Oral Answers to Questions

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

There is enormous capability not just with more offshore wind schemes, but with more hydro schemes. As I said earlier, we intend to create 27,000 more jobs through using that untapped capacity.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Offshore wind and contracts for difference entry was cost-free to both the Government and the consumer as the strike price was below the typical wholesale price, but 240 MW of that remains stranded because Ofgem demands that the island of Lewis has at least 369 MW to build an interconnector cable. Another 180 MW could have been consented to, and that would have been cost-free, but they were not consented to due to Government caps. Can we have some joined-up thinking in the Government between the interconnector and the contracts for difference to ensure we are not billowing out fossil fuels when we could instead have 600 MW of wind being produced?

Oral Answers to Questions

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Absolutely. I congratulate my hon. Friend on everything he is doing in Cheltenham to encourage renewable heat supplies, including ground-source heating. I can confirm that we are indeed looking for successor arrangements to the renewable heat incentive.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Q7. Brexiteers will be cheered by the fact that a possible trade deal with America might raise GDP by 0.2% and one with New Zealand and Australia might raise it by 0.02%, but they should be sobered by the fact that such trade deals, if achieved, would claw back only one 30th of what the Prime Minister’s own Government say leaving the single market and customs union will cost. Given that Cabinet Ministers are now breezily talking about divergence from our biggest trading partner—the 27-country trading bloc—will the Prime Minister commission and publish impact assessments so that it is clear to all in pharmaceuticals, aerospace, car manufacture, ceramics and food and drink just what these breezy gambling deals might cost?

[The Prime Minister]

I might take the hon. Gentleman more seriously if he would deal with the fact that 60% of Scotland’s trade is with the rest of the United Kingdom. His proposals for a break-up of the United Kingdom would necessitate a border at Berwick. He is proposing that the pensioners of Scotland should have their assets now denominated in a new currency whose name the SNP cannot even specify.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

When the Minister was a Back Bencher, he understood full well the need for non-European economic area crews to come into Scottish waters, particularly on the west coast. What will he and his Front-Bench colleagues do to make sure that can happen? Or will they demonstrate their powerlessness, ensuring that nothing happens, as has been the case for years?

[Douglas Ross]

To prove what will happen, I encourage the hon. Gentleman to wait for question 8 from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), which is about exactly that. I will answer that point then, and I hope that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) will be encouraged by the response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for putting that so succinctly and well. That is exactly what we want. I think it is what the people of this country want; they want to get Brexit done and they want to move forward with a one nation agenda to unite this country, and to level up across the country with better education, better infrastructure and fantastic new technology. That is our agenda; the Opposition’s agenda is for years more of political dither, delay and division.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Q15. Tapadh leibh, Mr Speaker, agus gur math a thèid leibh as well from Na h-Eileanan an Iar. With Scotland’s changing status in Europe since 2014, why will the Prime Minister not agree to a section 30? Why has he so far refused a section 30 as a route to enable an independence referendum for Scotland? Scotland needs to join the dozens of normal independent European nations and become independent.

[The Prime Minister]

I think the hon. Gentleman knows my answer to that, which is that there was a referendum in 2014, the result was very clear, people were promised that it would be a once-in-a-generation referendum, and I do not think we should break that promise.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

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

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister and some of his Ministers say they are against live animal exports. Does that mean from Dover to Calais, or longer journeys from GB—for example, Stranraer—to Northern Ireland, or longer journeys still, such as to the Hebrides, the Orkneys and the Shetlands? When he says he is ending live animal exports, what does he mean? We need details. Are they short journeys to the continent only or longer journeys, including to Northern Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—he rather makes my point for me, because what he may not realise is that animals are currently being shipped from this country to Spain and, indeed, to north Africa in conditions of extreme distress. I do not believe that it is the will of this House, or indeed, of the hon. Gentleman, that we should continue on that basis.

I say to those who care, like me, for the rights of EU nationals living in this country: I argued during the referendum that we should guarantee their rights in this country immediately and unilaterally, and I regret that this did not happen, but the Bill today completes that job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

It has been obvious to me for some considerable time that Brexiteer politicians have never fully understood the consequences of their policies. That is why during the referendum they were able to claim that they wanted to end free movement while staying in the single market; why they said that leaving the customs union was compatible with the Good Friday agreement; why they claimed the new free trade agreement with the EU would be the easiest in history; and how the British state would be able to sign trade deals around the world based on divergence from EU tariffs and regulations while maintaining frictionless access to the European economic area. The Bill clearly shows that all of those claims are completely false.

