07/02/2017 House of Commons


Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS


07/02/2017

Live coverage of proceedings in the House of Commons, including the second day of the committee stage of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill.


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 07/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

State and colleagues whose saphenous enabled every would-be contributor

:00:00.:00:07.

to take part -- pickiness. Point of order. I think that the only way we

:00:08.:00:13.

can work is to respect the authority of the Speaker. Otherwise there will

:00:14.:00:20.

be complete chaos. It may be that I have my own personal view,

:00:21.:00:25.

personally, I think that the Queen has issued an invitation to Mr Trump

:00:26.:00:30.

on the advice of her ministers and he is the president of the free

:00:31.:00:35.

world and if we have entertained the president of China, we can entertain

:00:36.:00:38.

him, and that is my view, but at the end of the day, we have to respect

:00:39.:00:45.

and support the office of Speaker. Not sure there is, but I will take

:00:46.:00:48.

it and come back to the honourable gentleman. Point of order. At

:00:49.:00:53.

business questions last week, I raised the inability of ordinary

:00:54.:00:58.

members of this House to express an opinion through the vote on what was

:00:59.:01:04.

an unprecedented quick invitation to a head of state and I believe that

:01:05.:01:09.

we owe you a debt of gratitude for deciding in this case that such an

:01:10.:01:14.

invitation should not be supported by members of this House. We know

:01:15.:01:21.

the reasons why it was done. It was done rapidly in order to avoid

:01:22.:01:23.

political embarrassment for the Prime Minister. But this certainly

:01:24.:01:30.

should not be extended, any invitation, to this House to such a

:01:31.:01:37.

person as Donald Trump. First, in respect of the point of order just

:01:38.:01:41.

raised by the honourable gentleman, can I thank him and add nearly that

:01:42.:01:48.

I responded to a substantive point of order on this matter yesterday

:01:49.:01:53.

and I think it only fair to say there is no need for me to provide a

:01:54.:01:57.

running commentary today? In respect of the honourable gentleman, can I

:01:58.:02:04.

also thank him for what he said? He does not mince his words. He says

:02:05.:02:11.

what he thinks. He always has done. He is respected for that. Across the

:02:12.:02:16.

House. Sometimes he agrees with me, sometimes he doesn't. But his

:02:17.:02:22.

respect for and loyalty to the institutions of the country,

:02:23.:02:27.

including the institutions within Parliament, is, I think, universally

:02:28.:02:32.

acknowledged. I thank him for that and I think others will too. Point

:02:33.:02:40.

of order. I agree entirely with what my right honourable friend has said

:02:41.:02:44.

with respect to the Speaker and I am not always in agreement with the

:02:45.:02:48.

Speaker either but there is a worrying breach of etiquette that

:02:49.:02:51.

has broken out now over the last few months of members clapping in this

:02:52.:02:56.

Chamber. Is there anything within this power to do anything about

:02:57.:03:02.

that? Members should not do so and the answer is that maybe I should be

:03:03.:03:10.

even more robust. I usually am pretty robust. The point was made

:03:11.:03:14.

yesterday about clapping. It should not happen. One has to deal with

:03:15.:03:18.

every situation as it arises and sometimes it is better to let a

:03:19.:03:22.

thing pass and to make a song and dance about it. But I respect the

:03:23.:03:26.

honourable gentleman's commitment to tradition. If people want to change

:03:27.:03:31.

those traditions they should argue the case for such change. I am no

:03:32.:03:34.

stranger to that phenomenon. Point of order. If ever a statement

:03:35.:03:40.

deserved clapping, yours did yesterday, in my opinion. I want to

:03:41.:03:45.

raise the question of irrevocable T because we are about to go into

:03:46.:03:48.

committee of the full House when just about every amendment we will

:03:49.:03:52.

discuss trends on the question of whether clause 50 is irrevocable or

:03:53.:03:59.

not. We have had the Supreme Court silent on that matter. The

:04:00.:04:05.

Government's guidance is, the Brexit Secretary said on committee, I

:04:06.:04:10.

quote, it may not be revocable, I don't know. There is not much

:04:11.:04:13.

guidance from the Government on the matter. Given the importance of the

:04:14.:04:18.

amendments were about to discuss in committee and given they hang on

:04:19.:04:20.

this question of whether or not clause 50 is irrevocable once

:04:21.:04:26.

invoked, is there any way we can get some guidance from the chair or from

:04:27.:04:32.

the government before we move into debate without that basic piece of

:04:33.:04:35.

information which would be important for honourable members?

:04:36.:04:43.

The Right Honourable gentleman raises an important point but I am

:04:44.:04:49.

not convinced it is a point of order for the chair, but I have a sense

:04:50.:04:58.

that on this occasion the right honourable gentleman is perhaps more

:04:59.:05:02.

interested in what he has to say to me than anything I might have to say

:05:03.:05:07.

to him. He has got his point on the record. The reason I am not

:05:08.:05:11.

convinced it is not a matter for me, and I am looking to inspiration for

:05:12.:05:18.

people with legal expertise, is that it is not for the speaker to seek to

:05:19.:05:23.

interpret treaties, that does not fall within my auspices. And so I

:05:24.:05:29.

think my best advice to the right honourable gentleman is that he

:05:30.:05:36.

should follow his own instincts and counsel. He has been doing that for

:05:37.:05:41.

some decades. And if he is dissatisfied with my answer, knowing

:05:42.:05:45.

what persistence fellow he is rather imagine he will be pestering the

:05:46.:05:50.

government front bench on this matter in the upcoming debates.

:05:51.:05:59.

Point of order, Sir Gerald Howard. Further to the point made by my

:06:00.:06:02.

honourable friend the games but are, I entirely support him, I have

:06:03.:06:06.

enjoyed a very good relationship with the chair, yesterday did

:06:07.:06:13.

however caused some of us some concern. It was noticeable there was

:06:14.:06:20.

great enthusiasm on the other side and a rather subdued aspect on this

:06:21.:06:26.

side. We want to support you in the chair. The relationship between the

:06:27.:06:30.

United Kingdom and the United States is extremely important and the Prime

:06:31.:06:35.

Minister in the view of many of us managed to secure a very favourable

:06:36.:06:39.

outcome of what was undoubtedly a tricky visit. And whilst I was keen

:06:40.:06:46.

yesterday not to accuse you of an executive order in respect of

:06:47.:06:50.

another matter, I do hope Mr Speaker that you will help us to ensure that

:06:51.:06:55.

we can have full confidence in your impartiality because that is the way

:06:56.:06:59.

that this house has to proceed. The honourable gentleman is quite right.

:07:00.:07:08.

The only thing I will say to the honourable gentleman and I say it in

:07:09.:07:17.

a very understated way is this, I referred in the course of my

:07:18.:07:22.

response yesterday to the lockers of the Speaker, the responsibility of

:07:23.:07:26.

the speaker in respect of the matter that he was racing with me. They

:07:27.:07:32.

whilst I completely understand that there can be different views about

:07:33.:07:36.

this matter and we have heard some of them, which should always and be

:07:37.:07:46.

treated with respect, I was commenting on a matter which does

:07:47.:07:51.

fall within the remit of the chair. The house has always understood that

:07:52.:07:54.

the chair has a role in these matters. If the honourable gentleman

:07:55.:08:00.

disagrees with the means of my exercising it that is one point, or

:08:01.:08:05.

if he does not approve of my manner, I cannot think he imagines me to

:08:06.:08:09.

robust for his liking as he's no stranger to blunt speaking himself,

:08:10.:08:15.

but if that is his view so it. But I was honestly and honourably seeking

:08:16.:08:18.

to discharge my responsibilities to the house. I think in the interests

:08:19.:08:23.

of the house we should move on to other matters but I thank him for

:08:24.:08:27.

what he has said. If there are no further points of order we come now

:08:28.:08:32.

to the ten minute rule motion, Holly Lynch. Thank you, I beg to move that

:08:33.:08:38.

we'd be given to bring a bill to make certain offences, groovy is our

:08:39.:08:45.

actual bodily harm and common assault, aggravated when perpetrated

:08:46.:08:49.

against a constable, firefighter, doctor, paramedic or nurse and the

:08:50.:08:52.

execution of his or her duty or against a person assisting these

:08:53.:08:57.

people in their duty to make provisions to require those

:08:58.:09:00.

suspected of certain assault which prose I help risk including spitting

:09:01.:09:05.

to undergo blood tests and make it an offence without reasonable excuse

:09:06.:09:09.

to refuse to undergo such tests to make provision about the sentences

:09:10.:09:13.

of those convicted and for connected purposes. I come to the chamber once

:09:14.:09:18.

again Madam Deputy Speaker to raise the profile of the risks facing

:09:19.:09:23.

those working on the front line of our emergency services. I come to

:09:24.:09:25.

seek approval for new legislation which would offer police officers,

:09:26.:09:30.

firefighters, doctors and nurses and paramedics greater protection from

:09:31.:09:34.

harm than existing legislation currently allows. Having been out

:09:35.:09:38.

with all of the emergency services in my constituency can I start by

:09:39.:09:42.

paying tribute to the work they do. Behind the uniform they are

:09:43.:09:45.

dedicated and brave individuals who face risks they should not have do

:09:46.:09:50.

an almost daily basis. They are routinely going above and beyond in

:09:51.:09:53.

order to keep the public safe. Yet when someone sets out to

:09:54.:09:57.

deliberately injure or assault and emergency responder the laws in

:09:58.:10:00.

place must convey how unacceptable this is in the strongest possible

:10:01.:10:05.

terms. This bill sets out to do just that. I want to take the opportunity

:10:06.:10:09.

to thank the many members who on a cross-party basis when support my

:10:10.:10:15.

campaign. I launched the campaign having spent a Friday evening in

:10:16.:10:17.

August out on patrol with West Yorkshire Police. Into the evening I

:10:18.:10:26.

joined a PC who was responding to a 999 col. A routine stop quickly

:10:27.:10:30.

turned nasty and I was so concerned that I rang them a name myself to

:10:31.:10:33.

stress just how urgently needed back-up. Thankfully other officers

:10:34.:10:42.

arrived soon after to manage the situation and no injuries were

:10:43.:10:45.

sustained on that occasion but I saw the dangers for myself and realise

:10:46.:10:48.

how vulnerable officers are out on their own. Following that incident

:10:49.:10:53.

and having secured a debate on this issue police officers from all over

:10:54.:10:57.

the country started to contact me with their own harrowing stories of

:10:58.:11:01.

being attacked whilst on Tuesday. What has most shocked me and

:11:02.:11:04.

depresses police officers is that sentences handed down to offenders

:11:05.:11:08.

for assaulting the police often fail to reflect the seriousness of the

:11:09.:11:12.

crime or more crucially serve as a deterrent. To assault a police

:11:13.:11:16.

officer is to show complete disregard for law and order. Our

:11:17.:11:21.

shared values and democracy itself. That must be reflected in sentencing

:11:22.:11:26.

particularly for those who are repeat offenders. Many officers

:11:27.:11:30.

described feeling like they had suffered an injustice twice. Firstly

:11:31.:11:33.

at the hands of the offender and then in the courts when sentences

:11:34.:11:38.

were unduly lenient. Within two weeks of the incident involving the

:11:39.:11:42.

PC and myself, another PC from Halifax was assaulted when during an

:11:43.:11:46.

arrest and angry male grabbed his radio and used it to strike him

:11:47.:11:51.

repeatedly in the head. I am delighted that that PC can join us

:11:52.:11:55.

today to support this legislation change which would help to give him

:11:56.:11:59.

and his colleagues INAUDIBLE . During the debate in October I

:12:00.:12:04.

outlined the floors with the current system for collecting data about how

:12:05.:12:07.

many assaults there were an Holly Sonders is so I am glad -- there

:12:08.:12:16.

were on police officers. Official statistics produced by the Home

:12:17.:12:20.

Office suggest they just over 23,000 assaults on police officers last

:12:21.:12:25.

year. 450 a week, equating to an officer being assaulted every 22

:12:26.:12:30.

minutes. Just this week the Police Federation published the results of

:12:31.:12:34.

their welfare survey undertaken by 17,000 serving police officers. It

:12:35.:12:39.

revealed it is actually closer to 6000 assault every day, and assault

:12:40.:12:45.

every 13 seconds with an average police officer being assaulted 19

:12:46.:12:49.

times a year. In the debate at the end of last year I remember my

:12:50.:12:53.

honourable friend the member for Newport East telling the chamber

:12:54.:12:58.

about the mother she had met who told their children that their dad

:12:59.:13:02.

was the contest man in the world to explain his bruises on coming home

:13:03.:13:06.

from work as a police officer. -- was the clumsiest man in the world.

:13:07.:13:14.

The bill today would not just protect police officers, it would

:13:15.:13:17.

cover all blue light emergency responders. A report published by

:13:18.:13:22.

the Yorkshire Ambulance Service just before Christmas revealed staff

:13:23.:13:26.

based violence and aggression on a weekly basis. A 50% increase in

:13:27.:13:30.

reported incidents of attacks on staff with 606 incidents reported in

:13:31.:13:38.

2015-2016. A paramedic in Leeds told the BBC that he faced three serious

:13:39.:13:43.

assaults in five years. He had been bitten, head-butted and threatened

:13:44.:13:47.

with a knife. West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service have also

:13:48.:13:51.

reported assaults. On bonfire night they received 1043 calls with crews

:13:52.:13:57.

attending 265 incidents. It's disgraceful that on the busiest

:13:58.:14:01.

night of the year with those pressures firefighters in West

:14:02.:14:04.

Yorkshire were subject to 19 attacks overnight. This Bill will ensure

:14:05.:14:08.

anyone who assaults and emergency service responder and is charged

:14:09.:14:18.

with a crime will be eligible for a tougher sentence because an assault

:14:19.:14:22.

on emergency service worker is an assault on society. It is

:14:23.:14:26.

unacceptable public servants working in their communities protecting

:14:27.:14:29.

people and helping the vulnerable would be subject to assault as they

:14:30.:14:32.

go about their jobs and these changes would go some way to

:14:33.:14:36.

reflecting that. The second part of this bill aims to deal with the

:14:37.:14:40.

hideous act of spitting at emergency service workers. As well as being a

:14:41.:14:45.

horrible, spitting blood and saliva add another human being can pose a

:14:46.:14:56.

risk of transmitting a range of infectious diseases. Someone like

:14:57.:14:57.

changing or a lethal consequences. At an event organised by the member

:14:58.:15:01.

for Wolverhampton South West I met two police officers and they both

:15:02.:15:04.

had blood spat in their faces was trying to arrest a violent offender.

:15:05.:15:09.

They both had to undergo anti-viral treatments to reduce the risk of

:15:10.:15:13.

contracting the disease and faced a six-month wait to find out the

:15:14.:15:16.

treatment had been successful. During that time one was advised he

:15:17.:15:22.

could not see his brother who was undergoing cancer treatment because

:15:23.:15:24.

the risk of passing on an infection was too high. He was also advised

:15:25.:15:29.

not to see his parents because they are in such read her contact with

:15:30.:15:33.

his brother. There was a false positive results are happy to be and

:15:34.:15:37.

for six months until conclusive test results came through he was

:15:38.:15:40.

understandably reluctant to be close to his wife or children fearing for

:15:41.:15:45.

their own well-being. I am pleased that both men are also here today to

:15:46.:15:49.

lend their support to these changes. Which had they been in place at the

:15:50.:15:54.

time might have saved them such an agonising wait. In previous speeches

:15:55.:15:57.

I have made on this issue I shared with MP's the story of a police

:15:58.:16:03.

officer in the Ukraine who died after contracting TB from an

:16:04.:16:06.

offender who spat that whilst she was trying to arrest him. At the

:16:07.:16:10.

moment if an emergency service worker is spat at the can only take

:16:11.:16:14.

a blood sample from an individual with permission. Needless to say

:16:15.:16:21.

that in the case I mentioned before in this country the offender was not

:16:22.:16:25.

in a helpful mood so subjected them to treatments and a six-month wait.

:16:26.:16:31.

Laws in Australia where refusal to provide a blood sample can result

:16:32.:16:35.

any fine and custodial sentence. My bill will mean that refusing to

:16:36.:16:39.

provide a blood sample in itself be a crime punished by a fine or

:16:40.:16:44.

custodial sentence. If an emergency service worker, doctor or nurse has

:16:45.:16:48.

had to endure being spat that this measure will hopefully save them

:16:49.:16:52.

having to endure a six-month ordeal to wait to see the consequences are

:16:53.:16:56.

serious. It has been made clear to me Madam Deputy Speaker that the

:16:57.:17:01.

experience I had out on the streets in my constituency was not an

:17:02.:17:05.

isolated incident. It reflects the daily challenge police officers

:17:06.:17:09.

face. Sadly paramedics, firefighters, doctors and nurses

:17:10.:17:12.

also need these protections but it's worth

:17:13.:17:23.

remembering when they find themselves under the attack it is

:17:24.:17:26.

the police who is called. I hope this change in sentencing will go as

:17:27.:17:29.

well weighted givings dedicated public servants the protections they

:17:30.:17:31.

should not require but sadly do. I am not naive to the nature of ten

:17:32.:17:34.

minute rule Bill is nor am I out any allusions about where we are in the

:17:35.:17:37.

parliamentary calendar but I hope my details have been heard today and

:17:38.:17:40.

will be reflected on its merits. I commend this bill to the house. The

:17:41.:17:48.

question is that the honourable member have lead to bring in the

:17:49.:17:57.

bill. The ayes habit. -- habit. Who will prepare and bring in the bill?

:17:58.:18:02.

Con again, live sub Oral Roberts, Michael Dugher, Scott Mann, Hannah

:18:03.:18:07.

Badelj, Tom Blenkinsop, Tracy Braeburn, Jim Shannon, and myself.

:18:08.:18:31.

Second reading what day? 24th March. 24th March. Thank you.

:18:32.:19:00.

The clerk will proceed to read the orders of the day. European Union

:19:01.:19:05.

notification of withdrawal Bill committee. Order.

:19:06.:19:32.

Order. European Union Notification of Withdrawal Bill. We begin with

:19:33.:19:43.

new clause one which it will be convenient to consider the new

:19:44.:19:47.

clauses and amendments considered on the selection paper. Point of order.

:19:48.:19:53.

Thank you. I would be grateful if you could explain to the House, not

:19:54.:19:58.

just to the House, but to the country of of all the amendments

:19:59.:20:03.

that have been grouped for debate today, the House will only be voting

:20:04.:20:08.

on new clause 1 later. I think the honourable gentleman knows what the

:20:09.:20:12.

answer will be to this. This is a very early start for points of order

:20:13.:20:17.

before we've started, but as he knows, the way that the grouping has

:20:18.:20:21.

been arranged was the subject of a programme motion which was debated,

:20:22.:20:27.

which was voted on last week. So in fact, the grouping of the amendments

:20:28.:20:31.

is as was on the programme motion. As he says the lead amendment will

:20:32.:20:37.

be put for a division and subsequent amendments depends on what happens

:20:38.:20:42.

in the rest of the debate. So we begin with new clause 1 which

:20:43.:20:47.

will be it will be convenient to consider new clauses. Keir Starmer

:20:48.:20:54.

to move new clause 1. Thank you. I rise to move new clause 1 in doing

:20:55.:21:00.

so, I will obviously touch on other new clauses in the bucket. It is

:21:01.:21:07.

important, I think, as we go lieu this debate today which is probably

:21:08.:21:11.

the most important of the debates that we've had thus far and are

:21:12.:21:17.

going to have in relation to these amendments that we remind ourselves

:21:18.:21:21.

of the context. The negotiations that will take place under Article

:21:22.:21:26.

50 will be the most difficult and the most complex and the most

:21:27.:21:31.

important for decades. Arguably since the Second World War. Amongst

:21:32.:21:38.

other things it's important that we ensure the best outcome for our

:21:39.:21:43.

economy and jobs, the trading agreements and as I've said on a

:21:44.:21:48.

number of occasions, what that entails is very clear. That we must

:21:49.:21:56.

have access, tariff-free access to the single market, barrier-free

:21:57.:22:00.

access, regulatory alignment and full access for services as well as

:22:01.:22:04.

goods and in the White Paper, that was published last Thursday, the

:22:05.:22:07.

Government accepts the strengths of those arguments about the trading

:22:08.:22:12.

agreements. It's also important that we have the right ongoing future

:22:13.:22:15.

relationship with our EU partners and Labour's has been forceful in

:22:16.:22:18.

arguing for maintaining close collaboration with our parten nears

:22:19.:22:23.

the fields of medicine, science, research, education, culture and

:22:24.:22:26.

security as well as policing and counter-terrorism. Now, although

:22:27.:22:32.

both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State maintain the idea

:22:33.:22:36.

that all this can be agreed within two years, leaving just an

:22:37.:22:40.

implementation stage, the reality is that we will two deals. The Article

:22:41.:22:48.

50 agreement and a new UK-EU treaty setting out the new arrangements

:22:49.:22:51.

along with transitional arrangements. But to be clear, we

:22:52.:22:58.

all have a vested interest on behalf of all our constituents in getting

:22:59.:23:03.

the right outcome. And that raises the proper role of Parliament in

:23:04.:23:08.

this process. And that's why I've consistently argued for three

:23:09.:23:12.

elements of scrutiny and accountability and this is the

:23:13.:23:15.

debate that in a sense has been going on for the last three months.

:23:16.:23:21.

The first element, the element I started the argument for last

:23:22.:23:26.

October was that at the start we should have a plan or White Paper, a

:23:27.:23:30.

formal document setting out the negotiating objectives. That we

:23:31.:23:33.

should then have a system for reporting back during the course of

:23:34.:23:38.

the negotiations and that we should have a vote at the end of the

:23:39.:23:41.

exercise, they are the three elements. They are three elements of

:23:42.:23:47.

scrutiny and accountability I have. I will give way. Is it the case that

:23:48.:23:54.

if all his amendments are rejected by the Government, the Labour Party

:23:55.:23:58.

are simply going to endorse the third reading and support the

:23:59.:24:01.

Government? What's the point in making this case for these

:24:02.:24:07.

amendments he's going to cave in to what the Government want in Article

:24:08.:24:11.

50? I'm not sure how helpful interventions are like that to a

:24:12.:24:15.

debate which is actually really important about the scrutiny and

:24:16.:24:21.

accountability. And just to be sure, just to be clear, nagging away,

:24:22.:24:25.

pushing votes, making the argument over three months, we have got a

:24:26.:24:31.

White Paper. And it is important. Nagging away, making the arguments,

:24:32.:24:35.

we have got commitments about reporting back. Nagging away and

:24:36.:24:40.

making the arguments we have got a commitment to the vote at the end of

:24:41.:24:45.

the exercise. So when the charge is levelled at the Opposition that they

:24:46.:24:50.

have not made the case and are not succeeding on the case for scrutiny

:24:51.:24:53.

and accountability that simply doesn't match what has happened over

:24:54.:24:59.

the last three months. Thank you. And he's right to point out that

:25:00.:25:03.

progress has been made, but does he agree with me that in order to make

:25:04.:25:08.

a vote at the end of the process meaningful, we have to have

:25:09.:25:12.

meaningful scrutiny as the process is going on? And we have as a

:25:13.:25:16.

Parliament to have the chance to say to the Government you must go back

:25:17.:25:21.

and try to do better. Having an all or nothing vote at the end when all

:25:22.:25:26.

of the discussions and negotiations are over is not in my definition

:25:27.:25:31.

meaningful scrutiny. Does he agree with me? I'm grateful for that

:25:32.:25:35.

intervention and I will come to this, but the central theme of the

:25:36.:25:39.

case I will seek to make this afternoon is that a vote in this

:25:40.:25:43.

House must be before the deal is concluded. That is the dividing line

:25:44.:25:48.

that makes the real difference here, but I will make progress because - I

:25:49.:25:56.

will give way. I'm grateful to the Secretary of State and I think that

:25:57.:26:04.

this maybe helpful - forgive me. The Shadow Secretary of State. I

:26:05.:26:10.

hope that this will be helpful to him because he has mentioned the

:26:11.:26:14.

fact that the Government has made a commitment to a vote at the end of

:26:15.:26:17.

the procedure. Later when I address the House I will be outlining what I

:26:18.:26:22.

intend that vote shall be, but it maybe of assistance to him to know

:26:23.:26:27.

what is proposed. First of all, we intend that the vote will cover not

:26:28.:26:32.

only the withdrawal arrangements, but also the future relationship

:26:33.:26:36.

with the European Union. We furthermore, I can confirm that the

:26:37.:26:39.

Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement to be

:26:40.:26:43.

approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded

:26:44.:26:48.

and we expect and intend that this will happen before the European

:26:49.:26:51.

Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement. I hope that's of

:26:52.:26:59.

assistance. I'm very grateful for that

:27:00.:27:05.

intervention. That is a huge and very important concession about the

:27:06.:27:10.

process that we are to embark on. The argument I have made about a

:27:11.:27:16.

vote... The argument I've made about a vote over the last three months is

:27:17.:27:23.

that the vote most cover both the Article 50 deal on any future

:27:24.:27:26.

relationship and I know for my colleague that's very important and

:27:27.:27:29.

that that vote must take place before the deal is concluded and I

:27:30.:27:33.

take that from what has just been said. I will give way. Thank you

:27:34.:27:42.

very much. Would my Right Honourable and learned gentleman, I nearly said

:27:43.:27:46.

friend, but I have to be careful, first of all would he agree with me

:27:47.:27:50.

it's really important that as a nation and a House we now come

:27:51.:27:54.

together, putting aside all the party political differences to do

:27:55.:27:58.

the right thing by our country, but most importantly perhaps on the very

:27:59.:28:02.

point he makes. Does he share my concern in the event of no deal

:28:03.:28:09.

being reached, that this House must also decide what happens next?

:28:10.:28:15.

I'm grateful for that intervention and I do agree and have made, I do

:28:16.:28:20.

agree that we all have a responsibility to bring this country

:28:21.:28:25.

back together. We are a deeply divided... The United Kingdom... I'm

:28:26.:28:31.

dealing with this intervention if you don't mind. It what is

:28:32.:28:37.

significant about what has just been said is that it covers the Article

:28:38.:28:42.

50 agreement and it covers any future relationship. That is the

:28:43.:28:47.

first time we've heard this. It is a very significant position by the

:28:48.:28:50.

Government and I'm grateful that it has been made and it is very

:28:51.:28:53.

important that it has been made because certainly I think across the

:28:54.:28:57.

House there has been real anxiety that it should cover both bases.

:28:58.:29:02.

Whether it goes far enough for the full-back position I'll reflect on

:29:03.:29:06.

and ideally one would want that covered, but I don't want to under

:29:07.:29:09.

play the significance of what has just been said about the two deals

:29:10.:29:15.

because it is the first time that clarity has been given. It's the

:29:16.:29:19.

first time that has been conceded. It's an argument I've been making

:29:20.:29:22.

for three months and it's very important that it has now been

:29:23.:29:26.

conceded. It's important for my colleagues and I'm sure it's

:29:27.:29:29.

important for people across the House. Equally important, equally

:29:30.:29:37.

important, is the timing in that it should be before the deal is

:29:38.:29:41.

concluded. The great fear is there would be a concluded deal which

:29:42.:29:46.

would make any vote in this House meaningless. Now, what I hope can

:29:47.:29:56.

now happen on the back of that concession is what I anticipate will

:29:57.:30:01.

happen in the European Parliament. That is by regularly reporting up,

:30:02.:30:06.

updating the House, setting ot the direction of travel, there can be

:30:07.:30:09.

agreement about progress and that what happens at the end doesn't come

:30:10.:30:13.

as a surprise to any of us in this House. But what has been said by the

:30:14.:30:20.

minister is a very significant statement of position which meets in

:30:21.:30:25.

large part everything I have been driving at in new clause 1. I will

:30:26.:30:33.

give way. I welcome as my honourable friend does the concession from the

:30:34.:30:36.

Government benches, but does he agree as well as timing it is the

:30:37.:30:40.

scope of that vote which is going to be absolutely vital? If we're faced

:30:41.:30:47.

with a choice between a hard Brexit and WTO, that is no choice. The

:30:48.:30:50.

Government will have to go back and renegotiate.

:30:51.:30:59.

At the moment I agree that we should have as big a say as possible on all

:31:00.:31:05.

of this, but I don't want to under state what has been conceded in the

:31:06.:31:11.

last ten minutes. I do take the point, but I think where we have

:31:12.:31:16.

made significant progress on scrutiny and accountability we

:31:17.:31:20.

should recognise where we've got to. I will give way. Whilst I echo what

:31:21.:31:27.

the honourable gentleman has said would you agree that instantly

:31:28.:31:31.

leaping on a concession maybe a little unwise until we're quite

:31:32.:31:36.

clear what is amounts to. I record a concession on a plan led to a speech

:31:37.:31:41.

in Lancaster House which didn't take us much furtherment I would like to

:31:42.:31:46.

be persuaded that a major concession has been made. Does he agree with me

:31:47.:31:51.

that it would be helpful because we don't know what we're debating if we

:31:52.:31:56.

continue from now on if the minister would try to catch the chairman's

:31:57.:32:00.

eye after the Right Honourable gentleman has sat down so he can

:32:01.:32:05.

explain in more detail what he's proposing than the subsequent debate

:32:06.:32:11.

on this group of amendments and we will be altogether better informed.

:32:12.:32:14.

I'm grateful for that intervention and I accept the point and I think

:32:15.:32:19.

far be it from me to say what the procedure would be, but that would

:32:20.:32:22.

be helpful because some of what has been said has been heard for the

:32:23.:32:28.

first time today and we need to reflect on it. If indeed it is a

:32:29.:32:38.

significant concession then shouldn't it be added to the face of

:32:39.:32:43.

the Bill? So as it can be properly examined and analysed and come to

:32:44.:32:48.

the House in a report stage with every member having the ability to

:32:49.:32:50.

look at it? I recognise the strength of the

:32:51.:33:06.

points made and there are of course other opportunities to examine what

:33:07.:33:14.

has been conceded and ensure it might find its way onto the face of

:33:15.:33:18.

the legislation. So I think it would be sensible if we recognise what has

:33:19.:33:26.

been said. Here a little more detail if we can, and reflect on that

:33:27.:33:30.

during the course of this afternoon and of course this bill does not

:33:31.:33:34.

complete its passage today or in this house. I will give way. It is a

:33:35.:33:41.

fair point, if somebody says do something in good faith you take it

:33:42.:33:47.

on board. And don't push too hard and take what is a valuable

:33:48.:33:52.

concession INAUDIBLE . I am grateful for that

:33:53.:34:00.

intervention, I think it is, when an assurance is given in a debate such

:34:01.:34:05.

as this it is a significant assurance. That having been said, of

:34:06.:34:09.

course something on the face of a statute at some later point is even

:34:10.:34:18.

better. I will give way. I am grateful, I came into this chamber

:34:19.:34:22.

with a full intention of supporting Amendment one and I still feel we

:34:23.:34:26.

need to push this to a vote. However I feel what is being said and that

:34:27.:34:30.

he wants to trust and believe this government. If we saw a manuscript

:34:31.:34:36.

amendment before the end of the afternoon I would find it much more

:34:37.:34:40.

easy to not vote on amendment one than I do at the moment. Does he

:34:41.:34:44.

agree that a manuscript amendment would be helpful? I would take that

:34:45.:34:51.

point. Can I make some progress because we have not got very far. So

:34:52.:34:56.

far as the White Paper, I have not got very far! As far as the White

:34:57.:35:03.

Paper is concerned, I am looking at the big picture and this is

:35:04.:35:07.

important for trade unions and working people and constituents who

:35:08.:35:12.

have raised these points, in the White Paper there is the commitment

:35:13.:35:17.

to convert all EU derived rights including workers' rights into

:35:18.:35:19.

domestic law of paragraph 7.1 and I don't think that commitment has been

:35:20.:35:26.

heard loudly enough and we certainly intend to hold the government that

:35:27.:35:30.

every step of the way along with other EU rights such as

:35:31.:35:33.

environmental rights and consumer rights. I have also consistently

:35:34.:35:38.

argued that the Prime Minister cannot in the Article 50

:35:39.:35:41.

negotiations negotiate to change domestic law or policy which would

:35:42.:35:48.

require primary legislation. In paragraph 1.8 of the White Paper it

:35:49.:35:54.

is made clear that the government does not accept that the Prime

:35:55.:35:58.

Minister would have that authority and expressly references separate

:35:59.:36:04.

bills on immigration and on customs. I highlight that because there is a

:36:05.:36:08.

huge concern amongst my colleagues about the threat made by the Prime

:36:09.:36:11.

Minister to alter our social and economic model and turn the UK into

:36:12.:36:18.

a tax haven. That cannot happen. That cannot happen without primary

:36:19.:36:21.

legislation. It is important we note that. I rather agree with the other

:36:22.:36:33.

members, given the government's position just outlined, would my

:36:34.:36:36.

honourable friend agree that the only substantial reason for the

:36:37.:36:39.

government not to agree to the new clause one is to deny the other

:36:40.:36:44.

house vote on a resolution and therefore the minister should

:36:45.:36:51.

explain why that is the position? I think we will have to wait and hear

:36:52.:36:55.

from the Minister, I hear what is said in the intervention. So far as

:36:56.:37:01.

the vote is concerned, there has been a change of position and it's

:37:02.:37:07.

important I just set that out. Initially the Secretary of State was

:37:08.:37:11.

saying back in October that he would observe the requirements of treaty

:37:12.:37:16.

ratification. Then in December at this dispatch box he almost said we

:37:17.:37:20.

would get a vote using the word that it was inconceivable that we would

:37:21.:37:25.

not. Then just before Christmas at the liaison committee the Prime

:37:26.:37:28.

Minister seemed to back away from that altogether under questioning

:37:29.:37:31.

from the chairman of the Brexit select committee and the fact of a

:37:32.:37:36.

vote was only conceded after Christmas. And then in paragraph

:37:37.:37:42.

1.12 of the White Paper there was a commitment to a vote on the final

:37:43.:37:46.

deal. Today it takes us a lot further forward and I think that

:37:47.:37:49.

demonstrates how by chipping away and arguing away we are making

:37:50.:37:53.

progress on accountability and scrutiny. I will. I thank my

:37:54.:38:00.

honourable friend forgiving way, he may have been listening and had the

:38:01.:38:03.

detail of what the ministers said in more detail than I did but could you

:38:04.:38:07.

tell me was it clear whether or not we would actually get a vote in this

:38:08.:38:13.

house if there was no deal? If the government failed to get a deal with

:38:14.:38:18.

the EU, which none of us want to see, but if that happens was it

:38:19.:38:21.

clear to him from what the Minister said whether or not we would get a

:38:22.:38:27.

vote in parliament in those circumstances? No and I think we

:38:28.:38:30.

need to press the Minister on that when he rises to his feet. I will.

:38:31.:38:39.

