EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Changes

Matt Warman Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

The hon. Lady should be much more candid with the electorate about the fact that she is actually calling for revocation. Extending article 50 is not a unilateral decision for the UK Government; it requires the agreement of all 27 member states. She is, in essence, calling on us to revoke article 50. That goes against the commitment in the Labour party’s manifesto, on which she stood, and goes against what people voted for. If that is her position, that is fine; she is entitled to it, but she should be clear with the electorate that that is what she is calling for. Members who voted to trigger article 50 also need to explain why they have changed their minds.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

I am totally committed to delivering the Brexit that my constituents voted for, and I know that the Secretary of State is as well. In that context, does he agree that it is instructive to note that not a single one of the leave campaigns argued for a no-deal Brexit as their first choice? This deal is the way to avoid a no-deal Brexit.

[Stephen Barclay]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Part of the reason why I supported leaving the European Union is that I want us to be much more global in our approach. I want us to look to the growing economies in China, India and Brazil, develop the work of the economic and financial dialogues that the Treasury has had in place for a number of years, and look at how we can supercharge them and take a much more global approach. We recognise that the best way to trade with those growing economies is not on a WTO basis, but by putting in place more bespoke trading arrangements with them. I find it slightly illogical that we should have that global objective of closer trading relationships with the wider world, while saying that with our largest trading partner we can revert to something that we are trying to move away from elsewhere.

EU Exit Negotiations

Matt Warman Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

May I give the hon. Lady a bit of reassurance? In both the technical notices and the letter the Health Secretary sent to stakeholders, that has been set out very clearly. I can also give her the reassurance that the stockpiling of medicines and vaccines is a standard part of UK planning in the way the Government engage with the pharmaceutical industry in lots of other areas.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

In the course of the referendum campaign my constituents weighed up the arguments on behalf of the leave and remain campaigns and voted overwhelmingly to leave. Since then, there have been siren voices calling for a second referendum. I wonder if the Secretary of State has heard a single argument made since the referendum that was not been made before it, because I have not.

[Dominic Raab]

I think at the time, come the end of the referendum, everyone was looking forward to getting a conclusion to it, because it seemed to drag on forever and we had gone around the houses with all the different arguments. The country heard both sides, the claims and the counterclaims, and plenty of controversy. I do not think the people of this country are fools. They made their decision, they knew what they were doing and now it is time to leave.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Warman Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

As the hon. Gentleman will know if he has looked at the detail of the joint report, we are talking about alignment in those areas necessary for the functioning of the border and ensuring that there is no hard border. That does not mean full regulatory alignment across all areas; it means specific areas relating to agriculture and industrial goods that could otherwise result in tax at the border. We were clear in our presentations to the EU that there is further discussion to be had on that.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

4. What recent progress he has made in the UK's withdrawal negotiations with the EU.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

7. What recent progress he has made on negotiating the withdrawal of the UK from the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)]

We reached agreement on more than three quarters of the legal text of the withdrawal agreement, locking down full chapters on citizens’ rights, the implementation period and the financial settlement. We continue to build on the progress of March, technical talks have continued and we are focusing on negotiating the right future relationship. These conversations are now well under way, with detailed discussions on future economic and future security partnerships.

In my latest meeting with Michel Barnier on Monday, we discussed a range of issues, from questions of the Northern Ireland protocol, which has just been discussed in the House, to product standards and market access. It was a productive and positive discussion. We will continue to work hard and at pace, and will set out further details in the Government White Paper in due course.

[Matt Warman]

My constituents voted more than any others in the country to leave the European Union. In the past couple of days, this House has worked hard to deliver that. I know they will be grateful for all the Secretary of State’s work. Does he agree that there is no record anywhere in the world of an international negotiation in which a Parliament in place of a Government has delivered a successful micro-managed outcome?

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. As we made clear this week on consideration of Lords amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, we cannot accept amendments that allow Parliament to instruct the Government on what steps we should take in international negotiation because that undermines one of my three tests, and because such a move would be constitutionally unprecedented.

