Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) (Urgent Question): To ask the
Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union if he will make a
statement on the Government’s proposals for the implementation of
their policy on leaving the European Union. The Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin
Walker) Just this afternoon, the European Union finalised its
directives setting out its negotiating...Request free trial
Sir (Stone) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union if he will make a statement on the Government’s
proposals for the implementation of their policy on leaving the
European Union.
-
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
Just this afternoon, the European Union finalised its
directives setting out its negotiating position on the
implementation period. On Friday, the Secretary of State for
Exiting the European Union made a speech setting out the UK
Government’s position. Formal negotiations on this very issue
are therefore due to start this week.
As the Secretary of State said on Friday, we will be seeking
a strictly time-limited implementation period to allow a
smooth and orderly exit from the European Union. This builds
on the Prime Minister’s announcement, in her Lancaster House
speech in January last year, that there would be a “process
of implementation” once the article 50 period ended. It has
been supported by businesses both here and in the European
Union, which will have to make only one set of changes as we
exit the EU. During this period, the UK will be outside the
EU. We will have left on 29 March 2019.
This is an absolute necessity. The EU can only legally
conclude our future partnership once we are outside it. Such
an agreement on the future partnership will require the
appropriate legal ratification, which will itself take time.
That will need to happen during an implementation period.
However, if such a period is to work, both sides must
continue to follow the same stable set of laws and rules
without compromising the integrity of the single market and
the customs union, to which we will maintain access on
current terms. Both sides should approach this period in the
spirit of our future partnership. That means each side
committing itself to taking no action that would undermine
the other.
During the implementation period, we will still make our
voice heard. We will have to agree on a way of resolving
concerns if laws are deemed to run contrary to our interests,
and if we have not had our say. We will agree on an
appropriate process for this temporary period so that we have
the means to remedy any issues through dialogue as soon as
possible. All that will be provided for in the withdrawal
agreement that we reach with the EU, which will have the
status of a new international treaty between the UK and the
EU. We will no longer be formally part of the EU treaties
during this period.
As the Secretary of State said on Friday, we have made it
clear that during this period we will be able to negotiate
and sign our own free trade agreements. Here at home, we have
already announced that we will present a withdrawal agreement
and implementation Bill, which will provide for domestic
implementation of the withdrawal agreement and the
implementation period. We have made it clear that as we leave
the EU in March 2019, we will repeal the European Communities
Act 1972. That will be done through the European Union
(Withdrawal) Bill, which recently received its Third Reading
in the House of Commons and will shortly be discussed in the
other place.
-
Mr Speaker
I call . [Interruption.] But not
before we have heard from Sir William. I was simply seeking
to build up an air of anticipation of the hon. Member for
Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield).
-
Sir
I am deeply grateful, Mr Speaker.
Given the document to which the Minister has just referred,
which was issued by the European Union to the United Kingdom
about two hours ago, can the Government reconcile their
policy of leaving the European Union with their own
implementation proposals during the transitional period?
Furthermore, will this apply when EU laws are imposed on us
when we will have no say in either the European Council or
the European Parliament, and when our courts will be obliged
to apply European Court case law without having a judge in
that Court?
Do the Government intend to make a new EU treaty? How long is
the so-called strict time limit? Given that we are leaving
the EU, and therefore the customs union and the single
market, and ending the provisions relating to freedom of
movement, will the Government reject this new EU ultimatum,
including the statement that the European Court of Justice
will continue to apply to the UK? Will the Minister reject
the idea of the enforcement mechanism set out in the
document? Will he reject the suggestion that the European
acquis will apply in relation to the United Kingdom, as well
as the notion in the document that European Union law will
continue to apply to the UK during the transitional period
with direct effect and primacy?
Under these arrangements, we will be required to remain in
the customs union and the single market, with all four
freedoms, and to continue to comply with EU trade policy.
Will the Government reject the assertion about the European
Union acquis so that we will not be made subject to
supervision and control proceedings under European Union law?
In short, do the Government reject this Council decision as
inconsistent with our leaving the EU, which we are entitled
to do under EU law itself and article 50 of the Lisbon
treaty, and which was achieved through the enactment of the
arrangements for withdrawal that was supported by 499 Members
of this House?
