Oral Answers to Questions

David Jones Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to involve representatives of the English regions in the Government’s preparations for the UK leaving the EU.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

Mr Speaker, it is nice to be here. The Government are committed to securing a deal that works for the entire United Kingdom, including all parts of England. The Department for Exiting the European Union and the Department for Communities and Local Government are working closely with the Local Government Association and regional partners across the country to understand clearly the issues related to exit and to identify any regional differences. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Secretary of State has already committed to bringing the newly elected combined authority mayors in England together for a summit in the summer.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the Minister for that answer. At departmental questions some weeks ago, the Secretary of State agreed to hold a meeting in York for the mayors of the north to make sure the region’s interests were properly represented. With Yorkshire’s devolution deals proving challenging to agree, will the Secretary of State agree also to invite the leaders of those areas not represented by a mayor?

[Mr Jones]

The Government are committed to securing a deal that works for the whole United Kingdom, including every part of England. DExEU Ministers have visited Yorkshire on a number of occasions, and that includes the Secretary of State’s visit in November. I am sure he will be willing to consider another visit after the election.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The north-east has benefited hugely from investment and funding from the European Union—a counterbalance to the neglect of this and other Tory Governments. What guarantee will the Minister offer that the repatriation of powers from the European Union will not mean further concentration of powers in Whitehall and that powers will be devolved to the north-east and other regions?

[Mr Jones]

After the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, we will give full consideration to further devolution to bring powers as close as possible to all parts of the country. We are committed to securing a deal that works for the north-east, and Ministers have visited every part of England, and that includes a recent visit to Sunderland and Peterlee to talk to local people about manufacturing issues.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

On his visits around the regions of the UK, will the Minister make it clear that to deliver the Prime Minister’s commitment to take back control of our money, our laws and our borders, we must leave the single market, leave the customs union and establish sovereign control of our borders and all the maritime waters within the exclusive economic zone?

[Mr Jones]

My right hon. Friend has set out the Government’s position admirably.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

Visiting the north-east is always a good thing to do, and we are very happy to have the Minister, but he does need to listen while he is there. The Engineering Employers Federation has warned that walking away with no deal would condemn north-east manufacturing to

“a painful and costly Brexit.”

The EEF wants the Government, instead of posturing, to focus on obtaining full World Trade Organisation membership, a clear position on customs and a sensible transition period. Why are the Government not listening to the needs of manufacturers in the north?

[Mr Jones]

On the contrary, we deal regularly with manufacturing industry. Indeed, I recently had a meeting with the EEF that was very successful. The fact of the matter is that we are intending to seek the best possible free trade agreement with the continuing European Union. Our position will be, however, unlike that of Labour, that no deal is better than a bad deal. I find it extraordinary that the Opposition seem to think it sensible to go to the negotiating chamber expecting to have no deal.

[Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)]

9. What discussions he has had with the Attorney General on which provisions in the great repeal Bill may require the Government to legislate on devolved matters before the UK leaves the EU.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

We have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. We fully respect the Sewel convention and have been working closely with the devolved Administrations, particularly through the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations.

[Natalie McGarry]

Before asking my last question in this House, may I thank you, Mr Speaker, your staff, and the outstanding House staff across all areas, and wish colleagues right across the House every success in the coming months?

Can the Minister confirm whether the great repeal Bill will require legislative consent from the devolved Assemblies—yes or no?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for her warm remarks, which are very much appreciated.

[Mr Jones]

Similarly, Mr Speaker, may I express my best wishes to the hon. Lady for the future?

The question of whether a legislative consent motion will be required for the great repeal Bill will of course depend on the form and content of the great repeal Bill, which will be published in the next Parliament.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend received a report on the Scottish Affairs Committee’s visit to Brussels on Monday and Tuesday this week? If so, does he share my delight that it was made absolutely clear throughout those discussions that the European Union is interested only in negotiating with the United Kingdom Government and not with the Scottish Government?

[Mr Jones]

Yes, I did note that. The position is quite clear—it is member states that negotiate with the European Union. Given that this country voted as a single country to leave the European Union, we should be expecting the support of the Scottish National party and not what it is doing at the moment.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

18. Actually, by the Tories’ logic, Scotland voted twice to remain in the European Union because they told us in 2014 that a vote against independence was a vote to remain in the European Union. Statutory instruments are not usually subject to a legislative consent motion, but if statutory instruments that affect devolved areas are going to be created as a result of the great repeal Bill, will the Government commit to ensuring that there is consent from the devolved Assemblies before they take effect?

[Mr Jones]

It is very likely that the necessary competencies will be created to allow the devolved Assemblies themselves to make those statutory instruments.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Many have criticised the Government’s plans to make minor and technical changes to legislation using so-called Henry VIII powers, but this is in fact no more than plans to use delegated legislation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the use of delegated legislation is actually an established part of the legislative procedures used in this House?

[Mr Jones]

Yes, my hon. Friend is entirely right. Any such statutory instruments would be made pursuant to statute, which would of course go through this House and the other place in the normal way.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Ian Mearns. Not here.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

12. What steps he is taking to ensure protection of the Welsh sheep meat trade in negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

The Government are working hard to get the very best deal for the United Kingdom—a free trade deal with the EU that is more ambitious than any other trade deal yet struck. We are considering and analysing the impact of future trading arrangements on all sectors of our economy, including agriculture, developing policies to support our vision for a global Britain that is producing more, selling more and exporting more.

[Paul Flynn]

That answer was characteristically vacuous and meaningless: could the Minister try to concentrate? Welsh farmers are saying that the door is open to New Zealand competition that could clear Welsh lamb off the shelves because of the price, and the door is not open to new markets in the United States, although that was promised. The Minister will understand the cultural priority of maintaining life on Welsh farms, where one of the most ancient languages in the whole of Europe prospers at its purest and best. Is it not a major priority for the Government to give a guarantee to Welsh farmers?

[Mr Jones]

May I say that I represent many more Welsh farmers than the hon. Gentleman does, and that I intend to continue to do so after the general election? The Government are intent on securing the best possible free trade agreement for this country, which will benefit all farmers, including Welsh farmers. Furthermore, we intend to ensure that Welsh exports continue after the general election.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I do, Mr Speaker; thank you. Welsh sheep are an important part of the farming sector in Wales, but the farming community as a whole, throughout the UK, is looking for reassurance that it will be supported as we leave the European Union. I have a very large agricultural sector in Sleaford and North Hykeham, and I would be grateful for the Secretary of State’s reassurance that the farming sector will be protected as we leave the European Union.

[Mr David Jones]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The agricultural sector is of particular importance in the forthcoming negotiations. We have already increased the number of exports from the British farming sector. We are currently in the process, for example, of negotiations to open the market for UK lamb to Saudi Arabia. There are a host of other opportunities out there, which will be available to us once we have left the European Union.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Tom Pursglove on question 15. [Interruption.] Aah, excellent! I was rather hoping that the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) would beetle into the Chamber just in time. In fact, I was prolonging the previous exchange in the confident expectation that he would arrive. He has done so, so we will reinstate question 13.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

19. What recent discussions his Department has had with the aerospace industry on the negotiations for the UK leaving the EU.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

Engagement with industry is a central element of our plan to build a national consensus around our negotiating position. The Department has been listening and talking to aerospace manufacturers and industry groups across the UK and internationally, including Rolls-Royce, Airbus, ADS and the aerospace growth partnership.

[Henry Smith]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your forbearance, if nothing else. [Interruption.] And for much more. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister welcome Boeing’s investment in the new hangar maintenance facility at Gatwick airport as proof of the expanding aviation sector, even post Brexit?

[Mr Jones]

Yes, indeed. Boeing has announced 100 new jobs at its facility at Gatwick. Aviation and the aerospace industry are vital parts of our economy, and we have no doubt that they will continue to thrive after we have left the European Union.

[Robert Courts]

I am grateful to the Minister for mentioning Airbus, which has a very large component at RAF Brize Norton in my constituency. Will the Minister please tell me what discussions he has had with such companies to reassure them that in a post-Brexit Britain, not only will their supply chains be secure, but they will be well placed to make the most of a global, outward-facing Britain?

[Mr Jones]

I have had several discussions with various aerospace companies, including Airbus, which I met in Bristol recently. We do understand that supply chains across Europe are heavily integrated, but there is a clear mutual interest in agreeing trading arrangements. The British aerospace industry is the most important in Europe, and there is a mutual interest in ensuring that the relationships persist beyond Brexit.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

14. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for International Trade on securing a comprehensive trade and customs agreement which provides the exact same benefits which the UK receives as a member of the single market and customs union.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

I think it is me again, Sir. This question was due to be linked with Question 10. The ministerial team have frequent discussions with colleagues across Departments, including the Department for International Trade, on our future relationship with the European Union. One of the Government’s key objectives in the negotiations is to secure a mutually beneficial customs agreement. We are also committed to pursuing a bold and ambitious free trade agreement of greater scope and ambition than any such agreement before it.

[Alex Cunningham]

In the circumstances, perhaps I should be glad to get any answer. Does the Minister agree with the International Trade Secretary that it needs to be easier to hire and fire workers in the UK?

[Mr Jones]

Our commitment to the security of workers’ rights has been well stated many times—indeed, we actually held a debate in Government time to ensure that that point was well made—and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should raise the issue yet again.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The Minister of State, as a near constituency neighbour, will know that car manufacturing is a vital part of the Shropshire economy. Will he give an undertaking to my constituents today that he will ensure that any free trade agreement will protect car manufacturing not only in Shropshire, but throughout the west midlands and the United Kingdom?

[Mr Jones]

A free trade agreement would clearly be of huge benefit not only to Land Rover in Shropshire, but to many other motor manufacturers around the country. As I have said, we are seeking an ambitious free trade agreement that will provide a host of opportunities right across the world for our manufacturers.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that paragraph 19 of the European Council’s draft guidelines for the negotiations on the future EU-UK relationship makes it clear that there must be

“a level playing field in terms of competition”,

with the same social and environmental standards. Does the Minister agree with that principle, and is he therefore be happy to see it embedded in the agreement?

