07/09/2017 House of Commons

way and so on. There is always more to be done and the honourable

gentleman may well want to arrange for an adjournment debate on that

subject. Statement, the Minister of State for Europe and the Americas.

Minister Sir Alan Duncan. I'm very grateful to you for this opportunity

to make a statement on hurricane Irma, which is already affecting and

is said to further Fed Caribbean islands and the south-east United

States with devastating effect. Much as I appreciate the wish of a house

to move on to the second reading of the EU Withdrawal Bill, I'm sure

everyone appreciates the importance of informing the House about the

latest position on this unfolding catastrophe. As with any Hurricane

Fly -- hurricane, no one can be sure of the effect until it has become

clear but it's force meant about planning was put into the high state

of readiness to days ago. The crisis centre has two important functions,

one is to organise the fullest possible con Schuler assistance to

UK citizens abroad and the other is to monitor the part of a hurricane

and coordinate every conceivable UK response, in particular to those

British territories affected. Mr Speaker, Hurricane Irma, having

reached category five, the highest possible category, hit three British

overseas territories yesterday. Anguilla, Montserrat and the British

Virgin Islands. Today, we expect the hurricane to affect the further UK

territory, the Turks and Caicos Islands. The hurricane yesterday

also caused damage in independent Commonwealth countries of Antigua

and Barbuda and St Kitts and Nevis and we expect to affect the

Dominican Republic, Haiti and the Bahamas today. It will most likely

affect Cuba and south-eastern Florida tomorrow. The hurricane is

heading westwards and Remain strong. We have an initial assessment of the

severity of the damage it has caused and I will outline for the House

what we know so far. Montserrat was swiped by the hurricane yesterday,

but our initial assessment is relatively positive. Fortunately,

the damage is not as severe as first thought. However, in contrast,

Anguilla received the hurricane's full blast. The initial assessment

is that the damage has been severe and in places critical. We expect

further reports to make clear the full nature of the devastation and

at the moment, Anguilla's port and airport remained close. The British

Virgin Islands were also not spared the hurricane's full force when it

passed through yesterday morning. Our initial assessment is all severe

damage and we expect the islands will need extensive humanitarian

assistance, which we will of course provide. The hurricane is expected

to hit another British overseas Territory later today. The Turks and

Caicos Islands lie in the hurricane's predicted path and

officials in London and the territories are working intensively

on disaster preparedness and response. They are also liaising

with their counterparts in the Cayman Islands for assistance. The

French and Dutch territories of Guadeloupe and St Martin have also

been hit and the initial assessments ar of widespread damage. But the

more detailed assessment continues. No British nationals have yet

contacted us to ask for assistance from these islands. Two Commonwealth

realms were affected by Hurricane Irma yesterday. Antigua and

Barbuda's less populated island Barbuda was most severely affected.

Antigua and St Kitts and Nevis were less badly affected than many had

feared, with only minor damage. We expect the hurricane will affect the

Dominican Republic and Haiti today. It will sweep on through the

south-east of the Bahamas later and tomorrow is predicted to hit Cuba

and southern Florida. Mr Speaker, Mr Deputy Speaker, officials in London

and the territories have been working throughout the day and night

to assess and quantify the needs of our territories and to coordinate

across Government response. The officials in London are maintaining

contact, although that is sometimes difficult, with governors' offices

in the territories. The governors teams are themselves working closely

with the territory's governments to respond to the crisis. The Royal

Mail ship Royal Fleet auxiliary mounts Bay is already in the

Caribbean and should reach the affected territories today. The ship

carries Royal Marines and army engineers and her primary task is

the protection of our overseas territories. She is loaded with a

range of equipment, vehicles, tense, stores and hydraulics vehicles

specifically intended to respond to disasters like this. We stand ready

to charter flights to deliver additional supplies as appropriate.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I spoke last night in London representatives of

the British Virgin Islands and I was in our crisis centre yesterday

afternoon and again last night and have been based there this morning.

Add 8:45am last night, the Foreign Secretary spoke to Anguilla's cheap

Victor Banks but were unable to contact the premiere of the British

Virgin Islands last night but Lord Ahmed has been in touch with the

governor this morning. We will work in support of the overseas

territories to support the best possible assessment of their

immediate and longer-term needs. To that end, my right honourable friend

the Secretary of State for Defence will chair a meeting of COBRA at 2pm

today. Our priority is to support the territories' governments in

meeting their immediate humanitarian and security needs, including

shelter, water and accommodation. We have for UK aid humanitarian experts

in the region who are helping to coordinate the response. We will

assess with the territories' governments their long-term

reconstruction requirements, as we have done in the past. And as the

House will appreciate, the relationship between overseas

territories and their parent countries differs. Whilst French

territories are directly governed, that is not the case with our

overseas territories. While this means that our responses will of

course be different, we will seek to achieve the same objectives and are

taking immediate steps to do so. The Prime Minister called Erdogan on

this morning to discuss our respective responses to Hurricane

Irma. They agreed the devastation it had route was terrible, with

unconfirmed reports emerging of a number of fatalities. Mr Deputy

Speaker, the Prime Minister updated the French president on our

response, noting that DFID humanitarian advisers had already

deployed to the region to provide damage assessments and humanitarian

support and that our FA mounts Bay was already nearly area. They agreed

to co-operate closely, including with the Dutch, to understand the

extent of the damage and coordinate relief efforts. Mr Deputy Speaker,

we will all do our utmost to help those affected and I undertake to

keep the House updated as required. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I

thank the Minister for his statement and allowing me to see the statement

prior. May I start by associating myself with the minister's remarks

in sending the deepest sympathies of this House to the people whose lives

and livelihoods have been lost due to the devastation caused by

Hurricane Irma. Many thousands of British tourists visit the Caribbean

every year for their holidays and I'd like to ask, what is the

Government's estimate of the number of UK nationals currently in the

countries that have been hit by Hurricane Irma or are likely to be

affected? And what requests for consular assistance as the Foreign

Office received from British National is in the countries

affected? And also, what assistance is the Government ready to provide

in response to such requests? What efforts are the Government making to

communicate with British Nationals across the region to make sure they

know what help is available to them? And, of course, holiday-makers are

by no means the only people who will have been affected. The damage for

those who live in the region will be both profound and lasting,

particularly with the effect on the tourism industry. Many of these

people may also be British, given the number of UK overseas

territories in the Caribbean. The Minister has given us the

Government's initial assessment of the impact of Hurricane Irma on

overseas territories such as Anguilla, Montserrat, Turks and

Caicos and the British Virgin Islands, but I would like to ask

what discussions has the Minister had or intends to have with the

governments of these territories about the effects of the Hurricane

Fly -- the hurricane and the with the governments of Antigua and

Barbuda, which have also been affected? And what efforts are the

Government making to work with the authorities in these areas on their

reconstruction plans? I would also like to ask what reassurances he can

give that the UK stands ready to provide not only the immediate

humanitarian and security relief that is needed so urgently, but also

the sustained commitment to reconstruction which will be so

important in the longer term? And, finally, I am sure that the Minister

will commit to providing regular updates to the House on the progress

of reconstruction efforts and particularly on what steps this

Government is taking to assist with those efforts and also I am

confident that they will update the House following the COBRA meeting to

be held this afternoon. Very grateful for the honourable lady

both for what she said and the tone in which she said it, because I

think this House will want to send out a united message of concern and

all want to do the very best for those who have been in many cases

devastated by the ferocity of this hurricane. On the question of

tourists, many of course will have left because there was some notice

that this was likely to come and it's not actually peak season, so we

have not yet had any direct individual requests for conscious

assistance, but I think we all have concerned that beneath the rubble,

in some cases, there will be cases which will require our urgent

personal response. Our focus, I can tell the House, is of course not

just on tourists, it's on everybody. We really have complete overall

concern, particularly for our overseas territories, which are

affected, and to that end, we have ?12 million immediately available

through our rapid response mechanism for disaster relief fund recovery

and with me in the House is the Secretary of State for International

Development, who, like the Foreign Office, are on full alert and doing

their utmost with a great wealth of expertise to deploy on this and I

can speak not only as Foreign Minister, but someone who in past

has also been a DFID Minister. So we of course will in the long term

always meet our full legal obligations under the overseas

development act to our overseas territories, but can I assure the

House that we are pulling out all the stops to make sure that we can

do our utmost to bring urgent assistance once we, with the

professionalism DFID has, does the assessment to make sure we know who

are in greatest need and then we can use our adeptness and flexibility

urgently to address those who most need our help.

