Ministerial Code: Policy Announcements
Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We do. To anybody who watched that Budget and who had not been involved in its development and thought that they knew every single detail that was announced in the Chancellor’s speech, I would question whether they were watching the same speech as I was.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I will not repeat what I said yesterday, but I was outraged by the complete circus of trailing in advance and trying things out that has gone on for three months while this Budget was prepared. There were no surprises to anybody in today’s Budget, and they got away with it as far as the markets were concerned—but I said I would not repeat that. I now do not understand what the policy is. The Minister sounds as though she still asserts that it is a serious matter to trail in advance the contents of the Budget before they have been announced to Parliament. She says it with a completely straight face. My learned noble friend Lord Macpherson, who was with me in the Treasury in the 1990s, when we did not have leaks of any kind—
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
We did not—even the Cabinet did not know what was going to be in the Budget until the day before, because someone in the Cabinet would have leaked it.
Will the Minister not acknowledge that this Government are now approaching Budgets on the basis that things have to be tried out with the public and various Labour lobbies, and nastier things leaked in advance to lower their impact? It is all deliberate media management nowadays and the old obligations to Parliament are, in practice, being completely, deliberately and openly abandoned.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I find the outrage from Opposition Members to be in the category of faux outrage. As I said earlier, the Speaker’s comments were heard by Ministers across the Government, and Treasury Ministers have been hardly out of the other place this week, with Statements and Question Time. I cannot see how anybody could assert that all the decisions in the Budget—which makes difficult choices to fix the foundations of the economy and public services in this country—were trailed in advance.
Strike Action
Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. These are the sorts of details that the military, the COBRA unit and the departments that may need help from the military are looking at on a contingency basis. One problem we have is predicting what is going to happen with the strikes; every day there seems to be an announcement of different plans, and we are trying to work to make sure that the strikes do not happen.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, looking at my notes, I see that it is the turn of the Conservative Benches.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
Noble Lords may recall the long ambulance strike of the 1980s that lasted six months and more. The military actually enjoyed the experience because it had real casualties to deal with instead of the pretend ones used in paramedic training—the military then had more paramedic training than the civilian ambulance drivers in the NHS. Is not our recollection of the 1960s and 1970s that, if the Government intervened in every strike to ensure that some improved offer was made above what the employers wished to make, it made every strike seem successful and encouraged people to vote for more strike action in the succeeding round? Whatever happens this year—and we hope we can resolve these issues—we must not return to the old wage-price spiral that was so destructive in those days.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I agree with my noble friend, and that is a very good point on which to end this useful exchange.
Election of Speaker
Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I have to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the resignation of the right hon. John Bercow, lately Speaker of this House, gives leave to the House to proceed forthwith to the election of a new Speaker.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (in the Chair)
The House will now proceed to the election of a new Speaker in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 1B. In a moment, I will call the candidates to address the House in the order in which I drew their names by lot this morning. The order of speaking was published this morning and has, I think, been visible on the Annunciator to all Members, but it is purely random. I have asked each candidate to speak for no more than five minutes. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] The candidates will no doubt be further advised by that response. When all candidates have addressed the House, we will proceed to the first ballot.
Ms Harman
Many of you are standing down—some after only a short time here, and that should concern us all. I want to thank all of you who have served in this House and to say to all of you who are standing down that I wish you well for the future. Some are standing down after decades here, and that brings me to the Father of the House, Ken Clarke. Ken, you have been a phenomenal, exemplary parliamentarian, and I just wanted to say that and to thank you.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (in the Chair)
Thank you very much, Ms Harman. I am genuinely grateful. I have no idea what voter appeal those very kind words addressed to me will have.
