European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Peter Bone Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons & Money resolution & Programme motion & Ways and Means resolution
Friday 20th December 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that it is going to be a delight to serve under your enlightened chairmanship for many years.

Listening to this debate, I drew a contrast between the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and that of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who both campaigned for remain in the 2016 referendum. One has accepted the result but the other remains in denial. The debate in this House before the election was characterised by that contrast between the acceptance of the democratic will of the people and the perpetual denial of those who campaigned for remain but who cannot come to terms with the result.

The election result finally settles the matter. The Prime Minister, at some risk to himself and, indeed, to many of us, put his reputation on the line by saying to the British people, “Do you or don’t you trust me to deliver this?” The British people have delivered their verdict. They want us to deliver Brexit, not necessarily because they wanted to leave in the first place, but simply because they want the matter settled. They want to deliver the certainty that is critical for British business and for the integrity of our democracy. To have continued to frustrate the will of the people would have done untold harm to the very spirit that should imbue this place and that gives life and health to democratic legitimacy. That is why, beyond all else, I will vote for the Bill today.

But that is not the only reason. I have opposed the European Union consistently throughout my political career—indeed, stretching back into my boyhood, which was something like 40 years ago. I know it seems surprising and unlikely, but it was 40 years ago that I was a boy. I first advocated withdrawal from the European Union when I was a student at Nottingham University back in the late 1970s.

I did so because the European Union is regulatory. I remember countless occasions when civil servants would come to me and say, “It’s bad news from Europe, Minister. We’re looking at ways we can get around it, dilute it, avoid it.” I would say, “Well, do all you can,” as I did in respect of the ports directive referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). Yet I can never remember them saying, “Great news from Europe, Minister. This is going to be really beneficial for the British people.” The regulatory burden that has emanated from the European Union has been immensely unhelpful to Britain and the British economy, time after time.

I also oppose the European Union because it is costly. The latest House of Commons Library figures suggest that the net cost of our membership of this very expensive club is £8.9 billion. Indeed, we have been net contributors in every year since we joined in 1973 except, interestingly enough, 1975.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

What happened then?

[Sir John Hayes]

That was the year of the referendum. In that one single year, we were a net beneficiary to the tune of £395 million. In every other year, we have been paying dear to bear this regulatory burden.

In addition to those reasons for my opposition to the European Union and all its excesses, I have a more fundamental reason. It is this: when power is exercised detached from the people it affects, it first becomes careless and ultimately becomes capricious. When people lose the ability to hold to account those who make decisions for them, democracy is undermined. That, in the end, is the reason why I campaigned with such vigour to leave the European Union in the referendum and have consistently argued so from my boyhood into my middle age, which I am now about to enjoy.

The denial that I described earlier is a test of character for Opposition Members. The test of character in victory is humility and the test of character in defeat is wisdom. The test for those who have adopted the position to vote against the Bill today—many of whom I respect, by the way, as individual Members of this House—is whether they will exercise such wisdom, for to vote against this Bill is not merely implausible; it is fundamentally unwise.

You will be glad to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that brings me to my concluding remarks. [Hon. Members: “No!”] I know that that will disappoint more Members than it pleases. None the less, I must make room for others to contribute. G. K. Chesterton wrote:

“How you think when you lose determines how long it will be until you win.”

I simply say to Opposition Members that how they behave now will determine how they are thought of now and into the future.

Let me finish on this note. I have spoken about my consistent position. There are critics of me—here and more broadly. [Hon. Members: “No!”] Not many, I acknowledge, but there are critics. However, one thing I cannot be criticised for is inconsistency. C. S. Lewis said that consistency is the mark of greatness. I just hope that if I remain consistent, one day I might be great, too.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Peter Bone Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong: House of Commons & Ping Pong
Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Of course not—hon. Members on the Government Benches seem to agree with my hon. Friend—but if so why remove the provision? Why not keep it in?

The Government say there is no change of policy, but the removal of clause 17 is a change of policy. They complain that leaving the provision in will act as a pull factor, but that rather indicates that what they want is a change of policy. They tell us that this is not the right Bill for the provision and that it should be in the immigration Bill, but clause 17 is context and time-specific: it directs the Government to a negotiating objective during the very time limited period—a matter of months—that they now have to agree the future relationship. As the Secretary of State has said, we cannot bind our neighbours to our national law, so that is not a valid argument against putting any other commitment in any other law. This provision only commits the Government to a negotiating aim. They say it can be done through rules, but a negotiating aim cannot be pursued through immigration rules. So which is it—is it law, is it rules, is it an aim, or is it no change at all, as they have also claimed?

The Government have said the provision would bind their hands in negotiations but then became offended at the accusation that they were using children as a bargaining chip. Again, which is it? Are children a limit on the negotiations or not? They have also justified their argument on the grounds of the election manifesto, but the only words in that manifesto were:

“we will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution”.

There is not a word in that manifesto that implies this change of policy—and it is a change of policy—on child refugees. Just saying that it is not a change does not make it so. If it is not a change of policy, why does the provision need to be removed?

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The shadow Minister brings up a hugely important area. As a former chairman of the all-party group on human trafficking and modern slavery, I consider it a very important issue. I hope the Government will commit to coming back to us, but separate from the Bill. I accept their argument that this Bill is the wrong place for this provision. It is much more important elsewhere.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point and for his partial agreement—I think—but if it is not acceptable in this Bill, why would it be acceptable in another? It is a negotiating aim, and we are told by the Secretary of State that the negotiations have already started.

To my understanding, all that has happened is that the Home Secretary has written a letter. I think that was in November. We have not yet heard what reply there has been or about any negotiations. I do not want to believe that the Government think so little of our country that they are pulling back from protection for the very small number of children that this clause originally covered. I hope that we as a country are secure enough in ourselves to be generous to those fleeing persecution. I ask Government Members to consider that this motion demonstrates a lack of compassion. The Government’s reasons are contradictory and there are no justifications in the manifesto for removing this very modest, limited but necessary provision to protect some of the most vulnerable children we can imagine.