Future Relationship with the EU

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

We have always given that commitment. Clearly, there have been discussions in recent days focused on that precise issue, but right back even when we set out our opening positions, the UK position made those commitments. This Government and future Governments would not want to roll back on those standards, so we did not hesitate in giving those guarantees. The sticking point is our ability to control our own destiny. The EU has got to recognise that it cannot keep us within its own orbit, and that is something we will not compromise on.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

Many on the Opposition Benches see that the biggest failure would be for there to be no deal, but does my right hon. Friend agree with me that actually the biggest failure would be to capitulate and to accept a deal that would not fully respect a sovereign Britain leaving the EU? Also, does she agree with me that it is not a great look for the Opposition Benches when it comes to this negotiation—and, of course, it does take two to tango—to incessantly, all the time, be seeing reasonableness in the EU and unreasonableness in our own Government? For a party supposedly looking to reconnect with some of its patriotic voters, this is hardly a good look.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I would say that we have compromised on a great deal. We have not been intransigent in these negotiations. We have compromised on all sorts of things, including accepting an overarching framework to the agreement. We are going to be as creative and as determined as we possibly can be in the next few days in order to try to secure that deal, but he is right: we will not compromise on those fundamental issues.

UK-EU Future Relationship Negotiations and Transition Period

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

As has been said at the Dispatch Box before, a reasonable worst-case scenario is not a prediction; it is the worst case that we need to prepare for and mitigate for. We thought it was right—as we do across many areas, including covid—to think through those consequences and put those documents in the public domain, and the reasonable worst-case scenario was a document that we published. Whether it is food supplies, medicine or anything related to the covid pandemic, we have put in place mitigations for all sorts of things that could happen and could go wrong. We are not anticipating disruption to those supplies, and the work that we have undertaken includes the stockpiling of certain goods, securing our own freight capacity and many other things.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

With regard to the fact that we are the first country in the world to have approved a vaccine for covid-19, does my right hon. Friend agree that we benefited from the ability to act quickly, nimbly and dynamically and that one of the key benefits of Brexit is that it will extend that ability across a number of different areas—for example, international trading relationships and social employment legislation? Will she assure me that, whatever happens come 31 December, we will have that ability and that power as a country to chart our own course and have a wonderful future?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I supported Brexit—I voted for it—and I think there are many positives and opportunities that will come from it, not least being able to increase our collaboration and co-operation with many countries around the world. Unless we eradicate covid, and unless we ensure that every nation has access to vaccines and can benefit from the science, whatever its provenance, we will not defeat this pandemic. We are an incredibly connected nation, and we need to do that. With the future that we have, we will be able to be a major player in ensuring that that happens.

Spending Review 2020 and OBR Forecast

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Lady mentioned the relative pay premium. It is worth bearing in mind that there still is a pay premium. The latest numbers we have, from 2019, show a 7% pay premium between public and private sector wages. That premium will without doubt have been exacerbated by the growing disparity in public-private sector wages that we are seeing this year. So in the interests of fairness and of protecting public sector jobs, I think it is right that we have taken a targeted approach and prioritised pay rises for those on lower incomes and in the NHS.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I very much welcome the £4 billion levelling-up fund, but it cannot just be about the north and the midlands. Ipswich will need to be part of the mix as well. I also welcome the over £7 billion extra funding for schools, but I am very passionate about special educational needs provision, as the Chancellor will know, and I just wanted assurances from him. We are talking about this extra investment and the extra 500 schools in the next decade. That must include providing first-class special educational needs provision, which does cost a lot but is absolutely worth it.

[Rishi Sunak]

I know about my hon. Friend’s passion for this subject and I am pleased to be able to tell him that £300 million has been allocated for new school places for children with special educational needs and disabilities, which is, I think, about four times as much as was provided to local authorities a year ago.

International Men’s Day

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for securing this vital debate. I agree with his comments about the underperformance of white boys from underprivileged backgrounds in the school system. The facts speak for themselves and they cannot be disputed. I think it right that the Education Committee, on which I serve, is currently looking at that issue in depth. That is not to say we are not going to look at other issues, but why should we not look at that one issue as well?

