Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

I am clear that the Government’s position is that we will leave the single market and customs union, but I did receive a delightful bound copy of said report at the ministerial forum and will of course take it away and give it due consideration.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Yesterday, the Russian Federation formally objected to the post-Brexit schedule proposed by the UK at the World Trade Organisation. Unless the Russian veto is removed, if there is no deal, Welsh companies will not be able to trade on WTO terms. What discussions has the Minister had with the Welsh Government about this catastrophic likely outcome for the Welsh economy?

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Gentleman refers to something that happened yesterday. I understand that the Department for International Trade has already responded and said that such objections at the WTO are not unusual and that it is already taking steps to address them.

EU Exit Negotiations

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the need to pursue a good deal with the EU, and all our efforts are focused on achieving that. I do not accept the premise of her suggestion of a second referendum. I think it would inevitably be aimed at trying to reverse Brexit, and that would create democratic outrage and a huge amount of mistrust in the establishment and the political system.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The Secretary of State mentioned the Joint Ministerial Committee in his statement. An issue of huge importance to Wales is post-Brexit cohesion funding. Following Salzburg, the Prime Minister seemed to indicate that the proposed shared prosperity fund would be the sole responsibility of the British Government. As he knows, economic development is a devolved issue, but the indication seems to be that it would be clawed back by Westminster. Is it not now clear that, for Wales, Brexit means the complete opposite of taking back control?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is important to ensure that Brexit works for all parts of the United Kingdom. We continue to engage with all the devolved Administrations on all the devolved issues, including in Scotland, as I set out in my statement, in relation to Scottish and Welsh Ministers and officials from the Northern Ireland secretariat. We want to make sure that we continue to engage in the process that he has described and ensure this great opportunity for the people of Scotland.

Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

I will make some progress and then come back to hon. Members.

If Parliament votes in favour of the deal, we will introduce the withdrawal agreement Bill to give the withdrawal agreement domestic legal effect. Any parliamentarian who is truly committed to delivering the people’s decision to leave the EU will, I believe, find cause to vote in favour of the Bill. The final content of the Bill will, of course, be subject to the outcome of the ongoing negotiations. We intend to introduce it as soon as possible after the negotiations have concluded and the deal has been approved by Parliament.

The Bill will need to be given Royal Assent before exit day if it is to give effect to the withdrawal agreement. It is precisely because this window of passage is constrained that we have published the White Paper. We want to maximise Parliament’s ability to express its views on the Bill, and that includes the period before its introduction.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Would the Bill need to be passed completely unamended? If an amendment were passed, would the British Government have to go back and renegotiate with the European Union?

[Suella Braverman]

The Bill will be introduced after Parliament has approved the terms of the final deal with the “meaningful vote”. In that context, the Bill will have a normal passage, like all other legislation. Of course, the views of parliamentarians will be welcome. The Bill can be amended, voted on and scrutinised in the normal way, but it will always be set in the context of Parliament’s approval of the final deal, which includes approval of the withdrawal agreement. Members will, I know, have taken the time over the summer recess to review this substantial document at greater length. Views and questions will have matured and crystallised, and I am therefore delighted to return to the topic today and listen to those views.

The Government’s objective in publishing the White Paper was to set out how we intend to legislate for the parts of the withdrawal agreement that have already been settled in negotiations: those relating to citizens’ rights, the implementation period and the financial settlement.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

In the model that I am describing, we would get much more power back and we would keep it, and that would then be shared with the devolved Administrations, so they too would be winners. That settlement will be sorted out in the usual democratic way in a unitary country that has recently had a very important democratic event. The Scottish people decided by a decent margin in a referendum that they wished to stay in the United Kingdom, so their way of influencing the trade deals will be through this Parliament. Had they chosen to leave the United Kingdom, they would be having their own trade deals—or more likely they would be having the EU’s trade deals, because the Scottish National party does not seem to want an independent Scotland; they want a Scotland that is dependent on the EU, rather than a very important partner in the United Kingdom enterprise.

My other worry about the two prospective treaties that the Government are mulling over is conditionality. The Government have told us that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and I fully approve of that. They also seem to understand that, unless they are prepared to say to the European Union, “We will leave without signing the withdrawal agreement,” they have no negotiating position. We now know that the Government are quickly preparing to be able to leave without signing a withdrawal agreement. I think that that would be a very attractive option for many leave voters because the withdrawal agreement itself is mainly about the United Kingdom paying an extremely large bill. The Government are saying, “Yes, but you need to look at the whole package. You need to see what is in the future partnership”—the association agreement treaty to come, because they think that might persuade Parliament and people to accept the rather unpalatable withdrawal proposal. The Government’s problem, as we have just heard from the Opposition, is that there will not be a majority in this House to put through the current kind of withdrawal proposals the Government have without a very clear, bold and good-looking association agreement/future partnership and we might be looking only at rather vague heads of terms. I suggest that the Government need to introduce rather stronger conditionality than they have done so far in their negotiations. They need to make it crystal clear that there is no £39 billion unless something really impressive is available.

