UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2019

  • Stephen Twigg – 2019 Valediction Speech

    Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Twigg, the Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby, in the House of Commons on 5 November 2019.

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones). I will start, if I may, by thanking everyone with whom I have had the honour to work in this place. In particular, I wish to put on record my thanks to my amazing staff both in the constituency and here in Parliament.

    I had the privilege to serve for eight years the constituency in which I grew up and where most of my close family still live—Enfield, Southgate. That result in Enfield, Southgate in 1997 was once voted the third greatest television moment ever. This was in a survey in 1998, so it was fresh in people’s minds. In that poll, the greatest television moment ever was the first man on the moon, the second was the release of Nelson Mandela from prison and the third was my defeat of Michael Portillo in that election. I have told this story once or twice over the past two decades, and I should point out that it was a poll of The Observer readers and Channel 4 viewers, so was not necessarily a cross-section of the public as a whole.

    When I lost in 2005, I sought refuge in Liverpool, and I am immensely grateful to my local Labour party and to the people of the great constituency of West Derby in the city of Liverpool for electing me three times since 2010. Liverpool is a city with a truly amazing spirit, and that spirit is embodied by the campaign for justice for those who lost their lives at Hillsborough 30 years ago. I pay tribute to the families and campaigners who did so much to ensure that that injustice was properly addressed. It is a city with a very vibrant community and voluntary sector. One of the things I have done is to volunteer at a local food bank at St John’s church in Tuebrook in my constituency. I think there is something profoundly wrong that people in this day and age are relying on food banks, but I pay tribute to those who work in them.

    Education has long been my No. 1 passion, and I served for three years as Minister for Schools. In that role, I set up and led the London challenge programme to improve schools here in the capital city. In Liverpool, I have run the Liverpool to Oxbridge Collaborative to encourage more state school students to consider Oxford or Cambridge. I also chair the all-party parliamentary group on global education.

    Since 2015, it has been an honour to chair the Select Committee on International Development. I thank its staff and all its Members, past and present—in particular, my friend the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). It is so important that the UK remains engaged globally, and one of the ways in which we do that is through our commitment to development and humanitarian relief. We can be proud of our 0.7% commitment and that we have an independent Department—the Department for International Development—that leads in the delivery of those programmes. We face huge challenges of climate change, conflict, poverty and inequality, and we have the tool of the sustainable development goals to address these crises, but we also need to maintain our focus on some appalling humanitarian situations in places such as Yemen and Syria, as well as the Rohingya crisis covering the people of Burma and Bangladesh. I hope that whoever takes over from me as Chair of the Committee will pick up those challenges.​
    In 1997, my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and I were the first ever Members of Parliament who were openly LGBT at the time of our first election. I pay tribute to our friend Lord Smith of Finsbury, who for a long period was the only openly gay Member of Parliament. I am very proud that there are now 45 Members in this House who are openly LGBT and that we have seen huge legal progress in this country, although we still have a long way to go to achieve full equality across the world. Thanks to civil partnerships, I was able to marry Mark 13 years ago. We always called our civil partnership a marriage, but I was then very proud to vote with others across the House for equal marriage. I really thank Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron, all of whom showed great commitment to the cause of equality for people who are LGBT. As we move forward, I hope that we will address some of the very big challenges that LGBT people face around the world and ensure that part of our soft power and our approach to global human rights is about addressing those injustices, wherever they rear their heads.

    I conclude by echoing comments made by a number of Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who talked about the importance of appealing to the best instincts of the British people, and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who spoke very powerfully about how we need to bring people together. We have seen a growth of a particular strand of authoritarian populism across our continent and in the United States, Brazil and other parts of the world. It poses a huge challenge for our politics. Here in the UK, Brexit is in a sense both a consequence and a cause of some very fundamental divisions and inequalities that scar our society.

    Against that backdrop, I hope that the new Parliament will be able to do its best to bring people back together. I have never like the adversarialism in this place. I did not like it when I was a Government Member with a majority of almost 200; I certainly do not like it in opposition. I think we do really have a lot in common with each other. We need to be more open about the need to address the evidence that is available on the policy challenges that we face. One of the reasons I have enjoyed chairing a Select Committee is that it is cross-party working and it is based on the best available evidence, not the best available slogan for carrying the headlines that day. I hope that is something that we can all reflect on in the weeks, months and years ahead.

    I want to finish by quoting the late Jo Cox. I stand here in front of the shield in Jo’s memory. I only got to know Jo in that very brief period from her election in 2015 to her murder a year later. Jo said that

    “we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]

    That message is one that I hope we can all take forward in this election campaign but also into the next Parliament.

  • Harriet Harman – 2019 Tribute to the Speaker of the House of Commons

    Harriet Harman – 2019 Tribute to the Speaker of the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harriet Harman, the Labour MP for Camberwell and Peckham, in the House of Commons on 31 October 2019.

    Mr Speaker, you are my fifth Speaker now, and I can say from that experience that you have been a remarkable Speaker of this House. You have been a champion of Parliament and a reformer. As other hon. and right hon. Members have said, you have thought about opening up this House so that young people all around the country can see that it is their Parliament that is here for them. You have been a great champion of the Youth Parliament. The Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House were right to say that everybody agrees with that now and recognises that it is a thoroughly good thing, but you had to fight for it because there were those who resisted change and said, “We cannot have all these children here in the House of Commons. We’ve got work to be done.” You relentlessly, and in a principled way, pushed for it, and I thank you for that.

    You have used the Speaker’s state rooms to give outside organisations a sense that their work is recognised by and valued in this Parliament. As the shadow Leader of the House said, over 1,000 organisations have come into this House, and the grandeur of those state rooms has inspired and encouraged them that their works in communities all around the country are valued here.

    I would like to pay particular tribute to the work that you have done for the women’s movement. Organisations campaigning for equal pay have been in those grand state rooms surrounded by those 20-foot-high portraits of former Speakers. They have had their place there: those championing equal pay; those complaining that we need more childcare; those campaigning against domestic violence. They have been there; you have brought them in and endowed them with a sense of importance.

    You actually turned one of the bars of the House of Commons into a nursery for the children of staff in Whitehall and in the House and of Members. That too is something we can be proud of, but it is something that you had to fight for. We had been fighting for it for decades and had failed; it was not until you were in the Chair that you made it happen. You supported the coming into this Chamber of 100 women MPs from 100 Parliaments from all around the world so that here in the mother of Parliaments we could validate their work in their Parliaments all around the world.

    I think we can fairly say that you are politically correct, but it was not always the case. You have been on what they describe as a political journey. You started off going towards the views of the Monday Club. You are woke now, but my goodness me, you were in the deepest of slumbers.

    You really have made a huge difference in championing us here in the House. Above all, you have been concerned about the role of Parliament in being able to hold the Executive to account. That is not just about Back Benchers and Front Benchers; it is about the role of Parliament. Members who have come here more recently perhaps would not remember this—I thank the Library for getting this information for me—but in the 12 months before you took the Speaker’s Chair, two urgent questions were granted in that whole time. The impact of that was that people outside the House would be discussing issues but they would not be discussed here, and therefore Parliament felt irrelevant. In the past 12 months, you have granted 152 UQs. You have made Parliament relevant. I thank you for that—but again, it has not always made you popular. Ministers would rather sit in their Departments talking to civil servants and junior Ministers who agree with them than come here and face the House. But it is better for Government to be held to account. It is easy to make mistakes when doing things behind closed doors. You have always believed that the minority must have its say in Parliament, and you have championed that, but you have also always believed that the majority must have its way, and that is right.

    Precedent offers less help in unprecedented times, which we have been experiencing, but you have had a profound sense that you are accountable to the House and that you want to enable and facilitate the House, and that is what you have done. You leave the Chair in uncertain and, I would say, even dangerous times. Thank you for your support and recognition of all those Members—men as well as women—who have gone about their business under a hail of threats of violence. Our democracy should not have to experience that. I would like to thank you for being tireless in your work, and I would like to thank your family for their support of you. They can be rightly proud of what you have done, and we are too.

