0:00:00 > 0:00:05will, of course, talk to her about what we can do more.
0:00:05 > 0:00:12THE SPEAKER:Order. Urgent question, John McDonnell.To ask the
0:00:12 > 0:00:16Chancellor of the Exchequer if he'll make a statement on the Government's
0:00:16 > 0:00:21actions to kerb aggressive tax avoidance schemes in the light of
0:00:21 > 0:00:30the paradise papers revelations.Mr Speaker, this Government believes in
0:00:30 > 0:00:35a fair tax system where everyone plays by the rules. It is this
0:00:35 > 0:00:39Government that has taken decisive action to tackle tax avoidance and
0:00:39 > 0:00:43evasion and who improve the standards of international tax
0:00:43 > 0:00:52transparency. The UK has secured an additional £160 billion in
0:00:52 > 0:00:55compliance revenue since 2010, far more than was achieved under the
0:00:55 > 0:01:00last Labour Government. Under this Government, the UK now has one of
0:01:00 > 0:01:05the lowest tax gaps in the world. We have provided HQ Iraq with tough new
0:01:05 > 0:01:11-- HMRC with tough new powers. In 2015 HMRC received £800 million in
0:01:11 > 0:01:15additional funding to go on tackling tax avoidance and evasion. Turning
0:01:15 > 0:01:19to recent events, yesterday evening, several international news
0:01:19 > 0:01:24organisations, led by the international consortium of
0:01:24 > 0:01:30investigative jurch lifts -- journalists reported on financial
0:01:30 > 0:01:33affairs of a large number of individuals. I should remind the
0:01:33 > 0:01:37House that ministers do not intervene in the tax affairs of
0:01:37 > 0:01:45individuals or businesses, as to do so would be a breach of taxpayer
0:01:45 > 0:01:57confidence salt. -- confidence salt. This information will be compared
0:01:57 > 0:02:01with the vast amount HMRC already hold. They have yet to respond to
0:02:01 > 0:02:09this request. Since this datesa was retrieved in 2016, this gfd has
0:02:09 > 0:02:11implemented international agreements that have changed the game for those
0:02:11 > 0:02:17seeking to avoid and evade taxes. HMRC have already benefitting from
0:02:17 > 0:02:22the automatic exchange of financial account information through the
0:02:22 > 0:02:24common reporting standard, an initiative in which the UK has led
0:02:24 > 0:02:28the world with over 100 jurisdictions signed up. The Crown
0:02:28 > 0:02:31dependencies and overseas territories are signed up to this
0:02:31 > 0:02:34initiative and have been exchanging information with HMRC for over a
0:02:34 > 0:02:39year. The Crown dependencies and overseas territories have committed
0:02:39 > 0:02:43to holding central registers of beneficial ownership information
0:02:43 > 0:02:49which the UK authorities are able to access. It is important to note and
0:02:49 > 0:02:53I quote the ICIJ's disclaimer here, there are legitimate uses for
0:02:53 > 0:02:59offshore trusts and companies. The ICIJ do not intend to suggest or
0:02:59 > 0:03:05imply that any people, companies or other entities included in the ICIJ
0:03:05 > 0:03:11database have broken the law or otherwise acted improperly. So Mr
0:03:11 > 0:03:15Speaker, notwithstanding the generalised aspersions made by the
0:03:15 > 0:03:18Opposition, the use of offshore accounts or trusts do not
0:03:18 > 0:03:21automatically mean dishonesty but this House should be assured under
0:03:21 > 0:03:26this Government the HMRC will continue to bear down with vigour on
0:03:26 > 0:03:36any tax avoidance or evasion activity, wherever it may be found.
0:03:36 > 0:03:39Unless there's a critically overriding reason for the Chancellor
0:03:39 > 0:03:44not to be here, I believe the House will consider it unacceptable that
0:03:44 > 0:03:51he's not here to address the biggest tax scandal of this generation. The
0:03:51 > 0:03:55minister's response today was the same bluster. He quotes a figure of
0:03:55 > 0:03:58additional tax revenues which cannot be verified from any publicly
0:03:58 > 0:04:03available data. He refers to a tax gap which doesn't include the likes
0:04:03 > 0:04:06of Apple, Facebook, Google and others. He boasts of his
0:04:06 > 0:04:11Government's efforts to address avoidance yet last week they voted
0:04:11 > 0:04:16to protect non-domes in the finance bill. Last month, the European
0:04:16 > 0:04:21Parliament accused this Government of obstructing the fight against tax
0:04:21 > 0:04:25avoidance, evasion and even money laundering. Doesn't he appreciate
0:04:25 > 0:04:30the outrage in our community at this tax dodging? Every pound in tax
0:04:30 > 0:04:35avoided is a pound taken away from our NHS, our children's education
0:04:35 > 0:04:41and care for the elderly and disabled. Given the chairman of the
0:04:41 > 0:04:45Conservative Party and Chancellor Duchy of Lancaster is responsible
0:04:45 > 0:04:52for and I quote "administering the etights and rents of the Duchy, has
0:04:52 > 0:04:58the Chancellor or minister discussed these with the right honourable
0:04:58 > 0:05:02member for Derbyshire Dales and will he apologise to Her Majesty for
0:05:02 > 0:05:10this? With regard to Lord ash croft, a fund irof the Conservative Party,
0:05:10 > 0:05:13who contributed reported £500,000 to the Conservatives in the general
0:05:13 > 0:05:15election campaign. Can the minister tell the House what information he
0:05:15 > 0:05:23has had about the domicile status of Lord ashcroft between 2010/2015 and
0:05:23 > 0:05:27when he was paying taxes on overseas wealth? The Chancellor now has an
0:05:27 > 0:05:30immediate opportunity to tackle tax avoidance. Can he assure the House
0:05:30 > 0:05:38that in the forth coming Budget he will adopt Labour's proposals to
0:05:38 > 0:05:41remove exemptions from non-doms and secure full transparency of trusts?
0:05:41 > 0:05:46Will he now also agree to Labour's proposals to establish an
0:05:46 > 0:05:49independent public inquiry into tax avoidance? Because I tell them, if
0:05:49 > 0:05:59this Government refuses to act, this next Labour Government will.Mr
0:05:59 > 0:06:03Speaker, the honourable member raises the issue of the veracity or
0:06:03 > 0:06:08otherwise of our figures. £160 billion collected through clamping
0:06:08 > 0:06:13down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance. That is a figure he
0:06:13 > 0:06:19will find published in the HMT's annual report and accounts. He
0:06:19 > 0:06:25refers to Lord ashcroft, I'm not going to start getting into the
0:06:25 > 0:06:30individual tax affairs of any particular individual, regardless of
0:06:30 > 0:06:34their political allegiance or whoever they may be. But he raises
0:06:34 > 0:06:38the issue of non-dom status and non-doms. He raises the issue of the
0:06:38 > 0:06:41measures that he and his party put forward in the last finance bill.
0:06:41 > 0:06:47Can I just remind him of two things, it is this party, that has put an
0:06:47 > 0:06:52end to permanent non-dom status. It was the party opposite that sought
0:06:52 > 0:07:03by voting against that bill at third reading to stop that from happening.
0:07:03 > 0:07:06There seems to be an extraordinary misunderstanding by the Shadow
0:07:06 > 0:07:10Chancellor between avoidance and evasion.Evasion is wholly illegal,
0:07:10 > 0:07:25avoidance is normal. People who put their money into an Isa are avoiding
0:07:25 > 0:07:30tax, but there is a moral issue, and if you are a political party that
0:07:30 > 0:07:34spends £1 million a year on rent in a tax-exempt company, that is what
0:07:34 > 0:07:40people are upset about. It's not avoidance, it's morally wrong
0:07:40 > 0:07:46avoidance, and isn't that what your party does?My party doesn't do
0:07:46 > 0:07:52anything, as people know I don't have a party. I'm just the leader of
0:07:52 > 0:07:57the good order and fair play party, or I try to be. Minister.
0:07:57 > 0:08:01I thank the honourable member for this question which I take to be
0:08:01 > 0:08:05directed at myself and it is for the Labour Party to account for any
0:08:05 > 0:08:08situation at which their headquarters may or may not be owned
0:08:08 > 0:08:16by an overseas trust.It may well be that sheltering for the tax
0:08:16 > 0:08:19authority here sums of money greater than the GDP of many countries is
0:08:19 > 0:08:25not illegal. That I would ask the Minister to agree with me, that is
0:08:25 > 0:08:30precisely the problem. I would also ask him to agree that the Paradise
0:08:30 > 0:08:34Papers revelations and massive sums involved, now offer no hiding place
0:08:34 > 0:08:39for those who would deny the public register of beneficial ownership of
0:08:39 > 0:08:45funds and trusts as well as businesses. This tax avoidance is a
0:08:45 > 0:08:48driver of global inequality, which runs to the very top of business
0:08:48 > 0:08:53politics stomach, politics, entertainment and the establishment
0:08:53 > 0:08:56force of these papers shine a light on the hidden ownership of large
0:08:56 > 0:09:01corporations by foreign state institutions and individuals. I hope
0:09:01 > 0:09:05the Minister will agree with me finally that to allow the public,
0:09:05 > 0:09:09customers and small investors to know who is really behind the most
0:09:09 > 0:09:12trusted of brands, the government now throw their weight, not simply
0:09:12 > 0:09:19behind local and global transparency for the beneficial ownership of
0:09:19 > 0:09:23businesses through offshore trusts, funds and other opaque devices.Of
0:09:23 > 0:09:26the honourable member will know that this government has been at the
0:09:26 > 0:09:29forefront of clamping down on international tax avoidance and
0:09:29 > 0:09:37evasion and noncompliance. The OECD's base erosion and project
0:09:37 > 0:09:40shifting project that we have been at the vanguard of reporting, and
0:09:40 > 0:09:44standards that we have introduced amongst our crown dependencies and
0:09:44 > 0:09:48overseas territories. He will find we are no slouch is on the side of
0:09:48 > 0:09:55the House when it comes to grappling with the items that he raises.Could
0:09:55 > 0:10:00my Right Honourable friend confirm that this country is now leading the
0:10:00 > 0:10:06world on tackling tax avoidance, and how does the action of consecutive
0:10:06 > 0:10:11Conservative chancellors compare with the nonaction from consecutive
0:10:11 > 0:10:17Labour chancellors?Has my Right Honourable friend will know, Mr
0:10:17 > 0:10:21Speaker, one of the measures of how on top or otherwise a country is of
0:10:21 > 0:10:27its tax affairs is the tax gap, this is at an historic low in this
0:10:27 > 0:10:31country of just 6%. Under the last Labour government in 2005 it was at
0:10:31 > 0:10:378% and if we had the level of tax gap we had under Labour we would be
0:10:37 > 0:10:41£11.8 billion short on tax, enough to employ every policeman and woman
0:10:41 > 0:10:48in England and Wales.Dame Margaret Hodge.Thank you, Mr Speaker. The
0:10:48 > 0:10:54real problem with all the action that has been taken so far is that
0:10:54 > 0:10:59it hasn't got to the heart of the problem. And that is that we need to
0:10:59 > 0:11:05have openness and transparency about who owns what company where, who
0:11:05 > 0:11:10owns what trust. There is a very simple action that the government
0:11:10 > 0:11:15could take without any legislation, which would immediately slice
0:11:15 > 0:11:21through a lot of the problems that we have seen in the Paradise Papers,
0:11:21 > 0:11:26the Panama Papers, in the Falciani leaks and in the Luxembourg leaks.
0:11:26 > 0:11:32Why will the government not insist that our overseas territories, that
0:11:32 > 0:11:37our tax havens, have to have public registers of beneficial ownership?
0:11:37 > 0:11:44Why will they not do that now?As the Honourable Lady will know that
0:11:44 > 0:11:50there are many good reasons why for perfectly honest and decent reasons,
0:11:50 > 0:11:53individuals use trusts. She will also know that we have made a great
0:11:53 > 0:11:59deal of progress on the common reporting standards across 100
0:11:59 > 0:12:03different countries, including those to whom she alludes, and that we are
0:12:03 > 0:12:10also bringing forward the registers of beneficial ownership across those
0:12:10 > 0:12:12particular jurisdictions so that our HMRC has the information it
0:12:12 > 0:12:20requires.Nigel Mills.I wonder if the Minister could use this latest
0:12:20 > 0:12:24leak as a spur to bring forward the publication of certain issues we
0:12:24 > 0:12:27have been waiting for for a while. The anti-corruption strategy
0:12:27 > 0:12:31promised for last December and got lost when the then champion stood
0:12:31 > 0:12:36down at the election. We're still waiting for the publication of
0:12:36 > 0:12:40properties owned here by overseas companies. Can we get those moving
0:12:40 > 0:12:43forward to give people the confidence that our own regime is
0:12:43 > 0:12:48robust?The honourable member, my honourable friend, will know there
0:12:48 > 0:12:52are several areas we are currently examining that also will know that
0:12:52 > 0:12:55in June this year very recently we brought in the money-laundering
0:12:55 > 0:12:59regulations to make sure that banks and lawyers and accountants are
0:12:59 > 0:13:06properly focused in real-time and in ensuring that corrupt practices are
0:13:06 > 0:13:11established and born down on as appropriate.Is the Minister not
0:13:11 > 0:13:15worried about the tangled web of Russian money that appears to be
0:13:15 > 0:13:22involved at very high levels as shown by these leaks? And will he
0:13:22 > 0:13:29not agree that there is now a great public interest in transparency of
0:13:29 > 0:13:31ownership and getting these registers published as soon as
0:13:31 > 0:13:35possible? Why doesn't the government just make an announcement that the
0:13:35 > 0:13:40overseas territories are going to do that and get on with it?As I
0:13:40 > 0:13:43already explained to the House and Right Honourable lady the register
0:13:43 > 0:13:49of beneficial ownership is now an element within these tax
0:13:49 > 0:13:52jurisdictions, and accessible by HMRC, who after all are the
0:13:52 > 0:13:59authority that we rely upon to bear down on tax avoidance. As to her
0:13:59 > 0:14:04comments about Russian money, I have no doubt that if HMRC is able to get
0:14:04 > 0:14:07the information it has requested from the BBC, Guardian and a group
0:14:07 > 0:14:10of journalists then they will be even better prepared to clamp-down
0:14:10 > 0:14:14on those issues where they are found to be inappropriate.James
0:14:14 > 0:14:19Duddridge.In looking at these issues of the overseas territories
0:14:19 > 0:14:22and Crown dependencies, can I urge the Minister to bear in mind states
0:14:22 > 0:14:26in the US that have worse standards than some of those Crown
0:14:26 > 0:14:29dependencies and overseas territories and standards need to be
0:14:29 > 0:14:33raised globally, not just in some of these island paradise states.My
0:14:33 > 0:14:36honourable friend is absolutely right, we do need to work
0:14:36 > 0:14:39internationally with our international partners, which is why
0:14:39 > 0:14:42as I said earlier we have been working closely with the OECD on the
0:14:42 > 0:14:47base erosion of profit shifting project on which we are well ahead
0:14:47 > 0:14:52of the pack in terms of implementing those recommendations.Sir Vincent
0:14:52 > 0:14:57cable.What sanctions has the government taken from or propose to
0:14:57 > 0:15:01take in respect of those British Overseas Territories that pursue tax
0:15:01 > 0:15:07policies that are damaging to Britain?As the Right Honourable
0:15:07 > 0:15:11member will know we are currently engaged in a variety of discussions
0:15:11 > 0:15:15with our international partners, not least with the European Union in
0:15:15 > 0:15:19terms of the so-called blacklist, and we are looking closely at the
0:15:19 > 0:15:23that they and others have order to strike an appropriate balance in
0:15:23 > 0:15:27protecting what are very important services to this particular
0:15:27 > 0:15:30jurisdictions and making sure that tax is paid fairly and as it should
0:15:30 > 0:15:37be.With the Minister consider it's not just a question of countries
0:15:37 > 0:15:43such as the Cayman Islands, Bermudez, those territories, but
0:15:43 > 0:15:45also the European Union, the Republic of Ireland and the
0:15:45 > 0:15:48Netherlands are regarded as jurisdictions where there may be tax
0:15:48 > 0:15:53advantages to be set up? Would he agree that rather than singling out
0:15:53 > 0:15:55those jurisdictions we should recognise that in a global
0:15:55 > 0:15:59environment where capital is free the importance is the UK tax
0:15:59 > 0:16:01structure on wealth and that is something this government has
0:16:01 > 0:16:06definitely got right?My honourable friend raises an important point,
0:16:06 > 0:16:09which put simply, is that it is not just the tax rate in particular
0:16:09 > 0:16:12regime that is pertinent in terms of the issues we are discussing today,
0:16:12 > 0:16:18and he said he mentioned a Republic of Ireland where the rate is just
0:16:18 > 0:16:2112.5%. It is those other factors that we need to be looking at in
0:16:21 > 0:16:30order to come to those judgments. Thank you, Mr Speaker. How many more
0:16:30 > 0:16:33panorama programmes and leaks should be expect until we see full and
0:16:33 > 0:16:37proper action on tax avoidance and evasion in this country? Could I
0:16:37 > 0:16:41suggest to the Minister that they reinstate the thousands of tax
0:16:41 > 0:16:43office Dummett Officer posts they have cut in Liverpool and across the
0:16:43 > 0:16:49country?This government, as the Honourable Lady will know, has
0:16:49 > 0:16:53brought in £160 billion in tax avoidance since 2010, brought in 2.8
0:16:53 > 0:16:57billion of that in respect of individuals attempting to hide funds
0:16:57 > 0:17:03overseas. She raises the issue of HMRC which is going through a
0:17:03 > 0:17:05reconstruction, reassignment scum at the moment, and that is quite right
0:17:05 > 0:17:12and proper so that we have a series of hubs that have a critical mass of
0:17:12 > 0:17:16individuals present within them that has the right technology, the right
0:17:16 > 0:17:21infrastructure, in order on a risk basis to go after those who are
0:17:21 > 0:17:27avoiding taxation.I welcome the lead the government is taking
0:17:27 > 0:17:30internationally in tackling tax avoidance, because clearly this
0:17:30 > 0:17:34isn't a problem we can solve on our own in isolation. Could my Right
0:17:34 > 0:17:37Honourable friend advise what the government is doing to use
0:17:37 > 0:17:39transparency to make sure individuals, trusts and companies
0:17:39 > 0:17:45pay their fair share to the Treasury?I thank my honourable
0:17:45 > 0:17:49friend for her question and as I've pointed out a few times we are
0:17:49 > 0:17:52looking at the current implementation of the reporting
0:17:52 > 0:17:57standards, we are also looking at various recommendations coming out
0:17:57 > 0:18:00of the regime, some of which were present in the Finance Bill, to stop
0:18:00 > 0:18:06flagrant tax avoidance, sometimes on the part of the largest corporations
0:18:06 > 0:18:09in the country. And of course, Mr Speaker, as I mentioned earlier,
0:18:09 > 0:18:16that was a Bill the party opposite sought to kill at its third reading.
0:18:16 > 0:18:20When I asked officials at the Department for trade whether tax
0:18:20 > 0:18:23transparency was required in our trade treaties, they said that this
0:18:23 > 0:18:30was a novel idea and certainly not something that was included in the
0:18:30 > 0:18:34text for TTIP, yet it's exactly this kind of secrecy that lets the rich
0:18:34 > 0:18:40hide billions while the people pay. Will the Minister ensure that in the
0:18:40 > 0:18:44trade treaties presented to this House in the future, we demand and
0:18:44 > 0:18:51insist on tax transparency in every single one?As the Right Honourable
0:18:51 > 0:18:54gentleman will know, we are committed to country by country
0:18:54 > 0:18:57reporting, we are going to push forward on a multilateral basis on
0:18:57 > 0:19:01that as to our future trade treaties they are for the future and for the
0:19:01 > 0:19:08Department for trade.Low rates of tax and growing tax revenues depend
0:19:08 > 0:19:12critically on every penny of tax to you being paid. What is the position
0:19:12 > 0:19:17if someone receives a fee and then sends it to a trust fund in
0:19:17 > 0:19:25Mauritius, only then to receive the money back as Ilonen? -- as a lone.
0:19:25 > 0:19:28I cannot comment on a specific tax structure put to me in these
0:19:28 > 0:19:35questions, other than to say that if it falls foul of our very rigorous
0:19:35 > 0:19:38disguised remuneration arrangements, some of which put through in the
0:19:38 > 0:19:41latest Finance Bill, then clearly that would be an area where those
0:19:41 > 0:19:44people involved would expect to receive a hand on the shoulder from
0:19:44 > 0:19:52HMRC.Dennis Skinner.Doesn't the publication of these papers show us
0:19:52 > 0:19:58that this government is more concerned about hounding those
0:19:58 > 0:20:04disabled people applying for PIP and DSA and taking their disabled motors
0:20:04 > 0:20:09away from them -- ESA, than they are concentrating on the real people
0:20:09 > 0:20:16that are dodging paying tax, as revealed in these papers? People
0:20:16 > 0:20:23that are close to the Conservative Party. Sort it out.I'm afraid the
0:20:23 > 0:20:25honourable member overlooks the simple fact that when it comes to
0:20:25 > 0:20:28paying tax in this country we have one of the most progressive tax
0:20:28 > 0:20:33system is in the world, with the wealthiest 1% of income tax payers
0:20:33 > 0:20:40paying no less than 28% of all income tax. As I mentioned earlier,
0:20:40 > 0:20:45Mr Speaker, £2.8 billion has been raised from the wealthy who may have
0:20:45 > 0:20:49been trying to avoid paying the tax going forward. Are far stronger
0:20:49 > 0:20:56record than for the party opposite. Does my Right Honourable friend
0:20:56 > 0:20:59agree with me that by far the biggest threat to UK tax revenues is
0:20:59 > 0:21:05the run on the pound and the flight of capital, predicted by the party
0:21:05 > 0:21:09opposite themselves? Should they ever get into government.My
0:21:09 > 0:21:12honourable friend is absolutely right. One of the measures that a
0:21:12 > 0:21:15future Labour government have said they would take would be to stick up
0:21:15 > 0:21:20the Corporation tax rate to 26% which will do nothing to create
0:21:20 > 0:21:23jobs, nothing to create wealth, nothing to improve our economy and
0:21:23 > 0:21:27most of all nothing to raise the vital taxes that we need to support
0:21:27 > 0:21:30our vital public services.
0:21:30 > 0:21:33Given what the paradise papers reveal about the industrial scale of
0:21:33 > 0:21:37tax dodging together with the shaming fact that some of the UK's
0:21:37 > 0:21:41overseas territories and Crown dependencies are the largest tax
0:21:41 > 0:21:44havens and secrecy jurisdictions in the world, will the Government now
0:21:44 > 0:21:47drop its morally indefensible blocking of the development of a
0:21:47 > 0:21:53credible and meaningful EU blacklist of tax havens?Well, the honourable
0:21:53 > 0:21:57lady is, I'm afraid, simply wrong. The discussions are ongoing at the
0:21:57 > 0:22:02European Union at the moment on the issue of the blacklist. The United
0:22:02 > 0:22:04Kingdom Government has done absolutely nothing to attempt to
0:22:04 > 0:22:08block those discussions. We are firmly and deeply engaged within
0:22:08 > 0:22:13them and we expect them to conclude by the end of this year.Mr Speaker,
0:22:13 > 0:22:17in a world of increasingly global businesses, it is the reality
0:22:17 > 0:22:21whether the party opposite like it or not that we have to tackle this
0:22:21 > 0:22:25on a global scale. Isn't that why it's right that David Cameron used
0:22:25 > 0:22:29the G7 as a crucial method to tackle this and why it's right that we
0:22:29 > 0:22:33continue to do take an international approach?My honourable friend is
0:22:33 > 0:22:37absolutely right. We seek to move forward on the basis of unity with
0:22:37 > 0:22:46our overseas partners and that is why we have played such a full role
0:22:46 > 0:22:54with the OECD.Like me, two thirds of British taxpayers are taxed at
0:22:54 > 0:22:58source. They're PAYE. They just can't understand why anyone would
0:22:58 > 0:23:03want to put money into a small island like Bermuda, the Cayman
0:23:03 > 0:23:08Islands or Jersey. The minister says there are legitimate reasons. Will
0:23:08 > 0:23:14he educate me - what are the legitimate reasons?As the right
0:23:14 > 0:23:18honourable member knows there are many reasons people use trusts. It
0:23:18 > 0:23:21may be I decide I want a trust for my children and I may decide that I
0:23:21 > 0:23:25don't want that to be known publicly, exactly the way in which
0:23:25 > 0:23:31that trust is going to operate, for reasons of confidentiality. There
0:23:31 > 0:23:35are reasons for using overseas trusts that you may be looking at
0:23:35 > 0:23:39dollar denominated trading so you node a jurisdiction where dollar
0:23:39 > 0:23:46denominated trading is occurring. There are a variety of reasons. This
0:23:46 > 0:23:52idea that every time this is mentioned it's something grubby or
0:23:52 > 0:23:58illegal is just plain wrong.With the tax gap at a record low, and at
0:23:58 > 0:24:03the same time, with corporation taxes in this country amongst the
0:24:03 > 0:24:06lowest in the industrial world does it not confirm we have achieved a
0:24:06 > 0:24:11balance of a tax system that is competitive and fair?My honourable
0:24:11 > 0:24:15friend is absolutely correct. We have brought corporation tax rates
0:24:15 > 0:24:20down from 28% now to 19%. They will go further down to 17%. The
0:24:20 > 0:24:24consequence of that is that we are now actually raising twice as much
0:24:24 > 0:24:33corporation tax today as we did in 2010.Can the minister confirm what
0:24:33 > 0:24:37justification there was for voting against Labour's proposed amendments
0:24:37 > 0:24:42to the finance bill last week, which sought to kerb the number of
0:24:42 > 0:24:45individuals claiming non-dom status and improve transparency with
0:24:45 > 0:24:51regards to offshore trusts?If the honourable member is referring to
0:24:51 > 0:24:54the actual trust arrangements for those who become deemed domiciled,
0:24:54 > 0:25:00as a consequence of this Government actually deciding to put an end to
0:25:00 > 0:25:03permanent non-dom status, something his party never did in its 13 years
0:25:03 > 0:25:07in office, then we will know all is not quite as the Labour Party
0:25:07 > 0:25:12presents it. Any funds coming out of such trusts will, when they are
0:25:12 > 0:25:17remitted, fall due to tax by that deemed domiciled individual in the
0:25:17 > 0:25:24exactly the same way as if would be the case for any other UK citizen.
0:25:24 > 0:25:28Is it not the case that with the criminal finances act 2017 this
0:25:28 > 0:25:33Government has created a new criminal offence for firms who don't
0:25:33 > 0:25:37stop staff facilitating tax evasion? My honourable friend is absolutely
0:25:37 > 0:25:40right and that is just another example of the 35 additional
0:25:40 > 0:25:44measures that this Government is taking between now and the end of
0:25:44 > 0:25:50this Parliament to ensure that we clamp down on tax avoidance, evasion
0:25:50 > 0:25:57and non-compliance.... After nearly a decade of austerity and living
0:25:57 > 0:26:02standrd facing the biggest squeeze in a century, the public will be
0:26:02 > 0:26:07outraged at these revelations. The Treasury cannot run with the foxes
0:26:07 > 0:26:11and the hounds on this one. Will they back the ordinary working
0:26:11 > 0:26:14people or the super rich?The honourable member talks about us
0:26:14 > 0:26:18having to live within our means. It's right that we do that. He talks
0:26:18 > 0:26:23about the amount of money that we need to bring in. What has been most
0:26:23 > 0:26:26unhelpful is that under the last Labour Government because they were
0:26:26 > 0:26:30so ineffective at bringing in tax and the gap was so high, it has cost
0:26:30 > 0:26:35our country over £40 billion as a consequence. If they had had the
0:26:35 > 0:26:39same average level of tax gap in their last seven years in office as
0:26:39 > 0:26:42we have had in our seven years, we would be about £45 billion better
0:26:42 > 0:26:50off.Thank you Mr Speaker. Does my honourable friend friend agree with
0:26:50 > 0:26:54me that the Opposition agree with me the Opposition is disingenuous this
0:26:54 > 0:26:58their approach. They had 13 years and did nothing, voted against
0:26:58 > 0:27:00measures to close loops and confirming that it is only this
0:27:00 > 0:27:05Government which will act to tackle avoidance?My honourable friend is
0:27:05 > 0:27:10absolutely right. We hear a lot of talk from the Opposition but I'm
0:27:10 > 0:27:14afraid, Mr Speaker, that the results of what they did or rather didn't do
0:27:14 > 0:27:21when they had their turn in office speak for themselves.Mr Speaker,
0:27:21 > 0:27:26does the minister not recognise that it is obscene that rich people
0:27:26 > 0:27:32should seek to get even richer by salting away their billions in
0:27:32 > 0:27:37offshore bank accounts whilst working people suffer the longest
0:27:37 > 0:27:43stagnation on wages for 150 years? Well, the honourable member will
0:27:43 > 0:27:51know that those wealthy in this country pay their fair share. Of the
0:27:51 > 0:27:561% most wealthy income taxpayers they pay 28% of all income tax. What
0:27:56 > 0:28:01was that figure, Mr Speaker, under the last Labour Government? It was
0:28:01 > 0:28:10below 24%. I'll take no lectures from the honourable member.When I
0:28:10 > 0:28:13sat on the Public Accounts Committee we used to hear about mechanisms
0:28:13 > 0:28:17like the double Irish and Dutch sandwich none of which are UK
0:28:17 > 0:28:21jurisdictions, would the minister agree that things like the diverted
0:28:21 > 0:28:28profits tax would put to an end some of the tricks used to move things to
0:28:28 > 0:28:32other tax jurisdictions?My honourable friend is right. The
0:28:32 > 0:28:36diverted profits tax works every day of the week. It works where HMRC
0:28:36 > 0:28:39have to step in and sort out companies that fall better than it.
0:28:39 > 0:28:50But it prevents and deters many companies from behaving in an
0:28:50 > 0:28:53inappropriate fashionmentThe minister says HMRC are seeking to
0:28:53 > 0:28:56investigate this matter, ahead of the Budget, when I suspect the
0:28:56 > 0:29:01Government may wish to put in public spending commitments, will the
0:29:01 > 0:29:05minister commitment to a moratorium on any public contracts going to
0:29:05 > 0:29:09companies that have offshore trusts whilst this is being investigated?
0:29:09 > 0:29:14Well, I'm not going to get into the business of providing moratoriums on
0:29:14 > 0:29:19any particular matter at the dispatch batch, tempting -- box,
0:29:19 > 0:29:22tempting though the honourable lady as she suggests that. Is not a path
0:29:22 > 0:29:29that I'm going to go down.I wanted to highlight the new criminal
0:29:29 > 0:29:33offence that we created for firms who don't stop their staff
0:29:33 > 0:29:37facilitating tax evasion. For the first time, under the criminal
0:29:37 > 0:29:42offences act 2017, companies will be held criminally liable if they fail
0:29:42 > 0:29:47to stop their employees facilitating tax evasion, so does my right
0:29:47 > 0:29:50honourable friend agrow with me this truly demonstrates this Government
0:29:50 > 0:29:55is taking tax avoidance extremely sear list -- seriously, indeed has
0:29:55 > 0:29:59done more than our colleagues over there has ever done.My honourable
0:29:59 > 0:30:07friend is absolutely right. This is a further example making companies
0:30:07 > 0:30:11criminally responsible where their employees try to facilitate tax
0:30:11 > 0:30:14avoidance. It's the right way to go. It is but another measure this
0:30:14 > 0:30:22Government has brought in.Does the minister accept that the scale after
0:30:22 > 0:30:28depressive avoidance -- aggressive avoidance shows that the general
0:30:28 > 0:30:33anti-abuse rule introduced in 2013 isn't really working and what we
0:30:33 > 0:30:37really need is general anti-avoidance legislation so
0:30:37 > 0:30:43there's no room for doubt and no room for manoeuvre?The honourable
0:30:43 > 0:30:47member talks about the amount that has been revealed by these
0:30:47 > 0:30:55disclosures. I assume he is centring his remarks on the television
0:30:55 > 0:30:59programme last night. We don't yet know the extent to which this will
0:30:59 > 0:31:03reveal. That's why HMRC have asked those with the data to make it
0:31:03 > 0:31:08available so that we can use it to get on with the job in cracking down
0:31:08 > 0:31:13on those who may have behaved in a way they shouldn't.The minister has
0:31:13 > 0:31:17confirmed we have one of the lowest tax gaps in the world, yet the party
0:31:17 > 0:31:20opposite still complains. How does today's position compare with the
0:31:20 > 0:31:26one we inherited in 2010? ?I thank my honourable friend for his
0:31:26 > 0:31:30question. He is right to point out the difference. The reality is that
0:31:30 > 0:31:34today we have a tax gap of 6%, about the lowest in the world. It's the
0:31:34 > 0:31:37lowest in the history of our country. As I said earlier, Mr
0:31:37 > 0:31:42Speaker, if we had the same tax gap on average that Labour had during
0:31:42 > 0:31:48their term in office, we would be over £40 billion out of pocket, less
0:31:48 > 0:31:52money as the Shadow Chancellor put it for the nurses, for the doctors,
0:31:52 > 0:31:56for the paramedics, for the police, for the army and the others in our
0:31:56 > 0:32:03public services.There are some things we do know and we do know
0:32:03 > 0:32:07that some large accounting firms are being investigated currentsly for
0:32:07 > 0:32:12poor practice, which assists and colludes with tax avoidance, evasion
0:32:12 > 0:32:16issues. Could the minister clarify what is to be done to clamp down on
0:32:16 > 0:32:21those who collude with those who do not want to do the right thing?The
0:32:21 > 0:32:24honourable lady I would refer her to the finance bill, which has just
0:32:24 > 0:32:27gone through this House, which has some important provisions within it
0:32:27 > 0:32:32to make sure we clamp down on those who enable tax avoidance, which the
0:32:32 > 0:32:36category of individual and company to which she refers. Those are some
0:32:36 > 0:32:41pretty stiff penalties.Would my right honourable friend confirm my
0:32:41 > 0:32:45understanding that the profits of the Duchy of Cornwall are used
0:32:45 > 0:32:49exclusively for official purposes, that the investment board of the
0:32:49 > 0:32:52Duchy of Cornwall is at arms length from the Government and if anyone
0:32:52 > 0:32:55wanted to question who was overseeing the investment board at
0:32:55 > 0:32:59the time that any suspicious transactions were made, they could
0:32:59 > 0:33:04see the Labour ministers at the time?Well, I would say about the
0:33:04 > 0:33:10Duchy of Lancaster, Mr Speaker, is that their accounts are readily
0:33:10 > 0:33:15available. They are transparent and audited in the normal fashion.
0:33:15 > 0:33:18There's no, had been no suggestion to date, as far as I'm aware,
0:33:18 > 0:33:24certainly not in the television programme last night, that any
0:33:24 > 0:33:31particular mischief related to any aspect of their dealings.Account
0:33:31 > 0:33:36minister confirm that the latest figures available demonstrate that
0:33:36 > 0:33:44there are 420 employees in HMRC's high net worth unit and there are
0:33:44 > 0:33:483,765 employees in DWP chasing Social Security fraud? If those
0:33:48 > 0:33:51figures are correct, does the minister agree with many of us in
0:33:51 > 0:33:56this House that the same level of resources were applied to tax
0:33:56 > 0:33:58evasion as opposed to Social Security fraud we would have
0:33:58 > 0:34:02billions of pounds more for our vital public services?What I can
0:34:02 > 0:34:13confirm is that in £2015800 million was -- 2015 £800 million was made
0:34:13 > 0:34:20available to HMRC. That is expected to bring in over £7 billion in
0:34:20 > 0:34:26additional revenue by 2021/226789 -- 22.My constituents are rightly
0:34:26 > 0:34:32angry about tax avoidance but they're angry about avoidance of
0:34:32 > 0:34:34action exemplified by the last Labour Government, who talked tough
0:34:34 > 0:34:38and did very little. Account minister remind me -- can the
0:34:38 > 0:34:41minister remind me, how many times has this Government acted and how
0:34:41 > 0:34:45many more times is it likely to act? My honourable friend is right. The
0:34:45 > 0:34:49figures speak for themselves. We know how much we have brought in
0:34:49 > 0:34:53through clamping down on avoidance and evasion. 160 billion since 2010.
0:34:53 > 0:34:58We know we have about the lowest tax gap in the world. With eknow it's
0:34:58 > 0:35:02far lower than it was under the last Labour Government. I think those
0:35:02 > 0:35:10figures speak for themselves. Further to the minister's response
0:35:10 > 0:35:15to my honourable friend's question from Tottenham, can he explain why
0:35:15 > 0:35:18he thinks people saving for their children's future would need to make
0:35:18 > 0:35:24use of accounts in per meweda and the British virgin -- Bermuda and
0:35:24 > 0:35:28the British Virgin Islands, when my constituents manage it with the use
0:35:28 > 0:35:32of local building societies?I think the honourable lady, if she checks
0:35:32 > 0:35:35in Hansard on the answer to my question to her honourable
0:35:35 > 0:35:40colleague, will see that wasn't the totality of my response. I referred
0:35:40 > 0:35:44to dollar denominated trading and the complexities there of. So I
0:35:44 > 0:35:47think if she checks Hansard she might be able to answer her own
0:35:47 > 0:35:54question.
0:35:54 > 0:35:58Can the Minister told a house in the assessment of the government how
0:35:58 > 0:36:01many UK citizens and how many UK registered companies have these
0:36:01 > 0:36:10offshore accounts and how much money the UK as represented by these two
0:36:10 > 0:36:14entities?As he will know those are not figures that I have at my
0:36:14 > 0:36:19fingertips, and as he will know confidential arrangements that are
0:36:19 > 0:36:24quite rightly place in many of the structures he refers, and indeed he
0:36:24 > 0:36:32and perhaps the headquarters of his Labour Party headquarters might even
0:36:32 > 0:36:40be held within one of those arrangements. These are of necessity
0:36:40 > 0:36:44not fully available to have that particular information.David
0:36:44 > 0:36:50Hanson.Could the Minister clarify for the House his understanding of
0:36:50 > 0:36:54what the position is with regard to non-doms donating to political
0:36:54 > 0:36:58parties in the UK, and in the interests of transparency, would he
0:36:58 > 0:37:02arrange for all parties to publish lists of non-doms who have donated
0:37:02 > 0:37:07to their parties?There are requirements around transparency in
0:37:07 > 0:37:12the donations to political parties. In the case of non-doms the one
0:37:12 > 0:37:15thing we have done as a government is to put an end to permanent
0:37:15 > 0:37:27non-dom status.My constituents pay their tax in the usual way so can
0:37:27 > 0:37:30the minister explain to them why they're public services are being
0:37:30 > 0:37:34cut while the rich are using tax havens to avoid paying their fair
0:37:34 > 0:37:41share?The Honourable Lady might know from my earlier comments that
0:37:41 > 0:37:47the wealthiest 1% in this country pay 28% of all income tax. She
0:37:47 > 0:37:52should also be aware of the fact that during her party's time in
0:37:52 > 0:38:00office in 2010 it was down at about 23%. This is the party that is
0:38:00 > 0:38:03standing up for the poorest and least well off in this society, and
0:38:03 > 0:38:08as part of that process we have taken almost 4 million of the lowest
0:38:08 > 0:38:13paid out of tax altogether.Jim Shannon.
0:38:13 > 0:38:16Would the Minister and government consider writing a letter to all of
0:38:16 > 0:38:21those mentioned in the Paradise Papers news leaks to gently relined
0:38:21 > 0:38:25Dummett remind them not only of their financial obligations but also
0:38:25 > 0:38:28moral obligations to all citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
0:38:28 > 0:38:34and Northern Ireland? -- gently remind them.I totally agree with my
0:38:34 > 0:38:37honourable friend that everybody has a moral obligation to pay their fair
0:38:37 > 0:38:45and legal Ligier and out of tax -- legally do you. Where some have
0:38:45 > 0:38:48failed to do that as a consequence of these disclosures HMRC will be on
0:38:48 > 0:38:55their case.Last year my Right Honourable friend and the member for
0:38:55 > 0:38:58Don Valley led work across the Public Accounts Committee for
0:38:58 > 0:39:02country by country reporting amending the Finance Bill which the
0:39:02 > 0:39:05Minister has alluded to. The government can now lead the way
0:39:05 > 0:39:07across the world, implement the provision, while still pursuing
0:39:07 > 0:39:12multilateral provisions.The government is leading the way in
0:39:12 > 0:39:17exactly that endeavour, as I have said earlier, a very important point
0:39:17 > 0:39:21here is that we have a multilateral approach to this particular issue
0:39:21 > 0:39:29and we are working hard on delivering that.Most people haven't
0:39:29 > 0:39:34heard of dollar-denominated trading but they look at this matter and
0:39:34 > 0:39:37seek one rule for the rich and powerful and another rule for the
0:39:37 > 0:39:44weak and vulnerable. Surely the way to lance this boil is to have full
0:39:44 > 0:39:48transparency and a transparency that is of publicly available, not one
0:39:48 > 0:39:52where you have to ask for the British territories.As I have
0:39:52 > 0:39:58explained the transparency we need a sweetie to sure that HMRC does get
0:39:58 > 0:40:09the information it requires to satisfy itself that the dealings --
0:40:09 > 0:40:11the transparency that HMRC does. That's the position we are working
0:40:11 > 0:40:19towards at the moment.Last week, Mr Speaker, I met with some of the
0:40:19 > 0:40:22representatives of our overseas territories. A number of them said
0:40:22 > 0:40:25they governments isn't working for them, they have little say over
0:40:25 > 0:40:30defence and foreign affairs. Is there not a win-win here where we
0:40:30 > 0:40:34give overseas territories representation in this place and we
0:40:34 > 0:40:39enforce tax and public transparency in our overseas territories?
0:40:39 > 0:40:42Taxation with representation all equal under the law, surely a
0:40:42 > 0:40:47rallying call for all of us here today.I hope the honourable member
0:40:47 > 0:40:52will forgive me if I don't start to opine on the constitutional
0:40:52 > 0:40:57settlement that we have with our overseas territories and Crown
0:40:57 > 0:40:59dependencies. But I do make one quite important point that relates
0:40:59 > 0:41:03to the issue he has raised command that is we must not forget they do
0:41:03 > 0:41:08not have representation in our Parliament and we, therefore, have
0:41:08 > 0:41:10particular responsibilities towards listening to them and cooperating
0:41:10 > 0:41:17with them rather than, perhaps as he suggests, coercing them.Diana
0:41:17 > 0:41:24Johnson.Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wonder if the Minister could arrange
0:41:24 > 0:41:28for the publication of full details of the merits of sending money
0:41:28 > 0:41:33offshore so my constituents in Hull, many of whom are low paid, but pay
0:41:33 > 0:41:35their taxes, can see whether it would be appropriate for them to go
0:41:35 > 0:41:40offshore?I think the most important message for the Honourable Lady's
0:41:40 > 0:41:44constituents are the merits of getting on top of tax avoidance and
0:41:44 > 0:41:47evasion and noncompliance, which is exactly what this government has
0:41:47 > 0:41:52done, which is raising vital taxes for our public services so that we
0:41:52 > 0:41:55can have the kind of public services that are a hallmark of a civilised
0:41:55 > 0:42:04society.Grahame Morris.Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think we probably need
0:42:04 > 0:42:08time out for a fact checked on the 6 billion tax cut figure the Minister
0:42:08 > 0:42:13is consistently quoting. I wonder, can I refer him to be Private
0:42:13 > 0:42:17Members Bill that was promoted by the Right Honourable Michael
0:42:17 > 0:42:24Meacham, which set out in detail plans for a general principle of tax
0:42:24 > 0:42:28avoidance. You can get round a rule but you can't get round a principal.
0:42:28 > 0:42:32That seems to be a solid and sensible way forward.The honourable
0:42:32 > 0:42:39member referred to £6 billion tax cut, it is not 6 billion, 86% of all
0:42:39 > 0:42:43tax which should be collected. In terms of there being a general
0:42:43 > 0:42:46principle or a general rule there is already a general anti-avoidance
0:42:46 > 0:42:49rule for exactly the purpose to which the honourable member has
0:42:49 > 0:42:59alluded -- a 6%.With the Minister recognised that with 100,000
0:42:59 > 0:43:05properties in the UK with £122 billion owned by overseas registered
0:43:05 > 0:43:08companies in the British Virgin Islands and Channel Islands and that
0:43:08 > 0:43:11represents a conservatively estimated £2 billion of tax
0:43:11 > 0:43:15avoidance every year, enough to close the benefits fraud gap in one
0:43:15 > 0:43:18fell swoop. What he recognised that is not just a conservative estimate,
0:43:18 > 0:43:21the third properties in the land register don't have property
0:43:21 > 0:43:26transaction data. Do you think it will be an opportune moment to
0:43:26 > 0:43:28ensure the land Registry have compulsory registration of land and
0:43:28 > 0:43:33property in the UK and values to understand the full scale of
0:43:33 > 0:43:37exploitation of UK land and property for tax avoidance purposes.This
0:43:37 > 0:43:40government has brought far more property into the scope of taxation
0:43:40 > 0:43:46than his party ever did in the 13 years in office so I really won't
0:43:46 > 0:43:52take any lectures on that point.I wouldn't want the honourable
0:43:52 > 0:44:01gentleman to get Uber excited.Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister has
0:44:01 > 0:44:05set out for us the reasons why the eye watering the rich would benefit
0:44:05 > 0:44:16from a tax haven. Can he explain to me why my average taxpayer in Eltham
0:44:16 > 0:44:19would benefit from this and why they should tolerate it in British
0:44:19 > 0:44:23Overseas Territories?The honourable member characterises those involved
0:44:23 > 0:44:28in overseas trusts being eye watering the rich, many of them are
0:44:28 > 0:44:35not, there are many pension funds and many who rely on those pension
0:44:35 > 0:44:42funds to lives and many of them indeed lives in his constituency. I
0:44:42 > 0:44:46think this general characterisation of it all being about super wealthy
0:44:46 > 0:44:50people, all being about tax dodgers etc, is rather crude and frankly not
0:44:50 > 0:44:59worthy of the opposition. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 130,000 UK
0:44:59 > 0:45:02companies have not completed their persons with significant control
0:45:02 > 0:45:07registers and not one of them has been fined. If we can get our own
0:45:07 > 0:45:11house in order how can we credibly get others to act on transparency?
0:45:11 > 0:45:15I'm quite happy to look into the specific point the honourable
0:45:15 > 0:45:21gentleman has raised and I will come back to him.I'm grateful.Point of
0:45:21 > 0:45:27order, Angela Rayner.Thank you, Mr Speaker. On a point of order, oral
0:45:27 > 0:45:29questions earlier today, the Secretary of State for Education
0:45:29 > 0:45:35told the House about her first class degree in economics. She went on to
0:45:35 > 0:45:39state that Labour's spending plans would lead to school budgets being
0:45:39 > 0:45:44absolutely frozen in cash terms. Now, Mr Speaker, I may not have the
0:45:44 > 0:45:48Secretary of State's economics degree but I think the Institute for
0:45:48 > 0:45:51Fiscal Studies certainly have a feud between them, and they said that our
0:45:51 > 0:45:57spending plans would reverse real terms cuts to spending per pupil
0:45:57 > 0:46:04since 2015 over the course of the next spending of around 4.8 billion.
0:46:04 > 0:46:07Mr Speaker, I am sure the Secretary of State didn't intend to mislead
0:46:07 > 0:46:12the House, so can you advise me on how I can seek a retraction and
0:46:12 > 0:46:16correction of this remark for the record?What I would say to the
0:46:16 > 0:46:18Shadow Secretary of State is every member of this House is responsible
0:46:18 > 0:46:23for the veracity of what he and she says to it. If a member believes
0:46:23 > 0:46:27that he or she has made a mistake, that member has a responsibility to
0:46:27 > 0:46:32correct the record. However, I would point out both for Members of the
0:46:32 > 0:46:36House and all others interested in our proceedings, that sometimes
0:46:36 > 0:46:40these matters are, let me put it this way, notably political, and
0:46:40 > 0:46:45there are issues of interpretation and of argument, notwithstanding the
0:46:45 > 0:46:51Shadow Leader of the House shaking her head frowning at me. That
0:46:51 > 0:46:55nevertheless remains the case. What I would say to the Honourable Lady
0:46:55 > 0:47:01was that if I didn't know her better than I do I would think that she was
0:47:01 > 0:47:05using the device of a point of order in a rather bogus way to continue
0:47:05 > 0:47:09the debate that had been taking place in education questions. But
0:47:09 > 0:47:12because I know her as well as I would do I can't believe she would
0:47:12 > 0:47:18be guilty of such impropriety and opportunism.Never!I am saving the
0:47:18 > 0:47:21honourable gentleman up, he is too precious to waste in the early
0:47:21 > 0:47:26proceedings. Point of order.In the questions in the Minister's
0:47:26 > 0:47:30responses to the statement just now, the Minister was asked for some
0:47:30 > 0:47:37information pertaining to the levels of the usage of offshore accounts
0:47:37 > 0:47:40and the Minister said he could not put his hands on that information
0:47:40 > 0:47:43immediately. Is there a method by which I could prevail upon the
0:47:43 > 0:47:48Minister to find the information and put it in the library? Or perhaps is
0:47:48 > 0:47:51there a way you could assist in having that information put in the
0:47:51 > 0:47:57library itself?I'm grateful for the honourable gentleman taking this
0:47:57 > 0:48:00opportunity. If the Minister genuinely didn't have it to hand but
0:48:00 > 0:48:04would otherwise be willing to provide it he may think it is a
0:48:04 > 0:48:08collegiate thing to do, to provide it, either to the honourable
0:48:08 > 0:48:12gentleman or to all members by depositing it in the library of the
0:48:12 > 0:48:16House. But the Minister isn't under any obligation to do that. He has
0:48:16 > 0:48:20always struck me as an agreeable fellow and he may think that is an
0:48:20 > 0:48:25agreeable thing to do. But if he doesn't it isn't a matter for chair
0:48:25 > 0:48:28sanction. The honourable gentleman has an indomitable spirit and if he
0:48:28 > 0:48:32doesn't get what he wants, I rather have a sense that he will be Peter
0:48:32 > 0:48:36Lim into the Table Office and tabling a flurry of questions to the
0:48:36 > 0:48:40Minister which the Minister might find rather irksome to have to
0:48:40 > 0:48:45answer, so he may think that this simple thing is to lob the material
0:48:45 > 0:48:48in the honourable gentleman's direction and that might find you
0:48:48 > 0:48:54satisfaction. Point of order, Matthew Pennycook.On a point of
0:48:54 > 0:48:58order, following last week's passing of omission of an imposed return
0:48:58 > 0:49:01with late the sectoral impact assessments carried out by the
0:49:01 > 0:49:05Department for exiting the European Union, the Secretary of State this
0:49:05 > 0:49:09afternoon wrote to the chair of the Brexit Select Committee to say, "It
0:49:09 > 0:49:13is not the case that 58 sectoral impact assessments exist. This
0:49:13 > 0:49:18despite the fact that the government has published a list of those 58
0:49:18 > 0:49:22sectors. He adds in his letter that it will take my department time to
0:49:22 > 0:49:25collate and bring together the information in a way that is
0:49:25 > 0:49:28accessible and informative for the committee. Mr Speaker, you made
0:49:28 > 0:49:34clear last week that the motion President suggesting was binding and
0:49:34 > 0:49:36effective and I'm concerned the government is not treating the
0:49:36 > 0:49:41motion for the House with the respect or seriousness it requires.
