Early Parliamentary General Election

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. We have just had an hour and a half of a slightly out-of-control student union debate, and it sounds as though we might have a rather similar farcical performance tomorrow. Is there any chance of you, as the Chair of the House, persuading the usual channels to resume their meetings and produce a sensible timetable for the Bill we have before us, so that this House can resume discussion of these serious matters in a grown-up fashion and come to a resolution on the deal, which—I repeat—I will vote for if it reaches Third Reading, as I think it will? It could well be that we get back to orderly government, which I think the general public are dearly wishing we would rapidly do.

[Mr Speaker]

I take careful note of what the Father of the House has said, and I am certainly open to any such discussions, but it does require willing participants, and it remains to be seen, with the passage of time, whether that be so. But I think everybody will be attentive—on this occasion, as on every other—to what, on the basis of 49 years’ experience in the House, the Father of the House has had to say to us.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

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

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Will the hon. Lady forgive me if I take the point of order from the Father of the House first? [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being equally obliging. [Interruption.] Oh, very well, press on—Mr Kenneth Clarke.

[Mr Clarke]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is your decision; I do not think that either of us particularly minds. It is a point of order—almost.

[Mr Speaker]

May I ask the Father of the House: is it your first, sir? [Laughter.]

[Mr Clarke]

May I ask the Prime Minister and everybody else to reconsider the suggestion he made that we pause the progress of the Bill tomorrow? I congratulate him on winning approval for the deal he negotiated. I think I said in the House once that I would apologise to him and congratulate him if he actually got it, and he has achieved it, and the Second Reading vote was the approval of his deal. The argument is about how long the House is allowed to take over considering it. I cannot quite see the logic of pausing progress on the Bill when the whole House is expecting the next two days to be spent on it. That would enable us to see how quickly the House wishes to proceed and what sort of time is being looked for, and if people started filibustering—I hope they would not—it might enable the Government to get a majority for a timetable motion that was a modest adjustment to tonight’s. Three or four days more would do it.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Father of the House, for his point of order. I await the development of events, but it is not unreasonable for me to say that, as of now and unless there has been any change, my understanding is that the Leader of the House intends to make a business statement—I have a draft copy—that sets out the Government’s intentions for the coming days. I say that cautiously in case the Government have changed their mind, but I do not think they have and I do not expect them to do so. We will hear from the Leader of the House ere long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman requires my endorsement. Suffice it to say that a book could be written on the subject of the genesis of programme motions and he may well be tempted to pen it, but whether it would prove to be a bestseller is another matter.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, I will come first to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), whom I have kept waiting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), but first I will call the Father of the House.

[Mr Clarke]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for your indulgence. Would it be in order for the House to adjourn for an hour, so that the Leader of the House could come back with an amended timetable motion to put to the House for its approval?

[Mr Speaker]

I would not be inclined to accept that without notice. What I would say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that it would be potentially orderly, but I have to, if he will forgive me for saying so, read the runes. I have no sense, notwithstanding the argument he has advanced, that that is the wish of the Government. The fact that the Prime Minister has just exited the Chamber seems to me rather to reinforce that view. I make no criticism at all. I am simply saying that he has left the Chamber. I do not think he has any appetite for the preference of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which I hope he can bear stoically and with fortitude. If the Leader of the House wanted to do that, he would have said so and he has not, so he does not.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. and learned Friend is somebody who has always wanted us to remain in the European Union and who disapproves of referendums. He has always made that absolutely clear—[Interruption.] No, that is relevant because that position deserves admiration because he has not tried to use procedural methods to hide his view. His view has been clear to the House and the country throughout, and I happen to think that that is extraordinarily impressive and straightforward. I bow to his position as the Father of the House, which is one of great distinction and gives him a sense of history for what goes on in this place. I would say to him that using accelerated procedures has come about because of the deadline that we have of 31 October, and here I disagree with him: this is not a phoney deadline. That deadline was set because of the workings of article 50. The point is that this should have ended in March. We have already had one extension and there is other business that this country needs to move on to. The second deadline is 31 October, and we have managed to get a new agreement with the European Union, which everybody said was impossible. That is a significant achievement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but because of that we now have this deadline to meet. Yes, of course I would be happy to sit overnight if that is what the House wishes. I am not entirely convinced that it is what the House wishes, but we need to get this legislation through, to deliver on what 17.4 million people voted for.

[Mr Speaker]

For the benefit of those observing our proceedings who are uninitiated on this matter, I should emphasise that it is now 49 years, four months and three days since the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) was elected to this House, and he has remained a Member of this House throughout that period. It is a quite remarkable state of affairs.

[Mr Clarke]

Mr Speaker, are you prepared to indulge me with a second question—a follow-up question—to the Leader of the House? My long-standing preference for Britain to be a member of the European Union has nothing to do with my question. I propose to vote for the Bill on Second Reading, and I will vote for Third Reading when we get there. The question is why are the accelerated procedures so accelerated? To have just two and a half days and not sitting on Friday is not a way to accelerate the procedures; it is a way to abbreviate them. Unless we are prepared to contemplate a more expansive debate, there is not the slightest possibility of considering the deal that has been obtained within the time available.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that is what is called the privilege of being the Father of the House; it is otherwise utterly disorderly!

European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Ind)]

I hoped I would never be driven, in these long debates on Brexit, finally to deciding what my opinion is on the choice between a no deal and a bad deal. I regret to say that when my right hon. Friend the previous Prime Minister put forward the proposition before, I had considerable doubts about her belief that no deal was better than a bad deal. Those doubts have increased, because what we have before us now is undoubtedly a bad deal. I think it is a very bad deal. It is wholly inferior to the deal that was negotiated by my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister, for which I, too, voted three times, like the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). We cannot be accused of taking part in this debate seeking to block Brexit and repudiate the wishes of the British public, and all the rubbish that the more fanatic Brexiteers and their followers frequently hail at us. But now the choice is very real.

