EU Exit Negotiations

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I always listen very carefully to my hon. Friend. He makes his case in a powerful way. I would still suggest to him that if we are looking for the right balance between making sure that we protect our precious Union, preserving our frictionless trade with the EU and also liberating the country to trade more energetically with the growth markets of the future, then the proposals that we have set out are the only credible plans that deliver on all those objectives. That is why we are pursuing them.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

In contrast to some of the suggestions coming from parts of the Government Benches about a minimalist free trade-style agreement, the director general of the CBI told the BBC recently that a minimalist agreement would introduce friction at borders, would not solve the Irish border question and would damage our supply chains. Will the Secretary of State say whether he agrees with the director general of the CBI and therefore rule that out as an option?

[Dominic Raab]

We cannot rule out leaving with no deal, because we do not have full control of the EU, but I addressed the CBI president’s committee recently, and the hon. Gentleman will know that the CBI is fully supportive and wants to see the Government’s approach as laid out in the White Paper proposals delivered. He should get behind that.

Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

I am going to proceed.

The EU withdrawal agreement Bill is a vital part of our exit. Its purpose is simple: to implement the agreement we reach with the EU in domestic law. It is the means by which we will protect the rights of EU citizens in this country, pay the negotiated financial settlement and enter into an implementation period that is strictly time limited to prepare for the future relationship. If Parliament votes in favour of the deal, we will introduce the withdrawal agreement Bill to give the withdrawal agreement domestic legal effect.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister has asked us to focus on the subject of the debate, and she has just mentioned the supposed deal to be put to Parliament. Can she explain how on earth that deal will proceed, given that 80, supposedly, of her own colleagues—including members of her own European Research Group, such as her former ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), and others—have said that they will vote against it? Is not the reality that the Prime Minister’s Chequers deal is dead, that we are heading for a disastrous no deal and that that is exactly why we need a people’s vote on the deal?

[Suella Braverman]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about a second referendum—it would be a complete betrayal of the voters, because we had that exercise and it was two years ago—and I am optimistic that we will strike a mutually beneficial free trade agreement with the EU that honours the result of the referendum, retains the territorial integrity of our country and enables a smooth withdrawal from the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman]

I encourage the hon. Lady to read the contents of the White Paper, which sets out in extensive detail the exhaustive and wide-ranging provisions covering EU citizens. Any Member who has constituents who are worried or anxious should please direct them to that document. It is agreed with the EU, and it sets out the basis of the immigration status and people’s access to benefits, pensions and healthcare. It should go far in reassuring constituents such as the hon. Lady’s that EU citizens who are currently in this country have the right to stay under the provisions that are agreed and set out clearly in plain English in this document.

[Stephen Doughty]

I want to ask the Minister a specific question. She talks about the assurances that have been given and why so many people are worried. There are 3.5 million EU citizens in the UK, not including any other family members. The Home Office has told the Home Affairs Committee that the app for registering will be available only on Android and will not be available for iPhones, which half the people in this country use, and that the biometric permits, which are already seriously delayed in the Home Office, are being printed on the same printers that the DVLA uses and are miles behind. How on earth can EU citizens have any confidence, when the Government have not made even the basic practical provisions for registering and for ensuring that those people can get their documentation?

[Suella Braverman]

That is precisely why the Home Office is leading a pilot of the settlement scheme in the north-west as we speak, to identify what is working for people and what is not. So far, that is proving to be successful and showing that there is a good uptake of the scheme, but of course it is still in its pilot stage. The Home Office is very much in dialogue with the people who are directly affected, to ensure that we iron out the scheme and make it as simple, as user-friendly and as easy to use as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It will be difficult, which is why it is imperative that the Government bring back a negotiated agreement at the earliest opportunity. I hope that Ministers will confirm that it remains the Government’s intention to do so after the October EU summit. If the passage of the withdrawal Act is anything to go by, the Bill may be in trouble time-wise.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend has set out some clear and important tests to be met. Will he join me in welcoming the news today that the general secretary of the TUC, Frances O’Grady, has been very clear about the TUC’s position and that of trade unions across the country given the absolute shambles and chaos that we are seeing from the Government, let alone the time constraints that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) rightly pointed out?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Yes, I do welcome today’s announcement from the TUC. We have been clear that in the event of no deal, all options must be on the table. As I think I said in a debate just before the summer recess, we have to remember what no deal would mean: it would be a complete failure, in two years, of the Government’s entire Brexit policy. In that situation, as I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates, we would be facing something akin to a constitutional crisis. At that point, every option must be on the table.

EU: Future Relationship White Paper

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I hope that I can reassure my right hon. Friend, because we want the common rulebook to ensure that manufacturers can continue to produce one product for both markets, preventing dual production, but the common rulebook will apply only to the extent that it is necessary to avoid friction at the border.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Paragraph 6 of the conclusion states:

“If the House of Commons supports a resolution to approve the Withdrawal Agreement and the Future Framework, the Government will bring forward the Withdrawal Agreement and Implementation Bill to give the Withdrawal Agreement legal effect in the UK.”

It says nothing about what will happen if the House of Commons does not approve the withdrawal agreement. What does the Secretary of State believe will happen in those circumstances? Given his past views, many of us suspect that what he will do is drive us towards a no-deal situation.

