Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson

John Baron Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I rise as one who, if there is to be a vote on this motion tonight, will vote in support of the Committee of Privileges, but let me share with the House my sincere hope that there will not be a vote, because there should not be a vote. We should remind ourselves that the Committee was set the task on a Government motion when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister, and that the motion passed through the Commons unopposed. I add my thanks to the Committee’s members for a diligent and, no doubt, at times difficult task, which they carried out at the request of the House.

It is customary for MPs to accept the recommendations of such a report without a vote, but, as I have said, if there is a Division I will vote in support of the report. Its recommendations, unfortunately, chime in many respects with my own view that Boris Johnson knowingly misled Parliament, which is why I withdrew my support from him—the then Prime Minister—in May last year, and asked him in a meeting to retire at that stage with, perhaps, a modicum of grace. Sadly, I continue to believe that he knowingly misled Parliament, as the report has duly concluded.

This debate—and the vote, if there is a vote—is terribly important. It is of the utmost importance that we attach due deliberation to what it represents. Our parliamentary system compares well with others, and is the beating heart of our democracy. A central component of this system depends on Ministers telling the truth at the Dispatch Box. Indeed, the ability of the legislature to question the Executive can be properly executed only if Ministers tell the truth at the Dispatch Box; if they do not, accountability is impossible, and then we are on a very slippery slope.

No party, no individual, no ego, is bigger than Parliament. It is the very system that safeguards our freedoms, and through which we try to create a more prosperous, fairer society, regardless of party. History will be very unkind to anyone who impugns its integrity. Members who are found to have knowingly misled the House bring it, and by extension other Members, into public disrepute, and that does nothing for the dignity and calling of politics. Indeed—and this, perhaps, leads to a further point—if some Members maintain that we as Members cannot regulate ourselves, they are in effect asking for an independent body to do that job. The thought of unelected officials regulating the conduct of elected Members of this House should concern every parliamentarian, and that is why I think that, in many respects, today is a good day. As it should be, our Parliamentary system itself is putting right a wrong—or certainly I hope it will be doing so.

As we all know, the reason the rule-breaking in Downing Street during the pandemic resonated so strongly with the public is that the rest of us went through real pain during the lockdowns, at the instigation and compulsion of the then Prime Minister. I for one could not say goodbye to my beloved mother as she lay in hospital and passed away, because we were abiding by the rules, and I know that many, many people had similar experiences. To find that unlawful gatherings were taking place at the heart of government was bad enough, but that has been compounded by the failure of the then Prime Minister to be truthful to the House. It is simply not acceptable, and I know that those in this Chamber will find it to be unacceptable later this evening. Agreeing with the report’s recommendations is thus, in my view, an essential step in restoring standards in public life and to restoring the centrality of truthfulness to our parliamentary system.

Finally, I say to my Conservative colleagues that the last year or so that we have spent deliberating on the various aspects of partygate has served as a massive distraction from the otherwise good work that we have been doing on many fronts. It is time to put this to bed, and agreeing the report is the best way of doing that.

Business of the House

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman. This needs to be resolved around the negotiating table, and that needs two parties. The unions need to call off the strikes and come to the negotiating table, not inflict misery on our constituents.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Might I remind my right hon. Friend that in answer to the SNP’s question today, we should remind them that they cannot be trusted? When we last had a referendum on the Union, we were assured by the SNP that it would be a once-in-a-lifetime, generational choice. They cannot be trusted.

[Mark Spencer]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting observation. Once in a generation is certainly not five years; I think it would be nearer to 25 years before it should be considered again.

Business of the House

John Baron Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I echo what the hon. Gentleman said about the 96 deaths at Hillsborough, which were the subject of the urgent question that has just passed; it rightly continues to be remembered in this House. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for telling us that the debate on 24 June will be on defence spending, which, interestingly, was one of the subjects specifically given to the Backbench Business Committee when it was set up, and for his very clear notice on the Estimates days, which I hope the relevant parties will listen carefully to and take to heart.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]]

I join the House in wishing Mr Speaker a happy birthday and passing on our thanks and best wishes to Mr Tony Reay.

