This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/09/brexit-latest-news-eu-no-deal-bill-royal-assent-boris-johnson-parliament-politics-live

The article has changed 22 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 11 Version 12
Brexit: Bercow grants emergency debate on publication of no-deal documents – live news Brexit: MPs vote to force government to publish no-deal plans and advisers' messages – live news
(about 2 hours later)
John Bercow says he will allow the Corbyn application for an emergency debate too. MPs have backed the Grieve motion requiring the release of some no-deal planning documents, and private messages from Number 10 officials about prorogation, by 311 votes to 302 - a majority of nine.
He says the debate will start after the Grieve SO24 one. It will last for up to 90 minutes, he says. Here is the text of Dominic Grieve’s motion.
Jeremy Corbyn says he wants an urgent debate on a matter of overriding importance on this motion: That a humble address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to direct ministers to lay before this House, not later than 11.00pm Wednesday 11 September, all correspondence and other communications (whether formal or informal, in both written and electronic form, including but not limited to messaging services including WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Facebook messenger, private email accounts both encrypted and unencrypted, text messaging and iMessage and the use of both official and personal mobile phones) to, from or within the present administration, since 23 July 2019 relating to the prorogation of Parliament sent or received by one or more of the following individuals: Hugh Bennett, Simon Burton, Dominic Cummings, Nikki da Costa, Tom Irven, Sir Roy Stone, Christopher James, Lee Cain or Beatrice Timpson; and that ministers be further directed to lay before this House no later than 11.00pm Wednesday 11 September all the documents prepared within Her Majesty’s government since 23 July 2019 relating to operation Yellowhammer and submitted to the cabinet or a cabinet committee.
That this house welcomes the 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. MPs are now voting on Dominic Grieve’s SO24 motion.
He says MPs will be concerned by suggestions from No 10 that the prime minister may not obey this law. Dominic Grieve intervenes. He asks Gove to explain why no government official swore an affidavit for the prorogation court case?
Bercow says that debate will start now, and that it will last for two hours. Gove says the question for MPs is, are they willing to ignore data protection legislation, the ECHR and the normal conventions of government, just so that Grieve’s curiosity can be satisfied.
But first he is hearing Jeremy Corbyn’s application for another SO24 debate. John Bercow, the Speaker, intervenes and calls the vote.
Dominic Grieve is now making his application for a standing order 24 debate. Here is the motion he is proposing. Gove says he has already said that the government intends to plan a version of the Operation Yellowhammer report on no-deal planning.
Grieve says MPs will now have the chance to ask about Operation Yellowhammer because of the prorogation, and also have a chance to ask about the government’s motives for proroguing parliament for five weeks. But it is neither an impact assessment or a worst-case scenario, he says.
He says his motion would enable MPs to get these documents before Brexit. He says, if the motion is agreed, he will explain in the debate why these documents are required. Gove says the Grieve motion is unprecedented.
John Bercow allows the motion. It is a fishing expedition, he says.
Some MPs shout now, but at least 40 MPs (the number required) stand up, meaning it will go ahead. He says it drives a coach and horses through privacy regulation.
Parliament should be debating the “devastating” consequences of a no-deal Brexit that could put lives at risk, instead of being suspended, the former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown has said. Speaking ahead of a “No to no deal” rally in Glasgow this evening. Brown said: And he says it may be in breach of article eight of the European convention on human rights on privacy.
Boris Johnson and his ministers say that Britain is taking back control. But in reality, Britain is losing control – of our food supplies, of our medical supplies and of our manufacturing supplies … He suggests this is an unprecedented example of people who claim to respect conventions undermining them.
Can the prime minister guarantee that medical supplies – the 1m medical packs that come every day into the country through ports such as Dover – arrive uninterrupted and without putting lives at risk? Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, is now winding up for the government.
Can he pledge that our food supplies – 30% of which come from mainland Europe and another 10% through countries where Europe has trade agreements – will arrive uninterrupted without putting nutritional standards at risk and pushing food prices up 10%? He says documentation about how the government decided to prorogue parliament is already in the public domain, because of the court cases that have been taking place.
Brown said without these assurance, Brexit would be “the biggest own goal in our peacetime economic history … no matter how much it is dressed up as a patriotic act”. He says it rare for such information to be in the public domain.
These are from the Institute for Government’s Hannah White. Sylvia Hermon, the independent MP from Northern Ireland, says Julian Smith, the Northern Ireland secretary, made it clear last week that he was not consulted about the decision to prorogue parliament.
Although this will be seen as a ‘political’ act, I think having the House elect its Speaker as the last act before an election rather than the first act of a new parliament is actually quite a sensible innovation https://t.co/KQbHJp50M6 He says submissions sent to the PM do not normally go to the whole of the cabinet.
No one knows how the election will work out so reduces the chance of the role being (further) politicised, means electors are all MPs with views on what makes a good Speaker, and means choice is made when power of whips is low... He says the government is now being asked to submit every idea on this submitted by officials to the PM. But there has to be a “safe space” where advice can be private, he says.
... and chosen candidate can then stand as Speaker seeking re-election. Objection of course will be that Speaker should be chosen by the MPs in elected and sitting in the House in each new Parliament. And that is the tradition. He says Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, told a committee earlier today that if this motion were passed, it would have a chilling effect on the advice given to ministers.
More on the backstop. This is from the Financial Times’s George Parker. He says that four of the people named in the motion are civil servants, not just one as Dominic Grieve said earlier.
Little noticed from @BorisJohnson press conference: "The landing zone is clear. We need to find a way to ensure the UK is not kept locked in the backstop arrangement and there's a way out for the UK." Not exactly "scrap the backstop". No 10 insists he still wants to axe the BS These are from Lindsay Hoyle, the most senior of the three deputy speakers and one of the favourites to replace John Bercow as Speaker.
