Paradise Golf Resort, Morocco

Debate between Tom Brake and Iain Duncan Smith

Wednesday 17th January 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Tonight’s debate is going to be a double act, because the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) is also going to make a short speech. I would like to thank constituents—I have no doubt that he will want to do the same—in my case, Dave Lansley and the core team of people affected by the Atlantic Paradise golf and beach resort scandal, for the support that they have given us by informing us about the issue.

Back in 2007, roughly 800 people across Europe invested in the project, which was to be a luxury development south of Tangiers in Morocco. They invested, in some cases, their life savings in what they thought was going to be a dream retirement home in Morocco. In return for their investment, they have received precisely nothing. Work on the development stopped completely in 2009.

The fundamental issue is whether the Moroccan Government were behind the project—I think the core group would argue that they very much were, because Ministers expressed support for it and the Government handed over land for the purposes of the development—or whether we accept the Moroccan Government’s position, which is that it was a private investment and nothing to do with the Government. We certainly do not accept that, especially as, for example, the Moroccan Government and officials were publicising the scheme at a trade fair for Moroccan property in Paris. We argue that the scheme was strongly supported by the Moroccan Government.

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

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this Adjournment debate, which I fully support. My constituent Dr Shawarna Lasker is in exactly the same position as his constituents and I have written to the ambassador. I agree that the Moroccan Government have to stop hiding and pretending that they are working behind the scenes. Clearly, nothing is happening and individuals who invested for good reasons, and good reasons alone, are being let down.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for that intervention, which highlights the fact that there are issues on which he and I agree, albeit not many. There is agreement across the House that our Government should have a role in trying to resolve this issue, although I accept that that role is limited.

Let me give some details of the chronology. Deposits were paid by investors, on the basis of the project having Moroccan Government backing, to a developer who was selected by the Government. Unfortunately, the sales agents behind the scheme then disappeared; allegedly, they have been involved in a number of Spanish property scams under a company called Palmera Properties. Construction began in 2007 and was due to be completed in 2010, but as I mentioned, work stopped completely in 2009. At that point, the developer blamed a water company, Amendis, for the delays.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Iain Duncan Smith

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I seem to recall it was not so long ago that the right hon. Gentleman was in a coalition Government in which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) insisted that we withdrew two regulations for every new one that we introduced. Does not that make the right hon. Gentleman a regulation cutter, like the rest of us?

[Tom Brake]

I remember that clearly. The right hon. Gentleman and I—and, I am sure, Labour Members—can confirm that there are regulations, such as those relating to the British Government’s role in running the railways in India, that it would be appropriate to get rid of, because frankly they are no longer relevant. I suspect that there are quite a lot of other examples.

I want to focus briefly on the EEA. At the start of the referendum campaign, those involved in the leave campaign advocated the Norway model. As it became clearer to them that that was not what they wanted, they moved on to the Switzerland model, with its 150 or so different agreements. Once they realised that that was quite complex, Peru emerged as the model they wanted to emulate, before they eventually settled on the idea of a bespoke deal. As we heard earlier, no one anywhere is willing to identify how such a bespoke deal would work or, indeed, whether it is even possible to put one together.

As other Members have said, it is clear that membership of the EEA does not in any way, shape or form match the benefits we get from being members of the European Union. It might provide an alternative—a step down from our current position, but without the consequences of our leaving completely—to the no-deal scenario. It is a poor substitute, but it is better than no deal. It would keep us in the single market but out of the customs union, and—this major sticking point was, I think, the reason why the leave campaign moved away from the Norway model—it would probably require a financial contribution. It would allow trade deals to be struck, so there are some advantages to it, which is why we will support new clause 22 if it is pressed to a vote.

I want to finish by focusing on the question of whether leaving the European Union automatically means that we also cut our links with the EEA. Articles 126 and 127 of the EEA agreement have already been mentioned. I have been involved in an interesting exchange of parliamentary written questions and answers about the EEA. When I asked what was required to formally withdraw from the EEA agreement, the parliamentary answer stated:

“As the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said when he addressed the House on 7th September, there is agreement that when we leave the EU, the European Economic Area Agreement will no longer operate in respect of the UK.”

I followed that up by seeking to identify who that agreement was with and why that would happen. The response stated:

“It is Government policy that we will not be a member”,

so it seems as though the Government have reached an agreement with themselves that we will automatically be out of the EEA. I would suggest that that is not a particularly high bar. Although article 126 makes it clear that we will leave the EEA, article 127 requires us to give notice in order to do so.

As an aside, if we are leaving the EEA, it would probably be courteous for the UK Government to at least talk to its other members, particularly EFTA members, just so that they are aware that that is what we are doing. As of last week, no contact had been made with at least one of the EFTA members. It might be appropriate for the Government to inform them as a matter of courtesy.

New clause 22 is very good, as it would provide us with an opportunity to keep some of the benefits of our EU membership without crashing out of the EU completely, and without seeking the mythical bespoke deal that I do not think anyone believes can be delivered in the timescales that the Government have to work towards. I look forward to the vote on that new clause.

Child Poverty

Debate between Tom Brake and Iain Duncan Smith

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend has campaigned hard on this and he is right; one problem with setting a narrow measure such as this and then being governed by it is that it is all about rotating people at the top of the relative poverty scale and not actually dealing with the deepest and deep-set problems. Dealing with those is what our purpose must be as we go forward to look at new measures.

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

Blue-collar Conservatism did not last long. Instead of hitting hard-working families with billions of pounds-worth of cuts, driving up child poverty, why does the Secretary of State not instead shift the burden of deficit reduction to the very wealthy and implement sound Liberal Democrat policies, such as extending free school meals and childcare?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his position. I simply remind him that for five years he was part of what we were doing, so I hope that he would welcome today’s figures. I am sure that he has a new set of policies and I am happy to look at what he has come up with.