DOCSLIB.ORG

Whole Day Download the Hansard

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Wednesday Volume 664 25 September 2019 No. 342 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday 25 September 2019 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2019 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 651 25 SEPTEMBER 2019 652 House of Commons Legal Advice: Prorogation 11.37 am Wednesday 25 September 2019 Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) (Urgent Question): To ask the Attorney General if he will make The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock a statement about his legal opinion on the advice given to Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament. PRAYERS The Attorney General (Mr Geoffrey Cox): As the hon. and learned Lady knows, the Supreme Court gave [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] judgment on this issue yesterday, and that judgment sets out the definitive and final legal position on the advice Speaker’s Statement given to Her Majesty on the Prorogation of Parliament. The Government’s legal view during the case was set Mr Speaker: Colleagues, welcome back to our place out and argued fully before the Supreme Court. The of work. hearing was streamed live and the Government’s written The UK Supreme Court ruled yesterday that case was, and is, available on the Supreme Court website. “Parliament has not been prorogued” I took a close interest in the case—[Interruption]—and and that the Speaker of the House of Commons and I oversaw the Government’s team of counsel. I have to the Lord Speaker say that if every time I lost a case I was called upon to resign, I would probably never have had a practice. “can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible” The Government accept the judgment and accept that to decide upon a way forward. they lost the case. At all times, the Government acted in good faith and in the belief that their approach was I will arrange for the citation for that judgment to be both lawful and constitutional. These are complex matters, entered in the Journal of this House and accordingly on which senior and distinguished lawyers will disagree. direct that the item relating to the Prorogation of Parliament The divisional court, led by the Lord Chief Justice, as in the Journal of Monday 9 September is expunged and well as Lord Doherty in the outer house of Scotland, the House is instead recorded as adjourned at the close agreed with the Government’s position, but we were of the business. I instruct the Clerk to correct the disappointed that, in the end, the Supreme Court took a Journal accordingly and to record the House to have different view. Of course, we respect its judgment. adjourned at the close of business on Monday 9 September until today. Given the Supreme Court’s judgment, in legal terms the matter is settled, and, as the hon. and learned Lady Members should also be aware that Royal Assent to will know, I am bound by the long-standing convention the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) that the views of the Law Officers are not disclosed Bill, which formed part of the royal commission appointed outside the Government without their consent. However, under the quashed Order in Council, will need to be I will consider over the coming days whether the public re-signified. interest might require a greater disclosure of the advice I wish to record my thanks, and I hope colleagues given to the Government on the subject. I am unable to across the House will join me in doing so, to the staff of give an undertaking or a promise to the hon. and learned the House, including the security, catering, Chamber Lady at this point, but the matter is under consideration. business, parliamentary digital and in-house services teams, who have worked exceptionally hard over the past 24 hours Joanna Cherry: I too took a close interest in the case. to prepare for this resumption. Let me start by assuring the Attorney General that I am You will know—but in the name of the public not going to call for his resignation—yet. intelligibility of our proceedings, I think it worthwhile Yesterday was a very special day for Scots law and the to note—that there is no ministerial Question Time Scottish legal tradition going back to the declaration of today, including therefore no prime ministerial Question Arbroath that the Government are not above the law. Time. The reason for that is very simple. As colleagues Following in the footsteps of Scotland’s Supreme Court, will be aware, there are notification requirements: questions the UK Supreme Court asserted the rule of law and the ordinarily are tabled three sitting days before the exchanges separation of powers, and it restored democracy. It is take place, so there are no Prime Minister’s questions worth emphasising that the decision was unanimous, as today. However, there is scope, as I indicated in public was that of Scotland’sSupreme Court, chaired by Scotland’s yesterday, for urgent questions, ministerial statements most senior judge, the Lord President of the Court of and other business. Session. Both Courts unanimously found that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful, void and of no effect. However, the question I am interested in is how it came to pass that that was ever allowed to happen. Redacted documents lodged with the Scottish Court confirmed the suspicion that this was a plan cooked up in No. 10 by the Prime Minister and his special advisers. I want to ask about documents that mysteriously found their way into the public domain yesterday afternoon, when an unredacted version of one of those lodged 653 Legal Advice: Prorogation25 SEPTEMBER 2019 Legal Advice: Prorogation 654 [Joanna Cherry] Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South with the Scottish Court found its way to Sky News and West (Joanna Cherry) on securing the urgent question revealed that the Attorney General had said that the and for her work on this matter. Yesterday’s decision of advice to prorogue was lawful and that anyone who said the Supreme Court—I give credit to all those who otherwise was doing so for political reasons. Knowing brought the cases—was the most damning judicial the Attorney General, I am sure that his advice was indictment of a Government in modern times: that the considerably more detailed and nuanced than the three decision to advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue sentences that appear in the unredacted document. Can Parliament was unlawful. he tell us whether a legal opinion was made available to This Government stand in shame, tendering illegal the Prime Minister or the Cabinet? advice to our monarch and not even able to uphold that The right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber most basic and important of principles: abiding by the Rudd) has said that when she was in the Cabinet, rule of law. What we know from yesterday’s leaked Cabinet Ministers requested to see the advice but it was document is that the Attorney General said that his not handed over. Is that correct? Can the Attorney advice on the question of the law was that this was General tell us what was given to the Prime Minister, if “lawful and within the constitution”, not to the Cabinet? Many of us believe that the Attorney and that any accusations of unlawfulness were “motivated General is being offered up as a fall guy for the Prime by political considerations”. If that is in any way accurate Minister’s botched plans. Does he therefore agree that as to his full advice, he was wrong on both counts. His releasing the advice in its entirety will help him avoid “close interest” simply was not enough. being the scapegoat for a plan dreamed up by the Prime Minister and his advisers? Will he give the undertaking, I will ask the Attorney General a number of questions. which he hinted he might give, today? Can he confirm why the Government gave no witness statement to the Court? Indeed, the Court was left in a The Attorney General: I am extremely grateful to the position where it said: hon. and learned Lady for her kindness and solicitousness “No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect for my welfare. I am particularly attracted by the tempting has been put before the court”. prospect that she dangles before me, but she will know Why not? The Attorney General talks about respecting that I am obliged by the convention to say that I am not the decision of the judges, but the Chancellor of the Duchy permitted to disclose the advice that I may or may not of Lancaster was on the radio this morning saying that have given to the Government. But I repeat: the matter he disagrees with the decision. He should tell us which is under consideration. parts of the judgment the Government disagree with. Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Ind): Does my right May I give the Attorney General a simple piece of advice hon. and learned Friend agree that if, in the future, we for his considerations about the publication of this advice were unfortunate enough to have a Corbynista Labour over the next few days—a simple suggestion? Just publish Government—[Interruption.] That is obviously not thought it and make it open to Parliament and the public. to be a very likely prospect, but if that misfortune were On this Attorney General’s watch, the Government to occur, if that Government were to decide to suspend have been found in contempt of Parliament.
Recommended publications
  • Newsletter | | Autumn 2014

