Compliance with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019

(Urgent Question): I am happy to have been slightly delayed by an actual point of order. My urgent question is to ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on compliance with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019.

In the tone that you are setting, Mr Speaker, perhaps I may refer to a Member incorrectly and thank my hon. Friend, because there are many friends across the Chamber. If one reads the newspapers this morning, there is a feeling that we are permanently adversarial and at war with one another. That is not the case. Many of us work together bilaterally in groups and Committees in this House, and most of the time on the Floor of the House we work in a consensual nature.

Turning to this important urgent question, the Government will obey the law. That has always been the case. The House has heard that from the Prime Minister; it has heard it from the First Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary; it has heard it from the Lord Chancellor, who has constitutional responsibility for upholding the rule of law; and yesterday right hon. and hon. Members had the opportunity to put similar questions to the Attorney General.

The Government opposed the Act that was passed earlier this month. Notwithstanding our fervent attempts to resist the passage of the Bill, even its architects must accept that the Act makes provision for a potential range of outcomes, not one outcome. The outcome the Government want—the outcome this Government have always wanted—is a deal with the European Union. That deal can deliver the mandate of the British people. That deal is possible and is now within reach.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, along with the Prime Minister’s negotiating team, has been engaged in constructive negotiations. As the Prime Minister told this place yesterday, we were told that Brussels would never reopen the withdrawal agreement, but we are now discussing reopening the withdrawal agreement in detail. While I appreciate that some may seek to anticipate failure, to frustrate from the sidelines or to speculate for some type of sport, this Government will not indulge in defeatism.

I trust that the House, and the collective wisdom of hon. Members, will focus its energies today and beyond on the prospect of success in the negotiations and prepare to give any revised agreement its full and unfettered support.

In the same tone, I would like to say to my hon. Friend—we have been on many delegations together—that we should treat one another with respect across the House. I would also like to say, in the same spirit as your opening remarks, Mr Speaker, that I stand in front of the shield of Jo Cox and I hope that today this Parliament could have a little bit more respect—not just for one another and Parliament, but for the public as well.

Mr Speaker, thank you for granting this urgent question. 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 in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). That Act clearly says that the Prime Minister must seek an extension to article 50 to 31 January if the Prime Minister is unable to meet one of the two conditions of either having a withdrawal deal passed by this House, or having an affirmative vote by this House to back no deal.

The Minister said in his opening response that there was a range of options. That is the only range of options in that Bill—to pass a deal, to pass no deal, or subsequently to seek an extension. The Supreme Court decision this week and the statement in this House followed by questioning of the Prime Minister yesterday were a national embarrassment. Under any other political equilibrium, this Prime Minister would have seriously considered his position as Prime Minister, and potentially resigned from it. Many people have lost their jobs in government for a fraction of what this Prime Minister has done over the last two weeks.

Yesterday, the Attorney General, at that Dispatch Box, during the urgent question tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), said clearly, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), that he would abide by the law of the EU (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. He said that with uncharacteristic clarity when he said simply, “Yes” in response to that question. Last night, the hon. Members for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and many others pressed the Prime Minister to make the same commitment. He did not give the same commitment in this House. And under questioning from myself, very late in the sitting last night, when I asked whether he would fully comply with the provisions of the Act, should he not get a deal through this House, or an affirmative vote for no deal, by 19 October, the Prime Minister answered with one word: he answered, “No.”

Order. Can I very gently say to the hon. Gentleman that he must rattle through the remainder of the questions very quickly, without drama? Very quickly—please.

Question No. 2: do we have to take the Prime Minister to court again to comply with the law? Question No. 3: what message does it send out when the Prime Minister says no to a straight question whether he will comply with the law? Lastly, and most importantly, the Minister said, and the Attorney General said, that the Government will obey the law. What does that mean? Can the Minister just come to the Dispatch Box and say that obeying the law means that the Government will seek an extension to 31 January if the provisions of that Act are not met?

In politics, we are quite often berated for not giving a straight answer. I thought that the Government’s position was very, very clear: we will obey the law. Does the Prime Minister, do this Government, want to extend? No, we do not want to extend. We want a deal. That is our focus.

The hon. Gentleman talks of equilibrium. Well, in a normal equilibrium we would be having a general election, and we would ask the public to decide. That would bring back the equilibrium.

The hon. Gentleman needs to appreciate that the Prime Minister, the Government, and I, as a Minister in the Department for Exiting the European Union, will obey the law, and we will obey the law at every stage and turn of this process.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Prime Minister has said that he will both obey the law and not seek an extension. Can my hon. Friend point to any legal argument made by any senior lawyer that suggests that if the conditions are not met—in other words, if Parliament has not voted for a deal, or has not approved no deal—the Prime Minister will have any choice? The law is quite clear: he would have to seek an extension.

I was interested to read this morning that the right hon. Gentleman nearly became Chancellor of the Exchequer. I apologise—I have never been in such illustrious circles, and I am not, like him, a lawyer—but that was a hypothetical question into which I do not really want to be drawn at this stage. However, we will obey the law.

