European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Catherine West Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I join the Minister in thanking the panel of Chairs for presiding over the Committee stages and the work they did in preparation for the debates we had, the staff in the Public Bill Office for the work they did over the Christmas recess and all Members who contributed to the debate in Committee.

The last two days have had their highs and lows. On the one hand, there have been very many thoughtful and considered contributions, and on the other hand, there has been a disappointing and resolute refusal of the Government to seriously consider any amendments however constructively intended. The Minister is right that there was a different tone to the debate, and that is clearly because everybody recognises that the result of the general election means we are leaving the European Union in 22 days’ time. But I think there was also a recognition, I hope on both sides, that leaving the EU does not mean that we will have got Brexit done. We will have completed the first step, departure, but the difficult stage is yet to come: agreeing the new relationship not just on trade, but as many pointed in Committee, on security crucially—but much more besides, from data sharing to research collaboration and more. These are in many ways more complex issues than those we have wrestled with over the last three and a half years, and they are issues with deeply serious consequences for the country.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

May I thank my hon. Friend for his speech and add to his list the anguish that many of my constituents are feeling—not just EU nationals, but those whose neighbours or family are EU nationals? This is, for many, quite a difficult moment.

[Paul Blomfield]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is a difficult moment for many, and I will come on specifically to some of the issues involving EU nationals that were not resolved by our discussions in Committee.

As we move into this next stage, I would urge the Government not to overinterpret their mandate in the general election. Yes, they have clearly secured an overwhelming majority of seats, but not of votes. Most people in this country voted for parties that did not support the principle of getting Brexit done at any price. As the Prime Minister observed, many of those who voted for him and colleagues had lent him their vote. I hope, and I sense, that part of the different tone—the subdued mood of those on the Government Benches—was a dawning realisation that they may find it hard to deliver on the high expectations that they have created over the last three and a half years. The Prime Minister has talked about bringing the country together—the Minister echoed that—and we all share the hope after the divisions promoted by the debates of the last three years. However, I have to say that it will need a different approach from the one we have seen over the last couple of days. It needs open ears and a willingness to reach out.

I understand why the Government rejected some of the amendments that we and other opposition parties tabled, but not all. Many were simply restoring previous Government commitments and others were to improve the Bill; none was to frustrate Brexit. In the short debate on the Bill in Committee, we as an Opposition pressed five main issues that in our view reflect the serious problems with both the withdrawal agreement and the way in which the Government have chosen to implement it. Over 100 amendments were tabled in Committee, but not a word of the Bill has changed, and we will therefore be voting against its Third Reading today.

Our first issue with the Bill is that, despite all of Parliament’s efforts to avoid a no-deal Brexit last year, it introduces a trapdoor to no deal at the end of December 2020—something that the Brexit Secretary appeared quite relaxed about in his reported comments following yesterday’s discussion with Ursula von der Leyen. Other Conservative Members over the last couple of days have expressed total confidence—total confidence—in the Government’s ability to secure trade and security deals by the December deadline, citing the EU’s commitment to use its best endeavours and good faith to agree a future trade treaty. That good faith was evident from Mrs von der Leyen yesterday, but I hope Members have also heard her warning, which was echoed by the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), that it would be impossible to reach a comprehensive trade deal by the end of 2020.

I hope Members will reflect on whether it really is wise for the Government to have added clause 33, barring Ministers from extending the implementation period. Of course, this is just a gimmick, and with their majority, the Government could at any point repeal that clause and negotiate a short extension. However, whatever our views on these issues, we should all be concerned that this Bill removes any role for Parliament in shaping that decision, so if the Government have not concluded and ratified an agreement with the EU on our future relationship, the supposed sovereignty reclaimed for this Parliament will be meaningless. We will have no say on whether we crash out on World Trade Organisation terms, even if the Government are days away from securing an agreement with the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

Yes, three years.

Through our new clause 4 we tried to offer a way of giving Parliament the role for which we were elected—and it is the role that my hon. Friend describes—without requiring an extension to the transition that is longer than necessary. Some Conservative Members who are not here today expressed sympathy with that approach, but not with our specific formulation, so I hope that this issue will be revisited when the Bill moves to the other place.

The second point that was a key concern to us was citizens’ rights. Colleagues from all Opposition parties set out why we believe that a declaratory system is essential to deliver on the Prime Minister’s commitment to EU citizens during the referendum campaign and subsequently, and to avoid a repeat of Windrush. This came up this morning in Brexit orals. In the Committee debate, I was pleased to get an important clarification from the Government on appeal rights, but I am afraid that I did not find the Minister’s speech on the broader issue of citizens’ rights at all reassuring. In a relatively convoluted argument—which the Secretary of State to a degree repeated this morning at Brexit questions—the Minister attempted to put the blame for the Windrush scandal on the safety net that ensured that victims could seek recourse against the treatment that they endure from immigration legislation and argued that the way to avoid a Windrush scandal for EU citizens was to take away the safety net provided by guaranteeing their rights.

We have already seen that almost half of applicants to the EU settlement scheme have not been granted settled status; they have been granted pre-settled status. Ministers have told us that we should be relaxed about this, claiming that pre-settled status is an automatic pathway to settled status. I am afraid we have every reason to be concerned, because it is not.

[Catherine West]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a real risk here that once again the Home Office is making a pig’s ear of this whole thing?

[Paul Blomfield]

Well, the Home Office has got form on these things, hasn’t it?

Let me explain why I am concerned specifically on this issue. Pre-settled status is intended for those EU citizens who have been living in the UK for less than five years. However, many EU citizens who have been living here far longer, many for decades, are being granted pre-settled status. They will be required to reapply to the scheme before their five years of leave under pre-settled status is up. If they do not, they will lose all their rights in the UK and, as the Home Office Minister pointed out, be liable to deportation.

