Points of Order

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Whether people agree or disagree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), he is respected across the House. I invite the Chancellor to apologise for the personal remarks he made.

[Mr Speaker]

I must say I have never found anything wrong with the hon. Member for Bolsover’s hearing. I think it was an off-the-cuff remark. It probably was not the best chosen, but it is a matter for the Chancellor to judge whether he wants to say anything.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

The Chancellor is shaking his head. Fair enough. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has registered his point. Knowing the hon. Member for Bolsover as I do, I very much doubt he will lose any sleep over it.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The only thing I would say to the Chancellor is why doesn’t he answer the question? It is pretty clear that he knows the Tory county council has played a blinder by throwing people out of work. That tells you a lot about this economy.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure it is a genuine point of order, not one of frustration or a Treasury question that was not asked. We look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman.

[Toby Perkins]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wanted to clarify and correct the record in relation to something I said yesterday. The House will have heard me ask the Education Secretary about Brookfield Community School in Chesterfield, an outstanding local authority school that was forced into being an academy. I said yesterday that it now required improvement and that the governing body was being replaced. I have subsequently been told that I misinformed the House: the school has actually been rated as inadequate, with serious failings. So I wanted to make the House aware, at the earliest possible opportunity, that things are even worse under the Tories’ education policy.

[Mr Speaker]

That is notably candid of the hon. Gentleman. It is certainly not, it has to be admitted, an expression of frustration. He has put his point on the record and I thank him for doing so.

Public Sector Pay

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

Yet again, we hear from a Labour Front Bencher not a positive welcome of the news today, which will mean hundreds of pounds more in the pay packets of public sector workers, but yet more complaints and no solutions.

We have scrapped the cap, and we are making sure that public sector workers get a decent pay rise. Let me tell the House what that will mean for workers in the public sector. For teachers earning under £35,000, it will mean a 3.5% pay rise, earning them an extra £800 a year. Police will see a 2% rise, with the average police constable on a £38,000 salary seeing a £760 pay rise. Prison officers will see a 2% rise and a 0.75% bonus, with extra for those who are new recruits. Junior doctors will get at least a 2% pay rise, and the hard-working people in our armed forces will receive a 2% pay rise and an additional 0.9% bonus, to reflect the brilliant work they do for our country.

The hon. Gentleman asks me how these pay rises are funded. Unlike the profligate Labour party, we have worked to support every Department to ensure that these pay rises are affordable within their budgets. In the case of the Department for Education—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked me the question. Does he want to hear the answer or not? [Interruption.] He obviously does not.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) is the author of a newly published book entitled “Summer Rage”, but if I may say so, the launch party can wait until after today.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I was diligently trying to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, and I hope that he will listen to the answer.

We will be allocating a further £500 million from central Department for Education budgets to schools, to make sure they are able to give these pay rises to our hard-working teachers. In every other case, Departments have been able to find savings in their central budgets to make sure those pay rises are affordable. It is a bit rich getting lectures from the Labour party about affordability when its purported policy, along with overthrowing capitalism and making business the enemy, is to create a run on the pound. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can explain how his party could afford public sector pay rises with a run on the pound, but I would like to hear his answer.

The pay rises we are announcing today represent the highest pay rises for almost a decade for public sector workers. We have been able to achieve them because of our management of the economy, because we have seen employment reach a record level and because we are spending less in areas such as welfare, whereas people under the Labour Government were left on the scrapheap. Please can the Labour party welcome the fact that public sector workers are getting a pay rise and that we have scrapped the cap, rather than continuing with their usual Eeyorish nonsense?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am keen to accommodate the interests of colleagues, but I remind the House that there is a further urgent question after this and then two ministerial statements and a debate on a motion appertaining to standards, before we get to the summer recess debate, in which no fewer than 30 colleagues wish to take part. I will try to accommodate people now if they pledge in advance to ask a single-sentence question, and preferably a short one, with a commensurately brief reply.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

The public sector workers in Morecambe and Lunesdale will welcome this announcement. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that those in the public sector are now getting £30,630 on average compared with £27,977 in the private sector?

Summer Adjournment

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones).

I wish to speak about a subject that is very personal to me, as it is to millions of other women, and that is the menopause. I speak about this topic from my own personal experience. I started to suffer from horrible migraines that prevented me from actually doing my job properly. I did not know why I was suffering from them. I thought it might be because I had taken up a stressful job and had a change in my personal circumstances. It was only when I started to do some research and look into the menopause itself that I discovered that migraines could be a symptom. Like many other people, I had heard in the popular press and in the media about hot flushes, but I was completely lacking in any knowledge about the menopause.

On my personal journey into this topic, I have discovered that there is a shocking lack of awareness and treatment for women who are going through the menopause. The menopause affects every woman in this country and it of course also affects every man who works with, lives with or is related to a woman, so it is fair to say that it actually affects every single person in this country. Yet, in my research, I found that it has been mentioned only 27 times in Hansard in the last three years, and I really wonder why.

I will focus on three key areas. The first is the workplace. I want to point out that some fantastic organisations already acknowledge and recognise the effects of the menopause on women in the workplace. The West Midlands police are one. There is tailored support there for women, which helps them to build their confidence, to stay in the workplace and to get access to the support they need. However, it is clear that many other organisations need to take a cue from that. After all, we are all expected to work for longer and to contribute, so it will obviously have an effect on the economic growth and productivity of other organisations if they can also adopt those practices.

The second point is about medical treatment. I am absolutely delighted that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced £20 billion of funding for the NHS. Please can we have some more support for menopause from those funds? Approximately 13 million women in the UK are peri-menopausal or post-menopausal. The symptoms can last up to 15 years, but too many women are suffering in silence. They are left frustrated and disappointed when they go to their GP. Their symptoms are not recognised and they do not get the hormone replacement treatment that they really need. They are misdiagnosed and told to get on with it, and their symptoms are often belittled or not understood. We see that in the popular debate, in which women are talked about as being “crazy” or as “losing it”, and this is just not a good state of affairs. It is a taboo. It is not understood and we need to do better as a Government.

The third point is very much around education. At the start of their life, we educate girls about periods. Why cannot we also explain to them what will happen at the end of their life? It is not just the fact that menstruation ends; it is a whole process. It is a natural process that we go through. It can be a liberating process, which frees people to contribute to society. That is how it should be—a positive experience. It should not be denigrated. Women should not feel that their purpose is used up, and that now they are left to wither and die.

In the course of my research I looked at Instagram—one place where I find that social media is quite positive. There is a lot of support around menopause on Instagram. We are told that it is the club that no one wants to join, and it sometimes feels like that, because if a woman speaks up about the fact that she is suffering from menopause—maybe in the workplace, perhaps in an organisation that is not particularly sympathetic—she may be belittled. But I think it is time that we take back control of our bodies. We should not be joked about. We should not be written off. It is a time for us to be loud and proud about our achievements.

Society’s attitudes to women are changing, and I welcome that. We talk about mental health and a range of issues; that is absolutely fantastic. Menopause should not be a negative time. I pay tribute to some of the fantastic women I have worked with, who have helped me, and whose work I hope to take forward: women such as the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women’s health—I do not think she is present, but we shall be meeting and working on this issue—Louise Newson, the menopause doctor; Diane Danzebrink; and Liz Earle.

I finish with a really sad quote. A woman asked:

“Does anyone else find that their confidence, their motivation and enthusiasm have disappeared during the menopause?”

I make a plea for us to really look at this issue and give it the attention it deserves. If women are freed up and allowed to live their lives to the fullest at this time of their life, they can contribute to society and give so much back.

I wish everybody a very happy recess.

[Mr Speaker]

Maiden speech: Janet Daby.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the chance to speak in this debate. I am both humbled and very proud to be here. I thank my constituents in Lewisham East for giving me this opportunity, as well as my family and my wonderful husband for their patience and understanding over the past few months—and continuing patience, probably. [Laughter.]

I will respect tradition by thanking two of my predecessors, Bridget Prentice and Heidi Alexander. The unwavering support and encouragement that I have had from these phenomenal women exemplifies the adage, “Lift as you climb.” Bridget was MP for Lewisham East for 18 years, from 1992 to 2010. She is still a resident, well respected and well known for her community spirit, straight talking and humour. I thank Bridget for her belief in me.

Of course, I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, Heidi Alexander. As hon. Members know, she was an incredibly hard-working, approachable and dedicated advocate in this place. She was key to the community campaign that saved Lewisham Hospital A&E services, and as shadow Secretary of State for Health, she was vocal in the junior doctors’ dispute. She was passionate and outspoken about the need for us to stay in the single market—a view shared by many people in Lewisham, where 70% of us voted to remain. We in Lewisham East will not tolerate a hard Brexit. I thank Heidi for her dedication as a public servant, and I am sure hon. Members will join me in wishing her well in her new role as London’s Deputy Mayor for Transport. No doubt, I will soon be in contact with her about improvements to the Lewisham transport system.

As for me, when I was a child and even a young adult, I never imagined that I would become a local councillor, and certainly not an MP; it was quite possibly the furthest thing from my mind. Having grown up with my mum and her endless capacity for compassion and kindness—she gave us children a strong sense of social justice—I was keenly aware from an early age of the impact of prejudice and discrimination on people around me. I was aware that while many resilient Black, Asian and minority ethnic people did challenge those who sought to oppress them, there were others who learned how to cope with discrimination rather than to complain; they learned to suffer rather than to speak out. The Windrush scandal is the latest and most shocking cruelty inflicted upon us. I am proud, as a daughter of the Windrush generation and as a Labour MP, that one of the voices raised against that legislation was that of my party leader.

Although I grew up in a single parent family, my father was never far away, and I clearly remember my Uncle Clifton, my late Uncle Lass and my Uncle Sam excitedly discussing politics during family visits. As a child, it was a world I knew little about, but it intrigued me and I did my best to engage with their conversations. I intend to ensure my contributions here are as enthusiastic and as fearless—and rather better informed than I was as a child.

I am so honoured to represent Lewisham East, my home of 22 years, because it is the friendliest, most energetic and multicultural community anyone could hope for. We have it all: from grand mansions to compact urban flats, from leafy expanses to concrete labyrinths. We have the best street parties in London and, indeed, perhaps the country—hon. Members can prove me wrong on that if they wish to! We have a strong community spirit, and our valued civic organisations, such as Eco Communities, Pre-school Learning Alliance, Ubuntu and Youth First, demonstrate this. We are also fortunate to have the Inter-Faith Walk for Peace and the Peace of Cake movement, which work to make Lewisham East safer and to enhance cohesion.

That said, years of austerity have meant that many people live hand to mouth, and having set up a food project in 2013 as a local councillor, with the local community, I know this only too well. I know someone who has three part-time jobs. He works himself to the bone, but still he has to visit the foodbank so he can feed himself and his family. What he and all our constituents are owed, at the very least, is the real living wage as defined by the Living Wage Foundation. Instead, our constituents got the much lower national living wage, based on political calculations.

