Future Relationship Between the UK and the EU

Debate between Robert Neill and Tom Brake

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I agree that there is clearly a difference between the treatment of EU citizens and migrants from outside the European Union, but the number of non-EU migrants has gone up, which has more than compensated for the numbers of EU citizens coming to the United Kingdom. I assume he welcomes that.

I see the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) is back in his place. The Conservative party was a pragmatic party, but I am afraid to say it is clearly no longer such. It is now very much a party driven by ideology. I suspect that is why he is as uncomfortable with it as he is.

[Robert Neill]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to consider this: at least virtually the totality of the Conservative party was here to take part in the debate, which cannot be said about other parties. Will he also bear in mind that what matters to both his constituents and mine, in areas heavily dependent on the City and financial services, is that we ensure security of access to the best available talent and, above all, a form of regulatory alignment that goes beyond the proposals in the White Paper? They are a starting point, and I support the White Paper, but we need to go further to give the City the ability to bring in the billions of pounds of tax revenue that subsidise the public services of everyone in this country, including leave voters as well as remain voters.

[Tom Brake]

I am very happy to say that I agree entirely with the point the hon. Gentleman has made. We need to make sure that the City can continue to operate and that we are able to attract the skills we need.

The subject of this debate is the future relationship between the UK and the EU. I am very clear, and this will not be a surprise to anybody, that I would like us to stay in the European Union. I believe that that is still going to be possible, but for it to happen people will clearly have to vote for it in a final say on the deal. How do we get to a final say on the deal?

The first thing we need is for article 50 to be extended. I know the Prime Minister has said on a couple of occasions that that is not going to happen, but the likelihood of securing any sort of deal before March 2019 is for the birds. It is simply not going to happen, so an extension will be required. An extension would be needed to enable the legislation required for a final say on the deal to be passed, as well as to enable such a campaign and the votes at the end of it. I think it is perfectly possible that the EU may be about to offer to extend article 50, or the UK could of course seek to do it.

The other thing that is clearly required if there is to be a final say on the deal and a people’s vote is to take place is that a majority—I would say a clear majority—of people have to vote to stay in the European Union. At the point that such an election campaign took place, there would in reality be only two options: either voting for whatever deal the Government had secured, which I suspect would probably be no deal at all; or voting to stay in the European Union.

Why would people vote to stay in the EU? First, there is Trump. Frankly, if Trump is our friend, then who needs enemies? Trump has made the world a more dangerous place. In my view, he cannot be counted on to provide security. We and, yes, others in the European Union will have to step up to the plate to do that, but I do not think he can be counted on to do so.

We need to develop an offer that appeals not just to remainers, but to those who voted to leave. That will require some movement on the question of freedom of movement. I am sure that Members are aware that the issue of migration within the EU is a really big challenge for its members. At the European Council a couple of weeks ago, that was what they were worried about. Frankly, they were worried not about Brexit, but about migration within the European Union. They are very focused on that, and progress on it might be possible.

We also need to be able to demonstrate that the UK would be an active member of the EU and fighting to reform it, so that it would not simply be the EU carrying on as it was, but an EU subject to change. Of course, we would need to sell much more effectively than we have ever done before the advantages of EU membership. The Government sometimes try to claim the credit for things that the EU have done. Most recently, for instance, they have done so in relation to strengthening the rights of millions of British citizens who take package holidays or book linked travel. Our Government have claimed credit for something that the European Union had actually done. When the EU does things that are positive, we need to make sure that we talk about them.

The other thing we need to do is to set out the impact of voting for the Government’s deal. I am afraid that what the Government are offering as a result of the Chequers statement is no deal. Notwithstanding the point made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), I am afraid that it is very clear that the purpose and objective of ERG members is to leave us in a position where we have no deal. That is what they are trying to achieve, and that was the purpose of their amendments, which comprehensively trashed the Chequers statement. I am afraid to say that the Prime Minister is so weak that she had no alternative but to walk into their trap.