Can I thank him for his statement, and the comprehensive nature of the

response we appear to be preparing, and the undertaking that we will

provide all necessary immediate humanitarian assistance. Can I

welcome the fact he has spoken to the London representatives of the

BVI, and would he confirmed he would be happy to act as representative

for a London to the president of Anguilla, so she can be kept

updated. The overseas territory of Anguilla does not receive direct aid

from DFI D, only from the European Union, and can I assume the ?12

million means we are equally committed to the long-term recovery

and reconstruction of Anguilla as we are to the immediate humanitarian

need. We are endeavouring to contact everyone, and contact in some cases

is quite difficult. It is always a distinction between DFID funding,

which is eligible and which is not, but we will reassure as much as we

can to give the help we would like to give wherever we find the need is

severe. So, as my honourable friend requests, we will focus on all help.

We have dealt with many hurricanes and typhoons in the region. Indeed,

four years ago, I give assistance as the Minister to Saint Lucia and

Saint Vincent, who had all the bridges swept away, but it was

because we had professionalism to assess the damage that we knew how

best to respond to it. Our response is flexible, and again I think that

reflects the competence of DFID. Thank you. I am grateful of today's

statement. There is no doubt that the devastation across the Caribbean

is grave and a tragedy. Our thoughts and wishes go out to those assessing

the damage, and to those who have already been hit, Anguilla, and St

Lucia, and Barbara, which the Prime Minister says is totally demolished

and nearly uninhabitable. We would encourage the secretary to send as

much urgent aid as possible to them. The prospect of it hitting locals

who have already been hit amid the devastation is unthinkable. There is

an increasing precedence of hurricanes. In some areas, there

have been three, and I quote, these have been described as the new

normal. We must put action on this as a priority. A representative from

Anguilla told the BBC, climate change is real, in the Caribbean we

are dealing with the consequences of climate change, but it is

unfortunate there are some who see this differently. Will the

government express the solidarity with those affected, particularly

those on Barbuda, in association with the Prime Minister. As part of

the UK's much vaunted relationship with the US, what pressure is being

put on Donald Trump to be part of the solution and not the problem? --

the problem, regarding the Paris climate agreement? There is no

greater incidence of severe weather in many parts of the world. But I

hope he will allow me to confine myself to the urgent nature of the

response to people in desperate need than to engage today in a debate on

the broader issues. Our priority is primarily to overseas territories,

but not confined to them. Thus we will be focusing on the British

Virgin Islands, Anguilla, and the Turks and cake silence, and that is

why the crisis centre and the Foreign Office and DFID are joining

to deal with this, to make sure help is rapid. Clearly this is a

devastating situation, but it is unfolding. Gucci assure us that he

will keep us updated on this? I can tell the House this comes in phases.

You have to start with the urgent cases of injury, homelessness, the

need for food and water, then there is the important process of the

follow-up, to make sure that infrastructure and reconstruction

are properly planned for and considered. I spoke to a student

from Anguilla who has arrived today in Chesterfield. He has laid out the

skill of the devastation in Anguilla, it is quite unlike

anything they have seen before. The Minister was at pains to explain the

difference between our relationship and that of the French government

with the overseas territory. If he can make the same objectives they

have set out, he will know that we need a great deal greater resource.

Will he lay out what resources we will be able to Bashar will he lay

out what we can do to help the schools, hospitals, prisons, the

devastated infrastructure they need to get back on their feet? I

understand what he's saying regarding Anguilla, because people

in the media are comparing our response to that of the French. I

hope I can give him genuine reassurance on this. We are well

practised in emergency response, and we Place Royal auxiliary vessel in

the area every year in anticipation of this. This one has been

particularly severe, but the reason for having this auxiliary vessel is

that you do not trap response resources on an island which might

more importantly be needed in a neighbouring island. Sodhi auxiliary

vessel has flexibility, the ability to make water. It crucially has a

helicopter, which means people can be reached very quickly. The Royal

auxiliary vessel is a fantastic resource which we should be very

proud of. It has Marines, military engineers, supplies, and it can

deploy flexibly relating to the devastating path of a hurricane. You

never know until it has happened where the need is greatest. We can

supplement this initial urgent response with other belief flights

supported by DFID out of the disaster relief funding we have, and

over time the House will see that our response will prove effective

and good for the people we are there to look after. My thoughts go out to

people I worked with quite closely, and have been trying to contact

them. Does this not highlight a conundrum that 1's overseas

territories have preferential treatment on the DFID budget, it is

not recognised what real risks small island states have, and how can he

use his time with the Foreign Office to make sure this conundrum is

addressed? Can I acknowledge his service as a Foreign Office minister

with his great knowledge of this field. He is asking me to explain or

give a thesis on what one might call the border conundrum, we're overseas

development assistance funding applies in some cases but not in

others, but when it comes to hurricanes and typhoons, the

argument may well be that we wish we had spent money in advance and that

kind of thing. Thought will be given on this, but DFID will do the utmost

it can to make sure we address meet work -- addressed the need wherever

it is needed. If hurricane hardly happened 25 years ago, an MIT

professor states it would have been an event which happens once in 2000

years. Now we have had a Kenama, which has appalling loss of life and

deadly floods. -- Hurricane Irma. What are we doing

to get the help back on track? It is urgent and we are failing. The main

focus is on emergency relief. As part of DFID programmes, that is

assistance to make sure flooding can be reduced, and infrastructure can

hold up, so I know that the advanced work to which she refers is deeply

entrenched in many of the programmes across the world on which DFID

spends money. The Foreign Office crisis centre and the Department for

International Development have done us proud by springing into action,

and I welcome the ?12 million fund he mentioned. However, the

devastation caused by the hurricane will be exacerbated by another one,

Hurricane Jose, and I wondered if they have taken into account what

further damage Hurricane Jose could create. I have been concentrating

very much on Hurricane Irma, but I will immediately go and see what I

should know about Hurricane Jose. The serious point is that the

government wanted to come to the House at the earliest opportunity to

let the House know what we know, to share a very openly and

transparently clear picture of what we had prepared and what we wish to

do, and what I said earlier, I am sure we will update the House in due

course to explain what we have done subsequently. As someone who was

involved with aid to Montserrat, what damage has actually been done

to it? I notice he says it was swiped by the hurricane, but I do

not know what that means. Secondly, there was an interesting programme

on BBC science last night, and preparing to go to Mars. Given that

we are preparing to go, as, why is it we cannot predict hurricanes much

sooner before the hit? You may not be able to answer that, but I think

it is an interesting question. She will forgive me if I focus more on

Montserrat than on Mars today. I am very familiar with Montserrat, which

had its own problem when it had its volcanic eruption many years ago.

The damage assessment we had was fortunately that Montserrat has not

been severely hit. The hurricane passed over did not cause the

widespread disruption or demolition that we feared. At the moment, our

attention is on those countries affected by the hurricane, and quite

rightly the government's focus should be on that. But back in 2015,

storm Desmond which had an impact in America, subsequently had a huge

impact on this country, particularly Carlisle and Cumbria, affecting many

lives. While his priority is clearly the Caribbean and those countries

that other parts of the government -- could he assure us that other

parts of the government will be looking at this? As a sophisticated

first world country we always have contingency plans, plans for civil

response of that sort, so, I am sure that the answer to my honourable

friend is yes. In terms of a specific backlash from this

hurricane, I am sure the scientists are working on it very energetically

already. Our hearts go out to those affected

in particular because some of the very poorest will be those that have

lost absolutely everything in this, as so often happens. The rich will

rebuild their mansions but the poor will not. He is right to focus on

the immediate issues, but if we are to build resilience, because there

will be another incident like this, do, for instance, the BBI and Turks

and Caicos, do they not have to have a broader tax base in the end? Well,

I think, for instance on the Turks and Caicos Islands, which I focused

on in great detail when I was a minister, which was pretty well

bankrupt and its deficit was growing, yes, part of the set of

conditions we set down to them for restoring their finances was to

improve their tax base. So I can point to a very positive record of

this Government answering exactly the question The Right Honourable

gentleman has asked, but also, implicit in his question, is if you

are going to reconstruct the devastated island, you got to make

sure you build things in a way that are going to withstand hurricanes in

the future, so when it comes to rivers that are not going to flood,

river banks that can contain the water, houses that can withstand a

greater ferocity of wind, then in a way, out of this disaster, can come

an opportunity for better resilience in the future. I commend my right

honourable friend for his statement, which in its comprehensiveness and

succinct nurse was a model which other ministers would be well

advised to follow. In relation to his last point, we have an absolute

duty of course to protect our overseas realms and territories from

environmental disasters. Is there a plan to hurricane proof as much as

possible key infrastructure in these realms and territories? I like to

think that being short and precise is why Hallmark. -- my Hallmark.