The current constitutional arrangements have served this country well for hundreds of years over thousands of treaties. Those who have argued for something different did not argue for the House of Commons to negotiate directly our accession to the European Union, or the Lisbon, Amsterdam or Maastricht treaties. It is rather odd that they make such an argument now.

European Union Citizenship

Matt Warman Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called so early in this debate and to be given a window into the world of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). It is a privilege, and I am enjoying it very much. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) opened this debate by saying that his party has been shaped by the issue of Europe, and I say to him that it takes one to know one. The Conservative party has also been shaped by Europe, and my constituency has perhaps been shaped to a greater extent by Europe than almost any other.

I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman focus not on EU citizens’ rights in this country, but on the reciprocal rights for UK citizens. However, I am afraid that I will disappoint him to some extent, as others have, by focusing on the rights of EU citizens, although not entirely, because it is only fair to rebut some of what has been said recently. The Government brought in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to combat some of the issues that have just been talked about, and we brought in the controlling migration fund at triple the level of the migration impact fund that was praised by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). We should therefore not be ashamed of what we have achieved for the rights of migrant workers.

I should acknowledge the thoughtful issues of identity that the hon. Member for Arfon opened the debate with, because although my constituency may indeed have voted to leave the European Union more resoundingly than any other, it has to some extent been shaped by citizens of the European Union perhaps more than anywhere else. We have streets in Boston that are populated with shops that would otherwise be empty and are entirely focused on our new eastern European communities. That means that we are uniquely attuned to the issues of identity that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Let us think about why a constituency like mine voted so strongly. It was not a rejection of those EU rights nor of EU citizens as individuals. I do not wish to re-run the referendum again—not least because I was on a different side from my constituents—but it was not a rejection of those individuals. It was a rejection of a migration policy that had not worked for a constituency such as mine and of an approach that had been taken, in the minds of many of my constituents, by Brussels over many years that did not reflect the best interests of the United Kingdom as a whole.

When the hon. Gentleman talks about identity, I hope he bears it in mind that far more of my constituents have married into the communities that have arrived than is the case elsewhere. They have often formed relationships and have children in school—schools where pupils have one parent from England and one from a European Union country. That sense of identity is uniquely altered by the migration policy he talks about, and it means that my constituents have, if not a unique, perhaps a greater desire than others to be able to visit Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and all those countries with which we benefit from reciprocal rights.

None of my voters voted for British driving licences to no longer be valid on the continent or for us no longer to have the reciprocal rights we have enjoyed for so long. We, as a country, have had a full and blossoming relationship with Europe, and we would all acknowledge it is in the interests of both Europe and the UK to secure many of those things for the future. We should pay tribute to the negotiating position the Prime Minister set out last week in a pragmatic, sensible bid to try to secure some of the rights that the hon. Gentleman talked about.

We should also acknowledge that people voted in the referendum for a different set of circumstances after we leave, which inevitably means that we have to consider what those differences might look like. The Minister is right to say that the starting point has to be that we will no longer have precisely those rights in law when we leave. It is in tune with the Prime Minister’s pragmatic approach to say that we have to acknowledge that that is the case, and we have to ensure that we get the best possible outcome at the end of these negotiations.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

The hon. Gentleman talks about people’s view that there would be changed circumstances. Given the votes in a plethora of nation states within the EU, not least in Italy at the weekend, who knows what changes will come in the very institution we are talking about? Does he agree that in future the EU might not be as people envisage it at the moment?

[Matt Warman]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that this is a moveable feast on the other side of the channel, and we should bear that in mind.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman raises a point made by the Minister, on whom I wished to intervene. He will be aware of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties and that, under that legal ruling, citizens’ rights may not be lost. Surely that is the legal precedent we should be following.

[Matt Warman]

The hon. Gentleman uses the word “may,” and we should be looking at what the options are and at what the precedents may be. The Minister is right to say that we will no longer be members when we leave, and therefore we will no longer have the rights we currently have. The hon. Gentleman may pray in aid precedents that suggest something else, and we may be able to rely on some of those precedents in due course. We should not prejudge any of that, and we have to be pragmatic in where we start.

