Exiting the European Union Ministers 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.
Future Relationship: Public Vote
(East Ham) (Lab)
1. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on a
public vote on the terms of the UK’s future relationship with the
EU. [911589]
Dr (Ealing Central and Acton)
(Lab)
12. If he will hold discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the
potential merits of a public vote on the terms of the UK’s future
relationship with the EU. [911604]
(Kensington) (Lab)
14. If he will hold discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the
potential merits of a public vote on the terms of the UK’s future
relationship with the EU. [911606]
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen
Barclay)
The Government’s position on a second referendum has not changed.
I am sorry to hear that. Brexit was supposed to deliver
frictionless trade, the exact same benefits as the single market
and the customs union and an extra £350 million a week for the
NHS, but the Prime Minister was not able to deliver and any
actual Brexit deal will fall far short of those promises. Should
not the voters get the choice between proceeding on the basis of
whatever deal is actually available or remaining?
The voters in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, such as
those at Tate and Lyle, should get the choice. Eight hundred and
fifty people work at Tate and Lyle in his constituency. It is a
business that has suffered because of the EU protectionism
applied to sugar beet and a business where 19,000 lorries
bringing sugar in could be transferred if we moved to cane. He
should be listening to voices such as those at Tate and Lyle who
want to see us leave because they see what the voters who voted
to leave the EU saw, which is the opportunities that Brexit will
unlock.
Dr Huq
Prior to the referendum, the right hon. Members for Haltemprice
and Howden (Mr Davis), and for Wokingham (John Redwood) and the
hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), none of whom
are in their places today—no women are on the Conservative
Benches either—plus Nigel Farage from outside this House all
argued that, if the result were close, we would have to have a
confirmatory referendum to be sure. Three years on from
parliamentary stalemate on a deal that the EU will not reopen and
in a process that involves election law illegality, surely they
had a point, as does the Chancellor who says that a people’s vote
is perfectly credible. To break the logjam, the will of the
people should now prevail.
The hon. Lady talks about a people’s vote. What she really means
is a politicians’ vote. What she should do is listen to the voice
of people such as John Curtice, a very respected voice, who wrote
on 23 June:
“Our poll of polls of how people would vote in another referendum
continues to report that the country is more or less evenly
divided between remain and leave, much as it was three years
ago.”
There are 19,000 EU nationals in my Kensington constituency who
have no say over their future post Brexit. They pay their tax,
but they have no voice apart from mine. How can I reassure my
constituents that I and those who do have a vote will be able to
make their representations on the deal?
It is a slightly odd position to take to be talking about how
people can be heard in their vote by overturning a vote in which
people are seeking to be heard. We have had three questions, all
from London MPs, ignoring the fact that, across the nine regions
of England, eight voted to leave and only one voted to remain. It
is time that we heard more than the voice of London from the
Labour Benches.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
Perhaps a representative of Leeds might ask a question.
One of the arguments for going back to the people is the economic
consequences of a no-deal Brexit. Over the past three weeks, the
Select Committee has been taking evidence from the leading
industrial sectors of the country representing great British
success stories, and we asked them what a no-deal Brexit would
mean for them. They said that it would lead to prohibitively high
tariffs on farmers and medicine shortages. They said that it
would be disastrous, the worst possible option. In the words of
Make UK, it would be
“nothing short of an act of economic vandalism”.
Does the Secretary of State support leaving the EU without a deal
on 31 October, and, if so, what would he say to those industries?
What I say is, it is better to leave with a deal. That has always
been my position, which is why I have consistently voted for a
deal. The question for the right hon. Gentleman is why, although
his party’s manifesto said that he would respect the referendum
result, he is against leaving with no deal and is also against
leaving with a deal. The truth is that he wants to remain, and he
should be candid about that.
(Darlington) (Lab)
On Monday the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister a
question, but unfortunately she did not answer it, so I am just
going to ask the Secretary of State the same question. What would
be worse: crashing out with no deal in October, or putting this
issue back to the people for a final say?
What would be worse is going back on the democratic decision of
the British people—the 17.4 million people who voted to leave. We
are committed to honouring that result. The question for the
Opposition is: if they do not want to leave on a no-deal basis,
why have they consistently voted against a deal when the EU
itself says that it is the only deal on the table?
This is questions for the Government, not the Opposition. My
grandfather fought in the second world war, and then served in
Malaya. When he returned to the UK, he worked at ICI on Teesside.
In 2019, there are 7,500 people working in the chemical industry
on Teesside. I ask the Secretary of State to put himself in the
shoes of one of those workers. For that worker, which is worse:
no deal or a second referendum?
The point about the second referendum—[Interruption.] Which is
worse? I have answered this question many times. The choice the
hon. Lady presents me with would actually be between no deal and
no Brexit, for which a second referendum is a proxy because, as
the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) has said, a
second vote is actually a stop Brexit referendum. If a Member on
the shadow Minister’s own Benches can be honest about that, she
should be equally candid. In answer to her question, between
those two options, I think no Brexit is worse than no deal. No
deal would be disruptive, and I have been clear about that to
colleagues in my party, but the shadow Minister has consistently
voted against a deal, and it is the deal that would have secured
the interests of businesses such as the chemicals industry.
Security Co-operation
(North Cornwall) (Con)
2. What recent discussions the Government have had with EU
representatives on maintaining security co-operation after the UK
leaves the EU. [911592]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I assure the House that we continue regularly to meet our
counterparts from across the EU and its member states on a number
of issues, including our security relationship after the UK
leaves the EU. The political declaration sets out a shared UK-EU
commitment to a comprehensive future security partnership. That
partnership will include close co-operation on law enforcement,
criminal justice, foreign policy, defence and cyber-security.