I do not know about the Government—I sometimes worry about how they might go shopping—but when I go shopping I do not go into a shop, put £39 down on the counter and say, very politely, “By the way, I have £39 there for you, which I thought you might like. Do you have something that I might like so that I do not leave the shop as a loser?” It seems to me that that is what the Government did. They put down £39 billion—they have rather more money than I have, lucky them; some of it is money that they took from me, actually—on the counter and said, “By the way, EU, we have these dreadful Eurosceptics back home who want value for money, so it would be quite nice if you could offer us something that might be suitable for us.”

When I look at what the EU has in its shop, I am afraid, oh Government, that I do not see anything that I would pay £39 billion for. Yes, I would like a free trade deal, which I think would be a perfectly good answer in the current situation, but I do not remember Canada paying anything for its free trade deal. A Canada deal would be just fine, with a few extra knobs and whistles—we start from complete compliance with the EU, so it will be easy to have a few extra knobs and whistles—but I do not think that is the kind of thing I would pay £39 billion for. Indeed, the tariff saving would be a small fraction of £39 billion, so it would not make a lot of sense financially. The Government, therefore, have a bit of work to do to persuade friendly, reasonable people like me that the two treaties they have in mind represent a good deal for the British people.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the divorce payment. Is he making the case that Nigel Farage should be deprived of his pension pot?

[John Redwood]

I am not suggesting that at all. That gentleman’s pension pot is a liability of the European Union. They entered into it, so I think it is something that they need to sort out. I do not think that the European Union should be the kind of body that stops people getting their pensions. I do not remember when we joined the European Union being given a big pot of money to reflect all the liabilities we inherited, so it is a bit difficult to understand why the reverse has to happen when we leave and we have to pay for the others. We simply were not given a whole load of money at the beginning to reflect the fact that we were going to have to pick up some of the pensions of civil servants who had been working in the EU before we arrived.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

It is especially apt that we are having this general debate today as undoubtedly Brexit will be the major issue facing us as Members of Parliament over the coming weeks and months. We are about to enter a huge parliamentary moment when it comes to the withdrawal agreement meaningful vote, and today is an opportunity for Members to outline the way ahead as we see it. Having pondered the current state of play over the summer recess, I can honestly stand here before the House and say anything could happen over the next few months. I will therefore refrain from making arguments on the type of deal required and will instead concentrate on my interpretation and how I see matters at the moment.

Future historians will not be kind to this generation of politicians for getting us to where we are now. Former Prime Minister Cameron will be judged for holding the referendum in the first place as a means of easing party management. The current Prime Minister will be judged for wasting the first two years of the leaving process by basing her policy on extreme red lines only to change her major strategic objective late in the day, as I will explain later. And the Labour Opposition will be judged for a lack of coherence in policy and playing political games with the biggest political issue of our time. Labour knows that its six Brexit tests can only be met by staying within the single market and the customs union, specifically test 2 of ensuring the exact same benefits of our current membership, yet its policy is to leave both frameworks. It is a completely cynical position to take, with its only goal being to try to use Brexit to force another general election.

I for one saw the Prime Minister’s Chequers statement of July as a significant moment. Leaving aside the near collapse of her Government due to the resignations of the Brexit and Foreign Secretaries, it outlined for the first time that the driving force of policy would be protecting the economy, not dealing with immigration. The natural development of that policy would be to come to the same conclusion as Plaid Cymru, the SNP, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats: the objective of the British state should be to stay within key European economic frameworks. Unfortunately, of course, the British Government continue to be wedded to a “have your cake and eat it” scenario, which obviously the European Union will not entertain. The French European Minister Nathalie Loiseau clearly told in the Evening Standard last Wednesday:

“We will not redefine our basic principles because the UK doesn’t want to belong to the European Union anymore.”

Much of the media attention over the summer recess has surrounded the potential for no deal as we approach the October, or what now seems to be the November, deadline in Brussels. However, while it may come to pass that talks collapse, I believe that some fudge will be agreed and that it will then come to this House for approval to trigger the necessary withdrawal legislation. At that stage, as I put it to the Brexit Secretary during his statement of 24 July, I find it difficult to see how the Prime Minister will be able to get a majority of the House to support her position.

As I said earlier in this speech, Labour’s policy is basically to use Brexit as a means of forcing a general election, and it will therefore oppose the fudge, although how that will solve the problem I do not know, because essentially Labour’s policy is not that far removed from that of the Conservative Government. The Brexit buccaneers in the Prime Minister’s party whose objective is no deal will also vote down the fudge as that would make a no deal more likely, unless they make the more nuanced calculation that the only thing that is more important for them is getting to the 29 March deadline, because after that date and once we are outside the EU anything negotiated beforehand is not worth the paper it is written on. Considering that two Secretaries of State resigned on the basis of the Chequers announcement, however, it is difficult to see how they and their supporters can back the Prime Minister.

