UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union
John Baron Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Keir Starmer
I will in just a moment. Labour has always opposed a no-deal outcome. We have repeatedly warned that it would be catastrophic for jobs, for the economy, for security, and for peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland, and I will come to those points later.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, but I implore him to use the language of moderation when talking about no deal. He will remember the dire economic warnings during the referendum campaign of, for example, 500,000 extra people unemployed by Christmas 2016. Those things did not come about. So bad were the predictions that the Bank of England had to publicly apologise afterwards. He should not rest his case on predictions. Economic reality is dictated by comparative advantage, such as lower tax rates and more flexible labour markets. That is why the economy is doing so well, despite the prospect of no deal.
Keir Starmer
Lots of things were said by both sides in the referendum that should never have been said, some of them by Members who have already addressed the House.
Keir Starmer
I was going to complete my answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, because I accept that we have to deal with the facts as they are. One of my concerns is that because so many things were said in the referendum, there is now a licence to pretend that real risks and outcomes will not happen by simply saying that other things did not happen. That is a real cause for concern.
Hilary Benn
All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I cannot speak for those colleagues. My view has consistently been clear that no deal cannot be a policy for this country. By the way, no deal is not what those who campaigned for leave in the referendum ever argued for, so I do not quite understand why someone should now be arguing for it when they did not argue for it then. No one who has spoken so far—I am not talking about intervening—has stood up and argued why no deal would be a good idea. It is not surprising why they have not. In responding to the schedules that have been published, Carolyn Fairbairn said this morning:
“This tells us everything that is wrong with a no-deal scenario…This is no way to run a country.”
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said:
“No-deal would be catastrophic for the automotive industry. It would end frictionless trade, add billions to the cost of manufacturing and cost jobs.”
We know why.
Hilary Benn
I will not give way, because time is so short. We know that if there is any disruption to the lorries that keep those car factories going every single day, it will affect the production line. The car industry has had enough bad news in the past two months without it being added to by people standing up saying, “No deal is a jolly good idea.”
A professor from one of our major institutions of higher education, whom I happened to bump into on the underground this morning, said to me that no deal would be “catastrophic” for the institution, its research funding and its ability to recruit staff. The truth is that these conversations are repeated in thousands of workplaces up and down the country, in thousands of sectors of the economy. That is why the twelfth report of the Brexit Select Committee said explicitly that leaving with no deal
“cannot constitute the policy of any responsible Government.”
If Members want to read the argument, they can go and look at that report, but I draw attention to the problem faced by a company that makes signs and exports them to Europe to be fitted by its workers. The company asked me what would happen in the event of a no-deal Brexit. I have referred to that in a previous speech. Since then, I asked a written question, to which I received the answer:
“UK nationals travelling to the EU for the purposes of work may be subject to extra conditions. Businesses will need to check individual Member State immigration rules for whether there are any requirements or conditions around supporting documentation, work permits or visas. Businesses should also check whether there are any restrictions on the provision of services, such as whether a UK professional qualification is recognised in the country in question.”
What use is that reply to a business that has worked hard to create jobs? There are those in this House who will stand up today and argue that that business’s future should be thrown into doubt, but what use is an answer like that? It basically says, “You’re on your own.”
The final point I want to make is this: given what happened yesterday, today’s vote is the next step required before tomorrow’s inevitable decision to apply for an extension to article 50, which the Brexit Select Committee report—it was published this morning with commendable speed after the events of last night—says will be necessary. Given the rather unhelpful coda, if I may put it that way, to the Government’s motion tonight, I think the House will vote to reject a no-deal Brexit on 29 March this evening, but Ministers need to recognise, be aware of and acknowledge that this House will never vote to leave the European Union without a deal, whether at the end of March, the end of June or the end of October. We are not prepared to take that risk with our economy, our jobs and the livelihoods of the people we represent—not today and not ever.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I refer Members to my business interests as listed in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Very briefly, I encourage a note of moderation when talking about no deal. Many of us, if not all of us, prefer a good deal to no deal—that is one of the key logics of leaving the European Union—but I suggest that WTO rules are not the so-called disaster that everyone is suggesting. We have to look at economic reality. We trade profitably with the rest of the world outside the EU on largely WTO, no-deal terms. What people can forget is that investment is about comparative advantage and the extent that a country’s corporation tax rates are lower and its labour markets are flexible, how good its top universities are and its financial expertise. In aggregate, those things are more important than WTO tariffs. If proof were needed, we have only to look at how well the country is doing economically in the face of so-called concern that we could be leaving the EU on no-deal terms. Investment decisions over recent years have been made in the full knowledge that we could be leaving on no-deal terms.
