European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Committee: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I will endeavour not to try my hon. Friend’s patience too much; he is being very generous. I want to clarify one point. I think that his previous response on the difference between “necessary” and “appropriate” will have suggested to the plain non-lawyerly listener that he was accepting the principle that there should be no greater powers than are necessary to ensure that EU law is ported across correctly, and that the only argument he is making is that there might then be a legal interpretational problem when he has more than one choice. Will he at least confirm that he does not wish to bring in, for himself or for any other Ministers, powers that are higher than “necessary” as a basic principle, and that he will therefore try to find words that will give him that minimum level of—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Gary Streeter)]

Order. This is a rather long intervention, and the Minister has made it clear that he does not wish to take too many more interventions as he is seeking to make progress.

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare for putting his own clarification into my remarks.

The Government wish to take the minimum powers necessary—the minimum powers required—to do the job before us, which is to deliver a working statute book by exit day. We do not intend to make any major changes of policy beyond those that are appropriate to deliver a working statute book, where the law after exit day is substantially the same as the law before exit day, so that individuals and businesses can rely on it. The issue surrounding the definitions of “necessary” and “appropriate” is a technical and legal one, rather than a general issue of intent, and I stand by what we have said. We understand that “necessary” would be interpreted as logically essential and could land us with the problem that I have illustrated, with Ministers facing a number of choices about how to proceed. So if I may, I will leave that issue there.

The use of the word “equivalent” in new clause 24 is just as problematic. Returning to the example of a reciprocal arrangement that no longer exists, if we were —with the support of this House and entirely appropriately in line with our agreements with the EU—to end the obligations that were placed on the UK in law, this new clause could lead to a court taking the view that that would not be keeping the equivalent scope, purpose and effect of the law in relation to how the law stood before exit. This would undermine the Bill’s core objective of maintaining a functioning statute book once we leave the EU. I therefore urge right hon. and hon. Members not to press their proposed amendments, and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) to withdraw her new clause.

I now want to address new clauses 1, 6 and 26, and amendments 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 68, 129 and 130, tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and others. These would all change the scrutiny process for secondary legislation made under the Bill. We have heard some fine speeches from distinguished parliamentarians, and it is clear that a great deal of thought has gone into the amendments and the arguments supporting them. First, let me be clear that we are committed to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny throughout the whole process of our withdrawal from the EU—Members will know that we make statements, Committee appearances and so on—and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made clear, Parliament will have a vote on the contents of the withdrawal agreement. Crucially, where we are seeking not to replicate current arrangements but to take substantially new approaches, there will be separate pieces of primary legislation for Parliament to work through, as we are beginning to see with the legislation that is being introduced.

However, we must be mindful of the large volume of statutory instruments necessary and the limited time available to work through them if we are to provide certainty and stability on exit. We are working to the timetable of the article 50 process, and there is over 40 years of EU law to consider and correct to ensure that our statute book functions properly on our exit from the EU. According to EUR-Lex—the EU’s legal database—more than 12,000 EU regulations and over 6,000 EU directives are currently in force across the EU. If the majority of statutory instruments do not complete the parliamentary process before we leave the EU, there will be significant gaps in domestic law, which could raise real problems with real consequences. Our law currently gives powers to EU regulators across a wide range of areas that affect people’s lives, from aviation safety to the environment, and we therefore have a duty to act.

New clauses 1 and 26 and amendments 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 68, 129 and 130 would all give a parliamentary committee or either House of Parliament the role of deciding the scrutiny procedure that each statutory instrument must follow. We are sympathetic to the intention behind the amendments, which is why we made our announcement in relation to the Procedure Committee’s recommendations. All that is in harmony with the existing arrangements for the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the House of Lords.

Amendments 34, 37 and 40, tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, would apply the affirmative procedure to a statutory instrument of sufficient policy interest, which is ambiguous and does not involve a practical, clear trigger for the affirmative procedure. Ultimately, it would end up being for the courts to decide what is “of sufficient policy interest”, creating legal uncertainty, which is contrary to the Bill’s central aim. I hope that Opposition Members will agree that that has been superseded by our commitment to the sifting committee.

Amendment 22, tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), would introduce a means for the Leader of the Opposition or a certain number of MPs to trigger an automatic debate on an SI made under the negative procedure. Again, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that has been superseded by the sifting committee.