Those of us who believe that staying within European frameworks is the only way to safeguard jobs and wages will also vote against. I am sure that the British Government will say their aim is to stay within regulatory alignment—the adoption of the so-called common rulebook—thereby easing our economic concerns. The Minister might want to correct me when summing up, but my understanding of the situation is that currently the rules governing the single market are made in Brussels and then every member state, and in some states sub-regional Governments such as Wallonia, have to endorse those changes before they become part of the European single market regulations. What the British Government are proposing is that Europe would come up with new regulations for the single market and then we would have to adopt them via statutory instrument in this place—no mention of the devolved Governments of course, but that is a separate issue. The question then arises: what happens perhaps three or four years down the line if this Parliament decides not to adopt one of those SIs? Does the whole thing collapse at that moment? I do not see how the plan currently envisaged by the British Government can be sustainable in the long term.

I will also vote against because, essentially, supporting the fudge that I envisage would mean supporting what is now being termed as a blind Brexit, which means the fine detail of the future economic relations between the British state and the European Union determined being only after the British state has left the EU. How could responsible Members of Parliament with concerns about the economic impact of Brexit make that leap of faith? I should add that the previous argument of the British Government was that the transition and the final deal would have to be negotiated together, because it was impossible to transition unless we knew what we were transitioning to, but that argument has now been long forgotten.

My final reason for voting against the expected fudge is that, by leaving the detail until after the British state is no longer a member of the EU, the balance of power in the negotiations will move even further in favour of Brussels. The current pathway to Brexit by the Prime Minister seems completely naive. The future economic partnership with the European Union will be by far the most important trade deal the British state will ever make—it will dwarf any other the British state ever makes. It is therefore beyond my comprehension why the British Government want to give further leverage away in those negotiations. Furthermore, leverage within the Conservative party at this stage will swing decisively towards the European Research Group of Brexit extremists after 29 March next year.

If my analysis is correct and the meaningful vote does not gain the approval of the House, as I said during the Brexit Secretary’s statement on 24 July, the British Government will face four choices. First, they could seek to extend article 50 to renegotiate with the European Union. That would seem sensible to me as leaving the business end of the negotiations to after the British state is outside the EU seems completely bizarre. Secondly, the British Government could call a new referendum, possibly a multi-choice one, including the Prime Minister’s proposal and, vitally, the option of staying in the EU. Thirdly, if the meaningful vote does not gain the approval of the House the Labour party will move a motion of no confidence in order to force a general election but, as I have already said, this will not offer a solution to the Brexit paralysis unless Labour drastically changes its position. Equally, the Government might move one against themselves, resigning the Conservative party to defeat and leaving the Labour party to deal with the resulting pandemonium. In fact, an option for the Government might be to include a motion of no confidence in the meaningful vote, as that would be a manner for them to deal with the challenge set by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who is no longer in his place. He said that he would not vote for the final fudge that comes back from Brussels, but he also said that he would never vote against the Government on a motion of no confidence, so that would be a way of placing him and his political followers in political difficulty.

At that stage, the likelihood is that a motion of no confidence would be carried, resulting in another election, unless an alternative Government of sensible MPs were to come together within the 14-day deadline under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and steer the British state on to a more sensible course. In the past, I have floated that idea as a pragmatic solution, and I put it on record that I do so again today.

The last likely scenario is that no deal would become inevitable by default, as opposed to by design. Over the summer, writing for The Times, I called on the British Government to remove no deal from the political theatre. As a negotiating tactic with the European Union, it has failed miserably. It has also failed to bribe this House into supporting the Prime Minister’s position. All it has done is to embolden the kamikaze side of the Conservative party. Far be it from me to offer political advice to the Prime Minister, but if she were acting rationally, she would disempower the European Research Group wing of her party by taking no deal off the table.

Politics is not a game, and our actions as Members of this House over the next few weeks and months will have far-reaching consequences. The position taken by me and my colleagues has been consistent from the day after the referendum—namely, that the economic wellbeing of our constituents has to come first and last. The British Government are eventually moving in the right direction, but they will have to move far further and far more quickly if they are to avoid the approaching slow-motion train crash.

EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legislation

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

There is the substance of the rights, which we have set out and made clear in the White Paper, and a mechanism and procedures will also be available to EU nationals. We will ensure that that information is widely disseminated both through materials and through the work that the Home Office will be doing in the coming weeks and months.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The Secretary of State knows that parliamentary arithmetic seems to be against the British Government. If they fail to get approval for their withdrawal agreement, they will face four options: they could extend article 50 in order to renegotiate; they could move a motion of no confidence to allow the formation of an alternative Government or another general election; they could call a second referendum; or they could crash out without a deal. Which option would he prefer?

[Dominic Raab]

It will be incumbent on hon. Members on both sides of the House to think very carefully about how they vote when it comes to the meaningful vote. Unless it is approved and we have a deal, we will not be able to give effect to it. Not only would that be a serious position, but hon. Members on both sides of the House would be held to account for how they voted.

EU: Future Relationship White Paper

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I pay tribute to the great work that all the special advisers have done, including Stewart Jackson, and all the officials, who work tirelessly with Ministers to get the best deal for this country. I will be naming my special advisers shortly, as people would expect in the normal course of a reshuffle or a change in ministerial post.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The intergovernmental agreement signed between the Welsh Government and the British Government was meant to result in equitable decision making on Brexit policy. Does not the fact that the Welsh Government were not even consulted on the contents of the White Paper indicate that that agreement is not worth the paper it is written on and that the Labour Government of my country was extremely naive to trust the British Government?

