(Leeds West) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet office, if
he will make a statement on the third round of the negotiations
on the UK’s future relationship with the EU.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the
Cabinet Office ()
I am grateful for this opportunity to update the House on the
progress of our negotiations with the European Union. I have
today laid a written ministerial statement before the House,
which provides a comprehensive update on the third round of our
negotiations with the EU on our future relationship. We have also
today made public the UK’s draft legal texts. My right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade has also
published the new tariff schedule that we will operate at the end
of the transition period for those countries with which we do not
have a free trade agreement.
Negotiators from the UK and the EU held full and constructive
discussions last week via video conference. The talks covered
trading goods and services, fisheries, law enforcement and
criminal justice, and other issues, with both sides discussing
full legal texts. The discussion underlined that a standard
comprehensive free trade agreement, alongside other key
agreements on issues such as law enforcement, civil nuclear and
aviation, all in line with the political declaration, could be
agreed without major difficulties in the time available. There
remain, however, some areas where we have significant difference
of principle, notably on fisheries, governance arrangements and
the so-called level playing field. The EU, essentially, wants us
to obey the rules of its club, even though we are no longer
members, and it wants the same access to our fishing grounds as
it currently enjoys while restricting our access to its markets.
It remains difficult to reach a mutually beneficial agreement
while the EU maintains such an ideological approach, but we
believe that agreement is possible if flexibility is shown. The
agreements that we seek are, of course, built on the precedents
of the agreements that the EU has reached with other sovereign
nations. To help facilitate discussions in the fourth round and
beyond, the Government have today published the full draft legal
text that we have already shared with the Commission and which,
together with the EU’s draft agreement, have formed the basis of
all discussions. The UK texts are fully in line with the
Government’s document entitled, “The Future Relationship with the
EU: The UK’s Approach to Negotiations” which was published on 27
February. Copies of the legal text have been placed in the House
of Commons Library and are also available online at gov.uk.
The Government remain committed to a deal with a free trade
agreement at its core and we look forward to the fourth round of
negotiations beginning on 1 June, but success depends on the EU
recognising that the UK is a sovereign equal.
We left the European Union at the end of January and we now have
seven months to agree new arrangements with our nearest
neighbours. It was always a tight timetable, but the Government
have made it clear that they are sticking to it and we need them
to get it right. The Government have promised an ambitious,
broad, deep and flexible partnership with no tariffs, fees or
charges; the safeguarding of workers’ rights; consumer and
environmental protections; and a comprehensive security
partnership. Let me push the Minister on those issues.
First, on the economy, will the Minister tell the House what
concrete progress was made last week on ensuring that British
businesses will face no tariffs, fees or quotas on any goods
exported to the EU? What assurances can he give to workers with
regards to maintaining and improving existing labour standards?
Secondly, on our regulatory framework, leaving the European
Medicines Agency, the Chemicals Agency and the Aviation Safety
Agency means new regulatory bodies will need to take on this
work. Can the Minister guarantee that they will be up and running
by the start of January?
Thirdly, on research, international collaboration on scientific
research has never been as important as it is today. What
assurances can the Minister give on our future participation in
the Horizon research programme?
Fourthly, peace in Northern Ireland was hard won. We must not
jeopardise it. In January, the Prime Minister guaranteed
unfettered access for goods moving between Britain and Northern
Ireland. Last week, it was revealed that the Government would
implement checks on some products crossing the Irish sea and that
there would be new infrastructure at ports coming from mainland
Britain to Northern Ireland. Can the Minister confirm whether
those additional checks are being planned for when the road map
for implementing the protocol will be published?
To conclude, we must not add to the uncertainty already being
experienced right now. We need answers to the questions I have
put today. I urge the Minister to act in the national interest to
get a deal that is good for jobs, workers’ rights and scientific
co-operation.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions, which touch on
critical issues in these negotiations. We believe that a
zero-tariff, zero-quota deal is available; indeed, that is the
explicit aim of the political declaration to which the EU has
said it will apply its best endeavours.
On working standards, we are confident that we will continue to
remain a leader, in not just Europe but the world, in workplace
protection and the support we give to all our citizens. It has
been the case all the time we have been in the EU that we have
maintained higher standards than other European countries.
