Early Parliamentary General Election

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

May I begin by thanking the European Union for granting the extension that this Parliament asked for under the Benn Act? We are not leaving Europe on 31 October, as the Prime Minister told the Conservative party and the United Kingdom we would be. The Conservative party and the Prime Minister have been defeated once again.

A general election on the terms offered by the Prime Minister is not and will not ever be acceptable to the Scottish National party, but doing nothing is not an option. The impasse cannot remain forever. We on these Benches do want an election, but not with the hand that the Prime Minister is delivering. Let us be clear about what he promises: he proposes to bring back his bad withdrawal deal; he knows that some Labour MPs will help him pass that Bill and then he would have us leave the EU at the end of November, before a general election. For Scotland, that would mean we would be taken out of the EU against our will, and we will never vote for such a proposition. It would give the Prime Minister a post-Brexit election, something we simply will not sign up to.

At the weekend, I and the leader of the Liberal Democrats wrote to Donald Tusk seeking a meaningful extension to article 50 that would remove the risk of no deal and give us time. The continuation of the flextension, whereby the UK can leave at the end of any month in which it passes the motion, is not the complete safety and security we want. It demonstrates precisely why if we enable this motion to pass, we will be out before the Prime Minister’s election. We cannot allow this Prime Minister to railroad through this disastrous so-called “deal”: a deal that opens the door to a hard Brexit, with us outside the single market and the customs union; and a deal that would end freedom of movement, seeing Scotland’s working population decline—that is what the Conservatives offer the people of Scotland.

The people of Scotland have made their position very clear, because we voted 62% to remain in the EU. Where is the respect to the people of Scotland and to our Parliament? This is, after all, a deal that leaves Scotland at a disadvantage to Northern Ireland and a deal that will not have the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Let me tell the Prime Minister that that consent is required, despite what he said at Prime Minister’s questions last week. There must be respect towards the Scottish Parliament. This deal will cost each person in Scotland the equivalent of £1,600 compared with EU membership —or even more if no trade agreement can be reached.

So today, Scottish National party Members will not be supporting the Prime Minister in his motion. We will not be bullied by this Prime Minister. We will not play his games. And we know what he does not want: to face the electorate having missed his 31 October deadline. He has not delivered Brexit, and the people know he has failed. In his own words, it is time for the PM to look for the nearest ditch.

We will support the Liberal Democrat proposal for an election before Brexit can happen, with no reintroduction of the withdrawal agreement Bill, because given the way some Labour MPs voted, we cannot trust Labour to block the Bill in future. This is not an issue of three days between election dates; it is an issue of whether we are in the European Union or out of it. That is fundamental. We are ready for an election, but it must be on those terms, not—not ever—on the Prime Minister’s. In that election, we want to see votes for 16 and 17-year-olds and for EU nationals. When that election comes, we will fight the Tories on Brexit, on the rape clause, on austerity, on the harm they have done to people’s lives and livelihoods, and, yes, we will fight them on the right of Scotland to choose our own future, rather than be dragged through this Westminster mess ever again.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Does that mean that if the Prime Minister were to introduce a one-line Bill tomorrow, for example, in order to engineer a general election, the right hon. Gentleman would not be supporting that proposition?

[Ian Blackford]

I say to the Labour party that we and the Liberal Democrats have put forward a Bill that leaves us in control of the process and allows us to set the date for the election, and I appeal to Labour MPs to come with us, because this is about leadership. This is about the Opposition parties coming together and taking the keys of No.10 Downing Street away from a Prime Minister we cannot trust. My message to the Labour party is: let us face an election, let us do it on our terms, let us make sure that we take the Prime Minister and his toxic Tory Government out of office. We can do it—we can do it if the Opposition parties unite. We can stop the deal that the Prime Minister wants to drive through. It is in the hands of the Labour party to join us and the Liberal Democrats, to have the courage to stand up against the Prime Minister. But what are we going to find? We are going to find that the Labour party wants to sit on its hands and wait for this Government to deliver a Brexit. I say to the Labour party: do not be the handmaidens of the Prime Minister’s Brexit. Let us put this back to the people now by coming together. It used to be said, including by Oliver Brown, a well-known Scottish nationalist, “A shiver ran along the Labour Front Bench looking for a spine to crawl up.” The shiver is still looking for that spine.

