Debates between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn

There have been 90 exchanges between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn

1 Wed 30th October 2019 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (288 words)
2 Tue 29th October 2019 Early Parliamentary General Election Bill
Cabinet Office
2 interactions (96 words)
3 Mon 28th October 2019 Early Parliamentary General Election
Cabinet Office
17 interactions (936 words)
4 Wed 23rd October 2019 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
2 interactions (176 words)
5 Tue 22nd October 2019 European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill
Cabinet Office
13 interactions (791 words)
6 Sat 19th October 2019 European Union (Withdrawal) Acts
Department for Exiting the European Union
3 interactions (242 words)
7 Sat 19th October 2019 Prime Minister’s Statement
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (1,109 words)
8 Mon 14th October 2019 Debate on the Address
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (540 words)
9 Thu 26th September 2019 Prime Minister's Role in Creating a Safe Environment
Wales Office
2 interactions (509 words)
10 Wed 25th September 2019 Prime Minister's Update
Cabinet Office
9 interactions (1,505 words)
11 Mon 9th September 2019 Early Parliamentary General Election (No. 2)
Cabinet Office
9 interactions (1,082 words)
12 Mon 9th September 2019 European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law)
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
8 interactions (817 words)
13 Mon 9th September 2019 European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) 3 interactions (428 words)
14 Mon 9th September 2019 Points of Order
Cabinet Office
2 interactions (471 words)
15 Wed 4th September 2019 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (285 words)
16 Tue 3rd September 2019 Points of Order
Cabinet Office
2 interactions (226 words)
17 Tue 3rd September 2019 G7 Summit
Cabinet Office
2 interactions (1,296 words)
18 Thu 25th July 2019 Priorities for Government
Cabinet Office
5 interactions (1,177 words)
19 Wed 17th July 2019 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (202 words)
20 Wed 10th July 2019 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (178 words)
21 Wed 3rd July 2019 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
6 interactions (250 words)
22 Wed 12th June 2019 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (183 words)
23 Wed 22nd May 2019 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (148 words)
24 Wed 15th May 2019 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (156 words)
25 Wed 1st May 2019 Environment and Climate Change
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
6 interactions (616 words)
26 Mon 1st April 2019 EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Votes)
Department for Exiting the European Union
3 interactions (151 words)
27 Mon 25th March 2019 European Union (Withdrawal) Act
Department for Exiting the European Union
2 interactions (146 words)
28 Thu 14th March 2019 UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union
Department for Exiting the European Union
2 interactions (217 words)
29 Wed 13th March 2019 UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
2 interactions (253 words)
30 Tue 12th March 2019 European Union (Withdrawal) Act
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (161 words)
31 Wed 27th February 2019 Oral Answers to Questions
Wales Office
3 interactions (193 words)
32 Tue 26th February 2019 Leaving the European Union
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (1,201 words)
33 Wed 20th February 2019 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (379 words)
34 Thu 14th February 2019 UK’s Withdrawal from the EU
Department for Exiting the European Union
2 interactions (250 words)
35 Wed 30th January 2019 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (293 words)
36 Tue 29th January 2019 European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
Cabinet Office
34 interactions (1,638 words)
37 Wed 23rd January 2019 Oral Answers to Questions
Wales Office
3 interactions (186 words)
38 Mon 21st January 2019 Leaving the EU
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (828 words)
39 Wed 16th January 2019 No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government
Cabinet Office
23 interactions (1,208 words)
40 Tue 15th January 2019 European Union (Withdrawal) Act
Attorney General
11 interactions (2,034 words)
41 Wed 9th January 2019 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (291 words)
42 Wed 19th December 2018 Speaker’s Statement
Leader of the House
3 interactions (426 words)
43 Wed 19th December 2018 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
7 interactions (366 words)
44 Mon 17th December 2018 Points of Order 2 interactions (232 words)
45 Mon 17th December 2018 European Council
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (913 words)
46 Wed 12th December 2018 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
7 interactions (355 words)
47 Tue 11th December 2018 Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote 2 interactions (58 words)
48 Mon 10th December 2018 Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote 5 interactions (775 words)
49 Wed 5th December 2018 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
7 interactions (363 words)
50 Tue 4th December 2018 European Union (Withdrawal) Act
Cabinet Office
15 interactions (816 words)
51 Mon 3rd December 2018 G20 Summit
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (921 words)
52 Wed 28th November 2018 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (181 words)
53 Mon 26th November 2018 Leaving the EU
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (964 words)
54 Thu 22nd November 2018 Progress on EU Negotiations
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (802 words)
55 Wed 21st November 2018 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (162 words)
56 Wed 14th November 2018 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
7 interactions (392 words)
57 Wed 31st October 2018 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
9 interactions (512 words)
58 Mon 22nd October 2018 October EU Council
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (1,003 words)
59 Wed 17th October 2018 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
9 interactions (348 words)
60 Mon 15th October 2018 EU Exit Negotiations
Cabinet Office
7 interactions (915 words)
61 Wed 12th September 2018 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (248 words)
62 Wed 18th July 2018 Oral Answers to Questions
Wales Office
7 interactions (419 words)
63 Wed 27th June 2018 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
7 interactions (491 words)
64 Wed 23rd May 2018 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (141 words)
65 Wed 16th May 2018 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (242 words)
66 Mon 14th May 2018 Tributes: Baroness Jowell
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (832 words)
67 Wed 25th April 2018 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
2 interactions (162 words)
68 Wed 18th April 2018 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
5 interactions (149 words)
69 Tue 17th April 2018 Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval
Cabinet Office
28 interactions (1,957 words)
70 Mon 16th April 2018 Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval 2 interactions (466 words)
71 Mon 16th April 2018 Syria
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (1,234 words)
72 Wed 21st March 2018 Oral Answers to Questions
Northern Ireland Office
7 interactions (373 words)
73 Wed 14th March 2018 Salisbury Incident
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (862 words)
74 Wed 14th March 2018 Oral Answers to Questions
Wales Office
3 interactions (109 words)
75 Mon 12th March 2018 Salisbury Incident
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (667 words)
76 Mon 5th March 2018 UK/EU Future Economic Partnership
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (1,047 words)
77 Wed 21st February 2018 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (152 words)
78 Wed 10th January 2018 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (203 words)
79 Wed 6th December 2017 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (248 words)
80 Wed 22nd November 2017 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (232 words)
81 Wed 15th November 2017 Oral Answers to Questions
Northern Ireland Office
10 interactions (540 words)
82 Wed 1st November 2017 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (209 words)
83 Wed 25th October 2017 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
7 interactions (375 words)
84 Mon 23rd October 2017 European Council
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (996 words)
85 Mon 9th October 2017 UK Plans for Leaving the EU
Cabinet Office
5 interactions (973 words)
86 Wed 13th September 2017 Oral Answers to Questions
Northern Ireland Office
3 interactions (158 words)
87 Wed 19th July 2017 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
7 interactions (296 words)
88 Wed 5th July 2017 Oral Answers to Questions
Cabinet Office
3 interactions (155 words)
89 Wed 28th June 2017 Oral Answers to Questions
Northern Ireland Office
3 interactions (228 words)
90 Wed 21st June 2017 Debate on the Address
Cabinet Office
9 interactions (863 words)

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Wednesday 30th October 2019

(9 months, 2 weeks ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard
30 Oct 2019, 12:23 p.m.

Coming from a Prime Minister who withdrew his own Bill, that seems a bit odd. My question was about somebody whose mother had died and who believes that that is because of the shortage of staff within the NHS. I had hoped that the Prime Minister would have shown some empathy and answered that question, because GP numbers are falling, there is a 43,000-nurse shortage in the NHS, and the NHS has suffered the longest spending squeeze ever in its history. The choice at this election could not be clearer. People have a chance to vote for real change after years of Conservative and Lib Dem cuts, privatisation and tax handouts for the richest. This Government have put our NHS into crisis, and this election is a once-in-a-generation chance to end privatisation in our NHS, give it the funding it needs and give it the doctors, nurses, GPs and all the other staff it needs. Despite the Prime Minister’s denials, our NHS is up for grabs by US corporations in a Trump-style trade deal. Is it not the truth—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will not be shouted down under any circumstances. He will complete his inquiry to the satisfaction of the Chair, and people who think otherwise will quickly learn that they are, as usual, wrong.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard

Despite the Prime Minister’s denials, the NHS is up for grabs by US corporations in a Trump trade deal. Is it not the truth—the Government may not like this—that this Government are preparing to sell out our NHS? Our health service is in more danger than at any other time in its glorious history because of the Prime Minister’s Government, his attitudes and the trade deals that he wants to strike.

Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

(2nd reading: House of Commons)
(2nd reading: House of Commons)
Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Tuesday 29th October 2019

(9 months, 2 weeks ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Bill Main Page
Cabinet Office
Mr Speaker Hansard
29 Oct 2019, 2:46 p.m.

Order. The right hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. He has been in the House since 2001 so he is familiar with parliamentary etiquette, which stipulates quite clearly that when somebody who has the Floor is not giving way, he should accept the verdict. He does not have a right to intervene and he should have learned that by now.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard
29 Oct 2019, 2:47 p.m.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I want to make the point that we want any election to involve as many people as possible. It is meant to be a big exercise in democracy, and I hope the amendments—

Early Parliamentary General Election

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Monday 28th October 2019

(9 months, 2 weeks ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Hansard

This is a Prime Minister who cannot be trusted. Having illegally prorogued Parliament for five weeks for his Queen’s Speech, he now abandons that Queen’s Speech. He got his deal through on Second Reading, then abandoned it. He promised us a Budget on 6 November, and then he abandoned that too. He said he would never ask for an extension, and he said he would rather die in a ditch—another broken promise! Every promise this Prime Minister makes, he abandons. He said he would take us out of the European Union by 31 October—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard
28 Oct 2019, 5:28 p.m.

Order. Let us have some measure of decorum in the debate.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard
28 Oct 2019, 5:28 p.m.

The Prime Minister said he would take us out of the European Union by 31 October, do or die.

Break in Debate

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard
28 Oct 2019, 5:28 p.m.

No.

The Prime Minister spent £100 million—£100 million— on an advertising campaign to leave on 31 October, but failed to deliver. This is serious, Mr Speaker. The National Audit Office says that the campaign “failed to resonate”. I ask the Prime Minister, and I ask this House: with that £100 million, how many nurses could have been hired, how many parcels could have been funded at food banks, how many social care packages could have been funded for our elderly? The Prime Minister has failed because he has chosen to fail, and now he seeks to blame Parliament. That is £100 million of misspent public money.

At the weekend, we learned from the former Chancellor that the Prime Minister’s deal was offered to the former Prime Minister 18 months ago, but she rejected it as being not good enough for the United Kingdom. We have a rejected and recycled deal that has been misrepresented by Ministers in this House, no doubt inadvertently. The Prime Minister said, in terms, there would be no checks on goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland; the Brexit Secretary himself has confirmed that there will be. The Prime Minister made promises to Labour Members about workers’ rights; I remember his saying, with all the concentration he could muster, that workers’ rights would be protected by him. The leak to the Financial Times on Saturday shows these promises simply cannot be trusted. He says the NHS is off the table for any trade deal, yet a majority of the British public do not trust him. And why should they? Thanks to a Channel 4 “Dispatches” programme—[Interruption.] This is actually quite an important point that the Prime Minister might care to listen to. [Interruption.] I will go through it again: thanks to—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard
28 Oct 2019, 5:31 p.m.

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely at liberty to do so. If there are people trying to shout the Leader of the Opposition down, stop it; it is deeply low grade.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard
28 Oct 2019, 5:34 p.m.

As I was saying, thanks to a Channel 4 “Dispatches” programme we learn that secret meetings—[Interruption.] Conservative Members might find this funny, but actually it is quite serious for our national health service.

