European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

As a responsible Government, we are going to go through the process of making sure that our country is ready to leave the EU without a deal if that proves necessary. We will take the steps to be prepared, as a responsible Government should.

However, this Bill cannot pre-empt the negotiations by putting things into statute before they have been agreed. The Government intend the UK to leave the EU on 29 March 2019, and that is why we intend to put that on the face of the Bill, but we have always been clear that we will bring forward whatever legislation is necessary to implement the agreement we strike with the EU, which is why yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Withdrawal Agreement and Implementation Bill, which we will introduce once Parliament has had a chance to vote on the final deal.

This Government take their responsibilities seriously and are committed to ensuring that the UK exits the EU with certainty, continuity and control. It makes no sense to legislate for one piece of legislation on the face of another, and I therefore ask the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford not to press her amendment to a vote. With that, I recommend that clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak to amendments 43, 44 and 45, which would give Parliament control over the length and basic terms of the transitional arrangements and allow Parliament to set the clock on the sunset clauses. These are the first of many amendments tabled by the Opposition that we will consider over the next few weeks, all of which have one purpose, which is to improve the Bill. Frankly, it is not helpful when Ministers—and, indeed, the Prime Minister over the weekend—seek to characterise scrutiny and accountability in this House as an attempt to thwart Brexit. It is not. We accept that the British people voted to leave the European Union. It might have been a close vote, but it was a clear vote. That is why we voted to trigger article 50. Whether we leave the European Union is not a matter for debate, but how we do so is crucial for the future of our country. The British people voted to pull out, but they did not vote to lose out. They look to Parliament to secure the best deal, and that includes not stumbling over a cliff edge in March 2019.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

Could the hon. Gentleman define the Labour party’s idea of leaving the European Union?

[Paul Blomfield]

I am surprised that such an ardent Brexiteer as the right hon. Gentleman does not understand what leaving the European Union involves. We do.

Until last Thursday, the debate on clause 1 looked fairly straightforward. The article 50 notification made our exit from the European Union in March 2019 a legal certainty, so, for the purposes of the Bill, exit day could be left in the hands of Parliament. But then the Government did something needless: they tabled amendments 381 and 382, putting a specified exit date—and, indeed, a specified exit time: 11 pm, or midnight Brussels time—into the Bill. Their consequential amendment 383 seems to contradict the other amendments in some regards, which underlines the chaotic way in which the Government have approached the Bill, but taken together, the intention of the three amendments is clear.

[Sir William Cash]

The rather mysterious explanation that the hon. Gentleman gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) needs some elucidation. Would he be good enough to explain whether leaving the European Union means repealing the European Communities Act 1972, and why Labour voted against the Bill on Second Reading?

[Paul Blomfield]

I would have thought that it would be as clear to the hon. Gentleman as it is to me that leaving the European Union does involve revoking the European Communities Act. I will go on to explain why we have concerns about the Government’s amendments and the different decisions within them.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

Did the hon. Gentleman understand, as I did, when the vote on article 50 took place, that the provisions outlined in article 50 would apply, including the ability of 28 nations to agree to extend the negotiating process?

[Paul Blomfield]

I did indeed, and I will come to that point later in my remarks.

I said that the intention of the three amendments is clear despite the confusion caused by amendment 383. It is clear, but it is needless because article 50, triggered on 29 March 2017, provides for a two-year exit timetable.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

No, I will make some progress.

There is therefore no question about whether the UK will leave the EU at the end of that period in accordance with the article 50 notification. So what is the purpose of the Government’s three amendments? Is it simply to appease extreme elements within the Conservative party, not thinking of the consequences for the country, or is it a deliberate decision to unpick the Florence speech, demonstrating that the freelancers in the Prime Minister’s Cabinet are actually in charge of policy?

[Stephen Doughty]

I suspect that it may be the latter. Given the chaos that the negotiations are in, the public will be wondering about the lack of progress. When the Government suddenly want to impose a guillotine, rather than use the article 50 process, the public may have good reason to be suspicious.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The public have reason to be suspicious and worried.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

No, I will not. I want to make some progress, but I am sure that I will give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to intervene later.

Whatever the reason for the Government’s decision, it is reckless and represents an extraordinary U-turn. The Minister said a few moments ago that it was important to give clarity on the issue of departure and that it was the Government’s fixed view, but that is not the view they held before last Thursday. In fact, for the past four months their position was represented by clause 14(1)—page 10, lines 25 and 26—which says that

“‘exit day’ means such day as a Minister of the Crown may by regulations appoint”

and by clause 19(1)—page 14, lines 41 to 42—which states that

“different days may be appointed for different purposes.”

Now, the Opposition thought that that was a sensible principle. We wanted Parliament, not Ministers, to agree the dates, which is why we have tabled amendments 43, 44 and 45. That principle makes sense, and I will outline why.

As I have said, our departure from the European Union is a settled matter. However, the Bill deals with three different issues: the date that the 1972 Act will cease to have effect; the cut-off point for the use of delegated powers; and the ending of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union. On that last point, there is a fundamental impact on the transitional arrangements. Labour has been clear about the need for a transitional period in order to prevent a cliff edge and to ensure that businesses do not have to adapt to two new customs and regulatory arrangements in quick succession. We need a transitional period on the same basic terms that we currently have in the single market and in the customs union.

Businesses and trade unions support that transitional period, and we were pleased when the Government caught up with us on that in September. In her Florence speech, the Prime Minister finally recognised its importance and said that

“people and businesses—both in the UK and in the EU—would benefit from a period to adjust to the new arrangements in a smooth and orderly way.”

She went on to say:

“Clearly people, businesses and public services should only have to plan for one set of changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU. So during the implementation period access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms and Britain also should continue to take part in existing security measures. And I know businesses, in particular, would welcome the certainty this would provide.”

Her spokesperson reiterated just yesterday that she gave businesses reassurance on agreeing a time-limited transitional or, as she prefers to describe it, implementation period as soon as possible. However, amendment 383 blows the prospect of a transitional deal on current terms out of the water. Put simply, if there is no role for the Court of Justice of the European Union, we will not be operating on current terms and the Prime Minister will be unable to secure an agreement with the EU27 for the transitional arrangements that she set out in her Florence speech.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Is not the difference between an implementation and a transition the whole point? If it is an implementation, we are implementing the consequences of having left; if it is a transition, we are transitioning from being inside the European Union to being, at the end of the process, outside. Therefore in the transition we would be de facto members of the European Union, on the basis that the hon. Gentleman is setting out, defeating the whole purpose of this Bill.

[Paul Blomfield]

Clearly, the transitional period is a bridge between where we are now and where we will be once we have left the European Union. The hon. Gentleman’s point is not relevant to the point I am seeking to make.

[Paul Farrelly]

I wanted to make this intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), but he would not take it.

I commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), and I seek his opinion on new clause 49. The new clause is linked to other new clauses, but if it is agreed there is no guarantee that the other new clauses will be agreed. Passing new clause 49 would therefore do a grave disservice to this country. Will he make clear the Opposition Front Bench’s position on new clause 49?

[Paul Blomfield]

I am happy to clarify that we oppose new clause 49.

Whether in relation to new clause 49 or to the Government’s amendments, closing down the opportunity for effective transitional arrangements is deeply self-harming.

[Mr Baker]

I believe that the Labour party wants to have a smooth transition to a good quality future relationship, but I draw to the hon. Gentleman’s attention what the Prime Minister said in her Florence speech:

“Neither is the European Union legally able to conclude an agreement with the UK as an external partner while it is itself still part of the European Union.”

My point is that we need to become a third country before we can conclude the kind of future relationship that I think the hon. Gentleman would like us to have.

[Paul Blomfield]

I do not disagree with the Minister. It is precisely our point that, during the transitional period, we cannot disable the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union, otherwise we will not achieve the arrangement that we apparently both seek.

[Joanna Cherry]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point, and I wonder whether I might help. I asked the Prime Minister what she thought the legal basis of any transitional deal will be, and she said that the EU takes the view that it will be article 50. When I was in Brussels with the Exiting the European Union Committee last week, I raised this issue at the highest level of the EU and was told that, yes, it is envisaged that during the transitional deal Britain will stay in the single market, in the customs union, within EU law, within the acquis and under the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

[Paul Blomfield]

I agree with the hon. and learned Lady. In fact, the Brexit Secretary talked about the Court in those terms yesterday.

