European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Antoinette Sandbach Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

Well, there is a coming together, because earlier today I heard the speech made by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who has a completely different political philosophy from me, and I agreed very much with what she said. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who has a completely different view from me on Europe, spoke very powerfully about the need for magnanimity.

The reality is that this piece of legislation is necessary to give the Government the tools to avoid the disastrous consequence of crashing out of the EU without the appropriate rules and regulations in place. It is quite ironic that those who spent 40 years fighting the EU are now leading the charge for the single largest codification of EU law in our country’s history. However, that is not a reason to vote against the Bill; in fact, it may well be a reason to vote for it, because it will put into UK law some of the rights and privileges we have enjoyed because of our membership of the European Union, and I want as many of those rights and privileges as possible to come into UK law.

I campaigned for remain, but I voted to trigger article 50 earlier this year, as I felt it was right to do in the interests of our democracy. The crux of the leave vote was about taking back control, but I agree with many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that it was about taking back control into this House and this Parliament, not transferring extensive powers to Ministers. The Bill in its current form, particularly clause 7, is an unacceptable attempt by the Government to demean the role of Parliament. If Members of this House are to vote in favour of a Bill that delegates powers to Ministers, those powers must be much more tightly defined, with parliamentary scrutiny allowed for. While I recognise the importance of ensuring that the process is as smooth as possible on exit day and in the ensuing weeks, Parliament must retain oversight of the process.

Previously the Government did not intend to give Parliament a say on the final deal or, indeed, on article 50—the House certainly overwhelmingly endorsed article 50—and we now face a similar prospect of authority being pulled back from this House. How would that affect legislation around the nuclear industry, for example, which is inextricably linked with EU states and institutions? There is great anxiety about our ability to replicate the Euratom agreement and to make such arrangements in time. I recognise the inclusion of a nuclear safeguards Bill in the Queen’s Speech, but if a future Government saw requirements on the nuclear industry as restrictive, this Parliament would have no ability to hold that Executive and the replacement measures they introduced to account under the terms of this Bill.

I, too, took particular interest in the report by the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which said:

“We would expect that a statutory instrument which amends EU law in a manner that determines matters of significant policy interest or principle should undergo a strengthened scrutiny procedure.”

I would support that, and I was encouraged by the Secretary of State’s indication on Thursday that he would take account of sensible amendments tabled in this House.

I also have reservations about repealing the European Communities Act 1972 before we know what the transitional arrangements will look like. I am glad that the Government see the need for a smooth and orderly exit, but I see that as maintaining membership of the customs union, at the very least, until a comprehensive free trade deal is agreed. I am sceptical of voting to repeal the 1972 Act until we know the dynamics and practical workings of the transitional phase. Achieving such an agreement must be an urgent priority before we create legal risks and uncertainties in the manner that the Bill as currently drafted is in danger of doing.

One point that has been lacking in the debate is how all this is perceived in the EU. The future prosperity of our country heavily relies on what we are able to achieve throughout this negotiation process. The Government must be seen to be engaging with Parliament on a cross-party basis. That would give the aims and ambitions of the Secretary of State and his team far more credibility and clout as he negotiates with the other 27 EU nations.

I have some reservations about the time allocated to debate the Bill. I very much hope we will get the assurances asked for by many Members on both sides of the House about the possibility of having more time, if it is needed. I urge the Government to consider sensible amendments, but I ask others to please support the principle of the Bill and to allow this House to amend it.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Antoinette Sandbach Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

I would have thought that it would be as clear to the hon. Gentleman as it is to me that leaving the European Union does involve revoking the European Communities Act. I will go on to explain why we have concerns about the Government’s amendments and the different decisions within them.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

Did the hon. Gentleman understand, as I did, when the vote on article 50 took place, that the provisions outlined in article 50 would apply, including the ability of 28 nations to agree to extend the negotiating process?

[Paul Blomfield]

I did indeed, and I will come to that point later in my remarks.

I said that the intention of the three amendments is clear despite the confusion caused by amendment 383. It is clear, but it is needless because article 50, triggered on 29 March 2017, provides for a two-year exit timetable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to add to his list the comments of those such as Dan Hannan, who argued for leave? He said, “Don’t worry, you can vote to leave because we will stay in the single market and the customs union.”

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent and principled intervention. To double down on that, I will quote the leader of the Scottish Conservatives. The problem is that I cannot quote her directly; I will have to paraphrase what she said, because if I read out the quote, I would be held to be out of order in this place. She called into question the veracity of claims on costs in terms of the EU, and the veracity of claims made by people who are in government about Turkey’s EU membership and an EU army. I am sorry that I cannot quote her directly, but I would find myself in a bit of bother if I did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I am sorry to disillusion the hon. Lady. I have been in this House for 33 years and I have been on the European Scrutiny Committee for 32 of them. I can absolutely assure her that what she says is simply not reflected by the practice of the European Union: the system is essentially undemocratic.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Does my hon. Friend not feel that it is ironic that all 12,000 EU regulations will be imported into UK law under a process that will not have the detailed scrutiny of the House, because Henry VIII powers will be used to do it?

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend might just reflect on the fact that there is no other way of transposing the legislation. I drafted the original repeal Bill, so I understand it very well. I did so before the referendum, in fact, because—I say this to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe—I believed we would win. In reality, once we have brought this into UK law, we will be able to have our own Bills—on agriculture, fisheries, customs, immigration, and various other parts of our constitutional arrangements—that can be properly discussed and amended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. As Select Committee Chairs, he and I have both heard evidence about security and wider issues, and I also share with him my personal views about the importance of having a transition period and a smooth process. To be honest, whatever people’s views on whether there should be a transition and on how we should respond to different negotiating outcomes, it should still be for Parliament to debate and to decide before exit day, not after. That is what Parliament should be for. Frankly, the Government would be irresponsible not to give Parliament the opportunity to debate and take a view on the terms and on the timing once they have been agreed.

There is a con in what the Minister said earlier, because the Government actually do recognise that there may be circumstances in which exit day has to be changed. The Minister said that clause 17 will not apply and that somehow it will not allow the Government to change the exit day through regulations after it has been agreed in the Bill, but that is not the advice I have had—it is not the advice the House of Commons Library gave me this afternoon, for example. In fact, the combination of clause 9 and amendment 383 will still allow Ministers to change exit day, if they so choose and if they think it appropriate. That is the impact of the Henry VIII powers throughout the Bill.

We understand why Ministers might want a provision to be able to come back and say that exit day needs to change because we have reached the 11th hour, because the negotiations need to be extended by an extra month or because the process needs to be changed. Ministers have kept that power in the Bill for themselves, but why should the power be reserved just for Ministers? Why cannot Parliament have that power, too? That is the flaw at the heart of the Bill. If in unforeseen or difficult circumstances Ministers need to change the timetable, they can, but Parliament will have no choice, no say and no ability to do so.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that, if Parliament did have that opportunity, it would be taking back control and sovereignty would be returned not to the Executive but to this House?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Lady is right. We had all those debates about taking back control and parliamentary sovereignty, yet somehow the Minister seems to want to rip it all up. The Government are trying to concentrate huge amounts of power in the hands of Ministers, rather than giving the whole of Parliament a say.