Owing to a £10 million shortfall between the Government’s generous financial support and the cost of maintaining its existing global network, the British Council is in danger of having to close the largest number of overseas offices in its near 90-year history. Before the Government make a bad decision—they are due to announce their decision in the coming week—that runs counter to global Britain and will damage our soft power, will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate so that the House can discuss this important matter, further to my urgent question earlier this week? We want the Government not to fall at the final fence.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The British Council is undoubtedly a crucial part of the UK’s presence overseas and a key soft power asset. As the Minister for Asia said in response to the urgent question on Tuesday, the Government

“value the influence of the British Council. We agreed a 2021-22 spending review settlement totalling £189 million, which is a 26% increase in funding from 2020-21.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 832.]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter again and will reiterate his concerns to the Minister, but in terms of a further debate, the Backbench Business Committee is undoubtedly the right place to apply for one.

Business of the House

John Baron Excerpts

Thursday 11th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thought that the hon. Lady would raise this important point, because I am obviously aware of the reporting this week on Liberty Steel, which is worrying for the company’s employees. I can reassure her that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is following the developments closely. It remains a strong advocate for the steel industry and continues to work closely with the steel industry to support the sector’s transition to a competitive, sustainable and low-carbon future. It has made some funding available for this, with £500 million of taxpayers’ money in relief for the steel sector since 2013 to make electricity costs more competitive. It is obviously important, however, that the Government and the company are working as one to ensure a good prospect for the steel industry in these difficult times, with regard to the background of Liberty Steel.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]]

We all understand that the pandemic has led to a substantial increase in correspondence between Members and Government Departments, and I do thank the Leader of the House for his efforts to ensure that this correspondence is responded to in a timely fashion. However, may I gently suggest to the Government that extra resources need to be committed to the Department of Health and Social Care’s correspondence teams in particular? On occasions, I have been waiting for up to six months to receive a substantive response to my inquiries on behalf of constituents, despite chasing through the normal channels, and I know I am not alone. Such a situation does not reflect well on either the Government or Parliament.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have taken up far too many Members’ issues with Departments relating to correspondence. I said last year that I had considerable sympathy with the Department for Health and Social Care because of its excess workload. I must confess that that sympathy is no longer as great as it once was. My hon. Friend is right that more resources need to be dedicated to the matter. We have a right and a duty to hold the Government to account, and the Government have a duty to respond to Members. Speaking on behalf of the Government, I also think that scrutiny leads to better government, so it is in our interest as the Government as much as in that of Back-Bench MPs that scrutiny takes place, and therefore responses should be timely.

Business of the House

John Baron Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There is more joy in heaven over the one sinner who repented than the 99 who never needed to repent in the first place. I am delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman becoming such an ardent Eurosceptic and welcoming the advantages of leaving the European Union, in that we can set our own procurement rules and, if we choose, help local firms and British businesses. That will be a matter for us to decide as a country, and my noble friend, Lord Agnew, has written to the right hon. Gentleman and set out the position pretty clearly.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]]

Following the answer given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), may I press the Leader of the House further on virtual participation in debates and endorse the opinions of the Procedure Committee that we should complete the debate started on 24 November and allow all Members to fully contribute in the Chamber on behalf of their constituents? He and I shared the same trenches when campaigning for an EU referendum, yet many of us will be unable to contribute if and when EU trade deal votes come before the Chamber.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend will be able to vote, because there has been a system set up for proxy votes. We had two hours of debate on this issue, and some hon. Members deliberately decided to talk it out and not allow the House to come to a conclusion. We notice in business questions the pressure of time from Members asking the Backbench Business Committee for debates on specific subjects. Having provided two hours of debate, it is difficult to know what more the Government could have done.

Business of the House

John Baron Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It would be wrong of me to comment on an individual case when I obviously do not know the details. This is a matter for the Home Secretary, and I am sure that the hon. Lady has used the usual means to raise her point with the Home Secretary. We have a very fair immigration system that tries to ensure that the people who are entitled to be here are here, and that those who are not entitled to be here have to go back to the places from which they came. That is a perfectly reasonable immigration policy, but individual cases can sometimes be much harder than the broad principles.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]]

The whole House knows that the Leader of the House is a thoroughly decent chap, but, like all of us, he has the occasional blind spot. I have more than my fair share. His, though, relates to forbidding those colleagues with proxy votes who are not clinically extremely vulnerable from participating virtually in debates. May I suggest that he reconsiders and allows a proper debate and vote on the issue? The technology works, and the Government advice is that people should work from home when they are able to do so. There really should not be two classes of MP. All MPs should be able to represent their constituents in debate.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises the point about proxy votes. Proxy votes are available to all Members and were widened to reduce the numbers going through the Division Lobbies, and this does not have any effect on people’s ability to appear in debates, or indeed for them to appear virtually in interrogative sessions. I would point out to my hon. Friend that, had he not tabled his amendment earlier this week, we would have extended this to the extremely clinically vulnerable for debates, and I am sorry that that did not happen.