Indeed, countries outside the EU, such as Norway, also lead the
world in this way.
New regulatory bodies are in the process of being set out to
ensure that all businesses have the certainty they need. When it
comes to scientific research, we are committed to collaborating
with European and other partners. As the hon. Lady knows, there
are countries outside the EU that take part in the Horizon
programme, including, of course, our friends in Israel.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that peace in Northern Ireland
is critical, and we will shortly publish a framework document on
how we intend to implement the protocol to ensure that we have
unfettered access for goods from Northern Ireland into Great
Britain and that we preserve the gains of the peace process.
The final point the hon. Lady asked about was certainty. She said
uncertainty was a problem, and indeed it is—uncertainty over
Labour’s position. On 2 January, the leader of the Labour party
called for a two-year extension to our transition period. In
April, he said once again that we should extend if necessary.
But, then, earlier this month, he turned turtle and said:
“I’ve not called for a pause”.
Then, on Sunday, the hon. Lady said we “mustn’t rush this” and
that, if the Government need to, they should come back and expand
the timetable. So which is it? Is the Labour party committed to
making sure that we leave the transition period on the 31st?
Mr Speaker
Order. Come, come, this is about your policy, not the Labour
policy. You are much better than that. Mr Gove, you have a great
future—don’t
waste it here. Right, let us move on. We now call .
(Hazel Grove) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Negotiations of this nature are always
complex, but their resolution tends to be a matter of political
will. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how much of the
apparent impasse is due to practical impediments and how much is
due to a lack of political will? Is he satisfied that his good
offices have the capacity, currently, to make a success of these
negotiations?
Yes, absolutely. We believe that flexibility on the part of the
European Union is in the interests of all, and provided that it
moves away from its current ideological fastness, we can secure
the progress we need.
(Perth and North Perthshire)
(SNP) [V]
What a petit déjeuner de chien! The Government are wilfully
piling a second hammer blow on to an economy already shattered by
covid, in their obsessive pursuit of a hard-Brexit agenda and the
self-inflicted economic misery that that will bring on top of a
pandemic. Is it not the case that the Government are doing
nothing other than playing political games with the futures of
millions of people by pursuing this anti-EU agenda at all costs?
As countries in the rest of the world get round to putting in
place their various recoveries, this Government will still be
blaming Barnier as the good ship Britannia hits that Brexit
iceberg. Even the Euro dogs on the street know that this
Government are making a pig’s ear of the negotiations with their
petulant demands and their rewriting of agreements, yet it is
still all the EU’s fault. For goodness’ sake, for the good of all
our constituents, will the Minister just stop, seek that
extension and engage in these negotiations like a grown-up?
I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman read it
beautifully; it could almost have been set to music. However, the
point that both of us have to accept is that we are democrats: we
voted democratically to have one United Kingdom, we voted
democratically for that United Kingdom to leave the European
Union and we are honouring both those referendum results. I am
sure that, on reflection, he would wish to as well.
(Ipswich) (Con)
Over recent weeks, we have seen how the European Union’s response
to the unprecedented covid-19 pandemic has been fraught with
internal divisions, as the German Federal Court ruled that the
European Central Bank had overstepped its legitimate competence
with its £2 trillion rescue policy. Does my right hon. Friend
agree that it is now even more essential that we press ahead with
negotiations and end the transition period by the end of this
year, so that we can regain complete control over our money, our
borders and our laws and therefore have the flexibility and the
nimbleness in this country to chart our own path to recovery post
covid-19?
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Were we to extend the
transition period, as some have argued for, including the SNP
and, in a previous incarnation, the Leader of the Opposition, we
would find ourselves paying additional sums to be part of the EU
subject to new laws over which we have no say and without the
freedom to regulate our economy in a way to ensure that our
recovery works.
(Brighton, Kemptown)
(Lab/Co-op)
Under the single-use plastics directive, the EU is introducing a
range of bands, labelling and extended producer responsibility on
single-use plastics, as the Minister, who worked in this area,
well knows, which will lead to increased recycling and producers
covering the costs. In developing our own world-leading
environment management system, what discussions are we having
with the EU on its schemes, and when will we inform industry if
we plan to align with the EU or to produce our own betterment
plans, because they need to know soon?