All of the candidates have now addressed the House. In a moment, I will declare the ballot open. Before I do, I have to give a clear explanation of the process, which is not actually familiar to any of us. First, Members with surnames beginning with the letters A to K inclusive should vote in the Aye Lobby. Members with surnames beginning with the letters L to Z should vote in the No Lobby. Please enter the Lobbies by the main entrances as the side doors will be locked. When you enter the Lobbies, please give your name to the Clerk at the appropriate desk for the letter of your surname. As usual, surnames have been divided into three streams in each Lobby. When you pass the desk, you will be given a ballot paper. When you have completed it, please place it in one of the ballot boxes at the exit of the Lobby. That should be familiar. [Laughter.] I remind Members that they should vote only for one candidate. It is not a transferrable vote; it is an exclusive vote. The ballot will remain open for 20 minutes. I hope to announce the result of each ballot around 45 minutes after the closure of the ballot. [Interruption.] That, I think, is for counting and the printing of new ballot papers. The House will be alerted by the Annunciator before it is to resume, and Division bells will also be rung.
I declare the ballot open.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (in the Chair)
This is the result of the first ballot. The total number of ballots cast was 562. The number of votes cast for each candidate, in alphabetical order, was as follows:
Chris Bryant, 98;
Ms Harriet Harman, 72;
Meg Hillier, 10;
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, 211;
Dame Eleanor Laing, 113;
Sir Edward Leigh, 12;
Dame Rosie Winterton, 46.
There were no spoiled ballots. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] A remarkable achievement for this particular assembly.
No Member received more than 50% of the ballots cast, so we proceed to a further ballot. Meg Hillier received the fewest votes and Sir Edward Leigh also received fewer than 5% of the ballots cast, so under the rules they both leave the contest.
Before I confirm the list of candidates for the next ballot, I now invite any candidate who wishes to withdraw to inform me in the Chamber within the next 10 minutes, which means that I sit here for 10 minutes waiting for each of the candidates to carefully consider their position and then come to inform me if they wish to withdraw from the next ballot. I shall then make further announcements, and we will have to have new ballot papers printed before we actually get to the next round of voting. I will now suspend the House, and in 10 minutes’ time I will announce the candidates who are proposing to proceed to the second round of the ballot.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (in the Chair)
Order. No candidates have withdrawn, so the candidates for the next ballot are Chris Bryant, Ms Harriet Harman, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, Dame Eleanor Laing and Dame Rosie Winterton. The next ballot will be opened as soon as the ballot papers have been printed, checked and put in place, which is likely to be in about 20 minutes—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] This is an early stage of these proceedings at the present rate of progress. I will cause the bells to be rung as soon as the Lobbies are ready, and the ballot will then start. As before, Members will have 20 minutes in which to vote.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (in the Chair)
May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman come to the Table to try to explain what his point of order is?
John Spellar
I think colleagues know who has dropped out. It seems to me utterly absurd not to have just reprinted the ballot paper for people to put their cross. All this delay is quite unnecessary and bureaucratic.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (in the Chair)
I am sure that we are both out of order, but, with great respect, although these arrangements do need revising in various other respects, with the arrangements that we have it was not possible to know who the candidates were for the next round until a proper opportunity had been given for any candidates who wished to withdraw. I am afraid that the delay is inevitable. I declare the House suspended until the next stage in the proceedings when we have the ballot papers.
Proceedings suspended.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (in the Chair)
Order. In a moment, I will declare open the ballot. The voting arrangements are identical to those for the last ballot, and as before, the ballot will remain open for 20 minutes. I hope to announce the result of the next ballot around 45 minutes after the closure of voting. The House will again be alerted by the Annunciator before it is to resume. Division bells will also be rung. The ballot is now open.
Sitting suspended.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (in the Chair)
Order. This is the result of the second ballot. Five hundred and seventy five ballots were cast—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] Late arrivals, I think. The number of votes cast for each candidate was as follows:
Chris Bryant, 120;
Ms Harriet Harman, 59;
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, 244;
Dame Eleanor Laing, 122;
Dame Rosie Winterton, 30.
There were no spoiled ballots. Yet again, no Member received more than 50% of the ballots cast, so we proceed to a further ballot. Dame Rosie Winterton received the fewest votes, so she retires. Before I confirm the list of candidates for the next ballot, I now invite any candidate who wishes to withdraw to inform me in the Chamber or the Clerk Assistant in the Reasons Room within the next 10 minutes.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (in the Chair)
Order. Dame Rosie Winterton has been eliminated and Ms Harriet Harman has withdrawn her candidature. [Interruption.] I would have thought that that would be a popular gesture—not in personal terms but because it saves us a ballot. Otherwise, I am sure, there is widespread regret.