He has just very ably outlined what the government position has been to

:38:40.:38:44.

date, showing us all very ably that the government have made quite major

:38:45.:38:48.

changes in positions today. Against the background of the situation

:38:49.:38:51.

about that change of position appears to have taken place when we

:38:52.:38:58.

are debating so many different venue -- differently nuanced amendments,

:38:59.:39:05.

is it agreeable that the government should... Can I ask that

:39:06.:39:13.

interventions be a bit more brief, we only have four hours and a lot of

:39:14.:39:16.

people to get through. Just to make intervention is a bit more brief.

:39:17.:39:23.

Here Starmer. I am grateful for that intervention, I think it it would be

:39:24.:39:30.

helpful if we had both clarification and a written form if possible of

:39:31.:39:35.

the gym session which has been made so we can all see -- of the

:39:36.:39:41.

concession which has been made so we can all see what it is. Madam Deputy

:39:42.:39:47.

Speaker, given that we do as the honourable lady was saying require

:39:48.:39:51.

some sort of information as to what it is the government have actually

:39:52.:39:55.

put forward, is there any way you can require the government to put

:39:56.:39:59.

before us a manuscript amendment so we actually know what it is we are

:40:00.:40:02.

debating for the rest of the afternoon? The Minister will be

:40:03.:40:06.

speaking and I am sure he will explain them. Keir Starmer. Thank

:40:07.:40:16.

you. I am sure the Minister hears what is being said, what has been

:40:17.:40:22.

said this morning is significant, it is a concession and it does no need

:40:23.:40:26.

to be reduced to writing. I think a great deal of this debate should be

:40:27.:40:33.

spent probing the concession which has been made. I'm going to make

:40:34.:40:37.

progress because I have barely got through two or three sentences

:40:38.:40:40.

before giving way so I do not think anyone could accuse me of not

:40:41.:40:45.

conceding. In the end this comes down to a very stark choice for this

:40:46.:40:55.

house, if we are to have a vote. Either it is before the deal is

:40:56.:41:02.

concluded or it is afterwards in which case it would be a feature

:41:03.:41:08.

complete. And this concession appears to suggest it is before it

:41:09.:41:11.

is concluded and I think that timing is critical. I recognise there are

:41:12.:41:17.

other issues which come off the back of that but the timing is critical.

:41:18.:41:22.

Because the sequence of events at the end of the exercise is extremely

:41:23.:41:26.

important in terms of what this house can meaningfully say or do

:41:27.:41:32.

about the agreement which is put to us for a vote. I thank my honourable

:41:33.:41:38.

friend forgiving way. Does he agree with me it's not just the issue of

:41:39.:41:46.

the timing of the vote, it's what happens if this house declines to

:41:47.:41:50.

accept the deal the government has put forward, the Prime Minister said

:41:51.:41:54.

on the 25th of January if this parliament is not willing to accept

:41:55.:41:59.

a deal that has been decided upon with the European Union then as I

:42:00.:42:03.

have said we will have to fall back on other arrangements. That does not

:42:04.:42:07.

guarantee this house has the final decision on our future relationship

:42:08.:42:12.

with the EU. I am grateful for that intervention, I think that exchange

:42:13.:42:18.

which was referred to as the cause of concern about the vote being

:42:19.:42:23.

before the deal is concluded. But we will need greater clarification

:42:24.:42:34.

about the extent of the vote. I'm going to press on because I am not

:42:35.:42:38.

sure that me trying to explain what the Minister is going to tell us is

:42:39.:42:41.

working particularly well. If it's of any assistance to the

:42:42.:42:52.

honourable gentleman and to the committee, with your leave I would

:42:53.:42:58.

very much hope to be able to speak immediately after the Shadow

:42:59.:43:03.

Secretary of State for Health. -- Secretary of State. I have made the

:43:04.:43:10.

case for a White Paper, made the case for reporting back, made the

:43:11.:43:15.

case for a vote, we have now got this concession. I think the most

:43:16.:43:18.

helpful thing is if honourable members are given the opportunity to

:43:19.:43:22.

test what the Minister has said this morning. Thank you. New clause one,

:43:23.:43:28.

parliamentary approval for agreements with the union. The

:43:29.:43:33.

question is that new clause one B read a second time, Minister David

:43:34.:43:41.

Jones. I am very grateful, I had hoped to speak at the end of this

:43:42.:43:46.

debate but I think it may be of assistance to the committee if I

:43:47.:43:50.

deal with some of the matter is the shadow secretary of state touched on

:43:51.:43:55.

in his speech. However I don't want to go into the details of the

:43:56.:44:00.

various amendments which other members will wish to speak to win.

:44:01.:44:04.

With your consent I would like to address those at the end of the

:44:05.:44:10.

session. Could I first of all repeat what I said to the honourable

:44:11.:44:14.

gentleman when I intervened on him a few moments ago, the government has

:44:15.:44:20.

repeatedly from this dispatch box committed to a vote on the final

:44:21.:44:24.

deal, a vote in both houses before the deal comes into force. And this

:44:25.:44:29.

I repeat and confirm will cover not only the withdrawal agreement but

:44:30.:44:35.

also the future arrangement that we propose with the European Union. And

:44:36.:44:40.

I can confirm again that the government will bring forward a

:44:41.:44:45.

motion on the final agreement, if I can just finish the sentence. It's

:44:46.:44:52.

rather important. A motion on the final agreement to be approved by

:44:53.:44:56.

both houses of parliament before it is concluded and we expect and

:44:57.:45:01.

intend that this will happen before the European Parliament debates and

:45:02.:45:04.

votes on the final agreement. I give way to the Right honourable

:45:05.:45:08.

gentleman. Stressed to the house again that this applies only to the

:45:09.:45:13.

withdrawal agreement and a final agreement on the future relationship

:45:14.:45:18.

between the UK and EU. It is my view the former is feasible within two

:45:19.:45:29.

years, the latter is highly unlikely within two years, can he tell the

:45:30.:45:32.

house what will happen in that case, I withdrawal agreement is agreed but

:45:33.:45:34.

not a new future agreement between the UK and the EU? I must preface

:45:35.:45:38.

that we do not expect we will not achieve such agreement. But my right

:45:39.:45:44.

honourable friend the Prime Minister has already made clear that if we

:45:45.:45:48.

cannot come to an agreement then clearly we will have to fall back on

:45:49.:45:51.

other arrangements. That is something upon which... That is

:45:52.:45:57.

something upon which the government has consistently been clear, I give

:45:58.:46:03.

way. The conversation we had yesterday about the importance of

:46:04.:46:08.

transitional arrangements, he cannot guarantee the trade agreement will

:46:09.:46:11.

be concluded within two years so if you don't have a transitional

:46:12.:46:14.

agreement it's like jumping out of an aeroplane without a parachute,

:46:15.:46:19.

why will he not agree to negotiate the transitional arrangement now in

:46:20.:46:25.

case we need it? What the honourable lady says is of course very true.

:46:26.:46:32.

But clearly, an agreement is a matter which has to be no goatee --

:46:33.:46:39.

negotiated by two sides and it's always possible we cannot achieve

:46:40.:46:43.

such an agreement but I believe the will. But we have also made it clear

:46:44.:46:46.

that what we do see as important is during the course of the

:46:47.:46:50.

negotiations for what ever the new arrangements are that we consider

:46:51.:46:53.

what implementation period may be necessary at the end of those

:46:54.:46:57.

agreements. Again we have made that clear already. I give way to my

:46:58.:47:04.

right honourable friend. I am grateful for intervening at this

:47:05.:47:07.

stage and allowing us to have this process. He says that Parliament

:47:08.:47:13.

will have a vote before the agreement is concluded, does that

:47:14.:47:19.

mean before agreement has been reached with the other 27 or after a

:47:20.:47:24.

agreement has been reached but before it's been put into effect? I

:47:25.:47:29.

think what parliamentary sovereignty requires is that Parliament should

:47:30.:47:35.

have the ability to influence the government's position before it

:47:36.:47:38.

concludes the deal so that those with whom the government is dealing,

:47:39.:47:43.

the other parties of the negotiation, now that the British

:47:44.:47:46.

government has got to be able to produce an agreement which will get

:47:47.:47:50.

the support of parliament. If you just wait until everything, hands

:47:51.:47:55.

have been shaken with all the other Europeans, then you come here, then

:47:56.:47:59.

it means Parliament is told if you reject it you have nothing. It's a

:48:00.:48:05.

disaster. Which would give a government a majority but not a very

:48:06.:48:07.

satisfactory conclusion. I fully appreciate the points. This

:48:08.:48:17.

is clearly going to be a complex, lengthy and difficult. Can I deal

:48:18.:48:21.

with my Right Honourable friend's point first? It will be a difficult

:48:22.:48:26.

and complex agreement and it will be, of course, a matter that will a

:48:27.:48:32.

negotiation that will from time to time be subject to reports to this

:48:33.:48:35.

House, to the Brexit Select Committee and so on. But what we are

:48:36.:48:42.

proposing and what I'm committing to from this dispatch box today is that

:48:43.:48:46.

before that final agreement is concluded and it would, if you like,

:48:47.:48:50.

but the final draft agreement, it would be put to a vote of this House

:48:51.:48:55.

and a vote of the other place and that we intend will be before it is

:48:56.:48:59.

put to the European Parliament and I think that that, I hope, is as clear

:49:00.:49:05.

as I can be. I will give way to the honourable gentleman The EU 27 will

:49:06.:49:11.

decide a deal in their interests. If that deal comes to this House and we

:49:12.:49:14.

vote it down and subsequently the commission and the European

:49:15.:49:17.

Parliament agree it and say like it or lump it, what will we do then?

:49:18.:49:23.

I would have thought that in the circumstance that this House had

:49:24.:49:27.

voted it down it would be highly unlikely that it would be put to the

:49:28.:49:30.

European Parliament, but there are all sorts of sin aur yos that... I

:49:31.:49:38.

give way. Just for clarification, I think the minister said there would

:49:39.:49:42.

be a vote on the final draft agreement. I wanted to check I heard

:49:43.:49:47.

him correctly when he said that? Before the agreement is finally

:49:48.:49:50.

concluded in other words. That's the intention of this Parliament. I want

:49:51.:49:59.

to come back to the point made about the two deals that are being

:50:00.:50:03.

negotiated in parallel, the exit deal and the framework for our

:50:04.:50:06.

future relationship about the timing. I think we're being

:50:07.:50:12.

optimistic than the Right Honourable gentleman. In Article 50 it

:50:13.:50:15.

envisages in the negotiation for the exit agreement that can only be done

:50:16.:50:19.

taking into account the framework for the future relationship. So

:50:20.:50:24.

Article 50 itself envisages those two agreements being negotiated in

:50:25.:50:27.

parallel so I think what the minister set out has every prospect

:50:28.:50:35.

of coming to fruition. Can I just implore members to keep

:50:36.:50:40.

interventions short. I just implore people to just to keep it a bit

:50:41.:50:45.

briefer. My Right Honourable friend is right Article 50 on the face of

:50:46.:50:51.

it says the negotiations for the withdrawal, that the negotiations

:50:52.:50:54.

for the withdrawal agreement should be set against the framework of the

:50:55.:50:59.

continuing relationship. So on the face of Article 50, a twin track

:51:00.:51:05.

approach is envisaged. I give way to the honourable gentleman. Could he

:51:06.:51:13.

be clear, he raised our hopes for a second and I felt myself debated

:51:14.:51:18.

when he said we will fall back on other arrangements. Can he be clear

:51:19.:51:23.

about what he means by, "We would fall back on other arrangements"? If

:51:24.:51:29.

there were no agreement at all which is a scenario I think is extremely

:51:30.:51:34.

unlikely then ultimately it would be falling back upon World Trade

:51:35.:51:38.

Organisation arrangements and this again is nothing new. It has been

:51:39.:51:43.

made very clear previously including by my Right Honourable friend the

:51:44.:51:52.

Prime Minister. I'm grateful to the minister. Can he clarify a point

:51:53.:51:57.

which came up with from the Shadow Secretary of State which is

:51:58.:52:00.

important to all of us here and that is, an agreement at the end of the

:52:01.:52:04.

process might be an agreement that there isn't an agreement at all that

:52:05.:52:08.

we go to the default position. What I believe he has announced from the

:52:09.:52:11.

front bench covers the situation which will give the House a vote if

:52:12.:52:15.

there is a deal or if indeed there is no deal. And I wonder if he could

:52:16.:52:22.

confirm that the House would get the vote in these circumstances which is

:52:23.:52:25.

what I understand the assurance to be? It's very hard to see what

:52:26.:52:30.

meaningful vote could be given in a circumstance in which there what

:52:31.:52:33.

been no deal at all, but I have, having said that, I have no doubt at

:52:34.:52:39.

all that if the absence of any agreement whatever, that absence of

:52:40.:52:42.

agreement would be the subject of statements to this House.

:52:43.:52:49.

The minister's inflating and deflating people as he goes along.

:52:50.:52:53.

Can he get back to this manuscript amendment? It really is important if

:52:54.:52:59.

the concession is as significant as the minister is leading us to

:53:00.:53:03.

believe. It comes forward as an amendment and if the Government is

:53:04.:53:06.

not prepared to do that, then surely the message to the other place is

:53:07.:53:12.

what the minister has said should be encapsulated in an amendment that

:53:13.:53:16.

should be properly redebated here. I think that we are actually debating

:53:17.:53:26.

this at considerable length now. I have on behalf of the Government

:53:27.:53:30.

made what I believe is a serious commitment and I believe that it

:53:31.:53:36.

should be accepted as such and frankly in those circumstances I see

:53:37.:53:42.

no need for a further amendment. I'm grateful to the Minister for

:53:43.:53:45.

giving way. Isn't the issue and the problem that the Government has and

:53:46.:53:50.

indeed the House has that we don't know what at what stage the

:53:51.:53:55.

negotiations could be concludedment they could be concluded with months

:53:56.:54:00.

to go within the two year time frame. This House would be able to

:54:01.:54:05.

consider the agreement before it was agreed with the Commission because

:54:06.:54:08.

there was no time pressure, but we could end up with a situation where

:54:09.:54:12.

the agreement is one minute to midnight at the end of the two year

:54:13.:54:16.

period and if the Government doesn't conclude an agreement to bring it to

:54:17.:54:20.

the House before, but before it goes to the European Parliament we

:54:21.:54:25.

couldnd up with no deal. I feel, my honourable friend may agree with me,

:54:26.:54:28.

the Government has a real dilemma and it is important that the House

:54:29.:54:32.

should understand those limitations because they go to the question of

:54:33.:54:36.

whether in fact an amendment can be reasonably crafted to meet that.

:54:37.:54:42.

I think that my Right Honourable friend makes a very fair point. I

:54:43.:54:48.

think that as we proceed we have to keep reminding ourselves that we are

:54:49.:54:51.

where we are because the United Kingdom has voted to leave the

:54:52.:54:55.

European Union. And what we are seeking to achieve is a departure

:54:56.:55:00.

from the European Union on the best possible terms and I believe very

:55:01.:55:05.

strongly that what the Government is proposing is as much as possible in

:55:06.:55:09.

terms of a meaningful vote at the end of the process. I'd like to make

:55:10.:55:15.

a little bit... I give way to the honourable gentleman. I thank the

:55:16.:55:22.

Minister for giving way. Timing is only significant if it further

:55:23.:55:28.

empowers Parliament to have a meaningful say on the negotiations.

:55:29.:55:33.

So can I ask the minister again, what will happen if the House

:55:34.:55:40.

declines to approve the draft agreement which he's intending to

:55:41.:55:44.

bring before us? I think that I've already answered that extremely

:55:45.:55:48.

clearly. There will be a meaningful vote. The

:55:49.:55:52.

vote will be either to accept the deal that the Government will have

:55:53.:55:57.

achieved and I repeat that that process of negotiation will not be

:55:58.:56:02.

without frequent reports to this House or no deal and frankly that is

:56:03.:56:07.

the choice that this House will have to make. That will be the most

:56:08.:56:10.

meaningful vote that one could imagine.

:56:11.:56:19.

I'd like, I will take one further intervention. I will take it from

:56:20.:56:23.

the honourable gentleman. I think the point here is for this to be a

:56:24.:56:28.

meaningful concession, what the House wants is the opportunity to

:56:29.:56:33.

send the Government back to our EU partners to negotiate a deal if one

:56:34.:56:38.

hasn't been reached. Going on to WTO rules I say to the minister will be

:56:39.:56:43.

deeply damaging for our economy and wholly unacceptable. Well, I hear

:56:44.:56:48.

what the honourable gentleman says, but frankingly I can't think of a

:56:49.:56:52.

greater signal of weakness than for this House to send the Government

:56:53.:56:57.

back to the European Union and to say we want to negotiate further. I

:56:58.:57:03.

think that that would be seized upon as a sign of weakness and therefore,

:57:04.:57:11.

I can't agree with it at all. I would like to make further progress.

:57:12.:57:19.

I think I've taken a large number of interventions and I'm sure that

:57:20.:57:23.

other honourable members wish to speak. Let me say this. This will be

:57:24.:57:31.

a meaningful vote. It will be the choice between leaving the European

:57:32.:57:35.

Union as I've said with a negotiated deal or not and as I've said to send

:57:36.:57:39.

the Government back to the negotiating table would be the

:57:40.:57:45.

surest way of undermining our negotiating position and delivering

:57:46.:57:51.

a worst deal and in any case we can't extend our... I give way for

:57:52.:57:56.

the final time to the Right Honourable gentleman.

:57:57.:58:01.

Giving way. When he first revealed his concession to my honourable and

:58:02.:58:05.

learned friend, there was a bit which he hasn't read out in the

:58:06.:58:10.

speech he has just been giving which referred to timing intention and the

:58:11.:58:14.

position of the European Parliament. Co please repeat what he said the

:58:15.:58:19.

first time round? I think it is important that the House is able to

:58:20.:58:25.

hear that. If it is of assistance to the honourable gentleman I read out

:58:26.:58:30.

the same words twice, but nevertheless I will read them again

:58:31.:58:33.

just so that he fully understands the commitment that the Government

:58:34.:58:39.

has made. The Government has committed to a vote on the final

:58:40.:58:42.

deal in both houses before it comes into force. This will cover both the

:58:43.:58:46.

withdrawal agreement and our future relationship with the European

:58:47.:58:50.

Union. I can confirm that the Government will bring forward a

:58:51.:58:53.

motion on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses of

:58:54.:58:58.

Parliament before it is concluded. We expect and intend that this will

:58:59.:59:02.

happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the

:59:03.:59:08.

final agreement and I hope - I will not take any further, I think I have

:59:09.:59:14.

been more than generous. If I could turn to the amendments in

:59:15.:59:19.

question and the honourable gentleman has referred to his

:59:20.:59:24.

amendment, new clause 1, but new clauses 18, 19, 20, 110, 137, 175

:59:25.:59:31.

and 182 and they all seek in one way or another to ensure that Parliament

:59:32.:59:35.

will have a vote on the final deal that we agree with the European

:59:36.:59:40.

Union. Let me assure the House again as I've ensured in answer to

:59:41.:59:44.

interventions that will be involved throughout the entire process of

:59:45.:59:48.

withdrawal and again, let me remind the House, what the extent of the

:59:49.:59:57.

Secretary of State's engagements. A very brief question to the minister.

:59:58.:00:03.

If the European Parliament votes down the deal, then Europe will

:00:04.:00:08.

carry on negotiating. He is saying if the British Parliament votes down

:00:09.:00:11.

the deal that's the end of the negotiations. We pride ourselves on

:00:12.:00:17.

our sovereignty in this House, Madam Deputy Speaker and his position

:00:18.:00:20.

seems to be a denial of that sovereignty. I'm not entirely sure

:00:21.:00:26.

that the Right Honourable gentleman understands the process. The role of

:00:27.:00:30.

the European Parliament would be to grant or withhold consent to the

:00:31.:00:34.

deal that had been agreed by the European Council and there could be

:00:35.:00:37.

no assurance that there would be further negotiations. May I say this

:00:38.:00:42.

- we are come considerable way away from that position. As the

:00:43.:00:48.

negotiations proceed, as I've said, there will be very many more

:00:49.:00:52.

opportunities, many more, many more opportunities for this House and for

:00:53.:00:55.

the other place to consider the negotiations. I'm afraid not because

:00:56.:01:05.

I've already been very generous. I was reminding the honourable House

:01:06.:01:08.

of What the Secretary of State has done. He made six oral statements

:01:09.:01:11.

and there have been more ten debates, four in Government time.

:01:12.:01:15.

There are over 30 Select Committee inquiries going on at the moment.

:01:16.:01:20.

There will be many more votes on primary legislation to between now

:01:21.:01:23.

and departure from the European Union. I suggest that the amendments

:01:24.:01:28.

that I've referred to are unnecessary. I reiterate that both

:01:29.:01:32.

House will get a vote on the final deal before it comes into force and

:01:33.:01:37.

I can confirm once again that it will cover both the withdrawal

:01:38.:01:40.

agreement and our future relationship, but we are confident

:01:41.:01:44.

that we will bring back a deal which Parliament will want to support and

:01:45.:01:47.

the choice will be meaningful and that choice will be whether to

:01:48.:01:51.

accept that deal or to move ahead without a deal.

:01:52.:02:00.

Can I move new clause 180 and amendment 50 in the name of my

:02:01.:02:05.

honourable friends and myself and could I speak favourably about new

:02:06.:02:11.

clause 110 in the name of the honourable member for Nottingham

:02:12.:02:14.

East which is the strongest of a range of amendments albeit that any

:02:15.:02:18.

amendments in this section which are put to the vote will have our

:02:19.:02:23.

support because they are all trying to increase Parliamentary

:02:24.:02:27.

supervision over the process. Now before the minister led us through

:02:28.:02:32.

the dance of the seven veils I was trying to find out, I was going to

:02:33.:02:38.

question him on the question of irrockability of Article 50 and I

:02:39.:02:44.

still think goes to the heart of what we're debating. Can I say to

:02:45.:02:49.

the minister in terms of what he described as a serious announcement.

:02:50.:02:53.

If you make serious announcements in the course of a committee stage of a

:02:54.:03:00.

Bill of this importance then these serious announcements should be

:03:01.:03:05.

followed by an amendment. If we are here debating the Dangerous Dogs

:03:06.:03:11.

Bill, and a serious announcement was made in the middle of the Dangerous

:03:12.:03:15.

Dogs Bill then that serious announcement would be followed by an

:03:16.:03:19.

amendment on the face of the Bill. If it was good enough for a Bill of

:03:20.:03:23.

that description then how much more is it important to have such an

:03:24.:03:28.

amendment in the biggest constitutional change facing this

:03:29.:03:33.

country for half a century? So we thank the Minister for His

:03:34.:03:39.

announcement. We thank him for the apparent concession. We don't doubt

:03:40.:03:43.

for a second the seriousness with which he makes this serious

:03:44.:03:46.

announcement, but I think most of us, I think the minister himself,

:03:47.:03:50.

would think that such an announcement should be followed by

:03:51.:03:54.

an amendment on the face of the Bill so this Bill can then go through its

:03:55.:03:59.

proper processes with honourable members able and willing to debate

:04:00.:04:04.

an announcement of such seriousness in the proper way. I give way to the

:04:05.:04:08.

former Chief Whip. Who seems anxious to regain his

:04:09.:04:20.

previous position. I can assure the right honourable gentleman I am

:04:21.:04:24.

content to speak in the house on these matters. The question is, the

:04:25.:04:29.

reason why it may not be sensible to have a detailed amendment, listening

:04:30.:04:32.

to the range of interventions from colleagues there are clearly a large

:04:33.:04:37.

number of scenarios which may arise, ones which will need to be dealt

:04:38.:04:41.

with politically, I do not want detailed legislation so that this

:04:42.:04:46.

goes back into the courts, I wanted debated in this house, not by a

:04:47.:04:53.

judge. At least he is consistent, when he was Chief Whip he did not

:04:54.:04:56.

want detailed amendments either in case democracy prevailed in terms of

:04:57.:05:02.

these matters. I will give way in a second, but most people saying a

:05:03.:05:06.

serious announcement from the front bench would expect it to be followed

:05:07.:05:11.

by an amendment so the matter can be properly debated and tested. I give

:05:12.:05:16.

way. I thank the honourable gentleman forgiving way and I agree

:05:17.:05:20.

with the point about the manuscript amendment it would make things a lot

:05:21.:05:24.

cleaner, but does he agree with me that having an announcement that we

:05:25.:05:29.

may have a Hobson 's choice at the end of something is not really a

:05:30.:05:34.

proper choice? I very much agree with the honourable lady and she has

:05:35.:05:37.

conveniently led me right onto the next point I was going to make, I

:05:38.:05:43.

think her point goes to the heart of the dilemma the house is going to

:05:44.:05:47.

find itself in unless we find ourselves taking action to the

:05:48.:05:51.

contrary. That does strike at the matter of whether clause 50 is

:05:52.:05:59.

irrevocable or not. I tried to give a flavour of the government's

:06:00.:06:02.

confusion in this matter but it was a brief point of order and therefore

:06:03.:06:08.

I want to give the full flavour of the government 's confusion because

:06:09.:06:13.

this Brexit secretary said when asked the specific point, he said,

:06:14.:06:17.

and I quote, one of the virtues of the Article 50 process is that it

:06:18.:06:23.

sets you own way. It is very difficult to see it being revoked,

:06:24.:06:27.

we do not intend to the baulk it. It may be revoked the ball, I do not

:06:28.:06:34.

know. That is the basis we are being asked to take this fundamental

:06:35.:06:38.

decision affecting the future of this country. We have been all these

:06:39.:06:41.

things because it determines the position the house will find itself

:06:42.:06:51.

in. If it is, unless there is an agreement from the 27 members of the

:06:52.:06:56.

European Union, negotiations stop, the guillotine comes down and you

:06:57.:07:00.

are left with a bad deal or no Deal, then any vote in the house against

:07:01.:07:04.

that sort of Damocles hanging over the house will not be a proper

:07:05.:07:14.

informed judgment. Would he agree with me that triggering the Article

:07:15.:07:22.

50 on the basis of possible Reebok ability is like walking down the M4

:07:23.:07:25.

in the middle of the night and hoping you won't get killed. You

:07:26.:07:29.

might not but better not to walk down there in the first place? I

:07:30.:07:38.

think the analogy is there, and we now that the noble Lord Kerr

:07:39.:07:47.

believes it to be revoke a ball. The judgment was based on that

:07:48.:08:16.

proposition so does he agree it is irrevokable? I give way. The purpose

:08:17.:08:25.

was for the purpose of those proceedings and I have to say that

:08:26.:08:31.

we can derive nothing from that as to whether it is irrevokable or not

:08:32.:08:37.

and indeed there is powerful legal argument that it is capable of being

:08:38.:08:42.

revoked. The honourable gentleman should talk among themselves before

:08:43.:08:48.

they come to a house with an agreed position but both of these people

:08:49.:08:51.

are on the backbenches so it does not matter if they have alerted

:08:52.:08:57.

debate after proceedings, what matters is a confusion in the front

:08:58.:09:01.

bench and whatever the right Honourable member thinks, the Brexit

:09:02.:09:12.

secretary did not know... One last time. The right honourable gentleman

:09:13.:09:17.

is pursuing this relentlessly, but can he explain why he is doing so,

:09:18.:09:19.

may I suggest that it is because he knows... To be said I am pursuing

:09:20.:09:39.

something relentlessly is a component indeed, I shall treasure

:09:40.:09:48.

it. It's about this house having a genuine choice at some stage and

:09:49.:09:55.

looking at what the government has negotiated and then being able to

:09:56.:09:56.

say yes bringing us back to where we are now

:09:57.:10:29.

in terms of the referendum. An astute point. If I may say so, I

:10:30.:10:35.

think the issue is even more fundamental, I think we have to know

:10:36.:10:38.

what happens when we say no before we go ahead at the present moment.

:10:39.:10:46.

We make a new effort in new clause 180, new clause 180 is called the

:10:47.:10:50.

reset amendment and when I asked We will only approve the deal once

:10:51.:11:10.

the terms are such that we believe they are in the interest of this

:11:11.:11:15.

country. The Prime Minister should be prepared not to present us with a

:11:16.:11:19.

bad Deal or no Deal, not a bad deal for world trade terms, but a deal

:11:20.:11:25.

that we know is going to be in the interest of our constituents and the

:11:26.:11:30.

country. I think that's absolutely fundamental to this debate. I know

:11:31.:11:37.

and understand political leadership but at the end of March, it came

:11:38.:11:44.

about the Tory conference, people were getting flappy about whether

:11:45.:11:48.

the Prime Minister was a born-again Brexit supporter or still a secret

:11:49.:11:54.

submarine remain, I cannot understand why people think even

:11:55.:11:59.

from the Brexit side, because presumably they want success for the

:12:00.:12:03.

country and its economy, thinking it's a good idea to invoke article

:12:04.:12:07.

50 and till you know what the end destination is going to be.

:12:08.:12:13.

Similarly I cannot believe it's a good idea to leave the European

:12:14.:12:16.

economic area which is governed by different areas and different

:12:17.:12:19.

instruments until you know what the alternative is going to be. Instead

:12:20.:12:25.

of giving these points away and putting all of the negotiating power

:12:26.:12:29.

into the hands of those you are negotiating with and they are our

:12:30.:12:33.

partners now but any negotiation is a tension between two parties. Any

:12:34.:12:38.

negotiation depends on a card you will have in your hand and if the

:12:39.:12:42.

other side know that after two years the sword of Damocles comes down it

:12:43.:12:47.

puts them in a much more powerful position in terms of the

:12:48.:12:51.

negotiation. That is why we try... I give way. I thank you forgiving way,

:12:52.:12:57.

I agree with most of what he said which is why it is important we get

:12:58.:13:01.

an amendment on this so the house and the public know exactly where we

:13:02.:13:05.

are going. Why don't we put the government front bench on a course

:13:06.:13:12.

with the TUC to learn how to negotiate. And astute point, I think

:13:13.:13:18.

a lot could be learnt in terms of negotiating position and the prying

:13:19.:13:22.

point is to not put yourself in a position of weakness. Do not put

:13:23.:13:24.

yourself in a position of weakness with the European Union who are on

:13:25.:13:31.

the whole honourable people and want what is in the interest of the

:13:32.:13:34.

continent of Europe and it's not a good idea for the government to put

:13:35.:13:37.

themselves in a position of weakness with the new president of the United

:13:38.:13:42.

States who will take every possible advantage from an opponent he senses

:13:43.:13:46.

as he will sense is negotiating from a position of weakness. In

:13:47.:13:54.

conclusion, I would argue strongly for the new clause and the

:13:55.:13:58.

amendments we put down. To secure the position at the end of the

:13:59.:14:03.

negotiations before we embark on something which is going to leave

:14:04.:14:08.

this house not just with a bad Deal or no Deal, but with the

:14:09.:14:11.

metaphorical gun pointed at its head when it comes to address these

:14:12.:14:18.

serious questions. We have to know the end position before we embark on

:14:19.:14:25.

the fundamentally dangerous course. John Redwood. Thank you, I agree

:14:26.:14:29.

fully with the right honourable member for Gordon that we should not

:14:30.:14:34.

wish to do anything which weakens or undermines the British are

:14:35.:14:36.

bargaining position and that all the efforts of this house as we try to

:14:37.:14:43.

knit together should be designed to maximise the leverage as a newly

:14:44.:14:49.

independent nation and securing the best possible future relationship

:14:50.:14:52.

with our partners in the European Union which is why I find myself in

:14:53.:14:57.

disagreement with many of the well-intentioned amendments before

:14:58.:15:00.

us today. I think they are all trying to undermine or damage the UK

:15:01.:15:07.

negotiating position, maybe inadvertently. One of my honourable

:15:08.:15:11.

friend says nonsense, let me explain why it is dangerous if some of these

:15:12.:15:20.

amendments were adopted. We are invited to believe that if the House

:15:21.:15:24.

of Commons decided it did not like the deal which the government had

:15:25.:15:27.

negotiated for our future relationship with the EU and voted

:15:28.:15:31.

it down the rest of the EU would turn around and say sorry and offer

:15:32.:15:37.

us a better deal. I just don't think it's practical politics, I don't

:15:38.:15:41.

understand how they believe that is going to happen. What could happen

:15:42.:15:44.

is that those in the rest of the EU who want to keep the EU and her

:15:45.:15:49.

contributions in the EU might think it was a good idea to offer a very

:15:50.:15:53.

poor deal to try to tempt Parliament into voting the deal down so that

:15:54.:15:57.

then there was no Deal at all which might suit their particular agenda.

:15:58.:16:03.

Why is he so worried about the House of Commons INAUDIBLE

:16:04.:16:08.

? Isn't it right and proper we have a choice, informed or otherwise? I

:16:09.:16:16.

am supporting the government offering the house vote and the

:16:17.:16:19.

government cannot neither house a vote of the house wants to vote, the

:16:20.:16:24.

house will vote. But it's important that those who want to go further

:16:25.:16:29.

and press the government even more should understand it could be, let

:16:30.:16:33.

me deal with one point at a time, it could be deeply damaging to the

:16:34.:16:37.

United Kingdom negotiating position and is based on a completely unreal

:16:38.:16:42.

view of how multinational negotiations go when a country is

:16:43.:16:47.

leaving the European Union. I find it disappointing that those

:16:48.:16:49.

passionate advocates of the European Union in this house who have many

:16:50.:16:53.

fine contacts and networks across the continent and access to the

:16:54.:16:59.

councils and wisdom of our European partners make no contribution to

:17:00.:17:03.

these debates at all in the form of explaining to us more about the

:17:04.:17:07.

attitudes of the other member states, what the weaknesses of their

:17:08.:17:10.

negotiating position is and what their aims are in the negotiation,

:17:11.:17:14.

to better inform the government position so we can do better for

:17:15.:17:20.

them and for us. I give way. Making an articulate case as ever about the

:17:21.:17:24.

dangers of a vote at the end of the process but could he explain why on

:17:25.:17:30.

November 20, 2012 in a very interesting blogger post entitled

:17:31.:17:36.

the double referendum on the EU, he advocated a second referendum with

:17:37.:17:40.

the following question, do you want to accept the new negotiated

:17:41.:17:44.

relationship with the EU or not? How on earth and why on earth has he

:17:45.:17:49.

changed his mind since then? I do not disagree with that at all, I am

:17:50.:17:53.

happy to have a vote on whether the new Deal is worth accepting or not

:17:54.:17:57.

but that is within the context of leaving the European Union. I agree

:17:58.:18:01.

with the Prime Minister that no deal is better than a bad deal and if the

:18:02.:18:05.

best the government can do is a bad deal and might well want to vote

:18:06.:18:08.

against that deal in favour of leaving without a deal and that is

:18:09.:18:12.

exactly the choice which government ministers are offering this house.

:18:13.:18:17.

It's a realistic choice, a democratic choice. It is no choice

:18:18.:18:22.

to pretend that the house can rerun the referendum in this pulpit and

:18:23.:18:26.

fought to stay in the EU. We will send the article 50 letter, the

:18:27.:18:32.

public have voted to leave so if this house voted to stay in what

:18:33.:18:35.

significance does that have and why should the member states turn around

:18:36.:18:37.

and agree? I give way. Wouldn't it be better to delay

:18:38.:18:46.

