Irish Border: Customs Arrangements

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

The Prime Minister has been very clear: that will happen before this weekend.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Over the last 15 minutes, the Minister has been at pains to stress the distinction between technical non- papers and final papers which are forthcoming. On the basis of that distinction, may I therefore ask him a simple question: without going into the detail, can he give the House an assurance that any final proposals that relate to the Irish border will not row back in any way from any of the solemn commitments signed up to in December 2017 in the joint report between the UK and the EU?

[James Duddridge]

First, may I thank the hon. Gentleman genuinely for his service on the Front Bench? When I took over this role, my predecessor said how much he respected the full team, and now that he is on the Back Benches, perhaps we can have a fuller and more honest discussion than we might have had when we were both Front Benchers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. Despite some misgivings and the way that he campaigned during the referendum, he has consistently voted for a deal, and he was consistently willing to compromise where many others were not. On the substance of the talks, the Prime Minister’s Europe adviser was in Brussels yesterday, and the Prime Minister is due to meet the Taoiseach on Monday. I am in regular contact with my counterparts, and I have visited a number of capitals in recent weeks. A significant amount of work has gone on, but we will not fall into the trap that befell the previous Government, where the Commission has an absolutist, all-weather, all-insurance position and then asks for deals on the basis of creative flexibility, and against that test then dismiss it as magical thinking. We need to have detailed discussions, but they must be done in the right way, which is what we are doing.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has said once again that the new Administration want to secure a deal, rather than leave without one, yet we know that no new concrete proposals have been presented to the EU. It has been reported that in the technical talks that took place yesterday between the UK’s chief negotiator and EU Commission officials, the UK team made it clear that the Government want to jettison the level playing field provisions contained in the withdrawal agreement. Will the Secretary of State confirm that removing those provisions is now the Government’s preference?

[Stephen Barclay]

As the hon. Gentleman says, the Government want to leave with a deal. We also know that Labour Members do not want a deal, they are not prepared to leave with no deal, and therefore they are not prepared to leave at all. The Government’s proposals made it clear in the letter to President Tusk that, notwithstanding concerns about the wider withdrawal agreement held by many of my colleagues on the Government Benches, the issues have been narrowed down to that of the backstop. That is distinct from the Northern Ireland protocol as a whole, and that is the constructive approach that the Prime Minister has taken. He has also answered the charge that was often levelled from the Labour Benches about what sort of deal we seek in the political declaration. The charge of a blind Brexit was often levelled at me, and the Prime Minister has answered that question. He is seeking a best-in-class free trade agreement, and he has been crystal clear on that.

[Matthew Pennycook]

There was no answer there on the level playing field provisions. I am not sure why the Secretary of State is so reluctant to confirm that regulatory divergence from the EU, rather than alignment with it, is what the Government want to achieve. After all, as he mentioned, in the Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk on 19 August that was for him “the point” of our exit. We have gone from Canada plus plus plus to Canada minus minus with barely a mention and no debate in this House. Let me ask the Secretary of State this simple question: will the Government now come clean with the British public about the fact that far from maintaining workers’ rights, Ministers want the freedom to chip away at them and environmental protections and consumer standards?

[Stephen Barclay]

No. What is staggering about the hon. Gentleman’s question is his—

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

The Government absolutely remain committed to ensuring that businesses, whether they are large, small or medium-sized, thrive in any Brexit-related scenario. The Governor of the Bank of England has said that we are well prepared. I will ensure that more details are circulated about what mitigating measures the UK Government will put in place for small and medium-sized businesses.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

In the finest traditions of this Government, the Brexit Secretary used an interview in The Times today to publicly air his frustrations with colleagues from the Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy at their unwillingness to waste yet more public money on ramping up preparations for a no-deal Brexit. In the same spirit of openness, can the Minister tell the House precisely how much additional funding his Department believes should be allocated to no-deal planning before 31 October and what it should be spent on?

