Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Dominic Raab

Wednesday 22nd April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend will know that under this Government the NHS will have record funding enshrined in law, the largest hospital building programme in a generation, 50,000 more nurses and 50 million extra GP appointments. In response to the coronavirus, the Chancellor has also launched a £14.5 billion coronavirus emergency response, of which £6.6 billion will go to the NHS. In relation specifically to North Tees, we would encourage the trust to continue to develop its plans and priorities for local new NHS infrastructure. We will be looking carefully at all of those.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) [V]]

The Port Talbot steelworks is the beating heart of the economy and the community in my Aberavon constituency, and there will be no post-pandemic recovery for our country unless we have a strong and healthy Welsh and British steel industry. The Government’s coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme is capped at £50 million, which is only one tenth of what Tata Steel believes will be the cash-flow impact on the company over a six-month period. Will the Government now urgently take steps to lift the loan cap to a level that will give our steel industry a fighting chance of surviving this crisis?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the business interruption loans. We made grants of up to £25,000 available for small businesses. I understand the point he makes about the sector in his constituency. We have made changes to the loan scheme, principally to make it quicker to access, and 12,000 loans have now been approved. I know that the Chancellor is looking carefully at the steel sector in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and at all those who are not directly benefiting from this particular scheme to ensure that in the round we are providing the measures that we need in a targeted way to support all the different crucial elements of the economy.

Covid-19

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I reassure my hon. Friend that Foreign Office staff are working round the clock and around weekends, but in some of those countries there is an issue about their own personal safety. We are giving advice here. It is important that Ministers and officials follow that advice, but we must also look after and protect their safety. Notwithstanding that, there is certainly not a nine-to-five or Monday-to-Friday approach—far from it. This is round the clock and right through the weekend, and we are straining every sinew to ensure that constituents, however far flung the place in which they find themselves, are getting the most support, the clearest guidance, and the best practical help that we can provide.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

To follow the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), may I press the Foreign Secretary on the talks on the future relationship with the European Union? Those incredibly complex and multi-faceted talks are absorbing a tremendous amount of Government time and attention. Rather than trying to fight a war on two fronts, and stretching Government bandwidth to breaking point, surely the time is coming to request an extension to the transition period. It is better to do that than to put ideology ahead of the health and safety of the British people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

T4. For those who believe in the international rules-based order, the Trump annexation plan is an utter disaster that ushers in the law of the jungle. If the British Government support this plan, surely they will also be giving a green light to Russia and China for their various annexation activities. If it is okay for Israel to do this, what will the Foreign Secretary say to Russia and China?

[Dominic Raab]

I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the UK position. There is a proposal for peace talks, which would require a two-state solution, based on both sides agreeing. We have made it clear that we would disagree with and challenge any unilateral annexation on the basis of settlements.

Global Britain

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Dominic Raab

Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

We of course enter the negotiations with a spirit of optimism, ambition and good will, but we also want to be clear. I think a question was asked earlier about the EU side not understanding what is and is not up for negotiation. We are not going to allow the European Court of Justice to adjudicate disputes that affect the United Kingdom. That is not global practice and it would be totally lopsided. Equally, in relation to a level playing field or other areas of high alignment, we have been absolutely clear—the Prime Minister was this morning—that we will have full economic and political independence and full control over our laws.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary says that he wants a Canada-style free trade agreement and claims that FTAs never include level-playing-field obligations, but article 23.4 of the EU-Canada FTA clearly states that

“it is inappropriate to encourage trade or investment by weakening or reducing…labour law and standards.”

Will the Foreign Secretary be honest with the British people and state clearly that free trade agreements always include level-playing-field obligations?

[Dominic Raab]

I know that the hon. Gentleman follows these things carefully. Of course, the article in the EU-Canada agreement to which he refers is a hortatory recognition of the importance of strong labour laws; it is not legislative high alignment. That is precisely the kind of approach that the UK would take.

