Achieving Economic Growth

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

One has to set in context the action that each Government take against their particular situation and the particular economic options open to them, including the impact on taxes, of which we are acutely aware. This Government have consistently shown that we will rise to the challenge. Anyone who says that £22 billion is miserly is simply misreading the economic reality in a way that speaks volumes about the Labour party’s wider approach to budgeting responsibly and managing our public finances to protect the most vulnerable in society and the services on which they rely.

To return to the situation as it stands today, the Bank of England has said that it expects inflation to peak at just over 10% in the fourth quarter of this year, before returning to target over the following year. The reality is that high global energy prices and supply chain pressures are pushing up prices in economies across the world, including in the United Kingdom, and that has been significantly worsened by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has injected so much uncertainty into the economic outlook.

We are monitoring the data very closely. I do not dispute that these challenges are a setback to our recovery and are having a significant impact on the cost of living, which was the subject of yesterday’s debate led by the Chancellor. However, last year’s strong rebound in growth put us in a good underlying economic position, with half a million more people on the payroll now than before the pandemic, and with GDP above pre-pandemic levels.

As we heard yesterday, the Chancellor understands the effect of inflation on households and is providing support worth £22 billion this year to ease those pressures. He will keep all those issues under close review and we will bring forward a programme of measures at such time as they will make the right difference in a targeted way, but we must be careful not to fuel the very challenges that we are working to overcome, be that inflation or the size of our public debt.

We will spend £83 billion on debt interest this year. We must, and we will, manage the public finances responsibly because we must not saddle future generations with our debt and because we want to reduce the burden of personal taxation.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm the nature of that £83 billion figure? Is it a cash demand on the Government, or is a substantial part of it rolled over so that we do not need to pay and it is merely attached to index-linked bonds?

[Mr Clarke]

Some of it falls due as cash payments and some of it is rolled over. The reality is that, when we are running an £83 billion interest payment on an annualised basis, we will not be in a position to maintain market confidence unless we set out a sustainable trajectory to address it. A sustainable solution cannot be to borrow our way out of the situation; it must be to grow our economy and to create high-skilled, high-waged jobs, and we have a comprehensive plan to do so. That is the choice we have made as a Government and it is absolutely the right one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion because, of course, Northern Ireland has benefited from that.

Investment in our communities has taken a direct hit from the loss of European structural funds. The UK Government’s shared prosperity fund will see Scotland allocated £32 million in 2022, £55 million in 2023 and £125 million in 2024—but even that third year of funding will deliver less than Scotland received before Brexit.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

rose—

[Alison Thewliss]

If the hon. Member would like to explain to me why Scotland deserves less now than it had before Brexit, I will take his intervention.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Would the hon. Lady like to explain to the House how much harder it would be for business and what it would do to living standards in Scotland if Scotland followed the SNP’s suggestion and left the United Kingdom, with a border across the middle of Great Britain?

[Alison Thewliss]

There are multiple benefits to Scotland being independent, and the greatest one would certainly be not having to live with policy choices made by this Government, for whom none of our people voted.

The Scottish Government have calculated that £162 million per year would be needed to replace the European regional development fund and European social fund, and that increases to £183 million per year when LEADER funding and the EU territorial co-operation programmes are added in. That means there is a significant shortfall for organisations and projects that are already operating with significant challenges from the pandemic and the cost of living crisis. Of course, many such organisations, which fund projects such as bridges and green infrastructure, and retrain those who have lost their job or are far from the labour market, were contributing significantly to economic growth. Without the money to replace them, the areas and people involved will struggle to make progress, just as Bloomberg suggests is already happening with the flawed Tory levelling-up fund.

Before the pandemic, investment was stagnant because of the drawn-out uncertainty of Brexit and an unnecessary commitment to leaving the customs union and the single market. The harm to the economy and to people’s pockets could have been lessened had different choices been made. There has been a lot of talk about the Northern Ireland protocol, but the reality is that Manufacturing Northern Ireland has found that the issue is largely with GB suppliers that are unwilling to send to Northern Ireland, while EU supply chains have recovered. There has been a 28% increase in sales with the EU and manufacturing jobs in Northern Ireland are now growing four times faster than the UK average.

The Bills mentioned in the Queen’s Speech do nothing to redress the damage caused by Brexit. James Withers from Scotland Food & Drink said:

“Had the war in Ukraine not happened, we were already facing energy bills rising, a world waking up from a pandemic…Brexit for sure has made nothing better, but has made a number of things a lot worse.”

Mr Withers also pointed to the labour market being in disarray. This UK Tory Government’s obsession with limiting immigration is causing untold harm to our growth prospects. Yesterday, the Office for National Statistics noted that around half a million people have left the labour market completely since start of the pandemic, and we do not know whether they will come back. Meanwhile, vacancies are running at a record high of 1.295 million. Who will fill these jobs? The Government have absolutely no answer to that. All these vacancies are already having an impact: surveys by the British Chambers of Commerce have found that companies cannot fulfil orders because of a lack of staff, as well as soaring material costs. Perpetuating the hostile environment is bad economics as well as morally dubious politics. It is not a recipe for growth: it is a recipe for self-inflicted economic catastrophe.

Precious little in the Queen’s Speech will help with the spiralling cost of living crisis and soaring energy prices. The April 2022 price cap was already 75% higher than one year ago. Miatta Fahnbulleh of the New Economics Foundation said that

“the government said its priority was…to help people with the cost of living crisis…Yet we had 38 bills that will barely have an impact on that agenda.”

Whether people are in work or out of work, the money in their pockets is being eroded every single day by inflation. The UK Tory Government could choose to put money into people’s pockets. They could introduce an emergency Budget to make sure that the least well-off—those who are really struggling, those who need support with their energy bills to get by—are supported. The SNP Government have uplifted the benefits in their control by 6%; there, again, the UK Tory Government lag behind. People are seeing the money that they receive eroded every single day.

The UK Government should be converting the £200 heat now, pay later loan into a grant. As the chief executive of ScottishPower has said, they should be increasing that grant substantially—he says to £1,000—to help people with their energy bills. Such is the magnitude of the increase in people’s costs. The UK Government should scrap the regressive national insurance tax hike, which is a tax on jobs at the worst possible time; reverse the £1,040 cut to universal credit; and support those on legacy benefits, who have seen very little from this Government. They should also introduce a real living wage—a living wage for all that people can actually live on—rather than their pretendy living wage, which is not even available to all ages, with age discrimination baked in. They should also look at removing VAT on energy bills, which is a significant cost.

