h “a fi think any "lag-fig “was ~§\\§ think any member of it"fl'fifi i‘uy ‘fll?‘fll3\£ mi mi? think any member of this house don't think any member of this house can be in any doubt that the information that the attorney general provided yesterday was a very frank assessment of the legal position. the key questions posed by members on all sides are on our once we must all consider. my right honourable friend responded to all those questions in a conference of fashion. alongside yesterday's nearly two and a half hour session the government has also provided a 48 page legal, terry which sets out the legal effect of each part of the withdrawal agreement. the information provided to the house is the detailed legal position on the withdrawal agreement and as the attorney general said to the house yesterday, he continues to be at the disposal of parliamentarians to several questions. i would therefore

in responding to the contempt motion before us today urge the house to exercise caution in this matter. the issue at hand is not one of substantive content, as yesterday's questioning illustrated there is no real dispute as to the meaning and legal effect of the withdrawal agreement, and the attorney general could not have been clear about the legal position yesterday. in fact, mr speaker, no honourable member could say in all honesty that the attorney general has done anything other than treat this house with the greatest of respect. there can be no question that few other government has acted in a manner which is contemptuous of this house.” has acted in a manner which is contemptuous of this house. i am very grateful to her forgiving we had she said the attorney general...

he made it clear that he said he should disclose and i believe the public interest compels me not to. he made it clear that he was deliberately in contempt of this parliament. the honourable gentleman in my opinion is not correct and as i have just set out, the attorney general would answer all questions from members in the most frankly a possible legal position. so the issue we are debating today is the government was my duty to protect law officers advice, which is in the national interest. i will give way. lam national interest. i will give way. i am grateful to the leader forgiving way. does she share my disquiet with some of these eastern sergi spoken by the honourable and larry gentleman who opened the debate, the letter which she has tabled calling for this motion was signed and sealed by thursday lunchtime yesterday. they clearly

had no interest in what our right honourable and learned friend the attorney had to say on monday. honourable and learned friend the attorney had to say on mondaylj attorney had to say on monday.” agree with my honourable friend that this house needs to exercise some caution that i would like to explain precisely why. the issue we are debating today is the government duty to protect law officers advice, which is in the national interest. this house has previously recognised the importance of the principal that information cannot always be disclosed, this has all —— this is a lwa ys disclosed, this has all —— this is always guided by the need to protect the broader public interest. this is directly reflected in the freedom of information act of 2000, brought in under a labour government, which sets out a careful scheme for balancing the twin imperatives of transparency on one hand, and of

safeguarding the public interest on the other. the consequences of not following those principles are obvious. the house might request by way of a humble address information that could compromise national security or which might put the lives of our troops in danger. obviously parliamentary sovereignty and the duty of government to be motions is extremely potent, to this house, but my honourable friend is right to say that there is the other problem of the confidentiality of legal advice which labour and conservative governments also need as well. isn't there a sensible solution to this as opposed to the party political exchange at the moment? that the opposition agreed to receive a confidential briefing on privy council terms, look at the

documents, and have the attorney point out those parts which inevitably‘s few might damage the national interest, damage the negotiating position of any government of any party, and in effect agreed to redact the documents, the politically embarrassing bits which is what the opposition are after and all the rest of it, they can come out with both of these contentions that the house must be obeyed and that the attorney's legal advice should be confidential, ought to be protected and that is a possible way of reconciling the two sides.” and that is a possible way of reconciling the two sides. i am grateful for the advice of the father of the house but he will appreciate that the right honourable death in opposite want all legal advice to be put into the public domain, without any attempt at protecting the national interest whatsoever. and what you will appreciate, i will not give way for appreciate, i will not give way for a while, consequences of not

following the principles of transparency on the one hand and safeguarding public interest on the other are very obvious. the house could request by way of a humble address information that could compromise national security. it would mean releasing information with no method for the house to review or with no method for the house to review oi’ assess with no method for the house to review or assess the information in question before its full release into the public domain. it would not be possible under the humble address procedure to weigh up any potential consequences of such a disclosure. it is simply an irresponsible thing to do. turning to the present case concerning law officers advice, as this house is aware, this is the subject of very long—standing conventions which are enshrined in the ministerial code and recognise,

firstly with the organised —— authorisation of the law officers, the fact that or whether indeed their advice has been provided to government should not be disclosed. secondly, such advice must not be provided to those outside of government without the law officers express authorisation. the purpose of these conventions are to provide the best possible guarantee that government business is conducted in the light of phil and franco legal advice. this is a fundamental principle of the rule of law, and of government knew that it might be forced to disclose the advice it receives it could seriously compromise the sort of requests for advice that would be made and would totally impede the ability of the law officers and government lawyers to provide it. in turn, that would seriously compromise good government. this motion we are

