Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Justine Greening Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

I absolutely agree, because the deal is in the interests of our country and has been negotiated with 27 other countries.

Continuing this uncertainty does not solve anything. A second referendum will not solve the uncertainty. The Labour policy to try to renegotiate and then have another referendum and then another one does not solve the problem.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Ind)]

The hon. Lady makes the case that a second referendum will not solve the Brexit impasse. I would like her to elaborate on that. On the question of the Bill which the Prime Minister proposed unamended and has now pulled, so this House cannot take it forward, surely a referendum on whether or not that proceeds would give a definitive outcome. Perhaps if the House had allowed the British public a vote on the previous Prime Minister’s deal, we could have had a definitive outcome many, many months ago.

[Vicky Ford]

The Prime Minister’s Brexit deal was pulled the moment the programme motion was rejected—sadly. If I believed that the Opposition truly wanted to have a couple of extra days to scrutinise it, I would give them another chance, but they proved otherwise again and again when they failed to turn up to scrutiny Committees and debates in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Seely]

Please let me make some progress. I will let the right hon. Gentleman intervene a little later.

We need a new Parliament because there are so many other things that we need to debate. I am interested in debating the rise of autocracies in the world. We have significant issues regarding Huawei.

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend has just said that we need a new Parliament as if somehow a totally different electorate will be voting for people to represent them. Does he think that the people of our country made a mistake in 2017 with the Parliament they elected?

[Mr Seely]

No. My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I do not think the people made a mistake and one has to respect what they did. They read the Conservative and Labour manifestos and 80% of Members were elected on a pledge to respect the wishes of the people in the 2016 referendum.

[Justine Greening]

But my hon. Friend will also know that at the bottom of page 36 of the Conservative manifesto it was clear that the party’s intention was to leave the European Union with both a withdrawal agreement and a future partnership agreed by the end of the article 50 period. Surely he accepts that that is now not what is being proposed, so the current proposal does not deliver what the Conservative party manifesto set out at the last election.

[Mr Seely]

Again, my right hon. Friend makes a perceptive point. It is not from lack of trying. We have had two withdrawal Bills. We have almost got to the point of a “take your pick” withdrawal Bill. We had one this summer, which Labour Members relentlessly voted against. Now many of them wish that they had not done so, because, funnily enough, they like the new withdrawal Bill even less.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Justine Greening Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Ind)]

I would like to make a brief contribution on what is planned in the Bill, how the Government propose to take it forward, and where they are taking our country. They seem to be the pertinent questions tonight.

On what is planned in the Bill, I have deep concerns. The situation as the Bill pertains to Northern Ireland should not be just brushed away by Members of my former party, the Conservative and Unionist party. They are real issues that affect real people. To simply ignore them because it is inconvenient to take them on board is not only inappropriate but ultimately dangerous. I was very much struck by the speech by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), a representative from Northern Ireland. He talked about two issues that go to the heart of the problems we are trying to grapple with, which affect Northern Ireland but have wider application. On cross-community concerns, the understanding in the Good Friday agreement was that communities had to go forward together if that agreement was going to work. We in this House should learn from that. We are a United Kingdom, yet we seek to go forward with this Brexit deal in a way that ignores the very clear concerns of the other nations in the United Kingdom—not just Northern Ireland, but Scotland and Wales.

[Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a seminal moment? The Conservative and Unionist party is handing over legal, political and administrative control of Northern Ireland to the EU—almost like the United States handing over control of Alaska to Russia—and giving the people consent six years after this has taken place. That surely cannot be acceptable.

[Justine Greening]

It is very concerning that the rules Northern Ireland will have to live under will, in many regards, be set by the European Union, a body in which it will not have representatives. Ultimately, that is a recipe for something failing politically.