0:49:41 > 0:49:45Is still your opinion that this is a matter which should not... Something
0:49:45 > 0:49:51that should not be limited Dummett deliberated over over a period of
0:49:51 > 0:49:55days? If the government is seeking to take weeks to provide the
0:49:55 > 0:50:02information, what more can the House do to expedite this matter? And
0:50:02 > 0:50:05finally, is there a case for the Secretary of State to come to the
0:50:05 > 0:50:08House tomorrow to explain the handling of this matter by the
0:50:08 > 0:50:11Department?I thank the honourable gentleman for his point of order and
0:50:11 > 0:50:15characteristic courtesy giving the advanced notice of it. The motion
0:50:15 > 0:50:20passed on Wednesday obliges ministers to provide the Committee
0:50:20 > 0:50:24on Exiting the European Union with the impact assessments arising from
0:50:24 > 0:50:35sector analyses. That should be done very promptly indeed. Failing that,
0:50:35 > 0:50:40I expect ministers to explain to the House before we rise tomorrow
0:50:40 > 0:50:46evening why they have not provided them and when they propose to do so.
0:50:46 > 0:50:51I should say, and will out of courtesy to the Secretary of State
0:50:51 > 0:50:55and for the information of the House, that the Secretary of State
0:50:55 > 0:51:02has contacted me to say that the government will comply with the
0:51:02 > 0:51:18ruling from the chair, and by implication with uncontested vote by
0:51:18 > 0:51:21providing the material. Moreover, the Secretary of State offered me a
0:51:21 > 0:51:25sense, I had not asked for it there and then, but before I had even
0:51:25 > 0:51:29contemplated whether to ask for it, he offered me an indication of
0:51:29 > 0:51:35Whitey timescale. That was by way of him informing me. But I must say
0:51:35 > 0:51:43that informing me of an outline plan is one thing and I don't cavil on
0:51:43 > 0:51:47the Secretary of State for doing that, but importing Dummigan forming
0:51:47 > 0:51:50the House is another and the obligation is to the House. The
0:51:50 > 0:51:57House's interest in this will be protected by the Brexit Select
0:51:57 > 0:52:00Committee chaired by the Right Honourable gentleman the member for
0:52:00 > 0:52:06Leeds Central, who was elected by the whole house. I know that if he
0:52:06 > 0:52:10considers that his committee, and by extension the whole house, is not
0:52:10 > 0:52:17being treated with due respect, he will not be slow to alert the House
0:52:17 > 0:52:25and to seek redress. We may have to return to this matter very soon. My
0:52:25 > 0:52:31feeling is that the best course of action is for the government to set
0:52:31 > 0:52:40out in terms and in public its intended modus operandi and
0:52:40 > 0:52:46timescale.
0:52:46 > 0:52:46That must timescale.
0:52:46 > 0:52:46That must happen timescale.
0:52:46 > 0:52:46That must happen before timescale.
0:52:46 > 0:52:47That must happen before we timescale.
0:52:47 > 0:52:47That must happen before we rise timescale.
0:52:47 > 0:52:50That must happen before we rise tomorrow. Point of order, and a
0:52:50 > 0:52:54Subaru.Further to that point of order, would it be in order for
0:52:54 > 0:52:59members of this place to see a copy of this letter and compare it with
0:52:59 > 0:53:04Hansard? I did not sit in for the entirety of the debate, 90% of it,
0:53:04 > 0:53:10and I do not recollect any Minister saying there were 58 papers and it
0:53:10 > 0:53:13would take it very long time to collate them in any event. I think
0:53:13 > 0:53:17it would help to compare Hansard to the contents of the letter.
0:53:17 > 0:53:24The answer to to the right honourable lady to whom I am
0:53:24 > 0:53:27grateful, that is a matter that is in the hands of the Secretary of
0:53:27 > 0:53:31State. The Secretary of State has written to the chair of the Brexit
0:53:31 > 0:53:34Select Committee and the Secretary of State courteously and properly
0:53:34 > 0:53:40copied me in on that correspondence. Whether the right honourable
0:53:40 > 0:53:45gentleman wishes to furnish a copy to the right honourable lady is a
0:53:45 > 0:53:52matter for him. Now, he may readily do so. The Secretary of State is a
0:53:52 > 0:53:58fearless fellow, X SAS and all the rest of it. On the other hand, he
0:53:58 > 0:54:04may view the right honourable lady, I say this in all courtesy, with
0:54:04 > 0:54:09very considerable trepidation. I don't know, that is a matter for the
0:54:09 > 0:54:12Secretary of State to judge. He may wish to release the letter. But I
0:54:12 > 0:54:18rather imagine by one means or the other, and knowing the right
0:54:18 > 0:54:25honourable lady, she will discover the contents of that letter. We will
0:54:25 > 0:54:30leave it there, for now. If there are no further points of order, my
0:54:30 > 0:54:35appetite has been satisfied at least for today. We come to the Secretary
0:54:35 > 0:54:37of State for communities and local Goodman and his statement.Sajid
0:54:37 > 0:54:42Javid. With permission, Mr Speaker, I would
0:54:42 > 0:54:45like to make his statement on the independent recovery task force
0:54:45 > 0:54:49working with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in the wake
0:54:49 > 0:54:53of the tragic fire in June at Grenfell Tower. The people of North
0:54:53 > 0:54:57Kensington had been failed by those who were supposed to serve them, by
0:54:57 > 0:55:01a system that allowed the buyer to happen and once again, by a sluggish
0:55:01 > 0:55:08and chaotic response in the immediate aftermath. It was clear
0:55:08 > 0:55:12that if RBKC was to get a grip on the situation and reach gained the
0:55:12 > 0:55:17trust of residence, it would have to gain the trust of the residents.
0:55:17 > 0:55:21There was a change in leadership of the Council, new support brought in
0:55:21 > 0:55:25from other councils and from central government. To insure that this
0:55:25 > 0:55:29translated into better service for the victims and people of North
0:55:29 > 0:55:32Kensington and to assure me that the council will be capable of
0:55:32 > 0:55:37delivering, I announced on the 5th of July that I was sending in a
0:55:37 > 0:55:43specialist independent task force. Made up of experts in housing, local
0:55:43 > 0:55:47Goodman, public services and community engagement. I deliberately
0:55:47 > 0:55:49appointed independent minded individuals who would not hesitate
0:55:49 > 0:55:55to speak their minds. I have received the first report from the
0:55:55 > 0:55:59task force, reflecting on its first nine weeks on the ground. The report
0:55:59 > 0:56:02has been shared with the right honourable gentleman opposite and I
0:56:02 > 0:56:05will be placing copies in the library of the House and it will be
0:56:05 > 0:56:09published in full on the website. It is clear from the report that
0:56:09 > 0:56:14progress is being made. Much-needed change has happened and continues to
0:56:14 > 0:56:18happen. The council today is a very different organisation from the one
0:56:18 > 0:56:25that failed these people so badly back in June. And the task force is
0:56:25 > 0:56:29satisfied that RBKC, under its new leadership, recognises the
0:56:29 > 0:56:32challenges it faces and is committed to delivering a comprehensive
0:56:32 > 0:56:36recovery programme. For that reason, they do not see any practical
0:56:36 > 0:56:40advantage for further intervention at this time, which would risk
0:56:40 > 0:56:45further disruption. But while the green shoots back, the report pulls
0:56:45 > 0:56:47no punches about the fact there is still significant room for
0:56:47 > 0:56:52improvement. The task force has identified four key areas in which
0:56:52 > 0:56:57the council need to step up. The first is pace. The speed of delivery
0:56:57 > 0:57:01needs to be increased, more work needs to be done more quickly. The
0:57:01 > 0:57:05second is innovation. The scale and impact of the buyout was
0:57:05 > 0:57:11unprecedented in recent history, but RBKC is relying too much on tried
0:57:11 > 0:57:15and tested solutions not up to the task. The council should be much
0:57:15 > 0:57:19braver in its response. The third area is skills. Too much of the
0:57:19 > 0:57:23officers and councils work on the response lacks specialist training
0:57:23 > 0:57:28in how to work with a traumatised community, this needs to change. The
0:57:28 > 0:57:32final area, arguably the most important, is a need for greater
0:57:32 > 0:57:37empathy and emotional intelligence. The people of Grenfell Tower,
0:57:37 > 0:57:40Grenfell Tabak walk and the wider community have already suffered so
0:57:40 > 0:57:45much, yet the task force has heard too many accounts of the suffering
0:57:45 > 0:57:49compounded by bureaucratic resources that are not appropriate when so
0:57:49 > 0:57:52many deeply traumatised men, women and children have complex individual
0:57:52 > 0:57:58needs. So a greater degree of humanity must be put at the heart of
0:57:58 > 0:58:05all of RBKC's recovery work. I have discussed these recommendations with
0:58:05 > 0:58:08the council's leadership and they have accepted them all, without
0:58:08 > 0:58:14question. Culture change is never quick or easy to achieve in any
0:58:14 > 0:58:18organisation, but I am in no doubt that the leadership and the staff of
0:58:18 > 0:58:23RBKC genuinely do want to do better. It is their community as well and
0:58:23 > 0:58:27they desperately want to help it heal. I am particularly encouraged
0:58:27 > 0:58:31that the Council are now during an NHS expertise to secure specific
0:58:31 > 0:58:36training for those front line staff responsible for providing direct
0:58:36 > 0:58:40support to survivors. I have assured the Council that I will continue to
0:58:40 > 0:58:44support them in building capacity. But I also made it clear that my
0:58:44 > 0:58:50support will not be uncritical or unqualified. I expect to see swift,
0:58:50 > 0:58:53effective action to deal with all the issues highlighted in the
0:58:53 > 0:58:58report. I am not taking any options off the table, if progress is not
0:58:58 > 0:59:02made, I shall continue to monitor the situation closely. Until now,
0:59:02 > 0:59:07one aspect of that monitoring has involved weekly meetings chaired by
0:59:07 > 0:59:12myself that bring together ministers from across government and senior
0:59:12 > 0:59:17colleagues from RBKC. Although these have proved effective, the tax force
0:59:17 > 0:59:19expresses concern that meeting so often is becoming to become that is
0:59:19 > 0:59:23beginning to become counter-productive and the time to
0:59:23 > 0:59:27prepare is cutting into the time available for front line work. So
0:59:27 > 0:59:30the report recommends that we meet less often. I have accepted this
0:59:30 > 0:59:34recommendation. But let me reassure the House that this does not mean
0:59:34 > 0:59:39that our priorities are shifting elsewhere or the level of scrutiny
0:59:39 > 0:59:43is being reduced. It is simply a matter of ensuring time and
0:59:43 > 0:59:46resources will be focused to the maximum on those affected by the
0:59:46 > 0:59:51fire. One area to which the House knows I have been paying particular
0:59:51 > 0:59:55close attention is the rehousing of those that have lost their homes in
0:59:55 > 1:00:01the fire. I have always been clear that rehousing must proceed at a
1:00:01 > 1:00:05pace that represents the needs, the once and situations of survivors,
1:00:05 > 1:00:09but I have always been adamant the bureaucratic inertia must not add
1:00:09 > 1:00:15the delay. Clearly, some progress is being made. The latest figures but I
1:00:15 > 1:00:21have from RBKC that 122 households out of a total of 204 have accepted
1:00:21 > 1:00:26an offer of either temporary or permanent accommodation. 73 of these
1:00:26 > 1:00:31have now moved in, of which 47 households have moved into temporary
1:00:31 > 1:00:35accommodation and 26 have moved into permanent accommodation. However,
1:00:35 > 1:00:38the report is also clear that the process is simply not moving as
1:00:38 > 1:00:45quickly as it should. RBKC's latest figures show that 131 Grenfell
1:00:45 > 1:00:48households still live in emergency accommodation. Behind every one of
1:00:48 > 1:00:53these numbers are human faces. There can be no doubt that there are
1:00:53 > 1:00:58families who desperately want a new home, but for whom progress has been
1:00:58 > 1:01:02painfully slow. Almost five months after the fire, this must improve.
1:01:02 > 1:01:06Responsibility for re-homing ultimately lies with RBKC, however
1:01:06 > 1:01:10in Central governors, we cannot shy away from our share of the
1:01:10 > 1:01:14responsibility. I expect the council in line with the task force report
1:01:14 > 1:01:18to do whatever is necessary to ensure households can move into
1:01:18 > 1:01:23settled homes as as possible. I will continue to do all I can to ensure
1:01:23 > 1:01:29that this is done. When I announced the creation of the task force, I
1:01:29 > 1:01:33said it would stay in place for as long as it was needed. Based on this
1:01:33 > 1:01:38first report, there is still much more to be done, so the task force
1:01:38 > 1:01:42will remain for the foreseeable future. I have asked the task force
1:01:42 > 1:01:46to ensure that proper action is taken on all the fronts they
1:01:46 > 1:01:49identify and come back to me in the New Year with a further update,
1:01:49 > 1:01:54which I will of course share with this House. I must, of course, bank
1:01:54 > 1:02:03of four members of the task force for their tireless efforts so far.
1:02:03 > 1:02:09Mr Speaker, this weekend, I read the Right Reverend James Jones's
1:02:09 > 1:02:14excellent report on the appalling experiences of those who lost loved
1:02:14 > 1:02:19ones in the Hillsborough Disaster. It is a sobering piece of work.
1:02:19 > 1:02:23Reminder that, and I quote, the way in which families bereaved through
1:02:23 > 1:02:27public tragedy are treated by those in authority is in itself a burning
1:02:27 > 1:02:34injustice. We saw that all too clearly in the hours and the days
1:02:34 > 1:02:39after the Grenfell fire. The clock cannot be turned back, the woeful
1:02:39 > 1:02:43inadequacies of the early response cannot be undone. But I can say once
1:02:43 > 1:02:48again that as long as I am in public life, and will do all I can to
1:02:48 > 1:02:52ensure that the failures of the past are not repeated and that the people
1:02:52 > 1:02:56of Grenfell Tower get the help the support that they deserve. The
1:02:56 > 1:03:00Hillsborough family is had to fight for a quarter of a century to get
1:03:00 > 1:03:04their voices heard. To be taken seriously, be treated properly by
1:03:04 > 1:03:09those in authority. We cannot allow that to happen again. I will not
1:03:09 > 1:03:13allow it to happen again. The public enquiry established by the Prime
1:03:13 > 1:03:16Minister will play the major role, but for its part, I am confident
1:03:16 > 1:03:20that the continued work of the task force will help ensure that the
1:03:20 > 1:03:29survivors receive the support and the respect they deserve. Thank you.
1:03:29 > 1:03:32Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State for the
1:03:32 > 1:03:36advance copy of his statement this afternoon. I also wish to join with
1:03:36 > 1:03:41him in banking the members of the Grenfell task force for producing
1:03:41 > 1:03:46this report -- banking. On all sides of the House, we recognise the
1:03:46 > 1:03:50totally avoidable tragedy at Grenfell and also an official
1:03:50 > 1:03:54response that was not good enough. The support on the ground for
1:03:54 > 1:03:57families who needed help or basic information in the initial hours was
1:03:57 > 1:04:04not provided for by the council. The council was too distant from the
1:04:04 > 1:04:08residents it serves and it meant that there was little effective and
1:04:08 > 1:04:15structured support from RBKC at a time when the residents needed it
1:04:15 > 1:04:20the most. Instead, support came from the many volunteers, charities,
1:04:20 > 1:04:25emergency services and aid workers. And as we know only too well,
1:04:25 > 1:04:30without them, the situation would have been much worse. But for many
1:04:30 > 1:04:33survivors, the situation is far more bleak than the information provided
1:04:33 > 1:04:39to us to Dave by the Secretary of State. Can he personally confirm
1:04:39 > 1:04:43that figures that have been presented to do not include people
1:04:43 > 1:04:47from the property surrounding the tower, in the three walkway
1:04:47 > 1:04:52buildings? Mr Speaker, residents of Barrington were up, Hurst Way walk
1:04:52 > 1:04:57and tested to walk did not run out off a burning building, but they
1:04:57 > 1:05:02still lived through an unimaginable tragedy and they still saw
1:05:02 > 1:05:07unspeakable things. My understanding from the council's figures is that
1:05:07 > 1:05:12if we are to include these additional people made homeless from
1:05:12 > 1:05:18the fire, dream and 76 households were made homeless comprising 857
1:05:18 > 1:05:23people. 311 of these households are in bed and breakfast accommodation
1:05:23 > 1:05:30and 87 households in temporary accommodation. I asked the Secretary
1:05:30 > 1:05:34of State in future will provide the full data and providing an update to
1:05:34 > 1:05:39the House including a full account of the numbers made homeless and
1:05:39 > 1:05:42progress made in rehousing survivors. There are also additional
1:05:42 > 1:05:49issues for those in the walkway blocks under the suggested rehousing
1:05:49 > 1:05:52policy from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Tenants
1:05:52 > 1:05:56would not be given priority for rehousing while remaining in bed and
1:05:56 > 1:06:01breakfast accommodation.
1:06:01 > 1:06:05I agree with them, it means that they would either be required to
1:06:05 > 1:06:09move into temporary accommodation or back in to their old home
1:06:09 > 1:06:14overlooking the tower, having to relive the tragedy every day.
1:06:14 > 1:06:20Even then, priority for housing will be removed if residents reject two
1:06:20 > 1:06:23offers, leaving some residents fearing they would be made
1:06:23 > 1:06:29intentionally homeless. Hotel accommodation is not a substitute
1:06:29 > 1:06:35for a home, especially after such a traumatic event and there are
1:06:35 > 1:06:43growing concerns ant people beginning to lose hope. Mr Speaker,
1:06:43 > 1:06:51Dr John Green said last week that he had found 667 adults in urgent need
1:06:51 > 1:06:57for treatment, for post-traumatic stress disorder. 360 are undergoing
1:06:57 > 1:07:03treatment. The capacity issues we often see nationwide are amplified
1:07:03 > 1:07:08here at times of tramming disuch as this. The it is a, force reports
1:07:08 > 1:07:13that -- tragedy. Describing how support services are stretched, and
1:07:13 > 1:07:18there have been issues reported by survives on the appropriateness
1:07:18 > 1:07:23accessibility and lack of cultural and faith seasonstivety. Fundamental
1:07:23 > 1:07:28problems remain with NHS staff being unable to get timely and accurate
1:07:28 > 1:07:33location lists from the council, so will the Secretary of State
1:07:33 > 1:07:36recognise that the impacts of this tragedy go beyond those within the
1:07:36 > 1:07:41tower, and ensure that steps are taken to ensure that severely
1:07:41 > 1:07:46traumatised people have the support they need, and are not facing an
1:07:46 > 1:07:52unnecessary burden none finding somewhere safe to live. The
1:07:52 > 1:07:55Government conceded the failure of Kensington and Chelsea Council was
1:07:55 > 1:08:00real, and they sent this taskforce in, yet the Government also left the
1:08:00 > 1:08:05council in charge, something that we on this side of the House strongly
1:08:05 > 1:08:10cautioned against. Now we welcome the four key findings of the
1:08:10 > 1:08:14taskforce as a way to rebuild public trust in the council but the
1:08:14 > 1:08:18Secretary of State says he will continue to monitor the situation
1:08:18 > 1:08:23closely, but with his announcement of fewer meetings and I understand
1:08:23 > 1:08:28the reasons for that, between his ministers, the council and the
1:08:28 > 1:08:34taskforce, how will he ensure that the level of scrutiny, that is so
1:08:34 > 1:08:38desperately needed going forward, will not be reduced. Now it is worth
1:08:38 > 1:08:43noting that in contrast to the findings of the task force, and the
1:08:43 > 1:08:50comments of the Secretary of State said, that the leader of the
1:08:50 > 1:08:54council, Councillor Campbell praised the response from the council,
1:08:54 > 1:08:56describing their efforts at the immediate response as being
1:08:56 > 1:09:02incredible. Frankly, I find those comments incredible. So not
1:09:02 > 1:09:07withstanding the view of the Task Force, of a significant change in
1:09:07 > 1:09:11the senior leadership team, it appears that little has changed
1:09:11 > 1:09:16between the gap of the council leadership, and the communities they
1:09:16 > 1:09:22seek to represent. It is still far too distant. Finally children are
1:09:22 > 1:09:29still being failed by this council. 227 children are still in testimony
1:09:29 > 1:09:34preaccommodation following the fire. While not all of them have been
1:09:34 > 1:09:39there for nearly five months, some will have been. The Secretary of
1:09:39 > 1:09:44State will, of course, by a wear of the six week legal limit on
1:09:44 > 1:09:45emergency bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families with
1:09:45 > 1:09:51children. The taskforce recognised this in its report, describing a
1:09:51 > 1:09:55distinct weakness in the response of the council. Will the Secretary of
1:09:55 > 1:09:59State please clarify, if it is his view, that the council has failed in
1:09:59 > 1:10:04their statutory obligations to their residents, and the 227 children
1:10:04 > 1:10:08still in emergency accommodation, and if he does, what further actions
1:10:08 > 1:10:12will he be taking against the council, and more urgently, to help
1:10:12 > 1:10:17families. We are 145 days on since the
1:10:17 > 1:10:21dreadful fire and yet it appears that many of the promises that were
1:10:21 > 1:10:25so hastily made, are still not being actioned quickly enough. Without the
1:10:25 > 1:10:33full use of the Secretary of State's powers to rectify the inadequate
1:10:33 > 1:10:35governance arrangements at Kensington and Chelsea Council, will
1:10:35 > 1:10:39is still a long way to go before the local community will feel any trust
1:10:39 > 1:10:44in their council again. Secretary of State.Mr Speaker,
1:10:44 > 1:10:47thank you, can I first thank the honourable gentleman for his
1:10:47 > 1:10:52comments and also for his support of the members of the taskforce which I
1:10:52 > 1:10:57very much welcome. He raised a number of issue, let me begin round
1:10:57 > 1:11:01rehousing and the honourable gentleman talked about the walk-way,
1:11:01 > 1:11:05so-called walkways, first of all I am sure the honourable member and
1:11:05 > 1:11:10the House will understand that from day one the priority in terms of
1:11:10 > 1:11:15rehoursing have been the victim, who have permanently lost their homes
1:11:15 > 1:11:23but at the same time, working with those in the walk-way, many of those
1:11:23 > 1:11:27initially their homes were unIran habitable and many required support,
1:11:27 > 1:11:31including emotional and mental health support. The council and
1:11:31 > 1:11:37others have been working with people in the walk-way, providing them with
1:11:37 > 1:11:41whatever support is needed, he raised the issue of a number of
1:11:41 > 1:11:45people from the walk-way, still in emergency accommodation hotel rooms.
1:11:45 > 1:11:51I can tell him the latest informs I have is there are 161 hotel rooms
1:11:51 > 1:11:55occupied by residents of the walkways, there were a lot more, I
1:11:55 > 1:12:01think it was one point closer to 300 room, so the number is thankfully
1:12:01 > 1:12:06coming down, many people have moved back in to their homes, and a number
1:12:06 > 1:12:10of people have said that they are not ready to move back or in some
1:12:10 > 1:12:16cases they have said they don't want to move back in to their own home,
1:12:16 > 1:12:20and the council rightly has accepted that, if no-one, if will is anyone
1:12:20 > 1:12:25from the walkways they doesn't want to move back to their previous
1:12:25 > 1:12:29accommodation, that should be listened to, nobody should be forced
1:12:29 > 1:12:37to move back. The honourable gentleman also raised
1:12:37 > 1:12:43the issue of rightly so of emotional support, that is one of the most
1:12:43 > 1:12:49important areas of support for people where they where Grenfell
1:12:49 > 1:12:52Tower, Grenfell Walkways or the walk-ways of the larger community,
1:12:52 > 1:12:58that is where the NHS, the CCG, the other councils, the and the
1:12:58 > 1:13:01voluntary groups have been involved. The honourable gentleman will know
1:13:01 > 1:13:07that there has been considerable support for example through the 247
1:13:07 > 1:13:11dedicated NHS hotline, there have been outreach effort, almost 4,000
1:13:11 > 1:13:15contacts have been made in outreach there is support in hotels with
1:13:15 > 1:13:19emotional support in 13 of the hotels. Much available across the
1:13:19 > 1:13:23night, as well as funding for community group, including ridges
1:13:23 > 1:13:26you groups and others to make sure that support can be provided in all
1:13:26 > 1:13:29ways to all members of the community. One thing I would ask for
1:13:29 > 1:13:33a couple of weeks ago, was for a round table with, including
1:13:33 > 1:13:37voluntary groups and the NHS and others that have been providing the
1:13:37 > 1:13:44support to Mick sure we looked at all options of support and provided
1:13:44 > 1:13:50every way question, last week reported back to my through my
1:13:50 > 1:13:54ministerial taskforce we have taken up any of the recommendations to
1:13:54 > 1:14:00make sure we are providing the emotional support. The honourable
1:14:00 > 1:14:05gentleman talked about support for children, he is right to highlight
1:14:05 > 1:14:09that, and he will know in terms of the housing, the rehousing policy
1:14:09 > 1:14:14that the council set out, consulted with, survives and set it out
1:14:14 > 1:14:17through a consultation process, that there is a priority system in
1:14:17 > 1:14:20players I am sure he understands that the priority in terms of
1:14:20 > 1:14:23permanent homes has been those families who have been bereaved,
1:14:23 > 1:14:28whether they have had children or not, and then also, next is any
1:14:28 > 1:14:32family with children, that also includes support through education
1:14:32 > 1:14:38alservices and he may know for example that the Kensington school
1:14:38 > 1:14:41that was, wasn't available, the original school building because of
1:14:41 > 1:14:46the fire, the school was rebuilt as a temporary building. It re-opened
1:14:46 > 1:14:51again on time in September, that is as far as I know, that is the
1:14:51 > 1:14:55fastest school building programme that has ever been chived. I mention
1:14:55 > 1:14:59that as a demonstration to show how far we need to go to do everything
1:14:59 > 1:15:04we can to support the council, the DFE and others in helping children
1:15:04 > 1:15:10as well. Lastly, the honourable gentleman raised the issues of the
1:15:10 > 1:15:17findings of the report, he asked how will we retain scrutiny? I make it
1:15:17 > 1:15:22clear, I want, the all members of the House are independent, as you
1:15:22 > 1:15:25would expect very independently minded in their approach to this and
1:15:25 > 1:15:29I think it was important to listen to the recommendations and then most
1:15:29 > 1:15:34important act on them. I am glad the council have said and they are
1:15:34 > 1:15:38publishing a report today, making it clear they have accepted every
1:15:38 > 1:15:41single one of the recommendations that came from the members of the
1:15:41 > 1:15:45task force and I have accepted every recommendation that applies to
1:15:45 > 1:15:51central Government. One of their recommendations was to have the
1:15:51 > 1:15:54Ministry of taskforce meet less frequently for the reasons I said,
1:15:54 > 1:15:57and I have scened for the reasons they have given, to ignore that
1:15:57 > 1:16:02would have not been the right approach, having said that, it is
1:16:02 > 1:16:06absolutely right we maintain scrutiny, so my taskforce will
1:16:06 > 1:16:10continue to meet the ministerial taskforce, he will know alongside
1:16:10 > 1:16:15that the members of my department are working both in the council with
1:16:15 > 1:16:19taskforce members and other, the taskforce work continue, they are
1:16:19 > 1:16:23meeting regularly with the council, the council officers and community
1:16:23 > 1:16:30representative, he will also know that my honourable friend is the
1:16:30 > 1:16:35minister is the Grenfell victims minister and meet almost weekly with
1:16:35 > 1:16:40victims and the housing minister has regular surgeryings as well with the
1:16:40 > 1:16:45victims. -- surgeries. Thank you you. As the chair of a
1:16:45 > 1:16:49board of a housing association in the west hid lands, fire safety is
1:16:49 > 1:16:56at the top of my agenda, so I met recently with Brian Softly to talk
1:16:56 > 1:17:04about his recommendations to improve fire door safety, wondered if of my
1:17:04 > 1:17:12could update us. -- my right honourable friend. What
1:17:12 > 1:17:17I can tell my honourable friend at this point, is that the review's
1:17:17 > 1:17:23work has begun and there was a call for evidence from Dame Hackett, the
1:17:23 > 1:17:29leader of the review, she has had, I believe, almost 300 responses to
1:17:29 > 1:17:32that call for evidence, much will be round fire safety. I have not seen
1:17:32 > 1:17:36any of that because it is an independent review, I I know she is
1:17:36 > 1:17:41looking at the issue, including that of fire doors very carefully.
1:17:41 > 1:17:46Thank you. Can I start by thank the Secretary of State for his statement
1:17:46 > 1:17:51and I join him and the Shadow Secretary in thanking the taskforce
1:17:51 > 1:17:57members for their work. The report recogniseds that the people of
1:17:57 > 1:18:04Grenfell were failed, including by a sluggish response in the aftermath.
1:18:04 > 1:18:10Can I ask about two issue, the first relates to rehouse, I share the
1:18:10 > 1:18:16dismay about the painfully slow state of progress. The Secretary of
1:18:16 > 1:18:19State recognised it, so I can I ask him there are sufficient staff
1:18:19 > 1:18:23working on this, and resources being invested, our families, having
1:18:23 > 1:18:27sufficient opportunities to meet face to face with staff to discuss
1:18:27 > 1:18:31options rather than being left althrown search for possible
1:18:31 > 1:18:34opportunities and what support will they provide for increases housing
1:18:34 > 1:18:39costs if that is what it takes to find suitable accommodation? There
1:18:39 > 1:18:45have been criticisms of the nature of some the offer, can he tell us
1:18:45 > 1:18:49how many have been refused because properties were located too far from
1:18:49 > 1:18:53the previous home and how many have been refused adds suentable?
1:18:53 > 1:18:58Secondly on the issue of immigration, amnesty it is welcome
1:18:58 > 1:19:03the Home Office have strengthened a very micely offer to include the
1:19:03 > 1:19:08prospect of indefinite live. Why not allow for indefinite leave right
1:19:08 > 1:19:13now? Surely that is the only way to ensure all survivors feel able and
1:19:13 > 1:19:18safe to take up the support any need hand is simply the right thing do in
1:19:18 > 1:19:27these tragic circumstances. Can I firstly, the honourable
1:19:27 > 1:19:30gentleman asked ability house, am I satisfied there are enough resources
1:19:30 > 1:19:35for staff and all the resources that the council needs available for
1:19:35 > 1:19:38housing, including support from other councils and from Government
1:19:38 > 1:19:42are there, they are in place, and I don't think it is an issue of not
1:19:42 > 1:19:47having enough people on tb ground to work on housing needs, the
1:19:47 > 1:19:50honourable gentleman asked about cost, cost is is not an issue at
1:19:50 > 1:19:55all. The council itself has already made a think some £230 million of
1:19:55 > 1:20:00its re s available to acquire new property, I can tell the House that
1:20:00 > 1:20:05the council has significant increase in the number of new properties that
1:20:05 > 1:20:08it has acquired is over 300 and they continue to add to that list, and
1:20:08 > 1:20:13they will continue to do so for the foreseeable weeks and months ahead.
1:20:13 > 1:20:18The honourable gentleman asked me about the changes that we have
1:20:18 > 1:20:25announced on the immigration system, to help the Grenfell victims the, of
1:20:25 > 1:20:28Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk. The announcement by the Immigration
1:20:28 > 1:20:32Minister was welcome. It is the right response that gives certainty
1:20:32 > 1:20:41and comfort to the families. Thank you. The tragedy at Grenfell
1:20:41 > 1:20:45Tower will hopefully provide us with some opportunities to learn some
1:20:45 > 1:20:51very serious lesson, will he ensure that the lessons learned about the
1:20:51 > 1:20:59immediate response, about working with volunteers, and the lessons
1:20:59 > 1:21:03that the taskforce harvest are circulated to other local
1:21:03 > 1:21:07authorities via London councils, the London Government association, to
1:21:07 > 1:21:11the London resilience forum and also other local resilience forums so we
1:21:11 > 1:21:20never have such a sluggish response to a tragedy of this scale again.
1:21:20 > 1:21:25I agree very much with my honourable friend and of course, when it comes
1:21:25 > 1:21:28to London governance, my honourable friend speaks with great experience.
1:21:28 > 1:21:32I think certainly, one of the lessons learned from this tragedy
1:21:32 > 1:21:37will be to help is, not just those in London, but is in terms of their
1:21:37 > 1:21:44resilience and response to any emergency civilian crisis that they
1:21:44 > 1:21:49might face. That process is certainly going on.
1:21:49 > 1:21:52The Secretary of State is quite rightly concentrating on the human
1:21:52 > 1:21:58face and cost of this tragedy, and I pay credit to him for that. But
1:21:58 > 1:22:02structure is also important. Every day, thousands upon thousands of
1:22:02 > 1:22:05people on the Hammersmith and city line, the Western Avenue, have to
1:22:05 > 1:22:13see this smoke, blackened, vertical House jutting into the sky. Local
1:22:13 > 1:22:16people say to me, on the one hand, they would like to see the building
1:22:16 > 1:22:21dropped and maybe some sort of manorial park built, and others say
1:22:21 > 1:22:25when it is no longer a crime scene, it must be made habitable again.
1:22:25 > 1:22:29Does the Secretary of State have a view and, more importantly, does he
1:22:29 > 1:22:34intends to consult the local community for a long-term use of the
1:22:34 > 1:22:38site of Grenfell Tower? What happens to the site of course
1:22:38 > 1:22:45is very important and also very sensitive. What ultimately matters
1:22:45 > 1:22:48is not my view or the honourable gentleman's view, if I may say that,
1:22:48 > 1:22:53but the views of the community and particularly the survivors. The
1:22:53 > 1:22:57survivors are being consulted and that consultation will continue. My
1:22:57 > 1:23:05view is nothing should happen until survivors far and wide have been
1:23:05 > 1:23:08consulted and their views taken into account. There is a difference of
1:23:08 > 1:23:13views among survivors. That has come out recently in engagement the
1:23:13 > 1:23:16council has had, it is important to keep up that engagement and to
1:23:16 > 1:23:23listen to them very, very carefully. Could I first applaud the meticulous
1:23:23 > 1:23:26approach the Secretary of State has taken over this? And the insightful
1:23:26 > 1:23:30report is brought to the chamber today, a great deal of work has gone
1:23:30 > 1:23:34into that. One area in particular highlighted is the need for better
1:23:34 > 1:23:39skills within the Council, so could the accepted state just outline what
1:23:39 > 1:23:44skills he believes should be used to deliver and help with the aftermath
1:23:44 > 1:23:46of this tragedy and what this Government is doing to help towards
1:23:46 > 1:23:53that?A bank my honourable friend for her comments and she's right
1:23:53 > 1:23:57that this is one of the key recommendations of the task force
1:23:57 > 1:24:00members. They have taught about that in detail. One area they have
1:24:00 > 1:24:04highlighted is skills. Not appropriate training for the
1:24:04 > 1:24:11officers, but also, they talk about the councillors and making sure for
1:24:11 > 1:24:15example that counsellors, as well as key officers, have had training in
1:24:15 > 1:24:20emotional support services. I think that is one of the most important
1:24:20 > 1:24:23takeaways from this report and I am very pleased the council have boy
1:24:23 > 1:24:27except the best and the other recommendations.
1:24:27 > 1:24:34-- have accepted this. It breaks my heart that these people, many of
1:24:34 > 1:24:44them, over two thirds of them will not be housed by Christmas. And that
1:24:44 > 1:24:52the task force has found the council so inept, isn't it right that he
1:24:52 > 1:24:55should have brought in Commissioners, given that
1:24:55 > 1:24:58circumstance? What guarantees can he now give to those families that they
1:24:58 > 1:25:04will be housed? The general tone of the day's statement has liked the
1:25:04 > 1:25:12kind of urgency and compassion that is still required.Where I agree
1:25:12 > 1:25:16with the honourable gentleman is he races the importance of housing and
1:25:16 > 1:25:22rehousing, that is absolutely right and a priority. I don't agree with
1:25:22 > 1:25:28his recommendations. To have brought in commissioners would have made
1:25:28 > 1:25:32what is already a tough situation even more difficult, in terms of
1:25:32 > 1:25:37helping the victims of this tragedy. And I would ask the honourable
1:25:37 > 1:25:40gentleman, the right honourable gentleman, to reflect on the fact
1:25:40 > 1:25:43that whatever happens in housing must be led by the victims. First,
1:25:43 > 1:25:48he will note that there were 151 households in Grenfell Tower and
1:25:48 > 1:25:53Grenfell Tower walk and there are now 204 to deal with because many
1:25:53 > 1:25:57have wanted to change their family structure and that has been listened
1:25:57 > 1:26:03to. It is very important the rehousing is done at the pace of the
1:26:03 > 1:26:07victims and they'll given choices for example and if they are not
1:26:07 > 1:26:11happy with the choices, they'll given more choices and that process
1:26:11 > 1:26:14continues. No family should be forced to leave the emergency
1:26:14 > 1:26:18accommodation and they should only leave when they are happy with what
1:26:18 > 1:26:22is being offered and it is right that we listen to the victims during
1:26:22 > 1:26:30the rehousing process. I was very pleased to hear that the
1:26:30 > 1:26:34council has accepted that task force's recommendations in full, but
1:26:34 > 1:26:37how quickly will those recommendations be implemented and
1:26:37 > 1:26:44what of the site will there be of that?-- oversight. The council
1:26:44 > 1:26:49accepted the recommendations very quickly and did not take much time
1:26:49 > 1:26:52to consider them. They had a meeting, they accepted every single
1:26:52 > 1:26:56one of them, and that is a good start. In terms of how it will be
1:26:56 > 1:27:01monitored, task force itself will help to oversee that and report back
1:27:01 > 1:27:06to me again in the New Year. But also, to my department and
1:27:06 > 1:27:08officials, I will oversee each one of those recommendations and make
1:27:08 > 1:27:16sure they are fulfilled. Can the Secretary of State outline
1:27:16 > 1:27:20what is being done for those suffering with post-traumatic stress
1:27:20 > 1:27:24disorder following this tragedy and explain how they are being fully
1:27:24 > 1:27:33supported?What I can tell the honourable lady is that the
1:27:33 > 1:27:35psychosocial support and emotional support is one of the most important
1:27:35 > 1:27:41things that is being offered and it is being offered by to read the NHS
1:27:41 > 1:27:46and voluntary services. As well as other organisations. I wanted to
1:27:46 > 1:27:53make sure that everything that is being done is appropriate and is
1:27:53 > 1:27:57offered at pace, that is why I had this recent round table which was
1:27:57 > 1:28:00attended by the Health Minister and the Grant Nel victims Minister to
1:28:00 > 1:28:05make sure we are reaching out in every way we can -- the Grenfell
1:28:05 > 1:28:11Tower two is. It needs change over time and I am determined to do that.
1:28:11 > 1:28:17Can the Minister confirm that those affected directly and indirectly by
1:28:17 > 1:28:20the tragedy are being properly listen to and are the ministers in
1:28:20 > 1:28:30regular contact with big individuals and groups?Yes, I can confirm that.
1:28:30 > 1:28:34They must be listened to by the Council and other providers of
1:28:34 > 1:28:38public services, including central government itself and my department
1:28:38 > 1:28:45and others. And he will know that my honourable friend is the Minister
1:28:45 > 1:28:48for Grenfell Tower it in is and meets regularly with the victims and
1:28:48 > 1:28:54the wider community. -- the Grenfell victims. And the Housing Minister
1:28:54 > 1:28:58meets regularly with those on the rehousing needs as well as the
1:28:58 > 1:29:04meetings I have regularly myself.I welcome the words that as long as I
1:29:04 > 1:29:09am in public life, I will do all I can to ensure that the failures of
1:29:09 > 1:29:17the past are not repeated. Have we learned the lessons from other
1:29:17 > 1:29:19fires, these lessons would have been learnt before these tragedies
1:29:19 > 1:29:24happened. Web fire safety officers recommend it, sprinklers should be
1:29:24 > 1:29:31retrofitted. We have the budget in a couple of weeks' time, will the
1:29:31 > 1:29:34Secretary of State to make representations to the Chancellor to
1:29:34 > 1:29:36make funds available to local authorities to fit sprinklers in
1:29:36 > 1:29:45tower blocks?I have already told this House that in terms of the fire
1:29:45 > 1:29:50safety work that is required for other social buildings, whatever is
1:29:50 > 1:29:55deemed to be essential work by the respective council or housing
1:29:55 > 1:29:59authority is the work that should be carried out and the Government will
1:29:59 > 1:30:05provide support and flexibility to make sure it is.Honourable friend
1:30:05 > 1:30:09was right to say that the victims of this terrible fire were let down by
1:30:09 > 1:30:12the system, but that is potentially also true of those who still reside
1:30:12 > 1:30:16in hype rise blocks that may have been fitted with substandard
1:30:16 > 1:30:24cladding so can he update us on the building regulations and explain how
1:30:24 > 1:30:26it will explain how these inappropriate fittings took place in
1:30:26 > 1:30:33the first place?In the first instance, the expert panel that I
1:30:33 > 1:30:41have setup, which was set up days after the tragedy, but is where we
1:30:41 > 1:30:45have been getting advice on any immediate action we need to take. So
1:30:45 > 1:30:49for example, the work that is already being done to test buildings
1:30:49 > 1:30:54and some of the panels, assistance panels. In terms of the wider
1:30:54 > 1:30:57lessons in terms of building regulations and fire safety, that is
1:30:57 > 1:31:01the work being carried out at the moment by Dame Judi Hackett who
1:31:01 > 1:31:05continues with that work and I expect an interim report within
1:31:05 > 1:31:08weeks. We will look to act on that report before we receive her final
1:31:08 > 1:31:14report. The Secretary of State today did not
1:31:14 > 1:31:19update us in terms of the progress of the testing regime, so could he
1:31:19 > 1:31:24provide a further update on that and not just in terms of high-rise
1:31:24 > 1:31:28presidential blocks which are important, but also other public
1:31:28 > 1:31:29buildings including hospitals, schools and perhaps shopping
1:31:29 > 1:31:37centres?I can't their say the reason I did not put that in my
1:31:37 > 1:31:42statement is it is a response to the task force report -- can I say that
1:31:42 > 1:31:46the reason. But happy to give more information now and in terms of the
1:31:46 > 1:31:53social housing buildings, so social housing towers above 80 metres,
1:31:53 > 1:31:58there are 169 that had been tested through the systems holding
1:31:58 > 1:32:04programme and 162 of those have failed that test. That is the last
1:32:04 > 1:32:06update, nothing has changed since the previous update I gave to the
1:32:06 > 1:32:12House on that. She also asked about other public buildings. There are 15
1:32:12 > 1:32:16public buildings, 16 private buildings and 26 student
1:32:16 > 1:32:22presidential buildings that have all been tested and failed.
1:32:22 > 1:32:25Sir Martin Moore-Bick as the Government to look at wider social
1:32:25 > 1:32:28housing issues and I am pleased that the Government accepted that
1:32:28 > 1:32:33recommendation. Opening on his answer to the honourable lady
1:32:33 > 1:32:36opposite, could he tell us a bit more about what the government is
1:32:36 > 1:32:42doing to identify problems with social housing which go far wider
1:32:42 > 1:32:45than that area immediately surrounding Grenfell itself.My
1:32:45 > 1:32:50honourable friend is right to highlight this area. There are many
1:32:50 > 1:32:54lessons to be learned from this terrible tragedy and that applies to
1:32:54 > 1:32:59social housing and equality of social housing more generally, and
1:32:59 > 1:33:04how the residents are treated when they have legitimate complaints.
1:33:04 > 1:33:09That is one reason I announced the social Housing Green paper, which is
1:33:09 > 1:33:13something we have begun work on. And in preparation for that green paper,
1:33:13 > 1:33:18I asked the Housing Minister to meet with as many social housing
1:33:18 > 1:33:21residents as he can across the country, different types of social
1:33:21 > 1:33:30housing accommodation, and we listen carefully and we learn the lessons.
1:33:30 > 1:33:34I also thank the Secretary of State for his update and for making the
1:33:34 > 1:33:37report of the task force is available, and I thank the task
1:33:37 > 1:33:42force for their work. I accept that the recovery work is very sensitive,
1:33:42 > 1:33:47but clearly, pace is an issue. While the emotional recovery of people who
1:33:47 > 1:33:52are affected by the tragedy takes time, takes the time it takes,
1:33:52 > 1:33:57clearly there is urgency about the physical recovery. Is there not a
1:33:57 > 1:34:03need for a timescale to make sure there is a phasing in when you
1:34:03 > 1:34:08rehouse those people who have lost their homes, so next time this year,
1:34:08 > 1:34:13we do not sit here and still people have not been rehoused. The urgency
1:34:13 > 1:34:17for a timescale, a phased thing of how to make sure that there is a bit
1:34:17 > 1:34:21of focus on rehousing of the people affected would be very welcome, I
1:34:21 > 1:34:29think.First, I can assure the honourable lady there is a huge deal
1:34:29 > 1:34:34of focus on housing and the issue of The Times cable, they should not be
1:34:34 > 1:34:38an artificial timescale. It should be led by the needs of the survivors
1:34:38 > 1:34:43and the victim is and making sure they move on in terms of housing
1:34:43 > 1:34:48when they are ready. What needs to happen is to make sure they are all
1:34:48 > 1:34:51of the choices of permanent housing. That nobody is forced to make a
1:34:51 > 1:34:58choice. And where there are still a handful of families that are not
1:34:58 > 1:35:03ready to meet with housing officers and others and talk about their
1:35:03 > 1:35:08needs, they should not be forced either. So the timescale should be
1:35:08 > 1:35:11an absolute priority, but it should be set by the survivors themselves
1:35:11 > 1:35:16and nobody should be forced into anything.
1:35:16 > 1:35:21I thank the Secretary of State for giving such a comprehensive and
1:35:21 > 1:35:24compassionate statement. He said that he's not sure how long can the
1:35:24 > 1:35:29task force should stay in place, it is clearly doing some very important
1:35:29 > 1:35:34work. The sea and visit therefore at some point some responsibilities of
1:35:34 > 1:35:38the task force transitioning to other bodies?
1:35:39 > 1:35:45That may well be necessary in the future but not yet. I am pleased,
1:35:45 > 1:35:50very pleased with how the taskforce has operated so far in terms of how
1:35:50 > 1:35:55they have looked at issues in detail, come back with a proper
1:35:55 > 1:35:58thought through detailed independently minded report. That is
1:35:58 > 1:36:02why I would like them to stay in place. No taskforce is in place
1:36:02 > 1:36:05forever and some point there may be a need for further changes but we
1:36:05 > 1:36:10are not ready do that, because I want to make sure that the council
1:36:10 > 1:36:14is following through on all the recommendations and at that point we
1:36:14 > 1:36:20may take another look. Ministers have been complacent since
1:36:20 > 1:36:24Grenfell on one of broader strategic lesson, and that is the need for
1:36:24 > 1:36:28more support for and crucially more investment in social housing,
1:36:28 > 1:36:31particularly in London, so can the Secretary of State tell the House
1:36:31 > 1:36:36whether the Government has yet decided to lift the Draconian curbs
1:36:36 > 1:36:44on lending by local authorities to invest in more social housing.?
