30/03/2017 House of Commons

described and the need to ensure that we do know where potentially

lethal weapons are and that they are in the right hands. Statement the

Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, secretary David

Davis. With permission I would like to make a statement about Staples

back the publication of a White Paper on the great repeal Bill.

Yesterday we took the historic step up notifying the European Council of

the Dublin's decision to invoke Article 50. The -- the European

Council of the government's decision to invoke Article 50. It begins at a

two-year negotiation with the EU and it reflects last year's instruction

from the people of the EU. It is our first determination to get the right

deal for every single person. -- it is Allah the US determination. It is

the time to come together to make sure the -- it is our determination.

We have been clear that we want a smooth and orderly exit and the

great repeal Bill is integral to that approach. It will provide

clarity and thousands businesses, workers and consumers across the

United Kingdom on the day we leave the EU. It will mean that as we exit

the EU and seek a new and special partnership with the EU we will be

doing so from a fishing where we have the same standards and rules.

But it will also in sure that we deliver on our promise to end the

supremacy of European Union law in the UK as we exit. Our laws will

then be made in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast and interpreted

not our judges in Luxembourg but by judges across the United Kingdom.

Some have been concerned that Parliament will not play enough

about Brolin shaping the future of the country what we -- once we have

left the European Union was up-to-date's White Paper shows how

wrong that is. This publication makes clear there will be a series

of bills to debate and vote on before and after we leave as well as

many statutory points to consider. Let me return to the content of the

day's paper. The paper we have published today set out three

principal elements of the Great Repeal Bill. First we will repeal

the European Community that and return power to the United Kingdom.

Second, the Bill will convert EU law in the United Kingdom or, allowing

businesses to continue operating knowing the rules have not changed

overnight and providing fairness to individuals whose rights and

obligations will not be subject to sudden change. And third, the Bill

will create the necessary powers to correct the laws that do not operate

appropriately once we have left the EU, so that our legal system

continues to function correctly outside the European Union. I

address each of these elements in turned before talking about

devolution settlements and the Bill. Let me begin with the European

Community that. On the day we leave the EU peeling the EC act returns us

to the sovereignty we left behind and ends the supremacy of EU law in

this country. It is entirely necessary to deliver on the result

of the referendum. But repealing the ECA alone is not enough. A simple

repeal of the EC aid would leave hearts in our statute book. The EU

regulations that apply directly would no longer have any effect and

many of the domestic regulations would fall away.

Are you therefore to provide the maximum possible legal certainty,

the great repeal bill will convert EU law into domestic law on the day

we leave the European Union. This means for example that the workers'

rights, environmental protection and consumer rights enjoyed under EU law

in the UK will continue to be available on the UK law after we

have left the European Union. Once EU law has been converted into

domestic law, Parliament will be able to pass legislation to amend,

repeal or approve any piece of European law that it chooses, as

will the devolved legislatures where they have the power to do so.

However further steps will be needed to provide a smooth and orderly exit

because a large number of laws, both existing domestic laws and those we

convert into UK law, will not work properly if we leave the EU without

taking further action. Some laws would sample grant functions to

eight EU institution with which the UK would no longer have a

relationship. We need to resolve the problems that would occur as a

consequence of leaving the European Union. Using secondary legislation,

the flexibility of which, will make sure we put in place the corrections

necessary before the day we leave the European Union. I can confirm

this power will be time limited and Parliament will need to be satisfied

to the procedures in the bill for making and approving the secondary

legislation are appropriate. Given the scale of the changes necessary,

and the finite amount of time to make them, there is a balance to be

struck between the importance of scrutiny and correcting the book in

time. As the constitution committee in the other place recently took the

lead it, the challenge Parliament will face is in balancing the need

for speed and proper parliamentary control. Parliament regularly does

vote on secondary legislation. They are not considering executive orders

but using a legislative process of long and thin. I hope today's white

paper and statement can be the start of a discussion between Parliament

and government about how best to achieve this balance. Similar

corrections will be needed to the statute books of the three devolved

administrations and so we propose the bill will give ministers in the

devolved administrations the power to amend devolved legislation to

correct their law in the way UK ministers can correct their law. Let

me turn to the European Court of Justice and its caselaw. I can

confirm that the great repeal bill will provide no future role for the

European court in the interpretation of their laws, and the bill will not

provide their courts to consider cases decided by the European Court

of Justice after we have left. However for as long as EU derived

law remains on the UK statute book, it is essential there is a common

understanding of what that law means. The government believes this

is best achieved by providing for continuity in how that law is

interpreted before and after exit today. To maximise certainty there

for the bill will provide that any question of EU law converted into UK

law will be determined with reference to the European Court of

Justice caselaw as it exists on the day we leave the European Union. Any

other starting point would be to change the law and create

unnecessary uncertainty. This approach maximises legal certainty

at the point of departure but our intention is not to fossilise the

past decisions of the European Court of Justice. As such we propose the

bill will provide that European court caselaw be given the same

status in our courts as decisions of our own Supreme Court. The Supreme

Court does not frequently depart from its own decisions but it does

so from time to time. And we would expect the Supreme Court to take a

similar, sparing approach the departing from the European Court of

Justice caselaw, but we believe it is right it should have the power to

do so. And of course Parliament will be free to change the law and

therefore overturn caselaw where it decides it is right to do so. Mr

Speaker, today's white paper also sets out the great repeal bill's

approach to the charter of fundamental rights. Let me explain

our approach here. The charter of fundamental rights only applies to

member states when they act within the scope of European Union law.

This means its relevance is removed by our withdrawal from the European

Union. The government has been clear that in leaving the European Union,

the UK's leading role in protecting and advancing human rights will not

change. The fact that the charter will fall away will not mean the

protection of rights in the UK will suffer as a result. The charter of

fundamental rights is not designed to create new rights, but rather to

catalogue rights already recognised as general principles in EU law.

Something recognised by the Labour government that brought it in with

the protocol attached to it back in 2007. Where cases have been decided

by reference to those rights, that caselaw will continue to be used to

interpret the underlying rights which will be preserved. Mr Speaker,

I would now like to turn to devolution. The United Kingdom's

domestic constitutional arrangements have evolved since the UK joined the

European economic community in 1973. The current devolution settlements

were agreed after the UK joined and reflect that context. In areas where

the devolved administrations and legislatures have confidence, such

as agriculture, environment, some areas of this confidence is

exercised within the constraints set by European Union law. The existence

of common EU framework has had the effect of providing an effect of a

common UK framework in many areas, safeguarding the function of the UK

internal market. As powers returned from the EU, we have an opportunity

to determine the level best placed to take decisions on these issues,

ensuring power fits closely to the people in the United Kingdom than

ever before. It is the expectation of the government that the outcome

of this process will be a significant increase in the

decision-making power of each devolved administration. That we

must also ensure that as we leave the European Union, no new barriers

to living and doing business within our own union are created. In some

areas this will require common UK framework. Decisions will be

required about where a common framework is needed and if it is,

how it might be established. The devolved administration also act

knowledges the importance of UK framework. We will work closely with

the devolved administrations to deliver an approach that works for

all of the United Kingdom and reflect the needs and individual

circumstances of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Let me conclude by

stressing the importance of the great repeal bill. It will help to

ensure certainty and stability ensure certainty and stability

ensuring a smooth and orderly exit. across the board. It is vital

ensuring a smooth and orderly exit. It will stand us in good stead for

the negotiations with the EU and it will deliver greater control over

our laws to this Parliament and where appropriate the devolved

administrations. These steps are crucial to implementing the result

of a referendum in the national interest. I hope that all sides will

recognise that and work with us to achieve these aims. I commend this

statement to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I thank the

Secretary of State for early sight of his statement and the white

paper? Nobody underestimates the task of converting EU law into

domestic law. The question is how is it done and what is done? The white

paper on the question of how gives sweeping powers to the executive.