[James Cleverly]

The Treasury has made available over £4 billion for preparations for Brexit in all scenarios. As has been discussed at the Dispatch Box before, it is not possible to disaggregate the spending between planning for a deal and planning for no deal. If the hon. Gentleman or anyone else in the Chamber is concerned about the implications of a no-deal Brexit, I remind them that they have had a number of opportunities to take the prospect of a no-deal Brexit off the table, which is what they say they wish to do, by voting for a deal. The fact that he has failed to do so means that the Government have had to take sensible, pragmatic actions to ensure that we are ready to leave in the event of no deal, but it is not too late for him to repent.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2019 General Committees

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Lindsay. I intend to be brief. As I look at the impressive array of right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side, I think the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will have enough problems from Members of his party without me adding to them, and I will not do so.

Just as I argued when the House debated the predecessor to these regulations on 27 March, the regulations are a necessity and should be entirely uncontroversial. The agreement between the European Council and the UK further extended the article 50 process. The extension is, as a result, a matter of European law and legally binding in international law. All that the regulations do is, just as their predecessors did, to ensure that our domestic legislation aligns with what has already been agreed and, as such, to avoid creating the unnecessary and considerable legal confusion that would result from having two parallel sets of regulations: those deriving specifically and directly from EU law, which are currently in place; and those made under the 2018 Act, which would diverge from EU law.

[John Redwood]

Given that Labour campaigned on helping us to leave the European Union in 2017, why does the party now take every opportunity to delay and prevent us from leaving?

[Matthew Pennycook]

There is a simple answer to that. Yes, the manifesto we stood on rightly said that we accepted the referendum result. It also said, clearly, that we rejected a no-deal exit and the proposition on which the Tory party is trying to take us out of the EU. We will not vote for the deal as it stands, so a further extension is inevitable until other options come forward.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

I reassure the Committee that I have not crossed the Floor of the House, but as there were no seats available on the Government side of the Committee room, I am speaking from the other side. The hon. Gentleman talks about his party rejecting a no-deal Brexit, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage also mentioned no-deal Brexit, but is it not the case that that no longer exists? Michel Barnier and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union have said that there is now sufficient regulation on both sides of the channel that if we were to leave without this withdrawal agreement deal, we would not be leaving without a deal. We would have “no deal”, surrounded by all the legislation that has been passed on both sides of the channel in the last eight months.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman can call it “no deal”, but he is essentially propagating something that Conservative Members have argued for many times: a managed no deal. Certain bilateral agreements have been put in place on the EU’s terms, and they would be revoked on the EU’s terms. He makes a good point, however: if we exited without a deal, we would be forced back to the negotiating table to conclude an arrangement of sorts. There is no pure, clean break for him and his friends on the Conservative side.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am going to make some progress.

As I said, these are relatively uncontroversial regulations that should be supported. That is why the Opposition take no issue with them. I do, however, have one question for the Minister. As he will know, and as the hon. Member for Stone said, the regulations differ from their predecessor in providing only for an extension until 31 October. The predecessor regulations sought to anticipate two different exit day scenarios: 22 May if the withdrawal agreement was approved before 29 March; or 12 April if it was not. By providing only for an extension until 31 October, the regulations signal a tacit acceptance of what we all suspected to be the case at the time: we would have to participate in the European elections.

More than that, however, in providing only for that single date, the regulations do not cater for the possibility that the withdrawal agreement might still be ratified before 31 October—something that, were it to occur, would mean, through the agreement between the UK and the European Council, that exit day would have to be changed to 1 June, 1 July, 1 August, 1 September or 1 October. Therefore, could the Minister tell the Committee—I do think the Committee should have an answer to this—what the Government will do or plan to do in the admittedly unlikely scenario that the withdrawal agreement is approved before 31 October? Would a further statutory instrument be introduced to change exit day yet again, or would the Government seek to use the withdrawal agreement Bill to modify more comprehensively the provisions connected with exit day? I look forward to the Minister’s answer—

[Mr Francois]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way before he finishes?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not give way; I have just come to a conclusion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

Her Majesty’s Government have never had the policy to take no deal off the table; the House has committed the Government through votes to do so. The right hon. Gentleman talks about spending in other Departments. We have, for example, seen record spending in the national health service, making good on the Government’s commitment. If he does not want to see any more money spent on no-deal preparations, it is incumbent on him to bring this to a conclusion, and the best way of doing so is by voting for the withdrawal agreement Bill when it is presented to the House, giving this country certainty and the ability to move forward in a post-Brexit world.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

