Renters (Reform) Bill

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Wera Hobhouse

Report stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

While I respect the views of the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who raised some valid points about the county court system and the pressures on it, as someone representing a large number of private renters, I must nevertheless express my concerns and share those raised by the shadow Minister and others about the Government’s failure to deliver on their promise on no-fault evictions. I rise, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for students, to comment specifically on the proposals in relation to students, to support new clause 41, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), and to speak to amendment 260, which stands in my name.

Students form a substantial part of the private rented sector. Back in July, the all-party parliamentary group organised a meeting to ensure that their views were heard. We brought together people from different nations of the UK and from all parts of the country. The Minister—sadly, he is not currently in his place—would have found it useful, because it highlighted a number of issues in the Bill that have not been properly thought through. I have discussed with the Minister the issues that came out of our meeting, and I am grateful to him for having found that time, but I want to share some reflections at this point in the Bill’s progress.

First, on the decision to extend grounds for eviction from purpose-built student accommodation to houses in multiple occupation and potentially to other student renters, there are mixed views across the country. Some are worried that exempting students makes them more attractive to less scrupulous landlords as potentially second-class, less protected tenants. Others, though, were concerned that giving students the same protection as other renters would force landlords to leave the student market, with that point made by landlords in areas where there was significant pressure on the housing market. Overall, we reached the same view as the Select Committee: on balance, the exemption is probably right, but it needs to be kept under review.

There is, however, a wider problem with the whole approach to students in the Bill. It seems that the Government have approached students with a one-size-fits-all model: they are undergraduates aged 18 to 21, living away from the parental home from the first time, and living there during term time only. However, students at our meeting were at pains to point out that they are not a homogeneous group. There are mature students who are renting in their home city and need to be there all the time, and students with families. Many courses do not start in September and are not on the cycle on which the Government’s amendments are premised. There are postgraduate taught programmes on a different, longer cycle. There are postgraduate research students on full-time programmes over several years, who are like any young professional. There are mixed households of students and non-students, particularly where groups of friends form and perhaps one member graduates.

I discussed all those variations with the Minister— I am glad to see him back in the Chamber—and his view was that any atypical student would simply not be subject to the exemption, partly because these issues have not been thought through properly. That might be in their favour because they will have greater protection, or it might leave them out in the cold because landlords will find them less attractive within the student market. Again, that emphasises the need to keep the impact of the student proposals under close review.

As the Minister resumes his seat I will move to my amendment 260, which raises a further issue that he referred to: the cycle of student tenancies, which I have discussed with him and on which he was sympathetic. When some of us were students, undergraduates would start university in September, settle in and make friendship groups, and towards the end of the academic year, after Easter, they would start looking for accommodation for the subsequent year. We have seen a landlord-driven arms race, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West referred to it, in which they have pressured students ever earlier in the year to enter into contracts for the subsequent academic year.

It is now the norm in many parts of the country that students starting a course in September are put under pressure by landlords the following month to enter into a contract for the following year. That forces them to pay a substantial deposit at a point in their life when they already have significant additional costs. It also forces them into joint tenancies with groups of people who they might discover later in the year are probably not who they want to live with in the subsequent year. Appeals to landlords to step out of the contract into which they entered are invariably rejected.

As the Government’s proposals are to regulate on the basis of that tenancy cycle, my proposition is that we try to make that cycle work better by saying that designated student contracts should not start sooner than March of the year in which students will take occupation in September. That would be in the interests of tenants, for the reasons that all of us who represent students will know. Setting a defined starting point will also end the arms race, in the interests of landlords.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The tendency that the hon. Gentleman refers to is not new. My daughter, who graduated in 2011 and therefore started in 2008, was already under that pressure. He is right that for a lot of young people it is incredibly difficult to find a group of people they want to live with the following year within a month of arriving at university. His proposals are commendable and I hope the Government are listening.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It does vary in different parts of the country, but the way in which it has come earlier and earlier each year, to the ludicrous position where students are being forced into contracts for the subsequent year almost at the moment they start their first year, clearly needs to be addressed. As I said, I have discussed this issue with the Minister. When we talked about it he seemed sympathetic, so I hope it is an issue we can address as the Bill progresses.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Before I start my remarks, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

My amendments—amendments 39 to 41—all refer to the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. I have raised this issue with the Government for the past two years, after one of my constituents, who is a lecturer in law at Bristol University, came to me with his concerns. To be fair to the Government, the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), had a meeting with that group of academics, but then I heard nothing, which was a little bit disappointing. I have, just this afternoon, received a reply from the Minister. I thank him for that, but it was dated yesterday and only sent to me today. I will look at it very carefully, but it is still important that I raise here what I have to say.