[Mr Grieve]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Is not part of the difficulty that there is a sense of people being disingenuous about the reality of the process of Brexit? Of course it is possible that, at the end of this, despite how we pass this legislation, the Government will come back with a withdrawal agreement Bill—the statute they have promised us—that does the very thing they will not admit at the moment: keep us within the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union during a transitional period. Would it not be better, and would it not help us in our debates on this Bill, if we had a bit of honesty and clarity from all sides about the implications of withdrawal, about how we have to go about it and about the options—sometimes the lack of options—that may be open to us?

[Paul Blomfield]

I very much agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Otherwise, we will face the nonsense of the Government introducing new legislation effectively repealing the repeal Bill, or a key part of it.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Further to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) on the difference between transition and implementation, we know for sure that it will be an implementation period because we will have to implement the withdrawal agreement. We do not yet know whether it will be a transitional period because we do not know, and will not know at the point of Brexit, whether we will have any final deal to implement.

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I will now make some progress.

I was at the point of talking about why closing down the opportunity for effective transitional arrangements would be deeply self-harming. As the director general of the CBI, Carolyn Fairbairn, said just last week,

“The message from us, from business, is more certainty quickly particularly around transition, particularly in the next four weeks”.

The Government amendments undermine the prospect of a transitional deal and create more uncertainty. The CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the EEF, the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses came together to call for a transitional deal, saying:

“We need agreement of transitional arrangements as soon as possible, as without urgent agreement many companies have serious decisions about investment and contingency plans to take at the start of 2018”.

They continued:

“Failure to agree a transition period of at least two years could have wide-reaching and damaging consequences for investment and trade”.

It will also mean lorries backing up at Dover, because the adjustments necessary to avoid that cannot be physically put in place within 15 months, as I am sure everyone would agree. For the same reason, it will mean a hard border in Northern Ireland, with all the problems that that would create.

The Government’s approach is simply not in the national interest, and it closes down the flexibility that we might need. If negotiations go to the wire, both we and the EU 27 might recognise the need for an extra week, an extra day, an extra hour, an extra minute or even an extra second, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) pointed out, in order to secure a final deal. But that agreement would be thwarted by the Government’s having made it unlawful for themselves to do what they would want to do at that point.

The Prime Minister has consistently talked about parties working together in the national interest, and we are up for that—we have tried to be constructive; we have scrutinised and identified gaps; we have offered solutions; and on this crucial issue we seem to be in the same place as at least some members of the Government on the need for an effective transitional period. So let me make an offer to the Government. If they withdraw amendments 381, 382 and 383, and work with us on an alternative that affirms a departure date in line with the article 50 process but without destroying the chances of transitional arrangements, we are happy to look at that and work with them on it. If they do not—

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the real way in which the Prime Minister could reach out is by making it clear that she accepts the jurisdiction of the ECJ for the implementation period? That would resolve a lot of her problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The reckless ideological red line on the ECJ has got us into many problems—not only on this, but on the membership of Euratom and in many other ways.

If the Government cannot withdraw their amendments and engage in that process with us we cannot support them, because of the impact on the economy, jobs and livelihoods, as we would plunge over the cliff edge. I should also say that we cannot support amendment 79. We believe the Bill should operate on the presumption of devolution. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) will set out our position in greater detail in subsequent days.

The Government have had months to repair this deeply flawed Bill. They could have come forward with amendments on workers’ rights, environmental protection, the charter of fundamental rights and limiting the scope of delegated powers, but instead they have chosen to come to this House with a gimmick on the departure date. This gimmick is about the Prime Minister negotiating with her own party, rather than trying to get a Brexit deal that prioritises jobs, the economy and the livelihoods of our people. The Government’s amendments are a product of the divisions at the heart of this Government on their approach to Brexit—divisions that are causing chaos, and this chaos is threatening our economy. We have a Prime Minister so weak that she is trying to tie her own hands behind her back to appease the extremists within her party.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

No, I will not.

Rather, I should say that the Prime Minister is letting the Foreign Secretary and the Environment Secretary tie her hands for her. She is putting internal party management before the national interest. This country deserves better, and we are offering it.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I abstained on Second Reading and I voted against the timetable motion. I felt it was not possible to vote against Second Reading because a technical Bill of this kind is certainly required for when we leave the European Union, to avoid the legal hiatus and total uncertainty that would otherwise occur about what law actually applies in this country. I abstained rather than supported the Bill because I feel that, for many reasons that will become clear in the days of debate to come, the Bill goes far beyond its original purpose and is drafted in such a way as to try to deprive Parliament of a proper vote and say on perfectly important features. I hope that all that will be corrected by a Government who we have been assured—I accept this—are going to listen to the debate and see what is required and what is not.

I wish to touch briefly on two features of this debate, the first of which is the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. There are only two Members left in the House of Commons who were here when the European Communities Act was passed, and I am glad to say that we are both consistent. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and I continue to vote against each other on all matters European, and we always have done. I always assure the Conservative Whips that they can look forward to the hon. Gentleman supporting them on most of the issues on which I vote against them, and I am sure that that will continue to be case.

On a serious note, the European Communities Act was passed on a bipartisan basis, which I helped to negotiate as a Government Whip—that is, Labour rebels supported the majority of the Conservative party to get us in. Before everyone deplores it, let me say that I do not think it has turned out to be a harmful piece of legislation at all. Apart from the predictable people—my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Back Benches—no one has ever sought to repeal it. The idea, which is very popularly put forward by the UK Independence party and others, that the Act has led faceless grey Eurocrats to produce vast quantities of awful legislation and red tape, is one of the biggest myths of our time. I pay tribute to Nigel Farage’s campaigning abilities. There is absolutely no doubt that he is the most successful politician of my generation, because he has persuaded a high proportion of the population that that is exactly how it runs. No doubt they are all looking forward to having bent bananas again once we have repealed all these pieces of legislation. I once fought an election in which quite a lot of my constituents had been persuaded that the Eurocrats were about to abolish double-decker buses. It took some considerable time to try to refute that rather worrying belief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

I would like to finish now.

As the Bill already states that cases occurring during the transitionary period can continue, my amendments would do nothing other than ensure that that happens fairly. I really hope that the Government will respond positively to these amendments, and remember that justice delayed is justice denied.

[Paul Blomfield]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who has made some thoughtful and sensible points on her amendments, which we would support. I rise to speak to amendment 278, and to the consequential amendments 279 to 284, which would allow for transitional arrangements within the existing structure, rules and regulations. I will also speak to our amendment 306, but I will return to those separate issues later.

Amendment 278 follows on from our earlier debate on clause 1. It brings into even sharper focus the issue of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s jurisdiction during a transitional period. As I said in the previous debate, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) said earlier in this one, there can be no transitional period on current terms, as the Prime Minister wishes, without that jurisdiction. The Florence speech has been much quoted already, and I am sure that that will continue. Let me refer briefly to it one more time. The Prime Minister obviously made the speech after the Bill had been published, but perhaps its early drafting did not have the opportunity to accommodate the emphasis that she has placed on the

“two important steps, which have added a new impetus”

to the process.

She said of the second of those steps:

“I proposed a time-limited implementation period based on current terms, which is in the interest of both the UK and the EU.”

She was accepting the case made by business and trade unions for an effective transitional period and, crucially, again making the point that this should be on current terms.

As I said in the earlier debate, we were pleased that the Prime Minister had caught up with Labour on that position. However, seven weeks on from the Florence speech, the Government have failed to reflect the ambition that the Prime Minister had at that time in any of the amendments to the Bill. They came up with the bizarre amendments that we debated in relation to clause 1, but they failed to address that ambition, so we have helpfully stepped in to fill that gap with amendments 278 to 284. The amendments would mean that, in relation to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, exit day should come at the end of the transitional period. The reason is simple: without acceptance of the continuing role of the Court of Justice during the transition, the idea that the implementation period, based on current terms, could happen in the way that the Prime Minister described is frankly delusional.

[Mr Jenkin]

I get the feeling that the cart is coming before the horse here. No transitional implementation has yet been agreed. It has to be part of a deal, and it would be a mistake for the House to start putting things into the Bill in the expectation of certain things that may or may not happen. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union announced a separate Bill to implement any agreement, which is when such things will be dealt with. This Bill is much simpler than the Opposition would like it to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

There are some strands of fair comment in that intervention. We have tabled the amendments precisely because, in relation to our previous debate, we do not want the Government closing options down. If the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is not clear during a transitional period, options would be closed down.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

No, I will not. I gave way many times during the previous debate, and I am conscious that many more amendments relate to this clause.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on his point about the Court of Justice?

