UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Nigel Dodds – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nigel Dodds, the DUP MP for Belfast North, in the House of Commons on 19 October 2019.

    Weariness in this House over Brexit should not be an excuse for weakness on Brexit or weakness on the Union. This party has supported respecting the people of the United Kingdom’s referendum decision to leave the European Union. We have supported that and we continue to support that, but it must be Brexit for the whole of the United Kingdom—leaving the single market and the customs union if that is what the rest of UK does, along with the rest of the UK. This deal puts Northern Ireland, yes, in the UK customs union, but applies, de facto, all the European customs union code.

    The Prime Minister indicated dissent.

    Nigel Dodds

    Yes, it does. Read the detail. It also puts us in the VAT regime. It also puts us in the single market regime for a large part of goods and agrifood, without any consent up front, contrary to the agreement made in December 2017, which said that regulatory difference could happen only with the consent of the Executive and the Assembly. It drives a coach and horses through the Belfast agreement by altering the cross-community consent mechanism. It was once said that no British Prime Minister could ever agree to such terms. Indeed, those who sought the leadership of the Tory party said that at the Democratic Unionist party conference. Will the Prime Minister now abide by that and please reconsider the fact that we must leave as one nation together? There may be special circumstances for Northern Ireland, but that can only be with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, Unionists and nationalists together. That is the basis on which the peace process—the political process—has advanced. He must respect that.

  • John Bercow – 2002 Press Release on Wastewatch

    John Bercow – 2002 Press Release on Wastewatch

    Below is a press release issued by the Conservative Party on 31 January 2002.

    Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, John Bercow MP, today launched a ‘wastewatch’ campaign, calling on the public to help in highlighting the continued waste of public money across all departments of the Government.

    Pointing to several staggering examples of frivolous expenditure, fraud and even theft within Government departments, Mr Bercow told conservatives.com, “far from every penny of public money being spent wisely to make peoples lives better, millions of pounds are being frittered away at our expense, examples of which range from the comic to the ridiculous.”

    He continued, “a recent report said that the Metropolitan Police paid £185 for a kettle and £325 for a light bulb. Those authorising this profligacy have clearly lost all sense of responsibility to the taxpayer.”

  • Robert Jenrick – 2019 Statement on the Right to Shared Ownership

    Robert Jenrick – 2019 Statement on the Right to Shared Ownership

    Below is the text of the statement made by Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 17 October 2019.

    Two thirds of social housing tenants would like to buy a home, yet only a quarter believe they will ever be able to do so. That is why I have announced today the Government’s intention to reinvigorate the home ownership offer for social housing tenants, by introducing a new right to shared ownership.

    This will help reduce the gap between ambition and expectation, and make home ownership attainable and affordable for many more social housing tenants. It is part of the Government’s wider commitment to support people and families from all backgrounds to realise their ambition to own their own home.

    The right to shared ownership will give housing association tenants the right to purchase a share of the home they rent and to purchase further shares in future when they can afford to do so. Alongside this, the Government will also cut the minimum initial ownership stake from 25% to 10% for all shared ownership homes, making the tenure even more accessible for aspiring homeowners who are struggling to raise a deposit.

    This will build on the Government’s existing proposals to introduce a new national model for shared ownership. This new model will be redesigned to work effectively for aspiring home owners in today’s housing market, for example, by allowing shared owners to buy further shares in smaller increments, cutting the costly fees charged for additional shares and introducing a standardised ​preferred model to improve mortgage availability. The combined package will make it much easier to buy an initial share and to purchase additional shares in order to build up to full ownership.

    The Government intend to make the right to shared ownership available to tenants in all new social homes delivered with grant in the future. Future investment will be considered at a future fiscal event.

    We will also work with the housing association sector on a voluntary basis to determine what offer can be made to tenants in existing homes, so that the new right to shared ownership is extended as widely as possible. The right to shared ownership will not apply to tenants living in existing local authority homes, who already have the statutory right to buy.

  • Ken Clarke – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ken Clarke, the Conservative MP for Rushcliffe, in the House of Commons on 19 October 2019.

    The Prime Minister began his statement, for which I am grateful, by saying how rare it has been for Members of this House ever to support federalism and a united states of Europe, and I entirely agree. Federalism and a belief in a European superstate are as rare in this country as they are, nowadays, in every one of the other 27 member states.

