UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • 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.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2019 Speech at Policy Exchange

    Robert Jenrick – 2019 Speech at Policy Exchange

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, at Policy Exchange on 23 October 2019.

    Good morning ladies and gentlemen, it’s a real pleasure to be here today.

    When I walk into my office at the Ministry of Housing each morning, there is a wall of portraits of some of the great reforming ministers who’ve held my office in the post-war era. From Harold McMillan, Sir Keith Joseph to Michael Heseltine.

    I think that some of them have set out to build more homes, some to reform our undoubtedly complex and convoluted housing and planning system and some have used this office to breath new life into communities. Whether that’s London’s Docklands or inner city Liverpool.

    I take inspiration in different ways from each of them and many of their different achievements. And if I am given time to do so – which is not a given in this job, as their do seem to be quite a lot of housing secretaries – I’ll seek to carry forward in different ways those different torches that they’ve brought forward themselves.

    Another of my predecessors, John Prescott, in a classic of the genre that he created of inadvertent phrases, he said when he was addressing a Labour Party Conference as Housing Secretary that the green belt was a great post-war achievement, and I intend to build on it.

    That isn’t one of my priorities, Number 10 will be pleased to hear if they’re listening to this speech. But I do want to build upon some of the great things some of my predecessors have achieved when they’ve really tried to reform the housing market.

    But today I want to make an argument that I would suggest has not exercised the considerable talents and imagination of my predecessors nearly as much as one might have wished.

    Not, how many homes? Not, where do we build the homes? Or even, for whom are we building homes? Although, it’s not unrelated to those very important questions. But, what do those houses actually look like? How do they relate to each other? How are those houses homes? And how do we collectively create places where people can actually build good lives?

    And I’d like to thank Policy Exchange and Create Streets for giving me the platform to do so today. Policy Exchange, under Dean’s formidable leadership and Create Streets under Nicholas Boyd-Smith’s very prescient guidance, has developed an argument, which you are now very familiar with; to coin a phrase, for a “kinder and gentler”, a more humane, more beautiful architecture. And above all an argument that appears to be winning.

    It’s an argument which appears to be turning the tide on the post-war vision of housing.

    When I was first appointed just a few months ago I was sent a letter by the Prime Minister congratulating me and he pointed out a phrase in Kenneth Clark (not the MP for Rushcliffe, you won’t be surprised to hear), but the author of that seminal series from my childhood, Civilisation.

    A phrase that he said that:

    “If I had to say which was telling the truth about society, a speech by a Minister of Housing or the actual buildings put up in his time, I would believe the buildings.”

    And I think that was a challenge to me, not to just make fine speeches, but to be judged on the types of buildings that are built whilst we’re lucky enough to be in office.

    And that’s the challenge that I’m going to take up today.

    RIBA Stirling Prize

    Earlier this month, I was at the RIBA Awards to help announce the winners of the Stirling Prize for the building that has made the greatest contribution to the evolution of architecture in the past year.

    As I’m sure some of you will know who follow these things, the winner was Goldsmith Street in Norwich and that became the first-ever social housing scheme to win the Stirling Prize.

    These are very beautifully designed homes and they meet the exacting Passivhaus standard for energy efficiency with state-of-the-art insulation, triple-glazed windows, and high-tech fans blowing fresh air in and stale air out.

    They come with high ceilings, spacious bedrooms, fibre-optic broadband, garden lawns, parking, communal greens with flowers, plants, benches and safe play areas for children.

    It really is a superb development that is deserving of the award.

    But I was struck by how, what was actually being celebrated, was remarkably simple. It was even ordinary.

    There was even a moment where the architect who presented the award said, “isn’t it wonderful that these houses have front doors.”

    They were terraced houses with doors on streets lined with trees. Things which most people in this country will consider to be pretty straightforward, ordinary features that have existed for hundreds of years.

    And, it made me realise that over the last few years many developers, many architects, and, yes, most governments, have suffered from what can only be described as collective amnesia.

    We’ve forgotten what it means to build beautiful homes and create beautiful places.

    We’ve forgotten the basics of building attractive homes which people can actually take pride in and care for.

    The sorts of homes where people want to raise their children, to grow old together, can be good neighbours.

