European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Catherine West

3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I join the Minister in thanking the panel of Chairs for presiding over the Committee stages and the work they did in preparation for the debates we had, the staff in the Public Bill Office for the work they did over the Christmas recess and all Members who contributed to the debate in Committee.

The last two days have had their highs and lows. On the one hand, there have been very many thoughtful and considered contributions, and on the other hand, there has been a disappointing and resolute refusal of the Government to seriously consider any amendments however constructively intended. The Minister is right that there was a different tone to the debate, and that is clearly because everybody recognises that the result of the general election means we are leaving the European Union in 22 days’ time. But I think there was also a recognition, I hope on both sides, that leaving the EU does not mean that we will have got Brexit done. We will have completed the first step, departure, but the difficult stage is yet to come: agreeing the new relationship not just on trade, but as many pointed in Committee, on security crucially—but much more besides, from data sharing to research collaboration and more. These are in many ways more complex issues than those we have wrestled with over the last three and a half years, and they are issues with deeply serious consequences for the country.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

May I thank my hon. Friend for his speech and add to his list the anguish that many of my constituents are feeling—not just EU nationals, but those whose neighbours or family are EU nationals? This is, for many, quite a difficult moment.

[Paul Blomfield]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is a difficult moment for many, and I will come on specifically to some of the issues involving EU nationals that were not resolved by our discussions in Committee.

As we move into this next stage, I would urge the Government not to overinterpret their mandate in the general election. Yes, they have clearly secured an overwhelming majority of seats, but not of votes. Most people in this country voted for parties that did not support the principle of getting Brexit done at any price. As the Prime Minister observed, many of those who voted for him and colleagues had lent him their vote. I hope, and I sense, that part of the different tone—the subdued mood of those on the Government Benches—was a dawning realisation that they may find it hard to deliver on the high expectations that they have created over the last three and a half years. The Prime Minister has talked about bringing the country together—the Minister echoed that—and we all share the hope after the divisions promoted by the debates of the last three years. However, I have to say that it will need a different approach from the one we have seen over the last couple of days. It needs open ears and a willingness to reach out.

I understand why the Government rejected some of the amendments that we and other opposition parties tabled, but not all. Many were simply restoring previous Government commitments and others were to improve the Bill; none was to frustrate Brexit. In the short debate on the Bill in Committee, we as an Opposition pressed five main issues that in our view reflect the serious problems with both the withdrawal agreement and the way in which the Government have chosen to implement it. Over 100 amendments were tabled in Committee, but not a word of the Bill has changed, and we will therefore be voting against its Third Reading today.

Our first issue with the Bill is that, despite all of Parliament’s efforts to avoid a no-deal Brexit last year, it introduces a trapdoor to no deal at the end of December 2020—something that the Brexit Secretary appeared quite relaxed about in his reported comments following yesterday’s discussion with Ursula von der Leyen. Other Conservative Members over the last couple of days have expressed total confidence—total confidence—in the Government’s ability to secure trade and security deals by the December deadline, citing the EU’s commitment to use its best endeavours and good faith to agree a future trade treaty. That good faith was evident from Mrs von der Leyen yesterday, but I hope Members have also heard her warning, which was echoed by the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), that it would be impossible to reach a comprehensive trade deal by the end of 2020.

I hope Members will reflect on whether it really is wise for the Government to have added clause 33, barring Ministers from extending the implementation period. Of course, this is just a gimmick, and with their majority, the Government could at any point repeal that clause and negotiate a short extension. However, whatever our views on these issues, we should all be concerned that this Bill removes any role for Parliament in shaping that decision, so if the Government have not concluded and ratified an agreement with the EU on our future relationship, the supposed sovereignty reclaimed for this Parliament will be meaningless. We will have no say on whether we crash out on World Trade Organisation terms, even if the Government are days away from securing an agreement with the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

Yes, three years.

Through our new clause 4 we tried to offer a way of giving Parliament the role for which we were elected—and it is the role that my hon. Friend describes—without requiring an extension to the transition that is longer than necessary. Some Conservative Members who are not here today expressed sympathy with that approach, but not with our specific formulation, so I hope that this issue will be revisited when the Bill moves to the other place.

The second point that was a key concern to us was citizens’ rights. Colleagues from all Opposition parties set out why we believe that a declaratory system is essential to deliver on the Prime Minister’s commitment to EU citizens during the referendum campaign and subsequently, and to avoid a repeat of Windrush. This came up this morning in Brexit orals. In the Committee debate, I was pleased to get an important clarification from the Government on appeal rights, but I am afraid that I did not find the Minister’s speech on the broader issue of citizens’ rights at all reassuring. In a relatively convoluted argument—which the Secretary of State to a degree repeated this morning at Brexit questions—the Minister attempted to put the blame for the Windrush scandal on the safety net that ensured that victims could seek recourse against the treatment that they endure from immigration legislation and argued that the way to avoid a Windrush scandal for EU citizens was to take away the safety net provided by guaranteeing their rights.

