Legal Advice: Prorogation

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I do not know whether in the hon. Gentleman’s practice at the Bar he felt that just because he had given advice that might not have been upheld by a court he had no credibility. That is an absurd and ridiculous proposition. Furthermore, it was advice that was agreed with by the first instance court in Scotland and by the Lord Chief Justice of England. Is the hon. Gentleman calling for his resignation as well? Is he calling for the resignation of the Master of the Rolls? Is he calling for the resignation of the President of the Queen’s bench division? Is he calling for the resignation of Lord Doherty? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the Attorney General could resume his seat momentarily, I should be deeply obliged to him. The Attorney General has a distinctive and resonant baritone, which is well known throughout the House, but it is a challenge even for him to be fully heard if there is constant catcalling. There will be ample opportunity for colleagues to question and probe the Attorney General—of that they may be assured—but I wish myself to listen to his mellifluous tones.

[The Attorney General]

I will say one thing for the Scottish National party and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) if I may. Whereas in the hon. Gentleman’s case, no shameless piece of cynical opportunism is left on the floor, the hon. and learned Lady is a lawyer and a Queen’s counsel, and she knows that it is the most puerile and infantile of criticisms to say about a lawyer whose advice has been upheld by courts right the way up to the Supreme Court that somehow or other he should be held culpable for that advice. The fact of the matter is that this advice was sound advice at the time. The court of last resort ultimately disagreed with it, but in doing so it made new law, as it was entirely entitled to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

Let me say to my right hon. Friend that the Supreme Court invoked the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the convention of ministerial accountability to Parliament as a justification for making justiciable the decision to prorogue. That is what it was entitled to do, and it effectively amounts to converting a political convention into a legal rule. That, traditionally, was not thought to be possible; the Supreme Court has decided that it is, and I certainly do not in any way complain with its right to do so. I agree that Parliament has to determine the terms on which we leave, but this Parliament has declined three times to pass a withdrawal Act to which the Opposition had absolutely no objection. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[The Attorney General]

We now have a wide number in this House setting their face against leaving at all. When this Government draw the only logical inference from that position, which is that we must leave therefore without any deal at all, they still sets their face, denying the electorate the chance of having their say in how this matter should be resolved. This Parliament is a dead Parliament. It should no longer sit. It has no moral right to sit on these green Benches, and whatever—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House must come to order. We have a lot of business to transact: there is a further urgent question and there are no fewer, I say for the benefit of those observing, than five ministerial statements. The Attorney General must be heard, and so, I hope, will lots of other people.

[The Attorney General]

They don’t like to hear it, Mr Speaker. They don’t like the truth. Twice they have been asked to let the electorate decide whether they should continue to sit in their seats, while they block 17.4 million people’s votes. This Parliament is a disgrace. Given the opportunity—[Interruption.] Since I am asked, let me tell them the truth. They could vote no confidence at any time, but they are too cowardly to give it a go. They could agree to a motion to allow this House to dissolve, but they are to cowardly to give it a go. This Parliament should have the courage to face the electorate, but it won’t, because so many of them are really all about preventing us from leaving the European Union at all. But the time is coming, Mr Speaker, when even these turkeys won’t be able to prevent Christmas.

[The Attorney General]

All I am suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman is that he give his constituents the chance to elect him again. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) that, as a result of my prodigious efforts last week, audiences in New York, Boston and Zurich are now aware that he is the noisiest Member of the House. I always enjoy listening to him, but preferably when he is on his feet rather than in his seat.

[The Attorney General]

If the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) is so confident that his electorate will consider that his moral right to sit here is so strong, why does he not submit it to them now? All we need—I offer this to the Labour Front Bench—is a one-line Bill, which we could put through with Mr Speaker’s help, to fix the date of a general election by a simple majority, and we could have the election. Why does he not tell his Front Bench to put his confidence in his constituents to the test?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

I know that my right hon. Friend knows that, when it comes to the judges—though not to this shower on the Opposition Benches—I want to be, if I can, respectful and careful. It is important that we understand that these judges are protectors of all our freedoms and all our rights—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not normally offer stylistic advice to the Attorney General, but his tendency to perambulate while orating is disagreeable to the House. He should face the House with confidence and assurance, and an acknowledgement that the House wishes to hear his every utterance.

[The Attorney General]

I wonder if you, Mr Speaker, in a well-earned retirement, would like to give lessons to Front Benchers. It could be the beginnings of a new and very glorious—or even more glorious—career.

I have now lost my thread entirely—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I think, but I am not sure, that the Attorney General is seeking to help the hon. Gentleman.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)]

In applying this new legal principle that has been created or invented by the Supreme Court, how many Prorogations in the last century would have passed muster to the test that has been created? How can this longest Session of this House since the civil war now be lawfully brought to an end, and a Queen’s Speech lawfully brought forward? Finally, is Royal Assent a proceeding in Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

I am very sorry but I did not hear a word of that.

[Mr Speaker]

There was a very unattractive rant fest taking place between hon. Members on opposite sides of the House, gesticulating aggressively at each other. It is a very undesirable state of affairs. Let us have a bit of calm and have the question again and the answer, but we want to proceed very quickly.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

You are most generous to hear me again, Mr Speaker. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if Her Majesty’s Government wish to push their prerogative powers to the very limit, as they are entitled, if perhaps not always well advised, to do, the kind of consequences we have seen in the past few days are inevitable?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A number of hon. and right hon. Members are standing to contribute who were not standing at the start of the statement. That in itself is perfectly reasonable and I will seek to accommodate them if a thought has occurred to them that they want to convey, or a question that they want to put would otherwise go unasked, but once those who are standing have asked their questions pithily, we must move on to the next urgent question. I call Clive Efford.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Attorney General has tried to take the high moral ground, but I have to wonder what morals were applied by the Government that led to yesterday’s Supreme Court decision. When did he first become aware that the advice given to Her Majesty the Queen, the Speaker of the House and the House itself about the reasons for Prorogation was not true?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Extreme brevity is now required. Single-sentence questions, please, without preamble. I call Lady Hermon.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have listened very carefully to the Attorney-General—I have not agreed with a fraction of what he has said—but I would like him to answer a specific question. Did it never cross his mind that if the Prime Minister made a ridiculous decision to prorogue Parliament for five weeks in the run-up to Brexit, which is the greatest constitutional change to the UK for years, the courts would rule that to be an unlawful Prorogation of Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

If the point of order relates to the matter of which we have just treated, I will take it.

[Emma Hardy]

During the urgent question, the Attorney General made a joke about the phrase, “When did you stop beating your wife?” Part of the reason people are so upset about Prorogation is that the Domestic Abuse Bill has fallen, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) just said. May I seek your advice on how the Attorney General can perhaps learn to moderate his language and not make jokes about domestic violence?

[Mr Speaker]

It is open to the Attorney General to respond if he wishes, although he is not obliged to do so.

[The Attorney General]

If I have given offence, I certainly did not mean to. It is an old saying at the Bar, which simply relates to a cross-examination technique of asking a question that presumes the premise. It is the way in which we were taught. If I have given offence, I apologise.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Attorney General for responding. It is a matter of extreme sensitivity and it is incredibly important that we are sensitive to the wider implications and interpretation of what we say. Society’s mores change and sometimes one can find that things that one has freely said in the past without causing offence can no longer be said without causing offence, but each Member must make his or her own judgment. The Attorney General made his and he has said what he has said. I thank him for that.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not giving notice of this point of order, but I seek advice that is relevant to our discussions. We have heard much about the way in which the Supreme Court has extended its remit to the actions of the Executive and how that may play out in future. Can you give advice, perhaps to your successor, about whether the Speaker’s actions and decisions should be similarly subject to judicial review and how that may work in future?

[Mr Speaker]

I am extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but as an attempted point of order, frankly, in old-fashioned O-level terms, with which I am familiar and of which the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, it would get an Unclassified. It was not even a good try. I do not bear the hon. Gentleman any ill will, but if people are going to have a go at these things, a degree of nuance, subtlety and ingenuity would at least command respect. There is a grade and I am afraid that the attempt was way below it.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I will take the point of order if it is on the matters we have been discussing and not beyond.

[Hannah Bardell]

Apologies for not giving you notice, Mr Speaker. During the previous exchanges, the Attorney General repeatedly said that this Parliament was a dead Parliament. He said that it should no longer sit and that we had no moral right to sit on these green Benches. How can we ensure that the Attorney General makes a statement to retract those words? They are beneath him and this place. I was sent here by the people of Livingston and of Scotland, as my colleagues were sent by their constituents. Our position should not be undermined by such flippant and ridiculous language.

[Mr Speaker]

There is an important issue here. Is something that causes offence required to be withdrawn? I say in all candour to the hon. Lady, whose sincerity I respect, that the answer to that is no. Lots of things are said that may cause offence or provoke umbrage and about which there will be dispute, but there was nothing disorderly about what the Attorney General said. The hon. Lady has registered her view with considerable force and alacrity, and it will be on the record for her constituents to observe. No impropriety has taken place.

Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I inform the House that I have not selected either of the amendments.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Shocking!

[Mr Speaker]

Well, it is essentially a negativing, but the hon. Gentleman can expatiate on the matter if he is successful in catching my eye. It is always a pleasure to call Mr Peter Bone. To move the motion, I call the Minister—the Solicitor General, no less.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

Let me just make a little bit of progress, and then I will of course take more interventions.

[Mr Speaker]

There is only time for one or two more interventions because lots of people want to speak—move on.

[The Solicitor General]

I will obey your strictures and move on, Mr Speaker.

I turn to the question of what might happen with regards to the further extension. Before the House considers the motion, as the Prime Minister said last week, we should all be very clear what the extension would be for. It is all about ensuring that we leave the EU in a timely and orderly way, and that means leaving with a deal. That is why the Government have engaged in a constructive process with the Opposition to seek to agree a plan—either a unified position that could command the confidence of the House, or a series of options upon which it could decide. As we know, that process remains ongoing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are 25 minutes to go and five people wanting to speak, so there will be a five-minute limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It would help if Members confine themselves to three minutes each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

Absolutely, and clearly an extension could be used for that purpose, or indeed for expanding on the process that is already taking place, with all the parties in this place—with the exception, I am afraid, of the DUP—working across parties to try to find a way forward. What the hon. Lady suggests could be part of that process.

The extension is not long enough for a people’s vote, which would probably require 20 weeks or thereabouts for planning and for campaigning, so we need an extension until September at the very least. I want to help the Prime Minister. She should accept the flextension that we hope will be offered to her tomorrow, because that will save her from embarrassment in the future. Members will recall that she said there would not be a general election, and then there was; that she was going to stand by the withdrawal agreement that she had spent months negotiating with the European Union, which she then did not; and that she said there would not be an extension to the article 50 period, and then there was. So she could save herself a lot of embarrassment by simply accepting that there is going to be a people’s vote, so a long extension is required to deliver one.

We are assuming, of course, and I think it is a safe assumption, that we will be granted an extension by the European Union, but if we are not, we need some clarity from Ministers as to what exactly will happen—what the next steps that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who is now in his place, referred to actually include. Will those next steps include, if we do not get an extension to the article 50 period, revoking article 50 by the end of this week? If the Minister wants to intervene to confirm that that is the case, he is welcome to do so. He has a frown on his face, but I think he is reflecting intensely on that.

I shall conclude by saying again that the Prime Minister must face up to the truth. She will need a long extension. She should grasp it tomorrow, to avoid humiliation a few weeks later when she would have to go and ask for it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) to speak very briefly; I also want the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) to get in.

United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union

John Bercow Excerpts

Friday 29th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before we get under way with the debate, I would like to ask the House to join me in thanking, extremely warmly, Graeme Cowie and Vaughne Miller, brilliant members of staff in the Library, for producing, under extreme pressure of time, a comprehensive and informative brief for this debate, not least in response to the representations of colleagues yesterday afternoon. They are wonderful servants of the House and we say thank you to them. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

We now come to the motion on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. I inform the House that I have not selected amendments. I remind the House that under the terms of the business motion just agreed to, the debate may continue until 2.30 pm, at which time the question will be put.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope this is a genuine point of order.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Attorney General refused to accept my intervention, Mr Speaker. I believe that he may be inadvertently misleading us. He spoke very importantly about the date, the significance of today and the importance of the deadline this evening. However, I know that the Government approached those of us working on the indicative votes process asking us whether we would reschedule our indicative votes business for today. If that is the case, why is there this significance? Surely the Attorney General is misleading us about the significance of holding the vote today.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but that does not require adjudication by the Chair. The Attorney General will have heard the point of order and it is open to him to respond to it or not, as he thinks fit.

[The Attorney General]

I will take interventions. I did not refuse the hon. Gentleman’s; I was just asking whether he would be patient. Let me deal with his point now. The Government were considering asking that the indicative votes process continue this morning, so that we could have brought a motion this afternoon or this evening. That is exactly what the thinking was. There is no desire on the part of this Government to interfere with the process that the House is currently undergoing—on the contrary, the motion acknowledges it and notes it. I will come to it, if I may, in due course.

The minimum necessary to secure our legal right to an extension, therefore, is that this withdrawal agreement be approved. All negotiated exits that any Member of this House might conjecture or dream of will require this withdrawal agreement. Therefore the House has before it a clear choice this morning: it can either approve this withdrawal agreement, knowing that by doing so it secures its right to an extension; or it can decline to do so and know, in doing that, that by next week there will be no right to an extension, that any extension applied for will require some clear indication of the pathway forward and a stable majority behind it, and, thirdly, that it will be subject to the veto of those 27 member states.

That brings me to the motion before the House. This motion sets out clearly that it is not a meaningful vote pursuant to section 13(1)(b) of the Act. It is designed solely to give the opportunity to this House of taking advantage of the right that we have in international law. Indeed, it could not be a vote under section 13(1)(b) precisely because, Mr Speaker, you have ruled—a ruling that the Government fully respect—that a meaningful vote cannot be brought back while it poses the same or substantially the same question to this House.

Therefore, this motion has been designed to comply with your ruling, Mr Speaker, and in complying with that ruling, it cannot comply with the requirements of section 13 of the withdrawal Act. We put before the House the choice that the House faces today. What this choice will bring is certainty to thousands of businesses and millions of individual citizens throughout this country and to 1 million citizens of our country residing in the European Union. That is a not inconsiderable benefit. That certainty will be because, by taking the step of approving the withdrawal agreement today, the House will set out a clear and certain pathway to our departure from the European Union.

Let me come now to the political declaration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking to catch the attention of the Attorney General, and wondered whether he might have a loss of hearing or something.

[Mr Speaker]

In my experience, the hon. Gentleman is both noticeable and audible.

[The Attorney General]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), but let me complete my remarks on the political declaration. The process is being undergone by the House at the moment. The Government recognise that process and will in due course make decisions on how and if we can implement anything that might emerge from that. The whole point of the political declaration is that it cannot be negotiated with the European Union now.

What the Government are saying—and some amendments were tabled, I think, by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell)—in connection with the next stage of the political declaration and its negotiation with the European Union is that there will be new mechanisms and new procedures so that the House can be properly consulted and have a role in the manner in which the political declaration, once it is finalised in the House, will be negotiated in that second stage. I can say to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central—I shall give way to him in a moment—that the Government would have accepted the amendments that he tabled, with others standing in his name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what we have heard today from the Attorney General is an attempt to dress up political shenanigans as a requirement to secure legal certainty, when in actual fact what the Government are trying to do is solve the Tory party’s political problems so that they can usher in an unelected right-wing Prime Minister to negotiate—[Interruption.] Shut up! [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Every hon. and right hon. Member of this House must be heard. No attempt should be made to shout someone down, and if it is made, be in no doubt: it will fail.

[Joanna Cherry]

Perhaps hon. Members on the Government Benches would like to go and join the mob outside. What this is about today is an attempt to solve the Conservative party’s political problems and usher in a right-wing, unelected Tory Prime Minister to negotiate a Canada-style free trade agreement and a workers’ rights-free Singapore-style economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will take no lectures from the SNP, who failed to vote for a customs union that could have created the conditions for a compromise. Can my hon. Friend confirm that it is entirely conceivable—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is far too much noise. The hon. Gentleman must and will be heard.

[Jim McMahon]

It is entirely conceivable that the motion could be voted through today, but then when we are required to bring forward the meaningful vote, the exact same legislation could be voted down. What type of constitutional crisis would that create?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The purpose of the extension is always the critical issue. Let me just say, in respect of the issue of a—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Seely, calm yourself. Your attempt to intervene was politely rejected. Do not holler across the Chamber, man. Calm yourself—Zen.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I say to my hon. Friend that we have raised the idea of a comprehensive customs union for months and months. That has not been properly considered because of the Prime Minister; it is nothing to do with the Opposition. Let me be clear: we will never mortgage all our futures on the outcome of a Conservative party leadership contest which most Members have no control over at all and would have to sit back and watch.

Without the clarity and protections that we need in the political declaration, we should not approve this withdrawal agreement. Today’s vote is a shoddy gimmick from a desperate Government trying to hide away from the reality that a meaningful vote on the political declaration and the withdrawal agreement still needs to be brought back to the House. For months and months, the Prime Minister’s deal has simply created division and discord when we needed consensus on the way forward. The national interest is in building consensus for a future that protects the jobs and livelihoods of all our constituents. That is why the House should reject this motion.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

We have heard a great deal—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I understand the hubbub and air of excitement in the Chamber, for which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is suitably grateful, but the House must hear colleagues deliver their speeches—in the first instance, that of the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee.

