European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk).

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I was also a remainer and I regret the result, but does the hon. Gentleman agree with the view of Vince Cable, the former Business Secretary, that a second referendum raises “a lot of fundamental problems”?

[Tim Farron]

We are dealing with many fundamental problems in any event.

Forgive me if I am being pedantic, but the reality is that we are not talking about a second referendum. One could argue that the referendum on 23 June was the second referendum. We are arguing for a referendum on the terms of the deal, which has not been put to the British people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

It is a pleasure to participate in the debate. I agree with one comment that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) made when he spoke to new clause 110: the problem that bedevils this debate is that we are in a grey and murky environment when it comes to ascertaining how the process will or should unfold. As somebody who campaigned to remain, that was one of the things that worried me at the time, but I have to accept that the electorate have spoken. For me, the key issue is how I can help the Government to navigate some of the reefs that seem to be present so that we can achieve a satisfactory outcome and try to give effect to the expressed will of the electorate.

Our problem is that we cannot predict what the situation will be in two years’ time. We have no idea what the political landscape will be in this country. We do not know what the economic conditions will be, and we do not know whether we will be doing very well in the run-up to Brexit or very badly. We cannot predict the political landscape on the European continent or the state of the European Union, and how that might affect the negotiations. Nor can we predict the wider security situation on our continent.

That is why the idea that the House in some way forgoes its responsibility to safeguard the electorate’s interests because a referendum has taken place is simply not a view to which I am prepared to subscribe. In such circumstances, we need to have regard to the situation and to the difficulties that the Government face because of its unpredictability, but we must rule nothing out.

To pick up a point that has been made—I repeat it, because it is my position and I shall hold to it until the end—public opinion on this matter may change radically, and the House would be entitled to take that into account. Equally, I accept that at the moment there is no such evidence, and it is our duty to get on with the business of trying to operate Brexit.

How do we introduce safeguards into the process? Of course there is an ultimate safeguard, as the House has the power to stop the Government in their tracks, but that tends to be a rather chaotic process that leads, usually, to Governments falling from office. It is an option that one can never entirely rule out in one’s career in politics, but it is not one that I particularly want to visit on my Front-Bench colleagues. However, this is an important matter, and one of the risks that they undoubtedly run in this process is that it could happen to them. We cannot exclude that possibility.

It is very much better that we should have some process by which Parliament can provide input and influence the matter in such a way as to facilitate debate and enable us collectively to reach outcomes that we can, at least, accept and that may be in the national interest.

[Alex Chalk]

On a point of clarification, will my right hon. and learned Friend indicate whether he perceives new clause 110 to be a potential vehicle for blocking Brexit and keeping us in the European Union? At the moment, that is not clear to me.

[Mr Grieve]

New clause 110 is certainly very well meaning, but I happen to think that there are some problems with it, and I will explain what they are in a moment.

One point that should be made is that it is usual for Government to bring important treaties to the House for approval before signing them. That is a common phenomenon; it is not unusual. There is a long history of doing that with important treaties, so we cannot simply say, “Normally, we ratify them after they are signed.” The obvious course of action, sequentially, is for the Government to publish the White Paper—I am delighted that we succeeded in securing one, because it sets out a plan—and then to get on with the treaty negotiations. In an ideal world, I would like the Government to come back before anything is concluded to ask the House for its approval and to indicate what they have succeeded in achieving. The House will have to make judgments at that time in relation to the overall situation.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

Had the hon. Gentleman been in his place to hear the fantastic speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), he would understand why my hon. Friend was proposing all those reports. I am speaking to new clause 29, which is about quarterly reporting by the Government once the negotiations get under way.

Another slight misconception among Government Members is that there is some best deal, but there is clearly no objective technical standard test. What is best in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) might be different from what is best in my constituency. I am not casting aspersions on the motivations of Government Members; I am being realistic. When the Prime Minister talks about building a better Britain and doing what is best for the country, I am sure that she is being completely sincere, but she stood in a general election in Durham in 1992 and received half as many votes as the Labour candidate. The truth of the matter is that the process is complicated and there are different interests. Parliament, which is the sovereign body of the country, should be able to participate fully in that process, and scrutiny is the basic first brick of it.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The net effect of the hon. Lady’s new clause is that the High Court, not Parliament, would decide on the adequacy or otherwise of the reporting. She would be ceding authority not to this place but to the independent High Court, which is contrary to what she is trying to achieve.

[Helen Goodman]

Look, I am sorry that Government Members feel so bad about losing the Supreme Court case last month. It is a shame. The Government were foolish to appeal after the High Court judgment. However, the fact that they have lost one case does not mean that they should become obsessed with the risk. It is as absurd as saying, “Well, we should stop having parliamentary questions for every Department once a month because they somehow undermine the Government.” Take Defence Question Time, for example. It happens every single month, but it does not undermine our security; it holds the Government to account. It is because the negotiations are so important that the Government should report back. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here. Unlike some Government Back Benchers, I think he understands that this is not a technical issue; it is a political process. Involving Parliament and having proper parliamentary scrutiny is the right thing to do to build a national consensus, which the Government state is their aim in the White Paper.

New clause 29 is simple and straightforward and would require a quarterly reporting system during the negotiations. While the Select Committees are doing fantastic work in considering particular issues in great detail, it is extremely important that the whole House gets a regular opportunity to see how things are going and to provide the perspective of the different communities we represent. Out of necessity, I drafted new clause 29 without having seen new clause 3, which is obviously tougher than new clause 29, so some people will prefer one over the other.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who argued his case with his characteristic clarity and eloquence. I campaigned for the UK to remain in the EU and I do not resile from a single argument I made in favour of that position—I happen to think I was right—but I recognise that I lost the argument. I did not agree with the referendum result, but I respect it. I am absolutely clear that democracy demands that we vote to trigger article 50 and that to do otherwise would be democratically unsustainable. Let me take a few moments to explain why.

The first point to make is that our relationship with the EU had to be resolved. Wherever one stands on the question of whether we should have been closer to or further away from the EU, the reality is that the UK’s relationship with it lacked democratic legitimacy. The boil had to be lanced; the referendum had to take place. Some say that we should have not let the people have their say. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), whose speech was a masterclass that I was privileged to witness, set out his view that this is not a matter that the people should decide. That might have been right in 1970, 1980 or 1990, but the culture of our country has moved to the point—whether we call it the collapse of the deference culture or something else—where a decision of this House on something of such enormous constitutional significance would not have the currency that the British people required. It had to be them who made the decision.

I stood on a manifesto that promised to offer the British people the referendum and to honour its result. The manifesto clearly stated:

“We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome.”

To betray that would be unconscionable. If that were not clear enough, on Second Reading of the Bill that became the European Union Referendum Act 2015, the then Foreign Secretary said that that Bill

“has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum”—[Official Report, 9 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1047.]

How can anyone in this House who voted in favour of that somehow ignore the position now? How is that democratically sustainable? I say that as somebody who did not welcome the result, but I have to accept it.

During the campaign, I do not recall that it was ever suggested by anyone on either side of the debate that somehow the vote would or could be ignored. Everyone understood the vote’s significance, and not a single person I spoke to suggested that the result might not be respected. If there were any doubt about that, should we not reflect on the 72.2% turnout? The reason why the turnout was so great was because the British people recognised that they were being asked not for their advice, but for their instructions.

[George Kerevan]

Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a difference between voting to come out of the EU and coming out of the single market? Opposition Members are trying to argue that the Government are rushing to judgment on the single market.

[Alex Chalk]

I make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, I am concerned that those who fasten on the point about the single market are using it as a fig leaf—an excuse to try to avoid the referendum result. Secondly, I am perfectly clear that I would have preferred to stay in the single market, but it has become tolerably plain over the past six months that that was never a credible option, because the four freedoms that the EU holds so dear—goods, services, labour and capital—are perceived to be utterly inviolable. There was never any flexibility on offer.