The point about consent matters. It is absolutely unacceptable for people in Northern Ireland to be thrown into an important new political arrangement and mechanism, with no say over whether it happens to them. Equally, it is unacceptable for the rest of the UK to face the same situation, going into a form of Brexit that many people who campaigned for Brexit, including Nigel Farage, who heads the Brexit party, feel is not the Brexit they campaigned for. He has called this deal Brexit in name only. I obviously understand that there is disagreement over what Brexit means, but that is one of the reasons why, three and a half years later, we are reaching this moment today.

Many Members who campaigned for Brexit, not least the Prime Minister, held up a Brexit deal by voting against one they felt did not deliver on that referendum result. I respect their view, but that brings me on to my point about how the Bill is being taken forward. Frankly, it is absolutely hypocritical for people who held up Brexit because they thought it was the wrong one, to then decide that their version should be fast-tracked and steamrollered through this House because we have run out of time. It is down to their actions that we are three and a half years down the road and we have not moved forward. It is entirely unacceptable to ram this through in two days, and it simply stores up problems for our United Kingdom by doing it this way.

I see no problem with taking longer and giving this House of representatives time to genuinely air the important issues about this proposal, have them understood, and have the Government able to respond to them. We have heard some of them today, but we have not heard, for example, about clause 29, which talks about what could be an important role for the European Scrutiny Committee in raising issues on EU legislation that comes through during the withdrawal agreement period, when we will simply have to take those rules but have no say about how they are set. The clause says that a motion can come before the House and be voted on. What happens then? Nobody knows.

Those are significant issues, but perhaps my biggest problem with the Bill is that it does not address the underlying issues of inequality of opportunity, which I believe sat behind and drove many of the concerns that resulted in people voting for Brexit in communities such as the one in which I grew up in Rotherham. In the end, I believe that we will have to come back and tackle those, and my concern is that Brexit does not.

Prime Minister’s Statement

Justine Greening Excerpts

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid there is a complete conceptual confusion here. Scotland, Northern Ireland—the whole of the UK is coming out of the customs union. Particular arrangements are being put in place to avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland, which I think is an objective that the whole House supports. As for the people of Scotland, they had a referendum, as the hon. and learned Lady knows full well, in 2014, and they voted very substantially to remain in the United Kingdom. That was the correct decision. They were told it was a once-in-a-generation decision, and I see no reason whatever to betray that promise that was made to them then.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Ind)]

The Prime Minister, I think, has said that he now wants to speak for the 52% and the 48%, but does he recognise that the rhetoric, the actions and the way that this Government have approached Brexit achieve the exact opposite of that, actually? Does he also recognise that dismissing the concerns of communities such as my own is no way to bring even England back together, and dismissing the concerns of other nations within the United Kingdom is also no way to bring the UK and Britain back together either?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly did not mean to dismiss anybody’s concerns, let alone her own. I recognise, as I think I said in my opening statement, that this is an issue that has aroused deep feeling across the country on both sides, but it is my strong belief that the way forward for this country now is to deliver Brexit, get it done and move our country forward. That is the way, I believe, that people can honestly and passionately express their pro-European views in a new deep and special partnership of the kind that my right hon. Friend—both of us—campaigned for.

Prime Minister's Role in Creating a Safe Environment

Justine Greening Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I reflect on the productive conversation that I had with the women’s caucus, when the Mother of the House was present. Again, people should be able to speak out. An example was given at that meeting of a female candidate being advised that a solution to the problem was to not campaign on social media. That completely unacceptable solution had been advised by a local council. That would mean that women could not engage in politics in the same way as men, which is completely unacceptable.

The rules of the House may be something you wish to reflect on, Mr Speaker, or that whoever happens to be elected by the House to replace you wishes to work on. Some of those expressions probably are not in common parlance today, by contrast to other statements that are. The Government’s focus is not just on Members of Parliament. This is about all who engages in public life—journalists who face abuse for what they say and others who just want to discharge a public duty or share their opinion in our democracy. We need to ensure that they are covered by any proposals as well.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Ind)]

Like many people in this Chamber, I was shocked by the unacceptable conduct of the Prime Minister and particularly by his attitude, which succeeded that of the Attorney General earlier in the day, to how this House works. My concern is that these institutions—both the Supreme Court and the judiciary, which we debated earlier, and Parliament, where laws are set in the first place—are absolutely crucial to the wellbeing of people in our country. We all rely on them. All those who are part of these institutions are effectively custodians who should protect their wellbeing for the future.