The SNP is standing up for Scotland. We are standing up against Brexit and this Tory Government. The SNP has fought tirelessly alongside others in this House to prevent Brexit, to secure the right to revoke article 50, to stop no deal and to limit the damage. We have delivered the votes, day in and day out. But we have to be realistic and we have to be honest with the public: we have repeatedly voted for a referendum with remain on the ballot paper but, regrettably, there is no evidence that the majority exists in this House for a people’s vote. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor are acutely aware that if the Bill comes back, some of their MPs will back it, the Bill will become law and Brexit will happen. The question for the Labour party is: can it get its act together? Do Labour Members actually want to stop this Prime Minister? Do they want to stop Brexit or do they agree that it should be imposed on Scotland against our will? Doing nothing means that this Prime Minister stays in power—it means he gets Brexit done, on his terms and in his party’s interests, not in all our national interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I will make some progress and then give way.

We believe that the best way to do this is to put a specific Brexit deal to the public for a final say in a people’s vote. We have been leading the campaign for a people’s vote for three and a half years. We stood in the 2017 election on a manifesto that argued for a people’s vote and we have laid amendments for a people’s vote 17 times in this House, including an amendment to the Queen’s Speech last week.

The official Opposition have refused to back wholeheartedly a people’s vote—in fact, 19 Labour MPs voted for the Prime Minister’s deal last week. When it comes to the cause of remaining in the EU and of stopping Brexit, the Labour party has not delivered. We have put our best efforts in, but so far the House has not yet backed them in sufficient numbers.

[Kevin Brennan]

Not all the hon. Lady’s MPs have always been so unequivocal on this: the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) voted in favour of article 50, although he never tells the House that. I voted against it.

Why does the hon. Lady believe that a general election, using an electoral system that her party, like me, has always thought does not deliver a fair result, will solve this issue, rather than sticking to the point that we should be seeking a referendum? She could end up delivering a hard Brexit on only 38% of the vote, not 51%.

[Jo Swinson]

I always welcome any converts to the cause of electoral reform.

[Kevin Brennan]

I’m not a convert!

[Jo Swinson]

Or indeed long-standing supporters.

We are looking for the best way to protect our constituents and our place in the European Union. But MPs should not kid themselves that, by hanging on, there is somehow going to be a different outcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (IGC)]

We are apparently approaching the season of good will, when we are supposed to have Christmas parties in our primary schools and wish each other season’s greetings. I hope that people who want a season of good will have not been watching these exchanges.

They say that turkeys do not vote for an early Christmas. That is probably true, but it is also apparent that some people have been on chicken runs from one constituency to another. [Interruption.] No, I am standing in Ilford South; I am not running anywhere. I am standing in my own constituency.

[Kevin Brennan]

I respect the hon. Gentleman. Was he referring to former members of the Independent Group for Change when he talked about those who were on chicken runs from one constituency to another?

[Mike Gapes]

The people who are doing it and who perhaps will do it know who they are; I will not name them.

The only way we are going to end this rancorous, divisive politics is by being realistic. If there is a general election and a party gets a big majority—35% or 40% of the vote—that will still leave a majority in this country extremely unhappy with the outcome. The referendum, in my view, was misguided. It was an advisory referendum, but former Prime Minister David Cameron nevertheless said that it would be binding. He then made his reckless gamble and ran away, leaving his successors to clear up the mess. That referendum got us into the mess. The only way we will get closure in this country is by putting the withdrawal agreement to a confirmatory vote by the people and legislating for the referendum to be legally binding, and unambiguously so.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady, because she makes a valuable point. I want to thank the Welsh Government, who have worked hand in hand with the Scottish Government. Quite simply, our rights are being diminished by what this Government are doing, and we have a responsibility across not only Governments in the devolved areas but parties to work together to make these points.

The devolved institutions must be given a full opportunity to scrutinise this legislation. The fact remains that the Scottish Parliament is in recess and is having to be recalled because of this Government’s desire to ram legislation through at short notice. Here we are today with the Government pushing on ahead. [Interruption.] People watching can see the chuntering, shouting, complaining and laughing that we get from Scottish Conservative Members every single time we are in this place. The UK Government are ploughing on against the requests of the leaders of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments. It is clear that this Prime Minister has no respect for devolution.

