Transcripts For BBCNEWS BBC Newsroom Live 20240714

Taking us out of the eu with no deal with all the damage that will do to peoples jobs and livelihoods. A former Supreme Court judge says the court had put parliament back at the heart of the Decision Making process. What has happened is that our famously flexible and informal constitution has responded to an abuse, by restoring the previous position. Well be live in parliament when it opens, at 11. 30am, and be getting reaction throughout the day here, on bbc news. Good morning and welcome to westminster, where mps are returning to the house of commons. It follows that dramatic and historic ruling by the Supreme Court, that borisjohnsons decision to suspend parliament for five weeks was unlawful. The Prime Minister said he profoundly disagreed with the judges, but would respect their decision. A senior Government Official said borisjohnson spoke to the queen after the ruling, but wouldnt reveal any details of their conversation. In the past half hour, the Prime Minister landed back in london, having cut short his trip to new york for a un summit, following yesterdays court ruling. Hes making his way back to westminster, where he can expect to face a barrage of criticism, from all sides of the house of commons, later. So, lets take a look at what might happen next. Mps will sit from 11. 30am today, so in around half an hours time. There will be no Prime Ministers questions, but urgent questions, ministerial statements and emergency debates will be heard. The queen is then due to set out the governments future plans, at the state opening of parliament on october 14th. 3 days after that, the Prime Minister is due to go to brussels for an eu summit, on october 17th. In that time, he says hes hoping to negotiate a new brexit deal with the eu. Borisjohnson is still insisting the uk will leave the eu, two weeks later, on october 31st, come what may. But, at the moment, if he doesnt get a brexit deal approved by parliament, then by law, the government has to ask the eu for another brexit delay. Lets cross over to the houses of parliament, and our assistant political editor, norman smith, is there for us. Norman, tell us a little bit more about the order of things today. What we can expect to happen. About the order of things today. What we can expect to happenm about the order of things today. What we can expect to happen. It is going to be a packed day here in parliament, there are five state m e nts parliament, there are five statements which the government wa nts to statements which the government wants to make, including statements on the thomas cook tobacco, the latest state of relations with iran. The battle. Statement Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Hold on, ithink statement Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Hold on, i think this will come late, late, late in the day. Before that, there are a blizzard of urgent questions which are demands for statements from mps. One suggested there were 32 requests, yes, 32, four urgent questions. That will be whittled down to three or four but they tend to take priority over statements so Parliament Begins sitting in about half an hour times, they will probably get about three urgent questions, i am guessing, that takes you to about gpm, then three government statements before you get to borisjohnson. 2pm. You might see borisjohnson late afternoon. What a moment, the theatre of the occasion. Is this contrite chastened borisjohnson . Or borisjohnson the contrite chastened borisjohnson . Or Boris Johnson the defiant . Everything we have this morning suggest the latter. There has been no hint of an apology, or resignation or change of strategy. Michael gove, the minister for resignation or change of strategy. Michael gove, the ministerfor no deal this morning saying that he didnt think there was anything wrong, anything to apologise for, following yesterdays bombshell courtjudgment. Have a listen to him answering this question from my colleague. Did you do something wrong when you prorogued parliament . I dont believe so, but we respect the judgement of the Supreme Court. And we will, of course, comply with that judgement. I think its only fair to point out that there is a very respectable set of legal opinions that have pointed out that, according to understanding of the law until now what the government did was entirely lawful. What of the opposition . All the different parties are trying to coordinate their tactics. We understand they were meeting this morning to work out what do we do . What they wont do is put down a motion of no confidence in Boris Johnson, even though we know they have been going around saying has got to go, we have to get rid of him, he must resign. They wont do that now. Why . Because they want to wait to make sure that no deal is absolutely off the table and, although we know they have passed a bill which would pretty much make it impossible to have a no deal brexit, they dont trust Boris Johnson. Impossible to have a no deal brexit, they dont trust borisjohnson. They think you might find some sort of legal parliamentary chicanery to get around it. All the signs are there that they will hold back from triggering a motion of no confidence until they are absolutely sure you cannot take us out of the eu without an agreement. Is the labour leader, jeremy corbyn. Until it is very, very clear that the application will be made, as per the legislation, to the European Union, to extend our membership, until at least january, to give time for discussions on a deal with them, then we will continue pushing for that, and that is our priority, that is why i am working with the other opposition parties, to achieve that. The curious thing is that although we will have a packed day in parliament, this afternoon, we may not see the big moment. We get the theatre of borisjohnsons arrival, but the big move to oust him . Not today. That could be some weeks down the line, because the opposition parties have clearly decided they can do without a rush of blood to the head. They need to box clever and they think their best chance of getting rid of borisjohnson may come later in october, may be after the october 31 deadline. Norman, thank you very much. As he was saying, the theatre of Boris Johnsons return to the uk, waiting on his arrival back here to the houses of parliament. A busy morning. Joining me now, the former conservative, now liberal democrat mp, sarah wollaston. Thank you for coming, we havent got long because you have to be in houses four 11 30am. Gives an idea whatjo swinson houses four 11 30am. Gives an idea what jo swinson is houses four 11 30am. Gives an idea whatjo swinson is going to say . Setting out our plans for the future. I am utterly that to jo swinson to talk about. Were here to hold the government to account. It has been running france brittany. Borisjohnson has has been running france brittany. Boris johnson has been has been running france brittany. Borisjohnson has been in power two months but only had five days being held to account in parliament, so there is a lot of catching up. We we re there is a lot of catching up. We were chatting about urgent question. The first will be from joanna cherry, which is going to be about the legal advice. That was at the heart of the Supreme Court case. There are questions the lib dems wa nt a nswered there are questions the lib dems want answered on that front . Absolutely cut up we need to hear what his advice was. Borisjohnson is not apologising for what happened. In normal times, is not apologising for what happened. In normaltimes, Prime Minister would resign, having been found to have acted illegally. You are pushing for a public apology, archie . Absolutely. We deserve one and we need to see what advice he was given as well, and he has been requested to do that by parliament. Another thing youre pushing for as chair of the leos liaison committee, you have written to Boris Johnson in the last 2a hours, what do you want him to answer . M johnson in the last 2a hours, what do you want him to answer . It is the only committee that can call the Prime Minister so it gives an opportunity for detailed follow up questions from all the select Committee Chairs in parliament. Borisjohnson had Committee Chairs in parliament. Boris johnson had agreed Committee Chairs in parliament. Borisjohnson had agreed to appear before us on the second, he pushed back by over a week to a date that he knew he was going to Prorogue Parliament. So then he didnt appear. We think it is absolutely time that he is held personally accountable. As we watch these live pictures of the Prime Minister approaching the houses of parliament, would you accuse him of being a Prime Minister who is avoiding scrutiny . Absolutely. Two months in office and only five days coming before parliament, it is not good enough and he has serious questions to answer. Do you feel there is a hiatus, a limbo period before we get to the european summit, before we get to the october 31 . What we would like to see is borisjohnson set out 31 . What we would like to see is Boris Johnson set out to 31 . What we would like to see is borisjohnson set out to steal and then put it to the people. That is then put it to the people. That is the best way out of this impasse, for him to take a realistic deal with a choice to remain instead and ask people for their consent because we are now three years passed a referendum, we need to know what the defining dealers so people can weigh up defining dealers so people can weigh up the risks and benefits that is the best way to end all of us. And i hope that is the route that he will take. I am keeping an eye on the time, ithink take. I am keeping an eye on the time, i think you need to go, because as you have mentioned you have that Party Statement from jo swinson in five minutes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Sources say the leader of the house, jacob rees mogg, condemned yesterdays ruling from the Supreme Court, calling it a constitutional coup. The former Supreme Court judge, lord sumption, disagrees and says the court has reinstated parliament at the heart of the Decision Making process. The suggestion its a constitutional coup is nonsense. The position is that parliament is absolutely central to our system of government. That this government sought to marginalise it. And that the Supreme Court have reinstated it in its proper place. There couldnt be anything more conservative. Its perfectly true they have invented a new legal doctrine to achieve that result. But the result itself is clearly admirable. What has happened is that our famously flexible and informal constitution has responded to an abuse, by restoring the previous position. That is how constitutions do develop. Governments have powers, they abuse them, people shift the goalposts. Joining me now is our reality check correspondent, chris morris. Joining me now is aired, and independent mp, what i want to ask you is if borisjohnson could get a deal before the 31st of october, would you back him . Yes i would with great enthusiasm. I am not trying to delay brexit for the sake of it, i am try to stop, if i can, eat no deal. I understand what iss position that if parliament will not vote for a deal, then at some point, we are gonna have to leave without a deal. But i want to delay that so that we can get a deal, but if you comes back from the European Council with a deal, we should vote for it, no question. Is a matter of goodwill, reaching out to people like yourselves and across to opposition parties, do you think you should apologise, following on from the Supreme Court ruling . should apologise, following on from the Supreme Court ruling . I am not bothered about Holding People publicly shaming, if you like. Or banging on about an apology although it does surprise new that my old friend michael gove, who i know likes a robust arguing, is going around like theresa may saying nothing has changed. You cant to Television Studios without even a hint that the Supreme Court has done something monumental on the back of your monumentally stupid decision to suspend parliament. Tour Television Studios. Come what may, i wa nt to Television Studios. Come what may, i want to get a deal but if you want to bring other mps to the table it would be nice if you said sorry about this, it was a bit of a mock up, can