UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Philip Hammond – 2019 Speech at the Annual Asian Business Awards

    Below is the text of the speech made by Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 3 March 2019.

    Good evening..

    Thank you to the Asian Media Group.

    I’m delighted to be here tonight at the Asian Business Awards, 22 years after the first of these fantastic events, in 1997, the year I was first elected to Parliament.

    Quite a bit has changed since then – I’ve got a bit greyer,

    and the Asian business community in the UK has gone from strength to strength…

    …Asian markets have become more and more important to British businesses…

    …and the global balance of economic power has shifted decisively in favour of the emerging Asian economies.

    Later this year, India will overtake the UK to become the world’s fifth largest economy.

    Kalpesh, you spoke earlier about Steve Jobs’ phenomenal success. That reminded me that in 1997 Michael Dell, founder of Dell computers, gave this piece of advice: the best thing to do with Apple would be to “shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders”.

    Luckily, at number 39 on the Forbes rich list, his career progress does not appear to have impeded his judgement.

    But some things haven’t changed – my beliefs when I first became an MP are the same things that drive me 22 years later as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    A belief in the market economy as the best, indeed, the only way to deliver future prosperity for the British people.

    A belief in Britain as an open, tolerant, outward-looking nation, confident and competitive in the world.

    And above all, a belief in the power of business – that self-starters, entrepreneurs, investors are the engine of our economy, and the bedrock of our communities.

    And our job in government is to reinforce that vision….

    and support successful business leaders like you to power up the British economy for the 21st Century.

    First, let me say a few words about the horrifying terrorist attack in New Zealand last week, and in the Netherlands just a few days ago.

    Violence of any kind against innocent people is deeply shocking…

    …and attacks based on race, ethnicity or religion are particularly abhorrent and have no place in our society.

    Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Christchurch and Utrecht, with the families and friends of those who died in these attacks and with all those who have been injured or affected by them.

    But it is not enough only to condemn. As we confront the ideologies of hate, we must also make a positive argument for the kind of society that we want to be.

    A democracy that is built on the indivisible foundations of religious, political and economic freedom;

    A society that is confident enough in our identity and our values to embrace diversity;

    And an economy that harnesses the power of that diversity to grow.

    Market capitalism has been the greatest engine for prosperity the world has ever seen; but it has also been the driver of political freedom and stability.

    In the marketplace, the common interest of commerce means that faith or ethnicity, class, background or nationality all matter less than your ability to strike a deal, develop a brilliant new product or service, or to spot an opportunity.

    Those values of enterprise and tolerance have long been part of the British story.

    And they are a part of the British Asian story too.

    My friend and colleague, Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, asks the rhetorical question – how many countries can genuinely say that the son of a penniless, immigrant bus driver can become the holder of one of the most powerful political offices in the land – in the space of a single generation?

    Energy, ingenuity and hard work – those are the qualities that have driven all of you in this room to become some of the most successful businessmen and women in the country.

    And that is what tonight is all about.

    A celebration of the men and women who are nominated for awards later this evening;

    A celebration of the vital role the Asian community has played in modern Britain’s success.

    And a celebration, too, of the power of business and enterprise to do good.

    And of the willingness of so many who have done so well – to plough the proceeds of their good fortune and hard work back into our society through philanthropy.

    As a Conservative I’m clear that it’s the private sector that drives growth and prosperity in our society.

    So our guiding mission, as we leave the European Union, is to make sure Britain continues to be a great place to do business…

    And we have a plan to do that.

    First, as I set out in my Spring Statement last week, despite the slowing global growth, Britain’s economy has defied expectations.

    It has grown for nine consecutive years, with the longest unbroken quarterly growth run of any G7 economy, and is forecast to continue growing in each of the next five years.

    And thanks to the hard work of the British people, our debt is now falling sustainably for the first time in a generation.

    A solid foundation as we build Britain’s future.

    Second, we have a plan to raise Britain’s productivity and boost growth.

    We are increasing public investment to its highest sustained levels in 40 years, with a £37 billion National Productivity Investment Fund…

    …and record investment in our roads, railways and broadband…

    …we are putting technical and vocational skills back at the heart of our education system – so that as digitisation of our economy changes the labour market, our workforce is ready to take on the jobs of the future…

    …and we are cutting taxes on the wages people earn and on the businesses that employ them, with 32 million people receiving a tax cut from next month, and business enjoying the lowest rate of Corporation Tax in the G20.

    But Britain’s future prosperity will be at risk if we leave the EU without a negotiated deal and a close future partnership.

    The member states of the EU are our nearest neighbours and they are our largest trading partners.

    Over 45 years, we have built close business and trading relationships…

    …and complex supply chains which criss-cross our continent.

    As business people, you will understand that it is those carefully constructed and painstakingly maintained relationships that underpin the value of a business…

    …and we must protect that investment at all costs.

    There will be change ahead as we navigate a path to a new relationship – so we will need to adapt.

    But Brexit will be our chance to show that we can combine a strong and continuing partnership with the EU, with a new focus on building on our historic overseas relationships, and forging new links with the fastest growing economies of the world, many of which are in South and South-East Asia.

    Making Global Britain a reality.

    I am acutely conscious that I am standing between 850 people and their dinner – so let me conclude with one final thought.

    Nearly three years on from the EU referendum, I know the ongoing uncertainty is damaging for business…

    …and I know every one of you in this room would like us to have resolved this issue many months ago.

    But democracy is a messy business:

    Churchill famously described it as the worst form of Government, except all those other forms that have been tried.

    But we are now in the final furlong.

    And I’m confident that we are on track to get a deal – as we must.

    And when we do, all the pieces are in place for our country to thrive:

    Strong economic foundations;

    Sound public finances;

    World-leading businesses;

    A cutting-edge tech sector;

    A Global services industry;

    A vibrant, entrepreneurial class;

    A deep commitment to free and open markets;

    An open and tolerant society;

    I look forward to the day, very soon I hope, when I, and you, can stop talking about Brexit…

    …get on with the business of business…

    …investing; creating jobs; generating wealth…

    …so that we can get back to the growth in our economy and the progress in our society that our people expect and deserve.

    I know we can do it together.

    Thank you.

  • Chris Skidmore – 2019 Speech to UUKi Higher Education Forum

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Skidmore, the Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, to the UUKi Higher Education Forum on 27 March 2019.

    Good afternoon. And thank you for inviting me to speak at this year’s International Higher Education Forum here at Imperial College London on the importance of staying international. Please accept my apologies for not joining you in person. And all credit to the organisers – this Forum is certainly timely! We are now just a few weeks away from the UK’s departure from the EU. So, it is certainly important for us to be looking to the future and considering our relationships with the wider world.

    Let me begin today by reaffirming our commitment to remaining international. Brexit may well mean that we are leaving the European Union soon, but it certainly does not mean that we are leaving Europe or, indeed, any of our global partnerships behind.

