European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill and Extension Letter

Debate between Steve Barclay and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

I can tell the House what has been ditched—the right hon. Gentleman’s manifesto, with him moving from the commitment he gave to respect the referendum result to one that is now characterised by dither and delay. The Leader of the Opposition questions the letter from the Prime Minister. What the Prime Minister made clear was that we would abide by the law, and Lord Pannick, among many others, has confirmed that the Prime Minister has done so, so there is no question as to the commitment from him. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition disagrees with the action, but the position of the Prime Minister and his commitment to leaving on 31 October will not surprise any Members either of this House or of the European Council.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about collusion. In this House, we want to collude with the British public to respect the referendum result and to get Brexit done. When he talks about delay, he should answer this question: he wants a second referendum, as we know the shadow Brexit Secretary does, but how long is that going to take? How long will the primary legislation take? How long will the Electoral Commission requirements take? How long will he leave the House in purgatory? He gave a commitment that if we went past 31 October, there would be a general election, and yet on the “Andrew Marr” programme on Sunday, the shadow Brexit Secretary said that he wanted a further delay to have a second referendum. When will the Leader of the Opposition accept the Prime Minister’s challenge? When will he have a general election? Or are we to have, as the shadow Brexit Secretary said, more dither, more delay and more shirking of his responsibilities?

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Ind)]

Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that the Government stop giving this sacred quality to the date of 31 October, which is a really rather silly point that has intruded into the extremely complicated arguments we are having? I would be quite happy if we concluded a withdrawal agreement along the lines the Prime Minister is proposing by 31 October, if we could do it properly, but the date was not selected by the British public or the British Government; it was a compromise in the EU between President Macron and the rest and was plucked out of the air. Will he agree that what matters is that we get the right withdrawal agreement, carried with the tenuous majority the Government may have, through Second Reading and Third Reading so that its form can be settled, and that we then proceed in a way that future generations, if we get it right—or even if we get it wrong—will regard as much more important than whether we made it by a particular day in October 2019?

Leaving the EU: Business of the House

Debate between Steve Barclay and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we hear repeatedly from Opposition Members is what they are opposed to, not what they are for. That is reflected in the fact that the European Union—[Interruption.] The shadow International Trade Secretary chunters. The European Union has been consistent in stating its view that the withdrawal agreement is the only offer on the table, but Labour Members voted against the withdrawal agreement, just as they voted against the deal each time. Their manifesto said that they would respect the result, yet many Labour Members want a second referendum, which is clearly at odds with their manifesto.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I entirely understand and appreciate my right hon. Friend’s tactics in trying to address procedural and textual points in the motion, rather than addressing the main point, which is rather difficult for the Government. I do not think those procedural and textual points would be raised if, by any sad chance, we were sitting on the Opposition Benches and telling a Government we opposed that the House as a whole wanted a debate and legislation on a particular issue.

Will my right hon. Friend move to the main point? Is he actually prepared to defend a situation where a new Prime Minister wishes to pursue a policy for which he or she knows there is no majority in the House of Commons? Does he believe it should be possible for that Prime Minister to prorogue and send away Parliament until he or she has exercised dictatorial powers to put the policy in place? That, I think, is plainly totally contrary to our constitution, and I do not see how any parliamentarian could possibly defend such a possibility.

[Stephen Barclay]

I and, I think, the majority of Members absolutely share the belief of the Father of the House that anything that brings Her Majesty into the politics of the House is to be avoided. I have consistently stated that position. However, may I pick up on the specifics? I always listen very closely to the Father of the House, and he said to concentrate not on the procedural and textual points but on the substance, yet the shadow Brexit Secretary said the exact opposite. He said that he did not want to get on to the substance because that is not in the text. Members who support the motion are saying, on the one hand, that we should look at the specifics put forward by the Opposition—[Interruption.] I do not support bringing Her Majesty into it; I have answered that question. But it is incoherent for Members who support the motion to say, on the one hand, “Don’t look at the substance,” and, on the other hand, that the House should consider the substance.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Steve Barclay and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