We have already seen that almost half of applicants to the EU settlement scheme have not been granted settled status; they have been granted pre-settled status. Ministers have told us that we should be relaxed about this, claiming that pre-settled status is an automatic pathway to settled status. I am afraid we have every reason to be concerned, because it is not.

[Catherine West]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a real risk here that once again the Home Office is making a pig’s ear of this whole thing?

[Paul Blomfield]

Well, the Home Office has got form on these things, hasn’t it?

Let me explain why I am concerned specifically on this issue. Pre-settled status is intended for those EU citizens who have been living in the UK for less than five years. However, many EU citizens who have been living here far longer, many for decades, are being granted pre-settled status. They will be required to reapply to the scheme before their five years of leave under pre-settled status is up. If they do not, they will lose all their rights in the UK and, as the Home Office Minister pointed out, be liable to deportation.

Despite these risks, my understanding is— I would be very happy to be corrected— that the Government have no plans to notify EU citizens when their leave is about to expire, and prompt them to apply for settled status. If they do not even know of the need to reapply, many EU citizens will face the same difficulties evidencing their five years’ residency, so in any closing remarks from the Government Front Bench I would be grateful if Ministers can tell us what will happen to EU citizens who are granted pre-settled status for five years, then reapply to the scheme for settled status but are not able to evidence the required five years’ residence, which was the basic problem leading to their being granted pre-settled status in the first place.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Catherine West

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting
Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

I very much agree. There needs to be a voice for the approaching 55% of people in this country who were uncomfortable with the direction offered by the Conservative party manifesto. Although the result of the general election was clear, it does not mean that the Government can proceed without question, challenge or scrutiny. That is the point of many of our amendments.

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, the tone of which is just right. May I press the wider question around scrutiny? We will shortly have no Exiting the European Union Committee and I am not sure when the Select Committees will return. There is a lot of detail and, having sat on the International Trade Committee, I know that a lot of mistakes can be made at the beginning of the process when it comes to having a forward-looking trade deal. I fear that rushing into it like this—not allowing Parliament much time to debate the principles at the beginning and giving the Government a tiny implementation period—could lead to a much worse outcome than if we were to take a little time to be more thoughtful and give Parliament a genuine role in the new arrangements.

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is right to focus on the issue. The Government have seemed reluctant to embrace the idea of scrutiny and accountability since October in so very many ways. I hope they will think seriously and quite genuinely over the period ahead to ensure that there is a proper opportunity for this House to question and debate the direction of travel.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Catherine West

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) for their work on the Bill, and the way in which they introduced both the business motion and the Bill to the House.

Labour supports the Bill because it is necessary to fulfil the wishes of the House, which has voted down the Prime Minister’s deal on three occasions and has also voted against leaving without a deal on three occasions.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Can my hon. Friend think of another time when the TUC and the CBI have both been as emphatic as they have been about the dangers of a no-deal Brexit?

[Paul Blomfield]

I cannot, and that underlines the importance of this Bill, which provides for the further extension of article 50, which is now inevitable. The Bill offers a legislative framework through which the House can have an effective role in the process of determining that extension.

Clearly, the Bill sits in the new context of the Prime Minister’s statement late last night, in which she said that she was seeking talks with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Those talks have now begun. We welcome what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) described as a “late conversion to compromise”, although we regret the damage that has been done to the economy and the credibility of this House by the Prime Minister not compromising sooner. It is an approach that she should have adopted long ago.

The Prime Minister could have adopted this approach almost three years ago, after the referendum, when the country decided by a painfully narrow margin to leave the EU, but not to rupture our relations with our closest neighbours, key allies and most important trading partners. She could have done so after the election, when she went to the country saying that Parliament was obstructing her and seeking a mandate for a hard Brexit, but lost her majority and failed to get the mandate. She could also have done so on any of the three occasions when her deal was defeated by the House, but she chose not to. We have consistently called on the Prime Minister to reach out to the sensible majority in the House and to unite the country, recognising that the people of this country include both the 52% and the 48%. But better late than never.

We also welcome the way in which the Prime Minister distanced herself last night from those kamikaze colleagues who, as she said,

“would like to leave with No Deal next week.”

The House has expressed its clear view on leaving without a deal, and this Bill provides the legislative lock to ensure that the will of our sovereign Parliament is not frustrated. It also provides for the flexibility to ensure that we can accommodate whatever comes from the discussions between our parties and across the House over the next few days.

We have set out clearly the framework on which we will be seeking the compromise that the Prime Minister talked about last night: a permanent and comprehensive customs union; close alignment with the single market; dynamic alignment on rights and protections; clear commitments on participation in EU agencies and funding programmes; and unambiguous agreements on future security arrangements. We have also been clear in our support for a confirmatory public vote on any deal that comes about at this very late stage. We look forward to the further discussions on these issues, and we are pleased to give our full backing to this Bill.

Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Catherine West

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.