I want to talk about men’s mental health, which is getting more attention now than it ever has. The simple fact is that many men who struggle with their mental health do not feel comfortable talking about it. They might think deep down it is a sign of weakness—of course they are wrong, it is not—but they should feel comfortable to talk about it. Awareness of mental health is greater than it has ever been, because there is not a single person in this country whose mental health has not been impacted to some extent. I think even about my own father. If I had spoken to him a year or two ago about mental health, he probably would have said, “Man up—stiff upper lip,” and taken a very masculine approach to it, whereas he is 75 years old and has had to shield himself, and when I talked to him about this very issue not long ago, I never thought that I would hear it but my dad was talking about his mental health. That is a good thing, and we should encourage more of it.

There are great challenges, and the pandemic has brought this issue to light more than ever. Many of the things that men rely on, such as going to watch the football, fishing and golf, have not been possible, particularly during this second lockdown. I wish, though, to highlight something brilliant that is happening in Chantry in Ipswich. Over the summer, the local landlady, Penny, spoke to me about the problem of men’s mental health and how she wanted to do something about it. After a small period—two to three months—she now has 33 members of her men’s mental health support group in Chantry, including Rex Manning, a professionally trained chef from the local area. They have secured an allotment at the Robin Drive allotments, and all the men go down there, become members and talk. Even if they do not feel comfortable talking about their mental health directly, engaging in something like that, which is so good for their wellbeing, really brings people and the whole community together. They make produce with the vegetables, and Rex collects it all together and they all eat it together in the local pub.

Men’s mental health is a very challenging issue, and it is right that we have this debate, but there is a great opportunity here. The pandemic has highlighted mental health more than ever before, but talking about our mental health is not a sign of weakness; it is something that should be encouraged. It is right that we have this debate today, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for securing it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

An hon. Gentleman has, unusually, withdrawn from the debate, which gives us a tiny bit of extra time. I am therefore going to raise the limit on Back-Bench speeches to four minutes.

Government Response to Covid-19

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I spoke yesterday at the general covid debate, where I covered lots of issues that I feel strongly about. Today I will talk specifically about NHS Test and Trace and some of my concerns about low levels of compliance, the mental health implications for people who are asked to self-isolate and the impact on their financial circumstances. I know a fair bit about this, because I was recently asked to self-isolate for 11 days. I immediately went to the guidelines, which said that a person will be asked to self-isolate if they have been exposed to somebody who has tested positive for covid within 48 hours of them developing symptoms. For me, I worked it out and it was 62 hours, and yet I was asked to self-isolate. According to the NHS Test and Trace guidelines, I should not have been asked to self-isolate. However, I was and I did. It was not pleasant, but we got through it. I got a very bad cold, which I thought was a cold and not covid. Then I thought I might have covid and a cold at the same time, so I did get a test and it was negative, but I still had to self-isolate for nine days afterwards.

I mention this because it got me thinking about the low levels of compliance. In the debate yesterday, I think my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) suggested that the figure for compliance was only around 20%. I have heard similar figures mentioned in the media. That is a concern, because if we are going to have a successful test and trace system, we need really high levels of compliance. The question is: are we asking too much by requiring people to self-isolate for 14 days, and are we getting very low levels of compliance because we are asking too much? Would it be better to be more realistic, by perhaps asking people to self-isolate for seven days and getting about 90% compliance? I happen to think that would be better, and that there would be higher levels of compliance.

We have heard about the financial impact faced by those who are asked to self-isolate, and how self-isolation not only impacts them financially—I know that financial support is available, and whether that goes as far as it needs to is a different question—but disrupts their working life. Their lost income and the disruption to their working lives need to be taken into account.