Break in Debate

Mr Speaker Hansard
28 Oct 2019, 5:32 p.m.

It does not need to be investigated at all. Unfortunately, it is not even a very good try at a bogus point of order; as the smile on the face of the hon. Gentleman readily testifies, it is a very substandard attempt.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard

I think this section is very important, so I will go through it again. Thanks to a Channel 4 “Dispatches” programme we learn that secret meetings have taken place between UK Government officials and representatives of US pharmaceutical firms at which the price of national health service drugs has been discussed.

We have a Prime Minister who will say anything and do anything to get his way. He will avoid his responsibilities and break his promises to dodge scrutiny. And today he wants an election and his Bill. Well, not with our endorsement. He says he wants an election on 12 December. How can we trust him to stick to that date when we do not yet have legal confirmation of the extension? The Prime Minister has not formally accepted, and the other 27 have not confirmed following that acceptance. The reason I am so cautious is quite simply that I do not trust the Prime Minister.

Break in Debate

Mr Speaker Hansard

For the avoidance of doubt, such matters are not matters for the Chair, but the Prime Minister has made his own point, apparently to his own satisfaction.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard
28 Oct 2019, 5:34 p.m.

I simply say this to the Prime Minister: if he always obeys the law, why was he found guilty by the Supreme Court?

Break in Debate

Mr Speaker Hansard

I take careful note of what the Father of the House has said, and I am certainly open to any such discussions, but it does require willing participants, and it remains to be seen, with the passage of time, whether that be so. But I think everybody will be attentive—on this occasion, as on every other—to what, on the basis of 49 years’ experience in the House, the Father of the House has had to say to us.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to you and to the Prime Minister for not being here at the point when he raised his point of order. I was detained outside the Chamber; I am now back here.

I understand that a Bill will be tabled tomorrow. We will obviously look at and scrutinise that Bill. We look forward to a clear, definitive decision that no deal is absolutely off the table and there is no danger of this Prime Minister not sticking to his word—because he has some form on these matters—and taking this country out of the EU without any deal whatever, knowing the damage it will do to jobs and industries all across this country.

Mr Speaker Hansard

That point stands in its own right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Wednesday 23rd October 2019

(9 months, 3 weeks ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Mr Speaker Hansard
23 Oct 2019, 12:14 p.m.

Order. Mr Russell-Moyle, you are an incorrigible individual, yelling from a sedentary position at the top of your voice at every turn. Calm yourself man; take some sort of soothing medicament from which you will benefit.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard

Two questions and we are still waiting for an answer, although we could do with a translation of the first part of the Prime Minister’s response.

I hate to break it to the Prime Minister, but under his Government and that of his predecessor, privatisation has more than doubled to £10 billion in our NHS. There are currently 20 NHS contracts out to tender, and when he promised 40 hospitals, he then reduced that to 20, and then it turns out that reconfiguration is taking place in just six hospitals. So these numbers keep tumbling down for the unfunded spending commitments that he liberally makes around the country.

The Prime Minister continues to say that he will exclude our NHS from being up for grabs in future trade deals. Can he point to which clause in the withdrawal agreement Bill secures that?

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

(2nd reading: House of Commons)
(Programme motion: House of Commons)
Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Tuesday 22nd October 2019

(9 months, 3 weeks ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Bill Main Page
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard

My right hon. Friend’s constituency, which I know very well, was once a centre of manufacturing in Britain, but the Government of Margaret Thatcher put paid to that. He is right that, in the event of tariffs being introduced on manufactured goods and in the event of WTO conditions, the opportunities for sales in the European market, which are obviously huge at present, would be severely damaged. I ask colleagues to think carefully about what I see as the dangers behind the Prime Minister’s approach, because he does not offer a safety net—[Interruption.] There are so many people trying to intervene. Can I deal with one at a time, please? That would be kind. The Prime Minister does not offer a safety net—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard
22 Oct 2019, 2:33 p.m.

Order. If I may gently say to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely), it is at the very least a tad tactless, when he has just been advised that the Leader of the Opposition is dealing with one intervention first, immediately to spring to his feet. I enjoin him to remember his emotional intelligence.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
22 Oct 2019, 2:34 p.m.

I do not think there is any process that allows an intervention on an intervention on an intervention. I think you would probably notice it, Mr Speaker.

Break in Debate

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard

I will give way to my hon. Friend, with his quiet demeanour, but let me just say, on workers’ rights, that by removing any level playing field provision the Government are asking us to give them a blank cheque on rights at work.

Mr Speaker Parliament Live - Hansard
22 Oct 2019, 2:57 p.m.

It is a great relief to the House; I was worried that the hon. Gentleman might explode in the atmosphere, which would have been a most unfortunate scenario.

Break in Debate

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
22 Oct 2019, 3:02 p.m.

No, I will not give way.

That is not all—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Parliament Live - Hansard
22 Oct 2019, 3:03 p.m.

Order. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he is not giving way at the moment. There is a fine line between beseeching someone and hectoring, and Members are in danger of falling on the wrong side of that dividing line. The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to continue with his speech, and he will do so until he is ready to give way.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
22 Oct 2019, 3:03 p.m.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Break in Debate

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard
22 Oct 2019, 3:03 p.m.

The Prime Minister and I agree on very little, but we both give way a great deal. I am not going to give way for the moment.

Clause 30 makes it worryingly clear that if no trade deal with the EU is agreed by the very ambitious date of December next year, Ministers can just decide to crash the UK out on World Trade Organisation terms. That is not getting Brexit done; it is merely pushing back the serious threat of no deal to a later date. Let us be clear: as things stand the Bill spells out the deeply damaging deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated—and he knows it, which is why he is trying to push it through without scrutiny. Labour will seek more time to scrutinise. We will seek a clear commitment on a customs union, a strong single market relationship, a hard-wired commitment on workers’ rights, non-regression on environmental standards and the closure of loopholes to avoid the threat of a no-deal Brexit once and for all.

Lastly, the Prime Minister’s deal should go back to the people; we should give them, not just Members of this House, the final say. They always say that the devil is in the detail; I have seen some of the detail and it confirms everything we thought about this rotten deal. It is a charter for deregulation across the board, paving the way for a Trump-style trade deal that will—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Government Members do not like hearing this bit, so I will say it again: it will pave the way for a Trump-style trade deal that will attack jobs, rights and protections and open up our precious national health service and all the history and principles behind it, and other public services, to even more privatisation. That is exactly what the Prime Minister set out in his letter to the President of the EU Commission, when he said that alignment with EU standards

“is not the goal of the current UK Government.”

There we have it in his own words. That is a vision for the future of our country that my party, the Labour party, cannot sign up to and does not support. That is why we will be voting against Second Reading tonight and, if that vote is carried, we will vote against the programme motion, to ensure that this elected House of Commons has the opportunity to properly scrutinise this piece of legislation.

Mr Speaker Parliament Live - Hansard
22 Oct 2019, 3:06 p.m.

Order. Just before I call the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), I will take a point of order from Yvette Cooper.

European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Saturday 19th October 2019

(9 months, 4 weeks ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Department for Exiting the European Union
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Hansard
19 Oct 2019, 3:39 p.m.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I welcome today’s vote. Parliament has clearly spoken. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard

Order. The Prime Minister was heard. [Interruption.] Yes, he was; do not argue the toss with the Chair. I am telling you what the situation is, and everybody can detect that the Prime Minister was heard. The Leader of the Opposition will be heard, too. It is as simple and unarguable as that.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard
19 Oct 2019, 2:55 p.m.

I welcome today’s vote. It is an emphatic decision by this House, which has declined to back the Prime Minister’s deal today and clearly voted to stop a no-deal crash-out from the European Union. The Prime Minister must now comply with the law. He can no longer use the threat of a no-deal crash-out to blackmail Members to support his sell-out deal. Labour is not prepared to sell out the communities that we represent. We are not prepared to sell out their future, and we believe that ultimately the people must have the final say on Brexit, which actually only the Labour party is offering.

Today is an historic day for Parliament, because it has said that it will not be blackmailed by a Prime Minister who is apparently prepared, once again, to defy a law passed by this Parliament. I invite him to think very carefully about the remarks he just made about refusing, apparently, to apply for the extension that the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act requires him to do.

Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Saturday 19th October 2019

(9 months, 4 weeks ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Hansard
19 Oct 2019, 9:56 a.m.

I join you, Mr Speaker, in thanking all the staff—cleaning staff, catering staff, security staff, officials and our own staff—who have come into the House this morning. They have given up a weekend to help our deliberations. I also thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of his statement.

The Prime Minister has renegotiated the withdrawal agreement and made it even worse. He has renegotiated the political declaration and made that even worse. Today, we are having a debate on a text for which there is no economic impact assessment and no accompanying legal advice.

The Government have sought to avoid scrutiny throughout the process. Yesterday evening, they made empty promises on workers’ rights and the environment—the same Government who spent the last few weeks negotiating in secret to remove from the withdrawal agreement legally binding commitments on workers’ rights and the environment.

This Government cannot be trusted, and the Opposition will not be duped; neither will the Government’s own workers. Yesterday, the head of the civil service union Prospect met the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and, at the conclusion of that meeting, said:

“I asked for reassurances that the government would not diverge on workers’ rights after Brexit… He could not give me those assurances.”

As for the much-hyped “world-leading” Environment Bill, its legally binding targets will not be enforceable until 2037. For this Government, the climate emergency can always wait.

This deal risks people’s jobs, rights at work, our environment and our national health service. We must be honest about what it means for our manufacturing industry and people’s jobs: not only does it reduce access to the market of our biggest trading partner, but it leaves us without a customs union, which will damage industries across the country in every one of our constituencies. From Nissan in Sunderland to Heinz in Wigan, Airbus in Broughton and Jaguar Land Rover in Birmingham, thousands of British jobs depend on a strong manufacturing sector, and a strong manufacturing sector needs markets, through fluid supply chains, all across the European Union. A vote for this deal would be a vote to cut manufacturing jobs all across this country.

This deal would absolutely inevitably lead to a Trump trade deal—[Interruption]—forcing the UK to diverge from the highest standards and expose our families once again to chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef. This deal—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard
19 Oct 2019, 9:59 a.m.

Order. I did say that the statement by the Prime Minister must be heard. The response of the Leader of the Opposition, in the best traditions of parliamentary democracy, must also be heard, and it will.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard
19 Oct 2019, 10 a.m.

This deal fails to enshrine the principle that we keep pace with the European Union on environmental standards and protections, putting at risk our current rules on matters ranging from air pollution standards to chemical safety—we all know the public concern about such issues—at the same time that we are facing a climate emergency.

As for workers’ rights, we simply cannot give the Government a blank cheque. Mr Speaker, you do not have to take my word for that. Listen, for example, to the TUC general secretary, Frances O’Grady, who says—[Interruption.] She represents an organisation with 6 million affiliated members, and she says:

“This deal would be a disaster for working people. It would hammer the economy, cost jobs and sell workers’ rights down the river.”

Listen to Make UK, representing British manufacturers, which says—[Interruption.] Government Members may care to listen to its comments on the deal. Make UK says that

“commitments to the closest possible trading relationship in goods have gone. Differences in regulation between the UK and the EU will add cost and bureaucracy and our companies will face a lack of clarity inhibiting investment and planning.”

Listen also to the Green Alliance, which says that the deal amounted to a

“very sad Brexit read from a climate perspective.”

The message is clear that this deal is not good for jobs and is damaging for our industry and a threat to our environment and our natural world. It is not a good deal for our country, and future generations will feel the impact. It should be voted down by this House today.