[Paul Blomfield]

I have said no. I want to give others the opportunity to speak. I took every single intervention in the previous debate—except perhaps from one of my hon. Friends towards the end of my speech—so I want to make some progress.

The Government have a choice to make today—[Interruption.] I wish hon. Members would stop chuntering. The Government have a choice to make, and they have to make it in relation to our amendment 278.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

You’re scared to have to answer.

[Paul Blomfield]

Oh for goodness’ sake. The hon. Gentleman can do better than that, even from a sedentary position.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Just take my right hon. Friend’s intervention.

[Paul Blomfield]

No, having taken every single intervention in the previous debate, most of which came from Government Members, I have explained why, in the interests of other Members, I will not take interventions on this occasion. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can chunter on.

As I was saying, the Government have a choice to make today—a choice about amendment 278. Are they serious about pursuing a transitional period and ensuring that the economy does not fall off a cliff in March 2019 when we leave the EU, or does their ideological red line on the Court of Justice take greater priority than the jobs and livelihoods of people in this country?

Other issues relating to clause 6 also need addressing, and amendment 306 would provide for UK courts to take account of Court of Justice decisions on entitlements, rights and protections on employment, equality and health and safety. The intention of this amendment is to help to ensure that we maintain and keep up with social standards within the EU and do not simply hold workers’ rights and equality in stasis as the EU27 moves forward. Indeed, the EU has made it clear that it will want a level playing field in all those areas if we are to strike an effective trade deal. We are regularly told that the Government do not want to erode rights and protections, but we have a Prime Minister who has repeatedly criticised the social chapter and a Foreign Secretary who has decried the “back-breaking” weight of EU employment regulation, so we need to ensure that we secure clear guarantees in the Bill.

Amendment 306 also addresses the concerns of the former President of the UK Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger. On 8 August, he raised concerns about clause 6(2) and the position in which it will leave the judiciary on the interpretation of EU retained law. Clause 6(2) states:

“A court or tribunal need not have regard to anything done on or after exit day by the European Court, another EU entity or the EU but may do so if it considers it appropriate to do so.”

On which Lord Neuberger said that if the Government

“doesn’t express clearly what the judges should do about decisions of the ECJ after Brexit, or indeed any other topic after Brexit, then the judges will simply have to do their best. But to blame the judges for making the law when parliament has failed to do so would be unfair.”

Amendment 306 would address those concerns by removing the vague reference to

“if it considers it appropriate to do so”

and by requiring UK courts simply to take account of CJEU decisions in relation to employment, equality and health and safety rights. Lord Neuberger was right to flag that deficiency in the Bill, which we need to resolve.

[Mr Grieve]

Is not part of the problem that this is an area of law that has quite a political—with a small “p” —aspect? In reality, this law has been entrenched when it comes from the EU, and it represents a number of areas that have been treated by some as fundamental rights.

The difficulty for the judiciary is that they will be asked to continue interpreting this law—this is the nub of it—without real political guidance as to what emphasis they should attribute to it in future in light of the emphasis it has been given in the past. It is not just any old law but something rather more complex and, for that reason, it is more sensitive to the judiciary’s interpretation.

[Paul Blomfield]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right, and that is what we seek to address with amendment 306.

I will briefly address some of the other amendments in the group. We support new clause 14, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), as it sensibly calls for a report to be laid before Parliament on the interpretation of EU law during a transitional period.

We also support amendment 137, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and others, as it seeks to have UK courts pay due regard to any relevant decision of the ECJ when interpreting the new category of retained EU law.

Amendments 202 and 384, in the name of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), would allow matters pending on exit day to be referred to the ECJ, which is clearly common sense, and we are pleased to support the amendments. We also support amendments 203, 353 and 354, in the right hon. Gentleman’s name, on the definitions of EU retained law. Amendment 357, tabled by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), raises important issues, and I look forward to the Minister’s clarification. We support amendment 358, which would help with the interpretation of EU retained law.

I end on the same note on which I began by urging the Government to accept amendment 278 and its consequential amendments and, in doing so, to put aside their obsession with the ECJ so that we can secure the effective transitional deal with the EU that they, we, business and trade unions want to achieve.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Dominic Raab)]

It is a great privilege and pleasure to speak on behalf of the Government on this essential Bill, and particularly on clause 6 and the various amendments proposed to it. The Bill is complex, but at root it boils down to achieving two basic but fundamental objectives, which it is worth bearing in mind as we consider the clause and amendments.

The first is that we are delivering on the referendum by taking back control over our laws, which is a major opportunity; that was the No. 1 reason why people voted to leave the EU in the referendum. The second thing that the Bill does is make sure there is legal certainty, with a smooth transition for citizens and businesses, mitigating one of the key risks of Brexit, which I believe is felt by people whether they voted leave or remain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

Well, I have just given two examples regarding subsections (A3) and (A5) of my hon. Friend’s amendment, but I would be happy to sit down with him and give some illustrative examples of how, in practical terms, I think that this is not actually the avenue or legal cul-de-sac that he wants to go down.

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will now turn to some of the other amendments in order that I give them due consideration in this important debate. In particular, I want to turn to amendment 278 and linked amendments 279 to 284 concerning exit day, which are from the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. Members.

The Prime Minister made it clear in her Florence speech that

“The United Kingdom will cease to be a member of the European Union on 29 March 2019.”

It is clear that the UK will leave the EU at the end of the article 50 process—some of the suggestions around the caveat are wildly unrealistic. The Government have tabled an amendment to make sure the drafting of the Bill is crystal clear on this point and to give the country—businesses and citizens alike—additional certainty and a measure of finality on it.

These amendments would replace that clarity and finality with uncertainty and confusion. They would alter the meaning of the term “exit day” in the Bill, but only for the purposes of the provisions of clause 6. For those purposes, but for those purposes alone, the UK would not leave the EU until the end of the transitional period. I am afraid that that would create damaging legal uncertainty, and the amendments are flawed. They would have the effect that, for the duration of any implementation period that might be agreed—and we hope one will be, sooner rather than later—all the important provisions on the interpretation of retained EU law set out in this clause could not apply; they could take effect, if I have understood correctly, only from the end of that period. Since we have not yet agreed an implementation period with our EU partners, the effect of the amendments would be to create an indefinite and indeterminate transitional period, which rather raises the question of whether the Labour party is really serious about facilitating the process of a smooth Brexit at all.

[Paul Blomfield]

Rather than seek to confuse the issue, it would be helpful if the Minister clarified whether it is the intention of the Government to accept the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union during the transitional period. Yes or no?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman is very kind. He had the chance in his speech to make his rapier-like points. I am dealing with his amendment and the very real risk that, with the greatest will in the world, what her Majesty’s Opposition are proposing will add to, rather than mitigate, the uncertainty. When we go away from the fireworks of this debate, it ought to be our common endeavour to minimise that uncertainty.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union made it clear yesterday that there will be separate primary legislation for the withdrawal agreement and any implementation phase, so these amendments are entirely unnecessary in any event. We have also been clear—I think this addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point—that, in leaving the EU, we will bring an end to the direct jurisdiction of the European Court in the UK.

Our priority must be getting the right arrangements for Britain’s relationship with the EU for the long term.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Grieve]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I slightly question the extent to which we have had clear evidence of that, although I know that there has been a reluctance on the part of the European Court of Justice to accept any higher authority, despite the intention of the parties that it should become subordinate, ultimately, to the ECHR. He is right that one reason why the charter came into being was to secure compliance. I think it is rather more of a hypothetical than an actual state of affairs, although such a problem might exist in future. In any event, I do not think we are dealing here just with matters covered by the ECHR, for the very reasons that were discussed earlier in relation to new clause 16, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East. I simply say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that the issue has to be addressed.

As I said earlier, I recognise that my amendment is not as good as it might be, and could be improved on. If the Government can give me an assurance that is adequate and goes beyond vagueness, I will be content not to press amendment 10 a vote. The issue is not going to go away, however, and when one is in this sort of dialogue with the Government, one does not want to be soft-soaped off. If that happens, there will be a road crash when we come to Report, in which I will be unable to support the Government on a whole series of matters. I hope that those things can be resolved by consensus.

