Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications)

Debate between Chris Philp and Keir Starmer

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

If we were sitting, that would be a question that the Prime Minister could answer, not me. However, we will not be sitting, there will be no questions, and the Liaison Committee will not sit at the very point when we need maximum scrutiny.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

A moment or two ago, the right hon. and learned Gentleman drew attention to the difficulty of passing a Queen’s Speech with a Government majority of minus 43. In such circumstances, would not a general election be the constitutionally proper thing to settle the matter? Will he therefore be voting for one, as the Leader of the Opposition promised last Wednesday, later this evening?

[Keir Starmer]

I am sure that we will have a general election soon, but not at the cost of a no-deal Brexit, which will so damage this country.

The second issue addressed in the motion is the Yellowhammer documents. I wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 25 August—a fortnight ago now—calling for the publication of the documents when Parliament returned after the summer recess. I have not yet received a reply. Instead of any publication, we have had an update, with no supporting documents and no significant new information.

Article 50 Extension

Debate between Chris Philp and Keir Starmer

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

The immediate concern is that the Prime Minister does not appear to be acting in accordance with her own motion of last week, but the deeper problem, which is what I am most concerned about, is that the Prime Minister still thinks that the failed strategy of the past two years, “My deal or no deal”—a blinkered approach with no changes and no room for Parliament—should be pursued for another three months. In other words, all she will do is use the three months in exactly the same way to bring back the deal over and over again—or as many times as she can without breaching the rules of the House—and try to force it through. That is the strategy that she has been pursuing throughout these negotiations and it has failed badly. We must not allow another three months to be used up on the same approach.

The letter sent by the Prime Minister this morning makes two requests to the Council—that it approves the documents agreed in Strasbourg on 11 March, and that it allows three months for the Prime Minister to get the same deal through Parliament. If I have read and understood the letter properly, I think the Prime Minister may be planning to bring the deal back on the basis that the documents that were before us last time have now been approved formally at the Council, and that some domestic arrangements have been agreed with possibly other parties, which means that she can then say that the deal can now be put to another vote, notwithstanding the fact that the documents on the table are exactly the same as the ones that we voted on last week. Obviously, that will raise the issue as to whether that is in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, which will have to be addressed at the time.

The letter continues,

“it remains my intention to bring the deal back to the House.”

That is not a new deal, but the same deal. That is extraordinary, given how the House voted last week. It does not reflect the motion that was passed. Paragraph (2) of the motion clearly mentioned a short technical extension if the deal was passed by today—that was when the Prime Minister had the intention of bringing the deal back for today—or a longer extension if that was not the case.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. He said a few moments ago that there was no point in asking for an extension, particularly a long one, in the absence of a clear purpose. I gather from those remarks that he thinks a long extension is appropriate; can he confirm that? If he does think it is appropriate, will he tell the House what his purpose would be?

[Keir Starmer]

As I said earlier, I will get to purpose a little later in my speech.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between Chris Philp and Keir Starmer

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to make some progress.

I have been concentrating on the economic issues, but there are wider issues in relation to no deal. There is Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State spoke about Northern Ireland, and we all know how serious the implications are for Northern Ireland. No deal is a risk to the Good Friday agreement. The Government’s own EU exit paper makes that clear.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

No! [Interruption.] I did not mean that rudely; it is just that I do need to make some progress.

The “EU Exit” paper from the Government last year said that

“WTO terms would not meet the Government’s commitments to ensure no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.”

A hard border cannot be allowed to happen, and I do not think this Prime Minister or the Government would countenance that happening.

On security and counter-terrorism, as hon. Members know, intelligence and evidence passes across EU borders in real time every day and it saves real lives. That can only happen subject to agreements with the EU27—that is the basis for passing such information and intelligence—but we also need agreements to decide to what use we can put that evidence and intelligence and, crucially, to plan joint operations. I know that because for five years, as the Director of Public Prosecutions, I was part of that exercise in Eurojust. I know how seriously the Prime Minister takes this because I worked with her when she was Home Secretary, and she knows full well how that such provisions save real lives. A no-deal puts that at risk. No responsible Government would take that risk, and if they did take such a risk, they would not remain in government for long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that opportunity to speak about Northern Ireland, but I must now press on and talk about the impact on health matters.