Despite these risks, my understanding is— I would be very happy to be corrected— that the Government have no plans to notify EU citizens when their leave is about to expire, and prompt them to apply for settled status. If they do not even know of the need to reapply, many EU citizens will face the same difficulties evidencing their five years’ residency, so in any closing remarks from the Government Front Bench I would be grateful if Ministers can tell us what will happen to EU citizens who are granted pre-settled status for five years, then reapply to the scheme for settled status but are not able to evidence the required five years’ residence, which was the basic problem leading to their being granted pre-settled status in the first place.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Catherine West Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting
Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

Under clause 1, the implementation period ensures the continuity of the law. That is why it is saved, but modified. Clause 2, and the others in the group, deal with the technical terminology. Where there is a change in meaning, it means continuity. I see that the hon. Gentleman is frowning. The substance of my reply is yes, in that the Bill ensures continuity. The purpose of terms such as “European Union citizen” will have ceased because we will have left, but, on the other hand, the implementation in EU law will continue, allowing those terms to continue to be applied and any tidying up—any technical changes—to be applied. So this is a technical glossing and that is its purpose.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

While the Secretary of State is on his feet discussing this, could he set out the exact position for EU nationals, because those of us who have up to 42,000 living locally are extremely concerned? There have been lots of discussions and tweets about this, so could he please just lay out exactly what the position will be not only during the next 12 months of the implementation plan but going forward?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. I do not want to stray too far into the second grouping in Committee, which is indeed on citizens’ rights and which the Security Minister will address, but what this Bill is doing is securing the rights of EU citizens within the UK and indeed the rights of UK citizens in the European Union, because we value the contribution that those EU citizens make to the UK. They have chosen to make their homes here and to bring up their families here, and their rights are protected. That is one of the reasons that I urge Members on both sides of the House to support this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Turning to clause 6, the UK has reached agreements with the EEA EFTA states and Switzerland respectively. The agreements are separate from, although similar to, our agreements with the EU. They protect the rights of Norwegian, Icelandic, Liechtenstein and Swiss citizens living in the UK and those of UK citizens living in those countries, so that they can continue to live their lives after exit day broadly as they do now.

[Catherine West]

Will the Secretary of State explain in clear language how he believes that will be played out at airports? Will there be several queues? Will there be one queue for everybody from European countries? I ask because many people ask me these questions in my surgery.

[Steve Barclay]

We will go into more detail on citizens’ rights when we discuss the second group of amendments, but clause 5 secures the legal effect to the protections that apply to citizens within the EEA EFTA states. One of the big questions on the Brexit discussions that we have heard repeatedly in this place has been, “To what extent will people’s rights be protected?” This Bill is doing that for EU nationals through clause 5, and clause 6 mirrors those protections in law for citizens of the EEA EFTA states. The hon. Lady touches on the arrangements for citizens’ rights, which are a separate issue, but this is about how legal protection will apply to those nationals.

Clause 6 gives effect in domestic law to the EEA EFTA and Swiss separation agreements in a similar way to the withdrawal agreement. This ensures that a Norwegian citizen living in the UK can rely on their rights in a UK court in broadly the same way as a Swedish citizen. It does so in the same way as clause 5.

We do not want a Norwegian, Liechtenstein, Icelandic or Swiss national to have any less certainty on their rights than an EU national here or, indeed, a UK citizen in Europe. Clause 6 also enshrines the legal certainty for businesses and individuals covered by the EEA EFTA agreement that article 4 of the withdrawal agreement provides. This clause, as presented, is vital to the UK’s implementation of the EEA EFTA and Swiss agreements, and it must stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 prohibits the UK from agreeing to an extension of the implementation period. Page 5 of the Conservative manifesto says:

“we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020”,

and clause 33 says:

“A Minister of the Crown may not agree in the Joint Committee to an extension of the implementation period.”

It could not be clearer. This Government are determined to honour our promise to the British people and to get Brexit done.

Both the EU and the UK committed to a deal by the end of 2020 in the political declaration. Now, with absolute clarity on the timetable to which we are working, the UK and the EU will be able to get on with it. In sum, clause 33 will ensure that we meet the timetable set out in the political declaration and deliver on our manifesto promise. For that reason, the clause must stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I very much agree. There needs to be a voice for the approaching 55% of people in this country who were uncomfortable with the direction offered by the Conservative party manifesto. Although the result of the general election was clear, it does not mean that the Government can proceed without question, challenge or scrutiny. That is the point of many of our amendments.

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, the tone of which is just right. May I press the wider question around scrutiny? We will shortly have no Exiting the European Union Committee and I am not sure when the Select Committees will return. There is a lot of detail and, having sat on the International Trade Committee, I know that a lot of mistakes can be made at the beginning of the process when it comes to having a forward-looking trade deal. I fear that rushing into it like this—not allowing Parliament much time to debate the principles at the beginning and giving the Government a tiny implementation period—could lead to a much worse outcome than if we were to take a little time to be more thoughtful and give Parliament a genuine role in the new arrangements.

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is right to focus on the issue. The Government have seemed reluctant to embrace the idea of scrutiny and accountability since October in so very many ways. I hope they will think seriously and quite genuinely over the period ahead to ensure that there is a proper opportunity for this House to question and debate the direction of travel.

European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Catherine West Excerpts

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady is invariably a helpful member of our flock in relation to these matters, because she is a model of good behaviour. If her example were emulated across the House, our proceedings would be altogether more seemly. Her stock is high.

So far as the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) is concerned, colleagues have said what they have said and I have said what I have said. It is very important that we respect each other, and part of respecting each other must be hearing each other. I intervened on a number of occasions to indicate that the right hon. Gentleman must be heard. I do not say this in any pejorative spirit, but my only caveat is that he is well able to look after himself.

Moreover, there are colleagues who feel that the right hon. Gentleman has a rumbustious style that is sometimes almost calculated to inflame colleagues who disagree with him—[Interruption]—even if inadvertently, as the Minister says from a sedentary position, and that therefore to some extent he has to cope with that which his style invites, but only to some extent, and it is important that he be heard. I hope that the hon. Lady is happy to trust the Chair to protect him, if he needs to be protected.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you clarify whether it would be in order for the Leader of the House to apologise to Back-Bench Members who were expecting some sort of explanation following today’s proceedings, and indeed to those who had been preparing to speak in Monday’s Queen’s Speech debate, and looking forward to it—they might be polishing their speeches as we speak—but who will now be unable to do so?

