House of Commons
Parliament

MPs are now beginning an emergency debate on the government's decision to defer the 'meaningful vote' on the Brexit deal.

The Speaker John Bercow accepted an application for the debate yesterday from Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who argued that the government were showing a "disregard for Parliament" in not allowing MPs a say on whether the vote should be delayed.

Mr Corbyn is opening the debate.

House of Commons
Parliament

MPs have voted against allowing Norman Lamb's private members bill to proceed.

52 MPs voted in support of the bill, but 66 voted against.

House of Commons
Parliament

Image source, HoC

Conservative Steve Double, speaking against the ten minute rule bill, says that he does believe that "something does need to be done" about cannabis use, but he isn't sure that legalisation is the right way forward.

Decriminalising will be sending the "wrong message" to young people, he states.

He says that young people say they are more likely to use cannabis, and even more regularly, if it were to be legalised.

The House divides to vote on the proposed bill.

House of Commons
Parliament

Image source, HoC

Liberal Democrat MP Norman Lamb is now tabling his Cannabis (Legalisation and Regulation) Bill as a ten minute rule motion.

The bill aims to allow the UK follow the example of Canada, and allow people to buy a safe, regulated (and taxed) product, where the dosage would by low enough to avoid damage to mental health.

He tells MPs that over the last few weeks three constituents have been to see him to discuss cannabis, with all three suffering acute pain. All three have been refused access to cannabis through the NHS for pain relief.

"Across the country people like this are left with no option but to break the law," he says.

The approach taken by the government has raised hopes but the number that will benefit is "minuscule", he says, and it is clear the recent reforms "are not working".

In addition to this, he says there a extreme violent consequences of illegal cannabis sales, whilst people's lives can often be ruined as a result of relatively minor offences around its use.

"It doesn't have to be like this," he says, "my bill offers a more rational alternative to this mess."

Nick Eardley
BBC Scotland Westminster correspondent

Parliament feels like a confused and sometimes angry place today. As Theresa May fights for further assurances on the backstop, many are unconvinced.

Even among Conservatives loyal to Theresa May, the mood is bleak.

One Tory MP who supported the PM’s deal told me they didn’t have a clue what was happening now. “We’re rewriting the pantomime,” they added.

Another said things were “not good”.

Another pondered: “The Conservatives made this muddle - who is going to fix it?”

One minister said things were at “breaking point”.

Brexiteers speak openly of exasperation.

One source, who has been highly critical of the plan but not the PM, told me many were changing their minds; Theresa May is now seen as the problem.

It’s not the first time we’ve heard such claims - and in the past they haven’t materialised.

But this person said a number of Brexit backers who have resisted pressure to send in letters calling for a vote of no confidence in the PM as Tory leader have now changed their minds.

“And it’s not just the usual suspects,” they added.

So far, there’s no sign the 48 has been reached and there’s no guarantee it will. But Westminster is again rife with speculation.

House of Commons
Parliament

Image source, HoC

Conservative MP David Jones says Section 13 says that a meaningful vote should be held before the European Parliament decides to consent to the withdrawal agreement.

"The withdrawal agreement has been concluded but not approved," Mr Jones says, and asks Mr Walker to confirm that the meaningful vote will take place "before the European Parliament makes that decision".

Mr Walker says he is "happy" to give Mr Jones that assurance.

House of Commons
Parliament

Image source, HoC

Labour MP Pat McFadden says section 13 lays out that there are circumstances in which the government must give a statement on how to proceed by 21 January:

• If the Commons decides not to approve the deal
• If no deal in principle can be reached

However, he says the House of Commons library says that if the government maintains "that its political agreement persists, the requirement to make a statement could be avoided."

That's why MPs are suspicious of the government's intentions, he says.

He asks if the government's strategy is still to give a meaningful vote, or whether it intends to run the clock and give them "an offer they can't refuse" in the face of 'no deal'.

Mr Walker repeats that if by 21 January there is no deal to vote on, the government will bring a statement to MPs and a debate will follow, "I think that answers his question precisely".

House of Commons
Parliament

Image source, HoC

Chair of the Brexit Committee and Labour MP Hilary Benn says the Attorney General must come to the House and explain the legal implications because "what we learned yesterday was that today's assurances can disappear tomorrow in a puff of wind".

Mr Benn asks Mr Walker to clarify that if the withdrawal agreement comes back before 21 January and is defeated in the House, "then legally speaking, an agreement with the EU has still been reached".

Mr Walker says Section 13 is about if a deal has not been reached or has been voted down.

"We'd need to come to this House and have a vote even if the deal had been brought to this House and been turned down," he says.