There are two parts to amendment 39, which relates to the law on harassment of a residential occupier. At the moment, the law is complex and confusing, particularly for lay people, and difficult to enforce. I have glanced over the response from the Minister. The Government believe that there is currently enough power of enforcement. As I understand it, the 1977 Act is quite unknown. Local authorities and the police do not know enough about it. I wonder how we can work in that space to ensure that any unintended consequences brought in by the new legislation will not allow rogue landlords, or those who do not want to do the right thing, and refer them to other pieces of legislation.

First, the amendment would change the law so that everyone who is harassing a residential occupier to try to get them to move out of the property is subject to the same law. Currently, if a criminal landlord is harassing the tenant, the law is fairly clear. However, it might be another individual who is harassing the tenant to get them to move out. In this case, the local authority has to try to find out whether the person doing the harassing is an agent acting for the rogue landlord.

There is also often deliberate obscurity about the identity of the landlord. Investigating the relationship between individuals to establish their precise legal relationship is time consuming and unnecessary, where the aim of the legislation is to protect residential occupiers from harassment. The amendment changes the law to make enforcement easier for local authorities. The change will not affect the position of landlords. They will continue to be subject to the same law. It is only the local authority that can prosecute this offence, and it would still need to prove that a rogue landlord, their agent or any other person knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, that their actions would have the result of causing the occupier to leave.

The other thing that the amendment would do is clarify the law. Currently, if a rogue landlord interferes with services that are reasonably required for the occupation of the premises as a household, that can constitute harassment. However, it is not clearly stated what those services are—I can think of essential services, such as electricity, cutting the water off or even changing the locks—so it is important that we take that into consideration. We are not talking about decent landlords, as I have always made very clear. It is about getting to those landlords who are clearly not doing the right thing.

As I said, it is not clearly stated what the services are. Amendment 39 sets out a list of such services, including water, gas and electricity, as well as access to “electronic communications networks and services” as defined in section 32 of the Communications Act 2003.

Amendment 40 deals with three issues. First, the law on whether certain occupiers are protected by the legislation on illegal eviction is very complex, and it can be very difficult to establish. That is because some occupiers—for example, those who live with the landlord—are excluded from the protections in the law and can therefore be evicted without a notice or court order. That creates an incentive for sham arrangements whereby a rogue landlord might pretend to live with a tenant to circumvent the protections in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. The amendment reverses the burden of proof, placing it on the landlord, who must establish that an occupier is not protected by the law. It is based on the idea that everyone has the basic protection of the law unless they are in an exclusionary category for a good reason. The presumption should be that they are protected.

Cost of Living: Support for Young People

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Wera Hobhouse

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ali. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this important debate. It gives us an opportunity to shine a light on young people, who are often overlooked. In my short remarks, I will focus on students.

The last decade will have a long and significant impact on the younger generation. Many entered their youth in the throes of the financial crisis, went through the pandemic in their formative years and are now experiencing the full force of the cost of living crisis. The latest economic shock is presenting a new set of challenges for young people, particularly students.

I recently met a group of students from Bath Spa University. They are hugely worried about the financial pressures that rampant inflation is placing on them, and their concerns are not unfounded. UK students have seen a 7.5% cut in their maintenance loans. That has had severe consequences: research by the National Union of Students shows that a third of UK students are being forced to live on £50 a month after paying rent and bills. Some are having to choose between feeding themselves and carrying on with their education; many are holding down multiple jobs to make ends meet. Mercy In Action, a local charity in Bath, has seen a fivefold increase in the number of young people and students who need to use its food pantry. Inevitably, students from the poorest backgrounds are disproportionately affected.

The cost of living crisis goes far beyond a purely financial hit. The Bath Spa students I spoke to described how the crisis was causing them considerable stress and anxiety. The Student Value Report showed that nearly two thirds of UK students felt their mental health had been negatively affected, while two fifths of students thought that their physical health had been affected. That is no way to go through a demanding course of study, or to sit and prepare for exams. The Government claim to view economic growth as a priority, but growth is not sustainable unless we support our young people. The students of today will shape our future, and should have ample opportunity to do so. The Prime Minister talks about equality of opportunity, yet she is not giving students the opportunity they need to achieve their potential.

Of course, failing to support students has a knock-on effect on local economies. Student spending supports over £80 billion of economic output: that is crucial for places such as Bath, where over a third of our population is made up of students. If students are struggling, the local communities in which they live will lose out too. To prevent the devastating effects of student poverty, the Government need to tie student support to inflation, as we have already heard, and deliver urgent maintenance grants and bursaries to those who need them.

