Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

John Baron Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

It is a great pleasure to open this debate on their lordships’ amendments to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which is a vital part of the Government’s agenda to regulate in a smarter, innovation-friendly way that will grow the UK economy. We have already taken advantage of many of the opportunities that leaving the European Union has created, and Brexit offers us the opportunity to rethink, from first principles, how and when we regulate. Of course, this includes ridding the statute book of unnecessary and burdensome retained EU laws through a process of revoke and reform, while always applying the same rigorous scrutiny to wider regulations that have accumulated over time, to ensure they are fit for purpose and of benefit to the UK.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Does the Solicitor General believe the Government’s approach is not only sound but robust in ensuring that we examine each piece of EU legislation before discarding it? Secondly, does he agree that, through forthcoming legislation, we will have gotten rid of more than half of retained EU law by the end of the year?

[The Solicitor General]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for intervening so early in this debate to make two very important points. He is absolutely right, and I will turn to the detail of his points but, on the substance, he is 100% correct. As I develop my points, I hope he will agree even more with our approach.

United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union

John Baron Excerpts

Friday 29th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

Let me make another point. I oppose the agreement for a second reason, because I believe that it betrays the wishes of the vast majority of people who voted to leave the EU. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who is not in the Chamber, has described those who voted to leave and who are standing outside today protesting as a mob. That is the kind of disdain that those who voted to leave—[Interruption.] They are being treated with disdain in this withdrawal agreement.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we vote for this deal this afternoon, we will, for the first time in almost 300 years of our constitutional history, be drawing a line between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom? It may only be a trade barrier, but that is how these things start, and that will be under the direct control, in many respects, of the EU.

[Sammy Wilson]

And, of course, whether or not it is just a line down the Irish sea, as described by some people, it will have serious implications for the economy of Northern Ireland. We are told that, even when the Bill goes through, we will still not know the nature of those barriers. Not until statutory instruments are presented to this House, or Ministers use their Henry VIII powers, will we know the kind of restrictions that would be damaging the—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baron]

May I urge my right hon. Friend to think again before deciding to change his mind and support what to all intents and purposes is a meaningful vote 3? We do not know what the future holds for sure, but we do know for sure that we can only decide on the facts that are before us, and we know this is a bad deal that could lock the UK indefinitely in a backstop for a very long time. When deciding to vote against Iraq, I, like many others in this place, could only judge it on the facts at the time, not on threats involving weapons of mass destruction. Will he please consider that before he finally makes up his mind?

[Dominic Raab]

I always listen attentively to my hon. Friend. He posits the dilemma correctly, and this is a finely balanced judgment of risk. My problem is that I cannot countenance an even longer extension, or holding European elections in May.

The third implication of the motion is that under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, a duly constituted third meaningful vote will have to return to the House for a vote, presumably on Second Reading of the withdrawal and implementation Bill. That will buy the Government a little more time and room for manoeuvre, which in my view they should use to revert to the EU and seek an exchange of letters that can provide legally binding measures that give effect to the Brady amendment. [Interruption.] Some Opposition Members are looking on in disbelief, and I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) when she spoke. Why is the EU’s position treated as immutable and unmovable, but the UK is always expected to bend? The House is succumbing to that mindset, which is precisely what led us to this predicament in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I voted against meaningful votes 1 and 2, and I will be voting against meaningful vote 3 this afternoon. Let us be absolutely clear: no matter how it is dressed up by the Government, this is a vote on the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement. I think it is a very, very bad deal. Part of the reason why we have arrived at this point, where the House cannot support the deal, is that the negotiating team saw Brexit as a problem to be solved rather than an opportunity to be seized. Furthermore, they never convinced the EU that we were prepared to walk away. In any negotiation, if the other side really does not think that you are prepared to walk away, it makes for a worse deal.

I sympathise very much with my colleagues—particularly those who voted Brexit—because this is a very difficult decision. To choose between the devil and the deep blue sea is never easy, but I have decided again to vote against this meaningful vote, because this is such a disastrous deal. It is a disastrous deal on two fronts—

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baron]

No, I am going to make progress. If I finish beforehand, I will take the intervention, but a lot of Members want to speak in the debate.

There are two central questions the Government have continued to fail to answer. The first was raised by our friends in the DUP, who made it clear that the meaningful vote would put in place an internal border within the United Kingdom. It is not just the DUP that believes that; it is all the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland, and we should not take that lightly. This would actually threaten our United Kingdom.

However, there is a further reason why we should be wary of this agreement, and that is that it is very possible—

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)]

rose—

[Mr Baron]

I am not going to take an intervention from the Front Bench, who have negotiated a disastrous deal for us. It is as simple as that—I am sorry.

[Richard Graham]

Will my hon. Friend take an intervention from me?

[Mr Baron]

I did promise my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey).