It is also worth bearing it in mind that people across my constituency and across the country voted for precisely those kinds of differences. They voted for the Government to negotiate a new relationship with Europe, which is precisely what we are doing.

One aspect of the motion on which the hon. Member for Arfon did not particularly dwell is single market access, which defines a huge part of our relationship with the EU. This is not a fault that he committed, but it is a frustrating and patronising element of some aspects of this debate to say that people did not know what they were voting for when they voted in the referendum. My constituents were very clear that they were voting to leave the single market because they were voting to strike our own trade deals with other countries across the world and to open up new opportunities. We should not allow ourselves to pretend there was not a full and frank debate about what leaving the European Union might mean before people went into the polling booths.

A crucial part of the motion implies there are not the opportunities outside the EU that people voted for. The hon. Gentleman frames it as though all we will be doing is losing rights when we leave the European Union. We should, of course, bear it in mind that there will be a different relationship, but there are opportunities out there, too. Part of the Prime Minister’s positive approach is to say that there are opportunities that we must seize and that there is another side to the coin—that not everyone can have every single thing they might wish for.

The hon. Gentleman proposed that we could stay in the single market and retain all our rights as they are today. My response to him is that he should not be wilfully blind to the opportunities. I think we will get a good deal with the European Union that allows us to retain many of the benefits we see today, but we will also have access to a wider world out there in a very different way. That is not to say that it will all be a bed of roses and that it will be the easiest thing we could ever do, but he should acknowledge the other side of the coin.

[Hywel Williams]

I am an optimist by nature, but how does the hon. Gentleman respond to the observation last week that we are exchanging a three-course meal for the promise of a bag of crisps?

[Matt Warman]

I do not want to say that we can have our cake and eat it, but we can have a three-course meal and a bag of crisps. It is always tempting for one side of the argument to say it will all be brilliant and for the other side of the argument to say it will all be terrible. The reality is that, neither at this time of day nor at any other, I do not much fancy a three-course meal and a bag of crisps at the same moment, but there is a compromise somewhere in the middle, which is what we will be seeking.

Whether we represent constituencies such as mine or constituencies with far lower levels of migration, we have all heard the huge concern among EU citizens living in this country about what their status might be. We should accept it is the genuine and proven intention of the Prime Minister to seek to provide reassurance as soon as possible in the debate, but we should also bear it in mind—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for not doing this at he opened the debate—that the more we talk about those concerns, the more we fall into the trap of whipping up those concerns and the more we worry people who should not be worried. It is not only unfair on them, but it is irresponsible of us if we do that.

A number of constituents have come to tell me they are concerned both that they might not be able to travel as easily to the home country of their boyfriend or girlfriend, or that they may not be able to stay in this country. I have been pleased to be able to provide them with some reassurance, but I have not had tens of thousands of people coming to me to make that point because I have not stirred up such feelings. I am pleased the hon. Gentleman did not do so in his speech, although not so pleased that I will be supporting the motion today.

This has been a uniquely thoughtful debate, notwithstanding my own contribution, and it is a pleasure to be part of a debate on Brexit that is not as high octane and unhelpful as some we have seen, and that has not produced more heat than light. Perhaps this sets a precedent for how we might continue the negotiations.

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

I, too, thank the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) for opening the debate. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) and I may not agree on everything, but he makes a good point about trying to have a thoughtful debate, which is what we are having today. I thank him for his contribution, and I particularly thank Plaid Cymru for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject.

As a number of Members have argued, the importance of EU nationals to the UK should not and cannot be overestimated in terms of their financial contribution and, more important, how they enrich our society by being here. I want to live in a society that is made more diverse and enriched by their presence, as is the case in my constituency and others.

Today’s debate is particularly helpful because it gives us the opportunity to discuss our own EU citizenship, which we continue to enjoy for the time being. I hope that the Government will give consideration to the idea of associate citizenship suggested by the hon. Member for Arfon, because the benefits of EU membership work both ways—a point that was often lost during the referendum campaign. We look set to lose the huge range of benefits we receive as EU citizens, and nothing the UK Government have said in this debate or others reassures me that they are on top of plugging the gap that will necessarily appear if we are taken out of the European Union.

