Afternoon summary
- Ministers have made their first concession on the EU withdrawal bill, agreeing to extend day two of the second reading debate on Monday by two hours. (See 5.53pm.) The news came towards the end of day one, which saw enough Tory MPs demand changes to the bill for ministers to know that some concessions will be inevitable. Even with the support of the DUP, Theresa May only has a working majority of 13, which means that if just seven Tory MPs agree with the opposition, the government is vulnerable. During his speech Davis stressed that he was willing to accommodate changes to the bill proposed by MPs offering “improvements to the bill in the spirit of preparing our statute book for withdrawal from the European Union”. Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, and backbench Tory and opposition MPs critical of the bill mostly focused on its constitutional implications, and the unprecedented powers it will hand to ministers to change primary legislation by order. On these issues it is likely that the rebel Tories and the opposition will find common ground. But hardly any Conservatives spoke in favour of potential amendments to the bill that would have the effect of softening Brexit, for example by keeping the UK in the customs union or the single market.
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, has confirmed that the debate will be extended on Monday.
Colleagues across the House have asked for the second day of debate on Monday to be extended, I am pleased to be able to accommodate them
— Andrea Leadsom MP (@andrealeadsom) September 7, 2017
Jeremy Corbyn’s former campaign director and chief of staff, Simon Fletcher, has joined the campaign to get Richard Leonard, the favourite of Corbyn supporters, elected as the next leader of Scottish Labour.
Fletcher is regarded as one of Labour’s heavyweights, working as an adviser to former London mayor Ken Livingstone, and a former aide to Ed Miliband, the then Labour leader. He left Corbyn’s team in February amid rumours of differences with other senior figures but Leonard’s supporters are delighted.
They feared they would be outgunned by the highly experienced team of senior Scottish Labour campaigners gathered around Anas Sarwar, the other contender for the post left vacant after the surprise resignation of Scottish leader Kezia Dugdale last week
Tensions about the contest are increasing within Scottish Labour after it emerged that Corbyn’s team appeared to have won a battle to get the leadership contest timetable extended, to allow more time to recruit members.
It is understood the Scottish executive committee will agree on Saturday to an extra week for recruitment and campaigning, setting Saturday 18 November as the date to announce the result, a week later than originally proposed.
Updated
It has now been confirmed that the second day’s debate on the EU withdrawal bill, on Monday, will be extended by two hours, so that it finishes at midnight, not 10pm, Labour whips have confirmed.
On chaotic opening day by Government on EU Withdrawal Bill, now confirmed 2nd Reading will be extended to Midnight on Monday. #latenight
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) September 7, 2017
Updated
In the comments, imperium3 raises a question about what Joanna Cherry meant in the debate when she talked about the removal of the charter of fundamental rights meaning that people would not be able to sue if their rights were infringed.
Cherry seemed to be referring to Francovich damages. According to the House of Commons library’s 120-page briefing paper on the bill (pdf), the bill says there will “no right in domestic law on or after exit day to damages in accordance with the rule in Francovich.”
The briefing note helpfully explains what Francovich damages are.
The court of justice of the EU (CJEU) allows individuals, under certain conditions, the possibility of obtaining compensation for directives whose transposition is poor, delayed or non-existent.
In the Francovich case in 1991104 the CJEU (then the ECJ) held that the Italian government had breached its EU obligations by not implementing the insolvency directive on time, and was liable to compensate the workers’ loss resulting from the breach.
Here is a fuller version of what Cherry said.
Earlier this summer, a man called John Walker relied on EU equality law to bring his successful challenge to a loophole in UK law whereby employers could refuse to pay same-sex partners the same pension benefits as those paid to heterosexual couples if the funds were paid in before December 2005. The supreme court— our supreme court, not the European court of justice —agreed that there was a loophole in UK law that was a violation of the general principles of non-discrimination in EU law. Mr Walker was able to use his right of action under the general principles of EU law to close that loophole, so that he and his husband could enjoy the same rights as a heterosexual couple. That would not be possible under this ... because there will be no right to sue.
Updated
The debate is not over.
And the Hansard report covering the start of the debate is now online. It goes up to the end of Peter Grant’s speech. More speeches will be added later.
In the Commons, the Labour MP Chuka Umunna is speaking now. He says the supporters of Brexit, who used to complain about the UK giving away power to an unaccountable elite in Brussels, are now happy to see powers transferred to another unaccountable elite (ie, ministers using “Henry VIII powers” with minimal parliamentary oversight.)
He says the bill should also be amended to ensure that none of the powers in the bill can be used until parliament has approved the Brexit deal.
Updated
Theresa May’s claim that EU migration has hit the lowest paid the hardest has been directly challenged by a survey of the latest evidence published by the Welsh government on Thursday.
In a paper on its proposals for a new post-Brexit immigration system, the Welsh government cites a recent study by the Oxford Review of Economic Policy which reported “an emerging consensus that recent migration has had little or no direct impact overall [on wages], but possibly some small negative impact on low skilled workers (and perhaps some positive impact on skilled workers”.
It says a 2015 Bank of England study, much cited by leading Brexiters during the EU referendum campaign, did find that a 10% rise in the number of migrants employed in the semi/unskilled service sector would lead to a 1.9% reduction in average wages for native workers in that sector but spread over a period of eight years.
But the official Welsh report says that, although a 10% increase in their share of jobs in that sector is very large, it should be noted that other things, including the level of the minimum wage, public sector pay policy, decline trade union power and technological and industrial change have had a far bigger impact on pay of those in low skilled jobs over that period.
One of the authors of the Bank of England study, Sir Stephen Nickell, said in January that it had been misrepresented as showing migration had led to a 10% cut in the wage levels of the lowest paid. He told the Independent the impact on wages was “very small” and low-skilled workers was “infinitesimally small”.
The Welsh government study also cites a 2016 London School of Economics paper which also found “that there is little overall adverse effects of immigration to the UK on wages and the employment of the UK-born”. The Welsh analysis adds: “On the contrary the wider evidence base shows that immigration is associated with higher levels of productivity and higher average wages and incomes for the population as a whole.”