Sweeping because it proposes a power to use delegated legislation to

correct and thus change a primary legislation and also devolved

legislation by delegated legislation. Sweeping because of the

sheer scale of the exercise. In those circumstances, one might

expect some pretty rigorous safeguards to the use of these

sweeping powers. But none are found in the white paper. On the contrary,

at paragraph 3.20, the white paper says this. Given the scale of the

changes that will be necessary and the finite amount of time available

to make them, there is a balance that will have to be struck between

importance of scrutiny and the speed of the process. It goes on to say

the government proposes using existing types of statutory

instrument procedure. There are no enhanced safeguards for this

sweeping use of powers. Mr Speaker, I think in those circumstances, we

have got to go back to first principles. And that if there should

be no change to rights and protections without primary

legislation. That is a starting and basic principle and the same goes

for policy. And I add this. When we see the bill, there must be no power

to change rights and obligations and protections in the future by

delegated legislation and I ask the Secretary of State to supply

assurance on those basic principles this morning, and I ask him to look

again at safeguards for the delegated legislation procedures

that are proposed. As to the what is to happen in relation to converting

law into domestic law, again there have got to be clear principles that

they are these. All rights and protections derived from EU law must

be converted into domestic law. All rights and protections. No

limitations. No qualifications. No limitations. No qualifications. No

sunset clauses. This morning we need an assurance from the Secretary of

on his own side who will not be able on his own side who will not be able

these rights and protections now these rights and protections now

before they are even put into this bill. I am reminded that the

International Development Secretary and the development campaign said

that she thought that we should put half the burden of EU social

employment rights and the International Trade Secretary said

we must begin by deregulating the labour market. We need assurance

that those temptations will be faced down when this bill is put before

this House. I turned to the charter of fundamental rights, which it is

proposed will be left out altogether. That of course codified

in modern form all EU rights. It is not directly enforceable because it

is a codification but it is influential and it is wrong to leave

it out. I note what is said in the white paper at paragraph 1.12, but I

seek reassurance that all relevant rights in the charter, and I accept

that some are not relevant like the right to vote in the European

Parliament, but all relevant rights in the charter will be converted

into domestic law through this bill. And finally, Mr Speaker, on devolved

bodies, Brexit should not be an excuse to hoard powers in Whitehall

and there has got to be heavy presumption that devolved matters

remain devolved as powers and responsibilities transferred from

the EU to the UK. I ask the Secretary of State to give that

assurance this morning. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. When I

finished what I said in a statement, I actually said I hoped the House

would come together in making this task happen. And I reiterate that

point particularly to the Labour spokesman, my opposite number. He

has said no change to rights by delegated legislation. That, I would

have thought, almost goes without saying. Well... I said it almost

goes without saying but I have actually said it in my statement, if

you read that! Let me reiterate. The use of delegated legislation will be

for technical changes, the sort of alterations where we are talking, as

I said, on one occasion to a regulatory body, let's say, in the

European Union, which clearly has got to be replaced by one in the UK.

I think that is plain. He changed it's likely to all relevant rights

and he is quite right because there are things like the right to stand

as an MEP and indeed the right to direct applications will go

automatically and I think he accept that too. He is a readable man and I

take it he will accept that. In terms of charter rights, let me

remind him of what happened in 2007, I think it was the Lisbon Treaty.

The Labour government of the day negotiated that and they negotiated

the protocol to it, which the Prime Minister of the date said, it is

absolutely clear that we have an opt out from the charter and the

judicial home affairs. Actually the Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, was

wrong to say that. He had misunderstood their own protocol.

But what the protocol did was to guarantee there were no new rights

arising as a result of the charter for fundamental rights. That was

reiterated later by the then government in court, reiterated by

the Europe minister, the protocol confirms that since the charter

creates no rights or circumstances in which the rights can be relied

upon before the courts, it does not change the status quo. The white

paper in 2007 said the same and only last year in December, I think, the

Joint Committee on Human Rights reiterated that understanding. We

looked at that very carefully. As you might understand and appreciate,

this is an area that I took very seriously indeed. If I make this

over to him, apart from the undertakings he has asked for, I

make this offer to him, if we turn out in the next two years to find we

have missed something, we will put it right. We will put it right. I

think on that basis, on that basis, I don't think we have an argument. I

don't actually think that will happen either because every

indication, indeed a clause by clause surge through the whole

charter, didn't throw up a significant issue other than things

like the NEP matter and so on. -- MEP.

In terms of the suburbs restorations, no powers will be

taken away. We have said that time and time again -- of the devolved

administration. We expect there to be a big increase in the powers

exercised the devolved administrations. We say this to you,

we have to maintain the United Kingdom internal market, too. That

is four times as important to Scottish businesses the example as

the European market is, it is incredibly important to know and I

was businesses and Welsh businesses and the illustrations understand

that but we'll be having discussions with them at length about how the

exercise this and I am very happy to talk to him directly on the matter

if that is his wish. I reiterate, this is a difficult task at no means

beyond this House to achieve this properly, respecting our democracy

but delivering for the British people. I remember honourable

members who arrived after the statement started that they said

they should not expect to be called and although I am keen to

accommodate the extensive interest in this statement there are two well

subscribed debates under the auspices of the backbench business

committee to follow to which I have to have regard so we need short

questions and answers. May I commend my right honourable friend on the

clarity and the thoughtful analysis that lies behind this White Paper.

Could I also say that as respects the Great Repeal Bill, the reality

is that what we will be doing is returning sovereignty to this House

so that the decisions that are taken in our lawmaking are made by the

British people's representatives in this House, in line with the wishes

of general elections and not, and I advised the opposition to bear this

in mind, as it is at present, so often as we find, the European

scrutiny committee, behind closed doors. I thank him for those

comments and I will take this opportunity of thanking him for his

work in this area over the years, some of the ideas in this policy

area came from his writing in the past. He is right. I make the point

to him, people who complain about the use of secondary legislation,

the secondary legislation we are talking about, nearly 8000 items of

secondary legislation were used to implement European law under the

section two of the European Communities Act 1972 so it is

hypocritical to attack that but I thank him for his comments and I

commend him for his work. On these benches we saw the triggering of

Article 50 with a sad day for everybody in Europe, including

everybody in the East Highlands will start an EU that has brought us

peace, stability, and prosperity. The art turning the clock back 40

years and I am glad that the minister reminded his own front

ensures that -- it has been suggested that the government is

looking at the Henry VIII clauses to push this through, so much for

sovereignty. Scotland's but has also been given a Henry VIII treatment.

Can I ask the Minister, will he tell us where the legislative consent

will be required, where responsibility, and I quote, "Will

flow from Brussels to Edinburgh, hardly touching the sides on the

way" and who does he mean by democratically elected

representatives in section four Twenty20. It strikes me that the

government has pushed the big red button not Brexit with their fingers

crossed and having very little idea what comes next. -- in section 4.2.

Let me say this to the honourable gentleman. He loves his Henry VIII

clause, he thinks that the public at large will think that some executive

finger dating from the Middle Ages. What we are talking about here is

the use of procedure that has been used down the centuries and over

which this House has complete control, complete control. The

latter is the first thing. The second thing is I have been in the

joint committees with his colleague in the Scottish Government and other

devolved administration is open the last six months or more and these

issues I have raised, bilaterally, and I have said to them will have

serious discussions about this because my preference is for more

devolution rather than less, that is my viewpoint, and the constraint on

that however is where it has direct effect on the whole United Kingdom's

interests, so that is the United Kingdom market, it would be bad for

Scottish farmers and producers is the United Kingdom market became

separated from them. Issues of national security, which we need to

deal with, issues of international negotiation and observing

international obligations, such as in environmental law, so there has

been plenty of areas where it is clear we need to have a UK wide

framework. That is what, that is the criteria we will apply and we will

discuss it at length with the devolved admission ratios at every

stage. This should be called the continuity Bill and it should be

reassuring to Remain Benitez as it is the means to keep the rights and

laws were that they must like. -- to Remain voters. EU employment rights,

for example, if you want to keep those, they must vote for this Bill.

