Tag: 2020

Mark Drakeford – 2020 Speech in the Welsh Assembly on the Brexit Deal

The speech made by Mark Drakeford, the Welsh First Minister, in the Welsh Assembly on 30 December 2020.

Llywydd, first of all I would like to thank you for agreeing to this recall of the Senedd today. In introducing this debate, I want to make three points. First of all, we must welcome the fact that we have avoided the chaos that would have existed if we had left the transition period without a further deal with the European Union. Until the last minute there was a very real possibility that we could face tariffs on trade with our most important market and providers. It’s difficult to believe that we are facing such a scenario. No responsible Government should have considered breaking its links with European networks that allow us to stay safe from systematic terrorism and crime, but we have a Home Secretary who was willing to consider just that.

This is not the deal that Wales was promised, but, in a world where we were only days away from the catastrophe of a ‘no deal’ Brexit, at least we have a deal in place, despite its inadequacies. As the Welsh Government has regularly argued, at least with a deal in place we now have a foundation on which to build. The relationship with our closest and most important trading partners has been safeguarded and we can now build upon this and strengthen it for the future. Indeed, the agreement allows for an ongoing process of review, and the Welsh Government will be arguing in favour of a review process that lays a foundation for positive evolution rather than it just being a way for the EU and the UK to keep each other in order.

Llywydd, my second point has nothing to do with the UK’s external relationships and everything to do with the deeply disturbing state of our internal constitutional arrangements. This is the most important treaty that the UK will have signed for nearly 50 years. It is simply outrageous that in a democracy where the legislature is supposed to hold the Executive to account, the Bill to implement the treaty is being rammed through both Houses of Parliament in one day. The House of Commons will have the equivalent of 15 seconds to debate each page of the draft treaty—less time than it would take to read it, and this when the text of the treaty was only put in the public domain 72 hours before that debate takes place.

Now, when Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister—and we know that there are some in this Senedd who still worship at that unlamented shrine—the European Communities (Amendment) Bill 1986 was introduced into the House of Commons in April and did not gain Royal Assent until November of that year, and Mrs Thatcher had a Commons majority of 140.

Under her Conservative successor, the Maastricht treaty of 1993 spent 23 sitting days in the House of Commons Committee Stage alone. Llywydd, I suspect that the official record does not contain many instances where I have made positive references to Mrs Thatcher, but at least the notion of parliamentary scrutiny appeared to have meant something to her.

Of course, the opposition here will say that all this is driven by the lack of time, as if the Conservative Party had not had four and a half years to deliver a deal that we were told would be the easiest ever struck, or the Prime Minister will be threatening us with the consequences if the future relationship Bill is not enacted before tomorrow evening. But all of that is simply wrong. The EU is bringing the treaty into provisional application, and the European Parliament will have several weeks to understand the implications of a text that is about the same length as the Bible. Why are we not able to do the same? How has taking back control collapsed so quickly into having no parliamentary control at all?

Llywydd, this Senedd should refuse to play along with this pretence of scrutiny. The first time the Welsh Government saw even one clause of the treaty was on Christmas Day. The Bill itself, to which we have been asked to give consent, has been with us for one working day, and that under strict embargo. It is plainly impossible for anyone in this Senedd to have a clear understanding of the ways in which this Bill will affect our competence. When we tabled the motion for debate today, Llywydd, we could not refer to the Bill because it had not been introduced and was not in the public domain. And if we had put the debate off until tomorrow, it would have been after the Bill had been enacted. This is not how a democracy should work. And let me be clear that, in these circumstances, this Government will not bring a motion seeking either to give or refuse consent in such circumstances.

Now, the amendment laid to the debate from the Conservative Party in Wales invites us to provide legislative consent to a Bill that they cannot possibly have considered. We will oppose that amendment, and the amendment in the name of Caroline Jones, which seeks simply to refight battles that that amendment itself says should be put behind us. We cannot support the third amendment, from Plaid Cymru, which fails to recognise that a deal is better than no deal for the reasons that I have already set out. The Government will abstain on the fourth and final amendment on the order paper today, Llywydd. The Welsh Government does not support the deal, but nor do we believe that it is for the Senedd to instruct MPs as to how they should vote any more than Members of the Senedd would be prepared to take instructions from parties at Westminster.

