EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and to return to the topic of my maiden speech barely a year ago, as this country prepares to take what will undoubtedly be the biggest decision of our lifetime, which will determine the direction and destiny of our nation not just in the coming days, weeks, months and years but over the course of this century.

Global power is shifting from the western economies that dominated the 20th century to the emerging giants of the 21st century. Powers are pivoting away from nation states toward global corporations, and in that context the only question that should be on people’s minds as they cast their vote next week is which route and which choice will deliver prosperity, security and opportunity in a rapidly changing and globalised world.

Globalisation is an unstoppable process. It brings many possibilities and many opportunities for our constituents and for our country, and it also brings challenges. The question for any Government, whether our Government or Governments around the world, is how to shape globalisation to serve the best interests of their people, how to mitigate its challenges and how to make the most of the possibilities. How on earth can the right answer to those questions be to say, “Stop the world—I want to get off”? Has it not been striking in the course of this debate on the economy that there has been no debate about which is the best route to achieve what I have described?

Trying to get consensus among economists is like trying to get consensus among Labour MPs or Conservative MPs about the direction of their respective parties—virtually impossible—yet it has been achieved. The overwhelming consensus of our nation’s leading economists is that our country would be more prosperous inside the European Union than outside it. The Trades Union Congress and trade union leaders argue that being in the EU is in the best interests of working people and workers’ rights. Businesses small and large say that they can make the most of the opportunities available to them if we are a member of the European Union.

Well evidenced claims have been made about the impact of leaving the EU on jobs, investment and opportunities for our workforce, but what has been the response of the leave campaign? It can be summed up in the two words uttered by Nigel Farage last weekend when he was asked about the impact of a fall in sterling: so what? I would love to be in the privileged position of not worrying about what the state of the economy means for the financial security of me and my family or that of my constituents. The truth is that when sterling falls and jobs are lost, it will not be the wealthiest who are hit but the opportunities of the vast majority of people on low and middle incomes.

The members of the leave campaign seem to have largely left the Chamber. [Interruption.] They have sailed down the Thames. However, was it not striking that we heard the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) reinvent himself as an anti-austerity campaigner? We have also heard the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) claiming to be the saviour of the NHS, repeating the untruth that £350 million a week will be saved and invested in the NHS if we leave.

It is not often that I turn to our former Prime Minister, Sir John Major, for words of wisdom and encouragement about the direction of our national health service, but did he not have it right when he pointed out how preposterous it is to believe that the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath and their friends have the best interests of the NHS at heart? Even a former Conservative Prime Minister says that we cannot trust those on the right wing of the Conservative party and their fellow travellers in UKIP with the future of our national health service, so why should we believe them?

On economic forecasts, there can be no certainty, only analysis and assumption. In picking figures, we should trust the judgment of every leading economic voice, every university leader, the leaders of our trade union movement, the leaders of our businesses, and our leaders from across the political spectrum. They have come together because they believe remaining in the EU to be in our national interest.

[Lucy Allan]

Does the hon. Gentleman also think that we should trust the voice of the people?

[Wes Streeting]

I absolutely do. I voted to give the people a choice, and I will abide by their decision next week.

I say directly to my constituents that they have an enormous responsibility resting on their shoulders. Every day since I was elected to Parliament last year—on a slim majority and against the odds—I have said that I will put their interests first. They may not always agree with me, but they will always know where I stand. Every day, in every vote, the only question in my mind is, what is best for my constituency and my country? Now, my constituents face that choice in a vote that is more important than any that Members of Parliament will take part in during this Session.

Where does our country’s future lie? Leading Europe or leaving Europe? As far as I am concerned, there is only one answer to that question if people want a future for our country that provides economic security, national security and the ability to take on the big issues and global challenges facing us in this century. That is why I urge my constituents to make the progressive, the pragmatic and the patriotic choice to remain in the European Union.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

European Affairs

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I will in just a moment.