Yes, during the happy years that I spent at the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we made strides, as indeed
did European nations, on improving recycling and reducing the use
of single-use plastic. We pay close attention to what is
happening in Europe and elsewhere as we develop our plans, but,
in significant areas, our plans are ahead of where the EU is now.
None the less, we want to work co-operatively because, even
though we may be in different jurisdictions, we all share one
planet.
(Dudley North) (Con) [V]
I congratulate the Prime Minister, the Cabinet Office Minister
and everyone in the negotiating team for robustly resisting
attempts by the EU to set our laws via its playing-field clauses?
Those clauses are not present in any other comparable EU trade
agreement and are not wanted by the people of Dudley and beyond.
May I ask my right hon. Friend to be equally robust in ensuring
that the Prime Minister’s commitment to allow goods to flow
freely from Great Britain into Northern Ireland in any future
trade agreement with the EU is fulfilled, and, above all, that we
shall be ending the transition period without extension and on
WTO rules if an acceptable agreement cannot be reached?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on both areas. We will not be
extending the transition period and we will be outlining, very
shortly, our approach towards a Northern Ireland protocol to make
sure that the UK, as a single customs territory, can take
advantage of its new freedoms.
(Streatham) (Lab)
[V]
The Minister will be aware that an earlier version of the
European Union withdrawal Act contained provisions that
ring-fenced workers’ rights, namely a lock on EU-derived workers’
rights. That would have meant that, before the Government changed
workers’ rights, they would rightly have had to consult employer
bodies and trade unions. Those measures were removed and we were
told to expect them in an upcoming employment Bill, the details
of which we are yet to see. Given that the decision made in the
UK-EU trade talks will have a huge impact on UK workers, what is
the Minister doing to ensure that there is no period of time
during which workers are left without sufficient rights in law?
Very importantly, what discussions is he having with trade unions
and the TUC to ensure that workers are protected?
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. EU law will continue
until we choose to alter it, but it has always been the case, as
I mentioned briefly earlier, that we have had higher standards of
worker protection than some other European countries. I enjoy my
discussions with the TUC in order to ensure that this country can
continue, as great socialists such as Tony Benn have always
proclaimed that we should,
leading the world, whether inside or outside the EU, in
protecting workers’ rights.
(St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
[V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and warmly welcome
the stance that the Government are taking in these negotiations,
but can he confirm that, whatever the outcome of these
negotiations, we will have control of our own waters? It will be
we who decides who has access to them, which will mean that
fishermen of places such as Mevagissey and Newquay can look
forward to a much fairer share of the fish available in UK
waters?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Access to our waters will be
on our terms, and the beneficiaries of that will be our fisherman
in Cornwall and elsewhere.
(Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
This morning’s figures for the claimant count show an alarming
rise in the number of people in receipt of out-of-work benefits,
and we expect that future figures will be still worse. What
estimates have the Government made of the likely further rise in
those figures if at the end of this year we are tackling not just
covid-19 but a no-deal Brexit?
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. As he
knows, it is a source of sadness to all of us to see people who
want to be at work, not at work. Of course, we need to protect
the fragile economy of the island communities that he represents,
and we do so strongly through the power of the Exchequer across
this United Kingdom. We believe that, outside the European Union,
we will have more freedom to protect people in employment, and we
will also save some of the money that we would have spent on EU
membership.
(Chipping
Barnet) (Con)
I believe that the Secretary of State, like me, thinks that the
customs compliance obligations under the protocol can be
implemented without new physical inspections or infrastructure at
Northern Ireland ports. In that case, will he intervene with Her
Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to stop it making preparations for
new physical inspections and infrastructure at Northern Ireland
ports?
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. We are one
customs territory—the protocol makes that clear—and we will
shortly be publishing further details about how we intend to
ensure that Northern Ireland benefits from that.