This is a very bad deal, for reasons that I will not dilate on, but others have. I actually have considerable sympathy with the Members from Northern Ireland: the independent Unionist, with whom I almost always agree, and the Democratic Unionists. This is a most peculiar constitutional position that they are being put in as members of the United Kingdom. I would very much rather that we did not have this situation of a border down the Irish sea, because there is absolutely no doubt that there is quite a clear customs and regulatory border being envisaged down the Irish sea.

It has to be said that the effect is to save the all-Irish economy from the near calamity that a total no deal would have resulted in. I have no idea how anybody would have operated a no-deal situation across the border, and I thought these weird propositions of a customs border somewhere in Northern Ireland but not on the border had little or no chance of working. Although the Irish at least have the economic consolation that they will sail on through the transition period as they are now, I am extremely worried that the purpose of going to negotiate this convoluted arrangement over Ireland was so that the economy of Britain could be taken out of the customs union and the single market straightaway. If that holds after the transition period, I think it will have the most damaging effects on our economic future, for all the reasons that other people have given in the earlier and lengthy speeches we have heard.

Therefore, it is all to be played for in the transition period. I actually do not believe that a good free trade agreement, a good agreement on security and fighting international crime, and agreements on the licensing of medicines and the possible arrangements with the European Medicines Agency—all the things spelled out—are likely to be achieved by the end of next year. The Canada deal, which a lot of Brexiteers like to hold up as a model, took about nine years to put in place, and I wish that we were prepared to contemplate a more realistic timescale.

Meanwhile, the votes today, and the process of the next week or two, must get us through the necessary steps to put in place a withdrawal agreement, so that we have a transition period in which to hold full negotiations about our ultimate destination. All my votes in this House have been to ensure that the calamity of leaving with no deal on 31 October, or whenever, was never allowed to happen. For that reason, we should support this deal, but I cannot understand the Government’s resistance to saying that we should legislate before we abandon the protection of the Benn Act and decide that we do not need an extension.

The Government say that we can take for granted the details and getting the votes, but none of us are sure whether there is a majority for this Government and the present deal at all. If the Government can maintain a majority throughout all the legislation I shall be very reassured, but I would like to wait to see that they can—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are extraordinarily grateful, more grateful than ever before, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The five-minute limit still applies, but the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) will be the last Member to benefit from it.

Prime Minister's Role in Creating a Safe Environment

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Kenneth Clarke.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Ind)]

I was only just beginning to stir, Mr Speaker. You spotted me rather promptly!

What concerns me is whether there is any sense of a deliberate strategy in all this. I would like my hon. Friend to reassure me. I assure him that I have been a junior Minister myself, so I do realise he is probably not consulted closely about strategy—I am not sure many members of the Cabinet have much idea of what the strategy is at the moment. Can he allay two fears that I have?

First, it seems to me that the Prime Minister is absolutely desperate to have an election before 31 October, so that he can fight it before the chance of some untoward effects after that date. Also, I fear that the strategy is to fight it on the people versus Parliament platform that Nigel Farage invented and that we are imitating. Will my hon. Friend assure me that what happened yesterday was one of those occasions when people lost control of themselves and the House, not for the first time, erupted in disorder and that this is not part of some grand discrediting of the usual political institutions in order to fight a populist and nationalist campaign?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Monday 15th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am enormously tickled to see the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the Father of the House, beetle into the Chamber by walking across the Government Front Bench. I suppose that he was so long an habitué of the Treasury Bench that it may seem a perfectly normal means by which to enter the Chamber, but, in any case, we are delighted to see him.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I do apologise to the House. It was once the only way that I entered this Chamber.

[Mr Speaker]

As I say, we are very pleased to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and we look forward to hearing from him ere long.

Detainee Mistreatment: Judge-led Inquiry

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Monday 15th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you.

[Mr Clarke]

You have asked the most penetrating question, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for finally producing some indication of when we might get a decision and for saying that the Government have reached conclusions. I will not repeat his precis of events, which goes back to the most firm undertakings in 2010 and 2012 that there would be a judge-led inquiry. The preliminary inquiry by Sir Peter Gibson set out the questions that the inquiry had to answer. It was postponed only because of the police inquiry into the further revelations of rendition to Colonel Gaddafi in Libya. After that, the resumption of the inquiry was postponed while the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee examined matters. When the ISC finally discovered the extent of British intelligence services’ complicity in cases of torture and their involvement in hijacking and the unlawful rendition of people for interrogation, mainly in America, the Committee’s investigations were stopped and it made a report saying what it would have liked to examine if it had been allowed to interview witnesses.

For years and years, this has been put into the long grass in the hope that it would eventually go away, so I hope that that comes to an end this week. We need to know how there was such a terrible breakdown in responsibility and communications that produced the misdeeds that took place in the time after 9/11, so that we can avoid the culture of the intelligence services and their relationships with Ministers ever slipping back into the same thing again. I hope that we will not just be told, “It is too late. Everything is all right now; there is no need to do anything,” because if it is all right now—as I trust it is—we have to reduce the risks that in future, we as a country will ever get involved in torture and rendition again.

If this decision comes out in the last days of this Session, on the eve of the summer recess and in the middle of the appointment of a new Prime Minister in an attempt to bury it away in the pages of Hansard and to escape any further challenge until the autumn comes around, it will be the most blatant further attempt to get out of the most solemn undertakings that were given by me when I was Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor on behalf of the then Prime Minister. That Prime Minister gave these undertakings himself, in a Government in which the present Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and many of their colleagues were serving. We had cleared that line and should honour it, and the whole House should demand a proper, full statement later this week. If there is one success that the delay may have achieved, it is, I regret to say, that for serious personal reasons—not because I am going on holiday—I may miss the final denouement and the statement later this week, because I may be absent from the House. However, I hope that the House will hold the Government fully to account if they try to slip out of their commitments and obligations in the end.

Leaving the EU: Business of the House

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Oh! I had not anticipated the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I call Mr Kenneth Clarke. May I just say that, notwithstanding the immense celebrity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am hoping for very brief speeches, if possible?

