Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I hope the message my hon. Friend takes back to his constituents is a very simple one: we can indeed guarantee delivering on Brexit; we can guarantee delivering on Brexit if this week he and others in this House support the deal.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

This chaotic and incompetent Government have driven our country into chaos. We know the scale of the crisis when the TUC and the CBI are united in writing to the Prime Minister saying:

“A Plan B must be found—one that protects workers, the economy and an open Irish border”.

My question on Monday went unanswered, so will the Prime Minister now say what is her plan B?

[The Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are continuing to work to ensure that we can deliver Brexit for the British people and guarantee that we deliver Brexit for the British people. We have a deal that cancels our EU membership fee, stops the EU making our laws, gives us our own immigration policy, ends the common agricultural policy for good and ends the common fisheries policy for good. Other options do not do that. Other options would lead to delay and uncertainty, and risk never delivering Brexit.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The only problem with the Prime Minister’s answer is that her deal has been twice defeated in this House, in one case by the largest ever majority by which a Government have lost a vote in our recorded parliamentary history. Reports today suggest that a former Conservative Prime Minister is telling Conservative MPs that pursuing a customs union with the EU is the best way to get Brexit over the line. Does she agree with him, and will she be supporting any motions for a customs union this afternoon?

[The Prime Minister]

The Government’s deal that we have negotiated with the European Union delivers the benefits of a customs union, while enabling us to have an independent free trade policy and to negotiate free trade agreements in our interests and not rely on Brussels to negotiate them for us. The right hon. Gentleman used to stand up for an independent trade policy; now he wants to have a customs union and to throw away the idea of an independent trade policy and leave Brussels negotiating for us. We want to negotiate our trade in our interests and the interests of people across this country.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that our policy is for a customs union to protect jobs and society. She will also know that the TUC and the CBI have called for a customs union as part of a deal. In fact, the letter they wrote to all MPs yesterday said that

“a deal that delivers a customs union and strong alignment with the UK and the EU rules is the preferred outcome for the business community”.

It is a bit strange when a Conservative Prime Minister says she does not want what the business community wants. These are indeed strange times. Can she say why she will not include a customs union in the options that will be discussed today?

[The Prime Minister]

May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he does not just read the question that he had thought of previously but listens to the answer that I gave to his previous question? I will repeat it. He stood on a platform to enable us to do independent trade deals and have an independent trade policy and to deliver Brexit. His policy on a customs union breaks the first promise. He has never explained why he wants to abandon an independent trade policy, and his policy on a second referendum breaks his second promise. Whatever happened to straight-talking honest politics?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Prime Minister does not seem to realise that she does not have a deal that has been supported by this House. Our proposals for a customs union give us alignment on workers’ rights, consumer standards and environmental protections; they do not begin with a race to the bottom, which is what she and many of her Front Benchers actually want. Earlier this week, the Business Minister resigned from the Government saying that the Government’s approach to Brexit was

“playing roulette with the lives and livelihoods of the vast majority of people in this country”.

Why is she prepared to carry on risking jobs and industry in another attempt to yet again run down the clock and try to blackmail the MPs behind her into supporting a deal that has already been twice rejected?

[The Prime Minister]

We have been negotiating to protect jobs. What the right hon. Gentleman says about a race to the bottom is wrong, as he well knows. We have been working across this House and it is absolutely clear in the political declaration that we agree to not falling back on workers’ rights. Also, we are the Government who have enhanced workers’ rights—[Interruption.] This is the problem. The Labour party can never stand it when they are told that Conservatives have stood up for workers, but that is what the Conservative party does. We have enhanced workers’ rights. We stand up for workers with our tax cuts and our national minimum wage and with higher employment.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

In answer to a straight question to the Prime Minister, she was unable to guarantee what is called dynamic alignment with European standards. She knows full well that Labour’s proposals are to use EU standards as a baseline from which we would improve them, including giving workers full rights at work from day one of their employment, ending zero-hours contracts and many other things.

In the former Business Minister’s resignation letter, he also said to the Prime Minister that he hoped that she would

“now act in the national interest and enable Parliament this week to find a consensus… negotiating position”.

If today or on Monday a consensus alternative plan emerges across the House, will the Prime Minister accept that decision of the House and accept it as the basis for the UK’s negotiating position with the EU henceforth?

[The Prime Minister]

The objective that we should all have is being able to guarantee delivering Brexit to the British people. The right hon. Gentleman stands there and raises workers’ rights. We have been very clear about non-regression on workers’ rights and environmental standards—[Interruption.] He shakes his head, but it is in black and white in the political declaration that has been agreed. He ends his question—[Interruption.] The shadow International Trade Secretary is shouting from a sedentary position about listening to Parliament. What we are going to do on workers’ right is say that, no, we will not simply automatically accept what the European Union does; we will listen to Parliament and give Parliament a say in that. I thought the Leader of the Opposition wanted Parliament to have a say in these things.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

That sounds awfully like a recipe for regression away from those standards and for damaging workers’ rights.

After the two largest defeats in parliamentary history, surely the Prime Minister should be listening to Parliament. She did not answer my question about whether an agreement reached in this House would become the Government’s negotiating position. I think that the House and, perhaps more importantly, the whole country deserves to know the answer to that question.

This country is on hold while the Government are in complete paralysis. The vital issues facing our country, from the devastation of public services to homelessness and knife crime, have been neglected. The Prime Minister is failing to deliver Brexit because she cannot build a consensus and is unable to compromise and reunite the country. Instead, she is stoking further division and is unable to resolve the central issues facing Britain today. She is, frankly, unable to govern. The Prime Minister faces a clear choice—the one endorsed by the country and many in her party—which is either to listen and change course or to go. Which is it to be?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman asks about the indicative votes tonight, but I actually answered that question in this House earlier this week. He might want to talk to his shadow Brexit Secretary, who made it clear that the Labour party will not commit to supporting the result of any of the indicative votes tonight. The Leader of the Opposition then talks about what is happening in this country, so let us just look at what is going to happen in this country next week: nearly £1 billion extra for the police, £1.4 billion more for local councils, £1.1 billion extra for our schools, another fuel duty freeze, another rise in the national living wage and another tax cut. That is happening under the Conservatives. What would Labour give us? He wants to scrap Trident and pull out of NATO. Labour would give us capital flight, a run on the pound and a drop in living standards. The biggest threat to our standing in the world, to our defence and to our economy is sitting on the Labour Front Bench.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

(g) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this order or an order arising from the Business of the House motion may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption on Wednesday 27 March.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to congratulate the House on taking control. The Government’s approach has been an abject failure, and this House must now find a solution. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and others who have worked to achieve tonight’s result.

The Government must take this process seriously. We do not know what the House will decide on Wednesday, but I know that there are many Members of this House who have been working on alternative solutions, and we must debate them to find a consensus. This House must also consider whether any deal should be put to the people for a confirmatory vote. Where this Government have failed, this House must—and I believe will—succeed.

[Mr Speaker]

No adjudication by the Chair is required.

European Council

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for the advance copy of her statement and for the meetings that we have had in recent days.

The Government’s approach to Brexit has now become a national embarrassment. After two years of failure and broken promises after broken promises, the Prime Minister finally accepted the inevitable last week, voted to extend article 50 and went to Brussels to negotiate. Last week’s summit represented another negotiating failure for the Prime Minister. Her proposals were rejected and new terms were imposed on her. We now have an extension until mid-April, or 22 May, but despite the clearly expressed will of this House, we still face the prospect of a disastrous no-deal Brexit. This is even more remarkable given that the Minister for the Cabinet Office told this very Chamber that

“seeking such a short and, critically, one-off extension would be downright reckless”.—[Official Report, 14 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 566.]

This failure has been compounded by the Prime Minister’s attempts last week to pin the blame for this debacle on others. It was wholly inappropriate, last Wednesday, for her to try to pit the people against MPs—elected MPs doing their duty to hold the Government of the day to account, which is what Parliament exists for. In a climate of heightened emotions where MPs from all parts of the House have received threats and intimidation, I hope that she will further reflect and think again about making what I believe to be such dangerous and irresponsible statements.

Every step of the way along this process the Government have refused to reach out, refused to listen and refused to find a consensus that can represent the views of the whole country, not just those of the Conservative party. Large parts of our country continue to be ignored by this Government. It is no wonder that so many people felt compelled to march on the streets or to sign petitions over the weekend. Even the most ardent of leavers think that this Government have failed. It is easy to understand the frustration at this chaos—it exists in this House, in Brussels, and across the country.

