European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill: Part 1 House of Commons

quickness. No constituent has ever expressed that to me. We should

discuss this. First of all, can I thank the Right honourable gentleman

not just for raising concerns about four courtesy of giving the advance

notice of intention to do so. I would say to the right honourable

gentleman for Aldershot, and Cotswold, with courtesy, on

advice... This is a matter that can properly be decided by the speaker,

and I thought it was proper to consult colleagues on the House of

Commons commission, the strategic governing body. I have got to till

both members that the House of Commons commission agreed with no

objection to these two changes. The extension of those who serve at the

table, removal of wigs. Beyond that, I would say to the rate honourable

member for Aldershot, teasing him a tad, my understanding from one who

has got considerable expertise in these matters is that although

certainly over the last couple of hundred years it has been the norm

for clerks at the table to wear wigs, going back several

centuries... It is normally the enjoyable sport of the right

honourable gentleman to do that, clerks did not wear wigs. And the

final point is this. It was not an executive order, I request from the

clerks themselves. I, and members of the House of Commons commission

agreed. People are entitled to views, but the idea that this was

something I came up with and sought to impose against the will of the

clerks, 100% wrong. The right honourable gentleman should give the

clerks some credit. The clerk open to constructive reform, and has been

the champion of it in the skis. -- this case. Have you noted the deep

concern expressed from members across the house, the 170 signing

motion 190, regarding the potential offering of a speech to both Houses

of Parliament? I wonder what approaches have been made to you,

what conversations have taken place with relevant authorities for such

an approach to go ahead? Whether or not those of us who have deep

concerns about President Trump's comments could think? And address by

a foreign leader to both doses of Parliament is not an automatic

right. An earned honour. Moreover... Many presidents, for state visits to

take place, which do not include an address to both houses of

parliament. That was the first point. Second, relation to

Westminster Hall, three key-holders. The Speaker of the House of Commons,

the Speaker of the House of Lords, and the Lord Great Chamberlain.

Ordinarily, we can work by consensus, hall used for a purpose,

such as an address, by agreement of the three key-holders. Two all those

who seemed that early day motion, on either side of the argument, before

the imposition of the migrant ban I would myself have been strongly

opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall. After the

imposition of the migrant ban by President Trump, I am even more

strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall.

So far as the Royal Gallery is concerned, I do not perhaps have as

strong a say in that matter. It is in a different part of the building,

although customarily an invitation to the lethal to deliver an address

would be issued in the names of the two Speakers. Eyes would not wish to

issue an invitation to President Trump to speak in the Royal Gallery.

And I conclude by saying to the honourable gentleman this... We

value our relationship with the United States, and if a state visit

takes place, that is going to be way beyond the paygrade of the Speaker.

But as far as this place is consumed, if you very strongly -- I

feel very strongly our opposition to racism and sexism, and independent

judiciary are hugely important considerations.

We should not have clapping. But sometimes it is just easier to let

it go. No further points of order? Perhaps we can proceed, the clerk

proceed to read the orders of the day. The European Union withdrawal

committee. Order. Order! European Union notification

of withdrawal bill. We began with new clause three. Order. Order! We

began with the new clause three, with which it will be convenient to

consider the new clauses and amendments on the selection paper.

Matthew Penny Cook to move? Thank you Deputy Speaker. I beg to move

clause three in my name and My right honourable friend 's. It concerns

the issue of parliamentary negotiations following the

triggering of article 50. It would require the government to report

back to Parliament at least every two months, and reports before both

doses of Parliament on both occasions. It is purpose to improve

the bill. Effectively monitoring progress through those ago she shuns

but actively contributing for success by giving substantive

scrutiny that can positively influence the outcome. Madam Deputy

Speaker, we are only debating this, and other clauses and amendments to

the because the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's November ruling on

the triggering of Article 50, confirming that only Parliament and

not ministers using the rope to ten began the start of the native

kingdom's exit from the European Union. I'm going to make progress.

Supreme Court was correct to make clear that Parliament should accept

democratic influence over Brexit. That should be killed at the start,

through and most importantly at the end of the formal process of leaving

the EU. On the side of the house, we believe that we must have three

distinct pillars of accountability. Provision of a detailed plan, that

can inform future debates and votes and be used as a point of reference.

Secondly, I means of ensuring robust parliamentary oversight throughout

the negotiation period. Third. Meaningful debate and vote in

Parliament, therefore it is signed off with the European Council

Parliament. I am most grateful to the right honourable gentleman for

building with. Does he think that in a negotiation that can take many

months and be extraordinarily complicated, it is in the best

interests of the United Kingdom to have two reveal their hand every two

months? We are not asking the government to reveal the

negotiations, or the process. Under pressure, the government conceded

the first request, white paper published on Thursday. My right

honourable friend seeking to win agreement for another tomorrow. The

purpose of clause three is to secure the second of those pillars,

ensuring an enhanced role for honourable member 's.

First, while ministers obviously need sufficient room for manoeuvre,

and cannot therefore consent to the micro management of the process by

Parliamentarians, I am going to make some progress, active and robust

Parliamentary scrutiny will aid the negotiations by testing and

strengthening the Government's evolving negotiating position and

their hand with the European Union. Second, facilitating substantive

Parliamentary scrutiny would in itself bind the wounds of the

referendum and forge a genuine consensus? Consensus? Temperatures

and years ahead by reassuring the public, particularly the 16.1

million people who voted re-may main they will not be ignored burr they

views will be taken into account and their interests championed by their

representatives in Parliament. I thank the member for giving away.

Could he explain if on regular intervals such as he has described,

this House is to trail over the detailed negotiating position of the

Government, to express its view on it which will be known then to those

we are negotiating with, how that will not undermine the position of

the Government when it comes to negotiations. If the honourable

member would allow me to make progress, he would realise that is

not what we are asking for and when it comes to sensitive confidential

matters we hope there are mechanisms to allow the House to be able to

view and respond to those. I am going to make a bit of proes.

In departing the EU we need a deal and process that not just works for

the 52% who voted leave or those who voted Remain but for everyone who

has a stake in our country's future. No-one can reasonably accuse the

Secretary of State of being unwilling to appear before the

House. He has responded to every question put to him, even if to ape

the language of the White Paper, it didn't always feel as if we got an

answer. But what is required throughout the negotiations is

something more, an opportunity for honourable members to play an active

role in influencing the process rather than observing and commenting

on it retrospectively. As a member argued, honourable members are not

passive bystander, we should be active participants in this process.

I thank him for giving way. Will my right honourable friend agree with

me it is important that Parliament is sovereign throughout this whole

process and gets a chance to have a look at the general direction, to

which the Government is proceeding with withdrawal from the EU? My

right honourable friend makes a good point. As she will a what we are

asking for is no more happened no less than the European Parliament

will see and I will come on to that. Sub Sanative Parliamentary scrutiny

is not the same as accountability after the event. And new clause

three is focussed on securing what is needed for the former. The

Secretary of State has made clear on numerous occasions, that when it

comes to the provision of information during the negotiations,

it is his intention that honourable members will enjoy the same access

to information as their counterparts in the European Union, but not only

than that, the situation here will be an improvement upon what the

European Parliament sees. Now we do not know precisely what the members

of the European Parliament will see throughout the negotiation, but it

is reasonable to assume their involvement is likely to be

conducted in accordance with the provision of article 218 and that

the detailed arrangements are likely to be similar to those set out in

the 2010 framework agreement on relations between the European

Parliament and the Commission. It is worth state fog fog record, what

those involve. Paragraph 23 of the framework agreement makes clear that

accordance with the provision of article 218 and that the detailed

arrangements are likely to be similar to those set out in the 2010

framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and

the Commission. It is worth state fog fog record, what those involve.

Paragraph 23 of the framework agreement makes clear that the

accordance with the provision of article 218 and that the detailed

arrangements are likely to be similar to those set out in the 2010

framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and

the Commission. It is worth state fog fog record, what those involve.

Paragraph 23 of the framework agreement makes clear that the

European Parliament shall be "Immediately and fully informed at

all stages of the negotiation, and conclusion of international

agreements." In addition, paragraph 24 requires that information should

be provided to the It is worth state fog fog record, what those involve.

