Business of the House
Pete Wishart Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. This House voted on 14 March for a short extension to article 50. The EU Council’s conclusions were turned into a legal decision with which the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom agreed. Those conclusions came into force last Friday. So the date for our departure from the EU has already changed in international law. The draft statutory instrument provides for both the durations that were agreed with the EU27. As I said to the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), exit day, as amended, would be 22 May if the withdrawal agreement is approved before 11 pm on 29 March. Otherwise, it would be 11 pm on 12 April. I want to be very clear that a rejection of the statutory instrument that the Government seek to bring forward tomorrow would create a clash in UK law, because a large volume of EU exit legislation preparing the UK statute book for the moment that EU law ceases to apply is due to enter into force automatically on exit day. In international law, the exit date has already changed. The statutory instrument seeks to clarify that in UK law. I hope that that is clear to all Members.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
We all look forward to the Leader of the House’s motion tomorrow, so this can be properly discussed. I think we are all particularly looking forward to a little bit of parliamentary innovation tomorrow. I am looking around for Prime Minister Letwin. He must still be with the Queen discussing the Parliament party legislative programme, which we will obviously get an opportunity to consider and debate tomorrow.
I get the sense that Parliament is about to take control of this process with all the enthusiasm of the first lieutenant of the Titanic taking over from Captain Edward John Smith. Can the Leader of the House confirm today that the Government will observe and respect whatever outcomes are agreed tomorrow, by a majority, in this great piece of parliamentary novelty? That is what the House really needs to hear from the Leader. We are sick and tired of voting repeatedly on motions that are passed, only for the Government to casually and contemptuously ignore them. Will they co-operate fully in ensuring that we get to some sort of solution with this House, and will they respect and observe it?
Andrea Leadsom
I reject what the hon. Gentleman says about the Government ignoring this House. It is, of course, as a result of the motion that was passed by this House on 14 March that we have an extension to article 50. As he knows well, as Leader of the House of Commons, I take very seriously my role to be Parliament’s voice in the Government.
On the options that will be brought forward tomorrow, what I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that, at this stage, we do not know which options will be debated and voted on, let alone which will pass. To use his analogy, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), the new Prime Minister for West Dorset, has not yet indicated that manifesto. Nor indeed has the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) indicated his manifesto. I think we need to wait for that advice. I do jest, in case any hon. Gentleman is determined to take offence at my joke there, Mr Speaker. I say that for clarity in this Chamber.
The second point is that any options passed by this House must be negotiable. They have to be deliverable in negotiations with the EU and they would also have to take account of how long those negotiations would take.
Finally, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out in the discussion yesterday, and as the shadow Brexit Secretary also made clear in the House, it would not be possible for different parties to accept proposals that their party manifestos rejected at the last general election. [Interruption.] The shadow Brexit Secretary was clear in the House yesterday that Labour would reject certain potential outcomes as inconsistent with the Labour manifesto. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) shouts “Rubbish”, but she needs to talk to her Front Benchers. It is absolutely vital that this House delivers outcomes that are negotiable, feasible and in line with the will of the manifestos and the referendum on which we all stood.
Business of the House
Pete Wishart Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. I think that his analysis is absolutely right. If I may say so, I think that all hon. Members, right across the House, come to this place to try to make the world around us a better place. It is vital that we occasionally take the time to consider how well we are doing against that challenge.
I think that there is much to celebrate. We should celebrate our economy, given that employment is at a record high. We should celebrate the tackling of inequality, given that the real-terms wages of the lowest paid are growing faster than those of anyone else. We should celebrate the Government’s determination to tackle loneliness, to consider more suicide prevention measures, and to invest significant sums in our NHS to support people with mental health problems. I think that what we should seek to do, across the House, is support each other sometimes, and celebrate our achievements.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the almost fantasy business for next week.
