Skip to main content

tv   Afternoon Live  BBC News  September 4, 2019 2:00pm-5:00pm BST

2:00 pm
members will remember all those, those individuals and services, that we re those individuals and services, that were deemed too unimportant by the chancellor to address today. because, yes, itell chancellor to address today. because, yes, i tell him, chancellor to address today. because, yes, itell him, whenever that election comes, in any election campaign you will be sure that the labour party will be reminding those people and the voters what nine years of and today's failure to act, the opportunity today was to really end what a missed opportunity. it will be, you know, just as we remember, can you rememberwhen, be, you know, just as we remember, can you remember when, mr speaker, we we re can you remember when, mr speaker, we were told there was no alternative? there we were told there was no alternative ? there was we were told there was no alternative? there was no money? we all know the lines, we've heard them enough times. we've heard them
2:01 pm
enough times. we've heard them enough times, they weren't true then and they aren't true now. the majority of economists have always agreed that there was another approach the government could have taken, rather than austerity, and we always argued, and we were right, that austerity was a political choice, not an economic necessity. as recently as march, the party opposite ploughed on, saying there was no alternative. to look at them how was no alternative. to look at them now suddenly proclaiming an end to austerity after 125,000 excess deaths as a result, after 100 billion taken out of the economy, after the worst decade for wage growth since the 19th century, just because there may be what? an election round the corner. and after all that, after all that, to deliver what is a pathetic sum to spending
2:02 pm
departments who are on their knees at the moment. it'sjust adding insult to injury. a government not just callous and uncaring, but hypocritical as well. this isn't a government, it's a racket. they're pretending to end austerity when they do nothing of the sort. they're pretending to plan ahead whilst they plot a no—deal brexit that will devastate parts of our economy. a chancellor and a prime minister, is my right honourable friend said yesterday, no mandate, no morals and no majority. they're trying to distract us from crumbling public services and stagnating wages. and they have created after a decade in charge, it's almost they forget they've been in government for nine years! they seek to fool the british
2:03 pm
public with fantasy promises of a brexit deal they knew they couldn't deliver, and they weren't even trying to negotiate. a short lived government that will go down in history for its unique combination of right—wing extremism and bumbling incompetence. a government that betrays the people it is meant to serve. i tell you, betrays the people it is meant to serve. itell you, a betrays the people it is meant to serve. i tell you, a government that will never be forgiven but will soon be forgotten. yes, the shadow chancellor has just sat down after giving his response to the chancellor, sajid javid, in his first major fiscal statement. following prime ministers questions. sajid javid outlining spending priorities and commitments for the next year. there will be a much more
2:04 pm
full spending review next year, depending of course what happens over the coming days and months. he did announce what we widely expected, because it has been briefed in the press, £1.1 billion to councils in the next year, which they can spend on social care. £45 billion increase in funding for schools in england by 2022—2023, and a 2000 additional police officers by march next year. there were many other announcements which we can look at. we have the book here, but let me introduce our guest, laura kuenssberg, our political editor is back, faisal islam, the bbc‘s economics editor, pauljohnson from the institute for fiscal studies, and rishi sunak, chief secretary to the side of treasury who was sitting beside sajid javid. the standout for you? it was the sort of rhetoric, the wrapper in which this was put.
2:05 pm
turning a page on austerity was to quote the chancellor wanted to get out there, and also that sort of, the rabbit in the hat at the end, which is amazing in a way, him saying no departments will be cut at all. because if you remember in previous spending reviews, when you protected big departments necessarily some of the smaller departments had really quite sharp cuts. none of that, he doesn't want any headlines for people to say there is a cut in any department, and that almost seems to be the aim. and if you look back at the central number around which one canjudge and if you look back at the central number around which one can judge a spending review past three, the day to day spending has been negative, 2015, 2010 as well, this one is plus 496, 2015, 2010 as well, this one is plus 4%, which is the highest figure since 2004, so after 15 years, which will help them, and this is all interacting with politics and i suspect an attempt for those labours leaning seats where they suffered in 2016 in terms of austerity fatigue.
2:06 pm
is austerity over? i think on any reasonable definition, yes. spending is rising, it is not going down in any department, but i think there is any department, but i think there is a couple of important caveats to that. spending in most of these areas will still be a lot less in what it was in 2010 so this is a change in direction, this is not putting back all the money, and that's not surprising because they have been some very big cuts in local government, injustice and so on, doing all that in one go would be foolish, actually, as well as extremely difficult. i think the second thing is that austerity is over at the moment on the sorts of fiscal rules we have got and given the economic forecasts, we of course live in a time of extreme economic uncertainty. i think the big live in a time of extreme economic uncertainty. ithink the big risk with saying austerity is over is if the economy starts to do significantly worse, which it might if we have a no—deal brexit, then the deficit and debt will start rising, and we are in danger of having to have another dose of austerity to get that over with for austerity to get that over with for a second time injust over a decade.
2:07 pm
right, so more austerity to look forward to, then, richey, depending on what habits were brexit but no deal is still very much the policy of this government if no deal can be agreed? —— rishi. of this government if no deal can be agreed? -- rishi. we have announced the largest increase in day to day spending in15 years, the largest increase in day to day spending in 15 years, a very significant increase, no department seeing any cuts in real terms and it is focused on peoples priorities, schools as the prime minister has talked about, keeping people safe and the nhs of course. to be able to put this in place and this time within the fiscal rules, we talk about what happens down the line, this was delivered, this increase in spending, within the fiscal framework that exist today so it is responsible and i think sustainable. but who made all the cuts to public services that you now feel need the funding just announced a new state authority is over? —— and usa austerity is over? there have been cuts to police, schools, local council, were they a mistake, those
2:08 pm
cuts? you talk about 2010, we were borrowing £150 million, £1 in every four was being borrowed. were those cuts a mistake? of course we needed to make difficult decisions, when we faced a deficit of 10% gdp. the country was on the verge of bankruptcy. you carried that austerity on for a number of years. to get the fiscal position in a numberof to get the fiscal position in a number of years. now having that ha rd number of years. now having that hard work being done it is the right time to invest in public services and things like schools, nhs and the police as i said, and we can do that responsibly within today's fiscal framework. that is what we should focus on. paul? ithink framework. that is what we should focus on. paul? i think there is a question about whether it is really and today's fiscal framework because this is all based on the 0br's hmmfi this is all based on the 0br's forecast back in march. and even without a no—deal brexit, the economy has been doing actually a little bit worse than expected back then. 0ne little bit worse than expected back then. one of the risks for the government is, assuming we carry on with this parliament and we get a budget in a couple of months, it is
2:09 pm
possible the 0br at that point will say hey, look, we've changed our forecasts, which we probably would have done back in september if you'd let out, and maybe you're not quite meeting that fiscal target. do you accept that? those figures are now many months ago and they were also premised on the idea that you would getan premised on the idea that you would get an orderly transition. those are the forecasts we have come of the most up—to—date ones we have. the forecasts we have come of the most up-to-date ones we have. based on an orderly transition. what the chancellor has said very clearly in his statement when we get to the budget he will look at a new set of forecasts that will be provided as pa rt of forecasts that will be provided as part of that process, and he said he will re—examine the fiscal framework as well to make sure it is appropriate for today's time full stop we had fiscal rules that were appropriate for the last few years and isa appropriate for the last few years and is a new chancellor, a new government, which should absolutely examine whether we want to invest more in infrastructure to take advantage of low interest rates as many people are urging us to do. that is something we can examine at that point as well. did you come into politics as a fiscal conservative to borrow more? into politics as a fiscal conservative to borrow more ?|j into politics as a fiscal conservative to borrow more? i came into politics to make sure public
2:10 pm
spinning was responsible and sustainable and i believe we have announced that today because we have delivered it inside those fiscal rules and it is because of those difficult decisions that have been made over the past several years that we are in a position now to invest in people's priorities, like schools, the nhs and keeping people safe. any one would imagine this might be time for people preparing a ma nifesto. might be time for people preparing a manifesto. sitting here listening to this. lots of lovely expensive things we want to spend cash on in a time of huge volatility but we would like to promise it and i think our viewers have been treated to what we are likely to hear in the next few weeks, more money for hospitals, police and the schools. the truth is that this in a time of enormous volatility, this spending review is not like the normal kind of enormous, huge, telephone book like review from a government saying here are the more predictable than currently plans for what we will seriously do in the next two, three, four years. and ijust won the chief secretary if you will come clean
2:11 pm
with our viewers and accept that any of the sums in this book will add up in future? it is my job to make sure the sums add up. today, but in future? the reason the document is thinner than usual, it is a one—year fa st thinner than usual, it is a one—year fast track spending review, i'm not making any bones about that, it was done at pace and for one year rather thana done at pace and for one year rather than a typical multi—year process because we wanted to give departments that certainty. we talk about local government, it is important for local government to have that certainty early so we can plan. we wanted to do that so we can get money into the people's priorities, clear the decks, focus on renegotiating our deal and deliver brexit by the end of october. but you must accept that at a time like this when the biggest determinant, or one of the biggest of where this will end up, is what happens with our relationship with the european union? while that is still unresolved, our viewers cannot ta ke still unresolved, our viewers cannot take or put much faith in the numbers you are putting out today. that's true, isn't it? what we have set out today in our priorities for
2:12 pm
what people want to focus on, and thatis what people want to focus on, and that is why the debate that will happen later in parliament is so important. if parliament wants to pass this bill which ultimately gives control of the process to europe, undercuts our negotiations, just means yet more delay and the other as a priority —— as a prime minister to other as a priority —— as a prime ministerto our other as a priority —— as a prime minister to our brexit negotiations, we cannot get on and focus on the priorities they want us to. our attempt today is to set out very clearly where we think the money should be going. it is keeping people safe, the nhs and schools. people want brexit done, they don't wa nt people want brexit done, they don't want it hanging over us for months and months, trapped in this purgatory that only the eu can release it from. they want is to be talking about this document. there is the manifesto! you are borrowing to spend here billions more. you will announce a load of hopeful tax cuts, stamp duty, fuel duty, you won't announce them yet but i'm sure that might feature. have you found the magic money tree? rape it is because of these decisions we have made over the past several years,
2:13 pm
borrowing last year was at an almost 20 year low. we have the capacity within the framework that is there but we can invest this money and is still being done in a prudent way as we have just been discussing and thatis we have just been discussing and that is important. a shrub may be rather than a tree? people need to have confidence, but what i would say, faisal, it is notjust about the fiscal situation, it goes to much more than that, your relationship with the free enterprise, with business, whether you think the union should be running the country or whether it should be private enterprise. whether you want to nationalise hundreds of billions of pounds worth of productive industry. there is a white set of things people look at when they care about your management of the economy. rishi, do you accept the fiscal headroom you are talking about will be wiped out in the event of no deal, as the office for budget responsibility has set up? may it is not appropriate for me to speculate ona not appropriate for me to speculate on a set of forecasts they have not yet put. may it was in the risk
2:14 pm
report injuly. yet put. may it was in the risk report in july. we yet put. may it was in the risk report injuly. we are working within the four because they have set out in march. faisal said there was a report set out injuly, do you accept that headroom will disappear? i accept if we are looking at a different set of forecasts at the time of the budget, of course we will have the economic response appropriate for that and we will adjust our plans accordingly. but shouldn't mps have a chance to have a set of these forecast to be able tojudge? a set of these forecast to be able to judge? making big a set of these forecast to be able tojudge? making big decisions are no deal. someone is working out what the fiscal impact of no deal will be. how can you not release that information to mps? it is not at all typical when you have a spending round separated from the budget, as we have had twice in the last several years, and paul can confirm, i think several years, and paul can confirm, ithink in several years, and paul can confirm, i think in 2010 and 2013, and there we re i think in 2010 and 2013, and there were not forecasts published at that time when you have stand—alone spending reviews. we have a statutory obligation i think hmmfi statutory obligation i think forecast twice a year, typically at fiscal events like a budget, that is what is customary and what will happen. for stand—alone spending
2:15 pm
reviews, that is not typical. we are going to let you go injust a reviews, that is not typical. we are going to let you go in just a few moments, but actually at this point following sajid javid's statement, we are going to say goodbye to our viewers on the news channel. obviously sticking with politics lie. but we are going to stay with politics —— with politics live. after voting last night to take control of parliament. borisjohnson who now leads a minority government says he will sneak —— seek a snap general election on october 15 if mps asking to delay brexit be on october 31. but labour and lib dems say they will block an election until the threat of a no deal is removed. after his bruising day yesterday, borisjohnson hasjust held his first prime ministers questions. chancellor sajid javid has presented his first spending plans.
2:16 pm
this afternoon, at 3pm mps will start debating a bill to prevent leaving the eu without a deal. (am! and they're due to begin voting on that at 5pm. with the latest on another huge day in the wold of british politics, here's our political correspondent, iain watson. the morning after the night before at westminster. borisjohnson suffered an early defeat when an alliance of opposition mps and conservative rebels seized control of pa rliament‘s business away from his government and they will use this today to try to push through a new law to rule out leaving the eu without a deal. is brexit out of your hands, minister? first thing this morning the cabinet met to discuss tactics. they believe if mps insist on a series of boats denied to delay brexit beyond october the 31st, there should be a general election. order. questions to the prime minister. and today borisjohnson faced his very first prime minister's questions since hebecame conservative leader. we got a flavour of how any election campaign would be fought. he characterised attempt
2:17 pm
to delay brexit as this. what his surrender bill would do if it would wreck any is it would wreck any chance of the talks, and we don't know what his strategy is at all. jeremy corbyn said he wasn't wrecking the government brexit talks with brussels because there weren't any meaningful talks to iraq. with brussels because there weren't any meaningful talks to wreck. mr speaker, i really fail to see how i can be accused of undermining negotiations because no negotiations are taking place. he's been prime minister for six weeks and he promised to get brexit sorted. in six weeks, he's presented nothing to change the previous prime minister's deal, which he twice voted against. it takes two thirds of mps to agree to an election and labour say they won't do this until boris johnson rules out a no deal brexit. that prompted this response. mr speaker, i know he's worried
2:18 pm
about free trade deals with america, but there's only one chlorinated chicken that i can see in this house and he's on that bench. will he confirm that he will let the people decide? let the people decide on what he is doing to this country negotiating position? butjeremy corbyn remained focused on what plans the government had for no deal. the prime minister failed to answer my questions about food supply, about medicine supplies, and about the problems in hospitals. he refuses to publish the yellow documents and he talks about scaremongering, where does the information come from other than his office in his government? never knowingly undersold, the snp attacked borisjohnson is a style of government. last night, parliament once again defeated this shambolic tory government. today, mr speaker, we have seized
2:19 pm
back control from a prime minister who is behaving like a dictator more than a democrat. this is why borisjohnson is vulnerable to defeat, he no longer has a working majority. at the last election in 2017, theresa may's conservatives won 317 seats in parliament, less than half the total. with the help of ten dup mps it rose to 327, a working majority. defections and a by—election defeat reduced this to 321 by yesterday morning, a working majority ofjust one. this was wiped out when philip lee defected to the lib dems and last night 21 conservative rebels were thrown out by borisjohnson so now the conservatives and dup together have 299 seats, 22 short of a working majority. so when could an election come? labour are keen to say they're not going to dance
2:20 pm
to boris johnson's tune, to do it on his timescale and at a meeting of the parliamentary labour party this morning, jeremy corbyn was being urged by his mps to delay any election until after brexit day, after october the 31st and only then if an extension to brexit, a delay had already been agreed but whenever it comes, some very famous conservative faces won't be competing in it. at least not as conservative candidates. this former cabinet minister was one of 21 conservative rebels who were told they couldn't stand again as candidates because they'd voted against their government last night. would you stand as an independent? i would, but i preferred to stand as a member of the conservative party and i hope the party comes to its senses because this is not the way mrs thatcher would have behaved, not the way any previous prime minister would have behaved. this is trying to deselect very loyal conservative ministers and cabinet ministers who have barely rebelled in their lives.
