European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting
Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I should probably have indicated for the benefit of new Members, and will indicate now, that clause 33 will not be decided today. Although it is grouped with these amendments, it will be taken as a Committee of the Whole House decision tomorrow and may or may not be divided on. To make that clear, it will not be that we have forgotten it.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure to rise to speak to new clause 4 primarily and to have the opportunity to correct the misrepresentation by the Secretary of State of our objectives in tabling it. It is also a pleasure to do so with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I want to take this opportunity to thank you and indeed all the Clerks for the work that has been done to ensure that we are able to debate the issues in the Bill today. Much of that work was done over the recess when other people were enjoying the break.

I have to say how much we regret that the Government have provided so little time to debate a considerable number of amendments, all tabled because they will have profound consequences for our country for generations to come. Our proposals over the next two days echo the concerns expressed in the previous Parliament and reflect the approach that has guided us as an Opposition over the past four difficult and divisive years.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He talks about the principles that have guided him. Surely they are the principles that have misguided him and his party. Does he not understand that the political landscape has changed as a result of the general election? As the Secretary of State said, people want to get Brexit done. They do not want further delay, which is all that his new clause and new clause 36 would bring.

[Paul Blomfield]

I had hoped for a better initial intervention. We are very clear that we accept that the general election has changed the landscape. The shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has made that position clear, other colleagues have made that position clear, and I will do so in my remarks. Government Members should recognise that, although under our electoral system the arithmetic in this place is very clear, the majority of the British people voted for parties that were not of the mind of the Conservative manifesto and wanted to give the British public a further say. I say that not to deny the reality of the voting in this place, but to urge Government Members to have some caution about the way that they approach this issue and claim authority from the British people.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will of course give way. It is always a pleasure.

[Sir William Cash]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I just wanted to clarify one thing. Labour Front Benchers and the whole Labour party—with few exceptions, if any—voted against the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. First, does he confirm that that was the case—I do not think that he can deny it? Secondly, does that not make it clear that, back in 2018 when that Act received Royal Assent, they were refusing to accept the will of the British people and were against repealing the 1972 Act?

[Paul Blomfield]

I am always happy to confirm what is on the public record, but I would say that the Opposition were clear; we campaigned to remain in the European Union because we believed that it was the right thing for our country and for the continent that we share with the other members of the EU, but we accepted the outcome of the referendum and voted to trigger article 50. We believe that there would have been the possibility both of winning an overwhelming majority in this House and of uniting the British people around a departure from the European Union that reflected the 52:48 vote of a divided country in 2016—a decision that would have taken us out of the European Union while remaining close to it, aligned with the single market, in a customs union, and continuing to be part of the agencies and partnerships that we have built together over 46 years. That sort of deal was available and it was Government Members who denied it.

We voted against the Bill on Second Reading because we believe that the withdrawal agreement is a bad deal for the UK, just as we voted against previous withdrawal agreements. When Government Members point fingers, it is worth remembering that we were not alone in that. Albeit for very different reasons, many Government Members, including the Prime Minister, voted more than once against getting Brexit done—on the terms of the previous Prime Minister’s deal and for his own reasons.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I appreciate the sentiment in my hon. Friend’s speech and the way in which he describes the events of the past few years. Does he agree that our duty now, as a responsible Opposition, is to make these very points and to point out to the Government—however large their majority—issues of substance on which we disagree and where the interests of the United Kingdom are not being pursued effectively by the Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I very much agree. There needs to be a voice for the approaching 55% of people in this country who were uncomfortable with the direction offered by the Conservative party manifesto. Although the result of the general election was clear, it does not mean that the Government can proceed without question, challenge or scrutiny. That is the point of many of our amendments.

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, the tone of which is just right. May I press the wider question around scrutiny? We will shortly have no Exiting the European Union Committee and I am not sure when the Select Committees will return. There is a lot of detail and, having sat on the International Trade Committee, I know that a lot of mistakes can be made at the beginning of the process when it comes to having a forward-looking trade deal. I fear that rushing into it like this—not allowing Parliament much time to debate the principles at the beginning and giving the Government a tiny implementation period—could lead to a much worse outcome than if we were to take a little time to be more thoughtful and give Parliament a genuine role in the new arrangements.

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is right to focus on the issue. The Government have seemed reluctant to embrace the idea of scrutiny and accountability since October in so very many ways. I hope they will think seriously and quite genuinely over the period ahead to ensure that there is a proper opportunity for this House to question and debate the direction of travel.

[John Redwood]

I am glad that we have this opportunity for the Opposition to make their points, but can they not see that trying to take away the proposition that we leave at the end of the year, come what may, completely undermines the British negotiating position? Every time they have tabled an amendment over the past three and a half years, it has always been to do Britain down and leave us in a weak position.