Andrew Bridgen
Does my hon. Friend agree that the truth is that many of those in this Chamber who wish to take no deal off the table want to stop Brexit, but have not got the guts to admit it to the electorate, because they know that two thirds of our constituencies voted to leave the European Union?
Mr Baron
Unfortunately, there is an element of truth to that, but I would not want to label everyone as being in that camp. Many Members have quoted predictions about the future, but I suggest that we have to keep the argument and the debate grounded in reality.
People need to remember that there were many predictions of economic woe and gloom should we vote to leave the EU in 2016. They came from the Bank of England, the IMF, businesses, and the various sector organisations and public organisations. Some of the predictions suggested 500,000 or 700,000 extra unemployed by December 2016. What happened? Actually, we created jobs, and economic growth did well. We now, today, have a record low unemployment rate that is half the EU average, record manufacturing output, and record inward investment. So we need to be careful of predictions, as Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, recognised. The Bank of England had to apologise publicly for getting it so wrong, as did so many others.
We have been told by our own Government that the preparations for no deal are in full swing. On 12 February, I asked the Prime Minister whether the Government are ready, saying:
“can she reassure the House that should we leave on 29 March on no-deal WTO terms, we are sufficiently prepared?”—[Official Report, 12 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 752.]
Her response was just three words: “We are indeed.” So the preparations have been made, and I think we should take some comfort from that.
Ruling out no deal makes a bad deal more likely. There needs to be an element of moderation across the House when describing no deal. The economic reality is at variance with the various doomster forecasts that were proved so wrong back in 2016, and we should take note of that fact.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Baron Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)
The Bill has been introduced to the House for pre-legislative scrutiny. It is in the hands of the Select Committee at the moment, and I am not going to pre-empt the outcome of the Select Committee’s considerations.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
T2. May I return the Government to the issue of antisocial behaviour caused when a large number of dogs are packed into a small garden, which not only causes a nuisance to neighbours, but is not good for the dogs themselves? I have written to the Home Office about this, the letter has been transferred to DEFRA, and I have not yet had a response. May I please have a meeting with the relevant Minister?
Oral Answers to Questions
John Baron Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Spelman
That was part of last night’s debate. It is clear that the Opposition do not want community groups and charities to be able to take ownership and management. That is clearly a divide between our parties. This is not primarily about cost and benefit. The point about regulation still stands. The Forestry Commission is both the regulator and the largest seller of timber in the market that it regulates. In this day and age, that kind of conflict of interest cannot continue.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
13. What progress has been made in resolving the single payment scheme difficulties experienced by Mr Peter Philpot.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I apologise very much for the unacceptably long delay in resolving the issues on Mr Philpot’s single payment scheme claims. For the House’s information, I should declare that I know Mr Philpot personally. This is one example of the dire legacy at the Rural Payments Agency. I understand that Mr Philpot is due top-up payments for the 2007 and 2008 scheme years, and these will be made by the end of this month. Resolving the underlying problems will take longer, but I am committed to seeing that permanent solutions are found.
Mr Baron
The Minister kindly acknowledges that the RPA has failed my constituent over a long period. Will he detail in writing what has held up the claims so far, and which entitlements are causing the problem, in time for a meeting on 15 February between the National Farmers Union and Mr Philpot?
Mr Paice
To be honest, I am not sure that I can write to my hon. Friend detailing which particular transfers or entitlements are wrong. The problem is the computer system, which is completely inadequate for its purpose. It was commissioned, of course, by the previous Government, and it is not fit for purpose, especially in very complex cases such as Mr Philpot’s, where a large number of transfers of entitlements have had to be brought into play.
