Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications)

Debate between Keir Starmer and Wayne David

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

I accept that intervention, because the House is being shut down and we will not be able to do our job. It is not Members of Parliament who are being shut out, but those we represent. Whether in relation to the issues mentioned by the right hon. Lady or any other issue, the people are shut out when Parliament is shut down. It is all very well for the Government to say, “We will produce some documents in relation to our analysis of a no-deal Brexit,” but we are not going to be here for the next five weeks, so when are we going to scrutinise them? Even if the Government do publish something, when do we get to ask questions? Not until it is far too late—two weeks away from the decision. To simply say, “We will publish some documents,” under Yellowhammer or anything else misses the point, which is that there can be no scrutiny if we are not sitting.

There is a wider observation, which is that if the purpose of proroguing is justified by the need to pass a Queen’s Speech, how on earth do the Government think they can now achieve that? I remind the House that the Government now have a majority of minus 40. With Cabinet Ministers and even the Prime Minister’s family resigning the Tory Whip every day, one can only wonder what the number will be by the time the House returns. Surely the Government should now just give up on the idea of a Queen’s Speech and drop Prorogation altogether.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the recording of the Defence Secretary, in which he states his view as to why Prorogation is really happening? It is somewhat different from what the Prime Minister has put forward.

[Keir Starmer]

Yes, I have seen that. Why we are being closed down is blindingly obvious. As I said earlier, if anybody believes it is genuinely for the orderliness of the House and the convenience of a Queen’s Speech, they will believe anything. We are being closed down to stop scrutiny and to prevent this House from expressing a view on no deal. The only positive is that it galvanised the House last week to take the necessary action to prevent no deal, and Opposition Members were pulled together and spoke strongly on the Bill that has just received Royal Assent.

Leaving the EU: No Deal

Debate between Keir Starmer and Wayne David

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I agree with it.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I am not sure that I am making a speech; I think that I am responding to interventions. I will take one more and then I really will make some progress.

[Wayne David]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. Does he agree that it is significant that, this morning, the new First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, had a meeting with the Prime Minister and told her very clearly that she had a moral obligation to make sure that this country did not leave the EU without a deal?

[Keir Starmer]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I will take further interventions when I have made some progress.

The point that I am really making is that leaving the EU on 29 March next year without a deal is simply not viable, and I do not think that any responsible Government would do it.

EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice

Debate between Keir Starmer and Wayne David

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

I see the Solicitor General agreeing; he knows this because he operates this way all the time in the advice that he provides.

The second example is that section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides an exemption for the disclosure of information from the Law Officers that attracts legal professional privilege, but it only applies if the public interest in withholding outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In other words, there is an overriding public interest test in relation to advice provided by the Law Officers that does not apply in the same way to lawyers in private litigation.

My fourth point is a very important one. Confidentiality and privilege can justify non-disclosure, but what the Government cannot do is waive the rule for some MPs and not for others. There are a number of important individuals and groups of MPs whom the Government may well find themselves wanting to persuade to back their deal. In order to do so, they might be tempted to share the advice with those individuals to persuade them of the legal ramifications of the backstop.

I know that the Democratic Unionist party in particular—and everybody who represents anybody in Northern Ireland—is very concerned about that for obvious reasons, and I think I am right in saying that its Members have called for the legal advice to be published. It is acutely important to those in Northern Ireland, but I say to the Government that it cannot be acceptable to share the advice, or bits of the advice, with some in this House and not others. Therefore, if there is any proposal or suggestion that it is to be or might be shared with individuals in relation to this vote, it cannot then not be shared with others, because the ring of confidentiality and privilege will have fallen away, and there could be no justification for it not being available to all.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of any precedent for such a differentiation?

[Keir Starmer]

No, I am not. I think I would be right in saying that if any advice was shared outside the ring of confidence, confidentiality would fall away as a basis for non-disclosure to the House. That must be right in principle; it cannot possibly be right that some in this House have seen bits or all of the advice and others have not.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Keir Starmer and Wayne David

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

I have looked very carefully at the provisions in the EEA agreement, and there has been a lot of discussion about articles 112 and 113 in particular. I have to say that my reading of those articles is that they are what are called “in extremis” provisions, which actually do allow some flexibility on all obligations under the EEA agreement, but only in extreme circumstances and for a short period. The argument that others have put to me is that there is a different interpretation, but we are still discussing that matter.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way once more and then I really will have to get on.

[Wayne David]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the EEA would become a viable option only if Britain were able to negotiate fundamental changes to the EEA agreement, which would be a huge challenge for the United Kingdom?

[Keir Starmer]

In fairness to those who advocate joining the EEA, there is a recognition that the EEA agreement, unamended, would not be the right deal for the UK, but the argument is that it could be amended.