Ministers from the Department for Exiting the European Union were
answering questions in the Commons. Subjects covered
included...
To read any of these in greater detail, click on the link
above or see below.
Supply of Medicines: No Deal
(Bedford) (Lab)
1. What recent assessment the Government have made of the effect on
the supply of medicines of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.
[912274]
(Lewisham, Deptford)
(Lab)
16. What recent assessment the Government have made of the effect
on the supply of medicines of the UK leaving the EU without a
deal. [912289]
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
17. What recent assessment the Government have made of the effect
on the supply of medicines of the UK leaving the EU without a
deal. [912290]
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union ()
The Department of Health and Social Care has assessed and
contacted 448 suppliers of medicine and has regular and detailed
conversations with the industry.
This week, the Nuffield Trust joined 11 union leaders to warn
that no deal would disrupt the supply of life-saving medicine and
exacerbate the largest staffing crisis in our NHS’s history. What
level of mortality rate is acceptable to the Secretary of State
as the price to pay for this devastating no-deal Brexit?
The hon. Gentleman does not reflect the reality of the
significant preparation that the industry has done over the last
three years, and I pay tribute to it for that. For example, one
of the leading insulin manufacturers, Novo Nordisk, has 18 weeks’
worth of supplies, while the Government had asked for six weeks’
worth. The industry has gone above and beyond in its preparation,
and a huge amount of work has been done.
I was recently contacted by a constituent with a rare condition.
She has stopped producing cortisol and needs to take a synthetic
form of it to survive. If she stops taking her medication, she
will be dead within 10 days. What does the Secretary of State
have to say to my constituent, who is afraid that the Government
are gambling with her life?
I would say that we should not be scaring people unnecessarily.
The Government have put in place a framework to ensure supply. We
have also put in place an express freight service, which will
give even more capacity on a 24-hour basis and between two to
four days for larger pallets. There is additional capacity, and a
huge amount of work has been done on storage, but this is an
issue of mutual interest for the UK and the Commission, and we
are working on it jointly.
Anyone who is facing cancer treatment wants to know that they can
get the medicine and the medical devices they need as quickly as
possible and with certainty. Dr Buscombe from the British Nuclear
Medicine Society says that the system for delivering radioactive
isotopes in the event of a no-deal Brexit is “fragile”. What does
the Secretary of State say to patients who are concerned to hear
that?
I was a Health Minister, and as part of business as usual there
are always issues of supply, usually with around up to 50 lines.
We have had it in the last few weeks with HRT, which is totally
unconnected to Brexit. These are issues that the Department is
well used to preparing for. It is in the interest of both sides
to get this right. Two thirds of Ireland’s medicine comes through
the land bridge in Great Britain. This is something that both
sides are working to deliver because it is of interest to both of
us.
Mr (Kettering) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s preparations to prevent medicine
shortages in the event of no deal and the fact that the Secretary
of State highlighted the impact this will have on the Republic of
Ireland. As he rightly says, two thirds of medicines to the
Republic come through and over UK motorways, so it is in the EU’s
interests as well to prevent no deal.
My hon. Friend is right. This is about preparing. It is not about
scaring people unnecessarily. Around 220 lorries impact Ireland.
This is of mutual interest, and we want to get it right with
them. That is why we are working with member states on this. It
is not just about stock and not just about flow; it is also about
flow the other way. A significant number of UK medicines from
firms like AstraZeneca go to Europe, so this is in the interests
of the EU27 and the UK, which is why considerable work has been
done on it.
Exports: No Deal
(Birmingham, Northfield)
(Lab)
2. What recent assessment the Government have made of the effect
on the transportation of goods of the UK leaving the EU without a
deal. [912275]
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union ()
The Government have prioritised flow of goods at the border and
put in place a range of easements to support that fluidity.
I do not get any sense from the Secretary of State that he
intends to implement the decisions of this House in ruling out no
deal. What would his response be to Rod McKenzie of the Road
Haulage Association, who only this week said this of his
experience of Ministers in relation to what he describes as the
“clear and present” threat of no deal:
“What we need is action, and we need action now. And there’s this
gap between what they say they’re going to do, and what they have
so far failed to deliver”?
When will we see delivery from this Government? When will the
Government even meet unions representing drivers to discuss their
real fears about the impact of a no-deal Brexit on drivers’ hours
and safety?
Again, the hon. Gentleman is ignoring the evidence. The
Government are acting. He should look at, for example, the
auto-enrolment of EORI—economic operator registration and
identification—numbers. Some 87,955 VAT-registered businesses
that trade only with the EU have, as part of auto-enrolment, had
those numbers sent out. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of
the Duchy of Lancaster was in Calais meeting his counterpart and
discussing these very issues. There are material issues to
address, but it does not progress debate in this House if people
ignore the reality of the work that the Government are doing.
(Tunbridge Wells) (Ind)
My right hon. Friend said last week that the
“car industry’s ‘just in time’ supply chains rely on fluid
cross-Channel trade routes”,
and that we
“need to start talks now on how we make sure this flow continues
if we leave without a deal.”
Some of us have been making this point for some time. Can my
right hon. Friend say: who are these proposed talks with, have
they started, when does he expect them to finish and will he
publish an update on how far they have got?
This is the first opportunity I have had since my right hon.
Friend left the Government to pay tribute to the work that he did
as a senior Minister, in particular, if I may say so, in relation
to the British steel industry. I know he was an assiduous
champion of its interests at the Cabinet table.