Leaving the EU: Customs

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Catherine West

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the following papers be laid before the House: all papers, presentations and economic analyses from 1 January 2018 up to and including 16 May 2018 prepared for the European Union Exit and Trade (Strategy and Negotiations) Cabinet sub-committee, and its sub-committees, on the Government’s preferred post-Brexit customs arrangements including a Customs Partnership and Maximum Facilitation.

This is, frankly, a desperate state of affairs. We are two years on from the referendum and five months away from the deadline for the withdrawal deal, but the Government still cannot agree on the most basic of Brexit issues: our future customs arrangements. Each week we see a new attempt, and each week we see it fail, with a Cabinet—a war Cabinet—and two Sub-Committees of warring factions. Yesterday we at least saw some agreement: the agreement to kick the ball down the road for another month as the Government agreed to publish a White Paper on their negotiating position, but without any agreement on what will be in it.

The Prime Minister is clearly in a difficult position. Every time she tries to make progress, a Cabinet Minister is waiting to trip her up. As an Opposition, it is tempting for us to dwell on the Government’s misfortune but, frankly, this is too important. The lives of millions of people across the country depend on us getting Brexit right, and if the Government cannot, Parliament needs to take responsibility, because there is a majority in this House that believes in a sensible approach to delivering the decision of the referendum. That starts with our customs arrangements, which is why we have tabled this Humble Address motion to seek the publication of the papers and analysis on the Government’s two post-Brexit customs options: the Prime Minister’s favoured proposal of a customs partnership, which has of course been dismissed by the Foreign Secretary as “crazy”; and the so-called “maximum facilitation” option, which the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy rightly warned would put jobs at risk. Both have faced serious criticisms of their technical detail and may be illegal, according to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office.

The Brexit Secretary, who is unfortunately not in the Chamber, has dismissed the customs partnership as “blue sky thinking”, but when looking at the maximum facilitation option, I was struck by his words. I want to quote him precisely:

“Faced with intractable problems with political pressure for a solution, the government reaches for a headline grabbing high-tech ‘solution’. Rather than spend the resources, time and thought necessary to get a real answer, they naively grasp solutions that to the technologically illiterate ministers look like magic.”

Those were the words of the Brexit Secretary. As it happens, he was speaking in 2008 about ID cards, but was he not prophetic in anticipating today’s “intractable” problem? However, it is not intractable; there is a solution.

It is clear to everyone that the Government are in a total mess, locked in a fight over two options, neither of which is practical or acceptable to the EU, but this House has an opportunity to sort out the mess. There is a majority that respects both the result of the referendum and our duty to protect the livelihoods of the people we represent. The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) rightly described the conflict in the Cabinet as an “ideological cage fight”, adding that Parliament may soon be “making the decisions”. Frankly, it would make a better job of it. There is a majority for a new and comprehensive customs union, both here and beyond the House, among all those who recognise the importance of protecting our manufacturing sector, of securing frictionless trade with the EU, and of honouring our obligations on the Good Friday agreement and the border in Ireland.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will give way briefly, but I am conscious of time and of the number of Members who wish to speak—interventions will cut into their time.

[Catherine West]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I heed his admonition. Does he agree that peace in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is crucial, especially given the background work done by Members on both sides of the Chamber and everyone’s heartfelt desire to maintain peace in our time?

[Paul Blomfield]

I would, of course, and I am frankly distressed that those who favour the most destructive Brexit are so casually willing to dismiss that if it gets in the way of their objectives.

Let me return to the breadth of support for a comprehensive customs union outside the House. The director-general of the CBI, Carolyn Fairbairn, has described it as a non-ideological and practical solution. Crucially, she pointed out:

“If we don’t break the impasse on this customs decision, everybody will be affected—manufacturers, services companies, retailers. An awful lot hangs on this now.”

Her view is shared across business and the trade unions.

Those who seek the deepest possible rupture with the EU, no matter the cost, have been developing their arguments against a customs union, so let me address them. Some have warned that being in a customs union raises prices for food and clothing through the common external tariff. I hope that they will also reflect on the response of British farmers and clothes producers to their idea of unilaterally cutting our tariffs, presumably to zero.

I have also heard the absurd argument that developing countries would be disadvantaged by a customs union with the EU. Current customs arrangements serve developing countries well, as 49 of the poorest countries have tariff-free access to the EU market through the “Everything but Arms” policy. If the approach would be so damaging, perhaps the Government will explain why they propose to replicate the entire EU regime on market access for developing countries—the general system of preferences—after Brexit.

The most frequent objection, of course, is that a customs union would prevent us from signing trade deals with other countries—it would. That sounds significant, but the significance is largely symbolic. We can and do trade with non-EU countries without trade deals. The EU is our biggest trading partner, but the US is our biggest national trading partner, and that is without our having a trade deal. Some people talk about increasing trade with China once we are free of a customs union, but Germany trades four times as much with China as we do.

Brexit Deal: Referendum

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Catherine West

Monday 11th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[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.