Category: Speeches

  • Keir Starmer – 2020 Speech to the TUC Conference

    Keir Starmer – 2020 Speech to the TUC Conference

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 15 September 2020.

    Thank you, Ged.

    To the TUC for inviting me to speak today.

    And to everyone involved in making it possible to hold Congress this week.

    This time last year, I spoke to you in Brighton in a packed conference hall.

    This time last week, I thought there would be an audience of thirty.

    By Wednesday that was down to six.

    Yesterday – when I was told to self-isolate – it became just me!

    I want to start by thanking the TUC and the trade union movement for everything you’ve done during this pandemic.

    As ever, when it came to protecting millions of jobs, and keeping people safe at work.

    It was the union movement that stood up.

    Without you there would have been no furlough scheme.

    No life-raft for seven million people

    And let’s face it, if it had been down to this Government, it would have been sink or swim.

    The trade unions have always been the unsung heroes of our national story.

    And through this crisis you have helped to write another proud chapter.

    Our Party was born out of the trade unions.

    We are one family.

    One movement.

    And under my leadership, we will always stay that way.

    For me, this is personal.

    My mum was a nurse.

    My dad was a toolmaker.

    I didn’t know what an office looked like until I left for university.

    For me, work meant a factory floor or a hospital ward.

    And care wasn’t an abstract concept, a policy conundrum to be debated.

    It was the real-life round the clock support my mum received from the NHS when she became too ill to work

    Those values have stayed with me.

    Opportunity: Fairness. Compassion.

    And, they will define my leadership.

    But Congress, the task ahead of us is huge.

    The General Election result in December was devastating.

    Not just for the Labour Party or the trade union movement

    But for the millions of working people who desperately need a Labour Government.

    I’m incredibly proud of the courage and heroism the British people have shown during this crisis.

    But time and time again, this Government has let working people down.

    Britain shouldn’t have one of the highest death rates in the world.

    And one of the deepest recessions.

    We shouldn’t leave our workers without protective equipment.

    We shouldn’t have failed the most vulnerable in our care homes.

    And people shouldn’t have to traipse half-way round the country in search of a Covid test when they’re sick.

    Yesterday, my family were able to get a test quickly when we needed one.

    But only because my wife works for the NHS in a hospital that provides tests for staff and their families.

    For thousands of people across the country it’s a very different story.

    And after six months of this pandemic, that’s completely unacceptable.

    Whatever Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock might say:

    It’s not the British people that are to blame for these mistakes.

    It isn’t civil servants. Care, home workers. Or mutant algorithms. It’s this Government.

    It’s the Government that’s holding Britain back.

    And we should never let them forget it.

    At the very least the Prime Minister should have spent the summer getting the basics right.

    A testing system that works.
    An effective track and trace system – we don’t need world-beating, we just need effective.

    A plan to protect care homes this winter.

    An exams system that parents and young people can trust.

    He’s failed on all counts.

    And as infection rates rise and our testing system collapses

    What’s his priority? Reopening old wounds on Brexit. Trashing Britain’s reputation abroad. And making it harder for us to get the trade deal we all want.

    My message to the PM is simple: Get your priorities right. Get on with defeating this virus. And get the Brexit deal you promised.

    This crisis has exposed the total incompetence of this Government.

    But it also exposed something much deeper.

    The ingrained injustices and inequalities we see all around us.

    Austerity was always a political choice.

    A bulldozer to the foundations of society.

    And it left us woefully unprepared for this crisis.

    Congress, We’re a great country.

    We’re the sixth richest country in the world.

    But our economy is one where the workers we applaud are overworked, underpaid and undervalued.

    Where many – especially the self-employed – lack basic rights and security at work.

    Where millions of people are one missed pay-packet away from hardship.

    And where too few are able to save for their future and their retirement.

    We’ve got to change this.

    After all the sacrifice and the loss, We can’t go back to business as usual.

    Or defend the status quo.

    We can’t go back to a society where over half of care workers earn less than the living wage.

    A society, where we pay tribute to the generation that saved us during the second world war. But now we can’t protect them in our care homes.

    Or a country where we don’t invest in our public services for a decade, but now expect our frontline workers to protect us.

    We need to capture the bravery, the sacrifice and ingenuity we’ve seen from the British people.