The Government have been raking it in: additional money that they did not expect has come in through the taxation system, as set out in the spring statement, and that will increase every day as VAT receipts come in and inflation soars.

As a proportion of income, the rise in the cost of living for poorer families is nine times larger than it is for the richest 5%. Institute for Fiscal Studies figures suggest that although inflation today is at 9%, for the least well-off it is just shy of 11%. The impact of such inflation on people can sound a bit abstract when we talk about percentages here and there, but the Child Poverty Action Group has calculated that with inflation running at 9%, the value of someone’s universal credit falls by £790 per year. That is a lot of money to the people who receive that benefit and the Government should be doing more about it.

All the way through the supply chain—from those growing crops and those processing and transporting food, to those stacking it on the shelves, to those cooking their tea and putting it on the table—costs are increasing. Businesses are being pushed to the very limits to absorb the costs and it cannot continue for much longer.

When I watch Treasury Ministers in this place, it is hard for me to hide my frustration, because they have all the levers that my colleagues in Holyrood do not have, yet not one iota of the ambition or imagination. There is so much that they could do to invest in people and communities, to work towards the promise of COP26 and to build a fairer, more just and more equal society—to grow, but in a way that leaves no one behind. We cannot rely on the Conservatives or Labour—both are now Brexiteer parties—because Scotland wants to take its place in the world. We want to be part of something and to be connected, rather than to rely on the tiny ambitions of this Government. People in Scotland are yearning for a Government with the powers to do better by their people; I hope they will soon get the chance to vote for that in an independence referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

It is appropriate that I am following the quite passionate speech by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) about the conversion therapy Bill. I broadly welcome the Queen’s Speech and the Government’s legislative programme. I was always in favour of some kind of legislation about conversion therapy, but the more I have looked at the issue, the less and less happy I am that there should be such a Bill, not because I am in favour of conversion therapy, but because I cannot see that legislation is either necessary or desirable. I am ready to be proved wrong, but I can think of no coercive behaviour that it would ban that is not already illegal. This Bill will be used to stoke exactly the kind of bitter disputes about transsexuality that we need to resolve before we legislate next in this field. Again, I am happy to be proved wrong—let us see the Bill—but we could have done with some pre-legislative scrutiny of such a Bill.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Although conversion therapy and, indeed, hedgehogs are both fascinating subjects, in terms of achieving economic growth, does my hon. Friend agree that what the Government are doing on levelling-up funds and bringing investment that can act as a catalyst for further investment in great small cities such as Gloucester will help to create jobs, footfall and retail—all the things that people in our country value—in order to have the opportunities to bring about that growth?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but we should recognise that these issues of conversion therapy and transsexuality are very important to certain sections of society. They need to be addressed, but we need to be sure that we address them in the right way.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I will, but I do not want to give way too often because we are not time-limited.

[Geraint Davies]

Some years ago, I brought forward a Bill on the regulation of psychotherapists, which recommended banning conversion therapy. There was a conference that 100 conversion therapists attended, so this is a widespread and abhorrent practice. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those who say that transsexuality should not be included seem to be those who think that people would go through the process of becoming a transwoman in order to rape another woman? There are a lot of male rapists out there. It seems to be a lot of effort for someone to have their head kicked in by other men. Transgender people should be included in the Bill.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I had not intended to make a great speech about this subject. I note the point that the hon. Gentleman has made and I wish to move on.

I welcome the forthcoming legislation to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I say to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who spoke a few moments ago, that perhaps we agree a great deal about the future of the Northern Ireland protocol. The question is whether we can make it happen unless we have some legislation coming down the track as well, because the EU has not changed its mandate.

I want to concentrate today on much more immediate challenges. Covid supply chain disruption persists in many parts of the world, notably China, and now we have Russia’s dreadful war against Ukraine, which frankly has shattered the geopolitical order that we have become used to for decades. We all used to believe in what the Germans called, “Wandel durch Handel”—the mistaken faith that nations that trade together would never go to war with each other. President Putin has smashed that confidence.

Business and Governments are reducing their exposure to dependency on all autocratic regimes. That is throwing globalisation into reverse, creating massive price increases and shortages. Poorer nations are acting to keep their food affordable for their own people. For example, India has just banned wheat exports, following Indonesia, which banned palm oil exports. We have an acute, growing and potentially far greater energy supply crisis in Europe. Europe cannot continue to rely on supply from Russia. This crisis requires a vast reorganisation of Europe’s energy supply and trading arrangements, and this massive adjustment will take years and is unprecedented. Only major food and energy producers in the world, such as Canada and the US, will avoid the worst kind of recession.

At least the United Kingdom can produce some of our own gas and oil and can continue to expand renewables, but why are we pumping our surplus gas out to Europe this warm spring to fill EU storage capacity, when we should be filling our own? The Government shut it down, and we need to reopen our gas storage capacity as quickly as possible. I fervently hope that we can achieve net zero by 2050 without excessive cost. The Government are right to see gas as the essential transition fuel, but why import gas when we can produce our own more cheaply?

Meanwhile, we must all recognise the cost of living crisis—yes, crisis. Even before today’s shock rise in CPI to 9%, the Commons Library had given me striking projections for the effect of this crisis on households. The full-year cost of just energy and food prices will rise by well over £1,000 a year for the lowest 20% of households by income and by £1,500 a year for pensioner households. A summer package to rescue the most vulnerable households is needed to avoid real financial distress and personal anguish and to support the economic demand of the most vulnerable households, or we will be creating possibly a worse recession than is already expected.

I welcome the suggestion in The Times today that the Government are considering a package. The spring statement represented peacetime thinking. Like after the unforeseen covid crisis, the Treasury must adapt to this unexpected war in Europe and accept that this new global energy and economic crisis also requires a very substantial policy response. I have to say that is far greater than the £3 billion package that the Labour party has offered us, though I do not subscribe to the rest of its fiscal profligacy.

