Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

The Government have been clear in the White Paper that our commitment to rights protection is unequivocal and that how those rules are applied is ultimately a decision for Parliament. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that rights do not emanate from the EU? We have our own rich and proud tradition of civil liberties, such as the Race Relations Act 1965 or the Equal Pay Act 1970, and we acceded to those critical pieces of legislation before our accession to the European Economic Community.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I understand my hon. Friend’s position on guaranteeing UK rights—indeed, I respect her position, which is that UK rights need no foreign courts to guarantee them. Perhaps she can help me understand how she views the rights of others on our continent. The great achievement of many of our people in the past 50 years has been the extension of those rights, yet today I see lists of Jews being suggested in Vienna, and I hear about the erosion of the rule of law in other parts of eastern Europe. What will be the Government’s position on making sure that those human rights still exist?

[Suella Braverman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I said, we have a long and proud tradition, which predates our membership of the EU, to protecting civil liberties, upholding human rights and enhancing the position of the individual, whether through the rule of law or our commitment to the ECHR. Brexit will not change that.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

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

[John Redwood]

As I understand it, that decision has been made for me. I have not yet had the advantage of reading the draft Bill, so I cannot give the hon. Lady my personal view, but the Government’s view is that it is primary legislation. They think that even though that Bill is reaffirming practices in European law, because the Government think that it is going a bit further than European law, they have quite properly said, “We must make this primary legislation.” The example makes my case rather well that the Government are being cautious because they are trying to reaffirm and go a bit further than European law, probably in a direction that most people in the House would be entirely comfortable with. But the House will have the benefit of going through the full processes of primary legislation. I hope that there will be other examples like that, where Ministers recognise that there could be changes of substance that will warrant either primary legislation or a statutory instrument.

I do not want to take up too much time because many people wish to speak, but I would like to pick up on something that the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), started to mention and which I found very interesting. He drew our attention to the way in which we handle statutory instruments in the House in general. There are occasions when it is a weakness of our procedures that we cannot amend a statutory instrument, and we need to think about this for the future. This issue does not arise just from the transfer of European law; it goes to the fundamental business of how we generally exercise control and ensure that legislation works.

I remember being on a statutory instrument Committee under the previous Labour Government for an SI to regularise a series of payments to councils because the Government had been a bit late in giving themselves the legislative permission to make the payments—there was a surprise. I realised as soon as I read it that somebody had put in the statutory instrument the full amounts of money involved, and someone else had come along and put, “£millions” across the top of the table, so we were actually invited to vote six extra noughts on every figure going to the councils.

I am a generous man, but I thought that that was a bit excessive because it meant that the sums were probably bigger than the GNP of the country. If not, they were certainly approaching the GNP of the country in a rather alarming way. I was regarded as a bit of a nuisance for pointing this out because there was absolutely no way of correcting the figures. The Committee just had to sit and enact the statutory instrument as it was, even though it was clearly laughable, giving far too much cover for payments and not acting as a proper control. That is a minor example, but it shows that there are occasions when Ministers make mistakes and when it would be quite helpful if there were some kind of correcting procedure.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an important point because he is exposing the very fact that, despite the fine occupant of the Front Bench today, one cannot be 100% certain of the quality of the procedure that is being carried out from the ministerial office. This House is fundamentally the custodian of the public purse and the taxpayers’ money, and we must be absolutely certain that no cheques are blank and signed and left on Government desks.

[John Redwood]

I am glad we agree about that. I am trying to make a helpful suggestion for the future on this issue and a wider issue to which we need to return at some point. We need a system that establishes parliamentary control—as I have explained, all the methods we are discussing today are parliamentary control of one form or another—but we may need to think about how we improve processes for the future when that control is a statutory instrument.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

No, that is not what it says. If the hon. Member reads the Member’s explanatory statement to the amendment he will see that it says:

“This new clause would require HM Government to negotiate to continue the UK’s participation on agreeing all rules affecting trade in goods and services in the European Union.”

My understanding is that those rules are made by the Commission and agreed by the Council of Ministers and the Parliament, so we would have to stay around all those tables.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Should we pass this new clause, will the Act of Parliament therefore be binding on the other 27 members, who will therefore, because we willed it, be forced to accept our presence at their table, despite our having left all the organisations that we have left? Does my hon. Friend think that this is in any way enforceable? If not, is it not slightly fallacious even to debate it?

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend rightly points out that, as with all of these amendments, even if this does not happen, there is nothing to be done. There is no sanction; there would just be a shrug of the shoulders, and we would have to turn our back and ask the hon. Member for Nottingham East what we are supposed to do next if we cannot manage to comply with his amendment. It really is nonsense. I know the hon. Gentleman has ambitions within his party, but he will have to do a little bit better than produce stuff like this.

Again, new clause 179 on protecting current levels of funding states:

“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of protecting current funding from the European Union.”

Funding to whom? Which funding? All funding? The funding that we send? The funding that comes back? Defence spend? Funding to us, or funding to other countries? The vagueness of these new clauses is extraordinary.