    Does the Prime Minister accept that, for the past 50 years, the vast majority of the Conservative party and all four Conservative Prime Ministers in whose Governments I served believed that membership of the European Union gave us a stronger voice in the world politically, as one of the three leading members of the European Union, and gave us access to a free trade market that enabled us to build a strong and competitive economy? Will he reassure me—as I assure him that I will vote for his deal once we have given legislative effect to it—that, when he goes on to negotiate the eventual long-term arrangements, he will seek a solution in which we have the same completely open access across the channel and across the Irish border to trade and investment with the European Union as we have now, in both directions, even if we have to sacrifice the political benefits we have hitherto enjoyed from membership of the Union?

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Jeremy Corbyn – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 19 October 2019.

    I join you, Mr Speaker, in thanking all the staff—cleaning staff, catering staff, security staff, officials and our own staff—who have come into the House this morning. They have given up a weekend to help our deliberations. I also thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of his statement.

    The Prime Minister has renegotiated the withdrawal agreement and made it even worse. He has renegotiated the political declaration and made that even worse. Today, we are having a debate on a text for which there is no economic impact assessment and no accompanying legal advice.

    The Government have sought to avoid scrutiny throughout the process. Yesterday evening, they made empty promises on workers’ rights and the environment—the same Government who spent the last few weeks negotiating in secret to remove from the withdrawal agreement legally binding commitments on workers’ rights and the environment.

    This Government cannot be trusted, and the Opposition will not be duped; neither will the Government’s own workers. Yesterday, the head of the civil service union Prospect met the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and, at the conclusion of that meeting, said:

    “I asked for reassurances that the government would not diverge on workers’ rights after Brexit… He could not give me those assurances.”

    As for the much-hyped “world-leading” Environment Bill, its legally binding targets will not be enforceable until 2037. For this Government, the climate emergency can always wait.

    This deal risks people’s jobs, rights at work, our environment and our national health service. We must be honest about what it means for our manufacturing industry and people’s jobs: not only does it reduce access to the market of our biggest trading partner, but it leaves us without a customs union, which will damage industries across the country in every one of our constituencies. From Nissan in Sunderland to Heinz in Wigan, Airbus in Broughton and Jaguar Land Rover in Birmingham, thousands of British jobs depend on a strong manufacturing sector, and a strong manufacturing sector needs markets, through fluid supply chains, all across the European Union. A vote for this deal would be a vote to cut manufacturing jobs all across this country.

    This deal would absolutely inevitably lead to a Trump trade deal—[Interruption]—forcing the UK to diverge from the highest standards and expose our families once again to chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef. This deal—[Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Order. I did say that the statement by the Prime Minister must be heard. The response of the Leader of the Opposition, in the best traditions of parliamentary democracy, must also be heard, and it will.

    Jeremy Corbyn

    This deal fails to enshrine the principle that we keep pace with the European Union on environmental standards and protections, putting at risk our current rules on matters ranging from air pollution standards to chemical safety—we all know the public concern about such issues—at the same time that we are facing a climate emergency.

    As for workers’ rights, we simply cannot give the Government a blank cheque. Mr Speaker, you do not have to take my word for that. Listen, for example, to the TUC general secretary, Frances O’Grady, who says—[Interruption.] She represents an organisation with 6 million affiliated members, and she says:

    “This deal would be a disaster for working people. It would hammer the economy, cost jobs and sell workers’ rights down the river.”

    Listen to Make UK, representing British manufacturers, which says—[Interruption.] Government Members may care to listen to its comments on the deal. Make UK says that

    “commitments to the closest possible trading relationship in goods have gone. Differences in regulation between the UK and the EU will add cost and bureaucracy and our companies will face a lack of clarity inhibiting investment and planning.”

    Listen also to the Green Alliance, which says that the deal amounted to a

    “very sad Brexit read from a climate perspective.”

    The message is clear that this deal is not good for jobs and is damaging for our industry and a threat to our environment and our natural world. It is not a good deal for our country, and future generations will feel the impact. It should be voted down by this House today.

