Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why it is very important that we work through the detail of this agreement to show how it works on both sides, and that it can deliver both for EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in the EU. As I have said, the talks have been constructive and we believe that we are within touching distance of reaching a full agreement.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Last night, this House unanimously passed a binding motion requiring the Government to provide 58 sectoral impact assessments to the Brexit Select Committee. Non-EU UK nationals work in many of those 58 sectors, and you indicated, Mr Speaker, that it was not a motion that needed to be deliberated over for a long time. When will the papers be handed over?

[Mr Walker]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman was present for the whole of yesterday’s debate. As he noted, I said that we would respond appropriately, and we will do so as soon as conceivable.

[Keir Starmer]

“As soon as conceivable”, I would hope, means by the end of the week, and certainly before this House goes into recess. I think that that was the period we were discussing last night. But the motion was clear: it is the impact assessments that must be provided—not redacted copies, but the assessments. The Government could have amended the motion, but they chose not to. Can it now be confirmed that the full copies will be handed over, and that it will then be for the Brexit Select Committee to decide to what extent, and in what form, the assessments are published?

[Mr Walker]

I gently point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the first use of the word “redactions” in the debate came from him, on the Front Bench, speaking for the Opposition. We take very seriously the motion of Parliament, and we will be responding to it. The Secretary of State has already spoken to the Chairman of the Select Committee for Exiting the European Union and will be discussing this matter with him further in due course.

Exiting the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the list of sectors analysed under the instruction of Her Majesty’s Ministers, and referred to in the Answer of 26 June 2017 to Question 239, be laid before this House and that the impact assessments arising from those analyses be provided to the Committee on Exiting the European Union.

The motion is about transparency, accountability and ensuring that Parliament can do its job of scrutinising the Government properly. It is a shame that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is not here, but, assuming that he is on negotiating duties, I will not make a cheap point about that. [Interruption.] In a private conversation with him, I said that I would make that point clear at the beginning of my speech if he was not here, so it was not a cheap point.

It goes without saying that there is huge anxiety and uncertainty in the country about the impact of the Government’s Brexit approach. That is felt by businesses across the country, communities large and small, and all sectors of the economy. That is perhaps inevitable, given the size of the task ahead. The Government say that they are planning for all eventualities, but if relevant information and evidence is not published in a responsible fashion, businesses and people up and down the country will be unable to do so.

On 14 December last year, the Secretary of State revealed to the Brexit Committee that the Government were working on sectoral impact analyses in 57 areas—one was added later, making it 58. Thus began this battle about transparency and accountability. First the Government said that they could not even publish the list of the sectors being analysed. When my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) sought that under freedom of information legislation on 30 August this year, she was rebuffed in a response on 29 September. Then, on Monday this week, the list was published.

Looking at the list, a copy of which I have here, two things are obvious. First, in many ways it is unremarkable, and so it could and should have been published months ago. Secondly, the wide range of sectors analysed demonstrates why it is so important for Members to see the impact assessments.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why the Labour party, in the many months of Brexit discussions, has found not a single way to strengthen the UK’s bargaining position or expedite the Brexit that their voters voted for?

[Keir Starmer]

Over the summer, I set out the Opposition’s position in relation to Brexit with great clarity, and Government Members, if they are talking to businesses, will know how warmly that has been received. That has been documented in what businesses have said and done.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

In the interests of clarity and transparency, what exactly is the Labour party’s policy now on remaining in the customs union after March 2019?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

This has been absolutely clear from the summer. It was set out by me, and it was repeated by me in this House and in my conference speech and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) in his conference speech. It is that we should seek transitional measures, because we are not going to have reached the final deal by March 2019, and that those transitional measures should be on the same basic terms as now. That means being in the single market, in a customs union, abiding by the rules and accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, exactly as I have set out many times, and there has been unity on this side about that transitional position.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the comments from Government Members are absurd given that the Prime Minister says one thing about no deal, the Brexit Secretary says no deal is a threat and the Home Secretary says no deal is unthinkable? The issue of transparency is crucial because we are talking about 29 million workers here—88% of the economy—and we do not know what those studies say; they should be published.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. I was going to highlight just three sectors on the list: construction and engineering, where 2.9 million jobs are involved; medical services and social care, where 3 million jobs are involved; and pharmaceuticals, where 50,000 jobs are involved. So even taking just three of the 58 sectors, it is obvious why this is of such importance.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Opposition that these impact assessments should be disclosed—they can be redacted—but we definitely disagree about the Labour party’s position. We must be very clear: it started off with the Leader of the Opposition saying article 50 should be triggered on the day after the referendum, and it has flip-flopped around since. I am delighted that the Labour party has now come across to my way of thinking: we should have a transition period, retaining our membership of the single market and the customs union. I hope that Labour will go further and say we need a final deal that includes the single market and customs union.

[Keir Starmer]

I hope to see the right hon. Lady in the Lobby with us later if that is how she feels about this motion.

I must say that there were at least five different versions of the Government position over the summer, and it is almost impossible to reconcile the Foreign Secretary’s approach with that of others in the Cabinet. Everybody knows it and is commenting on it. To claim there is unity in the Cabinet is a pretence.

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

I welcome the transparency the right hon. and learned Gentleman has provided on the transition period, but what is Labour’s policy for after that period?

[Keir Starmer]

I have been very clear about that as well, and about what the priorities are—jobs and the economy—and that we should retain the benefits of the single market and customs union.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

The last debate got fractious just before 4 o’clock because interventions might or might not have been taken; I have taken pretty well all of them so far, but none of them has yet been about the motion. [Interruption.] I apologise to the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for saying that.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

In response to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point, may I formally request that these documents be released not only to the Exiting the European Union Committee, but to all relevant Select Committees, as requested by the Select Committee on Health yesterday?

[Keir Starmer]

I will come to that, because we gave some thought to the process, and if the principle of disclosure is agreed, we are open to a discussion about exactly how that works. The Brexit Committee seemed the obvious Committee, but there is clearly interest in other Select Committees in the subject matter, not least medical services and social care, which I know will be of great interest to the hon. Lady.

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

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to press on, because I have barely got a sentence in. I will give way later but I am really not making much progress at all.

The list of sectors was initially not disclosed, but it was then disclosed on Monday. In her freedom of information request of 30 August this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston also asked for the scope and the terms of reference of each sectoral analysis. This request too has been rebuffed, in a letter of 29 September. This time, the Secretary of State’s Department relied on two grounds: first, that to disclose the terms of reference would prejudice relations between the UK and another state; and, secondly, that it would prejudice the formulation and development of Government policy. The first of those grounds seems a bit far-fetched, to say the least. The scope and the terms of reference are not even being disclosed.

The second of those grounds is surprising, coming from the current Secretary of State. Back in December 1999, he was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee when the freedom of information legislation was before Parliament. Then, when he was on the Back Benches, he intervened strongly in the debates. He said:

“I do not approach the issue from the perspective of a freedom of information enthusiast…my test is whether it makes democracy and government work better.”

He then said:

“The class exemption applying to all information relating to formulation and development of Government policy, including factual information, is a ludicrous blanket exemption.”—[Official Report, 7 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 774.]

Today, from the Front Bench, he relies on that ludicrous blanket exemption that he rallied against from the Back Benches.

I shall now turn to the analyses and reports themselves. In a joint letter dated 11 October this year and supported by 120 Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) sought the disclosure of all the sectoral analyses. I salute their work in pressing the Government time and again on this issue. The Government have responded by saying that the impact assessments could not be disclosed because to do so would undermine the UK’s negotiating position. That is an important consideration, and I have accepted all along that the Government should not put into the public domain any information that would undermine our negotiating position. However, this requires some probing and testing.

The House will recall that when we, the Opposition, were calling for the Government to publish a Brexit plan this time last year, our request was initially refused. It was claimed that—guess what?—to do so would undermine our negotiating position. Thus, in an exchange on 7 November last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) pressed the Secretary of State to reveal the Government’s plan. The Secretary of State said:

“It is no good creating a public negotiating position, which has the simple effect of destroying our ability to negotiate—full stop.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2016; Vol. 616, c. 1264.]

The Prime Minister then coined the phrase “no running commentary” and stuck to it like glue. And so it went on until 7 December last year, when we won an Opposition day motion calling on the Government to publish a plan. The publication of that plan has not undermined our negotiating position, although its contents might well have done so.

On the claim that any disclosure will undermine our negotiating position, I also bear in mind what the Secretary of State said to the House of Lords EU External Affairs Sub-Committee last night when he was pressed on this. He said:

“I don’t think you should overestimate what’s in them. They’re not economic models of each sector, they are looking at how much of it depends on European Union markets versus other markets, what other opportunities may be, what the regulatory structures are, all those sorts of things that inform the negotiation, but they are not predictions. So I wouldn’t overestimate what they are.”

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we might ask how the Ministers even know whether the reports would undermine our negotiating position given that last week they told the Exiting the European Union Committee that they had not even read them? One does wonder why on earth they are now going to such lengths to protect them.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention and will come to that very point. Playing down the significance of the reports last night, while playing up the need to keep them absolutely secret, is an interesting strategy that needs to be tested. The Government’s claim about not disclosing the reports or any part of them also raises some pretty fundamental questions. First, who has actually read the 58 reports? On 25 October, the Secretary of State, under questioning from the Brexit Committee, indicated that the Prime Minister will know the summary outcomes, but she will “not necessarily” have read them. Later in the same sitting, he indicated that the Cabinet had not seen the analyses, saying:

“They will have seen summary outcomes. That is all.”

The impact assessments that we are debating this afternoon have not been read in full by the Cabinet.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

My right hon. and learned Friend may also be interested to know that when the Health Committee asked the Health Secretary yesterday whether he had read the four reports of great relevance to the NHS and public health, he seemed rather unsure. Given the huge negative impact that Brexit will have, particularly on our NHS workforce, is it not extraordinary that the Health Secretary cannot remember if he has even read the reports?

[Keir Starmer]

If the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was right in his evidence to the Brexit Committee, it appears that the Health Secretary has not read the reports because he has not had them.