-
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to the
fact that Members on both sides of the House have voted to
respect the referendum and that the UK should be exiting the
EU in accordance with the vote in that referendum. My hon.
Friend is a long-standing champion of this issue, and I make
it clear that the UK will be leaving the EU on 29 March 2019.
We will then have a strictly time-limited implementation
period, which will be as short as is practicable—we currently
expect it to be in the region of two years.
The answer to my hon. Friend’s first question is yes, but we
must make sure that we reconcile these issues through the
negotiations to come. He would not, I know, expect me to
speak on behalf of the EU and its directives today; I am
speaking as a Minister of the Crown, and we enter these
negotiations seeking the interests of the UK and making sure
that we exit the EU in a smooth and orderly way.
-
(Sheffield Central)
(Lab)
There is a majority in this House that wants a sensible
approach to Brexit, so does the Minister agree that it
would be right to reach out to that majority instead of
letting the European Research Group call the shots? Will he
also confirm, as the Chancellor, Business Secretary and
Brexit Secretary said in a letter on Friday, that during
the transition period, our relations will “continue on
current terms”? Will he also confirm, as the Secretary of
State told the Brexit Committee on Wednesday, that he does
not see the Court of Justice as a red line and that,
indeed, any red lines in the negotiations would be
“idiotic”? In that vein, do the Government now recognise
that it was wrong to rule out a customs union and close
relationship with the single market, and does the Minister
agree with the Chancellor that our economies should move
only “very modestly apart”?
The Government are too distracted by negotiating with their
own Back Benchers to focus on the negotiations that matter
with the European Union. They are incapable of setting out
a clear negotiating position, as Angela Merkel apparently
said in Davos at the weekend. Is it not the case that the
extraordinary infighting that we have seen again this
weekend is the single biggest threat to a Brexit deal that
works for Britain?
-
Mr Walker
I agree with one thing that the hon. Gentleman said: there
is a majority in this House that wants a sensible approach
to Brexit. We saw that with the passage through this House
of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, despite the votes
of Labour Front Benchers, who voted against a stable and
sensible approach with continuity and certainty as we take
this process forward.
Of course we need to make sure that we deliver stability
and continuity for our businesses, which was why the
Government set out from the start, in the Prime Minister’s
Lancaster House speech, the approach of having an
implementation period. I am happy to update the House on
the beginning of talks on that implementation period today,
but we will take no lectures from the Opposition’s
Front-Bench team, which has a different position on these
issues every day of the week.
-
(Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that the Government are making
good progress on the failsafe option of leaving under World
Trade Organisation terms, in case there is not a good
agreement on offer? Does he also agree that we are more
likely to get a better offer from the EU if it realises
that we have the perfectly good option of just leaving?
-
Mr Walker
My right hon. Friend is right to say that the Government
have to prepare for all eventualities, and I am working
closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr
Baker) to ensure that we do just that. However, I am also
very clear, as is the Government’s policy, that it is in
the interests of the UK and the EU that we secure a
partnership between us, and the implementation period is a
bridge to that future.
-
(North East Fife)
(SNP)
We are just over a year away from leaving the EU, yet the
only thing we can rely on from this Government is chaos. It
has been said in the past that the Scottish National party
is the real opposition to this failing Government, but I
have to say that we are being given a good run for our
money by Tory Back Benchers at the moment. The Scottish
Government have published their analysis of what leaving
the European Union will mean, and they have done so
publicly. When will this Government publish their analysis?
-
Mr Walker
I would say to the hon. Gentleman that if he is seeking to
provide the real opposition, he might want a few more of
his colleagues to turn up for debates in this House. Of
course the Government will continue to carry out all the
analysis and work that are needed to prepare for this
process, but we are going to stick to what this House has
repeatedly voted for, which is not to publish anything that
would be prejudicial to our negotiating position.