[Mr Jones]

First, these are the draft guidelines; the final guidelines will not be issued until 29 April. They are the guidelines under which the European Union wants us to operate the discussions, but it remains to be seen what our response will be.

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

Although my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and I are of one mind, we have two questions—and only one knighthood.

The Government are right to seek a continuing free trade agreement with the European Union: it will be in the interests of the European Union as well as in ours, and it will be the first, best outcome. However, Ministers cannot admit what I think is quite likely, which is that politics may trump economics and that there may be no deal. Will they therefore confirm that in those circumstances we will go to a good, second-best outcome, which is trading on most favoured nation terms, as do the European Union’s most successful partners—the USA, China, Japan and Russia? It would mean an average tariff of 4%, which is relatively small beer compared with a 15% improvement in competitiveness because of the exchange rate, while saving £10 billion a year, which is equivalent to a 7% tariff on our exports.

[Mr Jones]

Let me say quite clearly that the Government’s ambition and intention are to achieve the best possible free trade agreement with our EU partners. However, our position is also that we expect to negotiate toughly and—unlike Labour’s, our position will be made clear to the European Union—that we are prepared to walk away from the negotiating table if it is not possible to achieve a deal that suits us.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

When the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Exiting the European Union Committee, he told me that the Government had not undertaken any economic assessment of the impact of Brexit since he had been in his post. Will the Minister update the House on whether there has been any progress, and when it comes to publishing the Government’s final deal, will he ensure that it includes an economic assessment of the impact of that deal and an economic assessment of the impact of no deal, so that my constituents and the country can make up their minds themselves about whether no deal is indeed better than a bad deal?

[Mr Jones]

The Department has carried out an in-depth assessment right across 50 sectors of the economy. We have made it clear, however, that it is not in the national interest for us to produce a running commentary on the way in which we are developing our negotiating position, and that will remain the case.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

15. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on support for farmers after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

It is me again, Mr Speaker. We are working closely with colleagues across Government to assess the impacts that withdrawal from the EU will have across a number of sectors in cross-cutting areas. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is considering the best possible options for a future agricultural land use policy that specifically benefits British farming, the countryside and the environment.

[Tom Pursglove]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the last-day-of-term test earlier.

I am very grateful to the Minister for his answer. The UK’s exit from the European Union clearly provides many new and exciting opportunities for our farmers, but in order to get the policy right, what work is going on alongside the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to engage fully with our farmers and the sector more generally? Of course, Ministers would be very welcome at any time to come and engage with my farmers in Corby and east Northamptonshire.

[Mr Jones]

We are presented with an unprecedented opportunity to redesign agricultural policies to suit the British agricultural industry. We are, indeed, meeting a number of interested parties and stakeholders from the agricultural sector. I have had meetings with all the British farming unions, the National Pig Association, the Country Land and Business Association and the International Meat Trade Association, to name but a few.

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

16. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the effect on the Scottish food and drink sector of the UK leaving the EU.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

We are working closely with colleagues across Government to assess the impacts that withdrawal from the EU will have across a number of sectors in cross-cutting areas. I have had meetings with a number of stakeholders from the Scottish food and drink sector, including NFU Scotland, the Scotch Whisky Association, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the Food and Drink Federation.

[Steven Paterson]

I am grateful for that answer. The Stirling constituency boasts many world-class food and drink companies, such as the Glengoyne and Deanston distilleries and Graham’s the Family Dairy. What assurances can the Minister give me, if any, that during the Brexit negotiations, access to the important EU market for those excellent companies will be maintained and protected?

[Mr Jones]

Certainly, as I have said already, we are seeking a free trade agreement that would continue to secure such access. The Scotch Whisky Association has said that there are enormous opportunities for the sector if the UK can secure favourable bilateral trade deals across other export markets. India, for example, is a growing market for Scotch whisky, but we are being held back by a 150% tariff. The hon. Gentleman should look for the opportunities of Brexit, not be a wet blanket.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Since the SNP Government came to office in 2007, the value of Scottish food exports has more than doubled, with businesses in my constituency enjoying excellent levels of growth. What impact assessment has the Department carried out on the impact of Brexit on such excellent growth, or is there simply a fingers-crossed approach? This morning at 9.21, I received a response from the Scotland Office to a question I posed to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and we now know that the Scotland Office has not made any assessment of the impact of Brexit on Scottish trade.

[Mr Jones]

I am surprised to hear that. As I said a moment ago, the Scotch Whisky Association itself has identified enormous opportunities from Brexit. When the hon. Lady goes back to her constituency to do a bit of campaigning, perhaps she might go to her nearest distillery and ask people there what they think.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

17. What discussions his Department has had with UK universities on the negotiations for the UK leaving the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question; indeed, leaving aside the north Wales coastline, hers is one of the most beautiful in the UK. Coastal communities contribute an important part of our economy. They are part of the study that we have been undertaking, and we intend to make sure that their interests are reflected post-Brexit.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

T2. The Prime Minister called the general election in the name of building unity to strengthen her EU negotiating position. However, this is the Prime Minister who sent “Go home” vans around parts of urban Britain with high immigrant populations, this is the Prime Minister who aided and abetted the most disgraceful campaign against the first Muslim Mayor of our capital city, and this is the Government who, with their hard Brexit allies, seek to call anyone who calls into question their negotiating strategy a bunch of saboteurs. Is not the truth that, far from uniting this country, this Tory Government and its Ministers have been dividing it since they took office?

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

T6. Last week I met staff from Norwich manufacturing firm Teknomek, a small firm with impressive productivity and export links to Ireland and the continent. Firms such as that need the freest possible trade in services and goods between Britain and the other EU member states. Will my right hon. Friend look for security, stability, certainty and simplicity for small firms up and down the country?

[Mr David Jones]

We fully understand the importance of these issues to SMEs, including those in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Let me repeat for the umpteenth time in this Question Time that we are pursuing a bold and ambitious free trade agreement, which will benefit firms such as those and others around the country.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Thousands of my constituents work in Edinburgh’s financial sector, which is the second largest in the UK. Following the EU 27’s announcement this week that they intend to exclude the financial services sector from any future trade deal with the UK after Brexit, will the Minister tell me what contingency planning he is carrying out to protect my constituents’ jobs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

T7. Pendle is home to a cluster of outstanding aerospace businesses, including Euravia, Senior Aerospace Weston, Merc Aerospace, T&R Precision Engineering and, of course, the crown jewel, Rolls-Royce in Barnoldswick. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sector is absolutely vital to the UK economy, and will he assure this House that it will have a strong voice in the negotiations under a Conservative Government?

[Mr David Jones]

May I say that Pendle has a strong voice going into the general election? Aerospace is a key industry for this country, which is why, as I said earlier, we have paid so much close attention to it. We will make sure that we continue to have the most important aerospace industry in Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Blaenau Gwent was a net beneficiary from the EU. To boost our economy, we need continuous investment for jobs, so will the Minister commit to the same high levels of infrastructure investment for the future?

[Mr David Jones]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have guaranteed structural fund payments to 2020. He must also understand that responsibility for delivering infrastructure in Wales lies with the Welsh Assembly Government, so no doubt he will be speaking to his colleagues as soon as Parliament has risen.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. I had earlier wished to ask about the pig industry, a very important industry across East Anglia. Can the Minister tell us what prospects he sees for the industry? It is an industry that does not have subsidy from the public purse, but which has made huge gains, particularly in China where the pigs’ ear deal added £5 per carcass? What prospects does he see for this important sector?

[Mr Jones]

Given my hon. Friend’s surname, I am sure that he will be declaring his interest. I assure him that the Government fully understand the importance of pigmeat to the economy of this country. I have had a meeting with the National Pig Association, and I am glad to say that it is very positive about the future.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Can the Secretary of State name one power or policy area that he can definitely guarantee will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament in the event of Brexit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

The west midlands is certainly one of the powerhouses of this country that will be important for powering the economy after we have left the European Union. These are matters that will be discussed in the fullness of time with the new mayor, Andy Street.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Three years ago, David Cameron and I launched my first election campaign, at British Sugar in Newark. Three years—and approaching three elections—later, the sugar industry continues to employ hundreds of my constituents in Nottinghamshire, keeping the fields of the county full of rich beet crop. Furthermore, the sugar industry is intensely optimistic about the prospects for Brexit. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has acquired a reputation as something of a bruiser over the years, but with his 13 years of experience at Tate & Lyle, will he retain his sweet tooth as he approaches the negotiations?

General Affairs Council: April 2017

David Jones Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2017 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

I attended the General Affairs Council on 25 April 2017. The meeting was held in Luxembourg and chaired by the Maltese presidency.

The meeting was dedicated to cohesion policy and the agenda items included modification of the common provisions regulation; bringing cohesion policy closer to citizens; and Council conclusions on macro-regional strategies.

A provisional report of the meeting and the conclusions adopted can be found on the Council of the European Union’s website at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2017/04/25/

Modification of the common provisions regulation

The presidency provided an update on the proposed revision of the common provisions regulation, which sought to provide a higher level of EU cohesion funding in response to natural disasters. The Committee of Permanent Representatives has agreed a compromise and a discussion between the European Parliament, the Council and European Commission was scheduled for 3 May.

The presidency also provided an update on the “omnibus” regulation proposed by the European Commission to simplify cohesion funding and announced that it would begin discussions with the European Parliament on this matter as soon as possible.

Council conclusions on bringing cohesion policy closer to citizens

The presidency reiterated their views on the benefits of cohesion policy but recognised that funding pressures continued and that a lack of awareness of the EU’s contributions towards cohesion policy remained. I intervened to welcome the improvements to cohesion funding during the current period but recognised that further innovation should be encouraged. I also recalled the Prime Minister’s commitment that the UK would seek a fair settlement of its rights and obligations during the negotiations on the UK’s departure from the EU.

Council conclusions on macro-regional strategies

The presidency highlighted progress in developing macro-regional strategies. Discussions on the conclusions were agreed.

