Customs and Borders

Debate between Robert Neill and Albert Owen

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen]

It is slightly different, but it needs arbitration—

[Robert Neill]

rose—

[Albert Owen]

I will take one intervention—from the hon. Gentleman.

[Robert Neill]

I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman makes that point. My constituency voted to remain by 521 votes, and my experience in London was exactly the same: people voted to leave the political institution. They actually believed in the market—that was what we signed up for, and it is what they will be content to remain in. It is actually misleading for any person, either in this House or elsewhere, to hijack what was a vote on a simple yes/no issue otherwise.

[Albert Owen]

I am grateful for that intervention. I am making the point that the customs union replicates the Common Market, and I feel that continuing in a customs union will give my constituents the job security that they need.

To return to the will of the people, the Prime Minister called the 2017 general election—the hard Brexit general election—so that she could boost her majority in the House of Commons. She failed to do that—in fact, she lost her majority—and she now relies on a party that represents a part of the United Kingdom that voted to remain in the European Union. That is significant. In the previous general election, I had a very small majority, and I told people that I would come to this House to fight for their jobs and investment, and for what I feel is best for the people of Ynys Môn. My majority, unlike the parliamentary majority of the Prime Minister and the Conservative party, went up.

I believe that the customs union is right for this country. I also believe that we should go further, but I am a realist. I want to unite the people of this divided United Kingdom and I believe that the customs union could be the symbol to do that, because while we could leave certain aspects of the European Union, we could remain in the customs union, trading freely with our European neighbours. That would also not deter us from trading with other countries. We heard from the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), that Germany is increasing its trade with India, for example, and we can do the same. An outward-looking United Kingdom in the customs union could be of benefit to us. There could be a positive double whammy of our remaining within the customs union and trading freely with my friends in the Republic of Ireland, thereby benefiting my constituents, and that, I believe, is in the national interest of the whole United Kingdom.

Euratom Membership

Debate between Robert Neill and Albert Owen

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Westminster Hall

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

rose—

[Albert Owen]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and then to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). However, I am conscious of time.

[Albert Owen]

I totally agree. That argument was made to the Select Committee by a representative of workers, because they are concerned about training, skilling and upskilling.

[Robert Neill]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for us not to have a cliff edge to preserve the benefits of membership. The associate membership he mentions might be one such way, and France might be a supporter of that. Is he aware that Austria has objected specifically to the support that the Government have given to Hinkley Point on state aid grounds and has generally been hostile to powers in the EU with nuclear programmes? Would an associate arrangement require unanimity among the EU 27, or a qualified majority?

[Albert Owen]

Alternative membership under article 206 is important. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about Austria, which is hostile to nuclear per se and will be taking over the presidency of the European Union. That could put other things in jeopardy as well as these arrangements. That is all the more reason to have a long-term plan, rather than exiting in two years and linking ourselves to article 50. I think he strengthened my case in many ways.

I am talking about the alternative arrangements for membership, enjoyed by Switzerland and others, which importantly would allow access to moneys to fund nuclear research to be maintained. However, I want the whole package: I want research and civil nuclear to have certainty going forward. The other option I talked about was third-country membership under article 101 of the Euratom treaty. That is more limiting in scope, with regard to power and jurisdiction, than the alternative memberships. However, it does allow agreements and contracts with international organisations and states. Those with third-country membership include, as I mentioned, Japan, the United States and Canada—big players in the nuclear world. However, we would need bilateral agreements with them, which again will take time to negotiate. Many people have raised with me concern about the timeframe. Of course, third-country membership would not automatically give us the right for international contracts for research under the international thermonuclear experimental reactor project. That is therefore probably more risky than alternative membership. It is an option, but it brings risks with it.

Those options are better than the cliff edge. It is not politicians who are raising that; it is a broad section of the nuclear industry and a broad section of cancer research and development as well as various other issues, such as those raised by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and mentioned by me. This is not just about new nuclear, existing nuclear and the movement of nuclear materials; it is far more wide-ranging than that.

The three options are: remaining in Euratom, associate membership, and third-country membership. However, whatever the model and the negotiations of the Minister and his team, we need proper transitional arrangements to be in place. That is the crux of my argument, and I feel that the Members who have intervened share my anxiety that we must have a proper framework.

