Preparations for Leaving the EU

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

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

The Prime Minister should be here. Talks with the EU are collapsing as we speak. The proposals that the Government introduced last week were never going to work, and instead of reacting to challenge by adapting them they are intent on collapsing the talks and engaging in a reckless blame game. It will be working people who pay the price. The Prime Minister should be here to account for his actions.

It is no good pretending that the proposals would work. That is simply not going to wash. You cannot take the UK and Northern Ireland out of the customs union and avoid customs checks. You cannot have customs checks without infrastructure in Northern Ireland. The Government know that, which is why they refuse to answer the very simple question—where will the checks take place? You cannot give a serious response to the EU’s concerns about protecting the integrity of the single market simply by saying, “We’ll put that question off until later.” You cannot be serious about upholding the Good Friday agreement while proposing what amounts to a veto for one party in Northern Ireland over the all-Ireland regulatory zone. Consent of all communities in Northern Ireland is at the heart of the Good Friday agreement, and the Government have ridden roughshod over that principle.

That is why the proposals were never going to work, but instead of responding to legitimate questions from the EU27 or in this House by actually answering them, the Government appear to be pulling the plug, descending into a reckless blame game, instead of putting the country first. Sources close to No. 10 say that a “deal is overwhelmingly unlikely”. Sources close to No. 10 say that it is “essentially impossible”. Sources close to No. 10 have begun blaming people—it is Parliament’s fault, it is the Opposition’s fault, it is the Benn Act, it is Germany, it is Ireland—absolutely defining the character of the Prime Minister, a man who never takes responsibility for his own actions.

The stark reality is that the Government introduced proposals that were designed to fail, and they still will not take responsibility for their own actions. Last night, there were even reports that the Government were threatening to withdraw security co-operation with the EU. That is an astonishing statement. If true, it is beneath contempt. Will the Minister take this opportunity to denounce those comments and confirm that that is not the Government’s position? Will he echo comments this morning by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who said that

“withdrawing security co-operation with Ireland is unacceptable”

and was

“not in the interests of Northern Ireland or the union”?

I know from last week’s statement that instead of answering serious questions the Minister prefers to revert to pre-prepared attacks and gags, but today is not the day for those tricks. Can he be straight with the House? Is it the Government's official position to end negotiations with the EU, and to seek to leave on 31October without a deal? If not, will the Government either propose a different basis for negotiations with the EU, or make it clear that they will seek an immediate extension, as required under the Benn Act, on 19 October? The House and the country deserve a straight answer.

I appreciate that the Minister speaks as if he is giving a statement or a reassuring bedtime story about preparations for no deal, but I remind the House that he used the same tone last week at the Dispatch box when he said:

“The automotive sector…confirmed that it was ready. The retail sector has confirmed that it is ready”.—[Official Report, 25 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 722.]

As he knows, while we were in the Chamber debating that, it drew a furious response. Within hours, the British Retail Consortium issued a rebuttal, stating:

“It is impossible to completely mitigate the significant disruption which would be caused by no deal.”

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders did likewise within hours in response to what the Minister said:

“A no deal Brexit would have an immediate and devastating impact on the industry, undermining competitiveness and causing irreversible and severe damage.”

That was only hours after the Minister said that those sectors were ready. What the Minister tells the House in his reassuring tones and what businesses say are two different things, and he knows it. This is no longer a time for games.

The reality is that no deal would be a disaster for the economy and for businesses. That is underlined by today’s figures from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which estimates additional costs of £15 billion a year for businesses to comply with customs arrangements. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said today that no deal would result in borrowing rising to £100 billion, debt rising to 90% of national income, and growth flatlining. That is why it was essential that the House passed the Benn Act, which was intended as an insurance policy. We did so because we feared that the Government were more focused on delivering no deal than on doing the hard work needed to find a deal. It is clearer now than ever that the Act will be needed.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the shadow Brexit Secretary for his questions. First, he asked where the Prime Minister was. The Prime Minister is talking to our EU partners, attempting to secure a good deal, and he is doing so with the full-hearted support of everyone on the Government Benches. The question that many people will be asking outside the House is why, if the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) says that he is anxious for a deal, he declined to support one on the three opportunities he had to do so. If he wants to be taken seriously as an advocate of compromise and a deal why, in cross-party talks in which we both took part, did he attempt to erect an obstacle at every turn to consensus across the House? That is the conclusion that people will draw.

There is another conclusion that people will draw. The no-deal report was made public three hours before the right hon. and learned Gentleman began asking questions. Having had time to absorb 156 pages, he did not have a single question about no-deal preparation; not a single point to make about how any sector could be better prepared; not a single suggestion, query or contribution about how we can ensure that British business is in a robust position. There was just a series of questions that we have come to expect from him about politics, rather than policy; about positioning, rather than practicalities.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about customs checks in Northern Ireland. He knows—it has been made clear—that those customs checks can take place away from the border, at the manufacturer or other distribution sites. He also asked whether our proposals were serious about maintaining the integrity of the single market. They allow the EU to maintain the integrity of the single market, but is he serious about maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom, because he and his party are more than willing to see a customs border erected in the Irish sea? We would be the only sovereign nation in the world with such a customs border, but he is more than prepared to dance to the EU’s tune, rather than standing up for the UK.

That is the spirit in which the Benn Act was passed. That Act signals to the EU that there are people in Parliament who do not want to conclude a deal, who do not want to leave by 31 October and who want to delay. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is one of them. He has had every opportunity to engage meaningfully with Government, not just on the deal but on no-deal preparations.

When I last spoke to the House, on 25 September—the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to my statement then—I invited any MP in this House to come to the Cabinet Office and the Department for Exiting the European Union to discuss a deal and our no-deal preparations. Only one Opposition MP, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), accepted that invitation. Oh sorry—and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). Two Opposition MPs. That is the measure of the seriousness with which the Labour party, the SNP and all the Opposition parties take our Brexit negotiations: an open offer, an invitation, to come and talk rejected hands down.

Is there any surprise? The right hon. and learned Gentleman in 2017 said of the referendum:

“We’ve had a decision and we respect that decision.”

He also said that the Labour party cannot spend all its time trying to “rub out yesterday” and not accept a result it is honour-bound to respect. As I mentioned earlier, after voting against the deal three times, he rejected the opportunity to come to a consensus between the Front Benches to get a deal through.

We in this Government have compromised. We in this Government are showing flexibility. We in this Government seek to leave without a deal, but faced with the delaying, disruptive and denying tactics of the Opposition we say, on behalf of the 17.4 million: enough, enough, enough—we need to leave.[Official Report, 16 October 2019, Vol. 666, c. 3MC.]

Brexit Readiness: Operation Yellowhammer

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for an advance copy of his statement. Let us get to the detail and test what he says.

First, the right hon. Gentleman says that the negotiations have seen significant movement over recent weeks. Will he confirm that three papers were submitted to the EU last week and one was submitted today, but they are what the EU called non-papers, because they are for discussion and do not commit the member state to the policy outlined in them, and at the moment they are being kept secret from the EU27? What is the thrust or gist of those papers? If we are to assess the likelihood of success in negotiations, we need to know.

Secondly, may I challenge the right hon. Gentleman’s statement that many businesses are already well prepared for no deal? At 3 o’clock last Wednesday, I sat round a table with the leaders of pretty well all the business sectors, and the one message they wanted to get across was how concerned they were that businesses were not prepared for a no-deal Brexit. I do not believe those businesses are saying one thing to me and another thing to the Government. Will he therefore clarify what he meant?

The statement significantly and studiously avoids giving any detail of the scenario that we are told the Government’s civil contingencies secretariat has drawn up. On 9 September, just before we were shut down, an order was made that all the documents prepared within Her Majesty’s Government since 23 July relating to Operation Yellowhammer and submitted to Cabinet or a Cabinet Committee should be laid before the House by 11 o’clock on 11 September. The Government are spending a lot of money telling businesses and the country to get ready, and they want to know what they are to get ready for. They need to know what could happen so that they can prepare. On 11 September, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wrote to the Chair of the Brexit Select Committee,

“I thought it would be helpful to publish the Operation Yellowhammer document based on assumptions drawn up by the last Government.”

I have that document in my hand; it was the only document disclosed. He went on to say,

It is…my intention…to publish revised assumptions in due course”.

Nothing else has been produced.

The document disclosed to the Chair of the Select Committee is dated 2 August. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explain how it is a document of the last Government, not this one? As he knows, it was leaked pretty well in full to The Sunday Times. Just so that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does not try to avoid this by saying that he will not comment on leaked documents, I understand that it also went to the Welsh Government. In response to that leak, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said on the Marr show on 1 September that the document

“predated the creation of this new government”

and that its predictions were the “worst possible eventuality.” The impression he was trying to create was that it is an old document and a worst-case scenario. [Interruption.] Thank you—that is exactly the point I want to come on to: the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster went on to say that it is “constantly updated”. Given that the document is dated 2 August, was it produced for this Government, the last Government or both? If it was for the last Government, have this Government produced any documents of their own since 23 July relating to Operation Yellowhammer? It is no good saying, “We are going to produce them.” This Government have been in place for nine weeks, and there are only five weeks and two days to go until 31 October.

If it is an old document and it was produced for the last Government, why did somebody change the title after the leak to The Sunday Times? It used to be branded the “base scenario”. Somebody got hold of an old, apparently irrelevant document and changed the title, so it is now called, “HMG Reasonable Worst Case Planning Assumptions”. Why was it changed if it is out of date and an old document? Who did it?

Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirm that the rebranded document has 20 substantive paragraphs, each word for word the same as those in the document leaked to The Sunday Times? If it is constantly updated, where are the constant updates? This is the only document we have. Will he confirm that, according to this document, there will be “significant and prolonged disruption” at ports; that the “worst disruption” to the channel straits will last “up to 3 months”; and that there will be “significant queues in Kent” and delays of up to two and a half days at the border for HGVs attempting to use the channel route to France? If the answer is no, what is that based on if there is not another document in existence that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has not disclosed in accordance with the order of this House? The answer is either yes or no, based on a document that has not been disclosed.

Paragraph 18 has not had the attention it should have had. It centres on the impact of no deal on Northern Ireland. I know that this is a matter that the House takes extremely seriously. It sets out the Government’s planned model. It states:

“The agri-food sector will be the hardest hit… Disruption to key sectors and job losses are likely to result in protests and direct action with road blockages. Price and other differentials are likely to lead to the growth of the illegitimate economy.”

It also mentions severe disruption at the border. The document itself concludes that the pressure will be such—[Interruption.] Northern Ireland happens to be extremely important to many people in this House. [Interruption.] We are here to scrutinise the Government; let us get on with it. This document indicates that the Government’s proposed model will come under such pressure that it is unlikely to survive for more than a few days or weeks. The Government’s preferred model for Northern Ireland is unlikely, according to their own assessment, to survive for more than a few days or weeks. A model that will not last more than a week is not a plan. There must be an update. Where is it?

Has the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster received any representations from the energy sector about the impact on oil and gas supplies to the UK in the event of no deal?

Anyone watching today’s proceedings and still thinking that somewhere lurks a clever and cunning plan to get through the chaos of the Government’s making needs to think again. The Government have lost six out of six votes in Parliament and the Prime Minister has lost his majority and his case in the Supreme Court. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said on the radio this morning that the Prime Minister is a born winner. I am glad that he has not lost his sense of humour. However, this is not a game, and for the Government to be five weeks away from leaving the EU without a plan is unforgiveable.

[Michael Gove]

I welcome the shadow Brexit Secretary back from Brighton and to the House of Commons. One thing about the House of Commons is that, whether we lose or win votes, at least they are recorded accurately.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman repeated on several occasions that he believed in constant updates. What a pity he did not update his list of questions in the light of the points that I made in my statement. What a pity he relied on a list that he had drafted many hours earlier.

On the first point, which was about negotiations, there have been detailed negotiations with the European Commission and EU member states. The Commission briefs the EU27 on those negotiations. As a result of those briefings and conversations, we have made the progress that I charted earlier. I hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have been generous enough to acknowledge that the withdrawal agreement is now in play and the backstop can be replaced by alternative arrangements.

The shadow Brexit Secretary asked about business readiness. He said that he met some business organisations and they kept him up until 3 o’clock in the morning with a single message. I imagine that it was, “Whatever you do, please replace your leader.” [Interruption.] I will treat the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s comments with the seriousness they deserve. The automotive sector, which I met earlier this week, confirmed that it was ready. The retail sector has confirmed that it is ready. Ninety per cent. of the companies measured by value that trade with the EU also trade with countries outside the EU and they are in a position to be ready.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the Operation Yellowhammer document, but he seemed to miss the point that the National Audit Office appreciated earlier this year and that has entirely passed him by. Operation Yellowhammer is a reasonable worst case scenario. The Government have taken and are taking steps to mitigate it and the XO Committee has authorised more than 300 actions since we started meeting in August to mitigate the consequences. We will update the House on all the steps that we have taken, many of which are listed in my statement and none of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about, from transitional simplified procedures to the application of EORI numbers. The shadow Brexit Secretary asked not a single question about all the things that business needs to get ready. His pretensions to speak for business are exposed as a hollow sham.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about clever and cunning plans. I suppose he was thinking about the Labour party’s position on Brexit. In February 2017, he said that

“politically the notion that the referendum was merely a consultation exercise… holds no water… we in… Labour… have to accept the result. —[Official Report, 31 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 825.]

Now, in some sort of political equivalent of VAR, he wants to annul that result. Now Labour’s policy is to delay Brexit further, seek an extension of indefinite duration, renegotiate a new deal, then put it to the country in a new referendum, with the deputy leader saying, “Vote remain”, many Back Benchers saying, “Vote leave” and the Labour leader undecided. Labour’s position on Brexit is as solid as a blancmange in a hurricane and as coherent as an apology from Vicky Pollard.

Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications)

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

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

Mr Speaker, may I first associate myself with the many comments about your role as Speaker in this House and the way in which you have performed it, certainly since I have been here? I did not have the chance to speak earlier, but I want to associate myself with those comments.

I rise to support this application in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). At the heart of the application is the simple principle that the Executive should be honest and open with Parliament so as to enable this House properly to scrutinise the Government’s policies and decisions. That should be a given, but it is not, and I am afraid that that speaks volumes. Two important decisions underpin this application. The first is the decision to prorogue the House for five weeks, at what should be the most important and intensive part of the Brexit negotiations. The second is the decision to deny the House the assessment of the preparations for a no-deal Brexit—the Yellowhammer analysis.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, at the very least, Members of this House should be aware of the cost of a no-deal Brexit? That information is crucial to understanding whether the cost is £2 billion or £8 billion.

[Keir Starmer]

I do agree with my hon. Friend.

It is regrettable that we are compelled to use this process of a Humble Address, but the reason is obvious. Today’s measure speaks to a wide truth, which has been touched on a number of times by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, and I am sad to say that it is the basic lack of trust that now exists between this House and the Executive. That has changed in recent weeks. That lack of trust arises very much from the actions of the Prime Minister over the last weeks, which have contributed hugely to it. That alone should be a profound cause of concern to all Members of this House, because in my experience—only four years plus—this House operates on the basis of trust. That trust is going, day by day, and that is why this application has had to be made. That is a concern to all of us and it should be a concern to the Secretary of State.

Let me take the two issues one by one. At this stage of the Brexit process, the House should be sitting as often as possible. Frankly, we should be sitting every day until 31 October. Instead, we have a five-week Prorogation. The Prime Minister and other Ministers say that this is to allow for a Queen’s Speech and a new legislative agenda. If anybody believes that, they will believe anything. As the Secretary of State is likely to try to make that case—I say “try” because I do not think he will succeed—I have two questions. First, why now? Why prorogue now at such a crucial time? What is wrong with proroguing in November when we know the outcome of the negotiations and have a decision? Secondly, why five weeks? There is no requirement for Parliament to be prorogued for five weeks.

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

The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be interested to know that in previous years I have asked the House of Commons Library to provide me with a list of what is going to be in the Government’s Queen’s Speech in advance. This year I have again asked that question, but the Library has replied that it is unable to provide me with any information about what might be in it because it has not detected the Government announcing anything in relation to what is going to be in the Queen’s Speech.

[Keir Starmer]

That intervention speaks for itself.

I remind the House that in the past 40 years Parliament has never been prorogued for longer than three weeks, so it is extraordinary that this Prorogation should come now and for five weeks. In most cases, the House is prorogued for the purposes of the Queen’s Speech for a week or less, and often just for a few days, so to shut down Parliament for so long a period at this stage of the Brexit process is extraordinary.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Ind)]

I am thoroughly supportive of this emergency debate and what it seeks to achieve. Many people perhaps do not realise that this is not just closing down the debate on Brexit; it is closing down the debate on everything. For example, were we not proroguing, we would have had Treasury questions tomorrow and I would have asked a question to represent some of those people affected by the 2019 loan charge issue. That issue, along with the NHS, schools and everything else, will now be set on one side, and this House’s voice on behalf of the people will be utterly muzzled.

[Keir Starmer]

I accept that intervention, because the House is being shut down and we will not be able to do our job. It is not Members of Parliament who are being shut out, but those we represent. Whether in relation to the issues mentioned by the right hon. Lady or any other issue, the people are shut out when Parliament is shut down. It is all very well for the Government to say, “We will produce some documents in relation to our analysis of a no-deal Brexit,” but we are not going to be here for the next five weeks, so when are we going to scrutinise them? Even if the Government do publish something, when do we get to ask questions? Not until it is far too late—two weeks away from the decision. To simply say, “We will publish some documents,” under Yellowhammer or anything else misses the point, which is that there can be no scrutiny if we are not sitting.