The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was asked by the Brexit Committee whether the reports had been passed to the Scottish Government. In reply to a question from the SNP spokesperson, the Secretary of State said that he did not know whether they had been shared with the Scottish Government. These reports, which are in lockdown and cannot be seen and not a word of which can be disclosed, have not been read by the Cabinet, and nobody knows whether they have been disclosed to the Scottish Government, yet nothing can be made available to this House.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a hint of almost religious fervour with the idea that if we keep our eyes closed and our ears blocked, perhaps everything will be okay as we leap off the cliff into the unknown.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention.

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

For clarification, it was me who asked the Secretary of State whether he would share the impact assessment on the Scottish economy with the Scottish Government. After I corrected him that it has in fact not been shared, he went on to give an undertaking that it will be shared with the Scottish Government. If that particular assessment will be shared, should not the other assessments be shared with the other relevant sectors?

[Keir Starmer]

The hon. and learned Lady makes a good point. If some of these reports can be or have been shared with some Governments or Administrations, there is simply no basis for arguing that they cannot be shared with this Parliament, through the Select Committees.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I recently asked the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport what sector assessments her Department was involved in, and she answered, “None.” However, I count at least 10 areas in which her Department is involved—or perhaps it is not involved. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that prompts questions about how the Government are co-ordinating the production of the reports?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I can see that if I keep giving way, I will get answers that relate to every Department and find out that in fact none of them has seen, analysed, read or considered the impact assessments.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to try to make some progress.

The Secretary of State made it clear that the Cabinet had only seen the summary outcomes. If that position has changed, I am sure that the Minister will intervene to clarify the position. If the assessments are so important, the relevant Cabinet members ought to read about the sectors that concern them. It is extraordinary that that has not happened. It is also extraordinary because it raises the question of who is making the decision that these reports cannot be disclosed. Who is making that decision? It cannot be the relevant Cabinet members, because they have not read the reports. When he appeared before the Brexit Committee, the Secretary of State was pretty hazy about that:

“The Government do. To a very large extent it comes to me, but it would depend on which department it is”.

That is interesting, given that the other Departments have not read the reports. He continued:

“Some of the stuff is also held in other departments.”

Who is the decision maker on the non-disclosure of these reports? Is it the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union? If not, who is it? [Interruption.] I see that instructions may be being taken.

Is there a record of the decision being made? It is a significant decision to withhold information from Parliament. Is a record made of the decision for each report? Where is that record? What criteria are actually applied?

A number of Members, including me, have experience of handling sensitive information—in my case, very sensitive information about very serious criminal offences—and everyone who has been in that position knows that a blanket ban can be justified only if no lesser form of publication is possible. Blanket bans are very rare. Even in the field of counter-terrorism, where there is highly sensitive material, blanket bans are very rare and the Government will normally find a way of publishing some of the material in an acceptable form. The current situation is extremely unusual, even for sensitive material.

Has consideration been given to redacting some of the sensitive material? Has consideration been given to providing a summary to Parliament? That is not uncommon in sensitive criminal cases. Can the gist not be given, or are we seriously expected to believe that not one paragraph, not one sentence, not one word can be disclosed to anyone in this House?

[Mr Jenkin]

I am listening carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I can only conclude that it is foolish and irresponsible to have called this debate. He knows there is a blanket ban on disclosing advice to Ministers—that is in the ministerial code and the civil service code, and it is absolutely standard. It is normal for Select Committees to request information themselves, rather than getting the official Opposition to do it on their behalf. This is game playing.

[Keir Starmer]

I am surprised by that intervention, given the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). The concern is shared on both sides of the House.

The intervention of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) is typical of what has been going on for 16 or 17 months. Every time somebody raises a legitimate question, it is suggested that they are somehow frustrating or undermining the process. It is not unlike the interventions I took a year ago when I suggested that the plan should be published. The interventions were exactly the same.

This is lockdown, a blanket ban. If the exemption for ministerial advice is being relied on, it is curious that it is not mentioned as the ground being relied on in the letter in response to the freedom of information request. That is why we have brought this motion to the House—

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to press on.

You will have seen today’s Order Paper, Mr Deputy Speaker. Coming from someone who thinks that we should catapult Parliament into 21st century, the wording of our motion is a little odd. The motion borrows widely from parliamentary procedure used to require Ministers to lay before the House or a Committee a specific document. “Erskine May” says the following:

“Each House has the power to call for the production of papers by means of a motion...the power to send for papers by means of a motion for unopposed return extends to papers which are in the possession of Ministers or which Ministers have the authority to obtain.”

That procedure has widely been used for many decades—the Opposition Whips tell me it has been used for many centuries. If anyone doubts the procedure, they should see on page 3 of today’s Order Paper that the Home Secretary has used the same procedure in relation to a different report.

What is important about this procedure is that we believe this is a binding motion, and that makes it—we hope—impossible for the Government to pull their usual Wednesday afternoon trick of not voting on Opposition day motions or not taking any notice of them. That is why we have chosen the procedure that we have. But let me be clear: our motion does not require blanket publication without further consideration. Instead, it would require that the documents covered in the list should be provided to the Brexit Committee—or other Select Committees if the Government’s concern is that that is too limited and these things ought to go to all the Select Committees. We are very open to that discussion, but these documents should go to the Brexit Committee. Then it would be for that Committee—or any other Select Committee—to decide which documents should and should not be published. It would also fall to that Committee to decide in what form publication should occur.

Members may ask why we have chosen the Brexit Committee. We have done so because it is a cross-party Committee; it has a lot of expertise and support staff; and it has a Government majority, so the Opposition cannot be accused of being party political here. It is a trusted and responsible Committee.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way in a minute. As I have said, we are open to hearing from the Government if they have alternative mechanisms or procedures to allow publication in an appropriate fashion. We are not wedded to the form we have put forward. We are wedded to challenging the blanket approach that the Government have taken.

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

I am one Member of this House who welcomes the use of a 19th century procedure to hold the Government to account. I have one question for the right hon. and learned Gentleman: why is he asking for this information for the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union without a formal motion having been passed by that Committee to request these papers?

[Keir Starmer]

Because that is not necessary and this is an important motion, and because in recent weeks we have seen contempt for motions in this House—week after week on Opposition day motions—from a Government who are too weak to turn up or too weak to accept the outcome. Therefore we have chosen a procedure that is binding on this Government.

Only a weak Government push Parliament away and ignore the facts. It should not require an arcane parliamentary procedure to force the Government to release these documents, but after 10 months of trying that is what Parliament now has to do. The current impasse prevents Parliament doing its job, undermines accountability and is inconsistent with transparency. The Government should support the motion before the House today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

Let me at least respond to the motion; I will then give way to the hon. Lady.

The first part of the motion calls for Ministers to publish the list of sectors that have been analysed. As the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), acknowledged, that has already been done—it was done before the motion was tabled.

[Keir Starmer]

I do acknowledge that. To explain, we were advised by the parliamentary authorities that that needed to be included in the motion in order for the second part to be triggered. I acknowledge, though, that that list was published on Monday.

[Mr Walker]

I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s acknowledgement. As he says, that list was published in response to the Lords EU External Affairs Sub-Committee report on Brexit and the trade in goods. A copy was placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is available for all to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

The Government always pay careful attention to the views of this House. As I have already pointed out, we have done so in the past and we will respond appropriately. To return to the analysis—[Interruption.] This is an important point. We have been looking at 58 sectors, as well as cross-cutting regulatory, economic and social issues to inform our negotiating position.

[Keir Starmer]

Will the Minister express his view on whether this is a binding motion according to the procedures of this House?

[Mr Walker]

It is not my job to interpret the procedures of the House; that is a matter for the House itself. As I have said, we will take note of whatever the House decides on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

The motion requires—some would say, compels—the Government to release the reports in their entirety, unredacted. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) just made that point. Yet a consensus appears to have emerged in this House this afternoon that it would be detrimental to our national interest to release these reports in their entirety. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) acknowledged that in his opening remarks.

[Keir Starmer]

What I said in my opening was in criticism of the blanket ban. I said that the Government should consider first whether any of the material needs to be withheld and, if so, whether bits of it could be released—summaries or gists. I was criticising the Government’s approach because they had not already gone through that exercise, which they should have gone through; I was not actually talking about what the motion means.

[Chris Philp]

Many Members today have made it clear that they believe publication of either a summary or a redacted version would strike the best balance between keeping the House informed and protecting our national interest. I was going to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, if the Minister from the Dispatch Box made a commitment to publish a summary or a redacted version of these reports, the Opposition Front-Bench team would decide not to press the motion to a vote, because if passed as written, there is a danger that it would compel the Government to publish all the reports that Members on both sides of the House appear to agree would be damaging. It would be damaging for two reasons. First, contributors to those reports—companies—would have their commercial information revealed, even though the Government had given them an undertaking of confidentiality. Secondly, publication would reveal our position to our negotiating counterparts.

There is, I am afraid, a history of confidential material leaking out of Select Committees. Although the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), said that he would seek to prevent any confidential material leaking out, that has happened on a number of occasions in the recent past. In 2012, a Culture, Media and Sport Committee report on phone hacking was leaked. In 2016, a Select Committee report on arms export controls was leaked to “Newsnight”. In 1999, a social security report was leaked to Gordon Brown’s then Parliamentary Private Secretary. Robin Cook received a leak in 1999 in relation to the Foreign Affairs Committee, and in 2013 a Public Accounts Committee report on Wonga was leaked to Wonga. So there are legitimate concerns about whether material given to a Select Committee will necessarily remain confidential.

There has been a measure of consensus in the House this afternoon that a redacted or summary version of these reports would strike the correct balance. It may be that the Minister gives an undertaking from the Dispatch Box along those lines, and it would be in the national interest if, in the event that Members in the Opposition Front-Bench team found those assurances satisfactory, they did not press their motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the list of sectors analysed under the instruction of Her Majesty’s Ministers, and referred to in the Answer of 26 June 2017 to Question 239, be laid before this House and that the impact assessments arising from those analyses be provided to the Committee on Exiting the European Union.