    I also totally understand the frustration and fatigue across the country and in this House, but we simply cannot vote for a deal that is even worse than the one that the House rejected three times. The Government’s own economic analysis shows that this deal would make the poorest regions even poorer and cost each person in this country over £2,000 a year. If we vote for a deal that makes our constituents poorer, we are not likely to be forgiven. The Government are claiming that if we support their deal, it will get Brexit done, and that backing them today is the only way to stop a no-deal exit. I simply say: nonsense. Supporting the Government this afternoon would merely fire the starting pistol in a race to the bottom in regulations and standards.

    If anyone has any doubts about that, we only have to listen to what the Government’s own Members have been saying. Like the one yesterday who rather let the cat out of the bag by saying that Members should back this deal as it means we can leave with no deal by 2020. [Hon. Members: “Ah.”] The cat is truly out of the bag. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether that is the case? If a free trade agreement has not been done, would that mean Britain falling on to World Trade Organisation terms by December next year, with only Northern Ireland having preferential access to the EU market?

    No wonder, then, that the Foreign Secretary said that this represents a “cracking deal” for Northern Ireland, which would retain frictionless access to the single market. That does prompt the question: why is it that the rest of the UK cannot get a cracking deal by maintaining access to the single market?

    The Taoiseach said that the deal

    “allows the all-Ireland economy to continue to develop and… protects the European single market”.

    Some Members of this House would welcome an all-Ireland economy, but I did not think that they included the Government and the Conservative and Unionist party. The Prime Minister declared in the summer:

    “Under no circumstances… will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea”.

    We cannot trust a word he says.

    Voting for a deal today will not end Brexit, and it will not deliver certainty. The people should have the final say. Labour is not prepared to sell out the communities that it represents. We are not prepared to sell out their future, and we will not back this sell-out deal. This is about our communities now and about our future generations.

  • Bernard Jenkin – 2002 Press Release on the Armed Services

    Bernard Jenkin – 2002 Press Release on the Armed Services

    Below is a press release issued by the Conservative Party on 16 January 2002.

    Shadow Defence Secretary, Bernard Jenkin, says that Tony Blair’s ‘global ambitions’ are taking an unsustainable toll on Britain’s armed forces. Mr Jenkin said that while the number of trained servicemen and women had fallen by nearly 10,000 since Labour came to power, the Army was now taking part in more, not less, deployments.

    Mr Jenkin used the example of 2 Paras, based in his own Essex North constituency: “They spent Christmas 2000 in Northern Ireland before being sent to Macedonia. They spent this Christmas in Afghanistan.” He told the BBC: “If Britain is going to use British troops for a nation-building programme, then you have to up the ante. It is either the Prime Minister’s global ambitions or the Treasury, but you can’t go on indefinitely overstretching the armed forces in this way.”

    Mr Jenkin said that it was too early for the Conservatives to say how defence would be operating under a Conservative Government. He told conservatives.com that the real question was whether you carried on with this much wider peace-keeping deployments, or focus on specific threats.

  • Iain Duncan Smith – 2002 Press Release on Public Services

    Iain Duncan Smith – 2002 Press Release on Public Services

    Below is a press release issued by the Conservative Party on 17/01/2002.

    The Conservative Leader, Iain Duncan Smith, has said that the Party was firmly fixed on public services. He said that while the problems facing the country were changing, the values that underpinned the Party’s solutions were as relevant as ever.

    In a speech to business leaders in Birmingham, he said that the Conservatives would renew policies using timeless principles to meet the challenges of our time, contrasting that with the Labour Party who stood for power without purpose, politics without principles and governing without direction.

    He accused the Government of having a top-down approach to the public services, thinking that problems can be solved from the top of Government. “My instincts are always to build from the bottom up: to derive policy from the instincts and values of the people we represent, guided by our own values,” he said.

    Mr Duncan Smith went on to say that policy renewal was inseparable from effective Opposition. “The way we develop policy will be characterised by leadership and direction, and based firmly on Conservative values,” he said. The Conservatives had always been successful, he argued, when they articulated a clear view of the problems that Britain faces, and found ways to solve them, by empowering people, rather than pushing them around.

    While in Birmingham, Mr Duncan Smith paid a visit to a local comprehensive school, to meet with staff and pupils.

  • Ian Blackford – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Ian Blackford – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ian Blackford, the SNP MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, in the House of Commons on 19 October 2019.

    May I join you, Mr Speaker, in thanking all the staff who have made today’s sitting possible? I also thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement.