Paragraph 23 of the framework agreement makes clear that the

European Parliament shall be "Immediately and fully informed at

all stages of the negotiation, and conclusion of international

agreements." In addition, paragraph 24 requires that information should

be provided to the European Parliament and I quote "In

sufficient time for it to be able to express it point of view if

appropriate and for the Commission to take into account Parliament's

views as far as possible. " Lastly in order to facile they oversight of

sensitive material, article 24 of the that information should be

provided to the European Parliament and I quote "In sufficient time for

it to be able to express it point of view if appropriate and for the

Commission to take into account Parliament's views as far as

possible." Lastly in order to facile they oversight of sensitive

material, article 24 of the frame, who agreement states "That

Parliament and the Commission undertake to establish appropriate

procedures and safeguards for the forwarding of confidential

information from the Commission, to Parliament." In short the Commission

let's the European Parliament know in good time what it is proposing

with provision for sensitive material and provides sufficient

time for the Parliament to provide feedback and act upon if

appropriate. That is the baseline of European Parliamentary scrutiny. The

baseline that the Secretary of State has assured us this house cannot

only expect to match but to surpass. I think you will find most European

papers are published in English by the House of Commons library but he

hasn't yet answers the question about with where he would draw his

line in the sand, in relation to what he refers to as micro

management, and material that should be discussed every two months.

I have been clear, and it is up for the Government to determine what

sensitive material would come before Members of Parliament, I will make a

bit of progress if I can. That is the baseline of European

Parliamentary scrutiny. Acknowledging the delicate balance

between the need for robust Parliamentary oversight and the

needs of the executive, it is that baseline of oversight that new

clause three seeks to secure for this place. As the member for

Beaconsfield argues process matter, the Government... Happy to give way.

I respect the democratic result of the referendum but we owe it to our

constituents to get the best deal for them. As the East Midlands

exports 50% of good to the European Union I would be failing in my duty

if I didn't havest chance to ensure those jobs are not jeopardised by

the Government deal. Isn't that why jute anyis important? That is

precisely why scrutiny is important. If the Government were approaching

this in a reasonable and sensible manner they would welcome the

Hoyle's input into the process -- honourable lady's input. The

Government should embrace rather than resist agreeing to a proper

process for engaging the House in the considerable challenge it face

-- faces. The undertakings saw would ensure the active and constructive

involvement of Parliament and increase the chances of securing the

best possible deal for the British people. I hope the Government will

consider new clause three in the spirit in which it is moved and I

look forward to hearing the minister's thoughts on the matter. I

would like to turn to the important matter of the rights of European

nationals living in the UK, and in so doing speak to new clause eight

but principally new clause six. As my right honourable friend the

member for Hampstead and Kilburn argued so passionately during last

week's second reading, EU nationals that have put down root in the UK

are part of the fabric of our nations and community, they are o

are our neighbour, many sustain the public services we rely on and they

deserve to be treated with respect. They should not be used as

bargaining chips in the negotiations.

I have no doubt many honourable members of both side of the House

have had EU nationals attending their advice surgeries to express

the sense of trauma and anxiety they have felt every day since the 23rd

June last year. And to seek reassurance. But while individual

honourable members can and have thought to reassure we can provide

EU nationals living in the UK with no guarantee, only the Government

has it within its gift to do so. The purpose of new clause six is a

simple one. I would ensure on the day section one of the act comes

into force, the right of residence of EU nationals living in thek you

or opportunities to obtain that will be guaranteed on the day which

Article 50 notice is served. Even the Prime Minister's statement today

did not provide certainty, what constituency -- constituents say to

us, is they need certainty to know how they can plan their lives. Does

he agree with me, that in any event, someone who has lived here for five

years, can get permanent settlement and someone who has lived here six

years lawfully can also be eligible for British citizen ship, so it is

vital that the Government states this clearly.

I agree 100% with my right honourable friend. I am great. .

Could I urge him to look at a report, a commission organised by

British future, and what we managed to do is have cross-party support

across the chamber which would say on triggering Article 50, that is

the point but a transition period of five years which allows people to

normalise their status and have a special status to have a

relationship with Ireland. That would be perceived as fair across

the EU. That apes part of the situation we have made and it is

picked up in other new clauses. I will make progress if with.

Honourable members will know that perm innocent residence is a EU law

concept similar to as indefinite leave to renon-in the UK for non-EU

citizens. Citizens. It is not guaranteed that will don't exist

after we leave the EU. We are not debating the complex legal issues

that arise in this area. Instead we are debating a principle. How the

rights associated with permanent residence are to guaranteed.

We are not debating the detail but that is what he is proposing. He is

proposing a wide blanket measure, which gives an unconditional right

for many people to stay in the country, but specific we to him.

What provision is he making in his new clause, I can't see any, for the

over 4 thousand glou nationals who are in United Kingdom prisons, what

the arrangementses will be when we leave the on your-of-European Union

to make sure we can remove them from the United Kingdom which we can do

under the prisoner framework transfer agreement.

On this point he will know it depends what the terms of the

sentence for. This is focussed in principle guarantee, guarantee from

the Government to secure the rights of EU nationals. Madame Deputy

Speaker, few would question the fact that Brexit has divided the country,

but on this issue there is a clear consensus that the Government should

act to provide certainty to EU nationals. A motion tabled by my

right honourable friend the member for Leigh which caused on the

Government to commit with urgy to giving EU nationals the right to

remain, past the House overwhelmingly. That Parliamentary

support is mirrored among the public, polling by British futures

sows that 84% of British people, including 77% of leave voter support

it. The Labour Party has called for the Government to act to end the

uncertainty these individuals face, insuch is the level of consensus

that even Migration Watch an Ukip have joined those calls. The only

question that remains is whether the rights that flow from permanent

residency and thosel jib to obtain the rights will be secured by means

of a reciprocal agreement or unilaterally guaranteed by the

Government. I won't give quay if that is OK. I

know there are many honourable members who wish to get in.

We recognise the efforts of the Prime Minister, and her ministers to

achieve a reciprocal agreement with our EU partners that would guarantee

the rights of UK nationals in other EU country, we owe a duty the our

nationals and securing their rights must remain a priority, but with no

reciprocal agreement reached, and with just weeks to go until the

triggering of Article 50 we think the uncertainty must be brought to

an end on the part of the Government. I am not going to give

way any further. There are hard headed as well as

moral reasons for doing so, guaranteeing in the right of

residents of EU residents unilaterally as the date Article 50

notice is given will not only end the uncertain thety it would ensure

the best possible start to the negotiations and send a clear signal

to the small minor the I who have treated it as a result to victimise

other, that our fellow Europeans are welcome and will remain so. A number

of other new clauses share the purpose outlined in new clause six,

in seeking to protect the rights of EU national. Some add additional

safeguards to the basic guarantee we seek. New clause 57, which stands in

the name of my right honourable friend, which ensure the residents

right of EU is it zens are protected but ensure they do not automatically

fall away at the end of the Article 50 negotiating period, if no

agreement has been reached. And if my right honourable friend were

mined to push to it the vote we should have our support. What

matters in the end is this is resolved urgently, and the distress

that will be caused by uncertainty during the negotiation, I hope that

ministers can provide us, and the thousands of EU nationals and their

family members out there with a reassurances we seek on this matter.

New clause Parliamentary oversight of negotiations.

The question is that new clause three be read a second time. Mr Mark

Harper. Thank you very much. I note that the group is a fairly hefty

one, there are a large number of amends. I only wish to make five

points so will attempt tot to take too much of the House's time.

I want to address the point on Parliamentary scrutiny. And a number

of the new clauses and amendments, talking about producing a raft of

reports, including the large number of clauses from the rate honourable

member for Nottingham East. I want to throughout, thought that adds to

the process. It seems to me, having talked to constituents, this house

has spent a lot of time, as is appropriate, defeating Brexit and

the issues that fall from that. The Prime Minister has been here on a

number of occasion, and the Secretary of State for exiting the

union has made statements. It seems that ministers who have furnished

the house with information, and in the white paper published last week

we had a commitment to bring forward the repeal bill, wide in scope,

enabling Parliament to debate these matters. Also primary legislation

brought forward on immigration and Customs matters. That is going to be

debated by the house. I would agree with him that there is a vast amount

of information, but even if that cooperative attitude was to change,

alternatives on the government side and opposition side to bring

ministers to the dispatch box to provide explanations everybody

expects. And it is hard to see how the opposition proposals, billed or

add to mechanisms available? I completely agree with my right

honourable friend. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that

certainly the front bench on the other side was desperately looking

for things that they could bring forward to amend the bill, wouldn't

stop it in its tracks. I think this was about the best that they could

come up with but it does not add much. A lot of new clauses, rather

repetitive, talking about reports and information about a raft of EU

constitutions. One moment to conclude... Cover and in any event.

