Leaving the European Union

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson.

We have had a good debate. Much of it has been very familiar in subject and theme, but the petition has succeeded in achieving something that I never thought I would see, which is that everybody who has spoken has been in agreement on the undesirability of accepting the instruction contained in it. I have been in so many Brexit debates during the past year and a half and that has never happened before, so we should at least acknowledge it. We have managed to find many things to disagree about, none the less.

It will not surprise anybody to know that I fundamentally disagree with the petition. The very first line says that we should

“walk away from the Article 50 negotiations and leave the EU immediately with no deal.”

We have agreed to take part in negotiations, as we accepted we would when we triggered article 50. It is suggested that we should walk away and not complete that task. I do not think, and clearly nobody here believes, that that would be the right thing for the United Kingdom to do.

I speak as somebody who campaigned for remain. We all seem to have to tell our little Brexit biography when we make these speeches. I campaigned for remain; my constituency voted 56% to leave. To be completely honest, that caused me to reflect, to think and to listen incredibly hard to what my constituents were telling me through that vote and what they expected me to do about it. Having promised throughout the campaign that I would honour, respect and abide by the outcome of the referendum, that is what I intend to do and what I have done through the triggering of article 50 and the process subsequently. But the listening is two-way. I have had to explain to my constituents that this is a process and it will take far longer and use up far more energy than I think any of us would really like, but it needs that energy, focus and attention from Parliament and the Government in order to result in a good deal.

I have days when I pretty much think, “Oh my goodness, why are we doing this?” You want it to stop. I think the public are bored with much of this, if I am honest. There was a time when Brexit was the first thing that people spoke about, it was the topic of heated conversation down the pub, but I think that for many people that is declining now. Since the general election, the debate has been moving on and there is growing acceptance that Brexit is going to happen, but that makes the responsibility all the more keenly felt by us that we must deliver a deal that is worthy of our country.

Whenever we discuss these things, we inevitably talk a great deal about trade and about WTO tariffs and crashing out. I heard the admonishment from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) about the term “crashing out”, but his colleagues used it, so I am using it as well; we all know what we mean. We talk about what a disaster that could be for this country, and particularly for certain sectors. It is true that some businesses and sectors and possibly some parts of the country could withstand it, but I do not believe that my region, the north-east, could do so. The National Farmers Union has been clear that farmers would have a lot to say about 30% or 40% tariffs on exports to the EU. The automotive sector would have an awful lot to say. I think that the customs checks that would need to be implemented overnight, for which we are not prepared, would have a disastrous effect on our ports and airports. The port of Dover estimates that even a two-minute delay in the time taken to process each lorry would result in 17 miles of tailbacks. The people of Kent would not thank us for that.

We also talk very often about the impact on financial services and the immediate loss of passporting, which enables banks to do business across the EU without setting up subsidiaries or relocating. The Financial Conduct Authority says that 5,467 firms rely on passporting rights. The immediate loss of that would be a catastrophe for that sector. The UK has a trade surplus of £11 billion in services, and the loss of passporting would be disruptive, expensive and incredibly time consuming.

We really do not know what the impact would be in the wider economy. We suspect that it would probably not be good. It would be good, responsible and transparent government if some impact assessments were conducted and published. I do not intend to go round that whole debate again this evening, but it has not helped confidence in the Government’s handling of this process to have had the row about impact assessments. I am thinking of the misleading statements that were made about whether or not there are impact assessments and what they consist of, and the embarrassment that must surely have been felt by the Department about that whole saga.

Another thing that is said is, “You have voted now. You have triggered article 50. What about the withdrawal Bill?” The reason we are undertaking the whole process of the withdrawal Bill is so that we can align our rules with those of the EU once the Bill has passed. It has not passed yet, so were we to leave before that Bill has passed, we would have massive holes in our book of rules—how we run the country. Even when it has passed, one could say that not much would change in terms of regulation and red tape. The Government have done that, although we think they are doing this process incredibly badly. One could say that the Government are doing it deliberately in this way so that a deal can be made more easily once the withdrawal Bill has passed and we reach the end of negotiations.

All the Bill does is enshrine EU regulations in law, but it does not provide on its own for reciprocal recognition; that would need to be part of a future relationship agreement. It is not properly understood that the withdrawal agreement the Government are negotiating and the future relationship agreement or deal, which is probably of the most interest to our constituents, are separate things. There is a good chance that we will not know the future relationship—the future trade deal or whatever form it happens to take—by March 2019, so it would be very dangerous indeed to leave the European Union now, before that process is complete.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The hon. Lady has admitted that we had a good and constructive debate about how we all need to have a good deal. Is there not a danger that we end up with a good deal that we all agree with, but it will look very much like being a member of the European Union? In the end, everyone who voted, for leave or remain, will look at it all and say, “What was all this about and why did we go through all this pain when the end is similar—just a little bit worse—to what we had as members of the European Union?”