Because of the obsession of the British Government and the Labour Opposition with ending free movement, the British state will have to leave the single market. The new FTA with the EU will not be negotiated until after the British state has left the European Union, meaning that this continues to be a blind Brexit.

Compatibility with the Good Friday agreement has only been vaguely achieved by effectively keeping Northern Ireland in the customs union and the single market, ending the economic coherence of the British state. Far from removing the backstop, as claimed by the British Government and the Prime Minister, it is now enacted as policy in the withdrawal agreement for Northern Ireland—a frontstop, as some have called it. In my country, people are asking, “If it’s good enough for Northern Ireland, why isn’t it good enough for Wales?”

We now know that it would be impossible to sign trade deals with the likes of the United States without drastically reducing our access to the European market. Writing last week in the Evening Standard, the right hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said that assessments indicated that for every £1 gained from international trade agreements, £33 would be lost through loss of access to European markets owing to the need to diverge on standards and the extra costs of tariffs.

“Get Brexit Done” is the latest slogan that we have heard ad nauseam from the British Government, but allowing the Bill to move to the next stages would not mean an end to Brexit. It would not even be the beginning of the end; it would simply be the end of the beginning as we enter phase 2 and start discussions on the trade agreements. The British Government will be negotiating one of the most complex trade deals in history, different from all others in history as it will seek to build barriers rather than break them down. They hope to do that in just over a year. As has been mentioned many times, the EU’s free trade agreements with South Korea, Canada, Singapore, Japan and Vietnam have taken between six and eight years to negotiate, with some of them still awaiting ratification.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the EU free trade agreements. We have probably got the best in the world. Any free trade agreements the UK has, say with the United States, will be only about a fortieth of what we will lose with the European Union. In total, from the 6% to 8% we lose with the European Union, a free trade agreement with every country in the world will only make up about 1.4% of GDP—a huge loss.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The Chair of the International Trade Committee speaks with great experience. That is, of course, why the British Government are refusing to publish the impact assessments on the deal.

The British Government will be negotiating the new FTA from a position of extreme weakness. We all know that at the end of the transition we will face the exact same situation as we currently face—further delays and extensions or a no-deal cliff edge.

My party will base our approach to the next stages of the Bill on some key areas. First, we will demand impact assessments on the withdrawal agreement in time for consideration and scrutiny. Secondly, we will seek membership of the customs union—not a customs union—with the European Union. A customs union would mean that the UK would have to open up its markets to any trade deals the EU makes, while not having reciprocal access to those other markets. Thirdly, we will be calling for the UK to remain in the single market. Fourthly, the Bill as it currently stands denies the voice of our democratically elected Parliament in Wales, y Senedd.

If this Government respected the principle and legitimacy of devolution, they would require any future free trade deal struck by the British Government with the European Union to have the consent not only of this House but of the Senedd, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. As the Bill currently stands, the Parliament of Wallonia, a constituent part of Belgium, would have more influence over the future trading relationships between the British state and the European Union. That is simply not good enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Juno Elsie Dakin was born last Thursday when this deal was being finalised in Europe. When she comes to maturity and is able to vote, she will be able to judge whether we did the right or wrong thing with the passage of this Bill. She will be able to judge whether we took steps to keep the Union together or whether it was imperilled, leading to Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving. She will be able to judge whether our place in the world is the same as it is now. She will be able to judge whether workers’ rights, consumer rights and environmental rights are as strong or stronger than they are now. It is a fact that no person born this century voted in the referendum, but every person born this century will have the biggest stake in the outcome. They will have a duty, as we have a duty today, to shape wherever we get to in the best possible way to keep this great country great—to keep the great in Great Britain—and to ensure that the steps that we take today do not imperil that or put it at risk.

As the Member of Parliament for Scunthorpe, I think it is crucial that manufacturing does well out of this. In many ways, my constituents are on the frontline of Brexit. Our largest private sector employer is in its fourth month of liquidation due to the risk of a no-deal exit. My constituents desperately want certainty, which is why I am pleased that we have got to this point in the process. It is a step towards certainty, but my constituents and the manufacturing and steel sectors do not want an outcome that is not good for industry. We do not want an outcome that leads to 25% tariffs on steel being sold into Europe, which would be disastrous for steel communities.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

It is a fact that the outcome most of them would want is to remain in the European Union. The current deal is the best deal, and there is no country in the EU that would accept the tawdry deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated.