So the question is this: should we stick with what we know, bank the gains that the Prime Minister has brought back from Brussels, and continue to fight from the inside for reform, or should we take a leap into the dark? For me, the answer is clear: I am a sceptic who will vote with my head to remain because I know in my heart that that is what is right—what is best—for Britain.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I share the Foreign Secretary’s view that what the Prime Minister has returned with is better than what we had before, but will he say something about the legal of status of the agreement, particularly the assertion by the Lord Chancellor, no less, that it is not legally binding? I respect the fact that the Lord Chancellor takes a different view from the Prime Minister, but how can his position as a senior legal Minister for the Government possibly be tenable when he is arguing that the deal is not legally binding and the Downing Street position is the precise opposite? Surely his position is untenable and Cabinet collective responsibility has been stretched too far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, when one of the Ministers who advocates Britain’s exit from the European Union was asked on television at the weekend to provide an example of red tape, he referred to health and safety. Health and safety is not red tape, a burden or regulation; it is about protecting British, German and Spanish workers when they go to work in the morning, to make sure that they can do their jobs safely and securely. If we voted to leave, we could end up with a double nightmare. Unfortunately, there would still be a Conservative Government in this country and, given past records, I am not entirely sure that I would trust them to ensure that we keep the rights we currently have.

There is an even more important reason why we should remain a member of the EU: Britain’s influence in the world is strengthened by our membership. It promotes interdependence through trade and advances our economic security, because it works to tackle conflict and other global challenges, and it helps to protect us from crime and terrorism. There is nothing patriotic about diminishing the United Kingdom’s ability to make its voice heard by other nations. Stumbling out of Europe and pulling up the drawbridge would serve only to harm our position and influence in the world.

The global economic crash of 2007-08 shook the public’s faith in the ability of Governments, regulators and institutions to protect them. What it really brought home to us is the need for more, not less, co-operation with other countries, and stronger multilateral institutions, not weaker ones. If we are going to deal with the problem of big companies that show an aversion to paying tax, Europe is a very good place to start.

We should also acknowledge that the growth in the number of member states of the EU has been a very powerful force for change for the better on our continent. The prospect of membership offered the former communist states of central and eastern Europe a really powerful incentive to meet the conditions for joining. They were creating an alliance built on the values of democracy, respect for human rights, free media, the rule of law and individual freedom. As the Foreign Secretary made clear, that also helped us to be stronger in facing up to aggression and problems around the world. There is no doubt that the sanctions agreed against Russia have had an impact. They are biting. Although the Minsk agreement has not been fully implemented—the conflict is frozen—it was precisely because Europe was united and determined that we were able to have that impact. Let us be absolutely clear: Russia would see Britain’s exit from the EU as a sign of our weakness. It would see it as a sign of European weakness at the very moment when, in the face of that threat, we need to maintain our collective strength. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) wants to intervene, I will of course give way.

The deal with Iran is another really good example. Europe came together in solidarity and achieved something that many people thought would not be possible. We have heard reference to the action, through Operation Atalanta, to deal with piracy off the horn of Africa. Look at the sanctions on Burma. We are just about to see something we never thought possible: Aung San Suu Kyi’s party taking power by democratic change. Europe’s voice in saying that what the previous regime had done was not acceptable was a powerful force for good in the world.

These collective displays of solidarity remind us of the power, working with our European allies, to do good. I have to say the current problems in Syria remind us of our failure in that particular conflict.

[Wes Streeting]

In the event of a leave vote, there are only two possibilities: either we want to remain part of a single market and are therefore subject to pretty much exactly the same rules as we are now, in which case what is the point of the referendum; or we seek not just to realign our trading approach towards the rest of the world, but realign British foreign policy away from the democracies of western Europe and the north Atlantic to the dictatorships of the east. Surely that would not be either in our national interests or in the interests of western liberal democracy. I cannot understand why so many Conservative Members, who expect us to go out to bat for Britain at European Council summits, somehow expect our fellow European states to do otherwise in the event of a leave vote, in which case we will be punished.

[Hilary Benn]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. I have just tried to demonstrate to the House the benefit that working with our European allies in trying to be a force for good in the world has brought. I was just in the process of saying that Syria is a terrible example of the world’s collective failure. Like the Foreign Secretary, in his comments at Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions on Tuesday, we hope very much that the ceasefire will be implemented and upheld. However, that really depends on Russia, hence the point that I was making earlier.

