European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

George Freeman Excerpts

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

[Dominic Raab]

I will come to that. It is very clear that we would not be able to proceed with the withdrawal agreement, but that does not mean that we would stop Brexit from happening. That is set out very clearly in the written statement, which also repeats points that have been made before in statements at the Dispatch Box.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

The votes we will have at 7 o’clock will be the most important since this House voted to trigger article 50. Those of us who want to have any real influence over how we leave the EU must vote for a meaningful vote in Parliament. That is not being guaranteed. We will not have a meaningful vote on either the initial withdrawal agreement and the very broad terms—which is all they will be—of our future relationship with the EU, or the full agreement governing our future relationship with the EU, which the Government have finally admitted can be legally concluded only once the UK has left the EU.

On the first issue, all that is being offered is a take-it-or-leave-it vote on whatever the Government agree, with no guarantee that the actual vote will take place before exit day. The written ministerial statement is clear that the legislation—not the vote—

“will be introduced before the UK exits the EU”.

In reality, it will be a choice between giving the Government a blank cheque and in effect turning this Parliament into a rubber stamp, or taking a leap into the abyss.

What meaningful say will this House have if the alternative to rubber-stamping the Government’s deal is no transition agreement, meaning that our businesses will face a cliff edge; no deal for EU citizens living here or for UK citizens abroad; and no deal on the Irish border, which is so vital for protecting the Good Friday agreement? The sword of Damocles is over our heads, and we should say no.

A meaningful vote would give this House sufficient time and mean that it would not face a last-minute threat. It would give this House the power to send the Government back to the negotiating table, and the power to request that the remaining EU27 extend the article 50 deadline if we needed to get a better deal. That is also why it is so important not to have a fixed time and date in the Bill—because we may well need all the flexibility we can get.

The final overall trade deal with the EU will govern the UK’s future relationship with the EU for decades to come, but what is on offer is even worse. The written ministerial statement says that

“the agreement governing our future relationship…may take the form of a single agreement or a number of agreements covering different aspects of the relationship.”

It is pretty clear what will happen in the EU27 countries. The statement says that

“agreements on the future relationship are likely to require the consent of the European Parliament and conclusion by the Council. If both the EU and Member States are exercising their competences in an agreement, Member States will also need to ratify it.”

What do we get here? The statement says that the Government will introduce further legislation only

“where it is needed to implement the terms of the future relationship”.

There is no guarantee of any legislation, apart from when the Government deem it necessary, and there is no ability to disagree to or amend those deals, only to implement them.

That is unacceptable. MPs must have a meaningful vote on the initial withdrawal agreement and on the future trade agreement or agreements—and that must be on the face of the Bill. Nothing that the Prime Minister or the Brexit Minister have said today, or in the Brexit Secretary’s written ministerial statement, have addressed those concerns at all. Even if they had, words and assurances are not enough. The Prime Minister is not in a position to give us those assurances—indeed, no one on the Government Front Bench is, because they may not be there when our future trade and other deals with the EU are agreed. It will be many years before that happens. They have not addressed any of those points, and I say to hon. Members on both the Opposition and Government Benches that this is the time to put country before party. If we want an influence and a say over the future of this country, I urge them to vote for amendment 7.

[George Freeman]

This House and the people voted to leave in the referendum, and I respect that. Like the vast majority of hon. Members across the House, I am committed to making a success of Brexit in the spirit of a Brexit that works for the whole country. I strongly support the Prime Minister in her endeavours, her Lancaster House speech and her Florence speech. Indeed, I was proud that my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) described me as a model convert to the cause. We have to show those who did not vote for Brexit that this is a moment of national renewal that will inspire renewal economically, culturally and politically. That brings us to clause 9.

The people of Mid Norfolk voted to bring powers back to Parliament. They want Parliament to be given the powers to scrutinise legislation, and they want to stop the process of European legislation too often passing through unscrutinised and this House passing bad legislation. Do not take it from me, take it from my hon. Friends who I suspect I am going to disagree with tonight. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) put it beautifully:

“This referendum gives the British people the great opportunity to restore their precious but damaged democracy.”

He went on to say that

“the sovereignty of the British people required a sovereign Parliament that they could dismiss and they could influence”—[Official Report, 9 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1099.]

in the legislation that we pass. Clause 9 goes right to the heart of whether we have that power. Do not take it from me, take it from the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which has argued that clause 9 could enable significant constitutional rights, such as the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK, to be implemented in domestic law by negative procedure regulations, even if that requires amendments to primary legislation. The Committee also criticised clause 9 for providing the ability to amend provisions of the Bill through secondary legislation, saying that it was “wholly unacceptable”. The report argues that clause 9 is the widest Henry VIII power in the Bill.

It is for those reasons, I think, that we have heard doubts about the clause this afternoon, in a most fascinating debate, from hon. Members who, like me, support the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) described the clause as containing “mischief” and urged the Government to take heed and recommend a compromise. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) has said very eloquently and very consistently that he is not comfortable with the clause. We all know what happened—the clause was drafted before the Government, laudably, promised to give this House a vote. That having been done, as my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), a former Attorney General and a former Solicitor General, have made clear in legal terms rather more powerfully than I can, the clause makes no sense.

This afternoon we have heard Back Benchers on all sides ask Ministers to provide clarity on why these extraordinary powers are needed. We have not heard the answer. In such circumstances, the all-important trust that goes right to the heart of this issue—between Back Benchers and Front Benchers, between Parliament and the Executive, and between the people and their Parliament—is stretched. Those who fear a conspiracy against Brexit—a conspiracy to use the scrutiny they have fought so hard against them. However, to turn that back around on those of us who want to reassure the people of this country that this is not a conspiracy against them but a moment of renewal inverts the logic of this moment. To hear only a traditional stubbornness from the Front Bench—one that I have shared in my time on the Front Bench; we know the brief, with civil servants saying, “Don’t give an inch”—without any reason or explanation is worrying. If this was simply some technocratic measure to do with a minor implementation of minor secondary legislation, I dare say the Committee would not be worried, but this is a Committee of the whole House for good reason: this goes right to the heart of the protection of our liberties. One of the worst aspects of the problem we are all trying to solve is Parliament passing legislation without scrutinising it.