Participation in Debates

John Baron Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) (Urgent Question)]

To ask the Leader of the House of Commons if he will make a statement on participation in debates.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this urgent question.

Throughout this year, the pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges to the everyday functioning of our parliamentary democracy, but thanks to your tireless efforts, Mr Speaker, and those of the House staff on whom we all rely, so much more has been possible than some might have feared. During the initial lockdown, the hybrid proceedings allowed scrutiny to continue, even if it were not possible for the Government to proceed with their legislative agenda in a timely manner. During the period after Parliament returned in June, we were able to resume legislative scrutiny both in the Chamber and in Committees, even if other aspects of our normal work, like Westminster Hall, remained silent. During recent weeks, Westminster Hall has resumed its work, even if it has not yet been possible for all Members to take part.

Throughout this year, our approach has been to maximise what is possible within the limitations placed upon us. This is a continuing process, and our arrangements remain under review. In practice, that means applying two principles consistently. First, we must continue to explore what more is possible. To that end, I have worked with the House authorities throughout the year in support of their efforts to surmount the technical and capacity constraints that they have faced. Secondly, both Parliament as an institution and Members individually should follow both the letter and spirit of public health guidance.

As an institution, we have treated Parliament as a workplace no different from any other in making it covid-secure. As individual Members of Parliament, we are no different from any other key worker up and down the country seeking to discharge their responsibilities within the constraints imposed by the pandemic. We as MPs want to do the best we can for our constituents within the context of varying personal circumstances and experiences, and of course developing national and local guidance.

In last week’s business questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) made a brave and moving appeal to be allowed to contribute more to our proceedings through virtual participation. This followed the appeals of a number of other Members. While my understanding is that capacity constraints prevent us from extending Westminster Hall debates to Members participating virtually, my hon. Friend has certainly convinced me that we should seek to do more to support additional virtual participation in the Commons Chamber.

I have therefore decided that, in line with the Government advice that the clinically extremely vulnerable should not go into work, we should work with the House authorities to find a solution. I am exploring how we can support additional virtual participation in the Commons, despite capacity constraints, for those who are clinically extremely vulnerable, and aim to bring a motion before the House. This is the latest step in our work to maximise what is possible within the limitations placed upon us, enabling the Government to legislate and the House to conduct scrutiny, thus enabling us, together, to carry out our collective duties to the British people.

[Mr Baron [V]]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. As someone who is shielding with his wife, who is herself clinically extremely vulnerable, and having, with others, raised this issue with you, Mr Speaker, with the Whips and with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House last week, we think that the Government have been wrong to forbid Members with proxy votes to contribute virtually to Chamber debates. After all, we have been able to ask the Prime Minister questions, we have been able to ask Secretaries of State questions, and we have been able to participate in all votes. It therefore makes little sense to us that we could participate in the debates only if we appeared in person—something that is not possible if shielding or living with people who are. Of course we accept that there is a balance to be struck between continuing the essential work of Parliament and accommodating the exceptional situation of the pandemic, but the current measures do not strike that right balance. They have, however inadvertently, created a hierarchy of MPs, which few MPs welcome.

I welcome this announcement from my right hon. Friend, in so far as it goes, and look forward to hearing how the review pans out. Many colleagues across the House will also be pleased at the announcement. However, he is still excluding Members who are shielding with wives, husbands or partners or who are themselves clinically extremely vulnerable. This exclusion is insensitive to family situations, and I ask him to think again, because it makes even less sense now, given his announcement to the House today. I suggest that there is little room for procedural purity in a pandemic. Will he therefore meet me, virtually, so that we can discuss this further?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I can certainly answer the last bit of the question first. I would always be delighted to meet my hon. Friend at any point, and we can do it virtually or simply by telephone, if that is convenient for him. As Leader of the House, I have made it clear always to all right hon. and hon. Members that it is my role to have as many meetings as right hon. and hon. Members want, so it would be a pleasure to see my hon. Friend. He raises a very important point and one on which I have the greatest sympathy with him and other right hon. and hon. Members: it is, of course, difficult for those with family responsibilities and those with obligations both to themselves and to others who are concerned about their safety and the safety of members of their family. There are, however, a number of constraints on what can be done practically, so these are the considerations we have to take into account before making the decision as to what we are to do in this Chamber and how we are to react to all the various circumstances of individual Members of Parliament.