The other point is about the circumstances in which people live. Not everybody has a nice big garden, not everybody has a terrace and not everybody has a balcony. When we are asking people to self-isolate for 14 days, we should never lose sight of the significance of what we are asking them to do. Some people live in circumstances that mean that they really would not want to be confined in their flat for 14 days, because of the impact on their mental health and the sense of being imprisoned and unable to escape or even to go out for a breath of fresh air.

If we are going to have a successful test and trace system, we need guidelines that are easy for people to follow and buy in to. I do believe that the vast majority of people in this country get it and want to play their part. If they are asked to self-isolate, they need to understand the rules and the guidelines, and those rules and guidelines need to be followed—in my case, they were not. It needs to be realistic about what it is asking people to do. If that means being pragmatic by saying seven days instead of 14 to drive up the rates of compliance, that is better than the status quo where it seems like so many people are not following the guidelines.

We have heard all about test and trace, but we have not heard enough about the implications for people of being asked to self-isolate for so long, or from the perspective of our liberties. Yes, it is necessary to have a test and trace system and yes, self-isolation is necessary if someone has tested positive, has had symptoms or has been exposed to someone who has tested positive. When we are discussing local authorities sharing data with the police force, the great concern I have is that some individuals might not get a test when they have symptoms. They may think, “If I get a test, not only will I have to self-isolate for 14 days, but potentially nine or 10 people I know will have to as well,” and that might impact their lives in all manner of different ways: financially, mentally and psychologically.

Let us have a test and trace policy driven by pragmatism to get high rates of compliance, but also one that never loses sight of the significance of what it is asking people to do. That is incredibly important, and I thank all the NHS workers who are working on this. We need to have a system that is easy to follow, realistic and drives high rates of compliance.

Covid-19: Economy Update

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

If the hon. Member wants to write to me with Kim’s particular circumstances, I would be happy to see what various things we have done that may be of benefit to her and her business.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I welcome this statement. It will ensure that the hospitality sector, even in those areas with much greater restrictions than my own, can hopefully keep going and come through this, as opposed to the approach of the Labour party, which would hammer the hospitality sector, even in areas such as mine, in Ipswich, where we currently have very low levels of covid. It will also give some reassurance to my constituents that, if the worst comes to the worst and cases increase, there is that additional support in place. One thing that these grants could be used on is winter heaters and gazebos, because we can still socialise outside in the winter months. I just wondered what the Chancellor’s thoughts were on that.

[Rishi Sunak]

That is an interesting idea. Obviously, for areas in tier 3, the local authorities are receiving funding to use at their discretion. It may well be that that is an idea they want to take up. Of course, for both open and closed businesses in tiers 2 or 3, I have announced a series of grants today and it will be up to those businesses to use them on whatever they want. Primarily, we assume that they will use them to cover the fixed costs of things such as rent, but, of course, it will be up to them what they use them for. None the less, my hon. Friend makes a good suggestion, which, together with our planning changes, means that those businesses can serve as many customers as possible, even though they face restrictions at the moment.

Covid-19: Disparate Impact

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

We have published public health messages in over 600 publications. If the hon. Lady would like to write to me with places that have not received communications, that is something I can take up with the Cabinet Office, but I myself have done quite a bit of media—BBC Asian Network, BBC Radio Manchester and other local media outlets—and I have done lots of social media activity. We have had ethnic minority influences reaching 5 million people. I am sorry to say that if the hon. Lady is not seeing these things, then perhaps she is not watching, but the money that we have spent is a testament to how hard we are working to reach people. There are still some hard-to-reach communities, and that is why we are having the community champions, because at the end of the day it cannot just be TV and it cannot just be social media. We need local authorities and people who know their local areas to be able to go out and find those people who still are not hearing the message. I hope that is something that she will do. I will find out from the House why she has not received the letter. It should have been sent to all colleagues, and I know many across the House have received it.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I recently had the honour of becoming the ambassador for BSC Multicultural Services in Ipswich, which as well as supporting our large and thriving Bangladeshi community, supports people from over 50 other nationalities. Throughout the covid-19 pandemic, it has provided invaluable work giving food parcels to the most needy from those communities, but right now its finances are under strain ever so slightly. I was wondering if the Minister could give both me and the other leaders of the group some reassurance about potential financial assistance to them.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I commend my hon. Friend for the important work he is doing to support his community. The Government agree that charities play an invaluable role in this country, which is why we have committed a £750 million package of support specifically for charities, social enterprises and the voluntary sector, so that they continue their work through the outbreak. That includes £200 million that has been distributed by the National Lottery Community Fund through the coronavirus community support fund. The fund closed to new applications on 17 August, but about 97% of the total fund value had been awarded as of 13 October. In addition, £150 million has been released from dormant accounts to help social enterprises get affordable credit to people who are financially vulnerable and to support charities tackling youth unemployment.

