European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Paul Farrelly and Hilary Benn

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates precisely the point that I was going to make—[Interruption.] I was. As we have already heard, all the Ministers and Prime Ministers who negotiate in this process will say at some point, either in the main forum or in other discussions, “I’ll never get this through my Parliament.” That is the accountability we are talking about. It is called democracy, and it is really important that Ministers, Prime Ministers and negotiators have that thought in their minds when they are negotiating on behalf of the country and the House. In such circumstances, I think the House would first want to ask why we were facing no deal, and it might well wish to give the Government fresh negotiating instructions. The House might want to tell the Government to go back in and say, “On reflection, we would like to suggest that we do the following.” There must be sufficient time for that to take place if we are going to get a reasonable deal.

Another point I want to make—I am conscious, Sir David, of what you said about the time—is that Ministers need to understand why they are having such difficulty with this fundamental debate on the Bill. It has to do with the history of the Government’s handling of the whole process. At every single stage, this House has had to demand our role and our voice. I remember the answer when people first asked what the Government’s negotiating objectives were: “Brexit means Brexit.” When a follow-up question was asked, we were told—

[Paul Farrelly]

A red, white and blue Brexit.

[Hilary Benn]

I am still wrestling with the concept of a red, white and blue Brexit, and I did not find it very enlightening.

The second answer was, “No running commentary,” but that eventually had to give way to the Lancaster House speech and a White Paper. Then we asked, “Will Parliament get a vote?” Almost exactly a year ago, when the Prime Minister last appeared before the Liaison Committee, I asked her that question. She was unwilling to give me a commitment on that occasion, but we all pressed, and in the end the Government conceded that there would be a vote.

We argued that there would need to be separate primary legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement, but what did the Government do? They produced this Bill, which says, “No, no. We’ll just do it all by statutory instrument.” That was until amendment 7 appeared on the horizon, at which point the Government changed their mind. If the Committee insists, as I hope it will, on amendment 7 later today, that will be because of our experience of the Government’s handling of the Bill so far. They have not acted in the spirit of seeking consensus, even though the Prime Minister said earlier that that was what she wanted to achieve.

The final point I want to make is simply this. Parliament has no intention of being a bystander in this process. We intend to be a participant, as I have said on a number of occasions, because this decision affects every part of the country, every business and every family. Today’s debate and vote are all about control, which must ultimately rest not in Ministers’ hands but in our hands. It is up to us to make sure that that happens.

Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU

Debate between Paul Farrelly and Hilary Benn

Wednesday 12th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I think the House is grateful for that history lesson. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not take his advice either on some of the arguments that he has advanced in his speech this afternoon, although I respect the position that he has long held.

I support the calls from all parts of the House for proper scrutiny and accountability, especially given the scale of the task that we face, which was set out very clearly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). I am talking about the basis on which we will trigger article 50, continued access to European markets for our industries, future arrangements for immigration and maintaining co-operation with our European neighbours in areas where that co-operation has benefited both of us.

There are four things that we need to consider as we undertake that task. One is to minimise uncertainty—a word that we have heard a great deal of in this debate. The second is to be clear about the timing and the content of the negotiation. The third is to protect the things that we value that have come from Europe, and the fourth is to think creatively about how we build a new kind of relationship with Europe as we leave the institutions.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said that he wanted to minimise uncertainty. He must reflect on that and give himself marks out of 10 on how he thinks he is doing at the moment. Let me take one example: the British Chambers of Commerce in Germany is hosting a conference here in Westminster tomorrow on the impact of Brexit on the City of London and the financial services sector. One issue preoccupying them is that of passporting. It is uncertainty on that issue that is already creating a situation in which bad decisions are being made on employment and investment in this country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in these crucial areas, the Government must address uncertainty?

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I shall come on to address it in a moment.