    Places which are designed with communities where people can live and pay respect to the identity and heritage of their area.

    So Goldsmith Street is not just living proof that new buildings can be attractive and environmentally friendly, important those objectives are and which I’ll return to in a moment, it is I think a reconnection with common sense.

    The research that my department has been doing shows very vividly, what you heard from Dean in his brief introduction, that unsurprisingly, people care about quality. They care about beauty, they care about a sense of place.

    Almost 70% of people who believe new homes are well-built are more likely to support development in their local area.

    And unsurprisingly, it’s the same story when we talk about the design of places.

    The research suggests that the vast majority of people now feel that new build houses must be well designed and if they are, they are far more likely to support new homes being built in their neighbourhood than those who feel that the new houses are likely to be ugly or not in keeping with their local environment.

    So if we want to meet the challenge of the housing crisis, we have to make sure that the new homes we build are beautiful, good quality, safe and part of real, functioning communities.

    So what are we actually going to do? How are we going to take up the mantle that has been provided to us by Create Streets and Policy Exchange and many others, some of which are represented in this room.

    The NPPF, BBBC and National Design Guide

    It’s now time for government to play its part. We are going to begin that process by creating the first National Design Code.

    We’ve already made some important steps in this regard.

    As you know, we’ve revised National Planning Policy Framework, to make clear that creating high-quality buildings and places must be at the heart of the process.

    The Framework expands on the fundamental principles of good design to define what is expected of local authorities and developers to support the creation of beautiful places.

    It also provides guidance for local authorities to explain how planning policies and decisions could facilitate this.

    My predecessor, James Brokenshire, appointed the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission under Nicholas’s leadership along with the great Sir Roger Scruton, to advise the government on how best to promote and increase the use of high-quality design for new build homes and neighbourhoods.

    Their interim report, published in July this year, has set out over 30 propositions, including ones to encourage greater community involvement in shaping new homes…

    …creating the kinds of places in which people genuinely want to live.

    They’ll be reporting back later this year and I’m confident that we will be taking forward their recommendations.

    But I think we can go significantly further than that. And that’s where I hope my new National Design Code will come in.

    We’re going to be using this to set out a very clear model for the first time for promoting good quality design and the style of homes and neighbourhoods that people actually want to see across the country, not set by edict in Whitehall but shaped by local people.

    I want these local Design Guides, which every local authority will be asked to create, to actually become the product of listening to local groups, considering local tradition and embedding in these codes and then in turn embedding that in planning policy, making it a legal right for local people to demand these standards.

    And I think these codes will turn out to be quite simple. They’ll set for example, a presumption in favour of homes on streets; homes with front doors; homes with fronts and backs; homes with quality facades; roofs in line with local tradition; concerns for local vernacular and heritage. And a presumption, for the first time, in favour of tree-lined streets.

    In the last month, we’ve also launched our National Design Guide introducing the national gold standard to which local authorities should adhere and use as an essential reference when designing their own tailored guides in due course.

    The National Design Guide illustrates how well-designed places that are beautiful, enduring and successful can be achieved in practice.

    I think there’s a great deal more we can go beyond this and I think we only have to look to some of the great visionaries of the past, people who created beautiful towns and cities in the not too distant past.

    People like Ebenezer Howard and Henrietta Barnett who created places people now love and cherish. We want to build upon this.

    I want to see today’s developers, architects and designers striving to be the Howards and Barnetts of our time – to create green neighbourhoods of the future with social wellbeing, belonging and community cohesion at their heart.

    And leaving a green legacy that future generations will thank us for. So we have to set our sights high.

    Alongside good quality design and placemaking, we also have to ensure that these new developments are actually gold standards for sustainable, environmentally friendly homes which, like our garden cities of the past, will actually stand the test of time.

    Future Homes Standard

    In this regard, we are paving the way for our Future Homes Standard that I was able to announce just a few weeks ago.

    The consultation we’re running here, which will last until the beginning of next year, will have stronger building regulations to ensure that every new home that’s built in this country from 2025 will have low or zero-carbon emissions and the highest levels of energy efficiency.

    And we’re clear that developers will now need to do their bit in tackling the threat of climate change, embracing new technologies, such as air source heat pumps and the latest generation of solar panels.

