John Bercow has said he could consider contempt of Parliament claims if the Government fails to release Brexit impact assessments.
MPs approved unopposed Labour’s motion which asked for a “humble address” requesting the Queen to direct Brexit Secretary David Davis to release the documents.
There was confusion during the debate about whether a vote triggered by Labour’s use of an arcane parliamentary procedure would be binding.
Since binding motion on handing #Brexit reports to Select Committee has passed Speaker makes it clear Govt must comply or be in contempt
— Angela Eagle (@angelaeagle) November 1, 2017
Speaker Mr Bercow said motions of this kind have “traditionally been regarded as binding or effective”.
Responding to a point of order from shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer, the Speaker added: “Consistent with that established pattern, I would expect the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household to present the humble address in the usual way.
“I say what I do, as colleagues on both sides of the House, on both sides of any argument, will recognise on the strength of an understanding of advice received in relation to precedent grounded in Erskine May.
Commons Speaker John Bercow (PA)
“When I’m asked, as I think I was, by (Sir Keir) about contempt or breach of privilege.
“What I would say to (Sir Keir) is that if anybody wishes to make an accusation of a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House, that must be done in writing to the Speaker.
“If I receive such a representation in writing, I will consider it and apply my best endeavours and take advice in reaching a view and reporting it to the House.”
Labour’s motion sought to compel the Government to provide to the Exiting the European Union Committee the 58 studies showing the potential impact of Brexit on different industrial sectors.
Labour win binding Commons decision on the release of economic impact studies to the Brexit Select Committee https://t.co/ElywN0yc6b
— Labour Press Team (@labourpress) November 1, 2017
The Government earlier stood firm on its stance of not releasing the full Brexit impact assessments.
But Brexit minister Robin Walker, while confirming the Government would not oppose the motion, said he had taken note of Labour’s points about looking at “redaction or summary as approaches”.
Tory Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) told the debate: “I have no doubt this motion is, in all senses, binding.
“It is not parliamentary wallpaper. It’s exercising one of our most ancient rights – to demand papers.”
Jacob Rees Mogg is making an excellent speech in support of Labours Opposition motion. Yes you really did just read that
— Anna Soubry MP (@Anna_Soubry) November 1, 2017
He said he would have supported the Government if it had opposed the motion, adding: “In the event it does not, it must publish these papers to the Brexit select committee in full.
“This motion does not allow a redaction and a happy chat across the despatch box between the shadow spokesman and the ministers does not reduce the right of this House to see the papers.”
Raising a point of order, Conservative MP Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) asked the Speaker what he felt “would be a reasonable time frame for the Government to respond”.
Mr Bercow replied: “I don’t think I am obliged to do that and I’m not sure how much difference it would make.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel