European Union (Withdrawal) Act

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am well aware that the hon. Lady is a former chair of the Internal Market Committee of the European Parliament. In case there are people present who were not aware of that, among the litany of achievements that she can proclaim, I have done a public service in advertising that important fact. However, it does not give her an automatic right to intervene. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will decide whether he wishes to give way to the hon. Lady, and at the moment he is not giving way.

[Keir Starmer]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I understand the argument that article 50 can only be a vehicle for a temporary arrangement and not a permanent one. The Attorney General addressed that, and it is obvious to anybody who has read and understood article 50 rightly. However, the point the Attorney General was addressing was the circumstances in which we could bring the backstop to an end once we were in it, as a matter of international law. Whether article 50 permits it or not, or what the Court would do if it were challenged, is an open question.

The Attorney General said that the backstop may be indefinite—he did not say it was indefinite—but he called into question the argument that it will be temporary. I have noticed that the Prime Minister is very careful in the way she puts it: she always says that the backstop is intended to be temporary. I do not think she has ever used any other phrase, presumably because she is bearing in mind what the Attorney General has advised. I am not saying that there does not need to be a backstop or arrangements to protect the Northern Ireland situation, but we cannot simply and casually say that these are matters to which we should not have too much regard. I honestly cannot think of another treaty that the UK has ever entered into that it could not exit in such circumstances. We might say that that is a good thing or a bad thing, but it is a very unusual thing to be doing.

I want to address the notion that rejecting the deal somehow leads to no deal. I have never accepted that, and it is deeply irresponsible of the Government to pretend that this is a binary choice. No Prime Minister has the right to plunge the country into the chaos of no deal simply because the deal has been rejected, or to run down the negotiations. I believe that that view is shared across the House. There is no majority for no deal. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and others for the amendment to the Finance Bill that the House passed yesterday. It will not formally prevent no deal, but it will give consequences to a non-endorsed deal.

The amendment is also symbolic, in that it shows that the House will not simply sit by and allow a no-deal exit. I do not think that the Prime Minister would attempt that, because I think she understands that a no-deal exit in March this year is not practically viable. I have been to Dover several times to look at the customs arrangements, and it would be impossible to get from the arrangements as they are today to those that would need to be in place on 29 March in the time available. Whatever anyone else says, it would be impossible to do that. There are plenty of other examples. However, if the Prime Minister attempts a no-deal Brexit, we will fight her tooth and nail every inch of the way.

Every Member of this House has a solemn duty to consider the deal before us—not the deal that the Prime Minister pretends to have negotiated or the deal that she promises to change between now and when we go through the Lobby, but the text before us. Labour is clear that the deal is not in the national interest. It does not come anywhere near to meeting our tests, it will make the country poorer and more divided and it will not protect jobs and the economy. I say that with sadness, because I have shadowed three different Brexit Secretaries, and the fact that we now have a deal that is so demonstrably not uniting the country and not able to command the support of this House is a tragic waste of the two years that have been available for negotiations and a miserable end to this part of the process. We will have to vote on the deal next Tuesday. After that, it will be time for this House to decide what happens next.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House is now embarking on the resumption of the debate started on 4 December and interrupted. A lot of Members put in to speak on 9 and 10 December, and the order just agreed allows those who have already spoken the possibility of a second speech. I must tell hon. and right hon. Members that if they wish to speak on any of the next four days of debate, they should put their names in to my office, and that they cannot rely on notification that was given a month ago. Apart from anything else, the days have changed and my team cannot be expected to anticipate the thought processes of hon. and right hon. Members, so if people would notify my office, that would be greatly appreciated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is no formal time limit on Back-Bench speeches at present, but it would be helpful for colleagues to know that speeches of approximately 10 minutes each, and preferably no more, will happily enable everyone who wishes to contribute to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

I was fortunate to speak in the December debate, so I will do my best to be brief. It is a tremendous honour to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). He has made a very powerful case and he demonstrates his tremendously strong rhetorical skills.

I listened to the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union very closely. In his words, he said that this is not a vote about Labour’s proposals; I agree. We are voting on the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. I agree with the withdrawal agreement and I will be supporting it. I listened to Labour’s desire for a customs union and for a close relationship with the EU to protect our vital Union of the United Kingdom and to protect business and jobs. The shadow Secretary of State agreed with the Government Front-Bench team that there must be a withdrawal agreement to protect citizens’ rights. I echo the words of the Minister for the Cabinet Office that this should not be about semantics. This is not about Labour’s plan, but that is because there have been so many versions of Labour’s plan. The Government have had to come up with a finely negotiated plan, which we are now trying to get through this House.

The shadow Secretary of State said that he had agonised over voting for article 50. That set off a time-limited process, which we had to negotiate with the EU, and here we are; we have nearly arrived at the end of it. During that time, I have never heard a concise, cohesive plan from the Opposition. I can only conclude that despite the deal’s perceived faults, to avoid no deal, and to protect jobs and citizens’ rights, as the shadow Secretary of State agreed a deal should do—and recognising that there must be a withdrawal agreement and, I am afraid, a backstop—Members on both sides of the House, following on from article 50, should support the deal. It is the next step so that we can negotiate our future with the EU and the rest of the world. This is in stark contrast with those who simply do not agree with Brexit, although I respect that that is what they campaigned on.

The SNP rejected Brexit pretty well in the same way that it rejected the result of the independence referendum. SNP Members quote figures of doom and gloom, which is disappointing because we are here to be optimistic. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) said that those who oppose this deal could be the handmaidens of a hard deal—of no deal. This disappoints me, because back in 2014, as a consequence of possible separation, the SNP was happy to negotiate with the EU as a third party. That is in tremendous contrast with the suggestion of Armageddon, when we would have to negotiate with the EU as a third party.

Industries in my Gordon constituency have embraced Brexit. In good faith, they expect elected politicians here actually to get on with it, so I implore the SNP and others who reject Brexit to think again, to deliver on what we pledged and to respect the Brexit referendum with a deal that works for business and jobs. These industries want us to make progress and move on to the next step, because the political declaration leaves a great deal of scope. There are not many Members present on either side of the Conservative side of this debate, but the political declaration would allow scope for a deal that would very much accommodate what both sides of the debate on the Conservative Benches and the Opposition are arguing for.

The Government are making no-deal preparations. The Treasury Committee heard from the Bank of England that the financial system is robust in all situations. That is a very good thing and that is what the stress-testing was; it was not suggesting that the economy would drop by 10%. We cannot go back. The country has moved on, but it seems that this place is frozen in time while the rest of the country is moving on, including my constituency. I heard on the radio this morning the chairman of the port of Calais, who said that the trucks will keep moving under all circumstances. The rest of the world and the rest of Europe is moving on, while this place is frozen—stuck back in the EU referendum.

We know that the currency markets and the stock market have built-in risk, and that companies have pent up investment in their balance sheets; as we heard on the Treasury Committee, their balance sheets are in rude health. My good and hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) said that he is a pragmatist. Well, I am an optimist and I believe that there can be a positive result from Brexit, so next week let us give the economy and the mood of a nation a lift. Let us support the Prime Minister’s deal and get on with Brexit.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his magnificent succinctness, upon which he should be congratulated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

Absolutely. That would be one of the biggest ironies of any of our political careers, as we are all finding out that it is anything but simple. It has got to be the most complicated thing I have ever had to try to get my head around.

Can anyone in this place honestly say that the deal on offer delivers any of the things I have listed? Far from delivering back control, this deal means giving up our voice within the EU and becoming rule takers until at least 2020, at which point the problematic backstop could come into place. The Government’s own analysis shows that the economic benefit of further trade deals around the world is minimal, will not come for a while and will be outweighed by GDP falling by around 3.9% under their deal.

With regard to immigration, the Government’s recent White Paper failed to provide overall clarity on the issue and included plans to disgracefully label workers on less than £30,000 a year as “low-skilled”. That policy will only contribute to existing staffing shortages in the NHS in particular, as it rules out nurses, care assistants and paramedics coming from abroad. As shadow Minister for Public Health, I am well placed to know that the much promised extra money for the NHS—remember the £350 million on the side of that big red bus?—could not be further from the truth.

It is no wonder that all this lack of clarity has left people on both sides of the debate hugely disappointed. Indeed, in recent weeks I have received hundreds of emails, letters and postcards regarding this deal, as I am sure every single Member of the House has. There are people who say that the Prime Minister’s deal fails to respect the result of the referendum and would like me to vote against it. There are people who would like me to vote against this deal and then push for a people’s vote. There are people who would like to bypass another vote altogether and for us to remain a member of the European Union. There are people who would like a Norway or Canada-style deal, and there are people who believe that we would now be better off leaving the EU without any deal at all.

However, it is astonishingly clear from the percentages of 87% to 13% that very few people would like me to vote for this deal. It is no wonder that almost 60% of those who took part in my survey now think that the electorate, as well as Parliament, should have to approve any deal agreed with the EU before it is ratified.

Almost nothing of what was promised and expected has been delivered. People who voted to leave the EU are not happy with this deal. People who voted to remain in the EU are not happy with this deal, and 87% of my constituents who contacted me about this deal are against it. As such, I will be voting against it when the question is put on Tuesday.

[Mr Speaker]

What an extraordinarily succinct contribution that was. Of course I am paying attention; I never cease to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister mentions the issue of trust between the EU, the UK Government and Parliament. I say very, very gently to the Minister that there is also an element of trust between the Government and the Democratic Unionist party. There is trust in what the Government are trying to put forward as a solution, but the solution in relation to the backstop is not acceptable. That has to be addressed.

[Mr Speaker]

That that was an intervention of intoxicating significance I do not doubt for one moment, but may I just say to the hon. Gentleman that as a result of his intervention, he has helped the Minister to double the ration allocated to the shadow Minister? These are important matters, but I think the Minister is approaching his peroration.

[Mr Lidington]

I do want to make progress. I will just say in response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that, as I have said to his hon. Friends, we accept and understand their concerns, and we will continue conversations with them to try to seek agreement.

All businesses in our country want certainty. Since the deal was announced, organisations in every part of the United Kingdom—large and small, manufacturing, farming and fisheries—have said they want to get on and see a deal sorted, so they can plan for the future. They are aware, too, of the risks that no deal would carry: 40% tariffs for Scottish beef and Welsh lamb exports, 10% tariffs for cars from Sunderland, Swindon and the west midlands, and the inspections, regulations and form-filling that will go with such arrangements under WTO terms.

I believe that what we have now is an outcome that both those who supported leave and those who supported remain should be able to accept. Let us not forget that people who voted to leave the European Union were a significant minority in some parts of the UK, and in some demographic groups in the population, in which the majority in 2016 voted to remain. The deal gives the certainty of leaving the European Union. It removes this country from the political structures of the EU and any commitment to an ever closer union. It ends the automatic freedom of movement under European law, leaving it to Governments and Parliaments in the UK to decide how generous or restrictive our policies should be, and it ends the jurisdiction of the European courts in this country.

For those who voted to remain in the European Union—again, they were a significant minority in those places where most people voted to leave—the deal offers a deep and special future partnership between the UK and the EU, reflecting the reality of our deep-rooted ties of history, geography, culture and democratic commitment, and reflecting, too, the fact that, for as far ahead as any of us can see, the EU is likely to remain this country’s single most important trading partner.

I believe that compromise in politics is not an insult. The deal that we have on the table, endorsed not just by the British Prime Minister and Cabinet but by the 27 other Governments of the European Union, is one that has been the product of compromise. It has meant difficult negotiations and give and take on both sides. Like most things in politics and in life, it is not perfect, but I believe that it provides a good foundation for us to move forward from the divisions and the agonies of the last two years, towards a future in which the United Kingdom and the European Union can work as close neighbours, friends, allies and trusted trading partners for many years into the future.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Amanda Milling.)

Debate to be resumed tomorrow (Order, this day.)

EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Changes

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

I think that Members across the House will recognise that this Prime Minister has spent probably more time at this Dispatch Box answering questions from colleagues across the House than any of the previous incumbents. The right hon. Gentleman asked where she is. As I said in my opening remarks, she is launching the NHS 10-year plan because this party—Members on this side of the House—is committed to ensuring that we have an NHS fit for the future, which is what that announcement is about.

There seems to be, inherent in the right hon. Gentleman’s questions today and in previous questions, a constant refrain from the SNP. On the one hand it calls for referendums, but on the other it cannot seem to cope with the results of the referendums in 2014 or 2016.

The right hon. Gentleman is right as to the concern about a no-deal outcome. That is why the best mitigation of a no deal is to vote for the Prime Minister’s deal. It is the only deal on the table and it reflects over two years of hard-fought negotiation with the EU.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about extending article 50, I touched on that in my reply to the Father of the House. The reality is that extending article 50 is not a unilateral decision: it would require the consent of the other 27 member states. It would also raise all sorts of practical issues, not least in relation to the timing of the European parliamentary elections at the end of May. It is the Government’s firm intention not to extend article 50 and to leave the EU as the Prime Minister set out. The SNP should respect the largest vote in the United Kingdom’s history.