[Sir William Cash]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have heard a great deal about the process and the underlying reasons for this motion this morning, but we are really dealing with whether the withdrawal agreement should be passed and approved today, and if not, why not. The first point I make in that respect is quite simple and straightforward: under article 4 of the withdrawal agreement, we will, for a significant period, lose control over the lawmaking conferred on the House by virtue of our election as Members of Parliament according to the wishes of voters in general elections. It is unconscionable that, for whatever reason, the House should be politically castrated by the arrangements set out in article 4. For that reason alone, it is therefore unthinkable that the withdrawal agreement should be passed.

I just refer to the state of affairs within the German constitutional court, which takes precedence over all EU laws. That court often expresses rulings insisting that the EU can only operate or legislate in accordance with what the Bundestag has given it, and that EU actions are illegal if they depart from the terms in which the Bundestag gave that power. If that is good enough for Germany, it is good enough for this country, is it not?

I asked the Attorney General whether there will be a withdrawal and implementation Bill even if the withdrawal agreement goes down this evening. I got no answer, just as I received no answer from the Prime Minister to several questions I put to her about whether the Attorney General had given legal advice in accordance with the ministerial code. One characteristic of this debate is that, when we ask difficult questions, we tend to get no answer. That is not good enough, in terms of the accountability of the Government to the House. That is point No. 1, regarding control over laws. It is unconscionable.

[Sir William Cash]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but I have to point out to him that, under EU law, it has been made abundantly clear in several cases regarding the constitutional orders of member states—van Gend en Loos, Costa and similar cases—that the European Court asserts superiority over the internal constitutional orders of the country in question. The reality is that the question he and I raise demonstrates a conflict over competence, because, as I have stated, the German constitutional court will not countenance direct contradiction of its own lawmaking.

The next point I wish to make regards the Northern Ireland backstop. I know that many Members are more than familiar with this; we have justifiably spent an enormous amount of time on this question. However, it really boils down to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. The European Communities Act 1972—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but I think, if I may say so, that we should reflect on the fact that the debate is being widely viewed. It is rather discourteous when a Member is addressing the House for there to be a hubbub. Let us listen to the hon. Gentleman.

[Sir William Cash]

I add to that, Mr Speaker, that if Members are so blind that they do not want to listen to these points, it makes no difference to me. The points I am making are significant to the question of whether we agree to the withdrawal agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I say to my hon. Friend—he knows I have respect for him—that I want us to unite. I am not attacking the Labour party—[Laughter.] They can laugh, but I am saying to Labour Members: do not be duped by voting for the Conservatives today; have some backbone and let us make sure that all of us are united. That is what I am appealing for. The Labour party has to reflect on the fact that in 2014 in Scotland that is exactly what it did—it joined with the Conservatives in Better Together. You would have thought that by now Labour would have learned the lesson that its members have become also-rans in Scottish politics because time after time they side with the Tories. One of these days the Labour party has to understand that it should be standing up with the people of Scotland. [Interruption.] Let me say to hon. Members who I can see gesticulating wildly, that that day of the referendum—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but there is a very disorderly atmosphere in the House, with sustained barracking and finger-pointing of the most unseemly kind. Please, let us try to lower the decibel level and treat each other with respect.

[Ian Blackford]

Quite right, Mr Speaker. I say to the Labour party that the day will come when there will be a referendum on Scottish independence. I hope that next time Labour decides to stand with the people of Scotland and we can get that safe passage towards independence and Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. An eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches applies with immediate effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. After the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), the next hon. Member to speak in this debate, the time limit on Back-Bench speeches will be reduced to six minutes in an attempt to accommodate the maximum number of colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). I do not agree with much of what he says, but I will say this in his favour: at least he is consistent with the arguments he has made repeatedly in this place for why this is a bad deal. He and I will be in the same Lobby tonight—for different reasons—and actually I agree with much of what he says about the deal.

Apparently hon. Members now decry consistency. It is quite bizarre—forgive me, Mr Speaker, for repeating comments I made only a few days ago—that hon. Members think it entirely proper and honourable that they should be allowed to change their vote and their minds but that the British people should be denied exactly the same right on this matter. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) is one such person. He voted against the Prime Minister’s deal, then he voted for it, and he will again vote for it today.

In all the shameful shenanigans that have embraced Brexit, we have sunk to real depths today, and I want to explain why. It is not good enough for people to stand up and say, as we have heard, that they will now vote for the deal, not because they think it might be good for our country or our constituents, but because it will stop an extension—even though the Government have made it clear that no further extensions would be allowed. It is perverse for hon. Members to say they will now vote for the deal because it prevents our taking part in European parliamentary elections. These are not good reasons.

Other Government Members have said they will vote for the Prime Minister’s deal on the basis that the Prime Minister will stand down. That is not acting with honour; that is not acting with principle. I will vote with the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel)—she remains my friend and always will be. At least she has been true to her principles. She stands and says that she will not vote for the deal and rightly says that she will be held to account by her constituents. I congratulate her on that. We do not always agree—we do not agree on this issue—but on many points we do agree about why this withdrawal agreement is bad for our country.

I pay tribute to the Democratic Unionist party. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice decries that. He has not even let me finish my sentence. As a grouping, I have grave difficulties with the DUP, as individuals I find most of them pleasant, but at least they have been consistent, and on this I absolutely agree with them. This withdrawal agreement is a genuine threat to the Union of the United Kingdom. I genuinely believe that. It is one of the reasons why I am in fear of this agreement. I believe that it is a threat to Northern Ireland and its relationship as part of our United Kingdom. I believe that the same is true of Scotland. I believe that Brexit will increase the desire of the Scottish people to break away from the Union and strike out by themselves, because they will see a future as a member of the European Union denied them as part of the United Kingdom. In Wales, too, we know that the number of remain voters continues to grow.

I agree with the comments made by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) that the division between the political declaration and the withdrawal agreement will make the certainty that British businesses are crying out for even less achievable. It is so regrettable, given that we have started finally on a process of indicative votes—something that, as you know, Mr Speaker, many of us were crying out for at the beginning of this process to bring unity; to bring the 48% and the 52% together to form a consensus. We have begun that process and we are making good progress in it, and I think that there will be some good and reasonable outcomes that will heal the divide and take us forward in the way that we need to go.

What sort of country have we become post the referendum? Are we a better country? Are we a happier country? Are we a more united country? Or is the absolute reality that we are not just as divided as we were in June 2016 but even more divided? Change will come because change has to come, because British politics is broken. We are seeing that change. I have left the Conservative party along with two others. I think more will follow. I think we will see the break-up of the two parties, and I am delighted today that the group that I have joined with former Labour Members has today formed itself into a new political party that will change the face and direction of British politics. That is why we call ourselves change.org—[Interruption.] I believe that that is what the British people are crying out for—leadership, honesty, integrity and a new way of doing politics. That is the only good thing that will come out of the Brexit chaos.

[Mr Speaker]

A four-minute limit now applies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who I have jousted with on many an occasion in the Foreign Affairs Committee. As you would expect, Mr Speaker, my views are very different, although we draw the same conclusion on this deal today. I will be voting against the deal today because I believe it is a trap—a final attempt by the Prime Minister to leave us in a situation where it will be her deal or no deal. That is the situation that she wants to create on 22 May, should the deal pass today, but hopefully it will not.

During the last two years, 18 months has been wasted because the Prime Minister would not discuss with Parliament, nor with her Government, what was being discussed and negotiated with the EU. After 18 months, the Prime Minister produced the so-called Chequers plan, which was roundly rejected by many of her own MPs as well as other Members. That plan formed the basis for negotiations, leading to the resignations of Cabinet Ministers and deep divisions among Conservative Members. The stubbornness of the Prime Minister in running down the clock has left us in the embarrassing position that we are in today. Still we are debating this on the day that we were due to leave the European Union.

Let me discuss the separation of the withdrawal agreement from the political declaration. The way that this has been put forward today would appear to mean that if the motion is passed, it would give the new Conservative Prime Minister a blank cheque to put through what I would regard as a hard-right Brexit deal in the future. We can already see the leadership candidates trying to out-right each other in the run-up to a competition that I believe started from the moment that the Prime Minister issued her resignation at the 1922 committee. What we will see, whatever is agreed by the Government and a new Prime Minister, is a hard-right version of Brexit, and possibly a Canada-style international trade agreement.

I am now a member of the Select Committee on International Trade, and I have seen the International Trade Secretary talk about roll-overs. The EU currently has something like 40 international trade agreements. At the moment, only eight look in any way, shape or form as though they could be rolled over, and they are with minor countries, none of which are of the size or mass of the European Union market. Even though we will leave, the European Union will still be our major trading partner, irrespective of what many Brexiteers and flat-earthers on the other side of the Chamber will say.

To consider this motion in isolation from the political declaration is to give the power to any new Conservative Prime Minister to make a mess of our trading relations with the rest of the world. In investment decisions, location is key, and this will upset a lot of businesses, irrespective of what the Attorney General said earlier. It is not just about when we leave, but about how. The deal is key, which is why the indicative process we have already started is important. What we do on Monday will be key, so along with other colleagues, I will vote down the deal today in the hope that we can get a good agreement on Monday.

[Mr Speaker]

A three-minute time limit now applies.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The deal that we have agreed and the arrangements and proposals that we have put forward absolutely apply to the 48% who voted remain, because they recognise the necessary balance between delivering on the result of the referendum and doing so in a way that protects jobs, livelihoods and people’s security.

Last week the EU Council agreed that article 50 could be extended to 22 May if the House approved the withdrawal agreement this week. That would give us enough time to take the withdrawal agreement Bill through Parliament, we would not have to hold European parliamentary elections, and we would leave the European Union. It also agreed, however, that if we did not approve the withdrawal agreement by tonight, the extension would be only until 12 April, which is not long enough to ratify a deal. So anyone who wants to leave with a deal would have to support seeking a further extension. Any such extension would probably be a long one, and that would certainly mean holding European elections. So approving the withdrawal agreement today avoids a cliff edge in two weeks’ time; it avoids European elections; it avoids a long extension that would at least delay and could destroy Brexit.

To secure this extension and to give us a firm exit date, we do not need to agree the whole deal today—just the withdrawal agreement. I believe that there is an overwhelming majority in this House for the withdrawal agreement. Three quarters of Conservative MPs backed it in the last meaningful vote, and Opposition MPs I have spoken to tell me that their problem is not with the withdrawal agreement, but with the political declaration.

So I want to address the central argument put forward by the Leader of the Opposition again this afternoon: that voting for the motion will enable a blind Brexit. It will not, and for three reasons. First, if you want to leave with a deal, then, whatever future relationship you want, it needs to sit alongside this withdrawal agreement. The withdrawal agreement is fixed. It is part of any deal.

Second, agreeing this motion today is not ratifying the whole deal; that will only happen once the withdrawal agreement Bill has passed through all its stages, in this House and the other place, and has received Royal Assent. What this motion today does is give us the time we need to pass the necessary legislation and complete the current debate that the House is considering about our future relationship. The Government stand by the current political declaration, but we are not asking the House to approve it today. Nor does today’s vote pre-judge or pre-empt the outcome of the process run by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). In fact, for those options being considered, approval of this withdrawal agreement is a prerequisite.

Third, in the next phase of negotiations, we have committed to give Parliament a significant and ongoing role in the process. Mr Speaker, if you had selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and others, the Government would have accepted it. If this motion carries today, we will bring forward a withdrawal agreement Bill that will include commitments to implement that amendment and we will discuss the specific drafting of that with those who supported the amendment.

So by voting for this motion, Members are not closing any doors. They will still have the ability, through the withdrawal agreement Bill, to influence that future relationship. Today’s motion is not about a blind Brexit; it is about a guaranteed Brexit. Today we can give the public and businesses the certainty they need. Today we can show that we stand by our word. Today we can show that we can come together in the national interest. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. The Prime Minister is addressing the House and must be heard.

[The Prime Minister]

Today we can show that we can come together in the national interest. Today we can take a step forward together.

This is a difficult day for Members right across the House. I am asking Members to take a hard decision, and I know that.

[The Prime Minister]

Can I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said to the House before, that if he looks at the economic analysis and the different types of Brexit that could take place, he will see that the deal that delivers on the result of the referendum and has the best economic outcome for this country is the deal that the Government have put forward?

As I said, I know that this is a difficult day for Members right across the House. I am asking them to make a hard decision, and I know that. I am asking some hon. Members to vote for a Brexit that is less than they hoped for, which is not easy. I am asking other hon. Members on the Opposition Benches to help me deliver on the instruction of the British people, and that is not easy either. There are good Labour Members who are as determined as I am to deliver the Brexit that their constituents voted for, and as willing as I am to make a compromise to move our country forward. At this historic moment for our country it is right to put aside self and party; it is right to accept the responsibility given to us by the British people, and that is what I have done. I have said that I am prepared to leave this job earlier than I intended. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Our proceedings are being widely watched. Please let us treat one another with respect. The Prime Minister is winding up the debate and must be heard. The Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

I have said that I am prepared to leave this job earlier than I intended to secure the right outcome for our country. When the Division bell rings in a few moments’ time, every one of us will have to look into our hearts and decide what is best for our constituents and our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We should all be aware—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be heard.

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We should all be aware of our responsibilities in this House and the seriousness of the situation we are in. I say respectfully to the Prime Minister that she now has to accept that her deal has been defeated three times. I applaud the Members of Parliament on both sides who voted against the Government’s proposition. It is a bad deal, and we have to find a way out of the crisis that we are in; all our constituents would expect that. We must give ourselves time, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that we must now look seriously at the option of revocation. We need to apply the handbrake to this process. Quite simply, the Prime Minister has failed to take this deal forward. She does not have the confidence of the House. She has indicated her departure. She should now go, and we should have a general election.

[Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Monday, it is perfectly possible that the House may indicate a preference for one of the options, such as a customs union or a confirmatory vote, which are compatible with the withdrawal agreement. If that is the case, will the Prime Minister be open to listening to the view of the House and considering how we might have a longer extension to explore them?

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the question was to some degree a rhetorical inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman has made his point, but further debate on these important matters will follow next week.

[Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister must now recognise that this deal is over, and the House has a serious responsibility on Monday to find a solution to this impasse. Jobs and livelihoods across the country are at stake. There is a way out of this impasse, as many of us have been saying for months and months: we must have a people’s vote now.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It beggars belief that the Prime Minister still seems not to recognise a dead deal when it is right in front of her. It has now been defeated three times, in spite of the procedural games that have been played. Does she realise just how grotesque it looked to appear to be willing to sell out the country’s future for the price of some Tory MPs’ careers? The idea that it was sensible for Conservative MPs to suddenly change their minds about a deal they had been against for months because they thought they might have some career advantage from it is wrong, and it is contemptuous of this country.

[Mr Speaker]

There is a degree of latitude on these occasions, but the hon. Lady has stretched it excessively. If she had wanted to speak in the debate, she might well have caught my eye, but she did not seek to do so.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I urge the Prime Minister now to look seriously at what the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) said earlier about the backstop? She knows that that remains the problem. She knows that Michel Barnier and Leo Varadkar have said this week that in a no-deal scenario, there will be no hard border. Please, Prime Minister, even now, as the right hon. Gentleman said, use the time constructively to get that matter sorted out.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Opinion

John Bercow Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General (Mr Geoffrey Cox)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about my legal opinion on the joint instrument and unilateral declaration concerning the withdrawal agreement published last night.

Last week, I confirmed I would publish my

“legal opinion on any document that is produced and negotiated with the Union.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2019; Vol. 655, c. 1112.]

That has now been laid before the House. This statement summarises the instruments and my opinion of their legal effect.

Last night in Strasbourg, the Prime Minister secured legally binding changes that strengthen and improve the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. The Government laid three new documents reflecting those changes in the House: first, a joint legally binding instrument on the withdrawal agreement and the protocol on Northern Ireland; secondly, a unilateral declaration by the United Kingdom in relation to the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol; and thirdly, a joint statement to supplement the political declaration. The legal opinion I have provided to the House today focuses on the first two of those documents, which relate to the functioning of the backstop and the efforts of the parties that will be required to supersede it.

Let me say frankly what, in my opinion, these documents do not do. They are not about a situation where, despite the parties properly fulfilling the duties of good faith and best endeavours, they cannot reach an agreement on a future relationship. Such an event, in my opinion, is highly unlikely to occur, and it is in the interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union to agree a future relationship as quickly as possible. Let me make it clear, however, that were such a situation to occur, the legal risk, as I set it out in my letter of 13 November, remains unchanged. The question for the House is whether in the light of these improvements, as a political judgment, it should now enter into those arrangements.

Let me move on to what the documents do achieve. As I set out in my opinion, the joint instrument puts the commitments in the letter from Presidents Tusk and Juncker of 14 January 2019 into a legally binding form, and provides, in addition, useful clarifications, amplifications of existing obligations, and some new obligations. The instrument confirms that the European Union cannot pursue an objective of trying to trap the UK in the backstop indefinitely. It makes explicit that that would constitute bad faith, which would be the basis of a formal dispute before an arbitration tribunal. That means, ultimately, that the protocol could be suspended if the European Union continued to breach its obligations.