[HCWS620]

General Affairs Council

David Jones Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2017 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

The General Affairs Council (GAC) on 25 April 2017 is expected to focus on: modification of the Commons provisions regulation; bringing cohesion policy closer to our citizens; and implementation of EU macro-regional strategies; followed by a working lunch.

Modification of the Commons provisions regulation

The presidency will provide an update on proposed changes to the legislation which governs the common provisions regulation, the overarching EU regulation which governs the European structural and investment funds. These are expected to be in place before our withdrawal from the EU and were proposed by the Commission as part of the mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) in order to simplify and harmonise existing regulations.

Bringing cohesion policy closer to our citizens

The Council will adopt conclusions which: assess the EU’s cohesion policy in recent years; recognise the need for greater visibility in its implementation; and call for further simplification and flexibility in the period beyond 2020. A discussion between member states on the themes raised during the negotiation of the conclusions is expected.

Implementation of EU macro-regional strategies

The Council will adopt conclusions on ‘EU macro-regional strategies’, the frameworks for co-operation between member states and non-member states in tackling common challenges by better using existing EU initiatives and sources of funding.

Working lunch

Following the meeting there will be a working lunch, at which Ministers will have the opportunity to exchange views on the role of cohesion policy post 2020 with Corina Cretu, European Commissioner for Regional Policy. This is expected to be an informal discussion.

[HCWS609]

General Affairs Council

David Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

I attended the General Affairs Council on 7 March 2017. The meeting was held in Brussels and chaired by the Maltese presidency.

The General Affairs Council discussed: resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament; preparation of the European Council of 9 March 2017; the European Semester; the implementation of the inter-institutional agreement on “better law making”; and the mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020.



A provisional report of the meeting and the conclusions adopted can be found on the Council of the European Union’s website at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2017/03/07/.

Resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament

The Council noted the resolutions adopted by the European Parliament at its plenary sessions of February and March 2017.

Preparation of the European Council of 9 March 2017

The Council examined the second draft of conclusions for the March European Council. The discussions focused on: jobs, growth and competitiveness; security and defence; migration; and external relations.

On jobs, growth and competitiveness, and the European Council’s discussion on the sustainability of the economic growth in the 28 member states, I welcomed the positive signs on the economy and set out our strong support for completion of the digital single market. I supported the calls from other member states for further ambition on EU trade policy.

On security and defence, and the European Council’s assessment of the implementation of its December 2016 conclusions, I expressed my support for the balanced nature of the text and stated that any changes should be within the parameters set out at the December European Council.

On migration, and the review of how decisions taken at the informal summit in Malta on 3 February 2017 concerning the central Mediterranean route have been implemented, I welcomed the focus on continued engagement with source and transit countries. I also stated that there needed to be a stronger focus on breaking smugglers’ business models.

The external relations agenda item proposed a discussion on the western Balkans. I pressed for more co-operation with the western Balkans, including strategic communications, to tackle organised crime, third country interference and radicalisation.

European Semester 2017

The presidency presented its synthesis report on the European Semester and suggested that it sends its recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area to the European Council for adoption.

Implementation of the inter-institutional agreement on “better law making”

The presidency updated the Council on the implementation of the inter-institutional agreement on “better law making”. Good progress had been made and would be monitored three times a year. The June General Affairs Council meeting will provide a comprehensive overview of implementation.

Mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020

The Council agreed to approach the European Parliament with proposed amendments to the mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020. The UK abstained on this point.

[HCWS532]

Oral Answers to Questions

David Jones Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

5. What discussions his Department has had with representatives of the farming sector on the implications for that sector of the UK leaving the EU.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

We are listening and speaking to as many farming organisations and institutions as possible as we develop our negotiating position. I have met a range of representatives of the agricultural sector, including all the UK farming unions, and have attended the stakeholder roundtables of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, one of which focused on farming and horticulture.

[Victoria Atkins]

Louth and Horncastle boasts highly productive farms that produce excellent food. Will my right hon. Friend reassure our farmers that encouraging British food production and maintaining high-quality standards will be uppermost in his mind during the exit process?

[Mr Jones]

The British farming industry is noted throughout the world for the quality of its produce. Outside the European Union, we have an unprecedented opportunity to redesign our policies to make them work for us and to ensure that our agriculture industry is competitive, productive and profitable, and also that our environment continues to improve.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Farmers in Eddisbury apply the highest standards of welfare to their livestock and the produce deriving from that livestock. What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that produce that does not meet those high standards does not affect the competitiveness of our farmers?

[Mr Jones]

Again, my hon. Friend makes an important point because animal welfare and traceability are important elements of British agricultural production. We are committed to high animal welfare standards and will continue to push for those standards to be maintained in international trade arrangements.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

British farmers face a triple threat from the vote to leave the European Union: the loss of the common agricultural policy subsidy; cheap imports from countries with lower animal welfare and traceability standards; and potential tariffs on exports to the single market. What is the Minister doing in particular to mitigate that third threat, as we could see tariffs of up to 40% on lamb?

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Lady makes very important points, but this Government have already demonstrated their commitment to supporting the agriculture industry by supporting common agricultural policy pillar 1 until 2020 and giving support for pillar 2. On tariffs, as she will know, this Government aim to achieve the best possible free trade agreement with the continuing European Union and to ensure that whatever customs arrangements are put in place are frictionless and for the benefit of both Britain and the EU.

[Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

16. What discussions has the Minister had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the free movement of goods? That will be a particularly important issue for the agricultural sector after the UK exits the EU, because many farms in Northern Ireland straddle the border and much of the produce of those farms transits the border a number of times—for example, milk sometimes crosses it five times.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point that is at the forefront of the Government’s mind—in fact, the Prime Minister has discussed this very issue with the Taoiseach. Indeed, all the Ministers in the DEXEU team have had similar discussions, and I have had very recent discussions with representatives of the Irish Government too.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

7. What plans he has to retain the benefits of membership of the single market and customs union for the manufacturing sector after the UK has left the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

13. What plans he has to retain the benefits of membership of the single market and customs union for the manufacturing sector after the UK has left the EU.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

The UK manufacturing sector is world leading, and we are determined to secure the best deal for it which enables it to go from strength to strength. We are aiming to agree a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the EU, including zero tariffs, that is more ambitious than any other trade deal agreed with the EU to date.

[Mary Glindon]

In North Tyneside, Smulders, a Belgian company, has filled a void in the manufacturing market left when this Government failed to back OGN. The company hopes to create up to 400 new jobs and expand even further. What guarantees can the Minister give that will allow it the same benefits it currently gets with access to the single market and customs union after Brexit?

[Mr Jones]

I had a discussion just this week with the Flanders chamber of commerce, and it recognised the important issue of bilateral trade between Belgium and the UK. I am pleased to say that it fully realised the need for frictionless agreements once we leave the EU, and of course this Government are committed to that.

[Jo Stevens]

The Prime Minister has said that Britain will not remain a full member of the customs union, but this morning the Chancellor said it is

“clear that we can’t stay in the customs union”.

Which of them should we believe?

[Mr Jones]

It is clear that if we are to seek free trade agreements around the world, we will not be able to remain in the customs union as it currently stands. Having said that, we seek arrangements with our EU partners that will enable us to construct customs arrangements that are as frictionless as possible, for the benefit of both the EU and the UK.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The post-Brexit fall in the pound has led to a boost in manufacturing exports, with 45% of north-east manufacturers expecting orders to rise over the coming year, but it has also led to an increase in import costs. These costs will only increase if customs checks are required at borders. What is the Secretary of State planning to do for north-east manufacturers to make sure that costs at borders are not being increased for products they are making?

[Mr Jones]

Of course, north-east manufacturing is at the forefront of the Government’s mind; the hon. Gentleman will know that with Nissan we arranged a state of affairs that will allow it to continue to manufacture in the north-east. He is right to say that we do not want to see customs arrangements that impede trade with the EU, and we are looking to agree arrangements, for our mutual benefit, that are as frictionless as possible.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

But is it not the case that when the UK leaves the EU we will be its largest export market? Does the Minister not agree with my favourite politician at the moment, Wolfgang Schäuble, Germany’s Finance Minister, who says that if the Germans or the EU were to cause any damage to the UK, it would be increased tenfold for the EU?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure the Finance Minister in question will be uncontrollably excited to discover that the hon. Gentleman is such a staunch fan.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point: the UK market will be the biggest export market for the continuing European Union after we leave. I am glad to say that that is recognised not only by Herr Schäuble but by the Belgian chamber of commerce, with which I spoke earlier this week.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does the excellent Minister agree that it is much more in the EU’s interest for it to do a deal with us than it is in ours, because it has a £60 billion trade surplus with us?

[Mr Jones]

I think it is very much in our mutual interests, and I am sure that once the negotiations begin we will move towards a sensible and satisfactory mutual conclusion.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that, although we hope for the best, the chaotic patchwork of EU institutions and election cycles may mean that a deal is not done in two years? If that is the case, will he consider the case for investing in the roads to the channel ports and, indeed, in frictionless and modern borders, to ensure that we have a seamless flow of trade in future?

[Mr Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend about frictionless agreements. We have a huge advantage in that Britain is, of course, currently a member of the European Union, so our standards and regulations are in complete alignment. I was heartened to see that Michel Barnier, the chief negotiator for the European Union, has recognised that a deal is doable in two years.

[Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)]

22. The food and drink industry is a growing sector in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. What plans does the Minister have to retain the benefits of membership of the single market and customs union for the food and drink sector after the UK has left the EU?

[Mr Jones]

Although we will not continue to be a member of the single market, as I indicated previously we are looking to achieve a very good free trade agreement with the continuing European Union, which would be very much to the mutual benefit of the UK and the European Union.

