European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers

Oliver Letwin Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

The hon. and learned lady should pay attention to what I have already said in my statement, which is that we will be bringing a motion before the House, either on this deal, as I would much prefer, with the assurances that the Prime Minister will by then have won, so that this House can vote on that, or even in the circumstances that that were not on the table. She raises the idea of a people’s vote once again, and we very clearly had a people’s vote. We had that people’s vote across the whole of the UK in 2016, and it is our duty as Members of this House to deliver on that.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his clarifications, but may I press him on one point that I do not think he covered? Is he confirming that if there is, under section 13(8), a statement at some point before 21 January, as there must be under that section if the Prime Minister has by then concluded that she cannot complete a deal, that statement will be accompanied by a motion which, though in neutral terms, will be amendable? Or did his point about the amendment cover only a statement and motion under sections 13(1) and 13(4)?

[Mr Walker]

My right hon. Friend is typically meticulous in his questioning. My understanding is that the intention of the House in passing that motion is that it should be amendable in all three cases set out in section 13.

Draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2018

Oliver Letwin Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 General Committees

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole has volunteered to sit on pretty much every Delegated Legislation Committee available. There is a programme, and my Department is co-ordinating an overview.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a jocular remark, but will he expand on the Government’s decision to use the affirmative procedure for this order? There is a sifting Committee, which we agreed as a result of a long discussion. Part of the reason for creating it was to make sure that important things are properly discussed, but it was partly also to make sure that very unimportant things are not. We are clearly all going to go completely mad—if we are not already so—if we have to deal with every totally uncontroversial and uninteresting piece of crypto-constitutional legislation conducted through statutory instruments in this form. Will he therefore give us an undertaking that really unimportant SIs will be put before the sifting Committee, so that it can decide whether they should be dealt with by this method or by the negative procedure?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

If only my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) were present to answer that. I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. Before the Committee stands a very junior Minister who was very keen to ensure that he did not make a mistake in the laying of his first statutory instrument. However, that is exactly the purpose of the sifting Committee.

To answer a question that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich asked, I have had conversations with the chairs of the sifting Committees in the Lords and the Commons to give them a rough idea of the Government’s plans. My Department will absolutely co-ordinate the flow of SIs so that we have a functioning statute book as we leave the European Union.

Question put and agreed to.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Oliver Letwin Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: Second Day: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

After the sifting committee has received an explanatory statement and before it makes a sift, will the committee also have access to Ministers to question them if it cannot understand what the affirmative or negative instrument is about?

[Mr Baker]

I very much hope that the committee will be able to understand things through our meeting the requirements for explanatory memorandums that we have set out in the Bill, but I would of course expect Ministers to be helpful to the committee. We need to get statutory instruments through smoothly, and we would want to support the committee in reaching its decisions.

I will now jump ahead in my remarks to deal with new clause 3 and the Belfast agreement. New clause 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), is important, and I reiterate that the Government remain steadfast in their commitments to the Belfast agreement and its associated obligations under international law.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Oliver Letwin Excerpts

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

[Mr Leslie]

I want to conclude my remarks because others want to speak. I simply want to make a final point about why the customs union is such a crucial issue, and why I urge my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and hon. Members across the House to think about the consequences of not staying in the customs union.

If this country ends up with hard borders again, there will be big consequences. Our ports could grind to a halt. Lorries will clog up our motorways, with, potentially, vast lorry parks near the ports. The expensive, wasteful spending on bureaucratic checks will hurt our industries, and we ought to be evaluating the economic impact of industries, potentially, gradually relocating elsewhere because it is easier to do business in a different jurisdiction. Think of the jobs lost, particularly in the manufacturing sector, if we get this wrong. Bear in mind that we will not have any say on what happens on the EU side of the border after this whole process. There is no guarantee about what happens at the other end of the channel tunnel or in Calais.

The reason I have pushed new clause 13 as I have, is to do with the austerity that we risk in this country for the next decade—a decade of Brexit austerity that will potentially befall many of our constituents because of the lost revenues. Unless we stay in the single market and the customs union, we will have that austerity on our conscience, and I urge hon. Members, especially all my hon. Friends, to think very seriously. We have to make sure we stay in the customs union.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

It was a pleasure to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie). It is like a vintage wine—it improves with age as one hears it on repeated occasions, with mild variations.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

A bit like yours.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Well actually, oddly enough, I intend, as previously in Committee, to attend to one of the amendments—in fact, two—rather than to the general question of whether it is a good idea to leave the EU. I want in particular to speak about amendment 400—a Government amendment now—and amendment 381, the original Government amendment to which it relates, in a sort of package.

There has been a certain amount of confusion in discussion of the amendments in public—although not, I hope, in the House—so I first want to make it quite clear what they do and can do and what they do not and cannot. The issue has often been reported as if it relates to the question of when we withdraw from the EU, which is very interesting but nothing to do with the amendments. Neither is it anything to do with the Bill, because withdrawal from the EU, as all hon. Members present know, is governed by the article 50 process, not by an Act of Parliament. If we could wave a wand and decide how we do these things through an Act of Parliament, how much easier that would be; but there is an article 50 process that is part of international law, to which we subscribe, and that is what will determine when we leave the EU.

What do the amendments do? They govern when clause 1 will become operative. Clause 1 repeals the European Communities Act 1972 and Government amendment 381 sets a date for that. That leads to a question. If the UK Government and the EU, according to the processes laid out by article 50 and by the remainder of the constitutional arrangements of the EU, come to some kind of agreement at a certain point, it would make sense to have a little more time than is allowed under the first clause of the article 50 process. Under the third clause of the article 50 process, we would have an odd situation, because there would be a slight delay in the timing of our withdrawal, where we would still, under amendment 381, be locked into abolishing the 1972 Act on a certain date, namely by 11 pm on 29 March 2019. There would therefore be an odd conflict of laws that obviously could not be allowed to persist.

Incidentally, there would then be perfectly obvious remedy: under Government amendment 400 there would be a need for emergency primary legislation to change the date. That is, of course, perfectly possible and I have no doubt the House and the other place would agree to such a measure, but it is a laborious process and it might jam up the works at just the moment when it is very important for the Government to have the flexibility to make an agreement of that sort. So, very modestly, all Government amendment 400 does is to provide for the ability of Parliament to adjust the date under those circumstances for the repeal of the European Communities Act to match the article 50 process.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and for the very careful way in which he is setting this out. I hope he would agree that this is a much more commodious and confluent way than was previously the case. It will mean that article 50 and our domestic law are in better synchronisation. If I may, I pay tribute to him and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) for working on this amendment and for coming up with a very happy solution to a thorny problem.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, to the many right hon. and hon. Friends who signed up to the amendment and, above all, to the Government for turning it into a Government amendment.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

If the European Communities Act 1972 is abolished on 29 March 2019 and that is the legal basis for following the European Union’s rules at the moment, what does the right hon. Gentleman think will be the legal basis for following the European Union’s rules during the transition period?

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

That is a very interesting question, to which we will know the answer when we have seen the text of the agreements that lead to the withdrawal and implementation Bill and when Parliament accepts it. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, but I maintain steadfastly the effort to use the Committee stage of this Bill to speak about this Bill, this clause and this amendment, and not some extraneous consideration.

[Helen Goodman]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I will, but it will be for the last time, because I want to bring my remarks to a close. I do not want to detain the Committee for long.

[Helen Goodman]

We have heard many times from Conservative Members that the date of 29 March 2019 cannot be moved because we have triggered article 50 and the process has a two-year limit. Will the right hon. Gentleman set out for the Committee what he thinks would happen in practice if the powers under amendment 400 were used by the Government?

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am surprised by the hon. Lady. I have known her a very long time and I know she is extremely assiduous and very intelligent, so she will have read article 50 and observed that it contains an express provision for agreement between the EU and in this case the UK to delay the date which would otherwise pertain. In fact, there are also rules for what is required on the EU side by way of unanimity to permit that to occur. There is no question, therefore, of the Government ever having asserted that they could not change the article 50 date; they have always said and known that it is possible to change it. The question, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said a moment ago, is how we make sure that UK law marches in step with whatever happens under the article 50 process.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I trouble my right hon. Friend?

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

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

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

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)]

I am happy to tell the Committee that that is the case, as I shall confirm later.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am delighted by that. It is important to people on both sides of the arguments that it be something that Parliament can do, not that Ministers may simply do on their own. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), my south-western neighbour at the end of the Bench, very much agrees with that proposition, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield in the middle.

[Mr Grieve]

I just want to thank my right hon. Friend for having intervened in this matter and found a way to resolve the issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) just pointed out, the oddity of the original amendment 381 was that it would have imposed a rather serious obstacle if, for any reason, there had been an agreement for the article 50 period to end earlier.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

That is right. My right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset have always actually maintained the same point, which is that we need to keep the two sets of law in sync with one another. That is the overriding purpose of the whole Bill: to ensure that UK law matches what is happening in the international law arena and that we then import the whole of EU law into UK law for the starting point of our future.

[Helen Goodman]

rose—

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am terribly sorry, but I am not going to take any further interventions. I am going to sit down in a second. I only want to say that I am profoundly grateful, not only to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have joined us in this amendment, but to the Government. This is exactly the way to deal with these things: find a sensible compromise that brings everyone on the Government Benches together and makes the Opposition entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

[Paul Blomfield]

It is, on this occasion, a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who was at his erudite best in critiquing Government amendment 381, echoing many of the points the Opposition made on day one of the Committee stage. It was also very helpful that he spoke so clearly on the flexibility provided in the article 50 process, in contrast with the remarks he directed against my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) who made exactly that point only last week. It is good to see the right hon. Gentleman moving on.

I rise to speak in favour of amendments 43 to 45 and 349, which are tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Let me, however, turn first to Government amendment 381, which revives, on this last day of the Committee stage, the issues that we debated on the first. The two solitary names on the amendment say everything about its purpose: the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), neither of whom is present. We are seeing an alliance between the Government and, on this issue, one of their most troublesome Back Benchers.

As I think the right hon. Member for West Dorset made clear, it is not as though the amendment adds anything to the withdrawal negotiations. Indeed, it hampers the process. It is just another example of the Government’s throwing red meat to the more extreme Brexiteers on their Benches. As we said on day one, the amendment is not serious legislation. It is a gimmick, and it is a reckless one—in relation not just to the flexibility on the departure date to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but to the wider aspects of exiting. It reaches out to those who want to unpick the Prime Minister’s Florence speech and the basis for a transitional period.