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

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

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

[Stephen Barclay]

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

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

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

Article 50 Extension

Debate between Steve Barclay and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

rose—

[Stephen Barclay]

I have given way to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) once and I think the Father of the House wants to intervene, so I will obviously let my right hon. and learned Friend intervene in a moment. However, even the question for a second referendum, as well as the length of time it would take, is unclear, and the hon. Gentleman cannot persuade Labour Front Benchers of his policy.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

We are sadly wandering around the point of how long and why we are having an extension, with Front Benchers on both sides, with respect, not being altogether clear. Are there not various basic facts? First, if the withdrawal agreement is defeated again, that cannot be the agenda for any further extension. Secondly, useful negotiations in Brussels will be very limited for the next few months because a new Parliament is being elected and a new Commission is being appointed, so we will not be able to get under way till some time in the summer. If we use that time for the British generally—Parliament and Government—to reach some conclusions about what we are pursuing, some time after that will still be needed. I would have thought that until the end of the year is the very minimum time that is needed to sort out this crisis sensibly and constructively from now on. We have not been doing that thus far.

[Stephen Barclay]

The Father of the House makes a very reasonable and well-made point. Indeed, it is a point I have made to some of my colleagues who voted leave in the referendum—if they continue to fail to support a meaningful vote then the House may opt for a softer form of Brexit. That is a risk that many who campaigned to leave need to be mindful of. The equivalent risk, for those who may cling to that life raft as a preferable option, is that it remains unclear whether the House would then ratify that, given the way the withdrawal agreement Bill would need to be passed. It is a major piece of proposed legislation and the sustainability of that coalition would come under question with the subsequent risk of a no-deal outcome.

UK’s Withdrawal from the EU

Debate between Steve Barclay and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Thursday 14th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

For the avoidance of doubt, I am happy to confirm that, because that is what the legislation says. The only way to avoid no deal—as the Prime Minister has repeatedly said, and as is backed up in legislation—is either to secure a deal on the terms that the Prime Minister has set out, with the mandate that the House gave her in response to the earlier motion, or to revoke article 50. The court case says that the only alternative would be to revoke, and revoking would be unconditional and unequivocal.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend was just moving on to an alternative, but it seems to me that he has just given the starkest expression of policy that I have heard the Government give so far on what will happen if the present negotiations fail; these are alarming possibilities. He says that we are bound by the legislation relating to article 50, which indeed we are, but when the House agreed to use article 50, it was on the assumption that a negotiated deal would be arrived at. [Interruption.] Well, of course it was. Indeed, at one point the Prime Minister presented to this House what she said was the ideal deal with which to go on to the full negotiations towards meeting the Government’s declared aim of having a proper, permanent relationship with the EU in due course. The idea of going for the catastrophe of no deal on the arbitrary date of 29 March, simply because the Prime Minister will probably fail to persuade the other member states to put a time limit on a permanent open border in Europe, is ridiculous. The Government could have a policy of coming back here to defer or revoke article 50 to put the situation in some order.

[Stephen Barclay]

Although I obviously respect the considerable experience of the Father of the House, I frankly do not accept that merely restating the legislative position is presenting issues in a stark way; nor do I accept that the Prime Minister will fail. The Prime Minister is working in the national interest, is seeking to bring our country together, and is seeking a deal for our country. A short extension of article 50 does not take no deal off the table. It simply prolongs that uncertainty; it leaves in place the risk of no deal in a few months’ time.

EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Changes

Debate between Steve Barclay and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

We have only about 80 days left. The Government face a deadline which depend crucial decisions that will affect future generations and the whole basis of our political and economic relationships with the rest of the world. We are nowhere near consensus, either in this House or in the country, on what new arrangements with the European Union we are actually asking for, let alone on the arrangements that we are likely to achieve. Now we have a completely ridiculous urgent question from the Leader of the Opposition, who has no idea what he wants but who just feels that he has to say something about the crisis we are in.

