European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and David Davis

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and David Davis

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

The House will be aware that yesterday the European Parliament had a vote on a resolution to endorse the agreement reached last week. Can the Secretary of State tell us why, unlike Labour Members of the European Parliament, Conservative MEPs were whipped to abstain and not to vote in support of that joint report?

[Mr David Davis]

That is very interesting, but it nowhere near compares with the 18 members of the Labour party who voted against.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and David Davis

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I have made this point over and over again. The charter of fundamental rights is essentially a list of existing rights and does not, as far as we can see, generate any new ones. I have said that if the shadow Secretary of State can identify a right that will be lost, we will put it back.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Of all the people the Prime Minister could have chosen to fill yet another vacancy in her Brexit team, last week she settled on someone who has openly called for the scrapping of the working time directive, the temporary agency work directive, the pregnant workers directive and, in his words,

“all the other barriers to actually employing people.”

What signal does the Secretary of State think Lord Callanan’s recent appointment sends to workers across the country about how this Government will approach maintaining their rights at work?

[Mr Davis]

The new Minister in my Department, the noble Lord, is a brilliant appointment, and he will deliver the Government’s policy incredibly well.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The public will rightly be suspicious about the commitments that the Secretary of State has given because they know that the sentiments that Lord Callanan expressed are widely shared on the Government Benches. There is an easy way to solve this: the Secretary of State could accept the amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill that provide for enhanced protection for workers’ rights, not just transposition. Will he think about making a commitment to that principle today?

[Mr Davis]

I am afraid I will take no lectures from somebody who voted against the entire Bill and therefore undermined the protection of all workers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and David Davis

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend raises a point that we have already raised with Michel and the remainder of the team. At the moment, the Union’s negotiating team are taking the approach of stressing what they term legal responsibilities, and we are challenging them. When we get to the end of that, we will make some decisions about political and moral responsibilities, and also negotiating outcomes, and that is where the decision will, I suppose, be made.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

The Government took flexibility to new heights over the summer, taking just under three weeks to jettison one of only two proposals set out in their customs arrangement paper on the basis that they represented “blue sky thinking”. Can the Secretary of State tell us how many of the other proposals set out in the various future partnership papers are effectively just creative ideas that are unlikely to survive contact with reality?

[Mr Davis]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman was paying attention the day before yesterday: I said to him then that blue sky thinking, talking to an American audience, is a description of an imaginative approach.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and David Davis

Thursday 9th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

They will undoubtedly be part of the early discussions, but the need for transitional arrangements will depend on what the final arrangements will be. If we do not know where we are going to end up, we cannot have a transitional arrangement. Also, our overarching offer of a comprehensive free trade arrangement will remove the need for transition in some areas, although not in the highly regulated ones. The Chairman of the Select Committee was exactly right to suggest that aviation is one of those areas, and it is not the only one. The original questioner, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), mentioned data, which is another area in which regulation will matter. In many cases, however, such arrangements will not be necessary.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State tell the House what he sees as the main differences between agreed interim arrangements as part of a phased process of implementing our future relationship with the EU, as sought by the Government, and a negotiated transitional deal?

[Mr Davis]

The reason that we have specified this in detail was that the term “transitional arrangements” meant several different things to different people. For example, some thought that it would be good to have a departure deal and then to spend years in a transitional arrangement carrying on the negotiations. We have specifically differentiated that from what we are talking about; that is not what we want. We want the decisions to be concluded within two years, but implementation might take longer in a whole series of areas, including customs and financial services regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and David Davis

Thursday 1st December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

EU Brexit negotiators have been clear about their intent to pursue the UK for an exit bill of anything up to €60 billion based on an expansive interpretation of our liabilities under the EU budget. That is a colossal sum of money and the British public deserve to know from their Government how accurate it is. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much his Department estimates that it will cost to settle our outstanding liabilities as part of any future withdrawal agreement?

[Mr Davis]

May I start by welcoming the hon. Gentleman back? I understand that he has a new member of his family, on which the whole House will join me in congratulating him. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We have seen an opening bid from the European Union. That is what it is. It is nothing more than the maximum price for departure from the Union. If he will forgive me, I am not going to engage in chipping away at that bid; we will start from scratch when we go through the door after March when the negotiations start.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and David Davis

Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I venture to suggest that if you did your homework, Mr Speaker, you would not have it marked by the hon. Gentleman.

I have not seen the Fraser of Allander report, so would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman directed me to it. One thing about these reports is that they all base themselves on single assumptions. We need to look at those assumptions to see whether they are realistic, and that is what we will do. There have been a large number of forecasts of the effect of Brexit. Some are very pessimistic about certain aspects of policy that we do not intend to allow to happen. I will look at that particular report carefully and talk to him about it after I have done so.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

The US Chamber of Commerce, which represents companies with investments in the UK worth almost $600 billion, warned our ambassador in Washington last week that to retain and attract those investments in the years ahead we will require access to the single market. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he accepts the figure I have given and, if he does not, how much US business investment he thinks will be at risk if this Government do not secure access to the single market?

[Mr Davis]

One reason—although only one—why we are seeking to maintain the most open and barrier-free access possible to the European market is to encourage foreign direct investment. We have had discussions with a number of countries, including the US; indeed I met a US congressional delegation that came here whose members were very enthusiastic about Brexit. There are many views about this.