    It’s through these reforms that we can create the future-proof homes that people really need.

    Because it’s only by taking a longer-term view that we can begin to re-establish that integral link between people and places. Between community and identity.

    Whatever one’s view of the referendum, no one can deny that the country’s decision to leave the European Union has also brought to the fore many of the underlying social and economic divisions that we always knew existed, but which successive governments have failed properly to address.

    And it’s those divisions which have, to some extent, been born out of people feeling disillusioned and disconnected from the decision-making that affects their day to day lives.

    Now none of these problems can be solved overnight. Our increasingly polarised society won’t be brought together in an instant.

    But there are real practical steps we have taken to put local people at the forefront of decision-making and to give them a greater say in how their neighbourhoods develop so that it reflects the true identity of their communities.

    More people than ever before now have a direct place-making role in their local area, with over 2,600 different groups having started the neighbourhood planning process since 2012.

    That means millions of people taking ownership of their neighbourhoods, defining what is important to them and making sure that actually happens.

    And as Secretary of State I intend to take that forward, putting plan-making at the heart of our planning system and ensuring that those plans have quality of design and have the environment at their absolute heart.

    This also brings me on to another area I want to take forward as Secretary of State.

    Protecting our heritage

    It shows what we can achieve when we put power directly into people’s hands.

    But it also I think shows that to create real places, they have to have a sense of identity and that means protecting their past.

    I want to encourage local communities and heritage groups to get far more involved in identifying the historic buildings in their area…

    … so they can be at the heart of the process of recognising, defining and protecting the buildings they truly value.

    Because we know that, where buildings are on local or national heritage lists, they are often shielded from development.

    And that, again, builds consent for development and builds better communities.

    Until now, this has mostly been the domain of our local planning authorities.

    But only 50% of planning authorities even have these lists, and where they do, they are often out of date or incomplete.

    This isn’t good enough.

    Protecting the historic environment must be a key function of the planning system.

    All local planning authorities must play a far more proactive role in supporting local communities and heritage groups to identify and to protect more historic buildings.

    In the 1980s, Michael Heseltine reinvigorated our national heritage lists. And now I want to complete that work and to do the same at the local level.

    As a first step, I am announcing, what I think will be the most ambitious new heritage preservation campaign since Michael’s work 40 years ago.

    We will start with 10 English counties and support them to complete their local lists and to bring forward more suggestions for the national statutory lists as well.

    It will see local people coming forward to nominate the buildings and community assets they cherish – protecting them for future generations.

    We’re backing this programme with £500,000 of government investment – giving counties the tools, funding and expertise they need to shift their approach to heritage and conservation up a gear.

    To help us do this, we will appoint a National Heritage Advisor to support this vital work and to make sure that Government is actually delivering. I want to thank Marcus Binney, Simon Jenkins and the SAVE team for their input and inspiration for this initiative.

    We hope this will help boost conservation efforts in these counties, enabling fresh engagement with local communities and heritage groups.

    But our work doesn’t stop there.

    We are also working with the Department for Culture and with Historic England on developing an entirely new heritage conservation programme. We are going to be be supporting Historic England to develop a new process to enable faster community nominations of important heritage assets in the new Heritage Action Zones.

    This builds on the £95 million fund government announced earlier this year to unlock the economic potential of 69 historic high streets. We’re determined the ensure that these places can once again be refreshed and renewed and given new life.

    At the heart of this will be local people as well as a new team of heritage activists, what we want to call the modern day Monument’s men and women who will be working across England to find these buildings and get them listed, locally or nationally as soon as possible.

    Heritage and sustainability

    Our new heritage preservation campaign also supports that wider shift we’re seeing in society…

    …that focus on sustainability, and how we can protect communities and our planet.

    Today, there is more recognition than ever that we must be building to last.

    Research shows that the construction, demolition and excavation of old homes generates around three-fifths of total UK non-hazardous waste every year – which is a staggering figure.

    For the country to cut its carbon footprint, drive sustainability and meet our net-zero targets, all of us – in industry and in government – have a responsibility to promote the re-use of existing buildings.