[Mr Speaker]

It would be open to the Leader of the House to do that if he so chose, but he is no longer in the Chamber and therefore, even if he was minded to do so—he might not feel so inclined—he could not do so at this moment. The right hon. Gentleman will doubtless be back in his place on Monday, as I am sure the hon. Lady will be in hers, when further exchanges on that matter and others can take place.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Catherine West Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) for their work on the Bill, and the way in which they introduced both the business motion and the Bill to the House.

Labour supports the Bill because it is necessary to fulfil the wishes of the House, which has voted down the Prime Minister’s deal on three occasions and has also voted against leaving without a deal on three occasions.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Can my hon. Friend think of another time when the TUC and the CBI have both been as emphatic as they have been about the dangers of a no-deal Brexit?

[Paul Blomfield]

I cannot, and that underlines the importance of this Bill, which provides for the further extension of article 50, which is now inevitable. The Bill offers a legislative framework through which the House can have an effective role in the process of determining that extension.

Clearly, the Bill sits in the new context of the Prime Minister’s statement late last night, in which she said that she was seeking talks with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Those talks have now begun. We welcome what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) described as a “late conversion to compromise”, although we regret the damage that has been done to the economy and the credibility of this House by the Prime Minister not compromising sooner. It is an approach that she should have adopted long ago.

The Prime Minister could have adopted this approach almost three years ago, after the referendum, when the country decided by a painfully narrow margin to leave the EU, but not to rupture our relations with our closest neighbours, key allies and most important trading partners. She could have done so after the election, when she went to the country saying that Parliament was obstructing her and seeking a mandate for a hard Brexit, but lost her majority and failed to get the mandate. She could also have done so on any of the three occasions when her deal was defeated by the House, but she chose not to. We have consistently called on the Prime Minister to reach out to the sensible majority in the House and to unite the country, recognising that the people of this country include both the 52% and the 48%. But better late than never.

We also welcome the way in which the Prime Minister distanced herself last night from those kamikaze colleagues who, as she said,

“would like to leave with No Deal next week.”

The House has expressed its clear view on leaving without a deal, and this Bill provides the legislative lock to ensure that the will of our sovereign Parliament is not frustrated. It also provides for the flexibility to ensure that we can accommodate whatever comes from the discussions between our parties and across the House over the next few days.

We have set out clearly the framework on which we will be seeking the compromise that the Prime Minister talked about last night: a permanent and comprehensive customs union; close alignment with the single market; dynamic alignment on rights and protections; clear commitments on participation in EU agencies and funding programmes; and unambiguous agreements on future security arrangements. We have also been clear in our support for a confirmatory public vote on any deal that comes about at this very late stage. We look forward to the further discussions on these issues, and we are pleased to give our full backing to this Bill.

Leaving the European Union

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 1st April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. May I put it on record how proud I am that Hornsey and Wood Green currently ranks as the constituency with the second-highest number of signatories to the petition to revoke article 50? That is the main argument that I will make in this debate, because I know that other hon. Members wish to contribute.

[Andy Slaughter]

I cannot compete with my hon. Friend—Hammersmith has only 22,346 signatories, although that is 30% of my constituents. However, I must observe that even New Forest East, whose hon. Member stormed out earlier, has 7,245 signatories. Is it not shameful that hon. Members cannot represent their constituents, who are desperate for a resolution and for us to take the lead?

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend is correct. Even though a very small percentage of my constituents voted to leave the EU, I have tried to engage with them and talk about what happened in the election and why they felt like that. That is the spirit that we need to move towards as a Parliament, but it is difficult to do that when hon. Members leave the Chamber.

On the Saturday after 23 June 2016, I hired a small room in the old Hornsey town hall for any EU nationals who wanted to discuss their worries with me. When I opened the door, it was biblical: 500 people had come. They were not all connected to the EU in a personal way; for some, it was just a general feeling. That is the sort of constituency I have, but I still want to engage with those who hold the opposite argument, who may feel just as passionately even though there are fewer of them. I hope that this debate will take place in a spirit of co-operation and of listening to one another.

When 1 million people took to the streets of London on 23 March, it was quite an amazing day. Only last Monday, MPs voted to take control of the Order Paper in response to a Government who have failed to deliver a deal that protects the interests of the British people. Yesterday, the petition that we are debating surpassed 6 million signatures—as it is 1 April, Mr McCabe, you may be amused to hear that this morning my other half came into the room and said, “It’s at 9 million!” I leapt out of bed and he said, “April fool.” At least we can try to maintain a sense of humour in these difficult days.

We know that the Prime Minister intends to make a fourth attempt at bringing her deal back—possibly on Wednesday, although the Minister may enlighten us further—and tonight MPs will take part in a second round of indicative votes. It seems completely nonsensical that the people should be prohibited from speaking again at this moment of intense crisis.

Nearly three years have passed since the narrow result, and we understand from commentators that with every passing week a further £600 million is wiped off the national economy. How can something like new computer systems for our ports—to give one example from my time on the International Trade Committee—be more important than providing free dental care for children in our most deprived areas, free university education for our students or the crucial funds that our local authorities need to fight knife crime? There are so many things that £600 million per week could be used for—it is enough to make one weep.

Each hour, £171,000 is spent on preparing for a no-deal Brexit, which we know would have a devastating effect on the economy and inflict disproportionate harm on deprived communities. To put it into context, that money could be spent on recruiting 85,000 nurses, 50,000 teachers or 49,000 police officers—a move that would begin to repair the damage done by eight-and-a-half years of austerity.

On 14 March, the Commons voted to extend article 50—an important step to ensure that the UK did not crash out of the EU last Friday. That action was necessary, but it is not a long-term solution. There are now 271 hours left of the short extension to article 50, so we must ensure that we have an insurance policy to protect the UK from a catastrophic no-deal scenario. As other hon. Members have said, that insurance policy is the revocation of article 50.

I was proud to support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), not least because he chairs the International Trade Committee, on which I sat until recently—I am sure that hon. Members will correct my faulty Gaelic pronunciation of his constituency. Many hon. Members present will be giving a lot of thought to a similar motion on the Order Paper this evening, which was tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and has the same aim. If we are heading towards no deal, revocation seems the most sensible, straightforward and logical course of action. Her amendment would not preclude hon. Members from continuing to pursue a second referendum, as I shall, or from advocating a Norway or Canada-style deal.