The Government have no plan. For them, it is all about putting the Conservative party before the country. Given that the Prime Minister has admitted that she does not have the numbers for her deal, will she accept today that her deal is dead and that the House should not have to waste its time giving the same answer for a third time?

The Prime Minister has succeeded in unifying two sides against her deal. The CBI and TUC’s unprecedented joint statement last week demanded a plan B that protects jobs, workers, industry and communities. Does the Prime Minister have a plan B? The Government have failed, and they have let the people down whether they voted leave or remain. The country cannot afford to continue in this Tory crisis. It is time for Parliament to take control, which is why, later today, we will be backing the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin).

You made it clear last week, Mr Speaker, that, for the Prime Minister to bring back her deal, there must be significant changes. There are none. Rather than trying to engineer a way to bring back the same twice-rejected deal, will she instead allow plans—rather than fight plans—for indicative votes? She cannot accept that her deal does not have the numbers and also stand in the way of finding an alternative that may have the numbers. It is ridiculous to suggest that Parliament taking control is “overturning democratic institutions”. It is not; it is Parliament doing its democratic job of holding Government to account. Will the Prime Minister agree to abide by the outcome of these indicative votes, if they take place on Wednesday?

The Labour party will continue cross-party discussions to find a way forward, and I thank Members who have met colleagues of mine and me to have those discussions. I believe that there is support in this House for a deal—one that is based on an alternative that protects jobs and the economy through a customs union, provides full single market access, and allows us to continue to benefit from participation in vital agencies and security measures. If the Government refuse to accept this, we will support measures for a public vote to stop no deal or a chaotic Tory deal.

The Government have had more than two years to find a solution, and they have failed. It is time that we put an end to this, move on from the chaos and failure, and begin to clean up the mess. It is time for Parliament to work together and agree on a plan B. If the Prime Minister is brave, she will help to facilitate this. If not, Parliament must send a clear message in the coming days. I hope that where the Government have failed, this House can and will succeed.

[The Prime Minister]

Once again, the right hon. Gentleman said that we still face the prospect of no deal. As I said earlier, the House has rejected no deal twice now and could very well continue to reject it, but the only way of actually putting that into practice is to support a deal. He also talks about reaching out. I have reached out to party leaders and other Members across the House, and my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union have held a number of meetings with Members across the House and with party leaders.

The right hon. Gentleman ended by saying that it is now time for the House to decide. The point is that, up to now, the House has not decided. [Interruption.] Yet again, Opposition Members say that they have not had a chance. The House has had many chances to table amendments. The House has voted twice on the right hon. Gentleman’s plans for the future and rejected them, it has voted to reject no deal and it has also voted to reject a second referendum. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government would commit to abide by the indicative votes. As he accepted, I gave him advance notice of my statement and I then read that statement, in which I clearly said:

“I cannot commit the Government to delivering the outcome of any votes held by this House.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I say to my hon. Friend that the Chancellor’s spring statement last week showed that this is indeed a Government who are delivering for Scotland. He mentions the issue of fiscal policy and oil and gas. We have also put in £260 million for the borderlands growth deal, £68 million extra in Barnett consequentials for the Scottish Government, and £79 million for a new national supercomputer at Edinburgh University. While the SNP is obsessed with independence, it is this Conservative Government who are focused on growing Scotland’s economy.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I start by sending my condolences to all the families and friends of victims of the terror attack in New Zealand last week. The terrible events in Christchurch should remind us all that there is no place for hate. I pay tribute to the way in which Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has responded with such dignity and such compassion to this crisis. I absolutely agree with the comments of the Prime Minister concerning the events at Stanwell and Utrecht. I am sure the whole House will join me and her in sending our deepest sympathies to all those who lost their loved ones and homes in the terrible cyclones that have caused devastation in Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Malawi. I support the Government in sending £6 million of aid. I hope, if more aid is required, we will be able to respond urgently and generously to any demand for help from people who are so desperately suffering at the present time.

We are now in the midst of a full-scale national crisis. Incompetence, failure and intransigence from the Prime Minister and her Government have brought us to this point. Parliament has rejected her deal. It has rejected no deal. The Prime Minister now has no plan. In an effort to break the deadlock, I have held meetings with Members across the House and am having further meetings today to find a compromise that supports jobs and living standards. Tomorrow, I am meeting EU Prime Ministers and officials in Brussels. This is a national crisis. Will the Prime Minister meet me today to discuss our proposals as a way forward to get out of this crisis?

[The Prime Minister]

It is a bit rich for the right hon. Gentleman to stand up and invite me to meet him, when for days and days he refused to meet me and he then refused to allow the shadow Brexit Secretary to have a further meeting with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Of course I am always happy to meet Members across this House to discuss the issue of Europe, but I note that when Opposition party leaders came out from their meeting with the Leader of the Opposition, they made it clear that what they did not want was Brexit. We should be delivering Brexit for the people of this country.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am not sure that there was an answer to my question there. I wanted no-deal taken off the table; the House has taken no-deal off the table; it is time the Prime Minister took no-deal off the table. The CBI said:

“The extension vote is a welcome dose of common sense…Put in place a new process. Drop red lines…Every MP must show leadership through compromise.”

Will the Prime Minister drop the red lines? Is she prepared to compromise to get through this crisis?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about decisions that have been taken by this House. I am sure that it will not have passed you by, Mr Speaker, that of course this House has voted on and rejected a second referendum; it has voted on and rejected no deal; it has voted on and rejected Labour’s deal; it has voted on and rejected a customs union; and it has voted on and supported leaving with a deal. It is time that this Parliament faced the consequences.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The last time the Prime Minister tried her meaningful vote, she only managed 242 votes—slightly up on the previous attempt, but nevertheless a decisive rejection. Our plan received 296 votes—rather considerably more. Her Government are in chaos and she has ignored the House, ignored trade unions, ignored businesses and ignored the concerns of communities all around the country. She told the House that the EU would allow an extension of article 50 only if there was a clear purpose. She is travelling to the Brussels summit tomorrow morning to meet EU leaders. What is her clear purpose?

[The Prime Minister]

If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to the answer that I gave to the first question posed in Prime Minister’s questions, he would have heard that.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It was not clear at all, other than that the Prime Minister is going to try again with what we will now term MV3. Surely, after two big rejections by the House, she must have noticed that there is not much support for the deal that she negotiated.

We learned this morning that the Prime Minister will ask only for a short extension, which directly contradicts what the Minister for the Cabinet Office told the House:

“In the absence of a deal, seeking such a short and, critically, one-off extension would be downright reckless and completely at odds with the position that this House adopted only last night”.—[Official Report, 14 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 566.]

Who is “downright reckless” here: the Prime Minister, ploughing on with an unachievable, unsupported deal, or others in this House who want to achieve something serious and sensible to prevent damage to the British economy, jobs and living standards all over this country?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about trying to achieve something sensible. It is he who abstained last week on a vote on a second referendum, despite the fact that it is Labour party policy, and then had the nerve to stand up in this House and say that he reiterated Labour’s support for a second referendum. He has no idea what he wants on the future of this issue.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about a long extension. I am opposed to a long extension. I do not want a long extension. Setting aside—[Interruption.] Setting aside the issue that it would mean that we would have to hold European parliamentary elections, which I do not think is in anybody’s interest, the outcome of a long extension would be endless hours and days of this House carrying on contemplating its navel on Europe and failing to address the issues that matter to our constituents, their schools—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

It is time for the House to determine that it will deliver on Brexit for the British people. That is what the British people deserve. They deserve better than what the House has given them so far.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