[Mr Speaker]

In calling the right hon. Member for Wokingham, I warmly congratulate Sir John Redwood.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Do the Government understand that opposition to the withdrawal agreement goes way beyond the unacceptable Irish backstop and includes paying huge sums of money with nothing nailed down over the future partnership? Worse still, it would plunge us into 21 to 45 more months of endless rows and disagreements, with all the uncertainty that would bring.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

That was a very engaging wave from the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), but it is not the normal means by which to procure the attention of the Chair. It would be a pity to squander the right hon. Gentleman at such an early stage of our proceedings, so I shall come to him in due course.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

In 108 days we run out of road, and the only red line that has not been laid down is the one in front of the cliff’s edge, over which we would fall into a chaotic no deal. I urge the Minister and the Government to bring forward the meaningful vote to next week, because by then at least we will know what cosmetic changes have been made in Brussels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot wait any longer to hear the mellifluous tones of the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

The leader of the Labour party regularly attends meetings of his European socialist colleagues, many of whom are actually in Government. Is the Minister aware of anything positive whatsoever that has come out of those meetings to facilitate the deal and help to deliver on Brexit, or is the Labour party, as far as delivering a workable Brexit is concerned, part of the problem, not part of the solution?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his inquiry, which suffers from the rather notable disadvantage that the Leader of the Opposition has no responsibility for the formulation of policy or for the continent-wide attempts to secure an agreement. Therefore I emphasise, on advice, that there is no responsibility on the Minister to attempt to answer what was no doubt a well-meaning, but, in practical terms, disorderly question.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm once again for the benefit of this House and for the people in the country who will read his remarks and listen to what he has said that there are absolutely no circumstances—no legal interpretation, no scenario that may crop up over the next few days or weeks—that will deny this Parliament the opportunity to vote on whatever the Government come back with? I say to the Minister that, as he has heard from Members across the House, trust in the Government is such that he has a lot of work to do to make people believe him.

EU Exit: Article 50

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the Secretary of State replies. Can I just say to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) that I hope he derives some succour from knowledge of the fact that he has, at least, delivered a fair share—it is not for me to say precisely what share—of the speech to which he would have treated the House tomorrow if he had had the opportunity to do so?

[Stephen Barclay]

I am sure that I and many in the House would have much enjoyed hearing the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). To be fair, he has always been consistent. He did not vote for the referendum, and he has always taken the view that this House should decide, but many others in this House did vote for the referendum, and they also voted by a very substantial majority to trigger article 50.

The crux of the issue is that the Government’s policy has not changed. We are not going to revoke article 50, but if the Labour party is flirting with doing so, it needs to square that with the manifesto on which it stood at the last election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We cannot have a point of order at this stage. I will come to the hon. and learned Lady at a suitable juncture, and she will have an opportunity to make her point.

[Stephen Barclay]

We will come further to that point.

The second point the hon. and learned Lady made was that legal fees are not cheap. She needs to answer, therefore, why a case was brought on something that clearly is not Government policy and that the Government have no intention of applying. Therefore, it is a hypothetical case; this is something that the Government do not intend to pursue.

The hon. and learned Lady also asked what Government policy is on this issue. The Government’s policy is extremely clear: it is to deliver on the biggest democratic vote in our country’s history and ensure that we leave on 29 March next year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Barclay]

As I said in an earlier answer, the judgment of the Court does not actually deal with extension; that is a separate point. It deals with revocation, and it is that to which my statement refers. I am very happy, Mr Speaker, to stray into areas beyond the statement, such as no deal, but I do not want to fall foul of a ruling from the Chair, and I want to focus on the issue of revocation.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, it is principally about revocation, as the Secretary of State rightly states. Matters that appertain to article 50 would obviously be thought to be within scope. If it were thought that a Member were out of order, I would have received advice to that effect, and the House will have noted that I have not—I have received no such indication at all. I know that the Secretary of State—he is a most courteous individual—would not for one moment suggest that he should be the arbiter of scope. He can tell us what is in his statement, but he cannot tell us what should be raised by other Members. As I say, I have had no indication that anything that has been said so far has been in any way disorderly, but I am always alert, and if I find something that is, I shall rule on it accordingly.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), it is certainly interesting that the ECJ has been able to hand down this judgment with great speed. The Brexit Secretary is far too diplomatic to agree with me that it is, of course, a political court. However, will he say that this is yet another reason why we need to comprehensively leave the European Union, including the jurisdiction of the ECJ?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Like his predecessors, the Secretary of State is kept in the dark about a lot, but he must know when he was first told that tomorrow’s vote was off. We know that it was not yesterday, when he said the vote would be on Tuesday. Did he know it was off when at 11.07 this morning the Prime Minister’s spokesman said that it was definitely on? Or did he know only when the conference call with the Cabinet happened at 11.30?

[Mr Speaker]

I will let the Secretary of State respond, but then let us get back to the revocation of article 50.

[Stephen Barclay]

I will take your guidance, Mr Speaker. I think the Prime Minister covered the chronology this morning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the Secretary of State aware of the case of Wilson and others v. the Prime Minister currently in the High Court, which argues that the EU withdrawal Act empowers the Prime Minister to trigger article 50 based on an advisory referendum and, if that referendum is found to be legally flawed, which it was because of the leave campaign, then the advice is void and, in the case of a general election, that would be ruled void? Therefore, will he look at that ruling, take guidance from it and, if they find in favour, revoke article 50, which they will be asking for?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not sure whether the case is currently in the High Court—I do not know whether I heard correctly the hon. Gentleman’s reference to court proceedings—but if that be so, the Secretary of State will want to weigh his words carefully in any response that he gives us. If there are current legal proceedings, I know that he will be cautious.

[Stephen Barclay]

I always take your guidance on these matters, Mr Speaker. The point of substance is that, regardless of where the court case is or is not, the Government’s policy is firm, as I have already set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Barclay]

Part of the difficulty for the House of working out the will of the House is that Opposition Members keep changing their minds. [Interruption.] I am sure—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the Secretary of State’s mind—or the contents of it—and what he wants to say.

[Stephen Barclay]

I am sure that it will come as a huge surprise to you, Mr Speaker, and to other Members that the hon. Gentleman himself voted to trigger article 50. Having triggered it, he now seems to want to revoke it.

Points of Order

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In response to my questions earlier, the Secretary of State said—at least I understood him to say this—that the United Kingdom Government had taken the same position as the Commission before the Court of Justice. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) challenged him on that. I am sure that the Secretary of State has now had the opportunity to familiarise himself with the Court’s opinion, where he will see that the Council and the Commission took the position that article 50 could be revoked, but it would need the unanimous consent of the other member states. Curiously—I can say as a senior counsel that I have never seen this happen before—the British Government refused to take a position on whether article 50 could be revoked. They refused to answer the question. I am very anxious that the record be corrected as this is a decision of the highest court in the European Union. If the Secretary of State is not prepared to acknowledge that he was wrong and that I am right about this, can you, Mr Speaker, assist me in how I might put the record straight?