The joint instrument also reflects the United Kingdom’s and the Union’s commitment to work to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements by December 2020, including as set out in the withdrawal agreement. Those commitments include establishing

“immediately following the ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement, a negotiating track for replacing the customs and regulatory alignment in goods elements of the protocol with alternative arrangements.”

If an agreement has not been concluded within one year of the UK’s withdrawal, efforts must be redoubled. [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[The Attorney General]

In my view, as a matter of law, the provisions relating to the timing of the efforts to be made in resolving withdrawal agreements make time of the essence in the negotiation of a subsequent agreement. A doctrine with which the lawyers in the House will be familiar is of legal relevance. In my opinion, the provisions of the joint instrument extend beyond mere interpretation of the withdrawal agreement, and represent materially new legal obligations and commitments which enhance its existing terms.

Let me now turn to the unilateral declaration. It records the United Kingdom’s position that, if it were not possible to conclude a subsequent agreement to replace the protocol because of a breach by the Union of its duty of good faith, it would be entitled to take measures to disapply the provisions of the protocol in accordance with the withdrawal agreement’s dispute resolution procedures and article 20, to which I have referred. There is no doubt, in my view, that the clarifications and amplified obligations contained in the joint statement and the unilateral declaration provide a substantive and binding reinforcement of the legal rights available to the UK in the event that the Union were to fail in its duties of good faith and best endeavours.

I have in this statement, and in the letter that I have published today, set out, frankly and candidly, my view of the legal effect of the new instruments that the Government have agreed with the Union. However, the matters of law affecting withdrawal can only inform what is essentially a political decision that each of us must make. This is a question not of the lawfulness of the Government’s action but of the prudence, as a matter of policy and political judgment, of entering into an international agreement on the terms proposed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, and I am extremely grateful to the Attorney General and all who have participated in these exchanges, but we must now move on. Some dozens of colleagues wish to speak in the main debate and I have to make a judgment about the importance of now proceeding.



Bill Presented

Immigration (Armed Forces) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Edward Davey, supported by Jamie Stone, presented a Bill to remove financial requirements and fees for applications for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom from foreign or Commonwealth members of the armed forces on discharge and their families; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March and to be printed (Bill 356).

Northern Ireland Backstop

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)]

Before I answer the hon. Gentleman, my constituents would expect me briefly to express their dismay and deep concern about Honda’s announcement this morning, which will deeply affect the community. I anticipate the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Do not tell me what the situation is. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a Law Officer and a member of the Government. A sentence, but absolutely no more. He should have asked me in advance. He is either on the Front Bench or he is not. It is not for him to presume the right to speak of a matter about which he could speak if he sat on the Back Benches, which he does not.

[The Solicitor General]

I am very sorry, Mr Speaker, but I said what I said.

The Government recognise the legitimate desire of Members on both sides of the House to understand the legal effect of the proposed withdrawal agreement. On 12 February, the Prime Minister set out ways in which legally binding changes to the backstop could be achieved. She explained that the UK and the EU would hold further talks to find a way forward. Those discussions are ongoing, and it would not be appropriate to provide a running commentary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

On the subject of calmness, I think we should hear from a Lincolnshire knight. I call Sir Edward Leigh.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is really a taster for what will be a very calm debate: my Adjournment debate on Thursday on this very subject, which I am sure will be the highlight of the week. I do not ask the Solicitor General to provide running commentary, but has he noted that many international lawyers have said that if the EU does not want to reopen the withdrawal agreement, it would be entirely in accordance with international law for us to issue, either unilaterally or in agreement, a conditional interpretive declaration proclaiming that there will be an end date to the backstop? It is something that I have been boring on about for weeks now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is quite wrong. He is far too hard on himself. I have known the right hon. Gentleman for 25 years and have never been bored by him on any occasion. Never.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I wonder whether the Solicitor General minds my putting on the record, and I hope he will also put on the record, the distaste that we felt at that personal attack from the Back Benches—I think from a member of the European Research Group—on a civil servant who is trying to do his job. The job that civil servants are trying to do is a very difficult one and the people responsible for that difficulty are the Government, not the civil servants trying to do a good job.

Does the Solicitor General agree that we need a running commentary in this House? I am glad that he has made this statement today, because the fact of the matter is that at a certain juncture in this dialogue we are supposed to be having to find the answer to this difficult problem, the Government side stopped talking to people. Will he resume the talks so that we can get this sorted?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the communities that both and I and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) serve in the context of Honda. He is absolutely right to say that it is rather rum for people in this House and elsewhere to constantly believe the words of other negotiating parties and other Governments as gospel and refuse to accept anything that Her Majesty’s Government might say as even in the remotest bit true.

[Mr Speaker]

As colleagues will know, the word “rum” was much favoured by PG Wodehouse of whose works, I suspect, the Solicitor General is, among others, a devotee.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Solicitor General says it is in the fate of the Labour party to help him secure a deal, but that simply is not true. What concessions, if any, will the Government make towards the deal that the Labour party has put down as a potential way through this? He knows that I have given his Government the benefit of the doubt on more than one occasion by not supporting things that my party has asked me to, and actively opposing things on other occasions. I did not support the Government on the Brady amendment, but nor did I oppose it, because I believed it was important that the Government had the space to conduct negotiations to get a deal through. The wording of that amendment quite clearly said that the backstop should be “replaced”, so can the Solicitor General tell me, without equivocation, that when he brings that deal back, the backstop will have been replaced?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Although I recognise the challenging position of many Opposition MPs, does the Solicitor General share my amazement at those Opposition MPs who say they cannot support the withdrawal agreement because it may include a temporary backstop, keeping us temporarily in the customs union but not paying into the coffers and without freedom of movement, and simultaneously advocate a permanent customs union that would stop us from doing international trade deals?

[Mr Speaker]

The one disadvantage of that inquiry, as the Clerk, having consulted his scholarly cranium, has just pointed out to me, is that it was not about Government policy, and therefore it does not warrant an answer. The hon. Gentleman has made his point in his own way, but he was asking about Opposition policy, which he knows he should not do.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Rather than having to agree with the European Union whether we have met our obligations to avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland, would it not be fair and reasonable to both sides to refer the matter to a process of arbitration?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

If it arises from the urgent question, and in deference to the Father of the House, let us hear it.

[Mr Clarke]

It is a genuine point of order. In the course of the exchanges, two Members of Parliament on the Government side of the House made reference to a civil servant, Sir Oliver Robbins, who they obviously regard as some sort of political enemy, although he is a non-political civil servant. They not only repeated newspaper rumours about what he was supposed to have been overheard saying, but they did so in terms that suggested he had been drinking too much when he was overheard, of which, as far as I am aware, there has never been the slightest indication, even in any of the newspaper reports on which they were relying.

Mr Speaker, people like that have no opportunity whatever of even knowing that these allegations are about to be made, or replying to them. An increasingly unpleasant personal tone is creeping into debate about Europe, mainly from the right-wing members of my party, and it will get quite out of hand if you do not issue a word of reproof and say that that is an abuse of the privileges of the House of Commons, and is not conduct that should be repeated.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Father of the House. I have had a discussion about the matter with the Clerk. I will not argue the toss about wording—it is not, strictly speaking, an abuse of the procedures of the House and it is not disorderly; but I think it is extremely undesirable, and it does represent a rank discourtesy, and indeed, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman implied, a coarsening or vulgarisation of the terms of trade in political debate, which we should all strive to avoid. Let me say to the Father of the House that I did not react as quickly as I should have done to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) when he said what he did. He was absolutely entitled to his point of view, and even to robust questioning of Ministers, of course, but he should not have said what he did about a serving civil servant.

Perhaps I can gently suggest, at the risk of embarrassing the Father of the House, that Members across the House, whatever their political views, would do well to seek to emulate his example. I have known him for 24 years, and throughout the time I have known him, I have always observed one thing: he plays the ball; he does not play the man or the woman. He sticks to the issues—rather as the Chair of the Brexit Select Committee does, on the other side of the House. That is the model that other colleagues should follow. So I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for stepping in; the point he has made is valid.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2019 Commons Chamber

That this House approves for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the negotiated withdrawal agreement laid before the House on Monday 26 November 2018 with the title ‘Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community’ and the framework for the future relationship laid before the House on Monday 26 November 2018 with the title ‘Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom’.

[Mr Speaker]

Under the order of 4 December, as varied on 9 January, I am now permitted to select amendments. I have provisionally selected the following four amendments: (a), in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn; (k), in the name of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford); (b), in the name of the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh); and (f), in the name of the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). If amendment (b) is agreed to, amendment (f) falls. Reference may be made in debate to any of the amendments on the Order Paper, including those which I have not selected.

For the benefit of Members and those observing our proceedings, let me set out concisely what will happen at the end of today’s debate. This will be of interest to Members of the House and, I think, to those beyond the Chamber, whether within the Palace of Westminster or further afield, attending to our proceedings. At 7 o’clock, I shall first invite the Leader of the Opposition to move his amendment. If it is agreed to, I will then put to the House the original question, as amended. If it is disagreed to, I shall invite the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber to move his amendment. If that is agreed to, I will then put to the House the original question, as amended. If it is disagreed to, I shall invite the right hon. Member for Gainsborough to move his amendment. If that is agreed to, I will then put to the House the original question, as amended. If it is disagreed to, I shall then invite the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay to move his amendment. If that is agreed to, I will then put to the House the original question, as amended. If it is disagreed to, I will then put to the House the original question in the name of the Prime Minister.

That having been explained, I invite the Attorney General, Sir Geoffrey Cox, to open today’s debate.

[The Attorney General (Mr Geoffrey Cox)]

I am extremely obliged to you for promoting me, Mr Speaker. Perhaps I can take that as a hint to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

[Mr Speaker]

That was of course always part of the intention.

[The Attorney General]

I will suggest the next office you could perhaps promote me to, Mr Speaker.

I am more than conscious that last time I had a prolonged outing in this House the verdict did not go well. [Laughter.] On this occasion, I intend, if I may, to adopt an approach that I hope will be more to the House’s taste. I want to listen to the House’s views, and I shall be as accommodating as possible to the interventions of Members of this House, knowing as I do that many of them have very strong views upon this subject.

I have listened with care to the speeches of Members of this House during the course of last week’s proceedings, and I have been struck by the heartfelt and eloquent expressions of principled opinion that hon. Members have made. I was particularly struck, though I do not think he is in his place this morning, by the speech late last night—I commend you, Mr Speaker, and those who remained here until after 1 o’clock in the morning to complete yesterday’s proceedings—by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). He waited, I think, until midnight or shortly thereafter to begin his speech, and made the most passionate appeal to Members of this House to understand the value of compromise. He told the House that the membership of this place confers on us not only the great privilege of participation in the Government but the responsibilities that go with it.

In the past, when this country has faced these kinds of grave obstacles and impediments to finding a way forward, Members of this place have found the resource within themselves to achieve a compromise and to subordinate their ideal preference—the solution that they would like to see—to that which commands a degree of consensus. It is precisely for that reason that I support the withdrawal agreement—not because I like every element of it but for wholly pragmatic reasons: it is the necessary means to secure our orderly departure and unlock our future outside the European Union.

Since 23 June 2016, we have been on a road that has led us ineluctably to this point. One after another, this House has taken the steps, often by overwhelming majorities, necessary to bring us to the brink of departure, and there are now but two steps to take. The first is this withdrawal agreement. It is the first of the two keys that will unlock our future outside the European Union. It is sometimes said in various circles, I understand, Mr Speaker, that if you are moving from one pressurised atmosphere or environment to another, it is necessary to have an airlock. This withdrawal agreement is the first key that will unlock the airlock and take us into the next stage, where the second key will be the permanent relationship treaty.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

I am willing to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman later.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) is rather excitable today. The Attorney General yields to none in his courtesy in the House, but it is not reasonable to expect of him, even with his formidable intellect, the capacity to try to respond to an intervention that he has not heard when he is dealing with one that he has.

[The Attorney General]

I am happy to discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman afterwards if he wishes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

I cannot resist giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Speaker]

The Attorney General, as per usual, is addressing the House with a remarkable combination of the intellect of Einstein and the eloquence of Demosthenes. We are all enjoying it enormously— [Interruption.] Well, I am certainly enjoying it, but I hope he will not cavil if I gently remind him that 71 Members wish to contribute. I know he will tailor his contribution to take account of that important fact.

[Chris Bryant]

The Attorney General is making a good point, which a lot of us agree with—legal uncertainty is the worst possible outcome. That is why some of us are so angry that the vote was taken away from us in December. There is not a single chance of the Government getting the necessary legislation through by 29 March, even if the Attorney General were to get his way today. Can he confirm that if the vote is not won tonight, the Government will have to defer leaving the European Union on 29 March?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

I wonder whether I might take the intervention of the hon. and learned Lady.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In terms of good form, it is the norm for the Minister occupying the Bench or the Member making the speech to offer some response before taking a further intervention. It may be a perfunctory response, but that is the norm.

[The Attorney General]

I apologise, Mr Speaker. I wanted to take the interventions together. If the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is referring, in relation to Northern Ireland, to the quota that is to be agreed by the Joint Committee for landing—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

On a previous occasion, in early December, in what I thought was a magnificent performance, Attorney General, you used a very striking description of the backstop. You described the backstop as an “instrument of pain”—

[Mr Speaker]

I did not.

[Lady Hermon]

You are quite right, Mr Speaker. The Attorney General described the backstop as an instrument of pain. He said it was

“as much an instrument of pain to the European Union as…to the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 555.]

That is very strong language indeed—an “instrument of pain” for the European Union. Will the Attorney General take some time to explain that in detail? I think that would be very helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

I must make progress.

I say to my hon. Friends, as I say to Opposition Members, the EU will have to set up entirely different legal and administrative systems in order to set up the customs union that is enshrined within the backstop, yet Britain will pay not one penny of contribution to those complex administrative and technical systems which the EU will, on their side alone, have to finance. How long does the House really think that the EU would wish to go on paying for a bespoke arrangement in which they are paying tens of millions of euros to sustain a customs union that is simply on their own admission a temporary arrangement?

But even if that was wrong, there are the regulatory provisions under the backstop. They are standard non-regression clauses. They exist in free trade agreements all around the world. They provide us with the ability, if we wish to take it, of being flexible about the means by which we achieve the outcomes because all they do is require us to maintain parity of standards with the position we had when we left the European Union. Therefore, it does give us regulatory flexibility if we wish to avail ourselves of it and the European Union is faced with not a penny being paid, with tariff-free access to the customs union, with not having to obey the regulatory law—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have been tolerant thus far and I enjoy enormously the performances of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but this perambulation is very uncommon and irregular. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must face the House. We want to see him and to get directly the benefit of his mellifluous tones.

[The Attorney General]

You upbraid me entirely justly, Mr Speaker, and I apologise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope it is a point of order and not a point of frustration. I await it with bated breath.

[Stephen Doughty]

It is a point of inquiry, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that the Attorney General has now spoken for 49 minutes. I understand that a substantial number of colleagues wish to speak today. Can you tell us how many colleagues are waiting to speak and the approximate time people will get?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is, as always, trying to be helpful, although it was really a point of frustration. The fact is, as I have previously advised the House, that no fewer than 71 hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. There are notable constraints to which I do not wish to add, but of which I feel sure the Attorney General will take account.

[The Attorney General]

I set myself a clear time limit, but I am anxious—[Interruption.] You really cannot win. I am trying to take as many interventions as I can, and I will take that of the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna).

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

The hon. Lady can eliminate a no deal today; all she has to do is to vote for this one. In reality, it is the height of irresponsibility for the Labour party, which claims to be a party of Government, to plunge millions of our citizens into legal uncertainty of that type because of a factitious, trumped-up basis of opposition, whereas the real strategy is to drive this Government and this House on to the rocks, and to create the maximum chaos and the conditions for a general election—[Interruption.] We know the game, I say—[Interruption.] It is as clear as day—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Zen—the House must calm itself. It is an early stage of our proceedings.

[The Attorney General]

I say to the House with the greatest respect, we must seize this opportunity now. This is the key—the first of two—by which we unlock our future outside the European Union. I believe that it is an exciting future. I believe that the opportunity for this House to hold the pen on 40% of our laws, from the environment through to agriculture and fishing, should excite us as an opportunity to do good in this country.

Let us not forget, however, that many outside this House as well as in it wish to frustrate the great end to which the people of this country committed us on 23 June 2016—17.4 million of them in hundreds of constituencies, regardless of party, voted to part company with a political structure that no longer commanded their assent. We should be deeply grateful, because in other ages and other places, such a moment could only have been achieved by means that all of us present would deplore—but we should not underestimate the significance of the moment because it was expressed peacefully by the ballot.

If we approve this agreement, we know that we shall leave the EU on 29 March in an orderly way, and can commence negotiation of the permanent treaties. This agreement and the accompanying political declaration are the two keys that unlock the demand of the electorate that we should repatriate control over vast areas of our laws that hitherto have been in the exclusive legislative competence of the EU. If we do not take that first step, history will judge us harshly, because we will be plunged into uncertainty.