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions)

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Monday 1st April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I beg to move motion (C),

That this House instructs the Government to:

(1) ensure that any Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration negotiated with the EU must include, as a minimum, a commitment to negotiate a permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU;

(2) enshrine this objective in primary legislation.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:

Motion (D)—Common Market 2.0—

That this House –

(1) directs Her Majesty’s Government to –

(i) renegotiate the framework for the future relationship laid before the House on Monday 11 March 2019 with the title ‘Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom’ to provide that, on the conclusion of the Implementation Period and no later than 31 December 2020, the United Kingdom shall –

(a) accede to the European Free Trade Association (Efta) having negotiated a derogation from Article 56(3) of the Efta Agreement to allow UK participation in a comprehensive customs arrangement with the European Union,

(b) enter the Efta Pillar of the European Economic Area (EEA) and thereby render operational the United Kingdom’s continuing status as a party to the EEA Agreement and continuing participation in the Single Market,

(c) agree relevant protocols relating to frictionless agri-food trade across the UK/EU border,

(d) enter a comprehensive customs arrangement including a common external tariff, alignment with the Union Customs Code and an agreement on commercial policy, and which includes a UK say on future EU trade deals, at least until alternative arrangements that maintain frictionless trade with the European Union and no hard border on the island of Ireland have been agreed with the European Union,

(ii) negotiate with the EU a legally binding Joint Instrument that confirms that, in accordance with Article 2 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland of the Withdrawal Agreement, the implementation of all the provisions of paragraph 1 (i) of this motion would cause the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland to be superseded in full;

(2) resolves to make support for the forthcoming European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill conditional upon the inclusion of provisions for a Political Declaration revised in accordance with the provisions of this motion to be the legally binding negotiating mandate for Her Majesty’s Government in the forthcoming negotiation of the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

Motion (E)—Confirmatory public vote—

That this House will not allow in this Parliament the implementation and ratification of any withdrawal agreement and any framework for the future relationship unless and until they have been approved by the people of the United Kingdom in a confirmatory public vote.

Motion (G)—Parliamentary Supremacy—

That—

(1) If, at midday on the second last Day before exit day, the condition specified in section 13(1)(d) of the Act (the passing of legislation approving a withdrawal agreement) is not satisfied, Her Majesty’s Government must immediately seek the agreement of the European Council under Article 50(3) of the Treaty to extend the date upon which the Treaties shall cease to apply to the United Kingdom;

(2) If, at midday on the last Day before exit day, no agreement has been reached (pursuant to (1) above) to extend the date upon which the Treaties shall cease to apply to the United Kingdom, Her Majesty’s Government must immediately put a motion to the House of Commons asking it to approve ‘No Deal’;

(3) If the House does not approve the motion at (2) above, Her Majesty’s Government must immediately ensure that the notice given to the European Council under Article 50 of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union is revoked in accordance with United Kingdom and European law;

(4) If the United Kingdom’s notice under Article 50 is revoked pursuant to (3) above a Minister of Her Majesty’s Government shall cause an inquiry to be held under the Inquiries Act 2005 into the question whether a model of a future relationship with the European Union likely to be acceptable to the European Union is likely to have majority support in the United Kingdom;

(5) If there is a referendum it shall be held on the question whether to trigger Article 50 and renegotiate that model;

(6) The Inquiry under paragraph (4) shall start within three months of the revocation; and

(7) References in this Motion to “Days” are to House of Commons sitting days; references to “exit day” are references to exit day as defined in the Act; references to the Act are to The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018; and references to the Treaty are to the Treaty on European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

No, I am not going to give way. It would be unfair to other Members who have had this whole debate crammed into three hours. In 1972, we used to have all-night sittings on much smaller issues than this. I do not recommend going back to that, but I object to listening to my colleagues having to speak on three-minute time limits because chaps want to get to dinner and will not sit after 7 o’clock in the evening in the middle of the week, which is where this rather pathetic Parliament has got itself recently. That is my last digression from my theme. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Mr Clarke]

As I have said, the motion does not conflict with the Government’s withdrawal agreement. If the motion is passed or if it is subsumed by common market 2.0, which I will also vote for—that motion would subsume this one if it is carried—the easiest way of proceeding is for the Government to proceed with their withdrawal agreement tomorrow and for the Labour party to abstain because it is no longer such a blind Brexit, and then we can get on to the serious negotiations, which this country has not even started yet, with its 27 partner nations.

Motion (C) does not conflict with the case that is being made by many Members for a further referendum—either a confirmatory referendum or a people’s vote. It is not on the same subject. The referendum is about whether the public have changed their mind and whether we are firmly committed to the EU now that we know what is happening. That is a process—a very important one—that we are arguing about. I have been abstaining on that; I am not very fond of referendums, but there we are.

Motion (C) is concerned with a quite different subject: the substance of the negotiations if we get beyond 12 April. It begins to set out what the Government have a majority for and what they are being given a mandate for when they start those negotiations. The separate issue of whether, at any relevant stage, a referendum is called for can be debated and voted on quite separately. Advocates of a people’s vote are not serving any particular interest if they vote for a people’s vote and somehow vote against this motion to make sure that that somehow gets a bigger majority. Both can be accommodated.

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Votes)

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Monday 1st April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the help of the people who work with me, I have got a damn sight nearer to a majority in this House than anybody else has so far, apart from the rather curious and now historic Malthouse compromise, which I fear is dead. Three votes is quite near.

We cannot go on with everybody voting against every proposition. The difficulty is that there are people who want a people’s vote who would not vote for my motion because they thought they were going to get a people’s vote. There were people—the Scottish nationalists—who wanted common market 2.0, so would not vote for my motion. All of them had nothing against mine. If they continue to carry on like that, they will fail. I say to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that if we added the people’s vote to a motion such as mine, we would lose votes from all over the place, and from the Labour party. We would lose more than we would gain. Those Members should accept that they do not have a majority yet for the people’s vote and vote for something that they have no objection to as a fall-back position. That is politics. I sometimes think that this particular Parliament in which I find myself sitting is not very political at the moment, and it is confounding the general public.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you.

