EU Retained Law

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we need is regulations that work rather than ones that require a lot of form filling. The Procurement Bill has been introduced in the other place, and that will replace 350 EU regulations with one British law. That is what we must be aiming at. We are not moving to the wild west. We are not going to have no regulation. However, our regulation must be understandable, simple to effect and accountable to this House. The best check on regulation is Members of this House coming forward and saying, “I seek redress of grievance for my constituent who is being harmed by this regulation.” The Minister at the Dispatch Box is then put on the spot and has to go back to his or her office and ask, “Why are we doing this to the Great British people?” That is how our democracy works, and that is how we must make regulation work.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister is right that it makes a refreshing change from the practice of his colleagues that he came to this House first to tell us about the dashboard, but he might have tried to see whether it works on a mobile phone, because it does not. I know that he is not a fan of being able to simply charge one, but he might accept that most of the British public who want to use the dashboard will have one. No matter—with some assistance, I have been able to log on to the dashboard and I can see that on the list of items that he has put up for grabs are the length of maternity leave and the duty to pay statutory maternity pay. He said in his statement that everything on the dashboard “can now change”. Will he assure the thousands of women in this country who rely on the protections of maternity leave and maternity pay that they will not change? If so, what is the point of this? If not, will he be honest that it is really about reinventing the Beecroft reforms?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The dashboard worked perfectly well on an iPad, so I would have thought that it was not beyond the wit of Members of this House to get it to work. In many cases, the protections that we have in employment law in this country predate the European Union or we are ahead of the European Union. That is true of maternity rights, where we are ahead of the base rights in the European Union under our own law. To say, “Are we going to repeal bits that are not even EU law, but domestic law?” is missing the point of the statement.

European Council: Article 50 Extension

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Friday 22nd March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Of course, that is absolutely the case. If my right hon. Friend is right and the meaningful vote comes to the House and is voted down, the European Council will not be able to impose, necessarily, any exit terms on this House. We would have to have some consent in this House on the way forward.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister says the House is in a state of indecision; it is not. The House has repeatedly decided: it decided on 15 January, on 12 March and on 13 March. In fact, it has decided repeatedly, every single week for the past few weeks, to say no to the Prime Minister. The House also wants to get on and make decisions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) talked about the cross-party amendment; if the House votes for that amendment and gets the opportunity to move things on, will the Government honour the will of the House—yes or no?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Lady suggests that the House has actually decided; the House has decided to say no many times, but it has not decided to have a course of action or a plan that will take us out of the EU. All I would ask for from Members of this House is a degree of patience. Let us see what happens in the meaningful vote, and we will then have to take forward the necessary actions. I do not want to prejudge that vote now.

EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Changes

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

I very much recognise the point that my hon. Friend is making. I shall pick out one example from among many. It relates to data, which is extremely important within the service economy. Those who say that in the event of no deal we will go to WTO rules and that that will be completely benign have not, from what I have seen, addressed the question of what that would mean to service businesses in terms of data adequacy and how data would flow. There are many other examples, but that is one that would apply specifically to the service economy. I know from my discussions with my hon. Friend that he is well aware of what the impact would be on manufacturing in his own constituency as well.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have to confess to the Secretary of State that I am sad to see that he is answering this urgent question rather than the Prime Minister, because it would have been helpful to understand how, in the light of the NHS 10-year plan, our becoming the largest purchaser of fridges in the world fits into those effective, value-for-money spending plans. He can redeem himself to the House today, however, by answering the question that was clearly put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) about the legal reassurances that we have been told will change all our minds on this deal. When will Parliament have an opportunity to read them? Will it be before the debate starts on Wednesday? Yes or no?

[Stephen Barclay]

I did try to address that in my opening remarks. I said that we would update the House as part of the upcoming debate, and we have set aside a significant number of parliamentary hours in which to do that. I know the hon. Lady well from our time on the Public Accounts Committee, and I am not sure that any legal assurances secured by the Prime Minister would be enough divert her from her desire for a second referendum. I have made it clear that we will update the House this week on the further discussions that the Prime Minister has had.