Leaving the EU: Meaningful Vote

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Dominic Raab

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

The simple answer is that I am not sure, but I can tell the hon. Lady that we will have a substantive motion and that it will be subject to amendments, which will be for the Speaker to decide on.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s memorandum justifies the ordering involving the substantive motion coming first, which is highly unusual, on the basis of Standing Order No. 31, which relates to Opposition day motions. On what planet could this motion be described as an Opposition day motion?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman may well be an expert on the Standing Orders, but I would say to him that on the substance of the issue, this is clear. There will be a clear decision for this House to accept the deal we negotiate with the EU or to leave the EU with no deal. I know which side I will be on in that debate. We are confident that we can get a good deal, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will row behind it.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right that, as well as on the issue of Northern Ireland, our proposal is designed to guarantee frictionless trade—in particular, for manufacturing businesses that rely on those supply chains. That is a critical element of the White Paper proposals, which is why we are pressing it so hard.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has said that the backstop has to be time-limited. Can he share with the House which particular date he has in mind and how he came to settle on that date?

[Dominic Raab]

We are not in a position yet to give a date. We will publish that when we publish the proposals in the round. What cannot be allowed to happen is for either Northern Ireland or the UK as a whole to linger in an indefinite limbo of the customs union.

Brexit Negotiations and No Deal Contingency Planning

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have talked about that, and we have encouraged it. Of course we want to ensure not just that EU nationals whom we value and whom we want to stay feel secure in their position here, but that British expats are given the same treatment abroad.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said that the EU had raised some concerns about the Chequers proposals, but the fact of the matter is that they are completely and utterly dead in the water. What is the plan B? Is the Secretary of State now saying that the plan B should be Canada, and has he a full understanding of the impact that a Canada-style deal would have on, for example, our integrated supply chains?

[Dominic Raab]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has a considerable interest in the matter, but this is a negotiation. As was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), we do not roll over just because we get a bit of a pushback. We explain our arguments so that they are clearly understood, we try to resolve any concerns that the EU has, and we try to pursue the negotiations in a spirit of pragmatism. If that is matched on the other side—and I am confident that it will be—we will get a deal.

EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legislation

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to get back to the key overarching objectives. I believe that, with this White Paper and the previous one, the full strategy can be seen in the round. Yes, we have had to take a pragmatic as well as a principled approach, but it is faithful to the referendum in the three key areas that he describes.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Government have promised that the House will have all the information and data that it needs to make an informed choice when we take the critical vote in the autumn. Will they therefore produce an impact assessment on the political declaration on the future relationship between the UK and the EU well in advance of our taking that critical vote?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; he has raised this matter a few times. We will ensure that the appropriate analysis is done on all aspects of all elements on both sides of the deal.

Future Relationship Between the UK and the EU

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Dominic Raab

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I understand precisely the hon. Lady’s concern. This is an important and sensitive issue, and I will be engaging on the EU track in relation to it. I will also, at the right time, make sure that I am properly versed and properly briefed on the matter, and indeed that I visit the border area to take a look for myself.

It is worth emphasising two key principles that we share with our EU friends. The first is that article 50 dictates that a withdrawal agreement must come alongside a framework for the future agreement. The second, flowing from that, is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The Government respect and prize both those principles, and we will not sign away our negotiating leverage or spend taxpayers’ money in return for nothing. In December, we agreed that the financial settlement would sit alongside a framework for a deep and mutually beneficial future partnership. We agreed that we would meet our commitments as they fell due, with ever-declining payments over a finite period that will add up to a tiny fraction of what our net contribution would have been as a member. If either side should fail to meet their commitments under this overarching package—we certainly do not expect that to be the case—that would have consequences for the deal as a whole that we are striving to secure.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way and I should also like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his appointment. On Tuesday, I hosted an event here in Parliament where the BeLeave whistleblower, Shahmir Sanni, told us that every member of the Vote Leave campaign committee knew precisely about the £680,000 that was donated by Vote Leave to BeLeave. The Secretary of State was of course an active member of the campaign committee for Vote Leave, and presumably therefore knew about that £680,000 donation. Given the importance of his role now in the negotiations with Mr Barnier, will he take this opportunity to set out in precise detail what he knew about that donation to BeLeave? This could be an opportunity to enhance and reinforce his authority and credibility in the negotiations.

[Dominic Raab]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s efforts to try to strengthen my leverage in the negotiations to get Brexit delivered, and I take him at his word. I had nothing to do with any of the financial arrangements; I was on the campaign board. Those details are subject to investigation by the appropriate authorities, and I would just gently say to him that trying in this rather backhanded way to undermine the credibility and the verdict of the British people will only rebound on him—

[Stephen Kinnock]

It is the verdict of the Electoral Commission.

[Dominic Raab]

But the verdict of the British people is the one that we in this House must give effect to.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Dominic Raab

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

That will be addressed in the written ministerial statement and the strategy that will be forthcoming very shortly, and the hon. Lady will have an opportunity for scrutiny then.

