19/10/2016 House of Commons

Order, urgent question. I whsh to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer

why the Government has abandoned plans to allow savers to save their

annuities in return for a c`sh lump sum? This Government has taken a

great step forward in giving more and more people freedom and how they

choose to use their pension savings when they retire. We have, hn fact,

already seen over 300,000 pdople choosing to access their pension

flexibly since the reforms were introduced and alongside our efforts

to do this, we also said th`t we would look at how we could spread

this flexibility to people locked into -- locked into existing

annuities. We consulted extdnsively with the industry and consuler

groups to ensure that we cotld put in the right market that cotld

facilitate this. Throughout our investigations, one of our highest

priorities was to establish that people would be able to get a good

deal three such a market. In the course of our efforts to investigate

the viability of a secondarx market in annuities, two things became

clear. Firstly, that without compromising on consumer

protections, there would be insufficient purchasers of these

annuities to put in a competitive market where pensioners could get a

good deal. Secondly, pensioners trying to sell their annuithes would

also be likely to incur high costs in doing so. This Government has

made it very clear that we want this to be a country that works for

everyone. That includes makhng sure that everyone gets a high ldvel of

consumer protection. It has become clear now through our extensive

research that the secondary market would not be able to offer this

Rather than being to the benefit of British pensioners, it would instead

be to their detriment and it is for this reason, Mr Speaker, th`t we are

not prepared to allow such ` market to develop and we will not be taking

this market -- policy forward. No disrespect to the minute -- the

minister who I like, but it did have been the Chancellor who announced

this, particularly with the disgraceful way this was announced.

This was a flagship policy hn the budget two years ago, of cotrse

originally the brain of the Liberal Democrat pensions Minister Steve

Webb. It was embraced by thd previous Chancellor and was

specifically included in thd manifesto on which this Govdrnment

was elected and yet yesterd`y afternoon, the Government announced

via the press that they werd scrapping the whole deal. This is a

huge U-turn announced after clear lobbying by the industry th`t never

really subscribed to this and a failure from the Government to work

to build a reasonable secondary annuity market. Of course

protections need to be in place to stop exploitation, but therd are

tens of thousands of people trapped in poor value annuities who were

eagle -- eager to take advantage of this new freedoms. Many werd based

on the promises of this Govdrnment's manifesto, looking into how to

invest their savings differdntly. This will leave many people having

to make different decisions about their retirement to those which they

were being directed toward. That is if they were ever aware of the

change. Can I ask the Minister if you can save first of all, when was

the decision made to drop these plans? Secondly, why was thhs

decision not announced to p`rliament before the media? Three, wh`t is the

Government doing to inform those who may wish to cash in their annuity

that they can no longer do so? For, what assessment has the Govdrnment

made in people's changing bdhaviour since the initial announcemdnt? This

was about trusting people whth their money. Clearly this Governmdnt has

decided it no longer trusts people. They owe those who have spent time

and money examining their options for a time and an apology and I hope

we get one today. Thank you for that. It is very easy to wish to

have the cake and eat it, something that the Lib Dems obviously think on

a very regular basis. It is difficult being a Government

minister. Sometimes you havd to make difficult and hard decisions but at

the end of the day, on balance, with the interests of the consumdrs,

often the most vulnerable and older people in our society, have been

trumped by the desire to increase this extra flexibility in pdnsions.

It is one element, they gentleman is disingenuous, it is one elelent of

our pension freedoms and it has transpired after extensive

consultation not to be valud for money. If I may, Mr Speaker, just

briefly quaked witch, who are independent of the Government, they

have said that it would havd been wrong to move forward withott

assurances that the consumers could get value for money and havd the

necessary protections, assurances and necessary protections to protect

those most vulnerable peopld in our society. I didn't wish to interrupt

the minister in his flow but can I ask that from now on, we avoid the

use of the word disingenuous or disingenuously. There is an

imputation of dishonour and we should avoid that. The honotrable

gentleman is a dextrous ballet with I'm sure a dextrous vocabul`ry and

he can ensure another word to get that across. On the subject of those

with a great vocabulary, Sir Desmond swayed. Thank you, Mr Speakdr. It is

the right decision for the circumstances but does my honourable

friend think there is any connection between the Bank of England's

monetary policy and poor protection in the annuities market? Max I

acknowledge your berry, as dver sound advice and apologise hf I have

been anything other than my normally well-behaved south. If I max refer

to my right honourable friend's point, at the end of the dax, this

is about people who are oftdn older, often vulnerable people makhng the

right choices and the Government making sure that the market is there

to support them. That is not the case that that is why we have

changed tack. This is one of the many U-turns that the Government

have made. This is the latest in that. I would like to thank the

honourable member for Leeds North West for securing this question and

I want to know why the Government, from the outset, didn't do proper

market analysis prior to thhs announcement, because they were

warned at the time. If they had done it at the time, they may have

realised the chaos and conftsion that such an announcement would

cause for up to 500,000 pensioners across the country who are `lready

worried about their long-term futures. This U-turn on pensions, in

the same week that the garmdnt have pushed forward with proposals for a

lifetime icer despite widespread concern across the House about

feature retirement plans. The UK remains in a pension market in which

the consumer is unable to m`ke a -- an informed choice due to a complete

lack of cost and performancd data and we believe it should be the role

of the Government to providd that data. The first question is, what

will the Government do to assist with that process? I would `lso like

to know, when the Government, like the Member for Leeds North Dast

when the Government decided to avert -- abandon this policy, who made the

final decision? Is this another interference from the Prime Minister

in the previous Chancellor's decisions? Who was consulted? How

extensive was that consultation Because, again, the Governmdnt were

warned about this in the first place. Fourth, what assessmdnt has

been made of the pension market in general and the knock-on effect this

particular decision will have? And, almost finally, what influence of

any recent vote for Britain to leave the European Union has been impacted

in relation to this decision? Now, there is an indication that there

may, because of this decision, the loss of ?9 billion in the fhrst two

years as a result of tax th`t would have come in as a result of people

actually getting their annuhty and paying tax on that. What is going to

happen? Where is that money going to come from? Isn't that anothdr black

hole in the Government's finances? If I may deal with the points in

reverse order, you will havd to wait until the Autumn Statement what the

finances look like but it dhd becoming creasing the appardnt that

not only was it not a good deal for consumers, for those vulner`ble

people that we care about, but also it was unlikely to provide the kind

of income that had at first been thought. We consulted extensively

with the industry but also with consumer groups and I had m`ny

conversations with the DWP `nd, in particular, the Minister for

pensions. He asks about where the information is going to be provided.

I can say that the Government will introduce a new money advicd service

and it will be this very information that we plan to have. If I lay

finish with a great from thd Association for British instrers, in

whose interests he might suppose it was for us to continue this policy,

they say, this is the right decision for the right reasons. Therd are

considerable risks for customers, including from unregulated buyers.

We don't want is the unregulated buyers out there and we don't want

to see vulnerable people affected. Would my honourable friend not agree

that for a market to work, xou don't only need sellers, you also need

buyers as well? To try to create a market where there isn't both is an

impossibility and to have done so would have led to a potenti`l

disaster for consumers. How would the minister respond? As evdr, my

right honourable friend frol Horsham makes an excellent point. There were

very few people interested hn buying these products which would have

resulted in a very poor deal for customers. The market was not big

enough to provide value for money and on that basis, we deciddd not to

proceed. On that point, one really has to ask the question, given that

we now know there is an absdnce of buyers in the market, where was the

Government's consultation bdfore they came with this in the first

case? We can't get away frol the fact that this was a manifesto

commitment from the Governmdnt. I welcome this U-turn, they h`ve done

the right thing, but why was this not brought to the House? Why did we

read about this in the medi`? If I can refer the Minister to what the

Financial Conduct Authority indicated last week when thdy said

that there were concerns about the secondary market in annuitids, there

had been at significant risk to consumers, the regulator sahd that

annuities would be very difficult for consumers to value and consumers

participating in this market would be a higher percentage of vtlnerable

people. They came out with that last April. Why has it taken the

Government so long to do thd right thing? We also recognise sole of the

other concerns for consumers over pensions and can we have a restful

review of the pension bead on policy? -- the pension freedom

policy. May I thank the honourable gentleman for recognising this is

the right thing to do. It is a difficult thing to do and it is

between two conflicting viewpoints. It is about, my job is about making

sure that consumers are protected, that these industries are rdgulated

effectively and that there hs the very best positive -- possible deal

for customers. In the case of this particular area, where we sde many

old and vulnerable consumers, it is absolutely the right thing to do. I

know the Minister has taken this decision very bravely to protect the

more vulnerable pensioners who are currently suffering, but wh`t will

be Minister do to ensure th`t those pensioners who are on very low

incomes and trapped in diffhcult annuities that they can't gdt out

of, what will he be able to do and the Treasury be able to do to ensure

they can escape those punishing regimes? We are looking at `n

economy that works for everxone including those pensioners on lower

incomes. The Treasury will be considering very carefully, you ll

have to wait until the Autuln Statement to see how best wd are

placed to do that, but they are absolutely at the centre of our

attention and we will do all we can to help.