The Welsh government immigration policy acknowledges concerns about immigration and proposes a post-Brexit system linked to employment with those wishing to live in Britain required to have a job or find one quickly. But it also rejects arbitrary targets or quotas and advocates much stronger enforcement of existing minimum wage and other powers to improve the wages and conditions of the lower paid.
Updated
The Conservative Robert Jenrick is speaking now. He praises Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, saying he gave a superb speech earlier. He says Starmer highlighted many problems with the bill. But he says he nevertheless thinks that the bill must be passed and that the principles behind the bill are sound.
Statutory instruments are a perfectly legitimate parliamentary instrument, he says.
The Conservative Anna Soubry, an outspoken pro-European, is speaking in the debate now. She says she has many concerns about the bill, particularly about clause 9. But she says that the government is listening to those concerns, and that she hopes it will bring forward many amendments to the bill.
But she says she has a message for people who voted leave. If they think people like her, who are insisting on proper scrutiny of the bill, are trying to thwart Brexit, they are wrong.
She says leave campaigners said Brexit would involve taking back control. But there will be no taking back control unless the bill is amended, giving parliament more power.
She says leave campaigners also said Brexit would be easy. They were wrong. It will be a nightmare. But she said MPs like her would try to make it work. And if it went wrong, they would be there to pick up the pieces, she says.
In his speech, Sir Keir Starmer singled out clause 9 of the EU withdrawal bill for particular criticism. (See 1.16pm.) But, according to Paul Hardy, clause 6 is also hugely significant. Hardy is a former EU legal adviser to the House of Lords and is now Brexit director at the law firm DLA Piper. In a briefing sent to journalists he said:
Clause 6 is critical. It currently states that British courts “need not have any regard to anything done on, or after, edit day by the European court of justice (ECJ), or the EU, but may do if it considers appropriate to do so”. This might sound like technical legalese, but in legislative terms this is an emphatic rejection of any influence of the ECJ on UK courts after 29 March 2019. This is political dynamite, as it may preclude any transitional deal, because the EU will want the UK to recognise EU case law even after the formal exit date for the duration of any transitional period.
If the EU is to recognise the draft legislation of the withdrawal bill as a basis for cooperation, it will demand that the UK applies EU rules in exactly the same way as EU member states until it exits from any transitional period. If the bill reaches a final vote in the Commons without an amendment to Clause 6, we can be certain that the EU will not agree to the transitional deal with the UK after March 2019.
Updated
In the Commons debate, Labour’s Graham Stringer is speaking now. He voted to leave the EU, and he says he hopes that his party changes its mind about the bill before Monday night and decides to support the bill.
Updated
Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, is speaking now. He says he will not be able to support the bill at third reading unless it is substantially improved.
He says in many respects the bill is an “astonishing monstrosity”, but he says it would be relatively easy to address the problems.
He says the bill will introduce a new type of law, retained EU law. This will all have the status of primary law. He suggest that that might be to reduce the prospects of a challenge under the Human Rights Act.
He says he is opposed to removing the charter of fundamental rights from UK law.
On the “Henry VIII powers”, he says many of the measures that will be passed in this way will be straightforward. But some of them will be very important. He says there will have to be a mechanism to ensure that they can be debated by the Commons as a whole.
And on the programme motion, setting aside eight days for the committee stage, he says he is willing to back that - provided ministers are willing to give more time for debate if that turns out to necessary.
Updated
Owen Paterson, the Conservative former environment secretary and a leading leave campaigner, is speaking now. He says leaving the EU will make the UK a better place.
He says, as a member of the European scrutiny committee for some years, he regularly saw how EU laws were being imposed on the UK without MPs being able to stop them.
But he also says he would like to see some parts of the bill, relating to the Henry VIII powers, amended. There should be greater use of sunset clauses, he says. He says:
Many of will agree that this bill can be improved.
Updated
The Brexit department has put out a response to the European commission’s paper on Ireland. Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, delivered a harsh verdict on the UK’s paper (see 12.02pm), but the government is much more positive about his. A spokesman for the Brexit department (or DExEU, the department for exiting the European Union, to give it its proper title), said:
We welcome the commission’s position paper on Northern Ireland and Ireland, which continues to demonstrate that the UK and EU’s objectives on this issue are closely aligned.
In particular the commitment to avoid any physical infrastructure at the border is a very important step forward. As the UK’s position paper set out, this is a crucial objective for the government given the importance of the Northern Ireland peace process.
We were clear on our position paper that the nature of the border means that an agreed, reciprocal solution must be found. Unilateral UK flexibility will not be sufficient to meet our shared objectives, which is why we welcome the commission’s continued recognition of the need for flexible and imaginative solutions.
The UK looks forward to further engagement through the negotiating dialogue we have established with the commission. The UK position paper and this commission position paper clearly provide a good basis on which to continue to make swift progress.
Nicky Morgan, the Conservative former eduction secretary and pro-European, has just finished speaking in the EU withdrawal debate. She said the “true saboteurs of Brexit” are those who are opposed to parliament having a role in scrutinising the process.
She also said the debate on the bill had just begun.
The Labour-led Welsh government is arguing that Wales ought to be able to set its own quota for EU migrants if numbers are restricted after Brexit.
In a paper being published today called Brexit and Fair Movement of People, the Welsh administration proposes a “managed approach” to migration enabling people from EU countries to continue to come to the UK to work if they have a prior job offer - or to seek employment if they have a real prospect of finding a job quickly.
It also says that if the UK government imposed quantitative limits on migration from the EU it would be minded to press for a specific quota for Wales.
The Welsh government claims its approach would allow Wales and the UK to continue to benefit from inward migration, while addressing the concerns that surfaced in the debate leading up to the Brexit referendum.
The Welsh first minister, Carwyn Jones, said:
It is essential that, post-Brexit, the system for migration between the EU and UK is one which is right for Wales, and for all parts of the UK. Our top priority is assuring our future economic prosperity through full and unfettered access to the single market.
Our proposals provide a realistic basis for the UK’s negotiations with the EU, in contrast with what has been seen as “magical thinking” from the UK government.
We recognise many people have concerns about the extent and speed of migration and we want to see more control over this. That is why we are proposing a fair system which would ensure future migration to the UK is linked to employment, with those wishing to come to the UK required to have a job, or the ability to find one quickly.
