UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Brexit

  • Claire Hanna – 2023 Speech on Replacement of Funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland

    Claire Hanna – 2023 Speech on Replacement of Funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland

    The speech made by Claire Hanna, the SDLP MP for Belfast South, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered replacement of funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland.

    I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss this issue and, I hope, get clarity for a number of third sector partners and other groups in Northern Ireland and, potentially, areas of opportunity for them. It feels like a very long time ago, but during the EU referendum campaign there were assurances that Northern Ireland would not lose out, doing well, as we did, out of the EU funds, which were based on need. We know that the phrase “take back control” resonated with many people, but it appears to mean taking back control from some of the funds that have traditionally underpinned progress in Northern Ireland and from local decision makers, and handing it directly to London, without any sense of a strategy that local groups can try to support.

    In March last year, in the early stages of the community renewal fund, I had a Westminster Hall debate, in which various eyebrow-raising allocations from that scheme were addressed. I am afraid that several of the reservations that people had about process, strategy, co-ordination and transparency have been borne out. It is worth saying that these concerns are not held just by groups that are applying for funding or by my party. The Northern Ireland Executive, as was, adopted the position that the best delivery mechanism for the shared prosperity fund would be via existing structures. Invest Northern Ireland, our economy arm, was very clear that it believed that the funding would be best delivered in conjunction with the programme for government. And the think-tank Pivotal and other respected commentators and business voices made the same point. People are up for change. They understand that it is a reality, and they roll with the punches. But it has to feel transparent, and there has to be a sense of fairness and coherence and that there is more to these allocations than just the whim of Ministers in London.

    As I said, Northern Ireland was a net beneficiary in the EU. That is not a secret and is not anything to be ashamed of. Those allocations were made on the basis of need and, in many cases, were a counterweight to the obvious challenges that Northern Ireland faced and to decades of capital underinvestment. That is not just a historical issue: in 2021, the average capital spend per head in Northern Ireland was £1,325, compared with a UK average of £1,407. Of course, all that has contributed to a failure to attract quality investment and foreign direct investment, and decent jobs. That is reflected in our rates of economically inactive people, which are substantially higher than those in other regions.

    The founder of our party, John Hume, said many times that the best peace process is a job: the best way to enable people to have hope in their futures and see beyond the things that have divided us in our region is to have meaningful employment—a reason to stay, to get up in the morning and to work together. Those were the opportunities that we saw in European participation, and that is why we continue to work so hard to protect our access to political and economic structures. Funds beyond the block grant, the EU funding as was and the promised successor funds, have been billed and are needed as additional, and they should be an opportunity to realise some of those ambitions, to remove barriers to employment and, in particular at the moment, to allow people to take advantage of the opportunities that the current very tight labour market offers. Unfortunately, that is not what we are getting.

    Time is obviously short, so I want to focus on the loss of the European social fund and the European regional development fund and on the replacement, the SPF, and to touch on the levelling-up fund. It is worth clarifying that, as well as those assurances back in 2016, during the referendum campaign, the Conservative party manifesto in 2019 committed to replacing the ESF in its entirety. Northern Ireland got an average of £65 million a year from the ESF and ERDF in the period from 2014 to 2020, with Northern Ireland Departments having the power to manage that in line with UK strategy. That allowed them to align projects that they funded with regional and local strategies, ensuring complementarity and targeted outcomes.

    The scenario now is that the UK Government and Northern Ireland Departments are essentially two players on the same pitch, in the same space, delivering the same sorts of projects. That has a built-in inefficiency and means that the results are less than the sum of the parts. That overlapping inevitably applies to monitoring, too. How are we supposed to measure the impact of different interventions in areas like skills if the scheme is only one part of an equation in which all the other Departments are trying to do similar things? It seems that it will be impossible to disaggregate that. The governance is sub-par and the quantum is less, too.

    By comparison with the ESF and the ERDF averages, the allocation for the shared prosperity fund in Northern Ireland is £127 million over three years, so we are losing on average £23 million per year from that scheme. That has created this massive gap for funded groups, many of whom just cannot hold on. It is not like in the civil service; people have to be put on protected notice or face closure. Again, there is nothing co-ordinated about any of this. It is not even the survival of the fittest—that the strongest and best organisations will continue—because it is largely the luck of the draw on where organisations are in their funding cycle. Again, this is one more downside of the abandonment of devolution. Engaged and responsive local Ministers could monitor the situation and be flexible and creative with in-year allocation, match funding and bridge funding. They could, in short, protect us from the deficit created by Brexit and this devolution override.

    I want to touch on how all this affects specific groups. The NOW Group is a highly regarded project that works across Belfast and further afield, supporting people who are economically inactive because of a disability get into employment. It has 17 years of ESF funding and runs high-profile facilities. If anyone has been in the café in Belfast City Hall, they will have seen NOW Group workers. They help hundreds of people with disabilities into all sorts of sectors, including leading corporates and the knowledge sector. It is a safe bet that any credible funder will keep backing a project like this, but the assurances are just not there. Reserves cannot last forever and, of course, smaller organisations will not have such reserves. In that project, 52 people are at risk of being put on notice and another 800 people with disabilities will be left with no service.

    Mencap in south Belfast and far beyond has run ESF projects on social inclusion for decades and was well on track to exceed the target set by ESF of supporting 13,000 people by 2023. It is concerned by how limited the scope of SPF is compared to what they were able to do under ESF. The East Belfast Mission described well what is at stake:

    “Our programmes have a long track record of being more successful than government initiatives”.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the debate forward. I work with the East Belfast Mission regularly in my office, so I understand its work and its success rate from the people it helps in my constituency. The mission tells me, as I told the hon. Lady, that without this funding stream it will not be able to continue to have the success stories it has and that that will hurt individuals and families. Like the hon. Lady, I look to the Minister for some assurance that the funding it has received over the past few years can be continued. With that, we can help more of our people over the long term.

    Claire Hanna

    The mission itself captured that. It talks about its staff being based in local communities with lived experience that helps them understand the specific difficulties people face. It says:

    “Many of the people we work with have faced societal and generational barriers to employment, through illness, trauma or other issues. Our projects help break the cycle and raise up our host communities.”