I was just going to say that some of the uncertainty is inevitable and will not be resolved until the negotiating process has been concluded, but some of it is the result of different things being said by different members of the Government—one has to acknowledge that—as well as the things that have been left unsaid, which may lead others to draw conclusions and then act on them in the absence of clarity.

The announcement by Nissan that it will not invest any more in this country without guarantees from the Government is indeed unwelcome, but it is entirely understandable. What car manufacturer—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) talked about Jaguar Land Rover—will invest in additional capacity if there is still some doubt that we might leave with no agreement on trade and tumble out on World Trade Organisation terms, which would lead to those cars facing a tariff? I accept that, in the end, we are likely to get an agreement in which there are no tariffs on manufactured goods, and, frankly, the sooner that that can be made clear, the better. There are those who argue that it would be perfectly possible within the two years provided by article 50 not only to negotiate the mechanics of our withdrawal—and that is quite a task—but to conclude a new trading agreement that will give access to the single market for our goods and our services, which have not been much talked about but my hon. Friend made the point that 80% of our economy depends on services. Those who argue that may be right, but I somehow doubt it.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Paul Farrelly and Hilary Benn

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point as to why the franchise should be extended.

[Paul Farrelly]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister was not forced to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in the Scottish referendum? He agreed that that would happen, so what is different now? Why should English and Welsh 16 and 17-year-olds, and Scottish 16 and 17-year-olds, be treated differently for this referendum?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. When the Minister for Europe winds up the debate, perhaps he will give the House an explanation as to why the Government are not minded to move on this issue.

After taking evidence on the subject last year, the British Youth Council Youth Select Committee said:

“We are very proud of the democracy in which we live and of its history and traditions. We are absolutely convinced that 16 and 17 year olds have the aptitude and the appetite to take a full part in that democracy.”

I agree. This House has debated on many occasions how we can encourage more young people—the Foreign Secretary made the point about the lower rate of participation—to participate in our public and political life. How can we get more young people involved in our democratic life? What better way to do so than to give 16 and 17-year-olds the opportunity to take part in this momentous decision, which will affect their lives and their futures just as much as it will affect ours?

National Planning Policy Framework

Debate between Paul Farrelly and Hilary Benn

Thursday 20th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Like the Minister, I would like to express my appreciation to my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). I thank her and my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for their work on the Opposition Front Bench in holding the Government to account. I also welcome my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Helen Jones) and for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) to the shadow Department for Communities and Local Government team. Alongside them, and on either side of me today, we have continuity in the form of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and for Derby North (Chris Williamson).

I welcome today’s debate. I am sorry that the Secretary of State did not open it—although he has done us the courtesy of attending—because given that he is seeking, with the Minister, to make the most fundamental change to our planning system for more than two generations and given that this is the first opportunity for the House to debate the matter since the publication of the national planning policy framework, it would have been good to hear from him. I look forward to the next occasion. Nevertheless, this debate, which we welcome, is extremely timely. The Minister expressed it well: planning at times and to some people can seem rather technical, but in fact it is about how we shape the places in which we live and how we build our communities. That is what Civic Voice has described as “everyday England”.

We know that there is a finite quantity of land. As Mark Twain famously said,

“buy land because they’ve stopped making it”.

There are many competing demands on land. England is a very densely populated country, and the population is growing. The planning system’s job is to help us to meet our future needs for housing, jobs, economic development, transport, growing food, tackling climate change and generating energy in a way that balances all these things—the right sort of development in the right place, which, in the end, is what we all want—while protecting the natural environment, by which I mean the moors and the mountains, the rivers and the lakes, the green fields and the countryside that make up our islands’ unique and beautiful landscapes. They matter because we cherish their beauty and their capacity to lift our spirits and because, as human beings have belatedly learned, they sustain our very existence. We need planning to protect this environment because, in the absence of that balance and if we fail to reconcile

“competing economic, social and environmental priorities”—

in the words of the Conservative planning Green Paper—there would be a free-for-all.