[Paul Blomfield]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have had previous exchanges about comments that he might have made about doing Britain down. The position we have taken is that possibly it is not always the best idea to jump off a cliff—that if we find ourselves in a position where we are, for the sake of weeks or months, unable to secure a deal that is in the interests of the British economy, the sensible thing to do is to give ourselves a little bit of flexibility. He may think otherwise, but that is not our view.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that for many people listening to the argument he is making, this is not a case of a fear of jumping over the cliff but more a fear that those opposed to leaving the EU want us to have our feet firmly stuck in the mud of the EU for ever, and that is the reason he wants a further extension?

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it gives me the opportunity to say that that is absolutely not the case. We accept that we are leaving the European Union in three weeks’ time—end of—but that is not the end of Brexit because we will have considerable discussion in this place, and the Government will be involved in negotiations for some time to come, on the future relationship.

The future relationship is the concern behind new clause 4, because we have consistently sought to oppose any proposals that risk damaging people’s jobs and livelihoods. That is why we voted against the deal proposed by the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May): the current Prime Minister may have voted against her for different reasons. It is why we also voted against the deal proposed by the current Prime Minister in the last Parliament.

Since its introduction in October, this Bill has only got worse—in our view, much worse. It grants expansive powers to Ministers and severely diminishes any role for Parliament in the crucial period ahead. It removes our role in approving the Government’s negotiating mandate and voting on the final treaty. Protections for workers’ rights have been ditched, confirming that the TUC was right to dismiss previous Government promises as “meaningless procedural tricks”. The new Northern Ireland protocol undermines the UK’s internal market—something that the Prime Minister had promised his former allies faithfully that he was committed to protecting. Shamefully, the Government have removed the requirement to negotiate an agreement with the EU on unaccompanied children seeking asylum.

The Government have not only removed any role for Parliament in deciding whether to extend the implementation period but are now specifically prohibiting Ministers from agreeing an extension through clause 33, as the Secretary of State pointed out. So no deal is back on the table, as I think he confirmed in his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). It is that risk that new clause 4 attempts to address. We do not plan to press it to a vote this evening, but it is intended to provide an opportunity for the Government to come back to this House with their proposals, perhaps on Report, on how we avoid the catastrophe of no deal at the end of this year.

It is a reflection of the unfortunately polarised discourse on Brexit, reflected in some of the comments earlier, that new clause 4 was described in some sections of the media at the end of last week as an

“attempt to delay leaving the EU by two years”.

It is no such thing. We recognise, as I said, that the general election result means that we are leaving the European Union on 31 January, but what happens thereafter is crucial to our economy, to jobs and to people’s livelihoods, whether they voted leave or voted remain.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman says that he recognises the decision that the electorate took last month, but does he not accept that there was a very clear mandate to conclude the implementation period by the end of this year, which was clearly in the Conservative manifesto—the manifesto of the party that has clearly been elected with a significant majority in this House?

[Paul Blomfield]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to the point that I made earlier. I am very clear on the electoral arithmetic, but he should also be clear that there is significant concern among the British people—represented by almost 55% of those who cast their vote in the general election—about the future direction, and there is no mandate for leaving the European Union without a deal.

[Stephen Hammond]

I do not think that anyone can doubt my credentials as someone who is concerned about and opposed to no deal, but the hon. Member’s remarks would have greater validity if new clause 4 allowed for the potential of a very short extension necessary for the conclusion of a future relationship, as I think he was beginning to say, rather than a completely open-ended extension, which is unsurprisingly being described as an extension to Brexit. If he had wanted to stop no deal, he should have voted for a deal, and he should do that now.

[Paul Blomfield]

I do not question the hon. Member’s credentials in terms of his concern about our leaving without a deal, but I ask him to look carefully at new clause 4. The framing of the new clause in relation to two years builds on the provisions of the withdrawal agreement to which the Government have signed up but includes the capacity for a much shorter transitional period if the Government are successful in concluding a deal or if this House agrees. Our proposal very much addresses the point that he makes. I will come to that in more detail, and he might want to intervene again.

It was because of the risks of a disorderly departure that we were first to argue—it seems like a very long time ago now—for a transition period, which at that stage the Government opposed. We were raising the voice of business and of the trade unions, and we were pleased when the Government accepted that principle, although they saved face by renaming it an implementation period. When the end of the transition was originally set for December 2020, it was on the assumption that we would have left the EU on 29 March last year, leaving 21 months—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union asks, “Why didn’t we?” He could ask that of a number of his colleagues, including the Prime Minister. That would have left 21 months to negotiate our new relationships on trade and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out, on security in particular. Twenty-one months was seen as ambitious. Many in the Government sitting around the Cabinet table doubted its deliverability. That is why there was a provision to extend it. But now there is only 11 months, and in trade negotiation terms 11 months is unbelievably short.