Again, across many DFID programmes around the world, areas like

Bangladesh, which suffer flooding and things like that, building in

resilience is a crucial part of the entire philosophy of DFID. So in as

much as that can also be incorporated into a country's

planning, it must be both welcomed and encouraged, but I point out to

the House, we do not govern these countries but we can encourage them

to govern themselves in a way which introduces exactly the sort of

standards my honourable friend has described. I personally have been

shocked to see places I have personally visited absolutely

devastated in the region and having been through a hurricane and a

tornado myself, I know just how frightening and unpleasant it can

be, it is shocking and our thoughts and prayers are with all those

people. I welcome very much for the Minister has had to say,

particularly about RFA Mounts Bay and the facilities it can provide.

Would he look at a second RFA vessel going to the region one or two weeks

later with the necessary infrastructure replies and relief

efforts, particularly if there is further devastation in the Turks and

Caicos? And are our search and rescue personnel on stand-by to

provide assistance? They do an excellent job in these crises. On

search and rescue, the answer is yes, they will be deployed, and I

think the COBRA meeting at 2pm will discuss all of these options, but

sitting in a crisis centre this morning and looking at the auxiliary

vessel going, one of the great advantages of this vessel, it has a

helicopter and one of the issues we are looking at very urgently is to

try and get a second helicopter and with supplementary relief flights

and possibly a second naval vessel, I am not committing it to it now but

in the hope we can do that when we look at the disaster and assess it,

then the answer to his questions I hope will be yes but I would just

say to the House that we had to appreciate that this is a massive,

perhaps unprecedented, natural disaster. We haven't seen a

hurricane on the scale in our lifetime and so we are going to have

to assess the damage and respond as best we possibly can, knowing that

this is, as I would put it, a whopper. I thank my right honourable

friend for his statement and the commitment made by the Government to

help those suffering. Clearly, the United States of America, in advance

of the hurricane, have ordered the evacuation of Key West completely.

That wasn't practical on many of the islands that have been devastated.

But has there been any request, for example for Barbuda, to be

completely evacuated, given that reports suggest it is completely

uninhabitable? We are not empowered, Mr Deputy Speaker, to demand the

evacuation of countries which are self-governing. But we do our best

to make sure that they are fully informed and modern science does

help inform people and so compared with perhaps even two decades ago,

people have had greater prior notice of the danger than they would have

had them. I welcome the minister's commitment to immediate relief, but

with respect, I think that today is precisely the day we need to be

talking about those broader courses. As we just heard, Gaston Brown, the

leader of Antigua and Barbuda is talking about climate change today.

Can he reassure the House that we don't have to wait for a hurricane

to hit the UK before we have the kind of analysis we need from this

Government to tackle climate break down because without that, we will

not see the climate leadership his Government likes to claim in theory

being shown in practice. I apologise for promoting you, you have

miraculously reappeared and I didn't see you out of the corner of my eye.

May I just say that I think the honourable lady has deeply misjudged

the tone of this House today. We are seeing people in deep and urgent

immediate need and we are also leading the world on climate change

and she ought to show a bit more urgent and immediate humanity than

make the point she has made today. I very much welcomed the statement by

the Minister with regards to rescue and relief. The Minister in the

statement says that we are en route, the Royal Navy ships, later today.

The United States already have carriers there at the moment and

choppers and field hospitals. Are we in touch with them to have a joint

operation and ensure all that can be done is done? I think one of the

positive elements of great international phenomenon like this

is that countries do their work together -- a grave international

phenomenon. We are working with the French under Dutch and there will be

coordination with the Americans that they will be primarily focused on

Florida but I would hope that where one country will help another, they

will all do so and I'm sure there will be such incidents in the days

ahead. I appreciate the speed in which the Minister has come to the

House to update us on what is happening. Can he talk briefly about

Haiti? All reports say the storm will be travelling to Haiti, so can

I ask him what the Foreign Office and DFID will be doing to improve

the relief for Haiti when the storm hits because he will appreciate, as

will the Secretary of State for DFID, that they have had multiple

disasters over a number of years with difficult to rain. Can I ask

what he is doing to address that? It is such an enormous hurricane,

hitting so much land mass, that there will need to be a massive and

comprehensive response. We have deep and extensive experience of going

into Haiti following hurricanes in the past, but I say again, our first

priority will be to protect and assist British overseas territories.

I welcome the minister's statement and his commitment to keep this has

updated. Could I invite him once again to publicly thank all of those

working at the FCO crisis centre. He has seen their work first hand but

so often it goes unseen and in particular, their important work for

communication and ensuring British citizens are as safe as possible

when they are abroad. I particularly appreciate what my honourable friend

has just said and it refers equally to DFID, where officials have been

working throughout the night. As I say, I was at the crisis centre

yesterday afternoon out and at half past nine last night and again this

morning. They have been manning this around the clock, constantly in

touch with the overseas territories and other political groupings to

make sure that we can be as co-ordinated as we possibly can and,

yes, I publicly thank all of them as everyone in this House I am sure

would share. I absolutely appreciate the importance of the immediate

humanitarian effort and I would hope that at the COBRA meeting this

afternoon, the Government does also look at the possible impact of

hurricane Jose, which I think is quite alarming, the reports we are

receiving but I also urge the issue of climate insurance, I think this

is something that is to be on the political agenda. I can give a

positive answer to that, within DFID, this is a positive and ongoing

policy stream where, again, I think the UK and DFID are in the lead

across the world and so I can reassure the honourable laid a very

constantly -- lady very confidently. This has been a devastating

hurricane, but the islands will recover and past experience tells us

that they often recover well before they are perceived to have

recovered. Will be therefore be helping to provide assistance and

communicating that fact and promoting the islands once they are

in a position to communicate that they are open to business again? Let

me do my bit now by saying people I hope will still plan to go on

holiday to these islands. They will be pieced back together and the

worst thing that could happen to them is that they face long-term

economic cost because people turn their back on them. I would urge

everyone not to turn their back on these islands but to think

positively of going there to get some sunshine and to make sure they

can share in their recovery. First of all, Minister, I am greatly

encouraged by your response, very comprehensive and very substantial

and you have set an example for other offices and apartments to

follow and I'm sure they will be trying to emulate your efforts. What

support is available for the British National is on holiday in the path

of Hurricane Irma at this moment, with more hurricanes on the way? I

have some constituents who are in rented accommodation there now, so

what discussions have taken place with the embassy to get the advice

and safety across to those people in those places? I mean, the advice is

very clear from public media and also on the Foreign Office website

in terms of travel, but we have not yet had any direct requests the

consular assistance. But one of the reasons are crisis centre is on full

alert is to make sure that if we do so, we can respond to maximum

effect. Sir Edward Leigh, point of order. I understand a huge number of

people have put in to speak today and equally on Monday. Now,

Hurricane Irma is a tragic and deadly event but it is not heading

towards our shores but Brexit is and our efforts here will depend whether

it is a gentle touch on the cheeks or a storm, so I do urge the

Government on Monday to try and desist from bringing statements, so

we get a record number of backbenchers and indeed on every

occasion to be generous with the House of Commons both with

information and time. I agree with that view and it is one I have

articulated to the Government Chief Whip and which I understand. He is

sympathetic. For my own part, trying to be helpful, I can say that

notwithstanding my enthusiasm to serve the housing granting where

appropriate urgent questions, colleagues will understand that the

bar for urgent questions on Monday will be very high. Mr Kenneth

Clarke. Has the chief whip explains you why there is any reason we don't

suspend the five o'clock rule this evening? There is no chance of any

division taking place on the first day of a two-day debate and it

really is rather absurd when we discuss such enormous issues with

such long-term significance that members are told they have got to

confine their remarks to three minutes or some equivalent? An

explanation has been offered to me on that point. I'm sympathetic to

what The Right Honourable and learn a gentleman has said and hope

account will be taken of it, not least in relation to Monday and

although I know The Right Honourable gentleman speaks in support of the

rights of all of his colleagues, I hope he is at least moderately

mollified to know that there is no question of the Right Honourable and

learner gentleman today will probably add any other time in a

speech being confined by the chair to a mere three minutes. Check are

Muna. Thank you Mr Speaker, I was wondering whether you could give

your views and advice with regard to the matter of Big Ben. Many tears

have been shared across both sides of this has at the silencing of the

bong is Big Ben, but the issue I want to raise is much more serious

than that. The company, the construction company that has been

awarded the preconstruction and scaffolding contract for Big Ben,

Sir Robert McAlpine, we understand has been awarded the main contract

to fix those bongs and to do the refit of Big Ben. We had a debate

earlier this week in Westminster Hall about blacklisting. Sir Robert

McAlpine was one of the firms that founded the consulting Association

which was responsible for the blacklisting of over 3,000

construction workers, depriving them of a livelihood, facilitating the

systematic discrimination and victimisation of those workers. Can

I ask you, Mr Speaker, what message you think it sends to the victims of

this gross injustice for this House to award a contract to a firm that

not only funded the consulting Association, but provided its first

chair and another chair of that organisation? I'd also be interested

to learn to what extent this is a decision made by the House and to

what extent it is a decision made by the Government. I note the Prime

Minister is in her place, I think many people would want to hear from

her on this as well. I thank him for his point of order.

