(Leeds West) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office to
make a statement on the progress of the negotiations on the UK’s
future relationship with the EU and preparations for the end of
the transition period.
The Paymaster General ()
I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House again on
the progress of our negotiations with the European Union. The
Prime Minister met the Commission President yesterday evening in
Brussels. They, along with the chief negotiators, and , discussed
the significant obstacles that still remain in the negotiations.
It is clear that we remain far apart on the so-called level
playing field, fisheries and governance. However, they agreed
that talks should resume in Brussels today to see whether the
gaps can be bridged. They also agreed that a decision should be
taken by Sunday regarding the future of the talks.
We are working tirelessly to get a deal, but we cannot accept one
at any cost. We cannot accept a deal that would compromise the
control of our money, laws, borders and fish. The only deal that
is possible is one that is compatible with our sovereignty and
takes back control of our laws, trade and waters. As the Prime
Minister said, whether we agree trading arrangements resembling
those of Australia or Canada, the United Kingdom will prosper as
an independent nation. We will continue to keep the House updated
as we seek to secure a future relationship with our EU friends
that respects our status as a sovereign, equal and independent
country.
The country was hoping for a breakthrough last night, yet there
was none. There is a sense of huge dismay, as we all wanted to
hear significant progress, but we heard more about the Prime
Minister’s meal than we did about his deal. In fact, we have not
heard from the Prime Minister at all, even though he was supposed
to be taking charge of these negotiations.
On Sunday, we will have just 18 days to go until the end of the
transition period. How has it come to this? Businesses
desperately trying to plan need to know what on earth is going
on. If talks break down and the Government pursue no deal, what
happens next? Will the Government look to swiftly restart
negotiations, or do the Government believe there should be no
talks next year or even for the rest of this Parliament? Or have
the Government not thought that far ahead?
I want to focus in my question today on the security implications
of no deal. The political declaration, signed by the Prime
Minister, stated that there should be a
“broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership.”
Yet despite numerous questions from the Opposition, and indeed
from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), Ministers
have been unable to tell us how border officers and police will
be able to access security data. The Government’s “No-Deal
Readiness Report” admitted that, without a deal on security and
data, the UK would lose access to key law enforcement tools such
as SIS II—the second-generation Schengen information
system—Europol and the European arrest warrant. These databases
help us to fight organised crime and terrorism. Can the Minister
guarantee that the security of the British people will be in no
way undermined in the event of no security agreement?
The Labour party believes that the security of our country and
our people are crucial. The Government will not be forgiven for
undermining those. So for our economic prosperity and for our
country’s security, will the Government do the responsible thing
and bring back the deal?
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. First, let me assure her
of the Prime Minister’s resolve, efforts and determination to
secure a deal. It is one reason why she is having to endure me
today and not others. We are going to do everything we can to
secure a deal. The best outcome is a Canada-style arrangement,
and we are going to leave no stone unturned. We will carry on in
talks and carry on negotiating until there is no hope of that
happening, but at the moment there is hope of that happening,
even though things do appear gloomy.
I appreciate also that Members are very concerned about these
matters. Ministers are always happy to come and answer questions
and update as much as we can on these issues, but I would say to
all colleagues, particularly those on the Opposition Benches,
that calling for urgent questions or asking other questions on
the Floor of the House with the express mission of trying to
undermine our negotiating position by pretending we are not ready
for any outcome that these negotiations might yield is not
helping to secure the outcome we all want, and it is certainly
not in the interests of the country. These are serious times and
none of us should be doing anything that may undermine the
possibility of us getting the deal we all want.
Let me turn to the issues the hon. Lady raises. We have been
clear that the end of the transition period will bring both
opportunities but also challenges. We have been making extensive
preparations for a wide range of scenarios at the end of the
year, including whether it is an Australian-style outcome, and we
are ready to seize those opportunities of being outside the
single market and the customs union. This includes investing over
£700 million in jobs, technology and infrastructure at the border
and providing £84 million in grants to boost the customs
intermediary sector, alongside implementing border controls in
stages and ensuring that we have the necessary time to prepare.
We will not compromise on security. This has been an absolutely
key part of our preparations on any outcome, and it is one of the
reasons why, even in these gloomy times, I still am optimistic
that a deal can be secured, because I do not believe that any
European Union member state would wish to affect or compromise
the security of its own citizens. But if we leave on an
Australian-style outcome, we have measures in place to ensure
that our citizens will be safe, and that we will be able to share
intelligence and the other things we need to do to ensure our
security arrangements are as they should be. I urge all
colleagues, whatever their political hue or imperative, to put
our nation first over the next few days, to support our
negotiating team, to demonstrate our readiness under any scenario
and our resolve, and to help us get a deal.