If this vote fails today, those who wish to prevent our departure will seek to promote the conclusion that it is all too difficult and that the Government should ask the electorate to think again. That is why former Prime Ministers and their spin doctors, and all their great panjandrums of the past, are joining the chorus to condemn this deal, for they know that this deal is the key. There is no other. Destroy it—in some form or other, the only practicable deal—and the path to Brexit becomes shrouded in obscurity. If we should be so deceived as to permit that, when historians come to write of this moment, future ages would marvel that the huge repatriation of powers that this agreement entails—over immigration, fisheries, agriculture, the supremacy of our laws and courts—was rejected because somehow it did not seem enough and because of the Northern Ireland backstop.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The first of the approximately 70 Members wishing to speak from the Back Benches is the Father of the House, Mr Kenneth Clarke.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

On account of the level of demand I am afraid there has to be now a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches with immediate effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There will now be a four-minute limit on each Back-Bench speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. After the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who is the next speaker to be called, the time limit will have to be reduced to three minutes on account of the level of demand. It is a pleasure to welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House: Mr Derek Twigg.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Over 57% of voters in Halton voted to leave the EU, and it is condescending and disrespectful to say that they did not know what they were doing. It was very clear: the overriding message I had from my constituents who voted to come out of the EU was that they wanted to end free movement of labour and take back control and have more control over our laws. Whether rightly or wrongly, people genuinely feel that is the right thing to do, and that to leave would lead to a better future for us out there. I also recognise that a large number of my constituents wanted to stay in, and like me, believe passionately that Brexit is not in the UK’s best interests, and we must also listen to their concerns. However, I made it clear at the 2017 general election that we must get on with Brexit and come up with the best possible deal.

It should surprise nobody to learn that this has proved difficult. The Prime Minister could have reached out to Parliament and the Opposition from an early stage but chose not to. She could also have reached out more to the country as a whole—to the public. She cannot command a majority, but acts as if she has one. She wanted to keep MPs at arm’s length. The Prime Minister must take a great deal of responsibility for the mess we are now in. I should add that I have had constituents, including those who voted to remain, complain to me about the arrogance and behaviour of the EU in the negotiations, so it is not just the Prime Minister who has a share of the blame. However, it is only now that the deal is in trouble that the Prime Minister has wanted to have discussions with a wider set of MPs, including Opposition MPs. The idea that we should just accept the first deal she puts to this House and not challenge it just smacks of the arrogance I referred to earlier. She expects that Parliament should just roll over and accept it, and then to try to use the threat of a no-deal Brexit just insults our intelligence, as we know there is not a majority for that in this House. I might add that the leave campaign said it wanted to see a negotiated settlement, so I do not believe there is a majority in this country for leaving the EU without an agreement.

With this deal we are neither fully in, nor fully out. We would have to abide by rules but with no say in what others will be making decisions on; while we look on, we would be rule takers. We would be a in weaker position than we are now. There are too many unresolved issues of great importance to our national interest here; the Prime Minster is asking us to take a big leap into the dark. Some 90% of constituents who have written to me or whom I have spoken to in recent weeks believe this is a bad deal—that is coming from both leavers and remainers. If this deal is rejected, it will send a strong message back to Brussels that we must find a better way forward and a better agreement, and that this Parliament will not be deterred from demanding a better deal. I will be voting against this deal, because it is bad for my constituents in Halton and bad for the UK as a whole. We have got to find a way forward. We have got to co-operate and work together in the national interest to find a solution that the people want. That means talking more to people, and getting across the issues and difficulties that we envisage, but we must have that co-operation in order that we can move this forward. There may be a number of ways of doing that, and having indicative votes is one thing that has been talked about during this debate. The fact is that we have to listen, co-operate and find a better way of moving this forward, because it cannot continue the way it is.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you very much indeed. The three-minute limit now applies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A two-minute limit now applies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) and an honour to be taking part in this debate at a crossroads in our history.

In 2016 the British people voted to leave the European Union, and the Government and this Parliament need to respect their wishes. I accept that there are passionate views on both sides, and I have always treated those with differing views with respect, but it is wrong to suggest that most people did not know what they were voting for. Many who espouse those views really think that the people of this country should not have been given that decision in the first place. It is my belief that those who are calling for a second referendum are seeking to damage our democracy, as no decision by the British people would mean anything any longer because once a decision was reached those who were unhappy would try to undo it, and that might go on again and again and again. Division is healthy in a democracy and in our political process, but a second referendum would take our country to breaking point and undermine the dignity in our democracy.

The withdrawal agreement does allow for some control to be taken back, and I respect the endeavours of the Prime Minister. She has made a major commitment to this; her perseverance is commendable and her diligence unquestionable. There is only one point I wish to make on this agreement and it relates to the Northern Ireland backstop. The inclusion of the backstop is perhaps the most potent aspect of this agreement, given that it poses a real threat to the integrity of our United Kingdom. Although some have tried to allay fears with optimism, more concerning are those who have displayed a parochial indifference that fails to recognise our role as United Kingdom Members of Parliament, acting in the interests of the whole United Kingdom. The British people did not vote to have the foundations of our nation undermined in any way—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Jack Dromey.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I voted to leave, my constituents voted to leave, the country voted to leave and leave we must, but I say to my fellow Brexiteers in the House that we must accept that we are a majority in the country, but not in Parliament. Let me give an analogy: we are 10 players on a pitch playing a team of 11, and the odds are now even further stacked against us, since the referee has demonstrated that he is prepared to change the rules.

This deal is not perfect, and I am particularly concerned about the indefinite nature of the backstop, but the risk of not supporting it is that, as was demonstrated last week, Members will seek to water down even this Brexit or to stop it altogether. I will support the deal because once the withdrawal agreement is signed, the door to remain will shut firmly, and we can all come back together and focus on delivering the best future for the UK outside the EU.

[Mr Speaker]

I have not changed any rules of the debate. What I have done is chaired the debate from start to finish, facilitating every right hon. and hon. Member of every conceivable hue of opinion to have every opportunity to put his or her view. It is a point so blindingly obvious and so transparently fair that all reasonable people would, I think, accept it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

There is a peculiar irony, is there not, Mr Speaker, in the fact that today marks the anniversary of Henry VIII styling himself the Supreme Head of the English Church in 1535? Five hundred years on, here we are arguing over the same questions of who rules, on what authority—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Stop the clock. [Interruption.] Order. There is a very unseemly atmosphere. The hon. Gentleman must and will be heard.

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Five hundred years on, we find ourselves still arguing about our relationship with Europe and about who rules. I have little confidence that, 500 years from now, we will have resolved these questions.

Tonight and in the weeks to come, the House has three choices it can make: there can be a deal; there can be no deal; or we can stay in the European Union. If it is not this deal, then it must be another deal. By all the rumours going around, that deal will be worse than the one on the table. It will keep us more closely aligned to the EU, and give us less say. In fact, it will be worse than staying in the EU.

Those people in the House who want to stay in the EU hide behind the idea of a second referendum. I say to hon. Members who think the first referendum was divisive that, goodness me, they have not seen anything yet. If those Members who want us to stay in the EU believe it, they should call on this House to have a vote to revoke article 50, but they will not do that.

The deal before us is what we have. This is a deal that, treated right and taken in the right direction, will give us control of our borders, our laws, our waters and our trading opportunities. We have had time enough to go over these issues. It is time now for the House to make a decision. I will vote for the deal for tonight, and let us move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

This has been a vitally important debate for the future of our country and our future relationship with the European Union, following the decision of the people in the 2016 referendum. The debate today is the culmination of one of the most chaotic and extraordinary parliamentary processes I have ever experienced in my 35 years as a Member of this House. Parliament has held the Government in contempt for the first time ever for failing to publish their legal advice. Then, for the first time in a generation or more, on 10 December the Government failed to move their own business in the House. The Government have been defeated on a vote on their own Finance Bill for the first time since the 1970s.

The Prime Minister opened the debate on her deal more than one month ago. The debate was due to end on 11 December, but she pulled it in a panic. As she conceded, the deal would have been rejected by a significant margin. She has run down the clock in a cynical attempt to strong-arm Members into backing her deal. Despite her promises, she has failed to negotiate any changes to her deal with Europe. No wonder the Prime Minister has suddenly discovered the importance of trade unions. She voted to clip their wings in the Trade Union Act 2016, and she has utterly failed to convince them that she has anything to offer Britain’s workforce. That is the heart of the matter: the Prime Minister has treated Brexit as a matter for the Conservative party, rather than for the good of the country.

But the Prime Minister has failed to win over even her own party. Many Conservative Members who voted remain are opposed to this deal, as are dozens of Conservative Members who voted leave. After losing her majority in the 2017 general election, the Prime Minister could have engaged with Members across the House. She could have listened to the voices of trade unions. If she had been listening, both businesses and trade unions would have told her that they wanted a comprehensive and permanent customs union to secure jobs and trade. The decision to rule out a new customs union with a British say and the lack of certainty in the deal risks business investment being deferred on an even greater scale, threatening jobs and threatening living standards. Even worse, it risks many companies relocating abroad, taking jobs and investment with them. Many workers know exactly that situation, because they face that reality now. Their jobs are at risk, and they know their jobs are at risk.

The First Ministers of Wales and Scotland have made clear to the Prime Minister their support for a customs union to protect jobs and the economy. This deal fails to provide any certainty about future trade. It fails to guarantee our participation in European agencies and initiatives. Losing that co-operation undermines our security, denies our citizens opportunity and damages our industries.

The withdrawal agreement is, in short, a reckless leap in the dark. It takes this country no closer to understanding our post-Brexit future, and neither does the future partnership document. Under this deal, in December 2020 we will be faced with a choice: either pay more and extend the transition period or lock us into the backstop. At that point, the UK would be over a barrel. We would have left the EU, have lost the UK rebate and be forced to pay whatever was demanded. Alternatively, the backstop would come into force—an arrangement for which there is no time limit or end point—locking Britain into a deal from which it cannot leave without the agreement of the EU. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has pointed out on so many occasions, that is unprecedented in British history.

The past two years have given us no confidence that this Government can do a deal in under two years, so at some point before December 2020 the focus would inevitably shift from negotiations on the future relationship to negotiations on an extension to the transition period, including negotiations on what further payments we should make to the European Union. The vague partnership document says that it

“can lead to a spectrum of different outcomes…as well as checks and controls”.

That does not show to me any clarity whatsoever in that document. There is not even any mention of the famed frictionless trade which was promised in the Chequers proposals. The former Brexit Secretary—that is, one of the former Brexit Secretaries—promised a “detailed”, “precise” and “substantive” document. The Government spectacularly failed to deliver it.

I can confirm this: Labour will vote against this deal tonight, and Labour will vote against it because it is a bad deal for this country. As we have heard over the past week, Members in all parties, including many in the Conservative party, will join us in rejecting this botched and damaging deal.

I welcome the fact that there is a clear majority to reject any no-deal outcome. The amendment to the Finance Bill last week demonstrated the will of the House on rejecting the danger—and it is a danger—of a no-deal outcome that would cause such chaos to so many people across this country.

But it is not enough for the House to vote against the deal before us, and against no deal; we also have to be for something. [Hon. Members: “Ah!] So, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] So in the coming days, it is vital that this House has the opportunity to debate and vote on the way forward, to consider all the options available. The overwhelming majority of the House voted to respect the result of the referendum and therefore voted to trigger article 50. So I say this to our negotiating partners in the European Union: if Parliament votes down this deal, reopening negotiations should not and cannot be ruled out.

We understand why after two frustrating years of negotiations, the European Union might want this resolved, but this Parliament, our Parliament here, has only one duty, to represent the interests of the people of this country—and the deal negotiated by the Government does not meet the needs of the people of this country.

The people of Britain include many EU nationals who have made their lives here. These people have contributed to our country, to our economy and to our public services, including our national health service. They are now anxious, and have no faith in this Government to manage the process of settled status fairly or efficiently, and the early pilots of the scheme are very far from encouraging.

The Prime Minister claimed that this is a good deal, and so confident was she of that that she refused to publish the Government’s legal advice, but her Government’s own economic assessment clearly tells us that it is a bad deal. It is a product of two years of botched negotiations, in which the Government spent more time arguing with themselves, in their own Cabinet, than they did negotiating with the European Union.

It is not only on Brexit that the Government have failed. Under this Government, more people are living in poverty, including—[Interruption.] I am talking about the half a million more children who have fallen into poverty while this Government have been in office. I am also talking of those who have been forced into rough sleeping and homelessness, which have risen every year. Too many people are stuck in low-paid and insecure work. Too many people are struggling to make ends meet and falling deeper and deeper into personal debt on credit cards and with loan sharks. Nothing in this Brexit deal and nothing on offer from this Government will solve that. That is why Labour believes that a general election would be the best outcome for the country, if this deal is rejected tonight.

We need to keep in mind that the vast majority of the people of this country do not think of themselves as remainers or leavers. Whether they voted leave or remain two and a half years ago, they are all concerned about their future, and it is their concerns that the House must be able to answer and meet. I hope that tonight the House votes down this deal and we then move to a general election, so that the people—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Nobody is going to shout the right hon. Gentleman down, just as nobody will shout the Prime Minister down. All they are doing by causing me to intervene is taking time away. It is not necessary, rather foolish and thoroughly counter-productive.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The people need to be able to take back control, and a general election would give them the opportunity to decide who their MPs were, who their Government were, and who would negotiate on their behalf. It would give a new Government the mandate that is needed to break the deadlock that has been brought to the House by this Government.

I ask this of the House: vote against this deal. We have had a very long and detailed debate. More hon. Members have spoken in this debate than almost any other debate I can remember, and they have given a heartfelt analysis of the deal. A very large number have explained why they will vote against this deal. Quite simply, this deal is bad for our economy, a bad deal for our democracy and a bad deal for this country. I ask the House to do the right thing tonight: reject this deal because of the harm it would do, and show that we as MPs are speaking up for the people we represent, who recognise that the deal is dangerous for this country, bad for them, their living standards and our collective future.

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

This debate has lasted some eight days, over 54 hours, with speeches of powerful sincerity from more than 200 right hon. and hon. Members. It has been historic for our Parliament and for our country. We have heard contributions from every perspective, looking at all aspects of this complex and vital question. We have seen the House at its most passionate and vigorous, and I thank everyone who has contributed. No one watching this debate can be in any doubt about the strength of this House of Commons as the fulcrum of our democracy.

This is a debate about our economy and security, the livelihoods of our constituents and the future for our children and the generations to come. It goes to the heart of our constitution, and no one should forget that it is a democratic process that has got us to where we are today. In 2015, my party stood on an election manifesto that had as a centrepiece the promise of an in/out referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union. The British people responded by electing a Conservative Government to follow through on that promise, and that is what we did when this House voted overwhelmingly to hold the referendum and put the choice in the hands of the British people. Indeed, 470 current Members voted in favour of it, and only 32 opposed it.

That campaign was keenly fought. It caught the public imagination like few campaigns before it. The turnout was 72%—higher than for any national poll for a quarter of a century—and while not overwhelming, the result was clear and it was decisive. That was something that this House accepted when we voted overwhelmingly to trigger article 50, with 436 current Members voting to do so and only 85 opposed. Parliament gave the people a choice. We set the clock ticking on our departure, and tonight we will determine whether we move forward with a withdrawal agreement that honours the vote and sets us on course for a better future. The responsibility of each and every one of us at this moment is profound, for this is an historic decision that will set the future of our country for generations.

So, what are the alternatives that present themselves? First, we could decide that it is all too difficult and give up, either by revoking article 50 or by passing the buck back to the British people in a second referendum. But I believe we have a duty to deliver on the democratic decision of the British people, and to do so in a way that brings our country together. A second referendum would lead instead to further division. There would be no agreement to the question, let alone the answer. It would say to the people we were elected to serve that we were unwilling to do what they had instructed.

The second possible outcome is that we leave on 29 March without a deal, but I do not believe that that is what the British people voted for, because they were told that, if they voted to leave, they could still expect a good trading relationship with the European Union. Neither would it be the best outcome. Our deal delivers certainty for businesses, with a time-limited implementation period to prepare for the new arrangements of the future relationship. No deal means no implementation period. Our deal protects the rights of EU citizens living in the UK, and of UK citizens living in the EU, so that they can carry on their lives as before. No deal means no reciprocal agreement to protect those citizens’ rights. Our deal delivers the deepest security partnership in the EU’s history, so that our police and security services can continue to work together with their European partners to keep all our people safe. No deal means no such security partnership. Our deal delivers the foundations for an unprecedented economic relationship with the EU that is more ambitious—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I said earlier that this was becoming a rather noisy and unseemly atmosphere, and that has now resumed. It must stop. The Prime Minister must be heard.

[The Prime Minister]

Our deal delivers the foundations for an unprecedented economic relationship with the EU that is more ambitious than anything it has ever entered into with a third country. It will give us the benefits of trading with the European Union and the ability to forge new trade deals in our own right. No deal means those new trade deals come at the expense of a trade deal with Europe, not in addition to it. So, while it is categorically wrong to suggest that our country could not ultimately make a success of no deal, it is equally wrong to suggest that this is the best outcome.

Thirdly, there is the path advocated by the Leader of the Opposition of calling a general election, and we have heard it again tonight. But today’s vote is not about what is best for the Leader of the Opposition; it is about what is best for the country. At the end of a general election, whatever the result, the choices facing us will not have changed. It will still be no Brexit, leaving with no deal, or leaving with a deal. There is no guarantee that an election would make the parliamentary arithmetic any easier. All it would gain is two more months of uncertainty and division. In 2017, the two main parties both stood on manifestos that pledged to deliver the result of the referendum, and they got over 80% of the vote. People had the opportunity to vote for a second referendum by supporting the Liberal Democrats, but just 7% of voters did so. It is the job of Parliament to deliver on the promises made at the last election, not to seek a new one.