The House will not want a dilation on the matter, suffice it to say

that an initial contract was awarded. The contract for the main

works has yet, as I understand it, to be awarded. Nevertheless, I take

on what he perfectly legitimately and reasonably puts to me. House of

Commons commission considered this issue yesterday, and we are seeking

reassurance from the company, not least in light of the facts that the

honourable gentleman has just articulated, and in light of his

remarks in the Westminster Hall debate yesterday, which colleagues

and I have studied. As, I believe the honourable gentleman indicated,

blacklisting is now illegal. This House will expect any contractor to

observe the letter and spirit of the law, and secondly, to conform to the

highest standards in such matters. I hope people understand that I cannot

be expected to say more than that today, but I am not knocking what he

said. It is important, and we are sensitive to it. And we will be

conscious in the days ahead of the reputational importance of what he

has raised. Perhaps I can leave it there for now. Order, presentation

of Bill, Mr David Hanson. House of Lords exclusion of hereditary peers

Bill. Second reading what they? Friday 27 April 2018. Thank you.

Presentation of Bill? Pensions review of women's arrangements

number two, Bill. 27th of April 2018. Thank you. De Klerk will now

proceed to lead the orders of the day. European Union Withdrawal Bill,

second reading. Thank you. I called to move the second reading that the

Secretary of State exiting the European Union, secretary David

Davis. I beg to move that the now read a second time. Mr Speaker, when

I introduced the European Union Withdrawal Bill earlier this year, I

said it was just the beginning of a process to ensure the decision made

by the people in June last year is honoured. Today we begin the next

step in the historic process of honouring that decision. Simply,

this bill is an essential step. While it does not take us out of the

European Union, that is a matter for the Article 50 process, it does

ensure that on the day we leave, businesses nowhere they stand,

workers' rights are upheld and consumers remain protected. This

bill is vital to ensuring that as we leave, we do so in an orderly

manner. Let me start with a brief summary of the bill before going on

to set out key provisions in more depth. The bill is designed to

provide maximum possible legal certainty and continuity while

restoring control of the United Kingdom. It does this in three broad

steps. First it removes from the statute book the key legislation

passed by this Parliament in 1972, the European Communities Act. That

gave European law supreme status over law made in this country. It is

therefore right that it be removed from the statute book on the day the

UK leads the European Union, bringing to end the European law

over laws made here in the United Kingdom. Second, the bill takes a

snapshot of the body of EU law, which currently forms part of the

United Kingdom legal system, and ensures it will continue to apply in

the United Kingdom after we leave. This is to ensure that wherever

possible, the same rules and laws will apply the day after Exeter as

they did before. Without this step, a large part falls away when the

European Communities Act is repealed. Simply preserving the law

is not enough. The ministers will be devolved powers to address the

problems which would arise when we leave the European Union. These

powers allow ministers to make those changes to ensure the statute book

works on day one. This will be a major undertaking across the United

Kingdom. I will give way in a moment. Following this, it will be

for the United Kingdom legislators to pass laws and to adjudicate them.

Mr Speaker, the bill enables us to leave the European Union in the

smoothest and most orderly way possible. It is the most significant

piece of legislation to be considered for some time and it will

be rightly scrutinised line by line on the floor of this House. I stand

ready to listen to those who offer improvements of the bill, in the

spirit of preparing statute book for withdrawal from the European Union.

The right honourable member for St Pancras likes to remind me that I

have a dedication to holding the government for the account. I have

not changed my views at all. LAUGHTER Let me be clear, this bill

does only what is necessary for a smooth exit and to provide

stability. Have ever, as I repeatedly said, I

welcome and encourage contributions from those who approach the task in

good faith and in the spirit of collaboration. We all have a

commitment to doing this in the best interest of the United Kingdom. He

is opening that she mentioned it gives ministers the power is to

change laws, does that include changing laws to devolved

administrations? I will come to the detail of that later, and how the

process will work. If he will be patient. I thank him for giving way.

Will he take this opportunity to confirm that the government will not

use this bill to make policy changes? Again, I will detail this

later, but there is one exception to this. The primary aim of the bill is

to maintain policy as it is now. The only exception is under withdrawal

arrangements, which will be time determined and limited, and I will

detail that in a second. I give way. George Osborne, in his headline in

the Evening Standard last night, referred to the Secretary of State

approach as being ruled by decree. Why is this high-handed approach

being taken to the practices of this Parliament? I do not read the

Evening Standard, I have to tell you!

LAUGHTER And it sounds like with good reason.

I have to tell them, if I'm going to take lectures on rule by decree, it

will not be by the editor of the Evening Standard. One more time. Can

he confirmed that if the government wishes to make a change by statutory

instrument, that is a process, so it is a synthetic nonsense to suggest

this. LAUGHTER He is entirely right, and I

will elaborate on that later. The editor of the Evening Standard

should know that from his own experience. The key point of this

bill is to avoid significant and serious gaps in the statute book.

Employees can be clear about their rights, and businesses can be sure

about their trade. Workers' rights, they will be enforceable to UK

courts, which are remind the world over. The bill provides certainty as

to how the law applies after we leave the European Union and ensures

individuals and businesses can continue to find redress when

problems arise. Without this bill, all of these things are put at risk.

The bill must be on the statute book in the time ahead of withdrawal, so

the statutory instruments he referred to, that will flow from the

bill, can be made in time before Brexit date, we are in position to

look at the laws from day one. The bill provides a clear basis for the

negotiation of the European Union by ensuring continuity and clarity in

the laws, without prejudice to the ongoing negotiations. Without this,

a smooth and orderly exit is possible.

We cannot negotiate more until we have decided what is happening at

exit. Could he confirm that in choosing to not transpose the EU

Charter of fundamental rights, that it will have no impact on the actual

rights of the British people, they'd interpretation or enforcement in

court? I'm going to come to this later, but if she remembers, when

the White papers were presented to the House, I did say to my opposite

number but if there were any power is missing, to come to the

government, tell the House, and we will put that right. I have not had

a single comment since on that. I will make some progress and give way

later. I am conscious of the points made by the father of the House that

we are going to have tight time on this, and I will give way as much as

reasonable. Let me know talk through the main provisions. The first

clause of the bill, repealed to the European Communities Act on the day

we leave the European Union, ending supremacy of EU law on exit they.

When Harold Wilson led the debate here in May 1967, on the question of

the United Kingdom's entry of the European Community, he said it is

important to realise that community law is mainly concerned with

industrial and commercial activities with corporate bodies rather than

private individuals. By far the greatest part of domestic law would

remain unchanged after entry. I think the passage of time has shown

he was mistaken. European Union law touches on all aspects of our lives

in a far wider way than the draft of the European Communities Act could

have envisaged. This means the bill before us today has a difficult

task. It must rebuild United Kingdom law in a way that must make sense

outside the European Union. To do this, the first step the bill takes

is to preserve all domestic law we have made to implement EU

obligations. This mainly means preserving thousands of statutory

instruments to be made under the European Communities Act with

subjects ranging from aeroplane noise to zoo licensing. It also

extends to preserving what relates to the European Union. All 12,000

regulations will move to UK law on exit they. I have no doubt there is

much about EU law that can be improved, and I know that over time

this Parliament will look to improve it, but that is not the purpose of

this Bill. It simply brings European Union law into UK law to make sure

the rules are the same after exit. The bill ensures that any question

on the meaning of retained law... The approach maximises stability by

ensuring the meaning of the law does not change overnight, and only the

Supreme Court and the High Court of Justice should read -- the High

Court of judiciary in Scotland should do this. Any other approach

would actively cause uncertainty fossilise EU case law for ever.