Article 50 until after the new German Government is elected in

:18:47.:18:49.

October and the French in May because we've only got two years and

:18:50.:18:53.

then we would have the power of time of the negotiation and the power of

:18:54.:18:57.

being a member rather than giving it in and finally going back to his

:18:58.:19:03.

former position, if we offered a referendum of the people before

:19:04.:19:07.

Article 50 was triggered they would think perhaps we may stay in and

:19:08.:19:10.

therefore, would come to the table before Article 50 was triggered. The

:19:11.:19:18.

issue is the future relationship and I think this House is capable of

:19:19.:19:23.

dealing with whether we accept the future relationship with the

:19:24.:19:25.

Government which has negotiated or not, but the point that the

:19:26.:19:30.

Opposition amendments and many of the Opposition MPs are missing is

:19:31.:19:34.

that it is the case that once you have sent the Article 50 letter you

:19:35.:19:38.

have notified your intention to leave and after two years if there

:19:39.:19:42.

is no agreement we are out of the European Union. And the Right

:19:43.:19:47.

Honourable gentleman raised the issue of is it irrevocable? He

:19:48.:19:51.

didn't give his own answer to that. I find it disappointing that the SNP

:19:52.:19:56.

who take a strong interest in these proceedings have no party view on

:19:57.:20:02.

whether it is irry vokcable or not? I accept the testimony of the

:20:03.:20:07.

Attorney-General and the noble lord who was the advocate for the remain

:20:08.:20:11.

side in the Supreme Court case that it is irry vokcable and the House

:20:12.:20:14.

has to take its decision in the light of that. And as far as I'm

:20:15.:20:19.

concerned, it is irrevocable for another democratic reason and that

:20:20.:20:23.

is that the public was told they were making the decision about

:20:24.:20:25.

whether we stay in or leave the European Union. And 52% of the

:20:26.:20:31.

public, if not others, are expecting this House to deliver their wishes.

:20:32.:20:35.

That was what ministers told this House when we passed the referendum

:20:36.:20:40.

Act. That is what every voter in the country was told by a leaflet at our

:20:41.:20:46.

expense sent by the Government to that you the people are making the

:20:47.:20:50.

decision and so this House rightly, when it was under the Supreme

:20:51.:20:53.

Court's guidance given the opportunity to have a specific vote

:20:54.:20:57.

on this matter, over whether we send the letter to leave the European

:20:58.:21:03.

Union, it voted by a majority of 384 with just the SNP and a few others

:21:04.:21:07.

in disagreement because it fully understood that this was a decision

:21:08.:21:12.

the British people had already taken and it fully understood this House

:21:13.:21:15.

of Commons has to do their bidding. I give way. I thank the Right

:21:16.:21:21.

Honourable member. Isn't he assuming that all of the people in Europe

:21:22.:21:27.

that we have been negotiating with are add var series which is perhaps

:21:28.:21:32.

the wrong standing point to take. Isn't it the case that a vote, a

:21:33.:21:37.

meaningful vote on the substance of any deal my equally focus the

:21:38.:21:41.

Government's mind on what it can sell to this House and unite this

:21:42.:21:44.

House and the people we represent in a very divided country.

:21:45.:21:49.

Well, he has won that argue. We are going to have a vote on whether we

:21:50.:21:53.

accept the deal or not. I hope it works out well. My criticism is not

:21:54.:21:57.

of the Government decision to make that offer. I think it was a very

:21:58.:22:00.

good offer to make in the circumstances the my criticism was

:22:01.:22:05.

and is of those members who do not understand that constantly seeking

:22:06.:22:11.

to undermine expose alleged weaknesses and do damage to the

:22:12.:22:14.

United Kingdom case is not helpful and it would be very helpful because

:22:15.:22:20.

many of them have talent and expertise from their many links with

:22:21.:22:23.

the EU to do more talking about how we can meet the reasonable

:22:24.:22:27.

objectives of the EU and deal with the unreasonable objectives that

:22:28.:22:30.

some in the Commission and some member states hold. I give way to

:22:31.:22:34.

the former leader of the SNP. The position is, despite the right hon

:22:35.:22:42.

Raja's certainty about irrevok kabletity. The Right Honourable

:22:43.:22:48.

member to his right-hand side former Attorney-General is not sure, but

:22:49.:22:52.

doesn't agree with the honourable gentleman and the minister, the

:22:53.:22:56.

Brexit minister doesn't know. Does this remind you of a certain

:22:57.:23:00.

question in European history where one mass mad and one was dead and

:23:01.:23:07.

the other had forgotten. Is that the basis on which the Right Honourable

:23:08.:23:12.

gentleman wants to take us over a cliff edge? I note that the SNP

:23:13.:23:22.

hasn't a clue and doesn't want to specify whether it is irrevocable or

:23:23.:23:28.

not. Can I just remind him that the

:23:29.:23:32.

Supreme Court did not rule on the matter.

:23:33.:23:36.

It clearly did rule on the matter because the reason it found against

:23:37.:23:43.

the Government was because they deemed it to be irrevocable.

:23:44.:23:53.

On this supreme red herring it doesn't matter whether the ECJ think

:23:54.:23:59.

Article 50 is irrevocable or not, the British people have determined

:24:00.:24:06.

that it is an irrevocable decision. I think that was a helpful

:24:07.:24:11.

intervention. This legal wrangle is fascinating how those who wish to

:24:12.:24:15.

resist or delay or cancel our departure from the EU are now

:24:16.:24:20.

flipping their legal arguments since three or four weeks ago when they

:24:21.:24:26.

were clear it was irrevocable. He is a man of coverage and he has a

:24:27.:24:31.

long fine history of supporting sovereignty of this place. He says

:24:32.:24:35.

that the Government is going to give us a vote in the event of a deal.

:24:36.:24:40.

But why doesn't he agree with us, me, whoever, over here and indeed

:24:41.:24:46.

over there, who want the same vote, sovereignty of this place in the

:24:47.:24:52.

event of no deal being struck by the Government despite their finalest

:24:53.:24:56.

efforts? That's the vote we have on second reading of this Bill. If you

:24:57.:25:01.

are at all worried about leaving the EU, you should clearly not have

:25:02.:25:05.

voted for this Bill on second reading. And that's the point of the

:25:06.:25:11.

irrevocable debate. I give way. Can I just clarify and take him back

:25:12.:25:17.

to his comments on his blog post in November 2012 when he argued in

:25:18.:25:21.

favour of a referendum at the beginning of the process and at the

:25:22.:25:25.

end. He just said he didn't think there should be a referendum on

:25:26.:25:28.

whether we should leave the European Union. However, he did not

:25:29.:25:32.

therefore, exclude his view perhaps still being that there should be a

:25:33.:25:35.

referendum on the terms of the deal. Will he clarify whether he thinks

:25:36.:25:38.

the people should have the final say?

:25:39.:25:42.

No, I don't think on this occasion, 2012 is 2012 and we were trying all

:25:43.:25:46.

sorts of things to try and get us out of the European Union and we

:25:47.:25:49.

found one that worked and I'm grateful that we found one that

:25:50.:25:52.

worked and now is now and you have to speak to the current conditions

:25:53.:25:59.

and the state of the argument. It depends on what the two options

:26:00.:26:03.

are. The honourable gentleman over to the other side of the House is

:26:04.:26:07.

clear, his choices are you accept the deal or you stay in the European

:26:08.:26:11.

Union. Although I was on the Remain side of the argument, there was an

:26:12.:26:14.

unconditional question on that ballot paper. It said leave or

:26:15.:26:17.

remain. My side of the argument lost. I accept that. We are leaving.

:26:18.:26:23.

He really wants to re-run the referendum all over again and I

:26:24.:26:29.

don't think that's acceptable. My final point is I do think people

:26:30.:26:34.

are trying to make the negotiations far more complicated and long-winded

:26:35.:26:39.

than we need. Because of the Prime Minister's admirable clarity and the

:26:40.:26:43.

12 points we don't need to negotiate borders, money, taking back control

:26:44.:26:49.

and sorting out our own laws and getting rid of ECJ jurisdiction.

:26:50.:26:53.

That's mandated by the British people and that's something we do.

:26:54.:26:55.

What we are going to be negotiating is just two things. One is there any

:26:56.:26:59.

Bill at the end of it when we leave that we have to pay? May answer is

:27:00.:27:04.

simply no, of course, there isn't. There is no legal power in the

:27:05.:27:09.

treaties to charge Britain by bill and there is no legal power for any

:27:10.:27:13.

minister to make a payment to the EU over and above the legal payment of

:27:14.:27:17.

our contributions up to the date of our exit and the other thing that

:27:18.:27:21.

the Government needs to sort out is, our future trading relationship with

:27:22.:27:25.

the European Union where we will offer them the generous offer let's

:27:26.:27:29.

carry on as we are and register it as a Free Trade Agreement. If they

:27:30.:27:33.

don't like that, most favoured nation terms under the WTO is fine.

:27:34.:27:37.

That's how we trade with the rest of the world. Very successfully at a

:27:38.:27:42.

profit, at the moment, and so they should relax understand it could be

:27:43.:27:48.

a lot easer why and there will not be economic damage. The Government

:27:49.:27:53.

has taken an admirable position and it made wonderful concessions to the

:27:54.:27:56.

other side and I hope they will accept them because they have had an

:27:57.:28:02.

impact on this issue. I'd like to speak to new clauses 28,

:28:03.:28:07.

54 and 99 standing in my name and that of other honourable and Right

:28:08.:28:13.

Honourable colleagues. New clause 28 is about the sequencing of votes on

:28:14.:28:18.

final terms. It's the issue on which we've had a concession this

:28:19.:28:23.

afternoon from the minister. New clause 54 is about how to secure

:28:24.:28:27.

extra time if we need it in our negotiations with the EU and new

:28:28.:28:33.

clause 99 embeds Parliamentary sovereignty in the process. I was

:28:34.:28:40.

disappointed, I'm pleased to follow the honourable member for Wokingham,

:28:41.:28:45.

but I was disappointed that he didn't come clean to the House on

:28:46.:28:51.

the fact that he has alternative an alternative Parliamentary process

:28:52.:28:54.

which he hopes to use to secure the kind of Brexit he wants. He has not

:28:55.:28:59.

referred to another blog which he has written recently in which he

:29:00.:29:02.

wrote, "Being in the EU is a bit like being a student in a college.

:29:03.:29:06.

All the time you belong to the college you have to pay fees. When

:29:07.:29:11.

you depart, you have no further financial obligations. ." ." Putting

:29:12.:29:23.

that to one side, he has not read the excellent paper by Alex Barker

:29:24.:29:27.

of the Financial Times which points out the obligations that we will

:29:28.:29:35.

fall into three categories, legally binding budget commitments and

:29:36.:29:37.

contingent liabilities which indeed are arguable. I'm going to make a

:29:38.:29:45.

little bit more progress. What the honourable member for Wokingham has

:29:46.:29:49.

also pointed out and he's right about this, ministers can only

:29:50.:29:53.

authorise spending and sign cheques with Parliamentary approval. He's

:29:54.:29:57.

right about that. And it's right that we should have that say, but,

:29:58.:30:02.

of course, what it means is that he's hoping that he can use that

:30:03.:30:08.

moment to veto the withdrawal arrangements and scupper the kind of

:30:09.:30:13.

future relationship which might be more constructive and more

:30:14.:30:22.

productive. In second reading, the honourable member said like all

:30:23.:30:27.

divorces it will be a trade off between access and money, but for

:30:28.:30:32.

the honourable member for Wokingham and his friends, there isn't a trade

:30:33.:30:36.

off, he doesn't want access and he doesn't want money either. Now, if I

:30:37.:30:42.

can just return to new clause 54 which calls for extra time.

:30:43.:30:49.

Honourable members have raised the need for extra time if Parliament

:30:50.:30:55.

has declined the final terms. One in which the Government has not managed

:30:56.:31:00.

to complete the negotiations within 24 hours specified in Article 50.

:31:01.:31:05.

This is more likely than not. Almost everyone who has looked at this

:31:06.:31:10.

matter in detail is incredulous at the idea that we can complete the

:31:11.:31:14.

negotiations in 24 months. The record for completing trade deals is

:31:15.:31:18.

not good and there are many more strands to this negotiation. It

:31:19.:31:25.

would be patently absurd to flip to a damaging situation without an

:31:26.:31:29.

agreement if we could see once we got into the negotiations and we

:31:30.:31:34.

have the detailed work schedule that a further six or 12 months would

:31:35.:31:38.

bring us to a successful conclusion. Similarly, it's possible that the

:31:39.:31:44.

minister's optimism is well founded, but the while the negotiation have

:31:45.:31:47.

been completed the Parliamentary process hasn't and in that instance

:31:48.:31:55.

too we ought to have extra time. New clause 99 addresses a different

:31:56.:31:59.

matter. It embeds Parliamentary sovereignty in the approval of the

:32:00.:32:04.

final terms of withdrawal. It ensures that the UK with draws on

:32:05.:32:10.

terms approved by Parliament. This was a major plank of the Brexit

:32:11.:32:15.

campaign bringing back control and restoring Parliamentary sovereignty.

:32:16.:32:19.

New clause 99 is the fulfilment of that promise, the working out in

:32:20.:32:24.

practise of what was promised. The Prime Minister has already said that

:32:25.:32:27.

Parliament should have a vote at the end of the process. New clause 99

:32:28.:32:34.

strengthens that promise by requiring primary legislation to

:32:35.:32:39.

give effect to any agreement on arrangements for withdrawal and even

:32:40.:32:41.

more importantly, on the future relationship. This is important as

:32:42.:32:47.

it means Parliament does not just have to give a metaphorical

:32:48.:32:50.

thumbs-up which as my Right Honourable friend the member has

:32:51.:32:57.

said could be meaningless. Instead, Parliament can undertake line by

:32:58.:33:04.

line scrutiny. Brexit has major constitutional political economic

:33:05.:33:07.

and social consequences. It is right that Parliament approves the way it

:33:08.:33:09.

is done. Article 50 paragraph one states that

:33:10.:33:28.

a member state may decide to withdraw from the union in

:33:29.:33:31.

accordance with its own constitutional requirements. The

:33:32.:33:37.

Supreme Court said in their judgment withdrawal makes a fundamental

:33:38.:33:42.

change to the UK's constitutional arrangements. The UK constitution

:33:43.:33:48.

requires such changes to be affected by Parliamentary legislation. In

:33:49.:33:51.

line with the Supreme Court judgment new clause 99 in Parliamentary

:33:52.:33:56.

approval as a constitutional requirement which the EU must

:33:57.:34:04.

respect. New clause 99 also deals with the issue raised by the

:34:05.:34:07.

Honourable member at the beginning of the debate, what we do in the

:34:08.:34:16.

absence of any agreement. Either the Prime Minister's negotiations will

:34:17.:34:18.

succeed in reaching a satisfactory conclusion or they will not. New

:34:19.:34:25.

clause 99 provides for both scenarios. Legislation in the second

:34:26.:34:30.

as well as the first. So that Parliament is in control and decides

:34:31.:34:35.

the basis for leaving. The new clause does not block Brexit, it

:34:36.:34:40.

does not slow down the negotiations, I voted to give the Bill a second

:34:41.:34:45.

reading, my constituents are Leave voters, this is about Parliament

:34:46.:34:50.

having sovereign control over the process. I am grateful for tabling

:34:51.:34:58.

and speaking to this amendment, I think it's very important in terms

:34:59.:35:01.

of the concerns expressed on all sides of the house about the

:35:02.:35:07.

so-called concession offered early, can she confirmed she will push her

:35:08.:35:12.

amendment to the vote? I may wish to test the will of the house on this

:35:13.:35:16.

new clause when we come to the end of the debate. I think most rational

:35:17.:35:25.

people would say the new relationship is more important than

:35:26.:35:33.

the terms of withdrawal. She said a moment ago that new clause 99 does

:35:34.:35:38.

not seek to delay our derail the leaving process. In the event of

:35:39.:35:43.

section B of her new clause coming about, namely no deal, if Parliament

:35:44.:35:48.

voted against it doesn't be effective new clause 99 clearly mean

:35:49.:35:54.

that we would actually stop the process of leaving and thereby deny

:35:55.:35:59.

the effect of the referendum? I do not think it does mean that and I

:36:00.:36:02.

think that depends on whether extra time had been agreed with the

:36:03.:36:08.

European Union or not. I think if he refers back to article 50 he will

:36:09.:36:12.

see that we may get an extension of the other member states agree to

:36:13.:36:17.

give us that unanimously. They may, they may not. As we stand here today

:36:18.:36:24.

it's quite difficult to project ourselves forward into the situation

:36:25.:36:32.

we will find in two years' time. Doubly grateful, but doesn't she

:36:33.:36:36.

agree that in the event they do not give us extra time by mutual

:36:37.:36:39.

agreement and in the event that Parliament has rejected withdraw

:36:40.:36:43.

without an agreement, then the effect of section B of her new

:36:44.:36:47.

clause is very clearly that the referendum result will be negated by

:36:48.:36:50.

Parliament and doesn't that go against what she is voting for? I

:36:51.:36:56.

don't think it does because it allows open the possibility of the

:36:57.:37:00.

government going back to the drawing board and making a further new

:37:01.:37:09.

arrangement. But as I say, I think for us now, when we have not

:37:10.:37:12.

embarked on this, when we don't know what the deals are, it's extremely

:37:13.:37:20.

difficult... Isn't it the case and that she agree with me that many of

:37:21.:37:26.

the other 27 countries will be going to their Parliament's for approval,

:37:27.:37:31.

for their approach to these negotiations and surely it would

:37:32.:37:35.

strengthen our government's hand if the government involved themselves

:37:36.:37:38.

in a process within this Parliament that could maximise the support

:37:39.:37:44.

coming on all sides of the house for the government's approach and why

:37:45.:37:51.

isn't that seen as a strength? I could not agree more, we know Angela

:37:52.:37:55.

Merkel has to get parliamentary mandate for the way she conducts

:37:56.:38:00.

herself in all her negotiations in the European Union and some of us

:38:01.:38:04.

have tried over the years to improve the quality of our European

:38:05.:38:08.

scrutiny. But it seems we are now only focusing it when we are about

:38:09.:38:18.

to leave. I am grateful, assuming the house agrees this amendment, and

:38:19.:38:23.

we do trickle Article 50 on the 31st of March and we do vote against the

:38:24.:38:28.

deal and the commission and the European Parliament say sorry that

:38:29.:38:32.

the deal you have, like it or lump it, what can we do about it? They

:38:33.:38:37.

don't care, we haven't got these powers to stop them imposing the

:38:38.:38:41.

deal they want to put on us once we've triggered Article 50. I think

:38:42.:38:47.

what the Honourable gentleman is arguing is the same as the

:38:48.:38:50.

Honourable member for walking, that Article 50 is irrevocable. If you

:38:51.:39:03.

look at Article 50 paragraph three you will see it says unless the

:39:04.:39:06.

European Council in agreement with the member states unanimously decide

:39:07.:39:10.

to extend the period, this can happen. It will depend on how the

:39:11.:39:17.

negotiations are undertaken, where we have got to and on the torn. --

:39:18.:39:25.

on the torn. The Treaty of Lisbon sets out the term, whether it is

:39:26.:39:35.

irrevocable or not is down to the weakness of the Treaty of Lisbon.

:39:36.:39:39.

But some of the best deals reached in the EU have been at the 11th hour

:39:40.:39:43.

and the one thing which will concentrate the minds of all

:39:44.:39:46.

involved in these negotiations are the fact they had to happen by March

:39:47.:39:55.

2019 or it will go on and on and on? Well, I don't think the threat of

:39:56.:40:01.

the cliff edge is a positive in these negotiations. And I note the

:40:02.:40:05.

Chancellor of the Exchequer has described this as a second-best

:40:06.:40:09.

option and the white paper also says that crashing out is a second-best

:40:10.:40:15.

option. Actually I think it's the worst option. What new clause 99

:40:16.:40:20.

does is to level up the playing field so as well as having the vote

:40:21.:40:24.

on the withdrawal terms and the money we will also be able to have

:40:25.:40:31.

detailed scrutiny for this house on the future relationship. I have

:40:32.:40:35.

consulted my constituents on the Brexit they want. They do not want

:40:36.:40:40.

the cliff edge option, there are all sorts of things about Europe which

:40:41.:40:45.

they light even though it was a majority leave voting constituency.

:40:46.:40:50.

They like the customs union, the social chapter, cooperation and

:40:51.:40:53.

collaboration. They particularly like the arrest warrant. Indeed. She

:40:54.:41:02.

says she would like collaboration and supporting the government is

:41:03.:41:05.

negotiation, does she think it's a good idea in a negotiation to say we

:41:06.:41:10.

think we owe you a lot of money, tell us how much or is it better to

:41:11.:41:13.

say I don't think we owe you anything. My experience of

:41:14.:41:20.

negotiating is that one of the most important thing is that we

:41:21.:41:22.

understand what the people on the other side of the table thank and I

:41:23.:41:27.

think that's absolutely profound to making a success of this. It's not

:41:28.:41:31.

to say we are going to give the person on the other side of the

:41:32.:41:34.

table everything they want but we do need to be open to listening to what

:41:35.:41:43.

they want as we go forward. Going back to a point about the different

:41:44.:41:47.

approaches the European states adopted a negotiation, my

:41:48.:41:50.

understanding, I am not a lawyer so I hesitate in the face of such

:41:51.:41:55.

eminent legal presence in this chamber, but isn't it because in

:41:56.:42:00.

countries like Germany where they have a legal culture where when they

:42:01.:42:02.

make treaties they are directly applicable without further

:42:03.:42:10.

legislation, but we have to legislate things into effect so is

:42:11.:42:14.

that why they take a tougher approach for the authorise things

:42:15.:42:17.

because once the government has signed up to the treaty it

:42:18.:42:21.

automatically becomes law? I don't think this is an opportunity for a

:42:22.:42:25.

seminar on the political institutions of the Federal

:42:26.:42:31.

Republic. What I think is that new clause 99 is about embedding what is

:42:32.:42:37.

basic to the British constitution as bound by the Supreme Court which is

:42:38.:42:42.

parliamentary sovereignty throughout the process. In the end the

:42:43.:42:48.

referendum was about trust. It was about the kind of settlement that

:42:49.:42:53.

most voters want. I know what kind of Brexit deal my voters want, I

:42:54.:42:59.

think new clause 99 is the best way to give it to them. Thank you ladies

:43:00.:43:07.

and gentlemen. I hope the house will allow me to just mention the fact

:43:08.:43:12.

that today is indeed the 7th of February which is 25 years to the

:43:13.:43:16.

day from the signing of that fateful Maastricht Treaty and I am glad, I

:43:17.:43:23.

see my right honourable friend looking over at me with a wry smile

:43:24.:43:28.

on his face because of course I don't doubt for a minute he will

:43:29.:43:33.

recall he once said, I hope I am not mistaken, that he had not read the

:43:34.:43:37.

treaty but maybe he never said anything of the kind. I would be

:43:38.:43:42.

more than happy to accept that. But I did eventually put down that

:43:43.:43:47.

something like a or so amendments and I voted against it 47 or 50

:43:48.:43:56.

times. I have to say I am not going to vote against this under any

:43:57.:44:00.

circumstances whatsoever and indeed it's the first occasion in relation

:44:01.:44:06.

to any European legislation since 1986 which included the single

:44:07.:44:10.

European act where I put down a sovereignty amendment and I was not

:44:11.:44:16.

even allowed to have it selected for debate which I found very difficult

:44:17.:44:19.

to accept that the time. But the reality is we are now, we have moved

:44:20.:44:26.

well ahead, we have now had a referendum which was accepted by 6-1

:44:27.:44:34.

in this house. We have also had a vote on this very bill which was

:44:35.:44:40.

passed by 498, 500 if you include the tellers, to 114 to agree the

:44:41.:44:51.

principal of this bill. That is why I now move onto the next question, I

:44:52.:44:57.

would like to make this other point that when I look at these new

:44:58.:45:02.

clauses and I think in deference to other people who wish to speak,

:45:03.:45:06.

going through the intricacies of these vast number of new clauses is

:45:07.:45:10.

not going to help us very much. For a very simple reason that the bottom

:45:11.:45:16.

line is that it would effectively give a veto to override the result

:45:17.:45:21.

of a referendum. It's as simple as that. I would be happy to. Did he

:45:22.:45:29.

not just say he had put down 150 amendments of his own back? Surely

:45:30.:45:33.

he is diffusing his own argument? The whole point of this places to

:45:34.:45:37.

challenge other point of principle things we don't believe in and that

:45:38.:45:40.

is what we are trying to do and he should be supporting us. I am so

:45:41.:45:44.

glad that the honourable lady has made that point because of course

:45:45.:45:50.

the difference between what I was doing in those days and what is

:45:51.:45:55.

happening now is that we were actually arguing against the

:45:56.:45:59.

government's policy to implement European government which is what

:46:00.:46:02.

the Maastricht treaty said and which by the way the electorate in the

:46:03.:46:09.

referendum have now accepted. And the second point is that we were

:46:10.:46:13.

arguing for a referendum which we've now got. So my amendments were

:46:14.:46:16.

moving in the right direction in line with what the government have

:46:17.:46:24.

now agreed and what the people themselves have also agreed. I will

:46:25.:46:33.

give way. Clearly enjoying his day in the sun. I did not vote for the

:46:34.:46:37.

referendum legislation like the right honourable member, but could

:46:38.:46:41.

he tell us of his 40 years of campaigning what regard he has had

:46:42.:46:46.

to the two thirds of people who when he started actually voted for the UK

:46:47.:46:51.

to remain in the European Union? I can only say that in our democratic

:46:52.:46:57.

system when 6-1 of this house and the House of Lords as well vote in

:46:58.:47:00.

favour of a referendum by sovereign act of Parliament and give the

:47:01.:47:03.

people in his constituency as well as in mine, not to mention

:47:04.:47:08.

Stoke-on-Trent on which there is going to be quite an interesting

:47:09.:47:12.

test in a few days' time, that the fact is that the decision was given

:47:13.:47:17.

to those people by act of Parliament and they made that choice to leave.

:47:18.:47:22.

That is definitive and I do not see any purpose I have to say and I am

:47:23.:47:28.

not going to waste time on some of the intricate arguments we have

:47:29.:47:32.

heard so far, many of which I think are going round in circles. The

:47:33.:47:36.

question is do we implement the decision of the United Kingdom or

:47:37.:47:40.

not, the answer is that we do and we must and that was conceded by this

:47:41.:47:49.

house and all, almost everybody, I say with great respect to my right

:47:50.:47:52.

honourable friend who did not, but the bottom line is we are giving

:47:53.:47:57.

effect to the decision of the United Kingdom electorate.

:47:58.:48:03.

He himself was one of these two-thirds back in 1975 when he

:48:04.:48:11.

voted for the European Community. So all of these years he was

:48:12.:48:14.

campaigning against the sovereignty against that decision and indeed he

:48:15.:48:18.

was campaigning against his own sovereignty and against his own

:48:19.:48:21.

decision! That's politics! As the honourable

:48:22.:48:25.

gentleman knows only too well because he has a similar experience

:48:26.:48:29.

with respect to his position with regard to Scotland. So the bottom

:48:30.:48:42.

line is this, we are faced with a simple decision which is going to be

:48:43.:48:47.

decided at a vote later today. I imagine. It maybe it will be p nart

:48:48.:48:53.

tomorrow as well and then there will be a third reading and all these

:48:54.:48:58.

attempts in my judgment to produce different versions of delay will

:48:59.:49:03.

effectively, I hope, be overridden by the vote that's taken by this

:49:04.:49:07.

House as a whole in line with a decision that was taken by the

:49:08.:49:10.

British people which is the right way to proceed. I would just like to

:49:11.:49:14.

add one other point though with respect to the Bill itself. I'm in

:49:15.:49:21.

no way criticising the selection of amendments because I think it is

:49:22.:49:25.

entirely right that we should have an opportunity to look at a variety

:49:26.:49:30.

of perm tass before that vote is cast, but I have to remind the House

:49:31.:49:37.

that this Bill, which was passed by 498 to 114 simply says to confer

:49:38.:49:44.

power on the Prime Minister to notify under Article 50 of the

:49:45.:49:48.

treaty and European Union, the United Kingdom's intention as

:49:49.:49:52.

expressed by the referendum itself, to withdraw from the EU. And clause

:49:53.:50:01.

1 simply says and no more, "The Prime Minister may notify under

:50:02.:50:07.

Article 50 (2) on the treaty of the European Union the United Kingdom's

:50:08.:50:11.

intention to withdraw interest the EU. It goes on to say to put this

:50:12.:50:19.

matter to bed in case anyone tries to argue this could be overridden by

:50:20.:50:24.

some other European Union gambit. This section which we've passed

:50:25.:50:30.

already in principle has effect despite any provision made by or

:50:31.:50:35.

under the community Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment. In

:50:36.:50:42.

other words nothing is to stand in its way about which emulates from

:50:43.:50:46.

the European Union and that's a very simple proposition and this Bill is

:50:47.:50:52.

short because it should be short. I would like to make this last point

:50:53.:50:56.

and that's to look back at what the Supreme Court said. The Supreme

:50:57.:51:02.

Court made a judgment on one simple question - should it be by

:51:03.:51:06.

prerogative that we express this intention to withdraw and notify

:51:07.:51:11.

under Article 50 or should it be Bill? There was a big battle. Many

:51:12.:51:16.

people took differing views. We respect the outcome of the Supreme

:51:17.:51:20.

Court's decision and that is why we've got this Bill. The fact is

:51:21.:51:27.

that that is final. But in paragraphs 2 and 3 of that very

:51:28.:51:34.

judgment the court itself made it clear what this Bill was meant to be

:51:35.:51:38.

about and it was whether it should be by Bill or prerogative and they

:51:39.:51:42.

said by Bill. What they also added and these are my last words for the

:51:43.:51:46.

moment on this subject and it's this - they said it was about one

:51:47.:51:51.

particular issue and that's the one I mentioned. They then said it has

:51:52.:51:55.

nothing to do with the terms of withdrawal. It has nothing to do

:51:56.:52:00.

with the method. It has nothing to do the timing and it has nothing to

:52:01.:52:03.

do with the relationship between ourselves and the European Union. A

:52:04.:52:11.

new clause 1 spends its entire wordage going into the very

:52:12.:52:15.

questions the Supreme Court said this decision was not about. So this

:52:16.:52:22.

new clause and the other ones are all inconsistent both with the

:52:23.:52:25.

Supreme Court decision, also with the decisions that were taken on the

:52:26.:52:31.

second reading of the Bill, of course... Point of order. Surely new

:52:32.:52:44.

clause 1 which we're debating is in order or we wouldn't be debating it?

:52:45.:52:55.

This is a matter for the chair. I'm sure it is in order, the problem is

:52:56.:53:00.

whether we vote for it or not of the and there is extremely good reasons

:53:01.:53:06.

for not doing so. In addition, every single element of new clause 1 and

:53:07.:53:11.

the other amendments are all designed and these are all

:53:12.:53:15.

honourable people, all honourable gentlemen on both sides of the

:53:16.:53:17.

House, some of them are Right Honourable. I simply make this point

:53:18.:53:21.

that they know perfectly well what they're doing. They're trying to

:53:22.:53:25.

delay, obstruct and prevent this Bill from going through and I say

:53:26.:53:33.

shame on you. Thank you very much. An honour to

:53:34.:53:41.

follow the honourable gentleman who has fought his corner for 40 odd

:53:42.:53:46.

years. I intend to fight mine, but not for as long as that. I beg to

:53:47.:53:52.

move in the name of my Right Honourable. Amendment 43 concerns

:53:53.:53:58.

democracy at the end of this process as well as the beginning of it. It

:53:59.:54:01.

would require the Prime Minister to look at the overwhelming case for a

:54:02.:54:05.

people's vote on the final exit package that this Government

:54:06.:54:09.

neglects with Brussels after triggering Article 50. On 23rd June

:54:10.:54:14.

last year, a narrow majority voted to leave the European Union although

:54:15.:54:19.

I deeply regret that outcome, I am a democrat, I accept it, but voting

:54:20.:54:24.

for departure is not the same as voting for destination. So now, the

:54:25.:54:30.

Government should give the British people a decision referendum to be

:54:31.:54:33.

held when the EU negotiation is concluded. Now, I will admit that

:54:34.:54:39.

mandate referendum and decision referendums are not phrases that I

:54:40.:54:43.

have used before in this context. Because they're not really my words

:54:44.:54:48.

at all. They are the words used by the current Secretary of State for

:54:49.:54:51.

Exiting the European Union who himself made the case very

:54:52.:54:56.

eloquently in 2012 for the Liberal Democrat policy today for there to

:54:57.:55:01.

be a referendum on the deal at the end of the process. I will happily

:55:02.:55:04.

give way. On 11th May of last year, that this

:55:05.:55:10.

was a once in a generation decision, was he doing straightforward with

:55:11.:55:15.

voters? The Government is intending it to be a once in a generation

:55:16.:55:22.

opportunity as the honourable peb has proved. Sometimes you have to

:55:23.:55:27.

fight for two generations or the thing thaw believe in. If you have

:55:28.:55:31.

the courage of your convictions then you keep going. Can I quote the

:55:32.:55:37.

Brexit Secretary directly? I would not want to para phrase or risk

:55:38.:55:42.

misquoting him. To quote him directly, the aim of this strategy a

:55:43.:55:47.

strategy of two referendums on a mandate referendum and a decision

:55:48.:55:51.

referendum is to give the British people the final say. But it is also

:55:52.:55:58.

to massively reinforce the legitimacy and negotiating power of

:55:59.:56:00.

the British negotiating team. I don't think I'll say this all that

:56:01.:56:09.

often during this process, but I completely and utterly agree with

:56:10.:56:12.

the Brexit Secretary and indeed as we have learned earlier on, that

:56:13.:56:18.

those words were endorsed the following day on his blog by the

:56:19.:56:23.

member for Wokingham who we have discovered didn't really mean it. He

:56:24.:56:27.

was just saying it at the time as a ruse.

:56:28.:56:34.

Can I tell him why he's wrong in this matter? If we were to give on

:56:35.:56:39.

the face of the Bill a second referendum at this stage that would

:56:40.:56:45.

tie the hands of negotiators. We could only be offered a bad deal

:56:46.:56:48.

because it would be in the hands of the people we were negotiating with

:56:49.:56:52.

to drive the British people to reject it and it would be a failed

:56:53.:56:56.

policy from the start. I'm grateful to him for his intervention. I have

:56:57.:57:00.

to say though that the logic of his argument is that the minister

:57:01.:57:03.

shouldn't have made the offer for this House to have a say either at

:57:04.:57:09.

the end of the deal. And if you are in a position where you're about to

:57:10.:57:13.

go over a cliff to not give yourself the opportunity to not go over the

:57:14.:57:18.

cliff that's the ultimate negotiating weakness as the Brexit

:57:19.:57:22.

