European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

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

[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.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

No, I will make some progress.

There is therefore no question about whether the UK will leave the EU at the end of that period in accordance with the article 50 notification. So what is the purpose of the Government’s three amendments? Is it simply to appease extreme elements within the Conservative party, not thinking of the consequences for the country, or is it a deliberate decision to unpick the Florence speech, demonstrating that the freelancers in the Prime Minister’s Cabinet are actually in charge of policy?

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The public have reason to be suspicious and worried.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

No, I will not. I want to make some progress, but I am sure that I will give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to intervene later.

Whatever the reason for the Government’s decision, it is reckless and represents an extraordinary U-turn. The Minister said a few moments ago that it was important to give clarity on the issue of departure and that it was the Government’s fixed view, but that is not the view they held before last Thursday. In fact, for the past four months their position was represented by clause 14(1)—page 10, lines 25 and 26—which says that

“‘exit day’ means such day as a Minister of the Crown may by regulations appoint”

and by clause 19(1)—page 14, lines 41 to 42—which states that

“different days may be appointed for different purposes.”

Now, the Opposition thought that that was a sensible principle. We wanted Parliament, not Ministers, to agree the dates, which is why we have tabled amendments 43, 44 and 45. That principle makes sense, and I will outline why.

As I have said, our departure from the European Union is a settled matter. However, the Bill deals with three different issues: the date that the 1972 Act will cease to have effect; the cut-off point for the use of delegated powers; and the ending of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union. On that last point, there is a fundamental impact on the transitional arrangements. Labour has been clear about the need for a transitional period in order to prevent a cliff edge and to ensure that businesses do not have to adapt to two new customs and regulatory arrangements in quick succession. We need a transitional period on the same basic terms that we currently have in the single market and in the customs union.

Businesses and trade unions support that transitional period, and we were pleased when the Government caught up with us on that in September. In her Florence speech, the Prime Minister finally recognised its importance and said that

“people and businesses—both in the UK and in the EU—would benefit from a period to adjust to the new arrangements in a smooth and orderly way.”

She went on to say:

“Clearly people, businesses and public services should only have to plan for one set of changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU. So during the implementation period access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms and Britain also should continue to take part in existing security measures. And I know businesses, in particular, would welcome the certainty this would provide.”

Her spokesperson reiterated just yesterday that she gave businesses reassurance on agreeing a time-limited transitional or, as she prefers to describe it, implementation period as soon as possible. However, amendment 383 blows the prospect of a transitional deal on current terms out of the water. Put simply, if there is no role for the Court of Justice of the European Union, we will not be operating on current terms and the Prime Minister will be unable to secure an agreement with the EU27 for the transitional arrangements that she set out in her Florence speech.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Is not the difference between an implementation and a transition the whole point? If it is an implementation, we are implementing the consequences of having left; if it is a transition, we are transitioning from being inside the European Union to being, at the end of the process, outside. Therefore in the transition we would be de facto members of the European Union, on the basis that the hon. Gentleman is setting out, defeating the whole purpose of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the work done by Economists for Free Trade, which states that the £350 million promised to the NHS is fundable? Is he aware of the agreement yesterday at the European Union on a European army? Both those things can easily be answered.

[Stephen Gethins]

If only the Government had seen the hon. Gentleman’s talents, he could have been in government implementing these changes. When it comes to increasing funding for the NHS, I look forward very much to the conversations that he and I will have as we pass through the same Lobby in an effort to get the health funding that was promised by people who are now in government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sure that if he did not hear a clear answer, most other Members did not hear one either. This is a golden opportunity for the Minister to answer the question. The Secretary of State has now arrived in the Chamber. Perhaps he will be able to help the Minister out. The simple question is whether, during the transition period, the European Court of Justice will still have jurisdiction in the way that it does at present. Can the Secretary of State give us clarity on this one point? This is a simple and fundamental question—[Interruption.] Come on!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Wes Streeting]

Ah, the real power behind the throne! I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The answer ought to be perfectly clear. If we are still under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, we will not have left the European Union.

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for setting out in the House today the consistent view that he has held throughout the referendum campaign and during the debates that have followed.

The Government have a fundamental problem. This is not about whether it is the will of the House that the ECJ should have jurisdiction during the transitional period. I think that most Members, whether they voted leave or remain, understand the central importance of giving business certainty right at this moment about what will happen when we leave the European Union. The Prime Minister understood that when she made her speech in Florence, in which she said that, during the transition period,

“the existing structure of EU rules and regulations”

would apply. She also said that we could agree

“to bring forward aspects of that future framework such as new dispute resolution mechanisms more quickly if this can be done smoothly.”

The implications are clear. It was the Prime Minister’s view in Florence that, to provide business with the certainty that it needs now about jobs and economic activity, we would remain in the single market and the customs union and, necessarily, under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice for a time-limited transition period.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I was not going to quote Sir James Dyson, but the right hon. Gentleman has, happily, added to my remarks.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman pays such close attention to my speeches. I was talking about regulation in the City of London, not employment regulation. I think there is now consensus across the political firmament that employment regulations will remain in place, which is one of the reasons why his new clause is not necessary.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am happy to be corrected on that point, but I would say to the hon. Gentleman that it is a bit rich to suggest that the many public pronouncements that have been made on employment rights over many years by so many Conservative Members have been forgotten entirely and that Conservative Members are suddenly the champions of enhanced workers’ rights. We do not believe that, which is why we need legal safeguards in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

I understand that that is why my hon. Friend thinks we should go. As he knows, I personally think that in the globalised world in which we operate, as we mentioned yesterday, the notion that the only source of law is likely to be the domestic Parliament of one’s country is rather fanciful, given that we are currently subordinate or have signed up cheerfully to all sorts of areas of international law without any difficulty at all. I accept, without wishing to go over old ground, that the way in which EU law operates in this country through its direct effect does pose some issues that have particularly exercised my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. Nevertheless, the idea that all sources of law in this country come from this House is wrong, full stop.

The question is how we make sure that in bringing this law into our own law, we preserve its essence—because that is what the Government say they want to do—until such time as we as a domestic Parliament decide that we want to do something about it. The problem that has arisen is that, as currently drafted, the importation of EU law means that standards in areas such as equalities and the environment will no longer enjoy the legal protection that EU membership gives them—indeed, they will, for the most part, be repealable by statutory instrument.

On the whole in this House, we would not think it appropriate to do that with our own primary legislation, and this legislation is undoubtedly important enough to have primary status. That is because clauses 2 to 4 on retaining most EU-derived law are worded in such a way as to turn it principally into secondary legislation in United Kingdom law.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There seems to be an inconsistency in what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying. He has been happy for law to come into this country and become our senior law having been approved by a qualified majority vote in which the British Government may have voted against, but he would object to its being repealed through a statutory instrument subject to a parliamentary process in this House and the other place.