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State might choose to respond, and I think it quite proper that he should be able to do so.

[The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, what I was making clear was the similarity in position between that taken by Her Majesty’s Government and that by the Commission. Similar arguments were made by the Commission to those of the Government. Indeed the European Commission raised doubts as to whether the proceedings were admissible. That was the point that I was seeking to make to the House and I am very happy to clarify any comments if that is helpful

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I will indulge this for a short period.

[Joanna Cherry]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It really is very simple. If the Secretary of State looks at paragraph 38 of the Court’s judgment, he will see the position taken by the Council and the Commission. If he looks at paragraph 43, he will see that the UK Government did not take a position. Now, I know that we are in a parallel universe here at the moment, but is the Secretary of State seriously disputing what the judgment says? If not, will he simply acknowledge that I am right about this and he is wrong?

[Stephen Barclay]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As I say, there is a similarity in positions. We can all cherry-pick different bits out of the judgment in isolation. What matters is the substance of the article and the substance of this. There was a similarity in the points raised and that is what I made clear.

[Mr Speaker]

To the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who effectively asked me what restitution was available to her in the event that the Secretary of State did not clarify the matter to her satisfaction—that is to say, did not issue a correction—I would simply say that on this point, we have to leave it there. It is not for me to seek to insist on a correction; that is not within the power of the Chair. Perhaps I may say, in a moderately jocular spirit as we approach the festive season, that for my own part—this view may be more widely shared by colleagues—I greatly welcome the free legal advice provided by the hon. and learned Lady, as she is a QC, not least in the light of the fact that she referred to QCs earlier and the fact that their services tend not to come cheap.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before the Secretary of State scarpers from the Chamber—[Hon. Members: “Come back!”] Under the procedures of the House, it would obviously be wrong for me to accuse the Secretary of State of deliberately misleading the House, but what are Members to do if the Secretary of State has inadvertently misled the House? I was in Luxembourg at the time of the ruling, and there was no similarity between the Government’s case and that of the European Commission. What are we supposed to do if he has inadvertently misled the House today and if he perhaps inadvertently misled Andrew Marr on “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday because he thought the vote was taking place on Tuesday and it is not?

[Mr Speaker]

I will say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, although I understand his disappointment, not to say irritation, that the Secretary of State has not remained in the Chamber, strictly speaking, points of order are raised with the Chair. It is not a formal obligation for Ministers to remain for the duration of points of order. Whether the Secretary of State thought that points of order appertaining to him were at an end, I cannot know because I do not know what was in his mind, but the situation is that the point of order is raised with me.

Secondly, I have a sense that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West are not going to let this issue go, and I dare say it will be played out and replayed out in days to come. I think we should leave it there for now.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It may interest the House to know that while Ministers are fleeing the Front Bench, the Prime Minister has apparently left the country in the last few minutes; apparently she has gone to Berlin, Brussels and The Hague. Is this not rather strange when this House has not yet actually taken a decision as to whether to continue with the debate? Have you had any notice that the Prime Minister intends to return to this House after these visits in order to explain what she has been doing and what she has been seeking? I am told that she is seeking a political statement that the backstop is not enforceable—extraordinary.

[Mr Speaker]

First of all, I am not responsible for the whereabouts of the Prime Minister. It is not customary for the Prime Minister to copy me in on her travel plans and I have made no request for her to do so. Related to that, I would say that whatever the House may decide in the course of this evening, that would not carry an implication for the presence of the Prime Minister because there was no expectation that she would be here to take part in any vote this evening. There was only an expectation that she would otherwise have been here tomorrow. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has made his point with his usual force and vigour, and we are grateful to him for that.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, I am saving the hon. Gentleman up, but we look forward to his constitutional exegesis with due anticipation.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Has the Prime Minister given you any indication as to whether she will be back in time to face this House at Prime Minister’s questions on Wednesday? By the sound of things, she has a pretty arduous itinerary for just one day.

[Hon. Members]

Oooh!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) for his point of order. I have received no intelligence about arrangements for Wednesday, but I have no reason to suppose the Prime Minister will not be here. I dare say the hon. Gentleman will receive knowledge of the situation in due course. I think we should leave it there.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the events of today, I wonder whether you could guide the House on if and when, in the absence of the vote that was scheduled for tomorrow night, the Government have to come back to put a meaningful vote before the House; or are there mechanisms by which they may try to avoid doing so, given the mood that has been expressed in this House over the past week or so?

[Mr Speaker]

It is up to the Government when to arrange for the debate and the vote or votes that would flow from it, but the fact that it is incumbent upon the Government to come forward with a new date is very clear. That cannot be gainsaid. It has been made very clear from the Treasury Bench on several occasions—I will not say innumerable, but they are innumerable for me now because I do not know exactly how many there were. The Leader of the House has made clear repeatedly in response to questions that the debate, and the vote or votes flowing therefrom, would be rescheduled as soon as the Government felt that they were in a position, as they see it, beneficially to update the House. There is therefore no reason to suppose that that debate and votes flowing from it will not take place and every reason to believe that that debate and votes flowing from it will take place. It would be literally unconscionable if there were any thought to the contrary.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Oh, come on.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sick of people saying, “Oh, come on.” These are points of order, of which the Chair must treat. Members must choose whether they wish to raise points of order. If they do, the Chair must respond. These are, if I may say so, somewhat unusual circumstances, so it is not entirely surprising that Members wish to raise points of order.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker—and this might actually be a point of order. In the business statement earlier, the Leader of the House referred several times to “resuming” the debate. Now, if the Prime Minister comes back with any amendments to the agreement, will it constitute a new debate? Some of us have contributed to the previous debate and, given that the Prime Minister said that our contributions were so influential, we would like to contribute again to the new debate.

[Mr Speaker]

As far as I am concerned, the answer is that it depends on what is brought back to this House. If what is brought back to this House is a new agreement and framework document, the expectation would be that a new motion would be required. Flowing from that, effectively a new debate would need to take place. If, on the other hand, what comes back is different from what I have just said—and, in a sense, less than what I have just signalled—then that would not necessarily follow, so it depends what comes back. What I do want to say to the hon. Gentleman and to other Members who are quizzical on this front—I am very confident that there are Members on both sides of the House who take these matters extremely seriously—is that the Chair, within the powers of the Chair, will do everything possible to facilitate the fullest debate in and votes by the House. There can be no escape from that reality.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. House of Commons Twitter, under #AskTheCommons, said this afternoon:

“Now the Government has made a statement that political agreement on withdrawal agreement & future framework has been reached, the requirements for the Government to make a statement to the House by 21 Jan on ‘no deal’ has been superseded.”