Mr Speaker of course guarding against mis-selling important, but

doesn't this create two new problems, first of all for the

hundreds of thousands of pensioners who have been much uphill only to be

marched down again and left uncertain about their own fhnancial

options, and secondly also to those other generations potential savers,

who are baffled today by pensions generally, and will find thhs mixed

message about chopping and changing on flexibility is even more of a

reason to feel sour towards the attractiveness of pensions. We have

got this savings crisis in this country and the government needs far

more consistency and policy here. I thank the honourable gentlelan for

his question, none of us wants to see people being baffled, none of us

want to see uncertainty, but I say to him, at the end of the d`y,

surely we are better off making the right decision, that protects

vulnerable consumers rather than carrying on regardless, is right.

That all of us have a responsibility to educate and inform peopld

throughout their lives, and people with both their pensions and savings

and that is something that the government fully intends to keep on

doing. I know this is a difficult decision for my right honourable

friend because he feels passionately about pension freedoms, can he

assure the house that every effort is being made that the penshon

providers are fully cooperating with all other aspects of the government

is wider pension freedoms that have been so warmly welcomed throughout

the country? I thank my noble friend for that question, I can give him

the reassurance that I will do all I can to make sure that the providers

work closely with the government to get the best possible deal for all

the people. And indeed, savdrs and other people, who perhaps are not in

the habit of saving or contributing to pensions. It is an important

thing and I'm happy to purste it with my full vigour. I will ask the

minister if I'm why this announcement was not made to

parliament before it was made to the media and also what is he going to

do in relation to informing people who may have intended cashing in

their annuities were now not going to be able to do so? I think it is

fair to say, there are off hn circumstances where information or

announcements are market sensitive, and some of the times, that drives

how things are announced. Thank you Mr Speaker, given these rethrement

annuities formed the bedrock of financial security, it is rhght that

the decision is to take intdrests rather press ahead purely bdcause

they manage -- a manifesto commitment. What is he going to do

to get a better deal on the new tees in the first place, for manx people,

cashing it in was with a bad deal for the annuity, rather than getting

a lump sum? He is right, two wrong sadly don't make a right. Wd are

committed to give people pension freedoms to choose what to do with

their money. Because that is the right choice to

make, my constituent Mr Anddrson contacted me and advise that despite

the risks, he plan to take tp the option of selling his annuity. Mr

Speaker I wrote to the Treasury and was assured only 19 days ago, "The

government remains committed to delivering peace proposals."

Yesterday's announcement is a betrayal to people like Mr @lain and

I noticed that he didn't answer the question if you minutes ago so what

exactly does the government suggest. That Mr Anderson and my constituent

do now? Can I say that obviously, Mr Anderson is as important as all of

the other people who no doubt will be very interested in this

announcement. It transpired through consultation that a very sm`ll

percentage of people would be better off, indeed, we were looking at

legislation that would oblige the government to provide guidance,

advice, in the very vast majority of cases, that advice would be that it

would not be appropriate in the consumer 's best interest to

proceed. So, there is in ten easy answer, but at the end of the day, I

am not going to allow Barbr` but older people, to take advantage of

what may superficially seem like a good deal but in the long tdrm is a

poor one. John Lawson ahead of retirement policy at Aviva has said

that one of the obstacles in the way of the secondary annuities larket is

the existence of statutory override clauses in annuity contracts. Has

this played any part in the government 's decision and has the

government any plans to at least look at passing legislation to deal

with this? I thank my own btbble friend for this question, it is

certainly something that we will be looking at, at the end of the day

many people got a poor deal on the way in, the last thing I want to do

is give them a doubly poor deal on the way out because the market is

not big enough to provide v`lue for money, and if that means, the option

of reducing regulation, I al not a fan, regulation helps peopld make

the right decision. The indtstry opposed this, millions of pdnsioners

who were locked into low-paxing annuities, were supporters of it.

The Chancellor at the time, knew all of the problems, yet he clahms to be

the champion of choice for the people. What has changed, does the

government now believe that people who they said would make good

choices because they were sdnsible and would have good advice, have

changed in their nature? And since he has route choice but not the

problem, what does he intend to do for those who still find thdmselves

locked, in annuity arrangemdnts that do not give them a sensible and a

fairing come. -- that incomd. Thank you for the question, it is fair to

say that the Chancellor of the extract at the time was not in

possession of all of inform`tion the consultation. And it was our intend

clearly at the time to listdn carefully to not only the industry

but also consumer groups as well which we have done extensivdly, it

is worth also saying, that we remain absolutely committed to all of the

other pension freedoms that we are producing. It is a sensible way

forward. Fears pop-up policy that has now

been popped down again came from a government that had a long-term

economic plan, yet this polhcy has not survived for grey long, as has

already been indicated, the policy was a response to that bubbling

sense of scandal that was there as people were stuck with me goal and

marginal annuities and it w`s a chance to give them something

different. If the Minister hs confident that he's avoiding a new

scandal, people miss selling their annuities, what is he doing about

the original scandal of meagre annuities that this policy was

designed to. He is right th`t was certainly the intention of the

policy, there is a long-terl plan because I'm concerned about the

long-term financial well-behng of these older hounds vulnerable

people, it is important that they get the right deal and make the

right decisions. That is whx this particular suggestion which is one

of many, isn't appropriate to carry forward. It is not a pop-up policy,

we have listened carefully `nd we have made the right decision. This

U-turn has come about about the concerns of mis-selling and also

protecting consumers. The s`me risks and concerns must apply surdly to

people that currently exerchse pension freedoms by cashing in, for

lump sum is. As my rubble friend, suggested, when are we going to have

a good parent review of the legislation? -- coherent review

Thank you for the questions, the secondary new tees market is very

different to cash and existhng sons. To be clear, selling and annuity

would never have been the s`me as getting a refund on all of the money

that was put into the product, with all of the original pension pot

Purchasers would have paid what they thought, the income stream was

worth, and without a compethtive market, that income stream would

have represented poor value for money. And they would have got a

very poor settlement as a rdsult. Point of order Mr Fabian Halilton.

Thank you Mr Speaker, yesterday a Foreign Office questions, mx

honourable friend, the Shadow Foreign Secretary asked the

Parliamentary under Secretary of State the member for Bournelouth

East "When can we expect full independent UN led investig`tions of

the thousands of air strikes on civilian targets in Yemen". In his

reply the Minister stated" there are not thousands as the honour`ble lady

suggested, that is to misle`d the house, but there are a numbdr with

which we are concerned and that need to be clarified." . However Mr

Speaker I have discovered that the Guardian newspaper on the 16th of

September stated that the independent Yemen data projdct,

recalls more than 8600 air strikes between March 2015 when the Saudi

led campaign began in August this year, and human rights watch lists

dozens of air strikes that have appeared to be unlawfully

indiscriminate and caused chvilian casualties. Mr Speaker can xou

advise the house as to whether the minister needs to come to the

chamber and correct his inaccurate and rather dismissive reply. I thank

the honourable gentleman for giving me notice that he intended to raise

this point of order, what mdmbers say, I often had to make thhs point

but it bears repetition, wh`t members say in this house, hs their

individual responsibility. This applies to ministers and indeed to

opposition frontbenchers, as it did to other honourable and right

honourable members. The honourable gentleman believes that minhsters

have been inaccurate in what they said yesterday, specificallx he

believes the response to thd Shadow Foreign Secretary was inacctrate, he

has made that you clear. He has done so on the record. I'm sure ht will

have been heard on the Treasury bench and it will be related to the

Foreign Commonwealth Office. I'm also sure, that if the Forehgn

Secretary and the Minister feel that the house has been inadvertdntly

misled, the relevant Ministdr will take swift steps to correct the

record. It is only fair for me to say, it is not for me to umpire on

whether a clarification is required, that a minister made take a view of

the facts of the matter which differs from that of the honourable

gentleman. As to whether th`t is the case, we will have to await events.

Thank you. If there are no further points of order, we come to the ten

minute rule motion, Mr Kevin Jones. I beg to move, that lead be given to

bring in a build to have provision about training qualification and

certification, medical practitioners, and surgical

procedures, to establish a code of practice, for the provision of

information to patients on the options and risks in relations to

procedures, to make provision, about permissible treatments, and the

advertising of such treatments and for purposes. Mr Speaker I became

aware of the scandal around the ?3.5 billion a year cosmetic surgery

industry through a constitudnt Dawn Knight. She had surgery on her

rising 2012. In a hospital run by the Hospital medical group. The

surgery was sold to her with a lifetime after-care package to take

care of any convocations from the procedure. Following the surgery,

she was unable to close her rise and still to this day, she has to apply

artificial tears to her eyes to stop them from drying out every two

hours. She also saw a surgeon who undertook the procedure, who refused

to admit there was a problel. When she contacted the hospital group

about the after-care packagd, they simply pointed out to her, ` clause

in the contact, that said treatments could only be undertaken if the

surgeon agreed to it. Despite contacting the hospital grotp, no

further help was offered, m`king a complete sham of the after-care plan

that she was sold. Like in similar cases, the NHS is now having to pick

up the bill for her ongoing care. Mr Speaker, her case is not isolated.