What I was highlighting in that thread was the talks the
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was having that Friday in
Calais. The fact is that issues about the documentation required
and the flow are of mutual interest. It was pertaining to the
issues touched on in the communiqué issued by the Commission
yesterday. It is in the interests of both sides, including those
of leaders in northern France, that we get the flow of these
goods right.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
About 3 million wooden pallets are used every month to transport
goods, including food, between the UK and the EU. After a no-deal
Brexit, those wooden pallets will no longer be able to be used
unless they have been heat treated or fumigated. Can the
Secretary of State give the House an assurance, because this is
absolutely about the supply of food, that there are sufficient
pallets available to the companies that keep our food supplies
moving?
We have a ministerial meeting, chaired by the Chancellor of the
Duchy of Lancaster, which is tasked each day with looking at
specific issues. My focus—as Chair of the Exiting the European
Union Committee, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of
this—is on the negotiations, as opposed to every item such as
pallets, so I will pick that up with the Chancellor of the Duchy
of Lancaster. However, considerable work has gone on. As I say,
this issue applies to the EU—to its exports and the flow of goods
through Calais—and it is these very issues that the Chancellor of
the Duchy of Lancaster was discussing with his counterparts in
Calais last Friday.
(Stafford) (Con)
The Secretary of State quite rightly referred to the EORI
numbers, but as I understand it, businesses will also have to get
a similar number from the country in the EU27 with which they
trade once we are outside the EU. Are businesses aware of that,
or are they just aware of getting the UK one?
My hon. Friend is right that there are a number of things
businesses need to do. That is exactly the purpose behind the
public information campaign that we have launched to improve
readiness. Contrary to the perception often implied in this
House, a huge amount of work has been done in Government over the
last three years and a large amount of work has also been done in
large companies, including large pharmaceutical companies. The
area of more concern has been within the SME community to which
he refers, and that is what the public information campaign is
targeting.
(Carshalton and Wallington)
(LD)
Would not the best way of measuring the effect of transportation
of goods on the UK leaving the EU without a deal be to publish
the Operation Yellowhammer documents, rather than sanitising or
shredding them, and allowing Members of Parliament to interview
the civil servants responsible for writing them?
A huge amount of information has already been published, not
least in the form of the technical notices that the Government
have issued. However, I fear—this may be a rare area of agreement
between the right hon. Gentleman and me—that there is no level of
documentation we could publish that would fully satisfy him.
Visa-free Travel
(Calder Valley) (Con)
3. What plans the Government have to negotiate visa-free travel
between the UK and the EU for short visits after the UK leaves
the EU. [912276]
Mrs (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
13. What plans the Government have to negotiate visa-free travel
between the UK and the EU for short visits after the UK leaves
the EU. [912286]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union ()
The European Union has confirmed that it will grant UK nationals
visa-free travel for short stays, subject to reciprocity. The
Government have also said that we do not intend to require visas
for tourists or short-term business visitors from the European
Union.
On longer-term working visas, 19% of people in the Calder Valley
work in manufacturing, a sector that is now suffering from skill
shortages and benefiting from very high employment. Can my right
hon. Friend put the minds of businesses at rest, and explain how
we can fill these skill shortfalls in the short term after Brexit
that are currently filled through freedom of movement?
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I can certainly
reassure him. As the Home Secretary set out, as we leave the EU
we will transition to a new points-based immigration system that
is built around the skills and talents that people have, not
where they are from. In the short term, Swiss citizens and those
from the European economic area who move to the UK after a
no-deal Brexit on 31 October will still be able to start to
study, as now.
Mrs Latham
How will we ensure that the UK continues to attract the brightest
and best when we leave the EU?
My hon. Friend makes an important point—it is essential that we
attract the brightest and best, not just from the EU but from
around the world. That is what the Government are doing by
repositioning ourselves with real growth areas around the world,
alongside the EU.
Mr (Huddersfield)
(Lab/Co-op)
Is the ministerial team aware that my constituency of
Huddersfield, where I come from, is, like that of the hon. Member
for Calder Valley (), the centre and heart of
manufacturing in this country? We must be mobile and be able to
visit places. People in the manufacturing centre of Huddersfield,
and the university, are absolutely appalled by what might happen
if there is a no-deal Brexit. We need access to our markets and
to travel, and we believe it will be the end of the world if we
crash out without a deal.
If he has studied my past, the hon. Gentleman may know that I
lived in his constituency. I studied and have friends in his
constituency, and I know it very well.
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
Last week I spoke to Universities Scotland, which is deeply
concerned about the status of Erasmus students who are currently
in Scotland. If they go home for Christmas, can the Minister
guarantee that they will be allowed back in, in the event of a
no-deal Brexit?
Yes.
Mr Speaker
We are grateful.
No Deal
(Wimbledon) (Ind)
4. What recent assessment he has made of the likelihood of the UK
leaving the EU without a deal. [912277]
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union ()
The Government are committed to leaving the European Union on 31
October, whatever the circumstances. We would prefer to leave
with a deal, but to achieve that the EU must be willing to reopen
the previous withdrawal agreement.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I believe the best
way to avoid no deal is to secure a deal. He will know that I
voted three times for the withdrawal agreement, and I will
support this Government as they seek to secure a deal. Given that
the comments reported overnight from Monsieur Barnier appear to
be in conflict with the aspirations of our Prime Minister, will
the Secretary of State say when the Prime Minister intends to
deliver his proposals for the revised deal, so that that deal can
be secured before 31 October?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. Despite some misgivings and the
way that he campaigned during the referendum, he has consistently
voted for a deal, and he was consistently willing to compromise
where many others were not. On the substance of the talks, the
Prime Minister’s Europe adviser was in Brussels yesterday, and
the Prime Minister is due to meet the Taoiseach on Monday. I am
in regular contact with my counterparts, and I have visited a
number of capitals in recent weeks. A significant amount of work
has gone on, but we will not fall into the trap that befell the
previous Government, where the Commission has an absolutist,
all-weather, all-insurance position and then asks for deals on
the basis of creative flexibility, and against that test then
dismiss it as magical thinking. We need to have detailed
discussions, but they must be done in the right way, which is
what we are doing.