    If anything, Brexit means we now need to be thinking and acting more globally than ever before. Our world-leading universities and colleges are international at their core. Our higher education sector relies on – and indeed thrives on – international connectivity, collaboration and partnership, and I want to see all those things continuing to flourish.

    As it stands politically, we still wish to have a deal with the European Union, guaranteeing certainty until the end of the Implementation Period and continuing to participate in the Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 framework programme until then, while negotiating the terms of our Future Economic Partnership.

    But we do face the prospect of leaving the EU without a deal. This is not what we want, but if it were to happen Government would be determined to make the best of it, continuing with our ‘no deal’ preparations and ensuring the country is prepared for every eventuality. As I said before, this does not mean we are leaving Europe and Europe will always remain a close partner to the UK. In the event of a no deal, and in order to mitigate the worst, we will administer the Government Guarantee for those participating in Erasmus+ and the Horizon 2020 framework programme.

    However, what is certain for all of us is that we still need clarity on our future direction of travel, and we all need to come together – the Government included – to set out a positive vision for what we want UK higher education to achieve on the global stage.

    There must be principles to underpin that vision, and to inform how and where we prioritise our internationally focused efforts. The International Education Strategy sets out only part of this vision. So, today, I want to set out my wider vision for the UK’s global higher education ambition and the principles at the heart of it.

    The first of these principles is to build and amplify the UK’s role on the global stage. This means not only bolstering the quality and standing of UK higher education but to promote it abroad as a global leader and as a centre of international excellence, and strengthening our credentials to become an international partner of choice.

    And we are starting from a great position. The UK higher education system already has a global reputation for quality. According to the QS World University Rankings, our institutions are globally recognised, with 4 providers in the top 10, and 18 providers in the top 100.

    Our research also has truly global reach. In 2014, the UK produced 15.2% of the world’s most highly cited articles and, on indicators of research quality, the UK ranked above the US, Canada, Germany, Japan, Brazil and China.

    We must champion and protect this reputation if we are to continue to attract talent from across the world, and continue to grow the sector’s international partnerships and collaborations.

    A strong international reputation is vital for our ‘soft power’ and strengthening the role and potential of the UK overseas. According to the Soft Power 30 index, the UK is ranked first for global soft power, with education – and higher education in particular – being cited as key to our success.

    It is success like this which helps the UK strengthen important trading links – such as those with emerging economies, which value English language skills, education reform or research co-operation.

    Co-operation in these areas is not only important for trade but also opens up opportunities for UK providers to become increasingly international themselves. That is why the International Education Strategy, sets out our intention to appoint an International Education Champion – specifically to amplify the global reputation of UK higher education and help generate further international opportunities including through tackling and breaking down in-country barriers.

    And quality is already our watchword. The key to maintaining a strong brand for UK higher education is the UK Quality Code, which sets the core quality standards that providers must adhere to.

    Of course, higher education in the UK is a devolved matter, so it is only right that different nations will take slightly different approaches to applying the Code. However, all UK providers are required to meet the Code’s expectations, and it is this which ensures we can continually set a high threshold for quality across the country.

    In England, the new regulator for the higher education sector, the Office for Students, has placed the UK Quality Code at the heart of its regulatory framework. And it has also gone further, by adding an additional requirement for providers to deliver successful outcomes for all students, which are either recognised and valued by employers or enable further study.

    This focus on delivering successful outcomes is reflected across our entire approach to co-regulation in England: setting clear expectations for quality, whilst respecting institutional autonomy and creating the space necessary for providers to innovate.

    But we must never be complacent, and I recognise that some quality issues remain. This is why we must work with the sector to protect and improve the quality of higher education in England, including tackling issues such as essay mills, and artificial grade inflation whilst rightly celebrating genuine grade improvements. These measures will help us to protect the quality of our qualifications and ensure they, and the UK’s Higher Education sector’s reputation for excellence, retain their value over time.

    We should never turn our back on improvement. And we are lucky to be in a position where we can learn from our partners around the world, just as they can learn from what we are doing here in the UK. This mutual exchange of knowledge and good practice is at the heart of strong international relationships, and has the benefit to further strengthen UK higher education, as well as the institutions, systems and countries around the world that we partner with.

    Having just put down an important marker with the new International Education Strategy published just under two weeks ago, I am keen to make sure UK higher education can internationalise further. This can be done by my second core principle – namely to enable UK higher education to maximise and benefit from the full range of international opportunities and interconnectedness available to it.

    The first way we can do this is by increasing international activity or transnational education (TNE), as set out in the International Education Strategy. TNE warrants our attention, not least because it has significantly increased in value since 2010. And as the sector can attest, the value of TNE goes well beyond economic benefits. These partnerships help to support the pipeline of talent of students and researchers powering UK higher education, and can lead to potential increases in student enrolments.

    TNE is nevertheless just one way in which UK higher education can enhance its internationalism. There is a broad fora of frameworks and platforms beyond this, particularly in the research and innovation space, which also help our international connectedness to flourish. And, of course, there is always more we can do support and strengthen these frameworks for collaboration and engagement.

    Research Infrastructures are just one key way that researchers from any country can work together to tackle complex scientific and research challenges. Within Europe, such collaboration is often facilitated by European Research Infrastructure Consortia, known as ERICs.

    UK participation in ERICs gives UK scientists and companies access to facilities, data, knowledge and contracts that would otherwise be inaccessible. And the outcomes of these projects feed directly into research communities across the UK and beyond, in fields such as marine science, astrophysics, human health and welfare, and societal change.

    We are committed to ERICs, and we want to continue to host and be members of ERICs after Brexit. I am therefore pleased to confirm today that the UK will continue to meet the obligations needed to be members of ERICs after we have left the EU, irrespective of how we leave the EU. This decision will enable UK scientists and researchers to continue working on scientific challenges with our European partners just as they do now.

    We are also working hard to maintain close collaboration in other European research frameworks – not least on the issue of the European University Institute (EUI). The EUI is an good example of European collaboration on education and research and I recently spoke with the President of the EUI, Professor Renaud Dehousse and we agreed to work closely together including on potential options for future participation in EUI activities. Our funding programmes to support international collaboration on science and innovation and our international representation, led by the Science and Innovation Network in British Embassies and High Commissions are ways we can deepen UK engagement globally.

    To demonstrate our long-term commitment to this global engagement, we will publish an International Research and Innovation Strategy that will set out our ambition to remain the partner of choice for international research and innovation. And we will support early and effective implementation of the Strategy through an independent review of our future frameworks for international collaboration, as announced in the Chancellor’s Spring Statement earlier this month.

    Whatever happens after Brexit, the UK is a key signatory of the Bologna Declaration, which creates a common frame of reference within the European Higher Education Area to promote and support mobility for students, graduates and teaching staff. And it does this mainly by creating a common approach to qualifications. I’d like to use this occasion today to reassure you the UK still remains committed to close collaboration on European higher education with our EHEA partners.