Future decisions of the Court of justice will not end our courts, but

courts will have discretion to have regard to those decisions if they

find it appropriate to do so, in the same way that our courts might refer

to common jurisdiction such as Australia or Canada.

Can he explain why we're only getting eight days to discuss this

bill in committee, when the bill took us and had 22, and the

Maastricht Treaty had 20? I thank him for giving way. Given

the scale of the task that the first thing I would say to him

is to reference the Lisbon Treaty. It recreated European law on a major

basis. This does not do that. This does not aim to change law. This

aims to maintain the laws that we currently have and if he sees that

as any different, I will... I give way to the honourable gentleman. The

trouble with relying on secondary legislation is that secondary

legislation is uneventful and only gets 1.5 hours debate. Would it not,

in particular in relation to any secondary legislation under section

nine of this bill, be sensible to allow a new form of secondary

legislation where you can amend and you have substantial debate? Well,

in essence, the aim of the bill is to translate European law into UK

law and to ensure there are no problems arising from that, which

means references to you things we are no longer subordinate to, many

of these things will be relatively straightforward and simple. But the

point he should look at in the legislation is that it seeks to make

the type of legislation, whether it is an affirmative or negative

resolution, in proportion to that. If he wants to speak about this

further, I will have to talk to him. I will not reinvent the constitution

at the dispatch box. I give way. What conclusion should be electric

door about respect to democracy about other parties refusing to give

this well -- bill a second reading? I am not going to presume ill intent

from the start. What I say to everybody in this House is that the

electorate will draw their own conclusions on whether this is being

addressed in a sensible way to maintain British law in a way which

will enable that to happen in good time on our withdrawal from the

European Union, which is happening on a date, or whether it is being

used as a cynical exercise. It is not for us to decide on that, it is

a decision for the electorate to make and make it they will. I want

to make some way. Overall then, the Bill provides for a very significant

continuity in law but there are some elements that simply... In a moment.

In a moment. That would simply not make sense if they remain on the UK

Statute book once we have left the EU and in the years and decades to

come. It would not make sense, for example, for the bill to preserve

the supremacy of EU law or to make EU law supreme over future

legislation passed by this Parliament. Laws passed in these two

houses after exit they will take precedence over retained EU law. Mr

Speaker, we also do not believe it would make sense to retain the

Charter of fundamental rights. The charter only applies to the member

states was acting within the scope of EU law. We will not be a member

state Noble will be acting within the scope of EU law once we leave

the European Union. As I said to the House when I passed the bill, it is

not and never was the source of those rights. Those rights have

their origins elsewhere in domestic law or relate to international

treaties are obligations which the UK remains party to, for example,

the easy hate jar. Let me be clear, the absence to the charter will not

affect the substantive rights and I have said before that if anyone in

this House find the substantive right that is not carried forward

into UK law they should say so and we will deal with it. Into several

months since I said that, in the several months since I said that, no

one has yet brought to my attention something we have missed. It may be

that that will happen in the next two minutes but I will start with

the honourable lady and then I will come to you. I thank the Secretary

of State for giving way. He will know that the key issue is not what

ministers say the aim of the bill is but what the actual powers are that

are contained within it, so can he tell the House what safeguards they

are anywhere in the bill, in statute, that would prevent

ministers in future using Clause seven or claw nine or Clause 17 to

completely rewrite extradition policy and the demise of the

European arrest warrant without coming back to parliamentary primary

legislation? I will come back to the details in a moment but there are a

number of points including that we cannot impinge on the Human Rights

Act, which goes straight to the point she raised. I understand his

point about the charter because I agree with him that general

principles in the charter should be identical, although that does

suggest one does raise the question as to why the charter should go in

those circumstances, but it says quite clearly in schedule one that

after we have done this, there was no right of action in domestic law

on or after exit day based on a failure to comply with any of the

general principles of EU law. You must agree that that means that the

right of the individual to challenge on the basis of the principle of EU

law imported into our law by this act will no longer be possible. In

our own courts, forget about the European Court of Justice, in our

courts, and that seems to me to be the munition in the rights of the

individual and corporate entities? Well, I am afraid we are going to

have my old and their right honourable friend, a difference of

opinion. We will put in the library a letter on this specific issue

which we have already said but, but, before we go there, the simple truth

is that today, these laws, these rights, I should say, and he should

know as well as anybody, these rights originate from a whole series

of origins. Some from the British Government, from the EU, from the

Human Rights Act which we are continuing with. Why on earth we

need an extra layer of declaratory law, I don't know. It was brought in

under the Blair Government. Perhaps that explains why it was there. Now,

Mr Speaker, no, in a moment. I will make some progress and I will come

back to the lady. Mr Speaker, the conversion of EU law into UK law is

essential to ensure the UK leaves the EU in the smoothest way

possible. However, the action alone is not enough to ensure the statute

book continues to function. Many laws will no longer make sense. Many

laws oblige UK individuals, firms are public authorities to continue

to engage with the European Union in a way that's both absurd and

impossible for a country not within the European Union. Other laws will

leave the European Union institutions at the public

authorities in the United Kingdom, a role they would not be able to

perform or fulfil. The problems that would arise without making these

changes range from minor inconveniences to the disruption of

vital services we all rely on every day will stop in practical terms,

this ranges from a public authority being required to submit water

quality reports to the European Union to causing disruption from the

city by Rowe -- removing the supervision of credit agencies. It

is essential these issues are dealt with before we leave or we will be

in breach of our duties to produce clarity for our citizens. This is

Clause seven of the bill, the so-called correcting power. Unlike

section two, this goes straight to the point of the honourable lady

raised, unlike section two of European communities which can be

used to do pretty much anything in EU law, the correcting power is very

limited. It can only be used to deal with things related directly to our

withdrawal from the European Union. Ministers cannot use it simply to

alter laws they do not like. It is to adopt laws in a domestic context.

