Prorogation of Parliament

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

To be fair, I have allowed the last two interventions to distract me from the fact that the key purpose of a Queen’s Speech is to set out the domestic agenda—to talk about the 20,000 new police officers, and to ensure that people see the benefits of frontline funding for the NHS, levelling up funding for schools, and delivering full-fibre broadband across the country. However, as we ramp up preparation for no deal, we know exactly the kind of thing that we will need if we get a deal, although the deal that we are likely to get—if we get there—will be substantively different from the last withdrawal agreement. Also, we have been trying to pass legislation regarding no-deal preparations over the last few months.

Again, I am allowing myself to be distracted. We keep talking about deal or no deal, but actually we mean the withdrawal agreement; the deal is yet to come. We use the terms interchangeably. The deal, in terms of trade deals, is all about the future relationship with the EU, and we have not even got there yet. All we are talking about—I say “all”; of course it is complicated and significant—is how we physically leave the EU. Deciding what the trading relationship will look like will take time. One of my fundamental concerns—albeit from two and a half years ago, so it cannot be revisited—was accepting the sequencing that Michel Barnier and the EU put to us: that we had to get the divorce done before we could talk about the future relationship. It would have been far more sensible—this formed the basis of the Vote Leave campaign—to do both at the same time.

On the backstop, for example, instead of coming up with the convoluted system that has failed to get through this place so many times, it would have been far easier had we known what the ultimate trading relationship between Northern Ireland, in particular, and the Republic of Ireland would be. We would then have been able to work on solutions—alternative arrangements—not just in the last year, but in the last three years. That would have been a far better and more holistic approach to leaving.

[Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the public are keen for us to move on to the domestic agenda. Is it not the case, however, that we are talking about having a Queen’s Speech either in October, or in November, which would be after Brexit has taken place, given the Prime Minister’s determination to leave on 31 October? As my hon. Friend says, we may leave with no deal, and I agree that it would not be desirable or possible to take that off the table. Does Parliament not have an obligation to scrutinise the Government’s no-deal preparations, and should we not spend the five weeks during which we are to prorogue doing that, rather than anything else, including holding party conferences?

[Paul Scully]

My right hon. and learned Friend has a point in theory, but unfortunately only in theory. We have already cancelled two recesses, to the angst of several hon. Members, but what did we do during those sittings? We considered statutory instruments on the Floor of the House, because there was not enough business about Brexit coming from the Opposition. I remember walking around this place and seeing Opposition Members with their coats on, leaving early. If they had wanted to get involved in debates, and to add to the 500 or so hours of debate that we have had in this place about Brexit, they could have done so in those two weeks. They could also have cancelled summer recess, but clearly, that would have been a little too inconvenient.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, as always. As I say, every time we diminish the negotiating position of the Government, we inevitably create a more distinct possibility of a watered-down deal. In fact, why does the EU need to speak to us at this time anyway? Theoretically, the way the Benn Bill works is that the letter that Parliament has written for the Prime Minister to take to the EU allows the EU to dictate the date that the UK leaves the EU. It has been nicknamed the “surrender Bill” for a reason; frankly, it is about as surrendery as it gets.

[Jeremy Wright]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being very generous with his time.

Again, I agree that it would be wrong to postpone our departure from the EU beyond 31 October. If we leave then, we leave either with or without a deal. If we do not have a general election—we will know by the end of this evening whether we are to have one—we will prorogue. Is the point not that we will come back on 14 October and give ourselves two weeks to either analyse a new deal, pass the old one, or decide how best to the Government can prepare us for no deal—which is simply not enough time?

[Paul Scully]

We have discussed no deal over the past few months, to quite an extent. There would clearly be more specifics, if it seems that that is how it will go. Rather than us not having enough time, people will probably be moving a bit more quickly and frantically.

I have never voted to take no deal off the table, because it is a serious proposition. I have always wanted to get a deal, but I am prepared to leave with no deal if we have done everything we can to get there. However, too many hon. Members in this place have just dismissed it. This goes right back to the heart of the referendum. Not enough hon. Members have taken seriously what people charged us with doing. Many times, I have had people pat me on the head and explain to me why I voted to leave, rather than ask me—and I am a Member of Parliament. Imagine how patronised by the establishment Joe Public feels in parts of the country that voted to leave.

No deal has always been there, whether or not it has been taken seriously by the Government at various points. That is possibly an argument for another day. No deal absolutely should have been discussed as a serious proposition and scrutinised over the past three years. We are at a point at which that proposition has ramped up, and I believe that there will be plenty of time to debate it. I hope that we get a deal. I hope that being able to say “We will leave by 31 October” focuses all our minds on ensuring that we get rid of the backstop. Bear in mind that although we have said what we do not want to do, that is the only thing that has been voted for affirmatively.