[Mr Grieve]

I fully appreciate that my hon. Friend has a great distaste for the way in which this law has been imported into our country during the course of our membership of the EU. However, two wrongs do not make a right. He could profitably look at the prolonged period of time it is going to take to replace all this law—five years, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years? I would be prepared to have a small wager with him that some of this is still going to be around in three or four decades to come.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

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

[Mr Leslie]

I agree. I find it odd that Ministers are saying that, somehow, the charter does not matter but are then saying that we must delete the charter in the Bill. They would almost die in a ditch to defend clause 5(4), which simply says:

“The Charter of Fundamental Rights is not part of domestic law on or after exit day.”

If the charter is so benign and so irrelevant, why not have the report? It may be tedious to some, but the report is necessary to explain whether those rights do or do not offer protections. If the charter is so ineffectual, and if this is supposed to be a copy-and-paste exercise to transpose EU law, I do not see the argument for deleting the charter.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Has the hon. Gentleman paid attention to protocol 30? Article 1(2) states:

“In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to Poland or the United Kingdom except in so far as Poland or the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.”

The whole point of the charter of fundamental rights, subject to the protocol, is that it does not apply in our national law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

No, I do not think it will create uncertainty, any more than the Human Rights Act has created uncertainty. I have to say to my hon. Friend that I do not think that that is an issue. However, as I say, I do accept that it will take time to draft and debate these things, and it is not in this current forum that we will be able to achieve that.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On the point my right hon. and learned Friend is making, I think I am in complete agreement with him. It is right for this place to consider, debate and legislate on these issues, because this is the right forum for doing that, rather than by implementing a whole slew of rights, which would then be entirely in the hands of the courts.

[Mr Grieve]

Yes, and there we are in agreement. It is inevitable and regrettable that we face this situation, but that is why simply to convert the charter, which, in any case, has lots in it that is unconvertible, and to say that it should maintain entrenched rights, seems to me, in the light of what we are debating in the context of Brexit, to be an impossibility. That is not something that commends itself to me.

Let me now move to a slightly narrower issue. We have to accept that, in the course of what we are doing, we are going through a complex period of transition. Forget about the transitional arrangements we may be negotiating with our EU partners—the truth is that we are creating a whole category of transitional law. By the concept of retained EU law, we are doing some very strange things indeed with our ordinary legal principles.

Clause 5(2) allows EU law to have priority over domestic law in certain circumstances. In fact, it allows for the possibility of UK law enacted prior to exit day being quashed for incompatibility with EU law that is retained on exit day. I simply make the point that, leaving aside our EU membership, which of course will have ceased, this is an utterly unique development in our legal system—it has never happened before. We are about to create a species of domestic or semi-domestic law—I would not quite describe it as feral law—which will have the unique quality of being able to override our own laws. Clause 6(3) will also allow CJEU judgments given before exit day to be binding, but not on our Supreme Court—a matter that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and I have been worrying about quite a lot in the course of the passage of this legislation.

So although the CJEU will rightly lose jurisdiction, it and EU law will keep a special status. However, that is intended to be only temporary, although how temporary is speculative, and I of course note clause 5(3), which says that this law can be modified and still retain this special status, as long as the modification, I assume, is not so dramatic or drastic that it is made explicit that it should lose it. That is different from replacement. That, I suspect, is because the Government know very well that this situation may continue for decades to come.

Yet, in the middle of that, the charter is removed. Leaving aside the other issues concerning the charter, which I have touched on, and which I do not want to go back over, that creates an unusual circumstance. EU law was always intended to be purposive, and one of the purposes is to give effect to the fundamental principles under which the EU is supposed to operate. Yet we are removing the benchmark under which this law is supposed to operate, because the charter will no longer be there, although, interestingly—I think this is an acknowledgment by the Government of the problem they have—they have then, in the next clauses, essentially allowed the charter and general principles of EU law to continue to be used for the purposes of interpretation.

It is very unclear how all this, in practice, is going to work out. That is why I tabled my two principal amendments. Amendment 8 would allow the retention of the charter. It provides an easy route to ensuring that this legal framework is retained, but for the reasons we have just been debating, there are serious issues surrounding it, which is why I think it is probably wrong to pursue it.

However, there is then the question in schedule 1 of what we do with general principles of EU law. What they are is totally undefined, but I assume—I have to assume—that if the Government are content to articulate the existence of general principles, they have done enough research to establish to their own satisfaction that general principles do exist—they are the result of court judgments interpreting the law and, indeed, the fundamental principles in the charter, but not the ones that are going to disappear on the day we leave.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. However, the purpose of this Bill, as I understand it, is to put together a package that enables a smooth transition from our presence within the European Union to our presence outside of it. That, of necessity, requires adjustments to the purity of his thinking about parliamentary sovereignty, which the Government have been required to acknowledge in the way that they have drafted this Bill. In those circumstances, it does not seem to be pushing the boundaries very much further, nor should it be seen as some treasonable article, for us to consider whether the general principles of EU law ought not to be capable of being invoked when they are probably the very thing that has, over the years, prevented the EU from turning into an even worse tyranny, as my hon. Friend would see it. [Interruption.] Well, I have to say, having listened to him, that that is usually the impression that has come across. He sees it as tyrannical because it is not moderated by the doctrine of our parliamentary sovereignty. I simply make that point; I do not wish to labour it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Is there not an important change once we have left the European Union in that the European Court of Justice would not accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights because it would not accept that a higher court could intervene in any of its rulings? It therefore needed protections within its own system that within our system are provided by the European Court of Human Rights and the application of that in domestic law.

[Mr Grieve]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I slightly question the extent to which we have had clear evidence of that, although I know that there has been a reluctance on the part of the European Court of Justice to accept any higher authority, despite the intention of the parties that it should become subordinate, ultimately, to the ECHR. He is right that one reason why the charter came into being was to secure compliance. I think it is rather more of a hypothetical than an actual state of affairs, although such a problem might exist in future. In any event, I do not think we are dealing here just with matters covered by the ECHR, for the very reasons that were discussed earlier in relation to new clause 16, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East. I simply say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that the issue has to be addressed.

As I said earlier, I recognise that my amendment is not as good as it might be, and could be improved on. If the Government can give me an assurance that is adequate and goes beyond vagueness, I will be content not to press amendment 10 a vote. The issue is not going to go away, however, and when one is in this sort of dialogue with the Government, one does not want to be soft-soaped off. If that happens, there will be a road crash when we come to Report, in which I will be unable to support the Government on a whole series of matters. I hope that those things can be resolved by consensus.

I have spoken for quite long enough, but I have explained why I think that, on the important issue that we are debating today, the best solution in the interim is to use something along the lines of amendment 10 to ensure that general principles of EU law can continue to be invoked. Of course, as the transition goes on, I assume that so much EU law may disappear, but I venture the suggestion that it will continue to be relevant for some time to come.