First, it is important that the House of Commons is a covid-secure workplace, and— very much under your auspices, Mr Speaker, but also under the House authorities’ —that has been ensured. Great steps have been taken since March to ensure that covid security is of the highest level. I think there would be few workplaces in the country that can compete with that. That is important because ensuring that people who come into this place are safe has been your highest priority, Mr Speaker, and also, of course, the high priority of the Clerk of the House of Commons, who has the technical legal responsibility for the safety of this place.

The second point is that it is important that legislation passes and that the Government are held to account in an effective way. There, I look at what happened in May and June, when a number of activities were cancelled altogether: we did not have Backbench business days and we did not have Westminster Hall, but we had three days a week primarily of Government business. The Government business was very heavily truncated and Ministers, to my mind—and I think of many right hon. and hon. Members —were not fully or properly held to account during that period. It was, in the words of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, “sub-optimal”, a word that became very fashionable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) is very much a leader of fashion, and certainly in linguistic fashion she set the tone with the word “sub-optimal”. But it also meant that Government legislation was not getting through in a timely manner. Government legislation is not just important from the point of view of Government, it is important from the point of view of democratic propriety. The Government were elected just about a year ago on a manifesto and they have a duty to the British people to deliver on what was proposed, in addition to ensuring that we are prepared for 31 December, which is quite an important date, because on that day the transition period ends and legislation has to be in place to ensure that. Unfortunately, with the fully hybrid proceedings, that was not working and that is why we had to move back to a more physical Parliament to ensure that we could deliver on the manifesto commitments, ensure that the Government were held to account, allow for Backbench business debates and get on with business.

There is one other very important and fundamental point which I would like to make to my hon. Friend, because I am sure he will understand it and will sympathise with it. As Members of Parliament, we are key workers and we must behave as other key workers do. Last week, I had to write to a constituent of mine in exactly the same position as my hon. Friend. The Government guidance is that if you are living with somebody who is clinically extremely vulnerable, it does not mean that you should not go to work in a covid-safe environment. That is the advice of Her Majesty’s Government to our constituents, and I do not think it would be right of me to stand here and say that we should treat Members of Parliament differently from the way we are treating our constituents. Indeed, I believe it is of fundamental importance that, as we carry out our duty as key workers, we must consider how other key workers are operating, and we must be shoulder to shoulder with them. So to ensure the legislative programme and proper accountability, we are able to make further steps to allow more remote participation, but we are not able to make remote participation unlimited, much though I think everybody sympathises with my hon. Friend and other Members in similar positions.

Business of the House

John Baron Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Leaving the European Union was put to the British people on 23 June 2016, and a general election surely is consulting the people, if nothing else.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Can the Leader of the House confirm that 95% of the Prime Minister’s deal essentially remains unchanged from the deal that preceded it, and we had three and a half years to scrutinise that, so this should not take too long?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is correct, but the Prime Minister got rid of the undemocratic backstop, which made the deal acceptable.

European Union (Withdrawal)

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the need to take all necessary steps to ensure that the United Kingdom does not leave the European Union on 31 October 2019 without a withdrawal agreement and accordingly makes provision as set out in this order:

(1) On Wednesday 4 September 2019

(a) Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that order) shall not apply;

(b) any proceedings governed by this order may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed, and shall not be interrupted;

(c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private);

(d) at 3.00 pm, the Speaker shall interrupt any business prior to the business governed by this order and call a Member to present the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill of which notice of presentation has been given and immediately thereafter (notwithstanding the practice of the House) call a Member to move the motion that the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill be now read a second time as if it were an order of the House;

(e) in respect of that Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.

(f) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this order may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption.

(2) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (18) of this order shall apply to and in connection with the proceedings on the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill in the present Session of Parliament.

Timetable for the Bill on Wednesday 4 September 2019

(3) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at the sitting on Wednesday 4 September 2019 in accordance with this Order.

(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 5.00 pm.