In an op-ed in The Sun on Saturday, the Brexit Secretary argued that

“it would be inexcusable for the Government to not use the coming months to continue to prepare”

for no deal. Indeed, based on his answers today, no doubt he would like to accelerate those preparations. However, as the public know, given that they get advance sight of pending public rows in their morning newspapers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes a different view. He recently issued an edict that no further Treasury money will be provided for no-deal planning ahead of the 31 October deadline. When it comes to no-deal planning, will the new Under-Secretary tell us who actually speaks for the Government?

[James Cleverly]

The Treasury has already allocated money for no-deal preparation. We continue to prepare for no deal, because at the moment there is still the possibility that on 31 October the United Kingdom will leave with no deal. Members of the House who are uncomfortable with that position can take a no-deal Brexit off the table by voting for a withdrawal agreement and leaving with a deal, which remains the Government’s policy. If we were to do that, we could move on to the second stage of the negotiations and set about creating a strong working relationship with our European partners and other nations around the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 4th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

I do not know which selective poll the right hon. Gentleman is quoting from, but in our democracy we address these issues through the ballot box. In 2016 we had in essence the ultimate poll and 17.4 million people cast their vote to leave. The key message we get in our constituencies and very clearly from the business community—I do not need a poll for this—is that people do not want this process to drag on further. They want it to come to a resolution, and they want the House, instead of being against everything, to come to a decision. It is time we moved on and got this delivered.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Last night, the House voted to prevent a disastrous no-deal Brexit and to exert greater control over the process of extending article 50. The Secretary of State’s views on an extension are well known, but will he confirm that when the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill returns from the other place, he and the Government will comply with the spirit of it and dutifully seek a further extension of article 50 beyond 12 April?

[Stephen Barclay]

I am very happy to confirm that, as set out in the “Ministerial Code”, Ministers will abide by the law. If the law of the land dictates a certain course of action, Ministers will, under the code, follow the law. The hon. Gentleman gets slightly ahead of himself, because the Bill passed Third Reading with a majority of only one last night, and it was passed in such haste that many of my colleagues had as little as two minutes to speak on Second Reading. I pointed out to the House flaws in the Bill, which I am sure their lordships will wish to explore. We will need to see what consideration takes place in the other House before any further deliberations are necessary in this place.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The House will have noted—I think with disappointment—the Secretary of State’s attempts to undermine the clear will expressed last night. The Opposition have no doubt that the Lords will discharge their duties quickly and efficiently in the circumstances. Given the clear will of the House as expressed in the Bill’s passage last night, I ask him to set out his view at this stage about what the Government believe the role of this place will be in the event that the European Council proposes a date different from that set out in a motion approved by the House, or if the Council agreed to the proposed date but attached conditions.

EU Exit Day Amendment

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I rise on behalf of the Opposition to support the motion. As the Minister made clear, this statutory instrument is a necessary one, and it should be entirely uncontroversial. As the House knows, in response to the Prime Minister’s letter of 20 March to the President of the European Council, the Council agreed to an extension of the article 50 process until 22 May, provided that the withdrawal agreement is approved by the House this week. The Council further agreed that if the withdrawal agreement is not approved this week, an extension until 12 April will take place to allow for the UK to “indicate a way forward” for its consideration, to which we hope the preceding debate and votes will contribute.

On 22 March, the UK’s permanent representative to the EU, Sir Tim Barrow, wrote to the President of the European Council to confirm agreement of the proposed extension arrangement under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union. As such, the extension of the article 50 process until at least 12 April will now happen as a matter of European law, and as the Minister said, it is legally binding in international law. This statutory instrument merely aligns “exit day” as it is defined for the purposes of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 with the new dates that have been agreed. It is entirely correct that it comes after agreement on extension was reached between the two parties.