Leaving the EU: No Deal

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the debate in the French Assembly only last week, he would have heard a French Minister say that the package to UK citizens living in France would be the most generous possible—[Interruption.] No, Madame Loiseau has said that on the record. He would also have heard that the number of border checkpoints at Calais would increase from two to 10, that a border inspection post would be built and that technology would also be used, with the sole purpose of ensuring the flow of goods on the Calais side of the short strait.

It has always been our intention to accelerate no-deal preparations if needed as we neared Brexit day, although our hope has always been that we leave with a deal and that they will not be needed. Our communication with businesses and the wider public about a no-deal scenario will likewise increase as we approach our exit from the EU, until such time as we can be confident that planning for no deal is no longer needed. We now recommend that businesses also ensure they are prepared and enact their own no-deal plans as they judge necessary. In the coming weeks, and until the deal is secured and ratified by the House, we will also publish further advice on the steps that people, including UK nationals living in the EU and EU citizens living here in the UK, may need to take to prepare for our exit from the EU.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister says that no one wants no deal. I think that that is generally the considered view of the vast majority of the House, and it is not hard to see why. We see our constituents losing their jobs now. We see the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care spending money on fridges now. We see billions of pounds being spent on arguments about whether we are going to have the Army at the ports. We are in this position because of the way in which the Government have proceeded.

I know that this place is not given to introspection, but does the Minister accept any responsibility—do the Government accept any responsibility—for how it has come to this? Would the Minister care to say what he would have liked the Government to do differently, so that we could have avoided this? I promise him that if he just says that everybody should vote for his deal, people will laugh, but the public will be watching all of us and wondering what 2019 will bring, so will he please give a decent answer to our constituents?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I have to say that I think the decent answer is the one that the hon. Lady would expect from me. I hear what she is saying, I really do. I should love to have a moment of introspection—I should have loved to be in the negotiating room—but we now have on the table a very good deal for this country, and the best way to mitigate a no-deal scenario is to vote for that deal.

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

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend is, of course, right that the law has a senior and more important effect, but what we are talking about here is the law. We are talking about the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will understand that yesterday shredded all the good will that was left in the House on assurances such as these. I listened to the Attorney General last Monday when he told this House that he had

“a solemn and constitutional duty…to advise it on these legal questions objectively and impartially, and to place such legal expertise as I have at its disposal. The historical precedents strongly support that view. The House may be sure that I shall discharge this duty with uncompromising and rigorous fidelity.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 546.]

The fact that he is not here today to give that legal weight to what the Minister is saying is a concern to all of us who have to go back to our constituents to explain what on earth is happening in this place. Can the Minister therefore confirm that the Attorney General has consulted him on what he has said today, and that he will publish any legal advice that he has given in the light of yesterday’s rulings and what happens on section 13?

[Mr Walker]

I am sure that if the hon. Lady were to approach the Attorney General, he would discharge all those responsibilities, but this question was about an Act for which my Department is responsible. Of course it is right that I should be at the Dispatch Box as a Minister in the Department for Exiting the European Union to answer questions on our legislation.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

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

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman’s interest in this subject, like that of most others in the House, is exceedingly well founded, but I do not want to confuse the Dublin scheme with other schemes, about which we have had debates in this country.

This approach is aimed at—Government policy is also, quite rightly, aimed at—trying to keep children who have lost their parents or become separated from them in places of safety. Where possible, such places should be close to their places of origin, from where they may, if possible, be repatriated to countries such as Syria. They can be housed in communities who speak the same language and have similar cultures, which will provide some degree of continuity in their otherwise traumatic, ruptured existence. When that is not possible and there are family members in other European countries, the children can be given stability with them.

I do not want to get into the schemes, such as those set up in the past by other countries, that I am afraid have acted as a magnet for children who, at the hands of people traffickers and others, have taken to boats in very dangerous circumstances. The policy of this Government has been the absolutely right one of trying to keep such children out of the hands of those who want to profit from human misery and take advantage of their desperate circumstances.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It may disturb the hon. Gentleman to know that I have signed his new clause, and I agree very much with him and the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on this issue. This weekend, I was in Calais, where a 10-year-old is sleeping rough because we do not have the systems in place under the legislation to be able to assess his right to be in the UK. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is so important about the amendments to protect the Dublin process is not just its principles, but its practice and what happens if and when we leave the European Union?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

My hon. Friend makes his case with particular force. I am sorry to have to tell him that I am not in a position to accept his new clause on that basis. I ask him to work with members of the Government on the immigration Bill that will contain the measures that he and the rest of us wish to see to ensure that we meet our humanitarian obligations.