Actually, the effect if not the intent of the opposition new clause

would be to make all these matters judicial, getting courts, whether

government reports appropriate. My right honourable friend makes a good

point. Once you put things into primary legislation, setting out in

each of the terms of the report then as we have seen it is going to be

judicial, allowing people to go to court and argue. They may be

successful. They may not. But they can argue that what the problem and

has brought forward is not adequate. -- what the government. Should any

member of this house, as a minimum requirement want to have access to

information and opportunities at least equal to those of any member

of the European Parliament? No member of this house can justify

arguing for anything less. The point I was making, my right honourable

friend was Adrian, already well-established mechanisms in this

house for insuring information is brought before members. If I judge

the Prime Minister and Secretary of State on what they have done so far,

they have been in the house frequently talking about Brexit. At

the end of this process I think the general public will be willing this

to end. What we have had in recent years is that motions are carried by

this house regularly and then utterly ignored by the government.

What we need now, not just a simple vote at the end, we need to

scrutinise the deal, line by line. That is precisely what the European

Parliament can do, so why should we not be able to do that? I was going

to turn away from my first point. The new clauses brought forward from

the opposition front bench, to the ones I think I more damning, the new

clause 51, on which the rate honourable member's name is amended.

The motion passed by the house on the 7th of December, the government

amendment to the opposition motion, the house agreed by 448 to 75 that

the government should make sure that Parliament had the information

available to scrutinise these matters. It also said and it was an

instruction from the house, no disclosure of material that should

be reasonably judged to damage the United Kingdom. It would be my

contention that the new clause 51, with the detail, suggests that we

bring forward future trading arrangements, trade agreements, the

proposed status of citizens and so forth. These are measures that we

would not want to disclose as we negotiate future trading

arrangements. We would not want to disclose if there were going to be

tariffs, that is giving away the negotiating hand. It is counter to

the strongly expressed view of the house. I hope that if clause 51 or

amendment 44 put to vote, I would answer the house to vote against

him. -- urge. The new clause 51, in my name, and other honourable

members. Given that the government he was part of the former referendum

thought that the damage to the United Kingdom's GDP on leaving the

European Union on WTE terms was 7%, 66 billion, with you not think it is

sensible for the government to allay concerns if the effect is going to

be less. The right honourable gentleman, picking out one aspect of

his new clause. I was looking at one of the aspects that I objected to,

about effectively disclosing our hand to get discussions for future

trading arrangements. I do not think that is sensible. Moving to the

third point... Trade is another area that the government was cleared,

about what the government said but we have no information about more

trade, Lay Street? Does it not simply seem sensible to till the

country if we are going to have more trade with the European Union or

less? The flaw in what he suggests, forecasts. Estimates, guesses, and

all I would say is that a number of estimates and forecasts were made on

both sides of the argument, Leave or Remain, prior to the referendum. I

am not an expert but not all of those forecasts of entirely happened

the way that people thought. While producing large documents, with

erroneous forecasts would be helpful, I do not know. That

exchange just revealed the foolhardiness of revealing our hand,

as we cannot top bilateral trade deal until we leave the United

Kingdom -- European Union. We want to talk

Should do everything, to resist those countries coming here as well.

I think that demonstrates the expertise he has acquired when he

was a minister at the forum office. Moving to point number three. New

clause 56 talks about the withdrawal from the EA. It seems to me, looking

at the terms of our membership of the EEA, member of as a result of

being a member of the European Union, given that the EEA agreement

talks about the movement of goods and piercings and means we are

susceptible to the jurisdictions of the Court of Justice, it seems to me

that if we were to remain in the EEA we would effectively... In the view

of most members of the public, not really have left the European Union

at. The things that they were concerned about which still be in

force. Things would have got worse. We would have no ability to

influence. No ability to influence the rules that we brought them

having to take. It seems to me, those members talking about the EEA

simply trying to avoid the fact that we are going to be leaving the

European Union, trying to remain by the back door. I will go to the

right honourable gentleman first. Can he confirm that Norway is not in

the EU? And that Norway has been sated, by Leave campaigners as an

option we could have followed. We could have been like Norway? Norway

is not a member of the European Union. That is true. Part of the

reason why I was on the Remain side of the argument, I do not think the

Norway deal is very good and should not be followed. Let me finish and

showing this point. I promised my right honourable friend first. The

point is that the two best options, you are either in the European Union

and take everything but you can at least shape rules, or you leave and

you're not in the single market, the free movement of people. What Norway

has, I think it is a poor option. Subject to the free movement of

people, you have got to accept the jurisdiction of the court and you

have got no right to influence rules. It is part of the Norwegians,

but I do not think that would work for us. I am actually in complete

agreement on these particular points. Does he not also think that

these constructs, effectively anti chambers? Entry points to the EU? It

is inappropriate for a country of our size, to basically rest in

something inappropriate? I could not have put that better myself. I just

wonder if you could tell the house whether he belives parliament should

vote on whether we leave the single market and EEA? I listened as a

participant to the arguments in the referendum campaign clearly. And I

was on the Remain side of the argument but I am a Democrat. I

accept the result. It seems to me, David Cameron when he was Prime

Minister, and the rate honourable member four, -- for Tatton, very

clear that if the country decided to leave the European Union and B would

be leaving the single market. Both David Cameron and my right

honourable friend for Tatton, both thought erroneously that that

argument would be the slam dunk. That British people would say the

single market is absolutely critical and the British public would decide

to Remain in the European Union. I will finish my answer. However, the

British public are not agree -- did not agree with David Cameron and

they accepted that we would be leaving the single market. And

leading campaigners on the Leave side made exactly the same point. It

is quite right that the then Prime Minister and Chancellor warned that

we would be leaving the single market. What some of the Leave

campaigners just dismiss that as project fear. And I recollect that

the current Foreign Secretary was totally dismissive of that. He said

obviously we would retain full membership, because they needed to

sell Mercedes, wine! It is not true that everybody on the Leave seder

acknowledged that it would be some sort of outside tariff barrier. My

right honourable friend is of course correct, that not everybody on the

Leave side made that argument. The good news is that I was not on the

Leave side so I do not feel any obligation. I do not feel any

obligation to defend any of the arguments made.

I specifically to speed former pro Minister and former Chancellor

because they were on my side of the argument. I think the right

honourable member for Surrey Heath who was reading the official We've

campaign that he was leading the argument. Giving way to Chair of the

official We've campaign, there were many voices to argue for Leave,

making it clear in public, voting to leave the single market. I am

grateful to the honourable lady for that help for a division which

proves my point. I think the decision British people made in the

referendum meant leaving the EU which meant leaving the single

market which the conclusion has been drawn by the perimeter, one I will

support. If the honourable gentleman will forgive you, I want to move

onto my fourth point, which is to talk about the issue of EU

nationals. There is a number of issues there. I hope, given my

experience as a former Immigration Minister, I can at least raise

questions which I think those members participating in the debate,

and I hope the Minister when he responds to this group of

amendments, is able to do with to my satisfaction and the satisfaction of

the House. The first point I would make is I completely agree. It would

be desirable to be able to put at rest of the mines and concerns of EU

nationals in the United Kingdom who are here lawfully and contribute

into our country. I think that is important. Let me image by opening

remarks and I will take your intervention. I also think it is

important to that at rest of the concerns and worries are British

citizens living elsewhere in the European Union. After all, the

primary duty of the British Government is to look after British

citizens. That comes first ahead of all else. I fear that was the

honourable gentleman from the opposition front bench was

suggesting was effectively, when he said if we couldn't reach an early

agreement we should proceed anyway, was that may well put addressed the

concerns of EU nationals in Britain, but it seemed to me it was simply

throwing overboard the interests and concerns of UK citizens living

elsewhere in the European Union. We would not have secured their

interests and would have thrown away our ability to do so. The honourable

lady. Thank you. 15% of academic staff, I present students and 10% of

research students at Cardiff University are from the EU. That he

agree with me that there is a significant risk that the EU staff

and their spouses will seek employment elsewhere outside the UK

if they don't have certainty now from the Government and removes all

our intellectual capital. This is why I am pleased that the Prime

Minister in her statement today and on other occasions has made it clear

that she wants to reach an early agreement as has been seeking to do

so with our European partners. What's the parameter has to do in

leading our country is look at the interest of British citizens and

citizens of... She does not serve British citizens by putting EU

nationals are ahead of them. I am a member of the exiting be EU select

committee and we heard evidence from a number of British nationals living

in Spain, Germany Italy and France eight a few weeks ago. They were

members of representative organisations of other British

nationals and of them said that, if the UK Government made a unilateral

guarantee of the right of UK nationals living year, then the

other states would reciprocate. -- EU nationals. I have. The honourable

lady has put it in front of the House. I have seen no evidence of

that. If I listen to greatly to the pro Minister, it sounds -- correctly

to the Prime Minister is as though there are other Government in need

of that view. There are clearly more of one not in that view now. It is

sensible to get this right was the lightning also, one of the things

members of this House ought to be doing, picking up the point from the

honourable gentleman from Leicester East, there are EU nationals living

in the United Kingdom for some time to actually sort out their resident

status on a permanent basis. Members of this House, rather than

scaremongering, would do well to put that information in front of their

constituents to reassure them, rather than whipping up concern.