(Greenwich and Woolwich)
(Lab)
The Secretary of State has said once again that the new
Administration want to secure a deal, rather than leave without
one, yet we know that no new concrete proposals have been
presented to the EU. It has been reported that in the technical
talks that took place yesterday between the UK’s chief negotiator
and EU Commission officials, the UK team made it clear that the
Government want to jettison the level playing field provisions
contained in the withdrawal agreement. Will the Secretary of
State confirm that removing those provisions is now the
Government’s preference?
As the hon. Gentleman says, the Government want to leave with a
deal. We also know that Labour Members do not want a deal, they
are not prepared to leave with no deal, and therefore they are
not prepared to leave at all. The Government’s proposals made it
clear in the letter to President Tusk that, notwithstanding
concerns about the wider withdrawal agreement held by many of my
colleagues on the Government Benches, the issues have been
narrowed down to that of the backstop. That is distinct from the
Northern Ireland protocol as a whole, and that is the
constructive approach that the Prime Minister has taken. He has
also answered the charge that was often levelled from the Labour
Benches about what sort of deal we seek in the political
declaration. The charge of a blind Brexit was often levelled at
me, and the Prime Minister has answered that question. He is
seeking a best-in-class free trade agreement, and he has been
crystal clear on that.
There was no answer there on the level playing field provisions.
I am not sure why the Secretary of State is so reluctant to
confirm that regulatory divergence from the EU, rather than
alignment with it, is what the Government want to achieve. After
all, as he mentioned, in the Prime Minister’s letter to Donald
Tusk on 19 August that was for him “the point” of our exit. We
have gone from Canada plus plus plus to Canada minus minus with
barely a mention and no debate in this House. Let me ask the
Secretary of State this simple question: will the Government now
come clean with the British public about the fact that far from
maintaining workers’ rights, Ministers want the freedom to chip
away at them and environmental protections and consumer
standards?
No. What is staggering about the hon. Gentleman’s question is
his—
(Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
Answer!
If the hon. Lady will give me a moment, I was just coming on to
do precisely that. The point at issue is whether the UK is, as a
sovereign state, able to determine its own laws and regulations,
or whether it is in dynamic alignment, taking rules and
regulations from the Commission over which we would have no vote.
Opposition Members may huff and puff. What it suggests is that
they want this Parliament to continue to take rules from the
Commission, but in future have no say over those rules. We do
want a situation where we have two sovereign states, not on the
basis of deregulation but of sovereignty.
Sir (New Forest West) (Con)
Am I right in trusting that we have a cunning plan to leave on 31
October?
My right hon. Friend tempts me, with his knowledge of the
relevant box sets, into dangerous territory. The Prime Minister
does have clarity on what he is seeking in the negotiations. The
framework was set out in the letter to President Tusk, where we
narrowed down the negotiating objectives to the backstop in the
withdrawal agreement and to a best-in-class free trade agreement
in the political declaration. That is the plan. It is very clear.
Mr Speaker
Order. In calling the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire
(), I should like again to
congratulate her warmly on her splendid maiden speech yesterday
afternoon.
(Brecon and Radnorshire)
(LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Diolch yn fawr iawn. What would the
Secretary of State say to the National Farmers Union, which says
that a no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic for farmers? The
Farmers Union of Wales says it would have disastrous consequences
for farmers. What would he say sitting opposite family farmers in
places like Brecon and Radnorshire and across Wales who really
fear for the livelihoods and their futures?
May I join you, Mr Speaker, in welcoming the hon. Lady and paying
tribute to her maiden speech yesterday? I thought she spoke with
great distinction. The specific issues pertaining to the sheep
industry were addressed, at much greater length than perhaps the
Chair can allow me now, in the Adjournment debate by the Minister
of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my
hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (), so I would first
refer the hon. Lady to the comments and the issues the Minister
of State—
(Darlington) (Lab)
So, no answer!
I can go into it. I watched the Adjournment debate. The Minister
talked about the misunderstanding by an Opposition Member of the
impact of depreciation on experts. We can talk about the measures
put in place in terms of headage and the support for the
industry. We can talk about the level of exports. We can get into
the detail with the hon. Lady; it is just that the Chair will, I
am sure, want me to be fairly succinct, and the Adjournment
debate covered the issue at greater length.
Ethanol Imports: Tariff Schedule
(Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
5. What plans the Government have to publish a tariff schedule
for ethanol imports in the event that the UK leaves the EU
without a deal. [912278]
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union ()
If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the UK would implement a
temporary tariff regime. This would apply for up to 12 months
while a full consultation takes place and a review of a permanent
approach is undertaken.