There is a wider observation, which is that if the purpose of proroguing is justified by the need to pass a Queen’s Speech, how on earth do the Government think they can now achieve that? I remind the House that the Government now have a majority of minus 40. With Cabinet Ministers and even the Prime Minister’s family resigning the Tory Whip every day, one can only wonder what the number will be by the time the House returns. Surely the Government should now just give up on the idea of a Queen’s Speech and drop Prorogation altogether.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the recording of the Defence Secretary, in which he states his view as to why Prorogation is really happening? It is somewhat different from what the Prime Minister has put forward.

[Keir Starmer]

Yes, I have seen that. Why we are being closed down is blindingly obvious. As I said earlier, if anybody believes it is genuinely for the orderliness of the House and the convenience of a Queen’s Speech, they will believe anything. We are being closed down to stop scrutiny and to prevent this House from expressing a view on no deal. The only positive is that it galvanised the House last week to take the necessary action to prevent no deal, and Opposition Members were pulled together and spoke strongly on the Bill that has just received Royal Assent.

[David Hanson]

I am still mystified as to why, on 14 August, the Prime Minister agreed to go to the Liaison Committee this Wednesday if he already knew that he was going to prorogue the House this Monday to avoid scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

If we were sitting, that would be a question that the Prime Minister could answer, not me. However, we will not be sitting, there will be no questions, and the Liaison Committee will not sit at the very point when we need maximum scrutiny.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

A moment or two ago, the right hon. and learned Gentleman drew attention to the difficulty of passing a Queen’s Speech with a Government majority of minus 43. In such circumstances, would not a general election be the constitutionally proper thing to settle the matter? Will he therefore be voting for one, as the Leader of the Opposition promised last Wednesday, later this evening?

[Keir Starmer]

I am sure that we will have a general election soon, but not at the cost of a no-deal Brexit, which will so damage this country.

The second issue addressed in the motion is the Yellowhammer documents. I wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 25 August—a fortnight ago now—calling for the publication of the documents when Parliament returned after the summer recess. I have not yet received a reply. Instead of any publication, we have had an update, with no supporting documents and no significant new information.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

The Yellowhammer report has been shared with the Welsh Government on a strictly confidential basis and is subject to the Official Secrets Act. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is an affront to the people of Wales not to tell them what is in that report?

[Keir Starmer]

I understand that the people of Wales need that information. This House needs that information. Frankly, to take the country on a route that may well end up with a no-deal Brexit, but without providing the analysis of the impact, is so wrong in principle that we should not be where we are today. We have no documents or analysis to look at, and we are being shut down tonight, so even if some documents are produced, we will be unable to scrutinise them properly. We can only rely on leaks to the Sunday papers that, if right, show that, in the most likely scenario, the Government expect to see the return of a hard border in Northern Ireland—notwithstanding the efforts of many people to ensure that that does not happen—which will disrupt the fuel supply and UK ports, will cause severe delays in relation to medical supplies, and cause significant disruption and impediment to the ordinary functioning of British citizens’ lives and businesses.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards).

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the British Government are planning a £100 million propaganda campaign to sell the virtues of a no-deal Brexit. Could they not save a lot of taxpayers’ money by agreeing to the terms of this motion, which will see the documents published on Wednesday?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

The Government could save a lot of money by coming here and putting information in the public domain without the money attached. We could have had these documents last week. There is an irony in having a public information campaign when the impact assessments are not being made available to Parliament. The Government are spending millions of pounds on telling the country to get ready, but without having the decency to put the documents before Parliament and allowing Parliament to sit so that they can be scrutinised.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is reprehensible that this Government have put us and the people of the United Kingdom in a position where we are having to fight every step of the way, through the courts and through Parliament, just to get basic information about the impact of a no-deal Brexit? That information should have been given to the people well ahead of the referendum. We now have brinkmanship and kamikaze-like behaviour from individuals who are going to damage the lives of our constituents—constituents like mine who will not be able to get medical supplies. He mentioned Yellowhammer and medical supplies. A close member of my family and a number of my constituents suffer from ulcerative colitis and are concerned about medical supplies and about their health. It is a disease exacerbated by stress. This Government are putting the lives and health of our citizens under threat. Does he agree?

[Keir Starmer]

I agree, and this goes to the basic question of transparency. If the Government want to take us down this path, which may end up with a no-deal Brexit, they should have the decency and the courage to put the analysis before Parliament.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the difference between that £100 million that the Government are spending on so-called information and the information that we are seeking the publication of through this emergency debate is the difference between gross propaganda paid for by the taxpayer and factual information that ought to be in the public domain as we approach 31 October?

[Keir Starmer]

I agree. The Government are telling us to get ready, but they will not tell us what to get ready for. I say that really just to underline that these are not trivial documents. They are critically important, and they ought to be put before Parliament.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I may be missing something here, but if the Labour party votes for an early election tonight, all this will be decided on 15 October. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition have the confidence of people, they could then go and give the necessary notice and stop no deal. Why on earth is Labour baulking at the opportunity to get things settled properly by the people of this country?

[Keir Starmer]

That is such an unconvincing answer to the question of whether there should be basic transparency and accountability in this House.

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

I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on stressing the fact that this is not just a technical debate. The livelihoods and lives of our constituents are literally at stake.

On that subject, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman share my concern that my freedom of information request to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the impact on food supplies and the other risks of a no-deal Brexit was turned down? DEFRA confirmed it had that information on what the impact on food supplies will be, but apparently it would not be in the public interest to reveal it. Does he share my concern about that?

[Keir Starmer]

I am concerned about that, and I recall that that is where we started the journey last time, when we asked for impact assessments because freedom of information requests were not fulfilled.

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

Australia is currently suffering from an appalling flu outbreak, which is worse than any it has seen in many years. The vaccine for under-65s is more complex this year and will not be in place before 31 October. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if we have a worse epidemic than in 2017 and do not have the vaccines, which have to be kept chilled, we could grind NHS services across the UK to a halt this year? If we do not have the details from Yellowhammer, how can anybody be prepared?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention on a very serious issue, and it makes the wider point. Many members of the public are extremely concerned about the impact of a no-deal Brexit on their lives, which is why this is the right application to be made. The application has been made because Parliament is being shut down and preparations for a no deal are not being scrutinised.

I commend the motion to the House, and I urge Members on both sides to support it.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

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

The Prime Minister has got herself and the Government into a hopeless position. Having disregarded views from across this House for the best part of two years, the Government now find themselves with a deal that they just cannot get through this House, and time has almost run out. Today, we see that they sort of agree with an initiative to break the impasse, but they also do not agree with it.

All that must be seen in the context of the Prime Minister losing control of the meaningful vote. In truth, we have no idea when or if it will be put again or whether it is winnable. I listened carefully to the Prime Minister’s statement this afternoon, and she said that she had gauged that there was “still not sufficient support” for the deal, but she would continue discussions so that she could bring forward a vote this week. We have been in that loop since 10 December. She says, “I don’t think there’s enough support. I am going to have further discussions, and I am going to put the vote again.” She has lost control of that process.

The Prime Minister has also lost control of the negotiations. That much is clear from the European Council’s decision last Thursday. When the Government were asked, “What happens if the meaningful vote fails?” there was no answer. That created a real anxiety that we could crash out this Friday without a deal. It was in those circumstances that the EU acted as it did in putting forward the dates of 12 April and 22 May, so the Government have lost control of the very negotiations.

The Prime Minister also appears to have lost control of the Conservative party. There have already been too many jokes about whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is the Deputy Prime Minister or the putative Prime Minister, so I will scratch them from my speech, but it is clear that control of the party is gone. Tonight, it is likely that the Prime Minister and the Government are going to lose control of Parliament and of the process in circumstances in which, arguably, they do not need to, because they could have acted last week. The sense that we have to move forward was in the debate last week. It is not new today, because it was clear that many Members want to find a way forward and feel a duty to break the deadlock. That was the subject matter of last week’s debate, but instead of a constructive discussion about how we do it, we will probably divide on this motion.

[Kevin Brennan]

On breaking the impasse, the Conservative manifesto has been cited, but is it not the case that manifestos need to win a mandate in order to be implementable? The Conservative party did not win a mandate at the last general election, because a mandate would mean having an overall majority in this House. Contrary to what the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has said, does that not provide room for the Government to be more flexible on this matter?

[Keir Starmer]

I agree with that sentiment. I have stood here and been critical of the red lines that the Prime Minister put in place at the beginning of the protest, and I have always seen them as the cause of the problem, but today is not really about an inquisition into that—although there will have to be one—because it is about whether we can find a way forward. I honestly think that many Members want to find a way forward and have been working to that end.

[Gareth Snell]

The Prime Minister was rightly questioned by Labour Members earlier as to whether she would honour and be bound by the result if the House were to come together on indicative votes and find a way forward, but the Prime Minister was unwilling to say that she would be. If this House comes forward and finds a majority for a deal that is different from Labour party policy, would we be bound by that and would we whip in favour of it?

[Keir Starmer]

I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister said, and I will say something about that in a minute. I think she was saying that she would not say in advance whether she would be bound, and we need to probe that, because it is an important point. However, we are getting slightly ahead of ourselves. The process that is envisaged, in the first instance, is to test whether there is a majority among different propositions, and we need to get to that stage.

[Sir William Cash]

I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands that although amendment (a) is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), in reality there are only 14 or 15 Conservative names on that amendment so, to all intents and purposes, it is the number of Opposition Members who would carry it. How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the charge that that is inconsistent with our constitutionally accountable Government under Standing Order No. 14? How does he answer the point that an attempt to do so would effectively seek to reverse both the referendum result and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 itself?

[Keir Starmer]

I honestly cannot see how exploring whether there is a majority for a different approach is inconsistent with anything that we have done so far. It is actually what we should have done two years ago, because the referendum answered just one question, which was whether more people would rather be in or out of the EU. It did not answer the next huge question, which was, “If we vote out, what sort of future relationship should there be?” That required serious and considered discussion, and really should have been discussed in this House to see whether we could reach an agreement.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) asked a serious question a moment ago about whether the Labour party would regard itself as bound to give support to any majority that emerges—the same question that we were putting to the Government. The whole thing is pointless if the Labour party is going to whip on all these indicative votes and then whip against a majority if that is not consistent with its manifesto, which also did not get the majority support of the public at the last election. We resolved all this in 1972—I apologise, because I do not normally go back into the depths of history—by having free votes on each side, because it would have been fatuous for the Front Benches to go as part of the process. Will the Labour party have free votes? Will it be bound by whatever majorities might emerge from the indicative voting?

[Keir Starmer]

If amendment (a) is passed tonight there will be an intense discussion about how the process will take place and what the options will be. When we see those options, the Labour party will take decisions about how to whip—[Interruption.] Let me complete the point. If one of the options is no deal, we will of course whip against it. If that is the outcome, we will reject it. Of course, we need to see the options.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I am glad to hear my right hon. and learned Friend say that the Labour party will whip against no deal, because we are talking about my constituents’ jobs. Does he agree that these questions about the constitution are not new? By definition under our constitution the thing that wins votes in this House is the Government, and it was hardly Back-Benchers who broke that convention.

[Keir Starmer]

I agree with my hon. Friend. In a sense, we are in this place only because there is no other way to break the deadlock or the impasse.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the Prime Minister had not tried to exclude Parliament completely from having a say—she had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the Supreme Court to allow us to legislate on triggering article 50—and if she had had a proper cross-party process and a national debate with a Green Paper and a proper White Paper, instead of springing things already decided on this House at the last possible minute, she would have considerably more good will in this place and there would have been a chance for us to do what should be done to get the withdrawal agreement through Parliament because it would have been done properly? We are now scrambling at the last possible minute simply because she has not done the job properly.

[Keir Starmer]

I could not agree more. It is a matter of record that the Prime Minister did not want a vote even on triggering article 50, on which we got a vote only because of a Supreme Court decision. She did not want a meaningful vote, which we got, in the teeth of the Government whipping against it, only because we won a vote. It is true that, every time, the Government have whipped strongly against any amendments about objectives, including a very controversial whipping exercise in the summer that threw up a debate about maternity leave. The idea that the Government have been genuinely open to debate, and have been willing to listen to where the House is, is just not true. We really should have gone through this exercise two years ago, but I understand the argument that we are where we are and we now have to find a way forward, which is why we support amendment (a).

If we are to find a way forward, we need to be clear about what we are not prepared to do. There is no way forward that includes blaming Members of this House for the mess we are in. There is no way forward that includes whipping up a sense of the people versus MPs. There is no way forward based on the notion that Members on either side of the House who persistently and forcefully advance their views, whatever those views may be, are indulging in some kind of illegitimate exercise—they are not. They are making important points on behalf of their constituents and in the national interest. They are doing their job.

I heard the Prime Minister say earlier that she did not intend her comments last week to have that effect, and I am not sure what I am more concerned about: that she made the comments, or that she did not appreciate how they would be heard in the environment in which we live. Nor can we find a way forward based simply on the proposition of putting and reputting the same meaningful vote. The fact that we are even discussing meaningful vote 3, or even meaningful vote 4, only has to be said to be seen to be absurd. The deal has been roundly rejected twice. We now need to move on, and I hope we can begin that process tonight.

[Anna Soubry]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have listened with great care to what the Minister for the Cabinet Office said about the Government’s alternative if amendment (a) fails to win a majority. Does he share my concern that the Government would, in effect, only allow indicative votes on the political declaration? The assumption would be that the withdrawal agreement will go through and cannot be touched or amended. In that event, is this nothing more than a Government ruse to get the withdrawal agreement through via some back-door method?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s intervention. I listened carefully to what the Minister for the Cabinet Office said in relation to the withdrawal agreement. This is no disrespect to him, because I do respect him, but trust in the Government is not where it should be. This is not to disrespect anyone sitting on the Government Front Bench, but when we voted to take a no deal off the table, and when we voted on an extension, we were voting on the basis of what he said from that Dispatch Box about a short extension, in the event that the meaningful vote failed, being reckless.

When the letter to President Tusk was written last week, some of us were therefore taken aback and did not think it reflected what this House had decided. That is now one of the problems in relation to this exercise, because there is a lack of trust. If amendment (a) is not passed this evening, we may find that we are not where we thought we would be when we get to Wednesday, Thursday and Friday—it would not be the first time.

The decision of the European Council to grant an extension to article 50 was a necessity and, in truth, the only way to prevent our leaving without a deal on 29 March, but, as I have said, any extension must be for a purpose, which is why we need to come together to decide that purpose. The Minister for the Cabinet Office said two weeks ago, and he elaborated on it today, that the Government would consult the other parties through the usual channels and work to provide a process by which the House could form a majority to take things forward. It seems that the Government agree with what amendment (a) intends to achieve. If it is passed, MPs will decide the options, which is right. The Government say that would give too much control to MPs, but then they say, “If it doesn’t go through, we will provide the time. As for the options, that should be for MPs.” If the Government are true to what they say, MPs will decide the options in any event, so the easiest thing would be for the Government simply to signal that they accept the amendment. We could then foreshorten the debate, move forward and start the discussion on how the process will actually work.

Amendment (d), in the name of the Opposition, seeks to achieve that purpose, and amendment (a), in the name of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and others, does so, too. We will be supporting both amendments this evening.

[Liz Kendall]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree it is important that MPs should determine not just the options but how those options are voted on? Many hon. Members would be concerned if we voted on one option after another, rather than voting on all at the same time. The benefit of amendment (a) is that it allows precisely that, for MPs to vote on all options at the same time, as well as determining what those options are.

[Keir Starmer]

My hon. Friend anticipates my next sentence, which is that we recognise that Members will have different views on how the process should go forward. There will have to be intensive discussions over the next couple of days as to how that operates, but it needs to be a process that allows us to arrive at a sustainable majority view.

[Ian Murray]

My right hon. and learned Friend and his team have done a fantastic job on this issue. Will he try to answer my question, which the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster failed to answer twice this afternoon? The Prime Minister said in her statement that, unless this House agrees to it, a no deal will not happen. What does my right hon. and learned Friend surmise that means? What does he think the Government are trying to achieve?

[Keir Starmer]

I think it is a version of what has gone before, which is to say that the Government accept there is no majority in this House for a no deal—there certainly is not, and I do not think there ever has been—but, at the same time, to leave the threat of a no deal dangling by some kind of legal default. If the Prime Minister’s comment has meaning, and I hope it does, it ought to commit the Government to take whatever steps are necessary in order to avoid a no deal, otherwise it is meaningless. It is really important that that is established.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Is this not another example of the doublespeak we have come to expect from the Government? Our concern this evening is that we are witnessing another example of doublespeak and, potentially, double dealing. The implication of the Government accepting both the spirit and effect of the Letwin proposal while saying they will not be bound by it and not telling us whether they will do precisely what it says makes us all suspect it is another piece of trickery designed to get this taken off the table tonight, only for us to find that we are no further forward tomorrow.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I do think there is a trust issue. I hope that that can improve. The letter to President Tusk was an example of that because, having supposedly taken no deal off the table, the only extension that was asked for was one in the event that the meaningful vote failed, rather than if it went through. That left the prospect, but for what the European Council decided last Thursday, of no deal this Friday going back on the table, just a week after we thought we had taken it off the table.