2:21 pm
these days, so many extraordinary things seem to be happening at westminster almost becoming. almost. iain watson, bbc news. borisjohnson has faced renewed pressure to apologise for comments he made comparing muslim women who wear a hijab to bank robbers and letterboxes. the labour mp for slough, tanmanjeet singh dhesi, called on mrjohnson to apologise for his comments, which he called "derogatory". let's listen to that exchange now, which took place during prime minister's questions. mr speaker, if i decide to wear a turban, or you decide to wear a cross, or he decides to wear a kipper or a skullcap, or she decides to wear a hijab or a burqa, does that mean it is open season for right honourable members of this house to make derogatory and divisive remarks about our appearance? for those of us who from appearance? for those of us who from a young age have had to endure and face up to being called names such as powell head or taliban or coming from bongo and go land, we can appreciate full well the hurt and pain felt by already vulnerable muslim women when they are described
2:22 pm
as looking like bank robbers and letterboxes. so rather than hide behind sham and whitewash investigations, when will the prime minister finally apologised for his derogatory and racist remarks... applause racist remarks, mr speaker, which have led to a spike in hate crime? and given the increasing prevalence of such incidents within his party, when will the prime minister finally order an enquiry into islamophobia within the conservative party, something which he and his chancellor promised on national television? cheering order, order. let's hearthe television? cheering
2:23 pm
order, order. let's hear the answer. the prime minister. mr speaker... jeering. order, order. the response from the prime minister will be heard. the prime minister. thank you, mr speaker. can ijust say to the honourable gentleman that if he took the trouble to read the article in question, he would see that it was a strong, liberal defence, as he began his question by saying of everybody's right to wear whatever they want in this country, andi whatever they want in this country, and i speak as somebody who is not only proud to have muslim ancestors but to be related to sikhs such as himself. and i am proud to say under this government we have the most diverse cabinet in the history of this country, and we truly reflect modern britain. jeering. what we
2:24 pm
have yet to hear from anywhere in the labour party is any hint of apology for the virus of anti—semitism that is now rampant in their ranks. and i would like to hear that from the honourable member opposite. that's the first time you have seen that, i'm just that's the first time you have seen that, i'mjust wondering, that's the first time you have seen that, i'm just wondering, are you happy with that response from the prime minister? i think it was a pathetic response. but he needs to be held to account. words have consequences. when he said those diabolical things against muslim women about wearing a hijab or a burqa, he was trying to use incendiary language, which was trying to divide communities. and for somebody in such a high position to be doing that, you can'tjust get away with it, and his response was, i've got relatives who are muslim or sikh. i've got relatives who are polish or scottish, it doesn't mean ican polish or scottish, it doesn't mean i can say anything and everything
2:25 pm
about those people without facing the consequences. you had an amazing reaction in the house when you said what you said, and since you've gone viral. and you've had lots of messages. alli yes, it has been incredible yes, including from jeremy corbyn, and the love and affection from colleagues was greatly appreciated, in fact i was taken aback when the applause came, ijust had to steady myself and them live my question, because ijust felt so angry and i thought that that anger needed to be transmitted, because for the likes of me who have actually experienced racism, when people call you a towel head or a taliban or a terrorist, that has such an effect on you and your own self—confidence, and there are many women out there who wear a burqa or a hijab, and when somebody who is a former mayor of london and former foreign secretary, and the prime minister, when somebody like that says something, that is why i said it led to such a huge spike in hate crime, so he needed to apologise,
2:26 pm
but he still didn't apologise, simon. that's the travesty. well done to the lib dems leader as well who try to say that was a pathetic response, are we going to have an apology? are we going to be having that long awaited enquiry into islamophobia within the conservative party? and no response. why did you ask that question today? there is only one subject people seem to be obsessed with, and obviously it is what is going on. we are looking at momentous times. at one point did you say this is the subject i want to raise? it was last night, as i was rummaging in my head as to what i would be asking on, my initial gut instinct was to talk about brexit, the no deal scenario, the catastrophic no deal scenario that many slough citizens have said i have to make a stand for their businesses, jobs, the unions and others have been telling me. but then i realised that most people, including jeremy himself, would no doubt be majoring on no—deal brexit, the historic moment we find ourselves and in terms of is a
2:27 pm
nation. so i thought this is one thing that would be a particularly pertinent for me to raise, because i wear a pertinent for me to raise, because i weara turban, and pertinent for me to raise, because i wear a turban, and i pertinent for me to raise, because i weara turban, and i have an affinity with those muslim women, so i needed to be their voice at that particular point in time and it was my first ever pmqs this year, so i thought i've got to use it wisely. there was an array of subjects i could have chosen, but that's what i decided. why do you think he didn't just apologise? that, i think, speaks volumes about where he as a person has come to and where the conservative party have come to. from a point where during his mayoralty of london he was ad nauseam saying about the multicultural nation, the global capital, we are all in it together, i love diversity, look at my own family background. and he hasjust done a full 180, in terms of his right—wing opinions, and i think that's why he didn't want to lose face in front of that ageing, almost
2:28 pm
xenophobic tendencies within the base of the conservative party membership. his proroguing of parliament, his banishment of those long—standing conservative mps, many of whom have actually given more service to their party than boris johnson would ever do, that'sjust the nature of where he has come to as an individual, and i think he needs to be called out at every possible opportunity about the journey has taken. it is great to see you, thank you very much for us. as we were saying, that clip has gone viral on the internet, and huge reaction to it. here at westminster, sajid javid still in the chamber giving reaction to the public spending announcement he made earlier. we have heard the response from john mcdonnell, who called it effectively cheap electioneering, although possibly not so cheap,
2:29 pm
promising money, £7 billion more for school funding by 2022, one of the standout offers, but plenty to talk about a little later on. but let's return to the politics. with me now is our chief political correspondent, vicki young. so last night, it was only last night! but already we seem to be moving on. what do we expect to happen in the next few hours?|j think happen in the next few hours?” think let's just move happen in the next few hours?” think let'sjust move on, happen in the next few hours?” think let's just move on, so happen in the next few hours?” think let'sjust move on, so much happening today, about five different headlines from prime ministers questions, but we have a spending round, and he is trying to change the law to stop no deal at the end of october, but then tonight there will also be this motion the government to put down to try and get a general election so let's talk about a general election and whether it could happen or not. intriguingly, labour have been talking about saying that they would back an october election, but only once that bill, the anti—no deal bill, has got through parliament. so that was their line. then there has been a meeting today where several
2:30 pm
labourmps, ithink been a meeting today where several labour mps, i think including keir starmer, have got up and said hang ona minute, starmer, have got up and said hang on a minute, that could be a bit of a trap, a bit of a disaster, because actually the bill goes through parliament, it hasn't been enacted, that delay to brexit hasn't happened, the eu haven't agreed it, borisjohnson happened, the eu haven't agreed it, boris johnson haven't asked for happened, the eu haven't agreed it, borisjohnson haven't asked for it, they go and have an election, what ifjeremy corbyn doesn't win, boris johnson wins? he comes back in, he reverses that law and we still leave without a deal, so there are lots of labour mps saying we cannot possibly vote for an october election right now. we can only do it if that extension to article 50, that delay, has already happened. so then you think well, than borisjohnson doesn't have the numbers but intriguingly in the last couple of hours, nicola sturgeon has tweeted, saying that actually she thinks they should be a general election, the snp will back an october election as soon as the bill is passed. that could be on friday. so the numbers may be there. at least two thirds? not under this
2:31 pm
rule. tonight he needs that. if borisjohnson tries another rule. tonight he needs that. if boris johnson tries another option, bringing forward a bill saying, forget about the fixed term parliament act, the next election will be on the 15th of october, he only a simple majority of one. if you take tories minus the ones who have been booted out, plus the dup, plus the snp, you get there. it's funny, isn't it, yesterday a simple majority of one was doable. but he has now lost 21, some of the most influential members of his party in this coal. what's the response? what are you hearing about that? —— cull. people are shocked. nobody thought they would go through with it. as you say, they are people of vast experience. one mp on one side of the argument saying to me, this had to happen, they have voted to take power away from a conservative government and give it to the opposition. that is, of course, something you can't do, and you deserve to lose that tory whip for that, that is their argument. hang on, i raised the point to steve
2:32 pm
baker on, i raised the point to steve ba ker yesterday on, i raised the point to steve baker yesterday that that has happened before. theresa may, boris johnson did that twice. that was about a policy issue. they would say there is a difference between voting against a polity you don't like, and wilfully taking power away from your own government and giving it to the opposition. that is the argument they are deploying. —— against a policy. discipline broke down. theresa may could not even function because people were leaking things, there wasn't any privacy, there were lea ks there wasn't any privacy, there were leaks in newspaper articles. people are coming around borisjohnson thinking the first thing you need to do is instill discipline. that has ended up with special advisers being marched out of downing street by armed police officers. it's ended up with nicholas soames, ken clarke, and philip hammond are being booted out of the party. a lot of people think this has gone too far. what they are doing in downing street is making the opposition in downing street thing, what on earth will happen next? —— is making the
2:33 pm
opposition and others think, what on earth will happen next. thanks very much there were eight former cabinet ministers, as well as mps who helped the governmentjust a week ago, who have left. joining us now is henry hill, assistant editor at the conservative home blog. they are all thinking exactly the same, what happens next, what can we do, is there any way these people can stay in the tory party? they have no recourse, independent legal recourse, independent legal recourse, there is no right if the conservative party does not want you to bea conservative party does not want you to be a member. this has happened before. they can of course, if they wish, stand as independents, or independent conservatives, that is allowed. but if the conservative party does not want to readmit them, then they cannot be conservative
2:34 pm
candidates. no legal right at all? know. it makes sense. the conservative party is ultimately in charge of who gets to stand for the conservative party in parliament. i think it would be a strange situation if somebody had an independent right to represent the conservative party when the conservative party when the conservative party when the conservative party didn't want to be represented by them. that would be a strange situation. if the conservative party chooses to remove the wit and an individual is no longer a member of the conservative party, they are civilly not eligible to be selected as the conservative candidate. —— the whip. to be selected as the conservative candidate. -- the whip. this is the act of a man who thinks that if there is a general election he will be back as prime minister. he wants a party to be in unity with him. absolutely. what he has recognised is that there is no point, if there is that there is no point, if there is to be a general election fought on the issue of brexit, there is no point having 20 or more conservative mps opposed to you on that fundamental policy. it means a general election won't resolve anything. it's also important to
2:35 pm
remember that whilst this has been a dramatic move, this is pretty much exactly what sirjohn major did during the maastricht rebellion to eight conservative mps. he withdrew the whip. there wasn't a general election until 1997, so they had time to reconcile and come back into the fold. withdrawing the whip from mps who are against the government in one of its most important pieces of legislation is a well precedented, historical manoeuvre for governance. briefly, most of these people are in tory constituencies that are rock—solid. some of them are very popular local mps. research suggests that in most cases, the personal vote is limited. the fact that these are rock—solid conservative seats means that the party will probably be optimistic about retaining most of them. it's more problematic for the conservatives in their marginal seats, where if the individual in question ran as an independent, they could act as a spoiler, they could
2:36 pm
let somebody else through. but in seats like south west hertfordshire, 25,000 majority, ithink seats like south west hertfordshire, 25,000 majority, i think the conservative party will be pretty confident of retaining that seat in the election. good to talk to you, henry hill, joining us by videophone, as you can see. you are watching afternoon light. now, time for the weather, what is going on, nick miller? there is a bit of sunshine, some cloud, it's likely to stay dry for the rest of the afternoon, not much in the way of cloud reaching south wales, either. more cloud around elsewhere. scotland, northern ireland, northern england, north wales come into the midlands, is welcome prolonged rain into northern scotland. north—west england could see some wind gusts, in fact, they are, in excess of 50 mph in exposure. it stays busy tonight. lots of the wet weather will clear, but showers will filter south. it'll be a cooler night than last night, quite widely into single figures. on the way tomorrow, lots of fine weather to begin the day,
2:37 pm
but here comes another weather system, some rain pushing through scotland, early rain clearing from northern ireland. a few showers across north—east england, towards north wales, south wales, and southern ingram. staying largely dry again with plenty of sunshine coming through. not a warm day, it won't be a warm weekend. another system is moving through thursday night and into friday. after that, looking mainly fine at the weekend. this is bbc news. the latest: boris johnson has challenged jeremy corbyn to back a snap general election on
2:38 pm
october the 15th. mr corbett says the prime minister should explain his brexit negotiating funds first. we asked yesterday, many colleagues asked, and the prime minister seems utterly incapable of answering. the only thing that is standing in our way is the undermining of those negotiations by this surrender bill, which would lead to more dither and delay. mps will vote this afternoon ona delay. mps will vote this afternoon on a bill to force the government to ask for a delay if they brexit deal has not been agreed with the eu. the chancellor set out his spending plans, saying he will turn the page on austerity with more money for the police and social care, and also extra funds to deliver brexit. scholar's highest court has ruled that boris johnson's scholar's highest court has ruled that borisjohnson's plan to suspend parliament five weeks ahead of brexit is lawful. in the last hour, the chancellor has set out the public spending plans. sajid javid said they were turning a page on austerity, and introducing the fastest increase in day—to—day
2:39 pm
spending in 15 years. he promised to add £13.8 billion to public spending. he also promised to add £1.5 billion to the health and social care budget. he promised the 6.4% increase to the home office budget, which he says will mean an improvement of thousands more police officers. the director of the institute of fiscal studies, pauljohnson is with me. the end of austerity, broad claim, is it? i think it looks like it, yes. the chancellor has increased spending ina yes. the chancellor has increased spending in a lot of areas, and yes. the chancellor has increased spending in a lot ofareas, and is not cutting anything additional. but it is important to remember that the end austerity does not mean getting things back to where they were in 2010. a lot of areas, local government spending, social care spending, spending onjustice, spending, spending onjustice, spending on the police, will be significantly lower than they were ten yea rs significantly lower than they were ten years ago. lots of figures flying around. he claims that, the chancellor claims, that £7 billion more in school funding by 2022. does that add up? it is more like £45
2:40 pm
billion, once you adjust for inflation, but that is a significant increase, an increase of almost 10% in the schools budget. is it enough to undo the cuts that have been put in place since 2010? it's a real and genuine and significant change in direction. a shift in emphasis, perhaps. more money for local government, we heard, and things like that. what was welcome about today's announcement was the fact that it was notjust money for things like hospitals, schools, police officers, it was also for areas that really have been neglected. not just by areas that really have been neglected. notjust by this government actually, but money for further education, local government, the justice system. areas that have suffered very significant cuts in recent yea rs. suffered very significant cuts in recent years. and where the evidence that they needed more cash was actually particularly compelling. have they found this magic money tree? of course, the downside, the spending of all of this extra money means you must find it from somewhere. essentially they are finding it from extra borrowing to
2:41 pm
the tune of £13 billion next year, relative to spending this year. so, they've used a lot of additional, a significant amount of additional borrowing. that is consistent with their fiscal framework, borrowing. that is consistent with theirfiscalframework, in borrowing. that is consistent with their fiscal framework, in the sense that they want to keep borrowing the lowest a mou nt next that they want to keep borrowing the lowest amount next year. but it is only just consistent. lowest amount next year. but it is onlyjust consistent. and only because they are still relying on forecasts which were made back in the spring. of course, we don't have a new set of independent office for budget responsibility forecasts today. and they probably would have looked a bit worse, because the economy is doing worse than expected. overshadowing all of this, still, brexit. and what on earth is going to happen. i think that is where the big risk for all of this lies. supposing we do end up with "no deal", i don't think there is any question that that would result in the economy growing less fast, possibly going into recession, that will mean extra borrowing. that will mean that on top of the effect of these increased spending increases
2:42 pm
will mean, the extra borrowing, because the economy is doing extra badly, the risk it is we end austerity for two, three years, then austerity for two, three years, then austerity rises because the economy is doing badly. we have to re—impose austerity, get it back down again. we are in danger of having boom, bust, boom, then bust all over again. this was priming everybody foran again. this was priming everybody for an election, really, wasn't it, in financial terms? this would look more attractive to people, additional cuts, certainly signalling a change in n percent by the government. —— change in emphasis. this is a, we've got spending priorities and we will announce though spending increases kind of government, almost come what may in terms of what happens to the economy. it could start a change in emphasis in terms of what they are focusing on. an understanding that when you say we want 20,000 more police on the street, it is a bigger deal than that, you need to build up to that. rather sensibly, we are looking at another 2000 police next year. you clearly cannot recruit 20,000, recruit and train 20,000 in
2:43 pm
a year. in addition, i think rather sensibly, more money notjust for the police, but the other bits of the police, but the other bits of the justice system which are needed, which can cope with additional work. so, the crown prosecution service, for example, has more money. we know they are within the courts, and the cps is a —— has a real problem in terms of funding at the moment. putting that money alongside the police again looks like it makes some sense. always good to see you, paul. thanks very much. we are all waiting for three o'clock when the debate gets under way. where, of course, the prime minister, once again, will be under pressure following his defeat in the house of commons last night. as mps will begin their plans to block a no—deal brexit. from across the house. including 21 former tory mps, including former chancellor ken clarke, of course. the grandson of winston churchill, sir nicholas soames, tory grandees, indeed, who are effectively sitting in the
2:44 pm
naughty corner of the commons as independents, with nobody really knowing what fate holds for them. the pace and gravity of things here in westminster means that a story that happened last night which would still be dominating our headlines and our schedules is now, sort of come a distant memory. we had that explosive prime ministers questions today with boris johnson explosive prime ministers questions today with borisjohnson pushing for that general election. jeremy corbyn saying that he would be happy for an election, but only once the bill that stops a no—deal brexit is going through the parliamentary process. at the heart of this is a central mistrust to boris johnson over at the heart of this is a central mistrust to borisjohnson over his claims that whilst he wants an election in mid—october, that he would easily —— could easily later on say he's changed his mind and pushit on say he's changed his mind and push it beyond the deadline for our departure from the eu of the 31st of october. that's what is going on in
2:45 pm
parliament. effectively nobody knows what will happen over the next few hours. very exciting for political nerds and journalists. it is great for us. but for everybody outside, it adds to that sense of fear, confusion, some anger, too, to the way things are going on here at westminster. what are the choices confronting the government and parliament now? let's talk to our reality check respondent chris morris, who is with me. well, gosh, still many paths on which this could go. that's because we're counting down to the date. it used to be the 29th of march, now it is october 31, because that is the date on which, as the law currently stands, if nothing changes, that is when we will leave the eu or without a deal. we know the rebel alliance, including 21 conservative mps from last night, who are determined to stop that. that is what is happening today. there will be a vote to block "no deal" by forcing the prime
2:46 pm
minister to ask the eu for a three month extension to brexit until january 31 next year. will it pass, will it fail? if it fails, which is looking unlikely, the government keeps control of the brexit process, and the prime minister will seek to leave at the end of october — deal or no deal. the opposition could call a vote of no confidence. if they did, and they won, that could lead to an election, but time would be really tight. if today's vote passes, the question is whether the government wil accept it, or reject? if the government accepts it, borisjohnson would have to request another delay to brexit. he swore he would not do that. if the european council, the other 27 leaders, agree, brexit would be delayed until the end of january or possibly even later. if the eu offers a later date, today's bill would force the prime minister to accept it unless it is specifically rejected within 2 days by mps. if the eu refuses to offer any extension — the default position still stands. brexit at the end of
2:47 pm
october, deal or no—deal. and what if the government says it can't accept pa rliament‘s instruction? well the prime minister has said they will seek to hold a general election. it would require the support of two thirds of mps in the commons and if it happens is expected to be held on or around october the 15th. if mp's reject that snap election the government has said it will follow the law, but if it doesn't and tried to wiggle out of legislation blocking a no—deal brexit there would almost certainly be legal challenges. parliament is due to be suspended from next week for five weeks, so, again, time is short. will talks in brussels continue looking for a compromise brexit deal? maybe, or does that election become inevitable? so, if and when today's legislation is set in stone, and the opposition is confident that it cannot be changed, and that no deal has for now been avoided, then it looks overwhelmingly likely that we're heading for a general election.