Llywydd, all this brings me to my third point. Just why is it that the UK Government has not given more time to Parliament and to the other UK legislatures to scrutinise this treaty? The answer is simple: the UK Government wants to get the Bill on the statute book before all the details of this deal have had time to emerge. But we know here that businesses will have a treaty that will make trade with our largest and most important market more expensive and more difficult—the loss of contracts because of new rules of origin arrangements; the cost in time and money of export health certificates and sanitary and phytosanitary checks for agriculture and food exports; the end of the mutual recognition of professional qualifications; the failure to include access to the single market for UK services, meaning businesses will have to rely on 27 different sets of national rules to trade across the EU where they have only one today. This is a bad deal for business and for business here in Wales.

And for our fellow citizens, what will this deal mean? Queuing at airports, visas for longer stays and the elimination of the freedom to live and work anywhere across the continent of Europe, mobile phones where calls cost far more or may not work at all, fewer people from the European Union able to work in our health and social care system looking after people here in Wales who need their help. And for our young people in particular, Llywydd, the cultural vandalism of cutting them off from the Erasmus+ programme, the largest international exchange programme in history, which people from Wales have done so much to shape and foster. Instead, we will be offered an English system, because, let’s be clear, that is what is now proposed: a scheme made in Westminster and administered in Whitehall, with all the responsibilities that this Senedd holds for further and higher education in Wales not simply sidelined, but written out of the script altogether.

Llywydd, unlike other parties here in this Chamber, the Welsh Government has always argued that a deal was preferable to no deal. Even this thin and disappointing treaty, so different from what was promised, is better than the bitterness and the chaos that would have followed no deal at all. This Government will now redouble our efforts to work with businesses in all parts of our country to limit the damage that this deal continues to inflict, to work with our public services to limit the damage done to Welsh citizens, young and old, and to work with our friends and our partners in the European Union to reaffirm this Welsh nation’s determination to go on being outward looking, international in perspective, and welcoming to the rest of the world.

January 6, 2021
Gavin Williamson – 2020 Statement to the House of Commons about Return to Education in January

The statement made by Gavin Williamson, the Secretary of State for Education, in the House of Commons on 30 December 2020.

With permission, I would like to make a statement regarding our plans for bringing children back to school this academic term.

Dealing with this pandemic has always been an exercise in managing risk. Throughout, we have been adamant that the education of children is an absolute priority and that keeping schools open is uppermost in all our plans.

The magnificent efforts of all the leaders, teachers and staff in all our schools and colleges have ensured that settings are as safe and covid secure as possible, but we must always act swiftly when circumstances change. The evidence about the new covid variant and rising infection rates has required some immediate adjustment to our plans for the new term. This is, of course, a rapidly shifting situation, but some things remain constant. We continue to act to preserve lives and safeguard the national health service, and we continue to protect education by putting children first. Above all, our response is proportionate to the risk at hand and makes every use of the contingency framework that we put in place earlier this year.

The latest study we have from Public Health England is that covid infections among children are triggered by changes in the community rate. The study also says that the wider impact of school closures on children’s development would be significant. I am quite clear that we must continue to do all we can to keep children in school. Taking all those factors into account means that we have had to make a number of changes for the new term in order to help break chains of transmission and to assist with keeping all our children and education settings as safe as we can. The fact that we have managed to do that so successfully throughout the entire pandemic is due to the incredible dedication of all our teachers, leaders and support staff, and I know that the House will join me once more in thanking them for everything that they continue to do to keep children learning as safely as possible.

Accordingly, we will be opening the majority of primary schools as planned on Monday 4 January. We know how vital it is for our younger children to be in school for their education, wellbeing and wider development. In a small number of areas where the infection rates are highest, we will implement our existing contingency framework such that only vulnerable children and children of critical workers will attend face-to-face. We will publish that list of areas today on the gov.uk website.