Black History Month

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I join many other Members in thanking the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) for securing this vital debate. It gives us an opportunity to talk about the hugely positive contribution that the black community in this country has made and continues to make, but also about some of the existing challenges in tackling racism in our society.

I would like to touch quickly on some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), who has now left her seat. It is deeply unfortunate that that attack on the great Winston Churchill has been made in this debate. My message to sections of the left who are determined to denigrate his legacy is that they will never be successful. That is because the vast majority of people in this country—black, white, whatever—see Winston Churchill as one of the greatest people that have ever, ever lived in this country, and that will never be up for debate as far as I am concerned.

I would also like to touch on the speech a lot earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who spoke about sport and the huge contribution made by black people to sport. As a Newcastle United fan, I remember that when I was growing up Andy Cole was my icon. I had a massive picture of him behind my bed, and I was devastated and went to school crying when Manchester United purchased him. But then we got our next superstar, Les Ferdinand—also a black football player—from Queen’s Park Rangers. That is how I grew up. As the Member of Parliament for Ipswich Town, I must also mention Titus Bramble and Kieron Dyer, two fantastic players who have played for both Newcastle and Ipswich, who are also black.

In Ipswich we have a significant black community. Only a few weeks ago, I engaged with the Caribbean and African health support forum, which does fantastic work in the town, supporting the black community with specific health issues that impact it more than other communities. I am incredibly proud to represent it and work with it closely, and I will continue to do so.

Let me talk briefly about the curriculum. I think that in our history curriculum we should teach a shared history—a history that teaches people that we have got things wrong in the past and we should look at the different ways in which that is the case, but of course never loses sight of the fact that we remain the greatest country on the planet today. I think that there is further we could go in teaching the history of black people in this country and the contributions they have made, but I am very keen that that is done as part of a shared history. I would not support anything that promoted separateness and alternative historical narratives. Ultimately, we have to have white boys and girls, black boys and girls, and other BAME groups all in the same classroom, learning a shared history together. That does include looking at the injustices that have happened in the past, but it also includes the message that there is so much more that binds us together than separates us.

Touching on current issues in the media, like other hon. Members I was appalled by the death of George Floyd. I was absolutely appalled. I think that the vast majority of people who have gone on protests are well meaning, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) that we should listen to the strength of their feeling. However, I think it is unfortunate that some of the leadership figures in BLM have, at times, strayed beyond what should be a powerful yet simple and unifying message in opposition to the racism that still exists in our society, into cultural Marxism, the abolition of the nuclear family, defunding the police and overthrowing capitalism. In some senses, I find it quite regretful that a message and an agenda that should have been unifying have, at times, been allowed to become very divisive, but ultimately it is our duty to make sure that the right message is learned from that horrific incident. It needs to be one of unity, moderation and looking to improve upon the situation we have today, where we know that racism still exists.

Looking at the petitions, I would also like us to be a little careful about the term “institutional racism”. Yes, we need to be alive to the fact that there will be individuals who harbour racist views in key institutions such as schools and the police, and they need to be rooted out, but to smear an entire organisation as being institutionally racist is, again, incredibly unhelpful and divisive.

I remember hearing the current Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), speak about this topic three or four years ago. At the time, I thought she would be a future Mayor of London, and right now I wish she was. However, we will have an opportunity, perhaps next May, to get the first black Mayor of London, and I hope that the people of London take it.

Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

I am struck, as ever, following the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), that PG Wodehouse really did get it right when he said that a Scotsman is rarely confused with a ray of sunshine. I have to say, though, that we do not need to make a performance art out of it. I will endeavour to strike a sunnier, more consensual note in this discussion, because I am very proudly centrist in my politics. On the centre ground is where I will be found. That is where most people of Scotland are and where most people of Stirling are, That is where we all need to tend towards in order to find solutions to this debate today.

This debate is not about stopping Brexit. We accept and we regret the fact that it has happened. It is about extending the transition period to avert a self-imposed economic disaster. There are solutions to be found. At its heart, we all need to take a step back and reboot this conversation. There are several conflicting world views at play in this discussion—all of them legitimate. Scotland voted to remain. Northern Ireland voted by a nuanced vote to remain also. Two of the four home nations voted to remain. Two out of the four home nations voted to leave. The UK-wide leave vote was 52% to 48%. All of these are facts—simultaneously correct and simultaneously legitimate. We have a conundrum that we need to try to find solutions to. Surely those numbers, those facts, suggest that we should have a more nuanced, respectful approach than we have seen from successive Governments since 2016.

There are solutions to be found. I respect England’s vote. I particularly respect what the hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy) said about his constituency and how every ward voted to leave. I respect that. I do not believe that Scotland had a right at any point in the process to stop England leaving the European Union, much as we disagreed with it, so why the hell does not that go the other way round? Respect must be reciprocal if it is to exist at all. The Scottish Government have endeavoured at every stage of this process to engage with the discussion and the conundrum. I was involved intricately with that at the Brussels end of operations. We tried to find nuanced solutions that would have recognised the conundrum that we all faced: we published “Scotland’s Place in Europe”; we put forward the idea of a Scotland-Northern Ireland backstop; and we put forward the idea that the UK could leave the European Union but remain within the single market, which would have been a compromise that most people could have lived with. All of those proposals were shot down, ignored and belittled by a Government who were so busy trying to negotiate with themselves that they could not spend any time thinking about Edinburgh, Cardiff or Northern Ireland. It is a poor show, and it is a poor show that we are here now, facing into a very negative situation for all the citizens that we serve, however they voted. We need to save the situation and it is not too late to change course. It is not too late to dig up the tram tracks that the UK Government have set for themselves.

All of our suggestions were dismissed, but our party is left with fewer and fewer options. We will work within the law. We will work within the constitution. We will work within Scotland and the UK’s democracy. We will work within the settlements that we have, but we will not meekly comply because of a vote that happened in another country. We will not meekly go along with it, because we are told to by a party that has only recently found a common purpose—for the moment. It will not last long.

Leaving aside the democratic deficit of the United Kingdom, which is clear for everyone in Scotland to see, let us look at the project that is actually being imposed on us against our will and against our democratic vote. Brexit is proceeding on a flawed premise. There were a series of interlocking promises that have not been respected, that have been forgotten about and dismissed. There were the promises on the side of a bus and an oven-ready deal that is neither ready nor anywhere near an oven. We have a deal that is falling apart. In my first speech in this place, I described the withdrawal agreement as a grubby, shabby document and we were proven right, because within seconds of that vote being passed, the governing party walked away from the commitments, which were being viewed in Brussels as solemn commitments —to a level playing field, to a non-competitive aspect, and to various mechanisms. Those were all being treated as solemn commitments from a UK Government who now do not look very solemn, or serious, or at all credible in the eyes of our wider European colleagues.

Brexit has already made the people of these islands poorer on any objective analysis of the economics. All of that pain is perhaps necessary, I am willing to accept, if the benefits are there to see and to be explained, but —I believe in intellectual honesty in my politics—all of those benefits, surely we must accept, are at best hypothetical, and absolutely none of them has been delivered in the real world in any sense. Conservative Members wonder why we are sceptical on these Benches about this project. It is because we have not seen any advantages spelled out after four years of looking for one.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

rose—

[Alyn Smith]

Do tell, Sir, please.