I have spoken for quite long enough, but I have explained why I think that, on the important issue that we are debating today, the best solution in the interim is to use something along the lines of amendment 10 to ensure that general principles of EU law can continue to be invoked. Of course, as the transition goes on, I assume that so much EU law may disappear, but I venture the suggestion that it will continue to be relevant for some time to come.

May I, finally, touch briefly on the three other amendments —297, 298 and 299—that I have tabled? They are very simple, and they concern the use in clause 5 of the words

“any enactment or rule of law”.

I simply say that nobody I have spoken to understands why the words “rule of law” appear in the Bill. Ultimately, a rule of law is a rule of the common law; and in so far as a rule of the common law is displaced by statute, that rule will be displaced, of itself, by the courts. It does not require to be spelled out in legislation. I draw some comfort, on that, from the fact that a very distinguished lawyer who previously worked in this building shares my view that the inclusion of those words is incomprehensible. I do not think that that is a matter that I would necessarily put to the vote, if I was required to do so, but I hope that the Government might be able to provide a positive response on it. I am grateful to the Committee for listening.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a genuine pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who made his case extremely well and very convincingly—it is supported by many hon. Members on both sides of Committee.

I rise to speak to amendment 46, which is designed to ensure that we keep the charter of fundamental rights in EU retained law; amendment 335, which would maintain the principles of the Francovich ruling after exit day for pre-Brexit cases; amendments 285, 286 and 287, which make provision for existing arrangements to continue during a transitional period; and, finally, amendment 336, which makes provision for retaining existing principles of EU law within domestic law until the end of the transitional arrangements.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

I think I could probably get a few more sentences into my stride before taking an intervention, but I certainly anticipate that I will take interventions from the hon. Gentleman.

The debate raises fundamental principles about the transposition of EU law and the important role of this House in holding the Government to account for their commitments. Last week, the focus of the debate was on the Government’s attempt to unravel the Prime Minister’s pledges on the transitional arrangements in her Florence speech, by the imposition of a defined exit day for all purposes. The Minister, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), made a good attempt to defend the indefensible and not commit to the application of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union throughout the transitional period; that was not the Government’s line at the time. It would have been helpful if No. 10 had said a week ago what it said this morning, namely that the Court of Justice will have jurisdiction throughout the transitional period. If that had happened, the Minister would not have been left in such a mess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

Is the hon. Gentleman about to move on to explain why Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith fought so hard to obtain protocol 36—I think it was that one—in the Lisbon treaty, which the Conservative party opposed? At the same time as advancing the charter of fundamental rights, will he explain why we cannot pass such legislation as we wish to in this place?

[Paul Blomfield]

I was not about to go on to that, but clearly I am now. The hon. Gentleman knows that the charter was not binding when it was first adopted in 2000. It was made legally binding by the Lisbon treaty of 2007, which entered into force in 2009. It has, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield pointed out, increased in significance, and the rights that it contains have become more visible and correspondingly more effective. Labour supported the charter then, and we support it now, because it has enhanced and improved European human rights protection, and by doing so it has significantly developed the quality of human rights protection in the UK. The wider point that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) makes is not relevant to the issue under discussion.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The charter applies only when national authorities are implementing EU law. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that if it is retained, it risks creating a confusing inconsistency by giving citizens powerful rights to strike down some pieces of legislation, but not others? Is it not a case of doing either the whole thing, or nothing at all?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will come on to this point, but the charter is key to ensuring that retained law is treated properly and that the same rights of enforcement continue in the future. Without the charter, those rights are significantly diminished and access to them is diminished.

Let me proceed with the point I was making about how the charter goes wider than the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, which I hope I am right in saying the Government accept. As other Members have already pointed out, it was the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union who relied on the charter in the case he brought before the High Court in 2015, against the then Home Secretary and now Prime Minister, when he was worried that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 would impact on MPs’ ability to communicate with constituents confidentially. He cited the charter, and his lawyers argued that it went beyond the European convention on human rights and granted further protection. He relied on the charter precisely because it provided greater human rights protection than was provided for by UK law and even by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

Despite this, the Government have not indicated which decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union under the charter they disagree with. Moreover, the explanatory notes to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill justify the decision to exclude the charter from retained EU law by saying:

“The Charter did not create new rights, but rather codified rights and principles which already existed in EU law. By converting the EU acquis into UK law, those underlying rights and principles will also be converted into UK law, as provided for in this Bill.”

If that were the case, it would be fine, but it is clearly not the case.

Drawing on existing rights, the charter set out a new framework for human rights protection under EU law. The rights contained in the charter may have existed in EU law for decades—the Government are relying on that point—but that is not enough. The whole point of the charter was that nobody could verify those rights or their sources, and as the lawyers among us will know, identifying the source of a right is imperative in securing effective recourse. In his speech, will the Minister therefore clarify whether the Government have succeeded, where others have not, in comprehensively identifying every single source of these rights? If not, how do they plan to uphold the same level of protections for these rights once we have left the European Union, because a right without effective recourse is rendered effectively meaningless?

By compiling and codifying these rights in a single document, the charter in effect created new rights and certainly created new protections. In short, the charter is the most effective key to unlocking vital rights, and to fail to transpose it and make it operable in UK law is to lock away those rights and deny UK citizens the key to accessing them.

On the data protection point on which the Secretary of State relied—my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) raises it in his amendment 151, which we support—the right to data protection exists in various documents, such as directives and regulations, but it was only by virtue of the charter creating the expressed right to data protection in article 8 that we were given the right to be forgotten.

The rights extended by the charter are not only data protection rights. Such rights start in article 1, which includes the right to human dignity. This does not exist as an enforceable right in common law or statute law applicable to retained law post-Brexit. Will the Minister, when he responds, explain how this right will be enforced after exit day if the charter is not retained?

[Suella Fernandes]

Will not the hon. Gentleman’s proposals create more uncertainty and raise more questions than answers? For example, considerable reference has been made to the Union, to citizens and to the right to vote and stand in European elections, but is that not at odds with our being a non-member state on our leaving the European Union?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

No. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield answered that point when it was raised by other Members. There are clearly provisions in the charter that would have to be amended to become operable—I made that point a few moments ago—but it includes fundamental rights, so the protections of our citizens will be reduced if the those rights are not carried forward. I will illuminate that point a little further.

[Suella Fernandes]

The hon. Gentleman proposes that part of the charter should be erased and that it should undergo some kind of surgery before it is applied through UK law. Is it not right that questions of principle and policy should not be debated in relation to this Bill, the purpose of which is to provide legal certainty and continuity, but left for wider parliamentary debate and scrutiny, and indeed the wider democratic process?

[Paul Blomfield]

I am genuinely puzzled by the hon. Lady’s point because she could make it in relation to all of the several thousands of laws that are being transposed. It could relate to every other part of the Bill. We will have to go through processes of adjustment to ensure their effective operability, but the question that needs to be answered—I hope it will be answered by the Minister when he rises at the Dispatch Box—is: why, uniquely, is the charter of fundamental rights being treated differently and being removed at this stage?

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case, and my anticipation of the Minister’s speech increases minute by minute as the case is advanced. Does my hon. Friend share my puzzlement, first, that given that the Government’s stated objective for the Bill was to move everything across, the one thing they have decided to leave behind is the charter; and, secondly, that Conservative Members have argued that nothing will be lost by the disappearance of the charter, yet we have already heard powerful testimony in speeches to the contrary? That testimony includes the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), when he referred to the judgment in the tobacco case, in which the charter clearly had an important impact in enabling the Government to enforce their rights in relation to their desire to have plain packaging—never mind its being the reason why the Secretary of State, in a former life, decided to call on it in trying to sue the Government. Is there not an incompatibility between the two positions?

[Paul Blomfield]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Like him, I am looking forward to hearing the Minister attempting to square the circle on that one. It is one thing for the Government to argue that the charter needs to be removed, but it is another for others then to argue that it makes no difference. Let me illustrate a few other areas in which the charter does make a difference.

Let us take article 24—it was mentioned earlier—which gives effect to the UN convention on the rights of the child. While we are a signatory to the convention, that does not provide the same legal protection—simply as a convention signatory—as would be provided by the incorporation of the charter. Let us take the right to a fair hearing, which goes beyond article 6 of the European convention on human rights on the right to a fair trial, because it applies to civil rights and obligations, as well as to criminal charges. In the ZZ case, with which the Minister will be familiar, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that the right to a fair trial in article 47 of the charter applied to immigration cases. Significant issues are therefore at stake.