Updated
Sir Oliver Letwin, the Conservative former cabinet minister, is speaking now. He says he thinks Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, and Gavin Williamson, the chief whip, have agreed to extend the debate on Monday from 10pm until midnight.
Yvette Cooper, the Labour chair of the home affairs committee, is speaking now. She says she hopes the government will amend the bill to keep the charter of fundamental rights as part of UK laws.
She says no parliamentarian should trust the government with these powers. They do not know who the next prime minister will be.
And clause 9, which allows ministers to use “Henry VIII powers” to implement the withdrawal agreement, is particularly objectionable, she says. It should not be in the bill. Ministers should not get these powers until MPs know what the withdrawal agreement will be.
EU withdrawal debate - Highlights from the opening
Here are the main lines from the opening of the debate so far.
- David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has told MPs that they may get the chance to vote on the final Brexit agreement before ministers start using the new powers they will get in the EU withdrawal bill. In his speech opening the second reading debate on the bill, which will give ministers unprecedented powers to rewrite primary legislation by order (so-called “Henry VIII powers) as they transfer EU law into UK law, he said the bill was essential to allow “a smooth and orderly exit is impossible”. Much of the criticism focused on the extent of these powers, and the very limited opportunities MPs and peers will get to challenge ministers who as they use them. Davis confirmed that ministers will use these powers to pass an estimated 1,000 statutory instruments. Labour’s Hilary Benn asked for an assurance that these powers would not be used until MPs had approved the final Brexit deal. Davis said he was sympathetic to this idea, although he did not give Benn a firm commitment. He told Benn:
I’m just thinking through the logic of that, and it seems to me logical, in truth. If he’ll allow me a few moments to review the matter, it seems to me perfectly possible I could give that undertaking, but I won’t do it just on the fly in case I’ve missed something.
- Davis claimed that Britons would not have their rights diminished by the government’s decision in the bill not to retain the EU’s charter of fundamental rights. The intention is to transfer almost all EU law into UK law, so that there is continuity immediately after Brexit, but the charter is not included. Davis said this decision “will not affect the substantive rights available in the UK”. But Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, said that as a result the rights of individuals to make legal challenges on the basis of EU law transferred into British law “will no longer be possible” in British courts. He added:
That seems to me to be a marked diminution in the rights of the individual.
The SNP’s Joanna Cherry made a similar point. And Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, said that Davis himself had argued that the charter bolstered the rights of Britain’s when he launched a data protection case against the government as a backbencher. Starmer said:
[Davis] was very concerned that [the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act] would impinge on the ability of MPs to have confidential communications from their constituents, a point he continued into the debate we were having a year or two ago.
In his argument, he cited the charter. His lawyer said the charter was important. His lawyers made the argument the charter was important because it went further than the European Convention of Human Rights and, therefore, was an added protection.
- Davis signalled that he was open to making some amendments to the bill. He said he would “stand ready” to listen to “those who offer improvements to the bill in the spirit of preparing our statute book for withdrawal from the European Union”. He told MPs:
This bill does only what is necessary for a smooth exit and to provide stability; however, as I have repeatedly said, I welcome and encourage contributions from those who approach the task in good faith and in a spirit of collaboration.
- Davis accused Labour of a cynical attempt to delay Brexit. He told MPs:
Without this legislation a smooth and orderly exit is impossible. We cannot await the completion of negotiations before ensuring this legal certainty and continuity at the point of our exit. To do so or to delay or oppose the bill would be reckless in the extreme.
I have in the past witnessed the Labour party on European business take the most cynical, unprincipled approach to legislation that I’ve ever seen. They’re 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.
- Starmer said Labour could not support the bill because it amounted to giving a “legislative blank cheque” to the government. He said he had never legislation give ministers such sweeping powers. It was an unprecedented power grab, he said.
- Ken Clarke, the Conservative pro-European and former chancellor, signalled that he would vote against the bill unless the government gave assurances about parliamentary accountability and the Brexit transition period. He told MPs:
Minded as I am at the moment to contemplate voting for second reading, I am going to need some assurances before we get there. In particular, there is going to be sufficient movement to some of the unanswerable points that are being made, about parliamentary democracy and a smooth transition to whatever the alternative is, for this bill to be anything other than a wrecking piece of legislation if it proceeds forward ...
I haven’t decided yet [how to vote]- I’m actually going to listen to the debate, which is very rare feature in this House ...
And if the government isn’t going to move in the next two days of debate, well I think we may have to force it to go back to the drawing board and try again.
- Davis said that he expected to lead to “a significant increase in the decision-making power of the devolved institutions”.
- The Labour MP Chris Leslie said ministers “assurances should not be trusted because they could be replaced, and the powers in the bill could be exercised by someone like Jacob Rees-Mogg as a future prime minister”. Leslie said:
It doesn’t matter when ministers opposite - the prime minister, the secretary of state - say ‘Oh trust us, we won’t us these regulations’ because they could be here today and gone tomorrow. And the honourable member for the 18th century from Somerset [Jacob Rees-Mogg] could be prime minister - we could be in his hands totally with all of these powers.
Ken Clarke made a similar point, saying: “We are all transient in politics.” In response to Leslie, John Bercow, the speaker, joked that Rees-Mogg viewed the 18th century as far too recent for his tastes.
Updated
The Conservative John Redwood is speaking now. He says the European Communities Act 1972, which took the UK into Europe, was “an outrage against democracy”.
Kate Hoey, the Labour pro-leave MP, is speaking now. She says she is disappointed that Labour is voting against the bill. That will be seen as a refusal to accept the results of the referendum, she says.
She says she will only accept a transition period if, from day one, Britain has made it clear it will not pay any more money to the EU.
The Conservative John Redwood intervenes to say he agrees.
Updated
Hilary Benn, the Labour chair of the Commons Brexit committee, told MPs the flaws in the bill were so great that the government should go away and start again.
Sir Bill Cash, the veteran Tory Eurosceptic, is speaking now. He says that his speech during the Maastricht debate lasted almost two hours. Today he is subject to Bercow’s 10-minute limit.