[Nic Dakin]

In the end, we have to try to make this work. There is an obligation for us to work through it and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) said earlier, there will be an opportunity to do so if the Bill goes into Committee and if we have a decent programme motion.

Frankly, what has been said about the programme motion is outrageous. As the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said, bully-boy tactics have been used to try to thrust the programme motion down the House’s throat when we should have civilised, British behaviour. Members should sit down to agree a sensible programme motion. That is what the Labour Chief Whip wants, so the Government Chief Whip should sit down and do it so that we can work through the Bill properly and see whether we can improve it to make sure it is a good Bill for the people of this country.

Yes, people voted to come out, but they did not vote to lose out. It is our duty to square that circle, and that is what we should do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the chance to speak on this Bill.

It will not surprise anyone that I will be opposing the Bill tonight, and I will continue to oppose it because it is a bad Bill that does bad things to people who have trusted me to look after their interests. The Bill diminishes the rights of every single one of my constituents. It diminishes the rights of every single one of our constituents, and for 3 million people it potentially removes those rights altogether.

People face being threatened with deportation, not because of what they have done but because of what this Parliament and this Government are threatening to do. I cannot vote for that under any circumstances. For businesses in my constituency and everywhere else, it seeks to replace the certainty of free trade with the biggest market in the world, and preferential trade deals with many of our other trading partners as part of the EU, with the uncertainty of having no idea of what deal, if any, they will be trading under while they are still finalising their annual accounts for the financial year in which they are currently operating.

We hear a lot of people saying, “Get Brexit done”, but this Bill does not get Brexit done. The withdrawal agreement does not get Brexit done; it only starts the process. Next year, we could still be tumbling out of the EU on no-deal terms; there is nothing in this Bill or the withdrawal agreement that prevents that from happening. Until no deal is taken off the table, the businesses in my constituency and elsewhere will be faced with the greatest of all uncertainties.

Most importantly and fundamentally of all, I cannot support this Bill because it is a direct violation of the fundamental principle that brought me into politics: the sovereignty of the people. The people of my nation voted by almost two to one to reject this chaotic, ridiculous Brexit in its entirety, and that fact has been given no recognition, not a single word of it, from Her Majesty’s Government over the past three and a half years.

On citizens’ rights, on 25 July I asked the Prime Minister to honour the promise he made before the referendum that no EU citizen would have their rights diminished in any way. I asked him whether he would guarantee their rights to healthcare, their pension rights, their right to leave the UK and return at any time, their right to bring their family over to join, their right to vote and all the other rights currently enjoyed by EU citizens. The Prime Minister, at that Dispatch Box, replied:

“Those guarantees, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are giving unilaterally”.—[Official Report, 25 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 1498.]

So he promised all these rights to our EU citizens, which he now intends to take away, and we are supposed to trust—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), is shaking his head, but that was in Hansard and he can check it out for himself. I wrote to the Prime Minister at the end of July to ask him to confirm what he said, and I am still waiting for as much as an acknowledgment. I am not looking for anything fancy; a bit of scrap paper without even a signature on it would do me quite well, as that seems to be what it is about.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Last week, the Queen’s Speech was the most important thing to the Prime Minister, and today and previously we have been given all sorts of assurances. It almost felt as though if someone had asked him today whether he would assure them at the Dispatch Box that the moon is made of cheese, he would have given that assurance. His assurances, the Queen’s Speech—it means nothing.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I just say to the hon. Gentleman that if he continually intervenes, he will be preventing others from speaking. That may not bother him, but I am just letting him know.

Brexit Readiness: Operation Yellowhammer

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. If we maintain effective flow at the border, there should not be any interruption. I would be interested to know from him—I would be grateful if he wrote to me—about the two companies he mentions, as I would want more closely to investigate the situation in which they find themselves.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

How many fish lorries—fresh, frozen and vivier—are crossing the channel at the moment? If a no-deal Brexit comes along, how many fish lorries—fresh, frozen and vivier—can be processed by French border teams and at which ports?

[Michael Gove]

It is my understanding that if we have both fresh fish and fresh shellfish, and also, as it happens—I shall explain the circumstances—day-old chicks crossing the border, there are about 70 lorries daily. Those lorries will be prioritised when they arrive at Calais on a specific route to take them to Boulogne-sur-Mer, where a border inspection post will be in place, and if they have the appropriate documentation, the products can be sold so that French consumers can continue to enjoy them.