Ministers have to stop infantilising Parliament and treating Parliament as if it is the enemy. The truth is that the sky did not fall in because Parliament had a vote on article 50. The Government told us that it would, and they told us that the whole process would be stopped, but it was not stopped because each and every one of us understands that we have obligations and responsibilities towards the referendum result, just as we have obligations and responsibilities towards the negotiation process that the Government have to conduct on our behalf, and that we cannot directly conduct for them. We know that we have those different responsibilities, and we know that we have to take mature and responsible decisions given the complexity of the situation that faces every single one of us. We just do not think that those decisions should be entirely in the hands of Ministers; we think that the whole of Parliament should have a say on something so important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes the same point that I am trying to make. Likewise, the Bill does not allow anyone who has suffered harm because of an act of the state in the period prior to the day of exit the right to lodge a claim under the rules as they stood at the time they were harmed.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

This is incredibly important for my constituents who could face issues relating to HS2, because a right of claim could arise between now and exit day, whenever that is set to be, and it is vital that their rights should not be changed during that period.

[Mrs Gillan]

My hon. Friend is leading me down a path that I do not wish to go down. I was very much hoping that I could make my contribution today without mentioning HS2, but the trouble is that if I do not mention it, someone else will. In fact, I agree with her entirely. To deny people those rights would be an abuse.

A retrospective removal of rights breaches the principle of legitimate expectation, because individuals have a reasonable expectation that their grievances should be heard under the rules as they stood at the time they were affected. For this reason, I am proposing these minor amendments to the Bill. I do not believe that they would undermine the overall effect of the Bill; rather, they would give legal certainty to those who were caught in the transitionary period. Anyone who has a claim originating in the period prior to Brexit should be able to have their claim heard under the rules as they stood prior to Brexit, including a right to a reference to the European Court. That is only fair and just. The British people voted for Brexit to improve their rights and the rights of their fellow citizens. They did not vote to cause legal confusion or harm, or to frustrate the rights of those relying on the courts during the transitionary phase.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

I take the point that the hon. and learned Lady makes, but that is not the same mechanism. It is not analogous and it is not desirable.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I seek clarification on this point. Is the Minister saying that if a right of action has arisen before Brexit day that would have attracted, at the time that it arose, the full protections and a right to referral to the ECJ, that right will not be taken forward and those rights will, in effect, have been retrospectively changed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Antoinette Sandbach]

rose—

[Dominic Raab]

I am going to make some progress.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I may be able to assist the Minister with the explanatory notes.

[Dominic Raab]

That is kind, but I will make some progress; otherwise I will lose the thread in relation to amendment 303.

The amendment is at odds with the clear and certain position set out in the Bill, because it would continue to bind UK courts to some post-exit ECJ decisions and case law where the matters giving rise to the case have occurred before our exit. Those judgments would continue to be binding even after an implementation period. Strictly interpreted, the amendment would go further still. It would apply to anything happening before exit day and so would also include ECJ judgments on cases referred from outside the UK. For example, a preliminary reference made by another EU member state in relation to the interpretation of EU law might also fall within the scope of the amendment, if the facts of the case arose before exit day. The consequences would be far-reaching and risk creating considerable uncertainty and practical difficulties for the administration of justice.

UK courts and tribunals would continue to be bound by some new ECJ judgments for an indeterminate period. Those binding judgments could continue to be issued long after we have left the EU as cases continue to progress to the European Court from across the EU. Yet those judgments would not have formed part of the snapshot of retained EU case law that, under clause 6(3), will be binding on our courts, so far as is relevant, and subject to the rule in clause 6(4). By contrast, such post-exit judgments would bind our courts in all circumstances, including where the retained version of an EU regulation had since been modified by this Parliament or a devolved Administration. That would create foreseeable and entirely avoidable uncertainty, and it would not be necessary, because individuals whose cause of action predates our exit would, of course, continue to be able to take their case to the domestic courts, even if after exit they cannot reach the European Court. That is the fundamental point in relation to the procedural framework.

I now turn to amendment 304, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, in relation to retaining ECJ referrals and jurisdiction for anything that happened before exit day. In leaving the EU, we will bring an end to the jurisdiction of the ECJ—we have made that clear. The proposed amendment would frustrate that objective, because our courts could continue to make references to the ECJ in relation to cases where relevant matters have occurred before our withdrawal from the EU. As a result, different rules and processes would apply for those cases, compared with those where the relevant circumstances arose after exit day. That would, I fear, give rise to more not less uncertainty, because it would be impossible to predict for how long UK courts would continue to be subject to binding judgments from Luxembourg.

When we exit the EU, we will know exactly how many pending UK cases are registered with the European Court, awaiting a preliminary reference and thus covered by any proposed agreement we have with the EU on the treatment of pending cases. That is important to deliver certainty about how and when the Court’s jurisdiction in the UK will be brought to an end. The amendment would remove that certainty. Like amendment 303, it is not necessary. Individuals will not lose their ability to vindicate their rights in court after exit. They will be able to take such cases to our domestic courts.

Forgive me, Sir David, but I thought it necessary to address my right hon. Friend’s amendments in detail. Equally, I want to say that I recognise the eloquence and the force with which she champions her constituents. Ministers will take away the underlying issue that she has brought and powerfully moved for consideration. I hope that on that basis she will not feel she needs to press the amendment.

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her constructive approach. We will take that consideration forward after these proceedings.

I will now rattle through the final amendments, so I have done them all justice and given them due consideration. I will turn next to amendment 306, tabled by the Opposition. Clause 6(2) states that our courts are no longer bound by decisions of the European Court after our departure or required to consider in future cases, although they may do so if they believe it to be appropriate. Clause 6 is a vote of confidence in our judiciary: its independence and its expertise. Using similar exercises currently undertaken with court judgments in other jurisdictions, our courts are best placed to decide to what extent, if any, they pay regard to EU law in any case before them.

The intention of amendment 306 is to remove that discretion from clause 6 and replace it with a duty that sets fetters on which aspects of EU case law our judges must consider, although only in certain areas. In practice, that would create a presumption that EU decisions should be followed in those areas. That is the clear intention, but it is inappropriate. It would undermine the purpose of clause 6 in both its fundamental objectives. It would frustrate the return of control to this House and the UK Supreme Court and expose the UK to substantial additional and unnecessary legal uncertainty.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dominic Raab]

I am going to make a little bit more progress. I have given way to my hon. Friend.

The singling out of these areas of law appears somewhat arbitrary, given other fields the amendment might equally apply to. It would lead to a splintered approach to interpretation of the law and a fragmented UK jurisprudence—more uncertainty, not less. In any case, it is totally unnecessary. The UK has a proud history of ensuring the rights and protections of individuals in this country. The UK has high standards of protection domestically in relation to workers’ rights and human rights. We are recognised as a world leader in delivering robust, rigorous health and safety protections. That record and that commitment is not dependent on our membership of the EU; it is dependent on hon. Members in this House and their eternal vigilance. It will continue to be dependent on that after we leave. I hope that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and his colleagues in the Labour party will not press amendment 306.