-
(Broxtowe) (Con)
The CBI, which represents thousands of businesses of all
sizes and from all sectors across the United Kingdom,
called on the Government just over a week ago to put the
interests of the economy over and above ideology. Does the
Minister agree with that, and if he does, when are the
Government going to stand up against the hard Brexiteers,
who mainly inhabit these Benches—there are only about 35 of
them—and see them off to ensure that we get a sensible
Brexit? If we do not do that, we will be sleepwalking into
a disastrous Brexit for generations to come.
-
Mr Walker
I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Government have
always put the interests of the economy at the heart of
their approach to Brexit. We are seeking a successful
negotiation that delivers for the UK economy and our
neighbours in the EU, but of course we need to ensure that
we are prepared for all eventualities. The implementation
period has strong support from a wide range of business
groups and we are therefore seeking to deliver that as
swiftly as possible by the end of this quarter.
-
(Normanton, Pontefract
and Castleford) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the flurry of confusion at the
weekend reflects the fact that there are genuinely
different views about how Britain should leave the EU that
were not resolved during the referendum, especially on
issues such as the customs union? Given the significance of
the customs union for the future of Northern Ireland, for
the issues raised by the CBI, and for the future of
northern and midlands manufacturers, does he agree that the
Government should bring forward a proper vote in this
Parliament on the customs union, and not just for the
transition period but for the long term?
-
Mr Walker
The right hon. Lady raises some important points, but her
party, like mine, stood on a manifesto that said we would
have our own independent trade policy and that we would
therefore be leaving the customs union and the common
external tariff. I know that Labour Front Benchers have
already voted to uphold that, so this issue has been
decided by the House, and the Prime Minister has shown real
leadership in setting out the way forward.
-
Sir (New Forest West)
(Con)
What negotiations, if any, will continue into the
implementation period?
-
Mr Walker
We have always been very clear that the benefit of the
implementation period will be there when both sides have
agreed the shape of the future partnership and we can
therefore implement that. We will be seeking to establish
agreement on the future partnership before March 2019.
-
Mr (Exeter) (Lab)
Given the damage that the chaos in government is already
doing to our economy, if the Minister will not accept the
way out that has just been offered by my right hon. Friend
the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette
Cooper), the Chair of the Home Affairs
Committee—incidentally, the vote she proposed should be a
free vote—why will he not do as the hon. Member for North
East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) suggests and extend article
50?
-
Mr Walker
I do not recall hearing that suggestion from my hon. Friend
the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). The
Prime Minister has set out a clear approach, saying that
the UK can benefit from its independent trade policy and
pursue global trade in the future. That is what we are
seeking to deliver.
-
Several hon. Members rose—
-
Mr Speaker
Order. Let us hear from the voice of North East Somerset. I
call Mr .
-
Mr (North East
Somerset) (Con)
How does my hon. Friend square paragraph 4 of the European
Union’s guidelines, which requires the phase 1 agreement to
be respected in full and implemented in legal terms, with
the idea that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?
-
Mr Walker
We have already set out our desire to reach that legal
agreement with the EU on the withdrawal agreement, but it
is of course clear from the terms of article 50 that the
withdrawal agreement must have regard to the framework for
the future relationship, which we are seeking to establish
through the negotiations.
-
Mr (Nottingham East)
(Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will have heard some of the anxieties about
Britain during a transition becoming a rule taker rather
than a rule maker. May I make a constructive suggestion,
because there might be consensus around this point? If we
want to get a final trade deal done properly, why does he
not explore the option of extending the article 50
timeframe so that we can negotiate while we are still
around the table?
-
Mr Walker
The Prime Minister has been clear that we do not want to be
in some form of indefinite purgatory throughout the
process. We need to take the opportunities for the UK that
come from having an independent trade policy, and we have
set out to provide continuity and certainty for our
businesses through the implementation period. That
continuity and certainty will be all the greater if we are
clear about the future framework by the time we enter the
implementation period.
-
Mr (Harwich and North
Essex) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend and, indeed, the Government for
refusing to break faith with the British people by
insisting that we shall leave on 29 March 2019 and that, at
the end of any implementation period, as the Prime Minister
told the House on 11 December, the United Kingdom will have
full regulatory autonomy and be free to do our own trade
deals with third countries.
-
Mr Walker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is very important that
we respect the referendum, which of course Members of this
House voted for in huge numbers and then voted to respect.