I would like to emphasise that this is being used only as a last resort. This is not all tier 4 areas and the overwhelming majority of primary schools will open as planned on Monday. The areas will also be reviewed regularly, so that schools can reopen at the very earliest moment. Ongoing testing for primary school staff will follow later in January and we will be working to establish an ambitious testing programme, helping to break chains of transmission and reducing the need for self-isolation where students and staff test negative for the virus.

We have already announced our intention for a staggered return to education this term for secondary age pupils and those in colleges. Because the covid infection rate is particularly high among this age group, we will allow more time so that every school and college is able to fully roll out testing for all its pupils and staff. I would like to thank school leaders and staff for all their ongoing work in preparing that. This kind of mass testing will help to protect not just children and young people; it will benefit everyone in the community. It will break the chains of transmission that are making infection rates shoot up. That, in turn, will make it safer for more children to physically return to school.

All pupils in exam years are to return during the week beginning 11 January, with all secondary school and college students returning full time on 18 January. During the first week of term after 4 January, secondary schools and colleges will prepare to test as many staff and students as possible, and will be open only to vulnerable children and the children of key workers.

The 1,500 military personnel committed to supporting schools and colleges will remain on task, providing virtual training and advice on establishing the testing process, with teams on standby to provide in-person support if schools require it. Testing will then begin in earnest the following week, with those who are in exam years at the head of the queue. This is in preparation for the full return of all pupils in all year groups on 18 January in most areas. To allow this focus on the establishment of testing throughout the first week of term, exam year groups will continue to have lessons remotely, in line with what they would receive in class, and only vulnerable children and the children of critical workers will have face-to-face teaching.

As with primary schools, we will apply our existing contingency framework for education in areas of the country with very high rates of covid infection or transmission of the virus. This will require secondary schools and colleges to offer face-to-face education only to exam years, vulnerable children and the children of critical workers, with remote education for all other students if they are in one of the contingency framework areas. We are also asking universities to reduce the number of students who return to campus at the start of January, prioritising students who require practical learning to gain their professional qualifications. All university students should be offered two rapids tests on return to reduce the chance of covid being spread.

To support remote education and online learning during this period, the Government expect to deliver more than 50,000 devices to schools throughout the country on 4 January alone, and more than 100,000 altogether during the first week of term. That is in addition to the 560,000 devices that have already been delivered, as we continue to aim for a target of distributing more than 1 million devices for the children who need them most. The programme is now being extended to include students aged 16 to 19 in colleges and schools.

So often, we have had to close things down to try to beat this awful disease, but with schools our best line of attack is to keep them open, using the mass-testing tools that we now have available to ensure that children are able to continue to gain the benefit of a world-class education. As we continue to hear more encouraging news about the vaccine roll-out, I am more determined than ever that children will not have to pay the price for beating covid. I have spoken many times of my determination that we cannot let covid damage the life chances of an entire year of children and students. With these plans, which allow for rapid testing and the controlled return of schools, I am confident that we can minimise the latest health risks posed by the virus. I commend this statement to the House.

January 1, 2021
Boris Johnson – 2020 New Year’s Eve Message

The Prime Minister’s 2020 New Year’s Eve Message, issued on 31 December 2020.

Well folks we are coming to the end of 2020.

The year in which the Government was forced to tell people how to live their lives, how long to wash their hands, how many households could meet together.

And a year in which we lost too many loved ones before their time.

So I can imagine that there will be plenty of people who will be only too happy to say goodbye to the grimness of 2020.

But just before we do, I want to remind you that this was also the year when we rediscovered a spirit of togetherness, of community.

It was a year in which we banged saucepans to celebrate the courage and self-sacrifice of our NHS staff and care home workers

A year in which working people pulled the stops out to keep the country moving in the biggest crisis we have faced for generations – shopworkers, transport staff, pharmacists, emergency services, everyone, you name it.

We saw a renewed spirit of volunteering, as people delivered food to the elderly and vulnerable.

And time after time as it became necessary to fight new waves of the virus, we saw people unite in their determination, our determination, to protect the NHS and to save lives.

Putting their lives, your lives, on hold.

Buying precious time for medicine to provide the answers, and it has.