I also totally understand the frustration and fatigue across the country and in this House, but we simply cannot vote for a deal that is even worse than the one that the House rejected three times. The Government’s own economic analysis shows that this deal would make the poorest regions even poorer and cost each person in this country over £2,000 a year. If we vote for a deal that makes our constituents poorer, we are not likely to be forgiven. The Government are claiming that if we support their deal, it will get Brexit done, and that backing them today is the only way to stop a no-deal exit. I simply say: nonsense. Supporting the Government this afternoon would merely fire the starting pistol in a race to the bottom in regulations and standards.

If anyone has any doubts about that, we only have to listen to what the Government’s own Members have been saying. Like the one yesterday who rather let the cat out of the bag by saying that Members should back this deal as it means we can leave with no deal by 2020. [Hon. Members: “Ah.”] The cat is truly out of the bag. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether that is the case? If a free trade agreement has not been done, would that mean Britain falling on to World Trade Organisation terms by December next year, with only Northern Ireland having preferential access to the EU market?

No wonder, then, that the Foreign Secretary said that this represents a “cracking deal” for Northern Ireland, which would retain frictionless access to the single market. That does prompt the question: why is it that the rest of the UK cannot get a cracking deal by maintaining access to the single market?

The Taoiseach said that the deal

“allows the all-Ireland economy to continue to develop and… protects the European single market”.

Some Members of this House would welcome an all-Ireland economy, but I did not think that they included the Government and the Conservative and Unionist party. The Prime Minister declared in the summer:

“Under no circumstances… will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea”.

We cannot trust a word he says.

Voting for a deal today will not end Brexit, and it will not deliver certainty. The people should have the final say. Labour is not prepared to sell out the communities that it represents. We are not prepared to sell out their future, and we will not back this sell-out deal. This is about our communities now and about our future generations.

Debate on the Address

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Monday 14th October 2019

(10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard

There is no question. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This legislation is designed to hit the poorest the hardest: those who do not have passports or access to other forms of identity, and who will thus lose their right to vote and decide who governs in the future. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Parliament Live - Hansard
14 Oct 2019, 3:22 p.m.

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will give way when he chooses. He does not need to be told what to do by people gesticulating at him. Stop it. It is low grade, downmarket and out of keeping with the code.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard
14 Oct 2019, 3:23 p.m.

Freedom of movement has given opportunities to millions of British people to live, work and retire across Europe. It has benefited our economy immensely, with European Union workers playing a key role in sustaining many of our industries and public services. No responsible Member would vote to rip that up, unless there is a proper plan in place. In the shadow of the Windrush scandal, the settled status scheme for European Union citizens risks another round of wrongful denial of rights and shameful deportations. I look forward to the Prime Minister assuring those European Union citizens, who have made such an enormous contribution to our lives and our society, that they will have a secure future in this country.

The Government say that they will be at the forefront of solving the most complex international security issues and global challenges, yet they are playing precisely no role in stopping the horrors unfolding in the Kurdish areas of northern Syria, ending the war and humanitarian crisis in Yemen, or standing up for the rights of the Rohingya, the Uighurs, or the people of Palestine, Ecuador or Hong Kong. They are continuing to cosy up to Donald Trump, and sitting idly by as he wrecks the world’s efforts to tackle climate change and nuclear proliferation.

As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said in an intervention, the crisis of our age is the climate emergency as declared by this House in May, but there is no action announced in the Queen’s Speech. I pay tribute to the climate school strikers and to Extinction Rebellion. Sadly, the Government have not listened. The Prime Minister derided them as “nose-ringed…crusties”, although I note that their number included a Conservative former Member of the European Parliament, who I believe is related to the Prime Minister. So many people are concerned about bad air quality, the failure to invest in renewable energy, the pollution of our rivers and seas, and the loss of biodiversity. Only this Government have the power and resource to tackle the climate emergency if they wanted to, but they are missing with inaction. It is Labour that will bring forward a green new deal to tackle the climate emergency.

The legislative programme is a propaganda exercise that the Government cannot disguise. This Government have failed on Brexit for over three years. They are barely beginning to undo the damage of a decade of cuts to our public services. It does nothing for people struggling to make ends meet. It does nothing to make our world a safer place or tackle the climate emergency. The Prime Minister promised that this Queen’s Speech would dazzle us. On closer inspection, it is nothing more than fool’s gold.

Prime Minister's Role in Creating a Safe Environment

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Thursday 26th September 2019

(10 months, 3 weeks ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Wales Office
Mr Speaker Parliament Live - Hansard
26 Sep 2019, 12:16 p.m.

What the Minister has said is absolutely right: that code of conduct has to be enforced and, indeed, as far as the Chamber is concerned, adjudicated by the Chair. The record is clear and the evidence is there for all to see. People can observe week after week after week after week that there can be abuses on both sides—for example, during Prime Minister’s questions—and every time without fail the Chair intervenes to seek to restore order. It has been the case, it is the case, and it will always be the case. It is not a matter of party politics; it is a matter of procedural propriety, and that is the way that it must continue to be.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Parliament Live - Hansard
26 Sep 2019, 12:16 p.m.

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) on securing this urgent question.

It is extremely disappointing that the Prime Minister has not respected this House by attending here today. His language and demeanour yesterday was, frankly, nothing short of disgraceful. Three years ago, our colleague—our Member of Parliament—Jo Cox was murdered by a far right activist, shouting, “Britain First. This is for Britain.” The language that politicians use matters and has real consequences. To dismiss concerns from Members about the death threats that they receive and to dismiss concerns that the language used by the Prime Minister is being repeated in those death threats is reprehensible. To dismiss those concerns in an abusive way, as he did, is completely unacceptable. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), and for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), and other Members, including the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), for what they said yesterday.

Today, I have written to all Members of the parliamentary Labour party expressing solidarity with my friends and setting out the conduct expected of all colleagues. No part of this House, as you have said, Mr Speaker, has a monopoly of virtue. Inappropriate language has been used by all parties, but we all have a duty to keep our debates political and not to descend into personal abuse.

I disagreed profoundly with the previous Prime Minister, but she did offer cross-party talks to try to find a compromise. She also set out her approach to this House, allowing for scrutiny and debate. I was pleased to participate in a meeting with her and other party leaders about conduct and abuse in the House and around the parliamentary estate. The current Prime Minister, unfortunately, has sought to entrench divisions, refused to set out any detail of the deal that he is seeking and continues to pledge that we will leave with no deal on 31 October, despite the fact that this House has voted against, and legislated against, such an outcome. Not only should he comply with the law, but he should come to this House and apologise for his conduct yesterday, which fell well below the standards expected by the people of this country of the way their elected representatives should behave, should speak and should treat each other.

Prime Minister's Update

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Wednesday 25th September 2019

(10 months, 3 weeks ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Parliament Live - Hansard
25 Sep 2019, 6:45 p.m.

I thank the Prime Minister for giving me an advance copy of his statement. Unfortunately, it was like his illegal shutting down of Parliament—“null” and

“of no effect and should be quashed”,

in the words of the Supreme Court. This was 10 minutes of bluster from a dangerous Prime Minister who thinks he is above the law, but in truth he is not fit for the office he holds. I am glad to see so many colleagues back here doing what they were elected to do: holding the Government to account for their failings. Whether it is their attempt to shut down democracy, their sham Brexit negotiations, their chaotic and inadequate no-deal preparations, the allegations of corruption, their failure on climate change or their failure to step in to save Thomas Cook, this Government are failing the people of Britain, and the people of Britain know it—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard

Order. I said that the Prime Minister should not be shouted down. The same goes for the Leader of the Opposition. Let me say to people bellowing from a sedentary position: stop it—you will exhaust your vocal cords, you will get nowhere, it will not work, and these proceedings will continue for as long as is necessary for the Chair to be satisfied that proper scrutiny has taken place. It is as simple and incontrovertible as that.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
25 Sep 2019, 6:47 p.m.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Yesterday’s Supreme Court verdict represents an extraordinary and, I believe, precarious moment in this country’s history. The highest court in this land has found that the Prime Minister broke the law when he tried to shut down our democratic accountability at a crucial moment in our public life. The judges concluded that there was no reason,

“let alone a good reason”,

for the Prime Minister to have shut down Parliament. After yesterday’s ruling, the Prime Minister should have done the honourable thing and resigned, yet here he is—forced back to this House to rightfully face the scrutiny he tried to avoid—with no shred of remorse or humility and, of course, no substance whatsoever.

Let us see if he will answer some questions. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Attorney General that the Government “got it wrong”, or with the Leader of the House that the Supreme Court committed a “constitutional coup”? This is a vital question about whether the Government respect the judiciary or not.

The Attorney General was categorical that the Government would comply with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Can the Prime Minister confirm that?

I pay tribute to those MPs from all parties across the House, to the Lords and to those in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly who have not only fought so hard to stop a disastrous no deal, but continued to take the case against Prorogation through the courts. The Government have failed to silence our democracy.

During the period of unlawful Prorogation, the Government were forced to release their Yellowhammer no-deal analysis and plans. No wonder the Prime Minister has been so eager to avoid scrutiny and hide the dangers of his Brexit plan. The release of those documents leads to many questions that the Government must answer now that our Parliament is back in operation.

I would like to start by asking the Prime Minister why the Government in August described leaked Yellowhammer documents as out of date. When the documents were later produced in September, they were word for word the same. It is clear that they have tried to hide from the people the truth—the real truth—of a no-deal Brexit and the fact that their policy would heap misery on the people of this country.

Let us take a look at the analysis: chaos at Britain’s ports, with months of disruption; people going short of fuel and fresh foods—[Interruption.] It is your paper, you wrote it and you tried to hide it. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker—I do not hold you responsible for writing the document. There would be disruption of people’s vital medical supplies, rises in energy prices for every household in the country, and a hard border for the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Most damning of all is the passage that simply says:

“Low income groups will be disproportionately affected”.

There we have it, Mr Speaker: a simple warning, a simple truth, that a Tory Government are continuing to follow a policy they know will hit the poorest people in our country the hardest. They simply do not care.

The damning document we have seen is only six pages long. It is only right that this House should expect more transparency from the Government.

The Government say that they are doing all they can to get a deal before 31 October, but the truth is that the Prime Minister has put hardly any effort into negotiations. Any progress looks, at the most generous, to be minimal. Only yesterday, the European Union’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, said that there was

“no reason today for optimism”.

Why does the Prime Minister believe Mr Barnier has that view? This House is still yet to hear any detail of any deal the Government seek to negotiate. We are told the Government have distributed papers to Brussels outlining proposals for a change to the backstop. Will the Prime Minister publish these papers and allow them to be debated in this House of Parliament? For this Government to have any credibility with our people, they need to show they have an actual plan.

The Prime Minister also has questions to answer about his conduct in public office and, in particular, about allegations that he failed to declare an interest in the allocation of public money to a close friend while he was Mayor of London. It was announced today that, in light of the Sunday Times report, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is reviewing the funds allocated. Did the Prime Minister initiate that review? Will he fully co-operate with the DCMS review and that of the London Assembly? Will he refer himself to the Cabinet Secretary for investigation? No Prime Minister is above the law.

No one can trust the Prime Minister, not on Iran, not on Thomas Cook, not on climate change and not on Brexit. For the good of this country—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard
25 Sep 2019, 6:56 p.m.

Order. The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to be heard in this Parliament, and he will be heard. [Interruption.] Order. I do not mind how long it takes, these exchanges will take place in an orderly manner. Be in no doubt about that.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
25 Sep 2019, 6:57 p.m.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Quite simply, for the good of this country, the Prime Minister should go. He says he wants a general election. I want a general election. It is very simple: if he wants an election, get an extension and let us have an election.

Break in Debate

Mr Speaker Parliament Live - Hansard
25 Sep 2019, 9:55 p.m.