Secretary rightly pointed outed four and a bit years ago.

:57:23.:57:28.

He really must correct the record. I did not make the offer flippantly or

:57:29.:57:33.

not intending to see it through in 2012. It was a fair offer which was

:57:34.:57:37.

not taken up. I with all my colleagues then made a different

:57:38.:57:40.

offer in 2015 which was accepted and we are pursuing.

:57:41.:57:49.

We would no way which to impune the Right Honourable's integrity. It was

:57:50.:57:59.

a method to get the outcome. He is therefore, I guess, the hard Brexit

:58:00.:58:03.

equivalent of Malcolm X by any means necessary. If I can make a little

:58:04.:58:09.

bit of progress I would be grateful. I would be very grateful. I think it

:58:10.:58:14.

is true that this is an argument that absolutely began with

:58:15.:58:19.

democracy. It cannot now in all honesty end with a stitch-up. This

:58:20.:58:26.

it was especially true given that the Lee campaign offered no plans,

:58:27.:58:32.

no instructions, no prospectus, no vision of what out would look like.

:58:33.:58:47.

I was a Remainor as well. I regret the result. Does the honourable

:58:48.:58:53.

gentleman agree with Vince Cable, the former Business Secretary, that

:58:54.:58:57.

a second referendum raises a lot of fundamental problems? We are dealing

:58:58.:59:05.

with a lot of fundamental problems in any event. The bottom line is

:59:06.:59:10.

this - the reality is we are not talking about a second referendum.

:59:11.:59:13.

One would argue that the referendum on 23rd June was a second

:59:14.:59:17.

referendumment we are arguing for a referendum on the terms of the deal.

:59:18.:59:21.

Something that has not been put to the British people even once.

:59:22.:59:27.

I'm grateful for the honourable member giving way. He says we'll get

:59:28.:59:31.

to a cliff edge. His offer of a referendum is no choice. He would

:59:32.:59:35.

either have to vote for it or vote for against it. If you voted against

:59:36.:59:41.

it, you would have that cliff edge that people are trying to avoid? We

:59:42.:59:44.

are offering an opportunity for them not only to have the final say of

:59:45.:59:47.

the deal, but having looked over that cliff edge to say no thanks and

:59:48.:59:52.

to remain in the European Union. That's aly jt mat and democratic

:59:53.:59:59.

offer for a party to make. Whilst it is legitimate to take an alternative

:00:00.:00:02.

point of view, it is fully democratic. I want to make a clear

:00:03.:00:06.

point here and I'll make progress if colleagues do not mind. You see I

:00:07.:00:10.

want to give credit here, there is a few of them here now. A little bit

:00:11.:00:14.

of credit to our SNP colleagues in this House here today. Because

:00:15.:00:19.

during the Scottish independence referendum they were able to produce

:00:20.:00:26.

a 670 page paper, a White Paper, on exactly what leaving the United

:00:27.:00:29.

Kingdom would look like. Now, of course, I didn't agree with them,

:00:30.:00:33.

but at least the people of Scotland knew what it was they were voting

:00:34.:00:36.

for and what it was they would be rejecting. If that vote had gone the

:00:37.:00:41.

other way in 2014, there would have been no need for a second vote then

:00:42.:00:45.

on the independence deal away from the United Kingdom. Now, this

:00:46.:00:51.

Government is going to take some monumental decisions over the next

:00:52.:00:54.

two years. I still believe that it will be impossible for them to

:00:55.:00:58.

negotiate a deal that is better than the one we currently have inside the

:00:59.:01:02.

European Union. But these negotiations will happen and a deal

:01:03.:01:07.

will be reached. And when all is said and done, someone will have to

:01:08.:01:10.

decide whether the deal is good enough for the people of Britain.

:01:11.:01:15.

Surely the only right and logical step is to allow the people to

:01:16.:01:19.

decide whether it is the right deal for them, their families, their

:01:20.:01:24.

jobs, and our country, not politicians in Whitehall or

:01:25.:01:27.

Brussels, not even this House, but the people. No one in this

:01:28.:01:32.

Government, no one in this House, no one in this country has any idea

:01:33.:01:37.

what the deal the Prime Minister will agree. It is completely

:01:38.:01:42.

unknown. I'll give way. Does he share my surprise at the resistance

:01:43.:01:47.

to his perfectly sensible suggestion of a ratification referendum given

:01:48.:01:50.

that the whole hallmark of a leave campaign was about taking back

:01:51.:01:53.

control? Surely that means control for the British people, not just

:01:54.:01:59.

control for the MPs? That's an excellent point. It seems bizarre

:02:00.:02:04.

that having tried to claim, take back control, that very effective

:02:05.:02:09.

slogan that was used, they now wish to seed control to those occupying

:02:10.:02:15.

the 21st century of smoke filled rooms in Brussels and Whitehall to

:02:16.:02:19.

have a stitch-up imposed on the British people. He will remember his

:02:20.:02:25.

predecessor produced a leaflet saying only the Liberal Democrats

:02:26.:02:28.

will offer a real referendum. I presume they had no idea of the

:02:29.:02:33.

implications if the people voted to come out at that stage he said it

:02:34.:02:36.

was a once in a generation vote. He is saying we should have a mandate

:02:37.:02:39.

referendum and a terms referendum. So when will he be saying if those

:02:40.:02:43.

two go through, we should have a are you really sure about that

:02:44.:02:44.

referendum? He seems to be under the impression

:02:45.:02:54.

that democracy is a one-hit game. Somehow if you believe passionately

:02:55.:02:57.

in what you believe in, you have to do give in. He and I both sat on

:02:58.:03:02.

this side of the chamber during the last five years of the Labour

:03:03.:03:07.

administration. When the Labour Party won its big majorities in 97,

:03:08.:03:13.

2001 and 2005, did he give in and say it would be frustrating for

:03:14.:03:17.

people to stop fighting the Conservative cause? He didn't. It's

:03:18.:03:22.

right to respect the will of the people, but it's to disrespect the

:03:23.:03:27.

will of democracy when you give in. I have said before, his approach is

:03:28.:03:34.

Hotel California, you can check out but never leave. He wants people to

:03:35.:03:39.

vote and vote again until he gets a result he agrees with. The British

:03:40.:03:43.

people have voted and we have to leave the European Union and

:03:44.:03:45.

implement the will of the British people. I will come onto that in a

:03:46.:03:52.

moment. I don't think it is in any enacting the will of the British

:03:53.:03:56.

people to consistently refused the British people to have the right to

:03:57.:04:00.

have the say on the deal that will affect generations to come and which

:04:01.:04:03.

none of us here know what it will look like. He will know that I

:04:04.:04:11.

support the position that he is articulate in in amendment 43, but

:04:12.:04:14.

in light of the concession we have heard from the government today,

:04:15.:04:19.

does he share my concern that at the end of this negotiation the choice

:04:20.:04:23.

this Parliament will have is between accepting the deal that the

:04:24.:04:27.

government offers, possibly a bad deal, or falling out of the European

:04:28.:04:34.

Union on WTO terms at a cost of ?45 billion of our GDP. Do you not think

:04:35.:04:37.

the British people might be worried about that and might want to have a

:04:38.:04:44.

say about it? He continues to make a very strong case and be bold and

:04:45.:04:47.

putting it across, not just today. There is no doubt whatsoever that

:04:48.:04:50.

whatever the British people voted for on the 23rd of June, for

:04:51.:04:54.

certain, they did not vote to make themselves poorer and it would be

:04:55.:04:58.

absolutely wrong for that game of poker to end up as a consequence, a

:04:59.:05:04.

dropping off the cliff edge without the British people having the right

:05:05.:05:09.

to have their say. I will give way. His argument would have force if the

:05:10.:05:13.

question on the 23rd of June had been, to give the government a

:05:14.:05:19.

mandate to negotiate bring back a deal. It wasn't. It was a

:05:20.:05:24.

conditional question, do you want to leave or remain. People listened to

:05:25.:05:28.

the arguments about the risks and they decided to leave. He can't

:05:29.:05:32.

accept that and I think a Democrat should be able to. I think he's

:05:33.:05:37.

quite wrong. Undoubtedly, I have said clearly, the majority of people

:05:38.:05:40.

voted to leave the European Union on the 23rd June. The government has a

:05:41.:05:46.

mandate to go along at that point. What they didn't do, because they

:05:47.:05:51.

were not asked, was to decide that the destination. As the current

:05:52.:05:56.

Brexit secretary quite rightly said in his speech four years ago,

:05:57.:05:59.

destination and departure are different things. It's right for

:06:00.:06:03.

Democrats to make the case of the British people not to have their

:06:04.:06:05.

world taken from them and have a stitch up imposed upon them. I will

:06:06.:06:14.

give way one more time. What would happen if we did have a second

:06:15.:06:18.

referendum and the British people rejected that offer. Where would

:06:19.:06:23.

that leave us? The wording on that ballot paper would be up for

:06:24.:06:28.

discussion. Our vision is we would accept the terms of the governments

:06:29.:06:32.

negotiation, or the United Kingdom would remain in the European Union.

:06:33.:06:37.

I will give way last time. We have no problem in supporting his new

:06:38.:06:41.

cause, if as the UK Government believes in the White Paper, that

:06:42.:06:44.

they have 65 million people behind their negotiating position, what are

:06:45.:06:49.

they afraid of? It seems to me people who have been arguing for the

:06:50.:06:53.

sovereignty of Parliament in this country, and to enforce the will of

:06:54.:06:57.

the people and all of that, to now be so scared of the people troubles

:06:58.:07:00.

me and it makes me worried they don't have the courage of their

:07:01.:07:04.

convictions. Looking forward, and I want to make some progress now

:07:05.:07:07.

because others need to get in, the deal must be put to the British

:07:08.:07:10.

people for them to have their say because that's the only way to hold

:07:11.:07:14.

the government to account. We already know in all likelihood that

:07:15.:07:25.

48% of the British people will not like the outcome of the deal, and we

:07:26.:07:28.

now know the kind of Brexit this Prime Minister intends to pursue,

:07:29.:07:30.

you can pretty much bet that perhaps half of the 52% will not like it

:07:31.:07:33.

either. They will feel betrayed and ignored. The only way to achieve

:07:34.:07:36.

democracy and closure for both leave and remain voters is for there to be

:07:37.:07:41.

a vote at the end. The government claims to be enforcing the will of

:07:42.:07:45.

the people, but I would put you that is nonsense. If I was being very

:07:46.:07:48.

generous, the best you could say is that the government is interpreting

:07:49.:07:51.

the will of the people. Some would say they are taking a result and

:07:52.:07:54.

twisting it to mean something quite different. The Conservatives won a

:07:55.:08:02.

mandate in the mate with teeth -- in the May 2015 general election. In a

:08:03.:08:11.

manifesto they pledged a referendum but also to keep Britain in the

:08:12.:08:16.

single market. That second pledge, to keep us in the single market was

:08:17.:08:24.

not caveat it, not contingent on the outcome of any referendum. It was a

:08:25.:08:27.

clear pledge. The government are now breaking that pledge. They are

:08:28.:08:32.

making a choice. I have given way an awful lot. They are making a choice.

:08:33.:08:39.

They choice that the British people have not given them permission to

:08:40.:08:43.

make. And a choice that isn't just damaging to our country, but also

:08:44.:08:50.

divisive. The Prime Minister had the opportunity to pursue a form of

:08:51.:08:55.

Brexit that United our country, that achieved consensus and reflected the

:08:56.:08:59.

closeness of the vote, that sought to deal with and heal the divisions

:09:00.:09:04.

between Leave and Remain. Instead, she chose to pursue the hardest and

:09:05.:09:08.

most divisive and destructive form of Brexit. I would say she is

:09:09.:09:14.

tearing us out of the single market and leaving us isolated against the

:09:15.:09:19.

might of world superpowers. I passionately believe that ending our

:09:20.:09:24.

membership of the world's biggest free market will do untold damage to

:09:25.:09:29.

this country, to the prospect and opportunities, especially for young

:09:30.:09:32.

people who voted heavily to remain in this country. It's vital for our

:09:33.:09:36.

economy, and that's why my party refuses to stop making the case that

:09:37.:09:42.

this deal must include membership of the single market. Those who settle

:09:43.:09:46.

for access to the single market rather than membership, are, I

:09:47.:09:50.

respectfully suggest, waving the white flag to this assault on

:09:51.:09:52.

British business and the cost of living for every family in the

:09:53.:09:57.

country. But giving the government is making a set of extreme and

:09:58.:10:01.

arbitrary choices that were not on the ballot paper last June, the only

:10:02.:10:05.

thing a democrat can do is to give the people the final say. If the

:10:06.:10:10.

Prime Minister is so confident that what she is planning is what people

:10:11.:10:14.

voted for, then why would she not give them a vote on the final deal?

:10:15.:10:21.

I won't give way, I have given away plenty of times and will bring my

:10:22.:10:26.

remarks to an end for everyone else's say. The final deal will not

:10:27.:10:30.

be legitimate. It will not be consented to, and our country will

:10:31.:10:35.

not be achieving closure if it is imposed on the British people

:10:36.:10:38.

through a stitch up in the corridors of power in Brussels and Whitehall.

:10:39.:10:41.

Democracy does mean accepting the will of the people at the beginning

:10:42.:10:48.

of the process and at the end of the process. Democracy means respecting

:10:49.:10:52.

the majority and democracy also means not giving up on your beliefs,

:10:53.:10:56.

rolling over and conceding when the going gets tough. You keep fighting

:10:57.:11:00.

for what you believe is right and that is what Liberal Democrats will

:11:01.:11:04.

do. We agree with the Brexit secretary, let's let the people have

:11:05.:11:08.

their say, let's let them take back control. Oliver Letwin. May I just

:11:09.:11:16.

start by correcting the record. I had something to do with the

:11:17.:11:19.

production of the manifesto the Right Honourable gentleman was

:11:20.:11:22.

clearly unable to read in the time available to him. It made no such

:11:23.:11:27.

assertion. It was perfectly clear that what it said about the single

:11:28.:11:33.

market was to be superseded where a referendum results, which we didn't

:11:34.:11:37.

anticipate, but the British people would take is out of the EU as a

:11:38.:11:44.

whole. And I regret that. I voted to remain, I campaigned to remain. But

:11:45.:11:47.

the fact is the British people voted to leave. What is interesting, I

:11:48.:11:59.

think, about this debate, and it has been very interesting, is that it is

:12:00.:12:05.

one of those moments in which the cloak of obscurity is lifted from an

:12:06.:12:09.

issue and it becomes clear what is actually the dynamic going on. And

:12:10.:12:13.

what is actually going on here, is we have reached the crunch issue. We

:12:14.:12:18.

have reached the point at which we are discussing whether the effect of

:12:19.:12:22.

the Supreme Court judgment should be that Parliament has the option at

:12:23.:12:27.

some date in the future of overruling the British people and

:12:28.:12:31.

cancelling the leaving of the EU, or whether it should not have that

:12:32.:12:36.

ability. My right honourable friend, the minister, has made it perfectly

:12:37.:12:44.

clear that there will be a vote. But the vote, he has also made it

:12:45.:12:47.

perfectly clear is the vote between the option of accepting it

:12:48.:12:52.

particular set of arrangements negotiated by Her

:12:53.:12:55.

Majesty'sgovernment, and not excepting those arrangements and

:12:56.:12:58.

thereby leaving the EU without either in the one case a withdrawal

:12:59.:13:03.

agreement, or in the other case, an arrangement for the future. My right

:13:04.:13:06.

honourable friend is right. I think we can be optimistic we can reach

:13:07.:13:11.

such agreements, but we don't know if we will. Following the logic of

:13:12.:13:17.

the referendum decision, that the judgment of this house should simply

:13:18.:13:24.

be about whether the deal is good enough. To warrant doing a deal, or

:13:25.:13:28.

whether, on the contrary, we should leave without a deal. That is a

:13:29.:13:33.

completely different... To the proposition which, in various

:13:34.:13:37.

guises, some are exempt entirely from this the opposition front

:13:38.:13:44.

bench, but some on the opposition benches are putting, which is that

:13:45.:13:48.

Parliament should instead by one means or another be given the

:13:49.:13:52.

ability to countermand the British people's decision to leave your Mac

:13:53.:13:55.

by giving a vote on whether we should leave or shouldn't leave, or

:13:56.:14:00.

in the proposition of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, whether the

:14:01.:14:02.

people should have a second referendum on whether we should

:14:03.:14:07.

leave or not to leave. Either of those propositions is a clear

:14:08.:14:12.

determination to undo the effect of the referendum. And we have now

:14:13.:14:14.

reached the point at which that has come out into the open. I will give

:14:15.:14:20.

way to the former leader of the SNP. Can we just instruct the government

:14:21.:14:24.

to negotiate a better deal? The phrase in the Conservative manifesto

:14:25.:14:28.

which he didn't write was, we say yes to the single market. That

:14:29.:14:35.

sounds pretty unequivocal. We were at that moment a member of the EU

:14:36.:14:38.

and we said yes to the single market and I campaigned for the single

:14:39.:14:41.

marketing campaign to remain part of the EU. That was the government's

:14:42.:14:47.

position in the referendum. But we'll is committed to a referendum

:14:48.:14:50.

and the point of committing to the referendum, and we made that

:14:51.:14:54.

perfectly clear in able range of speeches and the manifesto, was that

:14:55.:14:58.

if the British people voted to leave, we would leave. It seems to

:14:59.:15:01.

me perfectly clear that the word leave means leave. It does not mean

:15:02.:15:06.

remain. And what the right honourable gentleman, who is an

:15:07.:15:09.

expert parliamentarian has been arguing, in many ways over a long

:15:10.:15:13.

time, more explicitly the leader of the Liberal Democrats has been

:15:14.:15:17.

arguing, is that leave ought to be translated as remain. I deny this is

:15:18.:15:21.

a translation that fits the in the site which is susceptible. It seems

:15:22.:15:26.

to me perfectly clear that those of us who campaign to leave and those

:15:27.:15:29.

who campaigned to remain have a choice, we can either accept the

:15:30.:15:33.

referendum result rejected. I accept it. The gentleman opposite, maybe

:15:34.:15:38.

some honourable members who are not gentleman, but winning, opposite,

:15:39.:15:44.

also take that view. It may be that some take the view we should reject

:15:45.:15:48.

the referendum result. It's a perfectly honourable view. The

:15:49.:15:51.

leader of the Liberal Democrats was in effect offering that we should

:15:52.:15:55.

reject the result openly. I don't decry his ability to argue that, but

:15:56.:16:00.

everybody arguing that should come out openly, as he did, and not

:16:01.:16:04.

pretend they are trying to present some method of parliamentary

:16:05.:16:07.

scrutiny. It's nothing of the kind. They are trying to present a means

:16:08.:16:10.

of undoing the result of the referendum. This house has actually

:16:11.:16:14.

voted conclusively not to undo the result of the referendum and I think

:16:15.:16:17.

the house was right to do that. Whether it was right not to do that

:16:18.:16:21.

with its eyes open, and should not be dialled by anyone into passing

:16:22.:16:26.

amendments that have an effect that it has not been signed up to buy

:16:27.:16:34.

anybody. Can I just point out to him that it is absolutely clear, and I

:16:35.:16:37.

want to clarify from my point of view, that this place, and indeed

:16:38.:16:40.

Parliament as a whole, and indeed the courts, have no right whatsoever

:16:41.:16:44.

to bar the will of the people. It would be absolutely wrong to

:16:45.:16:48.

overturn the outcome of the referendum last June. I am merely

:16:49.:16:50.

asking for the British people to have a final say on the deal and

:16:51.:16:54.

should they reject the deal, to stay in the EU. And voting to say you

:16:55.:17:01.

vote to leave the EU does not mean voting to leave the single market.

:17:02.:17:05.

It didn't for Norway or Switzerland. There are two issues here. One is

:17:06.:17:09.

whether the question of leaving the EU means leaving the single market.

:17:10.:17:13.

It doesn't. I argued in a referendum when I was persuading those to

:17:14.:17:19.

remain, I continue to take the view and of all is taken the view that

:17:20.:17:22.

leaving the EU does entail leaving the single market, which I regret,

:17:23.:17:26.

but in my view it doesn't tail it. Leaving that aside, I accept that

:17:27.:17:30.

the proposition of the Liberal Democrats is that it should not be

:17:31.:17:34.

this house directly that countermand is the referendum, but there should

:17:35.:17:37.

be a second referendum to countermand it. One of the points

:17:38.:17:43.

made is right. The proposition The Right Honourable made, a Beverley

:17:44.:17:49.

decent proposition, however many times it takes, the British people

:17:50.:17:53.

should go on being asked to reverse their original decision, because one

:17:54.:17:56.

should never go on giving up to do so because the right answer is to

:17:57.:18:00.

remain. As a Beverley respectable proposition but not the proposition

:18:01.:18:05.

of a Democrat. It's the proposition of eight Kwarasey that knows the

:18:06.:18:09.

answer and believes the people that vote otherwise are misguided and

:18:10.:18:14.

they need to be misled time after time to revise their opinion by

:18:15.:18:17.

whatever means until at last they give the answer which is required.

:18:18.:18:23.

That is unfortunately, I point out to the right honourable gentleman,

:18:24.:18:27.

the very dynamic that has given rise to this whole problem. We are at

:18:28.:18:32.

this juncture today because there was a government that passed the

:18:33.:18:35.

Maastricht Treaty against the will of the British people without

:18:36.:18:38.

consulting them, that took us into a form of the European Union to which

:18:39.:18:41.

they had never consented, that has led to a set of results that have

:18:42.:18:44.

eventually produced a democratic result that the right honourable

:18:45.:18:48.

gentleman and I both dislike, and his answer to that is to go on with

:18:49.:18:52.

that logic until at last the British people totally lose faith in any

:18:53.:18:56.

semblance of democracy in this country. I personally cannot accept

:18:57.:19:01.

that proposition. In the end, much as I would have preferred to remain,

:19:02.:19:06.

I prefer to be in a country run as a democracy, and which has faith in

:19:07.:19:09.

its governance and we can only achieve that today by fulfilling the

:19:10.:19:10.

terms of the referendum. It is a minor point, but I want to

:19:11.:19:21.

come just braefl to the question of the various knew clauses that are

:19:22.:19:25.

before us. And they do seem to me to differ. New clause 1 actually is a

:19:26.:19:35.

fairly innocuous item. I'm delighted that my Right Honourable friend seem

:19:36.:19:38.

to be indicating that we won't actually be accepting new clause 1

:19:39.:19:42.

and I'm delighted we won't be accepting it because there is doubt

:19:43.:19:49.

about whether it is just issuable. It states in it that what has to be

:19:50.:19:54.

accepted is the statement of the proposed terms of the agreement. If

:19:55.:19:59.

that's written into the law I suppose that a very clever lawyer

:20:00.:20:04.

and Lord Pannick and others are very clever lawyers might be able to

:20:05.:20:08.

mount some kind of judicial review of the question whether the

:20:09.:20:11.

Government had in fact brought forward a statement of the proposed

:20:12.:20:16.

terms of the agreement that it was adequate to the intent of the Bill

:20:17.:20:22.

or the Act. I doubt that that would acurd and therefore, I don't

:20:23.:20:26.

personally have any very strong feelings about new clause 1. New

:20:27.:20:33.

clause 99 and new clause 110 about which some honourable members

:20:34.:20:38.

opposite have spoken are entirely different in character because each

:20:39.:20:42.

of them actually makes it perfectly clear in two different ways that the

:20:43.:20:48.

House of Commons would actually be called upon to make a set of

:20:49.:20:54.

decisions which are both issuable and undermine the leaving of the EU.

:20:55.:21:01.

In the case of new clause 99, I think notwithstanding the exchange I

:21:02.:21:05.

had with the honourable lady that it is perfectly clear that if

:21:06.:21:09.

Parliament found itself in a position in which it had not

:21:10.:21:16.

approved in her section B the withdrawal without agreement, then

:21:17.:21:20.

Parliament would have created an appalling conflict of laws because

:21:21.:21:24.

Article 50 is very explicit. It says the treaty has seize to apply to the

:21:25.:21:28.

state in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal

:21:29.:21:32.

agreement or failing that two years after notification. If the EU by

:21:33.:21:38.

consensus had not extended the period, then the treaties would

:21:39.:21:42.

seize it apply, but Parliament would prospectively have voted not to

:21:43.:21:46.

leave. Now, if Parliament has voted not to leave and the treaties don't

:21:47.:21:53.

apply I'd like to know who in this House could say which of the laws is

:21:54.:21:59.

superior to the other? So I think new clause 99 is clearly deficient

:22:00.:22:05.

as a piece of legislation and I hope therefore that those who are

:22:06.:22:09.

proposing it will take that point and not press it. New clause 110 is

:22:10.:22:18.

not as bad as 99, though it is very odd, it is very odd because it says

:22:19.:22:22.

that any new treaty or relationship with the EU mustn't not be concluded

:22:23.:22:26.

unless the proposed terms have been subject to approval by resolution of

:22:27.:22:31.

each House of Parliament. Now, it is possible to be subject to approval

:22:32.:22:35.

without being approved. It seems entirely unclear on the face of new

:22:36.:22:39.

clause 110 whether it is referring to approval or to the process that

:22:40.:22:44.

might have led to approval and that itself, of course, would be just

:22:45.:22:49.

issuable. Quite apart from that bad drafting it is a legal minefield

:22:50.:22:53.

that it creates because it makes it clear that it is any knew treaty or

:22:54.:23:00.

relationship request the EU which mustn't be concluded. One possible

:23:01.:23:04.

relationship is the relationship of not being in the EU and therefore,

:23:05.:23:10.

it itself arguably at least and this could be contested in court, is

:23:11.:23:16.

again an opportunity for Parliament to reverse the intent of the

:23:17.:23:21.

referendum and deny leaving. So what we have in new clauses 99 and 110

:23:22.:23:26.

which look on the face as if they are as innocuous as new clause 1 are

:23:27.:23:32.

measures which are neither innocuous and well drafted. They fulfil the

:23:33.:23:35.

purposes which I have been referring to in the earlier part of my remarks

:23:36.:23:42.

namely to put Parliament in the position of potentially reversing

:23:43.:23:45.

the decision of the British people. And therefore, I very much hope that

:23:46.:23:52.

if my Right Honourable friend is at any time remotely tempted to accept

:23:53.:23:57.

new clause 1, he will never accept new clause 99 or 110 and we will

:23:58.:24:02.

resist such amendment should they appear here or in the other place. I

:24:03.:24:10.

I have two concerns with new clause 1. It is clear the Government needs

:24:11.:24:15.

to involve Parliament throughout the whole process. The second is we

:24:16.:24:20.

cannot know all the permutations around which agreement and exit

:24:21.:24:23.

maybe affected and therefore to legislate for it now before we know

:24:24.:24:26.

how it is going to end up is premature and would end up risking

:24:27.:24:32.

binding the hands of the negotiators and the Government. I share my

:24:33.:24:38.

honourable friend's preference for not legislating in that respect.

:24:39.:24:42.

There are good reasons why over a very, very long historical evolution

:24:43.:24:47.

the House of Commons has always resisted legislation that governs

:24:48.:24:52.

its own proceedings. We have a number of authorities about our

:24:53.:24:59.

constitution written that the nearest proxmation is the standing

:25:00.:25:03.

orders of the House of Commons. And that is not a frivolous remarks by

:25:04.:25:07.

those authorities, it is a true remark and the reason it has arisen

:25:08.:25:13.

is because we have resisted having legislation that governs the House

:25:14.:25:17.

of Commons and the reason we've resisted it so avoid the judges

:25:18.:25:20.

becoming the judges of what should happen in the House of Commons. And

:25:21.:25:25.

we have in fact invented over a very long period the principle that the

:25:26.:25:30.

judges don't intervene in the legislature and the legislature

:25:31.:25:34.

doesn't intervene in the decisions of the judiciary and to legislate

:25:35.:25:39.

about how the House of Commons proceeds is therefore moving over a

:25:40.:25:43.

very dangerous line and I'm therefore with my honourable friend

:25:44.:25:47.

in hoping that we won't accept new clause 1. I'm just saying that if we

:25:48.:25:52.

were tempted at all to introduce any piece of new legislation at any

:25:53.:25:56.

stage, it should certainly look like new clause 1 and not new clauses 99

:25:57.:26:01.

and 110. Those would be to subvert the referendum and that, we cannot

:26:02.:26:09.

allow. I do have some respect for the

:26:10.:26:16.

honourable member for West Dorset and I have been in enough Bill

:26:17.:26:21.

committees to hear some of the arguments. When I hear honourable

:26:22.:26:24.

members resorting to the oh well, the drafting of this particular

:26:25.:26:29.

phrase particularly when it came to this question about subject to the

:26:30.:26:32.

approval of both Houses is somehow an alien concept and something that

:26:33.:26:37.

we must resist in all circumstances. I hear the last refuge of the

:26:38.:26:44.

Parliamentary barrel scraper, I think if the honourable member has

:26:45.:26:49.

arguments against new clause 110 which I would like to move, it is

:26:50.:26:57.

the amendment in my name, if he has substantive arguments against it,

:26:58.:27:01.

better engage with those rather than dance around and find second or

:27:02.:27:06.

third order against. It has been a very interesting debate so far.

:27:07.:27:12.

There was a moment of excitement I suppose, well in Parliamentary terms

:27:13.:27:17.

excitement at the beginning when the Brexit minister stood up and said

:27:18.:27:21.

well, let me in a breathless way give you a concession, I'll indicate

:27:22.:27:26.

that there is something here that is substantively different and he did

:27:27.:27:31.

come to the dispatch box and did clarify a little bit further, not

:27:32.:27:33.

much further than the Prime Minister had done in her speech to Lancaster

:27:34.:27:40.

House, something about the timing of the vote that Parliament will have,

:27:41.:27:48.

but of course, the Right Honourable member for Rushcliffe quickly

:27:49.:27:53.

spotted in the definitions of when a negotiation is concluded, when it is

:27:54.:27:57.

signed off, there is still a bit of a grey area there when that timing

:27:58.:28:02.

would come and so, for some small mercies I suppose, many honourable

:28:03.:28:06.

members might say well, this is some level of progress. However, having

:28:07.:28:11.

marched us up to the hill in expectation this was a great

:28:12.:28:15.

concession, I'm afraid as the time has ticked by, as the machines have

:28:16.:28:18.

gone past, we've kind of marched back done the hill again because

:28:19.:28:23.

through the probing of many honourable members on both sides of

:28:24.:28:27.

the House we have since discovered a number of things about that

:28:28.:28:29.

particular vote. Don't forget what we're trying to do today in this

:28:30.:28:34.

whole section is secure a meaningful vote, a properly meaningful vote so

:28:35.:28:40.

Parliamentry sovereignty can come first as the Supreme Court

:28:41.:28:43.

emphasised in their particular judgment. First of all, when

:28:44.:28:49.

pressed, the ministers did have to admit that if we ended up in a

:28:50.:28:55.

situation of no deal the House wouldn't be getting a vote on that

:28:56.:29:00.

circumstance. That is deeply regrettable because new clause 110

:29:01.:29:04.

is deliberately drafted to talk about new treat quay or a

:29:05.:29:07.

relationship and a relationship talks about the connection between

:29:08.:29:10.

two entities, that connection can be a positive and new one, it can also

:29:11.:29:14.

be one which has a disjoint within it and so we should have a vote if

:29:15.:29:20.

that relationship is to include the circumstance of no deal. The

:29:21.:29:24.

minister said, I will give way in a moment, but the minister said that

:29:25.:29:28.

we wouldn't be what having a vote on no deal. That's extremely

:29:29.:29:32.

disappointing of the it is not what I would regard as in the spirit of

:29:33.:29:36.

the concession that should be sought because we were lobing not just for

:29:37.:29:40.

a concession on the timing of that Parliamentary vote, but on the scope

:29:41.:29:45.

of that vote. In other words, the circumstances in which having gone

:29:46.:29:48.

through the negotiations we would find ourselves being able to vote.

:29:49.:29:53.

It is a little bit as though you could imagine two years of travel,

:29:54.:29:57.

journey down the road of negotiation, we get to the edge of

:29:58.:30:03.

the canyon and we have a point of decision. Are we going to have that

:30:04.:30:08.

bridge across the cash which might be the new treaty? It might take us

:30:09.:30:13.

to the new future or are we going to decide to jump off into the unknown,

:30:14.:30:19.

into the abyss and Parliament should have the right to decide that point.

:30:20.:30:23.

This is the concession that I think many honourable members were seeking

:30:24.:30:27.

and it is not the concession that we received. I'll give way to the

:30:28.:30:32.

honourable gentleman. He made an extraordinarily important

:30:33.:30:35.

clarification of his amendment and it is as I suspected and expected

:30:36.:30:39.

relationship includes the potential of no relationship and therefore, he

:30:40.:30:44.

is, is he not, putting forward the proposition that Parliament should

:30:45.:30:48.

be able to reverse the effect of the referendum and seize the United

:30:49.:30:53.

Kingdom being able to leave the EU? No, it is quite clear that as we saw

:30:54.:30:58.

in second reading and it is quite clear I think to all concerned that

:30:59.:31:01.

we will be leaving the European Union. The referendum made that

:31:02.:31:04.

judgment. That was the question on the ballot paper. The House came to

:31:05.:31:08.

that particular point of view, but it is important that Parliament

:31:09.:31:13.

verves that right as the Prime Minister has sort of indicated that

:31:14.:31:15.

we should be able to have a say on the final deal. Now, this is our

:31:16.:31:22.

opportunity, this is our final opportunity, our final opportunity

:31:23.:31:28.

to legislate on the face of the Bill precisely what circumstances those

:31:29.:31:32.

would be and I have to say, no, I won't give way because I know there

:31:33.:31:36.

is a lot of honourable members wanting to get in. What was

:31:37.:31:39.

deplating in the minister's so-called concession which actually

:31:40.:31:43.

now feels quite hollow was the fact that he then went on to say that if

:31:44.:31:49.

Parliament did decide to reject or to vote against a draft deal he

:31:50.:31:54.

wouldn't go back into negotiations. The Government would feel that this

:31:55.:31:59.

was, "A sign of weakness" Of somehow or another. Personally, I think

:32:00.:32:02.

that's entirely wrong. If Parliament says with respect to the Government,

:32:03.:32:07.

this isn't quite good enough, please go back and seek further points of

:32:08.:32:15.

clarification and further points. That should be a source of strength.

:32:16.:32:20.

I believe it strengthens the arm of Government for them to be able to

:32:21.:32:24.

say, "We'd like to do this, but Parliament are keen for a better

:32:25.:32:27.

deal." It is useful to have that for the Prime Minister. So new clause

:32:28.:32:32.