What we are seeing right now in British politics is effectively, in my view, a deliberate race to the bottom to a form of gutter politics that, unfortunately, directly disadvantages those of us not willing to be part of that race. The sooner the leadership of the main political parties in this country rise to the challenge of showing the levels of integrity in their conduct and behaviour that the British people are entitled to expect, the better.

Principles of Democracy and the Rights of the Electorate

Justine Greening Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

We could spend forever rehashing the political and legal arguments relating to Prorogation. The Government have accepted the outcome of the Supreme Court, although we disagree with it, and that has put an end to the matter. I do not think it will serve the House to discuss it any further. That is why we are back in this place.

To the outside world, all the House appears to do is say no: no to a second referendum; no to the single market; no to a customs union; no, no and no again to a deal. Perhaps most bizarrely of all, Her Majesty’s Opposition urge no to a no confidence motion. It is clear that we have reached an impasse. This Parliament becomes more entrenched and less effective by the day.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Ind)]

The Minister will know that the closest the House came to saying yes was when we held indicative votes. They took place over approximately four sitting days and we managed to get closer to an agreement than the previous Prime Minister had done in about two years, ignoring the House when it said that it did not support her withdrawal agreement. Is one option for the Government to explore again across the House what can find consensus? If that consensus was on a deal, but a deal to be put back to the people in a referendum, would the Minister accept the House’s yes to that step forward?

[Oliver Dowden]

The right hon. Lady is a passionate campaigner for a second referendum, but I seem to recall that the only amendment that passed was the Brady amendment, which sought to remove the backstop. That is precisely the position that the Prime Minister is pursuing in his negotiations.

[Justine Greening]

We are back here because Britain is in crisis. We have not prorogued or had a recess because of that. I simply ask the Minister an important question: if the House agreed to pass the Prime Minister’s deal, subject to a referendum, would the Government accept that?

[Oliver Dowden]

No, it is not the Government’s position to support a second referendum.

[Justine Greening]

You’re the one saying “no” there.

[Oliver Dowden]

For the simple reason that I honestly do not believe that a second referendum would solve anything. I have yet to hear people who voted leave proposing a second referendum.

Prime Minister's Update

Justine Greening Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the hon. Lady that tempers have become very ragged across the country and people feel that the fever of Brexit has gone on for too long, but the best way to sort this out is to get Brexit done, and that is what we want. I hope that she will join us in getting a good deal for this country, and getting it through the House of Commons.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Ind)]

The Prime Minister has talked about bringing a deal back to the House. He has also talked about his respect for the law, and about agreeing to make sure that he complies with the law. So may I ask him to be absolutely explicit that if he does bring a deal back to the House and the House does what its right is, perhaps, and rejects it, he will respect that, but he will also respect the so-called Benn Bill that the House has passed, and then ask for an extension?

May I just say to the Prime Minister that continuing to call a Bill that the House has passed a “surrender Bill” is deeply disrespectful to this place? He has said that he must respect the Supreme Court’s ruling; I simply ask him to respect the decisions of this House too.

[The Prime Minister]

I must say to my right hon. Friend—my friend with whom I have worked happily over many years—that, actually, I do think that the surrender Act has done grave damage. What it would try to do—[Interruption.] I speak as somebody who has to sit in with—[Interruption.]