    Newsletter | | Autumn 2014

    | The University of Edinburgh Law School Newsletter | www.law.ed.ac.uk | Autumn 2014 Newsletter | Autumn 2014 | 1789 – 2014 Join us to celebrate 225 years of Old College More details inside! Old College, 1900. Courtesy Digital Imaging Unit, Edinburgh University Library Also in this issue | New Head of School | Class of the 1980s | A Week with George Gretton | | Page 2 | The University of Edinburgh Law School Newsletter | www.law.ed.ac.uk | Autumn 2014 | Welcome from our New Head of School – Richard Sparks I am really honoured to take up the post of Head of School, and particularly delighted to extend a warm welcome to our alumni. We hope to see many of you in November when we celebrate 225 years of Old College (see page 6 for more details). This is an exciting time, with work starting on our redevelopment in the New Year. Alas, ambitious refurbishment does not come without some practical inconvenience and I am full of praise for our support staff who are working so hard to ensure life for our current students and academic staff will not be disrupted by the building work. I am confident that we can minimize those disruptions and continue to develop and thrive as a School. I am really grateful to all concerned for making it so. I also want to take this opportunity to welcome our new academic staff this semester. Dr Paolo Cavaliere joins us as the new Lecturer in Digital Media/IT Law. Paolo joins us from the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies at the University of Oxford.
  • INFLUENCERS on BREXIT Who Is Most Influential on Brexit?

    INFLUENCERS on BREXIT Who Is Most Influential on Brexit?