Public Forest Estate (England)
John Baron Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Spelman
I would like to make progress.
Now we have some of the facts on the record, perhaps we can have a rather more honest debate about the consultation. Let us recall why the Forestry Commission came about. It was established after the first world war to reduce our reliance on imported timber. Timber was vital—for example, as pit props—at a time when state ownership was the orthodoxy. It was felt that state supply of timber was essential. At the time, timber covered just 5% of the land under the public forest estate, and even over the long period in which the Forestry Commission has been in operation, that has increased to only 8%.
Ninety years later, things have changed. The Forestry Commission still has a role of supplying timber to industry, but the reality is that it accounts for less than 5% of the timber used in England. To be clear, the state is running timber supplies, yet 95% of the timber used is from outside England. That cannot be sustainable.
On top of that, the public forest estate in England operated at a net loss of £16 million last year. If we are to carry on maintaining our forests as we currently do—and in fact improve them, which is what we want to do, so that they have greater biodiversity and environmental value—we need to think about better ways of doing this and invite other organisations to come in and look at how we can put it on a better footing. That, frankly, is no bad thing, not least because the lease terms will secure access and benefits. Does it really have to be the state’s role to sell Christmas trees? I know that the Opposition have taken a lurch to the left, but are they really suggesting that supplying Christmas trees, hosting music concerts and running log cabins should be national industries?
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Public consultations under the Labour Government used to be a complete and utter sham. Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that, if the majority of respondents to the consultation express concerns about the policy, she will listen?
Mrs Spelman
Of course I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I was very frustrated during 13 years of opposition by the sham nature of Government consultations. Let us not forget that we are talking about less than 18% of England’s woodland cover. Members will know that the vast majority of our woodlands are not in state ownership, but are still offering outstanding recreational and environmental value. Some are community woodlands. Some are held by organisations such as the National Trust. Some are held by charities. [Interruption.] And yes, many are held by individuals, from farmers to philanthropists. In my view, Opposition scaremongering has been such that they owe a great many of those people an apology for characterising them as being so disinterested in the public benefit. I can only say that I am glad that I am not so cynical about society; it must be a very miserable approach to life.
Energy and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
John Baron Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Huhne
I should make a little progress, because answering one intervention and then moving straight into dealing with another without even delivering a few of the sentences in my prepared text would be—[Interruption.] I am sure that Labour Members were trying to help me, and I am very grateful.
The steps that we need to take do not relate just to the supply and demand of energy; our energy infrastructure is in urgent need of new investment. Much of our national grid was built during the 1950s and 1960s, when consumers were passive and electricity came from predictable, large-scale sources. We need to move to a 21st century system where supplies come from a range of sources—from large to small scale, and from the predictable to the intermittent—and consumers adjust their consumption much more flexibly. Achieving our objectives is not just about having the right regulatory framework; we must act urgently to improve the availability of finance in support of the UK’s transition to a low-carbon economy. That is why we will create a green investment bank to unlock private capital and provide individuals with opportunities to invest in the infrastructure needed to support the new green economy. The energy Bill announced in the Gracious Speech is a key part of our programme to deliver a low-carbon future, demonstrating that we are ready to make the difficult decisions and to take swift action to put the right legislative framework in place. The Bill will deliver a framework that will transform the provision of energy efficiency in the UK by enabling a “pay as you save” approach.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Secretary of State might be aware that in order to reduce domestic energy bills and fuel poverty, and to cut through the confusion caused by having about 4,000 different tariffs, a number of hon. Members campaigned on the issue of obliging energy companies to inform their customers on each bill whether they were on the cheapest tariff and, if not, how to transfer to that tariff. The previous Government compromised by suggesting that that information would be put on an annual statement. The coalition agreement does not make it clear whether that will remain a firm commitment from our side. Will the Secretary of State clarify the situation for the House?
Chris Huhne
I am grateful to my honourable colleague for that question. The coalition agreement states very clearly that the fundamental objective is as he has described, and the Department will examine the best way in which we can deliver it, taking account of the administrative costs.