Some suggest that there is a fourth option: to agree that we should leave with a deal on 29 March, but to vote this deal down in the hope of going back to Brussels and negotiating an alternative deal. However, no such alternative deal exists. The political declaration sets the framework for the future relationship, and the next phase of the negotiations will be our chance to shape that relationship, but we cannot begin those talks unless or until we agree the terms of our withdrawal. The European Union will not agree to any other deal for that withdrawal.

Having ruled out all those options, we are left with one: to vote for this deal tonight. It is one that delivers on the core tenets of Brexit—taking back control of our borders, laws, money, trade and fisheries—but in a way that protects jobs, ensures our security and honours the integrity of our United Kingdom. It strikes a fair balance between the hopes and desires of all our fellow citizens—those who voted to leave and those who voted to stay in—and if we leave with the deal that I am proposing, I believe that we can lay the foundations on which to build a better Britain.

As Prime Minister, I would not stand at this Dispatch Box and recommend a course of action that I do not believe is in the best interests of our country and our future. There are differences in this House today, but I believe that we can come together as we go forwards. Let me reassure anyone who is in any doubt whatsoever that the Government will work harder at taking Parliament with us, and as we move on to the next phase of the negotiations we will be looking to work with Parliament to seek that consensus.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for the work he has been doing to try to find a way through on this issue. I know that he has spent a long time consulting with international lawyers. The Government are unable to accept my right hon. Friend’s amendment, which has been selected, because we have a different opinion and a different interpretation of the Vienna convention. However, I note that he has put down alternative proposals relating to this issue, and the Government are willing to look at creative solutions and will be happy to carry on working with my right hon. Friend.

Turning to the Northern Ireland protocol—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House must calm itself—zen, restraint, patience—and hear the Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

I set out the Government’s position in detail in my statement yesterday, so I am not going to go over it again. The key thing to remember is that this is not a commitment we are making to the European Union; it is a commitment to the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland that they will be able to carry on living their lives as they do today. It is about saying that, whatever happens when we leave the EU, we will honour the Belfast agreement.

The Belfast agreement’s success has been built on allowing people from both communities in Northern Ireland to feel that their identities are respected under the principle of consent. For many people in Northern Ireland that means having a seamless land border between the UK and Ireland, which is also essential for their economy. For others, it means fully respecting the fact that Northern Ireland is an intrinsic part of the United Kingdom. No one wants to see the return of a hard border. As a proud Unionist, I share the concerns of Members who are determined that we do not undermine the strength of our United Kingdom, but it is not enough simply to make these assertions. We have to put in place arrangements that deliver those ends, and it is not as simple as some would like it to be.

As Prime Minister for the whole UK, it is my duty to provide a solution that works for the people of Northern Ireland. The answer lies in agreeing our future economic relationship, but we need an insurance policy to guarantee that there will be no hard border if that future relationship is not in place by the end of the implementation period.

--- Later in debate ---

The Speaker put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Orders, 4 December and 9 January).

[Mr Speaker]

As I explained the sequence earlier, it should now be familiar to colleagues. I begin by inviting the Leader of the Opposition to move amendment (a).

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Not moved, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I turn now to amendment (k), in the name of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford).

[Ian Blackford]

Not moved, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I call on the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), to move, if he so wishes, amendment (b).

[Sir Edward Leigh]

In view of the positive response from the Prime Minister, Mr Speaker, not moved.

[Mr Speaker]

Finally, I invite the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) to move amendment (f).

Amendment proposed: (f): at end, add

“subject to changes being made in the Withdrawal Agreement and in the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol so that the UK has the right to terminate the Protocol without having to secure the agreement of the EU.”—(Mr Baron.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House has spoken and the Government will listen. It is clear that the House does not support this deal, but tonight’s vote tells us nothing about what it does support; nothing about how, or even if, it intends to honour the decision the British people took in a referendum that Parliament decided to hold. People, particularly EU citizens who have made their home here and UK citizens living in the EU, deserve clarity on these questions as soon as possible. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is no good people shouting. There will be an opportunity for other points of order, but the Prime Minister must and will be heard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to other colleagues, but first of all a point of order from the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The result of tonight’s vote is the greatest defeat for a Government in this House since the 1920s. This is a catastrophic defeat for this Government. After two years of failed negotiations, the House of Commons has delivered its verdict on the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal and that verdict is absolutely decisive.

I hear the words of the Prime Minister, but the actions of her Government over the past two years speak equally clearly. She is only attempting to reach out now to try to keep her failed process and deal alive after it has been so roundly rejected by Parliament on behalf of the people of this country. Labour has laid out its priorities consistently: no deal must be taken off the table; a permanent customs union must be secured; and people’s rights and protections must be guaranteed so they do not fall behind.

At every turn, the Prime Minister has closed the door on dialogue. Businesses begged her to negotiate a comprehensive customs union. Trade union leaders pressed her for the same thing. They were ignored. In the last two years, she has had only one priority: the Conservative party.

The Prime Minister’s governing principle of delay and denial has reached the end of the line. She cannot seriously believe that after two years of failure, she is capable of negotiating a good deal for the people of this country. The most important issue facing us is that the Government have lost the confidence of this House and this country. I therefore inform you, Mr Speaker, that I have now tabled a motion of no confidence in this Government, and I am pleased that that motion will be debated tomorrow so that this House can give its verdict on the sheer incompetence of this Government and pass that motion of no confidence in the Government.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), but first, a point of order from the Leader of the House.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a short business statement regarding the business for tomorrow and the remainder of this week—

[Mr Speaker]

I am extraordinarily grateful to the right hon. Lady. I accept that she cannot be psychic as to what I am thinking, and I cannot be psychic as to what she is thinking. The smooth and orderly way to proceed with this matter is to deal with points of order first and then to come to her statement, which would be entirely proper and doubtless helpful to the House.

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

Further to the Prime Minister’s point of order, Mr Speaker. We should be aware of the situation we are in. The clock is ticking and we have little time to resolve this. The fact that it has taken us so long to get to this point is frankly shameful. This is a humiliating defeat for the Government. When I listen to the Prime Minister, it sounds like everyone else is at fault rather than her. She has to accept responsibility for what has happened this evening.

I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has come round to a motion of no confidence. That should have happened before, but we will support it. As I mentioned, it is clear that the clock is ticking. The Government need to secure the safety of all our nations, and they should immediately postpone the article 50 process and immediately have talks with all the leaders of the Opposition parties. Let us work together in all our interests, but let us listen to the voices of the parliamentarians who have been sent here. There is no support for the deal. It must not come back again. The obvious and right thing to do is to suspend article 50 and put the matter to the people in a people’s vote.

[Mr Speaker]

I know the right hon. Gentleman will not take offence when I say that he was using the device of a point of order, as is entirely understandable in these circumstances, to say what he wanted to say, but he was more interested in what he had to say to the House than in anything I might have to say to him. It is not a matter for the Chair. He has registered his view, and these sorts of issues can be quite properly aired in debate and quite conceivably in discussions that take place with the Prime Minister and other party leaders. He has made his point with force and alacrity, and it is on the record for colleagues to study.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. This result is of a scale that is unprecedented in recent times, and it is clear that neither this deal, nor any tweaks to it, will get through the House of Commons. May I ask for your guidance on how Parliament can assert its authority to ensure that we can give the people of this country a say on the deal to resolve this matter? It is a mess that needs to be resolved by the people in a people’s vote.

[Mr Speaker]

My response to the hon. Lady is as follows. First, there may well be an opportunity for her to air her own thoughts on the situation we face and the suggested way forward in the course of debate. As the Prime Minister referred to in her point of order, that prospect is potentially unfolding. That is one opportunity for the hon. Lady.

The second would be the discussions to take place in coming days. I dare say that the hon. Lady will want to take the chance to participate in them. More widely, where there is discussion about Parliament’s role, what it might do and what options it might have, I think I can predict with complete confidence that the hon. Lady will have a view about that, and that view, which is important, will be heard.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister spoke about the will of Parliament, and we have to investigate that further. When can we test the will of this House on the choices that are now left—no deal versus revoking article 50? Can we test those in the House, bearing in mind that in Scotland the European Union is more popular in the polls than the United Kingdom, as the Prime Minister should know?

[Mr Speaker]

There will be plenty of opportunity for testing in the days ahead.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is not a political point of order. Yesterday, the issue of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) was raised. She should have been undergoing a caesarean section today for a high-risk pregnancy—she is comfortable with me saying that she has gestational diabetes—and she was asked by her medical team to undergo it as an early possibility. She has had to defer it, Mr Speaker, despite your advice and comments from the Chair yesterday, which apparently were given no comfort from the Government Benches. That is shocking. I have to say, as a doctor, that to put our colleague and her baby at risk because we cannot have a method to allow for those who are sick or pregnant to vote is disgraceful.

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the hon. Lady says, and I do not cavil at it at all. I made the point yesterday that I thought the situation was lamentable—I used that word several times—[Interruption.] I am not interested in people chuntering from a sedentary position to no obvious benefit or purpose. I am ruling on a matter, and I require no assistance in the process of doing so.

The situation was lamentable. I thought that it would be better for the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) to have the opportunity of a proxy vote—that was my view, and it was a view widely shared. The matter was debated in February last year and in September, and I had indicated my strong support. It would have been necessary for a resolution to be tabled by the Leader of the House, but for reasons that others can explain—it is not my job to do their explaining for them—that has not happened. It is regrettable, but it cannot be sorted tonight.

Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) has registered her concern, and it is one that I share—with a sense of very deep disappointment, to put it mildly. It will doubtless be dealt with in the days or weeks to come. My great sympathies go to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, who in my judgment should not have been put in this position.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has now said that she will listen to voices from right across this House. She has obviously had 30 months in which to do that, and it has led to this defeat for the Government tonight, which is the greatest for more than 100 years. We must all hope that she will indeed listen to voices from across the House, but we also all recognise that that will take time, and people, businesses, Government organisations and institutions will now be worried that only just over 70 days are left. The Prime Minister did not mention article 50—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. People talk about respect in this House, but there is a Minister of the Crown shouting at the right hon. Lady. I say in the kindest way, he is normally a very genial fellow—stop it, you are capable of much better than that.

[Yvette Cooper]

Given the scale of the challenge, with the clock now really ticking down, the Prime Minister did not mention what will happen to article 50. Mr Speaker, will you advise the House on what we might be able to do to urge the Prime Minister, for the sake of businesses, jobs and people throughout the country, to seek an immediate extension of article 50 so that this can be sorted out?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer in the first instance is that those are matters that can be aired in debate tomorrow. It is not right for me, tonight, to give a ruling on what the right hon. Lady or others should or should not do. She will be aware of the presentation of a Bill that took place in the name of another Member, who I believe also has views on these matters. Those matters will, I am sure, be discussed in the days ahead, not merely in private meetings but, I feel certain, on the Floor of the House. Of one thing I am sure: that which Members wish to debate and which they determine shall be subject to a vote will be debated and voted upon. That seems to me to be so blindingly obvious that no sensible person would disagree with the proposition. If MPs want to debate and vote on a matter, that opportunity will, I am sure, unfold in the period ahead.

If there are no further points of order, and I do not think that we need any, it is right for us to hear the supplementary business statement by the Leader of the House.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

First, let me say that the hon. Gentleman has far better than any advice I may or may not have given to the Government: he can ask me. All he has to do is ask and he will receive, because I will give him a frank answer. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know the Attorney General is very well able to—[Interruption.] Order. Members must calm themselves. I know the Attorney General is very well able to look after himself, but I simply and gently counsel Members—gently, at this stage—not to yell from a sedentary position in that way. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would not, I am sure, be accustomed to such treatment in a court. If he were subject to it, I think the judge would take a very dim view. [Interruption.] Order. He is entitled to a courteous reception. As the House knows from experience, I will want to hear everyone who wishes to question him. But in the first instance, be calm and behave.

[The Attorney General]

It is very rare for the Attorney General to appear to answer questions in the House on matters of law. I am doing so, so that Opposition and Government Members can have a full, frank and thorough opportunity to ask me, as the Government’s chief legal adviser and as an adviser to the House on constitutional and legal matters, what our legal position is. I assure the House that if questions are asked, I shall answer them candidly.

The hon. Gentleman told me that I had not said anything about the subsistence of the Northern Ireland protocol. Let me make no bones about the Northern Ireland protocol: it will subsist. We are indefinitely committed to it if it comes into force. There is no point in my trying or the Government trying to disguise that fact. The truth, however, is this: what is the political imperative of either entering into it or not entering into it? That is a calculated equation of risk that each Member of this House is going to have to weigh up, and do so against different alternatives.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned that I should answer whether other treaties are permanent. Hundreds of treaties throughout the world are permanent—treaties on borders, treaties on rivers; the Vienna convention has entire sections on permanent treaties. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to enumerate some, I will write to him with them—I am afraid I do not have them to hand. There is an entire section of the Vienna convention on permanent treaties. The question whether we have a right to terminate under the convention is a matter of construction. Let me make it plain: there is no such right to terminate if the Northern Ireland protocol comes into force. The question of how likely it is to remain in force is a political judgment to be based on factors largely relating, as I have said, to in whose interests it would be to remain in it for longest. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Kenneth Clarke—[Interruption.] Order. It is rather unseemly for people to yell out, “Is that it?” The Attorney General, to be fair, has given a very full response—[Interruption.] Order. Members can make of it what they will, but in any case, everybody should cheer up now, because we are about to hear from the Father of the House.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Whether that will cheer people up or not, I have no idea.

First, I sincerely congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General on his masterly exposition of the facts and the law, which put paid to quite a lot of the paranoia and conspiracy theories that have been running around all too often in our European debate.

Secondly, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it was central to the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—that both sides committed themselves timelessly to an open border, and that will be all wrapped up if we ever move to the Northern Ireland protocol? It would be quite shameful if the European Union, the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom were given the right unilaterally to terminate that arrangement at a time of their political choosing, so this is perfectly sensible. Does he also agree that both the United Kingdom and the European Union will have reasons to hesitate before going into the protocol—they may prefer to extend the transition agreement—and that neither of the parties will have any political motive for staying indefinitely in that protocol?

In his exposition, I think my right hon. and learned Friend has done what he was trying to do: got rid of all these theories about the ECJ still being involved, as it obviously will have to be, in the rights of British citizens after we leave, and enabled the House to get back to the real political debate that we have to have in the next few days.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On the issue of precedents, there are five—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I understand that the House is mildly animated, but we must hear what the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee wants to say.

[Sir William Cash]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

There are five precedents over the past 40 years of full disclosure being made of an Attorney General’s advice for compelling and exceptional reasons in the public interest. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he can—as in my view he should—consent on his own independent account as Attorney General under the ministerial code to the full publication of his legal advice given that, as cited in the Queen’s bench division in July 2009, the then Attorney General’s advice on the seminal Factortame case was disclosed, which dealt with the incompatibility of the European Communities Act 1972 with an Act of Parliament, the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which was then struck down in the courts, analogous to the legal status of the withdrawal treaty in relation to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act passed by this House in 2018, and with which that treaty is incompatible?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for that question. The truth is that I am caught in an acute clash of constitutional principle. A Minister is obliged to have regard to the public interest and the national interest. Let us suppose I had given any such advice that has been requested by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), and let us suppose that that advice had covered all sorts of matters, including our relationships with foreign states and including arguments that might be deployed in the future—and their strengths and weaknesses—and including matters of acute importance to this country; would it be right for the Attorney General, regardless of the harm to the public interest, to divulge his opinion? I say to the right hon. and learned Lady that it would not. There is no procedure by which this House can have redactions or entertain circumstances in which it could weigh the competing public interest against the interest in disclosure, as a judge would do. She knows what I mean. Therefore, I cannot take a step that I firmly and truly believe would be contrary to the public interest. I ask the House to understand that it is only that consideration that is motivating me and this Government in declining at this stage to break the convention that applies to both sides of the House when they are in government. There is nothing to see here. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently appeal to colleagues to lower the decibel level. You do not have to look into—[Interruption.] Order, Mr Russell-Moyle. You do not have to look into the crystal ball when you can read the book. The evidence is that I always call colleagues to ask questions, and the Attorney General has indicated his readiness to take those questions, as indeed he must. So you will all get a chance, but please let the answers be heard.

[The Attorney General]

I ask the right hon. and learned Lady to accept that I will give this House a stark, uncompromising and completely frank view on any relevant point of law. I suggest that, if I had given advice, there would be no real significance in that advice being disclosed, because this House has the opportunity to ask me directly.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

I fully understand the hon. Lady’s understandable indignation, because the truth is that we are now in a curious situation in which no vote was passed against that motion. I ask her to reflect on this: let us suppose that the Government had voted against it and lost. What position would that place us in? It would place me in exactly—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) has already asked her question, with considerable force and alacrity. She is now not only inclined to chunter from a sedentary position but seems to be laughing and in a state of some uncontrollable mirth. I advise her to control herself.