Spring Statement

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It might be helpful to the House if I indicate that, given the pressure of time and the importance of subsequent business—to which reference was made earlier—it will almost certainly not be possible on this occasion for me to take everybody on this statement, which, as the House knows, is ordinarily my practice. I am looking to move on at approximately 2.45 pm. It may be possible to move on before then, but I certainly do not want it to be significantly later than then.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

May I sincerely congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on keeping his head while all around are losing theirs? I am sure that he would have liked to have delivered a rather different statement if the vote had gone the other way last night. Does he agree that economic forecasting is difficult at all times, particularly at a time of slowing global growth, trade war, Chinese debt problems, and, above all, the uncertainty of Brexit? Does he agree that the optimistic forecasts by the OBR are based on a smooth progression to Brexit, with no new barriers to trade and investment with our most important market on the basis that we currently enjoy under the customs union of the single market?

Finally, will the Chancellor guarantee to me that he will keep his fiscal powder dry—keep his reserves, as he may need them to avoid a recession or a financial crisis; that he will resist the irresponsible approach of the Opposition, who have the idea of spending and borrowing money only as a policy platform on every issue; and that he will resist all the other understandable demands from all parts just to spend money in response to lobbies, because he has the duty of keeping the British economy intact at a time of almost unprecedented crisis and unforeseeable problems?

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let me say to the hon. Lady, who was attempting, I thought, to raise a point of order, that we will have to wait for the business statement by the Leader of the House. But unless I have a problem with my short-term memory—and I do not think I do—my clear recollection is that the Government indicated that if the House voted to demonstrate its opposition to exit from the European Union without a deal in the vote, or votes, today, there would be an opportunity on Thursday for there to be a vote, or possibly a number of votes, on an idea, or ideas, of article 50 extension. So I keenly anticipate that the hon. Lady will be in her place not just for the business statement but tomorrow for such important proceedings as we can expect to take place.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When the arrangements for this week were announced, my understanding was that the Government were saying that if they lost the vote on their preferred deal, there would then be two days in which the House would be given the opportunity to express its clear opinion on no deal, and if that was clear, another day to say whether an extension was desired by the House, with the plain implication that the Government were going to accept the decision of the House and act on it. Indeed, we understand that a free vote was extended to Ministers so that the proper expression of opinion could be given.

As soon as the House expressed its opinion on no deal, the Government attempted to quash it and voted against it, putting a three-line Whip on the people they had previously given a free vote to, with a complete lack of success—the majority soared. If this evening the Prime Minister or another Minister will not accept that this is not just another motion, as if it was a women’s institute debate that expressed an opinion—[Interruption.] I have higher regard for women’s institutes’ opinions than the Government have for the opinions of this House.

Can we have an assurance from somebody that tomorrow’s debate is actually intended to set policy and is not a mere expression of opinion? That is my serious point, but no doubt I will be deluged with protests from women’s institutes around the country about the unfortunate example I chose. I repeat my complete respect for the opinion of all women’s institutes.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order. My understanding, for what it is worth, is the same as his. That was the clear commitment. I am sure that that is what was intended. That was what was promised. That was what was understood. I have every expectation that the Leader of the House will reiterate today what has been said in recent days. It would be very strange if that were not the case. I have no reason to believe that the Government have suddenly shifted from the position they have taken in recent days. We will have to wait to see, but I have no reason to believe that at all.

Northern Ireland Backstop

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

If it arises from the urgent question, and in deference to the Father of the House, let us hear it.

[Mr Clarke]

It is a genuine point of order. In the course of the exchanges, two Members of Parliament on the Government side of the House made reference to a civil servant, Sir Oliver Robbins, who they obviously regard as some sort of political enemy, although he is a non-political civil servant. They not only repeated newspaper rumours about what he was supposed to have been overheard saying, but they did so in terms that suggested he had been drinking too much when he was overheard, of which, as far as I am aware, there has never been the slightest indication, even in any of the newspaper reports on which they were relying.

Mr Speaker, people like that have no opportunity whatever of even knowing that these allegations are about to be made, or replying to them. An increasingly unpleasant personal tone is creeping into debate about Europe, mainly from the right-wing members of my party, and it will get quite out of hand if you do not issue a word of reproof and say that that is an abuse of the privileges of the House of Commons, and is not conduct that should be repeated.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Father of the House. I have had a discussion about the matter with the Clerk. I will not argue the toss about wording—it is not, strictly speaking, an abuse of the procedures of the House and it is not disorderly; but I think it is extremely undesirable, and it does represent a rank discourtesy, and indeed, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman implied, a coarsening or vulgarisation of the terms of trade in political debate, which we should all strive to avoid. Let me say to the Father of the House that I did not react as quickly as I should have done to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) when he said what he did. He was absolutely entitled to his point of view, and even to robust questioning of Ministers, of course, but he should not have said what he did about a serving civil servant.

Perhaps I can gently suggest, at the risk of embarrassing the Father of the House, that Members across the House, whatever their political views, would do well to seek to emulate his example. I have known him for 24 years, and throughout the time I have known him, I have always observed one thing: he plays the ball; he does not play the man or the woman. He sticks to the issues—rather as the Chair of the Brexit Select Committee does, on the other side of the House. That is the model that other colleagues should follow. So I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for stepping in; the point he has made is valid.

Points of Order

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Thursday 14th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That is a public information notice from the hon. Gentleman and we are grateful for it—genuinely so—and I thank him for what he said. In response to the hon. Lady, I am conscious of a concern on that front, and it is a concern that has been articulated not least by the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who is able to look at these matters with the benefit of a 48-year—approaching 49—perspective, so he knows how things used to be done. In some respects, they are now done rather differently—I have noted that.

The essential point is this: some votes in this House are simply expressions of opinion, and others, depending on the terms of the motion, are genuinely binding. They can be construed, and would be construed, as orders or instructions and are therefore, in the literal sense of the term, effective. Others are not automatically effective, and they do depend on the way in which the Government choose to view them—I use those words carefully and advisedly. We have the opportunity to debate the hugely important matter of Brexit today and we know that there are plans for subsequent debate, but I can assure the hon. Lady that, if there is an appetite in the House for further debate, that appetite will be met. I can say that without the slightest fear of contradiction by anyone. If the House wants to debate a matter, no amount of circumlocutory activity to seek to avoid it will work—it simply will not happen.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You are ruling on what is binding. This probably has to be resolved, but I do not want to take up too much more time on this matter now, because you gave an indication on it.