It is also restricted so it cannot be used to amend the Human Rights

Act, impose increased taxation or altar -- or change... There is also

a two-year limitation on this. Leaving the European Union presents

challenges that need a pragmatic solution. Using secondary

legislation to tackle challenges like these are not -- and not

unusual. Secondary legislation is a process of long standing with clear

and established roles in Parliament. The honourable lady. I am very

grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Following on from

the point made by the Honourable member from Beaconsfield, the

Secretary of State has asked for concrete examples of rights which

will be lost to UK citizens as an example of this act so I would like

to give him one and ask what is undertaking to ensure this will not

be lost. Earlier this summer, a man called John Wark relied on me EU

equality law to bring a successful challenge to a loophole which meant

employees could refuse to pay same-sex couples the same rights as

heterosexual couples and the supreme court agreed there was a loophole in

UK law which was a violation of the general principles of

non-discrimination in EU law. So Mr Walker was able to use his right of

action and a general principles of EU law to close that loophole so

that he and his husband can enjoy the same rights as a heterosexual

couple. That wouldn't be possible under this bill because, at the

right honourable gentleman said... Order. Order. This is a very lawyer

like intervention. I am looking for the?. This wouldn't be possible

under this bill because there is no right to sue. Will he give an

undertaking that he will close this loophole in the bill if we bring

forward an appropriate amendment? I think that will be brought forward

in the process of the bill's translation and if not... I am

sounding exactly by my undertaking, if not, she should come to me and we

will find a way of correcting the problem. No, no, with respect, we

have had one lengthy intervention. I've got to make some progress. Our

current estimate is that the UK Government will need to make between

801,000 statutory instruments to make ex-dash-mac 800 and 1000

statutory instruments to make this work. Let me contrast this to the

12,000 European Union regulations and 8000 domestic regulations,

20,000 pieces of law that have brought forward new policy is what

we have been members of the European Union. This one-off task, this

one-off task is very different to the kind of new law we have had from

the European Union in the last four years and is ultimately about

ensuring that power returns to this House. The people who complain about

using secondary legislation should remember, of that 20,000 pieces of

law, 8000 of them went through under secondary legislation, the remaining

12,000 when three without any involvement from this House at all

because they came as regulations, so they were changing the law rather

than maintaining the law. All of these changes must happen quickly to

maintain stability as we leave the European Union. Many of the changes

will be minor and technical, replacing references to European

Union law or to other member states. It would not make sense nor would it

be possible to make these numerous changes in primary legislation. Some

of the changes we bring forward would by their nature be more

substantial and demand more scrutiny. An example would be the

proposal to transfer a function currently organised by the

commission to a new domestic body that needs to be set up from

scratch. We hope to minimise the need for such bodies but where they

are needed, I readily accept that these changes need fuller

parliamentary scrutiny. That is why the bill sets clear criteria that

would trigger the use of the affirmative procedure, ensuring

debate and vote in both houses. Over the course of the two days we will

spend debating this bill, I am sure we will hear calls for the secondary

legislation to receive greater scrutiny, which the honourable

gentleman has already made, along the lines given to primary

legislation. I say to Honourable members that I'm clear that the way

to make significant changes is to primary legislation, significant

changes, and that is where the Queen 's speech set out plans for several

further bills to follow this one including on immigration, trade and

sanctions, bring in significant new policy changes is not the task at

hand. With this power, we are making corrections to the statute book

rather than bringing in new policies to take advantage of the

opportunities that are provided by the withdrawal from the EU. These

corrections need to be made to ensure we have a functioning statute

book. As far as we can see, the power we have proposed is the only

logical and feasible way to make these corrections. Our approach

remains the only viable plan that forward in this House. While we have

heard complaint on the benches opposite, we have not seen an

alternative. The essential premise of what he

argued this morning is an order to ensure a smooth ex-fit we need to

maintain as much of the status quote as possible. But this Bill goes

further. Looking at clauses five and six those changes would effectively

rule out being within the customs union and the single market for a

transitional period. That is the single biggest risk to our economy,

and that is what is contained in this Bill. Well, he's quite right in

one respect, that is clear Government policy. That is in fact

the decision taken by the British people last year, that they wanted

to leave the EU, which means leaving the single market and the customs

union, that point is clear. I know it is confusing on that side of the

House because the deputy lead Labour leader appears to have a different

view to the rest of the party, but let me make further progress after

that silly intervention. The Bill also contains a limited power to

implement the withdrawal agreement by statutory instrument if

necessary. In a moment. The Government's aspiration is to ensure

a new deep and special partnership with the EU. Under the Article 50

process, we are negotiating withdrawal of the EU. Provisions

will need to be implemented in domestic law and some will need to

be done by exit day. In a moment. Given the timetable set by Article

50 it is prudent to take this power now so we are ready if necessary to

move quickly to implement aspects of an agreement in domestic law. This

will be particularly important if negotiations conclude late in a

two-year period. This power will help to ensure the UK Government and

devolved administrations can implement the outcome of

negotiations. The power is limited and will only be available until

extra day at which point it will expire. It is aimed at making the

changes that need to be in place from day one of exit to ensure an

orderly withdrawal from the EU. I have listened patiently to the

Secretary of State on these regulations and delegated

legislation. It is not just standard. I would like the Secretary

of State to say something about the status of the legislation made under

clause seven which gives it the status of an Act of Parliament. This

is an attempt to oust review. I would like him to elaborate upon

that very condition. I am afraid it is not correct, and this point was

made by another Member, about the ability to change bits of primary

legislation. The simple truth is that that is a standard set of words

used by these, the 2002 enterprise Act has it, Labour Party acts have

it, and it is making sure nothing in the Bill prevents the ability to go

through a transition phase, for example, and into the next phase of

negotiation. Forgive me, I will make progress. The use of the power will

depend on the contents of the withdrawal agreement. For example

the power could, depending on the agreement, be used to clarify the

state of cases in the CJ JEE. It could also be used to enable

ventilatory approval for UK products pending at the point of exit in line

with the proposal in the UK's position paper this summer. These

sorts of fairly technical but important issues need to be capable

of being changed. I will give way in one second. We've had already

committed to bringing forward a motion on the final agreement to be

approved by both houses before it is concluded. That vote is in addition

to Parliamentary scrutiny of any statutory instruments with promoters

under this power and also in addition to the enormous debate and

scrutiny applied to the primary legislation to cover all and every

major policy change around our exit from the EU. So Parliament will be

followed involved in taking this forward Andrew withdrawal agreement.

I will give way. One of the most offensive kinds of provision --

defensive provision that appear is the Henry VIII clause as we call it,

not my words but the wise words of my Right Honourable Friend the

Member for Stone in 2013. There have been long-standing real concerns

about statutory instruments for many years and right across these

pensions. So to allay those concerns would my Right Honourable Friend

look at what is called triaging of these proposed statutory

instruments. Many thousands will be completely uncontroversial and can

be dealt with quickly and efficiently, but those which really

be considered fully by this chamber in this place, that could then

happen if we have this triaging. Would he please agree to look at

that principle? It will solve many of the difficulties with this Bill

across all these benches. It won't be many thousands, it is between 800

and thousand as the estimate has come down because we have taken out

much of the most serious legislation in primary legislation. I will

happily talk to her about mechanisms for making sure this is a fully

democratic and open process, and let's come back to it. I talked to

her about it in the build process. Forgive me, I am trying to hold back

on too many interventions but I will discuss it. Now... I will give way.

On the powers in clause nine to implement the withdrawal agreement,

is the Secretary of State able to give the House and assurance that

those powers will not be exercised until Parliament has had an

opportunity to vote on the agreement? Just thinking through the

logic of that, it seems to me logical. If you will allow me a few

moments to review the matter, it seems perfectly possible, but I

won't do it on the fly in case I missed something. He is right. Let

me say to the House, he is right about one thing in that there are

two issues run together, the question of the overall judgment on

the outcome and any withdrawal arrangements. The withdrawal

arrangements are most likely scum Blissett arrives late. He will

remember when we talked about how the House will be able to review the

negotiated agreement, but we said we would make the best endeavours and

expect to get it to the House before anybody else does that. That is what

we intend but we had to use that form of words because we were unsure

about timing. I will come back to him on that matter. I want to move

onto another subject if I may, which is the question of devolution,

relating directly to some of the things the opposition have been

saying. Let me now deal with the Bill's approach to. The overall

approach of this Bill is to provide continuity wherever possible at the

point of exit, not seek to initiate reforms immediately. That is the

approach that guides devolution provisions as well. Let me be clear,

this Government has a strong track record on devolution. Our commitment

to strengthen devolution settlement is clear in the statute book, most

recently the Wales Act of 2017 and the Scotland Act 2016, which

remember correctly gave ?12 billion of tax raising powers to the

Scottish Parliament. So not such small things. Leaving the EU allows

us to ensure decision-making sits closer to people than ever before.

We expect a significant increase in the decision-making power of the

devolved institutions. The current devolution settlements have always

created common frameworks within the UK by reflecting the context of the

UK's EU membership so in areas subject to EU law, all parts of the

UK currently follow common laws and principles even when matters are

otherwise devolved, for example, England, Wales, Scotland and

Northern Ireland each pass their own laws relating to food policy but

each nation has to ensure they comply with EU rules on food

hygiene. When we leave the EU it is not in the interests of people and

businesses living and working in the UK for all those arrangements to

disappear or for there to be new barriers to living doing business in

our country. The Bill provides certainty and continuity for people

across the UK by recreating in UK law the common frameworks currently

provided by EU law and providing that devolved institutions cannot

modify them. It also ensures that every decision the devolved

administrations could take before exit date, they can still take after

exit day. This is a transitional arrangement which ensures certainty

and continuity whilst the UK undertakes negotiations with the EU

on its future relationship, and the UK Government administrations

discuss precisely where we need to retain common frameworks within the

UK. I give way. What he is therefore describing is not devolution but

preserving powers back to this Parliament, a fundamental breach of

the principles of the original Scotland Act. Can he confirm that

any statutory instruments that go through this House is affecting the

devolved administrations will be as a result of this Bill, subject to

legislative consent in those administrations? I have said already

we will be putting out a consent motion. Let's come back to the core

of this argument. Everything that belongs to the EU now belongs to the

devolved administrations so this clearly doesn't work, as we will

come to in a minute. These common frameworks will be important as they

enable us to manage shared resources such as the sea, rivers and air, and

enable us to continue functioning in the UK's internal market. They will

allow us to strike trade deals and provide access to justice in cases

with a cross-border element. This includes our future relationship

with the EU. For example, they will mean a business in Wales known as it

only needs to comply with one set of food labelling and safety rules to

sell to the rest of the UK, or a farmer in Scotland can sell

livestock and other parts of the UK safe in the knowledge that the same

animal health rules apply across that geographic area. Certainty on

common approaches is critical for the day to day life of people in the

UK on the day we exit the EU and into the future. The Honourable

Gentleman is trying to get in. If this is a smooth transition I'm not

sure how much worse it is going to get. But on the points he races, he

makes a good case for the EU. I don't see any reference here to

immigration powers Scotland was promised during the referendum

process. Could he explain? I don't remember any such promise. What was

interesting in this, when I was going through the list of practical

things that apply to the citizens they are supposed to represent, what

do we here? They don't care. What they are interested in is devolution

and political power for themselves, not the interests of their own

constituents. So just as important are those areas where we do not need

common approaches in future. We do not expect to need to maintain a

framework in every area of the EU is mandated. We can assure our common

approach is better suited the UK and devolution settlements and therefore

the Bill provides a mechanism to release policy areas where no

frameworks are needed. This Bill gives time for us to work together

with the devolved administrations to determine where we will continue to

need common frameworks in future, and crucially, it will not create

unnecessary short-term change that negatively affects people and

businesses. Before the summer recess my Right Honourable Friend the first

Secretary of State wrote to the Scottish and Welsh Government to

begin intensive discussions over where frameworks are and are not

needed. In the current absence of the Northern Ireland Executive

equivalent to gauge Mint has taken place with the Northern Ireland

civil service -- equivalent engagement. We will bring forward

further detail on this process in due course for Parliament to decide.

