Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

We are in constant discussion with the Conservatives in both Scotland and Wales over their future after Brexit, and they have been very active.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

T10. Again today, the Government have completely failed to understand the urgent need for a transition agreement as soon as possible. Apart from being out of the European Commission, the Council and the Parliament, will the Secretary of State say which other EU institutions will not be included in a transition deal?

[Mr Davis]

I can say two things. First, let me deal with the premise of the hon. Lady’s question. We are in a position in which the European Council will come to a conclusion in the middle of December—I think that it meets on 13 and 14 December. I have said at this Dispatch Box today, while she was listening, that we will undertake the negotiation as fast as possible thereafter. How much more urgent we can be, I do not know.

Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

To answer the first half of the hon. Gentleman’s question, one of the reasons we said that we would put a draft deal to the House is that we wanted to give the House the first say, before the European Parliament and other European institutions came to it. This is a treaty for the United Kingdom.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the Secretary of State’s discussions with Michel Barnier, what is the last date that this Parliament can have a meaningful vote before the European Parliament has its ratification vote?

[Mr Davis]

As I said earlier, what Mr Barnier is aiming for is October next year as the outcome for the draft agreement. If we hit that, the likely timetable, as I think I said to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), would be for the European Parliament to address that in December, January or even later, and the undertaking I gave was that we will come to this House before then.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am in an indulgent mood. I call Rachael Maskell.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Businesses are in desperate need of confidence. When will the Secretary of State confirm that he will have the transition arrangements in place, because we will leave the European Union in just over 18 months? Businesses are making their plans now and need answers.

Legislating for UK Withdrawal from the EU

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I did not know that the hon. Gentleman had a horse, but let me say this to him: his entire approach—his entire assessment—is just plain wrong.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Paragraph 3.20 of the White Paper refers to the need to trade off scrutiny for speed, whereas paragraph 3.13 states that the Government do not want to their ability to adapt EU law to be unduly constrained. Are the Executive creating a democratic deficit by using secondary legislation? How can they justify that?

[Mr Davis]

We are not going to create a democratic deficit. This is a White Paper, and that is what we are here to discuss, with Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Jones]

Yes, it certainly is. That is only the latest in a long line of new investments in the British economy, showing the huge confidence that the international business community has in our country.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I push the Secretary of State further on the answer he gave my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) regarding frictionless trade? Is the Secretary of State saying that trade tariffs remain on the negotiating table?

[Mr David Davis]

No, what I am saying—or what I was saying to the hon. Lady’s hon. and learned Friend—is that plenty of countries around the world have very light-touch customs arrangements, which would be consistent with a comprehensive free trade agreement.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

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

[Paul Blomfield]

Thank you, Mrs Laing.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

Probably not, after Mrs Laing’s words.

Our approach is different: it is to put the economy and the jobs of British people first, and to get the right trading relationship with the EU. There may be lots of graphs in the White Paper, but there is little clarity about the Government’s ambitions. However, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was much clearer when he told the House a couple of weeks ago:

“What we have come up with…is the idea of a comprehensive free trade agreement and a comprehensive customs agreement that will deliver the exact same benefits as we have”—[Official Report, 24 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 169.]

I am delighted that the Secretary of State has just joined us. He is promising us the exact same benefits that we have inside the single market. That is a benchmark that he has set for the negotiations—a benchmark against which we will measure his success. To help him, in a positive and collaborative spirit, we have tried to embed that in new clause 2, because livelihoods depend on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

Thank you, Mrs Laing. To continue my point, our departure will clearly have implications for the many environmental, employment and consumer rights that have been won over the past 43 years.

[Rachael Maskell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the Government have been dragged to court on three occasions for failing on the air quality targets set by the EU, and have been negotiating behind the scenes to drop the European standards, means that it is really important that we discuss environmental protections as part of the negotiations?

[Paul Blomfield]

I do indeed, which is why environmental protection is embedded in new clause 2, which also—

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I apologise, Sir Roger. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh)—who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee—tried to make some of these points for hours yesterday, but I will confine myself to saying that I agree with what she has said. I think that the impact on our chemical industry has been massively underestimated. Given that it is our second largest manufacturing export and given that at least 50% of those exports go to the EU, the impact on the sector will be massive.

If the Government are serious in their ambition to be the first Government to leave the environment in a better condition than they found it in, Ministers must now explain to us in detail how the legislative system for monitoring and enforcement will be replaced. I find it astonishing that they expect us to vote for the Bill without being given any idea of what the present complex, robust and unique system of legal enforcement might look like when we leave.

In evidence given to the Environment Audit Committee, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds made the important point that the European Court of Justice operates on a slightly broader basis than the Supreme Court in the UK, which must follow narrower due process. It is therefore possible that great swathes of environmental protections, once transferred to UK statute, will in effect become redundant owing to the absence of monitoring and enforcement by the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. That loss of an effective judicial system will come at a time when UK regulators, tasked with monitoring compliance with environmental legislation, have had their own budgets slashed. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has a third of the staff that it had 10 years ago. Furthermore, because the great repeal Bill will not carry over the jurisprudence from the European Court of Justice, we seem to be set to lose the important case law which, for the past 40 years, has proved so effective in protecting the UK environment.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Lucas]

At risk.

[Rachael Maskell]

We are also in danger of losing access to the European Environment Agency, which brings such expertise to the advancing of environmental legislation.

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree, and the same applies to the European Food Safety Agency. Some of the new clauses draw attention to the fact that we still need to have access to those bodies. It strikes me as completely baffling that the hon. Member for Fareham can somehow think it insulting to her constituents for us to be talking about such vitally important new clauses.

This is not only an issue of law relating directly to wildlife and nature. As it stands, the Government’s push for an extreme Brexit opens the way for changes in key environmental policies relating to air, water, waste, food and much more, all of which will have an impact, direct or indirect, on UK biodiversity and our natural environment. For all those reasons, I think that new clauses which are intended to protect our environment, and which ask for that protection to be guaranteed before article 50 is triggered, make good sense.

I will end my speech in just 30 seconds, Sir Roger. Let me simply say that I particularly support new clause 100, about which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) spoke so passionately and eloquently. In recent weeks we have heard repeated and welcome assurances from Ministers that workers’ and women’s rights will be protected. If that is the case, let us get the new clause into the Bill. Let us ensure that this will not be rolled back through secondary legislation.