voice this afternoon and supported our motion, and they have therefore pre-empted this by accepting the proposal we have put before the House. However, let me seek reassurance on the nature of the release of those papers. The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), set out terms along the lines of those set out on the last occasion—this very much has a sense of déjà vu—but he will know that those documents were rewritten before they were released. So I hope that the Minister who concludes this debate will confirm that the papers to which this motion refers will be released in full and unamended. That should not be a problem because they are already in the public arena.

The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester, in opening the debate, described the papers as “work in progress”. In order that we do not have to keep repeating this farce, will Ministers commit to releasing the final versions of the papers following the discussions with members of the Cabinet, which, apparently, they were prepared for? Will they also commit to releasing future analyses as they are completed, so that this Parliament can fulfil our responsibility to make informed decisions?

In yesterday’s discussion, it was said that we would weaken our negotiating hand by sharing assessments and that the EU27 would never do such a foolish thing. Oddly, the EU does not seem to see it that way: the European Parliament has published dozens of impact assessments, on a range of sectors and areas; and a number of departments of the Commission have made their Brexit readiness documents available. With a quick search, I was able to find on the internet the Swedish Government’s assessment of the impact on borders and trade, the Danish Government’s report on the fishing industry, the German Economic Ministry’s assessment of the impact of a hard Brexit on German GDP and the Irish Finance Minister’s “Getting Ireland Brexit Ready” document. The transparency that other Parliaments and other Governments are giving to their people should therefore be replicated by our Government.

Without wanting to add to the discomfort of the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester, at the praise heaped on him by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe, I want to welcome the different approach taken today by him in his opening remarks. It marked a sharp contrast with that adopted by the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe yesterday. Denouncing the work of his own civil servants is both unacceptable and dangerous. Does he suggest that the Government should adopt the same approach to all economic assessments? Should we disregard the work of the Department for Transport on infrastructure investment or the modelling done by the Department for Work and Pensions? Should we just reject any economic analysis that suggests there may be post-Brexit options that might not offer the sunny uplands that he promised in a previous life? I have to say that, yesterday, it sometimes looked as if he was not certain whether he was speaking for the Government, or from where his heart is as a former chair of the European Research Group.

The hon. Member for Worcester said today that the end relationship that the Government want has not been modelled. Clearly, that needs to be done, but there is a crucial first step: they need to say where they want to be. As a former DExEU Minister said in another place yesterday,

“there are still no clear answers to those basic, critical questions. All we hear day after day are conflicting, confusing voices.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 1423.]

That option needs to be realistic and honest. In today’s debate and yesterday, there was lots of talk about respecting the British people, and that is absolutely right, but it is about more than respecting the outcome of the referendum. We fulfilled that responsibility by triggering article 50. It is about being honest with the British people about the journey on which we have now embarked, consequent to triggering article 50. It is about setting out the options—realistic options—and sharing the consequences of the different choices available. And there are different choices. There is no evidence that the British people want the extreme Brexit favoured by the European Research Group, and quite a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Those who campaigned so hard for a referendum on our membership of the European Union said that we should trust the people. Now, they should trust them with the information on the consequences of the options before us. They also argued for the importance of parliamentary sovereignty. Now, they should accept that too. The British people have a right to know, and we as their representatives have a duty to know. As the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), said yesterday:

“It’s time for evidence, not dogma, to show the way. We must act for our country’s best interests, not ideology & populism, or history will judge us harshly. Our country deserves no less”.

He is right. The Government need to respond to our motion today not just by accepting it, but by honouring it in full.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

As we have said many times, we conduct a wide range of analysis to support our negotiating position as we proceed through this process.

To reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), I reassure him that we will comply scrupulously with the motion, working with the Chair of the Select Committee. We will ensure that we comply with the confidentiality requirements of the motion and that the House is satisfied. He asked me about future analysis and the reassurance that I gave yesterday stands. We will ensure that, at the time of the meaningful vote, the House is appropriately equipped with the analysis that it needs to make a decision.

[Paul Blomfield]

I just want to be absolutely clear: the papers that we are talking about today are a work in progress and, in discussion with the Chair of the Select Committee, they will be released in full. And given that they are a work in progress and the suggestion is that we should therefore be looking to the final documents as the crucial guidance to this House, will they be released when they are completed?

[Mr Baker]

I heard what the hon. Gentleman said the first time, but the commitments that we are giving are that we will comply scrupulously with this motion and that we will make available to both Houses analysis at the time of the meaningful vote. That is the commitment into which we are entering, but I have heard his request for a continuous evolving analysis. What we have said is that we will not give a continuous rolling commentary on our analysis. We will proceed to ensure that the national interest is protected. We made a commitment to provide Parliament with the appropriate analysis it needs to make a decision on the final deal at the time that we vote, in the way that is set out in the written ministerial statement that we laid.