1:36:44 > 1:36:56First of all, I mentioned just moments ago I have asked work to be
1:36:56 > 1:37:00started on a green paper. When it comes to resource, for social
1:37:00 > 1:37:02housing, of course, this is something that needs to be
1:37:02 > 1:37:07constantly kept under review and let us see what the housing, what the
1:37:07 > 1:37:11green paper says but just recently the Government announced an
1:37:11 > 1:37:14additional £2 billion for social housing an I thought he would
1:37:14 > 1:37:22welcome that. And the prize for persistence and
1:37:22 > 1:37:29good humour goes to Graeme Morrice! Thank you. Can I thank the Secretary
1:37:29 > 1:37:33of State for her his statement and the taskforce for the
1:37:33 > 1:37:36recommendations, the minute the Secretary of State did indicate he
1:37:36 > 1:37:40wishes to press ahead to implement them as speedily as possible. I
1:37:40 > 1:37:45wonder if he could collar a particular point. It is reported
1:37:45 > 1:37:49that Michael Lockwood is leaving to join the independent office for
1:37:49 > 1:37:55police conduct. Is the Secretary of State able to indicate a timescale
1:37:55 > 1:37:59for appointing a successor.I can tell the honourable gentleman, let
1:37:59 > 1:38:04me thank him for his remarks, and it is correct that Michael Lockwood
1:38:04 > 1:38:08has, will be leaving his position, he is still in position at the
1:38:08 > 1:38:13moment, this has been information shared by the Mr Lockwood, with the
1:38:13 > 1:38:16community, and he has built up a particularly a strong relationship
1:38:16 > 1:38:21with members of the community, and that is very important, and, I don't
1:38:21 > 1:38:25believe he set the sort of final, the date for when he is leaving, and
1:38:25 > 1:38:29because one of the roles he will be helping with is making sure that a
1:38:29 > 1:38:37replacement is found, and been put in place before he moves on.
1:38:37 > 1:38:43We now come to the backbench motion on UK membership of the European
1:38:43 > 1:38:47Economic Area. Mr Steven Kinnock to move the
1:38:47 > 1:38:54motion.Thank you. I would first like to thank the backbench business
1:38:54 > 1:38:57committee for granting today's debate and I would like to thank
1:38:57 > 1:39:01members on all sides of the house for supporting this application
1:39:01 > 1:39:08today. I would in particular like the thank the members for Lewisham
1:39:08 > 1:39:12East for co-sponsoring. If the referendum result was indeed a vote
1:39:12 > 1:39:18to take back control, then this House must surely have its say on
1:39:18 > 1:39:22this critically important issue, so I rise today to commend this motion
1:39:22 > 1:39:26to the House, because all options for both the transition and the
1:39:26 > 1:39:29conhem sieve trade and partnership deals must be on the table.
1:39:29 > 1:39:35By fist I would like to set this debate in context by outlining what
1:39:35 > 1:39:43it is and what it is not. Explain how EEA membership can square the
1:39:43 > 1:39:46circle between market access sovereignty and control and
1:39:46 > 1:39:50illustrating how membership offerses a sensible and workable transition
1:39:50 > 1:39:55out of the European Union, a bridge rather than the potentially
1:39:55 > 1:39:59catastrophic cliff edge of exiting on WTO terms, so first, what is the
1:39:59 > 1:40:06EEA? Simply put, it is an internal market between the EU 28 and Norway,
1:40:06 > 1:40:12Iceland and Lichtenstein. It was set up in 1993 to allow the
1:40:12 > 1:40:17participation of non-EU states in the supermarket. But the market
1:40:17 > 1:40:23excludes single market features such as fisheries and agricultural. This
1:40:23 > 1:40:30means that EEA members are able to negotiate trade deals with third
1:40:30 > 1:40:33country, either bilaterally or through the European free trade
1:40:33 > 1:40:37association, that is how Iceland became the first European country to
1:40:37 > 1:40:42strike a bilateral trade deal with China in 2011. It is through
1:40:42 > 1:40:47membership in conjunction with the EEA unfeltered trade in goods is
1:40:47 > 1:40:52achieve. The membership could therefore provide a basis on which
1:40:52 > 1:40:56to sustain frictionless trade between the UK and the Republic of
1:40:56 > 1:41:05Ireland post-Brexit. Indeed...I am greater. He has talked about a
1:41:05 > 1:41:09catastrophic cliff edge. It is in the interest of our country we have
1:41:09 > 1:41:21a free trade deal. When he used his Rourkes, last month the World Bank
1:41:21 > 1:41:25pub Hirsched a study showing no deal, British trade in the EU might
1:41:25 > 1:41:35fall by 2%, that is 2% of the 12.6 or 0.25% of our overall GDP. Let him
1:41:35 > 1:41:40put it into context when he talks about a catastrophic cliff edge.
1:41:40 > 1:41:43Could I suggest the honourable gentleman may wish to take a trip
1:41:43 > 1:41:49the port of Dover? The Brexit Select Committee visited I have the honour
1:41:49 > 1:41:57of being a member of that committee. We were told an extra two minutes
1:41:57 > 1:42:02processing time would result in a 13 mile tail back, a WTO Brexit we were
1:42:02 > 1:42:06told would add more than two minutes so we have to put this in the
1:42:06 > 1:42:10context of the institutional capacity of our country, to cope
1:42:10 > 1:42:20with the WTO Brexit, which is absolutely critical.
1:42:20 > 1:42:25The West Midlands relies a lot on export, if we don't get this right
1:42:25 > 1:42:29it will affect them pretty badly.I thank him for that intervention and
1:42:29 > 1:42:34agree in terms of the automotive sector, we know it is 10% on every
1:42:34 > 1:42:39car we would wish to export to the EU in the case of a WTO based
1:42:39 > 1:42:44Brexit, want is more with the complex supply chains the industry
1:42:44 > 1:42:50relies on you are looking at tariffs and non-tariff barriers on every
1:42:50 > 1:42:55component that crosses the border so the result would be catastrophic.
1:42:55 > 1:43:03Will take one more intervention. I am grateful. Has sheen the recent
1:43:03 > 1:43:09forecast at WTA Brexit would cost the UK economy 75,000 jobs in the
1:43:09 > 1:43:12financial services sector alone? Isn't he right to talk about the
1:43:12 > 1:43:18very grave dangers that would post to the British economy.I agree the
1:43:18 > 1:43:21financial services sector is critical here because of course
1:43:21 > 1:43:27passporting is required, there is no passporting arrangements within a
1:43:27 > 1:43:31WTO deal so the impact would be catastrophic. The financial services
1:43:31 > 1:43:38sector is not just about the City of London, it is across the entire
1:43:38 > 1:43:47United Kingdom.Would he agree it is not simply about lorries cueing. It
1:43:47 > 1:43:49is about for example shellfisheries, they would be unsellable at the
1:43:49 > 1:43:55other end. Indeed during our trip to Dover, we
1:43:55 > 1:44:00were informed about the impact in terms of rotting food and vegetables
1:44:00 > 1:44:05on the border, so there is practical impacts that we must bear in mind
1:44:05 > 1:44:11when it comes to no deal Brexit. I will make some progress now. The
1:44:11 > 1:44:20head of the court has been a vocal advocate of the UK joining an idea
1:44:20 > 1:44:24the President of the European Court of Justice has similarly advocated
1:44:24 > 1:44:31over the summer. EEA membership is not the same as mechanic ship of the
1:44:31 > 1:44:39single market or the customs union. I will just make some progress. It
1:44:39 > 1:44:43is an internal market conjoined with most of the EU single market but is
1:44:43 > 1:44:49nevertheless a stand alone structure with its own legal regulatory
1:44:49 > 1:44:57governance and institutional frameworks. I will give way.Does
1:44:57 > 1:45:01the honourable gentleman accept that according to the President of the
1:45:01 > 1:45:09court he has referred to, that the EEA court does in fact following the
1:45:09 > 1:45:17Efte court follows the Julys of the European Court, almost exclusively?
1:45:17 > 1:45:23The Efte court exists ass a sovereign body and it of course,
1:45:23 > 1:45:28takes some of its guidance from the European Court of Justice, but it
1:45:28 > 1:45:35would nevertheless were the UK to have judges on the Efte court body,
1:45:35 > 1:45:40it would clearly have extra clout, and the ability to exercise its
1:45:40 > 1:45:44sovereign right to interpret the guidelines that come from the ECJ in
1:45:44 > 1:45:53such a way as suits the membership of the EE. A and Efte.
1:45:53 > 1:45:57Isn't perhaps the critical thing many courses may choose to follow
1:45:57 > 1:46:02decisions of those with similar jurisdictions, our courts have done
1:46:02 > 1:46:11that with the decisions of common law Courts in as well. But the Efte
1:46:11 > 1:46:18court is separate, and is not subject to its direct jurisdiction?
1:46:18 > 1:46:22I think the learned member, he has absolutely hit the nail on the head.
1:46:22 > 1:46:30What I would add to that point is that EU member states are required
1:46:30 > 1:46:35to refer rulings to the European Court of Justice, whereas Efte
1:46:35 > 1:46:40states are not requires to refer rulings to the Efte court. This is
1:46:40 > 1:46:43is a vitally important distinction because it has significant
1:46:43 > 1:46:48implication for the functioning of the two market, while the EU singlet
1:46:48 > 1:46:51market is predicated on the treaty of the European Union with its
1:46:51 > 1:46:56commitment to ever closer union the E. A is governed by the EEA
1:46:56 > 1:47:02agreement, article one of which states the am of the EEA is to
1:47:02 > 1:47:06promote a continuous and balanced strengthening of trade and economic
1:47:06 > 1:47:10relations between the contracting party, the fundamental differences
1:47:10 > 1:47:18between the founding mission of the EU and the EEA, mean for the EU the
1:47:18 > 1:47:25four freedoms are indivisible. For the EEA they are negotiable. The EEA
1:47:25 > 1:47:30membership would allow a post-Brexit Britain to square the circle when it
1:47:30 > 1:47:36comes to that thorny of issues the free movement of labour.
1:47:36 > 1:47:42I always enjoy listening to his arguments and I have a honour of
1:47:42 > 1:47:46receiving on the committee with him. Under this model we would have to
1:47:46 > 1:47:51follow all the rule, the rules of the single market and the rules of
1:47:51 > 1:47:55freedom of movement without having a say or input as to how the they are
1:47:55 > 1:47:59made. There is is a risks this is not fulfilling the wish of the
1:47:59 > 1:48:03British people. I thank him for his intervention but
1:48:03 > 1:48:09I am afraid he has my interpreted way in which the E. A functions,
1:48:09 > 1:48:19there is the committee which sits officials which provides the EEA
1:48:19 > 1:48:23joint committee with the ability to shape EU legislation regulations and
1:48:23 > 1:48:28directives, so the idea, I will come on to this later in my speech, the
1:48:28 > 1:48:36idea it means rule taker rather than rule maker is incorrect.
1:48:36 > 1:48:41As an EEA member the UK could suspend the free movement o labour
1:48:41 > 1:48:45by triggering an article which allows for an emergency break on any
1:48:45 > 1:48:51of the four freedoms on the basis of economic, environmental
1:48:51 > 1:48:58difficulties. On entering the EEA, Liechtenstein triggered a number of
1:48:58 > 1:49:07articles. Thus suspended the free movement of labour and enabling the
1:49:07 > 1:49:12introduction on of a quota based immigration system. The difficulties
1:49:12 > 1:49:17would be different but the fact is that the legal precedent has been
1:49:17 > 1:49:21set, so there is no reason why the UK should not be allowed to follow
1:49:21 > 1:49:28suit. Having pulled that emergency brake we would then as per Article
1:49:28 > 1:49:3350113 enter into deliberations with other contracting parties through
1:49:33 > 1:49:37the EE off.est EEA committee. In the case of Liechtenstein it took the
1:49:37 > 1:49:43form of industry by industry quotas. I will give way.I am grateful. Is
1:49:43 > 1:49:48he really comparing Liechtenstein, which is a small mountain state in
1:49:48 > 1:49:52central Europe, which frankly could get full up rather quickly with the
1:49:52 > 1:49:57United Kingdom which is a much larger state and in which there is
1:49:57 > 1:50:05already a significant problem of migration.
1:50:05 > 1:50:10It is ridiculous to make that comparison, what I would argue is
1:50:10 > 1:50:16that the United Kingdom has significantly more political
1:50:16 > 1:50:18diplomatic clout and therefore the logic of his argument does not
1:50:18 > 1:50:24follow. He is making a strong case, surely
1:50:24 > 1:50:28to come pair is that Lichtenstein if it is so tiny and was able to
1:50:28 > 1:50:33achieve that, we must have some realistic chance of doing so.The
1:50:33 > 1:50:36honourable gentleman has hit the nail on the head. He is absolutely
1:50:36 > 1:50:42right. I have nothing to add to that. Liechtenstein is not the only
1:50:42 > 1:50:50legal precedent. Measures were invoked in 1992 by four of the seven
1:50:50 > 1:50:55a members, all citing the need to protect real estate, capital and
1:50:55 > 1:51:01labour markets to recap. The four freedoms operate in an instrumental
1:51:01 > 1:51:05as opposed to fundmental manner within the EEA, meaning the
1:51:05 > 1:51:10membership offers a unique opportunity to combine market
1:51:10 > 1:51:16access, frictionless trade and reformed free movement of labour.
1:51:16 > 1:51:21Turning to the vexed question of European...Can I just asked my
1:51:21 > 1:51:25honourable friend to clarify, am I not right in saying that currently
1:51:25 > 1:51:31under EU law, there are restrictions that can be imposed, which aren't...
1:51:31 > 1:51:35Which are namely that if somebody hasn't worked for three months, they
1:51:35 > 1:51:39can be excluded for a country. Thousands of people are thrown out
1:51:39 > 1:51:43of other countries in the EU and Britain decides not to.I thank my
1:51:43 > 1:51:46honourable friend for his intervention. I think this deals
1:51:46 > 1:51:51with what sort of free movement of labour we need. Opinion is divided
1:51:51 > 1:51:56on this. Looking at the upstream reform, the argument would be in
1:51:56 > 1:51:59favour of the quota -based system. Downstream system based on
1:51:59 > 1:52:04registration. That is another debate for another day, the point I am
1:52:04 > 1:52:09looking to make is that EEA membership enables a lot more
1:52:09 > 1:52:11flexibility in terms of both emergency brake and using industry
1:52:11 > 1:52:18by industry quotas. Here the position is relatively simple, add
1:52:18 > 1:52:24EEA F the members are not subject to ECJ jurisdiction. The EEA is
1:52:24 > 1:52:28administered by the arbitration court and the EEA joint committee
1:52:28 > 1:52:35and disputes are dealt with by the EFTA of body. These only deal with
1:52:35 > 1:52:38the EEA internal market and its principles and have far less clout
1:52:38 > 1:52:45than the ECJ. Moreover, while EU state courts must refer legal issues
1:52:45 > 1:52:49to the ECJ, EEA states are not obliged to refer them to the EFTA
1:52:49 > 1:52:59Court. The EEA model are seen as will take is as opposed to rule
1:52:59 > 1:53:02breakers, but that criticism does not stand up to criticism. They have
1:53:02 > 1:53:09the right to stand up to the... The EEA joint commission the determined
1:53:09 > 1:53:16which laws are deemed relevant for the EEA and whether any adaptation
1:53:16 > 1:53:22is necessary. EEA membership would in fact provide the UK with a seat
1:53:22 > 1:53:26at the table when things are being shaped. It is one step removed from
1:53:26 > 1:53:29the heart of decision-making in Brussels, but the reality with a
1:53:29 > 1:53:35referendum to result is that our influence in Brussels and European
1:53:35 > 1:53:40capitals will be inevitably diminished. The valuable question
1:53:40 > 1:53:43now is how to maximise democratic control and influence while
1:53:43 > 1:53:48minimising economic damage will stop by with content that the EEA EFTA
1:53:48 > 1:53:55-based transition deal will achieve those aims. The stakes are high.I'm
1:53:55 > 1:53:59listening with great interest it with the argument he is setting out.
1:53:59 > 1:54:05Could I check I am understanding correctly, the way he he is
1:54:05 > 1:54:11advocating means that we would need to read joint EFTA? -- rejoin.There
1:54:11 > 1:54:19are a member of -- number of views on this. The head of the arbitration
1:54:19 > 1:54:23court said that he would favour a docking system whereby there could
1:54:23 > 1:54:28be an interim arrangement which would put British judges on the EFTA
1:54:28 > 1:54:34arbitration court in preparation for finalising a deal. In a sense, a
1:54:34 > 1:54:40bridging. In my view, I would advocate joining EFTA as part of
1:54:40 > 1:54:50moving into the economic area. I will make some progress, please. The
1:54:50 > 1:54:56sea CBI said only yesterday that she remained extremely worried that the
1:54:56 > 1:54:59clock remains ticking down. The result is that more and more firms
1:54:59 > 1:55:04are triggering their contingency plans to move jobs and investment.
1:55:04 > 1:55:08Reality has finally bitten, even in the minds of some of the most eluded
1:55:08 > 1:55:15Brexit ears, it is always fantasy to think that it is possible to see the
1:55:15 > 1:55:19divorce and the trade deals in parallel. A solid cross-party
1:55:19 > 1:55:26consensus has emerged, as has been made clear in the prime and Esther's
1:55:26 > 1:55:33Florence house. Everyone also agrees that we must leave the EU by jumping
1:55:33 > 1:55:40off -- by not jumping off a cliff but by going over a bridge. The
1:55:40 > 1:55:44question is not whether a transition deal is required, but what sort of
1:55:44 > 1:55:54transition dial -- deal we can look to strike. It has been made clear
1:55:54 > 1:55:58that there isn't no time for a bespoke bridging deal and fit it
1:55:58 > 1:56:03must be off the shelf as an arrangement. The Government are
1:56:03 > 1:56:08still in denial on this point any Prime Minister's Florence
1:56:08 > 1:56:10proposition was for a tailored transition package. No doubt, the
1:56:10 > 1:56:15Government will continue to waste precious time and energy to argue
1:56:15 > 1:56:21that he does poke deal is feasible. We know that it will come to an end
1:56:21 > 1:56:24and that an off the shelf agreement is a foregone conclusion.
1:56:24 > 1:56:30Establishing that that is inevitable, it is clear to me that
1:56:30 > 1:56:35EEA EFTA is the only viable option because they are well established
1:56:35 > 1:56:42and well understood arrangements that offer the clarity, stability
1:56:42 > 1:56:45and great ability that the British economy needs in these turbulent
1:56:45 > 1:56:54times. Transferring to beat EU to the EEA and EFTA would allow us to
1:56:54 > 1:56:59balance it. It will buy us time to negotiate the final trade in
1:56:59 > 1:57:03strategic partnership deal that will shape the terms of the UK's
1:57:03 > 1:57:06relationship of the youth for decades to come. Whilst also
1:57:06 > 1:57:18allowing us to strike-out trade deals with people outside the U.--
1:57:18 > 1:57:24the EE you. This is more pertinent and timely. The US trade
1:57:24 > 1:57:28representative will Barossa certainly seems to be applying
1:57:28 > 1:57:42better US -- UK trade deal will take longer than thought.There is
1:57:42 > 1:57:47unanimity almost a round of this point of the timing. I would add
1:57:47 > 1:57:53that the benefit of EFTA is that it is not a customs union, it is a
1:57:53 > 1:57:58free-trade area. It allows us to trade in the vital market, the
1:57:58 > 1:58:01single EU market, also striking the third country deals potentially also
1:58:01 > 1:58:12with the United States.Would he agree with me that the United
1:58:12 > 1:58:16Kingdom becoming part of EFTA could in many respects turbo-charge EFTA,
1:58:16 > 1:58:20make it far more appealing and organisation for trade deals to be
1:58:20 > 1:58:28done with.Add it an excellent point. The current EFTA members
1:58:28 > 1:58:32recognise the potential clout that they would have by the addition of a
1:58:32 > 1:58:3660 million person consumer market to their current market which is a lot
1:58:36 > 1:58:42smaller than that, global trade negotiations are all about leverage
1:58:42 > 1:58:48and clout. I will make some progress. It is clear that the issue
1:58:48 > 1:58:53we are debating today is going to the very heart of what the Brexit
1:58:53 > 1:58:56process is about. This debate is about the future of the people that
1:58:56 > 1:59:02we in this house were elected to represent. It is about their jobs,
1:59:02 > 1:59:08communities. It is about the definition... The Government claims
1:59:08 > 1:59:14that a separate debate and membership on the EEA is not
1:59:14 > 1:59:19necessary. Not necessary? How could it possibly be argued that matters
1:59:19 > 1:59:22of such deep political economic and constitutional significance should
1:59:22 > 1:59:29not be the subject of discussion? How could it be argued that this
1:59:29 > 1:59:33house should be sidelined and neutered because the Government is
1:59:33 > 1:59:36terrified of proper scrutiny? Is that really what people voted for
1:59:36 > 1:59:42when they voted to take back control? Whilst political cases for
1:59:42 > 1:59:46separate decision and debate on our membership of the EEA is answerable,
1:59:46 > 1:59:52the legal discussion is hotly contested. The Government argues
1:59:52 > 1:59:57that on exiting the EU, we will automatically except the EEA,
1:59:57 > 2:00:04pointing the statement that EEA member Arr it can also be contended
2:00:04 > 2:00:11that the UK is an independent party to the agreement, being one of the
2:00:11 > 2:00:15founding signatories of that agreement and therefore exit from
2:00:15 > 2:00:20the EEA requires the triggering of Article 127, I am not alone in this
2:00:20 > 2:00:27view. It is shared by eminent academics and QCs. It should also be
2:00:27 > 2:00:32noted that the conclusive decision in this house that the UK membership
2:00:32 > 2:00:37of the EEA is not wholly contingent upon EU membership, it would greatly
2:00:37 > 2:00:45strengthen our negotiating hand. It would mean the EU could not force us
2:00:45 > 2:00:48out of the single market. Some would argue that this question could be
2:00:48 > 2:00:52settled in court, M Fabry in this year was dismissed for being
2:00:52 > 2:00:55premature as the Government had yet to state their position on the EEA
2:00:55 > 2:01:00membership and it was still impossible at that time -- possible
2:01:00 > 2:01:05at that time that the triggering could be wrapped up before the
2:01:05 > 2:01:08triggering of Article 50. On this issue, as with so much when a
2:01:08 > 2:01:12Government and Brexit are concerned, we now find ourselves on a hiatus.
2:01:12 > 2:01:18Drifting, rudderless, floating around in a mist of ambiguity and
2:01:18 > 2:01:24indecision. It is therefore more important than ever that this house
2:01:24 > 2:01:27shows some leadership, it is on the floor of this place and not in the
2:01:27 > 2:01:31court room that we should be deciding on these matters. It is we
2:01:31 > 2:01:37who are sovereign. On the 23rd of June, 2016, the British people voted
2:01:37 > 2:01:42to leave the treaty of the European Union. The EEA agreement was not on
2:01:42 > 2:01:46the ballot paper. There is no reverend a mandate for leaving the
2:01:46 > 2:01:52EEA and if it had been the intention of this house that leaving the EEA
2:01:52 > 2:01:56would be bundled in with leaving the EU, then why was that not in the
2:01:56 > 2:02:06original statute? The people have not spoken. Nor have the people had
2:02:06 > 2:02:10the opportunity to speak on EEA membership and is therefore the job
2:02:10 > 2:02:16of Parliament to speak and debate the matter on their behalf.
2:02:16 > 2:02:20Moreover, the Miller case established legal and political
2:02:20 > 2:02:23precedent for parliamentary authorisation of withdrawal from any
2:02:23 > 2:02:26international treaty that confers rights and obligations that have
2:02:26 > 2:02:31been conferred into UK law. The European Economic Area agreement
2:02:31 > 2:02:37clearly confers such treaty rights into domestic law. So, if we take
2:02:37 > 2:02:40the conclusions of the Miller case to their logical conclusion, then
2:02:40 > 2:02:45Parliament must have the right to debate and decide. Madam Deputy
2:02:45 > 2:02:50Speaker, I am truly proud of the fact that I campaigned passionately
2:02:50 > 2:02:54for remain and I will believe until my dying day that the vote to leave
2:02:54 > 2:03:00the EU was the greatest act of national collective harm in modern
2:03:00 > 2:03:03political history. However, I am also a Democrat and I fully accept
2:03:03 > 2:03:09and respect the result of the referendum. The question therefore
2:03:09 > 2:03:14is not whether we must leave the EE you, but how we should leave. And
2:03:14 > 2:03:19that fundamentally is what this debate is about. As elected
2:03:19 > 2:03:24representatives of the people and does patriots, our moral duty is
2:03:24 > 2:03:29twofold. But the Government negotiate a deal that protects jobs,
2:03:29 > 2:03:31livelihoods and the national interest and also that the
2:03:31 > 2:03:35Government secured a deal but respect and enables greater
2:03:35 > 2:03:41sovereignty and control. Those who were driven by National tourism --
2:03:41 > 2:03:45nationalism, dogma, ideology, they just want to burn every bridge that
2:03:45 > 2:03:49they see and return to a bygone age of splendid isolation. Those who
2:03:49 > 2:03:58were driven by a idea of another referendum, they are not able to
2:03:58 > 2:04:02move to the centre ground where practical resolutions can be fined.
2:04:02 > 2:04:08Compromise is a sign of strength, not weakness. A country can have
2:04:08 > 2:04:15frictionless trade, independent, but not both. Rule Britannia break it --
2:04:15 > 2:04:23rhetoric provides the sugar rush of a... We must put jobs first, we must
2:04:23 > 2:04:27have a Brexit deal that keeps our economy as close as possible to be
2:04:27 > 2:04:31500 million consumers that are right on our doorstep and we must have a
2:04:31 > 2:04:35Brexit deal that holds deeply divided country together by
2:04:35 > 2:04:38delivering to the greatest extent possible on the perfectly legitimate
2:04:38 > 2:04:43need to reform free movement of labour. In my view, the transition
2:04:43 > 2:04:49deal that is based on EEA and EFTA membership will deliver Brexit that
2:04:49 > 2:04:52protects jobs, livelihoods and the national interest and that is why it
2:04:52 > 2:04:57is vital that this house is given the opportunity to debate and decide
2:04:57 > 2:05:01whether or article 127 of the EEA agreement should be triggered. I
2:05:01 > 2:05:07commend this motion to the house. The question is on the order paper.
2:05:07 > 2:05:10It will be obvious that the house that the time allotted for this
2:05:10 > 2:05:16debate has already been somewhat eroded and that there are a lot of
2:05:16 > 2:05:21people who wish to speak, therefore we have to have an immediate time
2:05:21 > 2:05:29limit of five minutes.Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a great pleasure to
2:05:29 > 2:05:32follow the honourable member who raises some important and very
2:05:32 > 2:05:37interesting constitutional issues. The motion before the house today
2:05:37 > 2:05:45asks us to include that for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the
2:05:45 > 2:05:49European Economic Area, it will have two trigger article 127 of the EEA
2:05:49 > 2:05:56agreement. It is certainly the case that article 127 provides that every
2:05:56 > 2:06:01contracting party to the agreement may withdraw, provided that it gives
2:06:01 > 2:06:04at least 12 months notice in writing to the other contracting parties.
2:06:04 > 2:06:07The question is whether that formality actually needs to be
2:06:07 > 2:06:08adopted.
2:06:14 > 2:06:21Of the European Union, the European Union itself and three of the four
2:06:21 > 2:06:25EFTA states, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. There is no doubt as
2:06:25 > 2:06:29the honourable gentleman says that the United Kingdom is a contracting
2:06:29 > 2:06:35party to that agreement, in its own right. Indeed it has no option but
2:06:35 > 2:06:42to be so, because article 128 of the agreement provides that every EU
2:06:42 > 2:06:46state has on applying, on becoming a member of the state had to apply for
2:06:46 > 2:06:52EEA membership. In other words, British membership of the EEA is a
2:06:52 > 2:06:57consequence of its membership of the European Union. Now the UK has given
2:06:57 > 2:07:01notice to the European Union, of its intention to withdraw and by
2:07:01 > 2:07:05application of the provisions of Article 50, that notice will become
2:07:05 > 2:07:11effective no later than midnight on 30th March 2019. At which point,
2:07:11 > 2:07:16according to the treaty, the EU treaty has cease to apply to the
2:07:16 > 2:07:20United Kingdom. The UK's departure from the European
2:07:20 > 2:07:27Union does indeed have an impact also upon its membership of the EEA.
2:07:27 > 2:07:31Article 126 of the agreement provides it shall apply to the
2:07:31 > 2:07:35territories to which the treaty establishing the European Economic
2:07:35 > 2:07:40Communityty now the European Union is applied as well as to the three
2:07:40 > 2:07:47signatory EFTA member states. Given that the EU treaties will no longer
2:07:47 > 2:07:54apply to the UK, and given that the UK is not one of the three EFTA
2:07:54 > 2:07:57signatories it necessarily follows that at that moment, on the stroke
2:07:57 > 2:08:03of midnight on 30th March 2019, it will also cease to be subject to the
2:08:03 > 2:08:09provisions of the EEA agreement, in other words, for all practical
2:08:09 > 2:08:15purposes, British membership of the EEA will fall. It will remain a
2:08:15 > 2:08:18contracting party to the agreement indeed but the agreement will, under
2:08:18 > 2:08:23the termses of the EEA agreement itself cease to apply to it.
2:08:23 > 2:08:27Now there has been a great deal of academic fission cushion as to
2:08:27 > 2:08:31whether that is the case but a view that is supportive of the
2:08:31 > 2:08:35proposition that Britain ceases to be a member of the EEA at the point
2:08:35 > 2:08:45when it leaves the EU has been given by no less a figure than the
2:08:45 > 2:08:49Professor the honourable gentleman referred to. He said a state can
2:08:49 > 2:08:54only be a contracting partnership. That follows from the two pillar
2:08:54 > 2:08:58structure of the EEA agreement. You are either in the EU pillar or the
2:08:58 > 2:09:02EFTA pillar but you cannot be floating freely around, the
2:09:02 > 2:09:05honourable gentleman has mentioned the desirability of the United
2:09:05 > 2:09:10Kingdom becoming a member of EFTA and that may or may not be the case,
2:09:10 > 2:09:14I actually would personally oppose it. But, it has to be recognised
2:09:14 > 2:09:21that if you are not a member of EFTA or of the EU, you cannot be a member
2:09:21 > 2:09:32of the European Economic Area.Can I just before he sits down, can he say
2:09:32 > 2:09:37what are the practical effect, if legally it was possible to become a
2:09:37 > 2:09:41member of the EEA, would it be possible to control our own borders?
2:09:41 > 2:09:45. It seems to me the reason why so many people voted to leave was they
2:09:45 > 2:09:50wanted to control their own borders? He makes an excellent point. The
2:09:50 > 2:09:55fact is that what we would be left with, is a situation of EU lite. We
2:09:55 > 2:10:00would still be subject to the four freedoms including the freedom of
2:10:00 > 2:10:05movement of persons which would mean we would not be, despite the
2:10:05 > 2:10:09Liechtenstein precedent able to control our own border.I am
2:10:09 > 2:10:14grateful. Does he agree with my earlier point we would be rule
2:10:14 > 2:10:17takers without having the opportunity to make the rules or
2:10:17 > 2:10:24contribute in the way we do at the moment?He is right on that score
2:10:24 > 2:10:30too. The honourable gentleman has mentioned EFTA quite frequently in
2:10:30 > 2:10:33his speech today. But there is no suggestion in the motion before us
2:10:33 > 2:10:39that, the UK should apply to become a member of EFTA. Indeed the
2:10:39 > 2:10:43implication of the motion itself, is that upon the UK ceasing to be a
2:10:43 > 2:10:50member of the European Union, it could remain a member of the EEA as
2:10:50 > 2:10:54the Professor put it floating freely around. Well, that does not give the
2:10:54 > 2:10:58certainty that the British electoral requires, it does not give the
2:10:58 > 2:11:03certainty that British business requires, and I am not sure from
2:11:03 > 2:11:06what the honourable gentleman said whether in fact he does suggest that
2:11:06 > 2:11:10Britain should be making an application for membership of EFTA,
2:11:10 > 2:11:15but if it did, I would suggest as a matter of law, it would do from a
2:11:15 > 2:11:21position of having ceased to be a member of the EEA, it would
2:11:21 > 2:11:25therefore upon becoming a member have to maicts own decision as to
2:11:25 > 2:11:30whether it should rejoin the EEA, and that again is not reflected in
2:11:30 > 2:11:36the motion that we are considering today. The fact is, that what we are
2:11:36 > 2:11:42seeing today, are last gasp attempts by those who regret and bitterly
2:11:42 > 2:11:45reSeptember the departure of Britain from the European Union. It is an
2:11:45 > 2:11:50attempt to keep us in a half way house, a kind of European limbo and
2:11:50 > 2:11:54I would suggest as a matter of law, and as a matter of politics, this
2:11:54 > 2:12:00motion should be rejected by the House today.
2:12:00 > 2:12:06I say to honourable gentleman this is a last gasp atempt, this is start
2:12:06 > 2:12:11of a fight to develop an form of Brexit, which doesn't crucify our
2:12:11 > 2:12:18economy. The question of whether and how the UK should leave the European
2:12:18 > 2:12:20Union has dominated British politics for the last two years, Government
2:12:20 > 2:12:24is paralysed by the enormity of the task and the public are left
2:12:24 > 2:12:30struggling to make sense of what is going on. One minute, we are staying
2:12:30 > 2:12:33in the single market and customs union for an interim phrase, the
2:12:33 > 2:12:38next we are not. One day, we are planning for no deal, the next we
2:12:38 > 2:12:45are not. It is a doing's breakfast, there is no clarity and no strategy,
2:12:45 > 2:12:53Brexit by adjective is the best we get. Fantasy ass operation of soft
2:12:53 > 2:12:55Irish borders and frictionless trade. It is meaningless and not
2:12:55 > 2:12:59good enough. I hope that today's debate might start to change that.
2:12:59 > 2:13:04The motion we are debating today, is about the European Economic Area, in
2:13:04 > 2:13:08effect, the single market. It is about the process by which we might
2:13:08 > 2:13:13seek to leave it or stay. This is different from our membership of the
2:13:13 > 2:13:19EU, we are currently members of the EU and the EEA, but, and this is a
2:13:19 > 2:13:24big but, they are distinct from one another. They are governed by
2:13:24 > 2:13:26different treaties and different countries are members of each of
2:13:26 > 2:13:32them. Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein are members of the EEA, they are not
2:13:32 > 2:13:40members of the EU. There is one process for leaving the yau, and
2:13:40 > 2:13:45there is another for leaving the EEA, article 127 of the EEA
2:13:45 > 2:13:48agreement. The motion before us today doesn't stipulate whether we
2:13:48 > 2:13:56should be in the EEA, out of it, in it for a few years or forever. It
2:13:56 > 2:14:00simply says Parliament should decide, Parliament should determine
2:14:00 > 2:14:06bl we trigger article 127 and notify our withdrawal from the EEA. Not the
2:14:06 > 2:14:12Prime Minister behind her desk in Number Ten. MPs should decide. This
2:14:12 > 2:14:16House, the public's elected representatives and there should be
2:14:16 > 2:14:27a specific vote binding on ministers.
2:14:27 > 2:14:31Congratulations to my friend. Does she agree part of the problem with
2:14:31 > 2:14:35regards to the EEA and EFTA is the government's intransigence to look
2:14:35 > 2:14:43at it. This is to take us out of the EU, to be an island on our own, with
2:14:43 > 2:14:47no trade deal whatsoever with anyone?I do agree with the
2:14:47 > 2:14:53honourable gentleman.As my honourable friend from a sedentary
2:14:53 > 2:14:59position this is about dogma, it is not about democracy s and it is not
2:14:59 > 2:15:05about our country's future prosperity. Last summer we grafted a
2:15:05 > 2:15:08massive public plebiscite on to our system of representative
2:15:08 > 2:15:12Parliamentary democracy s I won't rehearse my views on how that was
2:15:12 > 2:15:16conducted, suffice to say I don't think it was the country's finest
2:15:16 > 2:15:20hour, there was only one question on the ballot paper though. Should the
2:15:20 > 2:15:25United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union, or should it
2:15:25 > 2:15:31leave? Where were the words European Economic Area? Where were the words
2:15:31 > 2:15:35single market? Some say well everyone knew it meant we would be
2:15:35 > 2:15:40leaving the single market but that is pure assertion, that is an
2:15:40 > 2:15:44interpretation of the result. Some people may have voted believing
2:15:44 > 2:15:48that, others did not. Many more wouldn't have had any idea where to
2:15:48 > 2:15:53start, if you asked them to explain the difference. I don't say that to
2:15:53 > 2:15:59patronise. It is a matter-of-fact. If you ask my mum to explain it she
2:15:59 > 2:16:06would run a mile. It is a choice to take us out. It's a political choice
2:16:06 > 2:16:09to prioritise controls on immigration over safeguarding jobs
2:16:09 > 2:16:12and investment and it is a political choice to make a massive issue out
2:16:12 > 2:16:16of the European Court of Justice, even though most people would be
2:16:16 > 2:16:19hard-pressed to tell you what it does. These choices will determine
2:16:19 > 2:16:23the future of our country to many years to cop and it is the basic
2:16:23 > 2:16:28responsibility of each and every member of this House, irrespective
2:16:28 > 2:16:33of party, to reflect long and hard on whether the form of Brexit, being
2:16:33 > 2:16:38pursued by the Government is the right one.Would you confirm that
2:16:38 > 2:16:41the 2015 Conservative manifesto both said that if they won the people
2:16:41 > 2:16:47would have a referendum on Brexit, but also, that we would stay in the
2:16:47 > 2:16:52single market. So people voting for it assumed he had stayed.He is
2:16:52 > 2:17:01right. The precise form of words was they would protect British interests
2:17:01 > 2:17:06in the single market. We must get a vote on whether we continue to be
2:17:06 > 2:17:10members of the single market. We have to determine whether ministers
2:17:10 > 2:17:15notify other countries of our intention to leave the EEA. This
2:17:15 > 2:17:23must not be cobbled together by claiming that provisions within the
2:17:23 > 2:17:26EU withdrawal bill somehow give ministers authorisation to do this.
2:17:26 > 2:17:30This is what the Government are trying to do. They are trying to
2:17:30 > 2:17:35pull a fast one. I am convinced that the repeal of the EEA act contained
2:17:35 > 2:17:41in the withdrawal bill, will be used by ministereds alongside the powers
2:17:41 > 2:17:46they want to give themselves in clause eight of the that bill to
2:17:46 > 2:17:50claim Parliamentary authorisation, for setting the ball rolling on our
2:17:50 > 2:17:55departure from the EEA. How many of our colleagues understand this? Why
2:17:55 > 2:17:59does the Government want to avoid open and transparent debate on this.
2:17:59 > 2:18:04Why were we only have two hours at committee stage to discuss this
2:18:04 > 2:18:09issue? I think the answer is obvious. The Government want to
2:18:09 > 2:18:16avoid an explicit vote on whether the UK should leave the European
2:18:16 > 2:18:21Economic Area. They are worried there might be a Parliamentary
2:18:21 > 2:18:26majority for so-called soft Brexit, one where we put jobs first, and
2:18:26 > 2:18:30worry about immigration second. They are right to be worried. But they
2:18:30 > 2:18:34are wrong to circumvent Parliament in this way, that is why I have
2:18:34 > 2:18:40tabled new clause 22 to the bill, to give Parliament and explicit vote on
2:18:40 > 2:18:45our departure from the European Economic Area and why I support this
2:18:45 > 2:18:51motion today. In conclusion, as people who are elected to make
2:18:51 > 2:18:58decisions on behalf of the country, we have a responsibility to consider
2:18:58 > 2:19:02the option of staying in the European Economic Area, thoroughly
2:19:02 > 2:19:07and transparently. We have an opportunity to hold on to the keys
2:19:07 > 2:19:10of car, to prevent this Government from driving us off the cliff. That
2:19:10 > 2:19:23is what this motion is about today, and it is why I support it.
2:19:23 > 2:19:27The interim period must mean that there must be no membership of the
2:19:27 > 2:19:32EEA or the customs union or EFTA, because it would remove the freedom
2:19:32 > 2:19:37we need for negotiations with third country, this includes any period in
2:19:37 > 2:19:44the EEA being party the EEA agreement like EFTA states or Swiss
2:19:44 > 2:19:50style agreement. The EEA means membership of the single market and
2:19:50 > 2:19:55commitment to the four freedoms, movement of goods, services capital
2:19:55 > 2:20:01and worker, three EFTA states Norway Iceland and Liechtenstein signed in
2:20:01 > 2:20:061994, and while, and what it would mean is in sufficient freedom for us
2:20:06 > 2:20:11to be a credible partner in trade negotiations with the others. The
2:20:11 > 2:20:15agreement means taking on the sixth market but with no vote on the
2:20:15 > 2:20:19legislation. Through the surveillance authority regulation is
2:20:19 > 2:20:31being harm nieced. The Effah secretariat says, the court mirror
2:20:31 > 2:20:36the surveillance functions of the European Court. Therefore, the EEA
2:20:36 > 2:20:41does involve the harmonisation of laws in significant areas of
2:20:41 > 2:20:44environment, social policy and so on over the whole of their domestic
2:20:44 > 2:20:52economy. It involves the application of the ECJ case law by the EFTA
2:20:52 > 2:20:56court, and I disagree with the honourable gentleman in his
2:20:56 > 2:21:02assertion it would not. It includes the free movement of person, in
2:21:02 > 2:21:08other words the European Court of Justice prevail, and our influence
2:21:08 > 2:21:12would be infinitely hopefully inadequate.
2:21:13 > 2:21:16Letters stand for a moment to consider the spirits of Norway. The
2:21:16 > 2:21:22Norwegian Government commissioned a study into the impact of the EEA and
2:21:22 > 2:21:28the study found that Norway implements approximately three
2:21:28 > 2:21:33quarters of substantive EU law and policy. I think that itself makes a
2:21:33 > 2:21:37mockery of much of what the honourable gentleman was sailing.
2:21:37 > 2:21:45Furthermore, the cost of the EEA for Norway has increased tenfold since
2:21:45 > 2:21:511992 and, furthermore, there are nearly 12,000 EU directives and
2:21:51 > 2:21:55regulations implemented through the EEA agreement which have changed
2:21:55 > 2:22:02Norwegian society in a significant number of areas. We are told from BT
2:22:02 > 2:22:08you legal database that we have 17,000 regulations coming to us over
2:22:08 > 2:22:12the period of time since we entered the European Union and yet Norway,
2:22:12 > 2:22:18which is it in the EEA has in fact acquired nearly 12,000 EU directives
2:22:18 > 2:22:25and regulations.Can the honourable member tell the house when an zero
2:22:25 > 2:22:30region Government last propose leaving BA.I can tell him that the
2:22:30 > 2:22:34Norwegian Government has consistently made its position clear
2:22:34 > 2:22:40in staying in, but in practice, the trend and attitudes in Norway is
2:22:40 > 2:22:46increasingly moving against that and furthermore I was at a conference
2:22:46 > 2:22:50only last week where a young Norwegian leader of the people's
2:22:50 > 2:22:58movement made it clear that over 70% of all the young people in Norway
2:22:58 > 2:23:04want to get out of the EEA and do not want to join the EU. That is the
2:23:04 > 2:23:08position. The bottom line is, I don't need to speak any longer on
2:23:08 > 2:23:13this, there was no case whatsoever for Ross to join the EEA, it is
2:23:13 > 2:23:17completely contradictory to the mandate that we received in the
2:23:17 > 2:23:21referendum which was perfectly clear that it is impossible... I will give
2:23:21 > 2:23:38clear. -- give way.Could I say to my honourable friend these words?
2:23:38 > 2:23:42The great advantage of the EFTA model is that it is completely
2:23:42 > 2:23:46independent of the EU. Yet follows the decisions of the European Court
2:23:46 > 2:23:50of Justice for the most part, although not always. That is
2:23:50 > 2:23:54important. I'm glad that my right honourable friend for Loughborough
2:23:54 > 2:23:57notice that because not many people have. I just wondered because those
2:23:57 > 2:24:03are the very words of my honourable friend which he said in July.
2:24:03 > 2:24:09Indeed. And I entirely accept that that is what the position was at
2:24:09 > 2:24:16that point in time. We have had this because the argument has moved on
2:24:16 > 2:24:22and the reality is that the mandate of the British people is clear. Wait
2:24:22 > 2:24:31a minute, we have already passed Article 50 act by 499 in this house
2:24:31 > 2:24:35to 110, or thereabouts. Furthermore, the decision that was taken on the
2:24:35 > 2:24:44repeal bill itself was passed by a majority and therefore we do repeal
2:24:44 > 2:24:49the European of 1972, that is the reality and where I stand is that
2:24:49 > 2:24:54these proposals that put us into the EEA would effectively be contrary to
2:24:54 > 2:25:07the mandates of the British people. Order. Have I interrupted this? Has
2:25:07 > 2:25:12the honourable gentleman finished or has he given way?Intervention.I
2:25:12 > 2:25:21begged the house', I misinterpreted it.I'm very grateful to my
2:25:21 > 2:25:26honourable friend for giving way. Those words from Hansard, he's about
2:25:26 > 2:25:34in July of 2017, after we triggered... Long after the
2:25:34 > 2:25:39referendum.Said only a few months ago. The short answer is that we
2:25:39 > 2:25:42have had a mandate which is absolutely clear and has been passed
2:25:42 > 2:25:46in this house. The repeal act has yet to be passed, but the repeal
2:25:46 > 2:25:51bill's second reading has made its position absolutely clear to the
2:25:51 > 2:25:59British people and we are repealing from the European Union. That is
2:25:59 > 2:26:05were I stand.I would like to congratulate my friend the
2:26:05 > 2:26:09honourable member for bringing this excellent debate. I should just like
2:26:09 > 2:26:18to say that I will use the words EEA and the single market. Basically
2:26:18 > 2:26:22we're talking about the single market here. I will talk about
2:26:22 > 2:26:25mandate, which was brought up earlier, then I want to make a
2:26:25 > 2:26:30comment about the difference between access in the single market and then
2:26:30 > 2:26:34I want to talk about social justice. I would just say to the honourable
2:26:34 > 2:26:38gentleman about the will of the people and mandate. I want to remind
2:26:38 > 2:26:47him that when he is Prime Minister -- when his Prime Minister went
2:26:47 > 2:26:52ahead of the people in June, she did it on a mandate that said it would
2:26:52 > 2:26:57be a hard Brexit. She did not get a Brexit to withdraw us from the
2:26:57 > 2:27:00European Union in that way because she lost her majority in this house.
2:27:00 > 2:27:06He talks about mandate, just look at the General Election results. There
2:27:06 > 2:27:10are a lot of people who campaign on his side of the argument in that
2:27:10 > 2:27:142016 referendum who are very clear, the Foreign Secretary, they were
2:27:14 > 2:27:18very clear that is leaving the European Union did not necessitate
2:27:18 > 2:27:22as leaving the single market, we will hear no more lectures about
2:27:22 > 2:27:26what the mandate is or isn't, because what I know about that
2:27:26 > 2:27:31election result is a Prime Minister lost a majority on a manifesto that
2:27:31 > 2:27:40advocated taking it out of the EEA. My second point: no doubt about it,
2:27:40 > 2:27:45staying in the single market's benefit is frankly that we can
2:27:45 > 2:27:52retain the economic benefits of staying in the... Some people say I
2:27:52 > 2:27:57could do it in a free trade agreement, but that would take years
2:27:57 > 2:28:02to negotiate. It essentially touches on goods, whereas 18% of the British
2:28:02 > 2:28:06economy is made up of services as my honourable friend behind me has just
2:28:06 > 2:28:14said. This is why staying in the EEA is offered such benefits,. We don't
2:28:14 > 2:28:18just what access, we want to be a member of this thing because access
2:28:18 > 2:28:22is inferior to membership. Above all, in the remaining time I have
2:28:22 > 2:28:27got left, I want to be very clear to our movement as a whole that the
2:28:27 > 2:28:33single market through the EEA is about much more than a market, it is
2:28:33 > 2:28:37an engine for promoting social justice. If you believe in social
2:28:37 > 2:28:43democracy, that for me is the primary reason why you would want to
2:28:43 > 2:28:49support my honourable friend's motion today. It helps make us part
2:28:49 > 2:28:54of this framework of rules which essentially protects the British
2:28:54 > 2:28:58people from unfettered capitalism and the excesses of globalisation,
2:28:58 > 2:29:02which in many respects are what drove the Brexit vote in the first
2:29:02 > 2:29:11place. We benefit from those rights that we get at work, through being
2:29:11 > 2:29:15part of the single market, the protection we get as consumers, the
2:29:15 > 2:29:19protection it offers to our natural environment. Three principal reasons
2:29:19 > 2:29:23why people on this side of the political spectrum argue against
2:29:23 > 2:29:29this, first of all they say get acts as an impediment to having a social
2:29:29 > 2:29:33democratic manifesto that advocates public ownership. I would argue look
2:29:33 > 2:29:36at Spain, the Netherlands, Austria, where they have publicly owned
2:29:36 > 2:29:43things such as rail, energy, water, etc. They say we wouldn't be able to
2:29:43 > 2:29:46stop zero-hour contract, they already do that in Luxembourg and
2:29:46 > 2:29:53Belgium, which is part of the single market. Germany has got regional and
2:29:53 > 2:29:59banks that we would advocate in a social manifesto. There is no
2:29:59 > 2:30:04impediment to that. The second reason they say is that they say
2:30:04 > 2:30:13they can't control immigration better than we do at the moment.