The Government say that they want an ambitious, best-in-class free trade agreement. They talk about CETA as a model, but not about the time taken to negotiate CETA, of which they are well aware. They say that it will be easy to negotiate, because we start from the unique position in trade talks of existing alignment; the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) is nodding. But it is the Government’s objective to diverge from that alignment, to seek a deal that allows the UK to race to the bottom, undercutting the EU on obligations and regulations and stepping off the level playing field. That will be uniquely difficult to negotiate, and any deal secured in 11 months is highly likely not to be a good deal for the UK.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Member is making an important point. Essentially, this will be the first trade deal in history where the aim is to put up barriers rather than remove them. Rather than this being an easy process, is it not likely to be convoluted and difficult?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I agree with him.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we only need to look at the North American Free Trade Agreement renegotiation —a negotiation on the basis of a trade deal that has taken almost two years and still is not fully completed—to get an answer about how long it takes to negotiate a trade deal when one already exists and economies are already partly aligned?

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he is right. I fear that the Government platitudes about the ease of negotiating this deal skirt over the real challenges that will be faced and the need for some flexibility and provision to avoid the cliff edge.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

I have been fairly generous in giving away. I will make some progress and then take further interventions.

Under the provisions of the withdrawal agreement, as the Secretary of State pointed out, any extension to the transition period must be agreed by 1 July 2020, only five months after negotiations have begun. I fully accept that we might be completely wrong in our concerns. The Government might be able to negotiate a best-in-class free trade agreement within 11 months. If that is the case and they are able to secure a deal, there will be no extension under the provisions of our new clause, so what are they worried about? If the Government are confident—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is finding this funny, but if the Government are confident in their ability to agree a comprehensive future relationship with the European Union, I hope that they will have no problem in returning to the House with proposals along the lines of those outlined in new clause 4.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. When he says that it is a race to the bottom, surely he is showing his own prejudice, in the sense that he does not want the United Kingdom to devolve itself of any unnecessary regulations that have been imposed on this country over the last 47 years.

[Paul Blomfield]

I was quite involved in the debate during the referendum, and I listened carefully to what many of the Government Members who were advocating our departure were saying. They talked about a bonfire of regulations. The direction of travel for leaving the European Union was fairly clear: it is to free ourselves of those rights and protections that defend working people, protect the environment and protect consumers and to create a different sort of economic model. The hon. Member may not agree with my description, but I think that a “race to the bottom” summarises that pretty well.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Member asks what the problem is with new clause 4, because if we have done a deal by the end of 2020, we will leave anyway. The point is that if we are not allowed to delay, the imperative on both sides of the negotiating table is to get this done by the end of 2020. If we allow it to be extended for another two years, the negotiations are bound to take longer. Why can he not approach these negotiations with confidence? The Government are confident that they can do it within the period. Michel Barnier, whom I quoted earlier, seems confident that it can be done. Why can his party not approach the negotiations in that spirit?

[Paul Blomfield]

If the Government were so confident, why did they build into the withdrawal agreement the provision to be able to extend? It was a cautious insurance policy. They were right to do so. We are trying to help them with the problems that they are creating for themselves now.

Many Government Members know that there is a potential for us not to have secured the sort of deal that this country needs by the end of December. If, unamended, this Bill forces the country into a no-deal crash-out—which was described, for example, by Make UK, the voice of the manufacturing sector, as “the height of economic lunacy”—the Government will regret not having taken the opportunity to make some provisions along the lines of new clause 4, which protects the UK from the entirely unnecessary threat of no deal. It simply builds on the mechanism for extending the transition period that is already baked into the Government’s own withdrawal agreement; it is oven ready, as the Prime Minister would like to say. For the same reasons, we do not accept the insertion of clause 33, which is grandstanding nonsense that prohibits Ministers from agreeing to an extension to the transition period.

Let me be absolutely clear again: we are not seeking to delay Brexit—the UK will have left the EU in three weeks’ time—nor do we want to stay in the transition period any longer than is necessary, but the flexibility that we are proposing provides the certainty that business needs. There is no point in replacing the previous cliff edge, about which the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) expressed real concern, with the new cliff edge if the flexibility that we are suggesting is not there.