If the Government now do not bring back any vote because their position unravels and we end up in a no-deal situation again, does that mean we still will not get a vote by 21 January, or has the Commons revoked that advice?

[Mr Speaker]

That was not advice from the House; it was a Twitter feed. Moreover, I am authoritatively advised—do not forget that I have been in the Chair since 2.30 pm, so I have not been attending to those matters—that the record has since been corrected. I believe it has been corrected, or certainly that the intention is to correct it. I have been advised that it has been corrected, so that is no longer the situation. I do not think I need to elaborate further, although if there is concern or anxiety, or even confusion, I am sure that the right hon. Lady will return to the matter tomorrow. However, the concern that I think she had, quite understandably, should now be allayed by what I have just said. It was, I think, an innocent error, but it was an error.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The agreement appears to have been initialled by the Prime Minister about 10 days ago. Am I right in construing what you have just said as meaning that if there is a new withdrawal agreement so initialled a second time with a new signature, then effectively the entire procedure—whether with regard to the question of the contempt motion or, for that matter, with regard to the question of section 13 and its effectiveness—is that we have to go back to square one?

[Mr Speaker]

Broadly speaking, the answer is yes. We would have to treat it as a discrete item that was beginning and needed to be continued and completed, and I would expect that that which had applied to the existing, but as yet by the House unapproved, agreement would be sought in respect of the new agreement. That would be the premise from which I would work.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Yvette Cooper]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I will take the point of order from Yvette Cooper and then come to Mr Betts and Mr Bryant.

[Yvette Cooper]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. As I understand it, there has been a clarification on the House of Commons Twitter feed, but it simply says:

“Further proceedings under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are a matter of legal interpretation and not for the House to determine.”

That seems to raise huge questions about whether this House could be guaranteed a vote if the Government were to end up slipping into no deal. Given the seriousness of this, it would be very helpful to have formal clarification from you or from the Clerks.

[Mr Speaker]

The Clerks’ advice is that where there is a statutory issue, it would not be for the House to rule on that, and that it is not for the Chair to seek to give a ruling on that matter. In so far as the right hon. Lady is concerned about the prospects of debate on these matters in the light of evolving circumstances and the pursuit of a revised agreement, I have sought to reassure her that debates will happen, because the commitment to those debates is manifest, explicit, and, it seems to me, to all intents and purposes irrevocable. What I do not feel I can pronounce upon is matters of law. I certainly would not be in a position to do that, if I were required to do it at all, now. But in so far as the right hon. Lady and others are seeking assurance that the debates that they thought they were about to get will still be forthcoming, with votes flowing therefrom, I think I can, without fear of contradiction, give those assurances to Members, whatever their political opinion on the matter.

[Yvette Cooper]

So are you confirming, then, Mr Speaker, that there is no guarantee that this House would have a vote on a no-deal situation if the Government slipped into that, and that that would simply be a matter for the courts to decide rather than this House being able to ensure that it had a vote under the withdrawal agreement legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I do not feel that I can rule on that now. I am certainly expecting that there will be debate and votes on that very specific and, I accept, extremely important point. I do not want to give an incorrect answer or a misleading impression, and I think it is better for me to reflect on that, and, if it would be appropriate, to come back to the right hon. Lady or to report to the House, because it is an extremely salient issue. I think that otherwise I stand by the rest of what I have said, and on that particular point I would like to take stock.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), if there were to be any changes to the agreement and the motion, would the assumption be that this House would be entitled to see any changes to the advice that the Attorney General gives on that?

[Mr Speaker]

Well, that is hypothetical. That does not mean that it is not an important question, but it is hypothetical at this stage. I am not sure that I could give such an automatic assurance to the hon. Gentleman. It may be that efforts would have to be made to secure a commitment to the release, or publication, of that advice. I think there would be a strong moral basis for expecting that that advice would be published, in the light—

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

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very heartened to see a former Director of Public Prosecutions nodding vigorously in assent to my proposition, considering that he is a distinguished lawyer and I am not. There is a strong moral basis for believing that that to which the Government eventually acceded last week would be something to which they would accede in the new circumstances, especially as the new circumstances were the result of failure to reach agreement on the earlier proposals and their own actions thereafter.

[Chris Bryant]

It may not be worth waiting for after all that, Mr Speaker, but on a point of order. You said earlier that you thought that it would be better and more courteous to the House if there was a proper process of preventing the debate later tonight and tomorrow, and preventing the vote. I get that the mood in the House today has been that it would prefer the Government to proceed with the debate today and tomorrow, and that if they are not going to, then at least we should be allowed to vote on whether we are voting or not. As I understand it, what the Government are intending to do is that when it comes to the Orders of the Day, when you say “What day?”, one of the Whips will shout “Tomorrow”—which here does not really mean tomorrow but some other day as yet unspecified. It is within the gift of the Government, if they wanted to, to allow any Member of the House to move the Orders of the Day, because that can be moved by any Member of the House, as was decided in decisions of the House in 1860, 1886, 1907 and 1908, and on many other occasions. I just wonder, if many Members of the House were to shout today, would you not be well advised to take one of them rather than the Whip?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

If they are not Ministers, I am not in a position to do so. If the Government themselves were content for another Member to shout “Now” and for the debate to take place, that debate could take place. However, I must say to the hon. Gentleman that over the last five hours or so—just under five hours—since the Prime Minister’s initial statement, the Leader of the Opposition’s reply and her reply to him were completed, I have had no indication from the Government that they are minded to adopt the approach that I thought would be preferable and more popular with the House—namely, putting the Question on a motion that the House should adjourn and allowing it to be voted upon. Given that the Government have not done that, which they could do, and just accept the democratic will of the House, it seems rather improbable that they would want to share their privilege in respect of moving an Order of the Day. They know that they have the exclusive right to move an Order of the Day in relation to their own business, so I cannot see that they are likely to indicate otherwise.

This whole proceeding has been extremely regrettable—that is manifest; it is palpable and incontrovertible. This is not the way that the business of the House is ordinarily conducted. It is a most unfortunate state of affairs, but we must all act within our powers and not ultra vires. I have sought to do everything I can for nearly nine and a half years, and I will go on doing so, to support the House and Back Benchers in particular, holding ministerial feet to the fire as necessary, but I have to operate within the powers that I have, not those that some Members perhaps would like me to have.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was in the Chamber earlier when you wisely set out the two options available to Her Majesty’s Government on how they could postpone a debate. One can only presume, from earlier interventions, that they have chosen one of those two options. Can you confirm my understanding of what you said earlier—that both options available to the Government were in order and therefore that whichever route the Government decide to take will not be disorderly?

