Business of the House

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend is not the first hon. Member to raise concerns about the Mayor of London’s performance on crime and, most disturbingly, increasing violent crime. My hon. Friend asks how we can hold the Mayor to account, and whether we should debate that. I would suggest another course of action: vote him out of office.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House could have announced today that next week, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, the Football Governance Bill or the Renters (Reform) Bill would be before the House, but she did not. We are told that senior Government figures have said that the reason why Conservative MPs are being sent home on a one-line Whip until the middle of April is to placate them and ease tension. This Government have simply ceased to function. Their way of stopping their most important policy is to send Tory MPs home, so that they do not have to vote for it. It is beyond a joke. Can we have a debate most urgently about when we will have the general election that this country needs to get this useless Government out of office?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman could have heard my business statement, and he may not be aware that the Football Governance Bill has been brought forward. I remind the Opposition, who make allegations about Conservative Members phoning it in, that we want our legislation to go through. If business is collapsing, it is because the Opposition are not doing engaging in business; they have not even managed to get speakers for their own Opposition day debates. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reflects on that.

Privileges Committee Special Report

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

With all respect to the hon. Lady, in her remarks today, she used a range of phrases, which she scatter-gunned around the Chamber, in an accusatory way about what individuals have said or may not have said. She cannot apply that to all of us, so I think she should have been careful in some of the phrases that she used.

If I may, I will comment further about my concerns with the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) touched on an important point, about which Mr Speaker is also very clear—he is a strong proponent of the concept that important matters should come to the House first, before they are published in the media. As she pointed out regarding the publication of Committee reports, paragraphs 15.10 and 38.56 of “Erskine May” refer to the premature publication and disclosure of Committee proceedings as being in contempt. Cakeism is a phrase that has already been used this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg). We cannot have it both ways.

I recognise the Committee’s frustrations that the report was leaked, and I know that comments have been made when the Government did not come to the House before announcing things in the media. However, we have to be concerned that details contained in the special report were published by a particular newspaper at 7.20 pm on Wednesday 28 June, some 13 hours and 40 minutes before the special report was published, and before people named in its annex were informed.

Frankly, given how this has all been conducted—individuals were not contacted in advance and there was no right of reply—is the House not concerned that that newspaper, The Guardian, knew of the report’s contents before the rest of us did? Surely that should be a matter for investigation as well. If the Committee is so concerned with cases of contempt of the House, investigating how the report or its contents were leaked to The Guardian before it was published is something else that should feature in due process.

Would any members of the Committee or its Chair like to explain why that newspaper knew in advance, before the rest of us? What action is going to be taken? We have already heard talk about restoring parliamentary democracy and integrity to Parliament. Again, that would give confidence to Members that due process was being followed, but it would also give confidence to the public, who also expect standards across the board to be upheld.

We have a report from the Committee that names Members and peers, but it did not inform us in advance. We have discussed already the House’s rules on behaviour and courtesies. I personally think that Members should be given notice; that is respectful. During my time serving on the Front Bench, or on the Back Benches, as I am now, I hope that I have never offended a Member of this House by being so discourteous as to name them without informing them in advance. That is a good standard that we should all live up to.

Not only has there been a lack of courtesy shown to Members named in the report, but the absence of due process concerns me a lot. Until this was published, I and colleagues had no idea that we were being investigated, or that there were references to us as individuals in the annex in relation to the inquiry into Mr Johnson.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Priti Patel]

I did not see the Member appear at the start, but I will give way.

[Mr Perkins]

I have been here for all of the right hon. Lady’s speech and, over the 14 minutes of it,, I have been desperately hoping she was going to get to the point she really wants to raise. She does not disagree that she said the things that are in the report, but she thinks it is discourteous that she was not told in advance. She thinks other people may have said things that were missed out of the report. What is actually the main point of what, over the last 14 minutes, she has been saying?

