Early Parliamentary General Election

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Ind)]

I do not know whether the House wants a debate, so I will be very brief. I was going to join in if other people were going to debate. Thank you for encouraging me, Mr Speaker—no doubt to the deep distress of everybody else waiting to have an important vote.

I merely say that I have found these exchanges quite predictable; they had been well rehearsed before they took place today. With the greatest respect, I do think that the Prime Minister has a tremendous skill in keeping a straight face while he is being so disingenuous. The fact is that he is now desperate to have a general election in order to bring this House’s proceedings to an end, and to have the election, clearly, before 31 October. He is obviously going to campaign before that on the basis that he has been thwarted in getting an amazing, beneficial deal for this country that is being blocked by wicked continental politicians and by MPs in the House of Commons who have no sense of the true national interest, which is to keep him in power.

It is wrong to say that those opposed to the Prime Minister are trying to reverse the referendum. A very large percentage of those who have been defeating him in the past two days are prepared to vote for Brexit. They voted for Brexit more often than he has. He caused delay in March and he caused delay in April when we wished to proceed on satisfactory, reasonable terms. We now have a Bill that is the beginning of a pathway to giving us more time for grown-up, sensible, diplomatic exchanges between each other.

The idea that those in the European Union are refusing us a deal because they think that they are going to trap us in it permanently is nonsense. They are desperate to get a deal—of course they are—but not so desperate that they are going to accept terms that will cause chaos in Northern Ireland, politically and economically, and will shatter the normal rules that hold together the single market and the customs union upon which they are based. The Prime Minister has thrown down dramatic conditions that he must know make any sensible negotiations pointless unless he changes his direction. He is now Prime Minister. He is now a responsible politician with huge responsibility. I urge him one last time to stop treating all this as a game and to use the time available to get a serious resolution of these impossible problems to look after the future good will of this country, to keep us in a proper—no doubt different—relationship with our partners on the continent, and, in particular, to keep our economic and trading relationships intact, because they are essential for the future of our children and grandchildren.

G7 Summit

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that this country has engaged actively with our European friends and partners to make sense of the Iran nuclear deal and to ensure that that deal continues. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary continues to work actively not only to secure the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, but on all the very sad consular cases that we are currently dealing with in Iran. I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary and the work of all his officials.

I am glad for what the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of preserving democracy in Hong Kong, and he will observe the strength of the G7 statement on that matter. But quite frankly, when it comes to the Bill that he is assisting to bring forward tomorrow, with the procedure that is coming forward tonight, let us be in no doubt that this man is a former Bennite. In fact, I believe that he is still a Bennite. He voted against every single piece of EU legislation. He voted against Maastricht. He voted against Lisbon. Time and time and time again, he has said that we must uphold the result of the EU referendum. Time and time again, he has said that he is on the side of democracy and vindicating the will of the people. And what do we see now? He has been converted—with his hordes of Momentum activists trying to take over the streets—into the agent of those who would subvert democracy and overturn the will of the people. That is what he wants to do. He wants to entrust the decision about how long this country remains in the European Union to our friends and partners in Brussels, and not to this House. That is not democracy.

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman, inadvertently or not, has become the agent of further delay, further confusion and further uncertainty for business in this country and abroad. That is what he is prescribing. That is what he stands for. That is the result of his policy. I urge everybody on all sides of the House not to support his approach. Let us go forward, and not back with the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

It seems to me that the Prime Minister’s extraordinary knockabout performance today merely confirms his obvious strategy, which is to set conditions that make no deal inevitable, to make sure that as much blame as possible is attached to the EU and to this House for that consequence, and then—as quickly as he can—to fight a flag-waving general election before the consequences of no deal become too obvious to the public. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would let me know whether that clear explanation of his policy is one that he entirely accepts. Does he also accept that if he gets his way and gets no deal, we will then have to begin years of negotiations with the Europeans and the rest of the world about getting new trade, security and other arrangements in force? Does he seriously think that this approach will obtain from any other country in the world a free trade arrangement that is half as good as the Common Market that Conservative Governments have helped to put together over the years?

[The Prime Minister]

As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, I am a keen fan and a lifelong fan of —[Interruption.]

Detainee Mistreatment: Judge-led Inquiry

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if she will make good on her Government’s commitment, made over a year ago, to bring to the House within 60 days their view on reinstating the judge-led inquiry into detainee mistreatment and rendition that the former Government promised in 2012.