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend considers the customs union, may I urge him to look at the experience of close trading partners around the world? The US and Canada trade half a trillion dollars of goods annually, Norway does 70% of its trade with the EU, and China buys 30% of Australia’s exports; none of them has seen fit to form customs unions with each other.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is not necessary to be part of a customs union, but we seek frictionless customs arrangements for the benefit of the EU and the UK.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

23. In a document leaked to The Times, the oil and gas industry was shamefully listed as a low priority for the UK Government in their negotiations with the EU. Given the Minister’s earlier answer, will he confirm that he has no plans to retain membership of the customs union and the single market for the oil and gas industry?

[Mr Jones]

The fact that the oil and gas industry is a high priority for the Government was shown by the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday. Frankly, rather than talking bleakly about the future of the industry, the hon. Gentleman should urge his colleagues in the Scottish Government to work strongly with the United Kingdom Government to ensure that arrangements can be made that are satisfactory for the industry.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

One of the advantages of our leaving the European Union is that we will be in a position to design our own package of trade defence instruments, which I would think Opposition Members would welcome. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the ongoing cross-Government work on that?

[Mr Jones]

Clearly, any arrangements we strike will have to be WTO-compliant, but my hon. Friend is entirely right. British industry has recently experienced many difficulties, not least in the steel industry, in which he has a particular interest. He will know about the support the Government have given to that industry.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

This week, a report by the American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union concluded that

“America’s significant commercial and financial presence in the UK has been premised in large part on UK membership in the European Union—the largest, wealthiest and most important foreign market in the world to U.S. companies.”

Do the Secretary of State and the Minister recognise the importance of our relationship with the single market to those non-EU countries with which the Government are keen to build trade and investment?

[Mr Jones]

The importance of the United Kingdom to the United States was reflected very strongly in the Prime Minister’s recent meeting with the new President, in which he showed great enthusiasm for free trade arrangements between the United States and the UK.

[Paul Blomfield]

Well, the significance of that and the “America First” policy is yet to be demonstrated.

On 24 January, the Secretary of State told the House that he is seeking

“a comprehensive free trade agreement and a comprehensive customs agreement that will deliver the exact same benefits as we have”.—[Official Report, 24 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 169.]

Will the Minister confirm that that is still the Government’s aim?

[Mr Jones]

The Government’s aim is to seek a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the continuing European Union that will be to the benefit of both the United Kingdom and the European Union.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Thanks to the new opportunities that will open up for the UK after we leave the EU, the accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers has said that the UK will have the fastest growing economy in the G7 over the next 30 years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that demonstrates that manufacturing has nothing to fear from our leaving the EU?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is entirely right to point out that the naysayers and doom-mongers who said that the British economy would crash after we decided to leave the European Union have been proven wrong.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

8. What steps he is taking to ensure that maintaining human rights protections is included in negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

19. What the UK’s total net financial contribution has been to the EU since the UK joined the European Economic Community.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

Neither the United Kingdom, nor the European Union, publishes an aggregate audited figure representing the total net financial contribution since the UK joined the EEC, but details of annual UK public sector contributions to the EU are published in a document entitled “European Union Finances”, the latest edition of which was published in February in 2016.

[Mr Hollobone]

A one-word answer with a figure would have been more helpful than the answer the Minister has given me. I suspect that the answer is that a massive amount of money is being handed over by British taxpayers to the European Union. As in any good divorce, that will entitle us to a huge share of the EU’s assets or to massive financial compensation if we do not get that.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is right—it is rather a lot; but the issue is to what extent the United Kingdom is liable for payment of anything, and if so, how much. The point is this: the United Kingdom has always adhered to its international treaty obligations, and it will continue to do so. It will adhere to those obligations, but, similarly, it will insist on the rights it has pursuant to those treaties, and that is the basis on which it will approach these negotiations.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

20. If he will protect the rights of non-UK EU nationals resident in the UK as part of his Department’s plans for exiting the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that reform of the common agricultural policy represents a positive opportunity for the farming industry. Does he agree that, among other measures, rewarding farmers with payment for acting for the public good—for example, storing water on land as a flood resilience measure, which would be very beneficial in Somerset—would be very helpful?

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

My hon. Friend has highlighted how much of an advantage it will be to the UK to be in a position to design its own agricultural and environmental policies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

T6. The manufacturers’ organisation EEF last week highlighted the difficulties that manufacturers are having in filling skilled engineering posts. Manufacturers warn that if the situation is not to get worse post-Brexit, they will need the flexibility to employ and deploy people across Europe. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to the representations from EEF, and what reassurance can he give?

[Mr David Jones]

We have had such discussions. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need an adequate supply of skilled labour in this country, and the Home Office is working on policies that will achieve just that.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The UK legal services sector is worth some £21 billion to our economy. A good percentage of that comes from legal services provided into the European Union. Will my right hon. Friend meet the Bar Council and the Law Society to discuss what they need to retain access to that key market?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

What discussions has the Department had with representatives of the tourism sector on the implications of the UK leaving the EU?

[Mr David Jones]

We regularly engage with the tourism industry, and we will continue to do so. Tourism is an important part of the British economy, and we fully recognise its particular concerns.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Government have said that they want to secure the rights of British nationals living in Europe, but what about British nationals living in this country who are married to European nationals whose futures have been thrown into doubt by the repugnant position that the Government have adopted? Is it not time to end the doubt for those people?

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the huge investment by Dyson in research and development facilities in the UK is a sign of confidence in the UK economy outside the EU?

[Mr David Jones]

Yes, it certainly is. That is only the latest in a long line of new investments in the British economy, showing the huge confidence that the international business community has in our country.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I push the Secretary of State further on the answer he gave my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) regarding frictionless trade? Is the Secretary of State saying that trade tariffs remain on the negotiating table?

General Affairs Council

David Jones Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

The General Affairs Council (GAC) on 7 March 2017 is expected to focus on: resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament; preparation of the March European Council from 9 and 10 March 2017; European semester and; inter-institutional agreement on “better law-making”.

Resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament

The presidency will outline the resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament (EP) at its plenary sessions of 13-16 February 2017.

Preparation of the March European Council from 9 and 10 March 2017

The presidency will present its draft conclusions on the agenda for the March European Council. The agenda will include: jobs, growth and competitiveness; external security and defence; migration; and external relations, focusing on the western Balkans. There will also be two procedural items on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and the election of the President of the European Council.

European semester

The presentation on the European semester is expected to cover: the priorities for the 2017 semester; the implementation of reforms undertaken by member states in response to their country-specific recommendations; and the endorsement of recommendations on the economic policy of the euro area.

Inter-institutional agreement on “better law-making”

Information is expected on the “joint declaration on inter-institutional priorities” signed by the Presidents of the European Council, European Commission and European Parliament in December 2016. The presidency will also present an overview on legislative programming and the latest on Commission proposals regarding delegated and implementing Acts.

[HCWS514]

General Affairs Council: February 2017

David Jones Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

The General Affairs Council (GAC) was held on 7 February in Brussels under the Maltese presidency.

The agenda covered follow up to the December European Council; preparation for the March European Council; and Commission communication on next steps for a sustainable European future. The UK permanent representative to the EU represented the UK.

A provisional report of the meeting and the conclusions adopted can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2017/02/07/.

Follow up to the December European Council

The Maltese presidency presented the EU’s key priorities and progress, stating that further work was needed in all areas. The Commission added that member states should not lose sight of making progress on relocation and the common European asylum system.

Preparation for the March European Council

The presidency presented the draft agenda which includes: jobs, growth and competitiveness, which would take stock of single market strategies; security, where leaders would examine decisions taken at December’s European Council; and a place-holder for external relations. The presidency announced that external migration would be added. The UK supported the addition of migration following the discussions at the Valletta summit, welcomed the opportunity to return to security and noted the importance of jobs, growth and competitiveness and external relations.

Commission communication on next steps for a sustainable European future

The Commission introduced its communication, in which it set out a vision for a more sustainable future in line with the UN sustainable development goals and Agenda 2030. It includes empowerment of women; energy transformation; a digital single market; and lifelong learning. There will be Council conclusions in June to progress work in this area.

AOB

Portugal presented conclusions of a conference on the future of the European monetary union held in Lisbon in January. The conference, attended primarily by representatives from southern European countries, called for the EU to work together to promote growth and convergence across eurozone countries, backed by a socially sustainable increase in public and private investment.

[HCWS477]

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

David Jones Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen]

My right hon. Friend is right to press the Minister, because we have had some very thin talk on this important matter. The industry wants this working party, and it wants Government to give some clear assurances. I make my appeal to the Minister, through my right hon. Friend, to do that tonight. I am sure that he is listening.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

indicated assent.

[Caroline Flint]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

As a remain campaigner, I saw many positive benefits from our membership of the European Union. I am determined that this House will respect the referendum outcome and seek the best for my constituents from our new relationship.

Some in the Prime Minister’s Cabinet talk as though Brexit will be nothing but boundless prosperity. Some remainers talk as though Britain is hurtling off a cliff and they are all doom and gloom. The reality is likely to be something in between. After a long and sometimes difficult marriage, we are getting a divorce. During that process, we need to leave behind some of the false promises and distortions of the referendum campaign. Dramatic false claims only damage trust. We need to replace the rhetoric with honest discussion and honest endeavour to achieve the best outcomes from the path that our country has chosen. That is how we rebuild trust and secure a deal that most leave and most remain voters can accept. That is the way I will be approaching the discussions in the months ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

There is a reason why Russia has had its credentials suspended by the Council of Europe, and that is that it is not prepared to honour the great European Magna Carta that British civil servants helped to draw up under Churchill’s inspiration in the years after the second world war.

The Conservative manifesto—

[Mr David Jones]

rose—

[Liam Byrne]

I will give way in a moment, as I want to put a specific question to the Minister.

The Conservative manifesto is not well read on the Government Benches; we study it forensically and in detail. In 2010, the manifesto said that the Conservatives would introduce a British Bill of Rights, replace the Human Rights Act and ensure that the European Court of Human Rights was no longer binding over the UK Supreme Court, ensuring that the European Court of Human Rights could no longer change British laws. That position was repeated in the 2015 manifesto. I hope that the Minister can say that that plan is now in the bin.