[Stella Creasy]

rose—

[Mr Baker]

I will give way to the hon. Lady once.

[Stella Creasy]

The Minister’s colleagues gave a statement on 1 November 2016 that made the commitment to take children from Europe, and it is those children whose rights under the Dublin regulation would be taken away. Can he understand the concern about the fact that he has just announced that the requirement to work with 31 other countries would supersede that? Will he give a cast-iron guarantee that the commitment made in that statement on 1 November 2016 to take children from Europe and to do our fair share for refugee children will be honoured in full?

[Mr Baker]

These are matters for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Bills for which her Department is responsible. I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me and understand that it is with the Home Office that these matters need to be taken forward. This Bill is about how we leave the European Union with certainty, continuity and control in our statute book.

Amendments 15 and 16 are on the power to deal with deficiency—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Hanson, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. Speeches on both sides of the Chamber have been technical, detailed and passionate, including the response from the Minister, and I hope to be able to add a few of my thoughts to this measured debate.

Leaving the European Union was never going to be easy. It was inevitable, after 40 years of the EU creeping into every crevice of our daily lives, that Brussels’ overarching bureaucracy would touch every piece of domestic legislation imaginable. Ultimately, the whole point of the Bill is to ensure a clean, smooth Brexit that allows for an orderly transition from inside the EU to out. Transferring EU law to UK law is a mammoth task that requires an enormous amount of bureaucracy to complete. It is simply unfeasible for this Parliament to go through every piece of legislation affected by the EU line by line to approve its transfer into domestic law. I read recently that an individual vote on each of the 20,319 EU laws would take more than 200 days of parliamentary time, and that a debate on every page of those laws would take a similar amount of time. That simply is not feasible. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill does a bulk copy and paste, ensuring that when we leave the EU in March 2019, our domestic legislation is not caught short. Understandably, deficiencies will arise. Those deficiencies are clearly laid out in clause 7(2), and if we are to ensure an orderly Brexit, they need cleaning up. No Member of this House believes that enough parliamentary time exists to fix all these faults, and that is why clause 7 is so important.

Clause 7 is not, as we often read in the papers, some kind of Tudoresque power grab; nor does it ride roughshod over Parliament. It provides delegated powers to a Minister to fix obscure but consequential deficiencies in legislation for a short period of time. Those delegated powers will never be used to make drastic policy changes. Such changes have always required, and always will require, a Queen’s Speech or primary legislation. It is public and transparent, and it requires a majority vote. The sole purpose and scope of the delegated powers is to ensure that EU law is still operable after the UK leaves the EU. That is what our constituents want: consistency and security. Even those who want us to stay in the EU appreciate why this is so important, as we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, and from those who voted to remain as well as those who voted to leave. The Procedure Committee amendments that were accepted yesterday will create a sifting committee, confirming even more rigidly that Parliament will always have an input.

We are leaving the EU to bring back control to our courts and our Parliament, and clause 7 bolsters this. Ultimately, once we are out, this Parliament, elected by the British people, will be able to go through what we like and what we do not like, in our own time. For those still concerned that clause 7 is some sort of Tory plot designed to wipe away all workers’ rights, subsection 7 makes it clear that, two years after exit day, these powers will no longer exist. There is a sunset clause. Not only that, but Ministers in the devolved Administrations will be able to use the same powers to amend legislation that falls into their catchment. This is further evidence that the Government are committed to a Brexit that works for the entire UK. It will be up to Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont to choose how to use their increased decision-making powers.

It is vital that the Bill is passed as cleanly as possible, because it is a key component in ensuring that our departure from the EU is orderly. Clause 7 will play a big part in a smooth Brexit. It is not a power grab, and it is not the beginning of the kind of dictatorship that some would argue was taking place when we were inside the EU. We have a responsibility to our public to deliver on Brexit, and we should not delay or protract the process any further. The act of leaving the European Union represents a powerful decision to restore democracy to this Parliament, and I am pleased to support the Bill and to support the public who voted for this in the largest numbers in our country’s history. I hope that my speech was short enough for you, Mr Hanson.

