All 2 Debates between Baroness Winterton of Doncaster and Chris Leslie

Wed 20th Dec 2017
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Commons Chamber

Committee: 8th sitting: House of Commons

EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement

Debate between Baroness Winterton of Doncaster and Chris Leslie
Tuesday 26th June 2018

(6 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie Portrait Mr Leslie
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
- Hansard - -

I hope that this is a point of order.

Chris Leslie Portrait Mr Leslie
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My point is that I do not have a copy of the paper Whip in front of me at the moment, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would you encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) to share with Labour Members what our position is on this important issue?

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker
- Hansard - -

That is a point of debate. I want the debate to move on because a lot of Members wish to speak.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Winterton of Doncaster and Chris Leslie
Chris Leslie Portrait Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Portrait The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
- Hansard - -

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 77, in clause 13, page 9, line 9, at end insert—

“(3) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—

(a) make provision enabling or requiring judicial notice to be taken of a relevant matter, or

(b) provide for the admissibility in any legal proceedings of specified evidence of—

(i) a relevant matter, or

(ii) instruments or documents issued by or in the custody of an EU entity.”

Clause 13 stand part.

Amendment 348, in schedule 5, page 36, line 9, at end insert—

“(c) any impact assessment conducted by Her Majesty’s Government that in any way concerns the economic and financial impact of in anyway altering, modifying or abolishing any relevant instrument.”

This amendment would require the Government to publish its economic impact assessments of the policy options for withdrawal from the EU.

Amendment 76, in schedule 5, page 37, leave out paragraph 4.

That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

Chris Leslie Portrait Mr Leslie
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Merry Christmas to you, Dame Rosie, and to all hon. and right hon. Members.

Under the peculiar vagaries of the Government’s programme motion, we have ended up with a peculiar day 8 in Committee, with a potential four-hour chunk to debate amendments to schedule 5, which is quite a narrow area of concern—the publication of retained EU legislation and rules of evidence—and, in theory, only four hours in the second half to debate the massive number of remaining amendments. The Committee will understand why I probably do not want to spend too much time on this first group, because I suspect a large number of hon. Members will want to speak on the second group.

Nevertheless, I will have a crack at new clause 21 because it is always worth probing the Government on every part of a Bill. This new clause would ensure that, when Her Majesty’s Government publish EU retained legislation, they accompany it with a summarising explanatory document setting out, in terms that are readily understandable, its purpose and effect.

This might seem an obvious point, and someone might say, “Of course Ministers intend to do this. Surely, if we have all the legal gobbledegook we normally get in statute and in primary and secondary legislation, there will be a summary not just for Members of Parliament but for the public to read and understand so they know what they are talking about.” But that practice has only been in effect for a small number of years and, although it started with the good intention of providing explanatory statements and explanatory notes, it has slipped back a bit from the original intention. When hon. Members pick up a dense and complex proposal, they will often find that the explanatory notes basically say the same thing, perhaps with a few dots and commas changed here and there, and feel that the proposal is as impenetrable as it ever was.

The point is that clarity is needed if we are to transfer a great set of EU legislation into UK law. Such clarity is an important principle that Parliament should underline and establish, which is what new clause 21 seeks to do. More than that, when we legislate we should make it clear not just for the lawyers but for everyone so that all our constituents know and understand the consequences of the laws we are putting in place.

Such clarity was not always evident in the referendum campaign in the run-up to June 2016. In fact, many would still say that there was a lot of obfuscation and opacity, and that the consequences of Brexit were not clear at all. In my view, as much clarity and plain English as possible should be obtainable.