Though the cosmetic group associate herself as a cosmetic surgery

company, it is nothing of the sort. It is the facilities managelent

company that simply provides facilities whether surgery takes

place and markets the procedures. As dawn found out when she complained,

her contract was not with the hospital group but with the surgeon

who performed the procedure and was told that it was her responsibility

to check the GMC registration and insurance. In dawn's case, the

surgeon was a bankrupt, unddr insured individual who was based in

Italy and flew into the UK to work for the hospital group. Mr Speaker,

here in lies the problem. At present, cosmetic surgery is not a

defined surgical speciality in its own right. As the Department for

health have noted, the training within certain defined spechalities

such as plastic surgery, in nose and great surgery and eye surgery

includes some aspect of cosletic training that there is no

qualification available for those who perform cosmetic surgerx. In

fact, the law at present allows any qualified doctor, not even `

surgeon, to perform cosmetic surgery without undertaking additional

training qualifications. My bill aims, Mr Speaker, to close this

loophole and has the support of the Royal College of surgeons. Lr

Speaker, it is not the case that the Government and the Department of

Health are unaware of the shtuation. In following the Pip breast implants

scandal, the Government askdd Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS

director at the time, to undertake a review of regulations of cosmetic

interventions. This review was published in April 20 14 -- 201 ,

and it asked the Royal Colldge of surgeons to establish a cosletic

surgery into speciality comlittee to set a standard for cosmetic standard

-- osmotic surgery training and standard. It required all to be of a

standard to undertake the strgery. Legislation was drafted in 2014 and

was largely supported, but the coalition Government failed to enact

it and the present Government has also failed to enact that. The Royal

College of surgeons would lhke to see only surgeons with appropriate

skills and experience undertaking cosmetic surgery, something I

strongly support and I think most members of the public would support

as well. To facilitate this, the GMC need to be given legal powers to

formally recognise addition`l qualifications or meditations such

as the ones the Royal College of surgeons are developing in cosmetic

surgery. It should then be landatory for those offering cosmetic surgery

to not only have this, but to make clear to the public that thdy have

them one they advertise there is -- when they advertise their sdrvices.

I raised this on the 20th of October 2015 and I would like to put on

record thanks to the right honourable member for Ipswich, who

was then the health minister, who met myself and my constituent, dawn

night. Another area in which the bill would like to address hs the

marketing of cosmetic procedures. Some of the techniques used would be

more appropriate for selling double glazing and cosmetic surgerx whether

it's risks. These include two-for-one offers along with glossy

brochures with no explanation of the potential risks of undergoing

surgery. The whole thrust of the advertising is to sell the procedure

without any counselling or `dvise on whether or not it is appropriate for

the individual to undergo stch procedures. Individuals who have

already gone -- undergone strgery for the Hospital medical group are

often bombarded with adverts by e-mail and Facebook, despitd them

being reported to the advertising standards agency. It is still

ongoing. This type of aggressive marketing needs to be banned and a

mandatory cooling off period needs to be introduced once peopld have

signed up in order to allow them to change their mind. I would `lso go

further to include mandatorx counselling for individuals before

they actually undertake any type of procedure. Mr Speaker, the final

area I would like to address is the way in which the companies that sell

cosmetic surgery are structtred Dornan responded to an advert from

the hospital group but her contract with is with a group called the

hospital medical group Limited. If you look at companies house, you

will see that under the main hospital group Holdings, thdre are

eight different companies. Hn 2 13, the turnover of the group w`s ? 4

million and dividends were paid to its directors of ?7.5 million. In

2016, the hospital medical group was liquidated and its assets sold to

the parent company. 8% of those listed as liquidators are solicitors

representing former clients. One could suspect that this strtcture

has been put in place so th`t former clients cannot sue the comp`ny for

negligence. Along with the liquidation, dawn's lifetimd

guarantee she was sold is now, along with a lot of other people's

guarantees, completely workless -- worthless. Clearly regulation is

necessary to ensure that gu`rantees are able to be used in order to get

redress and despite large ntmbers of women having no recourse to law the

group itself is also continting to sell these products and operate The

continuing care of these individuals is falling on the NHS while the

hospital medical group and associated companies continte to

make large profits. Any guarantees need to be backed by insurance to

ensure that if a company is liquidated, the necessary insurance

is in place for people to gdt legal redress. Finally Mr Speaker, the

Prime Minister in her speech to the Conservative Party conference said

that the state should intervene where the market fails. Well, I

think what we have got here is a classic example of what I would

suggest is not just a market that is failing, but is being used to

exploit people, ruining thehr lives and costing the NHS millions of

pounds a year. The Government are aware that this area needs `ction

and there is no reason why they should not act. Order. The puestion

is that the honourable membdr have leave to bring in the bill. People

say iMac. On the contrary, no. Who will prepare and bring in the bill?

Holly Lynch, glad Cummings, the own and paddock, Mr Ian Wright, Mrs

Anne-Marie Trevelyan and myself Cosmetic surgery standards of

practice built. Second readhng what day? Friday the 24th of March. Thank

you. We now come to the Opposition Day motion on the rights of EU

nationals. This notion in the name of the leader of the Scottish

National party to move the lotion, I called Joanna Cherry. Thank you Mr

Speaker. I rise to move this motion on behalf of myself and my

honourable friend. Mr Speakdr, it is nearly four months since thd EU

referendum and the long-terl status of non-UK EU nationals living in the

United Kingdom is still unclear Just as the Government is still

without a plan or a negotiating strategy for the Brexit it

accidentally delivered, the status of millions of our fellow workers,

our friends and our neighbotrs is uncertain. Mr Speaker, it is simply

not good enough. Despite repeated requests, this Government h`s

refused to guarantee, in thd long-term, the rights of EU

nationals who have made thehr home in the United Kingdom. In the

meantime, Mr Speaker, in England and Wales, hate crime has soared and

xenophobic rhetoric is common in the mainstream media and sadly, also in

the mouths of Government ministers sometimes. The Government vdry

clearly said that they had no wish to make anyone believe unless there

were evictions from the continent. Is she saying that continental

Europe will evict a British citizens? The whole point of this

motion is that human beings should not be used as bargaining chips If

the honourable member and hhs colleagues think that the United

Kingdom has so much to offer the European Union in its negothations,

why do they then insist on tsing human beings as bargaining chips?

I'll give way. I'm very grateful to my friend for giving way. Would she

agree with me that many of the people we are talking about provide

vital services and work in our public services? 6% of doctors in

the Welsh Health Service cole from the EU. We are facing a crisis

whereby a third of our doctors may retire in the next few years and we

will need extra to work in the NHS. A policy enacted like that would

have a detrimental effect on services in this country. I entirely

agree with my honourable frhend These statistics are very shmilar in

Scotland. About 6.5% of staff in the NHS are EU nationals. Mr Spdaker,

the net result of the refus`l to guarantee the long-term status of EU

nationals and xenophobic rhdtoric and hate crime we are seeing across

the United Kingdom is that lany many EU nationals are living under

considerable stress and worry. We all receive letters from thdm as

their constituency MPs. But also, Mr Speaker, damage has been done to the

British economy and, very importantly, damage has been done to

our international reputation. My honourable friend will undotbtedly

have read the disgraceful comments on some press this morning where a

Tory MP suggested child reftgees should have do undergo dent`l checks

in order to gain passage to the UK from Calais. As if these chhldren

have not undergone enough. Leaving aside the fact that they have legal

rights to be here, does she agree with me that... Order. Therd is a

point of order... I am the Conservative MP who is being

referred to at the moment. This is not a matter that is before us at

the moment. I wanted to spe`k about EU migrants, being married to one

myself. If the honourable gdntleman opposite wants to raise a dhfferent

matter, would I be able to `nswer that later even know it has nothing

to do with this debate? I dhd not judge it to be disorderly. Order. I

did not judge it to be disorderly although it does need to be done

briefly. I did not think it was disorderly and I don't think it was

disorderly but I give the honourable gentleman the assurance that he is

entitled to seek that he will have an opportunity in his remarks to

respond as he thinks fit and no one should deny him that opporttnity.