John Bercow, the Speaker, says there will be a 10-minute limit on speeches from now.
Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservative former work and pensions secretary, is speaking now. He repeats the point that Ken Clarke made about wanting the government to extend the time allowed for debate. During the Maastricht second reading debate, the debate went through the night, he says. Every MP who wanted to got to speak. And there was no time limit.
Away from the Commons, an Ulster Unionist MEP, Jim Nicholson, has responded to the publication of the European commission’s paper about Ireland by accusing Michel Barnier of endangering key principles of the Good Friday Agreement. Nicholson said:
Michel Barnier and his colleagues need to start listening and stop cherry-picking elements of the Belfast agreement. The principle of consent underpins the agreement and I warn him, that if he is not careful, he runs the risk of destabilising relationships across these islands.
No one is in any doubt that as the only part of the United Kingdom to share a land border with the European Union, Northern Ireland faces specific challenges in terms of Brexit. It is welcome that all parties involved - the government, the EU, Belfast and Dublin - do not want a hard border.
However it is bizarre that, on the one hand, this paper says there must be a flexible solution that avoids a physical border, but on the other hand insists that it is only up to the UK government to provide such a solution. Michel Barnier and his colleagues are sitting on their hands, which is a pathetic position to take given the issues at stake.
Updated
The Times’ Henry Zeffman says he thinks Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, may agree to Ken Clarke’s suggestion (see 1.56pm) to extending today’s Commons sitting to allow more time for the debate.
Ken Clarke demands that repeal bill debate go past 5pm. Leadsom confers with Davis, now speaking to Bercow. Looks like she's about to agree
— Henry Zeffman (@hzeffman) September 7, 2017
Peter Grant, the SNP’s Europe spokesman, is speaking now. He says the SNP will support Labour’s reasoned amendment on Monday (see 1.10pm for the text.)
Clarke says that government has to think again, and that MPs need more debating time
Ken Clarke, the leading Conservative pro-European and former chancellor, is speaking now. He says that he finds the bill unacceptable in its current form, but that he has not yet decided whether or not he will vote against it at second reading. But he implies that he will:
If the government is not going to move ... we may have to force it to go back to the drawing board to try again.
He also criticises the government for not allowing enough time for MPs to debate it.
Today the Commons is due to rise at 5pm. It should sit longer, he says. And he says it would be very easy for the government to move a motion that would allow it to sit longer.
He also says it is matter of common sense that the UK should not leave the single market and the customs union until it knows that it is transferring smoothly to an acceptable relationship with the EU.
The Times’ Sam Coates has more detail about the letter being circulated amongst pro-leave Tory MPs (paywall). He describes it as “a major drive to stop the government softening Brexit in a move that will deepen divisions inside the Tory party”.
He says it is based on a note from Change Britain, the pro-Brexit group. And he says it makes various demands.
The letter, written to be placed in a Sunday newspaper, is designed to be a warning to those who believe that the election will mean a softer Brexit. It has about 40 signatories and demands that:
•The government leaves the customs union in a way that means the UK has the immediate right to sign trade deals the day after Brexit;
•No payments into the EU budget during the transition;
•Adding the following clause to any transitional deal: “There must be a clearly defined timetable for this country’s departure from the single market and customs union. Any deal should also reserve the right for the UK government to unilaterally withdraw from the deal via domestic legislation: we need to be sure that our own Government is in charge of the deal — not the EU — and that the deal won’t become permanent.”
Starmer is winding up now.
He says the bill was originally called the great repeal bill.
The word “great” should have been preserved. It is a great power-grab bill, he says.
Unless the government makes some considerable changes, Labour will vote against it on Monday, he says.
Starmer says the bill does not specify what EU “exit day” will be.
Anyone who passes the bill will be agreeing to be a spectator in deciding the transitional arrangements, he says.
Back in the Commons Starmer is now talking about the charter of fundamental rights.
He says it is particularly important in relation to the rights of LGBT people, children, and elderly people.
And he quotes from the legal documents prepared by Davis himself, when he was a backbencher, and others who were challenging the government over data protection. They explicitly argued that the charter of fundamental rights backed their case, he argued. And they won.
Starmer says, if Davis was a backbencher now, he would be working with Starmer to amend the bill to protect the charter.
Nearly 40 Conservative MPs have signed a letter saying that staying in the single market during the transition period would be a “historic mistake”, the BBC is reporting. The letter says:
Continued membership of the single market, even as part of a transitional arrangement, would quite simply mean EU membership by another name - and we cannot allow our country to be kept in the EU by stealth.
The government must respect the will of the British people, and that means leaving the Single Market at the same time as we leave the EU ...
The longer one remains a member [of the single market], the harder it is to leave.
Contrary to claims that it is a ‘sensible’ stepping stone to independence, it is in fact a conveyer belt to ever more European integration.
The government says it will not stay in the single market during the transition period. But Labour, and some pro-European Tories, favour this option, and it is likely that at some point the matter will come to a vote in the Commons. And, although David Davis says the UK will leave the single market, he told MPs this morning that the government wanted to negotiate “a similar arrangement” during the transition. (See 11.09am.)
The Conservative, Anna Soubry, asks if Starmer thinks MPs should have a vote on the so-called “divorce bill” to the UK.
Starmer says he thinks there would have to be a vote, if not under clause 9 (see 1.16pm), then under clause 17 (another clause giving ministers “Henry VIII” powers).
Starmer says at PMQs yesterday Theresa May claimed the government’s approach had been backed by the Lords constitution committee.
But today the same committee has produced a report strongly criticising the bill.
He quotes from its report (pdf). It says:
The number, range and overlapping nature of the broad delegated powers would create what is, in effect, an unprecedented and extraordinary portmanteau of effectively unlimited powers upon which the government could draw. They would fundamentally challenge the constitutional balance of powers between parliament and government and would represent a significant—and unacceptable—transfer of legal competence.
Starmer focuses on the powers that the bill will give to ministers.
He says it will allow them to use “Henry VIII” powers - powers to amend primary legislation using secondary legislation - very widely.
For example, they will be able to use these powers to implement the withdrawal agreement, he says. That is set out in clause 9.