Following the Prime Minister’s statement last night, we shall have to have an emergency debate about Members’ security, because I am pretty certain that a few of us are feeling just a little bit more insecure this morning. It was the height of irresponsibility for the Prime Minister to pitch public against Parliament in the current climate, on the back of real issues of intimidation and threats against Members in all parts of the House. This is her Brexit, designed, administered and delivered by her Government. An ugly environment has been created in the last couple of years because they chose to divide the country on this toxic issue to try to resolve tensions within their own party, while refusing to consider any alternatives to their own singular approach. How dare the Prime Minister blame Members of Parliament for this mess? I will never stop fighting for what my country and my constituency voted for. I will stand by them, regardless of the “them and us” climate that the Prime Minister is trying to create.
I will tell the House what undermines democracy and erodes trust in Parliament: it is this Government ignoring agreed outcomes in the House. We vote again and again for something and it is then casually dismissed, or we continually reject something only for it to be brought back again and again. For example, where is the legislation that will take no deal off the table, which the House has agreed to twice? Democracy does not mean that it is the Prime Minister’s way or the highway.
We will be out of the EU a week tomorrow unless something is done. We do not know on what basis that will happen, and we do not know whether there will be an extension. The EU has said that it will grant an extension only if the House passes the dead, defeated deal. When will it come to the House—it will not be on Monday; that is just part of the Government’s obligations—and how will it be significantly different in order to meet your ruling, Mr Speaker? How will it be designed in that respect? This must happen next week, because we are supposed to be out of the EU by next Friday.
The situation is totally unbelievable. This disaster is part constitutional crisis, part farce, but 100% Tory. How dare the Government try to blame us for this mess?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not share his view at all. Let me say again that this House has a duty to decide what it does want. The hon. Gentleman asked, “Where is the legislation to take no deal off the table?” He knows that the House voted to leave the European Union on 29 March. That is the legal position. How does he suggest that we legislate to take no deal off the table unless it is by agreeing a deal? You cannot legislate to take no deal off the table. The House has already rejected a customs union, a second referendum and a no-deal Brexit, and it has rejected the Prime Minister’s deal. The House has said a lot about what it does not want to do; it needs to say what it does want to do.
Let me quote the hon. Gentleman’s words back to him. He said that he would never stop fighting for what his country voted for. His country voted to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Speaker’s Statement
Pete Wishart Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
It is about the substance of the motion—what it is commending to the House, and what proposition is being put. It is not a question purely of the words, but of the meaning, the intention and the purpose.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have made today a very important and dramatic statement. Already constituents are getting in touch with me to ask exactly what that means, and we have to be clear with the country about what you have said. The Government cannot bring back another meaningful vote if it is the same in substance as the last one. The Government’s one and only intention is to achieve and secure that. This week, they intended to do that very thing, and now you have said that that cannot happen. Stressing that for clarity would be abundantly helpful.
My experience of this Government—I do not know whether it is yours—is that they will try anything to get this through, and they will have the impertinence to try to bring this back once again in any guise that they think will be possible; perhaps it will be under the guise of the Democratic Unionist party agreeing with their deal. How do you intend to be vigilant about that prospect? Under what criteria will a motion be assessed, if the Government bring one back and try to present it as being significantly different from their last one? How do we judge what they are doing, so that this ruling can stand? It is an important ruling, and it is correct.
Mr Speaker
It seems to me that it is principally a question of whether the proposition is the same, or substantially the same. I would confer. I would of course seek advice. I would have my eyes and ears open. I am looking to serve the House, to reflect its interests and to demonstrate respect for its wishes. I simply repeat that the convention is there for a purpose, and that purpose seems to me to be an honourable and valid purpose. I am afraid that I will have to look at the particulars in the light of what is presented, but I hope that the Government would feel that respect for procedure matters.
I note that, as the hon. Gentleman asks his question and I respond, the Leader of the House is playing with her electronic device, as is the Deputy Chief Whip. I did not include him in the category of very senior people in the House, but I readily grant that that is a debatable proposition. It would seem to me to be helpful if people showed respect for each other in these circumstances, and if, when in the Chamber, they listened to what others had to say. However, if they choose not to do so, so be it. I try to show good manners, and I hope others will try to do so as well.