Let us look at article 13, which requires that academic freedom shall be respected. With the possible exception of some Government Whips—the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty’s Household, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), was keen to see the reading lists and curriculums of university lecturers to make sure they were teaching Brexit correctly—I am sure that Members on both sides of the House agree that academic freedom is an important principle, and it is not secured anywhere else. How do the Government anticipate that these rights will be enforced in the absence of the charter, and which aspects of the EU acquis or UK domestic law could be used to guarantee these rights? That is an important question.

It is not just that excluding the charter will diminish rights; the charter has transformed access to human rights protection. As the House of Commons Library briefing makes clear, it is not just that the charter contains more rights than the European convention on human rights and codifies existing rights in one place. When we compare the charter with the Human Rights Act, we see that it has a wider class of applicants who can use it. Anyone with a sufficient interest can apply for a judicial review based on the charter, and it can also be relied on in other types of case—for example, employment tribunal claims—that are within the scope of EU law. By contrast, claims under the Human Rights Act can only be made when an individual is a victim of a rights violation.

[John Redwood]

Our rights always used to be guaranteed, and will be guaranteed once we have left, through a combination of common law and statute law. I do not understand what threat the hon. Gentleman has in mind regarding these rights, because if any threat emerged it would be struck down either by the Supreme Court or by Parliament.

[Paul Blomfield]

I am puzzled by that point, because EU-retained law will effectively become statute law, and that will be carried forward by the application of the charter. It is not quite clear what the right hon. Gentleman is getting at.

[Mr Harper]

I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about article 6 of the European convention. I think that he said it applied only in criminal cases, but having looked at the article it enforces civil rights as well. I remember from my own experience that we took it into account in immigration cases, other tribunal cases and, I think, in some applications of procedures of the House that may or may not be compatible with that right. The measure is much wider than he suggests, so I do not think he was exactly right about that.

[Paul Blomfield]

As I understand it, it does not apply in all civil cases—only civil rights and obligations under the convention, so it is effectively a narrowing if we lose it.

[John Redwood]

The hon. Gentleman said that he did not understand the point I was making. Our rights will be guaranteed once we have left by our Supreme Court, and by common law or the application of our statute law. I cannot think of a right that he and I value that will be destroyed because we have not incorporated the charter. I think that they will be guaranteed by those ancient and tested methods.

[Paul Blomfield]

We are talking about statute law, and about rights such as the one on which the right hon. Gentleman’s friend and colleague, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, relied. I think that that point is clear.

Returning to the comparison of the charter with the Human Rights Act, as well as the wider class of applicants for which it provides, it allows for stronger remedies. If any national court finds that any national law is incompatible with a directly effective provision of the charter, it must disapply contravening primary legislation or quash secondary legislation. We have exercised some of the arguments around that issue, but that is much stronger than a notification of incompatibility. We should be in no doubt that losing the charter means losing rights.

[Sir William Cash]

Has the hon. Gentleman considered the impact in relation to alleged and actual terrorists on the question of national security and case law? Many people who would like those individuals to be deported would find that extremely difficult under the principles of the charter because of the provisions relating to the protection of family life, which have been badly abused.

[Paul Blomfield]

In his keenness to tackle the argument, I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. That has nothing to do with the charter.

Let me turn to a separate but related point on schedule 1, which states:

“There is no right of action in domestic law”

post exit

“based on a failure to comply”

with EU general principles. The schedule also prevents courts from ruling that a particular Act was “unlawful” or from quashing any action on the basis that it was not compatible with the general principles. Damages are not allowed, so general principles are rendered irrelevant, which also reduces rights. Our amendment 336 seeks to address that by retaining the existing principles of EU law regardless of whether they originated in case law, treaties, EU legislation or directives. The date on which that retention would end would be the end of a transitional period.

Let me turn to our amendment 335 to schedule 1 on the Francovich rule. I shall be brief because others have tabled similar amendments, which we support, and I want to give them a full opportunity to make their case without my anticipating what they are going to say.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

On a point of clarification, the hon. Gentleman said that the date on which the retention would end under the amendment would be the end of the transitional period. Did he mean that no new general principles of EU law formulated after that date would apply, or did he mean the retention would end at the end of the transitional period?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

If the Prime Minister’s words are to be taken at face value—we continue to operate during the transition practically as if we were still part of the membership—new principles would apply during the transitional period, although not after it had ended.

[Mr Grieve]

The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important point. If we are going into a transitional period retaining the architecture of EU law, or the vast majority of it for that period, to try to leave at the end of the transition and go back to the status of retained EU law on the date on which we moved into transition would be utterly unrealistic. It would have to be from the date on which we moved from transition to final departure.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has made the point much more effectively than I did. That is absolutely right.

Briefly, Francovich raises some important issues of accountability. Surely there is oversight by Government, because I would expect them to accept that the right to damages should be available in cases where the breach of Community law took place before exit day, and indeed before the end of a transitional period, but discovery only took place afterwards. I am therefore seeking clarification from Ministers on that point, and I hope that they accept what hon. Members are seeking to do in amendments on Francovich.

We are pleased to support new clauses 16, 78 and 79, as well as amendments 297, 298, 299, 8,10,101,105 and 62 and the consequential amendments 126 ,127,129,140, 141, 302 and 9—just for clarity. In conclusion, I return to amendment 46, because we need some honesty from the Government. The House has not authorised the Government to use Brexit as a vehicle to deplete human rights in this country. If the Government want to reduce rights and protections, they should say so and we can debate it. What is not acceptable is to pretend that the Bill provides for the transfer of rights and protections when it clearly does not.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has made a number of statements about the fact that if Opposition parties can identify rights that will not be covered he is willing to look at them and legislate for them. We have discussed a third category of rights—not those protected by the Human Rights Act or those that will be irrelevant because they are in the charter and will no longer apply —so is the hon. Gentleman prepared to take that at face value and work with the Government to ensure that those rights that have been identified are protected?

[Paul Blomfield]

If the Government can identify the sources of rights covered by the charter and can explain exactly how any deficiencies or gaps left as a result of failure to transpose the charter will be identified, and if they outline what remedies they might make at a later stage, we would be happy to sit down with them and talk about that. It is absolutely clear to us that the Government should stick by their word and their claims in relation to the Bill on the need for the existing level of human rights protection to be preserved in UK law. As it stands, central to that consolidation is retaining the charter as part of the retained EU law. I hope the House will agree and I hope the House will support our amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I had better make some progress, but I certainly will give way to the hon. and learned Lady in a moment.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Solicitor General give way?

[The Solicitor General]

If the intervention relates to the point I was making, I will give way.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the Solicitor General for giving way. It is important that the House has clarity on the content of the memorandum he proposes to publish on 5 December. He has said that the memorandum will seek to identify the sources of each right contained within the charter. He has heard in today’s debate that there is concern on both sides of the House that he will not be able to identify the sources of every single one of those rights, and a number of instances have been cited. Will he also undertake that, where there are gaps, his review will outline what action the Government are preparing to take to fill those gaps so that, at the point of exit, we retain all the existing rights?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Committee: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Grieve]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I do not want to get dragged into revisiting the way in which the European Union works. The European Union has many flaws, and there are many issues on which I have seen fit to criticise it during my years in the House—including, sometimes, the way it goes about its business. Having said that, this constant conflation of the two issues when we are carrying out scrutiny of what will be domestic legislation is, in my view, not helpful. We need to focus on what we are doing. If we do, we will come up with the right answers.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who made a characteristically thoughtful and reasonable contribution. It is always remarkable to see how such thoughtfulness and reasonableness can be so provocative to some Government Members.

I wish to speak to amendments 348 and 349 in my name and the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends. I hope, in doing so, to build on the agreement across the Committee that was evident last Wednesday, when we made the decision that Parliament should have a meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Just for clarification, amendment 348 is in the first group of amendments and amendment 349 is in the next group.

[Paul Blomfield]

Thank you for that clarification, Dame Rosie, although I think that the points that I am making stand regardless.

Following on from the decision last Wednesday, let us be clear that an overwhelming majority of Members respect the result of the referendum, as was reflected in the vote on article 50, but there is also a clear majority who reject the deep rupture with our friends and partners in the EU 27 that is advocated by some of the more extreme Brexiteers. In the months ahead, that clear majority needs to find its voice. Most Members—many more than reflected in last Wednesday’s vote—recognise that our future lies in a close and collaborative relationship with the EU. [Interruption.] I am sorry if that was provocative to some Government Members. The Prime Minister describes that relationship as a “deep and special partnership”. It is a relationship based on maintaining common EU standards and regulations necessary for our future trading relationship, and it is vital in protecting jobs and the economy.