The challenge for the Opposition Front-Bench team is to
reconcile its ever-changing positions with that decision.
-
(Vauxhall) (Lab)
Every Minister and Secretary of State, and even the Prime
Minister, when asked, has said that we will leave the
common fisheries policy at the end of March 2019. Whatever
else is happening in this so-called implementation period,
will the Minister please confirm now that we will be
leaving the common fisheries policy at the end of March
2019 and that we can then discuss which other countries we
want to work with in our waters?
-
Mr Walker
It is clear that the UK will be leaving the common
fisheries policy, but we now need to negotiate the terms of
the implementation period. The EU has already set out some
of its approaches and argues that we will not be playing a
continuing role in some institutions. The logic of that is
absolutely there. We will be leaving the common fisheries
policy and taking control of our waters.
-
(Eddisbury)
(Con)
In planning for all eventualities, will the Minister
confirm that he is looking at the potential benefits and
advantages that the European Free Trade Association might
provide us with?
-
Mr Walker
The Government have of course considered that, but the
Prime Minister has set out that she does not believe that a
Norway option is the right approach for the UK. It is
important that we have control of our future trade policy,
which is one of the objectives of our EU negotiation
process.
-
(Cardiff South and
Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
We can argue all we like about the transition period, but
it is fundamentally just a plank off a cliff, and we will
have no idea where we are going when we walk off the end of
it. Does the Minister agree that it is unlikely that a
trade agreement would be agreed before we leave and very
unlikely that we would have one by the end of the
transition period? The real issue is that the Cabinet needs
to sort out where on earth it wants this country to go.
-
Mr Walker
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman and do not share his
pessimism. We start the trade negotiations from the unique
position of our having a high degree of convergence with
countries and territories that have followed the same rules
for a long time. We can therefore be very ambitious about
the future trade agreement that we can reach with the EU.
-
(Gainsborough)
(Con)
Until recently, I had thought that The Beano was a rather
silly boys’ magazine; I now understand that it refers to
“Brexit in name only”. Will the Minister confirm that
abiding by Brexit in name only is not Government policy,
that we will not move modestly apart from Europe, that we
are leaving the customs union, the single market and the
European Union, and that we will have control of our
borders?
-
Mr Walker
I am happy to reiterate to my hon. Friend that the
Government’s policy is that the UK will be leaving the EU,
and that does mean leaving both the single market and the
customs union.
-
(Penistone and
Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Minister stated that the Prime Minister does not want
us to stay within EFTA and has ruled that option out, but
that position is supported by only a few Back Benchers—the
35-plus—on the other side of the House. Will the Government
commit to ensuring that the wishes of the majority of this
House, which wants to put the national interest first, are
listened to so that we get to the right place in 2019?
-
Mr Walker
Of course the Government’s aim throughout this process is
to put the national interest first. We have been clear, as
was the hon. Lady’s own party in its manifesto at the last
general election, that the UK will be leaving the European
Union, which includes leaving the customs union.
-
(Reigate) (Con)
Our partners have made what seems to be an extremely
sensible suggestion that the implementation period should
end with the budget period, at the end of December 2020.
That is about two years—a year and three quarters, to be
precise—so why have we been unable to sign up to it so far?
-
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The
negotiations on that issue are about to begin, and there
are reasons why we are confident that we will be able to
reach agreement by the end of March. We believe that the
implementation period should be, as he says, about two
years. We look forward to engaging in those negotiations to
reach agreement with our EU counterparts.
-
(Carshalton and Wallington)
(LD)
Is it not time that the Minister put the Brexit ultras on
the Conservative Benches, and indeed some on the Labour
Benches, back in their box and pointed out that every
single business sector he has met has asked to stay in the
customs union, to stay in the single market and to be
subject to the European Court of Justice for at least two
years? Otherwise those sectors face chaos, with a huge
impact on British jobs and British families.
-
Mr Walker
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s
characterisation. He is right that many business sectors
have spoken out for an implementation period, and they
share the Prime Minister’s vision of an implementation
period that is a bridge to our future relationship, but
those businesses also regularly speak about the
opportunities they see in the UK having its own independent
trade policy.