Briefly, Mr Gray, let's hear it Does my honourable Leonard friend

agree with me that this typd of disgraceful, xenophobic rhetoric is

unhelpfully fuelling the kind of xenophobic attacks we have seen

across the country since thd Brexit debate? Yes, I very much do agree

with my honourable friend and, Mr Speaker, it is incumbent upon all of

us in public life to be mindful of the language ee we use, particularly

when we are talking about rdfugees who are children. The definhtion of

a child being under 18. I think I will make some progress now, if you

don't mind. Those of us who have actually been to Calais and met some

of the child refugees and sden, some of them are young men, but they are

still children, and seen thdm separated from their familids and in

tears by the comments to whhch my honourable friend refers dedply

distasteful. I am just going to make progress if I may. Tomorrow, the

Prime Minister will attend her first European Union summit in Brtssels. I

very much hope it will not be her last. It's position on EU mhgrants

will be a central issue. Now is the opportunity for the United Kingdom

Government to do the right thing and save the Scottish National party,

the Scottish National party called on this House today to recognise the

contribution of EU nationals made to the UK and we also call upon the UK

Government to ensure that all EU nationals who have made this country

their home retain the kind of rights, including rights to live and

work in this country, should the UK exit the European Union. I'll give

way. I thank the honourable lady for giving way. I was assured bx the

Secretary of State at the Home Office, I asked him how an DU

citizen demonstrate that having lived in the UK for more th`n five

years, how's citizenship is saved after six years, which department

would be responsible for confirming the right to remain, what

citizenship they would be able to claim and what the estimate of the

costs would be for going through this process? I was told in reply to

that question that the Home Office had indicated it will not bd

possible to answer this question within the usual time period. Isn't

it time we got our act together as a country and gave people who have

given their lives and taxes to this country the security that they need

to know that they can remain. These are all very serious `nd

worthy interventions but thdy do suffer from the disadvantagd of

being too long, this must not continue, we must try and rdstore

some order, I don't want to embarrass you unduly, but if members

could model themselves in tdrms of Trevor T for the honourable member

of working and Edgbaston, they would serve themselves well. I cotldn t

agree with the honourable l`dy more, this is symptomatic Mr Speaker of

the complete failure of varhous governments to answer any qtestions

arising from the strategy that they will presumably

need to adopt, I will take ht in a moment, as a result of the vote on

the 24th of June. Just pickhng up on the point made by the honourable

lady, I'm delighted Mr Speaker that the Scottish National party have the

full support of Labour Partx colleagues in this motion today and

we are very happy to work whth them to be part of a cross-party

Progressive Alliance which H'm sure would include some members from the

opposite side of the house, to protect, to protect, to protect the

right of EU nationals across the UK. Mr Speaker I'm spoiled for choice by

interventions, I think I will take... I completely agree with the

first part of it which recognises the contribution made by EU

nationals but does she not recognise that the responsibility for my

honourable friend the Minister and the Prime Minister, their fhrst

responsibility are two Brithsh citizens, more than a million of

whom are in the European Unhon. Their rights need to be protected.

Her motion is silent about their interests. It is open to thd

honourable gentleman to bring forward such a motion, this motion

is about protecting the rights of EU nationals in the United Kingdom

which the United Kingdom government is in a position to do. I'm grateful

to the honourable lady, my husband is a citizen in Germany, he runs a

very small business in Germ`ny and he was horrified by the tond of his

government in looking after his rights, as a person establishing

himself abroad. He says to le do they not understand that threatening

Europe is not the best way to open the negotiations. By Milly said they

don't. As I said earlier, if Abbey constantly told by Brexiteers,

trading and having agreements with Britain is such a fantastic option

for European Union, then my must the government keep up its sleeves, the

trips of individuals. I just note in passing that the honourable

gentleman, if you wanted to make this point he could have put down an

amendment but chose not to do. On the question of the right thing it

it is the right thing to look after own communities as well and EU

nationals are essential functioning people in many businesses in

communities. Absolutely I couldn't agree with my honourable frhend

more, the purpose of this motion is to make sure that we don't get into

the fortunate position in United Kingdom of having people living

here, working here and paying tax, who have lesser rights and lesser

status than others. That wotld be deeply invidious and if I m`y say so

as a Scottish nationalist, H would have thought contrary to thd British

tradition. I give way. Equally there will be Bridges citizens working

abroad we don't want to be suffering from any lesser rights, which she

going to negotiating chamber armed only with the glow of the goodwill

and the moral high ground as against the hard-headed negotiations of her

interlocutors? I am happy and proud to say that I and my Scottish

National party is never going to negotiating chamber using individual

human beings as bargaining chips. I am just looking to progress. Mr

Speaker, I use the word bargaining chips advisedly, because it is a

source of shame to this house and the United Kingdom, that thd Prime

Minister and several of her ministers including the Secretary of

State for exiting the Europdan Union and I particularly am ashamdd to say

the shekel Gill state for Scotland have hinted EU nationals in this

country as bargaining chips. Indeed at the Conservative Party conference

which will enjoy watching so much on television, the Secretary of State

for International Trade went so far as to compare the European Tnion

nationals, two cards in a g`me. I thank the rubble lady for ghving

way, she's talking about European citizens being used as barg`ining

chips, De she would call th`t in 2014 Nicola Sturgeon herself

threatened that he nationals the right to remain in Scotland, as

reported in the Scotsman newspaper. She said, as reported in thd

Scotsman newspaper, they sahd "There are 160,000 EU people in Scotland

including some in Glasgow, hf Scotland was outside Europe they

would lose the right to stax here". Who is using the bargaining chips?

Never said that. Can I in the gentlest and friendliest wax Council

the honourable member against taking advice firstly from the Conservative

Party in Scotland and secondly from the Scotsman newspaper which is

frankly not what it was when I was a girl. There is absolutely no

question, if I could just fhnished the point there is absolutely no

question that the First Minhster Nicola Sturgeon or her preddcessor,

the distinguished and right Honourable member for Gordon ever

threatened EU nationals with not being part of Scottish socidty. Our

policy has been clear for m`ny, many years that we want an indepdndent

Scotland in a European Union with equal rights for all living in

Scotland. We are quite clear on that, watch this debate is `bout

today is making the UK Government clear on having equal rights across

the United Kingdom. I give way to the honourable gentleman. I had been

listening to her speech with care, she has been pressed time and again

as to whether she would defdnd the rights of citizens of this nation

who are living abroad and thme and again she has refused to do so. I

give her one more opportunity, would she stand up for Britain and British

citizens for their rights across the grope? -- the globe. Yes of course I

would, I'm not gay to be sidetracked,

the -- if the rubble member and his colleagues were so agitated about

this, then has my honourabld friend said, they would have been free to

make an amendment to the motion I am delighted to hear, that they are

so concerned about the welf`re of people from Europe which has been

put at risk. What I would lhke to see them do. Is to extend, the same

concern, to EU nationals living in the United Kingdom. That is what

this motion is about and no amount of obscure cajun from the honourable

members opposite are going to change that. Would my noble friend not

agree with me that you can `ctually negotiate in two ways, positively

and negatively. If we had graciously on the 24th of June said evdryone

who has settled here can live here, that would have been returndd. When

I met the German ambassador, it had not occurred to them, that they

would throw British citizens out. That idea has only come bec`use we

are threatening their citizdns. I couldn't agree more with my

honourable friend. I'm going to try and make some progress now Ladam

Deputy Speaker as I have taken a lot of interventions and I'm anxious to

make some progress, I'm happy to put the members opposite, right later.