He is right. I lay claim to some of the ideas behind the Bill but he is

right, to a very large extent it is a continuity Bill. It is their way

in which we will protect employment rights, environment rights, whole

series of rights and he is quite right, those who want to preserve

those rights should vote without any thought for this Bill. I would like

to commend the Secretary of State and the excitable demands from part

of the Brexit press and to confirm that he will incorporate into

British law some of the dues in their crown, such as the habitats

directive, the working Time directive, the green renewable

directive, which we can all agree upon, but he will know there is a

fork in the road. The government will either have to keep those

provisions in domestic legislation, in which race the say what the point

the first place, or he will those provisions in which case the EU will

need safeguards to ensure we are not undercutting EU standards. My

question is, will confirm to the House it is impossible to do what

the Prime Minister said yesterday, to participate fully in

crime-fighting, anti-terrorism, EU measures, without access to

databases, the information services and other databases which I know are

such devastating crime-fighting tools without abiding by EU data

protection directive is overseen by the European Court of justice? After

a commendation like the one that the right honourable judgment started

with I think my career is over! -- the right honourable gentleman

started with. But the Prime Minister referred to yesterday, he is half

right and half wrong. What the Prime Minister referred to yesterday is

the importance of maintaining either something very similar to or a

replacement for the Justice and home affairs arrangements, the Strand of

the European treaties, and he is right in one respect. We will

undoubtedly, not just in the EU dealing with the United States,

other countries, too, have data protection, data laws for example,

privacy protection, which meets the standards in order to exchange data

with them. We will be at that point at the day we leave the European

Union that what this Bill that is ensure we are at that point and

therefore able to continue exchanging data. There is no doubt

thereafter that there will be continuing discussions about how we

maintain our standards at the same level not just the European Union,

with all of our allies, whether America, Canada, everybody. Will he

confirm that the directives the honourable member for Sheffield

Hallam referred to are already in British law and what are included

here are 7000 regulations that have got to be applied in British law

through this Bill but however referring to directives such as

solvency two, which is used as an example of the equity release

industry in the United Kingdom, imposing significantly extra costs

and I think a British directive would actually help and if we have

the opportunity to examine that, within the timescale and the time

limits he is going to apply, and seek for that legislation. His

general point of directives is right and his "It -- his specific point is

right. We will bring us back to United Kingdom. We don't want to

change everything. We may want to maintain a degree of parallel

standards as part of our own national decision but it will be

brought back to his House of Commons and we will make the decision on

what is best for this country. The government's aim that EU law that

all of its rights and protections will remain in place is a pragmatic

approach and we need to find a way of making that happen but the

Secretary of State will be aware of concerns that others might try and

use this process to get rid of EU laws they have never liked or use

these powers to make changes beyond the minimum necessary. Will he

therefore commit to consult closely with the select committee on the

scope of the Bill and is it his intention to publish the draft but

for pre-legislative scrutiny? I will undertake to consult with the select

committee on this matter. The issue is very important. I have already

told him privately as I will say publicly, we will not be publishing

a draft legislation but we will be taking on board after the

publication of the White Paper a great deal of confrontation,

including the select committee. Can I commend the Secretary of State for

the statement today and assure him that I always listen very carefully

to what my right honourable friend says and I heard him on the radio

this morning explaining that what I had thought was a guarantee that

they would be in his words, an absolute guaranteed to deliver

exactly the same benefits in the deal in relation to trade and

customs, is now apparently an aim, but I am sure he will be true to

that aim. This is really a great transfer Bill, that is what it

really is. Could the Secretary of State give an unequivocal

undertaking that workers' rights, environmental and is and consumer

protections will be in no way changed as a result of this Bill and

indeed anything else that is taken? The Prime Minister has already given

those undertakings. Can I commend him on his statement and on the

White Paper. It is the right approach to provide certainty once

we leave the EU. In relation to the issue about the administration 's

and greater powers there too, can I ask you will in tense of the

Peterborough administrations in the two-year period that lies ahead --

will he be engaging with the devout administrations in the ten year

period that lies ahead? -- the devolved administrations in the ten

year period. The White Paper is later in publication. We don't have

at this stage of Northern Ireland executive and I have waited for

three weeks in the hope that we would have won. At this point we

can't wait any longer but we will be continuing to consult with the

devolved ministrations. In the Borough to the election in Northern

Ireland I invited the outgoing ministers -- in the run-up to the

election. I invited the outgoing ministers to make sure we had a

mechanism that was I am not sure yet what it will be in Northern Ireland

but I am to here his ideas. We will make sure we consult with Northern

Ireland whether it is with the executive or not. Can I thank him

for making it clear that two years today are a sovereign Parliament

will indeed have the power to amend, repeal or improve on this ghastly

legislation. -- this ghastly EU legislation. I will pass on the

assessment of the legislation but I will reinforce the point I have

already made, which is the aim of this Bill is to bring the decisions

back to this House. The Secretary of State says that over the next few

years, he wants to the maximum scrutiny of legislation but given

the sheer volume, particularly delegated legislation that he has

outlined, does he think it is really feasible to reduce the number of MPs

by 50? This is a question which is above my pay grade! Let me pick up

the underpinning point in terms of the volume of legislation. I would

say to the House that we are bringing a large amount of

legislation straight into EU law -- UK law without change. The reason

for change is that there will be technical amendments, technical

issues which will come up. Separately that there will be

primary legislation on immigration, customs and a variety of other

areas. That is different. At the technical legislation will be aiming

to make things practical, not to maintain great changes in policy and

this House should be able to do that.

Leave campaigners will vote for this process as part of the withdrawal,

but we want the provisions to continue, so can the Secretary of

State think of any good reason why the Great Repeal Bill should not be

passed unanimously? No. LAUGHTER The Secretary of State needs to make

it clear now that all of those protocols relating to justice and

home affairs and protection will stay part of our laws and the

cooperation requirements that we have because in the Article 50

letter yesterday, shamefully, the government suggested that

circumstances where we might even consider withdrawing or weakening

our cooperation. Shouldn't he realise that that sort of squalid

negotiation tactic will result in less good deal than a better one?

You should know better. The leader of the House was here, who was

previously the Europe minister and he made it clear in terms that what

the Prime Minister was talking about was the fact that existing treaty

arrangements which will end when we leave the European Union, will fall

by the wayside, so we will have to find an alternative. Not our

internal legal rights and privileges, but the treaty

arrangement, that is the important thing. I very much welcome the

pragmatic approach that the Secretary of State has adopted in

this document and especially his emphasis on legal certainty and

continuity which is vital for continued business confidence. Going

forward, does he agree that it will be important to maintain the

mechanism for making sure of continuing important issues like the

financial service sectors, how might that be taken forward? I'm going to

signal protection, that is to people who have finished my career today,

being called pragmatic, as well -- two people. These but with the women

come to do the trade deals and other deals, they will be relationships

with us and with other countries to make sure we maintain common

standards -- the truth is when it comes to the trade deals. There will

be things that we will negotiate but it will be a surprise if I was to

talk those negotiations up in this place at this time. I do worry

because the Secretary of State says in his white paper, existing

parliamentary procedures allow for Parliament to scrutinise as many or

as few statutory instruments as it sees fit, that is not true. In 2014,

2015, nine negative statutory instruments were played against by

the Leader of the Opposition and only one was allowed a debate and

that was not on the floor of the House and so it could not be a vital

motion. 19 were prayed against by the opposition last year and only

five were debates, only in committee, not a single one was

about a vote in the House, this is not bringing back control to this

House, we will be worried unless you change the process. Of course, we

will start by buying the conventions that apply and we do have a

procedure which has its effects and influence -- applying the

conventions. If he wants to talk about about how we can improve this,

I'm happy to talk to him. The UK judges will be less creative, that

is an open question, but the notion of incorporating EU regulation and

indeed caselaw gives me the collywobbles but you have my support

in the division lobby because he has bigger fish to fry. As the White

Paper says, we made a very explicit decision that we would aim to make

this Supreme Court level president, that is to reduce the number of

courts that I going to deal with this, just the Supreme Court itself,

and the Supreme Court is fairly careful about changing its own

president and does so relatively rarely -- precedent. That is what we

expect to continue to be the case. But anything they do, this House can

change. Plaid Cymru is demanding a continuity built to enshrine

appropriate European law in Welsh law. Will he confirm that

Westminster will not block or undermine our rights to legislate

for Wales? My message to the British government is this, from the people

of Wales, hands off our Parliament. I reiterate, no powers that are

currently exercised by default administrations will be taken from

them. -- devolved. Do you agree that the key point about the Great Repeal

Bill is that the legal precedents of laws imposed on this country by the

EU will end? Well, the legal president won't necessarily end but

they will be susceptible to our change -- precedent. We will be able

to change them in our courts and our Parliament. With reference to the

criminal justice measures of which we are already a part, and the Prime

Minister's Article 50 letter yesterday, can be Secretary of State

set out for the house have the safety and protection of the public

will be in harms by us reducing our cooperation on crime and terrorism?