we now move forward and get a deal . So i am not really. So an apology could be helpful . And apology of sorts. Stay with us, three, because any moment we will say goodbye to our viewers on bbc two. Ed vaizey. The Prime Ministers motorcadejust going past buckingham palace. Mps returning now and will be sitting down, taking to those benches in about 15 minutes time. With me is the independent mp, ed vaizey, saying it is not necessary foran vaizey, saying it is not necessary for an apology but it might be helpful. You see you want a deal to be done but how great is the risk without a concrete plan from the government for something to replace the backstop, something concrete without that, how likely are we to be looking at an no deal situation . You are talking to someone who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement and is therefore very happy with the backstop. We have got to assume that whatever Boris Johnson backstop. We have got to assume that whatever borisjohnson comes back with from the European Council is going to strongly resemble the Withdrawal Agreement. You cant have 577 pa g es Withdrawal Agreement. You cant have 577 pages of a treaty and rip it all up 577 pages of a treaty and rip it all up and start again. We will have to see whether some kind of finesse can be done on the backstop but it is not need the have to worry about, it isa not need the have to worry about, it is a people who voted against the deal on the back of the backstop. Interact what i am getting at is give us your insight into whether you think, if push comes to sub shop, his government will be looking for ways around the legislation that was passed, to try to prevent a no deal. Will he be looking for ways around that if he thinks hes not going to get a deal, to make sure the uk is out on the 31st of october . I have no doubt that Boris Johnson and his advisers will see if they can circumvent the act that states that if a pm doesnt come back with an extension, an agreement, he will have to ask for an extension. And that is why mps have to be vigilant and brave. Ed vaizey, thank you very much. We interrupted to take you to the liberal democrat statement. Unlawfully proroguing parliament. And so he has proven, time and again, that he simply cannot be trusted. Our country is in a moment of national crisis. We are just 36 days from a catastrophic edge of a no deal brexit, with all that would mean forjobs, no deal brexit, with all that would mean for jobs, public no deal brexit, with all that would mean forjobs, public services, the nhs. Forfood mean forjobs, public services, the nhs. For food supplies. Mean forjobs, public services, the nhs. Forfood supplies. We simply cannot afford to wait until the 19th of october, to see whether or not the Prime Minister will refuse to obey the law again. And so, liberal democrats will be working with, and talking with, people across the different parties, to find a way to remove that threat of a no deal brexit more quickly. It is vital that we do this for our countries future. Countrys future. The liberal democrats will be at the forefront of holding this government to account. Jo swinson, do you think they should be a vote of no confidence for the government and when . Boris johnson is not fit to be Prime Minister. As i say, our country is in a moment of great peril it is hugely important that we do not risk accidentally crashing out of the European Union and that is the risk of an early vote of no confidence. That is why we are we should explore all options to bring forward that guarantee that we can ta ke forward that guarantee that we can take no deal off the table. Because then we can get rid of this Prime Minister who is unfit for office. There is various different ways we can do this and if anything has been shown in the last few weeks and months, it is that parliament can be innovative and inventive. We saw, in september, the house of commons taking control of the order paper to pass a piece of legislation. And thatis pass a piece of legislation. And that is the type of way forward that may well enable us to take the threat of a no deal brexit of the table, much sooner than the 19th of october. I think we should get the extension to article 50. We have a lwa ys extension to article 50. We have always argued that we should have that extension to the brexiteer can go back to the public so they can have the final say on brexit. Certainly the extension the European Union have suggested would be granted for a democratic event, we think is the way forward. The alternative is a general election, and if there is, we stand ready to ta ke and if there is, we stand ready to take on Boris Johnson and if there is, we stand ready to take on borisjohnson and jeremy corbyn, because our country never serves better. Deserves better. You will know before the suspension that mps voted that, if the Prime Minister had not secured a deal by the 19th of october, then the law would require him to ask for an extension to brexit from the eu. Jo swinson saying she would like guarantee of no deal, thats no deal wont happen, much sooner than the 19th of october. Of course, as you know, mps due to return in the next few minutes. Before that, lets chat to our reality check correspondence. Chris, what are the options open to borisjohnson today . He has lost his first and only six votes in the house of commons, he hasnt found to have acted unlawfully by the Supreme Court . When you look at his brexit options, this is a big symbolic political day, but his brexit options havent changed that much. His best bet is still to get a deal with the eu. So the talks with brussels need to accelerate and he needs to reach some sort of accommodation with eu leaders in the middle of october, october the 17th. So the time for thatis october the 17th. So the time for that is really tight. But also the substance is a real issue because of their arsenal significant differences between the two sides. On customs, for example, the uk seems to be suggesting that is something we can sort out after brexit. The eu are saying absolutely not, it needs to be legally done. Brexit. The eu are saying absolutely not, it needs to be legally donem has to be done first . It has to be done first. Even with a compromise, and it will be difficult, you need to get parliamentary approval. Through this place. The hurdle which theresa mays government fell. If you compromise too much one way or another, you are in danger of losing another, you are in danger of losing a chunk of mps for that vote. So the timetable and substance, still a big challenge. And if Boris Johnson cannot get a deal done in time, what then . He says he intends to deal with no deal, do or die, on the sist. With no deal, do or die, on the 31st. And the problem with that is that this law has been passed in the name of hilary dent and others so it looks like he would have to defy the law. , most people think that is not possible any more. If you were to try to do that, we would be looking at going to the Supreme Court again. It did not end particularly well the first time round, this would be a different case. But if it comes to breaking the law, think it would be a difficult thing for him to pull off. He has said october 31, do or die, and the trouble is that his opponents are looking at and saying if that is your promise were going to say to you either break your promise break the law. And if it looks like the uk is not going to leave the eu on october 31, what happens then . That is quite a big date in so many ways and there are a number of potential threats waiting for borisjohnson. Number of potential threats waiting for Boris Johnson. If number of potential threats waiting for borisjohnson. If we get past that date . The obvious way for the opposition to remove him as Prime Minister is have a vote of no confidence. As you know, they are saying at the moment we do not want to do that until we are absolutely nailed on sure that we are not going to leave on october 31 with no deal. Which is whatjo swinson just said. Absolutely. So it could come at a later date, not right now, the vote of no confidence. If that were to every party is preparing for a general election sooner than later, depending on who wins, it could lead toa depending on who wins, it could lead to a referendum, or it could lead to borisjohnson winning is arguing, saying this is, i am representing the people against the establishment, the people against parliament, winning a majority for taking the eu out of the, the uk out of the eu on mc advocates. The way ahead is not entirely clear or obvious. It is good to get your thoughts on the possible options. Away from the drama here at westminster, what do voters make what has happened . We are given the opportunity to vote for what we want. And whatever we vote for appears to. Not happen you think brexit is being blocked . Yes, i do. They seem to have all forgotten that they act for us. And theyre acting for themselves. I have to say, i strongly disagree, with what the justices have found. He is doing what we wanted him to do. And, you know, apparently if you have got a lot of money, you can just go to the courts and you can stop it. I think he should resign. Absolutely, no question of a doubt, he should resign. Hes a dictator boris is boris, so boris will carry on, thats boris. It leaves him as the Prime Minister and he will stay as the Prime Minister. And i think people feel, at the moment, he is the best of a bad bunch. I dont really want to vote any more, i feel lost, i dont know who to go for, i dont know who i can trust, its kind of all a bit of a mess, really, theres not really any solid parties, theyve all fallen out with each other within their parties, its like, who do we go with . Whos gonna be suitable . You just dont know. How closely would you agree with the lib dems, jo swinson saying they would like to guarantee that the uk will not leave without a deal. Brought forward . That makes perfect sense. Our view is that they should bea sense. Our view is that they should be a confidence vote in the Prime Minister. He should be replaced, to get that guarantee, to have the extension implemented and to move very quickly to a general election, that would be our preferred sequence of events. So the snp would push for a no confidence motion as soon as. We would, but the difficulty is if we press it, it might not be debated. It requires the leader of the opposition to actually press it, to guarantee it will be made available. So what is your. Looking at your strategy, what is the next step for you . We want to put pressure on jeremy the next step for you . We want to put pressure onjeremy corbyn in order to actually call that vote of no confidence. Because our view, and my view personally, is that Boris Johnson doesnt have the confidence of parliament. Everything he is touching is falling to pieces. This isa touching is falling to pieces. This is a shambles of a government but u nless we is a shambles of a government but unless we change him, unless we get the extension guaranteed, then we still risk falling out with out a deal on the 31st of october which is the worst of all possible worlds. Do you absently believe that Boris Johnson is seeking a way around that vote . Johnson is seeking a way around that vote . Absolutely believe. If there isnt a deal that parliament can approve, he has to ask the eu foran can approve, he has to ask the eu for an extension, do you believe he is actively trying to find a way around that . Sadly, all of the evidence, not least the 11 0 decision by the Supreme Court, is that he has bullet behaved unlawfully. I have no doubt that if you can find his way around a law, i believe he would do that. So we need to get that absolutely nailed down and then move to a general election. And those enter Opposition Party talks, if we get to looking ahead, you will be, at this point, voting for that note vote of no confidence to happen very quickly after that . Even before, if possible. As quickly thereafter as possible and then a general election as quickly as possible after that, yes. Are there any circumstances in which you can see borisjohnson getting a deal at the snp could back between now and the snp could back between now and the 31st . No. Three years ago, the snp put forward a compromise proposal which involved a Single Market in the customs union, freedom of movement. At that point, i believe there might have been a majority for that. I believe the time for that has gone and i dont believe Boris Johnson in time for that has gone and i dont believe borisjohnson in hock to the erg other brexiteers, i dont think he would countenance that. I think he would countenance that. I think he is being driven by nigel farage to crash out without a deal in the first place. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Earlier, i spoke to the Senior Research fellow, at strathclyde. He says there is no guarantee as general election will solve the current impasse. Well, the position at the moment, broadly speaking, is that the conservatives have a lead in the opinion polls. A fairly substantial lead, but, given that the liberal democrats are now in a much stronger position than they were in 2017; given that, in scotland, it looks as though the snp will at least hold their own, maybe even do rather better, and could win it well end up with 50 seats, we have to remember that the conservatives will need are likely to need a bigger lead than the 2. 5 point lead that they had two years ago, just simply to stand still. And, if you take the current polls and you assume and this is a big, big assumption that the actual geography will end up still being roughly as it was two years ago, you end up discovering that, on the current poll position, the government could pretty much find itself with roughly the 317, 318 seats that mrs may had in 2017. Therefore, as a result, there is no guarantee that a general election will resolve the impasse. That said, what is also clear from polling evidence, if the general election which is now clearly going to happen after the European Union council, if borisjohnson does get a deal through, or indeed somehow another, or indeed his standing a platform of no deal, then he may well be able to squeeze the brexit party vote. On the other hand, if he fails to get a deal through, and article 50 is on course to being revoked and were gonna have another referendum, then the conservative party is in deep trouble. So i think we should remember, basically, we can note polls at the moment, but the crucial thing is going to be where has the Brexit Process got to . By the time and election is called, and election is held. And that is going to be after the crucial developments in the third week of october, when the uk meets the European Union. Mps are returning to take their seats on the benches in the house of commons. And the Prime Minister, borisjohnson, has arrived back in the uk, from new york. Joining me now, matthew holehouse, the brexit correspondent for mlex, a Regulatory News service, and former telegraph westminster correspondent. Your company is aimed at the business and corporate world so tell us business and corporate world so tell us about how the situation unfolding here, what we saw yesterday is affecting the currency at the moment . Sterling rose is the day, there has been a period of years of great uncertainty for businesses and at that remains. The upshot vote yesterday, it wasnt about brexit directly, it obviously to return parliament to westminster. Mps have generally been active in seeking a no deal brexit, that was read by many people who want to avoid that asa many people who want to avoid that as a positive sign. Have the markets doubt in this continuing uncertainty . Built in. Doubt in this continuing uncertainty . Built in. You see a lot of advice to adjust posture to prolonged periods of uncertainty, in terms of their exposure, how they place assets in the uk, where they are making major purchases. They are adjusting to a period of sustained uncertainty. What is today really shows how dramatic out the fight of the Prime Minister and brexit can turn quite quickly and in quite unpredictable ways. In terms of Decision Making, forward planning, decisions about investments, that is slowing down all of those types of those residents . There are lots of numbers suggesting that investments in the uk, in new factories, new plants, new offices, has fallen since brexit simply because of the lack of visibility about what lies ahead and future trading environments will be. Is there evidence that what the government has said so far in terms of planning for whichever scenario and those our business is finding that helpful or not . That is frustration at the limitations of the guidance provided by the government. One of the reasons is that it is quite hard for the company say what a no deal looks like because that is highly on the eu. It is suggested sometimes that a no deal would provide certainty for businesses, its hard to make that case given that what environment you line then it will be highly volatile depending on the politics post no deal. Depending on the politics post nodeal. Thank you forjoining us. I think we can take out that helicopter short of the motorcade with the Prime Minister in eight making its way back you to westminster. Im told that the Prime Minister has gone back inside, so he is back inside now as a couple of minutes ago. Facing a number of calls, calls to resign from some, calls for an apology from many, and there will be apology from many, and there will be a number of urgent questions and state m e nts a number of urgent questions and statements and statements in the house of commons today amongst those ones from joanna cherry, the snp mp who was instrumental in the illegal cases that have been happening, looking for more detail on the legal advice that was given by the Prime Minister to the queen before parliament was suspended. We are in a strange phase, arent we . There are a strange phase, arent we . There a re lots of a strange phase, arent we . There are lots of possibilities, we are not really clear how things are going to turn, either for Boris Johnson or the opposition parties . Thats right, we can safely say that not many people thought that we would be here today and that mps would be here today and that mps would be here today and that mps would be returning today. A lot of mps have rushed back from the labour party conference, ready for parliament today. What happens next for corbyn and johnson, we are not really sure, we do know that the Prime Minister will be making a statement to the house so we can see that mckee will face difficult questions i expect about his decision to suspend parliament. We arejust decision to suspend parliament. We are just showing pictures from inside the commons. As soon asjohn bercow begins to talk, we will bring that to you. I may have two introductory rather abruptly. I guess you are prepared for that as wellwhat do you think Boris Johnsons options are right now . He is quite hemmed in. He is, he is really in the same position as before parliament was suspended. John bercow is on his feet, lets listen. Colleagues, welcome back to out listen. Colleagues, welcome back to our place of work. The uk Supreme Court ruled yesterday that parliament has not been pro wrote, and at the speaker of the house of commons and the lord speaker can ta ke commons and the lord speaker can take immediate steps to enable each house to meet as soon as possible to decide a way forward. I will arrange for the citation of that judgment to be entered into the journal of this house and accordingly direct that the item relating to the prorogation of parliament in the journal of monday ninth september is expunged. The house is instead recorded as adjourned at the close of business. I instruct the clerk to correct the journal accordingly and to record the house to have adjourned at the close of business on monday, ninth september, until today. Members should also be aware of the royal assent to the parliamentary buildings, restoration and renewal, bill which form part of the Royal Commission appointed under the Royal Commission appointed under the quashed order in council will need to be re signified. I wish to re cord need to be re signified. I wish to record my thanks, i hope colleagues across the house willjoin me in doing so, to the staff of the house, including the security, catering, chamber business, parliamentary, digital and in House Services teams who have worked exceptionally hard over the past 24 hours to prepare for this resumption. You will now, but eminently name of the public integer intelligibility of our proceedings, i think it worthwhile to note that there is now ministerial question time today, including therefore now Prime Minister questions. The reason for thatis minister questions. The reason for that is very simple, as colleagues are aware, there are notification requirements, questions are ordinarily tabled three sitting days before the exchanges take place. So there is now Prime Ministers questions today, however, there is scope for urgent questions, for ministerial statements and other business feasts. Speaking of which, order, urgent question, joanna cherry. To ask the attorney general if he will make a statement about his legal opinion on the advice given to her majesty the queen to Prorogue Parliament. Mr speaker, as the honourable lady now is the Supreme Court gave judgment on this issue yesterday to stop that judgment sets out the definitive and final legal position on the advice given to her majesty on the prorogation of parliament. The government was likely reviewed during the case was set out, and argued file before the Supreme Court. The hearing was streamed live at the governments rating case was and is available on the Supreme Court website. I took a close interest in the case. Laughter. And i oversaw the Governments Team of counsel. I have to say, mr speaker, that if every time i lost a case i was called upon to resign, i probably would never have had a practice. And the government accepts thejudgment, practice. And the government accepts the judgment, and accepts that it was the case. And at all times, the government acted in good faith, and in the belief. And in the belief that its approach was both lawful and constitutional. These are complex matters on which senior and distinguished lawyers will disagree. And the divisional court, led by the lord chiefjustice, agreed with the governments position. But we were disappointed that in the end the Supreme Court took a different view, and of course, we respect the judgment of the court. Given that the Supreme Courts judgment, judgment of the court. Given that the Supreme Courtsjudgment, in legal terms, the matter is settled. And as the honourable lady will now, iam bound and as the honourable lady will now, i am bound by the long standing convention that the views of the law officers are not disclosed outside officers are not disclosed outside of the government without their consent. However, iwill consider of the government without their consent. However, i will consider it over the coming days whether the Public Interest might require a greater disclosure of the advice given to the government on this subject. I am unable to give an undertaking or a promise to the honourable lady at this point, but the matter is under consideration. Joanna cherry. Mr speaker, i also took a close interest in the case. Let me start by assuring the attorney general i am not going to call for his resignation yet. Yesterday was a very special day for scots law and the scottish legal tradition coming back to the declaration of arbroath that the government is not above the law. Following in the footsteps of scotlands Supreme Court, the uk Supreme Court asserted the rule of law, the separation of powers, utterly restored democracy. It is worth emphasising that the decision was unanimous, as was the decision of scotlands Supreme Court, chaired by scotlands most seniorjudge, the lord president of the court of session. Both of these courts unanimously found that the decision to advise her majesty to play Red Parliament was unlawful, void and of no effect. To Prorogue Parliament. The question im interested in is how did it come to pass that this was ever allowed to happen . Redacted documents lodged with the scottish courts confirmed the suspicion that this was a plan cooked up in number ten by the Prime Minister and his special advisers. But i want to ask about documents that mrs lee found their way into the Public Domain yesterday afternoon when an unredacted document found its way to sky news and revealed that the attorney general had said at the advise to prorogue was lawful and anyone who