[Stella Creasy]

I have now been in the Chamber for seven hours, apart from a brief sojourn to serve on a statutory instrument Committee related to fish taxes in Scotland, which feels completely apposite given today’s debate. No one is suggesting that there will not be points at which we may want to have a way to amend legislation, but I have concerns about clause 7. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) because I have a completely different opinion on what clause 7 offers. This is about so much more than taxes on fish.

It is important that our constituents understand that we are discussing a clause that gives Ministers the ability to introduce legislation when they consider it appropriate. I consider pudding always to be appropriate, but it is not necessarily necessary. This is one of those matters where the wording is crucial. The deficiencies that the Bill identifies are not limited as long as something can be called a deficiency, which is a huge loophole into which Ministers can reach.

The SIs that Ministers can bring in will have the effect of primary legislation—the same as any Act of Parliament—and the legislation can abolish functions of the European Union covering a whole range of issues. It would be a brave, bold, disciplined Minister who is not tempted by those powers. That is what we are discussing tonight. The hon. Member for Wealden suggested that the provisions do not look like a power grab, but they do not give power to the courts; they put power in Downing Street. That is the Opposition’s concern, which my Front-Bench colleagues have so ably set out.

In the time available, I want to explain my particular concerns about the Henry VIII powers and amendment 332, which relates to a good example of what could go wrong. It is clear that the Henry VIII powers are not about taking rights away; they are about sweeping them away. As the House of Lords Constitution Committee said, the use of such powers

“remains a departure from constitutional principle”.

We know from recent years just how often Ministers have been tempted: cuts to tax credits, student maintenance grants, fracking, fox hunting, winter fuel payments, the electoral register and individual voter registration, and legal aid entitlements. Whether or not someone agrees with those policies, they are not fish taxes. They are not minor amendments to existing legislation. They represent major policy changes that the Government pushed through, or tried to push through, using SIs.

Since 1950, over 170,000 statutory instruments have been laid by Departments—2,500 a year. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, is not in his place, but he was talking about 1,000 SIs resulting from this legislation alone, which is half a year’s worth of work and represents an awful lot of sifting. Only 17 of those 170,000 SIs were rejected. Indeed, the last time that the Commons rejected a statutory instrument was in 1979. The House of Lords has been more robust, having rejected six such instruments, and it has been rewarded with the Strathclyde review.

Amendment 49 is important because it is clear that when Governments have the ability to use SIs in this way, they do so. It is also clear that this House has not been able to exercise a comparable power of check and balance. Even when such SIs are lawful, the Supreme Court has said that they should be challenged in court. As the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) said, this Bill is almost a lawyer’s charter.

I want to give the hon. Member for Wealden the example from amendment 332, which covers the elephant in the room during our debates on this Bill and relates to the rights of the British public and of future British citizens around freedom of movement. Freedom of movement has been bandied about as the reason why many people voted for us to leave the European Union. It is a key pillar of the single market—I will be supporting amendment 124 this evening because the single market represents the best deal for all our constituents—but we must address the question what we mean by freedom of movement.

We know that freedom of movement is a right worth fighting for. It means that kids in our communities can work for companies that have bases in Berlin or Rome, and they can be sent there without any hesitation. It means that if someone falls in love with their French exchange partner, they can move to Paris with them or the exchange can come and live here. It means that someone can be one of 4 million students every year who spend a year in another European country benefiting from that kind of education. These are freedoms that our communities are likely to need more options to access in the future, not less. It also means that people have come to our country and helped our NHS. They have brought jobs and investment, and, yes, British citizens have fallen in love with them. Their kids have gone to school with our kids. They are our neighbours, our friends and our family.