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

As my right hon. and learned Friend indicates, this issue has a lengthy history. It was in July 2010 that Prime Minister Cameron announced Sir Peter Gibson’s inquiry into allegations that the United Kingdom had been implicated in the improper treatment of detainees held by other countries in the aftermath of 9/11.

In December 2013, the Government published Sir Peter’s preparatory work and asked the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament to follow up on the themes and issues which that work had identified, to take further evidence and to make a report. At the same time, the Government said that they would:

“take a final view as to whether a further judicial inquiry still remains necessary to add any further information of value to future policy making and the national interest.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2013; Vol. 572, c. 916.]

In June last year, the Intelligence and Security Committee, its work having been interrupted by two general elections and the task of reconstituting the Committee after those elections, published two reports: “Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition: 2001-2010” and “Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition: Current Issues”.

In response to an urgent question from my right hon. and learned Friend on 2 July last year, the Minister for Europe and the Americas, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), said that, in responding to the ISC reports, the Government would:

“give careful consideration to the calls for another judge-led inquiry and will update the House”.—[Official Report, 2 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 26.]

The Government responded formally to the ISC on 22 November last year, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a written statement, said:

“The Government continue to give serious consideration to the examination of detainee issues and whether any more lessons can be learned and, if so, how.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2018; Vol. 644, c. 31WS]

That serious consideration has included the question of a further judge-led inquiry.

As the House will understand, this has been complex work, which has involved some of the most sensitive security issues. I confirm to the House today that the Government will make a definitive statement setting out their decision about a judge-led inquiry later this week and, at the same time, we will announce to the House our response to Sir Adrian Fulford’s recommendations on the consolidated guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you.

[Mr Clarke]

You have asked the most penetrating question, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for finally producing some indication of when we might get a decision and for saying that the Government have reached conclusions. I will not repeat his precis of events, which goes back to the most firm undertakings in 2010 and 2012 that there would be a judge-led inquiry. The preliminary inquiry by Sir Peter Gibson set out the questions that the inquiry had to answer. It was postponed only because of the police inquiry into the further revelations of rendition to Colonel Gaddafi in Libya. After that, the resumption of the inquiry was postponed while the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee examined matters. When the ISC finally discovered the extent of British intelligence services’ complicity in cases of torture and their involvement in hijacking and the unlawful rendition of people for interrogation, mainly in America, the Committee’s investigations were stopped and it made a report saying what it would have liked to examine if it had been allowed to interview witnesses.

For years and years, this has been put into the long grass in the hope that it would eventually go away, so I hope that that comes to an end this week. We need to know how there was such a terrible breakdown in responsibility and communications that produced the misdeeds that took place in the time after 9/11, so that we can avoid the culture of the intelligence services and their relationships with Ministers ever slipping back into the same thing again. I hope that we will not just be told, “It is too late. Everything is all right now; there is no need to do anything,” because if it is all right now—as I trust it is—we have to reduce the risks that in future, we as a country will ever get involved in torture and rendition again.

If this decision comes out in the last days of this Session, on the eve of the summer recess and in the middle of the appointment of a new Prime Minister in an attempt to bury it away in the pages of Hansard and to escape any further challenge until the autumn comes around, it will be the most blatant further attempt to get out of the most solemn undertakings that were given by me when I was Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor on behalf of the then Prime Minister. That Prime Minister gave these undertakings himself, in a Government in which the present Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and many of their colleagues were serving. We had cleared that line and should honour it, and the whole House should demand a proper, full statement later this week. If there is one success that the delay may have achieved, it is, I regret to say, that for serious personal reasons—not because I am going on holiday—I may miss the final denouement and the statement later this week, because I may be absent from the House. However, I hope that the House will hold the Government fully to account if they try to slip out of their commitments and obligations in the end.

[Mr Lidington]

I can reassure my right hon. and learned Friend that, far from there being any attempt on behalf of the Government to slip things out under the radar as the summer recess approaches, the Prime Minister has been very clear that she regards it as her responsibility to ensure that the decision is taken and announced to Parliament before she leaves office. It would be understandable if a new Prime Minister on taking office wanted to look again at or acquaint himself with the material that was coming to the present Prime Minister. This decision and its timing are actually designed to ensure that we do not slip anything out under the radar.

I would just say to my right hon and learned Friend that the Government are very clear that officials in our agencies have not been involved in torture and that this Government and previous Governments have been resolute in opposing torture. We are talking about the extent to which it is alleged that there was knowledge of or to some extent complicity in the treatment of detainees held by the authorities in other countries.