[Mr Jones]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have resisted intervening throughout the course of the debate, but I think I can help him to this extent: I do not know whether he was present during the wind-ups on Second Reading, but I informed the House that the Government have no plans to withdraw from the European convention on human rights.

[Liam Byrne]

The Minister is good to put that on the record, but the fact is that there are plans—plans were set out in the Conservative manifesto in 2010 and in 2015, and the draft British Bill of Rights that is circulating in the Ministry of Justice contains similar plans. That is why in August 2016 the Justice Secretary told the House that a British Bill of Rights would be introduced, and the House wants categorically to know whether that British Bill of Rights will have the implication and result of taking us out of the European Court of Human Rights. That is the point that I want the Minister to put beyond doubt by accepting new clause 193.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen]

It is always interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley). I will concentrate my brief remarks on Euratom. As the Minister and the Committee will know, its principal goals are the promotion of research and the dissemination of information; the establishment of safety standards; and facilitating investment. It also governs the supply of ore and nuclear fuels.

Euratom establishes a nuclear common market. The Eurosceptics always used to say, “We want to be in the common market,” yet their decision is to pull out of it. I believe that the Government want to retain the principal goals, and they stated on the publication of the Bill that we are leaving Euratom only because of legally binding arrangements, but that is debatable—I have seen conflicting legal advice—and cynics suggest that it is more to do with the European Court of Justice.

The Government say that they support Euratom and want us to continue both to co-operate and to have the highest standards. The hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey) is absolutely right that we are world leaders on nuclear standards, but in co-operation with other countries, which is why it is so important to keep Euratom, the umbrella body.

The purpose of new clause 192, which is supported by the industry and industry bodies, is to continue co-operation and have greater certainty. I have raised this matter with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who was very courteous. He said he had met the industry and was sure that we will be able to continue outside Euratom, but that is not what the industry in general believes. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) said that the management of the JET energy research programme in Oxfordshire did not want the proposal, but the workforce have lobbied me in great numbers through the union, saying that there are risks if we pull out.

Access to information and data sharing are important. We will be way behind if we pull out. Companies in the industry need to plan in advance; they need that certainty. Euratom deals with nuclear co-operation with the United States. It is ironic that although we are talking about coming out of Europe and trading with the United States, we need to be part of Euratom to get agreements to move fuels to the US, Japan, Canada and other countries. Renegotiating will take an awful long time.

Ideally, the Minister would retain the UK’s membership of Euratom even if we left the European Union. If the Government proceed to give notice to withdraw, we must have an agreement on transitional arrangements. We must also have sufficient time to negotiate and complete new arrangements with EU states and third countries such as the US, Japan and Canada. If in two years an agreement cannot be reached, the UK should remain a member. Our standing in the nuclear industry is at stake, as are jobs and our reputation as a major country in nuclear research. I hope that the Minister takes that on board.

[Mr David Jones]

I have listened to a large number of very important contributions this afternoon from right hon. and hon. Members, and a large number of proposals have been considered. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I say that I prefer—

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way before he says that he would prefer not to give way to anybody?

[Mr Jones]

I will give way once and no more.

[Chris Leslie]

Does the Minister agree that it is totally farcical that I have tabled 35 proposals but have been unable to speak to any of them? Does that not prove that the curtailing of the debate leaves Parliament unable to scrutinise withdrawal from the EU?

[Mr Jones]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his enthusiasm and say that the House has voted for and adopted a programme motion.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The public watching need to know that this is not the right place for many of the amendments and new clauses to be debated. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) has said, this is not the right Bill.

[Mr Jones]

That is what I was about to say. I would like to address all the amendments if I can, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I take no further interventions.

The amendments serve as a valuable reminder of the numerous important matters that will need to be considered and discussed throughout the process of negotiation. They seek to ensure that specific aspects of our future relationship with the European Union are prioritised by the Government. Let me take this opportunity to tell the House once again that we are committed to delivering the best possible deal for the whole of the United Kingdom. However, we can only set about delivering that deal after we have triggered article 50. It is not appropriate, therefore, to seek to tie the hands of the Government on individual policy areas at this stage; that could only serve to jeopardise our negotiating position.

I will do my best to respond to each of the amendments, given their broad scope, but for the avoidance of doubt, there is a common response to them all: elementally, this is a straightforward procedural Bill that serves only to give the Prime Minister the power to trigger article 50 and thereby respect the result of the referendum. As a consequence, these amendments are not for this Bill. Instead, they are for the many future debates that will take place in this House and the other place—

[Chris Leslie]

On a point of order, Ms Engel. The Minister said that the amendments were not for this Bill. Will you remind the House that the Chair has ruled that all the amendments are within the scope of the Bill?

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)]

The Chair’s ruling has been mentioned time and again. The Content of amendments is a matter for debate.

[Mr David Jones]

Thank you, Ms Engel. The amendments will be debated at a later stage.

New clauses 2, 7, 100, 163 and 193, as well as amendments 32, 34, 40 and 55, would require the Prime Minister either to have regard to, or to set out in a report, a number of matters prior to triggering article 50. Those include, but are not limited to, the common travel area with the Republic of Ireland and the preservation of peace in Northern Ireland; tariff-free trade with the European Union; workers’, women’s, human, civil, social and political rights; climate change and environmental standards; and the British economy and economic model. The White Paper published last week sets out our strategic aims for the negotiations and covers many of the topics that hon. Members have addressed in these and other amendments.

With regard to the common travel area, for instance, we have already stressed that we are committed to working with both the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to recognise the unique economic, social and political context of the land border between the UK and Ireland. We have also made it clear that we are seeking a bold and comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union that is as tariff-free and frictionless as possible.

On new clause 7, which concerns the preservation of EU tax avoidance measures, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that we will convert the acquis into British law, and that it will then be for the British Parliament to decide on any changes to that law, with appropriate scrutiny. Similarly, amendments 7, 9 and 38 to clause 1 and new clauses 16, 70 and 133 seek to require the Government to commit to a position on specific issues before triggering article 50. Amendment 7, for example, seeks to ensure that the UK continues to participate in EU common foreign and security policy after withdrawal from the European Union. A matter such as that cannot be resolved through unilateral action and, instead, must be clearly addressed through discussion with the other 27 member states of the EU. We have been clear that we want to see continued close co-operation on foreign and security policy with European partners, but those discussions can begin only after article 50 has been triggered.

New clause 16 is designed to ensure that the employment rights of those living or working in the UK will be unaffected by the Bill. The Government have made it clear that not only will there be no change to employment protections as a result of triggering article 50, but we will protect and enhance the rights people have at work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

No, I will not give way.

I am grateful for the contributions of Members to this Committee stage. The Bill respects the judgment of the Supreme Court. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support both clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 gives the Prime Minister Parliament’s authority to notify the European Council of the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EU. It also makes it clear that this power applies notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972; this is to address the Supreme Court’s conclusions on the status of the 1972 Act. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members who have tabled amendments not to press them to a Division, so that we can make progress with the Bill, start the process of withdrawal and work to deliver a deal that respects the vote of the British people in the referendum.

[Paul Blomfield]

In the few seconds left to me, I want to say that we will not withdraw the new clause and we will hold the Government to account in respect of the Secretary of State’s commitment to achieve a deal that provides for the exact same benefits as we enjoy from our current membership of the single market.

The issue of our membership of Euratom has caused concern among Members on both sides of the House, which the Minister failed to allay in his closing remarks. To clear up any doubts, such as those that the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey) expressed, I remind the House that the Nuclear Industry Association has made it clear that we should not leave Euratom. It is not in the interests of the industry or people’s jobs. They will watch how the House votes on new clause 192, and will judge the Government accordingly. I hope that Members will recognise that and vote for the new clause, and for all the other helpful amendments we have tabled.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

David Jones Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I will come to that, but the central theme of the case I will seek to make this afternoon is that a vote in this House must be before the deal is concluded; that is the dividing line that makes the real difference here.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State, and I think that this may be helpful—[Interruption.] Forgive me, the shadow Secretary of State. I hope that this will be helpful to him. He has mentioned the fact that the Government have made a commitment to a vote at the end of the procedure. Later, when I address the House, I will be outlining what I intend that vote shall be, but it may be of assistance to him now to know what is proposed. First of all, we intend that the vote will cover not only the withdrawal arrangements but also the future relationship with the European Union. Furthermore, I can confirm that the Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement, to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded. We expect and intend that this will happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement. I hope that is of assistance.

[Keir Starmer]

Minister, I am very grateful for that intervention. That is a huge and very important concession about the process that we are to embark on. The argument I have made about a vote over the last three months is that the vote must cover both the article 50 deal and any future relationship—I know that, for my colleagues, that is very important—and that that vote must take place before the deal is concluded, and I take that from what has just been said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to press on, because I am not sure that my trying to explain what the Minister is going to tell us is working particularly well.

[Mr David Jones]

If it is of any assistance to the shadow Secretary of State and to the Committee, may I say that with your leave, Ms Engel, I hope to be able to speak immediately after him?

[Keir Starmer]

I have made the case for accountability and scrutiny, I have made the case for a White Paper, I have made the case for reporting back and I have made the case for a vote. We have got this concession, and I think the most helpful thing, in the circumstances, would be for hon. Members to be given the opportunity to test what the Minister has said.

[Mr Jones]

I had hoped to speak at the end of the debate, but it may be of assistance to the Committee if I deal with some of the matters that the shadow Secretary of State touched on. However, I do not want to go into the details of the various amendments that other hon. Members will no doubt wish to speak to. With your consent, Ms Engel, I will address them briefly at the end of the debate.

May I first repeat what I said to the shadow Secretary of State when I intervened on him a few moments ago? The Government have repeatedly committed from the Dispatch Box to a vote in both Houses on the final deal before it comes into force. That, I repeat and confirm, will cover not only the withdrawal agreement but the future arrangement that we propose with the European Union. I confirm again that the Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement—

[Mr Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jones]

I will just finish the sentence, because it is rather important. The Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded, and we expect and intend that that will happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement.