The Secretary of State has been consistent in stressing the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the Brexit process. We have done this willingly to ensure that the parliamentary process is followed. I endorse the actions that we have taken, as I accept collective responsibility regarding the point that was raised earlier.

Finally, as I reiterated yesterday, the people of this country on 23 June 2016 took the decision to leave the European Union. The purpose of the analysis that we have conducted is not to question that decision—which this House voted to respect when it supported triggering article 50—but to ensure that we have the best possible outcome for the British people. We are accepting this motion today on the exceptional basis of the poor reporting of a leak.

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

That is simply not the case. As I have not hesitated to say several times, the economic analysis does not show the country being worse off; it shows the country being better off under all circumstances. It shows GDP growing—

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Nonsense!

[Mr Baker]

The shadow Minister says it is nonsense, but I can assure him that it is not. The economic analysis shows GDP increasing in all circumstances. The point of the Government’s policy must be to carry through faithfully the decision of the British people and to do so in a way that proves these doom-mongers and naysayers wrong.

Leaving the EU: Implementation

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

There is a majority in this House that wants a sensible approach to Brexit, so does the Minister agree that it would be right to reach out to that majority instead of letting the European Research Group call the shots? Will he also confirm, as the Chancellor, Business Secretary and Brexit Secretary said in a letter on Friday, that during the transition period, our relations will “continue on current terms”? Will he also confirm, as the Secretary of State told the Brexit Committee on Wednesday, that he does not see the Court of Justice as a red line and that, indeed, any red lines in the negotiations would be “idiotic”? In that vein, do the Government now recognise that it was wrong to rule out a customs union and close relationship with the single market, and does the Minister agree with the Chancellor that our economies should move only “very modestly apart”?

The Government are too distracted by negotiating with their own Back Benchers to focus on the negotiations that matter with the European Union. They are incapable of setting out a clear negotiating position, as Angela Merkel apparently said in Davos at the weekend. Is it not the case that the extraordinary infighting that we have seen again this weekend is the single biggest threat to a Brexit deal that works for Britain?

[Mr Walker]

I agree with one thing that the hon. Gentleman said: there is a majority in this House that wants a sensible approach to Brexit. We saw that with the passage through this House of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, despite the votes of Labour Front Benchers, who voted against a stable and sensible approach with continuity and certainty as we take this process forward.

Of course we need to make sure that we deliver stability and continuity for our businesses, which was why the Government set out from the start, in the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech, the approach of having an implementation period. I am happy to update the House on the beginning of talks on that implementation period today, but we will take no lectures from the Opposition’s Front-Bench team, who have a different position on these issues every day of the week.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Committee: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Grieve]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I do not want to get dragged into revisiting the way in which the European Union works. The European Union has many flaws, and there are many issues on which I have seen fit to criticise it during my years in the House—including, sometimes, the way it goes about its business. Having said that, this constant conflation of the two issues when we are carrying out scrutiny of what will be domestic legislation is, in my view, not helpful. We need to focus on what we are doing. If we do, we will come up with the right answers.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who made a characteristically thoughtful and reasonable contribution. It is always remarkable to see how such thoughtfulness and reasonableness can be so provocative to some Government Members.

I wish to speak to amendments 348 and 349 in my name and the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends. I hope, in doing so, to build on the agreement across the Committee that was evident last Wednesday, when we made the decision that Parliament should have a meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Just for clarification, amendment 348 is in the first group of amendments and amendment 349 is in the next group.

[Paul Blomfield]

Thank you for that clarification, Dame Rosie, although I think that the points that I am making stand regardless.

Following on from the decision last Wednesday, let us be clear that an overwhelming majority of Members respect the result of the referendum, as was reflected in the vote on article 50, but there is also a clear majority who reject the deep rupture with our friends and partners in the EU 27 that is advocated by some of the more extreme Brexiteers. In the months ahead, that clear majority needs to find its voice. Most Members—many more than reflected in last Wednesday’s vote—recognise that our future lies in a close and collaborative relationship with the EU. [Interruption.] I am sorry if that was provocative to some Government Members. The Prime Minister describes that relationship as a “deep and special partnership”. It is a relationship based on maintaining common EU standards and regulations necessary for our future trading relationship, and it is vital in protecting jobs and the economy.

It is also a majority of the House who recognise that the referendum was a close vote—not the unprecedented mandate that some have suggested. Yes, 17.5 million people voted to leave the EU in 2016. That is roughly the same number as voted to remain in 1975, although that represented 67% of voters in 1975. It was a clear decision, but a close vote, and one that we should be implementing in a way that unites the country, not in a way that drives a further wedge between the 52% and the 48%.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should be trying to bring people together, rather than separating them. In that context, will he explain his definition of Brexiteer? He used the word earlier in the phrase “more extreme Brexiteers”. In his definition, is every Member who voted for article 50—I think that five sixths of the House did so—characterised as a Brexiteer?