[Priti Patel]

If the hon. Gentleman had the courtesy of listening, the point is actually due process. As he would know, if he had listened to my opening remarks, I also said that I was sure not everyone here would agree with what I was about to say, but affording the courtesy of debate in this House was exactly why we were here. If he does not want to hear what I am saying, he might actually want to leave the Chamber, rather than carrying on in this way. It is important in the debate to have a right of reply. Again, I appreciate that he and other Members will disagree with this, but I think it is right that the basics should be put on the public record. The country is watching. Well, some of the country is watching, if they are not watching Wimbledon right now, but this is an insight into how we engage in our business, and what right of reply Members do or do not have. Quite frankly, this will affect all Members; it is not just about supporting those today, because there will be others in the future and that is important.

Some of the language that has been used is important as well. I personally think that it simply cannot be right or fair for a Committee to make claims or assertions without giving notice in advance, or the chance to at least respond to allegations. I am going to go as far as to say, if I may, that I found some of this deeply secretive and I just do not think that Select Committees operate in this way; they really do not. I have had the great privilege of serving on a number of Select Committees and I think the way in which we conduct ourselves is very important.

I notice that the Leader of the House said that this is deeply unusual. It is all deeply unusual, and not just because of a lack of process. My office, supported by the House of Commons Library, undertook some research to see if there was any precedent for MPs being named, and effectively or potentially sanctioned or censured in a report by a Committee. [Interruption.] No, I am giving an example. I hear what the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) says, but I am just giving an example—colleagues might learn something from this, too. Even the Library said that it could not think of any Committee on Standards, Privileges Committee, or former Committees on Standards recommending anything of this nature without the opportunity for those named to make their case. Today is a chance at least to give that a bit of an airing and to make the case as well.

I will conclude my remarks. Again, in the light of what I have said thus far, there are so many issues here that I think will have wide implications for Parliament, if I may say so, and for Members of Parliament. I have touched on process. The evidence issue—the lack of evidence that the Committee has presented—has been touched on as well. Paragraph 14 makes serious allegations that I and other Members were part of a co-ordinated campaign of interfering with the work of the Privileges Committee, so one would expect those claims to be backed up with some serious volumes of evidence, but they are not. While the Committee may obviously disagree with Members, the fact that people can now freely express views about the inquiry is obviously part of living in a healthy democracy, with free speech and freedom of expression. However, the Committee has not explained in this report how the expression of an opinion or a view that some people shared could in itself undermine the work of the Committee or could be co-ordinated.

The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans), a member of the Committee, touched on my remarks quoted in the annex. Those remarks came from an interview on Budget day that covered a range of issues: the economy, taxation, the Budget, migration—lively issues that I think all Members in the House like to discuss. We also discussed Mr Johnson, and the activities of a Mrs Sue Gray and the Leader of the Opposition. It is not at all clear from the Committee’s report why it believes that a reference, in a lengthy interview covering multiple issues, to questions over transparency and accountability constitutes interference in its work, could be disturbing, or could be part of a co-ordinated campaign. Those are areas on which we should get clarity.

So far, the suggestions have been one-way; we have been told that we should go to the Committee if there are issues, but the Committee could have raised any issues with us. The Committee could have done that if it had any concern about comments I made. I am not someone who hides behind the sofa in Parliament; many colleagues will recognise that. I would welcome lively engagement, as I am sure other Members referenced in the annex would have done. I certainly would have welcomed the Committee contacting and engaging with me in good time. That is quite important. Frankly, I think the public will still reach their own conclusions about all this.

I appreciate that I have detained the House for a lengthy period—I thank hon. Members for listening—but given the tone of the accusations made, the contents of the annex, and the lack of a prior opportunity to respond, it is important that we have this discussion and that colleagues listen. I hope that the Committee will reflect on comments made about process. I really do not think that there is evidence to substantiate the claims that have been made and, if the motion is agreed to, there will be the ongoing matter for the House of what that means for MPs.

