Oral Answers to Questions
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I am very glad that the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) was heartened by the tribute from Paul Flynn, but it seems to be manifest and incontrovertible that he exhibits star quality. Indeed, it is as manifest, incontrovertible and predictable as the passage of the seasons, for goodness’ sake.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
During yesterday’s debate, the Minister for the Cabinet Office clarified that, in the event of the House voting on 14 March for an extension to the article 50 process, the Government would be required to bring forward legislation and that the House would have a chance to approve whatever final extension length might be agreed with the EU. I have a simple question for the Secretary of State: do the Government foresee that legislation being primary or secondary, and will it be the means by which the House could express its view on the proposed length of the transition?
Stephen Barclay
The hon. Gentleman is getting slightly ahead of himself. Before the vote on 14 March, we have a vote on 12 March. This Government are committed to winning that vote, and therefore the vote on 14 March will not apply.
Draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Consequential Modifications and Repeals and Revocations) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. The Minister has already made clear the reasons why the European Statutory Instruments Committee recommended that the draft regulations be upgraded, and why he accepted that recommendation. I agree that the draft regulations are largely technical in nature and uncontroversial. For that reason, we do not intend to divide the Committee today, and my remarks will be brief.
I want, however, to probe the Minister on two specific points about the draft regulations. The first relates to part 5, which gives effect to the schedule. As he made clear, part 5 makes consequential repeals to EU-related domestic legislation in relation to parliamentary approval for accession treaties for other member states to the EU; the Single European Act and other treaties; and devolved representation in EU institutions for certain regional purposes. As he said, the repeals appear to be similar in intent to those that we considered late last year in the draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2018, in the sense that they appear to be cosmetic and are required only to tidy up redundant references that will be of no continuing legal or practical consequence following the repeal of the European Communities Act. Given the complexity of the draft regulations that we are considering, will the Minister confirm for the record that the relevant repeals concern matters of genuine post-exit redundancy and have no effect on anything that is done prior to exit day under them or in connection with them?
My second point about the draft regulations relates to parts 2, 3 and 4, all of which, as the Minister said, concern how cross-references in domestic legislation to EU law will be understood after exit day. As the Minister has set out, schedule 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act makes it clear that the current ambulatory relationship between certain UK legislative instruments and EU law will cease after exit day, to be replaced by an ambulatory reference to the new body of EU retained law. The provisions in part 2 of the draft regulations, and similarly for devolved legislation in parts 3 and 4, clarify how non-ambulatory references—references that do not currently allow for automatic updating subject to developments at an EU level—should be understood.
The fact that the draft regulations require this clarification suggests that the Government believe that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act does not provide for the correction to non-ambulatory references in the same way as it does for ambulatory references. I find it somewhat difficult to understand why that Act did not make provision for how non-ambulatory cross-references to EU legislation up to the point immediately before exit should be read and, consequently, why the draft regulations are required to correct that omission.
Why did the European Union (Withdrawal) Act not address non-ambulatory references? Was it an oversight—an understandable one, perhaps—or did the Department intend to identify all the non-ambulatory references to EU law one by one and use the correcting power in section 8 of the Act on them, only to realise subsequently that compiling an exhaustive list would be more difficult than creating a general rule? Whatever the reason, I think that the Committee, and anyone following our proceedings, would benefit from an explanation from the Minister.
Oral Answers to Questions
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She and I co-existed in the European Parliament for a time, back when I was younger and she was the same age as she is now. She will understand that her constituents voted to leave the European Union, and they expect us to deliver on the result of that referendum. The one way of doing that is by having a deal. Over the course of the referendum she and I have debated all the different difficulties that there will be in getting a deal across the line. We have a very good deal on the table—she should vote for it.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Earlier this week the chief executive of the civil service publicly confirmed what Ministers know and the public suspect, which is that despite the huge amounts of money being thrown at it, the Government will not be fully prepared to exit the European Union in 64 days’ time without a deal. Will the Minister finally come clean with the public and admit that a no-deal exit on 29 March is not just “sub-optimal”, it is simply not a viable option?
Chris Heaton-Harris
This House voted to activate article 50, and the legislation before us means that we will leave the European Union on 29 March. I would very much prefer to leave with a deal, as would the hon. Gentleman, and I think he should vote for it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Barclay
The hon. and learned Lady has discussed these issues with the Attorney General on a number of occasions. Obviously, I cannot prejudge the court case, but the position of Her Majesty’s Government is very clear: we will not be revoking article 50, and there is a reason for that. The Commission has a very similar view: if someone could revoke, in essence they could go to the last day of a judgment and then revoke and retrigger the process. That would make a mockery of the two-year period for article 50 and that is why we do not think that is the right position.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s analysis of the recent Budget suggested that there could be an underspend of up to £400 million in the £1.6 billion Brexit funding pot that the Chancellor allocated back in March to prepare for leaving the EU. Will the Secretary of State tell the House precisely how much of that Brexit funding pot has not yet been spent?
Stephen Barclay
Such is the Labour party’s desire to spend that the idea of any underspend is anathema—there is always a desire to spend more and spend more again. As the Chancellor has made clear, the Budget money will be allocated to deliver on the no-deal plans. The significance of those plans is recognised in government and all the requests that have been made have been discussed in the usual way and gone through the usual Treasury clearing process.
Matthew Pennycook
Given that the Department’s role is now largely confined to domestic preparations for exit, many will find that answer deeply troubling. But it is not surprising that no-deal preparations are not being taken seriously, because they have been a bluff from the start. Yesterday, the Chancellor told the Treasury Committee that the infrastructure works needed to prepare the port of Dover for an exit on World Trade Organisation terms would take years, not months. With 113 days left, will the Secretary of State now take this opportunity to rule out a no-deal Brexit once and for all—before this House does it for him?
