Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Scully and Graham Stringer

Tuesday 25th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

The Federation of Small Businesses does a great job across the country, including in Hastings and Rye, and, as I said, it is very important that SMEs play a massive role in levelling up around the country. I have talked about the fact that strengthening the prompt payment code will ensure that small businesses get paid within 30 days. We will always do more to make sure that we can support small businesses, because we know that cash flow is king, and they will be a major part of building back better.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

  I have sat through a number of Select Committee reports that have exposed the deficiencies of not-so-smart meters and the extra costs involved, but I was shocked when we found for a recent report that smart meters will not work if we transfer from North sea gas to hydrogen. What do Ministers think the implications are for the future of smart meters of the possibility of using hydrogen as a replacement fuel?

Prorogation of Parliament

Debate between Paul Scully and Graham Stringer

Monday 9th September 2019 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

I agree with the hon. Lady that this is a political crisis. It is grinding the country to a halt—certainly, to boredom. There is one way to sort it out. We can sit here contemplating our navels, or we can go out and speak to the people. We can have a general election, in which we can discuss Brexit and engage 70 million people, not just 650. To me, that is democracy in action.

Some hon. Members might say, “Let’s have a second referendum.” There are clearly issues with that. It took nine months to get the first one through this place and to hold it, and we would also have to decide on the question, and the electorate. Those issues, which would be hotly debated in this place, would have to be decided before we could even get to the referendum. People may say that the current situation creates uncertainty, but that option would perpetuate uncertainty. To those people who say, “The EU referendum caused division,” I say: why have another one?

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

A new argument has come forward. A number of parties have said that if there is a second referendum, they will honour the result only if people vote in a particular way. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that would completely undermine that referendum, and all future referendums?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman has argued passionately in this place alongside me against a second referendum. I agree with everything he said, including about the referendum result being undermined.

I mentioned #StopTheCoup, and how bad a coup the Prorogation of Parliament would be. Instead, parliamentary games are being played by those on the other side of the argument. Parliament took control, and took parliamentary time away from the Government to pass the Benn Bill, which passed due to an amendment that was granted by the Speaker, who was frankly making it up as he went along. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) has told me that even he did not expect the amendment to be made that allowed him to lay the path for Parliament to take the business away from the Government.

EU Membership: Second Referendum

Debate between Paul Scully and Graham Stringer

Monday 3rd December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. People speculate either way about polls they have read. There are studies dressed up as polls about what would happen now if there was a second referendum, predominantly because a lot of money is funding the campaign for the so-called people’s vote and that money has to be justified somehow. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that people had their voice heard and want us to get on with the job they tasked us to do—they gave us that mandate. That is really important.

I campaigned to leave and voted to leave, and I take my responsibility seriously to ensure that we get out in the best way possible and in as orderly a way as possible. I understand that 48% of people did not want to go and that we want to be able to trade with European Union partners beyond Brexit. That is why we need the whole gamut, rather than me sitting in my corner saying, “Yay, I won—fantastic! I’m off now.” That is not realistic. Inevitably, there will be complexities and compromises. We have to factor all that in, but that is what we are put in this place to do. It will test the mettle of many of us over the next week and a half, as we wrestle with some very complicated and important decisions that will have an impact on this nation for many years to come.

On the mandate, both the main parties pledged in their 2017 election manifestos to respect the result of the referendum. Eighty per cent. of the electorate voted for one of those two parties. That shows that the two parties have taken people with us as best we can, and that people want us to get on with the job—they have tasked us with the responsibility.

The draft withdrawal agreement and the political declaration will allow us to respect the referendum result and get out of the EU in an orderly manner. The choppy times we have had over the last couple of years and that undoubtedly are coming up are not due to a lack of mandate. Largely it is remainers who are trying to wish away the result. After the referendum, many people said, “Crikey, the debate was poor quality and really divisive.” Now they are saying, “I’ll tell you what—let’s just do it again.” That makes no sense. We have a responsibility. Many of us may have gone to a family gathering and seen a new baby or young child, played with it and got it excited, and then handed it back crying to its angry parents. I will not hand back this Brexit baby to its parents, because we have a responsibility.

Even if we choose a second referendum, we have run out of time to have one. Trying to get the legislation through would be an absolute nightmare. We would have to do it within a month or six weeks, but with Christmas coming up that would take us well into the new year. Can we even imagine what the referendum question would be? People would say that remain should not even be an option on the ballot paper because we have had that discussion and leave won. They might say, “Why don’t we choose whether to have the deal as proposed, or no deal and leave on World Trade Organisation terms?” Other people would say, “Let’s have a three-way choice of the deal on the table, no deal or remain.” That would be so complex.