110, I believe, is a helpful amendment for the Government and for

:32:33.:32:35.

the Prime Minister and what was disappointing was that the minister

:32:36.:32:39.

didn't just say this in response to, you know, pressure from honourable

:32:40.:32:43.

members. He had it in his script, in his piece of paper, from which he

:32:44.:32:48.

was reading his remarks. He had pre-prepared the circumstances where

:32:49.:32:51.

he was going to say that he was not prepared to go back into

:32:52.:32:55.

negotiations if Parliament declined to give support to those new

:32:56.:33:00.

arrangements. So we can see that the concession is not quite all that it

:33:01.:33:01.

is meant to be. One of the things troubling me is

:33:02.:33:10.

the principle of equivalents. As I understand it, the European

:33:11.:33:13.

Parliament has the opportunity to vote on the deal before presented to

:33:14.:33:17.

the European Council and it in effect has the right of veto. My

:33:18.:33:21.

interpretation is that the deal is therefore sent back to the

:33:22.:33:24.

negotiating team for further negotiation. Does he agree with me

:33:25.:33:28.

that one of the strong points here, we have to ensure that those who

:33:29.:33:32.

voted to leave the EU, have at least the same equivalents of what their

:33:33.:33:38.

parliament can do with that of the European Parliament? She absolutely

:33:39.:33:42.

makes an incredibly important point. And one that is in defence of the

:33:43.:33:47.

sovereignty of our Parliament. It is about putting Britain first and

:33:48.:33:51.

making sure we do defend and safeguard the rights of our

:33:52.:33:55.

constituents and make sure that the European Parliament doesn't have an

:33:56.:33:59.

advantage that we would not. And if the European Parliament has the

:34:00.:34:03.

opportunity to reject the new relationship, the new arrangements,

:34:04.:34:07.

then so should we. It's a very simple point. With respect, even if

:34:08.:34:13.

the Minister were to personally come here and make that verbal

:34:14.:34:17.

concession. He's a very able minister, but ministers can be here

:34:18.:34:21.

today and gone tomorrow. Ministers come and go. Having such clarity on

:34:22.:34:28.

the face of the bill enshrined in the legislation is really important

:34:29.:34:31.

for honourable members. This is a question that transcends party

:34:32.:34:35.

political issues. I think he should hear the voice of members from all

:34:36.:34:40.

sides on this particular issue. We recognise we are going to be leaving

:34:41.:34:43.

the European Union but we want the best possible deal for Britain.

:34:44.:34:48.

Parliament is sovereign here. Yes, we have ministers who lead on the

:34:49.:34:52.

negotiations, but he can't cut Parliament out altogether. It should

:34:53.:34:57.

be a source of strength for them. A very final intervention. The thing I

:34:58.:35:01.

really don't understand, and I have been thinking about this since the

:35:02.:35:04.

point was made by the Right Honourable member for Ponty cracked

:35:05.:35:08.

and Castleford. When he says can we have a vote in the situation of not

:35:09.:35:12.

having a deal, the Liberal Democrat leader has been clear in this case

:35:13.:35:16.

that he would either say yes to the deal, sorry, you if you said no to

:35:17.:35:20.

the deal you would remain in the European Union. When he says there

:35:21.:35:23.

would be a vote on a no deal situation, what are the two choices?

:35:24.:35:28.

Would one of them be remaining in the European Union? My understanding

:35:29.:35:34.

is that we remain in the European Union until such time as the Article

:35:35.:35:38.

50 two-year period expires, after which time there is the famous cliff

:35:39.:35:44.

edge. I'm hoping now we had a partial acceptance from the

:35:45.:35:46.

government that the vote needs to take place in Parliament

:35:47.:35:49.

sufficiently early on the draft arrangements, that Parliament would

:35:50.:35:52.

then have a sick fish and period of time to say to ministers, perhaps we

:35:53.:36:02.

like 90% of the deal done but we would like to go back to get a

:36:03.:36:06.

slightly better deal. -- have a significant period. To take

:36:07.:36:09.

Parliament out of that process altogether would be a great shame. I

:36:10.:36:13.

would like to move on because honourable members want to get into

:36:14.:36:19.

this discussion. The question, the wording in New Clause 110 is very

:36:20.:36:31.

deliberate. We need to take the opportunity the Supreme Court has

:36:32.:36:34.

given us and also listen to the entreaties of the Prime Minister

:36:35.:36:37.

herself in her own white paper where I think the 12th of 12 points was to

:36:38.:36:43.

say that we would not aspire to a cliff edge, that we would try to get

:36:44.:36:49.

a deal, and this new clause 110 simply seeks to facilitate in many

:36:50.:36:53.

ways the role Parliament could have in achieving the very thing the

:36:54.:36:56.

Prime Minister has said she wants. I'm afraid to say to the Minister,

:36:57.:37:00.

Hobson 's choice, take it or leave it. Source style votes are not

:37:01.:37:07.

acceptable and not good enough for Parliament. We have to do have a

:37:08.:37:11.

continued say in this and I would urge the house across the parties to

:37:12.:37:16.

consider the role that new clause 110 could play in making it a

:37:17.:37:23.

meaningful vote. Dominic Grieve. It's a pleasure to participate in

:37:24.:37:26.

this debate. I agree with one comment made by the Honourable

:37:27.:37:30.

member for Nottingham East in moving his amendment to 110, the problem

:37:31.:37:34.

that the Devils this debate is that we are in a completely grey and

:37:35.:37:40.

murky environment. When it comes to ascertaining how this process will

:37:41.:37:44.

or should unfold. Someone who campaigned for the Remain campaign,

:37:45.:37:51.

this worried me at the time. But I have to accept the electorate has

:37:52.:37:56.

spoken. For me, the key issue is, how can I help the government never

:37:57.:38:00.

get some of the reefs that seem to be present so we can achieve a

:38:01.:38:04.

satisfactory outcome and try to give effect to the expressed will of the

:38:05.:38:09.

electorate. The problem we have is that we cannot predict what the

:38:10.:38:13.

situation is going to be in two years' time. We have no idea what

:38:14.:38:17.

the political landscape is going to be here in terms of the economic

:38:18.:38:21.

condition, whether in fact we are doing very well in the run-up to

:38:22.:38:25.

Brexit or very badly. We cannot predict what the landscape will be

:38:26.:38:30.

on the European continent and the state of the current union itself

:38:31.:38:34.

and how it would impact on the negotiations. Nor could we predict

:38:35.:38:39.

the wider security situation that may exist for our continent. That's

:38:40.:38:45.

why, it has always seemed to me, that the idea that this house in

:38:46.:38:50.

some way forgoes its responsibility to safeguard the electorate's

:38:51.:38:55.

interest because a referendum has taken place, is simply not a view to

:38:56.:39:01.

which I am prepared to subscribe. And in those circumstances, we have

:39:02.:39:05.

to do have regard to what the situation might be. We have to do

:39:06.:39:11.

have regard to the difficulties the government undoubtedly faces also in

:39:12.:39:15.

its unpredictability, but also to rule nothing out. And to pick up the

:39:16.:39:19.

point that has been made, I repeat it, because it's my position and I

:39:20.:39:23.

will hold to it to the end. The public opinion on this matter might

:39:24.:39:27.

change radically. And this house would be entitled to take that into

:39:28.:39:32.

account. Equally, I accept that at the moment there is no such

:39:33.:39:35.

evidence, and it is our duty to get on with the business of trying to

:39:36.:39:42.

operate with Brexit. How do we introduce safeguards into this

:39:43.:39:46.

process? There is an ultimate safeguard, this house has the power

:39:47.:39:52.

to stop the government in its tracks. But that tends to be a

:39:53.:39:57.

rather chaotic process and leads usually two governments falling from

:39:58.:40:01.

office. It's an option that one can never entirely rule out in 1's

:40:02.:40:05.

career in politics, but it's not one I would wish to visit my colleagues

:40:06.:40:09.

on the front bench. But I have to say it's an important matter and one

:40:10.:40:13.

of the risks they undoubtedly run in this process is that could happen to

:40:14.:40:17.

them. We can't exclude it. But actually, it's very much better that

:40:18.:40:21.

we should have some process by which Parliament can provide input and

:40:22.:40:27.

influence the matter in a way that facilitates debate and enables us

:40:28.:40:31.

collectively to come to outcomes which at least we can accept and

:40:32.:40:36.

which may be in the national interest as we do it. I give away.

:40:37.:40:41.

On a point of clarification, will my right honourable friend indicate

:40:42.:40:45.

whether he perceives New Clause 110 as potentially being a vehicle which

:40:46.:40:51.

if invoked could block Brexit and keep us within the European Union?

:40:52.:40:55.

Because at the moment, it's not clear to me. I will come clause 110,

:40:56.:41:01.

the amendment, in just a moment. It's certainly very well-meaning,

:41:02.:41:04.

but I happen to think there are problems with it and I will explain

:41:05.:41:08.

what they are in a moment. One of the points that has been made, or

:41:09.:41:14.

should be made, is that it is usual for government to bring important

:41:15.:41:18.

treaties to this house for approval before they sign it. It's quite

:41:19.:41:23.

common is a phenomenon. It's not unusual. Not normally ratified it

:41:24.:41:28.

signed. There is a long history of doing this on important treaties. In

:41:29.:41:36.

an ideal world, the obvious course of action, sequentially, is the

:41:37.:41:41.

white paper, and I'm delighted we succeeded in securing it because it

:41:42.:41:45.

sets out a plan. The government getting on with the treaty

:41:46.:41:48.

negotiations. And in our ideal world, I would like to see the

:41:49.:41:52.

government come back before anything is concluded to ask this house for

:41:53.:41:57.

its approval. And to indicate what it has succeeded in achieving. The

:41:58.:42:00.

house would then have to make judgments at that time in relation

:42:01.:42:08.

to the situation overall. I'm grateful to the Honourable member

:42:09.:42:11.

for giving way as he takes us through the sequence of this. The

:42:12.:42:14.

minister indicated that the beginning of the debate that there

:42:15.:42:18.

was a concession that would make this more meaningful. I don't expect

:42:19.:42:22.

him to comment, but it appears number ten on our briefing that this

:42:23.:42:27.

is exactly the same as what the Prime Minister offered in her

:42:28.:42:29.

Lancaster house speech, and therefore nothing has changed. I

:42:30.:42:34.

have to say, I don't think I agree with that. I don't know what number

:42:35.:42:40.

ten may or may not be doing. I had some role in trying to secure the

:42:41.:42:44.

concession that was read out by the Minister. It is by no means a

:42:45.:42:49.

perfect concession as far as I am concerned, but I will come on in a

:42:50.:42:52.

moment to explain some of the difficulties I think that house has.

:42:53.:42:57.

I give way to the Honourable Lady. The daily Mirror is reporting that

:42:58.:43:02.

number ten has said that all the concession does is give clarity

:43:03.:43:05.

around the timing of the vote and nothing else. The timing, it is

:43:06.:43:12.

absolutely right that there had been indications from the government on a

:43:13.:43:15.

number of occasions previously that they would allow this house to have

:43:16.:43:20.

a say. Indeed, I have to say, looking at the matter logically, the

:43:21.:43:24.

idea we would be deprived of having a say, that is lighting a blue touch

:43:25.:43:30.

paper and retiring. If a government wishes to bring its self down, then

:43:31.:43:34.

denying Parliament a say on some really important issue is just not

:43:35.:43:41.

feasible. I will give way in just a moment. I had some role in trying to

:43:42.:43:48.

look and see how the government could provide some assurance on the

:43:49.:43:52.

process. Not perfect, and the Minister has read out what he has. I

:43:53.:43:57.

have to say to the Honourable Lady, I think it's a significant step

:43:58.:44:01.

forward, as was said by the Honourable and learn it gentlemen,

:44:02.:44:06.

the member for Holborn and St Pancras, a significant step forward

:44:07.:44:10.

on what had been said previously. It has provided to my mind helpful

:44:11.:44:16.

clarification. Number ten is briefing that there is no real

:44:17.:44:20.

change. The concession is not a concession. That is number ten it's

:44:21.:44:25.

self. I can read what's on the paper. I take the view that it is a

:44:26.:44:31.

significant step forward. I will say no more about it at this time. I

:44:32.:44:38.

will give way. The house will have its say, the question is the

:44:39.:44:42.

circumstances under which it has that say, and what is the default

:44:43.:44:47.

position if it doesn't agree? Can we adjudicate between the daily Mirror,

:44:48.:44:51.

number ten, the minister in the front bench and the interpretation

:44:52.:44:54.

of the right honourable gentleman by having something on paper in the

:44:55.:44:59.

bill so we can all then have an interpretation crystallised around a

:45:00.:45:07.

central truth. The right honourable gentleman, with characteristic

:45:08.:45:09.

sagacity goes to the heart and snub of the problem. Is it readily

:45:10.:45:16.

probable to put on the face of this bill, the intention is set out by

:45:17.:45:21.

the minister when he read it out at the dispatch box? There are, I'm

:45:22.:45:25.

afraid, it seems to me, some really good reasons, in fairness to the

:45:26.:45:30.

Minister and government, why it presents difficulties. The most

:45:31.:45:34.

obvious difficulty is the finite nature of the negotiating period

:45:35.:45:38.

under Article 50 will stop one of the things I was interested in is

:45:39.:45:42.

whether we could secure from the government an undertaking that we

:45:43.:45:46.

would have a vote at the end of the process before, in fact, the signing

:45:47.:45:51.

of the deal with the commission. Contrary to what is in amendment

:45:52.:45:59.

110, the Council of ministers and the commission are not two separate

:46:00.:46:03.

processes. The commission will sign the initial agreement when the

:46:04.:46:07.

Council of ministers gives them authority to do it. Then it goes to

:46:08.:46:12.

the European Parliament for a ratification or approval process,

:46:13.:46:16.

call you what it will. These are not two separate things. The problem we

:46:17.:46:20.

run is that if this negotiation follows a pattern, which we have

:46:21.:46:25.

often had in the course of EU negotiations in running into the

:46:26.:46:28.

11th hour, 59th minute and 59th second and we are about to drop off

:46:29.:46:33.

the edge, I confess that I don't particularly wish to fetter the

:46:34.:46:36.

government's discretion in saying that at that precise moment they

:46:37.:46:41.

have to say, we are sorry, we have to give a decision until 48 hours

:46:42.:46:45.

after we have dropped off because we have to get approval from both

:46:46.:46:49.

houses of parliament. That is a real problem. It's a real problem

:46:50.:46:55.

inherent in the ghastly labyrinth, from my point of view, into which we

:46:56.:47:01.

have been plunged. And we have to try to work our way through with

:47:02.:47:13.

common sense. Was his understanding that what the minister said was that

:47:14.:47:17.

the deal would be presented to Parliament after it had been agreed

:47:18.:47:20.

by the commission and the Council, but before it had been agreed by

:47:21.:47:27.

Parliament. If so, that seems like a really late stage in the process.

:47:28.:47:31.

And does he think there's a problem if the EU Parliament can send it

:47:32.:47:37.

back to negotiations, but the UK Parliament can't. There are bound to

:47:38.:47:42.

be difficulties in this because the whole process of negotiation, as she

:47:43.:47:45.

is aware from Article 50, is rather one-sided. This is an inherent

:47:46.:47:53.

difficulty. Let's suppose for a moment that these negotiations are

:47:54.:47:57.

concluded in 18 months. I would hope in those circumstances the Minister

:47:58.:48:00.

would say, thank you, but we will not do the first agreement, we want

:48:01.:48:05.

to go back to both houses of parliament before we agree with the

:48:06.:48:08.

commission because we have time to do so. But if it is the 11th hour, I

:48:09.:48:14.

accept the government has a problem. And that problem is not taken into

:48:15.:48:18.

account in New Clause 110. The preference is for Parliament to

:48:19.:48:28.

be asked its opinion before any agreement has been signed with the

:48:29.:48:32.

council on the, the commission on the authority of the council. Does

:48:33.:48:37.

he accept this 11th hour problem, can easily be got round in the

:48:38.:48:42.

torturous process of European negotiations stopping the clock is

:48:43.:48:48.

hardly unknown and if all the member states were agreed that the British

:48:49.:48:52.

Government had to be given time to get the approval of Parliament they

:48:53.:48:57.

would allow two or three weeks to' lapse. Now would he also agree that

:48:58.:49:03.

what we need is something on paper to clarify these highly important

:49:04.:49:12.

poin? So would he agree with me in inviting the minister to table an

:49:13.:49:16.

amendment in the House of Lords giving precise effect to whatever

:49:17.:49:20.

the concession is meant to mean. If we pass new clause 99 or new clause

:49:21.:49:27.

110 today, it can be replaced with that Government amendment. If they

:49:28.:49:31.

come up with a better clarification, but what we can't do is leave this

:49:32.:49:36.

debate continuing for the next two years on what the minister did or

:49:37.:49:40.

did not mean when he made his statement to the House today.

:49:41.:49:48.

The Right Honourable gentleman had a very long career. So long in fact

:49:49.:49:54.

that I think he is capable of recognising the difference between

:49:55.:50:01.

an intervention and a speech. Dominic Grieve... It would be

:50:02.:50:08.

helpful if the Government were in a position to amplify on the brief

:50:09.:50:13.

statement, but also acknowledge and my honourable friend knows this that

:50:14.:50:17.

just as he expressed it, doing this by means of an amendment is, I

:50:18.:50:22.

think, going to be difficult. I know Government drafts men have extreme

:50:23.:50:28.

inagain uity and this maybe an issue which might be taken up, but I think

:50:29.:50:32.

there are some difficulties because there is a whole series of

:50:33.:50:35.

conditionalities in it and I don't wish at the moment to fetter the

:50:36.:50:39.

Government in it's ability to carry out this negotiation. It would seem

:50:40.:50:46.

a greateror if we do this, because we will undermine the ultimate

:50:47.:50:51.

outcome to our own detriment. This has been something which worried me

:50:52.:50:54.

throughout. So for those reasons, it don't want to take up more of the

:50:55.:51:00.

House's time, for those reasons, my inclination, although I have had

:51:01.:51:03.

great difficulty over this today and indeed in the days that led up to it

:51:04.:51:09.

is so accept the assurance that's been given by honourable friend the

:51:10.:51:13.

minister to be a constructive step forward, but I think he will have to

:51:14.:51:17.

face up to the fact that this issue isn't going to go away. Even when we

:51:18.:51:23.

have enacted the legislation and triggered Article 50 this will be a

:51:24.:51:26.

recurrent theme throughout the whole of the negotiating process and it

:51:27.:51:30.

will come back much, much harder as we get closer to the outcome and it

:51:31.:51:34.

becomes clearer from all the leaks that will come from Brussels what

:51:35.:51:38.

sort of deal or non deal they're going to have. So the Government had

:51:39.:51:41.

better have a strategy because if the strategy is to avoid this House,

:51:42.:51:46.

isle afraid I have to say to my honourable friend the Government is

:51:47.:51:49.

going to fail miserably and I don't want that to happen. I want to try

:51:50.:51:56.

and guide this process as best I can as a previous law officer towards a

:51:57.:52:02.

satisfactory conclusion. I'm grateful to my Right Honourable

:52:03.:52:05.

friend who played a considerable part in this. What the remarks that

:52:06.:52:11.

the minister do is put an onus on the Government to make sure that a

:52:12.:52:15.

reporting process of the negotiation is also meaningful because you can't

:52:16.:52:21.

have a vote at the end of this after 18 months of radio silence so the

:52:22.:52:25.

negotiating process can be sensible and can be relevant and can give the

:52:26.:52:30.

House a real feel of what's to happen, if that's not there, the

:52:31.:52:33.

vote at the end would mean very little. I agree entirely with my

:52:34.:52:38.

honourable friend and I hope the Government will listen because this

:52:39.:52:42.

issue is not going to go away and it will keep con coming back whilst

:52:43.:52:49.

this issue dominates our politics until we have satisfactorily

:52:50.:52:50.

resolved it. I just want to say as he thanked the

:52:51.:53:05.

minister, the House ought to thank him. He set out the responsible

:53:06.:53:11.

version about how to deal with this issue.

:53:12.:53:16.

I'm grateful. I listened to his speech and some of the things I

:53:17.:53:19.

might have said he had already said and he approached it from a similar

:53:20.:53:23.

angle. I will just say this in conclusion at the risk of repeating

:53:24.:53:30.

myself. Yes, I give way. His speech seems to be predicated on the idea

:53:31.:53:37.

that the Government can go to and from to Europe and negotiate

:53:38.:53:47.

something that Parliament might be happy with. Isn't this I don't know

:53:48.:54:02.

and I actually think that none of us know. You can make some broad

:54:03.:54:07.

assumptions and there appears to be goodwill to reach a sensible

:54:08.:54:10.

agreement. You can see how that could be easily derailed by

:54:11.:54:13.

political pressures and considerations within other EU

:54:14.:54:16.

states and you can also see and I have to say that the United Kingdom

:54:17.:54:19.

is at a disadvantage of these negotiations for reasons that are

:54:20.:54:23.

plainly obvious. But seeing as we have embarked on this course, what

:54:24.:54:28.

we have got to do collectively is try to apply common sense. I often

:54:29.:54:33.

don't hear common sense on this issue and frequently I don't seem to

:54:34.:54:38.

hear it from some members on my own benches who seem fixated on

:54:39.:54:43.

ideological considerations that will reduce this country to beggary if we

:54:44.:54:50.

continue with them, but I do consider we have to be rational in

:54:51.:54:53.

trying to respond to the clearly stated wishes of the electorate.

:54:54.:54:59.

Until such time we they show they might do as they did between 197 and

:55:00.:55:03.

a last year that they changed their mind on the subject and even then it

:55:04.:55:08.

might be a different future and not a return to the past. I will do my

:55:09.:55:13.

best to support the Government. I welcome the minister's comments and

:55:14.:55:16.

in the circumstances therefore, I think that they are looking at the

:55:17.:55:19.

amachinedments the best solution we have this evening and as I say, that

:55:20.:55:23.

doesn't mean to say that the Government is not going to have to

:55:24.:55:27.

continue thinking about how it involves this House and otherwise

:55:28.:55:30.

this House is simply going to involve itself. It is a pleasure to

:55:31.:55:41.

follow the excellent speech from the member. A chrkically shrewd speech.

:55:42.:55:48.

I agree wholeheartedly with one of the things he said towards the

:55:49.:55:51.

beginning of his speech. We cannot allow the fact that there has been a

:55:52.:55:56.

referendum to absolve this House of Its duty to scrutinise the

:55:57.:56:00.

Government's progress through these negotiation and to act in the

:56:01.:56:05.

national interest. I wholeheartedly agree with him about that and it is

:56:06.:56:08.

that view which is conditioning the entire which in which I'm

:56:09.:56:12.

approaching this debate. I disagreed with him however about the other

:56:13.:56:17.

substantive thing he said was in respect of the concession made by

:56:18.:56:22.

the member for clued, the Brexit minister. I agree that it is a

:56:23.:56:27.

substantive concession that the Government has made here today. I'm

:56:28.:56:32.

less Angwin I confess than some of my honourable and Right Honourable

:56:33.:56:35.

friends about that. It doesn't feel that we have moved much beyond where

:56:36.:56:39.

we are in the Lancaster House speech. Inasmuch as what is being

:56:40.:56:43.

offered to the House is a debate right at the end of the process, at

:56:44.:56:48.

a point we don't know exactly, but seemingly right at the dog days of

:56:49.:56:53.

the process and a choice at that point between the deal that is on

:56:54.:56:58.

offer which in my view is likely to be a bad deal because it is

:56:59.:57:03.

predicated itself on our leaving the single market, and leaving the

:57:04.:57:07.

customs union and the hard hard Brexit we feared and no deal and if

:57:08.:57:11.

there is no deal then as the minister has confirmed here today,

:57:12.:57:15.

what the country will face is exiting the European Union on WTO

:57:16.:57:19.

terms. Now what does that mean for the country? Well, according to the

:57:20.:57:25.

Director-General of the World Trade Organisation, it would mean a

:57:26.:57:30.

reduction of around ?9 billion worth of trade per annum for the United

:57:31.:57:34.

Kingdom. That's the view of the WTO. What does it mean according to the

:57:35.:57:38.

Treasury? Well, before the referendum the Treasury said that

:57:39.:57:43.

they thought it would mean an annual reduction in the receipts for this

:57:44.:57:49.

country of ?45 billion per year. That's the reduction in GDP that

:57:50.:57:54.

they saw. It is an eye watering sum. It would be equivalent to putting

:57:55.:57:58.

ten pence on the basic rate of income tax in this country and

:57:59.:58:02.

that's why above all else, we have to consider incredibly carefully

:58:03.:58:07.

where we're going because if we end up at that point, it will be

:58:08.:58:11.

disaster for Britain the I said I wanted to speak in favour of

:58:12.:58:17.

amendment 43 by the honourable member for west moorland and

:58:18.:58:21.

Lonsdale. I would have liked to have been able to speak in respect of my

:58:22.:58:26.

amendment, new clause 52 or new clause 131 by the Liberal Democrats

:58:27.:58:29.

which would have gone further and insisted on there being a second

:58:30.:58:35.

referendum. Apparently we can't have those amendments because they would

:58:36.:58:39.

mean a money commitment that there isn't in respect of this Bill, but

:58:40.:58:44.

it seem to me to be ironic when the potential cost of falling out of the

:58:45.:58:49.

European Union is ?45 billion, not to spend ?100 million on making sure

:58:50.:58:54.

we don't do that is a pretty good deal. On the particular point, there

:58:55.:59:01.

is amendment 44 to be voted on on Wednesday which does have a

:59:02.:59:04.

provision for a referendum evaluation that doesn't therefore

:59:05.:59:09.

need to be costed and therefore, it is in order and people who want a

:59:10.:59:13.

second referendum on the film say can vote for that amendment. I'm

:59:14.:59:19.

pleased with that. I hope we will vote on that tomorrow. The reason I

:59:20.:59:23.

am insistent that we need to consider once more a second

:59:24.:59:27.

referendum, a con fir matetry ratify katetry referendum, whatever you

:59:28.:59:30.

want to call it, I believe that Brexit is going to be a disaster for

:59:31.:59:35.

our country. One that is going to cost us and future generations in

:59:36.:59:41.

lost trade, in lost revenues, and in lost opportunities. I believe that

:59:42.:59:45.

it is a disaster for us to be dividing the country as we have done

:59:46.:59:52.

on this issue. On our values and on the crucial things we hold in

:59:53.:59:55.

concert and I won't give way because the honourable member has spoken a

:59:56.:59:59.

lot in this debate. I also think it is destructive for us to have

:00:00.:00:07.

engaged in Brexit and unleashed a catalytic force of destructive

:00:08.:00:11.

politics, not just in this country, but across the west. And it is to my

:00:12.:00:17.

eternal regret that we launch down this route with this Parliament in

:00:18.:00:23.

my view not being sufficiently vigilant on diligent as to the risks

:00:24.:00:27.

that we face in this referendum or to the nature of the referendum that

:00:28.:00:31.

we were offering to the country because I believe that it was a

:00:32.:00:37.

profoundly flawed referendum. Flawed in many regards and one which could

:00:38.:00:41.

I'm sure many people would feel right across this House, could have

:00:42.:00:45.

been dramatically improved with greater scrutiny, and with greater

:00:46.:00:49.

care. Why did we not offer that scrutiny? Because I do not think

:00:50.:00:52.

that many members in this House on either side of the debate seriously

:00:53.:00:56.

thought that the referendum was going to be lost. There was a

:00:57.:01:01.

widespread view that this was a referendum being agreed upon for

:01:02.:01:05.

ideological reasons to solve the culture wars that have raged in the

:01:06.:01:11.

Tory Party for 30 odd years and it wasn't really considered carefully

:01:12.:01:15.

enough. But we have an opportunity in this House now to make aid

:01:16.:01:20.

mendments for the mistake that we made -- amends for the mistake that

:01:21.:01:27.

we made, not the people, they voted on the question we offered them,

:01:28.:01:30.

they voted with the information that we provided, they voted with the 50%

:01:31.:01:35.

plus one margin that we put in statute. We have an opportunity to

:01:36.:01:40.

rectify some of those mistakes and I feel that we should. I feel we

:01:41.:01:44.

should follow the view that the Brexit Secretary had when he was on

:01:45.:01:48.

the back benches in this House and it is the honourable member for west

:01:49.:01:53.

moorland said have a final con fir matetry referendum. We had a mandate

:01:54.:01:57.

referendum which said we should leave the European Union, but we do

:01:58.:02:02.

not know what the terms of that leaving will be and it is legitimate

:02:03.:02:06.

for us to consider that. It wouldn't be denying democracy to do that. It

:02:07.:02:10.

would in my view be doubling down on it. The problem with simply pushing

:02:11.:02:16.

for a vote in this place on the terms of that deal is that I feel we

:02:17.:02:24.

run the risk of leaving the people doubly dissatisfied because it is

:02:25.:02:27.

perfectly possible that this House could reject the prospect of us

:02:28.:02:33.

falling out of the European Union on WTO terms because of the costs that

:02:34.:02:37.

will become apparent when we see the extra cost for our production of

:02:38.:02:42.

cars, for chemicals, for financial services, for all of the other

:02:43.:02:46.

things that would see their tariff price rise for export out of this

:02:47.:02:50.

country. It is perfectly possible that as the honourable member said,

:02:51.:02:55.

we start to see a change in the views of the country in respect of

:02:56.:03:00.

Brexit when those things happen. I will give way in a moment. Why do

:03:01.:03:05.

I ask for that? Because I hope the country does change its mind. I'm

:03:06.:03:10.

not shy about saying that. I feel Brexit is a mistake. I think it will

:03:11.:03:13.

damage the future of our children. It is not in our national interest

:03:14.:03:18.

and although the people have voted for it, I think we have a duty to

:03:19.:03:22.

scrutinise the Government's management of this process to give

:03:23.:03:27.

clarity to the people as to what it's really going to mean to them,

:03:28.:03:30.

not the projections and not the promises and not the ?350 million

:03:31.:03:36.

lies that were scrawled on a bus, nor some of the so-called threats

:03:37.:03:40.

from project fear, but the reality of what Brexit is going to mean in

:03:41.:03:45.

pounds, shillings and pence for my children, for all of our children

:03:46.:03:49.

and at that point we will be doing our duty if we not only scrutinise

:03:50.:03:53.

and vote in this place, but use that vote to give the people the final

:03:54.:03:56.

say on the final terms of the deal. Can I say from the outset, it is

:03:57.:04:13.

really important for all of us just step back from the way we have done

:04:14.:04:20.

politics for too long and to the detriment of British politics? The

:04:21.:04:23.

idea there are concessions to be made, whether there are briefings

:04:24.:04:31.

from Number 10 that say no concessions can be made, whether we

:04:32.:04:35.

say they have been given and the abyss and that, and isn't it

:04:36.:04:43.

wonderful, and something is triumphant over another? Whether you

:04:44.:04:48.

have seen of the Brexiteer 's or remain as, it is not only tedious

:04:49.:04:54.

and inaccurate, it does not do us or our constituents any favours. I for

:04:55.:05:02.

1am sick and tired of it. It was back in September or October for a

:05:03.:05:06.

number of people on these benches said the what now happened, as we

:05:07.:05:14.

leave the EU, we have accepted the referendum result. Transcend normal

:05:15.:05:19.

party political divide because it is so important, not for my generation

:05:20.:05:23.

but for my children and grandchildren that are to come. As

:05:24.:05:29.

others have said, I will give credit, these are the most important

:05:30.:05:34.

negotiations we have entered for decades and it is critical we get it

:05:35.:05:38.

right because of the consequences for generations to come. So can we

:05:39.:05:52.

in effect stop the sort of... It is not acceptable any more. Let us try

:05:53.:05:57.

to come together, to heal the divide, because we need to say this,

:05:58.:06:07.

he was not just in my constituency. I look to Nottingham in Ashfield,

:06:08.:06:13.

because the results of the borough are bigger than my constituency and

:06:14.:06:20.

excludes eastward, and I will not go into the demography of them, but in

:06:21.:06:26.

my constituency, the vote for Leave was about the national average, 51%,

:06:27.:06:34.

maybe up to 52%. Some of my voters, as indeed across this country, voted

:06:35.:06:39.

to leave the European Union because they wanted to and they were adamant

:06:40.:06:48.

they wanted this place to have true sovereignty, true Parliamentary

:06:49.:06:53.

sovereignty. And yet the awful irony of it is, since this vote, there are

:06:54.:07:00.

many people who feel that Parliament has been completely excluded. The

:07:01.:07:06.

government had to be brought in. This bill had to come because of

:07:07.:07:15.

some brave citizens that went to court to say, Parliamentary

:07:16.:07:19.

sovereignty must mean that, it must be sovereign and it must exceed the

:07:20.:07:23.

powers of the government. And then it has failed to say if this place

:07:24.:07:31.

has been excluded. And so it has been that we are leaving the single

:07:32.:07:37.

market, we have abandoned free movement, long held beliefs on all

:07:38.:07:45.

sides that people are against, in some instances, everything we have

:07:46.:07:49.

ever believed in the decades, and those we have in effect, last week

:07:50.:07:55.

when we voted to put into action the result of the referendum, we did not

:07:56.:08:00.

vote according to a conscience all our long-held beliefs. I did not

:08:01.:08:05.

vote with my conscience. If I am truthful about it, I am actually not

:08:06.:08:09.

sure I voted in the best interests of my constituents. That upsets me

:08:10.:08:17.

because when I came here, I have not come here for a career, I came here

:08:18.:08:21.

because I wanted to represent my constituents and did a very best for

:08:22.:08:25.

them, and I genuinely do not know if I did not last week, but I was true

:08:26.:08:31.

to the promise I made to my constituents. I promise them that if

:08:32.:08:35.

they voted Leave, they would get Leave, and that is what drove me

:08:36.:08:40.

with a heavy heart through the lobbies and against my conscience

:08:41.:08:43.

but I do believe I did the right thing and I look myself in the

:08:44.:08:46.

mirror every morning, believing I have been true to the promise made

:08:47.:08:53.

to my constituents. But if I will not now be true to my belief in

:08:54.:08:57.

Parliamentary sovereignty, I do not want to vote against my government,

:08:58.:09:02.

I have never been to slaughter my government, even though at times...

:09:03.:09:07.

I have always been true and loyal to my government. In this instance, I

:09:08.:09:14.

think that Newport one 110 and bodies admirable objectives. And

:09:15.:09:20.

goodness me, anyone would think this is revolutionary. Whatever happens,

:09:21.:09:26.

be a deal, and I support my government and Prime Minister in all

:09:27.:09:30.

their efforts to get that deal, and I thank the Minister for the

:09:31.:09:37.

concession he has given, and if people do not like the word

:09:38.:09:42.

concession, I will abandon that, for what the Minister has said has been

:09:43.:09:47.

the right thing to say. The excellent speech from my right

:09:48.:09:52.

honourable learn a friend, it is progress and the right thing to do.

:09:53.:09:58.