That should come as no surprise to us because the Conservatives have opposed devolution every step of the way. A leopard does not change its spots. At every step in the Brexit process, Tory Governments have sought to frustrate parliamentary scrutiny and to frustrate our Government, but they simply do not care. The Prime Minister does not care about process, Parliament or the rule of law.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has been very generous in giving way. There have been some press reports that the SNP is abandoning the idea of having a second referendum, but in the joint letter he cited from the First Minister of Wales and the First Minister of Scotland I am pleased to say that they both called for such a referendum and for an extension to allow it to happen. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is still the SNP’s position?

[Ian Blackford]

We have been four-square behind a people’s vote over the course of the last year, and indeed I spoke at the rally in London on Saturday, so I absolutely stand by the words of our First Minister in that letter.

Tata Steelworks: Newport

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Kevin Foster)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on securing this debate, which has given us the opportunity to come together to discuss a topic that is important not just for Newport but for the whole of Wales. She has always been, and was today, an energetic and passionate advocate for her constituents and those affected by the potential closure of Tata’s Cogent Orb plant.

It is clear that there is a shared understanding of the important role the steel sector plays in communities and its critical place as a foundation industry in the national economy, especially in Wales. That is evidenced by the number of Members attending this debate. I have heard their comments and the request to meet the unions. I understand that the Secretary of State for Wales has already been in contact with them, and I am more than happy to facilitate meetings. I will pass on the request for a meeting of the steel council. That is something we are always happy to do, and certainly if hon. Members request it. Those who have dealt with me previously know that I am only too happy to meet Members, particularly if it relates to matters in their constituencies that are this important. I would be happy to facilitate that.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Is the Minister saying that he will go back to his colleagues and recommend that the UK steel council meets, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) has requested?

[Kevin Foster]

I will pass on the strong demand that the hon. Member for Newport East has made for the council to meet. In terms of what I can offer, and the direct request for meetings with Ministers about the Orb plant, I am more than happy to arrange to do that. That was the second part of her request.

Although there are considerable challenges, we believe there remain great opportunities for the industry to secure a successful, sustainable future at the centre of British manufacturing. The announcement on 2 September 2019 that Tata is to close its Orb Electrical Steels plant in Newport has understandably been a huge blow for employees, their families, contractors, suppliers and customers. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her commitment to working with Government and other stakeholders, including the Community union, to help secure the future of the business, both in her role as MP for Newport East and as an officer for the all-party parliamentary group on steel and metal-related industries, many of whose members are in the Chamber.

The Government have worked with Tata to seek possible solutions to the financial challenges facing the company. We have also met with the unions to discuss the concerns of the workers and their families. This was a commercial decision by Tata Steel Europe. The Orb Electrical Steels plant has been on sale for two years, but sadly Tata was unable to find a buyer. We are open to considering plans that would deliver a long-term, sustainable future, based on a clear business plan, but as I am sure hon. Members realise, that cannot just be based on an ongoing subsidy or on merely hoping that business will come forward. We have sought and had reassurance from Tata that every effort will be made to mitigate the impact on affected employees. It is offering alternative employment opportunities where possible at other Tata Steel sites. The UK Government are committed to working with Tata to avoid job losses as a result of any closure of the Orb steel plant, as Tata is one of the most important employers in Wales. We will keep all options open to support a sustainable future for that plant and for Tata elsewhere in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I have to conclude, as I am starting to get close to time.

We have also signed up to the UK steel charter, acknowledging and supporting that initiative from industry. We continue to press for the introduction of trade defence instruments to protect UK steel producers from unfair steel dumping. Tata has confirmed the closures are not linked to Brexit; instead competition from much larger players in China and Japan is understood to be the key reason.

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of order, Mr Hanson, this kind of debate is supposed to be a conversation between the Minister and the Member who secured it. There are five minutes left in the debate; surely it would be appropriate for the Minister to give way to the person who secured the debate.

Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications)

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of prorogation with the imminence of an exit from the European Union and accordingly resolves—

That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to direct Ministers to lay before this House, not later than 11.00pm Wednesday 11 September, all correspondence and other communications (whether formal or informal, in both written and electronic form, including but not limited to messaging services including WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Facebook messenger, private email accounts both encrypted and unencrypted, text messaging and iMessage and the use of both official and personal mobile phones) to, from or within the present administration, since 23 July 2019 relating to the prorogation of Parliament sent or received by one or more of the following individuals: Hugh Bennett, Simon Burton, Dominic Cummings, Nikki da Costa, Tom Irven, Sir Roy Stone, Christopher James, Lee Cain or Beatrice Timpson; and that Ministers be further directed to lay before this House no later than 11.00pm Wednesday 11 September all the documents prepared within Her Majesty's Government since 23 July 2019 relating to operation Yellowhammer and submitted to the Cabinet or a Cabinet Committee.