Given that we do not know what our future relationship will look
like at this moment in time, can I seek assurances from the
Department that, in the event of a clean break from the European
Union, we will be seeking mutual co-operation on matters such as
security?
I assure my hon. Friend that that is absolutely the case. We have
a long history of co-operating with our partners in Europe and
are working closely with many of our EU partners on Europe’s key
defence challenges through capabilities such as Typhoon, A400M
and Meteor.
(Carshalton and Wallington)
(LD)
According to Mr Barnier, a no-deal scenario would represent
“a break in the level of talks…risks to intelligence
pooling…inconsistencies in applying sanctions regimes”,
and would leave the rules of co-operation with Europol and
Eurojust still to be determined. Given the risks that no deal
would present to our security, is the Minister happy that both of
the Tory leadership contenders crow about their willingness to
deliver no deal?
Of course, I have always championed the deal and the right hon.
Gentleman has voted against the deal three times. In the case of
no deal, we will absolutely co-operate with our EU partners,
including through making use of Interpol and the Council of
Europe conventions. For example, on extradition, we would rely on
the Council of Europe’s 1957 European convention on extradition.
There is huge scope for co-operation, even in the event of no
deal.
Mr (East Londonderry)
(DUP)
Does the Minister agree that we must increase our level of
security on the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish
Republic, given the threat that dissident republicans pose? In
the knowledge that we are now moving to a position where
hopefully we will leave in a few short months, we need to be
exceptionally mindful of that security risk to all our citizens.
We are absolutely mindful of the risk that the hon. Gentleman
describes. He knows that the Government are fully committed to
ensuring that the dark days of the 1970s do not return to
Northern Ireland.
(Sheffield Central)
(Lab)
I see that yesterday the Minister tried to mitigate fears about a
no-deal departure by saying that it
“is not a world war.”
That might be an insight into his thinking, but is “less damaging
than a world war” really a benchmark for success? Does he agree
with the Security Minister, the right hon. Member for Wyre and
Preston North (Mr Wallace), who said:
“A no-deal situation would have a real impact on our ability to
work with our European partners to protect the public”?
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s questions, as always, but I
would like to point out that he has wrenched my comments
completely out of context, and they were made not yesterday but
on Monday. I was merely echoing what the former Governor of the
Bank of England, the highly respected economist, , has said about our GDP
growth since 1800. On an annualised basis, there would be very
little impact, even in the case of no deal.
No Deal: NHS
(Blaydon) (Lab)
3. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for
Health and Social and Care on the effect on the NHS of the UK
leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement. [911593]
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen
Barclay)
Ministers and officials in the Department for Exiting the
European Union have regular discussions with their counterparts
in the Department of Health and Social Care, who are working
closely with industry to ensure that the NHS and patients are
prepared for all exit scenarios.
Before March, the NHS was stockpiling medical supplies, including
body bags, medicines and blood. Many people with long-term
conditions fear that essential drugs or specialist food supplies
such as those for people with PKU— phenylketonuria—will not be
available. What discussions is the Secretary of State having with
the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to ensure that
medicines and other medical supplies are consistently available,
on time, for people who need them?
The hon. Lady raises a very important point—one that has, sadly,
been subject to quite a lot of misleading scare stories. She will
have seen the written statement we published yesterday setting
out steps we are taking to ensure the smooth flow of goods, and
medicines will be the priority within that. She will be aware
that it is not simply an issue of flow, but also of stock and of
regulation. The Department of Health, in particular, is doing
considerable work on these issues.
Mr (Huddersfield)
(Lab/Co-op)
May I remind the Secretary of State that this is not just about
medicines, although that is important enough, but also about
staff? Is he aware of how many distressed loyal servants of the
NHS have now decided that this is a hostile environment in our
country and are going home to their own European countries? That
is very sad. Will he remind the contenders to be our next Prime
Minister that they do not have a majority in the House of Commons
and when they get back here they are going to get a short shower
of reality on them?
The hon. Gentleman, like me, cares deeply about the NHS, but it
is a fact that there are 700 more doctors working in the NHS
today. He shakes his head, but it is a fact. There are 700 more
doctors working in the NHS today than at the time of the
referendum. It is important that we are welcoming. We recognise
the talent, the service and the importance of EU citizens in our
NHS. As a former Health Minister, I absolutely agree with him on
that. But it is also important that our debate in this place
reinforces that positive message and recognises that more doctors
have come here, not fewer, since the referendum.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Over 100 third-sector organisations are supporting my private
Member’s Bill calling for an independent evaluation of the effect
of Brexit in the health and social care sector. They all agree
that the UK simply cannot afford to cut itself off from the
labour market on which we have become so dependent and will
become increasingly dependent. What assurances can the Secretary
of State give to the sector that that will not happen?
I will not dwell on the specific merits of the hon. Gentleman’s
private Member’s Bill, but he will be aware that health is a
devolved matter, and we are working closely with the Scottish
Government in our planning. In terms of immigration, which goes
back to the point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr
Sheerman), of course it is important that we retain staff. We are
working to do that, and if we look more widely at staff figures,
we see that there are 5,200 more EU citizens working in our NHS
since the referendum—the numbers are up, not down.