[Paul Blomfield]

I know that the hon. Member regularly takes up student issues and is a strong advocate for her student constituents. Does she recognise that students, particularly those from poorer backgrounds, went into this crisis already at a disadvantage, not least because the salary threshold for eligibility for maximum loans in England has been frozen at £25,000 since 2008? Does she agree that a simple measure the Government could implement, and should not necessarily rule out, would be to adjust the threshold so that those from poorer backgrounds are more able to access those loans in England?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Member for that remark—I have to admit that I was not totally aware of the detail, but I fully support what he has said about what needs to be done. It is clear that young people, including those who are now in their 30s, have already lost out because of the financial crisis. We need to support that younger generation, but we also need to support the young people who are coming through now, those who have been at a disadvantage as a result of covid. The least we can do is listen, and the Government need to listen to the recommendations that have been made today and act on them urgently.

As I said, the Government need to tie student support to inflation and deliver urgent maintenance grants and bursaries to those who need them. The cost of doing so would be low compared with other recent Government spending commitments. It would support the vital economic growth on which this Government tell us they are uniquely focused. While I applaud universities that have provided hardship funds, those institutions do not have enough means adequately to protect students in need: that is the responsibility of central Government. The Prime Minister has talked regularly about equality of opportunity and about growth. If this Government are serious about growth, they need to invest in people, especially young people.

Leaving the EU

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Wera Hobhouse

Monday 5th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. He is right that we have not always agreed on these issues over the last four years, but we are in roughly the same place now, in wanting to secure a deal by December—not just any deal but the deal that the Government have pledged. That deal was not described by the Prime Minister as something that might be achieved; he said it was there, ready to go and we just had to press the button. I will return to the specific question of Canada, because it is important.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is it not also true that it is unfair to say that Brexit was not done in the last three years because of all the people who wanted to delay it, when it was the Tories and the Conservative Government who did not get the deal done? They dithered and argued among themselves, and even decapitated their own Prime Minister. Is it not true that the Conservative party was also to blame for Brexit not getting done for such a long time?

[Paul Blomfield]

Indeed, that is the point I was making a moment ago. The agony within the Conservative party, as it tore itself apart, was a significant delaying factor in getting the deal done.

As a number of Members have said, businesses require certainty. We welcomed the Minister back to her place at Cabinet Office questions last Thursday, and I am delighted to see her on the Front Bench today. I will ask her four specific questions, to which I would be grateful for a reply in her closing remarks.

First, can the Minister guarantee to the automotive sector that it will not face any tariffs from 1 January, in accordance with the Prime Minister’s promise, despite the apparent decision by the Government not to press to secure an agreement on rules of origin?

Secondly, can the Minister assure the financial and legal sectors, which are hugely important to our economy, that the Government’s deal will allow them to do business without new barriers, as the Prime Minister promised?

Thirdly, can the Minister guarantee that there will be no weakening of the arrangements that we have had within the European Union to keep the UK safe from serious international crime and terrorism, and, in particular, that we will retain access to systems such as the European criminal records information system, which shares data about prior convictions across EU countries?

Finally, returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), given that the Government have insisted that they want a Canada-style deal, which raises the question of why that is off the table, would the Minister confirm that the Government would be willing to accept the non-regression clause provisions within the EU-Canada deal on workers’ rights and environmental protections? Those are precisely the points that were ripped out of the withdrawal agreement after the December election. If the Government were prepared to accept those, it would be a gamechanger in the negotiations.

Those are straightforward questions because they are all based on promises made by the Prime Minister, so it should be relatively simple for the Minister to say yes to each one of them. If not—I hate to think it—the Government might not have been telling the truth.

The coronavirus pandemic, which is referenced in e-petition 300412, makes it even more important that the Government deliver the deal that the Prime Minister promised, to support jobs, the security of our country, business and people’s livelihoods. As we look to the future, rebuilding from the devastating impact of the virus, we cannot face the additional problems of a disruptive departure from the transition. Covid-19 has taken people’s bandwidth in the civil service, politics and the EU. Businesses have not been able to prepare in the way that they would otherwise have done, because their capacity has been stretched.

It was unfortunate that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in his recent statement to the House, tried to point the finger of blame at businesses for not being prepared. They are not helped by the unanswered questions that remain. Businesses around the country have reasonable questions about trade not only in goods, but in services. The agricultural sector has questions about health, food safety, standards and checks. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) talked about the problems of the pharmaceutical sector. I have talked to many other sectors in my role. Businesses representing critical sectors of the economy simply cannot get a hearing from this Government.