I am sorry to have to move this motion, because it ought not to be necessary to do so.

When I was Attorney General, a lot of the work I had to do involved advising on law, but from time to time quite a lot of it was to do with propriety in government. We are very blessed in this country that, as well as obeying the rule of law, there is within government a deep understanding that if our constitution, which is largely unwritten, is to function, there has to be a high level of trust between different parts of government—whether it be Parliament or the Administration—in how our affairs are conducted. I am glad to say that, in my experience, if and when I ever had to step in as Attorney General to point out that I thought propriety might be in danger of being infringed, I always had a positive response from my colleagues in government about the necessity at all times to be seen to be acting with clean hands.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On that point, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is successful and the Government are obliged to supply these papers, is he confident that the current Prime Minister and the Executive will do so?

[Mr Grieve]

Seeing that this would be a Humble Address to Her Majesty the Queen for the documents, I very much hope that there could be no question other than that they will be provided, because it is the custom and practice and the convention that such Humble Addresses are responded to positively by the Government.

The reason why we have these rules is to manage difference. They provide a framework for our debates that—because, as I say, there is a high level of trust— enables us to manage sometimes serious difference, such as we undoubtedly have at the moment, in a moderate fashion. We are able sometimes to say strong words to each other, but to come together afterwards with a high level of appreciation of the other’s point of view and an absolute certainty that one side is not trying to trick the other. My concern is that there is now increasing and compelling evidence that this trust is breaking down and, indeed, that there is cause to be concerned that the conventions are not being maintained.

This of course arises particularly because of the decision to prorogue this House. I do not think I need to go into too much history to point out that, in recent years, the power of Prorogation has been used for only two reasons. The first is to have the short interval, usually of no more than seven or eight days, between one Session and the next, so that a Queen’s Speech may take place. It has also been used at times to extend time for a general election in order to maintain a power by which this House could be recalled in an emergency before it is finally dissolved. The use being made of it by the Government in proroguing this House until 14 October is, in current times, unprecedented. It is a long period, and all the more startling because it takes place against the background of what is without doubt—it is a bit difficult to gainsay it—a growing national crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The point of order trumps the attempted intervention even of an illustrious Law Officer.

[Kevin Brennan]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is it a point of order or a point of information to point out that the Prime Minister’s special adviser, Dominic Cummings, asked to examine the private text messages on the telephone of a Government employee?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has made his own point in his own way, and he may wish to expatiate further on that matter if he catches my eye in the course of the debate. Meanwhile, it is on the record and will be widely observed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Lady on that matter. The documents lodged with the Scottish Court last week, and revealed to the public against the Government’s wishes but as a result of interventions by the legal team that I and others in this House instruct, and by the BBC and other newspapers, show that the Prime Minister had approved a plan to prorogue Parliament on 16 August. Yet, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield said in his opening speech, as late as 25 August a No. 10 spokesperson was still denying that there was any such plan to prorogue. Indeed, in the pleadings lodged by the Government in response to the action raised in Scotland by myself and other Members of this House, the British Government referred to our contention that we were in fear of a Prorogation as hypothetical and academic. So there are very real reasons to believe that this Government are economical with the truth.

The memos produced by the British Government showed not only the somewhat distasteful comment about girly swots, with which the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield dealt most ably, but that the reason why the current Prime Minister wants to prorogue this Parliament is because he wants to avoid what he referred to as the “rigmarole” of this Parliament sitting in September. So even if the Scottish case achieves nothing else, it has shown that the Government have not been entirely truthful so far.

Another myth was finally put to rest at the weekend when the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) resigned. Most of us were not surprised to hear her confirm that there are, in fact, no renegotiations ongoing with the EU. Of course we already knew that from the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and from a number of counterparts in the EU. I noted last week at the Brexit Select Committee that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster initially tried to give the impression that negotiations were ongoing but when pressed on the matter he conceded that there are no negotiations as such, merely discussions. We heard that from him last week, but it was good to hear it from someone who has so recently been at the heart of government and has had the decency to leave the Government given what she has seen.