-
Mr (Clwyd West) (Con)
My hon. Friend has now indicated twice that he anticipates
the implementation period will be in the region of two
years. Given that uncertainty is the greatest enemy of
business confidence, does he not think it would improve
business confidence, and indeed assist in the negotiations,
if he were to make it absolutely clear that the
implementation period will not exceed two years?
-
Mr Walker
My right hon. Friend speaks with great expertise on these
matters. It will be in the interests of the UK and the EU
to reach agreement on the exact period of this
implementation period as soon as possible, but it is
important that we enter this negotiation by trying to give
ourselves sufficient flexibility to achieve success.
-
(Aberavon)
(Lab)
Paragraph 17 of the directives for the negotiating team
states clearly that
“any time-limited prolongation of the Union acquis requires
existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory,
judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures to
apply, including the competence of the Court of Justice of
the European Union.”
Will the Minister please explain what exactly will be
implemented during the implementation period?
-
Mr Walker
Very clearly, as the Prime Minister set out, the aim of the
implementation period is to implement the future
relationship between the UK and the EU, and to allow us to
put those structures in place for that future relationship.
As the hon. Gentleman so often does, he speaks eloquently
in this House on behalf of the EU, but we need to make sure
that we are negotiating on behalf of the UK.
-
(Stafford) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his and this Government’s
reasonable approach. I stress again that the European Free
Trade Association does not require membership of either the
customs union or the single market, but it does provide an
administrative and legal framework that might be useful at
least for the implementation period, if not further
forward.
-
Mr Walker
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s point, and I know he
takes a great interest in these areas. We believe that both
the UK and the EU have set out a different basis for the
implementation period, and it is one that can deliver such
continuity and certainty, as we have seen in the
negotiations.
-
(Newport West) (Lab)
If the majority of Members of this House vote against the
final deal, what will the Government do then?
-
Mr Walker
It is very clear that this House has already voted for
article 50, which means that we are leaving the European
Union. What we want to ensure is that we have a good deal
that this House will support.
-
(Wimbledon)
(Con)
The welcome news on Friday that the UK economy grew more
strongly in the fourth quarter highlights the importance of
the services and financial services sectors to this
economy. In response to a question on a previous occasion,
the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said
he accepts that the future of financial services relies on
a closely aligned regime of regulatory equivalence and
mutual recognition. Does the Minister agree that that is
still the policy of the Government?
-
Mr Walker
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Of course it is
the policy of the Government to achieve a comprehensive
free trade agreement with the European Union, building on
the strong relationship we have had over the years to
ensure we maintain strong market access for our services
industry, including financial services. As he will know,
the financial services sector is one of the many that has
spoken up for this implementation period we are talking
about delivering.
-
(Wolverhampton North
East) (Lab)
The Select Committee on Exiting the European Union visited
Dublin last week, and every Minister and indeed politician
we met stressed the need to avoid a hard border on the
island of Ireland. Last Wednesday, the Secretary of State
told our Committee that regulatory alignment, as agreed
last year, applies to only six areas. On Thursday, the
Irish Government told us that it would apply to 142 areas,
as proposed by the British Government. Which is it, six or
142?
-
Mr Walker
The hon. Lady makes an important point. It has of course
been this Government’s position from the start of this
process that we will not allow a hard border on the island
of Ireland; we want to secure that through the future
relationship between the UK and the EU. She refers to
commitments in the joint report, and of course we want to
protect north-south co-operation, wherever it exists,
between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
-
(Bromley and
Chislehurst) (Con)
As well as on the importance of financial services, does
the Minister agree that the Government’s objective of
maintaining and, if possible, maximising and increasing
continuing judicial and security co-operation will also
require a continuing very close alignment on regulatory
matters, not least in relation to data protection and
exchange? Will he confirm that that will remain a priority
for the Government, more than artificial or ideological
considerations?
-
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We set out in our
data paper the intention to reach a comprehensive deal
between the UK and the EU on data, which I believe will be
in the interests of both parties. He rightly points to what
the Prime Minister has said, which is that our commitment
to European security is non-negotiable.