    In that, we can see a vision of a better future.

    And I want to work with you every step of the way to build it.

    We can start that work today.

    By setting out what the Government must do now to protect millions of jobs.

    Because we’re on the precipice of a return to Thatcher-era unemployment.

    We know only too well the scarring effect mass unemployment will have on communities and families across the country.

    We can’t let it happen again.

    And we can’t let the Tories use this crisis as an excuse to weaken workers’ rights. Hold back planned rises in the living wage. Or embark on a fresh round of austerity.

    Of course, the furlough scheme can’t go on as it is forever.

    We’ve never suggested that.

    But the truth is this: the virus is still with us. Infections are rising. Lockdowns are increasing.

    And for some sectors of our economy – retail, aviation, hospitality.

    For millions of workers. And for towns and cities under restrictions.

    It just isn’t possible to get back to work or reopen businesses.

    That isn’t a choice: it’s the cold reality of this crisis.

    So, it makes no sense at all for the Government to pull support away now.

    And in one fell swoop, but with a bit of imagination, and if we act in the national interest – a better approach is possible.

    That’s why today, I’m calling for the Government to work with us.

    To create new, targeted support that can replace the Job Retention Scheme.

    To develop this through urgent talks with trade unions, businesses and the Labour Party.

    So that we can deliver direct support and training to those who need it.

    And prevent mass unemployment.

    This would be a life-raft while we’re still in choppy waters.

    We will approach this constructively and look at the different options that have been put forward.

    Whether that’s the TUC’s Jobs Protection and Upskilling Plan; the CBI’s short-time work scheme; the German Kurzarbeit scheme.

    Or similar schemes in France or Denmark.

    But the principles are clear.

    Expand part-time working and reward employers who keep people on rather than cutting jobs.

    Provide training and support for those who can’t come back full-time.

    Target those sectors most in need – for example, retail, hospitality, aviation and those hit by local lockdowns.

    Provide certainty for workers and businesses.

    At this moment of national crisis, we should take inspiration from our past.

    Be willing to put party differences aside, and work together in the interest of the country.

    Imagine how powerful it would be.

    If we could form a genuine national plan to protect jobs, create new
    ones and invest in skills and training?

    So, I’m making an open offer to the Prime Minister: work with us to keep millions of people in work. Work with the trade unions, and work with businesses.

    Do everything possible to protect jobs and to deliver for working people.

    My door is open.

    And Congress, there’s something more the Government must do.

    Outlaw “fire and re-hire” tactics.

    We’ve seen this happening already in the private and public sector.

    Where thousands of workers have been issued redundancy notices and offered new contracts on worse pay and conditions.

    In disputes such as with BA and British Gas, we’ve seen the importance of strong trade unions in defending working people.

    “Fire and re-hire” tactics are wrong.

    They’re against British values. They should also be illegal. These tactics punish good employers. Hit working people hard. And harm our economy.

    After a decade of pay restraint – that’s the last thing working people need.

    And in the middle of a deep recession – it’s the last thing our economy needs.

    So, I’m calling on the Government to act now.

    Introduce legislation to end fire and re-hire.

    And give working people the security they need.

    If you do that, you will have our full support.

    Congress, the months ahead are going to be rocky.

    At the helm, we’ve got the most incompetent Government I can remember.

    And we face the perfect storm of the biggest economic, health and social challenge for a generation.

    Labour and the trade union movement need to stand together like never before.

    To show the British people that we’ve got their back.

    And their future too.

    We’ll fight to protect jobs, incomes and working conditions at this time of national crisis.

    And show that there is a better, fairer society to come.

    That is our mission.

    And, I will work with you for the next five years to deliver it.

    Thank you.

  • Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Comments on Sick Pay

    Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Comments on Sick Pay

    The comments made by Anneliese Dodds, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 15 September 2020.

    The Chancellor refused to say whether he could survive on Statutory Sick Pay at just £95 a week.

    We already know the Health Secretary doesn’t think UK sick pay is enough to live on.

    Rishi Sunak’s evasive answers did nothing to dampen the suspicion that he is blocking efforts to make it better.

  • Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Comments on Government Tax Rises

    Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Comments on Government Tax Rises

    The comments made by Anneliese Dodds, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 15 September 2020.