debating today would undermine these vital conventions. and it does so through the blunt instrument of the humble address. an arcane parliamentary procedure which... which until very recently it was last used in this way in the 19th century. moreover, moreover, there is real doubt about the gambit of the procedure, it contains no mechanism by which information can be reviewed to ensure that its disclosure does not seriously harm the public interest. so in considering today's motion, honourable members must reflect carefully on this. and on the potential consequences notjust for this government, but for all future governments. as this house

knows, the government has worked extremely hard to comply with humble addresses that have previously been passed. and we have also sought to do so in response to the current case we are debating today. while at the same time taking steps to protect the national interest. the conventions i have spoken about stand and endear because they respect the proper balance between the government and parliament. and the government and parliament. and the principle that ministers should be as open with parliament as it is possible to be provided that disclosure of information does not compromise the wider public interest. we chip away at them at oui’ interest. we chip away at them at our peril. today's motion is not in the interests of members, and it is definitely not in the national interest. what we break now may be very difficult to fix later. i turn out to the contempt motion itself. i

will give way. i thank the leader forgiving way. the reader has been commenting on the use of the humble address mechanism for the address mechanism. we were told that this information in the prejudicial to the national interest. isn't it impossible to debate openly in this house whether not the information should be disclosed without knowing what that information is? and isn't it therefore appropriate to make a decision about what may and may not be disclosed in some confidential tribunal in allardyce to a judge making that decision if the matter disclosure arises in a court of law? again my honourable friend points out the problem that the right honourable gentleman's motion seeks for all information to be provided into the public domain without any ability of anyone on any side of the house to consider whether that would be in the national interest to do so. be in the national interest to do

so. i do want to turn now to the co nte m pt so. i do want to turn now to the contempt motion itself, we recognise that concerns have been raised as to whether the government response meets the terms and spirit agreed on the 13th of november. we consider that the spirit and intent of that motion has been fully complied with. asi motion has been fully complied with. as i said earlier, the government has now provided a 48 page paper setting out the legal effect of the withdrawal agreement, and the attorney general came to this as yesterday. anyone present in the gym before his statement and subsequent responses to questions can be an absolutely no doubt that the attorney general give a full... order. mr russell, you are of the excitable denizens of the house, if you are on excitable denizens of the house, if you are on your feet you would be entitled to express your views. when you are in your seat you are not. i hope that basic rubric is now clear

to you and will require no further explanation. the leader of the house, andrea letts. thank you mr speaker. anyone present in the chamberfor the speaker. anyone present in the chamber for the attorney general‘s statement and his subsequent responses to questions can be an absolutely no doubt that the attorney general gave a full and frank exposition of the legal position of the withdrawal agreement. i simply reject any suggestion that the attorney general has done anything other than treat this house with the greatest of respect. turning to process. the motion before the house today seeks to find the government in contempt of parliament without having taken the important prior step of offending the matter to the committee of privileges, as is normally the case. this is a matter of due process. firstly, those facing this extremely serious charge of co nte m pt facing this extremely serious charge of contempt should each be given the opportunity to make their case and

to follow the due process of this house. they should be given the opportunity to explain how they have come to the decision about how best to balance the government responsibilities to parliament with their ministerial duties, including their ministerial duties, including the need to consider the national interest. that opportunity is a vital element of any such procedure, and in this mother of all parliaments, surely we are nothing if we do not uphold our own constitutional practices in the appropriate way. the privileges committee will also want to consider the question of compliance with the motion in its full constitutional and historical context. the government with strongly welcome the committee having the opportunity to consider the more general scope of the motion for the humble address procedure, in particular, as regards confidential information and the national interest. the committee could consider these complex matters inafulland

could consider these complex matters in a full and impartial way, away from the heat of the present debate and fulfilment of their parliamentary duty, as established by this house. and i'm grateful to the honourable lady the chair of the committee for the conversation she andi committee for the conversation she and i had today where she agreed that her committee would be happy to consider that. the members of the committee are accustomed to the consideration of complex and contested issues. that is the very essence of their role. although it could be for the house itself to reach a final determination on whether a contempt has been committed, it should do so on the basis of the full and impartial consideration of the facts by the committee of privileges. therefore, i appeal to all those honourable members, right across this house, that if they seek to pass this motion, they should refer it to the committee in line with our parliamentary procedure is, and i urge all honourable members to support the government's amendment.