I suggest that the £20 uplift in universal credit should immediately be restored. The abolition of VAT on domestic fuel would abolish a regressive tax that hurts the poorest households the most. We can do that now we are outside the EU. The Government should abolish the green levies on energy bills and fund them from the Exchequer, as recommended by Professor Dieter Helm. The Government should provide pensioners and poorer families with the confidence they can afford to stay warm. We should double the warm home discount and treble the winter fuel payment.

This package would cost not £3 billion, but £13.5 billion from July in this current tax year, but that is still less than the recent tax increases we have seen, and it is about 0.6% of GDP and affordable. Now or later, we should also consider relief for middle-income households. The lower 40% of households will feel severe stress from energy and food costs alone. We could start reindexing tax thresholds, or more, and that would have the advantage of incentivising work and productivity.

I have watched Governments—and Oppositions, I think we saw it today—blindsided by their own commitment to outdated thinking and policies of the past. There is no excuse for another such episode. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is right to sound cautious, but we can see what is coming, and I am confident that this Government will act as they must.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong: House of Commons & Ping Pong
Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The hon. Lady is quite right. That is one of the problems that we had during the previous iteration of the Bill, and even more in the case of this one.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I will give way once more, and then I must finish.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am the first to acknowledge that the hasty publication of the original European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, including clause 11, left a scar because of the lack of consultation, but the Sewel convention remains on the statute book. It is not being deleted. We do not repeat everything important in every Act simply to re-emphasise it. That is a kind of virtue signalling that it is not necessary to include in this legislation.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the convention is already law and we should respect that, why not just accept the amendment? Clause 38, which it seeks to amend, makes the somewhat obvious statement that this Parliament is sovereign. Why does that need to be in the Bill? I should like the Secretary of State at some point to make a commitment, on the record, that the Government will not introduce legislation on devolved matters without proper consultation.

This was a bad Bill in October, and it is a worse Bill now. Amending it is not stopping Brexit; it is about the future, and our long-term relationship with our neighbours. Scrutinising and amending legislation and holding the Government to account—it seems odd that I have to remind the Government of this—is exactly what we are supposed to do in both Houses.

Again I ask Conservative Members, especially those who are newly elected, whether they really think that this is what their voters wanted. Their voters may well have voted for Brexit—the Opposition accept that—but did they vote for the Government to break trust with the country on child refugees? Did they vote for the separation of powers between the judiciary and the Executive to be blurred? Did they ask for Ministers to be given more ability to interfere with the independence of the courts? Did they really vote to treat people who have been here legally for years, who have the legal right to be here, who have families and jobs and live here, to be treated differently, as second-class citizens? Did they vote for central Government to be able to impose their will on the devolved legislatures?

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine]

My apologies. Let me just say that I fully support the statement by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) that this is not about trying to refight the argument over Brexit; it is about what is best for the future of the country. In their manifesto just last month, the Government promised voters that the rights of European citizens would be protected. I appeal to Conservative Members to stand by that, particularly when it comes to the vulnerable children whom we have already discussed, who are separated from their families, who are refugees, and whom we can reunite legally with their families in this country. Why are the Government so reluctant to put that back in the Bill and protect it by law?

May I end by saying one tiny thing about the Sewel convention? The Government say much about protecting the United Kingdom, but I would ask them to consider how often they undermine their own argument and tie the hands of those of us on the Opposition Benches who want to protect and work for the United Kingdom. I learned a long time ago that impact is intention, and regardless of the intention in respect of the Sewel convention, the impact of it is to damage our own argument. The Liberal Democrats will therefore oppose the Government, and will support all five amendments.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The devolution question has been running ever since the publication of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in the summer of 2016—or 2017, I cannot remember—and there has been an erosion of trust. I plead for us to try to rebuild that trust between the different bits of the United Kingdom, because they will have to exist even if at some distant future date Scotland becomes an independent country. The question is: how are we going to rub along together?

I want to add a particular point about the supremacy of EU law. There is no power grab in any of this. The powers that are being held by the United Kingdom Government are simply the powers that were being held by the European Union since the inception of devolution. Some are arguing that the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 means that there is an implied power grab from the devolved Assemblies and that these matters are not automatically being transferred back to the Assemblies. However, these are powers that the devolved Assemblies never held. In fact, the EU has the power to make international agreements that grab more power from the devolved Assemblies without any consultation whatever, so what we have is an improvement in the situation.

I understand why these matters become inflamed, but we should try not to inflame the division that exists between us on other matters by using this issue. That is not going to improve the harmony of the relations between this Parliament and the devolved Parliaments, or between this Government—any Government—in Westminster and the devolved Governments. I appreciate why some might take a different view because they have an agenda—which I completely respect, I really do—but this is not the time, in this Bill, to start fomenting those particular issues.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

The SNP group supports all five of the Lords amendments and will therefore be voting against the Government. With regard to a declaratory system, the Secretary of State keeps saying that it will make things more confusing, but it would make it a registration rather than an application. The difference is that under such a system, there would be a guarantee of acceptance, which does not exist at the moment. The Government say that between 85% and 90% of EU or EEA citizens will get settled status quite easily, but that means that between 300,000 and 450,000 people will not. We can see that the people who are struggling with this are those who have had career breaks or caring responsibilities, which is particularly affecting women. There has been no sign of an equality impact statement on this, but there simply should be. The elderly and frail who have been here for decades have been overlooked, including people in care homes or those with dementia. It is wrong to have even the slightest threat hanging over such people who have spent their whole lives here.

The question of a physical document is also really important, as other Members have explained, with regard to dealing with landlords and employers, particularly because the internet is not always accessible. The Secretary of State said that people could download the email that they are sent that explains their status, but that email explicitly states that it is not proof of status. It does not provide such a document, even if it is printed. I am sorry, but after Windrush, EEA citizens and others do not trust the Home Office not to lose, delete or change their records.

Amendments 2 and 3, relating to clause 26, would remove the delegated power of Ministers to decide which courts and which test should be used to set aside ECJ judgments. This power steps away from the principle of precedence and raises concerns about judicial independence. The Conservatives put in their manifesto that they wanted to rebalance power between the Executive, Parliament and the courts. That starts in this Bill, and we should be very wary of it.