I appreciate the Secretary of State’s response and the letter I
received from the Department for International Trade this
morning, but in the meetings we had with the Department we were
told that biofuels would not be covered by the protection
tariffs. Ensus in my constituency tells me that the fear of a
no-deal Brexit is already harming business. We know that a
no-deal Brexit without tariff protection will kill British
biofuels, end jobs and leave us relying on imports. Will the
Secretary of State commit to working with his colleagues to
maintain tariff protection on ethanol before it is too late?
The hon. Lady raises a legitimate issue in a constructive way,
and I am very happy to work with her because she is championing a
genuine issue on behalf of her constituents. There is always a
balance in setting tariffs between protecting consumers and the
issues for producers. It is about how we calibrate those two
sometimes competing issues. She will understand that within the
market— within the industry—there is domestic pressure,
regardless of Brexit, but I am very happy to work with her on
that issue.
(Preseli Pembrokeshire)
(Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware from Yellowhammer that the
proposed tariff regime under a no deal creates very specific
risks for the UK oil-refining sector. Given that the Valero
refinery in Pembroke is the largest and most important private
sector employer in west Wales, will the Minister tell me what the
plan is for protecting the UK refining sector if we end up
leaving the EU without a deal?
My right hon. Friend will know that concerns have been raised by
the industry in respect of that. Pertaining to the answer that I
gave a moment ago, existing questions within that market are also
a factor. I am very happy to have further discussions with him,
as I am with the hon. Member for Redcar (), because a number of issues
come into play for that industry.
(Torfaen) (Lab)
There is a group of medicines that simply cannot be stockpiled
and which rely on an uninterrupted supply of imports. Will the
Secretary of State give a 100% guarantee that none of my
constituents will suffer a shortage of that type of medicine as a
result of a no-deal Brexit?
As I said, we have not only put in place an additional
procurement framework in terms of capacity, but we have procured
an express freight service to deliver small consignments on a
24-hour basis, and a two-to-four day pallet-delivery service.
These issues are being addressed by the Department and a huge
amount of work is going on exactly on that issue.
Business Preparedness
(Northampton South) (Con)
6. What recent discussions he has had with business groups to
help ensure that they are prepared to leave the EU on 31 October
2019. [912279]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union ()
Since joining the Department on 27 July, I have personally met
more than 20 business organisations. Since July 2016, Department
for Exiting the European Union Ministers have collectively
undertaken over 700 meetings with businesses and business
organisations from every sector in the economy.
Northamptonshire is one of the most important logistics hubs in
the UK, so what steps are the Department taking to make sure that
those firms and businesses are up and ready to deal with a
possible no-deal Brexit?
That is a very sensible question. The Department has engaged
extensively with logistics companies and representative bodies
from across the sector to ensure that they are prepared for 31
October. I encourage my hon. Friend and businesses to consult the
public information campaign on gov.uk to get a practical,
step-by-step guide on what is required for business. That is a
powerful thing to do—it is the right thing to do—in preparing to
leave properly on 31 October.
(Bristol West) (Lab)
What information can the Minister give us about what preparation
has been done—what proactive contact his Department has made—with
businesses that may not trade directly with Europe but whose
supply chains or customers do so, and who therefore may not have
availed themselves of the Government web pages?
I would certainly encourage those businesses to avail themselves
of that opportunity. The Department has sent out 1,300 bits of
information and that is captured on the gov.uk website. I have
engaged with businesses—I am the small and medium-sized
enterprises champion for the Department—and the one thing that I
have noticed is that larger businesses tend to be more prepared
than smaller businesses, and particularly the type of which the
hon. Lady speaks. The Government website is a rich source of
information, so I encourage Members to return to their
constituency and—alongside campaigning—promote the Government
website. There is a massive difference between some of the
realistic concerns of businesses about no deal and some of the
madcap scare stories that are going around. What is the Minister
doing to ensure that there is an understanding of realistic
concerns and to dismiss some of the other wild stories?
There will always be knockabout politics, but I would prefer to
engage in the detail. I was in Northern Ireland last Thursday
talking to businesses on the border and then in Belfast
discussing alternative arrangements with a wide range of
businesses, engaging them in the very real detail and not the
high-level scare stories. There are concerns and they are being
dealt with, but they should not be confused with the bigger scare
stories.
Discussions with EU Counterparts
Mr (Ludlow) (Con)
7. What discussions he has had with his EU counterparts over the
summer recess on the UK’s departure from the EU. [912280]
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union ()
Over the summer recess I had extensive discussions with my
European counterparts—I suspect that my right hon. Friend and I
saw a little less of the summer than some—including in the past
fortnight in Paris, Copenhagen, Helsinki and a couple of other
places. There has been extensive engagement, and that engagement
continues.
Mr Dunne
I am very encouraged to hear my right hon. Friend begin to list
some of his summer itinerary. I think that helps to build
confidence in the fact that the Government are engaged in serious
discussions with the European Commission and other counterparts.
To that effect, would he be prepared to publish information on
whom he has met and the discussions he has had when not in
meetings, with whom and when?
Mr Speaker
Order. I would just say that I am sure that the unknown place to
which the Secretary of State has referred has not forgotten that
he visited it and its inhabitants.
I fear that I might get into trouble with the said unknown place,
but I hope that a bit of latitude will be granted. My right hon.
Friend raises a material point, because it goes to the crux of
last night’s debate and the sincerity of the negotiations. The
Prime Minister has also had extensive contact through the G7 and
his visits to Berlin and Paris, among other places, and there has
been the extensive work, to which I pay huge tribute, of the
Prime Minister’s Europe adviser, who was in Brussels last week,
this week and who has also travelled extensively. Significant
work has been going on, and I am very happy to look at what
further detail we can set out.