[Dominic Raab]

Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman. As set out in my earlier remarks, and indeed in the White Paper, we are striving, in good faith and with good will, with some innovation and principle, but also with a practical approach, to get the best deal for the UK, but one that is also likely to be acceptable and achievable with our EU partners and friends. We are preparing for every eventuality, but I can reassure him that, as I have always said, the optimum outcome will be to deliver a deal that is good for this country and good for the EU.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

In the three minutes available, let me just focus on what I think is at the heart of the argument made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). He is trying to deal with a situation in which either we cannot reach agreement, or this House does not support the Government’s policy. His approach is well meaning. He is trying to do the right thing, as the Solicitor General indicated during the debate, but his amendment is flawed for two reasons. I am reasonably attracted to the first two provisions, which would give the Government an opportunity to set out an overall strategy and invite the House to support it. I think that that would strengthen the Government’s hand, but the third provision is deeply flawed because it would set a time period after which the House would give the Government detailed instructions.

We must remember that this is a negotiation. If I were on the other side of the negotiating table looking at that mandate, I would stall and delay until the Government were in a position in which either they were forced to take whatever poor deal was on offer, or they were forced by this House to do so. That, I know, is not the intention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

The Solicitor General, who is a man of great honour, was making an offer on behalf of the Government. The right way forward is for the House to support the amendment proposed by the Secretary of State. The discussion could then take place, and the Government have given a very clear commitment that they will table an amendment in the House of Lords to reflect that discussion. That is the right way to achieve the outcome that we all want.

Some Members who have spoken in support of that course of action advocated leaving the European Union. I, like many colleagues who are nervous about the amendment tabled by the Secretary of State, advocated remain. I accept the decision that the public have made. I want to reach a good deal, but I also want the Prime Minister to have the best possible opportunity—the strongest cards to play—to get us such a deal that the House will find acceptable. That is the course that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and those who support him ought to follow. The Solicitor General has set out the right course, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was utterly horrified when I saw this morning’s headlines in The Sun and the Daily Express. Those particular tabloids do not own patriotism in this country. When we hear a speech such as that made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), we know that there are patriots on both sides of this House who are willing to vote with their conscience and with their constituents and the interests of their country at heart. I hope that all hon. Members will examine those three things when they vote today. That is what I intend to do throughout this process. It is what I have been doing, and it is what the hon. Member for Bracknell has made clear that he is going to do.

We have talked a lot about taking back control in this place. Unfortunately, the Government have, on a whole series of occasions, attempted to frustrate this process and Parliament’s ability to get information about their plans, whether by keeping papers in the Treasury or attempting to frustrate the release of others. Even for Members who have a wide range of views on Brexit and how the process should go, the Government are attempting to say that it is their way or the highway. That is not acceptable, which is why I support the Lords amendment on a meaningful vote, and I hope that all others will do so as well.

This week, Alex Kalinik—a constituent of mine who campaigned with me for a remain vote in the referendum—sadly died a week before his wedding, aged only in his 30s. He was an individual of great integrity and passion. He worked in the steel industry, but believed passionately in having a close economic relationship with our European partners. Earlier this year, we lost another good friend, Will Cousins, a young man who campaigned passionately as part of the “stronger in” campaign and as a part of Open Britain. Of course, we also lost our very deeply missed friend, Jo Cox, nearly two years ago. Like me, she was passionate about our relationship with our European neighbours.

We are in this place—indeed, in this life—for a very short time. There are some things on which we will compromise, make amends and move over, but when it comes to the very big and defining issues of our time, of which this is one, we should be voting with our conscience and in the interests of our country, and we should be doing so in the interests of a better future for all our constituents.

[Charlie Elphicke]

When I talk to people on Dover high street about the situation with Europe, they say to me, “Why haven’t we left already?” I tell them, “Well, we are now having debates on things like meaningful votes,” and they reply, “But we had a meaningful vote—we had a meaningful vote in a referendum two years ago, and you guys up in Westminster are just endlessly rediscussing that referendum.” In that referendum, I backed remain. I thought that leaving Europe would be big project that would take up a lot of our capacity as a country, and I urged caution on my constituents, but they were really clear that they wanted to leave the European Union.

We need to respect the result of the referendum. I take a very pragmatic approach that, having had the instructions of my constituents and knowing their clear view, my duty is to discharge the instructions that I have very clearly been democratically given by the people. Those people are my master and I am their servant, so their wishes and requirements ought to be honoured. And that goes for the country as a whole. The country as a whole had a referendum and made a decision. We need to make this work and we need to get the best position for Britain.

That brings me to the next question. When people say, “Parliament should approve this,” what do they really mean? What will they think across the channel? What deal will they want to offer us? The people in the European Commission are not stupid. They can see how the numbers stack up in our Parliament. They can see that, if this provision on a meaningful vote is passed, they could offer us any kind of rubbish deal and the Government would be in a position whereby the Commission would have this country over a barrel. If we want this country to have a really bad deal, measuring the level of this country’s problems in billions of pounds, and if we want to get the worst possible accommodation and the worst possible departure from the European Union, this is how we would achieve it.

That is why, while I have the utmost respect for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), I would say to him that his proposal is not the right way to proceed. We cannot micromanage the negotiation, but, worse than that, we cannot have a negotiation where we cannot walk away from the table as the other side knows that we will never be able to do so. I urge the House to take the pragmatic approach of supporting the Government’s amendment in lieu, which will enable us to have an effective negotiation and support the national interest.

European Union Citizenship

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Stephen Gethins]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gives way, I appreciate that he is illustrating his points, but I hope he will soon return to the point of EU citizens, because this motion is fairly narrow. It is important to bear that in mind. He may now give way.