Brexit Readiness: Operation Yellowhammer

Justine Greening Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful for that ornithological outing from my right hon. Friend. The first thing to say is that Operation Yellowhammer absolutely does exist. It is the reasonable worst-case scenario, and the planning assumptions, as the National Audit Office has outlined, are those which we seek to, and have taken steps to, mitigate. She also referred to Operation Kingfisher, which is the programme led by the Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in order to ensure that we can intervene as appropriate in particular sectors in the event of no deal. I am afraid that there is no operation dodo, although I can well understand why the Independent Group for Change would be interested in such an exercise.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Ind)]

Taxpayers are funding the £100 million Get Ready for Brexit publicity campaign, but the reality is that they do not actually know what Brexit is going to mean. It is difficult for them when the two prime scenarios we are faced with are no deal and a negotiated deal. On no deal, as we have just heard, there are no real details that the Government are prepared to divulge on Operation Yellowhammer. In relation to a negotiated deal, our Government have given papers to the European Union to negotiate a settlement that the British people will have to live with, even though the British people themselves are not being allowed to see what is being negotiated on their behalf. My question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is: what is the problem? Is there some need for secrecy? If there is, he should explain it, but I do not think the British people want to have a secret Government. They want openness. Or is it a fact that there simply is no plan for no deal and that there is not really a plan for getting a deal? If that is the case, we ought to know about that, too.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the points she makes. With respect to the preparations for no deal, I listed some of them in my statement. I would welcome any Member of this House who would like to visit the Cabinet Office and the Department for Exiting the European Union to be taken through the extensive preparations that we are taking. As I mentioned earlier, it is the case that on everything from the provision of transitional simplified procedures and the allocation of EORI—economic operators registration and identification —numbers to the traffic management steps that we are taking in Kent, and indeed the information that exists on gov.uk/brexit, there is plenty of information that enables businesses to prepare for no deal. And, as I mentioned in my statement, that preparation will not be wasted in the case of a deal, because we are securing—well, we are seeking to secure—a free trade agreement with the European Union. With respect to negotiations, the Prime Minister, the Brexit Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and I have been clear: we are seeking to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements on the island of Ireland, and in any withdrawal agreement we want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens and move towards a future economic partnership that is based on a best-in-class free trade agreement.

Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications)

Justine Greening Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

That intervention speaks for itself.

I remind the House that in the past 40 years Parliament has never been prorogued for longer than three weeks, so it is extraordinary that this Prorogation should come now and for five weeks. In most cases, the House is prorogued for the purposes of the Queen’s Speech for a week or less, and often just for a few days, so to shut down Parliament for so long a period at this stage of the Brexit process is extraordinary.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Ind)]

I am thoroughly supportive of this emergency debate and what it seeks to achieve. Many people perhaps do not realise that this is not just closing down the debate on Brexit; it is closing down the debate on everything. For example, were we not proroguing, we would have had Treasury questions tomorrow and I would have asked a question to represent some of those people affected by the 2019 loan charge issue. That issue, along with the NHS, schools and everything else, will now be set on one side, and this House’s voice on behalf of the people will be utterly muzzled.

[Keir Starmer]

I accept that intervention, because the House is being shut down and we will not be able to do our job. It is not Members of Parliament who are being shut out, but those we represent. Whether in relation to the issues mentioned by the right hon. Lady or any other issue, the people are shut out when Parliament is shut down. It is all very well for the Government to say, “We will produce some documents in relation to our analysis of a no-deal Brexit,” but we are not going to be here for the next five weeks, so when are we going to scrutinise them? Even if the Government do publish something, when do we get to ask questions? Not until it is far too late—two weeks away from the decision. To simply say, “We will publish some documents,” under Yellowhammer or anything else misses the point, which is that there can be no scrutiny if we are not sitting.