Again, new clause 183 on membership of the single market including EU-wide reform of freedom of movement states:

“secure reforms of provisions governing the free movement of persons between EU member states in such a way as to allow for greater controls over movement of people for member states”.

That is all very vague, as is

“maintain the highest possible level of integration with the European single market.”

What does that mean? What is the highest possible level of integration? Perhaps that means membership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I want to speak to new clause 193, which is in my name and the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends. I tabled it in the hope that the Minister would take it on board. I want to give the Government a chance this afternoon to set out their pro-European credentials.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton) so eloquently put it, the Prime Minister has said that, yes, we may be leaving the European Union, but that we intend to be good European neighbours. New clause 193 is an opportunity for the Government to set out how we, in this country, will remain determined to stay a member of one of the most important European clubs, the European club that we helped to found—the Council of Europe, the European convention on human rights and the European Court of Human Rights.

We moved the new clause because one of the most significant consequences of this divorce from Europe is that we will leave the European Court of Justice. Indeed, an important part of the leave campaign’s argument was that we must escape from the tutelage of these terrible European judges and that only British judges are good enough for us—unless, of course, they happen to want to give this Parliament a chance to debate this Bill, in which case they instantly become enemies of the people.

This idea that foreign judges are anathema to this place is, of course, complete fiction. This very afternoon, the Government have solicited our support for CETA—the comprehensive economic trade agreement—replete with the new investor state dispute mechanism, a new court populated not with British judges but with foreign judges. The idea that foreign judges are about to be removed or extracted from the body politic in this country is nonsense, and that is why I think we must argue that one of the most important tribunals that oversees the law in this country should remain in place. That court is the European Court of Human Rights.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fundamental point about our sympathy not only with our European partners but with our common European heritage, stemming straight out of Judeo-Christian theology through the Enlightenment and various schools at Paris and the Sorbonne, into the concept of rights that has emerged. Those rights were not simply created by the Council of Europe, as he seems to be claiming, but rather by British judges over several hundred years—admittedly taken from French and other traditions—and were re-imposed on Europe in the aftermath of the second world war. Although that heritage is important, as he rightly claims, would it not also be appropriate to recognise that some of those judges today are Moldovan and Russian and have been rather more prone to look for dictatorial abuse than to guarantee rights?

[Liam Byrne]

There is a reason why Russia has had its credentials suspended by the Council of Europe, and that is that it is not prepared to honour the great European Magna Carta that British civil servants helped to draw up under Churchill’s inspiration in the years after the second world war.

The Conservative manifesto—

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

No.

That idea is a misunderestimation—if I may borrow a phrase from George W. Bush—of what all of us, as Members of Parliament, are capable of.

That brings me to my final point—

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is expounding entirely on the principle of the House, which is the principle of democracy under the rule of law. He is not arguing, as others have done, for the rule of lawyers.

[Michael Gove]

I could not agree more, and my hon. Friend’s intervention gives me an opportunity to commend him for the work that he has done to draw attention to the way in which some lawyers have used some legislation to enrich themselves at the expense of those who wear the Queen’s uniform and defend our liberties every day. His work is commendable, and it is an example of what a Back Bencher can do. He did that work without any impact assessments having been published, and without waiting for the Ministry of Defence to act. He did it because he believed in holding the Executive to account, as we all do—and the one thing for which we all want to hold the Executive to account is the triggering of article 50. So if anyone wants to have the opportunity for perennial judicial review, they should vote for these amendments. If they want to earn the scorn of the public by putting pettifogging delay ahead of mandate—

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

No.

I want to address some of the new clauses and amendments that have been tabled by various factions on the Labour Benches, and I shall focus particularly on the ones relating to Euratom. The exchanges on this subject on Second Reading demonstrated the utter chaos that has gripped this Administration and their predecessor. Euratom’s role is to provide a framework for nuclear energy safety and development. I would have thought that, no matter how much some of the Brexiteers hate the European Union institutions, this one would have been among the least controversial. Surely there must be consensus on protecting us from nuclear meltdowns. Do they not think that that is a good idea? No.

The Command Paper that the UK Government published in February last year on the impact of Brexit made no mention of coming out of Euratom. Nevertheless, we are being taken out of it without any warning and, if the Government will not accept the Labour new clause on this matter, there will be no further discussion about it. I do not remember the subject featuring on the side of buses or in showpiece debates, yet here we are with another ill-thought-out unintended consequence of a Brexit vote that started as an internal ideological battle among Conservative Members and that is going to leave decades of uncertainty in its wake for us all. That is just one example. Each new clause and amendment, from whatever party, that calls for an impact assessment shows the Government’s lack of preparation across the whole suite of policy.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a small question, if I may. Has he given his constituents an impact assessment of any change that might take place at the next election? Has he prepared them fully and properly for the impact that a change of Member of Parliament might have on them? Or does he trust them to make their own impact assessment—does he trust the people to decide?

[Patrick Grady]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was here for my Second Reading speech last week, so he will know that 78% of my constituents voted to remain in the European Union. I am therefore reasonably confident that their voice is at last being heard. They will make their judgment at the next election, whenever it comes, and I will be happy to live with their decision.