(Forest of Dean) (Con)
It was interesting that the hon. Member for Leeds West (), who speaks for the Opposition, did not address the
central question at the root of these issues, which is about the
ability of this House of Commons to make decisions about our
rules without the European Union being able to override it. That
is the central question and on that question I would like the
Government to hold firm. My constituents voted to leave the
European Union and to take back control of making our laws. Will
my right hon. Friend take a message to the Prime Minister that,
whatever decision he takes on Sunday—I am glad we are still
talking, which shows that there is still opportunity—to secure
the ability of this House to make our laws, he has the support of
this side of the House? Perhaps the other side of the House
should reflect that their approach is why they have lost the last
two general elections and are probably going to lose a third.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. It is helpful for
the negotiating team that we are facing across the table to hear
the resolve of Members in this House and that they are
representing the views of their constituents. We have had many
years of wrangling over this, but the Government have a clear
mandate to deliver on the referendum result. We will do that and
we will hold to our promises.
(Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
Here we are again—yet another deadline. October was a deadline,
then it was November, then 1 December, then Friday, then Monday,
then it was the last supper and now it is Sunday. God knows what
it will be after that. I remember the good old days when Brexit
was concluded and this was the easiest deal in history. The
easiest deal in history now has more cliffhangers than
“EastEnders” and we are just 21 days away from a likely no-deal
Brexit—a no deal that will bring chaos, disruption and ruin for
many.
The only policy in the negotiation position that the Government
seem to have left is the forlorn hope that the EU will back down
to their demands and concede that the British are right. The
Government have made themselves hostage to their own Brexit right
wing—any compromise will now be interpreted as a sell-out by that
right wing. They have only themselves to blame, with the
appalling language that they have used against the EU and their
demonisation of the EU as some sort of cartoon villains. The EU
are not going to back down, this Government are not going to
compromise, so what is going to change in the next few days?
I am going to miss these exchanges with the hon. Gentleman, but
my experience of my involvement on the Joint Committee under the
withdrawal agreement and all aspects of these negotiations is
that they have been done constructively and that there has been
good rapport. The critical factor, however, in this is the EU
recognising that the United Kingdom is a sovereign equal in these
negotiations. That can be laid on the table in a charming way,
but that is the bottom line, the cold hard facts of this
situation. I appeal to the EU not only to recognise that fact,
but to put the interests of the citizens and businesses in their
own member states first, above any political project and above
the political imperatives of the Commission. That is what we
should all be doing. The negotiating position of the United
Kingdom is one that creates that mutual beneficial outcome and I
am hopeful that the EU will recognise that before the time runs
out.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
We all want a deal, but UK businesses—let us be frank—are looking
at the prospect of no deal with utter dismay. In the political
declaration, the Government signed up to common high standards
“commensurate with the scope and depth of the future
relationship”
and agreed to robust level playing field commitments to
“prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages.”
What proposals has the UK made in the negotiations to maintain
common high standards in the years ahead, given that it is
inevitable that these standards may change on both sides of the
relationship?
We have always given that commitment. Clearly, there have been
discussions in recent days focused on that precise issue, but
right back even when we set out our opening positions, the UK
position made those commitments. This Government and future
Governments would not want to roll back on those standards, so we
did not hesitate in giving those guarantees. The sticking point
is our ability to control our own destiny. The EU has got to
recognise that it cannot keep us within its own orbit, and that
is something we will not compromise on.
(Ipswich) (Con)
Many on the Opposition Benches see that the biggest failure would
be for there to be no deal, but does my right hon. Friend agree
with me that actually the biggest failure would be to capitulate
and to accept a deal that would not fully respect a sovereign
Britain leaving the EU? Also, does she agree with me that it is
not a great look for the Opposition Benches when it comes to this
negotiation—and, of course, it does take two to tango—to
incessantly, all the time, be seeing reasonableness in the EU and
unreasonableness in our own Government? For a party supposedly
looking to reconnect with some of its patriotic voters, this is
hardly a good look.
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I would say that we have
compromised on a great deal. We have not been intransigent in
these negotiations. We have compromised on all sorts of things,
including accepting an overarching framework to the agreement. We
are going to be as creative and as determined as we possibly can
be in the next few days in order to try to secure that deal, but
he is right: we will not compromise on those fundamental issues.