That meeting the honourable lady once more. The point about the

British Government, the national surveys, is that the British

Government should take the lead by guaranteeing the rights of EU

nationals living in the UK and then other member states would follow

suit. Those were the words of British nationals living abroad. It

wasn't the British Government that made this decision, it was the

decision of the British people far as macro to leave... It is the same

thing -- it isn't the same thing. The reason this is, the rights, the

people of the United Kingdom decided we were going to leave the European

Union. It is not the decision of the Government. If members will forgive

me, let me make... I will give way to the chairman of the Treasury

Select Committee but then I must make process. He would agree,

wouldn't he, that other nationals should not be used as bargaining

chips? He will also be a steward at the Treasury Committee has not

backed... Damaging the economy. Given that, doesn't he agree that

the time has come now to protect these citizens' rights? I completely

agree with the value to the economy. I agree with him that is an urgent

matter. I have the Prime Minister say that. If I may conclude my

remarks on EU nationals and perhaps my honourable friend will see why, I

don't think there's a different action is very wise because it can

open up a range of complexities which, far from... Let me just

finish this, responding to the honourable gentleman before I take

the honourable lady pot intervention. Path tonight far from

putting people pot minds at rest, it could make things worse. If we are

putting the kind of deal on the table which we would expect the

other 27 members to offer to the UK citizens, we would set the template

and the right tone from the negotiation. This is different from

trade. Its as the me, I was listening carefully to the

parameter, it sounds to me that the Prime Minister and her ministers are

indeed talking to EU member states. And actually trying to get this

issue resolved. It seems to be there is a 2-stage process. An agreement

in principle by the United Kingdom Government with other EU member

states. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman for trying to

intervene if but I need to finish replying to the honourable lady. I

need to make one more points after my EU nationals point. And I want to

get other people be jazz to contribute.

CHEERING -- CROWD JEERS

Let me as the point. It seems that they are trying to get

this issue resolved. It seems to me that it is clearly not being

entirely reciprocated by other member states. The approach needs to

be twofold. An agreement in principle that we want to guarantee

those rights. But also there is a lot of detail to be worked out.

These matters are very complicated. I want to draw the attention of the

House to what happened last weekend. It seems to me that part of the

reason for the mess that the US administration has got itself into

is that it produced an executive order, as far as I can tell from

outside, it doesn't seem to be have well -- been well thought through

with proper legal advice. They have got themselves into trouble in

court. Before the intervention of the Home Secretary and Foreign

Secretary resolved that matter. I don't want us to move perceptively

without thinking this through. I will give an example of things to be

sorted out. The various amendments and new courses talk about people

lawfully resident in the United Kingdom under the existing treaties

-- treatise. That is, get it. Any EU national can come to Britain for any

reason for up to three months. If they want to come here for longer

than three months they have to be working, looking for work,

self-sufficient or a student. If they are self sufficient or a

student, they are only lawfully hear if they have come friends of health

insurance. We know from those people trying to regularise their status

following sensible advice from the Member for Leicester East, many

people haven't got that comprehensive health insurance.

Technically they are not lawfully hear. We have to be clear when we

use these places, because people want to be aware of the complexity.

Who are we granting rights to? If we are going to give people clarity and

certainty, we have to be very clear about what it is we are doing.

Second thing, and people will know this is topical at the moment, is

about the NHS and health care. We have a set of reciprocal

arrangements with our European union partners for people in those

countries. We don't do as well as they do about lodging and doing the

Administration and collecting the money. We also want to nature that

is going to work. When we have left the European Union. I don't know

where we will end up on that. It is important. The point I alluded to in

the intervention earlier, it is something which has to be thought

about or we will, if we Act hastily, come to regret it. There is, at the

end of March last year, the latest figures I can find, there were over

4000, 4222 EU nationals currently in prison in British jails. The EU

prisoner transfer framework directive, we have the ability when

they come out of this into transfer when they are in prison, but when

they come out of prison we can start taking action to revoke their status

in the United Kingdom. I want to make sure that's in acting out we

don't Act hastily and make our ability to remove those people from

the UK more difficult. I fear that the new courses and amendments on

the order paper in front of us today don't adequately, I think that was

reflected by the ads from the shadows mostly, don't adequately

deal with that issue. The final point I will make is that the bill

before us does one simple thing. Giving the parameter lawful

authority to start the negotiation process. I think the Government has

been very generous in the time they have made available to debate that

matter I think the bill as Curly just does not need to be approved or

amended in any way. I would urge... I hope I have sat out reasons why a

number of them should be rejected. If any of them were put forward

today, I would urge the House to reject them. I rise to support new

clause 57 standing in my name and the names of other members of the

joint committee on human rights with the support of honourable and Right

honourable members on all sides of the House. This is about 3 million

people and their families. EU citizens whose future here has been

thrown into doubt by the decision in June that the EU should be left by

the UK. There is nothing but the cloud of uncertainty which is their

own fault. We can, if we agreed the new clause, put their minds at rest

and let them look to the future. Honourable members on all sides of

the House will know these people whose lives we are talking about

here. Some like those from France and Spain have been here for

decades. They have children and grandchildren here. They work in and

are part of their local committee. It is unthinkable that their

families can be divided because we have decided to leave the EU. Let's

put their minds at rest and issue a them and their families that our

decision to leave the EU want change their right to be here. Their

anxiety is palpable. We have all seen it in our surgeries, like the

Italian woman, my constituents who came to see me, who has been here

for 13 years. Who can't work any more because she is now ill and

whose residency rights are now at risk. Some, like those from

countries that came recently into the EU like Poland, Romania and

Bulgaria are working in sectors that good manage without them. In

agriculture, care homes -- in our tourist industry as well. Employers

in food production are reporting more difficulty in getting the

workers they need. This is happening now. I give way to my honourable

friend. This is an amendment that was

recommended by the joint committee of human rights but would she agree

we are seeing people such as my constituent who was a consultant

paediatric surgeon from Sweden who approached me over the New Year most

distressed because he wasn't sure about his future status, and he

performs really valuable services to the people of the West Midlands in

Birmingham Children's Hospital. He had been given advice to seek the

services of an immigration lawyer, and that advice had come from his

trust. The honourable member is right and there's plenty of evidence

on this that came before us on the joint committee of human rights of

which he is a valued member. This ongoing uncertainty around the

status of EU residents here is allowing greater exploitation of

vulnerable EU workers. Last week, appearing before the joint committee

of human rights, Margaret Beales, chairman of the gang master

licensing authority said evidence is coming to them that gang masters are

telling fearful EU workers that they cannot complain about not being paid

because if they do they will be deported as they no longer have the

right to be here. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are not whipping up the

years, we are understanding fears and speaking to address them. It is

no good, I'm afraid, the Government issuing warm words. People need

certainty. They work in every part of our private sector. They

contribute to our creative industries. They are artists,

musicians, they work in our public services. If you've been in hospital

recently you will very likely have woken to find a Spanish or

Portuguese nurse at your bedside. If you've got an older relative in a

care you are very likely seeing them being cared for by someone from

eastern Europe. I have considerable sympathy with the point the

honourable lady is making but we disagree on the fundamental point I

think, which is that surely we should not do something unilateral

here in the United Kingdom before we have got an agreement about our own

residence in Spain, France and elsewhere because we would be

potentially undermining their position because they are no doubt

feeling the same sense of vulnerability is the one she's just

articulated about those living here. I disagree with the honourable

gentleman's conclusion. I give way. We also heard evidence in the select

committee from community groups representing Polish communities and

other Eastern European communities who said they had seen an increase

in hate crime, and that they experienced that extremists were

exploiting the uncertainty to attack people with phrases like go home,

and saying people should leave the country, and the uncertainty the EU

citizens felt made it harder for them to deal with these awful hate

crimes they were experiencing. My right honourable friend is

absolutely right in the point she makes. I will give way. I'm sure

many MPs in this chamber have also had constituents from the EU who

have tried to seek security by applying for permanent residency and

have been turned down, and have received prepared to leave letters.