Business of the House
Pete Wishart Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an important matter that I know is of interest to many Members of this House. The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down has an active programme to minimise the use of animals in experiments, in accordance with the principles of the three Rs—reduction, refinement and replacement. The Ministry of Defence does not conduct animal experiments for the development or testing of offensive weapons, and the Home Office does not grant licences for those purposes.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the almost comical business for next week. We are still considering our whip on the draft Novel Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 motion, which we will be considering as an important measure next week.
Today is a bit like the morning after the night before, with people collectively asking, “What on earth happened last night?” We had members of the Cabinet failing to support the Government on a three-line Whip against their own motion but still keeping their jobs. Politically, the UK is now close to becoming a failed state, with a Government barely able to function, and now we have today’s Government motion and this woeful business statement. There is only one item of business this Government covet, and that is another crack at their dead deal. Today’s motion is exclusively designed to allow that, in the vain hope that the threat of an extended delay will bring the Brexiteers back on board. How many times are the Government going to try to get this deal through? They are like vampires with an ability to survive a stake through the heart. I know that you will make a ruling on this, Mr Speaker, but as I heard the shadow Leader of the House say, the position on bringing a motion is clear. Page 397 of “Erskine May” states:
“A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”
But that is exactly what this Government are intending to do. I am sure you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Therefore, this is a Government who should be certified.
We also need to see the legislation that will honour last night’s decision. The House has now voted three times to take no deal off the table, but the House remains ignored. The Government are right to say that the default position is to leave without a deal—that is what the legislation says—but what we have to do is bring forward legislation to honour and respect the wishes of the House. If the Government are not prepared to do it, let the House do it.
This has been a disastrous week for the Government: they have been defeated on their deal; no deal has been taken off the table; and tonight there will be an extension to the 29 March departure date. Those of us who just despise this chaotic Brexit are beginning just to see this nightmare possibly slipping away, but let us be in no doubt that we are certain in Scotland that we are not going down with this doomed ship.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I, as a democrat, am absolutely determined to fulfil the will of the people in leaving the European Union. He, on the other hand, is determined to ignore the will of the people of the United Kingdom, both on leaving the EU and on the question of independence. So we know where he stands.
I make it clear again that today’s debate is not about forcing the House to make a decision on whether the Government should seek a short or a long extension. The Government’s motion simply sets out the factual position so that Members can take a decision on extension in full knowledge of the consequences. If Members think it would be possible between now and June to agree a new negotiating position in the House, to secure agreement in Europe for a new deal based on that position and to pass the primary legislation needed to give effect to a new deal, that is a matter for hon. Members to put forward in today’s debate, particularly given the frequent representations I get here in business questions from Members from right across the House who have concerns about having the time they need to scrutinise and debate legislation.
I think the hon. Gentleman is in cloud cuckoo land. Do not take that from me, because Donald Tusk today says:
“During my consultations ahead of #EUCO, I will appeal to the EU27 to be open to a long extension if the UK finds it necessary to rethink its #Brexit strategy and build consensus around it.”
Michel Barnier says today:
“Why would we extend these discussions?”
He continued:
“The discussion on article 50 is done and dusted.”
He then says that they are waiting for the “answer” and that
“the House of Commons says what it doesn’t want”
and that:
“Now this impasse can only be solved in the UK.”
That means everybody in this Chamber needs to look at the consequences of what they are doing, and today is a very important day.
Business of the House
Pete Wishart Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
The Leader of the House does not wish to comment. Fair enough. It is a business statement, so she can respond if she wishes but she does not wish to do so.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It is no wonder that the Leader of the House chose not to respond, because that was a pathetic statement, given tonight’s events and the chaotic cluelessness at the heart of Government. The public must be watching this place and wondering what on earth is going on. The Prime Minister gave a petulant and unsatisfactory response to the preceding events. This Government are still determined to flog a dead deal, but at some point they are going to have to accept that the game is over.
We have just got sight of tomorrow’s motion and it seems to me that it is readily amendable. All we need to get rid of is the first two parts and we will get to what this House really wants and requires, which is an indefinite extension of article 50 until we get the issue resolved. The will of the House has to be respected in these matters.