  • Pete Wishart – 2019 Tribute to the Speaker of the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the speech made by Pete Wishart, the SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire, in the House of Commons on 31 October 2019.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I say that for the last time. I was just saying to the SNP Chief Whip, given that questions were allowed to go on for 40 minutes longer, Bercow must go.

    I was, of course, one of your nominees 10 years ago. I would therefore like to congratulate myself on my solid and sound judgment on that occasion. I always knew that you would make an excellent Speaker. Even that awful impersonation you did of Peter Tapsell when you were trying to be elected did not dissuade me of that notion. But I did not know that you would be such a transformative Speaker. The way in which we do business in this Chamber is now forever changed because of your speakership. You have pioneered and transformed. The speakership of this House is now no longer just about overseeing the business in the Chamber, and the way in which we debate and interact with each other. It is about asserting the rights of Parliament and championing parliamentary democracy. And you have been singularly brave in the way you have challenged various Governments who believed that it was their gift always to get their way. We will never go back to those days now, because of the way in which you have challenged that assumption.

    I will never forget sitting with you in that curry house in Buckingham, when MP4 did a gig for you in your constituency. That curry house stayed open because Mr Speaker was coming with some strange guests from a rock band, and the vindaloo you ordered that night had to be specially prepared. We could not get you to come up on stage with us that evening, but now you have a bit more time. Given the Prime Minister’s Sinatra reference yesterday, maybe you could give us a rendition of “My Way”; we would happily supply the backing for that occasion.

    The culture of this House has been totally and radically transformed. You have ensured that the Back Benchers are now fully accommodated. I have been here long enough to remember the days when urgent questions and statements were cut off after half an hour or 40 minutes, and it would always be the Back Benchers and Members of the smaller parties who would lose out on an opportunity to say something and give their point of view on the issue of the day. That no longer happens. Everybody is now accommodated. I hope that that transformation that you have made will continue to be adopted as we go forward. We all now get an opportunity to give our point of view in this House, and it is important that that remains the case. For that, we thank you.

    We on these Benches will miss you, and you will forever be a friend of Scotland and of the Scottish National party. On behalf of our party, I wish you and your family—Sally, Freddie, Jemima and Oliver—all the very best for the future. I wish your staff, Peter, Ian and Jim, all the best as well. I hope that you enjoy the next stage of what has already been a fascinating and unique journey. You are a one-off, sir, and we will miss you.

  • Alan Duncan – 2019 Tribute to the Speaker of the House of Commons

    Alan Duncan – 2019 Tribute to the Speaker of the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Duncan, the Conservative MP for Rutland and Melton, in the House of Commons on 31 October 2019.

    Mr Speaker, may I echo the heartfelt comments that have been made about you from so many quarters over the past few days? May I do so by way of two confessions, which I have been needing to get off my chest? The first is that I was at a primary school—it is always there that you get the difficult questions—and I was asked, “What is the rudest thing that anyone has ever said to you in politics?” I thought for a bit and said, “Do you know what, it is when someone came up to me in the street and said, ‘Good morning, Mr Bercow.’” I hope that you will forgive me for that. The second confession is rather worse. I may well burn in the fiery flames of hell for ever having done this. I am known occasionally in the Tea Room to have referred to you as Mr Speaker Hobbit. I hope that you will forgive me this affectionate teasing and, in paying my own tribute to you, it gives me pleasure that my last words in this House are to wish you the best for the future.

    Mr Speaker

    I gently point out that a hobbit is a friendly creature.

  • Valerie Vaz – 2019 Tribute to the Speaker of the House of Commons

    Valerie Vaz – 2019 Tribute to the Speaker of the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the speech made by Valerie Vaz, the Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, in the Commons on 31 October 2019.

    May I start by thanking the Leader of the House for his statement? I note that there are no business questions this morning, but he did say that you would allow us a bit of latitude, Mr Speaker, so may I ask one question through you? When is Parliament likely to return after the election? Perhaps the Leader of the House could answer that in his own time.

    Most people can read the basic facts about your life on your website, Mr Speaker, and on various other websites. You are the first Speaker since the second world war to have served alongside four Prime Ministers and to be elected to the post four times. I shall concentrate on my interactions with you.

    Those of us in the 2010 intake were pleased that the rules were suspended slightly and we were allowed to ask questions before we made our first speeches. I think that made a huge difference to us. You spoke at, and gave up a Saturday evening for, the launch of the campaign to have a bust for Noor Inayat Khan, who served in the Special Operations Executive—Churchill’s special group. Karen Newman sculpted the wonderful bust that is now in Gordon Square. Noor was executed in the Dachau concentration camp. It was important to recognise her.

    You allowed me the use of Speaker’s House for the launch of the Sidney Goldberg competition, which you attended and spoke at. Sidney Goldberg was in the headquarters ship during the D-day landings. It is important that you have opened up the use of Speaker’s House to civil society and charities—roughly eight a week, more than 150 a year. It is really important for people to see what goes on in Speaker’s House, and I am sure many people will thank you for that. When fielding a number of questions as guests walked through to the bed in the final room, we had to explain to them that it was not you and Sally who slept there.

    With your friend since 1982, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), you trained quite a lot of Tory candidates, and I am sure you have seen many of them here. You have obviously trained them well, because they have been quite argumentative towards you.

    Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)

    I was one of them.

    Valerie Vaz

    Ah!

    Being in the Chamber is what you have loved most, Mr Speaker. Perhaps they are going to patent your bladder—the sight of Ian and Peter checking your vital signs as you leave after a long session is quite interesting. As many people have said, you have opened the Chamber up to urgent questions. You knew which Select Committee Members served on and called people appropriately for urgent questions and statements.

    I will not forget the phone call that you made to me; I thought I had done something wrong, but you picked up the phone and said, “It’s Mr Speaker here. Would you like to come to Burma?” I think Joan Ruddock could not make it. It was great to be on that trip with you, and particularly to see your groundbreaking speech at the University of Yangon, before Daw Suu was elected. We went to Mon state, where we visited the legal aid clinic and then a school. There were people looking through windows with cameras. They were not actually following us—they were sent by someone else—but I remember you waving your hand and saying, “Who are those people? Send them away.” And they did go—they listened to you.

    There is a phrase: “Behold the turtle. He only makes progress when he sticks his neck out.” I think people would say that you are a turtle on skids, Mr Speaker. You commissioned “The Good Parliament” report by Professor Sarah Childs, and many of her recommendations, particularly on proxy voting, have now been implemented. You produced a landmark report on speech, language and communication needs for children. Ican, the children’s charity, has done a follow-up report, “Bercow 10 years on” and I hope that it has made a difference and they have seen the difference that your initial report has made.

    The Leader of the House mentioned the Education Centre, which has been used by many of our schools. It is such a delight to walk through Speaker’s Yard to the Education Centre. It has made a huge difference to the understanding of Parliament.

    I was privileged to sit on your group for the Speaker’s school council awards. It was incredible to see the level of the children’s entries, how they were thinking about other people and how they want to change society. It is a tribute to you that that happened.

    Then, of course, there is the Youth Parliament. Since 2009, you have chaired every Youth Parliament and you have been to every annual conference. It is incredible to see the way the members of the Youth Parliament have risen to the occasion. I am sorry that you will not be here for the next one, on 8 November. The level of debate, as you know, is absolutely exemplary and something that we can learn from.

    It is UK Parliament Week next week, from 2 to 10 November—as part of my contribution to business questions, I am adding bits of information. There will be 11,400 activities—15 in Walsall South, but 11 in North East Somerset, so it has some catching up to do.