I have benefited personally from freedom of movement. I was able to work elsewhere in the European Union and receive the benefits of healthcare. I studied there and took part in the Erasmus scheme because of my European citizenship. If I felt ill when I was living in Belgium, I could use the hospitals—there was absolutely no question about or problem with that—and anybody who visited me had exactly the same rights. I feel every inch a European in my identity. I know that identity is not the main driver of this debate, but we should think about it. Even more than that, however, I value my European citizenship.

As I reflect on my own personal experience, one thing that depresses me about where we are going is that by the end of this Parliament, perhaps uniquely, young people will have fewer opportunities and fewer rights than those of us who sit in this Parliament have enjoyed. We should all reflect on that. Regardless of who is in government and which parties make up this place, it should be—indeed, I think it is—the aspiration of all of us that at the end of any Parliament, young people should have more and better opportunities than those who went before them. That should always be our goal, but through the removal of EU citizenship, we will be taking a backward step. Young people will have fewer opportunities. Retaining citizenship would help. I do not think it would plug the gap entirely, but it would help.

The Minister said that she was waiting for the European Union to come up with some ideas about associate EU citizenship, but the European Union did not get us into this mess in the first place; the UK Government did. The fact that, almost two years on, they are still waiting for the EU to come up with solutions tells us a great deal about the state of affairs in the UK Government. It is incumbent on them to look at our problems and meet the challenges. Members are suggesting plenty of ideas—I do not agree with all of them, and neither will everyone else—and the Government should do more than adopt a wait-and-see policy almost two years on from the referendum.

Gently and in a comradely spirit, I urge the Labour party to do the same, especially on issues such as associate membership. I agreed with much of what the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), said, but I encourage him to look a little more deeply into that issue, because we should be addressing it in this Parliament.

There are a lot of gaps to be filled. It strikes me—I have made this point before—that it is not entirely the Government’s fault. Vote Leave campaigned on a blank piece of paper, as has been said a number of times in this Chamber. That is why we still have so many gaps. It is the responsibility of this place to fill some of those gaps, working with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations and local authorities and with other stakeholders. It was an act of gross irresponsibility by Vote Leave not even to bother having a manifesto or a White Paper, which means that we have to fill in the gaps.

In his thoughtful speech, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness referenced the single market. Vote Leave and the leavers should have been very clear that we would be leaving the single market. They were not. It is possible—I direct this as much to those on the Labour Front Bench as to those on the Government Front Bench—to leave the European Union and remain in the single market. That is a fact—end of story. That is something that we can do. It is quite depressing that many of us have to keep on saying that. I cannot believe that we have to use up time in the House of Commons to reiterate that fact.

[Matt Warman]

The hon. Gentleman is factually correct, but the tenor of the campaign that was fought—and I was on the other side of it—was that there would be a clean break with the European Union. In that spirit, does he not think that that means being able to do our own trade deals and leaving the single market?

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with him. No, that is not what it means. He mentions the Government implementing policy in the spirit of how the campaign was conducted, but we have a very different Government with very different policies after the 2017 general election, which was, in the Prime Minister’s own words, a Brexit general election.

Exiting the EU: Sectoral Analysis

Matt Warman Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

This Government have a proud record on jobs and on the NHS and we will continue to give both issues the first importance.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

My constituents, more than most, want the Government to get on with delivering Brexit. They told me that they were saddened that this House had voted as it did because it does not help our negotiating position. What they would like this House and the Minister’s Department officials to get on with doing is negotiating the best possible deal rather than spending time facilitating the whims of this House. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a very unseemly atmosphere in the Chamber. I understand the rising passions on the subject, but, as colleagues will know, I regularly visit schools across the country and conduct Skype sessions with school students. One of the most frequent questions put to me is: why do people feel the need to bawl at each other? We should set a better example to the next generation of leaders.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Warman Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

A superb event last night in this House celebrated the contribution of Lincolnshire’s great food sector. One question our fine producers asked was about their wish to have access to labour continue as free movement ends. Can the Secretary of State reassure those great businesses that he will continue to work with the Home Office to make sure that some version of a seasonal agricultural workers scheme continues as free movement ends?