The Government have maintained throughout the coronavirus crisis that they could deliver a deal in the timeframe they have allotted themselves. They will be judged by that promise. As it stands at the moment, they need to get a grip and deliver the deal: not any deal, but the deal they promised last December; the deal that we need for the country to move on.

Further Education Funding

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Wera Hobhouse

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I chair the all-party parliamentary group on students and we provide a voice for students in both further education and higher education. In this place, we spend a lot of time talking—rightly—about higher education, but not enough talking about further education. I therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing the debate and on the work that he does with my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). It is a real pleasure to see so many colleagues attending this debate; I am sure that it will send, through the Minister, a powerful message back to the Treasury.

I will keep my remarks brief. It is a delight to be able to scribble out many of the comments that I was going to make because so many other Members want to contribute to the debate.

I will briefly make a couple of points about Sheffield College, which provides a great education for 17,000 students from entry level to level six, across 25 subject areas. Crucially, 53% of its students come from disadvantaged postcode areas, including 75% of its BME students. Half of its 16 to 18-year-olds receive financial support from the college, because they come from low-income households.

When the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) made her first speech as Prime Minister—that seems like a very long time ago—she said that her Government

“will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.”

That is exactly the mission of Sheffield College and of the FE sector. Our college has strong leadership. It is ambitious for its students and in its mission to enable social mobility, and it is committed to upskilling, retraining and developing the skills of adults across the city.

Ahead of today’s debate, I asked the college what it needed to fulfil its role, and there were four asks. The first was that within the wider debate on education funding, 16 to 18-year-olds are recognised as a priority. College funding has fallen by 30% over the past 10 years, and that must change. Secondly, it asked that additional funding be made available for adult students. Continuing on from previous cuts, the college’s indicative adult budget—

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

We need to add that further education colleges are the best opportunity for lifelong learning.

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Lady is exactly right, so it is disappointing that we see consistent cuts in the adult budget. In the year ahead, Sheffield College faces a further £120,000 of cuts, even though it is best placed to meet the needs of both individuals and the local economy.

The third ask is for funding to enable the college to recruit competitively. It is simply wrong that the average FE teacher’s pay is £7,000 less than that of a schoolteacher. The Government refuse to underpin FE pay awards in the way they do for schools. That is not fair to staff and it makes it difficult to recruit, often in key vocational areas.

Fourthly, the college asks for funding in capital investment. Our college has good buildings, but it struggles to maintain up-to-date learning resources, particularly in expensive areas such as engineering. The college wants to ensure that all students experience real work environments wherever possible, but in too many areas resources are not up to industry standards.

Finally, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on students and as someone who is committed to student wellbeing and conscious of the challenges of mental health in our schools, FE colleges and universities, I would add that colleges have not had the necessary resources to provide the support that FE students need. I hope that the Minister will make the argument to the Treasury for redressing the underfunding of recent years and ensure that our colleges have the funding they need to make the real difference that they seek to provide for students.

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Wera Hobhouse

Monday 4th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

It is always fascinating to hear Conservative Members rubbishing their own party’s Chancellors and former Chancellors. The economy may not have lived up to the former Chancellor’s worst expectations, but the pound has crashed and we have moved from being one of the fastest growing economies to one that is growing less quickly. There has been a negative impact already but, as the hon. Lady will recognise, we have not left the European Union yet.

[Wera Hobhouse]

It is clear that all Brexit scenarios leave the economy worse off. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the negotiating position of keeping no deal on the table is a little bit like a cartoon that I saw the other day, with the caption “Unless you give me what I want I am going to shoot myself”? Is not that the idiotic negotiating position, which no one believes in anyway?

[Paul Blomfield]

I did not see the cartoon, but I think that was a line from a Mel Brooks movie, and the hon. Lady is right to characterise things in that way. That is why the idea that threatening no deal would be a great negotiating card for us never had any credibility.

Vote Leave Campaign: Electoral Law

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Wera Hobhouse

Monday 10th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will.

[Wera Hobhouse]

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

[Wera Hobhouse]

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

[Paul Blomfield]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Wera Hobhouse

Monday 11th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

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

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

[Geraint Davies in the Chair]

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

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

[Wera Hobhouse]

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

[Paul Blomfield]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

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

[Wera Hobhouse]

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

[Paul Blomfield]

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

Mr Austin—sorry, Mr Davies—

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Wera Hobhouse

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

[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—

Brexit Deal: Referendum

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Wera Hobhouse

Monday 11th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[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.