2:30:13 > 2:30:19Finally, they say we can't stay in because it offends national
2:30:19 > 2:30:23sovereignty. I would argue that one of the biggest threats to
2:30:23 > 2:30:27sovereignty is that the multinational companies operate
2:30:27 > 2:30:30across borders. The best power we have is to operate across borders
2:30:30 > 2:30:35with others. Finally, look at the actions of EU institutions in the
2:30:35 > 2:30:44last couple of years. With the £13 billion, the worth of Euros, that
2:30:44 > 2:30:47Apple has been ordered to pay the Irish Government because it wishes
2:30:47 > 2:30:51to avoid tax. Look at the Finder Google has sustained. Look at what
2:30:51 > 2:30:57Amazon has just been forced to pay. Ask yourself if that is the actions
2:30:57 > 2:31:02of some capitalist club. No. That is why so many honourable members
2:31:02 > 2:31:05opposite should advocate leaving and we should advocate at least staying
2:31:05 > 2:31:12in the EEA.Thank you. First of all, congratulations to the honourable
2:31:12 > 2:31:17member for securing this important debate because it is relevant to our
2:31:17 > 2:31:24relationship with the EU and it is much needed to debate. In the media,
2:31:24 > 2:31:27you see an awful lot of discussion going on about the remain and leave
2:31:27 > 2:31:32debate that we had. In my view, that is over. The referendum decided that
2:31:32 > 2:31:35we should leave the EU and that should now be a given and we have
2:31:35 > 2:31:41just got to get on and accepted. However, the referendum did not
2:31:41 > 2:31:43decide our future relationship between the United Kingdom and the
2:31:43 > 2:31:47EU. That, I believe, is for the Government and parliament to
2:31:47 > 2:31:52determine. It is responsibility to get the best arrangement for the
2:31:52 > 2:31:56United Kingdom in our relationships with the EU. Also, when we are doing
2:31:56 > 2:32:02that, we must recognise the views of the 52% in the 48% from the
2:32:02 > 2:32:06referendum. It is important that we get the arrangement right and it
2:32:06 > 2:32:10balances a different view in the best possible way. It must
2:32:10 > 2:32:13acknowledge that is going to be difficult and at the end of the day
2:32:13 > 2:32:18we must have to compromise and compromise is a very important word.
2:32:18 > 2:32:22I accept that in many respects the right to different clear views. The
2:32:22 > 2:32:26WTO view and it hardly any change at all. I think all others agree that
2:32:26 > 2:32:31in a perfect world, there would be a perfect free trade agreement. We
2:32:31 > 2:32:35have to have a reality check. At present, there is a huge amount of
2:32:35 > 2:32:42uncertainty. That uncertainty affects parliament, Government
2:32:42 > 2:32:46activity, I think individuals are now affected by it. Most importantly
2:32:46 > 2:32:50of all, industry and commerce are affected by that uncertainty and
2:32:50 > 2:32:56that is leading to decisions about investment not being taken or indeed
2:32:56 > 2:33:00postponed. I genuinely believe that to some extent that isn't already
2:33:00 > 2:33:04happening and will continue to happen. -- that is already
2:33:04 > 2:33:10happening. In my own constituency, things have been postponed and may
2:33:10 > 2:33:16never happen at all. You get the loss of £155 million investments.
2:33:16 > 2:33:21Two key decisions have been made, we are leaving the EU in March 2019 and
2:33:21 > 2:33:24there is a general acceptance that there has to be a transition
2:33:24 > 2:33:30arrangements until 2021. Having watched the debate, my conclusions
2:33:30 > 2:33:33are very reasonable. We are leaving, that was the decision of the people
2:33:33 > 2:33:37and the referendum. We all accept that there is a need for a
2:33:37 > 2:33:44transition, but we must always done so -- we must minimise the
2:33:44 > 2:33:50uncertainty. I believe that we must look for a practical, sensible and
2:33:50 > 2:33:55easy option to deal with that uncertainty on which is easy to
2:33:55 > 2:33:58understand and well-established. You do not need to invent the wheel once
2:33:58 > 2:34:05more. That solution for me is to base our future by rejoining EFTA
2:34:05 > 2:34:10and thereby retaining membership of the EEA. I think the advantages are
2:34:10 > 2:34:14already set up, we leave the EU, part of the referendum. Out of the
2:34:14 > 2:34:20ECJ, the agricultural and fishery policies will return to us, we have
2:34:20 > 2:34:22our own trade agreement opportunities, but most importantly
2:34:22 > 2:34:29it is established and understood by all concerned that it is a
2:34:29 > 2:34:38compromise.Did my honourable friend's constituents in Carlisle
2:34:38 > 2:34:40really vote when they voted to leave the EU
2:34:40 > 2:34:45really vote when they voted to leave the EU, to ensure that our borders
2:34:45 > 2:34:48will be open forevermore to European immigration. That would be the
2:34:48 > 2:34:52consequence of his proposal of staying in the EEA.I will talk
2:34:52 > 2:34:56about that very issue. I accept my constituency voted to leave and I
2:34:56 > 2:35:00respect that. I understand many of the reasons involved around
2:35:00 > 2:35:05immigration which I will come to. I believe by rejoining EFTA it will
2:35:05 > 2:35:08eliminate a huge amount of the uncertainty almost immediately.
2:35:08 > 2:35:13Going forward, it will very much turbo-charge after because then you
2:35:13 > 2:35:19will have a country of 65 million people coming in support and indeed
2:35:19 > 2:35:22help improve the prospects of additional agreements with other
2:35:22 > 2:35:30countries. We have to acknowledge there are comp is is with --
2:35:30 > 2:35:36compromises. Free movement continues. We must also remember
2:35:36 > 2:35:40that we must need some sort of free movement of we are to make sure we
2:35:40 > 2:35:42have people coming into this country with the right skills to support our
2:35:42 > 2:35:49industries.Does he agree with me that if David Cameron had been able
2:35:49 > 2:35:53to secure a form of emergency brake, it was more likely than not that the
2:35:53 > 2:35:59UK would have been able to remain. If it is the case that Esther allows
2:35:59 > 2:36:01for third-party trade deals, plus the introduction of the emergency
2:36:01 > 2:36:05brake whilst ousting the jurisdiction of the European Court
2:36:05 > 2:36:07of Jackson, it should merit consideration.
2:36:11 > 2:36:18Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I agree with the bike that is put
2:36:18 > 2:36:22forward. Containing membership means access to the single market and some
2:36:22 > 2:36:27people have commented that we would be a real taker and why we are going
2:36:27 > 2:36:30through the transition, that is arguably very true. There is an
2:36:30 > 2:36:35argument that we are in fact a rural taker because under the EU, a lot of
2:36:35 > 2:36:38the decisions are actually made by majority and sometimes we are
2:36:38 > 2:36:41actually in a minority and still have to accept the decisions that
2:36:41 > 2:36:45are made. And, yes, there is undoubtably a requirement that we'll
2:36:45 > 2:36:51have to concede to make a payment into the EU I accept at present it
2:36:51 > 2:36:55is not perfect but never the less, it is a compromise that we can now
2:36:55 > 2:36:58have at this moment in time and then it still allows us time to go for
2:36:58 > 2:37:04further negotiations to modify things such as immigration, such as
2:37:04 > 2:37:07access to the single market and the rules that we have to accept and
2:37:07 > 2:37:12indeed a debate about the amount of money that we contribute to the EU.
2:37:12 > 2:37:17Today, politics would have paid to the political wing. The voice of the
2:37:17 > 2:37:23Centre is struggling to be heard. Indeed it is as if the centre is no
2:37:23 > 2:37:29longer appealing a place to be. I would remind this House that life is
2:37:29 > 2:37:35not black-and-white comedy shades of grey. Compromises required and
2:37:35 > 2:37:40certainly is urgently needed. They rejoining EFTA, we would end to some
2:37:40 > 2:37:42extent that uncertainty now. Businesses can plan for the future
2:37:42 > 2:37:47in a more confident manner. Negotiations cannot continue
2:37:47 > 2:37:50understanding the Tillerson with the parties that the nature of the
2:37:50 > 2:37:55Institute and hopefully in the long run achieving a bespoke UK EU
2:37:55 > 2:38:04agreement through EFTA. I next centres willing to be pragmatic, I
2:38:04 > 2:38:07believe such an approach is the best interest of the people I represent
2:38:07 > 2:38:10and in the future of the United Kingdom.
2:38:10 > 2:38:16Gareth Thomas. It is a pleasure to follow the
2:38:16 > 2:38:19honourable gentlemen who I thought made a number of very interesting
2:38:19 > 2:38:25points. Two of which I want to follow up. He rightly noted that the
2:38:25 > 2:38:31outcome of the referendum did not determine the future basis of the
2:38:31 > 2:38:34UK's relationship with the European Union and it was this House's
2:38:34 > 2:38:40responsibility to do that in the months ahead of March 20 19. When we
2:38:40 > 2:38:48leave the European union. He also quite rightly noted that there was a
2:38:48 > 2:38:56huge amount of uncertainty at the moment, stalling many investment
2:38:56 > 2:39:01decisions and warranty, understanding, the business
2:39:01 > 2:39:05community up and down the UK. -- worrying. We have had that
2:39:05 > 2:39:10underlined in very graphic detail over the course of the CBI
2:39:10 > 2:39:18conference today and in preceding weeks and notably by the Governor of
2:39:18 > 2:39:22the Bank of England just last week who underlined a very significant
2:39:22 > 2:39:28impact that Brexiteers having an economic growth in the UK. At a time
2:39:28 > 2:39:33in his view where the British economy should be doing much better
2:39:33 > 2:39:36than it was. Now I had to be straight with the House, I come to
2:39:36 > 2:39:41this debate having made clear in the general election that I wanted
2:39:41 > 2:39:47Britain to maintain full access to the single market. I'm having always
2:39:47 > 2:39:53thought that Britain was stronger through cooperating with allies
2:39:53 > 2:39:57through the European Union and in particular the single market
2:39:57 > 2:40:01elements of the European Union. I have to accept that even though my
2:40:01 > 2:40:05constituency voted strongly in favour of the but that relationship
2:40:05 > 2:40:11looks like it is going to change going forward. But it does seem to
2:40:11 > 2:40:16me that membership, continued membership of the European Economic
2:40:16 > 2:40:20Area does potentially represent an opportunity, certainly in a
2:40:20 > 2:40:30transition phase. But potentially in the longer term as well. For the
2:40:30 > 2:40:36concerns of both those who voted to leave and those who voted remain to
2:40:36 > 2:40:43be squared. Certainly it is striking, I think, about Norway,
2:40:43 > 2:40:46notwithstanding all the concerns that we had from the honourable
2:40:46 > 2:40:50gentleman for Stone has consistently sought to stay in the European
2:40:50 > 2:40:57Economic Area, representing the benefits to it a full access to the
2:40:57 > 2:41:06single market. But also as they say, the benefits of having control of
2:41:06 > 2:41:12agriculture, also of fisheries going forward. Indeed that is the beauty
2:41:12 > 2:41:17of the European Economic Area surely, is it not, at this
2:41:17 > 2:41:21particular time as much as we look at the case for a longer term
2:41:21 > 2:41:25transition deal than the current Government are looking at. It is an
2:41:25 > 2:41:29internal market with the single market, it replicates the single
2:41:29 > 2:41:32market Al Beard with the two exceptions that I have outlined and
2:41:32 > 2:41:35other members have a knowledge. Without membership of common
2:41:35 > 2:41:41defence, security and foreign policy which I know have also concerned a
2:41:41 > 2:41:46number of those who voted to leave. Crucially allows member states to
2:41:46 > 2:41:51negotiate their own trade deals that is a former Trade Minister who watch
2:41:51 > 2:41:55them took part in many a long discussion about trade deals, I
2:41:55 > 2:41:58struggle with the idea that we could do quickly a comprehensive trade
2:41:58 > 2:42:05deal with the United States or the India or with Australia and so given
2:42:05 > 2:42:11the very short time but appears to be envisaged by ministers and
2:42:11 > 2:42:17certainly by the European Union as part of the transition deal, I think
2:42:17 > 2:42:21it is fun to go to think that we will have consequences traded
2:42:21 > 2:42:27agreements for the a man that time. They make sense that the European
2:42:27 > 2:42:33Economic Area represents a sensible transition deal, transition
2:42:33 > 2:42:39arrangements going forward. I also think it is worthy of considering in
2:42:39 > 2:42:45the longer term as well. But in the second remaining to me, let me come
2:42:45 > 2:42:48to the issue of whether or not we have voted to leave the European
2:42:48 > 2:42:55Economic Area and I have to say I do not think we have voted for the
2:42:55 > 2:42:58European Economic Area. Not this point that have been made about the
2:42:58 > 2:43:01mandate, there was no reference to the leaving the European Economic
2:43:01 > 2:43:06Area that the Government published in the pamphlet, the context of the
2:43:06 > 2:43:09vote was to give those in the referendum. It is a context that I
2:43:09 > 2:43:15think there should be a bit in this House on whether or not we leave.
2:43:15 > 2:43:22Thank you. I congratulate the member, the
2:43:22 > 2:43:27debate is timely. A part of his speech and the debate I want to
2:43:27 > 2:43:31focus on his free movement because it is the issue that hangs over this
2:43:31 > 2:43:36debate. The reason this country, it is not going to look at the EEA at
2:43:36 > 2:43:41the moment, the fear of those who voted to leave that we would
2:43:41 > 2:43:47continue to have uncontrolled migration from the EU and in my
2:43:47 > 2:43:50view, we are under estimating the amount of control we do have and the
2:43:50 > 2:44:00swords we could have. We have to ask ourselves about immigration. The
2:44:00 > 2:44:04first, would we still allow an skilled migration to this country
2:44:04 > 2:44:08could not it is absolutely critical. In my view, completely unrealistic
2:44:08 > 2:44:13that Britain could go to a situation where it is almost dependent on an
2:44:13 > 2:44:16skilled migration to having none at all and I think the Government
2:44:16 > 2:44:20except that, I think care homes, many parts of industry would
2:44:20 > 2:44:24severely struggle and Noah would have the added significant
2:44:24 > 2:44:30transition.Of course we are not. The whole point of this exercise is
2:44:30 > 2:44:34we whatever system which we let into this country people who contribute
2:44:34 > 2:44:37to the country. We are not going to go from full-screen aggression to
2:44:37 > 2:44:47know migration. -- full-scale migration.I was getting at is the
2:44:47 > 2:44:51question. The official leave campaign was two and migration to
2:44:51 > 2:44:54this country. The second question, it is controversial, it is
2:44:54 > 2:44:58important, at this moment in time, it is illegal to enter this country
2:44:58 > 2:45:03as an skilled Margaret from outside the EU. We legally discriminate
2:45:03 > 2:45:07because we are members of the EU. We only allow an SCUD migration from
2:45:07 > 2:45:14within the EU. We do not allow access through Tier three. The
2:45:14 > 2:45:19latest figures for migration watch show 50,000 more people came into
2:45:19 > 2:45:22this country net migration comes from outside the EU than within and
2:45:22 > 2:45:26in my opinion, particularly if we gave that the so-called global
2:45:26 > 2:45:32Brexit and we open up an SCUD migration and equalised immigration
2:45:32 > 2:45:37system, you will see at best a reduction in EU migration and
2:45:37 > 2:45:40significant rise in non-EU. They think they did on immigration terms,
2:45:40 > 2:45:44the country did not vote for that. That is why I say do not
2:45:44 > 2:45:48underestimate the level of control that the country has in respect
2:45:48 > 2:45:52immigration by being in some form at the EEA or ten Mrs Merkel so on. The
2:45:52 > 2:46:04third question is... EFTA or in EFTA.Thank you forgiving way. Would
2:46:04 > 2:46:10he agree with me that the fact as the UK, we control immigration from
2:46:10 > 2:46:16country that can send 90% of the wild's population did not feature at
2:46:16 > 2:46:19all in the referendum campaign and has led to a lot of
2:46:19 > 2:46:22misunderstandings about the way that the immigration system works in this
2:46:22 > 2:46:26country. The honourable lady is entirely
2:46:26 > 2:46:31right. We restrict an skilled migration to a population of 750
2:46:31 > 2:46:35million. If we have an equally system because we are no longer
2:46:35 > 2:46:39discriminating, we will open up to a publishing of 7.5 billion. Of course
2:46:39 > 2:46:42we will bring in controls and visas and so on, but it will be how on
2:46:42 > 2:46:47earth with the man from the ministry be able to work out when he gives
2:46:47 > 2:46:50his craters, how many he allows from Europe and how many from outside?
2:46:50 > 2:46:56You only have to look at the proposals at the moment, all the
2:46:56 > 2:46:59pressure is on offer workers to come from the UK, they asking for a
2:46:59 > 2:47:03scheme that allows workers from Russia and Ukraine. In my view, yes,
2:47:03 > 2:47:08we should be looking at how we encourage British workers, education
2:47:08 > 2:47:13systems, it cannot happen overnight. My third question, do we want a
2:47:13 > 2:47:16system where we are also subject of these controls when we go to France
2:47:16 > 2:47:21or Germany or Italy. In my view, there will be a massive disadvantage
2:47:21 > 2:47:29which comes onto the fourth question. I do not think the country
2:47:29 > 2:47:31would expect visas to be applied to people from wealthier western
2:47:31 > 2:47:34European countries. I think the perception would be it is from those
2:47:34 > 2:47:36countries who have a significantly different economy to a firmware for
2:47:36 > 2:47:40the volume has been rated has to be said, those countries, Poland in
2:47:40 > 2:47:42particular, are starting to the level of growth, they are starting
2:47:42 > 2:47:49to return. These things are very fluid. When you look at those for
2:47:49 > 2:47:53questions, in my opinion, you conclude that a variation on free
2:47:53 > 2:47:57movement is not going to be unpalatable to the British people
2:47:57 > 2:48:00will stop since they would not one visas to be applied to themselves,
2:48:00 > 2:48:03probably would not want to open an SCUD migration dial said the EU and
2:48:03 > 2:48:09when you factor all of a sudden, the sort of attrition we have a religion
2:48:09 > 2:48:14starting, with I think recommend itself? I want to raise a couple of
2:48:14 > 2:48:24other points. EFTA does offer many potentially attractive points. Of
2:48:24 > 2:48:30course I support the Government and Trent is seek the ideal which is the
2:48:30 > 2:48:32commenters trade agreement covering services specs to ourselves,
2:48:32 > 2:48:37negotiated in good time. We all want that. I argue for a transition deal,
2:48:37 > 2:48:40it will be asking some to get about the degree quickly and I question
2:48:40 > 2:48:45whether we should at least consider EFTA for the transition period
2:48:45 > 2:48:48because contrary to what the honourable gentleman from Stone and
2:48:48 > 2:48:52I believe so, I understand if you are in EFTA, you can negotiate your
2:48:52 > 2:48:56own third-party trade deals, as well as being a signatory to the ones
2:48:56 > 2:49:01already held by the collective tarmac countries. We will be
2:49:01 > 2:49:06boosting blood group, a much greater global presence. We are not in cap,
2:49:06 > 2:49:11we're not in the fisheries policy, we have far more freedom. You cannot
2:49:11 > 2:49:16have total freedom, it does not work like that. We have is being in the
2:49:16 > 2:49:18group, giving businesses the security of the structure that they
2:49:18 > 2:49:22will be going into. I finish with the point, do not underestimate this
2:49:22 > 2:49:27issue about immigration. Many people out there, this might be difficult
2:49:27 > 2:49:32to sum the comment, there will be voters out there if they wake up and
2:49:32 > 2:49:35see we have a seesaw of an immigration system from EU I won
2:49:35 > 2:49:40and, non-EU at the other, they will feel betrayed. They are expecting
2:49:40 > 2:49:44immigration to fall in the locality and if you wanted during control
2:49:44 > 2:49:48immigration in the long run, you cannot have the legal powers, you
2:49:48 > 2:49:52have to love the workforce. We have got people in this country, I am
2:49:52 > 2:49:57afraid that will mean further wealth reforms, how the apprentice schemes
2:49:57 > 2:50:02work. It cannot happen quickly which is why we need to like transition
2:50:02 > 2:50:06and a transition within tarmac would be a sensible option on the lookout.
2:50:06 > 2:50:13-- EFTA. It is a real pleasure to follow the
2:50:13 > 2:50:17member. He has made an excellent speech and I want to hear more of
2:50:17 > 2:50:26him in the future. I want to begin by taking on the claim that was made
2:50:26 > 2:50:32from some on the Government benches that somehow the decision was taken
2:50:32 > 2:50:40to leave the European Economic Area in June 20 16. If that is the case,
2:50:40 > 2:50:46why did the Government's lawyers in the submission that they made in
2:50:46 > 2:50:53December 2016 say no decision has been taken either to serve not to
2:50:53 > 2:50:57serve a notice under article 127 of the agreement, consequently there is
2:50:57 > 2:51:04no decision which is amenable to review.
2:51:04 > 2:51:07No decision was taken because that position has to be taken by the
2:51:07 > 2:51:12Government. It was not automatic and this Parliament must have the final
2:51:12 > 2:51:21say about that matter. I am not an advocate in any strong way of the
2:51:21 > 2:51:30proposal being made by my friend, I am an unreconstructed remainder. I
2:51:30 > 2:51:37remain so. I will fight to stay in the European Union. We haven't left
2:51:37 > 2:51:47yet, but if... If we leave, I will fight to get the best possible deal
2:51:47 > 2:51:57for our country. There are problems with the EFTA, EEA issue. The
2:51:57 > 2:52:00arrangements do not cover agriculture fisheries, we have heard
2:52:00 > 2:52:04that already. That is potentially a massive problem for Northern
2:52:04 > 2:52:10Ireland. That needs to be taken into consideration. As we have heard, it
2:52:10 > 2:52:15doesn't cover the financial sector, doesn't deal with many of the issues
2:52:15 > 2:52:20that we will have to confront which will be problematic if we are
2:52:20 > 2:52:31leaving the customs union. I believe that we need to have an EEA plus
2:52:31 > 2:52:38arrangement, rather than just an EEA arrangement, that will mean another
2:52:38 > 2:52:40agreement alongside. It may take time to negotiate those and in the
2:52:40 > 2:52:52meantime, let's not go on a rush over the cliff.I'm amused by his
2:52:52 > 2:52:56proposal to have an EEA plus, presumably he can now tell us what
2:52:56 > 2:53:08the difference would be between a member of the EEA plus and the EU.
2:53:08 > 2:53:10Having agreement on Security policies. An agreement on those
2:53:10 > 2:53:19matters that do not affect some of the EFTA countries, EEA countries,
2:53:19 > 2:53:28because the UK is not listed in stone. It is not Norway. It is not
2:53:28 > 2:53:32Iceland. We will have to have the closest possible relationships on
2:53:32 > 2:53:39many issues to do with policing, security, defence. Having said that,
2:53:39 > 2:53:45the essence, the economic relationship is fundamental and a
2:53:45 > 2:53:54transition is better than a dozen asked -- than a disaster. It would
2:53:54 > 2:53:57be disastrous crashing out of the single market with no Deal, or a
2:53:57 > 2:54:06very costly bad deal, is not in our interest. As Michel Barnier, the
2:54:06 > 2:54:13negotiator, has said, we don't have time to invent a new model. Why
2:54:13 > 2:54:19reinvent something when it is already there? When it can be taken
2:54:19 > 2:54:26up and built on to establish the security and the certainty that our
2:54:26 > 2:54:32business need in this transition period. Interestingly, there is
2:54:32 > 2:54:37support for that in an article in the Financial Times today where
2:54:37 > 2:54:44Wolfgang says once the reality of unlimited trade deals sink in, we
2:54:44 > 2:54:51are left with only two logical strategies. Join the EEA or go for a
2:54:51 > 2:54:57minimalist agreement and focus on making that work. -- the limited
2:54:57 > 2:55:00trade deals. That seems to be the choice and there are some on those
2:55:00 > 2:55:06benches who want for ideological reasons a minimalist agreement. That
2:55:06 > 2:55:13is because they are not Brexit people, they are trying to wreck
2:55:13 > 2:55:19exit, prepared to bring down our economy, slash our public sector,
2:55:19 > 2:55:27our National Health Service. It's going to cost billions, billions,
2:55:27 > 2:55:32for our public services if our economic growth is reduced, if our
2:55:32 > 2:55:36economy is reduced. We will then suffer the consequences and we will
2:55:36 > 2:55:42also suffer the consequences of an picked fruit. Difficulties in the
2:55:42 > 2:55:48agricultural sector. All the major financial sector banks, American
2:55:48 > 2:55:55banks already planning, moving headquarters from London to Dublin,
2:55:55 > 2:56:00personnel from London to Frankfurt and Paris. These things are
2:56:00 > 2:56:04happening now, even before the decision is finally taken. Let's
2:56:04 > 2:56:14stop this insanity, act now and at least stay in the EEA.It is a great
2:56:14 > 2:56:19pleasure to follow the honourable gentleman for Ilford South, can I
2:56:19 > 2:56:23congratulate the honourable gentleman for securing this debate,
2:56:23 > 2:56:26it was a pleasure to support him along with the honourable member for
2:56:26 > 2:56:32Lewisham and Deptford, east Lewisham and Deptford. We are grateful for
2:56:32 > 2:56:41the fact that they have finally, we finally, have had the debate, one of
2:56:41 > 2:56:44the most important matters that faces this Parliament and the last
2:56:44 > 2:56:49parliament. I am in a interesting position given what happened on June
2:56:49 > 2:56:55the 8th. When I stood, I made it very clear on every piece of
2:56:55 > 2:56:58literature and the e-mails that I sent out to my constituents that I
2:56:58 > 2:57:04would continue to make the case and support the single market, the
2:57:04 > 2:57:09customs union and stand up and advance the positive benefits of
2:57:09 > 2:57:16immigration. Unlike many others, I think I actually have a mandate,
2:57:16 > 2:57:21some would say a duty, to make sure that I'd put forward in the
2:57:21 > 2:57:25strongest possible terms the undoubted benefits of the single
2:57:25 > 2:57:31market. I'm using that shorthand and very much support this motion. The I
2:57:31 > 2:57:38quote? These are not my words. This is from a speech. The task of Right
2:57:38 > 2:57:44Honourable members is to guess the date. The task of Government is
2:57:44 > 2:57:50twofold, to negotiate in Brussels, so as to get the best possible
2:57:50 > 2:57:56result for Britain and then to make you, the business community, aware
2:57:56 > 2:58:01of the opportunities, so that you can make the most of them. It's your
2:58:01 > 2:58:06job, the job of business, to gain yourselves up to take the
2:58:06 > 2:58:14opportunity which is the single market of nearly 320 million people
2:58:14 > 2:58:21being offered. What a prospect that is. Guess the year? 1988. Guess the
2:58:21 > 2:58:26place? Lancaster house. And from whom did those wise words come? No
2:58:26 > 2:58:32other person than the Right Honourable former member and Prime
2:58:32 > 2:58:36Minister Margaret Thatcher. She was one of the most strongest proponents
2:58:36 > 2:58:42of the single market. Why? Because she knew of the huge and wondrous
2:58:42 > 2:58:47benefits that it would bring to the economy and the people of this
2:58:47 > 2:58:52country. You see, I am old enough to remember when this country was
2:58:52 > 2:58:59rightly described as the sick man of Europe because we were. Then when we
2:58:59 > 2:59:02joined the European Union and we embraced the single market, we let
2:59:02 > 2:59:07it by the fine words and actions of Margaret Thatcher, we then rose to
2:59:07 > 2:59:13become the fifth largest economy in the world. Our membership of the
2:59:13 > 2:59:18single market and the customs union, understanding the benefits, the
2:59:18 > 2:59:22positive benefits of immigration, all these things, that has made our
2:59:22 > 2:59:29country the great economy that it almost is today.I'm always grateful
2:59:29 > 2:59:33to the right Honourable Lady. She also acknowledged that as time
2:59:33 > 2:59:39progressed, the right honourable Lady to whom she referred also said
2:59:39 > 2:59:47that she thought we made a mistake in joining the Cussons market
2:59:47 > 2:59:50because she made a mistake.I have do accept that the words of my right
2:59:50 > 2:59:57honourable friend, I'm not aware of that. If you would ask me what
2:59:57 > 3:00:00Margaret Thatcher would think about the bureaucracy of the European
3:00:00 > 3:00:03Union and joining the euro, I'm sure we would all agree with her, but
3:00:03 > 3:00:06haven't we thrown away the baby with the bath water by the decision that
3:00:06 > 3:00:17was made back in June 2016? I embrace and agree with all those who
3:00:17 > 3:00:24have spoken before me. In particular, the honourable member
3:00:24 > 3:00:28who made a very powerful speech about the benefits of the single
3:00:28 > 3:00:35market and of course the realities of Brexit and he made many very
3:00:35 > 3:00:37important points about immigration. We do control immigration in this
3:00:37 > 3:00:43country. We control it by this thing called the market. People only come
3:00:43 > 3:00:49here to work. There is a very easy way for us to control immigration.
3:00:49 > 3:00:53We trash the economy and then people don't come here because there won't
3:00:53 > 3:01:00be the jobs. The idea that there is some small army of people out of
3:01:00 > 3:01:06work, sitting at home, begging to be working in the fields of perhaps a
3:01:06 > 3:01:13Lincolnshire or in some factory in my constituency, one of the food
3:01:13 > 3:01:16processing Company is, is a complete and utter myth. We have the highest
3:01:16 > 3:01:21rate of unemployment since the 70s. We have almost full employment in
3:01:21 > 3:01:24huge part of the country and where do we find the highest employment?
3:01:24 > 3:01:30In our country? In those very areas where there is the highest rate of
3:01:30 > 3:01:38migrant workers. Where is the lowest of immigration? In those areas where
3:01:38 > 3:01:41we find the highest rate of immigration. Let's nail that. This
3:01:41 > 3:01:47is another con that was played on the British people. They will see
3:01:47 > 3:01:54all the EU regulations that my friend complains about, being taken
3:01:54 > 3:01:59into British law. They are getting their £350 million for the NHS and
3:01:59 > 3:02:04they will also see that won't go down. The final thing I will say is
3:02:04 > 3:02:09this, people are fed up with Brexit, they want us to get on with it, I
3:02:09 > 3:02:12think they do. There is a model there. It is sitting on the shelf,
3:02:12 > 3:02:17it will do the job. It is this EEA. It might be left as well. It will
3:02:17 > 3:02:23solve the problem, stop the negotiations, get on, get out, get a
3:02:23 > 3:02:27deal, give the certainty to British businesses and then we can get on
3:02:27 > 3:02:34with the domestic agenda that needs to be done by this Government.A
3:02:34 > 3:02:38great pleasure to follow the member for Broxton, she mentioned Margaret
3:02:38 > 3:02:44thatcher who I recall quoting at least saying that referenda were the
3:02:44 > 3:02:48instruments of demagogues and dictators because Hitler used them
3:02:48 > 3:02:56to assume supreme power, militarised and invade. Committing atrocities.
3:02:56 > 3:03:00The referendum was an advisory referendum, it was full of
3:03:00 > 3:03:06misinformation, everyday people are saying this is not what I voted for.
3:03:06 > 3:03:10We're here to talk about the market economic sand if it is the case that
3:03:10 > 3:03:15the UK leaves the single market, which is the most developed free
3:03:15 > 3:03:23market in the world, and the EEA, and VE you, which itself has got 66
3:03:23 > 3:03:27bilateral trade agreements, it will be the greatest withdrawal from free
3:03:27 > 3:03:34trade in UK history. The reality is that this is not a turning towards
3:03:34 > 3:03:39free trade, it is away from free trade and proper trade for the good
3:03:39 > 3:03:43of our economy. In terms of migration, people have talked about
3:03:43 > 3:03:48the need to restrict migration, but people here should know that the EU
3:03:48 > 3:03:52have enormous powers in their rules to restrict migration, people are
3:03:52 > 3:03:56thrown out of other EU countries from neighbouring EU countries who
3:03:56 > 3:04:05have not stayed three months to get a job. Indeed, there is no automatic
3:04:05 > 3:04:10right for benefits, either, the contribution of EU migrants to the
3:04:10 > 3:04:13economy is much more in tax than they consume in public services.
3:04:13 > 3:04:20Migration is good. If we can salvage some of those benefits it is the
3:04:20 > 3:04:25second best, I have got to say, to staying in the EU, well and good.
3:04:25 > 3:04:28People say we can turn away and have our own trade relations with the
3:04:28 > 3:04:34United States, for instance. We have already seen with the case of
3:04:34 > 3:04:39bombarding a, -- in the case of Bombardier. We have heard Donald
3:04:39 > 3:04:44Trump saying that foreign countries are taking his jobs, making his
3:04:44 > 3:04:48products are stealing his companies. We know we are going to be hammered.
3:04:48 > 3:04:52The reality is that being in the EEA, we can trade with the US
3:04:52 > 3:04:56through the single market because we won't get the same terms as the EU
3:04:56 > 3:05:04would with the US, our headquarters will move into the European zone to
3:05:04 > 3:05:08trade because there is no prospect of having any sort of deal with the
3:05:08 > 3:05:13US in the next five or six years. We have seen the benefits of migration,
3:05:13 > 3:05:22as I've mentioned, if we turn our backs on the EU and the EEA, there
3:05:22 > 3:05:28will be a continuation of higher values of people, lawyers, doctors
3:05:28 > 3:05:35from the NHS, moving out and the retention will be the retention of
3:05:35 > 3:05:39lower value people, so-called, so if we were to swap the people from
3:05:39 > 3:05:45Britain who migrate to Europe and live in Spain, retired, for the
3:05:45 > 3:05:48Polish workers, for instance, then we would be swapping people who
3:05:48 > 3:05:52would be taking money out of the NHS, for people who are making a
3:05:52 > 3:05:57contribution. It makes no economic sense.
3:06:03 > 3:06:06The vote should be three months before exiting and before that,
3:06:06 > 3:06:10there should be a vote, a final say of the people on the exit package
3:06:10 > 3:06:15because the simple reality is, we continue to hurtle along towards
3:06:15 > 3:06:19this cliff edge and people are saying, I will tell you what, we
3:06:19 > 3:06:22will give you some rubbish used to jump over the other end. But it is
3:06:22 > 3:06:28emerging as an economic and social nightmare, and a few fundamentalists
3:06:28 > 3:06:32I think we should carry on, the people should have the final say
3:06:32 > 3:06:37because they are simply not getting what they thought. The ideas around
3:06:37 > 3:06:39migration were completely misconceived. If it is the cases we
3:06:39 > 3:06:45have got to turn back on the EU and open up our trading borders to
3:06:45 > 3:06:51India, then they are demanding more visas, China does not want us to
3:06:51 > 3:06:55penetrate the market. The US will demand a much higher terms and we
3:06:55 > 3:07:02are heading for an major economic downturn. This is the last
3:07:02 > 3:07:05opportunity, being part of the EEA to salvage some of the problem. If
3:07:05 > 3:07:09we do decide to leave the warm health and friends I live in the
3:07:09 > 3:07:13garden, better to live in the shed them in the open air. I will leave
3:07:13 > 3:07:20it there. I'm not sure it is wise to live in a
3:07:20 > 3:07:26shed. We will leave that on one side. The honourable member I
3:07:26 > 3:07:40thought gave a drastically -- characteristically speech. My main
3:07:40 > 3:07:44motivation for supporting the leave campaign was to reassert the control
3:07:44 > 3:07:48of parliament over our affairs. I have always been influenced by the
3:07:48 > 3:07:52debate starting in 1992 with many great speeches from both sides of
3:07:52 > 3:07:59the House which questioned our entry into an entirely new treaty set up
3:07:59 > 3:08:03where our own laws were no longer sovereign. But I do think the
3:08:03 > 3:08:06honourable gentleman is right to raise his question and I would like
3:08:06 > 3:08:11to question the Minister on this as well will stop as I understand it,
3:08:11 > 3:08:15this is certainly my belief in my hope, that we are committed to
3:08:15 > 3:08:19having full Parliamentary approval for this process. As I understand
3:08:19 > 3:08:26it, the Government is attempting to make a deal and are the deal will be
3:08:26 > 3:08:30put to the House of Commons before we actually leave for the end of
3:08:30 > 3:08:34March 2019 and the House of Commons presumably can either prove that
3:08:34 > 3:08:37they all rejected. Again, I understand if that deal is rejected
3:08:37 > 3:08:42or as we are now in the Article 50 prisoners, the process is
3:08:42 > 3:08:46irreversible and if the deal was rejected, the deal would not happen
3:08:46 > 3:08:52so we would actually exit without a deal. I put that question to the
3:08:52 > 3:08:56Minister, I am sure he can resolve these matters very easily. It would
3:08:56 > 3:09:01be possible for members of Parliament, but it would be
3:09:01 > 3:09:06opposition, if they could garner a majority, to try and engineer a vote
3:09:06 > 3:09:10on whether we stay in the EEA. But then for that happen, we want to
3:09:10 > 3:09:16have some idea of what the policy of opposition was. We are somewhat
3:09:16 > 3:09:21unclear at the moment. We know the opposition is committed to leaving
3:09:21 > 3:09:27the EU, they have been quite careful, I understand, they are in
3:09:27 > 3:09:32opposition, they have been remarkably unclear on what is the
3:09:32 > 3:09:38official position of the opposition with regard to accepting staying in
3:09:38 > 3:09:42the single market. We know the reason for this, the sixth most
3:09:42 > 3:09:46leave constituencies were laid their constituencies and the six most
3:09:46 > 3:09:53remain constituencies were Labour constituents. They have two faced
3:09:53 > 3:09:54both ways, that is what they are doing.
3:09:54 > 3:10:01He said initially that he voted the way he did because he wanted how
3:10:01 > 3:10:06Parliamentary control. Why then is he so reluctant to allow this House
3:10:06 > 3:10:13to make the decision about the question of whether we should leave
3:10:13 > 3:10:19the EU or leave the EEA? If he was listening to me, I said
3:10:19 > 3:10:23precisely the opposite. I have made it clear that I'm a committed
3:10:23 > 3:10:26parliamentarian, I committed to the vote. Was the honourable lady tried
3:10:26 > 3:10:33to intervene?I thank the honourable gentleman forgiving way. Isn't it
3:10:33 > 3:10:38true that this House is here to debate and isn't it proper that as
3:10:38 > 3:10:42we debate, we are coming to new conclusions and also new ways of
3:10:42 > 3:10:49looking at things and it is perfectly legitimate for people to
3:10:49 > 3:10:53start thinking about different outcomes than made properly thought
3:10:53 > 3:10:57at the beginning of this whole debate?More things are coming to
3:10:57 > 3:11:00light. That is a very fair point and I entirely accepted. I cannot
3:11:00 > 3:11:05disagree with that. I have got very little time now. May I just finished
3:11:05 > 3:11:12my remarks. Plenty of time. I have to give way to the honourable lady.
3:11:12 > 3:11:17I am very grateful to the honourable gentleman forgiving way. Given what
3:11:17 > 3:11:24he just said in response to my honourable friend about supporting a
3:11:24 > 3:11:26vote on whether we leave the European Economic Area, could he
3:11:26 > 3:11:31indicate whether he would be willing to sign my new clause 22 to the EU
3:11:31 > 3:11:38withdrawal bill which would actually put that in?I thank you for making
3:11:38 > 3:11:44that kind offer. My problem I am a Government loyalists and I do want
3:11:44 > 3:11:48to help the Government to get this bill through. I think it is most
3:11:48 > 3:11:52important because if we do not could be built through, we will be in a
3:11:52 > 3:11:59kind of limbo. I apologise for using that expression, all this bill does,
3:11:59 > 3:12:02transfer all our EU laws into our current law. I am anxious that we
3:12:02 > 3:12:08get a generous free trade deal. I am anxious that we pass all be EU laws
3:12:08 > 3:12:12into our law, in particular because I do not want us to create a bargain
3:12:12 > 3:12:17basement economy. I want to preserve workers' rights, I want is to be a
3:12:17 > 3:12:21gold cost economy and as far as I'm concerned, all this bill does is to
3:12:21 > 3:12:25transfer all these predictions and many useful things into our own law
3:12:25 > 3:12:28and I will be supporting the garment. As I hope will my
3:12:28 > 3:12:35honourable friend. -- supporting the Government.The remark he just made,
3:12:35 > 3:12:40the opposition of the Labour Party on the other side of the House, they
3:12:40 > 3:12:44are looking at this issue both ways. They did in fact voted against the
3:12:44 > 3:12:50principle of this bill which includes the repeal of the union by
3:12:50 > 3:12:55virtue of which all of the legislation in the Court of Justice
3:12:55 > 3:13:01come into effect.I know that point and I must now proceed to the end of
3:13:01 > 3:13:05my remark. That is what I want to say about Parliamentary procedure. I
3:13:05 > 3:13:09know what to say a bit, I have got to be polite to my honourable
3:13:09 > 3:13:18friend.Can I be very clear that my words from my honourable friend, is
3:13:18 > 3:13:21he saying setting aside the EU Withdrawal Bill, he makes a good
3:13:21 > 3:13:26point about that, if there were some other mechanism by which it was
3:13:26 > 3:13:32guaranteed that this place had a say not entering membership or our
3:13:32 > 3:13:36membership of the EEA, is he saying that we should have that debate?
3:13:36 > 3:13:40Take it away from the EU Withdrawal Bill, but it somewhere else but we
3:13:40 > 3:13:44showed, this place, make that decision?I think actually, in
3:13:44 > 3:13:47fairness, it is going to be virtually impossible to avoid such a
3:13:47 > 3:13:51vote. If the opposition, was their position comes clear, want to the
3:13:51 > 3:13:55vote, I am not sure it would be possible for the Government to avoid
3:13:55 > 3:14:02such a vote that go back to my very first remarks, as I understand it,
3:14:02 > 3:14:05we will be voting on the deal. If the Government is then defeated, we
3:14:05 > 3:14:09go back to the Article 50 and we just exit without a deal. In a very
3:14:09 > 3:14:13last minute that I have got, may I just say a bit about the EEA?
3:14:13 > 3:14:18Because I do think that people have got to be entirely honest about it.
3:14:18 > 3:14:21Politically the Norwegian experience. The whole point of
3:14:21 > 3:14:27Norway's membership of the EEA was it was supposed to be a waiting room
3:14:27 > 3:14:31for the EU. It was actually to prepare Norway for EU membership and
3:14:31 > 3:14:37that is why Norway has adopted in the intervening years the
3:14:37 > 3:14:43overwhelming majority of EU laws. Now, I understand why some people
3:14:43 > 3:14:45here who voted remained in the referendum want to stay in the EEA.
3:14:45 > 3:14:50But I do urge you to be honest about it. Let us have an honest debate.
3:14:50 > 3:14:55Want to stay in the EEA, you basically sign up to the four
3:14:55 > 3:15:00freedoms. You basically sign up to us losing Parliamentary control of
3:15:00 > 3:15:06many or most of our own laws and do sign up to unrestricted immigration
3:15:06 > 3:15:10from the EU. You may think that is a good idea but you have to at least
3:15:10 > 3:15:14be honest about it. If both sides of this debate are honest with each
3:15:14 > 3:15:22other, we will perhaps get some fair conclusion.
3:15:22 > 3:15:28I would just remind him that he won his seat in 2015 on the basis of a
3:15:28 > 3:15:33commitment to keep the benefits for the UK as the single market. I
3:15:33 > 3:15:37warmly welcome this debate, I congratulate my honourable friend on
3:15:37 > 3:15:42the emotion that he has proposed. A German sorrow orifice official told
3:15:42 > 3:15:46me earlier this year if you want the benefits of the single market, you
3:15:46 > 3:15:51have two obey the rules of the single market. Ever since the
3:15:51 > 3:15:55referendum, ministers have been telling us that we will have the
3:15:55 > 3:15:59benefits of the single market but we will not only longer have two obey
3:15:59 > 3:16:03the rules. Unfortunately, that is not going to be the outcome of these
3:16:03 > 3:16:09negotiations and advice am extremely fluke, the ministers honourable
3:16:09 > 3:16:13friend was able to persuade Michel Barnier to agree to an outcome, it
3:16:13 > 3:16:19would be voted down by other European parliaments, certainly by
3:16:19 > 3:16:24the European Parliament as well. I think that recognition is starting
3:16:24 > 3:16:28to dawn on ministers. At the start of this process, they told us we
3:16:28 > 3:16:31were going to get barrier free access to the single market but I
3:16:31 > 3:16:35noticed they do not use that phrase any longer. They now say we are
3:16:35 > 3:16:40going access to a minimum of fiction. Whatever that turns out to
3:16:40 > 3:16:44be, we are not, sadly, going to get the barrier free access survey said
3:16:44 > 3:16:50at the start that we would. We need barrier free access. If we are to
3:16:50 > 3:16:56leave the European Union, we need to find a way, in conformity with the
3:16:56 > 3:17:00rules, to maintain the economic benefits for the UK, a very large
3:17:00 > 3:17:03economic benefits of our membership of the single market and so it seems
3:17:03 > 3:17:08to me that my honourable friend is onto something extremely important.
3:17:08 > 3:17:15Membership of the European Economic Area comprises, as I understand it,
3:17:15 > 3:17:19and EU pillar and a ester pillar. With the UK exiting the European
3:17:19 > 3:17:23Union, as we have heard in this debate, the honourable member four
3:17:23 > 3:17:28South Suffolk and indeed my honourable friend, membership of
3:17:28 > 3:17:32ester is certainly that we should consider, it may well prove to be
3:17:32 > 3:17:37the right way forward. -- yesteryear. There are some
3:17:37 > 3:17:42disadvantages. My honourable friend touched on these and in particular
3:17:42 > 3:17:49because of EFTA countries are not in the customs union, the very grave
3:17:49 > 3:17:54problem at the land border with the Republic of Ireland would not be
3:17:54 > 3:18:00resolved by joining EFTA. Government is telling us two things about that.
3:18:00 > 3:18:04Firstly, we are not going to be in the customs union that secondly,
3:18:04 > 3:18:10there is going to be no infrastructure are that Ford. Well,
3:18:10 > 3:18:14sadly, these two associations are contradictory. They will not break
3:18:14 > 3:18:19the tree. One of them will have to do not be true. We have got a
3:18:19 > 3:18:22serious problem about border and joining tarmac would not deal with
3:18:22 > 3:18:26the problem. I wish is interested by a proposal but is made in a paper
3:18:26 > 3:18:32presented recently to the Norwegian Confederation of enterprise, who
3:18:32 > 3:18:41used to be an official in the EEA coordination unit in the EFTA
3:18:41 > 3:18:48suggesting that what should happen is the UK should, in the European
3:18:48 > 3:18:50Economic Area, alongside the EU pillar and the EFTA pillar, there
3:18:50 > 3:18:58should be a third pillar, UK pillar which would allow greater
3:18:58 > 3:19:02flexibility and would allow this disadvantage of EFTA membership to
3:19:02 > 3:19:07be overcome. It might also deal with some of these potentially that
3:19:07 > 3:19:15Norway raise about the UK joining EFTA and balancing the current
3:19:15 > 3:19:24structure. I make that point just to put it on the record as an idea. I
3:19:24 > 3:19:27do not know whether the right one but I think it needs to be looked up
3:19:27 > 3:19:32alongside membership of tarmac as a way forward. In the referendum, the
3:19:32 > 3:19:38leave campaign is dismissed serious concerns about the economic
3:19:38 > 3:19:44consequences by describing them as project fear. But those fears as we
3:19:44 > 3:19:48have heard already in this debate are starting to be realised. The
3:19:48 > 3:19:50letter from the business organisation said they needed
3:19:50 > 3:19:54certainty about the transition by the end of this calendar year. They
3:19:54 > 3:20:01are not going to get that. The secretary... I will give way.Would
3:20:01 > 3:20:06he not agree that it is time that we are dropping the term Project fear
3:20:06 > 3:20:14and replace it with the term Project reality?Hard-headed economic
3:20:14 > 3:20:18realism as we face the decisions ahead. The honourable member is
3:20:18 > 3:20:21absolutely right. We're not going to get subsidy by the end of the year.
3:20:21 > 3:20:24The Secretary of State said to the select committee we were details of
3:20:24 > 3:20:32the transition by the end of March 2018 and he hoped that for the sake
3:20:32 > 3:20:36of three months, businesses would hold off implementing their back-up
3:20:36 > 3:20:42plans until then. But for much of the financial services sector, an
3:20:42 > 3:20:46announcement of plans by politicians in the absence of legal certainty is
3:20:46 > 3:20:51completely useless. They have stayed and the regulator requires them to
3:20:51 > 3:20:55put in place their back-up plans if there is no legal certainty about
3:20:55 > 3:20:58the transition by the end of March next year.
3:21:02 > 3:21:12To lose significant numbers of jobs. Eventually 75,000 jobs at as the
3:21:12 > 3:21:16estimate, it looks, I've seen an estimate, that 15,000 of those will
3:21:16 > 3:21:20go if we don't have legal certainty about the transition by the end of
3:21:20 > 3:21:26March next year. That will impose a grievous economic blow upon us. It
3:21:26 > 3:21:32seems to me that my honourable friend is making an extremely
3:21:32 > 3:21:43important case that the Hansard needs to heed.Thank you. I support
3:21:43 > 3:21:47this motion and congratulate my honourable friend for securing the
3:21:47 > 3:21:49debate along with my honourable friend for Lewisham Eastern Brock
3:21:49 > 3:22:01stove. Members of the EEA is for the single market. I agree with members
3:22:01 > 3:22:05on both sides of this house who support the motion, who not only
3:22:05 > 3:22:09support the need for proper debate and vote, but are also calling for
3:22:09 > 3:22:14the UK to remain in the EEA. We should listen to those with
3:22:14 > 3:22:17positions of influence and experience both in the UK and those
3:22:17 > 3:22:29from outside the UK, on why we should remain in the EEA. People
3:22:29 > 3:22:34describe so clearly the benefits of remaining in the EEA. I have just
3:22:34 > 3:22:36remove the geographic references because I thought this was
3:22:36 > 3:22:45excellent. The EU gives influences library here and young people the
3:22:45 > 3:22:51opportunity to move freely and if you are an entrepreneur, it allows
3:22:51 > 3:22:57you to move freely without having to set up offices and structures in
3:22:57 > 3:23:04separate countries. Job opportunities for our children and
3:23:04 > 3:23:07young people. Of course we would survive, but the question is whether
3:23:07 > 3:23:14we would be doing as well as we would in it. Would a large company
3:23:14 > 3:23:17eyeing a smaller company go ahead with the purchase of porting a few
3:23:17 > 3:23:20hundred jobs, would they have been as interested to make this purchase
3:23:20 > 3:23:32had it not been given as access the 28 members of the market. This is
3:23:32 > 3:23:38not a theoretical issue. He goes on, it is vital that for the regional
3:23:38 > 3:23:45economy to have access to the EU market which attracts foreign
3:23:45 > 3:23:47investors, and drive inward investment. Those advocating that we
3:23:47 > 3:23:52should leave the EU say that we should be able to continue to trade
3:23:52 > 3:23:55with European countries more widely across the world. We will, but on
3:23:55 > 3:23:59what terms and when will we be able to agree with them? This is a high
3:23:59 > 3:24:11price to play. The most ardently campaigner would have to say that.