Setting exit day “for all purposes” as one date means the end of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice at the point at which we leave the European Union. As we warned the Government, that would make a deal with the EU on the transitional period impossible. We also warned the Government that they could not deliver the support of the Committee of the whole House for the amendment, and that was confirmed by the tabling on Friday of amendments 399 to 405. Just as the Government have caught up with the Labour party on the need for a transitional period, by cobbling together this compromise in the face of defeat they have caught up with us on the need for flexibility on exit days for different purposes. The Solicitor General is raising his eyebrows at me. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that the Government have caught up with themselves. The Bill as originally drafted did not include amendment 381. The Government have recognised that it is nonsense, and are seeking to find a way out. We will go for the more straightforward way by seeking to vote it down.

Amendments 399 to 405 give Ministers the power to set exit day through secondary legislation. We would give that power directly to Parliament, for all the reasons that we set out last week. We will therefore support amendments 386 and 387, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) along with members of five parties, and new clause 54, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said earlier, he tabled it helpfully to allow the Government to embed the Prime Minister’s Florence commitments in the Bill.

Let me now deal with our amendment 43 and consequential amendments 44 and 45. On Wednesday evening, Parliament sent a clear message to the Government: we will not be sidelined in the Brexit process. The passing of amendment 7 was a significant step in clawing back the excessive powers that the Government are attempting to grant themselves through the Bill, and in upholding our parliamentary democracy. As with the final deal, Parliament must have control over the length and terms of the transitional period, and our amendments would provide that. The Prime Minister has eventually recognised that she was tying her hands behind her back with her exit day amendment, but amendments 399 to 405 are not the solution. They simply loosen the legislative straitjacket that the Government unnecessarily put on themselves. The Government must respect the House and accept that Parliament, not Ministers, should set the terms and length of a transitional period.

As I said in our earlier discussion this afternoon, there is a clear majority in this House for a sensible approach to Brexit and to the transitional arrangements. That brings together business and the trade unions and many other voices outside this place, just as it brings together Members on both sides of the House.

The Prime Minister knows we are right on the transitional arrangements, as her Florence speech made clear:

“As I said in my speech at Lancaster house a period of implementation would be in our mutual interest. That is why I am proposing that there should be such a period after the UK leaves the EU…So during the implementation period access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms”.

But every time she reaches out for common sense, and tries to bring the country together and to build the deep and special partnership she talks about, the extreme Brexiteers step in, trying to unpick our commitments, and setting new red lines, whether on the Court of Justice or regulatory divergence, which they know will derail the negotiations and deliver the complete rupture they dream of. So the transitional arrangements, which are important both for the interim and in positioning us for our longer term future, must be in the hands of this Parliament.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Oliver Letwin Excerpts

Committee: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

We are putting a lot of effort into trying to get free trade deals with New Zealand, Australia and other countries, and much as I would love free trade deals with all of them, the fact is that our biggest markets are our nearest neighbours. Having that single market and that customs union is incredibly important, which is why amendment 124 should not be dismissed and I believe Members should support it. We also need to pay attention to the powers and rights that Parliament must now assert if we are to ensure that the Executive do not take back the control that many of our constituents thought was coming to their representatives after the referendum.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

As always, I am lost in admiration for the extraordinary eloquence of the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie). It is unfortunate that he has a tendency, as he exhibited on this occasion, to be so carried away by his eloquence as to take arguments that many Government Members also consider important and extend them to the point where they become definitely untrue. This diminishes the force of those arguments. I believe that the Bill is over-drafted—for some of the reasons that he adduced, to give the Government greater scope for dealing with a whole series of problems, in a way that the civil service often recommends to Ministers—but it is not the case that it offers the unconstrained powers that he was suggesting. His world is a world without a Supreme Court, and without judgments of the meaning of deficiency. He alleged that the meaning of “appropriate” was entirely obscure and then used it, by my count, five times himself. We all knew what he meant and so would a court. One does not need to go to the extents to which he was going to point out that the Bill requires some amelioration in respect of the secondary legislation powers, a point which many Members on both sides of the Committee made during an earlier debate. He could have rested with that, which would have taken rather fewer minutes.

I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, because unlike the hon. Member for Nottingham East I think that amendment 393—if I remember the number correctly—is carefully judged. I think it probably will provide—[Interruption.] I apologise for getting the number wrong; I was referring to amendment 397. In any case, the Procedure Committee’s amendment seems to be the right way to tackle the question of triage, and it is well judged and well drafted. I hope that Ministers will tell us in their responses from the Dispatch Box that recommendations from the Procedure Committee will in this instance always be respected in the House. I do not think that we need to worry about a completely separate set of Ministers dealing with the recommendations, because the recommendations will be made in the coming months. We need a combination of that amendment plus an assurance from the Dispatch Box that the Procedure Committee’s recommendations will be observed, and I think we could rest on that.

[Chris Bryant]

I just worry about this whole business of relying on the Government saying that they will always go by a recommendation that comes from a Committee. Several times I have heard Ministers stand in the Chamber and say that if the Opposition demand a vote on the annulment of a Standing Order, there will always be one. However, over the past few years, there have on repeated occasions been no debates or votes, even when demanded by the Opposition and a large number of Government Members. It is almost sweet of the right hon. Gentleman to place such confidence in Ministers, but they are sometimes not to be trusted. We just put temptation in their way.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

The hon. Gentleman is a doughty defender of his party interest and of the House of Commons. On this occasion, if such an assurance is given from the Dispatch Box and if the advice of the committee is not followed, people on both sides of the House will cause a sufficient fuss to ensure that the House does have the opportunity to debate instruments under the affirmative procedure.

[John Redwood]

Will my right hon. Friend clear up one other uncertainty created by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie)? Is it not the case that the powers that we are debating are strictly time limited to two years from the date of departure? This is not a long-term issue.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

One of the most striking moments of hyperbole was when the hon. Member for Nottingham East asserted that the situation would last for many years. He will of course know, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) points out, that the provisions are sunsetted.

[Chris Bryant]

Unfortunately, that is not true because the Government are able to change the Act by statutory instrument.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Except of course it is, because if the amendment is accepted, as the Government intend, the committee will be empowered to make a recommendation to have something debated by the affirmative procedure in the House should such an eventuality arise. In those circumstances, if we have an assurance from the Dispatch Box that something will be so debated, the hon. Gentleman and I will be able to join forces to prevent such a thing from happening. That is a genuine lock, and this debate depends on whether we want to engage in party political games or whether we want a serious approach to ensuring ministerial accountability. Amendment 397 is serious, and my hon. Friends and I are keen to ensure that its changes are made. I note that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) has also put his name to the amendment, which gives me great comfort that it is a serious effort to cure the problem.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)]

On the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about amending the Act, which I will refer to in my own speech, I just want to draw the Committee’s attention to paragraph 6 (2)(g) of Schedule 7. For us to amend the Act, any change would have to relate to the withdrawal agreement and its implementation and would be subject to a vote in both Houses.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

That is indeed true. I suppose that Opposition Members would tend to argue that only the courts could enforce that, which is an oddity with the principle of comity, but I think we are dancing on the heads of pins here. I am confident that the Government do not intend to use that power to get rid of the constraints within the Bill. I am equally confident that the serious issue here is whether significant changes are proposed by the negative procedure and, I repeat, the Procedure Committee amendment seems to handle that serious issue, which is in contrast to the highly hypothetical considerations that have already been put before the Committee.

Amendments 62 and 63 were, in a different form, the subject of some serious discussions earlier in Committee. They relate to how we bring the important environmental principles in the treaty on the functioning of the European Union into English law at the time of withdrawal and to how we replace the useful role that the Commission has played in being an independent enforcement agency for environmental law that is governed by those principles in its procedures and substantive actions.

[Helen Goodman]

Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to new clauses 62 and 63 or amendments 62 and 63?

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

New clauses 62 and 63. I do apologise. I am very bad at remembering the nomenclature, but I know which ones I am talking about. They are the ones that relate to the environment—their proponent, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), is sitting behind the hon. Lady—and we had a long discussion about them earlier in Committee. Since those discussions inside the House, many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), and I have had considerable conversations outside the House with various people, such as the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, green non-governmental organisations and others. I am now confident that the Government will bring forward proper new primary legislation to create an independent body outside the House with prosecutorial powers that will replace the Commission as the independent arbiter to enforce environmental rules and to ensure that the Government are taken to task in court without the need for the expense of class action lawsuits.

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

rose—

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

May I continue for a second? I may anticipate what the hon. Lady is going to say, but I will give way if I do not.

In addition to such a body being put on a statutory basis, I am confident that included in the relevant legislation will be a direct reference to the principles, so that it is clear that the policy statement, which will be mandated, must look to those principles and must explain how the Government of the day intend to carry forward the principles into action. The policy statement will then become justiciable and will, under the forthcoming legislation, receive support in the form of a resolution of this House and will therefore attain a statutory force of its own.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Mary Creagh]

rose—

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I will give way to both hon. Ladies, but I will just say one last thing in case they were going to make this point. Many people have raised the question of whether all this work will be done in time—I see the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) nodding and I suspect that she will want to raise that point—and I see that if there was doubt about whether it was, that would be a reason for legislating here, as opposed to waiting for a proper new statute. I am delighted to say that we have talked sufficiently to Ministers to be confident that they will be bringing forward both the consultation and the legislation in time to ensure that it is in place before we exit the EU. Of course, I would also want to wait until January to see the consultation to ensure that that engagement is fulfilled, and I am sure that the other place will want to look at what is said in the consultation and to assure itself that the new statute is coming forward before it consented to allow this Bill to proceed without the amendments that are being proposed. I believe that the right way to do this is in separate legislation. It is not about this business of Brexit; it is about trying to get the right answer for the environment. It is much better that we should do that in a fully fledged Bill that will be properly debated and contains all the relevant provisions and powers, which will never shoehorn into this Bill. I genuinely believe that that is the best way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I do not suppose that I will succeed now in persuading the hon. Lady. I do not wholly disapprove of the idea of her and others pursuing aggressive amendment tactics here and in the other place to ensure that the Government continue to respond effectively and rapidly. Once the consultation paper emerges and the Secretary of State has made further statements about this, and once legislative time has been allocated in the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee, assuming it is still called that, we will have that confidence. I would prefer to rest on that, because it would be at the least inelegant and possibly positively damaging to pass one piece of legislation and then introduce another that repealed or amended it. That sounds to me like a recipe for confusion.