(Edinburgh
West) (LD)
Can I assure the right hon. Lady that no one, as far as I am
aware, on this side of the House in any way wants to undermine
the negotiating position of this Government in Europe, because so
much about the future of this country hangs on successful
negotiations with the European Union? But in the rollercoaster of
emotions that we have been through in the past few days—there is
going to be a deal, there is not going to be a deal—and at the
end of four years of a rollercoaster, would she accept that what
we need is some reassurance that if, by Sunday, there is not an
agreement, the Government will not give up on trying to reach a
trade deal with the European Union that does not see us crash out
on 1 January, with all the catastrophic effect that could have
for our local businesses and for the economy?
We are already out, I would just remind the hon. Lady, but
clearly we have prepared for every eventuality. We have a phased
approach to the border. We have many pots of work going on into
the new year to ensure that there are not those cliff edges that
she refers to. We have thought long and hard, and there has been
a huge effort by the civil service to ensure that, whatever the
outcome, it will be as smooth as possible for our businesses and
our citizens. I thank the hon. Lady, who has been consistent in
helping us secure a deal, and I urge all Members of this House to
follow her example. I think that all Members can, from whichever
seat they sit in in this Chamber, help us, and I would ask that
everyone does that in the coming days.
(Rutherglen
and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
One of the concessions the Government made this week is on clause
45 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which would have
allowed the UK Government to apply UK state aid rules in Northern
Ireland. Given that the UK Government feel comfortable conceding
on this clause, will the Minister now also look at deleting
clause 50, which reserves the power to Westminster to apply state
aid rules in Scotland and Wales?
I refer the hon. Lady to the statement by my right hon. Friend
the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster yesterday and just
reiterate Northern Ireland’s unique position in the United
Kingdom.
(Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Government have already published an economic impact
assessment of no deal. Will the Minister ensure that they publish
an economic assessment of any EU deal on offer, so if any deal is
rejected we will all know at what cost?
At the moment efforts are on securing a deal, and the deal that
is there—the component parts of it—is in the best interests of
the people of the United Kingdom and in the best interests of the
citizens and businesses in the member states of the European
Union. That is very clear and that is what we are all hoping for
and all working towards. The question is: will the EU accept
that?
(Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
We end 2020 with Britain as the first country in the world to be
protecting its citizens against covid with a properly authorised
vaccine. For millions of workers in the manufacturing
sectors—automotive, aerospace, food and drink, pharmaceuticals,
chemicals—to end 2020 with a free trade agreement will be a huge
relief and boost to confidence, so can my right hon. Friend
reinforce with the Prime Minister the opportunity for 2021 to be
a very much better year for Britain than we might have expected a
few months ago, and to use all his personal efforts, energy and
creativity to secure a deal in the remaining days ahead?
I thank my right hon. Friend for that and assure him again of the
Prime Minister’s resolve to leave no stone unturned to get the
Canada-style arrangements that we would all hope for. I would say
to him that, as well as a boost for our own manufacturers and
scientists and everyone else in the United Kingdom, securing such
a deal would be a boost for the world economy and I hope that
that focuses minds over the next few days.
(Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]
In terms of the internal market Bill, we all remember Scottish
Tory MPs in this House voting against amendments from the other
place that would have forced the Government to seek the consent
of the people of Scotland, and time and again we have witnessed
the utter violation of not only the devolution settlement but
potentially Scotland’s entire constitutional existence. We in
Scotland did not vote for this Brexit, or indeed any Brexit, and
we will not watch idly as our work and relations with our
European friends and neighbours is unravelled. We will make our
voice heard at next May’s Holyrood elections, but the truth is
that the people of Scotland have had enough now. So I ask the
Minister: come May, will she accept our democratic intent, or
will we in Scotland always come a distant second to such reckless
Tory ideology?
I would ask the hon. Gentleman if he thinks his constituents and
the people of Scotland would benefit from us securing the deal
that we seek. Would they benefit from us being able to take back
control of our waters and not cede that to European partners? If
he thinks that is the case, and I understand that is his
position, he might like in the coming days to add his voice to
those of Scottish MPs on these Benches who are supporting our
negotiating team.
(North Norfolk) (Con)
I am sure it was absolutely no coincidence that the Prime
Minister dined on scallops and turbot last night. I represent a
coastal community. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that this
is not about the fact that fishing is a necessarily small part of
our GDP at the moment; it is about what the future can be for our
coastal communities? It is so important to return sovereignty and
that those coastal communities have a fishing future that
includes my constituency of North Norfolk.