May I, finally, touch briefly on the three other amendments —297, 298 and 299—that I have tabled? They are very simple, and they concern the use in clause 5 of the words

“any enactment or rule of law”.

I simply say that nobody I have spoken to understands why the words “rule of law” appear in the Bill. Ultimately, a rule of law is a rule of the common law; and in so far as a rule of the common law is displaced by statute, that rule will be displaced, of itself, by the courts. It does not require to be spelled out in legislation. I draw some comfort, on that, from the fact that a very distinguished lawyer who previously worked in this building shares my view that the inclusion of those words is incomprehensible. I do not think that that is a matter that I would necessarily put to the vote, if I was required to do so, but I hope that the Government might be able to provide a positive response on it. I am grateful to the Committee for listening.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

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

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

The power that the Executive will have in making regulations under the clause will be subject to Parliament, because secondary legislation comes to Parliament. These regulations are of a different order of magnitude from regulations made by the European Union, which can be made by qualified majority vote against the will of the British Government and are automatically British law. So this is, in fact, restoring parliamentary oversight to the making of laws.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman has himself been a strong advocate of the responsibilities and powers of Parliament, but it does not take long for him to become completely lost down a sidetrack and start talking about what our relationship with the EU has been for very many years. The point is that this process is about how that relationship will change. We know that it is due to change as a result of the referendum and the article 50 negotiations, but the responsibility for all of us is to determine how it should change. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do, and as well as every other Member in the House, that the giving of powers in secondary legislation concentrates powers in the hands of Ministers, and does not receive the same scrutiny. Furthermore, this is not just about the concentration of power through clause 9; it is also about the process through which the Government want to make the decisions on the withdrawal agreement in order to trigger clause 9.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Mr Clarke]

I will give way in just a second, but let me finish this point.

That means that a meaningful vote cannot take place until a detailed agreement has been arrived at about certainly the precise nature of our trading and economic relationships with the single market of the European Union, and actually quite a lot else besides, because we still have to embark on the security discussions, the policing discussions and the discussions about which agencies we are going to remain in and which agency rules we are going to comply with. This is, we all agree, a huge and complex agreement, and it is going to determine this country’s relationships with the rest of the continent of Europe and the wider world for generations to come. Can that happen before March 2019?

We face the genuine difficulty that it is quite obvious that we will not be remotely near to reaching that agreement by March 2019, and we have to think through what that actually means. The negotiators have been very optimistic in saying that they will have first a transition deal and then a deal by 2019. I am sure that they will try, but they have not a chance. I think that what they are actually saying—certainly the continental negotiators—is that they might be able to have some heads of agreement on the eventual destination by March 2019, which we can all carefully consider. They will certainly have to agree a transition deal of at least two years within which the rest of the process will have to be completed.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford that everybody wants things to be speedy, because one of things that this country is suffering from most at the moment is the appalling uncertainty caused by the fact that we have taken a ridiculous length of time to reach three obvious conclusions on the three preliminary points that had to be determined as the basis of our withdrawal. At the moment, however, we do not quite know what the British Government are going to be seeking as their end goal in the negotiations that are about to start, because the British Government, within the Cabinet, have not yet been able to agree exactly what they are seeking.

If I may say this to my desperately paranoid Eurosceptic friends, it is not as if I am somehow trying in some surreptitious remainer way to put a spoke in the wheels of the fast progress of the United Kingdom towards our destination. The Government do not know what leave means. Nobody discussed what leave meant when we were having the referendum. Our overriding duty is not just to our political allegiances and so on; it is to provide this country with a good, responsible Government who face up to the problems of the real world and, accountable to Parliament, can produce the best new order that they can for the benefit of future generations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Lady makes a very important point. Although I concede that amendment 7 provides for an additional check because it requires primary legislation, our new clause 66 highlights an important point: we would wish to bind the Government so that Parliament would get a say even in the event of a no-deal scenario. I shall return to that point later.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I cannot resist.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the potential for a compressed timetable and the consequences of what may flow from that, but is that not actually following from the will and vote of Parliament? Parliament passed into law article 50, which it agreed to by bringing the Lisbon treaty into law, so this is the natural consequence of what Parliament itself has determined.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 and the article 50 notification gave effect to their own timetable. That is why it is so important that we have transitional arrangements on current terms that allow us flexibility to negotiate the final deal. I will return to this point later, but there is no way that, before we leave in March 2019, we will have agreed the future relationship. We will have agreed heads of terms at best.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that I will be able to develop some of those points in a moment.

As was rightly said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the Government had a notion when this debate started that it was possible to pull out of the European Union by use of the royal prerogative. Fortunately, time, common sense, debate and a small amount of judicial intervention has pointed out that that is not possible. As a consequence, my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have correctly begun to understand that in fact there has to be a proper process. I appreciate the points that have been made about a meaningful vote and how we can actually get that in the context of Brexit; it is a real, live issue. Nevertheless, I greatly welcome the written ministerial statement, which sets out what appears to be a constitutionally tenable process for Parliament approving or considering the deal by motion, and then moving on to implement the deal by primary legislation.

Of course, the Government know that they must proceed by primary legislation because, in view of the comments during the Miller case, it is blindingly apparent that there must be a serious risk of legal uncertainty if anything other than a statute were to be used to take us out of the EU at the end. That is the last thing that my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench should want, because that will cause even more trouble and difficulty than they already have in the challenges they have to face.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will forgive me if I appear pedantic, but does not this Bill and the enactment of article 50 take us out of the European Union at the end, whereas the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill legislate for the consequences?

[Mr Grieve]

Yes. If, indeed, we were leaving with nothing further to do, that might be a good point. But it seems to be a pretty universal view, even on the Government Benches—although this perhaps does not apply to my hon. Friend—that simply leaving to jump off the top of the tower block is not the best thing to do. Therefore, there will need to be primary legislation to implement the undoubted new constitutional order that we will have after 29 March 2019.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

Ultimately, the centre of this point is that we are being asked to give the Government a power that can be exercised on something, but we do not know what that something is. Logically, the moment to make the statutory instruments to enact our withdrawal would come when we have this further statute—whatever it happens to be called—and have debated it in this House. We will then have structured the powers conferred by statutory instrument to achieve what Parliament wants and thinks is necessary to carry out withdrawal. That is the point, and pre-empting matters in this fashion is odd. Indeed, it is so odd that I heard one Minister—I will not reveal who—informally saying that they questioned whether the clause 9 power was in fact still needed, in view of how the Government were progressing this matter.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Mr Grieve]

In a moment.

On my key issue and what I was trying to tease out in tabling amendment 7, I could, I suppose, have simply said that I will not support clause 9. Indeed, if my amendment is not accepted, I am afraid I shall be voting against clause 9 this evening—I have no option—but rather than do that, the purpose of my amendment is to try to explore what it is that the Government want clause 9 to do that, in fact, we should not be doing when we enact the legislation at the end.