3:24:11 > 3:24:22Over 360,000 jobs are linked to the U -- to the EU. A staggering 49% of
3:24:22 > 3:24:29the region's manufactured's exports go directly to Europe. With the
3:24:29 > 3:24:32honourable member who penned that excellent description of leaving the
3:24:32 > 3:24:38single market continued to leave it in the new job as the Government's
3:24:38 > 3:24:44Chief Whip? My honourable friend from Stretton clearly described how
3:24:44 > 3:24:50membership is more than about economic benefit, it is social
3:24:50 > 3:24:56justice and the protection from multinational corporations. Beyond
3:24:56 > 3:24:59the UK, our neighbours are warning us of the terrible impact that
3:24:59 > 3:25:04leaving the EEA will have on our country. Ireland's agricultural
3:25:04 > 3:25:07minister is quoted on today's Evening Standard saying that if the
3:25:07 > 3:25:12raison d'etre for Brexit in the UK was about striding the globe and
3:25:12 > 3:25:15doing our own trade agreements, a hard agreement is walking away from
3:25:15 > 3:25:20a market of 450 million people in Europe. That is bad for Ireland, but
3:25:20 > 3:25:26far worse for the UK. Backs of the UK, Carolyn Fairbairn, the
3:25:26 > 3:25:33director-general of the CPI, said we are now in the window of
3:25:33 > 3:25:36decision-making. Business leaders in my constituency and across the UK
3:25:36 > 3:25:42are very concerned about a hard Brexit. Every business leader I meet
3:25:42 > 3:25:45locally from large to small businesses in all sectors, ask me to
3:25:45 > 3:25:51do what I can to stop a hard Brexit. That is why that decision needs to
3:25:51 > 3:25:57be made in this house after proper debate and sooner. It is absolutely
3:25:57 > 3:26:01essential that if we want to abide by our commitment to parliamentary
3:26:01 > 3:26:05democracy, then all the sake of thousands of my constituents who
3:26:05 > 3:26:10work in the aviation sector, forgive sake of thousands who work in
3:26:10 > 3:26:13financial services, for the thousands who work in other sectors
3:26:13 > 3:26:17who will be impacted by hard Brexit. For the sake of the hundreds of
3:26:17 > 3:26:24businesses with short and long term future is dependent on the UK
3:26:24 > 3:26:29remaining in the EEA. It is time to debate and vote on a substantive
3:26:29 > 3:26:36motion on the UK's continued membership of the EEA. Always a
3:26:36 > 3:26:44pleasure to speak in these debates. I put on record, I am a person for
3:26:44 > 3:26:50Brexit. People in my constituency also voted to leave. I may be the
3:26:50 > 3:26:59lone voice perhaps on this side of the chamber in relation to this
3:26:59 > 3:27:02issue, I think very highly of my colleagues and friends on this side
3:27:02 > 3:27:06of the chamber, they know that. We have a difference of opinion here,
3:27:06 > 3:27:11we must make that very clear before we say any more. In my constituency,
3:27:11 > 3:27:18the people spoke very clearly and they said they wanted to leave.
3:27:18 > 3:27:25Democracy spoken, decision made. They want us to get on with the job.
3:27:25 > 3:27:31Those who remain as, wanting to halt that, the matter is over, the
3:27:31 > 3:27:37decision is made, people have moved on. In June 2016, they spoke and we
3:27:37 > 3:27:47have to listen to that mandate. We can't ignore that.The famous quote
3:27:47 > 3:27:53by Keynes who said that when the facts change, I change my mind, what
3:27:53 > 3:27:56do you do? The fact have changed, this isn't what people voted for.In
3:27:56 > 3:28:02my constituency, people tell me they did vote for this. In my opinion,
3:28:02 > 3:28:09for myself and I voted for it, I had an impression of what we were voted
3:28:09 > 3:28:15for. We have a difference of opinion today in relation of that matter. I
3:28:15 > 3:28:19have numerous businesses in my constituency who have great European
3:28:19 > 3:28:26markets, they are major food employers in my area and I will do
3:28:26 > 3:28:33all I can to help them. I sought assurance from the Prime Minister,
3:28:33 > 3:28:36in relation to those jobs. I was given the assurance from the Prime
3:28:36 > 3:28:49Minister and from others that those jobs will be OK.In relation to
3:28:49 > 3:28:53those businesses, the message that I'm getting and I am wondering if
3:28:53 > 3:28:58the same is coming across to others, that I that -- that this project is
3:28:58 > 3:29:04being put forward by those who are not wedded to the idea that we leave
3:29:04 > 3:29:09you, or whatever sort of deal that they want. It is sending out the
3:29:09 > 3:29:15wrong message to the industry and creating fear with acting -- within
3:29:15 > 3:29:19that industry because it is not sending forward a positive message.
3:29:19 > 3:29:26I think my honourable friend is right. That is also what we hear
3:29:26 > 3:29:35today from members who have a different opinion. Can I say,
3:29:35 > 3:29:39opinions that inject fear into the whole debate? I am positive about
3:29:39 > 3:29:45leaving the U and leaving the EEA. When we're out on the way, we will
3:29:45 > 3:29:57be better off will stop --. . As a non-member of the EEA, the bottom
3:29:57 > 3:30:03line is that membership involves a range of obligations, including
3:30:03 > 3:30:08financial contributions to the EU and accepting EU rules. In short, we
3:30:08 > 3:30:14get the immigration issues and we get the charges. Very few benefits.
3:30:14 > 3:30:19Some members have mentioned the copperhead is a trade deal that we
3:30:19 > 3:30:22can negotiate, I hope we can. I have confidence in the ministerial team
3:30:22 > 3:30:29and what we are trying to achieve. Can I ask the honourable member what
3:30:29 > 3:30:34will happen to his opinions and his positive outlook if we cannot
3:30:34 > 3:30:37actually get these very positive trade deals on the way he hears
3:30:37 > 3:30:45hoping for?Thank you. I am a glass half full person, always have been.
3:30:45 > 3:30:49Look on the bright side of life. Some people have a glass half empty
3:30:49 > 3:30:55opinion and they look negatively all the time. I am positive on the way
3:30:55 > 3:31:04forward. We have two agreed to differ on how some of the things
3:31:04 > 3:31:15will come together. That is part of life.Thank you forgiving way. Is he
3:31:15 > 3:31:19not extremely worried, even though he is the great optimist as we have
3:31:19 > 3:31:24heard, about the possibility and the real possibility, of not getting a
3:31:24 > 3:31:32deal especially in relation to customs? That his Northern Ireland
3:31:32 > 3:31:35needs a proper deal and there is every chance we don't get it. In
3:31:35 > 3:31:41that event, it is a very serious problem for Northern Ireland.
3:31:41 > 3:31:50Honourable Lady and friend, thank you. We share the same wish to get a
3:31:50 > 3:31:57deal that will be successful. I don't perhaps agree with your fears
3:31:57 > 3:32:02in relation to it, but I am keen to get a deal. Very quickly, a short
3:32:02 > 3:32:09time I have left, I want to come into EEA membership. 43% of UK
3:32:09 > 3:32:17exports and goods, 240 billion in a 550 billion total export, the shares
3:32:17 > 3:32:25have been declining, the EU has been declining and in the developing word
3:32:25 > 3:32:31it has been growing faster than in the developed world. We had have to
3:32:31 > 3:32:39be mindful of our opportunities. 54% of our exports into the UK come from
3:32:39 > 3:32:45other companies in the EU, the world will continue to need our kids and
3:32:45 > 3:32:48we will continue to need to buy goods from the rest of the world --
3:32:48 > 3:32:59need our goods. I can't give way, I'm sorry. I nearly at the end of my
3:32:59 > 3:33:04speech. I've given away a few other times, I'm sorry. We need to put a
3:33:04 > 3:33:08lot more in, we are finished to being the poor relation in the
3:33:08 > 3:33:11European family. We will be strong, we will be positive, we will be
3:33:11 > 3:33:17good. I am thankful to the ministerial team who are intended to
3:33:17 > 3:33:25work with those who do not want to work with us. It has been this that
3:33:25 > 3:33:29has brought our people to decide to leave and every step of this comes
3:33:29 > 3:33:40after a negotiation with the EU. We have had issues to do with
3:33:40 > 3:33:47Bombardier. We have got extra contracting, more planes, many
3:33:47 > 3:33:53things to look forward to. We need to let the EU know that we have
3:33:53 > 3:33:57learnt a lot. We must put our economy first and take care of our
3:33:57 > 3:34:02own is no one else appears to be doing that in the EE. My opinion is
3:34:02 > 3:34:06that continued membership of the EEA is not beneficial and I believe that
3:34:06 > 3:34:21our withdrawal encompasses a withdrawal for the EEA.
3:34:22 > 3:34:26I would like to thank the member for having this debate today. If I can
3:34:26 > 3:34:34say thank you, we won't agree on everything, he knows I won't agree
3:34:34 > 3:34:40with everything he has said in his speech, but I think he has provided
3:34:40 > 3:34:44parliament with a valuable service today, we should all be grateful to
3:34:44 > 3:34:49him for bringing it forward. I had someone who agrees we should remain
3:34:49 > 3:34:57in the customs union and the single market, but what I will say is that
3:34:57 > 3:35:01none of us in the house have all the answers on this particular debate.
3:35:01 > 3:35:04Not least the Government. It would be nice if the Government had the
3:35:04 > 3:35:10odd answer on this particular issue, but they don't. We will have to
3:35:10 > 3:35:12compromise, that is an inevitability, a parliament of
3:35:12 > 3:35:18minorities and today's debate has been useful. He made particularly
3:35:18 > 3:35:21good points about the ambiguity and indecision that exists at the heart
3:35:21 > 3:35:29of Government. The member for Stanford also noted when he spoke,
3:35:29 > 3:35:33quite rightly, that he voted to leave and respect his decision for
3:35:33 > 3:35:44doing so, but one thing that has happened is we don't know what
3:35:44 > 3:35:54leaving the European union will be. 500 days since the EU referendum was
3:35:54 > 3:36:01yesterday. We have received very few answers in that time. In fact, the
3:36:01 > 3:36:06Minister has had even all time than 500 days to furnish is with some
3:36:06 > 3:36:09answers about leaving the European Union because a minister like many
3:36:09 > 3:36:13of his colleagues was a member of the vote leave campaign, in fact
3:36:13 > 3:36:16members of the opposite side of the house have spent decades planning to
3:36:16 > 3:36:16leave
3:36:20 > 3:36:26One would afford planning on leaving the European Union for decades, they
3:36:26 > 3:36:30might have an answer to what leaving the European Union with me. But
3:36:30 > 3:36:34alas, no. On our side of the House and on the SNP benches, we put
3:36:34 > 3:36:39forward a compromise that we should remain part of the single market and
3:36:39 > 3:36:42the customs union is our contribution to the debate, drawing
3:36:42 > 3:36:47on expertise of those who know the European Union meth and drawing on a
3:36:47 > 3:36:51cross-party basis as well. We know in Scotland at the importance of the
3:36:51 > 3:36:56single market, the institute were not scared to publish their report
3:36:56 > 3:37:00on the impact of believing the European Union is estimated that it
3:37:00 > 3:37:04could cost 80,000 jobs and £30 billion to Scotland alone, never
3:37:04 > 3:37:07mind the back to our friends and partners elsewhere in the United
3:37:07 > 3:37:12Kingdom. With the impact that we know about, it is little wonder that
3:37:12 > 3:37:21there are some impact systems.Such an enthusiast for remaining in the
3:37:21 > 3:37:24European single market, he is committed to remain in the United
3:37:24 > 3:37:30Kingdom single market?Members have invented this idea about remaining
3:37:30 > 3:37:34part of the UK single market but of course the European Union single
3:37:34 > 3:37:38market, the European Union as a club for independent sovereign states in
3:37:38 > 3:37:42a way that the UK is not. The thing that he missed and the member miss
3:37:42 > 3:37:47the their membership of the EU was that the UK remains sovereign and
3:37:47 > 3:37:51independent in a way that Scotland does not. All of us trying to convey
3:37:51 > 3:37:55the case single market with the European single market is pretty
3:37:55 > 3:37:58desperate stuff. You do not have to believe in independence to recognise
3:37:58 > 3:38:03that. I also want to highlight this is an area where I may disagree with
3:38:03 > 3:38:07the member, the importance of freedom of movement. Freedom of
3:38:07 > 3:38:12movement is something that I have benefited from as UK citizens
3:38:12 > 3:38:15benefit from freedom of movement. I benefited and I want young people to
3:38:15 > 3:38:19have the same opportunities that I had. It makes our country a richer
3:38:19 > 3:38:24place in which to live, all power to the United Kingdom benefit from
3:38:24 > 3:38:29freedom to movement. It enriches us I naturally but critically in a says
3:38:29 > 3:38:35the society as well, tolerant place and diverse place to live. We think
3:38:35 > 3:38:38about the importance to our industries, seasonal workers are
3:38:38 > 3:38:44especially important at that time of year where freedom of movement us.
3:38:44 > 3:38:48Also in terms of our universities and other industries as well. I
3:38:48 > 3:38:52would like to know quickly just a bit it on the record, I am still
3:38:52 > 3:38:56astonished by what I'm hearing about the European Court of Justice, the
3:38:56 > 3:38:59reason why the European Union has been a success if the many reasons.
3:38:59 > 3:39:03One of them is that the European Court of Justice sits at the heart
3:39:03 > 3:39:09of them so you can arbitrate on the half of 28 member states. You will
3:39:09 > 3:39:13need to have an arbiter in anything that comes out after this which
3:39:13 > 3:39:18again has been something that has been missed. We also have the danger
3:39:18 > 3:39:23of no deal, something has been openly touted quite irresponsibly by
3:39:23 > 3:39:26the other benches. We needed from the press there was a Halloween
3:39:26 > 3:39:31presentation to the UK Cabinet or no Deal. That is a spooky thing for us
3:39:31 > 3:39:34all, given the impact. I also know they just like the first of member
3:39:34 > 3:39:38vote, when we voted as the parliament to see the impact
3:39:38 > 3:39:42assessments that we are still not going to get, what are they trying
3:39:42 > 3:39:46to hide from us? What was the Cabinet cold, what do they know, the
3:39:46 > 3:39:50House deserves to know and this is why this House slated to know what
3:39:50 > 3:40:00is in those impact assessments as well. -- voted. With Aberdeen being
3:40:00 > 3:40:08badly hurt.500 days ago, my constituents voted to remain in the
3:40:08 > 3:40:12European Union. They did so because they understand the benefits brought
3:40:12 > 3:40:16to our agriculture and tourism sectors, Boyd in a main part by EU
3:40:16 > 3:40:22nationals. We have heard a lot about the EEA this afternoon, would he
3:40:22 > 3:40:25agree with me that the continued member ship have the European Union
3:40:25 > 3:40:29does, it is absolutely essential? The member for Argyll & Bute makes
3:40:29 > 3:40:33an excellent point and that is why people from every single local
3:40:33 > 3:40:36authority area in Scotland voted to remain part of the European union.
3:40:36 > 3:40:43Every single one. The lack of argument, lack of detail that we had
3:40:43 > 3:40:47from folks leave, the greater responsibility about these that
3:40:47 > 3:40:50voters in Scotland were able to see through just as they are unable to
3:40:50 > 3:40:54see through the bus might able to see through the Tories election
3:40:54 > 3:41:00after election. We must preserve the single market. There has to be said
3:41:00 > 3:41:03that anything is better than the mess in which we find ourselves at
3:41:03 > 3:41:07the moment and it is a mess. And the minister, I hope you will address
3:41:07 > 3:41:11this, has a great deal of responsibility. He has committed his
3:41:11 > 3:41:15political life to taking us out of the European Union. So why is he
3:41:15 > 3:41:19afraid of publishing the impact assessment? Why did he campaign on a
3:41:19 > 3:41:25blank piece of paper when he was a part of vote to leave, an act of
3:41:25 > 3:41:27gross irresponsibility body is carried over into Government? That
3:41:27 > 3:41:34is something that he should reflect on and I hope that long last we will
3:41:34 > 3:41:39have answers. 500 days as a long time to wait. The member this Jeter
3:41:39 > 3:41:46made an excellent point earlier on, the member for Stratton talked about
3:41:46 > 3:41:49the general election when a hard Tory Brexit was utterly rejected.
3:41:49 > 3:41:54The mandate of the people says it is a parliament of minorities, that
3:41:54 > 3:41:58mass means we must pull together, there must be, rumours and we must
3:41:58 > 3:42:03see some movement from the Government.
3:42:03 > 3:42:10It is a pleasure to wind up this debate and I commend my honourable
3:42:10 > 3:42:15friend so securing it. Each made. And thought-provoking com producers.
3:42:15 > 3:42:21I would like to thank the many other members who have made excellent
3:42:21 > 3:42:24features this afternoon. The opposition have consistently called
3:42:24 > 3:42:28for the maximum amount of Parliamentary transparency and
3:42:28 > 3:42:31accountability compatible with conducting the Brexit negotiations.
3:42:31 > 3:42:35And the parliament to have more grip on the prisoners. That is why we
3:42:35 > 3:42:39welcome the fact that this debate is taking place and support the efforts
3:42:39 > 3:42:44of honourable members from across the south who have sought to secure
3:42:44 > 3:42:48greater clarity and certainty about what steps, if any, would be
3:42:48 > 3:42:52required for the UK to Bergeroo from the European Economic Area as a
3:42:52 > 3:43:01matter of international law. -- for the UK to withdraw. The motion
3:43:01 > 3:43:05refers specifically to membership of the EEA and whether article 127 of
3:43:05 > 3:43:10the EEA agreement is required to be formally triggered. I want to focus
3:43:10 > 3:43:17my remarks on these. The EEA is an arrangement that enables three
3:43:17 > 3:43:21non-EU countries to participate in the EU internal market and for the
3:43:21 > 3:43:2620th EU member states to benefit as Rittenhouse from preferential access
3:43:26 > 3:43:30to their markets as part of that agreement. Formerly the contracting
3:43:30 > 3:43:35parties to the EEA agreement be 31 individual countries, although the
3:43:35 > 3:43:40EU itself was added as contracting party in 2004 because the EEA is a
3:43:40 > 3:43:45mixed agreement. As such, like other member states, the UK is a
3:43:45 > 3:43:48signatory. Article 127 of the agreement, the figures of the
3:43:48 > 3:43:55Mission Force, said Saddam basic rule for withdrawing forehead. They
3:43:55 > 3:44:01provide 12 notes grey month notification to give them time to
3:44:01 > 3:44:05modify the agreement. Taken at face value, Article 127 would suggest
3:44:05 > 3:44:10that the UK will have to give formal notification of withdraw from the
3:44:10 > 3:44:13agreement to the other 30 contracting parties if it
3:44:13 > 3:44:20intensively. The implication being that unless such formal notification
3:44:20 > 3:44:24is given, the UK will remain a contracting party to the agreement
3:44:24 > 3:44:29and a participant in the EEA after it has exited the EU. But I think it
3:44:29 > 3:44:32is worth briefly considering the implications of that argument
3:44:32 > 3:44:35because there are reasons to believe they would not be the quick fix that
3:44:35 > 3:44:41many assume it would be. At a minimum, if the UK were able to
3:44:41 > 3:44:45remain a participant in the EEA after it exited the EU, simply by
3:44:45 > 3:44:50means of failing to provide formal notification after Article 127,
3:44:50 > 3:44:53dislike of the formal modification of the EEA agreement with still be
3:44:53 > 3:45:00required. The process would involve an owner is time-consuming and
3:45:00 > 3:45:05uncertain process of treaty change and ratification. That is because
3:45:05 > 3:45:08parts of the EEA agreement referred to the contracting parties which
3:45:08 > 3:45:13could be any of the EEA states that other parts referred specifically to
3:45:13 > 3:45:18the EU and or EFTA states. That could not apply to the UK after
3:45:18 > 3:45:28Brexit, the joint EFTA bat unless it joint EFTA. It has said it does not
3:45:28 > 3:45:36resolve crucial issues and it is not less straightforward process. I note
3:45:36 > 3:45:39the Commons of the Norwegian primers in August that joining EFTA, even
3:45:39 > 3:45:43for a temporary period would be a challenging and costly undertaking,
3:45:43 > 3:45:49in her words. To illustrate the problem that would be created if we
3:45:49 > 3:45:55remain part of the EEA by lapsing and providing formal notification is
3:45:55 > 3:45:58worth examining Article 36 of the agreement which makes clear that the
3:45:58 > 3:46:04beneficiaries of the right to freedom to provide services are EU
3:46:04 > 3:46:08nationals and EFTA State nationals, meaning that hypothetically, if the
3:46:08 > 3:46:12UK attempted to remain in the EEA as a third type of contracting party,
3:46:12 > 3:46:15it would be subject to the rules of the EEA agreement that its citizens
3:46:15 > 3:46:25and permissive would not benefit. -- and businesses. The EFTA option is
3:46:25 > 3:46:29the only viable option in the majority legal opinion and that, as
3:46:29 > 3:46:32we have heard, from several honourable members is not a
3:46:32 > 3:46:36straightforward as some would like to suggest. However, taking a step
3:46:36 > 3:46:41back, it is not even clear whether the requirements of article 127
3:46:41 > 3:46:45apply the contracting party that decided to end its membership of one
3:46:45 > 3:46:49of the two bodies, namely the EU and EFTA, that enables a state to be
3:46:49 > 3:46:52party to the agreement in the first place. It is not clear because it
3:46:52 > 3:46:57has never been tested. It is true there is no provision in the EEA
3:46:57 > 3:47:02agreement requiring a contracting party to leave the EEA if they cease
3:47:02 > 3:47:06to be a member of the EU or EFTA. But the wording and spread of the
3:47:06 > 3:47:08agreement clearly rests on the assumption that only EU or EFTA
3:47:08 > 3:47:14states can be party to it. I will give way.An interesting legal
3:47:14 > 3:47:22lecture but is the Labour Party in favour of staying in the EEA?The
3:47:22 > 3:47:27Labour Party's position is very clear. We want to retain the
3:47:27 > 3:47:32benefits of the single market, we think we should remain for the
3:47:32 > 3:47:36transitional period. Whether the EEA is the only viable option of doing
3:47:36 > 3:47:40that is a question for the other day. The wording of the motion is
3:47:40 > 3:47:47very specific, an article 127 and continued membership of the EEA. In
3:47:47 > 3:47:50short, the situation is entirely unclear. In the opinion of the House
3:47:50 > 3:47:54of Commons library, the majority legal view is that under the present
3:47:54 > 3:47:58wording of the EEA agreement, it is impossible to be party of the
3:47:58 > 3:48:01agreement without being a member of the EU or EFTA. That he has been put
3:48:01 > 3:48:07forward by number of experts, including the EFTA president who has
3:48:07 > 3:48:11argued there is no scope within the EEA agreement for a third type of
3:48:11 > 3:48:15contracting party that is neither an EU or EFTA member. The other
3:48:15 > 3:48:21argument has not been tested in court. I will give way.Could he
3:48:21 > 3:48:30tell us if the Labour Party agrees with the Professor?As I've said,
3:48:30 > 3:48:34legal opinion that has not been tested. Interpretations differ but
3:48:34 > 3:48:38the majority legal view, I would say, supports the Professor's
3:48:38 > 3:48:43assertion, that there is no way currently of becoming the third type
3:48:43 > 3:48:46of contracting party to the agreement. The argument, as I said,
3:48:46 > 3:48:51has not been tested in court on the House will know, instead read 2017,
3:48:51 > 3:48:57the High Court was asked whether it required the permission of
3:48:57 > 3:49:00Parliament, it was rejected that it was premature because the Government
3:49:00 > 3:49:05had not made a final decision on its EEA withdraw mechanism. As things
3:49:05 > 3:49:10stand, in the absence of greater clarity, the door is clearly open
3:49:10 > 3:49:14for future legal challenges against the Government on this issue and
3:49:14 > 3:49:17greater clarity is required. I have no doubt that the Government is
3:49:17 > 3:49:23aware that it is required and that their position on this matter is, I
3:49:23 > 3:49:27assume, under review because it is certainly evolved over time. In
3:49:27 > 3:49:33response in December 2016 to a written question, the Government
3:49:33 > 3:49:36were clearly interpreting article 126 subsection one of the agreement
3:49:36 > 3:49:41to mean that the UK is only a member of the EEA in its capacity as an EU
3:49:41 > 3:49:45member state. As such, we will automatically exit and succeed from
3:49:45 > 3:49:49the agreement when we have left the EU. The Government appears to have
3:49:49 > 3:49:52shifted away from that position somewhat since. According to reports
3:49:52 > 3:49:59of corporate residents taking from a judicial review -- court
3:49:59 > 3:50:06proceedings. Article 126 did not give rise to termination of the
3:50:06 > 3:50:12agreement. Recently, responding to an oral question posed on the 7th of
3:50:12 > 3:50:16September, the Secretary of State argued that while article 127 does
3:50:16 > 3:50:20not need to be triggered for the agreement to cease to have effect,
3:50:20 > 3:50:24and I quote, we are looking at it just to make sure for clarity
3:50:24 > 3:50:27purposes that we meet its requirements. If the Minister able
3:50:27 > 3:50:32to tell the House today what progress has been made in that
3:50:32 > 3:50:35regard? The Government's weighted position this to be that even of our
3:50:35 > 3:50:39EU exit is not automatically terminate the EEA agreement in law,
3:50:39 > 3:50:48any continuous aggression member to the agreement would not proceed. In
3:50:48 > 3:50:53her powerful speech, about whether you've UK should be in the EEA, out
3:50:53 > 3:50:57of it, in it for a few years or in its four decades, it is crucial that
3:50:57 > 3:51:01we have greater clarity on this matter and I hope it is summing up
3:51:01 > 3:51:04that the minister can shed more light on the Government's position
3:51:04 > 3:51:07before we come to the committee stage of the withdrawal bill.
3:51:10 > 3:51:15I congratulate the honourable member to securing this debate on the
3:51:15 > 3:51:19European Economic Area and matters relating to it. It has been an
3:51:19 > 3:51:22exceptionally vibrant debate which is reflected in time running
3:51:22 > 3:51:31extremely short as I rise to some up. The EEA entered into force on
3:51:31 > 3:51:34the 1st of January 1994, between the European Union as it was and the
3:51:34 > 3:51:37European free trade Association. The agreement has the effect of
3:51:37 > 3:51:41extending the internal market of the EU to three European free trade
3:51:41 > 3:51:46Association members. Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway. The fourth
3:51:46 > 3:51:51current state, Switzerland, rejected EEA membership in a referendum in
3:51:51 > 3:51:561992. The territorial extent of the EEA has changed over time with all
3:51:56 > 3:52:02new territory is obliged to become signatories. A number of countries
3:52:02 > 3:52:10have joined the EEC or EU from left, including Denmark and the UK in
3:52:10 > 3:52:181973, Portugal in 1976, neither EFTA or the EEA were designed to
3:52:18 > 3:52:22facilitate exit from the European Union. Indeed, EFTA and the EEA have
3:52:22 > 3:52:30been conveyors to the EU membership, interrupted by referenda in the two
3:52:30 > 3:52:35largest member of the member states. I mention Switzerland, Norway
3:52:35 > 3:52:41rejecting EU member ship in 1994. As we look to the future, we value our
3:52:41 > 3:52:44relationships with the EEA and EFTA states and we will continue to do so
3:52:44 > 3:52:50after we leave the European Union. We have made clear that are offered
3:52:50 > 3:52:55to the EU on Citizen's rights also applies to the EFTA countries. We
3:52:55 > 3:52:58are talking with the three EEA EFTA countries and Switzerland in order
3:52:58 > 3:53:04to ensure continuity, recognising the need to promote stability for
3:53:04 > 3:53:08businesses and individuals from and within these countries. The motion
3:53:08 > 3:53:12we have debated today claims that for the UK to withdraw from the
3:53:12 > 3:53:18European Economic Area it will have to trigger article 127 of the EEA
3:53:18 > 3:53:22agreement. As I have already said on a written answer on the 12th of
3:53:22 > 3:53:26September, when we leave the EU, the EEA agreement will no longer operate
3:53:26 > 3:53:32in respect of the UK. The UK is only a party to the EEA agreement by
3:53:32 > 3:53:38virtue of our EU membership and the Government's legal position is
3:53:38 > 3:53:42clear. Article 127 does not need to be triggered for the agreement to
3:53:42 > 3:53:48cease to have effect when we leave the EU. We have explained our policy
3:53:48 > 3:53:51repeatedly, my honourable friend, the member for Buster, said in
3:53:51 > 3:54:00answer to a question said it would not operate when we leave the EE you
3:54:00 > 3:54:28-- EU. Also, we said the party is a... Exit day, the EEA will not be.
3:54:30 > 3:54:34It is not only the Government to make this clear. The man who led the
3:54:34 > 3:54:39European Council's legal service wrote in an article in September
3:54:39 > 3:54:44this year that the UK quote will automatically ceased to be an EEA
3:54:44 > 3:54:50member when leaving the Yukon". He added, neither the EU or its 28
3:54:50 > 3:54:58member states are member of EFTA. -- the EU. Not being a member of EFTA
3:54:58 > 3:55:05it could not be an EEA member. The president of the EFTA Court who has
3:55:05 > 3:55:08been quoted the number of times has also explained that the UK will lose
3:55:08 > 3:55:14EEA membership automatically when we leave the EU, saying a state could
3:55:14 > 3:55:22only be an EU contracting party. On the fundamental premise of today's
3:55:22 > 3:55:26motion, there is a clear consensus that the EEA agreement will
3:55:26 > 3:55:29automatically ceased to operate in respect to the UK when we leave the
3:55:29 > 3:55:41EE you. The second part of the motion calls on the motion to divide
3:55:41 > 3:55:45time on the membership of the EEA. I would welcome the opportunity we
3:55:45 > 3:55:51have had to debate the EEA and a further debate is unnecessary. In
3:55:51 > 3:55:56addition to today's debate, as has been mentioned, it is down to the
3:55:56 > 3:55:59withdrawal bill. It is remain to be seen whether the house returns to
3:55:59 > 3:56:02those in committee. As the Government has made clear, when we
3:56:02 > 3:56:07leave the EU, we will be leaving the U's internal market. We will not be
3:56:07 > 3:56:16seeking to come signatories to the EEA agreement. It would be a bad
3:56:16 > 3:56:19outcome for the UK. As honourable members know, the EEA agreement
3:56:19 > 3:56:28covers before freedoms. We have listened to EU leaders and we
3:56:28 > 3:56:32understand their position that the four freedoms are indivisible and
3:56:32 > 3:56:36there can be no cherry picking. The democratic decision of the people of
3:56:36 > 3:56:40the UK means that we cannot accept all the obligations of the EU
3:56:40 > 3:56:45internal market, so things will be different when we leave. European
3:56:45 > 3:56:52Economic Area membership will mean the UK having to adopt at home
3:56:52 > 3:56:56automatically and in its entirety new EU rules in order to maintain
3:56:56 > 3:57:00market access. They would be rolls over which in future we would have
3:57:00 > 3:57:04little influence and no vote. Such an absence of democratic control
3:57:04 > 3:57:10would not be viable for the people and businesses of the UK. I share my
3:57:10 > 3:57:19right honourable friend's the Prime Minister concern's that EEA
3:57:19 > 3:57:25membership would be damaging and that would be undesirable. Whether
3:57:25 > 3:57:29the EEA is right for the EEA EFTA states as a matter for them, I say
3:57:29 > 3:57:33only that it would not be right for the UK, which is quite different
3:57:33 > 3:57:39from the EFTA states. Norway's population is 5.26 million,
3:57:39 > 3:57:44Switzerland's 8.42 million. There are over 8.5 million in Greater
3:57:44 > 3:57:52London alone. Is an's population, 338,000 is comparator will to that
3:57:52 > 3:57:58of the great city of Coventry. Lichtenstein's population is half
3:57:58 > 3:58:03the members of the Wiccan constituency. As we go forward,
3:58:03 > 3:58:07those of us who care about the future prosperity of the UK cannot
3:58:07 > 3:58:09allow our country to be shoehorned into a position of permanent role
3:58:09 > 3:58:18taking with the inherent risks of harm to our economy. Our task is to
3:58:18 > 3:58:25find a new way to work together in partnership with the countries of
3:58:25 > 3:58:32Europe, recognising that the rights have changed. However deeper love
3:58:32 > 3:58:39for the EEA states, it cannot be stated that they can parable to the
3:58:39 > 3:58:44UK either in population or economic structure. The EEA would not be
3:58:44 > 3:58:47right for us, even if it would not be right for them. The Government
3:58:47 > 3:58:51will seek a unique and ambitious economic partnership with the EU,
3:58:51 > 3:58:57based on our rules and regulations being the same at the start and
3:58:57 > 3:59:02maintain our commitment of free trade and standards. That will allow
3:59:02 > 3:59:06is to make changes where we want to. When we leave the EU, we will no
3:59:06 > 3:59:14longer be part of the EEA.That's wind-up.That has been an excellent
3:59:14 > 3:59:17debated today. I would like to thank members on all sides of the house
3:59:17 > 3:59:26for their contributions. Although the wind-up thereby the minister was
3:59:26 > 3:59:34disappointing. We live in a divided country. The referendum didn't
3:59:34 > 3:59:41create those devised, but it gave voice and he a braced -- and EEA
3:59:41 > 3:59:48-based Brexit could unite the country. It stops a hard Irish
3:59:48 > 3:59:52border, it offers the opportunity for free movement of labour, it is a
3:59:52 > 3:59:56Brexit that maximises access to the single market, it is a Brexit that
3:59:56 > 4:00:02removes us from the EEC dangerous section, it enables us to strike
4:00:02 > 4:00:08independent trade deals with third countries. It provides certainty and
4:00:08 > 4:00:11predictability that our country so desperately needs in these turbulent
4:00:11 > 4:00:17times. The clock is ticking and the tapes could not -- stakes could not
4:00:17 > 4:00:22be higher. There is no mandate for leaving the EEA, it was not on the
4:00:22 > 4:00:29ballot paper in June 2016 and the result was the final nail in the
4:00:29 > 4:00:38Coffin for a hard Brexit. It debate and decision on a substantive
4:00:38 > 4:00:40decision is therefore urgent and desperately needed and I commend
4:00:40 > 4:00:47this motion to the house.The question is as on the order paper,
4:00:47 > 4:00:56as many as are on the opinions say aye.Aye.I think the aye's habit.
4:00:56 > 4:01:05In ayes habit. Point of order, so William Cash.I think inadvertently,
4:01:05 > 4:01:09there was a reference made to my interest in EFTA and the model of
4:01:09 > 4:01:16jurisdiction. What I actually said on the column 1059 on the 4th of
4:01:16 > 4:01:26July 2017 was by reference to the jurisdiction of the European Court
4:01:26 > 4:01:29and the EFTA Court and exploring a question of whether or not we could
4:01:29 > 4:01:35find a viable way of achieving it proper way of achieving jurisdiction
4:01:35 > 4:01:41in relation to the issues that are under consideration. I think my
4:01:41 > 4:01:46right honourable friend and I agree that I was perhaps slightly
4:01:46 > 4:01:49misinterpreted, but I don't want to press it more than that. Just want
4:01:49 > 4:01:54to get it on the record that I was not referring to EFTA as such, but
4:01:54 > 4:02:00merely to the jurisdictional opportunities they might offer.I'm
4:02:00 > 4:02:09very grateful to the honourable gentleman to his point of order for
4:02:09 > 4:02:15giving me and the right honourable Lady notice of it. It is not
4:02:15 > 4:02:20strictly a matter for the chair, but as the honourable gentleman has
4:02:20 > 4:02:24said, it has placed the matter on the record, so I think we will leave
4:02:24 > 4:02:35it there because everybody is happy. That is terrific. We now come to the
4:02:35 > 4:02:40backbench debate on transport.
4:02:40 > 4:02:48Thank you. I baked a move that this house is considered transport in the
4:02:48 > 4:02:51north. It is very nice to see a fellow Yorkshire MP and the chair
4:02:51 > 4:03:00for this debate. I want to thank the committee for granting time on this
4:03:00 > 4:03:05important issue. The many at honourable members who have
4:03:05 > 4:03:13sponsored this, especially my co-sponsors. Over the last four
4:03:13 > 4:03:15months, the Transport Secretary has made a number of significant
4:03:15 > 4:03:19announcements about transport in northern England. On the 20th of
4:03:19 > 4:03:26July, he released a written in a serial statement cancelling a range
4:03:26 > 4:03:28of rail electrification projects, including oxen home to Windermere
4:03:28 > 4:03:40and the whole line of Kettering. The privately financed plans to
4:03:40 > 4:03:42electrify the Selby line have already been scrapped, despite
4:03:42 > 4:03:48transport for the north describing the scheme as one which was
4:03:48 > 4:03:51intrinsic to the story of transformation and providing
4:03:51 > 4:04:01necessary conditions to support the radical step change for things to
4:04:01 > 4:04:06underpin this. The Department for Transport are claiming that electric
4:04:06 > 4:04:11trains will realise the same significant improvements to journeys
4:04:11 > 4:04:14at electrification and on the 21st of July, the Transport Secretary in
4:04:14 > 4:04:19speaking to the press casts doubt on the electrification of the
4:04:19 > 4:04:28trans-Pennine route. On the 22nd of August, he wrote in the Yorkshire
4:04:28 > 4:04:32Post boasting that there would be a record £13 billion worth of
4:04:32 > 4:04:37investment in the northern transport over the next Parliament. To secure
4:04:37 > 4:04:43further games, he said, it was up to northern leaders to realise these
4:04:43 > 4:04:51games ourselves.May I congratulate her on having securing this debate.
4:04:51 > 4:04:57As she describes, doesn't that make our constituents ever more conscious
4:04:57 > 4:05:02of the significant disparity there is an investment in the north and
4:05:02 > 4:05:04paired with London and the south-east and would she agree with
4:05:04 > 4:05:09me that if we were really to have the kind of transport infrastructure
4:05:09 > 4:05:12that we require from future economic development, we need both the money
4:05:12 > 4:05:17and the powers to take decisions for ourselves?As ever, my right
4:05:17 > 4:05:21honourable friend puts his finger right on it. We need the money and
4:05:21 > 4:05:32the powers. I sort this debate this evening to have the opportunity to
4:05:32 > 4:05:35to hold the Secretary of State to account the views announcements in
4:05:35 > 4:05:38the summer. What it is good to see a transport minister on the Treasury
4:05:38 > 4:05:43bench, I am disappointed that on this very important issue for the
4:05:43 > 4:05:49country, the Secretary of State is not here to listen and respond, it
4:05:49 > 4:05:53is his actions over the summer in previous months that have prompted
4:05:53 > 4:05:58this debate. This evening, I want to make the case for a much bolder and
4:05:58 > 4:06:03more ambitious transport strategy for northern England and despite
4:06:03 > 4:06:08what has been claimed, Britain is becoming more, not less, regionally
4:06:08 > 4:06:12divided. The inequality between our region 's economies is the largest
4:06:12 > 4:06:16of any country in Europe. The productivity gap between north and
4:06:16 > 4:06:17south is
4:06:21 > 4:06:21Widening.
4:06:26 > 4:06:33Particularly on transport, the gap, this is not a party political issue,
4:06:33 > 4:06:36it is one we should be working on together cross party to make sure
4:06:36 > 4:06:41the future investment in projects is more fairly distributed throughout
4:06:41 > 4:06:47the UK?I do not want this to be party political. I wanted to be
4:06:47 > 4:06:50cross party. This is in the interests of Britain. We, in
4:06:50 > 4:06:56Parliament, should work together on this. I will give way one last time.
4:06:56 > 4:07:00I thank my honourable friend for giving way and pay tribute to her
4:07:00 > 4:07:05for this debate. Does my honourable friend agree that for far too long,
4:07:05 > 4:07:09improving the quality between the north and the south in terms of
4:07:09 > 4:07:12transport infrastructure has meant improving links between the north
4:07:12 > 4:07:15and the south rather than within regions is what will really boost
4:07:15 > 4:07:20regional economies?My honourable friend makes that point very well
4:07:20 > 4:07:25and I absolutely agree with that. I want a pursue this issue about
4:07:25 > 4:07:29regional inequalities. I want to say this, one core goal of public
4:07:29 > 4:07:34spending should be to tackle the deep rooted inequalities between
4:07:34 > 4:07:38regions. All too often, our transport and infrastructure
4:07:38 > 4:07:42spending has reflected these inequalities or even worse
4:07:42 > 4:07:45compounded them. The gap in transport investment between the
4:07:45 > 4:07:50north and the capital is stark and widening. Nowhere is this divide
4:07:50 > 4:07:56more apparent than in Yorkshire and the Humber. We are to get £190 per
4:07:56 > 4:08:00head in each transport investment over the next four years. The lowest
4:08:00 > 4:08:08of any UK region, London will get £1943 per head, ten times as much.
4:08:08 > 4:08:13Transport for the north, with new statutory powers, is to get £60
4:08:13 > 4:08:16million to develop transport plans for the whole of the north of
4:08:16 > 4:08:21England. This sounds impressive, until you note that as long as the
4:08:21 > 4:08:26day as 2008, transport for London with spending £50 million just an
4:08:26 > 4:08:32advertising. Whilst I welcome the £13 billion but I'm sure the
4:08:32 > 4:08:35Minister is going to talk about which is available for Northern
4:08:35 > 4:08:41transport over the next five years, I want to bid is in the context of
4:08:41 > 4:08:45the London Crossrail project. Crossrail while, a single project in
4:08:45 > 4:08:50London costs more than the north will get in this entire Parliament,
4:08:50 > 4:08:5714.8 billion. The new Crossrail station at Tottenham Court rate cost
4:08:57 > 4:09:03£1 billion. Crossrail to within initial budget of 31.2 billion could
4:09:03 > 4:09:08yet dwarf it even further and Crossrail two was given backing from
4:09:08 > 4:09:12the Secretary of State this summer at the sun time as he was cancelling
4:09:12 > 4:09:17investment in the north. In backing Crossrail two, I don't recall the
4:09:17 > 4:09:22transport sector you saying that London had to have bimodal trains.
4:09:22 > 4:09:26They are getting electric trains. The practical consequence of this
4:09:26 > 4:09:30divide are clear for all to see. It takes longer to travel from
4:09:30 > 4:09:37Liverpool to hold than it does to London to Paris, but is without the
4:09:37 > 4:09:49frequent delays. -- to tarmac. -- we cannot afford to ignore three
4:09:49 > 4:09:54regions with a population of almost twice that of London and an economy
4:09:54 > 4:09:58larger than the three devolved nations put together. There are
4:09:58 > 4:10:02immense economic gains to be realised if we plug the gap in
4:10:02 > 4:10:06transport investment. As the Northern Powerhouse independent
4:10:06 > 4:10:10economic review highlighted, a proper investment plan for the
4:10:10 > 4:10:13north, including major transport investment, would create an
4:10:13 > 4:10:21additional 850,000 jobs and add £97 billion to the economy by 2015. And
4:10:21 > 4:10:26although I admit priorities need to be reordered, it does not have to be
4:10:26 > 4:10:29an overall choice between London and the south-east and the rest. The
4:10:29 > 4:10:35underlying problem is that compared to other countries, Britain spends
4:10:35 > 4:10:40well hello the international OECD average on infrastructure and all
4:10:40 > 4:10:44political parties must acknowledge that this is a national concern
4:10:44 > 4:10:48requiring urgent attention. The previous Chancellor recognised the
4:10:48 > 4:10:51potential of the Northern Powerhouse, indeed he coined that
4:10:51 > 4:10:58phrase. He set out some issues promises for this reader. --
4:10:58 > 4:11:04ambitious promises for the region. And the longer term, he expressed
4:11:04 > 4:11:08support for the 25 to 30 billion Crossrail for the north, promising
4:11:08 > 4:11:12to halve journey times between Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield to
4:11:12 > 4:11:1630 minutes. We were told that our strategic road network would get an
4:11:16 > 4:11:22present levels of new investment, spearheaded a new organisation
4:11:22 > 4:11:25Highways England, who promised to invest in 40 Three Rd improvement
4:11:25 > 4:11:30schemes across northern England. This included the A63, Castle Street
4:11:30 > 4:11:37in Hull, work with scheduled to begin by 2018. Finally, the previous
4:11:37 > 4:11:40Chancellor promised new powers devolved to northern England to help
4:11:40 > 4:11:47realise all these gains, transport for the north, creating 2015 was to
4:11:47 > 4:11:50eventually become a statuary subnational transport body and
4:11:50 > 4:11:54assume powers similar to transport for London. It was to work alongside
4:11:54 > 4:12:02stronger local councils and network and powerful elected mayors. Sadly,
4:12:02 > 4:12:06the reality has not lived up to this promises and I want to ask the
4:12:06 > 4:12:11transport minister this evening to make the five following commitments.
4:12:11 > 4:12:17Firstly, the Government should spell out exactly how it expects bimodal,
4:12:17 > 4:12:19diesel electric trains to realise the same benefits as electrified
4:12:19 > 4:12:26once. A short written ministerial statement will not cut it. All the
4:12:26 > 4:12:32evidence suggests that they are inferior option. These will be the
4:12:32 > 4:12:36first bimodal trains built in Britain since the 1960s. In Britain,
4:12:36 > 4:12:42diesel cars are being phased out at a time when diesel trains seemed to
4:12:42 > 4:12:47be being phased back in. And in all those European countries which still
4:12:47 > 4:12:51have non-electric lines, they are all pursuing electrification. There
4:12:51 > 4:12:56is strong evidence that in diesel mode, bimodal interceptor express
4:12:56 > 4:13:01trains will be slower than the ones they replaced. -- in the city. Great
4:13:01 > 4:13:06Western Railway has admitted this in the case of their InterCity trains
4:13:06 > 4:13:09on their line. No rail system that is not electrified can be described
4:13:09 > 4:13:15as high-speed and it is ironic given the previous Whitehall statements
4:13:15 > 4:13:21have referred to the north getting high-speed three. So, Network Rail
4:13:21 > 4:13:27promise electrification. They said it would deliver Shorty time --
4:13:27 > 4:13:32shorter journey times, 33% lower maintenance costs. All these gains
4:13:32 > 4:13:36may now never be realised. Journey times from Manchester to Liverpool
4:13:36 > 4:13:41look set to be 30 minutes longer than promised and journey from Leeds
4:13:41 > 4:13:46to Newcastle, 20 minutes longer. And where does this leave once the
4:13:46 > 4:13:49future rail investment, especially Crossrail for the north? Northern
4:13:49 > 4:13:53leaders and transport for the north had always been clear that the short
4:13:53 > 4:13:57to medium term rail improvements round hand-in-hand with the longer
4:13:57 > 4:14:03term plans. In developing Crossrail for the north, transport for the
4:14:03 > 4:14:07north is still working from the baseline assumption that these rail
4:14:07 > 4:14:11operator will deliver the journey time improvements promised. So, if
4:14:11 > 4:14:16the Transport Secretary is so confident in his approach then he
4:14:16 > 4:14:20should publish an independent expert assessment of exactly what kind of
4:14:20 > 4:14:27travel times CO2 emissions, upfront cost, and maintenance costs we can
4:14:27 > 4:14:31expect from bimodal trains that he is so keen on. This assessment
4:14:31 > 4:14:36should state whether they will be transport for the north's baseline
4:14:36 > 4:14:40assumptions and assess whether a impact they will have on realising
4:14:40 > 4:14:44the longer term investments such as Crosswell for the north. It seems to
4:14:44 > 4:14:48me that the Transport Secretary must have known all these years that he
4:14:48 > 4:14:53has been making base about electrification that bimodal
4:14:53 > 4:14:57technology existed and instead bimodal technology is now one of the
4:14:57 > 4:15:01excuses, alongside the discovery of Victorian rail tunnels in the north
4:15:01 > 4:15:06the dropping investment plan. Secondly, the Minister must urgently
4:15:06 > 4:15:10address the uncertainty caused by the Transport Secretary's recent
4:15:10 > 4:15:14announcements and fully commit to the investment the previous
4:15:14 > 4:15:19Chancellor promised. He must commit to rail electrification of Trans
4:15:19 > 4:15:23Pennine, the Midland mainline, Poulter Selby and those parts of the
4:15:23 > 4:15:27north-west triangle that are still due for completion. In order to
4:15:27 > 4:15:31realise the key economic benefits for our region, we must give and he
4:15:31 > 4:15:36must give Crossrail for the north priority over Crossrail to four
4:15:36 > 4:15:42London. Thirdly, the Government should provide transport for the
4:15:42 > 4:15:46north with the powers that they were promised along the same lines as
4:15:46 > 4:15:50those in London. We now know that the strategy instrument to be laid
4:15:50 > 4:15:54shortly in Parliament, transport to the north will not have nearly the
4:15:54 > 4:15:58same powers as transport for London. In the north, we need to be able to
4:15:58 > 4:16:04finance infrastructure projects and drive forward private investment.