    The Chancellor was asked a simple yes or no question about whether he would rule out announcing new tax rises this year – and he failed to answer it.

    It only fuels speculation that he wants to hike taxes now just so he can cut them before the next election. He’s playing politics with people’s jobs and livelihoods.

    The Chancellor should be focused relentlessly on protecting jobs, not floating a tax and cuts agenda that could choke off our national recovery just when the economy is at its weakest.

  • Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

    Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

    The statement made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 14 September 2020.

    I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time—and that this House act to preserve one of the crucial achievements of the past three centuries, namely our British ability to trade freely across the whole of these islands.

    The creation of our United Kingdom by the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1801 was not simply a political event, but an act of conscious economic integration that laid the foundations for the world’s first industrial revolution and the prosperity we enjoy today. When other countries in Europe stayed divided, we joined our fortunes together and allowed the invisible hand of the market to move Cornish pasties to Scotland, Scottish beef to Wales, Welsh beef to England, and Devonshire clotted cream to Northern Ireland or wherever else it might be enjoyed.

    When we chose to join the EU back in 1973, we also thereby decided that the EU treaties should serve as the legal guarantor of these freedoms. Now that we have left the EU and the transition period is about to elapse, we need the armature of our law once again to preserve the arrangements on which so many jobs and livelihoods depend. That is the fundamental purpose of this Bill, which should be welcomed by everyone who cares about the sovereignty and integrity of our United Kingdom.

    We shall provide the legal certainty relied upon by every business in our country, including, of course, in Northern Ireland. The manifesto on which this Government were elected last year promised business in Northern Ireland

    “unfettered access to the rest of the UK”.

    Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)

    I am listening carefully to what the Prime Minister is saying, but why did one of his own distinguished Members describe his policy this week as “Nixonian Madman Theory”? Is the Prime Minister not deeply worried that his policies and approach are being compared to those of the disgraced former US President Richard Nixon, rather than someone like Winston Churchill?

    The Prime Minister

    Actually, I think that this Bill is essential for guaranteeing the economic and political integrity of the United Kingdom and simply sets out to achieve what the people of this country voted for when they supported our election manifesto: not only unfettered access from NI to GB and from GB to NI, but also—I quote from the manifesto—to

    “maintain and strengthen the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market.”

    Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)

    Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister

    I will not.

    The Bill is designed to honour that pledge and maintain those freedoms. When we renegotiated our withdrawal agreement from the EU, we struck a careful balance to reflect Northern Ireland’s integral place in our United Kingdom, while preserving an open border with Ireland, with the express and paramount aim of protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the peace process. In good faith, we accepted certain obligations in the Northern Ireland protocol in order to give our European friends the assurances they sought on the integrity of their single market, while avoiding any change to the border on the island of Ireland. We agreed to conduct some light-touch processes on goods passing between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in case they were transferred to the EU.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) rose—

    The Prime Minister

    I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about the subject.

    Jim Shannon

    This is a very important debate, as the Prime Minister and I know and as everyone in the House knows. Does he accept that the EU’s determination to use Northern Ireland as a stick to beat the UK with as punishment for daring to leave an institution that had no respect or concern for our people has been underlined by the behaviour of MEPs, and indeed of some in this House, as they seek again, against the will of the majority of people, to stop Brexit instead of doing the honourable thing: respecting the vote and the recent general election validation, taking care of the UK and putting our people first, as the Prime Minister has said he will do? This legislation is a way of doing that.

    The Prime Minister

    The intention of the Bill is clearly to stop any such use of the stick against this country, and that is what it does. It is a protection, it is a safety net, it is an insurance policy, and it is a very sensible measure.

    In a spirit of reasonableness, we are conducting these checks in accordance with our obligations. We are creating the sanitary and phytosanitary processes required under the protocol and spending hundreds of millions of pounds on helping traders. Under this finely balanced arrangement, our EU friends agreed that Northern Ireland—this is a crucial point—would remain part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom, able to benefit from free trade deals with other countries, which we are now beginning to strike. It ensures that the majority of goods not at risk of travelling to the EU—and that is the majority of goods going from GB to Northern Ireland—do not have to pay tariffs.