House of Commons
Parliament

Image source, HoC

SNP spokesperson Joanna Cherry says the government "continues to demonstrate its contempt for parliamentary democracy" on a daily basis and is again trying to "evade its legal responsibilities" by failing to have the Attorney General answering questions today.

She points out that the Solicitor General is sat on the front bench and asks why his isn't speaking rather than Robin Walker.

European Council President Donald Tusk has already said that there will not be a meaningful renegotiation of the deal, she says. She asks for a "cast iron guarantee" that the deal will be bought back to MPs before 21 January and on what date.

If this guarantee cannot be given, she asks if the government will consider putting the deal to the people in a second referendum, with the option of remaining in the EU.

Mr Walker says he has already said a motion will be bought before the House, either "ideally" on this deal or another situation, before 21 January.

On a 'People's Vote', he says the UK has already had a vote, and it's the duty of MPs to deliver on the result.

House of Commons
Parliament

Image source, Hoc

Former Tory Attorney General Dominic Grieve says section 13 presupposes that the government has a deal with the EU - "which we have" - hence why debate began on whether to approve it.

If the deal continues in its current form, he asks if can MPs continue with their debate - not just before 21 January but as quickly as possible - "as was clearly provided for under the act".

He asks if the government also now fully accepts that motions are now amendable.

Mr Walker says he has given that commitment.

Regarding the fast completion of the debate, he says "we all have that in mind" and the prime minister has made clear her determination to seek out those assurances required by MPs from the EU.

House of Commons
Parliament

Image source, HoC

Shadow solicitor general Nick Thomas-Symonds says: "I am grateful for the response but the reality is, the Attorney General should be here."

He says that Theresa May used the phrase "accidental no deal" yesterday is "a dereliction of leadership", and that "section 13 of the Withdrawal Act is therefore crucial in ensuring this House can prevent a chaotic no deal outcome."

Mr Thomas-Symonds says it is "completely contrary to the public interest" to "run down another six weeks on the clock when all she is seeking is reassurances and clarifications".

He adds that the promise of the deal being returned to the House by 21 January "offers no reassurance at all without the legal backing of the Attorney General".

"This decision to pull the vote was made in a panicked haste without thinking through the political, economic and constitutional implications for our country," he concludes.

Brexit Minister Robin Walker says "there will be a meaningful vote before the 21st January" and that "this government works in the national interest."

House of Commons
Parliament

Brexit Minister Robin Walker says "we respect the decisions which were made by this House that the government must come back to this House with a motion in the event that no deal has been agreed or in the event that the house has rejected the deal."

"I fully expect the date to be sooner," he says, "let us work together to achieve a withdrawal act that this House supports."

House of Commons
Parliament

Image source, HoC

Labour MP Yvette Cooper says in the current circumstances, Mr Walker's assurances "are not enough" and that Parliament "needs to know the government's legal interpretation of section 13 by the Attorney General, and to be assured that legally the government will abide by the spirit of the act".

Ms Coooper says "these small words are not enough when so much is at stake" and that "none of us know whether the prime minister is going to pull the vote again, or even if she is going to table a vote on the deal again."

She adds that Parliament is being "kept in limbo" and that MPs require "assurance from the Attorney General that there is no loophole saying there is a deal when Parliament haven't voted on it".

She says boycotting a vote on the deal in Parliament "would be a constitutional outrage and would be letting the country drift or forcing the government into no deal without a vote".

Ms Cooper says written assurances are needed from the Attorney General that "even if there has been no vote on this deal by 21 January then the government will still abide by section 13 and assure there is a statement and amendable vote on this plan including whether or not this means no deal, and that will happen under any circumstances."

House of Commons
Parliament

Image source, HoC

Treasury Committee chair and Tory MP Nicky Morgan says it is unquestionable that MPs must have a say on the deal, or no deal, that comes about.

She seeks "categorical assurance" that there will be no trickery from the government.

Robin Walker says he's happy to give that assurance.

There will be a motion put before Parliament, he says, even if there is no deal.

It had been suggested that yesterday's statement by the prime minister, explaining about pulling the vote on her proposed EU deal, supersedes the requirement for a statement by 21 January, with the latest possible date for a meaningful vote now potentially 28 March 2019 - leaving little time for an alternative to the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

After the House of Commons twitter page advised further proceedings were a matter of legal interpretation, external, Ms Cooper suggested this meant the courts could decide whether MPs could vote on a no deal Brexit, expressing concern that the government could force this through without consulting MPs.

What Yvette Cooper essentially wants to know is what happens if no deal is reached with the EU by 21 January 2019.