I have known the hon. Lady since she entered the House in 2005, and we have worked together on a number of matters in the past. Rather than issue a lengthy reply now, I would like to reflect on what she said. I am also happy to meet Members—either individually or in groups if they wish—to consider further these matters. We certainly need to take very great care in the days and weeks ahead, and I am as sensitive to that matter as I think I can be. Let me reflect further on what the hon. Lady has said, and I will be happy to see her either for a Privy Counsellor-type conversation or in another form if she so wishes.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Hansard

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for what you have just said—and the sincerity with which you said it—about the threats made to Members of Parliament; the abuse, racism and violence happening in our communities; and the unfortunate messages that come from the language used, which is then repeated on the streets when people threaten public representatives and others with violence. May I ask you to use your excellent and very good offices to call together the leaders of all parties in this House to issue a joint declaration opposing any form of abusive language or threats? We should put the message out to our entire community that we have to treat each other with respect. If we do not, those on our streets who would do violence feel emboldened to do it and the most vulnerable people in our society suffer as a result. It happens in my constituency and in their constituencies of every other Member of this House. We are an elected Parliament, and we have a duty and responsibility to protect all our citizens from the kind of inflammatory language that has been used that is then meted out on the streets in a form of violence against individuals.

Mr Speaker Parliament Live - Hansard

I will reflect carefully on the point of order just raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I am very open to convening a meeting of senior colleagues for the purpose of a House-wide public statement. I do not wish now to prolong these exchanges, but I take extremely seriously what has been said to me.

Early Parliamentary General Election (No. 2)

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Monday 9th September 2019

(11 months, 1 week ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Hansard

The only point of any importance that the Prime Minister has just included in his speech is his clear indication that he does not intend to follow the law that has just been passed that requires him to ask for an extension in certain circumstances. He also gave no answer on the two decisions this House has already made today concerning the publication of Yellowhammer documents and his own behaviour as Prime Minister in respect of laws agreed by this House. He seems to have failed to grasp that those on the Opposition Benches have actually been very clear and that the House has expressed its will: until the Act has been complied with and no deal has been taken off the table, we will not vote to support the Dissolution of this House and a general election.

I want an election, as the Prime Minister pointed out, and the Conservative party has very generously broadcast footage of me and my friends saying that we want an election. I do not retreat from that at all; we are eager for an election, but as keen as we are, we are not prepared to risk inflicting the disaster of no deal on our communities, our jobs, our services, or indeed our rights. [Interruption.]

No deal would not be a clean break. It would not mean just getting on with it. It would start a whole new period of confusion and delay, but this time set against a backdrop of rising unemployment, further de-industrialisation and deepening poverty all across this country. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard

Order. I said a moment ago that the Prime Minister should not be shouted down. Let me say to those who are shouting their heads off that it will be readily obvious to people observing our proceedings that that is exactly what they are trying to do, including some extraordinarily stupid and noisy yelling from people secreting themselves behind the Chair and thinking they are being clever. It is very low grade, it is very downmarket, it is very substandard, it is very boring, it is very predictable, and if the Whips operated any sort of discipline, they would tell those people to try to get a life.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard
9 Sep 2019, 11:10 p.m.

The point I was making was that this will be against a backdrop of unemployment, increasing deindustrialisation and deepening poverty within our society, so it is not surprising that the Government were so keen to hide the Yellowhammer documents—their own documents—which would demonstrate that to be the case. We have no faith that the Government are seeking a deal in good faith. Indeed, the former Work and Pensions Secretary said in her resignation letter:

“I no longer believe leaving with a deal is the government’s main objective.”

EU leaders have received no proposals. Government Ministers have offered no explanation of the deal they are seeking—even if there is such a deal—let alone any worked-out proposals to be presented to Parliament for scrutiny. It is no wonder they are so keen to prorogue so early, to avoid any scrutiny of what they are doing.

The only conclusion that can be reached—and it is backed up by all the leaked reports in the press—is that the Government’s pretensions to negotiate are nothing but a sham. The Prime Minister knows full well that there is no mandate for no deal, no majority support for it in the country and no majority support for it in this House, but he refuses to rule it out and refuses to set out any proposals to avoid it. This is a very serious issue: the Prime Minister is running away from scrutiny with his blather and his shouting. Many people, including the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), are increasingly coming to the conclusion that no deal is his only answer, but he has no mandate for that. The last general election gave no mandate for no deal, and the 2016 referendum gives no mandate for it. The co-convenor of the Vote Leave campaign said in March this year that

“we didn’t vote to leave without a deal.”

He is now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. No deal is opposed by every business group, every industry group and every trade union, and it has been opposed in votes in this House.

I want to turf out this reckless Government—[Interruption.] This Government that are driving up poverty, deepening inequality, scapegoating migrants, whipping up divisions and failing this country. A general election is not something for the Prime Minister to play about with for propaganda points, or even his very poor quality posts on social media, so perhaps he can, possibly for the last time in this Session of Parliament, answer some questions. First—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard

Order. [Interruption.] Order. Order. Mr Philp, you are very loud and rancorous. Calm down, young man! You are getting very over-excited—very, very over-excited—and you can do a lot better than that. You must try to do so.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard
9 Sep 2019, 11:14 p.m.

First, where are the Prime Minister’s proposals for the renegotiations? Where are they? When were they published? What is their content?

Secondly, if the Prime Minister seeks no deal, why does he not argue for it and seek the mandate for it that the Government do not so far possess? There is no mandate for no deal. [Interruption.] No, I am not giving way. Thirdly, if, as he claims, the Prime Minister is making progress—

Break in Debate

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] I think we have had quite enough playground politics from the Conservative party this evening. The one thing the Prime Minister did not say was that he was going to obey the law of this country. He did not say that he acknowledged or accepted three votes that have taken place in this Parliament. At his request, the House is now apparently due to be prorogued this evening for one of the longest prorogations in history simply in order to avoid any questioning of what he is doing or not doing, simply to avoid discussion about Yellowhammer, and particularly to avoid any discussion about the proposals that have been put to the European Union that he has or does not have or that do or do not exist. This Government are a disgrace, and the way the Prime Minister operates is a disgrace—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard
10 Sep 2019, 12:36 a.m.

Order. Be quiet.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard

I hope that the Prime Minister will reflect on proroguing and shutting down Parliament to avoid a Government being held to account, because that is exactly what is doing today and proposes to do to this country.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law)

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Monday 9th September 2019

(11 months, 1 week ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Mr Speaker Hansard

We now come to the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, to be moved under Standing Order No. 24. I remind the House, although I am sure that colleagues are keenly conscious of every word of it, that the motion is

“That this House has considered the welcome completion of all parliamentary stages of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill and has considered the matter of the importance of the rule of law and Ministers’ obligation to comply with the law.”

I call the Leader of the Opposition to move the motion.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Hansard

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the welcome completion of all parliamentary stages of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill and has considered the matter of the importance of the rule of law and Ministers’ obligation to comply with the law.

I welcome the decision that the House has just reached, and I look forward to the Government abiding by and accepting that decision, and the necessary documents being released.

I begin by welcoming the cross-party efforts of many Members of the House in getting the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act passed into law, particularly those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). Parliament has passed a law to ensure that the will of Parliament is upheld. The fact that Parliament is compelled to pass a law to ensure that its will is upheld shows what extraordinary times we live in. The House has rejected no deal. Businesses and trade unions are united in rejecting no deal, and there is no majority for it across the country. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the co-convenor of the Vote Leave campaign, said in March this year:

“We didn’t vote to leave without a deal”.

It is clear—there is no mandate for no deal.

In trying to diminish the Act, the Government’s spin doctors have branded it the surrender Bill, and Ministers have dutifully trotted out that phrase in the media. The Minister who is going to reply has already replied, like Pavlov’s dogs always do.

I remind the House again: we are not at war. The Prime Minister seems obsessed with hyperbole and aggressive language: “surrender Bill”; “do or die”; “rather be dead in a ditch”; and the list goes on. We are supposed to be having negotiations with our European partners. The lives at stake as a result of all this are not those of the Prime Minister or his Cabinet.

Break in Debate

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard
9 Sep 2019, 7:43 p.m.

No, I will not give way. I have made that clear already.

In her resignation letter, the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye said the Prime Minister had committed an

“assault on democracy and decency”.

I would go further: the Prime Minister is also threatening an assault on the rule of law. He was asked on Friday whether he would abide by the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.6) Bill, as it then was, and said he would rather die in a ditch. I do not wish him any ill. I do, however, wish that he would come to the Dispatch Box, set out his detailed plan for Brexit and confirm that he will abide by the law. More than that, the people of this country deserve, and democracy demands, up-front answers from the Prime Minister. So far, no answers have been forthcoming.

I hope the Prime Minister will live up to the office he holds, accept the decisions made by this Parliament, and carry out the wishes of the Act to ensure an application is made to prevent this country crashing out on 31 October, with all the damage that will do to food supplies, medicine supplies, and industrial supplies, and prevent his longer-term ambitions of heading this country in a totally different direction which many, many people are truly frightened of. The Prime Minister could sort this out very quickly if he just had the courtesy to come to the House and confirm he will accept all the provisions of the Act the House has just passed.

Mr Speaker Hansard
9 Sep 2019, 7:45 p.m.

I seek a right hon. or hon. Member on the Government Benches, but it is not immediately obvious that any wishes to contribute. [Laughter.] I do not see why that is a source of such hilarity; I am just making a rather prosaic, factual observation. [Interruption.] Order. Who was that chuntering from a sedentary position?

Break in Debate

Mr Speaker Hansard
9 Sep 2019, 8:51 p.m.

To wind up the debate, as it is in his name, I call the right hon. Gentleman, Mr Jeremy Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard

It is extraordinary that the House is having to debate whether the Prime Minister will abide by a law that has just been passed by Parliament, and that the same Prime Minister, who managed to be here for the Division earlier, cannot be here to answer questions from Members, and no Law Officers are present either. All the Members who have spoken raised questions—

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law)

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Monday 9th September 2019

(11 months, 1 week ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Mr Speaker Hansard
9 Sep 2019, 5:09 p.m.

Before we come to the debate proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), I call the Leader of the Opposition to make an application for leave to propose a debate on another specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. The right hon. Gentleman has up to three minutes in which to make such an application.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Hansard

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will be brief, because the whole House wants to get on to the important debate that you have just agreed to. I want to ask for a very urgent debate on what I consider to be a matter of overriding importance and seriousness. The motion reads:

“That this House has considered the welcome completion of all parliamentary stages of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act and has considered the matter of the importance of the rule of law and Ministers’ obligation to comply with the law.”

I welcome the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act, which has just received Royal Assent. However, there is deep concern not just across the House but across the whole country at the Government’s commitment to abide by the obligations set out in that Act and the outright statements in some quarters that they will disregard or seek to evade the law that has just received Royal Assent and therefore is an Act of Parliament. I am therefore asking you to grant an urgent debate under Standing Order No. 24, on behalf of the people of this country who want to live in a democratic society where the Government abide by the rule of law, on whether the Prime Minister will obey the law that this House has just passed into law.

Mr Speaker Hansard

The right hon. Gentleman asks for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration: the welcome completion of all parliamentary stages of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill—sometimes colloquially known, probably in the pubs and clubs of the United Kingdom, as the Benn-Letwin Bill—and has considered the matter of the importance of the rule of law and Ministers’ obligation to comply with the law.

I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s application. Adherence to the law—goodness! Yes, I am satisfied that the matter raised on the last day before the Prorogation of this Parliament is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. Has the right hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?

Application agreed to (not fewer than 40 Members standing in support).

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Monday 9th September 2019

(11 months, 1 week ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Hansard

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to put on record my thanks to you for being a superb Speaker of this House, my thanks to you as a colleague in Parliament, and my thanks to your family for the way in which they have supported you through often very difficult times when many of the media have been very unfair on you. Your two sons are getting good at football. I did some kicks with them in Speaker’s Court the other day and I was very impressed, actually; they are coming on well. And I know you support the same club as me.