It is for the Government, in those circumstances, to explain themselves; it is not for Parliament simply to roll over and accept something because the Government say that that is what we should do. Indeed, if we all get told that we must support the Government out of loyalty because to do otherwise would undermine the Prime Minister—I think that is cuckoo, for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—we need to know why.

Last week, I engaged in a whole series of dialogues with the Government, trying to understand what was bothering them. At one point, I thought we might be getting to the point where we would reach an agreement that some power might be needed in the Bill before we came to the final Bill, although I will come back to that in a moment. It started to dawn on me that one possibility was that this power might be exercisable, but only provided it could not be used to bring anything into force—we might lay some statutory instruments, but they could not be brought into force in any way until the end statute had been passed.

That is where I thought we might be—and then everything closed down, and I am none the wiser why the Government need this power, except that I note that a journalist who seemed to have been speaking to a briefing was told it might be required to effect the registration of EU citizens. I thought to myself, “I thought we were going to have an immigration Act to do that.” So I am still at this moment—this afternoon—absolutely at sea about why this power is needed. If the Government cannot make a case for this power, it should not be here.

Even at this stage, I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, if they accept this amendment, which is absolutely central and necessary to ensuring that a power of this scope cannot be abused in a way that the House should not tolerate, and if they want to come back on Report and tidy it up because there is some adjustment or some caveat they want to put in, I will of course listen to what they want to say—my job is not to make their lives more difficult—but I am not prepared to sign away such an extensive power, when it appears to be contrary to the Government’s stated policy on how Brexit will be carried out and, in fact, surrenders without any good reason the control of this House over how the Government conduct Brexit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)]

I am very grateful, Mr Amess—[Hon. Members: “Sir David Amess.”] I am so sorry. I should remember that nearly everyone who is speaking in this debate has a knighthood.

I am very grateful, Sir David, for the chance to speak in this important debate. It has been extraordinarily interesting and, actually, enjoyable. I want to make a brief detour on amendment 7, because the dialogue between my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) was absolutely terrific. Listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset took me back—to a certain extent—to meetings that I had with him when I was a Minister. You could not go in and order a cup of coffee without engaging in a two-hour debate about exactly what was meant.

In the end, however, the answer emerged, and it emerged in this exchange. Notwithstanding all the technical debate, it is extremely simple. Clause 9 was written before the Government realised that they would have to put the withdrawal agreement into a statute, and now that they have to put it into a statute, both clause 9 and, potentially, amendment 7 have reached their sell-by date. The offer from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset is serious and real: to come back, effectively, with a rewritten clause 9 which tells Parliament exactly what the Government need to do as we implement the withdrawal agreement in legislation. Do they need some powers—I could understand that—to do some things that are essential preparatory work? I thought my point was good enough to stimulate—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Mr Vaizey]

Yes, it has stimulated my hon. Friend.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What my right hon. Friend is saying is spot-on: clause 9 gives some powers that trouble even Eurosceptics. I have never felt comfortable with the self-amending part of the Bill, and the solution advocated by my right hon. Friend, and proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), is very attractive.

[Mr Vaizey]

I can barely stand up again, because I am slightly overwhelmed by the outbreak of consensus.

I shall end this section of the speech with some unashamed flattery, as I look at the triumvirate of titans on the Treasury Front Bench: three Ministers for whom I have the utmost admiration, including my constituency neighbour, the Solicitor General, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland). They have heard this debate, and they are thoughtful and effective Ministers and I am sure they will have taken the mood at least from a certain part of this House about the brilliant opportunity for a solution to this Gordian knot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Sir David—for you are indeed beknighted—it is good to take part in this debate immediately after the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). However, I am slightly saddened that he was so disparaging of all the Opposition Members who have signed his amendment. If we are just cast aside with such casual, reckless, gay abandon, we are never going to do that again, are we?

The British way in parliamentary matters has always been that we govern by consent, not by Government fiat, so Parliament should never be conceived of by a Government as an inconvenience that has to be avoided if possible. Parliament should be seen as an essential part of how we carry the whole nation with us. The Government should have more strength in Parliament than they do if they try to circumvent Parliament.

Getting the process right, as several hon. Members have already said, is absolutely essential. We are going to be deciding what many assume will be a long-term settlement for this country for generations to come. We cannot simply try to go ahead with a railroaded version of that settlement that only carries 52% of the country, or perhaps even less by then—who knows?—because we will in the end undermine the very institutions that people have been trying to say should be sovereign. I say to the Government that no amount of jiggery-pokery will sort things out. At the end of the day, parliamentary shenanigans will do far more harm to this country’s political institutions than we should countenance.

The Government already have phenomenal power and—I have used this figure before, but it is true—this is the first time in our history that more than half of Government Members are now either Ministers, trade envoys or Parliamentary Private Secretaries and are beholden unto the Government in some way or other. We have more Ministers than Italy, France and Germany put together, so the Government’s hold on Parliament in our system is already phenomenal, yet they have introduced clause 9, which is truly exceptional. I have tabled several amendments, which I will not address because I do not think there is any great point. The honest truth is that I would prefer to see the whole clause out of the Bill.

The moment I saw clause 9, I thought, “If there is a real reason for this, surely by now the Government would have argued why they have to have these powers.” Now the Government say a Bill will be introduced on the agreement and its implementation. If there really is a need for those powers, clause 9 should be in that Bill and not in this Bill at all.

I love all four of the Ministers sitting on the Government Front Bench to death, and obviously the safest thing to do today is for one of them to stand up—they could stand up one after another, as in “Spartacus”—and say, “We will not support this. We will not urge the Committee to consider taking on this clause as part of the Bill, because we know we do not really need it.”

People might ask, “If the Government do not really need clause 9, why does it matter if the clause is in the Bill at all?” The problem is that every single Government in the history of the world have always used every power they have to the umpteenth degree. It is a temptation, and we should take temptation out of the Government’s hands if they are not prepared to take it out of their own hands. Let us bear in mind that the Bill will allow the Government to change the Parliament Acts and the Representation of the People Acts. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice is standing up! Oh, he’s not.

Admittedly, changes to the Parliament Acts and the Representation of the People Acts by secondary legislation would have to be made via the affirmative process and there would be a vote in both Houses.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way to the 16th century, but I cannot imagine for an instant how the hon. Gentleman could support such a change.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I have said, I have my doubts about parts of clause 9, but it says that a Minister of the Crown may, “by regulations,” do things

“for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement”.

It is hard to see how that could change the Representation of the People Acts. The hon. Gentleman slightly overstates his case.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman entices me down the road of one of my amendments. Previous legislation allowing Governments such extensive powers, such as the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, has made it clear that, when tabling statutory instruments, Governments have to argue the case for why those statutory instruments are necessary. In this case, the Government have not even added that provision to the Bill, which is what makes me suspicious.