Amendment 4 relates to Lord Dubs’ amendment to restate the Government’s commitment to unaccompanied child refugees. Removing this proposal was probably the thing that most shocked MPs on both sides of the House, who felt that the Government simply could not justify it. At the end of transition, the UK will be outside the Dublin system, and transferring an application for refugee status from one country to another will disappear. The problem is in paragraph 319X of the immigration rules, which is all about the cost of a child coming and the ability to accommodate them. It pays no attention whatever to what is best for the child. That is what the Dublin system does, and the original clause simply said that the Government had to negotiate on this. There is nothing in that for the Government to object to.

Amendment 5 relates to clause 38. We are in unprecedented territory when all three devolved Parliaments have voted against giving legislative consent for this Bill. This is not just Governments; this is not just people who have the same agenda. It is the Parliaments that have voted in this way, and this Government ignore that at their peril. People now feel that, after 20 years, devolution is threatened not just by this Bill but by the former changes. Devolution is precious to people, even to the people who do not support independence, and the Government riding rough- shod over it really sends a message of disrespect. The Prime Minister likes to define himself as the Minister of the Union, but he cannot maintain a relationship or a marriage through force. It has to be based on respect. If all of this leads to the crumbling of the precious Union, he will have only himself to blame.

Checks on Goods: Northern Ireland and Great Britain

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman and I would agree on the desire to grow that business, because economic ties underpin the democratic relationship that we have, and we both share a common desire to have a strong Union with Northern Ireland as a central component of that. There will be scope, both during the passage of the withdrawal agreement Bill and then in the implementation period, to look at the things that can be done to strengthen that. I would draw his attention, for example, to what we secured on state aid in Northern Ireland, where there is scope to look at the UK economy as a whole, which again enables us to ensure that Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom is central to the decision making of this and any future Government.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I welcome the tone of these exchanges, which seem to me very calm and very sensible and do recognise the concerns being expressed from Northern Ireland. I suggest that we need to separate two things—the symbolism of a process of compliance required between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and the substance of the effect of that policy. It seems to me that all the questions are about the substance of compliance and that those are fears that possibly can be assuaged, and that we should seek to assuage, while recognising that there will still be deep concerns in the loyalist community in Northern Ireland about having any kind of agreement that requires that compliance.

[Stephen Barclay]

My hon. Friend absolutely captures a key point in terms of that distinction, and I very much agree with him. I would expect most firms to get intermediaries to complete the administrative process required for moving goods, so he is absolutely right in the distinction that he draws. Indeed, that is exactly what the implementation period would be used for—to address that distinction.

European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

I have always had great respect for the legal acumen and the seriousness of my right hon. and learned Friend, but there is an inconsistency in his case when he talks about wanting to look at legislation in more detail, having supported the Benn-Burt legislation that was passed in haste, and having supported the Cooper legislation, which needed to be corrected by Lord Pannick and others in the House of Lords, because it would have had the effect of doing the opposite of what it intended as it would have forced a Prime Minister to come back to this House after the EU Council had finished, thereby making a no deal more likely rather than less. That Cooper legislation is a very good example of where my right hon. and learned Friend did not look at legislation in detail, and, indeed, where it would have had a perverse consequence at odds with his arguments for supporting it at the time. Indeed, there is a further inconsistency: he championed section 13, but when the Prime Minister secured a new deal, which my right hon. and learned Friend said that he could not achieve, he then denies the House a right to vote in a meaningful way as required by his own section 13 because he no longer wants it to apply on the same rules as it did when he passed it.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. This deal has hardly lacked scrutiny, given the number of times it has been voted on and debated in this House, although we now have an altered deal. May I just point out that the implementing legislation is simply that: it does not alter the substance of the agreement but merely implements the agreement in domestic law. We can do that very quickly and amend that Bill after ratification of the agreement if necessary, because it is only a piece of domestic implementing legislation. There is no case for delaying that legislation, and I am going to vote for the deal today, if I get the chance.

[Stephen Barclay]

First, I welcome the support of my hon. Friend. One issue that the shadow Secretary of State and I agree on is that, on these issues, there has not been a lack of scrutiny, given the frequency with which we seem to debate them in the House.

It is also worth reminding ourselves of what the motion is addressing today. The motion is addressing the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration secured by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The mechanism to implement that—the withdrawal agreement Bill—has still to be debated. Indeed, even that pertains only to the winding-down arrangements and not, as is often referenced in this House, to the future trade deal that we want to get on and debate. It is therefore rather odd that the main issue—our relationship with Europe—is being thwarted because of a circular, endless debate on the same issue, when we need to support the deal today in order to unlock the withdrawal agreement Bill that we need to debate.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I will give way in a moment.

In other words, the Bill gives the Prime Minister the flexibility that he wants and needs to get a deal if he can. It does not render further negotiation pointless—if the Prime Minister were here I would say this forcefully to him—but what does is the Prime Minister’s apparent refusal to put any proposals to the EU if this Bill passes, which I can describe only as a very odd state of affairs.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Clause 3(2) is very clear that the period of two days begins with

“the end of the day on which the European Council’s decision is made.”

We were told very clearly during proceedings on the change of date, after the two previous occasions when the Government accepted an extension, that we were merely implementing a decision that was already made and binding in European Union law. The right hon. Gentleman’s proposal depends on the European Union making a conditional offer that comes into force only if it chooses to make it conditional on subsequent approval by the House of Commons. He has no way of binding the European Union’s procedures by domestic legislation.

[Hilary Benn]

If the Bill is passed, the House of Commons will pass it in the knowledge that it is seeking in the circumstances set out an extension to 31 January. If, however, the European Union proposes a different date, it seems to be only right and proper that the Prime Minister should be able to say, either, “Yes, that is fine by me,” or, “I will need to go back and check.” I agree with the hon Gentleman that, of course, we cannot bind the European Union in the way it seeks to work, but it is not at all unusual for member states to say, “Well, we will need to go back and check with our Parliament.” I am certain, given the importance of this issue, that the European Union would be able to find another procedure, which might not involve the European Council meeting again, to confirm the decision it made in making the offer in the first place.

The second point is that the two days is intended precisely to give the Prime Minister the chance to come back to the House in those circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

No, that is not the case. In those circumstances, the House could decide to ask the Prime Minister to go back. The central point is that it gives the House of Commons the ability to express a view, but if the extension was to 31 January we would have already decided that we were prepared to accept that. Therefore, it is only if the Prime Minister does not get a deal that the Bill prevents him from taking us out of the EU without an agreement.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I will give way one more time to the hon. Gentleman.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union baldly states that we leave after two years

“unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”

There is no obligation on the European Union to decide to make a conditional offer—it can decide—yet the Bill requires the Prime Minister, in those circumstances, to accept the terms that are on offer, and that is it. The Bill hands the decision back to the European Union, rather than to this House.