[Stephen Doughty]

I note your comments, Madam Deputy Speaker. Key in the motion is the issue of the single market, and the hon. Gentleman knows that I fully support our remaining in it. He will recall that the Brexit Secretary said that we would get the “exact same benefits”, but that is patently not going to be the case. I totally agree with what the hon. Gentleman was saying, as I too have been to see those Treasury papers, and they are clear that we will be worse off in every scenario. That is not the “same benefits”, be they for citizens, for our businesses or for our country.

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and it is why today’s debate on associate citizenship is so important and why I am so glad it has been brought forward.

I will talk a little about Scotland’s own experiences—you will be well aware of this, Madam Deputy Speaker. This idea of European citizenship is not a new concept that arose in the 1970s; it is a historical one. It is said that in 1295 Scots looked at the idea of dual citizenship with the French as part of the auld alliance. If we go down the Corridors through to the House of Lords, we see the English Tudor monarchs on the wall, along with the Scots Tudor monarchs, some of whom were French—the Dauphin of France at that time is up on the wall there. If we look at the rights of Scots traders as citizens in places such as Veere in the Netherlands, we see that a former Member of this House, Winnie Ewing, was the honorary conservator of the privileges of the Scottish staple of Veere back in the day. Going back even further, to the letter of Lubeck, we see that the first thing that William Wallace did after the battle of Stirling bridge and Scottish independence was to get back in touch with our European partners, because this idea of citizenship—this idea of working together and that Scotland is a European nation—does not go back just to the 1970s; it goes back many hundreds of years. I will move on from that point, but I encourage Members to read and listen to the works of my constituent Billy Kay, who has been excellent on the impact of the Scottish diaspora elsewhere in Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Lake]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes an important point about unnecessarily limiting the horizons of UK citizens. That is the point I am trying to make, and I wholeheartedly agree with him.

As I mentioned, this is perhaps not a legal issue but more a question of political will. The will of the public—in particular, their support for such a measure—is quite clear. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon mentioned in his opening remarks, according to research led by the London School of Economics and Opinium in July 2017, of those Britons asked, six out of 10 wanted to keep their EU citizenship after Brexit, and they particularly wanted to keep the rights to live, work, study and travel within the EU. Support for the retention of those rights is particularly strong among 18 to 24-year-olds, of whom 85% want to retain their EU citizenship in addition to their British citizenship.

In October 2017, a further report was published by the LSE on youth perspectives and priorities for the Brexit negotiations. Focus groups revealed widespread fear and frustration. Prime among young people’s concerns were questions regarding the loss of their EU benefits, including their ability to gain access to educational programmes, opportunities to work and travel in Europe, and rights that they have once they are there.

Ceredigion, the constituency that I have the honour of serving, was one of the handful of Welsh areas that voted to remain. Indeed, prior to the referendum, Ceredigion was widely reported to be one of the most Europhile counties in the whole United Kingdom. To put it bluntly, my constituency did not support leaving the EU and most certainly did not give any Government a mandate to deny its citizens the rights and freedoms that membership of the EU ensures, or, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said, a mandate to limit their horizons and opportunities in comparison with citizens of other European states.

As has been mentioned, the question of the future status of the rights bestowed on UK citizens by EU membership will not disappear; rather, it will grow in both prominence and importance as negotiations progress. A lot has been made of the clarity, or lack thereof, of EU law on the status of the rights of UK citizens after we have left, but I wish to draw attention to international law. European law and its founding treaties may offer a clear interpretation one way, but the reverse is equally clear in international law. If anything, the 1969 Vienna convention on the law of treaties means that it is incumbent on both the UK and the EU to address this matter of future status urgently, for even if article 70(1)(b) of the convention is interpreted in such a way that the withdrawal of a member state from the EU extinguishes the rights of individuals created by the founding treaties, international law would still require that a treaty is agreed on the future status of such rights.

Associate European citizenship is a model that the UK Government could adopt and pursue. As well as affording UK citizens the ability to continue to enjoy the rights and freedoms they currently do, it would safeguard the dormant rights of younger generations, and, perhaps most importantly of all, grant generations yet to be born the same opportunities from which those of us present here today have been able to benefit.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making such a passionate and eloquent case, which I wholeheartedly support. Like him, I represent a constituency—Cardiff South and Penarth—in which people voted to remain. Does he share the real horror that I have of speaking to young people? We are still relatively young ourselves, but we had those opportunities to go abroad. I lived in Denmark and Belgium and enjoyed all my opportunities, but we now have to go around our constituencies and tell young people that they will have fewer opportunities, fewer rights and fewer prospects than we did even just a few years ago.

[Ben Lake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has got to the nub of the issue. By not pursuing this option or addressing the matter more thoroughly, we are at risk of denying our younger generations the opportunities that we were able to enjoy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna McMorrin]

That is an excellent point with which I completely agree. Indeed, I am about to speak about just that issue.

Brexit is an injustice that will take away rights without giving people the option to secure those rights in the long term for themselves and their children. The idea of European citizenship is cherished by those who are old enough to remember a time when Europe was going through a healing process. We seem to have forgotten that it was not always the peaceful, prosperous place that it is today: a union of people, not merely nations. It is a pity that there are elected politicians in this House who are unwilling to understand the strong feelings of many British people about their European identity.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is making a strong speech. Does she agree that many people, particularly in places like Cardiff where we have a strong and thriving university sector, see themselves much more as part of pan-European collaboration in science and driving forward progress in discovery, and key to that is their European Union citizenship? By taking that away we potentially do great damage to those relationships on a European level that are taking forward all sorts of exciting scientific discoveries.