[Mark Pawsey]

My hon. Friend says this is a bad deal. Why does he think that, at a time when business investment is at its lowest, all manufacturing industries believe this is a good deal that should be supported?

[Mr Baron]

Because my hon. Friend will remember, as I do, the dire predictions if we voted to leave in 2016, which never materialised. They were so poor that the Bank of England and many others had to publicly apologise, and since then we have seen record low unemployment, record high manufacturing output and record investment, and those decisions in recent years have been made on the basis that we could be leaving on no-deal, WTO terms.

[Richard Graham]

rose—

[Mr Baron]

I am sorry, I will not give way. I am going to continue for a little bit.

The second reason why I will vote against the agreement this afternoon is the indefinite nature of the backstop. I fully agree with those who say that there is a need for compromise. I do not like the transition arrangement, but I can hold my nose to it, because in a sense it is no worse than being in the EU, but what I find very difficult to swallow is the indefinite nature of the backstop. I cannot imagine that there is anybody in this place who would enter into a serious legal arrangement—an agreement—that gave the key to exit only to the other party. We could be locked into the backstop indefinitely. That is not delivering on the result of the EU referendum, the triggering of article 50 or the result of the general election, in which both parties committed to honouring the referendum result in their manifestos.

In conclusion, we triggered article 50. The legal default position of that triggering, which we passed by a majority of 384, is that we would leave with or without a deal. Monday’s motion will address the central issue of whether we leave on WTO terms if we cannot pass the Prime Minister’s deal today, and I would encourage the House to give it consideration.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Opinion

John Baron Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

The hon. Gentleman is not right about that. Under article 184 of the withdrawal agreement, there is a legal duty on the Union and the UK to negotiate a deal that is in line, and according to, the political declaration. He asks, is there any unconditional right to withdraw? With respect, I have answered that question. The only circumstance in which there would be an unconditional right to withdraw is if there were a fundamental change of circumstances pursuant to customary international law.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. and learned Friend for the way he is pursuing the remit of his office. He is, of course, right that there is a political dimension to the decision that we will all have to make this evening, but may I ask him this question? He has confirmed today that, if there were a fundamental change of circumstances, this country would have the right to walk away from the agreement, but can he also confirm that, if that were to happen and we did walk away, we could take Northern Ireland with us as a member of the United Kingdom, thereby extracting it from the customs union within the EU?

[The Attorney General]

Let me make it clear: the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom, it includes Northern Ireland and there is no circumstance in which the Government of this country, and certainly not a Conservative Government, will ever leave Northern Ireland behind, subject to the obligations under the Belfast agreement. That has been proposed, as my hon. Friend knows. It has been proposed that we should have a termination right for GB only and the Prime Minister explained why that was unacceptable.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I am immensely obliged to the hon. Lady because that is precisely what I want to move on to.

If we accept, and I urge this House to accept, that effectively 90% of this withdrawal agreement—some 450 of the 585 pages—in fact settles these crucial outstanding matters, which no sensible person could doubt require to be settled in order to effect our departure, that leaves the two grounds of objection that have been advanced—I listen with great care to speeches from Members on the Opposition side of the House—to this agreement and declaration, so may I come to those two grounds? Before I do, I simply say that there are some typical misconceptions about the withdrawal agreement. For example, it is said that the Court of Justice of the European Union retains jurisdiction over our courts once the time-limited obligations have wound down that the withdrawal agreement settles. It does not. It does not. It does not. It does not. How many times do I have to say it to my hon. Friends? [Hon. Members: “More.”] It does not! The fact of the matter is that once—once—these obligations have wound down, the CJEU will have no jurisdiction over the resolution of disputes between individuals, citizens, businesses in our country. This is what our people voted for and we, by adopting this withdrawal agreement, can give it to them.

Secondly, it is said that we will be permanently bound by EU rules. But we will not. The fact of the matter is that the withdrawal agreement’s obligations are inherently time-limited. Once they have wound out, the EU rules will no longer have effect in this country.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend is making his case with his usual eloquence, but on that specific point and his point about airlocks, airlocks need exit mechanisms. In the absence of legal certainty that we could unilaterally leave the backstop—my amendment (f) addresses this and I will be pressing it—what certainty is there that the EU does not drag negotiations on, so that we could still, with an extension to the transition period, be discussing these issues in four or five years’ time?

[The Attorney General]

Herein lies the critical question that we all have to confront in connection to the backstop. Before I answer it, however, I will take my hon. Friend’s intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I rise to speak to amendment (f) in my name and that of other right hon. and hon. Members. Briefly, it would give the UK Government the unilateral right to exit the backstop at a time of their choosing. It is very straightforward: the UK could not find itself suspended indefinitely in a backstop. If the amendment is passed, it would allow the UK to choose the time to exit, had we entered the backstop; the UK would not have to seek EU approval to do so.

