European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Angela Smith

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

[Tom Brake]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). He has set out a system, which will be tested the first time the Government refuse a recommendation from the Committee. Then we will see whether the system works in practice.

There are many, many amendments, cross-party in nature, which I will be supporting if they are pressed to a vote today, including amendments from the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), who opened this debate, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and many others whom I do not have time to mention. That underlines the cross-party nature of this whole matter.

There are a number of amendments in my name—a disparate group, ranging from EU citizens and the single market to EU agencies and their UK successors, and equality and human rights legislation. I shall focus principally on the single market and the equality and human rights legislation.

Amendment 124 is on the single market. Members here will know that I am very much after red meat when it comes to the single market: I think that the UK should stay in the single market permanently. However, in case Members here are reluctant to support the amendment, I wish to point out that that is not what it actually brings about. It is quite specific in ensuring that the Government cannot use regulation-making powers in a way that would lead the UK to diverge from the single market. On that basis, I hope that Members on both sides of the House will not see it as seeking to lock us into the single market permanently, which of course is what I would like to do; it is slightly less wide-ranging than that.

[Angela Smith]

May I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that he is arguing that we should indeed be keeping all options on the table, including the single market, and that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?

[Tom Brake]

Absolutely. Many Members on both sides of the House know that one of the most damaging things that the Government did from the outset was to rule out membership of the single market and the customs union—particularly the customs union. We can see what problems that has caused in relation to Ireland and Northern Ireland. Even now, that can has simply been kicked down the road. The issue has not been resolved in any shape or form.

It is probably fair to say that people, including Members in this House, now have a much clearer understanding of exactly what the single market is. I know that there are Members, particularly on the Government Benches, who claim that, during the course of the EU referendum campaign, people had a very clear idea of what the single market was and what the customs union was; they did not want to be in them. Frankly, I do not believe that to be true. It may be that some of those Members had in their constituencies a trade specialist or an economist who knew precisely what the single market and the customs union were, but I am afraid that, broadly speaking, there was not a great degree of awareness of what they constituted—I am talking about the fact that the single market ensures that UK companies can trade with the other 27 EU countries without any restrictions and without facing arbitrary barriers. That is why it is essential that people support this amendment.

I hope that, in the longer term, the Government will see sense and realise that it is in the UK’s economic interests to stay in the single market and the customs union. I know that my amendment has cross-party support, but I hope that I will also get support from the Labour Front-Bench team, because that will reinforce the message that I am hearing from the Labour party that it is committed to the single market and customs union for the transition period. What I need to hear is that, beyond the transition period, there is also a commitment to the single market and the customs union. The Labour Front-Bench team say they are worried about jobs, and such a commitment is the best way of securing jobs in the United Kingdom. I hope I will get support for that; I will be pressing amendment 124 to a vote.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Angela Smith

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I am very happy to support what the hon. Gentleman says. I am very proud of our record of ensuring that the right level of scrutiny is available for Bills and ensuring that the right number of Bills are going through the House. The Opposition often criticise the Government for what they allege is a light programme. We have a programme that is delivering the goods.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

This morning’s written ministerial statement on drafting guidance for Government Bills represents a missed opportunity to address the Government’s dismal record on drafting legislation. Will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us how he and the Leader of the House plan to ensure that their Government’s Bills are more thoroughly drafted and scrutinised, especially by this House?

[Tom Brake]

I do not know, frankly, what the hon. Lady is referring to. This Government have put great emphasis on ensuring that Bills are effectively drafted. For example, we support the good law initiative, which ensures that Bills are clearer. We have done a considerable amount on explanatory notes to ensure that Members have a better understanding of Government amendments. I would appreciate it if the Opposition joined in that process, for example on the Deregulation Bill, to ensure that there is clarity on what their amendments are suggesting.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Angela Smith

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

Had we had the opportunity to discuss amendments on civil servants, for instance, we could have considered the impact, the scale—that is, how many thousands of civil servants it would have included—and the potential costs associated with such an extension. In some ways, I would have welcomed that.