Plainly, certain things—legislation—change the law; they are binding. The question comes when a majority of the House, by a motion, expresses an opinion on a subject of policy. I still believe that our constitutional convention in our parliamentary democracy is that the Government are bound to follow and give respect to a declaration of policy that has been declared by the House. It is no good saying that it does not change the law, so it is just a matter of opinion and we will proceed guided by newspapers and pressure groups instead.

[Mr Speaker]

I entirely understand what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is getting at. I can say only for my own part that I do not want to give a flippant response to the Father of the House. I have never been much preoccupied with the opinions of newspapers. I really do not attach any weight to their views. I am sure that they think their views are important, and if that brings happiness into their lives, good luck to them, but the blatherings of a particular media outlet are a matter of absolutely no interest or concern whatever to me; they are simply not consequential at all.

Decisions that this House makes, resolutions that this House passes and motions that are supported matter and should be respected. Some motions, however, do specifically instruct, and if they instruct, there can be not the slightest doubt or uncertainty at all but that they must be followed, just as if, for example, the House were to pass a motion instructing the Speaker. The Speaker is the servant of the House. If the House passed a motion or an amendment instructing the Speaker, the Speaker would do as instructed; that is the way it is.

Universal Credit

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Monday 14th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. On account of the fact that a prime ministerial statement is to follow and that we then have eight hours of protected time for the debate on the withdrawal agreement, I will seek to conclude these exchanges by 4.15 pm. I am sure that colleagues will want to factor that into their calculations.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and his Secretary of State on the progress that they are making on eliminating some of the obvious defects that have emerged in this otherwise highly desirable policy. Does he agree that the problem is that the details were designed by people who were well intentioned but too paternalistic in their attempts to introduce people to the disciplines and normal way of life of people in work? They were often dealing with people who were vulnerable and relying day to day on cash.

When it is affordable, after we have really recovered from the consequences of the financial disaster, will my hon. Friend address the five-week delay in the first payment, which does cause hardship and which I hope will be gone by the time the so-called migration comes to my constituency?

Points of Order

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In recent years—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Father of the House is on his feet; let us hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

[Mr Clarke]

In my opinion, in recent years this House has seen a considerable diminution of its powers and has often seemed rather indifferent to the eroding of some of the powers we used to have to hold Governments to account. You, Mr Speaker, have been assiduous in maximising the opportunities for the House to hold what happens to be the Government of the day to account and in giving the opportunity for debate and for voting. I find it unbelievable that people are putting such effort into trying to exclude the possibility of the House expressing its opinion on how it wishes to handle this matter, and I suggest to some of my hon. Friends—the ones who are getting somewhat overexcited—that perhaps they should don a yellow jacket and go outside.

Exiting the European Union

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I look to the Father of the House, and then other colleagues, I want to say the following. Although the Government’s intention to halt the forthcoming debate at this inordinately late stage has been widely leaked to the media in advance, I felt it only appropriate to hear what is proposed before advising the House. Halting the debate, after no fewer than 164 colleagues have taken the trouble to contribute, will be thought by many Members of this House to be deeply discourteous. Indeed, in the hours since news of this intention emerged, many colleagues from across the House have registered that view to me in the most forceful terms.

Having taken the best procedural advice, colleagues should be informed that there are two ways of doing this. The first and, in democratic terms, the infinitely preferable way is for a Minister to move at the outset of the debate that the debate be adjourned. This will give the House the opportunity to express its view in a vote on whether or not it wishes the debate to be brought to a premature and inconclusive end. I can reassure Ministers that I would be happy to accept such a motion so that the House can decide.

The alternative is for the Government unilaterally to decline to move today’s business, which means not only that the House is deprived of its opportunity to vote upon the substance of the debate tomorrow but that it is given no chance to express its view today on whether the debate should or should not be allowed to continue.

I politely suggest that, in any courteous, respectful and mature environment, allowing the House to have its say on this matter would be the right and, dare I say it, the obvious course to take. Let us see if those who have assured this House and the public, over and over again, that this supremely important vote is going to take place tomorrow, without fail, wish to rise to the occasion.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

On the question of Europe, this House is divided not just into parties; it is divided into factions. It becomes clear that, at the moment, there is no predictable majority for any single course of action going forward. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that no other Governments are going to start negotiations with us on any new arrangement while the British continue to explore what exactly it is they can get a parliamentary majority to agree to?

Furthermore, we are strictly bound, quite rightly, to the Good Friday agreement and the issue of a permanently open border in Ireland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is particular folly for a large faction in this House to continue with their argument that we should insist to the other Governments that the British will have a unilateral right to declare an end to that open border at a time of their choosing? That is why the backstop remains inevitable.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Monday 3rd December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Kenneth Clarke—[Interruption.] Order. It is rather unseemly for people to yell out, “Is that it?” The Attorney General, to be fair, has given a very full response—[Interruption.] Order. Members can make of it what they will, but in any case, everybody should cheer up now, because we are about to hear from the Father of the House.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Whether that will cheer people up or not, I have no idea.

First, I sincerely congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General on his masterly exposition of the facts and the law, which put paid to quite a lot of the paranoia and conspiracy theories that have been running around all too often in our European debate.

Secondly, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it was central to the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—that both sides committed themselves timelessly to an open border, and that will be all wrapped up if we ever move to the Northern Ireland protocol? It would be quite shameful if the European Union, the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom were given the right unilaterally to terminate that arrangement at a time of their political choosing, so this is perfectly sensible. Does he also agree that both the United Kingdom and the European Union will have reasons to hesitate before going into the protocol—they may prefer to extend the transition agreement—and that neither of the parties will have any political motive for staying indefinitely in that protocol?

In his exposition, I think my right hon. and learned Friend has done what he was trying to do: got rid of all these theories about the ECJ still being involved, as it obviously will have to be, in the rights of British citizens after we leave, and enabled the House to get back to the real political debate that we have to have in the next few days.

