Water Industry: Financial Resilience

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

Yes.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

Water companies were sold with no debt when they were privatised in 1989. In fact, they were given a £1.5 billion green dowry by the Government. Since then, they have taken on borrowing of £60.6 billion, diverting income from customer bills to paying dividends and interest payments. As a result, water bills have increased by upwards of 40% in real terms. Does the Minister honestly think that consumers hail privatisation as a success?

[Rebecca Pow]

Ultimately, the customers pay for investment in the industry, but over a very long period, as the hon. Lady will know. If a company did not pay out dividends it would struggle to get access to finance to fund future investment. That would limit the level of investment and have an impact on future customers. Companies have to pay up front for a lot of that investment, because they need to secure a large amount of funding to pay for it. To avoid customer bills increasing drastically to pay for that, companies have to secure the money by raising debt or equity. She knows how it works. The regulator has to ensure that that system is fully functioning, the water companies are resilient and we have all the resilient water supply that we require.

Water Quality: Sewage Discharge

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

According to the Rivers Trust, in Salford alone, our waterways have been littered with thousands of hours-worth of sewage discharges in 2022, and it will take more than the Government’s fluffy and toothless targets to fix the problem. The water industry has been regulated ever since it was privatised in 1989, and fining many water companies millions of pounds has demonstrably not affected their behaviour. Certain water companies have actually tried to claim in court that they are not public authorities and should not have to publish data on sewage, and years of chronic underfunding of the Environment Agency and inaction by the regulator, Ofwat, have meant that there has been an inability to enforce even the minimal regulation that is available to us in this country.

It is left to individuals and organisations to try to enforce those regulations, but even when they do, they are met with hurdles. Indeed, United Utilities sought a declaration that would effectively bar people from bringing private claims against water companies that dump sewage into rivers and seas, and it won its case in the Court of Appeal most recently. That has meant that any water company can effectively dump sewage into waterways in England and Wales without fear of being sued in the civil courts by landowners, angling clubs, swimming clubs, wildlife groups, residents, or any other group with an interest in the land. As such, action is needed, and the plan described by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) is sensible and effective. I hope the whole House will support his motion today.

Beyond that, I urge all colleagues to examine the bigger picture as to why we are in the situation we are in today, and how we can ensure long-term sustainability of the water sector. Privatisation has meant that water bills have increased by 40% in real terms. We have seen £72 billion paid out in dividends to shareholders since privatisation, almost half as much as the money the sector has spent on upgrading and maintaining water and sewerage systems. The galling fact is that the private sector paid very little for the companies when it took them on in 1989, and the truth is that privatisation of our water industry was wrong—it has been a complete failure for the British public. If we are serious about tackling this ecological disaster, we need to support the Opposition’s motion today, but ultimately, we need to have a serious discussion about bringing our water industry into public ownership for the public good.

Sewage Discharges

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for securing this important debate. In Salford, we have had numerous incidents of sewage discharge. For example, in 2021 a sewer storm overflow at Pomona docks spilled 289 times for a total of 1,733 hours, discharging into the Manchester ship canal. It will take more than regulation and fluffy reduction targets to fix the problem.

Sadly, years of chronic underfunding of the Environment Agency and inaction by water regulator Ofwat means that there are few legal teeth to stop water companies flagrantly discharging sewage into our waterways. In my own constituency, the Court of Appeal sided with a major water company in the north-west, United Utilities, in a case brought by the Good Law Project over the legal routes available to people to challenge its discharging of sewage into the Manchester ship canal. That case means that any water company can dump sewage into waterways in England and Wales without fear of being sued in a civil court by any group—whether that is an angling club, a swimming club, a wildlife group or local residents. There is plenty that the Government can do to address the issue: properly fund environmental agencies, give environmental agencies real legal teeth for enforcement, and set more ambitious legal targets to clean up water quality. Finally, they should bring water companies into public ownership. It cannot be morally right that dividend extraction trumps investment in infrastructure.

Cost of Living and Food Insecurity

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

The Food Foundation found this week that more than 1 million people have reported

“that they or someone in their household have had to go a whole day without eating in the past month because they couldn’t afford or access food.”

The north-east and north-west of England have the highest levels of food insecurity. I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) in celebrating the brilliant Salford Families in need Meal Project. I also thank For the Love of Food, Salford food bank, Emmaus, Salford Food Share, Mustard Tree, Salford Loaves and Fishes and so many others. They are brilliant organisations, but the fact is that they should not need to exist. As Oscar Wilde once said, charity is not a solution to poverty, but

“an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible.”