    Northern Ireland, 13: Scotland, zero—those are the number of references to Northern Ireland and to Scotland in the Prime Minister’s statement. There was not one reference to Scotland. The Prime Minister has returned from Brussels to present a deal that he knows—that we all know—is actually worse than Theresa May’s deal. It is a deal that would see Scotland shafted by this United Kingdom Government and left at an economic disadvantage, with Scotland’s views and interests totally disregarded by this Prime Minister and his Government.

    The Scottish National party could not have been clearer: we would support any mandate to approach the European Union to remain in the single market and the customs union, or simply to remain in the European Union altogether. Yet the Prime Minister has made it clear that he is not interested in meaningful discussions with the SNP or our Scottish Government. He and his cronies in No. 10 do not care about Scotland. This Tory Government have sold Scotland out, and once against they have let Scotland down.

    While, rightfully, Northern Ireland has been allowed special arrangements to remain in the single market and the customs union, the Prime Minister will not afford Scotland the same arrangements. He did not even consider giving Scotland a fair deal. Despite the fact that the Scottish people, like the people of Northern Ireland, voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, this Prime Minister has never entertained the notion of giving Scotland the same arrangements that Northern Ireland gets in this deal.

    The truth is that the Prime Minister does not care about Scotland. He and his Government have treated the Scottish Government, our Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people with nothing but contempt.

    Not a single MP who cares about Scotland’s future should consider supporting the Prime Minister today. They should stand with the Scottish National party and vote this deal down. Any and all assessments of any Brexit outcome show that the United Kingdom and Scotland will be poorer, no matter how we leave the European Union. People up and down Scotland know that the Prime Minister, his Brexit fan boys and the Vote Leave campaign have ignored and shafted Scotland.

    England is getting what it voted for, Wales is getting what it voted for, and Northern Ireland is getting a special deal, yet Scotland, which democratically voted to remain, is being ignored and treated as a second-class nation by this Government. How will the Prime Minister justify himself to the people of Scotland at the general election? When he cannot, and when he fails, and when the Brexit-backing fan club from all quarters fails, will he finally respect the mandate of the Scottish people and let them have their say on our future?

  • Boris Johnson – 2019 Statement on Brexit

    Boris Johnson – 2019 Statement on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 19 October 2019.

    Mr Speaker, I want to begin by echoing what you’ve just said, my gratitude to all members of the House for assembling on a Saturday for the first time in 37 years and indeed to all members of the House of Commons staff who have worked to make this possible.

    I know this has meant people giving up their Saturdays, breaking into their weekends at a time when families want to be together, and of course it means missing at least the end of England’s World Cup quarter final.

    I apologies to the House for that and I wish I could watch it myself.

    I know the Honourable Member for Cardiff West has postponed his 60th birthday party – if not his 60th birthday – to be here.

    So Mr Speaker the House has gone to a great deal of trouble to assemble here on a Saturday for the first time in a generation.

    And I do hope for the purposes of a meaningful vote that we will indeed be allowed to have a meaningful vote this evening.

    And with permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on the new agreement with our European friends.

    The House will need no reminding that this is the second deal and the fourth vote, three and half years after the nation voted for Brexit.

    And during those years, friendships have been strained, families divided and the attention of this House consumed by a single issue that has at times felt incapable of resolution.

    But I hope Mr Speaker, that this is the moment when we can finally achieve that resolution and reconcile the instincts that compete within us.

    Many times in the last 30 years I have heard our European friends remark that this country is half-hearted in its EU membership and it is true that we in the UK have often been a backmarker opting out of the single currency, not taking part in Schengen, very often trying to block some collective ambition.

    And in the last three years and a half years it has been striking that members on all sides of this House have debated Brexit in almost entirely practical terms in an argument that has focused on the balance of economic risk and advantage.

    And I don’t think I can recall a time when I have heard a single member stand up and call for Britain to play her full part in the political construction of a federal Europe.

    I don’t think I’ve heard a single member call for an ever closer union or ever deeper integration or a federal destiny – mon pays Europe – perhaps I’ve missed it but I don’t think I’ve heard much of it Mr Speaker.

    And there is a whole side of that debate that you hear regularly in other European capitals that is simply absent from our national conversation and I don’t think that has changed much in the last 30 years.