Mr Speaker, Madam Deputy Spdaker we wouldn't expect 1.2 million UK

citizens that live in other EU countries, to be treated as

bargaining chips. And we wotldn t expect the governments of other EU

union countries, to preside over a shocking rise in xenophobia and hate

crime. So the UK Government must accept it share of responsibility

for what is going on at the moment and stop fuelling division. I

entirely share her sentiments, and we all want to reassure, people who

are here. We must be careful not to actually arouse a sense of

insecurity amongst them. Th`t she agree with me, that I den of any

member of this house in any party who wishes to remove EU nathonals

who now lawfully are here, `nd I had never met a European politician from

any country as her neighbour said, and I have met quite a lot of

European politicians, who whshes to remove British nationals who have

settled down there. So we are having a rather artificial debate here

Would it not be best if this was all sorted out in the summit tolorrow

and the leaders quickly agrded that neither side was actually going to

seek in any negotiations to remove National 's lawfully living in their

respective territories. I always listen to what The Right Honourable

and learner gentleman says with great care because I think he has

made an amazing contribution to this debate over the opinion in recent

years. However this is not `n artificial debate, I hate to

disillusion The Right Honourable and learn a gentleman but one of his

conservative and Unionist p`rties in Scotland, MM robber Scottish

parliament recently suggestdd in a conservative Unionist party

sanctioned press release, that EU citizens living in Scotland should

not have the same right to participate in civil societx as

others. So it is a very, very real concern and for the record he was

referring to a French national, who lives in Scotland and was previously

a member in the Scottish parliament. I'm now going to make some progress,

I will take some more interventions late run but I would like to make

some progress. Madam Deputy Speaker, Scotland is an inclusive and outward

looking society and we recognise the immense contribution that mhgrants

make to the Scottish economx, our society and our culture. We firmly

believe that similar views `re held by many throughout these islands,

the rest of the 90 kingdom. And we are appearing today to the TK

Government, to listen to those voices across the UK who do not want

EU nationals living in the Tnited Kingdom, used as bargaining chips in

the Brexit negotiations. Madam Deputy Speaker, this union of

nations, should be better than that. I give way to the honourabld

gentleman. I'm grateful to the honourable lady for giving way, we

can both agree I think that the right moral member for Rushcliffe is

right when he says nobody in this house at all would want to seek EU

nationals living and working here expelled, but the point is, that

there are people out there, could have been emboldened by the climate,

who wants to seek EU nation`ls living here expelled, and ghving the

sort of signal that she is calling for, which I support, would be a

very powerful signal, in saxing that the views of these people are

wholeheartedly rejected, by all right-thinking people. I'm grateful

for The Right Honourable gentle man grateful for the support, in this

motion. As I said, I intend to make some progress. I want to sax little

bit about the valuable contribution that you migrants make to otr

society across the UK. We all know that there are about 3 millhon UK

migrants living in United Khngdom and about 173,000 of them lhve in

Scotland. Data that was produced during the EU referendum show, that

contrary to popular myth, ET migrants in the UK make a ndt

contribution to the economy. Indeed Madam Deputy Speaker, the ET

citizens who come to live and work in Scotland are critical to key

sectors of the economy, over 12 of the people who work in the

agricultural sector art you migrants. 11th scent of people who

work in our imported food, fish and meat processing sectors are you

citizens. In my own constittency, I have two major universities,

Edinburgh and Herriot Watt, who would be greatly affected bx Adie

crease in the number of EU nationals choosing to study research `nd

teach. I'm grateful, she's laking a wonderful case for the contribution

that you nationals make to the Scottish and British public life

which is something that we have to be much more confident in m`king.

Will she agree that it is not just about the contribution that she

makes, there are sectors, that there are well renowned science is to

tutor, that has 25% of their staff are EU nationals. They need the

certainty that they can stax so that Edinburgh can stay in the top 1 0

universities around the world. He and I are privileged to havd

students and academics from three very fine university spread across,

are constituency and I'm sure that like me he spent the summer meeting

with academics and students from these universities, and Mad`m Deputy

Speaker I was informed fray shortly after the EU reverend by thd

principal of Edinburgh, that she had already been advised within days of

the referendum, of potential staff members from other EU countries

withdrawing from job offers from universities across Scotland.

When I met with academic st`ff at Heriot Watt University over the

summer, they expressed similar concerns about the quality of their

teaching and research will be undermined if the position of EU

migrants in Scotland is not guaranteed and I have no dotbt that

this is the same across England Wales and Northern Ireland. I think

this is a really important point, the issue about how EU citizens feel

about remaining in the UK. Hn that case, I have not heard a single

member of these benches or `nyone in this House on the side saying they

want anyone to leave at all. The whole issue is only being r`ised by

the SNP, only being used by the Labour Party and I would just very

gently say be aware that whdn you make these cases for political

reasons about which can you so that should not be felt by any ET citizen

in the UK. I cannot speak for the honourable member's constittents or

the mail that he receives btt I am sure I can speak to the SNP when I

say that we all receive concern from EU citizens and I am sure that

members on the benches behind me with speak on the same issud when

they rise to speak. This is not fear mongering, and believe you le, we in

the SNP are experts on fear mongering after the referendum. .

And this is, I am not going to give away because I am going to lake some

progress, this, Madam Deputx Speaker, is a valid issue about

which many constituents are very concerned and we would be s`lient in

our -- failing in our responsibilities if we didn't raise

it, no matter how embarrasshng it is for the benches opposite. The NHS

has already been mentioned by my honourable friend and, as hd said,

6% of doctors in Wales are DU migrants. Just under 7% of doctors

in Scotland and have an EU nationality. Put bluntly, otr NHS

would struggle to cope without them. There are very valid concerns, Madam

Deputy Speaker, that pushing EU nationals to leave due to

uncertainties about their ftture would have a devastating impact on

the NHS, the hospitality and agricultural sectors, higher

education and science, all of which rely heavily on Labour from the EU.

I also share the concerns m`de by the trade union Congress, M`dam

Deputy Speaker, who has said that the longer we leave EU workdrs are

uncertain about their futurd, the greater the likelihood that they

believe, creating staffing shortages that will particularly negatively

affect our public services, only serving to increase the concerns

felt by those who voted to leave the EU to increase resources for public

services. Not much sign of that happening, is there? Talking of

uncertainty, as she was just then, could I just ask very briefly about

the last few words of the n`tion? Why is it that this motion refers

to, and I quote, should the UK exit the EU? Why is it should? Bdcause

the reality is, the reality is that 17.4 million people voted for this

country to leave the Europe`n Union and we are going to leave the

European Union. There is no showed about it. That word should surely be

when? I don't think I can answer the intervention better than my

honourable friend did but what I will say is that the honour`ble

gentleman will be aware that in Scotland, a huge, why a hugd

majority, we voted to remain a member of the EU and that the SNP

will do everything in their might to ensure that the wishes of the

Scottish people are respectdd. I give way to the honourable

gentleman. I am most grateftl and she makes a very powerful c`se. Am I

right, all she is seeking to do in this debate is to ensure th`t there

is clarity? The right honourable member for Rushcliffe has s`id that

nobody in this House would like to see any EU national leave the

country. Wouldn't it be the best course of action at the end of this

debate and the Minister was just to say, these rights are grantdd? I

couldn't have put it better or more that thinking myself. I am very

grateful to the honourable lember for that. I mentioned earlidr in my

speech the phenomenon of thd rise in hate crime across England and Wales

since the referendum. Home Office statistics published just over a

week ago show that hate criles have soared by 41% in England and Wales.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would suggest that this is a symptom of

the negative and xenophobic rhetoric used by some, not all, in the lead

up to the referendum. This has had a major effect in legitimising hate

crime on the part of a small but violent and vocal minority. In that

connection, many of us were very concerned about some of the rhetoric

that came out of the Conservative and Unionist Party Conference in

Birmingham the other week. Ht is not just the concern of the SNP.

Concerns have also been raised by other members in this House, also by

international human rights bodies. The UN committee on the elilination

of discrimination, the Council of Europe's body on human rights and

those against racism and intolerance have all expressed concern `bout the

spike in hate crime in Engl`nd and Wales. I thank you for giving way.

Does she agree with me that this situation requires leadershhp? It

requires leadership and a Prime Minister that will advocate of the

best interests of every single person in this country, EU national

or otherwise, and the need for inclusivity and leadership hn this

debate. It is the purpose of this motion to invite the United Kingdom

Government to follow the le`d that the Scottish Government havd shown

in this respect... I am verx grateful for her giving way again

and again, I emphasise her compelling speech. Does the

Government not also have to look at the will of this House, who in July

voted 245 votes to two, to do the very thing that her motion today is

asking, and rather than makhng xenophobic speeches at the

Conservative Party conference, they should be doing what this House has

already voted for. The honotrable gentleman is completely right. Big

and have failed to respect the outcome of that debate. The Polish

ambassador gave evidence yesterday to the Lords European Union Justice

subcommittee and said that he had noticed an increase in xenophobic

behaviour in Britain since the Brexit vote. He expressed concern

about the uncertainty being caused to Polish nationals living hn the

UK. There we have another SNP voice talking about the very concdrned

that makes us bring forward this motion today. I am pleased that we

have not seen any increase hn hate crime north of the border btt we

must all always be vigilant to ensure that hate crime is m`de

unacceptable across the whole of the United Kingdom. I give way to the

honourable gentleman. I thank the honourable lady for giving way.

Look, I have been a remain for a very long time but I have come to

this chamber listening very carefully and intently to what the

honourable lady is saying, `nd also listening to my honourable friend

for Rushcliffe just now, in saying that no one disagrees with but the

lady is saying. No one disagrees that we shouldn't protect ET

nationals as we protect our UK citizens. From the TU, why hs it not

the case that you did not ptt this in your motion before this House? I

would have voted with you. No, the honourable gentleman, definhtely, in

everything he should have s`id didn't need mean -- didn't lean me.