I have seen the provisional business for next week and there is nothing in it—nothing at all—so the Government could table a motion that reflects the wish of this House to legislate to take no deal off the table. Is that in the thinking of the Leader of the House, and does she intend to do it? That is what this House expects, and it is now what this country expects.
Andrea Leadsom
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Prime Minister set out some time ago that should the House reject the withdrawal agreement and future declaration, there would be a discussion for the House to decide whether it wished to take leaving the EU without a deal off the table, and then, should the House make that decision, there would be a further discussion on whether the House wishes to seek an extension to article 50. That is the motion we will discuss tomorrow.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just said, tomorrow’s motion will set out the fundamental choices facing the House. If the House finds a way in the coming days to support a deal, that will allow the Government to seek a short, limited, technical extension to article 50 till 30 June 2019, to provide time to pass the necessary legislation and ratify the agreement we have reached with the EU. If the House does not find the way to support a deal in the coming days, and is not willing to support leaving without a deal on 29 March, it is highly likely that the EU will require a clear purpose for any extension, not least to determine its length, and that any extension beyond 30 June 2019 would require the United Kingdom to hold European Parliament elections in May. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Business of the House
Pete Wishart Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
The motion will be brought forward in the usual way and it will be for the House to agree.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for that very brief business statement. There was no question whatsoever that the Government could possibly renege on the Prime Minister’s commitment to have these consecutive votes, so we very much welcome that. I was a bit more concerned about what the Prime Minister said about the motion tomorrow, as I detected that there seemed to be that little bit of wriggle room, whereby the Government would still hope to proceed with a no-deal Brexit in the event of this House voting to stop it. I need to hear from the Leader of the House tonight that the Government will bring forward legislation, in good time, for no deal to be taken off the table and that there will be no question but that if this is what the House decides, this is what the House will get. Too often we have had these debates and these votes, only for this Government to casually ignore them. They have said that tomorrow there will be a free vote, and I hope that that will be extended to the vote on article 50.
We need to have protected time so that this can be properly considered by the House, with no question of the two votes being bundled into one, as was rumoured today. So can we have these rock-solid commitments, because today this has been an absolute disaster? The chaotic cluelessness of this Government’s Brexit has been played out to the very end of these proceedings. We now need to get through the next 17 days with as much order and as much respect given to this House as possible, and that means respecting decisions. Will the Leader of the House do that in the next two days?
Andrea Leadsom
What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is really just to repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, which is that if the House votes to leave without a deal on 29 March, it will be the policy of the Government to implement that decision. If the House declines to approve leaving without a deal on 29 March, the Government will, following that vote, bring forward a motion on Thursday on whether Parliament wants to seek an extension to article 50.
Mr Speaker
I was genuinely trying to be helpful. It seems to me entirely reasonable not to have the wording yet, but there we go. Anyway, the right hon. Lady says she is grateful, and I will take her at her word.
Pete Wishart
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House has continually and consistently said that the default position with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to leave with no deal. That is the position, and I think everybody in the House agrees with that. If there is a vote tomorrow and the House votes overwhelmingly to take no deal off the table, the way to overturn that is for legislation to be introduced. Am I right in my understanding that legislation will be required in order to overturn the requirements of the withdrawal Act, and is there any indication that that legislation will be forthcoming if the House votes to take no deal off the table?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is getting into hypotheticals, which were deprecated—or, at any rate, resisted—by the Leader of the House. The answer is that I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman says about the legal position, but we are not at that point yet, and therefore I am reluctant to introduce new words into this exchange that are not required at this time. I am not disagreeing with him and I entirely understand the logic of what he is saying, but we are not at that point yet. The hon. Gentleman will be in his place on subsequent days, and I am sure he will give full voice to his conviction on this matter. I dare say others will, too, on either side of that argument.
I think it would be seemly if we now drew points of order to a close.
