UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between Keir Starmer and Charlie Elphicke

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

I agree with the right hon. Lady. One of the frustrations is that we are now faced with arguments from the Government that the period of time for an extension must be really short for various reasons, yet they ran away from the vote on 10 December. We could have known on 11 December that this deal was never going to go through. We would then have had three and a half months left on the clock before we even got to any question of an extension, and then another three months, even on the Government’s own analysis, to try to sort the problem out. Yet here we are, with 15 days to go, having this discussion about an extension in the worst of circumstances, and we are doing it for one reason. That is that the deal that was signed on 25 November and that could have been put to the vote on 11 December was pulled. Not one word of that agreement has ever changed. All that has happened is that we have been waiting for three-plus months to vote again on the same proposition. We cannot waste another week doing the same thing next week.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be opposing amendment (h) tonight, and I will join him and the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) in doing so. It is right that the House should send a clear message on the matter of the people’s vote. The question should be put to the House tonight, and I hope that it will be defeated so that we can move on.

[Keir Starmer]

That is not what I said. I did not say that we would oppose it. It is obvious that we are supportive of the principle; it is a question only of timing.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Keir Starmer and Charlie Elphicke

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

One of the risks for Members taking interventions is that the very next point we are about to make is stolen, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will just remind the House that the president of the CBI this morning said:

“If we do not have a customs union, there are sectors of manufacturing society in the UK which risk becoming extinct... Be in no doubt, that is the reality.”

This is at the heart of the debate. If we destroy the manufacturing model that I just described, we destroy a vital part of the economy and job losses will be considerable. That is why there are such high levels of concern across the business community about the Government’s current approach.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being very generous in taking interventions. Will he just tell the House whether he believes that Britain should remain in the EEA—yes or no?

[Keir Starmer]

For the benefit of the House, I am going to go through the customs union argument before moving on to discuss the EEA and the single market, and then I have other remarks to make. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will deal with his point when I deal with the EEA. I am currently dealing with the customs union.

Government’s EU Exit Analysis

Debate between Keir Starmer and Charlie Elphicke

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

rose—

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I will complete this point and then give way.

There is a serious point. Is it seriously Government policy that impact assessments are so inherently unreliable that it is better to proceed without them? That is the logic of the position described yesterday. Is it not better to adopt the approach tweeted last night by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), who said:

“The next phase of Brexit has to be all about the evidence. We can’t just dismiss this and move on. If there is evidence to the contrary, we need to see and consider that too”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I agree that it would be highly likely that such material would be put into the public domain.

I come back to this serious point: the choice now to be made is how we leave the EU and what the future relationship might be. That is a profoundly important question. There are many different choices, and we absolutely need—and there should be—a robust impact assessment that we can all see and all discuss.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way once more, and then I will get on to the third point.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. Is it his party’s policy to remain in the European Union’s customs union—yes or no?

[Keir Starmer]

Mr Speaker, I rather thought that the point of interventions was to engage in the debate that was going on, rather than to make a completely different point. Our position on the customs union has been made clear very, very many times, and I do not see that that is an intervention on the point that I am making, so I will press on.

The third line of defence that was advanced by the Minister, who now seeks instructions from the civil servants he disparaged yesterday, was that any disclosure might harm or undermine the negotiations. Again, we have heard that one before. We have always accepted that anything that genuinely undermines the negotiations should not be put into the public domain, but there is a difference between that and something that is simply embarrassing to the Government, a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) yesterday afternoon. This motion provides for confidentiality. That defence was immediately undermined by the Minister himself yesterday. When there is a leak, Governments usually say that they will not comment on the leak, and that they do not rely on the information in the leak, because if it is not to be in the public domain, nobody should rely on it. But the Minister not only commented on it, but sought to rely on the leak to advance his own case. When challenged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) about the customs union, he prayed in aid the figures, saying that

“there is economic growth under all the scenarios in the economic assessment.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 683.]

One cannot simply say, “I will rely on the figures to advance my own case, but I won’t publish the full figures so that anyone can question me properly on what I am saying.” We now need to go back to first principles.

Exiting the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments

Debate between Keir Starmer and Charlie Elphicke

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

I am surprised by that intervention, given the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). The concern is shared on both sides of the House.

The intervention of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) is typical of what has been going on for 16 or 17 months. Every time somebody raises a legitimate question, it is suggested that they are somehow frustrating or undermining the process. It is not unlike the interventions I took a year ago when I suggested that the plan should be published. The interventions were exactly the same.

This is lockdown, a blanket ban. If the exemption for ministerial advice is being relied on, it is curious that it is not mentioned as the ground being relied on in the letter in response to the freedom of information request. That is why we have brought this motion to the House—

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to press on.