A doubting Thomas is a good man, but he should follow through on his doubts. I hope that means the hon. Gentleman will be joining us in the Lobby tonight, although I have a sneaking suspicion the smile that just crept across his face indicates that he has no intention of doing so.

There has been much talk about what is a meaningful vote. I read theology at university. My theology professor, John Macquarrie, was a wonderful man who had a rather strange half-American, half-Scottish accent. He was asked by a student, “What is the meaning of God?” And he answered, “You should not ask me, ‘What is the meaning of God?’ You should ask me, ‘What is the meaning of meaning?’” That is the kind of existential debate we are having today.

What does it mean to have a meaningful vote? First, I would say that the vote cannot simply be on a fait accompli. It is not meaningful to vote on something after it has already happened and it has already been decided. It cannot just be a vote on a treaty because, as I have already tried to explain, the provisions on treaties in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 state that the Government do not have to provide for a vote on treaties, because it is not an affirmative process. They merely state that, if the House says within 21 sitting days that the treaty should not be agreed, the Government have to have another go, if they want to. That is a problematic process for us.

In addition, a treaty is unamendable. One thing everybody has been arguing in this debate is that we need to be able to send the Government back to negotiate again if we think the deal is not good enough. This cannot be simply be on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That is what Hobson, the 17th century stable owner said: “You can either take the horse closest to the door or you will not take a horse at all.” It is like Henry Ford’s saying:

“Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.”

My fear is that the Prime Minister will want to be a stable owner trying to persuade everybody to take the horse closest to the door, and I do not believe that will be a meaningful vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

Perhaps I could suggest a handicap system for Members who observe the advisory time limit on speeches.

If the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) thinks that the European Union is keen to drag things out, he has clearly not spoken to many EU diplomats. They want this to be over; they are not as obsessed with Brexit as he might be.

I commend the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) for his rational discourse in relation to amendment 7. Unlike me, he cannot be described as wanting to stop Brexit. He does not want to, but I do—democratically, with a vote on the deal. That is covered by amendment 120, which we will vote on next Wednesday. But he and I are certainly in the same place when it comes to the importance of parliamentary sovereignty, and legislative rigour and accuracy. He set out cogent arguments in favour of amendment 7, and he described the extent to which he has bent over backwards in the last few weeks to try to secure agreement from the Government on a way forward, but failed to do so.

The Minister’s main argument against amendment 7 was time pressure. The Government have, to a great extent, inflicted that problem on themselves, whether through the general election that they called, by triggering article 50 when they did, or by refusing to entertain the option of extending the article 50 process. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said that EU had not offered such an extension but, as I understand it, the UK has at no point ever asked for one. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield set out a very neat solution to the problem that the Government outlined, and the Minister did not manage to convince the very experienced senior Members who were sitting behind him. He might not have seen it, but the body language and facial expressions of those behind him reinforced the point that, frankly, the Government have not deployed very cogent arguments in favour of opposing amendment 7. I look forward to voting on that amendment, and to Parliament taking back control.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will not be voting for article 7, because I think it is a mistake—[Interruption.] I am extremely grateful; I mean amendment 7. The amendment calls for legislation to be put in afterwards, which is a very unusual thing for a Bill to do—I believe it is unprecedented. If people do not like clause 9, they should vote against it, rather than voting for this unusual amendment.

I want to make it clear, however, that I very much accept the good faith of those who argue for amendment 7. Those of us who opposed the Government when they were very pro-European should not criticise Members such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)—Disraeli pronounced the constituency name slightly differently—when they decide to take the reverse position of the one we took in previous years. What they are doing is completely reasonable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a quite natural solution, which is to put the assurance given at the Dispatch Box into the clause when the Bill comes back on Report?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend’s speech was absolutely brilliant. He got to the heart of all these matters, and indeed he provided a solution, which is that there should be such a good-spirited compromise that places some faith in the Government, as it is reasonable for Members of Parliament to do. We should recognise that it is better to have a clear response on Report that covers the whole problem than to agree an amendment that is constitutionally abnormal, because we should not agree to such amendments.

I follow the Minister’s argument that there are circumstances in which clause 9 could be useful. If an agreement comes relatively late on, I understand that there will be an urgency in getting statutory instruments presented. There also will be a Prorogation before May 2019, so there might be a delay in the proceedings on the withdrawal and implementation Bill and therefore a need for urgent action. If we pass a motion, as may be legislatively required, to accept the proposed statutory instruments, that will both maintain parliamentary control and give the Government the flexibility that they are likely to need.

This issue becomes very significant because, as we leave, we will want legislative continuity and clarity. The date has been set, and that has been debated, but the key is that the date has been set by previous decisions of Parliament. It is in no sense an erosion of parliamentary sovereignty, because the date is set out in the Act triggering article 50 and in the Act incorporating the Lisbon treaty into UK law. The timeframe was set under voluntary Acts of Parliament requiring things to be done by 29 March 2019. It therefore follows that there is some pressure on time, so it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to ask for such flexibility.

I conclude on the vote at the end—the final meaningful vote. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), as he so often does, made an elegant point when he said that this is a metaphysical decision for us about the meaning of meaning. The issue is that Her Majesty’s Government have already promised that we will have a vote on the deal before the European Parliament does, but there is no deal until the European Parliament has voted. The European Parliament has to agree to the deal—as part of the article 50 package, this is decided by an enhanced qualified majority vote, subject to the approval of the European Parliament—but we have already been promised a vote before the matter is voted on by the European Parliament.

[Anna Soubry]

My hon. Friend is probably right, but my understanding is that the definition of withdrawal agreement clearly says “whether ratified or not”, so we do not have to follow the European Parliament. However, unless we get a meaningful vote, it may well end up being able to vote on something that, frankly, we will not be able to vote on.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but the Government have already said that we will have a chance to vote on the withdrawal agreement before the European Parliament.

[Anna Soubry]

A meaningful vote.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Well, that vote must by its nature be meaningful. As we know, it is very easy to have a meaningful vote: we just table an Humble Address, and then it is binding on Her Majesty’s Government, as is quite clear from all previous parliamentary and constitutional procedure. We can engineer a meaningful vote even if the Government are trying to be a bit slippery, which I happen to doubt very much, because I think Her Majesty’s Government would never dream of being slippery—they would not know how to be slippery. It is hard to think of a Government in the whole of history being slippery.

In the whole schedule leading to the ratification and approval of the withdrawal agreement, there is a requirement for a vote in this House. There is also a requirement, now agreed with the European Union, that there will be a withdrawal and implementation Bill—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is getting impatient, but this is a very important matter. The rights of Parliament will absolutely and clearly be preserved, and I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, because his is a solution with which I think everybody can be happy.

