International Aid: Treasury Update

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Programme motion
Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

The Government say that global Britain is at the heart of how we engage with the world, but this move to unilaterally cut overseas aid is a direct attack on what it means to be global Britain. It is a decision that will reduce our power, reduce our influence in the world and undermine our security here at home. At this moment perhaps more than any other, we should be looking to project our power and influence for good around the world, to create change in our national interest but in the global interest, too.

I am proud—we should all be proud, in this House and across our great nations—of what we have achieved together through overseas aid. Together, we have pushed polio to the verge of eradication. Together, we have improved water and sanitation for more than 1.5 million people. Together, we have reduced maternal and infant mortality, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) spoke about. And together, we have ensured that girls in the poorest places in the world can go to school, as we all take it for granted that our daughters and granddaughters can go to school.

Yet today the Government seek to undo that great progress. Instead of being a global leader, this Government seek to retreat on the international stage. I can see the understandable discomfort that that is causing hon. and right hon. Members on the Government Benches, who know the consequences of this decision and the short-sightedness of what the Prime Minister has said and what I fear the Chancellor will go on to say.

I commend in particular the contributions of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who advised colleagues to beware the traps set for the unwary; my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who said that this motion is just not who we are as a people; and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who said, “When it is a choice between lives and money, I choose lives.”

The reason there has been a consensus from five previous Prime Ministers across both parties, including the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), on the importance of the 0.7% commitment is that the case for overseas aid both expresses the moral responsibilities that we have and is firmly in the national interest.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One of the NGOs that I would be involved with is the HALO Trust, the organisation that clears mines, unexploded ordnance and improvised explosive devices. If it comes to giving money to one group, there is a group that saves lives, as the hon. Lady refers to.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and he speaks powerfully of what he has seen. What has guided former Prime Ministers and Ministers is a moral compass, and I ask the Chancellor what moral compass guides the Prime Minister and Ministers today, as we cut the lifelines of support, and in the midst of a global pandemic as well. For several decades, we have recognised that the world is increasingly interdependent, and that overseas aid helps tackle poverty, infectious diseases and climate change, and reduces conflict, terrorism and the need for people to flee their own countries and seek refuge elsewhere. The Chancellor himself made that point in 2015, arguing that

“this Government’s commitment on international aid is a tangible example of…leadership”.—[Official Report, 20 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 793.]

Where is that leadership today?

Crucially, overseas aid helps us respond to pandemics. Covid cannot be eliminated anywhere if it is not eliminated everywhere. These cuts will impede the ability of some of the poorest countries in the world to mobilise their public health systems and roll out this vaccine effectively. What good does that do any of us here? Until covid is under control globally, the risk is that this virus mutates and comes back to Britain and threatens all of us, including those who have already been double vaccinated. The Chancellor knows full well that our country’s commitments are as a proportion of our gross national income, and that is right; it means that as our economy grows our generosity as a country grows, but as our economy shrinks so does our generosity to those in the poorest parts of the world. That is right and it happens automatically, without the cuts being proposed on top. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) puts it, the “simplicity” of the 0.7% commitment is

“built into the formula: our payments go up in times of plenty and fall back when our economy is stretched.”

But with a 30% reduction—that is what we are talking about today—in just one year, never has our aid budget been cut so savagely, so suddenly and by so much.

Let us be very clear about the tests for returning to 0.7% of GNI spent on overseas aid. The second test the Chancellor set out is on our debt to GDP ratio falling. The OBR has forecast that that will not be met next year or the year after; at the very earliest it will be met in the financial year 2024-25. Let us look at the first test. In the past 30 years, the current budget balance test being proposed by the Chancellor today has been met only five times, and only for one year under a Conservative Government. But the test proposed by the Chancellor goes further than that, because it does not just refer to a “current budget balance”; it refers to a “sustainable current budget balance”. In the past 30 years , that has been met only under a Labour Government.

So if the Chancellor’s small-print conditions are applied to the latest OBR forecasts, we will not be achieving a current budget surplus in the whole of the forecast period. These are not tests to go back to 0.7% of GNI spent on overseas aid; they are tests to stop that ever happening under a Conservative Government again. So let us be clear about what we are voting for. If we vote for the Chancellor’s proposal today, this will not just be for a year; it will hang over us for as long as the Conservatives are in government.

If the Chancellor is serious about saving money—and I believe in value for money in every pound of taxpayers’ money spent—why did he happily sign off cheques for £2.6 million on a media briefing room that will not properly used and £200 million on a vanity yacht project to sell global Britain around the world—why not invest that money on overseas aid instead? There was £37 billion on a test and trace system that does not even work, and £2 billion on crony contracts for friends and donors of the Conservative party. What exactly does it say about the priorities of this Government? Why is the overseas aid budget being singled out for cuts by this Government? It is because this is ideological; it is not about value for money.

If this cut goes through this evening and the House votes for it, it will diminish Britain. It will reduce our power and influence for good in the world, and it will undermine our security here at home too. This is not just about how much aid we give overseas. It is about the country that we are and the country that we want to be. Whether a Government or a football team, when someone is on the world stage, how they conduct themselves and whether they lead by example really matters. Many hon. and right hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—and on the Government Benches too—know in their heart and in their head that what the Government propose is profoundly wrong. They know full well that it breaks the proud promises that we all made at the election only 18 months ago, not just during crisis but for as long as the Conservatives are in government, so I urge hon. and right hon. Members to reject the motion and do what they know is right for the poorest people in the world, and to honour the proud commitments that we all made in the national interest.

Ministerial Code

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a characteristically thoughtful series of points. As a former Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and as a current leading Select Committee Chairman in this House, the points that he makes are certainly ones that we should reflect on. It is the case that the process of holding Ministers and others to account is always an evolutionary one. We should look at thoughtful recommendations such as those made by Lord Evans and others and we should consider what more can be done. It is important to stress, however, that the Government have already introduced a series of changes in order to ensure greater transparency in public life. Of course, we always seek to do better.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker:

“There must be no bullying and no harassment; no leaking…No misuse of taxpayer money and no actual or perceived conflicts of interest.”