You will have seen today’s Order Paper, Mr Deputy Speaker. Coming from someone who thinks that we should catapult Parliament into 21st century, the wording of our motion is a little odd. The motion borrows widely from parliamentary procedure used to require Ministers to lay before the House or a Committee a specific document. “Erskine May” says the following:

“Each House has the power to call for the production of papers by means of a motion...the power to send for papers by means of a motion for unopposed return extends to papers which are in the possession of Ministers or which Ministers have the authority to obtain.”

That procedure has widely been used for many decades—the Opposition Whips tell me it has been used for many centuries. If anyone doubts the procedure, they should see on page 3 of today’s Order Paper that the Home Secretary has used the same procedure in relation to a different report.

What is important about this procedure is that we believe this is a binding motion, and that makes it—we hope—impossible for the Government to pull their usual Wednesday afternoon trick of not voting on Opposition day motions or not taking any notice of them. That is why we have chosen the procedure that we have. But let me be clear: our motion does not require blanket publication without further consideration. Instead, it would require that the documents covered in the list should be provided to the Brexit Committee—or other Select Committees if the Government’s concern is that that is too limited and these things ought to go to all the Select Committees. We are very open to that discussion, but these documents should go to the Brexit Committee. Then it would be for that Committee—or any other Select Committee—to decide which documents should and should not be published. It would also fall to that Committee to decide in what form publication should occur.

Members may ask why we have chosen the Brexit Committee. We have done so because it is a cross-party Committee; it has a lot of expertise and support staff; and it has a Government majority, so the Opposition cannot be accused of being party political here. It is a trusted and responsible Committee.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Keir Starmer and Charlie Elphicke

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

I will make this point and then give way to several hon. Members.

What are the procedures? Are they enhanced? No. The opposite. Part 2 of schedule 7 deals with clause 9. It makes it clear that unless the delegated legislation creates a public authority, or the function of a public authority, affects a criminal offence or affects a power to make legislation, it is to be dealt with by—what? The negative procedure for statutory instruments, which means the least possible scrutiny: it means that the widest possible power, with no safeguards, will be channelled into the level of least scrutiny.

That is absolutely extraordinary. Let us be clear about what it means, because I am sure that the Secretary of State and others will say that notwithstanding the number of statutory instruments for which the schedule provides, they can be called up and annulled, and Parliament will have its say. I looked up the last time a negative-procedure statutory instrument had been annulled in the House, and it was 38 years ago. I do not know how many Members have been in the House for 38 years, but many of us will not have had that opportunity. So much for “taking back control”.

There is no point in the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister saying, “We would not use these powers: take our assurance.” If they would not use them, they are unnecessary, and if they are unnecessary they should not be put before the House for approval today.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The case that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making is for an amendment to clause 9. He is not making a case against the principle of the Bill, which is what Second Reading debates are about, and as he and his party are determined to vote against the principle of the Bill, he ought to make that case.

[Keir Starmer]

I have only just started.

Brexit and Foreign Affairs

Debate between Keir Starmer and Charlie Elphicke

Monday 26th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

Let me deal with that in relation to EU citizens first. I will discuss it more generally when I get to that part of my speech.

As far as EU nationals are concerned, we need to understand the worries of our EU partners. Whatever agreement is put in place, they recognise that it has to last for the lifetime of EU nationals here—the lifetime. In some cases, that will mean 50-plus years. They know how our system works. They know that no one Government can bind the next. Their concern is understandable. What is given in good faith and assured today can be taken away in a year, two years, five years or 10 years, yet their citizens want to live their lives here for decades. That is why they want some mechanism, external to our parliamentary regime, to underpin those rights. It is no answer to their concern simply to say, “We have the best judges; we have the Supreme Court,” because, as the Secretary of State understands, if the law of this country changes in five years and these people’s rights are reduced, our Supreme Court will have to apply the legislation as it is then rather than any agreement that is reached now. That is their concern.

When pressed on the matter last week, the Prime Minister made it clear—I think this is in the document that was produced today—that this will be an international agreement and will therefore be subject to international enforcement. It is a pretence that this can all be done within our courts and our own jurisdiction. I will come to the wider question later, but if we are talking about honesty and proceeding in a grown-up way, it would be far better if the Government recognised the EU’s core concerns and found a way of ensuring that they are met, because this is about the lives of real people for decades and decades.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will make some progress, if I may.

Back home, the divisions are obvious. The Chancellor’s Mansion House speech last week was clearly an attempt to spike the Prime Minister’s Brexit approach. Thus he spoke of a “jobs and prosperity first” Brexit. That reflects the Labour party manifesto, in which we spoke of a “jobs and…economy first” Brexit. The Chancellor also spoke of an

“early agreement on transitional arrangements”

and no “cliff edge” for the economy, and that is in the Labour party manifesto, which said we would

“negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a ‘cliff-edge’”.

He has clearly been reading about our position.

The Chancellor spoke of a “management of migration”, not shutting it down. The Labour party manifesto spoke of

“fair rules and reasonable management of migration.”

Was his speech a personal view, the Government’s view, or the view that he hopes the next Prime Minister will take? Clearly we cannot go on like this.