The candidates for the next ballot are Chris Bryant, Sir Lindsay Hoyle and Dame Eleanor Laing. I repeat, as I did before, that the next ballot will be opened as soon as the ballot papers have been printed, checked and put in place, which is likely to be in about 20 minutes. The Division bells will be rung as soon as the Lobbies are ready, and the ballot will then start. As before, Members will have 20 minutes to vote.
Proceedings suspended.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (in the Chair)
In a moment, I will declare the ballot open. The voting arrangements are identical to those for the last ballot. As before, the ballot will be open for 20 minutes. I hope to announce the result about 45 minutes after the closure of the ballot. Before we resume, the House will again be alerted by the Annunciator and the Division bell will be rung. The ballot is now open.
Sitting suspended.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (in the Chair)
Order. This is the result of the third ballot. The number of ballots cast was 565. The number of votes cast for each candidate were as follows:
Chris Bryant, 169 votes;
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, 267 votes;
Dame Eleanor Laing, 127 votes.
Two ballot papers were spoiled.
Those Members with adequate mental arithmetic will know that no Member received more than 50% of the ballots cast. Dame Eleanor Laing received the fewest votes and therefore leaves the contest.
Again, before I confirm the candidates for the next ballot, I invite either candidate who wishes to withdraw to inform me in the Chamber or to inform the Clerk Assistant in the Reasons Room within the next 10 minutes.
Chris Bryant
On a point of order, Mr Clarke. It might save the House 10 minutes if I just said that I am not going to withdraw at this point.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (in the Chair)
I think Mr Bryant has done the House a considerable courtesy. We now move to what, as far as I can see, is the final and decisive ballot, for which the candidates are Chris Bryant and Sir Lindsay Hoyle. Once more, the ballot will be opened as soon as the ballot papers have been printed, checked and put in place, which is likely to be in about 15 minutes. I will cause the bells to be rung as soon as the Lobbies are ready, and the ballot will then start. As before, Members will have 20 minutes to vote.
Proceedings suspended.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (in the Chair)
In a moment, I will declare the ballot open. The voting arrangements are of course identical to those for the last ballot. The ballot will be open for 20 minutes. As there are only two candidates, I hope to announce the result about 30 minutes after the closure of the ballot. The House will be alerted by the Annunciator before it is to resume, and the Division bell will be rung. The ballot—the final ballot—is now open.
Sitting suspended.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (in the Chair)
This is the result of the fourth and final ballot. Five hundred and forty ballots were cast—some other pressing engagements have taken people away. The number of votes cast for each candidate was as follows: Chris Bryant 213; Sir Lindsay Hoyle 325. Two ballots were spoilt. Sir Lindsay Hoyle has obviously secured more than 50% of the ballots cast.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 1B(10)), That Sir Lindsay Hoyle do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.
Question agreed to.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (in the Chair)
I invite Sir Lindsay Hoyle to take the Chair of the House. [Applause.]
Mr Kenneth Clarke left the Chair, and Sir Lindsay Hoyle was taken out of his place and conducted to the Chair by Jackie Doyle-Price, Mr Nigel Evans and Caroline Flint.
Mr Speaker-Elect
(standing on the upper step): No clapping. [Laughter.]
Mr Clarke, thank you for the way you have chaired our proceedings. We have kept you longer than expected and I really appreciate it. You have been steadfast in the job you have done and it really is appreciated.
May I say thank you to all the candidates? Whoever was selected would have made a great Speaker. We thank those who withdrew—Sir Henry Bellingham and Mr Shailesh Vara—for the way they wanted to ensure that we did not have to stay for another two rounds.
As I have discussed, it is about the campaign and the challenges ahead for me and this Chamber. I stand by what I have said and stand firm. I hope that this House will be once again a great, respected House, not just in here but around the world. I hope that once again it is the envy of the world. We have to make sure that that tarnish is polished away and that the respect and tolerance that we expect from everyone who works here will be shown, and we will keep that in order.