To describe the parliamentary process as one of indulgence does not show much respect for the democratic process that sent us here in the first place. The House has twice rejected the Prime Minister’s deal, and she is trying to come back for another attempt on Monday. Further to your ruling on Monday, Mr Speaker, she has to come up with something a bit different from what she has come up with so far. What significant changes will there be either to the withdrawal agreement or to the political declaration that will even allow her to table it on Monday?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about respect for democracy. Respect for democracy means this House delivering the Brexit the British people voted for. He now wants to disrespect democracy by holding a second referendum. It is not this Government who are being disrespectful to the British people; it is the right hon. Gentleman and his Labour party.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The job of Parliament is to hold Government to account, but the Prime Minister does not seem to understand that. When she was first defeated, she promised legally binding changes—I have not seen those legally binding changes; all she is doing is running down the clock after a second heavy defeat. Today marks 1,000 days since the referendum, and the Government have led the country and themselves into crisis, chaos and division. We are still legally due to leave the EU in nine days. Months of running down the clock and a concerted campaign of blackmail, bullying and bribery have failed to convince the House or the country that her deal is anything but a damaging national failure and should be rejected. They have run out of time; they have run out of ideas. People all over the country are anxious and frustrated with the Government’s utter inability to find a way through the crisis. If she cannot get changes to her deal, will she give the people a chance to reject it and change the Government?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the right hon. Gentleman has just made the point I was making in my previous answer: he does not want to respect the referendum result in 2016. We have a deal that keeps millions of livelihoods safe and secure, protects the Union for the future and means that murderers and rapists on the run can be brought back quickly to face justice in this country. No deal will not do that. The deal is good for this country, it delivers Brexit and it should be supported.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

(3) notes that, if the House has not passed a resolution approving the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 by 20 March 2019, then it is highly likely that the European Council at its meeting the following day would require a clear purpose for any extension, not least to determine its length, and that any extension beyond 30 June 2019 would require the United Kingdom to hold European Parliament elections in May 2019.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. After the last few days of Government chaos and some defeats, all of us now have the opportunity and the responsibility to work together to find a solution to the crisis facing this country, where the Government have so dramatically failed to do so. We have begun to hold meetings with Members across the House to find a consensus and a compromise that meet the needs of this country, but the last few days have also put a responsibility on the Prime Minister: first, to publicly accept that both her deal and no deal are simply no longer viable options; and secondly, to bring forward the necessary legislation to amend the exit date of 29 March.

Tonight I reiterate our conviction that a deal, based on our alternative plan, can be agreed and can command support across the House. I also reiterate our support for a public vote, not as political point-scoring but as a realistic option to break the deadlock. [Interruption.] The whole purpose ought to be to protect communities that are stressed and worried about the future of their jobs and their industries. Our job is to try to meet the concerns of the people who sent us here in the first place. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Nothing further is required.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It may be to the benefit of the House, Mr Speaker, and I am sure that people will recognise this, if I try to keep my answers shorter than usual today. Let me say to my hon. Friend that I want to leave the European Union with a good deal. I believe we have a good deal. Yes, no deal is better than a bad deal, but I have been working for us to leave on 29 March and leave with a good deal.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I absolutely concur with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the disaster of the air crash in Ethiopia, and indeed the earlier crash in Asia that affected the same type of aircraft. I commend the Civil Aviation Authority and the European Union for taking prompt action about the safety of the aircraft concerned. We need to ensure that all air passengers are as safe as they possibly can be.

The Prime Minister has been stubbornly declaring that the only choice is between her deal and no deal. Last night’s vote finished off her deal. Tonight she is not even showing the leadership to whip on no deal. Just a few weeks ago, she whipped her MPs against ruling out no deal. So how will she be voting tonight?

[The Prime Minister]

I will be voting for the motion standing in my name.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Well, there may well be other votes, and the Prime Minister’s Brexit strategy is clearly in tatters. Her deal has been twice rejected and is now dead, and she is not even asking her MPs to support her on it tonight.

A couple of months ago, the Chancellor, who is here today—we will hear from him later—reassured business leaders that the threat of a no-deal Brexit would be taken off the table, while the Business Secretary said that a no-deal Brexit would be “ruinous” to the UK economy. Indeed, the Government’s own forecasts suggest that no deal would knock 10% off the economy, damaging jobs and industry. Why is the Prime Minister still ambivalent about the outcome?

[The Prime Minister]

I have been working for leaving the EU with a deal. Businesses and business organisations have been clear across the UK that they want MPs to back the deal. Yes, businesses worry about the uncertainty of Brexit, but there is one thing they worry about more, and that is a Corbyn Government.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Prime Minister does not seem to understand. Her deal has been flatly rejected twice by this House by unprecedented majorities. Even this morning, the CBI said that no deal would be a “sledgehammer” to the economy and went on to say that there has been “no consultation with business”, adding:

“This is no way to run a country.”

The reason the Prime Minister’s deal is now dead is that at every step of the way, she has refused to listen—refused to listen to manufacturers and refused to listen to trade unions about the best way to protect jobs in this country, which is to agree a customs union. Manufacturing is now in recession. Many companies have laid off many workers. Her own deal has been decisively rejected. When will she listen to workers who are concerned about their jobs and to businesses that are concerned about their future and accept that there has to be a negotiated customs union with the EU?

[The Prime Minister]

The CBI said that the Labour party’s policies would lead to a drop in living standards. That is not very good for the people who the right hon. Gentleman claims to stand up and represent. He talks about a customs union, which of course was part of proposals that he put forward. That is yet another position he has taken. He has moved to being in favour of a second referendum, but I note that last night, he did not actually refer to a second referendum. He has just spoken about a deal involving a customs union—that has already been rejected, and in the past, very often rejected by him.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It would be rather reckless for the Prime Minister to rule out any option at the present time, I would have thought. I do not think her answer will help workers at Honda in Swindon, those at Nissan in Sunderland or many others who are very concerned about their future because of the danger to the manufacturing industry.

Britain’s food producers are also in despair. A coalition of UK producers asked the Prime Minister to call for tariff-free access to the single market. With her red lines now in tatters, will she back the view of UK food producers and back close alignment to the single market, to secure their industry? After all, she promised at Chequers that there would be frictionless trade.

[The Prime Minister]

The deal that we have negotiated includes access to the European Union on the basis of no tariffs. It might help if he had actually read it.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), said while campaigning to leave in the referendum—this is not the kind of language I would use—that

“Only a madman would actually leave”

the single market.

The Prime Minister has previously said that we cannot just reject no deal; we need to be for something. With her own deal now so decisively rejected, can the Prime Minister inform us what she is now for? Does she recognise that the Labour alternative—the five pillars we put forward—is the credible show in town, available and ready to be negotiated? Is it not time she moved on from her red lines and faced the reality of the situation she has got herself, her party, this Parliament and this country into?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about not wanting no deal yet repeatedly votes in a way that brings no deal closer. The deal that he is proposing has been rejected several times by this House. I may not have my own voice, but I do understand the voice of the country. They want—[Interruption.]

[The Prime Minister]

And that is that people want to leave the EU, they want to end free movement, they want us to have our own trade policy, and they want to ensure laws are made in this country and judged in our courts. That is what the deal delivers, and that is what I continue to work to deliver. The right hon. Gentleman used to believe that too. Why is he just trying to frustrate it?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I do have sympathy for the Prime Minister with her voice, and I hope it soon recovers. I understand how painful this is.

The Prime Minister’s deal has failed, and she no longer has the ability to lead. This is a rudderless Government in the face of a huge national crisis. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) recognises it, saying that the Government

“is not fit for purpose. We are not doing what we need to do, which is govern the country properly and effectively.”

Where the Prime Minister has so obviously failed, this House needs to listen to the country—listen to unions, people in work fearful for their future, manufacturers and businesses, workers, European Union citizens who have made such a fantastic contribution to our society and British citizens across Europe who are all facing uncertainty. With jobs and industry at risk and the country in crisis, she needs now to show leadership, so can the Prime Minister tell us exactly what her plan is now?

[The Prime Minister]

I continue to believe that the House today will have an opportunity to vote on no deal, and it will then have an opportunity tomorrow, depending on how it has voted tonight, to vote on the question of the extension of article 50. As I said last night, there will be hard choices for this House, but this House will need to determine what its view is on the way forward. As far as the Government are concerned, we want to continue to work to leave the European Union. That is what we will deliver for the people on the vote in the referendum. We will continue to work to deliver leaving the European Union, but to deliver leaving the European Union with a good deal.

As for the right hon. Gentleman, he does not agree with Government policy; he does not even agree with Labour party policy. He has nothing to offer this country.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

After three months of running down the clock, the Prime Minister has, despite very extensive delays, achieved not a single change to the withdrawal agreement: not one single word has changed. In terms of the substance, literally nothing has changed.