[The Attorney General]

If the vote had been lost instead, precisely the same position would pertain, which is that the Attorney General and the Government would be faced with a clash of constitutional principle. Of course the Government wish to do all they can, which is why I am here today to answer as candidly and frankly as possible the questions of the House on any matter about which it wishes to ask, but if I am satisfied and convinced that any disclosure of the kind the House has asked for would be contrary to the national interest, I cannot comply with the House’s request. I urge the House to understand that I am doing everything I can, as are the Government, to fulfil the spirit of the request. No matter upon which this House inquires will be dressed up, disguised or in any way downplayed. Nothing—nothing—will be held back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

At stake today are really serious issues and yet this House is descending into farce and into some kind of amateur dramatics. This is serious stuff—[Interruption].

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Chalk, you are a most cerebral and ordinarily a most genial individual and you also practise—or have done—in the courts as a barrister in, I am sure, a most dignified and respectful manner. [Interruption.] Order. This is a serious point. Just as the Attorney General is entitled to be treated with respect, every Member of this House—[Interruption.] Order. It will go on for as long as it takes; I could not care less. Every Member of this House is entitled to be treated with respect in this matter and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will be heard. The Attorney General talked about braying and shouting—[Interruption.] Order. He was justified in complaining about being subject to braying and shouting —a point that I have already made. The same goes for Members responding to the hon. Lady. She will be heard. What part of that proposition do some people not understand?

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I was just saying that these proceedings are in danger of descending into farce. The Attorney General repeatedly says that he will subject himself to what he calls full, frank and thorough questioning, but he knows as well as we do that our capacity to do that questioning is seriously undermined by the fact that we do not have the full legal advice in front of us in order to interrogate it. He talks about the national interest. It is precisely because these are issues of national interest that we wish to see the full legal advice. Will he go away and look again at the principle that, in exceptional times, transparency should take precedence, and therefore produce the full legal advice for this House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. No one enjoys the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s eloquence more than I, but let us share it with the whole House.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The British Government insist that they have the right to take privileged legal advice that remains private between lawyer and client. I recall the Labour Government using the exact same excuse during the Iraq war. In the light of the confessed damage that any Brexit deal will cause, I beg, who is the client? Should not the Attorney General learn from the mistakes of the past, discharge his solemn and constitutional duty as a humble servant of Parliament and of the public, and publish? If not now, when?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

Well, it is very good of the House to attribute such importance to the Attorney General, but the reality is that, in terms of substantive effect, there are hundreds of lawyers who could give this opinion. [Interruption.] Let me finish.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) should not rant from a sedentary position. She asked her question with considerable force; let us hear the response.

[The Attorney General]

The Attorney General has a very special role when the lawfulness of the Government’s action is at stake. There, it is true, he occupies a central role, because if he says it is not lawful, the Government cannot act contrary to his advice. But in a case such as this, the essential question before us all is a political question, not a legal one.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

On whichever side of the House hon. Members sit, those of us who have been in government know that it is very important that there is safe space in which Law Officers and civil servants can give advice to Ministers. I fear that today we are trying to breach that convention, and that could be very dangerous for our system. It is extraordinary to me that people would prefer to have a piece of paper produced for them that they have clearly been told may contain information that damages the national interest, rather than have the Attorney General before us, who is giving us further and better particulars, and answering all questions in a full, frank and fair way.

[Mr Speaker]

I think the right hon. Lady is finished—no?

[Dame Cheryl Gillan]

Well, Mr Speaker, I was just going to ask the Attorney General to confirm that there is nothing in the written advice that he has not covered today that, if it were revealed, would be damaging to the national interest.

[The Attorney General]

On all points of law about which this House has asked me, or any point arising from the withdrawal agreement, I will give the same view to any person who asks.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I advise the House that 21 Back Benchers have questioned the Attorney General in 50 minutes. Believe me—I know these things, as I sit in this Chair for many hours and it is my privilege to do so—this is a much slower rate of progress than is customary. I appeal to colleagues to ask short questions and to the Attorney General, whose mellifluous tones I never tire of hearing, to be appropriately pithy in reply.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Given the precedent set by Lord Goldsmith, whose legal statement was clearly spun and cherry-picked, without seeing the full legal Brexit advice, why should any MP here today believe that this statement is not similarly massaged and designed to bolster the Government’s position and deny MPs on both sides of the House full access to the legal advice that this House has demanded? I am afraid to say that the Attorney General has rather contemptuously and theatrically—as if he were performing “Rumpole of the Bailey”—dismissed us and refused to provide us with the advice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

May I gently remind colleagues of the need for brevity?

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Attorney General may be familiar with the terms of the so-called Norway-plus option, in which the United Kingdom would join the European economic area via the EFTA pillar and combine that with a customs union. Can he confirm that that arrangement would supersede the backstop, and in that case, the backstop would in fact fall away? Can he also confirm that it is possible to unilaterally come out of the European economic area via article 127 of the EEA agreement, so it enables a unilateral withdrawal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do wish I could encourage Members to compete on brevity with the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who is, frankly, in a league of his own and untroubled by any close rival. Let that situation change. I call Crispin Blunt.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I invite the Attorney General to insert the question mark that I think the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) might have intended.

[The Attorney General]

I was puzzled as to what I was to answer. I disagree with my hon. Friend. We will leave legally on 29 March. To get back, we would have to apply for accession under article 49. We will be in a fundamentally different position on 30 March, if we can get there—and we have to get there, because that will honour the verdict given by the British people on 23 June 2016. The best way of ensuring that we do that, whatever the unsatisfactory elements that I accept are involved in this deal, is to take the key to the door of the cell, and get out on 29 March. This deal is the best means of doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

I had no discussions with the Chief Whip about the decision to vote or not to vote on this matter. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question. [Interruption.] Forgive me, Mr Speaker. If I have omitted part of the question, I wonder if the hon. Member could put it again.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Attorney General is perfectly at liberty to answer as he thinks fit. He looks quizzically. I say this only by way of interpretation: I think the hon. Gentleman asked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman had conveyed his views about this matter, directly or indirectly, before the vote on the motion about which we have been speaking this evening. He indicated that he had not spoken or conveyed his views directly. I think the quizzical attitude related to whether there was any indirect communication.

[The Attorney General]

No.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

My current understanding is that if there is no deal, we will leave with no backstop on 29 March. If the EU and the Republic of Ireland have been content effectively to have a “leave without backstop with two years’ notice period” situation until now, what does the Attorney General think has changed that makes it unacceptable to them now? What does he consider their motivation for that to be? As an aside, can the Attorney General confirm that in extremis the Vienna convention can be used to allow treaties to be broken?

Points of Order

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance regarding how the House should proceed in pursuing the publication of the advice provided by the Attorney General to the Cabinet. It is clear to Opposition Members, and we believe to the overwhelming majority of the House, that the document provided does not constitute the final and full advice provided by the Attorney General to the Cabinet. More importantly, this does not comply with the motion of the House that you have ruled to be effective. Indeed, I suggest that in the course of his statement, the Attorney General has been quite open about the fact that he is not complying with the motion based on his belief that it is not in the national interest to do so.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the shadow Brexit Secretary, along with the Scottish National party’s foreign affairs and Europe spokesperson, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Brexit, the Deputy Leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the Plaid Cymru spokesperson on Brexit and the leader of the Green party in Parliament, have this afternoon written to you asking whether you would consider giving this House, at the earliest opportunity, the chance to debate and resolve whether this is a matter of contempt. It is clear to me that the Government have taken an unprecedented decision not to comply with the unanimous and binding decision of this House. Instead, they seem to be playing for time, hoping that contempt proceedings take longer than the timetable for the meaningful vote. But we as a House cannot allow that to happen. I therefore ask you to set out how we should proceed to resolve this vital matter.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of his intention to raise it—[Interruption.] I shall ignore the sedentary chuntering, which is undertaken for no obvious benefit or purpose. I have only just seen the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I shall give it immediate attention when I leave the Chair. Having sat through these exchanges, I intend to come to a rapid decision, which I will convey to the House before it rises tonight, or, if that proves impossible, at the earliest opportunity tomorrow. I hope that that is helpful to colleagues.

[The Attorney General (Mr Geoffrey Cox)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As I indicated during the course of the debate, I had concluded, and I think mentioned, that I will be writing to you this evening, setting out the Government’s proposals in connection with this matter. I wonder if I could invite you to consider that letter, as I am sure you will, in due course this evening.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I await—[Interruption.] Order. I note what the Attorney General has said, and, of course, I shall be interested to see any letter that he chooses to send to me. It is important that this matter is dealt with in a timely fashion. That is a highly relevant consideration for me to take into account, but I have heard, with respect, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and I wait to see what emerges.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The letter that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) referred to touches upon a most grave matter in any view to all Members of the House. Is it either in order or courteous that the text of that letter should have been released to a journalist who has then put it up on Twitter? I know that that was because of the journalist, but was it in order for hon. Members or those acting on their behalf to release it before you were apparently aware of it or had had the chance to consider it and rule on it?

[Mr Speaker]

It is always best if letters sent to me are received and seen by me before they are seen by others, but I will address the substantive responsibility that is invested in me—that is frankly a different and on the whole rather more important matter, but I always treat the hon. Gentleman and all Members with courtesy. I note what he said and I issued my response in the first sentence of my reply to him.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As usual, you have called every Member of the House who wished to ask a question, but the convention of the House is that we have no rebuttal or right to come back on any questions asked. Given that the Attorney General said that he was happily going to answer any questions, as someone with no legal background I feel that I have had to play guess the question of what we may need to know that we have not been able to ask. Would it be in order for the House to table a series of questions to be answered—anything that they would have liked to put to the Attorney General, but did not get the opportunity to ask—and for those to be answered as quickly as possible to give us more information than we could glean today?

[Mr Speaker]

Let me say in all courtesy that I am not sure, given the pressure of time, of the practicality of the arrangement that the hon. Lady is advocating. For the avoidance of doubt, however, let me say to her that I have no reason to doubt either her legitimately insatiable appetite for interrogation—a very proper appetite in a committed parliamentarian, which she is—or indeed, that of the Attorney General to respond to questions. Therefore, in an ideal world, I would be quite open to the idea that there could be further questioning. As the House will know, I am an unusual fellow—I enjoy few things more than listening to my colleagues asking questions and Ministers answering them, which is probably quite useful really, given that that is what the Speaker of the House is expected to do. However, we have come up against the matter of practicality, and although the hon. Lady may now have her head filled with questions that she wishes she had asked, but has not done so, we have to progress and expedite matters. I hope that she will feel pleased that she has at least asked a question, and she can make her own assessment as to the quality of the answer. If, separately, she wishes to beetle up to her right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, I feel sure that she will be greeted with the courtesy that he invariably displays.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have all had sight of the copy of the letter that has been sent cross-party to you. In the light of the letter that is due to follow from the Attorney General to you, will we also have a copy of that?

[Mr Speaker]

I feel sure that that will be so.

[The Attorney General]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

The Attorney General is nodding his assent to that proposition. Just to be clear, the hon. Gentleman is asking whether he can have sight of the Attorney General’s letter, and I think that the Attorney General is signalling that the answer to that is yes.

[The Attorney General]

indicated assent.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a completely different issue.

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, very well—it is completely different, I feel sure.

[Chris Bryant]

Because you are a cerebral fellow, Mr Speaker, you will know that on 30 October, I asked the Foreign Secretary why the Magnitsky provisions of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 had not yet been implemented. He said in the Chamber that it was because we were members of the European Union and we cannot implement sanctions of our own until we have left. He repeated this the next day in the Foreign Affairs Committee, but a week later, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office said, “No, it’s nothing to do with that—it’s because we do not have any time to draft the statutory instruments.” The Prime Minister today returned to the original advice that was provided by the Foreign Secretary. The legal advice that has been provided to the Committee by the Clerks of the House was that actually there is no reason why we cannot introduce our own sanctions, because we did so back in 2011. I just wonder where I could get definitive legal advice from and whether you think, considering that the Foreign Secretary said on 30 October that he would write to me, that sufficient time has passed for me to have had a reply.

[Mr Speaker]

First, I recall the hon. Gentleman’s inquiry. I would not have been able to pinpoint the date—I advise those attending to our proceedings outwith the Chamber—as I do not have that level of anorakish recall of his parliamentary contributions, but I do recall the fact of the question being put. It made an impression on me, as does so much of what he says. Secondly, as a matter of principle, the Foreign Secretary ought by now to have replied to a request of that date—if it was of that date—from the hon. Gentleman. Thirdly, as a matter of practicality, I say that it is somewhat unwise for a Minister—in this case, apparently, the Foreign Secretary, an extremely experienced and dextrous, as well as courteous, parliamentarian—not to have replied to the hon. Gentleman by now, for failure to provide one was bound to invite excoriation. The Foreign Secretary will now be on the receiving end of that as soon as he learns of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. I hope that on all three counts I have brought some happiness into his life.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to the Front-Bench spokesperson first, but we must try to bring matters to a close shortly.

[Barry Gardiner]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to raise a point of order regarding a response I received from the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth at the last Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy oral questions. I asked the Minister why a roundtable with all the key fracking companies that she held on 21 May had not been declared on the transparency register. In response, she claimed that her officials did not disclose the meeting of 21 May because

“the ministerial code does not require Ministers to disclose meetings that they drop in on, as opposed to host in their office”—[Official Report, 20 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 715.]

I have searched the ministerial code and can find no reference to a difference in disclosure requirements such as the Minister suggests.

It would also appear that the Minister’s involvement in the meeting may not have been as casual as she suggested. During a Westminster Hall Debate on 10 July 2018, the Minister in fact claimed:

“I did hold a very effective shale industry roundtable”—[Official Report, 10 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 284WH.]

A freedom of information request querying the nature of that roundtable received a letter in response where the Department stated that this was indeed

“the Shale Roundtable that the Minister of State hosted on 21st May 2018”.

By the Department’s own admission, this was a meeting the Minister had hosted, rather than dropped in on. The agenda of the meeting was also released under the FOI request. It reveals the extent to which the Minister was present. The roundtable began at 1 pm and finished at 2.35 pm, lasting 95 minutes, and the Minister was present for at least 70 minutes. I contend that this would not, in any reasonable opinion, constitute dropping in on a meeting. I seek your advice, Mr Speaker. Has any request come from the Minister seeking an opportunity to come before the House to correct the record?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that, as far as I am aware, no request has been made by the Minister concerned or any other Minister to make a statement of correction or other statement on this matter. If a Minister believes that he or she has erred, it is not just open to that Minister to correct the record, it is incumbent upon him or her to do so. I have received no such indication. The hon. Gentleman is a versatile and experienced parliamentarian and can pursue this matter further, if he so wishes, in a variety of ways, whether in correspondence or through questions, but not further tonight by this mechanism.

[Helen Goodman]

Further to the point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), Mr Speaker. I today received a letter from a Foreign Office Minister saying that the statutory instrument will shortly be before the House. I am sure, if my hon. Friend so wishes, he could be on the Committee when we examine the instrument. We would all benefit from his wisdom on this matter.

[Mr Speaker]

That is extremely interesting information, and I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. I feel sure that she feels that she has done the House a signal service.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, very well, but it must be very brief. I feel that the hon. Gentleman will tax the patience of the House.

[Chris Bryant]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. If what my hon. Friend says is true, the Prime Minister this afternoon inadvertently misled the House and must have an opportunity to apologise and correct the record.

[Mr Speaker]

If anybody has inadvertently misled the House, that person must correct the record, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that I do not think it incumbent on me now to act as arbiter of whether it happened. The issue has been given a full airing. Both hon. Members are very experienced, are not backward in coming forward and can pursue this matter either through the use of the Order Paper or by other means in the days ahead. I do not in any sense seek to deny them the opportunity to do so.

If there are no further points of order, if the appetite has at last been satisfied—it is very important that Members have the opportunity to express themselves—we can now proceed. The Minister looks very relieved about that.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

With the greatest respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, his request is wholly premature—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Everybody will have a chance to contribute on this most important and solemn of matters, but just as the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) was heard in relative quiet, so must similar courtesy be extended to the Solicitor General. Everybody will get a chance to put his or her point of view—of that there need be no doubt.

[The Solicitor General]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Attorney General will come to the House on the next sitting day, and he will make a full statement and answer questions from hon. Members across the House. It might then be for the House to judge whether the Government have discharged their obligations consistent with the Humble Address, but not before.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

If the Government knew they would take the position of not providing the full legal advice—and the Minister wound up that debate on 13 November—why did they not vote against the motion? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We cannot have people chuntering from a sedentary position, particularly when they have already spoken. We have heard the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford); we know what she wanted to say and we are most grateful to her for that. We do not need sedentary chuntering. It is not helpful and it is unseemly—stop it.

[The Solicitor General]

I am not going to speculate about votes that were held or not held. I know what the position of the House is. We are seeking to satisfy that through the appearance of the Attorney General on Monday.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Gentleman is a compatriot of mine and is no stranger to the wizardry of rhetoric. He reminds me of Disraeli’s comment on Gladstone that at times he might be inebriated by the intoxication of his own verbosity— but not today. I take his point, but I will say this to him: I would be failing in my duty if I did not defend robustly the Law Officers convention. That is what I am doing today, and that is what I must continue to do.

[Mr Speaker]

The correct reference is

“inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity”,

but what I would say is that the Solicitor General is no more in a position to level that charge at the hon. Gentleman than I would be.

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

I am very pleased that the Attorney General is coming before the House on Monday, but while I have the utmost respect for him, ultimately his advice is just that: advice. Is not the most important thing what the Government’s interpretation and position is and what the Government are going to do?