In your role as Speaker, you have totally changed the way in which the job has been done. You have reached out to people across the whole country. You have visited schools, you have visited factories, you have visited offices; you have talked to people about the role of Parliament and democracy. I have never forgotten you coming to City and Islington College in my constituency and spending the morning with me talking to a group of students, all of whom had learning difficulties, and we discussed with them the roles of democracy and Parliament.

You have taken absolutely on board the words of Speaker Lenthall that you are there to be guided by and act on behalf of our Parliament. This Parliament is the stronger for your being Speaker. Our democracy is the stronger for your being the Speaker. Whatever you do when you finally step down from Parliament, you do so with the thanks of a very large number of people, and as one who has made the role of Speaker in the House more powerful, not less powerful. I welcome that. As somebody who aspires to hold Executive office, I like the idea of a powerful Parliament holding the Executive to account; it is something I have spent the last 35 years doing myself.

So, Mr Speaker, enjoy the last short period in your office, but it is going to be one of the most dramatic there has been. I think your choice of timing and date is incomparable and will be recorded in the history books of parliamentary democracy. Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Labour party I thank you for your work in promoting democracy and this House. Thank you.

Mr Speaker Hansard

Thank you. I just say to the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, that he is very much more experienced and senior than I, but I think that as Back Benchers in our respective parties we did have quite a lot in common. Certainly, speaking for myself, as a Back Bencher, and frequently as an Opposition Front Bencher, I found that I had a relationship with my Whips characterised by trust and understanding—I didn’t trust them and they didn’t understand me.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Wednesday 4th September 2019

(11 months, 2 weeks ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
4 Sep 2019, 12:15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, you don’t have to go very far from the portals of this House to see real destitution: people begging and sleeping on the streets; child poverty is up compared with 2010; pensioner poverty is up; and in-work poverty is up. The Prime Minister will not give us any of the information of the assessments of increased poverty that could come from his Government’s proposals.

We are less than 60 days away from leaving the EU with no deal. The Prime Minister had two days in office before the summer recess and then planned to prorogue Parliament. Yesterday, he lost one vote—his first vote in Parliament—and he now wants to dissolve Parliament. He is desperate—absolutely desperate—to avoid scrutiny. [Interruption.] In his third day in office, after five questions from me, we have not had an answer to any of them. I can see why he is desperate to avoid scrutiny: he has no plan to get a new deal—no plan, no authority and no majority. If he—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Parliament Live - Hansard
4 Sep 2019, 12:17 p.m.

Order. If we have to go on longer because people sitting on the Treasury Bench are yelling to try to disrupt, so be it, we will go on longer. Some people used to believe in good behaviour; I believe in good behaviour on both sides of the House. It had better happen or it will take a whole lot longer—very simple, very clear.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
4 Sep 2019, 12:17 p.m.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

If the Prime Minister does to the country what he has done to his party in the past 24 hours, a lot of people have a great deal to fear from his incompetence, his vacillation and his refusal to publish known facts—that are known to him—about the effects of a no-deal Brexit.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Tuesday 3rd September 2019

(11 months, 2 weeks ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Parliament Live - Hansard

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I welcome tonight’s vote. We live in a parliamentary democracy. We do not have a presidency; we have a Prime Minister. Prime Ministers govern with the consent of the House of Commons representing the people in whom sovereignty rests. There is no consent in this House to leave the EU without a deal. There is no majority for no deal in the country. As I have said before, if the Prime Minister has confidence in his Brexit policy—when he has one he can put forward—he should put it before the people in a public vote. So he wants to table a motion for a general election. Fine—get the Bill through first in order to take no deal off the table. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Parliament Live - Hansard
3 Sep 2019, 10:14 p.m.

Order. It is very rude for Members—[Interruption.] Order. I say to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that, when he turns up at our children’s school as a parent, he is a very well-behaved fellow. He would not dare to behave like that in front of Colin Hall, and neither would I. Do not gesticulate. Do not rant. Spare us the theatrics. Behave yourself. Be a good boy, young man. Be a good boy. [Interruption.] Yes, we know the theatrics that the right hon. Gentleman perfected in the Oxford Union. We are not interested. Be quiet.

G7 Summit

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Tuesday 3rd September 2019

(11 months, 2 weeks ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Mr Speaker Parliament Live - Hansard

Order. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no vote on a Bill tonight. There is a vote on a motion, and if that motion is successful there will be a Bill tomorrow. [Interruption.] Order. I say this simply because the intelligibility of our proceedings to those observing them is important, and I am sure that everybody from all parts of the House will recognise that fundamental truth.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Parliament Live - Hansard
3 Sep 2019, 3:51 p.m.

I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of his statement. I join with him in recognising the great human suffering of world war two and the great human bravery that took place during that awful conflict that began 80 years ago, which was essential in defeating the disgusting ideology of the Nazis and of fascism at that time.

The Prime Minister met EU leaders over the summer and EU Council President Tusk at the G7 summit. After those meetings, the Prime Minister struck an optimistic note, saying that the chances of a deal were, in his words, “improving”. His optimism was not shared by those who had been at the same meetings. The Prime Minister may claim that progress is being made, but EU leaders report that the Government have so far failed to present any new proposals. Can the Prime Minister clear this up? Can he tell us whether the UK has put forward any new proposal in relation to the backstop? If it has, will he publish them so that these proposals can be scrutinised by Parliament and by the public?

It is becoming increasingly clear that this reckless Government have only one plan: to crash out of the EU without a deal. The reality is exposed today in the in-house journal of the Conservative party—otherwise known as The Daily Telegraph—which reports that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff has called the negotiations “a sham”, that the strategy is to “run down the clock”, and that the proposal to alter the backstop is “a complete fantasy”—and those are the words of the Attorney General.

No deal will mean food shortages, reduced medical supplies and chaos at our ports. It is not me saying that; it is the Government’s own leaked analysis that says that, and it warns of chaos across the board. Today, we had expected the publication of the Government’s no deal preparations. The Government are hiding from scrutiny and hiding from the people and they are trying to hide us from their true intentions. This is not just a Government in chaos, but a Government of cowardice. Thankfully, some in Whitehall are putting those vital documents into the public domain, but we should not have to rely on sporadic leaks. Will the Prime Minister set out today when these documents will be published so that the people and Parliament can scrutinise and debate them? Many on the Government Benches would relish a no deal. They see it as an opportunity to open up Britain to a one-sided trade deal that puts us at the mercy of Donald Trump and United States corporations and that will increase the wealth of a few at the expense of the many.

When it comes to the crunch, too many on the Government Benches who once opposed a no-deal outcome are now putting their own careers before the good of the people of this country. Just look at all those Tory leadership candidates who said that it would be wrong to suspend Parliament in order to make no deal more likely, but who sit passively as their principles of just a few short weeks ago are cast aside—I do not know what they were doing over their summer holidays, but something has changed. And it gets worse, because not only have they all stood by while the Prime Minister launches his latest attack on democracy, but some have repeatedly refused to rule out the possibility of the Government ignoring any law passed by Parliament that attempts to stop a no-deal Brexit. Will the Prime Minister therefore take this opportunity, when he responds in a moment, to assure the country that his Government will abide by any legislation passed by Parliament this week?

The attack on our democracy in order to force through a disastrous no-deal Brexit is unprecedented, anti-democratic and unconstitutional. Labour will do all we can to protect our industry, protect our democracy and protect our people against this dangerous and reckless Government.

I condemn the rhetoric that the Prime Minister used when he talked about a “surrender Bill”. I really hope that he will reflect on his use of language. We are not surrendering because we are at war with Europe; they are surely our partners. If anything, it is a no-deal exit that would mean surrendering our industry, our jobs, and our standards and protections in a trade deal with Donald Trump and the United States.

The UK should be using its position in the G7 to promote policies to tackle the climate emergency. The climate emergency is real, but instead of standing up to President Trump, it was in fact agreed this time, in order to save his blushes, that there would be no joint communiqué on this at the G7. That is not leadership; that is fiddling while the Amazon burns. The situation across the Amazon should be a wake-up call to the Prime Minister, who once described global warming as a “primitive fear…without foundation”. As we watch fires rage, and not only across the Amazon but in Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, does he stand by those sentiments?

While funds to protect and restore the Amazon rain forest are welcome, the Prime Minister knows that this is merely a drop in the ocean, so will more money be pledged for the Amazon, and are additional funds being made available to tackle fires in sub-Saharan Africa? Will he be introducing measures to stop UK companies aiding, abetting and profiting from the destruction of the Amazon rain forest, and indeed rain forests in west Africa? On 1 May the UK Parliament became the first state Parliament anywhere in the world to declare a climate emergency, and I was proud to move that motion. We must continue to show global leadership on the issue.

On Iran, it is notable that the Prime Minister fails to condemn President Trump’s unilateral decision to tear up the internationally agreed Iran nuclear deal, creating a crisis that now risks a slide into even deeper conflict. Does the Prime Minister plan to work with European partners to restore the Iran nuclear deal and de-escalate tensions in the Gulf? We are clear that in government Labour would work tirelessly through the UN for a negotiated reinstatement of the nuclear deal, and to defuse the threat of war in the Gulf. Effective diplomacy, not threats and bluster, must prevail. Will he call on the Iranian authorities to end the unjust detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and what actions has he taken so far to ensure her release from the terrible situation that she has been plunged into?

We are all concerned about the situation in Hong Kong. No Government anywhere should get to shut down rights and freedoms, or to pick and choose which laws they adhere to. Will the Prime Minister urge the Chinese Government to stick to the joint declaration of 1984 and stand up for the rights of citizens in Hong Kong?

Later today, this House has a last chance to stop this Government riding roughshod over constitutional and democratic rights in this country, so that a cabal in Downing Street cannot crash us out without a deal, without any democratic mandate and against the majority of public opinion. The Prime Minister is not winning friends in Europe; he is losing friends at home. His is a Government with no mandate, no morals and—as of today—no majority.

Priorities for Government

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Thursday 25th July 2019

(1 year ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Parliament Live - Hansard

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his position and thank him for an advance copy of his statement.

No one underestimates this country, but the country is deeply worried that the new Prime Minister overestimates himself. He inherits a country that has been held back by nine years of austerity that hit children and young people the hardest. Their youth centres have closed, their school funding has been cut and their college budgets slashed, and with the help of the Liberal Democrats, tuition fees have trebled. Housing costs are higher than ever, and jobs are lower paid. Opportunity and freedom have been taken away. Austerity was always a political choice, never an economic necessity—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard

Order. I indicated that people would not shout down the Prime Minister. Precisely the same applies to the Leader of the Opposition. Don’t try it: you are wasting your vocal cords and, above all, it won’t work. The right hon. Gentleman will be heard and these exchanges will take as long as they will take, whatever other appointments people might have. The right hon. Gentleman will be heard. Stop it!

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
25 Jul 2019, 11:50 a.m.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The right hon. Gentleman’s predecessor promised to end austerity, but spectacularly failed to deliver. People do not trust the Prime Minister to make the right choices for the majority of people in this country when he is also promising tax giveaways to the richest and big business—his own party’s funders. So can he now indicate when he will set out the detail of the exact funding settlement for our schools and for our hard-pressed local authorities and police, so that they can start planning now? We must also address the deep regional inequalities in this country. The northern powerhouse has been massively underpowered and the midlands engine has not been fuelled, so will the Prime Minister match Labour’s commitment to a £500 billion investment fund to rebalance this country through regional development banks and a national transformation fund?