On 29 January, the Prime Minister backed an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), which called for the backstop

“to be replaced with alternative arrangements”.

On 12 February, the Prime Minister said that the Government were seeking three potential changes to the backstop:

“a legally binding time limit… a legally binding unilateral exit clause”,

or

“the ideas put forward by the Alternative Arrangements Working Group”.—[Official Report, 12 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 731.]

There is no unilateral exit mechanism, there is no time limit, and there are no alternative arrangements.

So let us be clear: the withdrawal agreement is unchanged, the political declaration is unchanged, the joint statement is a legal interpretation of what is in the withdrawal agreement, and the unilateral statement is the UK Government trying to fool their own Back Benchers, because the European Union has not even signed up to it.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that millions of citizens out there are looking to his party—cross-party—to deliver the certainty that they are crying out for? Can he not compromise, as many colleagues have done, to deliver the result of the referendum?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Labour party has put forward very clear proposals. I shall come to them later in the speech, but, for the avoidance of doubt, they are about a customs union, access to the market, and the protection of rights. We have put those proposals forward, and we continue to put them forward. What the British people are not looking forward to is either the chaos of leaving with no agreement or the problems that are involved in this agreement, which will therefore be strongly opposed by Members tonight.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the Labour party put forward a set of proposals as an alternative to the deal that the Government have negotiated. When the deal that the Government negotiated was rejected overwhelmingly by the House, the right hon. Gentleman said that we should listen. We have listened. The other week, his proposals were rejected overwhelmingly by the House. Why is he not listening?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I spend a great deal of time listening to people: people working on the shop floor in factories, people in small businesses, people who are worried about the future of their families. They want some degree of certainty. The Prime Minister’s deal does not offer that degree of certainty at all, as she knows very well. Our proposals are a basis for agreement, and a basis for negotiation.

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

The right hon. Gentleman voted for an EU referendum, against his party whip at the time, and he voted for article 50. Why is he now so intent on frustrating Brexit and the will of the people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am not quite sure what that intervention adds to the debate. There was a referendum in 1975; yes, I voted in that referendum. There was another referendum in 2016; yes, I voted in that referendum as well, and I campaigned to remain in and reform the European Union.

The Government are having real problems, because they are trying to fool the people into believing that, somehow or other, the deal offered by the Prime Minister is the only one that is available. It is not, as they well know.

Let us look closely at the Government’s own motion. It is a case study in weasel words and obfuscation. It states that

“the legally binding joint instrument... reduces the risk the UK could be deliberately held in the Northern Ireland backstop indefinitely”.

There are two key words there, First, the joint instrument only “reduces” the risk rather than eliminating it, so it has completely failed to achieve its goal. I have an ally in believing that to be the case—no less a person than the Attorney General, who told the press at the weekend:

“I will not change my opinion unless we have a text that shows the risk has been eliminated.”

And indeed, his legal opinion today states that

“the legal risk remains unchanged”.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the absurdity of the idea that there could be a unilateral exist from the backstop. That would destroy the very function of the backstop. Has not the Prime Minister committed a major strategic blunder for our country by pandering to the European Research Group instead of reaching across the House to build consensus?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Indeed. The ERG seems to be slightly missing today, but I am overcome by the excitement and enthusiasm among all the Members sitting behind the Prime Minister.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not currently giving way. [Interruption.] I do not require any affirmation or contradiction from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). He has got to learn the ways of Parliament.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Secondly, the motion uses the word “deliberately”. The risk of our being held in the backstop indefinitely has not been reduced; all that has been reduced is the risk that we could be deliberately held in the backstop indefinitely.

The Prime Minister has herself said on numerous occasions that the backstop is painful for both the UK and the European Union, and is something that neither side wishes to see applied. There has been no indication from the Prime Minister that there was ever a risk of our being deliberately held in the backstop in the first place.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am going to make some progress, if I may.

Yet in her statement last night, the Prime Minister said that the joint instrument guaranteed that the EU could not act with the intent of applying the backstop indefinitely. The EU has never expressed that intent, and the Prime Minister has never accused them of having it. The Prime Minister has constructed one enormous great big gigantic attractive paper tiger, and then slain it. However, the substance already existed through article 178(5) of the withdrawal agreement, agreed in November. Truly, nothing has changed.

The Prime Minister also claims that the joint instrument entrenches the January exchange of letters in legally binding form. On 14 January, from the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister told the House that those letters had “legal standing”, and would have

“legal force in international law".—[Official Report, 14 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 833.]

We are back with smoke and mirrors—the illusion of change, when the reality is that nothing has changed. It is all is spin and no substance from the Prime Minister.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The right hon. Gentleman adumbrates perfectly the miasma of chaos that is eating away at this place, but does he not agree that, given the chaos that is about to hit the people of Scotland—who voted overwhelmingly to stay in the European Union—should they request an order under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 to hold a referendum on Scotland’s independence, it would be undemocratic in the extreme for the Government to refuse it?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

That intervention has no relevance to the debate that we are having today. This debate is about the Government’s proposals in relation to leaving the European Union.

The statement in the Attorney General’s legal advice still holds. He said that the backstop would endure indefinitely until a superseding agreement took its place. That was the case in January, and it is the case today. I reiterate the view of the Attorney General: despite the theatre of the Prime Minister’s late-night declaration in Strasbourg, nothing has changed.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the critical issue here is that the Conservative party cannot countenance a trading arrangement that puts both Northern Ireland and Ireland and the European Union in the same trading arrangements, so whether it is today or next week or the end of this month or May or at any time, that party opposite cannot bring forward a Brexit that people can agree on?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It is clear that this Government delayed the vote from 11 December, then were found in contempt of Parliament for refusing to release legal information, then broke the record for losing a vote in Parliament, and now have come back to the scene of previous disasters with exactly the same proposal, and I earnestly hope the House tonight rejects the agreement that the Prime Minister has brought to us.

The Prime Minister has also attempted to convince Labour Members of this House about an equally empty promise on workers’ rights. She said last week in her speech in Grimsby that being aligned with the European Union on workers’ rights would mean that if it lowered its standards, we would have to lower ours. It is simply not true. European Union standards are a floor, not a ceiling: if the EU chose—I hope it never would—to reduce those minimum standards, that would not compel the UK to lower its standards. It is important to clarify that point because I am sure the Prime Minister had no intention of misleading anyone when she made it. However, being aligned to those standards means that if the minimum improved the UK would be compelled to improve, and indeed I would want us to go much further than the EU on many workers’ rights.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend and I share concerns about how we protect workers’ rights as we move forward and leave the EU, which I know he respects because he respects the outcome of the referendum of 2017— [Interruption.] The general election of 2017, but also the referendum of 2016: two public votes that came to the same outcome. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that when we voted on the deal in January we did not have an assurance that, in moving forward, we would have the opportunity in this House in the future, by law, to ensure that if the EU raised standards in health and safety and employment rights, an amendable motion would be brought to this House under which we could vote to support that increase, and not only that but go further than the EU? That is different from what we had in January, isn’t it?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Having a vote in Parliament on a potential improvement of rights is obviously a chance we would have to improve those rights, but it is not legally binding so as to defend those rights or to ensure there is dynamic alignment, not only on rights at work but also, very importantly, on environmental protections and consumer standards. So we are very clear that there must be dynamic alignment, and the EU basis is a floor from which I personally would want us to go much higher. A Labour Government would obviously go much further in all those areas.

This was a bad deal in December when Labour decided to vote against it, it was a bad deal in January when it was rejected by the largest margin in parliamentary history, and it is the same bad deal now. We will be voting against this deal tonight for the reasons we set out when replying to the debate in December. It is a bad deal that will damage our economy, undermine our industries, irreparably harm our manufacturing sector, risk our national health service, damage our public services and harm our living standards, because it opens up the possibility of a race to the bottom—a bonfire of rights and protections. It provides no certainty on trade and customs arrangements in the future and risks people’s living standards.

[Mark Pritchard]

The Leader of the Opposition and I get on personally—we have a Shropshire bond, as he knows—but may I just say to him that I think he is making a very unconvincing case, perhaps because for most of his political life, which I respect, he was a Brexiteer, and in his heart of hearts he is still a Brexiteer, but he has mostly a remain party behind him? Is this not the worst example today of pure politics—the pursuit of power and putting his party’s interests and, dare I say it, possibly his self-interests ahead of the national interest?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Oh dear, this will be so disappointing to the people of Shropshire, it really will; I can’t believe he just said that.