Those words are from the Prime Minister’s foreword to the ministerial code. I do not know whether he believed them when he wrote them, but he is certainly trampling all over them today. The Prime Minister is now corrupting the standards of public life expected in high office as he dodges questions and tries to cover up payments for the luxury refurbishment of his flat, feathering his own nest and possibly breaking the law through undeclared loans.

As for leaks, we are seeing the pipes burst with the sewage of allegations. People say that a fish rots from the head down. There is a reason why there is no independent adviser on ministerial standards and why the Government will not publish the long-overdue list of Ministers’ interests. The reason is that the Prime Minister has not wanted them. This is a Prime Minister who would rather the bodies “pile high” than act on scientific advice, but they are not bodies; they are people, they are loved ones and they are deeply missed.

I ask the Minister to engage with the issues at hand. When will the Government publish that register of Ministers’ financial interests? Who paid the invoices for the Prime Minister’s flat refurbishment in the first place and when were those funds repaid? When will the review by the Cabinet Secretary of this fiasco be complete? When will the vacancy for the independent adviser on ministerial standards be filled, and will the Government give that adviser the powers to trigger independent investigations, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) has just said and as recommended by Lord Evans?

Finally, will the Minister apologise for the stomach-churning comments that have come out today and announce an urgent public inquiry into the Government’s handling of the pandemic? This is all about conduct, character and decency. Frankly, our country deserves an awful lot better than this.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions. As ever, she raises a number of significant issues. On the question of the No. 10 Downing Street refurbishment, it is important to stress that previous Prime Ministers have used taxpayers’ money in order to refurbish No. 10 Downing Street. In 1998-99, in real terms, the then Prime Minister spent £73,000 of taxpayers’ money on refurbishing Downing Street; in 2000-01, £55,000; and, again, in 2007-08, £35,000—all taxpayers’ money. This Prime Minister has spent his own money on refurbishing Downing Street. That is a distinction to which the hon. Lady should pay close attention.

The hon. Lady also suggested that the Government did not act on scientific advice in dealing with the pandemic. I hope that she will reflect on those words and recognise that that is completely wrong. This Government, as I pointed out, initiated not just a second but a third lockdown in response to medical and scientific advice, and this Government, working with doctors and scientists, have ensured that we have had the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe. We have also developed many of the therapeutics and tools necessary to ensure that those who are suffering and in pain at last receive relief. Of course, the ventilators that this Government took part in procuring are now helping to save lives in India.

The hon. Lady is right to say that we should appoint an independent adviser on ministerial interests as soon as possible, but as I mentioned in my statement, that appointment is due within days and that independent adviser will have the freedom to carry out their role in exactly the way that they should. Scrutiny is always welcome, but it is also the case, as the hon. Lady should recognise, that scrutiny should extend beyond those who are our political opponents to the parties that we ourselves lead or are members of. I can only quote from The Times at the weekend, one of whose columnists wrote:

“our only proper bit of suspected corruption”

in this country

“in Labour-run Liverpool. The allegations have got everything: dubious contracts, records created retrospectively, discarded in skips or destroyed altogether.”

The hon. Lady must look at the beam in her eye before criticising the mote in others’.

Lobbying of Government Committee

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That the following Standing Order shall have effect until 31 December 2021:

Investigation into the Lobbying of Government Committee

(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Investigation into Lobbying of Government Committee, to consider:

(a) the effectiveness of existing legislation to prevent the inappropriate lobbying of Ministers and Government;

(b) the rules governing all public officials regarding conflicts of interest;

(c) the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Lex Greensill as an adviser in Government and the process by which Greensill Capital was approved for commercial arrangements with Government departments and other public sector bodies; and

(d) the role Government played in facilitating the commercial relationship between Greensill Capital and the Gupta Family Group Alliance.

(2) It shall be an instruction to the Committee that it:

(a) considers whether there are robust transparency and accountability procedures in place and whether existing rules are being adhered to;

(b) considers whether the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments’ regulatory framework and sanctioning powers are sufficient to enforce its advice;

(c) assesses the extent of undue influence that former politicians and advisers have on the policies and programmes of government departments and non-departmental public bodies; and

(d) that it makes a first Report to the House no later than 18th October 2021.

(3) The committee shall consist of 16 members of whom 15 shall nominated by the Committee of Selection in the same manner as those Select Committees appointed in accordance with Standing Order No. 121.

(4) The Chair of the committee shall be a backbench Member of a party represented in Her Majesty’s Government and shall be elected by the House under arrangements approved by Mr Speaker.

(5) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it until the expiration of this Order.

(6) The committee shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time; and

(b) to appoint specialist advisers to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee’s order of reference.

(7) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.

(8) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the evidence taken before the sub-committee.

Mr Speaker,

“The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisers for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way.”

That is how former Prime Minister David Cameron described the next big scandal to hit British politics, back in 2010. We might think that what David Cameron lacks in transparency he makes up for in fortune telling, except that he had inside information because the person exploiting the loopholes would be the very same David Cameron.

We had a Conservative Prime Minister giving Lex Greensill access to all areas of Government. He was brought in and given privileged access to the heart of Government with the title and the business card of a senior adviser in the Prime Minister’s office. Then—what a stroke of luck—when he was no longer Prime Minister, and just past the required period, when he no longer needed the approval of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, David Cameron joined Greensill to lobby the Conservative Government full of his friends.

Having refused to respond to any questions at all for 40 days, David Cameron chose a period of national grief, hoping that there would be less political criticism and less scrutiny. It is cynical and it is shabby, and the statement itself was toe-curling. He is not sorry for his conduct, for the texts and the drinks, but he is sorry he got caught and he is sorry that his shares are now worthless. This is not just a question of why he did not go through the correct channels; it is question of why he was doing this at all.