[Paul Blomfield]

Clearly not. Like hon. Members across the House, including the overwhelming majority of the Opposition, I campaigned to remain in the European Union because I thought it was right thing to do economically and politically for our country and our continent. But I voted for article 50. That clearly does not characterise me as an extreme Brexiteer. Since I was elected in 2010, it has startled me that a small number of Members seem to define their politics by their ambition to leave the European Union at any cost and at any price; that is what I would describe as extreme.

[Richard Graham]

Again, just for clarification, Members who voted for article 50 are not Brexiteers, but presumably those who did not vote for article 50 are also not Brexiteers. Therefore, none of us is a Brexiteer; or are we actually all Brexiteers and just trying to resolve the issue?

[Paul Blomfield]

I am not really sure where the hon. Gentleman is trying to go with that argument. My point is that an overwhelming majority in the House wish to see us implement the decision of 2016 sensibly, and in a close and collaborative relationship with the EU 27. There are others—a small number, whose voices I expect to hear shortly—who would see us leave at any cost, and I regret that.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend says a number of extreme Brexiteers in this House want to leave at any cost. Does he accept that a small number of Members will do anything—anything—to stop the United Kingdom carrying out the wishes of the British people to leave the European Union?

[Paul Blomfield]

No, I do not, and it is unfortunate that some people have been characterised in that way, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and others were by some of their colleagues last week. If I can now make some progress—

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

Well, while we are talking about extreme voices, I am happy to give way.

[Mr Jenkin]

There are right hon. and hon. Members who say they want to honour the result of the referendum, but who actually want the European Union to carry on controlling our laws. I call them Brexinos—people who want Brexit in name only. There may well be a majority of them in this House, but that would not be respecting the result of the referendum, would it?

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman is a good example of those who see conspiracy in any corner. I note the article he wrote in The Guardian on 8 October under the title “It’s a sad truth: on Brexit we just can’t trust the Treasury”. He went on to say:

“There is no intrinsic reason why Brexit should be difficult or damaging, but the EU itself has so far demonstrated it wants to make it so…it has co-opted the CBI…the City and…the Treasury to assist.”

Well, I think that the majority of Members take a more rational view.

The decision taken in 2016 was not a mandate for driving over a cliff edge with no deal or for having no transitional arrangement in place. It was not a vote for leaving all the agencies and partnerships from which we have benefited over the years and could continue to benefit or for turning our back on the single market, walking away from the customs union or—I say this with an eye on the contribution made in the last debate by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who is paying more attention to his phone than to the debate—turning our back on the Court of Justice of the European Union.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Would the hon. Gentleman let me intervene?

[Paul Blomfield]

I was hoping the right hon. Gentleman would.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Is the hon. Gentleman not guilty himself, however, of attempting to interpret what the vote was for? On the ballot paper was the issue of whether to leave; the rest is down to negotiation. So, surely, his position is as absurd as that of anyone who says they know these things. He does not know. He knows only one thing: that the British people voted to leave. The rest is for negotiation.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The rest is indeed down to negotiation, and it is down to this Parliament to make the final decisions.

In the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution to, I think, the debate on day one, he sought to interpret the mandate by saying that the primary reason, from the research he had done, for leave voters voting as they did was their antipathy to the Court of Justice of the European Union. I was quite surprised by that, because I talked to hundreds of people on the doorstep who told me they were voting to leave, and the jurisdiction of the CJEU was not one of the regular issues raised.

Therefore, after day one, I took the time to look at the right hon. Gentleman’s research, which was carried out in partnership with the Foreign Secretary’s and the Environment Secretary’s favourite think-tank, the Legatum Institute. I located the report, and I read it with interest. Unusually, it did not include data on the full results, only the final weighted results, but the interesting thing was the question itself. Whereas the other choices were value-neutral—the economy, immigration, national security or the NHS— one option was

“The ability for Britain to make its own laws”—

a leading question if ever I heard one. [Interruption.] If the question had been “Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice”, the right hon. Gentleman may well have found a different answer. Other research, with larger samples—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can skip that and go to the point that was in that pamphlet, which made it clear that when people were asked what their primary reason was for voting to leave, it was “Take back control”—control of our laws, our borders and our money. He can debate that as much as he likes, but the public knew about that when they voted.

[Paul Blomfield]

rose—

[Wera Hobhouse]

Are we not in a discussion about who interprets what? Is it not therefore time that we asked the people: what did they mean?

[Paul Blomfield]

We will come to that point in the second half of our debate today, and I will take the opportunity to comment on it then. However, to answer the right hon. Gentleman, the point I was making was that he sought to interpret the leave vote in a way that, on the basis of the research he cited, was flawed.