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend is right to remind this House—[Interruption.] I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) is with us. Perhaps I will say no more about—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings thinks that the Solicitor General’s historical recollection is correct and that mine is at fault. He might be right, but in the end it is a fairly minor point in the great scheme of things.

[The Solicitor General]

Hansard will come to our rescue, I have no doubt, Mr Speaker.

Going back to the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), in the end this is a policy decision made by the Government after looking at a range of options. This is a matter of politics, and to try and dress it up in a way that would be unhelpful, inappropriate and, frankly, misleading to the public is not how we should conduct ourselves.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Commons Chamber

Further consideration of Lords amendments

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the House that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendment 3.

Clause 19

Commencement and short title

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 51.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 51, amendment (b) thereto, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 1, amendment (a) thereto, and Government motion to disagree and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendment 2, amendment (a) thereto, and Government motion to disagree and Government amendment (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 53, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendment 4, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 3, motion to disagree, and amendments (c), (e) and (d) in lieu.

Lords amendment 24, Government motion to disagree, amendment (i) and Government amendment (ii) to Government amendment (a) in lieu, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendments 32, 6 to 9, 33 to 36, 38, 40 to 42, 159 to 161, 163, 164, 166 to 168 and 170.

[Keir Starmer]

I rise not only to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 51, but to support the other Lords amendments that we are considering today. May I start by thanking the other House for its work? In particular, I wish to record our thanks to our Labour Lords team, led by Baroness Hayter and Baroness Smith, who have worked extremely hard to improve this Bill.

The amendments in this group this afternoon, as with yesterday, cover a number of crucial issues, such as enhanced protection for EU-derived rights, environmental safeguards and the charter of fundamental rights. In many respects, that should not be controversial, and I will return to those issues later on.

Let me start with Lords amendments 1 and 2. These amendments, if upheld here, would require a Minister to lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement outlining the steps taken in the article 50 negotiations to negotiate our continued participation in a customs union with the EU. I do not suppose that it is the making of a statement that the Government object to; it is the negotiation of a customs union with the EU. In fact, so determined are the Government not to accept a customs union with the EU that they have gone to extraordinary lengths to dream up alternatives.

When the so-called partnership agreement and the so-called maximum facilitation options first saw the light of day last summer, nobody really took them seriously, not even the Brexit Secretary. Within two weeks, he was describing the customs partnership as blue-sky thinking. Thus, when the Prime Minister resurrected them in her Mansion House speech earlier this year, many of us, including myself, were genuinely surprised. Since then, it has become increasingly apparent that neither option is workable, that neither is acceptable to the EU and that neither will get majority support across this House. The Foreign Secretary calls the customs partnership “crazy”. The Business Secretary says that the maximum facilitation option would cost thousands of jobs in manufacturing. It is no wonder that a Cabinet peace summit is planned for July.

The proposal in Lords amendments 1 and 2 that the Government should seek to negotiate a customs union with the EU as part of the future arrangement is a sensible one for many reasons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I could not help noticing yesterday that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) was spelling that out, the Government’s position was that, should article 50 be voted down, they guarantee that they will make a statement within 28 days and that that was not particularly convincing—the Brexit Secretary himself found that to be a cause of some amusement. That is certainly not enough. What is needed is the opportunity for this House not only to vote on the article 50 deal, but to have an appropriate and proper role if the article 50 deal is voted down. I am afraid that we are rehearsing yesterday’s argument, but we on the Labour Benches voted for the amendment, which would have given not only a meaningful vote, but a proper role for Parliament afterwards to decide what happens next.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is completely innocent in this matter, but he has, almost unavoidably, been diverted from the path of virtue as a result of interventions. I simply want to remind not just him but the House that we are supposed to be focused on amendments that relate to the European economic area. What we must not do is have a replay of yesterday’s proceedings.

[Mr Vaizey]

Well said, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Well, that is very generous of the hon. Gentleman—

[Mr Vaizey]

It’s right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). Well, my cup runneth over today. I am having moral support from sedentary positions both from the right hon. Gentleman and from the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) to boot. It is clearly my lucky day.

[Keir Starmer]

I will press on, make my case and take some further interventions later on.

I was saying that the proposal in Lords amendments 1 and 2 that the Government should seek to negotiate a customs union with the EU as part of the future arrangements is a sensible one for many reasons. The first is the economy. Over a number of decades, our manufacturing model has adapted to the arrangements that we currently have with the EU, including the customs union. Thus, typically, we see, across the UK, thousands of manufacturing businesses that operate on the basis of a vital supply chain in goods and parts from across the EU. The car industry is an obvious example, but not the only one.

Such businesses operate on the basis of a just-in-time approach. Whereas years ago there were stockpiles of parts and so on, these days there is a just-in-time approach. Parts come in and are assembled, and the finished product then goes quickly and seamlessly across the UK and/or out to the EU. That is the manufacturing model that this country has operated for many years, and MPs across the House know that that is what goes on in their constituencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I just want to finish this point—[Interruption.] I do not think that anybody could accuse me of not having taken interventions. I need to move on.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. There was a less than wholly polite chunter from a sedentary position. I warn the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) that I might need to have a word with family members of his who live in my constituency, who would expect him to behave in a seemly manner. I simply say to the shadow Brexit Secretary that I am listening to his disquisition with great interest, and will do so, but I know he will be sensitive to the fact that although we have six hours for debate, there is a very large number of Members wishing to contribute.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that, Mr Speaker.

To finish my point about Northern Ireland, I think that the conclusion of the vast majority of people who have considered this in great depth and with concern is that there is no way of delivering on the solemn promise that there should be no hard border in Northern Ireland unless the UK is in a customs union with the EU and there is a high level of single market alignment. The so-called backstop argument that has been going on in recent weeks is testament to that, because the Government are trying to find a post-implementation period phase when in truth we will be in a customs union and in high-level regulatory alignment with the single market. For our economy, and to enable us to keep our solemn commitments on Northern Ireland, I urge hon. and right hon. Members to vote to uphold Lords amendments 1 and 2.

I now turn to the EEA and amendment (a) to Lords amendment 51, which is in my name and those of other shadow Front Benchers. I understand why their lordships have become so concerned about the state of negotiations that they want an amendment to cover the single market. The Prime Minister’s red lines of October 2016 were a profound mistake. If we are to keep to our duty of protecting our economy, including the manufacturing sector and the services sector, and our solemn promise in relation to Northern Ireland, we need a customs union with the EU, and we also need a strong single market deal based on shared regulations and institutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to press on because I have used up far too much time.

Our amendment (a) puts forward a strong single market proposition—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say very courteously to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) that we cannot have an intervention by what I would call “proffered chunter” from a sedentary position. If the right hon. and learned Member who has the Floor wishes to give way, it is open to him to do so. [Interruption.] Order. The blame game taking place between the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) and the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) about who else chuntered, with each pointing at the other, is not altogether seemly.

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to press on because I have taken lots of interventions and engaged with them. I have been on my feet for nearly 45 minutes, which is not fair to colleagues on both sides of the House who want to speak.

Our amendment is a strong single market proposition. It sets out the kind of new relationship we want to achieve with the EU—a close economic relationship, with full access, while ensuring there is no lowering of common standards and protection, and recognising that shared institutions are required to achieve that. It is a million miles away from the Government’s position on the single market. It does not set a narrow route; it sets the parameters of the new single market relationship we want to achieve, and it leaves options open to achieve that. I urge all Members on both sides of the House to support it.

Let me turn to the question of human rights and other protections. Lords amendment 4 sets out enhanced protections for employment, equality, health and safety, consumer standards, and environmental rights and standards. The argument is very simple; it was very simple at the start and it is very simple now. At the moment, these rights have enhanced status because we are members of the EU. They are being converted into our law—the Government said they would convert them and they are converting them; I will come on to the charter of fundamental rights in a minute—but not with any enhanced protection. All the amendment says is that if those rights and protections are to be changed, that should be done by primary legislation.

The amendment is not contentious, and it does not even say that the Government cannot change those rights. It just says that if they believe in these rights and think they should have enhanced protection, they should for heavens’ sake put them into a form that means that if they want to change them, they have to use primary legislation to do so. The only reason I can think of for resisting that is that somebody thinks it might be a good idea to chip away at these rights without doing so through primary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

As my very old and good friend knows, the Government have indeed—[Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

There is no need for a commotion. The Solicitor General is usually extremely felicitous of phrase. I think the word for which he was unsuccessfully groping was “long-standing”.

[The Solicitor General]

I ask that the record be corrected.

As my right hon. Friend knows, the White Paper published some months ago sets out the options the British Government have been looking at. Option 1 is the proposed new customs partnership, and option 2 is the streamlined customs arrangement. Currently, two ministerial groups are taking forward work on those models. We accept that the precise form of any new customs arrangements will of course have to be the subject of negotiation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I give way to the Chairman of the Committee.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the Solicitor General does so, I gently remind him that he had indicated to me that he might speak for up to an hour, and if that is his intention, so be it, but he will realise that he is now into the last quarter of that allocation. He is a very courteous and considerate fellow and would not want a situation to evolve in which significant numbers of hon. and right hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate were prevented from doing so on account of too lawyerly speeches, whose eloquence and erudition were equalled only by their length.

I call Mary Creagh.

[Mary Creagh]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I have almost forgotten my point now, but I will try to grab it back. The Solicitor General raised a couple of issues. The first is the applicability to local government. At present, all agencies of government have to act in accordance with the environmental principles. Can he confirm that that will be the case with the new body?

The Solicitor General also mentioned the issue of fines. At present the Government are taking action on air pollution only because of the threat of fines from the European Court of Justice. What remedy will citizens in this country have if the Government pollute with waste and water pollution after we leave the EU?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I hear my right hon. and learned Friend. Both he and I have had anxious discussions about the definitions within the amendment. We are seeking to allow protections to be carried forward through our existing framework, so that the sort of changes that need to be made can apply to a whole range of areas. Changes could relate to the trade in seal products—cruelty to seals—or to protecting people on offshore oil and gas installations from fire and explosions, which is in the working time regulations, or to the protection of the marine environment. We need that element of flexibility.

That is not a way of avoiding the procedures of the House; it is about making the law clear, certain and usable to protect all the different categories that we are dealing with. I am worried that we would be kneecapped, not just as a Government, but as a Parliament. There is a lot of work to be done ahead of Brexit, and we need to concentrate on what is fundamental and what will involve change. Lords amendment 4 fundamentally affects how we can do that, so we must oppose it.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union left the House in no doubt yesterday of the importance of this legislation. The Government listened in the other place and showed flexibility by tabling amendments that genuinely improved the Bill, but we rightly held firm on those areas where amendments proposed would have an adverse effect. I am somewhat downhearted that the House of Lords has not shown the same level of respect that we show to them and has sought to overturn decisions taken here on important issues relating to the protection of rights. I therefore ask the House to stand behind the Government tonight in ensuring that this legislation is fit for purpose, respects the referendum result, and respects the constitutional role of this House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Stephen Gethins.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] As you can tell, there is huge strength of feeling on this issue across the House of Commons, and that is right, because what happens here has a significant impact outside this place. That is why SNP Members will continue to make the case for our constituents in this place. This matters. We have a clear and coherent position on such issues, unlike the two biggest parties in this place. We know that the customs union is important to trade, that the single market is important to jobs, as the UK Government’s own analysis has demonstrated, and that the fundamental rights that we enjoy as European citizens are critical to our constituents. People deserve their voices to be heard well outside this place.

I have heard from Government Members that this is just procedural, that we should just roll over and that we should not have a voice in this particular debate. Well, that is not what we are here for. Even if we just left this to the Government, they are not making much of a job of persuading even their own MPs.

[Stephen Gethins]

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House must calm down. I do not think the hon. Gentleman will be entirely surprised that his rising to his feet occasioned an immediate response from colleagues—he is a grown up and he can look after himself—but, that said, he must be heard.

[Stephen Gethins]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I remind the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) that, in 1987, Scottish Labour Members marched out of this Chamber because they did not think the Government were taking Scotland’s interests seriously. It is remarkable: the Government have not changed in their attitude, but the Labour party certainly has. That is why there are so many fewer Labour MPs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The last speech without a time limit—although I know that he will be sensitive to the demands of time—is from Hilary Benn.

[Hilary Benn]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). I shall also follow him in not taking interventions, because many Members wish to speak. I wish to talk about the EEA amendment tabled by our Front Benchers and the EEA amendment that came from the House of Lords, and to explain why I shall be voting for both.

Time is running out, not just in the debate this afternoon but for the country. For far too long over the past two years, we have wasted time with a lot of dreaming—dreaming about the easiest trade deal in history, dreaming about us holding all the cards and dreaming that we will get the exact same benefits. The moment when that finally came to an end was when the Prime Minister spoke at the Mansion House and admitted that it was not really going to be like that. This is the moment when we need to tell each other the truth: there are choices that we face; there are trade-offs that we have to accept; and there are decisions that need to be made, which is the point just made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe.

If I may use an analogy, it seems to me that we have decided as a country to disembark from a liner in the middle of the ocean, and we have two basic choices: we can jump into the sea, which is what a hard no-deal Brexit would mean, or we can climb down into a lifeboat and decide where we are going. What are those in the Cabinet doing at the moment? They have spent two years arguing, first about how to create a deep and special lifeboat. They are trying to come up with a lifeboat that will not breach their red lines, and they have broken up into working groups, probably discussing the size, colour and shape of the lifeboat. The only thing that has not happened yet is a Minister getting up at the Dispatch Box and announcing that no lifeboat is better than a bad lifeboat. I tell you, Mr Speaker, it is not funny. The truth is that it is extremely serious indeed.

What does all of this mean? It means that we have not yet agreed as a country what we want for the future of the relationship. Not only is the promised White Paper now not going to appear until next month, but we learned this week that there will be a two-day away day in Chequers where the Cabinet tries to thrash things out. That means there will be one European Council left on 18 October—one—at which to sort out all the things we have been debating yesterday and today and to agree the political declaration, which is all about the future of our country. As a result, we have barely begun to discuss what might be in that political declaration at a time when, as the Prime Minister said in her G7 statement on Monday, the international rules-based order is under a threat that it has not been under at any time since it was created at the end of the second world war.

We are in a perilous place. Business is losing patience; we know that. The EU is frankly bewildered about what is going on in this country. The British people, to judge by the polls, think the whole thing is going very badly. The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) made the point really well—it is true—that in this place and outside, people have whispered conversations in which we say, “What on earth is going on?”

The consequences of getting this wrong for the country will be deeply damaging for our future and for the jobs, livelihoods and public services that depend upon our economic strength. That is what we are debating. There is so much at stake that it is frankly difficult to overstate it. Let me say it plainly: we have had enough of management in the party interest. What we desperately need now is leadership in the national interest.

That brings me to the EEA amendment and the question of our future relationship with our biggest, nearest and most important trading partner: the 27 countries of the EU. The truth is that on both sides of the House we are all debating, and sometimes disagreeing on, what kind of framework would be best. The Government now accept that we will be staying in a customs union and, in all likelihood, aligning with the rules of the single market for quite some time to come, because nothing has yet been agreed that can possibly replace the benefits we derive from both.

The same outcome will inevitably result from the proposed Northern Ireland backstop, although it is currently silent on the question of regulations and the internal market, which is why I described it last week as half a backstop. That omission will have to be remedied between now and the end of this month, because half a backstop will not do the business when it comes to getting the European Council to agree with it. And by the way, it is ludicrous to debate whether the backstop is time-limited, because the truth is terribly simple: the backstop will remain in place as long as necessary, until something else comes along that can replace it and achieve the same objective, which is maintaining an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I am afraid that was about politics, not about policy.

That is also true of the debate about maximum facilitation and the customs partnership, although both ideas strike many people as costly, bureaucratic, burdensome and reliant on technology that is not yet in operation. However, being a generous soul, let me say that even if the Cabinet, on its away day, manages to reach agreement on one or the other, and even if the EU negotiators said, “Okay, let’s give it a go”—I do not think there is any prospect of that whatsoever—we all know that neither of them could be put in place by December 2020. It is too late: too much time has been wasted. That is why the transition period, or a transition period, is going to have to be extended by one means or another, whether that is with the backstop or an agreement on a way forward. That is where we are heading by default, so the question is: what form should the next transition, from January 2021 onwards, take? This is where the EEA comes in, because that would be one way of doing it.

Let me turn to the amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and Lords amendment 51 on the EEA. Both are about a future framework and the internal market, and the difference here—apart from the free movement issue, which I will say a word about in a moment—is really quite small, and I very much welcome what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend, who leads for the Opposition, about having an open mind. I will of course vote for his amendment, because who could argue with the notion of full access to the single market? If it is not successful, I will vote for the EEA amendment, because we need to keep our options open. To return to my analogy, it has the one great advantage that it at least looks like a lifeboat, and I have to say that the closer we get to October, the less inviting the cold sea appears to those thinking of jumping off the side of the ship.

I am the first to acknowledge that the EEA option is not perfect. I do not want us to be like Norway, and I am not arguing that we should have a deal like Norway’s. Apart from anything else, we want to remain in a customs union. As Michel Barnier repeated yesterday, it would be an option to have the EEA plus a customs union. Let us acknowledge that.