Finally, I turn to amendment 358 tabled by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), which sets out the ability of UK courts to have regard to material used in the preparation of retained EU law. I hope that this is the point at which I give some reassurance to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). Currently, when interpreting EU law domestically, our courts will look at the language used, as well as considering the legislation’s recitals, legal basis and other language versions to inform their interpretation. We do not want to change how this law is interpreted or to create any fresh uncertainty about its meaning, so the Bill provides for the courts to continue that approach. Clause 6 provides that questions on the validity, meaning or effect of retained EU law will be decided in accordance with retained case law and general principles of EU law. This requires taking a purposive approach to interpretation where the meaning of the provision is unclear, considering relevant documents such as the legislation’s treaty legal base, working papers that may have led to the adoption of the measure and the general principles of EU law. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee and that he will not press his amendment.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Antoinette Sandbach Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has made the point much more effectively than I did. That is absolutely right.

Briefly, Francovich raises some important issues of accountability. Surely there is oversight by Government, because I would expect them to accept that the right to damages should be available in cases where the breach of Community law took place before exit day, and indeed before the end of a transitional period, but discovery only took place afterwards. I am therefore seeking clarification from Ministers on that point, and I hope that they accept what hon. Members are seeking to do in amendments on Francovich.

We are pleased to support new clauses 16, 78 and 79, as well as amendments 297, 298, 299, 8,10,101,105 and 62 and the consequential amendments 126 ,127,129,140, 141, 302 and 9—just for clarity. In conclusion, I return to amendment 46, because we need some honesty from the Government. The House has not authorised the Government to use Brexit as a vehicle to deplete human rights in this country. If the Government want to reduce rights and protections, they should say so and we can debate it. What is not acceptable is to pretend that the Bill provides for the transfer of rights and protections when it clearly does not.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has made a number of statements about the fact that if Opposition parties can identify rights that will not be covered he is willing to look at them and legislate for them. We have discussed a third category of rights—not those protected by the Human Rights Act or those that will be irrelevant because they are in the charter and will no longer apply —so is the hon. Gentleman prepared to take that at face value and work with the Government to ensure that those rights that have been identified are protected?

[Paul Blomfield]

If the Government can identify the sources of rights covered by the charter and can explain exactly how any deficiencies or gaps left as a result of failure to transpose the charter will be identified, and if they outline what remedies they might make at a later stage, we would be happy to sit down with them and talk about that. It is absolutely clear to us that the Government should stick by their word and their claims in relation to the Bill on the need for the existing level of human rights protection to be preserved in UK law. As it stands, central to that consolidation is retaining the charter as part of the retained EU law. I hope the House will agree and I hope the House will support our amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

I am not going to give way again.

The point I wanted to reaffirm is that, given that the substantive rights codified by the charter will be retained in EU law, it does not make sense to incorporate the EU charter itself, an element of the EU’s institutional architecture designed to regulate EU membership, at precisely the moment when we are leaving.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Does my hon. Friend accept that there may be a third category of rights that are in the charter but are not in the Human Rights Act, and require protection, and that the source of those rights cannot be identified other than in the charter? If so, will he accept the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) that there should be an Act of some sort to deal with them?

[Dominic Raab]

As I have made clear, we will publish a memorandum containing article-by-article analysis of the charter and how the substantive underpinning rights at the point at which it is codified can be reflected in UK law. I am happy to continue the dialogue with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset if they believe that any rights have been missed out.

I think that this is probably the right moment to deal with amendment 151, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), and which relates to the protection of personal data.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Our independent judiciary is clearly quite capable of balancing the rights contained in the charter, the Human Rights Act and other pieces of domestic legislation, and it has done so successfully for many years.

[Joanna Cherry]

Indeed it has; that is its job. In particular, judges at the higher level such as the Supreme Court and the High Court of Judiciary in Scotland are used to grappling with the complex interplay of international treaties and international human rights protections.

I mentioned earlier that the Exiting the European Union Committee had heard evidence from a variety of witnesses about the effect of not incorporating the charter. I have to be honest and say that some of them were happy for the charter not to be incorporated, but even they said that something would be lost by its going. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have given a number of examples of what would be lost, and I would like briefly to add to that list.

--- Later in debate ---

That, of course, is one of the arguments that we are going to have about our trade and future relationship with the European Union, and it is pertinent to the points made by the right hon. Gentleman. It is the argument about whether we are to have exact regulatory matching and stick to the letter of each piece of European legislation if we are to trade successfully—whether in goods, services or data—or whether we are to have equivalent legislation which adequately protects and matches those rights, which we may deliver in a different way, but which is equivalent to those rights.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee heard some very interesting evidence today from representatives of the aerospace and airline manufacturing sectors. They said, “We want identical regulations for the safety of passengers. It is vital to the industry for our regulations to be exactly matched with those of Europe.” There will be some areas in which we shall need regulatory matching.

[Mr Harper]

That is a very helpful point. There may well be areas in which, because of the nature of the product or service involved, the exact matching of regulations will be judged to be right, but that may well not be the case in every single area. Perhaps what we need is a sensible structure that allows us to have some debates and decide what is the right thing to do, and then have conversations with our European neighbours. That will be one of the big arguments as we negotiate the trade deal, because it is relevant to the extent to which we can then have different arrangements that will enable us to seize the opportunities that are undoubtedly available to us around the globe.

I was on the remain side, as, indeed, was my hon. Friend. There is also the argument that if we continue to match every single regulation introduced by the European Union, particularly when we have no say in the process, we shall not be gaining any of the benefits of not being in the EU, which would rather defeat the point of leaving in the first place. I certainly believe that, given that the country decided to leave, we need a good, deep relationship with our EU partners so that we can continue to trade with them, but we also need to be able to take full advantage of every opportunity of securing that incremental business from around the globe. My hon. Friend is right, however: we should listen to the businesses that are involved in these sectors, and make the right decisions.

Let me now deal with the specific points made by the right hon. Member for East Ham about amendment 151, which would require the laying of

“regulations to create a fundamental right to the protection of…data.”

There is an argument here about what will or will not be the behaviour of our European partners, both the member states and the Commission. It seems to me that, if we deliver legislation according with the general data protection regulation in our Data Protection Bill, along with other provisions that protect such data, the European Commission may decide, for what will be political reasons, to rule that there is some incompatibility. If the Commissioners have made up their minds, for political reasons, to be mean and horrible to us and try to damage our economy, there is not very much that we can do about that. Even if we were to do what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, they would just dream up another excuse to damage us.

If that is how the Commission is going to behave, it is not an organisation I would want to be a part of, but I do not take the view that that is what the Commission or the other member states are going to do. It is certainly not the way we have approached the negotiations. The Prime Minister has been very clear that we want a deep and special partnership with our European neighbours. We have made clear—this is relevant on the data issue—that we will have an unconditional relationship with our EU partners on security and intelligence co-operation: we will use our assets and resources to help to defend and protect European security. On that basis, it would be very churlish if the European Commission were to take the approach the right hon. Gentleman set out.