[Bob Blackman]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good case about why the Opposition are putting this forward, but will he explain why the date of 15 June 2020 is included? Why is it not 15 September or 15 October, or later in 2020, as one of the conditions that would force a vote in this House on applying for an extension? If he is serious about this, that date should be put back much nearer the end of the negotiations, when we will be more certain about how the Government are proceeding.

[Paul Blomfield]

I would not actually disagree with the point the hon. Gentleman makes. The date that we have included in new clause 4 is determined by the Government. The position of requiring some flexibility, let us remember, reflects the Government’s previous view. In the last version of this Bill, published in October, the Government accepted the principle that the transition period could be extended. That was the Government’s view—this Government. It was also the Government’s view that Parliament should have a role in that process—the current Prime Minister. It was right then; it is right now; and I look forward to proposals from the Government on Report to address these concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

New clause 18, as drafted, would discriminate by nationality because, as I said, it would give EU citizens preferential fees for citizenship.

My next sentence would have negated the need for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because I was about to say that new clause 18 would also undermine the legislative structure that is already in place. This Bill is not the place to set fees, including specific fee exceptions, as that is done in different legislation.

Part 2 of the Bill honours our obligation to EU citizens who are living in the UK by ensuring they have the certainty they need as our country moves forward. Frankly, it is disappointing that not all European countries have provided the same assurances to British nationals living in the EU, which is something we hope will change. We will continue to work towards that for our citizens.

This Government have always put citizens’ rights first and foremost, and we will continue to do so. EU citizens are our friends, our family members and our colleagues. They have made and continue to make a hugely important contribution to our country, our economy, our communities and our society, and we want them to stay. This Bill will ensure we can deliver that unequivocal guarantee, both now and in the future.

[Paul Blomfield]

I rise to speak to new clause 5 on the system for providing settled status, on which we will be seeking a vote, and to amendments 2, 3, 20 and 21 on the right of appeal, as well as amendment 37 on the Independent Monitoring Authority.

I regret the Minister’s combative response to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), who made a typically thoughtful and considered contribution that did not reflect division across the Committee because, when these issues have previously been debated in Parliament, considerable concern has been expressed on both sides about the consequences of getting this wrong. If we do get it wrong, it will have a significant impact not only on EU citizens in the UK and on Brits in Europe but, frankly, on our caseload as Members of Parliament.

I believe it is possible to reach agreement on some of these issues, and it is in that spirit that I address our amendments. On new clause 5, the Minister said that providing certainty for EU citizens is central to the Government’s agenda. The Prime Minister said:

“under this Government they”—

EU citizens—

“will have the absolute certainty of the right to live and remain.”—[Official Report, 25 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 1459.]

That seems clear, but the reality of applying for settled status is different. It is a constitutive system in which EU citizens acquire settled status or pre-settled status only by successfully applying for their right to live and work in the UK post Brexit. New clause 5 seeks to avoid that by making the scheme declaratory, meaning that EU citizens and family members who meet the eligibility criteria would automatically have the right to continue to live and work in the UK and would simply need to register for the purpose of proving their status.

We believe our approach would avoid a repeat of Windrush. The Minister suggested that the Government’s objective is to avoid such a Windrush situation and that a declaratory system could encourage a repeat. The Windrush scandal was caused by a number of factors: the changing legal environment for people who had lived here for decades; the 2012 introduction of the hostile environment; the lack of record keeping by the Home Office both under this Government and when we were in power—I am not trying to score party points; and by Home Office staff being incentivised by targets and bonuses to reach deportation targets. But for the Windrush victims, crucially, there was at least the legal safety net of the Immigration Act 1971, so they could seek recourse against their treatment.

What the Government are saying is that making the EU settlement scheme declaratory would create a second Windrush. They are perversely blaming the scandal—it was a scandal, as the Minister recognises—on that safety net, which is a fundamental misunderstanding. They are saying that the way to avoid another Windrush is to remove the safety net that the Windrush victims faced.

No system will get 100% of those eligible to apply, and I recognise the Minister’s point about the Government’s efforts to ensure that as many apply as possible. I take his point that 2.8 million have already done so, and I am sure many more will apply by the deadline of June 2021, but not everybody will. The Government do not even have a target for how many people they think should be eligible to apply. If only 3% of the estimated 3.5 million EU nationals living in Britain fail to apply, which is not beyond the bounds of possibility, it will leave 100,000 people facing a hostile environment and facing possible deportation. I have talked to many EU citizens who, despite all the Government’s publicity efforts, are unaware that the rights they have enjoyed for 30 years need to be applied for, and I have had to explain to them about how to apply for settled status. The Government have recognised that, as has the Minister. In an interview with the German newspaper Die Welt, he said:

“If EU citizens have not registered”

by the deadline for settled status

“without an adequate justification, the immigration rules will apply,”

When pressed on whether that would mean deportation, he said:

“Theoretically, yes, we will apply the…rules.”