My personal view is that it would have been in the interest of the European Union to offer some flex in respect of the free movement of labour. Had that been offered to the former Prime Minister, we might have remained in. Indeed, had it been offered to our current Prime Minister, we might have remained in the single market, but that has never been on offer. Edmund Burke said:

“A state without the means of some change is without the means of its own conservation.”

The EU may, in due course, come to rue the decision not to offer some flexibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. The hon. Lady has already spoken. Other Members present have not yet spoken, and the speech limit will already have to come down at some point, so I implore people who have spoken not to intervene, please, because it is literally taking time away from other Members.

[Alex Chalk]

True democrats must now turn to the future. What kind of country do we want to be? As the Prime Minister said, 23 June cannot be the moment when the United Kingdom stepped back from the world. It must be the moment we stepped forward. We must be more open, outward-looking, tolerant, international and global.

Little England has no appeal for me. We must remain a magnet for international talent and a beacon for those who want to come here to study and work. We must act quickly to resolve the status of EU nationals, who contribute so much to my constituency and the wider United Kingdom. That is the territory on which we must now fight. I am a European and I am a Briton, but I am also a democrat. Democracy demands that all those who voted in favour of the referendum last year do their duty tomorrow evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate. [Laughter.] My predecessor as MP for Newark, William Gladstone, was called by the Speaker to give his maiden speech so late that nobody could remember it. The next time he gave a speech, the Prime Minister, Robert Peel, wrote him a congratulatory note on his maiden speech. I hope that despite the hour, I will be listened to and remembered this evening.

After the storms of the referendum and its immediate aftermath, the country was understandably divided into leave and remain. It seems to me, having listened to 10 hours of this debate, that two new groups have emerged and become the real divide in Parliament. The first, and by far the larger, group consists of those who accept the mandate of the referendum and who want to implement it in full. As many have said tonight, that includes leaving the single market, the customs union and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. However they voted in the referendum, they are primarily focused on how we can make a success of the life to come.

The second group consists of those who are not yet able to accept the mandate of the referendum, or who do so in word only and seek to diminish it in reality. They look back in anger, remorse and regret, and they are unable psychologically or intellectually to reorientate themselves to the new world and to ask the real question that is before us today: what comes next? In a free society, there is no obligation on anyone to change their views to conform with the majority but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) said so eloquently, there is an obligation on all of us to act in the national interest. The path of the second group is not in the national interest.

I do not believe that the people of Newark sent me to Westminster at a time of such historic importance to point fingers—to say, “What about the £350 million for the NHS?” or, “What about the recession that you threatened, which never happened?” They want us to come together. They want us to recognise our moral obligation to make our exit from the European Union succeed. The task of every Member of this House must be to build up the positives of leaving the European Union and to mitigate the negatives. That is the test we must all apply in our lives. Voting against the Bill, or amending it to bind the hands of the Prime Minister in our negotiations, fails that test.

Change can be hard, and even more so if it is a course that we did not want to embark on. But we in this place have a special responsibility to give people the confidence and the courage to live with that change and make a success of it. We do that by accepting the mandate and setting out to find a vision of the future that works for everyone. We have to see this as what an economist—I know that some hon. Members do not like economists—would call a non-zero-sum game. A zero-sum game is one in which one side wins at the expense of the other: leave won, and remain lost. A non-zero-sum game is one in which we try to find a way for everyone to win.

[Alex Chalk]

My hon. Friend is making a characteristically powerful speech. Does he agree that if we are to make this a non-zero-sum game, we have to send the message out as early as possible that EU nationals in our country have got to be part of our shared future in the United Kingdom?

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robin Walker]

I met the Chief Ministers of Crown dependencies only yesterday as part of a formal process of ongoing meetings that we are holding to take their views into account. Following the Prime Minister’s speech, I also spoke to each Chief Minister, and they are very pleased with our direction of travel.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Higher education is one of the UK’s greatest exports. As we seek to grow our export markets post-Brexit, does the Minister agree that we need an approach that plays to our strengths and builds on them?