--- Later in debate ---

There are pros and cons in determining whether the final say on our laws should rest with Parliament or with judges, but I hope that many will agree that this is a significant constitutional question. Before we could embark on that course of action, we would need to establish a stronger national consensus than we currently have for the charter.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. We are told by the Treasury Front Bench that these are existing rights which apply now, and that they are rooted in legislation from before the European Court. Given that those are rights that are applied now, why does she not wish to protect them and ensure that they continue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

I had occasion to consider deeply the matter of rights and human rights when I drafted, tabled and had debated in this place a British Bill of Rights—the Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill. People said to me that that could not be done, that it could not be drafted and that it was an impossible project. However, with the help and counsel of many hon. and learned Friends—not least my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), who has just spoken with power, force and vigour—I was able to construct and present a Bill of Rights to this House. That is relevant to this debate because there were three key questions involved. The first question was: what are the rights? The second was: how do we interpret them? The third was: which court should decide on those rights?

Let us take the first question. What are the rights? Some rights are so basic and self-evidently true that they are not even rights at all. They are values. They go to the heart of our constitution, of our foundations, of what we believe in as a country, of what we are about and of our way of life. They involve basic stuff such as the rule of law, natural justice, the right to a fair hearing and the presumption of innocence. Those are the fundamental values of what we are about as a nation and of what we hold to be self-evident and true. When they are trampled upon, there is uproar in this place and across the country because we know in our hearts that those are the values that we hold dear. They are not rights; they are values.

There are also rights, in the Human Rights Act 1998, that we hold to be self-evident and true. They are called second amendment rights in America, and they include the right to a free press, the right to free speech, the right to determine one’s religion and the right of association. Those are important rights that go to the heart of what we are about and that we call values. Then there are the many rights set out in the European convention on human rights that have been built mainly in our own constitution and our own history. They did not just begin in 1998. They are rights that we have taken to be self-evident and true for many years, and they have found their way into the Human Rights Act, and the human rights code—a document to which it is hard to object.

Then we come to the issue of interpretation, and that is where the problems begin. The European Court of Human Rights adopts an interpretation mechanism that I call objective. It asks: do we have the right to family life, yes or no? If we have that right, we cannot be extradited in certain cases. In our own system, we tend to take what I call a more subjective view. We look at all the facts and circumstances of a case. In interpreting that right, we ask whether someone should be able to stand on that right to family life, given their conduct if, for example, they had committed a crime or run someone over. Having examined all the facts and circumstances of the case, we would say that they should not be able to stand on that right because their conduct means that they should not be allowed, ethically and in equity, to do so. That is where the British people were in so many extradition cases. They thought, “These are European rights and they are all wrong.” They are not necessarily wrong, but their interpretation was not right and did not sit well with our values, our way of life and our understanding of how principles of law should be interpreted.

The third question is: what is the proper court? I made sure that my British Bill of Rights included a clause on interpretation. It stated: first, that all facts and circumstances of a case should be considered, giving judges a wide discretion to make a full decision; and secondly, that the court should be the Supreme Court. For me, it was about making the Supreme Court supreme. I did not see why our rights as a nation should be subject to the European Court of Human Rights, or indeed to the European Court of Justice, when our own Supreme Court can determine those things very effectively. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon that it should be this House that constructs rights, that their interpretation should be in line with our own canons of interpretation as a nation, and that the Supreme Court should be supreme.

However, I would not reject the charter of fundamental rights out of hand. Let me explain why. There are rights that make no sense here, such as the right to petition the European Parliament. If we are leaving the European Union, why would we want to petition the European Parliament? On the right to free movement, to seek and have employment anywhere across the continent, that will be a matter for us to determine as a nation state when we leave the European Union. It makes no sense to include those rights in the charter—a point I made to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who agreed with me that we would need to adapt it.

The charter contains rights that draw on the European Court of Human Rights, so there is unnecessary duplication. Then there is an intermediate set of rights, which I think this House should look at. If we are to take back control, we should ask ourselves, “Is it right that some of the rights in the charter should be brought into our own system of law?” That might not be for this Bill, but it is something we should definitely consider.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

As we are in effect transposing the whole of EU law, with all the regulations that people have complained about for years, for example on bendy bananas, and the regulation of electrical items and consumer protections, does it not make sense to look at this third category of rights?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that it does make sense to look at this category of rights, whether in this Bill or more widely; it is something the House should consider.

Where is the balance to be struck on article 8, which relates to the protection of personal data? My view, for what it is worth, is that I should own my own data and decide what happens to it. It is my own data about me, so I should not have the Government or big businesses saying, “No, it belongs to us.” That is a debate that we should have as a country. This Bill is probably not the right mechanism for that debate, but we need to consider where the balance should lie.

Article 41 sets out the right to good administration. The Minister will say, “Well, of course we administer correctly; we are honourable men”—so are they all. But it is important that, as a matter of principle, every person

“has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies”

and that the right includes

“the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken”.

It seems to me that these rights are self-evident and true, and that we ought to ensure that they are written into our codes, from the point of view of executive action, if they are not already. They include

“the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality”

and

“the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions.”

Those things, it seems to me, are self-evident and basic about what we are and should be about. These are rights that are not written into our system fully and properly, but I think that there is a strong case that they should be. I have of late had reason to ponder such matters in more depth, and the House should consider them to ensure that we execute such things properly in our system, our way of life and the values that we hold dear. The House should take back control to ensure that the rules of law and of executive action apply to each and every person in this nation and that we strike the right balance as we take on the great responsibility of restoring sovereignty to our sovereign Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is not my contention; my contention is that the charter of fundamental rights is a very clear articulation of one of the many reasons why my constituents voted so overwhelmingly for remain, and I seek to represent their views today, as I am sure he seeks to represent the views of his constituents in this important debate.

The charter is the most up-to-date human rights framework from which UK citizens benefit, and it is incomprehensible that the Government should not want to commit to the same high standard as the basis for all future human rights protections for UK citizens post Brexit and as a basis for continuing to develop UK human rights law. That they will not do so is revealing and deeply concerning.

My constituents did not vote for Brexit. But, above all, they did not vote for Brexit on any terms. They seek reassurance from the Government, and they do not find it in this deeply flawed Bill. It is essential that UK citizens can continue to rely on the highest standards of human rights protection post Brexit. I will continue to fight for that, and I will vote for these amendments.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). I agree with her that human rights law is a developing area of law, but I do not agree that this Government have any intention of trying to undermine it.

We have heard a very interesting exposition of why the charter should not be translated into UK law. I accept that there are flaws with amendment 8, but I want to speak to it none the less because it is quite clear that, as I believe the Government have now accepted, the third category of rights needs some form of protection and incorporation, if it is not already protected.

The development of human rights law started out in the 1920s with the Geneva conventions. Those conventions were signed by a limited number of countries and were basically the fundamental guarantees of the rights of citizens when all law and order has broken down and they are facing the worst circumstances of war and chaos. That is the true meaning of the word “chaos”, I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes). The law has moved on and changed, and countries that were never signatories to those conventions are now subject to their requirements because they are the basis of the minimum rights that should be guaranteed in any civilisation. Countries that fail to guarantee those rights get prosecuted under the International Court of Justice in The Hague. In future we will no doubt see actions on Syria, and other actions. The 1950 convention that we originally signed, which forms the basis of our Human Rights Act, has therefore moved on, and there are rights contained in the charter that are not in the Human Rights Act.