I also want to say something to my family. [Applause.] There is one difficult part that I want to get over. There is one person who is not here: my daughter Natalie. I wish she had been here. We all miss her, as a family, and none more so than her mum Miriam. I have to say that she was everything to all of us. She will always be missed but she will always be in our thoughts. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
I hope to show that the experience I have shown previously will continue. As I have promised, I will be neutral. I will be transparent. I think that this House can do more to ensure that that transparency continues, and nowhere more than in respect of the Commission. I have never served on the Commission—I have never even seen the minutes of the Commission—but I do believe there is a need for a little bit of transparency once again.
I have to say thank you to my family, but also to the staff from my office who are also with me tonight. They have been with me for a long time. In fact, Bev, who is up there and who will get all embarrassed, has been with me for 21 years. She left university and said, “I’m never going to get married. I’m never going to have children. I don’t want any of that in my life.” Guess what? She is married; she has children; and she is still with me. The same with Peter and Mike. They have done a fantastic job. They have been really good.
I want to thank everybody. It has been a long night. I do not want to keep you any longer, but I do stand by what I have said. This House will change, but it will change for the better. Thank you, everybody.
The Speaker-Elect sat down in the Chair and the Mace was placed upon the Table.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I will certainly look at what we can do to ensure that the hon. Gentleman does get a new hospital in his constituency, because we have a huge programme now under way, but the only way to deliver that £34 billion investment in the NHS—the biggest in modern history—is to ensure we have a dynamic, one nation market economy of the kind that we have. I am afraid all the Labour party would do is whack up taxes on business and companies in such a way as to destroy the viability of the UK economy. That is the programme he supports.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Ind)
Mr Speaker, may I take the occasion of your last Prime Minister’s questions and mine to join in the tributes to your role in the Chair? During your decade, there have been unprecedented attempts at times to try to increase the power of the Executive at the expense of this Parliament. You have been very formidable in maintaining the duty of government to be accountable to this House. I trust that your successor will try to live up to your considerable achievement.
To show that a veteran MP, even one who is retiring from the House, can still look to the future, will my right hon. Friend give me some clarity on what he will seek to achieve—if, by chance, he wins this unpredictable general election—by way of the permanent relationship he will have to negotiate between the EU and the United Kingdom as an ex-member? In the years of negotiation that he will have to undertake, will he seek to ensure that we maintain trade and flows of investment between the whole United Kingdom and the European Union that are free of tariffs, free of custom controls and largely free of regulatory distinctions; indeed, as near as possible to the single market and customs union that we are in? Just talking about a free trade agreement is an extremely vague aspiration that covers a wide range of possibilities. Can he demonstrate that he really is a liberal free trader at heart?
The Prime Minister
Indeed. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, the advantage of the partnership we will build is that not only—[Interruption.] I am sure the talks will go well. We will have a zero-tariff, zero-quota arrangement with our European friends and partners. Under the current deal, which is a fantastic deal, we will also be able to do free trade deals around the world. There will be many ways in which we will stay very close to our European friends partners, but there will also be important ways in which we may seek to do things differently and better.
I have already mentioned animal welfare; I might mention tax breaks for new technology, I might mention cutting VAT on sanitary products, I might mention free ports. There are all sorts of ways to do this. I might mention different regulation on biotechnology or in many of the areas in which this country now leads the world. That is the opportunity for our country: to do a great free trade deal with our European friends and partners of a kind of which I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend would thoroughly approve, while also being a champion of free trade around the world. That is what we are going to do.
Early Parliamentary General Election Bill
Lord Clarke of Nottingham ExcerptsTuesday 29th October 2019
(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right and he speaks for his constituency; they want to deliver Brexit, he wants to deliver Brexit, but Opposition Members just want to spin it out forever, until the 12th of never. When the 12th of never eventually comes around, they will devise one of their complicated parliamentary procedures and move a motion for a further delay and a further extension. I have to say that this delay is becoming seriously damaging to the national interest, because families cannot plan and businesses cannot plan. Not only is the climate of uncertainty corroding trust in politics, but it is beginning to hold everybody back from making vital everyday decisions that are important for the health of our economy—decisions on buying new homes, hiring new staff and making new investments. The performance of the UK economy is, frankly, miraculous, given the stasis here in Parliament.