Prime Minister's Update

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

This Brexit debacle is certainly an agent for change. Following on from the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), the SNP Scottish Government have a mandate to hold an independent referendum, which I hope the Prime Minister respects. The First Minister of Scotland has said that she intends before Christmas to ask for a section 30 order to facilitate the referendum in the next year. Can the Prime Minister give Scotland an update: will he agree to a section 30 order, when the Scottish Government ask for it, so that they can hold the mandated referendum—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

The people of Scotland were promised it was a once-in-a-generation referendum, and we must respect that promise.

Early Parliamentary General Election

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I think that I have an apology to make, and that is to Brenda from Bristol. On a personal basis, I think I have only just got over the 2015 election. However, we need to ask ourselves: what can this Parliament now achieve? Can it deliver the bold new agenda that a new Prime Minister wishes to put in place for this country? Would this Parliament even approve a bold and ambitious Queen’s Speech to put into statute in the future? Would it approve a Queen’s Speech to put 20,000 new police on the streets and to strengthen our criminal justice system? The answer must be no, or at least rather doubtful. There could be an issue of confidence if a Queen’s Speech is voted down, so possibly this place is only putting off the fateful day.

What we have seen this afternoon is more of the same from a moribund Parliament, while the public simply shake their head in dismay at what is going on in this place. It is bizarre, is it not? There are those in this House who will not countenance leaving the European Union without a deal.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

It is very clear that the Prime Minister wants a cut-and-run general election. Surely, if he loses the vote that he has called tonight, as he has lost many other votes, the Prime Minister should simply follow his convictions and resign: go—go! But no, we know he wants to cut and run before the disaster that is coming. He will be lashed to the tiller and lashed for the disaster, and he should know that.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I certainly hope that, after that intervention, the hon. Gentleman will support this motion, so that the people can make their decision as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I rise only briefly because I know we want to get through this.

The reality is that this is about a general election. We have heard speeches from a number of Opposition Members that are all about nothing to do with the general election, but are about recycling the debate that we had earlier.

The truth is that there is but a simple question in front of the Opposition parties. Only two days ago, they were crying out for an election. The shadow Chancellor said, “Bring it on. We’re ready for it.” The Leader of the Opposition, when he was not having his afternoon nap and was awake enough to be able to meet the media, said that he wanted to have an election. The Scottish nationalists were adamant that they were going to vote for an election.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

No, no, wait a minute. The hon. Gentleman has made a fool of himself already. He should stay put; I am doing him a favour. [Interruption.] I am really doing him a favour—he may not understand it.

If they do not vote for an election tonight—if they refuse to vote to have that election—they will be running away from their democratic responsibility. I say to Members such as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), one time my right hon. Friend—

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

No, honestly, the hon. Gentleman really does not want to do himself any disfavours.

The right hon. Lady talks about a people’s vote. The problem with a people’s vote, if she wants to put it to a referendum, as the new leader of the Liberal party does, is that she would never accept the result—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

The reality is that what we have here is a game, and we are not being told what the rules are. The Prime Minister could bring a deal to the House. He could tell us what his plans are for Northern Ireland, and he could tell us what his plans are for trade. Yesterday, I watched Conservative colleagues begging him to tell them what he wanted—[Interruption.] Yeah, ta-ra a bit, bab. I saw colleagues, begging him, saying “Give us a deal to vote for.”

The Prime Minister has stood up and said, “I don’t want an election.” This is some game that three men in No. 10 Downing Street have come up with: they are trying to game the system so that they will win.

My democratic responsibility is to try to do my absolute best for the people in my constituency. At the moment things are not all that clear and we are all a little bit confused, but I am absolutely not going to use those people as a chitty in a game to enable the Prime Minister to achieve the ambition that he has only ever had for himself, and never for the country. I am not going to use my constituents as collateral damage.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

One of the things that people watching the debate should be aware of, and what we all know in here, is that the Government want a cut-and-run election. The election that they do not want is one that would take place on 14 or 21 November; that is the election in which we would take them out.