Let us say that the remain option got 40% of the vote, the Government deal got 30% and the leave with no deal option got 30%. Clearly, remain would win and we would stay in the EU—if that was even possible—but 60% of people would have voted for one of the leave options. That would cause a huge democratic deficit: a constitutional crisis. That is why the question itself would be a problem if we went down that road. Who is to say that the debate would be of any better quality? Frankly, I suspect we would have one group shouting, “Vassal state!” and another shouting, “Cliff edge!” back. There would be a lot of heat, but I do not think much light would be shed on the issue. Clearly, we need to move on and bring ourselves together. Let us not ask again, but understand why people voted the way they voted in the first place.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a significant point. The question in the 2016 referendum was very simple—“Do you want to be in the EU or out of the EU?” The deal, which is 575 pages and an addendum—I tried to read it, without success—is a much more complex item to put to the electorate. Given that remainers say voters did not understand the original proposition, does he agree that the argument that the question in a second referendum would be simple and the electorate would understand it is ridiculous?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman makes some very important points. There are complexities that we need to debate in this place. I suspect that boiling 575 pages down to a relatively simple question on a ballot paper would be difficult. We need to understand and put across to people what the withdrawal agreement actually does.

There are many reasons why people voted to leave, but they relate predominantly to sovereignty, immigration, and trade and future prosperity. Clearly, lots of people do not think the withdrawal agreement is perfect. I certainly do not, but I can deal with it, because it means that we will leave the EU’s political institutions, which is fundamental to our leaving the EU, and we will stop paying huge membership fees. That is all in there. It will be up to us, as a sovereign state, to opt back into things and accept joint sovereignty.

Anyone who was driven to vote to leave by immigration will see that ending free movement of people is in the agreement, and those who were motivated by our future prosperity will see that it means we will be able to start negotiating our own trade deals. That is a work in progress—the second bit of the negotiation will determine when we can crack on and implement those trade deals, but we will be able to start negotiating them right from the off. I have to say to the friend I referred to who is bored of Brexit that we are only halfway through the process, so he has another couple of years to go while we agree our future relationship.

Let us not be distracted by a people’s vote—a second referendum. Let us concentrate on what is in front of us: on getting the best deal possible in an incredibly complex set of negotiations, which have to satisfy different people. There is no perfect Brexit, so we need to chart our way carefully through choppy waters, take our responsibilities seriously, get rid of the egos and the ideological positions, and work out what is best for the country. Let us not be distracted by a second referendum.

Burma

Debate between Paul Scully and Graham Stringer

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman makes a vital point. Daw Suu is insistent that her MPs work in their constituencies to make sure they are seen to be working for the people who elected them. I know that the Department for International Development is doing a lot of work on democracy building. It is fantastic that Mr Speaker and many other Members here are helping directly, and it is vital that people on the ground see that work and see how it benefits them.

As I said earlier, it is not for us to tell the people of Burma how to run their country or their legal system. However, we are critical friends, and we should raise points where we can. Imagine if the boot were on the other foot. People complain about the possibility of President Obama telling us what we might do in the European Union referendum. Frankly, I am more interested in how Narendra Modi came over here, extended the hand of friendship and talked about partnerships and working together as equals. We will have such opportunities in Burma. There can be further work by DFID and by Parliament, and hopefully there will be opportunities for trade in the future. When I was over there, it was fantastic to see Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon visiting Yangon as part of a regional tour to talk about opportunities for transport infrastructure.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I am enjoying listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He is absolutely right about the rule of law. Unfortunately, Burma comes in the top or bottom quartile, depending on which way we look at it, of the most corrupt countries in the world. Although it is not up to the UK to tell Burma how to run itself, how does the hon. Gentleman think we can best help it get rid of corruption?

[Paul Scully]

I would look to the example of places such as Bangladesh. It is not a perfect country by any stretch of the imagination, but look at how it has moved on from being a corrupt state. Opportunities for business are starting to open up there as people realise that the level of corruption is unsustainable. A lot of investment has been coming into Burma from China, but it is starting to realise that cheap is not always best and that, frankly, China has little regard for the country—it has regard for the dollar and the kyat. Burma is looking to the west for investment and knows that for that to happen it will have to open up and tackle corruption. Hopefully we can help.

I want to put on record my thanks to Andrew Patrick, our ambassador in Burma, Gavin McGillivray, the head of the Department for International Development over there, and Kevin Mackenzie from the British Council. I also thank the many different people I met who spoke so eloquently and articulately. It gives me such hope for the future to know that a new generation is coming through. The politicians in Burma—Daw Suu and her colleagues—have been elected with their own vision. I hope that we can support them, but we must also let them deliver their vision. We should see how we can help them and then get in there and support them as partners. We want to be able to trade and do geopolitical work in that really important part of south-east Asia. I am looking forward to a constructive debate and would welcome the Minister’s comments on the points I have raised.