Department for Exiting the European Union
Steve Baker Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) on opening the debate and I thank the hon. Members who have contributed. I am proud to serve in and represent the Department for Exiting the European Union, which—despite having been established for only two years—has achieved a great deal.
As the House knows, the Department was set up in response to the referendum, one of the biggest democratic exercises in British history. Turnout was high at 72%, with more than 33 million people having their say. Turnout was higher than in any general election since 1992, and it was the second highest popular vote of any form in our long and distinguished democratic history. More than 1 million more people voted leave than voted remain.
The Department was established at pace from a standing start. It has grown considerably to more than 600 staff today, plus more than 150 people based in Brussels at our permanent representation to the EU. DExEU staff are drawn from more than 40 Departments and public bodies, and 180 staff have joined us from outside government to ensure that we have the range of expertise to deliver our objectives. If time allows, I will respond specifically to the Chair of the Select Committee, but I join him in paying tribute to the quality of our staff, and I was glad to hear him do so. I am extremely proud to work with them.
As many hon. Members observed in the debate, and as many others have done here and in the Lords, the scale of the Department’s task is immense, but its objectives are clear. One of DExEU’s primary objectives is to lead and co-ordinate cross-Government work to seize the opportunities of Brexit and to ensure a smooth process as we leave, including the required domestic legislation, on the best possible terms.
Delivering EU exit is, of course, a cross-Government effort. Our work in DExEU means that we come together with the devolved Administrations, Parliament, EU member states and institutions, and a wide range of other interested parties. The Department is small and agile in Whitehall terms, with just over 600 people. We are focused on co-ordinating activities towards our EU exit in Brussels, in Whitehall and beyond across the UK.
For 2017-18, our original budget for the year was £106.1 million. Following a supplementary estimate, we have reduced this budget to £80.6 million. The Department transferred £1 million to the Cabinet Office in relation to supporting the transfer of the role of the Europe adviser to the Cabinet Office, and a further £0.8 million to other Departments to support activities directly related to our exit from the European Union. A further £20 million of the original budget was returned to the Treasury to be transferred to and used by other Departments for critical work relating to Brexit. Our Department has sufficient funding in current and future years to deliver its objectives.
We have achieved a tremendous amount already. We have put in place a major legislative programme to make sure our statute book continues to function smoothly as we exit the European Union, and to cater for the full range of negotiated and non-negotiated outcomes.
DExEU has set out the Government’s future vision in 14 position papers, supporting the keynote speeches delivered by the Prime Minister at Lancaster House and in Florence. Officials from my Department have engaged in negotiations and supported the Secretary of State in the Brussels negotiations, which ran from June to December. That culminated in our publication, with the EU, of a joint report on 8 December last year, setting out the significant agreements that we had reached on the three key areas of citizens’ rights, the budget and Northern Ireland.
A fair deal on citizens’ rights is one that will allow for the UK and EU citizens to get on with their lives broadly as they do now in the country where they live. The financial settlement honours the commitments that we undertook as members of the EU, as we said it would. It is a fair delivery of our obligations in the light of the spirit of our future partnership and it is one based on reasonable assumptions. The settlement is estimated to stand at between £35 billion and £39 billion in current terms, which is the equivalent of around four years of our current budget contribution, around two of which we expect to be covered by the implementation period. It is far removed from the figure that some had suggested of £60 billion.
We have an agreement in relation to Northern Ireland that commits us to maintain the common travel area with Ireland, to uphold the Belfast agreement in full and to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland while upholding the constitutional and economic integrity of the whole United Kingdom. On that point, the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) asked about visits to Northern Ireland. I checked just moments before I rose to speak. The answer is that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who is responsible for engaging with Northern Ireland, has made three visits and has another planned.
We want to honour the agreements set out in the joint report. The important thing now is for talks to move forward so that we can agree the terms of our future relationship with the EU in order to provide vital certainty to businesses and citizens. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) asked what signals we wanted to send. Although I agree with him that a responsible Government should prepare for all scenarios, the signal that this Government wish to send is that which I have just set out: we wish to fulfil the withdrawal agreement; we wish to agree an implementation period; we wish to agree a co-operation on security and defence because our commitment to peace and security in Europe is unconditional; and, of course, we want to move forward to agree a future economic partnership that is in all our mutual interests.
Negotiations have been continuing at pace in the last two months to ensure that we secure a deal on the time-limited implementation period that both we and the Commission want to agree by the March European Council. The Prime Minister has advocated this implementation period from the start, and first mentioned it in her Lancaster House speech. The implementation period will provide greater certainty for individuals and businesses, meaning they will only have to plan for one set of changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU. The business community has been clear on the importance of this to its planning, and the period will ensure a smooth exit and transition to our future partnership after the UK leaves the European Union in March 2019. We have of course published a legal text on the arrangements for the implementation period and we look forward to taking further significant steps.
As I have said, a key part of DExEU’s role is to lead and co-ordinate work across Government. We have been working with Whitehall Departments to help them to plan for all scenarios, sharing assumptions and scenarios and making sure we have the right legal and administrative systems in place. The Department returned £20 million of original Budget allocation to the Treasury to help to fund other Departments, with an additional £2 million being transferred to other Government Departments as a result of a transfer of responsibilities. In terms of wider financial support for EU exit, over £250 million has been approved by the Treasury as needed in 2017-18 to prepare for EU exit work across a range of Departments. The Chancellor announced at the 2017 autumn statement that a further £3 billion will be available to Departments.
Time has run short in this debate. I will just pick up one or two of the points raised by the hon. Member for Darlington regarding the Prime Minister’s Europe adviser. The departmental and ministerial responsibilities are set out clearly on gov.uk. The Europe unit supports Olly Robbins in his role as the Prime Minister’s EU sherpa. As such, it supports him as the lead official and the Department is glad to work with him.
As time has run so short, I will finish by simply saying that I have listened extremely carefully to the debate, in particular to the points on the customs union, but the Government’s position remains as stated.
Official Journal of the European Union
Steve Baker Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
Lord Callanan, Minister of State for Exiting the European Union, has made the following statement:
I confirm that an exemption in accordance with Section 8(5) of the European Union Act 2011 (EU Act 2011) applies to the European Commission’s proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 (COM(2017)87). The proposed regulation refers to the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to introduce the authentication of a document by an electronic seal. This option is offered by Regulation No 910/2014. This proposed amendment is purely technical and there are no policy implications for the UK. The legislative change is needed as the change in electronic seal alters the legal status in the publication.
The legal base of the proposal is Article 352 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Under Section 8 of the EU Act 2011, decisions under this require an Act of Parliament to approve the measure, unless both Houses agree to a motion that a decision is urgent or an exemption applies.
In this case Section 8(6)(a) of the EU Act 2011 provides an exemption to make provision equivalent to that made by a measure previously adopted under Article 352 TFEU. The proposal is to make a provision equivalent to that made by Council Regulation (EU) No. 216/2013, which was previously adopted under Article 352 TFEU on 7 March 2013. This proposal has the same substance matter. It relates to the electronic authentication of the Official Journal. As such, all that has altered is the specific form the authentication is to take. Therefore this proposal does not require an Act of Parliament for the UK to approve the measure.
[HCWS480]
Prayers
Steve Baker Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to correct the record of my answer yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). He is aware of this point of order.
Yesterday, I answered a question based on my honest recollection of a conversation. As I explained yesterday, I considered what I understood to be the suggestion being put to me as implausible because of the long-standing and well-regarded impartiality of the civil service. The audio of that conversation is now available, and I am glad that the record stands corrected.
In the context of that audio, I accept that I should have corrected or dismissed the premise of my hon. Friend’s question. I have apologised to Mr Charles Grant, who is an honest and trustworthy man. As I have put on record many times, I have the highest regard for our hard-working civil servants. I am grateful for this opportunity to correct the record and I apologise to the House.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163), and negatived.
Oral Answers to Questions
Steve Baker Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
Across the Government, we are planning for all outcomes, including the unlikely scenario in which no mutually satisfactory agreement can be reached. Given the success that we have had in securing an agreement in the first phase of negotiations, we are confident that we will go on to reach a swift agreement on an implementation period and a mutually beneficial future partnership with the EU. We approach the negotiations anticipating success and a good deal for both the UK and the EU.
Antoinette Sandbach
Given DExEU’s propensity to rubbish the Government’s own research, will the Minister commission the independent Office for Budget Responsibility to model the budgetary and economic impacts of the four departure options—World Trade Organisation rules, a Canada-style deal, the Government’s free trade agreement proposal and joining the European Free Trade Association—and then release this modelling to Parliament?
Mr Baker
As my hon. Friend knows, the OBR’s responsibilities are set out in legislation, and we do not have any plans to change them. I am glad that she mentions EFTA. A number of colleagues have raised EFTA with me. It would be important to have a further debate on EFTA if she would like to table one, because I would like to hear from colleagues what problems they believe that EFTA would solve in relation to our relations with the European Union, given that Swiss bilaterals have been ruled out and we are looking for our own bilateral relationships. We do not propose to join the European Economic Area, which would be a bad deal for the UK.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I know that the Secretary of State is an early riser, but did any of the other Ministers listen to the former Chancellor, George Osborne, on Radio 4 this morning? What are they going to say about what he says about the fact that this country, especially the manufacturing sector, is doomed outside the European Union?
Mr Baker
I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to listen to the former Chancellor on Radio 4 this morning. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that he did. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me fondly of the time that I did listen to the former Chancellor on Radio 4, before I went on after him at the height of the campaign.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that it is important that we keep our skies as open as possible post Brexit? Can he provide any reassurance that he is engaging with the aviation sector to make sure that this industry can continue to thrive under any and all post-Brexit scenarios?
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
The BuzzFeed papers tell us that the regions most damaged by a no-deal Brexit would be the west midlands, Northern Ireland, and the north-east. The people of these regions deserve better. Will the Minister take the opportunity to make it clear to certain colleagues sitting behind him that they are wrong and irresponsible to be talking up or wishing for a no-deal outcome?
Mr Baker
To answer the hon. Lady very directly on her last point, as I said earlier, it is our policy to seek a mutually beneficial, deep and special partnership with the European Union, embracing an economic partnership, among other things, and we are optimistic about achieving that outcome.
Jenny Chapman
The Minister will not say it, but I will: they are wrong and they are irresponsible to be doing so.
As well as certain regions being hit hardest, certain sectors are threatened severely by a no-deal Brexit. For example, the food and drink industry exported £9.8 billion-worth of goods to the EU last year. Once and for all, will the Minister rule out a no-deal outcome, commit to a transition on current terms and give industry the certainty it needs?
Mr Baker
I find the hon. Lady’s question peculiar. She seems to be suggesting that I would adopt something other than Government policy. It is the Government’s policy to secure an implementation period on current terms; it is the Government’s policy to secure an economic partnership; and of course it is the Government’s policy to be responsible and prepare to exit the European Union under whatever circumstances may prove necessary.
Emma Dent Coad (Kensington) (Lab)
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
We have been working closely with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on support for farmers. The Government will provide the same cash total in funds for farm support until the end of the Parliament. We of course continue to work closely with a range of stakeholders across the farming industry and beyond, as well as with the devolved Administrations.
Colin Clark
EU rules on farming have been “one size fits all”. Does my hon. Friend agree that after Brexit we will be able to create farming policy, regulations and frameworks that work better for all parts of the United Kingdom?
Mr Baker
Yes. Once we have left the EU, we will be able to redesign our agriculture policy so that farmers are competitive, productive and profitable, and our environment is protected for future generations. My right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary eloquently sets out the flaws in the common agricultural policy and how the UK Government can do so much better outside the EU.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Minister further outline how he intends to secure subsidies for the average UK farm of 160 acres—such farms are classified as small farms—and how does he believe that small farmers will be able to survive post Brexit?
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
The Minister referred to us leaving the common agricultural policy. Can he clarify when farmers will no longer be subject to it, and when our fishing industry will no longer be subject to the common fisheries policy? Will it be when we leave the EU next March, or is it more likely to be at the end of a transition period?
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Securing favourable trading conditions will be just as important for the future of our farmers, including those who reflect distinct characteristics of the industry across the UK. Will the Minister confirm what role the devolved Administrations will play in formulating our position?
Mr Baker
They will play an important role, and we will continue to engage with the hon. Gentleman. I am very conscious of agricultural tariffs—the common external tariff and tariffs around the world. It is in all our interests to ensure tariff-free access to and from European markets as we reach our deep and special partnership.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
The Government have been conducting a broad overall programme of work on EU exit issues and will continue to do so. That means that all decisions, including those relating to the customs union and the automotive sector, are supported by a range of analytical work. We want our deep and special partnership with the EU to include the automotive industry. We want to ensure that trade is as free and frictionless as possible, with minimum disruption to the industry. The UK remains the second-largest market for cars in Europe, so it is in both our interests to continue the partnership between our industries. I know that the Vauxhall car plant in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is extremely important, and I look forward to visiting it soon.
Justin Madders
As the Minister knows, the Vauxhall plant in my constituency is fighting for its survival. Vauxhall’s parent company, PSA, has said that it is not prepared to make any long-term investment decisions until there is clarity about the final trading arrangements, and, having heard what Ministers have said this morning, I am not sure we will get that any time soon. Can the Minister at least guarantee that the trading arrangements for the automotive sector will be no less favourable than they are now?
Mr Baker
The Government understand that Vauxhall’s decision was a commercial one, taken as a result of challenging European market conditions. Vauxhall has made it clear that the decision was made to safeguard the competitiveness of the plant. The Government maintain close ongoing dialogue with Vauxhall and its parent group, PSA, as they make their joint plans for the future, including potential investments. Ministers have met senior management representatives of PSA and Vauxhall regularly throughout the process, and will continue to do so.
I hope and expect that as we progress through our negotiations, agree on an implementation period and then move on to our economic partnership, the hon. Gentleman will find that an accelerating degree of certainty emerges.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The port of Immingham in my constituency is vital to the automotive sector. Further to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), about Teesport and free ports, may I ask whether the Minister is prepared to meet me to discuss the possibility of Immingham’s becoming a free port post Brexit?
Mr Baker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. Of course I will meet him and other colleagues to discuss it, but I should add that as this conversation has proceeded, certain misgivings have been expressed about free ports. We must ensure that any free port proposal is capable of giving the country the security that it needs.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
The “Right by Right” memorandum clarifies the way in which human rights will continue to be protected in domestic law after the UK has exited the EU. Under both the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and existing domestic law, all substantive rights reaffirmed in the charter of fundamental rights will continue to be protected after exit. The Government’s assessment is that, in itself, not incorporating the charter in UK law should not affect the substantive rights from which people in the UK already benefit.
Afzal Khan
The paper leaked to BuzzFeed reportedly suggests that
“deregulating in areas such as the environment, product standards, and employment law”
could provide an opportunity for the UK. Is that part of the Government’s economic strategy?
Paula Sherriff
The Brexit Secretary has labelled employment regulations as “crippling”, the Foreign Secretary has described them as “back-breaking”, and the International Trade Secretary has said that rules on maximum working hours are a “burden”. Will the Minister tell us why the Government are so readily prepared to undermine the promise to enhance workers’ rights as we leave the EU?
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
During our consideration of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in Committee, concerns were repeatedly raised that critical environmental rights and protections could be cast aside as we exit the EU. If the Government are serious about raising, not lowering, those rights and protections after Brexit, why have they so far failed to introduce an ambitious new environment Bill, but are instead, as we now know from the leaked papers, commissioning analysis suggesting that Brexit could present an opportunity to deregulate in such areas?