As one of the richest economies in the world, we have the economic means to sustain everyone, but if we cannot find the political will to achieve that, we will not live in a civilised society; we will live under barbarism. We can see that barbarism take form and the stark inequities of our system laid bare every single day.

Today, amid an energy crisis that will cripple households across the UK, oil giant BP has reported its highest profit for eight years, yet we are seeing no political action from the Government—no windfall tax on energy companies to help those who struggling. Yesterday, the Government forced through a real-terms cut to social security and pensions at a time when inflation is skyrocketing, despite more than 30 charities and organisations stating that a real-terms inflation rise is needed for people to keep their head above water.

Then, of course, there is levelling up. Levelling up required a reversal of austerity and significant funding pledges for local government, whose budgets have been slashed in the last 10 years. We saw nothing but warm words in last week’s White Paper. Those warm words will not feed my constituents, so today’s motion is right: we need a national strategy for food. But we need to go further. Food, the basic building block of human existence, should become a legal right.

Salford is already a right to food city. As the right to food campaign suggests, putting that right into UK law would make the Government legally responsible for helping anyone in our communities who was going hungry, for taking action to prevent barriers to accessing food, and for taking steps to tackle the crisis of food insecurity in the UK. That would require the Government to respond by setting out funding, tasks and responsibilities for the public bodies that would need to take action. Action should also include addressing the economic causes of food insecurity, for example, through improving people’s incomes with a real living wage, increasing social security to a level people can actually live on, implementing controls on everyday costs such as utility bills and, longer term, lowering energy costs by bringing energy into public ownership.

Food insecurity in our country is not some abstract horror created by an unknown force beyond our control that can be addressed by benevolence. It is a political choice. The Government can make the political choice to end it and I hope that they take on board these points today.

Water Companies: Sewage Discharge

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for introducing this important debate and for her speech, which I very much agree with.

The Rivers Trust has shown that there have been multiple sewer storm overflow incidents in the city of Salford, centring on the River Irwell and the Manchester ship canal. Last year, as we have heard, water companies dumped raw sewage into England’s rivers and seas 400,000 times, so it will take more than regulation to fix the problem. Indeed, the water industry has been regulated since it was privatised in 1989, and fining many water companies millions of pounds has demonstrably not affected their behaviour. Yorkshire Water and United Utilities have even tried to claim in court that they are not public authorities and should not have to publish data on sewage.

As a result of privatisation in 1989, our water and sewage are now run by nine regional private monopolies that are owned mostly by private equity. Since privatisation, water bills have increased by 40% in real terms. Eye-watering new research from the University of Greenwich shows that the water and sewage companies have paid shareholders a total of nearly £17 billion in dividends from 2010 to ’21—an average of £1.4 billion a year.

Over the three decades since privatisation, the privatised English water companies are estimated to have paid out £57 billion in dividends to shareholders. That is almost half as much as the money they have spent on upgrading and maintaining water and sewage systems. Worse, six water companies were found to be avoiding millions in tax, and the Financial Times has reported on the huge debt piling up in the water industry, which confirms that our water bills are rising to pay for huge shareholder pay-outs, not to invest in infrastructure. The truth is that privatisation of our water industry was wrong, and it has been a complete failure for the British public.

The good news, however, is that bringing water into public ownership would pay for itself within about seven years. After that, it would save the public purse £2.5 billion a year. That money could be invested in infrastructure to stop sewage pouring into our rivers, lakes and seas, as well to reduce leaks to save water and cut bills. The new public water companies could be democratically controlled, transparent and given a duty of care to take care of our environment, to clean up our rivers and seas, and to do everything they can to tackle the climate crisis. There is no excuse not to do this.

In Scotland, water is already in public ownership. In Wales, it is not for profit. In the past 15 years, 235 cities in 37 countries have taken their water into public ownership. I am sure we all agree that it is unacceptable for raw sewage to flow into our rivers and seas. If we are serious about tackling that ecological scandal, I stress that we must bring England’s water companies into public hands.

Environment Bill

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

It is a real privilege to be called to speak in this debate. Improving the environment is a topic that I am incredibly passionate about, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I start by saying that it has been great to serve on the Bill Committee for this piece of legislation. There is so much that is good in this Bill and I give particular thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) for her energy and enthusiasm in driving this Bill forward.

Protecting the environment and our natural environment is, without doubt, one of the greatest gifts that we can pass on to the next generation, and protecting the environment is something that is exceptionally close to my heart, and, of course, to many of my constituents. I want to focus my comments in this part of today’s debate on governance. This Bill is of crucial importance to providing a legal framework for our environmental governance for a post-Brexit global Britain. As it stands right now, our environmental law and policies are mostly driven by the European Union, but I know that, when it comes to the environment, the Government are keen to go further, and go beyond the baseline standards that we adopted while we were within the European Union.