I might be boring for Britain right now, but I believe in transparency, accountability and due process, particularly having sat on the Front Bench; today we have also heard about holding Ministers to account. I believe in all that. Woe betide the Minister who misleads Parliament. Sometimes there is not enough scrutiny of the details of what Ministers say, and not enough challenges. That is why it is important that we have this debate about accountability, transparency, due process, and sometimes correcting the record. I believe, as do other hon. and right hon. Members, in transparency, freedom of speech and Members facing fair and due process when allegations are made about their actions. That should be dealt with properly. I urge Members to think about the impact that the report will have on our parliamentary democracy and our freedoms. I fundamentally believe that, without freedom of speech, there can be no democracy; it is something that we have to preserve, stand up for and respect in this House.

Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House referred to the evidence, and it is important that people who perhaps do not have the report in front of them understand the depth of evidence that the Committee looked at. That included: visiting No. 10 Downing Street; looking at evidence supplied by the Government, emails, WhatsApp messages and photographs; and conducting many hours of interviews. Does she agree that those who have not had all that evidence and have not done all those interviews should not presume to say that the Committee was wrong when it did that hard work on our behalf?

[Penny Mordaunt]

We all owe the Committee a debt of gratitude for the work that it has done on our instruction, but it is for Members to decide whether its conclusions are correct or not.

Replacement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Are you coming to the subject now?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Perkins, if you want to go and get a cup of tea, I am more than happy to pay for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

I would very much like to be able to tell all hon. Members what the Prime Minister’s business is today, but there are very serious matters, as well as economic matters, in her in-tray. As Members know, she comes to this House on a regular basis, and she will be here tomorrow, but she is not able to be here at this precise moment.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The markets were spooked not just by the reckless mini-Budget, but by the sense that we had a Prime Minister incapable of answering questions at the end of her press conference and without any sort of grip on this Government. It is entirely legitimate for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) to give her an opportunity to come here to assure the markets. Is not the reality that the Prime Minister’s inability to answer questions is just as fundamental as her failure on policy in why this country is now in an economic crisis?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am buoyed up by the fact that Opposition Members very much want to see the Prime Minister. I hope that, if she is able to join us this afternoon, they will give her a big cheer.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. I think we do want to fish in a bigger pool, and I think we should always be very concerned about what might broadly be called the quangocracy. We do not want this country run by people who pass and bounce from quango to quango, and pick up nice appointments along the way.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

In response to the point the Leader of the House has just made, with the earnest desire he expresses to ensure that we broaden the pool, what examples can he point to of how the recruitment panel attempted to broaden the pool in this particular case?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The process of the recruitment panel and what it looked at is all set out in its report. It had quite a large number of applicants, and it has to be said that Lea Paterson was the outstanding applicant by a long margin. She is not a characteristic quangocrat: that has not been her career. Until recently, she was the executive director of people and culture at the Bank of England. She is currently an independent member of the University of Warwick remuneration committee. She has previously held a number of senior management positions at the Bank of England, including being the director of independent evaluation. Before working for the Bank, she was a journalist, as economics editor, at The Times. I am afraid I have a particular bias in favour of The Times, its being the great newspaper of record and having fantastic editors, particularly in the 1970s. Journalists are not typical quangocrats, it has to be said—they are normally the ones throwing stones into the pools of the quangocracy—so I do not think that is the type of person we are appointing today.

However, I do take very seriously the criticisms from the right hon. Member for Warley. It is really important that we try to attract people of ability from across the country, because that is what we are trying to do as Members of Parliament. We come together from across the country to try to support a Government who will act with wisdom and discernment, which I am glad to say is what we have at the moment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue his campaign, and I know that there are people sympathetic to it.