I will now address several amendments relating to the important matter of environmental protection, on which this Government have a proud record. Amendments 96, 97, 98, 138, 333 and 334 and new clauses 27, 62 and 63 were tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and others. We agree with the intentions behind the amendments and new clauses and understand hon. Members’ concerns, but it is essential that the clause 7 power exists as drafted in the Bill. Its purpose is to make changes, often of a technical nature, to deal with deficiencies in retained EU law. While simple in nature, it is essential to ensuring that legislation that protects the environment and rights remains consistent and continues to function effectively once we leave the EU.

Turning to new clauses 27, 62 and 63, the UK has always had a strong legal framework for environmental protections, and that will continue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has recognised the risk of the governance gap, which has been explained, and that is why he announced on 12 November our intention to consult on a new independent and statutory body to advise and challenge the Government, and potentially other public bodies, on the environment, stepping in when needed to hold bodies to account and to enforce standards. We will consult on the specific scope and powers of the new body early next year. We understand the intention behind the new clauses, but they would create problems for our framework of environmental governance, about which we have made announcements.

New clause 27 would go further than the existing governance mechanisms for environmental protections set out in EU and UK law. For example, it would require the Government to give powers to this new independent body or bodies to set standards or targets and to co-ordinate action on the environment. Within the current EU mechanism, the exercise of those powers, such as legislating to set standards, would typically involve the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament; it does not normally rest solely with an independent body or bodies. Legislating for new standards and targets should be a matter for our Parliament in future.

New clause 62 would prejudge the consultation’s outcome and would necessarily limit the possible remit of a new body by requiring that it be established by regulations under clause 7. This power for functions currently exercised by EU institutions could be replicated by being given to UK bodies to exercise. Therefore, for example, significant domestic changes to the law post EU exit or new areas of the environment would fall outside its remit.

While we support the intention behind amendments 97, 98, 96, 138, 333, 334 and new clauses 62 and 63, they give no definition of what an environmental protection is or precisely how one might know that such protections were being weakened or narrowed. We believe that the hon. Members would be preparing the starting gun for a vast quantity of litigation so we cannot accept the amendments to clause 7, 8 or 9 or the new clauses.

Allow me to reiterate, Mr Streeter. Clause 7 powers are temporary powers limited in scope. Restricting the use of those powers further, as many of the amendments seek to do, would threaten rights and protections established in domestic and EU law, which we will be retaining. This is contrary to what I believe is the intention behind many of the amendments, so restricting the power as proposed would be counterproductive and we cannot accept the amendments.

Amendments 25, 26, 27, 52, 109, 111, 115, 266, 268, 267, 222, 363 to 373 and new clause 76, plus those amendments consequential on them, deal with the protection of rights in relation to the power in clause 7 or parallel restrictions in clauses 8 and 9. The UK has a long tradition of ensuring that our rights and liberties are protected domestically and of fulfilling our international human rights obligations. The decision to leave the EU does not change that. I reiterate the Government’s firm commitment to protecting rights throughout the EU exit process. As we have debated previously, the Bill ensures that, so far as possible, the laws we have immediately before exit day will continue to apply. As part of this approach, clause 4 will continue to make available any rights and so on which currently flow into domestic law through section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 within the overall scheme of the Bill.

Moreover, the clause 7 power is already restricted so that it cannot amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act 1998 or any subordinate legislation made under it. The restrictions sought by amendments 25, 109, 363 and 364 are therefore not necessary. I am aware that amendments 365, 26, 366 and 367 would place the same restrictions on the powers in clause 8. The clause 8 power is already restricted so that it cannot amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights 1998 or any subordinate legislation made under it. The restrictions sought by amendments 365 to 367 are therefore not necessary.

UK Nationals in the EU: Rights

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. There are six or seven colleagues trying to catch my eye, and the wind-ups begin in 35 minutes, at 3.30 pm, so I ask hon. Members to restrict themselves to about six minutes each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Anecdotally, I have been told of job adverts that contain the words, “Europeans need not apply”. There seems to be increasing evidence of discrimination and hostile working environments for EU citizens living in the UK. Will the hon. Lady condemn in the strongest terms the Government’s lack of action to tackle this, to make sure that the UK remains a place that people want to come to, and to send the message that all citizens are equal?

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I call Roberta Blackman-Woods—30 seconds, please.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I think that what the hon. Lady describes is a challenge to the Minister.