said otherwise was doing so for political reasons. I want to ask the attorney general this, im sure knowing him that his advice was more detailed and nuanced, then the three sentences that appear in that unredacted document. Can you tell us whether a legal opinion was made available to the Prime Minister or the cabinet . The right honourable memberfor hastings the cabinet . The right honourable member for hastings and rye said that when she was in the cabinet, ministers requested to see the advice but it was not handed over. Is that correct, and can he tell us what was given to the pm if not to the cabinet . Many of us believe that the cabinet . Many of us believe that the attorney general is being offered up as a fall guy for the Prime Ministers botched plans. Does he not agree with me that to release the advice in its entirety will help him avoid being the scapegoat for a plan that was zoomed out by the Prime Minister and his advisors, and will he give the undertaking that he has hinted that he is thinking of giving today . Im extremely grateful for the honourable ladys solicits business and kind as for my welfare. Iam business and kind as for my welfare. I am particularly attracted by the tempting prospect that the honourable lady dangles before me, but she wont now that i am obliged by the commission to say that i am not permitted to disclose the advise that i may or may not have given to the government. But i repeat the matter is under consideration. Does my learned friend agree that even the future if we were unfortunate to enough to have a corbyn government. Cheering. Laughter. Obviously not thought to be a very likely prospect if that misfortune we re likely prospect if that misfortune were to occur and if the government we re were to occur and if the government were to occur and if the government were to decide to suspend the house for a long period because there was a parliamentary majority against its principal policy, and if that government also decided that constitutional law was not challenged by that and challenge the right of the courts to overrule it, the conservative party would be likely to get very excited. Can he reassure me that this Supreme Court judgment has settled that matter finally, that this kind of action can never be taken by any future government and that into sovereignty therefore remains intact . |j therefore remains intact . certainly cant assert termite right honourable friend certainly can that when we reflect on judgments that when we reflect on judgments that seem to go against the interest of any particular government that the stand as precedents for the future. I invite all my honourable friends to reflect on precisely the situation which might right honourable friend has set out to before the house. Which is this would stand for a government on my side which not approve of and of their actions too. So it is important that when we comment on the decisions ofjudges that we remember that those judges are both impartial and independent, and they are entitled to reach the view that they have each. We are fortu nate view that they have each. We are fortunate in this house to have one of the finest judiciaries i fortunate in this house to have one of the finestjudiciaries i believe in the world. It is important to remember that the principles they set apply to both sides. congratulate the honourable and learned of lady for Edinburgh South west for both securing this urgent question and her work in this matter. Yesterdays decision of the Supreme Court, i give credit to all those who brought the cases, was the most damning judicial indictment of a comment in modern times. At the decision to advise her majesty the queen to Prorogue Parliament was unlawful. This government stands in shame, tendering legal advice to our monitor, im not even able to uphold the most basic principles abiding by the most basic principles abiding by the rule of law. What we know that yesterdays leaked document is that the attorney general said that his advice on the question of the law was that this was lawful and within the constitution. Any accusation of unlawfulness, he said, were motivated by political considerations. If that is in any way accurate, he was wrong on both accounts. His close interest simply wasnt enough. I asked the attorney general a number of questions, can he confirm why it was the government gave no witness statement to the court, and indeed, the court was left in a position when it said no justification for taking action with such an extreme effect was put before the court why not . He talks about respecting the decision of the judges, but the Cabinet Office minister was on the radio this morning saying that he disagrees with the decision. Tell us which parts of the judgment the government disagrees with. In his considerations about the publication of this advice, can i give him a simple suggestion . Just publish it and make it open to parliament and the public. On this attorney generals watch, the government has been found in contempt of parliament, now it has been found in co nte m pt of parliament, now it has been found in contempt of the law. Doesnt he just accept he hasnt got a shred of credibility left . I dont know whether in his practice he felt that just because she had given advice that might not be upheld by a court, he had no credibility. That is an absurd and ridiculous proposition. Furthermore, it was advise agree with by the first insert is caught in scotland and the lord chief justice in england. Is the honourable gentleman calling for his resignation as well . Is he calling for the resignation of the president of the queens bench . I will say this, mr speaker. Order, order. If the attorney general would resume his seat momentarily, i shall be deeply obliged to him. The attorney general has a distinctive and resonant baritone will now end throughout the house but it is a challenge even to him to be fully heard if there is constant catcalling. There will be ample opportunity for college the question and prove the attorney general, but i wish myself to listen to his towns. I will say this for the snp and the honourable lady, if i make my awareness in the honourable gentlemans case, no shameless piece of opportunism is left on the floor. The honourable lady is a lawyer and the queens counsel, and she knows it is the most puerile, infantile of to say about a whose advice has been held by courts right up advice has been held by courts right up to the Supreme Court, but somehow or other, that advice you should be held culpable for. The fact of the matter is that this advice was sound advice at the time. The court of last resort ultimately disagreed with it, but in doing so, they made new law as they were entirely entitled to do. Dominic grieve. Im extremely mindful of the difficult task my right honourable friend as i attorney general in providing advice to government. Indeed, im sorry if his legal advice has been partially lea ked his legal advice has been partially leaked because he is entitled to give advice in private, without which he cannot do his work. I would also say that for him to get the law wrong in an area of difficulty is not necessarily something to be held to his discredit. But he may agree with me that one of the issues in this matter was not just with me that one of the issues in this matter was notjust law, but propriety. And they propriety went to the unconstitutional or constitutional nature of the act of prorogation itself, in view of the motivation of the government for doing it. In those circumstances, i was struck by the fact that his opinion is referred to as believing it is constitutional, when i understood from comments he made as far back as july, understood from comments he made as far back asjuly, when prorogation was first being mated in order to achieve a no deal brexit on the 31st of october, that he considers such an act would be unconstitutional. I wonder, therefore, if this isnt one issue which he ought not to clarify . I know that my right honourable and learned friend will understand that it is not right for the attorney generalfor any it is not right for the attorney general for any cabinet minister to comment on leaks on matters that have occurred within cabinet, really accurate or inaccurate. It would be setting a he will be an undesirable precedent. That a wholly undesirable precedent. You position the front some weeks ago that parliament might be true derived from the beginning of september until the 31st of october, if that had been the proposition, i could not have stayed in the cabinet while it was done. Hilary benn. Thank you, mr speaker. Does the attorney general believe that yesterdays judgment of the Supreme Court represented a constitutional coup . And if he does not, could he explain to the house where he thinks that is wrong . I dont think it was a constitutional coup, i know the right honourable gentleman will know that i do, and i dont believe anybody does. These fines can be said in the heat of rhetorical and poetical licence, but this was a judgment of the Supreme Court, of a kind which was clear and definitive. It often happens that governments lose cases, we didnt agree with it because of course we argued against it, but we accept the ruling of the Supreme Court and we are proud that we have a country capable of giving independentjudgments of we have a country capable of giving independent judgments of this we have a country capable of giving independentjudgments of this kind. Cani independentjudgments of this kind. Can i welcome the attorney generals very clear statement of which the importance which he attaches to the impartiality and independence of the judiciary . That is most welcome. Can i also say to him that many lawyers might well have given exactly the same advice that he did on the weight of precedent. Does he accept, however, that it is most important that the commission that the journey goes to government is not leaked and not disclosed, and should not lightly be set aside, but he also consider that it is rather reg retta ble consider that it is rather regrettable that such an important matter which warrants very careful and considered language and discussion should be used for the purpose of rather unworthy attacks and a Party Political knock about when so much is at stake . Im grateful to my honourable friend but my question there. I do of course agree. Legal advice, my question there. I do of course agree. Legaladvice, particularly the role of the attorney, is always difficult because one policy is a very difficult line between giving advice of a politically impartial character and being a political minister. But i hope i have endeavoured to do that with all of the conscience at my disposal. When i say to the house, as i do today, i accept i say to the house, as i do today, i a cce pt we i say to the house, as i do today, i accept we lost, we got it wrong on thejudgment of accept we lost, we got it wrong on the judgment of the Supreme Court but it was a respectable view on the water tight, and that he was taken by four out of the seven judges up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has made new law, lets be absolutely clear. From now on, the prerogative power of her majesty, advised by the Prime Minister, can now be the justiciable subject of the court was my control. That was a judgment on the Supreme Court was perfectly entitled to make. What the implications are for the future of our constitutional arrangements will have to be reflected upon in the coming months and years. But it is never wise to reflect upon a court case and its implications in its immediate aftermath, it will have to be done carefully and deliberately, and at this house will have to decide ultimately decide without these matters and powers are for this house to regulate and control, or whether they are for the judiciary . For the moment, the Supreme Court has spoken and that is the law. The attorney generals a cce pta nce the law. The attorney generals acceptance of the point that the government got it wrong in this case isa government got it wrong in this case is a very welcome, so will he now advised the Prime Minister and the government to accept and agree with the content of the Supreme Court judgment, notjust the content of the Supreme Court judgment, not just the the content of the Supreme Court judgment, notjust the obligation to