    And that takes me on nicely to my third principle, through which I want the UK to provide a world leading offer to international students and staff. As Universities Minister, I want us to give international students the best possible experience of UK higher education and maximise the benefits they bring to institutions, as well as to our own domestic students.

    It is well known that international students bring huge benefits to the UK and are integral to our higher education system. In 2016, international students accounted for 60% of all education exports, bringing in nearly £12 billion to the UK economy through tuition fees and living expenditure alone. The presence of international students in the UK is worth an estimated £26 billion in direct and indirect benefits.

    International students help to generate jobs and support local businesses in the areas that they study – sustaining over 200,000 jobs in all parts of the UK. They bring cultural diversity and enrich the learning experiences of domestic students. And, as acknowledged by the Migration Advisory Committee, UK students genuinely value the positive impact that international students bring to their overall university experience.

    And the benefits of international students don’t stop there. Hosting students from other countries can provide us with vital cultural and business links for the future and the Soft Power I referred to earlier.

    According to research by the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), as of summer last year, among the serving monarchs, presidents and prime ministers around the world, 57 of them were educated in the UK. This is second only to the US, which just pipped us to the top spot by educating 58 of them. And according to British Council Research, of the Nobel Laureates who have studied abroad, 38% of them did so in the UK, showing how opening our doors to others can give us friends and opportunities to influence and engage around the world.

    That is why we are taking a number of actions to ensure the UK continues to attract international students and the budding global leaders of tomorrow. The International Education Strategy, published just last week, sets out the scale of our ambition, with an aim to increase the numbers of international higher education students studying in the UK by over 30%, to 600,000 by 2030.

    This ambition is supported by actions, which will enable us to attract these students in the face of international competition – such as increasing the post-study leave period and making it easier for students to move into skilled work after graduation.

    But attracting international students is only one half of the equation. We also need to ensure that when international students come here, they are supported to make the most of their employment prospects in this country and in their home countries too. That is why the commitment made by UUKi to work with Government to improve the employability of our international students in the Strategy is so important. We rightly measure outcomes for our domestic students and we should do the same for international students too.

    Beyond economics, we also have a duty of care. If this principle applies for our domestic students, it must also apply to students from abroad. We must ensure that while they are here, they are fully supported. On Monday, I set out in a keynote speech my new STEP framework, working with the sector on ensuring we deliver together the best student experience possible. I mentioned international students, Support for international students is essential especially in the area of mental health and wellbeing – something which is a clear priority for this government. And it is why this government is working closely with UUK on embedding the ‘Step Change’ programme within the sector, which calls on higher education leaders to adopt mental health as a strategic priority and adopt a whole-institution approach to transform cultures for domestic and international students alike.

    It is also why we are backing the development of the University Mental Health Charter, which will drive up standards in promoting the mental health and wellbeing of students and staff wherever they come from in the world. And I implore all higher education leaders to engage with the work of the charity Student Minds as it leads development of this Charter.

    Too often students, who have uprooted themselves to come to the UK for a high quality higher education in a diverse, international learning environment, find themselves isolated or entirely cocooned – with only their fellow nationals as companions, and not knowing where to turn to after their studies are complete. I was struck by the event on Monday, which demonstrated one in five international students do not have a friend when they’re at university.

    So, my challenge to the sector is this: can you do more to help these students get the most out their experience in the UK and help them to integrate fully into the community, so that they too can go on to become lifelong advocates for UK higher education and for the UK more generally?

    And, for my fourth and final principle, I also ask the sector to help us develop the ‘global citizens’ we need by providing increased international connectivity and opportunity. We want all domestic higher education students to benefit from an international experience.

    Cultural exchange helps build important business, political and diplomatic bridges around the world, not to mention life-long friendships. Supporting students to study abroad helps us to create a new generation of globally mobile, culturally agile people who can succeed in an increasingly global marketplace. By supporting students to study abroad, they get first-hand experience of different cultures, helping them to broaden their horizons, their ambitions and their life-long opportunities, as well as breaking down barriers to social mobility.

    This government, and the Department for Education in particular, share the conviction that international experiences enrich the education and personal development of UK students. And that is why the DfE supports and provides a number of outward mobility programmes to broaden access to international opportunities – such as the Fulbright and Generation UK China schemes; both of which have been expanded with increased funding over the last year.

    My particular priority here is in improving outcomes for students from disadvantaged or currently under-represented backgrounds. That is why our funding for the Fulbright Scholarship and Generation UK-China specifically focuses on efforts to support disadvantaged students. I am actually set to go to China in a couple of weeks and look forward to meeting students on the Generation UK-China scheme and hear first-hand the difference it has made to their lives.

    I realise part of the solution is making outward mobility more accessible and we, in government, are actively working on doing this by enabling eligible students studying in the United Kingdom to study abroad for up to 50% of their course and still be eligible for support from Student Finance England.

    But having the means is no good if students don’t have anywhere to go. So, my challenge to the sector on this is how can you ensure students from disadvantaged backgrounds are getting their fair share of international opportunities?

    We believe that, irrespective of the outcome of EU exit negotiations, the UK and European countries should continue to give young people and students the chance to benefit from each other’s world leading universities post-exit. Under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement UK entities’ right to participate in the Erasmus+ programme during the current Multi-annual Financial Framework will be unaffected by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. We are also open to exploring participation in the successor scheme to the current Erasmus+ Programme.

    In the event that the UK leaves the EU with no agreement in place, the Government has guaranteed that it will cover the payment of awards to UK applicants for Erasmus+ bids approved before exit day.

    We are also considering a wide range of options with regards to the future of international exchange and collaboration in education and training, including a potential domestic alternative to the Erasmus+ Programme. The potential benefits of the UK establishing its own international mobility scheme would include the ability to tailor the scheme to UK needs and target the funding where it is most needed. I will be driving forward this work in the coming months.

    As the Minister for Higher Education, these will be my guiding principles for international higher education activity going forwards into the future. They will steer my priorities and underpin the ways in which the Department for Education will drive activity.

    As I have hopefully made clear, there is an important role for the sector here, in setting out your own international ambition and driving forward your own international activity building on what is already a global success story with, as I mentioned, nearly £12bn of higher education exports and an additional £1.9bn in the form of TNE, in 2016 alone. A proactive and engaged government can of course support and enable this, and I know there is more we could do to join up and Government stands by to support you.

    But the challenge is not only ours. We need you to consider what more the sector can do to realise our full international potential and tell us how we, in government, can help you achieve these ambitions. I can assure you that we are listening. And I look forward to continue working with you as we make our way into a truly global future.

  • David Lidington – 2019 Speech to the British Chambers of Commerce

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, at the British Chambers of Commerce annual conference held on 28 March 2019.