Let us be really clear: David Cameron was not working in the national interest; he was working in his own personal interest, with the hope of making millions of pounds for himself through the exercise of his share options. But questions cannot just be asked of David Cameron, when it is current Conservative Ministers who have paved the way for this scandal. When it comes to lobbying, it takes two to tango. For every former Minister lobbying, there is someone in power being lobbied. That is why this scandal is not just about the conduct of David Cameron during his time as Prime Minister and in the years afterwards. This is about who he lobbied in the current Government and how they responded.

Lex Greensill was awarded a CBE and was made a Crown representative by a Conservative Government, yet his company’s spectacular collapse now means that over 50,000 jobs are at risk around the world, including thousands in the UK’s steel communities, from Hartlepool to Stocksbridge, from Rotherham to Scunthorpe and to Newport. The steel industry is crucial and the Government must make it clear that our steel industry will not pay the price for the failures at Greensill and beyond.

This Government have set up an inquiry, but just about supply chain finance and Greensill. Such a review is wholly inadequate, and deliberately so. They do not want to explore what needs to change in lobbying or who currently gets access to power, or the wider issue of how to lift standards, which have fallen so far in the 10 years of Conservative Governments. They do not want public hearings. They do not want the disinfectant of sunlight, as David Cameron once urged. They just want this to go away, which is why they have chosen Nigel Boardman to chair the inquiry.

It is a fact that Nigel Boardman is a good friend—a very good friend—of the Conservative Government. Some may suspect that the son of a former Conservative Cabinet Minister might be unlikely to make waves, but let us look at his record. Mr Boardman has been paid over £20,000 per year as a non-executive director at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—a Department with a real interest in the British Business Bank, which lent to Greensill, and the British steel industry, where so many jobs are now at risk. Mr Boardman has already whitewashed the Government’s handling of public procurement during the pandemic and I fear that he will do the same again with this inquiry.

You will remember, Mr Speaker, that I jointly chaired the inquiry into the collapse of Carillion. The fact that Mr Boardman’s law firm made £8 million advising Carillion, including £1 million on the day before the outsourcers collapsed, leaves a terrible taste in my mouth as it should in the mouths of Members on the Government Benches. To cap it all, Mr Boardman was appointed to a prestigious role at the British Museum by—oh, by David Cameron! What is being proposed by the Government is not remotely fit for purpose. It is not an inquiry. It is not independent. It is an insult to us all.



The scope of this inquiry has to be bigger than supply chain financing. It has to be about lobbying, too, and bigger than what rules were broken. If the existing lobbying rules were not breached, that is a big part of the problem, surely. Had the Conservatives backed Labour’s amendments to the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill back in 2014, there would have been much more transparency, but they did not. David Cameron and his Government voted them down, and boy are they exploiting them now! We need public service in the national interest, not people viewing the state like some get-rich-quick scheme, with taxpayers treated as collateral damage.

We now learn that the Conservatives are joined in all this by the SNP, whose Rural Economy Secretary in the Scottish Government dined with Lex Greensill in one of Glasgow’s finest restaurants with no officials, no notes, no emails, no texts and no phone records about the meeting. Here in Westminster, we have witnessed the degrading of the ministerial code.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

We have absolutely no quibble with what the shadow Minister has been saying, but is she trying to draw an equivalence between what David Cameron did and what Fergus Ewing did in a meeting that was recorded and has been publicly available for a long time on the Scottish Government’s website? There was nothing untoward in what Fergus Ewing did, and in trying to conflate the two, the hon. Lady does a great disservice to herself and her argument.

[Rachel Reeves]

Well, the Scottish people can be the judge of that. If the hon. Member thinks that a Scottish Minister dining with Lex Greensill is okay, his party should put that on its leaflets in the elections in May.

Sir Alex Allan resigned as independent adviser on ministerial interests following the Prime Minister’s failure to take action on the Home Secretary’s bullying behaviour. That was five months ago. The Government have not replaced him. They have not even advertised the job. What does that say about how seriously this Government take standards?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I just point out that, when Gordon Brown appointed his Prime Minister’s adviser on ministerial interests, that job was not advertised either because it is not advertised; it is a prime ministerial appointment. The motion proposes to set up a new Select Committee when there are many existing Select Committees. I am Chairman of the Liaison Committee. Why has the hon. Member not consulted any of us about this manoeuvre? I appreciate what Oppositions do, which is to try to embarrass the Government, but she is right that there are much wider issues to address. Should we not try to address those issues in a bipartisan manner?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The point about Sir Alex Allan is that it is five months later and nobody has been appointed to this role. Whether we advertise the role or not, it has been vacant for five months. [Interruption.] A Member says from a sedentary position that it will happen shortly, but five months is an awfully long time.

I will come on to the issue of the composition of the Select Committee, but like the hon. Gentleman, I had the privilege of chairing a Select Committee. When scandals happened, we looked into them, as we did with the collapse of Carillion, and I know that the hon. Gentleman did so too. The problem is that there is no overarching inquiry planned into not just what happened with Greensill but more widely around lobbying, cronyism and sleaze. I am very happy to work on a cross-party basis to take this forward, and I welcome the comments from the hon. Gentleman over the last couple of days.

As well as the lack of an adviser on ministerial interests, there has been an absence of ministerial interests being published. They are supposed to be published twice a year, but they were published only once last year, in July, and not at all since then. These things matter—they are the foundations on which the standards of government rest, and under this Government, those foundations are being consciously removed. That is why this motion does what the Government should have done but chose not to: it gives the power to this House, not the Government, with a 16-strong Select Committee with clout to investigate this whole sorry scandal. It would have powers to call witnesses and examine them in public, like an effective Select Committee would. The investigation that we propose would look at inappropriate lobbying of Government and what needs to be done to prevent it. It would have the powers needed to demand witnesses and communications. It would examine the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and whether it has sufficient powers, resources and the right remit. Put simply, this special new Select Committee would aim to tackle the problem staring us in the face, not cover it up.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

I note the motion and thank the hon. Member for it. I just wondered why she thought it was appropriate that the membership of that Committee be nominated by the Committee of Selection? Why should it be filled with a load of Whips’ stooges?