[Hilary Benn]

I do not agree. Of course, we all recognise that with any of these provisions there is no guarantee that the European Union will grant a further request from the United Kingdom for another extension of article 50. It takes only one member state of the European Union to say, “No, I’m not giving the United Kingdom a further extension” for us to be in even greater difficulty than we are already.

The provision seeks to require the Prime Minister to ask for and agree to an extension, because that is what is required to prevent the current Prime Minister from taking us out of the EU on 31 October without a deal. We did not have to put those provisions in the earlier Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford because the former Prime Minister readily accepted the decision of the House of Commons, but we are now in different circumstances.

Clause 2 covers what happens if an extension is proposed and agreed. Members have asked, quite rightly, what the extension is for. The immediate answer is, of course, to avoid a no-deal Brexit on 31 October, but clause 2 provides a framework under which the Government will publish a report to the House on 30 November—this comes back to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) raised with me earlier—and move a motion to the effect that the House has approved the report. That gives the Government a chance to say, “What are we going to do next?” It is also something that we can point to with the European Union. Members should remember that, last time, Mr Tusk said, “Use the time well,” and it is important that we in this House show that we are not just saying, “Right, we want a further extension, and then we are going to twiddle our thumbs for another three months.”

The Bill suggests a process. If the report is amended or rejected, there must be further reports from the Government on 10 January and every 28 days thereafter, either until an agreement is reached with the EU or until otherwise indicated by a resolution of the House. I think the framework in clause 2 will help to answer the question about what we intend to do with the additional time, and that will be a matter for Parliament.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Some people criticised the Bill, but the vast majority of the Lords supported the Bill, which is why we have it back before us now. Parliament has shown in both the Commons and the Lords that it is capable of responding to the gravity and the urgency of the challenge that our country faces and the very immediate risks to jobs, public services and families across the country if we drift. None of us could have imagined that we would be in this situation in the first place. These are unprecedented circumstances, but they should also serve as no precedent for the future when, as we all hope, normality might be restored.

I particularly thank Lord Robertson and Lord Rooker, who sponsored the Bill in the Lords, the Government and Opposition Front Benchers and Cross Benchers, who engaged in thoughtful discussion about these amendments, and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who did considerable work to ensure that the amendments would be effective. I said to the Minister, when we were discussing this in Committee, that we were keen to ensure that there was legal clarity for the Prime Minister as she went into the negotiations in the EU Council, and that she would be able to take sensible decisions in the national interest without having to come back to this House in the middle of negotiations—clearly, that would not be in the national interest. I welcome the work that has been done together to ensure that that clarity applies and that the Prime Minister can take those discussions forward.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way just one more time.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Given that the Bill still says only that the Prime Minister must “seek an extension”, how does this oblige her to accept an extension, or can she refuse one?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Bill makes it clear that the Prime Minister will be mandated to seek the extension in accordance with the motion that we hope will be tabled tomorrow. As a result of the amendment that has been tabled, it also allows the Prime Minister to seek further extensions and to accept extensions, subject to their not ending earlier than 22 May.

Lords amendments 1 and 2 ensure that a delay past midnight tonight will not prevent debate on the motion tomorrow. Lords amendment 3 allows Ministers other than the Prime Minister to table the motion. I think it sensible to ensure that the debate does not disrupt any negotiations with other Governments in which the Prime Minister will need to engage tomorrow. Lords amendments 4 and 5 ensure that the Prime Minister has that flexibility in the negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

First, I should like to say to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) that the reason we are debating this Bill again tonight is that the House of Commons has approved it and the other place has approved it with amendments. If that is a constitutional revolution, it is a constitutional revolution courtesy of the democratic will of this House and the other place. Secondly, on the subject of the European elections, the Government have made it quite clear to the House that if we are still a member of the European Union on 23 May, those elections will take place. Indeed, the Government have moved the order that will start the process and I understand that the Conservative party has started the process of calling for candidates to stand in those elections.

I rise to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and to thank them, because the Bill has helped us get to the place, subject to the decision of the European Council on Wednesday, where the will of the House to oppose leaving the European Union without an agreement will finally be given effect. The House needs to remember that the Bill has one purpose, and one purpose only: it is a “prevention of a no-deal Brexit” Bill. If the House gives its approval to it shortly, it will become a “prevention of a no-deal Brexit” Act.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Can the right hon. Gentleman just read out the text of the Bill that will oblige the Prime Minister to accept an extension when she attends the Council of Ministers?

[Hilary Benn]

The Prime Minister will accept an extension because she has asked for one. It is the existence of this Bill that has led her, in advance of the Bill being approved by the House, to write to the President of the European Council seeking an extension, because twice, much to the unhappiness of certain Members on the Government side of the House, she has been faced with this choice: either to take the country over the edge of a no-deal cliff, or to apply for an extension.

The reason I think some Members are very cross about that—I accept that they are cross—is that on both occasions the Prime Minister, facing both this Bill and a revolt by her Ministers, decided to act in the national interest by making that application. I hope very much that on Wednesday the European Council will grant more time, because whatever one thinks about the Prime Minister’s deal, one thing is clear: a no-deal Brexit would be disastrous for our country. That is why I hope the House will vote for the Bill tonight.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

May I begin by saying how pleased I was to learn, when my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) mentioned the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, that so many Opposition Members voted for that Act on the basis that they took on trust the success of a Conservative Prime Minister? I am pleased that they have so much confidence in us. When they voted for that Act, they either did or did not know the terms of article 50. If they did know the terms, then they voted to leave the European Union potentially without a withdrawal agreement; and if they did not, then clearly they were ignorant of one of the most important matters of the moment. Perhaps instead they were just voting for short-term political expediency. In any event, it is not very credible for Members now to be panicking and seeking to overturn what they previously legislated for, with great care and over a considerable period of time.

I turn my attention to Lords amendment 5, which I find rather surprising, because it seeks to restore the prerogative to the Government, provided they seek a long extension. Of course, this House resoundingly defeated the Government on that very point. I am therefore very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone has tabled amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 5, to rule out European elections. It states:

“No extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union may be agreed by the Prime Minister if as a result the United Kingdom would be required to prepare for or to hold elections to the European Parliament.”

