House of Lords
Parliament

Image source, HoL

Lib Dem Lord McNally says that "it would be very complacent of us to imagine that everything in our own garden is rosy".

Lord McNally is talking about concerns from the opposition benches that the UK could become a "lightly regulated, small government regime here at home" after Brexit.

"It's all very well that cuddly, lovable, Lord Ahmad saying, give me these powers, and I will use them wisely for the common good, but what happens when we find ourselves in the post-Brexit wonderland, with Jacob Rees-Mogg at the helm, and John Redwood in Lord Ahmad's place?" he asks.

"We are the Liberal Democrats, and we are here to help him," he refers to Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon.

House of Commons
Parliament

Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin uses a point of order to ask if there has been an amendment to the motion, about what could be provided to the committee, and what would be redacted.

Eleanor Laing says she has not received an amendment.

Then Conservative MP Anna Soubry makes a point of order, saying that a Sun journalist has received information from the government that the impact assessments will be published and she asks if it is in order whether it is in order for the government to do that.

Deputy Speaker Eleanor Laing says it is "not a matter for the chair to rule on what the government may say to journalists" but while there is a debate going on in the chamber, the place in which announcements pertaining to the debate should be made is in the chamber.

House of Commons
Parliament

Conservative MP Huw Merriman says it is "patronising beyond belief" to suggest that voters were "duped" into voting to leave the EU.

He says he is concerned that Parliament is being used "to slow the process down, to try to defeat the ultimate goal of those who voted in that particular way".

House of Commons
Parliament

Conservative MP Anna Soubry says she hopes today's motion is put to a vote because she intends to vote in favour of it.

"This is grown-up, serious stuff," says Ms Soubry, who campaigned to remain in the EU.

"I'm not going to stand by to see the future of my children's generation... being trashed and ruined."

If the government does not want the information released, she argues, they should oppose the motion but, if the motion is passed, they should publish.

"What's the problem?" she asks ministers.

"The implication is quite clear. There's something in them that's not to be disclosed because it might actually prick this golden bubble... of the promised land of Brexit."

House of Commons
Parliament

Hilary Benn, who chairs the Exiting the EU Committee, says that "there is a need for transparency" and Parliament should have the information it needs to do its job.

The Labour MP says his committee has accepted "there may be certain information that government does not want to put in the public domain" but that doesn't mean that nothing should be published.

He says "we are told that there is a Treasury analysis" of the potential of post-Brexit trade deals which, according to the Financial Times, concludes that "the value of new trade agreements would be significantly less than the economic costs of leaving the customs union".

He adds that we do not know for sure that this is the conclusion of the report "and yet that is information that we really ought to know" given that the government has adopted a policy of leaving the customs union without providing impact assessments to Parliament.

Mr Benn ends by welcoming the government's decision not to oppose the Labour motion and the committee is happy to "discuss" which material should be made public.

Today in Parliament
Today in Parliament

Image source, Hoc

The Environment Secretary, Michael Gove, has told MPs the Cabinet has "agreed collectively" that the UK's environmental and animal welfare standards should not be diminished "in pursuit of trade deals".

He was speaking to a Commons committee this afternoon about whether chlorine-washed chicken from the US would be allowed into the UK under a post-Brexit trade deal.

The International Development Secretary, Dr Liam Fox, told another committee this morning that he had "no objection to the British public being sold anything that is safe, as long as they know what they are eating. There are no health reasons why we can't eat chicken washed in chlorinated water."

The Green MP, Caroline Lucas, asked Michael Gove how MPs should "weigh up" which minister to believe.

"You have said categorically that there would be no circumstances in which chlorinated chicken would be allowed to come into this country and yet what Liam Fox is saying is that essentially he believes in giving people a choice over what they're eating."

Mr Gove agreed that chlorinated chicken was safe for human consumption, saying that import restrictions were about animal welfare issues. "It has been the case in Cabinet and in Cabinet sub-committees that we have agreed collectively that there should be no diminution in our environmental or animal welfare standards in pursuit of trade deals," he said.

He added: "I don't think Liam was asked about animal welfare standards in front of the International Trade Committee. I don't know if he was. I am sure that any minister, if asked about animal welfare standards, would make the point that we don't want to see them in any way diminished."

House of Commons
Parliament

Conservative MP John Redwood says he is supporting the government and "delighted that they don't want me to vote against the motion" as he supports releasing information.