My hon. Friend understands these issues very well and makes those
points very well. He will also understand the Prime Minister’s
resolve on this issue. I can reassure him that, with the
exception of the scallops and that very fine piece of turbot,
fish was not on the table last night.
(Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I get on well with the Minister, but I must tell her this morning
that it is our duty to hold this Government to account at this
crucial time for all our constituents. That being said, being
creative and determined is all very well, and I have been
impressed by the negotiating skills of the two men leading this
over these weeks, as I sit on the Committee on the Future
Relationship with the European Union, but this is about
leadership. As soon as the Prime Minister gets his sweaty hands
on this issue, there is failure—failure of leadership, failure of
determination and failure really to deliver this Government’s
message. I hope the Minister comes back on that.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the kind remarks that he makes
about our negotiating team. They have done an incredible job. It
is an incredibly technical job, with many details to work
through, and their respective teams have done an incredible job.
We owe them an immense debt of gratitude, whatever the outcome of
these negotiations.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it is the job of Members
of Parliament to hold the Government to account. We will always
be here, whether it is on an urgent question or other matters.
Again, I should plug that I am available at 10 am every day to
take calls from Members of Parliament on any issue, whether it is
Brexit or covid-related. But I would just say to him: please do
not misinterpret the Prime Minister’s determination on sticking
to these fundamental principles as somehow a negative in these
negotiations. The only way we are going to get any arrangement
that will enable our country to thrive is if he sticks to his
guns, and he is going to stick to his guns.
(Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
A free trade agreement is manifestly, overwhelmingly to the
advantage of both sides, and it should be pressed for to the very
last opportunity. However, does my right hon. Friend also
recognise that security issues are critical to the welfare of
this country, and so is civil justice co-operation? Those do not
depend on a free trade agreement as such. The data adequacy
agreement would certainly be of great advantage in sharing
intelligence information. Now that the Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster has reached an agreement in relation to the Joint
Committee and it is not necessary for us to deal with certain
potentially controversial clauses in the United Kingdom Internal
Market Bill, it would be greatly to the advantage of both sides
if the EU Commission were to withdraw its objection to the UK
joining the Lugano convention on civil justice co-operation in
its own right. That would benefit both sides too, regardless of
whatever else is decided.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are many things that we
could agree to and could do that would be beneficial to both
parties. Of course, what lies behind the politics and the
negotiations are decades of relationships between law enforcement
and all the agencies, services and forces that work together and
will continue to work together in the interests of all our
citizens.
(Arfon) (PC) [V]
On Monday, the Paymaster General had no opinion as to whether a
20% average tariff on food imports would be “modest” for poor
people. With the prospect of a no-deal resolution now greater
than ever, does she think that an export tariff of 48% on lamb
and 84% on beef would be modest for Welsh farmers?
Clearly, the information on tariffs has been published. It is on
gov.uk, but I stress to the hon. Gentleman that we are working to
secure a deal that is in the best interests of our farmers, our
hauliers, our businesses and our citizens, and we will continue
to do that until all hope is exhausted.
(Amber Valley)
(Con) [V]
Would my right hon. Friend accept that even if a deal is done
now, it will be very late for businesses to have a chance to
understand and interpret it? Will she therefore urge the EU to go
further than in the announcement that it made this morning and
mirror our proposals not to impose the full import formalities
for a period of six months to give a period of time for business
to understand and get used to the new rules?
I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I think it is in
everyone’s interests if a pragmatic stance is taken on all these
issues. That has, by and large, been the case to date. We should
continue to do that as we go into the new year, no matter what
the outcome of the future relationship.
(Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware of my party’s support for a deal, and
we wish the Prime Minister well in his continued negotiations.
She will also be aware of my party’s views on the Northern
Ireland protocol and our opposition to it. In light of the
announcement yesterday, will the Minister outline what actions
she and the Government plan to take at the end of the six-month
derogation on chilled meats moving from GB to Northern Ireland,
so that businesses do not look elsewhere for those supplies? Will
she commit to take unilateral action where necessary if all these
new arrangements are seen to be detrimental to Northern Ireland’s
economic wellbeing?
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will know that
throughout all this we have sought to provide not just the
practical support that Northern Ireland businesses need, but also
the confidence in the environment that businesses need to
continue to make investments. She will be aware that this morning
the Northern Ireland Office announced a further £400 million,
which has been committed to assisting businesses and boost
economic growth, and to support throughout the transition. She
has my assurance that the success and some new opportunities that
will come with this if we get it right for Northern Ireland are
there to be seized.