As the Prime Minister made plain yesterday, she wants to see a

comprehensive agreement, and people have interpreted that as conference

of trade, but it is a contents of agreement across all issues where we

have a relationship with the European Union -- comprehensive

trade. Taking this regulation and as an example, what will happen with EU

law? That is the point of bringing them back to the House, so we can

deal with it. It will be right across the board, we have 40 years

of law, and it will take time to correct some of those if we don't

agree with, but of course much of it we do agree with, and that will take

time, but the House will have an opportunity. You speak of working

closely with devolved administrations in each part of the

UK, but it is d j vu all over again UK, but it is d j vu all over again

and this government has so far done nothing to demonstrate its intention

to work for the devolved administrations and if they continue

with this as attainable approach of ignoring the will of the Scottish

parliament in relation to Brexit and indeed any other issue, can I ask

the Secretary of State why the devolved administrations should

trust the UK Government on anything? Sometimes I have to say that the SNP

seem to have one element in its ideology and one element only, this

entitled grievance, and the maximisation of grievances. I have

attended in the last six months, six meetings with representatives of the

devolved administrations and in a number of the policy areas we have

discussed the mill have made it into the previous White Paper -- we have

discussed, have made it into the previous White Paper, like

employment rights, and agreement we need the best possible access will

trade for all parts of the kingdom, and we have been in the same place.

But we haven't been in the same place on every single element of

policy, and we said at the beginning devolved administrations would not

be given a veto but they will be heavily consulted and that is

precisely what we have done. The fact the Scottish National Party was

to claim it is not happy about that is a matter for it and not a matter

for me or the facts. Those who wish to remain in the EU go on about

rules and regulations, but surely the point of leaving the EU is that

we in this place can live under our own rules and regulation that are

suitable to us, not necessarily to 28 countries as they carry stand.

You are exactly right. -- currently stand. Notwithstanding the

inevitable process from the Secretary of State that he is always

appearing before this House, the hallmark of his government is to

avoid scrutiny and accountability and we now hear the Great Repeal

Bill will be thousands statutory instruments, many not scrutinised

properly, how on earth can that be commensurate with taking back

control and increasing sovereignty of this Parliament? You continue in

your habit of reading half of what we say and ignoring the other half

when it suits him. One of the things I've said from the beginning, we

will bring into British law all European law -- -- all European law,

except where we choose not to, and we can modify technical act --

aspects. We are talking about 40 years of law, night would be

interested to hear what he would propose that we do about a law which

refers to a European regulatory body. Have a debate? Where there

will be material changes and policy changes will be carried through in

primary legislation of which there will be a number of such bills in

the coming months. Can I commend the Secretary of State for his approach,

but the White Paper is absent in any discussion about English devolution

and I wonder in the extent to which he envisaged that this opens up

opportunities for further legal powers to be devolved to the English

regions and how that might work. Not deliberately in this white Paper,

but he will know for example that the Chancellor announced further

devolution powers to London, for example, and I've been talking to

the Mayor of London to a great extent about issues for London in

this manner. Not in this White Paper, but that is part of the

overall strategy, to bring government as close as possible to

the people. Despite government protests to the contrary, leaving

the EU doesn't automatically and necessarily mean leaving the single

market, and equally leaving the treaty of the European Union doesn't

automatically and necessarily mean leaving the European economic area

agreement. Will his so-called repeal Bill repeal the EEA act of 1983 and

will every member of this House get a specific vote on this issue? I

have rarely heard a question based on semifinals premises was -- so

many false emesis was leaving the European Union does involve leaving

the single market, and whatever you think about the vote last year, it

was not a vote in favour of allowing the control of migration and the

control of laws and indeed the operation of the European court of

justice to stay in Europe. Can I commend my friend on his mature and

considered approach to the devolved nations and can I pushing on the

principle that if the UK internal market which is so important to my

constituency of Cardiff North, the principle of the powers, if they

don't affect the market, they will be coming back to the devolved

nations as soon as possible? I'm not going to demur from the principle

I've outlined. UK single market is several times bigger for Wales,

Scotland and Northern Ireland, than the EU single market, but there is

?1 billion weaker trade between Northern Ireland and Ireland -- a

week trade. We will have to protect matters such as the single market in

the UK and other matters such as security and environmental

agreements. The government has already signalled its intention to

withdraw from the Common fisheries policy but chapter four paragraphs

two suggests that not just the EU powers such as fisheries will revert

to the UK Government, rather than devolved institutions, but the

government intends to repeat the current frameworks provided by EU

rules the UK legislation. Is the government suggesting that we will

have business as usual for the fishing industry under this

framework after Brexit? If not, can he enlighten us to the government's

plans? One thing I would say is, so what

she calls business as usual will be temporary, some permanent, and that

will depend on Tiley on the criterion I lay down earlier. Does

he agree that this is the only option if we are to truly restore

control over our laws to the British people, reverse and ever intrusive

influenced by the ECJ on social and economic policy areas, and its

operation as a federal court, things we never envisaged at its conception

in 1957? She is right. That is exactly why

the Prime Minister made that and important central place of our

policy. ... Didn't mention the customs union

in her statement, nor is it referred to in her letter to President Task.

Paragraph one to two says, we will introduce a customs bill to

establish a framework to implement a UK customs regime. Will the

Secretary of State confirmed that he intends to take is out of the

customs union? Well, unusually for him, as an

ex-Mitie chairman, he missed the ex-Mitie chairman, he missed the

fact that she may direct reference to the White Paper, which does

coverings are clear that point. I know that we can rely on my right

honourable friend to be an extremely robust negotiator, but just for the

sake of absolute clarity in terms of the role of the European Court of

Justice, can he confirm that it will have absolutely no authority in the

UK, and that it will -- he will not hinder any Scissor Sisters is

watered down that commitment during negotiation?

I was just going to say yes, and make very plain what I will say.

There will be no reach of the European Court of Justice into the

UK. Of course, it is the case that when you sell a product into another

country, you meet the rules in that country. You do it into the United

States, you meet the rules set down by the Supreme Court. The same will

happen in Europe, but it will not reach here.

Yesterday, you invited me to behave as if I were in a court of law. Can

I extend your entirely appropriate invitation to the Secretary of

State, and suggest that he pretends he is a court of law, and answer the

question posed by my honourable friend, the member for North East

legislative consent motion is, yes legislative consent motion is, yes

or no? I apologise, I forgot the point that

he was making in response to the he was making in response to the

other ones. At this stage, we don't know, because we don't know the

final format of the bill. I welcome this bill, and the

certainty that it provides the business throughout this process.

Could he confirm that this certainty of business will be at the forefront

and a priority for him throughout? Yes, and that is fundamental to the

strategy behind this bill. Thank you. The public are extremely

worried about these Henry VIII worried about these Henry VIII

clauses. In chapter three of his White Paper, he says that one of the

areas where he wants to use secondary legislation is on the

change from EU institutions. There are 40 of these EU institutions

ranging from medicines to aviation safety. If we lose, he will have a

choice. He can either set up a new one or abandon the regulation

altogether. Does he really think it is appropriate to do that with

statutory instruments? Well, the 40 are not in the UK, they

are across the union. And it may be and it may not be. It depends. If,

for example,... She starts haggling, I will answer here. If it is adding

it to, for example, another regulatory body already in

existence, that might be appropriate. In other cases, you are

creating a body which might be appropriate to have a rather heavier

level of debate and parliamentary insights to it.

He will be aware that the procedure committee is doing an enquiry into

how we get the great repeal bill into law. Unfortunately, he has not

been able to appear before us. Can I urge him to agree a date when we can

help facilitate this Great Repeal Bill process? I'm happy to say yes,

I will be doing so. That was the I will be doing so. That was the

intention, and I cannot remember the reason for the deferral last time,

but it will happen. . The bill says that EU law will

become better to UK law wherever practical appropriate, allowing UK

businesses to keep trading knowing the rules have changed. By companies

like Nissan and Hitachi in the Northeast need to continue to expand

in order to have future prosperity. So what is he going to do to ensure

that opportunities to grow a exist, and workers' rights are protected

too? She will notice that Nissan made an

favourable to the north-east. It is favourable to the north-east. It is

a little wider than just this White Paper. We said, and indeed the Prime

Minister said in the article 50 letter yesterday, one of

important things was putting in important things was putting in

practice transitional arrangements or implementations, was the phrase

used, and that relate exactly so that, to give a degree of certainty.