All policy should be long term, but it is particularly important that environmental policy goes above and beyond, which is why I welcome the fact that the Environment Bill will allow the setting of new, long-term, legally binding and joined-up targets, focusing on air quality, biodiversity, water, waste reduction and resource efficiency. The Office for Environmental Protection will go a long way to deterring the breaches of environmental law. For far too long, many people have felt that breaches of environmental law in Britain have gone unchecked—it is almost as if they see those breaches as second or third-tier offences—and that enforcement power could be better spent elsewhere. Of course, that is wrong, which is why I am so pleased that the Office for Environmental Protection will be given the flexibility to go a long way to help change that. Damaging the environment damages us all, and I therefore stress to the Minister that, on this point, it is vital that the OEP is fully independent and properly funded to have teeth and weight to take action, and that it is allowed to take the enforcement action that it deems necessary.

In conclusion, there is always much more that we can do, and I urge the Government to push this piece of legislation forward at pace. We all have a duty to leave the environment in a cleaner, greener state than we found it, and this Bill helps to achieve that.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]]

Despite the infectious enthusiasm of the Minister, I have to say that, sadly, the deficiencies of the Bill bolster my scepticism about the Prime Minister’s supposedly Damascene conversion to eco-warrior from someone who, in only 2015, claimed that the science surrounding warming temperatures was “without foundation”. But if his Government want to prove me wrong, they certainly have the chance to do so today. First, they could support new clause 9, which would provide that anyone with duties under the Bill must comply with an environmental objective to achieve and maintain: biodiversity; support for human health and wellbeing; and sustainable use of resources. The new clause includes specified environmental commitments that have been made by the Government including in the UN Leaders’ Pledge for Nature of September 2020 and under the Climate Change Act 2008.

Secondly, the Government should support amendments 25 and 2, whose principles are supported by the British Lung Foundation. These amendments set parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM_2.5 target for air quality will be at least as strict as the 2005 World Health Organisation guidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest. As it stands, the Bill does not set a minimum level of ambition for the achievement of this target. I stress to the Minister the importance of these amendments to my constituents. A 2018 report showed that Salford and Manchester were in breach of these WHO guidelines, and air pollution, primarily caused by vehicles, is said to contribute to at least 1,200 deaths a year across Greater Manchester.

Finally, the Government should support amendment 39. There is huge concern about the decision to allow a derogation regarding the use of certain neonicotinoids. The decision goes against all commitments that the Government made to help nature, including an explicit pledge to keep pesticide restrictions after Brexit. Without the scrutiny that amendment 39 would provide, there is a significant risk that the emergency authorisation of such pesticides could sadly become a common occurrence.

There are so many additional amendments in this section that have been eloquently articulated by Members today, but it is clear that we are in a climate and ecological emergency, and that we need this Environment Bill to create the highest of environmental standards. Without the changes outlined, it simply does not do that; it is just greenwash.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]]

This is a good and welcome Bill. I support it, but I want it to go further, which is why I have put my name to amendment 2, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). One area in particular in which we should go further, and which is of concern to my constituents, is in relation to PM_2.5 particulate pollution, which is perhaps the most dangerous type of pollution to human health. Its impact on things such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, stroke and lung cancer are well documented.

I recognise that the Bill as it stands commits to bringing a new target for PM_2.5 before Parliament by October 2022. It is what Ministers have always said in previous debates and it is good, but we need to go further. The Bill does not, for example, commit to reaching World Health Organisation guidelines and does not give a timescale for adoption, even though Ministers have said that that is their ambition.

As I understand it—it has been said in the House previously—past DEFRA studies have shown that we can achieve the WHO standard of 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030. That would be a reasonable timeframe, and, if it can be done, there is no reason why we should not put it into the Bill. It is an important issue, even in a constituency such as mine—a comparatively leafy London suburb, which has better scores on pollution than many parts of London, but is still above the UK average in a number of respects—and it is a matter of real concern for my constituents. Putting that commitment, which we want to achieve anyway, on the face of the Bill would show willing on our part towards our own citizens. It is also worth saying that it would increase our influence on these matters abroad, because, at the end of the day, these matters have to be tackled internationally.