The member from the Forest of Dean mentioned comprehensive health

insurance, there is no such thing. You cannot get 100% comprehensive

health insurance and previously the NHS was recognised as giving health

cover, so why can we not, in this House, give these people are least

security on the send and not threaten to throw them out? I

absolutely agree with the honourable member. It is not just they and

their families that are worried about the uncertainty hanging over

them, so our employers for whom they are working. How well our NHS find

the nurses they need if they seek work elsewhere because they fear

they won't be allowed to stay? It's not as if we are training them

ourselves. This year with the cuts in bursaries nursing student numbers

have fallen by 23%. This new clause is quite simple... I will give way.

Does she realise, I had a conversation recently with the

chairman of my trust to set if it wasn't for the young Spanish nurses,

Huddersfield Hospital couldn't operate, and another conversation

with the LSE where they said if we don't have the Europeans who are

good at maths and science, 20% of the workforce in universities would

go back home. My honourable friend is right. We cannot be saying we

welcome them here to do this work but use them in a bargaining chip in

negotiations. Just on that point, I have heard in my surgery

constituents coming in in tears and fretting over what will happen to

them next in their job. It is not a British value that we use people as

bargaining chips in these negotiations. I absolutely agree

with my honourable friend. I will give way once more. The honourable

lady are sending out a powerful message about British values, and a

point that are shared across this House about the importance of giving

certainty to EU nationals living here. Can I therefore pressed her

about why we need to be careful not to send an equivalent message to

British nationals living in the rest of the EU that they are somehow less

important and that their concerns, equally valid, equally severely

felt, equally worried about what will happen to them, are somehow not

going to be any subject which we will address here today or take any

count on? Because you simply cannot trade one off against the other like

that. This is not an economic trade negotiation. This new clause is

quite simple. It says that if you are an EU it soon and you are lawful

resident here before the referendum decision on June the 23rd, then your

rights of residents will remain unchanged. We need this clause in

the bill because the Government has been sending out mixed messages and

the Prime Minister did so again in her statement today. On the one hand

she says no one who is lawfully here has anything to worry about. On the

other hand she says she cannot commit to giving the residency

rights because their future must be part of the negotiations. I just

cannot feel that it is anyway right to use the lives of 3 million people

and their families as a bargaining chip. They and their families are

not pawns in a game of poker with the EU. They cannot be used as a

human shield as we battle it out in Europe for our UK citizens in other

countries abroad. We must decide what is fair and right for EU

citizens here and then do it. I thought we were supposed to be

taking back control. If the Government rejects this new clause,

then EU citizens will be right to draw the conclusion that their

rights to continue to live here could be snatched away if our

government doesn't get what it wants for our UK citizens living in each

of the other countries in Europe. This new clause is not only the

right thing to do as a matter of principle, it is legally necessary.

The Government cannot bargain away people's human rights. The right to

family life is guaranteed by Article eight of the European Convention on

human rights. If the Government bargained away, EU citizens living

here would be able to go to our courts and seek to establish their

rights to remain under Article eight. If even 10% of those he added

that, there would be 300,000 court challenges. There is no way our

court system could begin to cope with that. This new clause, I hope,

will be accepted by the Government, but if not I urge members of all

parties to support it in the division lobby. Sir William Cash.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Could I simply say first of all that the

Member for Dorset west was in the chamber a short time ago and made an

important point on this particular clause. When you are imposing legal

requirements and duties on anybody, let alone the Prime Minister, you

have to be sure that what you are doing is actually capable of being

realised. I'm afraid to say that certainly my right honourable friend

the Member for Forest Dean dealt comprehensively with the question,

asked other members, with the difficulties that arise in relation

to this new clause which talks about laying periodic reports on the

progress of negotiations. I think that case has been made. But when

they move onto the next part, the real problem is this, that first of

all with respect to subparagraph sea, to make arrangements for

Parliamentary scrutiny of confidential documents, I have to

say that as chairman of the European scrutiny committee I have had one

enormous amount of trouble over and over again about what documents

which are described as limitation, which means documents that are

distributed but not allowed to be referred to by other parliaments

when they are distributed because they have this nature of

confidentiality. I happen to think some of this is overdone, and I've

made that position quite clear, but I have to say that to try to impose

a legal duty on the Prime Minister to give an undertaking to break the

rules relating to limite documents is stretching the point to the point

of absurdity. I just want to ask the same question I asked of his

colleague who spoke earlier, and that is shouldn't he be arguing, as

somebody who has spent a great deal of his time in Parliament

scrutinising the European Union, the arguing for members of this House to

have the same rights of scrutiny at least equal to those of the members

of the European Parliament? My right honourable friend, the Member for

Brexit, has made it clear, in the House of Lords he gave evidence and

as I understand it he made it abundantly clear that any documents

that would be made available to the European Parliament and its

committees would indeed be made available to this House, so to that

extent not only do I agree with the honourable gentleman but I also

believe it is unnecessary and it is not necessary because it's already

been given by way of an undertaking of the Secretary of State. Given

that new clause three sections the says make arrangements for

Parliamentary scrutiny of confidential documents, in his

experience how long does he think the contents of those documents

would remain confidential if they were made available for

Parliamentary scrutiny? They certainly would not and that's

really the purpose of this limite restriction. I can think of a number

of instances where it is absolutely vital they remain confidential, and

indeed if there were to be any breach of it, and it would have to

be released by an undertaking by the Prime Minister that she would

release it, it could actually completely gum up the works to such

extent in relation to matters of intelligence and security and all

sorts of things, that actually we would end up with not receiving any

documents at all which came under the rubric

of limite. I will say it is a perfectly fair point, but in

drafting this if you end up with something that doesn't work and you

have to comply with paragraphs A, B and C to make it work, you would end

up in the course because there would be judicial review over this,

believe me there would, it naturally follows, and it's all I need to say,

the new clause simply is nonsense and it cannot therefore be brought

into effect because it doesn't make sense and it cannot be brought into

effect. That is all I need to say on that particular new clause. First of

all, if I can move the amendments in my name and that of my honourable

colleagues, and also say that I'm glad we have the opportunity to

discuss and debate this issue over the coming days. We've been given

very little time to do so but I think it is fair to say that this is

not scrutiny that the Government either welcomed or encouraged, so it

is good at least to have a short opportunity to debate this. I have

to say that I think this says more about the confidence they have in

their own arguments and ability to deliver a better deal with the EU

partners than the one we have at present than it does anything to do

with the scrutiny process. The Government have been dragged kicking

and screaming to this chamber just to have a vote on Article 50 in the

first place. We have the situation on Thursday, the last sitting day

when the white paper was introduced, when we got the white paper as the

Secretary of State was getting to his feet. I thought that was pretty

disrespectful of the entire house. It failed to put my mentor the ease

and the minds of many MPs in this House about the way the Government

is conducting the process. But it is something of a metaphor for the

entire Brexit process, rushed without proper scrutiny and didn't

get its facts right. Quite remarkable considering the amount of

time they had to prepare the white paper. This could not be a more

important process, one of the most important that anyone in this House

will ever take part in. I think it is a more important progress,

certainly, about the debate over wages. -- wigs. This will have an

impact on us all, jobs, taxes and economy. Against stiff competition,

some have argued that is the craziest political decision of 2016

was the one to elect Donald Trump president. One we have certainly

welcome to the Speaker's announcement today. The good people

of the United States, should they wish to do so, have the ability to

reverse the decision that they made in November and is one we do not

have any likelihood of reversing any time symptoms of a load the four

years might seem a long way away for many in the United States, here, the

mistakes made by the Government, any lack of scrutiny as a result will be

felt down the generations of policymakers in this place we

represent and time beyond. For such a big decision, the ability to have

any meaning fills Brittany is woeful. The -- meaningful scrutiny.