Stephen Barclay
The hon. Gentleman has clearly not read the transcript of my session at the Select Committee. What he will see from that is that the role of the Department is not constrained to merely the domestic side, although that is of huge significance. We are also focused on moving forward on the political declaration and looking to the future. Yes, the withdrawal agreement deals with the winding-down of our relationship of over 40 years with the European Union, but we are also focused on taking forward the political declaration to deliver on the future trading relationship that we want with our closest trading neighbour.
Draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2018
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
May I, too, say that it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck?
The regulations are uncontroversial, so we do not intend to divide the Committee and I do not intend to detain us for very long, but I would like to probe the Minister on a number of points in the hope that he may be able to offer some answers.
It is an essential feature of the rule of law that legislation is not only clear but can be understood by those who are bound by it. Given that principle, will the Minister confirm plainly for the record that the purpose of schedule 1 to the regulations, which repeals provisions contained in two Acts of Parliament and repeals a third in its entirety, is only to tidy up redundant references to approval procedures for certain EU treaties, and that it therefore has no bearing, either directly or indirectly, on how any future treaty or treaties with the European Union will be approved and ratified? On a related point, can he confirm that any withdrawal agreement, subject to the additional procedures for approval that have been agreed, will still have to be laid before Parliament under the terms of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 as a matter of law?
Turning to the various issues raised by schedule 2 to the regulations, could the Minister give the Committee a sense of why the Government feel that they have to legislate in this way and whether it is a direct response to the concerns set out by the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee? Its main concern was that clause 8 of the EU (Withdrawal) Act allows for tertiary lawmaking powers currently exercised at EU level to be reassigned to a domestic Government agency or other public body, say the Food Standards Agency or the Environment Agency, and for that agency or body to then make changes to the law in the same way that a Minister would, but without those changes being approved by this House by means of a statutory instrument pursuant to an Act of Parliament. If that is the reason for legislating in this way, will the Minister confirm that the schedule 2 is nothing more than, as he put it, a means of tidying up to ensure consistency and clarity and to close that loophole so that lawmaking powers contained in retained direct EU legislation will henceforth be subject to the same forms of domestic scrutiny as lawmaking by SI under Acts of Parliament?
I will take this opportunity to press the Minister on the wider issue of the progress that the Government have made to date in their legislative preparations for exit day. We all know that we will need approximately 800 to 1,000 SIs to be passed to ensure that we have a functioning statute book on 29 March next year—assuming, that is, that the Government do not use the forthcoming withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill to repeal the fixed exit day that they themselves inserted into the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. A recent report by the Hansard Society found that, so far, only 71 SIs have been laid before Parliament and that even processing SIs at the pace we have seen to date appears to be creating problems, with 20% of the SIs put before the European Statutory Instruments Committee found to contain some form, minor or otherwise, of technical deficiency. Given the importance of processing the hundreds of SIs necessary for an orderly exit, will the Minister give the Committee a sense of precisely how the Government are going to ensure over the coming weeks that all the SIs necessary will have been passed before exit day?
Oral Answers to Questions
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dominic Raab
I am confident that the authorities in Dublin are well aware of the implications of no deal. All of us, on all sides—not just in this House but in the EU—want to lock horns, close the outstanding issues and seal the good deal that will serve everyone’s interests.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
As you will know, Mr Speaker, Labour’s 2017 general election manifesto was rightly hailed as a transformative blueprint for a Britain that works for the many, not the few, but even we did not go so far as to propose the nationalisation of roll-off, roll-on lorry ferries. In addition to contingency plans for Government-owned or operated logistics, can the Secretary of State tell us which other industries the Government are considering taking into public ownership under a no-deal scenario?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to look at all possible contingencies to ensure that in a no-deal scenario British businesses and livelihoods are safeguarded. I think it was rather unfortunate of him to refer to the Labour manifesto, because with the Labour party’s current commitment to rejecting any deal that the Government bring back opening the door to a second referendum, the Labour leadership have driven a coach and horses straight through the promises that they made to every Labour voter at the last election.
Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I very much welcome the fact that we are having it.
I suspect that many right hon. and hon. Members, particularly those who took part in its Committee stage, will share my view that the year-long passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was perhaps the most demanding legislative exercise that Parliament has undertaken in recent decades. The process of overlaying and amending that byzantine piece of legislation with the proposed EU withdrawal agreement Bill will be equally, if not more, complicated and onerous. That is why we welcome the publication of the White Paper before the summer recess and the opportunity for further debate today on the Government’s early expectations for that Bill.
I want to touch on three distinct issues. The first is the relationship between the proposed Bill and the recently enacted European Union (Withdrawal) Act. The second is what is not covered in the White Paper: the parts of the withdrawal agreement that remain unresolved but which will need to be resolved if we are to avoid crashing out of the EU with no deal, which would be the hardest and most damaging of departures. The third is the political declaration on the future framework and the type of document that the Opposition believe will be required for Parliament to make an informed judgment about whether the final deal should be supported.
I know that many Members want to contribute, so I do not intend to cover all the parts of the withdrawal agreement made at the March European Council, such as the negotiated financial settlement or the issue of citizens’ rights, which the Minister touched on. We will, of course, fully scrutinise the Bill as it applies to those issues when it is published and the technical details become clear.