The Prime Minister
That is why I hope that so many of our colleagues will support this Bill today, including the Father of the House, for whom I have the highest respect.
Mr Clarke
My right hon. Friend was one of those who delayed Brexit in March by voting against departure then on the deal that had then been negotiated. He did get a majority of 30 for his deal in principle last week, and if the subsequent time of this House had been devoted to the Committee and Report stage of the House, following the ordinary principles of government, we would be well on our way to leaving in the middle of November. I respectfully say to my right hon. Friend: can he find a slightly better basis for fighting this election when we get to the campaign in due course?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid that my right hon. and learned Friend is in error; I voted for the withdrawal Bill. I hope that he will vote for this Bill today to get Brexit done.
The Prime Minister
I take his nod as assent to that proposition, because that is the way—
Early Parliamentary General Election
Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Ind)
Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that this dreadful border down the Irish sea would be avoided if the whole United Kingdom left the customs union and left the single market, which I think his party has always supported? But now that the Prime Minister has gone back on and abandoned that position, would the DUP be prepared to accept the entire United Kingdom staying in the customs union and the single market during the transition period, leaving the whole thing to be negotiated over the next two or three years during that transition period? That would rescue Ulster from the absurd proposal of putting these barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Sammy Wilson
Of course the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that that is only half the answer, because under this agreement we would still be within the rules of the single market, still subject to the European Court of Justice making adjudications about whether we adhere to those rules, and still subject to the EU being able to deny the United Kingdom Government the ability to apply changes to the law made here in Westminster to Northern Ireland.
There are very good reasons why we oppose this deal, and the motion does not offer any hope of change. In fact, if anything, the Prime Minister is quite openly saying, “And, by the way, I now want Democratic Unionist party MPs to vote for the accelerated passage of the Bill”—a Bill that would facilitate the agreement, which would have such detrimental effects on Northern Ireland. We do not want the accelerated passage of the Bill. We do not want 24-hour scrutiny. We want to ensure that nothing happens in this House that enables the Prime Minister to deliver on a deal that he promised he would never, ever do.
Of course, if the Prime Minister gets his general election, what platform will he be standing on? What mandate will he seek? What strategy will he put forward? What will be in his manifesto—that he wants to come back here with a majority to deliver the death deal to the Union in Northern Ireland, as he made clear to my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley)? The offer of the accelerated passage of a Bill that would facilitate the agreement and an election that the Prime Minister would use to justify breaking his promises to the people of Northern Ireland is an offer that we can refuse and will be quite happy to refuse.
Although we want to see Brexit delivered, we want to see it delivered for the whole United Kingdom. We want it delivered in the form that the Prime Minister twice—he changed his mind the third time—voted for in this House. We will not be prepared to facilitate him moving the goalposts and affecting Northern Ireland in this way. Although we do not fear a general election and we want to see Brexit delivered, if it is not going to be delivered for the whole United Kingdom, I do not think that anyone in this House could possibly condemn us for standing up for our constituents, who will be damaged economically and constitutionally.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. We have just had an hour and a half of a slightly out-of-control student union debate, and it sounds as though we might have a rather similar farcical performance tomorrow. Is there any chance of you, as the Chair of the House, persuading the usual channels to resume their meetings and produce a sensible timetable for the Bill we have before us, so that this House can resume discussion of these serious matters in a grown-up fashion and come to a resolution on the deal, which—I repeat—I will vote for if it reaches Third Reading, as I think it will? It could well be that we get back to orderly government, which I think the general public are dearly wishing we would rapidly do.