    Mr Speaker, you are chancellor of two universities: the University of Bedfordshire and, your alma mater, the University of Essex. I know that you will continue to teach them about how Parliament can be opened up. You have opened up Parliament, which has been part of the golden triangle of accountability involving the Executive and the judiciary. Parliament is not the subservient partner, but, under your speakership, the equal and relevant partner. I say to the other side that I think you did do your job as a very impartial Speaker. I know that some of us on our side actually questioned you calling other sides first. So everybody thinks that you are an impartial Speaker and have favourites one way or the other. However, you will be pleased to know that your ratings on the Parliament channel have gone up and that the word “Order” is now used by parents around the country as the new naughty step.

    I thank your long-serving staff: Peter Barrett, Ian Davis and Jim Davey, those in your outer office and those in your inner office. They have always been absolutely exemplary to me, whether I was a Back Bencher or on the Front Bench, and to other Members.

    Of course, we cannot forget the great Sally, who has always been by your side and supportive of the work that you do. We all need that person who will support us in our work—particularly Oliver, Freddie and Jemima. It was lovely to watch them in the Gallery yesterday, as they were looking down almost in tears. It was very nice for them to hear the tributes because I know that they have faced difficult times in the playground when you have been attacked.

    So, John Simon Bercow, this was your life in Parliament. We wish you well in whatever you choose to do, and you go with our grateful thanks and best wishes.

  • Jacob Rees-Mogg – 2019 Tribute to the Speaker of the House of Commons

    Jacob Rees-Mogg – 2019 Tribute to the Speaker of the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Leader of the House of Commons, in the Commons on 31 October 2019.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not need patience because proceedings in this House are always interesting. But let us now praise famous men. It was a privilege to propose you as Speaker in the 2015 Parliament and now, in the reverse of Mark Antony in relation to Caesar, I come not to bury you but to praise you, for that is the right thing to do when a period of long service comes to an end. That is not to deny that there will be a debate about your term of office, as there are debates about the terms of office of other Speakers in our history. However, I am very conscious that the good that men do is often interred with their end of service. I think the good that you have done should be heralded and that others at a later date will look at some of the criticisms that they may have. But now is not the occasion for that.

    In 2009, when you first addressed this House as a candidate for the speakership, you said that you did not want “to be someone”, but rather that you wanted “to do something”. Your agenda was “reform”, “renewal” and “revitalisation”, and although I think the word “modernisation” is an expletive, which I rarely allow to sound forth from my lips, there can be no denying that during your decade in office you have worked tirelessly to achieve those objectives.

    As the 157th Speaker, you have been a distinctive servant of Parliament, both in this place and beyond, representing the House to audiences around the United Kingdom and overseas. I think you share my conviction that politics is at its best when it is engaging. Your work with the United Kingdom Youth Parliament and your work with Parliament’s excellent education team should be celebrated. So many schools from my constituency have taken advantage of this service, and I have always been impressed by the knowledge of the people involved. I know that you had quite a battle to get the education building put up, and some people opposed you, but it has been a resounding success.

    During your speakership, our parliamentary democracy has been under intense scrutiny. We have been fortunate to have in the Chair so accomplished a glottologist as you are, in order that language, as well as the intricate and profound workings of Parliament, can be understood by everyone. I think the words “chunter”, “medicament”, “dilate”, “animadvert” and, perhaps my favourite, “susurrations” have been popularised under your speakership and, I imagine, are now in common parlance in pubs and clubs across England—or at least in Boodle’s, the Beefsteak, Pratt’s and the Garrick. But those sorts of clubs probably enjoy those words greatly.

    As you have dispensed your immediate duties from the Chair, you have come to be known as the Back Bencher’s champion. Our main purpose as Members of Parliament is to seek redress of grievance for our constituents, and you have been unswervingly diligent in your desire to ensure that all parliamentarians are treated equally, whether novice or hardened veteran. I cannot thank you enough for the help you gave me to ensure that we could get the drug Brineura for a constituent of mine: within about a week, you called me at oral questions, granted me an Adjournment debate and then gave me an urgent question, all of which helped to build pressure on the Government to act, to the great advantage of a very ill and very young constituent of mine. This is my view of what Parliament is about, and I think you facilitated that for me in a way that other Speakers may well not have done. My personal gratitude and, more importantly, the gratitude of the family who have benefited from that, is, I think, a real tribute to how you have operated. You have allowed parliamentarians to seek redress of grievance, and that is basically where our law making in this place comes from historically.

    The ultimate, most important, highest duty of the Speaker of the House of Commons is to be the champion of our House and its Members, and to defend our right to freedom of speech in defence of our constituents. Mr Speaker, you have done that. During your time you have presided over what you yourself have termed the “rumbustious” Parliament. Now, as you step down from the office of Speaker of the House of Commons, having what is undoubtedly the highest honour that the House of Commons has in its power to bestow, I wish you a prosperous and successful retirement, and thank you and your family—Sally, Freddie, Jemima, and particularly the great Oliver, who I know has more my view of modernisation than your own, at least with regard to wigs.

  • Kenneth Clarke – 2019 Speech on the European Union Withdrawal Act

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

    I hoped I would never be driven, in these long debates on Brexit, finally to deciding what my opinion is on the choice between a no deal and a bad deal. I regret to say that when my right hon. Friend the previous Prime Minister put forward the proposition before, I had considerable doubts about her belief that no deal was better than a bad deal. Those doubts have increased, because what we have before us now is undoubtedly a bad deal. I think it is a very bad deal. It is wholly inferior to the deal that was negotiated by my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister, for which I, too, voted three times, like the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). We cannot be accused of taking part in this debate seeking to block Brexit and repudiate the wishes of the British public, and all the rubbish that the more fanatic Brexiteers and their followers frequently hail at us. But now the choice is very real.

    This is a very bad deal, for reasons that I will not dilate on, but others have. I actually have considerable sympathy with the Members from Northern Ireland: the independent Unionist, with whom I almost always agree, and the Democratic Unionists. This is a most peculiar constitutional position that they are being put in as Members of the United Kingdom. I would very much rather that we did not have this situation of a border down the Irish sea, because there is absolutely no doubt that there is quite a clear customs and regulatory border being envisaged down the Irish sea.

    It has to be said that the effect is to save the all-Irish economy from the near calamity that a total no deal would have resulted in. I have no idea how anybody would have operated a no-deal situation across the border, and I thought these weird propositions of a customs border somewhere in Northern Ireland but not on the border had little or no chance of working. Although the Irish at least have the economic consolation that they will sail on through the transition period as they are now, I am extremely worried that the purpose of going to negotiate this convoluted arrangement over Ireland was so that the economy of Britain could be taken out of the customs union and the single market straightaway. If that holds after the transition period, I think it will have the most damaging effects on our economic future, for all the reasons that other people have given in the earlier and lengthy speeches we have heard.

    Therefore, it is all to be played for in the transition period. I actually do not believe that a good free trade agreement, a good agreement on security and fighting international crime, and agreements on the licensing of medicines and the possible arrangements with the European Medicines Agency—all the things spelled out—are likely to be achieved by the end of next year. The Canada deal, which a lot of Brexiteers like to hold up as a model, took about nine years to put in place, and I wish that we were prepared to contemplate a more realistic timescale.

    Meanwhile, the votes today, and the process of the next week or two, must get us through the necessary steps to put in place a withdrawal agreement, so that we ​have a transition period in which to hold full negotiations about our ultimate destination. All my votes in this House have been to ensure that the calamity of leaving with no deal on 31 October, or whenever, was never allowed to happen. For that reason, we should support this deal, but I cannot understand the Government’s resistance to saying that we should legislate before we abandon the protection of the Benn Act and decide that we do not need an extension.

    The Government say that we can take for granted the details and getting the votes, but none of us are sure whether there is a majority for this Government and the present deal at all. If the Government can maintain a majority throughout all the legislation I shall be very reassured, but I would like to wait to see that they can.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Speech on the European Union Withdrawal Act

    Theresa May – 2019 Speech on the European Union Withdrawal Act

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Conservative MP for Maidenhead, in the House of Commons on 19 October 2019.