[Rachel Reeves]

I will not comment on how Select Committee Chairs are sometimes elected in this place. But as a former Select Committee Chair, I know how seriously colleagues around this House would take this responsibility, as the hon. Gentleman does. We are prepared to make a concession to Conservative Members. We will accept that this Committee can be chaired by a Back Bencher from the governing party as long as there is cross-party representation on the Committee, as with other Select Committees.

The Conservative party is at a fork in the road. If MPs vote for this motion, a proper investigation can take place, led by a team with the confidence of this House, not someone handpicked from the board of one of the Government Departments embroiled in this scandal. But if they vote against it, as the Prime Minister has told them all to do, I am sorry to say that they too will be part of the Government’s attempt to cover up Tory sleaze. All Members here today should reflect on who they are here to serve: their constituents and their country, or their narrow party interests?

The stakes are high for our democracy and our public life. It was a past Conservative Government—embroiled in sleaze in the 1990s—who eventually recognised the need for standards to rise and to create the Nolan principles. The Nolan principles of public life have to live and breathe through all those in public office serving our great country. Yesterday we learned that the Government’s former head of procurement was an adviser for Greensill while still a civil servant. Incredibly, that was approved. The defence is that it was “not uncommon”. What on earth was happening at the Cabinet Office and at the heart of Government to allow these conflicts of interest to fester? Sir John Major, who witnessed the cash for questions scandal and other Tory sleaze in the ’90s when he was Prime Minister also believes that the rules need to be changed again.

One of the Nolan principles—as you well know, Mr Speaker—is leadership. With that in mind, where is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today? Where was the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday? What have they got to hide? There is a wider pattern of behaviour with the Conservatives here, in the present as well as in the recent past: a Conservative Government who are more interested in private drinks with the owners of private jets than meeting the families bereaved by covid; a Government who gave a 40% pay rise to Dominic Cummings, but a pay cut to nurses; Tory politicians thinking that it is one rule for them and another for everybody else; personal attention lavished on friends of Cameron, while 3 million people are excluded from Government financial support and cannot even get a meeting with the Treasury.

[Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

If the hon. Member wants to defend all that—be my guest.

[Craig Williams]

On the subject of leadership, the hon. Lady has touched on the Scottish Government. But the Welsh Government have of course been in place for 22 years and there is still no lobbying register, and the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments has recently taken the former Labour First Minister to task over an appointment to GFG. On leadership, may I draw the hon. Lady on those points?

[Rachel Reeves]

As far as I am aware, the First Minister of Wales has not appointed a financier as his adviser, nor does he have £30 million-worth of share options that he might fancy exercising. The hon. Gentleman has today abstained in a vote to give nurses a pay rise—put that on your election leaflet at the next general election.

Some £2 billion of public contracts in the last year have gone to friends and donors of the Conservative party, which has been rolling out the red carpet with a VIP fast lane for contracts. Supposedly independent reports have been rewritten by Downing Street. There are undeclared details on who has paid what for a luxury refurbishment of the No. 10 Downing Street flat. Relationships are undisclosed, and there are increasingly frequent breaches and casual disregard of the ministerial code.

Some have asked this week, quite powerfully, “When did we stop caring about honesty and integrity?” That is what this motion is about. What happens in the vote will say so much about our great country, but also about our current Government. That is why I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to do the right thing and back this motion today. Vote for a proper investigation to close the loopholes, to rein in the lobbyists and to lift standards in this great democracy in which we all have the privilege to serve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)]

I would like to place on record my thanks to Lord Dunlop—Andrew Dunlop—for the report that he completed into strengthening institutions across our United Kingdom and, in particular, strengthening intergovernmental relations. It is a great report. Many of its recommendations the Government are already implementing. I commend it to the House, and I also commend Lord Dunlop’s selfless work to this House. He is the very model of a public servant.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

The ministerial code makes it clear how important the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests is, yet the post has remained unfilled since November last year, when Sir Alex Allan resigned on principle. Transparency International believes that, last year alone, there were a potential nine breaches of the ministerial code—I can share the information with the right hon. Gentleman. So can he advise the House when the unfilled post of Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests will be filled, and what guarantee can he give the House that this time, the Prime Minister will actually listen to their advice?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. First, may I place on record my thanks to Sir Alex Allan for his contribution both in that role and previously in public service? We are seeking to find someone who is suitably independent, experienced and authoritative for this critical role. I would be delighted to work with the hon. Lady to ensure that the broadest possible range of candidates can be identified, and that whoever is put forward for that role can appropriately be scrutinised by the House to ensure that we can satisfy ourselves about their appropriateness for the role.

[Rachel Reeves]

It has been four months. A good way to find someone might be to advertise the position and seek a candidate. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman why this is so important. The Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests is responsible for producing the list of Ministers’ financial interests, including those of the Prime Minister. Page 16, paragraph 7.5 of the ministerial code, states that

“a statement covering relevant Ministers’ interests will be published twice yearly”

to avoid any conflicts of interest at the heart of Government. That list was published only once last year, in July, and there has been nothing at all since then. So can the Minister advise the House when that overdue list of Ministers’ financial interests will be published? If he cannot give us that date, should we conclude that the Government are deliberately delaying this to avoid much-needed scrutiny of this Government?