(Darlington) (Lab)
If all that is true, why did call the negotiations a
“sham”?
First, as the hon. Lady well knows, the Government do not comment
on leaks. Secondly, the issue is really about looking at the
substance. Look at the letter to President Tusk that narrowed
down the issues. It would have been much easier for the Prime
Minister to set out a long list of demands but, because of the
seriousness of the negotiations, those have been narrowed down,
as set out in that letter. One of the European Union’s charges
against the previous Government was that they had not been
specific enough about what sort of future relationship they
sought in the political declaration. The letter answered that
very clearly: a “best in class” FTA, and one that covers not only
the economic side, but security and other aspects. There is
substance there. The problem with the other side is that they do
not want to leave at all, and therefore they will not take yes
for an answer.
Policing and Security
Mr (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
8. What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on
the effect on policing and security of the UK leaving the EU
without a deal. [912281]
(Birmingham, Erdington)
(Lab)
12. What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on
the effect on policing and security of the UK leaving the EU
without a deal. [912285]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union ()
I spoke this week to the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister
about security matters and exiting the European Union. My
Department’s Ministers and officials hold regular meetings with
the Home Office, and we are working closely to prepare for
business, keeping our plans under rigorous review, and I will
continue to do so.
Mr Bailey
Under a no-deal Brexit, UK police would lose access to 40
enforcement tools, including the European arrest warrant and
access to European information databases, which are vital for
identifying international terrorists and criminals who could be
targeting this country. Can the Minister explain how that is
assisting us to take back control of our borders?
One thing that will certainly assist is the 20,000 extra police
officers—[Interruption.] I do want to get down to the specifics,
but the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for making a political
point, given that we are now into an election—at least, we think
that we are into an election. On the specific details, Interpol
notices function very similarly to SIS alerts. The hon. Gentleman
reasonably talks about the European arrest warrant. In the event
that we leave without a deal, the UK will operate the Council of
Europe convention on extradition with EU member states. We have
worked intensively with operational partners, both here and
across the EU, to ensure that there is a smooth transition
between the two.
Operation Yellowhammer found that a no-deal Brexit could lead to
“a rise in public disorder and community tensions”.
Do the Government not recognise that the toxic and irresponsible
use of language, such as “collaborators”, “treachery” and
“surrender”, deepens the divisions in our country and puts the
public at risk, including Members of this House? Have they not
learnt the tragic lessons of history?
Let me gently say to the hon. Gentleman that one thing that will
lead to unrest and unhappiness is the ignoring of the public and
the referendum result. However, we continue to work with the
police and the Army in the normal way.
Legal Services Sector
(Bromley and Chislehurst)
(Con)
9. What steps his Department is taking with the Department for
International Trade to promote the UK legal services sector
overseas. [912282]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union ()
Let me start by thanking my hon. Friend, who does not seem to be
in the Chamber—[Hon. Members: “He is in the Chamber.”] I
apologise. That was in no way an insult to my hon. Friend’s
height or presence. I congratulate him on his work in the Justice
Committee.
The Government are committed to maintaining, over time, the
growth in the United Kingdom’s £4.4 billion trade surplus in
legal services, and that includes setting the right framework in
future trade negotiations.
There is always more than one way to be overlooked.
Does the Minister accept that, at present, the United Kingdom has
the second largest market in legal services in the world, and the
largest in the European Union? That is because of the
unparalleled access that British lawyers currently have to EU
legal markets under the appropriate directives. Does the Minister
recognise that if we are to avoid the 10% hit that the Law
Society estimates would be taken by this country’s income from
its legal services in the event of a no-deal Brexit, we must not
only preserve maximum access to those markets, but develop a
comprehensive strategy across all Departments to market British
legal services as a world centre of excellence elsewhere?
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Given that 6.5% of global
legal services pass through the United Kingdom and three out of
15 top firms are based internationally in the UK, it is essential
for us to work on a cross-departmental basis. The Legal Services
are GREAT campaign is a good example of this ambitious programme.
Since its launch in Singapore in October 2017, it has operated in
more than 30 countries, with trade missions to Kazakhstan, China,
Chile and Nigeria. Those missions are very effective, and they
will continue.
Freedom of Movement
(Lewisham West and Penge)
(Lab)
10. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on
the effect on the rights of (a) EU and (b) UK citizens of
immediately ending freedom of movement in the event that UK
leaves the EU on 31 October 2019. [912283]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union ()
The European Union has confirmed that it will grant UK nationals
visa-free travel to the Schengen area for short stays of up to 90
days in any 180-day period, even in a no-deal scenario. In the
event of no deal, however, the arrangements for UK nationals
travelling to European Union countries will change, and we have
published advice on gov.uk on the steps that they will need to
take.
Many EU nationals in my constituency have endured incredible
stress and anxiety owing to the uncertainty that they have faced
since the referendum. Their rights have been used as a bargaining
chip with the EU, and the new Home Secretary even proposed
legislation to stop freedom of movement immediately after no
deal. Will the Minister assure us that citizens’ rights will no
longer be used as a negotiating tool, and will be unilaterally
guaranteed?
Citizens’ rights will not be used as a negotiating tool., and
they have not been used as a negotiating tool. The hon. Lady has
mischaracterised the position. It is the Prime Minister who has
made a big bold offer to EU citizens, and it is now for member
states to reciprocate.