I welcome the idea of simplification and the principle of greater clarity, and I support enabling planning decisions to be taken as near as possible to those whom they will affect. It was, after all, a Labour Government who introduced the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which helped local councils to designate green belt. However, the central problem raised by the draft NPPF and the reason the Government are in difficulty is that Ministers have failed so far to convince people that they have got this balance right. It seems that even Conservative-controlled Tunbridge Wells borough council, which is the Minister’s own local authority, is unhappy about his reforms. It is reported that the council “strongly disagreed” with the Government’s suggestion that the NPPF had the right approach towards sustainable development—I shall return to that point—and argued that it was

“vague and open to interpretation”.

The council also strongly disagreed that green belt would be protected under the NPPF. People are entitled to ask, if the Minister is having difficulty persuading his own Conservative-controlled council to support his plans, how anybody else can be expected to have confidence in them.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

We are fortunate in Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent to have a robust local core spatial plan. I do not know whether that applies to Tunbridge Wells, but much of the country does not have such a plan. Is there a case for arguing that the Government should take a considered pause in the implementation of the framework and resource councils sufficiently so that they can put local plans in place?

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I shall come to it later because it is fundamental to the likelihood of what the Government say that they want to achieve—few would disagree with the ambition—actually happening, given the nature of the framework and the issues with its implementation.

Business of the House (Thursday)

Debate between Paul Farrelly and Hilary Benn

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Paul Farrelly]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there could not be a greater contrast between the way in which the coalition Government are handling this and the way in which the Labour Government handled it seven years ago, no matter on what side of the argument one stands? Then the 105-page White Paper was published a whole year before the debate and the changes were introduced only after a general election, so the British public had the opportunity to vote on them.

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend anticipates the very point that I will come to a little later in my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I am sure that the occupant of the Chair will have noticed that advance bid, but I fear that tomorrow many Members will end up disappointed because not enough time has been allocated for the debate.

[Paul Farrelly]

Is my right hon. Friend aware of all the details of the business due to come forth tomorrow? Can he satisfy himself that we will actually get five hours and not fewer?

[Hilary Benn]

That is the point I advanced a moment ago, because whether we get the full five hours depends very much on what happens before the debate. I fear that we might not, which shows just how inadequate the motion is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

It certainly will not.

[Paul Farrelly]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are now only 21 hours, give or take a minute, from now until the moment of interruption tomorrow? Depending on how long the debate goes on tonight, Members may need some time to recover so that they are in full possession of their wits for tomorrow’s debate. Would it not be better to delay tomorrow’s debate until next week at least?

[Hilary Benn]

A very powerful case has been made this evening for providing more time, and given where we are now, the only way in which more time could be provided would indeed be for the matter to be put off until another occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

Indeed. Given the number of things that the Deputy Prime Minister has had to say about the tuition fee increase that he intends to vote for tomorrow, the very least he could do is to come into the debate. I hope that he might be able to participate, because many people would like to hear how he explains the change in attitude—the 180° turn—that he has performed in a very short space of time.

[Paul Farrelly]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ground keeps shifting from day to day? The coalition Government have now admitted that deterrence because of debt is an issue, and they have announced a national scholarship fund. Does he consider five hours to be sufficient time in which to debate all the details of the proposals and to examine whether the Government are, in effect, just making policy up on the hoof?

[Hilary Benn]

It is clearly not sufficient time to debate those matters, which brings me to the second reason why more time needs to be found, which is the nature of the change that the Government wish to make. The proposals on fees that we are being asked to consider tomorrow cannot really be seen in isolation from the wider Browne proposals or the Government’s spending review. The truth is that they are intimately bound up, one with another, which is why the House needs proper time to consider both. As we know, the huge fee increase is a result of the Government’s decision in the spending review to impose on universities not the average cut that they have been applying—a cut of 11%—but an unprecedented 80% reduction in university teaching budgets.