abide by its conclusions. And in particular , abide by its conclusions. And in particular , to accept that it is wrong for this comment or any government to seek to Prorogue Parliament for five weeks, rather than just parliament for five weeks, rather thanjust for a parliament for five weeks, rather than just for a few days, without giving any reason, let alone, a good reason to the public, to parliament, or to the courts that that was how long . That was wrong. Or to the courts that that was how long . That was wrong. The judgment was clear. The government is assessing is Short Term Solutions now. She can be certain that the government will abide by its ruling and the contents of its judgment. What limits are there on the powers of the Supreme Court to intervene in Hull Parliament conducts its business . And what powers are there for them to intervene in the highly political matter of when and how we leave the European Unions . political matter of when and how we leave the European Unions . I think understood my right honourable friend plasma question correctly. The court in this case was giving itsjudgment on the court in this case was giving its judgment on a particular issue, whether or not a prorogation of this length could be the subject of judicial control, and if so, what was the correct test to apply to thatjudicial was the correct test to apply to that judicial control . Was the correct test to apply to thatjudicial control . And it chose to delineate a test which suggest that from now on a prorogation of any length must be reasonably justified. The court concluded in its analysis the fact that there was before the house and the country now a particularly acute constitutional controversy which made it even more important that the house should sit. I have to say, i think there is nothing wrong in venturing to express respectful disagreement, but what that will mean in future is at the court will be obliged to assess whether or not a pill, particular political controversy is sufficiently serious. Sufficiently hot heated controversy as to warrant the house sitting for any particular length of time. Be that as it may, thatis length of time. Be that as it may, that is the test the court has set, and that is a test that must now be applied. What message does the attorney general have for his colleagues in government who have been sneering and undermining Supreme Court judges . Some of this is not done in the heat of the moment, we have been hearing from one journalist that he has been sent copies of articles about iranians judges, comparing supreme about iranians judges, comparing Supreme Courtjudges with them. Is he going to give an unequivocal message to his colleagues that they should resign if the undermine the Supreme Court was s independence . Thejudges do not Supreme Court was s independence . The judges do not exist immune from criticism. There is nothing wrong, at all, in any member of the public, bea at all, in any member of the public, be a member of parliament or otherwise, in criticising a court judgment. But what is wrong, is that motives of an improper kind, should be imputed to anyjudge in this country. We are defenders of the entire democratic constitution. And we must be sure, in everything we say, and i agree with the honourable lady, if this is what she means, that we do not impute improper motives. With the judgments, that we do not impute improper motives. With thejudgments, we can be robustly critical. With the motives, we cannot. Is it not important, even in the course of argument on matters as important as these, to remember why we have the constitutional conventions that we do . And that government is entitled, as any other organisation or individual is, to receive legal advice in private . And, if it does not, and if those who ask for it to be published get their way, what will happen is that legal advice will happen is that legal advice will become increasingly guarded, increasingly equivocal, and progressively less useful to government, in ministerial Decision Making. And the consequence of that, will be less good legal advice and less good ministerial Decision Making. Advice and less good ministerial decisionmaking. My right honourable, lerner trent has great experience, as does my right honourable leonard friend sitting next of the role which i have a great privilege to occupy. He knows how important confidentiality is to give frank, unvarnished advice. Sometimes unwelcome to those who are conducting the policy of the government. He discharged his functions, as did my right honourable friend, with great distinction and i am proud to be a successor of them. The right honourable and learned gentleman has made it quite clear that the judges in the Supreme Court had every right to come to the decision they came to, and in fact, they came to it unanimously, in an excoriating judgment which should put the government frontbencher to shame. What is his view, therefore, of a leader of the house, persists in believing, and makes it known, that he feels the Supreme Court have instituted a constitutional coup . Surely he cannot remain in his post if he has that view . There is nothing wrong with expressing robust, critical views about judgment. About judgment. Insofar as it imputes inappropriate or improper morbid, than it is wrong. Motive. I think it is a question of wording and being careful with 1s language, but i took that remark simply to be a robust criticism of the judgment and nothing more. Which is entitled. I have absolute respect for the integrity, and the competence, of the attorney general. In the light of what he has told the house this morning, can he guarantee, absolutely, that, save potentially, absolutely, that, save potentially, a few days before a queens speech, there can be no question of his permitting her majestys government to have a prorogation between now and the time of the 31st of october of this year . What i can undertake to my right honourable friend is that there will be no prorogation that there will be no prorogation that doesnt comply. With the terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court. The attorney general said that he is going to review whether advice should be published, but in a nswer to advice should be published, but in answer to the former attorney general, he upheld and defended the privacy of that legal advice. So, can he tell the house the scope of the review he is undertaking . Is its just when the government is defeated in the Supreme Court, or will it be drawn more widely . What i am considering is the Public Interest and whether or not there are interest and whether or not there a re factors interest and whether or not there are factors in this case connected closely with the Public Interest, generally, that should outweigh the law Offices Convention and lead to disclosure. But that isnt only my position, i am disclosure. But that isnt only my position, iam in disclosure. But that isnt only my position, i am in a disclosure. But that isnt only my position, iam in a rough disclosure. But that isnt only my position, i am in a rough and approximate way between a lawyer and his client, and i must ensure that there is proper consultation, proper reflection on what the Public Interest requires. And that i have undertaken to the right honourable lady who asked the urgent question, to do. And, in due course, i will make my mind up. Did it, so surprise my right honourable and learner trend that the Supreme Court ruled that the actual prorogation is not a proceeding in parliament. And if thatis proceeding in parliament. And if that is the new law, to which my right honourable friend has referred, would it be open to this parliament to change the law back to what we thought it was before . Uh. Did it come as a surprise, my friend asks me. Quite a lot came as a surprise. But that particular part proceeded from a quite strict or narrow interpretation of the bill of rights in what was a proceeding, and what was interpreted to apply the protection afforded by the bill of rights, to the core and essential business of parliament. And it was held, as my honourable friend will know, by the Supreme Court, that such a proceeding, namely the execution of the Queens Commission in the lords, in the presence of mr speaker and those who attended that proceeding, was not sufficiently close to its core and essential business to attract the protection of the bill. It will of course be open to this house to decide, to legislate otherwise, and no doubt, thatis legislate otherwise, and no doubt, that is one of the application of thisjudgment will that is one of the application of this judgment will have to be reflected upon in the coming months and years. I know that it was a widespread view that it was indeed a proceeding in parliament. But the Supreme Court is as entitled to redefine or at least take a view of its definition ticketed by the bill of rights as it is to invent a new interpretation. I am sure many of us would like to congratulate the honourable, leonard member from Edinburgh South west and gina miller for making sure that this remains a sovereign parliament. To the honourable lady, she asked a question of the attorney which he has not answered. He asked, she asked him, whether he could confirm that the cabinet or members of the cabinet, he is a member of that cabinet, had asked to see his advice, but they were denied that opportunity. Can he confirm that his advice was requested by fellow members of the cabinet, but it was denied . Well, let me make plain that i have never denied any member of the cabinet. Any site of any advice of mine. Sight. I am not certain who and else asked for that advice that i have never denied it. Mr speaker, the right honourable and learned friend agreed that rather than being some newfangled innovative decision, this was a profoundly conservative decision by the Supreme Court, asserting that ancient sovereignty of parliament. And that, fundamentally, the principle at stake here, is that of course neither that caught court, nor any other, should determine whether brexiter should take place. But it is for this house, the only directly elected representatives of the people, to determine the form in which that brexit happens . Let me say to my right honourable friend, the Supreme Court invoked the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the principle, the convention of parliamentary accountability, missed ministerial accountability, missed ministerial accountability to parliament, as a justification for making justiciable the decision to provoke as it was entitled to do that and effectively amounts to converting a Political Convention into a legal rule. That, traditionally, was not thought to be possible. The Supreme Court has decided that it is and i certainly do not in anyway complain with its right to do so. But what i would say to my right honourable friends, i would agree with you that parliament has to determine the terms on which we leave. But this parliament has declined, three times, to pass a withdrawal act, with which the opposition, in relation to the withdrawal act, had absolutely no objection. It was. Then, we now have a wide number of this house setting its face against leaving at all. And when this government draws on the only logical inference from that position, which is that it must leave therefore without any deal at all, it still sets its face, denying the electorate to the chance of having its side, its say in how this matter should be resolved. This parliament is a dead parliament. It should no longer set it has no moral right to sit on these green benches, and whatever. Moral right to sit on these green benches, and whatever. Sit. The house must come to order, we have a lot of business to transact, there are five ministerial statements remaining. The attorney must be heard and so, i hope, well lots of other people. The attorney. They dont like to hear it, mr speaker they dont like the truth twice they have been asked to let the electorate decide upon whether they should continue to sit in their seats. Well they block 17. 