As we have previously outlined, there is little value in extending the scope of the register to those who are not required to publish their meeting details. We are not persuaded that the introduction of meeting reporting obligations for senior civil servants is appropriate. Such a system would result in an unnecessary, disproportionate and unhelpful administrative burden and the cost to the public purse could not be justified in the light of the limited transparency benefits that would be achieved.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Given that amendments (b) and (c) were made available only at 11 o'clock this morning, it would be really helpful if the House could understand the differences between the proposals of the amendments in lieu and those in Lords amendment 1. The House deserves a clear explanation.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. The clear explanation is that our amendments in lieu provide an opportunity for such a change at a point in the future, if the debate leads to a consensus on proceeding with the reporting of special advisers’ meetings. That is what we are facilitating. Who knows? A future Labour Government might well have to make that decision, and it would be interesting to know whether they would want to take it.

There are about 5,000 senior civil servants in the UK. Is there really public interest in seeing the details of all their meetings with external organisations? [Interruption.] Surely the huge costs that that would involve are hardly justified. I heard a number of Members saying “Yes” from a sedentary position, but I wonder if any of them have costed the possible impact and the effect that such a change would have on the activities of those 5,000 senior civil servants. I am waiting—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Angela Smith

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid we have not received any representations. Of course, the Government gave Labour that opportunity, and given that its leader expressed an interest in dealing with the issue of Labour and funding, I am disappointed that he did not take up that opportunity.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I would like to ask the Deputy Leader of the House a simple question, to which I would like a simple answer: will he set out what changes the Government plan to make as a result of the pause and consultation?

[Tom Brake]

I do not know whether the hon. Lady has been following the debate in the House of Lords, but having listened to organisations the Government clearly indicated they would respond to the issue of registration thresholds, which was of concern to smaller organisations and charities, and there might be other things, too, such as a review of the Bill after implementation and measures we could take to assist organisations worried about the reporting requirements.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Angela Smith

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I will certainly do that. Pre-legislative scrutiny is a very positive opportunity for stakeholders to contribute. As I stated, the Government have been very positive in providing those opportunities to a large number of stakeholders in no fewer than 17 draft Bills.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

In the light of the completely unconvincing answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) by the Deputy Leader of the House, will he explain exactly how he plans to make use of this wonderful new parliamentary invention, the pause stage, to respond to widespread concerns about the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny of the provisions in the gagging Bill?

[Tom Brake]

I am not quite sure what the hon. Lady means by “the gagging Bill”. If she is referring to the transparency Bill, she will be aware that the lobbying aspect did have pre-legislative scrutiny, and she should be aware that the Government have responded, for instance, to Select Committee reports on this subject and engaged with a very large number of organisations that have a strong interest in this Bill.

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between Tom Brake and Angela Smith

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope that it is in order to congratulate the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on behalf of the Government on her election as Deputy Speaker. I wish her every success in that post.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to echo the comments of the Deputy Leader of the House. The hon. Member for Epping Forest has a strong record in political and constitutional reform and will make a very good Deputy Speaker.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Angela Smith

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid I am going to disappoint the hon. Gentleman by restating what I have said. We have already carried out an impact assessment and the Electoral Commission will no doubt want to conduct one on the impact of third parties.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) referred to amendment 65. I can assure him that the Government will listen to the Committee’s views, although we are working to a timetable that requires the Bill to be in place to address the next general election, and the regulated period for that starts 12 months before. We will of course listen to the Committee’s views and to the views expressed by others, including the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Electoral Commission or anyone else who has views on the subject. We are not closed to other views.

[Angela Smith]

Is the Deputy Leader of the House therefore saying that he and the Government will listen to the views of the Committee and the independent commission before the Bill goes to the House of Lords?

[Tom Brake]

No. The hon. Lady paraphrases me incorrectly. That is not what I said. I said that we would listen to the views, but at the same time we are working to a timetable. The sooner those views are available the better, and the sooner there will be an opportunity for them to be considered.

Amendment 65 would amend clause 41 in order to prevent part 2 from coming into force until a Committee of either House has undertaken an inquiry and published a report on the impact of the Bill. As drafted, however, the amendment does not in fact require an inquiry to take place—it merely assumes that one might. The amendment’s effectiveness is therefore limited, as in the absence of any inquiry part 2 will come into force regardless. I once more reiterate my earlier comments: the Government have already published an impact assessment to accompany the Bill. That assessment considers the impact on both the Electoral Commission and third parties, and is thorough.