The Commons have different procedures for scrutinising different types of secondary legislation. This bill proposes using the negative resolution procedure, he says. He says that is the weakest type available. (A measure becomes law automatically, unless parliament objects.)
So this bill is giving ministers the widest possible powers, with the weakest possible scrutiny.
He says the last time a measure proposed using the negative resolution procedure got blocked was 38 years ago.
Updated
Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, is speaking now.
Here is the full text of Labour’s reasoned amendment to the bill (the one that explains why the party opposes it getting a second reading.)
That this House respects the EU referendum result and recognises that the UK will leave the EU, believes that insisting on proper scrutiny of this bill and its proposed powers is the responsibility of this sovereign parliament, recognises the need for considered and effective legislation to preserve EU-derived rights, protections and regulations in UK law as the UK leaves the EU but declines to give a second reading to the European Union (withdrawal) bill because the bill fails to protect and reassert the principle of parliamentary sovereignty by handing sweeping powers to government ministers allowing them to bypass parliament on key decisions, allows for rights and protections to be reduced or removed through secondary legislation without any meaningful or guaranteed parliamentary scrutiny, fails to include a presumption of devolution which would allow effective transfer of devolved competencies coming back from the EU to the devolved administrations and makes unnecessary and unjustified alterations to the devolution settlements, fails to provide certainty that rights and protections will be enforced as effectively in the future as they are at present, risks weakening human rights protections by failing to transpose the EU charter of fundamental rights into UK law, provides no mechanism for ensuring that the UK does not lag behind the EU in workplace protections and environmental standards in the future and prevents the UK implementing strong transitional arrangements on the same basic terms we currently enjoy, including remaining within a customs union and within the single market.
Davis has finished.
John Bercow appeals for short speeches. On the basis of the progress made so far, only half of those MPs who want to speak today will get the chance to do so, he says.
Back in the Commons Davis is winding up his speech.
He says Labour has tabled a reasoned amendment. That means it is opposing the bill.
But blocking the bill would lead to a chaotic Brexit, he says. That prompts laughter from some MPs.
'This will not happen' - Barnier on the UK's post-Brexit proposals for Ireland
Back to Michel Barnier, and here is the full text of his comments at the start of his press conference this morning.
And this is what he said about the UK’s post-Brexit proposals for Ireland.
What I see in the UK’s paper on Ireland and Northern Ireland worries me.
The UK wants the EU to suspend the application of its laws, its customs union, and its single market at what will be a new external border of the EU.
And the UK wants to use Ireland as a kind of test case for the future EU-UK customs relations.
This will not happen.
Creativity and flexibility cannot be at the expense of the integrity of the single market and the customs union.
This would not be fair for Ireland and it would not be fair for the European Union.
The SNP’s justice and home affairs spokeswoman, Joanna Cherry, intervenes. She says the charter allows people to sue if their rights are infringed. Without the charter incorporated into UK law, that particular right will not apply.
Davis acknowledges there is an issue. He says he thinks it will be addressed as the bill goes through the Commons. If that does not happen, Cherry should take it up with him, he says.
UPDATE: This is from Labour’s Stephen Doughty.
Davis now already admitting flaws in Bill after interventions from Grieve and Cherry... #Brexit
— Stephen Doughty (@SDoughtyMP) September 7, 2017
Updated
Davis claims that the EU withdrawal bill will not diminish Britons’ rights.
He says that he challenged people to identify rights being removed. They have not been able to do so.
Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, intervenes. He says getting rid of the charter of fundamental rights will weaken people’s rights. (He set out this argument at more length in an article in the Evening Standard yesterday.)
Davis says he does not accept that. He says the charter just codifies rights that existed anyway. It was superfluous, he implies. But he says it was created under the Blair regime, which may explain things.
UPDATE: This is from the SNP’s Peter Grant.
Former Tory Attorney General has just totally skewered the Brexit Secretary on withdrawal from charter of fundamental rights.
— Peter Grant MP (@PeterGrantMP) September 7, 2017
Updated
Back to the Commons, and here are some of the things that David Davis has said in the debate so far.
David Davis mounts firm defence of Govt's plan for just 8 day committee stage debate on EU Withdrawal bill - could change by Monday pm
— steve hawkes (@steve_hawkes) September 7, 2017
David Davis facing a barrage of hostile questions as he opens debate on EU withdrawal Bill - a taste of the battles ahead
— Carole Walker (@carolewalkercw) September 7, 2017
.@SDoughtyMP asks why the Bill is only getting 8 days in committee. @DavidDavisMP says that's "quite a long time"
— PARLY (@ParlyApp) September 7, 2017
#Brexit @DavidDavisMP "I'm not going to re-invent the constitution at this dispatch box".
— Alastair Stewart (@alstewitn) September 7, 2017
Barnier says any attempt to drive a wedge between him and EU leaders will be 'waste of time
Q: We are expecting a speech on Brexit from Theresa May at the end of this month. Is there anything you want to hear from her? And could political talks between May and EU leaders bypass the stalemate in the talks?
Barnier says he has never used the term stalemate. There is no stalmate in the talks on Ireland.
He says progress on a financial solution is very important to member states.
He says the legal analysis presented by the UK government is “extremely negative” in terms of its implications for the talks.
He says he cannot yet say they have made sufficient progress in the talks for them to move to phase two.
The EU heads of state appointed a single negotiator (Barnier) to take charge of the process, he says.
He says anyone trying to create a split between Barnier and EU leaders will be engaged in “a waste of time”.
(Some British pro-Brexiteers have been arguing that May should bypass Barnier by appealing directly to EU leaders.)
- Barnier says any attempt to drive a wedge between him and EU leaders will be “a waste of time”.
And that is it.
The press conference is over.
This is from my colleague Rafael Behr.
Among other things I learn from this Barnier presser is that the French for a position paper would appear to be "un position paper."
— Rafael Behr (@rafaelbehr) September 7, 2017
Davis says he won't take lectures on 'rule by decree' from Osborne
One notable moment from the early stage of David Davis’s address was when he was quote openly rude about George Osborne, the former chancellor-turned editor of the London Evening Standard.