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

The extra rights, or third-category rights, in the charter seem to be predominantly matters of social policy such as healthcare and schooling. While we might all agree that those things should happen, they should not be rights in a charter but matters of policy for Government to determine. That is why I take exception to my hon. Friend’s argument. This is not really about rights but about policy.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I am afraid that the Walker case demonstrates exactly the opposite. Somebody was discriminated against because they were in a same-sex marriage, and the charter guaranteed the partner’s right to the pension. That was not a matter of social policy; it was enforced because of the charter. That is why this debate is incredibly important. There will potentially be some areas that are a matter of policy, but it is important for the Government to go away and look at the amendments because serious points are being made that will affect people’s everyday lives. This is not a debate on principles that do not matter; these are really important, fundamental issues that, as a democracy, we should be looking at in a sensible and reflective way.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I entirely agree that there are anti-discriminatory rights contained in the charter. However, does my hon. Friend agree that the issue which is not yet resolved, but which the Government’s analysis may resolve, is whether those rights are already encoded in the case law and the general principles emanating from that case law, and therefore do not need to be in a separate charter for our purposes, or are not yet in the law and therefore would need to be in the charter?

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I do accept that that needs to be looked at. The problem with the sovereignty of Parliament is that we always get to the point where the Parliaments of the future can change and erode these rights. I agree with my right hon. Friend’s earlier suggestion that in due course the Human Rights Act ought to be amended to include the broader category of rights. We are seeing an evolution and a change in our rights, and it is important to reflect that in that Act.

[Mary Creagh]

The hon. Lady is making some excellent points. Several of her Conservative colleagues have argued that some of the rights contained in the charter are otiose—one of them being, perhaps, the right not to be subjected to forced expulsion. That is, thankfully, not something that we have seen in this country, but it was a persistent feature in 20th century Europe. We are now at a stage where the Home Office is sending out letters to EU nationals threatening them with deportation. Although some of those individuals may yet have recourse to their rights under the European charter, they will not be able to exercise them after we leave.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

The hon. Lady does my colleagues a great disservice. The rights that my colleagues described as otiose were, for example, the right to petition the European Parliament or the right to stand in EU Parliament elections. I think she is also being unfair to the Home Office, which has made it very clear that the letters to which she refers were sent out by mistake and did not accurately reflect the position.

Nothing that the hon. Lady has said takes away from the point that the charter of fundamental rights contains a third category of rights that may not have protection. I am encouraged that the Government are going to undertake the exercise that has been mentioned, which they need to do, before Report. It is important that the Committee takes very informed decisions about where the gaps are. For that reason, I very much support amendment 10.

[Mr Francois]

This situation has evolved over a number of years, and it continues to do so. I do not want to introduce too much of a partisan element into the debate, but I want to give an example of how the situation has changed over the past few years. When we debated the Lisbon treaty in this House in 2008—something that I was actively involved in at the time—the policy of the then Labour Government was that the charter should not be justiciable in the United Kingdom’s courts. In fact, the then Government were at great pains to stress—

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Is this an intervention?

[Mr Francois]

It is. The then Labour Government said that they had a protocol that specifically ruled that out. That is how much things have changed.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

There has been much misrepresentation in the House of the protocol, but it is quite clear what it said: the rights contained in the charter were existing rights. In other words, the charter did not create any new rights that had not previously existed. The position of those on the Treasury Bench is that the rights are of long standing, and they apply to UK citizens. I am very keen to ensure that where those rights may not be adequately protected, the gaps are filled. But to say that protocol 30 was an opt-out, which is how it has been portrayed in the debate, is, quite frankly, inaccurate and not right.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way. Can she expand on how she sees us getting from our current position to the point at which the Human Rights Act includes the rights that she thinks it should include? What sort of transition period does she envisage, and how will the rights be protected in the interim?

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I very much hope that those on the Front Bench will go away and undertake their promised exercise, from which we will be able to see exactly where the gaps are and where the third category of rights may fall. It seems to me ridiculous that we are going to bring over 12,000 regulations covering everything from fridges to bananas, but we are not going to deal with some of the most fundamental and basic things that guarantee citizens certain levels of protection. That is the fundamental principle, and it is why I support both amendments 10 and 8.

[Anna Soubry]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important, given the many concerns about the Bill, that we make it absolutely clear, as she quite rightly points out, that we have a very proud history on human rights in this Parliament and in this country? The idea that this Government are in some way taking away rights from people is simply not true, and it is very important for all of us to report this, especially to our constituents, with great accuracy.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. In fact, I could not have put it better myself. In that regard, I adopt everything she says.

This is important because we have been publicly vilified for tabling amendments to the Bill. Debates such as this illustrate very dramatically to our constituents why it is so important to undertake a democratic process, which sometimes involves tabling probing amendments—I know amendment 8 is such an amendment—so that we can look at, consider and debate these issues and, I hope, come to consensus across the House. I know other Members wish to speak. These are incredibly important matters, and I am waiting to hear what Ministers say about how they will approach them.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) for her speech, which showed her great experience and knowledge from her many years practising in the legal profession. I have heard many other Members from both sides of the Committee who have eminent knowledge in this area—they have spoken in this and previous sittings and will speak in others—not the least of whom is my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who is in his place. He studied in the school of law at the University of Leeds; I studied in the school of computing at the University of Leeds, and I hope to apply that knowledge later in my contribution.

Opposition Members are looking to the Bill to ensure that retained EU law within UK law keeps us aligned with EU rights and regulations. I am going to outline my concerns about the Government’s decision to exclude certain elements of EU law through the EU withdrawal process. For instance, it makes no sense whatsoever to me to exclude from that process the charter of fundamental rights. Where is the analysis of the effects of removing the charter from our law? What safeguards are in place to ensure that we are not creating a legal chasm that has unknowable effects on individuals and businesses?

Article 8 of the charter covers the protection of personal data—the right to privacy and the right to data protection, which serve as the foundation of the EU’s data protection law. Getting rid of article 8 could prevent businesses from building customer profiles across the EU, which will directly harm the ability of small companies to compete when selling their products on social media platforms, an area in which the UK has seen huge growth. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has tabled amendment 151 on this matter.

The charter is fundamental to our response to the Government’s failures on clean air, an issue that is engulfing many cities across the UK, not least my city of Leeds. Article 37 ensures that people have recourse to the courts when there are environmental breaches. In fact, the UK has been sent a final warning that it must comply with the EU air pollution limits for nitrogen dioxide or they will face a case at the European Court of Justice. In the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sit, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs could not articulate what powers and mandate a new UK environment protection agency would have to replicate the loss of article 37. He said that

“we will consult on using the new freedoms we have to establish a new, world-leading body to give the environment a voice and hold the powerful to account. It will be independent of government, able to speak its mind freely.… We will consult widely on the precise functions, remit and powers of the new body”—

no definition there. He also said:

“We also need to ensure that environmental enforcement and policy-making is underpinned by a clear set of principles”—

no definition of those principles. How can we be satisfied with an EU withdrawal process that does not provide for our leaders to be accountable for their environment failures? My constituents voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU and do not expect to lose the rights provided by the charter of fundamental rights.