[Michael Gove]

No, not at all. As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, it is the case that every Minister complies with all the expectations placed on them, not just by the ministerial code but by the Nolan principles on standards in public life. It is also the case that Ministers are transparent about the areas that she correctly identifies as of public interest.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right. There are some specific issues that relate to our departure from the European Union that can be resolved in the next few weeks and months, as we adjust to a new situation, and they are a consequence of change. There are other aspects of our relationship that are a new normal, and the £20 million we have announced today is a way of ensuring that small and medium-sized enterprises can be fully equipped for those challenges and also for all the opportunities that our departure from the EU brings.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Earlier this week, the Public Accounts Committee revealed that the Government’s secretive VIP procurement fast lane had dished out contracts worth £1.7 billion, yet on 18 November, the Paymaster General claimed in the House that there was “no such thing” as a high priority lane. Given the scale of public money, concerns from the National Audit Office and apparent confusion at the Cabinet Office, when will the Government publish the names of businesses awarded contracts through this fast lane and, crucially, how they got on it?

[Michael Gove]

The Cabinet Office and, indeed, the whole of Government moved as quickly as we could to ensure that those on the frontline received the equipment that they needed. Indeed, the hon. Lady was one of a number of Members of Parliament who wrote to me outlining firms that could play a role in this. Every single firm that was recommended to either the Cabinet Office or the Department of Health and Social Care went through a rigorous policy to ensure that they were capable of providing the equipment required. As a result of going through that rigorous policy, we were able to ensure that those on the frontline got the equipment that they needed.

[Rachel Reeves]

Everybody understands the need for speed in a pandemic, but so many contracts delivered personal protective equipment that could not even be used by those on the frontline, and the National Audit Office has said that taxpayers paid over the odds. Those who are able to get on this VIP fast lane are 10 times more likely to be awarded a contract, leading to PestFix and the Health Secretary’s pub landlord getting contracts. If it is honestly about what you know rather than who you know, can I ask again when the Government will publish details of who was on the VIP fast lane and how they got there?

[Michael Gove]

The first thing to say is that, as the hon. Lady knows, more than 99% of the goods that were supplied were capable of being used in the NHS and, as she also knows, the National Audit Office reference to paying “over the odds” reflected the fact that, in a global pandemic, when demand was dramatically outstripping supply, prices rose for every nation—every developed nation. That is one of the reasons why the Government asked Lord Deighton to ensure that we could have domestic PPE capacity, and his amazing work has contributed to making sure that our economy overall has become more resilient. Of course it is the case that, whether or not a recommendation was made for a contract from a Member of Parliament such as the hon. Lady or anyone else, every contract had to go through the same appropriate process of due diligence, and it is of course the case that every contract will be published and is being published by the Government so that there can be appropriate scrutiny of value for money.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) [V]]

While I am pleased to be able to close this debate, I am sad not to be in the Chamber of the House of Commons. However, like so many, someone in my family has covid, so we are having to self-isolate. Compared with many, I know that I am lucky.

After the year that we have had, a deal of any form provides a degree of stability, which is what businesses crave—it is what our whole country craves—so despite the limitations of this deal, and despite all the things that Labour would have done differently, and will do differently in the future, we will vote to implement this treaty today. The alternative—the chaos of no deal—is not something that any responsible Government could facilitate, and nor could a responsible Government in waiting.

I strongly believe that almost every hon. and right hon. Member wants this treaty to come into international law today. Let me say to all Members, including those of my own party, that we are not indifferent to the outcome of this vote, so we should vote accordingly. Here we are on 30 December; tomorrow, trading relationships that have served us well for decades will expire. This is not about whether we wanted to remain or leave, and it is not about whether we think the deal is good enough—we know that it is not. Voting for this deal now is the only way to avoid no deal.

Let me turn to what this deal does for our economic prosperity, because although we will vote for the Bill, we are fully aware of its limitations and we will hold the Government to account for them. Farmers, carmakers and our chemicals industry all face extra delays, costs and bureaucracy when taking their goods to European markets. Few will thank the Government for the gift handed to them on Christmas eve, wrapped up in £ billion-worth of bureaucracy and tied with the red tape of over 200 million customs declarations.

More than 80% of our economy is made up of services, yet not one of the 1,246 pages of the treaty gives any additional opportunities for those sectors. How has that come to be? The EU has a trade surplus in goods with us, and it fought to keep it. We have a trade surplus on services, and the Government have done nothing to protect it.

The failure of the Conservative Government to stand up for our cultural industries is as unforgivable as it is inexplicable. As Tim Burgess and many others have rightly said, many British performers will now face huge added costs and barriers if they want to tour and showcase their talents all across Europe.

As I have been saying for months, the reality of poor preparations will bite hard. Our ports are underfunded and our hauliers go unheard. The 50,000 customs agents the Government promised they would deliver are not in place. The Tories have had four and a half years to get ready for this moment. Their incompetence must not be allowed to hold our great country back.

In recent days, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has claimed that the end of the transition period will mean that a Tory Government can now tackle inequality and injustices. Let me just say this: it was not the EU that created the bedroom tax or the need for food banks, or that slashed funding for social care. The right hon. Gentleman need not look to Brussels for someone to blame, but to the Tory Governments he has served under for the last 10 and a half years.

In a few moments’ time, the House will divide. Despite all our reservations, there are just two paths ahead for our country. Down one is the Prime Minister’s limited and unimpressive deal with the European Union, but down the other is the chaos of ending the transition period with no deal at all, which would mean substantial tariffs and barriers to trade, and no agreement on security co-operation. There is no other option now, and to abstain is to fail to choose—to suggest somehow that we are indifferent to the two paths before us. I am not, and I do not believe that other Members are either.