Chris Bryant
There is an issue there, is there not? Drafting legislation normally takes time. There are only so many draftsmen and women in this country, and they tend to take their time. Even a very simple Bill can take months to draft. The idea that we would consider a Bill only days after the negotiation had been settled is for the birds, is it not? It is inconceivable that we will get legislation through both Houses before the end of March.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It will be difficult, which is why it is imperative that the Government bring back a negotiated agreement at the earliest opportunity. I hope that Ministers will confirm that it remains the Government’s intention to do so after the October EU summit. If the passage of the withdrawal Act is anything to go by, the Bill may be in trouble time-wise.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend has set out some clear and important tests to be met. Will he join me in welcoming the news today that the general secretary of the TUC, Frances O’Grady, has been very clear about the TUC’s position and that of trade unions across the country given the absolute shambles and chaos that we are seeing from the Government, let alone the time constraints that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) rightly pointed out?
Matthew Pennycook
Yes, I do welcome today’s announcement from the TUC. We have been clear that in the event of no deal, all options must be on the table. As I think I said in a debate just before the summer recess, we have to remember what no deal would mean: it would be a complete failure, in two years, of the Government’s entire Brexit policy. In that situation, as I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates, we would be facing something akin to a constitutional crisis. At that point, every option must be on the table.
Several hon. Members rose—
Matthew Pennycook
I am going to make a little progress, if that is okay.
Let me turn to the relationship between the proposed withdrawal agreement Bill and the recently enacted European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which received Royal Assent on 26 June. Arguably, the most striking feature of the Bill that is the subject of the White Paper is the extent to which it will modify the European Union (Withdrawal) Act that this House and the other place spent more than 250 hours debating, and the fact that in many cases it will do so before the relevant provisions of that Act come into force. Of course, that partly reflects the degree of conditionality and uncertainty that any Government would face in attempting to legislate for Brexit, but in some cases it simply reflects the fact that this Government, scrambling desperately to keep their extreme Brexiteers onside, chose on more than one occasion to prioritise political gimmickry over the dictates of common sense. Such choices were exemplified by the Government’s decision last November to fix an exit day in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, and in so doing to restrict needlessly the sensible and necessary degree of flexibility that they had originally proposed in respect of an exit day for the purposes of that legislation.
No doubt many Government Members, still intoxicated by the fact that a symbolic reference to 11 pm on 29 March 2019 has been written into UK law, will defend that decision, but the fact is that the proposed Bill touched on in the White Paper will strip that reference of any legal significance. As paragraph 56 of the White Paper makes clear,
“EU law will continue to have effect in the UK in the same way as now”
until the transition period ends on 31 December 2020. Even the most ardent Brexiteers on the Government Benches cannot fail to note the irony that the Government’s flagship “great repeal Bill”, as the European Union (Withdrawal) Act was initially labelled, will not only preserve EU law in its entirety as of 31 December 2020, but will only emblematically repeal the European Communities Act 1972 at the point at which the UK ceases to be an EU member state.
Sir William Cash
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House at the time, but it may be of some interest to him that I made this very point on 18 July, just as the House was about to rise for recess, because there is a real inconsistency. After all, the White Paper came out on 12 July, yet the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, including the repeal of the 1972 Act in section 1, went through only around 14 days before.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman is right, but it is an inconsistency of the Government’s own making, because they chose symbolically to repeal the ECA in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, and in this new Bill they are going to unpick the very legislation that we passed because, as paragraph 60 of the White Paper makes clear, the ECA will be “saved” for the duration of the implementation period and will continue to be legally effective until 31 December 2020. What is saved is not merely select parts of the ECA, but almost all its key provisions. Chapter 3B of the White Paper makes it clear that the Bill will ensure that throughout the transition, the EU doctrines of direct effect and primacy will continue to apply, including with regard to EU law that comes into force after 29 March next year; the legal basis on which most EU-derived domestic legislation stands will be preserved; and, as paragraph 80 of the White Paper sets out, the full role of the European Court and the binding nature of its rulings will be preserved.
The White Paper argues that repealing the ECA in name only, while in practical effect preserving its effect throughout the transition, is the most effective way to provide continuity and certainty to business and individuals. With the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and its fixed exit day already enacted, that may well be the case, but it is difficult to see why the flexibility provided for in the original drafting of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which allowed for Ministers to determine different exit days for different purposes, would not have achieved the same end, with the added benefit of saving us all a great deal of parliamentary time. The whole farcical saga highlights how when it comes to Brexit-related legislation, the Government have an unhealthy tendency to indulge in short-term tactical gimmicky at the expense of what is sensible and what is in the best interests of the country.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has welcomed the White Paper and encouraged the Government to come forward and finish the negotiations as quickly as possible. Will he disclose whether, if those negotiations are completed, he will vote for the outcome? If not, is he not the person who is guilty of political gimmickry, rather than Government Members?
Matthew Pennycook
I am well used to the hon. Lady asking questions that are slightly out of left field, but I fail to see how the Opposition can give an opinion on whether we will back a deal about which we do not know the full details and which is still being negotiated. We will faithfully apply our six tests when the deal comes before us, as we all hope it will.
The political gimmickry must stop, and when we approach this next Bill, we hope that the Government will focus on what is the most effective way to legislate for the issues in hand, but there is good reason to fear that that same short-termism—a myopic approach driven by whatever will buy Ministers a few days or weeks of respite from the predations of the European Research Group—could stand in the way of a sensible resolution to those parts of the withdrawal agreement on which no agreement has yet been reached. It is to that issue that I shall now turn.
As Members will know, several aspects of the agreement remain unresolved, of which the two biggest are the mechanism for settling future disputes and the Irish border. It is on the second of these that I shall focus, because the issue of how we avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland is clearly now the major sticking point to concluding a withdrawal agreement. We can talk as much as we like today, and on future days, about how Parliament will legislate for a withdrawal agreement, but if the issue of the Irish border is not resolved, there will not be a final deal to legislate for.