Many of those rights, as has been pointed out, are well established in UK law, but many others are new rights that have been introduced since our membership of the EU and the signing of the Lisbon treaty. Will the Government argue for each of those rights in turn in the House, or are we to take it on trust that they will be retained and that we will continue to enjoy them post-exit day? Attempting to scrap the charter is cowardly and speaks to the suspicions of people up and down the country that the Government are not working for them but instead working for the hardest possible Brexit.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Antoinette Sandbach Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. The timing of the vote matters, but so does its constitutional status. That is why I think it immensely important for this to be a statutory vote.

Let me explain why the Government’s words and the Prime Minister’s words—in the written ministerial statement, in various letters and so on—are not enough, and why we need to vote on either amendment 7 or my new clause 3. First, the Government’s unwillingness to put their promises on the face of the Bill is a problem. Parliament needs commitments in legislation before we can give the Executive such strong powers—such constitutional powers—and we need that commitment on the face of the Bill before and not after we do so. Secondly, there is still a difference between us on what counts as a meaningful vote. Without either new clause 3 or amendment 7, it would still be possible for Ministers to offer only a vote on a motion on the withdrawal agreement, and that indeed is the Prime Minister’s intention. The written ministerial statement published this morning says:

“This vote will take the form of a resolution in both Houses of Parliament and will cover both the Withdrawal Agreement and the terms for our future relationship.”

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Lady share my concern about the fact that the vote on the motion of both Houses will come after the ratification of the treaty, and the fact that this House has no power or ability to change treaty terms under the ratification, which renders any vote on the motion meaningless?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

We have been discussing new clause 3 and amendment 7, which is about process in this place and, as has been said, whether there is any point in clause 9 if there is going to be a withdrawal agreement Bill. The problem is that, if clause 9 remains in the Bill, the Government will still have powers in the interim to make changes, including to the Bill itself. That means that, when the Bill completes, the Executive could simply change it in any way they wanted.

On the issue of having a vote that is meaningful, if the only option we have is the deal that comes back or no deal, frankly, that is Hobson’s choice. What should have been happening is what the Prime Minister categorically refused: a running commentary. Other Governments in Europe have sent people back to the negotiating table to try to make changes when legislation has been enacted. It is important that we remember the paucity of the debate running up to June 2016. We did not explore all the impacts. There was one debate in this Chamber on the EU and the economy. There was no debate in this Chamber on the health or social impacts, or on the loss of rights and opportunities. We did not have that. We did not air these issues—it is like having the Brexit debate now.

I want to speak to amendment 143, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), which looks for a signed agreement to protect EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

On a point of order, Sir David. I am not able to hear what the hon. Lady is saying because behind me there seems to be an inordinate racket being made by one of my colleagues. I wonder whether it would be in order for you, Sir David, to make the point clear that this is an incredibly important debate and Members of Parliament should be able to hear what is being said.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir David Amess)]

The hon. Lady is entirely right. We should be courteous to each other. I should also add, while I am on my feet, that I said at the start that with so many people wishing to speak, if people spoke for seven or eight minutes each, everyone would be called. It is now down to three or four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

I am just going to make a bit more progress.

I will address the point raised by the Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, because I think he was on to something regarding the need to spell out and illustrate, albeit not necessarily exhaustively, the kinds of scenarios in which clause 9 remains relevant in the light of the proposed primary legislation. Let me offer a few illustrative examples.

Clause 9 may be required to legislate for the position of ongoing administrative proceedings when we leave the EU. This is a broad basket of technical issues, including the technical aspects of ongoing proceedings on competition and anti-trust issues under regulation 1/2003, for example, which sets out the co-ordination between the Commission and national competition authorities. Another example is the ongoing procedures on concentrations between undertakings in mergers under regulation 139/2004, and the allocation of jurisdiction between the EU and national authorities. These detailed and technical issues do not need to be put on the face of a Bill, but they must be legislated for in time for exit.

Another area for which clause 9 could be used relates to the privileges and immunities afforded by the UK to the EU—its institutions, bodies and staff—post exit. Privileges and immunities are a standard feature of international law, and are generally considered necessary for the proper functioning of international organisations. Privileges and immunities for the EU are currently implemented under protocol 7 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. After exit, the EU will continue to require privileges and immunities to cover any functions it has, although the precise contours may differ according to the deal that we strike. Our agreement on privileges and immunities will need to be implemented in domestic legislation.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

The point is that clause 9 is so widely drafted that it could apply to absolutely anything that could be linked with EU withdrawal. I am sure that the Department for Exiting the European Union has done a great deal of analysis—indeed, the Minister is showing that in his speech—of the areas that may be affected at the point of withdrawal. Surely that is the point at which the Government need to come to the House and, rather than speculating about what might be affected, actually identify that to us so that the powers can be limited precisely to those areas for which the Government need them.

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for the constructive way she makes her point. Of course, until we have the withdrawal agreement, we will not know precisely the nature of the technical—

--- Later in debate ---

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is deeply insulting for those who have time and again voted against their Prime Minister and their Government to suggest in this crucial Bill, which will help to set the future course of this country, that it would be wrong for us to do the proper scrutiny and to apply for votes in this House?

[Chuka Umunna]

I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. She is absolutely right.

As my third point, before I quickly wrap up, I want to be absolutely clear about what I believe we mean when we talk about a meaningful vote. For all the technical points that have been made from the Dispatch Box today and for all the high-quality legal debate we have had in this Chamber, the fact of the matter is that we cannot have a meaningful vote on the terms of our withdrawal unless it comes before we leave the European Union. Nothing said from the Government Dispatch Box today or at any other time has committed us to ensuring that we have that vote before we leave.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, who is no longer in his place, talked about time. The reason for the third part of article 50 allowing for an extension is so that people can extend the time if they run out of time to make the practical arrangements for a country’s withdrawal from the European Union. With all due respect to the Minister and his seven years as a Foreign Office lawyer, or whatever his experience, we do not know, unless we ask the question, whether we will be able to get the extension provided for in that article. It is pure speculation on his part to suggest that, somehow, if we run out of time by 29 March 2018, our EU partners will not be reasonable enough to grant us the time to follow the correct procedures in this Parliament.

In a way, my final point was made just now by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach). We have a duty as legislators to properly scrutinise things that come before us. We will not be forgiven by future generations—of course, many of these people did not vote for us to leave the European Union—unless we scrutinise what the Government are doing to ensure that we get the best deal for these people. Of course, there are many issues that weigh on our shoulders. Everybody here will say they are acting in the national interest, and they act on behalf of their constituents, but let us be honest: there are other issues that always play on people’s minds. How will this affect me and my political journey? How will it affect my party? However, the hon. Lady was absolutely right: this is one of those moments when we have to do the right thing by the country—and nothing else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baron]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are trying to negotiate a good deal, but it takes two to tango. The amendment leaves open the door for the other side not to try to negotiate a good deal, knowing that it could drag out the negotiations and therefore prevent, at least until this Parliament were to accept the deal, our leaving the EU. If that was the case—

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Baron]

I will in a second if I can just finish my point.

If that was the case, it would be an outrage with regard to the result of the EU referendum, in which over 17 million people voted to leave with the best possible deal. Those 17 million people had no third option on the ballot paper. There was not an option of staying in a semi-permanent state of negotiating limbo while talks progressed over a period of months and maybe years; it was a very clear yes or no. In addition, such a limbo—

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Baron]

In a second; I will tell my hon. Friend when I am ready.