[Mr Clegg]

Will the Minister stress to the Committee again that that applies to both the withdrawal agreement and a final agreement on the future relationship between the UK and the EU? It is my view, which is shared by many others, that the former is feasible within two years but the latter is highly unlikely. What will happen if a withdrawal agreement is reached but not a new agreement between the UK and the EU?

[Mr Jones]

I must preface what I am about to say by saying that we do not expect that we will not achieve such an agreement, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made it clear that if we cannot come to an agreement, we will have to fall back on other arrangements. The Government have consistently been clear about that.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

This point goes back to the conversation we had yesterday about the importance of transitional arrangements. The Minister cannot guarantee that the new trade agreement will be concluded within two years. If we do not have a transitional agreement, it will be like jumping out of an aeroplane without a parachute. Why will he not agree to negotiate that transitional arrangement now in case we need it?

[Mr Jones]

What the hon. Lady says is, of course, true. An agreement has to be negotiated by two sides, and it is always possible that we will not be able to achieve such an agreement, but I believe that we will. We have also made it clear that we see it as important that during the negotiations for the new arrangements, whatever they are, we consider what implementation period may be necessary following the agreements.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I am grateful to the Minister for speaking at this stage and enabling us to have the process that he is talking about, and I congratulate him on that. He says that Parliament will have a vote before the agreement is concluded. Does that mean before agreement has been reached with the other 27 countries, or after agreement has been reached but before it has been put into effect?

I believe that parliamentary sovereignty requires that Parliament should have the ability to influence the Government’s position before they conclude the deal, so that those with whom the Government are dealing—the other parties to the negotiations—know that the British Government have to produce an agreement that will get the support of Parliament. If the Government wait until hands have been shaken with all the other Europeans before coming here, Parliament will be told, “If you reject the agreement, you will have nothing and it will be a WTO disaster.” That would give the Government a majority, but not a very satisfactory conclusion.

[Mr Jones]

I fully appreciate the points that my right hon. and learned Friend is making. This is clearly going to be a complex, lengthy and difficult—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Jones]

May I first deal with the point that my right hon. and learned Friend has made? After I have done so, I will come back to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies).

This will be a difficult and complex agreement, and the negotiation will, from time to time, be subject to reports to the House, to the Exiting the European Union Committee and so on. What we are proposing, and what I am committing to from the Dispatch Box, is that before the final agreement is concluded—the final draft agreement, if you like—it will be put to a vote of this House and a vote of the other place. That, we intend, will be before it is put to the European Parliament. That is as clear as I can make it.

[Geraint Davies]

After we trigger article 50, the EU27 will decide a deal in their interests. If that deal comes to this House and we vote it down, and subsequently the Commission and the European Parliament agree it and say, “Like it or lump it,” what will we do then?

[Mr Jones]

I would have thought that, in the circumstance that this House had voted down the agreement, it would be highly unlikely that it would ever be put to the European Parliament. Of course, there are all sorts of scenarios to be considered.

[Keir Starmer]

Just for clarification, I think the Minister said that there would be a vote on, as it were, the final draft agreement. I just wanted to check that I had heard him correctly.

[Mr Jones]

Yes—before the agreement is finally concluded, in other words. That is the intention.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I want to come back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) about the timing of the two deals that are being negotiated in parallel: the exit deal and the framework for our future relationship. I think we can be a little more optimistic than he is. In article 50, it is envisaged that the negotiation for the exit agreement can only be done taking into account the framework for the future relationship. Article 50 envisages those two agreements being negotiated in parallel, so I think that what the Minister has set out has every prospect of coming to fruition.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)]

I implore Members to keep interventions shorter. They are very, very long—they are little speeches—and we have got very little time. I implore Members to keep them a bit briefer.

[Mr Jones]

My right hon. Friend is right. Article 50 states that the negotiations for the withdrawal agreement should be set against the framework of the continuing relationship. On the face of it, a twin-track approach is envisaged in article 50.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister raised our hopes for a second, and then I felt myself deflate as he said that if things did not work out, we would

“fall back on other arrangements.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 295.]

Can he be absolutely clear about what he meant by falling back on other arrangements?

[Mr Jones]

It would depend on precisely what was agreed, but if there were no agreement at all, which I think is an extremely unlikely scenario, ultimately we would be falling back on World Trade Organisation arrangements. That is nothing new. It has been made very clear previously, including by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Can the Minister clarify a point that was raised by the shadow Secretary of State and that is important to us all? An agreement at the end of the process might be an agreement that there is no agreement at all, and that we will go to the default position. I believe that what the Minister has announced will give the House a vote if there is a deal, or indeed if there is no deal. Can he confirm that the House would get a vote in those circumstances, which is what I understand the assurance to be?

[Mr Jones]

It is very hard to see what meaningful vote could be given if there had been no deal at all. Having said that, I have no doubt at all that in the absence of any agreement whatever, that absence of agreement would be the subject of statements to this House.

[Alex Salmond]

The Minister is inflating and deflating people as he goes along. May we get back to the manuscript amendment? If the concession is as significant as the Minister is leading us to believe, it is really important that it comes forward as an amendment. If the Government are not prepared to make that happen, surely the message to the other place is that what the Minister has said should be encapsulated in an amendment that can be properly re-debated here.

[Mr Jones]

We are debating the issue at considerable length now. I have, on behalf of the Government, made what I believe is a serious commitment and it should be accepted as such. Frankly, in those circumstances, I see no need for a further amendment.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Is not the problem that the Government and the House have the fact that we do not know at what stage the negotiations will be concluded? They could be concluded, with months to go, within the two-year timeframe. In those circumstances, I would expect the House to be able to consider the agreement—even, perhaps, before it was provisionally agreed with the Commission, because there would be no time pressure.

Equally, however, we could end up in a situation where the agreement is made at one minute to midnight at the end of the two-year period. If the Government do not then conclude an agreement to bring it to the House after that, but before it goes to the European Parliament, we could end up with no deal at all. The Minister may agree that the Government have a real dilemma. It is important that the House should understand those limitations, because they go fundamentally to the question of whether an amendment can be reasonably crafted to meet that situation.

[Mr Jones]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very fair point. As we proceed, we have to keep reminding ourselves that we are where we are because the United Kingdom has voted to leave the European Union. What we are seeking to achieve is a departure from the European Union on the best possible terms. I strongly believe that what the Government are proposing is as much as possible in terms of a meaningful vote at the end of the process.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Jones]

I give way to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden).

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Timing is significant only if it further empowers Parliament to have a meaningful say on the negotiations. Can I ask the Minister again: what will happen if the House declines to approve the draft agreement that he intends to bring before us?

[Mr Jones]

I think that I have already answered that extremely clearly. There will be a meaningful vote. The vote will be either to accept the deal that the Government will have achieved—I repeat that the process of negotiation will not be without frequent reports to the House—or for there to be no deal. Frankly, that is the choice that the House will have to make. That will be the most meaningful vote that one could imagine.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Jones]

I will take one further intervention, from the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna).

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

The point is that if this is to be a meaningful concession, the House needs the opportunity to send the Government back to our EU partners to negotiate a deal if one has not been reached. Going to World Trade Organisation rules will be deeply damaging for our economy and wholly unacceptable.

[Mr Jones]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but frankly I cannot think of a greater signal of weakness than for the House to send the Government back to the European Union saying that we want to negotiate further. That would be seized on as a sign of weakness and therefore I cannot agree with it at all.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Jones]

I would like to make further progress. I have taken a large number of interventions and I am sure that other hon. Members wish to speak.

Let me say this. It will be a meaningful vote. As I have said, it will be the choice between leaving the European Union with a negotiated deal or not. To send the Government back to the negotiating table would be the surest way of undermining our negotiating position and delivering a worse deal. In any case, we cannot unilaterally extend—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Jones]

I give way for the final time to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

When the Minister first revealed his concession to the shadow Secretary of State, there was a bit, which he has not read out in the speech that he has just been giving, that referred to timing, intention and the position of the European Parliament. Will he please repeat what he said the first time round? I think it important that the House should be able to hear that.

[Mr Jones]

I will, if that will be of assistance to the right hon. Gentleman, although I did, in fact, read out the same words twice. I will read them again so that he fully understands the commitment that the Government have made. The Government have committed to a vote on the final deal in both Houses before it comes into force. This will cover both the withdrawal agreement and our future relationship with the European Union. I can confirm that the Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement, to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded. We expect and intend that that will happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Jones]

I will not take any further interventions; I have already been more than generous.

I turn to the amendments. The shadow Secretary of State has referred to his new clauses 1, 18, 19, 28, 54, 110, 137, 175 and 182, which all seek, in one way or another, to ensure that Parliament will have a vote on the final deal that we agree with the European Union. Let me assure Members again, as I have said in answer to interventions, that the House will be involved throughout the entire process of withdrawal. Again, I remind the House of the extent of the Secretary of State’s engagement.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I have a very brief question for the Minister. If the European Parliament votes down the deal, Europe will carry on negotiating. He is saying that if the British Parliament votes down the deal, that will be the end of the negotiations. We pride ourselves on our sovereignty in this House; the Minister’s position seems to be a denial of that sovereignty.

[Mr Jones]

With huge respect, I am not entirely sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands the process. At the end of the day, the role of the European Parliament will be to grant or withhold consent to the deal agreed by the European Council, and there can be no assurance that there would be further negotiations. May I say that we are some considerable way away from that position. As I have said, as the negotiations proceed, there will be very many more opportunities—many, many more—for this House and the other place to consider the negotiations.

[Mr Harper]

May I tempt my right hon. Friend to give way one more time?

[Mr Jones]

I am afraid not; I have already been very generous.

I was reminding the House of what the Secretary of State has already done in terms of engagement. He has made six oral statements and there have been more than 10 debates—four in Government time. More than 30 Select Committee inquiries are going on at the moment. Furthermore, there will be many more votes on primary legislation between now and departure from the European Union.