Points of Order

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Wednesday 14th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The candid answer is that I had been given to understand that there would be a statement on this matter, in all likelihood, tomorrow. Factually to respond to her, what I would say is that the Chair would be perfectly amenable to a statement before then. That is not, however, a judgment for me; it is properly a judgment for the Government. I understand what she says about people having commitments tomorrow—[Interruption.] Order. But it does seem to me a reasonable point to make in response that, if Members consider this to be a supremely important matter, they can potentially rearrange their diaries in order to be present. I am always in favour, as she knows, of statements sooner rather than later but, if I may so, I do not think we should have a great row about whether a statement is made today or tomorrow.

What I would like to say to Members is that when there is a statement to this House, in conformity with the practice I have applied for nearly nine and a half years from this Chair, there will be a full opportunity for Members in all parts of the House, and potentially expressing or representing all sorts of different points of view, to be heard. That is the way it has always been and, as far as I am concerned, that is the way it will continue to be.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Although you say you have no role in this, do you not agree that, until very recently, it has always been the constitutional convention in this House that, when a Government announce a major policy, they do so, first of all, by a statement here in the House of Commons, usually simultaneously with the publication of a White Paper? With great respect, it is not just a question of Members having other commitments, or of convenience. We are slipping into a practice where Government policies are leaked in advance, then the Government brief the press and a great national debate breaks out, and then Parliament finally gets the opportunity to discuss it a day later. If you have any opportunity to discuss with the usual channels what the proper role of Parliament should be, I think your assistance would be greatly appreciated.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that point of order. I am bound to say to him that my attitude has been that we have Cabinet government in this country. The policy is the policy of the Government only when it has been approved by the Cabinet. [Interruption.] Members can take their own view on whether I am right or wrong, but I am simply seeking to explain to the Father of the House that the premise on which I am working is that it will be Government policy if and only if, and only when, it has been approved by the Cabinet.

It therefore does not seem to me to be unreasonable, if the Cabinet is meeting this afternoon, for the House to hear a statement tomorrow. However, if it is possible for that statement to be made today, in the sense that a policy has been agreed, I am at the service of the House and I am in favour of a statement being made at the earliest possible opportunity. That point will have been heard on the Treasury Bench, and I am grateful to the Father of the House for his assistance in this important matter.

Trade Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the Minister for Trade Policy, the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), to the Front Bench.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

There is no indication of anybody else wishing to speak. I call Mr Kenneth Clarke.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I realise that the convention has arisen recently that these programme motions are put forward and go through on the nod, with no intervention by the Opposition, so I wish briefly to register my opposition to these extraordinarily stringent timetable motions, which are becoming the custom. With respect, I think that today’s timetable motion is almost as absurd as yesterday’s, when, as we all saw, an enormous number of historic issues were being debated with people being given a two-minute limit on their speeches, if they were fortunate enough to be drawn.

Today, we have another important Bill and the timetable is extremely stringent. It does not even allocate a number of hours to each section of the Bill; it just sets a time so that nobody can be late for dinner. The result is that the important amendments— including, for example, that tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) on the single market—have to be fitted into an hour between 5 o’clock and 6 o’clock, or as much of that hour as is left after any Divisions have taken place. It is grouped with a huge number of other significant policy amendments, and I really think someone must protest about this.

It is not that long ago—I am not reminiscing as an old veteran; we do not have to go back much more than about 10 or 15 years—that this House was much more powerful in holding Governments of all kinds to account, and time was one of its principal weapons. We had fewer votes across parties and against Governments, but we had the ability in unguillotined Bills to use time, which obliged the Government, who wanted their business, to come back and make responses. The Eurosceptics and the Maastricht rebels made brilliant use of time to extend the Government’s difficulties and try to extract concessions.

We are in danger of making that all dead. It is not as though the House has a compelling amount of public business that it is desperately anxious to fit in. Every day, we spend our time discussing motherhood and apple pie Bills that have no significant opposition and that are all very worthy, or we have general debates on important matters almost without limit of time and with either no vote or no vote of confidence. Indeed, we even had a brief patch when Opposition Supply days were being treated with contempt and the House was being allowed to pass motions criticising the Government that were dismissed as having no legal effect.

Now, legislation does have legal effect, but it is obvious that the moment we have an important Bill, like yesterday and today, the Government are anxious that the House of Commons have no opportunity to talk about it and limited opportunities to vote on it and that it be got out of the way as quickly as possible. I really think that this convention needs to be challenged. This is a debating Chamber. It is one of the most important ways we hold the Government to account, and whatever our views on the subjects that we are about to debate—the stronger they are on either side, the more this applies—Members should start challenging this scandalous abuse of the House that tries to minimise dissent, votes and opinions of all kinds.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for contributing to what looks like being a brief exchange. Of course, the time available is not a matter for me. As he knows, the House must decide upon that. I say to him and the House, however, that although I cannot influence the time available for debate, on the matter of votes, the Speaker will do everything possible to facilitate votes that Members wish to have. That is what people would expect. As far as the Chair is concerned, no attempt to avoid that will work. People need to be clear about that.

Question put and agreed to.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The new time limit will have to be no more than eight minutes.

[Mr Clarke]

I have saved us a few minutes.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed, and we are immensely grateful.

Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Monday 2nd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on whether the Government will now reinstate the judge-led inquiry that the former Government promised in 2012, in the light of the two Intelligence and Security Committee reports on detainee mistreatment and rendition published on 28 June 2018.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the Minister of States replies—we look forward to that with eager anticipation—perhaps I can be the first in the House to congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Father of the House, on his birthday. The only prediction I feel that I can make with any confidence is that, as he celebrated two weeks ago today the 48th anniversary of his first election to the House, it is a fair bet that he has now reached the mid-point of his parliamentary career.

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

May I also congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)? At the outset, I want to thank him for his question and his leadership of the all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition.