We know that many people want to take steps to make their homes more energy efficient, but the up-front cost can be prohibitive and there can be uncertainty about the results of measures. Our green deal will enable householders to benefit from energy efficiency and to repay the cost of the work over time, through savings on their energy bills.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and welcome you to your post, if only for a short period. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) on his speech. I did not necessarily agree with everything that he said, but I do not doubt the passion with which he said it. I should also like to congratulate all those who have spoken today, particularly the new Members, whom I welcome to the Chamber. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my constituents for returning me. I will do what I am sure everyone in the House promised to do—that is, to do my utmost to uphold that trust and serve my constituents’ interests in this place, but also try to pass good legislation.
We meet in interesting times, with our coalition Government in place. Lord Edward Cecil defined compromise as
“An agreement between two men to do what both agree is wrong.”
I hope that that does not define the nature of our coalition Government. I certainly hope that it will not, for the good of the country; and indeed, I welcome many aspects of the Gracious Speech. For example, on immigration, my constituents are pleased about the annual cap that we will introduce for non-EU immigrants, the creation of a border police force and transitional controls with regard to EU members, and I say that for a number of reasons.
First, immigration was a particularly important issue to my constituents in the general election. Secondly, there was a concern—certainly locally, if not nationally—that the fact that both parties seemed reluctant to discuss the issue lent support to the British National party. Many people in my constituency were tempted to vote for the BNP, but coming out with clear and strong policies has helped to stop that inclination, at least locally. By addressing people’s points, I hope that we can put their fears to one side. It is a sad reflection that when we left office in 1997, there were no BNP councillors anywhere in the country, yet today we have approaching 60. That reflects the fact that the former Government’s immigration policy was an absolute shambles, and people were rightly concerned about that.
I also disagree with the Labour party and even some of my Liberal friends, and particularly with my Liberal opponent, who said that we should not encourage the BNP on to the stage or give it the air of publicity. However, we have to pull the BNP out of the shadows and show people what it stands for if we are going to take the party head on. I therefore think that the immigration policies announced by the coalition Government are a positive step.
On law and order, I am pleased that we have made it clear that we are going to be tougher on the criminal. Real concern has again been expressed by my constituents that the recorded crime figures clearly show that violent crime is on the increase. The coalition Government’s assurance that we are going to get more police out of the police stations and on to the streets by reducing red tape can only be a good thing. The time has come to get tougher with the criminal. My constituents all know that the criminal chooses to commit a crime and that the victim has no choice in the matter. They are therefore very pleased with these policies.
I am also delighted by the announcements on Equitable Life. For too long, its policy holders have been denied justice, and it is about time that the ombudsman’s recommendations were implemented. It is good news that they are going to be.
I was reassured by what I heard from our Front Bench about the fact that we are going to work towards an obligation for energy companies to provide information on the cheapest tariffs on all domestic bills.
I was pleased by my Government’s commitment to bear down on the deficit. The larger the size of the deficit, the heavier the weight on our economy. That is something that the Opposition do not realise. If we want a prosperous economy in which we will be better able to pay for our public services, we must get the deficit down. The argument that any reduction in spending is somehow taking money out of the economy is fundamentally flawed. Every pound that is borrowed and spent, by any Government, is a pound taken from the private sector. A private sector-led recovery will be essential in our fight to reduce the deficit.
I have one or two questions to put to those on my Front Bench about the new coalition agreement, one of which the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) is particularly well positioned to answer. It is about Travellers. She will know that the issue of Travellers is an important one not only in my constituency but in others, particularly in the south-east. My constituency has the largest illegal Traveller camp in the country—some say it is the largest in Europe—at Dale Farm. Travellers bought some green belt land there—there is nothing wrong with that—but they then illegally and speedily developed it, to the point where it is now the largest site in the land.
A forced eviction is now due. We have gone through the planning process and that has been flipped over into the legal process. We have gone through both processes and we are now, sadly, at the point of a forced eviction. I say “sadly” because I have been to see the Travellers, and I have tried to persuade them that we all want a peaceful resolution to the issue, and that the best way to achieve that is for them to move off peacefully. To date, however, they have refused to do that.
