Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 8th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the UK has a comparative advantage internationally, with research that is going on at Oxford and Imperial in pursuit of the vaccine and the leadership that the Prime Minister showed at the Gavi summit to smash all the records and get $8.8 billion-worth of funding to ensure equitable access to the whole world. That is good for the United Kingdom—we do not want a second wave globally—and important as a matter of moral responsibility. On misinformation, we have discussed it in the G7 and plenty of other formats, and the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we must be rigorous and robust in rebutting false information, particularly when it is irresponsible about something such as vaccine safety standards.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the exchange of correspondence between our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and me as Chairman of the Liaison Committee about the continuing scrutiny of the overseas aid budget? I welcome the fact that the Government seem to have withdrawn their proposals simply to merge the International Development Committee with the Foreign Affairs Committee. What possible justification could there be for any reduction in scrutiny by Parliament of this very substantial and complicated budget? [R]

[Dominic Raab]

I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does as one of the leading parliamentarians and Select Committee members, and indeed, Chairs. The normal position that the Government take is that Select Committees ought to shadow Departments, but having said that, the representation is ultimately for the House to decide. I welcome all the scrutiny; he will know that we have not only affirmed the role of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact in providing scrutiny and accountability on aid decisions, but I want to review it to make sure that it is focused on what adds the most value and that its critical analysis is followed by practical recommendations.

Hong Kong National Security Legislation

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Dominic Raab

Wednesday 1st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his judicious remarks, and I certainly welcome the substantive points he made. He talked about the importance of this House, not just the Government, speaking with a united voice. That is exactly what we have had today on the key issue at stake, and I welcome his contribution to that. I also agree that it is heartbreaking to see the scenes in Hong Kong, just hours after the enactment of this national security legislation. We are counselling the Hong Kong authorities and Beijing to step back, but it is clear that, having enacted this legislation, they wish to proceed. We will need to wait to see the precise application and enforcement of this action before deciding some of the measures that we might take next, but these are under active consideration, including with our international partners.

I took the right hon. Gentleman’s point about BNOs. The full details will be set before the House by the Home Secretary, but we are very clear with our commitment to provide a path to citizenship for all eligible BNO-status holders and we will do the right thing by all of them. I have been very clear in relation to HSBC and I will say the same thing in relation to all of the banks. The rights and the freedoms of, and our responsibilities in this country to, the people of Hong Kong should not be sacrificed on the altar of bankers’ bonuses.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I welcome every word of my right hon. Friend’s statement and the bipartisan nature of these exchanges. I invite him to take up the appeal made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for a long-term strategic approach to China. What can we learn from the disastrous mistake of the Government just a few years ago, who thought we were embarking on some new “golden era” with this dictatorship?

Let me draw attention to the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the weekend, when he said that

“foreign policy-making is often weakened by the lack of deep knowledge of the language, culture and history of the nations with whom we are negotiating or whom we seek to influence.”

Why has that been the case? What can we learn from it? How will the Government now embark upon a big, comprehensive, sustainable strategic review of our relations with China, involving not just people within the Government but people beyond the Government and other nations?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, for that. He makes a range of important points. On Chinese expertise, I do not think the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was referring to the Foreign Office. In any event, I can provide the reassurance that we have some of the finest Mandarin-speaking diplomats around the world and we are exceptionally well represented in Beijing by Her Majesty’s ambassador, Dame Barbara Woodward. We are increasingly, across Government, looking at all aspects of our relationship with China. Obviously, the House is interested in and will know about Huawei. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who is no longer in his place, referred to the situation in universities, and rightly raised the question, as, in fairness, did the hon. Member for Wigan, about an integrated strategy. Clearly, as we bring forward the integrated review, China’s role in the world and our relationship with China will be an essential element of that, and that work is already under way.