2:48 pm
it could be before the deadline of october 31, may be. before? it could be slightly after. if you want to but the prime minister under some pressure, here is a prime minister saying, i'm going to leave on october 31, do or die? saying, i'm going to leave on october31, do or die? maybe saying, i'm going to leave on october 31, do or die? maybe you might want to hold on if you are in opposition for a couple of weeks and say, well, you haven't left, have you? you say, well, you haven't left, have you ? you will say, well, you haven't left, have you? you will have the prime ministers saying to the opposition you are a bunch of chlorinated chickens, as he did in pm cues, then you will have the... he said there was only one chlorinated chicken... but in america there is more than that, but only one here. all of this manoeuvring which appears to be most people heading towards, sooner or later, an election. all that struck me, as you were going through that, i think it is more than a year ago we we re i think it is more than a year ago we were both here, the weather was a bit different, but we were just as
2:49 pm
uncertain as we are now. with different flow charts. the difference is we are now talking hours and days. things are moving. things are moving. great to talk to you. we will have an update on the business knew soon, but first, the headlines. borisjohnson says he will call for a general election if the opposition seeks to block his no—deal brexit. the chancellor set out his spending plans, saying he will turn the page on austerity with more money for the police and social care. also, extra funds to deliver brexit. the uk is at risk of slipping into recession, according to a closely watched survey from ihs markit. the study of purchasing managers shows that the all important services sector grew only slightly last month.
2:50 pm
ihs says this raises the likelihood of a recession. a stark warning from the royal bank of scotland. its says the late surge in complaints about mis—sold payment protection insurance will wipe out up to a third of its profits. it's setting aside up to £900 million to cover the claims. the dealine for claims ran out last week. the chinese telecoms giant huawei is accusing the us of hacking its systems and threatening staff. washington put the firm on a trade blacklist last year — after claiming it had close links to beijing. the company denies the claims. we have just been hearing the government has been setting out its spending plans for the next year. the chancellor claiming it has turned the page on austerity. does that match up with expectations? sajid javid outlined £13.8 billion of spending in areas like health and education. he said this was the
2:51 pm
fastest increase for 15 years and no department would face cuts. but leica disagrees. they have called the spending plans a racket. simon french is the chief economist for panmure gordon. hejoins me now. thank you for joining us. is this the end of the age of austerity? there is no tight definition of what austerity represents, but if we put it in percentage terms, you mentioned that no department will get a real terms cut, and some will get well above an inflation increase, but this is only for one year. the age of austerity probably started in 2009 and ran for the best part of a decade. tojust have one year of significantly above inflation increases, i don't think that present a new age and part of the reason why we can't be certain of that is that the economic outlook is so uncertain, and whether this will be affordable year on year on year which would present an end austerity is open for question. lots
2:52 pm
of figures to go through, obviously, but how much of this is new spending? about £14 billion of additional spending into 2020, 2021. the split down of that, the lion's share goes to health and education, because those are big budgets. in percentage terms it's quite interesting, the big when it is local government, which has been at the sharp end of austerity. i think there is a deliberate reason for that. local government will have most of the leavers to spend that money quickly. and if you are interested in the slowdown in the economy, and you mentioned the market data on the services sector, you want it going to parts of the department where new money can be spent quickly. —— local government will have most of the leavers. can we afford this? interesting. the government can borrow at 0.5%. additional borrowing isn't actually
2:53 pm
that expensive, but there is a golden rule associated with public spending, we can always afford it if it is good spending. it has a positive return for the wider economy. we can never afford it if it is bad spending. that's always the thing to tag back to, forget deficits, forget debt, it is the quality of that spending, and that will only come with time whether we can assess whether it is good or bad spending. does this mean the government has seen the deficit as less important now? we will find out very quickly if there is a budget because the chancellor will have to state whether he thinks the budget rules he inherited off philip hammond will be the ones he maintains but i think it is unlikely. thank you forjoining us. that's all the business news. thanks very much. it is shaping up to be a big day in the house of lords with the chamber preparing to potentially debate the bill to prevent a no—deal brexit. there are accusations of some peers employing wrecking tactics with over
2:54 pm
86 amendments tabled should it pass in the commons and some lords seem to be preparing for an extensive debate. tom newton dunn, the political editorfor the sun, tweeted this morning a picture of lord bethell arriving with supplies to last the day, including chocolate, biscuits and a duvet. while lord wood of anfield is planning on having a jethro tull themed sleepover party tonight in his lords office to get through the debate. and lord newby, much better prepared for today than i am, arriving in the lords this morning with duvet, change of clothes and shaving kit. to anybody watching, what happens this afternoon has serious implications. what at the moment are they trying to do? yesterday, the house of commons took control so that today they could pass a bill.
2:55 pm
we are, today, taking control of the order paper, or trying to, so we can pass the bill tomorrow, and friday, if the house of commons passed it today. but... there are over 100 amendments down to our motion which says this is what we want to do on thursday and friday. the sole purpose of which is to frustrate our getting that timetable agreed. what does that mean? we are going to see tory lords getting up and just talking. the amendment i like best is we cannot debate our big issue until we've had the committee stage of the bat habitat bill. —— of element 16. they put that on to try and stop us having a substantial debate about timing the debates for the following days. it is all a filibuster. it is an attempt to stop
2:56 pm
the house of lords being able to consider that bit of business from the house of commons properly. there isa the house of commons properly. there is a tory peer who has learnt quite a lot about bats. yes, even if he is not bats himself! chuckles it is difficult not to smile because of the idea of you all in there with your duvets. it serious, this could go on throughout the night. the only way you can curtail the debate on one amendment is to have two votes, which takes over half an hour. that means, if we have to have two votes on every amendment, that is 48 hours of continual voting, leaving aside all of the debate time, so bringing ina all of the debate time, so bringing in a shaving kit, a duvet, and a spare shirt is a precaution against the possibility that people on the other side of the argument are stupid enough to put us through it. has this happen before? not on this scale. we have sat through the night before, but that at a different point of the bill, when it has been passing from the house of commons to the house of lords. who are the lords who we will be hearing a lot from, not just
2:57 pm
lords who we will be hearing a lot from, notjust on bats? there are a number of well—known people, michael forsyth, michael howard, former tory leader, peter lilley... michael dobbs, the novelist, who could not put this in his novel and get away with it! and people who have clear views to brexit, they are opposed to it, want it to go through, will use any tactic they can to get there. this will get people quite angry again about the role of the house of lords in our parliamentary proceedings. yes. because the way we operate, the way we handle legitimacy is by working within conventions. and the way we do things. working in a way that people outside believe it is reasonable, so that they give us the license, if you like, to carry on as a legislature. if we behave badly and look as though we haven't got the public interest at heart, we run the risk of losing that. lord newby, i hope you don't have to use your
2:58 pm
sleeping bag, but very nice to talk to you, thanks very much, enjoy talking bats. john that was on his feet, we believe he is introducing the bill which is scheduled for discussion up until that vote at five o'clock. appreciate that this incredibly rushed procedure is a chance, within itself, because it is incredibly difficult. even from the manner in which you put forward your own statement just now, that which you put forward your own statementjust now, that the speed with which we are going to have to assess the bill which we haven't even seen yet, which i understand is only just literally even seen yet, which i understand is onlyjust literally being made available in the vote office, then to make four amendments in that bill, and then to see the people who might support them does raise incredibly difficult questions. ——
2:59 pm
make for amendments. then there is also the matter of the drafting of the amendments. that's my first point. my second point is that there is an issue on standing order 14, relating to the timing within which private members bills of this kind should be brought in. and i would be grateful if some consideration could be given to that point right now or shortly afterwards once you've had a chance to talk about that, perhaps with the clerks, if not immediately, certainly... i'll wait fora moment... so, and the third point, and the fourth point, is to do with the queens concept, and the money resolution. because we went through all of this in relation to the previous, so—called, yvette cooper
3:00 pm
let —— letwin bill. this bill is significantly different from that bill on a whole range of matters. and i understand that you have had an opportunity to consider these questions privately with the clerk of legislation, i imagine, and i would be grateful if in that context you could give a ruling. both on the question of queens consent as it required, and the second question is the money resolution. the issues are there. it is apparent that vast sums of money are being involved in, on a monthly basis as a result of the extension of time under this bill, therefore it is at least £8 billion from the period of april to october. now, it's being extended by a further three months, and that even more worrying. iam i am extremely obliged to the
3:01 pm
gentleman's point of order. first of all, in terms of timing, it seems to me there are two senses in which that concern can be aired and needs to be answered. the honourable gentleman, ifi to be answered. the honourable gentleman, if i understood the terms of his point of order correctly, was focused in particular on the issue of time in the sense of lack of it for members to study the bill and to table amendments. my response to thatis table amendments. my response to that is to say the following. first of all, the honourable gentleman is a quite remarkably experienced...m is just after a quite remarkably experienced...m isjust after 3pm, that a quite remarkably experienced...m is just after 3pm, that is the scheduled start of the debate. we arejust scheduled start of the debate. we are just watching the speaker pretty much ruling how it is all going to pan out. what mps are about to debate is the brexit delay bill, it is called the european union withdrawal number six bill. the first vote on this bill is expected injusta first vote on this bill is expected in just a couple of hours at five
3:02 pm
o'clock. two rather lively hours we are expecting of debate, launched by hilary benn, the chair of the brexit select committee, and john bercow will head to him and just a minute for what is happening. we will stay with this because after yesterday, the drama is unfolding live in front of our eyes and we will return to john bercow. it is unusual, except, what it isn't in any sense is disorderly. the gentleman has raised important issues about money resolutions and queen's consent. yes, this bill is different, but i have of course consulted the clerk of legislation and other senior clerks on whose procedural expertise we regularly call. my ruling in respect of the earlier bill, which the honourable gentleman referenced,
3:03 pm
was at column 1131, that the european with during —— european union withdrawal bill number five bill did not require a money resolution. extending the period under article 50 would continue to uk's rights and obligations as a member state of the extension which would have substantial consequences in terms of taxation. it would require exit daily to be moved. the financial resolutions passed on monday 11 september 2017 give fully adequate cover for the exercise by ministers of their powers under section 23 and 24 of the european union withdrawal act to move exit day in order to keep in lockstep with the date for the expiry of european treaties, determined by article 50 of the treaty of the european union. so far is queen's consent is concerned, my ruling on wednesday 3rd of april, column 1130,
3:04 pm
is as no prerogative consent was required, there is no requirement for separate content to be sought for separate content to be sought for legislation in 2019 on what further action the prime minister should take under the same article 50 of the treaty and the european union. the bill before us today could require the prime minister to seek and accept an extension in certain circumstances, though it would still be up to the european council to decide unanimously to and agree to an extension with the uk. in these circumstances, and i say this on the basis of professional advice, my ruling is that queen's consent is not needed for this bill. it will probably not satisfy or even humour the honourable gentleman when i conclude my response to him with what i'm about to say, but it is
3:05 pm
this. he will not be altogether surprised to know that we did consider these matters not least in the expectation that they were legitimate issues that might be raised either by the honourable gentleman or by others. i have been advised, i am satisfied with that advice, and i would not rule unless i had asked the questions and got the answers. i have done. i have asked the question is, i have received the answers, and i have been satisfied that it is orderly to proceed and that the answer is that i've given in respect, both of the money resolution and of queen's consent, are correct. point of order, mr nichol has a rich coal rich bowls. further to the honourable gentleman's point of order, i am honourable gentleman's point of order, lam not honourable gentleman's point of order, i am not sure if the honourable gentleman with his great distinction is nevertheless blessed with the application called twitter, but if he is, and if he isn't, then
3:06 pm
i'm sure someone in his office is, he will of course have seen that the right honourable gentleman in whose name this bill rests tweeted a full and complete image of the bill and all of its provisions at 520 5p yesterday. the point stands on its own and requires no response from me. point of order, mr iain duncan smith. ijust make a small question on the basis of yourjudgment, which is that as this whole issue of queen's consent hangs on whether or not when this house triggered article 50 by statute, whether that statute then covered and assumed the rights under 53, which were the rights under 53, which were the rights to extend and accept that extension, or whether or not that right now still remains a government prerogative under the prerogative
3:07 pm
powers. there has been a court case this last month, august 19, lord justice higginbotham of the appeal court ruled categorically that it did not assume such a thing in the case against the english democrats, and ruled that the government still retained the prerogative rights under article 53. i wonder whether mr speaker you had seen that ruling, and whether or not you would take consideration of that prior to third reading, which is where i gather a third -- reading, which is where i gather a third —— a final decision would have to be made. my initial response is that we are guided in these matters by house rules in respect of queen's consent. it would be a mistake to think they are extrapolated from or dependent upon judicial interpretation of the kind that the right honourable gentleman has referenced. we have our own procedures in relation to queen's
3:08 pm
consent, and what i am saying is consistent with those procedures. i will certainly reflect further on the point the right honourable gentleman has made, but it isn't something which has a bearing on the second reading of the bill. further to that same point of order and your comment that you have taken advice on this, you may remember that the last time that a bill was put through the house of this speed was the data retention investigative powers act, done relatively quickly, supposedly under the pressure of the government of the day needing that law. that act was effectively overturned in court in davis and watson versus the home secretary of the day, subsequent prime minister. and part of the argument that i'm sure affected the judges, was the speed at which the house came to the decision on matters of fundamental constitutional importance. have you taken advice from speaker's counsel
3:09 pm
as to the robustness of the legislation in front of us today in the face of such judicial challenge? it is not ordinarily the case that the courts look at how we make our decisions. there is quite an established principle with the courts, and that principle is that our procedures are respected, and in turn, we respect those of the courts. i will, turn, we respect those of the courts. iwill, as turn, we respect those of the courts. i will, as i say, very happily reflect further on the right honourable gentleman's point, as upon that of the right honourable gentleman for chingford and woodford green, buti gentleman for chingford and woodford green, but i am entirely comfortable that we are proceeding in a proper way. i ought to say to the right honourable gentleman but of course i am conscious, as every member is, that there are different opinions about the merits of the procedure being followed today, as there are different opinions about the merits of the procedure followed yesterday and the merits of the procedure followed at the time of the bill introduced by the right honourable lady, the member for normanton, pontefract and castleford. but those