Should we become sceptical at a later date about whether the Government will bring separate legislation forward, it would be open to the House of Lords to table amendments in the other place, which would come back to us. I, for one, would want to see those amendments made if the Government did not intend to put something in place before EU exit day. I am currently confident that they will, and that is the only basis on which I will not be voting for the new clause this evening.

[Mary Creagh]

I do not share the right hon. Gentleman’s confidence that all this will be done in time, and I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). We have been waiting two and a half years for a 25-year environment plan, which will be a 22-year plan by the time it is published. We have had promises of legislation on fisheries and the common agricultural policy, and today a draft animal sentience and animal welfare Bill has been published. There is already a legislative logjam in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as a result of the decision to leave the EU, and at the moment there is a reporting gap. Although there may be a new body in the future to do some of the enforcement, I do not believe that it will be up and ready at the point of leaving, when all our reporting obligations, which currently rest with the European Commission, will fall.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

There are quite a lot of bits to unpack in that. If we were to leave without an agreement and hence without a transition period, there would be some merit in her observation, although the gap would be short if the new body had been legislated for by the time we left. If the Government’s plan succeeds and there is a transition period, we will no doubt be bound by the current rules during that period so there would be two full years in which to establish the new body. It is not likely that the hon. Lady’s concern on that front will be realised in practice, although I admit some theoretical possibility of it.

The hon. Lady adduces a legislative logjam in DEFRA. I accept the facts that she presents, but I see them exactly the other way round. We have a Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who is probably the most powerful one we have had for a long time, for various reasons of which hon. Members on both sides are acutely conscious. He is probably more committed to this agenda than any we have seen in recent times in either Administration—[Interruption.] I am conscious that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) will inevitably cavil slightly at that, and I respect his record. I genuinely believe that the current Secretary of State is even more devoted to the environment than he was.

An awful lot of DEFRA legislation will inevitably have to be brought to the House before exit. No Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary and no Government could resist it. One cannot exit the EU without solving the problems of the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy so there is a natural legislative slot, and this powerful Secretary of State will be more than capable of bringing before the House the relevant statutory provisions. They will not be simple; they will require mature deliberation in both Houses. I am sure we all agree that it is incredibly important that we get the provisions exactly right. We need to make sure that it is a genuinely watertight system, with a set of policies that apply, that the court will enforce and that can be brought to court by an independent body. We need to ensure that the independent body is genuinely and completely independent of the Government, that it can bring Ministers to court, that it is properly funded and staffed and that it looks at the way in which the principles are applied through the policy statement in practice.

I believe that if all that can be done in a proper statute, it would be not just a replication of where we have been, which is now much lauded but was in practice very imperfect, but a huge advance on that. We would have a more comprehensive enforcement of a better environmental legislative framework than any country on earth. That is a goal worth striving for in a proper Act, instead of trying to shoehorn into this Bill a set of new clauses and amendments that are well intentioned but cannot perform the same purpose.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend makes a brilliant speech. [Laughter.] I cannot disagree with a single word that he has said. I strongly agree with him. The main sticking point is not the aspirations of the Secretary of State to build an independent body that is sufficiently resourced to hold the powerful to account in the way that he has described. The issue is timing and trust. Exactly the same arguments were used just a couple of weeks ago in relation to animal sentience. Sceptics in the House questioned the commitment of the Government to deliver a sentience Bill and said that if it was delivered, it would be a watered down version. We have proof this morning of the Government’s intent; we have a sentience Bill that goes way further than anything in EU law. It applies to all animals, all sectors, all parts of government. It takes us forward in a dramatic and meaningful sense, and that is what I hope we can expect from the initiative of the Secretary of State. I apologise for speaking for so long.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I agree with my hon. Friend. He is being unduly modest, because in large part it is due to pressure from him that the Government have introduced such an effective and incisive Bill in a timely fashion. I agree that that gives us considerable confidence about what will happen on this other, even wider ranging matter.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am pleased to see the change on animal sentience, but to correct the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), the debate a few weeks ago was about whether we needed new legislation to provide for animal sentience when we left the EU. The Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said that we did not need new legislation as it was already covered by existing UK domestic legislation. So I am pleased to see a screeching U-turn, but let us not pretend that it was not a screeching U-turn.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I have steadfastly resisted for 21 years engaging in meaningless partisan debate, and I am not going to abandon a career’s worth of effort in that direction to answer that point. Animal sentience is built into English law in various ways already, but the new Bill will vastly strengthen the position compared with what it is today under European law. That is a huge advance for our nation, one that many people on both sides of the House can be happy with. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park was pointing out, there is an exact parallel with what we and the Government are seeking to do in relation to environmental regulation. I really believe that if we could lay aside both the inevitable divisions about Brexit itself and the inevitable play of party politics, and simply focus on what is going to do the best thing for our environment, we would see that the programme we have before us is a huge advance and one we should gratefully welcome.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Laing, and to follow the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). I rise to speak to new clauses 63 and 1, amendments 32 and 25, which stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and amendments 342, 333, 350, 334 and 33 to 41.

For the purposes of clarity, I intend to break my remarks down into three parts. I will first speak to those new clauses and amendments that relate to the purpose, scope and limits of clause 7. I will then turn to those that relate specifically to the clause 7 power to transfer functions from EU entities and agencies to UK competent authorities. I will finish by turning to new clauses and amendments that relate to the Government’s proposals about how Parliament will scrutinise and, where necessary, approve secondary legislation made under the powers provided for by not only clause 7, but clauses 8, 9 and 17.

I turn first to the purpose, scope and limits of clause 7. As I said when winding up for the Opposition in the debate on Second Reading, the delegated powers conferred on Ministers under clause 7, and clauses 8, 9 and 17, are extraordinary in their constitutional potency and scope. They are, to put it plainly, objectionable and their flaws must be addressed before Third Reading. As such, when it comes to the correcting powers provided for by clause 7, what we are debating is not whether there is a need to place limits on these powers—that, I hope, is beyond serious dispute. What is at issue today, and what I intend to cover in the first part of my remarks, is what limits should be placed on these powers and why.

Just as the Opposition accept that the Brexit process requires legislation to disentangle the UK from the European Union’s legal structures and to ensure that we have a functioning statute book on the day we leave, we also understand, in light of the legislative reality that must be confronted between now and exit day, that no Government could carry out this task by primary legislation alone. We therefore accept that relatively wide delegated powers to amend existing EU law and to legislate for new arrangements following Brexit where necessary are, and will be, an inevitable feature of the Bill. Given how much EU and EU-related law has been implemented through primary legislation, we also recognise that the Bill will have to contain Henry VIII clauses. We appreciate that there is a difficult balance to be struck between the urgency required to provide legal continuity and certainty after exit day and the equally important need for safeguards to ensure we maintain the constitutional balance of powers between the legislature and the Executive.

We also believe, however, that to the extent that relatively wide delegated powers are necessary, they should not be granted casually and where they are granted they should be limited, wherever possible, and practical. That is particularly important given how remarkable the correcting powers provided under clause 7 are in their potency and scope. On their potency, it is important to recognise that the Henry VIII powers contained in clause 7 are of the most expansive type. As has already been noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), clause 7(4) makes it clear that the power granted by subsection (1) can be used to enact regulations that make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament, and clauses 8(2) and 9(2) make equivalent provision in respect of the powers conferred by both those clauses.

These are extraordinary powers, for if it is possible for regulations made under clause 7(1) to make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament, that must extend logically to amending or repealing any kind of law, including provisions in other Acts, in the context of wide-ranging purpose of the clause: to remedy any deficiencies that arise in retained EU law. Furthermore, paragraph 1(2)(8) of schedule 7 explicitly confirms that the powers in clause 7 can be used to create powers “to legislate”. As the powers can be used to do anything that could be done by Act of Parliament by means of subsection (4), the Bill itself can be used to create further Henry VIII powers. As such, if this Bill is passed unamended, we face the prospect of Ministers—perhaps not this Minister or Ministers in this Government—having the ability to use the Henry VIII powers in this Bill to confer further such powers upon themselves or other UK institutions; we are talking about delegated legislation piled on top of delegated legislation. That is an outcome that no Member of this House should regard as an acceptable prospect, but it is possible using the powers conferred under clause 7, as drafted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is precisely our concern. We discussed that at length on day 2 in Committee, when we were talking about the need for enhanced protection for retained EU law because it will be stripped away from its underpinnings in EU law post-exit.

A further concern about the language in clause 7(1) is that, given how wide clauses 2, 3 and 4 are in respect of what will come under the umbrella of retained EU law, Acts of Parliament that are linked to EU law, such as the Equality Act 2010, will be susceptible to change by statutory instrument under the clause. That would be an entirely unacceptable situation. There are many different ways in which the constitutional potency and scope of the correcting powers provided under clause 7 can be circumscribed, and we support many of the amendments tabled to the clause that share that same basic underlying objective.

Amendments 32 and 25 are the means by which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have attempted to limit those correcting powers. Amendment 32 would diminish the potency of the delegated powers in the clause by removing the ability to modify or amend the Act itself. I listened to what the Minister said about the schedules and how they dictate things, but I would argue that there seems to be a difference—if Members wish to direct their attention to it, this is on pages 39 and 43 of the Bill—between the process that applies to clause 7 and that which applies to clause 9, with respect to whether a vote in the House would be required for Ministers to amend the Act itself. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate further on that in his response.

Amendment 25 would reduce the scope of the powers by constraining their capacity to reduce rights and protections, while amendments 350 and 334 would buttress amendment 25 by putting specific limits on the powers in question by requiring Ministers to pay full regard to the animal welfare standards enshrined in article 13 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union and to guarantee that the air quality standards and protections that are currently underpinned by EU law are maintained in practice following our departure.

Given how widely drawn the powers in clause 7 are, coupled with their potency and scope and the inherent subjectivity of the language in subsection (1) in key respects, ministerial assurances and promises to go away and have a cosy chat, as we have had on other days, are not good enough in this instance. The powers entail a significant transfer of legislative competence from the legislature to the Executive and open up the real possibility of substantive changes being made in policy areas that previously were underpinned by EU law. Restrictions on the powers must be placed in the Bill, whether through amendment 32 or 25, or some other combination of amendments. I look forward to hearing from the Minister not only that the Government now accept as much but what they intend to do about it.