Mr Speaker
I take careful note of what the Father of the House has said, and I am certainly open to any such discussions, but it does require willing participants, and it remains to be seen, with the passage of time, whether that be so. But I think everybody will be attentive—on this occasion, as on every other—to what, on the basis of 49 years’ experience in the House, the Father of the House has had to say to us.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The fishing communities of Scotland will have a fantastic opportunity, by the end of next year, to take back control of their entire coastal waters—all 200 miles of them—and to manage their fisheries in the interests of Scotland and thereby drive an even better deal for even better access to European markets. That opportunity would be wantonly thrown away by the abject, servile policy of the SNP, which would hand back control of Scottish fishing to Brussels.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Ind)
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend achieved the first landmark of his premiership by getting the House to vote, by a comfortable majority, in favour of Brexit. If he now proceeds in the reasonable and statesmanlike way I would hope for, he can go on to deliver Brexit in a month or two’s time, before having a general election on the sensible basis of a mandate for a Government on the fuller negotiations that will follow. Will my right hon. Friend get over his disappointment and accept that 31 October is now just Halloween, devoid of any symbolic or political content, and will rapidly fade away into historical memory? Having reflected, will he let us know that he is about to table a reasonable timetable motion, so that the House can complete the task of finalising the details of the withdrawal Bill? We can then move on, on a basis that might begin to reunite the nation once again for the future.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a reasonable case; alas, we cannot know what the EU will do in response to the request from Parliament—I stress that it was not my request but a request from Parliament—to ask for a delay. We await the EU’s reaction to Parliament’s request for a delay.
I must respectfully disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend, perhaps not for the first time, because I think it would still be very much in the best interests of this country and of democracy to get Brexit done by 31 October. I will wait to see what our EU friends and partners say in response not only to the request for a delay from Parliament but to Parliament’s insistence that it wants a delay. I do not think the people of this country want a delay and I do not want a delay. I intend to press on, but I am afraid we now have to see what our EU friends will decide on our behalf. That is the result of the decision that the Leader of the Opposition took last night.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill
Lord Clarke of Nottingham ExcerptsTuesday 22nd October 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill 2019-19 View all European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill 2019-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Duncan Smith
The right hon. Gentleman has known that for more than a year now. There is no surprise there. I certainly have real concerns about that matter, but I have to say to him that I have known about it for some time. This did not pop up suddenly in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s agreement. We have thrashed this out through the White Paper and in meaningful vote after meaningful vote. Honestly, we have to ask ourselves the question: has this House not debated that element to absolute destruction?
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Ind)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I regret that I am on a different side from him on this occasion, as I was on Maastricht, but I am enjoying his speech as much as I did then.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that, until very recently, there was no suggestion that England, Scotland and Wales were going to go into their own customs union and single market, and that the whole of Ireland, including Northern Ireland, was going to go into a single market and customs union with the continent of Europe? Indeed, that was expressly ruled out only a few months ago by the present Prime Minister. At the moment that issue is due to be disposed of in three hours, with other issues being disposed of tomorrow morning. If every member of the DUP tries to speak, they will be reduced to a three-minute time limit in their speeches, and that also applies to other Members of the House. Having spent more than 100 hours over Maastricht, when he occupied quite a lot of the time himself, why on earth does he think that we should not debate such important constitutional issues?
Mr Duncan Smith
I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that, absolutely, I am very happy to debate it. He touches on the one issue that was not in the White Paper and is different, and I accept that. I am sure that, had the Opposition sat down with the usual channels and carefully discussed the really serious elements on which they wanted more time, it may have been possible to have allowed that. The reality is that they have taken the position from day one that they would oppose this Bill, but make no other propositions. We could, for example, go round the clock—he and I agree about that. We have time. After all, what is the weekend for? I do not have any problem with that. I have a simple point to make, which is that those who argue endlessly that there is not enough time are really arguing that they do not like the idea of the deadline of 31 October and do not want to stick to it. My right hon Friend the Prime Minister has said that it is in law and that we are going to stick to that.
Mr Speaker
Will the hon. Lady forgive me if I take the point of order from the Father of the House first? [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being equally obliging. [Interruption.] Oh, very well, press on—Mr Kenneth Clarke.
Mr Speaker
May I ask the Father of the House: is it your first, sir? [Laughter.]