[Tom Hunt]

Thank you very much for giving way. You said at the start of your speech that this was not about stopping Brexit; it was just about extending the transition period. So why now are you making the case for why we should not leave, and don’t you think it is uncanny how everybody who is arguing—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I would be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman would rephrase his intervention, referring not to “you”, which would mean me in the Chair, but to the hon. Gentleman.

[Tom Hunt]

Following on from what I said, does the hon. Gentleman find it uncanny that everybody who seems to be arguing for an extension are those people who were previously on the barricades trying to block Brexit completely, full stop?

[Alyn Smith]

I am grateful for the opportunity to perhaps correct if I was unclear. I accept that Brexit has happened. I gave up my seat in the European Parliament because of it; I wanted to come here to fight for Scotland’s place in Europe. There was a point in the December election where we could have had that argument. In the halcyon days, we were thinking about a hung Parliament—with a Labour Administration, with SNP support, and a second EU referendum—but I won Stirling with 51% of the vote and my party won Scotland with a massive vote, to a Parliament we do not want to be in, on a pro-EU platform. Because of events elsewhere, it was clear that Brexit was going to happen anyway. I accepted Brexit has happened in my first speech, so I have made that point. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. What I am trying to do is extend the transition period to avoid a disaster that Conservative Members are going to inflict on this House out of bone-headed ideology, and when the chickens come home to roost, I do hope they will be as accountable as we have been to the people of Scotland on those points.

I again urge the Minister, whom I have much respect for, on the shared prosperity fund. There has been much talk about the power grab. I see the eyes rolling on the Conservative Benches now, but it is a very concrete example. This was not a power that rested in Brussels. The European frameworks exist in order to empower national and local governments. This was a power that was entirely with the Scottish authorities. The proposal on the table now from the UK Government is to put those powers in the hands of the Scotland Office—a part of the UK Government—removing that budget and removing that competence from the Scottish authorities. If that is not a power grab, I will need to have a look at the dictionary the Conservative Members are working with because, in any objective sense, it is. The Minister can assure us now that I am wrong. I will happily be proven wrong. I will happily engage with what we can do with the shared prosperity fund in Scotland, but it must be as a matter of respect for devolution under the competence of the Scottish authorities. If it is not, it is a breach of trust, it is a breach of faith and it is a power grab.

As I say, the pain of Brexit or the pain that Brexit is causing could be worth it if the benefits were there to be seen, but beyond warm words and sentiment, and beyond slogans that do not stand analysis, we have not seen that. Let us be generous—I do try to be generous—and say that the one-year negotiating period was heroically ambitious. That was before covid. Covid has intervened and has taken the focus of all of our Governments and all of our public officials away, rightly, to a health emergency. Extending the transition period is not about fighting old battles. I am not in the business of fighting old battles. Extending the transition period can be done and will give us breathing space and certainty to allow our economy to recover from a health emergency that is turning into an economic emergency. To add a covid-inflicted disaster upon that because of Brexit would be flat lunacy.

I was struck by the Paymaster General’s previous comments. She is now not in her place, but I was struck when she used the phrase that we are now past the point whereby a request can be made. She said that some might argue it is impossible to apply for an extension. She is not here now, but I would happily give way to anyone on the Conservative Benches who can name anybody in Brussels who is of that view. Anyone—Berlin, Paris, Ljubljana? It is a matter of straightforward principle and pragmatism in Brussels that, if the UK applies for an extension, it will be granted. The EU has, at every stage of the process, accepted with regret the democratic choices of the United Kingdom. It will not engage in our internal discussion, so it is with regret that it accepts that an extension will probably not be applied for.