(Dudley
South) (Con)
My right hon. Friend and I both campaigned for leave in the
referendum, but more importantly 70% of voters in Dudley South
and a majority nationwide decided to take back control over our
laws, our borders and our trade. Does she agree that an agreement
is only going to be possible if it respects that decision and
ensures that laws are made here in the United Kingdom?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this comes to the heart
of it. I cannot, I am afraid, give him any guarantees as to
whether the EU will reconcile itself with those facts, and I
cannot say what the outcome will be. All I can assure him of is
that the Government will stick to those principles and are
absolutely determined within that to do everything we can to
secure a deal.
(North Down) (Alliance)
I would like to press the Minister further on the issue of
policing, justice and security co-operation. This is, of course,
of huge importance to the whole of the UK, but particularly so
for us in Northern Ireland given our problems with organised
crime and terrorism, and the existence of a land border. Given
that the UK is facing a cliff edge at the end of the month in
this regard, can she tell us what will be happening specifically
on matters such as extradition, data sharing and data adequacy?
Of all people, I know the importance of these matters to every
part of the UK. We will be gaining access to new information via
safety and security declarations. These will be required by the
middle of next year. For every issue the hon. Gentleman raises,
there are clear plans for how we can ensure a smooth transition
to new arrangements. However, I would also just emphasise the
fundamental principle that I do not think anyone—a member state,
in the Commission and certainly not in this Government—is going
to compromise on matters of security.
(Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Whether it is a Canada or an Australia deal, the people of
Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, 72% of whom voted to
leave the European Union in 2016, are rightly proud that this
Government are sticking up for the United Kingdom’s interests,
something the Labour party desperately needs to learn if it
wishes to regain the red wall in the future. Will my right hon.
Friend assure me that no matter what comes out of these
negotiations, the fine world-leading potteries have an exciting
future in global Britain?
I thank my hon. Friend for that upbeat question. He is absolutely
right to say that we have taken care of the challenges in any
scenario, and again great credit goes to the civil service for
preparing for that. There are also opportunities, which is why
the people of this country voted to extract themselves from the
EU. We would be doing them a disservice if we did not create the
conditions for us to be able to seize those opportunities, and
that is what we will do in the coming days.
(Sefton Central) (Lab)
Last October, in preparation for a possible no deal, the
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told us that stockpiles had
been built up of essential medicines, including asthma inhalers,
antibiotics, paracetamol and ibuprofen. That was just as well,
given that they were needed in the coronavirus pandemic. Have
stockpiles of those things been returned to the levels they were
at in October 2019?
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the efforts the civil
service went to in order to prepare for a no-deal scenario last
year stood us in much better stead for what then happened with
regard to the pandemic. That is not an argument for Brexit; it is
simply a fact that this nation was much more resilient because of
the no-deal planning scenario. I cannot give him drug by drug,
line by line details on the stocks, as he will appreciate, but I
am sure the Department of Health and Social Care can. I can,
however, reassure him on those matters. A huge amount of work has
done, in a multi-layered approach, asking suppliers of medicines,
medical products and other medical devices to help us replenish
those stocks, while making sure that they themselves are
trader-ready, so that their businesses are not interrupted.
[Interruption.] No, I am saying that he should have reassurance
on the points he has raised, and I will be happy to follow up
with him with further detail regarding paracetamol and the other
items he mentioned.
(Kensington)
(Con)
Financial services are crucial for not only London but Scotland
and many of our regional cities. Will my right hon. Friend assure
me that financial services, and indeed the service sector as a
whole, will be at the forefront of our minds in the next few
days, given the importance of services to our economy?
I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. Services were one
area where we were very poorly served by our membership of the
EU. As well as the negotiations, the Department for International
Trade has been doing fantastic work in signing roll-over trade
agreements and new agreements with many nations. There are
fantastic opportunities for our service economy in those nations.
(Luton South) (Lab)
Investing in green industries and our transport infrastructure
will be key to building back better after the pandemic and
transitioning to net zero. With Government support, the
automotive sector, including Vauxhall in my constituency, could
move more quickly to producing more electric vehicles and
councils could move to implementing the required green
infrastructure to support them. Will the Minister outline whether
a position on what is considered state aid has been reached, and
whether any agreement will enable Government to invest in and
subsidise green sectors?
There were certainly elements of the Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster’s statement earlier in the week that touched on that,
but the hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that we want to be
able to secure opportunities to set the conditions for our
economy to thrive. Clearly, we have very challenging
environmental goals that we wish to reach. Those are the freedoms
we are working and fighting for.
(Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]
The end of the transition period will present both opportunities
and significant challenges for those involved in the agriculture
and food production sector. Will my right hon. Friend reassure
those in that sector in Penrith and The Border, Cumbria and the
wider UK that sufficient provisions are in place for veterinary
and certification work at borders? Will she reassure farmers in
sectors that may face severe challenges in tariffs, such as the
sheep and beef sectors, that the Government are prepared to step
in and provide support?
My hon. Friend raises two important points. I can assure him that
a great deal of thought has gone into ensuring that we have the
supplies and enough personnel to meet the requirements on the
veterinary side of things. We have always stood by any sector or
part of the UK that is facing tough times, and we will continue
to do so.
(Bedford)
(Lab) [V]
England and Wales were due to qualify for BSE negligible risk
status next year, but due to the diversion of Government
resources and staff to work on Brexit and covid, the Government
missed the OIE—the World Organisation for Animal
Health—submission deadline. Will the Minister apologise to my
constituent in Bedford who runs Dunbia Cardington, who, despite
his attempts to send out a message in a post-Brexit world that he
is open for business and has the highest food standards in the
world, will have to wait at least another year for his meat to
qualify for this world-class status because of her Government’s
failure?
I am sorry to hear of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. I
do not know the details, but I would be happy to look into it if
he would like to pass those details to my office.
(North Cornwall) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if we cannot find
suitable compromises with our European friends on the remaining
issues of the level playing field, governance and fisheries, we
will be fully prepared to leave the transition period on
Australian terms on 1 January?
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I thank him for all he
has done to champion the interests of his constituents, in
particular the fishing industry.
(North
Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Yesterday the Prime Minister said that Scotland “will benefit”
even if the UK crashes out of the EU single market without a
trade deal with the EU, despite the fact that no deal will mean
higher food prices, additional costs for businesses and job
losses. As we stare down the barrel of a no-deal Brexit, can the
Minister explain to what extent she believes Brexit is turning
into the titanic success that the Prime Minister predicted it
would be?
I say to the hon. Lady, as I have said to her colleagues, that if
she does not want that scenario—and I get that impression from
the tone of her question—she ought to be helping this Government
to secure the deal that would be in the interests of her
constituents. I urge her, even at this late hour, to consider
that.
(Wellingborough)
(Con) [V]
I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will achieve a good trade
deal for this country if there is one to be achieved. However,
when I was in business and negotiating international trade deals
with Governments, I found that they could only be concluded if
there was a firm deadline, or they would continue to be pushed
back. Given that, could the excellent Minister confirm that
Sunday is the absolute deadline, which will make people focus on
the negotiations and come to a conclusion?
I can give my hon. Friend greater assurance than that, because
there is a very firm deadline, which is that at the end of this
year, we and others have to legislate. Time is running out. We
will carry on negotiating until there is no hope left, and the
statement made yesterday would indicate that, unless progress is
made, Sunday may well be that deadline.
(Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
On Tuesday, the chief executive of the Food and Drink Federation
said that his members could not agree export sales for next year
with any certainty as they cannot be sure what tariffs may apply,
what delays they may face or how much they will get paid for
their goods. He also said that there is a shortage of general
ambient warehousing space and cold chain storage. Businesses are
trying to stockpile against the shocks and offset increased
costs, but how can they do that if there is not facility for that
stockpiling? What are the Government going to do about that, and
why on earth have they not thought this through sooner than just
three weeks before exit day?
These are serious issues and, partly because of the stresses that
global trade is under with regard to the pandemic, there are
other issues—for example, containers being at the wrong end of
the globe to enable particular trade to continue—to contend with
in addition to the ones the hon. Lady mentions. For each of these
issues, the relevant Department has a mitigation plan that it is
carrying out. I understand that this situation is very difficult
for business, but we are here to provide both the practical and
the financial support, as we have done through the investments we
have made in infrastructure, technology and people. Where
specific issues affect particular sectors, the relevant
Departments are doing all that they can to rectify those
situations.
(Basildon and
Billericay) (Con) [V]
I know that my right hon. Friend agrees that it is good that the
negotiations continue—we all want a good trade deal—but will she
convey to the Prime Minister that if the EU refuses to recognise
or accept British sovereignty, which was at the very heart of the
2016 vote, and there is no deal, he has the party’s full support?