[Mr Davis]

This is similar to the question put to me earlier about Northern Ireland, and I will make a final point to add to the one I made earlier about the Migration Advisory Committee looking at this. Throughout the past year I have said time and again that taking back control of migration does not mean a sudden stop on migration or migration being managed in such a way that damages the economy. So my hon. Friend can take comfort from that.

Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote

Matt Warman Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I agree that there is a degree of contrivance in the fuss and noise coming from the Opposition—there is no doubt about that, but that is not new, I guess. As for the ongoing transition or implementation period, the hon. Gentleman is right. That is why I said that if we let the negotiation go into that period, we will be at a disadvantage, because the EU will presumably be receiving money, if that is the arrangement, and will want to spin out the time it does so as much as possible. We have to be practical and sensible if we intend to respect the will of the British people and deliver the best outcome for them.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will know that proportionately more people in my constituency than in any other in the country voted to get us out of the European Union. Does he agree that far more damaging than not having a meaningful vote in this House is the idea that we should have a second referendum, or indeed that we should talking about not leaving at all?

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is right. I think he has taken a moral and outstanding stance, given his views and those of his constituents. He is exactly right: we have to respect that vote and not undermine it by other contrivances.

Brexit and Foreign Affairs

Matt Warman Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). We have a shared interest in the voyage of the Mayflower, on which I look forward to working together. I like to think of Boston as where it started. Some people would say that Plymouth was merely a stop on the way across the Atlantic, but we can have that debate later.

Brexit defines not only the election we have just endured but the state of my constituency over the past 10 to 15 years. It is right that Brexit is, in large part, the focus of this Gracious Speech. Thinking back over what has happened to my constituency over that period, we have seen huge changes. In some ways, the agricultural industry has been supercharged by the huge number of new migrant workers and by changes in industrial practice, but we have also seen huge changes to the town of Boston, in particular, and to Lincolnshire as a whole.

Those changes did not come with the democratic consent of my constituents, and the changes placed huge pressure on the public services in my constituency. It is a testament to all previous Members of this House that we did not even have an argument about the benefits of being in the European Union, never mind win it. Now, the fact is that if we were to seek to vote down this Gracious Speech, or indeed to undermine much of its content, we would be undermining democracy itself. I do not say that in a bid to ask people not to oppose it, but, overall, the fact that we are leaving the European Union was not only in the manifestos of both major parties but is very much on the minds of my constituents. Seventy-six per cent. of those constituents turned out to vote in the referendum, with 76% of them voting to leave. We must respect that result as we look to the future.

With that in mind, I pose two questions. First, what will the future of our country outside the European Union mean for the farming industry? That is closely linked to my second question, which is, perhaps unsurprisingly, on what many of my constituents tell me was the No. 1 issue when they voted to leave the European Union: immigration.

I plead that we acknowledge that the process we are going through will, in part, supercharge an ongoing process of mechanisation. I believe that the changing availability of labour will see more and more farmers in my constituency invest in more and more machines that enable them to be infinitely more productive and require less labour, but the fact is that they will require significant amounts of labour in the future. Before being a member of an expanded European Union, we had a successful seasonal agricultural workers scheme, and I hope that that work permit scheme can, in some form, be quickly reconstituted to provide stability for the agricultural industry, just as today we heard the Prime Minister seek to provide stability for the many of my constituents who came from eastern Europe to make their home in Boston and Skegness. I hope that today they find themselves in a better position than they were in earlier this week.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Matt Warman Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

On 23 June, the British people were presented with a simple choice. In my constituency of Boston and Skegness, 76% voted to leave the European Union—more than in any other seat in the country. While that choice on the referendum ballot might have been simple, it covered a multitude of issues, some of which I would like momentarily to unpack.

We talked in the constituency of Boston and Skegness at great length about what it would mean to control immigration. We talked at great length about that one single issue—not to the exclusion of all others, but certainly more than any other issue. While I agree with many of my right hon. and hon. Friends that much of this debate was about taking back control of our laws and our money, it is disingenuous to pretend that immigration was not—certainly in my constituency and many others—the single key issue on which many made their decision to vote one way or another.