Catherine West
Does my hon. Friend agree that it comes down to what happened last Christmas in relation to the Northern Ireland question, and that we are again getting obfuscation after obfuscation? We are never getting to the point of what the actual deal for Northern Ireland is.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I shall come on to say, we need urgent, rapid progress on this issue, given the time constraints that we face.
Many Brexiteers—although, I must make clear, not all—continue to belittle the Irish border issue on the grounds that it is a problem that has been exaggerated by nefarious Brussels bureaucrats or those at home who seek a close future relationship with the EU. Having initially dismissed the issue as posing no threat to the peace process, they now seek to talk down the Good Friday agreement. Their behaviour is not only irresponsible, but misunderstands the significance of the open border as the manifestation of peace on the island of Ireland. The border is a deeply political problem, not just a technical problem. It is about not merely how we avoid a hardening of the border, but how we ensure continued co-operation in a range of areas—economic and social as well as political—as set out in the Good Friday agreement.
Anxiety on both sides of the border and across all communities about the risk of no deal, or the failure to agree a legally binding backstop, is very real, and it is growing. Of course, the best means of solving the issue would be to secure agreement on a future relationship that is compatible with protecting north-south co-operation and avoiding a hard border, thereby ensuring that any legally binding backstop that might be agreed will never be used, yet the ideological red lines that the Prime Minister outlined in her Lancaster House speech are fundamentally incompatible with securing a future relationship of that kind.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my frustration that although the UK Government agreed in December last year that their primary responsibility was to introduce specific proposals for the Irish border, in the intervening period we have seen next to nothing of substance from them? All they are doing is throwing stones at the partly completed proposal that the EU has had to introduce out of sheer desperation because the UK has offered nothing in return.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, over recent weeks I have seen some of the most ardent Brexiteers—people who wanted to take back control of our borders, incidentally—saying that they would just leave the border completely open. They are not going to be the ones who erect infrastructure. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has made it clear that because we chose to leave, the onus is on the UK Government, as well as the EU27, to come up with a solution that avoids any hardening of the border.
The Chequers proposals were designed to move the negotiations on, but it is patently obvious that they cannot command a majority in this House and would not be acceptable to the EU without further significant modifications of the kind that the Prime Minister cannot deliver because of the bitter divisions in her own party. The negotiations on this issue are at an impasse. Despite a summer of talks, little progress has been made on agreeing a legally binding and operable backstop. It is imperative that progress on this issue is now made and made quickly. With the second week of October being the effective deadline for sign-off at the October EU summit, there are now only a matter of weeks before the issue must be resolved. Both sides have an obligation, based on the solemn commitments they have given, to defuse the tensions that have built up around this issue, and both sides must now redouble their efforts to deliver a solution. What would make a legally binding backstop easier to agree, because it would ensure that it would be less likely to be used in the future, is a very clear signal on what the future relationship is likely to look like. That point was made at the end of last month by the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs.
That brings me to the final issue I want to touch on before drawing my remarks to a close—the framework for the UK’s future relationship with the EU, or, more specifically, the political declaration that will accompany the divorce settlement if agreement is reached across all outstanding areas. Arguably, it is the contents of that political declaration, more than the details of the withdrawal agreement itself, that the House will focus on when it comes to pass judgment on the deal that we all hope—genuinely hope—the Government are able to conclude and put before us later this year.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you may have noticed that the notion of a so-called blind Brexit has received a great deal of attention over recent weeks, yet it has always been a distinct possibility. That is partly because there is every incentive for the Government, practically and politically, to bring back a withdrawal agreement that contains a political declaration that is highly ambiguous. To do so would be unacceptable. A vague political declaration on the future framework would not be a solution to the problems that we are grappling with; it would be tantamount to avoiding those problems altogether. As the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said earlier—she is not in her place now—that would leave the UK in a far weaker position during the transition than we would otherwise be, and we on the Opposition Benches would not accept that.
John Redwood
The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely important and interesting point. What does the Labour party think are the minimum strong clear commitments that would be required to make the political declaration acceptable?
Matthew Pennycook
I hope that the Minister will agree with us on this. We want a political declaration that is extensive, precise and substantive. When this House votes on the final deal, it must have a very clear signal of what the future relationship will be like—not a vague statement that allows us to crawl over the line to 29 March next year without any sense of where our relationship will end up in future. As I have said, the Opposition would not accept such a vague document.
When the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration are put before us, we will faithfully apply the six tests that we set out in March of last year. Let me be very clear: those six tests cannot, in our eyes, be met simply by failing to address them altogether. The political declaration on the future relationship must be sufficiently detailed and clear that hon. and right hon. Members are able to arrive at an informed judgment about whether the final deal and the future relationship are good enough for the country and for their constituents.
I appreciate that the negotiations are ongoing and that the drafting of the declaration is not yet under way, but in his summing up, I hope that the Minister will provide greater clarity on this matter. In particular, will he provide the House with a greater sense of the type of political declaration that the Government will be pushing for at Salzburg, an idea of the level of detail the Government believe that it needs to contain, and confirm, or reaffirm, that the Government still require a document that is both precise and substantive?
In conclusion, as I said at the outset of my speech, the Opposition welcome the White Paper as well as the opportunity to debate in more detail the legislation that we all hope will be laid before us later this year, but we urgently need a change of approach and pace from the Government. When it comes to the forthcoming European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, we hope that we see less of the short-term political gimmickry that we have seen in the past and more serious consideration of what is the most effective way to legislate. To that end, we call on the Government to allow pre-legislative scrutiny of those sections of the forthcoming Bill that relate to aspects of the withdrawal agreement that have already been agreed.