It is also a majority of the House who recognise that the referendum was a close vote—not the unprecedented mandate that some have suggested. Yes, 17.5 million people voted to leave the EU in 2016. That is roughly the same number as voted to remain in 1975, although that represented 67% of voters in 1975. It was a clear decision, but a close vote, and one that we should be implementing in a way that unites the country, not in a way that drives a further wedge between the 52% and the 48%.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should be trying to bring people together, rather than separating them. In that context, will he explain his definition of Brexiteer? He used the word earlier in the phrase “more extreme Brexiteers”. In his definition, is every Member who voted for article 50—I think that five sixths of the House did so—characterised as a Brexiteer?

[Paul Blomfield]

Clearly not. Like hon. Members across the House, including the overwhelming majority of the Opposition, I campaigned to remain in the European Union because I thought it was right thing to do economically and politically for our country and our continent. But I voted for article 50. That clearly does not characterise me as an extreme Brexiteer. Since I was elected in 2010, it has startled me that a small number of Members seem to define their politics by their ambition to leave the European Union at any cost and at any price; that is what I would describe as extreme.

[Richard Graham]

Again, just for clarification, Members who voted for article 50 are not Brexiteers, but presumably those who did not vote for article 50 are also not Brexiteers. Therefore, none of us is a Brexiteer; or are we actually all Brexiteers and just trying to resolve the issue?

[Paul Blomfield]

I am not really sure where the hon. Gentleman is trying to go with that argument. My point is that an overwhelming majority in the House wish to see us implement the decision of 2016 sensibly, and in a close and collaborative relationship with the EU 27. There are others—a small number, whose voices I expect to hear shortly—who would see us leave at any cost, and I regret that.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend says a number of extreme Brexiteers in this House want to leave at any cost. Does he accept that a small number of Members will do anything—anything—to stop the United Kingdom carrying out the wishes of the British people to leave the European Union?

[Paul Blomfield]

No, I do not, and it is unfortunate that some people have been characterised in that way, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and others were by some of their colleagues last week. If I can now make some progress—

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

Well, while we are talking about extreme voices, I am happy to give way.

[Mr Jenkin]

There are right hon. and hon. Members who say they want to honour the result of the referendum, but who actually want the European Union to carry on controlling our laws. I call them Brexinos—people who want Brexit in name only. There may well be a majority of them in this House, but that would not be respecting the result of the referendum, would it?

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman is a good example of those who see conspiracy in any corner. I note the article he wrote in The Guardian on 8 October under the title “It’s a sad truth: on Brexit we just can’t trust the Treasury”. He went on to say:

“There is no intrinsic reason why Brexit should be difficult or damaging, but the EU itself has so far demonstrated it wants to make it so…it has co-opted the CBI…the City and…the Treasury to assist.”

Well, I think that the majority of Members take a more rational view.

The decision taken in 2016 was not a mandate for driving over a cliff edge with no deal or for having no transitional arrangement in place. It was not a vote for leaving all the agencies and partnerships from which we have benefited over the years and could continue to benefit or for turning our back on the single market, walking away from the customs union or—I say this with an eye on the contribution made in the last debate by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who is paying more attention to his phone than to the debate—turning our back on the Court of Justice of the European Union.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Would the hon. Gentleman let me intervene?

[Paul Blomfield]

I was hoping the right hon. Gentleman would.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Is the hon. Gentleman not guilty himself, however, of attempting to interpret what the vote was for? On the ballot paper was the issue of whether to leave; the rest is down to negotiation. So, surely, his position is as absurd as that of anyone who says they know these things. He does not know. He knows only one thing: that the British people voted to leave. The rest is for negotiation.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The rest is indeed down to negotiation, and it is down to this Parliament to make the final decisions.

In the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution to, I think, the debate on day one, he sought to interpret the mandate by saying that the primary reason, from the research he had done, for leave voters voting as they did was their antipathy to the Court of Justice of the European Union. I was quite surprised by that, because I talked to hundreds of people on the doorstep who told me they were voting to leave, and the jurisdiction of the CJEU was not one of the regular issues raised.

Therefore, after day one, I took the time to look at the right hon. Gentleman’s research, which was carried out in partnership with the Foreign Secretary’s and the Environment Secretary’s favourite think-tank, the Legatum Institute. I located the report, and I read it with interest. Unusually, it did not include data on the full results, only the final weighted results, but the interesting thing was the question itself. Whereas the other choices were value-neutral—the economy, immigration, national security or the NHS— one option was

“The ability for Britain to make its own laws”—

a leading question if ever I heard one. [Interruption.] If the question had been “Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice”, the right hon. Gentleman may well have found a different answer. Other research, with larger samples—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can skip that and go to the point that was in that pamphlet, which made it clear that when people were asked what their primary reason was for voting to leave, it was “Take back control”—control of our laws, our borders and our money. He can debate that as much as he likes, but the public knew about that when they voted.

[Paul Blomfield]

rose—

[Wera Hobhouse]

Are we not in a discussion about who interprets what? Is it not therefore time that we asked the people: what did they mean?

[Paul Blomfield]

We will come to that point in the second half of our debate today, and I will take the opportunity to comment on it then. However, to answer the right hon. Gentleman, the point I was making was that he sought to interpret the leave vote in a way that, on the basis of the research he cited, was flawed.

Analysis he might look at of nearly 3,000 British people, which was conducted by the NatCen Social Research, found that concerns about immigration were the driving factor for 75% of leave voters, which should not surprise him, because that was something he put very much at the centre of his arguments during the leave campaign.

If we know what the vote was not, let us remind ourselves what it was: it was simply a vote to leave the European Union. The campaign was hugely divisive. I spoke at dozens of meetings during the campaign, and the very last question of the very last meeting, in a local church, was, “How are you going to put our divided country back together again after all this?” Sadly, that question is as relevant now as it was then, as some of the abuse faced by Conservative Members after the vote last week demonstrated.

Meeting that challenge is a responsibility for us all, and it starts with us recognising that the majority in this House speaks for the country in wanting a sensible approach to Brexit. Instead of fuelling division, the Government should reach out and seek to build on that consensus for the next phase of the negotiations, in a way that will bring people together.

Last week’s drama should have been unnecessary. We should have been able to readily agree on the sovereignty of Parliament and on a meaningful final vote for this place. Labour amendments 348 and 349—when we come to it—which seek the publication of any impact assessment conducted by the Government, should be as uncontroversial as the idea that Parliament should have a say.

Clearly, events have moved on since these amendments were tabled, but real issues do remain. We obviously brought a motion on the issue to the House on 1 November, asking that impact assessments should be passed to the Exiting the European Union Committee. We did that for the same reason that the House voted last week: we want proper transparency and accountability in this process, but that is not what we got.

The Government neither amended nor opposed our motion, but they hoped to sidestep it. When Mr Speaker confirmed it was binding—

[Richard Graham]

On a point of order, Dame Rosie. My understanding of the advice you gave earlier is that amendment 348, which is about impact assessments, is not being discussed at this moment. I think that you told us that this debate is supposed to be about new clause 21, which is about clear English. That is why I asked the question about the shadow Minister’s definition of the word “Brexiteer”. However, I have not heard anything about new clause 21, and I think that you said we are going to take amendment 348 later.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

No, I think the hon. Gentleman misheard. I actually said that amendment 349 was in the second set and that amendment 348 is in this set, as is clause 13 stand part and schedule 5—hence why the debate is a little wider than the hon. Gentleman might wish it to be.

[Paul Blomfield]

Thank you, Dame Rosie.

The point I was making was that when Mr Speaker confirmed that our motion was binding and, indeed, that the Government should comply urgently, they clearly found themselves in a bit of a fix. Three weeks later, they finally produced something, although it was not what we voted for. I was really keen to read the papers that had been described by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union as offering “excruciating detail” on the impact of the various options we faced as a country when leaving. So I, like a number of other Members, booked my slot for the DExEU reading room at the earliest opportunity.