This House united around what was known as the Brady amendment, to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements. I cannot think how many times I and other Members have tabled the so-called Malthouse compromise, to limit the implementation period, replace the backstop and, in the latest incarnation, get rid of the single customs territory. We have tried and tried to give the Government the way to get a deal.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend says about amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 5. Let us be absolutely clear. Is he saying that anyone who votes against amendment (a) will actually be voting for the United Kingdom to take part in the European elections, despite the fact that nearly every Member of this House voted for us to leave long before that date? It is a big reverse, is it not?

[Mr Baker]

It is a big reverse. Do Opposition Members seriously think that we should participate in the European elections after so long? It is a ridiculous escapade. Members should have known what they were doing when they voted to trigger article 50—[Interruption.] I see the right hon. Gentleman the Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee looking quizzical and shaking his head, or perhaps nodding along.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

Yes, I say to the right hon. Lady that it would have to be.

Lords amendment 5, tabled in the name of Cross-Bench peer the noble Lord Pannick, reinstates the form of a previous amendment that I proposed in this House, and which was opposed by the backers of the Bill. It seeks to retain the royal prerogative, which gives the Prime Minister, as a matter of constitutional principle, the discretion to decide what is the best agreement to reach on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government. It is a pillar of our constitution, and the means to govern this country effectively and unencumbered.

Lords amendment 5 adds a proviso that any extension agreed should not end earlier than 22 May. Of course, the Government have already been clear that we are seeking an extension to 30 June, so that is no threat to the prerogative power. I spoke in support of the prerogative power in Committee, and the noble Lord Howard and the noble Lord Cormack were united in speaking in its support in the other place. As Member for the Faithful City, I am happy to continue to speak in its support.

While I have great sympathy for amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Wycombe (Mr Baker)—I entirely agree with the sentiment—the Government have already set out our desire for an extension to 30 June to allow the maximum time to secure an orderly exit from the European Union.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Walker]

I am afraid that I cannot give way because I am going to run out of time. I apologise to my hon. Friend.

We cannot support this amendment (a), but the Government have also been clear that it is our firm desire to secure an agreement and leave the EU by 22 May to ensure that we do not need to hold European elections. In voting for the withdrawal agreement at the last opportunity, I and the vast majority of Government Members voted to do so. Despite our continued opposition to the Bill, its irrelevance and the speed of its passage in haste, we are left with no choice but to improve it, so I support the amendments before the House that were passed in the other place.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I certainly have. The Speaker has ruled on the matter, and I take the view that if the Speaker has ruled, even if I am unhappy with the ruling, that means that I need not go into all the details. I could spend the next 20 minutes giving all the reasons that I believe that there should be a money resolution, but I will resist the temptation because I want to get on to the meat of the Bill. The fact that it is known that it could cost as much as £90 billion is, I should have thought, enough to alert a great many people and make them seriously worried about whether they should vote for it, and I hope that they will not.

Clause 1(1) is mandatory, and gives rise to the important constitutional question whether Parliament can direct a Prime Minister to move a motion. That is constitutionally ridiculous. In clause 1(2), to which my new clause 4 refers, the “form of the motion” is not mandatory, stating that the House

“agrees for the purposes of section 2 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 to the Prime Minister seeking an extension”.

If passed, the provision would permit the Prime Minister to seek an extension, but that in itself would not force her to ask for it. However, neither clause 1(4) nor clause 1(5) sets any time limit relating to when the Prime Minister must seek the extension, or explains how that would be achieved. Is enough time available for all this to be done? The answer is clearly no.

I assume that Royal Assent would be given after the Bill had been to the House of Lords. God knows what the House of Lords is going to make of it. The House of Lords has a Standing Order, Standing Order No. 72. What have the Government done, no doubt with the connivance—if that is not an inappropriate expression—of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin)? They have simply knocked out Standing Order No. 72, which is an outrageous and completely unconstitutional act.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has questioned the ability of the Act to be enforced. My Select Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, put that question to Lord Judge, the former Lord Chief Justice. I asked:

“How would this be enforced?”

He replied:

“I think it could only be enforced politically by the House of Commons. Please do not think for one moment that anybody should be able to seek a judicial review. Not only would it be ludicrous for the judiciary to be involved in deciding a political question, but they would have a way out if anybody took that step, by saying that there is an alternative remedy—to go back to the House of Commons. That is the only way it could possibly be enforced, in my view. It would be up to the House.”

Is this not a completely useless piece of legislation?

[Sir William Cash]

It is not only completely useless, but it is rubbish. I see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) has just come into the Chamber. Let me ask him, if I may, whether he drafted this Bill. He drafted a great many amendments during the passage of the withdrawal Bill itself back in 2017-18, and I noticed that quite a lot of them were so bad that they had to be junked.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I want to make some trouble. The people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland might well have strong interest in the extent to which they are involved in this process. My amendment is a means to provide them with that opportunity. I will not contradict what the hon. Gentleman says. Under our constitutional settlement, there is a Scottish Parliament, a Northern Ireland Assembly and a National Assembly for Wales, so I would have thought that they will be extremely interested to know whether they were being cut out of the process prescribed in the Bill. It is not my fault that the Government made proposals and had all the joint committees that the various leaders of the devolved Assemblies complained that they had not been properly involved in. I am giving them a chance to be involved. He may be right about the legislative consent point, but I am right to think that in relation to this crazy Bill it would at least be useful for the people of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to be able to make their contributions in their devolved legislatures. I think that point is worth making, and I therefore intend to press amendment 6 to a vote. Of all the amendments I tabled, that is the one that I want to move most.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I will be as brief as I can. I want to speak against clause 1 stand part. The clause is the heart and strategic intent of the Bill. It is trying to put this House in a position to stop the United Kingdom leaving the EU on the date on which the Government might want us to leave. There is no question about that.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) who made the point that the process of attrition in this House to limit the Government’s negotiating freedom in the end very much undermined their ability to get a better deal and to negotiate from a position of strength. If people cannot walk away from a negotiation they are in, and they have to agree something at the end of it, the other party simply calls the shots. That certainly strengthened the hand of those who want us to have a bad deal. I have made some points in the debate on one of the earlier business motions about the constitutional impropriety of this whole process.