So we do need to get into Wednesday. We need to have an intense discussion about how the votes on Wednesday are to be taken and see whether we can reach a consensus about that, reach a majority and find where that lies. We need to consider the credible options. Labour has long advocated a close economic relationship, including a customs union and single market alignment, but we have also made clear our support for a public vote as a lock on any deal that the Prime Minister passes. The Leader of the Opposition and I have met colleagues to discuss these proposals and the other ideas that have been put forward by other colleagues. What we need to do now is to agree the process for having a proper debate and to look at those and other credible options.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)]

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is a difference between the people’s vote/public vote option and the others? The others relate to a substantive route forward on Brexit. A public vote is a way of ensuring that there is a broad consensus and the public are behind whatever consensus this House may find favour with.

[Keir Starmer]

That is a very important intervention. Obviously, discussions will take place in the next two days, but the basic proposition that the House needs to decide the substance of any deal it might be able to support—and, arguably, to look at the process around it separately—is important, because some of these options are not like-for-like options, in that some are about substance and some are about process. It would be perfectly possible to make the argument that, if there is to be a deal, it ought to be what we consider to be the least damaging deal. We could have an argument about what that looks like. Equally, it would be possible to say that, whatever deal there was at the end of that exercise, it ought to be subject to the lock or safeguard of some sort of confirmation vote. I do not know. I am not anticipating how the votes would go, but I can see that one of those decisions is about the substance of the issue and the second is about the process. We are going to have to grapple with that before Wednesday.

[Mr Grieve]

I agree entirely with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, as indeed I agree with the question to him from my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening). He may also agree that it is going to be important, in the course of this debate and how we structure it, that we make sure we can provide reassurance that Members can vote for what they see as preferred outcomes without in any way having the sense that they might be forfeiting the right also to the insistence that that has to go to the public, whatever it might be.

[Keir Starmer]

I agree with that because otherwise we inhibit the likelihood of finding a majority. Therefore, that will require careful thought going into Wednesday.

Let us assume, for the moment, that we can find a process that most Members are content with and that we can then move towards a majority view. It may take some time. I, for one, am troubled by the idea that, in one afternoon, all of this can be solved. It may be that all we can do is start down a process of finding a majority. It would be wrong to rush at this at this stage of the exercise. But assuming that can be done, it raises the million-dollar question: if the House does find a majority, will the Government accept the result?

I understand and respect the position of the Prime Minister, who says, “I need to know what the options are and what the result is before I can answer that question.” I understand the logic of that and it is a fair point, but what I do not want is—wrapped up in that perfectly reasonable, logical answer—to find, in a week or two, or whenever it may be, that whatever outcome is agreed upon by a majority it will never be accepted by the Government and we are back to where we started. That is my concern about the exercise. So when the Government say they will go into it in good faith, that has to mean that, if there is a majority, the Government will look very seriously at supporting where that majority view is and not simply rule it out. The red lines are the very thing we are trying to break. If the Government apply their own red lines to any outcome and say, “It does not fit our red lines”, there is not much point going through the exercise in the first place because it is precisely to remove those red lines that we are going forward.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. and learned Friend is making a powerful point about the absurdity of an ill-designed referendum that asked for a simplistic answer to a very complex question. Nobody can really understand what that 52% who voted leave wanted because it was so ill-defined and so massive. The Government have arrogantly assumed that they have a monopoly of wisdom on what that leave vote meant and hold Parliament in contempt in pursuit of it. Is it not the reality that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, something like a confirmatory public vote would be entirely logically coherent, and that it is bizarre that the Prime Minister, despite not having a mandate or a majority, seems so pig-headed in not actually reaching out to the House of Commons to pursue that sort of consensus-building approach?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. On this question of the Government accepting the outcome, if they simply reject whatever is the outcome of this exercise, they will be doubling down on one of the big mistakes of the past two years, which is to push Parliament away and not let Parliament express its view as to where the majority is. That is one reason we are in this mess. For two and a half years the Government have pushed Parliament away at every turn and we need now to find a mechanism, albeit a constitutionally innovative one, to break through that.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend not recognise that, in some areas, there is huge opposition among the electorate to having European elections, but there is the opportunity, through the withdrawal agreement Bill, should it ever be reached, for every single option being potentially proposed on Wednesday to be put as amendments, including the customs union? Has he considered that as an option?

[Keir Starmer]

I have, not least because my hon. Friend raised it with me last week. The difficulty is that the EU argues that, once the withdrawal agreement and political declaration are agreed, we cannot, through domestic legislation, change the terms of those documents. Therefore, whatever amendment is put down to the legislation, it could not alter the terms of the political declaration. So it is not accurate to say that all of this could be swept up with the implementation Bill, because the words in the document that we are seeking to implement have to be the ones that the House is happy with and thus has agreed before we get to that stage. Some things could be dealt with in the implementation Bill—I do not quarrel with that—but the EU will not countenance this House changing the terms of the EU’s agreement through amendments to the Bill. That was one of the concerns the Government rightly put in relation to the meaningful vote. When we were saying that there should be amendments to the meaningful vote, the Government’s position was that we cannot really have amendments because this House cannot amend the substance of the document.

[John Mann]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way, but then I am going to make some progress because I realise how long I have been talking.

[John Mann]

Would my right hon. and learned Friend not also accept, on the proposal put to him this afternoon of having separate votes on the political declaration and the withdrawal agreement, that it is the political declaration that is up for steering what happens in the next phase, whereas the EU has made it clear that the withdrawal agreement itself is not for renegotiation with anyone, at any time?

[Keir Starmer]

I certainly accept the proposition that the EU has said that the withdrawal agreement is not for reopening at any stage, and it has resisted that for month after month from the Government. But I remind myself and the House that in the letter that Presidents Tusk and Juncker wrote to the Prime Minister in January they were clear that the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration are part of the “same negotiated package”. I believe those were their words. I also remind myself and the House that under section 13 the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration go together. That does not mean that there are not different views on the agreement and on the declaration, but they are part of the same negotiated package.

[Anna Soubry]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to make some progress now, because I wish to indicate that we would have supported amendment (c) and that we do support amendment (f), tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). Amendment (f) addresses a different point, which is how to prevent a no-deal outcome and ensure that the House can shape the extension process. We thought we had cleared up those matters some weeks ago, but it is important that we come back to my right hon. Friend’s amendment so that we can reassert the position going forward.

Tonight really is about the opportunity to bring to an end the Government’s failed approach. For two years, they have not put forward a credible plan, or really listened to other alternatives. I used to say that the Prime Minister was surviving by the week, but I changed that to saying she was surviving by the day; now, she appears to be surviving by the hour to get through to Wednesday. Enough is enough. We cannot go on like this. The country deserves better. Parliament must take back control. We have the chance to do that tonight and we should do it.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to support amendment (e) tabled in my name and that of the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister announced two weeks ago that she would hold a second meaningful vote on 12 March; and that if that failed she would enable a vote on 13 March to rule out leaving the European Union on 29 March without a deal; and that if that succeeded, she would enable a vote on the extension of article 50 on 14 March, which is today. She was taken at her word. Had she simply done that yesterday, and tabled a simple motion to seek agreement that the UK would not leave the EU on 29 March without an agreement, she would have succeeded with a hefty majority. However, for reasons best known to herself and her advisers, she tagged unnecessary words on to her motion, causing splits, divisions and chaos on her own side, and putting further into question the ability of the Government to govern.

Today, it seems that the lessons of yesterday have not been learnt. A simple motion today seeking a mandate from this House to ask for an extension of article 50 for a length and purpose to be negotiated with the EU would pass by a hefty majority, but again the Prime Minister risks splits, divisions and chaos by tabling a motion that wraps the question of whether there should be a third meaningful vote into what should be a simple question of extension. The idea of bringing back the deal for a third time without even the pretence that anything has changed—other than, of course, using up more time—is an act of desperation.

Mr Speaker, yesterday I was offered a £50 bet on the third meaningful vote by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), which would go to Help for Heroes. I should have taken up that bet. Perhaps he and I should now both offer £50 to Help for Heroes, because, in all seriousness, it looks as though the Government are adopting the absurd and irresponsible approach of simply putting before us the same deal again a week later, but now not even pretending that anything has changed other than that another week has been used up.

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

I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. Has he, like me, read the rumours in the newspaper that the Government might try to argue that there has been a material change in circumstances by changing their legal advice to take into account article 62 of the Vienna convention? Does he, like me, agree with the weight of legal opinion that they are on a hiding to nothing with that argument?

[Keir Starmer]

We wait to see what further advice the Attorney General gives, if any. I have to say, however, that the suggested nuclear option of crashing the treaty completely—bringing down citizens’ rights, the financial arrangements, the customs arrangements, the trading arrangements and so on—as the way forward came as rather a surprise. That is the reason I thought the Attorney General left it out of the advice he gave last week. To burn the whole house down to try to suspend or stop the backstop is so extreme that I would be extremely surprised if the Government rest their case next week on that basis.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I have no idea what the Attorney General is going to say next week, but I say politely to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that in paragraph 19 he clearly makes reference to a fundamental change of circumstances. That would indicate to me that article 62 was in his mind.

[Keir Starmer]

I accept that, and it is there in that paragraph. What I am saying is this: it is a nuclear option to crash a whole treaty, including everything in it. That has consequences in international law. If you crash a treaty, you can be taken to court and challenged on it. Everything would be crashed. All the citizens’ rights that have been agreed—crashed; all the trading arrangements—crashed; the transition period—crashed. Are we really suggesting that that is the credible basis for a further meaningful vote?

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I agree with every word the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. This is a unicorn; it cannot happen unless so seismic a failure were to take place with the other party that it could be justified. The idea that, simply because the backstop is still in place, it could justify bringing down the whole treaty under article 62 is so far fetched that there can be no doubt, if it was ever contemplated, that that is why it was left out, because it is an unsustainable argument.

[Keir Starmer]

I could not agree more. I suspect that that is why it was left out, in any meaningful sense, from the advice last week. We will wait to see what the Attorney General says if there is a meaningful vote next week. If the idea is to bring back the meaningful vote with the suggestion that what has changed in a week is that we now know we can crash the entire treaty, we will wait for that argument to be presented, but I am not sure it will be persuasive to those whom the Government hope to get back on board with their deal.

[Joanna Cherry]

The hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) indicated that she thinks that the article 62 option was already foreshadowed in the existing legal opinion. If she is right about that, then it will not be a change in circumstances justifying meaningful vote 3, will it? It was there already.

[Keir Starmer]

The problem with the argument is that as far as the Government are concerned the mere fact that it was available last time we voted does not appear to inhibit them from saying that it is a change of circumstances.

[Victoria Prentis]

I did say very clearly that I have no idea what is in the Attorney General’s mind at this moment, but that it seemed to me that the use of those words meant that he had at least considered article 62. He may of course wish to develop that argument much further and I look forward to hearing from him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

What I am trying to say is this: with the meaningful vote having been put once and lost heavily, and having been put again and lost heavily, I think the yearning across the House, the majority view, is that what we really need to do now, and what we are trying to do this week, is simply decide that no deal on 29 March should be ruled out. A simple proposition would have done that without all the fallout. A simple proposition today to extend article 50 would have allowed us then to press on in some form that we could agree to find a purpose and a majority.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Keir Starmer]

Not just at the moment, but I will in a minute.

Across the House, precisely what that model is and how we do it is secondary to the fact that we have to find a way to find a majority, otherwise the whole discussion about lengths of extension is an argument in a vacuum. If you do not know what you are doing then you do not know how long you need.

[Mr Francois]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way, because I hope the right hon. Gentleman will join me in giving that £50 to Help for Heroes—but don’t tell my wife I gambled.

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friends have told me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman very kindly referred to me. I apologise; I had popped to the gents and that is why I missed that. I am very sorry. Mr Speaker, I do not share your iron bladder. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. I bet him £50 for Help for Heroes that meaningful vote 3 would be on 26 March. It is now perfectly clear from the Government’s motion that it will be before 20 March and I would now guess on 19 March —so, next Tuesday—in which case I will definitely give him £50 for Help for Heroes, a brilliant charity. For the avoidance of doubt, will he take a cheque?

[Keir Starmer]

Taking cheques from the right hon. Gentleman might be a slippery slope. In the spirit of compromise, why don’t we both give £50 for Help for Heroes?

[Mr Francois]

Done!

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

I think the moment has passed, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.] I am going to dispense with the gambling theme.

My right hon. and learned Friend will have heard the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office try to answer the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on facilitating discussions across the House. Did my right hon. and learned Friend, like me, expect the Government to come here this morning, following their defeats last night, to talk about how they can facilitate those discussions, rather than come up with technical points to defeat an amendment that is trying to achieve that aim?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention, because it follows up on a theme I was trying to advance yesterday: how we go forward from here depends on the attitude of the Prime Minister and of the Government. At this stage, what I think a majority in the House want is a Prime Minister who says, “I now recognise that my deal has been heavily defeated twice, and in the spirit of finding a way forward I will drop my red lines and come up with a process by which the House can express views as to an alternative way forward.” If we cannot do that—this is the point I was trying to make yesterday—and if the Prime Minister does not facilitate that and put that process forward, the only thing that the House can do is try to force it on her, and that has constitutional ramifications.

I am not saying that that cannot be done, and I am not saying that it should not be done. It may have to be done, but—and this is a serious point for the Government —I think it would be better if the Prime Minister were to say today that she would in fact play her part in whatever the process needs to be to find a majority. I think that would be the first step forward. I said yesterday and I say it again: I actually think that should have happened two years ago, but that is as may be. Otherwise, we risk simply setting another clock ticking that then dictates in exactly the same way what happens—whether it is months or weeks, or however long it is. If we just do this all by a clock and without a purpose, we will not get anywhere.

[Anna Soubry]

I am listening to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying with great care. It seems that the Opposition’s policy has now changed again. As I understood it from his party’s conference, having failed to get its own version of Brexit through, it would then seek a general election. If that failed, it would then back a people’s vote. Now it seems that his party’s policy is to compromise with the Government to facilitate Brexit. On that basis, could he confirm whether tonight, when the vote on amendment (h) is called, Labour will be voting for a people’s vote, abstaining, or voting against?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. I have said on a number of occasions that the Labour party supports a public vote and I played a very large part in the conference motion, but today is about the question of whether article 50 should be extended and whether we can find a purpose. [Interruption.] Hear me out, it is a very serious question and a very serious challenge, and I need to answer it. The right hon. Lady will know that many colleagues, in and out of this place, absolutely supportive of the cause that she supports—namely, a people’s vote—vehemently disagree with this amendment being tabled and voted on today.

The People’s Vote campaign—it is pretty clear where it stands—has issued a formal statement of its position, today, in response to amendment (h). It says that it has made it clear that it does not regard today as “the right time” to press the case for the public to be given a final say—[Interruption.] I am just answering the question—I am answering it fully and I want to do it properly. This is the People’s Vote campaign issuing a statement in response to this amendment:

“Instead, this is the time for parliament to declare it wants an extension of”

the “article 50” Brexit deadline

“so that, after two-and-a-half years of vexed negotiations, our political leaders can finally decide on what Brexit means.”

That is the official position of the People’s Vote campaign.

In addition, this will be the first time—[Interruption.] I am going to complete this answer. This will be the first time, I think, that I have quoted Alastair Campbell from the Dispatch Box. Whatever we could or could not say about Alastair Campbell, we cannot doubt where he stands on a people’s vote. He said today that it is:

“Wrong to press @peoplesvote_uk amendment…when the issue is”

essentially about “extension. I think” it is the

“wrong time and I fear the wrong reasons”—

[Interruption.] I am going to complete the answer. [Interruption.] I am going to complete the answer. Those pressing this amendment seem to be out of step with the vast majority of co-campaigners who are campaigning for exactly the same point. They may genuinely have a difference of opinion, but we will not be supporting amendment (h) tonight.

[Anna Soubry]

Shame on you! [Interruption.]

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

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. We are two weeks away from leaving the European Union, as things stand. We are where we are in terms of the amendments that are in front of us today. I would not necessarily have chosen to put down the amendment in the way that it has come forward, but I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—our friend and colleague on the Benches beside us—that we have the opportunity with the amendment today to express the views of people in the House of Commons that we must have a people’s vote. I implore him not to stand against the amendment today, or I am afraid that Labour will be found out for what they are: a fraud. They are participating in Brexit happening if they fail to back the people’s vote this afternoon.