In the meantime, I am proud to be able to recommend this Humble Address to the House. If the appointment were to be made, Lea Paterson will serve on IPSA for five years. I commend this motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question and for her distinguished service on the International Development Committee, where she made a great contribution. It is sensible that Select Committees follow Departments—that has been the long-standing principle—but there are other ways to scrutinise expenditure. The Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury Committee have a role in that, as of course do supply days, when individual areas of expenditure can be examined. The House must determine its own structures of Select Committees, as indeed it does. The convention that they shadow Departments does seem to me a sensible one, but that does not rule out other means of scrutiny.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The people of Chesterfield are concerned that HS2 has put in an objection to the recent planning application by the Chesterfield Canal Trust, describing the two projects as currently incompatible. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time on governance and decision making at HS2, so that the Government can ensure these two vital projects do not interfere with each other but work constructively together and that we have can have a sense that the Government have a grip on HS2 and a real commitment to it?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There will be various debates on HS2, not least because part of the legislative programme is continuing, but the subject matter that the hon. Gentleman raises is absolutely ideal territory for an Adjournment debate, and I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will pass on a request to Mr Speaker.

Business of the House

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Government sat on the Dame Mary Ney review into funding oversight of our further education colleges for nine months. The written statement that the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills provided could have been written in nine minutes. May we have a proper debate and statement on the findings of that review, which exposes how the job cuts throughout the civil service in the Education and Skills Funding Agency have prevented the Government from having proper oversight of our further education sector?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Chancellor made announcements with regard to the additional funding that will be made available to further education. The Government have shown their absolute commitment to ensuring that further education is as good as it can possibly be and to improving standards. I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said to others, that there will be an opportunity to raise such matters specifically in the pre-recess Adjournment debate.

House Business during the Pandemic

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

It was my decision to make an application, but it was Mr Speaker’s decision to grant the application. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to question Mr Speaker’s judgment, he should perhaps make that clear. And the very best of luck to him. I see that he is not standing to correct the record in that regard.

The other point that the Leader of the House made last week was that, somehow or other, Members should be prepared to set an example. In this, there might be a bit more consistency than in other arguments. Let us remember that the ending of virtual proceedings ran contrary to the Government’s own advice that if someone could do their job from home, they should do so. Of course, the Government have form when it comes to disregarding that particular piece of advice.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

In response to the point that was just made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) about the vote that we had a week ago, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that all those people who were having to shield were unable to vote in that Division? It was one of the biggest Conservative rebellions since Brexit, but lots of people were unable to vote. If those people had been able to vote, we might well have had a different result, so does he agree that it would be sensible for us to have another vote with everyone who has been elected to this House able to take part?

[Mr Carmichael]

Having committed ourselves to virtual or hybrid proceedings, it would have been sensible to make the decision to end them by a virtual process. However, that was not done, and we have to just accept that that was the way the vote went. If the hon. Gentleman has regard to the excellent letter from the Constitution Unit at UCL, he will find that it makes exactly that point.

One of the things that pains me more than anything else is the way in which the Government have chosen to do this without consulting the other parties in the House and without seeking to build the necessary consensus. So let us be quite clear that, in the event that this all goes horribly wrong, as it may well, only one person and one party in this place will be responsible for that.

I do not want to take too much time, but before I sit down I have to reflect on the fact that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) was quite harsh in her judgment of the Leader of the House last week. She said that he had been the worst one ever. As I say, I think that that was harsh. Personally, I always reserve judgment until someone has left office as to where they stand in the panoply of greats. However, I think it is worth while comparing how the Leader of the House currently does the job with the way in which it has been done by many of his predecessors.

I was first elected to this place in 2001, and the Leader of the House then was Robin Cook, a man who had been demoted, as many said, from being Foreign Secretary. He never saw the transfer to being Leader of the House as any sort of demotion, however. He gave a weekly masterclass at the Dispatch Box in what it was to be a parliamentarian, and I am pretty sure that he would have had no truck either with the physical return at this time or, indeed, with the manner in which it has been executed.