[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.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Committee: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

We will not press the amendment to a vote. It would, after all, replicate the vote on the decision that the House took on 1 November—we have seen how the Government responded to that—but that should not be interpreted by those on the Treasury Bench that this signals an end to the matter. We will continue to press for accountability and transparency throughout the negotiations and hope that that will find support across the House.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I want to speak briefly on new clause 21 and amendment 348. I also want to make some points in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), because I agree with him on half of what he says and not on the other half. I will keep that stored up for the end to try to persuade him to stay; otherwise, I am sure that cups of tea may beckon for many.

I think that new clause 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), is the great confession that we have been waiting for from the pro-Europeans in this House. The new clause has been given the support of some of the most luminous pro-Europeans known to the nation: the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), and that great panjandrum of pro-Europeanism, the distinguished gentleman the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable). All have signed this new clause. It says what we Eurosceptics have been saying all along: that the European Union produces its law in a form of gobbledegook—stentorian, sesquipedalian sentences that nobody can ever understand—and that when it is brought into British law, it should therefore be brought in in a plain English translation. The title of the new clause is “Plain English summary”.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s description, actually. Does he agree that a lot of these things are almost as bad as the drafting of the Finance Bills that the Government bring before the House of Commons year after year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful for the humility being shown by my distinguished right hon. and learned Friend, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who admits that some of the Bills brought forward by his own former Department are incomprehensible to the lay reader. It is a broader problem of legislation, but it has been a particular problem of European legislation. That is why I have some sympathy for the new clause. As EU law is brought into UK law, which is widely accepted as the right starting point for when we leave the European Union, the Government ought to seek to do it in a form that is intelligible and easy to understand. This is one of the areas where I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, who said that that is one of the principles of the rule of law. As we do this, we should of course be sticking to principles of basic constitutional fairness.

It is glorious that the second argument of the Eurosceptics has been accepted in this new clause. The first argument is the basic one of taking back control, but the second is that the fundamental nature of the way in which the EU created law, and the whole body of the acquis communautaire, was not comprehensible to most people, was not subject to satisfactory democratic control, and was a bureaucratic monster that rolled on and on regardless.

[Wera Hobhouse]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Of course I give way to the hon. Lady, whose constituency I encircle.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, for giving way. Has he ever tried to put any legislation in front of an ordinary person and ask him or her whether it is comprehensible? Our discussion demonstrates our difficulty, as parliamentarians, in making comprehensible to the people who elect us what we are actually about.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

In North East Somerset, we do not have ordinary people. We have only exceptional, brilliant and talented individuals of the highest and finest calibre. I have a serious point to make in that: we, as politicians, should never use the term “ordinary people”, implying that we are some priestly caste who understand the mysteries of legislation, whereas ordinary people do not.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I apologise for the use of the term “ordinary people”. I accept that it is possibly not a very good way of describing the people who elect us.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for that. I think the point is important, and we should try to remember it.

A lot of the legislation that we pass can be explained to everybody—even to ourselves—in an understandable way. If we look at the Treasury Bench, we see some of the finest brains in Britain. They get up at the Dispatch Box and explain to us what is going to be passed into law, in terms that even Members of Parliament—including those of us who are not learned Members—can understand. I think that laws can be explained simply, and that is a worthy ambition.

New clause 21 makes the important point that during our period of membership, the EU increasingly turned out law that people did not understand. We have a golden opportunity to improve the quality of the legislation that we pass, improve people’s general understanding of it and improve our own understanding of it. Clarity is just and fair. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we want to apply this to our own work as well. There is no point in complaining about the European Union in that regard, but making our own laws incomprehensible. As an aside to what he said, one of the reasons why there is so much tax avoidance is that tax law is written in so complicated a manner.

Amendment 348 is important, and as the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) rightly said, it touches on the subject of the Humble Address that was brought forward on 1 November. The Government have dealt with the matter, and it is important to look at what they have done in response to the Humble Address. Many Conservative Members have opposed the European Union on the grounds of parliamentary sovereignty and an understanding of the nature of our constitution. We must recognise that a Humble Address motion is unquestionably binding. That has always been the tradition of this place. It is quite clear from “Erskine May” that there is a profound duty on the Government to fulfil the terms of any Humble Address. It will be interesting to see how often the Opposition use that procedure over the next few years to try to get information from the Government.

It is worth noting why the Humble Address procedure fell out of practice. I think the real reason was that Governments tended to command sufficient majorities in the House that a Humble Address motion they opposed would not get through. In the situation of a very slim overall majority, with the help of our friends from the Democratic Unionist party—

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Expensive help.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is not expensive help. That is quite wrong. As the hon. and learned Lady knows, the £1 billion is less than was spent in Northern Ireland in the last Parliament. It is quite right that a Unionist party should help to form a Unionist Government.

Humble Addresses fell out of favour because they simply could not be got through. We need to look at how the Government responded to the Humble Address. My initial reaction was that the Government had not fulfilled the terms of the Humble Address, because it was not initially clear that the impact assessments did not, in fact, exist. The first indication was that the Government were nervous about producing information —they never said “impact assessments”—that might undermine the negotiating position. That seemed a sensible point to make, but not one that could conceivably override a Humble Address, which took precedence over it.

As the information was presented to the Exiting the European Union Committee, it became clear that the Government had been as helpful as they possibly could have been in producing information that had not, in fact, been requested by the Humble Address, which asked for something that did not exist. I think that technicalities in this field are important, and it is rational for Governments to follow them.

I happen to think that that is a lesson for the Opposition. If they are to call for Humble Addresses, they must make sure that those Humble Addresses are correctly—even pedantically—phrased to ensure that they are asking for something that really exists. I feel that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central was being unfair when he criticised the Government for failing to produce information that did not exist. The Government did as much as they could to produce the two folders—the 800 pages—of sectoral analysis. When we look through the record, we see that that is what the Government always admitted existed. The Government were careful to answer questions by referring to sectoral analyses, even if the questioner asked for impact assessments. That, I think, is where the misunderstanding developed that such impact assessments existed.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been in to read the documents, but by no stretch of the imagination are they an analysis or an assessment. They are purely descriptive. Either they have come from Wikipedia or—I think this is more likely—they are a bad piece of GCSE coursework, which would get a fail if it was supposed to contain analysis.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I did go to see the documents, as a member of the Exiting the European Union Committee. I was lucky; I was not told that I had to hand over my mobile telephone, my secret spyglasses or whatever other kit I might have borrowed from James Bond and brought with me so that I could try to take these secret bits of information out to the wider world. I did not have to suffer the great indignity that some other hon. Gentlemen have suffered. I was allowed to sit down and plough through the documents.