I suggest that the amendments that I have referred to are unnecessary. I reiterate that both Houses will get a vote on the final deal before it comes into force and I can confirm, once again, that it will cover both the withdrawal agreement and our future relationship. However, we are confident that we will bring back a deal that Parliament will want to support. The choice will be meaningful: whether to accept that deal or to move ahead without a deal.

[Alex Salmond]

I rise to speak to new clause 180 and amendment 50, in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I also want to speak very favourably about new clause 110, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). It is the strongest of the other amendments, although I should say that any amendments from this group that are put to the vote will have our support as they are all trying to increase parliamentary supervision of the process.

Before the Minister led us through the dance of the seven veils, I was going to question him on the irrevocability or revocability of article 50. I still think that that goes to the heart of what we are debating. However, I say directly to the Minister, with regard to what he described as a “serious announcement”, that if one makes a serious announcement in the course of the Committee stage of a Bill of this importance, it should be followed by an amendment. If we were here debating the Dangerous Dogs Bill, which I remember debating some time ago, and a serious announcement was made, that serious announcement would be followed by an amendment to the Bill. If that is good enough for a Bill of that description, how much more important is it to have such an amendment when we are debating the biggest constitutional change facing this country for half a century.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)]

I call Mr David Jones.

[Mr David Jones]

Thank you very much indeed, Ms Engel, for giving me a second bite of the cherry.

May I deal first with the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), the Chair of the Treasury Committee? He asked direct questions that had been raised during the debate. I thought that I had answered them with some clarity, but I am happy to clarify further. First, he asked what this honourable House would be asked to approve. It would be the final agreed draft of the agreement before it was submitted to the European Parliament. He mentioned that we had indicated that we expected and intended that that would happen before the European Parliament debated the agreement. The reason why that formulation is used is that what the Commission does with the information it sends to the European Parliament is out of our hands. Although we would do our very best to ensure that the House voted first, we cannot control what the Commission does.

My right hon. Friend raised the issue of equivalence. Of course, the difference is that the European Parliament has a role prescribed for it in article 50, but this House does not. In practical terms, I suggest that a vote of this House would be a matter of significance. Finally, he raised transitional arrangements, which have been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. As the Prime Minister has already made clear, it is our intention, if necessary, to look to a period of implementation for whatever arrangement we arrive at with the European Union.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Jones]

I will, briefly.

[Mr Clarke]

I will be brief, for a change. My right hon. Friend has confirmed that the vote will be put to Parliament after the deal has been done with the Commission and the Council. It is therefore a done deal, and the European Parliament and this House can either take it or leave it. The alternative is the WTO. Will he confirm that that is exactly what was offered in the White Paper a few days ago?

[Mr Jones]

What we have sought to do today is to provide clarity, and I hope that, through my previous contribution and now, I am providing that clarity. It would indeed be the final draft agreement that we would contemplate being put before the House.

As I was saying, this has been an important debate and the quality of the contributions has been extremely high. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said, we have to remember that this will be the most important negotiation that this country has entered into for at least half a century. It is therefore entirely right that the House should play an important part in the process of the negotiation of the agreement.

I have heard the words “rubber stamp” being used, but that is far from what the Government have in mind. We have every intention that, throughout the process of negotiation, the House will be kept fully informed, consistent with the need to ensure that confidentiality is maintained. I do not think that anyone would regard that as an unreasonable way forward. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) highlighted the need for reporting, and the Government intend to do that.

I should like to speak about a number of other measures that I have not dealt with previously, but which have attracted attention in the debate. New clause 18 would specify that any new treaty with the EU should not be ratified except with the express approval of Parliament. I can only repeat the commitment that I have made several times this afternoon at the Dispatch Box: there will be a vote on the final deal.

[John Redwood]

Many of us welcome the progress that has been made and my right hon. Friend’s assurances. It is clear from what he has said that there will be every opportunity for debate, discussion, questions and votes, as is proper in this House.

[Mr Jones]

That is absolutely right. The suggestion that the Government would not keep the House informed is really unworthy, given that we have been scrupulous in doing so thus far.

New clause 110 is similar to new clause 18, but it also specifies that any new relationship would be subject to approval by a resolution of Parliament. I believe that the measure is unnecessary. It asks for a vote of each House on a new treaty or any new agreement reached with the EU, but I repeat again that there will be a vote on the final draft treaty and any other agreement. In any event, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) pointed out, it calls for a vote before terms are agreed, leaving it open to the Commission to change its mind or position without any apparent recourse for this place.

[Seema Malhotra]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

I will not give way as I have very little time.

New clause 137 would require the Government to seek to negotiate a new agreement with the EU if Parliament rejects a deal. Again, I reject the measure. Although we are confident that we will achieve a deal acceptable to Parliament, if Parliament were to reject that deal, it would be a sure sign of weakness, as I have said, to return to the EU and ask for other terms. We would be likely to achieve only a worse deal. Furthermore, there is no obligation on the EU to continue negotiating with us beyond the two-year period specified in article 50.

New clause 175 would effectively require the Government to request that we remain a member of the EU if the terms were not approved by Parliament. Frankly, to do so would be to betray the outcome of the referendum, and the Government are not prepared to accept that. I must make it absolutely clear that the Government want Parliament to be engaged throughout this process.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm that the Government’s position is to diminish the status of this House compared with that of the European Parliament in respect of having oversight of this process?

[Mr Jones]

That is absolutely ludicrous. The European Parliament’s role comes at the end of the process; it has oversight to the extent that it rubber-stamps the agreement or not.

New clauses 18 and 19 would require any new treaties agreed with the EU to be subject to the ratification of Parliament. We have always said that we will observe the constitutional and legal obligations that apply to the final deal, and that remains the case. As we have confirmed, the final agreement will be subject to a vote of this House before it is concluded.

[Seema Malhotra]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jones]

For the very last time.

[Seema Malhotra]

Will the Minister abide by the recommendation in the report of the Exiting the European Union Committee that when the Government bring the deal to Parliament, they should have regard to the requirement that Parliament has adequate time to consider any statement before the proposed terms are put to each House for approval?

[Mr Jones]

We will, of course, consider all the recommendations of the Select Committee and respond formally to its report in due course.

We approach the negotiations not expecting failure, but anticipating success. Let me remind Members that we are seeking in the Bill to do one simple, straightforward thing: to follow the instructions we received from the British people in the referendum. Remaining a member of the European Union is not an option. The process for leaving the EU is set out in article 50, and it is not within our power unilaterally to extend the negotiations.

New clause 99 envisages yet another Act of Parliament to approve the arrangements for our withdrawal and our future relationship with the EU. It would require yet another Act of Parliament for us to withdraw from the EU in the absence of a negotiated deal. The new clause is wholly otiose. While we are ready for any outcome, an exit without a trade agreement is emphatically not what we seek. However, let me be clear that keeping open the prospect of staying in the EU, as is envisaged by new clause 99, would only encourage the EU to give us the worst possible deal in the hope that we would change our mind.

Amendment 43 calls for a referendum on our membership of the European Union after we have negotiated a final deal. That was tabled by the Liberal Democrats.

This has been an important debate. We have considered the new clauses and amendments very carefully but, for all the reasons I have given, we reject them and invite Members not to press them to a Division.

[Keir Starmer]

I have listened carefully to the debate. There are inevitable problems with an 11th-hour concession, and there have been claims and counter-claims about the nature of the concession made. Whatever No. 10 may or may not be briefing, until today there was never a commitment to a vote on both the article 50 deal and the future agreement with the EU; there was never a commitment to a vote, before the agreement was concluded, on a final agreed draft—it is simply rewriting history to suggest that there was—and there was never a commitment to a vote in this House that is intended and expected to take place before the vote of the European Parliament. Those three things have never been said before, and I have gone through all the records before making that assertion. For anybody to suggest that this is not a significant concession is to be blind to these developments.

I recognise that that leaves a number of unanswered questions, most importantly about the consequences and precise timing of the vote. As the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) says, to some extent we just do not know. From the various work I have done in Brussels, it is quite clear that the plan there is to have a deal that is capable of being put to the European Parliament in October 2018. That should be the ambition, because if a deal were put to this House in October 2018, there would be a number of consequences for the House to consider. I accept that there are questions. It is important that others reflect on the concessions that have been made and consider what kind of amendment might capture them.

In the circumstances, I will not press new clause 1 to a Division in the hope—although this is not my decision—that it will allow space for other new clauses to be put to the vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 110

Future relationship with the European Union

“(1) Following the exercise of the power in section 1, any new Treaty or relationship with the European Union must not be concluded unless the proposed terms have been subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(2) In the case of any new Treaty or relationship with the European Union, the proposed terms must be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament before they are agreed with the European Commission, with a view to their approval by the European Parliament or the European Council.”—(Chris Leslie.)

This new clause seeks to ensure that Parliament must give approval to any new deal or Treaty following the negotiations in respect of the triggering of Article 50(2), and that any new Treaty or relationship must be approved by Parliament in advance of final agreement with the European Commission, European Parliament or European Council.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

David Jones Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

This short Bill has attracted a large number of new clauses that fall into a number of broad categories. I will first deal with the issue of parliamentary scrutiny, which has engaged the attention of a large number of hon. and right hon. Members. From listening to the debate, I am clear that there is actually a considerable amount of common ground across the Chamber. The Government also agree that parliamentary scrutiny is essential as we withdraw from the European Union. Indeed, the whole object of leaving the European Union is to ensure that our Parliament can take back our own laws. For that purpose, scrutiny is essential.

I recognise the thoughtfulness in the wording of many of the amendments that seek to formalise the mode of scrutiny, but it will probably surprise nobody that I will not accept any of them. This is a straightforward Bill that gives us the means to respect the result of the referendum and the judgment of the Supreme Court. As the Court made absolutely clear, this is about not whether we leave or the terms on which we leave, but simply the mechanics under which we trigger the process of leaving. In many cases, the amendments discussed today have virtually nothing to do with the Bill, and I resist them for two principal reasons. First, many are unnecessary in that what they seek to achieve is effectively already being done by the Government. No one can deny that the Secretary of State, as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) recognised, has been assiduous in his engagement with Parliament. The process has been the source of intense scrutiny over the past seven months.