Mr Baker
The purpose of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is to preserve the effect of EU law on the day after exit day, so far as that is possible. Its purpose is to provide certainty, continuity and control rather than policy changes. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has laid out his policy clearly, and I look forward to his presenting a Bill in due course.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
The duration of the implementation period should be around two years. Only when the UK is no longer a member state can we take advantage of our status as an independent trading nation. As such, the UK will negotiate our own free trade agreements but not bring them into effect until after the implementation period has concluded. For this period, we will agree a process for discussing laws that might be brought in, on which we have not had our say. This will give us the means to remedy any issues through dialogue as soon as possible.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
There have been lots of questions this week about the leaked EU exit analysis Whitehall briefings, but this is the first chance I have had to ask the Secretary of State about it directly, so I will choose my words carefully. Can the Secretary of State confirm when he first knew that economic modelling work on Brexit scenarios was being undertaken across Whitehall?
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Mr Baker
As a chartered aerospace engineer, this subject is close to my heart. Aviation is crucial to the UK’s economy, and we are committed to getting the best deal possible for the UK. We are focused on securing the right arrangements for the future, so that our aviation and aerospace industries can continue to thrive, that passengers can have opportunity and choice, and that businesses can be profitable. We will seek the right customs arrangements between the UK and the EU to ensure that trade is free and frictionless and that businesses can succeed.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Mr Baker
We have met representatives of the chemicals industry on several occasions. At the most recent meeting, we had constructive conversations that ended positively. We will ensure that we carry through the positions that we have set out, particularly in relation to goods on the market, and we hope to preserve continued registration of chemicals under REACH. We will of course seek to ensure that our deep and special partnership covers the chemicals industry, so that it can flourish after we leave the EU.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that it is possible for non-EU countries to access only three of the single market’s four freedoms, specifically the free movement of goods, capital and services, without being required to accept freedom of movement, as can be seen with the association agreement countries? Is the Department currently looking at that type of arrangement?
Mr Baker
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Trade continues all around the world on a free and fair basis, particularly under free trade agreements. It is our expectation and intention to secure a free trade agreement of unprecedented scope and ambition, which should meet just the criteria that she sets out.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), told the House yesterday that the document that I hope will shortly be handed over to the Exiting the European Union Committee
“does not yet reflect this Government’s policy approaches”—[Official Report, 31 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 834.]
Given that the Secretary of State has just claimed from the Dispatch Box that everybody knows what the Government’s position is, will the Minister explain why lots of analysis has been done of the options that the Government do not want when apparently no analysis has yet been done of the option that the Government do want?
Mr Baker
As I said when I answered the urgent question on Tuesday, the Government cannot control the timing of leaks. The preliminary analysis is a work in progress that does not yet reflect the Government’s policy. Once the analysis has been carried through, I am sure that it will do.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Poor old George Osborne, not mentioned at all.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Will the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), confirm that he heard from Charles Grant of the Centre for European Research that officials in the Treasury have deliberately developed a model to show that all options other than staying in the customs union are bad, and that officials intend to use the model to influence policy? If that is correct, does he share my view that it goes against the spirit of the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms that underpin our independent civil service?
Mr Baker
I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend’s account is essentially correct. At the time I considered it implausible because my direct experience is that civil servants are extraordinarily careful to uphold the impartiality of the civil service. We must proceed with great caution in this matter, but I have heard him raise the issue. We need to be very careful not to take this forward in an inappropriate way, but he has reminded me of something that I heard. It would be quite extraordinary if it turned out that such a thing had happened.
Mr Baker
I did not say it was correct. I said that the account that it was put to me is correct. It was put to me, and I considered it an extraordinary allegation—I still consider it an extraordinary allegation. [Interruption.] To be absolutely clear, I said it was correct that the allegation was put to me. I did not in any way seek to confirm the truth of it. What I would say is that we need to proceed with great caution, because it is essential that we continue to uphold and support the impartiality of the civil service.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Every day hundreds of trucks criss-cross the channel carrying vital components for the British car industry’s highly integrated supply chain. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on that travel of customs delays, tariffs and extra bureaucracy if we come out of the customs union?
Government’s EU Exit Analysis
Steve Baker Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
This has been a great debate, and I am grateful to all the right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part. I apologise to those whose speeches I was not able to hear today; I know they were listened to closely, and I look forward to reading them in Hansard.
I am sure that we are all proud to be part of one of the world’s oldest parliamentary democracies. It is right that Parliament holds the Government to account for the decisions they make, but Parliament should be careful not to pursue a course of action that would harm Britain’s national interest, or one that would jeopardise the UK’s prospects during this crucial period in her history.
In drafting their motion, hon. Members have highlighted the need for material to be kept strictly confidential and unpublished during the negotiations, and we are grateful for that; but I cannot emphasise enough the importance of maintaining that position, in the national interest. In seeing the analysis, Members of the House will be sharing in the responsibility and obligation that the Government have to ensure the security of negotiation-sensitive materials.
We have reiterated many times that the publication of negotiation-sensitive information would be fundamentally detrimental to the UK’s negotiating position. We would risk undermining the hard work of our tireless officials, seeking to achieve the best deal for the UK in Brussels. The civil service is, quite properly, doing a huge amount of work to support the Government as phase 2 of the negotiations gets under way. As part of that work, analysis is being done as we define the end state. A first draft of that work was being looked at, and Ministers provided comments and asked for further work to be done, and that is the right process.
At this point, I wish to take on some opening remarks in which it was suggested that I had said that this analysis was rubbish. I said no such thing. It was suggested that I had been disrespectful to civil servants. I did no such thing. In fact, I paid tribute to our excellent officials three times in my remarks yesterday, and I am very happy to work with such high-quality, dedicated, intelligent officials, applying themselves to the task at hand irrespective of how they voted at the referendum. To pick up on the themes explored by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) about the conduct of the debate, I wish to state on the record, in the light of today’s press coverage, my admiration both for the Cabinet Secretary and for the Prime Minister’s Europe adviser, who I am absolutely sure are carrying forward the Government’s policy diligently and properly. They do not deserve the criticism they have received in the press.
In making the critique I made yesterday, I relied on three things: the caveats that Members will see on the face of the analysis itself, historical experience, and my own long-held beliefs, which I believe are well founded—if I do say so myself. I relied on arguments that I have made in this House throughout my years here, whether in the Chamber or in the Treasury Committee, and I certainly do not resile from what I have said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) picked up on the theme of uncertainty. The point here is not to rubbish all analysis, but to do what I suggested at the end of my remarks yesterday—to ensure that we have a healthy scepticism in this Chamber for reports and for analysis of economics based on the things to which I have referred. Parliament has rightly agreed in this House that Ministers have a duty not to publish anything that could risk exposing our negotiating position. We have an obligation to the people of this country to ensure that we strive to achieve the best possible deal for the UK. Forcing the publication of this analysis would put that at risk. Despite the repeated assertions of Members of this House, this draft document is not an impact assessment or a statement of Government policy; it is a very preliminary draft only seen by DExEU Ministers this week and does not constitute a meaningful commentary on the expected outcome of the negotiations.
As I attested to yesterday, the document has been circulated only to test ideas and design a viable framework for the analysis of our exit from the European Union. As we have said repeatedly, this work is constantly evolving. The report does not consider our desired outcome—the most ambitious relationship possible with the European Union, as set out by the Prime Minister in her Florence speech. All Members must surely agree that the Government cannot be expected to put such analysis into the public domain before it has been completed, particularly when it is sensitive. As I have said before, this Government will not provide a continuing commentary of the analysis we are undertaking. It would be speculative and damaging, especially as the analysis does not reflect the UK’s preferred outcome in the negotiations.
I wish to emphasise that it is the Government’s view that this is an exceptional request today given the misrepresentation in the press of the reporting of this leak. This motion will therefore be agreed to on an exceptional basis, and it does not set any precedent for future action.
Deidre Brock
Could the Minister confirm, as I asked previously, that he will undertake to release the analysis, at the same time as releasing it to the Select Committee, to the devolved Administrations?
Mr Baker
The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), has just told me that he has already given that assurance, but what I will say is that we will work with the Chair of the Select Committee to ensure that we comply scrupulously with the motion. In particular, we will need to discuss the requirements for confidentiality to which the House will be agreeing today.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank my good friend for allowing me to intervene. I take it from what I have heard in the Chamber that this is a sort of evolving document. It is more like an aide-mémoire to help the negotiators. It is not something set in stone and it will change during the negotiation. Is that the sort of document to which we are referring?
Mr Baker
As we have said many times, we conduct a wide range of analysis to support our negotiating position as we proceed through this process.
To reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), I reassure him that we will comply scrupulously with the motion, working with the Chair of the Select Committee. We will ensure that we comply with the confidentiality requirements of the motion and that the House is satisfied. He asked me about future analysis and the reassurance that I gave yesterday stands. We will ensure that, at the time of the meaningful vote, the House is appropriately equipped with the analysis that it needs to make a decision.
Paul Blomfield
I just want to be absolutely clear: the papers that we are talking about today are a work in progress and, in discussion with the Chair of the Select Committee, they will be released in full. And given that they are a work in progress and the suggestion is that we should therefore be looking to the final documents as the crucial guidance to this House, will they be released when they are completed?
Mr Baker
I heard what the hon. Gentleman said the first time, but the commitments that we are giving are that we will comply scrupulously with this motion and that we will make available to both Houses analysis at the time of the meaningful vote. That is the commitment into which we are entering, but I have heard his request for a continuous evolving analysis. What we have said is that we will not give a continuous rolling commentary on our analysis. We will proceed to ensure that the national interest is protected. We made a commitment to provide Parliament with the appropriate analysis it needs to make a decision on the final deal at the time that we vote, in the way that is set out in the written ministerial statement that we laid.
The Secretary of State has been consistent in stressing the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the Brexit process. We have done this willingly to ensure that the parliamentary process is followed. I endorse the actions that we have taken, as I accept collective responsibility regarding the point that was raised earlier.
Finally, as I reiterated yesterday, the people of this country on 23 June 2016 took the decision to leave the European Union. The purpose of the analysis that we have conducted is not to question that decision—which this House voted to respect when it supported triggering article 50—but to ensure that we have the best possible outcome for the British people. We are accepting this motion today on the exceptional basis of the poor reporting of a leak.
Mr Speaker
The Minister has concluded his oration, and we are grateful to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the EU exit analysis which was referred to in his response to an Urgent Question in the House on 30 January by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union be provided to the Exiting the European Union Committee and made available to all Members on a confidential basis as a matter of urgency.
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis
Steve Baker Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)(Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
I will begin by setting out our approach to publishing economic analysis, I hope once and for all.
I can confirm that—I think the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will want to listen to this. I can confirm that when we bring forward the vote on the final deal that we agree with the European Union, we will ensure that the House is presented with the appropriate analysis that the Government have carried out, so that the House can make an informed decision. All Members must surely agree, however, that the Government cannot be expected to put such an analysis into the public domain before it has been completed. That would misrepresent our views. Furthermore, the Government cannot be expected to publish the analysis while the negotiations continue, which would surely harm the national interest. Parliament has rightfully agreed that Ministers have a duty not to publish anything that could risk exposing our negotiating position.
Let me now turn to the article that prompted the urgent question. It is a selective interpretation of a preliminary analysis. It is an attempt to undermine our exit from the European Union. As I have told the House before, the Government are undertaking a wide range of analysis on our exit from the EU. The next stage of that analysis, summarised in a draft paper presented to Ministers this month, has been a cross-Whitehall effort to support our negotiating priorities. It has not been led by my Department, and it is not yet anywhere near being approved by Ministers. Even the ministerial team in my Department has only just been consulted on the paper, in recent days, and we have made it clear that it requires significant further work. In fact, I saw this report myself only this morning. The analysis to which I believe this article refers is a preliminary attempt to improve on the flawed analysis around the EU referendum. It is there to test ideas and to design a viable framework for the analysis of our exit from the EU. At this early stage, it only considers off-the-shelf trade arrangements that currently exist; we have been clear that these are not what we are seeking in the negotiations. It does not yet consider our desired outcome: the most ambitious relationship possible with the EU, as set out by the Prime Minister in her Florence speech.
Such an agreement is in the interests of both the UK and the EU. Therefore, the scenarios in this analysis continue to suffer from the flaws we have seen in previous analyses of this type. Such analyses have been proved to be wrong in the wake of the referendum, not least because there is huge uncertainty around any forecast, especially in the long run and especially in the context of a major strategic choice.
It is the Government’s job to improve on this analysis, but to do so we first have to understand where it went wrong previously. That is what the analysis to which this article refers is: it is not a forecast for our preferred outcome of the negotiations; it does not yet properly take account of the opportunities of leaving the EU.
Finally, on 23 June 2016 the people of this country took a decision to leave the EU in the context of a wide range of economic information. The purpose of this analysis is not to question that decision, which this House voted overwhelmingly to uphold. I hope all Members of this House will agree that we should continue to respect the result of the referendum.
Keir Starmer
Not good enough.
Here we go again: Brexit impact assessments, take two. For the past year, we have called on the Government to publish Brexit impact assessments. It is a simple argument: on decisions of this significance, Parliament is entitled to know the likely impact of the Government’s approach to Brexit and thus to hold the Government to account. The Government have repeatedly refused our requests.
Last year the Secretary of State initially insisted that these reports existed in “excruciating detail”, but were so sensitive that nobody else could see them. After this House passed a binding Humble Address, the Secretary of State changed tack, telling the Brexit Select Committee just last month that no “economic forecast of outcome” had ever existed. Yet last night we learn that an analysis has been produced after all.
This is now piling absurdity upon absurdity, and there are some pretty obvious questions. When was this new analysis commissioned? In particular, was it before or after the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Brexit Select Committee last month on this issue? Is this the only report that has been prepared on the Brexit scenarios? If not, what other analysis has been done? Does this new analysis model the Government’s Brexit approach? If not, why not? If so, will it lead to changes in Government policy? Finally, and most importantly, will the Secretary of State publish this now—not in nine months, but now, so that we can hold the Government properly to account?
We have been here before. It took a great deal of time last year and the use of a Humble Address to force the Government to release documents relating to Brexit. The Secretary of State has the chance today to avoid a repeat of that exercise if he commits to publishing this new analysis in full; will he do so?
Mr Baker
The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises the question of impact assessments, and what I can say to the House is that we have always been absolutely clear that we have a wide-ranging programme of analysis, which is evolving continually, but this economic analysis is not what is formally known as an impact assessment. [Interruption.] What I would say to the House—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is excessive gesticulation from a number of hon. Members, which is unseemly and certainly unstatesmanlike.
Mr Baker
The right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Labour party are completely neglecting our duty to safeguard the national interest in the course of these negotiations. I can understand why he and those behind him would want the reports in the press to be accurate. Fundamentally, they do not wish to leave the European Union. For them, good news is a disaster and bad news is a welcome confirmation of their world view. They await each set of employment figures with eager anticipation, only to have their hopes dashed when every set shows an ever-increasing number of people in work. They gleefully celebrate warnings from banks about the possibility of jobs moving to the continent, then they have to retreat when, a few months later, the banks assert the supremacy of the City of London. I do not blame them. They care passionately about remaining in the European Union and they want to overturn the result, but their strategy is becoming clear: demoralisation, delay and revocation. However, that is not what our parties stood for at the last election. Our parties were clear that we would respect the result of the referendum, and that requires the Government to deliver the best possible Brexit. That is what we are trying to do.