[Keir Starmer]

Great rhetoric, no substance. [Interruption.] Just to be clear, the amendment that the Labour party has put down today is clear that we seek an extension of article 50 and that we want to find a process to decide where the majority is and how we go forward. Our position has been clear about what we support and I have said it from this Dispatch Box many, many times—a close economic relationship based on a customs union and single market alignment and a public vote on any deal the Prime Minister gets through. That has been our position. I have said it so many times from this Dispatch Box. We want to have those options decided upon but, as the vast majority of people and Members in the House think, today is about extending article 50 and finding a way to that process. It does not rule out those amendments. It does not rule out support for those amendments and to suggest that it does is disingenuous. It is simply saying that today is about extending article 50 and moving on from there.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is great concern that elected Members of Parliament who represent the interests of their constituents have not had an opportunity to vote on a wide range of options that may lead to consensus in this House about a way forward? In fact, the Prime Minister never put her negotiating red lines to this House. It is therefore very difficult to see, without that process, how we can properly examine all the compromises that the Prime Minister keeps urging us to unite around.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because that encapsulates the problem that we have been living with for the last two years. The referendum answered the question, “Would you rather be in or out of the EU?” It did not answer the question, “If out, what sort of future relationship do you want?”, on which there are many views, ranging from a very remote relationship, looking elsewhere for trade and so on, to essentially keeping within the models that have worked reasonably well in the last half century or so. They are massively different—ideologically different—views. That is the reason why the Prime Minister should have put her red lines to Parliament. The original red lines that came out in the autumn of 2016 were not even put to the Cabinet before the Prime Minister announced them. On a question of this importance, whether someone is the Prime Minister or not, it is not good enough to shrink that decision to such a small group of people, not to open it out to the Cabinet in the first instance, and never to open it out to Parliament. That is a central point.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

As always, I am extremely grateful for the words that my right hon. and learned Friend has to say on another referendum, but does he understand that many Opposition Members are very strongly tempted to vote for the amendment that is on the Order Paper today, partly because not all the shadow Cabinet, and sometimes, official spokespeople for the Leader of the Opposition, speak with the clarity that my right hon. and learned Friend speaks with, and people are very unsettled about that? We accept that there may be more and probably better opportunities to vote for an amendment on another referendum, such as the one in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Hove (Peter Kyle) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson). Nevertheless, we have to ensure that the Labour party speaks with one clear voice on this—no more mixed messages.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. I have always tried to speak about this issue in a clear voice and I have spoken for the Labour party on it. As my right hon. Friend will know, I have had many and ongoing discussions with my hon. Friends the Members for Hove and for Sedgefield about the amendment on which they have been working. Today is not about the Labour party saying that it would not support such an amendment; today is about extension and about the process.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

Let me just restate this. The Labour party is supporting a public vote on any deal from the Prime Minister that gets through—there is a lock on that—but today is about a different issue. I hope that that is clear, and gives some reassurance to my right hon. Friend.

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

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that important assurance, which is what I want to hear said consistently from the Front Bench. He always says it with great clarity, as does the shadow Chancellor. I want to hear the same from all Labour Members, because we need that public vote, for which I have campaigned repeatedly from the start.

Let me ask my right hon. and learned Friend about a different issue. He has talked about the Cabinet, and about advice and discussions. Is he aware of reports that the Attorney General has been sharing new draft legal advice, allegedly with members of the European Research Group? It is not clear that it is being shared with the Cabinet or, indeed, Members of the House. Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that such a situation would be legal, given that such people normally say that they do not share any draft legal advice, or does he believe that the advice should be made available to all of us in the House?

[Keir Starmer]

The short answer is that I do not know whether the advice has been shared, although I remember the Attorney General asserting very strongly from the Dispatch Box that it would be quite improper to share any advice with any Member of the House unless, of course, it is shared with all Members.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I have given way many times and I will now make some progress.

This debate is absolutely necessary, but it is not welcome. Applying for an extension of article 50 with 15 days to go is a hopeless end to two years of negotiation. The fault lies squarely at the Government’s door, not with civil servants and not with the House.

I touched on this point yesterday, but I want to repeat it, because it is extremely important. It is no good the Prime Minister and the Government blaming everyone but themselves for the position in which we find ourselves. To be in government is to govern, to lead, to think through what deal might secure majority support, to realise that consensus will be needed, to have a two-year strategy to ensure that that consensus is reached, and to understand that, given the deep divisions on the Government side, meaningful engagement with the Opposition from the start would have been better than blinkered intransigence. All that has been missing. I have lost track of the number of times I have complained that the Prime Minister and the Government have pushed Parliament to one side, and this week is the culmination of that failed strategy.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, ever so gently, to reflect on the fact that what he and the Labour party are proposing to do today is causing considerable anxiety among many businesses in Northern Ireland, because they want certainty? It is also, I believe, causing considerable anxiety among the border communities. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman cares about that. How can he offer reassurance to businesses in Northern Ireland, and to the border communities, about what the Labour party is proposing in its amendment?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful, as ever, for the hon. Lady’s intervention. There is great anxiety about uncertainty, and the uncertainty exists because the Government, after two years, have come back with a deal that they cannot get through Parliament. I think that that is because the red lines were wrong in the first place, because the Prime Minister never engaged Parliament in the negotiating objectives so that she could have the majority, and because of her blinkered approach, which says, “I am going to keep ramming my deal time and again without listening to other people.” We have reached an impasse. That does create uncertainty, and it is causing anxiety both in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.

The question was, what is the Labour party trying to do? This is what we are trying to do, and we are not alone: our aim is clearly shared across the House. Given the current impasse—and there is no point in anyone pretending that it is not an impasse; once you have lost by 230 votes and 149 votes, you cannot pretend that you are not facing an impasse—we are asking the Government to say, “We realise that this is an impasse, and we will now find a way in which to establish what the majority view is, so that we can move forward.” But they will not do it, so what we are proposing—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

No, I will not give way. I am going to finish my answer.

What we are proposing is that we extend article 50 and, as soon as we can, identify a mechanism or process—and we should be open-minded about what it will be—that will enable us to find out what the majority in the House want, because otherwise we will not find that majority. We have repeated time and again the two proposals for which we have always argued, the proposals for a close economic relationship and a public vote, but we have to listen to Parliament.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to make some progress.

Here we are, with 15 days to go, and the extension of article 50 is a necessity, not a choice. It is the only way in which we can try to prevent ourselves from leaving without a deal on 29 March, and that is what our amendment seeks to achieve.

It is important for us to identify a purpose, and the first purpose is to remove the 29 March cliff edge. We cannot simply vote against no deal, as we did last night, and then take no further action. I have said repeatedly that this should have been done weeks ago rather than being left to the last minute, and that the sooner it is done, the better. Parliament must act today, and instruct the Government to seek an extension of article 50. However, we do need to begin the debate about the wider issues. The extension should be as short as possible, but it needs to be long enough to achieve the agreed purpose.

I listened to the earlier exchanges about EU elections. Let me make it clear that the Labour party does not want to be involved in those elections. There are at least three different views, both here and in Brussels: I know that, because I have been discussing this issue in Brussels for six months. One view is that we cannot get past May without participating in the elections. Another is that we cannot get past June without doing so. Another is that it might be possible to add a protocol or agreement to the treaty that would allow a long extension without EU elections. All three opinions are circulating here and in Brussels, and lawyers are putting their names to them.

We must decide, as a House, what we are requesting extra time for. The Government must then go to Brussels and seek an extension for the agreed purpose, and engage in discussion and negotiation about how long it should be. The one thing that we should not do is just set the clock running and say that that will dictate everything that happens from here on.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman wholeheartedly. Is not the whole experience of dealing with the EU—not just on these matters, but for many years—that because it is a treaty-based organisation, politics and law are much more closely aligned than they are in this country, for example? It is perfectly possible for the members of the European Council, acting as member states, to make decisions that actually become effective. Even if some set of lawyers within the apparatus happen to think it rather odd at first, they adapt themselves to it with heroic adaptability.

[Keir Starmer]

I absolutely agree. The right hon. Gentleman has probably—like me—been having those conversations with lawyers, officials and politicians across the 27 EU countries. All three of those views have been expressed to me by officials and politicians, including the view that, if it were necessary to go beyond June for an agreed purpose, that could be possible without our being involved in EU elections. I do not pretend for a moment that there are not legal implications, and I do not pretend for a moment that it would be easy, but I do know that this is a discussion that could be had.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)]

I strongly agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. Does this not underline the fact that continuing to delay a decision because the Government are not getting the answer that they want, and their own delay of crucial votes, means that we have a tendency to be overtaken by events? We clearly do not like the prospect of European Union elections, but other events may intervene to complicate the House’s ability to make decisions. We should get on with the process that will unblock the gridlock, so that we can move things forward and move our country forward.

[Keir Starmer]

I agree with the right hon. Lady. One of the frustrations is that we are now faced with arguments from the Government that the period of time for an extension must be really short for various reasons, yet they ran away from the vote on 10 December. We could have known on 11 December that this deal was never going to go through. We would then have had three and a half months left on the clock before we even got to any question of an extension, and then another three months, even on the Government’s own analysis, to try to sort the problem out. Yet here we are, with 15 days to go, having this discussion about an extension in the worst of circumstances, and we are doing it for one reason. That is that the deal that was signed on 25 November and that could have been put to the vote on 11 December was pulled. Not one word of that agreement has ever changed. All that has happened is that we have been waiting for three-plus months to vote again on the same proposition. We cannot waste another week doing the same thing next week.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be opposing amendment (h) tonight, and I will join him and the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) in doing so. It is right that the House should send a clear message on the matter of the people’s vote. The question should be put to the House tonight, and I hope that it will be defeated so that we can move on.

[Keir Starmer]

That is not what I said. I did not say that we would oppose it. It is obvious that we are supportive of the principle; it is a question only of timing.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that people have to be clear before the last minute, so I want to ask him a question in the interests of clarity. If other member states of the European Union were to veto an extension of article 50, what would his position be? Would he be for a no deal, or would he be for the sensible option of revocation?

[Keir Starmer]

One of the advantages of having this debate for four days running is that most of the questions and answers have been well rehearsed. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the same answer that I gave yesterday, which is that we will cross that bridge when we get to it.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

On the subject of amendment (h), may I say, through my right hon. and learned Friend, that he has nothing to be ashamed of in how he has led our party’s position on Brexit? Yelling “Shame on you” across the Chamber does not inspire a great deal of support among Labour Members; I did not think that that was the way to build the new politics. Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), there is a considerable degree of discomfort among Labour Members who support the principle of allowing the people to decide, not because of anything that my right hon. and learned Friend or the shadow Chancellor, or other leading figures, have said, but because there is not a uniform position on this on the Front Bench. In the event that a proposal on this comes forward from my hon. Friends the Members for Hove (Peter Kyle) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), as I hope it will, will he clarify that this principle—which I believe is the only way to break the deadlock Brexit—will be wholeheartedly supported by the Labour leadership?

[Keir Starmer]

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The point I was trying to make about amendment (h) is this. In the circumstances where the vast majority of those who are campaigning for exactly the same end think that this is not the time for that amendment, is it the case that those who are pushing the amendment genuinely disagree with their co-campaigners, or are they pushing it for another reason?

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Given the record-breaking defeats suffered by the Government, and their abysmal failure to get a consensus, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that amendment (e), tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and amendment (i) tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), merely provide a vehicle to arrive at consensus? Given that the Government have failed, surely that is the only way in which we can move forward.

[Keir Starmer]

I agree with that. In the end, stripping away all the amendments, the simple proposition is whether we can vote to extend article 50 today and then, between us, come up with a vehicle or model to help us to break the impasse. That is why we crafted our amendment. We have been clear that we support a close economic relationship, and we also support a public vote. We have offered, as of yesterday, to talk to people across the House to discuss those approaches. That will take time—it is not a silver bullet—but it is the responsible thing to do. It is the way out of the mess that the Government have made. The Government should listen, even at this late stage, and facilitate that process. I urge the House to support our amendment tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I am sorry—I only caught the second half of the hon. Gentleman’s point; there is no discourtesy intended. If this is the point that is being put to me, I have always said that fixing a date to repeal the Act on 29 March was a mistake, because we would always need transition, and that we would need the Act to run during that transition. I have always thought that putting a date on the statute was a big mistake, for many reasons, and now we are going to have to put it right before 29 March.

[Sir William Cash]

I understand that point, but that was not the point on which we had an exchange last week. I am sorry if the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not catch what I was saying. I was asking him whether he wanted a repeal of the repeal of the 1972 Act that is contained in section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. He indicated to me last week that he did want that. After all, the Labour party itself voted against the withdrawal Act on Second Reading and indeed on Third Reading, so we can assume that it did not want the repeal of the 1972 Act and that it is therefore committed to a course that is inconsistent with what the voters decided in the referendum. In respect of the position on both sides of the House, the United Kingdom is therefore at a dangerous crossroads in the middle of a fog.

I have done my best over the past 30 years to be consistent and to address the principles that underlie the sovereignty of this Parliament in delivering the democratic wishes of the British people through parliamentary Government, and not through government by Parliament, as is being proposed by certain Members of this House in respect of giving priority to private Members’ Bills, despite the Standing Order No. 14 requirement that Government business takes precedence. I for one believe that this Parliament can deliver the referendum vote; ensure the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland; fully comply with the vote to leave following the European Union Referendum Act 2015, which was passed by a 6:1 majority in this House; comply in full with the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, which so many Members who are now turning into rejoiners, let alone reversers, actually voted for; and comply in full with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which received Royal Assent on 26 June last year and which itself includes the provision for exit day to be on 29 March. I say with great respect to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) that, as I am sure he will recall, he voted for the Third Reading of the Act.

We have had substantial debates about the backstop and, of course, the most recent advice of the Attorney General. My European Scrutiny Committee has issued a critical report of the withdrawal agreement. It came out only last week and I urge the House to read it. We have asked for, but have not yet received, a draft of the withdrawal and implementation Bill, and I say that because that Bill, if passed, would enact the withdrawal agreement in our domestic law—the law of the land. I seek to make some proposals for what would be needed in any such Bill, as enacted, in order to satisfy the fundamental issues, bearing in mind that we have only a few days to go, and to ensure that we actually leave the European Union on 29 March. Given the timescale available for the withdrawal and implementation Bill to be enacted, we can assume that it will be rammed through with virtually no time to discuss proposals that could be made by way of amendments to it. There will be no proper debate. The law of the land relating to the withdrawal agreement will be rammed through this House.

What do I have in mind? First, we must protect Northern Ireland’s constitutional status in the United Kingdom. Discussions have continued since the Attorney General’s recent advice and will continue on matters relating both to the backstop and to issues arising in international law, including article 62 of the Vienna convention, that are being further analysed by distinguished lawyers. Such matters are important and remain unresolved. I was extremely glad to hear Arlene Foster confirm this morning that that was the current position, and when that further analysis becomes available, I trust that the Attorney General will take serious note of the points made by that panel of distinguished lawyers.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

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

This has been a very important debate, and tonight’s vote will be one of the most significant votes this House will ever take. I want to thank all those who have spoken in the debate today, and indeed all those who have spoken in the debates on previous occasions. As we go to vote, I also want to put on record my thanks to the civil service and the UK negotiating team. They are dedicated, committed, and have worked tirelessly for the past two years. They deserve our thanks. Too often, they have received wholly unwonted criticism with no right of reply. The verdict that this House delivers on the deal is a verdict not on their efforts but on the mistakes made and political decisions taken by the Government, so I record my thanks—our thanks—to them for the work that they have done.

The mood in the debate today has been lively at times, but also sombre. Members have clearly been contemplating what is likely to happen tonight. The theme has been clear, and has focused on what the Prime Minister said she could deliver—namely, legally binding changes to the backstop. As has been said many times in the debate, on 12 February the Prime Minister outlined her three options for achieving those legally binding changes to the backstop: either a legally binding time limit, a legally binding unilateral exit clause, or the ideas put forward by the alternative arrangements working group. Those commitments—those promises—have been repeated many times by the Prime Minister and by other Cabinet Ministers, so much so that for many Members of this House, not least Conservative Members, this has become a matter of trust. These were promises made by the Prime Minister to them, to Parliament, and to the country.

I have repeatedly raised the question of expectations—the concern that the Prime Minister was raising expectations that she could not fulfil. When I said that last week and the week before, Conservative Members challenged me, saying that I was not optimistic enough when I said that I did not think there were going to be legally binding changes. It is now obvious that the expectations, having been raised, have not been fulfilled and the promises have not been kept.

Among the problems for the Prime Minister and the Government has been that they have been living day to day, week to week—avoiding defeat today by promising something tomorrow. That was what happened on 10 December when the vote was pulled—the Government avoiding defeat by promising assurances on the backstop. It is what happened on 29 January when the Government voted for the so-called Brady amendment requiring that the backstop be replaced. It happened on 12 February when that promise was made about legally binding changes; and it happened two weeks ago when, facing possible defeat on a crucial motion, the promise was made that we would have the meaningful vote today, a vote on no deal tomorrow, and a vote on extension the day after. They were all promises made to avoid defeat today—promises for tomorrow. But as tonight’s vote is likely to show, today has caught up with tomorrow. There can be no more buying time.

I appreciate that in the last 24 hours, the Prime Minister has valiantly tried to argue that she has delivered on her promises and that there are significant changes, but that claim has been tested in argument in this House. There was always a temporary right to suspend the backstop under the withdrawal Act if the arbitration panel found a breach of good faith. That is not new—it has been there since 25 November. There was always a commitment that the backstop would not have to be replicated. That has been there since 14 January in the letter from Presidents Tusk and Juncker.

The announcement that the letter is legally binding was made last night, but the Prime Minister made it clear that the letter had legal force on 14 January, for the first vote. “Legal force” and “legally binding” are the only difference; it is dancing on the head of a pin. That claim has been tested in this debate, and the Attorney General delivered his opinion earlier, with the key conclusion in paragraph 19 of his advice being that there is “no internationally lawful means” of exiting the backstop, “save by agreement.” He could not have been clearer. The Attorney General made much play of the difference between political and legal issues, but the problem for the Prime Minister is that she promised legal changes.

The Father of the House challenged the Leader of the Opposition on the question of the backstop, and rightly so. I make it clear: we have always accepted the need for a backstop. Nobody likes the backstop, but it is inevitable. However, as the letter from President Tusk and President Juncker makes clear, the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration

“are part of the same negotiated package.”

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

What I put to the Leader of the Opposition was that the only things we are settling today with this vote are the deal we have on citizens’ rights, the money we owe and the Irish backstop. Those are the only things that will be resolved if we pass this withdrawal agreement today. I still cannot understand what the Labour party’s objection is to any of those three.

