Sittings of the House (29 March)

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

No. It would mean that the withdrawal agreement Bill would then be before the House.

I think we can all agree that we do not want to be in the situation of asking for another extension and facing the potential requirement of participating in European Parliament elections.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I am at a loss to understand how this House can put into law section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and then the Government can offer us only one part of that. What advice has the Leader of the House had on whether what the Government are doing is legal?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady will appreciate that Mr Speaker’s ruling ensured that this would not be a meaningful vote. She will also appreciate that, since it is for this Parliament to decide on the laws and amendments to them, it will be a matter for discussion tomorrow, followed by the discussion on the withdrawal agreement Bill, should that be approved, to rectify any outstanding matters. I encourage all hon. and right hon. Members to support this motion, so that we can leave the EU in an orderly way that gives businesses and people the certainty they need.

I turn to the amendment tabled by the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), and the Opposition Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown). It may help the House and provide some reassurance to the shadow Leader of the House if I confirm that we will be sitting tomorrow with a very clear purpose in mind: so that the House has time to debate the motion tabled by the Government this afternoon. That is our only intention for tomorrow’s sitting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, and that decision would be followed by consideration of the relevant legislation.

[Mary Creagh]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Section 13 is in front of me, and it is extremely clear. Paragraph (1) says:

“The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if…the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown”.

That is the original legislation that we fought for—the right for this sovereign Parliament to have its say on both things together. As I put it earlier, these are two horns on the same goat. The goat’s head cannot be divided as the Government are seeking to do. This is an extraordinary and unprecedented reverse-ferret of the commitments that have been given by Ministers to this place: that we should have our say on both items together. Is it not extraordinary, Mr Speaker, that this comes right on the day when we know that far-right demonstrators will be gathering in Parliament Square?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has made her point with considerable force, educating me in the process—I am grateful for that—with the use of the expression “reverse-ferret”: apparently one with which the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) is well familiar, but of which I was previously unaware.

I do not seek to trivialise the hon. Lady’s point. She has made her point, but there is not a procedural issue for the Chair. There is a political issue for the judgment of the House, but not a matter for adjudication by the Chair.