The quality of jobs available is a serious issue. As a Unison trade unionist and former public-sector worker, I believe in fair pay and in proper terms and conditions. I understand that decisions are being made on whether to abolish the widely used and highly exploitative employment contracts that allow for agency workers to be underpaid for their labour. We need to do the right thing and abolish them, and I applaud the Communication Workers Union’s campaign on this issue. Low pay and insecure jobs mean that many of my constituents are spiralling into debt, and they cannot hope to pay their rocketing private rents. The people of Lewisham East are crying out for social housing, and they need it now if we are to stop the number of families being forced out of the area by the housing crisis.

As for our young people, I am deeply troubled by the multiple stops and stop-and-searches that innocent young men, especially black men, are subjected to. This can have a brutal impact on their mental health and wellbeing, often something that is not considered. Our young people do not just need hope for the future; they need tangible change. I will do what I can to address the stop-and-search issue.

I am saddened and outraged that in 2018 some young women in Lewisham East, but not just in Lewisham East, will skip school because their families cannot afford sanitary products. Across the UK, it is estimated that 137,000 girls missed school last year because of this type of poverty. I absolutely support moves for free universal access to sanitary products.

I want to use the privilege of having a voice in this Chamber to help to reduce poverty, improve health, raise educational outcomes and clean up the toxic air that blights parts of Lewisham East. Some people might see this as optimistic for one MP and her constituents, but as the anthropologist Margaret Mead said:

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

On this, I believe that when we come up against a mountain to overcome, we need others to help us make the climb, as we cannot do this alone.

Mr Speaker, at times it has felt overwhelming to come into this great establishment, but I have been met with such hospitality by you, parliamentarians on both sides and the superb staff in both Houses—it is greatly appreciated.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) what an amazing privilege it is to follow a speech of that quality—not only that, but what shone through was her absolute dignity. She will be an absolutely amazing addition to our Parliament and to the government of this country. Through what she said, it is clear that she will be an advocate for her local people on poverty, inequality and tackling health issues; but above all, she will be a national advocate for the things that we in the Labour party stand for—we stand up against prejudice and discrimination and show what determination can achieve. It is an amazing privilege and honour to follow my hon. Friend, and I wish her all the luck in the future.

I was moved to speak on two issues in respect of the amazing constituency of Gedling in Nottinghamshire that I represent. I am sick and tired of people coming to see me at my surgeries who have mental health problems but are being refused personal independence payments. I say to the Minister, who will answer a plethora of different things that people raise, that the Government need to get a grip. This is not a party political issue. I talk to Government Members, who have the same problems, and even Ministers say, “This is astonishing. We have to get it sorted out.” Well, the Minister should tell the Department for Work and Pensions to sort it out, because numerous people who have serious difficulties cannot access a benefit on which they depend. It is not good enough, and the Government need to take issue with it. I told numerous people that I would raise that, and I have done so.

I want to use this debate to highlight something that was said by a senior Conservative councillor in Nottinghamshire, and I think that it will shock all Members across the House. Councillor Phillip Owen, chair of the children and young people’s committee of Nottinghamshire County Council, said that the police priorities of modern slavery, domestic violence and hate crime were only priorities because they are “politically correct” and “fashionable”. We think battles have been won—on sexism, discrimination, prejudice and intolerance —and then we hear such statements from a senior councillor about things that have a massive impact.

We heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). The police recorded 1.1 million crimes in 2016 that related to domestic abuse, and 1.9 million people aged between 19 and 65 were the victims of domestic abuse. If that should not be a police priority, I do not know what should be. The fact is that large numbers of people are still not reporting these crimes. The majority of victims are women, and large numbers of people are still not prosecuted for these crimes, because the victims will not give evidence to ensure that the perpetrator is prosecuted. That should be our priority, not some prejudiced statement about these matters that deserves to come from the ark. Of course it should be a police priority; of course it should be looked into. This country has suffered down the centuries because such crimes have been dismissed and kept behind closed doors.

What of modern slavery? This House, this country and, to be fair, this Prime Minister—I have said it to her—led the way with the Modern Slavery Act 2015. It needs to be better implemented, but we led the way, and the Prime Minister was key to it, yet we are told by this senior Conservative councillor that it should not be a police priority. The Gangmasters Licensing Authority has pointed to a 47% increase between 2016 and 2017 in the number of potential victims of forced labour, while the Global Slavery Index announced just a couple of days ago that 136,000 people in this country were potentially victims of modern slavery on any one day, yet we are told it is not a police priority. I say to Councillor Owen and anybody else who has doubts that tackling modern slavery and forced labour must be a priority for the police of our country, and I am proud that it is. We thought these two issues had ended—we thought we had won these battles—but as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East said in her brilliant maiden speech, prejudice and discrimination are still there to be tackled. Likewise, the police still need to tackle the scourges of modern slavery and domestic violence, and I am proud that they do.

[Mr Speaker]

Maiden speech: Jared O’Mara.

[Jared O'Mara (Sheffield, Hallam) (Ind)]

Mr Speaker, thank you. In fact, everybody, thank you—you have all been terribly patient.

I am delighted today to finally be able to make my maiden speech as the MP for the constituency where I grew up, Sheffield, Hallam. I was elected a year ago as Hallam’s first Labour MP, but due to mistakes I made when I was young, and for which I am truly sorry as they hurt a lot of people, I have been unable to speak in the House with confidence until now. I currently speak in the capacity of an independent Member. I am also Parliament’s very first autistic MP, as well as having cerebral palsy and other disabilities. This fills me with immense pride. It is an honour for me to have the chance to represent our country’s disabled people in addition to serving my constituents.

I would like to give praise to my predecessor for his admirable and steadfast belief in the value of our membership of the European Union and for his commitment to multiculturalism, both of which I share. He shall be remembered fondly as a hard-working and capable constituency MP, and for that he has my respect.

I may, of course, be biased, but Sheffield, Hallam is quite possibly one of the most beautiful and greenest constituencies in the country. On the cusp of the Peak District national park, it contains districts including Fulwood, Lodge Moor, Ecclesall, Stannington, Wadsley Park Village—where I lived for a number of years—Loxley, Crosspool, Dore, Bradway and Totley. It is home to too many great schools to mention, including the two I went to, Bradfield and Tapton, and we have the world’s second-oldest football club, Hallam FC, who play their home matches at Sandygate Road.

On the subject of sport, our schools and villages have given rise to some of the nation’s greatest sports people, including Joe Root, Michael Vaughan, Dame Jessica Ennis-Hill, the best right back in world football Kyle Walker—even though I am an Owl and he is a Blade—and gold medal-winning Special Olympian Nathan Hill.

My constituency gets unfairly typecast as one of the least diverse and most wealthy in the north, yet I have had the privilege of meeting and speaking to people from all walks of life in Hallam in this past year, be it our sizeable student community, people from humble beginnings and blue-collar professions—much the same as my own background—successful white-collar workers, academics and business people, inspiring and compassionate representatives of our 300-strong Jewish community, the many graceful and civic-minded British Muslims, or the plethora of bright young people from our local schools, who have impressed me no end. Hallam is in fact the epitome of multiculturalism, as is my city of Sheffield as a whole, and I am very proud to call it home.

In my constituency and my city, I have also met many wonderful Christian people. Indeed my parents, who have been at my side through thick and thin, are Christians themselves. While I consider myself a man of science and more aligned with atheism and humanism, I have the utmost respect for all religious people, and I feel specifically that we can all learn from the teachings of Jesus. He was a man who forgave those who truly repented, and he shared my belief that our utmost human priority should be helping those who are the most disadvantaged and vulnerable amongst us—chiefly, our poor and underprivileged, our senior citizens, our children, people with disabilities and illnesses, and people who want to find the right path again after making mistakes.

I ask my constituents, all parties in the House, and everyone in the country at large to join me now in prioritising those principles, and I thank Members very much for listening to my speech. I promise that I will do my utmost to help all those who are in need of help in my constituency, and to champion the cause of equality. When I return to Parliament in September, I shall do so with renewed vigour and an unwavering commitment to social justice. I look forward to being the best MP that I can possibly be.

[Mr Speaker]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his commendably succinct speech, and I wish him well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The next speaker will be the last to do so on the six-minute limit. Thereafter, in an attempt to accommodate all would-be contributors, the limit will have to be reduced to five minutes per speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard]

I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon; as Blackpool is only a town, not a city, I assume everywhere else has to be a town as well. He spoke passionately on behalf of his constituents and we heard what he had to say about the actions of Unilever in the city of Norwich.

On the speech by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), I am delighted to hear that I achieved something during my relatively brief phase as HS2 Minister. I am also glad to hear that there is plenty more for my successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), to engage in in the days and weeks to come. I heard with great sadness the story the hon. Lady told about young Sophie and I am sure the whole House passes on our thoughts to her family at what must be a very difficult time. My officials will make sure that the hon. Lady gets an answer to her question from the relevant Ministers about how the organ donation scheme might operate.

The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West was a masterclass in compression. I gather he raised 32 separate issues in seven minutes, which you, Mr Speaker, can only approve of: o si sic omnes—if only we could all achieve that, and I rather fear we might. He highlighted the rich fabric of community and voluntary activity in Southend, and again he plugged the case for Southend city status. I reiterate my two-for-one deal: if he backs Blackpool for that status, I will back Southend in turn, but I have heard only a deafening silence since our last recess debate.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) spoke with great passion. He reminded us of the significant benchmark for Louise Brown, a significant lady in the life of this country, and all that she represents. I particularly agreed with him about the unsuitability of using a Travelodge as a domestic violence refuge. I know the importance of the work that Fylde Coast Women’s Aid does, and the importance of refuges, and I am surprised that we still have to have recourse to using travel lodges for that purpose in this day and age.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) disappointed me: I was hoping to hear rather more about yoga, which I know he is a great proponent of. Given the many contortions that hon. Members have had to go through in recent weeks, and the odd positions that they have found themselves in, yoga would no doubt have been very helpful. It might well come in useful in the weeks to come. None the less, my hon. Friend spoke sensibly about the Equitable Life issue, and drew our attention to his personal role in developing the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which I know is so important.

The hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) spoke on the issue of new homes, and I entirely agree with all the points they made. I have seen some horror stories myself, and I am sure that the Government will be inspired to action. I know that the hon. Members’ pressure will continue. There were many ideas, particularly from the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, that I am sure Ministers will want to take forward.

It was a delight to spend seven minutes in Gibraltar with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). I have no doubt that Ministers are more than aware of their responsibilities with regard to the people of Gibraltar. They are a valiant people on their Rock, and I am sure that we would not wish to let them down in these difficult times.

In responding to the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), I shall avoid the temptation that many at this Dispatch Box often feel to criticise the Labour Government in Wales. I shall simply point out that there is always a great deal that we can learn from the devolved Administrations—even, just occasionally, the one in Edinburgh. I am never insensitive to what we can learn from Scotland.

My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) spoke with great personal insight and demonstrated how we all bring immense personal experience to our proceedings in the Chamber. There should be no taboos in the House of Commons. We should all be able to speak about what we have learned from our own lives. We all have a unique insight, and we should always feel free to contribute in that way.