No Deal: Preparedness
(Motherwell and Wishaw)
(SNP)
4. What assessment he has made of the UK’s level of preparedness
for leaving the EU on 31 October 2019 without a deal. [911594]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union (James Cleverly)
As a responsible Government, we have been preparing to minimise
any disruption in the event of no deal for more than two years.
In the light of the extension, Departments are making sensible
decisions about the timing and pace at which some of that work is
progressing and what further action can be taken, but we will
continue to prepare for an EU exit in all scenarios.
The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health has called on
local authorities across the whole United Kingdom to set up food
resilience teams to assess how different Brexit outcomes could
affect food supplies. What reassurances can the Minister and the
Secretary of State give that food supplies will not be impacted
in the event of no deal?
Only yesterday, I had a bilateral meeting with my counterpart
Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, and we discussed the advanced plans that that Department
has made in this area. I have also had meetings with the Food and
Drink Federation, which represents sectors in the industry, and
the British Retail Consortium. The Government are making
significant plans to ensure that key supplies, including food,
are available in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is a very busy fella, with a full diary. We
are all greatly impressed.
(Stafford) (Con)
One of the major risks of leaving without a deal, which I very
much hope will not happen, is cash-flow problems, particularly
for small and medium-sized businesses. I had understood that the
Treasury and the whole Government were making plans to ensure
that additional cash flow would be made available, particularly
for SMEs, for delays in payments, customs dues and so on. But at
the Exiting the European Union Committee yesterday, we heard from
all witnesses that they were not aware of any such plans for
their members. Can the Minister set out clearly what those plans
are and when they will be made known?
The Government absolutely remain committed to ensuring that
businesses, whether they are large, small or medium-sized, thrive
in any Brexit-related scenario. The Governor of the Bank of
England has said that we are well prepared. I will ensure that
more details are circulated about what mitigating measures the UK
Government will put in place for small and medium-sized
businesses.
(Greenwich and Woolwich)
(Lab)
In the finest traditions of this Government, the Brexit Secretary
used an interview in The Times today to publicly air his
frustrations with colleagues from the Treasury and the Department
for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy at their
unwillingness to waste yet more public money on ramping up
preparations for a no-deal Brexit. In the same spirit of
openness, can the Minister tell the House precisely how much
additional funding his Department believes should be allocated to
no-deal planning before 31 October and what it should be spent
on?
The Treasury has made available over £4 billion for preparations
for Brexit in all scenarios. As has been discussed at the
Dispatch Box before, it is not possible to disaggregate the
spending between planning for a deal and planning for no deal. If
the hon. Gentleman or anyone else in the Chamber is concerned
about the implications of a no-deal Brexit, I remind them that
they have had a number of opportunities to take the prospect of a
no-deal Brexit off the table, which is what they say they wish to
do, by voting for a deal. The fact that he has failed to do so
means that the Government have had to take sensible, pragmatic
actions to ensure that we are ready to leave in the event of no
deal, but it is not too late for him to repent.
(Glenrothes) (SNP)
Given that the Brexit Secretary who negotiated the last deal was
so disgusted with it that he resigned in protest, I think it is a
bit much to blame anyone on this side of the House for not
supporting it.
As the Minister will know only too well, we are still waiting to
see the results of the coronation of the next Prime Minister—a
Prime Minister who will be chosen on the votes of less than one
quarter of 1% of the people of these islands. The lead
contender—in fact, both contenders have made it clear they are
prepared to go for a no-deal Brexit. Will the Minister accept
that there is no mandate for a no-deal Brexit in this Parliament,
and that there has never been a mandate for a no-deal Brexit from
the people of the United Kingdom?
In the 2016 referendum, the mandate was given to this place from
the British people to leave the European Union.
The Minister was asked what assurances he could give about food
supplies in the event of a no-deal Brexit, and he gave none. He
was asked what mandate exists publicly for a no-deal Brexit, and
his answer made it perfectly clear there is none. The man who is
about to be imposed on us as Prime Minister promised he would get
a deal that would not be a no-deal Brexit, and if the new Prime
Minister’s promises are worth nothing, whose are?
May I take the Minister back to the desire expressed a few
minutes ago by his boss, who wants this House to listen to more
than just the voices of London? “Yeah, tell us about it” is all I
can say to that. May I suggest that he listens to one of the
equal partners in this Union, where the Scottish National party
is the stop Brexit party? The only time no-deal Brexit has been
specifically put on the ballot paper in the form of the official
Brexit party, the Scottish National party—on a promise to be the
stop Brexit party—got more votes than not only the official
no-deal Brexit party, but the unofficial no-deal Conservative
party and the “don’t know what they’re doing about Brexit” Labour
party, all three added together. Does he not accept that the
people of Scotland, who his Government accept are sovereign, have
overwhelmingly rejected any promise of a no-deal Brexit, as
indeed would the majority of the people of these islands if they
were given a choice? Why does he not make sure that no deal is
taken off the table once and for all?
I happen to be one of the people in this Chamber who is in the
habit of respecting the outcome of referendums. I am conscious
that the hon. Gentleman is a representative of a party that is
less comfortable with respecting the outcome of referendums. The
simple truth of the matter is that the people of Scotland decided
to remain an active part of the United Kingdom and the United
Kingdom collectively decided to leave the European Union, and we
are delivering on that referendum.
No Deal: Resilience
(Plymouth, Sutton and
Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
5. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on (a)
ensuring resilience and (b) taking emergency steps in the event
that the UK leaves the EU without a deal. [911595]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union (James Cleverly)
The Government’s priority remains to ensure that a deal is
brought before and agreed by Parliament, allowing the UK to leave
the EU before 31 October. In the run-up to 12 April, various
Departments were preparing civil contingency plans, which were
regularly discussed with colleagues, with co-ordination from the
Cabinet Office.