The Government welcome the publication of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s reports and are grateful for its vital work and examination of allegations of UK involvement in mistreatment and rendition. May I also declare that between 2014 and 2016, I was for a period on the Intelligence and Security Committee when it was conducting this very long investigation? It is right that these reports and as much information as possible from this period are put in the public domain. We need to ensure that we learn from past mistakes so that they are never repeated. The Prime Minister laid a written ministerial statement in Parliament last Thursday, setting out the Government’s initial response to the reports.

It is important to note the context in which the Government, including the security and intelligence agencies and the armed forces, were working in the immediate aftermath of 11 September 2001. The UK responded to the tragic events of 9/11 with the aim of doing everything possible to prevent further loss of innocent life. With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that UK personnel were working within a new and challenging operating environment for which, in some cases, they were not prepared. It took too long to recognise that guidance and training for staff was inadequate, and too long to understand fully, and take appropriate action on, the risks arising from our engagement with international partners.

The “Current Issues” report recognises that improvements have been made to operational processes since those post-9/11 years. In particular, the consolidated guidance, published in 2010—I would point out that we are the only country to have active consolidated guidance of this sort in operation—provides clear direction for UK personnel and governs their interaction with detainees held by others and the handling of any intelligence received from them. This is coupled with world-leading independent oversight, including by the Committee and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, Sir Adrian Fulford.

Formal oversight responsibility for the consolidated guidance rests with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Last week, Sir Adrian Fulford welcomed the Prime Minister’s invitation to him to make proposals on how the consolidated guidance could be improved further and he would be able to take account of the Committee’s views and those of civil society. The Prime Minister has stated that the Government will give further consideration to the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations. The Government will also give careful consideration to the calls for another judge-led inquiry and will update the House within 60 days of publication of the reports.

I would like once again to reassure the House that the Government do not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture for any purpose. We can and should be proud of the work done by our intelligence and service personnel, often in the most difficult circumstances. It is right that they should be held to the highest possible standards, and I am confident that the changes we have made in recent years will allow us both to protect our national security and to maintain our global reputation as a champion for human rights across the world.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I would like to accommodate further speakers.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I shall make the shortest speech here that I have made for very many years—[Hon. Members: “Ever!”]—and I shall take no interventions. [Interruption.] Well, the Government are restricting debate on this European issue as ferociously as they are trying to restrict votes and powers. I voted against both the previous timetable motions. With no explanation, we have been told that we have an hour and a half for this extremely important issue today. Presumably, it is to allow time for the interesting debate that follows, taking note on the subject of NATO, which could be tabled at any time over the next fortnight and has no urgency whatever. None of us are allowed to say very much about this matter.

The Government have been trying to minimise the parliamentary role throughout the process. That is only too obvious. I will try to avoid repeating anything that others have said, but the fact is that it started with an attempt to deny the House any vote on the invocation of article 50, and litigation was required to change that. A meaningful vote has been resisted since it was first proposed. The Government suffered a defeat in this House during the earlier stages of our proceedings before they would contemplate it, and then they assured us that they would not try to reverse that; there would be a meaningful vote. But actually, because that amendment needs amplification and the Bill needs to be made clearer, we now have this vital last stage of Lords amendments and the final attempt to spell out what meaningful votes and parliamentary influence are supposed to mean, and it is being resisted to the very last moment.

Last week, I thought that the Government would be defeated because of their resistance. I was not invited to the negotiations. I do not blame the Chief Whip for that in the slightest. I have not fallen out with him personally, but I think that he knew that I would take a rather firm line as I saw nothing wrong with Lord Hailsham’s amendment if nothing else were available. My right hon. and hon. Friends, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), actually believed that they had undertakings from the Prime Minister, and I believe that the Prime Minister gave those undertakings in good faith.

My right hon. and learned Friend for Beaconsfield negotiated with a very distinguished member of the Government acting on the Prime Minister’s behalf, and they reached a firm agreement. That agreement is substantially reflected in Lords amendment 19P and my right hon. and hon. Friends expected that it would be tabled by the Government. It was not. And now the Government are resisting the very issue upon which last week a very distinguished member of the Government reached a settlement—to use the legal terms—because the Government are not able to live up to their agreement. We are being asked to substitute, for a perfectly reasonable Lords amendment, a convoluted thing that would mean arguments about the Speaker’s powers if it ever had to be invoked.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are listening to exchanges about the effect of section 19 and 22 permits on community transport providers in Wales, upon which we need to hear the inquiry of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke).

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend press his colleagues in the Department for Transport to query the legal advice that has changed the interpretation of these European Community rules, because it seems to be ultra-cautious? Will he ensure that genuine community services with unpaid, voluntary drivers and unpaid staff—providing services that no commercial operator would provide—are not put out of business by quite unnecessary regulations and costs?

[Mr Speaker]

In Wales.

Points of Order

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I would say to him very respectfully and courteously by way of reply that I made a statement on those matters in the Chamber. I think what I said at the time was very clear to people, and I do not feel the need to add to that statement. My position has been very explicit. I thank the hon. Gentleman for inviting me to dilate on the matter, but I do not intend to do so, and we shall leave it there. I am deeply obliged to him.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you agree that, if action were taken every time a Member of this House felt moved to say under his breath something rather abusive about another Member, the Chamber would be deserted for considerable lengths of time? Do you not agree that it is better to leave this to the body that is now investigating it and hope that some common sense will be applied to this rather overheated subject?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has said, and Members will make their own assessment of it. I simply appreciate the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says what he says on the strength, next month, of 48 years’ uninterrupted service in this House.

Syria

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) is comfortable; I am quite bothered that he might not be.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I am trying to avoid walking between the Prime Minister and her questioner.

[Mr Speaker]

That is characteristically solicitous of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; we would expect nothing less of him.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: Second Day: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded his speech?

[Mr Clarke]

I have, and everybody still seems to be awake!

[Mr Speaker]

Everybody is awake; we have been listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman with rapt attention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

Well, would my hon. Friend give way? [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister is hearing voices!

[Mr Clarke]

Voices of inspiration, I trust.