On 5 December, I turned up at 100 Parliament Street and reported to reception. I was accompanied, closely, to the room. When I arrived, I was required to hand over my mobile phone. Having been sat at the table, two lever-arch files were brought to me from a locked cabinet, and as I read them I was supervised by two civil servants. So what did I find? Nothing that could not have been found in a reasonable internet search—which is presumably what the civil servants had been doing over the preceding three weeks in order to prepare them.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I went through the exact same experience. I visited the Cabinet Office and gave in my mobile phone, and made my written notes on the various tables in the section I was interested in. Afterwards, I found that I was given the identical information by submitting written parliamentary questions —so why all the secrecy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend makes the point very well. Why all the secrecy for what was available in that room, because there was certainly no assessment—or analysis, if we are playing with words—of the impact of the policy choices facing the Government and the country?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

The education section starts by saying, “We will not touch on the effects on Horizon 2020 or Erasmus.” It does not touch at all on non-higher education. There is no impact assessment on summer schools or language teaching in this country. Clearly, the work was not really done even with an internet search.

[Paul Blomfield]

We are probably straying on to dangerous territory if we start talking about the content, such are the rules surrounding the documents until such time as they are made public, but those of us who have been there know that they provide no analysis and no impact assessment. So it was no surprise when the Secretary of State told the Brexit Committee last Wednesday that the Government had undertaken “no quantitative assessment” of the impact of leaving the customs union—just one of the policy choices we face. Yet just a few hours later, in a room just a few yards away, the Chancellor told the Treasury Committee that the Government had

“modelled and analysed a wide range of potential alternative structures between the EU and the UK, potential alternative arrangements and agreements that might be made.”

The Chancellor’s answer was developed in oral questions last Thursday by the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who is in his place. He said:

“Our sectoral analysis is made up of a wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analyses examining activity across sectors, regulatory and trade frameworks and the views of stakeholders.”—[Official Report, 14 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 588.]

Let us bear in mind that the Secretary of State had said that no quantitative assessment has been undertaken on the impact of leaving the customs union. So in this

“qualitative and quantitative analysis of regulatory and trade frameworks”

have the Government for some reason exempted the customs union?

[Tom Brake]

Is the hon. Gentleman confused, as I am, about the reasons why the Government seem to have this problem—I do not know whether it is an ideological objection—with conducting impact assessments? We heard from the Prime Minister on Monday that Ministers are sitting down to discuss our future trading relationship with the European Union without having in front of them any impact assessments on what the different economic impacts of these models might be. How irresponsible is that?

[Paul Blomfield]

The worry is that either they are not conducting them or they are conducting them and not sharing them in the way that was required.

[Mike Gapes]

Could not there be another, far more simple, explanation—that the Secretary of State is heading a Department that should be renamed “the Department for Winging It”?

[Paul Blomfield]

That is probably the sort of phrase that the Secretary of State might use on some occasions.

On 2 February 2017, the Secretary of State told the House:

“We continue to analyse the impact of our exit across the breadth of the UK economy, covering more than 50 sectors—I think it was 58 at the last count—to shape our negotiating position.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2017; Vol. 620, c. 1218.]

Was he right? Or was the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) right when he said recently that the Secretary of State

“has never actually referred to impact assessments… These were a fiction of the media and the Labour party”?

If the Government are playing with semantics, claiming that assessments of impact and impact assessments are not the same thing, they should be aware that they are at serious risk of misleading the House. Even more worryingly, have they, as we have heard suggested, actually not undertaken this work at all? Are they hiding these assessments in semantics—hiding them from the House and from the Select Committee—or do they not even have any work to hide?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am terribly sorry, but I am not going to take any further interventions. I am going to sit down in a second. I only want to say that I am profoundly grateful, not only to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have joined us in this amendment, but to the Government. This is exactly the way to deal with these things: find a sensible compromise that brings everyone on the Government Benches together and makes the Opposition entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

[Paul Blomfield]

It is, on this occasion, a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who was at his erudite best in critiquing Government amendment 381, echoing many of the points the Opposition made on day one of the Committee stage. It was also very helpful that he spoke so clearly on the flexibility provided in the article 50 process, in contrast with the remarks he directed against my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) who made exactly that point only last week. It is good to see the right hon. Gentleman moving on.

I rise to speak in favour of amendments 43 to 45 and 349, which are tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Let me, however, turn first to Government amendment 381, which revives, on this last day of the Committee stage, the issues that we debated on the first. The two solitary names on the amendment say everything about its purpose: the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), neither of whom is present. We are seeing an alliance between the Government and, on this issue, one of their most troublesome Back Benchers.

As I think the right hon. Member for West Dorset made clear, it is not as though the amendment adds anything to the withdrawal negotiations. Indeed, it hampers the process. It is just another example of the Government’s throwing red meat to the more extreme Brexiteers on their Benches. As we said on day one, the amendment is not serious legislation. It is a gimmick, and it is a reckless one—in relation not just to the flexibility on the departure date to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but to the wider aspects of exiting. It reaches out to those who want to unpick the Prime Minister’s Florence speech and the basis for a transitional period.

Setting exit day “for all purposes” as one date means the end of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice at the point at which we leave the European Union. As we warned the Government, that would make a deal with the EU on the transitional period impossible. We also warned the Government that they could not deliver the support of the Committee of the whole House for the amendment, and that was confirmed by the tabling on Friday of amendments 399 to 405. Just as the Government have caught up with the Labour party on the need for a transitional period, by cobbling together this compromise in the face of defeat they have caught up with us on the need for flexibility on exit days for different purposes. The Solicitor General is raising his eyebrows at me. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that the Government have caught up with themselves. The Bill as originally drafted did not include amendment 381. The Government have recognised that it is nonsense, and are seeking to find a way out. We will go for the more straightforward way by seeking to vote it down.

Amendments 399 to 405 give Ministers the power to set exit day through secondary legislation. We would give that power directly to Parliament, for all the reasons that we set out last week. We will therefore support amendments 386 and 387, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) along with members of five parties, and new clause 54, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said earlier, he tabled it helpfully to allow the Government to embed the Prime Minister’s Florence commitments in the Bill.

Let me now deal with our amendment 43 and consequential amendments 44 and 45. On Wednesday evening, Parliament sent a clear message to the Government: we will not be sidelined in the Brexit process. The passing of amendment 7 was a significant step in clawing back the excessive powers that the Government are attempting to grant themselves through the Bill, and in upholding our parliamentary democracy. As with the final deal, Parliament must have control over the length and terms of the transitional period, and our amendments would provide that. The Prime Minister has eventually recognised that she was tying her hands behind her back with her exit day amendment, but amendments 399 to 405 are not the solution. They simply loosen the legislative straitjacket that the Government unnecessarily put on themselves. The Government must respect the House and accept that Parliament, not Ministers, should set the terms and length of a transitional period.

As I said in our earlier discussion this afternoon, there is a clear majority in this House for a sensible approach to Brexit and to the transitional arrangements. That brings together business and the trade unions and many other voices outside this place, just as it brings together Members on both sides of the House.

The Prime Minister knows we are right on the transitional arrangements, as her Florence speech made clear:

“As I said in my speech at Lancaster house a period of implementation would be in our mutual interest. That is why I am proposing that there should be such a period after the UK leaves the EU…So during the implementation period access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms”.

But every time she reaches out for common sense, and tries to bring the country together and to build the deep and special partnership she talks about, the extreme Brexiteers step in, trying to unpick our commitments, and setting new red lines, whether on the Court of Justice or regulatory divergence, which they know will derail the negotiations and deliver the complete rupture they dream of. So the transitional arrangements, which are important both for the interim and in positioning us for our longer term future, must be in the hands of this Parliament.

[Paul Farrelly]

Does my hon. Friend agree that services are so important to our economy that if we want to negotiate something that has not been negotiated before, it is likely to take far longer than two years?

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why it is so important that we give ourselves the flexibility on exit dates and in relation to the transitional period.

Our amendment 349 seeks clarification from the Government—I am looking at the Minister as I make this point—that they do not intend to use delegated powers to create criminal offences of a seriousness that carry custodial sentences. I hope the Minister will in his remarks state that that is not their intention, and if that is the case will he indicate now that the Government will give a commitment to amend the Bill accordingly on Report?

Let me turn now to some of the other amendments currently under consideration. We support many of the other new clauses that seek reports aiding transparency and good evidence-based decision making. New clauses 31 and 33, for example, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) raise important issues for children’s welfare. New clause 44 in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) requires an independent evaluation of the impact of this legislation on the health and social care sector, which we would also support. Others, such as new clause 11 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) helpfully seek to ensure that we do not fall behind the standards and protections we currently enjoy as they develop in the EU. We would support that, as we would new clause 56 on protecting the existing rights a person in Gibraltar can exercise in the UK as a result of our common membership of the EU; we will support that new clause if pushed to a vote by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant).