(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 7.00 pm.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put on Wednesday 4 September 2019

(4) When the Bill has been read a second time:

(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;

(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(5) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (3), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Chairman or Speaker for separate decision;

(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a designated Member;

(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other Questions, other than the Question on any motion described in paragraph (16) of this Order.

(7) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

Consideration of Lords Amendments and Messages on a subsequent day

(8) If any message on the Bill (other than a message that the House of Lords agrees with the Bill without amendment or agrees with any message from this House) is expected from the House of Lords on any future sitting day, the House shall not adjourn until that message has been received and any proceedings under paragraph (10) have been concluded.

(9) On any day on which such a message is received, if a designated Member indicates to the Speaker an intention to proceed to consider that message—

(a) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that order), any Lords Amendments to the Bill or any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly;

(b) proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under subparagraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed;

(c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private) in the course of those proceedings.

(10) If such a message is received on or before the commencement of public business on Monday 9 September and a designated Member indicates to the Speaker an intention to proceed to consider that message, that message shall be considered before any order of the day or notice of motion which stands on the Order Paper.

(11) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion as if:

(a) any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member;

(b) after paragraph (4)(a) there is inserted –

“(aa) the question on any amendment or motion selected by the Speaker for separate decision;”.

(12) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of a Lords Message to a conclusion as if:

(a) any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member;

(b) in paragraph (5), the words “subject to paragraphs (6) and (7)” were omitted.

Reasons Committee

(13) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.

Miscellaneous

(14) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies.

(15) No Motion shall be made, except by a designated Member, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.

(16) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies except by a designated Member.

(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(17) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(18) No private business may be considered at any sitting to which the provisions of this order apply.

Motion under section 3(2)(b) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019

(19) No motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown under section 3(2)(b) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 prior to Monday 9 September.

Royal Assent

(20) At the sittings on Monday 9 September, Tuesday 10 September and Wednesday 11 September, the House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.

Proceedings in next Session of Parliament

(21) The provisions of paragraphs (22) and (23) of this order apply to and in connection with proceedings on a Bill in the next Session of the present Parliament if—

(a) the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill has been read the third time in the present Session of Parliament but has not received the Royal Assent;

(b) the Speaker is satisfied that the Bill is in similar terms to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill in the present Session of Parliament;

(c) notice of presentation of the Bill is to be given by a designated Member.

(22) Where the conditions in paragraph (21) are met, Standing Order No. 14(11) (which relates to precedence in respect of private Members’ Bills) shall not apply in respect of the Bill in the new Session and notice of presentation of that Bill may be given on the first day of the new Session accordingly.

(23) Where the conditions in paragraph (21) are met, the provisions of paragraphs (1), (3) to (9) and (11) to (18) shall apply to proceedings on and in connection with the Bill in the new Session as they apply to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill and any reference in this order to Wednesday 4 September shall apply as if it were a reference to the second day of the new Session.

Interpretation, etc

(24) In this Order, “a designated Member” means—

(a) the Member in charge of the Bill in the present Session of Parliament; and

(b) any other Member backing the Bill in the present Session of Parliament and acting on behalf of that Member.

(25) This order shall be a Standing Order of the House.

This Motion arises because of four facts. The first fact is that, over the past six weeks, the Government have not produced a single indication of any viable proposal to replace the backstop by any alternative likely to prove acceptable to the EU. The likelihood of the Government reaching a deal at the European Council meeting on 17 and 18 October on the terms that the Government themselves have set is accordingly slight.

The second fact is that this is the last week in which Parliament will have the ability to block a no-deal exit on 31 October, because the Government are proroguing us until 14 October, and they have made it clear that they will fight in the courts any legislation proposed and passed to mandate an extension of the article 50 process. There will not be time after 14 October for Parliament both to legislate and for that legislation to be enforced on a reluctant Government through the courts.

The third fact is that, in the absence of a deal with the EU on the terms that the Government themselves have set and in the absence of an order from the Supreme Court that the Government should apply to extend the article 50 period, the Government will lead our country into a no-deal exit on 31 October. That has been made clear by the Prime Minister on repeated occasions.