3:10 pm
are matters of political dispute, not in my judgment are matters of political dispute, not in myjudgment of rule of observance or procedural propriety. we are proceeding in a proper manner. that manner may offend the instincts of some members but that doesn't make it improper. it may mean simply that it is distasteful to the right honourable gentleman andi to the right honourable gentleman and i am sorry if that is the case, but it doesn't mean he has made a valid point of a procedural character. oh, well, i'm so fond of the honourable gentleman, i will ta ke the honourable gentleman, i will take one more that after that we really must proceed. i understand your ruling, ijust wanted to put on the record that where i was referring to discussions that have taken place, referring to discussions that have ta ken place, these referring to discussions that have taken place, these have been based in fact on some extremely learning analysis by for example dr robert craig, which is available on blogging and various papers of that
3:11 pm
description, and also sir stephen laws, former first parliamentary counsel. so these issues have been looked at over the last period of time and! looked at over the last period of time and ijust looked at over the last period of time and i just wanted looked at over the last period of time and ijust wanted to put that on the record. gratefulfor time and ijust wanted to put that on the record. grateful for the gentleman to put that on the record. what he is really saying if i can put it in shorthand is that there are clever and distinguished people who take a view with which he agrees and with which it is therefore useful for the honourable gentleman to invoke in the course of this exchange. i axially accept that, but knowing the honourable gentleman as ido,i knowing the honourable gentleman as i do, i know that he would not for one moment cast aspersions on either the character, the integrity, or the ability of the clerk of legislation, who is deeply versed in these matters, and regularly consults his scholarly cranium in order to provide advice to members in all parts of the house on them. if, on this occasion, the view of the clerk of legislation is uncongenial to the
3:12 pm
honourable gentlemen, that is obviously most unfortunate, notably for the honourable gentleman, but it doesn't further advance his cause this afternoon. i hope that we can leave it there, because, well, if it isa leave it there, because, well, if it is a completely different point. if the honourable gentleman just is a completely different point. if the honourable gentlemanjust wants to pursue the same argument no. thank you mr speaker for taking to pursue the same argument no. thank you mr speakerfor taking my point of order, you are very gracious in this matter, i simply seek your guidance. i am reading this bill, which i havejust received. it has literallyjust come from the vote office. it is, to my mind, it directs the prime minister to seek from the european council and extension article 50, which is and extension article 50, which is an exercise to my mind, my understanding, prerogative powers. sol understanding, prerogative powers. so ijust understanding, prerogative powers. so i just want to further... order, order, order! please resume. i'm sorry, but when the speaker is on its feet, it is not about me, it is about the office of the speaker, the honourable gentleman resumes his seat. he is making a point important
3:13 pm
to him, a perfectly valid point of debate, it is not a new point that requires adjudication by the chair. it isa requires adjudication by the chair. it is a political point and he can make it in the course of the debate, there is nothing further to be added. in accordance with the order of yesterday of this house, i call hilary benn to move the second reading of the european union withdrawal was six bill. mr hilary benn. thank you very much, mr speaker. i beg to move that the bill now will be read a second time. i wa nt to now will be read a second time. i want to say at the start that every single member of this house, whatever view they hold on the fundamental political question before us, is trying, as they see best, to act in the national interest and the interest of their constituents. the problem, the reason why we constituents. the problem, the reason why we are constituents. the problem, the reason why we are here today, is of course that each of us has a slightly different view of what
3:14 pm
those best interests are. so i hope that we can debate this bill in what isi that we can debate this bill in what is i recognise a very short amount of time, and if i may respond to the point, i could do no better than to quote the right honourable member for west dorset, who on the 3rd of april in the house said it can only be done at high speed, because there is no time left. and i think where ever we stand on this issue we know there is very little time left and following the decision on prorogation, there is even less time that would have been available previously, and therefore i hope that we will treat each other, recognising we have strongly held views, with respect and consideration during this debate. the purpose of the bill is very simple. it is to ensure that the united kingdom does not leave the european union on 31st october
3:15 pm
without an agreement. the bill has wide cross—party support. can i say it isa wide cross—party support. can i say it is a great pleasure to be just above on the order list of the honourable member for north—east bedfordshire, and is backed by members who have very different views on how the matter of brexit should finally be resolved, including members who until very recently were senior members of the cabinet. now you could describe it asa cabinet. now you could describe it as a somewhat unlikely alliance, but what unites us is a conviction that there is no mandate for no deal, and that the consequences for the economy and for our country would be highly damaging. those supporting the bill believe that no deal is not in the national interest.” the bill believe that no deal is not in the national interest. i thank the right honourable gentleman forgiving way. when he talks about no deal, there are multiple sector deals. so does he not see those sector deals as being multiple deals
3:16 pm
in their own right? well, i don't know where these sector deals are. my know where these sector deals are. my concern and the reason for this bill and the support i hope it will enjoy in the house today is because the prime minister has made it absolutely clear he is prepared to leave on 31st of october without a deal, and those of us who i hope will support the bill today do not wish that to happen. i will give way. would he agree in a sense these debates going on for long periods of time, many of us try to learn lessons from them, and in that process , lessons from them, and in that process, people have changed their mind, or importance to prevent a no—deal brexit? one of the amendments today is to give people another look at what we might call the may plus proposal, where people turned it down at the time, but felt
3:17 pm
that had it been on the order paper, if they had the experience they have now, they might have voted differently. may i then asked, given with all the rush that necessarily has been, has he had a chance to look at that amendment by my honourable friend the member for aberfan, she now has quite a large amount of support, that we now have another look at that as an alternative to a hard brexit?” another look at that as an alternative to a hard brexit? i have not had a chance to read the final version, and it will be tabled with clerks during the course of the second reading debate, but i am aware of the intention of the amendments and completely understand what my honourable friends are trying to achieve. we cannot continue to delay taking a decision, i shall come back to that point later in my speech and i will of course listen to the debate that follows during committee stage. i would just say this however, that the bill is deliberately open as to the bill is deliberately open as to the purpose of the extension, so it
3:18 pm
provides a framework for reporting and debate, and it is supported as i have just pointed out by honourable and right honourable members who have already voted for a deal and would vote for one again. i would just say it is very important that we focus on the principle purpose, to prevent a no—deal brexit, and to keep the coalition that shares that view together. but i will have more to say about that when we come to the end... i will of course give way to the right honourable gentleman. thank you very much. does the right honourable gentleman believe that the matter of such importance, irrespective of the speed with which all of this is being done, should really be dealt with ultimately in the context of the general election? well, there may well be a general election at some point, but there is legislation, in my view, needs to be passed, needs to go through the other place, it needs to receive
3:19 pm
royal assent, and it needs to be given effect. in other words, we must, in my opinion, secure that extension to article 50, otherwise there is a risk the election would result in us leaving without a deal, which as it may turn out at seven o'clock tonight, is not what the house of commons once and we should respect the view of the house of commons. i will give way. respect the view of the house of commons. iwill give way. if respect the view of the house of commons. i will give way. if this bill passes and is given royal assent, can he think of any other reason why the labour party would not accept a general election?” think i havejust not accept a general election?” think i have just explained the reason, as has been made clear by the leader of the labour party, my right honourable friend and the shadow brexit secretary and others, because we must deal with first things first, and preventing a no—deal brexit is the essential most important question facing the country. i am very grateful to my honourable friend, i think he has a nswer honourable friend, i think he has answer my query, the reality is an election at the stage or even next
3:20 pm
week undermines the purpose of this legislation and we can't support it. ican legislation and we can't support it. i can only agree and i'm very grateful to the honourable gentleman for being one of the sponsors of the bill. i will take one more dimension at the state because there are many people who want to speak, time is short. can i applaud his call for respect on all sides because we just need to calm down this whole debate. i voted for the deal twice. he voted against the deal three times, presumably because he thought it was not in the best interests of this country. so how does he think this procedure of delaying any agreement yet further is going to produce an offer from the yet further is going to produce an offerfrom the eu yet further is going to produce an offer from the eu that might actually tempt him into voting for something because it is even in the best interest of the uk than what has gone before? how can that possibly come about by this procedure? well, the reason why i voted against the deal three times was not to do with the withdrawal agreement, the legally binding treaty, it was to do with the nature of the political declaration and the
3:21 pm
absolute lack of clarity about where the then prime minister wanted to ta ke the then prime minister wanted to take the country. now that is my view, and other members have got different views. if i could bring this back, if honourable members will forgive me i am not going to give way further at this point. i have been reasonably generous and i am conscious of the time. the evidence before us about the consequences of no deal, it is really important that we acknowledge that, because it is the fundamental reason behind the bill. as we heard from my right honourable friend the memberfor pontefract, from my right honourable friend the member for pontefract, normanton and castleford when she moved her bill earlier this year, it was reported that the cabinet secretary and the national security adviser sir mark sedwill had told the previous cabinet that no deal would make our country cabinet that no deal would make our cou ntry less cabinet that no deal would make our country less safe. now, if the national security adviser says that to the cabinet, we ought to pay attention. all of us have seen the government's own economic assessment that makes it clear that no deal would cause the greatest loss to the economy. we know that make uk, the
3:22 pm
body that represents the british manufacturing industry, have described no deal as an act of economic vandalism, and since we last debated the question of an extension, new information has come to light about the consequences of no deal. the government itself has now admitted that there would be damage to companies. why? because they have said they are prepared to compensate certain businesses and industries, which is the first time in my experience a government has advocated a policy that they know will do economic damage. if i could just finish this point. and operation yellowhammer, the report that was published in the sunday times, talked about the potential for protests, for significant delays, for lorries at dover and other ports, and we had very powerful evidence on that subject only this morning in the brexit select committee, a potential impact on medicines, decrease in supply of
3:23 pm
fresh foods and some price rises, in fa ct fresh foods and some price rises, in fact on petrol refineries, huge uncertainty for businesses, serious damage to farmers, and in some ways, given the progress that northern ireland have made in the last 20 yea rs, ireland have made in the last 20 years, most worrying of all, expressing the view that the current open border between northern ireland and the republic could be unsustainable because of economic, legal and security risks. i will give way to my honourable friend.” am keen to be supporting this bill today. he made a point about security. is he aware that we repeatedly heard in home affairs evidence from security officers about the devastating impact of a no—deal brexit? we keep hearing from the government all the time about bilateral security treaty is. they are not in place and we don't have those agreements to keep our border safe from terrorists, criminals, paedophiles and others who would exploit our national security.” agree with my honourable friend completely, it is one of the many u na nswered completely, it is one of the many unanswered questions about what
3:24 pm
happens the other side of how we leave. it is a point i shall come back to. can ijust leave. it is a point i shall come back to. can i just clarify one thing? members of this party have made comments in the media, and he, i think, said this earlier, that this bill stops no dealfull stop can we be clear that this bill does not prolongs the not stop no deal, it prolongs the date before we leave, and the likelihood is unless something dramatically changes, we will be exactly at this point a few weeks before the new deadline, and the only way to stop no deal is to revoke article 50, and if that is really what members of his side of the side —— of the husband to happen, they should be honest with the british public. i would say to the british public. i would say to the honourable gentleman if someone says you can jump the honourable gentleman if someone says you canjump off the honourable gentleman if someone says you can jump off the cliff with all the damaging consequences or we could put it off at three months, which would you like? i think the sensible course of action to take, given the damage it would do to the country, is to put it off. i accept
3:25 pm
we need ultimately to find a way forward. i have my own views, as have other members, about how that should be done but that is not the purpose of this bill today, although it would allow, would provide for a framework within which the government can then decide what it's going to do. i think the right honourable gentleman. three independent, highly respected bodies, the health foundation, the nuffield trust and the kingspan have written an open letter to all mps setting out in very stark terms there will be significant damage to health and care services from a no deal, and more importantly to people who depend on them, people we are supposed to be here in this house to protect. i agree with the honourable lady and i would simply say, and other members will have lots of other members will have lots of other experience of the potential consequences, these are not risks that i think we should take with our economy, our businesses, ourjobs, our livelihoods and our health, and i hope they remind everyone in the house today that for all the focus
3:26 pm
on process and motions and procedure, this is about the impact that a no—deal brexit would have on the lives of the people we represent. i will of course give way. i think the right honourable gentleman forgiving way, and isn't that the point? that while i can understand there is a political imperative to get this done,", to move on,", the practical imperative is that no deal doesn't allow us to move on. it resolves nothing. and it leads to many of the imprecations that he talked about. and if we have no withdrawal agreement on 31st of october, what we have to do on the 1st of november is seek a withdrawal agreement? the honourable gentleman is absolutely right, and in a lot of this debate we haven't discussed anything like enough what happens the other side of the 31st of october, if the prime minister is able to get his way, and i shall come to that point in a moment. i
3:27 pm
will give way. what his bill today does and what he is doing is trying to prolong no damage, as far as the 31st of january, and to prolong no damage, as far as the 31st ofjanuary, and make uk is absolutely correct, anything else but the current deal we have will damage the economy, but the best way, and we have to get our heads around this, the best way to stop any damages to revoke article 50. i have laid an amendment to that end. it needs one signature, that of the prime minister. and this nightmare is over. plenty of time. i disagree respectfully with the honourable gentlemen, because i think, just as no deal is unacceptable in my opinion, i think revocation, which is basically saying let's cancel the result of the referendum, is not a cce pta ble result of the referendum, is not acceptable either. i have expect previously in the house in my view how to resolve this from going back to people, but the other numbers have different views, that is not theissue have different views, that is not the issue for debate. i will give way to my honourable friend and my other honourable friend and then
3:28 pm
