All 2 Debates between Charlie Elphicke and Matthew Pennycook

Tue 7th Feb 2017

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Matthew Pennycook
Tuesday 12th June 2018

(6 years, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook Portrait Matthew Pennycook
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My right hon. Friend makes a good point.

Lords amendment 19 is about trusting this sovereign House of Commons to do what is right for the country should it come to pass that the Government bring back a deal that does not secure approval in this House.

Matthew Pennycook Portrait Matthew Pennycook
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I will not give way.

By contrast, the Government’s amendment (a) in lieu of amendment 19 would guarantee precisely the opposite. It would ensure that in the event that this House does not approve the withdrawal agreement, Parliament would have almost no role whatsoever.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Matthew Pennycook
Matthew Pennycook Portrait Matthew Pennycook
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The honest answer is that we do not know. As I will come on to mention, other organisations are doing this analysis. There is not a vacuum out there, and the Government could quite easily publish their analysis to help inform the debate.

I hope that the Minister does not simply echo those who have argued and will argue that publishing any information would undermine the Government’s negotiating strategy. We heard that argument prior to the Government conceding a speech and a White Paper, and we will no doubt hear it in the months ahead. I say to hon. Members who take that view, whether out of genuine concern or simply because they in effect want the legislature to shut up shop for the next 18 months, that the detailed analysis of the kind that we are asking to be published is out there. Other organisations are doing it—not just the Government.

Charlie Elphicke Portrait Charlie Elphicke
- Hansard - -

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with care. As I understand it, new clause 5 seeks to make the triggering of article 50 conditional on an impact assessment being laid before the House. However, the triggering of article 50 should be conditional on a vote of the British people, which took place last year. This is simply an attempt to delay.

Matthew Pennycook Portrait Matthew Pennycook
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

To be fair, I dealt with that earlier in my remarks when I said that the new clause is not an attempt to delay because we know that the Government have already carried out impact assessments. The idea that no impact assessments will be published throughout the course of the negotiations is farcical. We could have them up front, which would help to inform debate.