European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Dame Rosie. On the yesterday’s selection list—and, in part, today’s—there are some extremely helpful references to the page numbers of this enormous wodge of amendments. Would it be possible for the Clerks to be good enough to put the page numbers on the selection list for easy reference, because it is sometimes quite difficult to find the amendments at short notice?

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

I will certainly bring that to the attention of the Public Bill Office and see what we can do to help.

New Clause 2

Retaining Enhanced Protection

“Regulations provided for by Acts of Parliament other than this Act may not be used by Ministers of the Crown to amend or modify retained EU law in the following areas—

(a) employment entitlement, rights and protections;

(b) equality entitlements, rights and protections;

(c) health and safety entitlement, rights and protections;

(d) fundamental rights as defined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This new clause would prevent delegated powers from other Acts being used to alter workplace protections, equality provisions, health and safety regulations or fundamental rights.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

rose—

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will make a little more progress if that is all right.

Let me remind the House of the sentiments on the Government Benches when it comes to workers’ rights. Throughout the referendum, prominent leavers drew attention to what they claimed was the high cost of EU employment regulations, including those such as the working time directive and the temporary agency work directive. Prominent members of the Cabinet are on record as having called for workers’ rights to be removed. For example, the Foreign Secretary has written that we need

“to root out the nonsense of the social chapter—the working time directive and the atypical work directive and other job-destroying regulations.”

During the referendum, on 18 May 2016, the then Minister for Employment, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), went so far as to call for the UK to

“halve the burdens of EU social and employment legislation”

in the event of Brexit. The newest member of the Brexit ministerial team—Lord Callanan—has openly called for the scrapping of the working time directive, the temporary agency work directive, the pregnant workers directive and

“all the other barriers to actually employing people.”

Just this week, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) made a speech in London calling for, among other things, deregulation. It was retweeted and then hastily deleted, as we heard yesterday, by the Department for International Trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am going to make some progress.

It may be the case that pragmatism and electoral appeal trump ideology, but there is no guarantee, and that is the point. We should not take risks with rights, standards and protections that have been underpinned by EU law. Hard-won employment entitlements, along with entitlements relating to the environment, health and safety, equalities and consumer rights, should not be vulnerable to steady erosion by means of secondary legislation outside of the powers contained in this Bill. In future, Ministers should be able to change the workers’ rights and other rights that came from the EU only through primary legislation, with a full debate in Parliament. On that basis, I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support new clause 58.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

It is a pleasure again to be able to participate in this debate.

The new clause in the name of the Leader of the Opposition raises a really important issue about the way in which the Government have approached the whole question of retained EU law. To be clear at the outset, and it is worth repeating, the Government’s aim—to bring EU law into our own law, retain it there to ensure continuity and then, over time, to take such steps as this Parliament wishes to take to replace it or change it—makes absolute sense. But as we discussed yesterday, the difficulty that arises is that the origins of EU law mean that it has come into the law of this country in ways that are totally different from our usual process of primary and secondary legislation. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) wish me to give way? I thought that he said something from a sedentary position.

[Sir William Cash]

Not yet.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I said, “That’s why we are leaving”, in response to my right hon. and learned Friend’s comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

I do. I entirely accept that it is within the wit and ability of this House in future to replicate, if we so desire, many areas of law that currently come from the EU, but at the moment we do not have time to do that. We are taking in law that really matters to people out in the street. I suspect that the vast majority will have no idea where this law originates from; they will just say, “Actually, my employment rights are rather important.”

[Sir William Cash]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Mr Grieve]

No, I will carry on for the moment and then give way.

People will value that law, and yet we are bringing it in and giving it a status that I regard as very unsatisfactory. There are a number of ways in which that could be addressed, including new clause 2, which has been tabled by the Opposition. I have tabled new clause 55, which I will briefly explain. It looks at the nature of retained EU law, establishes a general presumption that retained EU law may be amended only by primary legislation or subordinate legislation made under the Bill that we are enacting, and provides a framework for the Government to stipulate specific provisions of retained EU law that are merely technical, and therefore appropriate to be amended by subordinate legislation. I do not have any objection to that happening, but the rest would have to be dealt with by primary legislation. The new clause would provide much greater legal certainty about powers for future amendment of retained EU laws, and it would give the Government flexibility to amend technical provisions quite freely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

Yes, indeed: the Conservative party did precisely that. There is a proud record in the Conservative party—as, indeed, there is in the Opposition—of contribution to that process. I make it quite clear that I do not put the smallest imputation that those on the Treasury Bench, or on any of my colleagues in government, want to reduce those protections one bit.