[Stephen Gethins]

Will the Minister tell us whether reassuring EU nationals is unnecessary?

[Mr Jones]

I will come to EU nationals later. As I explained a moment ago, I am currently dealing with the issue of scrutiny, not with the issue of EU nationals.

One can see from the Secretary of State’s record of engagement that he has given an oral statement on an almost monthly basis—far more than the bimonthly or quarterly updates to Parliament requested in the new clauses. Ministers from across Government have been at this Dispatch Box many times to debate our EU exit. The Prime Minister has given a statement after every Council, including one today. That is in addition to holding debates on the EU exit in Government time, and 15 appearances at Select Committees by Ministers and officials from all Departments.

[Helen Goodman]

I am pleased that the Minister understands that parliamentary scrutiny is essential, but we have heard from Government Back Benchers that everything will have to close down once the negotiations begin. Therefore, what has happened in the past seven months is not, strictly speaking, relevant to what will happen over the next two years. The purpose of new clause 3 and new clause 28 is to provide forward-looking scrutiny.

[Mr Jones]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. However, it is not the case that everything will, as she puts it, “close down”. There will certainly be negotiations and it is important that they continue, to a certain extent, with privacy. At the same time, the Government have made it clear, time after time, that we fully appreciate the need for engagement with and scrutiny by Parliament, provided, of course, that it does not adversely affect the negotiations.

[Geraint Davies]

Does the Minister agree that the final deal should in fact be scrutinised by the British people, who should have the final say on whether it represents their reasonable expectations when they voted to leave? If it does not, they should have the chance to stay in the EU.

[Mr Jones]

The British people have had their say very clearly: they have instructed this Parliament that they wish to leave the European Union. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like that result, but that is the hard fact.

We have aimed at all times scrupulously to fulfil Parliament’s legitimate need for information, and we will continue to do so. As well as keeping Parliament informed, we will pay regard to all the motions passed on the outcome of negotiations associated with the Bill—as proposed in new clause 176—just as we have already paid regard to the motions passed on Opposition days on 12 October and 7 December.

On the provisions of new clause 3 concerning information sharing, the Secretary of State has been clear since the very early days following the referendum that he will keep Parliament at least as well informed as the European Parliament as the negotiations progress. The new clause asks us to reaffirm that position so that Parliament receives the same documents that the European Parliament or any of its committees receive from the Council or the Commission.

The Government are absolutely resolute that the House will not be at an information disadvantage compared with the European Parliament, but the new clause is flawed, simply because the United Kingdom Government may not be privy to what information is passed confidentially between the Commission, or the other EU institutions, and the Parliament. In the same way, the House would not expect the Government to pass all our documents relating to a highly sensitive negotiation to the other side.

What I can do, however, is confirm that the Government will keep Parliament well informed, and as soon as we know how the EU institutions will share their information, we will give more information on what Parliament will receive and on the mechanisms for that, including on the provision of arrangements for the scrutiny of confidential documents.

The second category of amendments and new clauses, which, again, I must resist, because they pre-judge the negotiations to follow, ask for formal reporting on myriad subjects or for votes on unilateral commitments. The exact structure of the negotiations has not yet been determined and may very well be a matter for negotiation itself. Therefore, setting an arbitrary reporting framework makes no sense at all. There will be times when there is a great deal to report on, and times when there is very little. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have already made serious undertakings as to how they will report to the House.

[Chris Leslie]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I know there are a lot of issues to be covered. However, to take just the example of the European arrest warrant, could he at least give us an indication of what the Government’s objectives are? Does he want us to stay part of it?

[Mr Jones]

Clearly, we require, and we are looking to achieve, close co-operation with the European Union on security matters, but, again, these will be a matter for negotiation, and as the negotiations progress, we will keep the House informed.

The commitments that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have given are important. That is why the Government published the White Paper on our negotiating position last week, with an introduction by the Prime Minister, once again stating our clear aims for the negotiations. That includes, for example, the implementation phases referred to by hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—those are part of our objectives.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jones]

No, I will not give way, because I have little time.

The Secretary of State announced in the recent White Paper that there will be a further White Paper published on the great repeal Bill so that Parliament can be fully informed of the provisions of the Bill in good time. After that, the Government will continue upholding their commitment through the primary and secondary legislation that will undoubtedly be required.

New clauses that ask for specific reporting to Parliament after article 50 is invoked, including new clauses 3, 20, 22, 29, 51, 111 to 130, and 151—on our relationship with EU agencies, competition policy, environmental regulations, the UK renewables sector and virtually every other aspect of our relationship with the EU—are dangerous. They would bind us to an inflexible timetable of updates as we try to navigate a complex set of negotiations.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I am following the Minister’s speech carefully. Does he agree that it is a mistake to put the procedures of this House into primary legislation, giving the courts an unnecessary locus to interfere with our affairs?

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. If these provisions were put into the Bill, there is no doubt that they would become justiciable, therefore leading to further delay. What this country requires at the moment is certainty and speed, and instead we would have uncertainty and delay.

[Caroline Lucas]

Would the Minister acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that a new trade agreement will not be agreed in a very tight two-year period? If he does acknowledge that that is a risk, why will he not put in place a transitional arrangement to protect our businesses from crashing out of the EU without such an arrangement?

[Mr Jones]

I can go no further than what I have already said. Of course, transitional arrangements require bilateral agreement. We have already indicated that that is what we are aiming at, but it takes two to tango in this regard.

Amendment 78 would require the Foreign Secretary to publish a work programme for UKRep for the duration of the negotiating period. This is simply an attempt to delay notification by creating new obligations on and impediments for the Government.

I turn now to a matter that has, quite understandably, exercised a large number of colleagues. I want to refer to these amendments and new clauses in detail. They relate to the status of EU citizens. Providing certainty for this group of people is an important issue for the Government. That is why the Prime Minister, in her speech, made it one of our 12 priority objectives for negotiations.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

I will not give way, I am afraid—I have very little time.

While these amendments call for different cut-off dates and vary in wording and terminology, they all share the same aim—to guarantee the status of EU nationals currently in the UK. The Government wholeheartedly agree with this aim. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, most recently this very afternoon, securing the status of EU nationals is one of the foremost priorities of this Government. We have stood ready to reach an agreement from the beginning, because it is not in anyone’s interest to allow any uncertainty over this issue to continue.

[Margaret Ferrier]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

I will not give way because I have little time.

As the Prime Minister told the House this afternoon, the Government recognise that European citizens who are resident in the UK make a vital contribution both to our economy and to our communities. That contribution was highlighted very personally in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). Without them, we would all be poorer, not least our important public services such as the national health service.

[Margaret Ferrier]

rose—

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

I will not give way any further.

This is less an issue of principle than of timing, with a few EU countries insisting that there can be no negotiation without notification, and that therefore nothing can be settled until article 50 is triggered. We could not be clearer about our determination to resolve this issue at the earliest possible opportunity, ensuring that the status of UK nationals in the EU is similarly protected. Some hon. Members have called for a unilateral guarantee now, but we have a very clear duty to UK citizens living in other EU member states, of whom there are about 1 million, to look after their interests and provide as much certainty as possible for their futures as well. Some hon. Members have suggested that we should, in effect, offer a unilateral guarantee to EU nationals in the UK while at the same time failing to achieve security for our own nationals abroad. That is a course that would carry the risk of a prolonged period of stressful uncertainty for them, which we are not prepared to accept. Only after we have passed this Bill into law can my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister trigger article 50—

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Jones]

I will take no further interventions; I am sorry. Only after the Bill has become law can my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister trigger article 50 and thus provide certainty not only to EU nationals living within our borders, but to our nationals overseas.

New clause 33 calls on the Prime Minister to set out a draft framework, especially with regard to the new immigration system, prior to notification. We have already set out in our White Paper that we will introduce an immigration Bill, and I reassure colleagues that Parliament will have a clear opportunity to debate and vote on the matter. The great repeal Bill will not change our immigration system; that will be done by a separate immigration Bill and subsequent secondary legislation. Nothing will change for any EU citizen, whether they are already resident in the UK or moving from the UK, without Parliament’s approval.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is doing a fantastic job in this position on behalf of the British people. We are all concerned about our constituents who are EU citizens and who want certainty on this matter, but I am advising my constituents who express concern to me that they should write to their own Governments, who are standing in the way of sorting out this problem. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that foreign Governments who are standing in the way of a settlement on the matter are left in no doubt that we find that objectionable?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an important point.

[Alan Brown]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

Bear with me. This will be a matter for negotiation in due course, but ultimately we must all be conscious of the fact that we are dealing with human beings—families, and people who are concerned about their futures and their careers. Not only do we have a duty in that regard, but there is a duty right across the European Union to protect the interests of those individuals.

[Margaret Ferrier]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

I will give way in a moment. I can tell the House that I have discussed the matter on numerous occasions with my EU counterparts. They assure me that they fully understand that it is an issue of simple humanity that must be put at the top of the agenda when the negotiations commence. We must wait until the negotiations commence, and until they do, we must not make any concessions.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I thank the Minister for finally giving way. I want to talk about my constituent Mr Joerg Nueter, who is from Germany and who came to see me on Friday. He has lived in Scotland for almost four years, and he is understandably concerned about his future and the uncertainty surrounding his residency. There is nothing preventing the Government from providing that certainty to him and to millions tonight. Will the Minister do that now?

[Mr Jones]

We owe the primary responsibility to our citizens in EU countries, but we also owe a duty to EU nationals in this country to ensure that their interests are protected. Frankly, this is a matter for their Governments, too.

This has been an interesting, lengthy and important debate, but I must resist all the new clauses and amendments.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will be very brief. I am pleased that the Minister has recognised the thoughtfulness of new clause 3 and other new clauses and amendments, and I note his intention to keep the House well informed. It is deeply disappointing that he has resisted new clause 3, however, so we seek to test the will of the Committee on the matter.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.