4 Million Peoples votes. This parliament is a disgrace given the opportunity, given. Since i am asked, let me tell them the truth. They could vote no confidence at any time. But they are too cowardly they could agree toa are too cowardly they could agree to a motion to allow this house to dissolve, but they are too cowardly this parliament should have the courage to face the electorate. But it wont. It wont because so many of them are really all about preventing us leaving the European Union. But the time is coming. The time is coming, mr speaker. When even these tackys wont be able to prevent christmas turkeys. Thank you, mr speaker. I think the attorney general will find that the moral right i have to sit in this houseis moral right i have to sit in this house is due to an election called by the honourable lady for maidenhead, which he lost 40 seats in. And maidenhead, which he lost 40 seats in. And i will represent my constituents as long as i sit in this house, i am here elected by the people to do so. Could he just tell, could you tell this house, how much taxpayer money has he spent in closing down our voice . All i am suggesting to the honourable gentleman is that she gives he gives his constituents were chance of electing him again order i say to the honourable gentleman, the memberfor to the honourable gentleman, the member for kingston upon hull. He has been known as the noisiest memberof the has been known as the noisiest member of the house, i enjoy listening to him but preferably when he is on his feet rather than on his seat. The attorney general. Flv honourable gentleman is so confident that the electorate will consider him Strong Enough to sit here. Why doesnt he submit it . I offered this to the front bench of the labour party, all we need is a one line bill that we can put through with the speakers help, fixing the date of the general election by a simple majority and we could have the election. Why doesnt he tell his front bench to put his confidence in his constituents to the test . wonder if my friend, having read the full summary of the judgment made yesterday, by the Supreme Court, was also struck by something that seemed to be missing, within their methodology. That, when they stood up, they said, for the right of parliament to hold any executives to account. At no point in their deadly reference one of the ways of course of avoiding prorogation or dismissing it, would have been have had a vote of confidence in the government, to have voted for a general election. Does he not agree with me that that would have been the sure fire way of the opposition parties to have secured an end to any prorogation, and intermediate change of government sos, but they we re change of government sos, but they were frightened . Change of government sos, but they were frightened . Which if they so wished. When a government can no longer govern because the parliament is withdrawing its ascent, moral and constitutional thing to do is to have the courage of your convictions, which this spineless gang do not have come place a motion of no confidence before the house but they do not have the guts to put a motion of no confidence because most of them dont want their own leader in power. May we say first about to the attorney general that none of us in these benches are worried about a general election. The right honourable members for surrey heath has suggested that the unanimous verdict of the Supreme Court was the equivalent of the view of just court was the equivalent of the view ofjust a court was the equivalent of the view of just a few court was the equivalent of the view ofjust a few academics. And the leader of the house has described the verdict as a constitutional coup. Unfortunately, these use to gain traction amongst members of the public. So, will be attorney general ta ke public. So, will be attorney general take this opportunity to give a strong statement of support, both for thejudgment of strong statement of support, both for the judgment of the Supreme Court, and for the importance of the independence of the judiciary . think, in answer to the last point, ifi think, in answer to the last point, if i may come of the honourable lady, i completely, firmly support the independence of ourjudiciary. In scotland, in england, in wales, and in northern ireland, we have one of the finest judiciaries in and in northern ireland, we have one of the finestjudiciaries in the world. And the fact of the matter is the Supreme Court gave its judgment and its judgment must the Supreme Court gave its judgment and itsjudgment must be respected. But that does not prevent robust criticism of the terms of the judgment which well, i have no doubt, be subjected to that criticism. That is on size, but what is not is the imputation of improper or inappropriate matters. My right honourable friend, the memberfor chingford is right, mr speaker. We had notice of the intention to prorogue, with your assistance, we could have entertained motions against it, or even a motion of no confidence. So it was a coup, wasnt it . Again, i know that my friend will know that i want to be, if i can, when it comes to the judges, though not to this shower, but when it comes to the judges. When it comes to thejudges, it comes to the judges. When it comes to the judges, i want to be respectful and careful. And it is important that we should understand thesejudges are important that we should understand these judges are protectors of all our freedoms, these judges are protectors of all ourfreedoms, all our these judges are protectors of all our freedoms, all our lives. The order i dont normally offer stylistic advice to the attorney general, but his tendency to parabola it while auditing is disagreeable to the house. He should face the house with confidence and assurance and an acknowledgement that the house wishes to hear his every utterance. The attorney general. I wonder if you, in a well earned retirement, would like to give lessons to frontbenchers, it could be the beginnings of a new and very glorious or more glorious career. I have now lost my thread entirely they say they want me to sit down so i am going to. We will gratify the opposition. Mr speaker, icame into gratify the opposition. Mr speaker, i came into this chamber today thinking ifelt i came into this chamber today thinking i felt sorry for the attorney general. But as he started. Idid but attorney general. But as he started. I did but every word he has uttered, no shame today, no shame at all the fact that this government cynically manipulated the prorogation to shutdown this house so that it couldnt work as a Democratic Assembly he knows that thatis Democratic Assembly he knows that that is the truth and to come here with his barrister blaster. To obfuscate the truth, and for a man like him, a party like this and a leader like this, this Prime Minister, to talk about morals . And morality is a disgrace i. Im not sure i could discern, in that marshmallow of the rhetoric, any actual question. But, insofar there was a question, an answer if the honourable gentleman thinks that a government should no longer be governing, tell his leader to bring a motion of no confidence this afternoon. His leader to agree to a simple one line statute that fixes the election by a simple majority, and we would be delighted to meet him wherever he chooses, in front of the electorate. Who willjudge whether the marca nations, which she supports, and the devices he resorts to in order to make sure this debt Parliament Continues, or right or wrong. The attorney general speaks of moral courage, can yates claim to this house why the government didnt have the moral and constitutional courage defined, file a witness statement in the Supreme Court . Attesting to the truth that was being outlined to the Supreme Court judges . truth that was being outlined to the Supreme Courtjudges . I cant, im afraid, make comment on matters that are plainly covered not only by the convention but by Legal Professional Privilege. But what i would say, what i would say to my friend is that the government was not positioned was set out very clearly, and if she follows it all, it went on for a very long time, and the Supreme Court decided against it. We accept that position. Having lost in court the attorney general is keen to try his aunt at another test of an election and maybe i can help him. An election and maybe i can help him. Try his hand. In paragraph 41 of their unanimous judgment, him. Try his hand. In paragraph 41 of their unanimousjudgment, the Supreme Court refer to two fundamental principles of our constitutional law and i quote. The first is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. At laws enacted by the crown, in parliament, are the supreme form of law in our legal system, with which everyone, including the government, must comply. And that is the end of the court. Can the attorney general confirm that he, and the government, will comply with the law, known as the benn act, recently passed by this parliament which has received royal assent . Yes. Isnt it the case that, contrary to the shouted opinions of the front bench opposite, what the Supreme Court has done, is to invent a new constitutional rule, just as. Just as lord sumption told us today. He also said this was a revolution, he described as revolutionary. Isnt it the case that, prior, she said shocking, it was him who said it. Isnt it likely, indeed probable, that his entice was entirely correct, until this changed the law . I am very grateful for the question. I cant disclose the advice i gave. The honourable lady who first asked the question had her a nswer who first asked the question had her answer and i who first asked the question had her answerand i am who first asked the question had her answer and i am afraid im good to keep giving it today. What i would say is that Discipline Court did, indeed, as it overtly and excessively said, develop the law. It took what was a Political Convention, hitherto in all of the constitutional textbooks described as unenforceable by a court, and decided that it would set a test and make to convert it into a legal principle, and a legal test. And that it was perfectly entitled to do. Just as this house well, in the coming months and years, how to reflect upon the application of it, and whether it is content to leave that position untouched. But, for the moment it is the law and the law must be obeyed. Can the attorney general be very, very clear. Where the director of legislative affairs and the cabinet secretary and any other advisers asked to make sworn state m e nts other advisers asked to make sworn statements in these cases and did they refuse to do so, and if so, why . I simply cannot comment on matters that pertain to the internal preparations of cases which are covered by Legal Professional Privilege it is simply not reasonable to ask them to do so, particularly when it relates to individuals. So he should make no assumptions, one way or the other, from what i am saying, fact is they are from what i am saying, fact is they a re covered by from what i am saying, fact is they are covered by privilege and must respected. Many extremely distinguished and experienced lawyers in this house, but some of us are lawyers in this house, but some of us are not lawyers. And many of our constituents are not lawyers. So could my friend, the attorney general, explain this very clearly. Is this a new law, does it set a new precedent, and if it is a new law, and a new precedent, will the government comply with the new law and comply with the new precedent . What it is is a new principle of law. Which has been found to exist by the Supreme Court. And where hitherto it has not been thought that a court could go. But that the court is entitled to develop the common law and that it has done. It does set a precedent, it is binding, u nless does set a precedent, it is binding, unless this house, injury course, considers it should take action to alter that position. In due course. The decision was welcomed yesterday, upholding parliamentary sovereignty, it should not have come to this. Are centuries old unwritten constitution based on gentleman is agreements is not fit for purpose when dangerous populists are in office. Well he therefore consider urgent proposals for a written constitution developed with real systems engagement since our democracy belongs to all of us, not just those who think they are above the law . I have to say i have a degree of sympathy with what the honourable lady says. I do think that, as we depart the European Union, there is ground for thinking again about our constitutional arrangements, how the should be