European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Debate between Michael Tomlinson and Bernard Jenkin

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I will be as brief as I can. I want to speak against clause 1 stand part. The clause is the heart and strategic intent of the Bill. It is trying to put this House in a position to stop the United Kingdom leaving the EU on the date on which the Government might want us to leave. There is no question about that.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) who made the point that the process of attrition in this House to limit the Government’s negotiating freedom in the end very much undermined their ability to get a better deal and to negotiate from a position of strength. If people cannot walk away from a negotiation they are in, and they have to agree something at the end of it, the other party simply calls the shots. That certainly strengthened the hand of those who want us to have a bad deal. I have made some points in the debate on one of the earlier business motions about the constitutional impropriety of this whole process.

I also invite the Committee to reflect on what this House looks like tonight as we discuss such highly technical issues. The British people expect us to be discussing the big principles of whether we should leave without a deal on WTO terms or sign up to the withdrawal agreement. This particular debate, however, seems particularly obscure and unavailable to voters. It will make this House look particularly out of touch, especially because the Bill is somewhat otiose.

I have argued for some time with colleagues on the Conservative Benches that the Prime Minister has demonstrated little intention of ever leaving without a withdrawal agreement. The fact that the Government have spewed out a whole raft of information basically about why they do not want to leave without a deal underlines that point. I therefore think that the Bill is unnecessary.

In my comments to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, I pointed out that the Bill is also unenforceable. Just look at the wording of subsection (4), which is that

“the Prime Minister must seek an extension of the period specified in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union”.

What does “seek” mean in the circumstances? What happens if the Prime Minister makes a telephone call asking for an extension, says “Thank you very much” to what is offered, and puts the phone down again? How will that process be scrutinised and made accountable? How do we judge what is a serious seeking in good faith, and what is a mere technical seeking? That underlines the total futility of the House attempting to legislate in this way. Our system of government is not set up for Parliament to legislate for detailed instructions on how Ministers should carry out their duties. We tend to make laws on a much more general basis than that. That is why the system just does not work.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point that builds on other points made during Committee. Has not a further defect been pointed out? There is no timeframe. The Prime Minister is not mandated to “seek” in any manner, or within any particular timeframe, so she could do nothing until 13 April and still intend to comply fully with the Bill.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Yes, and we absolutely know why the Bill is framed in these very vague terms—it is precisely to avoid its falling foul of rules that require a money resolution for a Bill that gives more specific instruction.

Exiting the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments

Debate between Michael Tomlinson and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), who has just sat down, is another supporter of this motion who is now talking about the release of a set of justifiably redacted documents, as opposed to the complete documents. This underlines the fact that the House is debating documents, but we do not really know what is in them because we do not have them.

Some colleagues think that these documents will contain some dreadful smoking gun that will blow the Government’s case out of the water. I can honestly say that I believe that the Government are far more concerned about releasing information into the public domain that will actually help the European Union in the negotiations, when the European Union clearly has no intention of releasing its impact assessments. Indeed, one of the reasons we are leaving the European Union is that this House has absolutely no power over which documents the European Union should be compelled to release because it is completely beyond the power of this House.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recall that the shadow Secretary of State said, very fairly, that he would anticipate that there may well be some redactions or even a summary?

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

We are beginning to see, in this rather messy and untidy debate, why this 19th century procedure is not used very often. The usual procedure would be that the Select Committee would request the documents, but it has not requested these documents. No writ or summons have been issued for any of these documents. We simply have this motion.

There is a sensitivity within Government about releasing documents that are used to make political points. Part of the Treasury’s reputation was severely trashed when, in the run-up to the referendum, it released documents that were patently misleading and were used for propaganda purposes in a way that I think rather embarrassed Treasury officials.

Then there is the question of the status of the motion. The words “binding” or “not binding” do not appear in “Erskine May”. There is a misappreciation of the meaning of these motions. By passing a motion, the House is not making law. There are no obligations that are enforceable through the courts as there would be if we were passing a set of regulations or an Act of Parliament. It is simply an expression of the will of the House.