I must confess that on that afternoon, I would have been happier reading a P.G. Wodehouse or a similarly entertaining document. I also confess that there was not a great deal in the bit that I read that could not have been found out by somebody with an able researcher or competence in the use of Google. None the less, the information had all been brought together in a usable fashion in one place, and it was an analysis of the sectors covered. It may not have been exciting, it may not have been the read of the century and it may not have won the Booker prize. None the less, it was a detailed sectoral analysis and it more than met the requirements laid down by the Humble Address, which asked for something that did not exist.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The hon. Gentleman is extremely generous to give way again to me. I asked the Secretary of State in the Select Committee where and when he thought the misunderstanding had arisen, but I do not think I got a very satisfactory answer. He had plenty of opportunities in the House to correct us and say, “These are not impact assessments; they are sectoral analyses.” He never chose to do that, and I am still waiting for the answer. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the Secretary of State did not have the opportunity to clear up that misunderstanding?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady. I think the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), made the situation clear from the Dispatch Box. He said in no uncertain terms that there were not impact assessments, but there were sectoral analyses. Dare I say that there are none so deaf as those who will not hear? I think the House did not particularly hear that those impact assessments did not exist, and therefore rode over the information that was given from the Dispatch Box.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so generous. I brought up the issue with the Secretary of State in October 2016, when he told me:

“We currently have in place an assessment of 51 sectors of the economy.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 938.]

The hon. Gentleman knows as well I do that there are only 39, and they do not look like assessments of sectors of the economy. Will he join me in asking Front Benchers whether they will clarify their position on that issue?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is moving away from the Humble Address, which asked for impact assessments, not assessments of the economy by sector. He is asking about another piece of information, which he is quite entitled to do. It is perfectly legitimate to ask for that information, but it in no sense represents a breach of the Humble Address; nor is it covered by amendment 348. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene again? No?

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

rose—

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Let me be bipartisan and take our friend from Scotland first.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) on the SNP Front Bench, he was referring to his own question, not the Humble Address, so will the hon. Gentleman address his point?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, but I was saying that the terms of the question asked by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) and the Humble Address were different. The Humble Address is a binding motion, but although the hon. Gentleman’s questions are very important and deserve to be taken seriously—and treated, as all questions should be, properly and diligently—they are not binding in themselves. It might be a great thing if the hon. Gentleman’s questions were to become binding and have the force and weight of the whole House of Commons behind them, but that is not yet the situation. I will now happily give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

We are rehearsing matters that I thought had been thoroughly covered, but the reality is that had the Secretary of State not addressed the requirements of the Humble Address, he would have been guilty of a contempt, and Mr Speaker has made it absolutely clear that that was not the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend has put the matter so well that I can move on to my final point.

I wish to make a point about the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and Henry VIII powers, where we have come from and where we are going to in relation to new laws being implemented in the United Kingdom. The part on which I agree with him is that we in this House should always treat Henry VIII powers with the deepest suspicion. The job of the House of Commons is to protect the powers of the House of Commons against an over-mighty Executive. Dare I say to those on the Government Front Bench that all Executives seek to be over-mighty? It is in their very nature, whether our side or Labour is in power. Those of us on the Government Back Benches should always remember that we will not be in government forever. [Hon. Members: “Shame.”] I am sorry to say that, but I take a very long view of history, and I can see that at some point in the next millennium we may, heaven help us, have an SNP Government—

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

We have already got one.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

But not for the United Kingdom as a whole—no, not yet. I will wait for the SNP to put up a candidate in North East Somerset, and we will see how well that goes down.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Would my hon. Friend concede that some of us are always in opposition whichever party is in government?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend puts the point beautifully. That is actually the historical and traditional job of Back-Bench Members of Parliament. We should be here to protect the interests of our constituents and the interests of the constitution, and to hold the Government—of whichever party—to account.

That is why I am in such agreement with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield about the undesirability of Henry VIII powers. However, I said I would diverge from him at some point. The point on which I diverge from him is the perhaps slightly academic one about where we have started from. I think it is inconsistent to say that Henry VIII powers exercised by the British Government, subject to the normal parliamentary procedures of this House and another place, are worrying, but that the Henry VIII powers used under the European Communities Act 1972 were not.

[Mr Grieve]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly reasonable point, and there is an argument that this House should not concede Henry VIII powers without very good reason indeed. I suggest that the difference is that the 1972 Act carried the clear implication that this was a necessity in order to meet our international obligations. The question I have asked this afternoon is whether these powers are required to meet some domestic necessity. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench may be able to reassure me that they are, but as the powers are so extensive, it is right that we should question them.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is always right that we should question such powers. That issue was about meeting our international obligations, but we volunteered to take on those international obligations by treaty without allowing the House to have the final say on the regulations that would come in. A political decision was made for the convenience of the then Government to do this in such a way to get that treaty agreed, but that was just as much a power grab from this House as what is currently proposed. Indeed, to my mind, it was a very much greater power grab because of the way in which laws in the European Union are introduced. The key is not co-decision making, which we have heard about—that is marginal, and came in at a later stage—but the fact that the right to present a new law rests with the Commission, which is the least democratic part of the European Union.

One of the glories of this House is that any right hon. or hon. Member may at any point, after the first few weeks of a new Session, go up to the Public Bill Office and seek to bring in a new Bill. The right of initiation of legislation lies with all of us, not just people who win the lottery or have ten-minute rule Bills. It lies not just with the Government; any right hon. or hon. Member has that right. It is such an important part of our ability to represent our constituents and to seek redress of grievance. The highest form of redress of grievance is an Act of Parliament; interestingly, Acts of Parliament emerged at the beginning of the 14th century from the presentation of petitions to this House that Members then turned into Acts. This is at the heart of our democratic system, but it was immediately denied by the basis on which laws are introduced within the European Commission.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman is of course right about the ability of Members to introduce a Bill, but glorious though the right is, is he not slightly exaggerating its force? Given the Executive’s control of the timetable, the likelihood of any Bill introduced in such a way being able to make it into law is pretty minimal.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The likelihood is minimal because it would be fairly chaotic if we had 650 Bills coming through each day—understandably, there has to be a means of making this House work; none the less, we have such a right. When Members bring forward really important Bills that are of fundamental significance and have support across the nation, they do eventually get through, despite the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), as well as of me and one or two others, to talk out rotten Bills. When Bills are of high quality and have support, they do get through, and that is very important.