I am proud to be voting for the revocation amendment tonight, along with the second referendum amendment that it will enable. I encourage all hon. Members to join me in the Aye Lobby—although I feel that I may be speaking to the converted in this funny debate, in which the Minister, as the only Conservative Member, is looking a little lonely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr McCabe. There have been some terrific contributions in the debate. I particularly appreciated that of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), which was wide ranging and covered a great many points that I very much agreed with. Something that really stuck out was what she said about the very different visions of what Brexit meant and how no one was trying to pull those visions together into some sort of whole. I will address that further in my speech.

The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) spoke of a mirage of Brexit, which I thought was a terrific term. It really describes the nonsense, in some cases, that we were told by those who supported Brexit and which was offered to those who would eventually vote for it. Describing that as a mirage is particularly apt. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke of the country never forgiving and mentioned citizens’ assemblies, which are certainly something that should be considered more closely.

The hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) quite rightly reminded us of the younger generation, of the importance of these decisions for their lives and of how we, as those who are in power now—and of a certain generation, in my case—must remember and consider them at all times. We in this place are creating their future and, frankly, if we pursue this Brexit, it will be a very poor future—I include my own children in that consideration.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) gave a terrific speech, for which I thank him. It was very measured and considered and I agreed with everything that he said. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) reminded us that, ultimately, Brexit is a political choice. That must be remembered during our votes tonight and in all our consideration of this incredibly important issue.

I must highlight in particular the contribution from the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), which was extremely frank. She, too, spoke of the many different versions of Brexit, and her condemnation of the hostility that has arisen in recent weeks hit the nail right on the head. She spoke of the whole Brexit debate unleashing dark forces and division. We must stand up to the far right rather than appease it.

The call rings out from Brexiters that we must respect the will of the people in the 2016 referendum. The question that keeps occurring to me is, “What was the will that was expressed?” For some, it was perhaps the £350 million a week for the NHS, and they may be very disappointed when that does not arrive. For others, it may have been the higher wages that were promised during the leave campaign, which is a benefit that does not seem to be appearing any time soon. Some may have been wooed by the promise to scrap VAT, about which we have heard almost nothing since, or perhaps by the easy-as-pie trade deals, of which we were supposed to have dozens by now. Alternatively, was it the UK-EU trade deal or the new immigration system that we were supposed to have by May next year?

One thing that we still have is the pledge that there will be no change to the operation of the Irish border, as promised in a Vote Leave news release of 1 June 2016 by the right hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and for Witham (Priti Patel). The one promise left standing is the one that seems to be causing all the problems between the Tories and the DUP.

Despite all the fluff and flannel since 2016, it is fairly clear that leave never meant leave and Brexit never meant Brexit. In the blizzard of reasons for voting one way or another, there was never a manifesto; there was never a plan for what happens afterwards; and there was never any vision of the future. No one was selling truth or honesty, but there was plenty of prejudice and imagined slight on offer, and plenty of gung-ho hot-headed invective, but very little sober reflection.

Since then, however, we have all had a chance to take stock. From hearing other hon. Members today, I know that they, like me, have spent time talking to constituents and have received a range of different responses. I have met people who wanted to leave so that our laws would be made at home, but who still wanted to keep freedom of movement. I spoke to one lady who did not like the control that she thought the EU had over our lives, but thought we should have common standards for goods across Europe. There was no settled will of the people, no single movement, and no collective decision-making. There was no plan to vote for, no manifesto to be held to, and no vision of a new constitution. Any politician who says that they are simply respecting the will of the people is actually just hijacking an advisory plebiscite for their own personal or political advantage.

My constituency of Edinburgh North and Leith is decidedly in favour of the EU. More than a quarter of the population signed the online petitions to revoke article 50. That reflects what is said to me across the constituency on a regular basis. People are worried about whether their doctor will still be here in future. They are concerned about whether their neighbours and friends will face pressure to leave. Concerned constituents have made countless representations to me about how the community will be affected if we no longer have the flow of fresh faces and if we cannot hang on to the new Edinburgh North and Leithers that we have currently.

The wife of the regius keeper of the Royal Botanical Gardens in Edinburgh contacted me because she was concerned about her right to stay. She did not work much while she was bringing up their children, but her husband served with distinction in the Marines, and was invalided out at the rank of lieutenant colonel. He is also a member of Her Majesty’s Body Guard of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms, but that cuts no ice. A constituent who does not want to be named because she fears the repercussions came to me in fear of being deported to the EU country that she left as a toddler to come to the UK even before that country joined the Common Market. She raised her family here and looks after her grandchildren while her children work, but her status here is now uncertain.

[Catherine West]

Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a real risk of another Windrush situation developing if the Government do not get a handle on this?

[Deidre Brock]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I hope that the Minister is hearing this, because it greatly concerns many people in my constituency and hers, and across the United Kingdom. The situation needs to be taken a grip of right now, so that those people can be reassured.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Chapman]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s advice, which I am sure he would have given regardless of advice from his colleagues in the Whips Office.

What I interpret from the fact that 6 million people—thousands of them in my constituency—have signed the petition is how concerned, angry and frustrated people are with how the Brexit process has been mishandled by the Government. I do not think there has been the same amount of public support and cut-through for a petition at any other stage in the Brexit process.

[Catherine West]

In the last two weeks, figures have come out showing that Brexit is costing £600 million to £800 million a week. Does my hon. Friend think that might have influenced some people to sign the petition?

[Jenny Chapman]

There is definitely more of a sense of urgency. People feel that if they are to have their voice heard to make their case, they need to do it now, perhaps in a way that they did not feel previously.

No-deal EU Exit Preparations

Catherine West Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Very good. Well done.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I understand that the cost of Brexit has been estimated to be £500 million per week. Does that include the cost of school meals, hospital meals, and meals in social care settings?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am afraid that I do not recognise that figure one bit.

EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Changes

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

My right hon. Friend asks an interesting hypothetical question, but the best thing that we can do this week is to secure a deal that this House can support and then get it through the House so that we can avoid such eventualities and speculations.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

May I press the Minister on the timing of the motion for tomorrow? For those of us wishing to speak in the debate, it would be particularly helpful to have the text of the motion so that we know exactly on what we are going to be voting. Will he please put it out by 5 o’clock today?

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Lady sets a deadline to which I cannot commit, but the Government will bring forward the motion as soon as we can based on the outcome of the negotiations, which are ongoing.

Leaving the European Union

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the e-petition relating to leaving the European Union.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. On behalf of 110,059 petitioners, I rise to present e-petition 219905, which states:

“If there is no agreement to leave the EU then Brexit must be stopped”.

I apologise to everyone if I need to stop and blow my nose. I am suffering with a cold and a cough but I will do my best to keep going.

It is an interesting time to introduce this debate, days after the Prime Minister made a statement to the House about a proposed withdrawal agreement, with statements from all parties and many individual MPs about whether the agreement would be acceptable, and also with the decision by EU members on ratification to come and so many uncertainties. Perhaps this is a good time to be listening to what our 110,000 petitioners feel.

As I arrived in my office today, news reached me of a walk-out by 200 young people from four schools in Northern Ireland, over what they say is the unwillingness of politicians in Westminster to address young people’s grave concerns about the draft Brexit deal. They are calling for a people’s vote.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech to open the debate. Does she agree that young people feel let down by the Brexit vote and that it is the duty of each of us to fight very hard for the future? Does she also agree that, in particular for people in Northern Ireland, where we only ever hear one side of the debate in the House, it is incumbent on each of us to listen very carefully to those young people in Northern Ireland?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. In the expectation that there may be other interventions, can we make them interventions and not speeches?

[Liz Twist]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I certainly agree that we must listen to the voices of young people—I will talk about that in a moment—and that we need to have a full picture.

It is particularly relevant to note the walk-out today because the lead petitioner, Ciaran O’Doherty, is a young man, 15 years of age, who has given a lot of thought to the issue. I have been fortunate to receive a personal email from Ciaran, who lives in Northern Ireland and is very aware of the potential impact of leaving the European Union on his life and that of his family and friends. For him, the debate is not theoretical, but one he feels will have a real impact on his life. Brexit will, of course, affect all our lives, but there is an additional element here, with the focus on the Irish border. It is my job today to present the arguments on behalf of the petitioners and to press the Government on the points that the petition raises.

I would like to deal in turn with each of the matters that the petition raises. First, on deal or no deal, has an agreement been reached with the EU before the deadline for leaving? Then there is the impact of no deal on businesses; the impact of no deal on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland on citizens; and the impact on EU citizens generally. The petitioners go on to say that if no deal has been reached Brexit should be stopped, because of how people, and particularly in Northern Ireland, would be adversely affected. The lead petitioner says that

“leaving with no deal will be very bad for businesses and for the Irish border issue and for EU citizens living here.”

Taking each of the issues in turn, I hope to present the views of the petitioners and seek the Minister’s response.

First, on deal or no deal, has an agreement been reached with the European Union before the deadline for leaving? Do we have a deal or not? The petition is premised on the issue of whether we have a deal and, if so, on whether it addresses the concerns in the petition, particularly those relating to Northern Ireland. Over the next days and weeks there will be much debate in the House and elsewhere about whether the deal set out in the Prime Minister’s statement last Thursday and the provisions in the documents can be agreed. Judging from the long and heated questions following that statement, it appears unlikely that the current proposed withdrawal agreement will be accepted. For Labour, my party, it is clear that the deal fails to meet the six tests we have set out to protect, among other things, the economy, jobs and workers’ rights. Other parties and other Members have their own reasons for finding the deal unacceptable.

The question of the Northern Ireland border is key to the debate, and from where we stand now, it seems highly unlikely that when it comes to the vote in December the agreement will be approved—but, as they say, a week can be a long time in politics. I cannot read the minds of the petitioners, but I wonder whether their concerns for business, for peace in Northern Ireland and for European citizens living in the UK mean that many of them would find the proposed deal acceptable. What is absolutely clear is that they believe that no deal is such a concern that, in the event of that and of their concerns not being met, Brexit must be stopped.

On the impact of no deal on businesses, the petitioners are concerned about how leaving without a deal will affect business in the UK. Many businesses have expressed concern about the uncertainty about arrangements post-Brexit and also about what will happen if we leave the European Union without a deal. There are fears about disruption to just-in-time production methods hampering productivity, fears about transporting goods across borders and backlogs at customs controls, and fears about World Trade Organisation tariffs making businesses less competitive. Those are genuine concerns for many businesses and, of course, it is businesses that create and maintain jobs. The Government say that they are working hard to prepare for a no-deal scenario, but few people think that with less than five months to go before we leave the European Union all those issues can be properly addressed. The petitioners believe that if we face no deal we must stop Brexit.

Turning to the impact of no deal on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, it will be important to address businesses’ fear that no deal would result in a hard border, which could affect Northern Ireland’s future prosperity badly. Northern Ireland’s economy does not stop at the border and neither do the communities on the island. Any barriers may mean the disruption of trade, but they also mean disruption to how people have lived for generations, with families, and in some cases even houses, straddling the border. There is much talk of a technical solution to the customs issues, but does one really exist or are those just fine words that butter none of the metaphorical parsnips? Why is it that no other country in the world uses such technological workarounds, if they really exist and are fit for use? Most important of all is the concern of the lead petitioner and, I am sure, many of the petitioners, about what a hard border might mean for political stability and peace. It took a long time to get to the Good Friday agreement and to where we are today.

Ciaran tells me that he is not old enough to remember the troubles but that his parents do. He and they fear that leaving the EU without a deal will introduce a hard border and be a backward step if we wish to ensure that all people in Northern Ireland are able to live together peacefully. That is not just a concern of Ciaran’s; the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland recently expressed his concerns about the impact of a hard border. For Ciaran and other young people, who thankfully do not remember those earlier times, this must be a real worry and we owe it to them to settle the issue in a thoughtful way that does not put at risk the relative peace and stability of Northern Ireland and does not start to re-erect barriers—real or virtual—that could hamper that.