[Jenny Chapman]

I do not know what deal the Government are going to make. I hope that they are capable of making something better than no deal. If the phrase “No deal is better than a bad deal” ever meant anything, it is losing whatever credence it had. I do not know how little confidence they have in their own negotiators that they would come back with something that bad. It is important that the deal we reach protects jobs and the economy. I think that is what the hon. Lady wants, but the Labour party recognises that it is also important that the deal recognises the outcome of the referendum. That is a difficult thing to achieve and a difficult thing to encapsulate in a single sentence. That is where the negotiations will succeed or fail, because the deal that is reached must settle the relationship we have with the European Union for 20 or 30 years, perhaps longer. We cannot have a perpetual state of negotiation and renegotiation, and referendum after referendum.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Does the hon. Lady agree that, from that point of view, EFTA membership is very attractive? One of the big concerns and reservations my constituents have is around ever closer union. EFTA gives us the benefit of a close relationship and a trading relationship without the political institutions, but still delivers that close and special partnership with the European Union.

[Jenny Chapman]

Well, it could, but we should not be so lacking in imagination that we cannot conceive of alternatives that may also offer benefits, without being tied to an existing form or treaty. Sometimes we disappear down the rabbit hole of the customs union, the single market and existing forms of arrangement. Actually, we might be able to do better than that. Let us keep those on the table, rather than do what the Prime Minister thought she was doing in the Florence speech and take them away. It is conceivable that something else may be possible. The option the hon. Lady outlined does have the benefits she describes and it should never be written off without proper debate and negotiation. I fear that that is what the Government initially attempted to do. Although post-phase 1, one could argue that that is back in play—we shall see.

Another thing that frequently comes up in these debates is the plight of UK citizens in Europe and EU citizens in the UK. People have been described as bargaining chips in this process, so what would happen to those bargaining chips if the negotiations did collapse because we walked away? They would be left in a very precarious situation indeed. They would have no status and no rights, and that is not a situation that we should take lightly. I am pleased that hon. Members have made that point in this debate and it ought to be something we consider very carefully.

There are also the issues of crime, counter-terrorism, exchange of data, the arrangements we have with Europol and the European arrest warrant. We are a member of all of those things by virtue of the fact that we are part of the European Union. It may be that we can have separate deals on those issues—who knows? But we certainly would not if we just walked away, as the petition urges us to do. We would also become less attractive to future trade partners. The public perception of the incompetence of this Government would only be enhanced were they to take that route—so perhaps there is something in it—but it is difficult to imagine a worse outcome for Britain than failing to agree a deal.

The issue of Northern Ireland and the Irish border may be the most difficult to solve. Looking at the approach the Government intend to take, I do not think anybody should have anything to do with these negotiations until they have been to the border and spoken to people who live there, community leaders and business leaders in Northern Ireland, because it is the most critical issue for anybody living in that part of the world that there is no return to any form of infrastructure on the border. One can conceive of any number of possibilities, such as a digital border, light-touch border checks and arrangements for small businesses but not for others. All those things are possible, but I tell the Minister that any kind of infrastructure on that border will make peace and the conduct of daily life in that part of the world impossible, and that must not be allowed to happen.

It is good that phase 1 rules out the prospect of a separate deal for Northern Ireland and some kind of border down the Irish sea. That is welcome. There needs to be a solution that preserves the integrity of the Union, but one cannot then say that we will have any other kind of border infrastructure on the island of Ireland. I am very interested to find out quite how we solve that in the context of what was agreed in phase 1. The statements made on the alignment of regulations are fascinating. Now that those things are going to be put into a legal document, we will have to get some real resolution to these questions and not the fudge and clever use of words we have seen so far.

I have heard other people say, “Oh, you are catastrophising when you talk about Northern Ireland in that way.” We are not. There are still shootings in Northern Ireland—61 incidents last year. There are still people active in that part of the world who are prepared to use those methods. That is not something we should take lightly. Many of my constituents fought in Northern Ireland and they understand what this means. Whether they voted to leave or remain, they understand that this is not a question that can just be skirted over or somehow dismissed. It needs a proper resolution and any outcome that reinstates a hard border would be fought against by my constituents, even those who voted to leave.

Another reason for us to reject the petition is consistency. The Labour manifesto in 2017 said that

“leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a ‘cliff-edge’ for the economy.”

Some of the Prime Minister’s words can be interpreted as almost agreeing with that sense of needing a transitional period and being willing to negotiate in that way. That is welcome, and we should say that it is, but she now has to deliver that and keep the confidence of her parliamentary party while she does so—let us hope that she can.