    When I arrived at the House of Commons this morning, I saw the message, “Good day for May”. I thought that perhaps consensus had come across the whole House and that it had already been decided that this deal would be supported by the House tonight. Unfortunately, my view on that was premature—although I think only premature—because, happily for England, it was a reference to Jonny May having scored the first two tries in our victory against Australia.

    I hope the whole House will forgive me if I say that, standing here, I have a distinct sense of déjà vu. But today’s vote is an important one—

    Simon Hoare

    Rebel!

    Mrs May

    I intend to rebel against all those who do not want to vote to deliver Brexit.

    Today’s vote is important. The eyes of the country—no, the eyes of the wider world—are upon us today. Every Member in this House has a responsibility in the decision that they will take to determine whether or not they are going to put the national interest first—not just an ideological, single-issue or party political interest, but the full, wider interests of our constituents.

    As we look at this issue, the decision we take tonight will determine not just the future of our country and the future lives of our constituents, but I believe the very future of our politics, because we have today to take a key decision, and it is simple. Do we want to deliver Brexit? Do we want to deliver on the result of the referendum in 2016? [Interruption.] We know the views of Scottish National party Members: they reject results of referendums, including the referendum to stay in the UK.

    When this House voted overwhelmingly to give the choice of our membership of the EU to the British people, did we really mean it? When we voted to trigger article 50, did we really mean it? When the two main parties represented in this House stood on manifestos in the 2017 general election to deliver Brexit, did we really mean it? I think there can be only one answer to that: yes, we did mean it; yes, we keep faith with the British people; yes, we want to deliver Brexit.

    Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)

    Will the right hon. Lady give way?

    Mrs May

    If the hon. Lady will just wait for a minute.

    If this Parliament did not mean it, it is guilty of the most egregious con trick on the British people.

    There have been many views across this House. I want simply to say something to some of the groups involved. To those who believe that there should be a second referendum—some believe passionately and have for some time; others have come to this more lately—I say simply this: you cannot have a second referendum simply because some people do not agree with the result of the first. I do not like—

    Ms Eagle rose—

    Mrs May

    There are many people who want to speak, so I am going to carry on. I have taken many interventions and questions from across the House on this issue over time.​

    I do not like referendums, but I think that if we have one, we should abide by the result that people have given us.

    Then there is the Labour Front Bench. I have heard much from those on the Labour Front Bench over the last three years about the importance of protecting jobs, manufacturing and people’s livelihoods. If they really meant that, they would have voted for the deal earlier this year. Now is their chance to show whether they really care about people by voting for this deal tonight—this afternoon, I hope, Mr Speaker—in the House.

    Then let me say something to all those across the House who say they do not want no deal. I have said it before; I have said it many times; I hope this is the last time I have to say it: if you do not want no deal, you have to vote for a deal. Businesses are crying out for certainty, people want certainty in their lives, and our investors want to be able to invest and want the uncertainty to be got rid of. They want to know that this country is moving forward. If you want to deliver Brexit, if you want to keep faith with the British people, if you want this country to move forward, then vote for the deal today.

  • Stephen Barclay – 2019 Statement on the European Union Withdrawal Act

    Stephen Barclay – 2019 Statement on the European Union Withdrawal Act

    Below is the text of the statement made by Stephen Barclay, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, in the House of Commons on 19 October 2019.

    I beg to move,

    That, in light of the new deal agreed with the European Union, which enables the United Kingdom to respect the result of the referendum on its membership of the European Union and to leave the European Union on 31 October with a deal, and for the purposes of section 1(1)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 and section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, this House approves the negotiated withdrawal agreement titled Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and the framework for the future relationship titled Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom that the United Kingdom has concluded with the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, as well as a Declaration by Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning the operation of the Democratic consent in Northern Ireland provision of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, copies of these three documents which were laid before this House on Saturday 19 October.

    Mr Speaker

    With this it will be convenient to discuss motion 2:

    That this House approves the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union on exit day, without a withdrawal agreement as defined in section 20(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

    Stephen Barclay

    Today is the time for this to come together and move forward. Someone who previously did that, and whom many Members of the House will still remember, was the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Mo Mowlam. Her biography was called “Momentum” before it was a faction forcing out its own colleagues—[Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Order. I understand that passions are inflamed, but I appeal to colleagues to weigh their words and to try to preserve the principle of political difference, personal amiability.

    Stephen Barclay

    That spirit of bringing people together was what I was seeking to pay tribute to. After 1,213 days and frequent debates in this Chamber, now is the time for this House to move forward. Another pivotal figure in bringing different views together was Lord Trimble, who won the Nobel peace prize for his contribution to the Good Friday agreement. He has made clear his support for this deal, confirming that it is fully in accordance with the spirit of that agreement, and the people of Northern Ireland will be granted consent over their future as a result of the deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated. This deal also delivers on the referendum in a way that protects all parts of our Union against those who would seek to use division and delay to break it up, particularly those on the SNP Benches. As such, it is a vote that honours not one but two referendums by protecting both our democratic vote but also our United Kingdom.​
    This House called for a meaningful vote. Yet some who championed that now suggest that we should delay longer still. I respect the intention of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) who, indeed, has supported a deal three times and has indicated his support today. However, his amendment would render today’s vote meaningless. It would cause further delay when our constituents and our businesses want an end to uncertainty and are calling for us to get this done. The public will be appalled by pointless further delay. We need to get Brexit done by 31 October so that the country can move forward and, in that spirit, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

    Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)

    The Secretary of State pointed out that some hon. Members have voted against a Brexit deal since the referendum, including the Prime Minister, who did so twice. Why do the Government not have the courage, therefore, to allow the same privilege to the people of this country by allowing them to make their judgment on this deal?

    Stephen Barclay

    If the hon. Gentleman really thought that, he would have supported an election to let the people have their say on this issue, but he declined to do so. It is important that politicians do not pick and choose which votes they adhere to and that we respect the biggest vote in our country’s history.

    Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)

    The Secretary of State has just said the public do not want a delay. I was in Rainham yesterday, and 100% of the people I met said that they want Brexit delivered and that this Prime Minister’s deal delivers on Brexit. I applaud the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for getting this done.

    Stephen Barclay

    I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who speaks not just for his constituents but for people and, indeed, businesses up and down the country who want to see Brexit done.

    Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who now call for a second referendum have denied the result of the first referendum? How, then, could the British people ever trust us to follow through on a second referendum?

    Stephen Barclay

    I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, some of those voices distrust not only one referendum but two referendums, and now they want a third referendum on which to campaign.

    Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)

    The right hon. Gentleman will know that many of us have long campaigned to leave the European Union. Will he tell me now why this agreement does not give an opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to opt in and consent to what has been decided? That would have made a crucial difference to people on the pro-Union side in Northern Ireland who, like me, genuinely feel that, somehow, the United Kingdom Government are letting them down and giving in to others.

    ​Stephen Barclay

    As the hon. Lady should know, the unilateral declaration published with the documentation on both the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration does, indeed, allow for a consent mechanism for the Northern Ireland Assembly. As the Prime Minister set out in his statement, it is right when we make a decision based on a majority across the United Kingdom that the Assembly reach a decision on that basis without one community having the power of veto over the other.

    Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)

    The Secretary of State has followed the example of the Prime Minister in quoting David Trimble. I pay tribute to David Trimble as a great leader of the Ulster Unionist party; he now sits as a Tory Member of the other place. I asked the Prime Minister and am now asking the Secretary of State for a clear guarantee that there is nothing in this new Brexit deal that undermines or weakens the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, as guaranteed in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the consent principle. Do not quote Lord Trimble to me. Give me a clear commitment.