4:16:04 > 4:16:07But rather than embracing these opportunities, the Government has
4:16:07 > 4:16:10given us the worst of all worlds. But neither the money to fund
4:16:10 > 4:16:16transport projects and leave it in private investment, nor the power to
4:16:16 > 4:16:21raise funds and promote the north ourselves. So, fourthly, we need the
4:16:21 > 4:16:27road investment promised full stop in March 2017, the National Audit
4:16:27 > 4:16:31Office roundly criticised Highways England, casting doubt on whether
4:16:31 > 4:16:34existing commitments would be met. They have a ready push back the
4:16:34 > 4:16:40start date of 16 road investment schemes and pulls the six others.
4:16:40 > 4:16:44The A63 improvement in Hull has since been delayed to release my
4:16:44 > 4:16:50honourable friend for whole Western Hassell has had to fight very hard
4:16:50 > 4:16:56to get a pedestrian footbridge build over the A63 because of these safety
4:16:56 > 4:17:02considerations before the main work starts in 2020. I must mention bus
4:17:02 > 4:17:08services. Northern bus services have been hit really hard. Between 2010
4:17:08 > 4:17:14and 11, 2016 and 2017, bus budgets have been cut by 22% in the
4:17:14 > 4:17:21north-east, 23% in the north-west, and 37% in Yorkshire and the Humber.
4:17:21 > 4:17:27Seven in ten councils have cut bus services since 2010. The Government
4:17:27 > 4:17:31must now reaffirm the commitments they have made, commit proper
4:17:31 > 4:17:35funding to the road network and deliver these and future
4:17:35 > 4:17:39improvements to a proper timescale. Finally, and most fundamentally, we
4:17:39 > 4:17:45need a long-term cross-party commitment to addressing Britain's
4:17:45 > 4:17:48regional inequalities and plugging the gap and investment between
4:17:48 > 4:17:53London and the rest. This needs to be a long-term commitment from both
4:17:53 > 4:17:57sides of this House and future budgets could and should be judged
4:17:57 > 4:18:03by how they reduce these inequalities. So, in conclusion, the
4:18:03 > 4:18:07north's problems are Britain's problems. If we are able to stand
4:18:07 > 4:18:10any chance of solving the deep-rooted challenges that our
4:18:10 > 4:18:16country faces, solving productivity crisis, addressing inequality,
4:18:16 > 4:18:22increasing our exports post Brexit, creating stronger UK GDP growth
4:18:22 > 4:18:27overall, the north must fire on all cylinders. This means rebalancing
4:18:27 > 4:18:32the economy. And indeed many of the challenges and capital. Skyrocketing
4:18:32 > 4:18:37rents and house prices, the chronic congestion that is economically
4:18:37 > 4:18:40inefficient, but the health and quality of life would be much easier
4:18:40 > 4:18:45to solve if we rebalance our economy. I do not wish to deny
4:18:45 > 4:18:49London be transport investment in required as the capital city. But
4:18:49 > 4:18:55the logic of rebalancing the economy was to take pressure off and the
4:18:55 > 4:18:58south-east, by investing in regenerating the north. As. As much
4:18:58 > 4:19:03as about 20 keep up with the incessant demand for NFL ending list
4:19:03 > 4:19:08of schemes in and around London. In the digital age, many industries no
4:19:08 > 4:19:12longer need to cluster in the south-east. The Government has
4:19:12 > 4:19:15accepted the argument for rebalancing the economy, now that
4:19:15 > 4:19:21actions need to follow their words. And that is why it is in the
4:19:21 > 4:19:26national interest that the north for our taxpayers, for our fare payers,
4:19:26 > 4:19:31for businesses should get the fair share of investment that they
4:19:31 > 4:19:39deserve.The question is as on the order paper, and we have a lot of
4:19:39 > 4:19:43colleagues who want to speak in this debate so I'm going to impose an
4:19:43 > 4:19:50immediate five minute time limit. John Stevenson.Thank you.
4:19:50 > 4:19:53Congratulations to the honourable member the securing this debate. I
4:19:53 > 4:19:59think it is an incredibly important issue, not just for our region, the
4:19:59 > 4:20:02whole of the north, but likely for the whole of the country. It is easy
4:20:02 > 4:20:06to look at London and the Saudis and see their economic success, to look
4:20:06 > 4:20:10at the levels of investment and infrastructure is simply to
4:20:10 > 4:20:15criticise. In my view this would be wrong. London and the Selt has been
4:20:15 > 4:20:18hugely successful and we should acknowledge that success, theatre is
4:20:18 > 4:20:22a good thing, we should celebrated because we recognise the
4:20:22 > 4:20:26contribution it does make to the national economy. What we need to do
4:20:26 > 4:20:31is to replicate that success in the north. It is faster provide the
4:20:31 > 4:20:34arguments, the evidence and the reasoning why there should be
4:20:34 > 4:20:38increased investment in the north and where that investment should go.
4:20:38 > 4:20:41It is for us to help create the successful economic environment in
4:20:41 > 4:20:47which our region will drive the economic success and benefit of
4:20:47 > 4:20:50constituents as an businesses. It is fast to ensure that we do not miss
4:20:50 > 4:20:54out on opportunities, there was a chance for a Cumbrian deal,
4:20:54 > 4:20:58devolution deal which are specially failed to materialise which would've
4:20:58 > 4:21:00seen additional investment my county.
4:21:04 > 4:21:07However, we have to recognise the fundamental problem has been that
4:21:07 > 4:21:11for many years, the success of governments, of all colours, that
4:21:11 > 4:21:17our country has become dominated by one city and as a consequence, our
4:21:17 > 4:21:20country has become unbalanced economically and socially. Therefore
4:21:20 > 4:21:24it is in the interests of the whole country, not just the north or the
4:21:24 > 4:21:29south, but for there to be a better balance. We need to see strong
4:21:29 > 4:21:34economic growth in the northern cities, both large, small, and also
4:21:34 > 4:21:38in the counties. It isn't just about Manchester and Leeds but about
4:21:38 > 4:21:42places like Carlyle and the counties of Northumberland, Lancashire and
4:21:42 > 4:21:46Cumbria. In my view there are a number of key issues to help achieve
4:21:46 > 4:21:52this. Devolution of power, to an extent, it started with the
4:21:52 > 4:21:55introduction of Metro mayors and some devolution of powers but in my
4:21:55 > 4:22:00view it needs to go further. Again, I would see the extension of mayors
4:22:00 > 4:22:04across the region will give powerful voices for different parts of the
4:22:04 > 4:22:10region and collectively we can speak for them. We must also remember the
4:22:10 > 4:22:13importance of scales, we have magnificent universities in the
4:22:13 > 4:22:16North -- skills. We have the developer and of apprenticeships
4:22:16 > 4:22:23give Michael schemes which need to be -- pension schemes which need to
4:22:23 > 4:22:27be supported. We have to invest in infrastructure, rail, air and
4:22:27 > 4:22:30broadband, in this economy it is equally important.
4:22:30 > 4:22:34And there has to be political will which is absolutely critical, it is
4:22:34 > 4:22:39at a local level as well as the national level. All credit to the
4:22:39 > 4:22:43government, to a large extent, a start has been made. There is
4:22:43 > 4:22:45recognition in the concept of the northern powerhouse and the
4:22:45 > 4:22:51importance of the North. I'm delighted to say that that isn't
4:22:51 > 4:22:55just the true North, where there are powerhouse minister made his visit
4:22:55 > 4:23:00to Carlisle. We have to be aware of the importance of infrastructure,
4:23:00 > 4:23:05which is key, and recognise the creation of the transport in the
4:23:05 > 4:23:11North which is significant, and we do have an opportunity for
4:23:11 > 4:23:14replicating the success of Transport for London if we do get behind
4:23:14 > 4:23:18transport in the north. And we must not underestimate what has already
4:23:18 > 4:23:24been done. £13 billion invested across the North and infrastructure
4:23:24 > 4:23:27and an additional 400 million allocated to improve connections
4:23:27 > 4:23:31across the North. In recognition of the East-West collectivity, the
4:23:31 > 4:23:37ambition of the North rhetoric on northern powerhouse with the
4:23:37 > 4:23:42Northern Rail network. We must also be patient, Crossrail didn't happen
4:23:42 > 4:23:45overnight, we need to put the building blocks in place and accept
4:23:45 > 4:23:49it will take time for improvements to come through but you also see
4:23:49 > 4:23:55that in my area. In Carlisle we have an enterprise zone encouraging
4:23:55 > 4:23:58business investment which is connected to the root system and
4:23:58 > 4:24:02we've seen rail investment, £14 million in a rail station roof, £2
4:24:02 > 4:24:07million for new platforms, and bringing in investment in trains
4:24:07 > 4:24:12with modern carriages, there is investment in local airports, £11
4:24:12 > 4:24:19million for connections to Dublin and Southend, improvements to the
4:24:19 > 4:24:23A69, an extension of broadband and most importantly, a recent
4:24:23 > 4:24:27application to complete the ring road around Carlisle which would
4:24:27 > 4:24:30unlock housing and the economic potential of the city. Therefore it
4:24:30 > 4:24:36is important that across all parties we recognise these decisions can be
4:24:36 > 4:24:39long-term but can affect individual careers and the duration of
4:24:39 > 4:24:43individual parties in government. Yet they are vital to the long term
4:24:43 > 4:24:46success of the North and it is important that we all get behind
4:24:46 > 4:24:54that.I'm very grateful Madam Deputy Speaker and can I thank my
4:24:54 > 4:24:57honourable friend for securing this depend through the backbench
4:24:57 > 4:25:01committee, it was a very good presentation and I welcome it! Can I
4:25:01 > 4:25:08declare the chair of the all-party Parliamentary group for the North.
4:25:08 > 4:25:13Madam Deputy Speaker, the north-east has a very well-established and one
4:25:13 > 4:25:16of the largest urban transport systems in the UK, in the Tyne and
4:25:16 > 4:25:24where metro but it is almost 40 years old, and the rolling stock is
4:25:24 > 4:25:2935 or 37 years old. Trains are increasingly failing, suffering with
4:25:29 > 4:25:32mechanical faults which causes misery for commuters and the
4:25:32 > 4:25:36travelling public in general. The rolling stock on Metro trains are
4:25:36 > 4:25:40well past their best and require urgent replacement. The latest
4:25:40 > 4:25:44estimates suggest that if a replacement programme is not in
4:25:44 > 4:25:49place by 2020, the system that is literally already grinding to a halt
4:25:49 > 4:25:56could face collapse. My colleagues in the Tyne & Wear area and I wrote
4:25:56 > 4:26:00to the Secretary of State asking for a solution to the funding of the
4:26:00 > 4:26:03replacement, calling upon the government to invest in the scheme
4:26:03 > 4:26:07as opposed to other funding initiatives like PFI. We wrote to
4:26:07 > 4:26:11the Secretary of State on the 17th of July and again on the 12th of
4:26:11 > 4:26:15September. Then I raised this matter, the fact that we hadn't had
4:26:15 > 4:26:19an answer, at transport questions on the 19th of October. We still
4:26:19 > 4:26:25haven't received a reply. I fear it's a symptom of the government's
4:26:25 > 4:26:28attitude towards investment in and towards the people of the North
4:26:28 > 4:26:34East. I will give way on that point. Thank you to my honourable friend
4:26:34 > 4:26:38for giving way. The issue around the metro and rolling stock being
4:26:38 > 4:26:41replaced, what could be another boost to the north-east economy, the
4:26:41 > 4:26:48rolling stock could be built at new can Mike Hookem username Perth --
4:26:48 > 4:26:56Newton Inc.The industrial home of the railways in the ancient past,
4:26:56 > 4:27:02but we are in a position at the moment where frankly, the people of
4:27:02 > 4:27:06my area, Tyne & Wear, and their Parliamentary representatives, are
4:27:06 > 4:27:13treated with complete contempt by this government, not answering a
4:27:13 > 4:27:19letter from ten MPs after 120 days. You would not accept that. Madam
4:27:19 > 4:27:26Deputy Speaker, could I ask you if it is normal Parliamentary procedure
4:27:26 > 4:27:31for a letter to the Secretary of State, signed by ten MPs, to be
4:27:31 > 4:27:39completely ignored for over 120 days? I'm still waiting. Latest
4:27:39 > 4:27:44figures from the Treasury show that investment in infrastructure in the
4:27:44 > 4:27:47North East is the second lowest in the United Kingdom behind northern
4:27:47 > 4:27:52England, but we know they have a financial benefit to do something
4:27:52 > 4:28:00with it, determined by themselves, between 2011 and 2016, investment in
4:28:00 > 4:28:04the north-east was very low, compared to the national average,
4:28:04 > 4:28:08and very low indeed compared to London and the south-east during a
4:28:08 > 4:28:12time where London enjoyed £30 billion of investment and London and
4:28:12 > 4:28:16the south-east had nearly half of all of the infrastructure investment
4:28:16 > 4:28:21in the whole of the country. In the north-east, commuters regularly
4:28:21 > 4:28:24inshore journey times in excess of one hour for journeys of less than
4:28:24 > 4:28:3215 miles. The recently completed road widening scheme on the A-1
4:28:32 > 4:28:34around the Metrocentre in my constituency has done little to ease
4:28:34 > 4:28:41this. That A-1 around my neighbouring constituency has been
4:28:45 > 4:28:48delayed until 2020, given the disparity compared to other regions,
4:28:48 > 4:28:53my question has to be why can't we have some investment for the North?
4:28:53 > 4:28:57Fair funding for us would not be fair because it would not come to
4:28:57 > 4:29:04terms with that historical lag or disparity which has left us in the
4:29:04 > 4:29:09doldrums. Madam Deputy Speaker, the road network in the north-east and
4:29:09 > 4:29:12linking the north-east to other regions and Scotland is beyond a
4:29:12 > 4:29:23joke. It's already been mentioned. The A-1, the A69, the A66, they all
4:29:23 > 4:29:27suffer congestion and low travel speeds. To the west of Newcastle,
4:29:27 > 4:29:34the A1 is one of the most heavily congested roads in the country and
4:29:34 > 4:29:40the A1M, a distance of less than 40 miles, is motorway in name only.
4:29:40 > 4:29:44Travel time is often take more than an hour to go 40 miles on something
4:29:44 > 4:29:49designated as a motorway. Heavily congested and all too often
4:29:49 > 4:29:53dangerous, as is the link between Tyneside and Scotland up the A-1
4:29:53 > 4:30:04North. Railways are antiquity did. The railways are being left behind
4:30:04 > 4:30:12and that is beyond dispute. With the HS2 line, we were told by the right
4:30:12 > 4:30:19honourable member for Derbyshire Dales, he said by 2035, HS2 would
4:30:19 > 4:30:25cut journey times from London to Newcastle via leads by 20 minutes.
4:30:25 > 4:30:34Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, 20 years ago we could get a train from
4:30:34 > 4:30:46Newcastle to London in two hours and 30 minutes. 20 years later we can do
4:30:46 > 4:30:53it in two hours and 20 minutes. We will have saved a journey by 20
4:30:53 > 4:30:56minutes. It will increase capacity but it's doing nothing for the
4:30:56 > 4:31:01economy of the north-east until we get transport infrastructure in the
4:31:01 > 4:31:08north-east improved dramatically. We are being ignored.Madam Deputy
4:31:08 > 4:31:12Speaker, the average commute into London begins 40 miles outside of
4:31:12 > 4:31:17the city. If we could make that the case for Manchester, we could create
4:31:17 > 4:31:21an urban network with a population larger than New York and a GDP the
4:31:21 > 4:31:27size of Sweden. That's the scale of the prize for getting Northern
4:31:27 > 4:31:33transport right. So tonight, I would like to make three quick points.
4:31:33 > 4:31:36First, I want to celebrate the powerhouse that the North already
4:31:36 > 4:31:40is. Second, I would like to talk about the role transport plays in
4:31:40 > 4:31:45shaping the North 's future and lastly, I want to suggest if you
4:31:45 > 4:31:52keep projects that would ensure the future is bright. When I hear the
4:31:52 > 4:31:55phrase "Northern powerhouse". I must admit that sometimes my heart sinks
4:31:55 > 4:32:01because I know that too often, I'm about to hear a story of the past,
4:32:01 > 4:32:06or I am to be told about a far too distant future of hyper loops across
4:32:06 > 4:32:14the northern Dales. But rather than the past or the future, let us not
4:32:14 > 4:32:18forget that 16 million Northerners are already the nation's economic
4:32:18 > 4:32:22engine. Last year, it wasn't London or the south-east that saw the
4:32:22 > 4:32:29highest growth that the north-west. Thanks to Nissan, Sunderland car
4:32:29 > 4:32:33plant, for the first time since England won the World Cup, we are
4:32:33 > 4:32:38producing more cars than the French. Of Yorkshire's coast, we are
4:32:38 > 4:32:45creating the largest offshore wind farm. In science, the North's 29
4:32:45 > 4:32:48universities, including world-class institutions like Durham, York and
4:32:48 > 4:32:52Newcastle, at the front of cutting-edge research and in
4:32:52 > 4:32:55Manchester United, the North is home to the most successful sporting
4:32:55 > 4:33:04franchise anywhere in the world. But in the area of transport, we are
4:33:04 > 4:33:11still selling the North's potential short. The cities and towns of the
4:33:11 > 4:33:15North are individually strong but collectively not strong enough. The
4:33:15 > 4:33:19only way to get the North to punch beyond the collective sum of its
4:33:19 > 4:33:26parts is to connect those parts up and that is why better transport is
4:33:26 > 4:33:30key to unlocking the true potential of the North. Today, converted
4:33:30 > 4:33:38buses, known as Pacer trains, where a technology phased out by Iran's
4:33:38 > 4:33:42National Railway 12 years ago and are in use across the North. Today
4:33:42 > 4:33:46it is quicker to travel 283 miles from London to Paris than it is to
4:33:46 > 4:33:50do less than half that distance between Hull and Liverpool and
4:33:50 > 4:33:55today, too often, bright young entrepreneurial minds forged in
4:33:55 > 4:33:59northern schools and universities find it easier to come to 100 miles
4:33:59 > 4:34:03to London to find a job then to look in a northern city just 14 miles
4:34:03 > 4:34:09away. But it doesn't have to be like this. After all, the distance
4:34:09 > 4:34:12between Manchester and Leeds is shorter than the length of the
4:34:12 > 4:34:16London Underground's Central line. And the government, to their credit,
4:34:16 > 4:34:22I believe they recognised the need for investment and in my
4:34:22 > 4:34:26constituency, upgrades to the A1 and the A66 are welcomed, but there is
4:34:26 > 4:34:31much more to do. The Northern powerhouse is a wonderful phrase but
4:34:31 > 4:34:34the people of northern England deserve more than a slogan, they
4:34:34 > 4:34:42need action. So, how do we make the aspiration a reality? There's no
4:34:42 > 4:34:47doubt that over successive governments, there has been a
4:34:47 > 4:34:49substantial funding gap between London transport and northern
4:34:49 > 4:34:56transport.Will you give way on that point?Of course.I have a question
4:34:56 > 4:35:00to the honourable lady opposite but does he agree this lack of an
4:35:00 > 4:35:04investment has been for generations and is not a party political issue?
4:35:04 > 4:35:07We should work across the parties to deliver solutions that we all know
4:35:07 > 4:35:13that we need.I thank my honourable friend for the intervention, I know
4:35:13 > 4:35:16he's done excellent work analysing the numbers and I agree with the
4:35:16 > 4:35:21point he makes, its multi-generation but the point is from here the gap
4:35:21 > 4:35:26needs to start closing. Secondly, London has Crossrail, the Midlands
4:35:26 > 4:35:31are getting HS2 and now we, in the north, we need the government to
4:35:31 > 4:35:35back Northern powerhouse rail. The government's £300 million down
4:35:35 > 4:35:39payment is certainly welcomed but we need a lot more to show the people
4:35:39 > 4:35:45of the North that the government means business. Thirdly, in my own
4:35:45 > 4:35:49area, the new tees Valley Mayor has campaigned to upgrade Darlington
4:35:49 > 4:35:54station to vastly improve its capacity and connectivity. It's an
4:35:54 > 4:35:57excellent proposal and the government should get behind it.
4:35:57 > 4:36:03Fourthly, Frome Tees side to Merseyside, to the Humber, one of
4:36:03 > 4:36:08the North's many strengths are its great ports. As I set out last year,
4:36:08 > 4:36:13after we leave the EU, we should create a new generation of US style
4:36:13 > 4:36:17free ports to turbo charge, manufacturing trade and employment
4:36:17 > 4:36:21in the great northern port cities and finally we must make sure that
4:36:21 > 4:36:28the rerun North is not left behind. Advances like autonomous vehicles
4:36:28 > 4:36:33will have their biggest impact in sparse rural areas like mine. For
4:36:33 > 4:36:36example, allowing elderly constituents to access distant
4:36:36 > 4:36:39health services more easily or stimulating our local economy by
4:36:39 > 4:36:42allowing people to head to the pub without worrying who is driving them
4:36:42 > 4:36:48home.
4:36:48 > 4:36:54In it may seem strange to hear this from our boy born in Southampton,
4:36:54 > 4:36:59but I am deeply proud to now call the North my home.So as long as I
4:36:59 > 4:37:05have voice in this House, I will speak up loudly and forcefully from
4:37:05 > 4:37:10my home's bright future and for an economy, but with the right
4:37:10 > 4:37:14investment can be the powerhouse, not just of Britain, but of the
4:37:14 > 4:37:21world.It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate and I would
4:37:21 > 4:37:26like to pay tribute to the honourable member the Kingston upon
4:37:26 > 4:37:30Hull and others for securing this debate. It is timely because there
4:37:30 > 4:37:37is a growing recognition there isn't sufficient investment going into
4:37:37 > 4:37:44transport in the north. I don't see this debate about being left against
4:37:44 > 4:37:49Wright or North versus South, but this debate should be about how we
4:37:49 > 4:37:54ensure the North gets a fair deal from national government. I want to
4:37:54 > 4:37:59work with members right across this House to persuade the current
4:37:59 > 4:38:03government to invest more and then to ensure that the one after that,
4:38:03 > 4:38:09the one after that, also invest more because if we are to address the
4:38:09 > 4:38:14inequalities that no doubt exist in levels of investment in areas
4:38:14 > 4:38:20between London and the South of England, this will require
4:38:20 > 4:38:25investment over the longer term. What is the best way of doing that?
4:38:25 > 4:38:29It is about devolution. Some devolution deals have recently been
4:38:29 > 4:38:34agreed. Not so far in Yorkshire, but in other areas, Manchester,
4:38:34 > 4:38:40Liverpool and elsewhere. And there, the newly elected mayors have
4:38:40 > 4:38:44established themselves as important voices in our national debate.
4:38:44 > 4:38:48Alongside back, transport for the North was formed in 2015 as the
4:38:48 > 4:38:52first sub regional transport body in the UK and many were hopeful that
4:38:52 > 4:38:56transport for the North would become a powerful advocate for rebalancing
4:38:56 > 4:39:00the economy and closing the divide in investment between the north and
4:39:00 > 4:39:04the South. With the powers to back that up. But the reality is, in
4:39:04 > 4:39:11recent times, we seem to have hit the buffers. Because as the
4:39:11 > 4:39:15Transport Secretary recently said, in the Yorkshire Post, it was not
4:39:15 > 4:39:21his responsibility to invest in Yorkshire's railways. This came
4:39:21 > 4:39:25shortly after he universally cancelled electrification projects
4:39:25 > 4:39:30planned for some of the busiest routes in the country outside of
4:39:30 > 4:39:35London. This is one example of the inequalities which exist in our
4:39:35 > 4:39:39transport infrastructure between different regions in our country. A
4:39:39 > 4:39:43point that has been very effectively made by the Yorkshire Post, who have
4:39:43 > 4:39:49long campaigned on these issues and who, under the editorship of James
4:39:49 > 4:39:54Mitchison have been a powerful voice, not just in the Yorkshire and
4:39:54 > 4:40:00Humber, but in the North more generally. We have to accept that
4:40:00 > 4:40:05London, as our capital city is a hub for business and tourism. It is
4:40:05 > 4:40:09understandable it will receive a significant amount of investment.
4:40:09 > 4:40:13But figures show just how wide the inequality between London and the
4:40:13 > 4:40:18North has become. According to the IPPR, analysis of investment over
4:40:18 > 4:40:25the last ten years shows that London receives £680 per head on average
4:40:25 > 4:40:30each year, while the North got just £282 per head. If the North had
4:40:30 > 4:40:35received the same level of funding, we would have had annexed £59
4:40:35 > 4:40:42billion to spend in the last decade. In many other European countries,
4:40:42 > 4:40:46decisions on transport spending are made locally or regionally. In other
4:40:46 > 4:40:50words they are made by those best placed to understand the problems
4:40:50 > 4:40:57and priorities in their area. The recent news highlighted on Channel 4
4:40:57 > 4:41:00dispatches, raises concerns about the future direction of transport
4:41:00 > 4:41:06for the North. Because, we now know that on current planning, it will
4:41:06 > 4:41:11only be a pale imitation of Transport for London. They will have
4:41:11 > 4:41:16an advisory role, but it will not be able to determine or deliver on
4:41:16 > 4:41:19transport priorities. If the government was serious about giving
4:41:19 > 4:41:25this organisation teeth, they would be more ambitious about its remit.
4:41:25 > 4:41:29Transport for London has been effective in securing additional
4:41:29 > 4:41:33investment in our capital city, why shouldn't the North of England have
4:41:33 > 4:41:38the same? Because transport infrastructure is a key driver of
4:41:38 > 4:41:42economic growth. Strong transport links between our cities and towns
4:41:42 > 4:41:50attract businesses, and allow people to work over a wider, geographical
4:41:50 > 4:41:52area and increase productivity. Public investment in transport
4:41:52 > 4:41:56leverages private transport investment. The reality is, the
4:41:56 > 4:42:00Northern powerhouse will never truly get off the ground without increased
4:42:00 > 4:42:04transport investments. As my honourable friend said, the member
4:42:04 > 4:42:09for Kingston upon Hull North said in a recent article, the North face is
4:42:09 > 4:42:14the worst of both worlds, in that we won't have the money to fund our
4:42:14 > 4:42:16transport projects and we won't be given the power to raise the money
4:42:16 > 4:42:27ourselves.Martin Vickers.Thank you, it is a pleasure to take part
4:42:27 > 4:42:32in this debate. I have ten railway stations, the largest port in the
4:42:32 > 4:42:37country and an International Airport in my constituency, so we deserve
4:42:37 > 4:42:40better service from the Department than we have received in recent
4:42:40 > 4:42:46years. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is no doubt the Northern powerhouse
4:42:46 > 4:42:50has been a focus for government and it is delivering some major
4:42:50 > 4:42:55investment into the North of England and we should be fair to the
4:42:55 > 4:43:00government and acknowledge that. But... I will give way.He is making
4:43:00 > 4:43:07an excellent point, will he join me in expressing recent investment into
4:43:07 > 4:43:11the middle which bypass, over 20 years in the waiting, which will not
4:43:11 > 4:43:15only relieve congestion in that area, but open up land for over 2000
4:43:15 > 4:43:21jobs, new employment into the area. I thank my honourable friend for
4:43:21 > 4:43:26that intervention, I am happy to support that. We should recognise
4:43:26 > 4:43:31there has been significant investment in some parts and my own
4:43:31 > 4:43:43constituency, the minister asked a transport visited in August, to open
4:43:43 > 4:43:48A160 upgrade. But you can have a very nice access and you can leave
4:43:48 > 4:44:04any known, but then you hit the very congested A180, the last miles into
4:44:04 > 4:44:10Grimsby and Cleethorpes, is a dual carriageway. The northern powerhouse
4:44:10 > 4:44:12has attracted significant investment but we should acknowledge many of
4:44:12 > 4:44:18the plans are for investment between the larger cities of the North,
4:44:18 > 4:44:24Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and the like. There has been some neglect of
4:44:24 > 4:44:28Humberside, dare I use that word, which is derided in Northern
4:44:28 > 4:44:35Lincolnshire. But in particular, the South bank of the Humber, which is
4:44:35 > 4:44:38desperately in need of a number of important things. I think the
4:44:38 > 4:44:44devolution argument is centred around the metropolitan areas and
4:44:44 > 4:44:51Metro mayors and the like. In my own county of Lincolnshire, the
4:44:51 > 4:44:56devolution deal which was on offer this time last year, did eventually
4:44:56 > 4:45:00collapse, as indeed my honourable friend mentioned his had done in
4:45:00 > 4:45:06Cumbria. In the north of the county where there are two unitary
4:45:06 > 4:45:10authorities, which serve parts of my constituency, North Lincolnshire and
4:45:10 > 4:45:15North East Lincolnshire, they both supported the devolution deal, so it
4:45:15 > 4:45:19is unfair we should somehow be dropped out of the potential
4:45:19 > 4:45:25investment into the area because the deal was thwarted by other councils.
4:45:25 > 4:45:30If the government, and I have said this many times, really believe in
4:45:30 > 4:45:35devolution, Metro mayors and unitary authorities, they should establish
4:45:35 > 4:45:45them. I have repeatedly said this, let's get on with it. Unitary
4:45:45 > 4:45:47authorities are the way forward, they release more resources for
4:45:47 > 4:45:55other investment. The big ask in transport terms, which is not direct
4:45:55 > 4:45:59responsibility of the minister, I acknowledge, for my own
4:45:59 > 4:46:04constituency, is a direct rail service from Grimsby and Cleethorpes
4:46:04 > 4:46:09to Scunthorpe to the main and onwards to King's Cross. In days
4:46:09 > 4:46:14gone by, British rail did operate a service but they abandoned it in
4:46:14 > 4:46:181992. Although it is fair to say the privatised networks we do have now
4:46:18 > 4:46:26do provide a better service from my constituency to London, there is in
4:46:26 > 4:46:29effect, an hourly service, the fact you have to change at Doncaster or
4:46:29 > 4:46:33Newark is off-putting and it is detrimental to many of the
4:46:33 > 4:46:39businesses that are becoming established in the area. Open access
4:46:39 > 4:46:46operators have shown an interest and I would urge the Department to
4:46:46 > 4:46:50consider greater involvement of open access operators, such as the very
4:46:50 > 4:46:59successful Hull trains who operate services out of King's Cross. The
4:46:59 > 4:47:02Secretary of State gave a more favourable answer to being open to
4:47:02 > 4:47:08open access operators when he responded at the last question Time.
4:47:08 > 4:47:12We have got the brake line, which is worthy of a mansion which has a
4:47:12 > 4:47:18Saturdays only service. The people in Gainsborough and break itself
4:47:18 > 4:47:22would love to be able to get to Cleethorpes on a Saturday and I can
4:47:22 > 4:47:25see the chairman of the Transport Select Committee, who I travel that
4:47:25 > 4:47:32line with, but it is a nonsense to have all of that infrastructure for
4:47:32 > 4:47:40a service that operates on one day a week. Finally, could I mention hate
4:47:40 > 4:47:48chess to? I have been a supporter of HS2 and I know we need a new North,
4:47:48 > 4:47:51South railway line and if you're going to build it, you build it to
4:47:51 > 4:47:56the highest modern standards. But we are talking about delivery of a
4:47:56 > 4:48:03project in 2033, would it matter if it was 2035 or 2036 and in the
4:48:03 > 4:48:06meantime we could release some extra funding for some major projects,
4:48:06 > 4:48:13perhaps a few bypass roads, in a few constituencies, wouldn't go amiss.
4:48:13 > 4:48:17They would be more valued by many of our constituents, who missed out on
4:48:17 > 4:48:24the HS2 project. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can see time is running
4:48:24 > 4:48:30out. The minister is an influential man and I know is sympathetic to the
4:48:30 > 4:48:33needs of Northern Lincolnshire, so I am hoping for some positive response
4:48:33 > 4:48:40later in the debate.It is a real pleasure to follow my Northern
4:48:40 > 4:48:49Lincolnshire friend the Cleethorpes. But first, let me begin by
4:48:49 > 4:48:51congratulating the member for Kingston upon Hull North for setting
4:48:51 > 4:48:55out this debate so well and reminding us this is not just about
4:48:55 > 4:49:00transport, this is about rebalancing the economy. As the member for
4:49:00 > 4:49:04Richmond said, there is a prize to be grabbed and there is an
4:49:04 > 4:49:10opportunity to investment to do something about the productivity gap
4:49:10 > 4:49:15that is continuing to widen and address regional equalities and do
4:49:15 > 4:49:19something about the gap and transport can be the motor for that.
4:49:19 > 4:49:27As my honourable friend for Barnsley said, if we had at the same amount
4:49:27 > 4:49:32spent on the north as was in London, £59 billion more would be spent in
4:49:32 > 4:49:38the north. That is a staggering piece of information. Let me turn to
4:49:38 > 4:49:41one of my constituents who wrote to me to give me the flavour of his
4:49:41 > 4:49:46take on this debate. I think it is an insight into how people locally
4:49:46 > 4:49:51in our areas, see things. He writes, Dave Roberts... You probably already
4:49:51 > 4:49:56know that as well as backtracking on the several electrification rail
4:49:56 > 4:50:00projects for the North, the powers and finance to be given to Transport
4:50:00 > 4:50:04for the North is less than those enjoyed by those for Transport for
4:50:04 > 4:50:08London. The Scunthorpe area doesn't seem to have been included in any of
4:50:08 > 4:50:12the proposals made for transport in the north. The major proposal seems
4:50:12 > 4:50:16to be a new High Speed Rail line between Hull and Liverpool.
4:50:16 > 4:50:20Relatively little extra work would be need to link the current line
4:50:20 > 4:50:24from Cleethorpes to Scunthorpe to this line. Powerful insights about
4:50:24 > 4:50:29the opportunities that could be done with proper investment. The danger
4:50:29 > 4:50:33is for our area of Northern Lincolnshire, not only are we
4:50:33 > 4:50:38neglected as part of the North, but we are neglected as part of the
4:50:38 > 4:50:43northern project as well. And yet, as my honourable friend the
4:50:43 > 4:50:47Cleethorpes pointed out, Immingham is the largest port by volume in the
4:50:47 > 4:50:51country and that port, sitting in the heart of our area, or ought to
4:50:51 > 4:50:56mean very good transport links from that port, but the transport links,
4:50:56 > 4:51:07despite the welcome investment recently are still woeful. The A180
4:51:07 > 4:51:12ought to be upgraded.
4:51:12 > 4:51:20I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way, would he agree that the
4:51:20 > 4:51:23M11, that was originally proposed to run through the Cambridge area where
4:51:23 > 4:51:27it finishes now up to the Humber Bridge, should be a long-term
4:51:27 > 4:51:33prospect which would boost North Lincolnshire's economy?My
4:51:33 > 4:51:36honourable friend is ambitious but the reality is if you speak to
4:51:36 > 4:51:45hauliers in the area, they would tell you the problems with the A15
4:51:45 > 4:51:49going south from the area is poor and it would make a significant
4:51:49 > 4:51:55difference to transport links in the area to build on the concept of a
4:51:55 > 4:52:00macro to kind of development. -- M11 kind of development. The nature of
4:52:00 > 4:52:06the rail line between Northern Lincolnshire's area is the fact that
4:52:06 > 4:52:10freight trains in particular have to go slow in parts, an improvement in
4:52:10 > 4:52:14the strengthening of that line would make a significant difference to
4:52:14 > 4:52:22movements of freight across the East and West movement then North and
4:52:22 > 4:52:27south. Significant things could be done with rail improvement in terms
4:52:27 > 4:52:38of investment on the A15 which would make a difference. And they did
4:52:38 > 4:52:41reduce the tolls after a multi-partner argument which
4:52:41 > 4:52:47eventually was heard but it is interesting to hear that the Severn
4:52:47 > 4:52:50Bridge tolls will disappear altogether so what is good for the
4:52:50 > 4:52:54South ought to be good for the North and we should see a similar approach
4:52:54 > 4:52:59to the issues in the North. The honourable member for Cleethorpes
4:52:59 > 4:53:05also mentioned the value of a direct rail link to our area from London
4:53:05 > 4:53:10and more investment in the line which would benefit my constituency
4:53:10 > 4:53:16as well as movements through the area so if the Humber area, the
4:53:16 > 4:53:21Northern Lincolnshire area and Hull and East Riding are to be there we
4:53:21 > 4:53:25need to see these investments to allow our area to blossom and
4:53:25 > 4:53:29transport for the North needs to be given the powers and resources to
4:53:29 > 4:53:32deliver for the North but transport for the North also needs to remember
4:53:32 > 4:53:40Northern Lincolnshire.Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker, and the
4:53:40 > 4:53:44opportunity to come to the debate this evening. I stand as a member of
4:53:44 > 4:53:47Parliament for North East Derbyshire, I hope those of you in
4:53:47 > 4:53:52these constituencies would allow me to contribute tonight given that
4:53:52 > 4:53:57many of my constituents on a regular basis use Sheffield and trouble to
4:53:57 > 4:54:04the North by rail and road. I would like to congratulate the member, the
4:54:04 > 4:54:05honourable member for Kingston-upon-Hull, for securing
4:54:05 > 4:54:10this debate today which I think is an important contribution to
4:54:10 > 4:54:15ensuring that the North has the right level of investment and
4:54:15 > 4:54:18spending on transport long-term, and I think we all agree on both sides
4:54:18 > 4:54:23of the house that it is important and I agree with my honourable
4:54:23 > 4:54:29friend, if I can remember his constituency! This should be and can
4:54:29 > 4:54:33be a nonpartisan issue and I'm glad to see that most of the speeches so
4:54:33 > 4:54:39far today have been undertaken in that spirit. I think firstly we need
4:54:39 > 4:54:42to recognise the enormous amount of spending and improvements which have
4:54:42 > 4:54:45gone on in the last few years, £13 billion has been spent at the
4:54:45 > 4:54:52moment, the commitment to Northern powerhouse rails, the setting up of
4:54:52 > 4:54:57transport for the North should be acknowledged, even if I accept there
4:54:57 > 4:55:02are more issues to be discussed with that but in my own constituency, in
4:55:02 > 4:55:06North East Derbyshire and the associated towns, close to
4:55:06 > 4:55:08Chesterfield, we have significant transport issues and have done for a
4:55:08 > 4:55:15number of years. When I was growing up in the 1980s, I remember when
4:55:15 > 4:55:21this was a place where you would not want to go, when rolling stock was
4:55:21 > 4:55:24grotty and often difficult to get a train on time. I am pleased to see
4:55:24 > 4:55:31that over the last 10-15 years, as a result of spending from both sides
4:55:31 > 4:55:36this house, there has been significant improvements for my
4:55:36 > 4:55:42constituents in North East Derbyshire and people who live in
4:55:42 > 4:55:44Derbyshire, it's a relatively new station which opened in Chester
4:55:44 > 4:55:50share. We have a franchise which is clearly working very well, and is a
4:55:50 > 4:55:54testament to how the franchise system can work. It has trains which
4:55:54 > 4:56:03regularly run on time to London but more can obviously be done. You can
4:56:03 > 4:56:06see real progress in terms of what has happened in Chesterfield but
4:56:06 > 4:56:18there is always more where we should seek. I think we would recognise
4:56:18 > 4:56:24that the re-franchising at the moment, the mainline franchising, I
4:56:24 > 4:56:30would hope that some impacts on my constituency, particularly with
4:56:30 > 4:56:37regard to Dronfield, a station which has seen passenger input quadruple
4:56:37 > 4:56:40and a success story in Derbyshire here about how rail can help towns
4:56:40 > 4:56:48prosper. And changes to the documents would not necessarily come
4:56:48 > 4:56:53to pass, particularly splitting up the Liverpool to Norwich route which
4:56:53 > 4:56:56would force residents in my constituency to change trains if
4:56:56 > 4:57:03they go over the Pennines. If they join this place, there was a very
4:57:03 > 4:57:08regular user of these trains over to Manchester in this job on a daily
4:57:08 > 4:57:12basis before I came here in June and I do recognise some of the
4:57:12 > 4:57:18statements that members opposite and members across the house have
4:57:18 > 4:57:22provided today about improving rail infrastructure as a whole. I also
4:57:22 > 4:57:26think there's an argument to talk more about roads, a vast majority of
4:57:26 > 4:57:31people in my constituency travel by road rather than rail, although I
4:57:31 > 4:57:35would significantly encourage them to use the good rail links from
4:57:35 > 4:57:37Chesterfield train station. We do need to increase investment in
4:57:37 > 4:57:45roads. I think the Derby Road at the bottom of Chesterfield, the A61,
4:57:45 > 4:57:50it's probably one of the most constrained and congested roads in
4:57:50 > 4:57:54the country and it needs urgent attention and a real solution that
4:57:54 > 4:57:59will solve the problem over a number of decades, but I was there 16 years
4:57:59 > 4:58:03ago and there were problems there, there still are problems and I don't
4:58:03 > 4:58:07want people in 16 years to have those problems as well. So far, this
4:58:07 > 4:58:12debate has been relatively good-natured and constructive and I
4:58:12 > 4:58:16hope that continues to the end of the debate. We had to get spending
4:58:16 > 4:58:20in the North correct and recognise there is a historical anomaly and
4:58:20 > 4:58:25imbalance on spending but we cannot do it all at once. We need to
4:58:25 > 4:58:32welcome the progress made and hope for some more to come. Thank you.
4:58:32 > 4:58:37Let me thank my honourable friend from home for securing this
4:58:37 > 4:58:43important debate. Our nation's transport structure is a matter that
4:58:43 > 4:58:47occupies a lot of deliberations and has been a frequent topic in my
4:58:47 > 4:58:50contributions and will remain so until the North of England gets
4:58:50 > 4:58:55improved transport connectivity that it desperately needs. The modern
4:58:55 > 4:58:59transport infrastructure is a catalyst to growth, improved
4:58:59 > 4:59:02regional transport connectivity is the key to unlocking prosperity in
4:59:02 > 4:59:07my home city of Bradford. It's essential to fostering wider
4:59:07 > 4:59:09prosperity in West Yorkshire and across the whole of the North of
4:59:09 > 4:59:13England. It is fundamental to addressing regional differentials in
4:59:13 > 4:59:17our economy and to put it bluntly, the North has had a raw deal from
4:59:17 > 4:59:22Whitehall. The huge potential in my home city of Bradford and other
4:59:22 > 4:59:26towns and cities across the North of England is being held back by
4:59:26 > 4:59:30creaking infrastructure and a lack of transport investment. It's
4:59:30 > 4:59:37quicker to go London to Paris by Eurostar then to go to Hull. It can
4:59:37 > 4:59:41and must change and investment is key. Public spending per person on
4:59:41 > 4:59:45transport in the north of England over the last ten years is less than
4:59:45 > 4:59:49half of that in London and that differential is set to get much
4:59:49 > 4:59:54wider. You see, the North of England received the same per person as
4:59:54 > 4:59:58London over these last ten years than the transport situation,
4:59:58 > 5:00:00economic performance and prosperity in the North would be a very
5:00:00 > 5:00:06different position and our nation would be better for it. It's
5:00:06 > 5:00:11essential to our debate today. Economic growth opportunity, new
5:00:11 > 5:00:15growth and prosperity in the north too. The UK is woefully
5:00:15 > 5:00:20underperforming compared to other advanced economies, when it comes to
5:00:20 > 5:00:23productivity gains and without improved product of tea, our
5:00:23 > 5:00:27communities in the North would become incrementally poorer. When
5:00:27 > 5:00:32government talks about fixing the country's productivity problem, the
5:00:32 > 5:00:37response needs to address regional differences. It would be a travesty
5:00:37 > 5:00:40if average productivity nationally is raised but improvements continue
5:00:40 > 5:00:44to be centred in London and the south-east rather than distributed
5:00:44 > 5:00:48evenly across the UK. It would be a huge missed opportunity but I fear
5:00:48 > 5:00:55this is exactly where the government is heading. I say this because while
5:00:55 > 5:00:58Yorkshire's M62 improvement is under threat, and value for money
5:00:58 > 5:01:01consonance, Highways England has committed to multi-million pound
5:01:01 > 5:01:05investments in the south-east and in particular in London. It is
5:01:05 > 5:01:12systematic bias and it is that the very heart of the problem. Of the
5:01:12 > 5:01:16regional differences in economic performance, these value for money
5:01:16 > 5:01:19judgments on transport infrastructure are skewed. They
5:01:19 > 5:01:25favour London and are self reinforcing. London gets economy
5:01:25 > 5:01:29benefits so future investment there looks more attractive and it must
5:01:29 > 5:01:33stop. Government needs to get a better lens through which to view
5:01:33 > 5:01:36investment in the North. One that sets out to solve the problem of
5:01:36 > 5:01:40regional difference, not one that reinforces them. It needs a system
5:01:40 > 5:01:50that directs investment, all tiers of government must have a programme
5:01:50 > 5:01:54of strategically planned long-term and targeted investment. A vital
5:01:54 > 5:01:58first call on government is to reaffirm its commitment to the
5:01:58 > 5:02:09trans-Pennine rail electrification. I think the Department for Transport
5:02:09 > 5:02:13has to make economic development a priority as opposed to the
5:02:13 > 5:02:16alleviation of congestion, if it is the alleviation of congestion, the
5:02:16 > 5:02:21money goes to London.I thank the honourable friend for that
5:02:21 > 5:02:25intervention and I wholeheartedly agree. This vital projects promises
5:02:25 > 5:02:30not only improved journey times to the economies of the North but
5:02:30 > 5:02:35increasing capacity to support Labour across the economic area
5:02:35 > 5:02:39providing more people with better access to good jobs. The experience
5:02:39 > 5:02:44of tens of thousands of rail passengers each day is at extra
5:02:44 > 5:02:50capacity and that is urgently needed in the North. Many turn their backs
5:02:50 > 5:02:53on the railways as their experience is abysmal and I believe it goes a
5:02:53 > 5:02:57long way to explaining why road traffic flow between Bradford and
5:02:57 > 5:03:02Leeds, two close neighbours, is by far the highest in the country.
5:03:02 > 5:03:07Strategic long-term and targeted investment plans must recognise that
5:03:07 > 5:03:12increasingly different regions of the UK need a tailored approach. But
5:03:12 > 5:03:16it must also put regions in the driving seat. With powers and work
5:03:16 > 5:03:20responsibilities. The North is willing to step up the government
5:03:20 > 5:03:24needs to help and trust the region to get the job done. Thank you,
5:03:24 > 5:03:32Madam Deputy Speaker.It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and
5:03:32 > 5:03:38I pay tribute to the honourable lady of Kingston upon Hull North for
5:03:38 > 5:03:42securing this important debate. I think there is something more
5:03:42 > 5:03:45important in transport for the North, I think it has been mentioned
5:03:45 > 5:03:49in everyone's remarks. What we are looking to do is not just getting a
5:03:49 > 5:03:53fair deal in terms of spending which is clearly important and something I
5:03:53 > 5:03:58am very keen on that getting fair opportunities for people across the
5:03:58 > 5:04:03North, in terms of their business opportunities or job opportunities.
5:04:03 > 5:04:10It is transport, we believe, should be to that point. One thing that was
5:04:10 > 5:04:13absolutely exemplified from the Brexit vote was that people in the
5:04:13 > 5:04:17North do not feel they are getting a fair deal, in fact they feel left
5:04:17 > 5:04:25behind. The figure amply illustrate that, if you look at the gross
5:04:25 > 5:04:30domestic product, the average for London is £45,000 per head per
5:04:30 > 5:04:39annum. £18,000 in the north-east. If you listen to our Chancellor, he
5:04:39 > 5:04:44said the difference between the second city in the UK and our first
5:04:44 > 5:04:48city in London, it's greater in economic terms than any other city
5:04:48 > 5:04:55in Europe. The chief economist at the Bank of England also said we are
5:04:55 > 5:04:59at the bottom of the league table in terms of regional disparity in terms
5:04:59 > 5:05:05of our cities and how they do much worse than other cities,
5:05:05 > 5:05:08particularly in Germany. The key question is, what do we do to
5:05:08 > 5:05:15address that balance? It's interesting that the Institute of
5:05:15 > 5:05:18economic affairs do not think putting more money into
5:05:18 > 5:05:23infrastructure is the right thing to do to address that balance. They
5:05:23 > 5:05:28quite clearly said that even if it were to work theoretically, there
5:05:28 > 5:05:32are challenges in cutting spending in good time, the lag in terms of
5:05:32 > 5:05:36investment does not bring the return. I do not accept that
5:05:36 > 5:05:42perspective. I do not accept it. If we could turn quickly to the
5:05:42 > 5:05:50Industrial Revolution, we've talked about Hargreaves, Watson, and the
5:05:50 > 5:05:55key thing about the Industrial Revolution, just I Wedgwood could
5:05:55 > 5:06:02not get his product around the country. He had to persuade
5:06:02 > 5:06:06governors and investors to invest in roads and canals to get the product
5:06:06 > 5:06:08around the country otherwise the Industrial Revolution would have
5:06:08 > 5:06:12petered out. Any business person would tell you they want the
5:06:12 > 5:06:15government to put infrastructure in place and business will come in to a
5:06:15 > 5:06:23gap. It's quite clear that this has worked for London, of course,
5:06:23 > 5:06:26because as people have said across the house, they getting much better
5:06:26 > 5:06:30deal in terms of investment per person per head and the key thing,
5:06:30 > 5:06:35as the honourable lady for Bradford South said, it's about getting
5:06:35 > 5:06:38people across those areas, it used to be about goods but now it is
5:06:38 > 5:06:41about people. That's the most important thing to move people
5:06:41 > 5:06:49around quickly.