[Mr Speaker]

Nobody suggested that anything was disorderly. I do not want to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman—[Hon. Members: “Go on!] No, I do not want to be unkind to him. I have known him for probably 30 years, and he is a very dedicated public servant, so I certainly do not wish to be unkind to him, but it is rather a red herring that he is raising. Nobody has suggested that there was anything disorderly. I am merely suggesting that this is a most unusual circumstance, and I am not aware of any precedent for the handling of a matter of this magnitude in this way.

Reference was made earlier to how relatively frequently Ministers choose not to proceed with the business, and a Whip on duty will say, “Not moved.” It is perfectly true that that happens relatively frequently. It certainly does not happen frequently and has not happened in my memory at all in relation to a matter of this magnitude, in respect of which a business of the House motion was passed six days previously. That is my point. It is a simple point. I think it is a powerful point, and I am certain it is a point that the hon. Gentleman will grasp.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are right that these are probably unique circumstances. I certainly have moved a motion from the Back Benches that the Government have not chosen to move, and we have proceeded to debate and vote on it, so that clearly can be done. I understand your point about this being Government business, but did that argument not fall when the business of the House motion was passed and it became the business of the House? It is no longer for Government to decide; it is for the House to decide.

Standing Order No. 46 on page 45 certainly gives you discretion in relation to suspension of debate. I was going to shout “Now”, but unfortunately the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoiled my fun by putting that suggestion on the record. It seems to me that there is some discretion in these unique circumstances, and it is clear from the tone of the House that it is very unhappy with the way the Government are proceeding.

[Mr Speaker]

It is clear that there is much unhappiness. It is important that we be accurate about these matters. I am afraid that I cannot take an instruction to the House in relation to a Government Order of the Day from other than a Government Minister. The hon. Gentleman will know, from his extensive experience as a Member in charge of a veritable raft of private Members’ Bills, that it is, in those circumstances, for him and him alone to decide whether to proceed with or defer an Order of the Day where he is in charge.

I know what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I have explored all this with the Clerk of the House many a time and oft over the last 48 hours. In this instance, even though the business of the House motion was agreed by the House, the Order is the property of the Government, and it is therefore for the Government to decide whether or not to move the business. If Members find that unsatisfactory, it is perfectly open for Members to change the procedures of the House, but I cannot change them on the hoof.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have rightly said that today has been an exceptional day. I can certainly confirm that, in 21 years as a Member of Parliament, I have never experienced a day of this nature. Clearly, this is the sort of day on which a motion of no confidence in the Government should be moved. Can you help me, Mr Speaker? Is an Opposition party that is not the official Opposition in a position to move such a motion of no confidence?

[Mr Speaker]

It is open to a representative of a party other than the principal Opposition to table such a motion. The ordinary working assumption is that such a motion is taken if it is proffered by the official Opposition. I will leave it there for now. I am not saying whether this is desirable or undesirable. I am the custodian of the rights of the House and of the rigorous application of correct procedure. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, who is a former Deputy Leader of the House, readily acknowledges that. I will not duck my duty—I did not duck my duty on the contempt motion, and would not in comparable circumstances again—but I come back to the point that one has to operate within one’s powers.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Anybody observing these proceedings today would say that you have played a blinder in trying to get this House to demonstrate what it wants and to say exactly what is happening with this meaningful vote. It looks likely—it is almost certain—that the Government will have their say, which means that we will not be able to vote on their cancelling this meaningful vote, but I wonder whether we may have an indicative vote of this House. When the Order of the Day is read and the Whip responds, if enough of us shout “Now” while Government Members shout “Tomorrow”, would that express the indication of this House, and how would we get that formally recognised?

[Mr Speaker]

I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said—he is an experienced parliamentarian and a passionate one—and I would say to him that we rule in this place by rules, not by shouting. That said, I have periodically over the years exhorted the hon. Gentleman not to shout, and on the whole my efforts to that end have been spectacularly unsuccessful. I have no reason to expect that if I were to exhort Members not to shout when they are minded to do so this evening, I should be any more successful. The hon. Gentleman and other Members will do what they wish to do at the appropriate moment.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

It might surprise you, Mr Speaker, but I was not able to join your social gathering last night.

[Mr Speaker]

Neither was I!

[Stephen Barclay]

We are both dealing with the complexity of the issues.

On the substance of the point raised by the hon. Lady, I should say that this is the very essence of why we need the certainty that the deal offers. The alternatives that she points to are the uncertainty of no deal or of a second referendum. I know she desires a second referendum, given a number of questions she has put to the Prime Minister, but that would bring uncertainty to our democracy and politics.

[Mr Speaker]

I gather that the hon. Lady was given the award of Labour MP of the year; I have a feeling that the relevant west London media organs will soon be aware of this important fact, if it has not been divulged to them thus far.

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

If, or when, the withdrawal agreement is voted down next week, no deal is not the only option. There is a third option—to revoke article 50. We know what the Advocate General said earlier this week. Is the Secretary of State aware that the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union will give its final opinion—the opinion of 26 judges—on this issue at 8 am on Monday? MPs will therefore have the answer to the question whether article 50 can be unilaterally revoked. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he will be coming to the Chamber, in the wake of that decision, on Monday afternoon, to make a statement about the implications of the judgment of the Grand Chamber?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will take Questions 3 and 19 together.

The Secretary of State has regular discussions with his Cabinet colleagues. We also engage with the Scottish Government through the Joint Ministerial Committee and the ministerial forum, which I co-chaired on Monday. The political declaration makes it clear that free movement will end. We will design a future immigration system that works for all parts of the UK.

[Mr Speaker]

I had no previous notice of that intended grouping, but it is, as far as I can see, unexceptionable.

[Martyn Day]

The average EU citizen living and working in Scotland contributes £10,400 a year in tax revenues. Does the Minister think it is acceptable to cut the Scottish tax intake by £2 billion by 2040?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mohammad Yasin]

No. 8, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman must have been momentarily inattentive. His question has been grouped with this. His chance is now.

[Mohammad Yasin]

Dunbia Cardington is a major employer in Bedford. Despite years of trying to recruit staff locally, the business relies on workers from the EU, who make up 90% of the workforce. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s future immigration policy, which restricts the low-skilled workforce that the factory depends on, puts the future of the company at risk?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The very simple answer is yes, Ministers have been meeting with councils up and down the country. There are four Ministers within my Department and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government who also do that. I suppose it is an interesting balance, when trying to get a deal with some of our best friends, whether to float above the surface the extent of the no-deal planning we might be doing, but a responsible Government plans for everything.