I speak with some sadness. The negotiations to date have been approached as a problem to be solved, rather than as an opportunity to be seized. I, for one, do not like the transition period, but in any negotiation—in particular after 40 to 45 years of integration—there has to be an element of compromise, and I am willing to accept that. The backstop, however, is the real problem for many on the Conservative Benches.

At the moment, the Government cannot answer this very simple question, which directly addresses the indefinite nature of the backstop: without any legal certainty with regards to our ability to exit the backstop unilaterally, what certainty is there that the EU would not play a long game, dragging out the negotiations? By further extending the transition period, which it could do, we could still be having this discussion in three, four or five years to come. That is not honouring the result of the referendum. We need to leave the EU. We need to be definite about that, and the backstop is not the answer because it is indefinite. We could be there for a very long time—

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Baron]

I am sorry: others want to come in.

Passing amendment (f) would encourage both parties to negotiate constructively when it comes to the transition period and the trade deal, because if the EU knows that it cannot trap us in the backstop, it is more likely to constructively negotiate a trade deal for the benefit of both parties. The Prime Minister could then go back to the EU, which has a long track record of eleventh-hour deals. The amendment would go a long way to helping to unite our party, which is terribly, terribly important. If the amendment is not passed, unfortunately and reluctantly I will have to vote against the withdrawal agreement.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

John Baron Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

Yes, I did see that figure. It is deeply concerning that those sorts of costs are even contemplated for that option in relation to technology that has not been developed or, in many respects, even invented. That is why there is such a bitter dispute going on in the Cabinet.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to press on, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I will take other interventions later.

I realise that all sorts of fanciful promises about new customs arrangements were made during the referendum and have been made since, but we have a duty to protect our economy, jobs and the manufacturing sector across the UK. That is at the heart of today’s debate. The only way to uphold that duty is to negotiate a customs union with the EU.

There is, of course, another important aspect. In December last year, our Government made a solemn promise in the phase 1 agreement: no hard border in Northern Ireland. And that was spelt out—no infrastructure, no checks and no controls. Now, in all the to-ing and fro-ing yesterday, what may have been missed is that one amendment that went through, without any dissent from the Opposition, was a Government amendment to Lords amendment 25 for that obligation to be legally binding in UK law. That is a very significant amendment; after the political commitment in December to no hard border, no infrastructure, no checks and no controls, we now have a binding law to that effect. This goes to the issue of maximum facilitation, because if maximum facilitation does involve infrastructure, checks or controls, it would be unlawful under the provision passed yesterday. Therefore, it cannot happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. When the phase 1 agreement was reached in December, I thought that commitment was the most significant thing that had happened since the referendum, with regard to indicating what our future relationship with the EU would be. I think that it is clear to everyone who has considered this and visited Northern Ireland to talk it through that the only answer to having no hard border, in the end, is a customs union and high-level single market alignment, and that is why yesterday was so significant. The fact that that was accepted by the Government and turned into domestic law gives it a status that it did not have until yesterday, because previously it was a political agreement at international level. I am not suggesting for one moment that it was not solemnly entered into by the Government, or indeed that they would resile from it as a matter of international negotiation, but it will now become a matter of domestic law. It is probably the most significant thing that happened yesterday.

[Mr Baron]

May I just remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the vast majority of people, not only at the referendum but at the general election—85% of those who voted—voted to leave the customs union and the single market? It was a very clear result. Let me ask him this one straightforward question, for clarity: in their search for a customs union, are the Opposition willing to sacrifice our ability to negotiate trade deals outside the EU in order the achieve that customs union with the EU?

[Keir Starmer]

We all want new trade deals. At the moment we have got an excellent trade deal with the EU, and we have 37 additional agreements with 67 countries through our membership of the EU. The first thing we need to do is preserve that. Lots has been said about new trade agreements and how they will be fast and how we will get much better terms than would be offered to any other country in the world. In fact, we are told that they will be queuing up to give us preferential treatment, and quickly. I think the Brexit Secretary said that by March next year we will have had trade deals with countries in an area that is geographically 10 times larger than the EU. Well, he has only a few months left to pull that one off. The Opposition consider that if new trade deals are struck together and jointly with the EU, we have a better chance of getting quicker and better trade deals.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

Of course we are listening to the job creators—I have mentioned that in the context of my own constituency experience, which is not dissimilar to the hon. Lady’s—which is why we have committed ourselves to the most frictionless possible trade. That said, any deal will have to represent Britain’s position as a third country rather than a part of the EEA structure.

[Mr Baron]

May I return the Solicitor General to what seems to have been the Opposition’s first admission that they are seeking a customs union that would not allow us to negotiate trade deals with countries outside the EU? They might be pessimistic about the way forward—they have quoted the CBI—but many people out there are saying that, provided we can negotiate trade deals with countries outside the EU, the future is very bright. It is a vital point that Labour would let down the electorate by not allowing us to trade.