The possibility of people whom we describe as our neighbours, friends, taxpayers and colleagues being deported exists while we pursue the same approach to settled status as the Government are now.

It is not too late to correct course. In our view, and that of others proposing similar amendments, a declaratory system is the only way to prevent hundreds of thousands of people from potentially being criminalised and deported. Under a declaratory scheme, if somebody does not register for settled status before June 2021, they will not lose rights; they will simply need to register for the Government to provide them with the proof of their status.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the speech he is making. Does he agree that the Minister is completely wrong to think that a declaratory system means that fewer people will apply after June next year? People will still have every incentive to apply for the settlement scheme, because they will need that proof to avoid the hostile environment and to access the NHS, employment and all their other entitlements in this country.

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there would be every incentive to apply, because without the proof these people will not be able to exercise their rights. We are simply seeking to ensure, through our new clause, that they do not lose their rights. The approach we are suggesting is explicitly allowed under the withdrawal agreement. The Government had a choice about what kind of system they would implement and, in our view, they chose wrong. We need to remember that this is not just about EU citizens in the UK; the largest national group affected by Brexit are the 1.2 million British citizens in Europe. The EU and the individual member states, not all of which have met our expectations, have been clear that rights granted to UK citizens will be based on reciprocity. The Minister is right to want to see other countries stepping up to the mark, but that will not be assisted if we reduce rights of citizens within the UK, because that will risk a reduction of rights of citizens across the EU27. So a declaratory scheme for EU citizens will be good not only for those here, but for UK citizens living in Europe.

I wish to move on to another aspect of the problems with the settlement scheme. The Minister said that 2.8 million have applied and he went on, unintentionally, I am sure, to give the wrong impression about the granting of status, because he said that 2.5 million had been granted status—that is correct, but it is not the status they had applied for. The most recent statistics show that almost half of the applicants for settled status are being granted pre-settled status, which comes with substantially fewer rights; it is a temporary form of leave lasting up to five years—[Interruption.] It is not indefinite leave to remain.

[Brandon Lewis]

You are misleading people—

[Paul Blomfield]

In a moment, I will ask the Minister to come back on me on some of these points and he might want to respond on that. In addition to the cliff edge at the end of 2021, when anyone who has not applied to the settlement scheme will face possible deportation, pre-settled status creates hundreds of thousands of individual cliff edges when people come to the point of confirming their individual position, because it does not provide—[Interruption.] I see my friend and former Committee colleague the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) looking puzzled about that, but if pre-settled status does not provide a permanent right to remain, that is granted only at the point at which settled status is gained. We are creating hundreds of thousands of individual cliff edges.

The campaign group the3million has shared one case with me that illustrates many of the problems with settled status. It involves an older Dutch woman who has been living in the UK for decades. Despite her living at the same address for more than 30 years, and paying council tax, income tax and NI, the online system could not find a trace of her, so she was forced to trawl through paperwork to provide evidence of seven years of residency. For some of those years she had saved council tax bills, but she had to find at least six bank statements for each of the other years. She then faced huge difficulties scanning and uploading the documents. After she had eventually sent them off, she waited several weeks for a response, only to be told that the Home Office required more evidence. After another difficult process of finding and submitting documents, she was finally granted settled status, but this woman has said that she could not have done it without help, and her journey shows that although the app may be simple for the most straightforward of cases, as soon as somebody faces difficulties, it can be immensely difficult to resolve them and secure the right status.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

No, I will not be giving way at the moment.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said that the whole process is different from previous systems. We are looking to grant status. I give great credit to the superb team of Home Office civil servants, particularly in Liverpool, who have delivered this scheme—a scheme that, as the hon. Gentleman said, is unprecedented in now having taken more than 2.8 million applications and processed some 2.5 million of them. To be clear with colleagues, of the almost 2.5 million applications that have been processed, I can confirm that only five have been refused—all on grounds of serious criminality. It is right that we do those checks and ensure that there is proper evidence.

Let me go a bit further in response to the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central regarding the difference between pre-settled status and settled status. What he said at the Dispatch Box risks creating a scaremongering regime that has been portrayed in a couple of other speeches this evening. Pre-settled status is a pathway to settled status, ensuring that people who have lived in this country for five years or more have their rights fully secured. There is no cliff edge. When somebody has lived in this country for five years or more, having got pre-settled status, they can move straight to full settled status; their rights will be the same. They will be protected from the moment they have pre-settled status, and the evidence is an important part of that.