I also invite the Committee to reflect on what this House looks like tonight as we discuss such highly technical issues. The British people expect us to be discussing the big principles of whether we should leave without a deal on WTO terms or sign up to the withdrawal agreement. This particular debate, however, seems particularly obscure and unavailable to voters. It will make this House look particularly out of touch, especially because the Bill is somewhat otiose.

I have argued for some time with colleagues on the Conservative Benches that the Prime Minister has demonstrated little intention of ever leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The fact that the Government have spewed out a whole raft of information basically about why they do not want to leave without a deal underlines that point. I therefore think that the Bill is unnecessary.

In my comments to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, I pointed out that the Bill is also unenforceable. Just look at the wording of subsection (4), which is that

“the Prime Minister must seek an extension of the period specified in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union”.

What does “seek” mean in the circumstances? What happens if the Prime Minister makes a telephone call asking for an extension, says “Thank you very much” to what is offered, and puts the phone down again? How will that process be scrutinised and made accountable? How do we judge what is a serious seeking in good faith, and what is a mere technical seeking? That underlines the total futility of the House attempting to legislate in this way. Our system of government is not set up for Parliament to legislate for detailed instructions on how Ministers should carry out their duties. We tend to make laws on a much more general basis than that. That is why the system just does not work.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point that builds on other points made during Committee. Has not a further defect been pointed out? There is no timeframe. The Prime Minister is not mandated to “seek” in any manner, or within any particular timeframe, so she could do nothing until 13 April and still intend to comply fully with the Bill.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Yes, and we absolutely know why the Bill is framed in these very vague terms—it is precisely to avoid its falling foul of rules that require a money resolution for a Bill that gives more specific instruction.

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend—a good friend—is making very good points. This also gives rise to the question of scrutiny, which he mentioned. My Committee will undoubtedly have to try to work out how to deal with these scrambled eggs; and how will the House of Lords deal with this, given that it has disallowed Standing Order No. 72? Will it truncate its business to such an extent that it will not be able to get this right? Who will get this right?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I will not attempt to answer that question, because it answers itself. Nobody will be held accountable for what goes wrong as a result of the Bill.

If the Prime Minister goes to the European Council for an extension—I have long been reconciled to the expectation that she will—what really matters are the conditions that come with it. Where is the accountability for the conditions that will apply? Or will she simply accept an enforceable agreement with conditions, and bring it back to the House as a fait accompli, as she did originally?

[Mrs Main]

rose—

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I will press on, if my hon. Friend will allow me.

I have addressed the enforcement point, but let me come back to the question of legitimacy. The issue is not just the illegitimacy of the whole process, and the concept of the House legislating to instruct Ministers in a way that is outside the control of Ministers. As I said, there has been a huge Government campaign—some might call it a fear campaign—supported by the second referendum campaign and other very well funded lobby groups and business interests. The arguments in favour of leaving without agreement have pretty well been disposed of by default. They do not get a hearing. One can think of one or two broadcast outlets that delight in ridiculing perfectly respectable arguments.

I have a document here called “30 Truths about Leaving on WTO Terms”. It goes through all the canards, and it sets out how leaving without an agreement would leave us with an extra £39 billion to spend on our priorities, which over a couple of years would increase the GDP of this country by about 2%; how it would end uncertainty much more quickly; and how every party involved with the Irish border has said that there will be no infrastructure there in the event of a no-deal Brexit. So it goes on. I shall not detain the Committee with those arguments now, because this is not the time to make them; I just make the point that these arguments have simply not been made. Despite that, a very recent poll conducted by YouGov shows that where an extension is an option, 40% would support no deal. Only 11% would support an extension, though 36% would still support remain. The point is that the most popular option in the polls at the moment is leaving without a deal, so who does the Bill represent? This is despite the deluge of propaganda that has been emptied—[Laughter.] Opposition Members laugh, but no effective leave campaign has been conducted in favour of no deal, and the Government, who pretended to say they agreed that no deal is better than a bad deal, have not conducted a campaign to reassure voters that leaving without a deal is a sensible option. Despite that, the British people want to leave.

Who in this House was elected to put this Bill through Parliament? Who is this House was elected by saying, “When I am elected, I am going to put a Bill through the House to delay article 50”? The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who is promoting this Bill, was not elected by saying that. She was elected on a manifesto to leave, and she is now defying that manifesto and voters in her own constituency, who voted to leave. When the extension option is removed in the YouGov poll, the percentage of people in favour of the no-deal option goes up to 44%, against 42% who are in favour of remaining. No leave campaign has been conducted in this country for the past two or three years, yet that is what the British people think.

EU Exit Day Amendment

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

I did not see what my hon. Friend said in that debate, but I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for promoting me so that I have junior Ministers underneath me.

The question before us is not whether the extension to article 50 happens, but the separate question of whether the domestic statute book reflects this extension, without which there could be a confusing and unclear statute book with clashing provisions. If we are to resolve that, it is essential that this instrument is passed before 11 pm on 29 March so that it can come into force ahead of that time. This will align exit day in UK law with the new day and time on which the EU treaties cease to apply to the United Kingdom in both EU and international law.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

This Executive decision was approved by a Minister without proper reference to Parliament, bringing back to this House not just international law but law that is binding in our own law and binding on this Parliament. May I put it to my hon. Friend that it is exactly this kind of decision making and law making that people voted against in the referendum?

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend makes an important point on which many of us could agree—that this process reflects some of the issues that caused people to vote in the way that they did. However, the House voted for an extension and it was in respecting the vote of this House that the Government sought to negotiate one.

I am acutely aware of the huge amount of work undertaken by Members across this House to scrutinise—

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that we have to do everything possible to avoid a disastrous no-deal exit. This SI does not do that; the extension agreed by the European Council and the UK does it. This SI ensures that our domestic legislation aligns with what has already been agreed and that we do not create legal confusion.