    It says that if it loses the fund, it will not be able to provide certainty and will

    “lose irreplaceable experience which has been built up over decades.”

    This is not just a Belfast issue by any stretch of the imagination. Dozens of projects across Northern Ireland, particularly those supporting younger people, women and minorities, are at risk. First Steps Women’s Centre is a vital part of the community sector in Mid Ulster, working to integrate new and minority ethnic communities, providing crèche facilities to support women back into work and signposting people to other partners who can help them with the multitude of issues they may face.

    I want to specifically ask the Minister how the Department ensures that the projects it is funding are aligned with Northern Ireland’s democratically agreed priorities—agreed by the Executive with all five parties—absent a formal role for those Departments. How do the Government propose that groups, such as those I have described, that are facing this essentially bureaucratic gap are supposed to address it? If the gap is not going to be addressed, what are the people who use those services supposed to do instead?

    I want to address the widespread concerns about the levelling-up fund. It is a mighty slogan—who does not want to see things levelled up?—but unfortunately, like a lot of slogans of the last few years, it struggles a bit when it comes into contact with implementation. People perceive it as pitting communities against one another, with distant Ministers picking winners seemingly at random. Again, the initiative started badly for us. The initial allocations fell short of the promised 3% of the UK pot. That target was laid out in the strategy document, which seemed to acknowledge the traditional capital shortfall in Northern Ireland but has failed to address it. The fund was initially conceived as a scheme for England with a Barnett consequential, but it has evolved to be more centralised than was promised.

    The same paper highlighted the issues that there would be given the fact that local governance structures in Northern Ireland are different from those in Britain, but it has failed to develop a more collaborative approach to mitigate those issues. The same overlap and duplication issues with the SPF pertain here, despite requests from me and others to consider the north-south dimension and co-ordination on this issue. That misses real opportunity to maximise value by co-ordinating with the Irish Government, who have, for example, a £400 million capital fund in the Shared Island unit.

    Lessons from the first round of levelling up, which were very well telegraphed, do not appear to have been taken on board for round two. Although the projects that got the nod last week are no doubt good news for the relevant communities, nobody has any clue about what the winning ingredients in those bids were, or how others might have similar success in future applications. We are advised that the Northern Ireland bids were assessed against three of the four criteria set out in the prospectus, namely strategic fit to the economic case and deliverability.

    The winning bids are in the public domain, but the other applicants are not. In the interests of transparency, reassurance and learning for future schemes, will the Minister therefore share details of the original Northern Ireland shortlist of projects and their ranking, as presented after the assessors’ moderation meeting? Will she also advise what, if any, additional considerations informed the Minister’s decision? Can she clarify whether the funding decisions were taken by the Minister alone? It has been suggested by some applicants—I have struggled to confirm this—that the gateway pass mark that was used in England, Scotland and Wales was 75%, and that that was dropped, after applications were submitted, to 57%. I hope that the Minister can confirm whether that is the case.

    Jim Shannon

    The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In my constituency of Strangford, an application was put in for the Whitespots park, an environmental scheme at Conlig. It is shovel ready—the boys could start it tomorrow —but we have missed out on two occasions. She is expressing her concerns over what is happening in her constituency; I echo those and support her in what she says.

    Claire Hanna

    That again illustrates the confusion that people have about what was selected. Will the Minister confirm whether any criteria additional to those specified were applied? Were they applied consistently to all projects? Will the transparent list that she will publish include any changes in ranking that occurred as a result of new criteria?

    Again—for future learning—it was announced that there will be a round three of levelling-up funding. An enormous amount of work goes into the applications, including, as people will know, many thousands of pounds on proposals and engaging the strategy board. Will the Department therefore develop a reserve list from round two applications? That could prevent some groups from having to run up the same professional fees and pouring in the same time, particularly when they are being left in the dark about the criteria. Further, can the Minister clarify what consultation was held with the Northern Ireland Departments and other funding bodies to address the overlap in applications under levelling up and other schemes? Finally, does the Minister think that the spread of applications in Northern Ireland is appropriate?

    A lot of these issues are very technical, but they are vital to achieving the things that we all want to achieve for Northern Ireland and for progress. They are also vital to people having some faith in this progress—that they have not had their eye wiped, essentially, by funds being promised, removed and not adequately replaced. That is not the case at the moment. People see this as a net loss from what we enjoyed before Brexit, and that should concern the Department.

  • Doug Beattie – 2023 Comments on Northern Ireland’s Place with the United Kingdom’s Internal Market

    Doug Beattie – 2023 Comments on Northern Ireland’s Place with the United Kingdom’s Internal Market

    The comments made by Doug Beattie, the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, on 16 January 2023.

    This is a much more low-key statement from the UK and EU than the build up implied, which provides a lesson in raising expectations in such a delicate negotiation. I would implore both the UK Government and the European Union not to become tempted to agree a deal simply to conclude negotiations, and rather focus on taking time to find a deal that provides long lasting solutions to the range of problems caused by the Northern Ireland Protocol.

    Northern Ireland’s place with the United Kingdom’s Internal Market must be restored and protected. Sticking plaster solutions will not cut it. The long-term effect of the implementation of the Protocol in its current form will be the erosion of Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. We have warned of this since 2019 and will continue to oppose any deal which makes Northern Ireland a place apart from the rest of the UK.

    Nobody can be expected to agree a deal over which they have no input or control. London is adding to the democratic deficit, not solving it. We must have a say in our own future. There would never have been a Belfast Agreement if the Government had behaved like this. It’s intolerable.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2023 Speech on Brexit at the Mansion House

    Sadiq Khan – 2023 Speech on Brexit at the Mansion House

    The speech made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, at the Mansion House in London on 12 January 2023.

    I’d like to align myself with the Lord Mayor’s words on levelling-up… he is of course entirely correct – London both requires levelling-up and is required for levelling-up to be successful across the country.