The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) spoke with his usual force and passion on the issue of mental health and the personal independence payment. I very much recognise the points that he made. It is a case of constant improvement with the PIP; we have to make sure that it continually improves. I know that Ministers are particularly focused on that matter, and the hon. Gentleman was right to raise it. I was disappointed to hear about the comments from the councillor he mentioned. I have fought long and hard to ensure that disability hate crime is recognised for what it is, and he was right to encourage people to continue to report examples of it.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) spoke with her usual forthright trenchantness, if that is a word; I am not sure that it is. I hope that she will have welcomed the Home Secretary’s comments earlier today when he made his statement on the Shaw review. It is important to remember that anyone who is in detention, for whatever reason, is still a human being. They have a dignity that is unique to them as an individual.

The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) showed creativity in what they put forward for their local areas. I will make sure that the Arts Minister gets a bumper pack of things to think about over the summer.

My former MP, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick)—he is perhaps still my best former MP—again gave us proof of why he should always be listened to on issues of electrical and fire safety. His list of policy adjustments is not so much a Government achievement as his own, and it proves the Speaker’s adage, “Always persist.” He is certainly persistent on the things that matter most to him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) demonstrated why he continues to be held in such high regard on both sides of the House. I am sure that he awaits our social care Green Paper with anticipation, as do I. I am also pleased that he joins me in welcoming the fact that Eritrea and Ethiopia are now getting on better. I saw a fascinating photo of the first flight from Asmara to Addis Ababa just the other day; that was good news.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) overlooked the key fact that I am not the Rail Minister any more. None the less, the shadow Rail Minister, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), is here to note his concerns, and I am sure that she will take them up. I could talk for half an hour about the CrossCountry franchise, but don’t worry—I won’t. However, my hon. Friend’s points about overcrowding were very well made.

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) had the chance to visit more youth services in her constituency after what I am sure was her unintended oversight. She made an important point about the role of youth services in areas of greater deprivation, and I wholeheartedly agree with her on that. I also welcome the town deal that she mentioned, which gives me an idea to follow up in Blackpool, so I am grateful for that if nothing else.

I say to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) that what she described does not sound like a consultation; it just sounds like, “We’re not interested.” I wish her luck with her ninth campaign, and I hope that it is her last, but I am cynical, as I suspect she is.

The hon. Member for York Central raised some important points about the distribution of public land in her constituency and had ideas for new parks. I happen to think that parks are one of this country’s urban treasures, and we should always do more to promote them. I wish her well in her campaign.

It may be the first year that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) has been in the Chamber, but I can certainly say that he has made his eloquent presence felt. I welcomed his recap of stuff that I recognised from business question after business question after business question. His fortitude does him great credit.

The hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) demonstrates why APPGs do matter in this place. Her forensic approach and knowledgeable contribution show that the hours spent in dusty Committee Rooms are not ill-spent at all.

To the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I say that it should be 344, not 44. I hope that he goes on forever and ever and ever, amen. I am sure that he will.

I am so grateful that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) paid attention to my socks—so few do—but I hate to tell him that they are Australian, not Scottish. His allusions to “Game of Thrones” were wholly lost on me. I am a “Mad Men” fan, although I have only got to season four of that, so no spoilers, please. I am so busy being an MP that I do not have time to watch the latest television shows, but I am glad that he has the time to do so—only joking.

As we look to our summer recess, I note with some degree of trepidation that the Prime Minister is once again walking at high altitude. I hope she has a pleasant and relaxing break and no bright ideas. Just to be on the safe side, I am very much sticking to low-lying areas for any breaks that I may take.

I want to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, for your stewardship over the past year, your team of Deputy Speakers, the Clerks who keep us ticking over, the catering staff who keep us fed and, most importantly, watered, the Library staff who fertilise our brains, and the security staff who protect us from all anxieties. I wish all right hon. and hon. Members the most calm and peaceful summer recess, because I think we all need a bit of a lie down after the time we have had recently, don’t we just?

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to the petitions and any points of order that might precede them, I want to echo what the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury has said on the Government’s behalf by way of appreciation. Perhaps I can start by thanking all colleagues who have contributed to this debate, but more widely I want to recognise the conscientious application to their task that they have shown ever since we came back after the general election. Whatever may be said about colleagues, and whatever people think of politicians, I know from my vantage point how hard and dedicatedly people on both sides of the political spectrum work in the Chamber, in Committees, in all-party groups and in constituency-related meetings and that should be recognised. People are trying to do the right thing by their constituents and their country. I thank colleagues for their engagement.

I thank the Leader of the House, who applies herself with enormous intensity and commitment to the work that she has to do, and wish her a very agreeable and well-earned summer break. I wish the same to the deputy shadow Leader of the House. Recognising that we can do what we do only because we are magnificently served by a vast number of dedicated, caring, efficient and effective staff at all levels of the House, I thank the staff of the House. Their work does not go unnoticed, and it will always be appreciated. Have a good summer.

[Vernon Coaker]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, I think everyone would associate themselves with those remarks.

May I apologise to the House for not mentioning my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests before my speech? I should have referred to my entry, and I did not. I apologise to the House for not doing so.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, which I think will be readily accepted by everyone in the House.

If I might be forgiven, I want to say thank you once again to our maiden speakers. We heard two outstanding speeches. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Jared O’Mara) is not now in his place, but I have offered my respects to him. I reiterate to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) that hers was a speech of great passion, authority and empathy. My very clear sense is that it commanded enormous support and respect across the House, and I wish her and the hon. Gentleman a very good experience here in the House of Commons.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) will be the last Member to speak under the 12-minute limit. By how much the subsequent limit will have to be lowered is very much dependent on the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The new time limit will have to be no more than eight minutes.

[Mr Clarke]

I have saved us a few minutes.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed, and we are immensely grateful.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I hope that the penny is now dropping among those who inflicted the EU referendum and the subsequent chaos on the country as to precisely what damage this Tory farce is doing to our standing in the world and to our economy. We are two years on, yet no real progress has been made. Tory rivalries, leadership ambitions and factionalism are making this country a laughing stock, and Tory Members should be ashamed. I am sorry to say that Labour Front Benchers also often contribute to the farce.

I want to speak in favour of accepting new clauses 1 and 12 if they are pushed to a vote, and to speak against new clause 36, which is clearly a wrecking amendment. I hope that, when the Minister responds, he is able to explain why new clause 36 does not drive a coach and horses through the Chequers agreement. Everyone in the House knows that it does, but Ministers appear to be pretending that it does not. I commend the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who is no longer in her place, for the anger and passion that she brought to the debate, and for starting to set out the consequences of Brexit. So far, the debate has been rather short on consequences. There has been a lot about aspirations, ambition, ideology and speculation, but rather little about the consequences of Brexit. Some Government Members pretend that Brexit will have no impact on the UK economy. Others are more honest, including the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who has just left his place—

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Has the right hon. Lady completed her speech?

[Priti Patel]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Lady used commendable brevity, upon which I congratulate her.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). We sit on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs together and agree on much of its work. However, I am afraid that we agree on nothing when it comes to Brexit, and we have those battles in the Committee.

It is unfortunate that we have been left here this evening with a set of four amendments from the group of Conservative rebels who want to take us off a cliff edge. That is what the amendments are designed to do. We have unconfirmed reports that the Government may accept the amendments. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will nod to indicate that he will accept them, but if he does, I hope he has a match or a lighter in his pocket, because he would do just as well to set the Chequers agreement alight, given the consequences.

On top of all that, the former Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), must now regret leaving the Government, given that after threatening to resign five times, he finally went through with it by resigning following the Chequers agreement, which is just about to be ripped up by his own Front-Bench team and replaced with a much more hard-line position that will take us off the cliff with a hard Brexit. If he had only stayed on a few more days, he may have been able to see through the proposals that he started.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay]

I am sorry, but that must have passed me by. I know that, to get around the difficulties that were caused by the tampon tax and the significant debate that we had in this Chamber, of which I was a part, the Government agreed to sort of equal the amount that was collected to pass it to charity. So it seems bizarre that we have not taken the steps that are available.

The other thing about going along with the VAT directives and how VAT is managed is that we have been subject to the missing trader intra-community fraud, the so-called carousel fraud, which cost this country £1.7 billion last year. It is estimated to cost the EU as a whole into the tens of billions of pounds. Over the period of the administration of VAT in its current form, it could have cost anything up to £100 billion across the EU. Are we really saying that these failed systems are something that we want to be attached to in perpetuity?

The Prime Minister has said very clearly that we will be in control of our tax policy. Just last week, following Chequers, the Secretary of State for the Environment also confirmed that we cannot actually set our own taxes as we would wish to at the moment because VAT is set in accordance with EU rules. That is another area in which we will be sovereign. Amendment 73 would make sure that, no matter what the future holds, primary legislation will be needed to do this. We cannot have the vestiges of some of the worst VAT rules that anybody could ever imagine remaining on our statute book. For that reason and given that powerful debate on the tampon tax, I certainly hope that others across this House will support that amendment this evening.

[Mr Speaker]

Has the hon. Gentleman completed his oration?

[Craig Mackinlay]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

He has. We are grateful to him.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

When we had the referendum result, and given the bitterness that existed during the referendum, I had absolutely no doubt that, despite the overwhelming vote, we were going to see guerrilla warfare conducted against the will of the people of the United Kingdom. We have seen it over the past year and a half—fall-outs in this place and fall-outs in TV studios, newspapers and so on. The amendments to this Bill fall into one of those two categories. People will give a whole variety of reasons, but, basically, they want to move amendments to this Bill to keep us in the institutions of the EU, which has bound us for so many years and from which people voted to be free. On the other side, there are those who wish to remain true to the vote of the people and make sure that everything is done to deliver on the promises that were made during the referendum.

Unfortunately, Northern Ireland, which has featured in nearly every speech here tonight, has been caught in the crossfire of that guerrilla warfare between those who wish to keep us in the EU and those who wish to honour the result of the referendum. The Northern Ireland border, the Good Friday agreement and the peace in Northern Ireland have been thrown around willy-nilly. To be quite frank, the people of Northern Ireland feel abused in this whole process. I have heard people in this place talk about the Belfast agreement as if it were their bedtime reading. They probably do not even know what the document looks like.

It has been suggested that if we do not abide by those who wish to keep us in the customs union and the single market, we will have a hard border in Northern Ireland, which will affect the peace. I do not know what this hard border will look like, but I can tell Members one thing: if they think that a couple of border posts along the main road at Newry, the main road into Londonderry and the main road into Enniskillen will represent a hard border that will somehow protect the EU from the incursion of goods that they do not want, then they do not even understand what it means. It could be that they think that a hard border means a minefield around the border with watchtowers so that no lorries can sneak across the 300 or so roads, or that people cannot build sheds in the middle of field where they put goods in one side in Northern Ireland and they come out the other side in the Irish Republic. It is a ridiculous suggestion, yet it is thrown at us all the time.

We heard the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) talk about the impact on the border and that the World Trade Organisation would insist on the provisions because it would have to protect trade. The Irish Republic currently brings in goods from the rest of the world. Does it stop every container that comes in? No, it does not. Does it stop 10% of the containers? No, it does not. It does not even stop 1%. In fact, Gambia stops more trade coming through its borders than the Irish Republic stops. The idea that, somehow or other, every good that comes into the EU via Northern Ireland and then the Republic will have to be stopped does not even match with common-day practice.