    Stephen Barclay

    I refer the hon. Lady to the letter that the Prime Minister sent to President Juncker on 2 October. The first commitment within that letter was the absolute commitment of this Prime Minister and this Government to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We share that commitment not just within the United Kingdom but with our friends in the Irish Government. That is why we have shown flexibility in the arrangements, some of which have caused difficulty to some colleagues in the House, to address the concerns, particularly in the nationalist community, about the possible impact on the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

    Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)

    The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) mentioned the opt-in, which was in the letter that the Prime Minister sent to Jean-Claude Juncker two weeks ago—that is where it came from—but it has since been abandoned. The Prime Minister and others seem a bit bemused, but that was an opt-in.

    Secondly, the Secretary of State now talks about it having to be agreed by majority vote. Can we now take it that the Government’s policy is to do away with vetoes on, for instance, getting the Assembly up and running? Four of the five parties in Northern Ireland want the Assembly up and running—the Assembly will meet on Monday, which is good news—so does that veto no longer apply? [Interruption.] I see the Prime Minister nodding, for which I am grateful. That is a very big breakthrough in Northern Ireland.

    Stephen Barclay

    It is also worth clarifying—this speaks very much to the unilateral declaration and the concerns on how it operates—that this is about a reserved matter that applies to our international agreements as a United Kingdom and not the powers that sit with the Assembly, within the Good Friday agreement. That is why there was not a willingness to give one community a power of veto over the other.

    Nigel Dodds

    It is simply not true to say that agriculture and manufactured goods, and so on, are reserved matters. These are matters devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Secretary of State is just not correct. ​Please do not use that argument. This was recognised by the Prime Minister in the letter he sent to Jean-Claude Juncker only a few weeks ago.

    Stephen Barclay

    The difficulty with that argument, with great respect—I do very much respect the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns—is that Stormont is not sitting at present. That is why we have the mechanism set out further in the unilateral declaration on how that will be addressed if Stormont is not sitting.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Stephen Barclay

    I promised to give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt).

    Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Ind)

    When, a few weeks ago, I voted for the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019—distressingly, it is often referred to as the Benn Act, rather than given its full title: the Benn-Burt Act—it was with the clear intention of ensuring that maximum effort was committed to the negotiations in order to secure a deal and prevent the risk of no deal. I am grateful to the Prime Minister and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for having succeeded in an objective that did not at the time seem to gather favour. Now that they have succeeded in that, I want a vote on it tonight. Having referred to the good intentions of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) in moving his amendment today, which I will be voting against, could the Secretary of State give some reassurance to the House as to why he believes it is not necessary if we are to fulfil the terms of the deal and the efforts that have been made in the past few weeks?

    Stephen Barclay

    I will come to that precise point shortly, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support—perhaps the legislation should now be called the Burt-Benn Act, rather than the Benn-Burt Act.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Stephen Barclay

    I will make a little more progress before taking further interventions.

    This is a deal that the Prime Minister was told was impossible. We were told that the withdrawal agreement could not be changed. Indeed, the shadow Brexit Secretary used to hold up the text of the agreement and say that not a word had been changed. We were told that the backstop could not be removed; it was the all-weather, all-life insurance on which the European Union relied. We were told that there was insufficient time for a new deal, and indeed that the negotiations were a sham—and sometimes that was just from the voices on our own side.

    The real significance of the Prime Minister’s achievement is that the people of Northern Ireland will have a vote that will give them consent over their future arrangements, and there will no longer be any European veto over what those future arrangements will be. Just as importantly, the deal changes the dynamics of the future negotiations. Before, many Members of the House were concerned that the backstop would be used as leverage, with the EU holding the prospect of our being permanently stuck in its orbit against us. Indeed, many Members spoke about it being easier to leave the EU than to leave ​the backstop. With this new deal, because of the need for Northern Ireland’s consent over its future, the dynamics of the future relationship will change, because the EU’s interests will be aligned with ours in reaching a future relationship that benefits both sides.

    Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)

    In my constituency, 52% of people voted to leave and 48% voted to remain. When we come to the sheer weight of legislation that will be needed to put into force the referendum result, might we not only keep faith with the 52% by leaving, but remember, as we have experienced today in the House, that 48% did not wish to leave?

    Stephen Barclay

    I very much respect that point. The right hon. Gentleman has always reached out to build consensus across the House, which is important. The commitment that the Prime Minister gave in his statement, on how the House will be consulted on the new phase of negotiations, is intended in part to address the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman and other Members across the House have raised, in order to have a balanced approach to the future relationship.

    Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)

    I listened intently to the Prime Minister’s statement and the debate that followed, and it seemed that assurances were given to Europhiles that the intention in phase 2 would be to follow close regulatory alignment with the EU, yet a carrot was offered to Eurosceptics in the form of there being unalignment, and even the suggestion that no deal would not be off the table in phase 2. Both cannot be true, so which is it?

    Stephen Barclay

    Paragraph 77 sets out our commitment to high international standards and to their being reciprocal, as befits the relationship that we reach with the European Union. The hon. Gentleman really should have more confidence that we in this House will set regulation that is world leading and best in class, that reflects the Queen’s Speech, with its world-leading regulation on the environment, and that reflects the commitments that many in the House have sought on workers’ rights. We should also be mindful that, of course, it is this House that went ahead of the EU on paternity rights and parental leave. We can go further than the EU in protecting people’s rights, rather than simply match the EU.

    Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)

    It is my assessment that the deal struck by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accords with the Good Friday agreement. I think it presages a new golden age for relationships north and south of the border, which is to be welcomed. I congratulate the Government on adopting the stance of consent rather than veto—that reflects modern island-of-Ireland politics today.

    Stephen Barclay

    As Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend speaks with great authority on this issue. I know that he in particular will have recognised the importance of the fact that the whole of the United Kingdom will benefit from our future trade deals around the world, with every part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, leaving, as the Prime Minister said in his statement, whole and entire.

    ​Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)

    It is right that we examine the detail in this place, and the Secretary of State is doing a great job in answering the questions, but may I suggest to him that we, as a collective body, need a slightly more optimistic note? It is my firm belief that now we have got rid of the backstop, we will achieve a fair and good trade deal by December 2020. We should be focused on that, rather than on all the minor detail. It is a bright future, if we decide to take it today.

    Stephen Barclay

    My hon. Friend is right to talk of the opportunity for trade deals that Brexit unlocks. We start from a position of great understanding of the respective economies—a big part of a trade deal is usually negotiating that understanding at the start—and we can seize the opportunities of those trade deals around the world. That is exactly why we need to move forward.

    Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)

    Should the House divide later on the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), the amendment will have my support. I suggest to the Secretary of State that there is a way through that brings the consensus he talks about: we support the amendment and the Government table the legislation next week so that we can scrutinise the detail. We can then make meaningful decisions on Second and Third Reading, but, crucially, those of us who have some reservations about the Government’s trustworthiness can see the commitments that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have made from the Dispatch Box, which I welcome, written on the face of the Bill before we make that final, crucial decision on how we continue the process.

    Stephen Barclay

    I respect the care with which the hon. Gentleman has looked at these issues, but his constituents, like many throughout the country, now want the country to move forward and for us to get this deal done. There is of course a distinction between the meaningful vote today and the further opportunities there will be on Second and Third Reading of the withdrawal agreement Bill for assurance to be provided for in line with the statements that the Prime Minister has made from the Dispatch Box today.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Stephen Barclay

    I shall give way once more and then I must make some progress.

    Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)

    Surely the crucial point of this new deal is that it offers Great Britain a fairly hard Brexit in order to facilitate trade agreements with countries for which European standards are incompatible. An economy cannot be a European-style economy and a US-style economy at the same time. The Secretary of State is not giving us an economic assessment to tell us what jobs and industries will grow on the back of this deal and what goods and services will be cheaper to compensate for loss of aerospace, automotive, financial services and so much more. He cannot tell us that today.