Indeed, the withdrawal Act makes clear that this sequencing—that is to say, that any new agreement between the parties as to when the treaties cease to apply to the UK must precede any change to exit day for the purposes of the Act—is precisely what is required. Section 20(4) of the Act provides that a Minister of the Crown may by regulations amend the definition of “exit day” to

“ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom”—

the operative word being “are”, not the day and time that the Government hope the EU Council would agree to. As such, logically, the Act makes clear that the Government could not propose a statutory instrument that would stipulate a date or dates for exit day different from the date on which the treaties would cease to apply, as agreed at the time. In short, the power to redefine exit day as set out in the 2018 Act passed by this House arises only if the date has already been changed.

[Mr Bone]

The Act refers to a date. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would therefore be more logical for this statutory instrument to state 12 April, and if that date needs to be changed, it should be changed subsequently? I do not understand how we can have two dates in the statutory instrument.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, as he has in recent days. I think that it can be done either day—that is the short answer. There are different legal opinions on which creates the least amount of confusion and potential for legal challenge, but the Government have decided to do it this way, and we support the statutory instrument as a means to do so.

Those who take issue with the sequencing or the mere fact that this statutory instrument is before us at all today do so because they oppose in principle an extension to the Brexit process beyond Friday 29 March, presumably because they are either relaxed about leaving without a deal or positively wish for such an outcome.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I am grateful for the Opposition’s support. Is not the bottom line that we are extending article 50 via this SI tonight to avoid the damaging no-deal exit that my constituents in Winchester, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, do not want to see, and that this House has now expressly said on several occasions—I predict it will do so again this evening—it does not want to see?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that we have to do everything possible to avoid a disastrous no-deal exit. This SI does not do that; the extension agreed by the European Council and the UK does it. This SI ensures that our domestic legislation aligns with what has already been agreed and that we do not create legal confusion.

It is certainly the case that no one, including those who have no problem with the extension, expected that this Government would fail so miserably that an extension of any kind would be required, but it was always a possibility. That is precisely why the EU withdrawal Bill, at least in its original form, was drafted to provide for circumstances in which a withdrawal agreement came into force later than 29 March, following an extension. As the Government themselves put it at the time in their delegated powers memorandum:

“Exit day will be dependent on the withdrawal negotiations with the EU.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has commented, it was the Government’s decision to play politics with the issue of exit day for the purposes of our domestic legislation—constraining the flexibility provided for in the original drafting of the Bill by putting in a fixed exit date and time in a vain attempt to curry favour with the hardliners on their own Benches—that means we require a statutory instrument in the form before us. That said, it remains the case that it is simply not reasonable to question the legitimacy of the Government’s actions in agreeing to an extension to the article 50 process or the fact that these regulations have sequentially followed that agreement.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I want to correct the hon. Gentleman’s account of recent history. In fact, the Government agreed to put in the date voluntarily, and then were blackmailed by the remain faction in our party to provide flexibility on the date. That is actually what happened.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think the hon. Gentleman would agree with me that the original draft of the Bill did not include the date. The reasons why the Government put it in and the actions of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) in again helpfully coming to the rescue, I will leave to the hon. Gentleman and his view of what happened at the time.

It follows that, if the House votes against this statutory instrument, it cannot prevent an extension of the article 50 process until at least one of the two proposed dates. In short, and much to my delight, there is nothing that right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches can do today to force the UK out of the EU in two days’ time. All that would be achieved by voting against these regulations would be immense legal confusion, with two parallel sets of regulations in place—those deriving specifically and directly from EU law, and those made under the 2018 Act, which would diverge from it. As the Minister put it, our statute book would be in a complete mess. That is why this statutory instrument should self-evidently be supported, and why the Opposition will be doing so when we divide on it.

European Council: Article 50 Extension

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Friday 22nd March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the extension to the article 50 process agreed at the European Council summit on 21 March.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

Last night, the Prime Minister met Donald Tusk, following the EU Council’s discussion on the UK’s request for the approval of the Strasbourg supplementary documents and for a short extension to the article 50 process. The Council agreed, subject to this House approving the withdrawal agreement next week, an extension of the article 50 period to 22 May. This provides Parliament with time to pass the necessary implementing legislation and to complete ratification. If Parliament does not approve the withdrawal agreement next week, article 50 will be extended until 12 April. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in Brussels last night, at that point we would either leave without a deal or we would need to put forward an alternative plan.