We want to test the will of the House on new clause 143. It tests the Government not only on the practical costs of Brexit but on the hard money, because we know that the financial costs will be high. It is simply not in the interests of the remaining member states for the UK to be better off as a result of Brexit. We have already seen the shocks to the currency market described by my hon. Friend the Member for Badenoch and so on—[Laughter.] I am not quite as good at this as the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). We have seen the shocks to the currency market and the revisions that have already happened in the economic forecasts. Withdrawing from the European Union and exiting the single market will lead to an enormous hit on our economy, and new clause 143 calls on the Chancellor to bring forward further revised forecasts and an assessment of the UK’s financial liability to the EU on the completion of the triggering of article 50.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins]

As usual, my hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point. I pay due respect to the work he has done for the Brain family and others in his constituency in some of the disgraceful immigration cases we have seen. These EU nationals have chosen to make the UK their home and Scotland their home. They make this a better place in which to live and work. It is a no-brainer that we should give them the certainty they deserve.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very cogent and well-structured argument, and I broadly agree with many of the points he is making, but would he not agree that this is really a Mexican stand-off with water pistols? There is no realistic chance that any signatory of the European convention on human rights—the United Kingdom is one; in fact, we drafted much of it—will kick out anybody. We are not going to kick out anybody from the United Kingdom, and nor are UK citizens in other parts of the European Union going to be expelled. Would it not be better for the House to recognise that the position of these EU nationals is not at risk? Would we not be much better off comforting those who are in doubt, rather than spreading fear?

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. The ECHR is under threat from this very Government, so does it not make sense to come into the Lobby with us to support the right of EU nationals to live and work here? I look forward to his standing up for what he has just said and joining us in the Lobby.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Gethins]

No, but I will say this to the hon. Gentleman, because he probably has a lot more influence on the Government Benches than I do—that is one thing I will give him. The Government are desperately in need of friends and good will. If we benefit financially from EU nationals being here, and if our society is richer for their being here, we want to keep them regardless—they are not bargaining chips, but that is something the Government seem to ignore. If EU nationals are not bargaining chips, I would encourage him to join us in the Lobby and give them the certainty they need and deserve.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to be called to speak this evening, particularly after so many masterful speeches. I particularly pay tribute to the hon. Members for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), the latter of whom spoke just a few moments ago, for their cogent and clear explanation of the democratic principle that we are all here to represent. Although I, too, campaigned for remain and am a passionate advocate of co-operation with our European partners, I stood on a manifesto that asked the people to give me their delegated power on all matters but one. On that one matter I pledged in the manifesto to hold a referendum. I voted for that referendum and the people told me what they think. The decision has been made.

It is not now for me to tell my commander that he is wrong. It is not now for me to go over the arguments that we have been debating not for six months or a year but for 40 years. It is simply not true to say that this referendum lasted only a few months. Certainly since the beginning of the European Union, or our membership of it, and most particularly since Maastricht, this is a conversation that our country has been having on at least a weekly basis, and frequently on a daily basis.

I find myself today with no choice but to accept the order of my boss, the British people. This morning I had the great privilege of going to one of our great institutions, and walking around the British Museum I was struck by various objects—[Laughter.] Sadly there were no claymores. I was struck by various objects, and the most impressive of them was the Franks casket, which those who have studied any archaeology or Anglo-Saxon history will remember is one of the great treasures of 8th-century Northumbria—when the Kingdom of Northumbria was independent, and the Kingdom of Kent, too.

The Franks casket symbolises exactly what we are. It symbolises the fact that we are a union of peoples and that we are a combination of our past and our future, because it is inscribed in runic and in Latin. It has stories of Romans, of Jews and even of pagan Germans, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was particularly struck because, of course, this debate is part of a long, long series of discussions that our country has been having not only with itself but with our community in Europe and the wider world. That conversation is democracy. That conversation is humanity. There is an idea that there is a final part or an end state that we are about to hit—the departure from the European Union or the vote to invoke article 50—but they are not end states in any real sense. We are still going to be part of a European community, because we are 20 miles from the coast of France. We are still going to be part of a global community, because our cousins live in America, India, Canada and even Zimbabwe. We are part of this international world, so this is not an end state—it is merely a stage. It is our duty to make sure that the next stage, the only one we have any ability to control, is successful.

That is not just down to us and it is not just down to this Chamber, so we must be realistic. When we look at Europe and at the world today, we must realise that although Brexit is important, it is not the only thing that is happening. A French election is coming, and I do not know whether Macron, Fillon or Le Pen is going to win, but that will be seminal. Dutch elections and German elections are coming, and many other decisions will be taken by many other people. Therefore, it is the duty of not only this House, but Her Majesty’s Government, our diplomatic corps and our whole Government to be part of that conversation with our friends and neighbours to encourage co-operation.

In that, I simply urge one last thing: when people talk about the reaction of our friends and neighbours—and they are our friends and neighbours—may we please avoid words such as “punishment”? The truth is that all countries and all peoples must act in their national interest, and the decisions they take must be respected. The decisions they will be taking in years to come will not necessarily be punitive; the truth is that they will be taking decisions for themselves, and we must respect them.