[Dominic Raab]

I respect the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that he is just wrong on this. Sections of the White Paper were shared with the devolved Administrations and copies of it were sent in advance.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The purpose of a parliamentary process is to examine in detail. In respect of these clauses, the House of Lords has done its job as a constructive revising Chamber. I certainly had very good conversations with Members of the House of Lords from the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, as well as those from my own party and Cross Benchers. As I said, we continued very detailed conversations with not just the Welsh Government, who have agreed, but the Scottish Government. I want to put on record that although we have not been able to reach a final agreement, the Scottish Government have engaged for many months in a very constructive fashion. Many of the detailed changes embodied in this group of amendments actually reflect things that the Scottish Government, as well as the Welsh Government, sought from us.

We have, alongside the amendments, designed, working with the devolved Governments, a comprehensive intergovernmental agreement. This makes it clear that the UK Government will always seek agreement from the devolved Governments and should act by agreement, wherever possible. In response to the request from both Wales and Scotland, we have underpinned that principle with a commitment that we will not normally ask the UK Parliament to approve regulations to preserve existing frameworks without devolved consent for those regulations.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Is it not the case that the Minister is placing legal constraints on the Governments of Wales and Scotland, but only political constraints on the Westminster Government?

[Mr Lidington]

It is simply not possible, by legislation, to constrain the UK Parliament. The UK Parliament is sovereign. I know the hon. Gentleman’s party in the Welsh Assembly opposed the compromise on offer, but I was very pleased to see that the Labour Government in Wales and the Liberal Democrats in Wales were prepared to accept what I thought was a reasonable compromise, to vote in favour of a legislative consent motion and to commit themselves to repeal the Welsh Government’s continuity Bill at the earliest possible occasion.

The Scottish and Welsh Governments have also been clear that we should not try to use these regulations as a mechanism to avoid seeking legislative consent when creating future frameworks. We agree, and we have spelled that out in terms in the agreement. They asked us for a guarantee that we would not legislate for England where devolved powers to legislate for their respective nations were frozen, and we have put that into the agreement as well. That is why I do not accept the case that has been put forward by the Scottish Government for withholding consent for these proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

The Government set out the two options in our policy papers last summer, and one of those options will be adopted in due course. Free trade has brought unprecedented prosperity to some of the poorest countries in the world. My hon. Friend referred to developing countries: free trade has lifted more than 1 billion people out of poverty by increasing choice and lowering prices for consumers. It will enable us to forge trade agreements with some of the poorer countries in the world, thereby incentivising them to capitalise and industrialise, and to be sustainable and not dependent on aid. This is a great opportunity.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Is not the reality that trade deals with, for instance, the US and Australia would require concessions on regulatory standards that would create impenetrable trade barriers with Europe? When it comes to trade policy, surely one bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.

[Suella Braverman]

By leaving the single market, we will regain control of our laws and regulatory regimes, which will enable us—Parliament and the Government—to set the terms on which we negotiate any future trade deals with other countries. Let us be clear: we have a trade surplus with countries outside the EU. There is excessive and impressive demand for British goods out there. We need to open our markets so that our businesses can expand their sales and capitalise on this opportunity.

European Union Citizenship

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I beg to move,

That this House supports the maintenance of European Union citizenship rights for Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish and English citizens; notes that the range of rights and protections afforded to individuals as European Union citizens are integral to a person’s European identity; further notes that many of those rights are closely linked to the UK’s membership of the Single Market; and calls on the UK Government to ensure that the UK’s membership of the Single Market and UK citizens’ right to European Union citizenship are retained in the event that the UK leaves the EU.

Before I begin, may I apologise to the House? I have a very bad head cold that has rendered me slightly deaf, although that is perhaps no great disadvantage in this place. I caution any Member who intervenes that I might have some difficulty hearing them.

Our motion calls for UK nationals to retain European citizenship after we leave the European Union. The key word here is “retain”: we wish to retain what we already have. It is supported by a wide range of organisations and individuals: the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats, the Green party, Open Britain, Best for Britain, the European Movement, The New European, Cymru Dros Ewrop—Wales for Europe, New Europeans, Our Future Our Choice, Brand EU, UKtoStay.EU and Another Europe is Possible, as well as Jo Maugham, QC, of the Good Law Project, and Professor Volker Roeben and Dr Pedro Telles, two of the authors of a report on EU citizenship commissioned by my good friend Jill Evans, the Plaid Cymru MEP. Since the referendum, they have been arguing consistently for the retention of EU citizenship, and I recommend the report to anyone who wishes to pursue this argument. To the relief of hard-pressed Members, I can say that the executive summary is very good.