5:06:50 > 5:06:54Does he agree with the point that the Treasury and the Department of
5:06:54 > 5:06:58transportation, when looking at allocating funding needs to consider
5:06:58 > 5:07:04economic development and refunding economy so it doesn't just go to the
5:07:04 > 5:07:08places that are already economically vibrant?I agree with that, he makes
5:07:08 > 5:07:15a very good point. The key thing we have to look behind these figures,
5:07:15 > 5:07:20as he said in his early remarks, if you look at the distribution of
5:07:20 > 5:07:24central government spending, it is much more level than when you add in
5:07:24 > 5:07:28other factors. That is what is happening in London. The
5:07:28 > 5:07:33distribution of money per person, per year, allocated by central
5:07:33 > 5:07:39government is round about £40 per person, per head. Then you add in
5:07:39 > 5:07:43other investment, the European investment bank, local authority
5:07:43 > 5:07:48spending, adding to those figures in London and private finance, that is
5:07:48 > 5:07:52when the disparity occurs. We need mechanisms to ensure the North can
5:07:52 > 5:07:56get a fair deal, it is not just about central government that is
5:07:56 > 5:07:59distributing this on fairly. There are other factors at work and that
5:07:59 > 5:08:03is why we need to work cross-party to make sure we can deliver that
5:08:03 > 5:08:13solution. And again, as I said in my earlier remarks, this has been the
5:08:13 > 5:08:17case for decades and generations. It is not North versus South, it is
5:08:17 > 5:08:21London versus the rest of the country. We have a big constituency
5:08:21 > 5:08:27of MPs and in terms of business people right across the country, but
5:08:27 > 5:08:32have a stake in this, in making sure we get that fair deal. But we need
5:08:32 > 5:08:36to look behind the broad, headline figures because is not right the
5:08:36 > 5:08:40Chancellor is allocating lots of money to London and not to the rest
5:08:40 > 5:08:46of the country. There are other factors at work we need to take into
5:08:46 > 5:08:51account and find solutions for. Once we found those solutions, there are
5:08:51 > 5:09:00so many projects we need to support. Northern Powerhouse rail and HS3, we
5:09:00 > 5:09:08need to look at the M11, extending that across to the Humber Bridge and
5:09:08 > 5:09:22also the regional roads, in my constituency, particularly A64, from
5:09:22 > 5:09:28York to Scarborough, it can take up to two hours. These projects that
5:09:28 > 5:09:33are so critical to our local economy. If we get the money, if the
5:09:33 > 5:09:38people who are holding those purse strings will give us the tools, we
5:09:38 > 5:09:50can do the job, Madam Deputy Speaker.There is a big issue about
5:09:50 > 5:09:57disparity in in investment in the infrastructure and transport
5:09:57 > 5:10:06elsewhere, you have bus networks dislocated and in the rural areas,
5:10:06 > 5:10:12nonexistent. And the IPPR says half a planned transport spending is in
5:10:12 > 5:10:18London with the North receiving £427 per person compared with nearly
5:10:18 > 5:10:23£2000 per person in London. Transport expenditure in the
5:10:23 > 5:10:28north-east is £3.1 billion over the last five years, in London it is £30
5:10:28 > 5:10:34billion, so only a tenth of what it is in London. I just want to mention
5:10:34 > 5:10:39a few things about road networks. The two main north to south roads
5:10:39 > 5:10:46through the North least are the A1, which goes through the centre of
5:10:46 > 5:10:54Sedgefield and the A19. The upgrade of the A1 stops at Scotch Corner. It
5:10:54 > 5:11:00seems like that upgrade has been going on for years. And the A19 is
5:11:00 > 5:11:04the most congested. And the crossing for the A19 over the River Tees
5:11:04 > 5:11:07seems to be something that we desperately need, where ever that
5:11:07 > 5:11:16crossing will be. Now, the Teesside combined authority councillor, Bill
5:11:16 > 5:11:21Dixon who is the leader of Darlington Borough Council and chair
5:11:21 > 5:11:26of the transport committee has said, for far too long the residents of
5:11:26 > 5:11:30Tees Valley has suffered from frustration and delays where our
5:11:30 > 5:11:35major roads are not equipped to deal with the volume of traffic. The A19
5:11:35 > 5:11:39crossing therefore is necessary. But there is also the need for the
5:11:39 > 5:11:43relief road which is mentioned in the combined authority 's plans, for
5:11:43 > 5:11:54junction 60 on the A1 just outside Newton Aycliffe down to the a 66 to
5:11:54 > 5:12:02give it a further access to Teesport. And wrote holy company
5:12:02 > 5:12:10says there is a need for like that. But it cuts passed small villages
5:12:10 > 5:12:16and they want any change to be done sensibly and the views of the local
5:12:16 > 5:12:21people should be taken into consideration. I will give way.I
5:12:21 > 5:12:24congratulate him on his speech because another reason for needing
5:12:24 > 5:12:27that road is the impact on residents in Darlington who have suffered
5:12:27 > 5:12:31large vehicles going very close to their homes and their big impact on
5:12:31 > 5:12:37road safety and air quality.I know myself by going down North Road to
5:12:37 > 5:12:42the railway station to get down to London, sometimes it takes a long
5:12:42 > 5:12:48time to get down there. All that congestion does need to be relieved.
5:12:48 > 5:12:55As far as the railway construction is concerned, there has been talk
5:12:55 > 5:13:03about the line between the time, which brings you down to turn stale,
5:13:03 > 5:13:09just north of of my constituency and the other line, they have been
5:13:09 > 5:13:15talking about refurbishing it for decades now. This was discussed in
5:13:15 > 5:13:18the 1980s. That would alleviate a lot of pressure on the east coast
5:13:18 > 5:13:25mainline and would actually help to make sure that people and commuters
5:13:25 > 5:13:29can get from the time and to the Tees and vice versa. And it could
5:13:29 > 5:13:33lead to a building of the station which closed many years ago for
5:13:33 > 5:13:38commuters to use to get to the Tyne and the Tees and it would help the
5:13:38 > 5:13:46local economy as well. The rail builders in my constituency, we know
5:13:46 > 5:13:51hate chess two is a controversial issue but they have been short
5:13:51 > 5:13:57listed to be considered to build their own rolling stock, which is a
5:13:57 > 5:14:02£2 billion contract and would create a lot of jobs for the local area and
5:14:02 > 5:14:09it is something we shouldn't forget for the north-east because that
5:14:09 > 5:14:18factory has brought train building full circle. The company building
5:14:18 > 5:14:22the trains, can I just say, it is what the government as to be built
5:14:22 > 5:14:26and the reason be as them to be builders because they knew
5:14:26 > 5:14:29electrification of the railways wouldn't go forward in the way which
5:14:29 > 5:14:37we expected. The last thing I want to mansion is Durham Tees Valley
5:14:37 > 5:14:43Airport. It has had trouble times over the last few years. Their only
5:14:43 > 5:14:53has two ribs now but Peel have a plan in trying to ensure the airport
5:14:53 > 5:15:00can be kept open going forward. Some people, such as the Conservative
5:15:00 > 5:15:06mayor of Tees Valley, newly elected, said he wants to nationalise the
5:15:06 > 5:15:13airport. I asked the Secretary of State for Transport a few months
5:15:13 > 5:15:16ago, what the plans for nationalising the regional airports,
5:15:16 > 5:15:21and he said there wasn't any, which I found interesting because it was
5:15:21 > 5:15:25the main campaign issue for the Conservative mayor on Teesside.
5:15:25 > 5:15:30Maybe the Minister can help us today, what kind of nationalisation
5:15:30 > 5:15:35are you talking about? Is it state-owned nationalisation, workers
5:15:35 > 5:15:40co-operative? Are we talking about socialism in one airport or is this
5:15:40 > 5:15:44a Trojan horse, a transitional demand that will lead to the full
5:15:44 > 5:15:47nationalisation of all the regional airports in the country? I think we
5:15:47 > 5:15:54need answers today. Durham Tees Valley Airport, one of the main
5:15:54 > 5:15:59things that should be considered as a third runway at Heathrow. What we
5:15:59 > 5:16:02need in investment in the north-east, because we have a lot to
5:16:02 > 5:16:08say but we need the transport infrastructure to spread the news.
5:16:08 > 5:16:15Let me add my congratulations to my honourable friend for securing this
5:16:15 > 5:16:20debate it is a pleasure and worthwhile to be able to follow, not
5:16:20 > 5:16:23only my honourable friend the science field is so mini members who
5:16:23 > 5:16:28are speaking from coastal areas. Bashar al-Assad Sedgefield. Very
5:16:28 > 5:16:32often this debate is characterised by a need for the main cities to be
5:16:32 > 5:16:37connected up, but of course we have many areas which are in urgent need
5:16:37 > 5:16:45of economic development, which we have to decide as a country, what
5:16:45 > 5:16:51kind of country we want to represent. Is it one in which
5:16:51 > 5:16:59certain areas get more and more prosperous overall and other areas
5:16:59 > 5:17:06are left to wither. Or is it will be one in which we do value the
5:17:06 > 5:17:11communities that are more cut off from other areas and therefore want
5:17:11 > 5:17:18to invest in transport to be able to change that. The other areas are
5:17:18 > 5:17:22obviously not as enticing and attractive as Barrow and Furness in
5:17:22 > 5:17:26my constituency, but they are nevertheless forming part of a
5:17:26 > 5:17:31really importing economic case. Let me thank my honourable friend for
5:17:31 > 5:17:36Gateshead for having made the case on economic development. We urgently
5:17:36 > 5:17:41need a change in the way that the government does make these
5:17:41 > 5:17:50calculations. We're not talking here of a kind of field of dreams, Kevin
5:17:50 > 5:17:56Kostner style, if we build it, they will come. There is already clear
5:17:56 > 5:18:00economic plans and potential in these areas but it needs to be
5:18:00 > 5:18:06unlocked. I would say to the Minister and the whole of the
5:18:06 > 5:18:12government, the way, in the longer term to relieve congestion in
5:18:12 > 5:18:15overheated areas is bring up the economic development of the North of
5:18:15 > 5:18:19England so more people have more economic opportunities to go
5:18:19 > 5:18:24elsewhere, rather than feeling they need to be sucked down into these
5:18:24 > 5:18:27overcrowded, over congested hellholes emit some of our members
5:18:27 > 5:18:36in the South are unfortunate enough to have to represent. Let me can
5:18:36 > 5:18:41find the rest of my remarks for the need to develop infrastructure
5:18:41 > 5:18:45development and investment in Barrow in Furness and the South and west of
5:18:45 > 5:18:51Cumbria. I will take the unusual step of speaking on behalf of the
5:18:51 > 5:18:56honourable member for Copeland, who has, ironically, not been able to
5:18:56 > 5:19:00get to this debate because of chronic delays in her journey
5:19:00 > 5:19:10getting down, but she and I are as one in advocating the need for road
5:19:10 > 5:19:17and rail improvements, to connect what can be world-class Civil,
5:19:17 > 5:19:23nuclear jobs in the west of Cumbria with Sellafield, with the
5:19:23 > 5:19:26international decommissioning and more side and the Minister in his
5:19:26 > 5:19:31previous role, will know the importance of keeping the Moorside
5:19:31 > 5:19:37deal on track. And of course, military nuclear in the submarine
5:19:37 > 5:19:41programme. I go back to the Minister's previous experience, I
5:19:41 > 5:19:47have met him on the way up, to a shield, the Moorside West Cumbria
5:19:47 > 5:19:53area. He will note the appalling transport links there are between
5:19:53 > 5:20:01what ought to be this global centre of nuclear excellence. I challenge
5:20:01 > 5:20:07any member to intervene and give me a worse case than between Sellafield
5:20:07 > 5:20:17and Bae and ostensibly, a A road going through a farmyard to connect
5:20:17 > 5:20:21these areas. We need more clarity from the government on the major
5:20:21 > 5:20:26road network. How that will actually add to the strategic road network,
5:20:26 > 5:20:33how we will be able to bid, and in the final 40 seconds, let me focus
5:20:33 > 5:20:41on the state of the Cumbrian coastal line, on rail and the Furness line.
5:20:41 > 5:20:48We are in dire straits. I have put forward an official to deal with
5:20:48 > 5:20:55only one aspect of this catastrophe in the unreliability of the Furness
5:20:55 > 5:21:00line. The fact there are children left on an almost daily basis it
5:21:00 > 5:21:07seems, without being able to get home. We need bus services and we
5:21:07 > 5:21:15need urgent investment in this line. I hope the minister listens to us.
5:21:15 > 5:21:18Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker and many thanks to my honourable friend,
5:21:18 > 5:21:21the member for Hull North for securing this debate since being
5:21:21 > 5:21:30elected in June and spending half my time here and the bright lights of
5:21:30 > 5:21:34London, the difference hits me hard and if the house would indulge me
5:21:34 > 5:21:37for just a moment, it's evening and we are getting sleepy and it is time
5:21:37 > 5:21:43for a story called the tale of two cities. A few nights ago I had to
5:21:43 > 5:21:47travel to Lewisham via Charing Cross station and when I arrived I was
5:21:47 > 5:21:51immediately struck by how quiet it was and all I could hear were the
5:21:51 > 5:21:54footsteps of commuters, as they ignored each other on their way
5:21:54 > 5:21:59homes. And as I walked to the train I was puzzling out why the station
5:21:59 > 5:22:03didn't sound the same as the one in Hull and why the air was different.
5:22:03 > 5:22:07At first I wondered, is this just because the stereotype of people
5:22:07 > 5:22:11being from the North being more chatty and friendly was true, and
5:22:11 > 5:22:15would it explain the difference in the air? As the train pulled away
5:22:15 > 5:22:19the answer struck me. Of course, the reason why the station is silent and
5:22:19 > 5:22:23the air is different is because all of the trains are electric. There's
5:22:23 > 5:22:32no noisy engine spewing out dirt, a conscious decision has been made to
5:22:32 > 5:22:36save the people of London from these polluting and deafening trains and
5:22:36 > 5:22:41to give them cleaner and greener trains. A conscious decision has
5:22:41 > 5:22:46been made to leave the slow and polluting trains here in the North.
5:22:46 > 5:22:52Clearly little evidence of the best of times for northerners. The
5:22:52 > 5:22:54government are putting local authorities under pressure to clean
5:22:54 > 5:23:01up toxic air. This would put my city of Hull in a very difficult
5:23:01 > 5:23:05position, because the campaign for better transport states that diesel
5:23:05 > 5:23:10engine score badly for nitrogen oxide and particle emissions. They
5:23:10 > 5:23:15gave examples of emissions of NL X caused by trains, one at London
5:23:15 > 5:23:20Paddington in 2015 and 200 metres either side of the East Coast
5:23:20 > 5:23:27mainline. The council in whole is doing everything they can to improve
5:23:27 > 5:23:33prospects for people living there -- Hull. And we are creating quality
5:23:33 > 5:23:41jobs. This government claims to believe in a government of
5:23:41 > 5:23:45opportunity but actions speak louder than words and we face not having
5:23:45 > 5:23:47the spare transport capacity to accommodate growth and rail journeys
5:23:47 > 5:23:51are slower and the road network is becoming increasingly congested.
5:23:51 > 5:23:59This lack of investment in the North is hindering development. They
5:23:59 > 5:24:02pledged £330 million for rail transport but that is for the entire
5:24:02 > 5:24:05North. The Transport for London budget for rail, not including the
5:24:05 > 5:24:15underground rail, is £600 million. Then they offered us the trains. The
5:24:15 > 5:24:18problems have been highlighted by my honourable friend for Hull North.
5:24:18 > 5:24:24Then, we come to roads. And the infamous junction of Castle Street
5:24:24 > 5:24:28in my constituency. A junction I feel the Minister may have an
5:24:28 > 5:24:33understanding of and maybe tired of hearing about it as well! This
5:24:33 > 5:24:36connects Hull city centre in the West to the dock areas of the port
5:24:36 > 5:24:40of Hull in the east, and estimates by Highways England stated that
5:24:40 > 5:24:4547,000 vehicles travel along this road every day from the city to the
5:24:45 > 5:24:49port and the level of usage demonstrates that Castle Street is a
5:24:49 > 5:24:53vital arterial road to the economy of Hull and the surrounding area. At
5:24:53 > 5:24:57present the level of usage on this road is unsustainable and creates
5:24:57 > 5:25:02large amounts of congestion that could lead to significant delays in
5:25:02 > 5:25:05journeys at peak times and significant costs to local
5:25:05 > 5:25:10businesses using the road. The developments had been submitted to
5:25:10 > 5:25:14the government in May but it was delayed until October. Now it's
5:25:14 > 5:25:19delayed until summer next year. This saga has gone on since 2009 and it
5:25:19 > 5:25:25cannot be delayed further. I met with the Secretary of State and the
5:25:25 > 5:25:28minister the week before, asking for two things. I wanted the building of
5:25:28 > 5:25:38the bridge across the a A63 brought forward and that there would be no
5:25:38 > 5:25:42delays. Credit where it is due, the Secretary of State Mets with
5:25:42 > 5:25:47Highways England and agreed to bring forward the building of the bridge
5:25:47 > 5:25:51but I am not reassured how I need to be that the project will not be
5:25:51 > 5:25:56delayed further. Can the Minister please take this opportunity to
5:25:56 > 5:25:59deliver the people of the region the reassurance they need on this vital
5:25:59 > 5:26:07development. Railways in this Parliament and the continued delay
5:26:07 > 5:26:11to our road developments is limiting our future economic development and
5:26:11 > 5:26:15the improvement to our quality that the residents in it. Without the
5:26:15 > 5:26:18level of investment that Labour promised in our manifesto, these
5:26:18 > 5:26:27worst of times show no sign of ending.Deputy Speaker, I would like
5:26:27 > 5:26:33to congratulate my honourable friend, the member for Hull North
5:26:33 > 5:26:37and the committee for granting this debate which I think is really
5:26:37 > 5:26:44important and timely. For me, the A19 is one of the principal economic
5:26:44 > 5:26:49drivers, no pun intended, in my constituency. It is vital for the
5:26:49 > 5:26:54manufacturing and export for these businesses in my region, and in
5:26:54 > 5:26:59particular Caterpillar and Ennis K, intellect closes before Christmas,
5:26:59 > 5:27:03the Walkers potato crisp factory as well. There are many businesses that
5:27:03 > 5:27:10are dependent on a functioning A19 which, all too often, is left at a
5:27:10 > 5:27:13standstill for hours on end following multiple road accidents
5:27:13 > 5:27:19which are almost a daily occurrence. A lack of investment, the lack of
5:27:19 > 5:27:23maintenance in upgrading this vital economic highway is clearly holding
5:27:23 > 5:27:26back businesses in my constituency and for those Conservative MPs who
5:27:26 > 5:27:36want to work cooperatively, I have numerous questions and the
5:27:36 > 5:27:40government is yet to deliver on a proper investment strategy for this
5:27:40 > 5:27:47road. We need a government with some foresight, a government which seeks
5:27:47 > 5:27:53to future proof our infrastructure and support the development of our
5:27:53 > 5:27:59economy. The billions that colleagues have mentioned have been
5:27:59 > 5:28:03ploughed into Crossrail, in London, with an embarrassment already of
5:28:03 > 5:28:08riches in terms of excellent public transport links, will see the
5:28:08 > 5:28:11capital pulling further away from the regions, particularly the
5:28:11 > 5:28:16Northern regions. I welcome the government puzzling decision to
5:28:16 > 5:28:22invest in the new railway stations to create much-needed links with
5:28:22 > 5:28:26towns across the region but it needs to be linked with a new fleet of
5:28:26 > 5:28:31trains, improvements at the station and we need to keep the guard on the
5:28:31 > 5:28:36train. If you genuinely want to rebalance the economy, an airport
5:28:36 > 5:28:42congestion charge would help, to utilise regional airports like our
5:28:42 > 5:28:48own at Newcastle and Tees Valley by charging a premium to use the most
5:28:48 > 5:28:52congested and polluting airports like Heathrow. The Metro is a talent
5:28:52 > 5:29:00-- the Metro is a fantastic service, but we need the Metro system to
5:29:00 > 5:29:04connect the entire region. I will never stop calling for it to be
5:29:04 > 5:29:09extended into my constituency but it does seem like a fanciful dream,
5:29:09 > 5:29:12when you consider that the government are still haggling for
5:29:12 > 5:29:17the replacement of the Metro trains, they are 47 years old and rolling
5:29:17 > 5:29:21stock that are not fit for purpose. The government need to replace their
5:29:21 > 5:29:28rhetoric with action, it's a fantastic region neglected by
5:29:28 > 5:29:34governments that are unwilling to invest and support a better future.
5:29:34 > 5:29:39My constituency has many hidden gems, we've got a vibrant and active
5:29:39 > 5:29:44arts community, and there are iconic public art works like Tommy and the
5:29:44 > 5:29:53statue, we have a heritage coastline, and there is a local
5:29:53 > 5:30:00nature reserve and the ancient woodlands. They are hidden gems but
5:30:00 > 5:30:04they will remain so until we have the infrastructure that will connect
5:30:04 > 5:30:10our past and heritage to our future. The north-east and Durham has the
5:30:10 > 5:30:16skills and the history, and the heritage, to succeed in business,
5:30:16 > 5:30:20manufacturing and tourism. What we lack is a government committed to
5:30:20 > 5:30:26delivering real investment for our region. I want to commend Durham
5:30:26 > 5:30:30county council, and indeed all of the local authorities in the region,
5:30:30 > 5:30:38for working with some of the most difficult budget cuts imposed by
5:30:38 > 5:30:42central government which have disproportionately affected my
5:30:42 > 5:30:45region and constituency. The longer we leave the lack of investment, the
5:30:45 > 5:30:50greater economic divide between London, the south-east and the rest
5:30:50 > 5:30:55of the country will become. The government need to future proof our
5:30:55 > 5:30:58infrastructure, invest in our economy and reap the benefits of a
5:30:58 > 5:31:07more prosperous north-east.Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to
5:31:07 > 5:31:11thank my honourable friend for Hull North for bringing this important
5:31:11 > 5:31:18debate here today. Madam Deputy Speaker, like many colleagues here
5:31:18 > 5:31:21today, I've been contacted by a number of constituents who have
5:31:21 > 5:31:25highlighted the problems they face with transport and infrastructure
5:31:25 > 5:31:28within my constituency. While many of the points raised by my
5:31:28 > 5:31:34constituents are specific and pertinent, many of their concerns
5:31:34 > 5:31:38for the wider economic social problems that towns in the north
5:31:38 > 5:31:42such as Leigh face. Small businesses tell me of their struggles when
5:31:42 > 5:31:44customers find it extremely difficult to travel into the town.
5:31:44 > 5:31:49With limited public transport provisions and no train station
5:31:49 > 5:31:54within the constituency. Commuters have told me of their struggles with
5:31:54 > 5:31:59out-of-town train stations which are difficult to access have limited
5:31:59 > 5:32:02parking and face overcrowded carriages. All of which add to the
5:32:02 > 5:32:08frustration of not having access to their own local stations. They told
5:32:08 > 5:32:12me of their struggle to remain engaged with their community when
5:32:12 > 5:32:18bus services have been dramatically cut. Severing critical transport
5:32:18 > 5:32:20links for thousands of people. And
5:32:24 > 5:32:29I thank my boyfriend for giving way. Would she agree that for those with
5:32:29 > 5:32:34no other option, the withdrawal of a bus service would be devastating but
5:32:34 > 5:32:38400 supported routes have been downgraded or cut year-on-year since
5:32:38 > 5:32:432010. In my region, as the honourable member for Hull North
5:32:43 > 5:32:46said, Yorkshire and Humber has experienced local transport funding
5:32:46 > 5:32:52cuts of 37%. I will not ask the Minister for more money, I'm sure he
5:32:52 > 5:32:56will say no but can he, in his summing up, please explain why the
5:32:56 > 5:33:02government is denying my area the franchises needed to improve the
5:33:02 > 5:33:09services?The honourable lady could have made a speech if she wanted to,
5:33:09 > 5:33:12but this is rather a long intervention at this stage in the
5:33:12 > 5:33:20evening which will stop someone else speaking. I will allow her to put
5:33:20 > 5:33:25the question very quickly.I appreciate her patients, but if it
5:33:25 > 5:33:28is good enough for London, Manchester and Liverpool, surely it
5:33:28 > 5:33:35is good enough for Batley and Spen? Thank you so much.Thank you to my
5:33:35 > 5:33:39honourable friend for that point and I completely agree. My constituency
5:33:39 > 5:33:43is among many in the north that form the engine of the industrial
5:33:43 > 5:33:48revolution and I am going to include the spinning jenny seen as everyone
5:33:48 > 5:33:54else has done! The key to the success was not only the ingenious
5:33:54 > 5:33:59are powerful inventions but also is connected to the regional and
5:33:59 > 5:34:04national economy. But, since then, we have turned our back on the
5:34:04 > 5:34:09industrious and innovative towns of the North. Since the 1980s we have
5:34:09 > 5:34:14rightly seen investment of our northern cities with Manchester to
5:34:14 > 5:34:18the east and Liverpool to the West. We've also seen a crumbling
5:34:18 > 5:34:22transport infrastructure. Unable to cope with demand and suffering from
5:34:22 > 5:34:29chronic underinvestment. Our roads and motorway networks are
5:34:29 > 5:34:31gridlocked, trains are at overcapacity and with cuts to
5:34:31 > 5:34:35budgets, our transport system no longer serves those who are the most
5:34:35 > 5:34:41disconnected in our communities. Great things were promised to the
5:34:41 > 5:34:46residents of Leigh when HS2 was announced. It would boost
5:34:46 > 5:34:49connectivity and the regional economy and disruption would be
5:34:49 > 5:34:54mitigated by the benefits of improved infrastructure. Instead,
5:34:54 > 5:34:59HS2 is due to split my constituency in two. Uprooting residents and
5:34:59 > 5:35:05causing enormous disruption. But, Leigh will be the largest town in
5:35:05 > 5:35:12the north without a rail station. There are no current plans that I am
5:35:12 > 5:35:17aware of to connect Leigh with any station at all. To add insult to
5:35:17 > 5:35:23injury when I asked the HS2 minister about this, his response was that
5:35:23 > 5:35:28his department has never assessed the cost of a direct rail line, or
5:35:28 > 5:35:35ways to reduce journey times between Leigh and HS2. To spell out what it
5:35:35 > 5:35:40means from our residents. It will take longer for my residents in one
5:35:40 > 5:35:46area of my constituency to connect to HS2, than it will to travel from
5:35:46 > 5:35:51that area into Birmingham. That is not right. However, it's not just
5:35:51 > 5:35:54the need for transport and infrastructure that I'd make his
5:35:54 > 5:36:00case. Nor do I believe that it would instantly solve all of our problems.
5:36:00 > 5:36:03However, and improve transport infrastructure would directly assist
5:36:03 > 5:36:08a number of unique concerns to Leigh. Such as social mobility
5:36:08 > 5:36:12problems, the ongoing skills shortage and the underinvestment in
5:36:12 > 5:36:16local businesses. Therefore, what we need from the government today is
5:36:16 > 5:36:22the assurance of investment and that any investment to the local
5:36:22 > 5:36:26transport infrastructure, via regional bodies like transport for
5:36:26 > 5:36:30the North and transport for Greater Manchester are based on a published
5:36:30 > 5:36:36assessment of the local economic needs.
5:36:36 > 5:36:40In conclusion, this debate is not just about transport links in the
5:36:40 > 5:36:44north, but about the entire regional economy. Whilst I welcome this
5:36:44 > 5:36:49government's commitment to the northern powerhouse project, it
5:36:49 > 5:36:54cannot succeed unless every town in the North is connected and offered
5:36:54 > 5:36:59the same opportunities as inner cities. We cannot expect the
5:36:59 > 5:37:04regional economy to boom when so many towns are being held back. Put
5:37:04 > 5:37:09quite simply, the North will succeed when our northern town succeed. I
5:37:09 > 5:37:13hope this debate will highlight the importance of transport connectivity
5:37:13 > 5:37:18to our local economies and ensure that sounds like Leigh receive their
5:37:18 > 5:37:24fair share of investment in the future. Thank you.I have to reduce
5:37:24 > 5:37:31the time limit to four minutes. Tim Farron.Thank you, I pay tribute and
5:37:31 > 5:37:34thank the honourable member the Kingston upon Hull North to bring
5:37:34 > 5:37:41this matter to the House. I just want to back-up many of the words
5:37:41 > 5:37:45from the honourable member from Leigh, about this being more than
5:37:45 > 5:37:50the transport infrastructure. The United Kingdom is a rare developed,
5:37:50 > 5:37:57larger country and the fact our capital is more than seven times
5:37:57 > 5:38:03bigger than the second inner city shows the inequality across the
5:38:03 > 5:38:07country and only two of the regions or nations in the United Kingdom
5:38:07 > 5:38:15make a positive contribution, according to GDP, to the overall
5:38:15 > 5:38:17economy, demonstrates regional inequality is not just morally wrong
5:38:17 > 5:38:23it is a colossal waste of space and talent. I want to make a few moments
5:38:23 > 5:38:28I have got here count, in drawing attention to the disparity in the
5:38:28 > 5:38:33debate there is even within this issue on the development of Northern
5:38:33 > 5:38:41transport. We have, if you like, as the centrepiece of the northern
5:38:41 > 5:38:44powerhouse, HS2, something which I support, which is a Southerner's
5:38:44 > 5:38:48concept of what is good for the North. All we need for fulfilment is
5:38:48 > 5:38:54to get to London a bit quicker. The fact is, the east, west
5:38:54 > 5:39:02interconnectivity, all the way up and down England from the A69 and
5:39:02 > 5:39:07down to the 60, and everywhere in between and the rail networks, it is
5:39:07 > 5:39:12even more important than the North, South link. Important that we, as
5:39:12 > 5:39:17Northerners, we stick together. We have northern solidarity but I am
5:39:17 > 5:39:21still bound to say, if you are from the north of the North and even more
5:39:21 > 5:39:26from the raw oral parts of the north of the North, you find yourself even
5:39:26 > 5:39:31further down the list of priorities. When the Chancellor met recently to
5:39:31 > 5:39:35discuss the northern powerhouse, he met the mayors of Merseyside,
5:39:35 > 5:39:37Greater Manchester anti side, not with the vast majority of people in
5:39:37 > 5:39:50the North of England living elsewhere in rural communities. One
5:39:50 > 5:39:54publication gives three and a half lines to the tourism of Cumbria
5:39:54 > 5:40:03which is Britain's biggest desolation for tourism. It has been
5:40:03 > 5:40:07the betrayal of our community, the abolition with the planned
5:40:07 > 5:40:14electrification of the line. The fact we now have downsized and
5:40:14 > 5:40:24reduced quality rolling stock, 30-year-old rolling stock, Thames
5:40:24 > 5:40:30Valley rejects. We see on the Furness lines, that has been pointed
5:40:30 > 5:40:36out already, with poorer rolling stock and delayed and cancelled
5:40:36 > 5:40:40trains. In asking the Minister to focus very much on bringing back the
5:40:40 > 5:40:48electric patient of the line to the Lake District, then was withdrawn.
5:40:48 > 5:40:52The attention to the Northern relief road which would unlock the
5:40:52 > 5:41:03industrial estate to the north-east of Kendal. The vitality of having
5:41:03 > 5:41:09rural bus services that serve all of the communities. Since Storm
5:41:09 > 5:41:17Desmond, there is still bridges to be put back. The bid we put in for
5:41:17 > 5:41:22those bridges to be restored by the government was turned down. Ikpeba
5:41:22 > 5:41:27Cumbria, you will back a winner. It was given Heritage state, it will
5:41:27 > 5:41:35build this country up and give us a massive return on that investment.
5:41:35 > 5:41:40Thanks to the honourable member for Hull North to secure this debate,
5:41:40 > 5:41:47and be surrounded by so many Northerners. The 1980s bus
5:41:47 > 5:41:51deregulation and privatisation has been an unmitigated disaster for my
5:41:51 > 5:41:56constituents in North West Durham. They thought it would increase the
5:41:56 > 5:42:01range and regularity of services, but it has done the opposite.
5:42:01 > 5:42:06Privatisation taken alongside the 30% plus bus funding cuts to my
5:42:06 > 5:42:11local authority and 18% overall, transport cut in the region, means
5:42:11 > 5:42:15my constituents are paying more than other areas of the country, waiting
5:42:15 > 5:42:19longer and enduring ridiculous travel times just to get a few miles
5:42:19 > 5:42:24down the road. Added to this, concert has been ill served by
5:42:24 > 5:42:27government transport goods and neglect to the region. It is one of
5:42:27 > 5:42:31the largest towns in Britain without a train station and as inadequate
5:42:31 > 5:42:34road infrastructure, many of which are single carriageways and in dire
5:42:34 > 5:42:39need of repair. In particular, the situation with buses is most
5:42:39 > 5:42:43pressing. I never thought I would be so obsessed with them. One
5:42:43 > 5:42:48constituent got a job and concept, only 13 miles away but it takes more
5:42:48 > 5:42:51than two hours and 20 minutes to get there by public transport. Down
5:42:51 > 5:42:56here, I can get to work but £3 return and I've never had to run for
5:42:56 > 5:43:01a boss or wait for very much time. One of my team, who works in my
5:43:01 > 5:43:06office has to be £6 20 to get from Durham, more than double to get in
5:43:06 > 5:43:10his place of work done for me. Many in the constituency it cost them
5:43:10 > 5:43:15more than £7 a day to get to Newcastle. There are my constituents
5:43:15 > 5:43:18in Weardale, many of whom can get to London quicker than they can get to
5:43:18 > 5:43:23their nearest cities. One bus in Weardale operate on a Tuesday to
5:43:23 > 5:43:26Newcastle but if you miss the return, you have to wait three days
5:43:26 > 5:43:33for another one. You can't get a bus after 8pm on Sunday and a bank
5:43:33 > 5:43:35holiday Monday and there are many older people having to struggle
5:43:35 > 5:43:46getting up hills with shopping, or use taxis rendering their bus passes
5:43:46 > 5:43:51useless.Would the minister be surprised to learn the same
5:43:51 > 5:43:54operators operating in her constituency and my constituency are
5:43:54 > 5:43:58making twice as much profit as they are in London, but we're not allowed
5:43:58 > 5:44:03to regulate the bosses.We're not asking for much more than London or
5:44:03 > 5:44:07anywhere else, and I agree with my honourable friend. I want to make
5:44:07 > 5:44:11this point, because I don't want to politically sanitise this debate, I
5:44:11 > 5:44:21think transport and public transport is public -- political. My
5:44:21 > 5:44:25constituents are not the type of people hiding away millions in
5:44:25 > 5:44:29offshore trusts, many of them are on the minimum wage, having spent
5:44:29 > 5:44:34hundreds of hours of leisure time travelling to work or their place of
5:44:34 > 5:44:39study and paying so much more for the pleasure. There is no such thing
5:44:39 > 5:44:42as the northern powerhouse, it is a fallacy constricted by this
5:44:42 > 5:44:45government to divert people'sattention away from the
5:44:45 > 5:44:50grave inequalities of our region's funding. There will be no resurgence
5:44:50 > 5:44:54of the north-east post industrial towns, including those in my own
5:44:54 > 5:44:57constituency if it is not backed up with funding. And shifting
5:44:57 > 5:45:01priorities of this government about what my constituents should expect
5:45:01 > 5:45:04from the service. Does the government think we are somehow
5:45:04 > 5:45:10second-class citizens. We are used to that transport, used to not being
5:45:10 > 5:45:15connected and therefore, we can just be ignored? We always seem to be
5:45:15 > 5:45:19second, we always seem to have the older stock, we always seem to get
5:45:19 > 5:45:22less than other parts of this region. Local authorities must be
5:45:22 > 5:45:27able to have an area -based strategy, which sets out the roots,
5:45:27 > 5:45:32prices and frequency of buses so local people are not at the behest
5:45:32 > 5:45:35of profits from private companies who only from the most profitable
5:45:35 > 5:45:41routes. How can the government justify the £1943 of the members
5:45:41 > 5:45:46have mentioned been spent per person in London on current or planned
5:45:46 > 5:45:50projects compared with just £222 in the north-east. How can this
5:45:50 > 5:45:58possibly be justified? The people of Weardale and all of the other areas
5:45:58 > 5:46:05in my constituency deserve much better.Of course we need to reduce
5:46:05 > 5:46:08emissions and therefore be encouraging people to use public
5:46:08 > 5:46:14transport wherever they can but most mornings, if you take a train from
5:46:14 > 5:46:18Jewsbury to Leeds, Manchester or Huddersfield, as many of my
5:46:18 > 5:46:23constituents do, you are late, usually without a seat, feeling
5:46:23 > 5:46:27frustrated and annoyed. Inevitably you pay ever the odds for this
5:46:27 > 5:46:31privilege. I'm sure others will be able to join me in offering stories
5:46:31 > 5:46:34from our constituents trying to get to work on trains nearly as old as
5:46:34 > 5:46:39me and I am 42, which are overcrowded, late running trains and
5:46:39 > 5:46:51this is causing misery for commuters across the North. It is no secret
5:46:51 > 5:46:53the North has been badly let down by this government. It is indicative
5:46:53 > 5:46:56given the number of Conservative MPs who have remained in the House this
5:46:56 > 5:46:58evening. The London centric view of Britain dominates every level in our
5:46:58 > 5:47:03politics, in the media and in most things that we do. This isn't just
5:47:03 > 5:47:07bad for the North, but bad for the entire country and the economy.
5:47:07 > 5:47:11Without the jobs, the business, the opportunities for people in the
5:47:11 > 5:47:14north, the northern powerhouse is nothing more than a slogan. The
5:47:14 > 5:47:17government is still pouring money into London and as we saw over the
5:47:17 > 5:47:23summer, at the expense of northern communities just like mine. This
5:47:23 > 5:47:29cannot and must not carry on. Spending on transport in Yorkshire
5:47:29 > 5:47:35will be roughly £250 per head from 2016, 17 onwards. This compares with
5:47:35 > 5:47:41almost £2000 per head in London. Is it any wonder Northerners are sick
5:47:41 > 5:47:43of this government? Given particularly the population of the
5:47:43 > 5:47:49North is twice that of London. I find it difficult to articulate just
5:47:49 > 5:47:54how angry I was over the summer when the Secretary of State was somehow
5:47:54 > 5:47:59able to find 30 billion for Crossrail in London despite
5:47:59 > 5:48:03downgrading plans for Crossrail in the north of the week before. It's
5:48:03 > 5:48:06not just the lack of investment or interest in the north that upsets
5:48:06 > 5:48:10me, it is their lack of ambition for towns and constituency is just like
5:48:10 > 5:48:16mine. I will work with anybody who can bring the same level of jobs,
5:48:16 > 5:48:20growth and opportunities to the north, as we see in London and the
5:48:20 > 5:48:23south-east. Why won't this government do that? A project like
5:48:23 > 5:48:31cross role for the North stands to bring in 100 billion to the Northern
5:48:31 > 5:48:33economy and upwards of 850,000 jobs. After years of chronic underfunding
5:48:33 > 5:48:36in the North, if the government finds itself in a situation where
5:48:36 > 5:48:41only one of these schemes can progress, surely needs to be
5:48:41 > 5:48:45Crossrail for the North? Northern MPs on this House needs to stand up
5:48:45 > 5:48:50and say it clearly, at least just this once. This government must not
5:48:50 > 5:48:52leave our northern communities at the back of the queue. The
5:48:52 > 5:48:57government should be speaking to the murders, fantastic councillors and
5:48:57 > 5:49:01council leaders in the north of proud northern communities. We sit
5:49:01 > 5:49:04200 miles away in Westminster talking about what's best for the
5:49:04 > 5:49:09North. We have a so-called Minister for the northern powerhouse whose
5:49:09 > 5:49:13office is in London. I say to the government, I plead with the
5:49:13 > 5:49:17government we can have all the grand gestures and fancy slogans, but
5:49:17 > 5:49:21without real, honest political will on your side of the House, as well
5:49:21 > 5:49:28on this site, Northerners will carry on being let down. Outside of the
5:49:28 > 5:49:32House, we have already stood up to the north and we're ready to rebuild
5:49:32 > 5:49:36the Northern economy. Please, no more broken promises from this
5:49:36 > 5:49:40government. It is beyond time the North got moving but it is time for
5:49:40 > 5:49:47the proud northern towns and cities and villages to come to light.The
5:49:47 > 5:49:52Minister will have heard, not simply from my friends the Dewsbury, but
5:49:52 > 5:49:55throughout this debate, the frustration of people in the north
5:49:55 > 5:49:58at the lack of ambition of this government. If you like, even
5:49:58 > 5:50:03successive governments in terms of the need for better quality
5:50:03 > 5:50:08transport. We know Mr Speaker, if the North were able to close the
5:50:08 > 5:50:12productivity gap with London and the south-east, it would dramatically
5:50:12 > 5:50:17change the economic prospects of this country. What I would say is,
5:50:17 > 5:50:21the Minister has to go back to his department and say to them, the
5:50:21 > 5:50:25preoccupation with London and the south-east, there is no service to
5:50:25 > 5:50:30the whole of this country, including the people in London and the
5:50:30 > 5:50:34south-east. Because at the end of the day, the issue of transport
5:50:34 > 5:50:39isn't about individual schemes, important though some of them are,
5:50:39 > 5:50:42it is connectivity, about building the networks that will make a
5:50:42 > 5:50:44difference. If we can build the networks across the North of England
5:50:44 > 5:50:50that allows people to get into their places of work, get to our place of
5:50:50 > 5:50:55work, into the outside world, it will transform the economy of this
5:50:55 > 5:50:59nation. Every member of Parliament on this side has talked about the
5:50:59 > 5:51:03need for local connectivity. In Rochdale, people struggle to get on
5:51:03 > 5:51:06the local trains in the morning, they struggle again in the evenings
5:51:06 > 5:51:11to get back. It's not good enough in Britain of the 21st century. It's
5:51:11 > 5:51:16not good enough that they can't easily get to an airport just down
5:51:16 > 5:51:21the road. The International Airport, you never can. I would like to say a
5:51:21 > 5:51:26few words about Manchester Airport. One of the things we saw recently,
5:51:26 > 5:51:29when the new service from Manchester to Beijing open, the results that
5:51:29 > 5:51:38were dramatic, it has led to the investment that will suggest there
5:51:38 > 5:51:42will be hundreds of jobs as a result. A doubling of the amount of
5:51:42 > 5:51:46spending by Chinese tourists in the north of England, in the Lake
5:51:46 > 5:51:51District, as well as Liverpool. Not just in Manchester. We have seen
5:51:51 > 5:51:57exports to China shoot up dramatically and increase of a
5:51:57 > 5:52:01quarter.
5:52:01 > 5:52:06It's clear that when we invest in the north of England and see the
5:52:06 > 5:52:13capacity in the North of England, we can see what the North is about.
5:52:13 > 5:52:18Forgive me if you will, we need to transform and for the department to
5:52:18 > 5:52:21get away from the preoccupation that the national interest is the
5:52:21 > 5:52:26equivalent to the London and the south-east. It isn't, the national
5:52:26 > 5:52:31interest is consistent with developments in the north. Mr
5:52:31 > 5:52:33Speaker, Greater Manchester needs connectivity whether it is for my
5:52:33 > 5:52:40honourable friend from Leigh, getting the jobs they need to the
5:52:40 > 5:52:44places they need to get to, as my constituents at the other end of
5:52:44 > 5:52:50Greater Manchester want to. Greater Manchester plan for a transport
5:52:50 > 5:52:54fund, consistent with the one that we had some years ago that would
5:52:54 > 5:52:58allow us to transform the infrastructure of Greater
5:52:58 > 5:53:05Manchester, and to change how people travel across the nation but what we
5:53:05 > 5:53:09would expect to see in major European cities. This government, we
5:53:09 > 5:53:14are told, they are not interested in the scheme and that is the lack of
5:53:14 > 5:53:17ambition that ministers opposite have two challenge. The Minister has
5:53:17 > 5:53:22to go back to his department and say, stop thinking only about
5:53:22 > 5:53:24Britain as being London and the south-east but think about the whole
5:53:24 > 5:53:29nation and investments whether it is the north-east, the Yorkshire and
5:53:29 > 5:53:35Humberside, in north-west from Carlisle down to Cheshire. Our
5:53:35 > 5:53:42region can stop the overheating of this economy and change the profile
5:53:42 > 5:53:47of Britain consistent with the national interests of people in
5:53:47 > 5:53:55London and the south-east as well. Thank you for bringing forward this
5:53:55 > 5:54:00debate. When I was told I was scheduled to wind up this debate,
5:54:00 > 5:54:06entitled Transport in the North, I started researching Aberdeen, Wick,
5:54:06 > 5:54:11Thurso and beyond, and the timetable for Orkney and Shetland, not because
5:54:11 > 5:54:16I feel the need to run away but North mean something different to me
5:54:16 > 5:54:20than most of the speakers here. Yet we experience many of the same
5:54:20 > 5:54:29issues. I can truly empathise with many of tonight's speakers or so. I
5:54:29 > 5:54:32worked in Darlington for seven years. My friends and colleagues
5:54:32 > 5:54:38often complained that investment was far greater down south. They have
5:54:38 > 5:54:50the same complaints as London and Birmingham. But the complaints,
5:54:50 > 5:54:54there is a disproportionate amount of investment in infrastructure in
5:54:54 > 5:54:59general and transport in the south, and specifically London. We must
5:54:59 > 5:55:06diminish the harm that southern infrastructure does to Scottish
5:55:06 > 5:55:11economies. Aberdeen was a city hit by falling economic output due to
5:55:11 > 5:55:16hard Brexit. A report from the centre for cities and the Centre for
5:55:16 > 5:55:19economic performance and the London School of economics said that all
5:55:19 > 5:55:25cities would schedule increasing costs, Edinburgh was ranked among
5:55:25 > 5:55:28the ten most affected cities, connecting HS2 to Scotland must be a
5:55:28 > 5:55:36priority. There needs to be an opportunity for a more successful
5:55:36 > 5:55:43country and sustainable economy with economic growth and have better
5:55:43 > 5:55:48employment opportunities for people. In Leeds and Manchester, Scotland
5:55:48 > 5:56:00will lose out. The manifesto 2017 said that connecting HS2 to Scotland
5:56:00 > 5:56:02must be a priority, with construction beginning in Scotland
5:56:02 > 5:56:12as well as England. In Glasgow and in the North of England, as part of
5:56:12 > 5:56:16any rail network, HS2 is not just a physical build, it can and should
5:56:16 > 5:56:23build skills, capable to provide jobs for a generation. There is no
5:56:23 > 5:56:32reason why these can't be for the UK, the high-speed Centre of
5:56:32 > 5:56:35excellence put Scotland on the map as a place with high-speed rail
5:56:35 > 5:56:44knowledge. This Shadow Chancellor and Scottish Tory MPs... Ah, as they
5:56:44 > 5:56:51say, a voice for Scotland and so there are a majority in the house
5:56:51 > 5:56:55for extending HS2 to Scotland. The question now for Scotland's Tories
5:56:55 > 5:57:01is whether they back cross-party calls or stay silent for Scotland
5:57:01 > 5:57:06once again. Of course, moving people north to south and south to north is
5:57:06 > 5:57:15not enough, we need to move west to east and east to west, and in --
5:57:15 > 5:57:23realise HS2 is not the be all and end all. We value our relationship
5:57:23 > 5:57:29with the rest of the United Kingdom, whether it is on an even footing.
5:57:29 > 5:57:37North-east England's Chamber of Commerce said to secure Scotland's
5:57:37 > 5:57:40future and improve connectivity with England. These are significant
5:57:40 > 5:57:45benefits for people and businesses on both sides of the border, as we
5:57:45 > 5:57:51in Scotland try and improve our links to England, the government is
5:57:51 > 5:57:54not helping. I'm deeply disappointed in the decision to cut Scotland's
5:57:54 > 5:58:02share of rail funding. The funding for the Network Rail is not
5:58:02 > 5:58:07consistent with the funding put in place with devolution, offering a
5:58:07 > 5:58:1310.4% share rather than 11.17% share. This is £600 million short of
5:58:13 > 5:58:16the early estimates from the rail industry and what was required for
5:58:16 > 5:58:26the network and rejecting the demands for rail use. In 2016, there
5:58:26 > 5:58:30were options for improvement on the east and west Coast rail corridors,
5:58:30 > 5:58:34with a focus on delivering three hour journeys between Scotland and
5:58:34 > 5:58:41London, the studies confirm that we can reduce journeys by a third down
5:58:41 > 5:58:44to one hour, and reduce journey times from Glasgow, Edinburgh and
5:58:44 > 5:58:48Carlisle. The Scottish Government build the Borders railway, which is
5:58:48 > 5:58:55along this new line built in the UK for a century. They would welcome
5:58:55 > 5:59:00this discussion, by expanding it to Carlisle and finally, if the
5:59:00 > 5:59:02government continues to fund transport disproportionately, they
5:59:02 > 5:59:07would then continue to feed the beast created with the disparity
5:59:07 > 5:59:14that we all seek to end. Scotland move south, the UK must build in the
5:59:14 > 5:59:25north, then we have connectivity that brings to all of us.Thank you,
5:59:25 > 5:59:28Mr Speaker, let me congratulate my honourable friend from Kingston upon
5:59:28 > 5:59:34Hull North for bringing this to the chamber. This issue goes to the
5:59:34 > 5:59:38heart of the current political debate about fairness and justice in
5:59:38 > 5:59:44our economic system, and how our resources are distributed. I know
5:59:44 > 5:59:47the Secretary of State will be busy but I'm sure the people of the North
5:59:47 > 5:59:51would no doubt be interested to learn about what the Minister 's
5:59:51 > 5:59:55boss thought more important and deserving of his personal attentions
5:59:55 > 6:00:00tonight. Mr Speaker, if the North of England was a stand-alone nation, it
6:00:00 > 6:00:04would be among the ten biggest economies in Europe with a
6:00:04 > 6:00:09population of 16 million people over 1 million business, and exports of
6:00:09 > 6:00:12excess of £50 billion. The North makes an enormous contribution to
6:00:12 > 6:00:18the success and prosperity of the UK but poor transport infrastructure
6:00:18 > 6:00:23constraints its potential. The divide in the north and south
6:00:23 > 6:00:27transport spending is scandalous, unsustainable and profoundly
6:00:27 > 6:00:31damaging. In the last five years across the North, the government
6:00:31 > 6:00:36spent 21.5 billion compared to the £30 billion spent in London alone.