Devon and Cornwall’s deputy chief constable, Paul Netherton, is
the national lead for civil contingencies. When asked by Plymouth
Live, “What’s the worst case scenario for Brexit?”, he replied,
without a moment’s hesitation, “No deal”. What conversations is
the Department having with the Tory leadership contenders so that
both of them truly understand the gut-wrenching and dangerous
implications of leaving without a deal on 31 October?
The position that the Government have taken mirrors, without
necessarily using the same language, the prioritisation of the
hon. Gentleman’s deputy chief constable. It is that of the two
Brexit scenarios available—leaving with an agreement, or leaving
without an agreement—the Government’s preferred option of the two
is leaving with an agreement. That still can be done if
Opposition Members vote to do so. As a sensible and pragmatic
Government, we are making sure we prepare for a no-deal Brexit,
but we have said a number of times from the Government Front
Bench that our preferred Brexit option is to leave with an
agreement and for this House to vote to do so.
Mr (Kettering) (Con)
Across the Government, but especially in the Treasury and the
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, there is
a big drive to improve the nation’s productivity. In the run-up
to a potential no deal on 31 October, are there not projects that
would improve the nation’s productivity, but also enhance our
nation’s resilience to a no deal, especially with regard to
transport infrastructure around ports, and better prepare us for
a no-deal situation?
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Government are
looking at and planning a number of activities that will benefit
the United Kingdom, irrespective of the nature of our departure.
As we progress those plans, I am more than happy to share them
with him.
(Strangford) (DUP)
What recent discussions has the Minister had with the Irish
Government regarding co-operation and security on the Irish
border were we to leave the EU on WTO terms? Will he reassure the
House that there will be no stop to the freedom of movement of
people and goods across the Irish border?
The Government have regular meetings with international partners.
Indeed, my colleague, Mr Walker—[Interruption.] I apologise, Mr
Speaker, I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr
Walker). He will be joining others at the British-Irish Council
to discuss those issues, and ensure that the concerns highlighted
by the hon. Gentleman are addressed.
EU Settlement Scheme
(Glasgow North West)
(SNP)
6. What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on
the effectiveness of the EU settlement scheme. [911596]
(Edinburgh North and Leith)
(SNP)
17. What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on
the effectiveness of the EU settlement scheme. [911610]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
I have regular discussions with Home Office Ministers regarding
the EU settlement scheme. The scheme is operating well, and I am
pleased that more than 800,000 applications have been received,
and that almost 700,000 people have already been granted settled
status.
The Government have reached a bilateral agreement with Luxembourg
to ensure the rights of UK citizens living there, and
Luxembourgish citizens living in the UK. Those rights include the
right to vote and stand in local elections. Similar agreements
are in place for citizens from Spain and Portugal, but we have
not had confirmation for EU citizens from other countries. Will
the Minister guarantee that no EU citizen will have their name
deleted from the UK electoral roll as a result of a no-deal
Brexit?
Mr Walker
The hon. Lady is right to point to those important bilateral
agreements. We want to secure more of those, but the Government
have no plans to change the register. It is the responsibility of
Cabinet Office Ministers to look at the domestic franchise, and
they have assured me that they have no plans to change that in
the foreseeable future.
There is no back button on the app. I have been told of a citizen
who mistakenly clicked to send a hard copy rather than completing
online. When he tried to remedy that, the app told him that his
application was withdrawn, and that he would have to wait three
months to reapply. When will the Government admit that this
“computer says no” system is an embarrassment, dump it, and
restore some dignity to these citizens?
Mr Walker
The hon. Lady raises a specific case, and if she would like to
write to me about it, I would be happy to take it up with
colleagues at the Home Office and ensure it is looked into. The
numbers suggest that the scheme is working well, and that the
vast majority of people are being granted settled status quickly.
Of course, if it is not working properly in particular cases, we
need to look into those and solve them. This scheme is about
helping people to prove their status and allowing them to stay,
and that is what we want it to do.
(Stretford and Urmston)
(Lab)
What discussions has the Minister’s Department had with the Home
Office and the Local Government Association about applying for
settled status for children in the care of local authorities? It
is feared that some of them are being wrongly refused settled
status, offered only pre-settled status, or that the local
authority or the corporate parent is not applying for settled
status for them at all.
Mr Walker
The hon. Lady makes an important point that has been raised
during questions to this Department before. I have taken it up
with the Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing,
Communities and Local Government to ensure that all efforts are
made to make sure that children in care are properly entered into
the settled status system by those who care for them. I am happy
to forward that correspondence to her so that she can see the
follow-up that has already been done on that front.
GATT: Article 24
(Blackley and Broughton)
(Lab)
7. What discussions he has had with the European Commission on
the applicability of Article 24 of the WTO General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade in relation to the UK leaving the EU. [911597]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union (James Cleverly)
The Government and the European Commission have been clear that
our trading relationship must comply with WTO rules. Under the
withdrawal agreement, the implementation period is compatible
with GATT article 24. In addition, paragraph 17 of the political
declaration envisages the UK and the EU forming a free trade
area, which will also be compatible with article 24.
On an all-party visit to the World Trade Organisation, it was
made clear that if there was the prospect of a negotiated free
trade agreement in the future, tariff-free trade could continue.