    But if we have been sceptical, and if we have been anxious about the remoteness of the bureaucracy, if we have been dubious about the rhetoric of union and integration, if we have been half-hearted Europeans,

    Then it follows logically that with part of our hearts, with half our hearts, we feel something else, a sense of love and respect for European culture and civilisation of which we are a part; a desire to cooperate with our friends and partners in everything, creatively, artistically, intellectually.

    A sense of our shared destiny and a deep understanding of the eternal need – especially after the horrors of the last century – for Britain to stand as one of the guarantors of peace and democracy in our continent.

    And it is our continent. And it is precisely because we are capable of feeling both things at once – sceptical about the modes of EU integration as we are but passionate and enthusiastic about Europe – that the whole experience of the last few years has been so difficult for this country and so divisive.

    And that is why it is now so urgent for us to move on and build a new relationship with our friends in the EU on the basis of a new deal – a deal that can heal the rift in British politics, unite the warring instincts in us all.

    And now is the time for this great House of Commons to come together and bring the country together today as I believe people at home are hoping and expecting, with a new way forward and a new and better deal both for Britain and our friends in the EU, and that is the advantage of the agreement that we have struck with our friends in the last two days.

    Because this new deal allows the UK – whole and entire – to leave the EU on October 31st in accordance with the referendum while simultaneously looking forward to a new partnership based on the closest ties of friendship and co-operation.

    And I pay tribute to our European friends for escaping the prison of existing positions and showing the vision to be flexible by re-opening the Withdrawal Agreement and thereby addressing the deeply felt concerns of many in this House.

    And one of my most important jobs is to express those concerns to our European friends.

    I shall continue to listen to all Honourable Members throughout the debate today, to meet with anyone on any side and to welcome the scrutiny the House will bring to bear if – as I hope – we proceed to consider the Withdrawal Agreement Bill next week.

    Today this House has an historic opportunity to show the same breadth of vision as our European neighbours.

    The same ability and resolve to reach beyond past disagreements by getting Brexit done and moving this country forwards, as we all yearn to do.

    This agreement provides for a real Brexit, taking back control of our borders, laws, money, farming, fisheries and trade, amounting to the greatest single restoration of national sovereignty in Parliamentary history.

    It removes the backstop which would have held us against our will in the Customs Union and much of the Single Market.

    For the first time in almost five decades the UK will be able to strike free trade deals with our friends across the world to benefit the whole country – including Northern Ireland.

    Article 4 of the Protocol states: “Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom”.

    It adds “nothing in this Protocol shall prevent” Northern Ireland from realising the preferential market access in any free trade deals “on the same terms as goods produced in other parts of the United Kingdom.”

    Our negotiations have focused on the uniquely sensitive nature of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

    And we have respected those sensitivities.

    Above all, we and our European friends have preserved the letter and the spirit of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and upheld the long-standing areas of co-operation between the UK and Ireland, including the Common Travel Area.

    And as I told the House on 3rd October, in order to prevent a regulatory border on the island of Ireland we proposed a regulatory zone covering all goods, including agrifood, eliminating any need for associated checks along the border.

    And Mr Speaker, in this agreement we have gone further by also finding a solution to the vexed question of customs, which many in this House have raised.

    Our agreement ensures – and I quote – “unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom’s internal market.”

    It ensures that there should be no tariffs on goods circulating within the UK customs territory, that is between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, unless they are at risk of entering the EU.

    It ensures an open border on the island of Ireland, a common objective of everyone in this House.

    And it ensures that for those living and working alongside the border there will be no visible or practical changes to their lives – they can carry on as before.

    I believe this is a good arrangement, reconciling the special circumstances in Northern Ireland with the minimum possible bureaucratic consequences at a few points of arrival into Northern Ireland.

    And it is precisely to ensure that those arrangements are acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland that we have made consent a fundamental element of this new deal.

    So no arrangements can be imposed on Northern Ireland if they do not work for Northern Ireland.

    The people of Northern Ireland will have the right under this agreement to express or withhold their consent to these provisions, by means of a majority vote in their Assembly four years after the end of the transition.

    And if the Assembly chooses to withhold consent, these provisions “shall cease to apply” after two years, during which the Joint Committee of the UK and EU would propose a new way forward, in concert with Northern Ireland’s institutions.

    And as soon as this House allows the process of extracting ourselves from the EU to be completed, the exciting enterprise of building our new relationship with our friends can begin which has been too long delayed.