The petitioners are concerned about the impact of a no-deal Brexit on EU citizens already in the UK. EU citizens are a large part of our workforce in some sectors, and do a great job, whether in agriculture, health, social care or elsewhere. Many European Union citizens have already left the UK, fearing that they will be in a worse position if they stay here.

[Catherine West]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, just over the past 24 hours, two hospital trusts have reported that they are unable to staff their hospitals, and that that is directly influenced by the whole Brexit phenomenon?

[Liz Twist]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the fact that is already happening is of real concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

Absolutely. The Government do not want us to go to the ECJ to get clarification. Regrettably, they are keen to block such action so that we cannot know the answer. The Government have five QCs working on the case, including the top two QCs in the country. I would like to see the bill that the Government will get for trying to hide from Members of Parliament whether article 50 is revocable, because that is what they are trying to do. I think that is incredibly reprehensible.

Lib Dem party policy is that if we reach 29 March without a deal we will seek to revoke article 50 unilaterally. The Government have set out the consequences of no deal in the technical notes, and those consequences are so dire that we need to have such a stop gap to prevent us from falling over the cliff. I am afraid I must briefly touch on Labour party policy. It seems to me that the Labour party has more obstacles than the grand national that have to be crossed or cleared before it will come out formally to support a people’s vote. I know some in the Chamber on the Labour Benches will not support one, but others have already stated their support.

We need to hear from the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson today whether the Labour party will support a people’s vote, because we will quickly get to the vote on the deal. If the Government dare to introduce the motion that was so soundly rubbished by people such as the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood, there will be an amendment calling for a people’s vote. Then the Labour party, which has been playing a little dance—more dances than “Strictly”—will have to come clean to the public, its own Members of Parliament, its own supporters and the large number of people who have joined the party in recent years about whether it will support a people’s vote or will, in fact, aid and abet the Government in crashing us out of the European Union.

[Catherine West]

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether the Liberal Democrats were split two or three ways on the vote on article 50?

[Tom Brake]

I assure the hon. Lady that we will certainly not split three ways. One Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament has some reservations, but I am confident that between now and the vote he will have changed his position, and will fall in line with the position that the party has overwhelmingly adopted.

[Catherine West]

Three ways.

[Tom Brake]

No—that is potentially two ways, but I am confident that we will all be going through the same Division Lobby for this vote. I hope that the Leader of the Labour party will join us. We know that we will end up with either the Government’s deal or no deal if the Labour Front-Bench team does not support a people’s vote. I hope that they will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to speak in this debate.

When is a deal not a deal? When is an agreement just a draft agreement? Here we are, two years after triggering article 50, and Parliament now has before it a document of 500-plus pages that sets out how we will go about leaving the European Union, and a seven-page political declaration about our future beyond that point. It is almost as if we had a technical drawing of the taxi that we will get there in—it might have only three wheels and some of us might not be able to get out at the end, but we will still enjoy ourselves—and only a bland sketch on the back of a napkin of what it will look like where we are going.

That is the context of the petition before us today, which I support and which has been signed by 206 of my constituents. Is it a cry for help—a cry for sense? In the referendum, East Lothian voted by 64.6% to 34.4% to remain in the European Union. That overwhelming majority was reflected across the whole of Scotland. I grant that it was not the view of the whole United Kingdom, but people are very worried about a no-deal Brexit, which is a distinct possibility threatening us if the Prime Minister is unable to get her deal through Parliament in a meaningful vote.

The petition realistically encapsulates the political stalemate between our political Executive and the legislature. Ministers have spent the weekend pushing the idea that this deal is better than no deal. That is a false dichotomy. I remember a time when no deal was better than a bad deal. Hope and expectation rather than cold facts have driven decision makers into this position. At what stage should we hold to account those who promised that such a utopia was down the road, but instead delivered a dog’s dinner—or a dog’s Brexit-fast? It is nonsense to suggest that a democratic decision is binding for ever. People are entitled to change their mind when they find out the facts and when democratic legitimacy is questioned. If no democratic decision could be revisited, Parliament as an institution would be defunct.

[Catherine West]

What is my hon. Friend’s view of the facts that have emerged about how the election was run, particularly the £8 million of electoral funding?

[Martin Whitfield]

It is interesting that as more and more facts become apparent, people’s confidence in politicians seems to be attacked again and again. We seem to fail not only to recognise what has happened in the past, but to offer any way out. What is required is to recover that trust by looking into our constituents’ eyes and saying, “We can sort it.” Whether we leave with a deal or no deal, it is a betrayal of our young people, our communities, our farmers, manufacturers and industry, and our working people. It is a betrayal of people young and old in my constituency of East Lothian.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the timber industries—I refer to my registered interests—I am seriously concerned about the impact of no deal on the timber sector. Last week, I had the privilege of meeting representatives from the Irish timber industry, who spoke about the chaos that could come their way in a no-deal Brexit. They also spoke about the strength of an industry that, over its time in Europe, has created a way of dealing and doing business that means that a piece of wood purchased in B&Q may have started life in the Republic of Ireland, been felled and cut in Northern Ireland, and been transported across the border to be ready in the shop for the purchaser. The additional logistical costs to timber importers will affect not only small businesses across the supply chain, but the wider construction industry, which will play havoc with the Government’s timid housing proposals.

Such worries are spread across every industry. There is a disconcerting sense that the Government believe that they have reached a good deal because they have a seven-page document about the future, but it offers no more certainty or security than a catastrophic no-deal scenario. Neither option provides the certainty or security that my constituents demand, but there is another answer. I believe that, if asked, the people of East Lothian would vote as they did last time—to stay in Europe—but this time it would be a vote for no Brexit.