In 2020 we have seen British scientists not only produce the world’s first effective treatment of the disease, but just in the last few days a beacon of hope has been lit in the laboratories of Oxford.

A new room temperature vaccine that can be produced cheaply and at scale,

and that offers literally a new lease of life to people in this country and around the world.

And with every jab that goes into the arm of every elderly or vulnerable person, we are changing the odds, in favour of humanity and against Covid.

And we know that we have a hard struggle still ahead of us for weeks and months, because we face a new variant of the disease that requires a new vigilance.

But as the sun rises tomorrow on 2021 we have the certainty of those vaccines.

Pioneered in a UK that is also free to do things differently, and if necessary better, than our friends in the EU.

Free to do trade deals around the world.

And free to turbocharge our ambition to be a science superpower.

From biosciences to artificial intelligence,

and with our world-leading battery and wind technology we will work with partners around the world,

not just to tackle climate change but to create the millions of high skilled jobs this country will need not just this year – 2021 – as we bounce back from Covid, but in the years to come.

This is an amazing moment for this country.

We have our freedom in our hands and it is up to us to make the most of it.

And I think it will be the overwhelming instinct of the people of this country to come together as one United Kingdom – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland working together to express our values around the world.

Leading both the G7 and the COP 26 climate change summit in Glasgow,

And an open, generous, outward looking, internationalist and free trading global Britain, that campaigns for 12 years of quality education for every girl in the world.

2021 is the year we can do it,

and I believe 2021 is above all, the year when we will eventually do those everyday things that now seem lost in the past.

Bathed in a rosy glow of nostalgia, going to the pub, concerts, theatres, restaurants, or simply holding hands with our loved ones in the normal way.

We are still a way off from that, there are tough weeks and months ahead.

But we can see that illuminated sign that marks the end of the journey, and even more important, we can see with growing clarity how we are going to get there.

And that is what gives me such confidence about 2021.

Happy New Year!

January 1, 2021
Andrew Adonis – 2020 Speech on the Future Relationship with the EU Bill

The speech made by Andrew Adonis in the House of Lords on 30 December 2020.

I am sure it is much better to say exactly what we think about public affairs and this is certainly not a time when it is worth anyone’s while to court political popularity. I will therefore begin by saying what everybody would like to ignore or forget, but which must be stated, that

“we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/10/1938; col. 360.]

Those were Winston Churchill’s words in the House of Commons on the Munich agreement 82 years ago. Alas, they apply word for word to the Brexit agreement we are being asked to rubber-stamp today.

January 1, 2021
Ed Davey – 2020 Speech on the Future Relationship with the EU Bill

The speech made by Ed Davey, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, in the House of Commons on 30 December 2020.

Our country is gripped by two crises: Britain’s hospitals are overwhelmed and Britain’s economy is in the worst recession for 300 years. A responsible Government, faced with those crises for people’s health and jobs, would not pass this bad deal, for it will make British people poorer and British people less safe.

This is not really a trade deal at all; it is a loss of trade deal. It is the first trade deal in history to put up barriers to trade. Is that really the Government’s answer to British businesses fearing for their futures and British workers fearing for their jobs? We were told that leaving the EU would cut red tape, but the deal represents the biggest increase in red tape in British history, with 23 new committees to oversee this new trade bureaucracy, 50,000 new customs officials and 400 million new forms. Some analysts estimate the cost of this new red-tape burden for British business at over £20 billion every year. This is not the frictionless trade that the Prime Minister promised.

Jonathan Edwards

I fully agree with the points that the right hon. Member is making. Is he concerned at reports that the lack of equivalence for sanitary and phytosanitary measures means that Welsh farmers will face more red tape exporting to the EU than New Zealand farmers?

Ed Davey

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right. The more businesses see this, the more they will be very disappointed. These reels of red tape will put more jobs at risk at a time when so many are already being lost to covid, and all these new trade barriers will raise prices in the shops at a time when so many families are already struggling to make ends meet. From the failure to agree a good deal for Britain’s services sector—80% of our economy—to the failure to agree a stable deal that investors will trust, this is a lousy deal for Britain’s economic future.