In an intervention to the speech, the Labour MP Stephen Timms referred to an editorial comment in Osborne’s paper which referred to the EU withdrawal bill as permitting “rule by decree”.
Davis responded, to laughs:
I don’t read the Evening Standard, I have to tell you, and it sounds like with good reason.
And I have to tell him that if I’m going to take lectures on rule by decree, it won’t be from the editor of the Evening Standard.
Updated
Q: What is the EU doing to prepare for the possibility of no deal?
Barnier says this is not his option. He is working for an agreement. But that must not involve diluting the single market.
Q: Are you willing to move negotiations onto to a point where talks take place continuously?
Barnier says the Brexit talks are almost a constant process anyway.
Updated
In the Commons the EU withdrawal bill debate is just starting. But for the moment I will stick with the Barnier press conference.
Q: What did Davis say to you about a transition in the last round of talks?
Barnier says Davis did mention it briefly. It was the first time this had come up. The UK will have to say what it wants, he says.
Q: In those minutes from July you complained about David Davis not being fully involved in the talks. In the last round of talks Davis was not here for the whole week. Is that a problem?
Barnier says there should not be a surprise about this. He says he himself does not take part in all the negotiations. Davis’s attitude is “perfectly logical”. It is the same as Barnier’s.
- Barnier appears to withdraw his July complaint (see 11.28am) about Davis not being fully involved in the Brexit talks.
Q: What would the plans set out in the leaked Home Office document mean for a transition deal? And do you have concerns about the status of EU nationals?
Barnier says the debate about a transition is evolving in the UK. He is following it closely, particularly the discussions taking place today.
But the UK has to say what it wants, he says.
As for the leaks, he says he wants to work in a serious fashion.
He would ask partners to make that possible. He has to work on the basis of official documents, not leaks.
Updated
Q: Are you saying there has to be progess on the Ireland issue before talks can move to phase two? I thought Ireland was a matter for phase two.
Barnier says today, in its document, the commission is saying what it sees “sufficient progress” on Ireland as entailing.
Barnier's Q&A
Q: Do you still think David Davis is not fully committed to the talks? (See 11.28am.)
Barnier says he has known Davis for 20 years. They were both Europe ministers in the 1990s, working on the Amsterdam treaty. He says he has cordial relations with him, and good professional relations.
He says seven days ago he and Davis finished the third round of negotiations. At their press conference Barnier paid tribute to his professionalism, and to the professionalism of the UK team. He has nothing further to add, he says.
Q: Can you tell us more about what you want Britain to say about its financial obligations?
Barnier says this is very important.
He says EU leaders agreed on a seven-year budget. David Cameron signed it when he was prime minister. He says those commitments still apply.
There are thousands of people, stakeholders, companies, citizens and laboratories who have set up projects on the basis of the promises made.
There is a moral problem here. You cannot have 27 countries paying for commitments made by 28.
He says he has been “very disappointed” by what the UK has been saying about this.
It seems to be backtracking on its commitments, he says.
- Barnier says he has been “very disappointed” by the UK’s approach to its financial obligations to the EU.
Barnier says it will not be possible for a country outside the EU to have all the benefits of the Norway model (ie, Efta) but to only have the constraints of the Canada model (ie, the Canada-EU trade deal.)
Barnier says the UK's border plans for Ireland after Brexit are unacceptable
Barnier says “we are not there yet” in terms of a solution for Northern Ireland.
A unique solution will have to be found to the border issue.
Both sides will have to be creative and flexible, he says.
But he says what he has seen from the UK “worries me”.
He says the UK wants to have border arrangements that ignore customs union and single market rules. That will not happen, he says.
- Barnier says the UK’s plan to avoid all border controls between Ireland and Northern Ireland are unacceptable.
This is from Sky’s Faisal Islam.
Barnier basically accuses UK of trying to use Ire border solution as wedge for EU-UK customs solution, suspending law
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) September 7, 2017
"This will not happen"
Updated
Michel Barnier is speaking now.
He starts by saying he is unhappy these papers got leaked (to the Guardian).
He starts with Ireland.
The UK says it thinks the common travel area can continue after Brexit, he says.
But he says the UK will need to put a solution forward.
The institutions created by the Good Friday agreement will need to continue operating, he says.
North/South cooperation will have to be preserved, he says.
And people in Northern Ireland will have to continue to be allowed to be treated as Irish citizens, he says.
Michel Barnier's press conference
Here is Chris Bryant, the Labour MP, commenting on David Davis’s decision to rule out the Efta option during the Brexit transition. (See 11.09am.) He put out this statement on behalf of Open Britain, which is campaigning for a “soft” Brexit.
David Davis is very good at taking options off the table, but doesn’t seem to bother putting any options on the table.
The idea that he can rule out every possible transitional arrangement except for a yet to be defined bespoke arrangement is mad, given that the talks are stuck in the mud and we have just a year left before the final Brexit deal must be finalised.
To protect jobs and our economy, the only transitional option the government should be looking at is keeping Britain in the single market and the customs union.
The European commission has just published its five new Brexit papers. They are available here. They cover: Ireland and Northern Ireland; customs matters; data; public procurement; and intellectual property.
My colleague Jennifer Rankin wrote about them in this story overnight.
At a briefing in Brussels Mina Andreeva, Juncker’s spokeswoman, has just been asked about Juncker’s comments about David Davis in the minutes released this morning. (See 11.28am.)
Andreeva said that the minutes are from July. She said that things had moved on, and that Michel Barnier would be able to answer questions about this himself when he gives a press conference (due in the next few minutes).
Barnier complained about Davis's lack of commitment to Brexit talks, European commission reveals
The European commission has published the minutes of a meeting in July (pdf) at which Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, briefed the commission on the outcome of his first round of talks with David Davis, the Brexit secretary. Barnier expressed concern about Davis’s commitment to the talks. (Davis has been going to Brussels for the start and end of each round of talks, but has not been staying in the city for the duration.) The minutes say:
Mr BARNIER felt, however, that the hardest tasks still lay ahead. He observed that the United Kingdom had not yet really engaged in the negotiations or spelled out its positions. He noted in this regard that David Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, did not regard his direct involvement in these negotiations as his priority and there was also a possibility that he might not be present at the full opening session of the July cycle of talks.