The members opposite felt this could be improved, it was open to them to

bring forward an amendment `nd we would have looked at it cardfully as

we always do. I want to makd some progress as I am conscious H have

taken a lot of interventions and I want to wind up fairly soon. I want

to speak about what the Scottish Government has been doing shnce the

referendum. Members will recall that immediately after the referdndum

result, the First Minister loved very quickly to give EU cithzens in

Scotland reassurance that the Scottish Government wed this you

every possible option to protect Scotland's position in Europe, and

by extension, the interest of the people from the European Unhon who

live here. Indeed, at an evdnt unprecedented in my constittency in

August, the First Minister held an open question and answer session

with EU nationals and I can tell the members opposite, it was extremely

well attended by EU nationals living and working in my constituency and

other parts of Scotland who had many concerns and questions for the First

Minister about their status in the United Kingdom following thd vote.

At our conference last weekdnd, the Scottish National party passed a

motion condemning xenophobi` in all its forms. It made it very clear in

no uncertain terms that international citizens are welcome

in Scotland and indeed, in her closing address to the SNP

conference in Glasgow on Saturday, the First Minister talked of the

uniting vision of an inclushve, prosperous, socially just, open

welcoming and outward looking country, contrasting best to the

xenophobic rhetoric of the TK Government. The difference between

the SNP conference and the Tory conference could not be starker

But, Madam Deputy Speaker, H am very well aware that the desire for

inclusivity, openness, welcoming mess and outward looking is not the

preserve of the Nationalist -- the Scottish National party and the

Scots, it is shared by many people across these isles and it is time

that the members opposite lhved up to the good aspects of the British

transition -- the British tradition, the good aspects of our repttation

abroad and stopped underminhng them with some of the rhetoric over the

last few months. I am delighted to get this reaction and give way. I am

grateful to the honourable lady for giving way. Nobody is suggesting

that anybody is going to be injected from the United Kingdom and she is

simply setting hares running. But would she understand and adlit that

there is a layer of complexhty that she has completely ignored? So, if

she is giving rights to people, which I think we would all `ccept,

what date would you choose? What then happens when people go outside

the UK and seek to return? @ll these things are also relevant to British

nationals that the Government has to negotiate on behalf. I must admit to

deriving some satisfaction from the fact my speech is touching such a

raw nerve opposite. I would say to the members opposite that actions

and rhetoric have consequences and these are the consequences of some,

some of your actions. Madam Deputy Speaker, my right honourabld friend,

the Member for Gordon, has often said that Scotland's problel is not

immigration but emigration. We in Scotland would like to see

immigration powers to be gr`nted to Scotland in recognition of the

differing needs across the Tnited Kingdom and the fact that in

Scotland, we require immigr`nts to help boost our economy and skills,

particularly in remote areas. Madam Deputy Speaker, both Australia and

Canada pursues subnational immigration policies that rdspond to

the skills and expertise across the varying regions within their states.

Now is the chance for the United Kingdom to do likewise but H shan't

hold my breath. Madam Deputx Speaker, even the levers during

their campaign, to be fair to them, many of them said that therd would

be no change for EU citizens already resident in the UK. And, indeed

speaking on Radio 4, the Honourable member for Birmingham Edgbaston who

co-chaired the campaign to leave said, I think it would be good for

the British Government to t`ke the initiative to say that we whll

protect EU citizens rights `nd expect the same for EU citizens that

are British citizens and thd rest of the EU to expect the same. She said,

one of the duties of politicians is to be humane and when we de`l with

people's lives, she said, wd need to show we are open, a welcoming

country that has simply dechded to leave a political institution called

the European Union. That dods not mean we are ignoring people's

rights. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not often in recent months that I

have found myself in agreemdnt with the honourable member for Edgbaston

but on this occasion, she is right. And the British Government does the

right thing and take the inhtiative and says it will protect EU citizens

rights, it could help for -, hope for in return a reciprocal jester

for the British citizens abroad It is a question of basic humanity

Human beings should not be tsed as bargaining counters. To conclude, I

don't believe that this failure to reassure the EU nationals lhving in

the United Kingdom represents the best traditions of these islands.

Much of what underlies it and the rising hate crime is misinformation

put about during the leave campaign and a failure of leadership by the

previous Prime Minister and many in the main campaign, to artictlate the

truth about the benefits th`t migration and EU migration bring to

the United Kingdom and sadlx that failure of leadership is behng

perpetuated by this new govdrnment, as it spins rudderless in the

tailwind of Brexit. Now is the time to put things right. So tod`y the

Scottish National party with the support of others for which we are

very grateful calls on the government to provide a cast-iron

guarantee for EU citizens, have made the UK their home, to reject and to

continue to work on tackling the rise of xenophobia which has been

confirmed by the Home Officd for England and Wales, to recognise that

the UK wide blanket approach to immigration policy is not working

and disregards the national regional and demographic differences across

the UK. Most of all, to reassure all of those that chooses to make

Scotland and the UK the homd, that they are welcome to remain here And

that the vital contributions are valued by all of us. Madam Deputy

Speaker until that commitment is given, people are going to have the

sort of worry and uncertainty that leads them to flock to events such

as that organised by the First Minister in Edinburgh, and to write

an e-mail to all of us on stch a regular basis. The question is as on

the order paper, the ministdr Mr Robert Goodwill. Thank you very much

Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many limits to my capabilities and one of

them is the inability of behng in two places at the same time so can I

apologise to the house if I have to dash off to the Scottish affairs

select committee, but Munro will friend the member for Worcester will

be winding this debate and passing on any comments which are dhrected

particularly at me. I think my job this afternoon is to reassure the

house about our aspirations, to protect the interests of EU citizens

living in the UK and counter some of the scaremongering we have just

heard. I was concerned, when I read the motion on the order papdr, and I

thought there was a typographical error that the word should had been

substituted for the word whdn. But the fact of the matter is as the

Prime Minister said, Brexit means Brexit and we are determined to

carry out the wishes of the British people in leaving the Europdan Union

had the negotiations that whll take place will be to secure the best

possible deal. As the Secretary of State leaving the EU, the government

is determined, that Parliamdnt will be fully and properly engagdd in a

discussion of how we make a success of Brexit, and therefore pldased

that the house has the opportunity to debate this aspect of our future

relationship with the Europdan Union. There are over 3 million

European Union nationals living currently in the UK. They m`ke a

vital contribution to important aspect of our economy and ptblic

services, not least in the NHS and the care sector. By all means. I

thank him for giving the hotse the figure of 3 million, however of

course some of the EU nationals will have arrived without passports,

those coming from Romania or Italy will have had travel documents in

order to enter the United Khngdom, how does he, how is that thdy get a

genuine figure for the housd given that he wouldn't know precisely how

many people were here? That is certainly one of the aspects of this

negotiation that we would nded to explore and indeed the security

aspects of some of these tr`vel documents is not as robust `s those

in the passports with the bty metric data that is so important to insure

that the right people, the hdentity is clear when they are crossing

borders. I'm not raising thd identity issue which is an hmportant

and separate issue, it is that when Helu National come here as `

remaining or an Italian, with a travel document instead of `

passport, it is not stamped. EU citizens don't get a stamp, is he

basing 3 million on those who have acquired national insurance numbers,

work or is it based on some other data, that is what I want to know?

Not the security issue. He's absolutely right, the figurd 3

million can only be an estilate as exit checks have only been

introduced, historically we were not aware of who had left and there are

a number of ways we can do that including national insurancd numbers

but there are other ways. I thank Mara will friend for giving way

just a few moments ago he w`s thinking so warmly about thd immense

contributions of foreign nationals in the UK, is he aware of anybody on

these benches saying that ET citizens should leave this country

or is it purely coming from the other side? Well I think I lade the

point earlier, the only quote that I have seen when somebody has been

threatening EU nationals, h`s been a quote in the Scotsman newsp`per

dated the 14th of July 2014, in inverted commas where a specific

threat was made, where a spdcific threat was made that if Scotland was

not allowed to join the European Union has an independent cotntry

then there would be a threat to the status of those people. If the

members opposite are concerned about the accuracy of reports in the

Scotsman newspaper, perhaps I could draw them to the official rdcord of

the Scottish parliament health and sports committee dated the 27th of

September 2016, quite recently. Well just let me make this point and then

I will let him have his try. A report at a session of the health

and sports committee, the C`binet Secretary for health said that in

response to Brexit, "The Scottish Government was looking at including

additional questions on the workforce survey to try to gather

more information about whether people are you nationals or indeed

where they come from more gdnerally. That would be helpful. " And indeed

following from that, a Scottish Government official confirmdd that

they were looking at adding additional questions to work for

surveys as a matter of urgency. Who is using who as a political

bargaining chip? I think workforce planning is a fantastic ide`, but on

the quote from the Scotsman, I have the article here, it is a vdry small

article, the point that the Deputy First Minister was making w`s that

worse gotten to be pulled ott of the EU against its will then thd rights

of citizens might be put at risk. Lo and behold, writes of EU citizens

have been put at risk. The Linister could end this today. Can hd

guarantee that the rights of EU citizens, will be protected. And

will he stop and drink to the Ukip attitudes, using people as

bargaining chips. Let me sed what I can do, my middle name means

reasonable, it would be reasonable not to indulge in scaremongdring.

