Debates between Steve Barclay and Lord McLoughlin during the 2017-2019 Parliament

European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Debate between Steve Barclay and Lord McLoughlin
Saturday 19th October 2019

(4 years, 7 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Barclay Portrait Stephen Barclay
- Hansard - -

First, I welcome the support of my hon. Friend. One issue that the shadow Secretary of State and I agree on is that, on these issues, there has not been a lack of scrutiny, given the frequency with which we seem to debate them in the House.

It is also worth reminding ourselves of what the motion is addressing today. The motion is addressing the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration secured by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The mechanism to implement that—the withdrawal agreement Bill—has still to be debated. Indeed, even that pertains only to the winding-down arrangements and not, as is often referenced in this House, to the future trade deal that we want to get on and debate. It is therefore rather odd that the main issue—our relationship with Europe—is being thwarted because of a circular, endless debate on the same issue, when we need to support the deal today in order to unlock the withdrawal agreement Bill that we need to debate.

Lord McLoughlin Portrait Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Is not the simple fact of the matter that all the people who cry out for a deal have to support the deal that has been brought forward by the Prime Minister? It is a first step on the way to many other opportunities that this House will have to discuss this particular issue, but we really have to move forward now and respect the result of the referendum three and a half years ago.

Steve Barclay Portrait Stephen Barclay
- Hansard - -

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the first step, not the final one. The House will have further opportunities to debate these issues.

UK’s Withdrawal from the EU

Debate between Steve Barclay and Lord McLoughlin
Thursday 14th February 2019

(5 years, 3 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Barclay Portrait Stephen Barclay
- Hansard - -

Given the propensity of the Scottish National party to have referendums and not respect the result, the one thing that we can always be sure of with the SNP is that it will not be over in an afternoon.

Lord McLoughlin Portrait Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I very much want to see a deal done. It is in the interests of the country, and it is definitely in the interests of industry. The European Union has a wide history of changing its mind and coming through with fresh negotiations, perhaps at the very last minute. Will my right hon. Friend tell me how his talks have been going, and does he think that we should allow the Government to do exactly what they are doing?

Steve Barclay Portrait Stephen Barclay
- Hansard - -

As is so often the case, my right hon. Friend reflects a sentiment that one hears expressed in the country at large, which is the desire for a deal. As he says, that desire is shared by many people we have been speaking to in the European Union. They recognise that no deal is in the interest of neither side, and that it is disruptive. Later, I will come to what Chancellor Merkel said about seeking a constructive solution. The political situation in many European countries, and the coalition that is in place, again shows that this is in the interests of both sides.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Steve Barclay and Lord McLoughlin
Wednesday 9th January 2019

(5 years, 4 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Barclay Portrait Stephen Barclay
- Hansard - -

The answer is that we have already seen a signal of that in the political declaration—on the technology that a number of Members have highlighted, for example. There is a shared desire to avoid going into the backstop, for reasons I have already alluded to, such as the breaking of the four freedoms and the fact that under article 50, there is no legal underpinning for any permanence in the backstop.

Members also need to address the reality of this. Some say, “Well, we’ll pay for an implementation period.” That is another of the myriad deals that people suggest. The reality is that the legal underpinning of the implementation period is article 50, which requires it to be temporary, not permanent. We sought that clarification, and there was a reflection of that in the December Council. Of course I recognise that there are ongoing concerns, and I am very keen to work with colleagues on those.

Lord McLoughlin Portrait Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the way he is taking us through the developments that have taken place. One of the things that a lot of us cannot understand is why, if everybody is so reluctant to go into the backstop—we are told the UK and the European Union are reluctant, and the DUP certainly is—it is not possible to get a legal undertaking about when it will end.

Steve Barclay Portrait Stephen Barclay
- Hansard - -

My right hon. Friend brings me on perfectly to the next phase of my speech, which is about the role of Parliament, how we look at the decision on extending the implementation period, and how we avoid that. We will continue to work closely with Stormont, Holyrood and the Welsh Assembly, especially on the future frameworks, which will strengthen decision-making abilities and allow for decisions previously made at EU level to be made locally. Indeed, as I said, we want to learn from this and engage with Parliament in a much more targeted way. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the Government’s intention is to ensure a greater and more formal role for Parliament in the next stage of negotiations.

The withdrawal agreement provides that if the future relationship or alternative arrangements to supersede the backstop were not going to be ready by the end of 2020, either the Northern Ireland protocol would apply or the United Kingdom could seek to extend the implementation period for up to one or two years from the start of 2021, with any extension needing to be agreed by 1 July 2020. Should that situation arise, the view of Parliament would be crucial. I am pleased to say that we will accept the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire), which will cement Parliament’s role in that process by requiring a vote on whether to seek to extend the implementation period or bring the backstop into effect. On the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) makes, by accepting that amendment, we give Parliament much more of a say on this issue of concern about the triggering of the backstop.