When it comes to collecting taxes, 13,000 lorries a year cross the border carrying drink to other parts of the United Kingdom. There is duty to be collected on that, but not one of them is stopped because the duty is collected electronically through pre-notification and trusted trader status. We can protect the border and meet WTO rules without having all the kinds of paraphernalia suggested here tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is making some very good points. I certainly do not argue that we should be members of customs union, but the Freight Transport Association recently gave the example of a situation whereby a trailer full of 40 different consignments goes from Birmingham to Belfast, and then goes into 40 different white vans in Belfast. How does my hon. Friend propose that we would meet our responsibility to pay customs in such a situation?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am immensely grateful. May I encourage the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) to draw his remarks to a close? He is within his time, but a lot of other people want to speak and I am being pressed by people who, quite understandably, want time. If the hon. Gentleman—with his brilliant eloquence and pithiness—could wrap up in a minute or two, that would be marvellous.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just to answer my hon. Friend’s point, I think that we have to be practical. There will be a change in the way in which people treat consignments because they are crossing a customs frontier, but as the technology develops it will be possible to track individual consignments or multiple consignments in trucks across customs frontiers. We have discussed this matter with Revenue and Customs in this country. Ultimately, in future—looking ahead 10 or 20 years—the idea of customs frontiers existing between countries that trade tariff-free will become obsolete. To hinge our entire Brexit policy on the issue of not having customs declarations and customs frontiers is very last century, and we should not be captured by that.

My remarks are directed primarily at amendment 72, which I confess has turned out to be disappointingly uncontroversial. It was the intention of the European Research Group, a group of Conservative Back Benchers, to table four amendments—one or two of them in the light of the Chequers agreement and the White Paper—to test our understanding of the intention of Government policy. Every single one of our amendments, we believe, reflects Government policy. I do not imagine that the Government would have accepted any of them as calmly as they have if they did not reflect Government policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

No, that is what he said. He said that we will have to rethink Brexit completely if we cannot get a satisfactory arrangement. That is the direction he is going in. I respect his view, but throwing around insults like “useless” is not elevating the debate.

My amendment 72 simply removes from the Bill an extraordinarily powerful Henry VIII provision that we should be signed up to a customs union with the European Union simply by order. Following the amendment that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) tabled to clause 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, I thought that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I do not suppose that I shall hear him speak against my amendment, because it puts Parliament back in control of the decision to join a customs union with the European Union. That is what I think we should do.

[Mr Speaker]

Ahem!

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I end on this one point, Mr Speaker. We have heard a lot about 40 MPs having an excessive amount of influence in this Chamber. In fact, 17.4 million people voted leave in the referendum, and 70% of Conservative MPs and 60% of Labour MPs represent leave constituencies. It would be bizarre if, in the end, the House of Commons, which was elected predominantly on leave manifestos, put up road blocks against leaving the European Union, and I do not believe that it will.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. The time limit will have to be reduced, with immediate effect, to five minutes.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I wish to speak to new clause 11 and against amendment 73.

Last week, we had a debate in Westminster Hall in which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is back in his place, advised me that everything would become clear when the White Paper was published. I am afraid that for me, 70 minutes before we are going to vote, Government policy is still not quite clear. I am going to ask the Minister a few questions in the hope that we might get some clarification from him. I am interested in the interrelationship between the Bill and the White Paper, which was published last week.

Contrary to what some right hon. and hon. Members wish to say, the common market, which is the customs union, is fantastically popular with the public. Whenever I ask my constituents, “What do you dislike about Europe?”, they say, “Being bossed around”, and “The immigration.” When I say, “What do you like about it?”, they say, “Oh, we love the common market.” Well, of course, the common market is the customs union. When I talk to industrialists, what they want—in the words of GlaxoSmithKline, which employs 1,000 people in my constituency—is “no disruption”. PPG Industries, which is a supplier to Airbus, wants a common rule book. When I spoke this morning to the North East chamber of commerce, it said that 90% of its members want to stay in the customs union. We know that legally speaking that is not possible, so we have to have a new one that will give them the “exact same benefits”.

I am not clear about whether the Bill facilitates the customs approach that is set out in the White Paper. Nor am I clear about which of the Government’s amendments have made changes to the Bill that will enable them to undertake the facilitated customs arrangement that they have described in the White Paper. Nor am I clear—I very much hope that the Minister will be able to explain this; I am sure that he now will be—about whether the Government’s proposed acceptance of amendments from the ERG means that they are abandoning the facilitated customs arrangement as their opening position or that they are still holding to it. If they are still holding to it, I would suggest that it is not wholly practical. It will need a tracking system so that when people import goods, they know where their final use is going to be. This is a whole new bureaucratic system. It means that people who import will have to have information along the supply chain that, at the moment, is of no concern to them. The White Paper says that there is going to be a formula so that we can follow the proportions from the past year, but what if things change from one year to another? Then people will have to make their rebates on the basis of new, fresh information in real time. It sounds very much as though we are going to have not only VAT but VAT mark 2.

Paragraph 20 on page 18 of the White Paper says:

“This could include looking to make it easier for traders to lodge information…This could include exploring how machine learning and artificial intelligence could allow traders to automate…This could…include exploring how allowing data sharing across borders”

would work. It could include rather a lot of things. I can only imagine officials saying to Ministers when they were drafting this, “This does seem to involve rather a lot of imagination.” It does not seem to be bottomed out. I would much prefer it if we could go along the path set out by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench in new clause 11, because what is being proposed will be horrendously bureaucratic and an open invitation to smuggling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Several Members, all on the same side of the House, wish to speak. I suggest that the time limit be now reduced to four minutes, but it is not obligatory for Members to consume all four.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I first thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) for making what I thought was a remarkably gracious speech, in quite a fevered atmosphere, and for putting both sides of the case so generously and kindly?

I want to speak to the four new clauses and amendments that I have supported and, in most cases, put my name to. They are broadly in line with Government policy, which is why the Government have accepted them. New clause 37 relates to the Northern Ireland question. It is clearly Government policy that Northern Ireland should not be removed from the rest of the United Kingdom, and I think that to put that in legislation would be beneficial.

Amendment 72 relates to Henry VIII clauses. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)—or “beacon’s field”, as Benjamin Disraeli pronounced it—that we should not have Henry VIII clauses if we can possibly avoid them, as they are not good legislative practice. The fewer Henry VIII clauses we have, the better. I confess that I would have supported my right hon. and learned Friend in earlier Bills had I not thought that, in so doing, I would have caused suspicion on the other side of the European debate, with people wondering what on earth I was up to. However, I am very pleased that Henry VIII clauses are becoming less popular in the House.

Amendment 73 has been a topic of discussion in relation to no EU VAT regime. This is actually Government policy, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on “The Andrew Marr Show”, when he said that once we had left the European Union we would not be part of the EU VAT regime. The difference here is between acquisition VAT and import VAT. Import VAT is the normal way we charge VAT on third countries outside the European Union, whereas acquisition VAT is an EU system. Therefore, if we are leaving, it makes absolute sense to be out of this, and that fits with what the Government have said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that three minutes will now suffice.

[Mr Djanogly]

Let me start by saying that, to my mind, the European Research Group’s amendments are clearly aimed at restricting the Government’s ability to negotiate, if indeed they are compatible with the White Paper at all—a White Paper that I support. Amendment 73 and new clause 36 certainly fall into that category. I think that they have been tabled by those who wish to create such difficulties and red lines that we are forced into a hard Brexit, ostensibly by default but secretly by design. They will not have my support tonight.

I want to address the claims of those who say that we do not want the FCA, or indeed a customs union, because we cannot then strike our own trade deals. I note that the Government maintain that we should be able to separate goods from services, but others caution against that because goods and services are often so intrinsically linked that it is unrealistic. I will wait to see the EU’s position.

However, on the central issue of negotiating our own FTAs, I think that we need to question the benefits that so many seem to be taking for granted. First, we need to appreciate that the Department for International Trade is currently acting like something of a Jekyll and Hyde character—on the one hand the Secretary of State is talking about bravely striding around the world seeking new FTAs with countries such as the US and China, but on the other he is pleading with the EU and about 70 third-party countries to roll over the existing 40 or so FTAs that the EU now has with them. So, with more than one third of the world’s countries, Brexit represents the chance at best to get the same deal as from the EU. From the look of things, we may yet get a worse deal in some cases as those third countries start evaluating the decreased advantage of dealing with 50 million rather than 500 million people.

Secondly, there is little evidence that business sees any advantage in customs differentiation—indeed, quite the opposite. The vast majority see advantages in our customs negotiating position, which emanates from the power of the huge trading bloc that the EU represents, and will wish in any event to stick as closely as possible to whatever trading position the EU takes.

Thirdly, world trade is much more interlinked and complex than most people discuss. For example, some of the existing trade agreements that we want to roll over, such as those with Canada and South Korea, feature most favoured nation clauses. Therefore, if we agree a FTA with the USA that offers better terms than those we agreed with Canada, Canada would need to be offered the same. The advantages of being outside the customs union are thus much reduced in any event, and talk of becoming a colony or vassal state is ridiculous.

Fourthly, we live in a world of trading deals where size matters. Rather than discussing a trade deal with the US, we have become caught up in a trade battle. Again, if we were in a customs union, we would have more cover.

Finally, the process of negotiating new FTAs is a long and arduous business. The average time is seven years; Canada took 15 years. Bargaining is tough and based on potential market clout. That goes back to the possibility of US chlorinated chickens and so forth. We need—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely obliged to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I could always listen at length, but we must move on.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I want to speak against new clause 1, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) tabled.

Among many points my constituents have made to me in the past few weeks, they have asked why the House cannot work together on Brexit. I suppose the simple answer is that our biggest challenge—what divides us most—is not acceptance of the result of the referendum on 23 June 2016, but its practical interpretation as the basis for our future relationship with the EU.

Parliament is bound by our promise on Brexit, but perhaps it also needs to accept some key principles, which reflect the promises that were made during the referendum campaign. Where better to look for those promises than the voice of the official body that argued for Brexit—Vote Leave? On trade, the Vote Leave manifesto was clear:

“We take back the power to make our own trade deals”.

On that basis, it is clear that we must not remain part of a customs union as that would prevent us from directly negotiating and implementing trade deals. It is therefore strange that being part of a customs union seems to be Labour party policy, which goes right against the clear mandate that the people gave us.

There were other commitments in the Vote Leave manifesto, for example,

“one thing which won’t change is our ability to trade freely with Europe.”

On that basis, it is fair for businesses, and the people whose jobs rely on those businesses, to assume that nothing will change. Of course, Members have made the point that other countries manage to have just-in-time supply chains when they have a customs border, but most countries have not been part of a trading environment for 44 years in which they have not carried the burden of those complexities.

We know from Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage that businesses have a choice to station themselves here or move jobs to other parts of the EU because extra costs will ensue if they do not: costs for customs checks and for checks on standards. I believe that staying part of a customs union is not consistent with the mandate that the people gave us, but that the White Paper, as articulated by the Prime Minister, deals with our obligation to leave the EU while also minimising the costs of comparative advantage. The House should support it.