In my right hon and learned Friend’s time, a number of significant changes were made, both in internal Government practice and in the law, that I believe have put us in a much better position since his time in office. I agree strongly with him about the need for us when we debate these matters to look forward as well as backwards. That is exactly why I believe it is right that we acquaint the House with Sir Adrian Fulford’s recommendations on the consolidated guidance at the same time as we respond to the obligation to take the decision on a judge-led inquiry and announce it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady has campaigned long and hard on this issue and championed the needs of all those who were affected. The victims and families have suffered so much, and it is obviously important that they get the answers and the justice that they deserve. They have been waiting decades for that. In April, as she will know, the Department of Health and Social Care announced a major uplift in the financial support available to beneficiaries of the infected blood support scheme in England. Discussions are now under way between officials in the UK, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Administrations to look, as a matter of urgency, at how we can provide greater parity of support across the UK.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

The Conservative party has frequently won the trust of the public over recent generations because of its reputation for economic competence and responsibility. Those qualities have helped to contribute to the Prime Minister’s legacy. She will leave behind a recovery from economic crisis to full employment and economic growth. Does she therefore agree that in the present uncertainty surrounding Brexit and the change of government, it would be extremely unwise for candidates in the leadership election, or the outgoing Government, to start making reckless commitments on tax cuts and promises on spending, which should properly be addressed responsibly in a spending round once those uncertainties are behind us?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I commend my right hon. and learned Friend for the work he did in a previous Conservative Administration as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He left a golden economic legacy, which was then completely squandered by 13 years of a Labour Government, and as he says, Conservatives have had to turn that around. I am pleased that we see employment at record levels; I am pleased that we see the deficit down; and I am pleased that we see debt falling. We are able to ensure that we can put more money into public services. We have already committed the biggest ever cash boost for the national health service in its history. I can assure him that in my time as Prime Minister we will not make any reckless commitments, but we do want to ensure that we see our public services supported, as they should be, to provide the services we believe the people of this country deserve.

European Council

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The talks between the Government and the Opposition have indeed been serious. They are detailed and they are being taken forward in a constructive and positive fashion. We did, of course, offer talks at an earlier stage than very recently, but I am pleased that we are now able to sit down in this way.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue about the European parliamentary elections. Of course, had Members in this House voted with a majority to agree the withdrawal agreement on 29 March, we would have guaranteed leaving on 22 May and not holding the European parliamentary elections. At the time, obviously, he did not feel able to support a deal to enable us not to hold those European parliamentary elections. It is still possible to do so, and we will continue to work on that.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the need for us to protect jobs, industry and living standards; indeed, that is what we have been aiming to do with the deal that we agreed with the European Union. But we have been doing that not just in relation to the deal with the European Union. It is this Government who have presided over record levels of people in employment. It is this Government who have helped people with their living standards, with tax cuts for 32 million people.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the future relationship and the need to entrench aspects of the future relationship. Of course, the Government did, on 29 March, say that we would accept the amendment tabled on the Order Paper by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), which would require Parliament to have a role in looking at the future relationship and the negotiating objectives for the future. That clearly makes the case that any Government —any Government—as they are going through those negotiations, will have to ensure that they take Parliament with them in agreeing that future relationship.

On the issue of coming together in an agreement, the point is very simple. I am not prepared just to accept Labour’s policies; the Labour Party is not prepared just to accept our policies. As the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has said, this takes compromise on both sides, and that is what we are doing: sitting down seriously to find a way that enables this House to ensure that there is a deal that commands a majority, so that we can leave the European Union, fulfil the vote of the British people in 2016 in the referendum and do so in a way that does indeed protect jobs, living standards and industry.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

May I urge my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to stick to her commitment to lead the country through to the conclusion of the Brexit process, and to ignore some of the vicious attacks being made upon her by our more extreme right-wing colleagues?