What every single one of these examples teaches us is that we need stronger, not weaker, international co-operation. At this moment in this century, it would be extraordinary folly for our country to turn its back on this vital international alliance if we wished to help shape world events. That is why Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary-General of NATO, said:

“Britain is a global player and a strong EU will also make sure that NATO has a strong partner in the European Union when we are facing the same security threats”.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. Fortuitously, I was in Japan on Friday conducting a strategic dialogue with my Japanese counterpart. The strategic defence and security review published last autumn identified Japan as Britain’s principal security partner in Asia. That will continue to be the case and we are building that security partnership while strengthening our trade and investment partnership.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

T8. Ahead of his visit to Sri Lanka shortly, will the Minister give an undertaking to the House to raise with the Sri Lankan Government, notwithstanding the progress they are making, the recent allegations of human rights abuses, the demilitarisation of the north, political detainees and, crucially, the international involvement of judges and prosecutors to give everyone the confidence we need that people will be brought to justice for human rights violations and war crimes?

[Mr Swire]

Indeed, I will commit to that, and I thank the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues from the all-party Sri Lanka and Tamil groups for coming to a meeting with me yesterday where we shaped some of the ideas I might pursue in my forthcoming visit.

Europe: Renegotiation

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is quite a tragic predicament to find many highly qualified, very well-educated young men and women who feel that they have no option but to take an unskilled, low-paid job in another European country because they cannot find work at home. The long-term answer to that challenge must in large part lie in the ability of national Governments and the European Union to generate resurgent economic growth and add to opportunities for employment.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Can I cheer up the Minister by assuring him that pro-EU, pro-reform Members on this side of the House warmly welcome his statement today? What would be the Government’s position in the event of an out vote? Members on these Benches remember the ‘90s, and we do not want to see this Prime Minister marching out into the rose garden and inviting the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) to put up or shut up. We want the Prime Minister to tell us where he stands; we do not want that lot dictating what happens in the event of an out vote.

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind thoughts, but I always strive to continue to be cheerful in this job. The result of the referendum will be regarded by the Government as binding. This is a sovereign decision for the British people as a whole to take, and I am proud that it is my party and a Conservative Government that are finally giving the British people the right to take that decision.

Tamils Rights: Sri Lanka

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

I do not suggest for a minute that it is not right to learn lessons. It is right to learn lessons from anyone’s experience in business, in one’s personal life and, indeed, in government. That is why I referred earlier to the British Government’s experience in Northern Ireland. There are many things that they might have done differently or, in hindsight, might never have done. Importantly, the peace process in Northern Ireland came from within.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jayawardena]

Let me make a little progress and then I certainly will. It is important that the unity Government has been formed in Sri Lanka, because it allows for a sense of everyone having a seat at the table and the opportunity to have their say. Importantly, it allows everyone to be heard.

I do not believe that anyone present is saying that war is pretty. It certainly was war, and things might well have been done differently on both sides.

I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) said about the importance of keeping distinct the work that his all-party group is doing to champion the rights of Tamil people and its opposition to the terrorism of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Let us not forget that it was the LTTE, which I accept no one here supports, who perfected the suicide belt and were the first to use women as suicide bombers. Those are disgusting acts that no one present would support; indeed, I am sure that everyone would condemn them.

The vast majority of people in Sri Lanka, on both sides, wanted peace. They never wanted the war, so it is important that we move forward and learn the lessons of the past in whatever way we can. It is important to be fair to both sides.

[Wes Streeting]

I have family who suffered at the hands of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and through the misconducts and misdeeds of the British Government over many years, but is the hon. Gentleman seriously comparing the British Government’s involvement in Northern Ireland with the appalling acts of brutality and war crimes committed by the Sri Lankan Government? I find that unbelievable.

[Mr Jayawardena]

I am making the point that it is possible to learn lessons. It is possible for the British Government to have learned lessons, and it is right that the Sri Lankan Government learn lessons about their past. The hon. Gentleman is right to make that point, but I am not suggesting that the two are one and the same. Nevertheless, the point about learning lessons is important.

In the interests of time, I will say very briefly that it is important that any future work is fair to both sides, and that there is not a witch hunt on either side. People in Northern Ireland have entered into the democratic process, which is absolutely right; that is the direction in which I believe Sri Lanka needs to go.