This is Johnson’s deal, where neither option is ideal, but a limited deal is better than no deal at all, and it is a foundation on which we can build. So Labour will choose the better of two paths—for businesses, workers, trade unions, jobs and our security. We are not this deal’s cheerleaders—far from it. This is the Prime Minister’s deal; he and his Government will own it, and we will hold them to account for it. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and I have tabled seven amendments today to show how Labour would do things differently and build on the deal. They cover the economic impact of the agreement; our lack of access to the Schengen information system; protecting worker and environmental standards; the Erasmus programme; performers’ and artists’ permits; the duty of the trade and co-operation agreement partnership council to report to Parliament; and, crucially, support and information for businesses.

This is an important day, but Labour is thinking about tomorrow. We are firmly focused on making this the best country for all our citizens. Wherever you live, whatever your parents do, whatever school you went to, and whatever your talents and ambitions, we will back you all the way. This must be a country where people can look forward to starting their career, developing their skills, creating and growing their businesses, locating their jobs in our towns and cities, and trading around the world. That is our ambition for the talent of Britain and we want to share it with the world.

Throughout these negotiations and preparations, the Tories have brought chaos when the country has craved stability. They sought to break the law; Labour will uphold it. They seek to break alliances where we will forge them. That is the way to project our values and stand up for the UK’s national interest. Ursula von der Leyen found solace in the words of T.S. Eliot last week. As we look to bring our country together and write a new chapter in our story, I turn to the words of Franco-Polish scientist, Marie Curie, who said:

“Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.”

It is important that the Bill passes today, limited as it is, because no deal is no solution for our country. We vote on the foundations of a deal that Labour will build on. Though we have left the EU, we remain a European nation with a shared geography, history, values and interests. The job of securing our economy, protecting our national health service, tackling climate breakdown and rebuilding our country has only just begun.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I can absolutely reassure my hon. Friend that, as set out at the spending review, funding for the UK shared prosperity fund will be increased so that it at least matches the EU receipts on average, which reached around £1.5 billion a year. We will publish a UK-wide framework in the spring, which will set out full details, and to help local areas prepare for the introduction of the SPF, we are providing the additional £220 million that my hon. Friend referred to. Of course, we will work closely with Cornwall to ensure that it gets the funding that it needs and for which he is such an effective advocate.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

The UK’s ports are our gateway to the world. Yesterday, the port infrastructure fund was finally announced. We found out that Dover did not get the £33 million that it asked for; instead, it got just £33,000. Portsmouth faces a shortfall of £8 million. The Minister recently visited that port, so he knows its huge importance. Why have the Government short-changed vital infrastructure critical to the everyday economy, while at the same time wasting millions of pounds on consultants and middlemen as part of Tory cronyism?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. The funding in the port infrastructure fund was specifically available for projects that were due to be delivered by July next year, when full import controls will be in place. Dover was bidding for some infrastructure that would be complete by 2023, which is intended, of course, to take advantage of the new opportunities that control over our borders will bring. We are working with Dover to ensure that a new approach towards juxtaposed controls can be in place.

We are also working with Portsmouth. Portsmouth port is not unique, but it is certainly singular in that it is owned by the local authority, which does a very good job. We are working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Transport and others to ensure that not just the port but the broader infrastructure in Portsmouth and that part of Hampshire is sufficient for the needs of port users.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but he needs to give greater assurances that there will not be the delays and disruption that we all fear. A letter from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) states:

“Ministers…decided that all bids which are recommended to be supported will be funded to 66%”.

Not 100%, but just 66%. What a false economy given the cost to British businesses and consumers of delays and disruption at the border. Will the Government publish the full rationale for each of their 53 port decisions, not least since some companies received next to nothing while one port company, which coincidentally pays a former Tory Cabinet Minister £100,000 a year, was awarded £26 million yesterday by this Government?

[Michael Gove]

Of course, we would be delighted to make sure that the full assessment criteria are shared with the hon. Lady and with all constituency Members. The port infrastructure team had an independent team to look at the eligibility of all the ports that applied and to assess all the bids. They were done on the most rigorous of bases. It is the case that a number of ports have welcomed the additional funding and the additional infrastructure support it will give, but we will continue to work with all ports to ensure we can have a world-class border. The publication today of our future border plan for 2025 lays out the means by which we will do so.

EU Withdrawal Agreement

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. We welcome it and are pleased that a decision has been reached on the Northern Ireland protocol. The Good Friday agreement is a source of immense pride on this side of the House, given the role that Tony Blair’s Labour Government played in building on the work of Sir John Major in achieving it. Neither of those Governments would play games with the peace process, and nor would a Government led by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). Game playing, with threats to break international law, has consequences, and it is also a dangerous distraction.

Northern Ireland’s Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs says that the border infrastructure simply will not be ready in time. Manufacturing NI says that just 9% of businesses in Northern Ireland are ready for the end of the transition period. The systems needed to make trade flow, such as the trader support service, reportedly will not even be going live until 21 December—eight working days before the end of the transition period. This really does give new meaning to “the night before Christmas”.

Last December, the Prime Minister said:

“We’re a UK government, why would we put checks on goods going from NI to GB or GB to NI? It doesn't make sense.”

With that in mind, will the Minister explain why today’s documents confirm that on trade from GB to NI there will indeed be a range of checks? The trusted trader scheme will be removed after three and a half years and reviewed then, with further uncertainty at that point.

The exemption on agrifood checks is available for only three months, so will the Minister tell us what guarantees there are on prices and availability of fresh food supplies in Northern Ireland after 1 April? Will custom checks be required just three months into 2021? All that raises the question: did the Prime Minister actually know what he had signed up to last year, and then give false assurances to the House, or did he simply not care? This is a disgraceful way to treat businesses in good times, never mind in the middle of a pandemic.

On the trade deal needed for Northern Ireland, and for Great Britain too, we are told that the level playing field remains an outstanding area of disagreement, yet the Prime Minister’s political declaration, which he signed with the EU, spoke of a future relationship with

“open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field.”

Some Conservative MPs are agitated by the idea of a floor on workers’ rights. Indeed, no fewer than three Cabinet Ministers jointly wrote a book that said that British workers are

“among the worst idlers in the world.”