    Ladies and gentlemen, good morning! I was looking for something to fill the spare minutes today, so you know, when Adam’s invitation came through, I thought, well, what better way than to come to the BCC Conference.

    I want to thank you sincerely for the invitation to speak today. For more than 150 years, the Chambers have sat at the heart of the United Kingdom’s business community.

    Today, there are tens of thousands of businesses represented in this room, and the network of Chambers, include the employers of nearly six million people in every part of the UK.

    So I want to start by recognising the huge contribution that you and Chamber members make to creating wealth and providing jobs and livelihoods in communities right across this country.

    I want to say thank you for something else, as well. I was listening, early this morning, to Adam’s dulcet tones on the Today Programme. And every time I’ve worked with Adam, we go back a few years now, from my various ministerial capacities, what I know is that he and the Chambers, in general, will give it to you straight.

    Just as I’ve always said to my officials, in every job I’ve held, that no one will be penalised for giving me advice that is honest, but perhaps unwelcome – I think that is of equal importance in terms of a dialogue between government and outside organisations.

    It may mean that, at times, there is friction and disagreements, but actually, it’s part of a healthy, free society, that there should be that candour in relationships between us.

    My starting point this morning is to acknowledge the fact that we are living through a time of turbulence. There are the global shifts in economic power, geopolitical trends and technological change, that we have respond to so we can ensure that this country remains a successful and open trading nation.

    Over the next decade the world economy will be dominated by the EU, the US, and China.

    UK trade with those blocs is valued at £637bn, £184bn, and £66bn respectively.

    And by the middle of this century, the US, China and India will make up something like half of total global GDP.

    And according to a report by PWC the combined economies of China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, Turkey and Mexico will be double that of the G7.

    The population of Africa will double to almost 2 billion people.

    Now, the expansion of these emerging markets offers opportunity for business in the UK as we seek to grow exports from 30% to 35% of our GDP.

    New technology, and our international relationships, also offer opportunities to enhance UK prosperity. But digital technology also creates profound long-term changes in our economy and in assumptions about work and careers.

    Because you don’t need me to tell you that the impact of digital technology is going to shake up established ways of doing white collar and professional work, and not just alter the working environment and expectations on the factory floor.

    So we face risk as well as opportunity.

    The World Bank’s recent forecast predicts that global growth will slow to 2.9 percent this year. International investment and trade are moderating, trade tensions are elevated, and protectionism around the world is increasing.

    These times, and I suspect this will be a view shared by many here, these times are more unpredictable than we would like them to be.

    And that is certainly true of the process of EU exit.

    I recognise the real frustration that uncertainty around this process has caused in the business community.

    I am acutely aware that for you, and the businesses you represent, this is about the practicality of doing business, about having predictable relationships with both customers and suppliers.

    This is a message I have heard repeatedly from businesses across the United Kingdom, from salmon processors in Rosyth to ice cream makers in Coleraine.

    You want to know the terms of trade so you can focus on running your business – with certainty about the people you can hire, the regulations that apply, the tariffs on imports and exports. I get it that you don’t want to spend time poring over the latest parliamentary developments and scanning the pages of Hansard.

    So I want to assure you that, from the Prime Minister down, the government is doing all it can to secure a Brexit that does honour the result of the 2016 referendum, but does so in a way that protects jobs and economic growth.

    I also understand, in part taking up a point that I heard Adam make this morning, that a chaotic, disorganised exit, without an agreed deal, is something that we should not be seeking to have.

    This is, unavoidably, the legal default position. But as far as the Government is concerned, this is a matter of necessary contingency planning. It is not the destination or objective of government policy.

    Such a No Deal Brexit will undoubtedly mean disruption to businesses in every part of the UK, and I believe, would be a threat to the integrity of the union of the UK itself.

    Despite the political uncertainty, it is a tribute to the strength of UK business that the British economy remains robust.

    It has grown for nine consecutive years. It has the longest unbroken quarterly growth run of any G7 economy.

    As the Chancellor set out in the Spring Statement, both the IMF and the OECD are forecasting the UK to grow faster than Germany this year.

    And, crucially, our economy is forecast to continue growing in each of the next five years.

    UK businesses and UK workers with, I would argue, support from government policy, have built an economy that has created more than 3.5 million net new jobs.

    And we need to keep repeating the message, that despite what some of the media reports would suggest, 96% of those new jobs created last year were full time.

    The female employment rate in this country is the highest on record, with 1.2 million women-led businesses in the UK.

    And wages are now growing at their fastest rate for over a decade.

    Meanwhile, we are on track to meet our fiscal targets, our national debt is falling sustainably, and taxes at the corporate level remain low, to attract talent and spur investment.

    That is coupled with this government’s commitment to helping business thrive – thanks to our Industrial Strategy, the British Business Bank is now supporting more than 78,000 smaller businesses with more than £5.5 billion of finance. And we will also provide management training to 10,000 small business leaders by 2025 through the Small Business Leadership Programme.

    But to seize the opportunities in the global economy, we need to ensure we are doing all we can here at home to improve our productivity and competitiveness.

    A key focus of my role, as Minister for Cabinet Office, is to drive forward implementation of the government’s policy reforms. I’m pleased to say that despite everything else that’s going on, we’ve made significant strides in domestic reform.

    Since 2010, we have invested more than a quarter of a trillion pounds of investment in infrastructure, including the biggest rail programme since Victorian times.

    But there is still much more to do to improve productivity, to boost our infrastructure, and invest in the people that we need.

    Take housing. We need to fix the housing market in this country for two reasons: first, so that there is a workforce which can be mobile and respond to the changing needs of British business.

    But also, because frankly, as a matter of social justice, we cannot be content with a situation in which younger people, who are working hard and earning decent salaries cannot afford to get even the first foot on the housing ladder in parts of our country.

    So we are working to build more homes and backing home ownership, delivering over 222,000 additional homes in the last year, cutting the Stamp Duty tax for 95 percent of first time homeowners, and increasing our affordable homes programme to £9 billion.

    We are also investing £400 million through the Digital Infrastructure Investment Fund – to ensure that businesses and homes across the country benefit from faster and more reliable broadband.

    And we are building the technical skills our workforce needs, something that in pretty much all my meetings with business, whether at the local or a national level, I’m told is something this country really needs to do. And developing new policies in partnership with employers themselves.

    So beginning in 2020, we’ll be introducing T Levels, which will offer 25 high quality courses that give a clear line of sight to actual job roles.

    And we are also focussed on harnessing the power of apprenticeships. In the Spring Statement, Philip Hammond responded to the concerns that the BCC and others have raised and announced a £700 million reform package to help small businesses take on more apprentices.

    But for all we are doing to build a strong environment for business, we also face a paradox where there is less faith in capitalism, in terms of UK public opinion. Government and business need to work together to restore the reputation of free markets by demonstrating that they can and should work for everyone.

    As the Prime Minister has said, offering someone a job – and creating opportunity for other people – is one of the most socially-responsible things that you can do.