The crux of our argument is that although we are leaving the EU, the European citizenship rights conferred on UK citizens are not extinguished. Although we are leaving, those rights persist. Continuing Union citizenship is the more convincing interpretation of European and international law. Indeed, the principle that although a treaty might be bought to an end, the rights conferred by it are not extinguished, is enshrined strongly in international law. I refer Members to the 1969 Vienna convention on the law of treaties, which will be binding on member states, the UK and the EU itself post Brexit. Article 70(1)(b) of that convention provides that “legal situations” created during the currency of the treaties continue after withdrawal.

As Professor Roeben et al say on page five of the report:

“This interpretation of the Convention, that ongoing situations and rights continue, is supported by the overriding objective of ensuring legal certainty and preventing withdrawals from treaties having any retroactive effect. It is also supported by state practice.”

That is a crucial aspect of international law. Governments withdrawing from treaties cannot just abandon the rights their citizens already have. Professor Roeben tells me, by the way, that this article, as with much international law, was drawn up with the prominent participation of British legal experts.

There is an alternative reading that article 50 extinguishes all rights of the individual created by the founding treaties. In that case, both EU and international law would demand that a treaty be negotiated on associate Union citizenship, bringing with it a bundle of rights that might be little different from those that come with full citizenship. One way or other, we believe that EU citizenship of a sort is required.

The EU could legislate on citizenship post Brexit. That legislation would protect UK nationals in the EU, but would have no binding effect on the UK—by definition, because we would have left. We therefore urge the Government to look to achieving continuity and associate citizenship through the withdrawal agreement. That is why today’s debate is particularly timely.

The report concludes that neither continuity nor associate citizenship would require any revision of the founding treaties. There is a great deal more detail in the report that I will not go into today, but it will become pertinent if the Government recognise the force of our argument and proceed as we recommend. For now, I wish to set the context for our party’s position and say plainly from the start that Plaid Cymru campaigned to stay in the European Union. This was consistent with our long-term pro-European policy—indeed, that has been our policy since our establishment in 1925.

We have always been aware of our European history and our nation’s European heritage and have set great store by it. That has influenced our party profoundly. Our long-time president, Gwynfor Evans, who was the Member for Carmarthen, would rarely miss the opportunity to remind the people of Wales of our European heritage and our 1,500-year history as a people with our own language and culture, from our immediate post-Roman beginnings onwards to the present day. In fact, his conference speeches would often consist of retelling our history. I am reminded of a small joke made by two valleys members during one of Gwynfor’s speeches. One said to the other, “Good God, this is 20 minutes in and we are only in the 9th century!”

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

My hon. Friend is making his usual excellent case when he leads these debates. We could go even further back to Saunders Lewis, who was the president before Gwynfor Evans. Saunders saw our European heritage as vital to his vision for Wales for the future, partly driven by his time in the trenches in the first world war and his desire not to see another generation of Welshmen die in the fields of foreign lands.

[Hywel Williams]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I was going to refer later to the fact that the European Union has helped largely to prevent war on the European continents, although there are obvious exceptions, such as in the former Yugoslavia, which was not a member of the EU. He makes a pertinent point about Saunders Lewis, who had that profound experience in the trenches. It was one reason why he and his friends set up Plaid Cymru in August 1925 in my home town of Preseli, at a meeting of the Eisteddfod. While I am on my feet, I might as well also say that our profound lack of political realism at that time meant that in a country that was almost exclusively non-conformist, teetotal and in favour of the British empire, we had as our president a Francophile, wine-drinking Catholic—I think Machiavelli is still rotating in his grave after that one, but there we are. The roots of our pro-European stance are very deep indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. As with so many things Welsh, we lack the basic statistical information and the basic projections. I know that the Government do not believe in experts, projections and forecasts, but I sometimes wonder on what they do depend. In Rome, they depended on examining the entrails of sacrificed animals—I do not know whether that is what they get up to—but he makes a serious point: if we knew what we were dealing with, we could make the argument more effectively.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am glad that my hon. Friend mentions Erasmus and Horizon, two schemes whereby the Welsh Government could act bilaterally with the EU. Does he share my concern, arising from my discussions with colleagues in Brussels, that the Scottish Government seem far in advance of the Welsh Government in negotiating with the EU how those schemes could be continued in our respective nations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, particularly for military families, who move around a great deal and for whom it might be harder to demonstrate living in one particular place. We are determined to make sure this scheme has a default position of accepting that people are EU citizens living here, and we want there to be a default “Yes” for settled status, and certainly not a default “No.”

We have been clear that we will seek to agree an implementation period beyond March 2019 of around two years. The purpose of such a period is to give people, business and indeed our own public services in the UK and across the EU the time they need to put in place the new arrangements that will be required to adjust to our future partnership. It will take time to implement a new immigration framework.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I fear the Minister might have misunderstood the topic for debate. We are aiming to discuss the issue of the European citizenship of UK subjects, as opposed to the rights of EU citizens.

[Caroline Nokes]

I am going to move on to the points the hon. Member for Arfon made, and perhaps the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) will indulge me by allowing me to get there.

As I was about to say, during the implementation period, which will be time-limited, people will be able to come to the UK to live and work as they do now, and this will be reciprocal, meaning UK nationals will also be able to travel to live and work in the EU.