May have blacked out part of the Peak District national park in my

constituency, and with that in mind, does he agree that this is an

important bill for ensuring environmental but and I maintain,

and the opportunity to enhance them, and anyone supporting those aims

should really welcome this bill? Yes, he is exactly right.

are maintained, and the only way are maintained, and the only way

that would not be cases of this house may be explicit decision to

change them. Reference to disabled people

disability has been scant if at all apparent in any of the government

White Papers. As the government consider that all the impact on

disabled people, who are some of our most Bill Noble, and will he confirm

there will be no erosion of their rights moving forward? As a result

of this, certainly not. I can only talk to the White Paper here, and

one thing we have tried to do one thing we have tried to do

throughout this is to maintain rights that arise out of European

law in British law. That is what we will do. I have known the Secretary

of State a long time, and he will expect a rough, tough road ahead, as

people like me fight for every write our citizens of Europe have in this

country, to retain those rights. But is he aware that if he panders too

much to the secret and quiet, or not so secret, agenda of the Barmy Army

Eurosceptics prominent behind him, he will not get the level of

cooperation he otherwise would when he talks about pragmatism? Well, the

honourable gentleman has known me a long time, indeed, I will tell the

house on another occasion how he got me into deep trouble in this house.

But what I will say to him is this. He should, if you listen to my

statement, have realised what this is about is to a very large extent,

preserving rights that people have got used to and expect to continue

to have, and that is what this will do. I Dohmen who he is referring to

in his rather strange allusions to armies of one sort or another. -- I

But he can be sure that the first But he can be sure that the first

thing I will trust my mind in dealing with this thing is my

conscience. Does the Secretary of State in ten

the Great Repeal Bill Moment I Will To Devolve Something That I

Currently Reserved, Or Reserve Something Is Currently Devolve, Or

Will He Be Bringing Forward A New Scotland Bill, And If So, When?

I Have Made Two Points On This, Which I Will Reiterate. No Decisions

Currently Exercised By Devolved Administrations Will Apparently

There Would Be Taken Away From Them. Secondly, There Will Be An Increase

In The Number Powers Exercised By The Devolved Administrations.

The Government Seems To overlook the fact that we can just incorporate

into UK law things that are based on reciprocal arrangements with our

European partners. How long does he think that it will take, for

trading arrangements we have? This trading arrangements we have? This

White Paper does not relate to that. She is right that we have to

negotiate reciprocal arrangements. That is what we will do. That is why

we have proposed a comprehensive negotiation of free trade

arrangements. We believe that is eminently achievable because we are

ready have common standards. That is what this bill does, maintain common

standards. And we already have outstanding levels of trade between

us. ?290 billion of trade from the European Union to us, which they

will want to preserve every bit as much as we do. As we say in Glasgow,

where is your parliamentary sovereignty now? This great power

grab is taking power from Basil 's bureaucrats and adding it to

Whitehall mandarins. Given the statutory instruments are not

consent, can he assures the no consent, can he assures the no

statutory instruments will be used in devolved matters?

Well, it actually goes back to the Well, it actually goes back to the

issue raised by his spokesman. We will be speaking to the devolved

administrations about the extent to which this has impact, and making

sure that there are increases, but not decreases, and the powers

available to the devolved administrations.

Thank you very much. The Secretary of State consistently ignores my

honourable friend from Lewisham East, and the perfectly reasonable

point about the EEA act, which is the UK Government has to give

12-month' notice to remove itself from the EEA. So how will that be

dealt with in the bill, or has the Secretary of State to be forgotten

about it? No, but it is not a matter of the Great Repeal Bill. The great

download and save until the late Bill is really going to lead to a

carnival of reaction, where alongside the so-called bonfire of

red tape, we will see ministers competing in a demolition derby to

reduce various rights and environmental protections. This is

also a charter for die elution before devolution. Does the

Secretary of State recognise that for some of us trust Tory ministers

with the sort of holding and moulding powers that he wants to

give them would be like asking Attila the Hun to mind her horse?

I didn't know he had a voice! But I will say this to him. His entire

approach to this, his entire assessment of this, is just plain

wrong. Paragraph 320 save the need to trade scrutiny for speed, whereas

paragraph 313 says the government does not want to be unduly

constrained to adapt EU laws. So is the executive creating a democratic

deficit by using secondary legislation? And how can I justify

this? Were not going to create a democratic deficit. This is a White

discuss with. So from what he just discuss with. So from what he just

the bill. So can he confirm to the the bill. So can he confirm to the

house, then, that there will be a separate vote in parliament in

relation to the EEA? Depending on what the policy decisions, I would

think it was quite likely to come to the Parliament. How can 's trading

security cooperation be optimised with parallel court judgments?

Surely European court will have to continue, and it will have to

continue beyond Brexit another step the point of Brexit of the statement

suggests? Not at all. The whole point is to bring the law were in

control of parliament in our own cause, and they will continue to

interpret them as they see fit. They may continue to obey residents

previously set, or they may decide to choose to change it. It will be

matter for the House of Commons to matter for the House of Commons to

decide whether we want to change those matters too. I will make once

I point to him on this. That is the Supreme Court very often looks at

other courts around the world, not just the European Court, but

American court and others in order to make his decisions. Thank you.

There was no mention of Gibraltar in the letter yesterday, and I am

pleased to say it does get at least a mention in today's publication.

But given that an overwhelming number of its residents voted to

remain in the EU, can the Secretary of State explain how this bill will

give certainty to businesses and Gibraltar? Well, as she sees, there

is an entire section on overseas territories and the like.

My honourable friend the parliamentary secretary has been in

continuous discussion with Gibraltar on these matters, and we will seek

to defend their interests as best we can.

Thank you. Could the Secretary of State be clearer, please. I think he

has denied it could be up to 1000, so what is his best estimate? How

many EU laws will become UK laws? Well, it is for the laws by UK laws

at the point that macro as a result of this bill. There will be

subsequent changes, for example, an immigration

law, and he has shouted out, how many, and unfortunately, I am going

to give him the quality field that without. All of them will move into

UK law. Thank you, we now come into the

backbench motion on animal welfare. I call Mr Neil Parish. Thank you

in a didgeridoo is this debate on in a didgeridoo is this debate on

animal welfare. -- to come in and introduce this debate on animal

welfare. Legislation on animal welfare was published last year, the

result of a long enquiry looking at aspects of animal welfare, of

domestic pets such as dogs, cats, and horses. We took evidence from

animal welfare charities, local government, the national police

chief counsel, industries' representatives, it academics, vats

visited Battersea Dogs And Cats Home visited Battersea Dogs And Cats Home

to learn about their work, as well as a commercial breeder and an

animal rescue centre in Wales. Animal cruelty sentences. The

committee was completely unanimous on this particular point. The

current penalties for animal welfare offences in England are too low, far

too low. The maximum sentence of animal cruelty is six months in

president and an unlimited fine. Will he takes on evidence from me on

that? Certainly. I agree with that and with your

excellent motion, but part of the problem is getting courts to impose

the minimum sentences, even though they are too low. You are absolutely

right. I feel that if we had a larger sentence and there was more

flexibility in the courts, when you have the very worst of cases, the

magistrates will have that ability to make that sentence but he is

absolutely right, there is sometimes not enough sentencing, not on long

enough sentence, even with the mad we have of the moment, six months.