Let me flesh out my concerns about the no-deal Brexit that will happen if, as expected, the political impasse between the Prime Minister and Parliament cannot be broken. Each impact of leaving without a deal is far worse than not leaving at all—the very essence of the young gentleman’s petition. A no-deal Brexit would put us on WTO terms, which would introduce tariffs and strict standards, potentially blocking businesses from trading across the whole of Europe. We should not leave the EU for that. We would lose frictionless border crossing by people and equipment, and we would lose on-time delivery for manufacturing. We should not leave the EU for that. A no-deal Brexit would threaten the valued rights and protections of workers across Britain. We should not leave the EU for that. It would hamper and harm our environment. We should not leave the EU for that. A no-deal Brexit would put the Union at risk. We should not leave the EU for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I have to take the word of the hon. Member for Wigan about what her counterpart has put on Twitter, because the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood blocks me from viewing her tweets. I do not know why. Is that what the standard of debate has come to—getting blocked by a fellow MP on Twitter just for saying some things they do not agree with?

The hon. Member for Wigan made the point powerfully that the whole Brexit process has worsened what was already an extremely worrying position in British politics. Too many people have lost the ability to disagree without becoming disagreeable. Too many people have lost the ability forcefully and passionately to present a case in disagreement with somebody without resorting to personal insult and abuse. Yes, there are people who would claim to be on my side of the Scottish argument who resort to the same tactics. I will call them out just as quickly as I will call out others.

It is one of the many ironies of this situation that the people on whose behalf appalling abuse was heaped on a small number of Conservative Back Benchers for rebelling on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to help to secure a majority in favour of Parliament being given a vote on the final deal, and in some cases the people who participated in that abuse, would be furious if they were denied the right to vote on a deal that they are not happy about. I believe there is an unanswerable case for asking the people again, this time with an electorate who know exactly what they are being asked to vote on and in a referendum that can be made fair in all regards.

[Catherine West]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if there is a further vote, on this question or any other, we should get to the bottom of the National Crime Agency inquiry, clean up not just the funding but some of the messaging that came out, and learn the lessons from that?

[Peter Grant]

There is no doubt at all that the law in these islands has not kept up with modern campaigning techniques—particularly social media campaigning. There is a legitimate, right and lawful way to use social media to press a political campaign, and there are other ways, which certainly are not moral and should not be legal. We have not yet got the law in the right place for that. In any election, if there are valid and significant questions afterwards as to whether it was fair, the result is tainted for everybody.

For example, we now know there was a dodgy decision-making process about where the World cup would be held in a few years’ time, which tainted that decision immediately. If people are prepared to demand a re-run of a vote about where the World cup would be held, because they think the decision might be a bit dodgy, how much more important is it to at least look at and satisfy ourselves as to whether one of the most important decisions that people in these islands will ever be asked to take was taken fairly, or whether there was serious or criminal misconduct and whether that seriously undermined the legitimacy of the decision.

Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Prime Minister herself has said, “We value your contribution; we thank you for your presence in this country; and we want you to stay,” and I am not quite sure which part of that Opposition Members fail to understand.

Under the withdrawal agreement, any administrative procedures introduced for UK nationals are required to be smooth, transparent and simple, to avoid unnecessary administrative burdens. The Government are working closely with the European Commission and individual member states to confirm the processes that will be in place. We will also be running an information campaign to let UK nationals know of any changes—for example, in how they should access services—and I would recommend that all UK nationals resident in the EU sign up for exit-related updates on gov.uk. They can also find a country-specific living-in guide for their member state of residence.

I should like to turn now to the implementation period. The Government are committed to providing certainty—

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way before she goes on to her next paragraph. I want to ask a question about family rights. Quite rightly, EU citizens have asked, “If my mother is very ill, could she come to the United Kingdom to be looked after?” Can the Minister give us clarification on the question of elderly parents who wish to join their children here in the UK who are currently EU citizens?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am well used to the hon. Lady asking questions that are slightly out of left field, but I fail to see how the Opposition can give an opinion on whether we will back a deal about which we do not know the full details and which is still being negotiated. We will faithfully apply our six tests when the deal comes before us, as we all hope it will.

The political gimmickry must stop, and when we approach this next Bill, we hope that the Government will focus on what is the most effective way to legislate for the issues in hand, but there is good reason to fear that that same short-termism—a myopic approach driven by whatever will buy Ministers a few days or weeks of respite from the predations of the European Research Group—could stand in the way of a sensible resolution to those parts of the withdrawal agreement on which no agreement has yet been reached. It is to that issue that I shall now turn.

As Members will know, several aspects of the agreement remain unresolved, of which the two biggest are the mechanism for settling future disputes and the Irish border. It is on the second of these that I shall focus, because the issue of how we avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland is clearly now the major sticking point to concluding a withdrawal agreement. We can talk as much as we like today, and on future days, about how Parliament will legislate for a withdrawal agreement, but if the issue of the Irish border is not resolved, there will not be a final deal to legislate for.

[Catherine West]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it comes down to what happened last Christmas in relation to the Northern Ireland question, and that we are again getting obfuscation after obfuscation? We are never getting to the point of what the actual deal for Northern Ireland is.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I shall come on to say, we need urgent, rapid progress on this issue, given the time constraints that we face.

Many Brexiteers—although, I must make clear, not all—continue to belittle the Irish border issue on the grounds that it is a problem that has been exaggerated by nefarious Brussels bureaucrats or those at home who seek a close future relationship with the EU. Having initially dismissed the issue as posing no threat to the peace process, they now seek to talk down the Good Friday agreement. Their behaviour is not only irresponsible, but misunderstands the significance of the open border as the manifestation of peace on the island of Ireland. The border is a deeply political problem, not just a technical problem. It is about not merely how we avoid a hardening of the border, but how we ensure continued co-operation in a range of areas—economic and social as well as political—as set out in the Good Friday agreement.

Anxiety on both sides of the border and across all communities about the risk of no deal, or the failure to agree a legally binding backstop, is very real, and it is growing. Of course, the best means of solving the issue would be to secure agreement on a future relationship that is compatible with protecting north-south co-operation and avoiding a hard border, thereby ensuring that any legally binding backstop that might be agreed will never be used, yet the ideological red lines that the Prime Minister outlined in her Lancaster House speech are fundamentally incompatible with securing a future relationship of that kind.