Certainly in devolved legislation affected by the EU X it it is also

vital that certainty -- that there is certainty. The key powers in this

Bill are conferred upon devolved administration so the task of

preparing a devolved statute book for exit can rightly be led from

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Government is committed

to ensuring the powers work for the administrations and legislatures.

For instance I have already confirmed we were always consult on

corrections to EU law. I firmly believe that the outcome of this

process will be a significant increase in decision-making power of

the devolved administrations. It will mean decisions and power sit in

the right place and closer to people than ever before, and crucially,

this Bill means UK businesses and citizens have confidence and

certainty in the laws to allow them to live and operate across the UK as

we exit the EU. As the Prime Minister said... I have given way to

poor ones. As the Prime Minister said in January, the historic

decision taken by the British people in June last year was not a

rejection of the common values and history we share with the EU. But it

was a reflection of the desire of British people to control our own

laws and ensure these reflect the country and people we want to be.

This Bill is an essential building block for this which lays the

foundation for a functioning statute book which future policies and laws

can be debated and altered. This Bill is itself not the place for

those changes to the frameworks we inherit from the EU. We will have

more opportunities to debate those before and after we leave. I hope

the Honourable members on all sides will recognise we have acted

responsibly by prioritising first and foremost a functioning statute

book. In bringing forward this Bill we are ensuring the smooth as

possible exit from the EU, which enables continued stability of the

UK's legal system and maximises certainty for businesses, consumers

and individuals across the UK, and as we exit and seek a new deep and

special partnership with EU, the Bill ensures we will do so from a

position with the same standards and rules.

I hope everyone in this House recognises the bill's is the true

nature. It is a foundation on which we will legislate for years. We have

just had this morning the proposals from the opposition on their

proposal to move a reasoned amendment. I have just emphasised

the critical nature of this bill. A vote for the honourable member's

amendment is a vote against this bill, a vote for a chaotic exit from

the European Union. The amendment suggests... The amendment suggests

that this bill provides some sort of blank cheque to ministers. That's a

fundamental, that's a fundamental misrepresentation of Parliament and

our democratic recess. Using the bill's powers does not mean avoiding

Parliamentary scrutiny. Secondary legislation is still subject to

parliamentary oversight using well-established procedures. In no

way does it provide unilateral powers to the Government. On rights,

the Government agrees that the exit cannot lead to weaker rights in the

UK. We have been clear we want to ensure workers' rights are protected

and enhanced as we leave the European Union. This bill provides

for existing legislation of this area to be maintained and then after

we leave European Union it will be right for Parliament to determine

the proper levels of protection. We have also spoken about devolution.

Finally, the argument that this undermines the implementation of our

new arrangements with the European Union is completely wrong. The bill

provides a clear basis for negotiation by ensuring continuity

and clarity in our laws without prejudice to negotiations. Without

legislation, a smooth and orderly exit is not possible. We cannot wait

the completion of negotiations for -- before ensuring legal certainty.

To do so or to delay and oppose the bill would be reckless in the

extreme. Mr Speaker, I have, I have in the past witnessed the Labour

Party on European business take the most cynical, unprincipled approach

to legislation that I have ever seen. They are now attempting to do

the same today and the British people will not forgive them if the

end of their process is to delay or destroy the process by which we

leave the European Union. Order. The question is that the bill be now

read a second time. I must inform the House I have selected the

amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I remained a

house that of course front bench speakers can speak without a time

limit and they have to be sensitive to the number of people who want to

intervene on them. So I merely note, and colleagues can make their own

assessment, that on current progress, probably somewhat fewer

than half of those who wish to speak today will be able to do so.

Colleagues obviously need to help each other. Circular Starmer. The

Secretary of State is keen to portray this bill as a technical

exercise converting EU law into our law without raising any serious

constitutional issues about the role of Parliament. Nothing could be

further from the truth. Mr Speaker, let me start with Clause nine. The

article 15 negotiations that the Secretary of State and by Minister

Noel are among the most difficult and significant in recent history.

Under Article 50, the agreement will cover all of the withdrawal

arrangements and take account of our future relationship between the UK

and the EU. A backwards look and forwards look and something which

may last for decades. We know from phase one it will have to cover EU

citizens, Northern Ireland, UK citizens in Europe, and money. Phase

two of course will cover security, cross-border crime, civil justice,

fisheries, farming, Gibraltar, you name it. We hope it will be in the

Article 50 agreement. We want that to succeed. We need an agreement.

And of course it will include our future trading arrangements. Hugely

important, including any transitional arrangements, if there

are such arrangements, and much more. Arguably, the arrangements

will, and these are not my words but I will come back to them, extend to

every facet of national life. That Article 50 agreement will be voted

on. But it will then have to be implemented. A colossal task likely

to involve a whole host of policy choices and require very widespread

changes to our law on any view. So how will that be done? Enter Clause

nine. Amen De Schepper Minister well, it's very likely to have to be

enforced before exit day because otherwise there will be a gap, so

that means the whole of the agreement being implemented under

Clause nine. The whole of the agreement, including transitional

measures. It can't be implemented after exit day otherwise there will

be a gap. Let's be clear about how wide Clause nine years. We've had

some discussion about Henry VIII. Let's read subsection two.

Regulations under this provision on the withdrawal bill may make any

precision that could be made by an act of Parliament, it's true Henry

VIII, it can modify Acts of Parliament, in brackets, including

modifying this act. The delegated legislation can amend the primary

act itself. That is as wide as I've seen in my experience. What are the

limits? You might think, what are the limits, what other safeguards?

Well, Clause 9.3. You can't impose taxation, retrospective provisions,

while they are usually a very bad idea, create a criminal offence or

affect the Human Rights Act. Everything else is on limits under

Clause nine. Everything else is on limits under Clause nine. I will

just make this point and then of course I'll give way. Surely then

all Clause nine, and I'm using this as an example, you would expect

somewhere in here and enhanced procedure, a safeguard, surely not

just ordinary old delegated legislation? Surely something when

it is as wide as this. I will make this point and then of course give

way to a number of people when I have done it. What are the

procedures? Are they enhanced? No. The opposite. Schedule seven, part

two deals with Clause nine. It makes it clear that unless the delegated

legislation creates a public authority or the function of a

public authority, affect a criminal offence or the power to make

legislation, it is to be dealt with by what? The negative procedure for

statutory instruments, the least possible scrutiny. So the widest

possible power, no safeguards, channelled in to the level of least

scrutiny. That is absolutely extraordinary. And let's be clear

what that means. Because I am sure the Secretary of State and others

will say, well, notwithstanding the number of statutory instruments

under this legislation, they could be called up and Donald, Parliament

has its say. I looked up the last time a negative procedure statute

was annulled in this House. 38 years ago. I don't know how many people

have been in this House for 38 years, but many of us will have not

had the opportunity... So much, so much for taking back control. And

there's no point the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister saying,

well, we wouldn't use these powers, take our assurance. If you wouldn't

use them, they are unnecessary. And if they are unnecessary, they

shouldn't be put before this House for approval today. I will give way.

I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way. The case he is making is

for an amendment to Clause nine. He is not making a case against the

principle of this bill which is what second reading is about and yet he

and his party are determined to vote against the principle of the bill.