[Mr Walker]

Wholeheartedly.

New Partnership with the EU

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

First, the outcome of the referendum last year was not principally about immigration, although a very large part of it was; it was principally about control of our country. If we talk to the people who voted, they would say that that is what they were concerned about, and that is what this is about. Since I was party to the writing of this speech, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we had the economic future of the country, the security of the country, the sovereignty of the country and our part in the world all squarely in our sights when we wrote it.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend made it clear in his statement that “no deal is better than a bad deal”. In the unlikely—I am sure—event that we were to get a bad deal and the House were to vote against it, what would be the impact on our status within the European Union?

[Mr Davis]

The referendum last year set in motion a circumstance where the UK is going to leave the European Union, and the vote will not change that. We want to have a vote so that the House can be behind and support the policy that we are quite sure it will approve of when we get there.

The Government's Plan for Brexit

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

In a debate with much intense feeling, I would like to highlight the fact that there are some areas of common ground. First, there is acceptance across the House that there needs to be, and will be, parliamentary scrutiny. Secondly, and importantly, it has been accepted on both sides of the House that parliamentary scrutiny should not trump achieving the best deal for our country. In this debate and in the many that will follow, we must never forget that second point. Our overriding concern must be to get the right long-term arrangement for our country’s future.

I will outline the steps to which the Government have already agreed. This House has already resolved that there will be parliamentary scrutiny. In a motion agreed to by both sides of the House on 12 October, this House resolved that there would be

“a full and transparent debate on the Government’s plan”

and that the House should properly

“scrutinise that plan for leaving the EU before Article 50 is invoked”.

The Secretary of State confirmed in that debate a commitment that

“Parliament be kept at least as informed as, and better informed than, the European Parliament”—[Official Report, 12 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 332.]

in circumstances where there is a mandatory obligation to inform the European Parliament. Through her amendment, the Prime Minister has now agreed to publish a plan, and the Secretary of State said today that it is inconceivable that there will not be a vote on the final deal. It therefore follows that there is already an agreed level of parliamentary scrutiny, but we must strike the right balance between parliamentary scrutiny and ensuring that we maintain the best negotiating stance.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I was a remainer, too, and I welcome the fact that a statement of the broad parameters of the British negotiating position will be made clear, but does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we should never allow any demands for excessive granularity to undermine the UK’s negotiating position or the national interest?

[Lucy Frazer]

I absolutely agree. It is vital that we get the best deal—not that we have the power to determine the deal at every stage.

The Opposition have accepted at many stages that we must not tie the Government’s hands. In the October motion, it was accepted across the House that the process must

“not undermine the negotiating position of the Government as negotiations are entered into”.

The shadow Secretary of State stated in the course of that debate that

“navigating our exit from the EU will not be an easy process, and it will require shrewd negotiating”

and that we

“must put the national interest first”.—[Official Report, 12 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 323.]

He accepted that there had to be a degree of confidentiality and flexibility. He repeated those very words today. Those statements, which the Opposition have repeatedly made, must be honoured and remembered, because we made some strategic errors when we first negotiated in Europe.

To the Spaak Committee meetings of 1955 that eventuated in the treaty of Rome, we sent a sole British delegate, a minor trade official called Russell Bretherton. He was eventually summoned home on the grounds that Britain should have no part in what a more senior civil servant described as this

“mysticism which appeals to European… federalists”.

Interviewed in later life about the experience, Bretherton said:

“If we had been able to say that we agreed in principle, we could have got whatever kind of common market we wanted. I have no doubt of that at all.”

Now, we have an opportunity to renegotiate our role in Europe and the rest of the world. I do not want to say to my children that we did not get the best deal because of our fear, our scepticism, our adversarial parliamentary system, political point scoring and, possibly, ulterior political motives. I do not want to say that we restricted ourselves in negotiating the right arrangement for our long-term future.