(High Peak) (Lab)
What assessment have the Government made of the impact on people
with pre-existing health conditions who will no longer be able to
use their European health insurance cards to cover their
conditions if they either live in the EU or are travelling?
That will depend on decisions and arrangements with individual
countries. The UK has made a big bold offer to EU nationals in
this country, and I encourage those countries to reciprocate.
(Sheffield Central)
(Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his post. As he will know, over the
summer recess a Home Office advertisement relating to settled
status was banned for being misleading. The uncertainty created
by conflicting messages is causing real fear among EU citizens in
the UK and the British in Europe.
On 21 August, I wrote to the Secretary of State seeking clarity
on five key issues. I have not received a reply, so I wonder
whether the Minister can answer one of those questions now. I am
reassured by his indication that he likes to engage in detail. EU
citizens were promised that if the UK left the EU without a deal,
their rights would be the same as they would be under the
withdrawal agreement. Can the Minister confirm that, despite
previous indications to the contrary, the Government will retain
the right to appeal against settled-status decisions in the event
of a no-deal Brexit?
The settled status scheme is working very well: more than 1
million of the 3 million people have applied, nobody has been
rejected, and people may apply all the way up to 31 December
2020.
Contingency Planning
(Paisley and Renfrewshire
North) (SNP)
11. What progress his Department has made on contingency planning
for the UK leaving the EU without a deal. [912284]
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union ()
The Government are delivering more than 300 specific no-deal
projects across a range of sectors and delivery is well advanced.
There is still more work to do and we are turbo-charging our
preparation under the leadership of the Chancellor of the Duchy
of Lancaster.
We have heard so much nonsense this morning—in fact over the last
three years—that it was not really a surprise to hear the
Secretary of State talk about a “depreciation of experts” in the
Government. Last night this House voted for legislation to block
a no-deal Brexit; does he accept the vote of this House and will
his Government strictly adhere to the rule of law when this Bill
has Royal Assent?
It is a little dismissive for the hon. Gentleman to say that all
this is nonsense. That was the first SNP question, so saying that
we have already heard the nonsense seems a tad premature. The
reality is that the Government are preparing extensively for no
deal. We have a big information campaign that has launched, over
300 projects are under way, and we are working actively and
constructively with the devolved Administrations, including the
Scottish Government.
Mr (Wellingborough) (Con)
23. If the Bill that passed through this House yesterday becomes
an Act of Parliament, it would govern what we do in this country,
but of course we cannot guarantee a no deal, because the European
Union might not agree to an extension. So will the Secretary of
State confirm that the Government will continue to prepare for no
deal despite any Act of Parliament, because what happens is not
within our control? [912297]
My hon. Friend is a keen observer of these matters, and he is
absolutely correct: the decision on an extension is not
a—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) says
“So what”; I am merely stating the legal position. I am sorry
that she finds the legal position somewhat distasteful, but that
is the legal position. The legal position on an extension is that
it requires the support of every member state including the
United Kingdom, so my hon. Friend is correct. [Interruption.] The
hon. Lady keeps chuntering, but my hon. Friend is correct: we
would need to continue to prepare for no deal, because it is
within the scope of any member state to block an extension. That
is the legal position.
(Glasgow North) (SNP)
21. The Scottish Parliament tonight will vote overwhelmingly, I
am sure, to oppose this Government’s intention to crash out with
a no deal and to condemn their decision to prorogue Parliament
for five solid weeks. Nobody in Scotland voted for no deal, and
Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, so
will the Government pay attention to the views of Scotland, or do
they simply not care? [912295]
Not just this Government will pay attention; I am sure the people
of Scotland will pay attention to a vote against democracy. It is
not the first time that those on the SNP Benches have ignored the
votes of the British people, whether in the referendum in 2014
that they want to overturn or in the referendum of the United
Kingdom in 2016. They seem to have a problem with listening to
the democratic will of the people.
(Cleethorpes) (Con)
In my discussions with Associated British Ports, which manages
the port of Immingham and the other Humber ports, there is a
clear indication that they are well prepared in their contingency
plans to handle any problems that may occur. Can the Secretary of
State confirm that our ports are indeed well prepared for no deal
and also that they can take much heart from the advantages, such
as free-port status, that will be available post-Brexit?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Before the reshuffle I met
the ABP and others looking at these issues, and their
preparations are well advanced. He will also know that the
Government have allocated additional funding for those ports, and
he will be aware that, although in this place a huge amount of
the debate tends to focus on Dover because of the vehicle flow
through it, in terms of the containers and value of goods, the
other ports are actually more significant.
(Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Yellowhammer report that the Government are determined to
hide from us warns of delays of up to two and a half days at
ports, freight target capacity being reduced by between 40% and
60% and, in terms, medical supplies being vulnerable to severe
extended delays. The Government tried to pretend that that was an
old report, but that was not true. It is dated August 2019. They
also tried to pretend that it represented the very worst case
scenario, but that is not true either. It is a reasonable worst
case scenario: not the most likely, but likely enough to need to
be planned for. When will the Government accept that all the
trade organisations, professional bodies and people who
understand the industry who are saying that no deal will be a
disaster are right, and that it is this Government who are wrong?
There is an oddity within the hon. Gentleman’s question. He
accuses us of hiding the Yellowhammer documentation, yet it is
shared with the Scottish Government as part of our internal
working to prepare for no deal. We are not hiding it; in
Government we prepare documents and on that basis we put in place
funding and other measures to tackle them. In fact, the Public
Accounts Committee, among others, would be the first to criticise
us if that detailed preparation was not taking place.