The Conservatives can no longer claim to be the party of business, and with this deal they can no longer claim to be the party of law and order, for our police will no longer have real-time, immediate access to critical European crime-fighting databases such as Schengen II. Such sources of key information about criminals and crimes are used every single day by our police; in one year alone, they are used over 600 million times, often in the heat of an investigation. Thanks to the Prime Minister’s deal, British police will lose that privileged access and criminals will escape.

There are so many things wrong with this deal, from its failings on the environment to the broken promises for our young people on Erasmus, yet the irony is that, for a deal that is supposed to restore parliamentary sovereignty, our Parliament has been given only hours to scrutinise it while the European Parliament has days. And business has just days to adjust to this deal. The Liberal Democrats called on the Prime Minister to negotiate a grace period to help businesses adjust, forgetting, of course, that this Government no longer care about business.

The Government leave us no choice but to vote against this deal today. Perhaps that will not surprise too many people—the Liberal Democrats are, after all, a proud pro-European party who fought hard against Brexit—but we have genuinely looked at this post-Brexit trade deal to assess whether it is a good basis for the future relationship between the UK and the EU, and it is not. To those who argue that a vote against this deal is a vote for no deal, I say this: the Liberal Democrats led the charge against no deal when this Prime Minister was selling the virtues of no deal.

Today, the question is simple: is this a good deal for the British people? It is a deal that costs jobs, increases red tape, hits our service-based economy, undermines our police and damages our young people’s future. It is a bad deal, and the Liberal Democrats will vote against it.

December 31, 2020
Liam Fox – 2020 Speech on the Future Relationship with the EU Bill

The speech made by Liam Fox, the Conservative MP for North Somerset, in the House of Commons on 30 December 2020.

Those of us who voted and campaigned to leave the European Union did so for a number of reasons. I was always a constitutional leaver. For me, the test of this Bill is: does it return the sovereignty that we sought? The answer is yes. Why? Because there is no subjugation to EU law or EU jurisprudence, no direct effect and no direct application. Retention of any of those would have been incompatible with a sovereign state. In fact, from our accession to the European Community through various EU treaties, all those elements were incompatible with the concept that those who live under the law should be able to determine those who make the law. That is what we have regained in this process.

The second test for me is: does this allow us to have a genuinely independent trade policy? Let us remember that we were told that it would take more than 10 years to reach a free trade agreement with the European Union and that it would be impossible to roll over all the EU agreements that we had. I stood at the Dispatch Box and listened to the Opposition incessantly telling us that. I congratulate Ministers and officials under Crawford Falconer at the Department for International Trade for all they have achieved, and I especially congratulate David Frost on landing one of the world’s biggest, if not the biggest, trade agreements in 11 months—a world record—which, again, we were told was not possible.

When we voted to leave the European Union, we also voted to leave the single market, although for some of us the single market is also the single anti-market, with many of the restrictions and protectionisms that it encompasses. If we want to access the single market, there has to be a price to be paid. If we want to diverge from the rules of the single market, there has to be a price to be paid. Does this agreement provide effective mechanisms for us to do those things? My answer, again, is yes.

Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the mechanisms that this treaty has found are every bit as good as the mechanisms in the Canada treaty, for example, and all other treaties that reflect these tensions in free trade agreements?

Dr Fox

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and not only are they effective mechanisms, but they keep us in line with the best international practice that exists, which of course enables us to move forward with greater predictability. On that point, there are a number of specific elements to welcome. The first is the acceptance of the concept—

Jonathan Edwards

Will the right hon. Member give way?

Dr Fox

I will not, I am afraid.

The first element is the concept of non-regression as a means of ensuring minimum standards. We accept that the maintenance of those high standards has fixed costs in international commerce, which is why we will always need to compete at the high end of the quality market globally in goods and services. As the Prime Minister rightly pointed out, we cannot ever become a bargain basement economy because the fixed costs we have are simply too high and, quite rightly, the British people would not allow us to abandon the standards we have. It means that we will have to move forward with the natural innovation and creativity of the British people expanding our export culture, because the bottom line is that without more exports and without more actual trade, any trade agreement is simply a piece of paper. It is upon the natural innovation of the British people that our prosperity will be built in the future.