As I said in the opening words of my reply, when the time comes for a meaningful vote, the Government will ensure that the House is appropriately informed. However, we can see what some of this economic analysis could be worth. Let us take as an example the respected Bank of England. What institution could be more respected for its analysis? In August 2016, it made a quantitative forecast of the impact of Brexit, saying that exports would go down by 0.5%, but they went up 8.3%. It said that business investment would go down by 2%, but it went up by 1.7%. It said that housing investment would go down by 4.75%, but it went up by 5%. It said that employment growth would be zero—flat—but it went up to a new all-time high. The public deserve to see the national interest protected in these negotiations and to have a House of Commons of representatives who exhibit a healthy scepticism about economic forecasting.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
It is perfectly obvious to everyone on both sides of the channel that if the United Kingdom leaves the largest and richest multinational free-trade area in the world and constructs new barriers by way of tariffs, customs or regulatory barriers between ourselves and that market, future generations will to some degree be poorer than they would otherwise have been. Does the Minister not accept that the Government should feel themselves under a duty to have the best-informed debate in this House and in the country on the possible consequences of likely scenarios now, when the Government are deciding what their ultimate policy is going to be, and continuously throughout the vital next 12 months when the final picture will start to emerge? Will the Minister stop pretending that this is something to do with defending our negotiating position or that it is some kind of perverse attempt to reverse the referendum decision, and accept that he has failed, actually, to protect the Government from political embarrassment?
Mr Baker
The public have made a profoundly important strategic choice, which is to leave the European Union. That means that the Government need to deliver free trade on a new basis: on the basis not of political integration but of a new deep and special partnership with the European Union. It is the Government’s intention to deliver the best possible and most frictionless trading with our friends in the European Union, which it is in all our mutual interests to do. My right hon. and learned Friend talks about our duty, and he knows well that our duty is to look after the national interest of our constituents and of our country. That is exactly what we are seeking to do as we take these negotiations and this analysis forward.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
Just yesterday, I was commenting in this Chamber that the only constants in the Government’s Brexit position are chaos and confusion. Far be it from me to get in the way of the Government undermining themselves, or of Tory feuding, but this situation counts, and their bluff and bluster just will not cut it any more. It is striking that the figures that have been released are very similar to the figures that the Scottish Government produced on Scotland’s place in Europe. If the Scottish Government can produce their figures, why can this Government not do so?
Mr Baker
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are not copying the Scottish Government’s analysis and that we are doing our own homework. The Scottish National party’s position is clear: it wants to break up the United Kingdom and have a Scotland within the European Union. The actions that he describes must be understood in that context.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
We have here some London-centric remoaners—that could be a way of describing the shadow Brexit Secretary—in the civil service who did not want us to leave the European Union in the first place and put together some dodgy figures to back up their case. They still do not want us to leave the European Union and are regurgitating some dodgy figures to try to reverse the result of the referendum. Does my hon. Friend agree with that analysis? If so, does he agree that this really is not a news story?
Mr Baker
My hon. Friend makes a point that is very much in line with his long-held views. I should reaffirm that I am proud of the officials with whom I work. Irrespective of how they voted, they are demonstrating commitment to delivering on the decision of the British people. The intention of our current analysis is to improve on what has gone before and, as I set out in my initial response, we recognise that there were flaws in the previous approach.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
A lack of transparency is not in the national interest. On 6 December, I asked the Brexit Secretary,
“have the Government undertaken any impact assessments on the implications of leaving the EU for different sectors of the economy?”
He replied, “Not in sectors.” Now we learn that that work has been done, and it is reported that chemicals, clothing, manufacturing, food and drink, cars and retail will be the hardest hit sectors. Will the Minister offer the House an explanation for the discrepancy between what the Exiting the European Union Committee was told and what we now know?
Mr Baker
As I have explained, we have always said that our economic analysis was continually evolving across a wide range of activities—[Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh, but what else would they expect but for the Government to work continually on a developing analysis? As I may not have said in my opening remarks, I know that the Secretary of State only saw this particular document last night—I saw it this morning—and I think that that will explain the answers he has given.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that businesses up and down the country, including in Redditch, will wonder whose side the Labour party is on when its Members take great pleasure in forecasts that predict doom and gloom? People may conclude that Labour is not on the side of this country’s hard-working businesses and entrepreneurs.
Mr Baker
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Now that the decision has been taken, the vast majority of right-thinking people in the United Kingdom will expect it to be carried through with a good heart as a matter of choice. Time and again, we see a foot-dragging reluctance from the Labour party, which increasingly seems not to be respecting the choices of its own voters.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
It is reported that the analysis shows that the north, the midlands and Northern Ireland will be hardest hit in all the scenarios. Will the Minister confirm that that is because all the scenarios assume that Britain is outside the customs union? Will he confirm, too, that the Government appear to have undertaken no analysis of the different customs union options and of the impact on our economy? Given how significant the situation is for northern manufacturing and for Northern Ireland and given that the CBI has said this is irresponsible and is letting down northern manufacturing, will he commit to conducting and publishing analysis before the customs Bill completes its passage through Parliament?
Mr Baker
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady because she has given me the opportunity to reassure her that there is economic growth under all the scenarios in the economic assessment. The only question is to what extent and how fast, but there is projected to be economic growth across a 15-year period in all the scenarios.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend understand that many businesses in my constituency are already nervous about the apparently cavalier attitude of some Brexiteer opinion towards their continued success? Will he therefore confirm that the Government will seek to negotiate an arrangement and get a result that does not damage the long-term economic success of our country and the national interest of our people?
Mr Baker
I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. The Government are not cavalier. It is precisely because we take our duties seriously that we are continuing to develop our economic analysis, and I can of course reassure him that we are seeking to establish a free trade agreement and other partnership arrangements that are of unprecedented scope and ambition.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
For the Minister basically to excuse his not publishing the information because he has not yet had the chance to edit, twist or distort it or to redact the information within it is a total and utter disgrace. The public have a right to know about their livelihoods and their futures, and it is deeply irresponsible and dishonest for the Government not to publish the information. It is a cover-up, pure and simple, and it stinks.
Mr Baker
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on going for the hardest possible hit that he can manage, but it is not good enough. The truth is that the hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly clear through his words and his actions that he does not accept the referendum result. It is perfectly clear that he is among those who wish to seek a revocation of the democratic decision of the British people, and he is acting in that spirit.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
As an antidote, will the Minister read Professor Minford’s work? Alternatively, he might just go to the cinema to see “Darkest Hour”.
Mr Baker
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. I can confirm that I will read Professor Minford’s work, and the transparency register will also show that I have met Professor Minford. I will continue to meet Professor Minford and to look at the work of Economists for Free Trade.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
As the Cabinet squabbles in the middle of these tough negotiations, the Minister has no right to talk about the national interest. He must stop treating parliamentarians like chumps. He knows, we know and this analysis confirms that Brexit will cause huge damage to British jobs and British families. Will the Government and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition now allow a vote on the deal so that the people can decide whether they want to pursue this damaging approach or to stay in the European Union?
Mr Baker
The right hon. Gentleman reminds me that I did not answer the other point of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). I have been to see “Darkest Hour” and the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) does a good job of reminding me that some people do approach our current circumstances in an unnecessarily bleak spirit. I say to him once again that the economic analysis is clear that there is to be economic growth in all scenarios. I encourage him to go back to the report published by the Treasury Committee, on which I served, during the referendum campaign and look at the documented abuse of figures by the remain campaign. I urge him not to repeat that abuse of figures.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
According to this analysis, the car manufacturing, chemical and food sectors, all of which are vital for my constituency, will clearly be adversely affected. Quite frankly, Minister, I take exception to being told that it is not in the national interest for me to see a report that would allow me to best represent my constituents. Parliament needs access to the best possible information on which to base our decisions.
Mr Baker
I have great faith in my hon. Friend, and we of course appreciate the importance of cars, chemicals and food. As I said at the beginning of my response, when the time approaches for us to have a meaningful vote in Parliament, we will put appropriate economic analysis before both Houses to assist the choices that they make. However, we do not expect the European Union to publish all its analysis in a transparent manner, and we do not propose to go into the negotiations having revealed all our thinking.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Minister thinks that perhaps the person in the Whitehall establishment who leaked this document would be better off moving, and working in Brussels. Was the methodology used in this report, or whatever it is, the same methodology that said the country’s financial future would tank if we did not join the euro?
Mr Baker
We are carrying out the usual inquiries into who leaked the report. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that past economic predictions have been very poor, and poor for good reasons on which I would love to elaborate on another occasion. I have set out that particular critique of even the Bank of England’s forecasts, and she is absolutely right that, as I said earlier, we should have a healthy scepticism.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
We would be in a strange position if Governments had to publish every bit of advice to Ministers and every bit of analysis that they profoundly believed to be wrong. The last Labour Government did not do that, and the Minister should resist publishing this analysis if he believes it is not in the national interest to do so. I also advise him that people are trying to divert the Government’s direction on Brexit—there is absolutely no doubt about it. Will he look into why this particular document was leaked on this particular day, the day that the withdrawal Bill has its first debate in the upper House?
Mr Baker
My hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, makes an important and authoritative point about the conduct of government. Opposition Members would do well to reflect on how they would wish to govern the country if, God forbid, the electorate should ever give them an opportunity to do so.
All of us in this House need to have an eye on the long-term functioning of our democracy and our constitution. With that in mind, I hear what my hon. Friend says. There is clearly a campaign to overturn the referendum result, and it can be seen at work in the media and in this House. We will certainly bear in mind what he says.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister says that this cross-departmental analysis has not been co-ordinated by his Department, but on that there appears to be some confusion. When the Brexit Secretary gave evidence to the Brexit Committee last week, I asked him whether his Department is co-ordinating the cross-departmental work on the sectoral impacts of no deal, and he said, “Yes.”
If there is indeed no deal, we would likely fall out on World Trade Organisation rules. Will the Minister confirm that in one of the scenarios outlined in the report—the WTO option that is advocated by many Conservative Members—the impact of non-tariff barriers is the equivalent of a 10% tariff slapped across the economy?
Mr Baker
That was quite a long question. There are two particular scenarios that are not modelled in this analysis. One is the policy choices that the Prime Minister rightly set out in her Florence speech, and the other is exiting in the unfortunate, and we think unlikely, circumstance of not reaching an agreement and how one might take the right policy choices in the event of trading on WTO rules. We will continue to take this analysis forward, and I look forward to the day when we are able to present appropriate analysis to the House before the meaningful vote.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does the Minister recall, prior to the referendum, what became known as “Project Fear”? Everything was going to go wrong after the referendum if we voted to come out—something short of bubonic plague—but that did not happen. With those warnings, the British people still voted to come out, so of what relevance is another forecast now that predicts exactly the same as “Project Fear”?
Mr Baker
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I well remember “Project Fear” in all its manifestations. Most of us on the leave side thought at the time that those horror predictions would not come to pass after the vote and, happily, we have been proved correct. I look forward to continuing to prove economists wrong after they make horror story predictions.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Why have the Government assessed the impact of all the scenarios but not the one they say they want, the fantasy cake-and-eat-it one?
Mr Baker
I am grateful for that question, because I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we will continue to develop and expand our economic analysis. We cannot control the timing of leaks, and were we to have chosen to publish an analysis, as we will when we approach the meaningful vote, it will of course contain the relevant information.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
My hon. Friend is of course right that this analysis does not question the result of the referendum, nor does it model his desired scenario, but what it does show is that modelling a fully comprehensive free trade deal with the EU post-Brexit, combined with the benefits of new trade deals, shows a net effect on economic growth of 1.5%. Where does he hope a special and deep relationship will differ from a fully comprehensive free trade deal post Brexit?
Mr Baker
My hon. Friend may know that Michel Barnier tried to include financial services in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal, and we believe that we can go beyond what has been agreed in the past. The analysis does not include a comprehensive deal of the scope we would like to agree; it includes only an average based on past precedents. We believe that we can reasonably go further than we have before, and of course we are well apprised of the importance of financial services and of ensuring that the City flourishes.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
If the economic forecasts and impact assessments published to date have been so wrong, why do the Government not tell the British people what it is they want from the EU by way of a deal, cost it and publish the results? Why is that so difficult?
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend, the excellent Minister, name a single civil service forecast, leaked or otherwise, that has been accurate?
Mr Baker
No, I am not able to name an accurate forecast. They are always wrong, and wrong for good reasons. [Interruption.] Members are chatting at me from a sedentary position. My long-standing views on the flaws in the epistemology of the social sciences and the consequences for econometrics are well set out in various forums, and I encourage Members to go and have a look at them. I am happy to recommend a reading list.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
The Government are not protecting the interests of the British people but withholding information from them. The Minister keeps invoking the referendum, but of course that did not give us any indication of the form of Brexit that the public wish us to follow. Will he confirm that what the analysis shows is that the least worst option—staying in the single market and customs union—has been voluntarily taken off the table by the Prime Minister with no mandate whatsoever?
Mr Baker
I encourage Members to google the hon. Gentleman’s name on The Sun website. They will find a wonderful picture of him, during the referendum, standing next to a poster proclaiming that the leave campaign wanted to leave the single market. He made the point at the time—[Interruption.] He certainly did, and anyone can go and find it on The Sun website. The point was made at the time, and the public chose.
It would not be possible to honour the decision of the British people if we allow the European Union to set the UK’s tariffs and if we become people in a political purgatory of perpetual rule taking from the European Union without any democratic say. It is the desire of this Government that our country should continue to be a democracy. For that reason, we will leave the European economic area and the customs union.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that our post-referendum experience illustrates the danger of publishing incomplete and inchoate economic analyses? We were told prior to the referendum by the Treasury that we would enter immediate recession if we voted to leave. The International Monetary Fund told us that the economy would contract by as much as 9.5%. Both were made to look extremely foolish.
Mr Baker
My right hon. Friend is exactly right, and he might have added to that catalogue of failures of the economics profession the failure to see the financial crisis. It is time for economists to re-examine their methods, for the reasons I indicated earlier. I am grateful to him for putting those past failures on the record.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Given that the leaked Government analysis confirms that, realistically, there are three ways that the UK might leave the EU, each with a very different impact on jobs, trade and livelihoods, why have MPs not been given a direct vote at the start of the process to determine what sort of Brexit the UK is pursuing? Is it not about time that we in this House are allowed to take back common sense and seek the sensible option of staying in the single market by staying in the European economic area and remaining part of a European customs union?
Mr Baker
The hon. Lady is entirely wrong; the sensible and pragmatic way forward, which honours the result of the referendum and ensures that this is a democracy with an independent Parliament able to ensure that control is exercised over the laws of this country, is to carry forward my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s policy, as she has set out in Florence and in the Lancaster House speech.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Is it not about time we set up a charity called “Soothsayers Anonymous” for people who simply cannot kick the habit of predicting when conflicts are going to break out, when we are going to have opinion polls that are going to be accurate and when we are going to have economic forecasts regarding the EU that are going to be accurate, even though history has shown time and again that they are not worth the paper they are written on?
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
The Minister will be well aware that Sinn Féin has already used the Brexit decision to agitate for a border poll. I say to the British Government that they need to be very careful to ensure that Sinn Féin does not use any more negative impact assessments to feed its narrative. In those circumstances, what guarantees can he offer the people of Northern Ireland that the economy will not suffer as a result of Brexit? We must make sure not to feed Sinn Féin’s narrative.
Mr Baker
The hon. Lady makes a sobering and important point, which the Government have heard. I say to her that in all scenarios in this economic analysis, there is economic growth—the question is only: how fast? It is this Government’s task to ensure we achieve the fastest GDP growth and indeed the fastest GDP growth per head, which is why we have brought forward a comprehensive programme on productivity. Of course we are most concerned to ensure the prosperity of the people, not only of Northern Ireland, but of the whole of the island of Ireland and right across Europe. That is why it is in our mutual interest to agree a comprehensive and deep free trade agreement.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Even though these forecasts do not look at the Government’s preferred outcome, does my hon. Friend not agree that the data they contain, however imperfectly, do underline the importance of building a bespoke deal around maintaining customs union-style arrangements and ensuring as great a level of access as possible to the single market?