the original question was as on the order paper, since when the amendment has been proposed, as on the order paper. the question is that the amendment be made. so william cash. mr speaker. i must say i found the answers given by the attorney general yesterday extremely difficult to understand. interns in which they were expressed. relating to the national interest when of course that is a question which is contained in the results of the referendum and the withdrawal act of 2018. i also find it very difficult to an report that i have heard, it is most unsatisfactory for this to be, for this issue to be regarded as a parlourgame, and be, for this issue to be regarded as a parlour game, and we are told to stop messing around with process. i have to say that i do think that

somewhat underestimated the significance of what we are here dealing with. but i will leave it at that because people in those circumstances do use language which sometimes perhaps underestimate the importance of the matters that are being dealt with. on the question of conventions, i would simply like to say to the leader of the house and indeed to the law officers, that the question of conventions does turn on the reason of the rule. now in this particular context i would say that the reason for the application of this particular convention which includes the question of the ministerial code which i shall come on to ina ministerial code which i shall come on to in a moment, quite clearly demonstrates that unless you know what the attorney general has actually given by way of a full disclosure, this is extremely difficult to know whether or not the

public policy which is being pursued is consistent with the legal advice that he gave. ivorjennings is one of the greatest cottages to authorities on these matters, he also says that conventions are observed because of the political difficulties that arise if they are not. i would suggest that nothing could better illustrate the current situation and in particular, the issues which i have about a deal with roll it the ministerial code itself. under the ministerial code, itself. under the ministerial code, it is essential that the law officers are consulted in good time before the government is committed and use the expression set out the code to critical decisions involving legal considerations. now i have been informed because the chequers proposal lie at the heart of the beginnings of the issues of which we are considering, the withdrawal

agreement, that the law officers we re agreement, that the law officers were not consulted before the chequers proposal is, with dire consequences. including as i said to the prime minister on the 9th of july, that i did not think she would have been able to reconcile the chequers proposals with the express repeal of the european community ‘s act 1972 in the 20 team withdrawal act. this was passed on the 26th of june, 16 days past and then we were presented with the chequers proposal so presented with the chequers proposal so everybody knew when the royal assent was given that the express repeal of the 1972 act had actually been enacted and yet it was quite clear because only a few days later a white paper of 80 pages was produced. the effect of which was to demonstrate that the 1972 act was going to be considerably altered.

and therefore i regarded that as a massive breach of trust, which could have been resolved if we had the full advice of the attorney general at that time at that moment. under the same convention, and with respect to this present withdrawal agreement, it is essential for us to know now whether the present attorney general give advice on an issue of incompatibility between the expressed repeal of that 1972 act in the withdrawal act itself. and the withdrawal agreement itself. now in the introduction that he gave to his legal statement yesterday there was no indication that he addressed that question as a matter of fundamental constitutional importance. indeed, he does state that the agreement needs a new act of parliament in domestic law, and well as i pointed out in the sunday telegraph this is no more than a wing and a prayer. i

asked the prime ministers about these matters to her statement last monday and also in the liaison committee to which i received no satisfactory answers. i also asked the attorney general yesterday a similar question and i asked him to drop his own attention to a queen ‘s bench division cited as president for the disclosure of the attorney general‘s advice. therefore other precedents, one being particularly significant because of the ink about ability between the 90s and the two act in the withdrawal agreement. so what i would say to you mr speaker isa what i would say to you mr speaker is a previous, that if we do not have the full disclosure of the opinion of the attorney general, this is relevant to the question of whether or not the actual withdrawal agreement itself is invalid under

the vienna convention. because a fundamentalfailure the vienna convention. because a fundamental failure to comply with internal domestic constitutional law does amount to transfer the invalidity of such a withdrawal agreement. and i would simply say, just one moment, i would have received less. that if there is a danger of invalidity of that withdrawal agreement, this is a matter of fundamental importance on which i would have expected the attorney general to include his opinion and elation to this withdrawal agreement but there is no evidence whatsoever that he has referred to that in his opinion and thatis referred to that in his opinion and that is why we need his full disclosure. i also understand that there are from within governmental circles, that there are sheaves of papers and packing the repeal of the 1972 act with respect to the perspective of droll and of the

mentation bill which again is a matter of extreme public importance. by matter of extreme public importance. by any standards, all these matters for modelling within the ministerial code, but also what i would have hoped and expected the attorney general would deal with elation to his opinion in a statement he gave yesterday, but there was nothing there to give me any comfort whatsoever. so i do think that to say that we should move on and that we should get real and that what he thought was in the national trust does also bear on the question on whether in fact the withdrawal act of 20 team is not a matter of extreme public interest and fundamental importance, and the failure to express their introduction in the statement does seem introduction in the statement does seem to me to be a mistake of the first order. and furthermore to be inconsistent with what i would have expected from the legal opinion of the attorney general. if i could

just add this, i refer to the authorities of work, the attorney general politics and the public interest, published in 1984 and written by professorjohn edwards. in this chapter dealing with ministerial consultations with the law officers, it is made clear that all the legal advisers from all departments in the whole of government ultimately will turn on the view of the attorney general, as he states there will be times when the departments, when the attorney general receiving the legal applications of the departments course of action, in this case another ten and the department of dixie, will find it necessary to oppose himself if ministers prepare that i prefer other policy. this must also be derived from the legal applications of the proposed policy.

