If it is all right, I am going to make a bit of progress because many Members wish to speak.
As I have said, I do not think there is a need for the powers in clause 9 because secondary legislation of a similar type could be included in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. Why the need for such powers? We do not think there is any justification for them. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s justification for why the clause needs to stand part of the Bill but, unless amendment 7, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), is passed, the Opposition will vote for the clause to be struck from the Bill.
If clause 9 remains part of the Bill at the end of the parliamentary process, its constitutional potency and scope must be highly circumscribed. I do not intend to dwell extensively on what limits should be placed on the clause 9 power because, in general, the same arguments apply as those that I set out at length in the Committee’s deliberations on clause 7 yesterday. I will say, though, that amendment 27 to clause 9, similar to our amendment 25 to clause 7, would constrain the capacity of the powers in clause 9 to reduce rights or protections.
The powers in clause 9 are different from the powers in clause 7 in a particular way: namely, the extraordinarily wide power explicitly provided for by clause 9(2) gives Ministers the power by regulation to modify—a term that clause 14 makes clear covers amendment and repeal—the Bill itself once enacted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out on Second Reading, there is no example throughout the history of the 20th century of a Bill that has ever sought to do that—not in time of war and not in time of civil emergency. In fact—this is a point that my hon. Friend continues to make, and should—every single emergency powers Act has specified that there should not be a power in such legislation for Ministers to alter primary legislation. We do not believe the power is justified, and amendment 30 would limit the potency of the delegated powers in clause 9 by preventing them from being used to amend or repeal the Act itself.
Let me turn briefly to the purpose, scope and limits of clause 17, which gives powers to Ministers to make any consequential provisions that they consider appropriate in consequence of the Act and to make any transitional provisions that might be needed as a result of the Bill coming into force. In contrast to our position on clause 9, we acknowledge that there is an established precedent with regard to consequential and transitional provisions, so we will not be voting against clause 17 standing part of the Bill, but it must be circumscribed.
A clause as widely drawn as clause 17—it is arguably the most widely drawn of all—set in the context of a Bill of such constitutional and legal significance that it covers almost every element of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and, it could be argued, nearly every facet of our national life, means that the power to make consequential provisions under clause 17 is not as tightly
limited as it might be in other pieces of legislation. As such, it inevitably throws up the possibility that the powers in subsections (1), (2) and (3) of clause 17 could be used to make changes to vast swathes of secondary and primary legislation, including legislation in this Session up to May 2019.
When he responds, the Minister will no doubt cite other statutes that provide for not dissimilar powers, but having looked closely at a fair number of them, I am not convinced that any are so widely drawn as this one, and none are contained in legislation as constitutionally significant as this Bill. The Hansard Society was right to refer to clause 17 as a “legislative blank cheque” for the Government, and the power must be restricted. Amendment 29 would achieve that aim by removing subsections (1), (2) and (3) of clause 17. If the Government believe that that is the wrong way to restrict the sweeping powers in the clause, they can of course come forward with their own suggestions, but the principle of circumscribing the powers in the clause must be accepted.
2.15 pm
I shall finish by dealing with new clause 66 and Parliament’s role in approving the final terms of the UK’s exit from the EU and any associated transitional arrangements that might be agreed with the EU27. Labour has argued from the outset of this process that it is essential for Parliament to have a say on the final terms of our withdrawal from the EU. It is worth bearing in mind that the final terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will contain the agreement the Government reached last week, hopefully an agreement on transitional arrangements, and also a framework declaration covering trade, security, foreign affairs, climate and all other areas of co-operation. That declaration may be extensive and it may be detailed, but it will not be, as Ministers know full well, an agreed comprehensive preferential trade deal.
If it is concluded at all, such a deal, alongside other agreements that cover different aspects of the relationship, will have to be concluded after the UK has left the EU and the withdrawal agreement has already been ratified, as this morning’s written statement from the Secretary of State makes crystal clear. During the passage of the Bill on the triggering of article 50, the Government made a welcome concession from the Dispatch Box to the effect that both Houses would get a vote on a motion on the final draft withdrawal agreement as soon as possible after it has been reached, and before the European Parliament votes on it. The Secretary of State’s written statement, published this morning, has been spun as a further concession, but in some respects it could be read as rolling back on the earlier concession.
Will the Minister confirm that it remains the Government’s position that Parliament will get a vote on the final terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, before the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement? There is no reiteration of that point in the Secretary of State’s written statement. Will he also confirm that, in addition to a vote on the terms of withdrawal, Parliament will get a meaningful vote on the one or more agreements the Government hope to conclude relating to the future relationship, not merely a vote on the framework declaration as part of the article 50 process? As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda has mentioned, the process under the
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 would not entail a debate or vote in Parliament on the terms of the future relationship.
The Secretary of State’s written statement aside, the Government must go further and put a vote on the final terms of the UK’s withdrawal on the face of the Bill, and they must ensure that that vote is truly meaningful. We have already debated what “meaningful” means—I fear that Members are sometimes talking past each other—and there is a variety of techniques that one might use to make a vote meaningful. Nevertheless, a meaningful vote must essentially be one on whether the House approves or disapproves of the final terms or, indeed, the lack of any withdrawal agreement, and it must happen before we leave the EU. The latter is something else that today’s written statement singularly fails to mention. It cannot be a “take it or leave it” vote and, as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said, it must allow a change of approach or of drift.