    INFLUENCERS ON BREXIT Who is most influential on Brexit? 1= 1= 3 4 5 Theresa MAY Angela MERKEL Nicola STURGEON Michel BARNIER Donald TUSK Chief Negotiator for the Prime Minister Federal Chancellor First Minister Commission Taskforce on Brexit President Negotiations UK Government German Government Scottish Government European Commission European Council 6 7 8 9 10 François HOLLANDE Philip HAMMOND David DAVIS Jean-Claude JUNCKER Guy VERHOFSTADT Secretary of State for Exiting the President Chancellor of the Exchequer President MEP & Lead rapporteur on Brexit European Union French Government UK Government UK Government European Commission European Parliament 11 12 13 14 15 Didier SEEUWS Enda KENNY Hilary BENN Mark RUTTE Martin SELMAYR Head of the General Secretariat of Chair, Committee on Exiting the Head of Cabinet of the President the Council Special Taskforce on Taoiseach European Union & Member of Prime Minister of the European Commission the UK Parliament, Labour Council of the EU Irish Government UK Parliament Dutch Government European Commission 16 17 18 19 20 Keir STARMER Donald TRUMP Wolfgang SCHÄUBLE Liam FOX Frans TIMMERMANS Secretary of State for Shadow Brexit Secretary US President-Elect Finance Minister First Vice-President Member of Parliament, Labour International Trade UK Parliament US Goverment German Government UK Government European Commission 21 22 23 24 25 Boris JOHNSON Nigel FARAGE Nick TIMOTHY Uwe CORSEPIUS Paul DACRE Joint Number 10 Special Adviser on Europe to Foreign Secretary MEP, Interim Leader of UKIP Chief-of-Staff,
  • The Trolling of Gina Miller

    The Trolling of Gina Miller

    The remoaner queen under attack: the trolling of Gina Miller What happens when a private individual takes on a very public cause? Amy Binns and John Mair examine how the case of Gina Miller demonstrates how fast social media can whip up a storm of abuse Gina Miller shot to fame after taking the British government to court for attempting to force through Article 50, the mechanism, which started the Brexit process. It was a case that, like the 2016 Referendum itself, polarised Britain. While Leavers were outraged that their vote to exit the EU was not the final word, Remainers watched with bated breath in hope that their disaster could turn to triumph. In the middle was the previously unknown financier Gina Miller. Articulate, photogenic and unafraid to comment on a controversial issue, she might have been made for the media. Widespread coverage led to her becoming a hate figure online, with two men arrested for making threats to kill her. In her own words, in her book Rise (Miller, 2018), she outlines the hate her campaign had generated: “Over the past two years I’ve been the target of extreme bullying and racist abuse. Ever since I took the UK government to court for attempting to force through Article 50, the mechanism for starting Brexit which would have led to the nation leaving the European union without Parliamentary consent, I live in fear of attacks. “I receive anonymous death threats almost every day. Strangers have informed me graphically that they want to gang rape me and slit the throats of my children, how the colour of my skin means I am nothing more than an ape, a whore, a piece of shit that deserves to be trodden into the gutter.” This study analyses 18,036 tweets, which include the username @thatginamiller, from October 1, 2016 to February 27, 2017, from just before the opening of her High Court case to beyond the Supreme Court ruling on January 26 .
  • House of Commons Official Report Parliamentary

    House of Commons Official Report Parliamentary

    Thursday Volume 664 26 September 2019 No. 343 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday 26 September 2019 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2019 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 843 26 SEPTEMBER 2019 Speaker’s Statement 844 there will be an urgent question later today on the House of Commons matter to which I have just referred, and that will be an opportunity for colleagues to say what they think. This is something of concern across the House. It is Thursday 26 September 2019 not a party political matter and, certainly as far as I am concerned, it should not be in any way, at any time, to any degree a matter for partisan point scoring. It is The House met at half-past Nine o’clock about something bigger than an individual, an individual party or an individual political or ideological viewpoint. Let us treat of it on that basis. In the meantime, may I just ask colleagues—that is all I am doing and all I can PRAYERS do as your representative in the Chair—please to lower the decibel level and to try to treat each other as opponents, not as enemies? [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaker’s Statement Mr Speaker: Order. I genuinely am not convinced, but I will take one point of order if the hon. Gentleman Mr Speaker: Before we get under way with today’s insists.
  • Parliamentary Debates House of Commons Official Report General Committees