In her assessment last week, the hon. Member for Wallasey prayed in aid the Prorogation of Parliament as well as the ending of the hybrid proceedings. She might have added to that the treatment of the Liaison Committee. The reason that Robin Cook—or, if you prefer, Sir George Young or William Hague, who have also given distinguished service to the House as Leader of the House—would never have had any truck with this sort of thing is that they understood that the office of Leader of the House had two functions. Yes, the Leader of the House is a Minister who is accountable to Parliament, but also, uniquely, they have a role as Parliament’s representative within Government. Robin Cook, William Hague, George Young and others all understood the importance of that role, and they were never afraid to carry it out. They understood the importance of the principle of equality of all Members and the people that they represent in this place, and they understood that it was their duty in Government, at the Cabinet table, to protect it. That remains the duty of the Leader of the House at the moment. It pains me beyond measure that he is so determined not to do his duty, and my plea to him today is a simple one: he should change his mind and do his duty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a great deal going on in the world and, thanks to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, we are debating ourselves—a subject that is of course of great interest to us.

[Mr Perkins]

The right hon. Gentleman’s concern was that virtual debates were preventing the Government from getting on with their business, but the way in which debates took place was just one aspect; another was whether we needed to be here to vote. Even if we had wanted to get rid of virtual contributions to debates, surely we could still have had electronic voting, which would have been much quicker than queuing 45 minutes for a Division, as we did last week.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous attender of Parliament and very thoughtful in his contributions. Where I disagree with him is in my understanding of what a Parliament is. Parliament is a coming together from across the nation to one place; therefore, we cannot carry out our role as parliamentarians properly and fully when we are absent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a point with which I have a great deal of sympathy. I would remind hon. and right hon. Members that the formal advice from the Government is that those who are living with people who are shielding do not themselves need to shield, but I understand why many people who are living with people who have to shield want to shield as well for the safety of the member of their family. As I said to the hon. Member for Rhondda, I am listening very carefully to that point.

[Mr Perkins]

Like Conservative Members, I do not think that Parliament is at its greatest when we spend our time debating our own affairs, but if they feel so strongly that a debate about what happens here is a waste of time, could they not help this debate to finish quicker by not constantly interrupting the Leader of the House to tell him that we should not be discussing the damn thing?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman has now made two interventions, so I wonder why he is suddenly so concerned about other people’s interventions. I can see that we should perhaps have a Standing Order to say that he may intervene but no other hon. or right hon. Members may do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I have some sympathy with the comments of a couple of Conservative Members about the fact that at a moment of such importance in the nation we are once again here discussing our own affairs and our own matters. None of us enters this place in order to spend many hours having these kinds of debates, and I do not intend to spend the whole of my five minutes talking about it, but it is an important matter: we all know what these changes are about. The Government were very concerned that the Prime Minister was being exposed every Wednesday because he had not got those public schoolboys barracking behind him when he was being asked questions, and so the order went out, “We need people back in the Chamber so that this scrutiny—this forensic approach that the Leader of the Opposition is bringing forward—can be barracked at and shouted down; we must change the way that Parliament sits.” That is a tremendous shame.

I have some sympathy with the argument that we need to be here in order to do our job. Frankly, I would probably be coming here for these debates myself anyway, although I recognise that there are colleagues who are excluded. However, there is a question about the message that we are sending. The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said that we need to set an example to people out there. At the same time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) pointed out, the Government’s own advice is, “You should work from home if you can”, and we had clearly found a way in which parliamentarians were able to make representations from home. We should have encouraged Members to come back and speak from the Chamber where possible, but allowed those Members who were excluded to continue making their contributions from home.

We should also have kept virtual voting, which is much simpler than the charade that we saw last week. I was very sad that people who had put in a tremendous amount of work to implement that system were unfairly criticised, because if we are going to have physical voting and we are going to have social distancing, then what we went through last week was probably about the best way that we were going to be able to achieve that. I do not blame those people for putting in place that great long queue that we had, but it was a ludicrous spectacle when we were walking up and down the steps of St Stephen’s Hall like marathon runners, going up one road and running back down the other, with people pushing in in front of each other because they thought they saw a chance to jump the queue. It really did not show this place in a good light. We could achieve the Leader the House’s desire to see Parliament represented and to have interventions that are only possible in this kind of Chamber while retaining online voting, so that we will not have to go through the sort of performance that we saw last week. I will leave it there.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Chris Bryant, who must finish by 7.49 pm.