Analysis he might look at of nearly 3,000 British people, which was conducted by the NatCen Social Research, found that concerns about immigration were the driving factor for 75% of leave voters, which should not surprise him, because that was something he put very much at the centre of his arguments during the leave campaign.

If we know what the vote was not, let us remind ourselves what it was: it was simply a vote to leave the European Union. The campaign was hugely divisive. I spoke at dozens of meetings during the campaign, and the very last question of the very last meeting, in a local church, was, “How are you going to put our divided country back together again after all this?” Sadly, that question is as relevant now as it was then, as some of the abuse faced by Conservative Members after the vote last week demonstrated.

Meeting that challenge is a responsibility for us all, and it starts with us recognising that the majority in this House speaks for the country in wanting a sensible approach to Brexit. Instead of fuelling division, the Government should reach out and seek to build on that consensus for the next phase of the negotiations, in a way that will bring people together.

Last week’s drama should have been unnecessary. We should have been able to readily agree on the sovereignty of Parliament and on a meaningful final vote for this place. Labour amendments 348 and 349—when we come to it—which seek the publication of any impact assessment conducted by the Government, should be as uncontroversial as the idea that Parliament should have a say.

Clearly, events have moved on since these amendments were tabled, but real issues do remain. We obviously brought a motion on the issue to the House on 1 November, asking that impact assessments should be passed to the Exiting the European Union Committee. We did that for the same reason that the House voted last week: we want proper transparency and accountability in this process, but that is not what we got.

The Government neither amended nor opposed our motion, but they hoped to sidestep it. When Mr Speaker confirmed it was binding—

[Richard Graham]

On a point of order, Dame Rosie. My understanding of the advice you gave earlier is that amendment 348, which is about impact assessments, is not being discussed at this moment. I think that you told us that this debate is supposed to be about new clause 21, which is about clear English. That is why I asked the question about the shadow Minister’s definition of the word “Brexiteer”. However, I have not heard anything about new clause 21, and I think that you said we are going to take amendment 348 later.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

No, I think the hon. Gentleman misheard. I actually said that amendment 349 was in the second set and that amendment 348 is in this set, as is clause 13 stand part and schedule 5—hence why the debate is a little wider than the hon. Gentleman might wish it to be.

[Paul Blomfield]

Thank you, Dame Rosie.

The point I was making was that when Mr Speaker confirmed that our motion was binding and, indeed, that the Government should comply urgently, they clearly found themselves in a bit of a fix. Three weeks later, they finally produced something, although it was not what we voted for. I was really keen to read the papers that had been described by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union as offering “excruciating detail” on the impact of the various options we faced as a country when leaving. So I, like a number of other Members, booked my slot for the DExEU reading room at the earliest opportunity.

On 5 December, I turned up at 100 Parliament Street and reported to reception. I was accompanied, closely, to the room. When I arrived, I was required to hand over my mobile phone. Having been sat at the table, two lever-arch files were brought to me from a locked cabinet, and as I read them I was supervised by two civil servants. So what did I find? Nothing that could not have been found in a reasonable internet search—which is presumably what the civil servants had been doing over the preceding three weeks in order to prepare them.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I went through the exact same experience. I visited the Cabinet Office and gave in my mobile phone, and made my written notes on the various tables in the section I was interested in. Afterwards, I found that I was given the identical information by submitting written parliamentary questions —so why all the secrecy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend makes the point very well. Why all the secrecy for what was available in that room, because there was certainly no assessment—or analysis, if we are playing with words—of the impact of the policy choices facing the Government and the country?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

The education section starts by saying, “We will not touch on the effects on Horizon 2020 or Erasmus.” It does not touch at all on non-higher education. There is no impact assessment on summer schools or language teaching in this country. Clearly, the work was not really done even with an internet search.

[Paul Blomfield]

We are probably straying on to dangerous territory if we start talking about the content, such are the rules surrounding the documents until such time as they are made public, but those of us who have been there know that they provide no analysis and no impact assessment. So it was no surprise when the Secretary of State told the Brexit Committee last Wednesday that the Government had undertaken “no quantitative assessment” of the impact of leaving the customs union—just one of the policy choices we face. Yet just a few hours later, in a room just a few yards away, the Chancellor told the Treasury Committee that the Government had

“modelled and analysed a wide range of potential alternative structures between the EU and the UK, potential alternative arrangements and agreements that might be made.”

The Chancellor’s answer was developed in oral questions last Thursday by the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who is in his place. He said:

“Our sectoral analysis is made up of a wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analyses examining activity across sectors, regulatory and trade frameworks and the views of stakeholders.”—[Official Report, 14 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 588.]