[Sir William Cash]

I want to put on the record that I have a lot of sympathy with the idea of an enhanced sifting scrutiny process, as my right hon. and learned Friend knows. I am glad to note that he puts an emphasis, which I am sure we all agree with, on primary legislation. The only question that I want to raise with him about his earlier remarks concerns his enthusiasm for the manner in which the legislation was made in the first place. I make the point yet again that it was done, to an extraordinary extent, behind closed doors and by a process of consensus that cannot possibly be justified.

[Mr Grieve]

I understand where my hon. Friend comes from, in view of his long-held concerns about these issues. But I ask him to consider the fact that one consequence of our EU membership—I have to accept this—is that in some areas in which law might have developed domestically, it has not done so in the 45 years of our membership, because we did it in common with our European partners. That is just an historical fact. Because it is an historical fact, we have to grapple with how we make sure that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

--- Later in debate ---

The other argument sometimes used concerns the jurisdiction of the ECJ. Of course, hon. Members will know that the EEA and EFTA are under the jurisdiction of the EFTA arbitration court. If the UK were to join the court, it would give the court considerable extra clout, which would help to rebalance the relationship with the ECJ. The court does, of course, take much steer and guidance from the ECJ, but it is not slavishly attached to it, and if the UK were to be in it, it would provide a significant degree of autonomy.

[Sir William Cash]

I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could explain how often, and in what circumstances, the arbitration court has departed from the decision making and precedence of the ECJ.

[Stephen Kinnock]

This is a clear case of a “before and after” conversation. The court would be substantially altered were the UK to have judges on it. It would be a category shift in the role of the court. It would require negotiation, of course, but I am offering an opportunity to square the circle in terms of the many contrasts, conflicts and competing agendas around the delivery of a Brexit that works for the whole country and delivers for the millions of people who voted in the referendum and who are not ideologues on one side or the other. They want this Parliament to get on with the job and to deliver a Brexit that works for the whole country, and indeed helps to reunite our country. In that spirit, new clause 22 is so important and offers so much.

There is much conversation about models. The Canada model does not include services, while the Ukraine model is new and untested. The EEA-EFTA model is well established and well understood. It would give our business community and our economy the certainty that they so desperately need.

--- Later in debate ---

We must not think of this in purely legalistic terms. We need to think about what it will do to the parts of the country that depend most on trade with our European partners. If we have no deal, 50% of our manufacturing output will be at risk. People will say that that is okay because 80% of our economy consists of services. To them I say, “Go to the high street in a manufacturing town, and ask the shopkeepers on that high street whether they care whether the local factory shuts down. Ask the woman who cuts the hair of the people who work in the factory in my constituency whether they care if manufacturing is put at risk.” Of course they do, because the split between services and manufacturing is just an accounting matter. What really matter are local economies, and whether we should pull the rug from under them by deleting manufacturing industry from this country once again. Let me remind Ministers that some of us lived through the 1980s and 1990s, and I worry that Brexit will finish what Thatcher started.

[Sir William Cash]

The two “retained enhanced protection” new clauses tabled by the Leader of the Opposition are inconsistent. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) did not refer in his speech to the fundamental rights as being part of new clause 2 itself. When I compared the two new clauses, I saw considerable inconsistencies. For example, new clause 58, entitled “Retaining Enhanced Protection (No. 2)”, includes the word “repeal”, and the words “environmental standards and protection” are included in new clause 58 but not in new clause 2. That presents a problem, because, as far as I understand the position, it is possible to debate and vote only on the new clauses in question. Which will Members vote on, if they do vote? I think it important to put that on the record, because there are serious inconsistencies between the two.