A no-deal would have a huge impact on our health service. It would put real strain on an already underfunded NHS, by disrupting medical supplies, access to medicines and the ability of hospitals to hire staff. Niall Dixon, the chief executive of the NHS Confederation, has said:

“A ‘no-deal’ without alternative arrangements to protect patients is simply not acceptable and could put lives at risk.”

[Chris Philp]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

No, I am going to make progress.

Farming would also be badly hit. The National Farmers Union has been clear—I think it set this out this morning—that the proposed tariff regime would be a disaster for UK agriculture, stating that

“everything must to be done to avoid a no deal Brexit, and the catastrophic impact this could have on British farming.”

I am not quoting the voices of politicians here; I am quoting the voices of those in the field in each of these areas.

Finally, as if the Transport Secretary has not struggled enough already, imagine how he would deal with a no-deal scenario, which would bring chaos to transport. Hauliers would face hours of delay as new checks would be put in place at borders, and family holidays could be jeopardised by a no-deal Brexit as British travel companies lose their current access and rights.

Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)

Debate between Chris Philp and Keir Starmer

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House finds Ministers in contempt for their failure to comply with the requirements of the motion for return passed on 13 November 2018, to publish the final and full legal advice provided by the Attorney General to the Cabinet concerning the EU Withdrawal Agreement and the framework for the future relationship, and orders its immediate publication.

I move this motion in my name and in the names of the relevant spokespeople for the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats, the Democratic Unionist party, Plaid Cymru and the Green party.

The issue before the House on this motion is very simple: have the Government complied with the order made by this House on 13 November this year to publish the final and full legal advice by the Attorney General to the Cabinet concerning the EU withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship, yes or no? That order was binding. Mr Speaker, on 13 November I sought your advice on that issue and you ruled in the following terms:

“The ruling I give is simply that the motion is effective—I have been advised thus. It is not just an expression of the opinion of the House; it is an expression of the will of the House that certain documents should be provided to it.”—[Official Report, 13 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 236.]

Yesterday, the Government published a reasoned position paper. That was not legal advice. It simply described the deal: it was a synopsis; it was in the nature of an explainer—an explainer having already been published when the deal was published. It was a long way from legal advice. The Attorney General made a statement to the House and then answered questions, but the Government did not publish the full and final advice by the Attorney General to the Cabinet. That is the long and short of it. The Government are wilfully refusing to comply with a binding order of this House, and that is contempt.

Yesterday, the Attorney General as good as admitted it when he said:

“I wish that I could comply with the request of this House but if I did, I sincerely believe that it would not be in all of our interests.”

And slightly later he said:

“although the House says that I should disclose, I believe that the public interest compels me not to. I am sorry.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 534 and 564.]

That is a plea of mitigation; it is not a defence.

I make three points about the Government’s position. First, as the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) made clear yesterday, for the Attorney General to say that in his view it is not in the national interest is not good enough. The hon. Member for North East Somerset went on to say:

“When the Government lose a vote, they must follow the will of this House under an Humble Address, according to all precedent. It is no longer a matter for the Government to judge; it has been decided by this House, which is a higher authority.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 563.]

My second point is this: if the Attorney General feels so strongly about this matter that he is prepared now to put the Government in contempt of Parliament for refusing to comply with a binding order, why on earth did he not vote against the order in the first place, or anybody else on the Government Benches? That was not an oversight: the Government knew very well what was being asked for. The Attorney General must have known what was being debated and voted on. Yet it appears from answers given by the Attorney General yesterday that he was not asked before that vote for his view on the wisdom of not voting against the order, nor did he offer any advice, directly or indirectly.

Again I quote the Attorney General:

“I had no discussions with the Chief Whip on this subject. None was sought.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 569.]