After all, both the UK and the EU trade very profitably with much
of the world, including the United States, China, India and
Australia, on no-deal terms.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says and I thank
him for that demonstration of support for the Prime Minister and
the position of the negotiating team. I think it will help, in
the coming days, for them to have heard that.
(East Ham) (Lab)
In acknowledging its importance yesterday, the Minister for the
Cabinet Office told me that he could “see no reason why” a data
adequacy agreement with the EU should not be in place by the end
of the month. Will the Minister confirm that one has actually
been applied for? When is a decision expected? Does she recognise
that, in the national interest, we must have one?
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is the lead
Department on that issue; I will ask the Secretary of State for
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to update the right hon.
Gentleman on the precise timetable that the Department is working
to. The right hon. Gentleman is right at the heart of what he
says: there is no logical reason why all sorts of things cannot
be agreed to—they are in the interests of all parties and I hope
that that is the conclusion that the EU negotiating team come to
in the coming days.
(Great Grimsby) (Con)
The fishing communities in Grimsby are pleased that we have not
accepted the EU’s unreasonable requests in the negotiations. Does
my right hon. Friend agree that any deal must allow us as a
country to control who fishes in our waters?
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I reassure her, as I have
other hon. Members, that the Prime Minister knows what his
responsibilities are, the expectation of the fishing industry and
what is in the interests of this country.
(Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
Does the Minister accept that even the sovereign United States
believes that trade disputes can be resolved through
internationalised mechanisms such as the World Trade Organisation
and others? In that context, is not the concern of business about
a crash-out no deal limited by the fact that it is not so much
the Prime Minister’s guns that he is sticking to but the guns of
those siren voices behind him who want that no-deal Brexit?
No, I think the Prime Minister has been very clear about what the
optimum outcome is. We are not crashing out; what is being
decided over the next few days is which set of rules will be
taken forward for our future relationship with our European
friends. There are plans and support in place for every scenario
and I think what business really wants is the certainty of what
that will look like. We are talking about an incredibly resilient
group of organisations and people who can prepare for any
scenario; what has been a strain is preparing for every scenario.
They will get certainty in the coming days.
(Bracknell) (Con)
I am clear that most of my constituents in Bracknell, and those
beyond, really want a free trade deal, but given the ongoing
inability of the bully boys in Brussels to accept that we are now
a sovereign nation, does the Minister agree that there may be a
point in time at which a clean break is the only option, with a
view, perhaps, to returning to the table in 2021, as a sovereign
nation, to secure a deal that other sovereign nations have
already achieved?
If we have to go on those terms then that is what will happen and
we will prosper, but it is clearly not our first choice. The key
factor in this is whether the EU is going to place above its own
political interests, the interests of the citizens and businesses
in its member states. Fundamentally, that is what is at the heart
of this, and if the EU does not do that, that will be a very
serious mistake.
(Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
The EU is the source of 26% of the UK’s food. The next highest
country of origin for food imports to the UK provides only 4%.
Considering that we are not acceding to any new markets on 1
January, never mind that we are leaving one with which we have
unfettered access, will the Minister finally come clean with
consumers and shoppers that no deal will mean increased costs for
putting food on the table and that it is the actions of this
Government that are directly responsible for this?
The future is not yet written and I invite the hon. Lady to
consider at this critical moment for Scotland and the rest of the
United Kingdom what she might do to assist the UK Government in
achieving the objective that she wants.
(Bury North) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that, because of the
agreement reached by the Joint Committee on the Northern Ireland
protocol and regardless of the outcome of our negotiations with
the EU, there will be no new customs infrastructure required in
Northern Ireland?
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We accept our
responsibilities with regard to the Northern Ireland protocol, as
does the EU, and, again, I put on record my thanks and
congratulations to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on
all the work that he has done to secure that.
(Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I spent yesterday in meetings listening to businesses small and
large, locally and nationally, including the aerospace industry,
farming, hospitality, tourism, finance and manufacturing. They
had two things in common. Thing one was that they spent the past
nine months completely battling all they could to protect their
workers and to keep their heads above water during the covid
crisis. The other thing they have in common was complete and
total frustration and dismay that we are three weeks off a new
arrangement of one kind or another and whatever great contingency
plans the Minister speaks of, she has not shared them with them.
Will she allow businesses in this country to do the best for our
country by giving them an adjustment period after whatever
happens on 1 January, so that they are not clobbered by changes
for which they are not prepared?