We will work with the Commission on addressing those international agreements when the parties have a shared stake, and a shared interest, in continuity. Similarly, the Government recognise the need to maintain a strong relationship with the EU in the future. We are seeking to forge a deep and special partnership with our EU friends, and our relationship with the EU’s agencies and bodies on exit will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. No final decisions have yet been made on our future relationship with the EU’s agencies and bodies after leaving the EU, and we are carefully considering a range of options. Where there is a demonstrable national interest in pursuing a continued relationship with an agency or other EU body, the Government will look very carefully at whether and how we can pursue that, and of course it is a matter for negotiations.

That brings me to why these amendments are, while well-intentioned, unhelpful. The first reason is because negotiations are ongoing and we cannot allow our negotiating position to be prejudiced or pre-empted. The Government are working to achieve the best possible deal with the EU. We welcome the constructive and thoughtful amendments from hon. Members, but we cannot accept any that might undermine the Government’s negotiating position or restrict our room for manoeuvre, not least in terms of striking the kind of arrangements that hon. Members in tabling these amendments want to see.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

rose—

[Dominic Raab]

I am going to make some more progress, if I may.

Secondly, the Government have committed to ensuring that the withdrawal agreement with the EU can be fully implemented in UK law by exit day. The clause 9 power to implement the withdrawal agreement will be crucial in achieving this in the way I have described. This power will help to ensure we are in a position to swiftly implement the contents of the withdrawal agreement required to be in place for day one, ensuring maximum legal certainty upon exit. Again, I respectfully remind hon. Members that, if the UK is unable to implement the withdrawal agreement in time, that risks us being unable to meet our obligations under international law and scuppering the prospects of the very deal I think Members on all sides want to achieve.

To ensure a smooth and orderly exit, it is essential that appropriate legislative changes have been made by the point of exit. We want to give ourselves the capability to make those appropriate changes swiftly, and to support businesses and individuals and make sure the country is ready. The power in the Bill enables that, and those aims will be put at risk by these amendments.

I now turn briefly to amendments 227, 228 and 229, which prevent the clause 9 power from being used until a number of economic assessments have been published. The Government have been undertaking rigorous and extensive analysis to support our exit negotiations, to define our future partnership with the EU and to inform our understanding of how EU exit will affect the UK’s domestic policies. The Government have already established a process for providing economic and fiscal reports. The OBR independently produces official forecasts for the Government and is required to produce detailed five-year forecasts for the economy and public finances twice a year at autumn Budget and spring statement. Those forecasts reflect publicly stated Government policy at the time that those forecasts are made, and that includes policy on leaving the EU.

We have been very clear that we will not disclose material that might undermine the UK in the negotiations. In particular, in any negotiation, information on potential economic considerations is very important to the negotiating capital and negotiating position of all parties.

The Government want to get the best deal for the UK and hope—and, indeed, are confident—that this House is united in that goal, even if the means to achieve it may differ on some aspects of detail, and we do not want the UK’s negotiating position to be undermined. For that reason, we cannot support those amendments.

Amendment 230 requests an assessment of the broader responsibility of the Treasury. That is unnecessary. The Treasury’s core purpose is to be an effective finance and economics Ministry. As a finance Ministry, the Treasury will continue to account for public expenditure and manage the public finances. As an economics Ministry, it will continue to prioritise policy that reduces obstacles to growth, and manage key relationships with finance Ministries overseas. The Government do not see the UK’s withdrawal from the EU changing those core responsibilities of the Treasury, and an assessment to confirm that would be a waste of valuable public finances and is unnecessary.

I turn now to amendments 262 and 263. The Government recognise the huge importance of the legal services sector to the UK economy; it contributed £24 billion in 2015. The Government also recognise that legal services underpin many other important parts of the UK economy, including financial services, manufacturing and the creative industries. We propose a bold and ambitious partnership between the UK and the EU, and we will prioritise securing the freest trade possible in services. The Government are committed to securing the best deal for the legal profession.

In the Government’s July position paper, “Ongoing Union judicial and administrative proceedings”, the Government also made it clear that leaving the EU will end the direct jurisdiction of the European Court. At the same time, the UK is committed to minimising uncertainty and disruption for individuals and businesses, including those arising from changes in the treatment of cases pending at the time of exit. That is why we want an agreement on an implementation period based on the existing structure of rules and regulations, so that there is only one set of changes. The laying of such reports, as proposed in the amendments, would delay and impede the important legislative work necessary to prepare the legal services sector for all possible negotiation outcomes, and I urge hon. Members to withdraw the amendments.