[Jess Phillips]

I absolutely agree. Personally, I will not vote for any election that would fall before 31 October.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 19th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

Of course, when the works need to move on to parts of the Palace that MPs use more often and more directly, alternative arrangements will need to be made. However, I do not think that means that all MPs need to move out of the old Palace for a long period of time, when it has been shown that bits of work can be done around the historic Palace without everybody having to decamp.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is being kind in giving way. To support my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), in my 14 years in this Parliament, I do not think I have been in the Elizabeth Tower once. I think that strengthens the argument that has just been made from the Scottish National party’s Front Bench.

[John Redwood]

I do not think it does at all, because I have also pointed out that there are a lot of roofing works going on. The hon. Gentleman is using the parts of the building that are being reroofed without being interrupted in his work. Again, I pay tribute to those who are carrying out the works without the need for fundamental change.

If we want value for money, we need to ensure that before any full plans are adopted, the Delivery Authority has done a proper job of analysing the options.

I also make a more fundamental point about our democracy. I know that there are many Members here who do not want to restore a proper independent democracy in Britain and are doing their best to ignore the wishes of the British people, as expressed in the referendum. It would be doubly ironic if they not only had their way on that, but said that we cannot use the historic Palace in the way that was intended for a long period. That would be a symbol that the public’s wish—

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Gray]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. He will be aware that I pushed that idea when I sat on the first Joint Committee that reviewed the options appraisal. Unfortunately, I was outvoted 11 to one on that occasion, but it is something that the SNP has looked on favourably in the past.

Obviously I do not expect any kind of quota system for a nations and regions fund, which would fall foul of procurement law, but I do want something that ensures that the Sponsor Board and Delivery Authority have to at least be cognisant of discernible UK-wide benefit.

Why do we need to have this debate now? Look at what happened with the London Olympics. I am a massive sports fan and a former athlete, although I did not get to such heights as the Olympic games. However, I was a supporter of the London Olympics. As a fan, I watched it with interest. It was a fantastic event. However, it took a massive fight by my colleagues who were here at the time to ensure that there was even a semblance of UK-wide benefit. The Scottish Government received a fraction of what they should have had in Barnett consequentials, and the lottery good causes funding for Scotland was raided to help pay for the games. Only now, seven years on, are we starting to see some of that charity money returning, but it will be spread over several years and many groups needed that money years ago. Estimates at the time put the Scottish contracts won from the London Olympics in the tens of millions, when £7 billion of contracts were up for grabs.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

My colleague and good friend is making a powerful speech. In describing the raid on the Scottish lottery budgets at the time of the Olympics, he is highlighting that what is happening here is another not very well disguised London subsidy from the pockets of Scottish taxpayers. This is why the Union is creaking. I say to Scottish Tory MPs who acquiesce in this: “You are not Unionists if you are doing this; you are submissionists. You should be making sure that Scotland gets its fair share of any subsidy that goes to London.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Come on—let’s stick to what the debate is about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I will do the rather unusual job, Mr Deputy Speaker, of talking to my amendment, which is amendment 5. I am delighted that the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), added her name to it. I am sure that will help to persuade the House that it would be a worthy addition to the Bill.

Amendment 5 adds an additional consideration for the Sponsor Body to have regard to. It is a probing amendment, but if anybody annoys me I will press it to a Division and see what the House thinks. I speak with my hat on as the chairman of the all-party group on archaeology and as a proud, sometime jobbing archaeologist.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

There are a lot of fossils around here.

[Tim Loughton]

There are certainly a lot of fossils on the Scottish National party Benches. [Laughter.]

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

rose—

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I am going to make some progress—

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). The right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) reminded us of the prayers that start each day. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman set out with a desire to please, but I think his speech certainly did please many of us in the House.

I rise to support amendments (a) and (f), which were moved in compelling speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) and, in this context, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). We need to remember that we have this opportunity to debate those two amendments for two reasons and two reasons only. First, the Government’s deal was defeated for a second time. We are discussing a motion in neutral terms, and we would not have had the chance to do that had it not been for the efforts of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield and many other people last summer. Secondly, the European Union decided to give us an additional two weeks.

The fundamental problem, however, has not changed, which is the Government’s inability to get their deal through. Indeed, they are so lacking in confidence about their ability to win a third time that we are not entirely sure whether and when they will bring it back before the House. That means that, if nothing changes in 17 days’ time, either we will leave with no deal or the Government will have to apply for—and be granted by the European Union—an extension. The moment of danger has been delayed briefly, but it has not passed.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions the moment of danger. Would it not be prudent to put in place steps to revoke so that we do not go headlong over the cliff? The European Union’s deal has been rejected twice. We are now staring down the barrel of no deal, and further extension is probably unlikely. We have to get our heads around it: revoke is coming down the line and we have to make a decision quickly.