When it comes to the crucial issue of the Irish border and the default backstop, we need the Government to do everything they can to defuse the tensions that have built up around the issue and play their part over the coming weeks in delivering a solution. Finally, when it comes to the political declaration on the future framework the Government need to press for a document of sufficient precision and detail to allow the House to make an informed judgment.
The clock is ticking. The Government must shift their focus away from the deep divisions in their own ranks and towards what is needed to secure a deal that will work for the country. Urgent progress is essential not only to secure a withdrawal agreement, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, to ensure that full and proper scrutiny of the legislation that will be required to enact it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have made a narrow exception where there will be a common rulebook for agricultural goods and manufactured goods at the border, but only to the extent that that is necessary to ensure frictionless trade—and even there, elected Members in this House will have the last word. Of course, the UK Supreme Court will finally do what it says on the tin, which is to have the last word on the application of the laws of the land.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Fears that the schism at the heart of the Tory party is driving the country towards a no deal Brexit are once again on the rise, and it is clear that the new Secretary of State is stepping up preparations for such a scenario. Will he therefore tell the House what specific advice his Department is giving to the financial services sector on how to prepare for an EU departure without a deal?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Of course, many of the banks and people in the City are already preparing and are very confident that they can withstand any of the uncertainty in relation to Brexit negotiations. We have been preparing for some time now. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) for all the preparatory work that he has done. We will be starting to step up some of those preparations. Some of that will become more publicly facing in the weeks and months ahead. That is necessary, and any responsible Government would have to do it. We will obviously set out the details of that shortly.
Oral Answers to Questions
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The media inevitably focused on the personalities involved in the Cabinet row over a customs backstop last week, but it is the detail of that policy that really matters, so I ask the Minister a very simple question: are we to take from the fact that the Secretary of State and his other two colleagues are still in post that the Government’s position is not to accept, under any circumstances, a customs backstop that is not time-limited?
Mr Walker
The Prime Minister has been clear that the backstop arrangements would be time-limited, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that the fact that our entire ministerial team is in post is a sign that our party is united, unlike the Labour party, which has now had 100—100!—resignations from its Front Benchers or Parliamentary Private Secretaries.
Matthew Pennycook
Not really an answer, Mr Speaker. Last week’s backstop paper only dealt with customs, but we know that a solution to the Irish border issue requires agreement on far more than that; it requires full regulatory alignment on goods to facilitate all aspects of north-south co-operation. Does the Minister accept that, and will the Government be making the case for full regulatory alignment on goods in future discussions with the EU?
Mr Walker
As the hon. Gentleman will know if he has looked at the detail of the joint report, we are talking about alignment in those areas necessary for the functioning of the border and ensuring that there is no hard border. That does not mean full regulatory alignment across all areas; it means specific areas relating to agriculture and industrial goods that could otherwise result in tax at the border. We were clear in our presentations to the EU that there is further discussion to be had on that.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Matthew Pennycook Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Davis
My hon. Friend goes to the heart of the problem, which is that we have to consider that anything passed in this House and the other House will have a very serious effect on the negotiating strategy of the other side. I hope that this House will recognise that the Government have taken a fair and positive approach to the new clause, retaining those elements that are sensible and viable, while removing those elements that are practically and constitutionally untenable. These constitutional and practical concerns also apply to Lords amendment 20, on a mandate for negotiations on the future relationship. The Government cannot demonstrate the flexibility necessary for a successful negotiation if their hands are tied mid-way through that process. That will do nothing but guarantee a bad deal for Britain. It is for the Government to set the direction during the negotiation. That is the key point.
I do not need to remind the House about the importance of this legislation. The purpose of this Bill is to maintain a functioning and effective statute book when leaving the European Union—a statute book that people and business can rely on. That is what our approach will deliver.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
May I start by paying tribute to their lordships for the diligent and considered manner in which they so thoroughly scrutinised the Bill? In particular, I pay tribute to Labour colleagues in the other place for the extensive effort they put into securing many of the cross-party amendments that we are debating today.
This Bill began life as a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation. Many of its original flaws stem, I suspect, from the fact that at the time it was being drafted, the Government had yet to fully work through precisely how withdrawal would have to take place. Indeed, some of us still remember the Secretary of State’s glib dismissal of the need for any transitional arrangements after 29 March next year, and the misplaced magnanimity with which he made it clear that he would only consider granting transitional arrangements to “be kind” to the EU. But as with so many aspects of the Brexit process—even if not yet in every respect—reality has slowly caught up with the Government, just as the very real deficiencies in this Bill have now been subject to thorough scrutiny in the other place.
If anything has vindicated the Opposition’s decision to vote against this legislation on Second Reading, it is the succession of defeats that the Bill has faced in both Houses, as well as the scores of amendments that the Government themselves have had to table. That said, after successive defeats in the other place and the latest round of concessions from Ministers, some of the worst aspects of the Bill have been ameliorated.
As we only have three hours of debate on the first group of amendments, I intend to touch only briefly on most of the Lords amendments towards the end of my remarks, and focus instead on what we believe to be the critical issue in this first group. That is the issue of what form parliamentary approval of the withdrawal agreement should take. Many of the amendments passed in the other place are of great significance in terms of their constitutional implications and how they might shape what is left of the Brexit process. It is deeply disappointing that the programme motion only allocates 12 hours to debate them.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Rather than praising the Lords for the number of amendments they have passed, would it not be more in line with Labour party philosophy and views to say that they have gone way beyond their constitutional remit in trying to overturn not only the decision of the electorate but the decisions of both the Labour party and Conservative party manifestos, which together received 82% to 84% of the vote at the last general election?