At the meeting Jean-Claude Juncker, the commission president, said he agreed that Davis’s reluctance to participate full-time in the talks was a problem.
Winding up the discussion, the PRESIDENT expressed his concern about the question of the stability and accountability of the UK negotiator and his apparent lack of involvement, which risked jeopardising the success of the negotiations. He invited Mr BARNIER to remain firm on this point and not to accept discussions at the purely technical level with negotiators who had no political mandate, while fundamental political questions still remained.
Commons Brexit questions - Summary
Here are the key points from Brexit questions in the Commons.
- David Davis, the Brexit secretary, said that joining Efta (the European Free Trade Association) during the transition period - the so-called “Norway option”, that would keep the UK in the single market - would be “the worst of all outcomes”. He said:
The simple truth is membership of Efta would keep us within the acquis [EU law] and it would keep us within requirements for free movement, albeit with some limitations, but none of those have worked so far. So in many ways it’s the worst of all outcomes. We did consider it, I gave it some considerable thought, maybe as an interim measure. But it seemed to me to be more complicated, more difficult and less beneficial.
- He said the government was looking into whether it would need to formally confirm its departure from the European Economic Area (the EEA - a group comprising the EU, plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein). He said the EEA agreement would no longer apply to the UK after Brexit, but that a more formal departure might be necessary.
We are considering what steps, if any, we might need to take to formally confirm our withdrawal from the EEA agreement as a matter of international law.
This is significant because, if this were put to a vote in the Commons, some MPs - and quite possibly the whole Labour opposition, which is now committed to staying in the single market during the transition period - would vote to stay in the EEA.
- He refused to rule out continuing to pay into the EU budget during the transition period. (See 10.07am.)
- He said the UK may try to get a transitional deal that would involve arrangements similar to single market and customs union membership.
We are starting from the aim of maintaining as much continuity as is necessary [during the transition].... Because we are not in the European Union at that point, we won’t be formally members of the single market and the customs union. But we may well seek a customs agreement for that period and a similar arrangement on the single market provisions. But we cannot make that decision ourselves. That’s a negotiation to be carried out with the European Union.
Labour’s Rachael Maskell asks Davis when he expects the transition arrangements to be in place.
Davis says as soon as possible.
Labour’s Pat McFadden asks what is the point of having a transition deal that does not involve the UK being in the single market or the customs union.
Davis says the UK will not be formally in the single market at that point. But it may well seek a custom union with the EU and an arrangement that would replicate the benefits of being in the single market.
In the Commons David Davis has just said that he wants employment standards in the UK to be better after Brexit.
Carwyn Jones, the Welsh first minister, has this morning published a paper from the Welsh government setting out its proposals for migration policy after Brexit. Here is an extract from the Welsh government’s news release.
The paper, launched at GE Aviation in Nantgarw, puts the economic well-being of Wales at the heart of its approach. It sets out a position which, by linking migration to the UK more closely to employment, would both enable the UK to convince EU negotiators to agree to continued full and unfettered access to the single market after Brexit and ensure that Welsh employers would continue to access the skills they need.
The managed approach to migration would enable people from EU countries, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland to continue to come to the UK to work if they have a prior job offer, or to seek employment if they have a real prospect of finding a job quickly.
This approach would allow Wales and the UK to continue to benefit from inward migration, while addressing the concerns that featured prominently in the debate leading up to the Brexit referendum last June.
Today’s paper also sets out the need for vigorous enforcement of legislation to address peoples’ concerns over the potential for the exploitation of migrant workers to undermine wages and working conditions for all workers.
While making a forceful case for fair movement, the paper also addresses what might happen if the UK government decides to impose quantitative limits on migration from the EU. In this case, which would not be the preferred option of the Welsh government, we would be minded to press for a specific quota for Wales.
Today we’re launching our latest #Brexit paper which proposes a fair & managed approach to future migration to the UK pic.twitter.com/sKrCxVzLzX
— Carwyn Jones (@fmwales) September 7, 2017
Updated
Davis refuses to rule out UK continuing to pay into EU budget during transition period
Labour’s Hilary Benn, who chairs the Commons Brexit committee, asks if the UK will continue to make payments into the EU budget during the transition period.
David Davis says he will not negotiate with the EU from the despatch box.
But he says a transition period will be important for the EU too.
- Davis refuses to rule out UK continuing to pay into EU budget during transition period.
Today’s Times’s story about the leaked immigration document (paywall) helps to explain why Paul Blomfield asked the question he did. (See 9.55am.) Sam Coates and Bruno Waterfield say the cabinet is split over the plans because some ministers think they would make it impossible for the UK to get a deal that would allow free movement and tariff-free trade to continue during the post-Brexit transition period. Here is an excerpt.
The prime minister is refusing to soften certain aspects of her plan to introduce migration curbs straight after Brexit, despite pleas from Amber Rudd, the home secretary, and Philip Hammond, the chancellor. Mrs May also wants caps on the number of low-skilled EU migrants allowed in, which Brussels warned yesterday would mean Britain being blocked from unfettered trade with Europe.
The Times understands that key government figures believe that the latest draft of the migration plans will not satisfy the European free movement directive during the transition period. A time limit on those arriving during the transition period is likely to be seen as discriminatory.
This in turn will provoke the EU into raising barriers to the trade in goods and services after March 2019. Mrs May is understood to reject this scenario as overly pessimistic.
In the Commons Paul Blomfield, a shadow Brexit minister, asks for an assurance that the government will not back any immigration plans that would stop the UK agreeing a transition deal with the EU.
Replying for the government, the Brexit minister Robin Walker says that he cannot comment on leaked documents but that the government does want a transition deal.
Blomfield goes again. He asks if the government would be happy for British citizens working in the EU to be subject to biometric screening and fingerprinting. (One plan in the draft immigration document leaked to the Guardian was for EU nationals applying for a resident permit to have to supply a fingerprint.)
Walker again says he cannot comment on leaked document. He says the government wants what is best for British citizens.
Updated
This is from Politico’s Charlie Cooper.