The Minister is new to his job, and I welcome him to it, but he and his Department have yet to allay the fears of industry or of those in research and development. He has a job of work to do, and I am trying to help him to become firmer in saying that he will work in partnership with industry. A working group is the right way forward, because that would allow for consultation with the experts and for the industry to look seriously at the pitfalls and advantages to allow us to have a world-class leading industry going forward.

I am sure that the Minister will grasp this new consensual politics and listen to me and to hon. Members across the House. We want to help him get it right. We are not here just to criticise; we are here to assist. The industry is waiting to assist as well, so that we get a full and comprehensive consultation and timescales that suit the industry in the UK and UK plc. In the nuclear industry we are about all the research and development that has been talked about, but we are also about producing low-carbon energy and high-quality jobs.

Very few industries have jobs for life like the nuclear industry does. Many people go to the industry and are there for life and get that continuity and those high-skilled jobs. We need to maintain that if we are to meet the criteria that the Department set out in its industrial strategy on nuclear and how those link to a broader industrial strategy. We need to improve and upscale jobs. The nuclear industry is one such area, and if we are not careful we could take a step that takes us backwards, not forwards.

Court Closures

Debate between Robert Neill and Albert Owen

Thursday 24th March 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this debate. We have already heard powerful speeches on the subject. Let me say at once that I do not rise specifically to raise any constituency points, because the excellent magistrates court in Bromley continues in operation and is busy. I am concerned, however, as Chairman of the Justice Committee; the matter of closures has been raised in our discussions in this and the previous Parliament on a number of occasions. Although we are not dealing with a specific inquiry into the matter, it raises its head when we look at other important issues.

In fairness to the Minister, who I have always found to be a model of courtesy and openness in his dealings with me and the Select Committee, I must say that a balance has to be struck. Court closures have gone on through most of my life, first as a practising lawyer and then as a Member of Parliament. I cut my teeth as a young barrister going to courts in Essex villages, such as Castle Hedingham, Halstead and places of that kind, which sat perhaps once a month. They are now gone. I cannot say that at the end of the day the quality of justice was permanently and wholly undermined by those closures.

[Albert Owen]

rose—

[Robert Neill]

Let me just make my point. We need a sense of balance. I think the hon. Gentleman is about to make that point, and he might well say some things later on with which I shall agree.

[Albert Owen]

I am certain that that will be the case. The hon. Gentleman is right that there was a big review of courts and some court closures in the last Parliament. At that time, only a few years ago, the Government told us that the remaining courts were needed in the community. Nothing has changed. It is just the Government’s attitude that has changed; when it comes to local justice, nothing has changed at all.

[Robert Neill]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, particularly in respect of rural areas. In fairness, though, there were court closure programmes under Labour Governments just as much as there were under Conservative Governments, so it is not an issue over which any one party can claim advantage. The hon. Gentleman made a very fair point about access to justice, but it is not the case that one particular party is more or less committed to it. The issue is how to balance what is largely a centrally funded service with local needs. That is what we need to deal with, and it has been raised as an issue in the Justice Committee.

It is fair to acknowledge that the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood was quite right when she referred to the comments of Lord Bingham of Cornhill. I have often thought that his book, “The Rule of Law”, should be made compulsory reading for Members of both Houses, not least because, although written by a distinguished lawyer, it is remarkably concise. It is worth bearing in mind that the common law doctrine of accessibility, to which the hon. Lady referred, grew up at a time when there were far fewer courts, distances between them were much greater, public transport was virtually non-existent and journeys took much longer. Everything has to be put into context; it is not a matter of absolutes; it is all about getting the balance right, as some hon. Members have said.

I repeat that there were court closures under Labour Governments, and the most recent set of closures occurred during the Parliament of 2010 to 2015. The Justice Committee was interested in the effect, because part of the argument has been the need at a time of pressure on the public finances to get maximum value for money. That is understandable, as is the fact that there has been a decline in the use of courts, particularly magistrates courts, because of the reduction in crime. I am told that use across the magistrates courts estate decreased by something in the order of 43% during that previous Parliament. That is not the whole picture, but it is fair to put it into the balance. I remember some magistrates courts being in poor condition—old, ill equipped and without the facilities to deal with the necessary separation of witnesses, victims and legal advisers, to which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) referred. So not all closures are bad. There has to be a process of renewal and, sometimes, of consolidation.