Business of the House

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for asking this vital question, and I am sure we can agree that ensuring we leave the transition period successfully in full by the end of this year is one of the Government’s—and, even more importantly, the British people’s—highest priorities. An extension of the transition period would be in neither the UK’s nor the Europeans’ interest. Both parties want and need to conclude a deal this year to complete the transition period. An extension to the transition period would bind us into future EU legislation without us having any say in designing it, but still having to foot the bill for payments to the EU budget. We must be able to design our own rules, because that is in our own best interests, without the constraints of EU regulation. I would like to assure my hon Friend and the people of Ashfield that the Government are delivering on their promise. Will we have an extension? To quote Margaret Thatcher, “No, no, no.”

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The people of Chesterfield were incredibly happy when Derbyshire clinical commissioning group set up a coronavirus testing unit in the car park of the Proact stadium in Chesterfield, but weeks after it was set up, the vast majority of people from Chesterfield are unable to get a test there, because it is only for key workers, meaning that Chesterfield residents have to travel 30 or 40 miles to get a test. I have been attempting to pursue this, but it seems to be a local example of the national failure. All this testing capacity is going home after an hour every day and people are unable to get a test. Can we have a debate in Government time on the Government’s entire testing strategy so that people can bring local examples and help the Government to really get on top of testing?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The testing strategy has achieved 205,000 tests as of the 30 May in terms of capacity, and that is important. It is the largest diagnostic testing programme in our history, and from scratch it has in a number of weeks got to more than 4 million tests having been undertaken. So that is a significant success, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has driven this personally, and has, to my mind, done absolutely brilliantly in managing to force something through that would not have happened without his individual and personal determination. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and this is one of the ways in which this House being here is always so useful, because specific constituency examples where things can be improved can be brought to the attention of the House. I will certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment (a), leave out from “House” to the end and insert:

“refers to the Committee of Privileges the question of whether the Government’s response fulfils the motion passed on 13 November 2018 and requests the Committee to consider the constitutional and historic context and the proper use, ambit and scope of the motion for return procedure.”

I want to start by thanking my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for putting himself at the disposal of the House yesterday for over two hours, to provide information about the legal impact of the withdrawal agreement. He did so with his characteristic candour and integrity. The use of this motion has happened very rarely in the history of Parliament, and I do not think that any Member can be in any doubt that the information that the Attorney General provided yesterday was a very frank assessment of the legal position. The questions posed by Members on both sides of the House addressed the key issues we must all consider on the legal effects of the withdrawal agreement. My right hon. and learned Friend responded to all those questions in comprehensive fashion.

Alongside yesterday’s session of nearly two and a half hours, the Government have also provided a 48-page legal commentary that sets out the legal effect of each part of the withdrawal agreement. The information provided to the House is the detailed legal position on the withdrawal agreement and, as the Attorney General said to the House yesterday, he continues to be at the disposal of parliamentarians to answer further questions.

I would, therefore, in responding to the contempt motion before us today, urge the House to exercise caution in this matter. The issue at hand is not one of substantive content. As yesterday’s questioning illustrated, there is no real dispute as to the meaning and legal effect of the withdrawal agreement. The Attorney General could not have been clearer about the legal position yesterday. No hon. Member could say in all honesty that the Attorney General has done anything other than treat this House with the greatest respect. There can be no question that he, or the Government, has acted in a manner that is contemptuous of this House.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House says that the Attorney General answered with candour. Indeed, he did, when he said that

“although the House says that I should disclose, I believe that the public interest compels me not to.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 564.]

He made it clear that he was deliberately in contempt of Parliament.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman is not correct. As I have just set out, the Attorney General answered questions from all Members with the most possible frankness on the clear legal position.