"But I would urge ministers not to reveal anything which could damage our negotiating position in any way," he adds.

He accuses the Opposition of hoping that the impact assessments will reveal bad news because "all they ever do is run the UK down. All they ever do is to say that we are wrong to want Brexit."

Mr Redwood says Brexit is "teeming with opportunity" and there are very few risks to be assessed.

House of Commons
Parliament

SNP Europe spokesman Peter Grant says the debate is about whether "Parliament and the public should have information to which they are entitled".

"What a pity that these analyses were not available before 23 June 2016," he adds, referring to the date of the EU referendum in which the UK voted to leave.

Fellow SNP MP Hannah Bardell asks whether the Leave campaign did not release such impact assessments "because they wouldn't fit on the side of a bus".

Mr Grant says he supports open government and disputes the government's argument that releasing the reports would harm the UK's Brexit negotiating position.

He says the assessment could show that Brexit would leave the UK stronger or it "confirms what everybody knows... that leaving the EU is seriously bad for the economy".

He suggests that a third option could exist, that Brexit "is even more catastrophic" than Remainers believe, in which case release would weaken the UK's negotiating position.

House of Lords
Parliament

Image source, HoL

Labour's Lord Hain uses his speech on the bill to highlight "massive money laundering being orchestrated from the top of the South African government" which he says is "painful for me to witness after my part in anti-apartheid struggle".

His concerns relate to links between South Africa's President Jacob Zuma and a wealthy business family, the Guptas.

"If there had been more co-operation between multi-jurisdictional agencies this could have been averted," he continues.

He tells peers that the illegal transfer of funds by the Gupta family to bank accounts in Dubai and Hong Kong was flagged internally by banks as suspicious and they were told by headquarters to ignore it.

He calls on the chancellor to ensure this is not tolerated, specifying that HSBC, Bank of Baroda and Standard Chartered are now being investigated.

He says that the Guptas may be using the metal recycling sector to launder money, and some of the companies are thought to be registered in the UK.

House of Commons
Parliament

Conservative MP Anna Soubry observes that, if the government does not oppose the motion, the call to release the Brexit impact assessments will pass.

"What will the government then do?" she asks.

Minister Robin Walker tells her that the government "will respond appropriately".

MPs appeal to Deputy Speaker Eleanor Laing to determine whether Labour's motion will be binding - to no avail.

"It will not be possible at this moment to have a ruling from the chair," she says.

"It is not for the chair to decide how the minister should answer the question."

A further bunfight ensues before Labour's Ben Bradshaw again appeals to the chair.

Ms Laing says that, in the past, such a motion "has been seen as effective or binding" but she will not make a ruling in this case.

It would be "quite wrong for the government not to pay any attention" to the motion but it is for ministers to decide how to respond, she adds.

House of Commons
Parliament

An argument about parliamentary procedure ensues as Robin Walker, a minister in the Department for Exiting the EU, says Labour is trying to achieve a binding vote "based on an obscure parliamentary rule".

DUP MP Ian Paisley suggests that, as the Brexit select committee should have requested the reports, Labour is trying a "wheeze" to access the documents.

Another Conservative, Charlie Elphicke, argues that "the select committee should make the request" and parliamentary procedure is not being followed.

Mr Walker indicates that the government will not be opposing Labour's motion today.

House of Lords
Parliament

Former Foreign Office minister and Conservative Baroness Anelay of St Johns tells the House that "asset freezes and travel bans are vital tools" in the fight against corruption.

She tells how some in South Sudan have hailed Brexit because they believe the UK will not pursue sanctions against them outside the EU.

She says that's not the case, as "we will put in place legislation which ensures we can work with the EU and UN to continue to impose sanctions".

House of Commons
Parliament

SIr Keir Starmer insists that the opposition is not calling for "blanket" publication of the Brexit reports.

Labour is saying the papers "should be provided to the Brexit select committee or other select committees", he adds.

Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg intervenes to joke that he for one welcomes "the use of a 19th Century procedure to hold the government to account".

Sir Keir says Labour has "chosen a motion which is binding on this government" because "in recent weeks, we've seen contempt for motions in this House".

Mark D'Arcy
Parliamentary Correspondent

The Commons has always claimed the power to call for papers – although, these days, most often through its committees.

The procedure has mostly fallen out of use and calling for papers in an Opposition motion has not been tried on an Opposition Day before in recent memory.

But it is not out of order.

What is not clear is whether the motion would indeed be binding on the government.