No one is seeking to penalise or discriminate against Travellers. All we are saying is that anyone who lives in our community should abide by the same set of rules. There should not be one rule for the law-abiding majority and another for the Travellers. I say the same thing to anyone—Traveller or non-Traveller—who asks me about developing on the green belt, or who has already done so. The law needs to be upheld. I am concerned that there is no mention at all of our policies towards Travellers in the coalition agreement—
Mrs Spelman
I might be able to help my hon. Friend on this matter. In the Communities and Local Government brief, there is mention of a Bill from that Department that will contain measures on this subject, as has already been made public. Those measures will close the retrospective planning permission loophole in this regard and extend the power of stop notices so that they can go beyond 28 days. Most importantly, given the part that my hon. Friend’s local authority has played in providing authorised sites, the measures will give an incentive to local authorities to provide more authorised sites. They will also recognise that the cost of that should not fall on the council tax payer, and that will be recognised in the local authority grant. I hope that that gives him some comfort.
Mr Baron
It does, indeed, and I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. However, the Conservative Green Paper also discussed the provision of more sites. While I have been a strong advocate of the need to give councils much stronger powers to deal with Travellers who illegally develop the green belt, I also believe that we must look at the issue in a balanced fashion and realise that there is an acute shortage of sites across the south-east. It worries me that although our Green Paper mentioned the need for greater provision of sites, that was not in the manifesto and it was certainly not in the coalition agreement. Perhaps in the fullness of time, my right hon. Friend might be able to provide further clarification.
The all-party group on cancer, which I chair, conducted an in-depth inquiry into cancer inequalities in this country. All the evidence suggests that inequalities in both treatment and outcomes for cancer patients have been growing. We came up with eight recommendations, the most important of which was the introduction of a one-year survival measure. We felt that we should try to move the focus of the NHS away from input-based targets and more towards measuring how well the NHS actually performs in making people better. The one-year survival measure was our key recommendation, as it was clear from all the evidence that if we were to catch up with our European neighbours on average one-year and five-year survival rates, we had to improve on early diagnosis. That was key: the sooner we could get people diagnosed, the sooner the treatment could begin. That could save literally thousands of lives in this country.
The pledge in the coalition agreement states that the aim will be to measure success on results like improving cancer survival, so the question I am asking now—I do not expect an immediate answer, but one in the fullness of time—is whether that commitment extends to introducing one-year survival measures. The required statistics and information are already being produced, courtesy of the NCIN—national cancer intelligence network—so there would be no additional costs. We have to bring this out of the cupboard, shine a light on it and make sure that PCTs know that we are looking at the figures and seeing how well they are performing in improving survival and the outcomes for patients at the one-year mark. The eventual aim is to apply a five-year measure, as happens on the continent, but we felt that a one-year measure would be enough to get the ball rolling. I shall seek further clarification on this issue from my Government.
Finally, I would like to say a few words about Afghanistan. As you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and some other Members will know, I was against our involvement in Afghanistan from the very start. I felt that we fundamentally underestimated the task in hand and that it was never clear quite what the mission was. That was borne out last year when the Prime Minister seemed to flip-flop between justifying our presence there by saying that we were somehow protecting the streets of this country from terrorism, and threatening President Karzai almost in the same breath by saying that unless he cleaned up his act politically, we would withdraw our troops. Those two statements and positions did not, and still do not, sit well next to each other.
As an ex-soldier, I fully welcome the promise to rebuild the military covenant to support our troops and their families, particularly when it comes to mental health issues, and to make sure that our troops are fully equipped. I urge our coalition Government and Front-Bench colleagues to understand that on this issue we need not just fresh thinking, but a fresh approach. We need to ensure that our aims are clearly stated, so that we can measure according to them the criteria for bringing our troops home. If we cannot do that and the mission continues to be the fudge that was, unfortunately, only too apparent under the last Government, lives will be needlessly lost and we will be no closer to bringing our troops home.