Last week, the Home Secretary published a position paper setting out that EU citizens arriving during the implementation period should be able to work towards settlement in the UK. People arriving during this period should not have the same expectations as those who arrived during our membership of the EU, but it is right that we set out the rules that will apply to these individuals when this period ends, to provide them with the certainty they need. These rights will be enforceable in UK law, and we will not seek to include them in the withdrawal agreement; however, we will discuss this with the Commission in the coming weeks.

Turning more broadly to the question of EU citizenship, the Government have been clear that our membership of the EU will end on 29 March 2019. We are content to listen to proposals from the EU on associate citizenship for UK nationals. However, to date this has not been formally proposed to the UK in the negotiations. EU treaty provisions state that only citizens of EU member states are able to hold EU citizenship. Therefore, when the UK ceases to be a member of the European Union, UK nationals will no longer hold EU citizenship unless they hold dual nationality with another member state.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It comes as no surprise that the deputy director general of the CBI, no less, has said of this Tory Government that he is “hugely frustrated” by their lack of progress on an immigration Bill.

EU citizens are our friends, our colleagues and our neighbours. They are people on whose doors we knocked in the general election last year. When people are making a positive contribution to our economy, our national health service, which already has issues with recruitment, social care, our universities and other sectors, the Government’s continuing failure to legislate only highlights the fact that they could have done so much unilaterally a long time ago. The Minister referred to the phase 1 agreement, which I have in front of me, and the continuing uncertainty mentioned by the hon. Member for Arfon remains an issue. Paragraph 34 of the agreement is clear:

“Both Parties agree that the Withdrawal Agreement should provide for the legal effects of the citizens’ rights Part both in the UK and in the Union. UK domestic legislation should also be enacted to this effect.”

Where is the legislation? It should be brought forward as soon as possible.

We now know that nothing will be agreed in the negotiations until everything is agreed. We also know, because the Immigration Minister told the House a few weeks ago, that the Migration Advisory Committee has been asked

“to advise on the economic aspects of the UK’s exit”

by September, and I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), is nodding. The Immigration Minister then said that there was

“plenty of time to take account of the MAC’s recommendations in designing the longer-term immigration system for the UK.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2018; Vol. 635, c. 1212.]

She says “plenty of time” but this is a two-year Parliament, and she has until March 2019 to get legislation on the statute book. Time is of the essence. If I take the Minister at her word that we will have the legislation when the time is right, may I gently suggest that that time might be now? She attends the Cabinet in her role as Immigration Minister, and she needs to persuade the Cabinet to give her the time to bring the legislation before this House. While it is my view and that of the Opposition that the status of EU nationals in this country should have been dealt with unilaterally a long time ago, not left subject to negotiation in this way—nor should there ever have been the reported comments of the International Trade Secretary that people be used as bargaining chips—the Minister could act now, and act she should.

I welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for Arfon, and the Minister said that it would be considered, and we must be careful about not excluding options from the table as we go forward. None the less, I suggest to the Minister, as she tries to put together the whole gamut of immigration policy for this country post-Brexit, that in order to achieve a fair, managed and efficient policy she must look at this country’s economic needs and work with business and the trade unions.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I congratulate him on his speech. However, would it be Labour party policy to support our proposal for associate citizenship?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have just said that we should not take any options off the table. I always welcome contributions from the hon. Gentleman, and I look forward to the Government’s response—[Interruption.] I will certainly give the hon. Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) my position on a number of matters in a moment, but let me make another point first.

Perhaps the Tory party could repair its relationship with the CBI if it properly consulted business and the unions about our future immigration system. It could end the years of exploitation of migrant workers, which it has done so little about, increase the number of prosecutions for breaches of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, which have been going on for far too long, reinstate the migrant impact fund, remove international students from the statistics and, perhaps above all, move away from this obsession with bogus immigration targets. The Tories have never achieved their numerical target, despite having promised it over three general elections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Warman]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that this is a moveable feast on the other side of the channel, and we should bear that in mind.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman raises a point made by the Minister, on whom I wished to intervene. He will be aware of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties and that, under that legal ruling, citizens’ rights may not be lost. Surely that is the legal precedent we should be following.

[Matt Warman]

The hon. Gentleman uses the word “may,” and we should be looking at what the options are and at what the precedents may be. The Minister is right to say that we will no longer be members when we leave, and therefore we will no longer have the rights we currently have. The hon. Gentleman may pray in aid precedents that suggest something else, and we may be able to rely on some of those precedents in due course. We should not prejudge any of that, and we have to be pragmatic in where we start.

It is also worth bearing it in mind that people across my constituency and across the country voted for precisely those kinds of differences. They voted for the Government to negotiate a new relationship with Europe, which is precisely what we are doing.

One aspect of the motion on which the hon. Member for Arfon did not particularly dwell is single market access, which defines a huge part of our relationship with the EU. This is not a fault that he committed, but it is a frustrating and patronising element of some aspects of this debate to say that people did not know what they were voting for when they voted in the referendum. My constituents were very clear that they were voting to leave the single market because they were voting to strike our own trade deals with other countries across the world and to open up new opportunities. We should not allow ourselves to pretend there was not a full and frank debate about what leaving the European Union might mean before people went into the polling booths.

