Article 50 Extension
Debate between Steve Barclay and Wes Streeting(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Barclay
The hon. Lady is usually one of the most forensic questioners in the House, but on this issue I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree. First, the Government have made it very clear that we will not revoke article 50, because we are committed to delivering on the referendum result. Secondly, it is again a slightly illogical charge for the hon. Lady to say that the Prime Minister is seeking to crash out on 29 March when she has today sought an extension to the end of June.
Wes Streeting
One of the reasons why we wanted the Prime Minister here this afternoon is that, whatever her shortcomings, we can at least trust that when she stands at the Dispatch Box she believes every word she says. That cannot be said for the Secretary of State, who can make an argument in one breath and then vote in the other Division Lobby in the next. [Interruption.] He should not be laughing this afternoon—by the way, people are laughing at him, not with him—because we are nine days away from crashing out with no deal, there is no sign of a plan from the Government and even the extension letter the Prime Minister has submitted fails the basic test of explaining why an extension is required. Is not the simple reason that there is no plan, and if there is a plan, what is it, Stan?
Stephen Barclay
I think the hon. Gentleman is wilfully misrepresenting the way the amendable motion played last Thursday—the fact that amendments were defeated—and we have given a further commitment to an amendable motion on 25 March. Perhaps his frustration is displaced from his frustration with his own Front Bench, because what we have not had from the Leader of the Opposition is clarity about when a second referendum will be put.
UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union
Debate between Steve Barclay and Wes Streeting(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
The shadow Secretary of State opened this debate, and he has long indicated his commitment to a second referendum and to remaining in the European Union. I disagree with him, but I respect the integrity with which he holds that position. Other Members of the House, such as the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), have been prepared to make the difficult decision to leave their parties and make the case for a second referendum, and few doubt the sincerity with which they hold their views.
Amendment (e), in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, does not reflect such principle or integrity. It is fundamentally flawed. As the European Council statement of 12 March makes clear, any extension to article 50 must be on the basis of providing clarity about its duration and credible justification for it. The amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition meets neither of those tests. First, it does not clarify the duration of the extension that it seeks. Perhaps that is because the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)—she is not in her place—said on Saturday that Labour would back an extension to article 50 only until July, because it would be inappropriate for us to stand for the European Parliament. Just the next day, however, the shadow Chancellor contradicted her and said that any extension should be “as long as necessary”. To be fair, the manuscript amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), which would amend amendment (i), tabled by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), does address the duration of the extension, but the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment fails to do so.
The Leader of the Opposition does not set out a credible justification for his extension, as demanded in the EU statement on 12 March, and merely calls for “a different approach”. That different approach is based on a fiction that he can deliver his deal, while also securing participation in EU trade policy and full participation in EU security, and holding his own position on state aid—all things that the EU has ruled out as non-negotiable. He speaks about the Prime Minister’s red lines, but what are his red lines when he puts forward completely unrealistic ideas? Indeed, his commitment to a second referendum is so strong that in his statement on Tuesday he failed to mention it once.
Stephen Barclay
Of course I will. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain why the Leader of the Opposition failed to mention a second referendum. I am sure that those who defected from his party would like an answer to that question.
Wes Streeting
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, but may I gently point that whatever problems he may have with Labour’s propositions for Brexit, they do at least have the advantage of not having crashed to such a big defeat as the Government’s own proposition?
Stephen Barclay
We thought the hon. Gentleman used to support a second referendum, but he failed to even mention it in his intervention.
The Leader of the Opposition called this week for cross-party consensus, but he refused even to meet the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] He met her once, after weeks of delay, and he has blocked the Labour Front Benchers from engaging with the Government. When he talks of cross-party consensus, perhaps what he really means is having meetings with the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson). There are no limits to the inconsistencies of his approach. He talks of listening to this House, yet when the House spoke on his amendment on 27 February, defeating it by 323 to 240 votes, he failed to listen to that judgment. Today, the Leader of the Opposition presents an amendment that fails the tests set out by the European Commission on Tuesday, calls for cross-party talks when he himself has resisted them, and calls for listening to this House when he fails to do so for his own amendment.
Dangerous Waste and Body Parts Disposal: NHS
Debate between Steve Barclay and Wes Streeting(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Barclay
I should clarify that it is not me personally who has terminated these contracts. These contracts with HES are held by the trusts themselves, and therefore it is a decision taken by those trusts.
As I said earlier, there is significant additional capacity within the incinerator landscape to process the waste generated by this contract, and therefore the suggestion in some quarters that this is an issue of a lack of capacity is simply not valid. To be clear, HES produces 595 tonnes of waste a month that goes to incineration, and the NHS identified 2,269 tonnes of incineration capacity, so reports that there is a lack of capacity in the market are not valid.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I learned from the Health Service Journal that Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust was one of those affected. It is totally unacceptable that clearly one of Ministers’ objectives was to cover things up for as long as possible to save their own blushes because of the failure of a Government contractor. Members of this House should not learn of such events from the media. We should hear it from Ministers via the Dispatch Box or the relevant Select Committee—or there is such a thing as email.
Ministers have announced that £1 million of contingency funding is to be made available to support trusts affected. Will that be met from existing departmental budgets, or will money be allocated by the Treasury? Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), surely it should be the failing contractor that coughs up £1 million, if not more. It should not come from taxpayers.
Stephen Barclay
We all learn things on a regular basis from the HSJ, but it seems misplaced to suggest that the hon. Gentleman should have been told about this when we were ensuring continuity of service and putting in place alternative arrangements to ensure that operations could continue at Barking and other hospitals. I have already addressed that point.
As I said, some of the cost—the contingency cost—will be absorbed centrally. The normal cost of clearing clinical waste was borne by the trusts before and will continue to be borne by the trusts.