On the new clauses and amendments that relate specifically to the clause 7 power to transfer functions from EU entities and agencies to UK competent authorities, Ministers have been at pains to point out throughout this process that many of the corrections to retained EU law made under the correcting power in clause 7 will be mechanistic, textual or technical in nature. That will undoubtedly be the case, but many others will not be. As other Members have noted, the powers in clause 7 allow for not only the creation of new UK public authorities using the affirmative procedure but the transfer of EU regulatory functions to existing UK institutions using the negative procedure. However, in neither case does the clause 7 power as drafted ensure that retained EU law will be made operable in ways that replicate and maintain, in so far as is practical, all the existing powers and functions exercisable by EU entities. As a result, the clause does not guarantee that the powers and functions of entities such as the EU Commission or other EU agencies will continue to operate with equivalent scope, purpose and effect after exit day.

Amendment 342 would address the problem by making it clear in the Bill that regulations to which subsection (5) applies must, again in so far as is practical, ensure that the standards, rights and protections currently maintained by EU institutions, or other public authorities anywhere in the UK, continue to exist in practice after exit day and that the UK competent authorities that are overhauled or created for that purpose have the resources, expertise and independence required to carry out their task effectively. That they do so is crucial not only for legal certainty and continuity and to ensure continued confidence in UK products and services, but as a guarantor of stability and redress for citizens and civic bodies in key areas in which there is a clear risk that Brexit will leave a governance gap.

The need for such an amendment is particularly important when it comes to the environment. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for West Dorset that we discussed this matter in Committee at length on other days. Of course, it relates intimately to the environmental principles, although they are outside what is covered by clause 7. We have tabled new clause 63 to require the Government to establish new domestic governance arrangements, following consultation, for environmental standards and protections and, crucially, to ensure that the new arrangements provide robust enforcement mechanisms when environmental requirements and standards are not met.

The Government’s thinking about this policy area has clearly moved on from their early insistence that existing regulatory bodies, parliamentary scrutiny and the use of judicial review alone would be sufficient to provide oversight of Government and public body conduct. The pledge by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to create a new environmental watchdog and to consult early in the new year on its scope, powers and functions is welcome, but as things stand we have no clear indication of the watchdog’s scope, powers and functions; no clarity on whether the Government are seeking agreement with the devolved Administrations with a view to implementing similar measures in their jurisdictions; and no sense of whether or not the watchdog will be able to levy credible sanctions or provide for effective enforcement of breaches.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, I think what he says about the devolved authorities is incorrect. As I understand it, the Secretary of State made it perfectly clear that, if possible, he would like the devolved Administrations to come along with the process and share in the institutional framework. Of course, that is not a decision he can make; it is up to the devolved Administrations.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am happy to take that on board. I learn more about Government environmental policy from the right hon. Gentleman than I do from his Front-Bench colleagues, so I happily stand corrected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

Indeed. While I am tempted to digress into a debate on what happened with the phase 1 agreement and regulatory alignment, I think I had better stick to the subject in hand.

With regard to defining “deficiencies” properly, amendment 264 calls on the Government to provide reassurance by bringing forward clear definitions of what they might mean by “deficiencies”. If we had that, we might be better able to consider whether to give them these powers.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I do not know whether it would be possible to find definitions that would help. However, the hon. Gentleman seems unwilling to accept, or certainly has not alluded to, the fact that secondary instruments, as opposed to primary legislation, are justiciable. Our courts are quite used to concepts like deficiency and appropriateness. Is that not what we are relying on—the action of the courts?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I accept that these things may be challenged, but I am trying to argue for a democratic process whereby it is the elected representatives of the people who debate and choose the policy direction in various areas.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Indeed. That takes me nicely to my next point, which concerns the word “appropriate”.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

rose—

[Tommy Sheppard]

Can I make a little progress? I do not usually say that, but I am barely halfway through at the moment.

The word “appropriate” is one of those words that is so open-ended and ambiguous that it could literally mean all things to all people. That is why I am a big fan of amendment 2, in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), which attempts to give some definition to what we mean by “appropriate”. I was not quite sure what he was implying about pressing it to a vote, but I hope that he is going to—I would be very happy to support it.

Amendments 205, 206, 216, 17 and 265 also attempt to define the word “appropriate”, with the effect of substituting the word “necessary”. That is a much more agreeable term, because “appropriate” is subjective: what is appropriate for one person may not be appropriate for the other, but what is necessary has to be evidenced by reasons. If something were to be appealed and come to court, it would be much easier to question necessity than appropriateness. These amendments would also be useful.

Let me now talk about the aspects relating to devolution—again, without getting into the phase 1 agreement. Clearly, the whole matter of how powers are exercised by Ministers, whether those powers are residual or broad-brush, has a critical impact on the devolved Administrations. I hope that the Committee will support amendment 161, which requires Ministers to get the consent of devolved Administrations when they are making secondary legislation on matters that affect them. I hope that that sort of qualification will be uncontroversial, but I dare say that it will not be.

Perhaps the most important amendment is 158 in the name of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. It simply says that the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006 should be exempt from the set of powers that we are giving to UK Ministers to bring forward secondary legislation. The Government already accept that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 has been exempted, so Ministers need to explain why they would exempt one devolved legislature and not the others. How can it be justified in one place and not in the others? Surely it is a simple matter of common sense to say that this provision should confer on UK Ministers an exercise of power in relation to the matters that this Parliament is responsible for, not in relation to those that other Parliaments are responsible for.

I want briefly to mention human rights. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has tabled an amendment, now to be part of what we are discussing, in which he refers to examining the equalities implications for any particular piece of legislation. However, we can do more than that. I want to know why the amendment says that we should exempt the Equality Act 2010 and the Equality Act 2006 from the powers being given to Ministers. If the Government do not accept that, there is always the danger of people implying from their actions that they may wish to do something that would constrain or overturn some of the safeties and securities in those Acts.

Let me talk about the experience that this place has in making secondary legislation. This will not be so important, I suppose, if we end up with a tiny number of residual matters that need to be considered in this way, but if that is not the case—if, because of a lack of legislative time, the Government try to put an awful lot of matters through secondary legislation—then we will be very ill-equipped to deal with that.

Like many Members, I have sat on Delegated Legislation Committees. They are effectively a rubber stamp; we hope that the officials and civil servants who draw up the regulations have worked them out, double-checked them and made sure of them, because we rarely get the opportunity to get into a debate. I well remember a recent Delegated Legislation Committee to which I turned up determined to get involved in a discussion of what the regulations were about, to the dismay of other Members. They were dismayed not by the content of what I said, but by the fact that I said it and made the meeting last 30 mins rather than three, so they missed their subsequent appointments.

That is how Delegated Legislation Committees work at the minute. People regard them as a rubber stamp and something of a joke. If we did not have faith in our civil service and those who prepare the regulations, we would be in a bad way indeed, and that cannot continue. I accept that the amendments tabled by the Procedure Committee are an attempt to overcome many of those deficiencies, but I think that they are baby steps. Of course they are worth taking, but they are minor changes to our procedures. If we try to load on to the existing procedures a vast array of secondary legislation, those procedures will not be fit for purpose and we will end up making bad and ridiculous legislation.

The debate has been about Henry VIII powers. I hope that those who argue for such powers do not go the way of the architect of the previous Henry VIII powers, Thomas Cromwell, and end up in the Tower or dead. I am sure that they will not, but I caution them, when they are considering how much power to give to Ministers—how much power to transfer from the legislature to the Executive—to take a minimalist rather than a maximalist perspective. If they do not, those of us who argue that this is a major power grab by the Executive from the legislature will be entirely justified in doing so.

I urge Ministers to tell us this in their summing up: if they reject every single amendment that is designed to constrain their area of operation—to define the manner in which they might exercise judgment on such matters—what on earth are they going to do instead to reassure this House? We need to know that we are not giving them carte blanche to go forward and do what they want without reference to the democratically elected representatives of the people in this country, for whom control was meant to have been taken back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

I rise to speak to clause 7 and to amendment 391, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which puts the Government’s commitment to transparency into the Bill by requiring that the explanatory memorandums relating to each statutory instrument must include a number of specific statements. I would like to put it on the record that the Government will support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on behalf of the Procedure Committee—I will be happy to move them formally if the Chair does not call them for separate decisions. I see from my speaking notes that I am due to speak to approximately 134 amendments, so I apologise in advance if I deal with any of them superficially.

The Government do not propose delegated powers lightly; we do so only when we are confident that secondary legislation is the most appropriate way to address an issue. This House is right to guard jealously its rights and privileges. It is for the purpose of taking back control to this Parliament that millions of people voted to leave the European Union. We want to limit any powers that we are seeking, in so far as we can, while ensuring that they can meet the imperative of delivering a working statute book on exit day.

The power in clause 7 is essential to achieve continuity and stability in the law. The day the UK leaves the EU is drawing ever nearer. If we simply stop at converting and preserving retained EU law, the day after exit the UK statute book will contain many thousands of inaccuracies, holes and provisions that are not appropriate. That would have real-world consequences, leaving errors in the laws that businesses and individuals, sometimes unknowingly, rely on every day. I am grateful that the general premise that we need to take these steps has been accepted by Members on both sides of the Committee and on the Labour Front Bench.

The power in clause 7 is intrinsically limited. As I and other Ministers, including the Secretary of State, have said from this Dispatch Box, it is not a power for Ministers to change law simply because they did not like it before we left the EU. Clause 7(1) is clear that Ministers may only do what is

“appropriate to prevent, remedy or mitigate—

(a) any failure of retained EU law to operate effectively, or

(b) any other deficiency in retained EU law,

arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.”

If an issue does not arise from our withdrawal from the EU, Ministers may not amend the law using the powers in the clause.

Clause 7 is required to address failures to operate and deficiencies where the law does not operate effectively—for example, with reciprocal arrangements between the UK and the EU that have not formed part of any new agreement. Subsection (2) illustrates what these deficiencies might be. The clause is also subject to a number of direct limitations: it sunsets two years after exit day; and, as listed in subsection (6), it cannot impose or increase taxation, make retrospective provision, create certain types of criminal offence, implement the withdrawal agreement, amend the Human Rights Act 1998 or amend some sections of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Will the Minister clarify from the Dispatch Box that Opposition Members’ assertions that it would be possible under the provisions for the Government to introduce secondary instruments that changed the safeguards in the Bill are misplaced because no court would allow that to happen under the provisions of appropriateness and deficiencies?

[Mr Baker]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I will come on to the specific differences between clause 7 and clause 9 in relation to the power to amend the Act, but I will say now that the Act itself cannot be amended under clause 7. I will come on to develop that point later.