Business of the House
Pete Wishart Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. I, too, welcome International Women’s Day and join the celebrations around World Book Day today. If we are looking for further Lewis Carroll characters, perhaps we should look at the Government to find out who is the mad March Hare, and possibly who are Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
I suppose this is about the closest that the business statement will ever come to being a work of fiction—it is sort of Walter Mitty meets “Waiting for Godot”. What it is not is a tablet of stone. I do not think that anyone in the House believes that the statement will survive the rigours of next week, because Tuesday is when the Prime Minister finally faces her Waterloo, and it is not going to end well. With 22 days left before we leave, on Tuesday the road finally runs out and we approach the end of these chaotic, clueless Brexit days. In the intervening weeks, the Government have wasted all their available time by trying to make their rotten deal more palatable to their Back Benchers while hoping beyond hope that the EU somehow bends to their will. Neither of those things looks like it is going to happen, and the Government will go down to another glorious defeat.
There has been lots of talk about postponing that vote, and there is even more talk that this fiction could indeed be the business for next week, and that if the Government are defeated on Tuesday, they will renege on their commitment to hold consecutive votes on taking no deal off the table and extending article 50. We have been here before with the Leader of the House, when she said to me categorically at business questions that the last meaningful vote would go ahead, only for it to be pulled a couple of days later. While we are grateful for all the reassurances that this will go ahead next week, will she write to party leaders today with a cast-iron commitment that the sequence of events, as put forward by the Prime Minister, will be honoured in full? We need to have it written down that under no circumstances will the meaningful vote be pulled and the subsequent votes taken away.
If there is a defeat on the meaningful vote, we must have those other motions. The Leader of the House must say to the House that they will all be amendable, and that the Government will fully honour the outcome as determined by the membership of this House, without any equivocation. If she will do that today, we can take this work of fiction off the table and have it as nothing other than a little, depressing footnote to the bounties of World Book Day.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his very precise and specific question. I am very pleased to be able to confirm to him that each of the motions that the Prime Minister has committed to next week would be amendable. The Prime Minister has committed to a second meaningful vote by 12 March. I have just announced that the debate on that motion will take place on 12 March. It will be a motion under section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which will be tabled on Monday. It will be an approval motion as required by the Act and, under the normal procedures of the House, it will be amendable.
Under Standing Order No. 16, any debate under an Act of Parliament—which this is—is limited to 90 minutes, so I expect to bring forward a business of the House motion in order to provide more than 90 minutes. The exact details of that will in due course be discussed through the usual channels, and will ultimately be for the House to agree. Only if the Government have not won the meaningful vote on 12 March will the other debates follow. The motions for the House to approve leaving the EU on 29 March without a withdrawal agreement, and on whether Parliament wants to seek a short, limited extension to article 50 will be tabled by the rise of the House on the day before debate, as is the usual practice. I have given the hon. Gentleman as much clarity and assurance as I possibly can.
Business of the House
Pete Wishart Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was City Minister in 2014, when the Government fundamentally reformed the regulation of the consumer credit market, giving the Financial Conduct Authority robust regulatory powers to protect consumers better. He is right that no lender should be ripping off consumers with appallingly high interest rates. As he will be aware, we are increasing funding for publicly funded debt advice to more than £56 million in this financial year—enough to provide financial advice to help more than 530,000 people. The Government are committed to delivering a well-functioning and sustainable consumer credit market that meets the needs of all consumers.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week, and I wish everybody a happy St David’s Day tomorrow. I am pleased that the Leader of the House chose to wear a daffodil—there have been more than enough “leeks” from her side of the House.
My party and I wish the very best of retirements to our Clerk, Sir David Natzler, although we might not miss the Lycra quite as much as the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz).
Following meaningless vote No. 3, we are still no further forwards, and there are now only 29 days left until we are supposed to leave the EU. What a waste of another week! Nothing whatever has been achieved in the past few days. The Government’s disastrous no deal remains on the table. There may or may not be a delay to achieve God knows what. In the meantime, there is no sign whatever that the EU will do anything to satisfy the Government’s damaging demands that the backstop be reviewed.
