Business of the House

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I do rather agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that. This is not the main burden of what I want to say today, but I share what may be his regret that about two and a half years ago, the Government did not take steps to create a cross-party consensus on this matter. The Irish Taoiseach did exactly that and put himself in a much stronger position as a result. When all this is over and hopefully we have arrived at some sensible way to deal with the whole Brexit issue, I hope that the whole nation will learn that lesson and we will realise that when we have great national undertakings, it makes sense to try to get a cross-party consensus about how to take them forward.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), what assurances can we have that the business of the House motion that we will be asked to support on Monday will not also include another paragraph (2), which seeks to book a third day for indicative votes and a subsequent motion? I believe that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) referred to it as “daisy-chaining” in a briefing. If that is the case, can the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) be up front about it? Also, what does he think is going to change between today and Monday? Every Member of this House has had the opportunity to table a motion with their thoughts on the way forward. Every Member of this House will have the chance to vote on it in an up and down straight vote, with no knock-out rounds. Will we not just repeat ourselves on Monday with the same potential options and the same votes, with the same arguments?

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman, who has played an important part throughout these proceedings, raises both of those points, because they are ones that I wanted to come to anyway. Let me come to them in response to him rather than taking them later.

On the first question of whether there may be later stages beyond Monday, I do not believe that there needs to be any further round of voting after Monday on motions or propositions. I want to be very clear that I have said this to the hon. Gentleman so that he cannot later complain that there was any concealment at all, which is not part of our intention: I believe that if a majority for a particular proposition does emerge on Monday, as I very much hope that it will for reasons that I am about to come to, and if the Government do not immediately signal that they are willing to implement the majority view of the House of Commons at that point and if the Government have not by then—as I hope they have, although others may not—achieved a vote in favour of MV3, I think it would make sense for the House to move to the position of beginning to legislate to mandate the implementation of that majority. I think that would be a reasonable proceeding at that stage. It is only possible if we reach a majority view, of course.

I come now to the hon. Gentleman’s second point, which was the question of why Monday will be any different from today. The difference lies in two facts. This will be the first opportunity after a very long time—the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) made this point—for the House of Commons, in an orderly way, to have the opportunity to express the views of Members in votes on specific propositions and for us all to see the lie of the land. When politicians do that, they very often discover that there is a basis for compromise and further informal, offline discussion that can lead to the crystallisation of majorities. In addition, it may be possible to structure the following Monday in a way that precipitates a majority, which it has not been the intention to do today. Today is purely indicative votes, and this is put today in a plain, vanilla way, so that everyone simply votes for all the things that they want to vote for and against all the things that they want to vote against, and we will see what the numbers are. This is purely a first set of indications.

Business of the House

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced his plans yesterday, if we do achieve a smooth transition out of the European Union, to significantly allow investments in some of our key public services, because of the achievements of our economy and all those who have worked so hard to minimise the damage done by the last Labour Government. I pay tribute to all those teaching support staff who do so much for all our children and young people. She will be aware that the core schools budget will rise to £43.5 billion next year—its highest ever level—and that overall per-pupil funding is being protected in real terms. As well as that, we are introducing a national funding formula to make sure that schools and pupils are fairly and consistently funded.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Organisations such as Best for Britain and People’s Vote UK look, operate and sound a bit like political parties, and I believe, therefore, that they should be subject to the tax and regulatory requirements of the United Kingdom. So imagine my surprise when my office started receiving these postcards, all postmarked from Guernsey, which, last time I checked, was a non-EU tax haven. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Cabinet Office Minister to make a statement on how the regulation of pseudo-political parties in this country operates, so that they are truly transparent?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point and he is absolutely right to do that. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), is in the Chamber and will have heard his comments, but we also have Electoral Commission questions next Thursday week—28 March—and I encourage him to raise his question there.

Business of the House

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

As I have now said a number of times, we have come forward with the proposal that the Prime Minister set out two weeks ago that in the event that the meaningful vote is declined today, we will set out tomorrow a motion enabling the House to decline to leave the European Union without a deal and without a future political declaration, and should the House decline to leave the EU without a deal, then on the following day we will bring forward a motion asking the House whether it wishes to have a short extension. That is the process that the Prime Minister set out, and that is what we will be doing.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

If, on Thursday, the House were to determine an extension past 26 May, then, according to the letters exchanged between Mr Juncker and Michel Barnier, there would have to be participation in European elections, which I for one would not support. If the House were to choose that, would a funding contingency be put in place, since there would be a large cost to the public purse for elections that I do not think we should be participating in?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. As the Prime Minister has said on numerous occasions, the only way to truly take no deal off the table is to agree a deal or to revoke article 50. The House has consistently rejected the former, and the latter would overturn the result of the referendum. However, if the House votes for an extension, the Prime Minister will seek to agree the extension that the House has requested with the European Union, and she will then bring forward the necessary legislation to change the exit date, commensurate with that extension. But the hon. Gentleman is exactly right; that may have significant costs associated with it and conditions put upon it by other members of the European Union. These are all imponderables as we stand here today.