(Croydon Central) (Lab) [V]
We know that county lines—and the exploitation and grooming of
our young people and the knife crime that goes with it—is driven
by serious organised crime across our national borders. When I
spoke to the National Crime Agency, it was clear that the tools
available to it—the European arrest warrant, Europol and other
things—are crucial in its fight against crime. Will the Secretary
of State clarify what he meant when he told the Lords European
Union Committee that we may not necessarily have concluded
everything on internal security by 31 December? Will he reassure
the House that we will be able to continue to fight crime by
co-operating with our colleagues in the EU without interruption
after 31 December?
Yes, it is the case that we want to have access to all the crime
fighting, law enforcement and criminal justice tools that the EU
has in order to be able to deal with crime. It is also the case
that we cannot accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of
Justice as a precondition for so doing.
(Colne Valley) (Con)
[V]
The UK is a world leader in workers’ rights and environmental
standards. Does my right hon. Friend agree that they should be
maintained in any future trading relationship with the EU, and in
fact with the rest of the world?
You betcha—100% correct.
(East
Lothian) (SNP) [V]
Following the point well made by the hon. Member for Croydon
Central (), it is not just the wants of
our economy but the needs of our society that depend on these
negotiations. As she said, our membership of Europol and our
access to the European arrest warrant are due to lapse unless new
arrangements are agreed. Does the Secretary of State agree that
it is not enough to bring in migrant flights for critical areas
of our economy, but that we need to ensure the safety and
security of our society? Will he guarantee that there will be
some arrangement that will allow law enforcement in Scotland to
access the European arrest warrant and Europol?
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, the distinguished
former Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the Scottish Government.
We want to co-operate with all our neighbours on law enforcement,
but we cannot submit to the jurisdiction of the European Court of
Justice.
(Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
[V]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that we
leave on 31 December? On 1 January, new financial arrangements
are coming into the EU. A massive net contribution would already
come from the UK, but with the rejection of corona bonds and
bigger EU budgets, our net contribution would be much bigger, and
that would hamper our efforts to get our own economy back on
track.
I am very grateful for the question from my hon. Friend. He is
absolutely right, and that is one of the very important reasons
why we need to extricate ourselves from any further payments. I
also congratulate him on looking so well. I thought for a second
that he had become the Member of Parliament for High Barnet.
(Nottingham South) (Lab)
[V]
The aerospace, shipping, haulage and freight industries have
repeatedly pleaded with the Government to seek arrangements based
on evidence, not ideology—in particular, through the Government
delivering on their commitments to continue participation in the
EU’s aviation safety regulator, and in security and safety zones.
These sectors have managed under the incredible pressure of
coronavirus, but clearly they cannot take any more strain than
they are already under. Will the Minister listen to the experts
and keep the Government’s promises on the EU’s aviation safety
regulator, and on security and safety zones, rather than putting
these vital industries at unnecessary risk?
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. We are working with the
aviation sector and others to ensure that we can have as seamless
a transition as possible.
(West Bromwich West) (Con)
[V]
As I have said previously, I am honoured to represent the
workshop of the United Kingdom, in the communities of Wednesbury,
Oldbury and Tipton, but businesses in my communities are
increasingly frustrated by the European Union’s standoffish
approach to the negotiations. Does my right hon. Friend share the
analysis of business owners in my constituency that the UK’s ask
is a simple one—namely, a free trade agreement in line with the
agreements that the EU has with other countries—and the EU’s
refusal to recognise that is holding up progress in the talks?
Perhaps he could give a message to businesses in my constituency,
which are growing increasingly frustrated by the EU’s standoffish
approach.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He stands up for the people
of West Bromwich and Tipton brilliantly. He and those businesses
are right that we need to move to a new, precedent-based
relationship.
(Nottingham East) (Lab)
[V]
Our relationship with the European Union will have significant
economic effects on our country. The Minister will have done
modelling of the impacts; how many people in the country will be
pushed into poverty as a result of us leaving the European Union?
As we leave the European Union, we have a saving in the amount of
money that we currently remit to the EU. That money can be
deployed here in the UK, on our NHS and to support the
vulnerable.