    But the details of this intricate deal and the obvious tensions between some of its provisions can only be resolved with a basic minimum of common sense and good will from all sides. I regret to have to tell the House that in recent months the EU has suggested that it is willing to go to extreme and unreasonable lengths, using the Northern Ireland protocol in a way that goes well beyond common sense simply to exert leverage against the UK in our negotiations for a free trade agreement. To take the most glaring example, the EU has said that if we fail to reach an agreement to its satisfaction, it might very well refuse to list the UK’s food and agricultural products for sale anywhere in the EU. It gets even worse, because under this protocol, that decision would create an instant and automatic prohibition on the transfer of our animal products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Our interlocutors on the other side are holding out the possibility of blockading food and agricultural transports within our own country.

    Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)

    Does the Prime Minister agree that there is no greater obligation for MPs than to our voters, that the British people were told that no deal is better than a bad deal and we would prosper without a deal, and that given that the EU refuses to negotiate in good faith, we have no alternative but to legislate to protect our internal market?

    The Prime Minister

    My hon. Friend is entirely right. Absurd and self-defeating as that action would be, even as we debate this matter, the EU has not taken that particular revolver off the table. I hope that it will do so and that we can reach a Canada-style free trade agreement as well.

    It is such an extraordinary threat, and it seems so incredible that the EU could do this, that we are not taking powers in this Bill to neutralise that threat, but we obviously reserve the right to do so if these threats persist, because I am afraid that they reveal the spirit in which some of our friends are currently minded to conduct these negotiations. It goes to what m’learned friends would call the intention of some of those involved in the talks. I think the mens rea—

    Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)

    Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister

    I give way to my right hon. and learned Friend.

    Sir Robert Neill

    I never object to another promotion.

    I have listened carefully to what the Prime Minister says, but does he accept that were our interlocutors in the EU to behave in such an egregious fashion, which would clearly be objectionable and unacceptable to us, there is already provision under the withdrawal agreement for an arbitrary arrangement to be put in place? Were we to take reserve powers, does he accept that those reserve powers should be brought into force only as a final backstop if we have, in good faith, tried to act under the withdrawal agreement and are then frustrated? The timing under which they come into force is very important for our reputation as upholders of the rule of law.

    The Prime Minister

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says. He knows a great deal about this matter, and it is of great importance that we go through the legal procedures, as we will. As things stand, however, in addition to the potential blockade on agricultural goods, there are other avenues that the EU could explore if it is determined to interpret the protocol in absurd ways, and if it fails to negotiate in good faith. We must now take a package of protective powers in the Bill, and subsequently.

    For example, there is the question of tariffs in the Irish sea. When we signed the protocol, we accepted that goods “at risk” of going from Great Britain into the EU via Northern Ireland should pay the EU tariff as they crossed the Irish sea—we accepted that—but that any goods staying within Northern Ireland would not do so. The protocol created a joint committee to identify, with the EU, which goods were at risk of going into Ireland. That sensible process was one achievement of our agreement, and our view is that that forum remains the best way of solving that question.

    I am afraid that some in the EU are now relying on legal defaults to argue that every good is “at risk”, and therefore liable for tariffs. That would mean tariffs that could get as high as 90% by value on Scottish beef going to Northern Ireland, and moving not from Stranraer to Dublin but from Stranraer to Belfast within our United Kingdom. There would be tariffs of potentially more than 61% on Welsh lamb heading from Anglesey to Antrim, and of potentially more than 100% on clotted cream moving from Torridge—to pick a Devonshire town at random—to Larne. That is unreasonable and plainly against the spirit of that protocol.

    The EU is threatening to carve tariff borders across our own country, to divide our land, to change the basic facts about the economic geography of the United Kingdom and, egregiously, to ride roughshod over its own commitment under article 4 of the protocol, whereby

    “Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom.”

    We cannot have a situation where the boundaries of our country could be dictated by a foreign power or international organisation. No British Prime Minister, no Government, and no Parliament could ever accept such an imposition.

    Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)

    How will my right hon. Friend ensure that Derbyshire Dales lamb, grown in our country, can be enjoyed by our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland, which is part of our country?