Given that my right hon. Friend rightly points out that, in the national interest, the next obvious step is to reach a settlement between the Government and the principal Opposition party on the best way forward, will she indicate that it is clear that the minimum that that requires is some sort of customs arrangement and sufficient regulatory alignment at least to keep our trade as open and free as it has been across the channel and in the Republic of Ireland? Can she negotiate that so that it does actually bind any successor Government in future negotiations?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right that, as we look to that future relationship, we are looking at the customs arrangement that would be in place in that future relationship. We have already indicated, as is in fact reflected in the political declaration, that we want to retain the benefits of a customs union—no tariffs, no quotas and no rules of origin checks. That is provided for in the political declaration as it currently stands. Of course, we have not been able to enshrine that in legal text, because it is not possible for the European Union to negotiate that treaty with us until we are a third country—until we are out of the European Union—so any commitments that are made here will be about the negotiating objectives that we take through into that process. However, there will still be negotiations to be had with the European Union.

In terms of adding to and clarifying what is in that political declaration, and the position of the UK Government, the EU Council, as I have indicated, has said that it would be willing to look at additions and clarifications to that political decoration.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I will give way to my right hon. and learned Friend, then to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and then I will make some progress.

[Mr Clarke]

On the Government’s commitment to avoid no deal, in line with the votes, my right hon. Friend has acceded that the Government do accept last week’s votes, which is in line with the constitutional convention that the Government do not proceed with policies that are rejected by this House of Commons. He has agreed that. Then he said that we therefore either pass the withdrawal agreement, which I have voted for, or ask for an extension, that being the only remedy presumably, but, as he rightly says, we cannot guarantee the Europeans would accept that. However, in line with the wishes of the House and what is now Government policy, if we are driven by the more hard-line people in this House to that circumstance, obviously the Government must revoke, in the hope that we start the whole process again once the House and everybody else has come back to their senses and found a consensus on how to proceed on the question of our future relations with the rest of the world.

[Mr Lidington]

With all respect, I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend. I think he underestimates quite how severe the damage would be to already fragile public confidence in our democratic processes if the House voted to revoke the implementation of a decision that the majority of Members gave to the electorate in 2016, saying they would abide by their decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

If the right hon. Lady will bear with me, I want to come on to that shortly.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

My right hon. Friend has said that the Government are going to reject, or try to reject, the so-called Letwin amendment this evening but will then make Government time available for roughly the same thing. So as far as I can see, the only objection to the amendment is that it has been tabled by a Back Bencher and not by the Government. Would this not all be resolved if my right hon. Friend confirmed that the Government will make this Wednesday available for the purpose, since we do not have much time? It seems to me that we would then all be in total agreement and be able to proceed to the indicative votes.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

The danger that the hon. Gentleman speaks of is real—we all face it—but there is a solution to it, which is to ensure that as we approach a majority we sufficiently discuss that issue, not only among Back Benchers but with those on the two Front Benches, to ensure that there is what the shadow Secretary of State rightly referred to a few moments ago as a “sustainable majority”. We need not just a majority for something but a majority for something that will continue to persist as the various stages have to be carried through. That must be our aim.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I have agreed with my right hon. Friend’s every word so far. He has just reached the key moment. As his amendment does not set out precisely the form that the indicative votes will take, there is a real danger that if everybody votes for their first preference, we will not produce a majority for anything. His amendment does not set out the basis on which the indicative vote motions are to be tabled. How are we to resolve the method by which we table them? The opinion of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and myself is that the single transferable vote is the best way to steer people to one conclusion. It will force compromise, except from those who will vote only for their first preference. Unless my right hon. Friend has a better alternative, how does he guard against the danger of nothing getting a majority?

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

My right hon. and learned Friend is asking what is clearly one of the right questions. I give him two answers. The first is that, if this amendment is passed, we will need to think very seriously over the next 24 hours about the shape of the business of the House motion to determine the process for Wednesday, and indeed about how the process will carry forward beyond that. My own view is that, at least to begin with, it may be wiser simply to disclose where the votes lie on a plain vanilla basis—this point was made very forcefully a few moments ago—with all the voting going on at once, with pink slips in the Lobby at the end of the debate and not sequentially so that we do not have the gaming of sequence. On that basis we could discover which propositions that have been put forward commanded significant support and which did not. We should do so in the hope that, as politicians—we should remind ourselves that we are not just an ordinary electorate, but politicians who have spent our lives in this business—we can, in the succeeding few days, having observed the lie of the land, zero in on a compromise that could get a majority.

My second answer is that I do not at all discount the possibility that, at a later stage—I am sure that there will have to be a later stage, and indeed I hope that the business of the House motion will book a slot for a later stage—we should resort to some other method to crystallise the majority if we find that it is otherwise difficult to do.

[Mr Clarke]

rose—

[Anna Soubry]

rose—

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I give way first to my right hon. and learned Friend.