Clause 7(5) lists some possible uses of the power. These could range from fairly mechanistic changes to correct inaccurate references, to more substantial changes to transfer important functions and services from EU institutions to UK equivalents. Both types of change are important to keep the law functioning appropriately. At this stage, we do not know for certain what corrections might need to be made. The negotiations continue and there is a large volume of law to correct in a short space of time.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I absolutely accept that. Another important thing about the sifting committee will be that many of the other bits of Brexit-related legislation that are starting their journey through this House may contain large numbers of statutory instruments—potentially primary legislation-amending statutory instruments. What we agree for this particular Bill may well be an important template for how we treat those similar powers in subsequent pieces of legislation. We are doing important work here and it is crucial that we do it. I also urge my hon. Friend to broaden out the Procedure Committee’s approach to look more broadly at SI scrutiny powers after all this is done; many of us would encourage him to do that. However, such an approach is perhaps too wide for this Bill right now.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Before my hon. Friend moves on from sifting, does he agree that it represents substantial progress that we have heard from the Dispatch Box today that the recommendations made by the Procedure Committee will be respected by the Government in their conduct in the House?

[John Penrose]

Absolutely. Those commitments will be important and consequential, but we also need to ensure that everything gets baked properly into the Standing Orders and that the relevant votes are passed correctly.

Moving on to scope, I think still we have further to travel. A whole slew of amendments—not just the three or four tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield that I have put my name to, but those of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and others—are trying to address the scope of the powers that Ministers will be given. In fact, Ministers themselves have accepted the principle, saying that they are sympathetic to the idea of trying to limit the scope of the powers. The Minister said that both he and the Secretary of State would like to do that if they could; it seemed to be a question of how, not whether it was desirable in principle.

When I tempted the Minister in an intervention, he also said that the view in the Department is that Ministers want to try to take just enough powers to successfully translate EU laws into British laws and no more. We all accept that there must be no less than the minimum required, but he was clear that Ministers only want to take the minimum. The question is not about the principle of necessity and sufficiency; it is about how that is translated into a legal wording that will allow the principle to be clearly expressed. I gently, but I hope forcefully, say to Ministers that the words in the Bill at the moment do not pass the sniff test for an awful lot of us in the Chamber.

I am extremely pleased, therefore, with the open, positive and constructive way in which Ministers have approached the issue and with the commitment from the Dispatch Box this afternoon to go back and have a further look. I could not tempt the Minister into a firm promise to introduce an amendment, but I think that that is going to be necessary by the time we get to Report if the Bill is to be amended in a way that becomes acceptable and passes the sniff test for most of us here.

The Minister was saying—I paraphrase him—that Ministers accept the principle that the minimum necessary, the necessity test, is the right one in principle, but they cannot find the right words because if they use the word “necessary”, and they have multiple necessities, the courts will interpret that in a way that is unhelpful and does not deliver what everyone wants. The problem Ministers have is that the word that they have chosen instead of “necessary” is too broad and brings in all sorts of other possibilities that give a great deal of concern around the House that Ministers will unintentionally but in practice introduce other powers that they have said this afternoon they do not desire, need or want to give themselves in principle.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Is my hon. Friend sure that the source of the problem lies in the term “appropriate”? The more I have listened to the debate this afternoon, the more it has seemed that the problem may come from the word “arising”. Perhaps we need words more like “entailed by”, which would limit the scope of appropriateness.

[John Penrose]

What my right hon. Friend has just demonstrated is the point that I was just about to come on to. We are going to need different words—in the plural—than we have at the moment and the discussions that have been promised from the Dispatch Box, even if an amendment has not yet been promised, will be essential to get the issue right. It is not right at the moment.

During the debate this afternoon, three or four options have already been proposed from the Back Benches, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) just now and by a couple of others. It is clear that there is no shortage of solutions; it will not be acceptable for Ministers to say, “This problem is too hard so we are going to stick with what we have.” There are enough brains in the room for us to get this right—there are certainly enough on the ministerial Benches and among advisers. So it ain’t going to be good enough for Ministers to say, “We understand the principle and have already accepted it in our remarks today, but it is all too hard and we can’t possibly manage it.” That will not fly.

I have discussed this response with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. We are content, based on what we have heard, not to press the amendments on scope that we have tabled here this evening. However, it will be essential before we get to Report to see some creative alternatives that solve the problems that hon. Members on both sides of the House have alluded to. People on both sides of the House can propose lots of possible solutions. We need to find some that work and make sure that Ministers are content to introduce them in the impressively constructive tone with which they have already addressed the issue of the sifting committee. That needs to be done before Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 53 and 77 and to amendments 385, 1, 2, 3, 5, 48 and 49. In view of all the speeches we have heard so far and the long speech from the Minister, I hope to deal with these matters quite briefly because many of the issues have already been discussed and, in some ways, addressed from the Dispatch Box.

Today, we are debating the rectifying of deficiencies that would result from bringing EU law into UK law. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said, whatever we might think about the process of leaving the European Union, it is happening and we need to bring EU law into UK law if our withdrawal is to work successfully. I have always said that Brexit is good news for lawyers, and I say that with respect to my former profession.

New clause 53 was spoken to so impressively by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and through it he seeks to address the potential loss of family reunion aspects of the Dublin III regulation and to propose alterations to the UK’s system by taking the key definition of “family” from the Dublin III convention and applying it to the UK’s refugee family reunion rules. Earlier this year, as my hon. Friend said, we went to Greece as guests of UNICEF to visit and talk to those who had travelled and were seeking refuge and looking to join family members in other parts of Europe. It was a moving and rather depressing but also ultimately inspirational visit that showed the power of the human spirit, particularly in younger people in search of a better life.

Parents and families often send their young people off to look for a better life here in Europe. Many of the young people we saw had made the dangerous journey to access family reunion under the Dublin III rules. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, Dublin III allows children to join their extended family once they reach Europe. Under the regulation, the definition of extended family includes uncles, aunts, grandparents and older siblings. If, after Brexit, children fleeing war and persecution will be able to rely only on the UK’s immigration rules, they will have a right to be reunited only with their parents, as the existing UK immigration rules provide only for the right of parents with refugee status or humanitarian protection to sponsor their under 18-year-old dependent children to join them in the UK. The UK rules do not provide the same right to other family members.

We have to recognise that in many of these circumstances, it is because a young person’s parents have perhaps been killed or are unable to look after them that wider family members might offer protection and the chance of a new life. Ministers were clear, right from the White Paper onward to the way the Bill was presented on Second Reading, and in speeches on this subject, that no rights would be changed or policy changes made in the Bill. It is about making sure that EU law that is brought back to the UK works and that deficiencies are corrected if necessary.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Did my right hon. Friend share my puzzlement at the answer that the Minister gave to that point at the Dispatch Box? It seemed an argument was being made that Dublin III requires co-operation that would be impossible to guarantee. As I understood it, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and my right hon. Friend herself are both recommending a change in our immigration law to ensure that we parallel the situation that currently obtains under Dublin III.

[Nicky Morgan]

My right hon. Friend puts it extremely well. I was going to say that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), was one of the most ardent campaigners for the UK to leave the European Union, presumably—I think I have heard him and others say this—on the basis that the UK would then be able to do what was right for us and what we judged to be in the national interest and the right thing to do for our place in the world, so there was irony in his saying that we would not be able to do that because of restrictions and because it would not be allowed under the rules. That seemed to drive a coach and horses through what has been sold to me sometimes as the benefits of Brexit. I might remain unconcerned, but on this, I think that there might well be an opportunity for us to improve the current situation. I hope very much that the UK Government will take up such an opportunity.

If leaving the European Union gives us a chance to provide more clarity to our immigration rules, it has to be a good thing. From what the Minister said, I understand that there may be another piece of legislation, namely the forthcoming immigration Bill, that might be more suitable for tackling the issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, we have spoken to the Minister for Immigration. I hope that we can take advantage of this opportunity to look again at the rules to clarify the fact that we want to mirror the Dublin III rules as we go forward. Ministers can be assured that, if this is not picked up when we get to that immigration Bill, my hon. Friend and I will be tabling a similar amendment in order to probe further and to hold the Government to account.

It is important that the United Kingdom remains committed to helping the most vulnerable both here and abroad. Surely that must be partly what a global Britain—by which I mean Britain taking its place on the world stage and making a difference—has to be about. This is the sort of amendment that says much about our values as a Government, as a party and also as a country. We do not want to make it even harder for young people to come to this country to build a new life and to make the most of themselves. I view this issue through the inspirational work of the Baca charity in my constituency.

Let me turn now to new clause 77 and amendment 385, which were spoken to so well by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). She knows a lot about these sorts of issues so I will keep my remarks very brief. Again the point is that the protections for those at risk of violence or worse must surely be maintained as we leave the European Union. I cannot honestly believe that any Member in this House would want Brexit to stop the current protections for those at such risk.

The hon. Lady’s amendment picks up on the European protection orders that allow a person who is protected against a perpetrator in a member state to retain that protection when they travel or move within the European Union. I heard what the Under-Secretary said at the Dispatch Box. I take the point that this is a detailed amendment and that, perhaps, it is better dealt with by the relevant Ministers from the relevant Department—the Home Office. I think that the Minister, who is back in the Chamber, did agree that this point would be, and should be, on the negotiation agenda. The desire for UK courts to continue to recognise European protection orders after exit date must surely be right, and I will support the hon. Lady in her amendment. There are a number of other Members—I cannot remember the exact number—who have signed this amendment to make sure that these issues are on the negotiation agenda. When talking about leaving the European Union, it is very easy to boil it all down to trade, to numbers and to statistics, but there are people whose lives will be affected, as we have also seen with EU citizens living here and UK citizens living abroad.

Finally, the Prime Minister has been committed throughout her political career to ending human trafficking, fighting female genital mutilation and having a strong strategy to fight violence against women and girls. She has been very clear on this, so I cannot believe that she would not want these protections to be upheld after the exit date.

Finally, let me turn to the Henry VIII powers and the amendments laid by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) who was particularly concerned about the concentration of powers in the hands of Ministers. I think she is right. I am a former lawyer, and one of the legal tendencies is continually to try to draft against what can go wrong when a client is about to embark on something—whether they have been advised to do it or not to do it. A lawyer’s task then is to try to find them protections. Although we can have confidence in current Ministers with regard to the powers that they might want to exercise, we never know what might happen in the future. If this Parliament does not ask why Ministers want all these powers and what they are going to do with them, the next generation of MPs, and the ones after that, will want to know why; they will want to know why we did not seek to apply some limitations on the exercise of those powers.