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend is right to remind us of one of the key planks of the Government’s policy: that important freedom to negotiate free trade deals that comes from being in law a third country.

--- Later in debate ---

On the customs union, to which today’s amendments are most relevant, nobody says that there is anything wrong with it. Nobody says that it is undesirable that we currently have open borders. Presumably, they all accept that it is hugely beneficial to wide sectors of our economy. The only thing wrong with it is that we cannot do trade deals with the rest of the world. I would have thought that the debate should concentrate and focus on those two points.

[Mr Baron]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Mr Clarke]

No, because I have almost taken longer than I intended already.

Let us address freedom of movement. Personally, I do not have any hang-ups about freedom of movement—people coming to work here, contribute to the economy, provide skills that we do not have or do unskilled work that British people will not do—but it could be tightened up. People should not come here for benefits and so on, or hang around if they have lost their job. I am sure that we could start to negotiate on the basis of tightening that up.

[Mr Baron]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way on that point?

[Mr Clarke]

If I start giving way, we will go back to where we were before.

Similarly, on trade deals with the rest of the world, if anybody can devise a method of trading with other countries on our own that is consistent with a sensible customs arrangement and better than the deals that we have now used very successfully for a long time—with our being the leading nation pushing for EU deals with the rest of the world—that is fine, but let us not accidentally drift into a position in which we are making absurd demands of the EU that mean our leaving not only the customs union and single market, but losing all the advantages that particularly the best and most competitive sectors of our economy have by way of their existing access to the European market.

Some people seem to think that we can have an altogether different and better type of trade deal with other parts of the world. Quite irrelevant statistics are misused to make the case, such as that growth is faster in the rest of the world than it is in Europe. It is an underlying truth that growth in emerging and developing markets, which was very poor until we got going with the rules-based order in the 1990s, is faster than that of developed countries such as our own, and it is always going to be faster. There is also the argument that there is more of the outside world than there is of Europe. That is indeed the case, but for the past 20 years in particular, the United Kingdom has been the most influential player in the European Union in insisting on the steady attempt to negotiate trade deals with the world in general, and the numbers keep growing.

On the British Government’s behalf, I was involved on the fringes of the constant efforts to get an EU deal with the US—the so-called Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. It did not fail because there was something wicked about the EU; the fact is that, unfortunately, protectionist influences in America are very strong, and were even under the Obama Administration. One cannot get any response. I have been involved in all these things—I have talked about trading openings with India and Brazil, which are of course where the population is. It is absolutely absurd to think that there are no protectionist pressures in India and Brazil and that it is simply a question of our present Foreign Secretary walking in, with his bonhomie, and saying, “You will of course now throw your markets open to us”.

It is also absurd to argue that somehow this approach will produce deals with less damage to our sovereignty and fewer constraints. I do not understand those arguments. What is the nature of a treaty embodying a trade deal—or any other treaty, come to that? Both sides agree mutually binding obligations. They agree on tariffs, and remove them where they can. But what is far more important in trade with developed countries, such as the US—I personally think that the few tariffs left there could be abolished both ways with no disadvantage—is talking about regulatory alignment.

In the EU, we have achieved regulatory harmonisation. What one wants is mutual recognition. We agree to say, “We will abide by arrangements on regulatory standards, on which we both agree, and we, the British, will not change them in our House of Commons. We will not go back on them, and you won’t go back on them.” If we listen, again, to the more zealous Eurosceptics, they seem to think that the world will throw open its doors when we arrive saying, “We want a trade deal with you—open trade.” “Fine”, say the Australians. So we say, “The rules are that you agree to this, this and this, and you take this, and we take that.” But then we say, “Of course, we may change the rules—we may change the scope occasionally. We do not, of course, undertake to fetter ourselves by any lasting obligation to what we have agreed with you.”

There are no such deals. It is fanciful, as the Secretary of State for International Trade discovered when he went to America. He no doubt believed, as they all did just after the referendum, that the doors were about to be thrown open and that we would get a deal with the Trump Administration by Christmas. He found, as indeed I did in my dealings with America, that things are different. The current President is hopeless. He wants to reduce the amount that we and others export to America, and he wants to use force in what he says are easy-to-win trade wars to get us to open up more of our markets to exports from the United States in sensitive areas. That is what he is about.

What is a constant in America—it is also true in Australia, New Zealand and Brazil, thinking of some of the bigger and easier markets—is that they are always anxious to have access to our market for their farmers. They produce food on an industrial scale to lower standards of animal welfare and food regulation than we have. President Trump will say, “We are going to sell you our beef and our chicken and some of our cereals on a bigger scale.” What will those countries want us to get rid of? They will want us to abandon the European regulations on animal welfare and food standards and take up theirs. It would cost us the European market if we did that, and we would have to have border guards everywhere because nobody would let us export to the rest of Europe or to Ireland, or be a route for, chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef. Australia has hormone-treated beef; it is not just the Americans. I will not go on, because I think I have made my point.