    I believe that companies acting more responsibly and markets working more competitively are the twin pillars of restoring trust in those free markets.

    For our part, the government is doing more to build a diversified marketplace that puts small and medium sized businesses and strong social values at the heart of public services delivery.

    I have committed to using the government’s £49bn annual buying power to drive social value and provide a more diverse and competitive market. So for the first time, all major procurements will explicitly evaluate social value. And because we know that smaller businesses tend to be closest to the communities they serve, we’re aiming to further open up the procurement process to SMEs.

    This is all part of a government-wide initiative to level the playing field for small businesses bidding for government contracts by cracking down on suppliers who don’t pay on time, and breaking down contracts into smaller lots to make them more accessible.

    And the Prime Minister has appointed ministers from every government department to help us meet our aspiration of spending one pound in three with SMEs by 2022.

    So we should recognise the fundamental strength of our economy and the progress we’ve made in domestic reform, especially through our industrial strategy.

    But we need a smooth and orderly departure from the EU which delivers on the results of the referendum and is managed in a way to protect jobs, living standards, and investment.

    And I’m grateful that the BCC has been out there, stating your support for getting a deal over the line. Your voices are incredibly important, as those who have been creating jobs, driving exports, and investing in our economy.

    In recent days, both the Prime Minister and I have been engaging constructively with Leaders and Member of Parliament from across the House of Commons. Between us, we have met leaders of all the other parties in the Commons as well as other senior Parliamentarians, and we will continue to do so.

    In last night’s votes, the House of Commons considered a wide variety of options as a way forward. None of them attracted a majority. And I think what those results demonstrated is that there are no easy, simple options.

    The deal that the government has negotiated is itself a compromise, both with the EU and with political opinion at home. We haven’t secured everything we want – neither has the EU. Businesses understand compromise is the essence of any complex negotiations.

    I remain of the view that the deal the Government have negotiated is the best option available. And I think that every Member of Parliament, regardless of which political party he or she represents, regardless of which part of the country they serve, has to face up to the fact that any deal, any aspiration for the nature of the future economic relationship between the UK and the EU, must include as a starting point, the Withdrawal Agreement that has been negotiated with the EU.

    If you believe in delivering the referendum result by leaving the EU with a deal, then it is necessary to back the Withdrawal Agreement. For whether a particular MP wants the final destination to look like Norway, or look like Canada, or look like the proposals in the Chequers White Paper, the starting point is the Withdrawal Agreement itself. And that would apply even in the event that the UK reverted simply to WTO terms.

    For the EU has made it clear that any negotiation about a future preferential or free trade agreement will need to start with agreement on the key elements of the Withdrawal Agreement. In particular, citizens rights, a financial settlement, and arrangements to secure an open border on the island of Ireland.

    So the government remains committed to an Agreement that ensures our smooth and orderly departure from the EU and delivers on a time-limited Implementation Period during which trade will continue on current terms that protects the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in the EU, meaning no disruption to your existing workforces.

    And in a way that ensures that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and no customs border in the Irish Sea. And earlier this month, we secured legally-binding assurances that guarantee that the EU cannot act with the intent of applying the so-called backstop indefinitely.

    By leaving the EU with a deal and an orderly transition to a future economic partnership, as the Chancellor has said, we will see an economic boost from improved business confidence and investment; as well as a boost from the fiscal headroom once a no deal Brexit is definitively off the table.

    So the responsible course is to back this deal, and deliver on the vote of the referendum, and bring an end to the uncertainty.

    But if Parliament comes together and backs the deal, then in just under two months, we could be out of the EU and into the implementation period.

    As somebody who campaigned very strongly for Remain in 2016, I think that is the best choice available to us that both respects that democratic verdict and which safeguards the economic interests of this country.

    The alternative is more division and more uncertainty, with all the risks that will entail. And I think now, politicians of all political parties have a duty to put the national interest first, so that we can put this controversy behind us and move on to a brighter future for the British people.

    Thank you very much indeed.

  • Anna Soubry – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Anna Soubry, the Independent MP for Broxtowe, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2019.

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). I do not agree with much of what he says, but I will say this in his favour: at least he is consistent with the arguments he has made repeatedly in this place for why this is a bad deal. He and I will be in the same Lobby tonight—for different reasons—and actually I agree with much of what he says about the deal.

    Apparently hon. Members now decry consistency. It is quite bizarre—forgive me, Mr Speaker, for repeating comments I made only a few days ago—that hon. Members think it entirely proper and honourable that they should be allowed to change their vote and their minds but that the British people should be denied exactly the same right on this matter. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) is one such person. He voted against the Prime Minister’s deal, then he voted for it, and he will again vote for it today.

    In all the shameful shenanigans that have embraced Brexit, we have sunk to real depths today, and I want to explain why. It is not good enough for people to stand up and say, as we have heard, that they will now vote for the deal, not because they think it might be good for our country or our constituents, but because it will stop an extension—even though the Government have made it clear that no further extensions would be allowed. It is perverse for hon. Members to say they will now vote for the deal because it prevents our taking part in European parliamentary elections. These are not good reasons.

    Other Government Members have said they will vote for the Prime Minister’s deal on the basis that the Prime Minister will stand down. That is not acting with honour; that is not acting with principle. I will vote with the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel)—she remains my friend and always will be. At least she has been true ​to her principles. She stands and says that she will not vote for the deal and rightly says that she will be held to account by her constituents. I congratulate her on that. We do not always agree—we do not agree on this issue—but on many points we do agree about why this withdrawal agreement is bad for our country.

    I pay tribute to the Democratic Unionist party. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice decries that. He has not even let me finish my sentence. As a grouping, I have grave difficulties with the DUP, as individuals I find most of them pleasant, but at least they have been consistent, and on this I absolutely agree with them. This withdrawal agreement is a genuine threat to the Union of the United Kingdom. I genuinely believe that. It is one of the reasons why I am in fear of this agreement. I believe that it is a threat to Northern Ireland and its relationship as part of our United Kingdom. I believe that the same is true of Scotland. I believe that Brexit will increase the desire of the Scottish people to break away from the Union and strike out by themselves, because they will see a future as a member of the European Union denied them as part of the United Kingdom. In Wales, too, we know that the number of remain voters continues to grow.

    I agree with the comments made by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) that the division between the political declaration and the withdrawal agreement will make the certainty that British businesses are crying out for even less achievable. It is so regrettable, given that we have started finally on a process of indicative votes—something that, as you know, Mr Speaker, many of us were crying out for at the beginning of this process to bring unity; to bring the 48% and the 52% together to form a consensus. We have begun that process and we are making good progress in it, and I think that there will be some good and reasonable outcomes that will heal the divide and take us forward in the way that we need to go.