Address to be presented to Her Majesty by Members of the House who are Privy Counsellors or Members of Her Majesty’s Household.

[Keir Starmer]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The motion having been carried unanimously and the wording being that

“the impact assessments arising from those analyses be provided to the Committee on Exiting the European Union”,

can you confirm whether that means this motion is effective or binding and whether that means a failure of the Government to comply with it is, in fact, a contempt of the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order. First, as I said in response to the point of order from the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) a few minutes ago, motions of this kind have traditionally been regarded as binding or effective. Consistent with that established pattern, I would expect the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household to present the Humble Address in the usual way.

I say what I do, as colleagues on both sides of the House and on both sides of any argument will recognise, on the strength of an understanding of advice received in relation to precedent grounded in “Erskine May”. When I am asked, as I think I was by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, about contempt or breach of privilege, what I would say is that, if anybody wishes to make an accusation of a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House, it must be done in writing to the Speaker. If I receive such a representation in writing, I will consider it and apply my best endeavours, and take advice, in reaching a view and reporting it to the House.

I have explained the position, I think, as clearly as I am able, but of course on this sensitive matter, about which I understand passions have raged this afternoon, I will take further points of order, if there are such.

Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union if he will make a statement on the Government’s policy of a meaningful vote in Parliament to agree the final withdrawal agreement with the European Union.

[The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his question. We have been very clear right from the start of the process that there will be a vote in both Houses of Parliament on the final deal that we agree with the European Union. I reiterate the commitment my Minister gave at the Dispatch Box during the article 50 Bill, when he said:

“I can confirm that the Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement, to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded. We expect and intend that this will happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement.”

Furthermore, he said:

“we intend that the vote will cover not only the withdrawal arrangements but also the future relationship with the European Union.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 264.]

These remain our commitments.

The terms of this vote were also clear. Again, as my Minister said at the time:

“The choice will be meaningful: whether to accept that deal or to move ahead without a deal.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 275.]

Of course this vote cannot happen until there is a deal to vote upon, but we are working to reach an agreement on the final deal in good time before we leave the European Union in March 2019. Clearly, we cannot say for certain at this stage when this will be agreed, but Michel Barnier has said he hopes to get a draft deal agreed by October 2018, and that is our aim as well. So we fully expect there will be a vote in the UK Parliament on this before the vote in the European Parliament and before we leave the EU. As we have said before, this vote will be over and above the requirements of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

We have also said many times that we want to move to talking about our future relationship as soon as possible. The EU has been clear that any future relationship and partnership cannot legally conclude until the UK becomes a third country, as the Prime Minister said in her Florence speech. As I set out in the Select Committee yesterday, our aim is to have the terms of our future relationship agreed by the time we leave in March 2019. However, we recognise that the ratification of that agreement will take time and could run into the implementation period that we are seeking. There can be no doubt: Parliament will be involved throughout this process.

[Keir Starmer]

What a mess! We get one thing one day and another thing the next. Yesterday, the Secretary of State was asked in the Brexit Committee, “Could the vote in our Parliament be after March 2019?” The answer he gave was, “Yes, it could be.” Later in the day the Prime Minister had a go at correcting him, and then his own spokesperson had to clarify his remarks. Today, he says that the vote will be before the deal is concluded. That is not good enough. May I remind him that the commitment he has just referred to, made at the Dispatch Box, that we would have a meaningful vote was made when the Government were on the verge of losing a vote on a Labour amendment to the article 50 Bill to give Parliament that vote? That commitment cannot now casually be dispensed with.

The text of article 50 is clear: there can be no deal until the European Parliament has approved it and voted on it. The nonsense we heard yesterday about “nanoseconds” has to be put in that proper context. It would be wholly unacceptable if time was found for the European Parliament to vote on the deal before it is concluded but time was not found in this House. Does the Secretary of State expect us to sit here watching on our screens the European Parliament proceedings while we are told that we do not have time? I do not think so. We need a cast-iron guarantee that that will not happen.

The Secretary of State has repeatedly asked us to accept his word at the Dispatch Box. Given the events of the past 24 hours, will he now accept the amendments tabled to the withdrawal Bill that would put into law a meaningful article 50 vote, so that we all know where we stand and do not have to repeat this exercise?

[Mr Davis]

I am afraid the right hon. and learned Gentleman altered the quotation from yesterday slightly. What the Chairman said, and I refer to exactly what he put to me, was that “it is possible”—possible—“that Parliament might not vote on the deal until after the end of March 2019. Am I summarising correctly what you said?” I said, “in the event we don’t do the deal until then.” That is the point I was making.

I will take up the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about the European Parliament, because I have said at the Dispatch Box and we have said that it is our intent and our expectation—those were the words used; I crafted them—that we will vote on this in this House before the European Parliament does. That stands. If it goes to the timetable that Mr Barnier expects, or wants to go to, which is October 2018, it is likely that the European Parliament will vote in December or January, under the normal processes that apply to that Parliament; it has a committee stage to go through first. We will vote on that and we will have it put before the House before then. There is no doubt about that. That undertaking is absolutely cast iron.

The issue that I raised yesterday, because I take it as a responsibility always to be as forthright and open as I can with the Select Committee, was to go through what has happened in the past in European Union treaty negotiations. This time, there is an expectation by the Commission; there is an incentive on the part of the various countries to get it done as quickly as possible; and there is our expectation and intention. None of the undertakings given at the Dispatch Box have in any sense been undermined. The issue here is one of practicality and what we control. What we control, we will run to give Parliament a proper and meaningful vote at the right time.

EU Exit Negotiations

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

No one should underestimate the seriousness of the situation in which we find ourselves. At the first hurdle, the Government have failed to hit a very important target, which leaves EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in Europe in a continued state of uncertainty. There is insufficient progress on Northern Ireland, and it appears that the deadlock on the financial settlement is such that both sides are barely talking.

The Secretary of State says he is confident that we are now on the right track. I cannot fault him for his confidence in his own negotiating ambitions. The problem is that most of those ambitions have failed to materialise. One ambition was that the sequencing of talks would be the row of the summer and that he would not agree, but he agreed by coffee time on day one. His suggestion that sequencing and the concept of sufficient progress are EU constructs leaves out the fact that he agreed to them and signed up.

The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State were right to go to Brussels last night. Obviously, I would like to claim that was in response to the letter I wrote to the Secretary of State last Thursday, but even I recognise that would probably be over-claiming for my letter. Because of the seriousness of the situation, both sides—I include the EU—need to do whatever they can to break the impasse by Friday. More flexibility is needed on both sides by Friday.

I hear what the Secretary of State says about the Florence speech, which was an important speech, but he would be on stronger ground if what the Prime Minister said in Florence had not been immediately undermined by the self-interested antics of some Cabinet members. I also hear what the Secretary of State says about the statement of intent last night to accelerate the process. Given the glacial speed so far, it is not exactly a high ambition—a car going from 2 miles per hour to 4 miles per hour is accelerating, but it is still going slowly.

If we want investment in our economy to continue, and if we want businesses to stay here and others to come, we need to start talking about transitional arrangements now. Those transitional arrangements need to be on the same basic terms as now—in the single market and within a customs union. Every passing week without progress on transitional arrangements makes things worse for businesses, not better. We need to make progress this week, before December.

We also need to drop the nonsense about no deal. Only fantasists and fanatics talk up no deal. No deal is not good for the UK, is not good for the EU and is not what the Secretary of State wants, but he must now realise that the slow progress of these talks raises the risk of no deal.

We need the Secretary of State to answer these critical questions from the Dispatch Box today. What does he intend to do between now and Friday to deliver on the commitment to accelerate the talks? What words does he want to hear on Friday to evidence that progress? How confident is he, on a scale of one to 10, that he will hear those words? And what does he intend to do if he fails?

[Mr Davis]

As ever, we get carping from the right hon. and learned Gentleman and not a single proposal or suggestion. It is interesting that he does not have another strategy, and we have a measure of that because he started by criticising the fact that citizens’ rights have not been resolved, whereas on Sunday he said, “I agree with David Davis, who says you cannot simply separate out the issues we are dealing with now and the later issues.” He talks about Northern Ireland in the same terms: “To be fair to David Davis, he is right on issues like Northern Ireland. There is only so far you can get before we move to the next phase.” When he has to appear reasonable on Peston he is very different from when he has to appeal to his Back Benchers here.

The simple truth is that there has been extremely productive activity in these negotiating rounds. Mr Barnier is going to the European Council on Friday to present his case, which I hope will argue for more progress both on transition and on the future relationship, but it is for him to make that persuasive case on the day. I know from my own visits across Europe, and Mr Barnier will also know this, that a large number of the 27 member states want to do the same.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about talking up no deal. I cannot think of a time, a day, a moment when I have talked up no deal. We are in the middle of a negotiation, and we want to negotiate in good order and with good faith on both sides, but if we do not prepare for all outcomes, we will leave ourselves exposed to an impossible negotiation. We saw that again this weekend when he and the shadow Chancellor said, “Oh, we’ll pay in perpetuity for access to the single market. We’ll pay whatever it takes. £100 billion. £200 billion. Whatever it takes.”

The simple truth of the matter is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman carps and carps, but he has no options of his own.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point: we are able to make trade deals once we leave the European Union, and that will give us enormous benefits, because as the European Commission itself admits, 90% of world trade will be outside the EU, not within it, in the coming decades.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State set out his position on the EEA. On 15 August, he told the “Today” programme that transitional arrangements should be

“as close as possible to the current arrangements”.

Two days before that, the Chancellor and the International Trade Secretary said in a joint article that Britain would leave the customs union and leave the single market. Both positions cannot be right. Will the Secretary of State step up to the Dispatch Box and tell us what form of transitional arrangements the Government are seeking to negotiate?

[Mr Davis]

I did that only a couple of days ago. I will come back to the point, but for the House’s interest, I will read a small part of a LabourList article—I read LabourList all the time, of course—by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who opened this question. He said:

“On Sunday Keir Starmer used an article in The Observer to call time on the ambiguity that had come to define Labour’s approach to Brexit since the referendum”—

the ambiguity, right? He said, “It was an approach”—this is the best bit—

“that…served us well on 8 June”.