-- the amount we have at the moment. Thanks for giving way and securing

the debate. He mentioned the committee being unanimous, does he

also agree that many constituents across the UK have e-mailed members

of Parliament to come here today because they agree with the

committee, as well? You make a very good point. There is huge public

support I believe for strong sentencing and I hope that the

government is listening to this. When we are looking at the amount

and the number of people in prisons, I accept that we don't want huge

sentences for every crime, but I can't believe that beating dogs and

cats and other animals to death, if you plead guilty you get a 30%

automatic reduction in sentence, and you get four months, do you believe

that is enough? I don't think anyone believes that is enough. Can I

commend him for bringing this debate forward and wholeheartedly support

him in doing so, declaring my interest as having a dog is part of

my family. If you look globally at the sanctions for these renders

crimes, we are really poor, and I wonder if you could comment on that

bash these horrendous crimes. He makes a very good point. Our

sentences are lower than Scotland and than in Northern Ireland and

therefore even in our own countries of the United Kingdom there is far

stiffer sentencing. It is the message that it sends. The sentiment

being that relies entirely on our human care is beaten to death and so

we get less than perhaps for stealing a computer. -- ascent into

being. It really is not on. And my honourable friend is listening

carefully and I know he's very keen on animal welfare, maybe not always

in his remit to increase the sentencing, but we must get this

message over loud and clear. I will give way. To reinforce the point,

1.2 million people have contacted the RSPCA about animal cruelty, and

the legislation, and I support what you are trying to achieve today. I

thank you and agree entirely, there is a lots of aspects of animal

cruelty that does get reported, and there are other aspects that don't

get reported. The whole idea of having a stronger sentencing would

be to send that deterrent because what we want to do is to try and

stop this cruelty happening in the first place. This would send the

right message if we have at least a five-year sentence and then it will

be up to the courts to decide what sentence they actually dished out in

the end. I'm very grateful. I congratulate him on securing this

debate, but would he not agree with me that it is so much more important

to prevent cruelty in the first base and changing the laws about airguns

is also important. -- the first place. Cats and dogs are often

targets for these airguns. You raise again a very good point. Airguns can

be used terribly where cats and dogs are concerned, and very often cause

injuries and they can be led pallets which lead to the injuries. The

broader point, we need to get much more into schools and more into

education to make sure that people know how to look after an animal,

because most people do know how to look after animals but there are

some families where there is cruelty going on and maybe those children

don't know any thing else but what is happening in that home. That is

what we have got to try and tackle as well. I know he has taken a

grated of intervention and I declare my interest as someone who not only

cares about animals and has prosecuted cases in the courts --

taken a great deal of intervention. The matter goes a bit further, with

a view to the deterrence, that members have referred to. Whilst

these offences are recorded on the police national computer, that is

not a very accessible way and a national register which is easier to

consult would go quite some way to making sure that people who have

mistreated animals on one occasion and been convicted cannot do so

again. You make a very good point. A national register is good and I

would like to see it go further because in the United States they do

work on linking animal cruelty to the cruelty within the home with

human cruelty and I think the two need to be linked much more. It

doesn't take long in many respects from treating an animal badly to

start beating people up and we have got to wake up to that situation. On

that note I applaud him for bringing this debate here today, and he is

touching on a very moot point in that there are stark statistics to

prove that abusive humans often takes place after people have abused

animals or indeed at the same time and I think register would be very

beneficial in helping to tackle a much bigger problem that we are

facing socially. I thank my friend and neighbour, and she makes the

point about getting that link and I also think that we should be able to

link much more when we are finding cruelty to animals, to actually

investigate what is going on in those particular homes, as well, to

see if there is much more going on than just animal cruelty, and that

is something that we really have... We have got to open our eyes to what

is happening. Most people looked after animals very well, but those

that don't can be incredibly cruel, and those are the ones that we need

to really tackle. I was disappointed the government rejected the

recommendation for a higher maximum sentence of five years and again I

would ask the ministers to go back to the government and the justice

department to see we can get this increased because I think six months

is too low. I will give way. I wondered if he has had a

conversation with the government whips, because the second reading of

my built an place and it was objected to by the government whips,

but that would have increased the sentencing to five years. I have

spoken to whips, but whether they listen is another matter, of course.

I'm sure they do. LAUGHTER I'm absolutely certain they are

listening to every word I say, but you make a very serious point, it is

not good to talk out bills where there is a legitimate reason for

actually increasing the sentence will -- and if we took a straw poll

of the MPs in this House, irrespective of party, the vast

majority would say that the sentencing is too low. We have got

to find a method of increasing that and I accept the government wanted

to come back with other ideas and I'm happy to listen to them. It must

be much more than the six months which is there now. I will give way.

Can I congratulate him on securing this debate. One of the other things

which we need to do, we need to make sure that children understand in

schools as to the impact that actually treating animals badly will

actually have and the problems with that, as well. Yes, what we can do

in our schools, and help educate young people about the way to treat

animals and not to treat them cruelly, is absolutely the right way

forward. I have been told that I've only got 15 minutes so I should get

on with it. I will try and make a little progress. The average

sentencing for animal cruelty is relatively stable, but I rather fear

this is a copout. Judges should have the flexibility to give longer

sentences for the worst examples of animal cruelty as a well deserved

punishment and as a deterrent to other potential abusers, and if you

can seriously injure a sentience being like a dog and cat you can do

the same to a human and there's a growing body evidence suggesting a

link between the abuse of animals and violence against people. In the

United States the FBI have begun tackling instances of animal abuse

as part of a national instant based reporting system which corrects date

on crime -- incident. The committee has recommended a new abuse register

that should be established that those convicted of animal abuse

offences, and those convicted of cruelty should never be allowed to

keep animals again. The police should have the access to these

files in the light of links between animal and human abuse. It went on

to talk again about the sentencing and to third-party sales as far as

puppies are concerned. I believe that a ban on third-party sales will

improve the condition of dogs sold in the UK will stop it is the case

that on scribblers dealers will go to some lengths to pose as

responsible breeders in order to sell animals to an unsuspecting

buyer -- unsuspecting dealers. Many dealers will offer homes as a

reassurance to potential buyers setting up a false home which is

then vacated as soon as they cannot be traced. The sad reality is that

anyone selling puppies indirectly through a licensed pet shop has no

regard for the welfare of their puppies, and are responsible breeder

would never sell through a pet shop licence holder -- a responsible. It

has a negative impact on the welfare of puppies. The government is

contradicting its own advice. By banning third-party sales the public

will buy from breeders directly and this will allow buyers to access the

premises for themselves, driving up animal welfare sentences. We visited

a puppy farm in Wales and the conditions were not good to say the

very least. If you had to go there to get your puppy venue would soon

do something about it -- then you. People producing as puppies were

getting ?200 and the dealers in Birmingham were selling them for

maybe ?1000, and so there is a real problem. I'm extremely disappointed

that the government rejected the ban on third-party sales since the

committee published its report, many more animal organisations have come

out in favour of a ban on third-party sales will stop the

RSPCA has recently changed its mind on this issue. In February the

government announced a tougher new breeding licensing role, making it

completely illegal to sell puppies younger than eight weeks -- rule. It

is a good start but it doesn't go far enough. Aside from increasing

the maximum sentence and a ban if their body size, the government

should consider a reduction in the threshold of eyes and seeing to two

litters a year the threshold of licensing. It is too easy for

unscrupulous dealers to fall outside the regulatory regime. A new abuse

register should also be established for those convicted of animal abuse

offences. I've also personally of the belief that government should

look at dog breeders and cat breeders which are not currently

licensed adult. Britain is a nation of animal lovers, our pets deserve

nothing less than the very highest animal welfare standards, and I look

forward to strong representations from all of my colleagues and

especially those that have intervened on me. Thank you very

much. The question is on the order paper... And if people take eight

minutes and no more, then everybody will get in and that also divides

the next debate for eight minutes, as well. If we can stick to the

informal limit of eight minutes that will be fantastic. I'm pleased to

contribute to this debate and I hope to get inside your eight minute

rule. I'm delighted to follow the gentleman from Tiverton who chairs

the select committee with distinction, and his time spent in

the European Parliament was not a wasted apprenticeship and he

demonstrates those skills every time that we meet. There are three main

issues, penalty for animal welfare offences, the ban on third-party

sales, and the question of prosecutions. I want to register my

appreciation for the briefings I've received in preparing for this

debate from Pat -- Battersea dogs home, the kennel club and the House

of Commons library. In front. Does he agree that with

better licensing, breeders can become more integrated

and stop the cruel practice puppy farming?

Will come onto licensing of the late as well. It is certainly a key

element of the select committee report, which we are looking for the

government to respond to more positively. But as I was saying, I

am always happy when constituents contact me on a whole range of

animal welfare issues. It shows that among the many concerns they

articulate, animal welfare matters a great deal to them. Members will

receive e-mails and the occasional letter on the same animal related

issues as myself. These, badgers, domestic bouts, circus animals,

while animals, dogfighting and so on. Whilst it is good to see how

much they care, it is obviously disappointing and distressing that

these issues, these activities, these abuses continue. Along with

the suspension by the previous member, I have backed an amendment

calling for people that were tougher punishments for people who abuse

animals. I was pleased to attend the launch here at Westminster and

pledge my support to increase sentences for animal abusers. It is

unacceptable that people can abuse animals and get away with such a

small penalty. Battersea's research shows England and the Arbeloa

sentences for cruelty across 100 countries and states worldwide.

months' imprisonment is neither a months' imprisonment is neither a

punishment nor a deterrent when it comes to some of the most serious

offences. For the background of the debate -- further background comes

from the report on animal welfare, as mentioned, and I nearly called on

that so often, it is almost pass . that so often, it is almost pass .

