Brexit: Corbyn says no deal planning 'fooling nobody' because MPs won't back it - as it happened

• The Speaker, John Bercow, has urged police to do more to protect MPs outside parliament from abusive protesters after they repeatedly shouted at Conservative MP Anna Soubry that she was a “Nazi” as she spoke on live TV.

• Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, has played down the revelation that the permanent secretary at the Department for Transport questioned the need for some of the department’s no-deal spending. (See 5.29pm.) Responding to an urgent question on Brexit, Barclay also refused to categorically rule out seeking an extension of article 50; instead, he just said it was the government’s “firm intention” not to do that. (See 6.03pm.) He also refused to rule out a no-deal Brexit. Asked to do so by the Labour MP Hilary Benn, Barclay said MPs could not just oppose a no-deal Brexit without agreeing an alternative. He said:

The core point with ruling out no deal is that the House has to be for something rather than simply to agree what it is against. And, if you look at the signatories on the letter suggesting that no deal should be ruled out, what is clear is the whole spectrum of issues that those members support. The House has to decide what it is for, not simply what it is against.

UPDATE: Here is the response from the Department for Transport.

• Jeremy Corbyn has described the government’s no-deal Brexit planning as “Project Fear” and “hot air”. They were a waste of money because there was no support in parliament for a no-deal Brexit, he told MPs. (See 4.34pm.)

• Labour is to support a backbench amendment tabled by Yvette Cooper that could severely restrict the government’s taxation powers unless a no-deal Brexit is taken off the table.

• Health leaders have been accused of delaying a flagship target to reduce the number of people with learning disabilities “locked away in mental health hospitals”. As the Press Association reports, NHS England set out plans in 2015 to close 35 to 50% of inpatient beds for people with learning difficulties and autism and provide alternative care in the community by March 2019. But its long-term plan for the NHS, published on Monday, said it was going to reduce inpatient provision by half by 2023-24.

That’s all from me for today.

Thanks for the comments.

Jonathan Lis, the deputy director of the pro-EU thinktank British Influence, thinks the government will have to request an extension of article 50.

It is also worth noting that, during the Brexit UQ, Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, did not categorically rule out extending article 50. Responding to the SNP leader at Westminster, Ian Blackford, Barclay said:

It is not a unilateral decision as to whether we extend article 50. That would require the consent of the other 27 member states. That would also raise all sorts of practical issues, not least the timing of the European parliamentary elections at the end of May. It is this government’s firm intention not to extend article 50 and to leave the European Union as the prime minister has set out.

Later the Tory MP Julian Lewis said Theresa May has told MPs on 74 occasions that the UK will leave the EU on 29 March. He asked Barclay to confirm that “under no circumstances” would that date be postponed. In reply, Barclay just endorsed what May has already said.

There does seem to be a slight softening in the government’s stance on this. In the past Theresa May was happy to say that the UK would be leaving the EU on 29 March this year come what may. But she did not repeat that deadline in her New Year’s message, and in her Andrew Marr interview yesterday (pdf), although she gave a firm no when asked if she would be willing to extend article 50, she gave a curious answer when asked right at the end if she was “absolutely sure” that the UK would leave at the end of March. She replied:

I’ve been clear that we leave the European Union on the 29th March this year.

Note the use of the perfect tense. She has been clear in the past. But would she need to put it quite like that if she was still 100% clear about it now?

Earlier a caption of a picture showing Chris Patten wrongly said he was speaking at a Vote Leave event. (See 3.29pm.) It was, of course, a People’s Vote event. Sorry.

The Brexit UQ is now over, but before it finished Labour’s Helen Goodman came out with an interesting revelation. She told MPs that the permanent secretary at the Department for Transport demanded a written ministerial instruction before approving some no-deal Brexit spending. This is a relatively unusual procedure; it is what happens when civil servants doubt whether an item of spending can be justified, and as a result insist on ministers taking responsibility in writing. (“Arse covering”, as they would call in a normal workplace, but the civil service being the civil service, there’s a whole protocol for this, framed in more refined language.)

Goodman told MPs:

When a permanent secretary is not happy about being asked to spend money, they seek a written ministerial instruction to make it proper. I have today had, in writing from the Department for Transport, confirmation that the permanent secretary at the Department for Transport sought such a ministerial direction. Doesn’t this prove that no deal is a bluff?

In response, Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, did not challenge what was saying. Instead he said civil servants used to require ministerial directions when Labour was in power too.

(I’m sorry I have not been posting as regularly as normal today. I’ve had a few technical problems. But everything seems to be working fine now.)

1:35

Here is one of the most striking quotes from Jeremy Corbyn’s response to Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary. Corbyn said:

[Theresa May] is not here because she is busy promoting “Project Fear”. It’s all hot air.

“Project Fear” is the term used by the SNP to attack the no campaign during the Scottish referendum campaign. The SNP used it to delegitimise claims about the supposed dire economic effects of independence, and the term was widely adopted because it seemed a fair assessment of what was a largely negative campaign (although a negative campaign that worked - the no camp won decisively.)

Since 2016 Brexiters have been using the same term to discredit claims made about the negative consequences of Brexit. It was striking to hear Corbyn use the term because for a moment it made him sound like Jacob Rees-Mogg, as some journalists have highlighted.

From the Mail on Sunday’s Dan Hodges

From PoliticsHome’s Kevin Schofield

But Tom Hamilton, a former Labour party staffer (although not a Corbynite), has what strikes me as a more convincing account of what Corbyn was saying.

This is backed up by something Corbyn said a bit later in his response to Barclay. He said:

The government is trying to run down the clock in an attempt to blackmail this House, and the country, into supporting a botched deal. [May] has refused to work with the majority in the last few months in a desperate attempt to spark life into what is actually a Frankenstein’s monster of a deal. We are now told, if we don’t support it, the government is prepared to push our whole economy off a cliff edge. And, to prove this, no-deal preparations are underway ...

Even today, we see the farce of lorries being lined up to stage a fake traffic jam in Kent to pretend to the EU that the government is ready for a no deal ...

The government is fooling nobody. These shambolic preparations are too little, too late. The reality is there is no majority in this House to support no deal. Why won’t the government face up to this truth and stop wasting our time and our money?

Labour’s Chris Leslie asks Barclay to guarantee that the vote will take place next week. He says Barclay ducked this question earlier. He asks again: can Barclay guarantee the vote will take place next week?

Barclay replies: “Yes.”

Anne Main, a Conservative, asks if Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, will come to the Commons to give legal advice on the significance of any new assurances offered by the EU.

Barclay says it is not normal for governments to publish their legal advice. But he says it is up to the Commons to decide its own business.

Hilary Benn, the Labour chair of the Commons Brexit committee, asks Barclay to rule out a no-deal Brexit.

Barclay says it is not enough to MPs to be against something. They have to decide what they want. Referring to the letter, signed by more than 200 MPs, urging the government to rule out a no-deal Brexit, he says those MPs favour a variety of alternative options.

• Barclay says MPs cannot just oppose a no-deal Brexit without agreeing an alternative.

Sir John Redwood, the Tory Brexiter, says it is not just the backstop that makes the withdrawal agreement unacceptable. He says it would involve paying billions to the EU.

Barclay says the UK would need the unanimous agreement of the EU 27 to extend article 50. It is not the government’s intention to ask for that, he says.

Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, urges Labour to get off the fence and oppose Brexit. And, echoing Nicola Sturgeon earlier (see 1.22pm), he says Brexit has strengthened the case for Scottish independence.