[Mr Speaker]

Two minutes are preferable to three.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Ford]

We are leaving the EU and that means that we need to have a new relationship with the single market and the customs union—we cannot carry on as we were before. However, leave voters were told time and again that trade would continue and that having customs clarity was important to that trade.

I want to dispel some myths. First, zero-tariff regimes are not the same as no-tariff regimes. A no-tariff regime, which we have now, means no customs declaration and no rules of origin. A zero-tariff regime means both. That is why I am glad that the White Paper says that we will have no customs declarations and no rules of origin.

On myth two, we do not need to be in a customs union to resolve the rules of origin issue. That can be done through a PEM convention. On myth three, being in a single rulebook on goods does not stop us from doing trade deals with other parts of the world—just look at Switzerland. On myth four, trading on World Trade Organisation rules means that there will have to be a goods border in Ireland, otherwise the UK will breach our agreements with other trading partners, as will the EU. On myth five, just-in-time delivery of goods coming from China, which takes four weeks at sea, is not the same as just-in-time delivery across the channel.

I support some of the amendments. New clause 37 on no hard border in the Irish sea makes sense. Amendment 72 also makes sense. However, I am concerned about amendment 73. I do not like the EU VAT regime, but we need more clarity on that. On new clause 36, I agree we need a balanced approach on tax collection, but how it is worded is very unclear. I do not understand how the word “reciprocity” works in a legal framework when it is country to country versus us to EU. There needs to be a much clearer legal basis.

[Mr Speaker]

There is one minute.

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

I want to focus on trade remedies. This is particularly important for the ceramic sector in my constituency, so I am absolutely delighted that the Government have listened to the arguments I have been making over the past year and secured clarifying amendments on trade remedies that, critically, will deliver the right Brexit for the ceramic sector, for wider manufacturing industry, and, most importantly, for the workforce and the voters of Stoke-on-Trent.

The Government have tabled several critical amendments. I was very pleased last week to have an answer to a written question providing confirmation on establishing normal value. That is so important to resisting the dumping of ceramic products from China. Significant state subsidisation by China, particularly in the ceramics industry, threatens British industry, so I am pleased that the Government have listened to those arguments and, through their amendments, have taken action.

--- Later in debate ---

We have reached a crossroads in the Brexit negotiations. This dysfunctional and divided Government cannot continue to ignore the blindingly obvious fact that a new customs union is the only way in which to ensure frictionless trade and access to the single market. I say this to them: if they cannot get a grip, they must get out.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mel Stride, but, as I do so, I must advise the House that the right hon. Gentleman is accompanied tonight, on his 13th wedding anniversary, by his good wife Michelle and their daughters Ophelia and Evelyn. It is an unusual way to spend the evening, but we hope they are enjoying it and we look forward to hearing the right hon. Gentleman.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

Mr Speaker, that is quite an introduction; thank you most graciously for your lovely comments—you will no doubt be injecting some zip into my marriage.

The Government have been clear that when we leave the EU we will leave the customs union; this is a matter of fact. And when considering the end state, the Government will not be seeking to negotiate any form of customs union. The Government proposal will create a UK-EU free trade area which establishes a common rulebook for industrial goods and agricultural products. This will maintain common high standards in these areas, but also ensure that no new changes take place in future without the approval of Parliament. As a result, we will avoid friction at the borders and protect jobs and livelihoods, as well as meet our commitment to Northern Ireland. We are proposing a new business-friendly customs model with the freedom to strike new trade deals around the world, a facilitated customs arrangement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

The negotiating strategy of the UK Government is to seek reciprocity in this respect, and that is set out very clearly in the White Paper. Importantly, amendment 72 does not interfere with the Government’s purpose. We have no objection to the principle behind the amendment and we therefore accept it.

Amendment 73, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), will remove a specific power that will enable HMRC to make regulations covering the application of VAT to goods in circumstances where we reach a customs union agreement with other customs unions or territories under clause 31. The Chequers agreement does not propose such an arrangement with the European Union as part of the future economic partnership, so the Government accept this amendment.

The effect of new clause 37, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), would be to ensure that Northern Ireland would not form part of a separate customs territory from Great Britain. This new clause is a straightforward statement of Government policy. It ensures that the Government will not act in a manner incompatible with the commitments made in the joint report of December last year, when we committed to protecting the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom, as well as to turning the joint report commitments into legally binding form. The Government also accept this new clause.

I shall turn now to our future VAT arrangements with the EU. New clause 2 seeks to establish a negotiating objective to maintain the UK’s participation in the EU VAT area. This would limit our ability to appropriately consider our future VAT policy, and for that reason we reject it. The Government are also making an amendment to a schedule to the Finance Act 2008. Amendment 83 is consequential on the new customs framework provided for in the Bill and is necessary to ensure certain excise penalties remain in place on EU exit.

I now wish to turn briefly to the powers in the Bill. It is critical that we have these powers to allow us to respond flexibly, but we accept that in some cases it may be considered proportionate to apply the made affirmative procedure, and I am grateful for the discussion that I have had with my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) in this regard. It is on this basis that the Government have brought forward amendments 75, 76, 79, 81 and 23, which apply the made affirmative procedure to the powers under clauses 30, 42 and 47—the powers to make general provision in relation to import duty and to deal with retained EU VAT and excise law.

Clause 25 permits disclosures for customs duty purposes and makes it clear that disclosures that would contravene the Data Protection Act 1998 are not permitted. We accept the Scottish National party’s amendments 33 and 34, which seek clarity in that regard.

Finally, we have had a full, robust and comprehensive debate today, as is entirely appropriate for a Bill of such importance. It is important for our ability to continue as one of the world’s great trading nations after our departure from the EU and to accommodate our future customs arrangement within our future economic partnership with the EU.

[Mr Speaker]

For one sentence, I call Anna Soubry.

[Anna Soubry]

New clause 36 and amendment 73 are designed not to help the White Paper, but to wreck it. I am going to try to help the White Paper, which is why I seek leave to withdraw new clause 1.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that this matter is of the greatest possible interest to the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). He is engaged in an animated conversation with his right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), but I feel sure that they are intensely interested in new clause 16 and the conduct of the democratic process relating thereto. Suitable interest is now demonstrated. Tellers for the Ayes are Mr David Linden and Mrs Marian Fellows. Tellers for the Noes are Wendy Morton and Mike Freer. Now those right hon. Members will be delighted to know that they can go back to talking to and listening, with rapt attention, to each other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I informed the House earlier—which may have been of interest to those present, and with the encouragement of the right hon. Gentleman concerned—that the Financial Secretary was celebrating his 13th wedding anniversary in the presence of his wife and his two delightful daughters in the Gallery. I now must inform the House—[Interruption.] Well, whether I must or not, I am going to: I now must inform the House that the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), has become a grandmother. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Lady, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who has become a grandfather. I must tell the House that Holly was born yesterday at 4 o’clock in the morning. Congratulations to the right hon. and learned Lady.

Clause 25

Disclosure of information

Amendment proposed: 33, page 17, line 2, leave out “Data Protection Act 1998” and insert “data protection legislation”.—(Kirsty Blackman.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

A Division was called.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Colleagues will understand me if I say that I think there might be some evidence of what I might call ritualism involved in this matter, but it is up to people to find their own salvation, and I think that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is well able to do so, with help from others if he is so minded.

[Mel Stride]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is very good of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that the Government had previously signalled, and I had been advised—although this is not a matter for the Chair—that they had accepted this amendment. However, when it was put to the vote, and Scottish National party voices shouted Aye, there was what might be described as an instinctive reaction of No from some quarters. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman was attempting to articulate, we are most grateful to him.

[Mel Stride]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The instincts on our side are often divided, but not on this matter. We are at one in accepting amendment 33, as well as amendment 34, tabled by the Scottish National party.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, an absence of Tellers will suffice to achieve the objective of the Minister. Division off.

Amendment 33 agreed to.

Amendment made: 34, page 17, line 4, at end insert—

‘(8) In this section, “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018.’ —(Kirsty Blackman.)

Clause 31

Territories forming part of a customs union with UK

Amendment made: 72, page 18, line 34, at end insert—

‘(4A) In the case of a customs union between the United Kingdom and the European Union, Her Majesty may not make a declaration by Order In Council under subsection (4) unless the arrangements have been approved by an Act of Parliament.’—(Sir Bernard Jenkin.)

This amendment provides that the delegated powers under this clause may not be exercised until a proposed customs union with the European Union has been approved by a separate Act of Parliament.

Clause 32

Regulations etc

Amendments made: 75, page 19, line 15, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert

“any regulations to which this subsection applies”.

Amendments 75 and 76 provide that regulations under Clause 30 (general provision for import duty purposes) cease to have effect if not approved by the House of Commons within 28 days of being made.

Amendment 76, page 19, line 21, at end insert—

“( ) Subsection (2) applies to—

(a) the first regulations under section8 (the customs tariff),

(b) any other regulations under that section the effect of which is an increase in the amount of import duty payable under the customs tariff in a standard case (within the meaning of that section), or

(c) regulations under section30 (general provision for import duty purposes).”—(Mel Stride.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 75.

Clause 39

Charge to export duty

Amendment made: 77, page 27, line 12, at end insert—

“( ) the interests of producers in the United Kingdom of the goods concerned,”.—(Mel Stride.)

This amendment requires the Treasury, when considering whether to impose export duty and the rate of export duty that ought to apply to particular goods if it is to be imposed, to have regard to the interests of UK producers of those goods.

Clause 42

EU law relating to VAT

Amendments made: 78, page 29, line 45, at end insert—

“( ) No regulations may be made under this section on or after 1 April 2023.”

This amendment provides that the powers to make regulations under Clause 42 (EU law relating to VAT) are not exercisable after 31 March 2023.

Amendment 79, page 30, line 1, leave out from “section” to end of line 2 and insert

“must be laid before the House of Commons, and, unless approved by that House before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the instrument is made, ceases to have effect at the end of that period.

‘( ) The fact that a statutory instrument ceases to have effect as mentioned in subsection (6) does not affect—

(a) anything previously done under the instrument, or

(b) the making of a new statutory instrument.

( ) In calculating the period for the purposes of subsection (6), no account is to be taken of any time—

(a) during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or

(b) during which the House of Commons is adjourned for more than 4 days.”—(Mel Stride.)

This amendment provides that regulations under Clause 42 (EU law relating to VAT) cease to have effect if not approved by the House of Commons within 28 days of being made.

Clause 47

EU law relating to excise duty

Amendment made: 80, page 32, line 47, at end insert—

“( ) No regulations may be made under this section on or after 1 April 2023.”—(Mel Stride.)

This amendment provides that the power to make regulations under Clause 47 (EU law relating to excise duty) is not exercisable after 31 March 2023.

Clause 48

Regulations under ss. 44 to 47

Amendments made: 81, page 33, line 12, after “section” insert “, or regulations under section 47,”.