The weight of evidence regarding the damage that no deal would do to the nations of these islands is overwhelming. We all know that from the work we have done on Select Committees over the past few years—work that will not be happening in the next few weeks, when Parliament is prorogued. But still the Government will not tell us the truth about the assessments they have made of the impact of a no-deal Brexit and the preparations they are making for that. So it is right that this House seeks the documentation relating to Operation Yellowhammer.

I will now concentrate on the Prorogation case, because myself and a number of other MPs and peers, as well as Jo Maugham, QC, and the Good Law Project, have raised an action in Scotland, in which we argue that Parliament is being prorogued for an unlawful purpose and to prevent democratic scrutiny, and that therefore the courts should overturn the order to prorogue. Although the judge at first instance was not with us, we had a full hearing before Scotland’s Appeal Court last week, and we are awaiting the outcome of that decision on Wednesday. Of course a date, 17 September, has also been assigned at the UK Supreme Court to hear any further appeal in the Scottish case and also an appeal on the proceedings raised in England and Northern Ireland. Members of the public should be aware that if the courts eventually find out that Prorogation was unlawful, they can order this Parliament to return. So even if we are prorogued tonight, all is not lost.

In the course of these proceedings, something curious happened last week. I commend to hon. Members’ attention an interesting article about this in the Financial Times at the weekend by David Allen Green, the distinguished legal commentator, entitled: “The curious incident of the missing witness statement”. In the Scottish case, the petitioners argue that the Government had an improper motive in seeking Prorogation, and we say that the real intention was a cynical effort to close down Parliament so that it could not block a no-deal Brexit. Usually, there is a pretty straightforward way for the Government or the responding party to rebut or refute an allegation of such bad faith. Where somebody is facing such an allegation of bad faith, the normal thing to do in an action of judicial review would be to submit a sworn statement—an affidavit—setting out the way in which the decision was made and that the decision was properly taken and to lodge relevant supportive documentation. What happened last week in Edinburgh was that the Government did not provide any such witness statement. They provided no such sworn affidavit and no official explanation. They simply supplied some documents, heavily redacted, without any covering explanation. The absence of such a statement in such litigation is, as David Allen Green says, very “conspicuous”.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am certainly not a lawyer, but general knowledge leads me to ask: is what the Government are doing here not, in effect, the equivalent, in American terms, of taking the fifth—refusing to give evidence on the basis that it might incriminate them or cause them to commit perjury?

[Joanna Cherry]

It does rather have the whiff of that.

At Prime Minister’s questions last week, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield asked the Prime Minister why it had proved impossible during the Scottish legal proceedings to find any Government official or Minister who was prepared to state on oath in a sworn statement the reasons for Prorogation. The Prime Minister did not answer the question. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman explained earlier, it has been suggested to a number of Members, myself included, by reliable sources, that Government officials were approached by the Government Legal Service about swearing such statements but refused to do so. I cannot know the reasons why they refused to sign a sworn statement; I can only speculate. I speculate that perhaps they refused for fear of perjuring themselves, or for fear that to tell the truth would be damaging to the Government. The idea that any Government official should be put in a position in which they fear having to perjure themselves before the courts of the jurisdictions of Scotland or England, or indeed any jurisdiction in the United Kingdom, is very concerning.

The same sources that suggested that officials have refused to sign sworn statements have also suggested to me, and to other Members of the House, that key figures in No. 10 and the Government have been communicating about the real reasons for Prorogation not through the official channels of Government emails and memos, but by personal email, WhatsApp and “burner” phones—normally used by people involved in a criminal enterprise to avoid being traced. If that is true, they will have adopted a subterfuge, and there can only really be one reason for that: to conceal the real reasons for Prorogation from the scrutiny of this House and, very seriously, the scrutiny of the courts.

The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield explained at some length what careful thought he has given to the way in which this has been presented. I will not repeat any of that, other than to say that he has clearly applied his mind very carefully to it, and the allegations that underlie the motion are very serious. If there is no truth in them, so be it. But let us pass the motion and let there be transparency and accountability, because those are the two things, I suggest, that this Prime Minister and his shabby Administration fear the most.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Seeing powers coming back to this United Kingdom and going to the devolved tier of government will help to bring our four nations closer together. That is why it is so strange that those people who call themselves nationalists actually want to take powers back so they can give them away again to Brussels.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that the real nationalist party in this Chamber now, after last night’s events, is the Tory party, which is rapidly turning into the right-wing English nationalist party?