People are of course dismissed any time they try to point out the consequences of our ignoring reality in the modern world and what might happen to our economy—to Scotland and the rest of the UK—if we accidentally put all kinds of new barriers in the way of our trade. Unfortunately, the public have been persuaded by the Eurosceptics to ignore the Bank of England, the Treasury, the CBI, chambers of commerce, and people from key sectors of the economy such as the car industry and pharmaceuticals. It is all scaremongering, apparently —so we are told.

Actually, I do not see how anybody can argue that erecting new barriers between ourselves and the biggest, richest international free trade market in the world can do anything other than make us poorer than we were. That is why I do not understand why the Government are resisting the not very strong or compelling Lords amendment 1, on customs union, at all. They are only being asked to report on what efforts they are making to get there, and I think they are going to have to make efforts to get there.

The amendments in lieu are an attempt to devoid substantial amendments of any meaning. I would not vote with the Government on the meaningful vote yesterday, because I could not see that any commitment had been given; nor could I see any argument against what was on the amendment paper. I was very worried, because I thought that some of my close hon. Friends and colleagues were going to be very angry when they discovered that they had been fobbed off with an agreement just to discuss the possibility of changing the provision. They may yet have the last laugh on me—I am getting to be a cynic in my old age—as this morning they appeared to be getting somewhere in getting a more substantial system put in place, but we have yet to see the Brexiteers mount their full counter-attack. I will wait and see.

I will come back to the subject of this particular debate, as you will want me to do, Mr Speaker. What is being offered as an amendment in lieu, to use the jargon, is pathetic and utterly meaningless. We could save a bit of public money by saving the paper involved in putting it in the amendment paper and printing it. That probably explains why the amendments in lieu have been tabled by an extraordinarily wide range of Conservative MPs. As well as the Secretary of State, the list includes my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and so on. I know all these people and I do not believe that they agree on anything that has anything to do with the European Union, so what has induced them all to do this? I quite accept that there is a sense of deep loyalty to our party, which I assure the House I actually feel in every other way myself. I think that this is an excellent Government if it were not for their policy on leaving the European Union, but there we are.

What are we being asked to sign up to? The amendment says that it is “a customs arrangement”. Well, that covers anything. It is a phrase that the Prime Minister, for reasons that I have always understood, has slipped into several times because she cannot get the members of her Cabinet to agree on her using any other form of words. So for the time being she has been obliged to slip into talking about “a customs arrangement”. But that includes absolutely everything, from the kind of arrangements that would suit my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset to those that would suit my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough, but everything in between as well. It is a bit of a waste of a statement, coming back to say what efforts they have made to reach that extremely amorphous destination. Of course, that takes us back to the root of the whole problem, which is trying to arrive at a border policy.

To end on a more optimistic note, I think that most of us have noticed that a most important stride was made yesterday, as I have said, with an amendment tabled by the Government that was described as the Irish amendment. It is part of dealing with the argument about the Belfast agreement, and actually embodies the Belfast agreement in law. It goes further by reinforcing what the Prime Minister has actually been saying for some time, if we have been listening to her—that we are going to have a customs union, in effect, in Ireland, because there is going to be nothing new and no checks on the border. We are, in effect, going to be in the single market as far as Ireland is concerned, because we are having regulatory alignment. We agreed that. I think that the Cabinet agreed it—although some of them do not seem to have noticed—not too long ago, back at the time of the draft withdrawal agreement, which the Government are now trying to finalise. I actually think that that is where we should go.

The Government are still talking about frictionless trade. Unfortunately, thanks to the rows there have been, the slogan is now “as frictionless as possible” trade, which no doubt cheers up the Foreign Secretary. The truth is that we will have to have genuinely frictionless trade through arrangements on customs and regulatory alignment that preserve the benefits of all this for Ireland. Actually, the one thing that I think every Member of the House agrees on is that we do not want new barriers down the Irish sea. Northern Ireland is part of the Union—I am as Unionist as anybody here—and we are not putting up new barriers between the mainland and Northern Ireland when we leave.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

I cannot give way anymore because so many Members want to speak.

I know that there is a great deal of working-class disaffection behind the Brexit vote, and that people want action on migration and free movement. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras read out a list of things we can address, and former Prime Minister Gordon Brown spoke about others in his speech last week. There are things that we can do, and we need to address working-class discontent, but we do not take the first step in doing so by voting for a path of making our country poorer, and of not generating the wealth required for the public services, regeneration, housing, and the better chance in life that our working-class communities need.

[Mr Baron]

Before speaking in support of Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendments 1 and 2, to which I have put my name, I will briefly touch on the issue of immigration, which has been mentioned a number of times, particularly by the Scottish nationalists.