Britain’s biggest post-war political crisis is currently on hold, and at some point the inevitable conclusion will have to be played out. When is that going to be? When will we have the meaningful vote? This Brexit crisis will define the Conservative party for the rest of its wretched future. It is theirs to own—it is a Tory Brexit—and it is something that this nation will have to deal with.
May we have a debate on double-speak? Last night, we had the ridiculous sight of the Secretary of State for Scotland saying that the Scottish National party supported and coveted a no-deal Brexit. That is what he was saying. That was right after the House had voted on an SNP amendment that no deal, forever and a day, be taken right off the table. And the Scottish Tories all voted for this no deal to remain on the table—perhaps in an attempt to have it taken off. That must now rank with “War is peace,” and “This Government are strong and stable,” as an example of Tory double-speak.
Lastly, may we have a debate on a car park tax? [Interruption.] You’ll enjoy this one. Yesterday, the Prime Minister raged against the SNP for introducing such a tax in Scotland—which we have not, but which already exists in England. The English car park tax is, of course, discretionary and remains a matter for local authorities. So far, only one English local authority has taken advantage of the power. I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to join me in my huge guffaws of laughter at the absurd sight of Tories in my constituency in Perthshire protesting against their own Perthshire Tory council so that it does not introduce a tax that does not even exist yet and it has already ruled out. Now, Mr Speaker—there you have Tory double-think and Tory double-speak.
Andrea Leadsom
On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, he is really clutching at straws as an SNP Member who has allowed his own Government in Scotland to raise taxes for workers in Scotland. He is guffawing about the question of a car park tax—far more important that he look at the log in his eye over the mainstream taxes on Scottish workers, who now pay more than those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the next steps for the meaningful vote. He will be aware that the Prime Minister has given three commitments—[Interruption.]
Business of the House
Pete Wishart Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Travelling fairs and shows are a brilliant source of fun for families, and they contribute a lot to a thriving cultural scene and local economies. The Government have made clear our commitment to EU citizens who have come to the UK to make their living, and they are welcome here beyond our departure from the EU. A Westminster Hall debate might be a good way in which to raise this matter further.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. May I join in the many tributes to Paul Flynn? He was a brave but kind politician, and we will never forget his sojourn at the Dispatch Box as shadow Leader of the House, which he described as a job creation opportunity for octogenarians.
It is starting to feel distinctly different in here as the Government’s chaotic Brexit starts to play havoc on the UK’s political parties as well as the UK itself. We are all wondering who is next and looking for some willing volunteers on the Conservative Benches—[Interruption.] Oh, there we go; it might be the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning). The smart money certainly is not on the Leader of the House; she is more ERG than TIG. Can we have a debate on political defections, particularly on the question of the point at which defections become a realignment of British politics?
Next Wednesday, we are going to have another one of these “I can’t believe it’s not the meaningful vote” debates as the clock is run down further, and attempts to blackmail the House into accepting this rotten deal or a disastrous no deal continue apace. Once again, there will be another one of these Christmas tree motions. The Government will be told that this House will not accept no deal, and presumably the Government will just ignore the wishes of the House all over again. But at some point this nonsense has to come to an end. The House simply is not going to accept no deal, and the quicker the Leader of the House accepts that, the better we will all be. With 36 days left until we leave the EU, the Government are going to have to come back to the House with their real meaningful vote, so when will that be?
The Leader of the House has actually invented a new date—29 February next week. As the Leader of the House knows, there is no 29 February. Perhaps this is not so much running down the clock, but extending February forever so we actually never get to a meaningful vote.
I do not know what the Leader of the House has got against the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil)—the Refugees (Family Reunion) (No. 2) Bill—but it has been almost a year since it passed its Second Reading in this House. Other Bills have been given precedence and his still has no money resolution. Again, the Government are defying the wishes of the House. When will the Leader of the House set out a motion to let this important Bill progress?