I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. It is
called the phased approach to the border. The civil service and
the experts that we have on all these matters relating to the
border, whether they sit in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs,
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or
elsewhere, have spoken to tens of thousands of businesses at
literally thousands of events and on webinars. When colleagues in
this House request access to that expertise, those meetings are
set up by my office. We will do everything we can to give them
the right advice and support. Colleagues can help in this, too. I
do not know whether he has seen in his inbox the pack that we put
together for his caseworkers.
indicated assent.
Good. Please use it. There is contact information in there if
there are technical questions that he needs to follow up on. We
know that this is really hard for businesses, and that our
businesses have been amazing in dealing with everything that they
have had to in the past year. We will do all we can to support
them, both practically and in the information that we will give
them, so please do use the services that are there.
(Wantage) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that, throughout this process,
some have tried to suggest that the Government actively want to
trade only on WTO terms, but does she agree that the huge amount
of time and effort spent on the negotiations in these months
shows that the Government do want a good trade deal, but,
rightly, not at any cost?
Absolutely. As someone who has been very close to this whole
process and sits on the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee, I
can say that that is our prime effort. It is the focus of the
Prime Minister, but he is, as my hon. Friend says, not prepared
to compromise on those issues that would affect our ability to
capitalise on our new-found freedoms. That is what, I think, the
people of this country understand and expect.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I, too, thank the Minister for her hard work and for her positive
responses to the urgent question. Will she outline the steps that
are being taken with regard to the beef, sheep and pork
industries and the vegetable sector—particularly the potato
sector—to secure tax-free, hassle-free and EU bureaucracy-free
transport between Northern Ireland and the other nations of this
great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the very large amount of work
that DEFRA and other parts of Government have undertaken to get
the best possible outcome and smooth the path for businesses,
whatever the destination of their products. I mentioned the
announcement today of £400 million of new money from the Northern
Ireland Office; that is obviously on top of the £650 million UK
investment announced in August, to deliver the trader support
service and our contribution to the PEACE PLUS programme.
(Stockton South) (Con)
In the four years since the referendum, the Opposition have
wanted to be in, to be out, to shake it all about. Does my right
hon. Friend agree that their failure to support any deal that we
deliver means that they have learned nothing from last year’s
general election and that they cannot be trusted to deliver on
the will of the British people?
Second only to the outcome of the negotiations is what Labour’s
position on Brexit will be. We all need to focus on the first
job, which is to secure a good deal for this nation. I hope all
Members of this House, whatever their political hue, will
recognise the seriousness of this moment and will support the
Government in securing that objective.
(York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The only thing that those on the Labour Benches want is a decent
deal that serves the people of this country well and supports
business. There are just 18 days left for businesses to prepare,
and they certainly do not have the tools to understand, digest
and implement a new deal. What additional resources will the
Minister bring forward for businesses across my community and
others to ensure that they can be helped not only to the end of
the year but beyond 1 January?
Most of the things that businesses will have to do are not
contingent on these final negotiations. As I mentioned, there has
been a huge amount of investment in people, technology and
infrastructure, and there will be a phased approach next year. We
are giving businesses, colleagues and other intermediaries who
will be working with those businesses the information they need
to prepare well; that includes the hon. Lady’s casework team, who
will have had the pack that I mentioned earlier. If there are
outstanding issues, specifics or technical matters that you need
help on—I am sorry, Mr Speaker: I mean “the hon. Lady needs help
on”, or indeed you, Mr Speaker—we are available to assist. Please
do make use of those services.
(Redcar) (Con)
This Saturday, it will be a whole year since I was elected on a
manifesto pledge to get Brexit done. Two thirds of people in my
community voted to leave the EU and take back control of our
laws, borders, fishing waters and money. Will the Minister
confirm that we will not sell out on any of those priorities, and
that no trade deal remains better than a bad trade deal?
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I congratulate him on
reaching his anniversary, and I thank him for all the work he is
doing to represent his constituents’ interests in this matter and
many others.
(North East Fife) (LD)
This afternoon, the Government are finally removing the clause
from the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill that would break
international law, arguably after having committed to do so as a
concession to secure a deal. If there is a no-deal outcome this
weekend, do the Government have any plans to bring forward new
measures that break international law, either in the Taxation
(Post-transition Period) Bill, which was introduced this week, or
as part of any unknown business?
The hon. Lady will know the reasons why those clauses were in the
UKIM Bill. We will not compromise on the integrity of the United
Kingdom. The fact that the Prime Minister made that offer shows
that we are doing everything we can to be creative and try to
ensure we get a preferable outcome. As I say, the Prime Minister
has resolved that he will not move on those red lines.