[Anna McMorrin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am proud to represent Cardiff North, and the whole of Cardiff is a diverse community. We have plenty of students from across the European nations, and we want to retain that feeling of European identity and citizenship.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I hope I can tempt the Minister back to the rights that UK citizens currently have as EU citizens. He said a few moments ago that it had not been suggested in the negotiations, but Guy Verhofstadt has been clear that he believes that UK citizens would be able to retain their EU citizenship rights on an individual basis. What does the Minister have to say about that clear proposal?

[Mr Walker]

As the hon. Member for Arfon mentioned earlier, I have personally discussed this issue with Guy Verhofstadt. I put it to him that we are negotiating with the Commission, so he needs to make that point to the Commission. If he wishes that to be part of the negotiations, it needs to be discussed in that context. After his meeting in Downing Street this week, Guy Verhofstadt said:

“I think it is possible in the coming days and coming weeks we make progress on this”

issue for citizens

“and we can conclude on this…It should be fine that the citizens rights’ chapter is done, it is finished, it is concluded and everybody knows UK nationals and EU citizens know what their status is in the future.”

I welcome that statement.

Some colleagues have referred to rights that are not covered by the agreement we have reached so far—for example, the right of onward movement for UK nationals. The EU’s approach so far has been to say that it is not an issue that can be resolved in this phase of the negotiations, but we have had meetings on the topic with Members of the European Parliament, and I know that they are as keen as we are to secure that right. It is not something on which we have in any way given up.

Other colleagues, including the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, referred to the right to stand and vote in local and national elections. I stress that we wanted that right to continue—we would have liked it to be part of the citizens’ rights agreement—but the European Commission again ruled that it was outside the scope of the first stage of the negotiations. We have made a commitment to protect that right for EU citizens currently in the UK, and we want to that to be reciprocated. A number of member states already have provisions allowing nationals of a third country to vote in local elections, and we will continue to explore that with other member states bilaterally.

The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) mentioned plans to legislate to enable UK citizens living overseas for more than 15 years to retain their right to vote. I am sure that, like me, she welcomed the Government’s support for legislation of this nature just the Friday before last.

As the House will be aware, we are seeking to agree an implementation period of about two years beyond the date of our exit. The purpose of such a period is to give people, businesses and public services in the UK and across the EU the time they need to put in place new arrangements that will be required to adjust to our future partnership. I want to be clear that, during this implementation period, we intend that people will be able to come to the UK to live, study and work, as they do now. We are discussing the precise terms of the implementation period with the EU and we aim to reach agreement by the March European Council.

European Free Trade Association

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend and I must be of the same mind, or he must have read or have had foresight of my speech. I was going to make the same point in a few moments’ time, but given he has made it for me, I shall cut my speech down. He is, of course, absolutely correct.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and strong case for EFTA and the EEA. Does he agree that there is a fundamental issue at stake: that the kind of potential end state he talks about, and indeed many of the others we have debated, show that there are many options for how we leave the EU? There is not just one way. That is the real issue at stake. Unfortunately, there are some in this place who would like to close the debate down and say there is only one alternative and no others. In fact, there are many ways in which we could go forward, and it is up to us as a country and as a Parliament to choose.

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not always agree with him, but he is absolutely right on this matter. That is why it is important that there is a consensus from us, as a Parliament, when speaking to the British people, pointing out that there are a range of options. We should not close any of them down as we look for the best solution for this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Gapes. We normally sit side by side on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, so the roles are slightly changed this morning. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) for bringing this timely debate to the Chamber.

I say to the Government, at this time of national crisis and debate, it should not really be for Back-Bench Members of Parliament to have to bring debates to Westminster Hall on so critical a matter. If it is about taking back control, Parliament should be debating this every single day of every single week, so that the public can have a real view about where we are heading as a country in exiting the European Union. We are clearly no longer in a debate about staying in the EU; instead, we are talking about the least worse option when we leave.

The hon. Gentleman’s arguments clearly demonstrate that EFTA is one of the options the Government could choose to ensure we have the least worse exit from the EU. Whether it is leaked, not leaked, written, not published or whatever, the Government’s analysis shows that this is the least worse option, so why would they not take it? I have consistently said in the main Chamber, in Westminster Hall, and indeed in newspaper articles, that whether one agrees with these arguments or not, the fact that the Government have taken them off the table shows that their direction is towards a place that will fundamentally damage the UK economy for generations to come. It is also clear to anyone who follows this debate in any kind of detail that the goals, aims and objectives the Government have set themselves when leaving the European Union are completely and utterly incompatible—incoherent—with the red lines they have set themselves.

A trade deal with the European Union. Maintaining tariff-free, frictionless access. Ensuring the issues around Northern Ireland are resolved. Achieving regulatory harmonisation. Staying in European programmes such as Erasmus and Horizon 2020—Edinburgh University has issued its annual report, the back pages of which show where it gets its research funding from, and there is page after page showing tens of millions of pounds that come from the European Union. If the Government want to achieve all of those objectives—I have no doubt that they do—I suggest they reach out, keep everything on the table and say to Parliament, when taking back control, that the best way to achieve all of those objectives is through EFTA, the EEA, a single market or a customs union. Whichever way we want to look at it, let us keep those options on the table and have those arguments.