ordered. And, in doing so, i think a widespread Public Consultation of the kind she is describing would be essential. Because any new constitutional arrangement would have to be sanctioned by the widest possible public support and assent. Soido possible public support and assent. So i do have some sympathy and no doubt over the coming months and yea rs, doubt over the coming months and years, this will be a subject of important concern to this house. Given that three of the most distinguished lawyers in the country found in the lower court that the government was in that case was entirely correct, can the attorney general and lighting lawyers like me white not even one out of 11 Supreme Courtjudges could be found to agree with them . I think my honourable friend is asking me to look into a crystal ball. Far be it from me to fathom the inscrutable minds of their mod chips in the Supreme Court as to why they choose not to dissent, if they we re they choose not to dissent, if they were minded to dissent, or to agree if they were reminded not to agree. Ifor one i am delighted that if they were reminded not to agree. I for one i am delighted that we are sitting. But the attorney general is absolutely right about one thing, the result of yesterdays drilling is the result of yesterdays drilling is ruling should bejusticiable by the courts. My gentle suggestion is that it might be a good idea prorogation in a future were only allowed to proceed if there had been allowed to proceed if there had been a bout in this house in favour of it. If i may a bout in this house in favour of it. If may say a bout in this house in favour of it. If i may say to the honourable gentleman, as i respect him, particularly in his new guise as an aspirin to even higher office, constructive, helpful, impartial and a model to us all. Jeering. I think, but im not sure, that the attorney general is seeking to help the honourable gentleman. Can i ask the honourable gentleman. Can i ask the attorney general, in applying this new legal principle that has been created or invented by the Supreme Court, how many prorogation is in the last century would have passed muster to the test that has been created . Passed muster to the test that has been created . How passed muster to the test that has been created . How can the longer session this house has had since the civil war now be lawfully brought to an end, and a queens speech lawfully brought forward . An end, and a queens speech lawfully brought forward . And is royal assent a proceeding in parliament . As to my honourable friends first question is, plainly, if one examines the historical records, there is no doubt that there would have been some, possibly quite a few, food aggression is that under this test might have had difficulty in passing. For example, a Ramsay Macdonald proved out this parliament in 1930 for some months during the course of a minority government at a time when the great wall street crash had happened in 1929. Some would say the house should have sat to determine the onset of the Great Depression and to debate those important matters. But the courts looked on impassively as that Labour Government decided to prove luke. And again in 1948, and right up into the 19905 when into that a parliament had been prorogued in order to avoid an embarrassing 5elect committee inquiry. From now on, when a Prime Minister has to Prorogue Parliament, he will have to look at all these 5elect committees, 5ee look at all these 5elect committees, see what enquiries they are doing, which is chairman of which 5elect committee might say im an offended manner, why to prorogue or not to allow my 5elect committee to report. The5e allow my 5elect committee to report. These are matters which i will go to court and stop the prorogation for. Soido court and stop the prorogation for. So i do think that this test5 set by the Supreme Court bites quite a number significant questions. Invites quite a significant number of questions. The attorney general has told us that he does not agree with thejudgment has told us that he does not agree with the judgment and he argued against it, if that is the case and he is so convinced prorogation wa5 lawful, why didnt he and the comic provide a witness statement to the Supreme Court to make that case . He and the government. There are all kinds of reasons why in judicial reviews witness statements are not giving in cases of this kind. I cannot discu55 giving in cases of this kind. I cannot discuss at the internal counsels of the preparations of a legal case because it is covered by legal, professional privilege. Given that parliament is at the apex of our constitutional system, does the attorney general believe that the appointment of Supreme Courtjudges should receive the formal agreement of parliament . I understand the question of my honourable friend, i do say to him quite frankly that i think that is a matter which this housein think that is a matter which this house in the coming months and years may need to reflect upon, depending upon how the constitutional arrangements of the honourable lady for brighton and whose shot hole5 indicated because i do think we will have to look again at our constitutional arrangements, to see if we could find some Common Ground ona lad. If we could find some Common Ground on a lad. We need to have a proper consideration of it. As we leave the eu, a great gap open5 consideration of it. As we leave the eu, a great gap opens up from where we ta ke eu, a great gap opens up from where we take away from legal integration all of this. And we need to think about the implications of that. I agree that one might hurt me very well beware that they will need to be parliamentary due scrutiny of judiciary appointments in some manner. I am judiciary appointments in some manner. Iam not judiciary appointments in some manner. I am not if about it but i understand what is being asked. The attorney buzz about defence today with regard to the Supreme Court judgment appears to be that because the government won the semifinal, they should have been awarded the trophy. That is not how it works. And in the final, he should acknowledge that the government was 110. With acknowledge that the government was 11 0. With regard to his call, which repeats the call from the Prime Minister, for the public to break the breaks deadlock by casting their votes. If he is so keen for a public votes. If he is so keen for a public vote on brexit, why does he not offer the public the chance to vote on the final government brexit deal however that turns out . Because ill tell you why, because i think it will be an insult to the millions who voted in at the first to have a second one before we have implemented a first. That is what i think, i know people disagree but thatis think, i know people disagree but that is a legitimate point of view. The second thing, they question now of this house is whether the government is going to be permitted to govern. If the opposition doe5 not wish to allow it to govern, then its morally correct thing to do as they seek to have an election. What i object to is that this party and the side of the house has repeatedly sought to block light and to prevent the electorate from having it say, when this parliament is as dead as dead can be. Following on from that, with the attorney general accept that the vast majority of people i talked to have great faith on this government but they have no faith in this domain parliament. And whilst there are important legal implications for yesterday was mike ruling, the Practical Implications of that ruling is that this remain parliament that has talked about brexit for over three and a half years will now get several more years will now get several more years to do what they possibly can to talk about brexit but make absolutely certain that 17. 4 Million People never get what they voted for. I wholly understand the strength of feeling of my honourable friend, and i agree with almost all of it. The attorney general accepts that his legal advice was wrong, that his legal advice was wrong, that the government got this wrong. Whether in law or not, it was prudently obvious to everybody watching that it was wrong to Prorogue Parliament in that way. The United Kingdom head of state was asked by the Prime Minister to agree toa asked by the Prime Minister to agree to a legal course of action based on incorrect advice. What does he believe should be the consequences for those responsible . The same consequences that flow from any good faith implementation of a device that at the time is perfectly respectable and tenable advice, as this was. The fact of the matter was that the government,s position was at the prorogation was lawful and constitutional. That was the advice the government had, it was the advice that it gave to those who asked it, and the Supreme Court has decided we are wrong. We accept that. A respectable point of view. My that. A respectable point of view. My constituents looted to leave the European Union, and many have written to me since yesterdays judgment concerned about whether that will be delivered. Can the attorney general confirmed there is nothing in this judgment that will prevent us from leaving the eu on the 31st of october as they voted for . There is nothing in this judgment that applies directly to the question of our departure from the question of our departure from the European Union. As thejustices made clear, this was a decision solely on the lawfulness of the prorogation. Further to the question of my honourable friend, has the government been seeking a route not to comply with the benn act as several ministers have made clear, and has he be asked to offer legal advice to that effect . and has he be asked to offer legal advice to that effect . I cant a nswer advice to that effect . I cant answer the last question, as he well knows. As attorneys general have long maintained the commission, we cannot disclose the fact or content of any advice. But the first point, there is no question of this government not obeying the law. There is a question as to precisely what obligations the law might require of the government, but once those obligations are ascertained with clarity, im not saying they arent clear, just that its a legitimate consideration the government were going through, the government were going through, the government will buy them. Will obey them. Setting aside the decision of the Supreme Court, what force it law does the decision of the british people to leave the European Union have . The law in relation to the referendum is that it was not binding upon this parliament. It was binding in every moral sense upon those who promise the british people that it would be implemented, but it was not binding asa implemented, but it was not binding as a matter of law. The attorney general excuses recent comments by member of this house are simply the expression of robust, critical views. Wouldnt he agree that those recently arguing that brexit were good back control to the uk courts and parliament have now completely u turn and are now actively working to undermine those institutions . No, i think that has the ridiculous sessions, in fact. The reality is that what we who believe in leaving the eu have fought for so long for is to return to the United Kingdom the power to chart its own course, uncovered by other institutions in the European Union. Ungoverned. How we are our constitution as a matter for us, and it should be, it should bea for us, and it should be, it should be a matter for the democratic percent of all people of the United Kingdom. I dont believe for a moment that this government or the side of the house is trying in any way to avoid diet. We are trying to make sure that those powers come back to the british people, where they should reside. Does my right honourable and learned friend agree with me that contrary to the repeated claims of the Prime Ministers Many Political opponents that the moment he announced prorogation he broke the law, the fa ct prorogation he broke the law, the fact is he did not. We all know that the Supreme Court yesterday set new law. The Supreme Court judgment the Supreme Courtjudgment said that the government got the law wrong, we have to accept that. But it is perfectly true that in doing so, they effectively invented or created a new legal principle which hitherto had been a Political