It is certainly the case that no one, including those who have no problem with the extension, expected that this Government would fail so miserably that an extension of any kind would be required, but it was always a possibility. That is precisely why the EU withdrawal Bill, at least in its original form, was drafted to provide for circumstances in which a withdrawal agreement came into force later than 29 March, following an extension. As the Government themselves put it at the time in their delegated powers memorandum:

“Exit day will be dependent on the withdrawal negotiations with the EU.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has commented, it was the Government’s decision to play politics with the issue of exit day for the purposes of our domestic legislation—constraining the flexibility provided for in the original drafting of the Bill by putting in a fixed exit date and time in a vain attempt to curry favour with the hardliners on their own Benches—that means we require a statutory instrument in the form before us. That said, it remains the case that it is simply not reasonable to question the legitimacy of the Government’s actions in agreeing to an extension to the article 50 process or the fact that these regulations have sequentially followed that agreement.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I want to correct the hon. Gentleman’s account of recent history. In fact, the Government agreed to put in the date voluntarily, and then were blackmailed by the remain faction in our party to provide flexibility on the date. That is actually what happened.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think the hon. Gentleman would agree with me that the original draft of the Bill did not include the date. The reasons why the Government put it in and the actions of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) in again helpfully coming to the rescue, I will leave to the hon. Gentleman and his view of what happened at the time.

It follows that, if the House votes against this statutory instrument, it cannot prevent an extension of the article 50 process until at least one of the two proposed dates. In short, and much to my delight, there is nothing that right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches can do today to force the UK out of the EU in two days’ time. All that would be achieved by voting against these regulations would be immense legal confusion, with two parallel sets of regulations in place—those deriving specifically and directly from EU law, and those made under the 2018 Act, which would diverge from it. As the Minister put it, our statute book would be in a complete mess. That is why this statutory instrument should self-evidently be supported, and why the Opposition will be doing so when we divide on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) gave the game away when, amid all her hyperbole and rhetoric, she betrayed her desire for a “much longer delay”. That is what the remain majority in this House really want. I was rather shocked to hear the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) say that this measure should be entirely uncontroversial. He might not have been listening, but millions of our voters certainly have been listening and they were expecting to leave the EU on 29 March. For them, this debate comes as a very great disappointment, because this order cancels exit day on 29 March. The way in which the Council decision was agreed illustrates exactly why people voted to leave the EU, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) set out.

History will mark this day as the moment when this House decided to start to turn against the decision to leave the EU and against the mandate upon which most MPs in this House were elected—[Interruption.] Oh yes, there are exceptions, but I am talking about the 85% of votes that were cast for pro-Brexit parties. So far, the EU’s withdrawal agreement has been rejected for good reasons, not least because it is so far from taking back control over our laws, borders and trade. That is one point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). In fact, if this statutory instrument goes through, the next time the Minister brings an order to this House to implement an EU directive, decision or regulation, there will probably have been no UK Minister sitting at the table in Brussels to agree that decision, or even to be there to be outvoted. That decision will just have been handed down through the withdrawal agreement.

I have never considered myself a populist or a man of the people, but it is only those like me, who will vote against this decision to cancel leaving the EU on 29 March, who are truly representing what the British people decided in the referendum. We are the real majority in this House, but we are sorely under-represented by its Members.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

rose—

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

rose—

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am going to press on.

This House has now embarked upon an unprincipled constitutional experiment. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I chair, recently heard from a retired Lord Chief Justice that nothing like this experiment has occurred since the recasting of the role of Parliament in 1688, which shows just how radical it is. I recognise the sincerity of many right hon. and hon. Members involved in the experiment, but they have resorted to the most questionable constitutional methods, which leave no Government or anyone else accountable for what is being decided. Who will the voters now hold to account for the outcome of the Brexit question?

Moreover, the process has been supported by those either embarking upon embellishing the discredited withdrawal agreement with ever greater restrictions on our right of national democratic self-determination or seeking to disrupt Brexit or stop it altogether in defiance of the manifesto promises upon which most of us were elected. I therefore regret to conclude on these matters, including these regulations, that this House is left with questionable democratic legitimacy.

[Sir William Cash]

I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend has said. I remind Members, including those on the Conservative Benches, that they voted consistently for the Acts of Parliament, including the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, that will give effect to all the enactments and that to pursue such an objective is effectively to reverse their decisions on specious and unacceptable grounds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I will vote against these regulations, and let me say something about the mess that we are now in. I can fairly claim to be one of the minority in this House who were the authors of the voters’ referendum decision, and I am proud of that. Most of us who voted leave have stuck with what we believe, one way or another. We are not the authors of what the remain majority in this House, with the Government, have made of Brexit, nor of what they continue to inflict upon our sad and disillusioned voters.

EU Withdrawal Joint Committee: Oversight

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

It is obviously up to them to decide how they would conduct matters with respect to their delegates in the Joint Committee.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I return to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) to contest my hon. Friend the Minister’s rather doubtful assertion that this is normal for an international treaty? I do not know of any other international treaty where one of the signing parties is submitting to a law-making power by the other, the laws will be made in a Joint Committee that can sit in secret, and any matters of dispute will be referred to the court of the other party. Can he give any examples of an international treaty of this nature where those arrangements exist, and where the laws being made are directly applicable and have direct effect in the domestic law of only one of the states?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

What I would say to my hon. Friend in respect of his question is that we were in the EU for 46 years. During that time we were absolutely and totally 100% under the jurisdiction of the EU. The withdrawal agreement essentially seeks to get a tunnel, or a pipe, away from that jurisdiction into a situation where we have left the EU absolutely. Now, my own understanding is that this is a wholly unique set of circumstances. In that respect, the withdrawal agreement seeks to be transitional—it is trying to get from state a to state b—so it is understandable that we will not be able to get immediate freedom, if that is how he would put it, but the withdrawal agreement substantially gets us from one state to another. If it is endorsed, I think we will be able to proceed in an orderly way out of the EU.

EU Exit Negotiations

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry to see the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) looking mildly anguished.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

No? Well, I am heartened to hear it. We must hear from the voice of Harwich and North Essex, Sir Bernard Jenkin.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I commend my right hon. Friend and the Government for being absolutely determined to avoid any new infrastructure at the Northern Ireland border. Can he explain what the Government’s policy will be if we leave the European Union with no deal, and therefore there is no backstop and we have a customs frontier? Will the Government implement the technical measures to maintain an invisible customs frontier? Will he rule out any new infrastructure at the border between the north and the south?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We have been clear that we will see no return to a hard border under any circumstances. That has been made clear to not just all parties in Northern Ireland but the Commission in Brussels.