The House should be aware that the European Council has clarified that any extension beyond 22 May will require the UK to participate in European parliamentary elections. The Prime Minister has made clear her view: that it would be quite wrong to hold these elections three years after this country voted to leave the European Union. The House should also recognise, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last night, that we are now at the moment of decision. She, and the whole of this Government, will continue to make every effort to get a deal agreed so that we can leave the EU in an orderly manner and move the country forward.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question? However, given the significance of what was agreed in Brussels yesterday evening, the Government should have made a statement to the House this morning, instead of requiring us, once again, to drag Ministers to the Chamber. On Wednesday evening, the Prime Minister made a divisive speech from Downing Street, in which she chastised right hon. and hon. Members for not making a decision on Brexit. But we have made a decision, voting down her deal twice by historic margins. It is just that it is a decision the Prime Minister is clearly incapable of accepting. It is her intransigence, her pandering to the hardliners in her own party and her refusal to compromise that has brought us to this point. Now that the article 50 process has been extended, I trust that responsible Ministers are urging their colleagues to change course.

Let me turn to the substance of the EU Council’s communiqué. It makes it clear that, provided the withdrawal agreement is approved by this House next week, an extension will be granted to 22 May. Can the Minister therefore confirm that the Government will give us a third meaningful vote next week and, if so, on what day? Can he explain how the Government intend to comply with the terms of the statement that you, Mr Speaker, made on Monday to the effect that to have a chance of being put the motion would have to be “substantially” different? Can he commit now publicly to publishing the necessary secondary legislation and giving the House the opportunity to approve it at the earliest possible opportunity?

The Minister will know that it is highly likely that if the deal is brought back next week, it will once again be voted down. The Council’s communiqué makes it clear that if it is, the article 50 process will be extended to 12 April, in the expectation that the UK will “indicate a way forward” before that date. As such, can the Minister state categorically that in the event of such a scenario it would not be the Government’s policy to take us out of the EU without a deal, on or after 12 April? If that is the case—this is the crucial question—could the Minister set out the process by which the Government will provide this House with an opportunity to properly debate the range of alternative options available to us and to facilitate attempts to secure a majority for one of them?

Ministers have constantly told us that a responsible Government prepare for all eventualities. With that in mind, can the Minister tell us what contingency plans are being made for the distinct possibility that an extension beyond 12 April will be required? Over recent months, we have repeatedly argued that an extension to the article 50 process was inevitable and we have made it clear that its length must be determined by its purpose. After next week, it must be for Parliament to finally determine what that purpose is, so that we in this House can do what is right for businesses, communities and people in every region and nation of the UK. In short, it is time that we took back control.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions and makes a number of assertions, some of which are simply not true, frankly. The idea that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has refused to compromise is an exaggeration; I do not think that is an accurate reflection of what has happened. With respect to his remarks about the meaningful vote, the Leader of the House set out clearly in her business statement yesterday that she will make a further business statement next week, which would be appropriate—[Interruption.]

EU Withdrawal Joint Committee: Oversight

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

If my right hon. Friend would not insist on heckling me, I would also suggest the key part of all of this is paragraph 3 of article 166, which refers to “mutual consent”. The Joint Committee simply cannot act if the UK does not agree.

On the point about the UK Government’s relationship with this Parliament, there will be full and ample opportunity, as we have provided in the last four months, to debate the provisions or recommendations of the Joint Committee. In this final part of my answer to my right hon. Friend, I would like to stress that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister herself has spent no fewer than 20 hours at this Dispatch Box in the last four months. There is a full and ample range of debate and discussion.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on securing it.

The Joint Committee has attracted a significant degree of attention over recent weeks in relation to its role in the operation of the Northern Ireland backstop, but as the right hon. Gentleman made clear, it is important to remember that the Joint Committee and its specialised sub-committees are also responsible for the application and implementation of the entire withdrawal agreement. Under Article 166, paragraph 2, any decisions made by the Joint Committee would have “the same legal effect” as the entire withdrawal agreement. The right hon. Gentleman has done this House a service in providing us with an opportunity to scrutinise more carefully this important part of the agreement and to seek reassurances about the role of Parliament in overseeing its operation.