-
(Stretford and Urmston)
(Lab)
The Minister rightly says that a priority for the
Government should be to serve the best interests of this
country. So if progress has been made towards negotiating a
deal but that negotiation has not been concluded by late
this year, will the Government consider, in the interests
of this country, extending the process of negotiation to
secure the ideal deal?
-
Mr Walker
The hon. Lady raises an important point, but we want to
make sure that businesses have certainty both about the
implementation period and about where they are headed
through it. The benefits to businesses of an implementation
period will be much greater if they know the shape of the
future relationship to which we are headed, so I do not
believe that prolonging this discussion will be in the
interests of either the UK or the EU.
-
Mr (Wellingborough)
(Con)
Will the excellent Minister confirm that in 424 days’ time,
when we leave the EU and start the implementation period,
we will know what our future relationship with the EU will
be after the implementation period?
-
Mr Walker
I am happy to reiterate to my hon. Friend that that is
absolutely our objective.
-
(East Ham) (Lab)
The jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK
will be ended from March 2019 under the European Union
(Withdrawal) Bill, but the Prime Minister has made it clear
that the ECJ’s jurisdiction will continue into the two-year
implementation period to follow. Can the Minister therefore
confirm that the implementation and withdrawal Bill, which
will come forward in due course, will re-impose the
jurisdiction of the ECJ on the UK?
-
Mr Walker
There is a crucial distinction and difference here, in that
the action of the ECJ in the UK currently takes place
because we are a member state of the EU, and the withdrawal
agreement and implementation Bill will implement the
agreement between the UK and the EU. That will recognise
that the UK is therefore an independent country, adhering
to that agreement, which the Prime Minister said should be
under the same rules and regulations that we follow now.
-
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
Like my constituents, I support Brexit, but does the
Minister agree that, given that we have been in the EU for
40 years, it is essential to have an implementation period
so that we can deliver the huge prize of a smooth and
orderly Brexit?
-
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, one that has been
made by people on all sides of the referendum debate. We
respect the decision made by the British people, including
his constituents, and we want to make the greatest success
of it. A smooth and orderly exit is the best way to achieve
that.
-
(Carmarthen East and
Dinefwr) (PC)
Earlier this month, the National Assembly for Wales
unanimously—this included Tory and UK Independence party
Assembly Members—supported a motion from my colleague,
, calling for a
continuity Bill to protect the Welsh constitution from the
power grab inherent in the British Government’s legislative
proposals for implementing the European Union (Withdrawal)
Bill. Now that Wales has spoken, will the British
Government listen, or are they intent on forcing a
constitutional crisis?
-
Mr Walker
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s allegations of a power
grab. The Government have listened. We have been clear that
we will bring forward amendments to clause 11 of the European
Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and we are seeking legislative
consent for that Bill from each of the devolved
Administrations. We need to make the process succeed for
every part of the United Kingdom, and we look forward to
doing that for Wales, as for every other part of the UK.
-
(Chelmsford) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that from a practical point of view
we should not be too worried about new EU law during the
two-year transition period, because it takes more than two
years for new EU laws to be put in place? Also from a
practical point of view, will he confirm that we will set up
working groups on important technical issues, such as data
exchanges, as soon as possible?
-
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend makes two important points. She is broadly
right about the process of making EU laws, of which she has
great expertise from her time in the European Parliament. We
want to make sure that the UK has the ability to express
concerns when it has them and that we have good technical
working between us and the EU. I assure my hon. Friend that,
as the discussions move forward to focus on the future
relationship, we will be doing exactly that.
-
(Wakefield) (Lab)
I urge the Minister to resist the siren voices from his own
Back Benches that are urging him on to the rocks of a
WTO-only deal. Is not the real reason for the Cabinet’s
policy of destructive ambiguity that it is fatally split on
ideological grounds? Ministers are putting the unity of the
Conservative party before British jobs, the British economy
and British public services.
-
Mr Walker
I completely disagree with the hon. Lady. The Government have
set out a clear strategy to deliver for the British economy
through this process, and we will deliver on that strategy. I
have seen time and again in votes in this House that the
greatest split that exists on these issues is between Labour
Back Benchers and their own Front Bench team.