There is a wider observation, which is that if the purpose of proroguing is justified by the need to pass a Queen’s Speech, how on earth do the Government think they can now achieve that? I remind the House that the Government now have a majority of minus 40. With Cabinet Ministers and even the Prime Minister’s family resigning the Tory Whip every day, one can only wonder what the number will be by the time the House returns. Surely the Government should now just give up on the idea of a Queen’s Speech and drop Prorogation altogether.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I rise to state the Scottish National party’s unequivocal support for this application and to congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) on obtaining this debate. Unlike the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), I am going to confine myself to the terms of the motion, but I wish gently to remind her that this motion is supported by Members from across the House, some of whom, like her, have constituencies that voted leave and some of whom, like me, have constituencies that voted remain. The will of the people in Scotland is to remain, so I have no shame in having that as my primary motivation. Having said that, I am also very concerned to ensure, for as long as I and my colleagues are here, that this Parliament and this Government do things properly, and there are strong grounds for suspicion that things have not been done properly in relation to this Prorogation. The dogs in the streets know that the reason this Prime Minister is proroguing Parliament is to avoid scrutiny as he hurtles towards 31 October and a no-deal Brexit. Nobody is fooled that the Prorogation has anything to do with the need to commence a new Session and to have a Queen’s Speech on pressing domestic Bills, which none of us has seen so far. If the litigation in which I and others in this House are involved in Scotland achieves nothing else, it will have shown that something is very much awry with the reasons given for the Prorogation.

[Justine Greening]

I agree with what the hon. and learned Lady says. Were we able to have a voice on this, many Members of this House would think that we should not even have the conference recess for three weeks and that Parliament should be here doing its job at a time of crisis, speaking on behalf of our communities.

[Joanna Cherry]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Lady on that matter. The documents lodged with the Scottish Court last week, and revealed to the public against the Government’s wishes but as a result of interventions by the legal team that I and others in this House instruct, and by the BBC and other newspapers, show that the Prime Minister had approved a plan to prorogue Parliament on 16 August. Yet, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield said in his opening speech, as late as 25 August a No. 10 spokesperson was still denying that there was any such plan to prorogue. Indeed, in the pleadings lodged by the Government in response to the action raised in Scotland by myself and other Members of this House, the British Government referred to our contention that we were in fear of a Prorogation as hypothetical and academic. So there are very real reasons to believe that this Government are economical with the truth.

The memos produced by the British Government showed not only the somewhat distasteful comment about girly swots, with which the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield dealt most ably, but that the reason why the current Prime Minister wants to prorogue this Parliament is because he wants to avoid what he referred to as the “rigmarole” of this Parliament sitting in September. So even if the Scottish case achieves nothing else, it has shown that the Government have not been entirely truthful so far.

Another myth was finally put to rest at the weekend when the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) resigned. Most of us were not surprised to hear her confirm that there are, in fact, no renegotiations ongoing with the EU. Of course we already knew that from the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and from a number of counterparts in the EU. I noted last week at the Brexit Select Committee that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster initially tried to give the impression that negotiations were ongoing but when pressed on the matter he conceded that there are no negotiations as such, merely discussions. We heard that from him last week, but it was good to hear it from someone who has so recently been at the heart of government and has had the decency to leave the Government given what she has seen.

The weight of evidence regarding the damage that no deal would do to the nations of these islands is overwhelming. We all know that from the work we have done on Select Committees over the past few years—work that will not be happening in the next few weeks, when Parliament is prorogued. But still the Government will not tell us the truth about the assessments they have made of the impact of a no-deal Brexit and the preparations they are making for that. So it is right that this House seeks the documentation relating to Operation Yellowhammer.

I will now concentrate on the Prorogation case, because myself and a number of other MPs and peers, as well as Jo Maugham, QC, and the Good Law Project, have raised an action in Scotland, in which we argue that Parliament is being prorogued for an unlawful purpose and to prevent democratic scrutiny, and that therefore the courts should overturn the order to prorogue. Although the judge at first instance was not with us, we had a full hearing before Scotland’s Appeal Court last week, and we are awaiting the outcome of that decision on Wednesday. Of course a date, 17 September, has also been assigned at the UK Supreme Court to hear any further appeal in the Scottish case and also an appeal on the proceedings raised in England and Northern Ireland. Members of the public should be aware that if the courts eventually find out that Prorogation was unlawful, they can order this Parliament to return. So even if we are prorogued tonight, all is not lost.