We have not heard any indication today that the UK Government will change course, but they should, and this is a plea from us to do so, because we can still change course. We must change course. This is not about old battles. I asked whether anybody in Brussels, Berlin or anywhere else shared the Minister’s view. How about Dublin? Speaking of Dublin, Ireland is an independent state in north-west Europe that has done quite well lately. With Norway, it was voted on to the UN Security Council. It has the EU Commissioner for Trade in the inestimable Phil Hogan, who is a very strong negotiator in trade deals—Government Members will want to watch that one. It also has the president of the Eurogroup in Paschal Donohoe. The international accolades just keep coming for Ireland, and that is all based on the solidarity, support and encouragement of 26 other EU member states that have its back against the former colonial power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is, for a change, a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), and I am glad to see him doing better. His more measured approach to this debate has been noted on the SNP Benches, and I wish him well—although, as usual, he was talking guff.

We are in the middle of a health crisis that stretches not just across borders—whether or not the Prime Minister recognises them—but across continents. At least 600,000 people around the world are dead from coronavirus, and many millions more will contract the virus in the future. That situation requires an international response, yet sadly, and predictably, the UK has gone further into its Brexit bunker, and decided to try and opt out of the world.

We have heard repeatedly about how Ministers want the UK to remain close friends with our EU allies, but what sort of friend insists on diverting the resources of the EU and its member states away from dealing with the most serious health emergency in modern history, and to negotiating with an obstinate and childish ex-member that seems to use a “Dad’s Army” script as its terms of reference? The EU has made clear time after time that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said, it would be more than amenable to an extension to the negotiations, to allow it and the UK the space and time that is needed to deal with the public health emergency consuming us all. The response from the UK? “No thanks. I’m all right Jack.” What sort of relationship does it think will emerge on the other side?

Scotland is being dragged into a bombastic mix of exceptionalism, isolationism, and outright self-destruction. Ministers and Conservative Members have said that we voted as a Union, but people in Scotland have heard that before. People in Scotland also know that our democratic wish to work alongside our longstanding partners and allies has been torn up and chucked in the Brexit bin. Again, we are seeing that the British state is fundamentally incapable of good governance for Scotland or the rest of the UK. A clique of self-congratulatory Oxbridge graduates would steer their own country on to the rocks in the name of Brexit if they even knew where the steering wheel was. Instead, they have allowed their country to drift over the decades, taking the rest of us with them.

Scotland has never endorsed this self-immolation. For all that Ruth Davidson was lauded to the heavens by her high-profile supporters in the press, her crowning triumph was 28% of the vote in 2017—a figure that dropped two years later. The Tory record at election after election has been an unbroken streak of dismal failure for decades, yet our entire society and economy has been reshaped and allowed to wither on the vine, because that same Tory party has governed the UK for nearly 28 out of my 40 years. Now they expect us to keep silent and meekly go along with their back-of-a-fag-packet Brexit.

As I have said a few times in this place in the past few weeks, my constituency is facing the biggest challenge to our economy for decades. Rolls-Royce, Glasgow airport, easyJet, British Airways, Menzies Aviation and Swissport—I could go on to list company after company, and sector after sector—are in the process of collectively laying off thousands of my constituents. I have asked time after time what the UK Government plan to do to support constituencies such as mine, which are staring economic disaster in the face, but there has been no answer and no sign of a plan. But EU countries do have plans and they are implementing them now. They want to save jobs and key industries, and they have their levers and powers to do that. The Danish Government do not have to send missives to the Germans asking permission to have an industrial or macroeconomic policy. The French Government are implementing their plan for aviation now, yet there is no plan in the UK—none. Aerospace and aviation are left to rot; there is no sectoral support and no sign of any.

Businesses face a double whammy of coronavirus and Brexit, both accentuated by UK Government incompetence, ideology and arrogance. The exporters in my constituency still do not know what and where they will be able to export to the EU in the new year. Our manufacturers still do not know whether they will be massively disadvantaged by trade barriers that their EU competitors regard as fit only for the history books. The service industries still do not know what access, if any, they will have to the single market after 1 January, all while every business and individual in the country grapples with the impact of coronavirus, and the massive dislocation it is causing and will continue to cause.