Many of them watching this debate will be unnecessarily concerned

about some of the rhetoric that we have just heard. The governlent has

been clear that it wants to protect the status of EU nationals resident

in the UK. As the Prime Minhster has made clear, the only circumstances

in which that would not be possible, are, if British citizens, in other

EU member states were not protected in return. The government h`s

provided repeated assurances on this point and its position has not

changed. I am sorry that thd SNP has not included this reassurance in

their motion. Just let me m`ke a bit of progress if I may. I want to make

this absolutely clear. The government has also been cldar that

the time frame for resolving this issue is to address it as p`rt of a

wider negotiation on the UK's exit from the EU to ensure the f`ir

treatment of British citizens including those from Scotland living

in other EU countries. Therd are over 1 million British citizens who

have built their lives elsewhere in Europe, who accounted on our

securing their future. We shmply want a fair deal for both ET

nationals in the UK, and for British citizens in the EU. That is a

sensible approach and that hs the approach that we will take. As the

house is whether government is committed to invoking article 5 by

the end of March 2017, once it has met clear objectives in the Daigo CH

and is. It is becoming incrdasingly baffling to meet, either st`nd the

ministers proposing to ask ts to vote against this motion. Btt what

he just said confirms that the motion exactly coincides with the

committed game of the government, which is to seek to insure that all

those EU nationals living and working here now can be reassured

about their status. If we ldt this motion go through, the chances some

proposal coming from the continent that British National should be

expelled is nil. And of course we might have too revisited but even

then, we wouldn't want to t`ke reprisals against wholly innocent

people contributing to our dconomy here. Shouldn't we get onto the next

motion and stop spitting hahrs in this way when we all agreed the

objective. The Right Honour`ble gentleman makes a perfectly

reasonable point. The only problem the government has in this lotion is

it does not go far enough, hn including, the rights of Brhtish

citizens living in other EU memo states, which we would amount to be

protected in return. It is impossible, for us to support this

motion because that reassur`nce is not there at all. I fully appreciate

the importance of giving certainty to EU citizens who have built a life

in the UK. As I have alreadx said they should be reassured th`t we are

working on the basis that wd want to protect these people status in UK

law beyond the point that wd leave the EU. The honourable gentleman

knows that I am very fond of him but I am genuinely, it is true, it is a

guilty secret. I'm genuinelx wondering why he hasn't responded to

his Honourable friends a molent ago. Why are we still debating this is

the government quite clearlx agrees with this motion. I have made it

crystal clear I hope that the reason this motion does not go far enough

is that it does not extend the protections that they wish to have

EU citizens here in the UK to British citizens, including Scottish

citizens, people from Stranraer and Montrose from Edinburgh, though

citizens living and working elsewhere in the EU, who do require

reciprocal protection, that is all that we are saying and if they had

put that on the face of thehr motion then we would have been mord than

happy to support it but that is a fatal omission to their mothon. One

of the reasons why think th`t he is right to be reasonable and cautious,

as a former Immigration Minhster, one of the broken things thhs house

must do in order to deliver certainty, is be very clear in the

language we use. A lot of immigration matters go to court

describing people who made their home here, it is not clear hf it is

five years, ten years, five minutes. It also excludes the thousands of EU

nationals who do fall within a group who I do want to leave the Tnited

Kingdom and that is about as you nationals currently residing in her

matched his prisons who havd committed criminal offences who

abject the end of their sentence I want the government to be able to

remove from the country. Thhs matter is complicated, it is not

straightforward. I urge my friend to continue in the reasonable `nd

careful way to get this right, to provide the certainty that hs

necessary. It is not as simple as the Right Honourable and landlady

makes out. My right honourable friend is absolutely right, this is

a more complexes shoe than hs sometimes painted which is why we

need to engage, in with that in mind. We intend to reach agreement

on this issue as soon as possible but the fact remains that there

needs to be an agreement and I strongly believe that it wotld be

inappropriate to lay down unilateral positions and will we be

irresponsible to do so. In the meantime the government has been

clear on numerous occasions, that until the UK leaves the EU, there

will be no changes in the circumstances of European n`tionals

in the UK. They continue to have the same rights under EU law as they did

before the referendum. At M`dam Deputy Speaker as I have sahd, this

issue is also about British citizens living and working in other EU

member states, exercising their treaty rights. The Prime Minister

has been clear that 3-D is the Egyptians, we are seeking to secure

the best deal for Britain, that you'll write include protecting the

status of British citizens who are living, working and studying

elsewhere in the EU, as I h`ve said, it is disappointing that thd motion

makes no reference to these British citizens. That is why this

government is not in a position to set up a definitive position now, it

must be done following an agreement with the EU. Madam Deputy Speaker,

those EU nationals who are worrying about their current status can have

the government's complete reassurance that the right to enter,

work on the study and live hn the UK remains unchanged. They continue to

be welcome here in the UK. The I share his aspiration in wanting to

protect the rights of UK citizens living elsewhere in the European

Union. Can I say to him that the best way to achieve that ail would

be to make a commitment to DU citizens living here, and thus,

create the sort of atmosphere, in which positive negotiations and

other matters might then take place. I am sure that the honourable

gentleman would agree to me that this would be negotiations on both

sides but that other complex issues such as ones my rod or moral friend

has referred to which will need to be worked out such as immigration is

a complexes shoe and there `re a number of areas that need to be

worked out. The reassure you citizens lhving

here, exercising the rights, making a contribution to agriculture, all

the things we know they makd a contribution to, I hope thex can be

reassured that we will seek to protect their status and thd status

of UK citizens living and working elsewhere in the European Union The

Prime Minister has made numdrous statements that there will be no

immediate changes in the circumstances for EU nation`ls. In

addition, I would like to draw the attention of a host to the

Department for Education's recent confirmation that the EU sttdents

applying for a place at an Dnglish university in the 2017-18 academic

year will continue to be elhgible for student loans and grants and

will be for the duration of their course. Given that it is in the

interest of all interested parties to protect the rights of thdir

citizens once the UK exits the EU, we are confident that EU and British

citizens will be protected through reciprocal arrangements following

discussions. As I have said, I want to be able to conclude this matter

as quickly as possible once negotiations begin. However, there

is a balance to be struck bdtween transparency and good negothating

lattice. Any attempt to pre,empt future negotiations would rhsk

undermining our ability to secure protection for the rights of British

citizens living in the EU. That is why we are unable to support this

motion. The honourable membdr for Scarborough and Whitby is now well

established in his new role but I want to take this opportunity to

welcome the honourable membdr for Worcester into his new post and I

look forward to working with him and the rest of the team in the years

ahead. I am grateful for thd SNP in bringing this issue back to the

House and for the avoidance of any doubt, and if the Member for

Kettering was still in his place, particularly for him, that we on

this site want to make it clear that we accept the result of the

referendum. We simply want to make sure that our departure frol the EU

takes place on the best possible terms for the UK. As one of my

colleagues said last week in the opposition day debate, the British

people voted to come out, they did not vote to lose out. And providing

guarantees to EU nationals now is part of securing the best ddal for

the UK. That is why we made it to the topic of an opposition day

debate just two weeks after the referendum and why we support the

motion moved to date by the honourable member for Edinbtrgh

West. Back in July, as now, it was clear that the government dhd not

have a plan. No plan for wh`t to leave would look like and no plan

for the 3 million EU nation`ls living, working and studying in our

country. But one of the leading Leave campaign is during th`t debate

rightly pushed for certaintx on the issue. He said, I would likd to put

it on record what I think h`s been said already, that countless times

the vote Leave campaign gavd exactly this reassurance to everybody from

EU countries living and working here. And it is very disappointing

that that should be called hnto question. I think it is absolutely

right to issue the strongest possible reassurance to EU nationals

in this country, not just for moral and Unitarian reasons but for very,

very sound economic as well. They are welcome, they are necessary and

they are a vital part of our society and I passionately support this

motion. Credit where credit's June, The right honourable member for

Oxbridge and south Ruislip, after making that contribution not only

talk the talk, he walked thd walk. As did the overwhelming number of

members in this House in voting for that motion to guarantee EU

nationals the rights to rem`in here. I hope that now he is Foreign

Secretary, he is making the case even more strongly. Because I guess

in his new role at the Forehgn Office, he is learning the `rt of

diplomacy. They may have sole way to go, I appreciate that the Prime

Minister is not entirely convinced yet. But what he will know by now is

that the way the government has turned EU nationals living here into

bargaining chips for printed negotiations, or as the Secretary of

State for international trade put it, one of our main cards, hs not

only deeply unfair to those concerned, but is severely

undermining our reputation with the very people with whom we want to be

entering into negotiations next spring, not to mention the damage it

does to our economy. Put silply it is not in the national interests. It

is wrong for the government to suggest that we cannot guar`ntee the

status of EU nationals here. Many of whom have been here for dec`des

Without a reciprocal arrangdment for UK nationals abroad. The government

is effectively asking peopld, doctors in our NHS, business owners

and entrepreneurs, teachers in our schools, to put their lives on hold

and wait until March 2019 to find out what their future is. Btt many

were uncertainty, for themsdlves and their families. I will give way I

am grateful to him for giving way but the question then arises, what

guarantees is he, would she, if you work in the government, givd to

British citizens living in the EU, regarding your rights. What possible

guarantees or safeguards cotld you give to the? -- give to thel. By

giving guarantees to EU nathonals living in this country, we set the

marker and we give the best guarantees to our citizens living in

the rest of the EU by making that stand now. I will give way.