But what concerns me is what happens if, despite its best efforts, the

:09:59.:10:02.

government fails to no-fault of its own and we have no deal. And how

:10:03.:10:08.

revolutionary is it to say, in the event of no deal and in a writing

:10:09.:10:15.

meaningful time, as we go to that new relationship, please could we

:10:16.:10:19.

have a say, not on by Harper Parliament, on behalf of all our

:10:20.:10:23.

constituents? That is why I come to this place. She has got to the nub

:10:24.:10:32.

of the issue. What my constituents fear is that they have seen

:10:33.:10:35.

throughout this process Parliament being sidelined and been presented

:10:36.:10:38.

with this deal or no Deal option with the horror of ending up in

:10:39.:10:45.

limbo, giving the difficulties of negotiating terms. That will put our

:10:46.:10:49.

country in a bigger mess than we are an already. That's what they fear

:10:50.:10:53.

that is why they want Parliament to have a say. I agree with much of the

:10:54.:10:56.

content of what the right honourable gentleman says but I am also

:10:57.:11:01.

reminded of what the member for Beaconsfield said, who knows where

:11:02.:11:08.

we may be in 2-mac reduced time? Nobody seems to have thought of in

:11:09.:11:13.

these terms. We may not have our Prime Minister. It may be another

:11:14.:11:20.

Prime Minister. We might not have the same Secretary of State. Even my

:11:21.:11:24.

right honourable friend, the minister. That is a circumstance

:11:25.:11:28.

that could change. Another circumstance that could change as

:11:29.:11:33.

the economy, the mood in Europe and it might actually be... Those

:11:34.:11:39.

hardline Brexiteers, there may be circumstances that they want to

:11:40.:11:43.

protect themselves from and they may want this debate and it may also be

:11:44.:11:49.

the case that actually WTO tariffs and those other things that we fear

:11:50.:11:56.

actually might be in our best interest. That is the point of this.

:11:57.:12:01.

We do not know where the we should be in two years' time, it is right

:12:02.:12:06.

we keep our options open and it is right we debate on it. She is making

:12:07.:12:14.

her points with the usual eloquence. Does she agree with me that one of

:12:15.:12:18.

the other contexts that has clearly changed since the 23rd of June is

:12:19.:12:24.

the geopolitics of the world? We have a new leader in the United

:12:25.:12:28.

States, we have some very serious concerns that have been raised about

:12:29.:12:33.

Putin in Russia, all of that changes the context. We do not know in two

:12:34.:12:38.

years' time where we might be. I absolutely agree with the right

:12:39.:12:42.

honourable gentleman. That is exactly the point that many members

:12:43.:12:47.

across this House are now making. In conclusion, could it gently say to

:12:48.:12:55.

the government, of course give way. The honourable lady has given a very

:12:56.:13:01.

honest speech and I must commend her for her honesty and decency. We have

:13:02.:13:10.

just had the pre-excellent, calm, rational speeches, explaining the

:13:11.:13:13.

things that are tearing this country apart. Is it not time now for us all

:13:14.:13:22.

to understand that not only are we talking to our own constituents, but

:13:23.:13:26.

this House has been listened to across the world? The people who

:13:27.:13:34.

will be deciding on Brexit are also listening, and the more

:13:35.:13:38.

triumphalist, the more aggressive, the more rebellious are actually the

:13:39.:13:44.

worst enemies to get us to where we need to be. I completely agree and

:13:45.:13:50.

can I say, it is part of this bringing together, this forming and

:13:51.:13:55.

building of the consensus, not just in this place, but the country at

:13:56.:14:01.

large, families, friends, communities remain divided and we

:14:02.:14:05.

must come together. People have put their trust as I have in my Prime

:14:06.:14:12.

Minister and government. I have said to them, as somebody who was always

:14:13.:14:15.

believed in our continuing membership of the European Union, we

:14:16.:14:21.

lost that debate, I now trust the Prime Minister and government when

:14:22.:14:24.

it comes to the abandoning of the single market, freedom of movement

:14:25.:14:32.

and even leaving the customs union, but I will continue to fight for all

:14:33.:14:36.

of those things because I believe in them but I trust them to get the

:14:37.:14:42.

best deal for our country and all I ask is, rather than have to vote for

:14:43.:14:46.

an amendment when this bill, which is a good vehicle to deliver the

:14:47.:14:53.

result, and should not be amended, but all we are asking is that this

:14:54.:14:59.

place, in the event of no deal, actually has a voice and a vote. Mr

:15:00.:15:07.

Howarth, if the government cannot see the profound logic and sense of

:15:08.:15:12.

that, it will put people like me with no alternative in order to make

:15:13.:15:17.

my voice clear and heard, on behalf of all my constituents and to

:15:18.:15:23.

support the right honourable gentleman in this amendment, it is

:15:24.:15:27.

reasonable and fair but it encompasses in what it seeks to

:15:28.:15:33.

achieve the right thing, and I will give way... In the case of there

:15:34.:15:39.

being a deal, it is very clear that ministers made a commitment that the

:15:40.:15:42.

House will vote on it. In the case of there not being a deal, I do not

:15:43.:15:48.

know whether the honourable lady can answer the question any better than

:15:49.:15:53.

the honourable gentleman, but my reading of new clause 110 is it only

:15:54.:15:57.

deals with cases where there is a new treaty or relationship being

:15:58.:16:00.

proposed, it does not deal with the case of there not being a deal. I am

:16:01.:16:05.

very grateful for the intervention. I am sure you could explain it if it

:16:06.:16:12.

needs any further clarity. The relationship has been exactly that.

:16:13.:16:17.

If we do not have a deal, we then have a new deal on new relationship

:16:18.:16:22.

with the European Union. I congratulate him on putting the word

:16:23.:16:27.

relationship into that clause because it perfectly encompasses no

:16:28.:16:32.

deal, it encompasses all eventualities. It is not rocket

:16:33.:16:36.

science, it is not revolutionary, it is the right thing to do and I make

:16:37.:16:41.

it clear... I will give way once more. I want to take the lady back

:16:42.:16:49.

to the remarks about a bad deal or no Deal. How does she see the WTO?

:16:50.:16:57.

How does she see, if the UK does not get a deal, dishes see that as a

:16:58.:17:00.

sign of failure by the UK Government? It is a language I want

:17:01.:17:09.

to abandon, failure and success. I will not play that game. I want us

:17:10.:17:14.

to come together, I want is now to get the best deal and in the

:17:15.:17:18.

eventuality that we do not get a deal to make sure that this place

:17:19.:17:24.

absolutely gets that vote. On that basis, I will listen to the debate

:17:25.:17:30.

but I have to say, I will vote in favour of this amendment and make it

:17:31.:17:37.

clear, not for any design, but to stand up for what is right for all

:17:38.:17:45.

my constituents. Can I commend the honourable member on her speech,

:17:46.:17:50.

much of which I agree with because, like her, I voted this week to

:17:51.:17:56.

trigger Article 50 as part of the second reading because I think we

:17:57.:18:01.

should respect the referendum result and I campaigned for us to remain

:18:02.:18:07.

but like her, I think we have a cross Parliament a responsibility to

:18:08.:18:10.

get the best possible Brexit deal, and that means all of us should be

:18:11.:18:14.

involved in that because we know there is so much yet to be decided

:18:15.:18:18.

about what kind of Brexit do we get, what kind of terms we have as part

:18:19.:18:24.

of leaving the EU. That is why I stand to support new clauses one, 99

:18:25.:18:33.

and 110 because everyone today has said that they agreed that the

:18:34.:18:37.

Parliamentary vote should be meaningful but in fact what the

:18:38.:18:41.

minister said does not provide that assurance at all.

:18:42.:18:45.

First of all the government is not prepared to put that on the face of

:18:46.:18:53.

the bill. If the government changes, if things change, what reassurance

:18:54.:18:56.

do we have if this boat is not on the face of the bill that it will

:18:57.:19:00.

happen at the right time, that it will be respected in the right way.

:19:01.:19:06.

Secondly, if there is no deal, then there is no match report and that

:19:07.:19:09.

matters because what it means is that it is possible for the

:19:10.:19:14.

executive with power concentrated in its hands to decide to reject a deal

:19:15.:19:20.

from the EU that maybe parliament might have accepted. It gives the

:19:21.:19:25.

executive the power to decide. Actually it's going to go down the

:19:26.:19:30.

WTO route without going for any of the many alternatives that there

:19:31.:19:34.

might have been with no say for parliament. There is no opportunity

:19:35.:19:39.

for Parliament to say there was a better deal on offer and actually

:19:40.:19:41.

the government should be working with the EU to get that better deal

:19:42.:19:46.

that might be in the interests of all our constituents. I do think we

:19:47.:19:51.

should give the executive the concentration of power in their

:19:52.:19:54.

hands to simply be able to choose the WTO route with no possible

:19:55.:19:59.

debate or discussion or vote. There should be devoted on an alternative.

:20:00.:20:05.

I think to be fair to the honourable lady, she has at least gone some way

:20:06.:20:09.

to answering her question. What I think she said is that if the

:20:10.:20:12.

government judges the best available terms on offer are not good in the

:20:13.:20:19.

government's definition a bad deal, what she is saying is she would let

:20:20.:20:23.

the government to put that in front of Parliament and ask parliament to

:20:24.:20:27.

decide whether that is indeed a bad deal. I think that's what she said,

:20:28.:20:32.

could you confirm that? That would be one way to do to make sure there

:20:33.:20:36.

was indeed a substantive vote rather than the government simply heading

:20:37.:20:41.

directly for the WTO alternative without giving Parliament the

:20:42.:20:45.

alternative option to do so. I think the second challenge with the

:20:46.:20:49.

government's approach, if there is a deal, actually the timing of the

:20:50.:20:53.

vote will still make it very difficult for Parliament because the

:20:54.:20:57.

vote will come after it has been agreed with the 27 countries, after

:20:58.:21:00.

it's been agreed with the commission but before it goes to the European

:21:01.:21:04.

Parliament. And again Parliament will only get the choice between the

:21:05.:21:10.

executive's deal and the WTO terms, even if again we know that there was

:21:11.:21:15.

a better or fairer deal on offer. Now I hope there will be agreement

:21:16.:21:18.

across this has, I hope that the government will be able to come up

:21:19.:21:21.

with the best possible Brexit deal and in fact it will have strong

:21:22.:21:27.

support and endorsement. But if it doesn't, eventually things unravel

:21:28.:21:31.

along the way, what is the opportunity for Parliament to have

:21:32.:21:36.

its say and do try and bring things back together? Again, the timing of

:21:37.:21:40.

this vote, leaving a dry to the very end of the process makes it very

:21:41.:21:46.

hard to do. With the honourable lady agree with me that the opportunity

:21:47.:21:51.

would be for the government to be to request an extension of the article

:21:52.:21:54.

50 process if we've not been able to conclude up possible deal and the

:21:55.:21:59.

request for that extension would be greatly enhanced and strengthened if

:22:00.:22:02.

it had the mandate of Parliament behind it, so this would be a

:22:03.:22:06.

partnership of the legislature and the executive working together to

:22:07.:22:11.

strengthen the national interest, vis-a-vis the European partners.

:22:12.:22:15.

That would certainly be one option. If the EU Parliament votes down the

:22:16.:22:19.

deal, that is indeed what would happen, the EU parliament would get

:22:20.:22:23.

the opportunity to save the negotiations should be extended but

:22:24.:22:25.

currently the UK parliament would not get that opportunity was that I

:22:26.:22:30.

don't think the purpose of this should be to extend the

:22:31.:22:32.

negotiations, we should be trying to implement the decision that has been

:22:33.:22:38.

taken as part of the referendum but we do need the safeguards in place

:22:39.:22:41.

to prevent the government running hell for leather or an option which

:22:42.:22:45.

is bad for Britain if it turns out that Parliament judges there is a

:22:46.:22:50.

better offer on the table that would give us a better Brexit deal. The

:22:51.:22:56.

honourable lady is very passionate on this subject. My concern is that

:22:57.:23:01.

once the Article 50 process has been begun, if at the end of this process

:23:02.:23:06.

parliaments rejects it, nothing happens, then we leave and my

:23:07.:23:11.

concern is that an undesirable result and that is why binding the

:23:12.:23:14.

hands of the government with these amendment is not in the interest of

:23:15.:23:19.

this country. But I don't think these amendments would bind the

:23:20.:23:22.

hands of the government, I do agree with him that there is a concern,

:23:23.:23:26.

that we could end up sort of toppling off the edge of the

:23:27.:23:29.

negotiations without having a deal in place and that means I there's an

:23:30.:23:33.

incentive on all of us in Parliament to want there to be a deal in place,

:23:34.:23:37.

both in terms of the Brexit deal but also in terms of what the future

:23:38.:23:41.

trade arrangements should be on what transitional arrangements should be

:23:42.:23:44.

in order to do that. That will be the incentive of all of us in

:23:45.:23:48.

Parliament but my concern is that at the moment but with the government

:23:49.:23:52.

has set out its arrangements, there isn't an incentive on the executive

:23:53.:23:57.

to try and get a deal that the whole of Parliament can support because

:23:58.:24:02.

the executive can simply go down the WTO route and decide to reject

:24:03.:24:06.

alternatives without any say for Parliament and actually we don't

:24:07.:24:09.

have the right incentives to get possible deal. With the Right

:24:10.:24:14.

honourable lady agree that actually everybody in this house on all sides

:24:15.:24:19.

and the government would like tariff free trade. We're entirely agreed

:24:20.:24:23.

about that, the only issue is what can be individually and together do

:24:24.:24:27.

to make it more likely the other 27 states agree it because they will

:24:28.:24:31.

make that decision. I actually do agree with the honourable member, we

:24:32.:24:37.

do want tariff free trade and he and I would probably have a difference

:24:38.:24:41.

of agreement about the customs union. I think there's huge

:24:42.:24:44.

advantages of staying in, does it affect the decision we might make

:24:45.:24:47.

about three movement or other aspects of the single market, could

:24:48.:24:52.

have advantages and he would be outside the customs union but that

:24:53.:24:55.

is one of the issues that in the end becomes part of the crunch questions

:24:56.:24:59.

for the deal and then maybe alternative options that the

:25:00.:25:02.

government could sign up to on things like the customs union that

:25:03.:25:06.

the government and the executive on its own would be rejecting rather

:25:07.:25:10.

than having the opportunity for Parliament to have its say if there

:25:11.:25:14.

was a better deal on offer. Some of this also comes under the timing

:25:15.:25:17.

because I do except there's an article 50 timescale of two years

:25:18.:25:23.

and it will be for the EU to decide what happens at the end of that if

:25:24.:25:28.

there is no deal in place. But that also comes down to the timing of

:25:29.:25:32.

this vote and at the moment because of what the minister said earlier,

:25:33.:25:36.

this borders on the very end of the process and could very well end up

:25:37.:25:41.

being at the end of the two years. The strength of new clause 110 is

:25:42.:25:45.

that it requires the vote to be before this as gone to the

:25:46.:25:50.

commission and to the Council as well as before it goes to

:25:51.:25:53.

Parliament. The advantage of that is that we have a parliamentary debate

:25:54.:25:56.

on the board at an early on stage in the process so that if it were to

:25:57.:26:01.

reach the point where there was no agreement, there would still be the

:26:02.:26:04.

opportunity for further negotiations and debates before we get to the end

:26:05.:26:10.

of the Article 50 process. I hesitate to say this but sometimes I

:26:11.:26:16.

think this house fails to realise its own powers. If indeed it's the

:26:17.:26:20.

case in the course of the two years of the negotiation and becomes clear

:26:21.:26:25.

the government is rejecting and negotiating opportunity that this

:26:26.:26:28.

house thinks it's better than the one it's pursuing, there's nothing

:26:29.:26:31.

to prevent this house from asserting its authority order to make the

:26:32.:26:36.

government change direction. It's a question of whether we have the will

:26:37.:26:40.

to do it but the problem the point that she is raising is that it does

:26:41.:26:43.

come back to this issue. If you write up against the wire you might

:26:44.:26:47.

be tipping the government into losing an agreement with nothing to

:26:48.:26:52.

replace it. Where that to be the case, that would be the decision,

:26:53.:26:56.

the responsibility of Parliament to behave with the common sense that

:26:57.:27:00.

the honourable member has advocated earlier and I would trust Parliament

:27:01.:27:03.

to behave with common sense in the circumstances, not to push Britain

:27:04.:27:07.

into an unnecessary cliff edge because I don't think that is what

:27:08.:27:11.

Parliament wants to do. I think Parliament has already shown it

:27:12.:27:15.

wants to respect the decision that was made in the referendum and that

:27:16.:27:19.

has been important. But I also think Parliament wants to get the best

:27:20.:27:22.

deal for Britain and Parliament would be pragmatic about what those

:27:23.:27:26.

options are at that time but the problem with OTS suggested is that

:27:27.:27:33.

there might be an alternative way for Parliament to exercise its

:27:34.:27:36.

sovereignty. In practice, what are those ways? You can have a backbench

:27:37.:27:39.

motion that the government ignores, you could have an opposition day

:27:40.:27:44.

motion that the government ignores, you could have a no-confidence

:27:45.:27:46.

motion but I personally do not think that would be the appropriate

:27:47.:27:51.

response to something very odd to instead be looking at what the

:27:52.:27:55.

alternative would be in order to simply get a better deal out of the

:27:56.:28:00.

negotiations. If he was to come up with an alternative way for

:28:01.:28:03.

Parliament to exorcise its sovereignty that I haven't thought

:28:04.:28:07.

of, maybe there is an alternative to this vote today. It seems to me, if

:28:08.:28:11.

we want to be sure that we have something in the legislation to make

:28:12.:28:15.

sure there is records to Parliament over these important issues that

:28:16.:28:19.

will affect us for so many years to come down the right thing to do is

:28:20.:28:22.

to get something onto the face of the bill. I'm going to make some

:28:23.:28:25.

progress because I know other people want to get in. There are many ways

:28:26.:28:29.

that the government could do this, the government to come forward with

:28:30.:28:31.

a manuscript amendment that simply puts into practice the things that

:28:32.:28:37.

it has said today, that would be immensely helpful, that might

:28:38.:28:40.

provide reassurance that many need. There is a new class 99 which could

:28:41.:28:45.

be done through an act of Parliament. -- clause 90 nine. There

:28:46.:28:49.

is a strong case for these decisions to be taken through acts of

:28:50.:28:54.

Parliament. We could do so in other similar weighty matters. On new

:28:55.:28:58.

clause 110, which to be honest much of what it does is simply to put on

:28:59.:29:02.

the face of the bill the point is that the Minister has already made

:29:03.:29:06.

and that he has said he will do but provides the reassurance on the face

:29:07.:29:09.

of the bill with the added benefit that there is the clarity that would

:29:10.:29:14.

also be a vote if there was no deal and if we were going down the WTO

:29:15.:29:18.

route and also that the timing of the vote would be early on in the

:29:19.:29:23.

process to get Parliament the opportunity to have a say before we

:29:24.:29:27.

get to the final crunch end of the negotiations. The honest truth is,

:29:28.:29:32.

new clause 110 really isn't that radical, it's simply putting into

:29:33.:29:36.

practice and embedding in the legislation the things that some

:29:37.:29:38.

honourable members opposite have said that they would like to

:29:39.:29:42.

achieve, so pointedly simply put it on the face of the bill to embed

:29:43.:29:46.

that I do have that reassuring is in place. In the end, there's a reason

:29:47.:29:51.

why all this is important, we all talked about parliamentary

:29:52.:29:53.

sovereignty on both sides of the referendum debate, we talked about

:29:54.:29:56.

the importance parliamentary sovereignty. I think that comes with

:29:57.:30:03.

it, Parliamentary responsibility. We shown that responsibility by

:30:04.:30:05.

deciding to respect the results of the referendum already as part of

:30:06.:30:10.

the second reading vote. With that Parliamentary sovereignty and that

:30:11.:30:15.

Parliamentary responsibility is also the responsibility to recognise that

:30:16.:30:18.

we've got to get the best possible Brexit deal for our whole country

:30:19.:30:23.

and not just to walk away from that process and the deal and the debates

:30:24.:30:28.

on that deal. I have to say as well, if we end up simply saying we will

:30:29.:30:32.

walk away and we will have the concentration of power simply in the

:30:33.:30:37.

hands of the executive, I've never supported concentrations of power in

:30:38.:30:41.

this way. All of us, everyone of us should be part of making sure we get

:30:42.:30:43.

the Brexit deal. A pleasure to follow on from the

:30:44.:30:53.

Right Honourable Lady and indeed I Right Honourable and learned friend.

:30:54.:30:56.

I agree on the principle Parliament should vote on the final deal, I

:30:57.:30:59.

argued that during the referendum and I haven't changed my mind now.

:31:00.:31:04.

On top of that, as people talk about Parliament being stripped of its

:31:05.:31:08.

rights, it's worth pointing out that any domestic implementing

:31:09.:31:10.

legislation as a result of any deal is reached at the international

:31:11.:31:14.

level would of course require Parliamentary approval and the usual

:31:15.:31:17.

way. The legal effect of Brexit at home would be dealt with through an

:31:18.:31:23.

act of legislation in advance of the ratification of the international

:31:24.:31:26.

treaties. In relation to the international element, I think it's

:31:27.:31:31.

useful to distinguish two key components of the diplomacy, the

:31:32.:31:34.

terms of exit and the terms of any new relationship agreement on trade

:31:35.:31:38.

security on the other areas of cooperation that its common

:31:39.:31:41.

agreement, we all agree we want to preserve that. With that in mind, I

:31:42.:31:47.

want to just welcome again the White Paper and the Lancaster house speech

:31:48.:31:50.

which as we talk about all the process and procedures set out a

:31:51.:31:53.

positive vision for Britain of post-Brexit. As a self-governing

:31:54.:32:02.

democracy, a strong European neighbour but also a global leader

:32:03.:32:07.

when it comes to free trade. I confess as a former Foreign Office

:32:08.:32:11.

lawyer who spent six years advising on both EU law and particularly

:32:12.:32:16.

treaty interpretation, I find article 50 palpably clear on the

:32:17.:32:19.

surface, on the face of it. If this applies the EU treaties two years

:32:20.:32:26.

after article 50 is triggered. The language is mandatory as a matter of

:32:27.:32:30.

treaty law. If Parliament refuses to approve the terms of any exit

:32:31.:32:33.

agreement, the UK drops out without one. Before there is general

:32:34.:32:39.

hysteria across the House and on this side as well, there's a general

:32:40.:32:43.

principle of customary international law it's true of common law that

:32:44.:32:48.

where there's a general rule you can have exceptions but the exceptions

:32:49.:32:52.

must be interpreted narrowly and there are exceptions to this. There

:32:53.:32:56.

is an exception if the EU unanimously agrees to extend the

:32:57.:32:59.

period under article 50 paragraph three. If you look at the clear

:33:00.:33:05.

language used, I think it's only conceivable to imagine that

:33:06.:33:08.

happening if at all in very exceptional circumstances for a

:33:09.:33:11.

limited period and in relation to the exit terms.

:33:12.:33:22.

It is extremely doubtful the paragraph you merit three could be

:33:23.:33:29.

used to delay departure on those grounds, which means many of those

:33:30.:33:35.

amendments could be unlawful as well as unwise. He makes a very careful

:33:36.:33:43.

and interesting analysis but, at the end of the day, if there is no deal,

:33:44.:33:51.

we were forced to leave on WTO terms, it would be a scandal if this

:33:52.:33:56.

House did not have a chance to have a say in it and a betrayal. We hope

:33:57.:34:02.

perhaps in the Lord's people might look more carefully. The government

:34:03.:34:07.

is on borrowed time. I pay tribute to the chair of the Select Committee

:34:08.:34:13.

and I agree there should be a vote. I have not heard anyone explain the

:34:14.:34:18.

alternative negotiation strategy to the one that has been advanced by

:34:19.:34:24.

the government other than staying in limbo within the EU, which would

:34:25.:34:28.

create more uncertainty for business, greater frustration for

:34:29.:34:33.

the public and frankly devastate, paralyse our negotiating hand. There

:34:34.:34:40.

is a second exception and it is not true to say that triggering Article

:34:41.:34:45.

50 is irreversible. It can be reversed as I explained earlier, you

:34:46.:34:51.

have the time of the specific exception envisaged in Article 50,

:34:52.:34:58.

paragraph 5. You leave and apply to rejoin. That is, the clear language

:34:59.:35:03.

on the face of Article 50 course is binding as a matter of UK law and of

:35:04.:35:08.

course it was a previous Labour government with Lib Dem support that

:35:09.:35:14.

signed us up not just at the Lisbon Treaty but explicitly to the fact is

:35:15.:35:18.

we now face, that is why I suffered a little bit with some of the

:35:19.:35:21.

railing against some of the difficult legal confines the

:35:22.:35:24.

government finds itself on not just as a matter of its own policy but as

:35:25.:35:31.

a matter of law. The choice on the final deal is clear. The British

:35:32.:35:36.

Parliament can view to the ex-agreement and all the terms of

:35:37.:35:40.

the new relationship agreement but in that case, Britain would leave

:35:41.:35:45.

the EU without agreeing terms. With respect to the new relationship

:35:46.:35:49.

agreement, the UK Government would of course be free for further

:35:50.:35:52.

negotiations but that could not delay. Brexit from happening. These

:35:53.:36:00.

facts will focus our minds quite rightly and quite understandably and

:36:01.:36:03.

with a sense of trepidation. It will also focus minds on the other side

:36:04.:36:10.

of the channel amongst our European friends. On the assumption that it

:36:11.:36:15.

would take at least 18 months to read all the terms of any new

:36:16.:36:18.

relationship agreement, the idea to Parliament voting down any deal

:36:19.:36:24.

would set the UK back for further round of meaningful negotiations

:36:25.:36:28.

before Britain leaves is a odds with the procedure in the Lisbon Treaty

:36:29.:36:31.

and frankly I find it neither feasible nor credible. He mentioned

:36:32.:36:42.

earlier Article 50 subsection paragraph three, which provides for

:36:43.:36:49.

transitional arrangements, for a country to negotiate the

:36:50.:36:52.

arrangements to continue indifferently until a subsequent

:36:53.:36:56.

state is provided that the end of the negotiating process for the

:36:57.:37:00.

implementation. Does he not agree that that should create a window for

:37:01.:37:06.

the exactly the circumstances he is so concerned about? If you read the

:37:07.:37:10.

Article 50 paragraph three it explicitly refers to the withdrawal

:37:11.:37:16.

component of the diplomacy but he is also right to say there is scope for

:37:17.:37:19.

transitional arrangements to deal with some of the so-called cliff

:37:20.:37:24.

edge concerns the honourable members are rightly concerned about. Of

:37:25.:37:30.

course, the ostensible aim of Article 50 in fairness to the

:37:31.:37:34.

previous government was to facilitate certainty, the focus

:37:35.:37:39.

minds of the negotiating parties and avoid withdrawal, leaving a

:37:40.:37:45.

lingering Shadow over the EU but also the departing nation. Many if

:37:46.:37:51.

the amendments we are considering today are counter-productive because

:37:52.:37:57.

it would weaken our flexibility and negotiating position and critically

:37:58.:38:02.

making the risk of no deal more likely. Honourable members

:38:03.:38:05.

supporting these amendments need to face up to the fact that they are

:38:06.:38:11.

courting the very scenario that the say we so dearly want to seek to

:38:12.:38:18.

avoid. Equally, I would say for my part, I could not count on voting

:38:19.:38:24.

attempts to an act negotiating terms and binding legislation because that

:38:25.:38:28.

would set the government up to face a blizzard of legal challenges on

:38:29.:38:33.

the final deal which I would find deeply responsible because it would

:38:34.:38:36.

seem to me the amount of poison tactics. Would he not agree that the

:38:37.:38:44.

Prime Minister's approach so far in pandering not so much to the tens of

:38:45.:39:00.

thousands of immigrants risks the scenario we have just discussed? The

:39:01.:39:04.

idea is to be done and she needs to admit it. I would gently say to the

:39:05.:39:10.

honourable member that, between open-door immigration and close to

:39:11.:39:14.

immigration, it seems to me quite wide scope for sensible reciprocal

:39:15.:39:19.

arrangements which allow us to retain control over the volume of

:39:20.:39:22.

immigration, allow us to retain control over things like residency

:39:23.:39:26.

in welfare and make sure people are self-sufficient and make sure we

:39:27.:39:30.

have these security checks and deportation powers we need. I am not

:39:31.:39:37.

sure we disagree on this. Between the approach of cutting off all

:39:38.:39:41.

immigration and having open-door immigration, there is actually

:39:42.:39:43.

enormous scope and sensible diplomacy. I will turn briefly to

:39:44.:39:52.

the specific group of amendments. The government's assurances or would

:39:53.:39:55.

be enough to satisfy those who might be tempted by the new clause 1. The

:39:56.:40:03.

government has promised Parliament to have a vote in the final deal I

:40:04.:40:07.

would also like to pay tribute to the Shadow Minister. The other

:40:08.:40:14.

cluster of amendments which have attracted attention relate to new

:40:15.:40:21.

clause 19, 54 and 137, and they would require Parliamentary vote

:40:22.:40:24.

against the deal to send the UK Government back to renegotiate with

:40:25.:40:29.

the EU, and I can I totally understand someone who has

:40:30.:40:34.

negotiated treaties ride that is attractive. The truth is that if

:40:35.:40:37.

Parliament is not agree with the exit terms, it is theoretically

:40:38.:40:42.

possible that the UK Government could revert to meaningful

:40:43.:40:45.

negotiations with the EU if the draft agreement is concluded within

:40:46.:40:54.

a year. In practice of course it is utterly inconceivable, total

:40:55.:40:57.

fantasy. Why would the EU give us better terms of the divorce just

:40:58.:41:02.

because Parliament did not like them? We would not even get the

:41:03.:41:06.

extension or better terms and would leave without such an agreement. If

:41:07.:41:10.

on the other hand Parliament does not approve the agreement on the new

:41:11.:41:15.

relationship, there is no express provision for extension of

:41:16.:41:17.

negotiations and note clear basis for withdrawal to be delayed so we

:41:18.:41:24.

would exit within two years and as my honourable friend was pointing

:41:25.:41:30.

out, the question of implementation being phased would then become far

:41:31.:41:36.

more salient. Besides these legal considerations, any delay to the

:41:37.:41:40.

timetable would inject an additional dose of uncertainty into the entire

:41:41.:41:45.

process, bad for business, frustrating for the public and that

:41:46.:41:49.

would harm our negotiating position rather than reinforce it. New clause

:41:50.:41:55.

28, which deals with Parliamentary approval but for the European

:41:56.:41:57.

Parliament has its say, has been dealt with the reassurances the

:41:58.:42:03.

minister gave, and I welcome those. I'm not convinced by new clause 110

:42:04.:42:09.

or 182 about Parliamentary approval before the commission concludes the

:42:10.:42:13.

agreement. We would not know the date when the commission would

:42:14.:42:17.

approve a new deal and we would not know the terms until it had done so.

:42:18.:42:22.

It reinforces in my mind is the concern about honourable members in

:42:23.:42:27.

good faith trying to dictate what would be a fluid diplomatic process

:42:28.:42:32.

to the entirely inappropriate vehicle of binding legislation. That

:42:33.:42:38.

cannot hope to cater for the potential eventualities we need to

:42:39.:42:43.

be ready to adapt to as a matter of multilateral diplomacy. Finally, on

:42:44.:42:49.

the specific amendments, amendment 43 by the Liberal Democrats and the

:42:50.:42:53.

honourable member for Westmorland, in a competitive field, this is

:42:54.:42:56.

certainly the clear winner for the worst amendment that has been

:42:57.:43:00.

tabled! It is probably illegal because there is no scope to reverse

:43:01.:43:07.

its decision and that is clear from Article 50 paragraph 5 and is

:43:08.:43:15.

clearly designed to reverse Brexit on the clear understanding we would

:43:16.:43:20.

respect the result. It is beyond undemocratic and illegal, it is just

:43:21.:43:25.

plain tricksy because it was open to any honourable member to table

:43:26.:43:28.

amendments at that time to stipulate that there would be a second

:43:29.:43:33.

referendum. Why not best-of-3? To give the British people the chance

:43:34.:43:38.

to do the bulky cookie. There is a clear reason why no one tabled such

:43:39.:43:42.

an amendment, the public would have shuddered at such a prospect. No one

:43:43.:43:46.

proposed such an amendment and we did not hold the referendum on that

:43:47.:43:51.

basis. I support a final vote on the deal. I welcome the government's

:43:52.:43:56.

striving to reassure all honourable members on this but house should not

:43:57.:44:01.

be under any illusion that such a vote would not frustrate the verdict

:44:02.:44:05.

of the British people and most honourable members on all sides

:44:06.:44:08.

recognise that. Many of the amendments we are deliberating in

:44:09.:44:14.

this cluster of flawed but above all these clauses would attempt to tie

:44:15.:44:18.

the government up in procedural knots at the crucial moment in the

:44:19.:44:25.

two years of Brexit negotiation. The public expect all of us to be

:44:26.:44:29.

focused on securing the very best deal for the whole country, whether

:44:30.:44:34.

intentionally or inadvertently laying elephant traps that can only

:44:35.:44:40.

make striving for that deal harder. For that reason, I hope the House or

:44:41.:44:46.

vote on all of the amendments. There are four honourable members that one

:44:47.:44:54.

still to get in, who have given the names to amendments. That means...

:44:55.:45:01.

The government is unlikely to come back at six o'clock so if everyone

:45:02.:45:05.

takes less than five minutes, I might be able to squeeze at least

:45:06.:45:10.

four more speakers in. It is a gentle reminder that there is no

:45:11.:45:17.

time limit. I will try and be brief. I have now been in the House

:45:18.:45:25.

entering my 17th year and in those 17 years, you strike up

:45:26.:45:30.

relationships across the House. I want to make a confession. I have a

:45:31.:45:33.

relationship with the member for Chingford. The member for

:45:34.:45:41.

Chingford... I am sorry he is not in his seat but he has the unusual

:45:42.:45:50.

honour of also being a fan of Tottenham Hotspur server had been

:45:51.:45:52.

occasions where we have been at White Hart Lane and we have been at

:45:53.:45:57.

White Hart Lane together. They have also been occasions on which he has

:45:58.:46:03.

mentioned a subject that has been a favourite of his, and that has been

:46:04.:46:08.

the sovereignty of this Parliament. And the issue of the European Union.

:46:09.:46:14.