    Stephen Barclay

    The hon. Gentleman really should listen to business leaders like Sir Stuart Rose who says that we should get this deal done; to the Bank of England Governor who says that this will be a boost to ​our economy; and to the many business leaders want an end to this uncertainty. We cannot simply keep debating the same issues in a House that has said no to everything and refused to say yes to anything.

    John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)

    This debate should be about restoring the independence of our country in accordance with the votes of the referendum. Given that in the implementation period the EU will have massive powers over us, is there something that the Government can build into the draft legislation to give us reassurance that the EU will not abuse those very excessive powers?

    Stephen Barclay

    Yes, I am happy to give that reassurance to my right hon. Friend. That is something that we can commit to do as we move forward.

    Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Ind)

    My right hon. Friend spoke earlier about there not being pointless delay, and I actually agree with him about that. This matter has to be brought to a conclusion, but he must be aware that quite apart from approving it in its generality, we also have a duty as a House to look at the detail of this deal in primary legislation. In the course of that, the House is entitled to pass amendments which, provided they do not undermine the treaty itself, are wholly legitimate. The difficulty is that, by insisting that the Benn Act be effectively subverted and removed, the impression the Government are giving is that they have other intentions—of taking us out at such a gallop that that proper scrutiny cannot take place. I wish the Government would just listen a little bit, because I think that they would find there is much more common ground on this than they have ever been prepared to acknowledge, instead of which they continue to give the impression that they just want to drive a coach and horses through the rights of this House to carry out proper scrutiny.

    Stephen Barclay

    I have always had great respect for the legal acumen and the seriousness of my right hon. and learned Friend, but there is an inconsistency in his case when he talks about wanting to look at legislation in more detail, having supported the Benn-Burt legislation that was passed in haste, and having supported the Cooper legislation, which needed to be corrected by Lord Pannick and others in the House of Lords, because it would have had the effect of doing the opposite of what it intended as it would have forced a Prime Minister to come back to this House after the EU Council had finished, thereby making a no deal more likely rather than less. That Cooper legislation is a very good example of where my right hon. and learned Friend did not look at legislation in detail, and, indeed, where it would have had a perverse consequence at odds with his arguments for supporting it at the time. Indeed, there is a further inconsistency: he championed section 13, but when the Prime Minister secured a new deal, which my right hon. and learned Friend said that he could not achieve, then denies the House a right to vote in a meaningful way as required by his own section 13 because he no longer wants it to apply on the same rules as it did when he passed it.

    Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)

    I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. This deal has hardly lacked scrutiny, given the ​number of times it has been voted on and debated in this House, although we now have an altered deal. May I just point out that the implementing legislation is simply that: it does not alter the substance of the agreement but merely implements the agreement in domestic law. We can do that very quickly and amend that Bill after ratification of the agreement if necessary, because it is only a piece of domestic implementing legislation. There is no case for delaying that legislation, and I am going to vote for the deal today, if I get the chance.

    Stephen Barclay

    First, I welcome the support of my hon. Friend. One issue that the shadow Secretary of State and I agree on is that, on these issues, there has not been a lack of scrutiny, given the frequency with which we seem to debate them in the House.

    It is also worth reminding ourselves of what the motion is addressing today. The motion is addressing the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration secured by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The mechanism to implement that—the withdrawal agreement Bill—has still to be debated. Indeed, even that pertains only to the winding-down arrangements and not, as is often referenced in this House, to the future trade deal that we want to get on and debate. It is therefore a rather odd that the main issue—our relationship with Europe—is being thwarted because of a circular, endless debate on the same issue, when we need to support the deal today in order to unlock the withdrawal agreement Bill that we need to debate.

    Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)

    Is not the simple fact of the matter that all the people who cry out for a deal have to support the deal that has been brought forward by the Prime Minister? It is a first step on the way to many other opportunities that this House will have to discuss this particular issue, but we really have to move forward now and respect the result of the referendum three and a half years ago.

    Stephen Barclay

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the first step, not the final one. The House will have further opportunities to debate these issues.

    Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)

    Does the Secretary of State agree that amendment (a) is a panic measure by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and others, because they had no idea or confidence that a deal would be before us today that would allow those of us in this House who want to secure a deal to move on and leave the European Union by 31 October? As a result, if the House votes for amendment (a) today, we will be forced—even if a deal is approved—to seek an extension until 31 January, underlining that the sponsors of Benn Act had only one motivation: to delay Brexit and stop it.

    Stephen Barclay

    I very much agree with the right hon. Lady’s points, as well as with the principle and consistency that she has shown throughout the debate. It is indeed an interesting snippet within the point that she raises that some of the voices in the media this morning were complaining that there had been insufficient time between the deal on 17 October and the debate in the House today, 19 October. And yet, this is the timescale that the Benn legislation itself required of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when it came to bringing issues before the House.

    ​Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (LD)

    I thank the Secretary of State for very kindly giving way. He has used the word “scrutiny” on a number of occasions in his contribution so far, yet he was on BBC News this morning confirming that no economic analysis has been done on the deal presented to the House today. [Interruption.] Government Members may shake their heads, but how can this House be expected to vote on something so fundamental to the future of our country without that analysis?

    Stephen Barclay

    I suspect that a point on which the hon. Lady and I could agree is that there is probably no level of analysis that is g ing to change her vote and her mind. As a former Treasury Minister, I am always aware —as I am sure the Chancellor himself would recognise—that it is indeed difficult to model a deal that was only done on Thursday, which cannot anticipate what changes the new EU Commission under new leadership will make, which does not set out what changes the UK will make in response to that, and which cannot second-guess what changes will happen in the wider world economy that will clearly have an impact on such an economic model.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    The Secretary of State represents North East Cambridgeshire and is a member of the Conservative and Unionist party. I am a member of the Democratic Unionist party. A Unionist in Strangford at this moment in time is a second-class citizen by comparison with a Unionist in North East Cambridgeshire. Can the Secretary of State tell me why the Unionist people in Northern Ireland—my children, my grandchildren and their birthright—will be secondary to Unionists anywhere else across the United Kingdom? Does he not understand the angst, fear and annoyance of Unionists in Northern Ireland? We have been treated as second-class citizens in this deal and, as I see it, our opinion means nothing.

    Stephen Barclay

    Members from across the House who have seen the assiduous nature of hon. Gentleman, particularly in Adjournment debates, will know that his constituents never get a second-class service from him. In the deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated, he has tried to operate in the same spirit that I know the hon. Gentleman does by ensuring that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom customs union and leaves whole and entire. As a consequence, the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, like mine in North East Cambridgeshire, will benefit from the great trade deals that I know the Secretary of State for International Trade intends to negotiate.

    Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)

    The aim of amendment (a) is clear. The emperor has no clothes; it is to stop us leaving the European Union at any cost. The European Research Group met this morning. Normally, our meetings are private, but in the circumstances, there were three things that I thought I could share with the House. First, the officers overwhelmingly recommended backing the Prime Minister’s deal. Secondly, the ERG overwhelmingly recommended the same and no member of the ERG spoke against it. Thirdly, and most importantly, we agreed that those who vote for the deal vote for the Bill. If the deal is passed today, we will faithfully vote the Bill through to the end, so that we can leave the European Union. You have our word.

    ​Stephen Barclay

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support, which, coming from someone who opposed the previous deal, is a reflection of the fact that this is a deal for everyone—a deal for the 52 and for the 48; a deal for Northern Ireland and for Cambridgeshire. This is a deal that benefits the United Kingdom—in particular, by enabling us to move forward and, above all, take back control of our fisheries.

    Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) rose—

    Stephen Barclay

    On which point I am sure the hon. Gentleman is about to intervene.

    Alan Brown

    Obviously, Northern Ireland is getting preferential treatment. Although it has not brought the DUP on board, Northern Ireland is getting special access to the single market and the Government have promised more money to Northern Ireland, yet Scotland is being left high and dry. Can the Secretary of State confirm that Scottish Tory Members did not ask for any concessions for Scotland—that they got no concessions and are just Lobby fodder?