We on this side of the House do not agree with that statement. Neither do the people of our country, who want more security at work, not less. There are some siren voices among those on the Government Benches, who appear to view any agreement with the EU as a betrayal. The Minister should know that the true betrayal would be job losses, border chaos and price rises in our shops.

The Minister referred to cars from Nissan and lamb exports from Wales, and that they will be tariff-free in Northern Ireland, but as he knows, they need to be tariff-free with the EU too. We on this side of the House want the negotiations to succeed. We want the Government to keep their promises and come back with the oven-ready deal that we were promised at the general election less than a year ago. Sometimes it feels as though we on this side of the House want the Government to succeed and bring back this deal more than those on the Government’s own Back Benches do.

Deal or no deal, there are preparations that still need to be made for Northern Ireland, and for Great Britain too. I want to ask again about customs agents, because just minutes ago, the Prime Minister did not seem to have any answers on how many there are. Earlier in the year, the Minister agreed with industry estimates of 50,000 customs agents needed. Since then, he has told the BBC that the number had increased fourfold, but he omitted to tell us what the figure was. Let us give him another chance: how many customs agents are in place and are we ready for the end of the transition period?

It is not just me asking these questions. Richard Burnett, chief executive of the Road Haulage Association, says:

“The big issue that we face is that there are insufficient customs agents”

and that without them and the correct paperwork,

“we are likely to see vehicles being turned around… That is going to create significant chaos and significant queues.”

On lorry parks, will the Minister tell us how many inland border facilities are ready and will they ensure the free flow of lorries and vehicles from 1 January? Can he guarantee the House that there will be no disruption to medical or food supplies from 1 January?



Ours is a great country, and Labour wants to see a good life for all our people, but, as great as our country is, it cannot afford to be afflicted by Government incompetence. Every price rise, every traffic jam, every lost contract and every redundancy caused by this Government’s mistakes and poor planning holds our great country back. Next year must be a year of rebuilding and recovering from covid-19, not dealing with the fallout of reckless decision making, tariffs or incompetence. So this is decision time for this Government, and it is time to get the deal.

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for the warm welcome that she gave to this agreement, and I also thank her for the kind words she offered Sir John Major: the process of concluding the Good Friday agreement, as she quite rightly reminds us, was a signal achievement of Tony Blair’s Government but was also achieved as a result of hard work across this House. And of course there has been since the Good Friday agreement was concluded 22 years of progress in Northern Ireland, and it is important that we seek to underpin and secure that.

The hon. Lady asked about border infrastructure. Let me emphasise that this border infrastructure is there to ensure that sanitary and phytosanitary checks can be made. As she and the House know, it is already the case that the island of Ireland is a single epidemiological zone, and therefore when live animals move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland there are physical checks. There will be border facilities in order to ensure that these limited and proportionate SPS checks can be carried out at the port of Foyle, Warrenpoint, Belfast and Larne, and we have reassured the Commission, and indeed others, about the speed and effectiveness with which the necessary limited infrastructure will be in place.

The hon. Lady also asked about the trader support service, which is there to help Northern Ireland businesses. I am pleased that we spend over £200 million in order to support Northern Ireland businesses, and I think it is the case that more than 10,000 businesses are now signed up to the trader support service in order to ensure that they will incur no costs as a result of the protocol.

The hon. Lady also asked about the future of the trusted trader scheme, which, as she rightly pointed out, guarantees that goods being sold in Northern Ireland and businesses operating in Northern Ireland will face no tariffs. It is the case that we will have an opportunity to review how that scheme operates, but it will only need to be reviewed if there is a demonstrable diversion or illegal activity, and in those circumstances there is an obligation on both parties to seek alternative arrangements. I should stress again that no additional customs checks will face goods going from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.

The hon. Lady asked about customs agent capacity overall. It is the case that £84 million has been made available in order to increase capacity, and the latest survey by HMRC shows that there has been a fourfold increase in capacity. Of course, one of the reasons why we are phasing in import controls over six months next year is to ensure that the sector can increase even further, but that fourfold increase in capacity gives us the confidence we need that all the staff will be there.

The hon. Lady mentioned Richard Burnett of the Road Haulage Association. He, along with Dave Wells of Logistics UK and other figures in the haulage and logistics industry, has played an invaluable role in making sure that the Government do everything necessary to prepare, but I would never shirk from saying that more needs to be done.

The hon. Lady asked about the level playing field and workers’ rights. We have a proud tradition of upholding workers’ rights and ensuring that we have social and environmental protections in this country that are higher than in many other European countries. That will not change—that is a source of pride—but one thing we cannot accept in the course of the level playing field negotiations is the demand from some in the EU that if the EU adopts new laws, we would automatically have to follow those laws or face penalties. We are not afraid to say that our standards are high and we will uphold them, but we are also not afraid to say that the people of this country voted to take back control, and that is what this Government will do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Under the common fisheries policy, it is not just the case that environmentally we have lost out, but that the coastal communities that she stands up for so brilliantly have lost out as well. As an independent coastal state, we will be able to rebalance the opportunities in our waters in order to ensure that our coastal communities can benefit more financially. We will replace the European maritime fisheries fund with new funding to ensure that there are facilities onshore to help with the processing of the fish that we catch, and of course we will enhance our maritime security capability as well.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) [V]]

We left the EU in January and there are now less than 50 days to go until the end of the transition period. Labour Members have been clear that failing to achieve a deal with the EU would be a disaster for the British economy, but deal or no deal, preparations need to be in place for whatever our new trading relationships are on 1 January. In February this year, the Minister recognised the need for 50,000 customs agents trained and ready to go by the end of this year, and in July he announced a £50 million new fund to make this happen. So can he update the House: how many customs agents are now trained and ready to go?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question and also for the emphasis that she quite rightly puts on the need for all businesses to prepare, whether or not we secure a deal. Of course we are determined to secure a deal, and that is why our negotiators, under Lord Frost, are working hard with Michel Barnier to close the remaining gaps in the negotiations. As to the number of customs agents, 50,000 was always an estimate. There has been a significant increase in the number of customs agents who are being employed, both by companies themselves with in-house capacity, and through intermediaries who have been scaling up their activities as well.