progress. if i may other honourable friend and then progress. ifi may say, particularly grateful to the right honourable gentleman for the way in which he is chairing his brexit select committee, and taking this vital evidence. isn't that really the point, over and above this bill, that this is precisely the sort of work that should be done? questions should be laid and asked of ministers, this place should be making sure that we are ready for any no deal, and yet what we are seeing is we are being closed down next week, when in fact we should be sitting, asking the questions, and his committee and others should be able to do that valuable work? the honourable member is absolutely right because one of the consequences of prorogation is that our select committee cannot meet, we cannot scrutinise or hold the government to account. does the honourable gentleman agree with me that it honourable gentleman agree with me thatitis honourable gentleman agree with me that it is surprising that they would appear to be those in this house we know more about making cars than those who make cars, more about building planes than those who build planes, more about engineering than
3:29 pm
the engineers, and that the simple truth is the overwhelming and unmistakable voice of the world of work, industry and all the employers's organisations and the trade unions is that a no—deal brexit would have catastrophic consequences, with tens of thousands of workers losing theirjobs, making our country a poorer country in every sense of the word for years to come? my honourable friend makes a really powerful point, and i think those industries and those sectors, and we have all met the man heard their evidence, our troubled that their evidence, our troubled that the message that comes from their expertise and knowledge, they after all the people creating the wealth of the country, is not being heard bya of the country, is not being heard by a government that says we are prepared to leave with no deal on 31st of october. my honourable friend is in the room next door to me, of course i will give way, and
3:30 pm
then i am going to make progress.” am grateful to my right honourable friend forgiving way. i have received a letter this morning from the north—east england chamber of commerce in which they say over the last three years we've been clear and consistent. preserving the trading conditions and relationship we currently enjoy with the eu ought to be the primary objective of any brexit outcome. sadly the government does not willingness to embrace no deal as an acceptable end to the brexit negotiations flies in the face of this. they go on to say it isa face of this. they go on to say it is a disastrous outcome for the north—east of england. don't these comments go to prove his bill is an absolute necessity? i think they do, and in a sense having concluded a reflection on the economic and other consequences of no deal, i want to turn to what the bill actually does. it intends to stop this happening by seeking an extension to article 50 in certain specific circumstances and it is
3:31 pm
very important to understand the bill very important to understand the b i ll allows very important to understand the bill allows the prime minister the opportunity to reach a new agreement with the eu at the european council and to seek parliament's and sent to any such agreement, that is condition one. it also allows the government to bring a motion to the house of commons to seek our consent for leaving without a deal for example if discussions at the european council prove unsuccessful and of course the government would find difficult to get such a motion to get through but the bill allows them to do it. clause one provides for both of those eventualities and if either of those conditions are met there can be no further extension. if, however, neither of these conditions have been met by these conditions have been met by the 19th of october, we have chosen the 19th of october, we have chosen the day deliberately, the day after the day deliberately, the day after the conclusion of the european
3:32 pm
council, then the prime minister must ask the eu for a further extension until the 31st of january 2020 in the form of the latter set out in the schedule to the bill. clause three deals with what happens next. if the european council exceeds to that request, the prime minister must agree to it. if the council proposes an extension to a different date, the prime minister must agree to that as well, unless the house of commons decides not to pass a motion agreeing to it, that is what subsection three does. it has been wrongly claimed in some commentary that the eu could propose an extension of any length, six months, 20 years, a millennium, the prime minister would be required to accept it. not so. in those circumstances the house could decide. furthermore if a deal is
3:33 pm
reached after the prime minister has asked for an extension, that would override any extension, so it also allows him if he can to reach a deal after the european council concludes on the 18th of october. i will give way, of course. in other words, the bill gives the prime minister the flexibility that he wants and needs to get a deal if you can, and it does not render further negotiation pointless. what does is deprive ministerof usual —— what does is deprive minister ‘s refusal to set out any other options to the eu —— the prime minister. clause 32 is very clear that the period of two days begins with the end of the date on which the european council's decision is made —— clause three,
3:34 pm
two. we were told clearly during proceedings on the change of date after the previous occasions that the government accepted an extension that we were merely implementing a decision that was already made and binding in european community law, so what his proposal depends upon is the eu making a conditional offer that only comes into force if they choose to make it conditional on subsequent approval by the house of commons, and he has no way of binding the european union's procedures by a domestic piece of legislation. the purpose of that is, if the bill is passed, the house of commons will pass it in the knowledge it is seeking in the circumstances set out for an extension to the 31st of january, but if however the european union proposes a different date it is only
3:35 pm
right and proper that the prime minister should be able to say either, yes, that is ok by me, or i would need to go back and check. i agree with the right honourable gentleman that we cannot bind the eu ina way gentleman that we cannot bind the eu in a way in which it seeks to work but it is not unusual for member states to say, we will need to go back and check with our parliament. i'm certain given the importance of theissue i'm certain given the importance of the issue that the eu would be able to find another procedure which might not involve the european council meeting again to confirm the decision that it made in making the offer in the first place. the second point i would make is that two days is precisely to give the prime minister the chance to come back to the house in those circumstances. my reading of the bill is that it doesn't stop no deal, it postpones it potentially for three months. but
3:36 pm
it potentially for three months. but it makes it virtually impossible for the prime minister to negotiate and therefore is actually a political bill which is something i'm not supportive of because it tells the eu effectively that if they don't choose to negotiate and they don't choose to negotiate and they don't choose to negotiate and they don't choose to give us a better deal, what they will instead get is the opportunity to offer us an extension of whatever they want for this house to take. i dealt with the last point, the extension of whatever length, because there is a means of the government asking the house not to approve that and the house would have to decide on the light of what had been offered by the eu but i don't accept her central premise that this somehow undermines the prime minister's negotiating ability. i am prime minister's negotiating ability. lam responding prime minister's negotiating ability. i am responding to her. i don't myself regard the threat of a
3:37 pm
no—deal brexit as part of a credible negotiating strategy, if the honourable lady would bear with me. the previous prime minister spent three years saying no deal is better than a bad deal and it did not seem to work then and i don't think it will work now. if the european union offered a ten year extension as the gentleman has suggested, it would be a choice for this house between a 10—year extension and the no deal he wishes to avoid. that is not the case. he has could decide to ask the prime minister to go back in those circumstances and the central point is that it gives the house of commons the ability to express a view but if the extension is to the 31st of january we will have decided we are prepared to accept that. so only if he does not get a deal does the bill prevent the prime minister from taking us out of the eu without
3:38 pm
an agreement. i will give way one more time. article 53 of the treaty on the european union broadly says that we leave after two years, u nless that we leave after two years, unless the european council in agreement with the member state concerned unanimously decides to extend the period. there is no obligation in that for the european union to decide to make a conditional offer. they can decide, yet the bill requires the prime minister under those circumstances to a cce pt minister under those circumstances to accept the terms on offer, that is it, so this is handing the decision not back to this house, but back to the eu. i don't agree with that. of course, there is no guarantee with any of this that a further request from the uk for another extension of article 50 will be granted by the european union will stop i recognise that because
3:39 pm
it only takes one member state to say, no, i'm not giving the uk a further extension, for us to be in even greater difficulty than we are already, but what this is seeking to do is to require the prime minister to ask and then agreed to one because this is what is required to prevent the prime minister, the current one, from taking us out on the 31st of october without a deal. we did not have to put these provisions in the earlier bill moved by my honourable friend, the member for castleford and pontefract, because a former prime minister readily accepted the decision of the bill, but we are in different circumstances. now, members have asked, what is the extension for? the immediate answer is to avoid a no—deal brexit on the 31st of october, but clause two provides a
3:40 pm
framework in which the government must publish a report to the house on the 31st of october. it comes back to the point, and move a motion to the effect that the house has approved the report, and this is a chance for the government to say, what are we going to do next? this is something we can point to with the eu because last time, donald tusk said, use the time well, and it is important we show we are notjust saying, right, we won a further extension and then we will twiddle ourthumbs, it is extension and then we will twiddle our thumbs, it is a process that is being suggested in the bill. if the report is amended or rejected there must be further reports from the government and again on the 10th of january and then every 28 days thereafter until an agreement is either reached with the eu or otherwise indicated by resolution in the house, and i think the framework thatis the house, and i think the framework
3:41 pm
that is in clause two of the bill will help answer the question about what we intend to do with the additional time and that will be a matter for parliament. surely one of the things we want to do during that time is try to find a solution to the irish question. is he aware that the irish question. is he aware that the eu commission task force is reporting the prime minister is reneging on his commitment to protect the all ireland economy and meaningful north—south cooperation? so clearly the time it should be used to make sure there is decent cooperation. i have read those reports and they concern me as well, as they do many others in the house, and so the aim of this clause is not, the leader of the house suggested yesterday, to create a marinette government, but i would say this is to allow the government to do itsjob —— marionette. it is not clear how much negotiations is taking place, were no proposals have
3:42 pm
been made. it is hard to understand that since i would have thought the government was was working flat out sincejuly. even government was was working flat out since july. even if government was was working flat out sincejuly. even if agreement was reached, it is also worth making the point that it is hard to see how you could then get the approval of the house and pass the legislation between the 18th of october and the 31st. the final point i want to make is this, what would happen if we left with no deal. the prime minister talks about getting it done and ending the uncertainty, but the truth is and the honourable member made the point so powerfully, no deal does not end anything. it would simply plunge us into further uncertainty and i'm going to bring my remarks to a close... uncertainty about the degree and length of disruption, uncertainty about the
3:43 pm
arrangements in northern ireland, uncertainty about what our future relationship trading relationship would be with our biggest and nearest and most important trading partners, the other members of the eu, and given it has taken three yea rs eu, and given it has taken three years to get this far, in other words not very far at all, given that it took canada seven years to negotiate a deal and the prime minister says he wants a super canada deal, it will take years to agree a new relationship and every single member state of the eu and parliament and regional parliament will have to agree to any deal. no deal will not be the end of brexit. it will only be the end of the beginning. and in the time... in that time, businesses will have cou ntless that time, businesses will have countless decisions to make about where to invest and what to make and wear, and what to do about the sudden disappearance of all the arrangements they have come to know and work within and the sudden
3:44 pm
imposition of tariffs. it would be utterly irresponsible to allow this to happen and we have a duty to prevent it and i hope the house will vote for this tonight. the question is that the bill now be read in a second time. in attempt to accommodate lots of members i'm obliged to impose a five minute limit on the back beach suspensions. alistair burt. —— backbench.” limit on the back beach suspensions. alistair burt. -- backbench. i rise to speak as the slightly bemused but independent alistair burt... studio: this is the introduction of the eu withdrawal number six bill. hilary bennett said time was running out and he also said he had strong cross— party and he also said he had strong cross—party support —— hilary benn. he said there were strong feeling on
3:45 pm
both sides of the house and he called on people to treat each other with respect. during what promises to bea with respect. during what promises to be a lively debate. we are expecting the vote around five o'clock. vicki young is inside the central lobby. the point being made, time is of the essence. yes, parliament will be packing up, probably on monday, so they have not got long to get the bill through the commons. it then goes to the house of lords but there could be a few more problems. we have piers turning up more problems. we have piers turning up today with sleeping bags and one came in with a big bag of food because there are likely to be attem pts because there are likely to be attempts in the laws by conservative peers to block the move so we will have to see how that goes. the bill in the commons is likely to go through given that 21 conservatives yesterday put their careers on the line and were booted out of the
3:46 pm
party in order to vote for this to happen. it would be unlikely they would then go back and start voting with the government so it seems as if the bill will go through but that is not the end of it. let a night we have the motion about calling a general election so we are in a situation where jeremy general election so we are in a situation wherejeremy corbyn has said he would like a general election but tonight he won't vote for it and borisjohnson says he doesn't want a general election but tonight he will vote for it. it is all very simple as you can see! stephen kinnock the labour mp is pushing to bring back in effect the theresa may agreement? he wants to put forward an amendment that is on the bill to prevent no deal, to bring forward and to bring back to life theresa may's agreement but i don't think that has much chance of getting through. what has happened is that labour mps mainly in brexit areas did not vote for her deal when it was in front of them and some of
3:47 pm
them have lived to regret that because they now think that a no deal scenario is heading towards them and they want to get that back on the table. i don't think that is going to happen and there are not many tories that will vote for that, they will be some but not many. i don't think that will work. so now eve ryo ne don't think that will work. so now everyone looking at the bill going through, it becoming law and the question then is whether labour decides they will vote for a general election once the bill becomes law. they are trying to guarantee that no deal won't happen at the end of october, sojust bring in the bill is not enough because actually it won't have been enacted and the eu won't have been enacted and the eu won't have been asked for the delay to brexit and it won't have been granted so it is possible if an election is held on the 15th of october, what if borisjohnson were to win, he could come back and change that law, and we still leave without a deal. that is the dilemma
3:48 pm
labour has because they do want to be seen to be backing a general election, which they have called for for a long time, but they also want to make sure no deal doesn't happen, so they say they are trying to make some kind of mechanism that fulfils those things, which could be pretty tricky and it could be a vote of no confidence. the other point is that the snp are suggesting that they would vote for an election and that might give enough numbers to the prime minister. not tonight, not under the rule where you have to get two thirds of mps to back a general election, there are other ways that borisjohnson could try election, there are other ways that boris johnson could try to election, there are other ways that borisjohnson could try to get this which means he just borisjohnson could try to get this which means hejust needs borisjohnson could try to get this which means he just needs a straightforward majority. he did get that if the snp are on site. once again it is all about the numbers and there are 21 mps who yesterday we re and there are 21 mps who yesterday were tories and today woke up as independence after having the whip withdrawn and that is very complex as well. they will stick to their guns when it comes to this bill they