There has been a great deal of metaphysical discussion about the whole question of retained law. Let me say to those who have not had the benefit of doing so that it is quite useful to read pages 52 to 58 of the House of Commons briefing. It saves a lot of time, including debating time.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The Government say, “Trust us, workers’ rights are safe.” As someone who has fought for workers’ rights for 40 years, rising from being a lay member to ultimately being elected deputy general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, I have seen often implacable hostility from Tory Governments towards workers and their trade unions in every decade since we joined the EU, ranging from when we were described in the 1980s as the “enemy within” to, more recently, the Trade Union Bill 2015.

In the referendum campaign, what the wide-eyed Brexiteers now driving the Government would like to see in our country could not have been clearer. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) pledged to “whittle away” the regulation “burden” with its

“intrusions into the daily life of citizens.”

Lord Lawson called for a “massive” regulatory cull. The ex-International Development Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), said:

“If we could just halve…the EU social and employment legislation we could deliver a £4.3 billion boost to the economy.”

Indeed, the previous Prime Minister talked about killing off the safety culture. Anyone who had stood outside Wembley stadium with 1,000 workers mourning the death of somebody who had just been crushed at work would not talk about killing off the safety culture. And the Foreign Secretary said during the Brexit campaign that the weight of employment legislation is now “back-breaking” and that his preferred model is to scrap the social charter.

I do not doubt for one moment that there are truly honourable Members on the Conservative Benches who mean it when they say that workers’ rights will be safe; the question is how we safeguard that in the next stages.

Let me tell just one story showing why this matters—why European Union law mattered to British workers, and, crucially, why it matters that we get it right to protect workers’ rights as we leave the EU. In 1977 the EU legislated for the acquired rights directive, and our Government had to introduce it into domestic law. Eventually it was introduced, with gritted teeth, in 1983, with William van Straubenzee saying in the House that he did so “with the utmost reluctance.” But the Tories then excluded the public sector; 10 million public servants were excluded for 10 years. The price that was paid, as we saw mass privatisation throughout the 1980s, was catastrophic for workers.

I remember the first example I dealt with, at the Fire Training College at Moreton-in-Marsh: 120 predominantly women housekeepers and catering workers had their pay cut by a third and the numbers employed cut by a half, holiday entitlement cut, and sickness entitlements cut. The only humorous side of an otherwise sad story was that the managing director of Grand Met Catering which won the contract was—I kid thee not—none other than a Mr Dick Turpin.

These situations went on for year after year. Let me give another example. My uncle Mick, God rest his soul, was a street-cleaner. He lived with me when I was a kid. He worked for Brent Council. I will never forget when Brent street-cleaners and refuse collectors were facing privatisation. During a meeting in their canteen one morning, the street-cleaners sat together, many of them disabled workers, in fear of what would happen because they knew that the bids coming in would result in a third of the workforce going, and they might be the most likely to go. I remember that my Uncle Mick’s good friend—a single man living alone—collapsed in tears afterwards at the thought of what loomed before him. There was 10 years of that throughout the 1980s.

I then took the case of the Eastbourne dustmen to the European Court of Justice and the European Commission, and we won. Thanks to EU law, our Government were forced to extend TUPE to cover 10 million public servants. It is vital in the next stages that there can never be any going back.

Time does not permit me to talk about other examples of implacable hostility: GCHQ, the refusal to sign the social charter, the national minimum wage, employment tribunal fees and the Trade Union Bill.

In conclusion, I stress again that I draw a distinction between the many Government Members who mean what they say and those who are in the driving seat, taking us ever closer to the cliff edge. When they say, “Trust us,” say no. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) was right to table new clauses that would safeguard workers’ rights as best we can. We cannot delegate to future Conservative Governments—if they still exist—the ability to change workers’ rights by way of Henry VIII powers, so that they can say, “Off with their heads.” On each and every occasion, as my hon. Friend argued, workers deserve the enhanced protection of any changes to their rights after we leave the European Union coming back to Parliament for debate, and changes being made only by an Act of Parliament. Is that ideal from my point of view? No, but it is at least a damn sight better than relying on Henry VIII powers in the hands of the Foreign Secretary—or who knows who?—at the next stage.