What was that ambiguity? Tell leavers you want to leave; tell remainers you want to remain. That ambiguity, of course, could not last, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it was never sustainable. That is the ambiguity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just asked his question.

Now, our position is very clear. The transition arrangements will meet three different requirements: to provide time for the British Government, if need be, to create new regulatory agencies and so on; time for companies to make their arrangements to deal with new regulation; and time for other countries to make arrangements on, for example, new customs proposals. That is what will be required. That is why we need to be as close as we are to our current arrangements. It does not mean that, in the long run, we are in either the customs union or the single market.

[Mr Speaker]

There is plenty of material for colleagues to include in their Second Reading debate speeches if they so wish. The material might be better located there.

[Keir Starmer]

I asked the Secretary of State his position and he started with my position. If he wants to swap places—any time.

Given the progress to date, and knowing that we will go back to this answer, what prospects does the Secretary of State genuinely believe there are for bespoke transitional agreements being agreed, negotiated and implemented by March 2019? Knowing how anxiously businesses are looking at this, when does he anticipate being able to tell them what the arrangements will be, because they need to make arrangements?

[Mr Davis]

That is a very legitimate and sensible question. I believe that the benefits of a transitional arrangement go both ways—they are symmetrical. They apply equally to France, Holland, Germany or Denmark as they do to us. That is some of the read-back we have been getting. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been travelling around Europe himself and he will no doubt have picked up that same read-back. We are finding that the Commission is open to discussion of transition. We have raised it only briefly at each of the last two meetings because it does not fit within the current four groups of negotiation, but I think there is a very good prospect.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

to leave out from ‘That’ to the end of the Question and add ‘this House respects the EU referendum result and recognises that the UK will leave the EU, believes that insisting on proper scrutiny of this Bill and its proposed powers is the responsibility of this sovereign Parliament, recognises the need for considered and effective legislation to preserve EU-derived rights, protections and regulations in UK law as the UK leaves the EU but declines to give a Second Reading to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill because the Bill fails to protect and reassert the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty by handing sweeping powers to Government Ministers allowing them to bypass Parliament on key decisions, without any meaningful or guaranteed Parliamentary scrutiny, fails to include a presumption of devolution which would allow effective transfer of devolved competencies coming back from the EU to the devolved administrations and makes unnecessary and unjustified alterations to the devolution settlements, fails to provide certainty that rights and protections will be enforced as effectively in the future as they are at present, risks weakening human rights protections by failing to transpose the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights into UK law, provides no mechanism for ensuring that the UK does not lag behind the EU in workplace protections and environmental standards in the future and prevents the UK implementing strong transitional arrangements on the same basic terms we currently enjoy, including remaining within a customs union and within the Single Market.’.

The Secretary of State is keen to portray the Bill as a technical exercise converting EU law into our own law without raising any serious constitutional issues about the role of Parliament. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I will start with clause 9. As the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister know, the article 50 negotiations are among the most difficult and significant in recent history. Under article 50, the agreement will cover all the withdrawal arrangements and take account of the future relationship between the UK and the EU—a backwards look and a forwards look on something that might last for decades. We know that phase 1 will have to cover EU citizens, Northern Ireland, UK citizens in the Europe and the money, and that phase 2 will cover security, cross-border crime, civil justice, enforcement of judgments, fisheries, farming, Gibraltar—you name it, we hope it will be in the article 50 agreement. We want it to succeed; we need an agreement. It will also include our future trading arrangements—hugely important—including any transitional arrangements, if there are any, and much more.

Arguably, the arrangements will extend to every facet of national life—not my words, but I will come back to them. The article 50 agreement will be voted on, but it will then have to be implemented. It is a colossal task likely to involve a host of policy choices and to require widespread changes to our law—on any view. So how will that be done? Enter clause 9:

“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement if the Minister considers that such provisions should be in force on or before exit day.”

It is very likely to have to be in force before exit day, because otherwise there will be a gap, so that means the whole of the agreement, including transitional measures, being implemented under clause 9. It cannot be implemented after exit day, otherwise there will be a gap.

Let us be clear about how widely clause 9 is drawn. We have had some discussion about Henry VIII. Subsection (2) states:

“Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament”—

it is a true Henry VIII clause; it can modify Acts of Parliament—

“(including modifying this Act).”

The delegated legislation can amend the primary Act itself. That is as wide as any provision I have ever seen.

What are the limits and safeguards? Under clause 9(3), the regulations may not impose taxation, make retrospective provisions—they are usually a very bad idea—create a criminal offence or amend the Human Rights Act. Everything else is on limits under clause 9.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I will make this point and then give way.

Given that the clause is drawn so widely, one would expect an enhanced procedure or some other safeguards—surely not just ordinary old delegated legislation.

[Anna Soubry]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will make this point and then give way to several hon. Members.

What are the procedures? Are they enhanced? No. The opposite. Part 2 of schedule 7 deals with clause 9. It makes it clear that unless the delegated legislation creates a public authority, or the function of a public authority, affects a criminal offence or affects a power to make legislation, it is to be dealt with by—what? The negative procedure for statutory instruments, which means the least possible scrutiny: it means that the widest possible power, with no safeguards, will be channelled into the level of least scrutiny.

That is absolutely extraordinary. Let us be clear about what it means, because I am sure that the Secretary of State and others will say that notwithstanding the number of statutory instruments for which the schedule provides, they can be called up and annulled, and Parliament will have its say. I looked up the last time a negative-procedure statutory instrument had been annulled in the House, and it was 38 years ago. I do not know how many Members have been in the House for 38 years, but many of us will not have had that opportunity. So much for “taking back control”.

There is no point in the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister saying, “We would not use these powers: take our assurance.” If they would not use them, they are unnecessary, and if they are unnecessary they should not be put before the House for approval today.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The case that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making is for an amendment to clause 9. He is not making a case against the principle of the Bill, which is what Second Reading debates are about, and as he and his party are determined to vote against the principle of the Bill, he ought to make that case.

[Keir Starmer]

I have only just started.

[Alison McGovern]

The Secretary of State made great play of the claim that the Bill was necessary for certainty. Given the legal situation that my right hon. and learned Friend has just excellently elucidated, does he agree that the powers that the Bill gives Secretaries of State to regulate every aspect of our lives mean that it is a charter for uncertainty for ordinary British people?

[Keir Starmer]

I do, and I shall attempt to demonstrate that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I will press on. I know that Members want to intervene, but I heard what you said, Mr Speaker, about the number of Members who want to make speeches. I will take interventions at intervals, if that is satisfactory to the House.

Clause 7, “Dealing with deficiencies arising from withdrawal”, takes the same approach as clause 9, as does clause 8, “Complying with international obligations”. All those provisions are channelled into the negative procedure with the least possible scrutiny: they constitute a giant sidestep from parliamentary scrutiny on the most important issues of our day. But let me top it off. If you think that is bad—and I do—try clause 17. Subsection (1) states:

“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate in consequence of this Act.”

So anything in consequence of the Act can be done under clause 17. Again, this is a proper, robust Henry VIII provision. Let us look at subsection (2). It states:

“The power to make regulations under subsection (1) may…be exercised by modifying any provision made by or under an enactment.”

That means amending primary legislation. In case anyone is in doubt, subsection (3) states:

“In subsection (2) “enactment” does not include primary legislation passed or made after the end of the Session in which this Act is passed.”

So the Government can amend any legislation whatsoever—primary legislation—including legislation in this Session. Everything in the Queen’s Speech that is coming down the track could be amended by delegated legislation under clause 17. I have never come across such a wide power, although I have come across consequential powers. The Secretary of State will no doubt point to other statutes that provide for not dissimilar powers; I have looked at them, but I have never seen one as wide as this.

Members should not just take my word for it. A minute ago, the Secretary of State said that no one could suggest that this was a legislative blank cheque for the Government. Let me read out what has been said by the Hansard Society—not a political body, not the Opposition, but the Hansard Society—about clause 17.

“Such an extensive power is hedged in by the fact that any provision must somehow relate to withdrawal from the EU, but given that this will arguably extend to every facet of national life, if granted it would, in effect, hand the government a legislative blank cheque.”

Those are the words of the Hansard Society.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will complete this part of my presentation, if I may.

What is the scope and extent of that legislative blank cheque? How many pieces of delegated legislation are we concerned with? As the Secretary of State said, the White Paper suggested that there would be between 800 and 1,000, the vast majority of which would be dealt with via the negative procedure route. I do not think that the White Paper could, or did, take into account the further instruments necessary to implement the withdrawal agreement, but there could be very many more—well over 1,000 pieces of delegated legislation, given the least possible scrutiny.

[Vicky Ford]

rose—

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I will complete this point, and then I will give way.

I was glad to see that the Prime Minister was here earlier. Yesterday, during Prime Minister’s Question Time, she told the House that “the approach”—the Government’s approach to the Bill—

“has been endorsed by the House of Lords Constitution Committee.” —[Official Report, 6 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 148.]

I read the report again last night, and I have doubts about that endorsement.

[Vicky Ford]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

When I have finished this point.

As the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State will know, this morning the House of Lords published a further report on the Bill, which reached the following conclusion:

“The executive powers conferred by the Bill are unprecedented and extraordinary and raise fundamental constitutional questions about the separation of powers between Parliament and Government.”

The report—published by the Committee that the Prime Minister prayed in aid yesterday—went on to say:

“The number, range and overlapping nature of the broad delegated powers…would fundamentally challenge the constitutional balance of powers between Parliament and Government and would represent a significant—and unacceptable—transfer of legal competence.”

Far from being an endorsement, that is an explicit and damning criticism of the Government’s approach.

[Mr Leslie]

I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, who has pointed out what a joke the Bill is. It sets out all those supposed safeguards, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend correctly pointed out, Ministers can make regulations to modify it. We are disappearing down an Alice in Wonderland rabbit-hole of legislation. Is it not also true that it does not matter when Ministers—the Prime Minister, or the Secretary of State—say, “Trust us: we will not use these regulations”? They could be here today and gone tomorrow, and the hon. Member for the 18th century—the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—could be Prime Minister. We could be totally in his hands, and there would be all these powers.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way to both the Members who have been trying to intervene.