The right hon. Gentleman has hastily thrown together a hard-right Cabinet. I have just a couple of questions on those appointments. Given his appointment of the first Home Secretary for a generation to support the death penalty, can he assure the House now that his Government have no plans to try to bring back capital punishment to this country? And before appointing the new Education Secretary, was he given sight of the Huawei leak investigation by the Cabinet Secretary?

I am deeply alarmed to see no plan for Brexit. The right hon. Gentleman was in the Cabinet that accepted the backstop and, of course, he voted for it on 30 March this year. It would be welcome if he could set out what he finds so objectionable, having voted for it less than four months ago. Can he explain this flip-flopping? The House will have a sense of déjà-vu and of trepidation at a Prime Minister setting out rigid red lines and an artificial timetable. There is something eerily familiar about a Prime Minister marching off to Europe with demands to scrap the backstop, so why does he think he will succeed where his predecessor failed?

However, I do welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment finally to guarantee the rights of European Union citizens. It is a great shame that this offer has only been made now, more than three years after my party put that proposal before this House. Our friends, neighbours and family should never have been treated as bargaining chips, which has caused untold stress and worry to people who have worked so hard for this country and the communities that make it up.

Does the Prime Minister accept that, if he continues to pursue a reckless no deal, he will be directly flouting the expressed will of this Parliament? Industry, business and unions have been absolutely clear about the threat that that poses: no deal means no steel, no car industry, food prices dramatically rising and huge job losses. Make UK, representing much of manufacturing industry, says no deal would be

“the height of economic lunacy”.

Companies from Toyota to Asda have been clear about the dangers of no deal. Is the Prime Minister still guided by his “f*** business” policy? Those recklessly advocating no deal will not be the ones who lose out. The wealthy elite who fund him and his party will not lose their jobs, see their living standards cut or face higher food bills.

If the Prime Minister has confidence in his plan, once he has decided what it is, he should go back to the people with that plan. Labour will oppose any deal that fails to protect jobs— [Interruption.] We will oppose any deal that fails to protect jobs, workers’ rights or environmental protections. If he has the confidence to put that decision back to the people, we would, in those circumstances, campaign to remain.

The office of— [Interruption]

Mr Speaker Hansard
25 Jul 2019, 11:56 a.m.

Order. It will take as long as it takes. I have plenty of time; I am totally untroubled by these matters.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
25 Jul 2019, noon

The office of Prime Minister requires integrity and honesty, so will the Prime Minister correct his claim that kipper exports from the Isle of Man to the UK are subject to EU regulations? Will he also acknowledge that the £39 billion is now £33 billion, due over 30 years, and has been legally committed to be paid by his predecessor? This is a phoney threat about a fake pot of money, made by the Prime Minister.

We also face a climate emergency, so will the Prime Minister take the urgent actions necessary? Will he ban fracking? Will he back real ingenuity like the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon? Will he increase investment in carbon capture and storage? Will he back our solar industry and onshore wind—so devastated over the last nine years? Will he set out a credible plan to reach net zero?

I note that the climate change-denying US President has already labelled the Prime Minister “Britain Trump” and welcomed his commitment to work with Nigel Farage. Could “Britain Trump” take this opportunity to rule out once and for all our NHS being part of any trade deal—any trade deal—with President Trump and the USA? Will the Prime Minister make it clear that our national health service is not going to be sold to American healthcare companies? People fear that, far from wanting to “take back control”, the new Prime Minister would effectively make us a vassal state of Trump’s America.

Will the Prime Minister ask the new Foreign Secretary to prioritise the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and is he working with European partners to restore the Iran nuclear deal and de-escalate tensions in the Gulf?

The challenge to end austerity, tackle inequality, resolve Brexit and tackle the climate emergency will define the new Prime Minister. Instead, we have a hard-right Cabinet staking everything on tax cuts for the few and a reckless race-to-the-bottom Brexit. He says he has “pluck and nerve and ambition”; our country does not need arm-waving bluster; we need competence, seriousness and, after a decade of divisive policies for the few, to focus for once on the interests of the many.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Wednesday 17th July 2019

(1 year ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard

rose—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard
17 Jul 2019, 12:07 p.m.

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will be heard. Attempts to shout him down are downmarket, low grade, regarded with contempt by the public and, above all, will not work. Be quiet.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard

This party was the first to introduce anti-racist legislation into law in Britain. This party totally opposes racism in any form whatsoever. Antisemitism has no place in our society, no place in any of our parties and no place in any of our dialogues. Neither does any other form of racism.

Some 60% of Tory party members think Islam is a threat to western civilisation. The Prime Minister has said that she will act on Islamophobia within her own party. I hope she does. I look forward to seeing that being dealt with, as we will deal with any racism that occurs within our own party as well.

Last week, the Committee on Climate Change published its annual report, which described the Government’s efforts on climate change not a bit like what the Prime Minister just said; it described them as being run like “Dad’s Army”. The Government’s target is to reduce carbon emissions by 57% by 2030. Can the Prime Minister tell us how much progress has been made on that?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Wednesday 10th July 2019

(1 year, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard

My party is totally committed to eliminating racism in any form and antisemitism in any form. While the Prime Minister is about the lecturing, how about the investigation into Islamophobia in her party? [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Parliament Live - Hansard
10 Jul 2019, 12:13 p.m.

Order. Mr Bowie, you are as noisy as your illustrious late namesake, David Bowie, but, sadly, nothing like as melodic, my dear chap.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
10 Jul 2019, 11:55 a.m.

This is one lecture the Prime Minister might not want to take from me, but she might care to listen to what the United Nations said when it condemned the UK Government for their “grave” and “systematic violations” of the rights of disabled people. The Windrush scandal has resulted in the Government having to allocate £200 million in compensation to people wrongly deported from this country and denied services, with their lives totally pulled apart. These are people who have given their life to this country and our services. Does she think that scandal would have happened if legal aid had not been slashed by the Government and so many of those people had not been denied any representation in court?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Wednesday 3rd July 2019

(1 year, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
3 Jul 2019, 12:07 p.m.

The Prime Minister could not get her own party to support it. The Opposition parties did not support it either. As the danger of no deal looms ever larger, JLR, Ford, Nissan, Toyota and BMW have all said that no deal would threaten their continued presence in the UK. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has said:

“Leaving the EU without a deal would trigger the most seismic shift in trading conditions ever experienced”.

Furthermore, within the last week Vauxhall has said that its decision to produce the new Astra at Ellesmere Port will be conditional on the final terms of the UK’s exit from the EU. What can the Prime Minister say to workers at Ellesmere Port and elsewhere—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Parliament Live - Hansard
3 Jul 2019, 12:08 p.m.

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will not be shouted down under any circumstances. If you are shouting, stop it. You can do better, and if you cannot, it is about time you did.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
3 Jul 2019, 12:08 p.m.

Why does the Prime Minister not speak to both candidates to succeed her and remind them that as they trade insults over no deal, thousands of jobs are at risk the more they ratchet up their rhetoric?

Break in Debate

Mr Speaker Parliament Live - Hansard
3 Jul 2019, 12:09 p.m.

Order. Ms Onn, you are very over-excitable. Calm yourself.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
3 Jul 2019, 12:09 p.m.

The Labour party is about protecting jobs and living standards in this country, not crashing out without a deal. With tariffs up to 40% on some basic foodstuffs, will the Prime Minister set out exactly what impact no deal would have on food prices and on the farming industry in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Wednesday 12th June 2019

(1 year, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard

The legacy of the Prime Minister’s Government is one of failure. They claimed that they would tackle burning injustices; they failed. They told pensioners that their benefits were safe; now, they are taking away free TV licences for the over-75s. They promised action on Grenfell; two years on, there is still flammable cladding on thousands of homes across this country. They promised a northern powerhouse; they failed to deliver it, and every northern newspaper is campaigning for this Government to power up the north. They promised net zero by 2050, yet they have failed on renewables, and are missing—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard
12 Jun 2019, 12:22 p.m.

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will not be shouted down; it is not going to happen. Do not waste your breath. It is not productive, and it is terribly boring.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
12 Jun 2019, 12:22 p.m.

They promised net zero by 2050, yet they have failed on renewables and are missing their climate change targets. They promised an industrial strategy; output is falling. Which does the Prime Minister see as the biggest industrial failure of her Government: the car industry, the steel industry, or the renewables industry? Which is it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Wednesday 22nd May 2019

(1 year, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard

What this Government have squandered is what they inherited: children’s centres, Sure Start, children taken out of poverty. They squandered the future for so many of our children. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard

Order. Mr Burghart, you are an educated young man. When you came into the House, you struck me as a very well behaved fellow. Calm yourself and listen.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
22 May 2019, 12:09 p.m.

The Department for Education’s funding chief met school leaders recently and told them:

“the first thing to say is obviously they are not generous budgets”—

he is very cautious with his words—

“They are budgets which leave schools with real pressures to face”.

Everyone agrees that the creative industries in this country are an enormous strength to our economy, so why have the arts borne the brunt of the Government’s brutal cuts to school funding? So many children are losing out on music and creative arts in our schools because of decisions by central Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Wednesday 15th May 2019

(1 year, 3 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard

My question was about food banks in a Government office—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard

Order. I am very, very worried about you, Mr Spencer. You used to be such a calm and measured fellow. You are now behaving in an extraordinarily eccentric manner—almost delinquent. Calm yourself, young man, and your condition will improve.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard
15 May 2019, midnight

My question was about a food bank in a Government Ministry, which seems to suggest that in-work poverty is the problem in Britain.

The Trussell Trust handed out 1.6 million food parcels last year, half a million of which went to children. A new report out today by the End Child Poverty coalition shows that child poverty has risen by half a million and is becoming the new norm in this country. The End Child Poverty coalition called on Ministers to restore the link between inflation and social security. Will the Prime Minister do that, to try to reduce the disgraceful levels of child poverty in this country?

Environment and Climate Change

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Wednesday 1st May 2019

(1 year, 3 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Mr Speaker Parliament Live - Hansard
1 May 2019, 1:47 p.m.

I must inform the House that I have not selected either of the amendments.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Parliament Live - Hansard
1 May 2019, 1:47 p.m.

I beg to move,

That this House declares an environment and climate emergency following the finding of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change that to avoid a more than 1.5°C rise in global warming, global emissions would need to fall by around 45 per cent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero by around 2050; recognises the devastating impact that volatile and extreme weather will have on UK food production, water availability, public health and through flooding and wildfire damage; notes that the UK is currently missing almost all of its biodiversity targets, with an alarming trend in species decline, and that cuts of 50 per cent to the funding of Natural England are counterproductive to tackling those problems; calls on the Government to increase the ambition of the UK’s climate change targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 to achieve net zero emissions before 2050, to increase support for and set ambitious, short-term targets for the roll-out of renewable and low carbon energy and transport, and to move swiftly to capture economic opportunities and green jobs in the low carbon economy while managing risks for workers and communities currently reliant on carbon intensive sectors; and further calls on the Government to lay before the House within the next six months urgent proposals to restore the UK’s natural environment and to deliver a circular, zero waste economy.

Today the House must declare an environment and climate emergency. We have no time to waste. We are living in a climate crisis that will spiral dangerously out of control unless we take rapid and dramatic action now. This is no longer about a distant future; we are talking about nothing less than the irreversible destruction of the environment within the lifetimes of Members.

Young people know this. They have the most to lose. A few weeks ago, like many other Members on both sides of the House, I was deeply moved to see the streets outside Parliament filled with colour and the noise of children chanting “Our planet, our future”. For someone of my generation, it was inspiring but also humbling that children felt that they had to leave school to teach us adults a lesson. The truth is that they are ahead of the politicians on this, the most important issue of our time. We are witnessing an unprecedented upsurge of climate activism, with groups such as Extinction Rebellion forcing the politicians in this building to listen. For all the dismissive and offensive column inches that the protesters have provoked, they are a massive and, I believe, very necessary wake-up call. Today we have the opportunity to say, “We hear you.”