from the government he says in his authorities of work, to reject such advice would be quite exceptional, and would reasonably leads to serious question by the attorney general and self of his continued to serve as the government's chief legal officer. that appears on page 190. without public disclosure of his opinion it will be impossible to get to the bottom of all of these considerations which are at the heart of the issue of public trust to which the secretary of state referred, regarding the manifesto 1985 and the reasons for his resignation, and the conduct of the government to which i have referred myself in terms of broken bronzes by the government and the house recently. i would simply add that the reason why my —— why the european committee is making a full enquiry into this in a nutshell is this, that we want to get to the bottom of the conduct and the processes and outcome of these negotiations, and we will do so by

taking evidence and i trust that the government will take note of the seriousness of the suggestions and organise by putting forward, because they go to the heart of public trust, the referendum vote itself, the repeal of the 1972 act and also whether in the attorney general has fully addressed in an opinion to which we have a right in my opinion to see. the consequences for the withdrawal agreement of the opinion that he has given in the question of whether not necessarily in a public interest will not be disclosed. thank you mr speaker can i start by commending those honourable members who have secured this debate and in thanking you for allowing it. can i also paid tribute to the stamina of my honourable friend from north—east fife and other colleagues who last night assured that you would have

ample time to consider the response to the original application. mr speaker today, later today we began five days of debate on possibly the most important piece in decision is parliament will ever take. today also, ofstead has described the government's statement —— treatment of thousands of schoolchildren in england has an affluent scandal. we have an investigation into funeral company 's, report from a un special measures and steve jobs around the foundation highlighting the poverty that exists on this one of the most wealthy commies in the world. what does that have to do with this motion? the only reason we allowed to discuss those things openly and without fear and indeed the only reason we are allowed to know most of those things is because the power of those things is because the power of the state to stop us from knowing is tempered by the rates or democratically elected parliament. not tempered nearly enough in my

humble opinion. the parliament is not democratically enough elected in my humble opinion. but we do have an elected parliament to hold back on the excesses of the state, to hold back the excesses of the government and that is for today's motion —— thatis and that is for today's motion —— that is what today's motion is all about. parliament has 650 people, each one of us and trusted to exercise sovereignty on behalf of those who said this year. content of this parliament is contempt for the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the people and contempt for this parliament is contempt for this parliament is contempt for this parliament is contempt for the people. a government that seeks to place itself above the express will this parliament is a government in contempt of the people and the government that has already taken a dangerous step down the road from democracy towards dictatorship and today's debate is not about the rights and wrongs of the original motion has presented to the house on the 30th of november, because astonishingly enough, the time for

debate on those questions was the 13th of november. so let's not spent time today on questions of convention and precedents, of confidentiality of legal advice and life in —— and whether that confidential they should be waived, the paper that debate has gone. the time proposition to the terms of that motion was when you mr speaker called a question and at that point the government the —— government instructed its members to do nothing, the government instructed its members not to oppose that motion. i welcome the degree of humility they are showing now admitting that they got wrong, but the government having got it wrong is not an excuse for the government unilaterally to seek to change the wording or the meaning behind a decision, a binding decision that has been made by this parliament. the government seems to decide that they can change, that they have the audacity to come back here yesterday

and today and tell parliament that they are not parliament know what it was that parliament decided, now what parliament meant when we took that decision. mr speaker they are placing themselves above parliament. they are placing themselves in contempt of parliament. and as for the legal position document published yesterday that was going to fix it all, that could hardly have been more patronising if they had pictures to colour in and join the dots with puzzles every so often just to keep us interested. it was not a legal position by any accepted definition of those terms. it was an attempt i think, a sop to some of their one attempt i think, a sop to some of theirone mps attempt i think, a sop to some of their one mps who are in a very difficult position right now, struggling between understandable loyalty to the government, to their party, individual ministers and overriding loyalty the people and parliament. as the honourable member from holborn and st pancras pointed out the government have made a habit of not turning up the think they're going to lose. maybe the problem is

they get so used to being allowed to ignoring the views and opinions of parliament that they forgot that sometimes parliament takes decisions they are not allowed to ignore. maybe that's why they are so upset now. alongside the issues about what and what should not be made available to members of parliament and the public, maybe it is because this decision has laid bare the incompetence at the heart of a government that does not even know the basics of parliamentary procedure. i will give way.” the basics of parliamentary procedure. iwill give way. ithank the honourable gentleman for giving way. i am just wondering whether this commitment to openness means he will be asking the scottish legal officer to publish all of her advice in the scottish parliament in future. mr speaker, i have absolutely no doubt that if the parliament that represents the people of scotland