Does the Minister agree that if the EU does not agree to that
negotiated free trade in the future, which would allow
tariff-free trade on leaving, that will be because it wants to
punish the UK, not come to the best agreement in the interests of
its people?
I am not in a position to credibly assess the motivations of the
European Union. The British Government’s position has been
clear—it is a long-standing position—that it is in our mutual
interest to come to a trading relationship between the UK and the
EU. We will continue to seek to do so.
No Deal: Economic Impact
(Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
8. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the
Exchequer on the effect on the UK economy of the UK leaving the
EU without a withdrawal agreement. [911599]
(Sefton Central) (Lab)
10. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the
Exchequer on the effect on the UK economy of the UK leaving the
EU without a withdrawal agreement. [911601]
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
18. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the
Exchequer on the effect on the UK economy of the UK leaving the
EU without a withdrawal agreement. [911611]
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen
Barclay)
I have regular conversations with Cabinet colleagues on all
aspects of our EU exit. The Chancellor has provided £4.2 billion
to prepare for all areas of our exit.
I have spent this week at the Community trade union conference,
the steelworkers’ union, trying to reassure steelworkers around
the country from British Steel that their industry has a future
and that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government are doing all they
can to support them. If we leave the European Union with no deal,
however, there will be an instant 25% tariff on steel exported to
the European Union, which will cost the British steel industry £1
million a day. The industry has been very clear with me: no deal
means no steel. Please, will the Secretary of State rule it out?
Again, the way to rule out no deal is to back a deal, but the
hon. Lady raises an important issue in relation to British Steel.
As she is well aware, the Government have been working very
closely with the industry and the owner, Greybull Capital. She
will be well aware, given her constituents’ interests, of some of
the global issues in terms of demand, but this is a live issue. I
am discussing the issue with industry leaders and trade unions,
too.
Even the International Trade Secretary appears to recognise that
article 24 of GATT cannot be invoked unilaterally. There will be
no transition period in the event of no deal. That much must be
clear to everyone by now. Will the Secretary of State agree that
no self-respecting Minister could possibly serve in the
Government of a Prime Minister in denial about the reality of a
no-deal Brexit?
The clue is in the hon. Gentleman’s own question. He talks about
“unilaterally”. Clearly, GATT 24 would need to be agreed. I think
all the leadership contenders recognise that.
Beckie Hart, the director of Yorkshire and the Humber CBI, said
recently that many firms are unaware that it is not just their
relationship with EU customers that is at risk from a no-deal
Brexit, but relationships across the globe. Tonight, Hull MPs and
the shadow Brexit Secretary are meeting the Hull and Humber
chamber of commerce to discuss our region’s economic prospects
under Brexit. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give
to Humber businesses on what is being done to avoid a no-deal
Brexit, and what is being done to prepare for it to minimise the
damage to the northern powerhouse from years of underfunding and
austerity from his Government?
The hon. Lady raises a number of issues within the question of
how we are preparing for no deal. It is essential, which is why
the Government are investing in that preparation. I am keen to
see to us do so at pace. In terms of the wider economy, it is
about looking at, if we were in a no-deal situation, what
flexibilities we could exploit, what issues of mutual benefit to
the EU and the UK we can agree on, and where the flexibilities
are that we can work on with the industry in that particular
region. Those are the discussions we are having with applicable
sectors. We are looking at key sectors to the region, such as
offshore wind, and seeing what support the Government could
provide in that situation.
No Deal: Agriculture
(Ogmore) (Lab)
9. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the effect on UK farmers
and agriculture of the UK leaving the EU without a withdrawal
agreement. [911600]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union (Kwasi Kwarteng)
We continue to have regular conversations with ministerial
colleagues across the Government on all aspects of exiting the
EU. To provide certainty to farmers and landowners, the
Government pledged to commit the same cash total in funds for
farm support until the end of this Parliament. That commitment
applies to the whole of the UK in both a deal and no-deal
scenario.
After studying the Government’s no deal notices, the National
Farmers Union has said that a no-deal Brexit would be
“catastrophic” for British agriculture. Why then does the
Secretary of State talk up a no deal as a viable option and back
a leadership candidate who supports leaving on 31 October, “do or
die”?
We have had a deal, which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends
and colleagues rejected three times. It makes absolutely no sense
for them to complain about the prospect of no deal when they
rejected a deal so comprehensively on three occasions.
(Arfon) (PC)
What progress has been made in setting up the successor scheme to
the EU’s geographical indications system, which has proved so
commercially lucrative for food and drink manufacturers,
including people who produce Welsh beef and Welsh lamb?
We have made a lot of progress on trying to replace a lot of the
EU’s funds and the regional way in which they allocate money. We
have the UK shared prosperity fund, details of which will be
introduced next year.
(Bristol East) (Lab)
In the recent Tory leadership debate, the Foreign Secretary
challenged his rival over no deal, saying:
“Let me ask Boris a question: what would you say to a sheep
farmer in Shropshire that I met whose business would be destroyed
by 40% tariffs?”
What would the Minister say to that sheep farmer?
We have already made a commitment in this House to support our
agricultural industries and our farmers under any circumstances,
whether that is a deal or no deal. We have an Agriculture Bill
that will allow the Secretary of State to provide the support
that our people need.
No Deal: Pharmaceutical Products
Mr (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
11. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the
security of supply for pharmaceutical products in the event that
the UK leaves the EU without a deal. [911603]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union (James Cleverly)
Our highest priority is for patients to continue to have access
to the medicines and medical products that they need. Since the
extension of article 50, close engagement with the pharmaceutical
industry has continued and we are confident that we will have the
necessary plans in place to ensure continuity of medical supply.