Watching DExEU Qs, clear there's a grudging mutual respect between Davis and Starmer. Both managing competing interests in their parties.
— Charlie Cooper (@CharlieCooper8) September 7, 2017
David Davis takes Brexit questions on the Commons
David Davis, the Brexit secretary, is taking questions in the Commons now.
In the set of exchanges, he made two interesting points.
- Davis said that he had considered the case for Britain joining Efta (the European Free Trade Association) during the transition period, but had ruled against it.
- He said that the government was checking to see whether the UK would need to take formal steps to leave the EEA (the European Economic Area) when it left the EU. He said he thought the UK would leave automatically, but he accepted that there was some doubt about this.
Updated
Jonathan Portes, the economics professor and former government economist who is a prominent advocate of the benefits of immigration, has posted this in response to Damian Green’s claim this morning (see 9.18am) about there being a lot of evidence showing that immigration suppresses wages at the bottom of the labour market.
Here's what the *author* of the study referred to by Damien Green on wages & immigration actually said: https://t.co/S8mvnSk0O0 https://t.co/JBYtpwu0vR
— Jonathan Portes (@jdportes) September 7, 2017
My colleague Alan Travis has also posted a link to an article challenging what Green said.
Damien Green claims EU migrants depress wages of lowest paid. But his own experts say 'only small negative impact' https://t.co/ujcaCDMtDr
— Alan Travis (@alantravis40) September 7, 2017
Updated
Today MPs begin debating the EU withdrawal bill. The Brexit news fountain is gushing at full speed this morning, and here are the main developments overnight and this morning.
- Peers have strongly criticised the drafting of the EU withdrawal bill, saying that it contains “multiple uncertainties and ambiguities” and that it would allow ministers to exercise “a tapestry of delegated powers that are breath-taking in terms of both their scope and potency” without proper scrutiny. The Lords constitution committee made the comments in an interim report on the bill. It concluded.
The UK’s departure from the European Union will have profound consequences for the devolution settlement within the UK. The ambiguities and uncertainties in the bill extend to issues of devolved competence and this has implications for the balance of the power within the Union and the future of the devolution settlements.
Overall, we conclude that the bill is highly complex and convoluted in its drafting and structure. This is not to deny that it must inevitably grapple with a set of difficult legal issues. But it is a source of considerable regret that the bill is drafted in a way that renders scrutiny very difficult, and that multiple and fundamental constitutional questions are left unanswered.
- Theresa May and David Davis, the Brexit secretary, have both been accused of misquoting the Lords constitution committee. They have both claimed that a report published by the committee in March amounted to an endorsement of the EU withdrawal bill, but it was just saying ministers would need wide delegated powers to implement Brexit. Ann Taylor, the Labour peer who chairs the committee, said:
We acknowledge that the government needs significant powers in order to deliver legal certainty after Brexit. However, we warned the Government that such powers must come with tougher parliamentary scrutiny mechanisms and we are disappointed that we have not only been misquoted by the Government, but that our key recommendations have been ignored.
- The government has said that MPs will get eight days to debate the EU withdrawal bill line by line in committee. The figure was set out in the bill’s programme motion, on today’s order paper on page 21-23 (pdf), which also says a further two days will be allocated for the bill after the committee stage is over. Tom Brake, the Lib Dem Brexit spokesman, said this timetable was inadequate and “shameful”. He said:
This bill denies parliament rights acquired over centuries, yet the Conservatives have grudgingly granted only a little over a week for scrutiny. MPs have been denied the opportunity to do the job their constituents elected them to do. This denial of democracy is shameful.
In failing to give time for proper scrutiny and debate, Theresa May is sticking two fingers up at parliament.
- Herman Van Rompuy, a former president of the European council, told the Today programme this morning that the chances of the EU agreeing to move the Brexit talks on to phase two in October, covering the future UK/EU trade relationship, are virtually zero. He told the programme:
I’m not a negotiator, [but from] what I hear and what I read in the press, the chances that we are ready in October are in the neighbourhood of zero.
Van Rompuy also claimed that David Davis’s claim that the UK would not agree its financial settlement with the EU until right at the end of the negotiation sent “a bad signal”. In an interview with Politico Europe, Antonio Tajani, president of the European parliament, said he would recommend delaying the move to phase two of the talks until December because not enough progress has been made on phase one (the bit covering withdrawal issues).
- Damian Green, the first secretary of state, has dismissed as “nonsense” a Telegraph report (paywall) claiming he has misgivings about the post-Brexit immigration plans set out in a document leaked to the Guardian.
Thursday's Telegraph: "May's Brexit plans in disarray" (via @BBCHelenaLee) #tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/NPqNp3hkOb
— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) September 6, 2017
Asked about the Telegraph story in an interview with Today, Green said:
That report in the Daily Telegraph is just nonsense. It says I’ve got misgivings about a document I have never seen.
- Green dismissed a claim from Sir Vince Cable, the Lib Dem leader and business secretary in the coalition, that the Home Office suppressed reports showing that immigration had “very little impact” on wages. Pointing out that he was an immigration minister during the coalition government, Green said he saw this research too. There was “quite a lot of evidence” that immigration did keep pay down at the bottom end of the income scale, he said.
There is quite a lot of evidence that if we have too many low-skilled workers coming in, one of the effects is to depress the wages at the bottom end of the wage scale ... People who are on relative low pay are the ones who are most affected and who find it difficult for their wages to go up because of [immigration].
- Green claimed the government’s post-Brexit immigration plans, which have yet to be finalised, would not damage the economy. Asked if the economy would be hit by what the government is planning, he replied:
You will have to wait and see the proposals but, essentially, no.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: David Davis, the Brexit secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
9.30am: The Welsh government publishes a policy paper on Brexit and migration.
11am: Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, holds a press conference as he publishes a new raft of Brexit papers.
Around 11.30am: Davis opens the second reading debate on the EU withdrawal bill. Today’s debate will run until 5pm, but MPs will not vote until the two-day debate ends at 10pm on Monday.
I will be focusing pretty exclusively on Brexit, and on the debate, today.
You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on@AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.
Updated
Perhaps we're missing something in Andrew's summary, but surely that right to sue is already the point of the Human Rights Act?