Nobody voted to be poorer, to lose their job, for chaos or to be less safe. That is what would happen if we accepted the petition, as we are urged to do. It is very good indeed that everybody here agrees that that would be a bad outcome. If we can take anything away from today, it is that we accept that a deal is the best outcome and that walking away with no deal would be a disaster for the UK and is something that we should resist as far as we can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Fernandes]

As my hon. Friend rightly points out, the European Court of Human Rights arises from the European convention on human rights, totally separate from the European Union and its legal structures. It is a source of much of our rights culture here in the UK, transposed through the Human Rights Act 1998. She is right that we are, and will continue to be, bound to honour that document and the decisions of that court.

[Jenny Chapman]

I am listening to what the Minister is saying, and I have a lot of time for the interventions from the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach). I represent a leave seat and, to be completely candid, nobody has raised concerns with me about the ECJ being involved in issues such as nuclear safeguards or even EU citizens’ rights in this country. In those limited respects, and possibly much more widely, no one has raised it with me. It is slightly misleading to suggest that there is huge outcry and dissent about that particular issue. I do not believe that it is true, and it is not borne out by any of the discussions in my leave seat.

[Suella Fernandes]

I must disagree with the hon. Lady. I think that sovereignty, whether it is parliamentary or legal sovereignty, were key factors in the referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Chapman]

On nuclear safeguards?

[Suella Fernandes]

On many issues. Whether on immigration, on which the ECJ has the final say, or on nuclear safeguards, ending the ECJ’s jurisdiction is integral to leaving the European Union, and the two cannot be divorced.

To resume my point—in the UK, EU citizens’ rights will be upheld by implementing the agreement in UK law. In the interest of the consistent interpretation of citizens’ rights, the UK has agreed that a narrow group of issues will be referred to the ECJ for interpretation, with due regard to whether relevant case law already exists. That will be up to our courts and they will make the final judgment, not the ECJ. In practical terms, that is a very limited role: our courts refer only two or three cases of that kind to the ECJ every year. In any case, there is a sunset clause after which that voluntary reference to the ECJ will come to an end. In short, any continuing role for the ECJ in our legal system will be voluntary, narrowly defined, and time limited.

A further reason why the Government seek to continue their negotiations with the EU rather than to leave before March 2019 is the advantage gained by securing an implementation period, as set out by the Prime Minister in her Florence speech. The implementation period will be strictly time-limited and mutually beneficial —it will be in everyone’s interests. Let me be clear: it is about not delay, but preparation.

An implementation period is essential to make the most of Brexit. We want to leave the EU, but we want to leave successfully. We want to base the long-term trajectory of our country as an independent nation outside the EU on prosperity, growth and taking back control. The best way to achieve that is by causing the least disruption.

An implementation period is important because businesses and public services will have to plan for only one set of changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU. At the end of that period, all our systems, procedures and structure will be in place and ready to go. There will not be one set of changes in 2019 and one at a later date. Many hon. Members have spoken on behalf of the business community, which has been clear about the importance of the implementation period to its planning. An implementation period provides certainty, which is a clear advantage and one of the key reasons why the Government are seeking to make a beneficial deal with the EU, rather than to leave prior to March 2019.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this interesting debate. To reiterate, there is no doubt that we are leaving the EU, the customs union and the single market. We are seeking a new future partnership with the EU in the second phase of negotiations, and we neither want nor expect a “no deal” or a “punishment deal”. We are confident that we can achieve a mutually beneficial deal that delivers on the will of the British people.

The next phase will not be easy—far from it. We can expect difficult moments and challenges.

[Jenny Chapman]

Will the Minister give way?

[Suella Fernandes]

I will not, because I have been generous in giving way and accepting many interventions.

It is now important for talks to move forward so that we can work towards agreeing the terms of our future relationship. We want to maintain the beneficial trading relationship between the two parties. We aspire to continue to co-operate on an array of areas. We also want to lead the world in global trade by striking trade agreements with countries outside the European Union. We need to devise our own independent immigration policy and restore judicial sovereignty to UK courts. As the Prime Minister set out, we will leave the EU on 29 March 2019 in accordance with article 50. We want to give businesses and the public the certainty that they need to ensure a smooth transition.

As elected representatives, we all have a duty to honour the result of that historic 2016 vote. It was a vote of confidence in Britain, in our democracy, in our country forging a new path, and in a country free to harness its people’s abilities, talents and genius—

[Jenny Chapman]

On a point of order, Mr Hanson.

[David Hanson (in the Chair)]

I very much hope it is a point of order.

[Jenny Chapman]

I would not let you down, Mr Hanson. Is it in order for a Minister to decline to take an intervention when she has 25 minutes remaining and she has not addressed many issues that have been discussed, including Northern Ireland and the border?

[David Hanson (in the Chair)]

I am grateful for the point of order, but the Minister has the Floor. She can give way or not, according to her preference.