[Hilary Benn]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but for the reasons I am about to advance I think the Prime Minister made a very significant statement today, to which many others have drawn attention. What she said bears repeating:

“Unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen.”

I take that to be a solemn and binding commitment from the Prime Minister, and the inevitable consequence, which she did not want to acknowledge in her statement, is that, unless she gets her deal through, she will have to apply for an extension prior to 12 April.

Why has amendment (a) been tabled? We are discussing it because the Government’s deal has been defeated twice, no deal has been defeated twice, and the Prime Minister has said twice and more, “We know what Parliament is against; what is Parliament for?” The purpose of the amendment is extremely simple: it is to give us the chance to show what we might be in favour of. If the Government were doing their job, the amendment would not be necessary; it is because the Government are not doing their job that it is required.

The Minister for the Cabinet Office is a very charming man, but his arguments against the amendment were, frankly, hopelessly confused. I will summarise the Government’s position. They are opposed to the amendment, but they want there to be a process. If the amendment is defeated they promise their own process, but that appears to consist of a debate later in the week and then something later on, the precise form of which we do not yet know. They seem to want Parliament to agree on something, but they cannot promise to accept any consensus that might emerge out of this process. They castigate us for not having reached an agreement, but oppose tonight the very proposal that is intended to enable us to do precisely that. The situation is frankly absurd. If I may say so in his absence, I do not think that the Minister’s heart was really in his argument tonight, because the Government seem to be saying, in effect, “Well, if it passes, we’ll get on with it.” Let us break out of the circular argument—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) expressed it brilliantly—and get on with it.

I simply want to encourage every Member who has a realistic proposition to put it forward on Wednesday if the amendment is carried. In the report that the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union published the very day after the first defeat of the Government’s plan, it set out the broad options. This is not about the withdrawal agreement, because the Prime Minister could not have been clearer today when she said:

“Everyone should be absolutely clear that changing the withdrawal agreement is simply not an option. This is about the political declaration.”

There was an exchange across the Chamber about that, and there is a fundamental flaw in the suggestion that the withdrawal agreement alone—not the political declaration—might somehow be passed this week. If that happened and the EU responded by saying, “Ah! You have passed the withdrawal agreement alone this week. Okay, we will give you till 22 May”, what would happen if we then asked the EU in the week leading up to 22 May whether we could have a bit more time? The EU would say, “No, you can’t, because you didn’t take part in the European elections.” I am afraid that the proposition of a separate vote on the withdrawal agreement as a way out of the crisis falls at the first hurdle.

On Wednesday, when our pink slips are distributed, I am looking forward to voting Aye to remaining in a customs union with the EU; Aye to a Norway plus-type arrangement, which could embrace Common Market 2.0; and Aye to a confirmatory referendum. Other Members may be looking forward to voting for things that they would be prepared to consider.

My final point is that the word “indicative” is important. This Wednesday is about indicating a direction of travel that Members might be prepared to support. It is not definitive. We may well need to get to that point in the next stage of the process. So Wednesday is not the end, merely the beginning. It is long overdue, and I hope that the House will enable it to happen by carrying amendment (a) tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is novel for me not to have a time limit, so I am used to those strictures.

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Chairman of the Brexit Committee. He made the clear point that we have shown what we are against, but at some point, we as a House will have to show what we are in favour of. Speaking personally, I still think that the best deal on the table is the Prime Minister’s deal. It respects the referendum result, which is critical, and it deals with the complex problem of how on earth a country that has such integrated supply chains, with thousands of lorries coming through Dover, can maintain frictionless trade as far as possible, yet take back sovereignty in the key areas of the single market and the customs union. It is very difficult, but that circle has been squared in the Prime Minister’s proposal and I would like to vote for it again. However, I have to accept that it may not come back, and that so far it has been defeated very heavily indeed.

Although procedure is important—the amendments before us are about how Parliament brings forward the next stage of the debate—I do not want to focus on it. I believe that we must focus on first principles—the underlying principles of how we will deliver on the referendum result.

The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said that we should consider a second referendum, a single market plus customs union and so on. However, there is one fundamental problem with all those proposals, which my constituents who voted to leave would raise. It is an issue that we all have to grapple with—free movement. I want to focus on two principles: free movement and free trade. Free movement is not an easy one, because it forces us to discuss immigration, to which we have so far failed to give anything like enough attention.