It raises a number of recommendations such as the

timetable for the tenth yearly review of the animal welfare act.

I'm sure the minister will respond to that in due course. The ban on

third-party puppy sales and for local government to be responsible

for the enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act. It also went on to

discuss the role of the RSPCA, who historically undertake the

overwhelming number of animal welfare prosecutions and

investigations. It is recommended that they should continue this

important work investigating animal welfare cases. It should, however,

ripped withdrawal from acting as prosecutor of first resort where

there are statutory bodies with the duty to carry out this role. I think

a number of said at the time it wasn't for the select committee to

require the RSPCA to withdraw, because they will always have the

right to raise private prosecutions in the same way as any other

citizen. The real question is about the word "Duty" of the other bodies,

as mentioned in the recommendation from the report. And which statutory

bodies should be responsible. Like most select committees, the vast

majority of our work is done by consensus, but this is one of very

few issues that has split the committee. The majority view was one

which I voted against, not on the principle, but on the

practicalities. My view was, the expectation that the Crown

Prosecution Service or local authorities would step in as

prosecutors with no respect to the colleagues who voted for it is pure

fantasy. However, on reading this and looking at what happens in

Scotland, my honourable friend, who sits on the committee by the SNP,

made a number of important points in this regard. I am persuaded on one

thing: Society serious about animal welfare, it should access to its

responsibilities. It is not fair that the RSPCA shouldn't have to do

society's work for it. The message that the society, through the CPS

and police will prosecute, should be the one that we send, and that we

should not have to rely on the RSPCA. But as I say, that will not

happen any time soon, so the RSPCA have got to continue regardless of

what the select committee says, because they have the only option to

do it. Note the art is going to do it. I am happy to give way to my

other honourable friend from the select committee.

I thank my honourable friend from across the divide forgiving way. --

for giving way. Can is asking, and I was in the same committee taking

evidence, we found it works particularly well in Scotland. It is

not often I praise the SNP and the way the Scottish run their affairs,

but they run well, and therefore wider use think we cannot do it as

well on the side of the border? Well, with my classic cockney

accent, you'll forgive me if I do not join in praise of the Scottish

National Party Party(! . There is one that the Procurator

Fiscal's office undertakes. They are not going to do it, they didn't have

the RSPCA, it would not get done. I the RSPCA, it would not get done. I

support their ability to continue, and until such time as the local

authorities get the wherewithal to do the job, it won't be done other

than the RSPCA doing it. I support them continuing. I am happy to give

way. I'm grateful to my honourable

friend, and congratulate the member for securing this debate. I would

like to give one very bad example from my own constituency. There are

quite a lot of animal welfare issues which occurred there. This is one

where young fox had a habit of going to the large supermarket every night

to hunt for food. The fox was got hold of by a gang of boys from my

own constituency. They got it by the tail, hurled it round and round and

round, smashed its head against the wall several times and then stamped

on its head. In the punishment for that, well, it was hardly punishment

at all. So I think it is absolutely necessary to increase the penalties

for people who impose their code of cruelty on animals.

My right honourable friend makes the point as emphatically as possible,

but the penalties do not fit the crime, and as mentioned by the

honourable mover of the motion, this needs an urgent review.

As I was saying about the heiress PCA, and my apologies, I will be

over the eight minutes, but hopefully only by 1.5 minutes -- the

RSPCA, with 15% of calls to their helpline being appreciated, there is

too much work to expect the prosecutorial authorities to except

responsibility. Then there is the question of third-party sales are

puppies. And also, the animal puppies. And also, the animal

welfare organisations. Dogs Trust and Blue Cross were against the ban.

The kennel club supported it. There is no question about the issue, just

the tools to protect the vendor and the purchaser. I look forward to the

Secretary of State's views on this difference of opinion, and on the

proposed ban and how Britain expects progress on this important issue.

The minister knows he is held in high regard by animal welfare rises

and, even though that is not his primary responsibility. The answers

to the comments for that role. There is no disagreement about wanting

better animal welfare. The key challenges are how to deliver it. I

have confidence the minister and his colleagues, encouraged by my

honourable friend, led by my honourable friend from Watlington on

the opposition front bench, that the minister will continue to be as

effective in this area as he can be, and I'm grateful to have the

opportunity to send this to you. What a relief it is that we are

discussing something other than bus leaving the European Union. I am

listening to that. -- something listening to that. -- something

other than us leaving. I judge the standard of every civilisation by

how we treat animals and animal welfare generally, and ever since I

entered the house, I have been involved in animal welfare matters.

Many of these arguments and issues I am listening to, I have heard

before. Indeed, I recall when David Mellor was a member of this place,

serving on the bill to amend the 1911 Animals Act, looking back on

the different things we have done, two pieces of legislation I managed

to get on the statute book, I think, by and large, this country has a

good record in terms of animal welfare, although obviously, the

incident that The Right Honourable lady just shared with the house

absolutely awful, and no words can describe the horror. But I think we

are going to have a debate where we all agree. I doubt anyone will stand

up and say, let's be cruel to animals. So we all agree. And I

generally say to my honourable friend who opened the debate, I have

seen many reports produced by this place. Some gather dust, some are

acted on, some completely ignored. But obviously, parliaments change,

new members and, so it is as if we are raising these issues were the

first time. But there are 12-macro things that have changed. But

absolutely, my honourable friend is absolutely right that we need

tougher sentences. Whether or not our prisons can take the people,

whether, as my honourable friend who intervened earlier, we need more

publicity when people are sentenced, I don't know, but I absolutely agree

with that. The thing that has changed is, of course, online sales.

And certainly, this is a new challenge that we face, and there is

politics in everything, and there is certainly politics in the animal

world. So I have received all sorts of e-mails mentioning this

organisation, praising this and that person, and I'm not sure we are all

singing the same song. So I will just raised two ladies. Lorraine

Platt who runs the animal welfare organisation which I support. And

she has done a fantastic job as far as I'm concerned as an individual.

And the Countess of Stockton who is a trustee of the RSPCA, and I leave

it to other members to decide which organisations they are going to

praise. But online sales is a very, very big issue, and it has been said

already, the idea that you should buy a puppy and not see where it

comes from, how it has been looked after and all of that,... And

Widdicombe bought for my youngest child a black labrador

pedigree. As we all know, strong bell with small things look cute and

cuddly, when they grow up, there is a lot of responsibility in looking

after a pet. Will he give way?

According to my information, about one third of people don't see the

mother when they pick up a puppy at the moment.

My honourable friend is right, and that is lamentable, but I say to my

honourable friend who opened the debate, how we can put that right, I

don't know. We just have to keep on and on with the same message. The

project has been monitoring sales of animals on sites such as Gumtree.

Their findings indicate clear need for action on this issue. Despite

the figures I'm about to quote, Gumtree should be lauded for doing

more than any other sites to monitor online sales and comply with the

patent advisory group minimum standards. But over a 12 month

period ending this February, Gumtree UK adverts were monitored, and there

adverts, related to the sale of adverts, related to the sale of

animals being tracked. 58% of these were related to dogs. Estimates of

as many as 88% of dark spawning Great Britain are bred by unlicensed

report states in paragraph 95, which report states in paragraph 95, which

I have read, that Gumtree's listings of pets for sale has decreased from

50,000 to 15,000, and that should absolutely be welcomed. I say to the

minister, my goodness, I have seen all sorts of people as ministers.

Some do the job brilliantly, some need a little bit of convincing as

to how dedicated they are about animal welfare. But I do think that

as far as this particular minister is concerned, I am convinced he is

absolutely genuine about this issue and that he will react in a positive

way to the report. We do need some websites to commit to following at

least the minimum standards of PA AG, and that all the adverts display

the age of the animal advertised. That is very important. Although the

vast majority of the public state that they would not buy a puppy from

a commercially driven breeder, my honourable friend is absolutely

right about the point he made about the very small number who would. I

welcome DEFRA's announcement that it would be a legal requirement for

sellers to display their licence number on all adverts, but their

roster problems with ensuring that licenses are properly granted that

the local authorities have the resources to adequately excess and

applicant Fred licence. Local authorities are currently in charge

of licensing, but the scale of illegal trading is extremely

difficult for local authorities to tackle, as they lack the resources

to monitor the enormous body of sales taking place online. Indeed,

they are unable to monitor the trade off-line or provide qualified

individuals to assess welfare needs. In line with the stricter licensing

regime, they have to be the professionals who are able to

adequately determine if a licence should be granted. Unfortunately, at

officials to inspect places where officials to inspect places where

animals are sold and not necessarily trained specifically in detecting

animal welfare issues. Individuals are buying these animals and are not

aware that the sellers should be licensed, a very important matter.

