European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, and it came up in Committee. That is why I have pressed Ministers time and again to release their equalities impact assessment of the settled status scheme, which they have refused to do. That failure presents real worries.

The scheme is clearly open to error—and, as has been pointed out, the Home Office has form on these things. It has already thrown up problems, and it is therefore crucial that there is proper and independent monitoring. The independent monitoring authority was set up in the withdrawal agreement, but schedule 2 to the Bill makes it far from independent from Government. I hope this issue will be re-examined when the Bill moves to another place, to ensure that the Government are not allowed to mark their own homework.

The third, and most immediate and outrageous, consequence of the Bill will be to remove the commitments on unaccompanied child refugees. This was a heartless move by the Government, signalling their intention to abandon our moral commitments to the most vulnerable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was right to point out yesterday that this move is troubling because the measures on unaccompanied children in the EU withdrawal Act were previously supported by the Government and by this House. There is no good reason for them to be removed at this point.

Moving to the fourth point, we have had significant discussion on this and we saw a remarkable moment in the House yesterday. All the Northern Irish parties represented here joined together to table an amendment on the impact of the Northern Ireland protocol in response to the overwhelming calls from the business community there, who fear the deep and long-lasting effects of this agreement. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) was absolutely right to express her concern that in the two hours allocated to discussion of the protocol only one representative of Northern Ireland was given the chance to make a speech. By voting against new clause 55 yesterday and rejecting Labour’s amendment 1, the Government confirmed that they intend to avoid transparency about the impact of the Northern Ireland protocol and will continue to cut out the people of Northern Ireland from Brexit negotiations. There are clearly serious concerns across the House on that.

Finally, there were amendments on the future relationship with the European Union. The Bill paves the way for the UK to leave, as the Minister pointed out, on 31 January, but that is only the first part of the story. In our negotiations with the EU on our future relationship, Labour has consistently argued for a close economic partnership with our nearest neighbours and our biggest trading partner.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I would like to echo the comments about the diligent way in which he is going about this task. Does he agree that 52-48 was a mandate to move house but stay in the same neighbourhood? if we are actually about respecting the democratic mandate from 2016 that is about leaving the European Union—yes, leaving the political project—we should be staying aligned on workers’ rights, environmental protections and consumer standards? That is respecting the democratic mandate from 2016.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong: House of Commons & Ping Pong
Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The problem is that we are allowing Ministers to set the terms and test, which is an unacceptable breach of the boundaries between the Executive and the judiciary.

The Government have had plenty of time to consider the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. If they want more time, just giving Ministers broad and sweeping powers is not the answer. They could, if they wanted, bring a short Bill before Parliament with proposed amendments that we could debate and scrutinise in the usual way. Every Government Member must understand—it seems that several possibly do, although they are no longer in their places—that if they pass the Government’s motions to disagree with amendments 2 and 3, the separation of powers will be blurred, there will be legal chaos and it will be impossible for Parliament to change. These are not powers that should be exercised through regulation. We should not risk ministerial interference in judicial processes. The Government should think again and withdraw their motions to disagree. If they do not, we will vote against them.

Thirdly, I turn to child refugees and Lords amendment 4, to leave out clause 37, which amends clause 17 of the 2018 Act and thus removes the obligation on the Government to negotiate future arrangements to protect unaccompanied child refugees. This is such a modest provision—it also reflects the Government’s own commitment—that it seems extraordinary and inexplicable that they are removing it. I have very dark and deep suspicions about why, though I want to be charitable and I am hoping there may be a good answer.

As Lord Dubs said, it is partly the scattergun of justifications that leads one to be suspicious. He was asked by Ministers to trust them, and he very generously said that as individuals he did trust them but that he did not trust them as a Government—because their predecessor Government had form on this. They promised to take 3,000 children on the Dubs scheme, as originally committed to, but took fewer than 500 in the end. The Government have boasted, as the Secretary of State has just done, about the number of children given refuge in this country, but have ignored the fact that most could not and did not come by the safe or legal routes that currently exist, even when entitled to them under the current law. They were often trafficked or took dangerous journeys in order to reach their family members, because they felt they had no other choice. We are talking about reuniting families, but removing the already restrictive access to safe and legal routes does not decrease the risk of trafficking; it increases the risk.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent statement. Does she think that the phrase “global Britain” means we stop supporting and giving sanctuary to some of the most vulnerable people in the world? [Interruption.]

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Of course not—hon. Members on the Government Benches seem to agree with my hon. Friend—but if so why remove the provision? Why not keep it in?

The Government say there is no change of policy, but the removal of clause 17 is a change of policy. They complain that leaving the provision in will act as a pull factor, but that rather indicates that what they want is a change of policy. They tell us that this is not the right Bill for the provision and that it should be in the immigration Bill, but clause 17 is context and time-specific: it directs the Government to a negotiating objective during the very time limited period—a matter of months—that they now have to agree the future relationship. As the Secretary of State has said, we cannot bind our neighbours to our national law, so that is not a valid argument against putting any other commitment in any other law. This provision only commits the Government to a negotiating aim. They say it can be done through rules, but a negotiating aim cannot be pursued through immigration rules. So which is it—is it law, is it rules, is it an aim, or is it no change at all, as they have also claimed?

The Government have said the provision would bind their hands in negotiations but then became offended at the accusation that they were using children as a bargaining chip. Again, which is it? Are children a limit on the negotiations or not? They have also justified their argument on the grounds of the election manifesto, but the only words in that manifesto were:

“we will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution”.

There is not a word in that manifesto that implies this change of policy—and it is a change of policy—on child refugees. Just saying that it is not a change does not make it so. If it is not a change of policy, why does the provision need to be removed?