There is a part to play for the Foreign Office in ensuring more trade and investment between our country and Sri Lanka, because as the latter becomes a more prosperous nation, it is possible—indeed, it becomes easier—for everyone to work together and share in prosperity. That is the way to make sure that Sri Lanka goes from strength to strength while ensuring that lessons are learned from the years that have passed.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I want very briefly to make some constructive suggestions on how the international component of any mechanism looking into what went on in Sri Lanka could work. It is crucial that tomorrow’s report represents the beginning of international action on behalf of Sri Lanka’s victims, not the conclusion of the issue. If the international community, including the UK, fails to fulfil its role in providing international oversight, perpetrators of war crimes and continued human rights abuses will never be brought to justice.

Such international pressure could include the following recommendations, all made by the International Truth and Justice Project Sri Lanka. First, a special envoy for human rights in Sri Lanka should be appointed to go beyond the offering of technical assistance alone. Secondly, the protection of witnesses must be ensured to internationally accepted standards. Thirdly, the forthcoming Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights report should be referred to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court for further action. Fourthly, the Secretary-General’s special representative on sexual violence in conflict and the special rapporteur on torture should be pushed to visit Sri Lanka and initiate a special inquiry into rape and sexual violence. Finally, Sri Lankan police and military involvement in UN peacekeeping missions should be suspended.

We cannot let limited national mechanisms fail to provide the victims of inhumanity with the fairness and justice that they truly deserve. As a silent war against historical and ongoing human rights abuses continues, the international community can and must do more.

[Wes Streeting]

rose—

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind you, Mr Streeting, that I am hoping to move on to the wind-ups at 10 past.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Brady. I will keep my eye on the clock and, with the limited time I have, build on the points made by others, rather than repeating them.

I thank the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) for securing this debate and for the energetic way he has taken up his role as chair of the all-party group on Tamils. I am proud to be one of his vice-chairs. In the detailed speech he gave to introduce the debate, we heard an indication of the crimes that were committed during the civil war. When it is published tomorrow, I hope that the report begins to build even greater international attention and focus not only on what took place but on what continues to happen in Sri Lanka, and the effect on its population, particularly the Tamil community who still reside in the north of the country, as well as the Tamils around the world, including in our constituencies, who feel that they cannot return home for fear of further persecution.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) that tomorrow really must be the start and not the conclusion. The level of independent international accountability—accountability that many have campaigned for—does not go far enough. The Sri Lankan Government have obfuscated and stalled every step of the way. I welcome the work done by Gordon Brown’s Government, and successive Governments since, to put the issue on the agenda. There can be no justice without accountability. We cannot trust the domestic structures in Sri Lanka to ensure genuine accountability for the crimes that took place, which is why independent international mechanisms will be so important.

In the limited time remaining, I want to add to the Minister’s list of things to respond to by asking about how the Home Office responds to asylum applications. To give a recent example, a constituent of mine, a victim of torture in Sri Lanka, who has been here for years and has demonstrable evidence of torture—not just mental torture, but the physical scars of torture—has seen his case continually delayed. After the suffering that he has experienced, he should not have to experience further suffering at the hands of our broken immigration system. I hope that those in the Foreign Office can relay that to their colleagues in the Home Office. On that point, Mr Brady, not wanting to draw your ire, I will take my seat.

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

We have up to 20 minutes for three Front-Bench wind-ups. I suspect that all Members present want the Minister to be able to respond to the points.

European Union Referendum Bill

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the well argued and reasoned case made so plain to all of us by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green).

I am also delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who I know from his outstanding leadership in local government will be a strong champion for his area. He and I come from the ranks of local government, and we will both be strong voices for local government in the House during this Parliament.

I am pleased to have my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) next to me in the Chamber this afternoon. Without him, I can honestly say that I would not be here. I must also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), who is attending to some other matters outside the Chamber, for recruiting me to the Labour party some 17 years ago. He and I might not always see eye to eye on the question of Europe, but in the case of both my hon. Friends I could not ask for better parliamentary neighbours, mentors or indeed friends.