[Kevin Foster]

Well, what a load of rubbish. This party is absolutely firmly committed to being a Unionist party, and we will not be fanning the flames of division by raising the prospects of second referendums, including second referendums on separation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I remember the conversation I had with Andy Street when I was encouraging him to stand for the mayoralty of the west midlands, and I am very pleased that he did. He has been delivering for the people of the west midlands ever since his election. I also thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the excellent work that we have done for the west midlands: Government working with that combined authority shows the benefits of the very local devolution that my hon. Friend has referred to. This is a very good example of what that innovative and visionary leadership can do at a local level in improving the lives of people.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Q3.   Outgoing American Presidents get to pardon anybody they want. If the Prime Minister could, would she pardon her successor for sabotaging her premiership purely for his own personal ambitions?

[The Prime Minister]

My successor will continue to deliver the Conservative policies that have improved the lives of people up and down this country since we were elected into a coalition Government in 2010. There is a long list of improvements that have taken place in people’s lives, and I look forward, on the Back Benches, to giving my full support to the next Prime Minister as he takes us forward, delivering on Brexit and continuing to deliver on those Conservative policies.

European Council

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister mentioned raising Iran and the middle east “in the margins” of the Council. The Foreign Secretary will be partly distracted by other matters. Will she acquaint herself with the details of the case of my constituent, Luke Symons, who is currently being held captive by the Houthis in Sana’a in Yemen, to see whether she can use her influence in her remaining time in office to secure his release and allow him and his family to travel back to the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

I will ensure that I am able to look at the specific case that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

European Council

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Being an experienced Member of this House, my hon. Friend will know that in order to ratify the deal we need to pass legislation through this House, so it is not quite as simple as he might like to think it would be.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Does not everything the Prime Minister has said today indicate that she still believes that no deal is better than any deal other than her own? Does she understand that this House will not permit her to allow this country to crash over the edge into a no deal? Why does not she just state that clearly so that we can get on with the indicative votes?

[The Prime Minister]

I have dealt with the issue of indicative votes, and I have said that no deal is better than a bad deal. I happen to continue to believe that we negotiated a good deal with the European Union. I repeat to the hon. Gentleman the point I have made to others: it is all very well the House wanting to say that it does not want to leave with no deal, but the House then has to agree something to put in its place.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I will give way to my right hon. and learned Friend, then to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and then I will make some progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I will make some progress, but I will happily give way to my right hon. and learned Friend later.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman; he is being extremely generous. I cannot see how any deal can proceed without a public vote at the end of the process, given the circumstances. On the question of today’s business, the Prime Minister said earlier that the Government were prepared to seek to provide time—I think those were her words—to discuss indicative options. Will he clarify what exactly she meant by that? When are the Government prepared to do it and for how long, and can he confirm that what the options are would be in the hands of the House?

[Mr Lidington]

I will gladly do so, but I ask colleagues to bear with me and permit me to complete page 1 of my speech and move to subsequent sections. Then I might be able to throw a bit more light on some of the questions being posed to me. I will give way to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, but then I am going to make some progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has got herself and the Government into a hopeless position. Having disregarded views from across this House for the best part of two years, the Government now find themselves with a deal that they just cannot get through this House, and time has almost run out. Today, we see that they sort of agree with an initiative to break the impasse, but they also do not agree with it.

All that must be seen in the context of the Prime Minister losing control of the meaningful vote. In truth, we have no idea when or if it will be put again or whether it is winnable. I listened carefully to the Prime Minister’s statement this afternoon, and she said that she had gauged that there was “still not sufficient support” for the deal, but she would continue discussions so that she could bring forward a vote this week. We have been in that loop since 10 December. She says, “I don’t think there’s enough support. I am going to have further discussions, and I am going to put the vote again.” She has lost control of that process.

The Prime Minister has also lost control of the negotiations. That much is clear from the European Council’s decision last Thursday. When the Government were asked, “What happens if the meaningful vote fails?” there was no answer. That created a real anxiety that we could crash out this Friday without a deal. It was in those circumstances that the EU acted as it did in putting forward the dates of 12 April and 22 May, so the Government have lost control of the very negotiations.