This amendment provides that regulations under Clause 47 (EU law relating to excise duty) cease to have effect if not approved by the House of Commons within 28 days of being made.

Amendment 23, page 33, line 30, leave out “47” and insert “46”.—(Mel Stride.)

This amendment is consequential Amendment 81.

Clause 51

Power to make provision in relation to VAT or duties of customs or excise

Amendment made: 82, page 34, line 41, at end insert—

“( ) No regulations may be made under this section on or after 1 April 2022.”—(Mel Stride.)

This amendment provides that the power to make regulations under Clause 51 (power to make provision in relation to VAT or duties of customs or excise) is not exercisable after 31 March 2022.

Schedule 4

Dumping of goods or foreign subsidies causing injury to UK industry

Amendments made: 103, page 66, line 26, leave out from “that” to end of line 30 and insert

“it is not in the public interest to accept it.

‘(2A) In considering that, the Secretary of State must accept the TRA’s determination that requiring a guarantee in accordance with the recommendation meets the economic interest test (see paragraph 25), unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the determination is not one that the TRA could reasonably have made.”

Amendments 103 and 108 provide that the Secretary of State may reject a recommendation by the TRA to apply an anti-dumping or anti-subsidy remedy only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is not in the public interest to accept the recommendation. In deciding that, the Secretary of State must accept the TRA’s view that the economic interest test is met, unless satisfied that the TRA could not reasonably have come to that view.

Amendment 104, page 68, line 42, leave out

“such period as the TRA considers necessary”

and insert

“a period of 5 years unless the TRA considers that a lesser period is sufficient”.

Amendments 104 and 105 provide that the recommended period for the application of an anti-dumping amount or a countervailing amount is 5 years unless the TRA considers that a lesser period is sufficient to counteract the dumping, or the importation of subsidised goods, which has caused or is causing injury.

Amendment 105, page 69, line 1, leave out from beginning to “and” in line 3.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 104.

Amendment 106, page 69, line 8, at end insert—

“( ) In the case of a recommendation of such a prior date made by virtue of paragraph 19, the reference in sub-paragraph (2)(a) to a period of 5 years is to be read as a reference to a period of 5 years plus the relevant period (within the meaning of paragraph 19).”

This amendment ensures that where it is recommended that an anti-dumping amount or a countervailing amount is applied to goods from a date on or before the day of publication of the relevant public notice under clause 13, the default recommended period of 5 years for the application of the amount (provided for by Amendment 104) is extended by that prior period.

Amendment 107, page 69, line 8, at end insert—

“( ) See also paragraph 21 regarding the possibility, following a review, of extensions or variations to the period for which an anti-dumping amount or a countervailing amount applies to goods.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 105.

Amendment 108, page 70, line 12, leave out from “that” to end of line 17 and insert

“it is not in the public interest to accept it.

‘(2A) In considering that, the Secretary of State must accept the TRA’s determination that the application of an anti-dumping amount or a countervailing amount to goods in accordance with the recommendation meets the economic interest test (see paragraph 25), unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the determination is not one that the TRA could reasonably have made.”

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 103.

Amendment 109, page 72, line 11, leave out

“5 year period referred to in paragraph 18(2)(b)”

and insert

“period referred to in paragraph 18(2)(a)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 104 and 105.

Amendment 110, page 75, line 28, at end insert—

“(zi) the injury caused by the dumping of the goods, or the importation of the subsidised goods, to a UK industry in the goods and the benefits to that UK industry in removing that injury,”

Paragraph 25(4)(a) of Schedule 4 lists certain matters which the TRA and the Secretary of State must take account of, so far as relevant, when deciding whether the application of an anti-dumping or anti-subsidy remedy is not in the economic interest of the UK. Amendment 110 inserts an express reference in that list to the injury caused by the dumping of the goods or the subsidised imports to a UK industry in the goods and of the benefits to that industry in removing that injury.

Amendment 111, page 76, line 9, at end insert—

“(zi) the UK industry referred to in sub-paragraph (4)(a)(zi) and other producers of goods,”

Amendments 111 and 112 make clear that the references to “affected industries” in paragraph 25 of Schedule 4 continue to include the injured UK industry referred to in Amendment 110.

Amendment 112, page 76, line 10, leave out “producers and”.—(Mel Stride.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 111.

Schedule 5

Increase in imports causing serious injury to UK producers

Amendments made: 113, page 81, line 32, after “plan” insert

“or the TRA waives the requirement for the application to be accompanied by such a plan”.

This amendment enables the TRA to waive the requirement for an application for the initiation of a safeguarding investigation to be accompanied by a preliminary adjustment plan.

Amendment 85, page 84, line 12, leave out from “goods” to end of line 14 and insert

“or to specified relevant goods;

(b) that all the relevant goods, or specified relevant goods, should be subject to a quota for a specified period during which a lower rate of import duty should be applicable to imports of goods within the amount of the quota than is applicable to imports of goods outside the amount of the quota (referred to in this Schedule as a ‘provisional tariff rate quota’).

(3A) Where the TRA makes a recommendation under sub-paragraph (3)(a) in relation to relevant goods it must, as part of the recommendation, recommend to the Secretary of State how a provisional safeguarding amount applicable to those goods should be determined.”

This amendment enables the TRA, where it makes a provisional affirmative determination during a safeguarding investigation, to recommend that goods be made subject to a provisional tariff rate quota as an alternative to recommending that a provisional safeguarding amount be applied to the goods.

Amendment 86, page 84, line 16, leave out

“the application of a provisional safeguarding amount”

and insert

“applying a provisional safeguarding amount to relevant goods, or making relevant goods subject to a provisional tariff rate quota,”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.

Amendment 87, page 84, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—

“(5) The TRA may only make a recommendation under one or other of paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-paragraph (3) in relation to any particular relevant good.

(5A) The TRA may make a recommendation under paragraph (a) or (b) of sub-paragraph (3) in relation to specified relevant goods (rather than all the relevant goods) only if the recommendations which it makes under that sub-paragraph, when taken together, cover all the relevant goods.

(5B) If the TRA determines that there are one or more recommendations which it could make under sub-paragraph (3) in relation to all the relevant goods, or that there are one or more recommendations which it could make under sub-paragraph (3) in relation to specified relevant goods, it must make that recommendation or one of those recommendations (subject to sub-paragraphs (5) and (5A)).”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85. It has the effect that the TRA may recommend that goods in relation to which a provisional affirmative determination is made should be subject either to a provisional safeguarding amount or a provisional tariff rate quota, but not both, although some of the goods may be subject to one type of provisional remedy whilst the rest are subject to the other type of remedy.

Amendment 88, page 84, line 35, leave out “11(3)” and insert “11(3)(a)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.

Amendment 89, page 84, line 41, leave out

“The recommendation referred to in paragraph 11(3)(b)”

and insert

“A recommendation under paragraph 11(3)(a)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.

Amendment 90, page 84, line 42, at end insert “(see paragraph 11(3A))”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.

Amendment 91, page 85, line 11, leave out “11(3)” and insert “11(3)(a)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.

Amendment 92, page 85, line 12, at end insert—

“TRA’s recommendations regarding provisional tariff rate quotas

12A (1) This paragraph applies to a recommendation by the TRA under paragraph 11(3)(b) in relation to goods.

(2) The specified period referred to in paragraph 11(3)(b)—

(a) must not exceed 200 days, and

(b) if the recommendation is accepted by the Secretary of State, must begin on the day after the date of publication of the public notice under section 13 giving effect to the recommendation.

(3) The recommendation must (in addition to the specified period) include—

(a) the TRA’s recommendation regarding—

(i) the amount of the quota,

(ii) how the quota should be allocated, and

(iii) the rates of import duty that should be applied to goods subject to the quota, and

(b) such other content as regulations may require.

(4) The TRA must consult the Secretary of State before making a recommendation regarding the allocation of the quota.

(5) The things recommended by the TRA by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(a) must be such as the TRA is satisfied are necessary to prevent serious injury which it would be difficult to repair from being caused during the investigation to UK producers of the goods.

(6) Regulations may make provision for the purposes of sub-paragraph (5) about how the things which the TRA is satisfied are necessary to prevent the serious injury described in that provision are to be determined.”

This amendment makes provision about the content of a TRA recommendation that goods should be subject to a provisional tariff rate quota. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 85 concerning the making of such a recommendation.

Amendment 93, page 85, line 14, leave out “11(3)” and insert “11(3)(a)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.

Amendment 94, page 85, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (5).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.

Amendment 95, page 85, line 40, leave out

“of a provisional remedy in respect of goods”

and insert

“for which a provisional safeguarding amount applies to goods”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.

Amendment 96, page 85, line 42, at end insert—

“Secretary of State’s power to subject goods to a provisional tariff rate quota

13A (1) If the TRA makes a recommendation under paragraph 11(3)(b), the Secretary of State must decide whether to accept or reject the recommendation.

(2) The Secretary of State may reject the recommendation only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that—

(a) making goods subject to a provisional tariff rate quota in accordance with the recommendation does not meet the economic interest test (see paragraph 21), or

(b) it is not otherwise in the public interest to accept the recommendation.

(3) If the recommendation is rejected, the Secretary of State must—

(a) publish notice of the TRA’s provisional affirmative determination in relation to the goods, of the recommendation and of the rejection of it,

(b) notify interested parties (see paragraph 29(3)) accordingly, and

(c) lay a statement before the House of Commons setting out the reasons for rejecting the recommendation.

(4) If the recommendation is accepted, the Secretary of State—

(a) must publish notice of the TRA’s provisional affirmative determination in relation to the goods, of the recommendation and of the acceptance of it,

(b) must notify interested parties accordingly, and

(c) is required under section 13 to make provision by public notice to give effect to the recommendation.

(5) The period for which goods are subject to a provisional tariff rate quota ceases (if it has not already expired) when the safeguarding investigation in relation to the goods terminates.”

This amendment makes provision about what the Secretary of State is to do if the TRA recommends that goods should be subject to a provisional tariff rate quota. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 85 concerning the making of such a recommendation.

Amendment 114, page 86, line 32, at end insert—

“( ) But sub-paragraph (5) is to be read as if paragraph (b) were omitted if the TRA waived the requirement for the application to initiate a safeguarding investigation in relation to the relevant goods to be accompanied by a preliminary adjustment plan.”

Paragraph 14(5)(b) of Schedule 5 to the Bill requires the TRA to be satisfied that an adjustment plan is in place before recommending to the Secretary of State, following the making of a final affirmative determination in a safeguarding investigation, that a definitive safeguarding amount should be applied or a tariff rate quota imposed. This amendment disapplies the paragraph 14(5)(b) requirement in cases where the requirement to provide a preliminary adjustment plan was waived at the point when the application was being made for the initiation of a safeguarding investigation.

Amendment 97, page 88, leave out lines 1 to 13 and insert—

“(7) If a provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied to some or all of the goods as part of the same safeguarding investigation, sub-paragraph (8) applies for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2)(b) and (4)(b).

(8) The length of the specified period referred to in paragraph 14(3)(a), so far as relating to goods to which a provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied, is to be treated as extended by the length of the specified period for which the TRA recommended that a provisional safeguarding remedy should be applied to them.