The fourth and final fact is that, instead of constituting a threat to the EU that will force them to capitulate and remove the backstop, the Government’s intention or willingness to lead the country into a no-deal exit is a threat to our country. The Prime Minister is much in the position of someone standing on one side of a canyon shouting to people on the other side of the canyon that if they do not do as he wishes, he will throw himself into the abyss. That is not a credible negotiating strategy, and it is also not a responsible strategy, given that the rest of us are to be dragged over the edge with the Prime Minister.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Most of us in this place would prefer a good trade deal to no deal, but does he not understand that, in any negotiation, the chances of a bad deal materially increase if one signals to the other side that one is not prepared to walk away? Does he not see that?

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

These are difficult matters of judgment, and I respect the judgment that my hon. Friend makes, but it is different from mine. When we were negotiating the coalition between the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, which gave rise to a rather good Government, we were sitting around wondering how to conduct those negotiations. We came to the conclusion that actually we should disobey the rules of negotiation that my hon. Friend is describing and offer a bold and imaginative offer to the other side, which was then accepted, and we formed a coalition on the terms on which we wished to form it by mutual accord. That is the way in which I believe these negotiations can proceed. To offer a threat that actually harms us many times more than those against whom the threat is supposedly levelled is not, as I say, a credible negotiating strategy. I accept that our judgments differ on that, but that is my judgment. It is a matter for the House to decide which of the two judgments is correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I think I am right in saying that on two occasions I voted alongside the Prime Minister against those deals.

I understand that Members on both sides of the House are under a great deal of pressure in what is, regrettably, an extremely volatile political climate, but if you truly trust in what all the analysis shows—including the Government’s own analysis, as was demonstrated earlier—if you believe in what the experts say and if you understand that a no-deal Brexit will be a disaster for this country, you must act now.

With that in mind, I pay tribute to those who have shown the political courage to boldly stand up for what they believe in by bringing this debate to the House. The bullying and the threats to Conservative Members from their own side is unprecedented, but let me offer some words of encouragement. [Interruption.] It is all right; I am trying to help. Standing by your principles does not always damage your future prospects.

[Mr Baron]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but may I suggest that he should be careful with his selection of evidence? The Treasury, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of England all made predictions of doom and gloom if we voted to leave in 2016. They said there would be economic disaster by Christmas 2016, and they were all wrong. Since then there has been record low unemployment, record manufacturing output and record investment, in the full knowledge that no deal is better than a bad deal.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The only problem is that it flies in the face of all the facts that are published day in, day out. The value of the pound is falling and manufacturing industry is falling, and I will come on to a number of other industries that are seriously at threat.

I pay tribute to those people across all parties who have come together and continued to work to make a stand against this Government’s reckless and shambolic approach. The Prime Minister says that now is not the time for Parliament to make this stand. He says the chances of a Brexit deal are improving and that the outlines of an agreement are in the making, yet all the evidence points to the contrary. So far, in their six weeks in office, this Government have spent more time trying to avoid scrutiny and trying to silence Parliament than focusing on getting a good deal for this country. With weeks to go until we crash out of the European Union, they have failed to bring forward any new proposals, especially with regard to the Irish backstop.

Even if the Government had worked up new plans or presented a way forward, it seems very unlikely that the EU would agree to the Prime Minister’s red line of scrapping the backstop. As the Attorney General reportedly put it, such a proposition would be a “complete fantasy.” The reality is that no progress has been made in Brussels, nor is there likely to be. This reckless Government only have one plan: to crash out of the EU without a deal, at whatever price to our industry, to people’s jobs and to people’s living standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As Parliament is not being shut down—cannot be shut down—I could not be aware of plans to do something that is not happening, so the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong.

[Mr Baron]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the majority of Members—colleagues—who will vote against the Government tonight voted to trigger article 50, which said that we would leave the EU with or without a deal. It was very simple and very clear. Which bit does he think they now do not understand?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

They do not like losing referendums and never accepted the result.

I must come back to the constitutional issue, because this motion risks subverting Parliament’s proper role in scrutinising and the Executive’s in initiating. You in particular, Mr Speaker, have a grave responsibility, of which I know you are well aware, to uphold the norms and conventions that underpin our constitution, but we all have a role to play, and it does considerable damage when some of us choose to subvert rather than reinforce—to hinder rather than to polish—our constitution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I rise in opposition to this motion and in support of my Prime Minister, essentially for two reasons. The first is that there is more than a whiff of arrogance in this motion. Too many remain MPs in this place will use any device to try to block Brexit. There are honourable remain Members, but I am afraid that there are too many who are not. The decision was delegated by this place to the people, and they made their decision very clearly. We have been kicking this can down the road for three years and to many outside this Westminster bubble, enough is enough. I remind the House that the majority of Members who are going to support the motion voted in favour of triggering article 50, which said, very simply, that we would be leaving the EU with or without a deal. We have twice extended that time line, and that is why people outside this place are getting very frustrated with many colleagues here tonight.