As I was saying, many of our constituents are very worried that they will have to uproot their families by the end of March 2019. That is only 18 months away and it is completely wrong that people’s lives are still being negotiated over, which is causing this amount of concern. I hope we get some reassurances from the Minister that the Government are making progress and that we will get details of a reciprocal agreement very quickly, so that we can put at rest the minds of our constituents and those of UK citizens in the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

I would never dare criticise the Library researchers, but we have agreed on more issues through July and August, and there are many more green issues in the papers than red ones.

As the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) set out, many UK nationals are worried about whether they will be able to continue to access healthcare in the member state they have settled in. That is why we have placed great importance on resolving that issue. In the August round, we agreed that we would protect existing healthcare rights and arrangements for those EU citizens in the UK, and UK nationals in the EU, present on the day of exit. That means that British residents and pensioners living in the EU will continue to have their healthcare arrangements protected both where they live and when they travel to another member state, by using their EHIC card, which the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate held up earlier.

We also set out our intention to continue to uprate pensions for UK citizens living in the EU, subject to a reciprocal agreement. We know that it is important for many UK nationals to be able to continue to work across borders after we exit—the hon. Member for Sheffield Central raised that point. That is why, in the last round of negotiations, we agreed that we should protect the rights of frontier workers, which I know is particularly important for the Gibraltar-Spain border.

On aggregation of social security contributions, we have agreed to protect social security contributions made before and after exit by those UK and EU nationals covered by the withdrawal agreement. That means where an individual has moved between the EU and the UK, their contributions will continue to be recognised—for example, when determining their state pension entitlements. As we have previously set out, such pensions will be uprated every year, as they are now.

Although we are making good progress, there of course remain areas of difference between our position and that of the EU. As shown in the joint technical note that was published on 31 August, it is clear that we want to go further than the EU in some areas. For example, the EU does not plan to maintain existing voting rights for UK nationals living in the EU, but we think that that is an important right. We want to protect the rights of EU nationals living in the UK to stand and vote in municipal elections, and the reciprocal voting rights that UK nationals enjoy when living in the EU.

The EU is also suggesting that UK nationals currently resident in the EU should not be able to retain onward movement rights if they decide to move within the EU. We have always been clear that we should seek to protect that right for UK nationals currently resident in EU member states, and we will continue to push for that during negotiations. Furthermore, we are seeking to ensure that individuals who have started but not finished their qualifications—as in one of the examples the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) gave, about a nurse in training—continue to have those qualifications recognised after we leave. We recognise that that is a hugely important issue for many UK nationals in the EU; we will return to it in future rounds of negotiations.

Progress in those areas will clearly require flexibility and pragmatism from both sides, but I am confident that we are close to agreeing a good deal for both UK nationals in the EU and EU citizens in the UK. A number of hon. Members touched on the important issue of family reunions. Our policy paper on citizens’ rights set out that family dependants who join a qualifying EU citizen in the UK before the UK’s exit will be able to apply for settled status after five years, irrespective of the specified date. We believe we have taken an expansive approach to the issue, and we hope that the EU will do the same for UK citizens. We remain open to exploring that and potential methods of dispute resolution over time with the EU, to understand their concerns and to look at all constructive suggestions.

We are, of course, keen to move on to discussions about our future relationship and the future partnership between the UK and the EU. I would like to respond to some of the remarks made by colleagues throughout the debate on the immigration system that the UK will implement once we withdraw from the EU. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) on that issue. As the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said, I will not comment on leaked drafts; however, we have repeatedly been clear that we do not see the referendum result as a vote for the UK to pull up the drawbridge. We will remain an open and tolerant country, which recognises the valuable contribution that migrants make to our society.

Since the referendum, we have engaged with businesses up and down the country to build a strong understanding of the challenges and opportunities that our EU exit brings, including access to talent. We are very aware of the importance of future mobility in particular sectors. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West and the hon. Members for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) and for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) all mentioned the importance of research. I draw their attention to our recently published paper on science and research, in which we made it clear that researcher mobility is associated with better international networks, more research outputs, higher quality outputs and, for most, better career outcomes. We said in that paper that we will discuss with the EU future arrangements to facilitate the mobility of researchers engaged in cross-border collaboration.