Will the Government give absolutely unreserved and unrestricted
permission to the Governments of Scotland and Wales to publish
that report in full today: yes or no?
It is always the case that in Government we prepare documents in
order to ensure that we have preparations in place. The point is
to determine what is likely to be the impact on the EU27, for
example, and what we can put in place to address concerns such as
those on the flow of goods. I referred earlier to the fact that
two thirds of Ireland’s medicines come through Britain. I could
also have mentioned the fact that 40% of Irish exports go through
Dover. This is an issue that concerns the Commission and the
United Kingdom. That is why we are preparing these documents, and
we are working openly with the Scottish Government and others on
that. That is what the Government should be doing.
EU Settlement Scheme
(Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
(SNP)
14. What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on
the level of uptake for the EU settlement scheme. [912287]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union ()
I spoke to the Home Secretary this week on the issues of the EU
settlement scheme. The scheme is operating well: 1 million people
have passed through the scheme out of the 3 million, and there
have been no rejected applications. The Prime Minister has made a
big, bold offer to EU citizens, who remain our friends and
neighbours and who are welcome here in the United Kingdom.
The Minister says that the system is working well, but I can tell
him that the reality is that it is not. My wife Cyndi is an EU
citizen and, due to the Government rhetoric, she reluctantly
decided to apply for settled status. I can tell the Minister that
the system crashed, and that the officials operating it said that
they could not handle the volume of traffic. Is it because this
process is a shambles that the Government have had to do a U-turn
on the threat to end freedom of movement on 31 October, or is it
the threat of court action that has caused the U-turn?
We have improved the system on an ongoing basis, and we are keen
to do so. The default position is that we want people to get that
settled status. The hon. Gentleman makes specific points about a
specific case, and I am sure that the Home Office would be happy
to look at that and to understand how it can improve the system
further.
Topical Questions
(Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental
responsibilities. [912299]
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union ()
Since I last updated the House, I have had the pleasure of
welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European
Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East
() to his ministerial place.
I should like to take this opportunity to thank my right hon.
Friends the Members for Spelthorne () and for Braintree
(), who have now both joined
me in the Cabinet. We have a new Prime Minister, who is committed
to leaving on 31 October, and within the ministerial portfolios I
welcome the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon.
Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (), who has taken on
responsibility for domestic operational planning in the context
of no deal. This enables me and my Department to focus on
negotiations with the EU, in which we will seek to achieve a
best-in-class free trade agreement. Throughout the summer I have
visited a number of European capitals and had regular
conversations with my key interlocutors, including the Deputy
Prime Minister of Ireland and the French Europe Minister, with
whom I had recent productive meetings in Paris.
If I was still a serving police officer and I arrested a European
national who, unbeknown to me, was wanted for a string of serious
violent sexual offences, at the moment I would simply have to
access a database on booking him into custody in order to find
that out. Will the Secretary of State spell out in detail how I
or my custody sergeant would do that if we were to leave without
a deal on 31 October?
Under the current position, that would depend upon to which
member state the situation pertained. We already have in place a
bilateral arrangement with Ireland to reflect the common travel
area, but the arrangements vary between member states. However,
the premise of the hon. Lady’s question is right, because the UK
puts more data into the European arrest warrant system than any
other member state, and we think that the UK’s contribution is of
value to the European Union and that it is not in its interest to
put its citizens at risk by not reciprocating. We stand ready to
work with member states, but it is the European Commission and my
counterpart who have ruled out what
he calls “mini-deals” to address the hon. Lady’s concerns.
(Copeland) (Con)
T3. When we leave the EU, with or without a deal, will my right
hon. Friend confirm that the provision of medicines into the UK
will remain uninterrupted? [912301]
As was covered earlier in the question session, a huge amount of
work has been done by the Department of Health and Social Care,
including on additional procurement capacity and express
delivery. That builds on extensive work by the industry,
including the additional stock and additional flow capacity that
it has procured.
(Holborn and St Pancras)
(Lab)
I want to ask specifically about the important issue of Northern
Ireland. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government
remain fully committed to all the existing elements of the
December 2017 joint report between the UK and the EU negotiators?
Yes or no?
Our commitments were set out in the letter to President Tusk. It
contains our commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement,
which includes putting no infrastructure at the border to impede
north-south flow.
I asked a careful question, and I got a careful answer, which did
not confirm full commitment, so let me press on. It has been
reported this week that EU member states were told by the
European Commission that the UK Government were proposing to
reduce the ambitions of the 2017 joint report relating to
Northern Ireland—not the Good Friday agreement, but the 2017
joint report. In particular, it has been reported that the UK is
rowing back from the “legally operable” solutions to avoiding a
hard border to what has been described as “aspirational”
measures—that is quite specific. The pledge now is only to have
trade across the Irish border that is “as frictionless as
possible”—again, a difference. These are important issues, and I
know that there has been a bit of knockabout this morning, but
this is of huge importance across Ireland. Will the Secretary of
State take this opportunity to reject those reports and make it
clear that there will be no rowing back from the solemn
commitments made two years ago in the 2017 joint report?
First, as I said in my previous answer, there has been no rowing
back from the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which is an area of
common accord between us. Secondly, the reason I pointed towards
north-south co-operation is that, as the right hon. and learned
Gentleman will be well aware, the Prime Minister drew a
distinction in the letter to President Tusk between the backstop
and the Northern Ireland protocol. The right hon. and learned
Gentleman will also know that, while the two terms are often used
interchangeably in the Chamber, there is a distinction between
them, particularly on the basis that the north-south
co-operation, the common travel area and the benefits of the
single electricity market are distinct from the points in terms
of alignment.