(9) Where the application of sub-paragraph (8) results in the length of the specified period referred to in paragraph 14(3)(a), so far as relating to goods to which a provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied, exceeding 1 year, sub-paragraph (4)(b) is to be read as if references to goods were references to the goods to which the provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied.

(10) In this paragraph, references to the application of a provisional safeguarding remedy are to—

(a) applying a provisional safeguarding amount to goods, or

(b) making goods subject to a provisional tariff rate quota.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85. It explains what effect the period of a provisional tariff rate quota is to have where the TRA later recommends the application of a definitive safeguarding amount. The amendment also incorporates the existing provision about the effect of the period of a provisional safeguarding amount.

Amendment 98, page 89, leave out lines 6 to 18 and insert—

“(7) If a provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied to some or all of the goods as part of the same safeguarding investigation, sub-paragraph (8) applies for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2)(b) and (5)(b).

(8) The length of the specified period referred to in paragraph 14(3)(b), so far as relating to goods to which a provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied, is to be treated as extended by the length of the specified period for which the TRA recommended that a provisional safeguarding remedy should be applied to them.

(9) Where the application of sub-paragraph (8) results in the length of the specified period referred to in paragraph 14(3)(b), so far as relating to goods to which a provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied, exceeding 1 year, sub-paragraph (5)(b) is to be read as if references to goods were references to the goods to which the provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied.

(10) In this paragraph, references to the application of a provisional safeguarding remedy are to—

(a) applying a provisional safeguarding amount to goods, or

(b) making goods subject to a provisional tariff rate quota.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85. It explains what effect the period of a provisional tariff rate quota is to have where the TRA later recommends that goods be subject to a tariff rate quota. The amendment also incorporates the existing provision about the effect of the period of a provisional safeguarding amount.

Amendment 115, page 91, line 8, leave out “the adjustment plan” and insert “an adjustment plan as”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 114.

Amendment 116, page 93, line 27, at end insert—

“(zi) the serious injury caused by the importation of the goods in increased quantities to UK producers of those goods and the benefits to those UK producers in removing that injury,”

Paragraph 21(3)(a) of Schedule 5 lists certain matters which the TRA and the Secretary of State must take account of, so far as relevant, when deciding whether the application of a safeguarding remedy is in the economic interest of the UK. Amendment 116 inserts an express reference in that list to the serious injury caused by the importation of the goods in increased quantities to UK producers of the goods and of the benefits to those producers in removing that injury.

Amendment 99, page 93, line 43, after “a” insert

“provisional tariff rate quota or a”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.

Amendment 117, page 94, line 1, at end insert—

“(zi) the UK producers referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(a)(zi) and other producers of goods,”.

Amendments 117 and 118 make clear that the references to “affected industries” in paragraph 21 of Schedule 5 continue to include the injured UK producers referred to in Amendment 116.

Amendment 118, page 94, line 2, leave out “producers and”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 117.

Amendment 100, page 96, line 18, after “a” insert

“provisional tariff rate quota or a”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.

Amendment 101, page 97, leave out lines 24 and 25.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.

Amendment 102, page 97, line 29, at end insert—

“‘provisional tariff rate quota’ has the meaning given by paragraph 11(3)(b);”.—(Mel Stride.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.

Schedule 8

VAT amendments connected with withdrawal from EU

Amendment proposed: 73, page 135, leave out paragraph 14.—(Craig Mackinlay.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

NHS Complaints System: Wales

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about something that has been on my mind for a long time.

It is nearly six years since the death of my husband. Some Members will know that he spent his last two weeks on the respiratory ward at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff. He was admitted on Tuesday 9 October 2012 to what should have been a caring and safe place. Instead, what we found was the opposite. I left Owen in what I thought was a place of safety, thinking that the hospital could care for him better than we could at home. How wrong I was. Owen went into the hospital mobile, yet spent two weeks crammed in a bed, on a cold, uncaring ward.

Despite the poor care that Owen received, his condition initially settled. In fact, there were provisional plans for him to come home towards the middle of the second week. Sadly, his condition took a turn for the worse. In the early hours of Monday 22 October, I was advised that there was no reasonable chance of his surviving. He lost his final battle the next day. It was then that my battle began: the battle to find out what had happened to him and why.

Many Members will have heard of my concerns regarding the 27 hours he spent on a trolley in the A&E department. A later inquiry identified a number of nursing deficiencies. Sadly, my efforts to obtain information regarding his medical care have been met with considerable obstruction from the board of UHW.

Some time ago, I received help from an experienced NHS consultant, someone who has prepared numerous cases over a period of 30 years when there are allegations relating to clinical negligence. He said—we normally converse in Welsh:

“Ann, roedd gofal Owen yn esgeulus. Hyd yn oed pe fyddai wedi goroesi ei salwch y tro hwn, byddem yn dal I deimlo fod ei ofal yn esgeulus. Yn esgeulus nid yn unig yn ôl safon 2012 ond yn ôl safon 1948, amser dechrau’r Gwasanaeth lechyd.”

That is, in his opinion, Owen’s care during his hospital stay was negligent. In fact, he said that even if Owen had survived his in-patient stay, his level of care would be considered unacceptable, not only by the standards in place in 2012 but by the standards in place at the inception of the NHS in 1948.

My medical friend has pointed out his concerns. He was astonished to find that no doctor saw Owen on either weekend, no consultant saw him and no junior doctor saw him. I should point out that he was on a respiratory ward in Wales’s flagship teaching hospital. He was not in a convalescent ward; he was not recuperating from an acute illness. My late husband was an unwell man with MS, whose long-term disabilities had been made worse by what turned out to be pneumonia that he acquired at that hospital.

Most concerning, according to my medical friend, was the failure of the medical department to have any kind of effective handover arrangement, whereby the doctor going off duty would hand over all the clinical information to the doctor coming on duty. Formal handovers are far more important these days, as the shift systems of junior doctors means reduced hours. This means that over a weekend a patient may be seen by half a dozen different doctors, all working for the same firm.

Since continuing my inquiries about Owen’s care, I have learned a number of medical terms. I now know about a “low grade temperature” and that this may indicate that there is an infection somewhere, without the doctors being able to find out exactly where. I have also become familiar with the term “inflammatory markers”. Inflammatory markers are blood tests that indicate the presence of infection. When the clinical markers change, and in particular when they increase, it suggests that there is an infection somewhere that is not under control. I will refer to just two.

One is known as the CRP—the C-reactive protein. The normal CRP is less than 10; Owen’s CRP was 22 on admission. Now, 22 is not particularly high, but it suggests that there may be an infection somewhere. Eight days later Owen’s CRP had crept up to 41. The fact that it was increasing—“going the wrong way” as the medics would put it—indicated that he could have an infection that could be going out of control. Owen’s neutrophil count—the type of white blood cell that increases during an infection—was also “going the wrong way”. The normal is less than six. It was 8.7 on his admission—[Interruption.] Excuse me, Mr Speaker; I am sorry, but that is my phone.

[Mr Speaker]

That is an extraordinary musical intervention on the right hon. Lady, but I am not sure it is up to her high intellectual standards—but the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has come to the rescue, being a selfless public servant as he is.

[Ann Clwyd]

The normal is less than six; it was 8.7 on Owen’s admission, and eight days later it was 10.6.

Doctors will tell us that they do not just look at the results of blood tests; they also look at the patient. In Owen’s case, they failed to look at the blood tests and they failed to look at the patient. Members will no doubt be surprised to hear that although Owen’s inflammatory markers had increased during his second week in hospital, this was not recorded in his clinical notes. The tests that noted the increase in CRP and the neutrophil count were done on the Friday. That was four days before his death from hospital-acquired pneumonia. No one saw the results. No one saw Owen. No doctor saw him on Saturday. No doctor saw him on Sunday. By Monday, it was too late. I think it is reasonable to assume that if Owen had received effective antibiotics when his inflammatory markers were increasing, he would have stood a fighting chance and would have survived that infection.

I continue to be shocked by the way the hospital board has dealt with my concerns. Members might have heard of so-called independent reports. There was nothing independent about this particular report. All the members were employees of the Cardiff and Vale University Health Board. The chair was the deputy nursing director, Mandy Rayani. The board’s investigation failed to comment on the medical deficiencies that I have mentioned, but it very quickly acknowledged my “adverse perception” of what happened.

Most of my claims of poor care were denied. Of the 31 concerns that I raised, 21 were rejected. This was despite the fact that a few weeks after my husband’s death, Health Inspectorate Wales, the body that inspects Welsh hospitals, visited the ward where my husband had been a patient. While it was inspecting the ward, it noticed that senior nurses went off for their lunch leaving patients who needed assistance to eat without any help, that some patients were found without buzzers to call for assistance, and that individual care plans were not in place for the patients, yet my concerns were dismissed as my “adverse perception” by the deputy director of nursing, Mandy Rayani, in UHW’s so-called independent report.

I remain unhappy with the attitude of the health board. When Owen died, the chief executive was Adam Cairns. He has now left the country and is working in the middle east. When he left, I took my complaint up with other executives and I have found—as I did when I was writing my report for the Government on hospital complaints—that the culture of deny, delay and defend has continued.

I wrote to Maria Battle, the chair of the health board. I wanted to know why no one had spotted the abnormal blood results. I wanted to know why Owen’s low grade temperature did not appear to be of concern to anyone. The first meeting was postponed. We eventually met on 2 August last year. Despite my PA telephoning the board to ask for a copy of its response a week earlier, my medical colleague and I were not allowed to see the report until we arrived in the building for our meeting. I was astonished to hear Ruth Walker, the senior nurse, saying that she had taken it upon herself not to release the report prior to the meeting. I would have expected such a decision to be made by Maria Battle as chair of the board, by Dr Graham Shortland, the medical director, given that the matters mainly related to medical care, or by Dr Sharon Hopkins, who at that time was the acting chief executive.

I believe that the decision of the board to refuse to release this document beforehand reflects its dismissive, insulting and gratuitous attitude to members of the public and to the families of loved ones. It reflects the overall cover-up mentality that is all-pervasive in this health board.

Treasury Spending: Grants to Devolved Institutions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am going to recommend an informal limit of about six minutes per speaker, and colleagues should be collegiate towards each other.

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to address grants to devolved Administrations. This week we celebrate the 70th birthday of our NHS, which is incredibly timely as we see how the SNP have talked the talk but failed to deliver for health services in Scotland. Even though over a third of Scottish Government spending is dedicated to health and sport, Nicola Sturgeon’s mismanagement of healthcare has had a devastating impact on local services across Scotland, which accounts for a large proportion of my constituency casework. That is down to not just poor workforce planning on the SNP’s part but a refusal to deliver the funding needed by health boards to ensure that everyone across Scotland can access top-quality care when they need it.