[Keir Starmer]

I engaged with that point, because it is important. I have dealt with it a number of times from the Dispatch Box. I have made it clear on a number of occasions that the Labour party recognises the need for the backstop. The problem is in the heart of the letter from President Tusk and President Juncker, where they say:

“the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration…are part of the same negotiated package.”

Anybody who has read the legislation that we are voting under tonight will appreciate that the Government cannot move forward unless both the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration together are voted on tonight. It is a cheap point to simply say, “Well, since you accept that there is a backstop, you should vote for this tonight.” I will not accept it.

It is not just about the technical fact that the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration have to be voted through together. It is also about the fact that what happens today, given the promises, is as much about trust as it is about substance. I have never doubted the difficulty of the Prime Minister’s task or the way that she has gone about it. She has been right to refuse to listen to those who are casual and complacent about the need to avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland. But the reality is that the deal the Prime Minister has put before this House is deeply flawed. The future relationship document is flimsy and vague. It is an options paper. It is the blindest of Brexits.

I heard what the Prime Minister said today—she has said it before—about not being able to negotiate a trade agreement with the EU until we have left, and that is right. But she and I know what she promised: a comprehensive and detailed political declaration, ready to be implemented. That is why it was called an implementation period, not a transition period. That commitment to a detailed political declaration was made at the Dispatch Box by Brexit Secretaries on a number of occasions. This deal is not that; it is an abject failure. It does not protect jobs, living standards or rights. It will not deliver frictionless trade. The deal has already been rejected once by this House. It has been rejected by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. It is opposed by the TUC and the entire trade union movement. Every Opposition party in this House, and I suspect a good many Conservative Members, will oppose it tonight. This is a sorry outcome after two years of negotiations.

[Anna Soubry]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will not give way, because I have just looked at the clock.

Mr Speaker, I want to end with this. I have been in the role of shadow Brexit Secretary for two and a half years; it often feels longer. Many predictions were possible back then, but I could not possibly have foreseen the scale of the calamity now upon us. The truth is that the Prime Minister has spent 24 months negotiating the deal, but the deal arrived at is a desperate attempt to keep her divided party together. It has failed even in that endeavour, and I believe it will be rejected by this House. This is a difficult moment for this House and for the country. We in this House should take no joy in the events that have unfolded. After tonight, the House will need to come together and find a way out of the mess that the Prime Minister and this Government have created.

Exiting the European Union

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s negotiations to leave the European Union.

May I start with an apology to you, Mr Speaker, and to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and other Front-Bench spokesmen that we have not tonight been able to follow the usual courtesies, which I would have wanted to do, and give them advance notice? The reason for this, as hon. Members who have been following the TV coverage will know, is that negotiations are still taking place in Strasbourg, and anybody who has taken part in EU business on behalf of this or any previous Government will know that it is far from unusual for deadlines to be stretched and for talks to be going on late.

I would emphasise to the House that the intention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to secure a deal that works for the national interest of our country, and she will persist in those negotiations until she is satisfied that that is what has been achieved. However, I can provide the House with an update tonight on what has been agreed so far, and clearly the Government will update the House at the earliest opportunity tomorrow should there be an outcome to the continuing talks in Strasbourg that will have an impact on tomorrow’s debate.

This evening in Strasbourg, the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union have secured legally binding changes that strengthen and improve the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. The House spoke clearly on 29 January when it voted in favour of honouring the decision of the British people and leaving the European Union with a deal that works for the UK. The primary issue of concern then was the Northern Ireland backstop. This House said it needed legally binding changes, and today that is what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have achieved.

Tonight, we will be laying two new documents in the House: a joint legally binding instrument on the withdrawal agreement and the protocol on Northern Ireland; and a joint statement to supplement the political declaration. The first provides confirmation that the EU cannot try to trap the UK in the backstop indefinitely, and that doing so would be an explicit breach of the legally binding commitments that both sides have agreed. If, contrary to all expectations, the EU were to act with that intention, the United Kingdom could use this acceptance of what could constitute an explicit breach as the basis for a formal dispute, through independent arbitration, that such a breach had occurred, ultimately suspending the protocol if the EU continued to breach its obligations.

On top of this, the joint instrument also reflects the United Kingdom’s and the European Union’s commitment to work to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements by December 2020, setting out explicitly that these arrangements do not need to replicate the provisions of the backstop in any respect. By including this commitment in the joint instrument, this provision on alternative arrangements will be legally binding. I hope, too, that that legally binding commitment that the alternative arrangements do not need to replicate the backstop in any respect will go some way to reassuring hon. Members that the backstop does not predetermine what our future relationship with the European Union should be.

The joint instrument also puts the commitments set out by Presidents Juncker and Tusk in January on to a legally binding footing, underlining the meaning of best endeavours, stressing the need for negotiations on the future relationship to be taken forward urgently and confirming the assurances we made to the people of Northern Ireland—for example, providing a United Kingdom lock on any new EU laws being added to the backstop.

The second document is a joint statement that supplements the political declaration and outlines a number of commitments by the United Kingdom and the European Union to enhance and expedite the process of negotiating and bringing into force the future relationship. For example, it refers to the possibility of provisional application of such a future agreement and sets out in detail how the specific negotiating track on alternative arrangements will operate.

As I said, negotiations are continuing and the Government will provide an update to the House at the earliest opportunity should there be further changes. I completely understand that hon. Members of all parties will want to have the opportunity to study the documents in detail and analyse their import. Clearly, there will be an opportunity during the debate scheduled for tomorrow for Members to question the Prime Minister and other Ministers and to seek answers.

During Law Officers’ questions last week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General made a commitment from the Dispatch Box to publish his legal assessment, which will be available to all Members in good time before the debate. [Hon. Members: “When?”] Hon. Members ask “When?” Since my right hon. and learned Friend has just seen the outcome of the negotiations in Strasbourg so far, hon. Members would want him to consider carefully the implications of those documents rather than rush out an opinion to meet the deadline for this evening’s statement.

This evening, we shall table the motion that the House will debate tomorrow. We have already published the withdrawal agreement and political declaration and the other papers required of us under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and they will be supplemented by the documents that I have drawn to the House’s attention. Tomorrow, the House will vote on the improved deal.

I believe that the deal we have already secured represents a good deal for the whole country and delivers on the result of the referendum. When I knocked on doors during the referendum campaign, the clear message I got from people who voted to leave the European Union was that they wanted to take back control, particularly of our borders, but also of our laws. The deal ends free movement and allows us to deliver a skills-based immigration system, and ends the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK. Under the deal, we will also take back control of our money, no longer sending vast sums to the European Union. We will leave the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy and take back control of our trade policy.

I also found in 2016 that, whether people voted to leave or to remain, they wanted us to have the deep and special partnership with the European Union that my party’s manifesto committed us to delivering. The political declaration—the framework for the future relationship—allows for that. In the meaningful vote tomorrow, the House will face a fundamental choice. We said that we would negotiate a good deal with the EU and I believe that we have done so. The EU has been clear that, with the improvements that have been announced and continue to be negotiated, this will be the only deal on the table. Tomorrow there will be a fundamental choice: to vote for the improved deal or to plunge this country into a political crisis.

If we vote for the improved deal we will both end the current uncertainty and deliver Brexit. The House was clear on the need for legally binding changes to the backstop. Today, we have secured those changes. Now is the time to come together to back this improved Brexit deal and to deliver on the instruction of the British people. I commend this statement to the House.

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

I do not complain for not having had advance notice of the Minister’s statement. I am not sure that he has got advance notice of it. [Laughter.]

What an absurd situation the Prime Minister has got herself into. Having lost the meaningful vote on 15 January by an historic majority, on 29 January the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and told this House that she would seek legally binding changes to the backstop. Her precise words, standing at the Dispatch Box, were this:

“What I am talking about is not a further exchange of letters but a significant and legally binding change to the withdrawal agreement.”

Let us see what document is put on the Table tomorrow. I did not hear the words from the Dispatch Box that the withdrawal agreement is being changed. She said:

“It will involve reopening the withdrawal agreement…I can secure such a change in advance of our departure from the EU.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 678-9.]

She then voted for an amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), which called for the backstop

“to be replaced with alternative arrangements”.

It sounds as if none of that has happened, nor is likely to happen.

Turning the joint letter from President Tusk and President Juncker of 14 January into an interpretation tool—a legal interpretation tool it may be—adds nothing. The statement that there is no duty to replicate what is in the backstop is here in the letter of 14 January. That is not new. That is not today; that was in the letter. If all that is happening is to turn this letter into an interpretation tool for legal purposes, I remind the House what the Prime Minister said on 14 January about the letter. She said that she had been advised that this letter would have “legal force in international law”. To stand here today and say that this is a significant change, when she is repeating what she said on 14 January, is not going to take anyone very far.

We will look at the detail. We will look at whether the withdrawal agreement has been changed. [Interruption.] I am looking forward to the reaction tomorrow when the withdrawal agreement, unchanged, will be on the Table. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appeal to Members on both sides of the House to calm down. I say to very senior Members who, from a sedentary position, are chuntering really very inanely, do try to grow up.

[Keir Starmer]

I will wait to see the detail, but as I understand it the withdrawal agreement is being placed on the Table tonight for a vote tomorrow—this agreement unchanged. If I am wrong about that and the document has been changed, I am sure I will be corrected in just a minute.

That cannot be described as legally binding changes to the backstop. Nor could the steps outlined—we will have to see what they are in full—allow the Attorney General to change his opinion that under international law the backstop would endure indefinitely until a superseding agreement took its place in whole or in part. Members of the House will recall that in the Attorney General’s advice last time, he focused on the fact that the only remedy under the withdrawal agreement for breach of the good faith or best endeavours obligations is a temporary suspension of obligations unless and until the parties return to the negotiating table in good faith. That was announced just now as part of the breakthrough new agreement. It is there in article 178(5) on page 292, and has been since the document was signed off on 25 November. So that is not new either.

It sounds again as if nothing has changed, and if that is right, the Prime Minister is left with a pile of broken promises. It is as much a matter of trust as of substance. I am sure that many tomorrow on the Government Benches will be disappointed when they look at the detail. They should be disappointed, but not surprised. We have repeatedly raised questions about the Prime Minister raising expectations that she could not meet. The whole approach has been misguided and the fault lies squarely at the Prime Minister’s door, so can the Minister now please confirm: does the whole Cabinet support the position as it now is? When will the House receive the Attorney General’s updated legal advice? And I ask for a straightforward answer to the question: is a single word of the withdrawal agreement different now from the document that was agreed on 25 November?

This has been a wholly unsatisfactory 24 hours, but symptomatic of the last two years. Tomorrow, the House will express its view. These Benches will reject it. We expect the House to reject it and then we can move on and break the impasse.

[Mr Lidington]

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman got to his phrase about how the Opposition Front Bench was going to reject it, I thought that was the one that had been prepared a very long time in advance. I completely understand that he—like other Members of the House on all sides—is going to want to study the detail of the texts, but I want to make a number of things clear in response to his questions.

First, the joint instrument has equal status in law to the withdrawal agreement itself. Therefore, the withdrawal agreement and the joint instrument that has been negotiated today have to be read alongside each other; they have equal legal force. Secondly, the Government were chided over the question of alternative arrangements. Actually, it is a significant advance to have written into a legal text now a date of the end of 2020, because working actively to achieve that now becomes a legal obligation on both the United Kingdom and the European Union.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman also questioned the point of putting the promises made by Presidents Juncker and Tusk in January into law, and yet the thrust of his critique had been that we needed to put things into law rather than rely upon promises, so I think, again, there is a definite advance in line with what this House had wanted.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me specific questions on the Attorney General. I did say in my opening statement that he is obviously reflecting urgently, but also with due consideration by proper analysis, on the documents that have been negotiated today, and he will provide his assessment to the House, as he has promised to do, as early as he can tomorrow and ahead of the debate.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about the Cabinet. The entire Cabinet endorsed and voted for the deal when it last came before the House. What we have today are improvements upon the deal which the Cabinet has supported, so the whole Cabinet is supporting these improvements.

UK’s Withdrawal from the EU

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to support amendment (a) in my name and the name of the Leader of the Opposition. It is two weeks since we last voted on a Government Brexit motion, but nothing has changed. The Government are no closer to making progress, and that is clear from the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday and underlined by the absurdly limited motion before us today. The motion tabled by the Prime Minister states that the House “notes” her statement of yesterday and

“notes that discussions between the UK and EU are ongoing.”

The Government do not even dare lay a motion reflecting the decisions of 29 January, as they did last time. They are frightened to lay a motion even setting out what has already been agreed—namely, the so-called Brady amendment —and the rejection by this House of no deal as an acceptable outcome. The statement and motion just seek to buy another two weeks and note what they are doing, all of this with just 30 days to go.

One thing that has changed is the acceptance of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). I want to ask some questions about that, because yesterday the Prime Minster appeared to rule out accepting that amendment. This morning, the Home Secretary was before the Home Affairs Committee, and he was questioned by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). The Home Secretary said, “What’s wrong with the amendment? Nothing.” “So is the Government supporting it now?” “Yes, what do you mean ‘now’? When was the Government not supporting it? When did you hear that?” “Yesterday.” “From who?” “The Prime Minister.” “Did you?” [Hon. Members: “Shambles!”] Well, that is a vignette of how Brexit has been going. The question that the House is struggling with is why the hon. Member for South Leicestershire has been forced to resign when the Government are accepting his amendment.

Last time we had this debate, I set out the sorry history of the Government’s delays in recent months, and I do not intend to repeat that.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I thought he was going to mention the other significant change, which is the Labour party’s policy on a second referendum. As he will know, the Prime Minister warned in January this year that a second referendum could “damage social cohesion”. Does the Labour party believe that the Prime Minister was wrong about that, or is it prepared to take that risk?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. I will deal with it. I will come to the background and the amendment we have tabled, and I will answer that intervention. If I do not, I will take another intervention to ensure that I do.

There is, it seems, an expectation that between now and 12 March there will be a change to the deal, and I do not think that that is going to happen. Why? Because there has been no progress at all since the vote was pulled on 10 December. That is 79 days ago. That was when the Prime Minister said, “I’m going to seek changes. I know what the House wants.” No progress has been made since the meaningful vote was lost on 15 January, 43 days ago, and no progress has been made since the Brady amendment of 28 January, 30 days ago.

For all the talk of discussion here and in Brussels, the stark truth is that not one word of the withdrawal agreement or political declaration has changed since it was signed off on 25 November last year—not one word. That is 94 days—three months—ago. The expectation that all of that will change in the next 14 days seems extremely unlikely, and it is not going to be fulfilled. When the Prime Minister went off to do that, I said she was building an expectation that she would not be able to fulfil, and I fear that that is what we are heading for.

The deal today is the same as it was three months ago, and it is that basic deal that will be put before us again on 12 March. It may have some warm words around it, and the Attorney General may be asked to say what those warm words mean, but the withdrawal agreement will be exactly the same in two weeks as it is now. We have to face up to that and stop deluding ourselves that it will change in the next 14 days. There are serious consequences if the deal does not go through because it is precisely the same, which is why there has been such questioning this morning about what happens next.

The deal has not changed because the Government have made three central demands. First, they have asked for a unilateral exit to the backstop. That has been roundly rejected every time it has been asked for, and the deal was signed off 94 days ago. Secondly, they have asked for a time limit to the backstop. That has been roundly rejected every time it has been asked for, and it was on the table 94 days ago. The only other ask is that the backstop be replaced by alternative arrangements. The EU’s response to that to the Government has been, “Well, what are you proposing? What are these alternatives, so that we can discuss them?” Nothing has been forthcoming.

We learned from the Prime Minister’s statement and the Minister for the Cabinet Office that a joint workstream will be considered by the EU and UK, which will be an “important strand”. I do not doubt that a joint workstream on alternative arrangements is a good idea. I do not doubt that any country would seek to streamline any checks at the border whatever the arrangements, irrespective of Brexit. That workstream will apparently work until the end of next year. The announcement that that workstream is in existence is hardly a breakthrough. The idea that the deal that was so roundly rejected is now going to go through because there is a workstream on alternative measures seems to me unlikely, and that is why we have to get real about what is actually going to happen in two weeks’ time, and it is why we predict that we will be left with exactly the same deal.

On the alternative arrangements, the Minister for the Cabinet Office says that those words are used elsewhere in the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. That is true, but they are used only in two respects with two different meanings. One is that the alternative arrangements are the future relationship. That is one meaning provided in those documents, but that is not relevant to this discussion because if the future relationship is ready, there is no question of a backstop. We all know that.

The only other way in which alternative arrangements are actually used in the documents is in relation to the technology at the border making all the difference. We have been searching for that for some time. I do not doubt there will be advances in technology, but the reason the backstop was put in is that the assessment back in November was that there was no prospect of that technology being ready by the time the backstop would be needed, and therefore we needed the backstop. That was the conclusion.

Since I have been in this role, I seem to have spent quite a lot of my time standing on borders looking at lorries and people going across borders. I went to the main Sweden-Norway border to see what a border looks like where a country is in the EEA, and therefore has single market alignment and free movement, but is not in a customs union. It is a hard stop—with infrastructure, with security, with paperwork—and when it works well, each stop takes 13 minutes. Those two countries are not operating the least efficient system that they can; they think they are operating the most efficient system that they can. I do not doubt it can be improved on, but I doubt that this workstream in the next few months is going to make the progress that many people in this House think is going to happen.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to spending a lot of his time standing at borders. When he was at the border in Northern Ireland, was he able to see the complete and total complexity of that border, with the hundreds of crossing points, and has he grasped the total impossibility of anyone anywhere constructing a hard border that could not be avoided with ease?