Business of the House

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am sad to have to report to the House that Stoke-on-Trent City Council has developed a rather nasty habit of creating wholly owned companies, shovelling public money into them and then denying any proper public transparency or scrutiny of the decisions they make on spending that money. On Unitas and Fortior Homes in the city, we are now being told as MPs that freedom of information requests simply do not apply because they are commercial entities. Will the Leader of the House speak to her colleagues in either the Cabinet Office or the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and ask them to bring forward the necessary legislation to ensure that, where public money is involved—whether that be a wholly owned company or a company under contract—scrutiny will apply.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion will be very popular. He is exactly right that the use of public money has to offer good value to taxpayers. Scrutiny is therefore essential so that people can see how their hard-earned taxpayers’ money is being used. We have MHCLG questions on Monday, and I recommend that the hon. Gentleman raises the matter directly with Ministers then.

Business of the House

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady raises an important point, and it is vital that resources are shared appropriately when they can be, to ensure that all our citizens receive appropriate levels of support from our police and other emergency services. I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can raise the matter directly with Ministers.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Leader of the House’s responsibilities for the restoration and renewal project mean that she has a great opportunity to shape one of the biggest public sector procurement exercises over the next generation. With that in mind, how will she ensure that once this palace is renewed, it is stuffed to the rafters with the best of British manufacturing? When it comes to ceramics—[Laughter.] Yes, I am predictable, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and I would be more than happy to facilitate conversations between the ceramics industry and architects here to ensure that, whether for pipes, plates, teapots or tiles, Stoke-on-Trent has its place in the new palace.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

Business of the House

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is an important point, colleagues, that was raised by the Leader of the House quizzically with me, and I have been confirmed in my sense that it was a metaphorical use of the term, and when I say I have been confirmed in that sense, I mean that I have been confirmed in that sense by professional advice of the highest order. So no impropriety has occurred. I have no objection to being asked whether there was an impropriety, but there was no impropriety at all.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Following the news this week about Interserve, the previous collapse of Carillion and the repeated failures of Capita, will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister from the Cabinet Office to come and make a statement about the functions of the Crown Representative system, which is meant to be the link between Government and strategic suppliers? When we see these large companies failing to fulfil their contracts, something is clearly not working in the scrutiny process.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a really important point. After the collapse of Carillion, it was clear that the Government wanted to carry out further reviews to ensure that public service provision and taxpayers’ money were protected at all times, and they have taken a number of steps to achieve that. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Cabinet Office questions will take place next Wednesday, and I encourage him to raise the matter with Ministers then.

Business of the House

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, Mr Snell is wearing a most engaging tie.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] My shirt is not tucked in. My late grandmother would be appalled that I was not correctly attired.

Last week, I asked the Leader of the House whether she could use her offices and influence to help progress Lord McColl’s Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill. She told me that she was tabling extra days for private Members’ Bills, but she will know that the list of private Members’ Bills waiting to be heard is so long that Lord McColl’s Bill may not make it through. May I ask her again to use her influence to try to get the Bill at least into Committee, so that it can be scrutinised by Members of this House?

[Andrea Leadsom]

First, may I say that I think the hon. Gentleman looks entirely smart?

Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

It has been said more than once in this debate that this is the high court of Parliament. My constituents, and anyone else watching the debate, might assume that that is some historical nicety or arcane expression, but it is far more important than that. In the context of these proceedings, this court has the ability to achieve the conviction, punishment and disgrace of one of our number. Therefore, it is critical that when it does so, it complies with what we might think are natural rules of fairness and, in the present context, other important statutory limits—most obviously, of course, the European convention on human rights.

Why does that matter? Any court, be it the magistrates court, the Crown Court, the High Court or the Court of Appeal, must ensure that its proceedings are fair. Never is that more important than here in the high court of Parliament. It is no defence to say, “Well, we are seeking to condemn the Government as a whole.” In the court of public opinion, assumptions and judgments will be made about precisely who is being identified. If anyone has any doubt about that, it is made clear in the press that is already circulating on social media who it is who stands to be condemned.

In those circumstances, we need to be careful to ensure that what is taking place is truly fair. If these were criminal proceedings in a normal court—the magistrates court or the Crown Court—the first question would be what precisely is being charged. What is the matter that is being breached? I suggest that there is serious confusion about what was ordered on the last occasion—the proceedings on 13 November. The written motion before the House on that day stated:

“That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the following papers be laid before Parliament: any legal advice in full”.

In the course of those proceedings, an attempt was made—perfectly properly, no doubt—to seek to amend that motion.

The document submitted to the House yesterday states that

“During the debate on that motion Labour’s frontbench made it clear that: ‘the motion requires the publication of the final and full advice’”.

Leaving to one side for a moment precisely what is meant by “final and full”, and leaving aside whether those two adjectives are capable of pulling in different directions, I suggest that some confusion must remain about what exactly happened. There were two hon. Members who sought to clarify what it was that we were being asked to vote on—my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who is in her place. It was you, Mr Speaker, who said:

“Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. It might profit her and all Members of the House if they listen to the development of the argument in which the shadow Secretary of State is engaged. Frankly, it is not really very confusing at all. There is a motion, and Members can read the motion and form their own view of it.”