Mr Baker
I agree with my right hon. Friend on most of his points, but, as I said in an earlier answer, we do not think remaining in the customs union, so that the European Union set our tariffs on imports, would be the right thing to do. We think that would be the wrong choice for the UK. It would prevent us from operating an independent trade policy and plugging ourselves into the rest of the world’s growth, where multiple authorities, including the European Commission, have admitted that 90% of the world’s growth will come from. So on that particular point I disagree with him, but on the rest of his arguments and, in particular, on the need, in our mutual interests, for a good-quality trade agreement, he is right and I agree.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Ministers keep using the excuse that it is in the national interest to withhold information about the economic impact of Brexit—that is on the days when they admit such information exists. I will tell them what is really not patriotic: pursuing a policy that will make our country poorer than it would otherwise be, in order to satisfy right-wing, nationalist ideology. So will the Minister desist from saying that it is in the national interest to withhold this information, given that the only interest it serves is that of Tory Ministers embarrassed by its contents?
Mr Baker
I simply do not accept the premises of the right hon. Gentleman’s question; he makes ludicrous suggestions. I consider myself to be an old English liberal and I think most of the Eurosceptics with whom I associate also consider themselves liberal in outlook, particularly on matters of trade and the economy. With that in mind, I cannot possibly accept his premise. The fact is that we are in a negotiation and no one seriously would expect us to go into—
Mr Baker
The right hon. Gentleman says I should wash my mouth out, but I am happy to debate liberalism with him any time.
We are heading for an open, liberal, free trading future for the UK. Any suggestion of nationalism is quite wrong and quite ludicrous, and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) should retract.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my dismay that pro-remain Members of this House who represent constituencies that voted to leave leap on incomplete economic analysis and profess deep understanding of complex economic methodology, yet fail to wrap their minds around the simple arithmetic of the referendum, which was that 52% voted to leave?
Mr Baker
I must exercise some caution, Mr Speaker, because as you will know, Wycombe District, which is substantially larger than the constituency of Wycombe, did express the other view. However, what I think we need to do is come together to unite around the result as a country, and to choose for ourselves not to leave the EU because we must or because we ought, but to leave the EU successfully because we choose to abide by the democratic decision of the United Kingdom as a whole.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
How can we unite together when the Government are withholding information from the rest of the House?
Mr Baker
It is very difficult to answer the question of how we can unite together when certain Members of this House, including, I am sorry to say, the hon. Lady, keep provoking as much division as possible. She represents a party claiming to be liberal and democratic, and which once offered a real referendum on Europe, but we have had a real referendum on Europe and it is time for her to get behind the result.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
The gloomy pre-referendum Treasury forecasts led many of us to vote remain with a heavy heart. The public made their decision, and we stood on an election manifesto saying that we would follow through on that decision. Will the Minister tell me why we should believe part forecasts—these forecasts, which have apparently been published, are not complete—given that the initial information put out before the referendum was flawed?
Mr Baker
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and “Project Fear” was mentioned earlier. It is most unfortunate that one fundamental tactic always used throughout the long and sorry history of misrepresenting the true purpose of the EU has been to demoralise the public. It is time for each of us in this House to take a lead in going forward in a spirit of buoyancy and hope.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister would not accept the premise of the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), but this morning we heard from the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who cast significant doubt on the Government’s own ability to forecast the impact of Brexit on jobs and growth. What assurances will the Minister give workers in my constituency, for example, those in the Jaguar Land Rover or Vauxhall supply chains, that Brexit will not fatally wound the manufacturing sector on Merseyside?
Mr Baker
As I believe the record will show, I have said multiple times that in all scenarios in this economic analysis growth is forecast. So it is good news for the hon. Lady and for the country that in all of the forecasts—in all of the circumstances of the economic analysis—growth is forecast. She brings up the issue of the supply chain, so I also say to her that we are of course apprised of the imperatives of complex international supply chains, not just between the UK and Europe, but around the whole world. In particular, I draw attention to provisions in the Union customs code for inward and outward processing rules, which should assist manufacturers in her constituency.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Were the economists involved in these forecasts the same ones who said we would lose half a million jobs if people voted for Brexit? Since the referendum we have, in fact, gained 350,000 jobs.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It might surprise the Minister to learn that I have read a number of his articles, and there is much in them that I disagree with. He talks a lot about liberty, accountability, transparency and democracy, but he does not seem to like any of those principles when they are applied to him and his Government, and when they shed light on the reckless course that this Government are pursuing. If they have not done a full, comprehensive analysis, they are incompetent. If they have done it, we should see it.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
No one in this House should dismiss the referendum result—that would be overstepping the mark—but it is our role, as the Government have accepted, to scrutinise the deal and ensure that it is the very best it can be for all our citizens, regardless of how, or indeed whether, they voted in the referendum. The impact assessments were made available to parliamentarians in absolute confidentiality, and I went to see them. I fail to see why that same process cannot be extended for this most recent and any further analysis. This is a one-time deal only, and I for one owe it to my constituents to prove to them that I have exercised full scrutiny.
Mr Baker
I cannot accept the premise of my hon. Friend’s question. We have gone to and fro in the House about the meaning of the term “impact assessments”. What was made available to colleagues were sectoral analyses. I refer my hon. Friend both to the written ministerial statement setting out how meaningful votes will happen at the end of the process and to my previous remarks about the need to protect the integrity of our negotiating position. We will ensure that, when we reach the end of the negotiating period, parliamentarians are able to access appropriate economic analysis when we all take that important decision.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Last week, I asked the Treasury’s permanent secretary whether he could confirm that just a single one of the Government’s scenarios for a deal post brexit would lead to a better economic deal and outcome than what we have as members of the single market and customs union. He did not seem able to answer. Is not the truth that no such model exists? Has it not been confirmed today that, as a result of the Government’s dogmatic determination to pull us out of the single market and the customs union, it will not be my city, London, that is most affected, or indeed the industries in the City of London that are worst affected, but the key sectors of the economy right across the UK, with the impact felt worst in the west midlands, the north-east and Northern Ireland? How on earth could that possibly be in the national interest?
Mr Baker
The hon. Gentleman said that there is no such model; the truth is that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) referred to a model earlier. Economists for Free Trade are very clear about their modelling. Other models are available—at the time of the referendum, Open Europe did some modelling and found that the effect could be plus or minus 2%. The truth is that there are profound uncertainties facing not just the United Kingdom in this negotiation but all economies in the world. All face three big issues: the growth of technology; a new phase in globalisation; and, of course, the continuing aftermath of the financial crisis which, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, has left interest rates at levels the Governor of the Bank of England has described as extraordinary if not emergency. Those three issues mean that all economies are on highly uncertain paths. The Government will navigate their way through the future with confidence and boldness.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
Is the Minister aware that in the past 40 years the European Union’s share of global GDP has fallen from 30% to just 15% and that 90% of future world economic growth is going to come from outside Europe? Does he agree that the future is not regional relative decline; the future is global?
Mr Baker
I do agree, and my hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We need to make sure that this country is well positioned. He refers to the previous era of globalisation and particularly the emergence of China. The United Kingdom’s task is to take the right strategic decisions so that we can be plugged in not only to Asia but, I very much hope, to an emerging Africa, Latin America and the whole world, and so that we can participate on the basis of technologies that were unimaginable at the beginning of the EU’s life, not least the internet, inexpensive air travel and containerised shipping. Those three things have transformed our world for the better, and I hope and expect, as I am sure my hon. Friend does, that in future, over the course of our lifetimes, the world will improve in ways that we cannot yet imagine.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
We have learned today that the Government’s own analysis suggests that the economy will grow by less than 5% in the case of a UK-EU trade deal. That is people’s jobs and livelihoods. Will the Minister confirm that the Government’s negotiating position has been decided not on the basis of the economic evidence but on ideology alone?
Mr Baker
Let us not pretend that there is no ideology among those who wish to remain in the European Union, even at the cost of overturning a democratic decision, remaining in the EEA and surrendering democratic control and power. The figure to which the hon. Lady referred is wrong—it is not as she stated—but I do not propose now to walk through what is in the analysis which, as I have said, is currently a provisional draft and is not yet Government policy.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
On Friday, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was on Teesside to set up an optimistic free-trading vision for the UK after we leave the EU. Given that all estimates have consistently underestimated our economy, surely it is time to just get on with the job.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The Minister is clearly making himself out to be a bit of a philosopher today, so I say to him that surely it is the mark of a democracy that those of us who take different sides do not question each other’s patriotism. If he does not trust the forecasts, will he take the sensible decision—like the one taken by the previous Chancellor, George Osborne—to get them out of the Treasury and say to the Office for Budget Responsibility, “You get the forecast done by the time of the spring statement”? Then we can all see what the truth is.
Mr Baker
I have been careful not to use the word “patriotism” and not to question anyone’s, but the voters of the United Kingdom are entitled to look at the words and actions of their parliamentarians and ask what they are trying to achieve. Are they committed to adhering to the referendum result? Are they doing so with a spirit of confidence and boldness, and with buoyancy and hope, or are they trying to demoralise the public and overturn the result through delay and revocation? The hon. Lady should think very carefully about what her voters—and, indeed, all our voters—will think about our actions. I hope she will commit to carrying through their democratic decision.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is in the national interest to get the best deal we possibly can. Does my hon. Friend agree that to do that we have to keep our cards close to our chest? These are tough negotiations, and to expose the goods and the bads in such negotiations plays right into the hands of an organisation that, let us face it, does not want us to leave anyway.
Mr Baker
I think the EU’s willingness to see us leave is increasing by the day as we go through this process. It is important that the House knows that key figures throughout the EU pay close attention to our newspaper headlines, so it is important and incumbent on us all to remain committed, in that spirit of buoyancy and hope, to carrying through the referendum result.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
We have been here before, because the same gloom-laden forecasts were made before the referendum and none of them was anywhere near the mark. Does the Minister agree that these long-term forecasts are as useful for predicting future economic performance as newspaper horoscopes? More importantly, will he assure us that despite the hysteria from the Opposition Benches, the Government will not be distracted from honouring their commitment to deliver the United Kingdom out of the single market and the customs union?
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Another great economist, J. M. Keynes, said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Will my hon. Friend confirm that a deep and special partnership must include services as well as goods, because services account for 80% of our economy, and that any deal that did not include all services would not be in the interests of the United Kingdom?
Mr Baker
Of course I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of services, but I go further. It is extremely important that our ambassador to the World Trade Organisation, Julian Braithwaite, is chairing the relevant committee on services. It is in the UK’s and, indeed, the world’s interests that we take part in a global liberalisation of services in trade. That is key to unlocking the UK’s prosperity and, indeed, to unlocking Governments’ capacity to meet the commitments that they have entered into for their populations.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My constituents, many of whom are former Conservative voters, cannot understand why any Government would adopt policies that they knew would make them or the country worse off. The Minister’s tactic today is to rubbish his own commissioned analyses because they show that leaving the EU will be an economic disaster, to a greater or lesser extent. If he believes in Brexit at any cost, will he at least have the honesty to say so?
Mr Baker
The shadow Minister says it is nonsense, but I can assure him that it is not. The economic analysis shows GDP increasing in all circumstances. The point of the Government’s policy must be to carry through faithfully the decision of the British people and to do so in a way that proves these doom-mongers and naysayers wrong.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
In these negotiations, the UK is on one side, and 27 other Governments and the EU are on the other. Will my hon. Friend say how many of those Governments, as well as the EU itself, have confirmed that they will publish the entirety of their internal analysis on each option that they might be prepared to offer?
Mr Baker
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I am not aware that any of them is prepared to reveal that information, and he was absolutely right to mention it. I can assure him that I have given instructions to our teams to analyse the interests of other member states simply for the purpose of demonstrating that it is in our mutual interests to conclude a deep and special partnership.
Several hon. Members rose—
Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough) (Lab)
I refute the accusation that we do not accept what our constituents have voted for. In June, they were asked a simple question, which was something like this: would you like a divorce, yes or no? They answered that question, but they did not know who would have the children, who would get the house, and how the assets would be split. Will Ministers give us the detail of the impact analysis that has been done, so that we can advise our constituents on how leaving will affect them?
Mr Baker
The hon. Lady makes a very interesting point, but I slightly regret her metaphor. We need to face up to the fact that the British public have rejected the idea of delivering free trade through political integration. Our task is to rise to the challenge of this new decision in strategic political economy and deliver free trade, which provides for democratic control of political power. I did listen carefully to what she said.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It is with growing admiration that I listen to the pronouncements of the Mystic Megs, and indeed the Mystic Moggs, who, with near papal infallibility, pronounce this, that or the other as being an absolute certainty. I agree with the Minister when he says that this is an uncertain process. All my constituents and businesses in North Dorset want to hear from the Minister is that he and the Government are committed to a pragmatic, common-sense solution to this issue that we are facing, to ensure economic growth, stability in jobs and prosperity in Dorset.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
How dare the Minister suggest to my constituents that ignorance is bliss! My constituents were misled by the lies on the side of the Brexit bus. My constituents are now being deprived of the information that suggests that, up and down the north of England and in Yorkshire in particular, jobs and employment will plunge if we go out on the worst terms. Will he apologise to my constituents for misleading them?
Mr Baker
No, I will not. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to listen to the arguments that I have made and to the answers that I have given. In all scenarios in this analysis, economic growth increases. He talks about people being misled in the referendum campaign; there were two campaigns and both are susceptible to criticism. I encourage him to look at the Treasury Committee’s report, which criticised the remain campaign quite heavily; otherwise, I should not have been able to sign up to it.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
In my constituency, more than 2,000 people work in insurance. Britain is home to the world’s largest insurance market, and many European companies need access to our market. Does the Minister agree that it is in the interests of both Britain and Europe to seek a much deeper and more modern trade relationship than the EU has with any other third country?
Mr Baker
I do agree with my hon. Friend. The United Kingdom has a comparative advantage in insurance, as it does in so many financial services. As I indicated earlier, it is in the interests of Europe and the world that we should be able to take that comparative advantage and put it to the service of the whole world.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
Like that of the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), who is no longer in his place, my constituency is the gateway to Britain from the Republic of Ireland and on the frontline of Brexit. Businesses that I have spoken to in the past few weeks and months want, because of the uncertainty, an analysis of what Brexit will mean for them specifically. Will the Minister tell the House when he was intending to share this information with local authorities, the devolved Administration and, indeed, their MP who needs to keep them informed?
Mr Baker
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), has been in contact with the Port of Holyhead, and we will continue our programme of engagement, well apprised of the need to keep talking to businesses, particularly those that provide our important infrastructure, such as the port in his constituency. He asked me when: I have said that, before the meaningful vote, we will make appropriate economic analysis available to the House.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
During referendum week, I was fortunate to speak to 25 schools, taking a neutral position. I visited two schools in the past fortnight, and the vast majority of the students, who would probably have voted to remain, wanted us to get on with the job rather than unpick it. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that we respect the ballot box system that elected us, engage more with our constituents and get on with the job in hand?
Mr Baker
I do agree with my hon. Friend. I particularly lament the way that so much of the demoralisation that has taken place has been aimed at young people. It is precisely because we are concerned for their future that we want to deliver a successful partnership with the European Union as we turn out to take advantage of that growth, 90% of which will come from the rest of the world. It is their future that we are concerned about, and it is their future that led people like me to campaign for leave on the basis of upholding their democratic choice to choose a Government and influence its policies.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
These leaked figures indicate and expose the damage that will be caused by a Brexit outside the single market and the customs union. Is it not the case that the greatest failure of this Parliament, on the biggest issue of our time, and despite the damage that it will do to people’s livelihoods and standards of living, is that the British Government and the Labour Opposition share the exact same position?