[Keir Starmer]

I was and I have. I have visited that border many times. I visited it with the Police Service of Northern Ireland many times when I was working there for five years—as it policed the area around the border, which has particular issues—and I have been there since on a number of occasions. I am well aware of the nature of that border. I am also well aware of the fact, in relation to that border, that it is a mistake to think that the only issue is, technically, how to get people or goods over a line in the road. That border is the manifestation of peace: it is a settlement between two communities. Therefore, the very idea that this is just a technical exercise does not understand the nature of that border.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

It goes beyond that, does it not? The right hon. and learned Gentleman may share my anxiety that this issue seems to be consistently ducked. We have a pre-existing international treaty with Ireland that places obligations on us in respect of the border. I do worry, and he may share this anxiety, that in this House this is constantly brushed under the carpet, whereas as we are a rule-of-law state that believes in the international rules-based system, we cannot depart from that without reneging on such obligations.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention and I agree with it.

This is really the heart of it: we know what the problem is, we know what the House thinks about the backstop and we know that there is an unlikelihood that those problems are going to be addressed in the next 14 days. When the Prime Minister lost the first meaningful vote, she had a clear choice. Choice 1 was to plough on with the failed deal in the usual blinkered way, and eventually put the same deal back to us. That was option 1. Option 2 was to drop her red lines, and negotiate changes that were credible with the EU and could command a majority in this House. The Government have chosen the first course—blindly ploughing on, rather than really engaging—and, as we have seen from the last few weeks, that path leads nowhere.

That is regrettable, because there is an alternative, and I want to address amendment (a). We have set out this alternative repeatedly over recent months. It was set out in full in the letter from the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister on 6 February, and it is spelled out in today’s amendment (a). I remind the House that the focus of the changes we are calling for are to the political declaration, not the backstop.

The changes are to negotiate a permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union. That is the first part. Why is that important? Because it is essential for protecting manufacturing, particularly the complex supply chains, and to avoid the hard border in Northern Ireland. I know that those on the Government Front Bench have, like me, gone to many of the big manufacturing companies to discuss with them their complex supply chains and how anxious they are about protecting the customs union arrangements that allow them to do that. As I said, it is also essential to avoiding a hard border in Northern Ireland.

[Dr Murrison]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I will just make this point and then I will give way.

The Prime Minister has pretended that her customs proposals achieve that. I listened carefully to what the Minister for the Cabinet Office said about amendment (a). He said that, under the political declaration, the benefits are already there, because it notes that the single customs territory in the Northern Ireland backstop obviates the need for rules of origin checks. So the political declaration notes the backstop, which is the contentious bit of the withdrawal agreement. I concede that that is a form of customs union, because under the backstop that single customs territory obviates the need for rules of origin checks. The declaration goes on to say—this goes to the heart of what the Minister for the Cabinet Office just said—that if we build and improve on that customs union for the future partnership, we can continue to avoid customs checks.

Let us unpick that. If we build on the backstop, which is the bit that, as I understand it, many Government Members do not like, we can avoid customs checks. So, the temporary backstop—hopefully never to be used; only an insurance policy—has to become permanent, turbocharged and the foundation stone of the political declaration in order to get the protection of a customs union. That is precisely what the political declaration says.

I am not sure that the Minister for the Cabinet Office has explained that to all the Members behind him. If his proposition is that the backstop is just a short-term, temporary measure, whereas it is actually an essential foundation of the political relationship, I think that might be met with a particular response. The pretence that the political declaration equals the same as a customs union goes against the Government’s stated aim to be outside a customs union.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I listened with care to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s response to the five principles at the end of his speech. Did it seem to the shadow Minister that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster disagreed with any of the five principles? I do not disagree with any of them. My right hon. Friend tried most of the time to demonstrate their compatibility with the political agreement. He might have hesitated, because in the Chequers policy the Government went beyond that and proposed a single market in goods—for about 48 hours. The shadow Minister raises negotiating points such as new trade agreements with other countries and what this would mean for freedom of movement, but all that will eventually be covered in the negotiations. Would it not help if Opposition and Government Front Benchers agreed on these five principles? That might transform the atmosphere of the debate when we move on to the next stage of the negotiations after the withdrawal agreement has been agreed.

[Keir Starmer]

As has been alluded to, I am having discussions with Government Front Benchers, including the Minister for the Cabinet Office. I do not intend to disclose what has been said in confidence in those discussions. They will continue, and we will play our part in them. We are trying to set up the next meeting, which we will hold as soon as possible.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way, but I want to finish answering this question. The point is that, unless and until the Prime Minister changes her red lines, it will be impossible to find any space for those negotiations to progress. I do not rule out something dramatic happening next week. The Prime Minister may come to the Dispatch Box and say she now understands that her red lines were the problem and that she is prepared to change them, but I do not think that that will happen. I have concluded that the Prime Minister will plough on with the deal that she put before us last time, and that she is not willing to drop her red lines, which would allow more fruitful progress in those discussions.

I say that without prejudice to the fact that those discussions will go on between now and 12 March. However, the fact that a date is already set for the deal to come back in two weeks’ time makes me just a little cautious in suggesting that those discussions will bear fruit in those next two weeks.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. As he knows, I shall be voting for the Prime Minister’s deal. I think something has changed, which he did not admit at the beginning of his speech: the circumstances of the past 24 hours. I think they may change minds on the Government Benches quite significantly and favourably. But if it does not pass, while I completely agree with him that under those circumstances the Government will need to look again at their red lines to try to get an agreement that is somewhere in the region of what he has been describing, will he also commit that the Labour Front Bench will exercise flexibility? My whole experience of dealing with coalition Government was that it takes two to tango. There has to be flexibility on both sides to get to an agreement.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. We are playing our part in those discussions with the Government and will continue to do so for as long as is necessary. I do not want to go into what we are discussing, but we will continue to do so as long as is necessary. I am just slightly cautious as to the likelihood that that will lead to a breakthrough in the next 14 days.

[Sir William Cash]

I must say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is possibly generating more alarm than he realises. The idea that there is going to be some compromise between the two sides of the House on this question of the red lines raises a very simple question. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman like to state, on behalf of the Opposition, that they would like to see the repeal of the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention, because what it demonstrates is the point I was trying to make about the customs union. If the Government Front Bench say our political declaration is in effect a customs union by a different name, because we are going to build on the backstop and make it permanent and turbocharge it, I suspect there will be a degree of opposition to that, if I have understood anything about the debates that have been going on here for some considerable time. That is where the difference is.

As for the repeal of the 1972 Act, I have always said—I stand by it—that repealing that Act and putting a date for leaving in the withdrawal Act was a mistake because of the transition period. I have always said that the Act we have passed will have to be repealed before it comes into force, and so it will. The implementation Bill White Paper specifically says it is going to be, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. In other words, between now and the end of March we have got to intercept the withdrawal Act that we have passed if there is going to be any order to leaving the EU and ensure that things like the ceasing of the jurisdiction of the European Court is changed. It was barmy to turn the European Court off at 11 o’clock on 29 March, which is the current law, because you cannot get on to transition. I always said that before that comes into force, if this is going to make any sense at all, it is going to have to be changed, intercepted and repealed. That is exactly what the implementation Bill will do. I am as sure as I possibly can be.

[Dr Murrison]

rose—

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to press on. I will just make some progress. I will give way in just a minute. I do not criticise the Minister for the Cabinet Office, because he quite rightly took interventions from a number of Members who really did want detailed answers, but I am going to try to make some progress. Otherwise, between the two of us, we really are going to get to the wind-ups before we anyone else has got in.

Let me move on to closer alignment with the single market. This part of the Brexit debate is too often ignored. How do we protect our service sector, which is of course 80% of our economy and 80% of our jobs? The second part of this package is also needed, alongside a customs union, to prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland. We recognise that if we are going to have closer alignment with the single market we need that to be underpinned by shared institutions and that would require accepting common obligations. What they are would be a matter of negotiation and how we stay aligned would be part of the negotiations. I am not pretending that that would be trouble-free.

The Minister for the Cabinet Office said that that is effectively there in the political declaration, as close as you can get. It is worth going back to the political declaration that the Prime Minister has put before us, because what it actually says is that we should achieve

“a level of liberalisation in trade in services well beyond the Parties’ World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments”.

Well, you cannot aim much lower than that. To quote the former UK permanent representative, that is

“about as unambitious as it can get.”

The third part of the amendment is

“dynamic alignment on rights and protections”.

That means UK standards keeping pace with evolving standards across Europe. Why is that needed? Because we cannot allow UK workers or consumers to see their rights lag behind those in the EU after we leave, or frankly, to allow future Governments to erode those rights. Again, the Minister for the Cabinet Office says, “Well, that is effectively there in the political declaration, or has been promised by the Prime Minister.” There is a world of difference between keeping up with evolving rights and a non-regression clause that simply says they will not drop behind a frozen level, so the answer from the Government simply is not strong enough. They are promising only non-regression—to freeze, not to keep pace. That is a world of difference, and it is no wonder that the trade unions were never going to sign up to that proposal.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said, “Well, don’t worry. What we’ll do is that every time there is an evolution of rights in Europe, we’ll come back here and see whether this House wants to keep up,” but she did not say, “My Government will vote to do so.” That would make a material difference, but she did not, so neither we nor working people are going to fall for that one.

The fourth and fifth elements are clear

“commitments on participation in EU agencies and funding programmes”

and an

“unambiguous agreement on the detail of future security arrangements, including access to the European Arrest Warrant.”

I do not doubt the Prime Minister’s commitment on this. I worked with her when she was Home Secretary and I know how seriously she takes it, but I also know that the political declaration does not say that there has been any progress towards replica arrangements for the European arrest warrant. With the Prime Minister back in, I think, 2012 or 2013, we looked at what would happen if we fell out of the European arrest warrant arrangements and what the old extradition treaties were, and we were horrified by what we saw. Outside the European arrest warrant, it takes about 10 years to extradite someone from a country such as Italy to this country, and there are real-life examples of that. Using the European arrest warrant, it takes about 40 or 50 days. These are material differences and there is nothing in the political declaration along those lines. I understand the technical problems with Schengen and so on, but one of the barriers has been the determination that the European Court should have no role in anything at all in future, thus blocking progress in this area.

I am not pretending that the plan—the alternative—that we have set out is easy or painless to negotiate. I have never pretended that it will be the easiest negotiation in history, but I know that that kind of deal—delivering a close economic relationship with the EU—would prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland, reduce the pressure on the backstop and could be negotiated. The EU has said as much in recent weeks. We have heard in meetings with EU counterparts and in public that the customs union/single market alignment proposition is credible. The EU has said that it is a promising basis for negotiations, and to quote Michel Barnier:

“If the United Kingdom chooses to let its red lines change…then the European Union would be ready immediately to...respond favourably.”

I think it could be achieved. If the Prime Minister is serious about reaching out to the Opposition, she should engage with that proposal. It is clear from her response to the Leader of the Opposition and her blind insistence on seeking further changes to the backstop that that is not her intention, so today we put that plan to the House and ask for Parliament to help in delivering the basis for a credible Brexit offer.

[Richard Graham]

I have been listening with some interest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s explanation of the five bullet points that are so important in the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment, but most of them are fundamentally to do with the future phase of negotiations and are not specifically to do with the withdrawal agreement Bill. I am therefore still puzzled about what the major difference is between his party and the Government and why it cannot agree with the Government to secure the withdrawal agreement and get it through Parliament.

[Keir Starmer]

I think I acknowledged earlier that these points go predominantly to the political declaration and not the withdrawal agreement. Those two documents cannot be separated because they go together. [Interruption.] Well, an example of that is the customs union. The political declaration says that it builds on the withdrawal agreement; we cannot treat them as two separate documents, and the legislation that we will be voting on does not allow us to vote on them separately. But on the general proposition—do we accept that, for example, the backstop, whatever our concerns about it, is inevitable? The answer is yes. I said that when I stood here two weeks ago, and I make that clear again today.

[Dr Murrison]

But the Leader of the Opposition has said that he objects to the backstop because it will not be just permanent; it is potentially forever. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have any qualms about that at all? If he does not, he should be supporting the withdrawal agreement, since most of his amendment, especially point i., is contained within the backstop.

[Keir Starmer]

I tried to deal with that question last time I was at the Dispatch Box, but I will have another go. We do have concerns about the backstop. There are concerns about the exit arrangements. There are concerns that England, Wales and Scotland, on the face of it, will fall out of single market alignment when we are in the backstop. There are concerns about the protection of workplace rights, environmental rights, non-regression protections and so on, and the enforcement mechanism is not the same as it is for other provisions, such as procurement. So there are real, deep concerns. Notwithstanding those concerns, though, we accept, because of our commitment to the Good Friday agreement, that at this stage—two years in, with 30 days to go—a backstop is inevitable. I hope that makes that clear, but I do not accept that it is possible to separate the two documents and treat them as separate documents to be voted on separately. In addition, the legislation does not allow us to do so; it requires both documents to go through in order for us to move forward.

[Mark Pritchard]

Given that Labour party policy on a second referendum was different a week ago from what it is today, may I encourage the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be more optimistic? The Prime Minister could indeed get changes to the backstop—a time limit, or a get-out clause for later on. If she does make those changes—if she is successful—given what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, will he then support the Government in order that we avoid no deal?

[Keir Starmer]

I understand the point and the force with which it is put. Given the conversations that have gone on here and in Brussels, I have to say that I really do not see the prospect that after 94 days of trying, there will be a breakthrough in the next seven days. If there is, we must all come back to the House; there will be a statement from the Prime Minister and we will consider what she says. It will only be on the backstop, and we have accepted the inevitability of the backstop, so it would be more to try to solve a problem on her own Benches than with the Opposition.

However, I have always said that we will look at what the Prime Minister brings back. It was what we did when she brought back the deal in the first place. People invited me to commit beforehand that we would do this, that or the other, but I said I would wait to see what the deal was. I will faithfully wait to see, but at the moment I personally do not think that we shall be standing here in two weeks with significant changes, or any changes, to the withdrawal agreement. I will wait and see. I know that Members on the Government Benches want to be optimistic. My worry is that there is still the expectation of changes that will not happen, and therefore a lack of focus on what needs to happen next. That is why what the Prime Minister said yesterday was significant, because if the deal does not go through, obviously what happens next becomes deeply significant. However, we will faithfully look at whatever comes back and consider it.

A plan of the type that I have suggested is credible. It is a plan that is capable of negotiation, and it is one that the EU is prepared to negotiate. The only question now is, is the Prime Minister prepared to drop her red lines so that there can be a meaningful engagement with that alternative proposition? I invite hon. Members to vote for our amendment tonight, to ensure that that plan can form a consensus or a majority in this House to take us through to the next stage of the process.

I want to underline the commitment that we made on Monday, that if amendment (a) is defeated and the Prime Minister still refuses to negotiate a close economic relationship, Labour will support or table an amendment in favour of a public vote. That public vote would include a credible leave option and remain. It could be attached to the Prime Minister’s deal—what I have called a lock against a damaging Tory Brexit—or it could be attached to any deal that managed to win a majority in the House of Commons.

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

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I will deal with the earlier intervention. It was put to me earlier that we should not adopt that course because of the social unrest that it might cause. There are a number of answers to that. First, this comes at a stage when we are trying to prevent no deal, and I do not think that no deal is going to be orderly and smooth; I think it is going to lead to huge problems up and down the country. Secondly, I think it important for us not to exaggerate social disorder, because to do so can encourage social disorder, and I am really worried about that. I am not suggesting for one minute that that was what the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) was doing—I take her interventions very seriously, as she knows—but I do not think we should casually say that there will be social disorder.

The third thing I want to say is this. I have been in this place for less than four years, but the idea that we would not take the right next step as a matter of principle because we thought that there might be social disorder is a very slippery slope.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)]

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if a Parliament simply guessed what version or outcome of Brexit people wanted, brought it about and then hoped that it was the right one for the British people, that would not be a pragmatic, sensible, sustainable or democratically acceptable way of proceeding?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s intervention for two reasons. First, I have been very hard on the Prime Minister, I think justifiably, for the fact that she set out the red lines without any discussion about them in Parliament, or even, I understand, in the Cabinet. It was her almost personal interpretation of the referendum. In my view, many interpretations could have been applied to it, but that was not one of them.

The second reason is important. I am not sure that getting a deal that is not really liked through the House at the last minute is going to settle anything. If, on a sweaty night in March, a measure goes through that no one really likes, the idea that that constitutes closure is very worrying. Of course, we are building up the expectation that if a deal goes through, that will be it, Brexit will be settled and it will all be over. We will still be in the foothills, because all that will happen after that will be the negotiations on the future relationship, which is so thin at the moment.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

May I take up the point about social order? I have faced social disorder in my own constituency and rightly condemned it, however hard that condemnation was for some constituents to hear. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that some in our country on the hard right who are suggesting that there will be social disorder forget that this is the country that faced down Mosley at home and faced down Hitler and Mussolini abroad? We can never give in to hard-right pressure.

[Keir Starmer]

I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend.

[Gareth Snell]

I too agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). Stoke-on-Trent was the city described by the British National party as the jewel in its crown, and we took no prisoners in fighting its members on the streets to rid ourselves of them.