In that remark, it seemed to me that you were saying, “Look at the text: it is tolerably plain.” But then my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) said:

“I am deeply unclear—are you asking for publication of the final advice”—

which is what was being proposed orally—

“or of any legal advice”.—[Official Report, 13 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 193-96.]

Although it is not necessarily for me to give evidence, there was a state of some confusion at the end of the proceedings on 13 November about precisely what had been ordered. That matters because the wording that appears in this motion is the latter, not the former. In other words, it is what is amended. That is significant because, if we are applying the European convention, proceedings must be fair under article 6, and article 7 says that there must be no punishment without law. In other words, it must be crystal clear precisely what law is alleged to have been contravened. I want to make the basic point that there was considerable confusion in the House about precisely what had been ordered.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I remember being here when that debate happened, and there was initially some confusion, but if such confusion reigned, why did the Government not oppose the motion at that time? It is all well and good to say now that it was unclear, but that was not the argument that was progressed at the time.

[Alex Chalk]

Respectfully, that is not right. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said at the time:

“I am deeply unclear—are you asking for publication of the final advice or of any legal advice in full that has happened during the entire negotiation? [Interruption.] With due respect, I am being asked for my vote regarding the motion on the Order Paper. Are you asking for what is on the Order Paper, which is,

“any legal advice in full”—

that is, during the whole negotiation?”—[Official Report, 13 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 196.]

At that point, Mr Speaker rightly intervened to ask who my hon. Friend was referring to, and so it went on. The matter was not clear. Given the importance of these proceedings, and the potential impact on one or more individuals, is it not right that the House should be crystal clear about what is on the indictment, so to speak?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

Well, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was tarting his letter around this place on Thursday, trying to get signatures in order to instigate contempt proceedings. He may not have put it in the envelope and got the stamp out, but he had the letter drafted. The Attorney-General had only been on his feet for about 20 minutes when the letter was handed in to say, “Let us have a contempt motion.” I have heard of a judge trying to come to the final judgment, but not when the prosecution or the defence are still trying to make their case. It begs the question what sort of a lawyer the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras made.

I have also heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) make an incredibly powerful case in support of privilege. They did so during the course of the Investigatory Powers Bill, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I both sat on the Bill Committee, and he was absolutely right to talk about the sanctity of privilege. In that case, it was with respect to the lawyer-client relationship and the relationship between a journalist and their source. But it now seems that he wants to cherry-pick which bits of privilege are important.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

I will not because I am very conscious of time.

This is a parlour game. We are not going to play it. We are going to support the Government’s amendment and we are then going to move on to do what this country is expecting us to do—that is, to debate the exit of this country from the European Union with the sobriety and seriousness that the issue demands.

Business of the House

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady raises the tragic helicopter crash in Glasgow. All right hon. and hon. Members would want to send their condolences to the families and friends of all those who died, and we always hope and pray that such a thing never reoccurs. On this important anniversary, we send our very best wishes.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

To their credit, the Government have led on the reduction of modern slavery. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the announcement by the Home Office are welcome, but the Leader of the House will know that the noble Lord McColl’s Bill, the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill, is currently languishing at the bottom of the list of private Members’ Bills on Fridays. Could I encourage her, through her offices, to use whatever mechanism might be available to her to allow the Bill to progress at least to Committee? Many Members across the House would wish to support it, and I know that the Government, given their particular wording earlier in the year, would want to offer their support as well.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the importance of private Members’ Bills. The Government certainly support the need for them and are very keen to ensure that progress is made. He will be aware that I have tabled a revised motion to give the House an additional six sitting Fridays for private Members’ Bills and that the Opposition have tabled an amendment to that motion to reduce it back to five. I remain very keen for the House to have those additional days to debate private Members’ Bills, and discussions continue through the usual channels.

Business of the House

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 15th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Gareth Snell.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker—what a surprise to be called. [Interruption.] It is lovely to have friends, isn’t it?

In her answers to other questions, not least that from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the Leader of the House rightly outlined what may happen should this House decide not to endorse the deal that has been brought forward. She rightly says that if the House rejects that deal, the Government cannot bring forward the European Union withdrawal implementation Bill. However, under section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the Government would have to bring forward a statement within 21 days to outline their intentions. Could I encourage the Leader of the House to take back to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet the point that, while it may be their prerogative to take 21 days, bringing that statement forward as soon as possible after any vote would be in the national interest and would allow the businesses in our constituencies to do some planning, without waiting until potentially the new year?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I certainly note what the hon. Gentleman says. He will appreciate that the instructions of the House are the instructions that were given in this place through the withdrawal Bill. However, the Government are clearly trying to be as collegiate as possible across the House to try to get the best possible deal for the UK as we leave the EU. I will certainly make sure that his thoughts are passed on.