    Parliamentary Debates House of Commons Official Report General Committees

    PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES Public Bill Committee INVESTIGATORY POWERS BILL Sixteenth Sitting Tuesday 3 May 2016 (Evening) CONTENTS CLAUSES 223 to 231 agreed to. Schedule 9 agreed to. Clause 232 agreed to. Schedule 10 agreed to, with an amendment. Clause 233 agreed to. New clauses considered. Bill, as amended, to be reported. Written evidence reported to the House. PBC (Bill 143) 2015 - 2016 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons, not later than Saturday 7 May 2016 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2016 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 663 Public Bill Committee3 MAY 2016 Investigatory Powers Bill 664 The Committee consisted of the following Members: Chairs: †ALBERT OWEN,NADINE DORRIES † Atkins, Victoria (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) Kyle, Peter (Hove) (Lab) † Buckland, Robert (Solicitor General) † Matheson, Christian (City of Chester) (Lab) † Burns, Sir Simon (Chelmsford) (Con) † Newlands, Gavin (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) † Cherry, Joanna (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) (SNP) † Davies, Byron (Gower) (Con) † Starmer, Keir (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) (Pendle) † Fernandes, Suella (Fareham) (Con) † Stephenson, Andrew (Con) † Stevens, Jo (Cardiff Central) (Lab) † Frazer, Lucy (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) † Warman, Matt (Boston and Skegness) (Con) †Hayes,MrJohn(Minister for Security) † Hayman, Sue (Workington) (Lab) Glenn McKee, Fergus Reid, Committee Clerks † Kinnock, Stephen (Aberavon) (Lab) † Kirby, Simon (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con) † attended the Committee 665 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Investigatory Powers Bill 666 do more to make the commitment clear.
  • The Anti-Britain Campaign the Brexit Legal Challenge (2016)

    The Anti-Britain Campaign the Brexit Legal Challenge (2016)

    11th February 2018 The Anti-Britain Campaign Typical of the "Doublespeak" from the Left and its allies is the campaign set-up by Gina Miller "Best for Britain" which is clearly a pro-EU campaign which seeks to prevent Britain leaving the EU and keep us trapped within the protectionist bloc. Despite the fact that Miller has moved away from the "Best for Britain" campaign group that she established, she is still, nevertheless, acting along the same principles of that campaign - calling for a second Referendum which would offer alternatives such as accept or reject anything that the government agrees with Brussels or alternatively simply remain in the EU. In an Evening Standard interview in 4th November 2016 (Brexit legal challenge: Gina Miller argues 'defending democracy is the best way to spend my money') Miller stated that those who voted (in a record breaking voter turnout) on the 23rd June 2016 EU Referendum vote "... believed whatever way they voted they were doing the best for their families, but the politicians misled the public into believing whatever the outcome of the advisory referendum was would be made law, knowing well that would not be the case. That unleashes anger.” That statement, some 4 months after the EU Referendum vote, is particularly revealing for two reasons (1) it shows that she was knew that the government would not implement the Referendum vote result and (2) that she considered the Referendum to be only "advisory" - along with the rest of the British establishment - Politicians, Peers, Civil Servants and Judiciary. The second part of the statement is at odds with the idea that she now supports a second Referendum vote, unless that is also only advisory, and the first part - it simply supports the idea that her campaigning is really about assisting the establishment to thwart the original Referendum vote.
  • Liberty's Briefing on the Investigatory Powers Bill for Report Stage in the House of Commons

    Liberty's Briefing on the Investigatory Powers Bill for Report Stage in the House of Commons

    Liberty’s briefing on the Investigatory Powers Bill for Report Stage in the House of Commons June 2016 1 About Liberty Liberty (The National Council for Civil Liberties) is one of the UK’s leading civil liberties and human rights organisations. Liberty works to promote human rights and protect civil liberties through a combination of test case litigation, lobbying, campaigning and research. Liberty Policy Liberty provides policy responses to Government consultations on all issues which have implications for human rights and civil liberties. We also submit evidence to Select Committees, Inquiries and other policy fora, and undertake independent, funded research. Liberty’s policy papers are available at http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/ Contact Bella Sankey Rachel Robinson Director of Policy Policy Officer Direct Line: 020 7378 5254 Direct Line: 020 7378 3659 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Sara Ogilvie Silkie Carlo Policy Officer Policy Officer (Technology & Surveillance) Direct Line: 020 7378 3654 Direct Line: 020 7378 5255 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Sam Hawke Policy Assistant Direct Line Email: [email protected] 2 CONTENTS Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………4 Improving warrants…………………………………………………………………………………...7 Judicial authorisation………………………………………………………………………..7 Remove the judicial review standard (amendments 208, 209, 210, 211)…….7 Single stage judicial authorisation (amendments 218-259;
  • MILLER GINA Founder of True and Fair Foundation Anti-Brexit Activist