    What sort of country have we become post the referendum? Are we a better country? Are we a happier country? Are we a more united country? Or is the absolute reality that we are not just as divided as we were in June 2016 but even more divided? Change will come because change has to come, because British politics is broken. We are seeing that change. I have left the Conservative party along with two others. I think more will follow. I think we will see the break-up of the two parties, and I am delighted today that the group that I have joined with former Labour Members has today formed itself into a new political party that will change the face and direction of British politics. That is why we call ourselves change.org—[Interruption.] I believe that that is what the British people are crying out for—leadership, honesty, integrity and a new way of doing politics. That is the only good thing that will come out of the Brexit chaos.

  • Liz Kendall – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liz Kendall, the Labour MP for Leicester West, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2019.

    I will vote against the withdrawal agreement today. It is not what people were promised and it will lead to a worse deal than we have now. Far from sorting Brexit, the uncertainty facing our country will continue for years to come.​
    Many people, including those who aspire to be the next Prime Minister of this country, want to sweep the promises that they made during the referendum under the carpet. They say that those promises are somehow not relevant, and they hope that people will forget. However, Labour Members remember that our constituents were promised that when we leave the European Union we will hold all the cards, that agreeing our entire future relationship with the EU would be the easiest deal in human history, and that we would have the exact same benefits as now. Mr Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth.

    Despite that, I am acutely aware that many people just want Brexit to be sorted; they want it to be over. They are fed up with the incomprehensible twists and turns, with the arguments and anger, and they want us to get on with it. They want us to deal with the issues that matter in their daily lives. Nevertheless, we must speak the truth: this withdrawal agreement and political declaration, which cannot be separated, solve none of the fundamental questions that we face about our future relationship with the EU, and the huge consequences that that will have for jobs, businesses and public services. If we do not get those choices right, dealing with issues such as housing and the future of our public services will be even harder, if not impossible.

    The grim truth is that if this withdrawal agreement is passed today, we will be taking a huge leap into the unknown. Worse still, none of the fundamental questions and choices will be made by Opposition Members—they will be made by the winner of the next Tory leadership election. I have looked on with what I can describe only as growing disgust as certain members of the Tory party, who for months have opposed the withdrawal agreement, are now flipping to support it. They do so not out of any principle, but purely for their own personal and political gain. We cannot allow the future of this country to be held to ransom by the never-ending internal Tory psychodrama and by people who want to put their own jobs and ambitions before the jobs and ambitions of people in this country.

    I close on something that may not be the main focus of today’s debate but, just as with the financial crash, I fear that Brexit and the subsequent political crisis will have long-term consequences for both main political parties, for faith in our parliamentary democracy and political process, for our sense of nationhood and national identity, and for Britain’s standing in the eyes of countries throughout the world.

    We will not deal with any of those problems and challenges by voting for the withdrawal agreement and just hoping they go away, or by putting the future of this country in the hands of a hard-line Tory Brexiteer who will never be satisfied until their ideological purity has been achieved at the expense of everyone in this country except themselves. We will deal with these issues and challenges only by facing them head on.

    We need a longer extension so that we can build a lasting consensus on the best way forward, not just within this House but, crucially, with the British people. For that reason, I hope all Opposition Members will join me in voting against the withdrawal agreement today.​

  • Ian Murray – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ian Murray, the Labour MP for Edinburgh South, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2019.

    I am grateful to be called to speak in this important debate. I say at the start that I will do this afternoon what is in the best interests of the country and my constituents by not supporting this deal. I have to say that I was disappointed by the contribution of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). We agree on 95% of everything in this particular EU debate. To attack the Labour party, rather than the Government for the deal in front of us, perhaps shows where SNP Members’ thought processes are at the moment.

    Let us not forget that the House voted for this process, against the Government’s wishes. One thing we can all say with great certainty is that, since mid-November last year, nothing has changed, either in the withdrawal agreement or in the political declaration. The only thing that has changed is the Attorney General’s legal advice. If you ask a lawyer for the conclusion that you want, and you pay them, you are likely to get what you are ​looking for. There is no trust in the Government in this place. We tried to do everything we could as a Parliament, and we had to drag the Government through hedges, to get to a place whereby we could have even this proper debate.

    Jim Shannon

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Ian Murray

    I will not, because it would mean that my Back-Bench colleagues will not get a chance to speak.

    Today is 29 March—the day we should have left the European Union—so it is a good day to look at the report cards for the Government and the leave campaign on where we should have been by today. Where is the £350 million Brexit bonanza for our NHS? It is not there. Where is the easiest trade deal in history? Not only is it not the easiest in history, but the Government have had to take it out of this particular debate to get their deal through. Where is taking back control? Indeed, we are ceding control. Where is the promise of no border on the island of Ireland? The solution cannot be found by the Government because of the red lines they set themselves. Where are the 40 bilateral trade deals that we should have just rolled over by midnight tonight? Where is the cap and the reduction in net migration? It cannot be met. Where is more money going into our public services, when £4.2 billion is being spent on no deal? Those are not just broken promises; they also broke the law. There are no sunny uplands in this process. Today we should all say loud and clear that we are slaying the unicorns once and for all.

    This is not meaningful vote 3, it is meaningful vote 2 and a half. The Government are not complying with their own legislation, and they know it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) was absolutely right: there is nothing wrong with somebody selling their house, but they have to know where they will go next. The Government are asking us to sell the house without knowing where we go next. It is not only that we do not know where we will go next with the political declaration, but that we do not even know who will do that negotiation. This is a blind Brexit with a blind Prime Minister and a blind Government. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) made a wonderful speech from the Front Bench, and he was absolutely correct: the entire debate on our future relationship with the European Union will be conducted after a Conservative leadership election that could provide a Prime Minister who will rip up the political declaration and take us into territory that we do not want to be taken into.

    What happens if the motion passes today but the political declaration—or, indeed, the implementation Bill—does not pass? My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central was absolutely correct that, come 22 May, we will again end up in the situation in which it is the Prime Minister’s deal or no deal, with no opportunity to extend the process.

    In this process, the Prime Minister is the shopkeeper in the “Monty Python” sketch involving the dead Norwegian parrot, and Parliament is Mr Praline. It is quite clear that her deal is no more. It has ceased to exist. It is bereft of life. It rests in peace. It is a deal that has been nailed to its perch. It is an ex-parrot; it is an ​ex-deal. Interestingly, at the end of that sketch, the shopkeeper says, “this is getting silly”, and the sketch gives up. Prime Minister and Government: this is getting silly. Give up and listen to the House.

    We might end up having to revoke article 50 come 22 May if we pass this motion but have no opportunity to do anything else. I suggest that the Government now listen to the indicative vote process that happened on Wednesday, act with dignity and respect this House as that process continues next week. They should also listen to what the public are saying. It is completely unfair that the Prime Minister can keep flogging the dead horse of her deal as many times as she likes in this House yet the public got one chance three years ago, with all the sunny uplands and broken promises they were given in 2016. Let us give the British people a confirmatory vote and let them back into the process to break the impasse in Parliament. If they still wish to leave the European Union, and if the Prime Minister is so confident about her deal, she will go to them and get them to back it. If they do not, we can maintain the best deal we have at the moment, which is to be a fully-fledged member of the European Union.