Mr Baker
As I have already said, all scenarios in this analysis show growth. The analysis is heavily caveated with the profound uncertainties that exist, not only for the UK and Europe but for the world. In that context, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the answers that I have given today.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
Following directly on from that, is it not right that we should approach such economic modelling with caution? History has proven to be wrong and flawed in the past. The information is incomplete. Does my hon. Friend, and philosopher longstanding, look forward to proving this analysis wrong as well?
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
What duty does the Minister owe to the British people, including my constituents, if not to tell the truth about the choices in the negotiations before us and what they will mean for jobs and businesses in Nottingham?
Mr Baker
Over the long course of the history of the European Union, and indeed of the referendum campaign, people have not shown a particular willingness on a very wide scale to engage in the details of trade policy. This is an area where they do expect the Government—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady says something about our duty. Our duty is to get on with the job that the people have given us to do not only in answering the referendum question telling us that they wish to leave the EU, but in voting at the general election for a range of parties, all of which, including her own, said that we should leave the European Union. And to leave the European Union, we need to leave the customs union and the European economic area and restore democratic control and political power, and that is what we will do; that is our duty.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The naysayers who are talking this up are some of the same people who said that on 24 June we would drop off a cliff, exports would be down, foreign direct investment would be down, and jobs would be lost—the list goes on—but the opposite is true. Does my hon. Friend agree that it will not always be plain sailing—there will be difficulties along the way—but the end destination is worth getting to, and people up and down this country in increasing numbers are just saying, “Get on with it”?
Mr Baker
I agree with my hon. Friend that we do need to get on with it, and, yes, the end destination is worth getting to, although, hopefully, there will be no end to this journey. We will journey out into a new life of prosperity and self-government, which will give us the dignity of self-control.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
First, let me draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests concerning Weightron Bilanciai.
I have here a letter sent by the European Commission, which was received by British manufacturing firms, telling them that after Brexit all products certified for use by UK certifiers will no longer be eligible for sale in the EU. Those companies are now rushing to get their entire product range recertified, often at three times the cost, from European certifying authorities. What advice do the Government give to UK manufacturing firms that have products certified in the UK about what they should do in the run-up to Brexit and the need for recertification?
Mr Baker
I expect us to conclude a free trade agreement with the European Union that includes agreements in relation to product conformity. I hope that we will make rapid progress through these negotiations now that we have made sufficient progress and are moving on to the next stage. I very much hope that everyone in this country, including manufacturers, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, will be given an accelerated degree of certainty as we progress through the negotiations.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend familiar with the PwC analysis that suggests that the UK could be the fastest growing economy in the G7 between Brexit and 2050?
Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will be aware that I have submitted 23 questions to his Department asking what assessments the Government have undertaken—all to ensure that businesses and workers in my area are safeguarded. The Government have repeatedly refused to release even the titles of these assessments, so will the Minister confirm how many impact studies the Government have conducted and for how long he expects Members to have access to these documents before we vote on the final Brexit deal?
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Mr Speaker, you will recall from this morning that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) ducked my question on the impact of these assessments on small businesses, so I will try again. Leaked or not, if the Minister is willing to be disparaging about his own civil servants who are producing his own reports, does he also reject the reports from the University of St Andrews that point out that small business will be hit by lower levels of investment and access to finance, lower growth and reduced product development opportunities?
Mr Baker
I will make two points. First, as far as I recall, I have never been disparaging about civil servants with whom I have worked; it is quite the reverse. What I have been disparaging about is method in the economic sciences. That is quite different. Secondly, all the circumstances in this analysis predict growth. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave earlier, pointing out all the flaws in the predictions of the Bank of England. I ask him to start working out how he can play his part in leading this country forward with a spring in its step.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In the past week, Mark Carney and Jaguar Land Rover have blamed Brexit on the fall in growth and business respectively. For Jaguar Land Rover, this is resulting in prolonged shutdowns and declining production. This is happening now. Will the Minister accept the reality of what is happening and publish the Government’s analysis?
Mr Baker
I accept that Jaguar Land Rover does not sell as many cars as I should like it to. I consider it this Government’s duty to enter into trading arrangements with the whole world that facilitate the company’s complete success. I look forward to working to do just that with all the strength we can muster.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
If work has been done on the regional impact of different Brexit scenarios, is not it in the national interest for regional devolved bodies and local councils to have this information, so that they can make appropriate plans for the future?
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The information in today’s Government report directly reflects what industries and businesses on Teesside have been saying for months—that they will suffer if the Government totally abandon the single market and the customs union. Ministers may choose to ignore the reports, but will they please listen to what the industrialists and the businesspeople are saying? The Government need to be open and honest about the impacts and provide clarity on how these businesses can trade successfully after Brexit.
Mr Baker
The Secretary of State went to the region only last week to make an important speech about the implementation period, precisely because we understand the importance of industries and businesses there. There is no question of our ignoring analysis. We are conducting the analysis to inform our position, as I have tirelessly set out.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
This is about the UK Government doing their job, and they have spectacularly failed to do that. This leaked paper talks about the impact of Brexit on different areas of the UK, despite the Government telling devolved Governments and Administrations that they have no such information. The Minister failed to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), so when will this information be shared with the devolved Administrations, so that they can make decisions on behalf of the people they represent and govern?
Mr Baker
We will make information available once we are through the negotiation, so that we do not end up putting ourselves in the position of publishing information that is prejudicial to the national interest. I would expect that information to be published—and, in particular, to be made available to both Houses of Parliament—once the negotiations have concluded and before the meaningful vote.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Why do this Conservative Government not trust the voters of Bridgend, many of whom rely on the Ford engine plant for their jobs? It is acknowledged that car manufacturing will be one of the hardest-hit areas. The Minister says that there is going to be growth. In that case, let the people of Bridgend know where the growth is going to be and what better growth could be achieved by staying in the single market. Is he more interested in healing the wounds within the Conservative party than looking after the people of Bridgend?
Mr Baker
I am interested in healing the wounds across the whole country, getting people to unite behind a democratic decision and thus taking it forward. It is precisely because we do trust the voters that we want not only to carry through the referendum result, but to ensure our parliamentary independence, so that the voters can materially affect a Government’s policy choices.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I am concerned about some of the recent answers. Will the Minister confirm what damage will happen to the UK’s negotiating position if this analysis is shared with the devolved Governments?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Steve Baker ExcerptsWednesday 17th January 2018
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 View all European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 17 January 2018 - (17 Jan 2018)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
My hon. Friend gives us a salutary reminder that it is important that we make all the appropriate corrections before exit day, and the Government do want to make all of those corrections and to ensure that the law is accessible for all. I can confirm to him that Government Departments and the centre of Government are listening to industry, including the City, as part of our planning. We have put in place procedures and tools to ensure that we prioritise the most important corrections and so that nothing is missed out. On top of that, as the Bill provides for, we have put in place an urgent procedure in case of last-minute developments to which he refers.
Robert Neill
I am very grateful to the Minister for that helpful intervention. I am conscious, as I said, that the Solicitor General and other Ministers have done work on this, and that will shorten what I have to say. I hope that the Minister might meet me in due course to discuss the way in which the urgent procedure will operate so that we can get more detail. That is what I was seeking to achieve—to make sure that we have a means of dealing with something when a decision needs to be made pretty much in real time under these circumstances. That reassurance that the Government will find the means of doing that enables me to confirm that I shall not be pressing the matter. It does of course apply to situations in which, for whatever reason, something has been overlooked in the transition process, or in which something has cropped up that could not reasonably have been foreseen by means of the best endeavours. Against that background, I welcome the Minister’s clarification on that matter. I gather from his nod that he is happy to discuss the matter further with me, so I need not trouble the House any longer.
Sir William Cash
I am indeed. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who also serves on the European Scrutiny Committee. The provisions I refer to would be express provisions. Therefore, the question of principle is fundamental and will also, no doubt, be taken up in the House of Lords. Furthermore, former Law Lords and members of the Supreme Court have expressed their concerns.
The European Scrutiny Committee’s unanimous view when we met this morning was that Parliament as a whole needs a solution that confirms the principle of parliamentary sovereignty along the lines of declarations of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998, as I indicated in my correspondence with the Prime Minister, whose letter I received on 9 January. To take this forward, may I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to intervene to give me and the House an assurance that when the Bill is in the House of Lords, the Government will constructively engage with the European Scrutiny Committee, with any other Committees of both Houses and with the advice of the Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor to explore and find a proper solution to the constitutional issues I have raised in the national interest?
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I had—I will not say revelled in the expectation, but had been taking quiet satisfaction in the expectation, that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) had in fact completed his speech.
Mr Speaker
That is a moderately eccentric way in which to proceed, but we will allow a brief intervention—and a very brief response, I hope.
Mr Baker
That is why in the Bill we treat retained direct EU legislation as primary legislation for the purposes of the Human Rights Act, and why we have taken the approach we have to challenges based on the general principles. Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend has said—and, indeed, what my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) has said—and the view of the Select Committee, which he has just set out, we will of course listen carefully to him and his Committee, and the other individuals he has mentioned, as the Bill continues its passage.
Mr Baker
This has been a full and vibrant debate, with many excellent contributions and memorable moments, to which I shall try to refer at the end, if there proves to be time.
Two Members made particular requests. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is not in her place, asked about the timing and when we would take forward our policy. I will undertake to discuss that with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs later this week.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) mentioned the shared prosperity fund. I assure him that we discussed it when I visited Cornwall and that the Government are well aware of the need in Cornwall and other areas. We will drive forward the design and implementation of that fund.
It might help the House to know that I intend to speak first to the Government amendments and, in a couple of cases, the related Opposition amendments. I will then ensure that I have dealt with the Belfast agreement, as it is so important, before working through some of the other amendments, if time allows.
Government amendment 33 builds on the exit-day amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), to whom we are grateful. This further amendment to schedule 7 makes the power to set exit day subject to the affirmative procedure, thereby fulfilling a commitment that I gave at the Dispatch Box during day eight in Committee. As the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made clear, we have always been committed to the proper parliamentary scrutiny of our exit from the EU. In line with our promise that Parliament will be given time to debate and scrutinise the legislation that implements the final agreement that we reach with the EU, it is appropriate that Parliament scrutinises any potential change to exit day. I hope the whole House will support the amendment.
Labour’s amendment 1 would allow the Government to amend the definition of “exit day” if it were not in accordance with any transitional arrangements agreed under article 50. I understand the intention behind the amendment, but I remind the House that, after the improvements to which I have referred, the Bill now provides for changes to the exit day, as set out in article 50, to ensure that the domestic situation reflects the international position. Furthermore, Government amendment 33 will ensure that Parliament has appropriate scrutiny of any change to the date of exit by making it subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 10, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), would require exit day to be specified in a separate Bill on the terms of withdrawal. It replicates an amendment that was debated in Committee in November, since when the Bill has benefited from the amendments I mentioned and, in particular, the changes suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. Exit day will be set out in law as 11 pm on 29 March 2019, but we will have the technical ability to amend it if the UK, the EU and, indeed—to address the right hon. Lady’s points—the European Council, decide unanimously to change the date. The right hon. Lady referred particularly to the European Parliament, but I have the text of article 50 with me and it is clear that any change would require the
“European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned”
to unanimously decide to extend the period, so I do not accept her argument about the European Parliament having more say than this Parliament.
We have always been committed to the proper parliamentary scrutiny of our exit from the EU, which is why, in line with our promise that Parliament will be given time to debate and agree the legislation that implements the final agreement that we strike with the EU, it is appropriate for Parliament to scrutinise any changes to exit day through the affirmative procedure. In the unlikely event that the power to change exit day is used, it will simply be a technical change to ensure that our domestic legislation reflects the reality of international law. It is certainly not necessary, and would be disproportionate, to make such a change via primary legislation.
The House agreed in Committee to Government amendments regarding explanatory statements and to the Procedure Committee’s amendments to establish a sifting committee. We have tabled two technical amendments, Government amendments 35 and 36, to ensure that these amendments best function alongside each other. Government amendments 35 and 36 will ensure that the requirement for a Minister of the Crown to make an explanatory statement applies before a draft instrument is laid before the House for the purposes of sifting, as well as in other cases. They will also ensure that, where an explanatory statement has been made before the House of Commons for the purposes of sifting, there is no need to make a further statement after sifting when an equivalent instrument is laid again before both Houses of Parliament after being made or as a draft affirmative instrument. That will ensure that the committee has all the necessary information at its disposal and will avoid confusing double statements when nothing has changed.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
After the sifting committee has received an explanatory statement and before it makes a sift, will the committee also have access to Ministers to question them if it cannot understand what the affirmative or negative instrument is about?
Mr Baker
I very much hope that the committee will be able to understand things through our meeting the requirements for explanatory memorandums that we have set out in the Bill, but I would of course expect Ministers to be helpful to the committee. We need to get statutory instruments through smoothly, and we would want to support the committee in reaching its decisions.
I will now jump ahead in my remarks to deal with new clause 3 and the Belfast agreement. New clause 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), is important, and I reiterate that the Government remain steadfast in their commitments to the Belfast agreement and its associated obligations under international law.
Mr Baker
Will the hon. Lady allow me to make my points? I think I am going to be able to satisfy her, but I will gladly give way after I have reached the particular point in which I think she will be interested.
The agreement between the UK and the EU, as set out in the joint report, must be negotiated and taken forward through the article 50 negotiations, not in this Bill. The EU set out before Christmas that negotiators now need to work on translating the commitments in the joint report into the withdrawal agreement or the framework for the future relationship. That is the task we will be engaged in over the coming months, so it would be wrong to cut across the negotiations by separately seeking to codify commitments into this Bill.
We have already committed to protecting the Belfast agreement in full through the withdrawal negotiations. The joint report sets out the Government’s and the EU’s commitment to respect the provisions in the Belfast agreement and the principle of consent. More broadly, we have said that we will introduce the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill to implement what we agree with the EU as a whole. The joint report is also clear on the Government’s commitment to protecting north-south co-operation and to our guarantee of avoiding a hard border. We have been clear that we will protect the UK internal market in all circumstances and ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s business to the entire United Kingdom internal market.
The detail of the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will and must reflect the terms of the withdrawal agreement, so I reassure the House that we will include an appropriate provision in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill upholding the agreement we reach, including the protection of the Belfast agreement, to which we committed in the joint report.
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am delighted that he has confirmed that there will be no hard border and no border down the Irish sea. What I am concerned about are the pledges about the Belfast agreement. My focus has always been on the incorporation of the fundamental principles of the Belfast agreement. When I spoke to my new clause on the fifth day in Committee, I withdrew it on the understanding that the principles of non-discrimination, equality and respect before the law would be incorporated by the Government in forthcoming legislation. Will the Minister confirm that commitment?
Mr Baker
I remember our previous conversation about the general principles, which have been widely discussed during the passage of this Bill. As I said, we are fully committed to the Belfast agreement, and the appropriate commitments will be put into the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill when it comes forward, so I hope the hon. Lady will allow me to move on at this point. Occasionally, a speech is made in this House that will never be forgotten, and one such speech was hers in Committee. I well remember the need as a young Royal Air Force officer to check under my car every time before getting in. Although I did not share in the troubles as she did, the echoes were felt where I trained in the Royal Air Force, so I assure her that I want to ensure that, by the end of the process, she is satisfied that we have upheld the Belfast agreement. [Interruption.] Did I hear a colleague ask to intervene? No.