    Stephen Barclay

    I can tell the hon. Gentleman very clearly what the Scottish Conservative MPs secured, which is control of our fishing policy—something that he and other Members would give back to Brussels.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Stephen Barclay

    Let me make some progress, then I will take further interventions.

    By contrast with the efforts of the Prime Minister—who was told that a deal was impossible and that neither the backstop nor one word of the withdrawal agreement could be amended—the Leader of the Opposition appears to have rejected the deal before he has even read it. This is an Opposition who cannot see further than opposition for opposition’s sake.

    The shadow Brexit Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), will always, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, have read the detail. He has been in post throughout the three years, but during that time has used a wide range of arguments to support his case. He said in July 2018:

    “We respect the result of the…referendum”,

    and he recognised that we are leaving the European Union, but he now says that

    “any outcome…must be subject to a referendum and we would campaign for remain”.

    He said that Labour’s concerns were never about the withdrawal agreement or the backstop;

    “They were about the Political Declaration”.

    That is what he put on Twitter on 17 October this year, yet he used to stand in this Chamber and object to the withdrawal agreement because it had not changed. At the time of the third meaningful vote, which was purely on the withdrawal agreement and not the political declaration, he still objected to the withdrawal agreement. In 2018, he said that Labour could not support a withdrawal agreement without

    “a mechanism for universal exit”,

    which is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has secured through the vote of consent for the Northern Ireland Assembly, but the shadow Secretary ​of State now says that the issue is no longer about the withdrawal agreement; it is instead about the political declaration.

    For much of this debate, Labour has been for being a participant in the EU customs union, yet we have heard from a senior member of the Labour party that its real position is 100% remain. As one media report alleged this week, during the cross-party talks, Labour even rejected a copy-and-paste of its own proposal, describing it as “unacceptable”.

    Some in government have cautioned against listening to experts during this debate, but it is clear from business experts and the Bank of England’s Governor—

    Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)

    The Secretary of State and I were in the same room at the time; he knows very well that that is not true—the idea that I would not know our own proposal. He knows that; he was there. Withdraw it!

    Hon. Members Withdraw!

    Stephen Barclay

    If hon. Members will give me a moment, the shadow Secretary of State and I have always conducted our debates in the House with great courtesy, so in that spirit, of course I withdraw that. That is a good illustration of what today’s debate is really about. We could get into the detail of whether we are presenting something aligned to what he has previously said and whether the sense is the same, but today is about this House and the country coming together and moving on from these debates and the talks, although the real issue in the talks was some people’s desire for a second referendum, rather than a desire to get into the detail of how we could resolve the issues.

    Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)

    This is at least the seventh opportunity the House has had to avoid a harmful no deal. There were three occasions relating to the former Prime Minister’s deal; there was the European Free Trade Association; there was Norway; and there was the customs union. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be folly to let this final opportunity to avoid a damaging crash-out slip through our fingers?

    Stephen Barclay

    I know that my hon. Friend speaks for his constituents, and for businesses across the country, who recognise that now is the time to support this deal and for the House to move on.

    Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Ind) rose—

    Stephen Barclay

    I give way to the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.]

    Mr Vaizey

    We will find out if the Secretary of State made the right decision in giving way. I have a genuine question.

    Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)

    For once.

    Mr Vaizey

    Yes. I am asking for a friend. If the Letwin amendment is passed and the Bill comes in next week and is agreed to before 31 October, we will leave on 31 October, but if the Letwin amendment is not passed and the Bill comes forward next week but is not agreed to by 31 October, we will leave with no deal—yes or no?

    ​Stephen Barclay

    I say yes to this: to proceed, we need to comply with section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That is the argument that the right hon. Gentleman and many others have repeatedly made. If we are to deliver that and avoid any further delay, it is important that we defeat amendment (a).

    Rehman Chishti

    The Secretary of State says that the deal is about moving on. One of the real obstacles that prevented us from moving on was the backstop. I resigned from the Government and a party position in November over the backstop. Can he confirm that what we have now completely gets rid of the backstop and is about moving on?

    Stephen Barclay

    I can very much confirm that. The Prime Minister was told that the backstop could not be removed, but its removal is exactly what he has achieved. He was told that was impossible, but he has delivered.

    Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)

    I am listening very carefully to the debate about the timing. Is it not clear that if the Letwin amendment is defeated and we make a decision today that is actually complying with—not subverting, but complying with—the Benn-Burt Act by bringing forward a deal and winning that vote, yes, we will have to get the legislation through this House quickly, and that will probably mean sitting for long days and probably long nights, but we can get it done? However, if the amendment passes and there is an extension, my guess is that that legislation will go on and on, and we will never leave. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) is absolutely right: if we want to get this done, vote against the Letwin amendment, for the motion today and get the legislation through by the end of October—and get Brexit done.

    Stephen Barclay

    As a former Government Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right on the process that applies. The other issue that is sometimes forgotten is that our friends and colleagues in Europe do not want any further delay and do not want to see any extension, but want to see us get on.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Stephen Barclay

    I will give way one further time, and then I will move on.

    Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Ind)

    My right hon. Friend does not want to answer the question from the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), so I will. If the Letwin amendment passes, and the Government bring forward the Bill at the start of next week and that Bill passes before 31 October, we will leave on 31 October without a delay. If the Letwin amendment fails, and the Government bring forward the Bill and some people in the ERG, such as the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), suddenly discover that they prefer the idea of a no-deal Brexit and the Bill fails, we will leave on 31 October with no deal.

    Stephen Barclay

    The problem with the hon. Gentleman’s argument is that it is at odds with the argument put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who says that we need to ​pass this amendment to have more scrutiny and delay and to take much longer, yet the hon. Gentleman says that we need the amendment to be able to leave on —[Interruption.]

    Mr Baron

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

    Mr Grieve

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

    Mr Speaker

    I will come to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I call Mr John Baron.

    Mr Baron

    I do not usually do this, but given that there was a very factual error in the comment just made by an Opposition Member, may I say, just for the record, that I have never been a member of the ERG and I am not a member of the ERG?

    Mr Speaker

    That is a matter of extraordinary interest in the House and possibly across the nation—I say that to the hon. Gentleman in the friendliest spirit—but it is not a matter for adjudication by the Chair. However, the hon. Gentleman has advertised his non-membership of the ERG, and I hope he feels better for it.

    Mr Grieve

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is entirely mistaken and cannot have been listening to what I said when I intervened on him. I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who asked him the question, because that must be the position. The intention behind the Letwin amendment is to secure that insurance policy—nothing more, nothing less.

    Mr Speaker

    I say, mainly for the benefit of those observing our proceedings who are not Members of the House, that in common with the overwhelming majority of purported points of order, that was not a point of order. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put his point on the record, and he, too, will doubtless go about his business with an additional glint in his eye and spring in his step as a consequence.

    Stephen Barclay

    The problem with the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument is that it is at odds with what he says about section 13. Each time it is a different argument, but the purpose is always the same, and that is to delay any resolution, to stop this House moving forward and to stop us getting Brexit done.

    There are many in this House who have said repeatedly in debates that their principal concern is avoiding a no-deal exit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), on the Prime Minister’s statement, made that point. Today is the opportunity for all Members of this House to demonstrate that they want to avoid a no-deal exit, to support this deal and to get Brexit done. This is a deal that takes back control of our money, borders and laws. It gives the people of Northern Ireland the freedom to choose their future. It allows the whole United Kingdom to benefit from our trade deals, and it ensures that we move forward as one complete Union of the United Kingdom.

    In securing the new deal, the Prime Minister observed with his EU colleagues that a failure by them to listen to this Parliament, and in particular its decision on the ​backstop, would indeed be a failure of statecraft. They have listened; they have acted; and they have reached a new deal with the Prime Minister. It would now be a failure of this Parliament not to approve this deal and to fail to respond to that flexibility from EU leaders as required.