    And Mr Speaker, I do not wish this to be the project of any one Government or any one party but rather the endeavour of the United Kingdom as a whole.

    Only this Parliament can make this new relationship the work of the nation.

    And so Parliament should be at the heart of decision-making as we develop our approach.

    And I acknowledge that in the past we have not always acted in that spirit.

    So as we take forward our friendship with our closest neighbours and construct that new relationship

    I will ensure that a broad and open process draws upon the wealth of expertise in every part of this House including select committees and their chairs.

    Every party and every Member who wishes to contribute will be invited to do so.

    And we shall start by debating the mandate for our negotiators in the next phase.

    Mr Speaker, the ambition for our future friendship is contained in the revised Political Declaration which also provides for this House to be free to decide our own laws and regulations.

    I have complete faith in this House to choose regulations that are in our best tradition of the highest standards of environmental protections and workers’ rights.

    No one anywhere in this chamber believes in lowering standards, instead we believe in improving them as indeed we will be able to do and seizing the opportunities of our new freedoms.

    For example, free from the Common Agricultural Policy, we will have a far simpler system where we will reward farmers for improving our environment and animal welfare many of whose provisions are impossible under the current arrangements, instead of just paying them for their acreage.

    And free from the Common Fisheries Policy, we can ensure sustainable yields based on the latest science not outdated methods of setting quotas.

    And these restored powers will be available not simply to this Government but to every future British Government of any party to use as they see fit.

    That is what restoring sovereignty means, that is what is meant in practice by taking back control of our destiny.

    And our first decision, on which I believe there will be unanimity is that in any future trade negotiations with any country our National Health Service will not be on the table.

    Mr Speaker, I am convinced that an overwhelming majority in this House, regardless of our personal views, wishes to see Brexit delivered in accordance with the referendum. A majority.

    And in this crucial mission there can no longer be any argument for further delay.

    As someone who passionately believed that we had to go back to our European friends to seek a better agreement,

    I must tell the House that with this new deal the scope for fruitful negotiation has run its course.

    They said that we couldn’t re-open the Withdrawal Agreement, Mr Speaker, they said we couldn’t change a comma of the Withdrawal Agreement, they said we couldn’t abolish the backstop, Mr Speaker, we’ve done both.

    But it is now my judgement that we have reached the best possible solution.

    So those who agree, like me that Brexit must be delivered and who – like me – prefer to avoid a no deal outcome, must abandon the delusion that this House can delay again.

    And I must tell the House in all candour that there is very little appetite among our friends in the EU for this business to be protracted by one extra day.

    They have had three and a half years of this debate.

    It has distracted them from their own projects and their own ambitions and if there is one feeling that unites the British public with a growing number of the officials of the EU it is a burning desire to get Brexit done.

    and I must tell the House again in all candour that whatever letters they may seek to force the government to write, it cannot change my judgment that further delay is pointless, expensive and deeply corrosive of public trust.

    And people simply will not understand how politicians can say with one breath that they want delay to avoid no deal and then with the next breath that they still want delay when a great deal is there to be done.

    Now is the time Mr Speaker to get this thing done, and I say to all members let us come together as democrats to end this debilitating feud.

    Let us come together as democrats behind this deal, the one proposition that fulfils the verdict of the majority but which also allows us to bring together the two halves of our hearts, to bring together the two halves of our nation.

    Let’s speak now both for the 52 and the 48.

    Let us go for a deal that can heal this country, let’s go for a deal that can heal this country and allow us all to express our legitimate desires for the deepest possible friendship and partnership with our neighbours

    A deal that allows us to create a new shared destiny with them.

    And a deal that also allows us to express our confidence in our own democratic institutions, to make our own laws, to determine our own future, to believe in ourselves once again as an open, generous global, outward-looking and free-trading United Kingdom.

    That is the prospect that this deal offers our country.

    It is a great prospect and a great deal, and I commend it to the House.

  • Liam Fox – 2019 Speech on Portishead Railway

    Liam Fox – 2019 Speech on Portishead Railway

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Conservative MP for North Somerset, in the House of Commons on 16 October 2019.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate, especially during the week of the Queen’s Speech. I am also grateful for the dogged and outstanding support that the Portishead railway project has had from the residents of the town itself, from North Somerset more widely, and from the wider region. I am also grateful to my fellow Bristol MPs for being here this evening. I single out and pay tribute to the Portishead Railway Group, whose contribution has been utterly invaluable.