What we put forward in the referendum campaign was a principle of remain in the European Union and reform. The result did not go that way; it went the other way. We have spoken up for the people of this country, who are frightened of job losses and frightened of the future for their industries and their communities. That is why we put forward what I believe to be a credible, sensible series of alternatives.

For the very reasons we set out in our letter to the Prime Minister of 6 February we believe there should be a permanent and comprehensive UK-EU customs union, close alignment with the single market, and, as I explained to my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), dynamic alignment on rights and protections, as well as clear commitments on participation in EU agencies and funding programmes and, finally, unambiguous agreements on the detail of future security arrangements. That is because we want a Brexit that protects jobs, the economy and our industries, and those industries are suffering—no doubt about it. Growth is slowing, manufacturing is now mired in recession, investment is drying up, jobs are going, and thousands of workers fear for their future. The stress facing workers—EU nationals in the UK and indeed British nationals in Europe—is real; I met a group in Spain a couple of weeks ago who told me of their concerns, and they were pleased that we supported what is known as the Costa amendment.

We are deciding the future of our country. Each Member has to answer whether they believe this deal is good for their constituents. If this deal narrowly scrapes through tonight—I don’t think it will—we believe the option should be to go back to the people for a confirmatory vote on it. But we do not believe it should go through.

While there have been no calculations of the economic impact of the actual deal in front of us—something that should shame this Government—there is an estimate of the Chequers deal, which included a promise of “frictionless trade”, which the Prime Minister failed to deliver. But still, even with that more favourable outcome, the Government estimate that their own deal would make our economy and the people of this country worse off.

The documents in front of us offer no clarity.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that people who voted leave in Swansea and elsewhere voted for more money, for more jobs, for more trade and for more control, and they are getting none of them, and they will not even get any guarantees on environmental protections? So how can we vote in good faith on behalf of leavers for this shoddy deal?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

However people voted in the referendum, they want some certainty of their future: they want some certainty of their jobs, they want some certainty surrounding their trade.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I rather agree with him on the broad principles he sets out for our final aspirations and long-term goals, and indeed I voted with him in this House the last time he put the principles forward, but earlier he was giving his reasons for voting against the withdrawal agreement tonight, yet actually none of the things he mentioned had anything to do with the withdrawal agreement. Can he explain what his objection is to the deal we have on citizens’ rights, what his objection is to the agreement on the money we owe, and what on earth is his objection to the Irish backstop that leads him to put the whole thing in peril if he actually does carry out his threat to vote against it tonight?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I was grateful for the support of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the last Division that we had on this subject. Indeed, we had a very pleasant chat during that vote. I was pointing out that the Prime Minister had set herself a series of objectives and that she had not met any of them. She has brought back exactly the same deal and expects us to vote on it again. I hope that the House rejects it.

[Mrs Helen Grant]

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he has refused to accept repeated offers of meetings with the Prime Minister at such a vital time?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I met the Prime Minister in December to discuss the arrangements by which we would have debates on this whole process, and we absolutely agreed that the vote would take place on 11 December. It did not take place, because the Government decided to delay it, which made the situation worse. So we did have a meeting, and I presented the Prime Minister with a copy of my letter along with our proposals. Members of my team have also had meetings with their opposite numbers, so there have been meetings. The reality is that the Prime Minister is stuck in a groove and believes that only her deal is the thing that should be voted on. She was not listening to what we were saying or to what was included in our letter. That is really the problem.

The documents in front of us offer no clarity and no certainty. The political declaration says clearly that this could lead to a spectrum of possible outcomes. The 26 pages of waffle in the political declaration are a direct result of two things: the Prime Minister’s self-imposed, utterly inflexible and contradictory red lines, and the Government’s utter failure to negotiate properly, to engage with Members of this House or to listen to unions and businesses.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to the contribution from the Father of the House, may I ask my right hon. Friend to clarify the view expressed in the joint statement that there is an important link between the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, because although they are of a different nature, they are part of the same negotiated package? Does he agree that there are significant objections, particularly on this side of the House, to the political declaration as well?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Indeed, and of course the political declaration is not a legally binding document. It is a declaration, and no more than that. I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about much of it, and about the changes that need to be made to it. This is another reason why we should be rejecting the Prime Minister’s motion this evening. It is simply not good enough to vote for a blindfold Brexit, so we will vote against this deal tonight and I urge all Members to do so.

We only have this vote tonight—just as we only had the same vote on the same deal in January—because Labour Members demanded from the very beginning that Parliament should have a meaningful vote. I want to pay tribute to our shadow Brexit team, our shadow International Trade team, our shadow Attorney General and our shadow Solicitor General, who have done so much to ensure that Parliament has proper scrutiny over this process. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill started out with Henry VIII powers that would have ridden roughshod over Parliament and over our ability to hold the Executive to account. It was the actions of our Front Bench, our teams and our Back Benchers that forced the situation so that we could have a meaningful vote in Parliament; otherwise, this would not have happened. The right to that scrutiny, to hold the Government to account and to ensure the interests of our constituents is absolutely vital. It is something that I have exercised to the full in my time in this House.

I believe that there is a majority in this House for the sort of sensible, credible and negotiable deal that Labour has set out, and I look forward to Parliament taking back control so that we can succeed where this Government have so blatantly failed. There are people all around this country at the moment who are very concerned about their future, their communities and their jobs. EU nationals are concerned about their very right to remain in this country, as is the case for British nationals living across the European Union. Parliament owes it to all of them to get some degree of certainty by rejecting the Prime Minister’s proposal and bringing forward what we believe to be a credible set of alternatives. Parliament should do its job today and say no to the Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I profoundly regret the decision that this House has taken tonight. I continue to believe that by far the best outcome is that the United Kingdom leaves the European Union in an orderly fashion with a deal, and that the deal we have negotiated is the best, and indeed the only, deal available, but I would like to set out briefly how the Government mean to proceed.

Two weeks ago I made a series of commitments from this Dispatch Box regarding the steps we would take in the event that this House rejected the deal on offer. I stand by those commitments in full. Therefore tonight we will table a motion for debate tomorrow to test whether the House supports leaving the European Union without a deal on 29 March. The Leader of the House will shortly make an emergency business statement confirming the change to tomorrow’s business.

This is an issue of grave importance for the future of our country. Just like in the referendum, there are strongly held and equally legitimate views on both sides. For that reason I can confirm that this will be a free vote on this side of the House.

I have personally struggled with this choice, as I am sure many other hon. Members will. I am passionate about delivering the result of the referendum, but I equally passionately believe that the best way to do that is to leave in an orderly way with a deal, and I still believe that there is a majority in the House for that course of action.

I am conscious also of my duties as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of the potential damage to the Union that leaving without a deal could do when one part of our country is without devolved governance. I can therefore confirm that the motion will read:

“That this House declines to approve leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework on the Future Relationship on 29 March 2019; and notes that leaving without a deal remains the default in UK and EU law unless this House and the EU ratify an agreement.”

I will return to the House to open the debate tomorrow and to take interventions from hon. Members. To ensure that the House is fully informed in making this historic decision, the Government will tomorrow publish information on essential policies that would need to be put in place if we were to leave without a deal. These will cover our approach to tariffs and the Northern Ireland border, among other matters.

If the House votes to leave without a deal on 29 March, it will be the policy of the Government to implement that decision. If the House declines to approve leaving without a deal on 29 March, the Government will, following that vote, bring forward a motion on Thursday on whether Parliament wants to seek an extension to article 50. If the House votes for an extension, the Government will seek to agree that extension with the EU and bring forward the necessary legislation to change the exit date, commensurate with that extension.

But let me be clear: voting against leaving without a deal and for an extension does not solve the problems that we face. The EU will want to know what use we mean to make of such an extension, and this House will have to answer that question. Does it wish to revoke article 50? Does it want to hold a second referendum? Or does it want to leave with a deal, but not this deal? These are unenviable choices, but thanks to the decision that the House has made this evening, they are choices that must now be faced.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government have been defeated again by an enormous majority, and they must now accept that their deal, the proposal that the Prime Minister has put forward, is clearly dead and does not have the support of the House. Quite clearly, no deal must be taken off the table—we have said that before and we will say it again—but this does mean that the House has to come together with a proposal that could be negotiated. The Labour party has put forward that proposal, and we will do so again, because the Prime Minister carries on threatening us all with the danger of no deal, knowing full well the damage that it would do to the British economy. This party will again put forward our proposals on a negotiated customs union, access to the market and the protection of rights. We believe that there may well be a majority for them, but there will also be the potential to negotiate on them. The Prime Minister has run down the clock, but the clock has run out on her. Maybe, instead, it is time we had a general election so that the people can choose who their Government should be.