He used -- he ought to make that case. I have only just started. I

give way. The Secretary of State made great play that this bill is

necessary for certainty but given the legal situation that my right

honourable friend has just excellently elucidated, would he

agree with me that the powers that this gives Secretary of State Debra

regulating every aspect of our lives means that this bill is a charter

for uncertainty for ordinary British people? I wait and I'm going to

attempt to demonstrate that. I will press on. I know people want to

intervene. I hear what the Speaker says about the number of people who

want to speak and I will try to take them at intervals of that is

satisfactory to the House. The same approach to Clause nine is taken to

Clause seven for dealing with deficiencies arising from withdrawal

and under Clause eight complying with international legislation. All

channelled into the negative procedure with the least possible

scrutiny. The giant sidestepped a Parliamentary scrutiny on the most

important issues of our day. But let me top it off, if you think that's

bad, and I do, try Clause 17. Try Clause 17. A minister of the Crown

may by regulations make such provisions as a Minister considers

appropriate in consequence of this act. That's it. Anything in

consequence of the act can be done under Clause 17. Again, making it

absolutely clear, this is a proper robust Henry VIII. Look at the

Clause two, the power to make laws and does one may be exercised by

power and any other enactment. That means amending primary legislation.

And this, subsection three, in case anybody is in doubt, in subsection

two, enactment does not include primary legislation passed made

after the end of the session in which this act is passed. So it can

amend any legislation whatsoever, primary legislation, including

legislation in this session. Everything in the Queen's speech

that's coming down the track can be amended by delegated legislation

under Clause 17. I've never come across such a wide power. I've seen

consequential powers. The Secretary of State will no doubt point out

other statutes which have similar powers. I have looked at them, I

have never seen one as wide as this. Don't just take my word for it.

Don't take my word for it. The Secretary of State a minute ago said

nobody could suggest this was a blank legislative check for the

Government. Nobody could. Let me read to you the Hansard Society, not

a political body, not the opposition, the Hansard Society

about Clause 17. I quote, such an extensive power is hedged in by the

fact that any provision must somehow relate to the withdrawal from the

EU, but given that this will arguably extend to every facet of

national life, if it was granted, it would in effect, their words, hand

the Government a legislative blank cheque. Hansard's words. I need to

just complete this part of my presentation, if I may. A

legislative blank cheque. So, what's the scope and extent of this?

What is the scope and extent of this? How many pieces of legislation

are we concerned with? The White Paper suggested 800-1000, the

majority of which will go in the negative procedure route. I don't

think the White Paper could or did take into account the further

instruments necessary to implement the withdrawal agreement, which

could be very many more, well over 1000 pieces of delegated

legislation, with the least scrutiny possible. I will complete this point

then give way. I was glad to see the Prime Minister was here earlier.

Yesterday, during Prime Minister's Questions, the Prime Minister told

the House, and I quote, "The Government's approach to this Bill

has been endorsed by the House of Lords Constitution committee".

That's what she said yesterday at the dispatch box. I went and read,

again, that report last night. I have doubts about that endorsement.

But... When I finish this point. But when I is she, and the Secretary of

State will know, this morning, the House of Lords produced its further

report on the Bill published this morning. It concludes, I quote,

executive powers conferred by this Bill are unprecedented and

extraordinary and raise constitutional issues about the

separation of powers between Parliament and Government". It goes

on to say, this is the committee the Prime Minister was yesterday citing,

"The number, range and overlapping nature of broad delegated powers

would fundamentally challenge constitutional balances of power

between Parliament and Government and represent a significant and

unacceptable transfer of legal competence". Far from an endorsement

it is an explicit and damning criticism of the Government 's

approach. I will give Wade. Can I absolutely agree with my Right

Honourable Friend for pointing out what a joke this Bill is, setting

out all these supposed safeguards, and correctly he points out that the

ministers can make regulations to modify this Act. We are disappearing

down the Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole of legislation, and will he

also agreed that it doesn't matter when ministers opposite, the Prime

Minister, secretary of State of state say, trust us, we won't use

the regulars, because they could be here today, gone tomorrow. The

Honourable Member for the 18th century in Somerset could be Prime

Minister, we could be in hand is totally with all these powers. I am

grateful for that intervention. CHEERING. Order, I think we can

short-circuit this, the Honourable Gentleman for North East Somerset

has observed that the 18th-century is altogether too recent for him.

There have been two interventions. Could he go back to clause nine? In

relation to what is being called the divorce Bill, the amount of money we

may have debated the EU on leaving the EU. Is it his view that under

clause nine, that could be agreed by a minister, by Government, without

this place having any say over the amount of money paid at all? If it

doesn't come under clause nine it will certainly come under clause 17.

I give Wade and apologise for taking the wrong order. Thank you very much

for giving way. As a new Member, I also look for advice on how

Parliament has looked at statutory instruments and I also saw that the

last time the instruments were annulled by this House was back in

1979. The issue was on the cost of paraffin, and I remember 1979 and

the high cost of fuel. It was a significant issue. But given that

the Secretary of State has said in response to the intervention from

the Member for Brock Stowe that he is prepared to consider a sifting

process which means that serious issues do come back to this House,

what is your alternative? What are you proposing? What is your

amendment? Being made for the first time today. These points have been

made since the White Paper was published. That was in March. The

Bill was published in July, there have been numerous reports since

then, and I raised that the time the significant issues I am raising now,

and there has been no move from the Government. I will give way then I

will move on. The key point about section nine is that it allows the

Government to have asked Parliament to allow it to alter the Bill itself

by secondary legislation once it has been enacted. If you look through

the history of the 20th century, you will see no Bill that has sought to

do that, not in time of war or civil emergency, and in fact for every

single emergency Powers Act, they have expressly said they shall not

be a power for ministers to alter primary legislation. I am grateful

for that intervention. I am on my feet answering the last

intervention. It powerfully makes the point that this Act is

unprecedented in its scope. It is significant because the Secretary of

State will point to some of the safeguards under the Act for the

exercise of some of these powers. But if the delegated legislation can

amend the Act, then notions of exit day, how far the dead legation

legislation goes and what procedures are used could be amended by the Act

delegated legislation. I will press on. Let me turn from Parliamentary

involvement to the protection of rights. Many rights and protections

derived from the EU are protected in delegated legislation under the 1972

European Communities Act. Because they are underpinned by EU

provisions, they have enjoyed enhanced protection. 44 years worth.

They include some very important rights. The working time rights of

people at work, the rights of part-time and fixed term workers,

the transfer of undertakings provision which affects everybody

who is at work if their company is taken over, so their contracts are

preserved, something we all believe him. All health and safety

provisions have been by delegated legislation under the 1972 Act. It

didn't matter that it was just delegated legislation because they

had enhanced protection because of the 72 Act and our membership of the

EU. The same is equally true of important environmental rights and

protections for consumers. Under this Bill, the Secretary of State

says they survive, and I accept that, and he does have a condiment

to rights at work, but they don't survive with their enhanced status.

They survive only in delegated form. From the date of this Bill, they are

amendable by delegated legislation. All of those rights at work, those

environmental provisions, consumer rights, they are protected only...

They are not protected from delegated legislation. I will give

way in that order. On the specific point of health and safety

protections, he knows of course that there is in fact in 1974 statute,

the health and safety at work Act which gives not just employees

safety protections but also members of the public affected by conditions

in the workplace. Surely that in itself acts as the primary

protection to workers in this country under health and safety

provisions. White I am afraid it doesn't. LAUGHTER.

There are other revelations which postdate baton but doesn't deal with

any other rights. -- the postdate that. He is making an excellent

speech. On the issue of environmental standards would he

agree with me that there is another problem which is the governance gap,

in other words with the lack of the European Court of Justice and

commission there is nothing to enforce environmental standards,

therefore we need a new legal architecture. Judicial review is not

enough. I am grateful for that intervention because one thing that

is not on the face of the statue is any enforcement provision for rights

currently enforced in one or other way through EU institutions or even

reporting obligations. It is fair to say that there is the provision in

the Act for the creation of public authorities by delegated

legislation, and it may be that that could be used for remedies, but it

is by no means clear on the face of the Bill and I think that is an

important deficiency. Let me complete this point. Does it matter

that these rights have lost their enhanced protection? Yes, it does.

Taking back control, obviously, carries with it that Parliament can

change those rights, as the Secretary of State rightly set out.

This is to change them by delegated legislation, not primary

legislation. That is an important distinction. Does it matter, would

any anybody have a go, surely not on the 21st-century. Well... Foreign

Secretary, June, 2014, calling for an end to backbreaking employment

regulations, specifically collective reduction in Mac redundancies

directive. The International Development Secretary during the

referendum campaign calling for the Government to halve the amount of

protection given to British workers after Brexit. The international

trade Secretary, I am addressing the question, whether it is conceivable

that a Conservative Government change this -- Government might

change this. I reading out the statements of three Cabinet members.