My right hon. and learned Friend said that there could be a public vote on a deal versus remain at some point in the future. So that I can be clear about our party’s policy, will he outline the nature of the deal that he would like to see on a ballot paper that would persuade him to vote for that deal rather than for remain? It appears to me that at the moment, Labour party policy is actually to revoke article 50 at pretty much any cost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

It is important to appreciate that at the moment, I am pressing an amendment that favours a Brexit deal. In our manifesto we said that, if elected, we would seek to negotiate. We said that we would

“ end Theresa May’s reckless approach to Brexit”,

and that we would

“scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union”,

and we set out why that was necessary. We also said that we recognised

“that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain”,

and that we would

“reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option”.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I have not finished answering the question yet.

What I am putting before the House today is entirely consistent with what we said in our manifesto that we would seek to do. Therefore, the question will be whether we can carry that tonight.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I have not finished answering the question, and it is an important question.

If that cannot be done, we will be faced in two weeks with what I think will be the Prime Minister’s red-line deal or no deal. In our manifesto we rejected both, and in those circumstances we would either put forward or support a motion on a public vote with a credible leave option—when we tabled a Front-Bench amendment three or four weeks ago we spelled out that that deal or proposition would have to have the confidence of the House—with the other option being remain.

[Joanna Cherry]

I welcome the Labour party’s movement towards a second referendum. Some people say a second Brexit referendum would be undemocratic, but does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with Martin Wolf writing in the Financial Times today, who said:

“If democracy means anything, it means a country’s right to change its mind”?

[Keir Starmer]

Yes, and I think that was repeated by the first Brexit Secretary on a number of occasions, although I am never quite sure whether I should quote the first Brexit Secretary—[Interruption.] Yes, or the second, but of course I listen carefully to the third every time, and look forward to seeing him yet again tomorrow morning at the Dispatch Box.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to make some progress, as I have now been on my feet for 40 minutes.

We are putting forward a credible plan, and we are making it clear that if it is not carried and we are left with the option of the Prime Minister’s deal on her red lines or no deal, then we will put down ourselves or support a motion in favour of a public vote in order to prevent a damaging Tory Brexit.

I had a section in my speech on extending article 50 and the amendment put down by others to that end. I hear what they say about that and commend their efforts to push the Government on this and to get the commitments we got yesterday and again at the Dispatch Box today. It would not have happened without a concerted effort by Members on the Opposition Benches, along with others across the House. It is extremely important that we now know that should the deal not go through on 12 March, there will be a binding vote on no deal—we have already had more than one indication where the will of the House is—and that if that does go through there will be a binding vote on extending article 50. In those circumstances, I urge all Members to support our amendment.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I have only 10 minutes, so I will get to the heart of the matter. Last Monday, the Prime Minister should have made a substantive and detailed statement setting out how the Government planned to proceed in the face of defeat—a plan B—but she did not. Instead, she has today taken a radically different course and indicated support for an amendment that cuts across the very deal she negotiated by requiring the backstop to be replaced with unspecified “alternative arrangements”. She said earlier it was not the first time the phrase had been used. It has been used twice in these negotiations in different ways: first to mean the future relationship itself and secondly to mean technology. It cannot mean the future relationship, because if we have a future relationship, we do not need a backstop; and if it means technology, it takes us back to the old idea of technology that is not there.

It is one thing for Back Benchers to lay an amendment at odds with the Prime Minister’s deal, but it is quite another for the Prime Minister to support it, unless she has already got an indication from the EU that it could and would negotiate the necessary changes—but she has not. The danger is obvious: that the Prime Minister today may build a temporary sense of unity on her own Benches while in reality raising expectations she can never fulfil.

On 14 January, on the eve of the meaningful vote, the Prime Minister said at that Dispatch Box:

“I recognise that some Members wanted to see changes to the withdrawal agreement, a unilateral exit mechanism from the backstop, an end date or rejecting the backstop altogether... The simple truth is that the EU was not prepared to agree to this and rejecting the backstop altogether means no deal.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 826.]

Either that was correct, in which case the Government backing this amendment is absurd, or it was not, which raises its own equally serious issues. Earlier when confronted with this, the Prime Minister said you never know if you do not try, which is true, but we have been here before. She told us on 10 December that she was off to seek much lesser concessions, and she failed, so if we are going down the path of giving it a try, we need to consider what happens if we try and fail.

I listened carefully to the Prime Minister when she was challenged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and she refused to rule out the prospect that she herself would apply for an extension of article 50 if this latest attempt to reopen issues, long thought closed, failed. I do not think this House should be so passive in the face of the high likelihood that we will be back here in two weeks facing that very prospect, which is why Labour will support the amendment seeking to prevent no deal, whether by an extension of article 50 or otherwise.

No deal would be catastrophic for jobs and living standards; it would weaken our security; and it would risk a hard border in Northern Ireland. Members should be under no illusion about this: no deal is not a way to prevent a hard border, but a way to guarantee it.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will in a moment.

The first step in preventing the rush to no deal is to reduce the time pressure on the article 50 process. That is what some of the key amendments seek to do, and we will support them, but before there are cries of “Brexit delayed,” let us be clear: we are only at this stage, with 59 days to go, because the Government have run down the clock.

The word crisis is overused in this House, in our media and in our national debate, but we should be in no doubt that this is one of the greatest national crises our country has faced in a generation, and in the absence of leadership from the Government and this Prime Minister, Parliament must now act.



I recognise that there are concerns among some Members, including some on my own side, about voting for these amendments tonight, and I understand those concerns. I also understand the anger and frustration felt by many of our constituents about the handling of these negotiations and about the way in which this place has conducted itself in recent weeks.

[Mr Evans]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

However, we do not have the luxury of being bystanders in this debate. We are active participants. What our constituents are looking for is leadership, and it is time for us to provide it. We cannot say that we want to prevent no deal if we are not willing to take steps to stop it. We cannot tell the people that we do not want no deal and then sleepwalk towards it. We must act, and we must act tonight. Our constituents will not forgive us—nor should they—if we dodge difficult questions.

[Mr Evans]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister may pretend otherwise, but I want to be very clear: delay of article 50 is now inevitable, and it is irresponsible to pretend otherwise. That is the honest truth, and our constituents need to be told it. Even if the Prime Minister were to get a deal through the House in the coming weeks, a swathe of legislation would still need to be passed: six Bills, including a complex implementation Bill, and 600 statutory instruments. It is simply not credible to pretend that all that could be forced through in the remaining time. All that the amendments do is face reality.

[Mr Evans]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will not, because I do not want to leave the Secretary of State without the time that he needs.

The next task that the House will have to undertake is to explore credible alternatives to the Prime Minister’s deal that might be capable of gaining majority support in the House. That is not an easy task, but it is one that we need to get on with. Time is now needed in which to debate and vote on these options. That is why Labour’s Front-Bench amendment was tabled, and it is also why Labour supports amendment (g), in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), and amendment (f) in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).

One of the great tragedies of this last two years is that we have had a Prime Minister who is unwilling to listen to Parliament and wants to push Parliament away, unwilling to build consensus and unwilling to listen to reasonable amendments. But the Prime Minister is now out of time, and Parliament must take control.

EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the following papers be laid before Parliament: any legal advice in full, including that provided by the Attorney General, on the proposed withdrawal agreement on the terms of the UK’s departure from the European Union including the Northern Ireland backstop and framework for a future relationship between the UK and the European Union.

I will go into the details of the argument in just a moment, but may I first attempt to set out the context for today’s debate? Last December, the Government signed the joint report—the phase 1 agreement. It contained a number of important points, including, of course, in relation to Northern Ireland. I remind the House that the phase 1 agreement committed us, first, to maintaining the north-south co-operation provided by the Good Friday agreement; and, secondly, to avoiding a hard border, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls in Northern Ireland. Those, of course, are commitments that will apply “in all circumstances”. The idea is for a legally binding backstop to kick in

“In the absence of agreed solutions”.

That was the commitment made, and I know the Government are solemnly committed to it.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that report also made a commitment, in paragraph 50, that there would be no differences between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless it was with the agreement of the devolved legislature in Northern Ireland?

[Keir Starmer]

It did. A number of other important commitments were made in that agreement, but I am focusing for the moment on the two that relate to the Northern Ireland border. Since then—and it has been 11 months—a number of options have been mooted to meet that commitment. First, the EU proposed a Northern Ireland- specific backstop earlier in the year. The Prime Minister was right to point out the threats that that posed to the UK. Then, the EU proposed a UK-wide backstop, certainly in so far as a customs arrangement or union is concerned, but that runs into the problem that the EU wants an insurance measure that applies until something equally robust replaces it, whereas the UK wants a provision for unilateral withdrawal—and so that got stuck. A third option has been proposed, which is a UK-wide backstop of some sort, with unilateral withdrawal but with a Northern Ireland-specific backstop as a backstop to the backstop. After 11 months, this is unresolved.

I am not going to stand here and pretend that any of this is easy, because it is not—these are complicated negotiations and very serious commitments—but I am sure I am not the only one in this House who feels as though we have lived and re-lived the same week over and over again in the past few months. We begin the week being told, “There is going to be a deal. Cabinet meetings are scheduled. Dates are due—votes are being held in Parliament; there will be emergency summits in Brussels.” By the end of the week we are told, “Next week is decision time.” We have been going around that circuit for some time, and this can go on for only so long. The important point is this: if a deal is reached, it is proposed that the backstop will be legally binding as part of the withdrawal agreement. So it is in the legally binding part of the agreement, not the political declaration. That is a very important provision. Under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, this House will of course be asked to approve that withdrawal agreement, or not approve it, so there is a special statutory process for this House that everybody in this House is well aware of.

On 17 October, it was reported that the Attorney General had been asked by the Cabinet to provide a full assessment of the legal ramifications of the backstop. I pause here to identify and emphasise what it is that the Attorney General has been asked to do: to provide a full assessment of the legal ramifications of the backstop. That is important for later, when I shall get into questions of privilege and non-disclosure.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be well aware that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement has particular constitutional significance for Northern Ireland. Do he and his colleagues therefore agree that it is of the utmost importance that the people of Northern Ireland understand and have sight of the legal advice given to the Government about the impact on the Belfast/Good Friday agreement of any Brexit deal negotiated by the Government?

[Keir Starmer]

I do agree, and I shall develop the point about why we are making an exceptional ask today. In relation to everybody throughout the United Kingdom—

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I am just answering the previous intervention.

In relation to everybody throughout the United Kingdom, but particularly those in Northern Ireland, this is an important measure, as it is to all those who represent people in Northern Ireland.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way in just a minute.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

All right.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I am very grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. Does he not accept that with a live negotiation continuing, the Attorney General is giving legal advice about the situation, probably with several options? That is the sort of advice that is never revealed. It is of course different if we get to the point at which a decision has been made and that decision is being presented to the House, which is when the Government would always justify their legal position, but to give away the Attorney General’s legal advice while the negotiations are still continuing would be completely unacceptable.

[Keir Starmer]

I understand the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—I had the privilege of working with him when I was Director of Public Prosecutions—and I shall address that directly, because I do understand the distinction between legal advice that is being given in real time and legal advice that may come to be given when a backstop is agreed and presented. [Interruption.] I will address that directly to make it absolutely clear what we are asking for, but I recognise the distinction that is being made and shall address it in due course—

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

But even on the basis of that distinction—

[Keir Starmer]

Perhaps it is better if I actually get to the distinction between real-life legal advice given in real time and the sort of advice that may be presented when the deal is being put to Parliament. I will deal with it, I am well aware of it and I know the distinction between the two. If I duck it, I am sure to be challenged later. Let me make some progress.

The chronology is this: as I said, on 17 October the Attorney General was asked by the Cabinet to provide a full assessment of the legal ramifications of the backstop. A few weeks later, on 6 November, it was reported that the Cabinet had been provided with a summary of the Attorney General’s advice on the options for the backstop. It was also reported that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wanted to see the advice in full. There is no doubt that there will be final legal advice if the Government are able to reach an agreement with the EU. It is that final advice that we want to see, and I shall develop precisely what I mean by that in just a moment.

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

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

Just like the Environment Secretary, we want to see it in full. Let me make it clear: we do recognise and understand the convention that Government legal advice should normally remain confidential, and that in ordinary circumstances it would not be appropriate to publish full advice, for good reason. But today I wish to make four points as to why in this case that convention should not apply. I shall summarise them and then develop them. The first is the unprecedented nature of the Brexit decision. It is both legally and technically complex and it is of huge importance across the United Kingdom. This is not just another vote.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

As I will set out, successive Governments have waived the convention against non-disclosure in exceptional circumstances, and these are clearly exceptional circumstances. That is the first reason.

Secondly, the nature of the advice we are asking to see is general and different from other advice that the Law Officers give. That is important when we consider the convention on confidentiality and legal professional privilege.

Thirdly, although legal professional privilege can attach to legal advice given by the Law Officers, it operates differently in relation to their advice from how it operates in relation to the advice of other lawyers. I shall develop that point.

Fourthly, what cannot be allowed to happen is that the advice, or bits of it, are shown to some Members of Parliament outside Government and not others, in order to persuade them about the deal or the backstop. In other words, once the disclosure goes beyond the Government, or in this case the Cabinet—if it does; I am not suggesting that it has at this stage—it must then be made available to everybody.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Keir Starmer]

Let me just make this point, because I have been challenged on it twice. It is a fair challenge and I need to meet it.

What we are calling for today is the publication of the final advice provided by the Attorney General to the Cabinet concerning the terms of any withdrawal agreement. The final advice. [Interruption.] I am making clear what we are asking for. I am at the Dispatch Box, I am on record, and I know precisely the importance of the words that I am now putting on record.

We are calling for, first, the publication of the final advice provided by the Attorney General to the Cabinet concerning the terms of any withdrawal agreement; secondly, that this should be made available to all MPs; and thirdly, that it should be made available after any withdrawal agreement is reached with the EU, but in good time to allow proper consideration before MPs are asked to vote on the deal. So, it is the final advice, it is available to every MP, and it is available at the point at which the final proposed withdrawal agreement that has been agreed with the EU is being put to this House for this House to consider.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

rose—

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I shall give way in just one minute. We are not calling for legal advice to be published in its draft form, or as it is given between now and then, or on a rolling basis.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification, because presumably we are going to be asked to vote on the motion on the Humble Address, which clearly says,

“that the following papers be laid before Parliament: any legal advice in full”.

It says “any legal advice”, yet the shadow Secretary of State is now defining the legal advice that he wants to present. What are we to vote on, Mr Speaker?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. It might profit her and all Members of the House if they listen to the development of the argument in which the shadow Secretary of State is engaged. Frankly, it is not really very confusing at all. There is a motion, and Members can read the motion and form their own view of it. People can presumably listen to a speech and form their view of the speech. In fact, it is really so very simple that only an extraordinarily clever and sophisticated person could fail to grasp it.

[Keir Starmer]

Let me clarify the position, and then, as I indicated, I will give way. Just to be clear: it is the publication of the final advice provided by the Attorney General to the Cabinet concerning the terms of any withdrawal agreement; and that this be then made available to all MPs after any withdrawal agreement is reached with the EU and in good time before MPs are asked to vote on the deal. As for the way in which I put the case, when I last dealt with the Humble Address it was in relation to the impact assessments. I made a number of points from the Dispatch Box that were important to how that was handled afterwards and the agreement that we reached with the Government.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way as I indicated.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. Does he agree that the unprecedented nature of the meaningful vote that this House will have in the event of a withdrawal agreement being made makes it imperative for those of us who have to make that decision to have access to the Attorney General’s best view and his legal advice as to what the implications of that decision are?

[Keir Starmer]

I completely agree. The first argument that I will develop is that this is an exceptional case. There is a convention against non-disclosure; I accept that. There are exceptions to it, and if ever there was an exceptional case it is this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way to the right hon. Lady, and then I will deal with both interventions.

[Anna Soubry]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. Can he help us with this? Is this a motion that was drafted by the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, which has subsequently been changed quite dramatically at the Dispatch Box? Is it an intervention, yet again, by the shadow Secretary of State to make good the failings of the leader of his party?

[Keir Starmer]

As the right hon. Lady knows, I have great respect for her, but I really do not think that engaging in that kind of intervention is helpful in this serious debate.

In relation to the intervention of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and the general point, my response is this: this issue of the disclosability of legal advice has been discussed very much in the past two or three weeks. As soon as I started calling for it, I made it very clear, when I was pressed as to what procedures we would use to try to obtain the advice, that I did not want to use any. I invited the Government to indicate that they would disclose the advice in full rather than have this fight in the House, and therefore I declined, three weeks ago, to say what procedure we would use. I wanted the ball to be in the Government’s court. I wanted the Government to see the good sense in putting the legal position before the House, for all the exceptional reasons that have been set out, and the Government have not responded in kind. That is why we are here today with this Humble Address.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I will press on, because the first point that I need to make is that this is an exceptional case—in other words, there is a rule or a convention, and there is an exception to it. First, of course, there is the unique importance of the peace process in Northern Ireland, which plenty of Members have experienced at first hand. There are politicians throughout the House who played an important part in that process. I had the great privilege of working for the Northern Ireland Policing Board for five years in Northern Ireland, where I saw for myself the progress that had been made and the ramifications of the Good Friday agreement. That was of unique importance.

Allied to that is the central importance of the withdrawal agreement itself. That critical document will determine the future relationship between this country and the EU, and it will be legally binding not just in international law, but, it is proposed, in domestic law through the EU implementation Bill. Therefore, the withdrawal agreement will not just be discussed in this House but will become international law and part of our law—a hugely important, exceptional case.