We should seek some changes to the way in which free movement currently operates. Some of those could be made within the current rules of the European Union, which we will be leaving. Others would involve discussion of the emergency brake, which is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and I have tabled amendment (b), which refers to “safeguard measures”. The Exiting the European Union Committee, which I have the honour to chair, drew attention, in its report on the future UK-EU relationship, to the possibility of additional flexibility on free movement. We need to make sure that our agricultural and fish exports can continue to move freely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. For a short period there will be a 10-minute limit, but I emphasise that it will be short. I call Mr Dominic Grieve.

[Mr Grieve]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall be brief, because I am endeavouring during the course of this afternoon to finalise agreement with the Government concerning matters we debated yesterday, so I have every incentive to be out of the Chamber. However, I would not wish to leave without pausing for a moment to deal with two issues—one of a rather more specific nature, and one of a wider nature, which has already been touched on by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke).

Let me start with the specific matter. We have had a very interesting debate during the passage of this Bill about what we do with retained EU law and human rights. We have felt our way through this, and at the end of his speech my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General made some sensible points about the difficulties around the charter of fundamental rights. I do accept that it sits uneasily with a situation in which we bring laws back to this country, although I highlighted to him the inconsistency of having retained EU law without having general principles potentially to override it, because it itself can override other of our domestic laws. That was the justification for it, and I regret that we are not going to keep it, but I welcome the fact that we are at least going to keep it for three years. To that extent, we have made a little progress; I am genuinely grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, and I will accept that.

That still, however, leaves amendment 4—that of Baroness Hayter in the other place—which sought to provide some enhanced protection for certain areas of EU law. These are areas of EU law that I think many Members of this House would recognise as being of special significance, including

“employment entitlements, rights and protection”

and

“equality entitlements, rights and protection”—

something that has featured more and more in our jurisprudence. In the recent case, for example, of Benkharbouche, a lady was discriminated against in an employment setting within an embassy and succeeded, by going to the Supreme Court, in setting aside our existing laws on diplomatic immunity, because they in fact went beyond what was required under the Vienna convention. Those are real areas of progress for our legal system.

Those things will be lost without the charter and the general principles. The worry is that, while I certainly do not think my right hon. and hon. Friends want to diminish areas of equality, employment, health and safety law or consumer standards—we have covered environmental protection, interestingly enough—they have given no protective status whatever to those areas. At some point, the House will have to come back to this and consider whether we should amend the Human Rights Act 1998, which we could do, to do this in a way compatible with our parliamentary tradition and our parliamentary sovereignty. Until we do that, they do not enjoy protection.

Baroness Hayter’s amendment would at least give them this protection: that they could be altered only by primary legislation or by subordinate legislation, which would have to be subject to an enhanced scrutiny procedure to be established by regulations made by the Secretary of State. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General will say that that is massively unwieldy, but actually it is not. All we need is to have a set of regulations that distinguish between technical amendments, which can go through just like that, or other amendments, which would have to be dealt with in a more enhanced form. The flexibility, therefore, is in fact there in the amendment and I do not think it is as unwieldy as the Government suggest. I am afraid that the truth is that, for reasons of their own, the Government just do not want to go down this road. We discussed and debated it at great length in Committee, and although we received delightful and repeated assurances that there was an understanding that these were areas of law that really matter, I am afraid that we did not succeed in getting any further.

I am afraid, because I do not like to have to rebel against the Government line, that I will vote for amendment 4 to retain those protections, when the Government seek to remove them. It is as simple as that. It is, perhaps, a gesture, but it is a gesture designed to put down a marker to say that we cannot ignore this issue for the future. We have pretty consistently ignored them, with the one great exception of what my hon. and learned Friend secured over the three years on the general principles. Respectfully, I will differ from the Government’s approach.

The second issue, which was touched on with great eloquence by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, concerns our future relationship structure with the EU, encapsulated in the EEA Lords amendment, the amendment tabled by those on the Labour Front Bench, and, to an extent, the amendment relating to the customs union or a customs union or a customs arrangement.

Mr Speaker, I do despair. I listen over and over again—every time I stand up in this place, I receive streams of emails—to angry people insisting that the sovereignty of this country is linked to the single issue of being free of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, free of any form of customs union, and free, above all, to keep people we do not like out. That is all very well, and of course one can do those things, but the first thing that completely ignores is the fact that we are subject to myriad international laws, which we observe to the letter—because we are a rule-of-law state—quite cheerfully, and which greatly enhance our commerce, peace and security. We do it all the time because that is the way the world works in a globalised environment, but we have got ourselves so angry and so fixated that we cannot see the wood for the trees anymore.

The consequence of that, which I thought was beautifully put by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central, is that we are careering off trying to do a deal on leaving the EU which entirely ignores the reality of the relationship we have. We have been discussing Ireland’s role. We have dealt with the Irish border issue very well and I am pleased with that. I hesitate to say this here, but I remember once going to Dublin and a very nice Irish economist with the Irish Government said, “Of course, we may not like it here, but the reality is that the subzone we operate in is the British economic zone and it dictates how we operate.” That is of course why we have a common travel area. Similarly, we are—for all our 65 million people, being the fifth largest economy in the world and all the other things we like to trot out, and our pride in our nation state—part of the European economic zone. That is where we trade and where our commerce goes, and although I would love it if we could enhance it, trade elsewhere and encourage the EU to trade elsewhere, that will never be a substitute for where we are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am afraid that, on account of the level of interest in the debate, the time limit on Back-Bench speeches will be reduced to six minutes with immediate effect.

[Heidi Allen]

I shall try to be brief, Mr Speaker.

I want to touch on three amendments. The first relates to the customs union or customs agreement. Since the referendum, I have always said that I am not wedded to the customs union. I do not care what it is called as long as we achieve something close to what we have today: frictionless trade, a borderless barrier and free trade with the EU. I do not care whether it is a partnership or an agreement—I really do not care. However, I take great comfort that, when we couple that with yesterday’s successful amendment on Northern Ireland, which we have already spoken about today, that is the ultimate backstop. A commitment to avoid a hard border in Ireland, given that there appear to be no solutions to the technology issues whatsoever, tells me that somehow in all this we will come through with a customs agreement, union or partnership.

I think that the Bill is in better shape than when it was first drafted. We now have in the Bill—potentially after today—a customs union or agreement, and we have no hard border in Northern Ireland. I am therefore fairly happy with the direction of travel; we are finally starting to get there. We also have the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill coming back next month, so let us see how the Prime Minister gets on at the end of the month, because there will undoubtedly be more opportunities to debate that—and many Conservative Members will not shy away from doing so if we need to, because frankly we cannot deliver the Good Friday agreement and ensure that there is no hard border in Northern Ireland without a customs agreement or partnership.

Staying on the customs theme, Lords amendment 51 deals with negotiating continued access to the EEA. I see that, plus joining EFTA, as a sensible lifeboat. It is far inferior to the bespoke customs arrangement that I know the Prime Minister is determined to seek, but if she does not achieve that, we will need this as a plan B. I have already put my name to an amendment to the Trade Bill relating to the EEA, and it is fair to say that I will be keeping my name there and abstaining today to draw a line in the sand to signify that we should not throw this option out. We need to keep every possible option on the table, because I for one am not prepared to plunge into the sea with no lifeboat whatsoever. The majority of Members, and of the British public, do not want to leave the EU with no deal and no lifeboat. That would be absolute economic suicide. The EEA-EFTA option is not my first preference, but it is a possible plan B, so we would be absolute fools to write it off. Let us see where we are with the Trade Bill and find out how the June Council goes, because this could be the lifeboat that we should all grasp with both hands.

Finally, I want to speak briefly to Lords amendment 24—the Dubs amendment. I am pleased that the Government have come a long way on this, thanks in large part to the leadership of Lord Dubs and to the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). Enshrining in law the inclusion of aunts and uncles in the definition of family members that child refugees can come to is huge, and no one could be prouder than I of what we have achieved as a country in relation to Syria and the region. We have provided unparalleled financial support and taken in large numbers of refugees, and the fact that we are prepared to take on the Dublin regulation, which we would otherwise have lost when we left the EU, is massive.

I cannot begin to imagine the hell and trauma that those children and families have gone through, but I can imagine that family is everything, so I still do not understand the Government’s position on amendment (i) to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 24, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford. Will the Solicitor General look at that again? Why can we not extend the provision to siblings under the age of 18? It would affect so few children, but it would be the final piece of the jigsaw with the Dubs amendment. This is a question of competent government and legislation. When we can legislate for the smallest detail, it can have a real effect on individual people’s lives. The amendment is now near-perfect, and I urge the Solicitor General and the Government to look at this again. In relation to EEA-EFTA, we will have the Trade Bill coming back, and in relation to this question, we will have the immigration Bill, so if we do not succeed today, let there be no doubt that Members on both sides of the House will again push hard to achieve this aim. For me, this is the important missing piece of the jigsaw. One small tweak could make a tremendous difference, and I urge the Government to look at this again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

My father does not speak perfect English, but I do not know what more integration he could have done when one of his sons is a Member of the British Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in all this talk of immigration, we should be very moderate in how we reflect on it? Immigration has been of enormous benefit to the United Kingdom, when his own family and succeeding generations came to this country. Does he agree that British citizens living in Italy and elsewhere also need to be thought of?

[Mr Speaker]

Let me encourage colleagues, please, to make brief interventions. There is very, very, very little time.

[Chuka Umunna]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman.

All the things I was talking about can be implemented now to better manage migration while we are part of the EEA, and I support them, but what are the real underlying causes of concern here? Not enough decent affordable housing; a shortage of school places; an NHS in crisis; and not enough well-paid and decent jobs. Let us not pretend that all these problems will disappear or be mitigated if we cease participating in the EEA. As hon. Members have said, they will get worse, because there will be less revenue going to the Exchequer to pay for those things.

Those underlying problems are no more the fault of European immigrants now than they were the fault of the Commonwealth citizens who came here in the 1960s and 1970s. Let us make no mistake: people in traditional Labour voting areas were saying exactly the same things about the Windrush generation, about south Asian immigration, and about the likes of my father from west Africa being the cause of our problems way back then, as they do now in respect of EU citizens. Curbing Commonwealth immigration then and ending EU free movement now did not and will not solve these problems, and we know it. That is why Labour Governments have always addressed those problems by properly funding the NHS, by having a national minimum wage, by investing in our schools and so on. That is why I will vote for the amendment tabled by my party’s Front-Bench team, and also for Lords amendment 2.

A colleague came up to me in the Tea Room yesterday. She represents a seat in the north-west and, to my surprise, she told me that she would also be voting for the Lords EEA amendment. I asked her how come she was doing that. Despite the issues and the challenges that I know that she and many of my colleagues have to deal with in respect of that issue, which I do not have to deal with in my own constituency, she said, “Yes, there are big concerns about immigration, certainly compared with your area, Chuka, but the bottom line is that we have nothing like the amount of immigration from the EU or from outside the EU as you do in your constituency. I know that the cause of our problems is not that immigration, so I will not go around saying that I agree with any claim that that is the case, because I know what that will do. It won’t help us deal with any of these problems, but what it will do is deprive people of jobs.” That is why I say to my Labour colleagues that we should not ignore this issue of immigration, but let us deal with the problems and underlying causes in a Labour way. That is what our history dictates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A four-minute limit now applies.

[Vicky Ford]

I will speak about Lords amendment 3, on the environment, as well as the amendments on the customs union and the EEA.

First, let me put this in context. As hon. Members know, I have been in the European Parliament for many years and witnessed many intense times in European negotiations, including the negotiations on the banking crisis and the eurozone crisis. It is utterly normal that all the discussions intensify and accelerate and that new ideas come forward, as the European Council meeting gets closer. That is to be expected; it is normal.

On Second Reading, I made it clear that I thought the Bill was far from perfect and that it would require many amendments. Many amendments have been made, both in this place and in other place. We should not be scared of the need to make amendments because this is legislation of a kind that has never happened before. I have been very glad to add my name to the amendments on environmental protections, which is a very important issue for many of my constituents, who write to me saying that they want to ensure that we keep a long-term focus on protecting the world’s environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I am sorry, Mr Speaker, because I know it is a courtesy to say so, but it is not a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). I have admired her for many years, but I found that one of the saddest speeches I have ever heard. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appeal to colleagues. I understand there are raging passions on these issues, but please let us try to treat each other with respect. Other Members are right hon. and hon. Members who happen to hold opinions that differ.

[Anna Soubry]

As you will remember, Mr Speaker, I said how much I respect the right hon. Lady for so much of her work, but on this I profoundly disagree with her.

I will be voting for the very good amendment—Lords amendment 51—written and beautifully advocated by the noble Lord Kerr. I urge hon. Members to read it, because I agree with everything it says about the value of a customs union. In due course, the Bill about a customs arrangement will come back to the House. I ask British businesses to write to their local MP to explain why it is so important, just as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) said that one of his businesses had explained to him in good, simple, plain terms why having a customs arrangement is so important to his constituents, their jobs and the future of their children and grandchildren.

I will be voting for the EEA amendment because, as I have said many times in this place, I believe in the value of the single market. I say to the right hon. Member for Don Valley that I am appalled that she, as a member of the Labour party, has stood up and shown that she does not understand and appreciate the considerable value that immigrants have brought to our country. These are human beings—[Interruption.] I will take an intervention when I want—I am not afraid of a debate, and I will take one now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A three-minute limit now applies.

[Mr Harper]

It was a pleasure to listen to the thoughtful and considered speech of the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). She made some sensible points about immigration, on which I will focus in my remarks. Many Members have spoken in favour of joining the EEA but, as I said briefly at Prime Minister’s questions, immigration was one of the most important issues that decided the referendum result, so we need to take that into account. Like the right hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), I want immigration, but I want immigration to be controlled by Parliament. I want us to decide that we want people with the skills and talents that will make a contribution and increase this country’s wealth, and they will be welcomed as a result. Immigrants themselves often want a properly controlled immigration system, because they know that they will be welcomed, they will be supported and they will not be scapegoated, as happens when we lose control of the system. The voters told us that they do not want a system in which we have no control, or very little control, over who comes to our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

I am not going to give way, because the hon. Gentleman has already spoken, but I look forward to debating with him when his constituency fills up with lorries after we leave the single market.

There is a lot I would like to say about the honest challenges raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. She spoke to us in a respectful way, and I hope that she will see that I and others have been respectful to her and always will be.

[Mr Speaker]

For the final three-minute speech, I call Conor Burns.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

I had not intended to speak in this debate today, but after listening to many of the contributions from both sides of the House, I think I must. It is becoming incredibly clear that those who know most about the motivation of those who voted by a decisive margin to leave the European Union are those who voted to stay in the European Union. They are now experts in the desires that motivated people to go out in record numbers to participate in that referendum.

We are constantly being told what they did not vote to do, and I tell this House today what they did vote to do: they voted to leave the European Union. What we are having is a dress rehearsal for an attempt to reverse the decision they took. The single market and the customs union are the vanguard for keeping Britain in the European Union by the back door.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

There has not been an Opposition wind-up, and I had agreed with colleagues that we would proceed to the votes. It is one thing to have a series of wind-ups, but it is another thing to have one wind-up.

[The Solicitor General]

I just want to respond briefly.

[Mr Speaker]

Very well.

[The Solicitor General]

The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) mentioned the Dubs amendment made by the Lords and, in her absence, I reiterate my assurance that the Government will go away and look at drafting an amendment for their lordships’ House when the matter goes before them. On that basis, I hope she will not press the amendment in her name.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will appreciate the importance of these Divisions. You will also be aware from our earlier exchange that the annunciators are not showing them, but do we have the assurance of the House authorities that the Division bells themselves are fully working in all parts of the House?

[Mr Speaker]

As far as we know, yes. I am sensitive to the difficulties that can arise, and when such situations arise, I use my discretion to ensure that no Member is knowingly disadvantaged. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by the advice I have received and by the undertaking I have offered.

Question put, That amendment (a) to Lords amendment 51 be made.

--- Later in debate ---

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Speaker]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry to have to trouble the Serjeant at Arms again, but I ask him to investigate the delay in the No Lobby. Members wish to proceed expeditiously with the votes.

[Frank Field]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am always very obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am taking my own measures at this stage. If I feel I require his assistance I will pray him in aid. He may rest assured that I will always profit from his counsels.

--- Later in debate ---

Lords amendment 5 disagreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

We are about to move on to Lords amendment 53, but I have been advised—I am sure the Opposition Chief Whip is listening carefully at this point—that it is the right hon. Gentleman’s birthday today. I am sure he enjoys nothing more than to spend his birthday in multiple Divisions. I wish him a happy birthday.

Schedule 1

Further provision about exceptions to savings and incorporation

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 53.—(The Solicitor General.)

--- Later in debate ---

Lords amendment 24 disagreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister to move formally that what I believe is correctly described as “amendment little two” to amendment—[Interruption.] For the benefit of those who did not hear, the Minister for Europe and the Americas, the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), observed from a sedentary position that the two speaks for both of us.

Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 24 proposed.

Government amendment (ii) made to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 24.

Government amendments (a), as amended, and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 24.

Lords amendments 32, 6 to 9, 33 to 36, 38, 40 to 42, 159 to 161, 163, 164, 166 to 168, and 170 agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 4, 5, 10, 20, 37, 39, 43, 45, 51, 52, 110, 125 and 128;

That Mr Steve Baker, Robert Buckland, Emma Hardy, Jessica Morden, Mark Spencer, Keir Starmer and Jeremy Quin be members of the Committee;

That Robert Buckland be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Paul Maynard.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.