    The Prime Minister

    I thank my hon. Friend very much. The best way for us all to be sure that such lamb can be sold throughout the whole United Kingdom is to vote for this Bill, and to protect the economic integrity of the UK. [Interruption.] To answer the questions that are being shouted at me from a sedentary position, last year we signed the withdrawal agreement in the belief, which I still hold, that the EU would be reasonable. After everything that has recently happened, we must consider the alternative. We asked for reasonableness, common sense, and balance, and we still hope to achieve that through the joint committee process, in which we will always persevere, no matter what the provocation.

    Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I want to ask him, if I may, about the ministerial code. When I was the Attorney General in the previous Government, I was happy to confirm that the ministerial code obliged Ministers to comply with international as well as domestic law. This Bill will give Ministers overt authority to break international law. Has the position on the ministerial code changed?

    The Prime Minister

    No, not in the least. My right hon. and learned Friend can consult the Attorney General’s position on that. After all, what this Bill is simply seeking to do is insure and protect this country against the EU’s proven willingness—that is the crucial point—to use this delicately balanced protocol in ways for which it was never intended.

    The Bill includes our first step to protect our country against such a contingency by creating a legal safety net taking powers in reserve, whereby Ministers can guarantee the integrity of our United Kingdom. I understand how some people will feel unease over the use of these powers, and I share that sentiment. I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that I have absolutely no desire to use these measures. They are an insurance policy, and if we reach agreement with our European friends, which I still believe is possible, they will never be invoked. Of course, it is the case that the passing of this Bill does not constitute the exercising of these powers.

    Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)

    Hang on!

    The Prime Minister

    If the powers were ever needed, Ministers would return to this House with a statutory instrument on which a vote—perhaps this is the question to which the hon. Gentleman is awaiting an answer—would be held. We would simultaneously pursue every possible redress—to get back to the point I was making to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill)—under international law, as provided for in the protocol.

    In addition to our steps in domestic law, if we had to make clear that we believed the EU was engaged in a material breach of its duties of good faith, as required and provided for under the withdrawal agreement and the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, we would seek an arbitration panel and consider safeguards under article 16 of the protocol.

    It is a question not of if we meet our obligations, but of how we fulfil them. We must do so in a way that satisfies the fundamental purpose of the protocol, the Belfast Good Friday agreement and the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. We will work with the EU on all of these issues. Even if we have to use these powers, we will continue to engage with the joint committee so that any dispute is resolved as quickly and as amicably as possible, reconciling the integrity of the EU single market with Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s customs territory.

    What we cannot do now is tolerate a situation where our EU counterparts seriously believe that they have the power to break up our country. If that is what hon. Members on the Opposition Benches want them to have, then I am afraid that they are grievously mistaken. That illusion must be decently dispatched, and that is why these reserve powers are enshrined in the Bill.

    In addition, the Bill will help deliver the single biggest transfer of powers to the devolved Administrations since their creation, covering a total of 160 different policy areas. Each devolved Administration will also be fully and equally involved in the oversight of the UK’s internal market through a new independent body, the Office for the Internal Market. The Bill will maintain our common cause of high standards, where we already go beyond the EU in areas ranging from health and safety to consumer and environmental protections.

    Chris Bryant

    May I take the Prime Minister back to the question asked by the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright)? It seems to me quintessential to the way we do our business that Ministers abide by the law. Indeed, the Justice Secretary is required by law to swear that he will uphold the rule of law. How, therefore, can the Prime Minister seriously advance a piece of legislation that says:

    “regulations…are not to be regarded as unlawful on the grounds of any incompatibility or inconsistency with relevant international or domestic law”.

    That is just gobbledegook, isn’t it? It is complete and utter nonsense.

    The Prime Minister

    I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening, but I made it very clear that we do not relish the prospect of having to use these powers at all. We hope very much, as I said, that the EU will be reasonable, but any democratically elected Government of this country—indeed, I would say any MP representing the people of this country—must be obliged to do whatever he or she can to uphold the territorial integrity of this country. That is what we are doing. Furthermore, instead of UK taxpayers’ money being disbursed by the EU, this Bill, which is an excellent Bill, will allow the Government to invest billions of pounds across the whole of the UK to level up.