[Mr Clarke]

Given that the process could take a few days more, as my right hon. Friend clearly explains, does that not underline that we had better crack on with this on Wednesday? If the Government will not, for some peculiar unknown reason, commit to Wednesday in their wind-up tonight, it is absolutely essential that we pass his amendment.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I find myself in the very odd position of being slightly more hard-line than my right hon. and learned Friend on this. I am afraid that we have to press this amendment tonight, because I do not believe that the Government have a clear view of how they would conduct this process. The terms of the amendment, which have been very carefully considered over quite a long time, are structured in a way that maximises our flexibility and our capacity as a House to work together. We should work with Members on both Front Benches on formulating Wednesday in the best possible way and producing a business of the House motion that, if possible, is a matter of consensus. That is best done under the framework of this amendment, and we should press it tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Barclay]

My right hon. Friend had that exchange at the beginning of the debate with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who in his usual skilful way addressed the point by saying that the Government will make time available this week to take the matter forward.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

As my right hon. Friend has just indicated that the Government have something different in mind from the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), will he give us a little more detail than just “will make time available”? When will that time be? Will Members be able to table the motions that are intended for an indicative vote? Will the Government take any notice of the majorities that are achieved for any amendments?

[Stephen Barclay]

We are in danger of rerunning the opening of the debate. Indeed, the shadow Brexit Secretary asked whether the Government would give a binding commitment to respect and adopt whatever was passed, even though the Opposition, who made that request, were not willing to give that commitment. We cannot give a blank cheque when we do not know exactly what those votes will be—I am sure that, when the Father of the House was a Minister, he would have taken the same line.

The real issue is the constitutional significance of amendment (a) because it is unprecedented in its nature. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already addressed the kernel of the matter, which is whether the Government will make time available this week. Indeed, he set out at the beginning of the debate that, in good faith, we will have discussions with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, Opposition Front Benchers and Members from across the House on how the process should look. Amendment (a) does not set that out in detail, so the Government have undertaken to have that process and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster addressed that in his opening remarks.

On amendment (f), I reassure the right hon. Member for Derby South that the Government will return to the Dispatch Box in the event that the withdrawal agreement is not approved this week. We will also return to the House to consider plans for the week of 5 April after any indicative voting. As the right hon. Lady will know as a senior Member of the House, the decision on whether to enter recess is in the control of the House. Although we do not think it is sensible to try to set the Order Paper now for a date in two weeks’ time without knowing what will happen in the interim, I hope that she is content that the House will certainly have a say on the matter.

European Council

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is right about the result of the Council meeting that took place last week. If we can guarantee Brexit by agreeing a deal this week, we will leave on 22 May, and we have been clear about the commitment to facilitate seeing whether there is a majority in the House for anything. However, the Government cannot be expected simply to say that we will accept anything that comes through. We all stood on manifestos; we all have positions in relation to our duty to deliver on the referendum. I think that that is important and we should keep it in our minds.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has accepted that the House will have so-called indicative votes to try to find whether there is a majority for a way forward, but she has twice declined to commit the Government to giving effect to a majority in the House, citing the fact that she stood on a manifesto, which she thinks should guide things. May I remind her that that manifesto appeared only halfway through the election campaign? I do not think that it was discussed in Cabinet. It was not circulated to the candidates, who were already fighting their campaigns, and nothing on Europe in that manifesto played any part in the general election. We are all being asked to show pragmatism and flexibility and to put the national interest first. May I ask my right hon. Friend to be prepared to bend from her commitment to the manifesto, apart from the one proposal that she dropped fairly promptly when it first appeared?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I do not accept the entire description that my right hon. and learned Friend set out. I say to him that, during the whole process of negotiation, there has been compromise. He was a respected and long-standing member of previous Governments. If he were standing at the Dispatch Box, prior to the possibility of indicative votes—and we will have to see; the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will give a further explanation of the Government’s position later this afternoon, but if the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) passes, those indicative votes will take place—I do not think he would give a blank cheque. I think he is indicating his assent to what I am saying.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have answered many questions in recent weeks and months on putting a vote back to the people of this country. I continue to believe it is for this House to recognise that, having asked people their view and having heard that view, we should deliver on that view. That is our responsibility. It is about delivering Brexit.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

As the Prime Minister says, this House has voted clearly to reject leaving with no deal and has voted clearly to seek an extension if her withdrawal agreement cannot get a majority, but this House has not yet had the opportunity to debate and vote on the range of options for long-term arrangements such as a customs union, regulatory alignment and so on. Will she arrange for indicative votes finally to be held next week, so that we can see where the consensus and the majority lie? A short extension of article 50 will be completely useless if the Government go into it with no idea of what they have the authority to negotiate in the long term.