My education was very international. I did not return to start my education in this country until the age of 11. I suggest to those who say that Brexiteers tend to be anti-immigration that what many of us want is an immigration system that no longer discriminates against the rest of the world outside the EU. We are getting a little tired of the line that, somehow, we are anti-immigration. We want a controlled immigration policy, but we also want a fair immigration policy.

I suggest to Opposition Members that a controlled immigration policy—one that is fair to all and that no longer discriminates against any particular region—would actually help the wages of many in this country, because wages are a simple function of demand and supply. If we introduce a system of controlled and fair immigration, as Lord Rose admitted just prior to the referendum when questioned by the Treasury Committee, wages would rise faster but big business may not like it. Labour would be well advised to bear thought on that issue.

In addressing Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendments 1 and 2, I will focus on the nature of the negotiations themselves. We have discovered today from the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) that the price that Labour is prepared to pay to be part of a customs union or the customs union is to sacrifice the right to negotiate trade deals with other countries outside the EU. That came from the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, and I hope that Ministers take that on board, because it is an important deviation from what the Labour party promised at the last general election.

Putting the referendum to one side for a moment, the Labour party’s manifesto actually said that we will be leaving the customs union and the single market. Labour seems to have conveniently forgotten that point, and we must drill that home because Labour is betraying its core support by ignoring what it put in the manifesto on which it stood at the last general election. We should also remember that 85% of those who voted at the general election—the 43% or 44% we got, and the 41% the Labour party got—actually supported that policy.

On the business of tying the Government’s hands in the negotiations, those who have conducted any form of negotiation will understand that that makes for worse outcomes. There is no getting away from that point. It also flies in the face of precedent. It is an accepted practice that Governments negotiate treaties, as was the case at the time of the European Communities Act 1972, and with the Lisbon treaty, the Nice treaty and so on. I do not remember any argument that Parliament should undertake negotiations on those treaties being made by people who today are arguing that Parliament should dictate the Government’s course of action in international negotiations. There is an absolute contradiction on that policy.

We often hear those who campaign on this issue, or who challenge the Government’s position, quoting the EU or Michel Barnier as though their words are gospel. What they should remember is that we are party to a negotiation. What is said publicly in a negotiation does not always translate to reality in the negotiation itself, so I do not think that we should take at face value this talk of, “Oh, Michel Barnier said that and therefore it must be true.” Let us have a bit more questioning, particularly when a negotiation is being undertaken. All too often, the remarks of the EU and Michel Barnier are taken at face value, and that is wrong. It is all part of a negotiation.

Finally, turning to the amendments, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—we agree on many things, but not necessarily on European matters—was absolutely right that this is a pragmatic compromise. A customs arrangement can cover all manner of different scenarios, and we will undoubtedly revisit this topic at a later stage, notably with the Trade Bill. A Bill concerning how the law will apply post Brexit is not best suited for a discussion of our future trade arrangements. He is absolutely right that it is meant to get us to that stage. This is a pragmatic compromise so that we can do that and then discuss these issues in more detail when the time comes. I therefore urge all Members to support the amendments.

[Mary Creagh]

I rise to speak to my amendment (e) in lieu of Lords amendment 3. If we want world-leading environmental protections, we need a world-leading environmental watchdog. Today, we awoke to warnings that one fifth of Britain’s wild mammals, our beloved wildcats, hedgehogs and water voles, are at high risk of extinction within the next 10 years. The EU’s role in monitoring, updating and enforcing environmental law will be lost after exit day. The Environment Secretary’s proposed watchdog does not backfill those functions, and it has no teeth. It has three major gaps: an enforcement gap, a climate change gap and a citizen gap.

First, the watchdog has an enforcement gap, because it cannot start legal proceedings and issue fines, unlike the European Court of Justice, whose threat of fines is the only thing to have galvanised Government action on air quality. Amendment (c), tabled by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), would give it the ability to start legal proceedings against the Government but is silent on the remedy to be applied.

Secondly, there is a climate change gap. The Committee on Climate Change warned that its omission from the watchdog’s remit

“would be artificial and potentially create problems”.

The Committee on Climate Change will hold the Government to account on the Climate Change Act 2008, but there will be no enforcement of our other climate change obligations. Who monitors progress towards our legally binding targets under the EU’s renewable energy directive? What happens to our EU emissions reduction targets? Will there be a gap if we leave the EU’s emissions trading system? Amendment (c) does not address that.

Thirdly, there is a citizen gap, because the watchdog does not provide access to environmental justice for UK citizens, who at present can go to the European Commission when there is a breach of environmental law. They can petition their Member of the European Parliament, who can then ask the Commission to investigate, and ultimately, the European Court of Justice to issue fines. There is nothing in the Government’s proposals or amendment (c) on that, so there are three gaps.