Let us bear in mind that the Secretary of State had said that no quantitative assessment has been undertaken on the impact of leaving the customs union. So in this

“qualitative and quantitative analysis of regulatory and trade frameworks”

have the Government for some reason exempted the customs union?

[Tom Brake]

Is the hon. Gentleman confused, as I am, about the reasons why the Government seem to have this problem—I do not know whether it is an ideological objection—with conducting impact assessments? We heard from the Prime Minister on Monday that Ministers are sitting down to discuss our future trading relationship with the European Union without having in front of them any impact assessments on what the different economic impacts of these models might be. How irresponsible is that?

[Paul Blomfield]

The worry is that either they are not conducting them or they are conducting them and not sharing them in the way that was required.

[Mike Gapes]

Could not there be another, far more simple, explanation—that the Secretary of State is heading a Department that should be renamed “the Department for Winging It”?

[Paul Blomfield]

That is probably the sort of phrase that the Secretary of State might use on some occasions.

On 2 February 2017, the Secretary of State told the House:

“We continue to analyse the impact of our exit across the breadth of the UK economy, covering more than 50 sectors—I think it was 58 at the last count—to shape our negotiating position.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2017; Vol. 620, c. 1218.]

Was he right? Or was the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) right when he said recently that the Secretary of State

“has never actually referred to impact assessments… These were a fiction of the media and the Labour party”?

If the Government are playing with semantics, claiming that assessments of impact and impact assessments are not the same thing, they should be aware that they are at serious risk of misleading the House. Even more worryingly, have they, as we have heard suggested, actually not undertaken this work at all? Are they hiding these assessments in semantics—hiding them from the House and from the Select Committee—or do they not even have any work to hide?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am terribly sorry, but I am not going to take any further interventions. I am going to sit down in a second. I only want to say that I am profoundly grateful, not only to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have joined us in this amendment, but to the Government. This is exactly the way to deal with these things: find a sensible compromise that brings everyone on the Government Benches together and makes the Opposition entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

[Paul Blomfield]

It is, on this occasion, a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who was at his erudite best in critiquing Government amendment 381, echoing many of the points the Opposition made on day one of the Committee stage. It was also very helpful that he spoke so clearly on the flexibility provided in the article 50 process, in contrast with the remarks he directed against my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) who made exactly that point only last week. It is good to see the right hon. Gentleman moving on.

I rise to speak in favour of amendments 43 to 45 and 349, which are tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Let me, however, turn first to Government amendment 381, which revives, on this last day of the Committee stage, the issues that we debated on the first. The two solitary names on the amendment say everything about its purpose: the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), neither of whom is present. We are seeing an alliance between the Government and, on this issue, one of their most troublesome Back Benchers.

As I think the right hon. Member for West Dorset made clear, it is not as though the amendment adds anything to the withdrawal negotiations. Indeed, it hampers the process. It is just another example of the Government’s throwing red meat to the more extreme Brexiteers on their Benches. As we said on day one, the amendment is not serious legislation. It is a gimmick, and it is a reckless one—in relation not just to the flexibility on the departure date to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but to the wider aspects of exiting. It reaches out to those who want to unpick the Prime Minister’s Florence speech and the basis for a transitional period.

Setting exit day “for all purposes” as one date means the end of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice at the point at which we leave the European Union. As we warned the Government, that would make a deal with the EU on the transitional period impossible. We also warned the Government that they could not deliver the support of the Committee of the whole House for the amendment, and that was confirmed by the tabling on Friday of amendments 399 to 405. Just as the Government have caught up with the Labour party on the need for a transitional period, by cobbling together this compromise in the face of defeat they have caught up with us on the need for flexibility on exit days for different purposes. The Solicitor General is raising his eyebrows at me. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that the Government have caught up with themselves. The Bill as originally drafted did not include amendment 381. The Government have recognised that it is nonsense, and are seeking to find a way out. We will go for the more straightforward way by seeking to vote it down.

Amendments 399 to 405 give Ministers the power to set exit day through secondary legislation. We would give that power directly to Parliament, for all the reasons that we set out last week. We will therefore support amendments 386 and 387, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) along with members of five parties, and new clause 54, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said earlier, he tabled it helpfully to allow the Government to embed the Prime Minister’s Florence commitments in the Bill.

Let me now deal with our amendment 43 and consequential amendments 44 and 45. On Wednesday evening, Parliament sent a clear message to the Government: we will not be sidelined in the Brexit process. The passing of amendment 7 was a significant step in clawing back the excessive powers that the Government are attempting to grant themselves through the Bill, and in upholding our parliamentary democracy. As with the final deal, Parliament must have control over the length and terms of the transitional period, and our amendments would provide that. The Prime Minister has eventually recognised that she was tying her hands behind her back with her exit day amendment, but amendments 399 to 405 are not the solution. They simply loosen the legislative straitjacket that the Government unnecessarily put on themselves. The Government must respect the House and accept that Parliament, not Ministers, should set the terms and length of a transitional period.