I feel strongly about the subject. In justifying a second referendum, it has been said that the facts have changed since the 2016 referendum and that therefore there should be another vote. We must consider what has changed, and whether, if it had been known in the referendum campaign of 2016, it would have led to a different result. I suggest that the single fact, if it had been known in advance, that would have had the most impact—whether we like it or not—is that Brexit has directly led to an unprecedented increase in immigration into this country from outside the EU.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Free movement is of course a double-sided coin. The hon. Gentleman mentioned immigration, but there is also emigration. We have seen on the television some people who voted for Brexit and then decided to retire to Spain now ruing the day of their rash action when they followed some of the crasser tabloid newspapers. When we talk about freedom of movement, we must remember that we are talking about rights that the hon. Gentleman enjoys, which he is perhaps trying to take away from everybody else and himself.

[James Cartlidge]

It is fair to say that freedom of movement works both ways. Of course, if we end free movement for those coming to this country, there will be an impact on our rights when we go to our nearest neighbours. We must ask ourselves a profound question in the context of the EU debate: would our country still vote to leave on the basis of concerns about immigration if people knew that the result of ending free movement would be that immigration would not decrease, but that we as citizens would face reduced rights in going to other countries in Europe, such as having to pay charges and fill in visa applications, at least for work and reasons other than tourism?

Let us look at the facts. The latest figures show that net migration into this country from the EU is down to 57,000. Net immigration into this country from outside the EU is up to 261,000. A year ago, the two top countries in the list were Poland and Romania, and they are now India and China. We are not talking Liechtenstein in population terms here. That is a serious point.

I remember the referendum campaign, in which I took an active part. I did home and away debates with my neighbour my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). To anyone who claims that immigration was not a reason for the vote, I say that, yes, there are many people who for many years believed in leaving the EU for reasons of sovereignty—I strongly respect that view, which is based on a noble principle of democracy—but I know that what swung many undecided people in my constituency was house building in the countryside. Why? Because they believed that if we left the EU, there would be no immigration and we would not need those houses. It sounds crazy, but I have got the emails to prove it, and colleagues will know it.

Immigration was front and centre of the leave campaign. We remember Nigel Farage standing in front of a poster of the new Untermenschen. Mr Speaker, you know the meaning of that word—it has a very serious meaning. The poster showed a whole column of people and the implication was that if we left, what it depicted would not happen. We know that that campaign played with fire. It opened Pandora’s box, and somehow we have to put the lid back on. When I raise the matter, I do not do it happily. I am personally relaxed about immigration to this country because I recognise the huge contribution immigrants have made and will continue to make.

However, we must now be honest and say to the country that in the coming days, options will come before us in which free movement is back on the table. What if it is the case that keeping free movement will enable us to control immigration in future by having the strictest possible rules on immigration from 90% of the world population?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

As a member of the Procedure Committee, I have been thinking for about six months about the voting system. In autumn, the then Brexit Secretary came with proposals to change how we were going to run the meaningful vote. Since Christmas, however, it has been evident that we need a new system. The simple binary yes-no choice does not work very well in a situation like Brexit, where there are multiple options. We ran into problems on House of Lords reform, and the Prime Minister has found similar difficulties in the past six months. Partly, that is due to the way she has handled the situation, but it is also partly because it is very easy, with a yes-no approach, to build coalitions against things and quite a lot harder to build consensus and coalitions for options.

A month ago, the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), and I proposed using preference votes as we do for Select Committee Chairs. We were probably a bit premature with that idea, and I am extremely pleased to be able to support the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) tonight. It is clear that the Prime Minister’s brinkmanship has brought us to this self-inflicted crisis. It is now essential that Parliament takes control and uses a new process. I am also pleased that the right hon. Member for West Dorset has agreed that we should be moving to paper ballots, voting on all the options in parallel. That will reduce considerably the scope for the gamesmanship that is bedevilling this process.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The hon. Lady makes a very good argument. We were discussing this earlier. Parliament is quite inefficient at making certain decisions, as we are finding out. Just as an analogy, if we sent Parliament off to buy a gin and tonic the questions would be what sort of gin? What sort of tonic? Would there be ice or no ice? Would there be lemon or lime? The paralysis from that one decision would probably be something akin to what we have with Brexit at the moment. Her suggested approach makes eminent sense in a Parliament that cannot decide any more than yes or no.