The second element, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) alluded, is the fact that the concept in dispute resolution of international arbitration is done without the European Court of Justice, which brings us in line with international trends and practices. That takes us to the third element: the mechanism of determining divergence. If there is no ability to determine to diverge, we are not sovereign. If there were not a price to be paid for divergence, the EU would never have reached the agreement with us. What would have been unacceptable is the concept of dynamic alignment—automatically taking EU rules over which we had no control into our law—but what is acceptable is penalties for divergence, which are clearly set out. They are proportionate, and there is a requirement to show harm, rather than their simply being put into law. The most important element of all in this is that it is we who will weigh up the costs and benefits of any potential disalignment. It is our choice—that is one of the key elements that we have in the future.

Today opens up a new chapter in our politics. It is the choice of maintaining and strengthening an independent United Kingdom; or of the new ranks of the rejoiners, who would have us thrust back into European accession politics all over again, consuming all our political time and energy, which is a future that I believe the British public will reject. There are things that we still have to sort out—the future of Gibraltar is one of the important ones, as is seeing further details on services, including financial services—but this is a historic day in our democracy. We have delivered on the referendum and our election promises. If, for the Opposition, those are not reasons to be cheerful, they are at least reasons of which we should all be proud.

December 31, 2020
Kevin Brennan – 2020 Speech on the Future Relationship with the EU Bill

The speech made by Kevin Brennan, the Labour MP for Cardiff West, in the House of Commons on 30 December 2020.

I understand completely the exasperation of people that, four and a half years after the Brexit referendum, we are still debating this subject, and I understand the desire to move on. I also accept the proposition that a thin deal is better than no deal, but this is not only a thin deal; it is a bad deal. A far better deal could and should have been negotiated by the Government and still could be.

In the nearly 20 years that I have spent in this House—15 of them on the Front Bench—there have been many occasions when I have voted for a proposition with reservations; that is the nature of parliamentary and party politics. But there are occasions when that proposition is too damaging to support. I accept that there is a valid argument at this stage, as laid out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, to move on and for the Opposition to build on this bad deal. I also accept that in politics, many decisions—perhaps most—are not between what is right and what is clearly identifiable as wrong but are on a continuum between what is unpalatable and what is unacceptable. Clearly, no deal is unacceptable. This bad deal is certainly unpalatable and, in places, unacceptable because of the ideological approach taken to negotiations by this awful right-wing shambles of a Tory Government who are determined to set Britain on a path that will damage it culturally and economically.

While I understand the desire to move on, I simply do not understand why it is necessary for those who believe that this is a bad deal to vote for it and dip their fingertips in the indelible ink of this abject failure of national ambition. The deadline we are up against today is an entirely artificial one, sustained only so that the Prime Minister can say that he has met his own political timetable. The truth is that the transition period could have been extended or the deal could have been introduced on a provisional basis to allow the House to thoroughly scrutinise it line by line, rather than follow the “take it or leave it by lunchtime” timetable that the Government have artificially manufactured today.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) was right to talk about the red tape for manufacturing in this deal, checks for farmers, burdensome regulation on businesses and the fact that the consequences of the deal will be economically damaging. In addition, the Government have chosen to end the Erasmus educational programme for young people, there is no proper recognition of professional qualifications and they will remove work permit-free access across the EU for touring musicians, who have already been unable to work for the last year due to covid. In the last few days, that issue alone has triggered a petition to Parliament of more than 200,000 signatures. Less than a year ago, the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), who was at the time the Minister for Sport, Media and Creative Industries, said in Westminster Hall:

“It is essential that free movement is protected for artists post 2020.”—[Official Report, 21 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 56WH.]

That is just one example of the failure of the Government to deliver even on their own woefully inadequate promises in relation to this deal. This is a thin deal. It is a failure, even on the Government’s own terms. In short, it is a bad deal, and I will not be voting for it.