Amendments 102 and 103 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) are right in seeking to limit the use of delegated powers in Bills other than this one, past or future, to modify EU retained law. That is a vital component of keeping the scope of delegated powers in check.

On that point, we have over the past few days seen a timely reminder of why we have opposed the extent of the Henry VIII powers in this Bill. The Government might wax lyrical about wanting to preserve workers’ rights, but in reality too many Members on the Conservative Benches—although I accept not all—cannot wait to get started on dismantling them. The contempt for the working time directive we have seen over the last few days is not a revelation: 20 of the 23 members of the current Cabinet have opposed that directive. The Foreign Secretary has made no secret of his view that the key rights that the directive provides represent “back-breaking” regulation. The International Trade Secretary has described them as a “burden”. The Prime Minister went further when she damned the whole social chapter as a “burden on business”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

I pick up my right hon. and learned Friend on a couple of things. First, he has used the word “identical”—I did not use it because I have not taken the time to go through his new clause absolutely word for word to check his work.

[Paul Blomfield]

You haven’t read it!

[Mr Baker]

Of course I have read it—it is here in my hand. I have read it but I have not gone back and done his homework for him to check and mark his work.

I make two points to my right hon. and learned Friend. First, as I said, it would be a constitutional innovation to begin putting statements of policy for negotiations in legislation. That is a good reason not to accept the new clause. The second point—[Interruption.] He says that it is not a good reason. He is the Father of the House and he has occupied many of the great offices of state. I would be interested to know when, in his long and distinguished career, he accepted that principle in legislation.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Report stage: First Day: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a genuine privilege to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), whose integrity and honesty have shone through every day we have been debating this Bill.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Forgive me. Before the hon. Gentleman gets under way—I think the Minister is keen to follow—I want to say that a number of Back Benchers wish to contribute. I am very keen that they be fully heard; I do not want the debate to be dominated by the Front Benchers, who I am sure will make succinct contributions.

[Paul Blomfield]

I will seek to live up to that expectation, Mr Speaker; I do not intend to speak for long.

Amendment 4 addresses one of the six key tests that we set out for the Bill before we could support it. Those tests were not set out simply on Second Reading or in Committee, but 10 months ago, when the White Paper outlining the Government’s approach was first published.

The tests drew support across the House, but sadly the Government have made no significant concessions. In Committee, a meaningful vote for Parliament on the final deal was secured, of course—but against the wishes of the Government and only by decision of the House. Our five amendments at this stage address those other tests: facilitating a transitional period; protecting the devolution settlement; protecting workers’ rights; reining in the Henry VIII powers; and, in amendment 4, retaining the EU charter of fundamental rights in UK law.

The objective of amendment 4, which would retain charter rights in UK law and afford them the same level of protection as those in the Human Rights Act, has wide support on both sides of the House. It is part of a sensible and responsible approach to Brexit that respects the referendum decision but does not sacrifice jobs and the economy or rights and protections on the altar of ideology. It is a sensible approach for which I believe there is a majority across the House—one that goes well beyond those who voted for amendment 7 in Committee. It is also a consensus that I think is reflected in the other place, from which I suspect we might see the Bill return with some improvements, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield indicated.

The Opposition support amendments 42 and 43, which would enable UK courts to continue to refer matters to the Court of Justice and to consider CJEU decision to be persuasive. As well as amendment 55, we also support new clause 13, amendments 40 and 41, on clarifying the status of retained law, and new clause 16 on enshrining equality rights, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous). We also support new clause 7 on animal sentience and new clause 9 on the acquired rights of Anguillans—an indication of the enormous complexity and range of the issues we face with Brexit. We accept that Government amendments 37 and 38 improve the Bill, but we fear that they do not go anywhere near far enough on legal challenges based on the general principles of EU law, which is why we prefer and support amendment 57, which was moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy).

Amendment 4 addresses the concerns we raised in Committee around the charter of fundamental rights and provides an opportunity for the Government to think again. Human rights should not be a dividing line between parties in this House, so even at this stage we hope that the Government, either here or in the Lords, might accept our approach in the amendment and perhaps even accept the amendment today and avoid the vote that we will otherwise be seeking. As we said in Committee, the charter has been critical in developing, strengthening and modernising human rights in the UK. To abandon it risks reducing protections for UK citizens and leaving a gaping hole in our statute book.

The Government claim that the Bill is about legal continuity and certainty in what will become the new category of EU retained law, but all of that EU law is interpreted through the charter, so excluding it would leave our legal system inconsistent and incoherent. To avoid defeat on this issue in Committee the former Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), committed to publishing a memorandum that he claimed would confirm the Government’s case that the charter was unnecessary by identifying where all of these rights could be found in EU retained law or existing domestic law.

Obviously that argument overlooked the main point of the charter, which was to bring all of these rights together in one codifying document, but as an Opposition we were willing to be helpful and awaited the memorandum with interest. We wanted to see a comprehensive document that identified not only the source of each right in the charter but—crucially—how the existing level of effective recourse would be guaranteed. The memorandum was published on 5 December, and it acknowledged that the Government envisaged all these rights being scattered back to their original sources. They are removing the material source of the rights, in the form of the charter, and leaving citizens with the formal source. Now that is a legal way of describing the problem, but I am not a lawyer. It means in effect that it will become more difficult for any UK citizen to assert their rights post-Brexit.

In their defence, the Government insisted that nothing would be lost if we dropped the charter because it created no new rights.

[The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)]

indicated assent.

[Paul Blomfield]

I see the Solicitor General nodding. On this crucial issue, however, the Government’s cover has been blown. For this, I would like to thank the new Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) —I am sorry she is not in her place today—because in an article in The Daily Telegraph on 18 November last year she made our case clearly. She expressed her concern about the charter precisely because it provided new rights. She wrote that it went beyond the European convention on human rights by creating “extra layers of rights”, and she went on to bemoan the fact that these extra rights covered

“everything from biomedicine and eugenics to personal data and collective bargaining”.

I appreciate that her thinking on this will probably be in line with that of her new boss, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, because he relied of course on the extra rights provided by the charter when he brought his own court case against the now Prime Minister asserting his right to personal data.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. In addition to the points he has just made, the Exiting the European Union Committee heard evidence from witnesses who said that something would be lost if the charter was not transferred. Given that the whole purpose of the Bill is to take the law as it is now and make sure it is still there the day after, does he agree that the Government have thus far failed to persuade the House that the one thing that should be left out is the charter of fundamental rights?

[Paul Blomfield]

I agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend, and I hope even at this stage that Members across the House might join us in supporting amendment 4.

I do not often agree with the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Fareham, but I am delighted to say that in this case I do. She is right that the charter does indeed go beyond the European convention on human rights and that EU retained law will be incoherent without it. Our amendment is necessary, therefore, if we are to achieve the Government’s own stated objective of protecting the rights of UK citizens. This is a crucial issue. The chair of the Government’s own Equality and Human Rights Commission, David Isaac, has said:

“The government has promised there will be no rowing back on people’s rights after Brexit. If we lose the charter protections, that promise will be broken. It will cause legal confusion and there will be gaps in the law.”

These are serious concerns. Human rights should not be a dividing line across the House but should be seen as a British value, and I urge all Members who do not want Brexit hijacked and the rights of UK citizens diluted and reduced to support the amendment.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to speak briefly to several of the amendments in this group. In particular, I want to encourage the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) to elaborate on his rather carefully crafted new clause 13, which sets out quite a clever solution to the vexed question of EU retained law. He slightly rushed through his explanation of the new clause towards the end of his speech, but as I understand it, he is suggesting that, rather than treating as a new category of law the whole corpus of 40 years of accrued EU legislation, rights and duties that we all enjoy—or not, depending on how they apply—for the purposes of future amendment or reform of those rights and retained law, certain aspects should be treated as primary legislation and others as secondary legislation.

I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying that issues that fell under article 289 should be treated as primary legislation because they were of greater import, and that if we wanted to amend them again in the future we should do so by Act of Parliament, whereas aspects of retained EU law that related to delegated instruments under article 290 should be treated as secondary legislation, and if there were future reforms of those aspects, Parliament could use the secondary procedure. It would be most helpful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could give us a little more detail about why he felt that those were the right categories to pursue.