The entire point of as sitting here and having a parliament in the first

place... I'll remind this side of the House that is the SNP won the

election with 47% of the vote. The highest proportion of the vote. The

Holyrood election took place this year which tells it all you need to

know about the attention during this year. Also, in 2015, we won the vote

with Ford is present, they won the election with 36% of the vote. I am

pleased that Scotland track down the UK average. There is the role of

opposition parties in Hollywood -- Holyrood to take account of

decisions they make to impact everyone of us. Decision to leave

the European Union will involve one of the greatest evils since this

parliament came into existence in 1801. We should be given more time

to consider the invitations on our constituents, the economy and on our

European partners that we are being given. That is why on this side of

the House we will back any moves to give the parliament more scrutiny

over that. That's scrutiny and the importance of scrutiny is made all

the more important is by the lack of detail that was provided by members

of the vote Leave campaign. Responsibility of the members of

previous Government and present members. Significant questions were

left on as the debate and Votes We've didn't give us the details so

we have responsibility as -- vote leave. She and other members of the

House opposite were elected, the Prime Minister, is it the case

Scotland would be allowed to discuss immigration numbers? How much extra

cash are they getting? Before Article 50 took place, who are

accountable for the promises made? I haven't heard an answer so far. On

the point of EU nationals, and a number of my colleagues will want to

touch upon this. It is easy to see why we are backing the amendments in

order to give EU nationals the right to remain. We are richer financially

and culturally as a result of European nationals in Scotland and

other parts of the UK. My honourable friend makes some very valid points.

Will we not also the judge by the leadership and humanity we give

them? Those EU citizens here are our friends, our neighbours, our work

colleagues and we have a duty to stand by the rights that they have.

The Prime Minister must send out a clear message that those here are

broken to stay here. We must remove that uncertainty and do it now. My

honourable friend, as usual, makes a pertinent spite. Indeed, I won't

studs let me deal with this point. My honourable friend makes a good

point and I they do respect to the work he has done for the families

and others in his constituency. EU nationals have chosen to make the UK

and Scotland their home. They make it a better place in which to live

and work. It strikes me as a no-brainer, Madam Deputy Speaker,

that we give them about the EU nationals, the certainty they

deserve. North East Fife member is making a note inside. I agree with

many of the points, but would he agree it is a Mexican stand-off with

water pistols? There is no hope, no realistic chance that any signatory

of the... Is going to kick out anybody from the United Kingdom? Nor

our European union citizens, UK citizens rather, in other parts of

the EU going to be expelled. Their position is not address, will he

recognise, wouldn't we be better comforting those in doubt rather

than spreading fear? The honourable member makes my point for me. As of,

there is threat from his very Government, does it not make sense

to come into the lobbies with him, and I look forward to welcoming him,

to support the right of due -- EU nationals delivered work. I thank

him for joining us. He has more influence on the benches than I do,

but the Government is in need of friends and goodwill. If we benefit

financially from EU nationals being here, if hours society is richer for

them, we want to keep them regardless. These are not bargaining

chips. That is something. If EU nationals are not bargaining chips,

I would encourage the member to join as in the lobbies and give them the

uncertain -- certainty they need and deserve. The situation is made worse

accepting what the honourable member said in the benches, to pick, for

example, the EU National in my constituency, it's her against my

friend in the Netherlands. Does not in any way studs it makes their

suggestions worse. The honourable member makes a good point and I am

not surprised because of the work he has done for EU nationals in his

constituency. If members of that House are so confident

in the ECHR, I look forward to him voting against his own Government. I

look forward to the honourable member in joining us, if there is no

problem in terms of the ECHR, they will have no problem whatsoever in

joining ours in the voting lobbies. If I could move on. In terms of

scrutiny. All of this will have an impact on the devilish and bruises,

be it in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. -- devolution. We

are in a situation where an unelected House of Lords will have a

greater say on this process than the devolved legislatures. No Government

regardless of colour has a monopoly on wisdom. The whole point of having

a parliament is that we have scrutiny, courage of our

convictions, and this place has a contribution. If this Government

knows what it is doing and has any kind of the plan, it should welcome

the scrutiny because fundamentally the scrutiny in the chamber here and

elsewhere in these islands will provide better legislation.

Something that is of such enormity that we will undertake, they have a

responsible at it for this to be scrutinised as far as they can. Do

not underestimate the impact of the decision that we are about to make

this week. It will impact on our rights, on our economy, on each and

every one of us. We will strengthen anything that encourages scrutiny

over this process. The Government 's's Rickard has not been a good

one. I am not heartened by what I have seen so far in terms of a white

paper that couldn't get its facts right, and we owe a debt of this

possibility to people across the UK and beyond -- responsibility to give

more scrutiny, and I beg to move those amendments. Therefore I call

the next colleague to speak, it will be obvious to the House that a great

many people wish to take this afternoon. There are in excess of

the new causes and amendments to be discussed. We have two hours and 45

minutes left to do that. I hope that members will be courteous to other

members and keep their remarks as brief as possible. I appreciate

these are accommodated, it is good to have proper debate and

discussion, but let's avoid rhetoric and repetition. Point of order, Mr

Clark? I agree with you, it is quite obvious that the timetable motion we

have is not going to allow proper debate by the vast majority of

members of the House, I have never known a debate on any European issue

to be given such limited time. Has anyone approached you to readdress

the timetable motion on the House so we can have the sensible, protracted

discussion on these issues that we have had almost to excess on the

previous occasions? Just before... Let me take the further point of

order first. When I was considering the Government lies motion, for a

two course built, two days extraordinarily on second reading,

three full days of protracted time to allow as to sit late with a

finger, sees the light -- with a statement seems excessive. The Chief

Whip makes a good point was not a point of order form the chair but

one I would expect a Chief Whip to make. Let me set the right

honourable gentleman's mind at rest on two points. The first is that,

although there is in excess of 50 amendments and new causes, some of

them addressed the same points as others. We are not addressing more

than 50 separate point of debate. The other points which I would, of

course, draw to the right honourable gentleman's attention is that the

House has voted for and supported the programme motion, and it is not

a matter for me. I am sure that I can rely on search Hugo Swire to

adjust the House briefly. I will not repeat many of the arguments that my

friends and colleagues have made. Again and again throughout this

evening. I wish to talk about the two causes which have dominated

proceedings to date. One rather less emotional than the other. The

unemotional one being new clause three. We have thoughts about the

parliamentary oversight of negotiation. We have heard scrutiny,

the words that is about across the chamber this afternoon. I sometimes

get the impression that there are some in the chamber who would seek

to scrutinise every single line across in every -- cross every tea

and. Every eye across the Government's position. How many

members in this House have ever actually taken part in a commercial

negotiation, one which requires at times to keep one's cars doing the

cards close before declaring them. It is irresponsible... Inserting

clauses so that anything discussed effectively has to be reported back

to this House. At intervals of no more than two months. No more than

eight weeks each and every time. What he doesn't say is what then are

limits might actually do if they don't like what the Government is

reporting back. Do they want to vote on it?

We've heard about the possibility of legal involvement, judicial review.