The Prime Minister also appears to have lost control of the Conservative party. There have already been too many jokes about whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is the Deputy Prime Minister or the putative Prime Minister, so I will scratch them from my speech, but it is clear that control of the party is gone. Tonight, it is likely that the Prime Minister and the Government are going to lose control of Parliament and of the process in circumstances in which, arguably, they do not need to, because they could have acted last week. The sense that we have to move forward was in the debate last week. It is not new today, because it was clear that many Members want to find a way forward and feel a duty to break the deadlock. That was the subject matter of last week’s debate, but instead of a constructive discussion about how we do it, we will probably divide on this motion.

[Kevin Brennan]

On breaking the impasse, the Conservative manifesto has been cited, but is it not the case that manifestos need to win a mandate in order to be implementable? The Conservative party did not win a mandate at the last general election, because a mandate would mean having an overall majority in this House. Contrary to what the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has said, does that not provide room for the Government to be more flexible on this matter?

[Keir Starmer]

I agree with that sentiment. I have stood here and been critical of the red lines that the Prime Minister put in place at the beginning of the protest, and I have always seen them as the cause of the problem, but today is not really about an inquisition into that—although there will have to be one—because it is about whether we can find a way forward. I honestly think that many Members want to find a way forward and have been working to that end.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Ind)]

I salute the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) for having the guts to speak truth to those in his own party who have got wrapped up in this idea that the WTO and no deal is somehow a great future. He is absolutely right to point out what he did, although I would opt for a different outcome, which is to give the people the chance to stay in the EU. The whole Brexit process has shown the worst of our politics, right from the beginning, with the Vote Leave campaign and its hubristic claims on the side of the red bus, and then tumbling into a series of errors of judgment by the Prime Minister, when she decided to trigger article 50, and accepted the frame that she would do the divorce terms only and kick into the long grass the future relationship between the EU and the UK. It has been a catastrophic negotiating failure right from the beginning. Then of course we had the Prime Minister’s stubborn resistance to move at all on the single market or customs union; there was no sense of reading the room and trying to gauge a solution as we go forward.

So we find ourselves with this deal today, but I have to say that it is not all about the backstop; some of us believe passionately that the Good Friday agreement should be defended and it should not just be left to other leaders across the EU27 to make that case. There are problems with this deal: parting with £50 billion of taxpayers’ money in exchange for no certainty on the future of what will come next; and the £40 billion a year in lost public service revenues that we are going to see for our schools, hospitals and other public services because of the austerity that will be created by that Brexit deal. We have the spring statement from the Chancellor tomorrow, when this will be the elephant in the room. The Chancellor will not talk about the Brexit effect on the public finances and the shadow Chancellor probably will not either—it will all be ignored.

There is a better plan, which is simply for Parliament to grow up, get a grip and decide on what terms of Brexit should be offered to the public in a public vote. We should of course extend article 50 at the European summit on 21 March to facilitate the time and allow us to go back to the public. That was precisely the amendment that the independent group tabled for today, and I hope that at some point this week we will be able to vote on this question of a public vote. After all, a people’s vote was the policy of the Labour party at its conference.

Has there ever been a time in our politics when we have been worse served by the leaderships of our main political parties? I commend those Back Benchers, some with very different views from mine, who have tried their best to navigate towards a solution. Many hon. and learned Members have put their backs into finding a solution, but they have found that the intransigence and tribalism of party politics has stubbornly stood in their way. We know that the Prime Minister is a prisoner of the ERG right wing on her side, but my patience with what was and has been going on in the Labour party has ended. I could no longer stay in the Labour party, standing by with its leadership enabling a Brexit that I know will hurt the livelihoods and jobs of our constituents. I say to my friends—

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

You voted for article 50—

[Mr Leslie]

I did not vote for article 50.

[Kevin Brennan]

No, but your spokesman did.

[Mr Leslie]

I did not vote to trigger article 50, but the point about hon. Members who are heckling me is that they do not like to hear that a massive betrayal is going on in the Labour party right now. The conference policy that was passed was to support a public vote, and nobody can explain to me why the Labour party has not got to the stage of supporting a public vote by now. All my hon. Friends in the Labour party know that by now we should have reached the stage of a public vote. So I appeal to Members across the House: now is the time to make a decision, to stand up for our constituents and do the right thing, for their livelihoods and jobs. We must support, this week, a public vote to put this issue back to the public, so that they can decide.