3:49 pm
are talking about now in the house of commons, but what would they do about a general election? they are about a general election? they are about to lose theirjobs and they won't be terribly encouraged to vote to lose theirjobs. i spoke tojohn mcdonnell di shadow chancellor because i wanted to ask about where labour was on the question of an early general election —— the shadow chancellor. it is not the end of ross daugherty, and the independent experts have said only about a third ofa experts have said only about a third of a reversal —— it is not the end of a reversal —— it is not the end of austerity. this is not a spending review, just a one year settlement, so this is more of an election stunt than really tackling the problems we have experienced. he said not one single department will face a cut in the next year, surely you can welcome back? they have suffered nine years of harsh austerity and massive cuts in education and
3:50 pm
health, and local government in particular, we talk about real suffering. 1.4 million people not getting the care they need them and disabled, record numbers of children coming into care because of cuts in local government, like the way across the piece we are finding that nine years of austerity have really harmed our community and this is barely scraping the problem. they would argue there is extra spending that this is not foolhardy spending and that it will be costed and they will say your plans are not. in the la st will say your plans are not. in the last general election we produced our manifesto and i'm the first shadow chancellor to produce a fully costed programme and that is what we we re costed programme and that is what we were doing the next general election but what is interesting today, the government seems to be spending the money that they promised they would put to one side to tackle a no—deal brexit so now we are in a situation where they are going to push through a no—deal brexit if they get the chance but they won't have the resources to protect us against it,
3:51 pm
this is irresponsible, i think this is more about electioneering and election stunts rather than long—term planning. election stunts rather than long-term planning. people think an election is coming at the labour party will get a chance to vote for it tonight, what will you do? the first priority is to protect the country against a no—deal brexit so we are not going to vote for any stunt election that boris johnson brings forward that will enable that to happen and we have got to protect against a no deal. we use every dice to do that and when we are securing the knowledge we have we will the election on —— we will use every device to do that. you would be prepared to vote for an election when the ante no deal bill is passed? it is about getting the bill through and signed off as legislation but also we need to make sure that we are absolutely guaranteed it will be implemented because our fear is that boris johnson who with the greatest respect to him, a lot of people
3:52 pm
don't trust, especially in regards to the constitution, our fear is he will use another device to force a no—deal brexit so we are looking at the other options we have to protect ourselves before we go for a general election. a belt and braces approach to protecting community. the prime minister has accused that you are scared of an election, are you afraid that will stay? we will say bring it on but the first priority is to protect our country and what we are doing is we are putting the national interest before party interest and that is what people expect us to do in this situation. john mcdonnell there. what about the next hour? they will be debating the bill where they want to try to stop borisjohnson bill where they want to try to stop boris johnson leaving bill where they want to try to stop borisjohnson leaving the eu without ado borisjohnson leaving the eu without a do and they want him to be forced to ask for another delay to brexit —— without a deal. that is pretty likely to go through. it is a full
3:53 pm
stage by seven o'clock tonight. we can now return to the chamber where the debate on the eu withdrawal bill continues. mine could not be in more different circumstances. on the night of the by—election i promised the people of my constituency that i would tell the prime minister exactly why a no—deal brexit would be damaging for my constituents. i am delighted that my constituents. i am delighted that my very first vote as an mp last night was to help parliament take back control of the agenda and do everything possible to prevent us leaving the eu without a deal. including speaking in this debate today. when it comes to a no—deal
3:54 pm
brexit, we need to stop talking in terms of the hypothetical and the theoretical and we need to start talking with candour about the real and damaging consequences it would bring. a no—deal brexit would be damaging for everyone in my constituency. but especially for the people who are the lifeblood of my constituency, the farmers. welsh farmers as we heard this morning export 40% of their lamb and over 90% of that goes to the eu, and currently if farmers in my constituency export to the eu export ta riffs constituency export to the eu export tariffs are, let me have a thing, they are zero. a no—deal brexit would mean 40% of tariffs go on welsh lamb exports, and this would risk putting farmers in my
3:55 pm
constituency and right across wales out of business. i will be using my votes today to make sure that a no—deal brexit is avoided as it would be catastrophic for the people of my constituency. where the people voted —— whether the people voted remain or leave, they did not vote for a no—deal brexit that would make them poorer. they did not vote for long waits for life—saving medicines. they did not vote for a decline in our country's environmental standards. decline in our country's environmentalstandards. mr decline in our country's environmental standards. mr speaker, i'm extremely privileged to be able to serve the wonderful people of my constituency and i shall do my utmost to be an mp they are proud of. thank you very much. the house
3:56 pm
greatly enjoyed listening to the honourable lady and we wish her well. mr philip hammond.” honourable lady and we wish her well. mr philip hammond. i want us to leave the eu with a deal and i voted three times to leave the eu with the deal. and i regret the fact that it has become necessary for this bill to be brought forward now. it is necessary now for two reasons, firstly because parliament stands prorogued, and we would not have time to bring it back to see if the prime minister has been successful in getting a deal, and secondly because members of the government have speculated openly that the government may not comply with legislation even if it is passed and we therefore need to allow time not merely for legislation but for litigation as well. i will give way just once. on that point, we have
3:57 pm
heard noises to that effect from certain members of the government and government sources, but would the right honourable member agree that if the bill is passed it is important the prime minister adheres to its terms because it is a fundamental duty of government to uphold the rule of law?” fundamental duty of government to uphold the rule of law? i absolutely agree but i think we have heard clearly that we cannot rule out the possibility that the government will dispute the interpretation of the bill and that there will be a need for litigation in the courts to make sure that it is effective. we need to act because there is no mandate for a no—deal brexit and a no—deal brexit will be a catastrophe for the uk and! brexit will be a catastrophe for the uk and i remind my honourable and right honourable friends on the front bench that many of us now on the backbench have had the privilege of seeing the detailed analysis from within government about the precise
3:58 pm
and damaging effects of such a no—deal brexit. we need to act for another reason because the prime minister repeats two statements, he says he is sincerely trying to get a deal and he says that we will leave on october the 31st come what may do or die. and regrettably those two state m e nts or die. and regrettably those two statements are incompatible. because evenif statements are incompatible. because even if the fantasy deal that the prime minister sets out where the eu concedes to every demand of the uk, removes concedes to every demand of the uk, re m oves every concedes to every demand of the uk, removes every one of its red lines, was agreed to borrow, it would still not be possible to get through all the stages of process required —— was agreed tomorrow. including passage through both houses of this parliament by the 31st of october. so we had to act. the memberfor leeds central has set out brilliantly the purposes of the bill
3:59 pm
and how it works, time is limited, sol and how it works, time is limited, so i don't intend to rehearse those arguments, and i want simply to focus on two planes that are made against conservative supporters of this bill. orformer conservative supporters of this bill. by the government. presumably these claims have been made as a justification for the mass purge that occurred last night. the first claim is that by removing the threat of no deal on the 31st of october we are cutting the 31st of october we are cutting the legs from under the government in its negotiations with the eu. that is wrong. it is wrong because actually there is no negotiations going on with the eu. we have had confirmation from multiple sources across the european union that nothing is happening. confirmation from within government that nothing is happening. and the government has declined to bring forward any proposals or serve on the european
4:00 pm
union any proposals. and it betrays a deep misunderstanding of the way european politics works. yes, european politics works. yes, european politics works. yes, european politics is every bit as scrappy as british politics, but across the continent of europe people who are sworn enemies and who debate vigorously, are used to having to make deals. because for the overwhelming majority of our collea g u es the overwhelming majority of our colleagues in europe, coalition government is the norm, they have a different system from our adversary system. the eu has taken a remarkably consistent approach throughout these negotiations on the format of the negotiations and their mandate, and their commitment to transparency, they publish everything openly. nothing that we are doing here is going to undermine the prime minister's ability to negotiate with the eu and the thing that will undermine it is his
4:01 pm
unwillingness to pursue a realistic negotiating objective. if he tried to achieve significant changes to the way the backstop works, that would be a major concession by the eu, buti would be a major concession by the eu, but i do think as a new prime minister leading a new government, would stand a reasonable chance of getting a hearing and baby succeeding. but by setting the bar as he has at the total removal of the backstop, he has set the bar at a level which is impossible for the eu to comply with. the second claim made against us is by supporting this bill we are handing power to the leader of the opposition. mr speaker, iwould sooner boil my head than hand power to the leader of the opposition, but the purpose of this bill, most of us will have no truck with the concept ofa will have no truck with the concept
4:02 pm
of a vote of no—confidence. the purpose of this bill is to instruct this government and this administration how to conduct the uk's future arrangements with the union. it is not an attempt to remove this government, it is certainly not an attempt to hand power to the leader of the opposition, and, mr speaker, it is not us who are heightening the risk ofa not us who are heightening the risk of a government led by the leader of the opposition, it is my right honourable friend by pursuing a course of action which if unchallenged can only lead to a no—deal brexit. unchallenged can only lead to a no-deal brexit. sir keir starmer forced thank you, mr speaker. i rise in support of this bill. the prime minister has decided the uk should leave the eu on the 31st of october with or without a deal. he says that he is making progress in talks with a view to getting a deal, but he's not. chancellor merkel says no proposals have been put forward by
4:03 pm
the government. the deputy prime minister of ireland says no proposals have been put forward by the government. across the eu, everybody says no proposals have been put forward by the government, and yesterday the government did not deny they have not proposals forward in these proposals, theyjust dodged questions and refused to answer honest questions as to whether there is any evidence of any progress in the talks. they are convincing no one and at prime minister's questions today, the prime minister tied himself completely in knots, suggesting he had not put forward any proposals because this bill might pass later this week, so the last six weeks he hasn't done anything in case a bill he hadn't heard of gets royal assent sometime soon. ridiculous. so there no progress. there is no workable alternative on the table to prevent alternative on the table to prevent a heart border in northern ireland, indeed a point already touched on. farfrom making indeed a point already touched on. far from making progress indeed a point already touched on. farfrom making progress on this crucial point, it was reported yesterday the government is seeking to backtrack and revisit their
4:04 pm
commitment to protect the all ireland economy included in the 2017 joint report. mr speaker, i think the right honourable gentleman forgiving way. my wife comes from cou nty forgiving way. my wife comes from county armagh and i was married some two miles from the border during the height of the troubles. is it not arguable that the present border arrangements on the island of ireland contribute massively to the peace process which we enjoy? massive. they are the manifestation of peace in northern ireland and i have said many times it is more than a question of getting goods in question across a line. it is the manifestation of peace that allows different communities to live together in peace. i will of course give way. thank you, mr speaker. with the right honourable gentleman agree with me that it is very
4:05 pm
strange, to put it mildly, that, bearing in mind that the republic of ireland is our nearest eu neighbour, and shares a land frontier with part of the united kingdom, with northern ireland, and is also a co—guarantor of the good friday agreement, that the prime minister has been so, so, so busy negotiating over the summer, as he claims, that he hasn't actually found time to go to dublin to meet the irish prime minister leo varadkarand to meet the irish prime minister leo va radkar and discuss to meet the irish prime minister leo varadkar and discuss any proposals that he might have? is that not extraordinary? yes, it is extraordinary, but it sits with the other evidence that there aren't any proposals being put forward and there aren't any negotiations taking place. therefore we are not closer toa place. therefore we are not closer to a deal now than we were when the prime minister took office. in truth, we are further away. mr speaker, for the prime minister's chief of staff, that appears from
4:06 pm
lea ks to chief of staff, that appears from leaks to be his policy position, because he talks of negotiations a p pa re ntly because he talks of negotiations apparently for domestic consumption, and the talks are a sham. i will give way. would he reassure me that we will not fall into the trap being set by the prime minister and we will not support a general election before not only this bill is enacted, but its provisions, including an extension, have been implemented? i can confirm we will not be voting with the government tonight, and we will keep our focus on the task in hand, which is to ensure that we do not leave the eu without a deal, and that requires the passing and implementation of this act. i willjust make some progress and then give way in just a moment. so, mr speaker, the truth is we are on course for a no—deal brexit, for which there is no
4:07 pm
mandate from the public or from this parliament. now, you might think in those circumstances that this parliament would be sitting every available day between now and 31st of october to avert this threat, to scrutinise the prime minister's plan, if there is one, and to find a way forward if we can, and we would all willingly sit those days to find that way forward but no. from next week, the prime minister wants to shut this place down for five weeks in this crucial period. and he thinks that we, the public, are going to be fooled by the obvious untruth that prorogation is merely for a queen's speech. the five weeks prorogation is to silence this house, it is to frustrate attempts to prevent a no deal and any suggestion to the contrary from anyone in my view is disingenuous. i will give way. does he agree with me that the characterisation of
4:08 pm
conservative central office, which even now is appearing on twitter and in their other social media as we debate this extremely important bill, hash tagging this bill the surrender bill is beneath contempt? it is beneath contempt, and i can only imagine the businesses, the people who work in businesses and the management businesses who will look in on horror, because they have repeatedly told me and many other members of this house their deep concerns about no deal, and we are protecting this country against no deal. i am going to make some progress and then i will give way. mr speaker, in the circumstances where there is no progress in the negotiations, we are hurtling towards no deal, and the prime minister is closing down this place, we have no alternative but to pursue this bill. we have to act with
4:09 pm
urgency, and to pass binding legislation to rule out no deal by the time this house prorogue is. that is what this bill will achieve today, and i want to thank and put on record my thanks for the honourable and right honourable members who have worked over many weeks on this bill, in particular the right honourable memberfor west dorset, the right honourable and learned memberfor dorset, the right honourable and learned member for beaconsfield, dorset, the right honourable and learned memberfor beaconsfield, the right honourable member for leads central and the right honourable memberfor central and the right honourable member for runnymede and weybridge, but also the leaders of the snp, the lib dems, greens, plaid cymru and change uk because this has genuinely been a cross—party bill, and can i half of all my colleagues acknowledge the courage of 21 former conservative mps who voted as a matter of principle on standing order last night, putting the country before their careers? we acknowledge their courage and what they did as a matter of principle.