There is a great deal of focus on the integrated review that is under way, and many countries have punched above their weight by taking a lead on this issue. New Zealand is a great example, as are many of the Scandinavian countries. If we were to set out our stall and commit ourselves to tackling PM_2.5 pollution in this way on the face of the Bill, that would be a really positive message for global Britain, particularly in the run-up to COP26 in November. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that she will indicate that the Government want to move forward positively and vigorously on this, and I suggest that that is a way they can do so.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

We have heard more than 50 impassioned speeches today from both sides of the House, from Perth to Don Valley, from Cheltenham to Walsall and from Tottenham to Ceredigion. I will not attempt to reference every single speech as I certainly would not do them justice, but it is clear that all Members who have spoken recognise the weight of responsibility on their shoulders—the critical decision that they must make to support their communities.

What also became clear from today’s contributions is that the Prime Minister’s deal has not found consensus in this House. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs began by stating that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Well, this deal is significantly deficient in qualifying for the presumption in this well-known quotation. This deal is simply not good. It does not work for business and industry, it does not work for working people and it does not work for our environment. In fact, as we have been sitting here today, the former head of MI6 is reported to have told the Government that it threatens national security.

The withdrawal agreement and the outline political declaration will not ensure the relationship with the European Union needed for UK businesses to operate unhindered post Brexit. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee has already stated that

“no business that we have taken evidence from held the view that—from an industry perspective—the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration provide a deal as good as the one we already have with the EU”.

For instance, in the likely backstop scenario, the withdrawal agreement does not provide for a customs union as we enjoy now. As the Institute for Public Policy Research said, it provides for a “bare-bones customs union”, meaning that it does not cover areas such as services, trade or public procurement, and it certainly does not provide for frictionless trade between the UK and the EU. Specifically, it will not address non-tariff barriers such as VAT and product regulation checks, which will have a significant impact on industries such as car production and pharmaceuticals—sectors that are essential to our industrial strategy. Indeed, the Attorney General’s advice confirmed this, stating that, during the backstop,

“Great Britain will no longer be a member of the EU’s Single Market for Goods or the EU’s customs arrangements. This means that any GB goods crossing the border into the EU will be subject to third country checks by Member State authorities”.

Let me turn to the outline political declaration, which is hardly worth the paper it is written on, quite frankly. It includes phrases such as “explore the possibility”. But even if the aspirations listed there were implemented, that would not guarantee frictionless trade. In the best-case scenario, there will be barriers to trade in goods and market access for services will be reduced. That is a fact.

As the IPPR also summarised,

“there will be significant barriers to trade in services between the UK and the EU. UK firms will only have EU market access under host state rules and will lose the benefits of single market treatment…Under these plans, we should therefore expect significant new non-tariff barriers in goods, particularly in heavily regulated sectors such as chemicals and pharmaceuticals.”

Clearly, this is not a good deal for UK business as the Prime Minister keeps alleging. The fact that we are still discussing it today—two months since its inadequacy was revealed before Christmas—rather than negotiating a better deal is harming businesses in the here and now. It takes only a quick Google search to see that businesses up and down the country are already delaying investment, implementing mitigation plans and, in some cases, cutting jobs and moving operations.

Significant manufacturers such as Bombardier, Rolls-Royce and Cobham have applied to come under the jurisdiction of regulators in other EU countries, and this week Aston Martin triggered its contingency plans—at an accumulating cost, according to its chief executive. Indeed, as we have been sat here today, Honda has announced that it is doing the same and implementing its contingency plans.

I am sure that the Secretary of State will quote some of the business organisations that have cautiously welcomed the Prime Minister’s deal, but I gently say to him that they are doing so with a gun held to their head. They have been presented with a false choice between this deal or no deal by a Government who are recklessly threatening the worst-case scenario and attempting to run down the clock. In fact, it is economic sabotage.

The will of this House has been clearly expressed. There is virtually no support for no deal, and it would therefore be unthinkable for the Prime Minister to proceed down that road. Indeed, according to media reports this morning, even the Secretary of State himself agrees with this principle. If this is true, political posturing in the media is simply not good enough. Will he assure businesses today that the prospect of no deal will be taken off the table?

This unambitious deal will not only hinder the UK in terms of trade, but risk a bonfire of the regulations that ensure that high standards are maintained. Members across the House will recognise the strength of feeling that our constituents have on Brexit. However, I can assure you, Mr Speaker—we have heard from many Members on this issue today—that none of them voted for the watering down of workers’ hard-won rights after we leave the EU. Unfortunately, however, despite assurances from the Prime Minister that

“existing workers’ legal rights will continue to be guaranteed in law”,

the TUC’s verdict is that the deal

“doesn’t guarantee jobs or rights at work into the future.”

Indeed, Thompsons Solicitors has stated that the so-called non-regression clause in the political declaration will be “ineffective” in maintaining workers’ rights, and the IPPR has stated that it is not sufficient to maintain current protections, individuals cannot even bring about proceedings and if the EU raises standards, the UK is permitted to simply fall behind.