    The Lord Mayor is already proving a tireless champion for the City of London – both here at home and across the world – and I’m looking forward to working more closely with him in future. As the Lord Mayor said, London’s diversity of thought, cultures and backgrounds has long given our city a competitive edge, as I can see looking around Mansion House this evening. As Mayor, I’m committed to harnessing the thinking and talent to deliver a better London, a city that is fairer, and more prosperous for everyone. Now we know, that neurodivergent Londoners have so much to offer our city, from innovative thinking to creative approaches. City Hall is proud to already be working closely with Neurodiversity in Business and tonight, I’m committed to making London the neurodiverse capital of the world.

    I’d also like to pay tribute to everyone from local government here with us.

    As someone who began my time in public life as a councillor, I can’t imagine a more difficult period to serve in local government.

    Terrible pressure on budgets.

    Covid.

    And now the worst cost-of-living crisis for a generation.

    You play a critical role supporting the welfare and wellbeing of our communities.

    And you don’t get anywhere near the recognition you deserve.

    So, I want to express my sincere gratitude to all the council leaders, councillors and officers here tonight from across the political spectrum – not only for continuing to deliver vital public services, but for standing up for Londoners in the most challenging of circumstances.

    My Lord Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen, I want to use this opportunity to speak mostly about a phenomenon that occupied our TV screens, newspapers and Twitter feeds for many years.

    But which seemingly has now vanished without trace from our national political discourse.

    No, not Boris Johnson…

    But Brexit.

    Given a sizeable number of politicians seem to have taken a vow of silence on its damaging impact, I’m conscious that breaking the Brexit omerta makes me somewhat of an outlier.

    I understand the genuine apprehension many share about this issue.

    No one wants to see a return to the division and deadlock that dominated our body politic for 5 long years.

    I certainly don’t want to re-open old wounds.

    However, the inescapable truth is that this unnecessarily extreme, hard-line version of Brexit is having a detrimental effect on our capital and country – at a time when we can least afford it.

    We can’t – in all good conscience – pretend that it isn’t hurting our people and harming our businesses.

    As Mayor of this great city, choosing not to say anything would be a dereliction of duty.

    We’re gathered in one of the great financial districts in the world – supporting millions of jobs and generating billions in tax revenue – but the reality is that the City of London is being hit by a loss of trade and talent… because of Brexit.

    So, my message is this:

    Trying to will Brexit into a success, or simply ignoring its impact, is not a strategy that will deliver prosperity for London or a brighter future for Britain.

    If we’re not honest about this problem we cannot ever hope to fix it.

    Raising Brexit this evening is not about trying to make a partisan point.

    Or just a chance to moan about the past.

    What I’m interested in is the future – doing what we all know is right for London – and looking at how we can sensibly and maturely mitigate the damage that’s being inflicted.

    Let me share three short examples: First, our national economy.

    We’re facing an economic downturn.

    Yes, we’re not alone – the economies of the US, EU and China are all forecast to contract – but the UK is predicted to face the worst recession and weakest recovery in the G7.

    In fact, UK GDP is set to shrink by 1 per cent this year, compared to 0.1 per cent for the eurozone.

    What makes us exceptional?

    Well, Brexit has already reduced our GDP by 5.5 per cent…

    It’s reduced investment by 11 per cent…

    And reduced goods and services trade by 7 per cent.

    The hard mainstream? Brexit we have is a drag on growth, investment and trade.

    Fixing it would mean the recession would be less painful and less prolonged.

    This is what businesses are telling me across our city – and I have a responsibility as Mayor to speak up on their behalf.

    Second, the cost-of-living emergency…

    The London School of Economics found that Britons are paying an extra 6 billion pounds to eat because of Brexit.

    That’s 210 pounds added to the average household’s supermarket bill over a two-year period.

    Food inflation is now running at more than 13 per cent and its poorer families – who spend a higher proportion of their income on groceries – who are being hit the hardest.

    A Brexit tax on life’s essentials is the last thing they need right now.

    So, putting right the wrongs of Brexit would mean we can ease the pain on those less able to shoulder the burden.

    Third, our public services…

    Many are now in a desperate state, most acutely our NHS and I want to pay tribute to all of those who work in our national health service.

    The estimated cost to the Treasury in lost tax revenues due to Brexit is 40 billion pounds.

    With more than one million Londoners currently waiting for treatment…

    With nurses on strike for the first time in history… and doctors, paramedics, 999 call handlers, physiotherapists soon to join them..

    With patients needlessly dying because of unprecedented delays…

    We simply cannot forgo 40 billion pounds of potential investment in our health service.

    So, repairing our relationship with Europe would mean we can better support our NHS.

    After two years of denial and avoidance, we must now confront the hard truth:

    Brexit isn’t working.

    It’s weakened our economy…

    Fractured our Union…

    And diminished our reputation…

    But crucially… not beyond repair.

    A New Year brings new opportunities.

    And political leaders must now seize the opportunity, and with renewed purpose set out the need to reform our relationship with Europe.

    Not with a return to the interminable Brexit wars of the past.

    But with a sincere, considered, civil debate about Britain’s future that has at its core a clear-eyed view of the national interest.

    Let me be clear:

    We need greater alignment with our European neighbours – a shift from this extreme, hard Brexit we have now to a workable, softer version that serves our economy and people.

    That includes having a pragmatic debate about the benefits of re-joining the Customs Union and the Single Market.

    If the government wants to get the ball rolling on fixing Brexit, the perfect place to start in London would be addressing our labour and skills shortage.

    The number of businesses in our city experiencing at least one skills shortage has now risen to almost 7 in 10.

    Meanwhile, the number of jobs in our city held by EU-born workers has fallen by over 80,000 – putting huge strain on crucial sectors such as hospitality and construction.

    Devolving powers to London and allowing us to create a regional shortage occupation list would be one way to give businesses the ability to attract and retain talent in the areas they need it most.

    But another option would be a fundamental rethink of the existing Brexit deal.

    Securing a better Brexit would mean more trade, higher investment and stronger growth.

    It would mean a boost to both exports and living standards.

    It’s key to unlocking London’s full potential and, in turn, helping us to power the national recovery.