[Mr Speaker]

Very briefly—a sentence—Christine Jardine.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Given the continued concern about medical supplies in the event of a no-deal Brexit, can the Minister assure us about the latest situation for people on life-saving medicines?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Chris Heaton-Harris)]

I thank my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour for his question. I know how hard he works in his constituency, and he always puts me to shame with the amount of work he does for his constituents.

I remind my hon. Friend of the answers he has heard on this so far, before giving him some extra bits. We already have over 300 plans that we are delivering to ensure that, should we be in a no deal scenario, it goes smoothly. We have plans for our border, and he will have heard about the amount of legislation, primary and secondary, that is going through the House, and I have some specific examples.

On 2 November. Canada signed a nuclear co-operation agreement with the UK. Later in November, the Competition and Markets Authority started its recruitment campaign to hire staff to fulfil the obligations of its new state aid role. We have begun a pet travel awareness campaign to advise pet owners of the actions they would need to take to be able to travel to the EU with their pets from March 2019. The Home Office has recruited 300 people to its readiness taskforce, and it was on track to be deployed in November. I could go on.

[Mr Speaker]

Can I very gently say to Ministers that they appear today to be adopting what I can only describe as an Oxford high table approach to political debate? That no doubt has its own merits, but we are subject to the constraint of time, and therefore I would urge a degree of pithiness of exchange.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. The German owner of the Barden factory in Plymouth has announced that the precision ball bearing plant and 400 jobs will go, and it blames Brexit for the closure. Will the Secretary of State join me and Plymouth’s Conservative MPs in encouraging Barden’s German owner, Schaeffler, to change its mind and keep this profitable plant open?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Barclay]

I very much hear the point that my hon. Friend makes. As I am sure he is aware, I am meeting colleagues and listening to concerns, including those on the backstop. Obviously, we also need to be mindful of the imperative of the guarantee that we have given to the people of Northern Ireland, which was given for a reason, in terms of the peace process and ensuring that we honour the obligations that have been given to the people of Northern Ireland.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Helen Goodman. She is not here. Oh dear, where is the hon. Lady? I hope she is not indisposed.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That was very interesting, but rather long.

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

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is most significant indeed that yesterday the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, in saluting the support the Prime Minister has personally given to the negotiations, observed that for the first time the Prime Minister of Spain has publicly accepted that the inclusion of a protocol to protect the interests of Gibraltar is a done deal if there is a deal and an agreement? Does that not demonstrate how important it is for any friend of Gibraltar that there is a deal and it is carried in this House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There are huge global opportunities for the UK as a global trading nation, and ports such as those in his constituency will thrive as the UK pursues global free trade.

[Mr Speaker]

In the spirit of helpfulness to new Members, may I gently say to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), whom I know wished to come in on the previous question, that with modest guile it would be perfectly possible for him legitimately to shoehorn his inquiry into the current question?

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As has been said, the Fisheries Bill is to be introduced today. So does my hon. Friend find it as strange as I do that the Scottish National party is leading a delegation to Brussels today to advocate not only staying in the single market and customs union, but, presumably, the common fisheries policy, as well as all the other institutions of the EU in which it is the SNP’s policy to remain? Can she confirm that it is this Government’s position to stay in none of those institutions?

[Mr Speaker]

It is now a he, rather than a she, but the thrust of the inquiry stands.

[Mr Walker]

We are grateful, Mr Speaker. I can absolutely confirm that it is our Government’s position to leave the CFP. Having met the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the Scottish Seafood Association to discuss these issues, I think they would be as shocked at the SNP’s position on this as my hon. Friend is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman]

Looking after the future of this nation means respecting the democratic voice of this nation. Yes, 700,000 people marched on Saturday, but 17.4 million people voted to leave, and we do not simply ignore their voices just because we do not like what they said. I ask the hon. Gentleman, who obviously supports a second referendum and, worse still, one that would have remain as an option, to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask himself whether he can truly call himself a democrat.

[Mr Speaker]

I should say to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that I was speaking at a theatre in Colchester last night and I referenced him in the course of my remarks. Knowing that he is not altogether averse to a focus upon himself from time to time, I think he would have enjoyed my observations.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that, if the 2016 referendum is not honoured, a second referendum would have no credibility whatsoever?

[Suella Braverman]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is not the best of three. It is not about, “You keep trying until you get the result you want.” This was a historic vote, when millions of people put their faith in democracy. To do anything other than revere that vote would undermine democracy and cause a collapse in that faith.

[Mr Speaker]

I am relieved to see that the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), who is a most assiduous attender in the Chamber, has beetled into the Chamber just in time. This is very good news.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

16. What steps the Government have taken to co-operate with other EU states on those countries’ preparations for the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

We are running slightly late, but I want to accommodate the last two questioners.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

18. What estimate he has made of the volume of legislation that would be required in the event of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The hon. Gentleman can come back through the UK lane.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) is now clear about his domestic arrangements for the future. No doubt we will get an update in due course.

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

Bed manufacturing contributes over £330 million to the UK economy, employing 7,000 people in over 155 companies. In Batley and Spen alone, there are 35 bed manufacturers employing over 1,000 staff. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with bed manufacturers to protect them from a no-deal Brexit?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

There are two colleagues bobbing who have not had a question so far. I call Martin Whitfield.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker.

On this sitting day in 1971, by 356 votes to 244, this House voted to join the EEC. Could the Secretary of State give us the benefits of that decision?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry, but we must now move on.

Before we hear the urgent question, I wish to make a short statement about the recording of names in the Division list printed in Hansard relating to new clause 7, in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill.

I am sorry to report that there are a large number of errors in that list. Those appear to have been caused by a technological failure. The numbers recorded as voting on either side of the Division are recorded by the Tellers. Those numbers—I hope the House is following me—are correct. Moreover, the names recorded on the Commons voting app—with which all present, I feel sure, will be closely familiar—are also correct. Urgent steps are now being taken to correct the record, and the Clerk Assistant is investigating what went wrong, with a view to taking necessary corrective action. He has asked me to pass on his apology to Members concerned. I cannot identify them individually—that would be a most burdensome and lengthy task—but I hope that they will take this as an apology to all. A revised, corrected list will be printed. I hope that that satisfies the House for now.

[Mr Sheerman]

It could be the Russians.

[Mr Speaker]

I am always grateful for the assistance proffered from a sedentary position by the hon. Gentleman.