EFTA is important because it is about economic integration between its members. The EEA allows that economic integration between the EFTA members and the European Union. That seems to me to be very similar to the Prime Minister’s goals and objectives in both her Lancaster House and Florence speeches. We want free, frictionless trade. We want regulatory harmonisation. We want goods and services to be included, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) said. As the hon. Member for Wimbledon said, this is not CETA, but is it CETA plus plus plus, which the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union mentioned a few weeks ago?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the problem the Government have got themselves into is that instead of keeping all the options open, the Prime Minister is having to respond to the extremists in her own party on a reactionary basis and close off options, exactly when we should be exploring the possibilities of all the options and the best way forward for the country?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. This Government are not looking at the best possible option for exiting the European Union. They are trying to resolve a decades-long problem in their own party, which is now raising its ugly head again, as we have seen in the newspapers in the last few weeks. I firmly believe that many senior members of the Government and influential Members on the Government Back Benches would rather see the UK fall off a cliff, to achieve their ideological goals and take control of their own party, than do what is in the best interest of the country.

I will wrap up, because I am aware others want to speak. EFTA is the ninth largest trading partner in the world in goods and the seventh largest in services. It is the third largest trading partner with the EU in goods and the second largest in services. If that deal was put on the table to the United Kingdom by Michel Barnier today, we should bite his hand off to take it. It is on the table, it is here and it is ready made. The Government would be committing a massive dereliction of duty if they did not at least consider the option of staying in EFTA.

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I am not able to give my hon. Friend exactly that information, but perhaps some of the economists are the same ones. In my experience, civil servants, at all levels, dutifully carry out the instructions of the Government, and I am sure they are doing that in this case.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It might surprise the Minister to learn that I have read a number of his articles, and there is much in them that I disagree with. He talks a lot about liberty, accountability, transparency and democracy, but he does not seem to like any of those principles when they are applied to him and his Government, and when they shed light on the reckless course that this Government are pursuing. If they have not done a full, comprehensive analysis, they are incompetent. If they have done it, we should see it.

[Mr Baker]

As I announced at the beginning of my initial response, the Government will make available to both Houses of Parliament the appropriate economic analysis before we make a decision on the meaningful vote.

Leaving the EU: Implementation

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

The Government have of course considered that, but the Prime Minister has set out that she does not believe that a Norway option is the right approach for the UK. It is important that we have control of our future trade policy, which is one of the objectives of our EU negotiation process.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

We can argue all we like about the transition period, but it is fundamentally just a plank off a cliff, and we will have no idea where we are going when we walk off the end of it. Does the Minister agree that it is unlikely that a trade agreement would be agreed before we leave and very unlikely that we would have one by the end of the transition period? The real issue is that the Cabinet needs to sort out where on earth it wants this country to go.

[Mr Walker]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman and do not share his pessimism. We start the trade negotiations from the unique position of our having a high degree of convergence with countries and territories that have followed the same rules for a long time. We can therefore be very ambitious about the future trade agreement that we can reach with the EU.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

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

[Mr Clarke]

I shall turn to that in a moment, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. I was not making a criticism of the think-tank, which has done its best, but we all know from experience that all economic forecasting should be taken with a slight grain of salt. It is utterly beyond the capacity of either the Treasury or the most expert outside groups to predict with absolute confidence what the precise consequences will be.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I would like to move on. I was merely making a passing remark about the unwisdom of trying to put a figure on this, but I will give way.

[Stephen Doughty]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I wonder, given that he is talking about the impact on the economy, whether he has heard the remarks by Christophe Bondy, the legal counsel to the Canadian Government during the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement negotiations. He has described Brexit as being like trying to

“blow up a bridge without bankrupting yourself”

at the same time. He has also said that the Canadian deal and our coming out of the single market and customs union are very different.

[Mr Clarke]

I agree with that second point strongly, and I will consider the implications of the quote.

The point I am trying to make is that, whatever the basis on which we come out, there are bound to be adverse effects on the British economy if we create new barriers between ourselves and the biggest free market in the world. No other Government would remotely contemplate moving out of such a completely open and free market and deliberately raising barriers by way of tariffs, customs processes or regulatory divergences between themselves and such a hugely valuable market. It is particularly valuable to us not only because it is a huge market but because it is on our doorstep. We have played a major part in creating this totally open trade.

If we proceed to a deal in which we withdraw, we will inevitably find ourselves, to some degree or other, taking an economic blow and probably making future generations less prosperous than they would otherwise have been. It is important that we all realise that, which is why it is a great pity that the House is not being given the information necessary to make a really informed judgment, as the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) has just said, or being allowed any opportunity to guide the Government and hold them to account for the course on which they are set on these economic and trading implications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leslie]

That is indeed the case, but the Prime Minister said, “Oh no, that’s a red line.” The difficulty is that Prime Ministers can get into stubborn positions. Are they going to have to back down? How do they deal with these things? It would be a measure of the Prime Minister’s status and stature were she to say, “On reflection, I have looked at this issue and it cannot be solved.” I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), will be encouraging the Prime Minister to do that, because she has that way about her. The Prime Minister should change her mind and say, “Things have changed.”

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is obviously making some absolutely excellent points, but the crucial thing is how all this matters practically for people and businesses. I wonder whether he saw yesterday’s concerning announcement about the opening of a new ferry route between Spain and the Republic of Ireland. The port of Cork expressly said that it was doing that to avoid having to come through all the Brexit uncertainty that was being created in the United Kingdom.