    More broadly, the government needs to entrust communities with the power to control their destiny.

    Devolution improves our economy and politics.

    Even in the face of huge challenges, we’ve shown what can be achieved from City Hall…

    We’re building more council homes than at any time since the 1970s.

    We’re taking huge strides to clean up London’s toxic air.

    We’re offering free skills training to anyone who’s unemployed or in low-paid work.

    We’ve delivered the Elizabeth Line and much, much more.

    But fixing Brexit will mean we can accelerate our efforts to build a better London for everyone – moving faster to achieve a city that is safer, fairer, greener and more prosperous for all.

    Let me just end by saying this:

    While it’s true that the twin nightmares of the pandemic and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine continue to cause great harm, we cannot continue to hide under the covers from the damage being done by Brexit.

    We are no longer in 2016 or 2019.

    The landscape has shifted.

    More and more Londoners are worried about the impact of Brexit on our city.

    Our business community is increasingly speaking out and in growing numbers.

    It’s time the government caught up.

    Ministers seem to have developed selective amnesia when it comes to one of the root causes of our problems.

    Brexit can’t be airbrushed out of history, or the consequences wished away.

    Europe was, is and will remain our most important relationship, but it’s in desperate and urgent need of repair.

    So, let 2023 be the year we summon up the political courage to rebuild those essential bridges and tear down those needless walls standing in the way of our businesses and our people.

    The future prosperity of our capital and country depends upon it.

    Thank you.

    Finally, can I ask everyone to join me in raising a glass… to the Lord Mayor and the Lady Mayoress.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2023 Statement after Three Years of UK Leaving the European Union

    Sadiq Khan – 2023 Statement after Three Years of UK Leaving the European Union

    The statement made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 31 January 2023.

    Three years on from leaving the European Union, we must all now face the inescapable truth: that this unnecessarily hard-line version of Brexit is having a detrimental effect on the London and UK economy – at a time when we can least afford it.

    While Whitehall has taken a vow of silence on the damage Brexit is causing, businesses across the country are drowning under the weight of increased bureaucracy, staffing shortages and supply chain challenges. London is being hit hard by the loss of trade and talent to our global competitors.

    It is time to abandon the hostile mentality of the referendum years and open a dialogue with our European neighbours about greater alignment.

  • Jacob Rees-Mogg – 2022 Comments on Report that Suggested Brexit Reduced UK Growth

    Jacob Rees-Mogg – 2022 Comments on Report that Suggested Brexit Reduced UK Growth

    Comments made by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Conservative MP for North East Somerset, in the Daily Express on 22 December 2022.

    In a report gullibly swallowed by the remainiacs it models what would have happened to the UK economy had it remained in the European Union. It calls this a “doppelganger” method. Inevitably for such an organisation it produces a negative result. However, its methodology is not only flawed but absurd.

    Buried in the text is the admission that “the doppelganger grew a little faster than the UK before 2009” – an admission which makes the whole exercise valueless.

    Even more preposterously it claims that Brexit has a cost that existed even when the UK was in the EU. If our economy grew less quickly than it ought to have done when we were in why is Brexit responsible for our current level of growth?

  • Gavin Barwell – 2022 Comments on Smaller Economy Due to Brexit (Baron Barwell)

    Gavin Barwell – 2022 Comments on Smaller Economy Due to Brexit (Baron Barwell)

    The comments made by Gavin Barwell, Lord Barwell, on Twitter on 21 December 2022.

    The latest estimate suggests our economy is 5.5% smaller as a result of Brexit. My former colleagues don’t want to talk about this (nor do Labour), but it explains something else they don’t like: the high tax burden – tax revenues would be £40 billion higher.

    It’s important to acknowledge this is only an estimate – we’re trying to compare what’s happened with what might have happened had we remained. We can’t know the latter for sure, but that doesn’t mean we can’t produce good estimates, @JohnSpringford, who produced this estimate, has tweeted a thread of his own this morning explaining the assumptions behind this estimate and responding to Brexiteer critiques of them.

    Note that some of the impact was immediate after the referendum decision (ie it would have happened whatever version of Brexit we went for); whereas some happened after we left the transition period (ie it was the result of the particular version of Brexit Johnson chose).

    To give an idea of the scale of the impact, the March 2022 Budget raised taxes by £46 billion. In broad order of magnitude terms, these tax rises would not have been necessary if we had remained in the EU.

    Our politicians can’t go on ignoring this economic self-harm forever. That doesn’t mean we have to rejoin, but it does mean we need to reduce the very damaging barriers to trade that we have introduced with our nearest neighbours. It is clear now that was an act of self-harm.

  • Jeffrey Donaldson – 2022 Comments on the Irish Common Travel Area

    Jeffrey Donaldson – 2022 Comments on the Irish Common Travel Area

    The comments made by Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, the Leader of the DUP, on 6 December 2022.

    On 6th December 1922 the Common Travel Area came into being. It is so ingrained as part of life across these islands that we can sometimes overlook its significance. The House of Commons library estimated that the number of people living in the UK who were born in the Republic of Ireland is equivalent to around 1% of the Republic’s population. There are just over a quarter of a million people born in the UK and resident in the Republic.

    The Common Travel Area was a sensible and practical arrangement established between the United Kingdom and the then newly formed Irish Free State. It has worked to the benefit of both countries over the past 100 years and enjoys the support of people in both jurisdictions. This stands in stark contrast to the Northern Ireland Protocol which has not only failed in its objectives but also does not enjoy support across the community in Northern Ireland.

    The Common Travel Area long pre-dated the entry of either the UK or Ireland to the European Union. Whilst the Common Travel Area has been based on a concept designed to facilitate everyone, the Protocol has been based on punitive measures imposed against the UK under the cover of rhetoric about the Belfast Agreement. On this centenary we should return to the positive and practical principles demonstrated by the Common Travel Area and seek to emulate them in finding a solution to the Protocol.