To that end, may I ask the Minister the following questions relating to the role of this House in scrutinising the work of the Joint Committee, should the deal ever be approved? First, will the Government commit now to making a statement to this House before and after each and every meeting of the Joint Committee, and to make all of its documents available to Members? Secondly, what plans, if any, do the Government have to create a dedicated Committee of the House to oversee the withdrawal agreement, including the Joint Committee? Thirdly, the withdrawal agreement makes it clear that the Joint Committee will be made up of representatives of the United Kingdom and the European Union, so what role do the Government foresee Parliament having in the appointment of the UK representatives? Fourthly, is it the Government’s intention that the UK representatives include individuals from the main political parties, as well as those from the devolved Governments and Assemblies? Finally, specifically in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol, will the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s view that an indefinite application of the backstop would not constitute an unforeseen situation under article 164, paragraph 5(d) in such a way as might provide for amendment of the treaty itself?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

On that list of questions, it would be absolutely customary and right for a Government Minister to make a statement when the Joint Committee had opined or made recommendations. That is absolutely in order. With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s request about a Committee, that is a matter for the House. It is not for the Executive to decide which Committees of this House can or cannot be formed.

We have ample and very full discussions with the devolved Administrations. They will of course be involved in aspects of the Joint Committee’s decisions, particular with regard to the question of Ireland and the backstop. There is no way, and this is carefully documented in the withdrawal agreement itself, that the Joint Committee would be making statements or recommendations about the backstop or any other matters relating to Ireland without, on our part, some representation and involvement of the Northern Ireland Government. On that question, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be ample consultation and involvement of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Article 50 Extension Procedure

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

There were lots of questions from my right hon. Friend. She made some remarks about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s votes last week. I voted exactly the same way as he did—I voted against an extension in the free vote.

One of the points about the votes on Thursday was that it was absolutely vital that the House voted against the Benn amendment, which, if it had been successful, would have bound the hands of not just this Government but future Governments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did exactly the right thing by voting to reject the amendment—and, as I remember, it was rejected by three votes. That is exactly what I did, and that is exactly why he voted the way he did.

With regard to the last vote, it was a free vote. My right hon. Friend said, as I did, that we would not seek to extend article 50. However, as Members of the House know, the House did vote to extend article 50. As a consequence, I set out clearly in my statement the process that will be followed. As I said, we will, as soon as possible following agreement at EU level, bring forward the necessary domestic legislation to amend the definition of exit day. That legislation will take the form of an affirmative statutory instrument, which will be laid before the House after the agreement with the EU, next week.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) on securing it. It is particularly interesting that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has been given the task of responding. As he rightly admitted, he, like the Secretary of State, voted against the Government’s motion on Thursday. He has not reconsidered over the weekend, and he comes before us glorying in the fact that he opposes the Government’s stated policy, which is to seek an extension to article 50. Can he tell us whether he even agrees with what he has just read out from the Dispatch Box?

However, in all seriousness, the written ministerial statement made on Friday throws up a series of important questions. First, given that it appears there is now little chance that the House can approve the deal before tomorrow, for what purpose will the Government seek an extension to the article 50 process, and how long do they propose it lasts? The written ministerial statement is clear that the EU would require a clear purpose for anything longer than a technical extension; it cannot be just the principle that is put to the EU.

Secondly, leaving aside the SI dealing with the domestic legislation, is it the Government’s intention to bring back the terms of any extension that might be agreed, so that the House can debate and vote on them, as the Minister for the Cabinet Office indicated in response to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) in the debate on 27 February? Finally, have the Government sought or received any legal advice relating to the requirement to participate in the European elections, given that, as the Minister will know, there is a range of views not only inside this place but outside?

The fact that we need to extend the article 50 process is a mark of this Government’s abject failure. For weeks, the Opposition have argued that an extension to the article 50 process is inevitable; on Thursday, the House, if not the Minister and his colleagues, finally accepted that. We need clarity from the Department on precisely how this process will unfold.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Let me respond very briefly to the hon. Gentleman. He suggested that I did not agree with the statement; I fully agreed with everything in it. That is just for the hon. Gentleman’s—[Interruption]—instruction.