Amendment 343 would prevent regulations from being made under clause 9 before the Secretary of State had laid before Parliament a strategy for a food standards framework after EU withdrawal. The UK has a world-leading set of standards on food safety and quality, backed up by a rigorous legislative framework. The Department of Health, the Food Standards Agency and other relevant Government bodies are working closely together to ensure that the regulatory regime for food safety remains robust as Britain leaves the EU. The Government are committed to ensuring high food standards at home and promoting high standards internationally. There will be opportunities to build on our world-leading reputation for quality and standards, but it would not be appropriate for the Government to tie their use of the clause 9 power to the publishing of any individual or particular reports.

The purpose of clause 9 is to incorporate the withdrawal agreement fully and comprehensively into UK law, so that we can fulfil our obligations under the withdrawal agreement and under international law. The power is not intended to be used to report on the Government’s post-exit domestic strategy. To caveat the power or to define it in that way would cause uncertainty, both for our EU partners and for businesses and citizens in this country. I hope that I have addressed as many of the amendments relating to clause 9 as possible, and that clause 9 will now stand part of the Bill unamended.

I shall now turn briefly to clauses 16 and 17 and schedule 7. Clause 16 gives effect to schedule 7, which provides for the parliamentary scrutiny of the secondary legislation made under the powers in the Bill, including under clause 9. The Bill attempts to strike a balance between the need to prepare our statute book in time for the end of the article 50 process and the need, on the other side, for Parliament to undertake proper scrutiny. The Bill does this using long-established parliamentary procedures. These are the usual procedures that have been used by all Governments for decades with no dilution of the normal scrutiny process.

However, the Government have always said that we would listen and reflect on the concerns raised by the House. We understand the concern that there might not be enough scrutiny of the instruments made under the Bill. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), made it clear in the Committee yesterday that the Government would support the amendments tabled by the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), which I hope will be supported by the whole of this Committee.

These amendments draw on the Procedure Committee’s expertise and its recent interim report, and will ensure that the House has an opportunity to challenge the appropriateness of the use of the procedure for instruments made under the three main powers in the Bill. The amendments do this without undermining the certainty that we wish to provide. For instruments brought forward under clause 9, as with the other powers in the Bill, this means that where the Government propose the negative procedure for an instrument, the House will be able to recommend that it should instead be debated and voted on as an affirmative instrument, giving an even clearer voice to this House in scrutinising how these powers are used. Other instruments, if not made using the urgency procedure—which I will come to—will be affirmative, guaranteeing the opportunity for a debate on the instrument.

Schedule 7 sets out a series of triggers for the use of the affirmative procedure. These are for some of the substantial uses of the power or for those where more complex decisions are required—for example, creating a new public body, creating new fees or other charges, or creating new powers to legislate. The Minister responsible for the instrument can also choose the affirmative procedure even where the instrument does not meet any of the tests in schedule 7. We have taken the same approach to changes to either primary or secondary legislation. Some changes to primary legislation can be mechanistic and minor, and adopting the affirmative procedure for small corrections to primary legislation would be impractical. Instead, the requirement for affirmative procedures is based on the type of change rather than the type of legislation in which the change is being made.

In rare cases, there are urgency procedures, both in the Bill as introduced and in the amendments tabled by the Chair of the Procedure Committee. I can assure the Committee that we would only use those procedures very sparingly—for example, in cases where there was a clear practical reason to have a correction made in time for exit day or for a particular other day when limited time was available. Such a situation could arise, for example, because the content of a particular statutory instrument was dependent on a negotiation that took place nearer the end of the exit process. I know there are amendments on the paper today, such as those in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie)—I am trying to see whether he is still in his place, but no, he is not at the moment—which seek to restrict the use of this power to “emergency” situations. I hope the Committee will understand that the word “emergency” is not quite right in these circumstances, and that “urgency” is the more accurate description if we are to ensure that we have legal certainty.

Finally—I am grateful to the Committee for its patience—clause 17 is designed to make consequential and transitional provision to other laws as a result, not of our exit from the EU, but of the operation of the Bill. It contains powers to ensure that the Bill is properly bedded into the statute book and could be used, for instance, for housekeeping tasks such as revoking designation orders.