Amendments 66, 4, 5 and 6, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) spoke, would amend clause 41 so that the entire provisions of part 2 came into force on Royal Assent, subject of course to the transitional provision in clause 42. It is more appropriate—this is the response to the query he raised—for certain provisions, namely clauses 30, 31, 34 and 35, to be commenced at a date appointed by the Secretary of State, rather than on Royal Assent. That is normal practice. The purpose is to allow preparations to take place and the people involved to be brought up to speed on those aspects of the law, rather than forcing adoption on the day of Royal Assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith]

The Electoral Commission has made clear its view that it should enforce the rules already laid down by Parliament, not determine the rules. The Deputy Leader of the House said that it is up to the commission to decide what is permissible and what is not; surely that is not right.

[Tom Brake]

The Electoral Commission has produced guidance that the different organisations have to work within, and it will investigate any issues that are believed to have arisen. It clearly has an important role. The Government are not in a position to set out in legislation each and every possible type of campaign that the commission might have to account for. That is why it produces guidance and why—we will support it in this—it will sit down with campaigning organisations to ensure that that guidance is available for them so that they can work effectively.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Angela Smith

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

That is the kind of issue that can be taken up with the Charity Commission and the Electoral Commission under existing legislation to establish whether that particular activity constituted electioneering. Nothing that we are proposing would affect that.

The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North seek, as previous amendments have done, to strike a balance between the reasonable intent of expanding the range of activities that incur controlled expenditure, and addressing concerns over the activities of charities and voluntary organisations being caught. Amendment 131 seeks to revise the definition of “for election purposes” as activity that can reasonably be regarded as promoting or procuring the success of a party or candidate. As the Government have indicated, we support the principle of that aim, and we will table amendments on Report which I hope will address that concern to the hon. Gentleman’s satisfaction.

A further amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman proposes that donations by a third party to a third party coalition group should count towards the donor third party’s spending limits. That seems to suggest that such a grouping would register as a separate, new third party and be subject to the wider controls of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The intention appears to be to repeal section 94(6) of PPERA. That provision stipulates that when two or more third parties work together as a group or coalition in pursuance of a common plan, the whole of the expenditure they incur as part of that coalition must count against each third party’s spending limit separately. However, the drafting of the amendment would not explicitly repeal section 94(6). The amendment also fails to consider that removing the existing provisions on acting in concert would remove a key anti-avoidance measure from PPERA. If total spending by a group of third parties acting as part of a common plan was not counted in full against each individual third party’s limits, it would allow third parties to form many coalitions on single issues in order to evade their spending limits. That would remove a vital safeguard from the integrity of the rules.

[Angela Smith]

Has the Minister considered the position of the Wildlife Trust in this context? It is not a single organisation but a coalition of trusts working up and down the country; it is a coalition of organisations working as a single body.

[Tom Brake]

Clearly we have. This comes down to the issue of whether the Wildlife Trust, which I suspect has members drawn from all parties and none, would as part of that coalition campaign in support of a political party or of a number of party candidates. If it did not intend to do so, it would not be covered by the legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Angela Smith

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is incorrect. I have in front of me the Order Paper for the day to which he refers and that written ministerial statement is listed.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

The Government have form on not keeping the House fully informed and in an electronic age, surely it is not beyond the wit of even this Government to find a way of ensuring that Members’ rights and the rights of this House are fully recognised.

[Tom Brake]

Clearly, the Government are keen to make use of technology and would be very open to the idea of using it to provide written ministerial statements as early as possible. We would be very interested in pursuing that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Angela Smith

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I am surprised that the hon. Lady considers that the Government have a light programme; that is certainly not the view on the Government Benches. The House has expressed a view on private Members’ Bills. It has thought it appropriate to leave them where they are.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

When the Leader of the House and his deputy prepare their evidence, will they consider holding the Committee stage of the Bill on equal marriage on the Floor of the House?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question about a matter that has been raised before. The Government want to allow suitable scrutiny of the Bill and I am sure that the Government will provide it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Angela Smith

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I do not know the detail of what was announced, but sometimes such statements do not address matters of policy, but instead express the direction in which the Government are going.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

The fact that we have both a new Leader and Deputy Leader of the House presents us with an excellent opportunity to establish higher standards in how the Government report matters of concern to this House. Will the Deputy Leader therefore take this opportunity to give a guarantee that the Government will report statements to this House before briefing the media?

[Tom Brake]

It is clear from the ministerial code that that is precisely what Ministers are required to do, and, as we know, if necessary the Speaker will intervene and force a Minister’s hand if that is required.