Break in Debate

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
1 May 2019, 1:50 p.m.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who represents an absolutely wonderful town where environment is at the core of the lives of many people. We are not here to debate the EU or Brexit, about which everyone will be very pleased, but I would say that, under any proposal from my party, we would import into the UK all the environmental regulations the EU has adopted, most of which are very good and progressive, although often they do not go far enough, and there would be a dynamic—

Mr Speaker Parliament Live - Hansard
1 May 2019, 1:51 p.m.

Order. I gently ask the right hon. Gentleman to face the House so we can all hear him.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard
1 May 2019, 1:51 p.m.

Mr Speaker, you are absolutely the last person I would want to be offensive to, so I apologise. We would ensure that there is a dynamic relationship with those regulations, so I am trying to please both sides at the present time—[Interruption.] Such is the joy of politics when we want to protect our environment.

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Votes)

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Monday 1st April 2019

(1 year, 4 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Department for Exiting the European Union
Mr Speaker Parliament Live - Hansard
1 Apr 2019, 10:07 p.m.

Thank you, Secretary of State.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Parliament Live - Hansard

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is disappointing that no solution has won a majority this evening, but I remind the House that the Prime Minister’s unacceptable deal has been overwhelmingly rejected three times. The margin of defeat for one of the options tonight was very narrow indeed, and the Prime Minister’s deal has been rejected by very large majorities on three occasions. If it is good enough for the Prime Minister to have three chances at her deal, I suggest that possibly the House should have a chance to consider again the options that we had before us today in a debate on Wednesday, so that the House can succeed where the Prime Minister has failed, in presenting a credible economic relationship with Europe for the future that prevents us from crashing out with no deal.

Mr Speaker Parliament Live - Hansard
1 Apr 2019, 10:08 p.m.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Monday 25th March 2019

(1 year, 4 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Department for Exiting the European Union
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Parliament Live - Hansard
25 Mar 2019, 10:49 p.m.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to congratulate the House on taking control. The Government’s approach has been an abject failure, and this House must now find a solution. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and others who have worked to achieve tonight’s result.

The Government must take this process seriously. We do not know what the House will decide on Wednesday, but I know that there are many Members of this House who have been working on alternative solutions, and we must debate them to find a consensus. This House must also consider whether any deal should be put to the people for a confirmatory vote. Where this Government have failed, this House must—and I believe will—succeed.

Mr Speaker Hansard
25 Mar 2019, 10:49 p.m.

No adjudication by the Chair is required.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Thursday 14th March 2019

(1 year, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Department for Exiting the European Union
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Parliament Live - Hansard
14 Mar 2019, 6:20 p.m.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. After the last few days of Government chaos and some defeats, all of us now have the opportunity and the responsibility to work together to find a solution to the crisis facing this country, where the Government have so dramatically failed to do so. We have begun to hold meetings with Members across the House to find a consensus and a compromise that meets the needs of this country, but the last few days have also put a responsibility on the Prime Minister: first, to publicly accept that both her deal and no deal are simply no longer viable options; and secondly, to bring forward the necessary legislation to amend the exit date of 29 March.

Tonight I reiterate our conviction that a deal, based on our alternative plan, can be agreed and can command support across the House. I also reiterate our support for a public vote, not as political point-scoring but as a realistic option to break the deadlock. [Interruption.] The whole purpose ought to be to protect communities that are stressed and worried about the future of their jobs and their industries. Our job is to try to meet the concerns of the people who sent us here in the first place. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard
14 Mar 2019, 6:25 p.m.

Order. Nothing further is required.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Wednesday 13th March 2019

(1 year, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Mr Speaker Hansard
13 Mar 2019, 7:54 p.m.

I thank the Prime Minister for what she has said.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Parliament Live - Hansard
13 Mar 2019, 7:56 p.m.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tonight this House has once again definitely ruled out no deal. The Prime Minister said that the choice was between her deal and no deal. In the past 24 hours, Parliament has decisively rejected both her deal and no deal. While an extension of article 50 is now inevitable, responsibility for that extension lies solely and squarely at the Prime Minister’s door. However, extending article 50 without a clear objective is not a solution. Parliament must now take back control of the situation.

In the days that follow, myself, the shadow Brexit Secretary and others will have meetings with Members across the House to find a compromise solution that can command support in the House. That means doing what the Prime Minister failed to do two years ago: searching for a consensus on the way forward. Labour has set out a credible alternative plan. Members across the House are coming forward with proposals. Whether that is a permanent customs union, a public vote, Norway-plus or other ideas, let us as a House of Commons work to find a solution to deal with the crisis facing this country and the deep concerns that many people have for their livelihoods, their lives, their future, their jobs, their communities and their factories. It is up to us as the House of Commons to look for and find a solution to their concerns. That is what we were elected to do.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Tuesday 12th March 2019

(1 year, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard

Indeed. The ERG seems to be slightly missing today, but I am overcome by the excitement and enthusiasm among all the Members sitting behind the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker Hansard
12 Mar 2019, 3:06 p.m.

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not currently giving way. [Interruption.] I do not require any affirmation or contradiction from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). He has got to learn the ways of Parliament.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
12 Mar 2019, 3:06 p.m.

Secondly, the motion uses the word “deliberately”. The risk of our being held in the backstop indefinitely has not been reduced; all that has been reduced is the risk that we could be deliberately held in the backstop indefinitely.

The Prime Minister has herself said on numerous occasions that the backstop is painful for both the UK and the European Union, and is something that neither side wishes to see applied. There has been no indication from the Prime Minister that there was ever a risk of our being deliberately held in the backstop in the first place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Wednesday 27th February 2019

(1 year, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Wales Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
27 Feb 2019, 12:14 p.m.

It clearly is not working, because so many people who are themselves working very hard, some doing two or even three jobs, have to access food banks just to feed their children. The Prime Minister used to talk about the “just about managing.” Well, they are not managing anymore. Income inequality— up. In-work poverty—up. Child poverty—up. Pensioner poverty—up. Homelessness—up. Austerity clearly is not over. People on low incomes are getting poorer, while those at the top are getting richer. The economy is slowing, manufacturing is in recession and this Government’s shambolic handling of Brexit—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard
27 Feb 2019, 12:15 p.m.

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will not be shouted down. It is not going to happen. The attempt is foolish and it demeans the House. Stop it. Grow up.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
27 Feb 2019, 12:16 p.m.

Austerity clearly is not over. People on low incomes are getting poorer, while those at the top get richer. The economy is slowing, manufacturing is in recession and this Government’s shambolic handling of Brexit is compounding years of damaging austerity. Their policies are driving people to food banks and poverty in the fifth richest economy on this planet. Are any of these burning injustices a priority for the Prime Minister?

Leaving the European Union

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Tuesday 26th February 2019

(1 year, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Parliament Live - Hansard
26 Feb 2019, 12:49 p.m.

I would like to start by thanking the Prime Minister for an advance copy of her statement.

I have lost count of the number of times the Prime Minister has come to this House to explain a further delay. They say history repeats itself—the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce—but by the umpteenth time it can only be described as grotesquely reckless. This is not dithering; it is a deliberate strategy to run down the clock. The Prime Minister is promising to achieve something she knows is not achievable and is stringing people along, so will she be straight with people? The withdrawal agreement is not being reopened. There is no attempt to get a unilateral exit on the backstop or a time limit.

In Sharm el-Sheikh, the Prime Minister said that

“a delay in this process, doesn’t deliver a decision in parliament, it doesn’t deliver a deal”.

I can only assume she was being self-critical. She has so far promised a vote on her deal in December, January, February and now March, and she only managed to put a vote once—in January, when it was comprehensively defeated. The Prime Minister continues to say that it is her deal or no deal, but this House has decisively rejected her deal and has clearly rejected no deal. It is the Prime Minister’s obstinacy that is blocking a resolution, so if the House confirms that opposition, then what is the Prime Minister’s plan B?

I pay tribute to others across the House who are working on such solutions—whether that is the proposal that is commonly known as Norway-plus or other options. Labour, I would like to inform the House, will back the Costa amendment if tabled tomorrow, and I also confirm that we will back the amendment drafted by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on securing citizens’ rights for EU citizens here and for UK citizens in Europe, some of whom I met in Spain last week.

The Prime Minister has become quite the expert at kicking the can down the road, but the problem is that the road is running out. The consequences of running down the clock are evident and very real for industry and for people’s jobs. For now, the Prime Minister states that the can can be kicked until 12 March, but the EU cannot now ratify any deal until its leaders summit on 21 March. After all, section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act states that the final agreement will be laid before this House before it can be voted on, so can the Prime Minister confirm how there can be a vote in this House if the EU has not yet agreed any final exit, or is the Prime Minister now saying that there will be no change to either the withdrawal agreement or to the political declaration, so we will be voting again on the same documents?

Every delay and every bit of badly made fudge just intensifies the uncertainty for industry, with business investment being held back, jobs being lost and yet more jobs being putting at risk. The real life consequences of the Prime Minister’s cynical tactics are being felt across the country, with factories relocating abroad, jobs being lost and investment being cancelled. Thousands of workers at sites across Britain’s towns and cities are hearing rumours and fearing the worst. The responsibility for this lies exclusively with the Prime Minister and her Government’s shambolic handling of Brexit. Even now, with just one month to go before our legally enshrined exit date, the Prime Minister is not clear what she wants in renegotiations that have now dragged on since it became clear in December that her deal was not even backed by much of her own party, let alone Parliament or the country at large.

Labour has a credible plan—[Interruption.] Labour has a credible plan that could bring the country together, provide certainty for people, and safeguard jobs and industry. It is based around a new customs union with the EU to protect our manufacturing industry, close alignment with the single market to protect all of our trading sectors and keeping pace with the best practice on workers’ rights, environmental protections and consumer safeguards. The people of this country deserve nothing less. The Prime Minister talks about giving commitments on future developments, but that is way short of a commitment to dynamic alignments on rights and standards when we know many on her Front Bench see Brexit as an opportunity to rip up those vital protections.

In recent weeks, I have been speaking to businesses, industry organisations and trade unions. Last week, along with our shadow Brexit Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and Baroness Chakrabarti, I travelled to Europe to meet EU officials and leaders to discuss the crisis and explain Labour’s proposals. We left with no doubt whatsoever that our proposals are workable and could be negotiated, so tomorrow we will—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard
26 Feb 2019, 12:56 p.m.

Order. I indicated to the House that the Prime Minister should be fairly and courteously heard, and the same goes for the Leader of the Opposition. If the usual suspects could just calm down, it would be in their interests and, more importantly, those of the House.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
26 Feb 2019, 12:56 p.m.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Tomorrow, we will ask Parliament to vote on these proposals—they are workable and negotiable—which back the demands of working people all across this country and industry all across this country. I urge Members across this House to back that amendment to respect the result of the 2016 referendum and to safeguard jobs, investment and industry in this country. Labour accepts the result of the 2016 referendum, but we believe in getting the terms of our exit right, and that is why we believe in our alternative plan.

The Prime Minister’s botched deal provides no certainty or guarantees for the future, and was comprehensively rejected by this House. We cannot risk our country’s industry and people’s livelihoods, so if it somehow passes in some form at a later stage, we believe there must be a confirmatory public vote to see if people feel that that is what they voted for. A no-deal outcome would be disastrous, and that is why we committed to backing the amendment, in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), to rule out that reckless cliff-edge Brexit.