-
(Dover) (Ind)
Will the Government make it a red line that no implementation
period will begin until a trade agreement with the EU is
concluded?
-
Mr Walker
As I set out in my answer to the urgent question, it is clear
that in order to put in place the agreement on the future
relationship, we need to have left the EU. We need to ensure
that both parties are able to ratify the agreement, with the
UK as an independent territory outside the EU. I agree
wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that, as article 50 itself
suggests, the withdrawal agreement should have regard to the
future relationship, which it will be in the interests of
both parties to secure.
-
(Hammersmith)
(Lab)
One in five people resident in Hammersmith and Fulham is an
EU27 citizen. Along with, I suspect, the 3.5 million-plus
others in the UK, they feel confused and misled by what the
Government have said about their future in this country. Will
the Minister confirm that people who move to the UK from the
EU during the transition period will be eligible to apply for
settled status?
-
Mr Walker
We have of course already confirmed, and agreed through the
joint report, that those people who are already in this
country—he refers to some in his constituency—are going to be
able to stay. They will be able to apply for a new settled
status. We are about to enter into the negotiations on the
implementation period. We have been clear that people will
continue to be able to come to the UK during that period, but
they will need to register.
-
(East Renfrewshire)
(Con)
The British people are, in the main, not ideological but
practical and pragmatic. They simply want Brexit to work.
Will the Minister assure me that the Government’s policy will
be dictated not by fringe groups, either in this place or
outside it, but by the national interest?
-
Mr Walker
Yes.
-
(Bridgend) (Lab)
Whether among larger employers or small and medium-sized
enterprises, it seems to me that there is currently a
consensus that the length of time and potentiality of high
costs for the UK in breaking into new markets is going to be
devastating, with jobs lost. What change is there in the
Minister’s response? Will he start to listen to the voices of
industry, rather than of 35 Tory Back Benchers?
-
Mr Walker
Right from the start of this process we have been listening
to the voices of industry and to businesses large and small.
When the Prime Minister set out the implementation period in
her Lancaster House speech last January, she was responding
to some of those concerns. I am delighted that we can now
move forward to secure the implementation period, which will
help businesses in the years to come.
-
(Charnwood)
(Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Lancaster House speech,
coupled with the Florence speech, remains the basis of the
Government’s approach to implementing Brexit and delivering
the orderly and smooth Brexit to which we are committed?
-
Mr Walker
Yes, absolutely.
-
(Bishop Auckland)
(Lab)
On Friday afternoon, yet another north-east businessman came
to see me worried about a cliff edge. Will the Minister now,
once and for all, see off the middle-aged swivel-eyed men
behind him and make it clear that, in the interests of
British industry, he will negotiate a transition period in
which British industrialists are on a level playing field
with European industrialists?
-
Mr Walker
I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in welcoming the
fact that the Secretary of State delivered his speech on the
implementation period, making it clear that we are seeking an
implementation period in the north-east of England.
-
(Cleethorpes)
(Con)
The Minister said that, during the implementation period, we
will be able to negotiate and sign trade agreements. Will he
confirm that there will be no compromise on that, and that it
will not be added to the growing list of concessions that the
Government have made?
-
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend tempts me to pre-empt negotiations—as a number
of colleagues have. What I say to him is clearly the position
that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out,
which is that we will be able to sign those trade agreements,
but, as the Prime Minister made clear, what we do not want to
do is bring into force trade agreements that would conflict
with our responsibilities towards the EU during that period.
We want to make sure that this is a bridge to Britain’s
future as a global trading nation.
-
(Ogmore) (Lab)
Today, the Welsh Secretary for Finance, , said that the
Government have still not allayed the Welsh Government’s
fears of a power grab. Will the Minister set out when he
expects to get agreement from the devolved Administrations,
because if he cannot get a deal from within the UK, what
confidence can we have of him getting any sort of agreement
from the EU?
-
Mr Walker
It is in the interests of all parts of the UK to exit the
European Union with continuity, certainty and control, which
is why I think it was a missed opportunity for his party not
to support the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, but I look
forward to seeing that support in the other place. As I said
to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan
Edwards), amendments to clause 11 of that Bill will be
brought forward in the Lords.