[Helen Goodman]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I was going to say that the benefit of a new system is that it would enable us to find out where the consensus actually lies. It is absolutely obvious that not everyone in this situation will get their first choice, but we need to make a distinction between those things that Members and the public are very worried about and find totally unacceptable, such as no deal, and those things that, while they may not be a person’s first choice, they can live with and can go along with. The process we need to move into needs to institutionalise that.

It is also obvious that building consensus will be painful, because it inevitably involves compromise. That, however, is essential on a major national project such as Brexit. It is much better for us to acknowledge those difficulties and take a calmer approach to reconcile Parliament and the public than to be driven into a high-conflict situation with the rising tone of anger that we see at the moment.

The one thing that the right hon. Member for West Dorset said that surprised me a bit was that the business motion on how we are going to do this will, in his schema, be on the same day as the first round of indicative votes. I had not planned to speak today, but I thought that I had better set out what factors I would like to be taken into account in the drawing up of the process and the design of the system.

The first issue is the status of the votes: are they indicative or definitive? Indicative is good, because it allows people to feel flexible and more open-minded. However, we will move to definitive at some stage, to bind the Government, because we cannot continue with the situation where the Government defy the will of the House.

The second point we need to be clear about is that this vote may be on paper, but it is not a secret ballot. We want transparency. We want to be accountable to the public and to our constituents. And, of course, the Whips need to be able to do their job as well. That, too, requires some transparency.

The third issue is how to get on the ballot. I was slightly concerned in the middle of the day when I was hearing that the Government were planning to draft up for every Member what their view of other Members’ options would be. That seems to me to be completely inappropriate. Groups of hon. Members must be allowed to say for themselves what their options should be. I appeal to Mr Speaker to allow more, rather than less, on to any ballot paper, if we get to that.

The fourth point we need to think about is how to vote: preferences or standard crosses. I think the right hon. Member for West Dorset is considering a traditional cross by the side of the option or options we like, rather than preferences. I am happy for us to embark on that, but, as he acknowledged, we may need to move to preferences as time goes on.

There are two other points that we need to bear in mind. First, how many votes are we going to have? How many preferences can we expect to be allowed to use—two or three? We need to consider explicitly whether people could use the same number of preferences, or whether that could be something that people would want to flex. My feeling is that everybody probably ought to have the same number of votes. Connected to that is how many voting rounds we go through. We know we have to do this in a fairly speedy way, because of the 11 April deadline. We may need more than one, but we cannot have a completely open-ended process going on ad infinitum. We need to bring it to closure at some point.

If people think that this is highly innovative, they should not be quite so alarmed. We vote on paper regularly. We have done indicative voting before. We have given preferences before. What we are proposing to do on this occasion is bring them all together. [Interruption.] The most important thing, as I can hear the Minister saying, is that we have some speed, not just for the political process but to end the uncertainty facing businesses up and down the country. To be three weeks out and still to have no deal, a soft Brexit or a public vote to remain on the table is shameful.

Our international reputation has taken the worst hammering in living memory. The Confederation of British Industry said that it has lost confidence in the political process. The TUC has specifically asked us to look for a new parliamentary mechanism. MPs are always telling other people to change and adapt. Now, perhaps it is time for us to do the same. Confidence in our parliamentary process will be restored only when we show that we can act constructively and creatively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. In fairness, and speaking off the top of my head without the opportunity to consult and without advance knowledge of what the hon. Gentleman would say, I am not sure that that is quite right in procedural terms, because the effect of tonight’s vote on the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for West Dorset and then in support of the main motion, as amended, is that what the right hon. Gentleman has commended to the House will have precedence on Wednesday. It does not, however, knock out other Government business of itself; I think that other Government business would follow. So although the hon. Gentleman might want a business statement by the Leader of the House or a response from the Prime Minister, in procedural terms neither of those things is required tonight—he might want it, but neither is required tonight. Perhaps I can leave it there.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that, these days, extensions are in vogue, if the 24 hours of Wednesday are not enough to sort out what the mind of this House is—work that probably should have happened two and a half years ago—will it be possible to extend the work that should be happening on Wednesday into further days so that we do find out definitively what the heck they think in here?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but I think the best answer to that is, let us take one step at a time; let us see where things go in the consideration by the House of the business. I think I should leave it there. I thank colleagues for their interest and participation in this series of exchanges.