It is wholly unrealistic and undesirable. Subsection six make

arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of confidential documents,

I've already alluded to that. There are ways in this House where the

Privy Council and so forth can see sensitive information. The former

house could scrutinise confidential documents without those confidential

documents leaking pretty quickly on Twitter or Facebook or into the

national newspapers is again wholly unrealistic. How can you possibly

conduct any sort of negotiation, particularly as difficult and

sensitive as these negotiations are set to be in the glare of publicity,

revealing to each and every member of this House, and no doubt there

will be calls to do the same to devolved administrations of

confidential documents. I think that would be completely crazy. A new

clause six on the other hand, I do have considerable sympathy with

those who have spoken about the uncertainty surrounding the status

of EU nationals in this country as these negotiations begin. It is on

suckling for a lot of these people, it is true that they do contribute

enormously towards society, to our public sector, health sector, indeed

to our agricultural businesses and so forth. We actually need them

here, and I do have considerable sympathy with their predicament. I

agree with my right honourable friend entirely, we need to sort

this out very early on indeed. The Prime Minister said precisely that

only a short while ago. Does he not agree with me part of the issue is

the unwillingness of some of our interlocutors to engage in

meaningful discussion prior to the triggering of Article 50 and surely

this can be dealt with early on but it requires them to engage

immediately and not delay until after Article 50. I do agree with

that because it cuts both ways. I don't think anyone is talking about

bargaining chips but it does require an early resolution and I was

heartened by what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister

said earlier today that this was something she intended to address

early, but it has to be a negotiation between them and us. It

is as important to us as rich as parliamentarians to defend the

rights of British citizens living overseas and there are a lot of them

and not all of them are contributing particularly to the society, a lot

of them are retired so they are even more vulnerable innocents than many

of the EU workers here actively working. It is the first duty of

this House to look after British citizens wherever they may be but

also being aware that we have a duty to EU nationals at the same time so

I think again it would become clearly wrong in terms of

negotiating, in terms of our negotiating position, to declare

unilaterally that all EU nationals up to a certain date can continue to

live here without any fear or favour. I think that would be unwise

until such a time as we can extract a similar agreement from the other

countries of the EU where British nationals have lived sometimes for

many, many years. Of course I give way to my right honourable friend.

I'm delighted to hear my honourable friend agree to what everyone has

said so far, that there is nobody in this House who wishes to cast any

doubt on the right of EU nationals to continue living lawful here if

they are lawfully here now. Apparently the only reason for him

holding back, despite the fact he shares sentiments of members

opposite absolutely entirely, is he fears there is some unknown European

country who, if we declare that a Polish person who's been living here

for years can stay here, we've thrown away our card and British

nationals we expel by the Government, I've heard nobody

suggests that any such country exists. We have a pedantic problem

about whether we can raise it before the process has started. If we just

clear the position of our EU nationals now, Edward Butler -- it

would put but most pressure on other countries to do the same. He and I

were on the same side during this debate, and I would regret all of

the discussions about immigration indeed some rather irresponsible

points being made repeatedly during the whole Brexit debate about who

would be able to come here from the Commonwealth when there was no such

suggestion that this was behind anyone's thinking. But I

fundamentally disagree with my right honourable friend, I do not think we

should do anything unilateral before we get an agreement about the rights

of British nationals living in the rest of the EU. Would my right

honourable friend. Agree with me that if the matter was a simple of

just making a simple declaration, why isn't it the European Union and

other 27 countries don't say that our citizens who are living overseas

will be fine? They won't make that commitment, so that say something.

It may or it may not, and we have not seen any evidence a single

country would not behave in a good way, but there is no evidence they

will behave in a good way. We simply don't know because we have not yet

have that conversation, and until we have that debate, and until we

secure that agreement, we should not move to allow every single person in

the EU to continue to live here until we have secured similar rights

for British citizens living in other EU countries. If they genuinely

believe that could be the case and there are countries who won't be

prepared to do this, shouldn't we now more than ever lead by example?

Earlier the Prime Minister was asked about this and she gave a very

strong suggestion that this was at the top of her negotiating priority

to secure such a deal, but at the end of the day it is a deal and it

has to be negotiated and I do not think we would be right to

unilaterally declare anything. Doesn't he think a unilateral

declaration would actually undo some of the damage done by the list of

foreign workers stuff that came out of the Tory conference in Birmingham

that shot some of our EU partners and hardened their views against us?

I agree, I do think the language and sensitivity is incredibly important.

We are dealing with families here who are married to EU citizens, we

are dealing with people who live here. We don't know if they've got a

future here, this is why we have to resolve it early on and I have

considerable sympathy with many people who have spoken on this about

the contribution that EU nationals have, and I hope we can reach an

agreement that will satisfy all those who are here but I think our

first duty is to look after our citizens abroad. I thank the

honourable member for giving way and he's talked about the issues

citizens face when their partner is an EU national, but would he agree

there are children, who have raised concerns about whether they will be

studying in the same school, they don't know the country their parents

grew up in, and this is giving huge uncertainty. We can do this, and we

can do this this week. We can all cite examples about individuals

cases and I'm not sure that contributes to the greater argument,

what we need to get is a policy in place which covers this and that

policy can only be achieved by the Prime Minister making it her

priority, as she has suggested she would do, and getting an agreement

from the other member states that this is something that would

continue with the reciprocity that the need for British people abroad.

My right honourable friend is right to be concerned about the fate of

British citizens living in the European Union, but would he agree

with me, I have a couple in my constituency who have been married,

living together in this country for 30 years. I consider his wife to be

as British as anybody else, and I agree with others who have said

surely a goodwill gesture would be a really positive thing for this

Government to make because I believe it is inconceivable for this couple

to be separated and for their children to be left with their

parents separated. We should make that absolutely clear. Indeed, no

doubt there are not dissimilar situations in Spain and France

elsewhere and we need to make sure their rights are recognised as well.

I'm not going to continue in this vein because there are others who

wish to come in. I have made my point, I have sympathy, I hope there

is an early agreement EU nationals can stay and continue to work here.

Any such agreement to my way of thinking has to be part of a wider

agreement ensuring the future of EU nationals living in other countries.

I would commend the speeches made by my honourable friend, but the one

thing I would say to add to the case she put, when we have evidence

before the select committee from people representing Brits living

abroad, one might have expected them to make the argument we have just

heard advanced, but actually they set the opposite, they said Britain

should give a unilateral commitment now because they felt it would ease

the process of negotiation. I wasn't at that committee, I'm quite

interested, was evidence taken from the ambassadors form EU companies --

from EU companies? No, evidence was not taken, but from memory almost

all of the member states are up for this apart from one or two and I

hope they will change their mind so we can make progress on this. Could

I say to the honourable member for the Forest of Dean, on his answer to

my honourable friend for Lewisham East when she said we should have a

vote on certain aspects of the nature of our withdrawal, he said no

because during the course of the referendum campaign it was made

clear by leading participants that this is what would happen if we

voted to leave. Therefore it is gospel, we cannot argue with it. I

would say that's an interesting argument because on that basis the

NHS will be getting ?350 million a week because that's what said would

be the consequence of leaving. The central argument the honourable

gentleman made at the beginning of his speech was to get up and say

what is this adding, new clause three? I say it is about

accountability. Insofar as it's been argued it is unnecessary because we

are doing it already, well if we are doing it already why is there a

problem about the Government accepting it? Then there was the

argument the Government would be forced to reveal all sorts of stuff.