A crucial part of the motion implies there are not the opportunities outside the EU that people voted for. The hon. Gentleman frames it as though all we will be doing is losing rights when we leave the European Union. We should, of course, bear it in mind that there will be a different relationship, but there are opportunities out there, too. Part of the Prime Minister’s positive approach is to say that there are opportunities that we must seize and that there is another side to the coin—that not everyone can have every single thing they might wish for.

The hon. Gentleman proposed that we could stay in the single market and retain all our rights as they are today. My response to him is that he should not be wilfully blind to the opportunities. I think we will get a good deal with the European Union that allows us to retain many of the benefits we see today, but we will also have access to a wider world out there in a very different way. That is not to say that it will all be a bed of roses and that it will be the easiest thing we could ever do, but he should acknowledge the other side of the coin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

It is a huge pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) on his speech, which opened the debate. He set out the case in his usual forensic style, providing great clarity and detail about what is being proposed. I also thoroughly enjoyed the speeches from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), who once again proved why he is one of the superstar performers of this Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), who again showed why he is one of the rising stars of Welsh politics, and my parliamentary leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who spoke with her usual great authority, concentrating on the example following the independence of Ireland at the beginning of the last century. She gave us a fantastic history lesson in her contribution.

On the morning after the referendum, on 24 June 2016, I had been given the honour of being the guest speaker at the graduation ceremony of the local further education college in my county, Coleg Sir Gâr. The ceremony was held at the fabulous Ffos Las racecourse in Carwe, in my constituency. Somewhat bleary-eyed and shellshocked after watching the referendum results in the early hours of the morning, I vividly remember standing up at the podium and looking out at the hundreds of young graduates and their families before me. I dropped my speaking notes and went completely off script. Instead of diving into my speech, to talk about how proud they should be of their achievements and how they should look forward to their future, I apologised to those young people.

My apology was based on being part of the political class that had allowed a set of circumstances that would reduce their life chances and opportunities compared with those that had been available to me and the generations before me—primarily the right to travel, live, work, receive healthcare and reside in any other part of the European Union, among other rights. We have had powerful contributions from several Members, and that is the crux of what we are trying to grapple with today.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise to his colleagues that I missed the start of the debate. The reason was that, like the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who spoke a few minutes ago, I am a member of the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union, and some of us had the privilege of meeting a delegation from the Parliament of Slovakia who are in Westminster.

[Peter Grant]

It is highly relevant, Mr Deputy Speaker, because most of the people we met were born in the shadow of the iron curtain. They now have the right to travel all over western Europe and a great deal of central and eastern Europe. Does the hon. Gentleman share my bafflement that while those people are celebrating their fairly recently won right to travel everywhere, we have a Government here that seem determined to take measures that might endanger the right of future generations of UK citizens to travel as freely as our Slovakian friends can travel now?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As always, he makes a very valid point. I congratulate him on the excellent work he is doing on the Select Committee. I was privileged to serve on that Committee with him in the last Parliament, and his contributions are always extremely valuable.

Much of the debate following the referendum has surrounded the economic impact of Brexit. There is little doubt in my mind that the best way to protect the Welsh economy is to stay inside the single market and the customs union, and that has been my position from day one. The issue of European Union citizenship rights of UK subjects, however, has not had the level of consideration it deserves.

At this point, I should pay tribute to Jill Evans, the Plaid Cymru MEP representing the whole of Wales who commissioned a report on that issue in the immediate aftermath of the referendum. Her work has gathered considerable support in the European Parliament—including, critically, from Guy Verhofstadt, the lead Brexit negotiator for the European Parliament. Indeed, I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), has had discussions with Mr Verhofstadt on that issue. I would be grateful to learn from the Minister in his response whether that issue was discussed yesterday with Mr Verhofstadt during his visit to London. The idea has also gained the support of the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs.

I sense, perhaps wrongly, that the British Government have an open mind to what we are proposing today. I am being kind, because it has been a very good-natured debate so far. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, in response to the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy)—who I am delighted to see in his place and thank for his contribution, which hit the nail on the head—said:

“The aim of this exercise is to be good for Europe and good for Britain, which means good for the citizens of Europe and Britain. That is what we intend to do.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2017; Vol. 630, c. 947.]

In her speech last Friday at Mansion House, the Prime Minister failed to provide any great clarity on some of the main issues that have concerned Members in relation to the British Government’s Brexit policy. However, a part of her speech did catch my attention, when she conceded that, despite her hard Brexit policy, she would seek to negotiate UK associate membership status with several EU agencies.

[Anna Soubry]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the benefits of our remaining in the single market and the customs union. However, I disagree with him when he says that the Prime Minister’s policy is to have a hard Brexit. If one thing absolutely came out of the Mansion House, it was a firm rejection of a hard Brexit. Does he at least agree with me on that?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am always delighted to hear from the right hon. Lady, with whom I work very closely on these matters. However, I fear that the Prime Minister in her speech managed to continue the strategy of trying to placate both sides of the Conservative party. Ultimately, she is going to have to make a call one way or the other. The fact that the right hon. Lady welcomed the speech and the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) welcomed the speech—

[David T. C. Davies]

And me.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman also did so. The fact that they both welcomed the speech leaves me concerned that the Prime Minister is not exactly making a definitive decision on those major issues, on which the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and I actually agree.