[Anna Soubry]

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that under clause 9, what is being called “the divorce bill”—the amount of money that we may have to pay to the European Union when we leave—could be agreed by a Minister, or by the Government, without this place having any say in the amount that was paid?

[Keir Starmer]

If it did not come under clause 9, it would certainly come under clause 17.

[Vicky Ford]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I give way, and I apologise for giving way to the two Members in the wrong order.

[Vicky Ford]

As a new Member, I also looked at advice on how Parliament has looked at statutory instruments, and I, too, saw that the last time such instruments were annulled by this House was back in 1979. The issue then was the cost of paraffin, and I remember 1979 and the high cost of fuel; it was a significant issue. However, given that the Secretary of State has said in response to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) that he is prepared to consider a sifting process, which means serious issues do come back to this House, what is the right hon. and learned hon. Gentleman’s alternative—what is he proposing?

[Keir Starmer]

It is not as if this point is being made for the first time today: these are the points that have been made since the White Paper was published—the moment we dealt with it. That was in March, the Bill was published in July, and there have been numerous reports since then, and I raised at the time the significant issues I am raising now, and there has been no move from the Government.

[Chris Bryant]

The key point about clause 9 is that the Government have asked Parliament to allow them to alter the Bill themselves by secondary legislation once it has been enacted. If we look through the history of the 20th century, we will not find a single Bill that has ever sought to do that—not in time of war and not in time of civil emergency. In fact, every single emergency powers Act has expressed said that there shall not be a power for Ministers to alter primary legislation.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. It powerfully—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I am on my feet answering the last intervention, which powerfully makes the point that this Bill is unprecedented in its scope. That is significant because the Secretary of State will point to some of the safeguards under the Bill for the exercise of some of these powers, but if delegated legislation can amend the Bill’s powers once enacted then notions of exit day, how far the delegated legislation goes and which procedures are used could be amended by the delegated legislation. So it is a very real point.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to press on.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to press on.

Let me turn from parliamentary involvement to the protection of rights. Many rights and protections derived from the EU are protected in delegated legislation under the European Communities Act 1972. Because they are underpinned by EU provisions, they have enjoyed enhanced protection—44 years’ worth. They include some very important rights: the working time rights of people at work; the rights of part-time and fixed-term workers; the transfer of undertakings provision, which affects everybody who is at work if their company is taken over, so that their contracts are preserved, which is something we all believe in; and all health and safety provisions have been handled by delegated legislation under the 1972 Act, too. It did not matter that it was just delegated legislation, because they had enhanced protection because of the 1972 Act and our membership of the EU. The same is equally true of important environmental rights and protections for consumers. Under this Bill, the Secretary of State says they survive, and I accept that, and he does have a commitment to rights at work, but they do not survive with their enhanced status; they survive only in delegated form. From the date of this Bill, they are amendable by delegated legislation. All of those rights at work, environmental provisions and consumer rights are unprotected from delegated legislation.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

On health and safety protections, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, of course, that there is a 1974 statute—the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974—which gives not just employees safety protections, but members of the public who are affected by conditions in the workplace. Surely that in itself acts as the primary protection to workers in this country under health and safety provisions?

[Keir Starmer]

No, I am afraid it does not. The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 all post-date that, and in any event that does not deal with all the other rights I have mentioned.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making an excellent speech. On environmental standards, does he agree that there is another problem—a governance gap? With the lack of the ECJ and the Commission, there is nothing to enforce those environmental standards, and therefore we need a new legal architecture; judicial review is not enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I am very grateful for that intervention, because one thing that is not on the face of the Bill is any enforcement provision for rights currently enforced in one or other way through EU institutions, or even reporting obligations. It is fair to say that there is the provision in the Bill for the creation of public authorities—by, guess what, delegated legislation—and maybe that could be used for remedies, but it is by no means clear on the face of the Bill, and that is an important deficiency.

Let me complete this point: does it matter that these rights have lost their enhanced protection? Yes, it does. Taking back control obviously carries with it that this Parliament can change those rights, as the Secretary of State rightly set out, but this is to change them by delegated legislation, not primary legislation; that is an important distinction.

Does it matter? Would anybody have a go—surely not in the 21st century? Well, in June 2014 the current Foreign Secretary called for an end to “back-breaking” employment regulations, specifically the collective redundancies directive. The current International Development Secretary during the referendum campaign called for the Government to halve the amount of protection given to British workers after Brexit. And the International Trade Secretary—[Interruption.] I am addressing the question of whether it is conceivable that a Conservative Government might change this; I am reading out the statements of three Cabinet members. In February 2012 the International Trade Secretary—I know the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has heard about this quote already this morning—wrote:

“To restore Britain’s competitiveness we must begin by deregulating the labour market. Political objections must be overridden. It is too difficult to hire and fire and too expensive to take on new employees. It is intellectually unsustainable to believe that workplace rights should remain untouchable while output and employment are clearly cyclical.”

The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has a proud record on human rights and protections of people at work, but these are the statements of Cabinet colleagues, and this power in this Bill allows these rights to be overridden by delegated legislation.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Is there not a fundamental contradiction in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been saying? A moment ago he was worrying that power would be lost from this House; now he is saying that power should in fact be with the European Union. Is not the fundamental point of this Bill that it is better that laws should be made by our Government and our Parliament than by an unelected EU bureaucracy?

[Keir Starmer]

I am obviously a very bad communicator: I thought I was suggesting that workplace rights, environmental rights and consumer rights should only be capable of being taken away by primary legislation. If there is any doubt, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when I say primary legislation I mean legislation in this House; I thought that was taken as read.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

Does not the last intervention point to the fundamental misunderstanding that some have about this Bill—and I am afraid the Secretary of State mentioned it earlier? The point is whether the UK is going to become a rule-taker rather than a rule-maker. Our membership of the European Union has allowed us to influence the directives and regulations which have then been taken on board in this House and through our laws. What we are doing in this Bill—I will expand on this in my remarks—is not repealing, but reintroducing European legislation into this country, contrary to the intentions of those who wanted to leave the European Union.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention and agree with it.

May I move on to other rights, because they are dealt with more severely? Clause 5(4) singles out the charter of fundamental rights for extinction. There are thousands of provisions that are being converted into our law and will have to be modified in some cases to arrive in our law, but only one provision in the thousands and thousands has been singled out for extinction—the charter of fundamental rights. As the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) argued in an article published yesterday, the principles of the charter provide

“essential safeguards for individuals and businesses”.

That has been particularly important in the fields of LGBT rights, children’s rights and the rights of the elderly.

The Secretary of State asks why this matters. I have here the High Court judgment in the case of David Davis MP, Tom Watson MP and others v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department. This was in 2015, when the present Prime Minister was Home Secretary. David Davis the Back Bencher was bringing to court the now Prime Minister. He will recall that he was challenging the provisions of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. He was concerned that they would impinge on the ability of MPs to have confidential communications from their constituents. He continued to make that point in debates that we were having a year or two ago. In his argument, he cited the charter. His lawyers made the argument that the charter was important because it went further than the European convention on human rights and therefore provided added protection.

I will not read out paragraph 80 of the judgment, although I am sure that the Secretary of State is familiar with it. As he knows, the Court found in his favour—he was right: the charter did enhance his rights—and rejected the arguments of Mr Eadie, the distinguished QC representing the then Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister. So when the Secretary of State asks whether this move will make any difference, the answer is yes. We can see that from his case. I suspect that if he were still on the Back Benches, he would now be talking to me and others over a cup of coffee about how we should fiercely oppose clause 5(4) and ensure that it came out of the Bill.

[Mr Grieve]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point. Reading the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I think he asked why this mattered because he would insist that the general principles of EU law being preserved would replace the charter. However, if they are not justiciable because we do not found a cause of action in our courts, the ability to assert those rights would evaporate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

That is exactly the point that was made earlier. To say that the changes do not matter because we can find that right elsewhere, but then to remove the right to do anything about an effective remedy, would mean that the exercise had achieved absolutely nothing.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to explain why other distinguished gentlemen—namely, Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith—fought so resolutely to exclude the charter of fundamental rights from the Lisbon treaty and, furthermore, failed because their protocol did not actually work?

[Keir Starmer]

No. I spent 20-plus years as a human rights lawyer interpreting and applying provisions such as the charter and acting for many people to whose lives it made a real difference, as the Secretary of State will know.

I want to move on the question of devolved powers. At the moment, EU law limits the powers of the devolved institutions. On withdrawal, the default position ought to be that the devolved institutions would have power over matters falling within the devolved fields, but clause 11 prevents that and diverts powers that ought to go to Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast to London, where they are to be hoarded. That is fundamentally the wrong approach, but it is totally consistent with the Government’s approach of grabbing powers and avoiding scrutiny.

On that topic, let me deal with exit day, a crucially important day in the Bill. It is the day on which the European Communities Act will be repealed. It is also the day on which the role of the European Court of Justice will be extinguished in our law, and that matters hugely, whatever anyone’s long-term view, particularly for transitional arrangements. I heard the Secretary of State say this morning that he wanted transitional arrangements that were as close as possible to the current arrangements. I think he knows, in his heart of hearts, that that will almost certainly involve a role for the European Court of Justice—although he will say that it would be temporary.

Exit day, the day on which the role of the Court is extinguished, is crucial. Without it, we might not be able to transition on the terms that the Secretary of State was suggesting this morning. He knows that. Control over exit day is therefore hugely important. Who will have that control? People talk about bringing back control, and they might think that Parliament would have control over this important issue. But no. Enter clause 14, which states that

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

This will be in the sole power of a Minister. Anyone simply passing this Bill must be prepared to be a spectator on the question of what the transitional measures should be and how they operate. That is a huge risk to our national interests.

[Wes Streeting]

The Secretary of State said earlier that it was “silly” of me to raise the transitional arrangements in relation to our continuing to be in the single market and the customs union. If the Bill is enacted and we are outside the purview of the ECJ and not subject to EU law, we will effectively be ruling out membership of the single market and the customs union during the transition. How will that bring stability and certainty to British businesses? Why is this provision in the Bill?