    When I last raised this issue in an Adjournment debate in this House, in January 2005, I spoke about the increase in population in Portishead. In the mid-1950s, the town had a population of around 9,000, which had risen to some 15,000 by the time I was first elected in the early 1990s. The population now stands at around 25,000. The power station and the phosphorus works that used to sit on the dock are long gone, with the last stacks having been brought down in 1992. In their place, we now have one of the country’s finest marinas, and we have contributed more than most to the rise in the country’s housing stock.

    That housebuilding has not been without controversy. John Prescott, as Housing Minister, ordered that the housing density be doubled, so almost twice as many homes as originally intended were built on this land. That inevitably had consequences for the traffic in the town and parking has been a particular problem. Although the housing density was doubled, the number of parking spaces per home was allocated at the national average of 1.6 per household, when the average in North Somerset, even at the time, was 2.76. It does not take a mathematical genius to work out that the inevitable consequence was a huge deficit in the number of parking spaces available compared with what was needed.

    The increased population in what I described back in 2005 as the most overcrowded cul-de-sac in the country—a phrase that has been widely deployed since—has inevitably put pressure on our road system. The A369 is the only A road out of the town, and junction 19 of the M5 is a regularly miserable experience for Portishead commuters, particularly at peak times. The answer to many of our problems, but by no means all, is to reopen the railway line to Portishead, providing additional capacity to our overstretched transport network.

    The reopening of Portishead railway is part of the MetroWest project, which was given the go-ahead in July 2012 as part of the city deal under the coalition Government led by David Cameron. Portishead railway was part of MetroWest phase 1, but it has been beset by delays and cost overruns. In 2017, the planned date of the Portishead opening was 2020, yet by then the original cost of £50 million had mushroomed to £116 million. It became quickly clear that it would be beyond the financial scope of North Somerset Council or, indeed, the partnership of four councils to absorb such an increased cost. We were therefore pleased that the former Transport Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), came to visit North Somerset and indicated that this Government would ensure that additional money became available. I wish to focus on that area ​and some of the technical issues around it so that the Minister can give us categorical assurances where there remain some anxieties.

    The proposed allocation of £31.9 million by the Department exactly closed the funding gap. It did not reduce it; it closed it. The four local councils and the West of England Combined Authority have spent, and continue to spend, millions of pounds on the design of the reinstatement of the railway, the necessary environmental studies, and in preparing the development consent order application. For those who may not be familiar with the process, let me describe what this entails. The development consent order process is based on many submission items, one of which is a full funding statement. The statement has had to be generated on the assumption that the Department’s £31.9 million funding share will not be withdrawn. Another item is the business case, which is strong. Its benefit-cost ratio of around 3:1 is almost unheard of for a public infrastructure project. In other words, we know the reinstatement would be an efficient and effective use of public funds to produce a defined benefit. That is a lot more than we can say for many projects funded with taxpayers’ money.

    Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)

    I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, both for securing this debate and for allowing me to intervene. He will be aware that, in addition to the football and the rugby, Ashton Gate stadium has hosted a number of entertainment events this year. Investment in transport to and from the ground is critical. As the line goes through south Bristol, it provides an opportunity to open up more local transport provision, so it is not just about what we can get now. We are very supportive of this opportunity, which is critical to us in south Bristol.

    Dr Fox

    I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, and she is right that we deserve better public transport in the Bristol area. Bristol is one of only two cities in the United Kingdom, outside London, that produce a net benefit to the economy, and we deserve a level of spending commensurate with that level of economic contribution to the UK economy.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He was very good to us in Strangford on many occasions in his former position as a Minister, so I wanted to come along to support him tonight.

    The right hon. Gentleman has outlined the need for the Portishead railway to be encouraged and rebuilt, based on the population trends, the extra traffic and the pressure on our roads. Does he agree that perhaps it is time for the Government to look at sustaining public transport, be it railways or buses, to take pressure off the roads?

    Dr Fox

    It is not simply a specific case; it is also a generic one. We need to see major improvements in our railway capacity for exactly those reasons and for the environmental benefits that will come from not having the pollutants from slow-moving traffic congesting our towns and villages.