What does no deal mean? Some Members seem to think that no deal would be a temporary aberration that would cause us a few problems for a couple of weeks, but that is clearly not the view of the port of Dover and Airbus or, for instance, of people concerned about medicines coming into the UK, their availability and how quickly they come to market. No deal will not cause problems just for a few weeks or so. I suspect that it will mean five years of difficulties for the United Kingdom.

One thing we will not do is allow the Brexiters to say that this is the European Union’s fault—the hon. Member for Wycombe made this very clear. The Brexiters claimed that this would be a straightforward process that would all be over and done with overnight. They said that it should be very simple, and that trade deals would be struck with a landmass 10 times the size of the European Union, which would, of course, probably need to include a few planets as well, as that is not physically possible. They made that claim. They pretended that it was going to be straightforward. If we end up in a no-deal scenario, a catastrophe for the United Kingdom, that is their fault and we will not let them get away with it.

To adapt the words of the outgoing Foreign Secretary, it is not too late in my view to save the United Kingdom. We can provide the people with a way out of this ideological folly. I am not too scared to test the will of the people and I am not too scared to be bound by the result. Why are Ministers?

Leaving the EU: Data Protection

Debate between Robert Neill and Tom Brake

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The two key messages that one gets on this topic from Gibraltarians across the political spectrum and from all parts of Gibraltarian society are, first, that they do not want to be left behind in any arrangements that the UK makes with the EU27—they do not want to be collateral damage in any sense—and they want to maintain the arrangements and access that we have. Secondly, they want above all to maintain the closest possible friction-free trading arrangements with the UK, where a great deal of their service business is already conducted. Getting that right is terribly important for Gibraltar. It is a small economy with little other resilience, and it really needs our support in getting the data issues right to protect what is a very successful story for the British family.

My third point relates to legal matters. I take the liberty of referring to the Justice Committee’s ninth report from the 2016-17 Session of the last Parliament. As hon. Members will know, I have the honour to chair that Committee, and we issued a report on the implications of Brexit for the justice system. I hope we will soon have a response from the Government to that report; it is one of those that is in Ministers’ in-tray—or, I hope, out-tray—at the Ministry of Justice. Perhaps a gentle nudge might be delivered by those on the Treasury Bench to their right hon. Friends there.

The report is constructive and stresses the importance of information-sharing arrangements for the legal system and the justice system. Part of that relates to the UK’s legal services, and that links in to what I said earlier about the financial services sector in London. The legal service sector underpins a great deal of that financial services work, so getting this issue right is critical for UK firms contracting with parties in the EU or with third parties. At the moment, a great deal of work is written in English law, and that is a great advantage to us, so getting the data sharing right around all those matters is terribly important to the firms involved.

However, the other issue in our report, which is perhaps even more strikingly important, relates to information sharing on policing and critical justice co-operation. In many respects, we have led the field in this regard, and it will certainly not be the intention of the Government or of the Prime Minister, who both as Prime Minister and as Home Secretary has stressed the importance of this issue, to lose any of that information sharing. However, again, the devil is always in the detail in these matters, and perhaps I can highlight what the Committee found.

We took a considerable amount of evidence, and it is clear that the EU offers a number of information-sharing tools. I particularly want to highlight the importance of the European criminal records information system. We are in that at the moment, and it was clear from the professionals in the field who gave evidence to us that we must do all we can to maintain access to that system. It provides access to accurate records of EU citizens’ offending histories.

It is perhaps worth putting on the record a quote from the National Crime Agency. Its evidence was:

“Through ECRIS, the UK is able to exchange tens of thousands of pieces of information about criminal convictions each year that help police and other law enforcement agencies to investigate crime, protect the public and manage violent and sexual offenders.”