It is customary to pay tribute to former Members during a maiden speech and I am happy to report that I have been aided in the task by a note from a constituent providing an appraisal of each of my predecessors to have represented my area, whether the old Wanstead and Woodford constituency or, since 1945, Ilford North. He describes my Labour predecessor, Linda Perham, as “quite outstanding”, which is some accolade given that he describes his first MP, a certain Sir Winston Churchill, as “most unsatisfactory”. I cannot comment on the contribution of one of Britain’s most celebrated Prime Ministers as a constituency MP—some around the House and in the other place may be able to enlighten me—but I wholeheartedly endorse my constituent’s remarks about Linda Perham. A librarian, councillor and former mayor of the London borough of Redbridge, Linda arrived in Parliament in 1997, having lived in Ilford North for more than 25 years. Her commitment to public service has continued since she left this place in 2005.

In paying tribute to my immediate and Conservative predecessor, I do so with a warmth and sincerity that is rather unusual following such a closely fought race as ours. I have known Lee Scott for a number of years and our differences have always been political and never personal. He was characteristically affable in the campaign and gracious in defeat. His service to the people of Ilford North and the London borough of Redbridge more widely, both as a councillor and as a Member of this House, is rightly recognised and celebrated. Lee’s work on autism and on human rights in Sri Lanka, in particular, earned him the respect of people across the political spectrum. I wish him and his family the very best for the future.

Ilford North is a large constituency, at least by London’s standards, ranging from Woodford in the west to Hainault in the east. Many have moved to my constituency with dreams of a larger home, good local schools for their children and a better quality of life. Some, like me, have walked a well trodden path from London’s east end, while others made their journey across countries and continents with the promise of decent work and better lives, or sanctuary from persecution. The diversity of my constituency, our community cohesion and the role that migrants have played in shaping our part of London is something I am proud of.

Ilford North is a great place to live, though it is not without its challenges. Our schools are excellent, but oversubscribed. Our NHS services are cherished, but people are waiting too long to see a GP and to get a hospital appointment. Post-war housing development has given generations the chance to enjoy our country parks and open spaces, but rents are becoming unaffordable and home ownership is a pipe dream for too many.

None of those challenges would be addressed by withdrawal from the European Union. The referendum debate will inevitably centre on the economic benefits, and many of those arguments about jobs, trade and inward investment are already well rehearsed and well made by British businesses of all sizes and from all industries. However, the debate extends beyond the simple question of Britain’s continued membership of the European Union to a far bigger question about who we are and where we see ourselves in the world. On the big issues of our age—eradicating poverty and inequality, tackling climate change and safeguarding the security of every citizen—nation states are no longer able to triumph by acting alone.

Globalisation was a trend foreseen by Sir Winston Churchill when he spoke in this House in 1950 of the growing “interdependence of nations”. It presents challenges. Many of my constituents feel left behind. Their concerns deserve to be heard and need to be addressed, but the truth is that withdrawal from the European Union will lead us on a race to the bottom in which deregulation, labour market volatility and a weakening of our industrial base will worsen their living standards. Globalisation presents a world of opportunity for this small island to punch above its weight in the 21st century, if we are willing to seize that opportunity and ensure that every community has a stake in it.

We should be leading Europe, not leaving Europe. This is a question that will define our future for generations to come and it is right that the next generation should have their say. I am proud of the numbers of young people we got involved in my campaign in Ilford North. Like the young Scots who voted in the independence referendum, they are a credit to their generation and demonstrate that they are ready to play a part in shaping their future, which is why I support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. It is their future, as much as ours, that is at stake. I want to see young people from all backgrounds in my constituency daring to dream and backed to succeed. Whether they want to be scientists or business leaders, artists or engineers, they will have the world as their oyster only if they grow up in a country willing to play a leading role on the international stage.

This is the central test for our new Government: will they bequeath a nation more divided at home and more isolated abroad, or will they forge a future in which prosperity is shared and Britain looks to Europe and the wider world with optimism, confidence and leadership? For as long as I continue to enjoy this privilege of representing the people of Ilford North, I will fight for a future in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Every day that I arrive in this place, I will never forget who sent me here. I will be relentless in advocating their cause and campaigning to serve their interests.