Such a limbo would not be business-friendly as it would continue to create uncertainty when business wants certainty on a deal for making investment decisions. I now give way to my hon. Friend.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I am slightly confused by the point that my hon. Friend is making. I thought that taking back control meant taking back control to this Parliament, but that is clearly not his argument. In fact, he almost seems to distrust parliamentarians, despite the fact that we voted for the referendum and to trigger article 50.

[Mr Baron]

I can help my hon. Friend with her confusion, because the point is very simple. If an amendment suggests that the option is left open for the other side in any negotiation not to negotiate in good faith, so that this Parliament does not sanction the deal because it is not a good deal, that will delay our exit. It is very straightforward. It takes two to tango in a negotiation. I suggest that she reflects on that.

While most of us want a deal, those who criticise the Prime Minister’s position that no deal is better than a bad deal create a series of straw men to support their case. The term “no deal” itself is something of a misnomer, because it creates the idea of some sort of cliff edge. Nothing could be further from the truth. Trade flows regardless of trade deals. The UK would simply revert to using the same WTO rules that govern its trade with countries such as the United States, China, Australia, New Zealand and Brazil—hardly unimportant countries.

As for the trade deals themselves, the next straw man is the suggestion that the UK would find it difficult to negotiate them in sufficient time. If Australia can negotiate trade deals with China, South Korea and Japan within 18 months, there is no reason why the UK cannot do likewise. If anything, a trade deal with the EU will be easy to negotiate because many of the trade barriers have already been removed.

The suggestion that inward investment would suffer without a trade deal is another straw man. That is to ignore the fact that investment is about relative advantage, as anybody who has worked in the City or in industry will understand. Our much lower corporation tax rates, our more flexible labour market practices and policies, the strength of our R and D and science, our language and our time zone more than compensate for having to pay an average WTO tariff of 3% to 5%, particularly given that the currency has already depreciated.

Tonight I will be supporting the Government and rejecting amendment 7. The Prime Minister has been very clear that we will be leaving the EU—that includes the customs union and the single market—in March 2019, and that the European Court of Justice will have no further jurisdiction over British law. I support the stance that no deal is better than a bad deal, and that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. That includes any proposed financial settlement.

My final point is that there is another reason why I support the Government, and it relates to trust. We are not privy to the ups and downs or the ins and outs of the negotiations, so one has to make a judgment as to whether the individuals concerned are honourable. I believe the Prime Minister to be honourable in what she has said. Having known the Ministers involved for many years, I also trust them to deliver the best possible deal. I suggest that those who support proposals such as amendment 7 should trust the EU a little less and their own Government a little more. Our Government have, after all, made concessions in good faith.

--- Later in debate ---

I say this to the Conservative rebels here tonight. I have broken the Whip of my own party only once since entering this place 12 and a half years ago. That was on the decision to trigger article 50, which I voted against because I knew the Government did not have their negotiating ducks in a row—and how right I have been proved on that. My message to the Tory rebels tonight is: “Take no lessons from serial rebels on your own side. They have their principles, you have yours, no less dearly held and deeply felt. Stand by those principles and the silent majority of your constituents will stand by you. More importantly, you will be able to look yourself in the mirror and say, ‘I did what I thought was best.’” This is not about party politics. It is about the national interest. This place is not a rubber-stamp. We are not nodding donkeys to nod stuff through. We want a meaningful vote. I for one will be proud to walk with you through the Lobby tonight.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Throughout the referendum campaign, leave campaigners spoke about taking back control, and it was seemingly a powerful message that resonated with the electorate. There is no doubt that the message, which was one of the crucial undertones of the campaign, meant bringing powers back to this Parliament, not to the Executive. That is why amendment 7 is so crucial.

It may be stating the obvious, but it cannot be reiterated enough that the Government are presiding over a monumental task of immense importance for the future of this country. In any such change, it is imperative that Parliament maintains close scrutiny and oversight of the process—of all aspects of the withdrawal agreement, from security co-operation to ease of trade with our European partners—so that we, as Members of Parliament, can best represent our constituents. These aspects must be scrutinised and debated by this House. If we are not given a say on that detail, we cannot fulfil our responsibilities to our constituents, and those responsibilities are the most motivating factor behind my support for a meaningful vote on the deal.

Clause 9 provides sweeping powers to the Government to deal with some residual situation, as the Minister described it, that he would like to retain control over. I am afraid that I am not willing to vote to give away the parliamentary sovereignty that I exercise on behalf of my constituents for some residual control to the Executive. If the Minister needs that power in relation to the withdrawal Bill, he needs to come back to this House and ask for it and explain why. I am afraid I found his explanation at the Dispatch Box today utterly unconvincing. Although I am grateful for the indication he has given about Report stage, unless that amendment is submitted in manuscript now, or amendment 7 is accepted, I will vote for amendment 7 tonight.

We have been pushing discussions with this Government for weeks and we have made our point very clear. I fully back the Prime Minister. I support her in trying to get the best deal for Britain, but I will not give away parliamentary sovereignty to the Executive on the basis of a request for them to have residual powers in this Bill.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I rise to support the—

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Antoinette Sandbach Excerpts

Report stage: First Day: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

rose—

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Leslie]

I do have to conclude my speech, but I will give way to the hon. Lady first.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but this country is a leader in animal welfare legislation, having introduced the concept of unnecessary suffering in 1915 and, in effect, the first protections for animal welfare, and we have continued that process. Indeed, this Government have reformed animal welfare and this country has high animal welfare protection standards.

[Mr Leslie]

We do have high animal welfare standards. I do not deny that there could always be improvements, but I want to retain what our constituents want, which is high standards. By leaving the European Union in this particular way, I worry that we will be forcing ourselves to chase after trade deals with other jurisdictions that have a totally different approach to regulation. The world effectively has three regulatory philosophies: the Chinese have a particular view of regulation; the European Union has a precautionary principle; and the Americans have a different cost-benefit analysis view of the world. If we depart from the precautionary principle ambit, that will affect agriculture, animal rights and many other issues. It would lead to wholly different and lower regulatory standards, which in some ways is the backdrop to this whole question.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

That is extremely good advice. I find myself in a rather different position from the hon. and learned Lady. She finds herself in a position where every time there is a referendum in Scotland or the UK, she is on the losing side, whereas I have found that I am usually on the winning side. I seem to be much more in tune with the people. I agreed with the people’s judgment on grammar schools when we had a referendum on that, I agreed with their view on the voting system, I agreed with the Scottish people’s judgment on staying in the Union, and I very much agree with the United Kingdom electors’ judgment that we should leave the European Union. The people are often much more sensible than their Parliament wishes them to be, and it is great when Parliament then has to listen to the people and get on with doing the job.

The main point that I wish to make is in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who tried to tackle the scholarship-level question that underlies our debates on this group of amendments—whether we can transfer all EU law into good British law, or, in practice, end up having to accept some European law because of the complexities involved. In my brief exchange with him by way of intervention, I pointed out that the rights of the British people have their best defence in the common sense and voting strength of the British people, that that will be reflected in their elected Parliament, and that if their elected Parliament gets out of line with the will of the United Kingdom voters, then the voters will, at the first opportunity, change the composition of the Parliament until it reflects the wishes of the United Kingdom voters on the matter of rights.