Mr Clarke
Voices of inspiration, I trust.
My hon. Friend mentioned the withdrawal Bill several times. Am I right—to be absolutely clear—that the withdrawal Bill will come forward and be considered, and probably approved, by this House before any withdrawal agreement is ratified, that we will not be presented with a Bill to implement an agreement that is already binding on the United Kingdom, but that actually the Government will not ratify any agreements until the House of Commons has first given its support and approval?
Mr Baker
The situation is set out in detail in the written ministerial statement that we laid. Both Houses will have meaningful votes on whether to accept the agreement. It is my expectation that we would not ratify before that primary legislation has gone through.
New clause 1 was tabled by the Labour Front-Bench team. It seeks to place limitations on the use of existing and future powers to amend and modify retained EU law. It is absolutely right and necessary for existing domestic powers granted by Parliament in other Acts and any future delegated powers created after exit day to be able to operate effectively and without inappropriate fetter within UK domestic law after our departure from the EU. This includes parts of our existing domestic law which will become retained EU law after exit day, as well as retained direct EU legislation which will be converted into our domestic statute book.
The Bill’s current approach to existing and future delegated powers aims to ensure the successful operation of retained EU law within our domestic statute book beyond the time limits for the Bill’s more limited specific powers. Adopting the new clause, on the other hand, would undermine the position of certainty and have several detrimental effects that would risk creating significant confusion in the UK statute book. First, limiting the modification of retained EU law by existing and future delegated powers only to when this is necessary
“to maintain or enhance rights and protections”
could have uncertain consequences. A test of necessity would impose a high burden that may prevent powers from being used in the most appropriate and relevant way if the regulations they create are not deemed truly necessary for the protection of rights. That could mean that existing and future delegated powers would be unable to amend or modify irrelevant or unsuitable parts of the statute book, leading to ossification of parts of retained EU law within UK domestic law and creating confusion and uncertainty.
Secondly, a restriction of that nature inevitably will increase the possibility of legal challenge against any use of these delegated powers. That would create needless uncertainty for businesses and individuals and risk holes emerging within the domestic statute book. Finally, the measure would also impose significant consultation requirements on the exercise of the delegated powers, the use of which is running against the clock. I understand and support the intention to ensure that all relevant stakeholders, as well as the general public, are aware of the situation and can engage as new legislation is developed. However, the blanket approach suggested under the new clause would be excessively and needlessly onerous. It would risk delays to the implementation of important changes.
In using both existing delegated powers and those created in the future, the Government will, of course, remain bound by the rules and procedures laid out in the parent Act, as well as the accepted statutory instrument processes. I will take this moment to say that I am proud of what we have done to clause 7 to make sure that we have contained the list of deficiencies while making sure that it is amendable through the affirmative procedure.
Turning to new clause 22, I think that I satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) earlier in the debate, but he is not in the Chamber so, if the House will allow me, I will move on to new clauses 14 and 15—
Mr Baker
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, and pay tribute to him. Although I have occasionally disagreed with him, he has, of course, made a historic contribution to the passage of the Bill. I am very grateful for the way in which he has helped us to improve the legislation.
Labour’s amendment 2 would restrict the scope of the clause 7 power. Labour appears to accept the principle that the power is essential if the UK is to exit the EU with certainty, continuity, control and a working statute book, but restricting the power in the way proposed in amendment 2 would risk compromising our ability to ensure that that statute book continues to function, thereby leaving gaps in our law, and creating uncertainty and confusion for businesses and individuals.
As we have explained previously, making the list of deficiencies in clause 7(2) exhaustive and immutable would risk omitting important deficiencies, preventing us from fully correcting the statute book. To require primary legislation in such circumstances would undermine the purpose of the Bill and the usual justifications for secondary legislation: technical detail, readability, incompleteness and, crucially, the management of time. We cannot risk undermining laws on which businesses and individuals—often unknowingly—rely every day.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out yesterday, the word “appropriate” was chosen carefully to ensure that the Government have the discretion called for by this unique situation. The constraints that a test of necessity would impose would prevent the Government and the devolved Administrations from making the best corrections to ensure that the statute book continues to function properly. A provision of necessity would risk limiting the Government and the devolved Administrations to only the most minimal changes, regardless of whether that would leave the law deficient, create absurd outcomes, or change the outcomes that the legislation was intended to deliver. I cannot believe that any Member would want to risk leaving the statute book in such a state. I am very conscious that we are now in a position whereby either these instruments will be brought forward under the affirmative procedure or, if they are brought forward under the negative procedure, the sifting committee will have the opportunity to push us towards that affirmative procedure.
Amendment 2 and new clause 15 seek to prevent regression in the protection of rights and equalities as we leave the EU, and new clause 14 seeks to do similarly by maintaining equivalence with the EU. The UK already has strong protections for equalities and human rights as part of our domestic provisions, independent of our membership of the EU. Some of those predate or go beyond EU requirements. The Government are committed to protecting our equalities legislation as we leave the EU. As we set out in the paper that we published on equalities legislation, limited technical amendments will be needed to ensure that all relevant legislation continues to operate as intended by Parliament after exit.
Chris Stephens
Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to keep in place the equal treatment directive, which has helped women to gain equal pay claims?
Mr Baker
My first point is that that will be incorporated into our legislation. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we carry EU legislation into UK law. Secondly, we can only correct deficiencies that arise as a result of our withdrawal, and the hon. Gentleman will be familiar by now with the provisions of clause 7 and associated schedule 2.
To increase transparency, the Government amendments accepted by the House on 13 December will require a Minister to make a statement relating to equalities legislation and duties before laying every SI made under the principal powers in the Bill, as sought by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous). It is not for this Bill to require similar statements in other EU exit legislation. Indeed, this Bill would not be able to affect most of this legislation, including the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill and the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, which will have been introduced to the House before this Bill’s Royal Assent. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) promised in Committee, we will make equalities-related statements alongside other EU exit-related legislation, which I hope will satisfy the House.
Transparency will ensure that the House and the sifting committee established by the amendments tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) have all the information necessary to make informed and reasonable judgments in the scrutiny of the SIs that we will be making under the Bill. I hope that Labour Front Benchers will be persuaded not to press their amendments.
I turn briefly to new clause 11, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). His contribution and the presence of the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) in the Chamber reminded me of a rather fetching photograph of the hon. Member for Streatham posing with a remain campaign poster pointing out that the leave campaign had said that we would leave the single market. If any Member wishes to see that, I might tweet it later.
It would be remiss of me if I did not thank all those involved with the passage of the Bill: all right hon. and hon. Members who took time to participate; all the Clerks in the Public Bill Office who have provided invaluable support to Members of the House; and the world-class officials in DExEU and across Government who have ensured the Bill’s smooth passage.
Points of Order
Steve Baker Excerpts(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. I am immensely grateful—I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how grateful I am to him—but I do not think that any further words from him are required. I shall give a response, and then I shall invite the hon. Gentleman concerned to respond, if he wishes.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), of course, for raising this concern, but let us be absolutely clear—I say this for the benefit of Members of the House and those attending to our proceedings—that responsibility for registration or declaration rests with the Member concerned, not with the Chair. If another Member—or, indeed, anyone else, for that matter—has reason to believe that a Member has failed to register or to declare an interest, that person should write to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for an investigation in accordance with procedures approved by the House. Whether a Minister has breached the ministerial code is, of course, a matter for the Prime Minister.
As the hon. Gentleman has raised his point—if I may say so, in some painstaking detail—it seems only fair to offer the hon. Member concerned, the Minister at the Department for Exiting the European Union, the opportunity to reply if he so wishes. I must emphasise that I do not want a precedent to be set here. He is under absolutely no obligation to respond on the Floor of the House, but if he wishes to do so, let us give him the opportunity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to tell the House that I resigned my trusteeship of the Cobden Centre within days of taking up my post in DExEU, knowing that with the centre’s interest in free trade, in particular, that might be considered relevant. I resigned, if my memory serves me, on 17 June. I very much regret that an administrative error was made by others after my departure, and I have asked them to correct it.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That response was clear. If others wish to continue discussing the matter, they can do so, but they should not do so in this Chamber. I am deeply obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: Standing Orders
Steve Baker Excerpts(6 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
I am today placing in the Library of the House the Department’s analysis on the application of Standing Order No. 83L in respect of the amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill made at Commons Committee stage and of the amendments proposed by the Government for Report stage. These amendments do not change the conclusion of the original analysis in the Bill’s explanatory notes.
[HCWS400]
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Steve Baker ExcerptsWednesday 20th December 2017
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 View all European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 December 2017 - (20 Dec 2017)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
I am happy to tell the Committee that that is the case, as I shall confirm later.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am delighted by that. It is important to people on both sides of the arguments that it be something that Parliament can do, not that Ministers may simply do on their own. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), my south-western neighbour at the end of the Bench, very much agrees with that proposition, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield in the middle.
Mr Baker
I rise on this eighth day of eight to propose that clauses 14 and 15, 18 and 19 and schedules 6, 8 and 9 stand part of the Bill.
Over the course of the eight days of debate, we have had almost 500 amendments tabled and more than 30 separate Divisions. I am very happy that, in this section of the debate today, the amendments under consideration run to just 39 pages.
Mr Baker
May I make my serious point first, and then give way?
It is sometimes said of this House that it does not scrutinise legislation well and that we send Bills to the other place in a mess. On this occasion, on this historic Bill, I think that the House of Commons has shown itself equal to the task of scrutinising important constitutional legislation. With that, I will very gladly give way.
Mr Grieve
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. What I wanted to say was that, at the start, there was some disquiet over the timetable motion, and, actually, the Government responded positively on that. The evidence suggests to me that, in fact, the timetable has matched the scope of the amendments that we have had to consider, and that is greatly to the credit of the Government that that has happened, and I am very grateful to him for it.
Mr Baker
No, I wish to move on to my next point.
On this point about consensus, the Government have listened and responded to constructive challenge from all parts of the House. Earlier in the process, the Government tabled amendments to set a single exit day in the Bill, to which I will return. We tabled an amendment to provide extra information about equalities impacts and the changes being made to retained EU law under the powers in the Bill. We have announced the intention to bring forward separate primary legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement and the implementation period in due course. We published a right-by-right analysis of the charter of fundamental rights, and we have made it clear that we are willing to look again at some of the technical detail of how the Bill deals with general principles to ensure that we are taking an approach that can command the support of Parliament.
Finally on this point, the Government have listened to representations set out during debate on day six, and indeed on Second Reading, and have accepted the Procedure Committee’s amendments to establish a sifting committee. We fully recognise the role of Parliament in scrutinising the Bill and have been clear throughout that we are taking a pragmatic approach to this vital piece of legislation. Where MPs and peers can improve the Bill, we will work with them.
Stephen Gethins
The Minister is being very generous. It would be very useful to Members on the SNP Benches if, during his speech, he set out even in principle some of the amendments that were promised by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the Minister for giving way. He is generous. As a new MP, I must say that I am very surprised about how little constructive dialogue there has been. In fact, the comment that those on the Government Benches could deal with all of this without having to deal with the Opposition was alarming. We are all here to make constructive comments, to improve the Bill and to make compromises. The comments that they could deal with it all without having to listen to the Opposition or to have constructive dialogue were both alarming and disappointing.
Mr Baker
The hon. Lady reminds me of how much I miss the days of coalition on some occasions.
The clauses and schedules that we are debating in this final group contain a number of detailed, necessary and technical provisions. In many cases, they are standard provisions that one would expect to see in any Bill.
Clause 14 is a technical and standard provision that sets out important definitions of many key terms that appear throughout the Bill, such as “EU tertiary legislation” and “EU entity”, and clarifies how other references in the Bill are to be read. Clause 15 complements clause 14, setting out in one place where the key terms used throughout the Bill are defined and noting where amendments to the Interpretation Act 1978 are made under schedule 8. Together, clauses 14 and 15 will aid comprehension of the Bill.
Clause 18 provides that the Bill will apply to the whole UK. In addition, because the European Communities Act 1972 currently extends to the Crown dependencies and Gibraltar in a limited way, the repeal of that Act must similarly extend to those jurisdictions to the extent that it applies to them. The Bill also repeals three Acts that extend to Gibraltar, all of which relate to European parliamentary elections. The powers in clauses 7 and 17 can be used to make provision for Gibraltar as a consequence of these repeals. The approach in clause 18 has been agreed with the Governments of Guernsey, Jersey, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar in line with usual practice.
Mr Baker
Well, I am going return to the subject of Gibraltar at considerable length later. [Interruption.] I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to continue.
As is typical with all Bills, clause 19 sets out which parts of the Act will commence immediately at Royal Assent, and provides a power for Ministers to commence other provisions at different times by regulations. Schedule 6 is linked to clause 3, which we debated on day two in Committee. That clause converts into domestic law direct EU legislation as it operates at the moment immediately before we leave the EU. There are, however, some EU instruments that have never applied in the UK—for example, instruments in respect of the euro and measures in the area of freedom, security and justice in which the UK chose not to participate. It would obviously be nonsense to convert these measures into domestic law after we leave, so these exempt EU instruments, to which clause 3 will not apply, are described in schedule 6.
Hon. Members will know that consequential provisions are a standard part of many Acts in order to deal with the effects of the Act across the statute book. Equally, transitional provisions are a standard way in which to smooth the application of a change in the UK statute book. Schedule 8 makes detailed and technical provisions of this nature, all of which are necessary and support the smooth operation of other crucial provisions set out elsewhere in the Bill. It clarifies what will happen to ambulatory references—I will return to this topic—to EU instruments after exit day, makes consequential and necessary amendments to other Acts, and makes transitional provision in relation to the establishment of retained EU law and the exceptions to it. Finally, schedule 9 sets out additional and necessary repeals as a consequence of our exit from the EU.
Paul Farrelly
During the Minister’s course through the amendments, has he perhaps noticed new clause 54, which was tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) following the Prime Minister’s Florence speech? If he has noticed it, what does he think of it?
Mr Baker
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I am only just beginning to conclude my opening remarks—I am only eight minutes in. I will come to the new clause in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) a little later. I will not rush on this occasion.
I turn to amendments 399 to 405 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin); I am grateful to him for tabling them. I also pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and, if I may say so, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who I understand has worked hard behind the scenes to create consensus for these amendments. These amendments are closely linked to amendments 6, 43, 44 and 45, which were discussed on the first day in Committee, and Government amendments 381 to 383.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that the United Kingdom will cease to be a member of the European Union on 29 March 2019 at the conclusion of the article 50 process. The Government have recognised the uncertainty that many people felt as to whether the exit day appointed by this Bill would correspond to the day that the UK leaves the EU at the end of the article 50 process, and that is why we brought forward our own amendments setting out when exit day will be. The purpose of our amendments is straightforward: we want to be clear when exit day is and, in the process, to provide as much certainty as we can to all. In the course of that, we want to align domestic legislation to the international position, as has been set out.
Amendments 399 to 405 build on and complement the Government amendments setting exit day. We have always said that we would listen to the concerns of the House, as we have done throughout the Bill’s passage. As part of that, the Government have had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, and we are grateful that he tabled his amendments. They provide the Government with the technical ability to amend the date, but only if the UK and the EU unanimously decide to change the date at which treaties cease to apply to the UK, as set out in article 50.
Only one exit day can be set for the purposes of the Bill, and any statutory instrument amending exit day will be subject to the affirmative procedure. As I said in an intervention, we will bring forward an amendment on Report to make this requirement clear on the face of the Bill.
Helen Goodman
Could the Minister set out for the whole Committee—not just the Conservative Members sitting behind him—what will happen if the legislation provided for in amendment 7, which we passed last week, is not passed? The Minister, using amendment 381—whether or not it is itself amended by amendment 400—will still have the power to set the exit date and withdraw, irrespective of what has gone on. Is that not right?