While it is common to hear nationalists in this place and Holyrood paint a picture of a perfect NHS in Scotland, that is simply a smokescreen for their own failings and is unidentifiable to many Angus residents. Whenever the SNP Government have benefited from increasing budgets thanks to the UK Government increasing spending, they have been reluctant to pass that on to Scotland’s health service. For all their condemnation of the Conservative party, it is Nicola Sturgeon’s party that has not served our health service well. NHS spending in England increased in real terms by 10.9% from 2010-11 to 2016-17, whereas Scotland only saw a 5.4% increase—less than half. Health spending increases in Scotland failed to match those in England in 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. Nicola Sturgeon’s new ministerial team—once she finds a replacement for those with records of the most despicable remarks—has a clear opportunity to put that wrong right.

The Prime Minister has rightly promised an additional £20 billion for the NHS—a commitment that I welcomed, along with all Conservative Members—but there has been silence from the SNP. Why? Because they are not interested in extra funding from the UK Government to Scotland. They would rather focus on stoking up grievance and division. The NHS funding commitment will help to deliver improved services and higher quality care and is a clear demonstration of this Government’s determination to support our much-valued public services. That commitment means that the Scottish Government will receive an additional £2 billion by 2023-24.

Nicola Sturgeon now has a responsibility, after seeing standards slip and confidence fall, to invest every single penny of that increase in Scotland’s NHS. For far too long, she has starved the Scottish health services of money, overseeing closures of centres across the country. In Angus, she has allowed the excellent Mulberry ward to close, the Montrose maternity unit to be shut down and Brechin infirmary to go and at every turn has prioritised centralisation over local services; my list could go on. The SNP are experts at shouting from the sidelines, but this extra funding is a test of their commitment to our NHS. I urge them to show the people of Scotland that they can act in the national interest by committing £2 billion to Scotland’s health service.

[Mr Speaker]

Commendably brief!

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

After seeing the collapse in motor industry investment, does the Minister now accept that the Government must heed the call of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders to rethink their Brexit negotiating position and to support a customs union with the European Union after Brexit?

[Mr Speaker]

This is really about agriculture rather than about cars. The concept of an agricultural vehicle might come in handy to the hon. Lady in this context. I am sure that she meant to mention it—[Interruption.] Yes, I keep hearing about tractors from a sedentary position.

[Mel Stride]

To be fair, Mr Speaker, farmers do own cars, which is an important point to take into account. I assure the hon. Lady that this Government’s overriding objective is of course to negotiate an arrangement with the EU in which borders are as frictionless as possible, trade is kept flowing, supply chains are looked after and the agricultural and motoring sectors are supported.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Carmarthen East and Dinefwr and Dudley have much to commend them, but they are both a long way away from Oxfordshire, upon which this question is focused. The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) has always erred on the side of optimism in the 30 years that I have known him. He should keep trying, but later on. Resume your seat, man. Jolly well done.

[Ian Austin]

It is a question about Oxfordshire.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman knows about Oxfordshire, but we will hear from the fella later. We look forward to it. A sense of anticipation is developing in the House.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

7. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on changes in the level of funding for local government since 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

The recent announcement of an additional £20 billion a year by 2023-24 for NHS funding was about core NHS funding. That is a huge commitment: £83 billion over the next five years. However, the hon. Lady is of course right to say that public health spending is also very important and has a direct impact on the way the NHS operates. Local authorities will receive more than £9 billion to spend on public health between now and 2021, but that is not the only stream of funding for public health. NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care pay for Public Health England and for immunisation, screening and other preventive programmes. The NHS 10-year plan, which is currently under development, will set out proposals for public health.

[Mr Speaker]

We thank the Chancellor for his views, which have been set out in considerable detail. The right hon. Gentleman cannot be accused of excluding any consideration that might, at any time, to any degree, be judged material.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Last year, NHS England was given £337 million to prepare for winter pressures, but the Scottish Government received only £8.4 million rather than the expected £32 million. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has claimed that Scotland will get £2 billion from this recent uplift. When we will know the real figure?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

There is a lot to be said for the London Borough of Harrow—I used to live near it myself—but it is a considerable distance from Cornwall. We will get to the hon. Gentleman in at a later point in our proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister’s initial reply did refer to the Government’s ambitions for every part of the country, so there is no reason why we should not hear about the Dudley situation.

[Ian Austin]

London, the south-east and the home counties already get the vast majority of public sector investment. Civil service employment actually went up in London and the south-east while public spending was being cut in the rest of the country. Government Members impose austerity on the rest of us, and now they are coming to the Chamber to demand more spending for their own areas. Instead of thinking about London, the south-east and Oxfordshire, why do the Government not start looking at the position of the Black country so that they invest in infrastructure there and bring some new jobs to places such as Dudley?

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

T5. The Chancellor and his Ministers accuse Labour of doom and gloom. Well, let me ask him this: what does he say to the hundreds of people in my constituency who are homeless as a result of his austerity? What does he say to the parents who send children to school hungry as a result of his austerity? What does he say to the communities that have been devastated as a result of his austerity? Is it not time that the Chancellor came out of his ivory tower and connected to reality?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is a cheeky chappie in this Chamber. I counted no fewer than four questions, to which I know the Chancellor, with his customary intellectual dexterity, will reply with one answer, embracing the gamut of issues if he wishes.

[Mr Hammond]

Indeed, Mr Speaker. What I will say is that we have spent the last eight years cleaning up the mess that was left behind for us by the last Labour Government and trying to mitigate its impacts on ordinary families up and down this country. It is the same whenever Labour gets into power: it is always ordinary people and the most vulnerable in society who suffer the most, and it is always the Tory party that has to clean up the mess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I am not familiar with the project that the hon. Lady mentions, but I will look into it immediately and write to her.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) was inadvertently erased, but I will come to him momentarily—he need not fear.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

There was a recent announcement about extending contracts for rental homes to three years and losing the six-month rental position. May I urge the Treasury to look carefully at that? The last thing we want is fewer rental homes on the market and higher costs, as that would also have an impact on welfare costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

British insurers, such as the ones based in Chelmsford, face a dilemma over what will happen to their European clients’ contracts: it would be immoral for them not to pay out on claims, but illegal if they do so. Will you urge the European regulators to come up with the same sensible, pragmatic solutions as the British regulators?

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I won’t, but the Chancellor might.

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, Mr Speaker, I will. I can tell my hon. Friend that we have established a European working group between the Bank of England and the European Central Bank to look at questions of contract continuity and other threats to financial stability over the period when we leave at the end of March. That will be looking at insurance contracts, and it will also be looking at the very large number of outstanding derivative contracts that could also, theoretically, become unenforceable at that point.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Who can ask a single-sentence question? I call Chris Williamson.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Public services define a decent society, but analysis by the Local Government Association has revealed that councils face a £8 billion black hole by 2025; public services are in meltdown. When will the Chancellor stop behaving like a public services vandal and start resourcing the public services that communities desperately need?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is clearly a devoted fan of the semicolon.

[Mr Hammond]

That is the answer, Mr Speaker.

There will be a spending review next year, when we will look at the overall spending envelope and the Government’s priorities across the entire range of public spending.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are very short of time. I will take two more: Kevin Hollinrake; and then Helen Goodman.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking is undertaking an important body of work on dispute resolution between banks and business. We will give it a parliamentary launch next week. Once the Minister has had time to digest the contents of that report, will he meet us to see how we can take the recommendations forward?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hammond]

When I have the money in the bank, I will invite them around for a glass of champagne.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a pretty generous offer from the Treasury—[Interruption.] It will be recorded in Hansard; it will be in the Official Report tomorrow.

Persistent Rough Sleeping in Nottingham

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mims Davies.)

[Mr Speaker]

Colleagues are beetling out of the Chamber. I am sure that the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) will not take it personally, and that there will be a respectful audience for her oration.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

Surprise, surprise: we have not heard Labour acknowledge the excellent news from the Resolution Foundation that we now have the lowest share of low-paid employees for 35 years—before the Labour Government were in power. Under Labour, we saw rising unemployment and more people left on the scrapheap. We saw a welfare system that did not support people into work.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We need to make faster progress. If people could keep their questions brief, and if answers could focus, as constitutionally they must, on the policies of the Government, that would be the proper procedure in the House. The right hon. Lady is very experienced and I know she knows that extremely well.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

3. If he will bring forward proposals for a multi-year funding plan for the NHS and adult social care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have learned from the experience of PFI; this Government—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Anneliese Dodds]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This Government have not. In the light of last week’s report on Carillion, we want to know whether the Minister can indicate which PFI contracts are being delivered by contractors that are deemed to be actually or potentially high risk. Following last week’s reports that failed bidders for PFI contracts will be compensated, can he rule out bailing out firms that fail even to win contracts? We need answers on these questions now, not a history lesson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) has question 21, which is not altogether dissimilar from the one with which we are dealing, but which will probably not be reached. If he wants to come in now, he can. If he does not, he need not do so. But he does, so he will.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

21. Thank you, Mr Speaker. With regard to important infrastructure projects such as the north-west relief road in Shrewsbury, will the Chancellor give me an assurance that when the land frees up housing capacity when the road is built, that will be taken into consideration when the schemes are apportioned funding?

[Mr Speaker]

Especially for the purposes of generating economic growth.

[Mr Hammond]

Precisely, Mr Speaker. It is the economic growth generation potential of housing development that we will take into account when evaluating transport proposals. In relation to the specific project to which my hon. Friend refers, the Exchequer Secretary advises me that the Department for Transport is eagerly awaiting a business plan for the project from the relevant local authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I am very keen to accommodate Back Benchers, as always.

[Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)]

T7. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how much additional tax revenue has been secured since 2010 by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs through tackling avoidance, evasion and non-compliance, and will he confirm that this policy will continue to exist in the Government?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Colleagues can help each other by being very brief, which I am sure they will be.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

With child poverty set to increase by another 1.5 million by 2022, according to the Economic Council for Equality, what will the Treasury be doing to help the very poorest households?

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

The people of Bloxwich will soon be hearing more about blockchain. Will the Chancellor confirm that the Government will continue to invest in this innovative technology to keep the public’s data safe?

[Mr Speaker]

Sounds fascinating, and I think we are going to hear more about it.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

The Government are committed to exploring all technologies that will keep data safe and create opportunities for innovation. Blockchain is one such technology, but the Government will also be examining other even more innovative distributive ledger technologies.

[Mr Speaker]

I look forward to learning more about blockchain. I am uninitiated on the matter, as the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) can tell, but I feel sure that he will put me in the picture erelong.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

The Governor of the Bank of England has stated that economic uncertainty caused by the Brexit vote will knock 5% off wage growth and is costing the UK economy £10 billion a year. Does the Chancellor agree with the Governor?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) need not worry; I am perfectly clear that he wishes to give us his thoughts. I am saving him up. It would be a pity to squander him at too early a stage of our proceedings.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

Today’s figures from the Office for National Statistics reveal that we are at the lowest level of public borrowing since 2006. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury set out what that will mean for future investment in public services, as opposed to maxing out paying off the nation’s credit card?

May Adjournment

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart]

He is not learned. I accept that point, but anyway, I am thinking of the young entering the profession now.

[Mr Speaker]

It may be that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is not, in the parliamentary sense, learned, but I think we can all agree that he is distinguished.

[Bob Stewart]

Mr Speaker, as ever, you put me properly in my box and, as ever, I take a spanking without any problem.