I turn to the environmental principles, which have cleaned up our rivers and beaches and reduced our reliance on landfill and dirty, polluting industry over the last 40 years. Under the Bill as introduced, they would be lost after exit day. Amendment (c) puts the principles back in the Bill—although a very important one, the principle of non-regression, is missing—but the Government would only have to “have regard to” them, rather than act “in accordance with” them. That is a much less stringent legal requirement, thereby creating the legal uncertainty that the Solicitor General said at the Dispatch Box he wished to avoid. It does not mention local government and public bodies, only national Government, and it is silent on how the body’s independence from Government will be guaranteed and how it will be protected from the fate of Thomas à Becket if it is too effective, after the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government abolished the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Sustainable Development Commission in 2011. Previous Governments have form on abolishing environmental watchdogs whose criticisms of Government are a little too uncomfortable and tart. We do not want to set something up only for a future Government to shut it down.

John Downey

John Baron Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I am not sure whether I can use nice words, but I shall do my best to answer the hon. Lady’s question honestly. Had the scheme operated in the way that was intended, then I have to say that I do not think there was any prospect of anyone, relatives or otherwise, being denied justice in relation to anybody who received such a letter. But that is on the basis that the scheme operated properly. It is quite clear that in this case it did not operate properly because Mr Downey should not have been sent this letter. We will have to wait and see whether this is some wider failure, which applies elsewhere, but certainly from the information that I was given when I looked into this matter at the outset, there was a system in place to try to ensure that every nook and corner was looked at before such letters were sent.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

However it is presented, the recipients of these letters are above the law. That is what this court decision has made clear. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that a balanced approach will therefore be taken as regards former soldiers serving in Northern Ireland? We have heard that the authorities are already advertising for witnesses in the case of Bloody Sunday. Will he also answer one question that has not been answered so far? Who in the Government authorised these letters?

[The Attorney-General]

I disagree that the letters placed the recipients above the law.

[Mr Baron]

That is what the court has decided.

[The Attorney-General]

No; it has not decided that the letters placed people above the law. If the letters had been correctly sent to recipients against whom there was no evidence at the time on which criminal proceedings could be brought against them if they returned to the jurisdiction, they had no possibility of putting them above the law, and as I mentioned, the letters leave open the possibility that if evidence were to come to light implicating such individuals, they could still be prosecuted. The difficulty in the case of Mr Downey was that the evidence against him was already available at the time the letter was sent, which is why he should not have been sent the letter.

I am not in a position to comment on the position of former soldiers. I simply make the point that the general rules and principles of the rule of law apply, irrespective of who may or may not have committed an offence. But in any event, my own direct responsibilities do not extend to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland.

Those are the two points I would wish to make, but I reiterate that these letters did not amount to an amnesty.

Points of Order

John Baron Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not often raise points of order, as you know, but I seek your guidance briefly. We have just had an urgent question in which the Attorney-General was asked directly who first authorised those letters, but we have not yet had an answer. How best could we go about gaining one?

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

rose—

Assisted Suicide

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), who is not in his place? He introduced the debate in a very measured tone. I also congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on arranging this debate on the Floor of the House. It is a very worthwhile subject that has not been debated for some time. I will support the motion, which stands in my name and those of colleagues. I believe there should be parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the prosecution and sentencing policy, which I think is why we are here.

I will also support amendment (a), because it deals with an issue that has not been addressed as fully as I would have liked in this debate—the uncertainty created by the current situation. The legal fudge at the heart of this debate has not been adequately addressed. The law says one thing and one can be convicted of an offence, but the prosecution, or the prosecution policy, looks the other way. The more charitable would suggest that this is about trying to get the right balance between compassion and the law, but I suggest that it creates grave uncertainty and that it is unfair. It is not fair on those who feel that they have to travel to Switzerland to avoid prosecution, it is not fair on the patients who wish to die with dignity and it is not fair on the families of relatives who may or may not be prosecuted but are not clear about where they stand, particularly regarding the patient and individual concern. Patients may be concerned about the prospect of their loved ones being prosecuted. Neither is the situation fair on patients who wish to be surrounded by loved ones or family but who might have to consider the option of dying alone for fear of those left behind being prosecuted.

For the avoidance of doubt, let me absolutely clear: I believe that the compassionate approach for patients who are in severe pain, are terminally ill and have the support of their family would be to allow them to choose to die provided that the appropriate safeguards are in place. Yes, there is a right to life, and that is terribly important, but there is also a right to choose to die with dignity, knowing that one’s relatives will not be prosecuted, and surrounded by family and loved ones—not alone for fear of the prosecution of those left behind. That is why I will support amendment (a). This area is far too important and the situation is far too unique to be left to Government officials. It should be subject to parliamentary oversight.