[Mr Leslie]

I did indeed see that. Think of all the distorting arrangements that will pop up.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Time is short so I shall make just two brief comments.

First, I support amendment 59 and thank the SNP on taking the initiative on pulling that together. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) made a compelling speech on the importance of remaining inside the single market and customs union, and I join him in appealing to Labour Front Benchers even at this eleventh hour to support it. As he and many other Members have said today, the Government have no mandate for the kind of extreme Brexit they are pursuing. The irony in the Labour Front-Bench position is that the NHS crisis or the inequality crisis or the housing crisis are all far harder to tackle if the UK is outside the single market and customs union.

My second point is to commend the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on her speech on her new clause 12. I agree entirely with what she said. She says the environmental plan lacks a “how”. That is true, but, crucially, it also lacks a “when,” and a key question at the heart of my new clause 18 is about timing. The Government are in theory at least committed to bring forward this new domestic environmental regulator, which is supposed to set out the way in which environmental legislation will be enforced once Brexit happens, if it happens. I am concerned that there is nothing to guarantee that that new body will be in place by Brexit day.

We have had positive written statements. For example, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs explained in a written statement last week that the Government’s 25-year environmental plan will be underpinned by what he says is

“a comprehensive set of environmental principles”

to “ensure strong governance”. He also talks about consulting on setting up

“a world-leading environmental watchdog, an independent, statutory body, to hold Government to account for upholding environmental standards.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 12WS.]

That is all very well, but what is not addressed is the question of timing, which is why my new clause 18 is so important.

We need to make sure that there is no so-called governance gap, and there is still a very real risk that, after Brexit day but before this new body comes into place, we will have a governance gap where environmental legislation that might well have been brought across from the EU to the UK still will not be enforceable. We will still not have that replacement for the Commission and the ECJ. We will end up with what has been called zombie legislation.

This new clause 18 is vital; we must not be left with that legal gap. We need legal certainty. That is what this provision will provide, and I urge the Government to think again about supporting it.

[Stephen Doughty]

I shall speak to new clause 20 in my name and those of other Members, and I also want to express my support for new clauses 6, 12, 11, 1 and the other Opposition amendments and many of the other excellent proposals put forward today. I wish to make it clear, too, that although we debated amendment 5 yesterday, I do not seek to press it to a separate Division today. However, I hope that, given the debates we have had about devolution, Members in the other place look very carefully at the issues in question and whether the Government come forward with amendments to address the concerns about clause 11 and other parts of the Bill.

I am proud to have tabled new clause 20 along with other hon. Members because I am a Labour and Co-operative MP, and part of the co-operative ideal is that democracy, decision making and process are not one-off events, and nor do they only involve one group of people. As a Co-operative MP, I believe in the involvement of Members, of management, of consumers and of others who have a stake in the running of a business, enterprise or organisation, and I believe we should be looking at this Brexit process in a much more co-operative way. Indeed, that would address many of the concerns about the way it is going forward.

We are at present heading forward with a monolithic approach by the Government—a reckless hard Brexit approach that does not take into account the many other ways. The point has been clearly made that the public can change their mind and look at different options. There are many options that we could take in this process, but we are being handed one particular route forward and there is an attempt to shut down the debate on any other options that might be out there.

Thankfully, other organisations have rejected this and have been using the excellent procedure of the citizens jury to try to understand what the public think about the detail—not just the question of leave or remain—and about crucial questions such as whether we should remain in the single market or the customs union. My new clause 20 seeks to institute a citizens jury on the Brexit negotiations. It would involve a selection of citizens from across the country who are informed about the facts that we so often do not have before us. It would be able to deliberate on and discuss them in a free and fair way, and it would incorporate people who voted leave and those who voted remain, as well as people with all the shades of opinion in between.

[Liz Kendall]

I have been a long-standing champion of citizens juries. In fact, I wrote the first book on the citizens juries in 1992. They give people real information, choices and trade-offs, and it has been proven that people can take difficult decisions if they have that open and honest information. I warmly support my hon. Friend’s new clause.

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was not aware of her historical involvement in this matter. That is absolutely fantastic. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and many others have been involved in this process as well.

Before I conclude, I want to draw attention to a recent example. The citizens assembly on Brexit was organised recently by a number of universities and civil society organisations, including the constitution unit at University College London, the centre for the study of democracy at the University of Westminster, the University of Southampton, Involve and the Electoral Reform Society. That citizens jury came up with some very interesting results. It concluded that our priorities for trade policy should be minimising harm to the economy, protecting the NHS and public services, maintaining living standards, taking account of the impacts on all parts of the UK, protecting workers’ rights and avoiding a hard border with Ireland.

Those are all sensible suggestions, and that is not surprising because they come from the British people. They do not represent the one monolithic view of the way forward that the Government are presenting. The public are presenting a sensible approach to Brexit, and that is what we need more than ever at this time. We do not need to hear wild claims about what the public think. It is a shame that we sometimes do not get these debates in this House, but I am thankful that Members on both sides have been brave enough to stand up in this debate and put forward their views. We need to listen to the public on this as well.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

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

[Mr Leslie]

That is getting us into this question about experts again and whether there is such a thing as a fact or whether everything in this world is an opinion. It is important to make sure that if there are facts and if we can prove cause and effect—for example, if we know that the introduction of inspections or a hard border is going to slow down lorries going through a particular port—we can, QED, prove that there is going to be a particular consequence for the economy. That sort of analysis ought to be shared with the wider world.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Leslie]

I did say I was trying to finish, but my hon. Friend tempts me.