    MILLER GINA Founder of True and Fair Foundation Anti-Brexit Activist

    PATH OF EXCELLENCE PARCOURS D’EXCELLENCE MILLER GINA MILLER GINA Fondatrice de True and Fair Foundation Founder of True and Fair Foundation Anti-Brexit Activist M Militante anti-Brexit M United Kingdom Royaume-Uni Gina MILLER was born in 1965 to British Guyanese Gina MILLER est née en 1965 de parents guyanais. Elle parents. She joined England to study law at the University rejoint l’Angleterre pour y poursuivre des études en droit of East London and managed to finance them by modeling. à l’Université de Londres-Est et parvient à les financer en Upon her parents’ request, she returned to Guyana without faisant du mannequinat. Sur injonction de ses parents, elle having been able to validate her training. She then obtained retourne en Guyane sans avoir pu valider sa formation. a degree in Marketing, as well as a Master’s degree in Human Elle obtient ensuite un diplôme en marketing, ainsi qu’une Resources Management from the University of London. maîtrise en gestion des ressources humaines à l’Université In 1987, the daughter of the Attorney General of Guyana de Londres. En 1987, la fille du procureur général de la owned a photographic laboratory. She joined the BMW Guyane est propriétaire d’un laboratoire photographique. © CRÉDIT PHOTO teams in 1990 as marketing and events manager. After two © CRÉDIT PHOTO Elle rejoint les équipes de BMW en 1990 en qualité de years of activity, she started her own business by creating a 2017 : responsable marketing et événementiel. Après deux ans marketing agency. In 2009, Gina co-founded the True and Elle lève 420 000 d’activité, elle se met à son compte en créant une agence Fair Foundation with her husband.
  • Revue Française De Civilisation Britannique, XXIV-4

    Revue Française De Civilisation Britannique, XXIV-4

    Revue Française de Civilisation Britannique French Journal of British Studies XXIV-4 | 2019 Mutations politiques et économiques du Royaume- Uni, entre perspective britannique et angle écossais Numéro en hommage à Jacques Leruez Political and Economic Change in the UK: British and Scottish Perspectives Edwige Camp-Pietrain (dir.) Édition électronique URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/4752 DOI : 10.4000/rfcb.4752 ISSN : 2429-4373 Éditeur CRECIB - Centre de recherche et d'études en civilisation britannique Référence électronique Edwige Camp-Pietrain (dir.), Revue Française de Civilisation Britannique, XXIV-4 | 2019, « Mutations politiques et économiques du Royaume-Uni, entre perspective britannique et angle écossais » [En ligne], mis en ligne le 18 novembre 2019, consulté le 05 mai 2020. URL : http:// journals.openedition.org/rfcb/4752 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/rfcb.4752 Ce document a été généré automatiquement le 5 mai 2020. Revue française de civilisation britannique est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International. 1 SOMMAIRE Avant-propos Edwige Camp-Pietrain Pour saluer Jacques Leruez Gérard Hocmard Hommage à Jacques Leruez Jean-Didier Hache Bibliographie de Jacques Leruez Edwige Camp-Pietrain Margaret Thatcher, un tournant Margaret Thatcher et les marchés financiers : le paradoxe de la déréglementation Marie-Claude Esposito From the “Thatcherisation of Europe” to Brexit Nicholas Sowels Margaret Thatcher in Spitting
  • The Government's Independent Review of the Human Rights

    The Government's Independent Review of the Human Rights

    House of Commons House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights The Government’s Independent Review of the Human Rights Act Third Report of Session 2021–22 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 23 June 2021 Ordered by the House of Lords to be printed 23 June 2021 HC 89 HL Paper 31 Published on 8 July 2021 by authority of the House of Commons and House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights The Joint Committee on Human Rights is appointed by the House of Lords and the House of Commons to consider matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases); proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders. The Joint Committee has a maximum of six Members appointed by each House, of whom the quorum for any formal proceedings is two from each House. Current membership House of Commons Harriet Harman QC MP (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham) (Chair) Karen Buck MP (Labour, Westminster North) Joanna Cherry QC MP (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh South West) Angela Richardson MP (Conservative, Guildford) Dean Russell MP (Conservative, Watford) David Simmonds MP (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) House of Lords Lord Brabazon of Tara (Conservative) Lord Dubs (Labour) Lord Henley (Conservative) Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat) Baroness Massey of Darwen (Labour) Lord Singh of Wimbledon (Crossbench) Powers The Committee has the power to require the submission of written evidence and documents, to examine witnesses, to meet at any time (except when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved), to adjourn from place to place, to appoint specialist advisers, and to make Reports to both Houses.
  • The Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP Secretary of State for Home Affairs Home Office 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF 15 March 2019 Dear