[Keir Starmer]

This is the conundrum that the Secretary of State and the Bill have created. If exit day is in March 2019, it is difficult to see how we could transition on terms similar to those we are now on. What could we do? We could choose to push exit day two years down the line. [Interruption.] No? Well, if we did not do that, but we recognised that the ECJ was necessary to the process, we would end up repealing what was once this repeal Bill, only to have to bring it back in again. That is the extent of the absurdity of the powers in the Bill.

[Joanna Cherry]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making an outstandingly concise and forensic speech dissecting the difficulties in the Bill. He has drawn our attention to the problem with the definition of “exit day”. Does not that problem also feed into the delegated legislative powers? Clause 7(7) states that Ministers cannot make regulations

“after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.”

If exit day is going to disappear down the line, as the shadow Secretary of State has suggested, would not the power to make delegated legislation continue for even longer than the Government are now proposing?

[Keir Starmer]

It certainly could. The only way out of that would be to have multiple exit days. Members might think I am joking, but someone who drafted the Bill has thought of that, and it is conceivable that there could be multiple exit days, all chosen by a Minister and not by Parliament.

The combined effect of the Bill’s provisions would be to reduce MPs to spectators as power pours into the hands of Ministers and the Executive. This is an unprecedented power-grab—“rule by decree” is not a mis-description—and an affront to Parliament and to accountability. The name of the Bill was changed from the great repeal Bill to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The word “great” should have been preserved, however. The title should have been changed to the great power grab Bill. Labour voted for the article 50 legislation, because we accept the referendum result. As a result, the UK is leaving the EU. That we are leaving is settled. How we leave is not. This Bill invites us to surrender all power and influence over that question to the Government and to Ministers. That would betray everything that we are sent here to do. Unless the Government make very significant concessions before we vote on Monday, Labour has tabled a reasoned amendment and will vote against the Bill.

EU Exit Negotiations

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me notice of his statement. I also thank him for what I hope will be his agreement to update the House in this fashion after every round of the talks. I think that he has agreed to do that, and I am grateful.

We accept that the negotiations are complex and difficult, and I understand the Secretary of State’s frustration at points with the process and sympathise with the view that some phase 1 issues cannot fully be resolved until we get to phase 2. Northern Ireland is a classic example of that. Although he will not say it, I am sure he is equally frustrated by the deeply unhelpful “go whistle” and “blackmail” comments from some of his own colleagues. I am sure that colleagues and officials in his Department are working hard in these difficult negotiations and I pay tribute to what they are doing behind the scenes. However, the current state of affairs and the slow progress are a real cause for concern. The parties appear to be getting further apart, rather than closer together. Round 3 of the five in phase 1 is gone, and we would now expect agreement to be emerging on the key issues. The last round is in October, and that should involve formal agreement. There is now huge pressure on the negotiating round in September. If phase 2 is pushed back, there will be very serious consequences for Britain, and the concept of no deal, which I hoped had died a death since the election, could yet rise from the ashes—[Interruption.] Great? The second cause for concern is that it is becoming increasingly clear that the Prime Minister’s flawed red lines on issues such as the role of the European Court of Justice or any similar body are at the heart of the problem, as is the matter of progress on EU citizens here and abroad. The Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Government need to be much more flexible on that issue. I fear that these examples will crop up not only in phase 1, and that these flawed red lines will bedevil the rest of the negotiations. It is a fantasy to think that we can have a deep and comprehensive trade deal without shared institutions, and the sooner we face up to that, the better.

That brings me to my third concern. We are obviously reaching the stage of the negotiations where fantasy meets brutal reality. The truth is that too many promises have been made about Brexit that cannot be kept. The Secretary of State has just said that no one pretended this would be easy, but the Government were pretending it would be easy. The International Trade Secretary promised that a deal with the EU would be

“one of the easiest in human history”

to negotiate. A year ago, in the heady early days of his job, the Secretary of State himself wrote that

“within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete…we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU.”

He went on to say that

“the new trade agreements will come into force at the point of exit from the EU, but they will be fully negotiated and therefore understood in detail well before then.”

Even this summer, the Government published position papers riddled with further fantasies. The “track and trace” customs idea was put forward on 15 August as an apparently serious proposition, only to be effectively removed on 1 September by the Secretary of State himself, with the admission that it was merely “blue sky thinking”.

The time for floating fantastical ideas is over. There must be no more promises that cannot be met. This is the brutal reality. We need to know how the Secretary of State intends to ensure that real progress is made in the September round. Is he intending to intensify the talks? Does he accept that it is now time to drop some of the Prime Minister’s deeply flawed red lines, in order to create the flexibility that he says is necessary? When will we see position papers that actually set out the Government’s considered position on the key issues?

[Mr Davis]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments at the beginning and for recognising that not only on Northern Ireland in particular, but on many other issues, the future relationship is indistinguishable from the ongoing negotiations. That is one of the problems in this negotiating exercise and it arises directly because the Commission is seeking to use keeping the first part of the negotiations going as a pressure point against Britain in the future, and I will return to that in a moment because I have a point to make.

On citizens’ rights, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman holds up as being—I have forgotten what his phrase was, but it involved something about red lines. Anyway, citizens’ rights is not the issue that is vexing the Commission. In fact, internal progress has been remarkably effective. He is quite right about the European Court of Justice, but everything else has been going pretty well. I expect that we will conclude most of those issues—in outline, not in text—quite soon. However, what does the right hon. and learned Gentleman actually want the Government to do? The Commission is saying, “Unless we give approval that sufficient progress has been made, we will not go on to the main substance of negotiation: the ongoing rights.” What is it seeking to get from that? It is seeking to obtain money. That is what this is about. Do members of the Labour party want to pay €100 billion in order to get progress in the next month? Is that what they are about? That is what they were saying. I hope that the answer is no, but what we heard from the shadow Brexit Secretary was a beautiful piece of lawyerly argument that ignored the simple fact that this is a pressure tactic to make us pay. We are going to do this the proper way. We are going to represent the interests of the British taxpayer and that means rigorously interrogating every line of the argument on funding line by line. That is the way that we are going to go.

As for the other elements that the right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about, I do not resile at all from the intention to negotiate a first-rate free trade agreement with the European Union in the course of the next two years. That is why we published all the position papers. He tried to rubbish one or two of them, but let me cite one to him: the customs paper. By the way, saying that something is blue-sky thinking is not to rubbish it; it is to say that it is imaginative and forward-thinking. The position papers were designed to make points to our European partners so that they could see what the future might look like under our vision. Let me give him the response of Xavier Bertrand, the president of Hauts-de-France, which includes Calais and Dunkirk—our nearest ports in France. He said:

“We welcome with great interest the initiatives announced by the British government…as they are likely to preserve trade between the UK and France”.

France is supposedly the country most resistant to our arguments and to free trade, but the man responsible for Calais and Dunkirk said that that is the way that we should go and that is the way that we will go.

Brexit and Foreign Affairs

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

When Britain voted in the referendum one year and four days ago, the question on the ballot paper was narrow and technical—to remain in or to leave the European Union—but the vote was far from narrow and technical. People saw different questions behind those boxes. Above all, the referendum was a vote on the state of the nation, just as the general election turned out to be. The nation is fed up with inequality, fed up with low wages, fed up with under-resourced public services, fed up with the imbalances between our nations and regions, fed up with austerity, and fed up with politics and politicians. If ever there was a need for a Government capable of transforming the country both economically and politically, it is now. Britain needed a transformative Queen’s Speech last week, but this Government are too weak to deliver it. The Queen’s Speech is threadbare and lacking in ambition. There is no detail, and there cannot be, because the Prime Minister gambled and lost. A majority has become a minority. All bets are off for the future. Just when we needed strong government, we have uncertainty and fragility, and I suspect that history will be a harsh critic.

It does not end there. When the Prime Minister made her statement calling for the general election, she said:

“Every vote for the Conservatives will make me stronger when I negotiate for Britain…Every vote for the Conservatives will mean we can stick to our plan”.

She wanted a landslide; she ended up in a mess—her own description. She now has no majority, no mandate, and no authority, and it tells.

The outcome of the first round of negotiations showed how unrealistic the Government’s rhetoric has been. The Secretary of State promised before the election that there would be the “row of the summer” over the Commission’s proposed timetable and schedule for the negotiations. By lunchtime on Monday, he had folded. The Government have also managed to get on the back foot in relation to EU citizens. Had they acted quickly and unilaterally, as Labour repeatedly said that they should, they could have set the agenda. The EU did so instead and stated its position in April: full rights as they are currently enjoyed to be guaranteed and underpinned by the European Court of Justice. The Government’s position is now seen by the EU as an inadequate response.

Although the Prime Minister struggled to give an adequate answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Secretary of State and I know, and our EU partners know, that the rights of family reunification currently enjoyed by EU nationals will change, and they will be subject in future to financial and other qualifications that apply more generally. The rights will change, and that is perhaps why that question was avoided. I hope that we get an agreement on EU citizens and on UK citizens, and I hope that we get an early agreement to settle the anxiety, but the Government’s approach to date has made that harder to achieve than it should have been.

[Mr David Davis]

On a point of information, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman—congratulations by the way—whether it is now Labour policy to support the rule of the European Court of Justice within the United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

Let me deal with that in relation to EU citizens first. I will discuss it more generally when I get to that part of my speech.

As far as EU nationals are concerned, we need to understand the worries of our EU partners. Whatever agreement is put in place, they recognise that it has to last for the lifetime of EU nationals here—the lifetime. In some cases, that will mean 50-plus years. They know how our system works. They know that no one Government can bind the next. Their concern is understandable. What is given in good faith and assured today can be taken away in a year, two years, five years or 10 years, yet their citizens want to live their lives here for decades. That is why they want some mechanism, external to our parliamentary regime, to underpin those rights. It is no answer to their concern simply to say, “We have the best judges; we have the Supreme Court,” because, as the Secretary of State understands, if the law of this country changes in five years and these people’s rights are reduced, our Supreme Court will have to apply the legislation as it is then rather than any agreement that is reached now. That is their concern.