Please let us not do this week all over again. The Leader of the House’s hon. Friends gave up their skiing holidays and trips to their villas for barely-debated statutory instruments and general debates. I have been listening carefully to the Leader of the House, and it seems as if the Easter recess is under threat and is not particularly safe now. We know that this costs the House God knows how much money and has put staff at a great disadvantage, so let us make sure that we have our Easter recess. The only notable thing that happened this week was the desertion of MPs from the two big parties. In the week of the TIGgers, this Government have seemed little more than a bunch of Eeyores in a bad mood.
Mr Speaker
I do not want to make the hon. Gentleman envious, but I am pleased to tell the House that I have a fully up-to-date and, dare I say, sanitised version of the business of the House, and mine very clearly says “Friday 1 March”. [Interruption.] Well, I feel very sorry for colleagues. I am obviously in a privileged position and should be thankful for it.
Business of the House
Pete Wishart Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a very important point, as he always does. After clean water, vaccination is the most effective public health measure, protecting children and adults against diseases that can cause serious harm. Confidence in the vaccine programme remains high, and parents routinely have their children vaccinated. However, my hon. Friend is right that there has been a small decline, and we are working to address that, as outlined in the NHS long-term plan. There is absolutely no complacency, and we will continue to work to ensure that children get the vaccinations they need.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the very curious business for next week. This is what we have cancelled the mid-term recess for: statutory instruments and general debates. Members will be missing their skiing holidays and time in their villas for that! In the past few weeks, this House has regularly been rising early because there has not been enough to do. It is not as though we do not have any big decisions to make; there are only 43 days until we are supposed to leave the EU, yet there is nothing in this business statement that indicates when we will have the meaningful vote to determine on what basis we will leave—if we leave on a basis at all.
This is getting beyond a joke, and this Government are taking us all for mugs. We know that it is their intention to run down the clock, and to present the binary choice of their appalling deal or no deal at all, and they are doing everything possible to string this House along. We must stop them. Thank goodness we have you, Mr Speaker, in the Chair to ensure that this House will have its say, as it will.
When is a neutral motion not a neutral motion? When the European Research Group tells you that it is not. All we had to do today was have a form of words on which everybody could hang their favourite amendments, and the Government could not even do that. That has infuriated ERG members, and given that they are the de facto leadership of the Tory party, you would not want to do that. Here is a question for my colleagues: at what time today do the Government cravenly cave in to the ERG and amend their motion? We should have a sweepstake. I will have first go: 2.30 pm. That is when I say that the Government will cave in.
Finally, can we have a debate on what happens in Brussels bars? The first rule of Brussels bars is that what happens in Brussels bars stays in Brussels bars—unless you are Olly Robbins. Even with all the Stella Artois, we would not need Hercule Poirot to figure out what was going on. If this House wants to find out what is going on in this chaotic, clueless Brexit, perhaps we should all up sticks and head off to the “Voulez-vous Parlez Avec Moi?” bar in Brussels.
Given that it is Valentine’s Day, I shall say:
Labour is red,
Tories are blue,
The message from Scotland is
We’re staying in the EU.
Andrea Leadsom
I think the hon. Gentleman means the UK, according to the people of Scotland—but that does not rhyme; I grant him that. I am grateful to him for his contribution today; there were no surprises there. I say to him, in the immortal words of Shakespeare, that
“his unkindness may defeat my life, but never taint my love.”
I remain very fond of the hon. Gentleman. I will seek to answer one very important question that I think he asked: why is the motion for today’s debate not a neutral motion? I want to be very clear that today’s motion is amendable. Members will be aware that neutral motions are not usually amendable under the rules of this House, specifically under Standing Order No. 24B. The current exception to that is neutral motions tabled under the terms of section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Such neutral motions are amendable, but under the Order of the House of 4 December. Today’s debate is not a motion under section 13, but a debate that the Government committed to outside the statutory framework of the 2018 Act, and they note that
“discussions between the UK and the EU on the Northern Ireland backstop are ongoing.”
For the motion to be amendable, it needed not to be a neutral motion. I hope that that clarifies the matter for all hon. Members, and I do hope that they will take this in the spirit in which it is intended—as an opportunity to give the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster more time to negotiate an answer on the backstop, which is what this House requested of us in the last debate.