    A year ago, this Parliament was deadlocked, exasperating the British people by its failure to fulfil their democratic wishes and, worst of all, by undermining our negotiators, as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) will recall. Effectively, Parliament told the EU that if it played hardball, this House would oblige it by weakening our country’s hand and legally forbid our representatives from walking away from the negotiating table. I hope that this House will never make that mistake again. Instead, let us seize the opportunity presented by this Bill and send a message of unity and resolve. Let us say together to our European friends that we want a great future relationship and a fantastic free trade deal.

    Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)

    The Prime Minister will remember that we have some history in this regard. I did not want us to leave with no agreement last year, and we fell out over that. But he was true to his word and we had an agreement.

    We said in our manifesto:

    “We will ensure that Northern Ireland’s businesses and producers enjoy unfettered access to the rest of the UK”.

    Is it not the truth of the matter that the way to do that is either through this Bill or by agreeing the free trade agreement—the Canada-style deal—that the EU said was on the table and of which the Prime Minister said when he came into office, “Okay, they now seem to have stepped back from that”?

    I thank the Prime Minister for saying that tonight is difficult for some of us, but this is an important piece of legislation. Will he assure me that it is still his policy and the policy of his Government to secure that FTA with the EU that it said it wanted and that we know we want?

    The Prime Minister

    I thank my hon. Friend for the spirit in which he asked his question and made that important point. He is absolutely right to focus on where we are now in our talks on the free trade agreement. It is by passing the Bill tonight and in subsequent days that we will make the possibility of that great free trade agreement more real and get it done sooner.

    Therefore, with this Bill we will expedite a free trade agreement not only with our European friends and partners, but with friends and partners around the world; we will support jobs and growth throughout the whole United Kingdom; we will back our negotiators in Brussels; and, above all, we will protect the territorial integrity of the UK and the peace process in Northern Ireland. I urge the House to support the Bill and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) rightly said, to get back to the business of securing a free trade agreement with our closest neighbours that we would all wish to see. I commend the Bill to the House.

  • Emily Thornberry – 2020 Speech on Trade with Japan

    Emily Thornberry – 2020 Speech on Trade with Japan

    The speech made by Emily Thornberry, the Labour MP for Islington South and Finsbury, on 14 September 2020.

    I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and congratulate her on reaching this agreement. It is a much-needed relief for all those UK companies that would have seen their trade with Japan revert to World Trade Organisation terms if the agreement had not been reached by the end of the year. It is also a welcome benefit at a time of great economic uncertainty for the UK’s digital and tech sectors, and for other key exporters, which will benefit from greater access, faster tariff reductions or stronger geographical indication protections under this agreement than they enjoyed under the previous EU-Japan agreement. In the absence of a treaty text and a full updated impact assessment, there is much about the UK-Japan agreement that we still do not know and will not know until those documents are published. Nevertheless, I hope that the Secretary of State can answer some initial questions today.

    First and foremost, will the Secretary of State tell us, in billions of pounds and percentages of growth, what benefits this agreement will produce for UK trade and GDP over and above the forecast benefits of simply rolling over the existing EU-Japan deal? I was glad to hear her refer to consultation with the farming sector. Can she tell us what benefits the sector will derive from this deal if the EU reaches its tariff rate quota limit for agricultural products, and how that will compare with the benefits that the sector was forecast to derive from the EU-Japan deal? Will she also tell us what the impact of Friday’s agreement will be on the UK aerospace sector relative to the impact of the EU-Japan deal?

    Let me turn to three specific issues. Given that there has been lots of discussion about Stilton, can the Secretary of State tell us exactly how the treatment of Stilton differs under the deal that she has agreed compared with its existing treatment under the EU-Japan deal?

    Given the current debate on state aid, can she confirm that the provisions on Government subsidies that she has agreed with Japan are more restrictive than the provisions in the EU-Canada deal, which No. 10 has said is the maximum it is prepared to accept in any UK trade deal with Brussels? On a similar subject, what provisions, if any, are included in the UK-Japan agreement relating to public procurement, and are they also consistent with the Government’s current negotiating position on an EU trade deal?