December 31, 2020
Cheryl Gillan – 2020 Speech on the Future Relationship with the EU Bill

The speech made by Cheryl Gillan, the Conservative MP for Chesham and Amersham, in the House of Commons on 30 December 2020.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). I do not always agree with him, but I recognise the detailed and sterling work he has done on the Brexit Select Committee and am glad that he is voting for the Bill today.

I also welcome the fantastic news on the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which along with the Bill gives us a double reason for celebration. I add my congratulations and plaudits to the Prime Minister and all our negotiators on their steadfastness in bringing home this deal.

Make no mistake, it took guts and determination both to leave the EU and, finally, to deliver this result. It may not be perfect. I, too, for example, share the reservations expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) about the position of our services industry, which needs urgent resolution on, for example, what the equivalence rules will look like.

The deal has been hard won and delivers zero tariffs and zero quotas, which brings a huge sigh of relief to many businesses and industries across the country. At the same time, it allows the UK once again to control its destiny through its own elected representatives and its own courts—the independence and control over our affairs that I and many others voted for in the referendum.

This is not a precipitative end to our relationship, but the controlled departure that we were all hoping for. Our participation in programmes such as Horizon Europe and EU Space Surveillance and Tracking indicates our recognition that there are things we can do better together across Europe, but now without having to be subject to a regime that we could not change or, at the very least, even influence.

There will be many other things that we can do better, such as the Turing scheme, which is going to offer 35,000 UK students worldwide opportunities and will replace Erasmus. When we pass this legislation today, we will be in a golden position to create a great future for the United Kingdom—a future that the people of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England will grasp with both hands. The trade deals and continuity agreements that we have already signed with 62 countries are testament to that, and we must make a great deal of fuss about the work that has gone into those signings, which will mean so much for our country in the future.

To those who continue to wage a war of attrition against this reborn independence and look backwards towards membership of the EU, I hope they, too, will now move on and develop the guts and determination of our Prime Minister to back our own Union and contribute positively to its future success. I believe that the UK’s future is bright, working alongside Europe, but finally, after today, not subjugated by it.

It is with great pleasure that I support this Bill.

December 31, 2020
Hilary Benn – 2020 Speech on the Future Relationship with the EU Bill

The speech made by Hilary Benn, the Labour MP for Leeds Central, in the House of Commons on 30 December 2020.

May I draw attention to the fourth report of the Brexit Select Committee, on the agreement, which was published this morning? The Committee’s wonderful staff worked really hard over Christmas, but we have not had the opportunity, in three days, to produce a fuller report, and I did write to the Leader of the House about giving the Committee a bit more time to complete the task that was given to us just under a year ago.

I will be voting for this Bill to implement the agreement today, because, quite simply, the alternative is no deal. I recognise that others in the House will abstain or vote against, but if we were in the position where every one of their votes were required in order to get this Bill, and therefore this agreement, through, I cannot believe that any of those colleagues would actually choose no deal, with all the damaging economic consequences it would bring, over a deal. That is why, in the end, the Prime Minister realised that he had no alternative but to get an agreement. This is not a vote about whether we support Brexit—I do not, but it has happened. This is a vote about making a bit better of a bad job.

There are aspects of the agreement that will be welcomed: the absence of tariffs, which has been referred to; the agreement on healthcare; the level playing provisions, which seem pretty reasonable to me; and our having access to some of the information that we require for our security. But we must also be honest about what is missing from this agreement and what that will mean. It does not deliver frictionless trade. It will impose checks, costs and red tape on British businesses that export to Europe. Frankly, I was astonished to hear the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the radio the other morning apparently praising red tape as a benefit because it will make British businesses get “match fit” to trade. That is certainly a novel economic theory and it does not reflect the Conservative party as we previously understood it. The agreement offers no certainty yet on data transfer or financial services, which are so important to our economy. We did not get what was sought on conformity assessments, rules of origin, mutual recognition of qualifications, or reduced sanitary and phytosanitary checks. There is, as of this moment, no agreement yet on Gibraltar.

