Women in the Commonwealth: Trade and Investment

Debate between Stewart Hosie and Thangam Debbonaire

Wednesday 11th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Lady makes her point, it has been a very good debate and I am sure after this wonderful point of order the Minister will return to his normal good-hearted self and come swiftly to a close.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I am not going to make a point of order, Mr Hosie. I am going to ask the Minister if he would reconsider that uncharacteristically ungenerous characterisation of what I said. I absolutely said that we welcome trade agreements. I said that I welcome trade agreements. I also quoted from NGOs in the developing world—not my view but the views of those from the developing world themselves, from Commonwealth organisations, whom I have met in my work—who have themselves talked about some of the problems that emerge from some trade agreements. I was very careful in my choice of words and I was most definitely not opposing all trade agreements—very far from it. I do hope he will reconsider.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Stewart Hosie and Thangam Debbonaire

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong: House of Commons & Ping Pong
Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I ask Government Members to imagine a future constituency surgery in which they are asked to explain to their constituents who are EU citizens why they have been denied a physical document or settled status or have experienced delays in getting that status changed, and have thus been refused a job or a home—because their MP refused to back this amendment. Their constituents will ask, “Why did you vote this way?” and they will need a good answer.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady will have heard the Minister say that online status is more secure, but someone with leave to remain or who is here on a spouse visa gets a physical residents’ permit. If online status were more secure, the Government would have done away with that, but they have not. Is that not the point? The Minister’s point about security is no justification for opposing Lords amendment 1.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

That is spot on. It is why many EU citizens in my constituency say they feel singled out—because they do not have what other non-UK citizens have, which is a physical document.

I turn to the CJEU and Lords amendments 2 and 3. In clause 26, the Government signal their intention to create chaos and uncertainty in our legal system. I can do no better than quote from the noble Lord Pannick, who said he supported the amendment for the following reason:

“Clause 26 is fundamentally objectionable, because it would give the Minister a delegated power to decide which courts should be able to depart from judgments of the Court of Justice and what test those courts should apply.”

He went on:

“These are powers which step well over the important boundary between the Executive and the judiciary. They are matters which should not be decided by Ministers.”

Later he said—and he was absolutely right—that

“once they are conferred the political and legal constraints if they decide to act unreasonably are limited.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2020; Vol. 801, c. 984.]

The Government ask us to trust that they will not go beyond existing constraints, but that is not good enough. Clause 26 would lead to different interpretations of the law in higher and lower courts, greater uncertainty and therefore more litigation. That cannot be what the Government want. Amendment 2 therefore simply deletes the entire provision.

Amendment 3 was a compromise proposed by a Conservative former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay—surely a man whom Government Members would want to listen to. He tried to find a compromise whereby the ministerial right to make regulations would be removed. Instead, any court could consider the possibility of departing from case law but would have to set out its reasons and refer the case to a higher court. What on earth could be the problem with that?