Mr Bailey
A no-deal Brexit would see the UK lose access to the falsified
medicines directive, which prevents substandard and counterfeit
medicines from entering our market. The head of the Healthcare
Distribution Association has said that, as a result, the UK would
be “less safe”. What steps has the Minister taken to prevent
that?
The hon. Gentleman will be unsurprised to hear that I have had
recent meetings with the Association of the British
Pharmaceutical Industry. We have discussed the quantity and
nature of cross-border movements of medical supplies and
pharmaceuticals. The British Government take this as one of our
top priorities, protecting the supply in general and ensuring the
quality as well as the quantity of medical supplies, and we will
continue to do so.
Citizens’ Rights: Elections
(Harrow East) (Con)
13. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on
maintaining the right of EU citizens to participate in local
elections in the UK and UK citizens to participate in local
elections in the EU after the UK leaves the EU. [911605]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
The Cabinet Office is responsible for the domestic franchise, but
my Department has been pressing to negotiate bilateral agreements
on voting rights and I have regular contact with Cabinet Office
Ministers on this matter. After writing to each member state, we
have now signed agreements, as discussed earlier, with Spain,
Portugal and Luxembourg to secure voting rights for UK nationals
in EU member states and EU citizens here.
In my constituency, I have more than 10,000 Romanian citizens,
who are contributing directly to our economy, working hard and
contributing to Britain. They want to know when their voting
rights will be safeguarded. Given the all-party basis that we
have for safeguarding citizens’ rights, why do we not bring
forward legislation on a cross-party basis to deliver precisely
that?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. As he
appreciates, it will be for the Government to decide what new
legislation is brought forward. It is already the case in law
that EU citizens from all member states have the right to vote in
our domestic local elections, and it would require a change in
the law to alter that.
Mr Speaker
That is usually a polite way of saying, “I hear what you say and
will look at it in the round.” If the hon. Member for Harrow East
(Bob Blackman) is encouraged by that, he is very easily
encouraged.
Article 50 Extension
(Corby) (Con)
16. What the Government’s policy is on extending the Article 50
process. [911609]
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen
Barclay)
The Government’s policy is not to extend article 50.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that unequivocal
answer, because people in Corby and east Northamptonshire are
tired of the delay and the attempts here in Parliament to
frustrate Brexit. They are particularly frustrated, by the fact
that that is denying certainty for businesses. I am clear that
there must be no more extensions and that we must leave on 31
October—no ifs, no buts. What steps is he taking to ensure that
outcome?
I share my hon. Friend’s frustration that we have not left; I
have consistently voted to leave. I represent a constituency
where 70% of voters voted to leave, and three years on, they are
keen to ensure that this House delivers on that. There are over
300 no-deal workstreams in progress across Government.
Considerable work is ongoing, and it is important that we prepare
while continuing to seek a deal.
Customs Union: British Ceramics Confederation
(Stoke-on-Trent Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
19. What discussions his Department has had with the British
Ceramics Confederation on the UK’s participation in the customs
union after the UK leaves the EU. [911612]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union (Kwasi Kwarteng)
Ministers continue to carry out extensive engagement on EU exit
across all sectors of the economy, including with the British
Ceramics Confederation, in meetings that in many cases have been
organised by third parties. I have personally engaged with
business and civil society organisations at national and regional
level, and we have met representatives of the security, voluntary
and engineering sectors, among others.
I thank the Minister for that answer. The British Ceramics
Confederation has been clear that what it wants to see is a deal
for certainty for the ceramics sector, but as part of that it
also wants to see the UK’s participation in a customs union. The
benefits of a customs union work for EU-UK trade, but without
that common external tariff and the continuation of trade deals
with countries such as South Korea, which is now the biggest
emerging market for the ceramics sector, our industry will suffer
significantly. Will Ministers meet me and a delegation of
ceramics providers so that we can look at ways of mitigating
those problems if necessary, and ultimately changing Government
policy for the better?
I am pleased to note that the hon. Gentleman has belatedly come
around to the merits of a deal. I hope that we can get a deal and
leave in an orderly way. I am always happy to meet him and other
representatives of the ceramics industry to discuss the interests
of his constituency.
Economic Effect: Scotland
(North Ayrshire and Arran)
(SNP)
20. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on
the economic effect on Scotland of the UK leaving the EU.
[911613]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
The Secretary of State has frequent discussions with the
Secretary of State for Scotland, who ensures that Scottish
interests are always well represented around the Cabinet table.
He and I regularly speak with the Scottish Government. Indeed, we
are both looking forward to seeing Mike Russell tomorrow at the
Joint Ministerial Committee on EU negotiations.
The Scottish chamber of commerce has warned that the drop in GDP
in April and the widening of our trade deficit does not bode well
for Scotland’s economic fortunes. When will the Government
realise the damage they are already doing to Scotland’s economy
and offer business some certainty?
Mr Walker
This Government can be proud of the record high employment across
the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Scottish Government need to look
at the poor performance of the Scottish economy compared with the
rest of the UK.
Topical Questions
(Corby) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental
responsibilities. [911614]
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen
Barclay)
Since I last updated the House, treaties on reciprocal voting
rights have been signed with Luxembourg and Portugal, and work
continues on other bilateral agreements, led by the
Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon.
Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). I attended the
General Affairs Council in Luxembourg last week and spoke with a
number of senior EU figures. Technical and business groups have
met in the past weeks to work on alternative arrangements for the
Irish border. My Department is preparing for all scenarios in the
run-up to October. I want to put on the record my thanks to
officials for their continued professionalism and dedication.