  • Michael Heseltine – 2022 Speech at Heseltine Institute’s Inaugural Lecture

    Michael Heseltine – 2022 Speech at Heseltine Institute’s Inaugural Lecture

    The speech made by Michael Heseltine, the former Deputy Prime Minister, in Liverpool on 15 November 2022.

    A short time ago I argued that: ‘If Boris goes Brexit goes’. Johnson was not alone in souring our relationship with Europe. The Atlanticist prejudices of Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black using a power over our media that would never be granted to foreigners in other countries, the populism of Nigel Farage and Paul Dacre’s nationalistic editorship of the Daily Mail all contributed to the propagandist exploitation of the consequences that followed from the implementation of the EU single market.

    The harmonisation of the rules and regulations that governed the European economies was one of Margaret Thatcher’s greatest achievements. To introduce one European regulation in place of 28 involved a constant flow of forms. The blame game began. Boris Johnson led the charge to Get Brexit Done.

    Well, not quite. Brexit was never going to get done. Brexit was based on an undeliverable set of promises:

    Get our country back

    New trade deals

    Bonfire of controls

    End of wealth destroying regulations

    Immigration controls

    No border in Ireland

    That was 2016.

    Four Prime Ministers, four Trade Secretaries, five Foreign Secretaries, six Chancellors, six Chief Brexit negotiators and an oven-ready Brexit later, we can see the worthlessness of those promises. I must be fair. The impact of Covid and Ukraine has seriously prejudiced our living standards and those of the Western World. We hope that the worst of Covid is behind us.

    The vaccine developed under the regulatory discipline of the European Medicines Agency was the first to achieve clinical approval. The agency which provided hundreds of jobs in London has now been transferred to Amsterdam because of Brexit Ukraine enjoys the support of the Western World, and to its credit we all appear ready to pay a high price for it.

    However damaging to us now, the effect of covid and the Russian invasion of Ukraine may be relatively short term. Brexit is not. It represents a permanent fracture of our relationship with our closest neighbours and our largest market.

    It has led to queues in the hospitals and G.P.s waiting rooms, disruption to supply lines, increased prices and interest rates. It reduces our attraction as a gateway to one of the world’s largest markets and diminishes our ability to influence European decisions over great global challenges.

    I followed every Conservative Prime Minister from Winston Churchill up to and including Theresa May in their support for our membership of Europe. You would expect me to be critical of Brexit but I am not alone. Recently the Daily Telegraph put the past six years into context. Under the headline “After six wasted years”.

    Alistair Heath summarised the situation as follows:-

    “It has been clear for years that our putrefying economy is in desperate need of shock therapy. Yet instead of addressing its many horrific pathologies, our ruling class, well served by the status quo, has stubbornly blocked radical surgery. The result has been catastrophic: Poland and Slovenia are catching up with us in terms of middle-class lifestyles, and our desperate young can’t afford to buy a home.

    I quoted the first four words of the headline. Let me quote the whole headline. After six wasted years Truss is about to deliver a Brexit that actually works. The consequence of Liz Truss’ seven weeks in office has an eloquence
    beyond the finest oratory. Let me set out the reality of Brexit.

    One pound sterling was worth 1.48 US dollars on 23 June 2016, the day of the referendum. The following day that value plummeted to 1.36 dollars. Yesterday a pound was buying 1.18 dollars. That amounts to a loss of over 20% of the pound’s value against the dollar since 2016. The pound has also lost over 12% of its value against the euro, falling from an exchange rate of over 1.30 before the referendum to 1.14 yesterday.

    The London School of Economics has estimated that Brexit alone – before the effects of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine are accounted for – is responsible for a 6% rise in food prices. Put starkly, Brexit means that more people are unable to pay their mortgage or rent, are having to turn to food banks, or are unable to heat their homes.

    The Resolution Foundation estimates that average real pay per UK worker will, by the end of the decade, be £470 lower each year – that’s a thousand pounds for an average couple. Normally, lower exchange rates have an important silver lining in that they make UK exports more affordable and increase their volume. But the signs are that – due to Brexit-induced trade barriers and red tape – this did not happen. Post-Brexit.

    UK exports to the EU fell by 14% in 2021. The Centre for European Reform, has estimated that Brexit had, by the end of 2021, reduced trade in goods between the UK and the EU by 13.6% and left UK GDP 5.2% lower than it would have been had the UK stayed in the EU single market. The CER puts the Brexit hit to overall investment in the UK economy at 13.6%.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility concluded that consequent upon the new trading relationship as set out in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement that came into effect on January 1 2021 British imports and exports would eventually be reduced by 15%. They further concluded that new trade deals with non-EU countries will not have a material impact on GDP. Little surprise that the Truss government did not consult them about the consequences of their budget.

    I doubt if the government were consulted about the decision to build a new model of the Land Rover Defender in Slovakia. The queues in the Health service are of alarming proportions. The European doctors and nurses have gone home. The government is left trawling developing countries to replace them.

    No one explained that a consequence of Brexit would be that our country – one of the world’s richest – would have to attract specialists trained by some of the world’s poorest.

    The OECD in June of this year predicted that in 2023 the UK economic growth at nil would be the slowest in the G20 above only Russia. Three months later the dire energy crisis in Germany had a similar effect there. The three major credit rating agencies . crucial to UK’s borrowing costs – Moody’s, Fitch and S&P have this year all downgraded the outlook for the UK from stable to negative.

    These are the judgements of independent organisations and markets and stand in stark contrast to the propaganda of Brexiteers. It was all too easy to promise a bonfire of red tape and demonise Brussels bureaucrats in a cynical exploitation of people’s anxieties and frustrations.

    Only yesterday in the Times, Mark Littlewood, Director General of the Institute of Economic Affairs, a pro Brexit think tank, wrote ‘Nowhere has the failure been so stark as in the strange story of the almost complete absence of a so-called Brexit dividend.’

    The simple truth is that six years on, the only significant example of that bonfire has been to allow unlimited bankers’ bonuses. Regulation is the difference between civilisation and the jungle. We can all enthuse at David Attenborough’s brilliant depiction of life red in tooth and claw where the only law is survival of the fittest.