Matthew Pennycook
I respect my hon. Friend’s argument and his long-held views, but I have to fundamentally disagree. None of their lordships’ amendments seeks to frustrate the Brexit process in any way or to allow this House to overturn the referendum result.
Wes Streeting
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and pay tribute to the work that our Front-Bench Brexit team in this House and in the Lords have done to improve the Bill. The Secretary of State was not courageous enough to take my intervention, so may I ask my hon. Friend what does more to harm the Prime Minister’s hand at the negotiating table—the principle of parliamentary consent; the Foreign Secretary making damaging, unguarded remarks at a private dinner; the Brexit Secretary playing the hokey cokey about whether he is going to stay in the Government; or the spectacle of Ministers resigning because their own Government are too intransigent to listen to the constructive and sensible direction on Brexit that many of us would like them to pursue?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is nothing more damaging. As the Secretary of State himself said, the EU monitors with great interest developments in this House and what is said across the country. It sees the open warfare and disagreement in the Cabinet and the Foreign Secretary continually undermining the Prime Minister’s approach.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Matthew Pennycook
I am just going to make some progress.
Lords amendment 19 is of critical importance. In many ways, it is the most important amendment that we will consider over the 12 hours allotted. Before I explain why and set out the reasons why we agree with Lords amendment 19 and disagree with the Government’s amendment (a) in lieu, it is worth taking a little time to remind the House how we arrived at this point.
As hon. Members may recall, before 7 February last year Parliament was to be given absolutely no role in approving the final terms of the UK’s exit from the EU, because there was no commitment from the Government to a parliamentary vote of any kind. Under pressure, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), came to the Dispatch Box during the Committee stage of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill with a concession—a vote on a motion in this House and the other place on the article 50 deal, including the framework for a future relationship. We welcomed that concession, but we were clear that it did not provide for a meaningful vote, merely a vote on a non-binding motion and one that would essentially take the form of “take it or leave it”—accept the final draft withdrawal agreement, even if it is found wanting, or accept that the UK will walk away without a deal, triggering the hardest of departures from the EU.
Matthew Pennycook
That is absolutely right, and I thank my hon. Friend for that point.
Frank Field
Some people in this House have been quite clear that they want to prevent Brexit. Others disguise that fact with the very careful construction of terms. In the Lords, where there are no constituencies to vote Members out—sadly—people have been more honest. Surely my hon. Friend was wrong to say that there was nobody in the Lords who was saying that this was actually a “stop Brexit” vote; we have already heard a quotation. The aim was to prevent Brexit; the Lords have no responsibility to anybody and they said that that was their aim.
Matthew Pennycook
I have to disagree with my right hon. Friend’s point. I did not say that there were no lordships that do not intend to block Brexit, just as there are hon. Members in this House for whom that is the intention. But the aim of the Lords amendments, as they are designated, is not to frustrate Brexit. There is no majority in this House for overturning the referendum result, as my right hon. Friend well knows. It is disingenuous to say that that is the aim of this amendment.
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not accusing any individual Member of being disingenuous—[Interruption.] I need it to be clear that that is not the case. Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough just to confirm that he is not making any such suggestion?
Matthew Pennycook
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
As I was saying, the choice that faces us under the Government’s amendment is between the draft withdrawal agreement, even if it is found wanting, and the hardest of departures—the most disorderly exit. Let us remind ourselves of what that would mean: legal chaos, significant damage to our economy, the erection of a hard border in Northern Ireland and serious harm to Britain’s standing in the world. That is why in Committee we tabled new clause 66, which would have guaranteed both Houses a vote on the motion on the terms of withdrawal—and, just as critically, a vote in the event that no such agreement is reached.
Matthew Pennycook
I am going to make a bit of progress.
However, we also recognised in Committee stage that there were other requirements needed to ensure that Parliament has a meaningful vote, one of which is the need for a vote on a statute. That is why we supported amendment 7 in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and other hon. Members—an amendment that ultimately passed in this House by 309 votes to 305. That amendment took a slightly different approach in that it was quite deliberately aimed at restricting the use of, and limiting the potential abuse of, the extensive and wide clause 9 power in the Bill as it then stood.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Would the hon. Gentleman care to reflect on the fact that the decision to transfer the vote to the people was done quite deliberately and voluntarily by this House by six to one, as a sovereign Act of Parliament? Any attempt to reverse that is in defiance of the decision that was taken by Act of Parliament.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman makes the same point as many others have done, and I have dealt with it in saying that their lordships’ amendment is not about overturning the referendum result. [Interruption.] No, it is not—not at all. It is about giving Parliament a say in shaping the direction under one scenario that could well occur.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Would it not be one of the most supreme ironies of this entire Brexit debacle if, at the end of it, the European Parliament has a meaningful vote and 27 member states have a meaningful vote, but the state that is leaving—and leaving in a state—does not have a meaningful vote?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Commission cannot approve the deal on the European Union side until the European Parliament has given its consent, and if it does not give its consent, the Commission cannot move on and ratify.
Ms Angela Eagle
My hon. Friend is making the points about a meaningful vote with a great deal of power. Does he agree that if we get to a stage—which I suspect some Eurosceptics want—where we are approaching a disorderly, no-deal, hardest-of-hard Brexits, this House has a right not to be given a fait accompli of a deal that is inadequate, or no deal at all? Is that not what this battle to have a meaningful vote on the deal is actually all about?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the choice that faces every hon. Member in the Chamber today when we come to vote on Lords amendment 19.