As we are in this position and as 29 March is an entirely arbitrary date—it was accidentally set when the Prime Minister, for no particular reason, decided to invoke article 50 before she knew what she was going to ask for—may I ask my right hon. Friend: is not it obvious that the national interest requires that we now delay matters by putting off the implementation of article 50 in order to put ourselves in the position where we can negotiate with 27 serious Governments by showing that we know what we are asking for and can deliver from our side, and to protect the national interest and future generations?

[Stephen Barclay]

It is always good to hear from my right hon. and learned Friend, but I take issue with his question. First, he says this is an arbitrary date. The article 50 process set a two-year timeline and, indeed, this House voted for the date to be set in the Bill. Secondly—he touched on this in his interview on the “Today” programme, when he suggested that we revoke article 50 with a view to having a second referendum decision—the European Court of Justice was clear that revoking article 50 cannot be done as a tactical device in order then to go back on that decision; it has to be a confirmed intention at that time. If this is about extending that, an extension requires the agreement of all 27 member states, but if it is about revoking it, the Court was clear that revoking article 50 is not about buying more time; it is about making a clear decision that we do not intend at that point to proceed.

EU Exit: Article 50

Debate between Steve Barclay and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

The Prime Minister addressed the first point in full detail over the course of two and a half hours. On the substance of the remarks by the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), she will know the judgment is very clear that revocation would need to be unequivocal and unconditional. The question for her and for the Labour Front Bench is how serving such a notice could be in any way compatible with the manifesto on which Labour stood at the last election. Labour made a clear commitment to its electorate, many of whom voted to leave, that it would not seek to revoke article 50 and that it would honour the terms of the referendum. The Government’s policy has not changed. What Labour needs to address is whether its policy has changed.

It is a matter of policy that we will not revoke article 50, and therefore this is a hypothetical question. Of course the Government made their case, as they always will, in the courts, but our policy has not changed. The question for the Labour Front Bench is: has theirs?

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

As I have listened to today’s proceedings, the chances of the Government ever getting their withdrawal agreement approved by this House seem to me to be quite slight. I cannot think of any assurances the Prime Minister will get in Brussels that would change that most unfortunate situation.

I am sad that the whole thing has not been contrived to save the House from my making a speech tomorrow, in which I would have supported the withdrawal agreement. The situation is grave because, with no withdrawal agreement, we are going towards 29 March and we will leave with no agreement at all, because there are no signs of any alternative emerging. Article 50 has to be looked at.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that article 50 could only be suspended for two or three months? There are legal problems in deferring it any longer. Although the majority of Members regard themselves as bound by the opinion poll, or referendum, we held in 2016, in which absolutely none of the circumstances we are now talking about were remotely discussed with the public before the vote was taken, is it not obvious that the Government should start considering revoking article 50 to save us from the disastrous consequences of leaving with no deal? It would be disastrous for our economy, our businesses, our employment and many other things. If anybody can ever put this shambles back together again and wants to resume the process of leaving the European Union, they could go ahead and see if a future House of Commons is more receptive than this one has been.

[Stephen Barclay]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve Barclay and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I think the answer is that we will investigate. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the figures. They sound astonishing, so I look forward to her providing me with sufficient details for myself and my ministerial team to find out what lies behind them.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

T9. The building that formerly housed Wisbech magistrates court is owned by the Ministry of Justice and is in a prime site next to the historic port in Wisbech and a couple of yards from a conference centre. Will my hon. Friend the Minister meet me to discuss how we best use the site for regeneration so that it does not get locked in the stalemate that there has been with the police service locally?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve Barclay and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I am not sure where the idea that I am against all short sentences has come from. A short sentence is usually taken to mean any sentence of less than 12 months. My own view, pending this review, has always been that there is indeed a case for some short sentences where there is no realistic alternative and one is dealing with a recidivist offender. Wherever possible, of course, the pointless short term of imprisonment should be avoided where a really effective and convincing community penalty is available in its place.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

16. What account he took of the availability of public transport in rural areas around Wisbech in his decision to propose the closure of Wisbech magistrates court.