UK Telecommunications

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

With respect, I do not think that anyone has described John Lewis as a high-risk vendor. The reality is that the Government announced last July one of the world’s toughest regimes for telecoms security, so that work is already in train. It will require operators to raise their security standards to combat the range of threats—whether cyber-criminals or state-sponsored attacks—and we will ensure the legislation contains the full panoply not just of powers, but of enforcement mechanisms.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I cannot say I welcome this decision, but I understand it. However, what harsh and honest lessons will the UK Government take from finding themselves confronted with this dilemma? This Administration and, indeed, the previous Administration inherited the problem from a long way back. Does it not represent a massive strategic national failure and, indeed, a failure of western strategy that the Five Eyes have been left in this position? How will we learn those lessons? Will he set up a post-hoc review?

[Dominic Raab]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I think I expressed in my statement that this was a failure of the market, but he is also right to say it is a failure of Government and, indeed, a failure of western Governments. We have set out a whole range of things that we will do—fiscal measures, regulatory measures, international collaboration—to ensure that we never find ourselves in this situation again.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I commend my right hon. Friend and the Government for being absolutely determined to avoid any new infrastructure at the Northern Ireland border. Can he explain what the Government’s policy will be if we leave the European Union with no deal, and therefore there is no backstop and we have a customs frontier? Will the Government implement the technical measures to maintain an invisible customs frontier? Will he rule out any new infrastructure at the border between the north and the south?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We have been clear that we will see no return to a hard border under any circumstances. That has been made clear to not just all parties in Northern Ireland but the Commission in Brussels.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Dominic Raab

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

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Dominic Raab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). At the outset, I would like to thank hon. Members from right across the House for their contributions to today’s debate, whether in speeches or in amendments. The Government will approach the Bill in the spirit of collaboration, and I certainly welcome the constructive contributions and diligent scrutiny hon. Members are rightly providing today. I shall seek to address clause 5, and the Solicitor General will address schedule 1 a bit later in the debate, to make sure we dwell adequately and with due consideration not only on the provisions of the Bill, but on the various issues and amendments, for which I am grateful to hon. Members, that have been raised.

Clause 5 serves two key strategic objectives: taking back democratic control over our laws and making sure we leave the EU in a way that facilitates a smooth Brexit and minimises legal uncertainty. The Bill aims to provide that the laws which apply immediately before exit day will continue to apply in the same way after we leave. Of course, the act of leaving the EU in itself means it is inevitable that some things will not and cannot stay the same. The changes made by clause 5 relate to certain aspects of EU law which are no longer appropriate, or which will not make sense when we leave the EU because we will then cease to be under the obligations that apply to us as an EU member state. The provisions are therefore essential.

Clause 5(1) ends the supremacy of EU law in relation to new law from the date of exit. That is crucial if we are going to give effect to the mandate from the referendum. At the same time, clause 5(2) makes sure that EU law passed before exit still applies as before, for the sake of legal certainty. That is important for mitigating the risks of legal uncertainty that are inevitable and inherent in departure from the EU. The rest of clause 5 reinforces those critical objectives, including by removing the instrument of the charter on fundamental rights as part of domestic law. I want to come on to address that in detail.

[Mr Jenkin]

May I refer my hon. Friend to clause 5(2)? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), in his rather amazing speech which I think we all found very illuminating, said that this was a completely new principle to be applied in British law. Is it not just a translation of an existing principle in EU law into United Kingdom law for the purposes of a smooth Brexit? Is it not, in fact, less exceptional than being a member of the European Union and allowing a court in a wholly different jurisdiction to impose itself on parliamentary sovereignty?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I will come on to address very carefully the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I agree that there is an inherent sense that, as we move to change, things are not going to be exactly as they were before. I want to draw a very important distinction. We are leaving the EU and taking back control over our laws and the way we make our laws, so that Members across the House can exercise proper democratic control. At the same time, the substantive law—the rules and the principles—will remain the same, because of the snapshot we are taking on exit day and retaining in UK law, thereby avoiding the putative legal cliff-edge.

