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 12 Version 13
Brexit: MPs vote to force government to publish no-deal plans and advisers' messages – live news Brexit: MPs vote to force government to publish no-deal plans and advisers' messages – live news
(32 minutes later)
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. Winding up his speech, Corbyn calls on Johnson to come to the dispatch box to set out “his detailed plan for Brexit” and confirm he will abide by the law.
I hope the prime minister will live up to the office that he holds, accept the decisions made of the parliament and carry out the wishes of that Act to ensure that an application is made to prevent this country crashing out on the 31st of October with all the damage that will do to food supplies, medicine supplies, industrial supplies, and his longer term ambitions of heading this country in a totally different direction which many, many people are truly frightened of.
Prominent Brexiteer and Tory backbencher Peter Bone asks whether Corbyn would support a no-deal if one of the other EU countries blocked the UK from extending article 50.
The Labour leader dismisses the question as hypothetical and calls on the government to accept the decision of parliament to pass the act preventing no-deal into law – before predicting the vote calling for a general election later this evening will not pass.
“No 10 has briefed that the PM will defy the law, so until the government has abided by that law, I don’t believe there will be a majority in this house for what the PM is proposing later today under the Fixed-term Parliament Act.
Asked again what would happen if an EU country did not grant an extension, Corbyn says: “We’ve always wanted to get a deal but what we don’t want is a no deal exit with all the dangers for jobs, living standards, supplies and the prime minister and his chums taking us down the road into the arms of Donald Trump and the trade arrangements he’ll make with the US.”
He goes on to reference Amber Rudd’s claims over the weekend that there was “not one shred of evidence” that the government had made any new proposals during the Brexit negotiations.
Former minister Angela Eagle intervenes to highlight the apparent contradiction between Boris Johnson saying he would obey the bill preventing a no-deal if it was passed, but the next day announcing he would rather be dead in a ditch.
Corbyn says he does not wish anyone dead in the ditch, but that the PM should accept the democratic will of parliament. “We don’t have an executive president who can rule over us .. We will expect the prime minister to abide by the details of the law.”
The SNP’s leader in Westminster, Angus Robertson, then says the government has a responsibility to recognise the impact of its abusive language and actions outside of parliament.
Corbyn agrees that language has consequences: “Surely we can have an intelligent debate in our society without resorting to that kind of behaviour, language or violence threatened against some individuals.”
Here is the text of Jeremy Corbyn’s motion, which is now being debated and may go through without a division.
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.
Earlier (see 5.12pm), the Labour leader said MPs would be concerned by suggestions from No 10 that the prime minister may not obey this law.
Opening his speech, Corbyn thanked the Speaker and welcomed the decision the house had just reached and said he looked forward to the government abiding by it.
The fact that parliament is compelled to pass a law to ensure the will of parliament is upheld shows what extraordinary times we now 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 Duchy of Lancaster [Michael Gove], 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 dutifully trotted out this phrase in the media and the minister who’s going to reply has already replied like Pavlov’s dogs always do.
We are not at war. The prime minister is obsessed with this hyperbole and aggressive language. ‘surrender bill’, ‘do or die’, or ‘I’d rather be dead in a ditch’, the list goes on. Mr Speaker, we’re supposed to be having negotiations with our European partners. The lives at stake as a result of all of this, are not those of the prime minister or his cabinet.
He went on to criticise Boris Johnson’s absence from the House of Commons, amid cries of “where is he”.
Following the conclusion of this 90-minute debate, MP’s will debate a motion under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Act and Lords amendments to the parliamentary buildings (restoration and renewal) bill.
Then, at around 10pm, MPs will debate Boris Johnson’s motion calling for an early election over the course of an hour and a half, before a vote which will take 15 minutes. Parliament will then prorogue.
That was Boris Johnson’s fourth main defeat in a Commons vote since he became prime minister. The other defeats were: on the Oliver Letwin motion allowing time for the Benn bill, on the Benn bill at second and third reading and on holding an early election. The final vote counted as a defeat, because Johnson did not get the required two-thirds majority, although technically he won, because more MPs voted in favour than against.
But what does this defeat mean?
Humble addresses are considered binding on the government. The passing of this motion (see 7.24pm) means the government is now obliged to release to the Commons:
1) all private messages sent between nine advisers, including Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s de facto chief of staff, including text and WhatsApp messages and private emails, sent from 23 July relating to the prorogation of parliament.
2) all the documents prepared within government since 23 July 2019 relating to operation Yellowhammer and submitted to the cabinet or a cabinet committee.
The motion mentions 23 July because that is the day Boris Johnson became Tory leader. He become prime minister the following day.
The material is meant to be handed over by 11 September.
However, it does not seem likely that the government will comply. The Commons will not even be sitting on Wednesday. Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, told MPs that he wanted to publish some version of the Operation Yellowhammer document anyway. But during the debate Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, suggested that the government would not have the legal power to enforce the release of the internal prorogation messages, even if it wanted to comply. (See 5.51pm.)
Last year Labour used the humble address mechanism to require the publication of the attorney general’s legal advice about the withdrawal agreement. The government initially ignored the request, and it only complied a month later when MPs passed another motion finding the government in contempt of parliament.
In this case no such contempt motion will be passed any time soon, because after tonight the Commons will not be sitting until 14 October.
And even if it were passed, a contempt motion on its own would not necessarily force Boris Johnson’s government to comply. Theresa May’s government did, but May respected the authority of parliament. Johnson’s administration seems much more contemptuous of it.
On other issues MPs and campaigners have threatened legal action, or gone to court, to ensure that Johnson complies with their wishes. But this vote is not a matter of legislation, and it does not relate to the exercise of prerogative powers. It is a Commons procedural matter, and so it is hard to see on what basis the courts could intervene.
That’s all from me for the night. My colleague Mattha Busby is now taking over.
MPs have backed the Grieve motion requiring the release of some no-deal planning documents, and private messages from No 10 officials about prorogation, by 311 votes to 302 – a majority of nine.
Here is the text of Dominic Grieve’s motion.Here is the text of Dominic Grieve’s 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 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.
MPs are now voting on Dominic Grieve’s SO24 motion.MPs are now voting on Dominic Grieve’s SO24 motion.
Dominic Grieve intervenes. He asks Gove to explain why no government official swore an affidavit for the prorogation court case?Dominic Grieve intervenes. He asks Gove to explain why no government official swore an affidavit for the prorogation court case?
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.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.
John Bercow, the Speaker, intervenes and calls the vote.John Bercow, the Speaker, intervenes and calls the vote.
Gove says he has already said that the government intends to plan a version of the Operation Yellowhammer report on no-deal planning.Gove says he has already said that the government intends to plan a version of the Operation Yellowhammer report on no-deal planning.
But it is neither an impact assessment or a worst-case scenario, he says.But it is neither an impact assessment or a worst-case scenario, he says.
Gove says the Grieve motion is unprecedented.
It is a fishing expedition, he says.
He says it drives a coach and horses through privacy regulation.
And he says it may be in breach of article eight of the European convention on human rights on privacy.
He suggests this is an unprecedented example of people who claim to respect conventions undermining them.
Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, is now winding up for the government.
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.
He says it rare for such information to be in the public domain.
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.
He says submissions sent to the PM do not normally go to the whole of the cabinet.
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.
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.
He says that four of the people named in the motion are civil servants, not just one as Dominic Grieve said earlier.
These are from Lindsay Hoyle, the most senior of the three deputy speakers and one of the favourites to replace John Bercow as Speaker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
5. I will of course be providing further details about my ideas and Speakership candidacy in due course.
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.
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.
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
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.