The hon. Gentleman asked a very specific question about appeal rights. Yes, appeal rights apply to all cases under the new settlement scheme. That also goes to the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) is absolutely right: we are determined to make sure that we are delivering on the rights of EU citizens and that we in this country play our part in delivering on the promises we made.

[Paul Blomfield]

When the Minister says that this will apply to all citizens, does he include those who came under the Zambrano and Surinder Singh routes?

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I join the Minister in thanking the panel of Chairs for presiding over the Committee stages and the work they did in preparation for the debates we had, the staff in the Public Bill Office for the work they did over the Christmas recess and all Members who contributed to the debate in Committee.

The last two days have had their highs and lows. On the one hand, there have been very many thoughtful and considered contributions, and on the other hand, there has been a disappointing and resolute refusal of the Government to seriously consider any amendments however constructively intended. The Minister is right that there was a different tone to the debate, and that is clearly because everybody recognises that the result of the general election means we are leaving the European Union in 22 days’ time. But I think there was also a recognition, I hope on both sides, that leaving the EU does not mean that we will have got Brexit done. We will have completed the first step, departure, but the difficult stage is yet to come: agreeing the new relationship not just on trade, but as many pointed in Committee, on security crucially—but much more besides, from data sharing to research collaboration and more. These are in many ways more complex issues than those we have wrestled with over the last three and a half years, and they are issues with deeply serious consequences for the country.

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

May I thank my hon. Friend for his speech and add to his list the anguish that many of my constituents are feeling—not just EU nationals, but those whose neighbours or family are EU nationals? This is, for many, quite a difficult moment.

[Paul Blomfield]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is a difficult moment for many, and I will come on specifically to some of the issues involving EU nationals that were not resolved by our discussions in Committee.

As we move into this next stage, I would urge the Government not to overinterpret their mandate in the general election. Yes, they have clearly secured an overwhelming majority of seats, but not of votes. Most people in this country voted for parties that did not support the principle of getting Brexit done at any price. As the Prime Minister observed, many of those who voted for him and colleagues had lent him their vote. I hope, and I sense, that part of the different tone—the subdued mood of those on the Government Benches—was a dawning realisation that they may find it hard to deliver on the high expectations that they have created over the last three and a half years. The Prime Minister has talked about bringing the country together—the Minister echoed that—and we all share the hope after the divisions promoted by the debates of the last three years. However, I have to say that it will need a different approach from the one we have seen over the last couple of days. It needs open ears and a willingness to reach out.

I understand why the Government rejected some of the amendments that we and other opposition parties tabled, but not all. Many were simply restoring previous Government commitments and others were to improve the Bill; none was to frustrate Brexit. In the short debate on the Bill in Committee, we as an Opposition pressed five main issues that in our view reflect the serious problems with both the withdrawal agreement and the way in which the Government have chosen to implement it. Over 100 amendments were tabled in Committee, but not a word of the Bill has changed, and we will therefore be voting against its Third Reading today.

Our first issue with the Bill is that, despite all of Parliament’s efforts to avoid a no-deal Brexit last year, it introduces a trapdoor to no deal at the end of December 2020—something that the Brexit Secretary appeared quite relaxed about in his reported comments following yesterday’s discussion with Ursula von der Leyen. Other Conservative Members over the last couple of days have expressed total confidence—total confidence—in the Government’s ability to secure trade and security deals by the December deadline, citing the EU’s commitment to use its best endeavours and good faith to agree a future trade treaty. That good faith was evident from Mrs von der Leyen yesterday, but I hope Members have also heard her warning, which was echoed by the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), that it would be impossible to reach a comprehensive trade deal by the end of 2020.

I hope Members will reflect on whether it really is wise for the Government to have added clause 33, barring Ministers from extending the implementation period. Of course, this is just a gimmick, and with their majority, the Government could at any point repeal that clause and negotiate a short extension. However, whatever our views on these issues, we should all be concerned that this Bill removes any role for Parliament in shaping that decision, so if the Government have not concluded and ratified an agreement with the EU on our future relationship, the supposed sovereignty reclaimed for this Parliament will be meaningless. We will have no say on whether we crash out on World Trade Organisation terms, even if the Government are days away from securing an agreement with the EU.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