(Corby) (Con)
The best chance of getting a good deal is to be deadly serious
about no deal. Could the Secretary of State update the House on
the current status of no-deal planning?
As I mentioned in answer to an earlier question, considerable
work is ongoing across Government. All the primary legislation
necessary for no deal is in place, over 500 statutory instruments
have already been laid, and work continues to ensure that we are
ready for that scenario, while remaining focused on our priority,
which is to leave with a deal.
(Holborn and St Pancras)
(Lab)
In a letter to the Secretary of State this morning, I said that
he has a duty to give an honest assessment of the difficult
choices facing the next Prime Minister. He will be aware that in
recent days his preferred candidate for Prime Minister, the right
hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), has
made a number of misleading statements about Brexit. Therefore,
on behalf of the Government, could the Secretary of State make it
clear today, first, that it is simply not possible to guarantee
no tariffs under a no-deal Brexit—in particular, can he scotch
the nonsense spouted about article 24 of the general agreement on
tariffs and trade, which, as he well knows, is simply not
available under a no-deal scenario—secondly, that technological
solutions for the Northern Ireland border do not currently exist;
and thirdly, that the UK cannot cherry-pick the withdrawal
agreement?
There used to be a scurrilous rumour in the House that when a
Minister got advance notice of questions, it was perhaps the work
of the Whips Office tipping them off. I am grateful to the right
hon. and learned Gentleman for his courtesy, because he actually
emailed me his questions half an hour before Question Time—he has
always been a courteous fellow, but this morning he has exceeded
himself. Never mind “buy one, get one free”, this is a
four-in-one question.
In his letter, the right hon. and learned Gentleman listed a
number of issues. Because he sent the letter ahead of Question
Time, the first of them has already been addressed by the hon.
Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), who asked about GATT.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, there is a
difference between what is possible and what he may argue is
probable, but it is a distinction that the candidates have
addressed.
As for side deals and cherry-picking, again there is an
inconsistency. I have been asked by the House on a cross-party
basis, following what is referred to as the Costa amendment, to
seek a side deal with the European Union to protect citizens’
rights, and I am happy to do so, but there is that inconsistency.
The House has called for me to reach out to the European
Commission, as indeed I have, because I agree with the House that
it is right to protect citizens’ rights, but the right hon. and
learned Gentleman says that side deals are cherry-picking and
should not be sought.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about technology. He
will know that, in the Strasbourg statement, the EU itself has
accepted that technology has a role to play on the border.
Indeed, it stands ready to work with us as soon as the withdrawal
agreement has been ratified. What is getting in the way of that
is the Labour party’s consistent opposition to the withdrawal
agreement—and that is because, notwithstanding the manifesto on
which he stood, the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s true
position is that he wishes us to remain in the EU. That is what
his letter did not say, yet that is what he actually means.
I thought that, with a bit of notice, we might get a better
answer than that. The answers to my three questions are no, it is
not possible to guarantee no tariffs under a no-deal Brexit; no,
technological solutions are not currently available in relation
to the border in Northern Ireland; and no, the UK cannot
cherry-pick the withdrawal agreement. Perhaps, since I am giving
the answers, we should swap places sooner rather than later.
Let me ask the Secretary of State just one further question about
a claim that has been made in recent days. Will he answer it with
a simple yes or no? Can the UK secure an implementation period
with the EU without a withdrawal agreement—yes or no?
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well, the
implementation period was part of the withdrawal agreement, which
he himself voted against. He talks of swapping places, but the
clue is in the name of the Department: it is the Department for
Exiting the European Union. However, the right hon. and learned
Gentleman does not want to exit the European Union, so it is
rather odd for him to be auditioning for a role when his whole
purpose is not to do what it says on the tin.
Mr (Kettering) (Con)
T2. What percentage of Irish exports to the EU come through Great
Britain? If the doom and gloom-mongers on Opposition Benches are
right about the dangers of no deal, does it not make sense for
the Irish Government to be open-minded about reaching a new
agreement with the UK before we leave the European Union?
[911615]
My hon. Friend has made an astute observation. He will be aware
that 40% of Irish exports go through the short straits between
Dover and Calais. We hear forecasts of delays at Calais from
Labour Members, but it is not simply UK goods that will be
delayed there; it will obviously be Irish exports too, as well as
the many Irish imports.
There are a number of areas in which it is in Ireland’s interests
to avoid the disruption of no deal. There has been very little
debate in the UK about the impact on Ireland, and my hon. Friend
is right to highlight it.
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
T3. The Secretary of State has just said that considerable work
is being done in preparation for no deal, so can he answer this
question? Will he rule out accepting any renewed bid from
Seaborne Freight during those preparations? [911617]
The hon. Lady will know that this is not Department for Transport
questions; this is questions to the Department for Exiting the
European Union, and she will know from the written ministerial
statement we published yesterday that we have set out a
framework. But in respect of Seaborne Freight it is worth
reminding the House that it was a contract in which payments were
linked to performance, and as the performance did not flow the
payment did not go with it.