  • Oliver Dowden – 2019 Speech at NCSC Annual Review Launch

    Oliver Dowden – 2019 Speech at NCSC Annual Review Launch

    Below is the text of the speech made by Oliver Dowden, the Paymaster General, on 23 October 2019.

    Thank you, everyone, for joining us this morning. Cyber security is genuinely a massive priority for the government and it gives me great pleasure to launch the National Cyber Security Centre’s third Annual Review.

    Now it took me around three seconds to say that. That’s not a very long period of time.

    But in cyberspace, as you all know, an awful lot can happen in those three seconds.

    Two hundred thousand and more Google searches made.

    Eight and a half million emails can be sent.

    Incalculable sums of money – not to mention priceless data – potentially lost to cyber criminals.

    And there’s no reason in asking Alexa to help get it back, I’m afraid she’s not going to be of any help.

    But we are very fortunate that we have a stronger ally than Alexa, and that is in the National Cyber Security Centre.

    The Centre was created in 2016 and has helped make the UK safer.

    Securing the internet is a 24/7 challenge, 365 days a year, in a complex landscape whose contours constantly change.

    And in an area where success is measured in events that don’t happen – the dog that didn’t bark; the crippling cyber attack that wasn’t; the public trust in our digital systems that wasn’t compromised – we are, demonstrably, heading in the right direction.

    A fifth fewer incidents of computer misuse were experienced by adults in England and Wales last year than in the previous twelve months.

    The NCSC is working. And the government’s wider National Cyber Security Strategy is working too.

    It is making citizens and businesses of all sizes safer.

    It is making our data – an increasingly valuable asset – more secure.

    And it is making our increasingly digitised government and critical national infrastructure stronger.

    As Minister for the Cabinet Office, responsible for driving our ‘whole government’ approach to cyber security, I really am proud of what the NCSC achieves for the United Kingdom every second of every day.

    And you really don’t have to take my word for it. After the NCSC’s first two years, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy praised its ‘impressive impact’.

    And year on, there has been even more progress.

    We live in an era when society relies on the internet as never before. A world-leading digital society like the United Kingdom is good for citizens in so many ways. It offers reliable access to information and markets of all kinds, and the ability to share data quickly and easily.

    Almost every individual and organisation makes an online connection every single day. Some make literally thousands. With friends and families; customers and clients; with dogs via petcams and even with internet-enabled fridges that remind us we’re low on milk.

    Digital and mobile expansion, and the proliferation of the ‘Internet of Things’ devices in homes, workplaces, schools and hospitals, is happening fast – and so fast, however, that we risk leaving security considerations behind.

    Not everyone is as conscientious as they should be about using a different password for each internet site, and I should say one not fashioned around their date of birth.

    It’s much easier and cheaper than ever for criminals to get hold of the tools to launch high volume, low-sophistication cyber attacks.

    This perfect storm requires a co-ordinated fightback. The Government launched the National Cyber Security Strategy to counter these particular threats. And to achieve the best protection for the public, to uphold trust in our systems, and underpin future national prosperity and growth. In doing so we created a world-leading cyber authority.

    But we want to go even further to harness the power of tech for the benefit of citizens, the economy and our democratic processes. And today we will hear about the difference the NCSC – as part of GCHQ – has made as a critical pillar of this government’s security strategy and cyber ambitions – Ciaran has more details of some stand-out moments of this year.

    The common theme of the NCSC’s work, whether it’s protecting critical national infrastructure or strengthening the security of the Internet of Things, is that it is rooted in cyber’s increasing relevance to people’s day-to-day lives. And it’s precisely because cyber attacks affect everyone and the things that we value that we all need to play a critical role in protecting them.

    Seen by other countries as a model of its kind, the NCSC’s particular strength comes in fusing the cream of our national security capabilities with cutting-edge technical knowledge, and timely, tailored intelligence.

    Its national and international projects and programmes take the fight to our cyber adversaries – hostile states; reckless hacktivists; and organised gangs.

    In October 2018, that meant exposing Russian military attacks on political institutions and business, media and sporting interests – the World Anti-Doping Agency in Lausanne was a target. This week, it exposed how suspected Russian-based cyber hackers had piggybacked on the illegal operations and methods of a group of Iranian-led hackers, targeting 35 countries.

    Domestically, the NCSC helps individuals spot where their own security needs to be tightened and shows them how to fix it. It is developing a pipeline of talent that will bring new ideas and abilities into an industry hungry for the best people. And in a cyber world with no frontiers, the NCSC is helping shape the global approach to cyber security by working with emerging nations.

    Is there more to do? Of course, there is always more to do.

    Over a third of UK businesses suffered a cyber breach or attack in 2018.

    For this massively complex and evolving challenge there is no quick fix – we all need to step up, with the Government in the lead when a national response is appropriate.

    We backed the Strategy with £1.9 billion of funding because this is the level of investment needed to protect what is a clear public good. We are acting on threats from hostile nation states, and also on lessons learned from previous attacks – for example, WannaCry, which disrupted the NHS in 2017. Our goal is to spare patients from the threat of cancelled operations and missed appointments, by working with the health services in Wales and Scotland, as well as England, to bolster their cyber security.

    For similar reasons – to protect the public – we have also strengthened the resilience of government by using Active Cyber Defence measures that protect local authorities from harm at scale. By using Cloud services in public services, we can move on from insecure legacy systems. This kind of digital transformation allows us to use Government data more flexibly, in a way that streamlines and improves the online services citizens enjoy.

    No less important, in protecting citizens, is the government’s work to protect the integrity of elections through our Defending Democracy programme – upholding public trust and helping to promote open dialogue online and elsewhere.

    But the arms race between criminals and IT security is never-ending. The government cannot compete on its own and have any hope of a win.

    We really do need to build even closer relationships with industry and society in this country and internationally, so that together we create those robust defences – combining the best ideas with the most effective enforcement tactics.

    And this is the motivation for the current DCMS review of regulations and incentives around cyber security: to make very sure that when the Government intervenes, it does so in a way that actively helps organisations overcome barriers by protecting themselves online, and makes good cyber security a market norm.

    None of this progress would be possible without our stakeholders and I really am delighted that many partners in our cyber transformation have joined us this morning.

    If the National Strategy reflects one core message, it is that cyber security is for everyone.

    Sole traders as much as FTSE100 giants.

    People who watch Netflix box sets on iPads as much as big employers with armies of IT technicians.

    This winter, we relaunch Cyber Aware – the government’s national cyber security campaign – informing the public about what they need to do to protect themselves from cyber crime.

    We will carry our fair share, and more, of the cyber security load wherever possible. But everyone has their part to play.

    When we work together to plug the gaps, the UK will continue to maximise the benefits of the digital economy. And the legacy of the cyber security strategy will be a world-leading system of defence that endures well beyond its initial, five-year lifespan.

    We see in the NCSC and the Cyber Security Strategy the best traditions of its parent body, GCHQ, over its 100-year history. It has evolved to tackle the most serious criminal, and state threats. Among these, cyber threats will continue to evolve as new technologies emerge, and our adversaries become more capable.

    It is certainly the case that the money we have invested in extra capacity and fixing structural issues will take more time to show results.

    We are continually refining what we do, and there are always ways that we can improve.

    That nearly one million adults were on the wrong end of computer misuse last year shows there is much work still to be done.

    But when we set up the NCSC as part of the GCHQ family, it was to help make the UK the safest place to live and do business online.

    It was to empower people to play their full part in our national security, showing them how to better protect themselves and each other.

    And to bring together in one place the skills, talent, innovation and research we need.

    The NCSC is showing its worth across the board and across the whole of society. And I look forward to it continuing to shape and strengthen our cyber defences now and in the future.

    Thank you.