It occurs to me, as I listen to the hon. Gentleman, that foreign policy is often common ground between successive Governments of different parties. I wonder if it has occurred to his party to take such an approach here: to recognise that the political declaration on the future relationship is now agreed between the EU and UK, and to get behind it as the Labour party, so that there can be absolutely no doubt in the mind of the Commission that where we want to go as a nation is the landing ground that is now common territory between both negotiating parties. Does he not agree that that way we could go forward as one United Kingdom and succeed?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will come on to my observations on how we could have gone forward much more successfully as one country in delivering on the mandate of the referendum in 2016, but I think—this reflects the comment made earlier by the right hon. Member for Gainsborough—that the whole problem with the way in which Conservative Members talk about the ease of moving forward, because we are starting from a point of convergence, is that the objective of this Government is to seek divergence, and that is precisely why these negotiations will be so difficult.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Could we just dispense with this one country, one nation business? The United Kingdom is a Union of nations, and all of them have a particular set of views about Brexit. In Scotland, we overwhelmingly reject their Brexit, and that has to be recognised in the way we go forward from now on. I hope the Labour party takes that on board; I am beginning to sense that it is. Does the hon. Gentleman understand it, and will we now stop all this talk about one nation, one UK? It is a Union of nations with their own particular set of views.

[Paul Blomfield]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point that we are a country of nations and regions and I hope, in relation to the comments I was making to Ministers, that in reaching out they will seek to reach out and obtain agreement and understanding on the way they move forward across the entire country of nations and regions.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

It would not be the same debate if I did not. I am happy to do so.

[Sir William Cash]

I refer to what has just been said from the Scottish nationalist Benches because in fact this is about the United Kingdom, which made the treaty in the first place and abdicated its responsibility and its sovereignty, but is now reasserting its status within the United Kingdom. It is about parliamentary sovereignty, and it is also about democracy because that decision was taken by the British people in the full knowledge of the voters of the United Kingdom, not any one part of it.

[Paul Blomfield]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. We had a whole debate around sovereignty in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) made some very astute observations, but the hon. Gentleman needs to recognise my underlying point: the decision of the general election is not a mandate to bulldoze through a particular version of Brexit at any cost on all the peoples of the United Kingdom, and the next few months must be approached with sensitivity and caution if we are to stay together as a United Kingdom.

[Mr Perkins]

May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend as we approach the end of this Bill on the incredibly gallant and diligent work he and his colleagues have done in attempting to investigate and scrutinise this legislation? It is tremendously sad that the Government have, in the minds of many people who voted leave, successfully brought forward the idea that any kind of scrutiny and any kind of amendment to their legislation is somehow disrespecting that mandate, as though whatever the Government say is what that vote back in 2016 meant. I accept that we are leaving the EU and I think we need to get on with that process, but it is extremely regrettable that under the guise of taking back control they have sought to disrespect parliamentary scrutiny in the way that they have done, and this will have serious consequences for us in the future.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments, but also endorse the point he makes, and it has been a constant strand of the discussions over the past two days.

[Mr Perkins]

Three years.

[Paul Blomfield]

Yes, three years.

Through our new clause 4 we tried to offer a way of giving Parliament the role for which we were elected—and it is the role that my hon. Friend describes—without requiring an extension to the transition that is longer than necessary. Some Conservative Members who are not here today expressed sympathy with that approach, but not with our specific formulation, so I hope that this issue will be revisited when the Bill moves to the other place.

The second point that was a key concern to us was citizens’ rights. Colleagues from all Opposition parties set out why we believe that a declaratory system is essential to deliver on the Prime Minister’s commitment to EU citizens during the referendum campaign and subsequently, and to avoid a repeat of Windrush. This came up this morning in Brexit orals. In the Committee debate, I was pleased to get an important clarification from the Government on appeal rights, but I am afraid that I did not find the Minister’s speech on the broader issue of citizens’ rights at all reassuring. In a relatively convoluted argument—which the Secretary of State to a degree repeated this morning at Brexit questions—the Minister attempted to put the blame for the Windrush scandal on the safety net that ensured that victims could seek recourse against the treatment that they endure from immigration legislation and argued that the way to avoid a Windrush scandal for EU citizens was to take away the safety net provided by guaranteeing their rights.

We have already seen that almost half of applicants to the EU settlement scheme have not been granted settled status; they have been granted pre-settled status. Ministers have told us that we should be relaxed about this, claiming that pre-settled status is an automatic pathway to settled status. I am afraid we have every reason to be concerned, because it is not.

[Catherine West]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a real risk here that once again the Home Office is making a pig’s ear of this whole thing?

[Paul Blomfield]

Well, the Home Office has got form on these things, hasn’t it?

Let me explain why I am concerned specifically on this issue. Pre-settled status is intended for those EU citizens who have been living in the UK for less than five years. However, many EU citizens who have been living here far longer, many for decades, are being granted pre-settled status. They will be required to reapply to the scheme before their five years of leave under pre-settled status is up. If they do not, they will lose all their rights in the UK and, as the Home Office Minister pointed out, be liable to deportation.