In conclusion, I come back to the point that proroguing until 14 October for a Queen’s Speech allows the new Prime Minister to set out his bold, ambitious domestic vision for this country, which people are absolutely screaming out for. They want us to get Brexit done, so that they can talk about what affects them daily: their hospital, their children’s schools and their safety at home and on the streets. Having more policeman and infrastructure, be it rail or broadband, is what affects people daily when they walk out their door.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I rise to speak on behalf of the 8,738 residents in Dulwich and West Norwood who signed the petition in opposition to Prorogation—the eighth-highest proportion of constituents in any constituency in the country—and on behalf of all my constituents, who will be denied their voice and democratic representation as a result of Prorogation today.

It has been argued that Prorogation is normal ahead of a Queen’s Speech, and that only three days of parliamentary time are being lost; we would normally break for conference recess anyway. However, we are not in ordinary times. Brexit has riven our country. We know that the Government’s own analysis shows that there is no version of Brexit that does not inflict damage on the UK economy, and that a no-deal Brexit will deliver a calamity for jobs, the supply of medicine and food, and peace in Northern Ireland. A no-deal Brexit poses a catastrophic threat to so many of the things that our constituents hold dear and on which they depend. To prorogue Parliament at such at time is not normal business; it is an outrage to our democracy.

My constituents voted overwhelmingly—77%—to remain in the European Union. I represent one of the most diverse constituencies in the country. We are internationalist and celebrate diversity. Our values are European values. The strength of feeling in my constituency of Dulwich and West Norwood has not diminished since 2016; it has strengthened and deepened. Since June 2016, however, 77% of my constituents and 48% of voters across the country have been told that we must be quiet, and that our views no longer matter. Even in the face of evidence that Vote Leave broke the law to an extent that might have been sufficient to influence the result of the referendum, we have been told that we must be quiet. We have been told that we must be silent in the face of evidence of the impact of Brexit, which was never discussed during the referendum campaign—most notably, the impact on the Good Friday agreement and peace in Northern Ireland. We have been told to be silent as the definition of Brexit, which was not discussed during the 2016 referendum, has become ever more reckless, right wing and extreme.

That is not how democracy works. It is never the case that, when we vote in a referendum or general election in this country, people who were on the losing side must simply change their views and acquiesce to those who won. It is never the case that, when we vote in an election in this country, everyone’s views are static from that point on for evermore. In our democracy, it is always the case that orderly discussion and debate continue in this Parliament—it is how we resolve our differences—and that we reflect on the result of a vote, on its consequences and impacts, and on what should happen next.

To shut down debate at this time—the House has not voted on the dates of conference recess, and extensive representations were made to the Prime Minister over the summer that Parliament should be recalled—is an insult to my constituents and an outrage to our democracy.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) spoke of the times when business has finished early and we have not had matters to debate before us, but the Prime Minister has not brought any solutions to Brexit to this House for discussion and debate. He wants to close down debate in this place to force through a reckless no-deal Brexit that will inflict harm on constituents across the country. That is irresponsible and will drive even more division through our country.

[Jeremy Wright]

As the hon. Lady knows, I agree with the thrust of her argument that we should spend the bulk of the five weeks of possible Prorogation here discussing these issues, rather than elsewhere. Would it not be better if hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber made it clear we that we would use that time to discuss the best way for us to leave the European Union, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) said, rather than to re-fight the referendum campaign, as I fear the hon. Lady may be suggesting we should do? Is not the best way of proceeding for us to leave with a deal and forge what cross-party consensus we can to find a deal that we all agree on?

[Helen Hayes]

It is clear that my constituents do not want to leave the European Union. As a Back-Bench MP on the Opposition Benches, I reserve the right to represent their views and test with them how they feel and think about any deal that is on the table. We had a deal from the previous Prime Minister that was undeliverable in this House for a range of reasons on both sides of the House. We now have a Prime Minister who says he wants a deal but will not put one on the table or negotiate one in good faith with the European Union. In that context, I am not prepared to acquiesce to an “emperor’s new clothes” argument that this will somehow be fine for my constituents. I want the right to continue to represent their views and bring to this House in an orderly fashion their views and concerns, debate them with the Government and hold this reckless Prime Minister to account.

I will not be silent. My constituents’ voices will continue to be heard, and our values will continue to be represented in this debate. I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to continue to oppose this Prorogation vigorously and to remain sitting this evening. This cuts to the very heart of our democracy and the ability of Members of Parliament to hold to account the Executive, who seem determined recklessly to drive us over the edge of a cliff. We cannot stand for that.