Now, I have to say, there have been occasions where my eyes glazed over

:46:15.:46:18.

because I have not seen the issue like he has seen it. But in the last

:46:19.:46:24.

few months, as I have grown increasingly depressed about the

:46:25.:46:27.

direction of travel we are now set upon, I have looked for the silver

:46:28.:46:34.

lining. And the silver lining is of course in the 17 years I have been

:46:35.:46:39.

an MP, we have been in the European Union and so effectively we have

:46:40.:46:43.

decided to pull some of our sovereignty with Europe and I have

:46:44.:46:48.

had less power. Well, the power is now coming back. I will be a

:46:49.:46:54.

powerful Member of Parliament and as a result of all of his work and

:46:55.:47:00.

others, we're now in a situation where in this important time, where

:47:01.:47:07.

we need that sovereignty, and the very same people who are asking for

:47:08.:47:13.

it, now stand up to argue that we should put that power somewhere

:47:14.:47:19.

else. They argue, backbenchers many of them for many years, that we

:47:20.:47:22.

should put the power with the Executive, that the Prime Minister

:47:23.:47:27.

and her Cabinet should make the decisions, huge decisions about our

:47:28.:47:33.

economy and direction of travel. They argue perversely that we should

:47:34.:47:38.

have the power Solly with the 27 other countries of the European

:47:39.:47:42.

Union, that they should determine our direction along with the

:47:43.:47:47.

European Commission and Council and ultimately the European Parliament,

:47:48.:47:52.

power everywhere else except here! And who will suffer as a consequence

:47:53.:47:59.

of this Parliament not acting? Our constituents. And that is why this

:48:00.:48:04.

is not the time to play party politics and that is why I was happy

:48:05.:48:07.

to vote against my own party last week.

:48:08.:48:15.

It is the time to stand up for our constituents and it seems to me that

:48:16.:48:21.

we must scrutinise the executive with the very detailed negotiations

:48:22.:48:25.

that we debate. We hear that we'll strike a deal with an two years.

:48:26.:48:32.

When Greenland left the old EEC it took them three years and that was

:48:33.:48:36.

Greenland fighting over fish. It's not going to take us two years, so

:48:37.:48:43.

as has been said, yes, the terms of our withdrawal but our new trading

:48:44.:48:48.

relationships must come back to this place and if we don't get an

:48:49.:48:52.

agreement it must absolutely be a decision on which we must vote on

:48:53.:48:57.

long before. Let me just say, if we were to exit without a proper deal,

:48:58.:49:03.

this great country would be in the bizarre situation to have no trading

:49:04.:49:09.

relations with the rest of the world, a situation we will not have

:49:10.:49:13.

been in since sometime before King Henry VIII and the beginning of

:49:14.:49:20.

Empire. Ridiculous. Madness. WTO rules. Insane. Of course power must

:49:21.:49:25.

rest here and that's why I signed a number of causes and they are truly

:49:26.:49:30.

stand with my honourable friend who has put down clause 110. We must

:49:31.:49:36.

give this place power. Or we will regret it hugely. I find myself in a

:49:37.:49:44.

rather strange place in writing this beach. It's very difficult to

:49:45.:49:48.

countenance voting for an opposition motion for some day my position,

:49:49.:49:53.

I've always respected pragmatism and politics behind most decisions but

:49:54.:49:55.

I've always had a sneaking admiration for colleagues who fly to

:49:56.:49:59.

the government whip with impunity, which is not what I told them when I

:50:00.:50:03.

was in the Whip's office and I heard and so many cases that this... Our

:50:04.:50:13.

current Secretary of State for Brexit was the most principled

:50:14.:50:15.

politician in the last parliament rebelling dozens and dozens of

:50:16.:50:20.

times. But to me this appears to be very much a point of principle and

:50:21.:50:23.

there are three principles which have been exorcised by myself and

:50:24.:50:28.

colleagues now. The first of the thorny issue of what does

:50:29.:50:32.

Parliamentary sovereignty means. Far be it for me to take exception with

:50:33.:50:35.

the very blown a gentleman, my honourable friend, but Article 50

:50:36.:50:44.

was effectively -- with the very learned gentleman.

:50:45.:50:50.

The expectation that it would never be triggered, it would be

:50:51.:50:55.

inconceivable that it would be triggered, so it seems to me that

:50:56.:50:59.

for us to set up what we believe our sovereign Parliamentary process

:51:00.:51:04.

should be, setting against that rather cruelly drafted aspect of the

:51:05.:51:08.

treaty is not inconceivable and this is what so many campaigners told me

:51:09.:51:13.

that they were actually campaigning for. To restore our sovereignty and

:51:14.:51:17.

that sovereign tray has now been confirmed by the Supreme Court, so I

:51:18.:51:23.

think it's absolutely right that we had confirmation today that

:51:24.:51:26.

Parliament will have a vote on the terms of the deal on the timing of

:51:27.:51:31.

that vote is crucial, it's not a done deal brought back to us, there

:51:32.:51:35.

is an opportunity to influence and to shape and negotiate and do what

:51:36.:51:39.

we have done so well over the last four days, is that we were not

:51:40.:51:44.

intended to have the opportunity to actually get into the nitty-gritty

:51:45.:51:47.

of what does it mean if we trigger this, what would a vote look like. I

:51:48.:51:51.

for one feel far better informed than I did at the start of this

:51:52.:51:55.

process and that is exactly what we're sent you to do. I agree with

:51:56.:52:02.

her entirely about the role this Parliament has to scrutinise that

:52:03.:52:06.

but it's vital and funny about the only way we can do that, in

:52:07.:52:13.

practical terms how can we achieve that scrutiny, what can we actually

:52:14.:52:15.

do to change it if the deal isn't good enough? We can probe and ask

:52:16.:52:20.

questions and we can bring our collective knowledge and wisdom of

:52:21.:52:23.

which there is an enormous amount on these benches and also our

:52:24.:52:26.

understanding of what alternatives might be. If it is the case that

:52:27.:52:30.

there is no alternative or no process, well at least we know that

:52:31.:52:35.

but we have got to date, with a concession from the front bench and

:52:36.:52:38.

option that was not on the table at the start of this process, an option

:52:39.:52:43.

when you are negotiating and an uncertain environment is this

:52:44.:52:46.

usually valuable thing to have. My second point of principle which are

:52:47.:52:49.

referenced earlier is his point of equivalence. It just seems bizarre

:52:50.:52:53.

to me that if you look at the negotiation for exit, the European

:52:54.:52:58.

Parliament has a number of go, no-go decision points upon which it

:52:59.:53:01.

effectively has a right of veto and we have been scared to give the same

:53:02.:53:05.

to this Parliament. That does not sit well with me as somebody who

:53:06.:53:09.

wants to stand up for the sovereign parliament, it's a very perverse

:53:10.:53:12.

thing and I'm glad we're try to correct it. The third is the

:53:13.:53:17.

question of representation. I'm still mystified there are those who

:53:18.:53:22.

think they should be scared of Parliament. How many more votes do

:53:23.:53:26.

we need to have to demonstrate the overwhelming support in this place

:53:27.:53:30.

for executing the will of the British people. They gave us a

:53:31.:53:33.

mandate, we're not going to replay the arguments, we're not going to go

:53:34.:53:37.

over it, we have a mandate, we have to get on and we have two votes

:53:38.:53:41.

suggesting that members and Right Honourable members across the House

:53:42.:53:47.

except that view of the union. This to me, we should not be scared of

:53:48.:53:51.

bringing these things to Parliament and ultimately isn't this what we

:53:52.:53:55.

are here to do, to represent our constituents. We don't want a second

:53:56.:54:00.

referendum, I can fully agree with my honourable friend to say it would

:54:01.:54:04.

be absurd to go back. We are the next best thing, we have the

:54:05.:54:08.

opportunity to bring what our constituents passing, many of them

:54:09.:54:10.

still have lots of questions about what this process looks like to put

:54:11.:54:15.

them to each other and to the front bench and to represent us that the

:54:16.:54:18.

principle of rest pronunciation is absolutely vital that

:54:19.:54:27.

representation. The tone of this debate, sometimes borders on the

:54:28.:54:31.

hysterical. I feel sometimes I'm sitting along with colleagues who

:54:32.:54:36.

are like jihadis in their support for a hard Brexit. No Brexit is hard

:54:37.:54:41.

enough, be gone new evil Europeans, we never want you to darken our

:54:42.:54:46.

doors again. I'm afraid I heard speeches last week exactly making

:54:47.:54:50.

that point. The point of this is the more we get this out in the open the

:54:51.:54:55.

more we are not led by some of the more hysterical tabloid newspapers

:54:56.:54:59.

out there but actually have an open and frank conversation with each

:55:00.:55:04.

other about what we want to do the better. On the issues of scrutiny,

:55:05.:55:08.

representation and Parliamentary sovereignty, I am very interested in

:55:09.:55:14.

the amendment that was brought forward by the opposition. I have

:55:15.:55:18.

heard today, I'm pleased to say, some very substantial concessions on

:55:19.:55:22.

the timing and the detail if you like, although there is a

:55:23.:55:27.

criticality about the ending which still doesn't sit well with me

:55:28.:55:31.

because whilst it might be the government and the Prime Minister's

:55:32.:55:35.

intention not to bring forward a bad deal, we still have not allowed

:55:36.:55:39.

ourselves to put that to the test. So before I decide which way to

:55:40.:55:43.

vote, Ambaka when to listen very carefully to what the minister has

:55:44.:55:46.

to say and I'm hoping to get his assurance that is not the

:55:47.:55:54.

government's intention to put a no deal, that can be put within the

:55:55.:55:58.

bounds of what should happen much is a Parliamentary decision on this

:55:59.:55:59.

vital step for our country. There are two issues at the heart of

:56:00.:56:13.

today's debate which is about the role of Parliament in judging the

:56:14.:56:20.

final deal. The first issue is on the timing of any such vote and the

:56:21.:56:27.

second issue is on how to make that vote meaningful. I want to move new

:56:28.:56:32.

clause 137 standing in my name and the name of my honourable and Right

:56:33.:56:36.

Honourable friends. A significant part of the argument for leaving the

:56:37.:56:40.

European Union was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty for this

:56:41.:56:44.

house to take the decisions about the country's future. Yet too often,

:56:45.:56:50.

attempts to assert it have been constantly dismissed, undermining

:56:51.:56:56.

the government is not undermining the country and the cry over and

:56:57.:57:03.

over again has been blank cheque, blank cheque, blank check. We

:57:04.:57:07.

shouldn't give a blank cheque, there is a legitimate role. The amendment

:57:08.:57:11.

seeks to do two things, first of all to enshrine the Prime Minister's

:57:12.:57:15.

promise of a parliamentary vote on the final deal in the legislation

:57:16.:57:24.

and the second part is to assert what can happen if Parliament

:57:25.:57:29.

declines to approve the final deal. Now the government has set out in

:57:30.:57:32.

the White Paper and in other statements what its aims are. The

:57:33.:57:38.

white paper defines the government's name as the freest possible trade in

:57:39.:57:44.

goods and services between the UK and the EU. The Secretary of State

:57:45.:57:48.

for Brexit said this would be and I quote, a copper has and the

:57:49.:57:52.

comprehensive customs agreement will deliver the exact same benefits as

:57:53.:57:59.

we have. That's the test the government has set itself and I wish

:58:00.:58:05.

the government well in ensuring that we get the exact same benefits that

:58:06.:58:11.

we have. This amendment does not seek to time the government's hands

:58:12.:58:15.

in the negotiations, it doesn't seek to influence the content, what it

:58:16.:58:20.

focuses on is what happens if Parliament declines to approve the

:58:21.:58:25.

final deal because the choice that we do not want to be presented with

:58:26.:58:29.

is, I'm afraid, the one that the minister set out at the beginning,

:58:30.:58:34.

which is defining as success whatever the government negotiates

:58:35.:58:40.

or falling back on to the WTO. Now I don't want to go through the WTO

:58:41.:58:43.

rules in detail, let me just give one example. A 10% tariff on car

:58:44.:58:53.

exports. Take the Nissan, proudly made in the north-east of England.

:58:54.:58:59.

That tariff would mean a surcharge of over ?2000 on each car made in

:59:00.:59:03.

the north-east compared to a competitor vehicle made within the

:59:04.:59:08.

EU or even another Nissan model made in a planned within the European

:59:09.:59:14.

Union, on food and drink the tariffs are 20% and on some agricultural

:59:15.:59:17.

products they are even higher and that's before you even get to the

:59:18.:59:22.

weakness of enforcement mechanisms within the WTO, where businesses

:59:23.:59:28.

cannot even take cases and only governments can take enforcement

:59:29.:59:32.

cases. And the thing about this is that the government itself says it

:59:33.:59:37.

doesn't want this option it set out 12 points in its White Paper on the

:59:38.:59:43.

12th of which says that the government wants a smooth mutually

:59:44.:59:49.

beneficial exit. Paragraph 12 .2 says it's in no 1's interest for

:59:50.:59:53.

there to be a cliff edge for business or a threat to stability.

:59:54.:59:57.

Instead we want to have reached an agreement about our future

:59:58.:00:02.

partnership by the time the two year article 50 process has been

:00:03.:00:08.

concluded. What this amendment does is it empowers Parliament to avoid

:00:09.:00:14.

the very outcome that the government itself says its wants to avoid in

:00:15.:00:20.

the White Paper. And for that reason it's not as do many members have

:00:21.:00:24.

asserted some attempt to undermine the government. We should be using

:00:25.:00:29.

the power of Parliament to influence these negotiations and let me just

:00:30.:00:32.

deal with this five minutes to midnight point that was made by The

:00:33.:00:35.

Right Honourable member for Beaconsfield. It is hardly unknown

:00:36.:00:43.

for the European Union to schedule another round of talks, it happens

:00:44.:00:48.

very frequently and in these circumstances we would be entirely

:00:49.:00:52.

within our rights to strengthen our government's hand by seeing go back

:00:53.:00:56.

and renegotiate on this point that point.

:00:57.:01:02.

I want to emphasise this, all sorts of things are possible. The

:01:03.:01:09.

commission and the council might decide to extend the period of

:01:10.:01:13.

negotiation but we have to look at what the legal implications are of

:01:14.:01:18.

what we pass into law by amendments. If indeed the amendment is

:01:19.:01:22.

prescriptive in a way that could allow the problem to which has been

:01:23.:01:26.

identified which is dropping off because you've lost time and you can

:01:27.:01:29.

come back to this house, we just can't ignore that. We have to find a

:01:30.:01:34.

way round it or accept the accept the assurances the government give.

:01:35.:01:39.

The amendment is very simple on this point, it asks that the government

:01:40.:01:43.

in no circumstances will seek to negotiate an alternative agreement,

:01:44.:01:47.

that's a perfectly reasonable point. The point of all of this, I don't

:01:48.:01:52.

have much time so I will conclude. The point of all this is to avoid

:01:53.:01:56.

the choice between being told we have to define our success on the

:01:57.:02:03.

first account of it, whatever the government has managed to negotiate

:02:04.:02:07.

or default to the WTO. To be honest, a concession on timing that doesn't

:02:08.:02:13.

allow us to ask the government to go back and negotiate a better

:02:14.:02:17.

agreement is simply holding a gun to Parliament's head a few months

:02:18.:02:21.

earlier than we'd otherwise have been the case, so this amendment is

:02:22.:02:27.

about taking all those claims made for decades about Parliamentary

:02:28.:02:31.

sovereignty and making them real, rather than giving us a choice

:02:32.:02:35.

between Deal or no Deal, take it or leave it, my way or the highway.

:02:36.:02:39.

Frankly, Parliament and the country deserves better than that.

:02:40.:02:49.

I'll confine this to a stew questions to the Minister. The

:02:50.:02:56.

concession that he gave right at the start this significant, the question

:02:57.:03:00.

is how significant. What did the Minister mean when he said that the

:03:01.:03:04.

government would bring forward a motion on the final agreement? He

:03:05.:03:08.

must mean the proposed agreement. I noticed that he then changed the

:03:09.:03:12.

wording to the final draft agreement. Is he talking about the

:03:13.:03:17.

draft agreement or a final agreement? At a point in which it's

:03:18.:03:26.

The minister said he expects an intense this place will get a say

:03:27.:03:36.

before the European Parliament. Thirdly, will he answered the

:03:37.:03:39.

equivalence point made by my honourable friend, that we must be

:03:40.:03:46.

able to have at least as much say as the European Parliament? And 40, for

:03:47.:03:56.

he clarified that this WTO cliff edge issue needs to be subdued with

:03:57.:04:00.

the issue of transitional arrangements? If the government puts

:04:01.:04:05.

the need to negotiate transitional arrangements as its priority and

:04:06.:04:09.

succeeds in getting at least a deal on that, that is the deal which can

:04:10.:04:17.

then trigger Article 50, subsection 3, to enable a extended periods of

:04:18.:04:24.

discussion. Would he accept that is a reasonable and sensible approach

:04:25.:04:29.

to taking this debate forward and if he will, I might be considered... I

:04:30.:04:37.

will listen very carefully to what the Minister will say. Thank you

:04:38.:04:47.

very much indeed for giving me a second bite of the cherry. May I

:04:48.:04:52.

deal in the first instance with the points made by my right honourable

:04:53.:04:59.

friend, the chairman of the Treasury Select Committee? He asked direct

:05:00.:05:02.

questions which have been raised during the course of the debate. I

:05:03.:05:06.

thought I had answered them with some clarity previously but I am

:05:07.:05:12.

very happy to clarify further. He asked what in fact this House would

:05:13.:05:20.

be asked to prove, and it would be the final greed draft of the

:05:21.:05:24.

agreement before it was submitted to the European Parliament. He

:05:25.:05:35.

mentioned the points that we had indicated that we expected and

:05:36.:05:39.

intended that this would happen before the European Parliament

:05:40.:05:43.

debated it. The reason that formulation is used is of course it

:05:44.:05:47.

is out of our hands as to what the commission does in connection with

:05:48.:05:50.

the information it sends to the European Parliament. While we would

:05:51.:05:55.

do our best to ensure this House voted first, we cannot control what

:05:56.:06:02.

the commission would do. He raised the issue of equivalence. The

:06:03.:06:08.

difference is that the European Parliament does have the role

:06:09.:06:12.

prescribed for it in Article 50. This House does not. But certainly,

:06:13.:06:19.

in practical terms, I would suggest a boat of this House would be a

:06:20.:06:25.

matter of significance. He then raised the issue finally of

:06:26.:06:30.

transitional arrangements which was raised by either honourable members,

:06:31.:06:33.

and it is indeed, as the Prime Minister has already made clear, the

:06:34.:06:38.

intention, if necessary, to looked a period of implementation for

:06:39.:06:44.

whatever arrangement we arrive at with the European Union. This has

:06:45.:06:52.

been an important debate and I was grateful... I will briefly... My

:06:53.:07:00.

honourable friend has confirmed that the voters put the Parliament after

:07:01.:07:05.

the deal has been done with the commission and the council. It is a

:07:06.:07:09.

done deal, the European Parliament in this House either take it or

:07:10.:07:16.

leave it. Will he confirm that is exactly what was offered in the

:07:17.:07:22.

White Paper a few days ago? What we have sought to do today is to

:07:23.:07:31.

provide clarity, and I hope that by my contribution earlier this

:07:32.:07:35.

afternoon and now I am providing that clarity, and it is indeed the

:07:36.:07:39.

case that which it would be the final draft agreement we contemplate

:07:40.:07:42.

which would be put before this House. As I was saying, this has

:07:43.:07:48.

been an important debate and the quality of the contributions has

:07:49.:07:53.

been extremely high. We have to remember, as my right honourable

:07:54.:07:59.

friend, the point that she made, this will be the most important

:08:00.:08:05.

negotiation that this country has entered into for at least half a

:08:06.:08:09.

century and it is therefore entirely right that this House should have an

:08:10.:08:14.

important part in the process of the negotiation of the agreement we are

:08:15.:08:21.

to arrive at. But is very far from what this government has in mind. We

:08:22.:08:27.

have every intention that throughout the process of negotiation, this

:08:28.:08:32.

House will be kept fully informed consistent with the extent to ensure

:08:33.:08:36.

that confidentiality is maintained. I do not think that anyone would

:08:37.:08:42.

regard that as an unreasonable way forward. Indeed, my right honourable

:08:43.:08:48.

friend, the member for Beaconsfield, highlighted the need for reporting,

:08:49.:08:52.

and that is something this government intends to do. I would

:08:53.:08:56.

like to deal however with a number of other amendments I have not dealt

:08:57.:09:00.

with previously which have attracted some attention this afternoon. New

:09:01.:09:05.

clause 18 would specify that any new treaty with the EU should not be

:09:06.:09:11.

ratified except with the express improvement of Parliament. However,

:09:12.:09:14.

I can only repeat the commitment I have made several times this

:09:15.:09:18.

afternoon at this dispatch box, there will be a vote on the final

:09:19.:09:28.

deal. Will he accept that many of us welcome the progress made and the

:09:29.:09:32.

insurance says he has given? There will be every opportunity for

:09:33.:09:36.

debate, discussion, questions and votes as is proper in this House.

:09:37.:09:42.

Indeed that is absolutely right, and I think that the suggestion that

:09:43.:09:45.

this government would not keep this House informed when we have been

:09:46.:09:49.

scrupulous in doing so so far is unworthy. New clause 110 is similar

:09:50.:09:56.

to new clause 18 but also specifies that any new relationship would also

:09:57.:10:01.

be subject to a resolution of Parliament, and this amendment I

:10:02.:10:05.

believe is unnecessary, it asks again for a vote of each house on a

:10:06.:10:10.

new treaty or new agreement reached with the EU, and there will be a

:10:11.:10:15.

vote on the final draft treaty and any other agreement. In any event,

:10:16.:10:20.

as my honourable friend pointed out, it calls for a vote before terms are

:10:21.:10:26.

agreed, leaving it open to the commission to change its mind and

:10:27.:10:30.

position without any apparent recourse for this place. New clause

:10:31.:10:39.

137 requires the government to seek to negotiate a new agreement with

:10:40.:10:43.

the EU Parliament rejects deal and again, I must reject this amendment.

:10:44.:10:48.

While we are confident that we will achieve a deal that is acceptable to

:10:49.:10:52.

Parliament, if Parliament were to reject that deal, it would be a sure

:10:53.:10:58.

sign of weakness to return to the EU and to ask the other terms. We would

:10:59.:11:03.

be likely to achieve only a worse deal and furthermore there is no

:11:04.:11:07.

obligation on the EU to continue negotiating with us beyond the

:11:08.:11:22.

two-year period. New clause 175 words require us to remain an member

:11:23.:11:29.

of the EU. To do so would be to betray the referendum and this

:11:30.:11:31.

government is not prepared to accept that. But I must make absolutely

:11:32.:11:38.

clear, this government wants Parliament to be engaged throughout

:11:39.:11:44.

this process and we will keep this Parliament... I will give way. Will

:11:45.:11:50.

he confirm that it is the position of the government to diminish the

:11:51.:11:53.

status of this House in comparison to that of the European Parliament

:11:54.:11:57.

in having an oversight of this process? That is absolutely

:11:58.:12:03.

ludicrous because the European Parliament's row comes at the end of

:12:04.:12:07.

the process. It has oversight to the extent that it rubber-stamps it or

:12:08.:12:16.

it does not. New clause is 18 and 19 would require any new treaty agreed

:12:17.:12:21.

with the EU would be subject to the ratification of Parliament. We have

:12:22.:12:25.

always said we will observe the Constitution and legal obligations

:12:26.:12:28.

that apply to the final deal and that remains the case and as we have

:12:29.:12:33.

already confirmed, the final agreement will be subject to a vote

:12:34.:12:37.

of this House before it is concluded. Will the Minister also

:12:38.:12:46.

confirm whether he will abide by the recommendation of the Select

:12:47.:12:49.

Committee report that when the government brings forward this deal

:12:50.:12:54.

to Parliament, it should have regard to the requirement for adequate time

:12:55.:12:58.

to consider the statement before those proposed terms are put forward

:12:59.:13:02.

for approval? We will consider all the recommendations of the Select

:13:03.:13:06.

Committee and we walk report formally in June course. We do not

:13:07.:13:13.

approach these negotiations expecting failure but anticipating

:13:14.:13:18.

success. But let me remind members that in this bill we are seeking to

:13:19.:13:24.

do one very simple straightforward thing, we are seeking to follow the

:13:25.:13:28.

instructions we have received from the British people in the referendum

:13:29.:13:32.

and remaining a member of the European Union is not an option. The

:13:33.:13:37.

process for leaving the EU will set up by Article 50 and it is not

:13:38.:13:42.

within our power to extend the negotiations. New clause 99 and

:13:43.:13:48.

visages yet another act of Parliament approving the

:13:49.:13:51.

arrangements for our withdrawal and future relationship with the EU and

:13:52.:13:55.

would require yet another act of Parliament to withdrawal from the EU

:13:56.:13:58.

in the absence of a negotiating deal. While we would be ready for

:13:59.:14:05.

any outcome, and exit without a trade agreement is emphatically not

:14:06.:14:10.

what we seek, but let me be clear, keeping open the prospect of staying

:14:11.:14:14.

in the EU as envisaged by that clause would only encourage the EU

:14:15.:14:17.

to give us the worst possible deal in the hope that we would change our

:14:18.:14:24.

minds. Amendment 43 calls for a referendum on our membership of the

:14:25.:14:28.

European Union after we have negotiated a final deal. That was

:14:29.:14:35.

tabled by the Liberal Democrats. This has been an important debate.

:14:36.:14:40.

We have listened very carefully to the amendments, considered them very

:14:41.:14:44.

carefully, but for the reasons given, we reject them and invite

:14:45.:14:53.

them to be withdrawn. I have listened carefully to this debate.

:14:54.:15:01.

There are inevitable problems. They have been claims and counterclaims

:15:02.:15:05.

about the nature of the concessions made. Whatever Number 10 may be

:15:06.:15:09.

briefing or not briefing, until today, there was never a commitment

:15:10.:15:16.

to a vote on both the Article 50 deal and the future agreement with

:15:17.:15:23.

the EU. There was never a commitment to a vote before the agreement was

:15:24.:15:27.

concluded on a final agreed draft and it is simply rewriting history

:15:28.:15:30.

to suggest that that was the case and there was never a deal, a

:15:31.:15:35.

commitment there would be about in this House before the European

:15:36.:15:42.

Parliament vote. Those three things have never been said before and I

:15:43.:15:46.

gone through all the records book for making that assertion. Anyone to

:15:47.:15:52.

suggest that is a concession and significant is to be blind to those

:15:53.:15:57.

developments. I recognised there are a number of unanswered questions,

:15:58.:16:01.

most importantly as to the consequences and timing of the vote.

:16:02.:16:06.

As the right honourable member said, to some extent, we just do not know.

:16:07.:16:11.

From my work in Brussels it is clear the planned the is to have a deal

:16:12.:16:17.

which is capable of being put to the European Parliament in October 2018

:16:18.:16:22.

and that should be the ambition because that deal is put to this

:16:23.:16:28.

House in October 2018, it means there would be a number of

:16:29.:16:31.

consequences for this House to consider. I accept there are

:16:32.:16:35.

questions and it is important the others reflect on the concessions

:16:36.:16:39.

that have been made and consider what amendment might capture them. I

:16:40.:16:46.

do not push new clause 1. That may allow space for other amendments to

:16:47.:16:56.

be put to a vote. Is it your pleasure that new clause numeric one

:16:57.:17:05.

be withdrawn? We will now take new clause 110. It is on page seven of

:17:06.:17:12.

the Amendment paper. The question is that new clause 110... Sorry. The

:17:13.:17:23.

question is that new clause 110 B read a second time. As many as are

:17:24.:17:26.

of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". Division. Clear the

:17:27.:17:29.

lobby. As many of that opinion say IAM

:17:30.:19:26.

Cycling. On the contrary no. Tellers for the ayes, Jeff Smith. Tellers

:19:27.:19:31.

for the no. The ayes to the right. 293. The Noes

:19:32.:25:36.

to the left 326. The ayes to the right, 283. The Noes

:25:37.:31:43.

to the left, 326. The Noes have it. The Noes have it. Unlock. We now

:31:44.:31:52.

come to new clause 180 which is on page ten of the amendment paper.

:31:53.:31:57.

Alex Salmond to move formally. The question is that new clause 180 be

:31:58.:32:01.

added to the bill. As many as are of that opinion say Aye. Of the

:32:02.:32:09.

contrary, No. Division. Clear the lobby.

:32:10.:34:08.

The question is that new clause 180 be added to the bill. As many as are

:34:09.:34:14.

of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". Tellers for the ayes

:34:15.:34:18.

and the noes. Thank you. The ayes to the right, 88. The noes

:34:19.:45:50.

to the left, 336. The eyes to the right were 88, the noes to the left

:45:51.:46:00.

were 336, so the noes have it. Unlock. We now continue clause 5,

:46:01.:46:07.

with which it will be convenient to take the clauses and amendments are

:46:08.:46:21.

seen on the order paper. I beg to move new clause 5 in my name and in

:46:22.:46:25.

the name of my right honourable friends. I also intend to speak

:46:26.:46:31.

briefly the amendment 11 and new clause 90 eight. The bill before us

:46:32.:46:35.

is straightforward but as many Honourable members have said, it

:46:36.:46:40.

will set in train a process that will have profound implications for

:46:41.:46:44.

our country and each of our constituents. Despite the government

:46:45.:46:50.

resisting new clause 3 yesterday and setting the pace against giving

:46:51.:46:55.

Parliament an active role in scrutinising the negotiation

:46:56.:46:57.

process, this House. Need to hold the government to account. The

:46:58.:47:04.

discharge that duty effectively, it requires adequate information and

:47:05.:47:09.

robust analysis. As things stand, we do not have it. When it comes to the

:47:10.:47:14.

crucial issue of the impact the different future trading models with

:47:15.:47:18.

half an our economy, the government's White Paper for five

:47:19.:47:22.

short on what is required to ensure we will have informed discussions

:47:23.:47:27.

and debate in this place. It offers little beyond assurances that the

:47:28.:47:33.

government will prioritising goods and services. This House, but more

:47:34.:47:38.

importantly businesses across the country, deserved to be made aware

:47:39.:47:42.

of the government's evaluation of the likely impact of different

:47:43.:47:45.

future trading relations. The government can provide them with

:47:46.:47:50.

that without revealing their hand by publishing any impact assessments

:47:51.:47:54.

undertaken and that is the purpose of new clause 5. In its intent, new

:47:55.:48:00.

clause 5 is similar to amendment 11 which stands in the name of my

:48:01.:48:04.

honourable friend, which concerns the impact of withdrawal on the

:48:05.:48:09.

public finances. I hope he gets a chance to speak to his amendment

:48:10.:48:14.

because the public will not quickly forget the ?350 million a week that

:48:15.:48:18.

though the Leave promised to the NHS and I know he will continue to

:48:19.:48:26.

Returning to new clause five, we know the analysis we wished to see

:48:27.:48:31.

published exists. Ministers have made clear from the dispatch box and

:48:32.:48:36.

in responses to specific Parliamentary questions that the

:48:37.:48:38.

government is conducting a broad range of analysis and the

:48:39.:48:43.

macroeconomic and central level to understand the impact of leaving the

:48:44.:48:48.

EU on all aspects of the UK. If I recall rightly the Secretary of

:48:49.:48:51.

State said last week the 58 sectors are being assessed. We're not

:48:52.:48:55.

were not asking the government to carry out undertakings and is not

:48:56.:49:03.

interpreted as a mechanism to delay or frustrate the triggering of

:49:04.:49:06.

article 50. The ministers maintained that no impact assessments have been

:49:07.:49:13.

finalised the new clause is for the Secretary of State to report to both

:49:14.:49:19.

houses. Does he suspect that any modelling by the Treasury may concur

:49:20.:49:22.

with the modelling of the ISS which says that EEA membership is far

:49:23.:49:28.

preferable and terms of economic growth than an FTA. I find the

:49:29.:49:35.

honourable gentleman, the honest answer is that we don't know but as

:49:36.:49:39.

I'll come to in my remarks, other organisations are doing this. There

:49:40.:49:44.

isn't a vacuum out there and the government I think could quite

:49:45.:49:49.

easily publish its analysis to help informed debate. I hope when the

:49:50.:49:52.

minister responds that he doesn't simply echo the arguments of those

:49:53.:49:56.

who have argued and will argue that publishing any information we are

:49:57.:50:01.

undermining the government's negotiating strategy. We have those

:50:02.:50:05.

arguments prior to the government's speech and White Paper and will know

:50:06.:50:09.

that she them in the months ahead but I said to honourable members who

:50:10.:50:13.

take that view, for genuine reasons of concern possibly because they

:50:14.:50:17.

want the legislation to shut up shop for 18 months that the detailed

:50:18.:50:21.

analysis of the kind we are asking to be published is out there. Other

:50:22.:50:25.

organisations are doing it, not just the government. I listened with

:50:26.:50:32.

care. His amendment seeks to make the giving of notice of Article 50

:50:33.:50:37.

as I understand conditional upon an impact assessment being set before

:50:38.:50:41.

the House of Commons. It seems to me that the giving of the article 50

:50:42.:50:46.

should be conditional upon a vote of the British people which took place

:50:47.:50:49.

last year. This is simply an attempt to delay. I think of the on one is

:50:50.:50:57.

being fair, I dealt with the question earlier on when I said it's

:50:58.:51:01.

not an attempt to delay because we know that the government have

:51:02.:51:05.

already carried out these impact assessments and the idea that we're

:51:06.:51:08.

not bitter any impact assessments published during the course of the

:51:09.:51:12.

negotiations is farcical, we could have them upfront and we could

:51:13.:51:18.

debate. Reputable and well-regarded organisations... Does he not agree

:51:19.:51:27.

with me that if we were to have official produced impact assessments

:51:28.:51:29.

rather than the impact assessments done by people guessing, Treasury

:51:30.:51:34.

impact assessments, we wouldn't be able to have a proper debate about

:51:35.:51:39.

the right kind of Brexit that was best for our country in very

:51:40.:51:44.

difficult and rapidly changing times. My right honourable friend

:51:45.:51:50.

expresses the intent of the bill perfectly and I agree with her 100%.

:51:51.:51:56.

Well-regarded and reputable organisation such as the National

:51:57.:52:00.

Institute of economic and social research have published detailed

:52:01.:52:05.

analysis of the costs and benefits of future trading relationships with

:52:06.:52:09.

the EU at has other less reputable organisations. The quality of the

:52:10.:52:13.

argument that the government and the Treasury can produce will match if

:52:14.:52:16.

not surpassed that analysis and we believe honourable members should

:52:17.:52:21.

have access to it. More importantly, businesses across the country need

:52:22.:52:24.

to be able to see it so they can help adequately plan for their

:52:25.:52:30.

futures. He's just asserted that the analysis that he wants to see would

:52:31.:52:34.

be superior in quality to some of the others that may be available.

:52:35.:52:40.