Let me make two key points on immigration. First, if we are to control our borders, we must leave the single market. To those who say that leaving the single market was not on the ballot paper, I say it absolutely was to anyone who was having the conversations in my constituency. From talking to others about the vital new relationship Britain would have going out into the world after we left the European Union, I know that it meant making our own bilateral trade deals with countries. That means leaving the customs union. It absolutely was on the ballot paper.

The sophisticated, in-depth and detailed debates in the run-up to 23 June were on the deal that the Prime Minister now proposes to take us through over the coming two years. When it is said in some quarters that this negotiation is a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit or some kind of Brexit that people do not like, that is patronising the electorate, who knew exactly what they were doing and who chose to make a new relationship with the world.

We might have a simple Bill today, but it stems from a complex debate that led to a very simple question. That question was resoundingly answered in my constituency, and I suspect it will come as no surprise to anyone when I say that I will vote with the Government to trigger article 50 tomorrow.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My hon. Friend and I, both representing Lincolnshire, were on opposite sides of this argument in the referendum campaign. It was easy enough for me to go with my constituency, but I think the House views my hon. Friend’s stance as a courageous one, and I think he is respected for what he is telling us now.

[Matt Warman]

That is a kind comment from my constituency neighbour—it is either courageous or bonkers, but we will leave that to the voters to decide in 2020. As I say, I hope that whatever we do in this House, we are rewarded for sticking to what we believe, and that brings me to my second fundamental point.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

I believe that more Poles live in my hon. Friend’s constituency than in any other constituency. Does he accept that the free movement of people has also been bad for countries such as Poland, which have seen a massive brain drain as highly skilled workers have left, and that the system was wholly unsustainable?

[Matt Warman]

I entirely agree. I think that, throughout Europe, we are seeing a recognition that the free movement of people does not work for a host of countries, for a host of reasons. That, I think, is why the rights of workers in my constituency should be protected, but it is also why we should acknowledge that free movement needs fundamental reform.

The central point I want to make is that there has been a sense—not over the last 18 months or over the period of the referendum campaign, but over the last 40 years—that the policies promoted by Westminster have become ever more remote from constituencies such as mine. There has been an increasing sense that there is not consent for the kind of free movement to which my hon. Friend has referred, and that there is not consent for the kind of relationship that we have had with our European neighbours. We all want free trade, but not everyone wants the kind of free movement that we have seen. The social changes that it has wrought on small market towns such as Boston are not something for which the people voted at any point, and that disconnect has fundamentally diminished the reputation of this House, of politics, and of politicians throughout the country.

What we have today, and what we will have in the vote tomorrow, is an opportunity to take a small step towards restoring some of the faith in this place. What we have is an opportunity to demonstrate to the British people that after the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, promised that we would deliver a referendum, the House kept that promise, and that now the House will deliver on what the referendum mandated us to do. It is only through politicians keeping their promises that we will do the greater thing, which is to seek and, I believe, to achieve the restoration of some kind of faith in politics as the sole means to make our country better.

There are those who say that to vote with one’s conscience is to suggest that one knows better than one’s constituents. I know that there are some issues on which we are asked to make decisions on behalf of our constituents, because there has been no referendum on every Bill, but in this case there has been a very clearly expressed view from each and every one of our constituents, and it appeared to me that that very clearly expressed view was a wish for us to trigger article 50. I accept that there are other views, but when it comes to voting with my conscience, my conscience tells me not only that I should trigger article 50, but that if I do anything else I shall risk undermining not just faith in this party and not just faith in this Parliament but faith in democracy itself. I do not believe that I could vote with my conscience and do that shameful thing, and I am not sure that many others in the House would seek to do it either.

Article 50

Matt Warman Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Single sentence questions, please, with the abandonment of any preamble that colleagues might have in mind.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

Although the Secretary of State should take seriously amendments proposed to the forthcoming Bill in good faith, I invite him to give short shrift to those who seek to use amendments to derail or delay a vital process.

[Mr Davis]

I will.