The Act that was passed three weeks ago is very simple. If by 19 October the Prime Minister has not got a deal through and has not secured the agreement of the House to no deal, he must seek the extension in the terms that are set out in the Act. It is very simple.

It is true that the terms of the letter that the Prime Minister must write were set out in a schedule, as was the duty to accept the extension that the EU agrees. Those were not in the previous version of the Act, which was passed in April, because there was a consensus that the then Prime Minister would comply with the law, understood the rule of law and could be trusted, and it was therefore not necessary to put them in the Act. They are in the Act now because, I am afraid to say—and this is a low point in our history—across the House those assumptions no longer hold, and the answers given by the Prime Minister last night, and his behaviour, make that less likely.

If the Prime Minister genuinely wanted to get a deal through the House, he would not have divided the House in the way that he did yesterday. That is not the behaviour of a man who is trying to unite the House so that it can come together around a deal. The role of the Prime Minister is to unite the country. This Prime Minister is whipping up division, and I have not seen that from any Prime Minister in my lifetime.

There is a very simple, non-hypothetical question, and a precise question. If a deal has not been passed by the House by 19 October and there has been no agreement in the House to no deal, will the Prime Minister comply with the law by asking for the extension, given that that is what the Act requires? Let me make clear that if he does not do so, this will be enforced in the courts, and we will take collective action in the House to do whatever is necessary to make him comply with the law.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that we are at a low point. I agree. One of the reasons we are at a low point is that we asked the public for their views, and now Parliament is ignoring their views. We do have a responsibility—the whole Government have a responsibility—to unite, but not necessarily to unite this Parliament. Our responsibility is to unite the country behind the decision that the country has taken.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me specific questions about 19 October. The Government will obey the law on 18, 19 and 20 October, and will always do so.

The issue of compliance raises a very simple question. I say this to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer): it is by no means certain that the law of the land is reflected in the passing of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act, because there is an apparent inconsistency between that Act and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I have no time to go into the details, but the reality is that compliance is not just a simple question. It is a matter of grave importance in terms of which law is the law of the land.

I thank my hon. Friend for advancing that argument. I think that the House will be grateful if I take it outside the House and have a detailed discussion with him, rather than detaining the House when it is dealing with urgent questions.

It appears that that was one of my more popular answers.

I wholeheartedly associate myself and those on the Scottish National party Benches with your earlier remarks, Mr Speaker. Hardened political journalists went home last night in tears, and none of us can feel any pride in what happened. I say this from the SNP Benches. I have had words with some of my colleagues, and I hope that those on other Benches have done so as well. No party is entirely innocent, and it does not take us forward in any way if all we do is blame someone else.

I commend the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for asking the urgent question. The identity of the Minister who has been sent to answer it—I say this with respect to the relative juniority of the Minister—and the fact that the Prime Minister has not come to answer it, perhaps tell us more than the answer itself. I make this offer from the SNP to those on the Government Benches, and I hope they will take it back to the Prime Minister: if he brings back an extension that takes no deal off the table, he can have his general election. However, the Minister might also want to advise the Prime Minister that he should be careful what he wishes for, because his wish might just be granted.

What an extraordinary position we are in, when we have to ask questions in Parliament about whether the Prime Minister will obey the law of the land. Yesterday, he was asked whether, in a specific set of circumstances in which the law required him to take precise action, he would do what the law required. I heard him say no. This is an extraordinary state of affairs. We have not yet had a satisfactory answer on how the Prime Minister thought that that single one-word answer, no, was not an assurance that he would defy the law. He does not want to extend, but if the law says to him “thou shalt extend,” will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister will obey the law of the land? Will he also confirm that a Prime Minister who shilly-shallies in any way over obeying the law of the land is not fit to be Prime Minister?

I particularly reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s comment that there are no innocent parties. Every Member of the House has probably overstepped the line at one point or another, and we must certainly all reflect on the words that we use. I can guarantee that there will be no shilly-shallying. The law will be obeyed, and I look forward to discussing that in more detail when I visit the Scottish Parliament next Thursday—this place permitting.

The difficulty we face is that most laws are relatively easy to interpret because they prevent you from doing something rather than making you do something. They prevent you from murdering your wife; they do not make you love your wife. This Act is therefore capable of numerous interpretations, and we are talking about a completely hypothetical situation. For instance, what is a deal? There is one way round this, however. We just need to compromise and agree a deal.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend’s mastery of some of the technical details will stand him in good stead in his candidacy for your role, Mr Speaker, as and when that comes. He is right to say that the Act is not perfect. Specifically, the Government believe that the Kinnock amendment has deficiencies and that its effect is unclear.

May I ask the Minister what his interpretation of the law is? If no deal has been agreed by Parliament or if the Prime Minister does not get a deal and Parliament has not voted in favour of no deal, does he think that the law will then require the Prime Minister to write a letter? Yes or no?