This is history repeating itself. Our country lived through decades of de-industrialisation as asset-strippers and spivs were allowed to run riot and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs in the name of ideology—the UK Government sat back and let it happen. Emigration from Scotland ran into the hundreds of thousands as families moved anywhere and everywhere they could to find a skilled job—the UK Government sat back and let it happen. Our towns and cities became victims of the post-industrial economy—the UK Government sat back and let it happen.

[Tom Hunt]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the uncertainty that many businesses in his constituency face, but surely that uncertainty would drag on if we were to extend the transition deadline today. Surely it would be far better to focus on getting a deal and providing greater certainty through a clear framework of where we are going to be in the years ahead, rather than extending and pushing it down the road.

[Gavin Newlands]

I am very grateful for that intervention, but I have just listed all the things where businesses do not know what is going to happen after 1 January, so what certainty is the hon. Gentleman talking about? I have no idea and neither do businesses in my constituency. If he has some certainty to give us, I would be happy to give way again so that he can tell us what that is.

The UK has shown itself unfit and unwilling to govern Scotland properly, with, more often than not, zero democratic mandate to do so. I know that an independent Scotland, with its governance, capability and capacity, could plot a better course than the one we are locked into. I know that we could take our place back in the EU alongside the other small independent countries that make up the majority of its members. Do the Government want to carry on telling the people of Scotland that somehow we, on our own, are an economic basket case propped up by the largesse of the Treasury, as has been indicated? That is their concern, but I urge them not to be hypocritical; they should deliver that message to the people of Denmark, Ireland, Sweden, Portugal, Austria, Finland, Luxembourg, Slovenia and all the other nations, self-governing, sovereign and independent, that make up the EU. The UK Government should pop up in the national news programmes of those countries telling the electorate that they are doing it wrong. They should be firing out press releases and extending the Prime Minister’s role as Minister for the Union to cover all these countries, Britsplaining their way across the continent. But they will not find a receptive audience and they do not find one in Scotland. More and more the rot at the heart of the UK is laid bare for all to see and people are saying enough is enough—enough of jingoism, isolationism and palling up with Trump; enough of watching the poorest in society being punished by a welfare state that is meant to help them; enough of rhetoric towards our friends in the EU that, until very recently, was the sole preserve of the Daily Mail letters page.

We want a Scotland that protects our citizens and works to protect others. We want a Scotland that values Europe and the benefits we bring each other when working in partnership. The Minister for the Union and his colleagues should realise now that to block the democratic will of the people to achieve these goals would be another nail in the coffin for the UK and another example for the Scottish people of how the UK works against our interests, not for them.

Scotland belongs in Europe and the people of Scotland will make that happen sooner rather than later. The Government, despite what they may think, cannot stop democracy, and they cannot and will not stop the people of Scotland choosing their own future.

Future Relationship with the EU

Tom Hunt Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

We will not be barrelling off a cliff edge. One of the reasons why we want to conclude the negotiations is to give people time to prepare for the end of the year. The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the fact that the situation we are in with covid has been grave. We need to ensure that our economies recover swiftly, and they will be helped not by perpetuating the uncertainty we saw over the last few years, but by enabling business to get on with it and using our finite resources to facilitate levelling up in the United Kingdom, not paying into an EU budget that we will never see any upside from.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

We have recently seen an unacceptable increase in the number of illegal migrants entering this country through unauthorised crossings across the English channel. Does my right hon. Friend agree that being tied to EU rules and regulations during the transition period makes the return of illegal migrants more difficult, which underlines one of the important reasons why we need to end the transition period on 31 December? Will she assure me and my constituents that the UK will rebuff any EU attempt to make a new deal on illegal immigration contingent on us conceding in other areas of negotiations?

[Penny Mordaunt]

All nations have an obligation to combat the appalling and dangerous trade in human beings. Britain has chosen to do that, partly because of our geographic location, by putting in large amounts of funding upstream to create job security and food security and alleviate the need for people to move away from their homes to seek a better life. We will always uphold our obligations and our humanitarian obligations, and we want all other countries to do the same.