Convention, and defined that principle in a new legal test. It is a crystal ball gazing to know whether any court will decide to do that. It did, though the court below led by the lord chiefjustice though the court below led by the lord chief justice concluded though the court below led by the lord chiefjustice concluded that it should not. During the attorney generals theatrical man earlier, he inadvertently forgot to answer the questions from my right honourable friend. How much has this prorogation cost the taxpayer and all the legal advice and legal consequences cost the taxpayer . dont know is the answer to that question. Im sure if the honourable gentleman wants to know you could put down a written question, or im happy to write to him if you like. Im happy to disclose that in due course once the costs are now on. I may say to the honourable gentleman, all those cost could have been saved if he had just voted for an election. We could have avoided these cascades of cash following up on so many lawyers in so many jurisdictions by the simple act of him having the moral guts and been checking, which is what you are are not to be in chicken. Great my honourable friend advise me that lees legal actions being funded by crowdfunding, will that funding be taxable, and all that tax have to be paid by the individuals bringing the cases . I dont believe they are taxable, but i have to say that if my right honourable friend would permit me to look into it, i will sit on on the subject. Earlier this morning, the attorney general set out his long held views about why publishing his advice is not a good idea. So has he requested a leak inquiry to discover who gave documents to sky news last night . And if he hasnt, is that because he is worried it will unmask machinations in number ten . They arent just my long standing views, they are the long standing use of successive attorneys of all governments over many, many years. As to the second question, i am not aware whether there is or isnt a lea k aware whether there is or isnt a leak inquiry but these days im sort use of the poorest and of government that frankly i use government these days to advertise when i need some particular cause that i want to espouse. The reality is that this government, this parliament, is in a position where we need to go to the electorate. I would urge her to support that as soon as of all because it is the only morally right thing to do, to subject these debates to the public again. thing to do, to subject these debates to the public again. I must raise my concerns about the attorney general constantly saying that this parliament is dead. This parliament was elected in 2017, it reflects the divisions in this country, in our communities and in ourfamilies. The failure is that we have not yet reached a compromise. Many of us long to leave the European Union, as we set out in the referendum, but have been frustrated by the fact we have been frustrated by the fact we have not been able to find a consensus amongst the different factions. Can i urge the attorney general to work with colleagues and try to find out compromise and to see language of pitting parliament the people . I assure my right honourable friend that if i hadnt been driven to use this language, i would never have used it. Jeering. The fact of the matter is that the opposition wont let the government govern, the opposition wont do what the opposition should do in these circumstances, which is right for an election. By any standards, the government is in a minority, it has had its order paper taking from it again and again, and no doubt further attempts to come. That is the very definition of a parliament that wont fulfil its responsibilities, i learned to let the queens government to be able to be conducted, or to opt for a general election. That is why i call this a dead parliament. I know my honourable friend now is that nobody would harder than i did for compromise. Nobody worked harder than i did to put through the Withdrawal Agreement that was put before this house. I and she worked ha rd to before this house. I and she worked hard to put this through, but i have now reached the sad and heavy conclusion that this parliament is now logout were sitting and it should be gone for any good it is doing the approach today probably should have had more humility and less levity because that is widespread sympathy for the difficulty of his position offering legal advice in such challenging circumstances. In view of the fact that his advice on probation has been found to be unlawful, can he a nswer to been found to be unlawful, can he answer to the house whether he has been asked by the Prime Minister to profit advice on the legality, or whether it would be lawful to ignore the destruction of the ben act . Whether he has offered advice or not is not subject to privilege charisma. Words fail me, mr speaker the right honourable gentleman as rises in the full force of his morality, having been elected for one party and sitting there for another. His honourable friend who did the chicken run, the rat run, before him having said already that she thinks there should be a by election when people change their parties. He has the nerve to arise that i should somehow affect great humility. I think he should be on his knees to his own constituents begging layer forgiveness for his betrayal the fact of the matter is, the question is subject to the law office ofs convention as he now is. I cannot answer him. I would suggest that when his backyard be elected by his constituents, no doubt he has confidence he will be. Ask me then and all maybe give him an answer. Does my right honourable and learned friend agree with me that if her majestys government chooses to push its prerogative powers to the limit, as indeed it is quite entitled to do, that it should both expect a challenge and it has had and perhaps the conclusion arisen from that . didnt heara the conclusion arisen from that . didnt hear a word of that. Im very sorry, i would didnt hear a word of that. Im very sorry, iwould be didnt hear a word of that. Im very sorry, i would be most grateful. There was a very unattractive rant fest taking place between honourable members on opposite sides of the house, each gesticulating to each other. Lets have a bit of calm and the question again. We want to proceed fairly quickly. Would my honourable friend agree with me that if her majestys government wishes to push its prerogative powers to the very limits, which is is entitled to do, that the kind of consequences we have seen entitled to do, that the kind of consequences we have seen in the last few days are inevitable . think that in any situation where constitutional powers are pushed to their limits, it is bound to cause a strain. I completely accept that we are in an unprecedented time now when constitutional limits have been pressed on all sides, in this house, by seizing control of order papers, by seizing control of order papers, by rejecting the opportunity for elections, when they wont let the government govern. These are factors that place huge strain upon our constitutional arrangements. I agree with him it would be a good thing if we could resume calmer waters, which no doubt we will, because i have every faith and confidence in the good sense of this country. And in the end, the good sense of this house to be able to come to a solution, and that solution must be a general election, i believe. Numberof a general election, i believe. Number of honourable members are standing who were not standing at the start of the statement. I will seek to accommodate them if a fault has occurred to them that they want to convey or a question that they wa nt to convey or a question that they want to put that would otherwise go and ask. But once those that are standing have asked the question is, we must move on to the next question. The attorney general is really trying to take the high moral ground on this but i have to wonder what models were applied by the commonality yesterdays Supreme Court decisions. Can he tell the house when it was he first became aware that the advice given to her majesty the queen, to the speaker of this house, and at this house itself, about the reasons for probation and those reasons were not true . In advocacy terms we call those when did you stop beating your wife questions. I dont accept the question. There is no question that the Supreme Court found in any way that any advice given was knowingly misleading. Which might right honourable friend agree that there isa honourable friend agree that there is a judgment which is superior to that of any courts, that is the judgment of the british people, which has once been given on the question whether or not this country should remain a member of the European Union but has twice been prevented from being expressed in a bout of this house. Is it not now time that we should allow them to give theirjudgment on this parliament . I couldnt agree more with my right honourable friend. The time has come. The fact is this parliament has no further point, there is no possibility of us governing while this Parliament Continues to block everything it does. Single sentence question now without preamble. I have listened carefully to the attorney general, i havent agreed with a fractional with what he has said. Has it never crossed his mind that if the Prime Minister made a ridiculous decision to Prorogue Parliament for five weeks in the run up to brexit, which is the greatest constitutional change to the uk for years, that the courts would like to be an unlawful prorogation of parliament . Courts would like to be an unlawful prorogation of parliament7m courts would like to be an unlawful prorogation of parliament . If i were to a nswer prorogation of parliament . If i were to answer that question, tempting though it is, i would be transgressing the though it is, i would be tra nsgressing the law though it is, i would be transgressing the Law Officers Convention because i would be telling her what advice i had or hadnt given. But if she asked me did it occur to me, well, of course it did. Of course it occurred to me, any barrister who enters into litigation, if it doesnt occur to him that he might lose, he is a bit ofa him that he might lose, he is a bit of a knit, really. The reality is it would be ridiculous not to. Mr speaker, would have the attorney general agree with the views of the overwhelming majority of my constituency that the continued delay on delivering on the result of the referendum is leading to the public having a lack of confidence in our democratic process, as the only way to solve it is to have that election now and let the public decide . I completely agree with the honourable gentleman, he has put his finger right on it. It is this continuing, artificial prolong that this dead parliament is undermining peoples confidence was that i know what they are not doing it, because they know they will not survive. But they know they will not survive. But they have got to have the courage of their convictions and get on with it and put it to the country. The attorney general is trying to exhilarate his and his governments determinations by saying that the Supreme Court created new law. Isnt it the role, and wasnt it the action of the Supreme Court, to interpret existing law . It is one function of what a court is, but a court is perfectly entitled to develop the common law. I dont think there can be any doubt that is what has happened in this case. Think there can be any doubt that is what has happened in this casem is often said that a lawyer who acts for himself has a feel for a client. It is also worrying that if the lawyer is not aware of the costs of the case in continuing with the advice. Could the attorney general when he makes a statement about the cost to the taxpayer, include the cost to the taxpayer, include the cost of the house of of having to reconvene on 24 others and the inconvenience to the staff here . May i place on record my endorsement for your expression of gratitude to the staff of the house. They do an extraordinarily greatjob and we are deeply grateful to them and the speed with which they have been able to facilitate the resumption of parliament. The question of who had sight of the legal advice before the decision was taken remains unanswered. So i ask the attorney general once again. Did