My hon. Friend mentioned the withdrawal Bill several times. Am I right—to be absolutely clear—that the withdrawal Bill will come forward and be considered, and probably approved, by this House before any withdrawal agreement is ratified, that we will not be presented with a Bill to implement an agreement that is already binding on the United Kingdom, but that actually the Government will not ratify any agreements until the House of Commons has first given its support and approval?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: (Programme) (No. 2)

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall do my best in the Chair to facilitate full debate and such votes as there is an appetite to have.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I voted against the timetable motion, and I support what the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) has said. Tomorrow is particularly crowded: it is probably the worst day we have had so far, with very limited time for debate on a large number of amendments, and of course Third Reading to follow. Will you confirm that it is still possible—we are not bound by a timetable motion throughout—for the Government, before tomorrow, to produce a motion at least to extend the time for debate so that we are able to give the Bill adequate scrutiny? I do not know of any particular reason why the Government wish to finish the whole of the debate at the precise time at which we will do so if we continue as we are at the moment.

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that it is perfectly open to the Government to table such a motion and to do so today. Indeed, if it was to be tabled, it would have to be tabled today. If that happens, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be pleased; if it does not, he will not be. I can only reiterate that, within the constraints within which we have to operate, my objective is to ensure maximum debate, the greatest possible participation by Back Benchers and plentiful opportunities for Members who want to test their propositions in Divisions of the House to have the chance to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Points of Order

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Tuesday 28th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That is a very helpful piece of information from an extremely experienced former Select Committee Chair. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; the House will have heard what he had to say.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are very generous; you did say “finally”, but I delayed, because this is related to what has gone on but is not on quite the same subject. One Member said, very pertinently, that this all arises from the curious practice, which started in this Parliament, of the Government not voting on Opposition motions, which has never happened in the history of the House, I think. The result is that the proceedings of the House are becoming littered with motions that are extremely critical of the Government and their policies, the vast majority of which motions I do not agree with. That reduces this House to a debating Chamber, and raises the question: what is parliamentary accountability in modern times? Could you perhaps initiate discussions with the usual channels to see how we can get back to the constitutional position that we should undoubtedly have, in which the Government are accountable for all their actions and policies to this House of Commons, and cannot simply ignore motions as though they were the resolutions of some local tea party?

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure how grateful I am to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order, but my response is twofold. First, the Address is just that—the Address—whether an attempt was made to amend it or not, and its binding quality is just that. Irrespective of whether that attempt was made or not, it stands anyway. Secondly, how the Government deal with Opposition day debate motions is a matter for the Government. What the Government have done to date is not disorderly. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested, as I think he has, that at the very least it has not been helpful to the House, I certainly would not dissent from that. It would be helpful if people reflected on the wider implications or ramifications of their conduct on individual occasions. He has served in this House without interruption for 47 years, five months and 10 days, and I think he knows of what he speaks.

If there are no further points of order, I thank colleagues; that will do for now. We come now to the statement by the Secretary of State for Health, for which he has been most patiently waiting.

Points of Order

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I agree with that view. It is one that I have articulated to the Government Chief Whip, and one to which I understood and understand he is sympathetic. For my own part—trying to be helpful—I can say that, notwithstanding my enthusiasm to serve the House in granting urgent questions where appropriate, colleagues will understand that the bar for urgent questions on Monday will be very high.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Has the Chief Whip explained to you if there is any reason why we are not suspending the 5 o’clock rule this evening? There is no chance of any Division taking place on the first day of a two-day debate. It really is rather absurd that Members are told to confine their remarks to three minutes or some equivalent when we are discussing such enormous issues of such long-term significance.

[Mr Speaker]

An explanation has been offered to me on that point. I am sympathetic to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said and I hope that account will be taken of it, not least in relation to Monday. Although I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks in support of the rights of all his colleagues, I hope he is at least moderately mollified to know that there is no question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman today—or probably in a speech at any other time—being confined by the Chair to a mere three minutes.

Public Sector Pay Cap

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

During the rather fractious proceedings to date, one Member has been the embodiment of calm and serenity. That Member should be imitated by others, and will now be called to contribute—Mr Kenneth Clarke.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Those are not adjectives that have been applied to me throughout my political career, Mr Speaker, but I am grateful to you for that credit. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on straightforwardly restating the Government’s sensible policy on this issue? It is necessary as part of our ensuring, in this post-Brexit world, that we keep the economy on track; that steady, sustainable growth continues; and that we steadily eliminate the problem of debt and deficit that we inherited.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if she were to give way to this week’s lobbying on the subject it would be a political disaster, because the Government would be accused of a U-turn and a surrender? It would set off a wave of pay claims across the entire public sector, which the Opposition are obviously looking forward to taking part in if they can provoke them. It might also be an economic disaster, and it would not be in the interests of the many people in the public and private sectors who are having economic difficulties in these times, and who want to look forward to a much more prosperous future as we get our economy back to health.

Election of Speaker

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and John Bercow

Tuesday 13th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Bercow (Buckingham) (Ind)]

Thank you, Mr Clarke. What a pleasure it is to welcome you back to this place, as you add the accolade of Father of the House to the many achievements of your long and distinguished career. Next Sunday you will mark 47 years’ continuous service to your constituency of Rushcliffe, to this Chamber and to our country as a whole. You are held in great affection and esteem on both sides of the House, and I am sure that I speak for all colleagues in wishing you well in your new role.

If the House so permits, I shall be honoured to serve as Speaker in this Parliament, which, thankfully, across the parties is more richly diverse and representative of modern Britain than any of its predecessors. I will strive to ensure that all parts of the House are heard fully and fairly, and, as always, I will champion the right of Back Benchers to question, to probe, to scrutinise and to hold to account the Government of the day.

Finally, Mr Clarke, I referred admiringly to your 47-year tenure. It may come as a relief to colleagues to know that I have no pretensions to seek to serve for anything like so long, either as a parliamentarian or, indeed, in the Chair as Speaker. That said, we appear to be destined for testing times, and I offer myself to the House as a tested Speaker.

[Mr Clarke]

I thank you, Mr Bercow, for those kind and flattering remarks, and particularly for referring, as you repeatedly did, to my longevity, which is about the only non-controversial fact that you can assert about my parliamentary career.

I call upon Mrs Cheryl Gillan to move the motion.