    Regulations are the codes and standards that hold modern societies together. That is why whenever the government has sought to dilute or lower the standards they uphold, civilised bodies like The National Trust, The Wildlife Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds protest at the legislative processes involved.

    The Brexiteers told us new deals with faster growing markets would more than compensate for lost European trade. Six years’ later all but three of those new deals merely replicate those already negotiated by the EU. A deal with the United States has been scuppered by the government’s attempt to unilaterally override the Northern Ireland protocol.

    India wants us to reverse our immigration controls as the price of a deal. There are new deals with Australia and New Zealand. The consequences for our farmers are so adverse that even a minister who helped negotiate it says the Australian deal is not good for the UK.

    No wonder full implementation is delayed until the late 2030s! I am helped once again by the Sunday Telegraph – Jeremy Warner on October 30th. wrote “Brexit is irreversible, but we must strengthen economic ties with the EU”. I disagree with his irreversible gambit. Public opinion has already moved.

    In October an IPSOS MORI Poll reported that 51% of the people thought that Brexit had damaged the economy whilst only 22% thought the opposite. Listen, however, to what Warner says about Brexit. He refers to Rishi Sunak’s commitment to building an economy that embraces the opportunities of Brexit.

    He needs to get a move on and indeed articulate precisely what those opportunities are – for six years after Britain voted to leave the European Union all we’ve got to show for it so far is political, economic and financial chaos. From an economic perspective there has been zero payback and particularly in the area of international trade and reputation, considerable harm.

    I do not accept that Brexit is irreversible.

    The timescale may be unpredictable. The purpose is not.

    We must start by rebuilding bridges.

    We need a practical compromise over the Irish border that would restore devolved government.

    We need to end the isolation of our scientists and researchers by rejoining the Horizon Europe research and innovation programme.

    We should restore the right for our young people to participate in projects abroad under the EU’s Erasmus Plus programme.

    In place of a Department for Exiting the EU we need a Minister with responsibility for Enhancing Relationships with the EU. That rescue operation could start with a veterinary agreement to reduce checks on food products entering the single market which would contribute to reducing tensions in Northern Ireland.

    We should attack the restrictions on musicians and other UK service providers to work for short periods in the EU Each of the steps I have set out is realistic. Every step draws our self interests closer together.

    The EU is still there, next door, with its market of 450 million people. We thrive only by working closely together. The question remains how to improve the governance of this country. Brexiteers said that Europe would disintegrate into its original nations.

    The Euro was seen as the harbinger of civil war. The question today is whether the UK itself can survive. Sinn Fein is now the largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Scots Nats use identical arguments to break up the United Kingdom that underlie the Brexit case.

    We need radical change in the way we govern this country. Devolution must be based on a meaningful partnership between London and the rest of England. It calls for a practical sharing of power between Edinburgh and Cardiff and the very different parts of Scotland and Wales. I want to set out what I mean. We must end the misrepresentation of the roles of public and private sector.

    They are interrelated and of crucial support to each other. Some essential services such as education and health are provided by both. Some publicly financed programmes, such as Research grants, lead directly to job creation .Many quangos such as the Arts Council, or the Lottery, are critical to the success of our cultural activities and prowess on the sports field.

    We need to recognise the Civil Service for the hard working, dedicated incorruptible machinery of government that it is. The widespread appointment of political advisers has contributed to public cynicism. Special advisers should bring expertise to public life not party politics. My relationship with this City was, without doubt, the most rewarding political experience of my life.

    It taught me that we are overcentralised and that the baronies of Whitehall are specialist in their responsibilities with inadequate coordination. My time here opened my eyes to the local consequences. On the backbenches after 1986 I gained a fuller understanding of other countries’ more effective models.

    In 1968 the Redcliffe-Maud report on the structure of local government in England looked at the 1300 local authorities that had been created when the only means of travel was by foot or horse. His report recommended their replacement by sixty-two Unitary Authorities.

    It was the right judgement except in the eyes of all those with a stake in the status quo. Peter Walker – I was his deputy – steered an uneasy compromise through the Conservative government to reduce it to some 300 authorities.

    The Greater London Authority and City Councils presided over London and Metropolitan boroughs with a two tier structure, based on counties and districts, elsewhere. This was the ground over which, as SoS for the Department of Environment, I led the Conservatives in the municipal elections of 1978. Labour was in trouble in the Winter of Discontent.

    Operation Cleansweep was intended to drive them from power. Only Durham resisted our advance. I am not proud of my decisions about the local government restructuring when I was first responsible after 1979.

    They are defensible only against the background of the divisive climate of the time. I got rid of the Greater London authority and the Metro counties that I had, only ten years earlier,
    helped to create.

    I am however proud of the serendipitous collection of decisions related to Liverpool.

    I agreed to continue the special partnership that my predecessor, Peter Shore, formed with the City.

    I selected the banks of the Mersey for the site for an Urban Development Corporation.

    I awarded Liverpool the first Garden Festival, to reclaim toxic land and turn it into attractive development opportunities.

    Peter Walker had created a derelict land grant mechanism a decade earlier to eradicate the coal tips and ore extraction blemishes scattered over the countryside. The task largely completed, I used the grant to reclaim toxic urban sites for construction. Significantly I made the grant conditional on private sector partners developing the site.

    Every pound of public money attracted private money.

    The concept of gearing entered the political vocabulary. Human relationships evolved In place of the dialogue of the deaf from opposing mountain tops. Business people and officials became partners, enjoyed a drink together, developed friendships.

    I listed the Albert Dock, an iconic part of Liverpool heritage that was thus saved from demolition. In 1981 several of our inner cities witnessed serious riots. Amongst the worst were here in Toxteth.

    The maintenance of law and order is a fundamental of any Conservative conviction. I backed the police as they restored it. I felt, however, a personal responsibility. The riots happened on my watch. I thought I had begun a serious attempt to bring a new optimism to Liverpool.

    I sought the Prime Minister’s agreement, instantly given, to leave the departmental routine to my very able colleagues Tom King and John Stanley whilst I was here. I held extensive meetings, talked to anyone with something to say, walked the streets, listened, and considered. My relationship with the city lasted until the end of 1982. It can be divided into three distinct phases.