When pressed on the matter last week, the Prime Minister made it clear—I think this is in the document that was produced today—that this will be an international agreement and will therefore be subject to international enforcement. It is a pretence that this can all be done within our courts and our own jurisdiction. I will come to the wider question later, but if we are talking about honesty and proceeding in a grown-up way, it would be far better if the Government recognised the EU’s core concerns and found a way of ensuring that they are met, because this is about the lives of real people for decades and decades.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will make some progress, if I may.

Back home, the divisions are obvious. The Chancellor’s Mansion House speech last week was clearly an attempt to spike the Prime Minister’s Brexit approach. Thus he spoke of a “jobs and prosperity first” Brexit. That reflects the Labour party manifesto, in which we spoke of a “jobs and…economy first” Brexit. The Chancellor also spoke of an

“early agreement on transitional arrangements”

and no “cliff edge” for the economy, and that is in the Labour party manifesto, which said we would

“negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a ‘cliff-edge’”.

He has clearly been reading about our position.

The Chancellor spoke of a “management of migration”, not shutting it down. The Labour party manifesto spoke of

“fair rules and reasonable management of migration.”

Was his speech a personal view, the Government’s view, or the view that he hopes the next Prime Minister will take? Clearly we cannot go on like this.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will in just a moment.

This approach is damaging our reputation abroad and weakening our position. Like the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, I was in Brussels last week. The talk in Brussels is, “What is going on? How long are this Government going to last?” We have put ourselves in the worst possible starting position.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

While we are on the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s manifesto, will he clear up an important point? Directly after the general election, having fought on a manifesto that made it clear that the Labour party would take back control of the borders, his leader, the shadow Chancellor and the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) made it clear that Labour’s position was to take back control of our borders, and to leave the single market and the customs union. Subsequently, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has gone out and said that leaving the single market and the customs union are not absolutes and are on the table. Will he clear up what the Labour party’s position really is?

[Keir Starmer]

That is not an accurate reflection of what I said. I will come to that in due course—[Interruption.] I will come to it when I get to that part of my speech.

The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State need to acknowledge the effect of the general election on their Brexit strategy. If the general election was an attempt, as the Prime Minister said, to strengthen her hand on Brexit, the outcome is a powerful case for a rethink. It is time to press the reset button. First, the tone and approach have to change. The belligerent, hostile attitude to date has alienated our allies and left Britain isolated. We need a more constructive and responsible approach. We share values with our EU partners, with whom we have a shared history. We will continue to share values, and we want a shared future: not membership of the EU—that was decided last year—but a full and meaningful partnership, based on principles of co-operation and collaboration. [Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary does not understand. I am talking about tone and approach, which is particularly pertinent for him. Anyone who has been backwards and forwards to Brussels knows very well how badly some of his comments have gone down with our EU partners. This is about building an environment in which we can get the best deal for our country, which is in all our interests.

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

Speaking of tone and approach, may I request that the right hon. and learned Gentleman changes his tone and approach to something a bit more positive? Brexit is an opportunity for our country to grasp, not a crisis to manage. It is hypocritical and arrogant of him to look behind what the British people voted for last year.

[Keir Starmer]

One of the biggest risks to these negotiations is utter complacency—the failure to realise the risks and complexity of the negotiations. It is quite right for the Opposition to challenge the Government at every twist and turn to ensure that these negotiations go as well as possible.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will make some progress.

In addition to tone and approach, the second thing that needs to change is that we need to drop the “no deal is better than a bad deal” mantra.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will make my point and then I will give way.

No deal would be a miserable failure. As the Chancellor said last week, no deal would be a very, very bad outcome indeed, but it is what happens automatically on 29 March 2019 if we do not reach agreement—we will be gently pushed over a cliff. Threatening to jump does not kid anyone. No deal means no agreement at all—no agreement on trade, no agreement on security and no arrangements for passing on information, because that is all done according to an EU framework.

[Mr David Davis]

All?

[Keir Starmer]

Not all, but most of it. The Secretary of State knows this very well and he should not belittle it. If we do not reach agreement, we will have nothing in place to replicate current arrangements for passing across security, intelligence, counter-terrorism and counter-crime information—[Interruption.] There is no point in the Foreign Secretary giving that pained expression. No agreement will also mean that we have not reached an agreement on aviation, the Northern Ireland border or EU citizens. That is what no deal is; no deal means no agreement.

The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said that we must be honest in this debate. He must know in his heart of hearts that no deal is an untenable position for the United Kingdom to find itself in in 2019, so let today be the day when we bury the phrase, “No deal is better than a bad deal.”

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

For the shadow Secretary of State to be balanced in his view on no deal, he also needs to talk about what no deal means for the EU27. We looked at this on the Foreign Affairs Committee and, actually, the experts say that no deal is as harsh for the EU27 as it is for the United Kingdom. A bit of balance in the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s words would go down well in developing a common policy on this issue.

[Keir Starmer]

I readily accept that not only do we need a deal but that the EU needs a deal, which is why we should not talk up no deal as a viable strategy or adopt the Foreign Secretary’s position that no deal is perfectly okay. No deal is not a viable or tenable option. No deal means that we have not agreed anything.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the shadow Secretary of State accept that by adopting a narrative that is so wholly uncritical of the European Union, he leaves himself and his party open to the charge that they wish to subvert the will of the British people? Does he hold to page 6 of his own manifesto, which says we wish to leave the European Union?

[Keir Starmer]

I do not think that shooting the idea that no deal is viable, tenable or, honestly, a position we could possibly arrive at in 2019 is adopting the position of the EU. It is actually adopting the position of the UK. The UK needs a deal to safeguard its interests. This is a point made in the national interest.

[Mr Jenkin]

It is realistic to imagine that we will not get a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU when we leave and that interim arrangements will persist under WTO rules, which may well be zero-tariff rules, but we would have to believe the EU was seriously insane if it wanted to ground all flights between the UK and the EU, if it refused to offer the products and standards arrangements it has with 100 or more other countries—whether or not it has a free trade deal with those countries—or if it wanted to check every Mini exported to the EU to see whether it fits the EU’s definition of a car. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really think the EU is so insane that it would want to do that?

[Keir Starmer]

This mischaracterisation of the point I am making does not help. This is not the EU demanding here; if we do not have a lawful basis for these activities in the UK, we do not have the authority to do this. It is no good talking up a “no deal” as if it is a viable, tenable option.

[Andrew Bridgen]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to press on to my third point about the reset: we need a razor-like focus on how we retain the benefits of the single market and the customs union. The Secretary of State stood at that Dispatch Box on 24 January and promised this House that we he would reach an agreement that provided the “exact same benefits” as single market membership and the customs union. He knows, because we have raised it repeatedly since then, that we will hold him to that; it is one of the six tests I set out for the Government to meet in the final agreement.

[Mike Gapes]

Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that the best way to get the benefits of the single market is by staying in it? [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr George Howarth)]

Order. The shadow Secretary of State will be heard, and if that means people being removed from Chamber, that will happen.

[Keir Starmer]

Our manifesto was absolutely clear about retaining the benefits of the single market and the customs union. As for membership, although almost everybody who wants a progressive new relationship with the EU wants to retain the benefits of the single market and the customs union, almost everybody accepts that that cannot be done in an unreformed way, because of the rules of the single market as they now are. The question of whether we start from reform of the single market or from a bare agreement and then work up is secondary to the outcome we want to achieve. The outcome we want to achieve is: no tariffs for goods going across from us to the EU, and vice-versa; no new red tape at customs, including rules of origin; and a deal that works for services as well as for goods.

We have to recognise the concerns of the EU, and two in particular. First, the main concern is that if we are released from all obligations of a regulatory nature in relation to moving goods and services across Europe, we will be able to undercut EU countries economically. Secondly, if we strike free trade agreements that are released from any of the standards and regulations that they apply, there is the prospect of flooding the UK with goods and products from other countries which do not meet those standards and/or go into Europe. Those are the issues we need to negotiate.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I want to deal with this point, because I know it is an issue of real concern to my party. We have said that the outcomes are what matter, not the model for achieving them.

[Mr Jenkin]

I listened carefully to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying, and he said he does not want to have to adopt rules of origin. How will we avoid doing so unless we are in a customs union relationship with the EU?

[Keir Starmer]

I have said on a number of occasions that we should leave being in the customs union on the table. What the Government have done is to sweep these options off the table without evidence, without facts and without assessing the risks. We have said that what we should do is focus on the outcomes. One of the best ways to achieve tariff-free access across Europe is to have the customs union on the table at least as an option to consider.

[Mr David Davis]

I apologise for interrupting the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s flow, but the leader of his party said a couple of hours ago in this House, when I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in the Chamber, that he wanted to strike free trade deals around the world. How is that possible if we remain a member of the customs union?

[Keir Starmer]

The Secretary of State knows very well what I said, and I said it carefully—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mark Garnier)]

Chaos!

[Keir Starmer]

I am not sure how I respond—[Laughter.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr George Howarth)]

Order. I am not quite sure what all the hilarity is for. This is a very serious matter and it should be debated in a serious manner.

[Keir Starmer]

I am just considering how I respond to a cry of “chaos” from a Government who two months ago had a majority but now have a minority and are going into a grubby deal with the DUP. The Secretary of State will have heard exactly how I put it: we focus on retaining the benefits of the single market and the customs union—the exact same benefits, to use his phrase. [Interruption.] I am answering the question. The Secretary of State talked about the “exact same benefits” of the customs union. How is that to be achieved? [Interruption.] You did. You know you did, because we have put it to you several times since. My answer was not a fixed position saying, “We must have this model when we start the negotiations.” My answer is: focus on the outcomes and leave options on the agreement until we have some assessment of the risk and costs of the different options. One thing we do not have from the Government is any assessment of the risks and costs.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to press on to dealing with transitional agreements—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am not sure what part of the words “I am going to press on” right hon. and hon. Members do not understand. The Opposition spokesman has made it clear that he intends, for the present, to press on, and that should be respected until such time as he changes his mind.