Indeed, attempting to use all parliamentary levers to mitigate against—

[Caroline Flint]

Those of us who have put our names to amendment (p) realise that it is not perfect and that, like all other amendments, it is not legally binding. However, does my hon. Friend agree that whatever happens next Tuesday, if there is a willingness, we can open up discussion about how we can ensure, going forward, that we can, in law, see a way to enshrine the protection of these workers’ rights, and would she be willing to engage in such dialogue?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments. I can certainly state that the sentiment behind the amendment that she and various colleagues have tabled is to bolster workers’ rights and make sure that our workers’ rights in the UK do not fall behind those in the EU.

[John Redwood]

Will the hon. Lady say who is threatening these rights? No party in this House wants to reduce them, and there are clear promises from the Government, so it is not an issue.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comment. However, with my tongue in my cheek, I say that I am not looking at a party that has a track record in this House on bolstering workers’ rights, so my confidence will certainly need to be increased significantly over coming weeks if I am to believe his statement.

Going back to the comment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), I certainly hope that the Secretary of State welcomes the sentiments outlined in the amendment that she recently tabled with colleagues, because, as he knows, a combination of the deficiencies of the withdrawal agreement and the Government’s unwillingness to listen to the concerns of MPs has forced Members across the House, such as my right hon. Friend, to gymnastically attempt to secure debate on key issues by any means possible.

My right hon. Friend is right in stating that to secure real confidence in this House, the Government do need to go much further. So far, their words fall far short of what Labour has been asking for. As the TUC has stated, they do not provide the binding long-term guarantee that working people need. It would be very helpful if the Secretary of State stated today, unequivocally, that he will guarantee that the UK will not be permitted to fall behind future improvements from the EU on workers’ rights, environmental protections, and health and safety standards. If so, in the light of the withdrawal agreement’s deficiencies, what legislation does he propose to legally reflect this position?

[Simon Hoare]

What the right hon. Member for Don Valley actually asked was whether the shadow Secretary of State and her Front-Bench team would take part in these cross-party discussions, not what the Secretary of State would do. It is a very simple question. The right hon. Member for Don Valley does not need me to speak on her behalf, but will the shadow Secretary of State answer that question?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Perhaps he was missing during the contributions, but numerous Members have outlined the Government’s inability to liaise with Members across the House to develop a consensus. I share the sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley on the need to work together across this House to deal with the many issues outlined during these debates and ensure we find a deal that provides a consensus that we can all rally around. Unfortunately, we do not have a Government who have been capable thus far of delivering that. I will move on, because I know we are short of time.

I want to talk briefly about environmental and climate protections. We know that non-regression clauses in relation to environmental protections would not be subject to the arbitration procedures set out in articles 170 to 181. Instead, standards would be enforced at the domestic level and through far weaker state-to-state procedures that are rarely effective in international treaties. The political declaration, meanwhile, contains only hortatory statements regarding climate, energy and the environment that have no legal effect. How can we trust this Government to maintain domestic standards when they have taken quite an active role, shall we say, in opposing EU progress on energy and climate change?

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

We are now tackling air quality, and that is through the EU and environmental regulations, but the Government had to be taken to court three times. If such a health and environmental crisis engulfs us again, who will protect us if we are not in the EU? It will certainly not be this Government.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he makes an important point. The Government’s track record has been rather deficient, to say the least. For example, in 2017 this Government lobbied for EU renewable energy and energy efficiency targets to be reduced, made non-binding or even scrapped. Is it now this Government’s position after Brexit to adopt and maintain to 2030 at least the same ambition as that in the revised renewable energy directive and energy efficiency directive? If so, how can we trust the Government to honour that position?

Of course, no deal in relation to energy and the environment would be even worse, risking chaos and catastrophe for energy, climate and the environment according to the Greener UK coalition of non-governmental organisations. As I have outlined, it is extremely irresponsible of the Government to leverage the disaster of no deal to hard-sell what is quite frankly a dismal alternative.

I will bring my comments to a close. I have outlined briefly some of the deficiencies in the withdrawal agreement and political declaration, which, in their present form, demonstrably divide the House and, indeed, Britain. They will not protect jobs and the economy. They will not protect workers’ rights, environmental or health and safety standards, and they give barely any indication of what our future relationship with the EU will look like, causing chronic uncertainty for business.

Members have a choice: do they vote for a deal that they know will make us worse off, with a huge question mark for years to come over our future relationship with the EU, or do they demand the negotiation of a better deal for Britain that will secure support in Parliament and the country? That deal can be found, but this Government have demonstrated that they are not capable of delivering it.