Mr Baker
The hon. Lady is trying to pre-empt some of my remarks. If she will bear with me, I will come to that.
A crucial point is that the Bill does not determine whether the UK leaves the EU; that is a matter of international law under the article 50 process. However, it is important that we have the same position in UK law that is reflected in European Union treaty law. That is why the Government have signed these amendments, and I was glad to do so.
I can assure the Committee we would use this power only in exceptional circumstances to extend the deadline for the shortest period possible, and that we cannot envisage the date being brought forward. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said many times, we and the EU are planning on the UK leaving the European Union at 11 pm on 29 March 2019.
Mr Jenkin
I apologise to the Committee for having had to be in the Liaison Committee for the last couple of hours and for missing much of the debate. I thank my hon. Friend for accepting these compromise amendments. The Government are, in fact, accepting a very significant limitation on the powers they had in the original draft of the Bill. If we are interested in the sovereignty of Parliament, we are interested in limiting the room for Government to set arbitrary dates without any controls over them whatever. That is what existed in the Bill before. There is now proper control by Parliament of the date in the Bill.
Helen Goodman
How can it be right to tell the House that the exit date is being set by the House, when the amendments give the power to the Executive to set the exit date?
Mr Baker
It is an interesting question that the hon. Lady asks, but how does she think that exit day would be set by the House? If it is not set on the face of the Bill and immovable other than by primary legislation, it must be set in secondary legislation. I would have thought that that was plain to the hon. Lady. We have done the right and pragmatic thing, which is to align UK law with the international treaty position. That enjoys wide support across a spectrum of opinion, and I am glad to support these amendments in the way I have set out.
Let me turn to the issue of the customs union, and I particularly noted what my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said about it. The issue has been widely aired, and I do not intend to be tempted into a broader debate on trade policy. We are confident that we will negotiate a deep and special partnership with the EU, spanning a new economic relationship and a new relationship on security. Businesses and public services should only have to plan for one set of changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU, so we are seeking a time-limited implementation period during which access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms. During this implementation period, EU nationals will continue to be able to come and live and work in the UK, but there will be a registration system. The details of the implementation period are of course a matter for negotiations, and we have been clear that we will bring forward the necessary implementing legislation in due course. However, it would not be right to sign up now to membership of the customs union and the single market pending the outcome of negotiations, as new clause 52 would have us do.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Minister, and the Prime Minister for that matter, repeatedly say that businesses will only have to plan for one set of changes. Given that businesses currently benefit from being part of the single market and the customs union, how can it possibly be the case, as the Prime Minister has also said, that we are coming out of the customs union and the single market during the so-called implementation period?
Mr Baker
The hon. Lady tempts me to dilate on the details of the implementation period, which are to be negotiated, but that is not my purpose today, because it is not the purpose of this Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to deliver a functioning statute book as we leave the European Union.
With that in mind, I turn to new clauses 10 and 54 on the transitional or implementation period. Both new clauses seek to impose conditions on what form the implementation period the Government are seeking will take. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe for his new clause, which attempts to write the Prime Minister’s vision for an implementation period into statute. That would be a novel constitutional change. Nevertheless, I welcome it in the sense that it is a ringing endorsement of Government policy. New clause 10, however, differs in some key regards from our vision.
The Government cannot accept these new clauses. The Prime Minister has set out a proposal that is now subject to negotiation. We are confident of reaching that agreement, but it would not be sensible for the Government to constrain themselves domestically in any way while those negotiations continue. We are making good progress, and it is in our mutual interests to conclude a good agreement that works for everyone. We do not want to put the legislative cart before the diplomatic horse.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
In referring to the transitional or the implementation period, my hon. Friend has at various times used phrases straight out of the Florence speech, and he has accepted that the new clause in my name is identical to stated Government policy on the subject. In what way does it restrain the Government’s position to put their own policy in the Bill and ask the Prime Minister, as the new clause does, to seek to attain that which she has declared to be her objective? That is not a genuine reason for rejecting it. He is rejecting it because agreeing with the Florence speech still upsets some of our more hard-line Eurosceptics both inside and outside the Government.
Mr Baker
Of course I have read it—it is here in my hand. I have read it but I have not gone back and done his homework for him to check and mark his work.
I make two points to my right hon. and learned Friend. First, as I said, it would be a constitutional innovation to begin putting statements of policy for negotiations in legislation. That is a good reason not to accept the new clause. The second point—[Interruption.] He says that it is not a good reason. He is the Father of the House and he has occupied many of the great offices of state. I would be interested to know when, in his long and distinguished career, he accepted that principle in legislation.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I have never previously seen members of the Government debate a clear exposition of Government policy from the moment it is first announced. That gives rise to serious doubts about exactly what the Government are going to pursue in the transition deal, and these exceptional and unprecedented circumstances are doing harm to Britain’s position. I cannot see what harm would be done by giving the approval of the whole House to the Government’s stated objectives in the Bill. The fact that it has not been done before is not an argument against it; it answers a situation that has not happened before, either.
Mr Baker
My right hon. and learned Friend has caught himself in a contradiction. In this exchange, he has rested his argument on knowing exactly what the Government’s policy is, but in his last intervention he said that he did not know what it was.
My second point concerns subsection (2) of my right hon. and learned Friend’s new clause—[Interruption.] I would just like to make this point. The subsection states:
“No Minister of the Crown shall appoint exit day if the implementation and transition period set out in subsection (1) does not feature in the withdrawal arrangements between the UK and the European Union.”
That would cause a problem if the new clause were accepted and we reached the point at which the treaties no longer applied to the United Kingdom. We would have legal chaos—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) talked about this earlier—if we had not commenced this Bill when the treaties ceased to apply. For both those reasons, we simply could not accept the new clause.
Several hon. Members rose—
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Ah! They are like spoiled children, aren’t they?
Is not another objection, if not the real objection, to the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) that it is the sort of point that should have been made in a Second Reading debate? We have two days for Report and Third Reading. That may be a stage at which the Government wish to look at these things, and it might be a time for huge innovation. Now is not the time to take Second Reading points, which could be dealt with later in the whole proceedings.
Mr Baker
I will not give way now, because I have been on my feet for 22 minutes, and there are, I think, 53 amendments and new clauses to deal with. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later.
I turn to the long series of amendments that are designed, in one way or another, to oblige the Government to publish reports or assessments on specific areas or issues, some in advance of exit day. They are new clauses 31 to 33, 40 to 44, 46, 47, 71, 72, 82, 84 and 85, and amendments 85, 86 and 219 to 221. It is in no one’s interest for the Government to provide a running commentary on the wide range of analysis that they are doing until it is ready to support the parliamentary process in the established way. All the amendments and new clauses I have mentioned share one common flaw. Ministers have a specific responsibility, which Parliament has endorsed, not to release information that would expose our negotiating position. The amendments and new clauses risk doing precisely that. I commend the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who is in his place. I thought that his speech was an interesting reflection of his own experience.
The risks and difficulties are easily illustrated by looking at some of the specific reports that are called for. New clause 42 asks for a report on severance payments for employees of EU agencies, but that is not a matter for the UK Government. The right to severance pay is a matter for the EU agencies, although we hope and expect that they would honour any relevant commitments to their employees.
New clause 48 calls for a strategy for the certification of UK and EU medical devices by UK bodies so that the UK can maintain a close co-operative relationship with the EU in the field of medicines regulation. That is of course our aim: we intend such a strategy to form a key part of our deep and special future partnership with the EU.
New clause 71, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), seeks to require a Minister to report before exit day on the Government’s progress in negotiating mutual market access for financial and professional services. I understand his motivations in wanting this information to be published. We are working to reach an agreement on the final deal in good time before we leave the EU in March 2019.
Mr Baker
I want to complete my argument, for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who tabled this new clause.
We are seeking an economic partnership that will be both comprehensive and ambitious. It should be of greater scope and ambition than any previous agreement so that it covers sectors crucial to our linked economies, such as financial and professional services. We are confident that the UK and the EU can reach a positive deal on our future partnership as this will to be to the mutual benefit of both the UK and the EU. We will approach the negotiations in this constructive spirit.
I want to provide reassurance to my hon. Friend on his new clause 72, which seeks to ensure that any ministerial power to charge fees in respect of inspections of imported food and animal feed is exercised in a way that ensures full cost recovery for public authorities.
Mr Baker
Before I give way to my right hon. Friend, I want to respond on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
I would like to persuade my hon. Friend that his new clause 72 is not necessary. First, there is already sufficient statutory provision to ensure that the cost of mandatory veterinary checks on food and animal feed, on their importation, are fully recoverable. The arrangements for setting inspection fees for imported food and animal feed vary according to the type of inspection. All imports of products of animal origin must be inspected by a port health authority at a border inspection post. For high-risk products not of animal origin, these checks are carried out by a port health authority at a designated point of entry. Broadly speaking, these checks must be satisfactorily completed before a consignment is released for free circulation.
EC regulation No. 882/2004 on official controls, together with supporting domestic legislation—for England, it takes the form of the Official Feed and Food Controls (England) Regulations 2009—provides the legal basis for charges in respect of these inspections. The Bill will convert that EC regulation into UK legislation. The nature of the charges that the port health authority can make depends on a number of factors, including the nature of the food or animal feed being imported and its point of origin.
Robert Neill
I am grateful to the Minister for going into such detail on the basis for charging. May I mention that the other purpose behind new clause 72, which is a probing amendment, is to remind the Government of the importance of seeking in our negotiating objectives—no more and no less than that—a continued form of mutual recognition, if at all possible, for checks on food and feed?
Mr Baker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. He will know that, under the WTO foundations of the world trading system, there are arrangements for the mutual recognition of sanitary and phytosanitary checks and other matters.
The second point I should make about my hon. Friend’s new clause 72 is that, in relation to any new inspections that may be required after the UK leaves the EU, the Government are considering what controls or surveillance will be required on imported food once we have left the EU. Where Ministers decide to introduce statutory inspection fees, Parliament should have the opportunity to consider the approach to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Where port authorities undertake additional checks on food, on its importation into the UK, for which there is not a statutory charge, decisions will continue to be taken on the basis of the need to balance costs between general and local taxation. We consider that the Government must remain free to set fees and charges in a manner that reflects these considerations. I hope that this provides my hon. Friend with sufficient reassurance.
Finally, on a separate issue, my hon. Friend asked earlier in our debates whether courts would be able to consider all material in relation to retained EU law when deciding such legislation’s meaning and effect. I am happy to confirm that this is the position under the Bill. The Government will place a letter in the Library of the House setting this out in more detail, and I am putting that on the record now to enable us to do so.
Robert Neill
I am grateful for that assurance. There is just one other matter on which I hope my hon. Friend will be able to give me a like reassurance, on private contract matters.
Anna Soubry
I wonder whether the Minister could be quite clear at the Dispatch Box and give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that now we have voted—as we did last week—for amendment 7, the Government will not at any stage now bring forward any measure that in any way undermines the vote of this House on amendment 7, and that Parliament will have a meaningful vote, as we voted for last Wednesday.
Mr Baker
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I admit, I thought she was going to ask me about the matters before me. That is a matter to be considered on Report, were we to return to it. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Opposition Members were shouting me down there for a moment. Were we to return to it, it would be a matter for Report, not for today. The Government’s policy is as we set out in the written ministerial statement, and of course we are a Government—[Interruption.] No, certainly not. We are a Government who of course obey the law. Parliament has voted and the law would currently be set out as on the face of the Bill.
Mr Baker
No, I really am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman; I insist.
I turn now to amendment 102, which removes provisions that enable existing powers to amend retained direct EU legislation, and amendment 103, removing provisions that enable future powers by default to amend retained EU legislation. These amendments are linked to amendments that we have already debated on day 2 of the Committee, and I do not plan to repeat all those arguments.
Mr Baker
I will make the argument on this point. We maintain that it is absolutely right and necessary for existing domestic powers granted by Parliament in other Acts to be able to operate on retained direct EU legislation, which will become domestic law. Fettering these powers would prevent important and necessary updates being made to our law, where that is within the scope and limitations of the powers and Parliament’s will. Similarly, it is important that future delegated powers created after exit day should be able to modify retained direct EU legislation, so far as applicable. This provides important clarity on the status of retained EU law and how it will interact with these powers. Further, where it is appropriate to do so, future powers can of course still be prohibited from amending retained direct EU legislation.
Ian Murray
It is very relevant to the amendments that the Minister is currently running through, because the Prime Minister, at the Liaison Committee, has refused to fully commit to abiding by amendment 7, agreed to by this House last week. I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on that, because if he is rowing back on that commitment he is essentially undermining many of the amendments he is running through at the moment—the one from the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) in particular.
Mr Baker
What I would say to the hon. Gentleman, and I try to say this as gently as possible and in the spirit of Christmas, is that when I listened to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield talking about certain colleagues of a Eurosceptic persuasion, I hope he will not mind me reminding the House that he gave an articulation of—I think he used the word neurosis.
Mr Baker
I am really not going to any more on this point.
Amendments 11 and 380 relate to the treatment of direct EU law for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this point, which, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said, is related to his other concerns. The amendments concern the status of retained EU law, in this case specifically the status of retained direct EU legislation under clause 3 for the purpose of challenges under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Let me be clear from the outset that all legislation brought across will of course be susceptible to challenge under the HRA. Hon. Members will, however, understand that the remedies available under the Act differ for primary and subordinate legislation. It is therefore important that the Bill is absolutely clear on this point. Paragraph 19 of schedule 8 is clear. It sets out that this converted EU law is to be treated as primary legislation for the purposes of the 1998 Act, with the result that it will be open to the courts, if that legislation is challenged, to consider whether the legislation is compatible with rights under the European convention on human rights, and, if they conclude otherwise, to make a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the HRA.
The amendments, by contrast, would assign the status of subordinate legislation for the purposes of HRA challenges, meaning that a successful challenge could, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield knows, result in a strike-down of the legislation. The Government considered this point very carefully before we introduced the Bill. We recognised the potential arguments that, for example, detailed and technical EU tertiary legislation is more akin to our domestic secondary legislation. We are also, of course, alive to the concerns that this law must be properly challengeable. We concluded on balance, however, that assigning primary status to converted law for these purposes was the better course for three principal reasons.
First, this law comes into our domestic statute book in a unique way, but fundamentally Parliament will have chosen to bring each and all of these pieces of legislation into our law by primary legislation, albeit indirectly through the Bill. Contrary to the position for subordinate legislation, there will have been no exercise of discretion by an individual Minister. In that sense, converted EU law is more akin to primary legislation.
Secondly, if the law could be struck down by the courts, we would risk undermining the certainty the Bill is seeking to provide. None of this legislation can be challenged in UK courts now and some of it has been on the statute book for decades. Opening it up to being struck down is an invitation to challenge law which has long been settled, and to refight the battles of the past in the hope that a different court will return a different verdict.
Mr Grieve
Of the three points the Minister has made, the latter is without doubt the one that has the greatest force. It is worth bearing in mind that it highlights the fact of the supremacy of EU law, which is being preserved for the purposes of retained EU law. That, if I may say so, is a good reason why he should listen carefully to what I said about people being able to invoke general principles of EU law in order to challenge its operation. All these matters are interconnected.
Mr Baker
I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I know he is going to take this matter up further with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. I did actually just make two points, but perhaps I structured them ambiguously.
The third point is that in the event of a strike-down there would be no existing power under which fresh regulations could be brought forward, so it would be necessary to bring forward a fresh Act of Parliament or to rely on the remedial order-making power within the HRA itself. I should say that the remedial order-making power within the HRA was not designed to be the default means by which incompatible legislation is remedied or to deal with the policy changes that could be required.