All that is now at risk. Whether we voted leave or remain, whether we think the referendum was about freedom of movement or leaving the single market, we should support the idea that Parliament, not Ministers, should make or rewrite decisions if Ministers do not like the outcome of our discussions. It is clear that the failure of the previous Prime Minister to reform freedom of movement does not mean that we should give up these rights without asking about those changes, and that is what amendment 332 would give us as a Parliament the power to do. It would stop clause 7 being used to make that a decision made by means of a statutory instrument.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

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

[Tom Brake]

Absolutely; that is probably the only safe solution to the question of Ireland and Northern Ireland—and it is one that, unfortunately, our Government ruled out at the outset. They probably rue the consequences of that decision.

I have strayed slightly from new clause 17, but I certainly do not think that the new clause is otiose. When the right hon. Member for West Dorset called it that, it reminded me of his term in the Cabinet Office. I am absolutely convinced that as a senior Minister with an overview of the activities of all Government Departments, he would never have accepted the Government’s going forward with an economic project on the scale of Brexit without insisting that each Department conducted a decent impact assessment for all sectors for which it was responsible. If he disagrees and wants to say that when he was at the Cabinet Office, he would have been perfectly happy with the Government forging ahead in this way with the single biggest economic—and, I would say, most damaging—project that the country has undertaken in 50 years, I give him the opportunity to do so now. Members will note that he has not taken it. I think that must be taken as an indication that he not happy with Conservative Front Benchers, who have decided to proceed without conducting any impact assessments of Brexit.

When Opposition Members heard from Ministers about impact assessments and sectoral analysis, we rightly expected the Government to have conducted an impact assessment of hard Brexit, of perhaps the Norway model and the Turkey model, of no deal and of our current arrangements to inform the House properly about the impact of Brexit. We would then have known about not just the down payment of £45 billion, or whatever it will be, but the long-term financial consequences for the automotive, pharmaceutical and agricultural sectors and all the other sectors that will be so greatly affected.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly powerful case about the importance of data. Just today, John Curtice has released information that proves that a majority of the British public now believe that Brexit will be bad for our economy, so even the British people have twigged that something is awry. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the lack of impact assessments will compound that sensation?

[Tom Brake]

The British public cannot but note the incompetence that our Government have shown. Whether they were leave or remain supporters, when they see a Government in chaos, conducting negotiations in a cack-handed manner, it is not surprising that they are beginning to worry about the impact of Brexit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

I do not know what decisions will be made. I believe that the Government are likely to pay too much. Let us ask ourselves: why would we be paying money so that the rest of the EU can trade with us and every year sell us £70 billion more in goods than we are selling to the EU? Why is that a deal that we should be keen to support? I suspect that the Government will come back and put it to—

[Stella Creasy]

Whatever my hon. Friend’s feelings towards the European Union, he has just said that he fears that we may pay too much, whatever the number is. New clause 17 is about knowing what that number is. Surely he must support that principle. Then we can answer the question about whether it is too much, not enough or completely irrelevant.

[Graham Stringer]

I hope that my hon. Friend was listening to me when I was arguing in favour of transparency. I was arguing against the particular wording of these amendments, which I believe to be biased. Of course we should be transparent about what things cost, and we should have the right to have a view and determine what we think about that. Who could argue against that? All I am saying is that, if we are paying £40 billion over 40 years, that is probably against £400 billion that we would be paying, and that should be the context in which these figures are produced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

Thank you, Mr Hanson.

The power is available only if the public authority is taking on a new function under this Bill, and the fees and charges must be in connection with that function. The amendment would force Ministers to exercise this power on behalf of public authorities, such as the Financial Conduct Authority, which this House has made statutorily independent from Ministers. The Government believe that it is right that where Parliament has already granted the power to set up rules within these independent regulators, fees and charges of the type envisaged by this power should continue to be exercised by those public authorities. For good reasons, they have been made independent of Government, and Parliament should have the option to maintain that status quo. I stress that the terms on which any public authority would be able to raise fees and other charges will be set in the statutory instrument that delegates the power to them; and that, as I said, any such delegation would trigger the affirmative procedure, ensuring that this House considers and approves any delegation of the power and how it would be exercised.

Amendment 340 on cost recovery has the disadvantage that it would prohibit what I hope Labour Members would consider to be progressive principles of ensuring a spreading of the burden of regulation. It also might not allow regulators to cover the cost of enforcement.