    The ill-fated programme of demolition and destruction pursued by government’s of the past resulted in thousands of well-built, pre-1919 terrace houses, for example, being needlessly destroyed.

    In great cities like Liverpool, the Housing Market Renewal Initiative resulted in property prices sharply increasing while putting important historic buildings, like the birthplace of Ringo Starr, under threat.

    Today, developers are rediscovering the value in the renovation and refurbishment of Victorian terraces.

    Like the Welsh Streets of Liverpool, streets that were under serious and needless threat of being knocked down. These are now in a new wave of regeneration and renewal.

    We also need to be ambitious, creative and imaginative in repurposing commercial and public buildings.

    I think of examples like the redevelopment of the HMS Daedalus site in Lee-on-the-Solent.

    After the Second World War, this naval site included several beautiful Victorian buildings. It was used as a technical training facility for the Royal Navy before falling into disrepair.

    Demolition seemed the only viable option until developers came forward with proposals to uncover the base’s rich history – converting the derelict buildings into new homes and apartments with all of the car parking and landscaping it needs.

    I hope examples like this will be taken forward by developers across the country – bringing historic buildings back into life, making them useful for communities.

    I will certainly be supporting initiatives likes that, through the planning system and through my powers as Secretary of State. Bringing new purpose to brownfield land to historic buildings, to get people back to living in empty homes.

    Housing supply

    I think these examples show us that we can reconcile two extensible posing challenges. How we can design beautiful, eye-catching homes whilst also building at scale, at pace and at low cost.

    Critics would have us believe that these challenges cannot be solved simultaneously.

    I think that cynicism is wrong and unfounded.

    What we’ve seen in some of the country’s largest and most successful recent developments, from Northstowe in Cambridgeshire to the Stonebridge homes of Yorkshire, to the wonderful redevelopment around King’s Cross…

    … is that design which speaks to an area’s heritage, its history and its identity is universally popular.

    In fact, it is only beautiful design, in-keeping with an area’s existing aesthetic and sensitive to local concerns, which unlocks public consent for new development…

    Which saves costly delays from legal challenges and frees up developers to get on and the build the homes we need.

    For too long there has been a misconception in the housebuilding industry that quality is the enemy of supply.

    In fact, experience shows us that it is those developments of the highest quality and the most attractive designs which are approved faster, sell faster and which are the most enduringly popular.

    The exciting technological innovation currently taking place across the sector through Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) makes it easier than ever before for architects, designers and builders to integrate beauty into their plans without compromising on delivery.

    The great package of measures the government has introduced in the last 10 years to:

    simplify the planning process;

    bring forward brownfield regeneration; and

    set the housebuilding industry free

    which I believe has to just be the first steps, has resulted in a record number of homes being built.

    However, we know that we need to go further. This year likely it will be the year we build more homes than any year, bar-one, in my adult lifetime.

    Conclusion

    But we must go much further and faster.

    It means that even our target of building 300,000 homes a year by the mid-2020s may not be ambitious enough.

    To do this, we have to embrace technology, the technology being brought forward for the digital age, to make homes built faster.

    But I think we also need to renew our enthusiasm for quality design in the supply of homes so we can build a greener and a better Britain.

    That’s the challenge I will be taking forward as Secretary of State. Working with Policy Exchange, working with Create Streets, to build a Britain that is genuinely built to last…

    …To create a society that has re-established powerful links between identity and place, between history and the future, between community and purpose.

    This, I hope is a country that rediscovers the truth, first espoused by John Ruskin when he said that, we must build and when we do let us think that we build forever.

    For me, that will be guiding principle as we set out the future of the planning system.

  • Nigel Dodds – 2019 Speech on Brexit

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

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

    The Prime Minister indicated dissent.

    Nigel Dodds

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

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

    Robert Jenrick – 2019 Statement on the Right to Shared Ownership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Ken Clarke – 2019 Speech on Brexit

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

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

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

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Jeremy Corbyn – 2019 Speech on Brexit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr Speaker

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

    Jeremy Corbyn

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “very sad Brexit read from a climate perspective.”

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

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

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

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

    The Taoiseach said that the deal

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

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

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

    We cannot trust a word he says.

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

  • Ian Blackford – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Ian Blackford – 2019 Speech on Brexit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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