  • Andrew Mitchell – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative MP for Sutton Coldfield, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2019.

    I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), whom I first met more than 25 years ago, when he was the mayor of Belfast.

    I want to speak up today for compromise. I find myself very much drawn to the arguments put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith)—I was of course his Whip more than a quarter of a century ago, during the Maastricht debates. Today, we are in absolute agreement, and I think he spoke extremely well in the cause of compromise.​

    I voted against the Prime Minister’s deal in January because I thought there was time for the overall deal to be changed in the best interests of those I represent in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield. However, I voted for it earlier this month, because I thought the options and the opportunities had narrowed significantly, and I will be voting for it today.

    I do not like the deal. I have concluded that it is the least worst option. I am particularly worried about the backstop, but above all the central point that I am worried about, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) mentioned, is that the way that we have gone about this has breached the fundamental rule, which certainly applied when I used to go to ministerial meetings in Brussels, that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. It is the failure to endorse that cardinal principle of negotiating with the EU that has let us down so badly.

    The Government have found a way to keep themselves compliant with your directions from the Chair, Mr Speaker, but today we are essentially discussing and voting on the Government’s deal. I will vote for it. If it goes down tonight and the Government fail, this House must accept that we are back, fair and square, in the process set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), which I supported. It was no surprise at all that the House did not make a decision on Wednesday this week and effectively voted no to everything, but if the Government fail today, the House must recognise that the votes on Monday will be extremely important. In my judgment, it is likely that the House will vote yes to at least two of those options.

    Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)

    The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Was he not also in some way inspired by the process a couple of days ago, in that on Monday we have an opportunity to vote for something for which there could be a majority? In fact, just two days ago, three options achieved more votes than the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement did in two previous votes.

    Mr Mitchell

    The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point in his own way, but my point is that on Monday the House will need to choose. If the Government cannot do it, the House must do it, and we must remember that in spite of some of the things that are said, including from the Government Front Bench, the Government are accountable to Parliament and not the other way round. No two colleagues agree entirely in what they say in this House, but in my view there will be a result on Monday, and the Government must honour it.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) rose—

    Mr Mitchell

    I am so sorry; I do not have time to give way.

    I hope very much that the Prime Minister will agree that members of the Cabinet—all Ministers—can vote freely on Monday. Otherwise, senior Members of Parliament will be disenfranchised from this process. There should not be a Whip. If we come to this on Monday, it will be a House of Commons occasion. The House of Commons must seek to sort it out.​
    I find myself in a minority in the House of Commons. I think the House overstates the dangers of no deal. I do not believe there is such a thing as no deal. I think that, were we to leave with what is called no deal, there will be a whole series of smaller deals, some temporary and some more permanent, and some stops, so I do not worry as much as many of my colleagues do about the dangers of no deal.

    Equally, I think that the House massively underestimates the dangers of advancing towards a second referendum. The anger, irritation and annoyance of our constituents will be palpable, and in my judgment, it would be very likely to solve nothing at all. Imagine the nightmare of the country reversing the earlier vote and voting 48:52 to remain. What would that mean for our democracy? What would that mean for the votes of the people in both those referendums? For this House to advance down the route of another referendum would in my view be a very serious mistake indeed. However, if the Government cannot do a deal that the House of Commons will accept, and if the House of Commons cannot come to an agreement in the way that I have described, the ineluctable logic of that position is that it will have to be referred again to the British people, and in my view that would be an absolute disaster.

    I end on this point. This is an important negotiation. I think that we have been out-manoeuvred as a country by the European Commission and the 27 standing absolutely firm, as they said they would, which many of us did not believe. However, this is an important negotiation, and they have interests and we have interests. In my judgment, unless the European Union and the Commission can show a little bit more of a sense of compromise on what the Government have been saying, it will leave a profound legacy of bitterness across the channel between the European Union and this country. They are our friends and partners. We will trade with them, do business with them and work with them over the coming years and generations. We also have huge security interests that bind us together. I obviously hope that the Government are successful today, but if they are not and we move into those further processes—the unknown—the Commission will also bear in mind its interest in trying to reach a deal that is good for both parties and is not imposed on one of those parties.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Statement on Brexit

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2019.

    On a point of order Mr Speaker, I think it should be a matter of profound regret to every member of this House that once again we have been unable to support leaving the European Union in an orderly fashion.

    The implications of the House’s decision are grave.

    The legal default now is that the United Kingdom is due to leave the European Union on 12 April.

    In just 14 days’ time.

    This is not enough time to agree, legislate for and ratify a deal, and yet the House has been clear it will not permit leaving without a deal.

    And so we will have to agree an alternative way forward.

    The European Union has been clear that any further extension will need to have a clear purpose and will need to be agreed unanimously by the heads of the other 27 member States ahead of 12 April.

    It is also almost certain to involve the UK being required to hold European parliamentary elections.

    On Monday, this House will continue the process to see if there is a stable majority for a particular alternative version of our future relationship with the EU.Of course, all of the options will require the withdrawal agreement.

    Mr Speaker, I fear we are reaching the limits of this process in this House.

    This House has rejected no deal. It has rejected no Brexit. On Wednesday it rejected all the variations of the deal on the table.

    And today it has rejected approving the withdrawal agreement alone and continuing a process on the future.

    This government will continue to press the case for the orderly Brexit that the result of the referendum demands.

  • 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 27 March 2019.

    I apologise to hon. and right hon. Members, but given the time constraints I will not extend the usual courtesy of taking interventions.

    I am particularly pleased to be participating in this debate, because today we can start to bring an end to the chaos. Parliament has taken back control because this Tory Government and this Prime Minister are out of control. Scotland did not ask for this crisis; nobody asked for this chaos. Of course, Scotland voted to remain in the EU. We voted overwhelmingly to protect our economy and the freedoms and the values that the European Union gives to the people of Scotland. Scotland is a European country; historically, we have been a European country. Economically, socially and culturally, we benefit from our membership.

    Today the SNP laid a motion to ensure that Scotland’s voice is heard, because Scotland’s wishes have been completely ignored during the Brexit process. This is in stark contrast to the European Union, which seeks consensus and fosters collaboration through its institutions and throughout the Community. It is a partnership of equals, in stark contrast to this place, where there is no equality of respect for the devolved institutions. That lack of appreciation of how the UK should work post-devolution will haunt this place. Increasingly, those living in Scotland will reflect on the way that we are treated in this Union—the United Kingdom. It is most certainly not the partnership of equals that the Prime Minister had promised us. It is one where we are told, quite simply, that our votes do not count, where we can be stripped of our European citizenship—and for what?—and where we will pay a price economically, socially and culturally.​

    The facts are clear—Brexit will rob Scotland of jobs. It will rob our economy of talented workers that our public sector needs. It will steal opportunities to travel and learn from our EU partners from future generations. It will divide relationships—families and friendships. There is no such thing as a good Brexit, and it must be stopped. We must act to protect the interests of our citizens, of our communities, and of our nations. Today is the opportunity—perhaps the only opportunity.