Yes, we know that the guidelines are just that and are not law, but prosecution or the threat of it can be profoundly disturbing to the loved ones left behind. We should not underestimate that. We do not know for sure whether those left behind will have committed a criminal act, but the threat of prosecution or prosecution itself can be profoundly disturbing, particularly for those who have already had to endure severe grief in their lives. Putting guidance on the statute book brings that certainty. It brings certainty that those who maliciously assist someone to die will be prosecuted and also provides protection to those acting on compassionate grounds. I believe that those factors should be taken into account and that we need to end that uncertainty.

Voting by Prisoners

John Baron Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It would be quite interesting to see how many prisoners have ever voted, let alone how many voted at every election in the run-up to their incarceration.

The Court also argues that the penalty is not proportionate, but again that is plainly wrong. We are not one of those countries where, when someone is convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to prison, they lose the right to vote for ever. Such places do exist. Indeed, in one state of the United States, people lose their right to vote de facto for ever, but we are not one of those places. When someone is in prison, they cannot vote; when they are released, all their civic rights are completely reinstated, meaning that that denial is an absolutely proportionate response to the seriousness of the crime. If the sentence reflects the crime, the denial of the vote also reflects the crime.

Let me be clear. In my view, convicted prisoners should not have the vote: robbery, rape, drug dealing—frankly, the crime does not matter, given its seriousness. But, despite what the Justice Secretary said the other day, violent criminals, sex offenders and drug dealers will get the vote if we accept the compromises that have been aired so far. The Government talk about a less than four-year rule, but 28,000 people convicted of serious violent crimes, sex crimes and crimes against children would be incorporated in that. Even a one-year rule would include thousands of people, many of whom will have committed serious crimes from which we would recoil.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. The right to vote underpins our democracy, but that right is a qualified right, not an absolute one. Does he agree that these qualifications should therefore be established by this Parliament, not by unelected European institutions that wish to bypass our established laws?

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend takes me ahead of myself. As he well knows, the simple truth is that these are politically appointed judges, many of whom do not have enormous experience in court. Indeed, some of them have no experience in court, even in their own countries, let alone ours.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney-General]

I must make progress; otherwise I will not be able to do what I principally came here to do.

I want to deal with the point about the Grand Chamber in the Hirst case. The Grand Chamber declined, properly, to provide any detailed guidance on how to make our current regime compatible with the convention. It also made it clear that special weight should be given to the role of the domestic policy maker. Despite the difficulties that the House might face, we have a real opportunity, through debate, to shape the dialogue with the Court if we focus on the key issues.

I will now deal with the main legal issues on prisoner voting. I will set out the main points raised by the main judgments, because it might make the debate more difficult if the House does not have them in mind. I shall first outline the key points in the Hirst judgment, which dates back to October 2005. The Court took the view that it was well established that article 3 of protocol 1 to the convention, to which we are signatories, guarantees individuals the right to vote and to stand for election. The Court considered that to be a right, not a privilege. It also considered that that principle was important in ensuring an effective and meaningful democracy governed by the rule of law. It therefore felt that departure from the principle of universal suffrage risked undermining the democratic validity of the elected legislature and the laws that it promulgates. That might not have exercised us very much here, but in the context of the many east European states that have joined the European convention it is probably right to say that those are really serious, material considerations.

In the view of the Court, prisoners continue to enjoy all the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the convention. I do not think that either my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden or the right hon. Member for Blackburn disagree with that. The Court’s reasoning, with which I appreciate many hon. Members disagree, is that, in view of the fact that the convention does not allow prisoners to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or to have restrictions placed on their freedom of expression or freedom to practise their religion, a restriction on their right to vote should have the aim only of

“preventing crime by sanctioning the conduct of convicted prisoners, and enhancing civic responsibility and respect for the rule of law”.

The Court also recognised that the participating states had a wide margin of appreciation in deciding on such restrictions, but that that was not an unlimited discretion. It felt that the restriction should be proportionate and—this is the nub of the issue—that section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 imposed a blanket ban, which was seen as being so indiscriminate as to fall outside the acceptable margin of appreciation.

[Mr Baron]

The central questions are whether the interpretation of the treaty that we signed has gone beyond what the original treaty contained, and who, thereafter, has the right to make a decision on the matter. Should it be this Parliament or an unelected European institution that makes such decisions? The clear evidence is that it should be this House, and that the interpretation has gone beyond the terms of the original treaty. That is what this vote is about today.

[The Attorney-General]

I appreciate that that is what my hon. Friend and many others believe the issue for debate to be. I recognise that it is going to be a major topic for debate this afternoon, but, if he will forgive me, I will suggest that hon. Members might also wish to focus on why they consider the current ban, or some variant of it, to be reasonable and proportionate in our own national context. It was the absence of debate on that issue that appeared to make the Court take the view that our ban was indiscriminate—