There is, of course, the special procedure in the House, to which I have already alluded, now reflected in section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It is very unusual for us to have that legislative process for a motion on the deal. As has been said, it is critical that Parliament is fully informed of the details and the Government’s thinking. I know that the Government recognise that. They know that all material and detail should be put before the House so that it can consider the withdrawal agreement and future relationship carefully. In the 2018 White Paper, “Legislating for the withdrawal agreement between the UK and EU”, the Government committed to providing “appropriate analysis” before the meaningful vote and went on to say that this information

“will ensure that Parliament can make an informed decision about the implications of our new relationship with the EU in all areas.”

I readily accept that that was in the context of requests for impact analyses, but the same point applies: if we are to make a decision of this importance, it must be an informed decision, and that means that the details in every respect must be put before the House.

There is, of course, precedent for the Government publishing legal advice—albeit, I accept, in different and limited forms. The first is the Iraq war. I remind the House that, prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the then Attorney General set out in a written question in the House of Lords his views of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq. He did not publish the full advice before the Commons vote to approve military action, even though many individuals, including me, felt that he should have done so on an issue of that importance.

Importantly, though, in April 2005, the Government did publish the Attorney General’s final advice to the Cabinet on the legality of the war with Iraq. I think there is general agreement now—there is certainly a majority view—that the Attorney General should have provided in 2003 the full advice that he finally produced in 2005, because the decision was so important. Therefore, there are exceptions to the convention in exceptional circumstances.

There is further precedent of advice being made available in the case of other military conflicts. For example, in November 2015 the then Prime Minister set out his justification for military action, including the legal basis, before the House was asked to approve action in Syria. I accept that what he did not make available at that stage was the full advice, but it is a clear precedent for the publication of details before a vote. In other words, when the House is coming to an important moment and making a decision of this kind, the convention of non-disclosure is open to exceptions. This is clearly an exceptional case.

Secondly, the nature of this advice means that it is not the same as other advice that the Law Officers give. The advice here is about what the proposed provisions in a treaty mean, and that is different from the advice that the Law Officers often give. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) may recall that, when he was Solicitor General, he gave a lecture on this very topic and set out that the core function of the Law Officers in giving their usual advice was to ensure that the Government and the Ministers act lawfully. That advice is given, as I and many other people in this House know, on a regular basis, and there are reasons why confidentiality has to be attached to it. It is, by its nature, advice to the Government, or even to individuals, on whether they are acting lawfully. They may often be in a position where somebody wants to challenge them directly about the legality of what they are doing. In those circumstances, the rule of non-disclosure applies.

The advice that would be subject to this motion is a fundamentally different type of advice that the Cabinet is seeking, because it is about the general interpretation of an important provision in the treaty, I assume so that the Cabinet can be assured about how it would work. Equally, the House could be assured about how it would work.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

The point I am making to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is partly about the sequence of events. At the point where the Government have made an agreement and the matter is being put to the House, clearly the Government will need to be able to justify their legal position and what they believe the agreement means. But at this stage advice is being given, no doubt on a range of options, and often the question whether something is lawful is also a question of how arguable a particular position might be, what the various options are, and perhaps what the Solicitor General or Attorney General thinks is the best option legally. Those points should not be in the public domain. It is the final legal position that should be made clear.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention, which builds on our previous exchange. I agree; this is in relation to the final advice about the interpretation of the proposed withdrawal agreement and in particular any backstop arrangement that may be put in place.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I am deeply unclear—are you asking for publication of the final advice or of any legal advice in full that has happened during the entire negotiation? [Interruption.] With due respect, I am being asked for my vote regarding the motion on the Order Paper. Are you asking for what is on the Order Paper, which is,

“any legal advice in full”—

that is, during the whole negotiation? Are you asking me to vote in—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I am making a judgment that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has heard the thrust of what the hon. Lady has said. I am not debating that point with her. If she wants to intervene again in due course, she can try to do so, but perhaps she would do me the courtesy of acknowledging that I do know how to chair in this place. I call Sir Keir Starmer.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I have said I think three—

[Vicky Ford]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

No, I will not. I have barely started responding to the hon. Lady’s last intervention.

I have set out clearly three times—not for the sake of an intervention, where there is an element of deliberately not listening, but for the benefit of the House—precisely what we are asking for, and I do not think I could be any clearer.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Like a number of other Members, I was here when we got legal advice over the war in Iraq, so when the Government come back with their proposals—regardless of the wording of the motion on the Order Paper—I will want to know whether what we are doing is legal. That is the important point for me.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. I think that everybody across the House will want to know the legal ramifications of the decision that we are being asked to make, which is precisely why this advice should be disclosed at that stage.

I will now develop my third point, which is that legal professional privilege operates differently in relation to the advice of Law Officers than it does to other lawyers. That is an overlooked legal point, but an important one. Let me give the House two examples. First, legal professional privilege applies in ordinary civil litigation, but in general the Government waive that privilege when advice is central to the importance of the case and withholding it might prevent the court from reaching a conclusion that is fair and in the overall public interest. The ordinary rules of confidentiality that apply to all legal proceedings are waived as a matter of convention by the Government even when they are engaged in civil litigation, which is where such rules would be at their height, if they would prevent the court from reaching a conclusion that may not be fair or otherwise in the public interest. In other words, there is a public interest element that comes into the operation of privilege when it applies to the Government.

[The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)]

indicated assent.

[Keir Starmer]

I see the Solicitor General agreeing; he knows this because he operates this way all the time in the advice that he provides.

The second example is that section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides an exemption for the disclosure of information from the Law Officers that attracts legal professional privilege, but it only applies if the public interest in withholding outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In other words, there is an overriding public interest test in relation to advice provided by the Law Officers that does not apply in the same way to lawyers in private litigation.

My fourth point is a very important one. Confidentiality and privilege can justify non-disclosure, but what the Government cannot do is waive the rule for some MPs and not for others. There are a number of important individuals and groups of MPs whom the Government may well find themselves wanting to persuade to back their deal. In order to do so, they might be tempted to share the advice with those individuals to persuade them of the legal ramifications of the backstop.

I know that the Democratic Unionist party in particular—and everybody who represents anybody in Northern Ireland—is very concerned about that for obvious reasons, and I think I am right in saying that its Members have called for the legal advice to be published. It is acutely important to those in Northern Ireland, but I say to the Government that it cannot be acceptable to share the advice, or bits of the advice, with some in this House and not others. Therefore, if there is any proposal or suggestion that it is to be or might be shared with individuals in relation to this vote, it cannot then not be shared with others, because the ring of confidentiality and privilege will have fallen away, and there could be no justification for it not being available to all.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of any precedent for such a differentiation?

[Keir Starmer]

No, I am not. I think I would be right in saying that if any advice was shared outside the ring of confidence, confidentiality would fall away as a basis for non-disclosure to the House. That must be right in principle; it cannot possibly be right that some in this House have seen bits or all of the advice and others have not.

[Mr Grieve]

I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If the advice were prepared for the Cabinet in order for it to act collectively in taking its decisions, but it were then shared more widely outside, I agree entirely that it ought to be shared with every Member of this House at that point.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. I had the privilege of working with the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he was Attorney General, so I know how carefully he attended to his work.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend also be clear that this must extend to Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who are not members of the Government and are not bound in the same way under the ministerial code? Ministers tend to refer to bits and pieces of the legal advice, which is why it is important to see the whole of the legal advice in the round.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention and agree on both fronts, particularly on summary or editing. In my time as a lawyer, I saw various attempts to edit or summarise legal advice. Even done with the best of intentions, it can lead to some misinterpretation of the advice that has been given.

There is a convention, but it is subject to exceptions and this is an exceptional case. There is good reason and good precedent for publishing this advice, and it is the right thing to do. I think there is growing cross-party support for that, and rather than fighting this unnecessary battle with Parliament, the Prime Minster should accept the motion and agree to publish the full advice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I would rather just finish, if I may.

I am very concerned about the wording of the motion, which is why I hope so much that we will be able to reach a consensus this afternoon. It is very broadly drafted. It refers to

“any legal advice in full, including that provided by the Attorney General”.

[Keir Starmer]

Let me deal with that point. As with the impact assessments, if legal advice were provided in the way that I set out earlier, the question would arise of whether the order, or the Humble Address, had been complied with. In addressing that question, of course anyone judging whether it had been complied with would take into account what had been said at the Dispatch Box, in exactly the same way as happened with the impact assessments. When those were provided, the question arose of whether there had been compliance with what had been asked for, and that was answered by reference to what had been said at the Dispatch Boxes about what was really being asked for. What I have said is important, because it will be me standing here having to make the case that the order has not been complied with. I could hardly stand here and complain about the provision of exactly what I had asked for.

[Victoria Prentis]

That is extremely helpful. I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State will go one step further, and make it clear that he would like to import into the motion the point that he made about the information being supplied just to Members of Parliament, rather than laid before Parliament generally.

[Keir Starmer]

I have put on the record—three times, I think—that that is what I want and that is what we are seeking, and I absolutely stand by that. Not only could I not properly make the argument if that were the arrangement; I would not do so.

[Victoria Prentis]

I apologise for that slightly unusual exchange, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)]

It is more than a pleasure—it is a privilege—to speak at the end of this well-informed, wide-ranging and important debate. May I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for, in the right spirit, reaching across and making a proper and considered offer with regard to the Government’s position? His contribution reflected very much the careful and deliberate argument of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who rightly, and perhaps almost inevitably—he will forgive me for saying that—moved away from the wide-ranging terms of the motion and very clearly set out his and his party’s position with regard to the subject matter that he and other Opposition Members wish to deal with.

The hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) rightly explained the context of the debate. This is an extraordinary time in our nation’s history, with grave decisions to be made by this place that will affect the lives of all of us. I readily accept all that, but I do hope that hon. and right hon. Members will forgive me if, as Law Officers have done in times gone by, and I hope will do so in the future, I dwell a little on the particularly important and unusual role that is filled by both the Attorney General and me within this wonderful unwritten constitution that we all have and celebrate. I will not repeat the proper references made by the hon. Gentleman and others to “Erskine May”, the ministerial code and indeed the Cabinet Office code—they all stand on the record and do not bear repetition.

It comes to this: the quality of collective decision making in government is dealt a fatal blow when, bit by bit, that decision making is subdivided, unpicked and, frankly, made almost impossible even in circumstances as important and exceptional as this. The argument that we are now having boils down to whether Labour Members and others in this House can accept the Government’s clear statement that we wish to provide a comprehensive position statement that deals with not just the economic and political consequences of any withdrawal agreement and future relationship, but the legal consequences of that decision.

We have inevitably and properly focused on the question of Northern Ireland, which the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) quite properly raised, together with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who is no longer in the Chamber. We accept all that, but say that, consistent with previous incidences when the Government’s legal position has been set out in a way that has helped debate in this House, that would be the appropriate course of action here, rather than publishing Law Officers’ advice.

Much has been made about the previous occasion when that was done in relation to the Iraq war—in fact it was the only occasion when the full text of Law Officers’ advice has ever been disclosed. It was two years after the event in particular circumstances when, as has already been referred to, the question of the lawfulness of an action by the Government lay at the heart of the debate. We are in a different position now.

Right hon. and hon. Members know that it would be wrong if I were to try to speculate about the content of any advice on this issue that may or may not have been given by Law Officers. I have to remain true to the convention that we have referred to, but doing the best that I can, it would seem to me that using the Iraq precedent, bearing in mind the particular context and the particular circumstances, is not a helpful guide for where we are today.

Instead, I have looked back to the time of a previous Solicitor General, the late Lord Howe of Aberavon— Sir Geoffrey Howe as he was then—who is sadly no longer with us. He was the Solicitor General who took through the accession of this country to the treaties and the European Communities Act 1972. Although he spoke a lot about the legal basis and effects of entry to the then European Economic Community and the other communities, there was no suggestion at that time that any advice that he may or may not have given should be published. That is probably the best parallel that we can draw between the important events of 2018 and the very important events of 1972. If the House can accept that parallel, perhaps it can go on to accept the Government’s position.

The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras sought to make four key points. First, he spoke about the unprecedented context of the negotiations—I agree with that point—and, secondly, he referred to the nature of the advice as general, rather than something specific with regard to an action. Thirdly, he talked about the operation of the convention with regard to Law Officers’ advice and its position regarding privilege. His fourth point was that the advice or parts of it could not be shown to some but not others. These are all fairly reasonable and clear points.

I have already mentioned why I say that although these circumstances are exceptional, there is no reason at all for Law Officers’ advice to be published in the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks. However, I want to deal with the point that he makes about—I hope he will forgive me if I use this phrase—a carve-out from the convention on the basis that the Government’s approach should allow for the disclosure of advice when that advice is in general terms. I would resist any suggestion that we should look at the disclosure of Law Officers’ legal advice on anything other than a strict case-by-case basis. In other words, the particular facts of each disclosure will very much depend on whether Law Officers’ advice should be published.

I agreed to some extent with the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about legal professional privilege, although I would say that the context of litigation is really the source of any disclosure, rather than a particularly special status whereby Law Officers’ advice is in a different category of legal professional privilege. If anything, there is a particular premium on the care that Government Departments take about the disclosure of Law Officers’ advice for all the consent reasons mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). With respect to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, one must look at the context. It is the litigation context that would allow disclosure, as opposed to anything intrinsically to do with the status of Law Officers’ advice.

I have dealt with the past as best I may, but I want to reiterate—I hope for the benefit of the House—why the Law Officers’ convention still remains important. It is important not just when it comes to legal professional privilege, but because it protects the public interest in reflecting collective Cabinet responsibility. That is a vital constitutional principle. Why? Because it would be wrong and damaging to start distinguishing the specifically legal components of collective decision making. This places the rule of law at the centre of Government decision-making processes and at the centre of the minds of all Ministers, not just the Law Officers, and it does not permit a delegation of those important responsibilities by Ministers to me and to the Attorney General.

As one of my illustrious predecessor Law Officers and fellow “sosbanite”, the late Sir Elwyn Jones, wrote:

“the Minister who is advised by the law officers that he cannot do something…is not allowed to say, ‘I cannot do it because the Attorney-General tells me that I cannot.’”

I could not have put it better myself. We are talking about the indivisibility of Government decision making, and I am sure that the House will agree that it is a pretty fundamental point.

It is the role of the Law Officers to guard this principle, however tempting—however convenient—it might be to publish legal advice. We are the stewards; we are here to jealously guard the gate. A decision to disclose Law Officers’ advice requires a very powerful countervailing public interest to override that position. The authority of the Law Officers to disclose the fact that they have or have not advised, and then the actual content of that advice, is rarely sought and rarely given. Contrary to what some people have suggested about the right of the client—in this case, the Government—the content of the advice must not be disclosed outside the Government without the authority of the Law Officers.

In the few short minutes I have left, as I am mindful of the need to move on to other important debates—the Opposition Chief Whip is in his place—I think it would be right for me to refer very briefly to some of the important contributions made by hon. Members. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the former Attorney General, spoke fundamentally about the need to speak truth to power—if Law Officers cannot do that, where are we? I entirely agree with him.

The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) made a really important point about the difference between legal advice and the legal position of the Government. I think he accepted the point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield made in an intervention. I do not wish to repeat that, but I simply reiterate the point for, I hope, the benefit of him and everybody in the Chamber.

I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who spoke with authority as a former Government lawyer. She rightly reminded us in detail about the litigation position of the Government and the realities of disclosure, and the particular status of the Law Officers’ advice with regard to the deliberations of Government lawyers. Many other eminent lawyers spoke today—and many eminent non-lawyers as well, Mr Speaker, as I know that you regard the non-lawyer with particular affection, so I do not want to miss them out.

Today’s debate has been about not just dusty conventions, but pretty important constitutional positions. We know that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras fully understands that. Admirable advocate though he is, I could not help but detect perhaps a little sense of sheepishness in his approach to the conventions. I readily forgive that, and I know that it will make him pause for thought in the days ahead. I hope that it can lead him and his colleagues to accept the clear view, and the clear offer, set out by my right hon. Friend the Minister. I readily adopt and repeat that offer. I hope that it will allow the right hon. Gentleman to draw back and, in the spirit of consensus and constructive dialogue, to accept the Government’s position and not press his motion to a vote today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the following papers be laid before Parliament: any legal advice in full, including that provided by the Attorney General, on the proposed withdrawal agreement on the terms of the UK’s departure from the European Union including the Northern Ireland backstop and framework for a future relationship between the UK and the European Union.

[Keir Starmer]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance and clarity on the fact that the decision of the House that has just been made is clear, and that the Government must therefore respond but, in fairness, respond in the terms that I set out from the Dispatch Box. If I may repeat them for the record, the motion requires the publication of the final and full advice provided by the Attorney General to the Cabinet concerning the terms of any withdrawal agreement. This must be made available to all MPs. It is to be published after any withdrawal agreement is reached with the EU, but in good time to allow proper consideration before MPs are asked to vote on the deal. I put it in those terms because it reflects what I said from the Dispatch Box in the debate.

[Mr Speaker]

The House has resolved this matter, in that the motion has been put to it and approved without dissent or objection by it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely entitled—both in the course of his speech, as he did, and now via the ruse of a point of order—further and better to explain what he seeks, and there is nothing wrong, exceptionable or disorderly about that.

The ruling I give is simply that the motion is effective—I have been advised thus. It is not just an expression of the opinion of the House; it is an expression of the will of the House that certain documents should be provided to it. It is then for the Government to respond, and we await that response, which it is to be expected will be swift. I hope that that is helpful to colleagues.