As I was saying, the Prime Minister conceded in her speech that she would seek associate membership of several EU agencies. If that is the case, why not apply the same principle to citizenship? Since Plaid Cymru launched our campaign on this issue at the weekend, my Twitter feed has become the location for a lively debate. Indeed, earlier this afternoon I was called a traitor by some people, which indicates the strength of feeling that the debate has generated.

[David T. C. Davies]

I respect the hon. Gentleman, and I totally condemn anyone who has referred to him in that fashion for expressing his views, just as I am sure he would do in relation to those on the other side. We all have a duty here to be courteous in our debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. This debate is so serious that it needs to be debated in a very reasonable, calm and rational manner, as we have seen in the House today.

Most people have been extremely supportive of what we are suggesting, but others have seen the campaign as a plot to undermine the referendum result, which could not of course be further from the truth. What we are proposing is that, as part of the negotiations, the British Government make the case that those of us who wish to keep our current rights are able to do so, while those who wish to renounce their rights would also be able to do so if they so wished. If the British Government are serious about healing the wounds of the referendum, I argue that they should pursue such an initiative with vigour, because it could unite everybody in every part of the British state.

The key point is that the rights we currently enjoy under the Maastricht treaty do not in any way challenge or undermine our rights as subjects of the British state. This point was made with vigour by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion. They are additional rights, and any action by a Government to take away those rights is an extremely serious matter. It is therefore no wonder that this issue is now before the courts in Europe.

As someone who fundamentally believes in Welsh independence, I recognise that, following the political freedom of my country, there will be a requirement to protect the rights currently enjoyed by the people of our respective countries, as was of course the case following Irish independence. I think that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton)—he is no longer in his place—in his intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon.

In his article in The New European at the weekend, Professor Volker Roeben, who was formerly of the University of Swansea but now works in Dundee in Scotland—I am delighted to see him here—makes the case quite clearly that international and EU law should protect our current EU citizenship from Brexit. I understand that legal opinions differ and I readily admit that I am no legal expert, but he makes a compelling case. I would like to finish my speech by quoting him at some length. He said:

“Of course, a member state is free to terminate its membership for the future, but it cannot extinguish the citizenships that have already been created and the rights that have been exercised—these continue. This status cannot not be taken away neither by the European Union nor by one of its member states.

This is also the impetus of the international law of treaties laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This international law will be binding on the EU, the UK and the remaining member states after Brexit. It governs in considerable detail the consequences that the withdrawal of a state from any treaty, including the Founding Treaties, entail.

One consequence is that the treaty ceases to bind, but the other is that the withdrawal must not have retroactive effect on the rights of individuals already created at the time of withdrawal.”

This results in a challenge to the European Commission and, as I readily admit, to the British Government. My understanding is that the European Parliament is far more understanding of the case than the Commission. If this is the case, then MEPs will have an important role in scrutinising the negotiating tactics of Mr Barnier and his team. At the end of the day, as Professor Roeben states, it is a matter of political will. I hope that, following this debate, Parliament will support the motion and mandate the British Government to negotiate a protection of the rights we all currently enjoy as European citizens.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I now have to announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions. In respect of the question relating to Northern Ireland political parties, the Ayes were 308 and the Noes were 261, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the question relating to passport fees, the Ayes were 317 and the Noes were 258, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. I particularly lament the way that so much of the demoralisation that has taken place has been aimed at young people. It is precisely because we are concerned for their future that we want to deliver a successful partnership with the European Union as we turn out to take advantage of that growth, 90% of which will come from the rest of the world. It is their future that we are concerned about, and it is their future that led people like me to campaign for leave on the basis of upholding their democratic choice to choose a Government and influence its policies.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

These leaked figures indicate and expose the damage that will be caused by a Brexit outside the single market and the customs union. Is it not the case that the greatest failure of this Parliament, on the biggest issue of our time, and despite the damage that it will do to people’s livelihoods and standards of living, is that the British Government and the Labour Opposition share the exact same position?

[Mr Baker]

As I have already said, all scenarios in this analysis show growth. The analysis is heavily caveated with the profound uncertainties that exist, not only for the UK and Europe but for the world. In that context, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the answers that I have given today.

Leaving the EU: Implementation

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, one that has been made by people on all sides of the referendum debate. We respect the decision made by the British people, including his constituents, and we want to make the greatest success of it. A smooth and orderly exit is the best way to achieve that.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Earlier this month, the National Assembly for Wales unanimously—this included Tory and UK Independence party Assembly Members—supported a motion from my colleague, Steffan Lewis, calling for a continuity Bill to protect the Welsh constitution from the power grab inherent in the British Government’s legislative proposals for implementing the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. Now that Wales has spoken, will the British Government listen, or are they intent on forcing a constitutional crisis?