Nigel Farage, the Brexit party leader, is pleased about John Bercow’s departure. 1. Now that there is a vacancy for the Office of Speaker of the House of Commons, I am happy to confirm that I will be standing as a candidate.
Good riddance. https://t.co/2u2H80wKxr 2. I would like to thank Mr Speaker for his dedication and service to our country. He has made many reforms. He is a champion of LGBT and BAME rights and we now have a more diverse and representative House than ever before. However, there is much more work to be done.
This is what my colleague Rajeev Syal wrote earlier this year about the candidates to be next Speaker. 3. As Members of Parliament we are clearly in unprecedented times and it will be vital to have an experienced Speaker who can provide the stability and leadership the House of Commons requires in order to remain at the centre to our political system.
MPs prepare for race to replace John Bercow as Commons Speaker 4. As Deputy Speaker I believe that I have proven myself to be independent and fair. I have ensured all Members of Parliament have been able to exercise their right to speak on behalf of constituents to hold the government to account - regardless of position or length of service.
Here is video of John Bercow’s resignation statement. 5. I will of course be providing further details about my ideas and Speakership candidacy in due course.
The Labour MP Jim Cunningham has also announced he is standing down at the next election, the BBC’s Simon Gilbert reports. Boris Johnson was due to give evidence to the Commons liaison committee, which represents all select committee chairs, on Wednesday. It would have been his first appearance before the committee, which questions prime ministers three times a year, for about 90 minutes at a time. But the decision to prorogue parliament means the committee hearing will not go ahead because Commons committees do not formally meet during prorogation.
BREAKING: Long-serving Coventry MP @jimforcovsouth will not stand at the next General Election.See his statement below.He had previously signalled his intention to stay on, but has seemingly had a change of heart...Colleague @Geoffrey4CovNW has already announced his retirement pic.twitter.com/OafYP0PBaq But Sarah Wollaston, the committee’s chair, has written to Johnson asking him to agree to meet them anyway, as he originally said he would. It would not be an official committee hearing, but there is nothing to stop MPs agreeing to hold a meeting at any time they want.
In the Commons the Bercow leaving do tributes are still rolling on. For a different take, this from the Times’ Esther Webber. NEW The Liaison Committee still want the PM to turn up for a grilling on Wednesday, despite Parliament not sitting. Good luck with talking him into THAT. pic.twitter.com/ygqK0GfNJW
A Commons clerk texts re Bercow: "He has reigned over a culture of bullying & harassment in the HoC that not a single MP has been punished for" (Bercow denies this) If prorogation meant the committee could not use a Commons committee room for the hearing, doubtless the BBC or Sky would be more than happy to host the hearing.
(Or the Guardian - we’ll find you a room and a video feed.)
Owen Paterson, a Tory Brexiter, is speaking now. He says the motion names nine “relatively junior” people. He says it is unfair that they are being asked to disclose their private communications.
I just think before this witch hunt atmosphere continues, would members opposite like to consider they are talking about nine relatively junior members assisting the government.
Can we just think of the impact on them that their private emails, their private phone to their family and friends, are all going to be inspected.
And who is the omniscient person, this great found wisdom, on who will judge whether those messages are pertinent to this motion?
(The list includes Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s de facto chief of staff. No one thinks he is relatively junior.)
Cherry speculates that people in government may have discussed the real reason for prorogation not in official emails, which would be subject to disclosure rules, but in private messages or using burner phones.
She says that is why the motion (see 5.35pm) asks for the release of private messages relating to the prorogation of parliament.
If they have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear, she says.
She says she knows enough about English history to know that two kings, Edward II and Richard II, were brought down by “unaccountable whispers of poison”. This motion could reveal other “unaccountable whispers of poison”, she suggests.
Cherry refers MPs to this article by the legal commentator David Allen Green in the Financial Times (paywall) at the weekend.
She says the court case revolved around the government’s motives for proroguing parliament - the matter of “bad faith”.
She says that in litigation like this, faced with an allegation of bad faith, the normal response of a respondent would be to provide a witness statement.
But in this case the government did not do that, he says – a point made by Green.
Here is an extract from Green’s article.
Could it be that a witness statement was intended and prepared but that the relevant senior officials refused to sign it? Or that the document contained something the government did not want the court, or the world, to know? Ms Cherry asked Michael Gove, the minister responsible for no-deal planning, about it. He said he had “absolutely no idea”.
Witness statements are formal court documents, and it is a criminal offence to sign one that you know to be incorrect. They are serious documents for serious people, as far apart from the trivial discourse of political sloganeering and promises as one can imagine. Witness statements matter.
The government’s position on prorogation is that the request was made for routine reasons, and not to frustrate parliament. The legal challengers in London say there is evidence that ministers themselves do not quite believe it. But that is the official version.
The government has disclosed some documents which, on their face, show that the prorogation was routine but Ms Cherry and others fear that these do not provide a full account, and that the decision was contained in unofficial communications, such as WhatsApp messages. My own view is that if the government’s disclosed documents were the entire story then a witness statement would not have been a problem.
Cherry says if the courts decide the prorogation was unlawful, they can order parliament to return.
In the Commons Joanna Cherry, the SNP justice and home affairs spokeswoman, is speaking now. She is one of the MPs backing the legal challenge in Scotland against the decision to prorogue parliament.
She says even the “dogs in the street” know the real reason for prorogation was to do with the desire to try to stop MPs blocking a no-deal Brexit.
She says as late as 25 August No 10 was denying that it planned to prorogue parliament, even though the decision to prorogue was taken earlier.
She says the government has a reputation for being economical with the truth.
Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, used his speech in the debate to say Labour would be backing the Grieve motion. He said that in recent weeks there had been a growing lack of trust in the government among MPs.