-
Mr (Kettering)
(Con)
Prior to the referendum, Her Majesty’s Treasury forecast near
economic collapse, since when the economy has done well, with
manufacturing and exports particularly strong. How can my
hon. Friend assure my constituents that Her Majesty’s
Treasury understands the electoral arithmetic of the
referendum and will finally get with the programme?
-
Mr Walker
I can assure my hon. Friend that our Department has been
working closely with Her Majesty’s Treasury to ensure that we
make a success of this process. He rightly points to the
robust growth figures that we have seen from the UK economy.
What we all need to ensure is that, throughout this process,
we continue to support that economy to grow and deliver the
public services that we all want to see.
-
(Glasgow North West)
(SNP)
Will the Minister confirm that the UK will remain a member of
Euratom during the transitional period, and if not, will he
inform those working in nuclear medicine where they should be
sourcing their radioisotopes?
-
Mr Walker
I refer the hon. Lady to the paper that we published on
Euratom and the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, which the Government
are bringing forward. It is not responsible to spread scare
stories about radioisotopes, and the point has been clearly
made a number of times that they are not restricted by the
Euratom treaties.
-
(Gloucester) (Con)
Businesses and many others believe strongly in orderly change
to our relations with the EU. Will my hon. Friend therefore
confirm that the implementation period arrangements will
include continuity of the UK’s role in many organisations
such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations where our
role is as part of the EU, so giving us time to negotiate
future relations with those organisations both before and
during the implementation period?
-
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend, who is an expert on trade issues, raises a
very important point about our existing trade agreements. Of
course we want to ensure that we roll those over so that we
maintain the best market access with those third countries
and other territories, and also that the UK can take up wider
opportunities in global trade, so as we enter this
implementation period, we will seek to secure both of those
points.
-
(Bath) (LD)
Is not the decision about the deal and implementation period
separate from that of the original referendum? Is it
therefore not appropriate always to refer back to the “will
of the people” when we are talking about decisions on the
implementation and the deal?
-
Mr Walker
I am a little confused by the hon. Lady’s point. I would have
thought that her party might support an implementation
period, but she appears to be saying that we need another
referendum in order to have one. I do not agree with that
argument. It is important that we go ahead with respecting
the referendum—a unique democratic exercise in British
history, in which millions of people voted—and delivering on
it. Part of that can be a successful negotiation on the
implementation period.
-
(Crawley) (Con)
The Minister has spoken about an implementation period of
around two years after we formally leave the European Union,
if there is to be an implementation period. May I further
press him to say that it will be less than two years? I would
suggest, as others have, new year’s eve 2020.
-
Mr Walker
I hear my hon. Friend’s point and I am sure that it will be
heard by others on our team. We want this negotiation to
secure the stability and certainty that business wants and
that will be good for our economy. It is important to enter
that negotiation seeking to bring the position of the UK and
the European Union—which, indeed, at the moment seems to be
closer to my hon. Friend’s position—closer together.
-
(East Lothian)
(Lab)
Given the challenges that the amendment to clause 11 of the
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill gave the Government, will
the Minister confirm that he is going to have discussions
with the devolved authorities in time, so that we do not come
across another problem later?
-
Mr Walker
I can confirm that the communication with the devolved
authorities is ongoing. We have discussed the issues of the
Lancaster House speech and the Florence speech with them many
times already, and I think they will support us in wanting to
secure an implementation period that is good for the whole
UK.
-
(Mid Worcestershire)
(Con)
I think that our constituents would respect all of us in this
place a lot more if we stopped making comments about people
being swivel-eyed just because they have firmly held
opinions. Does the Minister agree that the purpose of an
implementation period is to demonstrate very clearly that we
have a realistic grasp of the scale and complexity of the
task ahead of us—not to frustrate Brexit, but to reassure the
public and business that we want to conduct Brexit in a
disciplined and sensible manner?
-
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on both points. We want to
make a success of this process for the UK economy, UK
business and every part of the UK. I think that our
constituents expect us to work together across the House and
not to be calling each other names during this process.
|