Matthew Pennycook
I am going to make some progress.
I want to return to amendment 7 in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield. As I said, that amendment took a very different approach that was about restricting the clause 9 power. That amendment having been passed, the Government cannot now give the final withdrawal agreement domestic legal effect without first gaining parliamentary approval in primary legislation for the planned EU withdrawal and implementation Bill. But what his amendment 7 did not do, consciously and deliberately—I remember him saying so at the time—was deal with a scenario in which Parliament does not approve the draft withdrawal agreement. That scenario, I would argue, cannot be ruled out given how badly this Government are handling the negotiations and the limited time they have left before agreement must be reached.
Several hon. Members rose—
Matthew Pennycook
I am going to make some more progress.
With their new clause, their lordships have developed the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s amendment 7 in its guarantee of a statutory vote and made explicit provision for what would happen if Parliament were not to approve the deal when it is put before us later this year. In those circumstances, under the provisions of their lordships’ amendment, it would be for Parliament, by resolution of this House—the Government having found time for that resolution—and subject to consideration in the other place, to give direction to the Government about how then to proceed. It is not about Parliament taking over the negotiations or about stripping Ministers of their authority to make decisions.
Richard Graham
The hon. Gentleman said earlier that no Lords amendment is intended to frustrate the result of the referendum, but amendment 19 says very clearly that Her Majesty’s Government
“must follow any direction in relation to the negotiations…approved by a resolution of the House of Commons, and…subject to…a motion in the House of Lords.”
That is entirely transferring responsibility for the aims and the detail of everything we negotiate to Parliament and away from the Government. Can he name any precedent for that in the whole history of this nation?
Matthew Pennycook
If such a scenario were to occur—this is the important point; I take head on what the hon. Gentleman has said—it would be for Parliament, although we are talking about any unknown number of hypothetical situations at that point, to direct the Government by resolution. Is he saying that Parliament would come forward and support a resolution to overturn the referendum result? There is no way that that could happen. He knows that there is no majority for that in this House.
Matthew Pennycook
No, I am going to make some progress.
The aim of this amendment is to establish a clear process, with appropriate deadlines, by which Parliament can approve the outcome of the article 50 negotiations, and to provide clarity on what should happen if a majority of hon. Members in this House come to the conclusion that the final deal the Government return with is not good enough for the country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Matthew Pennycook
I am not giving way; I will make some progress.
The amendment is about ensuring that in a scenario where this House rejects the withdrawal agreement, Parliament does not then simply become a passive spectator to what happens next but instead secures a decisive role in actively shaping how the Executive then proceed.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend has said that supporting this amendment would not necessarily lead to a resolution of this House saying that we wish to maintain membership of the European Union. Can he explain, for the purposes of clarity, what safeguards are in place to prevent such a thing from happening, given that we cannot bind Parliaments and that, as such, if we vote for this amendment, we could resolve to tell the Government that re-entry is the point of the negotiation?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is dealing in hypotheticals. Under that scenario, it might be the case that an hon. Member tries to bring forward a resolution, and that the Government provide time, but does he believe, realistically, that such a resolution could pass and would command a majority in this House? It would not.
This is not about frustrating Brexit. Ministers know full well that there is no majority for that in this place, and it is disingenuous, as I said, to argue as much. Lords amendment 19 is about trusting this sovereign House of Commons to do what is right for the country.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is Government’s job to bring forward policy and Parliament’s job—the Commons, in particular—to legislate? It seems to me that far from taking back control or establishing sovereignty, the Government appear to want to deny Parliament its fundamental role as legislator.
Matthew Pennycook
My right hon. Friend makes a good point.
Lords amendment 19 is about trusting this sovereign House of Commons to do what is right for the country should it come to pass that the Government bring back a deal that does not secure approval in this House.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not give way.
By contrast, the Government’s amendment (a) in lieu of amendment 19 would guarantee precisely the opposite. It would ensure that in the event that this House does not approve the withdrawal agreement, Parliament would have almost no role whatsoever.
Matthew Pennycook
I am not going to give way at this point.
Yes, the amendment provides for a statutory guarantee of a vote before the withdrawal agreement is put on the statute book, but it removes from the Bill what their lordships deliberately chose to insert: provision for the legislature to constrain Ministers in deciding to crash us out of the EU without a deal should Parliament choose to reject the deal. What does the Government amendment offer in its place? It offers provision to send a Minister back to the House within 28 days with a statement—a statement!—as to how the Government intend to proceed: a commitment that does not go much beyond what was set out in the written ministerial statement that was hurriedly issued on 13 December in a last-ditch attempt to thwart the House in voting for the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s amendment 7.
Matthew Pennycook
I am not giving way; I will make some progress.
It almost beggars belief. The vast majority of Members of this House want the Government to succeed and to return with the best deal possible, but let us be clear about what it would mean were the House to decline to approve the deal they bring back. That would represent a catastrophic failure of the Government’s Brexit policy and their handling of the negotiations. In such a scenario, are hon. Members really content for the sum of their role to be the chance to listen to a ministerial statement and attempt to catch the Speaker’s eye to ask a question? That is what hon. Members will be giving their consent to if they vote for the Government’s amendment in lieu today. It is the same “take it or leave it” vote that the Government offered last year, with a few extra baubles.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend understand that Labour voters in the midlands and the north, who voted in large numbers to leave the European Union and who are a little bemused at the arguments even among the Cabinet over how that is delivered, do not wish to see the negotiations carried out by 650 Members of Parliament and want to see Brexit got on with? If the Lords amendments are agreed to, how will we explain to those Labour voters that the unelected House of Lords can overturn both the Commons and the referendum?