    The Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP Secretary of State for Home Affairs Home Office 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF 15 March 2019 Dear

    The Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP Secretary of State for Home Affairs Home Office 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF 15 March 2019 Dear Home Secretary, Refugees (Family Reunion) (No. 2) Bill 2017-19 Almost a year ago, MPs from across the political spectrum united behind a common cause as they overwhelmingly voted to introduce a law that would help reunite refugee families. The current rules condemn child refugees, fleeing conflict and persecution, to live in the UK without their parents. It also prevents parents from bringing their children over the age of 18. At a time when refugees need their families the most, they are being forced to be without them indefinitely. They say a week is a long time in politics, but a year is a long time to wait. For refugee families it means a year of missed birthdays, Christmases, Mother’s Days, Father’s Day and Eids. We cannot let the urgent crowd out the important. We urge you to use your power to stop the delays on this Bill and allow it the necessary time to proceed and be debated. With your help we can bring families together. Yours sincerely, The Rt Hon Diane Abbott Dr Stella Creasy MP Mr Roger Godsiff MP MP Mr Martyn Day MP Mr Patrick Grady MP Ms Mhairi Black MP Mr Stephen Doughty MP Mr Neil Gray MP The Rt Hon Ian Blackford Dr David Drew MP Ms Margaret Greenwood MP MP Ms Rosie Duffield MP Ms Deidre Brock MP Ms Helen Hayes MP Mr Jonathan Edwards MP Mr Alan Brown MP Mr Drew Hendry MP Ms Vicky Foxcroft MP Ms Ruth Cadbury MP Ms Liz Kendall MP Ms Gill Furniss MP The Rt Hon Alistair Mr Afzal Khan MP Carmichael MP Mr Hugh Gaffney MP The Rt Hon David Lammy Mr Douglas Chapman MP Ms Ruth George MP MP Ms Joanna Cherry QC MP Mr Stephen Gethins MP Mr Chris Law MP Mr Ronnie Cowan MP Ms Patricia Gibson MP Ms Karen Lee MP Mr Neil Coyle MP Ms Preet Kaur Gill MP Mr David Linden MP Ms Angela Crawley MP Mr Angus MacNeil MP CC - The Rt Hon Andrea Leadsom MP - Leader of Mr Sandy Martin MP the House of Commons Mr Steve McCabe MP Ms Rebecca Harris MP - Ms Kerry McCarthy MP Lord Commissioner (HM Treasury) (Whip) Mr Stewart Malcolm McDonald MP Mr Stuart C.
  • British Politics and Policy at LSE: the EU Withdrawal Bill Raises Questions About the Role of Smaller Opposition Parties in the Legislative Process Page 1 of 3

    British Politics and Policy at LSE: the EU Withdrawal Bill Raises Questions About the Role of Smaller Opposition Parties in the Legislative Process Page 1 of 3

    British Politics and Policy at LSE: The EU Withdrawal Bill raises questions about the role of smaller opposition parties in the legislative process Page 1 of 3 The EU Withdrawal Bill raises questions about the role of smaller opposition parties in the legislative process The EU Withdrawal Bill’s return to the Commons saw SNP MPs protest about their voices having been excluded from the debate. Louise Thompson explains how parliamentary procedures can indeed restrict debate for smaller opposition parties, and considers whether something ought to be done about it. Following the first session of the EU Withdrawal Bill’s return to the Commons, most newspaper headlines focused of the battle between Teresa May and the group of backbench Conservative rebels seeking concessions from the government about parliament’s ‘meaningful vote’ on the Brexit deal. The front page of The National instead highlighted the lack of debate on the devolution clauses within the bill, which was limited to just 15 minutes, as well as the fact that only one SNP MP was able to speak. Just a few hours later, every single SNP MP walked out of the Commons chamber during PMQs in protest about this issue – and the Speaker’s refusal to allow a vote that the House sit in private to discuss it. It’s not unknown for the SNP to deploy tactics like this in the chamber and it raises interesting questions about the role of smaller opposition parties in the Commons. The parliamentary position of small “o” opposition parties When it comes to opposition in the House of Commons, it’s easy to focus attention solely on the “Official” Opposition.