Clause 12 and schedule 4 are about delivering a successful EU exit with certainty, continuity and control. Clause 12 is not about enabling the payment of any negotiated financial settlement, and neither is schedule 4 about subverting the normal process of raising taxation. The amendments muddy the waters of what these provisions are for. These provisions are simply about ensuring that the financial aspects of taking back control and preparing to take a fully independent position on the world stage are put on a sound and proper footing.

[Stella Creasy]

The Minister said that he thought that all the amendments muddied the water, but he has also said that it was right that Parliament should have a vote on the money—on the divorce bill—and that there should be parliamentary oversight of any additional controls. Why then is he not going to accept amendments that simply ensure that that is the case? Just what kind of control is he seeking to take back?

[Mr Baker]

As the hon. Lady would expect me to say, what I want is Parliament to have proper control over our laws, our money, our borders and our trade policy. Having expressed my gratitude for her intervention, I hope that I have tackled right hon. and hon. Members’ concerns, and I urge them not to press the amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Stephen Kinnock. Not here—where is the feller?

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am hoping—

[Mr Speaker]

We are eagerly hoping to hear the hon. Lady’s question, but Question 1 will do for a start.

[Stella Creasy]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)]

I am glad it is not just me that makes those mistakes, Mr Speaker. I have been here a lot longer than the hon. Lady, so I have got less excuse. Since our last oral questions, the Prime Minister’s speech in Florence has provided a new dynamic for the EU negotiations. That was recognised at the EU’s October Council, where leaders confirmed the intention to begin their internal work on future partnership. We are ready for that discussion to begin as soon as they are. In the meantime, we are making good progress on a raft of separation issues—the financial settlement, Ireland and citizens’ rights—and I look forward to further hard work when I travel to Brussels to continue talks next week. As we do so, I will continue to engage with member states across Europe to talk about the deep and special partnership we seek to strike. To that end, I am meeting my counterparts from the Irish Government later today and others later next week.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the Minister for showing that time does not always mean talent. I am hoping he can help answer a question that my constituents keep asking: how much is all of this going to cost us? Departments do not seem able to answer that, and I have been asking them. Some of them think they are not paying anything at all, whereas others think everybody else is paying. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy says it has received extra cash to pay for the impact of the Brexit negotiations; the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport says it does not know how much any of this is going to cost; the Department for Communities and Local Government says it is expecting the Treasury to pick up the tab; and the Ministry of Defence says it is not spending anything because it expects there to be a deal and so no funding is required. This is a bit of a mess, so can this Secretary of State commit to publishing, by Department, by year, details on how much money has been put aside for the cost of negotiations and whether that money is from the Department or from another budget?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know the hon. Lady is an academic doctor, but it is not necessary to treat Question Time as the occasion for the presentation of a thesis.

EU Exit Negotiations

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

This is the area where the European Union’s start position was to have European Court of Justice direct effect in the United Kingdom. We have said that we are a country that obeys the rule of law and its international treaties, that the treaty would be passed through into the law—we would repeat it there—and that we may set up some ombudsman arrangement with a reference to it. Those are the sort of ideas that we have in play.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State cautioned us to think about our constituents in response to his statement, so I am thinking about the nearly 30 million British people—I believe that is the figure—who went to Europe this summer, mainly on holiday. Will he confirm for them today that they will be able to book their European holiday when they come to do so next year, or is he thinking about blue skies, but delivering empty ones at this point?

[Mr Davis]

One duty we do owe our constituents is not to start scare stories.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

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

[Seema Kennedy]

If the hon. Lady listens, I will elucidate.

The preconditions required would mean that whatever the British negotiating team were to say, our EU counterparts would think that they could frustrate, delay or even veto any deal. Certainty was the No. 1 priority in the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech. How can there be any certainty for our businesses, our constituents or even our European partners if there is a prospect of endless review by this place?

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Seema Kennedy]

I have already said that I will not give way.

Lord Hill, who is a man of great experience in EU negotiations, said this of our European counterparts:

“They need to know that what our negotiators say our negotiators can deliver.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 February 2017; Vol. 779, c. 32.]

I therefore urge all right hon. and hon. Members to reject the Lords amendments and give the Prime Minister the strongest possible hand in her negotiations.