    On the subject of Brexit, will the Secretary of State simply agree with me that, as welcome and necessary as this deal with Japan is, it is nothing like as important in terms of our global trade as reaching a deal to maintain free trade with the European Union? Our trade with Japan is worth 2.2% of our current global trade. That does not come anywhere near the 47% of trade that we have with Europe under the Government’s best-case scenario. The deal they signed on Friday will increase our trade with Japan by a little less than half in 15 years’ time. That is nothing compared with what we will lose in just four months if we do not get the deal with Europe that this Government have promised. That is why Nissan and every other Japanese company operating in Britain have told us that the deal that will determine the future of the investment and the jobs that they bring to our communities is not the one that we signed with Japan, but the one we sign with Europe.

    I am glad that the Secretary of State has committed to a further debate on the agreement, given that there are many more questions to ask, but frankly there is no point in having that debate if Parliament does not have the right to vote. Will the Secretary of State guarantee today that once the treaty text and all the impact assessments have been published for proper scrutiny, she will bring the agreement back for a debate and vote, in Government time, just as will be done in the Japanese Parliament? It surely cannot be the case that this House will have less of a right to vote on a self-proclaimed historic deal agreed by the Secretary of State than will be enjoyed by our counterparts in Japan. May I ask her today to guarantee a vote, and to make it a precedent that will apply to all the other historic agreements she mentioned in her statement and that we hope are still to come?

  • Liz Truss – 2020 Statement on Trade with Japan

    Liz Truss – 2020 Statement on Trade with Japan

    The statement made by Liz Truss, the Secretary of State for International Trade, in the House of Commons on 14 September 2020.

    I am delighted to announce that last Friday we reached agreement in principle on a free trade deal with Japan. The UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement is a major moment in our national history. It shows that economic powerhouses, such as Japan, want ambitious deals with the United Kingdom, and it shows that the UK can succeed as an independent trading nation. It shows that we can strike deals that go further and faster than the EU—British-shaped deals that suit our economy.

    This deal will drive economic growth and help level up our United Kingdom. On tech, it goes far beyond the EU-Japan deal, banning data localisation and providing for the free flow of data and net neutrality, benefiting our leading tech firms. In services, we have secured improved market access for financial services and better business mobility arrangements for professionals and their families. On food and drink, up to 70 of our brilliant British products can now be recognised in Japan, from Welsh lamb to Yorkshire Wensleydale cheese, English sparkling wine and Stornoway black pudding. Under the EU deal, that was limited to just seven. We have also secured tariff reductions on British goods from biscuits to pork, as well as continued access for malt and Stilton cheese.

    In manufacturing, lower tariffs on parts and improved regulatory arrangements will benefit major employers such as Nissan and Hitachi in the north-east. The deal strengthens our ties with the world’s third-largest economy and deepens the bond between two like-minded island nations who believe in free and fair trade.

    One of our greatest Prime Ministers, Mrs Thatcher, saw the value of co-operating with Japan in areas such as the automotive sector and electronics in the 1980s, which attracted the likes of Nissan and Toyota to our shores and delivered lasting benefits. Now, in 2020, we will unleash a new era of mutually beneficial economic co-operation with our great friend Japan, pushing new frontiers in areas such as tech and services trade. Japan, as one of the world’s major economies, is a vital partner for the UK and one of the most significant nations in the Pacific region. Securing this Japan deal is a key stepping stone towards joining the trans-Pacific partnership, which is one of the world’s largest free trade areas, covering 13% of the global economy and £110 billion-worth of trade. Accession is vital to our future interests. It will put us in a stronger position to reshape global rules alongside like-minded allies. It will hitch us to one of the fastest growing parts of the world. It will strengthen the global consensus for free trade at a time of global uncertainty and creeping protectionism. Japan, alongside this agreement, has given its strong commitment for UK accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, and last week I co-chaired a chief negotiators’ meeting of all 11 TPP countries—the first time that a non-member state has been asked to do this—where we discussed the path to UK membership. As negotiations progress, we will bring forward the formal application process to Parliament, and ensure that it is scrutinised openly and transparently.