[Ian Blackford]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a humiliating defeat for the Government this evening, and this deal should not come back again in any way, shape or form. People will once again be looking at this Parliament and this Government in despair. The next few days will provide the opportunity finally to take some essential steps. Tomorrow, we have the opportunity to vote to block any attempt to leave the EU without a deal, and the Prime Minister must act—as the Prime Minister, not as the Tory party leader—to bring her party into line to prevent the UK from being dragged off a cliff by voting against a no-deal Brexit.

It is the duty of the Prime Minster, and of the Government, to act in all our national interests, and that means ruling out no deal. Then, we in the Scottish National party will be prepared to engage in discussion with the Government on securing an extension to article 50 that is long enough to enable this issue to be put back to the people. This afternoon, the First Minister of Scotland told the Prime Minister that in the event that the deal was voted down again, we would engage constructively on sensible proposals. Those proposals must include another EU referendum. Mr Speaker, can you advise me on what options are open to the House to bring such proposals forward swiftly in the interests of time? We have a responsibility to end the uncertainty for all our constituents and all our businesses.

Leaving the European Union

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I would like to start by thanking the Prime Minister for an advance copy of her statement.

I have lost count of the number of times the Prime Minister has come to this House to explain a further delay. They say history repeats itself—the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce—but by the umpteenth time it can only be described as grotesquely reckless. This is not dithering; it is a deliberate strategy to run down the clock. The Prime Minister is promising to achieve something she knows is not achievable and is stringing people along, so will she be straight with people? The withdrawal agreement is not being reopened. There is no attempt to get a unilateral exit on the backstop or a time limit.

In Sharm el-Sheikh, the Prime Minister said that

“a delay in this process, doesn’t deliver a decision in parliament, it doesn’t deliver a deal”.

I can only assume she was being self-critical. She has so far promised a vote on her deal in December, January, February and now March, and she only managed to put a vote once—in January, when it was comprehensively defeated. The Prime Minister continues to say that it is her deal or no deal, but this House has decisively rejected her deal and has clearly rejected no deal. It is the Prime Minister’s obstinacy that is blocking a resolution, so if the House confirms that opposition, then what is the Prime Minister’s plan B?

I pay tribute to others across the House who are working on such solutions—whether that is the proposal that is commonly known as Norway-plus or other options. Labour, I would like to inform the House, will back the Costa amendment if tabled tomorrow, and I also confirm that we will back the amendment drafted by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on securing citizens’ rights for EU citizens here and for UK citizens in Europe, some of whom I met in Spain last week.

The Prime Minister has become quite the expert at kicking the can down the road, but the problem is that the road is running out. The consequences of running down the clock are evident and very real for industry and for people’s jobs. For now, the Prime Minister states that the can can be kicked until 12 March, but the EU cannot now ratify any deal until its leaders summit on 21 March. After all, section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act states that the final agreement will be laid before this House before it can be voted on, so can the Prime Minister confirm how there can be a vote in this House if the EU has not yet agreed any final exit, or is the Prime Minister now saying that there will be no change to either the withdrawal agreement or to the political declaration, so we will be voting again on the same documents?

Every delay and every bit of badly made fudge just intensifies the uncertainty for industry, with business investment being held back, jobs being lost and yet more jobs being put at risk. The real life consequences of the Prime Minister’s cynical tactics are being felt across the country, with factories relocating abroad, jobs being lost and investment being cancelled. Thousands of workers at sites across Britain’s towns and cities are hearing rumours and fearing the worst. The responsibility for this lies exclusively with the Prime Minister and her Government’s shambolic handling of Brexit. Even now, with just one month to go before our legally enshrined exit date, the Prime Minister is not clear what she wants in renegotiations that have now dragged on since it became clear in December that her deal was not even backed by much of her own party, let alone Parliament or the country at large.

Labour has a credible plan—[Interruption.] Labour has a credible plan that could bring the country together, provide certainty for people, and safeguard jobs and industry. It is based around a new customs union with the EU to protect our manufacturing industry, close alignment with the single market to protect all of our trading sectors and keeping pace with the best practice on workers’ rights, environmental protections and consumer safeguards. The people of this country deserve nothing less. The Prime Minister talks about giving commitments on future developments, but that is way short of a commitment to dynamic alignments on rights and standards when we know many on her Front Bench see Brexit as an opportunity to rip up those vital protections.

In recent weeks, I have been speaking to businesses, industry organisations and trade unions. Last week, along with our shadow Brexit Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and Baroness Chakrabarti, I travelled to Europe to meet EU officials and leaders to discuss the crisis and explain Labour’s proposals. We left with no doubt whatsoever that our proposals are workable and could be negotiated, so tomorrow we will—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I indicated to the House that the Prime Minister should be fairly and courteously heard, and the same goes for the Leader of the Opposition. If the usual suspects could just calm down, it would be in their interests and, more importantly, those of the House.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Tomorrow, we will ask Parliament to vote on these proposals—they are workable and negotiable—which back the demands of working people all across this country and industry all across this country. I urge Members across this House to back that amendment to respect the result of the 2016 referendum and to safeguard jobs, investment and industry in this country. Labour accepts the result of the 2016 referendum, but we believe in getting the terms of our exit right, and that is why we believe in our alternative plan.

The Prime Minister’s botched deal provides no certainty or guarantees for the future, and was comprehensively rejected by this House. We cannot risk our country’s industry and people’s livelihoods, so if it somehow passes in some form at a later stage, we believe there must be a confirmatory public vote to see if people feel that that is what they voted for. A no-deal outcome would be disastrous, and that is why we committed to backing the amendment, in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), to rule out that reckless cliff-edge Brexit.

The Prime Minister appears to be belatedly listening to the House. Any extension is necessary only because of the Prime Minister’s shambolic negotiations and her decision to run down the clock, but until the Prime Minister is clear about what alternative she would put forward in those circumstances, then she is simply continuing to run down the clock. She promises a short extension, but for what? If the Government want a genuine renegotiation, they should do so on the terms that can win a majority in this House and on the terms, backed by businesses and unions, that are contained within Labour’s amendment, which I urge the whole House to back tomorrow.

[The Prime Minister]

I will first respond to a couple of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions. He asked about the meaningful vote and whether new documents would be brought before the House. Of course, we are in discussions with the EU about changes—changes that this House said it wanted—to the Northern Ireland backstop. We are discussing those with the European Union. Any changes that are agreed with the European Union would be put before this House before the meaningful vote.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of citizens’ rights. As I covered in my statement, the EU does not have the legal authority to do a separate deal on citizens’ rights without a new mandate. This is a matter, unless it is part of the withdrawal agreement—obviously, we have negotiated something within the withdrawal agreement; good rights for citizens within the withdrawal agreement—for individual member states. We have taken up the issue with individual member states. A number of them have already given good guarantees to UK citizens and we are encouraging those that have not to do so.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to workers’ rights. I think it is important. [Interruption.] I am answering the points that he has made, but he does not seem to be too interested in listening to the answers that I am giving. He advocated dynamic alignment on workers’ rights. I have to say that we on the Government side of the House think that those decisions should be taken in the UK, and in this House. One of the reasons for taking those decisions on workers’ rights in this House, as I have said, is that Governments in this country, of different colours, have consistently given greater rights to workers than the European Union has negotiated.

The right hon. Gentleman referenced the Labour party’s approach to a deal. Of course, its approach is that it wants a customs union, to be in the single market and to have a say on trade deals, in a way that says, “Well, please, if you’re very nice to us, can we sit around the table and maybe some time we might be able to put an opinion on the trade deals?” If he wants the benefits of a customs union—no tariffs, no fees and no charges—they are there within the political declaration, in the deal that has been negotiated by this Government. In that political declaration, we also have the right for us, as an independent country, to strike our own trade deals again, and not to have to rely on those struck in Brussels.