(North Somerset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that global trade was
contracting before the covid crisis struck. Would it not be a
major boost to confidence in the global trading system for the EU
and the United Kingdom to reach a trading agreement in the time
available, and is there not an increased responsibility on us to
do so, given the covid crisis?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a very
powerful incentive for the European Union to put the interests of
its members and citizens ahead of ideology. The EU—as, I would
hope, a body that takes its internationalist credentials
seriously—would recognise that it would be a boost not just to
its own economy and our economy, but to the world economy and the
global trading system if we were to conclude a deal.
(Rutherglen and Hamilton
West) (SNP) [V]
The International Monetary Fund and business leaders want the
Government to reduce economic uncertainty amid the coronavirus
pandemic. Recent polling found that two thirds of the public want
an extension to the transition period. I know that the Minister
is not always fond of expert opinion, but will he heed their
warnings and buy business precious time to adapt to the economic
headwinds that Brexit will bring?
I am very fond of expert opinion, and the universal view of
experts is that Scotland operates the largest deficit of any
country in Europe. Were Scotland to become independent, it would
be perilous for the people of the country that I love, and that
is why the Union that works—the United Kingdom—should endure.
(Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
[V]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we can only proceed to
negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU if the EU recognises
that our basic approach to the negotiations is formed on the
mandate of the British people—the same mandate that the people of
Stoke-on-Trent Central gave me and voted for in December? May I
also thank him and the Government for the positive support that
we have had for the ceramics industry in all the international
trade negotiations?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The people of Stoke-on-Trent,
whom she represents so ably, have consistently voted to leave the
European Union and for politicians who have argued that we should
leave the European Union, the customs union and the single
market. In so doing, there will be new opportunities for the
ceramics sector, which does so much for our economy.
(Bethnal Green and Bow)
(Lab)
In February this year, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
admitted that border checks would be inevitable, yet the Prime
Minister promised voters that frictionless trade with the EU
would continue after Brexit. What guarantees—not meaningless
assurances—can the Minister give, based on negotiations so far,
that British businesses will be able to export to the EU without
any tariffs, fees and charges when the transition period comes to
an end?
That is the agreement to which the EU committed itself in the
political declaration, so I expect to hold it to it.
(Clwyd West) (Con) [V]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that UK control of its own state
aid regime will be essential as we seek to rebuild our economy in
the wake of the coronavirus outbreak? Is not this another good
reason to ensure that we leave the transitional arrangements
completely on 31 December?
Yes and yes. As a distinguished former Minister in the Department
for Exiting the European Union, my right hon. Friend knows
whereof he speaks, and he speaks the truth.
(Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
[V]
Will the Minister give a guarantee that he will succeed in
protecting vital supply chains, such as those relied on by
Cadbury in my constituency and by Jaguar Land Rover, not least in
the light of gloomy economic forecasts and today’s unemployment
figures?
The hon. Gentleman is a consistent and strong voice for UK
manufacturing, and I agree with him that we need to ensure that
supply chains are protected. They have taken a battering because
of covid-19, but it is instructive that some automobile
manufacturers are talking about reshoring production into the UK
because of the advantages of so doing.
(Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
[V]
The rural economy in Brecon and Radnorshire has been hit hard by
covid-19 and the resulting lockdown. Does my right hon. Friend
agree that any extension to the transition period would not only
cause more uncertainty for rural businesses but hold the UK
economy back further at a time when vital recovery is needed?
My hon. Friend is a brilliant advocate for our farmers in the
beautiful part of Wales that she is so lucky to represent, and
she is absolutely right that the uncertainty over whether or not
we will leave on 31 December is deeply damaging. I am afraid that
the uncertainty generated by the Labour party is a problem,
because they cannot have their date and eat it.
(Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
What concrete proposals to improve workers’ rights will the
Minister take to these negotiations, which he has just said is
his ambition?
When we think of workers’ rights, we need to recognise that the
fragility of certain sectors of our economy has been exposed by
covid-19. I think one of the things that we will all want to do
is ensure that employers exercise a greater degree of social
responsibility. One thing I have been struck by is that of course
a flexible labour market can often be a way of providing people
with easy access into jobs, but we have productivity problems in
this country. Investment in skills and training, done in
collaboration with the unions and with employers, is something
that we should be thinking about for the future, and I think
there could be a political consensus behind that across Labour
and the Conservatives.