I do not doubt the Attorney General’s word for a minute, but really—before that vote nobody asked the Attorney General’s views on the consequence of not opposing the order?

The truth is that the decision not to oppose the order was a political decision, taken by the Government because they feared they would lose the vote. They did not want the short-term humiliation of losing a vote, and the price of that was higher than voting against the order—and none of them did that. That is not the first time that has happened.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will in a moment.

For months the Government have ignored Opposition day motions, and now their tactic has got them into very deep water indeed. The Government cannot now come to this House and say, “We took a political decision not to oppose the making of the order to publish the full and final legal advice by the Attorney General and then we took a decision not to comply with that order, but somehow we are not in contempt of Parliament.”

My third point is about the Government’s amendment in the name of the Leader of the House asking this House to refer the matter of whether the Government’s response fulfils the motion to the Privileges Committee. The short point is this: there is nothing to refer. A binding order was made and the Government are refusing to comply with it. The reality is that, yet again, by their amendment the Government are simply playing for time in the hope that this ends up in the long grass until the crucial vote is long gone.

So this motion is extremely important. It has huge constitutional and political significance. Bringing the motion is not something I have done lightly. [Interruption.] On the contrary—[Interruption.] On the contrary—[Interruption.] On the contrary—[Interruption.] On the contrary—[Interruption.]

Exiting the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments

Debate between Chris Philp and Keir Starmer

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

The motion requires—some would say, compels—the Government to release the reports in their entirety, unredacted. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) just made that point. Yet a consensus appears to have emerged in this House this afternoon that it would be detrimental to our national interest to release these reports in their entirety. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) acknowledged that in his opening remarks.

[Keir Starmer]

What I said in my opening was in criticism of the blanket ban. I said that the Government should consider first whether any of the material needs to be withheld and, if so, whether bits of it could be released—summaries or gists. I was criticising the Government’s approach because they had not already gone through that exercise, which they should have gone through; I was not actually talking about what the motion means.

[Chris Philp]

Many Members today have made it clear that they believe publication of either a summary or a redacted version would strike the best balance between keeping the House informed and protecting our national interest. I was going to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, if the Minister from the Dispatch Box made a commitment to publish a summary or a redacted version of these reports, the Opposition Front-Bench team would decide not to press the motion to a vote, because if passed as written, there is a danger that it would compel the Government to publish all the reports that Members on both sides of the House appear to agree would be damaging. It would be damaging for two reasons. First, contributors to those reports—companies—would have their commercial information revealed, even though the Government had given them an undertaking of confidentiality. Secondly, publication would reveal our position to our negotiating counterparts.

There is, I am afraid, a history of confidential material leaking out of Select Committees. Although the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), said that he would seek to prevent any confidential material leaking out, that has happened on a number of occasions in the recent past. In 2012, a Culture, Media and Sport Committee report on phone hacking was leaked. In 2016, a Select Committee report on arms export controls was leaked to “Newsnight”. In 1999, a social security report was leaked to Gordon Brown’s then Parliamentary Private Secretary. Robin Cook received a leak in 1999 in relation to the Foreign Affairs Committee, and in 2013 a Public Accounts Committee report on Wonga was leaked to Wonga. So there are legitimate concerns about whether material given to a Select Committee will necessarily remain confidential.

There has been a measure of consensus in the House this afternoon that a redacted or summary version of these reports would strike the correct balance. It may be that the Minister gives an undertaking from the Dispatch Box along those lines, and it would be in the national interest if, in the event that Members in the Opposition Front-Bench team found those assurances satisfactory, they did not press their motion.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Chris Philp and Keir Starmer

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I will complete this point, and then I will give way.

I was glad to see that the Prime Minister was here earlier. Yesterday, during Prime Minister’s Question Time, she told the House that “the approach”—the Government’s approach to the Bill—

“has been endorsed by the House of Lords Constitution Committee.” —[Official Report, 6 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 148.]

I read the report again last night, and I have doubts about that endorsement.