[Rachel Reeves]

It is frustrating that the Minister cannot answer this basic question. One minute he wants to channel his inner Roosevelt and the next minute he says that this should all be left to markets, but businesses are demanding leadership and demanding action. Last week, the National Audit Office expressed its concerns about a lack of preparation, and now more and more businesses are expressing their concerns that crucial technology like the customs declaration system is just not ready. Is the Minister actually in control, and will he stake his own reputation on there being no delays, disruption or lost orders due to this Government’s gross incompetence?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing attention to the National Audit Office report of last week. I would encourage everyone who cares, as she does, about making sure that we make the most of the success that life outside the European Union can offer us, to read that report. One of the points it makes is that there are many IT systems for which the Government are responsible. Progress on all those systems has been good. The customs declaration system is essential to making sure that we make a success of life outside the European Union. That is why we have invested, particularly, hundreds of millions of pounds in making sure that businesses that will use CDS when they are transferring goods to Northern Ireland can do so with the support of the Trader Support Service.

EU Exit: Negotiations and the Joint Committee

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement this afternoon.

At the last general election, the Prime Minister said that he had an oven-ready deal ready to go. The withdrawal agreement was the starter course, but we are still waiting for the main meal: a trade agreement with the European Union. At the weekend, the right hon. Gentleman was reminded of some of his previous remarks in 2016 when he assured the country that the one thing that will not change is our ability to trade freely with Europe. Even at this late stage, Labour expects the Government to reach an agreement with the European Union that honours that commitment. It is a question of competence and it is a question of trust; it is what this Government promised the British people.

Of course we were supposed to have a deal by now. This is the third deadline that the Prime Minister has set himself, and it is the third deadline that the Prime Minister has missed. Initially, he said that a deal with the EU would be sorted by July. Then he said by September, and then he said by last week. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the Government find it so hard to meet their own deadlines and so hard to achieve their own promises?

Yesterday, when the Minister toured the television studios, he was asked what the chances were now of securing a deal, and he said it was less than two thirds. Can he tell businesses and this House the current probability, given that he has just said that events have, in effect, ended the trade negotiations? Over the past three days, we have heard more posturing than solutions, more excuses and explanations. It is time for the Government to take responsibility.

Of course everyone needs to prepare as best they can, but it is a bit rich for the Government to lecture businesses on getting ready when the Government cannot even tell them what they are getting ready for. Let us be clear: if the talks have run out of road, many industries will face prohibitive tariffs—from 10% for exporting cars to at least 40% for exporting lamb—to Britain’s biggest market in just 10 weeks’ time. I ask again: is that what the Government want businesses to get ready for, and is it even possible for those businesses to do business on those terms?

The Minister will recall that I raised the concerns of the car manufacturing industry on 1 October at Cabinet Office questions and the possibility of tariffs, and also on rules of origin. He agreed to meet the automotive industry and trade unions. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and Unite followed up with a joint letter on the same day—1 October. However, I am now informed that, 18 days later, that letter has not been replied to and that meeting has not happened. At what point did the British Government give up on British industry, and when will the Minister be meeting those businesses? It is all well and good to say prepare, but he cannot even be bothered to get round a table with them. I ask again: what are they supposed to be preparing for and what support are the Government giving them?

In his statement today, the Minister thanked the road haulage industry for its efforts, but you will also remember, Mr Speaker, that, at Cabinet Office questions, he said that the road haulage industry had been far from constructive, so I welcome the thanks that he gave them today. Earlier this month, I was with a haulage firm in Hull with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). It was a fantastic business, established more than 100 years ago, yet it does not know how many of its fleet of lorries will be able to operate in the EU come 1 January. How are they supposed to prepare for that?

Ministers have blithely referred to leaving with no trade deal as trading on “Australian terms”. This morning, the Business Secretary was pressed on the difference between an Australian deal and leaving with no deal, and he admitted that it was “semantics”—semantics! They can call it no deal. They can call it an Australia-style deal. They can call it a Narnia deal, as far as I am concerned, but let us be honest about what that means and how damaging it is for this country. [Interruption.] Someone says from a sedentary position that it is not damaging—10% tariffs on British cars being exported to the European Union is damage; 40% tariffs on lamb being exported to the European Union is damage. If any Member wants to stand up and tell their constituents, British industry and British farming that that is not damaging, they can be my guest, but it is not the truth.

The Prime Minister promised that the UK would “prosper mightily” without a trade deal with the EU. Given that confidence, will the Government publish their full economic impact assessment of the implications if no trade deal is achieved, broken down by industry and by the regions and nations of our United Kingdom? That may at least help us to understand what we are supposed to be planning for.

While the Government lecture businesses about being match-fit, their own preparations are badly off pace. In late July, the Government announced £50 million of funding for customs intermediaries. Could the Minister update the House on how much of that fund businesses have drawn down and give us the latest figures for the number of customs agents trained up to be ready for 1 January? The Government have given authorisation for a number of lorry parks, so how many of these “inland border facilities”, as the Minister likes to call them, have had work started on them, and how many are now completed? Can he list how many of the IT systems needed are on track and whether the crucial goods vehicle movement system has been tested with all haulage businesses? He mentioned business preparedness. What is happening in terms of security and data sharing?

This Government must deliver a deal that provides guarantees and safeguards on workers’ rights, environmental standards and animal welfare, protects jobs and does nothing to jeopardise the Good Friday agreement. That was all promised last year. Time is short, so my message to the Government is blunt: stop posturing, start negotiating and deliver the deal that you promised to the British people.