The remedial order-making power may only be used if there are compelling reasons for doing so and it is targeted at removing the identified incompatibility. If wider policy change were needed following a finding of incompatibility, a fresh Act of Parliament would be the only means of doing that and we could be left with damaging holes in the statute book unless and until such an Act was passed. That is why the Government concluded that converted EU law should have the status of primary legislation in relation to the HRA, and that is why the Government will not be able to accept the two amendments.
Mr Jenkin
I wish to pick up on the important point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister clarify that it is not the Government’s intention to set up retained EU law in UK statute in a manner that would encourage a UK court to strike down another primary statute? If that is the intention, may I suggest it might be something the Government will have to look at?
Mr Baker
My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General has just confirmed to me that we do not want that to happen. I am sure that that will be given further consideration, along with the issue of general principles that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has raised.
Heidi Alexander
I apologise for interrupting the Minister’s stream of thought and taking him back to his response to the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), but can he rule out, from the Dispatch Box today, returning to amendment 7 on Report?
Mr Baker
I refer to the answer I gave earlier. At this point, I can tell the hon. Lady that I am not expecting to return to it, but we are reflecting on the implications of the amendment. We made a strong case for the powers at the Dispatch Box and are reflecting on it. I say to her, however, and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield that we are not expecting at this point to return to it. [Interruption.] She asks what that means. We have been in close conversation with my right hon. and learned Friend, and I feel sure that those conversations will continue, but I say to the rest of the Committee that I am going to focus on the amendments before me.
Paul Farrelly
It is indeed on this point. Some of the Minister’s right hon. and hon.—and courageous—Friends from last week have, in good faith, signed amendment 400 this evening. Given that he is refusing to guarantee that the Government will stick to the letter and the spirit of amendment 7, they might feel that they are being led up the garden path.
John Redwood
Will the Minister confirm that Parliament is going to have its way? We will have a vote on any agreement, and it will then need primary legislation—the most intense scrutiny of all—to put it through. That, surely, is a major win for those who wanted that approach. I am quite happy with that. That is what amendment 7 leaves us with. Will he confirm that there will be full parliamentary scrutiny, debate and legislation on an agreement?
Mr Baker
Yes, I will confirm that of course there will be full parliamentary scrutiny. One of the things that is bringing me great joy, particularly at Christmas, is the extent of parliamentary unity on this point of parliamentary sovereignty. One reason so many of us campaigned to leave the EU is that we wanted our voters to have a choice over who governed the UK in as many matters as conceivable.
I do not wish to revisit the arguments around amendment 7. I wish rather to conclude my consideration of the issue before us.
Mr Baker
I am not going to let the hon. Gentleman come in on this point, which we have dealt with.
I emphasise again that our approach does not immunise converted law from HRA challenges. If an incompatibility were to be found, it places the matter in the hands of Parliament to resolve, without creating a legal vacuum in the interim. This approach strikes the right balance and recognises that supremacy of Parliament. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has wider concerns regarding the rights of challenge after exit, including, in particular, where these are based on the general principles of EU law. I am happy to repeat the commitment made by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General earlier that we are willing to look again at the technical detail of how certain legal challenges based on the general principles of EU law might work after exit. We will bring forward amendments on Report to address this, and we are happy to continue to discuss these concerns with him.
Mr Grieve
That is a very sensible approach on these matters, and I am very grateful to the Minister and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for taking it forward. As for the other matter that has floated into our discussion, and which I have studiously avoided getting drawn into, I would simply recommend that, on the whole, kicking hornets’ nests is not a very good idea.
Mr Baker
It is ironic that my right hon. and learned Friend and I should be constituency neighbours, and, if I may say so—and as we put on the record on a previous day—friends. It is also ironic that our other Buckinghamshire neighbours have swapped one rebel commander for another. But I think I should move on: I have kicked enough hornets’ nests myself for one day.
Robert Neill
I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance, particularly in the light of recent press reports of attempts by the Spanish Government to exclude Gibraltar from the transition and end-state process. It is important for the Government to make that clear commitment, subject, of course, to the existence of the proper regulatory equivalents and standards. If the Minister will give me an undertaking that that will happen with the full involvement of Gibraltar’s Government, I think that those of us who supported the amendment will be satisfied.
Ian Paisley
This is the one amendment that would probably have attracted support from the Democratic Unionists, but, because of the assurances the Minister has given—and, importantly, the assurances the Prime Minister gave even today at the Dispatch Box—we feel relieved for Gibraltar’s sake. Is the Minister essentially saying that the protections he is now affording to Gibraltar effectively mean it will not be treated in any way differently from any other part of the United Kingdom?
Mr Baker
The position is as I have set out, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if, in all the circumstances, I stick to that position. I hope that he will understand the strength of our commitment from that. We will deliver on our assurances that Gibraltar businesses will enjoy continued access to the UK market, based on the Gibraltar authorities having already agreed to maintain full regulatory alignment with the UK.
Peter Grant
I have no doubt that the people and Government of Gibraltar will be grateful for the Minister’s assurances, but the wording of this amendment intends to make sure with 100% certainty that, even inadvertently, nothing in the Bill can damage the interests of the people of Gibraltar. Can the Minister tell us with absolute certainty that if this amendment is not added to the Bill, there is nothing in the Bill that will cause that damage? Assurances, objectives and promises are good, but can he say with absolute certainty that nothing in the Bill will ever damage or prejudice the interests of the people of Gibraltar?
Mr Baker
What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that this Bill extends to Gibraltar only in the way I have set out: the Government’s policy is as I have indicated to him, and we remain steadfastly committed to the interests of Gibraltar.
I turn now to the REACH regulation, new clause 61. We will use the powers in this Bill to convert current EU chemicals law, including REACH, into domestic law. That will mean that the standards established by REACH will continue to apply in the UK. I believe that that renders new clause 61 unnecessary.
On custodial sentences and amendment 349, the scope to create criminal offences in the Bill is restricted so the powers cannot be used to create an offence punishable by a sentence of imprisonment for more than two years. It might, however, be necessary to create criminal offences in certain circumstances, for example offences related to functions that are to be transferred from EU bodies to UK bodies which would be lost without the ability to recreate offences relating to functions then held at a UK level. To lose the offence, and therefore the threat of a sanction, would remove what could be seen as important protections in our law, and for that reason we are not able to support the amendment.
I turn now to amendment 362 on the issue of ambulatory references. I hope the Committee will bear with me on the final, technical section of this speech. The amendment concerns paragraph 1 of schedule 8, which deals with the ambulatory references in our domestic law, as well as EU instruments and other documents in EU legislation that will be retained under clause 3. At present, the ambulatory cross-references update automatically when the EU instrument referred to is amended. After exit day, the Bill provides that such references will instead be read as references to the retained EU law version of the instrument, which, unless the contrary intention appears, will update when the retained instrument is modified by domestic law. This is necessary in order to prevent post-exit changes to EU law from flowing automatically into UK law. It would not be appropriate for the reference to continue to point to the EU version of the instrument after we have left the EU.
The approach set out in the Bill will be applied in relation to ambulatory references within any enactment, retained direct EU legislation, and any document relating to them. I understand that this last provision—the reference to documents and whether or not that includes contracts—has concerned my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. The Government are alive to concerns that we should not unduly disturb the operation of private contracts, or prevent parties to a contract from being able to give effect to their intentions. We are happy to explore this issue further with my hon. Friend and interested parties, to ensure that we achieve the appropriate balance between clarity and flexibility.
Robert Neill
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for their frank and helpful response in this matter. This issue was raised by the City of London Corporation and the International Regulatory Strategy Group. I thank the Minister for his assurance that he will continue to work with them, and look forward to that. I am satisfied, for these purposes, that the issue is being addressed.
Mr Baron
May I briefly take the Minister back to amendments 381 and 400? I thank him for his kind words about amendment 400, and for his work on the Bill. He will know that I did not put my name to amendment 381, but I will support amendment 400 so long as that power will be used only in extremis and for the shortest possible time. We have had an assurance on that from the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box today, and I know that those on the Government Front Bench have taken that on board, but if there is any dissension on this, it would be nice to know about it now.
Mr Baker
Perhaps my hon. Friend was not in the Chamber when I gave my assurance on this earlier. I am happy to repeat it. I can assure the House that we would use this power only in exceptional circumstances to extend the deadline for the shortest period possible, and that we cannot envisage the date being brought forward. I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained that earlier.
Mr Baker
I did say that that was the last time I would give way, and I think it is now time for me to—[Interruption.] Yes, it is Christmas, and it is in the spirit of seasonal brevity that I would like to turn to the issue of thanks.
I should first like to thank the Committee for its diligent and well-informed scrutiny of this, the first Bill that I have piloted through Parliament. I am an engineer, not a pilot, however, so perhaps I could be said to have guided it through Parliament. It has been my pleasure to do so. I should like to thank you, Sir David, for your chairmanship, and I thank Dame Rosie, Mrs Laing, the other Sir David, Mr Hanson and Mr Streeter for theirs. It has been a pleasure to serve under all your chairmanships. I should also like to thank the Bill ministerial team, whose advice, support and guidance have been absolutely indispensable.
I should like to thank the Solicitor General, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) and of course the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). It would be wrong of me to omit the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), who unfortunately is not in his place. His occasional guidance to the entire team has been invaluable, and has always been followed.
Finally, and most importantly, I should like to thank all the officials in the Department for Exiting the European Union and beyond who have so diligently risen to the enormous task of dealing with the scrutiny of the Bill. They have guided and assisted Ministers in the preparation of their remarks and they have responded to every query, from the House and from Ministers. We could not possibly have asked for more from them, and they could not have responded more professionally or more energetically. We can be extremely proud of all of the officials who have supported the Bill, as we wish them all a merry Christmas.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir David, and it is also a pleasure to follow the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). I pay tribute to his calmness and tolerance in taking a very difficult Bill through to this stage. I was around when the Maastricht Bill was going through Parliament, and the way in which he has handled this one is a real tribute to him.
I do not always agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), but I agreed with him when he said that the Bill was about process. I am afraid that, perhaps because we have had eight days in Committee, we have widened our debate into areas that should not necessarily have been discussed today. We have rehashed quite a lot of the debate on the referendum. For me, this is a simple Bill about repealing the European Communities Act 1972.
I welcome the fact that there is now general agreement across the House about the date. I am pleased that it will be set out in the Bill because unlike a lot of Members here, but like my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), I do not really trust the EU. I therefore always worry that if we are not absolutely clear about what we are doing, the EU will manage to move things, because it would like to delay the process and punish us as much as possible for taking the brave decision to leave. When we look at what we are discussing, we are simply asking to leave the EU. The British people originally voted for a formal economic agreement, but for 40 years we have seen entanglement and legal procedures getting into our country, and we are now having to go through all this to leave.
Anna Soubry
Exactly, of course they didn’t. They did not talk about the single market. They did talk about immigration, however, and they thought they pretty much did not like it, even though in Kimberley there have probably been about four immigrants over the course of about 200 years.
We have had that part of the debate, but there is a grave danger in looking at the result of the referendum and saying, “The British people have definitely said they don’t want the single market and the customs union and all the rest of it”. We are leaving the EU, so I have voted to trigger article 50—I have taken that big step against everything I have ever believed in, and I accept we are leaving the EU—but I am not going to stay silent, and I am not going to stop making the case for us to do the right thing as we leave. I gently say to those who stand up and bang on about the devilment of the single market and the customs union that that is gravely insulting to British business.
What have we seen in this peculiar debate? It has been peculiar. I endorse everything my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) have said; it must be a Nottingham thing that there is this agreement between the three of us about the merits of the customs union and the arguments made about the Florence speech and why it should be on the face of the Bill.
I also observe that the Government have not really conceded very much at all. They have accepted that there was a real problem with the Henry VIII powers and they have accepted amendments that they pretty much drafted themselves, and they now accept the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), but we must be honest about that: it was an amendment rightly put forward by him, but to solve a problem of the Government’s creation, because they lost the vote on amendment 7. It might be a very good fudge, but we must not make any mistake about it: if it had not come as an idea from the Government, it would not be before us as an amendment—I say that with no disrespect to my right hon. Friend.
The Government have not actually conceded anything at all. They have gone away and said some warm words, but I am now worried and concerned. Last week, 11 very honourable and brave people on this side of the House had to face what some of my colleagues think is just a bit of intimidation. We have seen national newspapers hurling abuse, and putting up photographs almost like “Wanted” posters. In the face of all that and of a lot of strong-arm tactics—I will not go into that here, but those responsible for them know exactly what was going on behind the scenes; let us not pretend otherwise—they voted, in some cases for the first time ever, and in others for the first time in more than 20 years of honourable and loyal service to their party, in accordance with their conscience when they voted for amendment 7.
Today, however, our Prime Minister appears to be rowing back on that, and the Minister is unable to give us an unequivocal statement at the Dispatch Box that the Government will honour amendment 7. Let me make it very clear that if there is any attempt by the Government to go back on amendment 7, the rebellion will be even greater and have even bigger consequences.
Mr Baker
I am happy to give my right hon. Friend an early Christmas present. I can give her the following assurance on behalf of the Government. The Government have accepted amendment 7. Our written ministerial statement on procedures for the approval and implementation of the EU exit agreement stands. There will be the following meaningful votes in accordance with that statement: on the withdrawal treaty, and on the terms of the future agreement. There will also be a withdrawal and implementation Bill, which the House will consider in detail, and of course all legislation is amendable.
Anna Soubry
I think that that is the unequivocal statement I am looking for. If it is, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for clearing that up. It is indeed a great Christmas present.
It is obvious that the two main parties in this place remain deeply divided, just as the country does. The irony of the situation will not be lost on future generations as they read Hansard. We have a considerable number of hon. and right hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Benches who completely agree with a considerable number of hon. and right hon. Members sitting on these Benches, yet we are prevented from building consensus and finding agreement because of the divisions within the two parties and, it has to be said, some intransigence on our two Front Benches. It is not for me to comment on the state of the Labour party, however; I will leave others to do that.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe has already identified the fact that, 18 months on, we still do not know what the Government see as their endgame. Our own Cabinet remains totally divided on this great issue—the greatest issue that we have had to wrestle with for decades. I say to my honourable and dear colleagues that there are some on these Benches who are entrenched in their ideological view about the European Union and will not move from it. They are a small group—they are the minority—but I feel as though they are running our country, and that cannot be right. Then there is another group, a big wide group of Conservative colleagues. Some of them are reluctant remainers, some are leavers-lite, and as they hear our debates and listen to the businesses that come to speak to them in their constituency offices, they are feeling uneasy and queasy. I do not say that they have to agree with me—of course they do not—but I asked them to listen to the arguments that are being advanced by those of us who speak on behalf of our constituents, notably businesses, about a deal.
We are not going to get a bespoke deal from the European Union—well, not unless we pay shed loads of money for access to this or that market—but there is something available to us. It is EFTA. It is the customs union. It is sitting there as a package. We can take it and seize it, and British business would be delighted if we did so. And then it would be done. The British people would say, “Thank God! They’ve got on and delivered Brexit”, and all would be well. We need to get on with it, so that we can then address the great domestic issues. I beg my hon. Friends to google EFTA and the customs union over the Christmas period. I urge them to understand them and to look at what Norway gets. Norway is able to determine its own agricultural and fisheries policies, for example. My hon. Friends need to know and understand these things. Then we need to come back in the new year and make a fresh start on forming that consensus that our constituents are dying to hear about, because they are fed up to the back teeth with what is going on.