---

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and to participate in this debate. This, of course, is what Parliament is about at the end of the day. The amendments, including the two that stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), which have been debated at length, are all about improving the Bill. I noticed in the world of Twitter and spin merchants this afternoon the suggestion that amendments to the Bill on key issues, if carried, might somehow weaken the Government’s position with our European counterparts and undermine the confidence of our European partners in our ability to deliver. Shall we just park that as the tosh and nonsense that it is? Anyone who spins that out, on whoever’s behalf, should be ashamed of themselves.

I know that the two Ministers certainly would not take that view. The spirit in which they have approached the debate is welcome. This is about improving the Bill to ensure the right outcomes at the end of the day. That is why the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) were so important and why I endorse every word he said. It is also why I warmly welcome the work of the Procedure Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) in finding a means to a better level of triaging, in effect, of these very significant statutory instruments and regulations.

The point has been well made by both my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend that the broader picture here is how we scrutinise secondary legislation in this place. I think that everybody concedes that it is woefully inadequate and does not bear comparison with many other Parliaments. It is an example of how being the mother of Parliaments does not necessarily mean we are the best. We need to improve our work, but I think we are taking a workmanlike and sensible approach, which I appreciate. There will, no doubt, come a point when we shall need to look at the way in which we deliver the deal—and I am delighted that we are now

able to move on to phase 2. I look forward to the time when the House is given a proper vote on that, or, indeed, on the lack of any such deal.

6.45 pm

Ultimately, “taking back control” means the parliamentary institutions taking back control. It means the House of Commons taking back control. It does not mean giving control back to Ministers or civil servants, or, indeed, to plebiscites, who exist only as creatures of statute passed by the House. As the Minister said, giving the House real powers enabling it to have a proper oversight of both the outworking of the deal and the changes that we will have to make to have a proper, functioning statute book will be all the more important at the end of the day, when we leave the European Union.

The Minister kindly anticipated what I was going to say about the two amendments that I tabled, so I can deal with them comparatively briefly. They are both probing amendments. I tabled amendment 359 because I was concerned about the interpretation of clause 7(2)(c) in respect of deficiencies. The Minister has largely dealt with the point that I was concerned about, which was that, on one view, the wording could have captured fundamental aspects of EU law. For instance, the right of an EU national to work in the UK, or the right of a business established on the continent freely to sell goods and services here, is in a sense reciprocal to the ability of UK nationals or businesses to do the same in other EU states. Changes in that arrangement would constitute major policy changes. I accept the Minister’s assurance that that is not the intention of clause 7 and would not be the intention of regulations made under it. He will understand, however, that the issue is important because the pre-eminence of London as an international financial centre is partly due to the ability of firms to post staff swiftly to the UK from within the EU and elsewhere in the world. Any new regime must facilitate that, and we do not want any regulations to change the position, but I accept the Minister’s helpful assurances.

As for what the Minister said about amendment 360, I could almost have written his speech. I am very grateful to him and also to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, who has been most constructive in engaging with organisations such as the Financial Markets Law Committee. As the Minister will appreciate, a huge volume of EU-based regulation must be dealt with not only by financial businesses but by the lawyers who advise them. It is a burden on the Government lawyers who do the drafting, but it is also a burden on those advisers. What the Minister said about the earliest possible involvement and consultation was very welcome, and I appreciate the fact that that will be ongoing. I was particularly pleased to hear of the intention to publish draft statutory instruments, because that is a well-trodden and very valuable route.

The Financial Markets Law Committee and the International Regulatory Strategy Group bring together some of the greatest expertise that can be found in this sphere. The committee is chaired by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the former Lord Chief Justice, while the strategy group contains eminent practitioners from a range of relevant disciplines, who have day-to-day knowledge of how these things work. That is indicative of the critical mass that London has as a financial

services centre. I am sure that the Government can only benefit from ongoing engagement with those organisations.

I have been able to shorten my remarks a good deal, much to the relief, no doubt, of many. I welcome the Minister’s reassurances on those two points, but I ask him to stick to the principle that this is all about scrutiny and taking back control here. That, indeed, is the job that we are doing now in scrutinising the Bill.