4:10 pm
why has there been such concerted effort? it is not usual to find this alliance of all opposition parties and cross—party mps. the answer is because we all appreciate the appalling damage no deal would cause tojobs, to industry, to our nhs, to security, and to peace and prosperity in northern ireland. and therefore we were all shocked if not surprised at the warnings contained in the leaked yellowhammer documents. food and fuel shortages, delayed to medicines, chaos at ports and channel crossings, and affecting the poorest communities of all. but what leapt out to me, mr speaker, from the yellowhammer document, was the honest advice to the government that, try as they might, the civil serva nts that, try as they might, the civil servants could not find a way of avoiding the conclusion that if we
4:11 pm
leave without a deal they will have to be infrastructure in northern ireland. i will give way. to be infrastructure in northern ireland. iwill give way. isn't it ironic that on the very week the government announces it will do an advertising campaign that called get ready for brexit, it simultaneously refuses to actually release any details about what we are meant to be getting ready for? and wouldn't ministers be better advised to simply be transparent about the impact of no deal, and frankly about the fact it sounds to me like there was never a detailed plan on how to deliver brexit, there hasn't been in three years, and i really worry that it never existed in the first place. of course that information should be put in the public domain so that everybody understands the impact of no deal, and the fact that the government doesn't want it in the
4:12 pm
public domain speaks volumes. but also this mantra that we can't put our proposals in public because you don't negotiate in public. you should surely put them before the partners that you are actually supposed to be negotiating with, and they just are supposed to be negotiating with, and theyjust are not supposed to be negotiating with, and they just are not there. supposed to be negotiating with, and theyjust are not there. so, mr speaker... i will give way. there are people wanting to speak, very little time, and if there are continual intervention interventions very large numberof continual intervention interventions very large number of colleagues who wish to speak simply won't do so. on yellowhammer, the welsh garment has been provided with a copy of the original document. will he call on his colleagues to publish it?” will, but i'm not sure that me calling is enough in itself to get them published but we will see what else we can do. mr speaker, i will press on because i know there are other... this is actually a very simple bill. it is to liberally constrained, it doesn't answer the question what else needs to happen,
4:13 pm
but it gives the prime minister the chance to get a deal and to get it through, it gives the prime minister the chance to have the courage to come to this dispatch box and say my policy is to leave without a deal, doi policy is to leave without a deal, do i have a majority for it, because if you did that we wouldn't need to go down this route. but he won't do it because he knows the result. and only if there is no deal, and only if there is no approval for leaving without a deal to the provisions in the bill kick in, requiring an extension. mr speaker, this is an extraordinary route, but these are extraordinary route, but these are extraordinary times. we have to act, we have to act now. today is the last chance to prevent no deal, and we must seize it. with immediate effect we now need a three—minute time limit other ways colleagues won't have the chance to speak. perhaps i can speak by agreeing with something others have said, which is regardless of your views on this subject, right honourable memberfor
4:14 pm
leads central, my right honourable friend for north east bedfordshire and others who have spoken in this debate are acting in the national interest in bringing up these issues in the way they do, they don't deserve to be named called as a result. but having said all of that, cani result. but having said all of that, can i disagree with the bill that the right honourable gentleman has put forward? it does three things. it sets out the government should get specific parliamentary authority for any deal it negotiates. it sets out it should get specific authority for any exit from the eu without a deal, and it sets out that feeling either of those it should enact a three month further extension in our departure from the eu. i'm afraid my view is that the first two of those are unnecessary and the third is undesirable, and in two and a half minutes i will try to explain why. on the first, it seems to me that our existing procedures allow for the government to bring forward any
4:15 pm
deal that it negotiates and for us to approve it or not would be an international treaty and the processes a re international treaty and the processes are already in place for us to do that. secondly, in relation toa no us to do that. secondly, in relation to a no deal outcome, what the right honourable gentleman and colleagues have put forward is on the premise that there is no mandate for no deal. it is certainly true that the leave campaign on the 2016 referent did not advocate for no deal. it wasn't their preference, and as i understand it wasn't the government's preference deal, but neither was it put to the electorate. neither was it put to the electorate that we would only leave if there was a deal with the eu, and that could never have been guaranteed. there was no pattern to follow, no example for us to look at, and it could never have been the certain that the eu would put forward a proposal that we found acceptable. indeed some of us, mr speaker, who argued for remain in
4:16 pm
that referendum campaign said that if you decide to leave, you take a lea p if you decide to leave, you take a leap in the dark, you cannot know what the future will look like you cannot know what if any deal we are offered by the eu or by anyone else, and the electorate as was their absolute right to do, listen to those arguments, rejected them and decided to leave anyway. it was their decision to make and in my view they were perfectly entitled to. i thank my right honourable friend for giving way. even if i accepted his main point about the way the referendum campaign has been conducted by leave, which i don't, does he not accept that in a democracy minorities have rights? a minority as big as 48%, which was a majority in northern ireland, which was a majority in scotland and in our northern cities, should not be so dismissed? i certainly agree with
4:17 pm
my honourable friend that minority should not be dismissed, and frankly the way in which we conduct this debate should reflect the fact that 48% of the public voted in a different way to the prevailing outcome. i don't think, frankly, we have succeeded in that, as a parliament or in a broader national debate. but the truth of it is that we, parliament, the rules for this referendum in the 20 referendum act. as my honourable friend has just said, many of us participated in that referendum campaign on both sides of the argument, where again we stressed it was the public‘s decision to make, and when they had made it, we, parliament, decided to enact and trigger article 50 of the eu treaty. and mr speaker, as someone who spent more time than is good for anyone looking at article 50,i good for anyone looking at article 50, ican good for anyone looking at article 50, i can tell you in the house it doesn't require the leaving country to do so with a deal. and when we,
4:18 pm
parliament, decided to trigger that article 50 process we knew, or we should have known, that one possible outcome of it was a no deal outcome, not one we wish to see, not one we expected to see, but one that could have happened. so i'm afraid that on this fundamental point in the right honourable gentleman's bill, i cannot agree that we do not have a mandate for no deal, and therefore we must proceed as the right honourable gentleman has set out.” very much welcome this bill, and can i say also that i very much welcome the tone with which my honourable friend introduced it. it reminded me of that famous book, profiles in courage, byjohn f kennedy, when he said there are few if any issues where all the truth and all the right and all the angels are on one side, and! right and all the angels are on one side, and i think we would do well to remember that in this house. there are coherent, persuasive and passionate arguments and points that have been made by people with every single type of view on brexit, and
4:19 pm
we ought to respect one another and conduct the debate in that spirit. this is not an easy thing for me to vote for, because i have spent the last few years arguing passionately that delay has consequences, that companies in my constituency need certainty and that the public can't ta ke certainty and that the public can't take much more of this. they want to see us come together, compromise, and respect the 48% of people who came out and said they wanted close ties with the eu... i won't, for time, i'm afraid, and they want to see us also respect the fact that 5296 see us also respect the fact that 52% of those who voted voted to leave the eu. we said it was their choice and we have a duty to try and enact it, but the truth is that this is the right thing to do. there are people in my constituency, very many of them, a third of whom voted remain, and! of them, a third of whom voted remain, and i want to see usjust stop this process altogether. there area number of stop this process altogether. there are a number of people now i would say the most significant group who
4:20 pm
wa nt to say the most significant group who want to cut all ties and leave the eu altogether. they shout louder than the others and they often drown out those voices calling for consensus, but it is myjob to make sure that they don't, because they do not have the right to put food manufacturing companies in my constituency out of business. we lived through the closure of the mines in wigan and we look with those consequences still today. it was a tragedy for many families from which some never ever recovered. i will not let the small and medium employers in my constituency who make up the bulk of employment be put out of business because we cannot get our act together as a house because we cannot stop this reckless prime minister, because we cannot then work together to achieve the deal that we have promised the people they will get. they do not have the right to say to the child in my constituency who was waiting for a potentially life—saving clinical trial you will not get it.
4:21 pm
they do not have the right to keep mums who stop me, a mum who stopped me at the train station to say she was stockpiling medicine. they do not have the right to keep up at night because she doesn't know if her child will survive. and that is why i say that this matters. we finally in this house have said that no deal was a hoax, it was a bluff, it wouldn't happen, we have woken up to the reality of it. now we have to make sure it doesn't happen and we have to go out and win this argument with the public. as my honourable friend so rightly and eloquently said so we can walk out of here looking at the sky and not at our shoes. studio: we will pulse —— pull away as the debate continues. our chief correspondent is in central lobby, vicki young. the vote in less than an hour's time, what do you make of what we have been hearing?” think it is likely that the government will be defeated on this, because if you look at last night,
4:22 pm
and, you know, more than 20 conservatives being booted out of the parliamentary party because of what they did last night, rebelling against the government, i think it is unlikely they are suddenly going to become loyal today, when they see their main aim, as some of them have really sacrificed their career for it, is to pass this bill, which would stop no deal on 31st of october. they want to force the prime minister to go to the eu and ask for a delay until the end of january if no deal has gone through parliament by then. there are moves by some labour mps, including stephen kinnock, to resurrect theresa may's deal, believe it or not, to say, look, actually, they slightly regret the fact they never voted for her because now they are facing the possibility of no deal. sol facing the possibility of no deal. so i think that vote at 5pm should bea win so i think that vote at 5pm should be a win for those backbench mps, for the opposition parties, and for those rebel tories, a second defeat for borisjohnson those rebel tories, a second defeat for boris johnson in just those rebel tories, a second defeat for borisjohnson in just two days.
4:23 pm
the tory party does seem to be having a debate within itself at the moment, one of many, looking at the stephen kinnock bill, the possibility, the resurrection in one way or another of theresa may's withdrawal agreement.” way or another of theresa may's withdrawal agreement. i think that will come later on, ijust don't think there is the support for that amendment, there just aren't enough conservatives who would be willing to go down that road. so then of course after that bill, if it were to get through tonight, after that, we then move on at some rather late our two debate that motion on whether there should be a general election. this is something brought forward by boris johnson, election. this is something brought forward by borisjohnson, a man of course who says he doesn't want an election, tonight he will be voting for one, and on the other side we have jeremy corbyn, for one, and on the other side we havejeremy corbyn, the labour leader, a man who said for two years he does want an election, and labour will be abstaining on all of that. so that should be pretty interesting. what are labour up to here, how are they explaining that to voters, having called for an election for so long? this is what the shadow chancellor said to me
4:24 pm
earlier. our first priority is to protect the country against a no—deal brexit, so we are not going to vote for any stunt election boris johnson brings forward that will enable that to happen. we've got to protect against a no deal and we will use every device to do that. when we are secure in the knowledge that we have, we will bring that election on. does that mean once that and he no deal bill is true that and he no deal bill is true that you will be prepared to vote foran that you will be prepared to vote for an election as the snp have said they will do? we are working with they will do? we are working with the other opposition parties, and the other opposition parties, and the consensus is that yes, it is about getting that bill through and signed off as legislation but also we need to make sure we are absolutely guaranteed it will be implemented, because our fear is that borisjohnson, who with implemented, because our fear is that boris johnson, who with the greatest of respect to him, a lot of people don't trust, particularly in regards to the constitution, our fear is he will use some other device to force through a no—deal brexit so we're looking at all the other options we have to protect ourselves before we go for a election. it is a belt and braces approach to protect our community.
4:25 pm
are you a little bit worried that the prime minister's accusation that you are fit, scared of an election, will stick because you have called for one but now you don't want to? we will have one but we are putting the national interest before party interest and that is what people expect us to do in this situation. sojohn mcdonnell saying expect us to do in this situation. so john mcdonnell saying labour don't feel it is enough to get that and he no deal bill through. they think it needs to be implemented, they think that delayed brexit will have to be agreed, nailed down, before they go for a general election. they are trying to find a general election that allows them to do both. they could be pretty tricky. just a word on the house of lords because the bell has been ringing down at that end, where they are about to embark on a pretty momentous night i think. because down there there are conservative peers like michael forsyth, former cabinet minister, who are very much trying to stop this and he no deal bill getting through. there are
4:26 pm
plans for peers to sit all night, may be for two nights, i saw lourdes coming in earlier with sweets, with sleeping bags, with food, to get them through what could be a very long evening. thank you very much, vicki young. just to let you know nick soames, who of course lost the whip, the tory whip last night, has just given a brief statement during the debate on that withdrawal bill, and was openly in tears. we will bring you a clip of what he had to say, a very emotional response, at one stage he was comforted by oliver letwi n one stage he was comforted by oliver letwin who are sitting just behind him. we will bring you that a little later but let's move on. the chancellor has been setting up the public spending plans of the government. sajid javid said they we re government. sajid javid said they were turning a page on austerity and introducing the fastest increase in day to day spending in 15 years. he promised to add £13.8 billion to public spending. he also promised to add £1.5 billion for the social care budget, and he promised a 65%
4:27 pm
increase for the home office budget, which he says will mean the recruitment of thousands more police officers. with me now is councillor james jamieson from the local government association. it has to be said local government tends to be that a cinderella service that is not the focus of events like this but today it was. it was and i'm very pleased with the settlement that came out today. recognition of the hard work local councils do for their communities, providing those vital services, libraries or leisure centres, but more importantly social care, providing care for over a million older people and actually looking after some 80,000 children in care. £3.5 billion in realterms means what? that is the biggest real terms settlement we have had for over a decade. it is actually more than i think many people were expecting. it will certainly go a long way to enable us to keep going with those vital services. these are calls you have been making for
4:28 pm
several years. does this go far enough, does it get us back to where we we re enough, does it get us back to where we were before austerity? impetus in a much better position to where we we re a much better position to where we were last year, enables us to carry on those services and yes, we are looking forward to next year and when we will be able to hopefully get that longer term settlement, which we will be going to talk to government about. did you listen to this and think, well, let's hope this and think, well, let's hope this is an election because this is clearly the template for it?” this is an election because this is clearly the template for it? i am here is the chair of the local government association. my main objective was to get the best settle m e nt objective was to get the best settlement we can for local government. they definitely think we've got that, i'm very pleased about it. and what will it mean to councils who for many years now have just been obsessed with cuts? where can we cut this, where can we cut that? will it actually mean that services can be resurrected?m should do that because clearly this is more than enough to meet the
4:29 pm
demographic year—on—year pressures. it will go some way to addressing those deep issues we need to address. what has the contact been between local government and central government in recent years, because the belief often is it is not a great relationship sometimes?” the belief often is it is not a great relationship sometimes? i can only reflect my own relationship with government. i have been chair of the lga now for some three months andi of the lga now for some three months and i have met regularly with government ministers and officials throughout the summer. so it is a good contact. we are all working on the basis social care is going to increase rather than decrease, given we are facing an older population we are all concerned about. it is great news we are all living longer, which means there are more old people and thatis means there are more old people and that is a fact of life. but i think it is also looking at how we can enjoy our longer years in a more productive way and a better way. so ido productive way and a better way. so i do think there are some cultural changes that may be needed as well. meaning what, cultural changes in what way? i think if you go back,
4:30 pm
say, to the 1970s, the average life expectancy of a man was 71 years. now when you hit 65, you can expect to live 20 or 30 years, so that means a very different lifestyle and a different way of thinking, and i think we need to support people and enable them to do that. what are the priorities going to be, because anyone who has ever worked in local government, there is a similarfight across all the department as to who gets what. we see it on a national level here but local government has exactly the same battles as well. where are the priorities going to be in the coming years? the priorities are adult social care and children's services, those are statutory services will be provide ca re statutory services will be provide care to the most vulnerable in the communities but we also want to make sure the universal services like leisure centres and libraries, children's centres, continue. it is the compromise and also the issue of economic growth and housing. i would rather talk about homes and
4:31 pm
communities, because that is a big issue in the uk, and then overlaid on that is the issue of climate change and sustainability. not often i have seen a chairman of the lga smiling after something happening here. this was a good settlement for local government and we will now need to go out and deliver for our residents on the back of it. thanks for joining residents on the back of it. thanks forjoining us. we can talk more about the 21 tories, former tories, after the whip was withdrawn. we are joined by neil clark. ken clarke has been the mp for rushcliffe since 1970. as it sunk in with you? obviously, yes. he has had a long and very successful career over very nearly 50 years and he is one of the most experienced politicians in the countries, expert at it, and he
4:32 pm
knows full well the consequences when you vote against your own party and your own government. i had conversations with him and indeed i spoke to him just before the day on monday evening, and i appealed to him to not vote against the government but i did expect him to say and indeed credit to him he was a lwa ys say and indeed credit to him he was always very consistent, and he said i will be voting against the government. he was fully aware of what the consequences of that would be. you don't sound as emotional as i thought you might, given that we are talking about someone who has a certain place in the hearts of many tory voters and he very much respect and quitea tory voters and he very much respect and quite a lot of emotion, if you like. yes, i've known him for, i
4:33 pm
can't remember now, i've known him since i was in the young conservatives. i can't remember how long ago that was! i have had a long association with him and we have a lwa ys association with him and we have always got on very well together even though we have not always agreed. that is only right in politics. we certainly have got on well together and over these issues well together and over these issues we have always had very calm and polite conversations. yes i voted to leave but we have always had very amicable conversations between the two of us. you don't face the problem that some of your colleagues do with an mp who may have to fight as an independent because he always said he was going to not fight at the next election. that is a problem for others, though? yes, he confirmed many weeks ago now to me that he would not be standing again.