European Union Bill

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Dominic Raab

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I agree entirely with him. We can already see an example of that in the European arrest warrant. We have jumped in and we are now reviewing its domestic implementation and the potential for the international instrument. The presumption of innocence is just one area, as my hon. Friend has suggested, where we have a fundamental difference of legal cultures. I do not think that either party should show that any disrespect.

Brussels certainly has ambitions in that area and with those ambitions in mind I want to point out that there are disappointingly few decisions on JHA policy in the Bill for which, although there is no referendum requirement, parliamentary approval is required before the Government take a decision to opt in. For example, as I understand it the decision to opt into the European investigation order would not have required Parliament’s approval under the Bill despite its ramifications for operational policing and the lack of safeguards for innocent British citizens. Immigration and asylum policy is also left out despite the fact that the EU is currently proposing far-reaching changes in that very important area.

I would be the first to accept that the British people cannot have a referendum on every item of JHA policy, but why cannot their elected representatives have a say on every opt-in to ensure proper democratic scrutiny? I am very encouraged by the Minister’s written statement, which I have looked at closely and which effectively endorsed the principle of a parliamentary vote on JHA opt-ins. That is an important step forward and, as other Members have made clear, it is extremely welcome. As the statement made clear, such a provision would depend first on the discretion of the European Scrutiny Committee and its Chair to call a debate and table a motion. That is fine with the current Committee and Chair, but—if we can possibly imagine this—if it were one day to have a less meticulous Chair or more integrationist members, that check might be diluted. Secondly, the provision would depend on the discretion of Ministers about whether to make Government time available.

It would strengthen the Bill considerably if the arrangements to which the Minister agrees in principle could be spelt out in practice in legislation. I know many Members would welcome such a step.

There is an even more important issue to consider than the individual opt-ins. Britain has to decide by June 2014 whether to accept European Court of Justice jurisdiction over police and justice measures that predate the Lisbon treaty or, alternatively, to opt out altogether. After that date, the full body of pre-Lisbon legislation will come under the control of the Luxembourg Court, so this decision has enormous constitutional implications for our criminal justice system. It represents a unique opportunity for this country either to regain control of our justice agenda or, if we so decide—let us not rule out this option—fully to embrace a pan-European model. I am clear in my own mind that we should preserve our distinct justice system which is famous the world over. It guarantees our personal freedoms and defines the British sense of fair play.

Beyond the technical niceties of the Bill, something bigger is at stake—from habeas corpus to the presumption of innocence, which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) mentioned, or to free speech, which is poorly protected in France and seems to be disappearing in Hungary but is still cherished in Britain. These abstract legal concepts define our citizenship, our identity, our culture and ultimately our way of life. I respect the fact that others may disagree on this; some may wish to argue the merits of the Napoleonic legacy or the pros and cons of the continental civil law tradition, while others may claim that a pan-European amalgam might just get the best of both worlds. That is fair enough, and those are perfectly respectable positions, but what is not acceptable is for that kind of decision on a matter of that kind of magnitude to be quietly nodded through without the formal debate and approval of the House. I welcome the policy commitment in last week’s written ministerial statement, but we need a commitment that the decision to opt in en bloc will be subject to parliamentary approval and not just a debate, and it would be relatively easy to do that in the Bill.

To conclude, I support the aims of the Bill and much of its content. It has the potential, at least, to transform the country’s relationship with Europe and to restore some transparency and legitimacy to the much-shrouded decision making in Brussels.

[Mr Jenkin]

In the next group of amendments we will discuss this same topic in relation to a possible Act of Parliament or referendum. Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that it would be inconceivable that a Government could implement such a dramatic change to our legal system and our legal culture without a substantial Act, or several Acts, of Parliament? Is a resolution of the House enough to govern this Executive act—this stroke of the pen—by a Minister at a meeting of the Council of Ministers?

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; his point is well made. Obviously, if we decided to opt in, legislation would be inevitable, but the question is whether or not we should opt in. That principle should be subject not only to legislative scrutiny but to a debate and a vote.