My right hon. and learned Friend countered by saying that taking my view would mean that we only ever had common law and Parliament would never need to legislate. That is a silly caricature of the true position. We all know, I think, that it is very difficult to define eternal, immortal rights. Some rights last for longer and are more important than others, but people find it very difficult to define that. Looking back over past statements of rights over the centuries, one sees that some of them now grate or are clearly very much against our view of what a right should be, whereas others may last for rather longer. Quite a lot of statements of rights have a big component related to what is topical or socially acceptable at the time. We are largely pleased that what is socially acceptable evolves, so there are many bad practices of the past that we have come to see were bad practices, and that has been reflected in new legislation. We always need to legislate to reflect changing perceptions about what is a right and which rights we should give most cognisance to.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Of course, the charter is an excellent example of these rights. It incorporates rights on data protection and other issues, as has been described in the debate. Would it not make sense to incorporate it into UK law and allow it to be changed at a later date through the kind of evolution that my right hon. Friend is describing?

[John Redwood]

These rights have been incorporated into UK law because we have shared quite a lot of them before they were codified in the way they are codified and because, subsequent to their codification, they have helped to inform our debates about amending, improving and strengthening the law. No, I do not think it is a good idea to incorporate the charter of rights as though it had some special significance. Interestingly, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) stated that when the charter first came forward in the Lisbon treaty, he tended to the “Beano” view of it—that it was not very significant. He did not think it was a strong part of the treaty and was not very keen on it, and was therefore quite happy with the Labour Government treating it differently and exempting us from parts of it deemed inappropriate. Now, he gives it greater significance and implies that it is dreadful that we will not be incorporating it, as though it has been transformed between the date when we first considered it as part of the treaty and its current presence.

My view is that the British people and their Parliament will adopt all these good rules, and have done so, informing many of our laws. If there are other laws that need strengthening or improving, that is exactly what this Parliament is here to do, and if we are negligent in that matter, the British people and their lobby groups will make sure that our attention is drawn to whatever may be missing or could be improved. I would say to the House of Commons, let us remember what we are doing. We are taking back control. Where we need to strengthen or highlight rights by legislation, that is something that any of us can initiate, and if we can build a majority we can do it. There are many good examples of rights and laws emanating from Back Benchers or Opposition parties as well as from Governments.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said, wrongly, that I was trusting the Executive too much. That is not usually a criticism that has been made of me. Whereas I often find myself in agreement with the people in votes in referendums, I have often found myself in disagreement with parties in this House, including my own party, on matters of some substance, and I have not usually been shy—but I hope polite—in pointing out where I have those disagreements. I therefore reject his idea that I am trusting the Executive. I said very clearly in my intervention that I was trusting the United Kingdom electorate and their successive Parliaments. If one Parliament does not please or suit, or does not do the right thing on the rights that the public want, a new Parliament will be elected that will definitely do so.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe reminded us that we have had a lot of debates about Henry VIII powers, which are relevant to this group of amendments on how much European law we incorporate. I find this argument one of the most odd brought forward by those who are nervous about Brexit. One of my main problems with our prolonged membership of the European Union was that large amounts of legislation had to go through this House unscathed, and often little remarked on or debated, because once they had been agreed around the European Union table in private, they were “good law” in Britain. If those laws were regulations, they acted directly, so we could not even comment on them. If they were directives, we had a very marginal ability to influence the way in which they were implemented, and the main points of the law went through without any debate or right to vote them down. That was the ultimate Henry VIII approach. In the case of this legislation, after extensive dialogue and discussion, we are talking about very narrow powers for Ministers to make technical adjustments and improvements. All of it is of course in the context of the right for Parliament to call anything in, debate it and vote on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

I will be supporting amendment 57 and other provisions. I rise to speak to new clause 16, which is in my name. I will not be pushing it to a vote, because it is a probing provision.

The new clause seeks to ensure that there is no regression in our equality protection as we leave the EU and following the repeal of the charter of fundamental rights. That principle has already been agreed by the Government, so there should be little controversy about supporting new clause 16. Hon. Members were promised that the Government would introduce an amendment that required Ministers, on the presentation of any Brexit-related primary or secondary legislation, to make a statement before the House on whether and how it was consistent with the Equality Act 2010. While the Government may try to make out that amendment 391 covers that point, I do not believe that it properly addresses the issue of primary legislation—a point eloquently made by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve).

For that reason, I have tabled new clause 16. We cannot allow any regression in, or diminishing of, our equality protections and rights when we leave the EU. I totally disagree with hon. Members who have suggested that we should just trust the Government to get this right. The equality protections and human rights referred to in new clause 16 have been hard fought for, and we cannot allow them to be put at risk. I commend new clause 16 to the House.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I rise to support the speeches made by my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). The idea that three months is sufficient protection in terms of somebody launching a legal action, while a welcome concession from the Government, does not go far enough. I urge the Government to listen to the proposal to retain the Francovich right throughout the transition period or implementation period—however it is described.

I also support the points made on the charter of fundamental rights. When the charter was brought into effect, it said that it codified existing rights—rights that UK citizens already had. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), takes a different view. I do not really care which view is right; the fact is that we have moved on as a society, and these protections have now become important in UK law. I would very much urge the Government to consider that when approaching this matter in the Lords.

Finally, it is eminently sensible that the Government look at new clause 13, which will not be moved to a vote today. It provides a very good mechanism for distinguishing between primary and secondary legislation in terms of the appropriate protections that will apply to UK citizens. I do not want my constituents to be in a worse position in a few years’ time than they are in now when it comes to their rights, so I urge the Government to listen to the debate today—I know they have their listening ear on.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Antoinette Sandbach Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I urge Members to help each other.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

I am grateful, again, to the other place for sending us the amendment. I have been concerned about this issue since the referendum, and have been open in my views about the need for a meaningful vote and parliamentary sovereignty. This is about our country’s future and ensuring that we enhance, not reduce, our democracy. When I was re-elected last year, my constituents were under no illusions about how important I thought a meaningful vote was, as I had already made my concerns public and, indeed, voted for such a vote during the article 50 process.

Views may differ regarding the desirability of no deal. In my view, it would be utterly catastrophic for my constituents and the industries in which they work, but surely all sides should welcome the certainty that the amendment would bring to the process. We are often accused of wanting to tie the Government’s hands, but nothing could be further from the truth. How can the amendment tie the Government’s hands during negotiations when it concerns the steps that should be taken when negotiations have broken down? In other words, it concentrates on events after the negotiations.

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I will not give way.

I support the Government’s negotiation and strongly believe that the Prime Minister will succeed in her negotiation. However, it would be irresponsible not to have a process in place for what will happen should negotiations collapse. What is more, the amendment would ensure that, when the Prime Minister sits down to negotiate, our European partners know that she does so with the full backing of Parliament. Far from binding the Prime Minister, it would strengthen her hand. I encourage all my colleagues to recognise that the amendment would empower both Parliament and our negotiators. It lays out a contingency should disaster strike, and it delivers on the commitment to take back control to Parliament.

[Several hon. Members rose—]