As I said in our earlier discussion this afternoon, there is a clear majority in this House for a sensible approach to Brexit and to the transitional arrangements. That brings together business and the trade unions and many other voices outside this place, just as it brings together Members on both sides of the House.

The Prime Minister knows we are right on the transitional arrangements, as her Florence speech made clear:

“As I said in my speech at Lancaster house a period of implementation would be in our mutual interest. That is why I am proposing that there should be such a period after the UK leaves the EU…So during the implementation period access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms”.

But every time she reaches out for common sense, and tries to bring the country together and to build the deep and special partnership she talks about, the extreme Brexiteers step in, trying to unpick our commitments, and setting new red lines, whether on the Court of Justice or regulatory divergence, which they know will derail the negotiations and deliver the complete rupture they dream of. So the transitional arrangements, which are important both for the interim and in positioning us for our longer term future, must be in the hands of this Parliament.

[Paul Farrelly]

Does my hon. Friend agree that services are so important to our economy that if we want to negotiate something that has not been negotiated before, it is likely to take far longer than two years?

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why it is so important that we give ourselves the flexibility on exit dates and in relation to the transitional period.

Our amendment 349 seeks clarification from the Government—I am looking at the Minister as I make this point—that they do not intend to use delegated powers to create criminal offences of a seriousness that carry custodial sentences. I hope the Minister will in his remarks state that that is not their intention, and if that is the case will he indicate now that the Government will give a commitment to amend the Bill accordingly on Report?

Let me turn now to some of the other amendments currently under consideration. We support many of the other new clauses that seek reports aiding transparency and good evidence-based decision making. New clauses 31 and 33, for example, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) raise important issues for children’s welfare. New clause 44 in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) requires an independent evaluation of the impact of this legislation on the health and social care sector, which we would also support. Others, such as new clause 11 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) helpfully seek to ensure that we do not fall behind the standards and protections we currently enjoy as they develop in the EU. We would support that, as we would new clause 56 on protecting the existing rights a person in Gibraltar can exercise in the UK as a result of our common membership of the EU; we will support that new clause if pushed to a vote by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant).

Amendments 102 and 103 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) are right in seeking to limit the use of delegated powers in Bills other than this one, past or future, to modify EU retained law. That is a vital component of keeping the scope of delegated powers in check.

On that point, we have over the past few days seen a timely reminder of why we have opposed the extent of the Henry VIII powers in this Bill. The Government might wax lyrical about wanting to preserve workers’ rights, but in reality too many Members on the Conservative Benches—although I accept not all—cannot wait to get started on dismantling them. The contempt for the working time directive we have seen over the last few days is not a revelation: 20 of the 23 members of the current Cabinet have opposed that directive. The Foreign Secretary has made no secret of his view that the key rights that the directive provides represent “back-breaking” regulation. The International Trade Secretary has described them as a “burden”. The Prime Minister went further when she damned the whole social chapter as a “burden on business”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

I pick up my right hon. and learned Friend on a couple of things. First, he has used the word “identical”—I did not use it because I have not taken the time to go through his new clause absolutely word for word to check his work.

[Paul Blomfield]

You haven’t read it!

[Mr Baker]

Of course I have read it—it is here in my hand. I have read it but I have not gone back and done his homework for him to check and mark his work.

I make two points to my right hon. and learned Friend. First, as I said, it would be a constitutional innovation to begin putting statements of policy for negotiations in legislation. That is a good reason not to accept the new clause. The second point—[Interruption.] He says that it is not a good reason. He is the Father of the House and he has occupied many of the great offices of state. I would be interested to know when, in his long and distinguished career, he accepted that principle in legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

I refer the hon. Lady to the positive news in the joint statement that was agreed last week, which reflects the fact that we have agreed to work together on these matters. For the length of the Horizon 2020 programme, up to 2020, we will continue to be able to bid into the scheme.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

When we discussed this matter last month, the Minister brushed aside concerns about the falling participation rates of UK researchers in Horizon 2020 projects, but since then, as he will know, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has confirmed that in figures it has published. If participation continues to fall at that rate, by March 2019 we will have dropped by two thirds, which will be a significant blow for UK research. What assessment has the Minister made of those figures and what is he going to do about it?

[Mr Walker]

The figures actually show that the UK’s funding share is holding up extremely well, which shows how competitive we are.

[Paul Blomfield]

It has fallen.

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Gentleman says it has fallen, but it has fallen from 15.3% to 14.7%. That is 15% either way. I think the joint statement will reassure people that they can continue to bid and to participate in these schemes and that the UK will continue to benefit from them, and we want to ensure that that is the case. Of course, we also want to explore the potential for a strong future relationship with the EU in this space.