All it says is, there would be periodic reports, the content of

those reports would be for the Government to determine. There's

nothing here about forcing the Government to reveal its hand, and

when it comes to getting in English the documents which the European

Commission is giving to the European Parliament in probably English,

surely there cannot be any argument about that at all. It is entirely

sensible. On the point about confidential documents, and I

listened carefully to what he has said, the honourable member for

stone, I raised this with the Secretary of State when I was

elected as the chair of the select committee and he replied to me in a

letter and said "Negotiations will be fast moving and often cover

sensitive material so we will need to find the right ways of engaging

Parliament," and I welcomed that reply, and all this says is the

Government should make arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of

confidential documents. I cannot help making the point that it may be

the arrangements, given the extent to which Brussels is a very leaky

place and when you are negotiating with 27 other member states, I

suspect we will find out shortly after the meeting has concluded

where the negotiations have got to. We can buy certain newspapers in

which one can read what has been discussed during the course of the

afternoon and evening. The main point I was making, and I stand by

it is this, that new clause three imposes a legal obligation

enforceable by judicial review on the Prime Minister effectively, not

effectively but actually and legally, to break the

confidentiality which is imposed for example by these limite documents

and I'm quite sure that, as I said I don't subscribe to the degrees of

confidentiality sometimes but that's a personal view, but the fact is it

is a legal obligation. I would say to the Honourable

general bull gentleman who has graded tunes in these matters, in

terms of trading nations the last... Was this cause is sent to the

Government, find a way of making it work which is consistent. Of course

it will have to be consistent with any legal obligations that are. It

doesn't seem to be a very shocked arguing, nor does the argument... On

that basis, we might as well go home tonight and never come back because

Parliament legislates, and when that happens, people can go to the courts

and seek to suggest that the way the legislation has been in fermented is

not great. That is not an argument against new clause, but an argument

against Parliament is doing its job. Having listened to the speeches from

that side, I would say to the reasonable minister, I hope we won't

hear him getting up and repeats the arrogance we have it in terms of new

clause three, but frankly it is simply an sensible staff to help

Parliament to its job. As he will know, the Secretary of state, when

Mike right honourable friend and Leonard friend from St Pancras, the

Minister, the Secretary of state got up and said it may be a modest

objective. If it is modest, I don't see how the Government can oppose

it. I don't propose to speak for very long. Mr Gemma, I have been

wrestling with this matter for months, in particular over the

course of this weekend. This is a matter for this weekend. Not just

affecting my constituents in South Leicestershire, many of them coming

to me and explaining the problems, for example, as has been mentioned,

children in school. I remember the 1970s being the son of Italian

immigrants in Glasgow. I remember what it felt to be like the only son

of an immigrant in a classroom full of Scottish people. And I don't want

any EU national child across the United Kingdom feeling the way that

I felt at times in school in the 1970s. But there is more than simply

anecdotal at the back evidence that the situation caused because of

Brexit is affecting the well-being of families. Concerns have been

raised by the members for Rushcliffe, I have nothing but the

utmost respect, EU nationals, as I have argued with colleagues in here,

and we should be seeing more loudly, have didgeridoos like my parents

over 50 years and enormous amount. -- have contributed. And I want to

hear members saying that daily. Because those 3 million people plus,

people who have integrated and have come from every one of the member

states, it is often said during the EU referendum that perhaps there was

a cost consequence to having them. I always believed that that was utter

rubbish. We benefited as a country by having immigrants come into the

United Kingdom. The fact is, we will continue to benefit because, when

all of this is over, we will still continue to have EU migrants coming

into this country. The difference will be, that it will be this

Parliament and a Government, whether Conservative, Labour or otherwise,

that will determine the immigration rules. I cannot foresee a situation

where a competent British Government would attempt to reduce the levels

of immigration that would damage our economy. Which leads me to the point

made by an honourable friend of mine in a newspaper recently about a

promise made in the Conservative manifesto which we did not keep and

cannot keep. We cannot get immigration down to the tens of

thousands without damaging our economy. However, I have decided to

vote against the amendment. As I said at the outset, I wrestled with

this decision because it affects my family personally. I have explained

why -- I will explain why it was I have decided to do this because,

ultimately, the deal that will be reached with the EU will not be

wholly legal. It will be political. It will be about personalities. It

will be about how the Prime Minister and her team get on with the other

side. Had I been Prime Minister in July of last year, I'd may well have

taken a different decision. But today, I made a comment to the

finest of very clearly that I am putting my entire trust in her and

her ministers to honour the promise that they are giving to the country

to get an early deal. And I added to my leader of my party that it would

be a decisive mark of her negotiating skills and leadership

qualities as Prime Minister. I believe she will get a reciprocal

deal that benefits citizens from Scotland, from Northern Ireland,

from England and from Wales that lived in other EU member states, as

well as protecting my own family and friends, my own constituents, and

other EU nationals across the United Kingdom. So, Mr Deputy Chairman,

that is why I am voting against this announcement. Ultimately, it is a

political matter. It is for the Prime Minister to demonstrate her

leadership skills, negotiation skills in getting this right. Coming

back to this dispatch box within months of triggering Article 50,

within months! With this early deal that we can all agree to and thank

her for by the benefit of all our constituents living abroad and the

benefits of EU nationals living in our constituents. I was just

curious, does my honourable friend agree with me that, although I is

support her attentions to ignite intentions and sincerity, if that

moment doesn't come as soon as she would like, she should review

unilaterally, but everyone as a remedy -- put everyone out of their

misery? I repeat my comments to the perimeter. It will be a decisive

mark of five negotiating skills and leadership qualities of Prime

Minister. She must come back to the dispatch box early on with this

deal. I am grateful to my honourable friend. I am grateful for the

conclusion, but the other thing the banister Deveson -- represented as

Home Secretary, this is actually a more complex matter than it appears

at first orders. She needs to not just get the principle right, but

she and her ministers and officials need to get the detail right to make

sure that his family and others like them have the security. No

unforeseen consequences in the future. That is the right decision.

I agree with my right honourable friend, but the promise has been

made of getting an early agreement. Notwithstanding the complexities of

it. As a lawyer myself, and as a former corporate lawyer, when my

clients came to me and asking me to negotiate, I had to offer solutions

to problems. If I didn't get the deal that my clients wanted, I

wouldn't have been used frequently by them. So it will be a mark of our

Prime Minister to get the early deal that she is promising our country.

That is why I am supporting her this evening. He has made a personal

decision about this. Does he altered except, using the analogy of being a

lawyer negotiating, the primaries could also just set up and give

every EU national in our country the right to be here without any further

delay. There is an alternative. Had I been Prime Minister in July, I

might have started the whole process very differently. I would like to

refer to the comments made by the right honourable member for Peckham.

I agree with the consequences of not getting an early deal on this. The

consequences will be a tsunami of litigation against this Government.

Therefore, politically, there must be an early deal brought to this

House. That is why I am trusting the Prime Minister to get that early

deal. I would like to turn briefly to the role of Parliament. I also

think that this is a political one for ministers to give very serious

consideration to. The fact is, the European Parliament does have a

substantive role in the negotiations that we don't have. Some would say

that the primary reason for that is that they represent 27 other

nations. Whereas we represent one sovereign country as the British

Parliament. The fact is, if we hear comments coming from the media,

reporting on what European parliamentarians are being told, of

what our ministerial negotiating team are saying in Europe, it would

become farcical if our Government doesn't report back to us. I don't

see a need to in force them to do this. It will be politically

impossible for the Government to function responsibly and

appropriately without giving us at least the same information that we

will receive from the media, from the European Parliament. Again, it

is a matter of politics farther than finding the hands of the governments

in a statutory manner which could be... That is why I think I am

trusting my Government to come out to this House with sensible updates,

no different from the updates which the European Parliament will

receive. For us to continue to debate and discuss the matter. The

right side of all these organs, very trusting. The background is always

-- right side of the argument. They took exactly the same line that is

the Government is now ticking, that they couldn't... The European

Parliament now gets the information because the European Parliament is

less trusting and made of sterner stuff than this Parliament has over

proved to be. I don't think that is in accordance with our other

literary tradition. I respect the judgments and comments made. I read

his recent article, however, about his own thoughts, his own first term

in Parliament and how he was dealing with a similar matter. I will leave

it at that. A conclusion, Mr deputy chairman, I would say that I have

listened carefully to the very vulnerable -- valuable comments made

by the opposition. But I will support my Government and I will be

holding my Government to account in a way that I never see opposition

MPs holding their own Government to account in Scotland's. Thank you. It

is very touching to hear the Member for South West Fisher writes that

talking about, in particular, the issues of EU nationals and his hopes

and aspirations that they shoot they allowed to remain indefinitely. And

yet, he betrayed a bit a bit of fear of possibly offending his front

bench by going so far as writing those rights onto the face of the

bill. I would thank the Camberwell and Peckham representative for her

support. It is important. Many tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of

people require support. I tabled clause 14 and I hope the House will

support its later. The wider context of this debate am really, that we

are having today. With over 50 substantive amendments on very

distinct and specific issues of great importance, is the contrast

between the desire of members to raise these issues and the

nonsensical for hours in which these questions have to be considered. I

think something like about four minutes for each one of the

particular topics that we have. I think nothing to demonstrate more

clearly to members in the other place, in the House of Lords, Howell

important it is they do the due diligence that the House of Commons

clearly isn't going to be able to do. One of the most important pieces

of legislation in our time. The EU withdrawal Bill. Let's remind

ourselves what we are talking about- a Bill that may just have a simple

cause or two, but with phenomenal ramifications for all of our

constituents. If we fail to address those improper detail, we are

failing in our duty to scrutinise the Government seriously.

Is it not worth noting that when it came to debating the Treaty on

Lisbon or the Treaty of Maastricht we had 30 days allocated in the

House of Commons alone to discuss these issues, five days is a poor

comparison. My right honourable friend is right, and this treaty is

most important because it's about withdrawing from the European Union.

What makes it worse is the white paper we had from the Government,

don't forget this came the day after we had the vote on the second

reading, pretty shocking, and I think quite contemptuous of the

rights the House of Commons should have. A lamentable document because

of the lack of information it contained on so many of the

important issues that I have certainly tabled amendments on and