The Prime Minister appears to be belatedly listening to the House. Any extension is necessary only because of the Prime Minister’s shambolic negotiations and her decision to run down the clock, but until the Prime Minister is clear about what alternative she would put forward in those circumstances, then she is simply continuing to run down the clock. She promises a short extension, but for what? If the Government want a genuine renegotiation, they should do so on the terms that can win a majority in this House and on the terms, backed by businesses and unions, that are contained within Labour’s amendment, which I urge the whole House to back tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Wednesday 20th February 2019

(1 year, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Parliament Live - Hansard
20 Feb 2019, 12:04 p.m.

May I start, Mr Speaker, by joining what you said on Monday in paying tribute to my friend and yours, Paul Flynn? He served in this House for over 30 years as the Member for Newport West. He was courageous; he was warm; he was witty. As the Prime Minister pointed out, he served briefly on the shadow Front Bench. When he came to his first shadow Cabinet meeting, he welcomed my

“diversity project to promote octogenarians”

to the shadow Cabinet. His book on how to become an MP is absolutely a must-read. He was respected all across the House and I think we are all going to miss his contributions, his wit and his wisdom. Our deepest condolences to his wife Sam and all his family, and to his wider family across Newport and Wales. He was a truly wonderful man and a great and dear friend.

I also hope that the House will join me in paying tribute to Baroness Falkender, who died earlier this month, and send our condolences to her friends and family. When Marcia served with distinction as political secretary to Harold Wilson, she was subjected to a long campaign of misogynistic smear and innuendo. She suffered a great deal as a result, and we should remember the great work that she did as political secretary to Harold Wilson.

The Prime Minister just responded to a question on antisemitism. I simply say this: antisemitism has no place whatsoever in any of our political parties, in our life, in our society—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard

Mr Ellis, be quiet now and for the rest of the session. You used to practise as a barrister. You did not make those sorts of harrumphing noises in the courts; or if you did, no wonder you no longer practise there.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
20 Feb 2019, 12:05 p.m.

As I was saying, antisemitism has no place whatsoever in our society or in any of our political parties, and my own political party takes the strongest action to deal with antisemitism wherever it rears its head.

Last week, an EU official said the UK Government were only “pretending to negotiate”, adding that there was

“nothing on the table from the British side,”,

so with just 37 days to go, can the Prime Minister be clear about what she will actually be proposing today when she travels to Brussels?

UK’s Withdrawal from the EU

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Thursday 14th February 2019

(1 year, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Department for Exiting the European Union
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Hansard
14 Feb 2019, 4:29 p.m.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tonight’s vote shows that there is no majority for the Prime Minister’s course of action in dealing with Brexit. Yet again, her Government have been defeated. The Government cannot keep on ignoring Parliament or ploughing on towards 29 March without a coherent plan. She cannot keep on just running down the clock and hoping that something will turn up that will save the day and save her face.

It is surprising that the Prime Minister is not even here to hear the result of this vote. I was going to ask her to come to the Dispatch Box now to admit that her strategy has failed and bring forward to the House a coherent plan that can deal with the stresses and anxieties that so many people all over this country are feeling, so that we can make some progress together, bring people together and prevent the catastrophe of a no-deal exit on 29 March. It is surprising that the Prime Minister is not here. Is there some way by which you could encourage her to return to the Dispatch Box and tell us what her plan is?

Mr Speaker Hansard
14 Feb 2019, 4:29 p.m.

It is not obligatory for the Prime Minister to be present on this occasion. Other representatives of the Treasury Bench are here, and if the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union wants to take to the Dispatch Box, it is open to him to do so, but he is not obliged to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Wednesday 30th January 2019

(1 year, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard

It really is time that the Prime Minister acknowledges that she has got to move on from the red lines she has put down in the first place, and she does not acknowledge that in answer to my questions or indeed anybody else’s.

Our responsibility is to bring people together, whether they voted—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, we are the Houses of Parliament; we are the House of Commons; we do represent the entire country; and the point I am making is that we should bring people together, whether they voted to leave or remain. Indeed, I look forward to meeting the Prime Minister to discuss a solution that could in my view unite the country. Changes to the backstop alone will not be sufficient. Businesses and trade unions are very clear that any solution must involve a customs union and the strongest possible deal with the single market to avoid the damage of no deal. The Prime Minister may have possibly temporarily united her party, but is she willing—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard
30 Jan 2019, 12:14 p.m.

Order. Mr Ellis, you were at one time a barrister of one rank or another in the courts; there is no way that you would have been allowed to shout from a sedentary position in that way. The judge would have ruled you out of order; I do not know whether that is why you stopped practising law and came into Parliament. Behave yourself young man; you can do so much better when you try.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard

As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted—[Interruption]—the Prime Minister may have succeeded in temporarily uniting her very divided party, but is she willing to make the necessary compromises, which are more important, to unite the country going forward to secure jobs and living standards right across the UK?

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Debate between John Bercow and Jeremy Corbyn
Tuesday 29th January 2019

(1 year, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate
Cabinet Office
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) - Parliament Live - Hansard
29 Jan 2019, 2:40 p.m.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and it is important to start by reminding us all that this whole process was secured only in the teeth of Government opposition, so I start by paying tribute to those MPs who voted with us for Parliament to have a full democratic role in the Brexit process, and especially to the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) for his work in the earlier debates.

Labour has been absolutely clear from the start that there must be a meaningful vote on any negotiated deal. That was raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) at the very beginning of this whole Brexit process. Should a deal be defeated in Parliament, as it was decisively, Parliament must have a say on how the Government proceed.

This is a vital issue that affects the future direction of our country and the future facing all of our constituents. It determines the jobs and living standards of our people, the rights of European Union citizens living in Britain who have been deeply stressed by this situation—as have British citizens living across the continent of Europe—our place in the world and our participation and co-operation in Europe-wide projects on issues as vital as security, counter-terrorism and climate change.

Our job must be to bring people together. No matter how anyone in this House campaigned in the referendum, we cannot wish away the votes of 17 million people who voted to leave, any more than we can ignore the concerns of the 16 million who voted to remain. We must have in our minds the views right across the country.

It is therefore right that Members represent their constituents in deciding the way forward on implementing the result of the referendum but, in delivering the result, we have to unite people so as not to create further divisions, stoke xenophobia or allow racism to rear its ugly head in our society. Many communities across this country have been neglected for far too long, lacking decent investment and with too few—

Mr Speaker Hansard
29 Jan 2019, 2:43 p.m.

Order. The person who has the Floor chooses whether and, if so, when to give way. That is the situation. It is very clear, and it cannot be contradicted. That is all there is to it.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
29 Jan 2019, 2:43 p.m.

What I was saying was—

Break in Debate

Mr Speaker Hansard

Order. The former Foreign Secretary does not seem to be very well versed in the traditions of the House of Commons and debate. [Interruption.] Order. I am telling the right hon. Gentleman what the position is, and he will learn from me. When he seeks to intervene, he waits to hear whether the person on his or her feet is giving way, and the Leader of the Opposition is not giving way. In that case, with the very greatest of respect, it is for the right hon. Gentleman to know his place, which is in his seat.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
29 Jan 2019, 2:49 p.m.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, the fault lies exclusively with the Prime Minister, who missed her own deadline to have a deal agreed by October, and she still suffered the worst defeat of any Government in British history.

Break in Debate

Mr Speaker Hansard
29 Jan 2019, 2:51 p.m.

Order. Resume your seat, Mr Fabricant. I know you are trying to help the House and I appreciate that—your public spiritedness is well known throughout the House and across the nation—but the hon. Gentleman referred to a leaflet and the contents thereof. Whatever the merits or demerits of that argument, it is not a matter of order for the Chair. It is a matter of political debate, as your grinning countenance suggests you are well aware.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard
29 Jan 2019, 2:51 p.m.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just ask: is the Prime Minister—

Break in Debate

Mr Speaker Hansard
29 Jan 2019, 2:52 p.m.

Order. Resume your seat. [Interruption.] With no disrespect to the hon. Lady, I am not interested in observations. [Interruption.] Order. I am not debating it. I am telling you what the situation is. [Interruption.] It is no good laughing, chuckling away as though it is a matter of great amusement. It is a matter of fact: points of order, yes, observations, no. [Interruption.] No, the hon. Lady has helpfully explained that she had an observation to make. We are very grateful.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Hansard
29 Jan 2019, 2:52 p.m.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Break in Debate

Mr Speaker Hansard
29 Jan 2019, 2:54 p.m.

Order. [Interruption.] Calm down. I gave a ruling in relation to the point of order, and “Further to that point of order” does not arise.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Prime Minister seriously telling this House that we have to wait until 13 February—

Break in Debate

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard

And put—[Hon. Members: “She’s behind you.”] I can well understand what the Tory MPs are trying to do here. They do not want to hear the debate. They do not want to be part of this debate. They—

Mr Speaker Hansard
29 Jan 2019, 2:55 p.m.

Order. Many people have talked in recent times about the importance of respect in the Chamber. [Interruption.] No, no, no, I do not require any help from the Government Chief Whip. Let me gently say to him that he has a challenging task, which he discharges to the best of his capabilities, and the House and the nation are grateful to him. The idea that he needs to advise the Leader of the Opposition or the Speaker on how to discharge their responsibilities is, frankly, beyond credulity. He has got one job to do. People will make their assessment of whether and how well he does it. Don’t try doing somebody else’s job. With respect, sir, it is way beyond you.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
29 Jan 2019, 2:55 p.m.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Break in Debate

Mr Speaker Hansard
29 Jan 2019, 2:56 p.m.

The answer is that there is no breach of rules whatsoever. The hon. Lady has made her own point, in her own way, and I acknowledge it. No breach of rules has taken place. Order has been maintained. That is clear to me and to the professional advisers to the Chair as well, and I think the hon. Lady knows it. However, she has made her own point, in her own inimitable way.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard
29 Jan 2019, 2:56 p.m.

I did take an intervention from the Prime Minister, Mr Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Lady had not noticed that.

Is the Prime Minister seriously telling the House to wait until 13 February and put their faith in her doing negotiations in a couple of weeks that she has failed to do in the past two years? One really wonders how many more ceremonial baubles and promises of ermine will be handed out in vain in an attempt to cajole Conservative MPs to vote for a deal that has been overwhelmingly rejected by this House. The Prime Minister says that a second referendum would be like asking the public to vote again until they give the right answer, but so far that is precisely what she is asking this House to do.

Labour will today back amendments that attempt to rule out this Government’s reckless option of allowing the UK to crash out without a deal. Everyone bar the Prime Minister accepts this would be disastrous. The CBI says:

“The projected impact”—

of no deal

“on the UK economy would be devastating”.

Just yesterday, the Federation of Small Businesses called on Members of this House to block no deal. The TUC, representing millions of workers, is also opposed to no deal, as its general secretary, Frances O’Grady, reiterated to me last week. Every Opposition party in this House is opposed to no deal. Many Conservative Members, even Front-Bench and Cabinet Conservative Members, are opposed to no deal. Let me quote the Chancellor, who said recently:

“I clearly do not believe that making a choice to leave without a deal would be a responsible thing to do”.

So, presumably, he too wants no deal ruled out.

Break in Debate

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard

I am making progress, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker Hansard
29 Jan 2019, 3:08 p.m.

Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman giving way?

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn - Parliament Live - Hansard

indicated dissent.

Mr Speaker Hansard
29 Jan 2019, 3:09 p.m.

He is not giving way. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Order. The House must behave must behave with decorum. Senior Front-Bench Members, who I know would proclaim their commitment to, and I am sure genuinely believe in, courtesy in the Chamber, are witness to deliberate attempts to shout down the Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption.] Order. It will not happen. [Interruption.] Order. The rules of this House are clear. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to give way, he does so; if he does not wish to do so, he does not have to do so. He will not be shouted down and no amount of inspired and orchestrated attempts to shout him down will work—not today, not tomorrow, not at any time. Drop it. It is not worth it and, actually, you are not very good at it.

Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Jeremy Corbyn -