Following that through, would it not be better for the ministers to be

out there negotiating, getthng the reciprocal rights, rather than

having to remain at the dispatch box for these futile debates, stopping

them getting on with the job? Well, I think it would be much better if

the ministers didn't see EU nationals in this country as

bargaining chips but if thex saw them as citizens contributing to our

great economy and to our society, as the Foreign Secretary said hn the

debate in July. On the Forehgn Secretary and diplomacy, can I ask a

question which may test his? Does he agree with his party leader and

presumably his party's policy that the Labour Party wants to continue

having free movement, even `fter we have left of the European Union

That is the position set out by his leader. Could you confirm if that

remains his party's position. The Shadow Secretary of State m`de that

very clear last week. The honourable member is misrepresenting L`bour's

position. I don't know whether he was here for the debate but he might

usefully read Hansard. On this side of the House we said that there

would be adjustments to the arrangement and we believe hn

reasonable management of migration. Can I congratulate him on hhs

appointment to this new post. The opposition's position is very clear.

It is the common-sense position which is that it is a doubld

guarantee. We want to see British designs keep their rights in the EU

and we want to give EU citizens their rights to stay here. @nd now

EU country has said they want British citizens to leave the EU.

That is right, isn't it? I thank my my for his intervention and he is of

course absolutely right. It is unfortunate that some comment by

government ministers have ldft this issue on the table. Because

reverting to the point I was making in terms of EU nationals wanting

some certainty for themselvds and their families, if we do not offer

it, many of them will only find that by leaving the UK. That is tnfair

for them, but it is a loss to our country. On the side of the House we

do not believe in cutting off our nose to spite our face. We want to

see unilateral and immediatd action from the government to guar`ntee the

status of EU nationals who contribute so much to our society

and we do not believe, to bd clear, that that will undermine thd

government's ability to sectre the status of EU nationals living in

other EU countries because we believe that they, too, are an asset

to the communities in which they have set up home. And if thd

government position is not playing well with our partners abro`d, it is

not going down well at home either, because polling conducted

immediately after the referdndum shows that an overwhelming lajority

of both leave and remain voters take the same view, that EU nationals

should be allowed to remain. 84 of people including 77% of leave voters

want existing EU nationals to stay and in a letter to the Sund`y

Telegraph in July, which brought leave and remain migration watch and

other groups together, callhng for guaranteed rights for existhng EU

nationals, last week this h`s made it clear that simply repeathng

Brexit means Brexit will not wash. It will not wash for this House and

it will mark wash for peopld up and down the country. The uncertainty it

is creating is having an impact on our economy, so we welcome the

government's commitments to share its plans for Brexit with

Parliament, albeit following pressure from both sides of the

House. But there are issues cannot wait. And this is of them. People

who have made their lives hdre deserve better. With holding rights

from EU nationals until rights from UK nationals are guaranteed a broad

sounds logical enough, until you look to what it means in pr`ctice.

Decisions to invest or expand businesses scrapped because EU

nationals do not want to waht until 2019 to find out if they ard

welcome. Public services strained further as EU doctors, nursds uproot

and move somewhere, but thex are welcome to plan for the futtre. And

in the meantime, the status of UK nationals is no more secure since

Brexit negotiations are ongoing In his statement to the House last

week, the Secretary of Statd for exiting the European Union said and

I caught: Five out of six mhgrants who are here either already have

indefinite leave to remain or will have it by the time we depart the

union. Leaving aside the arrogant assumption that EU nationals will

just have to wait around and hope that they will be OK, rather than

going somewhere where they know they are welcome, but will concern EU

citizens who heard that statement is that indefinite leave to relain is

not handed out automaticallx on the basis of length of residencx. It has

to be applied for, and applxing for it is costly and onerous and there

are no guarantees. So perhaps the Minister will be able to cl`rify, is

that really what our offer hs to those people who are running our

public services and our economy Stick around for two years `nd you

might be able to take up thd opportunity for indefinite leave to

remain? It is ugly not good enough for them, not good enough for our

country,. We are grateful to the SNP for bringing this issue back to the

House and would repeat the call we made in July and that this House

endorsed, for the government to provide immediate clarity to EU

nationals taking decisions `bout their future now. It will bd obvious

to the House that we have lhmited time this afternoon. And th`t a

great many people wish to speak So I will impose an initial tile-limit

of eight minutes, with the proviso that that might well have to be

reduced. We will start with eight minutes and Mr James Cleverly. Madam

Deputy Speaker, thank you, H will endeavour to keep my comments pithy.

Firstly, and I don't have a lisp, so I would like to thank firstly the

Iraq opposite for being so H'm willing to take interventions from

my side of the chamber during her speech, because so many of the

points that I had scribbled down in my speech were actually being

brought up by colleagues th`t I would have literally nothing left to

say. But the number of points that I would be making, I started writing

this speech, and I will read directly from what I wrote. I will

assure that this motion is driven by genuine concern rather than a desire

to play party politics. That is what I wrote and unfortunately, H would

have to say to the honourable lady that through her speech I sounded

less and less easy to maint`in a position because over and over again

I saw examples of this very important issue being used `s a

Trojan horse to simply cast some very, very unpalatable accusations

at my party. And the honour`ble lady says, from a secondary position

look in the mirror. I do look in the mirror every morning when I shave

and I see a black face lookhng back at me. And I have to say th`t when

honourable members start accusing my benches of being xenophobic, I look

at a number of my colleagues and I would ask that she reflects upon

those comments before she starts accusing... Order, order. Wd are not

having it that comments are to be reflected upon or discussed which

have been made from a secondary position. If the honourable lady

which is her comments to be noted, she should stand up and makd them.

If not, she should not make them. James Cleverly.

Not yet, we have all got lo`ds of time, so I will make progress. The

most important point, and it was brought up on numerous occasions, by

my friends and colleagues on these benches, was ignored and left

unanswered on numerous occasions, by the proposal of the motion `nd those

making supportive comments witches. Bridges citizens currently living in

the EU have had no confirmation about their future status and I

would remind members, that ht was not from the British side of the

negotiating relationship, that we hear phrases like punishment, it is

from the voices in the commhssion. From EU members, that we he`r that

Britain needs to be punished. And it is, I have yet and I spent ` lot of

time scanning the Internet, I have yet to find references from the EU,

from the EU that we can expdct protection for British citizens as

part of these negotiations. I will give way to the honourable Lady The

honourable gentleman cast an aspersion that members of the

commission are threatening citizens in Europe, has he actually seen

that, or read that and heard that, because that is not the casd, that

anyone else has heard. We started it, we voted to leave and therefore

we are the ones who had to start the solutions. I simply make thd point,

that no one from the governlent benches, none of the negoti`ting

people we put forward have been using phrases like punishment. This

is a decision may by the Brhtish people, this is a decision-laking by

the British people and we should respect that decision and wd should

enter these negotiations as has been said, to be fair on both sides of

the house, with a desire to get the best outcome, both for the British

people, and four-hour friends and colleagues in the European Tnion.

And for British people living in the European Union and four EU national

is living in Britain. My desired outcome, our collective deshred

outcome, is to come out of this negotiating period with a

relationship that works for both the EU, and for us, and all people both

in the EU, and in the UK. There are, an estimated 1.2 million Brhtish

nationals, living in the EU. And their status, at the moment, has a?

Over it. And yet, we heard nothing despite numerous opportunithes, we

heard nothing from the SNP benches or the Labour benches saying that

any effort has been made to secure the status of British nationals

living in the EU. And my frhend and colleague, left the chamber now But

he was right to make the pohnt, that the British government's first

responsibility, is to the British people. And while there is `? Over

the status of British nationals living in the EU, unfortunately it

is not legitimate, for us to say, Lee unilaterally, that we are going

to secure the rights of EU nationals. And again from a

sedentary position the Honotrable lady opposite says humans as

bargaining chips, and she's accusing this side of a house of doing that

but once again fails to use the same phraseology when talking about the

people negotiating on the h`lf of the EU. What I want, what wd want,

and it has been said from the dispatch box, on numerous occasions,