[Keir Starmer]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If we are to obtain the exact same benefits of the single market and the customs union, it would be a good start if the Government now accepted that the negotiations will not be complete by March 2019, that transitional arrangements will be needed if we are to avoid a cliff edge and that transitional arrangements must safeguard our economy and jobs, and provide certainty for business. This also means that by the time of the final agreement at the end of transitional arrangements, a model or framework will have to have been agreed which truly does deliver the exact same benefits as the single market and the customs union. We also need a recognition—if we are being honest—that in the end, if we are going to have a meaningful and ongoing relationship with the EU, a court-like body will be needed to settle disputes. I refer not just to state to state disputes, but business to business disputes and individual to individual disputes.

We need to address a further issue on reset: the involvement of Parliament. For the first six months after the referendum decision, the Government fought in the courts to prevent this House having a say even on the triggering of article 50. They then called a general election to crush the opposition to their Brexit strategy, and that approach has to change. There needs to be a much stronger role for Parliament; we need to strengthen scrutiny and accountability, not push it away. Let us start in the following way—I hope and believe this will be agreed: this House needs a formal statement from the Secretary of State after each round of the negotiations, so that we can hear how he reports on progress and we can ask questions. I ask him to set that precedent now and agree that he will come to this House to report in a formal statement.

[Mr David Davis]

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the answer is yes, I will. The only reason we did not do this today is that we had a statement from the Prime Minister on, in effect, the same subject and, I was hoping, a whole day’s debate on it now.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that, and I understand the point he makes about what happened today—we had a discussion about it earlier. I am grateful that he will set the precedent for the future rounds, the dates of which we know, to come back to this House at the earliest opportunity to make a statement so that we can debate it and question him here.

Let me turn to the repeal Bill. We recognise the need to entrench all EU rights and protections in our law—I said that when the White Paper was published and I say it again now—hence our manifesto proposed an EU rights and protections Bill designed to that end. How it is done matters. As proposed, the repeal Bill would contain sweeping powers for the Executive, with no enhanced safeguards. The statutory instrument procedure has no enhanced safeguards. That is far too sweeping to be accepted across this House. I hear what the Secretary of State says and I take him at his word when he says that there will be no limitations, no qualifications and no sunset clauses. I hope that that message is getting through to his Back Benchers, because many of them campaigned to leave the EU on the very basis that those rights should either not exist or be much reduced or limited. I look forward to seeing a strong three-line Whip through this Bill, making sure that there are no limitations, no qualifications and no sunset clauses.

The repeal Bill does not include the Charter of Fundamental Rights—I hear what the Secretary of State says about that—or any future proofing to ensure that we do not fall behind our EU partners as standards evolve, particularly in the workplace. There are at least seven other Bills, but there is no detail about them because no agreement can be reached on what to put in them.

The Prime Minister called a general election saying that it would provide “certainty and stability” as we enter the Brexit negotiations. Nothing could be further from the truth. We need a deal, and a deal that works. We have started the negotiations in the worst of all circumstances. Britain deserves better than that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is right. One thing that I think people have missed and he has picked up on is that any change in those rights would require primary legislation in this House. In addition, our plan is to put through the great repeal Bill and have subsequent consequential primary legislation that will underpin those rights. I have made those points to many of my opposite numbers, the interlocutors for other member states, and said that this will be taken at the same time as protection of British rights abroad. They have all understood and welcomed that. I am very confident that we can get a deal that will protect all of the, I think, 4 million in very short order.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Let me pick up on that theme. As the Secretary of State knows, about 3 million EU nationals are very anxious about their status when we leave the EU. Labour would unilaterally guarantee their status from day one. Under this Government, all they can do is apply for consideration for permanent residency, but as the Brexit Select Committee warned in March:

“The current process for consideration of permanent residency applications is not fit for purpose”.

The Secretary of State knows how important this is. Have things improved?

[Mr Davis]

I respect the hon. and learned Gentleman’s concern in this area. Let me be clear about that. However, I would say to him that the system there now is not designed to deal with 3 million. That has been made plain. In fact, if he goes on the Home Office website, he will see that it says not to make an application now—there is no need to. When we move the primary legislation it will be a matter for the Home Office, but I believe it will be very simple when it comes to that point.

[Keir Starmer]

As the Financial Times reported yesterday, the Home Office is now saying, “Don’t apply”. Is that the Government’s official position for EU nationals—“Don’t apply for permanent residency”? Is that how they will deal with that anxiety?

[Mr Davis]

What that is about is a reflection of what is on the Home Office website, which essentially points out that EU citizens do not need to apply for their rights to be underpinned. That is the approach we are taking. The hon. and learned Gentleman should bear in mind that for the next two years, irrespective of anything that the Government do, all the existing rights and privileges continue to apply. There will be no change in that respect. Before we come to the point of exit from the European Union, we will have made that very clear in primary legislation.

Legislating for UK Withdrawal from the EU

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement and the White Paper.

Nobody underestimates the task of converting EU law into domestic law. The question is: how is it done and what is to be done? On the question of how, the White Paper gives sweeping powers to the Executive. They are sweeping because it proposes a power to use delegated legislation to “correct”, and thus change, primary legislation and devolved legislation, and because of the sheer scale of the exercise.

In those circumstances, one might expect some pretty rigorous safeguards for the use of those sweeping powers, but there are none to be found in the White Paper. On the contrary, paragraph 3.20 states:

“Given the scale of the changes that will be necessary and the finite amount of time available to make them, there is a balance that will have to be struck between the importance of scrutiny and the speed of this process.”

The White Paper goes on to say:

“The Government proposes using existing types of statutory instrument procedure.”

There are no enhanced safeguards for that sweeping use of powers.

In those circumstances, we have to go back to first principles. There should be no change to rights and protections without primary legislation—that is a starting and basic principle—and the same goes for policy. I add this: when we see the Bill, it must give no power to change rights, obligations and protections by delegated legislation. Will the Secretary of State provide assurances on those basic principles and look again at safeguards for the proposed delegated legislation procedures?

Again, there have to be clear principles for converting EU law into domestic law. All rights and protections derived from EU law must be converted into domestic law, with no limitations, no qualifications and no sunset clauses. This morning we need an assurance from the Secretary of State that he will face down those on his own side who will not be able to resist the temptation to water down those rights and protections before they are even put into the Bill. I remind him that the International Development Secretary said during the referendum campaign that we should

“halve the burdens of the EU social and employment legislation”.

The International Trade Secretary has said:

“we must begin by deregulating the labour market.”

We need an assurance that those temptations will be faced down before the Bill is put before the House.

I turn to the charter of fundamental rights which, it is proposed, will be left out altogether. The charter codifies in modern form all EU rights. It is not directly enforceable —it is a codification—but it is none the less influential, and it is wrong simply to leave it out. I note what is said at paragraph 1.12 of the White Paper, but I seek an assurance from the Secretary of State that all relevant rights—I accept that some are not relevant, such as the right to vote in the European Parliament—and all substantial rights in the charter will be converted into domestic law through the Bill.

Finally, on devolved bodies, Brexit should not be an excuse to hoard powers in Whitehall. There has to be a heavy presumption that devolved matters will remain devolved as powers and responsibilities transfer from the EU to the UK, so I ask the Secretary of State to give us an assurance about that.

[Mr Davis]

At the end of my statement, I said that I hoped the House would come together in making this task happen. I reiterate that point to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), my opposite number. He says that no change should be made to rights through delegated legislation, but I would have thought that that almost goes without saying. [Hon. Members: “Then say it!”] While I say that it almost goes without saying, I actually said that in my statement, if hon. Members read it.

Let me reiterate that the use of delegated legislation will be for technical changes—the sort of alteration whereby, for example, a reference to a regulatory body in the European Union clearly has to be replaced with a reference to a body in the UK. Frankly, I think that that is as plain as a pikestaff. The hon. and learned Gentleman changed his wording slightly by talking about “all relevant rights”, and he is quite right to do so, because things such as the right to stand as an MEP, the right to elect an MEP and, indeed, the right to make a direct application to the European Court will go automatically. He is a reasonable man, so I take it that he accepts that.

On charter rights, let me remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of what happened with the Lisbon treaty in 2007. The Labour Government of the day negotiated that treaty and a protocol to it, about which the Prime Minister of the day said:

“It is absolutely clear that we have an opt-out from both the charter and judicial and home affairs.”—[Official Report, 25 June 2007; Vol. 462, c. 37.]

Actually, Mr Tony Blair was wrong to say that; he had misunderstood the Labour Government’s own protocol, which guaranteed that no new rights arose as a result of the charter of fundamental rights. That was reiterated later by the then Government in court and by their then Europe Minister, who said:

“The Protocol confirms that since the Charter creates no rights, or circumstances in which those rights can be relied on before the courts, it does not change the status quo.”

The 2007 White Paper said the same thing, and only last year—I think in December—the Joint Committee on Human Rights reiterated that understanding.

We looked at that matter very carefully because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman might appreciate, it is an area that I take very seriously indeed. Aside from the undertakings that he has asked for, I make this offer to him: if, in the next two years, we find something that we have missed, we will put it right. On that basis, I do not think that we have an argument. I do not think that that will happen either, because a clause-by-clause search through the whole charter did not throw up any significant issues, other than things such as the MEP matter.

On the treatment of the devolved Administrations, the first thing to say is that no powers currently exercised by them will be taken away. We have said that time and again. We also expect that there will be a significant increase in the powers exercised by the devolved Administrations. However, I say this to the hon. and learned Gentleman: we have to maintain the United Kingdom internal market, too. That market is four times as important to Scottish businesses, for example, as the European market, and it is incredibly important to Northern Irish and Welsh businesses as well. The Administrations understand that. We will be holding discussions with them at length—we have already started those discussions—about how we execute this. I will be happy to talk to the hon. and learned Gentleman about the matter as well, if that would be useful to him. I reiterate that this is a difficult task, but it is by no means beyond the ability of the House to achieve this properly, respecting our democracy and delivering for the British people.