The right hon. Gentleman then spoke about the time running down to 29 March. My sole focus throughout all of this has been on getting a deal that enables us to leave the European Union on 29 March with a deal. It is the right hon. Gentleman who has kept no deal on the table, by refusing to agree to a deal. He talks about uncertainty on jobs, but he could have voted to end uncertainty on jobs by backing the deal the Government brought back from the European Union.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman says that he and the Labour party accept the result of the referendum, yet we also know that they back a second referendum. By backing a second referendum, he is breaking his promise to respect the result of the 2016 referendum. He will be ignoring the biggest vote in our history and betraying the trust of the British people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think this is a very important issue that everybody in this House should take seriously. I never thought I would see the day when Jewish people in this country were concerned about their future in this country, and I never thought I would see the day when a once-proud Labour party was accused of institutional antisemitism by a former Member of that party. It is incumbent on all of us in this House to ensure that we act against antisemitism wherever and however it occurs. It is racism and we should act against it.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

May I start, Mr Speaker, by joining what you said on Monday in paying tribute to my friend and yours, Paul Flynn? He served in this House for over 30 years as the Member for Newport West. He was courageous; he was warm; he was witty. As the Prime Minister pointed out, he served briefly on the shadow Front Bench. When he came to his first shadow Cabinet meeting, he welcomed my

“diversity project to promote octogenarians”

to the shadow Cabinet. His book on how to become an MP is absolutely a must-read. He was respected all across the House and I think we are all going to miss his contributions, his wit and his wisdom. Our deepest condolences to his wife Sam and all his family, and to his wider family across Newport and Wales. He was a truly wonderful man and a great and dear friend.

I also hope that the House will join me in paying tribute to Baroness Falkender, who died earlier this month, and send our condolences to her friends and family. When Marcia served with distinction as political secretary to Harold Wilson, she was subjected to a long campaign of misogynistic smear and innuendo. She suffered a great deal as a result, and we should remember the great work that she did as political secretary to Harold Wilson.

The Prime Minister just responded to a question on antisemitism. I simply say this: antisemitism has no place whatsoever in any of our political parties, in our life, in our society—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Ellis, be quiet now and for the rest of the session. You used to practise as a barrister. You did not make those sorts of harrumphing noises in the courts; or if you did, no wonder you no longer practise there.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

As I was saying, antisemitism has no place whatsoever in our society or in any of our political parties, and my own political party takes the strongest action to deal with antisemitism wherever it rears its head.

Last week, an EU official said the UK Government were only “pretending to negotiate”, adding that there was

“nothing on the table from the British side,”,

so with just 37 days to go, can the Prime Minister be clear about what she will actually be proposing today when she travels to Brussels?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course there are a number of meetings taking place in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Brexit Secretary and the Attorney General were in Brussels earlier this week and had a constructive and positive meeting with officials in the European Commission on the issue of alternative arrangements and work on alternative arrangements. The issue that I am taking to Brussels is the one I have been speaking to EU leaders about over the last few days—that is, the concern that was expressed in this House about ensuring that we could not find ourselves in the current backstop indefinitely. There a number of ways, as I have identified on a number of occasions at this Dispatch Box, to deal with that. I have referenced the work on alternative arrangements. There are also the options of an end-date or a unilateral exit mechanism and legal work—what matters in all of this are legally binding changes that ensure that we address the concern that has been raised by this House. That is what I will be discussing with the European Commission and will continue to discuss with it and European Union leaders.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It sounds like it might be quite confusing for the European Union to understand exactly what the Prime Minister is turning up with, actually. She has had three groups of Back Benchers working on three proposals: first, to remove the backstop; secondly, to make the backstop time-limited; and thirdly, to give the UK the right to exit unilaterally. Which of these proposals is the Prime Minister negotiating for today: one, two or three?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman points out that, as I just said in my response to his question—he could have listened to that answer, but I am happy to repeat it—there are a number of ways in which it is possible to address the issue that has been raised by this House of Commons. Work is being undertaken on those various issues. On the alternative arrangements, for example, the Commission has raised questions, particularly about the extent to which derogation from European Union law would be necessary to put those in place, and there is concern about being able to achieve that if we are going to leave in time. Nevertheless, we have agreed that a workstream will go forward on those matters. We are also exploring the other issues, but the point is a very simple one. It is not just a question of saying to the European Union, “Actually, this is just the one thing.” It is a question of sitting down with the European Union and finding a solution that is going to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland, that is going to ensure that we deal with the concern that has been raised here in this House of Commons and that is going to enable a deal to be brought back to this House of Commons that it can support so that we leave on 29 March with a deal.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Last week, a Foreign Office Minister said categorically:

“We are not leaving without a deal”,

but sadly he does not speak for the Government. The Prime Minister’s Business Minister says he is

“very conscious of the damage that not ruling out a hard Brexit is having on business and industry”.

People’s jobs and livelihoods are in the Prime Minister’s hands. Will she stop playing games with people’s jobs and make it very clear that no deal is absolutely ruled out?

[The Prime Minister]

People’s jobs and futures are in the hands of every Member of this House. Once again, the right hon. Gentleman could have listened to an answer I gave earlier, to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). There are only two ways to take no deal off the table: one is to back a deal, the other is to revoke article 50 and stay in the EU. The right hon. Gentleman has refused to back a deal, so the obvious conclusion is that he must want to revoke article 50. He can stand up now and tell us what his policy is—is it to back the deal or to stay in the EU?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I did write the Prime Minister a very nice letter setting out our views. I am sure she received it and read it and I hope she will think on it.

It appears that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) was right when he said last week that in the event that the Prime Minister’s deal does not succeed

“this Government…and this Prime Minister…would prefer to…head for the exit door without a deal”.—[Official Report, 14 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 1108.]

He went on to say that it was “a terrifying fact”. Thousands of car workers in Derby, Sunderland, Birmingham and Swindon are facing redundancy. Does that matter to the Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

We have seen decisions taken by car manufacturers, and obviously Honda’s decision this week is deeply disappointing, but it has made it absolutely clear that this is not a Brexit-related decision, but a response to the change in the global car market. Of course jobs matter to the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about jobs, perhaps he would like to change the habit of a lifetime and stand up at that Dispatch Box and welcome the excellent job figures we have seen this week under this Government.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Prime Minister does not seem very interested in listening to those companies and industry bodies that are saying they need a customs union. When she talks about jobs, will she also talk about those doing two or three jobs to make ends meet, those on zero-hours contracts, those so low paid they have to access food banks just to survive and those suffering from in-work poverty—on her watch, under her Government?

Last year, investment in the car industry halved. Brexit uncertainty is already costing investment, and where investment is cut today, jobs are cut tomorrow. That uncertainty would not end even if the Prime Minister’s rejected deal somehow got through, because it promises only the certainty of a “spectrum” of possible outcomes. Will she see sense and offer business and workers the certainty of a customs union that could protect jobs and industry in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

What the right hon. Gentleman will also have heard from car manufacturers is their support for the deal the Government negotiated with the EU. If he wants to talk about jobs, I am very happy to talk about jobs, because what do we see in the latest figures? We see employment at a record high and unemployment at its lowest since the 1970s; we see that 96% of the increase in employment in the last year has come from full-time work; we see youth unemployment almost halved since 2010, and female employment is at a record high. [Interruption.] It is all very well shouting from the Front Bench, but let us look at Labour’s record in government. [Interruption.]

[The Prime Minister]

Let us look at Labour’s record in government on employment: unemployment rose by nearly half a million; female unemployment rose by 26%; youth unemployment rose by 44%; and the number of households where no one had ever worked nearly doubled. That is the record of a Labour Government under which working people pay the price of Labour.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Child poverty halved under the Labour Government. We invested in Sure Start—in children’s centres—and a future for young people. The Prime Minister should get out a bit more and hear the anger of so many young people around this country at what they are suffering under her Government and on her watch.

The chair of the manufacturers’ organisation Make UK said yesterday:

“I am saddened by the way that some of our politicians have put selfish political ideology ahead of the national interest and people’s livelihoods and left us facing the catastrophic prospect of leaving the EU next month with no deal”.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the Food and Drink Federation, the National Farmers Union and the CBI all want a disastrous no deal ruled out. Along with the TUC, many also support the UK being in a permanent customs union.