I am pleased that the Government have listened to the concerns about Henry VIII powers and are going to accept the amendments tabled by the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). He has secured an important concession—that Ministers will keep Members of Parliament informed of the forthcoming statutory instruments. I hope that Ministers will take that on board. Parliament must be involved in scrutinising powers that are exercised by the Executive. It is a fundamental tenet of this country’s unwritten constitution. I have set out two examples: the protection of the rights of vulnerable children and of those at risk of violence or worse. We should be asking how the statutory instruments needed to bring those laws back from Europe will be exercised and drafted, and we should be checking it all.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed changes to the standing orders are particularly welcome in that they provide specifically for the new committee, as I understand it—I am looking for approval from the Chair of the Procedure Committee —to use the Select Committees that deal with each Department to look in detail at the departmental statutory instruments, so we will have real expertise available?

[Nicky Morgan]

That is an excellent point and a very good idea. There has always been a wider call for the Treasury Committee, which I am privileged to chair, to look more broadly at finance legislation.

The Minister had a difficult job this afternoon. There were a lot of amendments for him to deal with, many of which were very detailed and some of which were clearly not within his departmental remit. This proves the point that we do need Members of Parliament who have an expertise in their background, sit on a Select Committee or have held a particular ministerial brief. This is the time for them to offer their expertise to the House and the country in order to ensure that we get the law that we are bringing back from the EU correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I rise to speak to the provisions in my name, and particularly to new clause 27, which I hope to press to a vote later this evening. I apologise to Members for being absent from the debate for a couple of hours while I was in a Committee.

New clause 27 aims to preserve the high level of environmental protection that comes with membership of the EU. As we have discussed tonight, there is a very real risk that Brexit will create a big gap when it comes to the enforcement, in particular, of environmental law and standards in this country. The European Commission’s monitoring of member states’ action to implement and comply with EU law, backed up by the European Court of Justice’s ability to impose effective financial sanctions, have been an absolutely vital driver in pressing for and delivering environmental improvements in the UK. The example of clean air in London is just one case study that makes that point. In the absence of an effective domestic enforcement regime replicating the vital roles and functions currently performed by the Commission and the ECJ, it is difficult to see how the Government can deliver on their manifesto pledge to leave the environment in a better state than they found it.

On day 2 of the Committee, on 15 November, we had a good debate on the case for fully transposing the EU environmental principles into UK law. The debate was ultimately fruitless in terms of amending the Bill, but we heard a great deal from both sides of the Chamber about the importance of the EU environmental principles to the future protection of the environment in this country.

Perhaps most significantly, environmentalists such as myself were encouraged by a rather remarkable double act, with nods and comedic timing, of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. From that, we learned a little more about the Secretary of State’s plan, first announced on 12 November, to consult on a new independent statutory body to

“advise and challenge government and potentially other public bodies on environmental legislation…stepping in when needed to hold these bodies to account and enforce standards.”

More to the point, we were led to believe that the Secretary of State now intends to introduce an environmental protection Bill to establish an environmental protection body with prosecutorial powers and independence from Government that is charged with policing and enforcing a national policy statement incorporating the EU environmental principles.

That amounts to a welcome recognition on the part of the Secretary of State of the risk of an ever-widening governance gap on environmental protection after the UK leaves the EU if there is not a domestic enforcement regime. Taken at face value, it also seems to be an acknowledgment that the new environmental protection body must be absolutely independent of Government; must be prosecutorial and investigatory so that it can hold the Government and other public bodies to account, including through the courts if necessary; and must be robust and durable so that it cannot easily be abolished or have its functions eroded by stealth.

However, what we still do not know is whether this is a concrete plan that will soon be put into practice so as to ensure the protection of environmental standards in the UK from March 2019, or something that the Secretary of State alone ruminates about while in the bath.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

rose—

[Caroline Lucas]

I am sorry—I love having discussions with the right hon. Gentleman, but I am aware that other people want to speak.

I will come straight to the point. My case is that the right hon. Gentleman wants me to have enough faith in the Secretary of State and in the capacity of this Government to get through a whole new piece of legislation in time. The crux of this debate is whether the rest of the House is prepared to go along with the confidence the right hon. Gentleman demonstrates, or whether we want to have a belt-and-braces approach.

The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that the idea of putting something in the Bill was inelegant. It may well be inelegant, but it is also a belt-and-braces way of making sure that, come the day we leave the EU—if indeed we do—we have all this legislation in an enforceable form on our statute book. If the Government are already saying, “Of course we’re going to do it—why worry?” why would they be so afraid of putting this into the Bill too? I appreciate that it is not elegant, but I would rather be inelegant and effective than elegant and ineffective.

That is why I want to press new clause 27 to a vote. It is a belt-and-braces way of ensuring with absolute certainty that when EU laws are brought into UK law they are properly enforceable and can be properly implemented. I had more to say, but to be fair to others, I will end now.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Oliver Letwin Excerpts

Committee: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 6th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

Yes. All hon. Members, not just the Government—there are such hon. Members even on the Labour Benches—will want to commit public resources to all sorts of things, and they need to recognise that if the cost is £60 billion, that is not something to be sniffed at. In a couple of years’ time the deficit is projected to be about £30 billion a year, so we are talking about the equivalent of two years of deficit to be added, presumably, to the national debt at that point in time. That is all notwithstanding what happens to our wider economic circumstances. These things should not just be dismissed.

We should be putting the House of Commons at the centre of this process and not treating it as a peripheral part of the Brexit arrangements. That is why this new clause is so important. Brexit is a costly exercise and Parliament needs to have the chance to properly reflect on it. A potential divorce bill of £1,000 for every man, woman and child in this country certainly should not just be brushed aside. When we ask ourselves what we are getting for this arrangement, we see that we are getting the chance to rip up the finest free trade agreement—a frictionless, tariff-free agreement—of anywhere in the world, for the chance to have something inferior. The current path we are on is not about taking back control; this is about losing control. The idea that Parliament should simply step to one side and agree to have control taken away from it is not acceptable to me and to very many hon. Members. This new clause would at least drag Brexit back into the sunlight and let the public hold those responsible to account.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

With his customary eloquence, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) has given a splendid speech about many things. I wish to divert slightly from his path by taking his new clause seriously as a legislative object, rather than engaging in the interesting questions he raised about the utility or otherwise of the whole of Brexit. The Committee is called upon to decide whether proposed amendments to the legislation are meritorious in terms of achieving the objects of the Bill, and that is what we have done in Committee on many other occasions as we have gone through the Bill.

It is obviously right that Parliament should control public expenditure. The withdrawal agreement will be an element of public expenditure, so one might think that new clause 17 was meritorious. However, it is clear that the payments that the new clause describes will, if they arise at all, be part of an agreement. The Government, rightly, have already said that Parliament will have a vote on the agreement. We cannot vote on an agreement without voting on the financing of an agreement, because the agreement will stipulate the financing. Therefore, new clause 17 is entirely otiose and there is no reason for the House to vote in favour of it. The House should reserve its voting for a later moment when the Government introduce the amendment to allow us to control the agreement, which I shall certainly support.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I think the Government have gone further. They have said that if there is an agreement, primary legislation would probably be needed to implement it, which means that the full procedures for statutory approval would be required in order for there to be the power to make any payments—as I understand it, there are no legal grounds for making additional payments to the EU, and if the Government wish to do so, they will need legal grounds—and then to cover the full implementation of the agreement.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

As so often, my right hon. Friend snatches the next words from my mouth. I was about to say that the House will, as he rightly observes, be called on to vote on primary legislation, as we understand it, which will of course require something called a money resolution, with which I know the hon. Member for Nottingham East is fully familiar because I have heard him make long speeches about them on several occasions. He is an expert at doing so, and no doubt he will enjoy doing so again when the relevant resolution comes before the House, but new clause 17 is not necessary to achieve the objective.

[Mr Leslie]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about wanting to probe the details of the new clause, which is specifically about amounts of money paid out without authorisation. He must agree that despite their name, money resolutions do not always specify a sum of money. A draft withdrawal agreement would not necessarily have to set out the amount of money, either. If he has heard otherwise from the Government, I would be interested to know.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I do not think there is the slightest chance that a withdrawal agreement will be put before the House that does not specify, or enable one to calculate, an amount of money, because there is no indication that the EU would accept such a thing. Whether or not we should be paying such an amount is a separate matter. In any event, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) just said from a sedentary position, if that is a deficiency of a forthcoming money resolution, it is a deficiency shared by new clause 17, which also does not stipulate anything about an amount. One way or the other, I fear that the new clause is otiose. It has given an admirable opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to make an interesting speech, but that is its only virtue. The House should have nothing further to do with it.

[Jenny Chapman]

It is a real pleasure to be called to contribute. I wish to speak to new clause 80 and amendments 339 and 340 in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

New clause 80 would require a vote in the House on the financial settlement that the Government agree with the European Union. Further, it would require the House to be informed in its decision on that matter by reports from the Office for Budget Responsibility and the National Audit Office. Amendments 339 and 340 would prevent tax or fee-raising powers from being established via tertiary legislation and limit any fees that are levied by public bodies to the cost of the service that the fee is intended to cover.

I should start by referring Members to the third report of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee from September, which examined the Bill before us today. The report draws our intention to the fact that the delegated powers memorandum notes that those powers would enable

“the creation of tax-like charges, which go beyond recovering the direct cost of the provision of a service to a specific firm or individual, including to allow for potential cross-subsidisation or to cover the wider functions and running costs of a public body.”

The report alerts Parliament to the danger of allowing organisations full-cost recovery of their services without parliamentary scrutiny as it could allow them to gold-plate the services that they offer. As the report says:

“A tax-like charge means a tax.”

And it

“should not be allowed in subordinate legislation. They are matters for Parliament, a principle central to the Bill of Rights 1688. Regulations under clauses 7 and 9 cannot impose or increase taxation.33 But regulations under Schedule 4 may.”

The report goes on to make the point that that means that Ministers can tax. They can

“confer powers on public authorities to tax and they can do so in tertiary legislation that has no parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever.”

New clause 80 also addresses this issue of a lack of parliamentary oversight. As we all know, the Government are in the process of attempting to conclude the first phase of negotiations with the European Union. Part of that process is agreeing a financial settlement, which reflects the obligations that the United Kingdom has incurred as a result of its membership of the European Union. Labour has always been clear that Britain should meet its obligations. We cannot seriously hope to make new agreements on the international stage if we are seen to go back on what we have already agreed. Britain is a far better, fairer and more reliable ally than that.

As the Chancellor said when he attended the Treasury Committee today:

“I find it inconceivable that we as a nation would be walking away from an obligation that we recognised as an obligation.”

He continued:

“That is just not a credible scenario. That’s not the kind of country we are and frankly it would not make us a credible partner for future international agreements.”