4:34 pm
we have a selection process under way at the moment. i can quite imagine that other associations who are in this predicament may well have difficult conversations to make. i should say in answer to your previous question, ken clarke has been an incredibly popular mp, hard—working. 99% been an incredibly popular mp, ha rd—working. 99% of been an incredibly popular mp, hard—working. 99% of the people like him and have liked him, and he has got on extremely well and it is sad he could not see fit to support the government. very briefly, what are you going to be looking for, have central office already told you that you have got to look at someone who is going to be pro getting out with a deal or no deal? central office have not told us those kind of
4:35 pm
things but we have probably worked that out for ourselves, to be honest, that we do need a candidate that will be supporting the government in delivering brexit because as you heard earlier from government in delivering brexit because as you heard earlierfrom my colleague, the chairman of the lga, there are lots of important issues in the country that do need sorting out and in the country that do need sorting outand in in the country that do need sorting out and in local government we are co nsta ntly out and in local government we are constantly getting told we can't do this and we can't do that because of the brexit issue, so it is time brexit is dealt with so we can get on with those other important issues. good to talk to you, thanks for joining issues. good to talk to you, thanks forjoining us. ken clarke one of the 21 tory mps who have the whip withdrawn last night and two others, oliver letwin and nicholas soames. nicholas soames, the grandson of winston churchill who has served the party now for decades. he spoke in the last few minutes about his decision to step down as an mp after
4:36 pm
37 years and this is what he had to say. i'm not standing in the last election and i'm thus approaching the end of 37 years service to this house. which i have been proud and honoured beyond words to be a member. i'm truly sad it should end in this way and it is my most fervent hope that this house will rediscover the spirit of compromise, humility and understanding that will enable us finally to push ahead with the vital work in the interests of the vital work in the interests of the whole country that has inevitably had to be so sadly neglected whilst we have devoted so much time to wrestling with brexit. he then sits down and there are clearly tears in his eyes as he did so. that debate is still going on and we are awaiting the vote anytime after five o'clock. there will be full coverage here of course on
4:37 pm
afternoon live. now on afternoon live — let's go nationwide — and see what's happening around the country — in our daily visit to the bbc newsrooms around the uk. well, with me now is bbc south east today's political editor helen catt, who is here in westminster following the deselection of former business secretary and tunbridge wells mp greg clark, sir nicholas soames, and sam gymiah. and look north's jeff brown is in newcastle talking about the deselection of cumbria mp rory stewart. first we have helen, how much of a shock is this for the areas they represent? we are talking about grandees of the party. in true blue areas, greg clarke of the three southeast mps who have been deselected, he has the smallest majority with a mayor 16,000. nicholas soames somewhere around 19,500. sam gymiah somewhere near 24,000. these are tory
4:38 pm
heartland areas and these were not exactly obscure backbenchers. nicholas soames the definition of a tory grandee. greg clarke was a cabinet minister until a couple of months ago. sam gymiah was seen as a rising star of the modern tory party. it will come as a shock. and before brexit it is not like greg clarke was seen as a firebrand, it was a pretty loyal mp, and well liked in the constituency, but brexit has introduced tensions amongst some in his local party because he has been fairly pro remain and anti no deal. sam gymiah has had a chequered history with his association and they have been deselection attempts and brexit has magnified that although i should say tunbridge wells was a remain voting constituency. what have their associations said about effectively having their choice of mp taken from them? the tunbridge wells association has not spoken yet and neither has a
4:39 pm
sorry but nicholas soames's association has said —— east surrey but nicholas soames's association has said that he has been a very hard—working has said that he has been a very ha rd—working mp has said that he has been a very hard—working mp and they were sorry he was having to go in the circumstances. he had served 36 yea rs circumstances. he had served 36 years and he intimated he probably wasn't going to stand again if there wasn't going to stand again if there was an election in 2022 so they were sort of looking for a successor and that has now got to be rapidly scaled up to find out who will take over. what about reaction from other mps in the region? roger gale is another mp mps in the region? roger gale is anothermp in mps in the region? roger gale is another mp in kent and quite an angry reaction to the way that greg clarke has been treated, he says, and he's quite angry about this and he said the government may not be able to take his vote for granted, which is tough talk from the sun it
4:40 pm
mp who is normally quite calm and controlled. —— from the thanet mp. nicholas soames has quite a lot of friendships across parties and there isa friendships across parties and there is a marvellous anecdote about him and the labourmp is a marvellous anecdote about him and the labour mp peter carl who formed an unlikely friendship —— peter kyle. when peter carr was under attack, nicholas soames came to his defence in one of the local papers —— peter kyle. he has never been shy of being controversial, i think, nicholas soames. thanks for joining us. and jeff, one of those tory mps to be de—selected was rory stewart, who — not long ago — was in the race to be party leader and prime minister. look north has been speaking to him today — what's he had to say, jeff? he is not very happy, notjust the fa ct he is not very happy, notjust the fact he has been deselected but with the way it happened. he went over to
4:41 pm
tate modern after the vote where he received the politician of the year award from 60 magazine and he said it was while he was there that he got a text message telling him the whip had been withdrawn. maybe that is the where the world these days. it is also about the speed of the turn of events. a few weeks ago he was in the cabinet and he was a candidate for party leadership and people were impressed with the way he handled himself. he was not afraid to take on the big guns and he used social media and appeal to a lot of people but a bit different. clearly he was the outsider and he probably surprised himself by making it through the first couple of rounds of the ballot but it showed he had considerable support within the party. but now he is out in the cold and earlier we spoke to him. the party. but now he is out in the cold and earlier we spoke to himm doesn't make any sense to deselect people who until recently were cabinet ministers for voting against them once. margaret thatcher never
4:42 pm
did that and it's not part of our constitution. you don't purge people in this way. what's the point of parliament if you can't vote against the government now and again? if you just want robots, abolish parliament, forget about it entirely. how has this gone down? he has been mp here for 2010 and he had a majority of almost 16,000 at the last election. he polled more than twice the number of votes compared to the labour candidate. he is popular and approachable and many enjoy the fact he is a maverick and can be outspoken. but not everyone agrees with his decision to vote against the government and there we re against the government and there were conflicting views from two members of his conservative party who we spoke to earlier today.” can't speak for the association but in general i'm pretty confident the majority of them are right behind rory stewart. it is hypocritical now
4:43 pm
to start dismissing former ministers and talented mps when they vote against a government, when the people who are voting against the government, dozens and dozens of times. he said he wants to have brexit done but there isn't much time to get brexit done if we want to have it done by the 31st of october and most people do want to see this absolutely done and dusted. it is getting on everyone's nerves and we need to have it through, and to bind the prime minister's hands in his negotiations is quite difficult. if i had been rory stewart last night i would have voted with the government. stewart last night i would have voted with the government! stewart last night i would have voted with the government. a bit like the country, divisions, nothing straightforward. rory stewart says he intends to stand at the next election and he hopes that will be asa election and he hopes that will be as a conservative candidate but that is out of his hands. that is the lead is out of his hands. that is the lea d story ? is out of his hands. that is the lead story? yes, about half the programme, i think. not lead story? yes, about half the programme, ithink. not surprised, dominating everything, isn't it? thanks forjoining us.
4:44 pm
if you would like to see more on any of the stories you can access them through the bbc iplayer. nationwide is every weekday afternoon here on afternoon live at 430. we can now return to the house of commons and the debate. caroline flint is on her feet as they discuss the eu withdrawal bill. i would like to call two more speakers but i want the secretary of state to be on his feet and no later than 450.” the secretary of state to be on his feet and no later than 450. i agree with virtually everything she says and it is a pleasure to listen to my friends for north east bedfordshire and mid sussex with whom i have served here for 36 years and i know they don't want to stand again but if they were standing i would want to stand shoulder to shoulder with them as conservative candidates.
4:45 pm
there are procedures for dealing with this issue but i hope that those like my friend for runnymede who voted with their conscience, evenif who voted with their conscience, even if i don't agree with them, can find a way to stand again for our party, at the trouble with purges is that you purge one group of people and you may have to purge another group when you try to push a deal through parliament so that is the point of compromise. i i'm ina i'm in a minority here, i'm a brexiteer but i voted for this deal three times. we hear so much from people how terrible no deal is put so many people in this place voted against the deal three times. we could have had brexit by now, this could have had brexit by now, this could have had brexit by now, this could have been resolved and i still wa nt to could have been resolved and i still want to resolve it and i still believe it is perfectly possible to make progress in these negotiations in the coming weeks. so much ink has
4:46 pm
been wasted on the backstop and so much debate on issues about something that would never happen, andi something that would never happen, and i don't believe i don't think anyone believes for a moment the backstop will ever happen, nobody intends to impose a hard border and there are so many ways we could resolve it. we are this close to resolving the issue and there has been so much talk about how we don't trust the prime minister and he wa nts trust the prime minister and he wants no deal. i genuinely believe that he and the cabinet want to achieve an orderly brexit. but the problem they face at the moment is that the present deal cannot get through parliament so they have to make progress. we have the brady amendment and we can win a vote in this place, and i don't want to make a bought myself by going on about of devices under the vienna convention but they are all possible —— to make a bought of myself. the problem with
4:47 pm
the bill, if it is passed, there is absolutely no incentive for the eu to make any progress on this and therefore it is a coach and horses for our negotiating tactics and i end with an argument that might appeal to the labour party. in the october 1957 labour party conference, aneurin bevan said if you pass this motion which was on unilateral disarmament you will send the foreign secretary naked into the chamber, and that is what we will be doing if we pass this bill. so let's compromise and let's draw together and let's get a deal. vauxhall motors has been producing ca rs vauxhall motors has been producing cars for 50 years in portsmouth and it employs thousands of people. state m e nts it employs thousands of people. statements made by the liverpool
4:48 pm
3—member said studio: that debate continues in the house of commons, this is the debate over the bill to stop a new deal brexit and it has been put forward, tabled by hilary benn. we have heard from a number of mps this afternoon including john mcdonnell, hilary benn himself, nicholas soames was speaking. we are expecting the first voted to take place around five o'clock and the second vote possibly around seven o'clock, and these are very fluid timelines. we will find out what happens next regarding the possibility of a general election later this evening, so do stay in touch with bbc news. as well as all that business, the government has
4:49 pm
also been setting out its spending plans for the next year. with the chancellor declaring it has "turned the page on austerity". you have been watching events closely? that is right. sajid javid outlined £13.8 bilion of spending on areas like health and education. he said this was the fastest rate of increase for 15 years — but labour disagree. john mcdonnell has called the plans grubby electioneering. russ mould is investment director for aj bell. there is talk about this being the end of the age of austerity, is that how you read it? the promise sajid javid made that no government department will have their budget
4:50 pm
cut feels like the end to austerity and the plans he announced at around and the plans he announced at around a third of a percentage point of gdp by some calculations, so you could argue that, but the question some people have is that some will not think it is far enough because the economy is not going that strong at the moment and some might argue he's going too far given that the uk still has a £18 trillion deficit and pays £40 billion of interest on the bowling it already has, but the direction of travel from the government is clear and they are looking to spend more money, most whether they have the money in the kitty or not. and we actually afford it? there was a contraction in the last quarter and we had the pmi report earlier today. is there the money to back it? the overall government deficit $1.8 —— £1.8 trillion would suggest not. if you
4:51 pm
are going to borrow, now it's probably the time to do it, when the ten year government bond yield, the key interest rate is down to around half a percent so there is an opportunity there, but the danger is, if the economy slows down and tax receipts falter, some of the calculation is will look less clever than they do at the moment. what impact will this have on the real economy out there in the real word? the wise owls say there will be around one third of a percentage point boost to gdp growth, so that isa point boost to gdp growth, so that is a bit of help but it is the toe in the government is looking to set right now, that they are willing to loosen the purse strings and invest in the health service and the police and education. the problem the government has in terms of getting the immediate positive benefits to the immediate positive benefits to the economy, there are very few shovel ready projects out there. hsz has been put back by several years and there's nothing they can do to immediately start digging roads for,
4:52 pm
so the overall impact will be relatively limited which is where the financial markets have been focusing on events in westminster and parliament instead. with brexit, being such an important part of the government's attention at the moment, keeping the deficit down is rather less important? that is becoming an issue, the economy is struggling at the moment and we have seen that in the service which have come out this week and the government, if you are seeing private enterprises hold back on employment and investment decisions, and there is evidence that is the case, the government might be looking to take up the slack and fill the hole while we try to get some clarity on whatever deal we have. the other thing that strikes me is the fact that we are committing to the spending and we have the uncertainty over brexit, isn't there tension? it's one thing critics would perhaps .2, if the economy slows down, and there is
4:53 pm
a... the bank of england would say there could be a hit from a no deal, that they will be a slowdown in the economy and that could slow down tax receipts and it could mean the government has less room for spending but at the moment it is very much ifs and buts, but that is very much ifs and buts, but that is very much ifs and buts, but that is very much the danger, that we end up with a bigger borrowing position then we will expect at a time when then we will expect at a time when the interest bill is already £40 billion, and when interest rates are at record lows, so what happens if they start going up again? the government could have very limited room for manoeuvre , government could have very limited room for manoeuvre, any government. all this uncertainty, what will that mean for interest rates going forward ? mean for interest rates going forward? if you look at the global trend, it is down, the bank of england has put two interest rate increases through in the last couple of years, and its intention at the start of the year was to raise interest rates but if you look
4:54 pm
worldwide they have been 45 central bank interest rate cuts this year, barely ten increases, the federal reserve has moved to cutting rates at —— and european central bank is potentially going to do something dramatic next week in terms of cutting interest rates, so the bank of england is more likely to go down rather than up of england is more likely to go down ratherthan up in of england is more likely to go down rather than up in terms of their interest rates because they do not wa nt interest rates because they do not want the pound going up too sharply asa want the pound going up too sharply as a result. and there are other factors, because of brexit, president trump's tried plans, and many others. many thanks. very busy day in the world business. and also politics... we are going to be crossing back to college green and joining huw edwards shortly. the eu withdraw number six bill is being debated after being brought forward by hilary benn to make sure the uk does not leave the eu on october the
4:55 pm
31st without an agreement. stephen barclay was speaking a short time ago. we can now go back to westminster and talk to huw edwards. it isa it is a very warm welcome to westminster this afternoon on another pivotal day in the brexit process. as a cross—party group of mps tries to introduce a new law which in effect would block a no—deal brexit. they have been debating the bill for nearly two hours already. we are expecting a key vote on the second reading in the next ten minutes or so, and the prime minister who now leads a minority government after the defection of one mp yesterday, says he will try to force an early general election on october the 15th if mps pass the bill today, forcing him to ask the eu to delay brexit
4:56 pm
beyond october the 31st, something he says he will not do. we will bring you the result of the key vote thatis bring you the result of the key vote that is coming up in this debate, and we will have analysis from our chief political correspondent vicki young and joe moore will be here, the former director of legislative affairs at number ten, but why don't wejoin the debate affairs at number ten, but why don't we join the debate now because it is in the last few minutes with the brexit secretary stephen barclay on his feet? we will see him summing up as we approach the key vote in the next few minutes. he will remember that set against a weather test, simply presenting detail against that test led the commission with the previous government to dismiss that purely as magical thinking. in terms of progress... i will give way. i'm very grateful for allowing me to intervene. the brexit secretary will be aware that the
4:57 pm
prime minister has claimed in august that the backstop contravenes the consent principle in the good friday agreement. would the right honourable gentleman take the opportunity to correct the record that the backstop in no way compromises the consent principle in the good friday agreement? that is very important to have that on the record. there are two issues, they concern the prime minister has as to the law taking element of the backstop where northern ireland will continue to take rules over the backstop with they would not have a say, and the element of consent from both parts of the community in northern ireland and the concern that that is undermined by concerns, and to address her earlier intervention which she made in terms of the irish government and their contacts, the prime minister is
4:58 pm
discussing the issues around the alternative arrangements with the irish prime minister on monday and that builds on other interaction with the irish government, for example i had a meeting with simon covertly in the irish embassy last week and —— coveney and the foreign secretary met with him last week, so there has been substantial contact with the irish government. there was the last round of technical talks in brussels last week, exploring the detail, but the detail needs to be in place at the end of the implementation period which is the end of 2020 or even potentially by mutual agreement by a couple of yea rs, mutual agreement by a couple of years, so that timescale is realistic and it is negotiable. the bill? the issue for him is he talks about voting against a deal and he
4:59 pm
talks about no deal and he should come clean and admit that what his position is is that he is opposed to brexit entirely. the cabinet want brexit delivered. the cabinet want brexit delivered. the business community want certainty. this bill will leave our negotiations in purgatory with a third extension after more than three years. much has been made about parliamentary time. about the period between now and the 14th of october, but the eu themselves say a deal would not be struck until the 11th hour and that it would take the eu council decision on the 17th to reach a decision, so the issue is not the time that is spent in september but the time that is spent between the 17th and october and the 31st of october. —— the 17th of october. over the sum of this new
5:00 pm
government has narrowed down its negotiating ask as set out in the letter to donald task and it has targeted its request on the bejewelled agreement and the fda, —— on the bejewelled agreement. this is a bill intending to stop brexit —— on the withdrawal agreement and the fda. i am now required to put the question, is and the question is that the bill be read a second time. as many as are of that opinion say "aye". on the contrary "no". division! clear the lobby! so the speaker has just announced the division. this is of course the key vote on the second reading of the bill that has been introduced by a cross—party group of mps today, hilary benn and others.

26 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on