[Tom Brake]

Is the hon. Gentleman able to clarify for me whether that is one of the data exchanges that are subject to the European Court of Justice rulings to ensure safeguards for those exchanges of data? If I am correct, how does he see that relationship continuing with the UK post Brexit?

[Robert Neill]

My understanding is that it is likely to be subject to the ECJ, and we concluded that while we might seek to remove the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ in some matters, the idea that we will not have an ongoing relationship with the ECJ on such matters is unrealistic. That will be important.

We want to stay in ECRIS, but we noted that there are no previous examples of a non-EU member having access to it. We will have to seek a bespoke arrangement to achieve that, and I hope that Ministers regard that as a high priority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman’s excellent Committee had an opportunity to look at the contingency plans that would be necessary for all the valuable databases he has set out, should the UK crash out of the EU in March 2019.

[Robert Neill]

The clear evidence given to us was that the only viable contingency plan would be a significant transitional period. It would not be possible to replicate those systems in the event of a supposed clean-break arrangement, and it would be necessary to have transitional measures. The evidence did suggest that those could vary from sector to sector, in terms of the length of time required and the amount of detailed work to be done, but it would be a serious setback for us to leave the European Union and the current data-sharing arrangements without something being put in place to bridge us over the leaving period for implementation or a clear end state for our ongoing relationship in the areas of data sharing and criminal justice co-operation. It is in everybody’s interests that we achieve that and it is an important issue to bear in mind.

We concluded that data sharing is not an area in which we can take a risk. Indeed, we concluded that these matters are so important that one would ideally wish to see them decoupled from the rest of the Brexit negotiations. Divorce bills or otherwise, public safety and security work for our interests and for every one of the citizens of the EU27, too. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point and I agree with him.

I have talked about two key systems and I want to highlight their interrelated and technical nature because it is important to put that on the record. As well as those two systems, we also have access to Prüm, a regime for exchanging biometric information and vehicle registration data. It reduces the time taken to find matches from tens of days to 15 minutes when fully in place. We have recently gone into Prüm, and the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, Francis FitzGibbon QC made the point to us that—and I shall quote his stark words in full to highlight their significance—

“if someone lets off a bomb in Berlin and makes his way to London, the police will be able to get hold of the fingerprints of the chap they arrest for double parking, or whatever it is, instantaneously.”

That gives us the swift ability to track down serious threats to our safety across the continent. We have not yet implemented Prüm, but we have signed up to do so and I hope that we will make it clear that we will implement it while we remain in the EU and we will seek to continue in it once we leave.

Our concern was that both Norway and Iceland—which are not members of the EU, although they are Council of Europe countries and have association arrangements with Interpol and others—have waited some years to have access to Prüm. We have started from a closer position and it would be a tragedy if we went back to the same place in the queue as them, giving away something that we are already moving into. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the Government will attend closely to those specific points during the negotiations.

Our conclusion was that all these matters, extradition arrangements, the EAW, the data sharing that underpins prisoner exchange arrangements, together with our arrangements on judicial co-operation—on which British judges work closely with their counterparts—and of course our membership of Europol are all part of a system that comes together to protect us in criminal justice and security matters. They were described by our witness Professor Wilson as part of a system that

“you cannot disaggregate because, in my view, if you take out elements of the system, you have a less effective system for protecting British citizens on the streets.”

That was also the clear evidence from the Northumbria Centre for Evidence and Criminal Justice Studies. The evidence was overwhelming. Sometimes, as lawyers, we get cases in which the evidence all points one way, and that was very much our conclusion from the evidence to the Committee’s inquiry. These are all important matters. Of course, they are but one part of the data protection and sharing regime, but they are critical.