    As I have promised, there will be a full scrutiny process for the Japan deal and all the other agreements that we strike. Prior to entering negotiations, we issued a scoping assessment and published our objectives. During the negotiations, we have engaged extensively with business and stakeholders, including sharing sensitive tariff and market access information with our new trade advisory groups. We have established a Trade and Agriculture Commission to put our farmers at the heart of trade policy and ensure that their interests are advanced. When it is complete, I will be issuing a copy of the final deal to the International Trade Committee for scrutiny. We will also produce an independently scrutinised impact assessment, covering social, labour, environmental and animal welfare aspects of the agreement so that parliamentarians are able to interrogate the deal and prepare a report that is debated in Parliament. Ultimately, Parliament will decide whether to ratify the deal through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process or to withhold its support.

    I am strongly of the view that this is a great deal for Britain. It benefits all parts of our country while protecting our red lines on areas such as the NHS and food standards. The agreement that we lay before Parliament will be the first of many, because there is a huge appetite to do business with global Britain and a huge opportunity for every part of this country to benefit from these agreements. This deal is a sign and a signal that we are back as an independent trading nation, back as a major force in global trade and back as a country that stands up for free enterprise across the world. This is just the start for global Britain.

  • Geeta Sidhu Robb – 2020 Apology for Anti-Semitic Comments

    Geeta Sidhu Robb – 2020 Apology for Anti-Semitic Comments

    The apology made by Geeta Sidhu Robb, the now-suspended candidate to become the Liberal Democrat candidate for Mayor of London, on Twitter on 13 September 2020.

    I am deeply ashamed of the ignorant and abusive language I used on one occasion in the 1997 General Election campaign. As shown in the footage, I instantly regretted my appalling behaviour, which I continue to do.

    Those words are entirely inconsistent with my views and values, and though there are no excuses for my actions, there is some context; that is, that I was under a great deal of strain and retaliated to the racial abuse I was receiving in Blackburn ‘like for like’.

    Two wrongs never make a right. I made a mistake and I take responsibility for my abhorrent actions twenty three years ago, they were never repeated. I urge you to judge me on who I am today, a campaigner committed to eradicating inequality and discrimination in all its forms.

    And I am actively reaching out to the Jewish community to listen and learn.

    I particularly wish to acknowledge the hurt that these comments and actions would have inflicted on members of the Jewish community and of a Jewish heritage. Please know that my regret is sincere.

  • Ben Wallace – 2020 Comments on Duqm Port Investment

    Ben Wallace – 2020 Comments on Duqm Port Investment

    The comments made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, on 12 September 2020.

    The long standing friendships between the UK and the Gulf states are more important than ever. With shared defence and security interests, it is vital we work together for both regional and global stability. Our trade links are just as strong, too – from cotton to aerospace.

    Whether tackling Daesh, or making our streets in the UK safer thanks to our intelligence networks, these are hugely valuable relationships that I am pleased to be able to renew this week.

  • Bridget Phillipson – 2020 Comments on Treasury Select Committee Report

    Bridget Phillipson – 2020 Comments on Treasury Select Committee Report

    The comments made by Bridget Phillipson, the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on 11 September 2020.

    It’s good to hear the Treasury Select Committee echo Labour’s calls for targeted support for jobs and businesses beyond the Chancellor’s October cliff edge.

    This report adds to the chorus of warnings that the Chancellor’s one-size-fits-all withdrawal of wage support risks a huge spike in unemployment this autumn.

    Labour, trade unions, businesses, think tanks, backbench Tory MPs and now the Treasury Select Committee are all sounding the alarm. What will it take to make this stubborn Chancellor listen?

  • Emily Thornberry – 2020 Comments on Trade Agreement Between UK and Japan

    Emily Thornberry – 2020 Comments on Trade Agreement Between UK and Japan

    The comments made by Emily Thornberry, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, on 11 September 2020.

    This agreement is a welcome and necessary step to maintain our current trading arrangements with Japan beyond December 31st, and to extend access for British companies in some key sectors. However, it is important to put it in perspective.

    Trade with Japan represented 2.21% of our global total last year, and under the best case scenario put forward by the government, today’s agreement will see that total increase by just 0.07 percentage points each year, simply maintaining the levels of growth seen since 2015, and preserving the forecast benefits of the current EU-Japan agreement.

    That all compares to the 47% of our global trade that we currently have with the EU. So necessary as this agreement is, the government’s over-riding priority has to be securing the oven-ready deal that they promised us with Europe, which Japanese companies like Nissan have told us is crucial to the future of the investment and jobs they bring to Britain.