[Stephen Doughty]

I wanted to give my hon. Friend an example before he concludes. Last week, the Prime Minister claimed that the UK would make “significant savings” as a result of our leaving the EU, but I have asked questions and Treasury Ministers have not been able to explain what those savings will be or to put a figure on them. Yet Financial Times analysis suggests that we will lose £350 million per week, which contrasts with what was on the side of that red bus.

[Mr Leslie]

That is right. That Financial Times analysis was worth sharing and should be shared, but we should not rely on journalism alone to do the job. We have a professional civil service; let us not gag it or try to lock it under the stairs somewhere. We should let that expertise come out so that we can all see and hear it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I admit, I thought she was going to ask me about the matters before me. That is a matter to be considered on Report, were we to return to it. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Opposition Members were shouting me down there for a moment. Were we to return to it, it would be a matter for Report, not for today. The Government’s policy is as we set out in the written ministerial statement, and of course we are a Government—[Interruption.] No, certainly not. We are a Government who of course obey the law. Parliament has voted and the law would currently be set out as on the face of the Bill.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Baker]

I am really not going to take more interventions on this matter, because as I—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I shall not go back to waxing too much about the nature of the debates we have been having. We can be clear that it is the fault not of the Ministers but of the brief they have been given to keep things going until the timetable motion comes in, at which point if all is intact, they have made it—that is their job done. Those of us who have been Ministers have probably been in that situation ourselves on various occasions. Just as in the debate about the meaningful vote when the Minister at no stage engaged in the question what sort of meaningful vote the House of Commons should have, on this occasion the Minister has not engaged in any feature of the Florence speech with which he had any reservations. The substance was not challenged by a word that he said, hence my speculating why we might see the extraordinary spectacle of the Government instructing all their Ministers to vote against a prime ministerial declaration of Government policy from which, as far as I can see, the Prime Minister has at no stage personally withdrawn.

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—

[Mr Clarke]

Let me make a little more progress, or I am going to take far too long. I will try to give way later.

So far, in the complete confusion that has surrounded the consequences of the referendum for the past 18 months—I think we all agree that it has been an extraordinary situation since then—the few actual solid advances on policy have been made on only a few occasions. Indeed, the only times that the Prime Minister has set out policy clearly and been able to sign up to it—in the belief and, I think, hope that all her Government might agree to it—were the Lancaster House speech, the Florence speech and last week when she entered into the agreement on the outline of the withdrawal agreement.

I do not want to put the Lancaster House speech into the Bill, because that was the beginning of our problems. I do not know why the Prime Minister went there to interpret and declare the referendum result as meaning that we were leaving the single market and the customs union and abandoning the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I shall come back to this later, but all our economic problems stem from that. Some people may have argued during the referendum campaign that we should leave the single market and the customs union, but I never met one and I did not read about one in the media. The leading lights of the leavers who were reported in the media—I accept that the national media reporting of the referendum debate was pretty dreadful on both sides, with a very low level of accuracy and content—and particularly the Foreign Secretary emphasised that our trading position would not be changed at all. The Prime Minister changed that in her Lancaster House speech.

The Prime Minister and the Government are free traders. I am a free trader. I keep asserting that we are free traders. The objections to the single market and the customs union that she and the Government give are nothing to do with open trade, which is quite accepted. It is said that we have to leave the single market because it is accompanied by the freedom of movement of workers. Well, as we were running the most generous version of freedom of movement in western Europe before the referendum, if that is the problem—if migration is what we really want to get out of—let us address that and not throw out the baby with the bath water by leaving the single market.

Similarly, I have never heard anybody get up and say what is wrong with the customs union in so far as it is an arrangement that gives a completely open border between ourselves and 27 other countries in Europe. What is wrong with it? Nothing. Apparently, we have to leave the customs union, so that the Secretary of State for International Trade can go away and pursue what I think is this extraordinary vision that we sometimes get given of reaching trade agreements with all these great countries throughout the world that are about to throw open their doors to us without any corresponding obligations on our part, no doubt, to compensate us for the damage that we will do to our trade with Europe. I am afraid that I do not believe that.

I wish to move to my final point, because other people are trying to get in. I have the Florence speech with me. It was a really substantial move forward. Let me just quote the bit on the transition period, which is what I am concentrating on. It says:

“So during the implementation period access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms and Britain also should continue to take part in existing security measures. And I know businesses, in particular, would welcome the certainty this would provide.

The framework for this strictly time-limited period, which can be agreed under Article 50, would be the existing structure of EU rules and regulations.”

Several times since then, the Prime Minister has been courageous enough to make it clear that it means that, during this transition period, we accept the regulatory harmony we have in the single market, we accept the absence of customs barriers in the customs union and we accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice to resolve disputes.

I have never understood what on earth is supposed to be wrong with the European Court of Justice except that it has the word “European” in its title. A very distinguished British judge is one of the people who is appointed to it. There is no case of any significance that we have ever lost there. The City of London and our financial services industry enjoy a passport for very important trade in the eurozone, particularly all the clearing operations that they have done. We had to go to the European Court of Justice as plaintiffs against the European Central Bank to get that passport. But, no, it is a foreign court, and it will be replaced by an international arbitration agreement of the kind that exists in every other trade agreement in the world. The ECJ is a superior system, but we will not get a trade agreement with any country anywhere of any significance, or with a developed economy, that does not have a mutually binding legal arbitration or jurisdiction of some kind, which resolves disputes under the treaty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

May I start by paying tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)? He is one of the very few voices of sanity on the Government side of the House with regard to Brexit. When the history books are written about this damaging period for the United Kingdom, his name will be right at the top as the person who tried his very hardest to save Britain from doing damage to itself when leaving the European Union. That is what the vast majority of Members on the Opposition side of the House have been trying to achieve with their amendments to the Bill, and certainly with the amendments in the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends this evening.