Mr Clarke
May I ask the Prime Minister and everybody else to reconsider the suggestion he made that we pause the progress of the Bill tomorrow? I congratulate him on winning approval for the deal he negotiated. I think I said in the House once that I would apologise to him and congratulate him if he actually got it, and he has achieved it, and the Second Reading vote was the approval of his deal. The argument is about how long the House is allowed to take over considering it. I cannot quite see the logic of pausing progress on the Bill when the whole House is expecting the next two days to be spent on it. That would enable us to see how quickly the House wishes to proceed and what sort of time is being looked for, and if people started filibustering—I hope they would not—it might enable the Government to get a majority for a timetable motion that was a modest adjustment to tonight’s. Three or four days more would do it.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Father of the House, for his point of order. I await the development of events, but it is not unreasonable for me to say that, as of now and unless there has been any change, my understanding is that the Leader of the House intends to make a business statement—I have a draft copy—that sets out the Government’s intentions for the coming days. I say that cautiously in case the Government have changed their mind, but I do not think they have and I do not expect them to do so. We will hear from the Leader of the House ere long.
Mr Speaker
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman requires my endorsement. Suffice it to say that a book could be written on the subject of the genesis of programme motions and he may well be tempted to pen it, but whether it would prove to be a bestseller is another matter.
Mr Speaker
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, I will come first to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), whom I have kept waiting.
Mr Speaker
I will come to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), but first I will call the Father of the House.
Mr Speaker
I would not be inclined to accept that without notice. What I would say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that it would be potentially orderly, but I have to, if he will forgive me for saying so, read the runes. I have no sense, notwithstanding the argument he has advanced, that that is the wish of the Government. The fact that the Prime Minister has just exited the Chamber seems to me rather to reinforce that view. I make no criticism at all. I am simply saying that he has left the Chamber. I do not think he has any appetite for the preference of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which I hope he can bear stoically and with fortitude. If the Leader of the House wanted to do that, he would have said so and he has not, so he does not.
Prime Minister’s Statement
Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Ind)
The Prime Minister began his statement, for which I am grateful, by saying how rare it has been for Members of this House ever to support federalism and a united states of Europe, and I entirely agree. Federalism and a belief in a European superstate are as rare in this country as they are, nowadays, in every one of the other 27 member states.
Does the Prime Minister accept that, for the past 50 years, the vast majority of the Conservative party and all four Conservative Prime Ministers in whose Governments I served believed that membership of the European Union gave us a stronger voice in the world politically, as one of the three leading members of the European Union, and gave us access to a free trade market that enabled us to build a strong and competitive economy? Will he reassure me—as I assure him that I will vote for his deal once we have given legislative effect to it—that, when he goes on to negotiate the eventual long-term arrangements, he will seek a solution in which we have the same completely open access across the channel and across the Irish border to trade and investment with the European Union as we have now, in both directions, even if we have to sacrifice the political benefits we have hitherto enjoyed from membership of the Union?
The Prime Minister
I wish to agree with at least part of my right hon. and learned Friend’s analysis, because he says that there is scepticism across the continent about federalism and the desire to build a European Union superstate, and I think that he is right, but unfortunately that scepticism has not percolated up to the elites who run the EU and set the agenda in Brussels. [Interruption.]
Debate on the Address
Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I concur entirely with my hon. Friend. The one thing that would be more divisive, more toxic, than the first referendum is a second referendum. Let’s get Brexit done.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Ind)
The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) asked a question that is very important to our region of the country. The Prime Minister has announced a review of HS2, which I understand, but I hope he gave no commitments during his leadership campaign on the future of that project. Will he ensure that the review carefully consults on the economic impact on the east midlands—Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire particularly —if the whole HS2 project to Leeds and the developments at Toton were abandoned?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly give the Father of the House exactly that assurance.
The objective of Brexit is not just to give business the certainty of concluding this whole affair; it is, of course, to get on and take back control of our borders, our money and our laws to enable us to champion our food and farming sector as we would desire and to alleviate, perhaps, the unnecessary burdens of bureaucracy that farming sometimes faces in this country. Let’s take back control of our fisheries, so that Scotland can make proper use of her incredible marine wealth.