As for his further question around the legally operative text, I
addressed that point to some extent in my remarks in the Chamber
yesterday in that there is a distinction between the European
Commission saying that all aspects need to be set out in a
legally operative text by 31 October and looking at, for example,
what role the joint committee will have during the implementation
period, because the implementation period means that things need
to be in place by the end of December 2020 or, if extended by
mutual agreement, for one or two further years. It is therefore
within that that there is a distinction to be drawn.
Mr (Wellingborough) (Con)
T4. Does the Secretary of State think there should be a general
election before the next European Council meeting so that the
British people can decide whether they want the Leader of the
Opposition as Prime Minister, who will keep us in the European
Union, or whether they want to return our excellent current Prime
Minister, who will take us out by 31 October? [912302]
Yes, we need to know who, at the 17 October council, can
negotiate for the British people and, in particular, who can
deliver on the express will set out in the referendum. What we
have from Labour Members is doublespeak that will leave us in
legislative purgatory, because they are saying, on the one hand,
that they will vote against every deal that is put forward—three
times they voted against the deal, and their own deal was
rejected by the House as well—yet they also vote against a no
deal.
Well, the inevitable consequence is that they are not prepared to
leave, even though their own manifesto said they are. The real
question for the British public at the next election will be, how
can they trust what Labour says in its manifesto on Brexit when
it has gone back on every word it said at the last general
election?
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
T2. Further to the question of my right hon. and learned Friend
the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (), we are now halfway through
the time period set by the German Chancellor to produce
alternatives to the backstop. In light of the Government’s
decision to prorogue Parliament, perhaps from next Monday, will
the Secretary of State ensure that their proposals come to this
House so that they can be scrutinised by this House, including
the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union? [912300]
I think the Chair of the Select Committee would concede that, of
the holders of my role—I know there has been more than one—I have
probably been the most frequent in appearing before his Committee
and others. Actually, that is not the case when compared with my
right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr
Davis), but it is when compared with my right hon. Friend the
Member for Esher and Walton (), who is now Foreign
Secretary.
On the substance of the question, there has been a huge amount of
work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) asked
about the different working groups, for example, and I chair the
technical working group. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State for Exiting the European Union chairs the business group,
and he was in Northern Ireland with that group over the summer.
Again, it goes to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member
for Ludlow. Work has been going on throughout the summer on
alternative arrangements, but if it is simply published against
an all-weather, all-insurance test, it will be dismissed, as it
was under the last Government, as magical thinking. That is what
the last Government experienced. We need to get into the detail,
and that work is going on, but it needs to be discussed in the
appropriate way.
(Wimbledon) (Ind)
T5. Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether, since 25 July, the
Department has had any discussions with the financial sector
about the implications of any revised policy, which would be a
policy of regulatory divergence? [912303]
My hon. Friend raises a specific issue and, as a former Economic
Secretary to the Treasury, I know the markets take a keen
interest in such discussions. If I may, I will ask the Chancellor
or the Economic Secretary to come back to him on this specific
issue.
Dr (Tooting) (Lab)
T6. Thousands of Tooting residents have signed my local petition
against this Government’s dangerous Brexit plans. Like me,
Tooting wants to remain. The Brexit Secretary voted against
legislation to block a disastrous no deal. Tooting is absolutely
furious. Why is he trying to drive this country blindly off the
Brexit cliff? [912304]
I think the hon. Lady would agree that there is more than one
voice in Tooting. I am sure there will be a range of voices, as
indeed there is, but I do not resile from the fact that I am sure
she speaks for a majority in her constituency in making that
point.
My approach is that when this Parliament says it will give the
British people their say, when the Government of the day write to
the British people saying they will honour the result and when
this House then votes by a significant margin to trigger article
50 to deliver on that result, it undermines our democracy if
Members of this House, on the one hand, vote against a deal and
then, on the other hand, say they will not countenance a no deal.
I think that is a threat to our democracy, and I think it is a
threat to our international reputation as a country that defends
democracy around the world.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
T8. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to protect farmers
and manufacturers in the hopefully unlikely event of a no-deal
Brexit? [912306]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union ()
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. The
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has confirmed
that it will support farmers in the same cash terms as they have
been supported under the current scheme. We are working with
farmers to look at new markets and, across Government, we
continue to work with businesses, both large and small. We are
particularly encouraging small businesses to engage with the
Government in their preparation for the eventuality of no deal.
(West
Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his grand tour of Europe
in recent weeks during the recess, notably to Finland, a nation
of 5 million people and an enthusiastic member of the European
Union. Given that the UK was only the seventh largest importer to
Finland in 2018, how will leaving the single market and the
customs union improve that dismal position?
On the one hand, colleagues question whether we are engaging and
on the other hand, the hon. Gentleman appears to suggest that we
are engaging too much. He needs to make up his mind.
On how we promote further trade, first, there are opportunities
beyond Europe that we are keen to seize, and we have a Secretary
of State for International Trade. [Interruption.] On Finland,
about which the hon. Gentleman is chuntering, I chaired a
breakfast meeting with business leaders when I was in Helsinki
and we looked at, for example, links on key areas such as timber
where there is an appetite to strengthen bilateral trade further.
There was a huge appetite among the business leaders I spoke to
there to do more trade with the United Kingdom, including with
Scotland as part of that United Kingdom.