6:00:36 > 6:00:40This is despite the North having almost twice the population of our
6:00:40 > 6:00:45capital. Rail connectivity between the city regions of the North of
6:00:45 > 6:00:50England is the key issue in this debate. And, the Northern and
6:00:50 > 6:00:54trans-Pennine rail operations are catalysts for delivering the
6:00:54 > 6:00:57economic improvements. As my right honourable friend from
6:00:57 > 6:01:01Kingston-upon-Hull has said, it is scandalous that in today's rail
6:01:01 > 6:01:05infrastructure, it is one hour quicker to go from London to Paris
6:01:05 > 6:01:11than West east, Liverpool to Hull. When the franchise was rewarded in
6:01:11 > 6:01:15December 2015, the secretary of transport said that crucially, in a
6:01:15 > 6:01:18key step towards full devolution, these contracts will be managed in
6:01:18 > 6:01:23Leeds by a joint team from the Department for Transport and rail
6:01:23 > 6:01:28North, which represents the region's 29 local transport authorities. The
6:01:28 > 6:01:31present Secretary of State said in August this year that they want the
6:01:31 > 6:01:36North to take control of its transport. And also said that rather
6:01:36 > 6:01:40than delivering the investment that conservatives have promised, he
6:01:40 > 6:01:46would devolve power instead, so the North could take control and build
6:01:46 > 6:01:50transport links that the North needs to thrive. The promises of powers,
6:01:50 > 6:01:54like the promise of investment, have not materialised. Transport for the
6:01:54 > 6:02:02North will only be a statutory influencer, what on earth could that
6:02:02 > 6:02:07be? Only having the rights to prepare a strategy and provide the
6:02:07 > 6:02:10Secretary of State with advice. Transport for the North will not be
6:02:10 > 6:02:13able to borrow money or fund investment like Transport for London
6:02:13 > 6:02:18so will the minister explain how the North can take control with the
6:02:18 > 6:02:23Department for transport with the veto over it. They recently said
6:02:23 > 6:02:28that the North cannot take ownership without power. Mr Speaker, this is
6:02:28 > 6:02:32the latest insult to the north and is another betrayal. Can the
6:02:32 > 6:02:39Minister confirm that 40 civil servants working in his department
6:02:39 > 6:02:42on Northern transport policy? If so, what is the relationship between
6:02:42 > 6:02:46those civil servants and transport for the North? In short, who is
6:02:46 > 6:02:53working for whom? With the Tories in power, rail fares have risen twice
6:02:53 > 6:02:58the rate of wages, and in a move the Conservatives would have surely
6:02:58 > 6:03:04planned as voters went to the ballot box, the electrification projects
6:03:04 > 6:03:07were delayed by years within weeks of the election, before eventually
6:03:07 > 6:03:15being cancelled within weeks of the 2017 election. Adding insult to
6:03:15 > 6:03:22injury, the Transport Secretary claims that buying more diesel and
6:03:22 > 6:03:26electrified trains, running on an electric truck, deliver the same
6:03:26 > 6:03:30benefits of electrification. It does not matter whole trains are powered
6:03:30 > 6:03:35and passengers would be spared and slightly electric wires. Passengers
6:03:35 > 6:03:40in the South do not seem to mind them. Can the Minister say what
6:03:40 > 6:03:45evidence he has two substantiate these claims? Because Network Rail,
6:03:45 > 6:03:51and his own department agree, that running on diesel, 30% more CO2 is
6:03:51 > 6:03:56emitted, maintenance is increased by one third, fuel costs rocket by one
6:03:56 > 6:04:02quarter, and journeys are slower. Not so long ago, we had the northern
6:04:02 > 6:04:05hub. We now have the northern powerhouse rail. Is the minister
6:04:05 > 6:04:10able to give the house a breakdown of where the pledged £1 billion will
6:04:10 > 6:04:18be spent? Can the Minister confirm that he supports transport for the
6:04:18 > 6:04:23North's call for the realignment of the HS2 route on the approach to
6:04:23 > 6:04:28Manchester Piccadilly? Labour will deliver full devolution of transport
6:04:28 > 6:04:32to the North of England and provide a better deal for the region, which
6:04:32 > 6:04:36is why we have made a commitment of at least £10 billion, to deliver
6:04:36 > 6:04:43Crossrail for the North, a series of major improvements across existing
6:04:43 > 6:04:50West to East links in the North of England. We will reverse decades of
6:04:50 > 6:04:53underinvestment in Northern transport infrastructure, and
6:04:53 > 6:04:57undermining economic potential of the North of England and help to
6:04:57 > 6:05:02deliver 850,000 new jobs by 2050. Labour will work alongside its
6:05:02 > 6:05:06mayors in Manchester and Liverpool, as well as local authorities across
6:05:06 > 6:05:12the north, to bring forward resources needed to help unlock the
6:05:12 > 6:05:15£97 billion of economic potential in the North. In contrast, Mr Speaker,
6:05:15 > 6:05:20the government's approach to rail investment has been promises,
6:05:20 > 6:05:24postponements and cancellations. The rail industry has to have conference
6:05:24 > 6:05:28if it is to invest and sadly, the feast and famine history of rail
6:05:28 > 6:05:31programmes does not give the industry the confidence that it
6:05:31 > 6:05:37needs. The Conservative Party claims to be the champions of industry and
6:05:37 > 6:05:39enterprise but in practice, their actions in government undermine
6:05:39 > 6:05:48these objectives at every turn. On buses, Labour are determined to put
6:05:48 > 6:05:52an end to the crisis of this government and more than 20% of all
6:05:52 > 6:05:57journeys by public transport are taken by bus. Buses are vital for
6:05:57 > 6:06:01tackling social exclusion and poverty. But buses in the North have
6:06:01 > 6:06:05faced a sustained attack since 2010, with funding in the North East,
6:06:05 > 6:06:12North West and Yorkshire and the Humber slashed by 22%, 23% and 37%
6:06:12 > 6:06:16respectively. As a consequence, bus travel is at its lowest for a
6:06:16 > 6:06:23decade, while fares have risen by 30% above inflation. For some, a bus
6:06:23 > 6:06:28service connection to your job or your doctor's removal can be
6:06:28 > 6:06:32devastating for those with no other options. Labour would end the buses
6:06:32 > 6:06:36crisis by extending powers to regulate buses across the country
6:06:36 > 6:06:41and by overturning the senseless ban on municipal bus companies, allowing
6:06:41 > 6:06:46cuts to services to be reversed and putting communities rather than
6:06:46 > 6:06:52commercial operators in charge of essential public transport.
6:06:52 > 6:06:57Sadly the Conservatives have failed to provide sufficient investment on
6:06:57 > 6:07:01cycling or walking over the last seven years. This year's
6:07:01 > 6:07:07long-awaited cycling and walking investment strategy offered almost
6:07:07 > 6:07:12no investment or meaningful targets. Only £6 per head was spent on
6:07:12 > 6:07:18cycling across England in 2016, 17. Cycling UK said this investment is
6:07:18 > 6:07:23heavily weighted towards London with only £316 per head over the
6:07:23 > 6:07:28five-year period from April 20 to 2021 going to both cycling and
6:07:28 > 6:07:31walking, working out a £1 and walking, working out a £1.38 per
6:07:31 > 6:07:36person spent in England outside London. Northern MPs have quite
6:07:36 > 6:07:42rightly spoken of their need for greater transport infrastructure
6:07:42 > 6:07:47investment in the North of England, but we do not undervalue the vital
6:07:47 > 6:07:52role played by our capital city. I know the Minister of rail, who is
6:07:52 > 6:07:58not with us this evening, prefers to focus on outcomes rather than per
6:07:58 > 6:08:02Capita spending. And whilst it's right to value London as an engine
6:08:02 > 6:08:10room of the UK economy, the North is a sleeping giant ready to be raised
6:08:10 > 6:08:15from its slumber is. That cannot happen unless the North receives the
6:08:15 > 6:08:21fair funding settlement it deserves in order to fulfil its economic
6:08:21 > 6:08:27potential. Transport, Mr Speaker, is not an end in itself, it is a means,
6:08:27 > 6:08:32it is an enabler of social and economic growth. Constraining
6:08:32 > 6:08:34transport constrained human potential and it's about time the
6:08:34 > 6:08:45true potential of the North was unleashed.Good evening, thank you,
6:08:45 > 6:08:50Mr Speaker. I would like to start by congratulating the honourable member
6:08:50 > 6:08:55for securing this debate on transport on the North which has, by
6:08:55 > 6:09:03and large, been a well-informed, energetic and not overly partisan.
6:09:03 > 6:09:08My colleagues will know that securing improvements in transport
6:09:08 > 6:09:11is a crucial issue for her constituents, as it is for all
6:09:11 > 6:09:17others. In fact, this evening's debate, which ever side of the House
6:09:17 > 6:09:23one is on, and the wider debate we have had on this issue in recent
6:09:23 > 6:09:27weeks, demonstrate how broad the recognition is now that good
6:09:27 > 6:09:33transport really matters to our economic lifeblood. This may sound
6:09:33 > 6:09:36obvious, it is a point made frequently this evening, but it is a
6:09:36 > 6:09:41fact that has been ignored by government's successively up until
6:09:41 > 6:09:47now and the legacy has been one of underinvestment, as many colleagues
6:09:47 > 6:09:50have pointed out. But this is something this government is putting
6:09:50 > 6:09:58right. I would start by pulling out, as others have mentioned, that
6:09:58 > 6:10:02northern England, is itself a very important and already a very
6:10:02 > 6:10:06important economic actor in our national life. It's not a sleeping
6:10:06 > 6:10:14giant, it is a lively, active and energetic giant with a population of
6:10:14 > 6:10:18£50 million, and exports of £50 billion, the North of England makes
6:10:18 > 6:10:25a crucial contribution to the success and prosperity to the United
6:10:25 > 6:10:32Kingdom. If the North were a country, it would be in the top ten
6:10:32 > 6:10:36economies in Europe. But it is blighted by poor transport. Without
6:10:36 > 6:10:41significant investment in modern, efficient and reliable connections
6:10:41 > 6:10:47the potential of the North cannot be realised and that is why the
6:10:47 > 6:10:50government is spending £13 billion on improving northern transport.
6:10:50 > 6:10:54Many colleagues opposite and some behind me have claimed we spend more
6:10:54 > 6:10:59in the South than in the North. But the figures they have used, which
6:10:59 > 6:11:03will I come in particular on a report by the IPPR, are misleading
6:11:03 > 6:11:08and they don't represent the true picture of investment. It is very
6:11:08 > 6:11:10important to recognise that of the numbers they have used, of the
6:11:10 > 6:11:18project pipeline they used, 60% cannot be properly, geographically
6:11:18 > 6:11:22allocated. The second point is, it understates the Royal London has,
6:11:22 > 6:11:28not as a southern city, but as the gateway for many tourists and other
6:11:28 > 6:11:38country. Rail passengers in London at 8:30am are 18 times more than
6:11:38 > 6:11:42Manchester, which is the busiest city in the North. These figures are
6:11:42 > 6:11:46misleading and it is important to put that in the record. I have so
6:11:46 > 6:11:50many other interventions points to make, I have two pussy, I have only
6:11:50 > 6:11:59been given nine minutes. Promoting these figures and misinformation is
6:11:59 > 6:12:04not helpful to the public debate. It Miss informs the travelling public
6:12:04 > 6:12:09and risks undermining confidence in the North when it should be robust.
6:12:09 > 6:12:12That is frustrating. It is frustrating for the government when
6:12:12 > 6:12:17we are working so hard to overcome these decades of underinvestment. We
6:12:17 > 6:12:22are investing in road and rail, near town projects and one that will take
6:12:22 > 6:12:26used to compute. We want to transform journeys the passengers
6:12:26 > 6:12:32and drivers and create the capacity the North needs to flourish. We are
6:12:32 > 6:12:36also devolving power to the North in order to ensure future investment is
6:12:36 > 6:12:40put to the best possible use. Let me remind the House that transport for
6:12:40 > 6:12:45the North has not been established and the reason for that is because
6:12:45 > 6:12:49it is a complex process which has involved 56 authorities on the other
6:12:49 > 6:12:56side. It will be the first statutory subnational transport body to be
6:12:56 > 6:13:00established. It is a structure that is well understood which transport
6:13:00 > 6:13:05from zero themselves are quite comfortable with. There is no
6:13:05 > 6:13:09comparison with Transport for London which is an institution of greater
6:13:09 > 6:13:13standing and longevity. Transport for the North. Strongly as a
6:13:13 > 6:13:17statutory body and it will grow from there. Perhaps the clearest
6:13:17 > 6:13:20statement I can make of this government's commitment to the North
6:13:20 > 6:13:27is the fact we are building HS2, the first new, North, South Railway in
6:13:27 > 6:13:31this country for over a century. A huge undertaking. We are backing
6:13:31 > 6:13:36this vital project because we believe it is crucial to the future
6:13:36 > 6:13:40economy of the North with high-speed stations in Manchester, Leeds, crude
6:13:40 > 6:13:45and Sheffield and high speed train serving many other destinations, the
6:13:45 > 6:13:54North will be the principal beneficiary of HS2. By 2033, up to
6:13:54 > 6:14:0118 trains will carry thousands of passengers releasing new capacity on
6:14:01 > 6:14:05the existing railways. We know better connectivity within the North
6:14:05 > 6:14:12is just as vital. It is a point that has been well made this evening.
6:14:12 > 6:14:15That is why we are committed to northern powerhouse rail that will
6:14:15 > 6:14:18provide fast rail connections between the major cities of the
6:14:18 > 6:14:23North. Transport for the North is developing proposals for the scheme
6:14:23 > 6:14:27backed by £60 million of government funding as a capital investment in
6:14:27 > 6:14:33that scheme, plus £60 million, £10 million a year of revenue funding.
6:14:33 > 6:14:36We are walking with Transport for London to strengthen the business
6:14:36 > 6:14:41case for that project and the government has committed £300
6:14:41 > 6:14:46million to integrate the northern powerhouse rail project with HS2.
6:14:46 > 6:14:50That will make it easier and less disruptive to build that Railway in
6:14:50 > 6:14:57future. HS2 and northern powerhouse rail will provide the future
6:14:57 > 6:15:01capacity and connectivity the North needs to grow and flourish. It is
6:15:01 > 6:15:05important also, we are investing in nearer term improvements as well,
6:15:05 > 6:15:08better rail journeys through the northern and trans-Pennine
6:15:08 > 6:15:12franchises will deliver more than 500 brand-new train carriages, room
6:15:12 > 6:15:18for 40,000 more passengers and 2000 extra services are week. All trains
6:15:18 > 6:15:22on the northern and trans-Pennine route will be brand-new refurbished
6:15:22 > 6:15:28by 2020 and the pace of trains will be gone. We will also be making
6:15:28 > 6:15:30near-term infrastructure and improvements as well. The great
6:15:30 > 6:15:34North rail project has seen the fastest journey between Liverpool
6:15:34 > 6:15:37and Manchester cut by 15 minutes. Manchester Victoria has been
6:15:37 > 6:15:46upgraded. New platforms have been added. We are also underway to
6:15:46 > 6:15:48upgrading Liverpool lime Street and other key routes in the region and
6:15:48 > 6:15:52we will be marking the completion of the Ordsall courts providing you and
6:15:52 > 6:15:56direct links to Manchester Airport from across the recent, highlighted
6:15:56 > 6:16:01by the member for Rochdale. We are also working with Network Rail to
6:16:01 > 6:16:04develop major options for major upgrades between Manchester, Leeds
6:16:04 > 6:16:10and York to deliver more seats and faster journeys. And my honourable
6:16:10 > 6:16:13friend from Gateshead will know we are supporting the Tyne & Wear Metro
6:16:13 > 6:16:18system with millions of pounds for its reinvigoration and renewal
6:16:18 > 6:16:21programme and £230 million towards its running costs. I was pleased to
6:16:21 > 6:16:26meet with the senior team to talk about the investment bid they have
6:16:26 > 6:16:31made for refurbishment of rolling stock. As with so much investment
6:16:31 > 6:16:35going in, we also want to make it easier for people to use railways in
6:16:35 > 6:16:40the north and that is why we have committed £150 million for the
6:16:40 > 6:16:44roll-out of smart ticketing across the North. Ticketing that will allow
6:16:44 > 6:16:49people to use their mobile phones, contactless smart cards on trains,
6:16:49 > 6:16:55trams and buses. But we haven't heard much about in this debate, and
6:16:55 > 6:16:59although rail investment itself is crucial, we are aware that most
6:16:59 > 6:17:03journeys are made by road. So we are also investing in the roads,
6:17:03 > 6:17:08spending almost £3 billion to make journeys faster and more reliable on
6:17:08 > 6:17:13the North's roads and motorways. We are building smart motorways, new
6:17:13 > 6:17:19roads and improving the one we have got. Delivering extra trains,
6:17:19 > 6:17:26improvements to problem junctions, you junctions to ease traffic jam to
6:17:26 > 6:17:34make journeys smoother. The 62 is being changed to a four smart
6:17:34 > 6:17:41motorway. The new Mersey Gateway crossing has opened, greatly
6:17:41 > 6:17:46improving connectivity in the area. Work on the Manchester Airport
6:17:46 > 6:17:49relief road which will improve access to the airport and relieve
6:17:49 > 6:17:55congestion in south-east Manchester is also underway. And the member of
6:17:55 > 6:17:58the Cleethorpes and his opposite number in Scunthorpe, who is no
6:17:58 > 6:18:03longer in his seat, will be delighted that in June, the Port of
6:18:03 > 6:18:06Immingham improvements will be completed up gate daily-macro
6:18:06 > 6:18:10upgrading the gateway to one of the busiest ports joule carriageway
6:18:10 > 6:18:21stunning. He has moved from his seat and I am delighted to address him
6:18:21 > 6:18:25through you, he seems to have forgotten the roads of £150 million
6:18:25 > 6:18:31of debt in the Humber Bridge a few years ago, lowering the cost of the
6:18:31 > 6:18:35tolls and improving usage. Mr Speaker, by the end of 2017 we will
6:18:35 > 6:18:39have removed the last remain a section of no motorway on the route
6:18:39 > 6:18:47between London and Newcastle. I could go on, I won't. International
6:18:47 > 6:18:51collectivity, airports, Newcastle, Leeds Bradford and Manchester all
6:18:51 > 6:18:55succeeding. All this is being done by this government I am delighted
6:18:55 > 6:19:02with it and more is being done.I think we have had an excellent
6:19:02 > 6:19:07debate, up until the last ten minutes. I think we have had a tour
6:19:07 > 6:19:11around the north of England, we have been to Cumbria, we have been to
6:19:11 > 6:19:19Hull, Cleethorpes and Durham. We have heard a lot about the roads
6:19:19 > 6:19:24that go through farmyards. We have heard about port and regional
6:19:24 > 6:19:29airports and as northern MPs, we're all agreed, cross-party, I think, we
6:19:29 > 6:19:34are ambitious for our region. We want the regional inequalities to be
6:19:34 > 6:19:38addressed by fair funding and we will not be going away, we will be
6:19:38 > 6:19:43holding this government to account. But I have to say I am disappointed
6:19:43 > 6:19:48with the Minister's response because he read out preprepared speech. He
6:19:48 > 6:19:53didn't listen to what people were saying in debate. I had to say, with
6:19:53 > 6:19:57the greatest of respect, it is typical for a southern transport
6:19:57 > 6:20:02ministers to think the problems of the North can be dealt with by HS2,
6:20:02 > 6:20:06which I think the honourable member over there who referred to. I want
6:20:06 > 6:20:10to finish on this point, which is a point for the chair of the backbench
6:20:10 > 6:20:14business committee you talked about the 120 days he has been waiting for
6:20:14 > 6:20:20a response from the department, for a letter signed by ten MPs, the
6:20:20 > 6:20:30Department this evening,
6:20:36 > 6:20:38they have managed to get themselves working very quickly because they
6:20:38 > 6:20:41have already been on the phone to the Yorkshire Post, complaining that
6:20:41 > 6:20:43apparently the idea that the Secretary of State has snubbed this
6:20:43 > 6:20:45debate has been put about by the Yorkshire Post. It is important to
6:20:45 > 6:20:48note this was a national issue, not about local transport, national
6:20:48 > 6:20:51issue and the trans-over the
6:20:55 > 6:20:59we come now to a series of motions of the leave of the House. I propose
6:20:59 > 6:21:09to take motions two to seven, covering various subjects.
6:21:14 > 6:21:20The question is, as on the order of the paper, in respect of motions to-
6:21:20 > 6:21:29seven inclusive, as many are off the opinion say iron, the ice have it.
6:21:29 > 6:21:34-- the ayes habit. In the name of the Leader of the House. Thank you,
6:21:34 > 6:21:39is on the order of the paper, as many are off the opinion say aye,
6:21:39 > 6:21:45the ayes have it. The whip to move...I beg to move that this
6:21:45 > 6:21:52house is now adjourned.The question is that this house do now adjourn,
6:21:52 > 6:21:56Diana Johnson?Thank you, Mr Speaker. 50 years ago, the noble
6:21:56 > 6:22:00lord steel and thousands of brave campaigners brought about a
6:22:00 > 6:22:05momentous change in women's reproductive rights. It's hard to
6:22:05 > 6:22:08understate the benefits with which their campaign brought women.
6:22:08 > 6:22:14Abortion has gone from being a leading cause of maternal mortality
6:22:14 > 6:22:22and shockingly responsible for 14% of maternal deaths, a threats like
6:22:22 > 6:22:25organisations for protection of the unborn child do not address when
6:22:25 > 6:22:35they address the act of 67. The most common procedure in the UK, one that
6:22:35 > 6:22:39one third of women will have had by the time they reach 45. We used to
6:22:39 > 6:22:46be a country where an estimated 100,000 illegal abortions took place
6:22:46 > 6:22:50every year and where an unwanted pregnancies changed the lives of
6:22:50 > 6:22:55desperate women and now 200,000 women a year can access safe, free
6:22:55 > 6:23:01and legal services on the NHS. The 1967 abortion act was a landmark
6:23:01 > 6:23:07piece of legislation, for a time it may bring leading reproductive
6:23:07 > 6:23:11rights when the parliament introduced this humane piece of law.
6:23:11 > 6:23:16I have to say that I'm disappointed that no Minister from the health
6:23:16 > 6:23:18Department or qualities department has attended any of the events to
6:23:18 > 6:23:24mark this piece of legislation being enacted and I'm also disappointed
6:23:24 > 6:23:30that ministers have chosen to award funding raise to the tampon tax for
6:23:30 > 6:23:36life which is restricting choices on reproductive rights when many
6:23:36 > 6:23:43charities could have benefited and used the money to empower women.I
6:23:43 > 6:23:45thank my honourable friend for bringing about this important debate
6:23:45 > 6:23:52this evening, when I previously debated with the pro-life charity
6:23:52 > 6:23:55Life on the radio, they said that they would withdraw support,
6:23:55 > 6:24:00including housing from that woman if she got an abortion. Do you agree
6:24:00 > 6:24:08that that is incredibly conserving? -- concerning?Yes, and I think it
6:24:08 > 6:24:12is a bad decision for the government to award money from the tampon tax
6:24:12 > 6:24:16to that organisation but as this house marks the milestone with the
6:24:16 > 6:24:20abortion act, we should question whether this act is still fit for
6:24:20 > 6:24:24purpose. The abortion act was never intended to be the end of the
6:24:24 > 6:24:30campaign for women's reproductive rights. A former campaigner at the
6:24:30 > 6:24:35abortion law reform Association and one of the architects of the
6:24:35 > 6:24:41original Law said that the 1967 abortion act was a halfway house. It
6:24:41 > 6:24:44handed the abortion decision to the medical profession but the next age
6:24:44 > 6:24:50is how this personal decision is handed to the woman herself. Now on
6:24:50 > 6:24:54why this law needs reforming. Britain's abortion laws are not just
6:24:54 > 6:24:59governed by that 50-year-old actor but by the 88-year-old life
6:24:59 > 6:25:03preservation act and the 156-year-old offence against the
6:25:03 > 6:25:08Persons act, together this is the oldest legal framework for any
6:25:08 > 6:25:12health care procedure in the UK and is a framework which astonishingly
6:25:12 > 6:25:17still treats the act of Apollo Michael abortion as criminal and
6:25:17 > 6:25:26punishable by life imprisonment -- act of abortion. I think women are
6:25:26 > 6:25:31stigmatised by these laws. The 67 act did not give women authority
6:25:31 > 6:25:36over their abortions but handed authority to the profession, subject
6:25:36 > 6:25:42to the consent of two doctors. No other medical procedure requires two
6:25:42 > 6:25:46doctors to sign off nor does the requirement exist in most other
6:25:46 > 6:25:51countries where abortion is legal. Where most other centres of health
6:25:51 > 6:25:57care move to a patient centred provision, the provisions of the
6:25:57 > 6:26:011967 act, in spite of the best efforts of health care
6:26:01 > 6:26:05professionals, hold back similar progress in reproductive health
6:26:05 > 6:26:09care. As Professor Lesley Regan of the Royal College of obstetricians
6:26:09 > 6:26:13and gynaecologists has highlighted, she said that no other medical
6:26:13 > 6:26:17procedure in the UK is so out of step with clinical and technological
6:26:17 > 6:26:23developments. Since 2014 the majority of abortions in England and
6:26:23 > 6:26:28Wales have been carried out medically using pills. The 1967 act
6:26:28 > 6:26:32was not designed with medical abortions in mind but was passed
6:26:32 > 6:26:35when the overwhelming majority of abortions were carried out with
6:26:35 > 6:26:40surgical techniques. Now, in the 50 years since the abortion act was
6:26:40 > 6:26:43passed, I have to say that I regret that Parliament has mostly shied
6:26:43 > 6:26:49away from debating issues like those I have just set out. In March of
6:26:49 > 6:26:53this year, the House of Commons had my ten minute rule Bill to
6:26:53 > 6:26:58decriminalise abortion in England and Wales. In the years since this
6:26:58 > 6:27:02bill has been debated, previous MPs have tabled 11 bills to an abortion
6:27:02 > 6:27:06laws. Seven were Private members bills and four like mine were ten
6:27:06 > 6:27:10minute rule Bill 's. All 11 attempted to restrict abortion in
6:27:10 > 6:27:14some way. Not a single one was about improving provision or better
6:27:14 > 6:27:22supporting women.Wildie honourable lady give way?I will just finished
6:27:22 > 6:27:28my point, for a procedure that is so common, the overwhelming
6:27:28 > 6:27:32Parliamentary figures has been on restricting this practice. Had this
6:27:32 > 6:27:35procedure affected one third of men it's hard to imagine that we would
6:27:35 > 6:27:41have debated this in the same way. I'm very grateful for the member for
6:27:41 > 6:27:44securing this debate but would she agree that Parliamentary opinion in
6:27:44 > 6:27:50this massively out of step with public opinion on this matter? A bus
6:27:50 > 6:27:56majority of people in this country favour safe and legal abortion?My
6:27:56 > 6:27:59honourable friend makes an important point, earlier this year when we had
6:27:59 > 6:28:03the ten Minute Rule Motion to decriminalise abortion, it was
6:28:03 > 6:28:07successfully passed by Parliament and I think it will be interesting
6:28:07 > 6:28:10if it is debated again in this Parliament and what the result will
6:28:10 > 6:28:15be.I thank the honourable lady for giving way, and I'm very impressed
6:28:15 > 6:28:22by the honourable lady, and for the intervention. She knows my opinion
6:28:22 > 6:28:25in relation to these matters. I understand it will bring things
6:28:25 > 6:28:29forward which would be a help but at the same time, we are meant to
6:28:29 > 6:28:35believe that abortion somehow expresses the women's right but on
6:28:35 > 6:28:38the contrary, some of us believe that it is so often the means by
6:28:38 > 6:28:46which vulnerable young women, even when abortion itself does not cause
6:28:46 > 6:28:49the destruction of women, their mistreatment by the sector that
6:28:49 > 6:28:56provides abortion in this country today can.Clearly Parliament to
6:28:56 > 6:29:01give you 50 years ago that it would allow abortions to take place in
6:29:01 > 6:29:04some circumstances, and I think it is right and proper that there are
6:29:04 > 6:29:10strict regulations around abortion and when I spoke about
6:29:10 > 6:29:14decriminalisation earlier this year it was decriminalising, not
6:29:14 > 6:29:18deregulating. All providers have two provide the highest quality care to
6:29:18 > 6:29:21women. I also want to say about successive British governments
6:29:21 > 6:29:25having failed to act to improve abortion provisions. Sometimes they
6:29:25 > 6:29:29are hidden behind the false pretence that issues of provision are issues
6:29:29 > 6:29:34of conscience, setting the issue aside is too difficult to tackle. In
6:29:34 > 6:29:38the months before and since the ten minute rule Bill that I mentioned,
6:29:38 > 6:29:44more compelling evidence has demonstrated the need for long
6:29:44 > 6:29:45overdue changes to abortion laws. Women, including desperate victims
6:29:45 > 6:29:52of domestic abuse, are increasingly ill served by current laws and
6:29:52 > 6:29:55criminalised for buying abortion pills online. Waiting time for
6:29:55 > 6:30:01abortion services appear to be on the rise and recently figures
6:30:01 > 6:30:05obtained by investigative journalist show that in 76% of clinical
6:30:05 > 6:30:10commissioning groups and trusts that they save, average abortion waiting
6:30:10 > 6:30:14times in 2016 were higher than they were in 2013. The family planning
6:30:14 > 6:30:18Association to women they should only have to wait ten working days
6:30:18 > 6:30:21for an abortion but one quarter of CCG 's and trusts have average
6:30:21 > 6:30:28waiting times longer than this and waiting times have jumped 7.7 days
6:30:28 > 6:30:37in a year. One of the highest jumps they identified. And the seizure of
6:30:37 > 6:30:45these pills, posted to addresses in Britain, has risen 75 fold, to 375
6:30:45 > 6:30:56in 2016. In November 2016 to 2017, an international organisation that
6:30:56 > 6:31:00provides pills were abortion is illegal, monitored the number of
6:31:00 > 6:31:05British women who got help on their website. In the space of four in the
6:31:05 > 6:31:09months -- in the space of four months, these numbers doubled. There
6:31:09 > 6:31:13is a rising and unmet demand for better abortion provision in this
6:31:13 > 6:31:17country. I'm going to continue because I am conscious of time but
6:31:17 > 6:31:21the personal cases of these women are often deeply moving. A recent
6:31:21 > 6:31:28study into women on web services published in September has provided
6:31:28 > 6:31:31unprecedented insight to the challenges British women face in
6:31:31 > 6:31:36accessing abortion services. Women who approach these services, nearly
6:31:36 > 6:31:40one in five did so because of controlling circumstances at home,
6:31:40 > 6:31:46from abusive partners to intolerant families. As one woman told the
6:31:46 > 6:31:50servers, I'm in a controlling relationship, he watches my every
6:31:50 > 6:31:54move, I believe he's trying to trap me and hurt me. I cannot breathe. If
6:31:54 > 6:31:58he finds out he will not let me go ahead and I will be trapped for
6:31:58 > 6:32:02ever. I cannot live my life like this. Another said she is never
6:32:02 > 6:32:05allowed to go anywhere without her husband or a member of his family
6:32:05 > 6:32:09escorting me. I do not have a normal life since getting married. Abortion
6:32:09 > 6:32:13is against his family 's religion and I'm worried what will happen if
6:32:13 > 6:32:18I am caught. For many women, making two trips to an abortion clinic is
6:32:18 > 6:32:23currently required is simply not an option. A range of practical factors
6:32:23 > 6:32:31in the distance they live from the clinic, delays them in making these
6:32:31 > 6:32:34trips but every time these women purchase pills online they commit a
6:32:34 > 6:32:39criminal act and because women on the web does not prescribe pills in
6:32:39 > 6:32:42the UK, they are forced to turn to other providers, some of whom may
6:32:42 > 6:32:52not be legitimate. The British Medical Association and the Royal
6:32:52 > 6:32:54College of Midwives, plus the noble Lord steel, they all agree that the
6:32:54 > 6:32:58law needs to be updated and that abortion should be decriminalised
6:32:58 > 6:33:04and it is time for Parliament to act on this. Shortly I will be
6:33:04 > 6:33:06publishing the text of a bill to decriminalise abortion in England
6:33:06 > 6:33:11and Wales and I'm working on this bill with legal experts and
6:33:11 > 6:33:14professional health care organisations. This bill will
6:33:14 > 6:33:17contain the same safeguards and regulations to those which I set out
6:33:17 > 6:33:21in March of this year. Most importantly, it takes women out of
6:33:21 > 6:33:25the criminal law altogether. Health care professionals who assist in
6:33:25 > 6:33:29abortions before 24 weeks of gestation will also be
6:33:29 > 6:33:33decriminalised and they will see further protections after 24 weeks.
6:33:33 > 6:33:39It also allows us to make the best possible provisions for women with
6:33:39 > 6:33:42early medical abortions. We need to look at the requirement to obtain
6:33:42 > 6:33:45two Doctors signatures and we should ask whether the second abortion pill
6:33:45 > 6:33:51could not be taken at home, should women wish to do so. Just as it is
6:33:51 > 6:33:55in the United States, France, Sweden and is announced recently in
6:33:55 > 6:34:02Scotland. I'm going to continue as I am conscious that the Minister has
6:34:02 > 6:34:07two respond. I want to make the point that decriminalisation will
6:34:07 > 6:34:12not mean deregulation. The 24-hour time limit will not be changed, the
6:34:12 > 6:34:15conditions for accessing abortion after 24 weeks will not change but I
6:34:15 > 6:34:20want to see stronger protection for women, for nonconsensual abortions
6:34:20 > 6:34:24whether by assaulting a pregnant woman or deceiving a woman into
6:34:24 > 6:34:28taking abortion medication. I have some requests for the Minister. I do
6:34:28 > 6:34:34think it's time that we acknowledge that abortion provision is not a
6:34:34 > 6:34:37conscious issue, it's a core part of women's health care and should be
6:34:37 > 6:34:42debated in a grown-up way and health ministers should be accountable for
6:34:42 > 6:34:46the quality of abortion services. Firstly, will be Department of
6:34:46 > 6:34:50Health looking into the problems that women are facing in accessing
6:34:50 > 6:34:55abortions? Department should be regularly assessing the problem of
6:34:55 > 6:34:58abortion waiting times and be looking to identify local areas
6:34:58 > 6:35:04where there is poor provisions and the problem extremely vulnerable
6:35:04 > 6:35:08women experiencing getting abortion care should be investigated. And,
6:35:08 > 6:35:11what concrete steps will the government take to improve abortion
6:35:11 > 6:35:15provision? A court judgment in 2011 established the Health Secretary
6:35:15 > 6:35:19could allow home use of the second abortion pill without the need for
6:35:19 > 6:35:23the new legislation so in light of this, and what has happened in
6:35:23 > 6:35:28Scotland, what is the government planning on doing? There is an
6:35:28 > 6:35:31increasing number of experts questioning the two Doctor
6:35:31 > 6:35:34requirement for early-stage abortion and I wonder if the minister would
6:35:34 > 6:35:39want to comment on that? How does the government respond to calls to
6:35:39 > 6:35:43decriminalise abortion, with three professional medical bodies
6:35:43 > 6:35:47supporting these calls? Will the government consider acting on these
6:35:47 > 6:35:50calls and finally, we must also recognise the situation in a country
6:35:50 > 6:35:54where the abortion act does not apply. In Northern Ireland, abortion
6:35:54 > 6:36:00is highly restricted and criminal, even in cases of rape, incest, or
6:36:00 > 6:36:04fatal foetal abnormality. The ongoing Supreme Court case raises
6:36:04 > 6:36:07the prospect that this may soon go beyond a devolved matter and become
6:36:07 > 6:36:10a broader human rights matter and I wondered what steps the government
6:36:10 > 6:36:15are taking for that to be dealt with by the Secretary of State for
6:36:15 > 6:36:19Northern Ireland. In conclusion, this house should mark the
6:36:19 > 6:36:22anniversary of the abortion act not just what we have achieved but
6:36:22 > 6:36:27looking forward to what we need now. In the face of threats to women's
6:36:27 > 6:36:31reproductive rights at home and abroad, the answer is not to become
6:36:31 > 6:36:35timid and remain defensive, but to be bolder and go beyond merely
6:36:35 > 6:36:41defending what we currently have, making a positive case for stronger
6:36:41 > 6:36:46rights and better women centred provision. The 1967 act made Britain
6:36:46 > 6:36:48a world leader in women's reproductive rights but it is time
6:36:48 > 6:36:52we took steps now to ensure that once again Britain reassume is this
6:36:52 > 6:37:00world leading position.
6:37:00 > 6:37:05Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the honourable member
6:37:05 > 6:37:08for securing this debate at this historic occasion, the 50th
6:37:08 > 6:37:13anniversary of the passing of the abortion act. As she has explained,
6:37:13 > 6:37:22the act was introduced as Private members Bill. It clearly defines the
6:37:22 > 6:37:27grounds under which an abortion may be carried out in England. As she
6:37:27 > 6:37:31has explained, with the exception of emergencies, where it is necessary
6:37:31 > 6:37:36to perform the abortion to save the life of a woman, two doctors must
6:37:36 > 6:37:40certify in their opinion, a request for an abortion meet at least one
6:37:40 > 6:37:44grounds set out in the act and there should be an agreement as to which
6:37:44 > 6:37:49grounded this is. She raised in her remarks, whether it should remain
6:37:49 > 6:37:57the case it is two doctors. However, that remains the law and from my
6:37:57 > 6:37:59perspective, my emphasis is we delivered the safest possible
6:37:59 > 6:38:05treatment for women, in accordance with the law. She raised some
6:38:05 > 6:38:09important issues with regard to waiting times, which I would like to
6:38:09 > 6:38:13reflect on because I am sure everyone in this House agrees, no
6:38:13 > 6:38:19woman undertakes a termination lightly. For many it is extremely
6:38:19 > 6:38:26traumatic. It is incumbent on all others make that the least painful
6:38:26 > 6:38:31as possible, police traumatic as possible and as safe as and central
6:38:31 > 6:38:38to being safe as possible, that it takes place as early as possible.
6:38:38 > 6:38:42The minister talks about the requirement to two medical
6:38:42 > 6:38:47practitioners to give agreement. Does she agree, a poll last week by
6:38:47 > 6:38:532000 adults which showed 72% of the public think abortion should
6:38:53 > 6:38:58continue to be subject to that legal requirement, because that ensures
6:38:58 > 6:39:02protection for women, particularly in an abusive relationship. It might
6:39:02 > 6:39:06be the only opportunity they have to talk to someone in a safe
6:39:06 > 6:39:08environment by pressure they might be being put under to have an
6:39:08 > 6:39:14abortion.Central to this is we need to be satisfied in Parliament that
6:39:14 > 6:39:17the regime we have is safe for women and at the moment, we have a law
6:39:17 > 6:39:22that has been on the statute book for 50 years and until Parliament
6:39:22 > 6:39:25decides to change that that is the law I will implement as safe as
6:39:25 > 6:39:31possible. I hear many quotes about polls, but frankly, when it comes to
6:39:31 > 6:39:36this issue, people have very strong views and I think we need to be sure
6:39:36 > 6:39:41we maintain the law with integrity. Thanks to the dedication, hard work
6:39:41 > 6:39:46and expertise of the doctors and nurses working in abortion clinics,
6:39:46 > 6:39:50termination of a pregnancy is a safe procedure and in marked contrast to
6:39:50 > 6:39:53some of the statistics the honourable lady outlined before the
6:39:53 > 6:40:00act. Date of 2016 show a complication rate of just one in
6:40:00 > 6:40:03every 630 abortions, which is lower than just ten years ago when the
6:40:03 > 6:40:09rate was one in 500. The choice of early medical abortion, which is
6:40:09 > 6:40:12less invasive than a surgical procedure and doesn't involve the
6:40:12 > 6:40:20use of anaesthetics, has helped increase the overall amount of
6:40:20 > 6:40:26abortions from ten weeks gestation. Clearly the more we can encourage
6:40:26 > 6:40:30that, it will be far better for the welfare of women who are undertaking
6:40:30 > 6:40:37terminations. I will give way.I want to congratulate my honourable
6:40:37 > 6:40:43friend on securing the debate. Whilst we must talk about what
6:40:43 > 6:40:46happens to a woman during the procedure and how much care needs to
6:40:46 > 6:40:52be taken, does she share my concern that was highlighted in the report
6:40:52 > 6:40:57last week, abortion and women's health, about the poor provision for
6:40:57 > 6:41:01counselling and support that women need, who suffer any mental distress
6:41:01 > 6:41:05after they have had an abortion, but it is seriously lacking in this
6:41:05 > 6:41:12country.At the risk of being controversial, I think there is lots
6:41:12 > 6:41:17of elements of counselling for women that is seriously lacking. It
6:41:17 > 6:41:24reflects the fact that the decisions for the welfare of women have
6:41:24 > 6:41:29generally been taken by men. I am glad there are more women in this
6:41:29 > 6:41:33House who are able to influence that.Does she agree it is
6:41:33 > 6:41:36imperative we offer women a choice in terms of the decision they take
6:41:36 > 6:41:41in terms of their body and would she give an undertaking this evening to
6:41:41 > 6:41:45investigate why the government thought it was appropriate award the
6:41:45 > 6:41:51largest sum of money from the Tampax fund to an anti-abortion
6:41:51 > 6:41:57organisation?I understand she feels strongly about this issue and nobody
6:41:57 > 6:42:05can doubt her commitment and passion to these issues. I understand it was
6:42:05 > 6:42:09strictly towards the support of women who chose to go through with
6:42:09 > 6:42:13the birth. I am happy to look at that further. I am not entirely sure
6:42:13 > 6:42:18it was the largest donation, but I will be happy to look into that. She
6:42:18 > 6:42:22is right when she says there should be genuine choice. We don't want and
6:42:22 > 6:42:25he want to feel they can't have an abortion, any more than they feel
6:42:25 > 6:42:31they have to. We want women to make informed choices. Feel empowered to
6:42:31 > 6:42:36have the child if that is what they would like to do. The important
6:42:36 > 6:42:40thing is, we empower women. That is the whole purpose of what we are
6:42:40 > 6:42:43trying to do, we empower women and allow them to make choices which are
6:42:43 > 6:42:51safe for them. Since the act was passed, there have been regular
6:42:51 > 6:42:55calls from all sides for changes to the legislation and the honourable
6:42:55 > 6:43:00lady has outlined her views clearly today. As she has referred to, this
6:43:00 > 6:43:05government and previous ones have always viewed the matter for
6:43:05 > 6:43:09legislative change as one for the House on which to take a view. There
6:43:09 > 6:43:16are no plans to change that. The act was last amended in 1991 by the
6:43:16 > 6:43:21human fertilisation and embryology act 1990 and this reduced the time
6:43:21 > 6:43:33limit for most abortions from 28 weeks to 24 weeks.
6:43:37 > 6:43:41Amendments are possible and ultimately it is Parliament that
6:43:41 > 6:43:44decides the circumstances under which abortion can be legally
6:43:44 > 6:43:48undertaken. The government will always ensure regulation works to
6:43:48 > 6:43:59make that as safe as possible. The Lady -- honourable lady has outlined
6:43:59 > 6:44:01abortion act should be decriminalised and the government
6:44:01 > 6:44:05will take a view as and when she brings forward her bill, as indeed
6:44:05 > 6:44:10will the rest of the House. It is to, any abortions conducted outside
6:44:10 > 6:44:16the grounds of the 67 act do remain a criminal offence and as I say,
6:44:16 > 6:44:21there is no intention for that to be dealt with than anything other than
6:44:21 > 6:44:26a free vote. Turning to the impact of the act in practice. It is
6:44:26 > 6:44:30important we remember in the years before the act, abortion was the
6:44:30 > 6:44:35leading cause of maternal mortality in England and Wales. The first
6:44:35 > 6:44:39confidential enquiry into maternal deaths in 1952, reported 153 deaths
6:44:39 > 6:44:45from abortion alone. The most recent confidential enquiries report found
6:44:45 > 6:44:51there were 81 reported deaths in 2012 to 14 for all direct causes of
6:44:51 > 6:44:59maternal mortality such as interventions. Since the act came
6:44:59 > 6:45:03into force, the women of Great Britain have had access to legal and
6:45:03 > 6:45:09safe abortion services.Those who committed suicide as a result of
6:45:09 > 6:45:16having an abortion and the effect it had upon them, does it include those
6:45:16 > 6:45:23people?These figures include those who have died from maternal
6:45:23 > 6:45:27complication, I am not sure of any figures that details suicide but we
6:45:27 > 6:45:32need to look up the whole issue of counselling around women when they
6:45:32 > 6:45:37are facing any kind of unwanted pregnancy. In 2016, 90 8% of
6:45:37 > 6:45:44abortions were funded by the NHS, in 2006, just 70% of NHS funded which
6:45:44 > 6:45:49shows the NHS is providing more for this service. 92% were carried out
6:45:49 > 6:45:54at under 13 weeks gestation and 81 were carried out at under ten weeks,
6:45:54 > 6:45:59which illustrates that it is becoming safer. 62% were medical
6:45:59 > 6:46:05abortions, which is more than double the proportion in 2006, a good sign
6:46:05 > 6:46:09of progress. The data I have just quoted shows improving access and
6:46:09 > 6:46:13choice within the existing framework can be achieved and I'm sure all
6:46:13 > 6:46:16members will welcome the fact the vast majority of abortions are
6:46:16 > 6:46:21taking place at earlier gestations, which is safer for women and offers
6:46:21 > 6:46:26increased choice of medical abortion. On the issue of home use,
6:46:26 > 6:46:31it is currently the case abortions in England can only be performed in
6:46:31 > 6:46:35an NHS facility or a place approved by the Secretary of State for
6:46:35 > 6:46:39Health. At present, a patient's home is not an approved place for an
6:46:39 > 6:46:43abortion. I am aware the Scottish Government has granted approval for
6:46:43 > 6:46:47the second stage of early medical abortion treatment to be undertaken
6:46:47 > 6:46:52in a patient's home in certain circumstances. As I have said, our
6:46:52 > 6:46:56overriding principle is all women who require abortion services in
6:46:56 > 6:47:01England should have access to high quality and safe care. However, we
6:47:01 > 6:47:07will continue to engage with women and stakeholders on ways to make
6:47:07 > 6:47:12safe and regulated services even more effective. Of course, a key
6:47:12 > 6:47:15part of an abortion service is providing information and services
6:47:15 > 6:47:19to enable women to make informed decisions and support good sexual
6:47:19 > 6:47:24health. This includes information about an provision of contraception
6:47:24 > 6:47:27and testing for sexually transmitted infections. Abortion providers
6:47:27 > 6:47:34should be able to supply all reversal methods of contra suction
6:47:34 > 6:47:37which are the most effective and offer testing for sexually
6:47:37 > 6:47:42transmitted infections as appropriate. Before the woman is
6:47:42 > 6:47:45discharge, future contraception should be discussed and as far as
6:47:45 > 6:47:50possible, the chosen method should be initiated in legally. All women
6:47:50 > 6:47:56should be other testing for chlamydia and offered a risk
6:47:56 > 6:48:00assessment for high HIV and syphilis. Provisional contraception
6:48:00 > 6:48:05is essential if we are to make progress towards our ambition to
6:48:05 > 6:48:13reduce unintended pregnancies in women of all ages. And for women of
6:48:13 > 6:48:1724 and under, we have seen a reduction in the abortion rate. Most
6:48:17 > 6:48:23notably for the under 18 is where it has been reduced to just 8.9 in
6:48:23 > 6:48:282016. Rates in women aged over 24 have remained stable or increased
6:48:28 > 6:48:31slightly and we know we have more work to do to ensure we see
6:48:31 > 6:48:39improvements across all age groups. Just to bring my remarks to a close,
6:48:39 > 6:48:43because we are short of time, what we have seen is over the last 50
6:48:43 > 6:48:47years there have been significant increases and improvements in
6:48:47 > 6:48:53women's health in the regulation abortion and the safety of abortion.
6:48:53 > 6:48:59It is appropriate we look back and take stock and congratulate
6:48:59 > 6:49:04ourselves on that and in going forward, that we continue to ensure
6:49:04 > 6:49:08that the way we allow for legal abortion is at all times, safe and
6:49:08 > 6:49:17well regulated.The question is that this House do now adjourned. As many
6:49:17 > 6:49:21as are of the opinion say "aye". To the contrary, "no". The ayes have
6:49:21 > 6:49:30it, the ayes have it. Order, order.