There is a little over a month to go and the Government have failed to put the country first. There is the crisis of jobs going and industries under threat, and the Prime Minister indulges in what her own Business Minister calls “fanciful nonsense”. When is she going to put the interests of the people of this country before the interests of the Conservative party?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman has consistently put his party political interest ahead of the national interest. We can take no deal off the table by agreeing a deal, yet at every stage he has acted to frustrate a deal. He has acted to make no deal more likely, but that is not surprising from this Labour party. What do we see from his Labour party? Hamas and Hezbollah are friends, and Israel and the United States are enemies; Hatton a hero, and Churchill a villain. Attlee and Bevan will be spinning in their graves. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has done to a once-proud Labour party. We will never let him do it to our country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this abhorrent practice and to recognise the importance of the first prosecution that took place on female genital mutilation here in the UK. It is only right that we find time for this Bill, and the Government will provide time to deliver it. We have strengthened the law on FGM, leading to that first conviction, and we are helping communities around the world to end this appalling crime, but it is important that we give time to this Bill and act further to ensure that we end what is an absolutely abhorrent crime that scars young girls for the rest of their lives both physically and mentally.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am sure the Prime Minister and the whole House will join me in sending our deepest sympathies to the friends and family of the cadet who died at Sandhurst last week. I am sure the Ministry of Defence is supporting the family and fellow cadets at a difficult time, but I also hope it will be reviewing the mental health support it gives to all members of the armed forces at all times.

We also mourn the loss of Gordon Banks, and send our condolences to his friends and family and to the entire football community. He was one of the greatest goalkeepers of all time, with 73 caps for England, including playing in every single game during the victorious 1966 World cup campaign, which I remember with joy.

I too want to thank Sir David Natzler for his work as Clerk of the House and wish him well in his retirement. He has been here even longer than I have and has always been a source of advice to all Members, irrespective of their party, and I always admire his dry wit and humour while describing the proceedings of the House. I think we owe him a big debt of gratitude.

The Government’s handling of Brexit has been costly, shambolic and deliberately evasive. Nothing symbolises that more than the fiasco of Seaborne Freight—a company with no ships and no trading history. On 8 January, the Transport Secretary told the House:

“We are confident that the firm will deliver the service.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 193.]

What went wrong?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Let us be honest in this House; I think that is important.

From being part of that team to something else that I think people remember—the astonishing Pelé save in 1970—Gordon Banks was regarded as one of the world’s greatest goalkeepers. I also know that he did a lot of community work in his local area as well. I know Members from all parts of the House would like to join me in paying tribute to him.

As regards the freight capacity, the Government let three contracts: 90% of that was let to DFDS and Brittany Ferries. Those contracts remain in place, and that capacity has been obtained. Due diligence was carried out on all of these contracts. As the Secretary of State for Transport made clear in this House earlier this week, we will continue to ensure that we provide that capacity, which is important in a no-deal situation, and we will ensure the capacity is there.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Transport Secretary told the House that the decision to award the contract to Seaborne Freight had no cost to the taxpayer. This week, the National Audit Office found that £800,000 had been spent on external consultants to assess the bid. Will the Prime Minister use this opportunity to correct the record?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is a bit late to the party, because I was asked that question yesterday on the statement, I think from the SNP Benches. Labour following the SNP—well, whatever next? Of course, as I just said, when the contracts were all let, proper due diligence was carried out. That included third-party assessment of the companies that were bidding for the contracts. There would have been a cost attached to the process regardless of who the contracts were entered into with.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am really impressed that the Prime Minister could keep a straight face while she said that due diligence was carried out. The Transport Secretary said that

“its business and operational plans were assessed for the Department by external advisers”.—[Official Report, 8 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 190.]

On the basis of that advice to his Department, he was told that Seaborne was a start-up company with no ships and that the contract was “high-risk”. Why, if he was told that it was high risk, did he proceed with the contract?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that the Government should never look at start-up companies or at opportunities for new companies. It is entirely right that the Government ensured that the majority of the contracts went to established companies, and it is entirely right that a company on which due diligence had been carried out—[Interruption.] It is no good saying it wasn’t, because it was. We will ensure that the ferry capacity is there.

What we are doing in these contracts is ensuring that we are able to deal with the situation were we to enter into no deal. The right hon. Gentleman has said in the past that he does not want any money to be spent on no-deal preparations. He has also said that he does not want us to go into a no-deal situation. That is fine, but if he does not want us to be in a no-deal situation, he is going to have to vote for the deal.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

To be fair to the advisers, it appears that they were instructed to restrict their due diligence to the face value of the presentation put to them by Seaborne Freight—a company that had no trading history. Looking at the directors of Seaborne, it appears that some of them would not have passed a due diligence test.

The Transport Secretary told the House:

“This procurement was done properly and in a way that conforms with Government rules.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 192.]

However, a freedom of information request reveals that the Secretary of State bypassed those rules, because the procurement assurance board—a senior panel of experts and lawyers—was denied the chance to scrutinise the deal. What action will the Prime Minister take over what appears to be a very clear breach of those rules?

[The Prime Minister]

The contract was awarded following commercial, technical and financial assurance at a level in line with the company’s status as a new entrant to the market, carried out not only by senior DFT officials but by third-party organisations with experience and expertise in this area, including Deloitte, Mott MacDonald, and Slaughter and May. It was designed in recognition of the risks posed: no money was paid to the contractor and no money would be paid until services were delivered. Therefore, no money has been paid to that contractor.

The right hon. Gentleman has stood here time and again and said that, actually, we should not be doing anything to prepare for no deal. It is entirely right and proper that this Government are taking the action necessary to ensure that, should we be in that no-deal situation—it is not our policy to have no deal; it is our policy to get a deal—we have the capacity we need, and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Could I bring the Prime Minister back to the question of Seaborne ferries? Eurotunnel has called the ferry contract procurement a “secretive and flawed” exercise. Taxpayers now face a legal bill of nearly £1 million to contest that—the money goes up and up. The Secretary of State’s decision to award the contract to Seaborne has increased the budget deficit of Thanet Council, the owners of Ramsgate port, by nearly £2 million. When questioned by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), the Transport Secretary refused to give a guarantee. Can the Prime Minister today give a cast-iron commitment to the people of Thanet and confirm that they will not be picking up the bill for the failure of this contract?

[The Prime Minister]

The Department for Transport and other parts of the Government are in discussion with Thanet Council about the impact of the contract. I remind the right hon. Gentleman why the Department for Transport has taken these actions in relation to ferry capacity: to ensure that in a no-deal situation we are able to guarantee that medicines, primarily, will brought into this country. We are prioritising medicines being brought into this country. Again, that was a question I seem to remember being asked on more than one occasion yesterday by SNP Members who had an interest in that. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be interested in ensuring that we can, in a no-deal situation, provide the medicines that people in this country need. That is what we are doing. That is the sensible approach of a Government who are taking this matter seriously.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Maybe the Prime Minister should follow the advice of the House and take no deal off the table and negotiate seriously with the European Union. It cannot be right that a hard-pressed local council and local taxpayers are footing the bill for the incompetence of the Secretary of State for Transport and this Government.

The spectacular failure of this contract is a symptom of the utter shambles of this Government and their no-deal preparations. The Transport Secretary ignored warnings about drones and airport security; he gave a £1.4 billion contract to Carillion despite warnings about their finances; he oversaw the disastrous new rail timetable last year; and rail punctuality is at a 13-year low and fares at a record high—that is some achievement. And now the Transport Secretary is in charge of a major and vital aspect of Brexit planning. How on earth can the Prime Minister say she has confidence in the Transport Secretary?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what the Transport Secretary is delivering: the biggest rail investment programme since the Victorian era, spending nearly £48 billion on improving our railways to deliver better journeys—20% higher on average every year than under a Labour Government. That is what the Transport Secretary is delivering: commitment to transport in this country and commitment to transport across the whole of this country.

I notice that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to focus his questions in that way, rather than asking more general questions in relation to Brexit. There are still a number of issues on Brexit where we do not know his answers to the big questions. We do not know if—[Interruption.] It is no good Labour Members burying their heads in their hands. We do not know whether their leader backs a second referendum. We do not know whether their leader backs a deal. We do not even know whether he backs Brexit. He prefers ambiguity and playing politics to acting in the national interest. People used to say he was a conviction politician—not any more.