[Kevin Brennan]

Will the hon. Gentleman name one that has got through via that procedure during the last Session?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

In the last Parliament, we got through a major reduction in prejudice against people suffering from mental health disorders—for example, allowing them to become Members of this House. That very important Act of Parliament was carried by pressure from individual Members. Nobody sought to talk it out—it had very widespread support—and it was taken through by a Back Bencher.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Autism Act 2009 was such an example, as was the legislation creating marine protection zones that was brought in by our former hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Such Bills do come through—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) is saying that they were not presentation Bills. It is fair to say that a presentation Bill very rarely gets through in the first instance, but it can often go on to become a ballot Bill or to receive Government support, so it is the beginning of the process. I certainly would not advocate that each of us should have the right to get a Bill made into law, but we have the right to initiate the process. That is at the heart of the democratic process, but the EU lacks such a system, which is why the 1972 Act created a worse set of Henry VIII powers than the set now being created. Overall, however, as it is nearly Christmas, I am in happy agreement with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I have the results of today’s deferred Divisions—I know you have all been anxiously awaiting them—which I will now announce. In respect of the question relating to local authorities (mayoral elections), the Ayes were 317 and the Noes were 231, while of those Members representing constituencies in England and Wales, the Ayes were 293 and the Noes were 221, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the question relating to combined authorities (mayoral elections), the Ayes were 317 and the Noes were 231, while of those Members representing constituencies in England, the Ayes were 285 and the Noes were 195, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leslie]

The delays will probably be of great concern to the companies involved in those shipments, because those goods have to be fresh and delivered on time. However, if we fall back on to WTO arrangements, there is also the potential 8% tariff for fish and crustaceans.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I wonder why the hon. Gentleman is concerned for companies on that particular point, when Norway is not in the European Union or the customs union—it is in the single market. Therefore, the customs union aspect simply does not apply to Norway.

[Mr Leslie]

The hon. Gentleman will know that there are concerns. He said Norway was a “vassal state”—I think that was his phrase. I do not think the Norwegians would see it that way, but they have had to simply take instructions, in many ways, in terms of the European Union arrangements on a lot of these questions. With many of our products, particularly in the manufacturing sector, the customs union has given us great opportunity to thrive, and we have done particularly well in recent years on the back of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I trouble my right hon. Friend?

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

My hon. Friend is so important in these proceedings that I will give way to him, but then I really am going to stop taking interventions and finish.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do apologise. I did not want to trouble my right hon. Friend, but the two-year timeframe under the article 50 process is a deadline, not the point at which we necessarily leave; it is the point at which we leave in the event that no deal is reached beforehand. It is perfectly possible, should the negotiations go well, for an earlier date to be agreed.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Oh, my hon. Friend is absolutely right—that is of course the way that article 50 works. My point was merely that it also provides in the event that the opposite occurs—the negotiations take even longer than anticipated, or the negotiations come to an end but ratification takes a bit longer than anticipated, which could well happen—for an agreement to be reached to extend the date, which is what would then cause the incommensurability with UK law, unless we have adequate provision on the UK side. That is what amendment 400, to which, I am pleased to say, he is a signatory, provides for.

I want to say one more thing before I sit down. I am glad—I hope that the Minister will confirm this from the Dispatch Box—that the Government have said throughout this discussion that they will bring forward an amendment to make sure that the statutory instrument that might be triggered under amendment 400 would be under the affirmative procedure, although I think that the amendment will have to be tabled on Report because of how Bill proceedings work.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

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

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) got it absolutely right in his response to the Chairman of the Brexit Committee that the constitutional power of this House to determine who is in Government is entirely unaffected by these amendments or the written ministerial statement that will be laid tomorrow. The powers, the authority and the rights of this House remain intact, and that is not dependent on whether a meaningful vote is amendable or unamendable.

Mr Speaker, as an historian of this House and its powers, you know perfectly well that the Norway debate was held on the Adjournment of the House—whether or not it should adjourn for the Whitsun recess. That great issue of the time—whether we should have a few days off at Whitsun—led to a fundamental change in the Government and the whole history of our nation that flowed from it.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do apologise to the hon. Lady, but I will not give way, because other people want to speak, and time is very short.

Therefore, the rights of this House are intact. The legislation will ensure that the Government can pursue their objectives, which is very important. The Chief Whip is in his place. I commend him for the tactful way that he has discussed these issues with so many people over the past week to ensure that we could come to something that every Conservative Member is able to agree to and put their name to that maintains the privileges of this House, ensures that the Government can negotiate properly, and sends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to the negotiating table with a united House of Commons behind them.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today. I will make just a couple of remarks.

I want to reiterate the comments that have been made that this is not about reversing Brexit or about tying the hands of the Government. This is about what happens and the role of Parliament if things go wrong. It is about clarity, about what will happen in this Parliament and to the interests of our country in the event of no deal, or no deal being agreed by this House.

It is incredibly disappointing to have reached this position. It could have been so different. A week after the referendum, I wrote to the then Prime Minister. I then wrote to the current Prime Minister. I made the argument that it was in the interests of our country that this House came together, that we had ways of working across parties, across this House and the House of Lords, and that we came to a solution together and worked through the issues together. But, step by step, we have seen a Government who have run and a Government who have hidden—a Government who have not even wanted to bring forward their own impact assessments so that we can take part in an evidence-based debate on the impact of Brexit on our country and get the answer right. A process by which this country comes together is essential if, in the autumn, we reach a situation in which what was unthinkable becomes thinkable. To have a way in which we handle that is our responsibility.

Every large Government project has a risk register and a response to those risks. This is a critical risk for our country and it is vital that, in advance of such a situation, we all know what is going to happen and that we have a say, on behalf of our constituents, about what could be an incredibly catastrophic situation for our economy, our country and our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

When I was training to be a priest in the Church of England, my professor of systematic theology was called John Macquarrie. He would say that he was often asked by parishioners, “What is the meaning of God?”, but that actually the far more important question is, “What is the meaning of meaning?” To be honest, it feels as though that is what this afternoon’s debate and last week’s debate have been about: what is a meaningful vote?

The first point is that a meaningful vote is surely not one that is meaningless. We had a meaningless vote on Monday afternoon after the SO24 debate. It was meaningless because we were voting on whether this House had considered the matter of the Sewel convention, and even if every single Member of the House had voted against that, we would none the less have considered the matter. This is exactly what we do with statutory instruments as well: we vote on whether we have considered the matter. The Government’s motion will require the Government—not allow them but require them—to table a neutral motion.

I disagree with the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who said that the vote in 1940 was on the Adjournment. It was not—it was on whether this House should adjourn for a successive number of days, and it was an amendable motion that would have had effect—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman if he does not mind. [Interruption.] Oh, all right.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I said that the vote was on the Whitsun recess, so I think that I covered that point.

[Chris Bryant]

But the hon. Gentleman managed to elide the fact that it was an amendable motion that had effect.

The point is that if the Government do what their motion says they should do—namely, table a neutral motion—the written ministerial statement gives the Speaker no power whatever to decide that it is not neutral. Indeed, if a Speaker were to decide that a neutral motion was suddenly, somehow or other, not neutral and could be amended, we should remove him from the Chair because he would not be abiding by the Standing Orders of this House. So let us make it absolutely clear: if it is a neutral motion, it will be a motion that has no meaning whatever.