In the course of these proceedings, something curious happened last week. I commend to hon. Members’ attention an interesting article about this in the Financial Times at the weekend by David Allen Green, the distinguished legal commentator, entitled: “The curious incident of the missing witness statement”. In the Scottish case, the petitioners argue that the Government had an improper motive in seeking Prorogation, and we say that the real intention was a cynical effort to close down Parliament so that it could not block a no-deal Brexit. Usually, there is a pretty straightforward way for the Government or the responding party to rebut or refute an allegation of such bad faith. Where somebody is facing such an allegation of bad faith, the normal thing to do in an action of judicial review would be to submit a sworn statement—an affidavit—setting out the way in which the decision was made and that the decision was properly taken and to lodge relevant supportive documentation. What happened last week in Edinburgh was that the Government did not provide any such witness statement. They provided no such sworn affidavit and no official explanation. They simply supplied some documents, heavily redacted, without any covering explanation. The absence of such a statement in such litigation is, as David Allen Green says, very “conspicuous”.

Priorities for Government

Justine Greening Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

This country is proud of its record as a world leader in fighting child sexual abuse, and under this Government we will continue to lengthen that lead.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)]

I hope the Prime Minister agrees that having a general election might be something that the Leader of the Opposition wants but it is not what the country needs and it will not resolve the Brexit deadlock. Will he bring back any Brexit plan, put it to this House and then put it to the people, because that is the way we can finally break the Brexit deadlock, unite the country, move on, and get on to fixing the real problems that Britain faces, not least improving social mobility and achieving equality of opportunity?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend and I go back a long way and she and I agree on so many things, but on this I must, I am afraid, respectfully disagree. Having a second referendum, which is now Labour’s policy—it was not before, but it is now the party of return or revoke—would be catastrophic for our Union because it would of course undermine our most important case that when you have a referendum, that deeply divisive and toxic event should only take place once in every generation. That was what we said to the people of Scotland. How could we look at them and say we could not have a second referendum in Scotland if we had another referendum on the EU in the UK? It is simply the wrong thing to do.

National Security Council Leak

Justine Greening Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

What we are talking about is a leak inquiry, carried out on the instruction of the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary, by another appropriate official, into the unauthorised disclosure of the proceedings of the National Security Council. It is an internal Government matter, just as any such disclosure and any leak inquiry would be considered a matter for the Government concerned—Labour, Conservative or coalition. I really do not think that it would be right to be in a position where the House collectively tried to establish itself as an investigating authority into internal matters relating to the conduct of Ministers as members of the Government, or the conduct of officials as members of the Government. Those are matters that it is quite proper for the Government to determine, and it is then for Ministers, as I am doing this morning, to come to explain the Government’s decision and be held to account by the House.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)]

Having also sat on the NSC for several years, I recognise the importance of undertaking this leak inquiry. However, at the heart of this is a broader question about the approach that both the NSC and the Cabinet need to take to serve the national and public interest. I completely agree with my right hon. Friend on the NSC, but surely an element of this extends to how Cabinet is conducted, the rules around it and the behaviour of those who sit in the Cabinet.

Is it not now time to be clearer about the ministerial code of conduct and the role of the public interest in briefings given externally? I say that because we have a freedom of information law that clearly sets a public interest test that is routinely applied by Departments, yet it seems that the Secretaries of State running those Departments can routinely set that test themselves, without any regard for the way in which their officials would do so from day to day by almost certainly excluding ever publishing advice to Ministers when the public ask for it.

[Mr Lidington]

I disagree with my right hon. Friend on this point. I think that Ministers and their officials take their duties to put the public interest first very seriously. That is absolutely central to the principles of not only the ministerial code, but the civil service code which, let us not forget, has statutory force, unlike the ministerial code. In my experience of the last nine years in government, Ministers take those principles very seriously indeed, and their officials—particularly senior officials—are clear and robust in reminding Ministers of those duties. I agree with my right hon. Friend in hoping that lessons will be learned from this particular episode about the importance of mutual trust and the confidentiality of Cabinet proceedings.