Leaving the EU: Meaningful Vote

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I do not think there was a question there, but as the right hon. Lady will know, the selection of amendments and what the House can discuss is a matter for the Speaker. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. People can take whatever view they like, but, to be fair, the Secretary of State is always an estimably courteous individual in the Chamber, and we must hear the fella.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm once again that the choice in the meaningful vote is clear—either to accept the Government’s proposition or to leave without a withdrawal agreement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

I do not think that the hon. Lady was right in either of her key points. The memorandum that we published sets out very clearly that there will be a substantive motion. It will be, in our view, subject to amendments. What we cannot have is a vote that renders meaningless the outcome of the referendum.

[Mr Speaker]

There has been much reference to the Procedure Committee, of which the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is of course a distinguished ornament.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The evidence given to the Procedure Committee last week was very clear. If there is no deal under section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, there will be a vote on a neutral motion. If there is a deal, there must be a meaningful vote under section 13(1). That motion is amendable, and amendments must be taken first, unless the Government produce their own business statement, and there has to be a vote on it. That is the procedure.

The important point to understand, however, is that deal or no deal, meaningful vote passed or not, can only affect the deal; it cannot affect the outcome of Brexit, because that is in statute. Only the Government can introduce legislation, so only the Government can stop Brexit on 29 March. Will the Secretary of State therefore give an unequivocal declaration to the House that in no circumstances—deal or no deal, deal rejected by the House or accepted—will Brexit not proceed on 29 March?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will call a very small number of Members now, but colleagues will also have an opportunity to question the Prime Minister, who is always very committed to the House.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

What does the Secretary of State think the consequences would be if a majority in this House opposed the deal, opposed no deal and perhaps in those circumstances even supported a people’s vote if the Government tried to thwart the will of this House being expressed and implemented?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues. My normal practice is to call everybody, but there are constraints of time and we must now move on. People will have the opportunity to question the Prime Minister.

EU Exit Negotiations

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. It is always good to see him in his place, but may I politely point out that it would have been much better if this statement had come from the Prime Minister? It is no good hiding behind the badging of the Salzburg summit as informal. It was the Prime Minister who pushed for Brexit to be on the agenda at Salzburg; it was the Prime Minister who was there to lead the negotiations, and it was the Prime Minister who failed to secure a breakthrough. So it should be the Prime Minister, not the Secretary of State, in Parliament this afternoon explaining what went wrong.

After all, while the Prime Minister was negotiating in Salzburg, the Secretary of State was busy writing gimmicky letters to me about Labour policy. The image of the Secretary of State writing gimmicky letters on the very day of the Salzburg negotiations speaks absolutely for itself. It would also have been better if today’s statement contained details of substantive progress. Instead, it is like groundhog day. We get the same old story. The Secretary of State pretends that everything is going according to plan; it is just a question of dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s; everything will be all right in the end; and if it isn’t, we just crash out with no deal, stockpile food and medicines and declare that to be a great success.

I know that the Brexit Secretary will be tempted in reply to me to do what he usually does—to read out his pre-prepared attack lines about me and the Labour party. Can I urge him to resist that temptation and respond to the very serious questions to which this House and the country deserve answers? First, this Secretary of State repeatedly assured Parliament, including from that Dispatch Box, that a deal would be reached by the October Council—his words. Well, that is next week. The statement contains no such assurance today, so can he, first, update the House on when he now expects a deal to be put before Parliament?

Secondly, it is all very well the Secretary of State saying that we are

“closing in on workable solutions”

and listing the areas of agreement reached months ago, but we have been here before—many times—and that overlooks the fact that the remaining bit is the hard bit of agreeing the backstop in Northern Ireland. A solemn commitment to a legally binding backstop in Northern Ireland in all circumstances was made last December. Ten months later, all we are hearing is that the Government will publish updated proposals on the backstop at some unspecified date. There are nine days to go, so when will that be? There is no answer in today’s statement and we need an answer. Can the Secretary of State take the opportunity now to scotch rumours that the Government are not even intending to publish a backstop proposal by next week? [Interruption.] I am being repeatedly asked what I would do. I would happily swap sides at any stage, and a lot more progress would be made in the negotiations. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have had reason to say to you before, Mr Spencer, that I am quite worried about you. I always regarded you as a rather laid back, gentlemanly farmer, but you seem to have mutated into something altogether more vociferous and aggressive. I cannot believe it is what you are eating. Calm yourself, man!

[Keir Starmer]

On the backstop, it is being reported that the Government are now willing to accept an indefinite UK-wide customs union as part of the Northern Ireland backstop offer—of course, it will not actually be using the words “customs union”. So can the Secretary of State set the record straight: is a customs union now the Government policy, at least for the Northern Ireland backstop—yes or no?

Thirdly, the Secretary of State repeatedly told Parliament that the final deal this House votes on would include a “clear blueprint” for the future relationship with the EU. In recent days, the Government have been emphasising just how precise this will be, yet it is nowhere to be seen. The Chequers proposals have been widely rejected by the EU and by MPs from across this House, and there is growing concern now that the Government are heading for no deal, as recent warnings from businesses, including Toyota and BMW, underline. If it is not no deal, will it be a vague deal asking us to jump blindfolded into the unknown? Labour will not support that. So will he take this opportunity to rule out a vague or blind Brexit?

For all the warm words, the reality is this: the Government have had 18 months yet they have not even concluded the terms of the withdrawal agreement and they have barely started negotiating the details of the future relationship with the EU. A responsible Government would realise the fix they are in. Instead, this Government simply repeat the mantra, “It’s Chequers or no deal.” It is not so much “nothing has changed” as “nothing can change”. This is not a necessity; this is a political choice, and it is deeply irresponsible. No Government have the right to plunge the country into chaos as a result of their own failure. Time is running out, but there is still time to change course, and I urge the Secretary of State to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry to see the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) looking mildly anguished.

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

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

No? Well, I am heartened to hear it. We must hear from the voice of Harwich and North Essex, Sir Bernard Jenkin.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I commend my right hon. Friend and the Government for being absolutely determined to avoid any new infrastructure at the Northern Ireland border. Can he explain what the Government’s policy will be if we leave the European Union with no deal, and therefore there is no backstop and we have a customs frontier? Will the Government implement the technical measures to maintain an invisible customs frontier? Will he rule out any new infrastructure at the border between the north and the south?

Brexit Negotiations and No Deal Contingency Planning

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, two admirably courteous fellows. What a difficult choice. I call Mr Jeremy Lefroy.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I thank my right hon. Friend, his colleagues and their teams for the huge amount of work they have done over the past couple of months in making a great deal of progress, as was quite evident last week and, indeed, in the Exiting the European Union Committee’s meeting with Mr Barnier yesterday? However, while I understand that the idea of coming away from all this with no deal must be put out there, it cannot be contemplated with any degree of equanimity. It would be seen by the world as a failure on our part and that of the European Union. It is not acceptable.