[Paul Blomfield]

May I suggest two specific things that the Minister can do? Will he confirm that applications that are not fully signed off at the point at which we depart from the EU in March 2019 will be fully supported for their entire duration? Will he also say that he will put participation in framework programme 9 and successor programmes at the very heart of the ambitions for negotiating our future relationship with the EU?

[Mr Walker]

On the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, it is clear from the science and research paper that we published earlier this year that that is our ambition. We want to explore all the potential for working with the EU on these issues. On the first part of his question, I refer him back to last week’s joint declaration.

Brexit Deal: Referendum

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to wind up for the Opposition with you in the Chair, Sir David. I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) for how she framed our discussion this afternoon, and I thank her for her informed, thoughtful and entertaining speech.

We in the Labour party campaigned strongly to remain in the European Union. We believed that to be in the best interests of our country economically and politically and the best interests of the continent that we share—and will continue to share—with the other 27 members of the European Union. However, I want to make it clear at the outset that we are not calling for a further referendum, or what might best be described as a third referendum, after the first in 1975 and the second in 2016.

Of the four petitions under our consideration, the one that includes strongest support for such a referendum is the first, which expresses an aspiration to give

“the people of this country the final say on the Brexit deal negotiated by the UK and EU…through a referendum that would take place prior to the April 2019 exit date.”

That wording highlights the difficulties with the aspiration that those who drafted and signed the petition may genuinely and understandably feel. A number of hon. Members have already highlighted the 2016 referendum’s problems, one of which is that it offered a choice between a known and an unknown: we had experience, knowledge and understanding of being a member of the European Union, but leaving was an unknown. That vacuum was seized on by leave campaigners, who painted the situation in all sorts of ways to meet whatever aspirations they felt were held by those who might support them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and others rightly highlighted issues with the leave campaign, while acknowledging that the remain campaign did not get it right either—both sides have questions to answer about how their campaigns were run. Nevertheless, the basic problem of the choice between a known and an unknown will not have changed before April 2019. The only matters that we will have negotiated over the next 10 months, because they have to be agreed by then, are our departure, the basic agreement for which was settled on Friday; the transitional arrangements, which are critical; and the broad direction of travel for our future relationship. The detail of our understanding of how we will work with the EU27 will not be settled before we depart the European Union in April 2019, so a vote within that timeframe will have many of the same problems as the 2016 vote.

[Tom Brake]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but does he agree that a vote next October, say, would at least have the advantage of taking place against a background of a known settlement deal and a reasonable understanding of the impact on EU and UK citizens? It might still leave a big question mark over the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and we might still not have a detailed idea of the trade relationship, but in all probability we would have at least a heads of agreement about where the relationship is likely to go. Is that not a lot better than what we had on 23 June last year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

Many of us have described it as a step on the road to what our future relationship might look like, but it is only the first step; the big issues remain unresolved, and will continue to be unresolved by the date that the right hon. Gentleman suggests for another referendum.

[Geraint Davies]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will not, actually, because my hon. Friend has had plenty of opportunity to contribute to the debate.

From day one, the Opposition have argued that Parliament should have the final say on our deal before March 2019, and that that should be a meaningful and real decision, with all the choices in front of us.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I have asked the Government to set out their estimated timetable for negotiations and agreements, but so far we have been denied that road map for the decision making. I believe we are in danger of leaving by coincidence, as it were, and it is important that the Government at least provide a timetable of how they think the decision-making process will go ahead.

[Paul Blomfield]

That might be helpful, but if the Government did provide such a timetable, they would discover that they are already two months behind their first target date.

I understand the frustration of those who call for another referendum. Judging from the comments of leading leave campaigners in the days before the 2016 referendum, we would be facing the same demands from the other side if the remain camp had won by the same margin.

[Catherine West]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s lack of preparation for the result was a dereliction of duty? If they had been more prepared the week after the referendum, that would have speeded things up; at least we would have had some sort of a road map by now. It is the feeling that the process is completely out of control that is so frustrating.

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The arrogance and confidence with which the Government approached the referendum campaign was probably what led to the result; it certainly meant that they were not prepared for the outcome.

I also understand the frustration that the promises made by leave campaigners were so quickly disowned after 23 June, whether that was the nonsense about £350 million a week for the NHS or the expectations about migration that were unleashed but that the Government have no intention of delivering in the way that the leave campaign led people to expect. Since Labour’s view was that our membership of the European Union was too complex and far-reaching an issue to be resolved by a simple binary vote, we did not support the call for a referendum at the time of the 2015 election. At least the enthusiasm of the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for a further referendum matches his enthusiasm for the last.