We received the clear message from practitioners that whatever we do and however we get to these arrangements —I hope that the Bill, when it is brought to the House, will help us to achieve this—the end state has to include a means of making sure that our data sharing and data protection regime are sufficiently close to those of the EU27. We shall, therefore, have to have a means of tracking changes and replicating them when it is likely to be to our mutual advantage to do so. Otherwise, with the very best will in the world, a law enforcement agency or police officer in the EU27 might not be able to share potentially critical information with his or her UK counterparts because he or she might find themselves in breach of the data regulations in his or her own EU27 country. That cannot be in anyone’s interest. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that creating such a system will be the centrepiece of our objectives on data sharing in relation to criminal justice and co-operation matters.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Robert Neill and Tom Brake

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to speak very briefly. First, I declare an interest in that my wife works for a London local authority. Secondly, I support the Bill. It is entirely appropriate for Parliament to support giving greater powers to local authorities where necessary. We should not be scared of there being a patchwork quilt of different powers at different levels in different places. I am sure that we and our constituents can cope with that. The portrayal by some Members of people who work in local authorities as being either little dictators or scruffy bureaucrats is extremely unfair. I am sure that some of those Members must be hoping that their constituents, many of whom work for local authorities, will not read Hansard too closely; if they do, they will see the views of their MPs contained therein.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

I am grateful that I have been given the opportunity to sit through this almost unique debate. I hope to participate fairly briefly, as Members still wish to consider other aspects of the Bill in the time available.

It is fair to say that this is an unusual type of Bill and this is probably an even rarer stage of debate on it. I am grateful to all Members who have participated and hope they will forgive me if I do not follow them down all the highways and byways through which the debate has ranged. I shall say a few words factually about the Government’s stance and position on the Bill as we now find it, and I shall cover a little of the history.

I believe this Bill started out before the last general election. It is, of course, a private Bill, so a different set of procedures apply. It has been changed a great deal in the course of its passage. It is worth remembering that it is more than a year since the Bill was last debated in this House and there have been some significant changes. Because it is an unusual form of legislation, it is right that the appropriate level of scrutiny is given to it. I appreciate the spirit in which Members of all parties have approached the debate.

The changes take on board to some extent the concerns raised by the Government at an earlier stage. I hope hon. Members will recollect—I looked back and checked—that my concerns focused in particular on measures that potentially placed undue burdens on businesses, business owners and entrepreneurs or that otherwise did not sit comfortably with Government policies.

In fairness, the principal elements that concerned the Government on Second Reading have been removed, and I thank the Bill’s supporters for their flexibility and willingness to compromise. As is normal in the case of such Bills, all the Departments that might be affected have been consulted, and no concern has been expressed about direct conflict with Government policy. As far as can be ascertained, it has historically been the convention for Governments to take a neutral position on private Bills, and that is what the Government intend to do in this instance. The Bill has been scrutinised by the House, and it is therefore appropriate for the Government to defer to the conclusions that Members reach on the basis of what we have heard so far, and of what we may yet hear before the day is out.

Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Debate between Robert Neill and Tom Brake

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

The context of my response has already been set out. It is quite clear that the dismissal notices, which are not issued lightly, came only at the end of negotiations that have gone on for something like five years. I am not going to start lecturing the Mayor of London on how to conduct matters, particularly when the management side on the fire authority has suggested that there should be negotiations through the recognised national negotiating body on 5 November. I would have hoped that the union would take up that offer, but instead it chose to call a strike. Perhaps the best people to advise, therefore, are those in the union, who should be asked why they are not taking up the offer and getting round the table on 5 November, rather than walking out.

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

What additional resources can the Minister call on if the contingency arrangements fail?

[Robert Neill]

I do not think that there is any evidence to suggest that the contingency resources will fail. The important thing is to ensure that no impediment is put in the way of those operating the contingency resources, to ensure that they do just that. Under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, the legal duty to ensure that those resources are in place rests with the fire authority, to which we offer advice and assistance in carrying out that duty. The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority has chosen to meet those statutory requirements through the contract that it has. It has operated satisfactorily, despite the difficultly on Saturday, and I am sure that the authority is refining its operation in the event that it should be necessary on a future occasion.