(Walsall North) (Con)
T4. In Walsall North we like to be prepared for every
eventuality, so can the Minister please offer my constituents
some reassurance by listing some specific actions that have been
taken since 29 March to demonstrate that we are ready for a
no-deal Brexit? [911620]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union (James Cleverly)
My hon. Friend asks me to detail what actions have been taken;
those actions are so numerous that I would not want to list them
all, because I am sure you want to have time to go on to other
things this morning, Mr Speaker. But I have already highlighted a
number of meetings that I and ministerial colleagues have had
with representatives of industry, helping them to understand what
actions the Government have already taken and what actions they
and their members can take for a no-deal Brexit. We have also had
international meetings on both a bilateral and multilateral
basis. Discussions among officials and Ministers and at Cabinet
level happen regularly to ensure that the UK Government and UK
businesses are in a good place to leave under no deal if needs
be.
(Bristol West) (Lab)
T5. It simply will not do: the answers given to my right hon. and
learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir
Starmer) simply were not adequate. The Secretary of State was
given a simple yes or no question; will he have another try? Yes
or no: is it possible to have one of those transition deals such
as a GATT 24 deal—the things that Prime Minister candidates have
been talking about—without an implementation period for it to
come in? Yes or no? [911622]
Yes, it is possible. The question is whether the EU would
reciprocally agree, and that is what the right hon. and learned
Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) is questioning,
as he does not feel that it is a probable outcome. There is a
distinction between those two positions; I have addressed it, but
I am very happy to address it again.
(Fylde) (Con)
T6. What preparations is the Minister making to ensure that
aerospace manufacturing companies are given full support from the
Government in the event of a no-deal Brexit? [911623]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his record of championing the
aerospace industry in his constituency; he is a fine advocate of
its interests. Working together through the partnership, industry
and Government have made a joint funding commitment of £3.9
billion to aerospace research from 2013 to 2026, as he will be
aware. Ministers and other officials across Government remain in
close contact with the aerospace sector, and we have met more
than 100 companies in the supply chain across the UK to discuss
the implications of exiting the EU.
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
The Secretary of State referred earlier to the number of
statutory instruments that have been laid to date; can he tell
the House how many SIs remain to be enacted in order for us to
exit the EU in an orderly fashion on 31 October?
The answer to that question is that one cannot give a precise
figure, because as we saw—[Interruption.] I am coming to the
precise issue; the number will be around 100, but one cannot give
a precise figure because issues may arise such as we saw in the
run-up to the March and April exit date; a correction of a
previous SI might be required, or as part of the planning for
exit certain issues might come to light through the Commission
that necessitate an SI. So it is not possible to give a
definitive number, but it will be in the region of 100.
(Stirling) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend detail the discussions he has had with
the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy on the preparedness of British business for a no-deal
Brexit?
I have had regular discussions with my right hon. Friend on that
issue, and to a degree I would point to the difference between
large business and small business. A lot of large businesses have
undertaken considerable work to prepare for the possibility of no
deal; we have more concern about the extent to which some small
businesses have prepared. Often part of what flows into that is
the debate in this place, where they are told that it will not
happen and therefore the assumption is made that it is not
necessary to prepare. It is worth reminding the
House—particularly Members who look for a second referendum or
for some other outcome—that it is the EU’s decision, to which any
one of the 27 member states could object, whether any extension
is offered, notwithstanding the position of certainly one of the
two Conservative leadership candidates not to seek such an
extension.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
In the answer that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng)
gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry
McCarthy) a moment ago about the devastating impact of tariffs on
sheep farmers in the event of a no-deal Brexit, he appeared to
give the impression that the Government would compensate farmers
for the cost of those tariffs. Can he please clarify this for the
House: is it the Government’s policy, in the event of a no-deal
Brexit, to pick up the cost of the tariffs that farmers would
face—yes or no?
What I endeavoured to suggest was that the Government would
continue to support those industries. We cannot guarantee a
specific payment, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but there
is a broad commitment to support those industries, as we have
done for more than 80 years.
(Stafford) (Con)
Data flows are absolutely vital for business, for health and for
security, and in many other areas, but the problems would be
immense in the case of a no-deal Brexit. We heard yesterday in
the Exiting the European Union Committee that, even in the case
of leaving with a deal, the UK would no longer have any influence
over the general data protection regulation, even though the GDPR
is becoming a standard right around the world, well outside the
European Union. Is this a case of giving up control or taking
back control?
My hon. Friend makes an important point about data adequacy and
the EU Commission’s position on that. Unilateral action can be
taken to put standard contractual terms in place, for example,
which a lot of firms and organisations have done. The wider
point, however, is that 40% of the EU’s data centres are within
the UK, and many of the underground cables carrying data go
through UK waters. It is important to remember that there are
reciprocal benefits in coming to sensible arrangements on data
adequacy, because not having a flow of data would be devastating
to many European firms if they were to find themselves unable,
for example, to send personal data linked to tourists. That is
just one of the many examples that I could cite.
(East Ham) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) is absolutely right.
The Prime Minister failed in her aim to secure a continuing place
for the UK on the European Data Protection Board, which oversees
GDPR. Is it not a profoundly unsatisfactory aspect of the Prime
Minister’s deal that, in that area and lots of others, we would
have to comply with loads of EU rules over which we would have no
influence at all?
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Within any
future trade deal, whether with the EU or further afield, there
will always be a trade-off around what access we would get and
what sovereignty we would trade. He knows from his time in the
Treasury that that is always at the core of the debate around
trade deals. In relation to the political declaration, when the
debate around medicines and a number of other EU agencies has
come up, we have said that we stand ready to work with the
Commission on developing good regulatory standards. There is no
race to the bottom on regulation from this Government, but there
is also the question of what the Commission is willing to agree.
It is in our mutual interests to come to sensible arrangements on
data, for the reasons that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member
for Stafford.