[The Prime Minister]

As I think my right hon. and learned Friend will have noticed, the House has had many opportunities to put forward motions on those issues. The House has rejected alternatives to the Government’s deal. The House has voted against a customs union. The House has voted against having a second referendum. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, somebody on the Opposition Front Bench says that the Government will not let the House. The House has voted on these issues and has rejected them. We have been clear about our intention to absolutely fulfil the requirement to bring forward an amendable motion under section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and we will indeed be doing that.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend will understand that it would be wrong of me to comment upon a legal opinion by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, but I am sure that he and the other Law Officers will take note of my right hon. Friend’s point.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I think my right hon. Friend agrees with me that no Government in the 28 member states wishes to have a British election to the European Parliament in the course of any process, but the obligation that he refers to is, I think, based on the treaty. It would take a comparatively minor amendment to the treaty to make the obligation not apply to a country that has submitted an article 50 application. I see no reason at all why rapid unanimity could not be achieved in the Council of Ministers to agree to that, so that the treaty could be amended and the problem that he is warning us of easily averted.

[Mr Lidington]

I am second to none in my admiration and acknowledgment of my right hon. and learned Friend’s experience in this House, but I say to him, having served six years as Minister for Europe, that there is no such thing as a simple and easy change to the EU treaties. I was present in the United Kingdom seat when a very minor change of about half a sentence was made to the treaties to accommodate the needs of eurozone countries and ensure that what they wanted to do had an effective treaty basis. The process took roughly 13 months or so from the time that it was initiated until the time that it took effect. That is because not only do the treaties require a process of treaty change to go through a particular and detailed EU primary legislative process, but a change to the treaties also involves national ratification by the member states concerned. Indeed, I remember having to take a short Bill through this House, even though the treaty change that was at stake applied only to the member states of the eurozone, not to the United Kingdom. For that reason, I do not think that the sort of rapid treaty change that he would hope for actually exists in practice.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend is keen to see the withdrawal agreement Bill. That Bill, of course, as I have said, will be presented to the House this week, if my hon. Friend and others vote for this deal tonight to get it through. I also say to him that yes, there are provisions in relation to the role of the European Court of Justice during the period of our winding down and winding our way out of the European Union, and that covers the implementation period. But what is absolutely clear is that once we are beyond that point, there is no jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice other than for a limited period of years in relation to citizens’ rights. There is no jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in this country.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend just said that, if she manages to get her withdrawal agreement approved by this House, she does not want the next stage of serious negotiations about our long-term future to proceed in the same way and that she will give a greater role to Parliament. I strongly endorse that. We cannot have another arrangement where she reaches a perfectly satisfactory agreement on the three points that she had and then we descend into parliamentary farce as different people argue about what changes they like. Is not the best way of proceeding, if she gets her withdrawal agreement through, to have some indicative votes in the House of Commons before the serious negotiations start, so that the Government can go into those negotiations knowing what a broad mass of Parliament is likely to support and to back if she can achieve it?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that point. Actually, I think that there a number of ways in which we can ascertain what the views of the House would be prior to entering into the next stage of negotiations. Obviously, we have been looking at the details of that and will want to be consulting and talking across the House in relation to that matter, but, as he rightly indicated, the first step in order to get to that stage is to pass the deal tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I rather agree with him on the broad principles he sets out for our final aspirations and long-term goals, and indeed I voted with him in this House the last time he put the principles forward, but earlier he was giving his reasons for voting against the withdrawal agreement tonight, yet actually none of the things he mentioned had anything to do with the withdrawal agreement. Can he explain what his objection is to the deal we have on citizens’ rights, what his objection is to the agreement on the money we owe, and what on earth is his objection to the Irish backstop that leads him to put the whole thing in peril if he actually does carry out his threat to vote against it tonight?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I was grateful for the support of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the last Division that we had on this subject. Indeed, we had a very pleasant chat during that vote. I was pointing out that the Prime Minister had set herself a series of objectives and that she had not met any of them. She has brought back exactly the same deal and expects us to vote on it again. I hope that the House rejects it.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.