Apart from the arrogance, this decision is ill-informed. It will make a bad deal more likely. Anyone who has negotiated in business or with any organisations will know that if the other side believes that one is not prepared to walk away, it will make for a worse deal—it is a simple fact of life. Most of us in this place prefer a good trade deal to no deal, but the guaranteed way of getting a bad deal is to take no deal off the table. Business people in this House, and many who have negotiated deals, will understand that.

This decision is also ill-informed from an economic point of view. No deal has been derided without examining a lot of the economic facts. Time does not allow here and now for those points to be made—[Interruption]—and too many people are talking anyway, so they would not hear them. I would merely suggest that people reflect on the fact that half of the EU’s top 10 trading partners trade on WTO no-deal terms with parties outside the EU—it is a simple fact of life.

[Jamie Stone]

I sincerely hope that I am not seen to be an arrogant Member of this House. I always try to represent the interests of the far north of Scotland. Will the hon. Gentleman, and others in the Chamber, at least accept that a no-deal Brexit would ruin the crofters and sheep farmers in my constituency, and that would lead to the second highland clearances?

[Mr Baron]

If there is no deal—most of us in this place want a good trade deal—there would be tens of billions of pounds to help those sectors of the economy and industry to readjust, as we have seen in previous economic cycles. It is a fact of life.

Too many people, not just in this place but outside, ignore the fact that investment and jobs are about comparative advantage. It is about how competitive our tax rates are and how flexible our labour markets are, and what our financial expertise is like—we have London and we have Edinburgh. What about our R&D and top universities? In aggregate, those are more important than WTO tariffs of 3% to 5%.

If proof of the pudding were required, with all the talk in the past few years about no deal being better than a bad deal, industry has been fully aware that no deal has been a distinct possibility and what have we seen economically? We have seen record low unemployment, record manufacturing output and record investment. This country attracted more inward investment last year than France and Germany put together. It comes down to economic reality. I am afraid that some Members of the House, in coming to their decision tonight, have not considered the economic facts.

Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I am neither a lawyer nor a constitutional historian, but I concur with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the Father of the House, and indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), in suggesting that it is regrettable that we have got to this position. One would not—Government Members, certainly—start from this position if we had to choose, but as hon. Members, we have to make a decision about the facts before us. The point I put to the Opposition is that they have failed to answer a very obvious question. Their motion is a take-it-or-leave-it, all-or-nothing approach, which does not recognise the sensitivities of the situation at hand, which has been built up by convention over decades, if not centuries, in trying to balance the will of Parliament with the national interest.

Many of us in this place have no problem with the concept that the will of the House of Commons should be recognised by the Government, but there is a delicate balance on issues of national interest. I do not think that anybody in this place would question the national interest when it comes to, for example, the role of our special services or our intelligence services, or indeed, Cabinet minutes freshly laid. That is generally accepted, but there is a grey area that we have to approach very carefully, and the Opposition’s all-or-nothing approach risks establishing a principle that they may come to regret one day. It is very important that there is honesty and honour in this place, but we also have to recognise that there needs to be a filter for claims about the national interest by Governments, and the Opposition motion lacks that filter. What the Opposition would be doing is putting everything out on the table, but there may be issues in that disclosure that are sensitive when it comes to the national interest. It is a reckless idea that risks riding roughshod over decades of convention when it comes to trying to establish that balance.

I make no bones about it: I do not like where we are as a Government on this issue, but we have to judge the situation as it is now, and the filter that could achieve the delicate balance that is needed in this situation is with regard to the Committee of Privileges. Although it is not a perfect answer to this situation, it would serve as a means of filtering information that is perhaps against the national interest.

I will support the amendment this afternoon—one hopes—but I urge the Opposition to think this through very carefully. On the balance of opinion, I think that the Government may lose this, but I suggest that the Opposition act with restraint in the follow-up, because there is a real danger that they could one day regret what they have done, and they should be careful what they wish for.