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. I am not sure how helpful it will be, but let us see. business, including a number of urgent questions and statements, I just want to say a few words to the House. Sir Peter Bottomley: Would it be helpful for the I think there is a widespread sense across the House and House to know the subjects of the other urgent questions beyond that, yesterday, the House did itself no credit. and statements, please? There was an atmosphere in the Chamber worse than Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. any I have known in my 22 years in the House. On both The first urgent question is from the hon. Member for sides, passions were inflamed, angry words were uttered Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on the subject of the and the culture was toxic. This country faces the most European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. The challenging political issue that we have grappled with in issues will play out, but it is about compliance with decades. There are genuine, heartfelt, sincerely subscribed the Act. It is a perfectly reasonable question from the to differences of opinion about that matter. Members hon. Gentleman. The second is from the hon. Member must be free to express themselves about it and to for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) on the display, as they unfailingly do, the courage of their situation in Hong Kong. The third is from Mr Chris convictions. It ought, however, to be possible to disagree Law on the subject of arms export licences to Saudi agreeably, and I can see Members on both sides of the Arabia. The fourth urgent question, to which I perhaps House who are fine exponents of that principle and slightly elliptically referred, is from the hon. Member tradition. Yesterday, that was not the majority strain, I for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) on the matter am sorry to say. of the toxicity of our political culture and the need to I have, overnight, received an approach from two take appropriate steps to minimise that toxicity and very senior Members on either side of the House pressing conduce to a better atmosphere. the case for a formal consideration of our political The statement from the Secretary of State for Business, culture going forward. Manifestly, any such formal Energy and Industrial Strategy is on the subject of structure—any such conference, deliberation—would international climate action at the United Nations climate not take place under my aegis. Like everybody else here, action summit. There will also be a further business I just want what is best for the House.Pending consideration statement, of which we had notice last night, from the of that approach and the argument for having a sober Leader of the House. I hope that has satisfied the consideration of the issue of political culture and conduct legitimate inquisitorial appetite of the hon. Member for over an ongoing period, I can advise the House that Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). 845 26 SEPTEMBER 2019 Compliance with the European Union 846 (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 Compliance with the European Union Mr Speaker,thank you for granting this urgent question. (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act was passed by the House and given Royal Assent by Her Majesty the Queen on Monday 9 September and brought 9.41 am in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) (Urgent Question): Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the right hon. Member I am happy to have been slightly delayed by an actual for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). That Act point of order. My urgent question is to ask the Prime clearly says that the Prime Minister must seek an extension Minister to make a statement on compliance with the to article 50 to 31 January if the Prime Minister is European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. unable to meet one of the two conditions of either having a withdrawal deal passed by this House, or The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting having an affirmative vote by this House to back no the European Union (James Duddridge): In the tone that deal. you are setting, Mr Speaker, perhaps I may refer to a The Minister said in his opening response that there Member incorrectly and thank my hon. Friend, because was a range of options. That is the only range of there are many friends across the Chamber. If one reads options in that Bill—to pass a deal, to pass no deal, or the newspapers this morning, there is a feeling that we subsequently to seek an extension. The Supreme Court are permanently adversarial and at war with one another. decision this week and the statement in this House That is not the case. Many of us work together bilaterally followed by questioning of the Prime Minister yesterday in groups and Committees in this House, and most of were a national embarrassment. Under any other political the time on the Floor of the House we work in a equilibrium, this Prime Minister would have seriously consensual nature. considered his position as Prime Minister, and potentially Turning to this important urgent question, the resigned from it. Many people have lost their jobs in Government will obey the law. That has always been the government for a fraction of what this Prime Minister case. The House has heard that from the Prime Minister; has done over the last two weeks. it has heard it from the First Secretary of State, my Yesterday, the Attorney General, at that Dispatch right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary; it has heard it Box, during the urgent question tabled by my hon. and from the Lord Chancellor, who has constitutional learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West responsibility for upholding the rule of law; and yesterday (Joanna Cherry), said clearly, in answer to a question by right hon. and hon. Members had the opportunity to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford put similar questions to the Attorney General. (Nick Boles), that he would abide by the law of the EU The Government opposed the Act that was passed (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. He said that with earlier this month. Notwithstanding our fervent attempts uncharacteristic clarity when he said simply, “Yes” in to resist the passage of the Bill, even its architects must response to that question. Last night, the hon. Members accept that the Act makes provision for a potential for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) and for Paisley range of outcomes, not one outcome. The outcome the and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and many Government want—the outcome this Government have others pressed the Prime Minister to make the same always wanted—is a deal with the European Union. commitment. He did not give the same commitment in That deal can deliver the mandate of the British people. this House. And under questioning from myself, very That deal is possible and is now within reach. late in the sitting last night, when I asked whether he would fully comply with the provisions of the Act, My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for should he not get a deal through this House, or an Exiting the European Union, along with the Prime affirmative vote for no deal, by 19 October, the Prime Minister’s negotiating team, has been engaged in Minister answered with one word: he answered, “No.” constructive negotiations. As the Prime Minister told this place yesterday, we were told that Brussels would I have tabled this urgent question, first, to seek clarity; never reopen the withdrawal agreement, but we are now and secondly, to ask the Minister, in all good faith, to discussing reopening the withdrawal agreement in detail. tell us, which he has not done yet, what the Prime While I appreciate that some may seek to anticipate Minister meant when he said “No,” because frankly, failure, to frustrate from the sidelines or to speculate for and with reference to my earlier remarks about respect some type of sport, this Government will not indulge in across this House, I am sure that there are very few defeatism.