    As a result of the Department for Transport announcing its £31.9 million funding share, the four local councils and the West of England Combined Authority have ​now committed to their £84 million share of the funding for the railway project. I make it clear that the railway reinstatement cannot be completed without the Department’s £31.9 million, so can the Minister make a clear commitment tonight that the Department’s funding will be solely on the basis of there being a good business case?

    Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)

    I am pleased to be here to support the right hon. Gentleman’s case for the Portishead line. Does he agree it is part of what should be a much broader rail network? It is about commuter traffic into and out of Bristol. My Bristol North West constituency is adjacent to his, and there should be a connection to the Henbury loop line so that people can travel between the major areas of employment, as well as travelling into and out of the city.

    Dr Fox

    I completely agree. Our transport network is now an economic rate-limiting step in the Bristol area. I know, and my colleagues will know, of companies that want to grow but are incapable of doing so. We are fortunate to have low levels of unemployment in our area, but it is difficult to get people to come into those areas where growth could occur because our public transport network is so inadequate.

    The second issue I would like the Minister to address tonight is the Department’s rail network enhancements pipeline. As the House will know, the RNEP is a multistage process that could lead the Department to adjust its priorities such that its £31.9 million funding share could be either reduced or cancelled. This railway reinstatement is widely accepted as a no brainer in the region and beyond. It has a strong business case, and it is viewed as being of the highest priority in the wider Bristol area. The Department for Transport itself seems to think that the reinstatement of the Portishead line is a major improvement to our railways overall, and so do I. A ministerial commitment on this issue would be most welcome, so will the Minister confirm that the RNEP process will be used only to assure the Department that it is using its money wisely, rather than being used to generate a reason to reduce or cancel the Department’s funding contribution?

    The Portishead reinstatement will upgrade 8 km of existing Network Rail freight line to Pill and reinstate the track along 4 km of existing permanent way from Pill to Portishead. Given the length of time it has taken and the amount of money spent, it must be one of the greatest investments in one of the smallest increases in railway track that the House has seen.

    Unfortunately, despite the extremely modest nature of this particular project, the reinstatement is subject to the weighty process that applies to major rail improvements. Why? Because the criterion set out in the Planning Act 2008 is pegged at more than 2 km of track on non-railway land. The only reason why more than 2 km of the reinstatement track is on non-railway land is that North Somerset Council wisely decided to purchase the Portbury to Portishead section to ensure future reinstatement. In other words, we are being penalised because of the council’s foresight and confidence that this most worthwhile project would eventually be brought to fruition.

    I understand that, unfortunately, the processes operated by the planning inspectorate for the DCO and by the Department for the RNEP clearly have to be followed, ​despite the non-major nature of the reinstatement. I want from the Minister an assurance that everything possible will be done to ensure that the process is as speedy as possible, within the constraints of the law.

    Given the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions, which has been widely discussed recently, will the Minister confirm that he and his officials will do everything they can to speed up the processes, so that the long-standing congestion and environmental pollution that afflict the 50,000-plus people who will directly benefit from the railway and the 130,000-plus people who will indirectly benefit from the railway, can be reduced at the earliest opportunity?

    I wish to raise two other brief points. There has been much speculation locally that, rather than a traditional railway, a hybrid of bus, tram and train might be introduced. What is the Minister’s understanding of the likely outcome of any such proposals currently under consideration? There has been a great deal of debate about the relative merits of a range of different alternatives, but we are now seeking an end to the indecision, and clarity about the timescale and nature of the transportation system itself.

    When I visited the North Somerset summer show this July, I gave my word that I would raise the issue of Sustrans. I am sure the Minister will be aware that Sustrans has been instrumental in the creation of a national network of cycle routes on quiet roads and traffic-free paths that now extends to more than 17,000 miles. I hope that he and his Department can look into the potential for a dual-use path alongside the planned railway, to see whether we can improve our local facilities further, with all the benefits that that will bring to recreation, transport and health.

    As I have said, this project is a no-brainer. It fulfils all the Government’s criteria for reducing road congestion, improving our environment and improving the functioning of our local economy. We are keen to give the Government all those things—if they give us reassurance, clarity and the necessary funding. After all the delay, I would be proud if this Government gave the people of Portishead what they deserve and what they have waited so long to get.