    For three days I listened. People were courteous but sceptical. You only came because of the riot. That was self-evidently true and I chose it as the title for my subsequent report to the Cabinet. There was one other clear impression.

    Everyone had their idea of who was responsible for the riots. It was always someone else. Liverpool The ability to fund and make decisions lay in London and even there, there was no coordination of responsibility. There was no powerful local leadership.

    The mood changed around day four. People began to ask “What are you going to do?” There was only one credible answer to that question however much it made a mockery of the concept of non-intervention associated with Mrs Thatcher’s government.

    I spent the next couple of weeks preparing a list of ideas that, with the right determination, resource, and above all, local support could demonstrate a more optimistic destiny.

    The third phase lasted eighteen months. The list was one thing but who could turn it into action. I am a practical man. Show me a problem. Show me the person in charge. No one was in charge. The answer was to turn a centralist, London based approach on its head.

    I created a task force drawn locally from the public and private sector. Every Thursday the team would report progress. Every Friday I troubleshot the obstacles. We learned how to regenerate places.

    We learnt that there are no short-term fixes. Creating and developing ideas, the processes of planning and consultation, land acquisition and contract negotiation have to happen before boots hit the ground. The joker in the pack, and the Treasury’s strongest card in opposing regeneration, is that it is often impossible to predict and cost its consequences.

    If I had predicted Canary Wharf, Excel, City Airport in London or a major arena and conference centre, and contemporary shopping centre in Liverpool I would have been locked up.

    The Development Corporation on the banks of the Mersey and its equivalent in London were my most important initiative in 1979. To understand why they succeeded it is important to look at their structure. They had a chairman, a chief executive and board-level representative of local stakeholders. They had planning powers, money to restore sites, improve infrastructure and acquire land – all essential characteristics.

    They were thus able to reassure investors considering locating a new office, laboratory or factory that it was not going to be surrounded by sheds and that their staff would be safe and enjoy good communications with their workplace. Such Corporations transformed large parts of inner city Britain over the next fifty years.

    Regeneration is usually led by the public sector. It has the resources to make derelict land competitive with green fields. Partnerships with Quangos, universities, government cultural and sporting programmes have endless potential to work with the private sector to create wealth.

    Levelling up, however, will remain more slogan than policy until the government gives form. resource and structure to its devolution agenda. Examples from my early Liverpool experiences demonstrate the philosophy.

    The preservation of the Albert Dock provided a home for the Tate of the North. The use of Derelict Land Grant persuaded Plessey and British Rail to create Wavertree Industrial Park. The Housing Corporation unlocked the development of the Anglican Cathedral Precinct. The Mersey Basin campaign was a major attack on urban pollution.

    The recent decision by the Metro Mayor, Steve Rotheram to complete the job
    can make Liverpool a world leader in an increasing global priority to raise the quality of urban water with huge environmental, leisure, tourist, sporting and the job creation that will flow.

    In the early 1980’s Cantril Farm was the despair of Knowsley Council. The Abbey National Building Society and Barclays Bank created the now thriving Stockbridge Village Trust. The Tate and Lyle site, abandoned by the company, was transferred to English Estates. The Eldonians campaigned to renovate their area. In 1987 the project, incorporating owner occupied housing, won the Times/RIBA award as the most outstanding example of community enterprise in the UK.

    A Merseyside Special Allocation fund to enable this was spread over three years and deducted from the Housing Corporation budget. Pilkingtons in St.Helens were faced with redundancies. Bill Humphries, set
    up an advisory service to help those losing their jobs.

    Step by step, this initiative led to the present Local Enterprise Partnerships of today. The urban fringe is often characterised by rubbish dumped by uncaring citizens. Groundwork UK was conceived in St Helens using volunteers to clean things up.. Today it is a federation of charities mobilising community action on poverty and the environment across the United Kingdom.

    In 1990 I returned to the Department of the Environment for the third time. Ten years before, I had been preoccupied with the need to reclaim derelict land. The conversion of Cantril Farm into Stockbridge Village Trust gave me the confidence to tackle the human tragedy of urban slums.

    City Challenge invited 30 local authorities to compete for one of only 10 packages of £35 million spread over 5 years to help them transform a slum estate. The idea of competition was highly controversial but right. The losers learnt from the winners in the second round. There were conditions.

    The local Authority had to attract private or other public funds to add to the original offer. The project had to have a chief executive and a project team. Most importantly, the stakeholders, such as headteachers, social workers, the police and the tenants, had to be consulted.

    One of the winning sites was here in Liverpool. I am grateful to Max Steinberg for the opportunity to study the historic documents he kept from his involvement at the time. The area covered 144 hectares within the eastern sector of the City Centre.

    It links the centre with Everton, Granby/Toxteth and Cornwallis, with the campuses of the University, Polytechnic (now Liverpool John Moores University ), City Community
    College and the Oxford Street, Myrtle Street and Catherine Street Hospitals.

    Some 4000 people lived in the area, and there was a working population of 18,000. The project was timed for five years and in 1997 the European Institute of Urban Affairs was asked to report on the outcome. I quote its concluding paragraphs.

    ‘Liverpool City Challenge has exceeded its original output projects in 18 of the 19 areas of activity. There was underperformance in the number of dwellings transferred to owner occupation, due to limited progress in the Canning area.

    However, we achieved:

    23% more jobs were created than anticipated

    282% extra business start-ups

    14% more new or improved business and commercial floorspace

    35% more reclaimed land

    20% more apprenticeships

    29% more Housing Association dwellings

    105% more childcare places

    The report concluded and I quote: “The achievements, whilst evidence of the success of the initiative, may also reflect the fact that targets were cautiously set initially, to make them achievable. Nevertheless, taken as a set of indicators for the performance of Liverpool City Challenge, they certainly demonstrate significant success in delivering the plan.”

    In Manchester, another City challenge was awarded. Richard Leese, Leader of the City Council, described Hulme City Challenge as the most important thing that has happened to Manchester over the past forty years. Virtually everything done since was with the skills, knowledge and ideas acquired through the City Challenge process.