The UK is a world leader in research collaboration and we recognise that the ability of UK citizens to travel within the EU, and EU citizens to contribute to our science base, is vital to that co-operation. We are carefully considering the options open to us. As part of that, it is important that we understand the impact of any changes we make to sectors of the economy. The Home Secretary has commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to build an evidence-based picture of the UK labour market to further inform that work.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet and a number of other hon. Members spoke passionately about the contribution of EU citizens to their constituencies, but it is right that the point has been made—by Members on both sides of the House—that UK citizens in the EU also make an important contribution. We will set out initial proposals for a new immigration system later in the autumn, and we will introduce an immigration Bill to ensure that Parliament has a full and proper opportunity to debate that system, which will apply to EU nationals in future.

Of course, many British citizens will also wish to live and work in the EU after the UK’s exit and we will discuss those arrangements with the EU in due course. Our embassies and ambassadors across the EU have engaged extensively with communities and expats in individual countries. Throughout this process, as we seek to reach agreement with the EU about citizens’ rights, we will want to do everything that we can to reassure those people.

The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) gave a couple of concerning examples from her constituency of people who are well established in this country and deserve that reassurance. If she writes to me or the Home Office about those cases, we will look into them in detail and make sure those people get the reassurance that they undoubtedly should receive. A number of hon. Members have mentioned the Home Office; I know an apology has been given for those letters. Throughout the negotiations, we will seek to secure the best deal possible for UK nationals—

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. There is sadly no time for Mr Zeichner to respond, but I thought it was important to let the Minister inform the House. We now move on to our next debate. Would those leaving the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly?

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Gary Streeter Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who always speaks with passion. However, let me put it squarely on the table that I will never vote for another referendum while I am in this House, given what we experienced last year.

I agree with those who have said that this is a conscience vote; forget the three-line Whips. We asked the people, “What do you want to do?”, they said, “Leave,” and as far as I am concerned that settled the matter. I will of course be voting for the Bill this evening.

I want to make three very quick points. First, I believe that the Prime Minister deserves personal credit for her leadership on Brexit since she emerged last July. Casting our minds back to the extraordinary events of last summer, we were shell-shocked, not knowing where the public vote would take us. “Brexit means Brexit”, she said,

“and we’re going to make a success of it.”

That phrase, much mocked in some quarters, gave a sufficient sense of direction to steady the ship. It became apparent by January that we then needed a more detailed plan, and at just the right time, the Prime Minister gave her Lancaster House speech, which set out a clear, coherent and credible plan for the way forward. It was one of the most significant speeches I have heard in my 25 years in this House, and it was a game changer for me and for many people.

The plan is ambitious and not without risk. In particular, we will be leaving the single market and turning our backs on free movement, but seeking to negotiate a free trade agreement. That is a high-risk strategy, but I recognise that to remain in the single market would not properly reflect the desire of the majority who voted leave to control immigration. It is, however, vital that putting in place a bespoke free trade agreement is successfully completed as part of the overall deal. The one fear that companies in my constituency have is not so much tariffs, bad though they might be, but non-tariff barriers, which can play havoc with sensible trading arrangements and must be avoided if possible.

One part of the Lancaster House speech has received insufficient attention—the reference to transitional arrangements. I know that there are some, and some in this Chamber think that all this can be done in the blink of an eye, but it cannot. It is complex, it will take years, and we have to exercise patience. Once we start detailed negotiations—once we start to consider which parts of the acquis we want to ditch and which to keep—we are probably looking at a 10-year project. We might well leave the EU in 2019, but we should prepare ourselves for substantial transitional arrangements, and thereafter, I hope, a positive working relationship.

Secondly, we must now be brutally honest with the British people about the likely short-term impact of Brexit, not in an alarmist way, but simply making the point that because of uncertainty—because we have now made it clear that we will not be in the single market—there is likely to be an impact on Government spending for the next few years. We know that tax receipts have fallen against forecast since June, and that trend may well continue. There may well be long-term gains from Brexit—I certainly hope so, and we must strive for that end—but there will most likely be short-term pain, especially now that the phoney war is drawing to an end. International companies will weigh the certain knowledge that we will be leaving the single market against the hope of an equivalent free trade agreement, and some of them who crunch that calculation will decide to invest or expand elsewhere. Some financial institutions are already getting itchy feet, so there might not be as much money available for the NHS and social care and schools as we would like over the next two to five years, and we should prepare the British people for that fact.

Finally, living in these very turbulent times when all kinds of things are going on in our world, I encourage those on the Front Bench—those who are negotiating—thus: we have a clear plan, but let us not be slavish about it; let us be flexible and wise.