On that, we are agreed. But we have also been clear that the deal must be fair to the taxpayer. Already the Government are attempting to bypass the scrutiny that should take place in this Chamber. This money belongs to the UK taxpayer and they have a right to know how much, and for what they are paying. It is true that the public interest in discovering more about the financial settlements that the Government intend to make with the EU is great, and that there will inevitably and rightly be extensive media coverage. The details, some certain and some speculative, will be pored over by commentators. Estimates will be made and objections proffered on the basis—sometimes, I venture to say—of inaccurate or incomplete information. That is not a satisfactory way to proceed. The House must get a grip of this process and demand the ability to scrutinise and take a view on the deals reached.

Our new clause argues that this House should have a vote, and also that the vote should be properly informed. Being properly informed means that independent analysis by the OBR and the NAO must be provided to assist this House in its consideration of the deal. We are going to need that, because the financial settlement will not be straightforward, and unvarnished truths will be hard to come by. Crudely speaking, the Government will try to make the amount look as reasonable as possible and the EU will try to show that it has everything that it thinks it is due.

The Government will want to highlight estimates that show how payments will be less than half the €100 billion liability, once UK projects have been taken into account. As Alex Barker in the Financial Times put it last week:

“Ministers are banking on Treasury budget wizards making the exit price look as small as possible.”

The two sides in the negotiation could look at the same agreement and come up with net estimates that are quite different.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We come directly to that point in amendment 153, in which we propose to add to schedule 4 the words set out on the amendment paper, which I shall read out. We propose to constrain Ministers’ powers by saying, first, that regulations

“may not be made for the purposes of…creating a fee or charge that does not replicate a fee or charge levied by an EU entity on exit day”.

That is exactly the point my hon. Friend has just raised. We of course recognise that a lot of charges are imposed at the moment by EU bodies of one sort or another—she mentioned a very important one—and that, in future, comparable fees or charges may well need to be levied by UK entities, but the aim of the first paragraph of amendment 153 is to make it clear that Ministers cannot impose new fees or charges for which there is not already a counterpart from the EU entity.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

The right hon. Gentleman is doing exactly what needs to be done in Committee, and I have considerable sympathy with his ambitions. Has he considered whether the reference to remedying deficiencies as the basis for secondary legislation powers under the Bill would in any case have the effect he is describing?

[Stephen Timms]

I had not considered that, and the right hon. Gentleman may well have a point. I would be interested to know whether that is indeed the case. That interesting point is certainly worth pursuing, and I would welcome it if he expanded on that later.

Secondly, amendment 153 states that Ministers cannot bring forward regulations for the purpose of

“increasing a fee or charge to an amount larger than an amount charged by an EU entity for the performance of the relevant function on exit day.”

Let me take the example my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) mentioned. The European Medicines Agency does very important work, and it charges the industry for that work. I am suggesting that the secondary legislation powers in schedule 4 should not be used to introduce a charge for the same function that is higher than the one currently charged by the European Medicines Agency. There may well be a loss of economies of scale in leaving the European Medicines Agency, and it may well be that undertaking that function purely for the UK will be a less efficient process than doing it EU-wide, as the European Medicines Agency does, but I do not think the secondary legislation powers in the schedule should be used to impose on industry or any charge payer a fee that is higher than the one currently charged by the EU entity.

I accept that there may well in due course need to be some higher fees or charges than those currently levied by EU entities, because the process may well be less efficient when carried out at a UK-only level, but I do not think the secondary legislation powers should be used for that purpose. If Ministers want to bring forward a proposal to impose a higher fee or charge, they should do so through the proper parliamentary process, with scrutiny by this House, not through secondary legislation powers.

EU Exit Negotiations

Oliver Letwin Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend reassure those of us who increasingly believe that our strongest chance of ever achieving a deal is to be able to demonstrate to our EU counterparts that we are capable of managing exit without a deal that he will shortly publish a comprehensive and convincing account of how this country will manage affairs in the absence of any deal whatever?

[Mr Davis]

What I have said to the House many times over is that what my right hon. Friend alludes to is not the primary policy of this Government—the policy of this Government is to obtain a free trade deal—but he is quite right: in the event that such a thing did not happen, we would be able to make a good future for Britain. It is not the best future, though; it is not the best choice in front of us.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Oliver Letwin Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

No, I will not—unless the Government move on this—because the flaws are so fundamental that they should go away and do their homework again. Not a single person in this Chamber does not accept that legislation is required to undertake the task; we are just saying that it is not the legislation before us.

There is a huge difference between a statutory instrument that proposes in some regulation to delete the words “the Commission” and insert the words “the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs” and a statutory instrument that will, for example, give responsibility for the oversight and enforcement air-quality legislation, which derives from an EU directive, to an existing public body. What assurance can Ministers give us that whichever body is given that responsibility will have the same effective enforcement powers as the Commission has had, including ultimately taking case to the European Court of Justice, and will give the public the same power to hold that body and the Government to account if there is a continuing lack of progress in making sure that our air is pure enough to breathe? If that is not provided for, Government cannot argue that the Bill’s aim is to produce exactly the same situation the day after we leave as existed the day before. Therefore, as many people have said, the Bill will have to produce a mechanism for sifting. We need to sift the proposals that come forward, so that we can distinguish the absolutely straightforward and non-controversial and those that raise really quite important issues of policy, so that we as Parliament can do our job.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

I have a very simple question for the right hon. Gentleman. Does he agree with the proposition put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) that the Social Security Advisory Committee is a clear model of such a mechanism?

[Hilary Benn]

It was an interesting proposal, but, personally, I think that others can give advice, but in the end the sifting must be done by Parliament or a body established by Parliament and made up of parliamentarians. That is my clear view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

This has been a fascinating debate so far, and I am delighted that a little bird tells me that the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House are conspiring to try to make arrangements for it to be extended to midnight on the second day.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the debate has been the appearance of logic in what was said by not only the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), but the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). What they said sounded forensic and logical. The structure of their argument, as I think other Members will recognise, is as follows: “We do not like clause 9, we do not like clause 17 and we do not like schedule 7, and therefore, instead of waiting to see whether they will change in Committee before voting on Third Reading, we will reject the Bill on Second Reading.”

That is not what logicians call logic; it is what they call a non sequitur, which prompts the question, “Why the non sequitur?” The answer is that the three people whom I have just mentioned are among the cleverest people in Parliament. They understand logic perfectly well, and they understand what a non sequitur is. The reason they are engaging in such an argument is that they hope to make some combination of trouble for the Government, or for the Brexit process. Conservative Members should pay not the slightest attention to such “un-arguments” and should get on with the business of examining the Bill as it is.

Having said that, I rather agree—in fact, I strongly agree—with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), and, indeed, with some of what was said by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). There is a lacuna here, and we do need to look at those clauses again. I suspect that much of the remedy will lie in the use of a combination of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments as the ultimate body and, for instance, the Social Security Advisory Committee to do the detailed work on what will probably be near on 1,000 technical statutory instruments before the House comes to consider the really serious matters that will need to be dealt with in one way or another.

There is, however, one point that I want to make in advance of the Committee stage in the hope that the Government will consider it between now and then. One fundamental issue has not been addressed in the debate so far. It relates to what we used to call the European Court of Justice or the Court of Justice of the European Union. Members who have read clause 6 will have noticed that, as the Secretary of State pointed out, subsection (4) states that

“the Supreme Court is not bound by any retained EU case law”.

That seems to be a fairly important statement, but it is not quite as important as one might think, because the Supreme Court is not bound by itself either: it is the kind of court that can always depart. So I think that it is more of a ritual utterance than anything else.

According to clause 6(3),

“Any question as to the validity, meaning or effect of any retained EU law is to be decided…in accordance with any retained case law and any retained general principles of EU law”.

In case anyone has any doubt about whether that might be just a drafting error, I should point out that the Government’s own document describing the Bill states:

“Questions on the meaning of retained EU law will be determined by domestic courts in accordance with pre­exit CJEU case law.”

In other words, those parts of the Bill, as currently drafted, enshrine the CJEU, with its expansionist teleological jurisprudence, as the basis for deciding what the law of the land is.

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am sorry, but I will not. I do not have much time. I do not believe that that is a very good way to do it, but if it were a good way to do it, we should certainly remove the reference to the Supreme Court not being bound by it, because it is not one solo parliamentarian who has no legal expertise, but is, rather, the retiring president of the Supreme Court, whom we do have to pay some attention to, who has pointed out that there is an ambiguity here.

[Mr Grieve]

It is by no means the only ambiguity in this Bill, but I agree entirely that to ask the judiciary to carry out an interpretation of something that is so oddly and, I have to say, vaguely worded is a recipe for disaster and is something this House should avoid doing.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend about that and hope that in Committee we will be able to address that head on. My personal belief is that we should address it in the form of changing clause 6(3), to ensure that it is open to—indeed, that we give an inducement to—our courts to move back to the plain words of the texts of the treaties and directives, so far as they judge that can be done without injustice to individuals. That is the principle that most people who voted for leave, and indeed many of us who voted on balance to remain but have been extremely sceptical about the activities of the ECJ and the Court of Justice of the European Union for many years, would wish to see enshrined in this legislation. I suspect that I might even carry my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe on that point, because he was, somewhat surprisingly, very sceptical about the ECJ on many occasions—I say surprisingly, because, despite his enthusiasm for the EU, which I never quite managed to share, actually he is a very good parliamentarian and a very good lawyer and recognises that we do not want a court that makes its own law. So I think we have a way forward that we can seek to follow in Committee.

None of that should obscure the fact that this is a good and necessary Bill. Nothing that the Opposition have said has suggested that there is any structural deficiency. Therefore, I will vote for it, and I hope all my friends and colleagues on the Conservative Benches and, indeed, many on the Opposition Benches will do the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) on her maiden speech, which I greatly enjoyed. Canterbury is a city I know well: it is where I spent many of my early years at the Bar, cutting my teeth as an advocate. I hope I can remind myself of some of the lessons I learned there in contributing briefly to this debate.

I shall support the Government in the vote on Second Reading. The Bill is vital: we cannot leave the European Union sensibly without such a Bill on the statute book. The Government need support, and they will have it from me. Nevertheless, I regret to have to say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that unless the Bill is substantially improved in Committee, I will be in no position to support it in its current form on Third Reading.