We have heard some interesting contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) made some thoughtful comments. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) was probably right to say that these debates slip too often into tribalism, although I thought he was edging towards it himself at the end of his contribution. One of the problems with a simple binary vote was that it left the result open to the extreme interpretation, and those on the right of the Conservative party have tried to fill the void. They quickly seized upon the result, describing the decision as the biggest mandate in UK political history, which it was not. The number of people who voted to leave in 2016 was roughly the same as the number who voted yes in 1975—and that was a 67% vote in favour of joining the European Community. However, that did not stop some of the leave campaigners who remained consistent for more than 40 years in seeking to overturn that vote.

At the same time, some of those same people have interpreted the 2016 vote as a mandate for the deepest rupture possible, which it was not. As others have pointed out, it was not a mandate for driving over a cliff edge with no deal, or without a transitional deal on much the same terms that we have now. It was not a vote for leaving all the agencies and partnerships, from Euratom to the European Medicines Agency, and it was not a vote for turning our back on the single market or for walking away from the customs union, regardless of the consequences. It was simply a vote to leave the European Union. It was a close vote—a painfully close vote—but there was a clear decision, and we should be implementing that decision in a way that tries to unite the country and not divide it.

I turn to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), because she addressed a central issue. I have been involved in all sorts of campaigns over the years, but one of the worst aspects of the 2016 referendum was just how unpleasant and divisive it was. I did dozens and dozens of meetings in my constituency, trying to make the case for us to remain within the European Union, and I was delighted that my constituents voted—by about 70%—to remain. However, the very last question at the very last meeting that I attended in a local church has stayed with me ever since. Somebody said, “How are you going to put together our broken country after this referendum?”

Another referendum will not tackle that challenge, but frankly nor will the approach of the Prime Minister in allowing the extreme Brexiteers in her party, who are a minority, to set the agenda. To be fair to the Prime Minister, she went to the country in June to seek a mandate for extreme Brexit, but she did not get it. That vote of the people deserves respect, too, but she is pushing on regardless and allowing the internal management of the Conservative party to come before the national interest.

The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) talked about this issue having been a running sore. Others have pointed out that it is not a running sore through the country; it has been a running sore through the Conservative party.

[Martin Vickers]

May I intervene on that point?

[Paul Blomfield]

Yes, I would love the hon. Gentleman to do that.

[Martin Vickers]

I pointed out that the 1975 referendum was to deal with the running sore within the Labour party. The Labour party was split at that time, as the hon. Gentleman will know. The fact is that both parties have been divided on this issue, which is actually a reflection of the way that the country is divided on it.

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the point I was making was about the situation we are facing now, whereby the running sore that has driven the Conservative party to make so many mistakes on the question of the European Union is still there in the way in which we are seeing the Conservatives manage the Brexit process. We saw the landmark speech in Florence, in which the Prime Minister sought to define the way forward for the negotiations by drawing a line and moving forward. Within 24 hours, members of her Cabinet were unpicking it and she responded by back-pedalling.

We saw that again in relation to the settlement on Friday. That was a negotiated settlement, which drew the line under the first three key issues of the negotiations, so that we could move forward as a country. However, within hours members of her own Cabinet were seeking to say, “No, no, it wasn’t quite that.” Even the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was saying, “Well, that was just a kind of an agreement. We can always change it.” That inability to confront those within her party whose motivation in politics is driven by nothing beyond their hostility to the European Union is now damaging our country and damaging our ability to negotiate a departure from the European Union on terms that could reach out to the 48% as well as to the 52%.

What we need now, though, is not another referendum but a fundamental change of approach by the Government, to recognise what people did vote for on 23 June 2016 and what they did not vote for; to seize the opportunity not to take one side of the argument but to pull the country together. It is a challenge that I regret the Prime Minister has so far shown no sign of rising to. I hope that she might yet prove she is able to rise to that opportunity, and this debate might be a small part of that process, in a way that she has clearly been unable to so far. The interests of the country depend on that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

We are engaged with great energy on this issue, but of course the structure of the talks means that this is for the future partnership. We have published a paper on these issues setting out our intention and a very open offer to the EU to discuss these issues. We look forward to seeing its papers in response, but they have not been published yet.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Minister does not seem to get it: the time for fudge is over. UK researchers are being excluded from Horizon 2020 projects now because the Government have failed to confirm our position after March 2019. UK students who are considering applications now for Erasmus programmes starting in 2018 do not know whether they will be able to continue for those programmes’ duration. The Government can sort this out. Ministers should stop sending conflicting signals about the transitional period and commit to both programmes for the duration of the multi-annual financial framework. Will they do that?

[Mr Walker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his list of questions. The UK has already protected funding up to 2022. The research and development funding provided through EU programmes is additional to the protection of science resource funding announced at the autumn spending review. We will also underwrite successful bids to Erasmus+ that are submitted while the UK is still a member state, so the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion is simply not right.