Vote Leave Campaign: Electoral Law

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent opening speech. On the point about people attending Committees, does he agree that the social media element has an impact on the close scrutiny that we need, not just of ourselves as Members of Parliament, but of elections in general? Because it is so new, it adds confusion and layers of fake news, making it even more difficult for the average citizen or voter to get to the bottom of what the truth is.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s observation. I do not think anyone would dispute the layers of complexity and difficulty, and the greater difficulty presented by social media. For some of us who have been grappling with electoral law over many years, social media makes it a whole lot more difficult, and I suspect we all know that we will need to update our procedures to try to cope with the challenges that are posed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making those points. I quite understand that there is another, more attractive option coming up soon in the other Chamber, and I will be in no way offended if he leaves. On his point about whether there can be an independent arbiter, I am slightly dubious. We are all sufficiently experienced, even in local contests, to know that that would be a difficult thing to set up. I would worry about it. We have all seen examples where all candidates are given an equal space in a booklet, and we have perhaps noted that that is not necessarily the bit that cuts through to the electorate in comparison with reporting from other sources. It is a difficult area, and I have some scepticism about his proposals, although there may be some value in exploring the checking of statistics.

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend is generous in giving way to me for a second time. Does he agree that if there is a referendum and the Government of the day say that they will implement whatever the people decide, there should at least be a briefing in the Library of the House of Commons the day after the referendum goes one way or the other so that those of us who are rather surprised by the result know what the Government intend to do?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank my hon. Friend for her suggestion. I am just remembering some bleary-eyed politicians trying to recalibrate in the middle of the night, and I am wondering how quickly such a briefing note could be produced accurately. This is a theme of what I have been saying, but I am not sure that one can design legal systems to cope with all these things. In the end, these are political judgments, and we live in a democracy with a fair amount of hurly-burly and a free press, as there should be. We do not want our elections and decisions being bought by money and external states. That is the worry, and that is the difference from some of the problems we have had in the past.

I will make some progress and move on to the separate but related question of article 50 and the ongoing debate as to whether it is rescindable. Lord Kerr was responsible for drafting article 50 as secretary-general to the European Convention in 2002-03 and is frequently quoted on this issue. Last year, he said that article 50 was revocable. That interpretation is supported by Jean-Claude Piris, former legal counsel to the European Council. Marie Demetriou QC, Jessica Simor QC and Tim Ward QC have written a joint legal opinion, which they have sent to the Prime Minister, in which they conclude that article 50 can be withdrawn before 29 March 2019 without the need to seek the agreement of the other EU member states. They also say that if that happened, the UK would retain its membership and privileges. The joint legal opinion notes that the wording in article 50 refers to a decision to notify an intention to withdraw. The QCs argue that an intention is not a binding commitment; it can be changed or withdrawn.

While legal arguments continue on the matter, in political terms the French Government have stated that they would welcome the UK staying in the EU on the current terms. EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Council President Donald Tusk have both said that Brexit is reversible. Lots of people have said lots of things over a period of time. When it comes down to it, I suspect that it is the political will of law- makers that counts here. However, it has been made very clear to us that we are welcome to stay, should we wish.

I have tried to present the petition in an even-handed and fair way, even though everyone already knows where I am going with my speech. In many people’s view, June 2016 was not a great example of a mature democracy working at its best. We know that in our system, referendums are used mainly by Prime Ministers who are in a fix, trapped by divisions within their own party. That was most certainly the case in 2016. Although I have not an ounce of sympathy for David Cameron, he must wonder every day how it came to this. In 2016, the country was hideously divided on the issue, but a decision was made. Two and a half years on, it looks as though we face another difficult decision: to accept whatever deal can finally be arrived at, or not. That is a different question from the one that was posed in 2016. I have argued this afternoon that the law around referendums should be changed to make them consistent with other electoral processes.

Almost 200,000 petitioners and many, many more in the country feel very strongly that the 2016 decision, close as it was, was sullied by actions that have been proven by the Electoral Commission to be unlawful. It may be Parliament’s responsibility or fault that the law is inconsistent, but many of the people we represent feel that the law has not provided adequate recompense for wrongdoings, and that is the force of the petition. That the law was broken is not in doubt, but alongside that, many believe that the campaign was grossly misleading. What was offered by Vote Leave and other leave campaigns is not what is being delivered, and as with parties that renege on their manifestos, the country will not forgive the political system and the politicians who allow this to happen.

The two strands—breaking spending limits and misleading people—are separate issues, but for many people the two are inextricably linked. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who is the grandson of Winston Churchill, told the House in the urgent question on this matter in July that

“one of the great glories of this sadly now diminished country was our electoral and democratic system…I say…that if we are to retain the integrity and the trust of the voting public, the whole damn thing needs to be blown and started all over again.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 228-229.]

The point is very well made. To maintain trust in our democracy, a political response is needed, and that political response is to ensure that justice is done and that we have a people’s vote.

The petition mentions article 10.3 of the Lisbon treaty, which states:

“Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.”

I do not want to leave the EU; I have been explicit on that point. I truly believe that the economic, social and political damage that leaving would do to our country—hitting the most vulnerable the hardest—could be mitigated by remaining in and reforming the EU. Tackling the underlying causes here at home is the way to truly bring back control to the people, not to the bankrollers of election campaigns, but while having the conversation about our future relationship with the European Union, it is worth reflecting again on article 10.3. It states:

“Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.”

That was not what happened in the EU referendum campaign, where electoral rules were broken, a limited franchise excluded those who would be most affected and the question allowed people to vote on what they did not want, but then said nothing about the kind of relationship that should be put in place. As many have said, as we slam the door shouting “We’re leaving”, we are unable to answer the obvious retort, “So where do you think you’re going to?”.

To help our fractured society to move back towards the higher ideals of genuine informed participation in democratic life, it is right to consider the experiences of the past two and a half years since the country went to the polls, as well as the poll itself, and to look at what was promised then and what is being delivered now. It is right to wonder whether we can do better. People have the right to know the price tag before they pay the bill. I am absolutely convinced we can do better. We all know so much more now than we did back in 2016. My solution to the conundrum raised by the 200,000 petitioners is simple. We have an opportunity not to revisit 2016—not to have a rerun, despite the wrongdoing—but to have a new vote on the issue that lies before us. It would be a people’s vote, which would give the people a genuine choice to decide on their future: whether to take the deal, whatever is negotiated, or to reject it and so stay in the European Union.