Matthew Pennycook
I will tell my hon. Friend how we will explain it to them. We will say that their lordships asked us to consider and vote on whether, in the event that a majority of Members of this House do not approve the deal, we should take control of the situation and shape how the Executive then proceed. I think they would support that.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Matthew Pennycook
I am going to make some progress.
There has been a considerable amount of debate over the past 16 months about what is meant by a “meaningful” vote. Any member of the public watching our proceedings today will struggle to understand how a vote on the draft withdrawal agreement that simply takes the form of “take it or leave it” could in any sense be genuinely meaningful. In reality, it would be anything but. It would be meaningless, not meaningful. It would be a Hobson’s choice.
Simon Hoare
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I put it to him gently that his proposition presupposes that the European Union would wish to re-engage in negotiations. Were there to be a meaningful vote and this House were to veto the deal, we would be likely to crash out without a deal and not deliver the pragmatic common-sense Brexit that I think he and I would like to see.
Matthew Pennycook
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Crashing out of the European Union without a deal is exactly what this amendment is designed to prevent. [Interruption.] Yes, it is.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Matthew Pennycook
I said that that was the last intervention; I am not giving way again.
I want to turn briefly to the amendment tabled yesterday evening by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield. We welcome it as a significant improvement on the Government’s amendment in lieu. His amendment is a clear acknowledgment that the Government’s amendment is deficient, that there is a need to make provision for a scenario in which Parliament does not approve a motion on the withdrawal agreement and that this House may need to insist on a decisive role for Parliament in what we all acknowledge would be an unprecedented situation.
We recognise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has, throughout this process, been at great pains to secure a consensus around how this complex legislation can be improved in the context of the many challenges that the Government face. In taking such an approach, his and his colleagues’ intent has not been, as many have suggested and as is plastered across the front of many of the tabloids today, to sabotage the will of the people or betray their country. They are simply trying to secure what the vast majority of hon. Members of this House desire: a proper process codified in law that ensures that the right decisions are made at the right time and that Parliament has the tools to hold the Executive to account effectively on some of the most significant decisions any of us will be asked to take.
Matthew Pennycook
I am not going to give way; I am going to conclude.
The question of what form parliamentary approval of the withdrawal agreement takes is one of the most significant decisions this House will have to take. To be meaningful, a vote cannot simply take the form of a binary “take it or leave it” choice. It must provide a means by which Parliament can indicate to the Government that it desires a re-examination of particular aspects of the draft withdrawal agreement or even a change of approach. Unless hon. Members insist on it, Parliament will not have a genuinely meaningful vote on the terms of our withdrawal, as this House insisted upon in December. That is why we must insist on it and why I urge hon. Members to agree with Lords amendment 19 when we go through the Division Lobby in a few hours.
I want briefly to turn to some of the other Lords amendments in this group, starting with Lords amendments 37, 39 and 125, with which we agree. We remain of the view that amending the Bill to incorporate a specified exit day and time was an ill-conceived and unnecessary gimmick that unduly fetters the Government. Ministers are well aware, just as they were when they amended the Bill in Committee, that exit day for the purposes of the Bill is a very different matter from the actual date on which the UK will cease to be an EU member state, which is a settled matter and a legal certainty. Common sense dictates that we return to the situation before November in which there was a necessary degree of flexibility around exit day for the purposes of the Bill, although we agree with their lordships that it is Parliament, not Ministers, who would agree the various exit dates.
We agree with amendments 110 and 128, which we believe strengthen parliamentary scrutiny—for example, by ensuring that Ministers cannot overturn decisions made by the triage committee. We also agree with amendments 10, 43 and 45, which rightly circumscribe the scope of the sweeping delegated powers in the Bill. We debated that issue extensively in Committee, and we remain of the view that concerns about the subjectivity inherent in the word “appropriate” must be addressed. Lastly, we agree with amendments 20 and 52.
I know that many Members on both sides of the House wish to speak, so I have sought not to repeat or rebut every argument made about each of the Lords amendments in this group with which we agree, but simply to set out, with particular focus on Lords amendment 19, why we believe they must be retained.
Matthew Pennycook
I am not going to give way at this stage.
The amendments in this group are, at their core, about what we, as hon. and right hon. Members, believe the role of Parliament should be in the Brexit process. They are about ensuring that Parliament plays an active role in shaping our country’s future, rather than accepting that the House of Commons is to be little more than a spectator and a passive observer to one of the most important decisions that has faced our country in generations. They are about ensuring that the withdrawal agreement cannot be ratified unless we approve it and, in the event that we do not approve it, that the UK cannot crash out of the EU by ministerial fiat. They are ultimately about reasserting the primacy of the House of Commons, so that this House, should the situation arise, is able to do what is right for our country.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker. I will try to be as brief as I can. Everybody knows that that is an effort for me, but I really will try to be positively terse where I can, and I am afraid that if I give way at all, it will be very briefly. That is only right, because the programme motion we have just passed, which I voted against, allows just three hours for debate on this whole group. I am well aware that hundreds of Members will find it almost impossible to get in, and therefore if I abuse the privilege you have given me, Mr Speaker, I should cause a great deal of damage to the quality of the debate.
First, let me say that I have never known an issue of this importance to be taken in this way. I remember being in debates on the European Communities Bill back in 1972 and in debates all the way through Maastricht, when there were hours and hours of debate and repeated votes before the approval of this House was obtained. Nobody throughout would have dreamt of arguing that as part of the process, the House of Commons could be excluded and the Government could be given an absolute privilege to proceed. Such a suggestion would have been treated as a complete absurdity.