    Today it is called Levelling Up. In a sense even that slogan misleads. We are never going to create Mayfair in Middlesbrough. What we can do is to turn the vicious circle of decline, where the young leave, companies close, schools fail, and land lies deserted, into virtuous circles of hope where people stay, companies invest, and the environment attracts.

    We know how to do it. The evidence is irrefutable. What is missing is a government determined to do it. After the 2010 election David Cameron invited me, together with Sir Terry Leahy, one of this City’s most distinguished citizens. to revisit my 1981 report ‘It took a riot’.

    The contrast was stark. Liverpool was full of people with ideas and energy. Our task was to recommend the best and propose a framework within which to turn them into action. Our report – Rebalancing Britain: Policy or Slogan, published in October 2011 set out our recommendations.

    A year later I published another report for the Prime Minister ‘No Stone Unturned in pursuit of Growth’. Uniting both these reports was the theme to give form and substance to devolution by creating powerful Mayors to lead the recovery of our cities.

    George Osborne, as Chancellor, and Greg Clark, as the Minister responsible, began the first serious move in that direction after the Blair Government created a mayoralty in London in 2000. This is not a cry for increased Public Expenditure, although I believe markets would take a more benign view of borrowing if it was for investment and not consumption.

    This is a cry to use existing public capital programmes to attract private expenditure. It is a policy to save public expenditure by replacing over 300 local authorities closer to the 62 designed fifty years ago. Scotland and Wales abolished District Authorities in the 1990s.

    In England unitary counties Wiltshire, Dorset. Shropshire and Buckinghamshire for example, manage perfectly well without the waste, and duplication created by two tiers. We need to extend the local leadership provided by directly elected mayors.

    The government should recreate the central pot of capital expenditure introduced by George Osborne and distribute long term funds, after consultation, to local partnerships depending on the quality of their plans reflecting the opportunities and problems in their very different locations.

    We need to engage the remarkable reservoir of goodwill and cooperation that the Covid crisis revealed to be not far below the surface of our society.

    It was a single honour for me to receive the Freedom of this City in 2012.

    In looking forward then I concluded.

    Liverpool is reasserting its place as a city recognised across a shrinking world as a place of culture, a font of enterprise, proud of itself, ambitious for its future.

    Liverpudlians have done this.

    Liverpudlians will build on this.

    You must be clear.

    Because you did. You can.

    I would not change a word of it.

  • Kevin Hollinrake – 2022 Statement on Product Safety – Transitional Arrangements

    Kevin Hollinrake – 2022 Statement on Product Safety – Transitional Arrangements

    The statement made by Kevin Hollinrake, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 14 November 2022.

    I have today laid before Parliament the draft statutory instrument Product Safety and Metrology (Amendment and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2022 and an accompanying draft explanatory memorandum. The instrument will provide businesses with additional time to transition to the post-exit independent UKCA regime, providing businesses with flexibility and choice on how to comply with product regulations.

    We are committed to doing all we can to provide flexibility for industry. These measures intend to reduce immediate burdens and costs for businesses, in light of current cost of living and global supply chain challenges, whilst maintaining high standards of product safety.

    The main purposes of this instrument are to:

    Extend acceptance of certain products meeting EU requirements and markings on the market in Great Britain for a further two years, until 31 December 2024.This intends to provide businesses with flexibility and choice on how to comply with product regulations.

    And, as previously announced on 20 June 2022, but with updated timelines:

    Provide that where manufacturers, or other relevant persons, have acted under EU conformity assessment procedures by 31 December 2024, that action will be treated as having been taken under the UK conformity assessment procedures until the expiry of the certificate, or until 31 December 2027, whichever is sooner. This is intended to reduce immediate costs associated with third-party retesting and recertification and make the transition to UKCA compliance easier for businesses.

    Extend existing labelling provisions for UKCA marking, importer information and responsible persons’ information until 31 December 2027. This is intended to reduce costs and burdens associated with fulfilling labelling requirements.

    There are different rules for medical devices, construction products, cableways, transportable pressure equipment, unmanned aircraft systems, rail products, cosmetics and marine equipment. There are also different rules for Northern Ireland.

    The statutory instrument will be made using powers under section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Further details about the changes and their effects are contained in section 7 of the accompanying draft explanatory memorandum. The draft of this instrument and the accompanying draft explanatory memorandum can be found on gov.uk.

    My officials will continue to engage with industry closely to provide businesses with support, and to understand how to take a pragmatic approach to improving regulation to the benefit of businesses and consumers. This will include continuing to review the UK regulatory framework to understand how we could reduce costs and burdens for businesses in the longer term.

  • Doug Beattie – 2022 Comments on the Northern Ireland Protocol

    Doug Beattie – 2022 Comments on the Northern Ireland Protocol

    The comments made by Doug Beattie, the Leader of the Ulster Unionists, on 3 November 2022.

    We are entering a pivotal period.  As negotiations are once again underway between the United Kingdom and European Union, we have the opportunity to finally deal with the problems caused by the Northern Ireland Protocol and see devolution restored.

    But any progress potentially stands to be put at risk by needlessly calling an Assembly election that will change nothing but stands to further undermine the return of devolution and cost the taxpayer £6.5million.

    Something needs to change.  The opportunity exists to pause the calling of an election and allow negotiations between to the United Kingdom and European Union to continue in earnest.  We believe that the time is right for the UK to trigger Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol to facilitate this.

    Article 16 states that either party in the negotiations may act unilaterally “If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist…”.  I think it is unquestionable that we are experiencing societal difficulties that are liable to persist.

    A negotiated outcome which removes the Irish Sea Border will be the remedy, not rerunning an election we had six months ago.  It is clear that the atmosphere and willingness to address the problems created by the Protocol are currently in a much different place than they have been.  They should be given time and space to continue as long as progress is being made.  After all this time I think it would be madness for the UK Government to jeopardise that because they have got themselves on a hook over the election that they are too embarrassed to be seen to climb down from.