In many respects, it is an astonishing monstrosity of a Bill. Its first failing is its entreatment of EU law itself. I do not much care for EU law—I did not much enjoy practising it, although I had outings to the European Court of Justice when I was Attorney General—but it is a different form of law from our own, which we imported, and which, in many ways, has filled vast areas that otherwise we would have developed in our own domestic law. So we need to nurture it, because we cannot get rid of it overnight without leaving enormous gaps. In addition, there are safeguards within EU law that do not exist within our law and need to be retained, because otherwise EU law will act unfairly. Again, they are different from our own.

I have a number of areas of concern. The Bill does not deliver clarity. Its importation of EU law is hedged around with ambiguities that undermine one of the key pillars of the rule of law, which is certainty about what the law is. One example is given by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), but there are numerous others. For example, Clause 2(1) is so widely drawn that retained EU law will include domestic law that was implemented entirely domestically but has a link to the EU. That would then make something like the Equality Act 2010 susceptible to change by statutory instrument in clause 7—something which I suspect everybody in this House would regard as completely unacceptable.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we could address that in Committee not through a change to clause 2, which is pretty fundamental, but through changes in clauses 7, 8 and 9, with which we are already concerned?

[Mr Grieve]

Absolutely. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. These are all curable, and readily curable, with just a little bit of will.

There is another example on which we have already touched. EU law never used to be divided between primary and secondary legislation. Interestingly, it is all being treated as primary, which has the nice merit—I am sure that someone in Whitehall dreamed this up—that none of it would be susceptible to be quashed by a challenge under the Human Rights Act. That may not matter, but it is capable of causing unfairness when it is linked to the fact that the other area of challenge that would normally be available, which is a challenge because something is in breach of the general principles of EU law, has been delicately removed along with the charter of fundamental rights.

I hope that I may be forgiven for saying this about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have had some wonderful times with him—journalists once said of him that he used to stand up and club Labour Home Secretaries over the head and then I would come along and dissect them in public with a legal scalpel—but I just slightly detect that he was looking a bit like a fugitive as the legal scalpel started to move in on him. I do not know where that idea came from, but somebody will have to sort it out. We will have to do it at the Committee stage of the Bill. There are other examples that I could give, but I do not have the time to do so right now, so I shall leave them for the Committee stage in which I intend to participate actively.

Let me move to the Henry VIII clauses. The current situation is ridiculous. I recognise that there will have to be Henry VIII clauses. Of course we cannot carry out this massive revolutionary transformation by primary legislation alone, but we can ensure that we have the necessary safeguards in place. The most obvious one is to have an established parliamentary system of scrutiny to ensure that the different types of statutory instruments that will be needed are correctly farmed out. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend is right that the vast majority of them will be technical and of very little account, but some will be extremely important and will need to be taken on the Floor of the House. We need to have a system in place to do that.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Oliver Letwin Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

There was one question on the ballot paper, and that was whether we should stay in the EU or leave the EU. There was no second question about the terms of leaving. It is impossible to extrapolate, but I would be staggered if most people thought that this House should not have a proper grip of the available options in two years’ time and hopefully beyond. I expect that they would have said, “Of course we want Parliament to be fully involved. We would expect accountability and scrutiny, and we would expect votes.”

I shall conclude, because we only have two hours and other people wish to speak. These are simple amendments that would improve the article 50 process. They have obtained cross-party support and large majorities in the Lords, they are the right amendments on vitally important issues, and the obsession with the idea of a clean, unamended Bill should not triumph over decency and principle.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about amendment 1, but I wish to speak about amendment 2. The operative provision is subsection (4) which states—I want to remind the House as it is material to what I am about to say:

“The prior approval of…Parliament shall…be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement”.

I have already argued in past debates exactly what my right hon. Friend argued today—namely, that if that subsection were to have its intended effect, it would be inimical to the interests of this country, because it would have the undoubted effect of providing a massive incentive for our EU counterparts to give us the worst possible agreement. I agree with him about that. However, I think that the situation is worse—far worse—than he described, because the operative subsection is deeply deficient as a matter of law. The reason for that is not just the one that Lord Pannick admitted, or half-admitted, in the House of Lords, but because under very plausible circumstances this subsection will not have anything like its intended effect. Let me briefly illustrate why that is the case.

Article 50 of the treaty on European Union is, for once in treaties, entirely clear. Paragraph 3 of the article states:

“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question…two years after the notification…unless the European Council… unanimously decides to extend this period.”

Let us imagine that what the Secretary of State, the Government, all my hon. Friends and, I suspect, all Opposition Members hope will not be the case—namely, that the negotiations for a proper comprehensive free trade agreement break down—actually happens. We all hope that will not happen, but we cannot preclude the possibility that it will happen. If it does happen, I think all Members on both sides of the House must have the emotional intelligence to recognise that in all probability that would be under circumstances of some acrimony.

How likely is it that under such circumstances, with agreement having broken down in some acrimony, the European Council would be able to achieve a unanimous agreement to allow the UK to remain a member beyond the two-year period? I speculate that it is very unlikely. If we assume that that were to occur, we need to ask ourselves what would actually happen under those circumstances. One thing can be predicted with certainty: there would be litigation. The litigation would ask, ultimately, the Supreme Court to decide the question, “What has happened here? Has the Prime Minister made a decision, or has the Prime Minister not made a decision?” That could be decided in one of two ways. I rather think that Members on both sides of the House would agree with me that the Supreme Court must decide either that the Prime Minister has made the decision or that the Prime Minister has not made the decision.

Let us suppose for a moment that the Supreme Court decides that the Prime Minister has not made a decision, because it has been made instead by the European Council—a perfectly plausible outcome of the Court’s proceedings. In that case, subsection (4) is totally inoperable. It has no effect whatsoever, because what it does, purportedly, is to prevent the Prime Minister from making a decision without a vote. If the Prime Minister has, in the ruling of the Court, made no decision, it is impossible for her to have made a decision without a vote; therefore, the law has been conformed with, and Parliament is not given any ability to vote on the matter.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, and there is a further point. When it comes to the competing legislation at that point, it would be for the courts to consider whether or not the provisions in the Lisbon treaty that dealt with the question of article 50 had somehow been qualified, amended or repealed by a subsequent enactment.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but it seems to me that for this purpose we do not even need to raise that question, because there is only one other possibility in this Court action—that the Court decides that the Prime Minister has implicitly made the decision. I do not quite know how the Court would get to that answer, but we could speculate that if the Prime Minister had acted differently in the course of the negotiations, the European Council would have acted differently, so implicitly the Prime Minister has made the decision.

Under those circumstances, subsection (4) would, purportedly, come into effect. That is, I suppose, what its authors intended. However, if the European Council has not by the end of the two-year period made a unanimous decision and if the courts decided that the Prime Minister had thereby implicitly decided, the courts would be requiring Parliament to do something that it is impossible to do—namely, to get the Prime Minister to reverse a decision that, as a matter of ordinary language, the Prime Minister would not have made at a time when the Prime Minister could not undo a decision that, as a matter of ordinary language, the European Council had made.

I am perfectly aware that it is of the greatest importance for Members of this House to show due deference to the other place, and I also genuinely admire the skills of the authors of the amendment, but I put it to them that even the House of Lords in all its majesty cannot compel the Prime Minister to do something that is impossible. That is beyond the scope of any human agency.

[John Redwood]

Is that not evidenced by Lord Pannick himself arguing seriously in court that the letter is irreversible?

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, although the Supreme Court went to great pains not to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice, for very good reasons, so we can leave even that argument aside.

My point is very simple. Either subsection (4) would have its intended effect or it would not. If it did, it would be inimical to the interests of this country, because it would induce the worst possible agreement to be offered—as a matter of fact, it will not have that effect in plausible circumstances—and if it did not, it would be bad law. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that this House should not be passing legislation that either is inimical to the interests of this country or constitutes bad law, and that we should therefore reject the amendment.

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

This is a very timely debate about amendments that go to the heart of the situation in which we find ourselves. The Scottish National party has made it very clear that we want much more detailed reassurance—perhaps the odd detail or two from the Government—and that is where parliamentary scrutiny should have been involved. We should also be having a debate about the kind of country in which we want to live, and the kind of country that Scotland becomes and the United Kingdom becomes. That is where the amendment on EU nationals comes in.

The Secretary of State may have caught the First Minister’s statement earlier today, in which she made it very plain that this was not the situation in which we wanted to find ourselves. In fact, the Scottish Parliament voted by 92 votes to zero, across political parties, that we should look at ways of securing our relationship with Europe. It is a critical relationship that we have with our European partners, one that has an impact on, and benefits, each and every one of us; but, nearly nine months after the EU referendum, we still do not have that much in the way of detail from an increasingly clueless Government.

The most detailed response to the referendum so far came in the form of a compromise proposed by the Scottish Government just before Christmas. That compromise—let us not forget this—would have meant Scotland leaving the EU against its will to protect our place in the single market. It was a big compromise, and it took a lot from the Scottish National party to put it forward, especially given that Scotland had voted overwhelmingly to remain part of the European Union. We did it in order to protect jobs, the economy, and opportunities for young people and their environment in the face of a hard Tory Brexit.

The Fraser of Allander Institute has suggested that we could lose up to 80,000 jobs in Scotland alone as a result of the Government’s plans. We have a responsibility to protect those jobs, we have a responsibility to think about opportunities for young people, and we have a responsibility to think about the rights that we receive from our membership of the European Union. We have a responsibility not to just roll over in the face of a disastrous Tory plan.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Letwin Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

The Treasury made it clear, very rapidly at the beginning of this process, that it would underwrite agreements made with the European Union that carried on beyond the point of Brexit as long as they met value-for-money requirements. The responsibility for making that judgment in the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will lie with the Welsh Government, so I do not see that there is a risk there. Beyond 2020, the EU will have its own budget arrangements anyway, and we will be in the same position.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that the very last thing he is going to do is to accept any blandishments from those on the other side of the House, and that he is going to start discussing in detail—in this House or elsewhere—the transitional arrangements with the EU?

[Mr Davis]

Of course my right hon. Friend is right. This is not about some arrangement to extend the discussions or the negotiations; it is about practical implementation issues that may well turn out to be in the interests of both sides, and it is in those circumstances that we would achieve them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

We have not yet seen an end to the tampon tax, but the moment we leave, I am sure it will be one of the first things I have on the agenda for talking to the Chancellor about. The hon. Lady should bear in mind that we are using the funding from the tampon tax for all sorts of incredibly important causes, which she will know better than I do. We will continue with that until the moment we can repeal it.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government tread warily regarding the possibility of any resurrection of the merger between the London stock exchange and Deutsche Börse while we are engaged in complex negotiations about equivalence regimes in financial services?

[Mr Davis]

Yes.