May I also pay tribute to the Clerks of the House, who have marshalled this Bill incredibly well through the last eight days in Committee? The emails that have come to many of us who submitted amendments have been detailed and helpful, and great tribute goes to the Clerks. They thoroughly deserve their Christmas break, but they should rest assured that we will be back in January to work them just as hard on Report and Third Reading. So merry Christmas and thank you to the staff in the Clerks’ office of this House.

I am slightly confused by the Minister’s approach to new clauses 54 and 13—the two new clauses I would like to concentrate on this evening. That is particularly true of new clause 54, because I thought the whole point of legislation was to put Government policy on the statute book. I thought Government policy would come forward—whether in a manifesto or in a speech, as in the Florence speech—and would then be codified in legislation in order that the Government’s wishes were put into law. That seems to be the process that this Parliament has been going through for several hundred years.

For the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and say, “Yes, this is Government policy, but we don’t put it into law” seems to be an excuse not to put it into law. I think we could all draw the same conclusion from that excuse: as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated, the Cabinet does not agree on the Florence speech—it is trying to change the dynamics and the content of the Florence speech—and the Prime Minister is desperately trying to hold the extreme right wing of the Conservative party within this process and to manage her party rather than this process. Otherwise, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, there was nothing in new clause 54 that the Prime Minister did not say in her Florence speech and that should not be codified in the Bill to enable this Parliament and the country to be comfortable that the Florence speech is the direction of the Government.

[Stephen Doughty]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is no coincidence, given the reluctance to put the Florence speech into statute, that the Prime Minister appears today to be rowing back on amendment 7 and that we have heard the Minister do the same from the Dispatch Box?

[Ian Murray]

Amendment 7 is incredibly important. That is why I was disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) did not take an intervention during her contribution. What amendment 7 did last week was to show that this Parliament can speak. It gave power to this Parliament to say that we require a piece of legislation to go through the processes in this House to make sure that this Parliament has spoken when we leave the European Union. The Minister, not unsurprisingly, sought to give assurances to many right hon. and hon. Members on amendments that they have tabled that the Government will do the right thing, but refused—absolutely refused—at the Dispatch Box, on three separate occasions, to give a commitment from the Government that they would abide by the will of this House and abide by amendment 7.

In addition to that, this afternoon the Prime Minister was asked on several occasions at the Liaison Committee to abide by amendment 7, and on all those occasions she refused to give a cast-iron guarantee that the Government will not row back on amendment 7 on Report. That is not taking back control. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall should reflect very carefully on the fact that, whether or not one agrees with the principles of amendment 7 or bringing a piece of legislation through this House to implement the deal, this Parliament has spoken and therefore the Government have a legal, moral and democratic responsibility to abide by that decision and do what this Parliament has asked them to do. To do anything other than that would not just be kicking a hornets’ nest—it would be contemptuous to the hon. Members who walked through the Lobby last week to put amendment 7 into the Bill. If the Government do decide to row back on amendment 7 on Report, that will show that their direction on this Bill, and on removing the UK from the European Union, has nothing to do with the future of this country but is to do with the future of their own party.

The reason that amendment 7 is so important is that it allows this Parliament to have a say. The reason this Parliament needs to have a say—this goes to new clause 54 and, indeed, new clause 13—is that we cannot trust a thing that Ministers say. Their statements contradict all the aspirations that they wish to achieve through this process. Indeed, Michel Barnier has said in the past 48 hours that the red lines that the Government have drawn for themselves contradict the objectives that they wish to achieve from this process. That is why we are tabling new clauses like new clause 13.

I represent a constituency where tens of thousands of jobs, and the entire Edinburgh economy, are reliant on financial services. The head negotiator from the European Union said yesterday that the red lines that the Government have drawn for themselves are completely contradictory to their aspiration to keep passporting and a unique deal for financial services. Tens of thousands of my constituents who rely on jobs or secondary jobs in financial services would look at these reports and say, “If the Government do have the aspiration to keep the financial services passporting arrangements and to keep the financial services sector in the UK healthy, then they should put that aspiration into the Bill.” That is what new clause 54 is seeking to do. If the Government do not do that, my constituents could draw the conclusion that the Government may have to throw some sectors under the bus.

I say that because nothing could be as good as the situation that we have at the moment. We have free and unfettered access for goods and services, free and unfettered access to the customs union, and free and unfettered access to the single market. The aspiration of this Government is to ensure that when we come out of this process, we have exactly the same, if not better, terms than we have at the moment. That is completely and utterly impossible, because the European Union will never agree to the same benefits of the customs union and the single market if we are dealing with it on a separately negotiated basis. That means—this goes to the arguments made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe—that when doing individual bilateral trade deals with the US, Australia, India or wherever else, the Government will have to throw some sectors under the bus. Michel Barnier has said in the past 48 hours that the red lines that the Government have drawn and the aspirations they wish to achieve for the financial services sector are contradictory and therefore cannot happen. If the Government refuse to accept any of the amendments, do we draw the conclusion that financial services is a sector that they are willing to throw under the bus?