Despite these risks, my understanding is— I would be very happy to be corrected— that the Government have no plans to notify EU citizens when their leave is about to expire, and prompt them to apply for settled status. If they do not even know of the need to reapply, many EU citizens will face the same difficulties evidencing their five years’ residency, so in any closing remarks from the Government Front Bench I would be grateful if Ministers can tell us what will happen to EU citizens who are granted pre-settled status for five years, then reapply to the scheme for settled status but are not able to evidence the required five years’ residence, which was the basic problem leading to their being granted pre-settled status in the first place.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about the limitations of pre-settled status, but does he agree that there is as a gender element to this, too? Women, and particularly older women, who may have had many years of caring responsibilities and who may not have had their own bank accounts or paid the bills in the household may find it even more difficult to evidence that now and in the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, and it came up in Committee. That is why I have pressed Ministers time and again to release their equalities impact assessment of the settled status scheme, which they have refused to do. That failure presents real worries.

The scheme is clearly open to error—and, as has been pointed out, the Home Office has form on these things. It has already thrown up problems, and it is therefore crucial that there is proper and independent monitoring. The independent monitoring authority was set up in the withdrawal agreement, but schedule 2 to the Bill makes it far from independent from Government. I hope this issue will be re-examined when the Bill moves to another place, to ensure that the Government are not allowed to mark their own homework.

The third, and most immediate and outrageous, consequence of the Bill will be to remove the commitments on unaccompanied child refugees. This was a heartless move by the Government, signalling their intention to abandon our moral commitments to the most vulnerable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was right to point out yesterday that this move is troubling because the measures on unaccompanied children in the EU withdrawal Act were previously supported by the Government and by this House. There is no good reason for them to be removed at this point.

Moving to the fourth point, we have had significant discussion on this and we saw a remarkable moment in the House yesterday. All the Northern Irish parties represented here joined together to table an amendment on the impact of the Northern Ireland protocol in response to the overwhelming calls from the business community there, who fear the deep and long-lasting effects of this agreement. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) was absolutely right to express her concern that in the two hours allocated to discussion of the protocol only one representative of Northern Ireland was given the chance to make a speech. By voting against new clause 55 yesterday and rejecting Labour’s amendment 1, the Government confirmed that they intend to avoid transparency about the impact of the Northern Ireland protocol and will continue to cut out the people of Northern Ireland from Brexit negotiations. There are clearly serious concerns across the House on that.

Finally, there were amendments on the future relationship with the European Union. The Bill paves the way for the UK to leave, as the Minister pointed out, on 31 January, but that is only the first part of the story. In our negotiations with the EU on our future relationship, Labour has consistently argued for a close economic partnership with our nearest neighbours and our biggest trading partner.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I would like to echo the comments about the diligent way in which he is going about this task. Does he agree that 52-48 was a mandate to move house but stay in the same neighbourhood? if we are actually about respecting the democratic mandate from 2016 that is about leaving the European Union—yes, leaving the political project—we should be staying aligned on workers’ rights, environmental protections and consumer standards? That is respecting the democratic mandate from 2016.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, which anticipate a point I was just about to make. He is absolutely right. Throughout this process we have called for alignment on workers’ rights, environmental standards, equalities and human rights not simply because that is right—although that is hugely important—but because it provides the basis for the close relationship on which our trade and our economic partnership with the European Union depends.

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

I am slightly puzzled by the hon. Gentleman’s decision to oppose the Bill today, since the consequence of the Bill going down would be us not leaving the European Union on 31 January, which is clearly still Labour policy. Is he actually saying that he wants, once we have left the European Union, future laws in this country on employment rights and the environment to still be decided not by this Parliament but by the European Union, without us having any involvement whatever in the shaping of those laws?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will explain precisely what I mean by my comments, which echo the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock).

The last four years have divided our country like no others. It did not have to be like that. If only, after the referendum, when David Cameron ran away from the crisis he created, the then new Prime Minister had been straight with the British people. If only she had said that our country is split down the middle; it has voted to leave but by a painfully close margin of 52:48, which is a mandate to end our membership of the EU but not to rupture our relationship with our closest neighbours and most important trading partners. If she had said that we would leave but stay close—aligned with the single market in a customs union, and members of the agencies we have built together over 47 years—we would have supported her. She could have secured an overwhelming majority within this House. She could have brought the country together again after the divisions of the referendum. Instead, she pivoted to those whom her Chancellor—not those on the Opposition Benches but her Chancellor—described as the Brexit extremists in her party, risking the economy and security of our country. The Bill continues on that path. We have consistently rejected that approach, and that is why we will do so again today by voting the Bill down.