Article 50

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

Let me say this to the hon. and learned Gentleman: the Prime Minister was not aiming to sideline democracy—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. The House is in an understandably excited and excitable state. What I want to say to colleagues is that they do not need to look into the crystal ball when they can read the book. Members should know by now that I always want to facilitate the fullest possible questioning and scrutiny, and it is right that that should happen, but it is also right that, when the Secretary of State is responding to questions, he is given a fair and courteous hearing.

[Mr Davis]

The Prime Minister was aiming to carry out the will of the people—all 17.4 million of them—in the national interest. That was what she was doing. Let me pick up on the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman quite properly raised: the issue of our judges. I think that I mentioned at length three times in my statement that this is a nation of the rule of law, a nation to which the independence of the judiciary is important, and a nation that is watched by other countries as an example for themselves. Of all the people he could criticise, I do not think that I am at the front on this issue.

Similarly, on the parliamentary process, there has been an interesting litany through this whole process over the past six or seven months. Every time I get up, I say that I will give the House as much information as possible subject to not undermining the national interest or our negotiating position. That is what we have done and that is what we will continue to do—not just through this Bill, but through the great repeal Bill, subsequent primary and secondary legislation, and the final vote at the end, which we have promised.

The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned membership of the single market, putting to one side of course that that membership means giving up control of borders, laws and rules, on all of which the Labour party is singularly incapable of even making a decision let alone coming up with a policy. He also talked about a plan. Last week, the Prime Minister gave a 6,500-word, closely argued speech that has been recognised across the country and around Europe as the epitome of clarity with clear objectives, aims and ambitions for this country, so I do not take that point at all.

On scrutiny more generally, we have now had, I think, five statements, 10 debates, and some 30 different Select Committee inquiries. I hardly think that all that in six months represents an absence of scrutiny of a central Government policy. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not often surprise me, but for the ex-Director of Public Prosecutions to say that taking a matter to the Supreme Court is a waste of time strikes me as quite extraordinary. I have made this point several times over the past few months: once the process has started, a reason for taking it the full distance is to get the most authoritative and clearest possible guidance on a major part of our constitution. Yet again, the hon. and learned Gentleman has not advanced the knowledge of the House very much, but I look forward to the contributions of other Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

I will thank the hon. Gentleman not to refer to me as the “old Member”. I will of course ensure that there is proper scrutiny.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has another birthday until December—I think his birthday is 23 December—so he has a long time to wait: nothing to worry about.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Today, British judges in the highest court in the land decided a point of historic constitutional importance that is unprecedented in law. It was right to seek the judgment of the Supreme Court to enable it to “discover” the law, as we lawyers euphemistically call it. Crucially, the Supreme Court recognised the limits of its constitutional powers when it left the form of that legislation to this Parliament. Is this not our constitution thriving in action, and does it not bode well for the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. After faster progress for a while, the pace has slowed terribly in the last few minutes. What is required is a pithy question of the kind in which a Queen’s Counsel should specialise. Let us hear about the contents of the textbook pithily. I call Lucy Frazer.

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Supreme Court, at the beginning of its judgment, on its very first page, said in terms that it wanted to emphasise that the case had absolutely nothing to do with the terms of withdrawal, the arrangements for withdrawal or the details as to any future relationship with Europe. In those circumstances, does the Secretary of State agree that all that the Supreme Court decided was that, before pulling the trigger, there needs to be authorisation by Act of Parliament? Under the terms of the judgment at least, there is no obligation to set out the details of any deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Single sentence questions, please, with the abandonment of any preamble that colleagues might have in mind.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

Although the Secretary of State should take seriously amendments proposed to the forthcoming Bill in good faith, I invite him to give short shrift to those who seek to use amendments to derail or delay a vital process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Somebody who has been waiting a long time must have been able to work out how to put the question in a short sentence. I call Neil Gray. Let us hear it.

[Neil Gray]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given that a legislative consent motion is now apparently a political decision and there is no impediment to the Government bringing one forward, will the Secretary of State advise us whether the Government had a legislative consent contingency in place before the Supreme Court ruling and why on earth he would rule out bringing one forward now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State said in his statement that the Government are determined to deliver on a decision taken by the people of the United Kingdom but Scotland, of course, the country that we on the SNP Benches represent, voted to remain within the United Kingdom and the Scottish Government have been empowered by the Parliament to make sure that we remain within the single market. Why is the Secretary of State acting against the best interests of the Scottish people? Will he not understand that, if he refuses to accept our will, our only option—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Too long. Too loud. We do not want to hear it. Enough.

[Mr Davis]

First, I do not necessarily think that the interests of the Scottish National party are the same as those of the Scottish people. Secondly, as I remember, the Scottish nation voted to stay inside the United Kingdom—the United Kingdom that voted to leave the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

After receiving that document I was very careful not to criticise it publicly, because I wanted to have that debate. I was chairing the Joint Ministerial Committee, so I did not want to, as it were, colour my chairing of it.

As I have said before, the document falls into three categories. There are bits which I did not think would work, there are bits that are subject to debate—especially those relating to devolution issues—and there are bits where we are absolutely on the same page, on matters such as employment law. However, elements of this paper will run into problems not just with the United Kingdom Government, but with other members of the European Union. It was criticised by the Spanish Europe Minister, and it was criticised implicitly by senior Norwegians on the European Free Trade Association front. I do not think that it can be held up as the ideal model for a perfect outcome.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State, to the Opposition spokespersons, and to all 84 Back Benchers who took part in this important series of exchanges.