And if I end with these remarks: Transparency and public education

are incredibly important. That should be the message from this

house. Responsible pet ownership, house. Responsible pet ownership,

and I have to tell the house, sometime in July, we are holding a

responsible pet ownership competition by the green at the

other end of the building. I hope all honourable members, if

interested, join us in these celebrations of being responsible as

a pet owner. Income from online sales is rarely

declared, and there's a lot of money lost in income tax and this should

be a significant concern to HMRC and the single most expensive dog

advertised was a French bulldog. Posted by a London based server for

?30,000 and this was just last month. -- seller. This is big money.

Even when inspections are carried out, research shows how the quality

of the investigations varied massively from local authority to

local authority, standardised inspection criteria should help make

sure that basic animal welfare is made across the country and so I do

congratulate my honourable friend and his hard-working committee on

producing this report and I hope it won't gather dust. I hope it will be

acted on. I'm delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate

and I would like to congratulate the vulnerable for securing this debate

-- honourable member for securing this debate. My private members bill

was specifically on this issue and I was disappointed not to even have a

debate on the 24th of February when I bought for a second reading and

also disappointed when it was objected to in the dying seconds by

the Conservative whips. We owe a change in the law to those that

cannot speak, that can't defend themselves, that suffer abuse and

violence and cruelty by the hands that are meant to feed them and care

for them and protect them and love them. I brought this on behalf of

baby the bulldog and scampi dog, baby was aloft by Andrew Frank at

the top of stairs before he threw her down them and laugh, and her

neck was stamped on and she was thrown to the floor with balls over

and over and her small chest was jumped on. The younger man says,

since we can make it scream any more, we should throw it down the

stairs twice. Baby was tortured and beaten by those who were supposed to

care for her, the whole horrible ordeal seems to be for the brothers

entertainment, for fun, as they filmed themselves laughing on a

mobile phone. Baby should not have suffered this abuse, but she did and

was put down shortly after the incident took place. With the

evidence was found by chance two years later on a mobile card you

would have expected that the dog would have had justice, and banks to

the hard work of the police and the RSPCA the brothers were convicted of

causing unnecessary suffering -- thanks. But she was then let once

again by the law. The brothers received a suspended sentence six

months and ?300 in costs and no monk and feel that the justice system it

did its job on that day. -- no one can feel. I was astonished to find

that the maximum sentence for any form of animal abuse is just six

months custody. Incredibly it has not changed since the projection of

animals act in 1911, the law is lacking a century behind. The issue

was meant to be dealt with by the animal welfare act of 2006 by the

last Labour government. But incredibly the provision was never

in acted and so people can inflict any degree of cruelty on animals and

still only receive a maximum of six months in prison, the public rightly

find that hard to understand or accept. Since the incident of these

brothers came to my attention I tried to amend the law to make sure

that sentences fit the crime in cases like this and was pleased to

present my animal sentencing bill, but another horrific incident took

place in my constituency which has made the case for change even more

pressing. The small dog was found buried alive in a woods on the 9th

of October with a nail buried into it said. Two people pleaded guilty,

but they were sentenced to just four months meaning they would probably

serve just eight weeks in prison -- buried into its head. The people of

my constituency have been horrified by these cases and it's important

for me to pay tribute to their response. After hearing of the

incident of the brothers and the other incident, they had the jewels

to the animals with hundreds of people -- they had the vigils to the

animals with hundreds of people turning out with flowers and

candles. I meet many wonderful dog owners as I walk my dog, but my

constituents are angry and they feel that the criminal justice system is

letting them down and that is why I'm standing here today. I was

shocked by the number of horrific cases I came across when I was doing

my research and I read of dismembered cats left on a war

memorial and 20 ducks strangled, boiling water poured on a puppy, a

Shetland pony which was mutilated. Sorry police tried to find a person

who was believed to be the theft -- recently sorry police tried to find

a person who was believed to be behind the theft and mutilation of

20 cats. -- Surrey Police. Yet only one in ten convictions presently

results in a prison sentence and we do not treat these crimes with the

weight they warrant. I urge those who think the crime of abusing

defenceless animals to have a look at this report.

It found that in families under supervision for the physical abuse

of their children, pet abuse was concurrent in 88% of the families

and in the UK new academic study by researchers at Teesside University

has also identified a link between animal abuse and domestic violence

and the study of young people in Eastern Europe found that violence

breeds violence. Adolescent males who have either experienced violence

or showed displaced violence towards animals or towards family members,

and a lack of empathy to their victims, and abuse of family members

often goes hand in hand, they are reacting with frustration and

violence, which is directed at the only individual more vulnerable than

they are, and animal. It points to a worrying cycle of abuse which can

continue if it is not properly addressed -- an animal. You would be

forgiven for thinking that as a nation of animal lovers we would

expect to be leading the way on these issues, but I'm afraid to say

we are lagging behind many other countries. The Northern Ireland

assembly increase the maximum penalty to five years and it should

be noted that they are the only part of the UK that provides a more

serious animal welfare offences to be tried in a Crown Court. The

Scottish Government has committed to reviewing penalties under the animal

health act and if we look around the world we can see that the maximum

penalty for animal Kulti in Australia is five years, Germany,

three years, but a maximum of six three years, but a maximum of six

months here in England and Wales -- animal cruelty. Such woefully

inadequate sentences must be addressed if they are to be

punishments which fit the cruelty inflicted on animals. I seek to

increase the custodial sentence from six months to five years, and it's

about time that we showed our reputation as animal lovers by

taking this seriously. I would like to thank the support of many bodies

and also my constituents who have responded to my efforts to change

the law and I would also like to pay tribute to the committee for their

work on this report. I would like to say a word on the two dogs that I

mentioned, we will probably know the level of cruelty and torture that

these silent and defenceless animals suffered and we can only begin to

imagine what they felt, but we can't and do the suffering that was done

to them, but we can show each other that this kind of cruelty has no

place in our communities and that such depraved behaviour will face to

punishment that it deserves, and I welcome today's debate and I urge

the government to change the law on animal cruelty sentencing. I would

like to thank the backbench committee and my honourable friends

and the select committee for putting animal welfare on the agenda in

Parliament this morning. I found it quite distressing to listen to the

examples we've heard of brutal animal cruelty, especially by the

Honourable lady we just heard. I would emphasise, animal welfare and

action to prevent animal cruelty is a very high priority for many of my

constituents in Chipping Barnet. They contact me about this on a

regular basis. I would like to warmly and strongly support the

campaign for stiffer maximum sentences for those who abuse

animals and act with unnecessary cruelty or otherwise fail to comply

with our animal welfare rolls in this country. And in the few minute

I have here, I would like to focus on the welfare of farm animals

because I feel very strongly that all of us who take animal welfare

matters seriously should have a focus on the billions of animals

used in agriculture across the world. And everyone at to make sure

that as a civilised society we are maintaining high standards of animal

welfare it is important that we extend this to farm animals -- and I

would like to make sure. I would like to thank Peter Stephenson for

providing me with some help preparing for this debate. My

honourable friend who was here moment ago, he said he was sick of

talking about Brexit, but Brexit does have relevance today, because

80% of our animal welfare rolls are part of EU law, and leaving that

will give us control over many policy decisions on animal welfare

and farming. And as I said, when I have the opportunity to raise this,

we should use Brexit to reaffirm our support for the highest standards of

animal welfare. We should also use it as an opportunity to see how we

can strengthen protection for animals and of course the food and

farming sector is one of the most important parts of our economy

supporting many thousands of jobs. I welcome the fact that last October

the Defra Secretary of State said high standards of animal welfare

should be one of the selling points of UK produced food in the post

Brexit era. I welcome that, and if that is to be a reality in post

Brexit farming, we need to make sure that animal welfare is the heart of

our new system of farm payment support. It is crucial that we

maintain that financial support for agriculture if we are to make sure

that food produced in accordance with high animal welfare standards

isn't priced out of the market by cheaper and less compassionate

alternatives. And in future trade talks we should be prepared to ask

those countries who wish to sell into our market to commit to accept

double standards of animal welfare. As emphasised in the manifesto on