Why has this happened? It has happened because from the start the Government were faced with having to choose between sovereignty, on the one hand, and the economic interests of the country, on the other, and however hard they tried to pretend that they could have the best of both, that was never possible—a trade-off would always have to be made. We see that in the agreement before us, which is long and complex, rather like Brexit itself, and the full implications of both have yet to be revealed.

Today this Bill will pass, and tomorrow the process of leaving the EU will be complete, but the day after we will need to look forward, because a new question will confront us as a nation: what kind of relationship do we now wish to have with our biggest, nearest and most important trading partners and friends? The other reason why I will be voting for this Bill today is that, for all it has failed to secure, it at least provides a foundation on which, in the years ahead, we can build what I hope will be a strong economic and political relationship with our European friends. I hope, as we move beyond leave and remain, we will now be able, as a country, to come together to do exactly that.

December 30, 2020
Sammy Wilson – 2020 Speech on the Future Relationship with the EU Bill

The speech made by Sammy Wilson, the DUP MP for East Antrim, in the House of Commons on 30 December 2020.

I am glad that in two days’ time we will be finally leaving the EU. That is something that my party and I personally campaigned for, and it is something that would probably not have happened had it not been for the votes and crucial debates in this House when remainers tried to undermine the result of the referendum.

I have to say that today that euphoria is tinged with sadness, because the deal that the Prime Minister has struck will not apply equally to all parts of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland will not enjoy all the benefits of this deal. Indeed, we will still find ourselves tied to some of the restrictions of EU membership that the rest of the United Kingdom has been freed from. We welcome the limitations that have been placed on the withdrawal agreement and the mitigations that have been made to it, but unfortunately the withdrawal agreement is still an integral part of the Government’s policy and an integral part of this deal. This deal commits the Government to implementing not only this agreement but supplementary agreements, and they have to do it in good faith.

We therefore find that the detrimental impacts of the withdrawal agreement—that Northern Ireland will still be subject to some EU laws made in Brussels; that those laws will be adjudicated by the European Court of Justice; and that there will be barriers to internal trade within the United Kingdom between Northern Ireland and GB, and GB and Northern Ireland—are already being manifested. GB companies are indicating that they will no longer supply to Northern Ireland. VAT on cars will increase in Northern Ireland. From 1 January 2021, second-hand cars in Northern Ireland will be 20% dearer as a result of VAT rules applying, and a whole range of other things.

Jim Shannon

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there seems to be no protection for the single market regulations, in particular for banking and investment firms? There is not even the option for firms in Northern Ireland to apply for authorisation to the equivalent of the Financial Conduct Authority. Does he feel that that is an anomaly that needs to be addressed?

Sammy Wilson

Of course, it is not only in those areas. The Prime Minister talked about the way in which, because there was no longer any need for regulatory conformity, the UK could free itself to develop FinTech, biosciences and agricultural practices. Because Northern Ireland will still remain under some of the EU regulations, we will, in many ways, not be able to benefit from those new and exciting opportunities.

Having said that, Northern Ireland will still be part of the United Kingdom. I know that people have said that this deal will drive a wedge into the Union. A wedge can only be driven into the Union when the people of Northern Ireland decide that they no longer wish to remain part of the UK. When it comes to a choice between joining the Irish Republic—a small nation which will bob about in the future storms of economic chaos—and being anchored to the fifth-largest economy in the world, which will prosper under Brexit, I believe that that choice will be an easy one for the people of Northern Ireland.

What I would say to the Prime Minister, though, is that there will be economic damage as a result of our exclusion from this agreement, but there are opportunities. There is a joint committee, there is a review of the agreement, there is the fact that we now have parliamentary sovereignty, and there is the fact that the Government can act unilaterally to undo economic damage. We will continue to press you and your Government, Prime Minster, to live up to your promises that Northern Ireland will not be disadvantaged as a result of the deals you have done.

Let me finally say that we will not be voting for this deal today, and I think the reasons are obvious. We are excluded from many of its benefits. That does not mean we have any common cause with the petulant remainers in this Parliament who want to undo the referendum; it is because we are disappointed Brexiteers. It is because we are people who believed that the United Kingdom should leave and should leave as a whole, and that is not happening, and for that reason we will not be voting for this deal today.

December 30, 2020