    Today in the European Parliament, my friend and colleague, Alyn Smith MEP, asked Europe to keep a light on for Scotland to show us the way home. I want the EU to keep a light on for Scotland. As Members of Parliament, we must decide: can we follow that light, or is the United Kingdom heading into the darkness? Scotland will not follow the UK into that darkness if the UK fails to change course. We can and will follow the light, to allow Scotland to become an independent country in the European Union.

    I want to make it clear that tonight the Scottish National party will vote for our preferred options on the Order Paper. We will vote for a second EU referendum, and we will vote for motions to revoke article 50, as revocation may be our only option to get out of this mess. Those options must remain on the table. The Scottish Parliament will vote today to endorse revocation in the event of no deal. We expect that to be backed on a cross-party basis, and, I say to friends and colleagues, that includes the Labour party. Revoke must be an option. I therefore ask Members to support motion (L), tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry).

    Let me speak to some of the other motions. We on the SNP Benches would like to seek clarity from the official Opposition about their motion. For Scotland, freedom of movement without any caveats is essential, not just in principle but for the sake of our nation’s prosperity. Can those on the Labour Front Bench confirm that their motion protects and continues the policy of freedom of movement in full?

    I turn to motion (D), in the name of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles). Let me be clear: the SNP does not and will not endorse the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement. The agreement Bill requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament, and the UK Government have already broken that process. The people of Scotland voted to remain, and as I noted in my remarks on the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, freedom of movement is essential for the SNP. Our nation’s future and our public services depend on it. We must have total confidence that in any Norway-plus proposal, the freedom of movement that we currently benefit from will continue and we will have access to the single market and customs union in full.

    We have further questions regarding the proposals of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford for a customs arrangement and the prospect of alternative arrangements to ensure frictionless trade. I hear his assurance on freedom of movement, and we will not oppose his motion, but it will certainly be difficult for us to support it, particularly as remain is the option that we demand.

    Let me make it clear: the SNP wants to find a way forward. Our preferred option is to remain in the European Union—that is what Scotland voted for—and as long as that is an option, we will vote for it, but we have ​always said that if it proves not to be possible, we will seek compromise to protect Scotland’s interests. We have set out previously what compromise is for us—and remember, that would be compromise from a position where the country we represent did not vote for Brexit and our national Parliament is opposed to Brexit.

    That compromise, endorsed by the Scottish Parliament, is “Scotland’s Place in Europe”. Published in December 2016 and ignored by the UK Government, it proposes full membership of the European single market and the customs union, but that position is not encapsulated yet in any of the proposals put forward tonight. Our compromise requires full acceptance of freedom of movement and respect for the position of the Scottish Parliament and for devolution as a whole. We have put forward that compromise time and again for more than two years, but it has continually been ignored. While we know that some Members agree with us in principle, there is more work to be done by those on the Labour and Tory Benches to get to a position that we could accept, if we cannot put this matter back to the people or choose to remain in the EU.

    When I look at the Order Paper, I see that there is space to compromise; there is a better way out of this mess. On Saturday, more than 1 million people marched to ask that they get the chance to vote on their future within the European Union. I was proud to stand with them alongside our First Minister. People from all parts of the United Kingdom now know the price that will be paid for Brexit—economic disaster—and they want another say. Member across the House may feel some discomfort or unease about a second EU referendum, but what is more respectful to the electorate, when this place has repeatedly failed, than giving them back control? There is nothing to fear. The Prime Minister does not have support for her deal, and this House has not found a solution, so let us do the right thing and end this stalemate by letting the people decide. I urge Members to join the SNP, compromise at this critical hour and vote for a motion to hold a second EU referendum.

    In conclusion, the UK Government are flogging a dead horse, running down the clock and hoping that the squeeze of time will bring support for the Prime Minister’s devastating deal. We can end this today: we can take back control and stop the Prime Minister. We can show leadership and maturity. The people want it. Let us do the right thing, and find consensus to protect the interests of all our citizens.

  • Hilary Benn – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Hilary Benn, the Labour MP for Leeds Central, in the House of Commons on 27 March 2019.

    Is there not something really quite liberating about the debate we are having? The normal atmosphere and structure, with propositions from one side or the other, have all disappeared as the House of Commons has taken control of this really important discussion about how we are going to take our country forward. Another striking thing is that every single Member who has spoken in support of a proposition has not sought to rubbish the other propositions; they have put their case in an effort to win support from across the House. If that is not confirmation of the wisdom of the House’s having taken control—I do not like that phrase because I think it is the House doing its job—to allow us to do that, I do not know what is.

    I will make two points. First, I will vote for the customs union motion moved by the Father of the House, which everyone in the Chamber knows is an essential building block to make any progress towards achieving the two objectives set by the Prime Minister: keeping an open border and at the same time keeping friction-free trade moving to oil the wheels of our industry. I will also vote for the common market 2.0 proposal, although, like many others, I note the difference between, on the one hand, a customs union and, on the other, a customs arrangement. It is a compromise proposal, but I will support it.

    I will also vote for the confirmatory referendum. I thought we heard an absolutely outstanding speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). I will vote for it as someone who, for a long time, has not argued for a people’s vote, but I want to explain why I have come to the conclusion that a confirmatory referendum is the only way forward. In essence, it is because things have changed. The proposition put before the British people by the leave campaign during the referendum—that one did not ​have to choose between our sovereignty, on the one hand, and the economic health of the country on the other—has proven to be false.

    David Tredinnick

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Hilary Benn

    I will not because many people want to speak. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

    The anger expressed by some Members towards the Prime Minister’s deal is in part revealing. The truth is that there is a choice to be made. The suggestion that we could have all the things that we wanted without anything that we did not has proven not to be the case. If things have changed, should we not therefore ask the people?

    Secondly, the Government changed their mind originally on whether the House would have a meaningful vote. The Government said at one point that there would be an enormous row about the structure of the negotiations and then changed their mind and accepted the way in which the European Union wanted to conduct them. The Government have come back once already, and may well this week come back again, in an attempt to persuade us to change our minds about the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. The first holder of the post of Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union changed his mind about supporting the deal. There are reports that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) may be in the process of changing his mind as well. The Prime Minister said 108 times that we would definitely leave on 29 March, but she changed her mind and we are not.

    Why is it that the only people in this debate apparently not allowed to be asked whether they have changed their minds are the British people? How can that be democratic? If Members agree that it is not, I hope very much that they will vote for motion (M) tonight.