What does he based that assertion on given that the people he wants to

:52:41.:52:46.

report on the situation are giving us the most extraordinary

:52:47.:52:48.

information before the referendum they were telling us that we were

:52:49.:52:54.

going to be attended by plagues of frogs and locusts and the sky was

:52:55.:52:58.

going to fall in. What I would say to the honourable gentleman is that

:52:59.:53:02.

if he is right, I would not like to be one of the ministers negotiating

:53:03.:53:07.

the agreement with the EU because they will be relying on that

:53:08.:53:10.

information when they decide then I negotiating priorities. We on these

:53:11.:53:17.

benches look forward to healing the thoughts of the Minister on the

:53:18.:53:23.

matter and I want to now turn to new clause 98 in the name of my

:53:24.:53:26.

honourable friend. The purpose of new clause 98 is simple. To ensure

:53:27.:53:32.

the impact of decisions on women and those with protected characteristics

:53:33.:53:35.

are considered and debated at every stage of the negotiation process. It

:53:36.:53:39.

may have escaped the attention of some honourable members but the word

:53:40.:53:44.

equality does not appear once in the government White Paper. Indeed, the

:53:45.:53:49.

White Paper contains no mention of race, disability, sexuality and

:53:50.:53:53.

gender identity, which I find quite astonishing. How can we secure a

:53:54.:53:58.

Brexit that works for everyone as honourable members from both sides

:53:59.:54:01.

of the chip have repeated ad nauseam in these debates that these

:54:02.:54:08.

communities are not given due consideration when weighing up the

:54:09.:54:12.

different negotiating positions. The process and the final deal must have

:54:13.:54:16.

regard for equalities and the protection and extension of rights

:54:17.:54:19.

for those with protected characteristics. New clause 9860

:54:20.:54:23.

ensure that the qualities considerations are at the forefront

:54:24.:54:27.

of government thinking and that the inform the final deal. Doing so

:54:28.:54:29.

would help ensure we get the best deal for everyone wherever they are

:54:30.:54:34.

but crucially whoever they are. It would ensure that any negative

:54:35.:54:40.

impact on women must be transparently presented and

:54:41.:54:43.

considered and if there's a risk of disproportionate impact that the

:54:44.:54:45.

government takes steps to mitigate it. The new clause is in line

:54:46.:54:50.

recommendations from the cross-party women and equalities committee which

:54:51.:54:54.

is called for greater transparency on the impact of government

:54:55.:54:57.

decisions on women and those with protected characteristics and help

:54:58.:55:00.

improve scrutiny and accountability and look forward and hope the

:55:01.:55:03.

Minister gives it due consideration when he responds. New clause five

:55:04.:55:09.

impact assessments. The question is that new clause five

:55:10.:55:14.

B read a second time. I intend to deliver has very much,

:55:15.:55:28.

most of these ones are narrow and deal with this very specific point

:55:29.:55:32.

that the honourable gentleman on the front raised early on. I have a very

:55:33.:55:36.

simple concern as to why there is such a peculiar sense about the

:55:37.:55:43.

vital importance of these particular tabled forecasts that really places

:55:44.:55:49.

huge credit on the Treasury's ability to be able to forecast were

:55:50.:55:53.

recording in every sector. As so many of these forecasts have in the

:55:54.:55:59.

past been fundamentally wrong and I asked the library to look at the

:56:00.:56:04.

Treasury forecast in May 2016 and to concern itself as whether or not how

:56:05.:56:08.

accurate that turned out to be and I think it's worth actually just silly

:56:09.:56:11.

to me exactly how accurate that really has turned out to be when

:56:12.:56:14.

they had in front of them a huge array of figures and possibilities.

:56:15.:56:21.

It's worth reading this one because it's quite important. In May 2016

:56:22.:56:25.

the Treasury published forecast for the immediate economic impact of

:56:26.:56:28.

voting to leave the EU. Its forecast for a recession to occur in the

:56:29.:56:33.

second half of 2016 quarterly GDP growth of -0.1% in both quarter

:56:34.:56:39.

three and a quarter four. And its forecast essentially a second severe

:56:40.:56:43.

shock scenario that was also shown with a deep recession occurring

:56:44.:56:52.

under this scenario growth of 1% and -0.4% in quarter 420 16. In reality

:56:53.:56:58.

the economy continue to grow in its pre-referendum pace with quarterly

:56:59.:57:03.

growth of 0.6% and more and now it's been adjusted again by the governor

:57:04.:57:07.

of the Bank of England to be just close to it 2% with the prospect of

:57:08.:57:15.

further adjustments. Just on the point of quarterly growth

:57:16.:57:18.

statistics, as understand it, I think that even the future

:57:19.:57:21.

predictions even knowing what is happening right now is often very

:57:22.:57:26.

difficult for predicting entities. In fact I believe it's about four

:57:27.:57:31.

times out of 270 quarters they have the numbers correct. In fact, the

:57:32.:57:38.

range of prediction had nearly and 90 billion margin for error from the

:57:39.:57:44.

Office for Budget Responsibility over the previous seven years. That

:57:45.:57:51.

?90 billion was plus or minus 15 on the plus side and 40 billion on the

:57:52.:57:57.

minus side. -- 50 billion on the plus side. We have a sense that

:57:58.:58:00.

somehow these forecasts give you any strong real indication of what could

:58:01.:58:08.

happen in the economy. This particular new clause, and other

:58:09.:58:10.

amendments relevant to it, actually do make this contingent on this and

:58:11.:58:16.

other words the triggering of article 50 officially cannot be done

:58:17.:58:21.

until these forecasts are laid. There's not a of consult on them or

:58:22.:58:26.

made as a matter of information by the government of contingents, so

:58:27.:58:30.

other words, this Article 50 letter cannot go until these are laid and

:58:31.:58:37.

all they do is be inform the debate depending on what the forecasts are.

:58:38.:58:41.

For example, I happen to be of the general opinion in talking to

:58:42.:58:45.

economists that we've had seven years of growth and its normal

:58:46.:58:48.

within the cycle that you would expect at some point after this long

:58:49.:58:52.

period of growth to have a certain flattening, that would be the normal

:58:53.:58:56.

prospect. But that e-commerce will tell you it's defined in more

:58:57.:59:00.

prospects of whether or not we have a natural process of slightly lower

:59:01.:59:03.

growth directly as a result of this longer period of growth, what

:59:04.:59:07.

happens at the world economy, what's happening in the European Union is

:59:08.:59:11.

almost impossible to forecast that and do it with any great accuracy.

:59:12.:59:15.

My point that are merely making, it does seem to be strange that the new

:59:16.:59:20.

clause five, it says here and I caught this, the Prime Minister may

:59:21.:59:23.

not give notice under section one until either HM Treasury has

:59:24.:59:30.

published any impact assessment and HM Treasury has laid a statement

:59:31.:59:33.

before both houses of parliament. This is not, with respect to the

:59:34.:59:36.

honourable gentleman this book for the opposition, this is not just a

:59:37.:59:41.

helpful attempt to get information to the House. This is exactly what

:59:42.:59:47.

he said it was not. This is quite clearly a back door attempt to try

:59:48.:59:52.

and make it almost impossible and difficult for the government to

:59:53.:59:54.

actually get on and trigger article 59 what what what my honourable

:59:55.:00:00.

friend Dover said was was that the verdict of the British people and

:00:01.:00:03.

the referendum was to trigger article 50, they weren't asked

:00:04.:00:07.

Sharon Wood triple article 50 only after we have laid various reports

:00:08.:00:10.

and notables who believe the economy is good, bad or indifferent, they

:00:11.:00:14.

were rashly asked do you want to leave order you want to stay and

:00:15.:00:18.

they've chosen to leave and we need to get on with it. The idea that

:00:19.:00:21.

government will go on to a negotiation without any idea about

:00:22.:00:25.

what may favour and what by a large what the margins will be is

:00:26.:00:29.

ridiculous and the other point I'd make is that the House has to in a

:00:30.:00:37.

sense recognise that it's come to be swamped with information of this

:00:38.:00:41.

sort every single forecasting agency is going to be in the game of

:00:42.:00:46.

telling us where we are and none will be the wiser. And I'm sure

:00:47.:00:49.

depending on what their position is, everybody in the House will take the

:00:50.:00:52.

worst are the best depending on what they want. If you got a margin of

:00:53.:00:58.

error from the Office for Budget Responsibility of ?90 billion, you

:00:59.:01:00.

can take with ever petition you want but it doesn't change anything.

:01:01.:01:06.

Because we are leaving and the nature of the agreement that we get,

:01:07.:01:11.

if we get an agreement with the European Union, is not to be based

:01:12.:01:14.

on a budget forecasts, his country based on what ultimately goes

:01:15.:01:18.

negotiating from the European Union thinkers in their general best

:01:19.:01:21.

interests and we from the UK managed to persuade them is in our mutual

:01:22.:01:27.

best interest. That is what a negotiation is about and anybody

:01:28.:01:30.

who's been engaged in the negotiation business will know that

:01:31.:01:34.

you start with what you base bottom line is on worst for you and you try

:01:35.:01:38.

to improve upon that and they do the same. This is not going to be, I

:01:39.:01:42.

tell you what my forecast comes to women to be better, what is your

:01:43.:01:48.

sick? We're going to be better off, so which forecast regurgitate? The

:01:49.:01:53.

Battle of forecasts is a decrease and pointless exercise. I'm grateful

:01:54.:01:57.

to the Right honourable gentleman forgiving way. Of course, as he

:01:58.:02:04.

characterised it, it isn't going to be a battle of forecasts. What the

:02:05.:02:09.

forecasts are based on is the same thing as the assessment that people

:02:10.:02:14.

make when they're judging what will or will not be in their interest.

:02:15.:02:19.

They've got a mental model and sometimes those mental models can be

:02:20.:02:23.

put into mathematical form and sometimes that is useful and surely

:02:24.:02:28.

that is precisely what the City of London is doing when it says to the

:02:29.:02:33.

French and the Germans and the Italians, you need us more than we

:02:34.:02:39.

need you. Yes, but the point is here that we'll be none the wiser and

:02:40.:02:45.

this is my point, if the House links that forecasts are somehow going to

:02:46.:02:50.

really inform the view of it, I would after 25 years be astonished.

:02:51.:02:55.

Debates in this house are freely really informed, they are mostly

:02:56.:02:59.

based on the judgment of individuals, particularly from some

:03:00.:03:05.

of my... My right honourable friend is making a very impressive case.

:03:06.:03:18.

I'm tempted to quote from carry on up the Khyber.

:03:19.:03:39.

Is it not the case given the candour of one of the most distinguished

:03:40.:03:44.

economists in this country that those who call for impact

:03:45.:03:49.

assessments in the way they did attributing. I'm tempted my

:03:50.:03:55.

predecessor when he said when there's screaming, shouting and

:03:56.:03:58.

laughing, carry on you must be on the right track. The point I would

:03:59.:04:03.

make is also the head of the OBE I was seeing in the end of it, almost

:04:04.:04:05.

all forecasts are wrong. This is not really about being

:04:06.:04:30.

informed? Is not information its delay. That's what it is all about,

:04:31.:04:33.

and attend to were not satisfied with that, that doesn't quite confer

:04:34.:04:37.

with what be passed in this clause, therefore you are not able to

:04:38.:04:40.

trigger article 50. The honest truth is the government is to go always

:04:41.:04:45.

with their best will and endeavour and try and arrange to get the best

:04:46.:04:49.

kind of deal they can. As we look around us and we listen to what

:04:50.:04:54.

various politicians in Europe, we keep forgetting their position in

:04:55.:04:57.

this is really what will and upsetting what kind of arrangement

:04:58.:05:04.

we get. Finance Minister of Germany 24 hours ago has changed his

:05:05.:05:08.

position and has now said that there is no way on earth that they should

:05:09.:05:11.

have any concept of trying to punish the United Kingdom, quite con the

:05:12.:05:18.

contrary. He said we need the City of London to succeed and thrive

:05:19.:05:21.

because without it we will be poor and went on to say therefore we

:05:22.:05:27.

absolutely will have to come to an arrangement with the United Kingdom

:05:28.:05:32.

because it is in all of our interests and that is the best

:05:33.:05:35.

forecast you can get because it's about what people believe is in

:05:36.:05:42.

their mutual best interest. Further to that point. Has he seen comments

:05:43.:05:49.

from the German equivalent of the CBI.

:05:50.:06:01.

Thomas Ince the Prime Minister made her excellent speech in which she

:06:02.:06:09.

set out the 12 points that were subsequently fleshed out into a

:06:10.:06:12.

White Paper she made it clear what the British Government was not going

:06:13.:06:16.

to be asking for any special pleading about the single market

:06:17.:06:17.

that the rashly began to say. I engage with a company that turns

:06:18.:06:37.

over 400 million euros a year. They are in the pre-packaged potato

:06:38.:06:42.

industry and 39% of their product they sell all over the world but 39%

:06:43.:06:47.

is sold to the United Kingdom. They do very well.

:06:48.:07:04.

These things are already nothing to do with forecasts, all to do with

:07:05.:07:12.

people caring about their futures and jobs. These amendments come

:07:13.:07:21.

before any such rational intervention by reasonable business

:07:22.:07:26.

people across Europe. They are designed, they are based on the

:07:27.:07:29.

presumption that the members opposite genuinely believe in their

:07:30.:07:36.

doomsday forecasts. They're just waiting for them to occur and that's

:07:37.:07:40.

the whole point of delaying the process in the hope that when it

:07:41.:07:45.

does happen and the sky does fall, the British people will change their

:07:46.:07:53.

minds. I am the most mild-mannered and tolerant of men.

:07:54.:08:02.

The interventions are becoming slightly overlong. Interventions

:08:03.:08:10.

should be interventions not speeches. Thank you for that

:08:11.:08:19.

explanatory intervention. I'm still prepared to take any further

:08:20.:08:21.

interventions should they wish to foster keep them short. We just

:08:22.:08:27.

talked a month ago about the City of London, the power of the City of

:08:28.:08:32.

London. 30 relies as well that other major capitals, Paris and Frankfurt

:08:33.:08:37.

and they don't have the infrastructure. Frankfurt has won

:08:38.:08:41.

for a Mike Mitchell and Paris has restricted labour laws. It plays

:08:42.:08:49.

usually to the government's hands. In Frankfurt in was interesting that

:08:50.:08:54.

when he was interviewed by the BBC to their horror when they said you

:08:55.:08:58.

already tried to get people to come to take up their jobs.

:08:59.:09:16.

We absolutely need the City of London to thrive and prosper because

:09:17.:09:23.

it's the way we keep our capital cheap. We can't replace it, it will

:09:24.:09:27.

go somewhere outside of Europe. He said London is the only global city

:09:28.:09:32.

in Europe and the point he was making was that we always move and

:09:33.:09:36.

trade jobs are on but the point is the expertise and the ability to

:09:37.:09:40.

make those capital deals lies in London and they want to make sure

:09:41.:09:46.

that the kingdom government, the European Union commission and the

:09:47.:09:50.

Council reach an agreement that is beneficial to both sides with access

:09:51.:09:55.

to the marketplace. I make no bones about it, I'm an optimist and

:09:56.:09:58.

nothing in the way of this amendment which is good to help in any way

:09:59.:10:01.

whatsoever for the government or even more importantly these

:10:02.:10:05.

amendments for the House to reach any kind of magic to conclusion such

:10:06.:10:09.

as to let the government then trigger article 50. This I content

:10:10.:10:17.

in conclusion, somebody wants to intervene but in conclusion I

:10:18.:10:28.

content. When it comes to forecasts there was another real-life example

:10:29.:10:32.

which I don't think is mentioned which is the referendum in Scotland

:10:33.:10:36.

for independence was predicated on the oil price remaining high.

:10:37.:10:40.

Shortly afterwards the oil price dropped dramatically which would

:10:41.:10:44.

have left Scotland in dire straits and they voted for independence. I

:10:45.:10:54.

agree, as the head of the old BR said about forecasts, he was clear.

:10:55.:10:57.

He said in the end most forecasts are wrong. On that basis it isn't

:10:58.:11:03.

really good to help the House in any way to suddenly have a Treasury

:11:04.:11:07.

forecast any other than it will for all the multitude of other forecasts

:11:08.:11:11.

that are likely to set about seeing where the economy will go. I don't

:11:12.:11:14.

blame them for being on because there are far too many movable part

:11:15.:11:17.

in economies as complex as the United Kingdom's.

:11:18.:11:33.

This is about making sure the government's hands are tied, that

:11:34.:11:40.

the slow the process down in the vague hope that some how, people's

:11:41.:11:54.

opinions will change. The honest truth is... He has been very

:11:55.:12:00.

generous in accepting these interventions. As I understand from

:12:01.:12:07.

polling and my experience on the doorstep, most people just want us

:12:08.:12:13.

to get on with the job. Brexit is actually more popular than it was at

:12:14.:12:21.

the time of the referendum. I just simply want to say that is exactly

:12:22.:12:25.

the point. The purpose of all of this, if you were trying to mend the

:12:26.:12:30.

bill on this basis and tied a government's hands, or that will

:12:31.:12:35.

happen is that, in the end, the British people will get frustrated

:12:36.:12:39.

and angry about that... I will indeed give way. What if, actually,

:12:40.:12:49.

everyone in the House, whether they are Brexiteers all remain as, want

:12:50.:12:54.

the best deal for the country? And in order to make good decisions

:12:55.:12:58.

about that, they want to see the analysis about what is going on

:12:59.:13:03.

about the implications of making particular decision so we can have a

:13:04.:13:06.

good debate? Surely, that is what this is about, not delay? I say to

:13:07.:13:12.

the honourable lady, if that were the purpose, explicit purpose of

:13:13.:13:18.

this amendment or new clause, I would agree with her, but the

:13:19.:13:24.

difference is that it restricts the government from invoking Article 50

:13:25.:13:29.

until this matter is laid in front of the House. I simply say to her,

:13:30.:13:34.

that line alone makes it very clear that this is not the full intention.

:13:35.:13:41.

If however all that was said was we would invoke Article 50 and it would

:13:42.:13:44.

be good that the government puts forward the various predictions

:13:45.:13:48.

forecast, I would probably have said the government would not have a

:13:49.:13:51.

problem with that, but this is not what this says. If the honourable

:13:52.:13:58.

lady beads, she will realise this is about delay and prevarication. I end

:13:59.:14:09.

by simply saying... Would he like to make a forecast and say that maybe,

:14:10.:14:17.

at the end of this process, the vast majority of the people in Scotland

:14:18.:14:24.

will want Brexit? I will honestly say, as I have just condemned every

:14:25.:14:29.

forecast, I will not make up forecast. But I will say that once

:14:30.:14:33.

they get back on the domestic policy in Scotland, the Scottish

:14:34.:14:38.

Nationalists will be seen for what they are. But let's get back to the

:14:39.:14:49.

real forecast. In conclusion, I simply say therefore this new clause

:14:50.:14:54.

and attending amendments that make it very clear that this House would

:14:55.:14:59.

put another set of shackles around the government's hands, stopping

:15:00.:15:02.

them from getting on with what the British people voted for last year,

:15:03.:15:07.

must be rejected because the government at the end of the day

:15:08.:15:10.

must seek the best deal they can in line with what is good for the EU

:15:11.:15:20.

and good for the United Kingdom. I am pleased to follow the right

:15:21.:15:24.

honourable member for Chingford. I have to say, before I come on to the

:15:25.:15:31.

amendment I am moving, on a subject I noticed was absent from his

:15:32.:15:35.

contribution just now, I am bemused at what can only be described as a

:15:36.:15:43.

15 minute diatribe against forecasters, economists, the

:15:44.:15:47.

experts, that is why I was not surprised to see the member for

:15:48.:15:51.

Surrey Heath join him in that diatribe, because we have spent the

:15:52.:15:56.

last five or six years on this side of the House listening to these two

:15:57.:16:02.

former Cabinet ministers telling us how important economic forecasts

:16:03.:16:08.

are, how important it is to listen to independent forecasters, which is

:16:09.:16:10.

why they were telling us how important it was the set up the

:16:11.:16:14.

offers the budget responsibility that he has just spent the last 15

:16:15.:16:19.

minutes slapping off. But anyway, I will make progress and come to the

:16:20.:16:27.

honourable gentleman in a bit. I am bound to say at the start that I

:16:28.:16:38.

wish we were not here. I campaigned as the two Honourable members know,

:16:39.:16:43.

very strongly for us to stay in the European Union. I played a role in

:16:44.:16:50.

the Britain stronger in Europe campaign nationally. But we lost. I

:16:51.:16:57.

accept that and as a Democrat, I accept the result, which is why I

:16:58.:17:02.

supported the second reading of this bill. But I respect people who took

:17:03.:17:06.

a different view on how you interpret the referendum result.

:17:07.:17:11.

However, whilst we have different views as to whether the trigger

:17:12.:17:18.

Article 50 or not, we can all agree that, whilst various promises were

:17:19.:17:20.

made by both sides in that referendum campaign, the key pledge

:17:21.:17:28.

of the winning side was that, if we leave the European Union, ?350

:17:29.:17:34.

million extra per week would go to the NHS, which is why I am seeking

:17:35.:17:39.

to move amendment 11. Dominic Cummings, who worked with the... Who

:17:40.:17:48.

ran the vote Leave campaign, said on his blog last month that the ?315

:17:49.:17:54.

million argument was necessary to win. Would we have one without the

:17:55.:18:04.

?350 million NHS? All our research suggests no. You can go and read on

:18:05.:18:11.

his blog. So its importance cannot be underestimated or detached from

:18:12.:18:16.

the triggering of Article 50. It is inextricably linked to why millions

:18:17.:18:23.

of people voted to leave. It is inextricably linked to our

:18:24.:18:26.

withdrawal from the European Union and the efforts of this Bill. I am

:18:27.:18:33.

very grateful to my right honourable friend the giving way. He is

:18:34.:18:37.

absolutely right. I have had public meetings and I was in one village

:18:38.:18:43.

where they said it is fantastic that we are leaving the European Union

:18:44.:18:48.

because we will get ?350 million a week for the NHS and the government

:18:49.:18:52.

will be able to reopen the A hospital. That is right. And there

:18:53.:18:59.

are lots of examples that throughout the country. It is not surprising.

:19:00.:19:04.

Prominent members of this government, the foreign environment

:19:05.:19:13.

secretaries, all members of the current Cabinet, went around the

:19:14.:19:18.

country in that big red bus that said, we send the EU ?350 million a

:19:19.:19:25.

week, let's fund our NHS instead. None of them... None of them

:19:26.:19:30.

discerned this pledge during the campaign. All they stood by, a big

:19:31.:19:41.

sign saying, let's give the NHS the ?350 million the EU gets every week.

:19:42.:19:46.

Does he agree with me that this kind of cynical campaigning gives

:19:47.:19:50.

politics and politicians are really bad name? And that people who have

:19:51.:19:58.

seen the pledge on that big red bus now expect this government to

:19:59.:20:04.

deliver that pledge? That is absolutely right and of course...

:20:05.:20:12.

They seek to hide behind the wording and claim it was conditional. But

:20:13.:20:16.

they knew exactly what they were doing when they stood in front of

:20:17.:20:21.

that big red bus and those signs. The clear message they intended to

:20:22.:20:27.

convey was that if we leave the European Union, ?350 million a week

:20:28.:20:34.

will go to the NHS. This story about town hall meetings, I have a huge

:20:35.:20:38.

amount of time for the honourable gentleman, but I say to him, I have

:20:39.:20:41.

a number of people come up to me in meeting saying, we would love to

:20:42.:20:46.

vote to leave the EU but the Chancellor has told us if we do, we

:20:47.:20:51.

will use 400 ?400 and there will be an emergency budget. It does not

:20:52.:20:58.

help this country with this House to rehash the campaign of seven months

:20:59.:21:02.

ago. I am glad the honourable member raised this point. I also have a lot

:21:03.:21:07.

of respect for him. I'm not tried to re-litigate the referendum campaign

:21:08.:21:12.

now, I am trying to make sure the policies these people made are

:21:13.:21:19.

delivered! We know the NHS needs the extra cash so it was not

:21:20.:21:22.

unreasonable for people to believe them. As members of the health

:21:23.:21:27.

Select Committee, people on all sides of the House sit on, they

:21:28.:21:33.

pointed out recently the deficit in NHS foundation trusts in 2015 and 16

:21:34.:21:40.

was ?3.45 billion alone. We know that claimed increases in NHS

:21:41.:21:44.

funding by ministers are being funded by reductions in other areas

:21:45.:21:53.

of health spending. We know the reductions in spending on social

:21:54.:21:56.

care are having a serious impact translating into increased pay any

:21:57.:22:03.

attendances, emergency admissions, delays, the people leaving

:22:04.:22:08.

hospitals. The NHS needs that extra cash so it was not unreasonable for

:22:09.:22:11.

people who voted to leave the European to think this would be

:22:12.:22:16.

deliverable. I am very grateful to the honourable gentleman to giving

:22:17.:22:20.

way. He is complaining about the slogan on the side of the bus and is

:22:21.:22:25.

implying that his amendment gives money to the NHS but it doesn't. It

:22:26.:22:30.

merely suggests there is a report on the effect of the withdrawal from

:22:31.:22:36.

the EU on national finance. So he seems to be falling into exactly the

:22:37.:22:40.

same trap as he is accusing others of. Notes and beans come to mind. I

:22:41.:22:50.

do not know about him, but all I will say to the honourable gentleman

:22:51.:22:56.

is that this amendment has been drafted so it is an offensive to

:22:57.:23:01.

people like him. And given it is such a reasonable amendment, I

:23:02.:23:09.

suggest he simply votes for it! Is he aware of change Britain's latest

:23:10.:23:16.

press release where the ?350 million a week has gone on to ?450 million a

:23:17.:23:23.

week by the exhortations to scrap such owner is regulations such as

:23:24.:23:30.

the motor vehicles regulations, the greenhouse gas emissions

:23:31.:23:32.

regulations, the welfare of animals regulations and the welfare of

:23:33.:23:37.

farmed animals regulations in this country? That is very interesting

:23:38.:23:41.

and I note that the member for Surrey Heath are still in his place

:23:42.:23:46.

because I saw in the Sun newspaper in November that the honourable

:23:47.:23:51.

member for Surrey Heath was demanding that Theresa May spend ?32

:23:52.:23:56.

billion Brexit dividend on the NHS. I hope he will be supporting our

:23:57.:24:02.

amendment today as well. I thank my honourable friend the giving way and

:24:03.:24:05.

he is making some very important points. It is interesting to hear

:24:06.:24:09.

the other sides scoffing and laughing at this issue but the thing

:24:10.:24:12.

I point out is that this was not just one many pledges, it was the

:24:13.:24:20.

pledge, the key pledge... There are a collection of photographs in front

:24:21.:24:24.

of me. It was the number one commitment of this country when they

:24:25.:24:28.

voted to leave the European Union. Does this chamber not have a

:24:29.:24:31.

responsibility to honour the pledge in which people were voting to leave

:24:32.:24:36.

the EU? I completely agree with my honourable friend and it is for

:24:37.:24:40.

these reasons that I have tabled amendment 11. It is a very

:24:41.:24:47.

reasonable amendment. It requires the Prime Minister to set out how

:24:48.:24:52.

the UK's withdrawal from the EU will impact on the national finances, in

:24:53.:24:58.

particular on health spending. She needs to set out how she is going to

:24:59.:25:04.

make good on that boat Leave pledge to spend ?350 million extra per week

:25:05.:25:14.

on the NHS. I have been very pleased to support his amendment. Does he

:25:15.:25:17.

agree with me that this would be a vital part of keeping the public's

:25:18.:25:22.

confidence in the process as well as we go forward over the next two

:25:23.:25:28.

years, not least if I reflect on a conversation I had my constituency

:25:29.:25:33.

on Sunday that this issue still remains top most people's minds as

:25:34.:25:36.

to the reason why they voted to leave? Absolutely. This issue will

:25:37.:25:43.

not go away. It will be a major part of the general election campaign,

:25:44.:25:48.

whenever the next one comes. And I do hope that we will not only have

:25:49.:25:51.

the opportunity to debate this but the opportunity to vote on this as

:25:52.:26:00.

well. This is the amendment that has been signed by more members than any

:26:01.:26:05.

other amendment. It is supported across parties and is the support of

:26:06.:26:15.

the opposition front bench. In the end, in our democracy, it is in this

:26:16.:26:20.

House that members of this House are held to account for the promises and

:26:21.:26:26.

things they say to the people. What better way to test the resolve of

:26:27.:26:30.

people like the honourable member for Chingford, the Surrey Heath,

:26:31.:26:34.

what better way to test the resolve than for there to be a vote on this

:26:35.:26:37.

side the the book and see whether the meant what they said? Another

:26:38.:26:47.

commitment was they want to make Parliament sovereign again. If you

:26:48.:26:49.

listen to the government benches today, they say, that would be

:26:50.:26:57.

delaying tactics, they cannot have it both ways. He is absolutely

:26:58.:27:04.

right. These people will never be forgiven if they betrayed the trust

:27:05.:27:09.

of the people by breaking the promised to do with the can to

:27:10.:27:14.

ensure that the ?350 million extra per week for the NHS is delivered.

:27:15.:27:19.

They all know this only too well. Mr Cummings, who as I said worked for

:27:20.:27:24.

the right honourable member for Surrey Heath, disclose this in the

:27:25.:27:28.

blog I mentioned, but the Foreign Secretary and a member of the member

:27:29.:27:32.

for Surrey Heath plan to impart deliver on this pledge is part of

:27:33.:27:36.

the Foreign Secretary's leadership campaign. So when Mr Cummings said

:27:37.:27:41.

he told the Foreign Secretary, you should start off by being an usual,

:27:42.:27:47.

a politician who actually delivers what they promise, he says the reply

:27:48.:27:52.

was from the Foreign Secretary, absolutely, we must do this, no

:27:53.:28:00.

question. Apparently, the member for Surrey Heath strongly agreed and of

:28:01.:28:04.

course Mr Cummins goes on to say, if they had not blown up, this would

:28:05.:28:08.

have all happened. There are a number of reasons no doubt why the

:28:09.:28:11.

Minister... Will say to us he cannot Firstly, there are those who claim

:28:12.:28:27.

this wasn't a pledge at all. The transport Secretary has said the

:28:28.:28:32.

specific proposal by the Vote Leave campaign was to spend ?100 million a

:28:33.:28:38.

week of the ?350 million on the NHS. And he hoped, and I quote, the

:28:39.:28:44.

aspiration will be met. I say to the transport secretary who is not here,

:28:45.:28:50.

the poster they stood by and did not say this was an aspiration or use

:28:51.:28:55.

the ?100 million figure, it was a pledge. Pure and simple. The poster

:28:56.:29:02.

did not say, let's aspire to spend ?100 million extra. It gave the

:29:03.:29:07.

clear impression... I will give way shortly. The clear impression the

:29:08.:29:13.

money would be spent and it is true the office for National Statistics

:29:14.:29:18.

said the ?350 million figure was misleading but the Vote Leave

:29:19.:29:22.

campaign which the right honourable member chaired, they kept on using

:29:23.:29:27.

that figure regardless and now they will be held to account. I give way.

:29:28.:29:34.

I thank him for giving way eventually. I believe he should

:29:35.:29:39.

listen to the words of my right honourable friend the Chingford who

:29:40.:29:47.

talked about forecasting, the 350 million will be an issue at the next

:29:48.:29:51.

election but does he agree the Conservative party was not Vote

:29:52.:29:57.

Leave for the slogan, not the Conservative party and as he gives

:29:58.:30:00.

as they toured a force of the Brexit campaign, witty comment on Project

:30:01.:30:08.

via? I think he was involved with Vote Leave, maybe he wasn't but I

:30:09.:30:12.

will not take any lectures about peddling fear and/or the rest of it

:30:13.:30:15.

in any campaign from anyone associated Vote Leave and I will

:30:16.:30:20.

come onto the point he makes about the Conservative party shortly. I

:30:21.:30:26.

agree with the points he is making. Having made a complaint to the UK

:30:27.:30:32.

statistics authority, the response I received was it was a potentially

:30:33.:30:37.

misleading claim and they kept using it. Surely they kept using it

:30:38.:30:42.

because they knew they needed to to win the referendum and having done

:30:43.:30:46.

that, we need to hold them to account. Absolutely right. I

:30:47.:30:51.

completely agree. I will come to that point that the gentleman was

:30:52.:30:57.

making about the Conservative party because there are people who talk

:30:58.:31:01.

about and some people from the Labour Party, there are people who

:31:02.:31:07.

say these were pledges primarily made by people who may have been

:31:08.:31:14.

members of the Conservative government but they did not speak

:31:15.:31:17.

with the authority of that government. Well, the five members

:31:18.:31:21.

of the Cabinet who took leading roles and led the campaign who I

:31:22.:31:25.

mentioned, three of them were members of the government at the

:31:26.:31:30.

time, and the Foreign Secretary attended the political Cabinet. Part

:31:31.:31:35.

of the reason these key campaigners will put out to do media and

:31:36.:31:39.

campaign for Vote Leave was because they carried the authority of being

:31:40.:31:43.

government ministers. You can't attach one from the other. The other

:31:44.:31:48.

argument connected to this is that this was a commitment given by one

:31:49.:31:55.

side in a referendum campaign, not a government, so we should leave the

:31:56.:31:58.

matter alone and get on with things and should shut up. I am sorry, I do

:31:59.:32:04.

not think this will wash. Whether they were ministers or not, all of

:32:05.:32:09.

the Vote Leave key campaigners were members of this house and as I said,

:32:10.:32:15.

if democracy is to be anything, it is that you answer if you are a

:32:16.:32:20.

member of this house, you answer in this house and are held to account

:32:21.:32:23.

for the promises you make to the people and after all, and my friend

:32:24.:32:30.

has made a point, it was in the name of parliamentary sovereignty that

:32:31.:32:34.

they campaigned and if Parliament is sovereign, it is here they should be

:32:35.:32:38.

held to account. Either they made this pledge, in the expectation of

:32:39.:32:47.

delivering on it, in which case they must now show us the money and vote

:32:48.:32:53.

for this amendment or they made this pledge in the knowledge it would

:32:54.:32:57.

never be met in which case they will be never forgiven for their betrayal

:32:58.:33:03.

of those who in good faith relied on this promise. I will give way. I am

:33:04.:33:11.

wholly in favour of spending 350 colour whatever the figure but I

:33:12.:33:15.

want to ask him specifically, it is his amendment, the amendment does

:33:16.:33:21.

not say that, it is publisher reports that, I want to know what is

:33:22.:33:28.

his position and his party with regards to the spending on the NHS

:33:29.:33:32.

that would only come as and when we leave the European Union and get

:33:33.:33:36.

back the money that we give at the moment which is up to 350, whichever

:33:37.:33:41.

way you take the figure, what is his position, does he want to spend it

:33:42.:33:46.

on the health service or not? I think I detected a hint of support

:33:47.:33:53.

for the amendment from the remarks the right honourable gentleman has

:33:54.:33:57.

made. He seems to except and melting is the word I hear, he seems to be

:33:58.:34:03.

accepting the premise that the amendment so I am looking forward to

:34:04.:34:08.

him joining us in the division lobbies and what I would say to the

:34:09.:34:12.

honourable gentleman about the national Health Service which my

:34:13.:34:16.

party established and created in the face of opposition from his party,

:34:17.:34:22.

is that we have a far better record of providing the funding and

:34:23.:34:27.

providing support to the NHS, we need no lectures or demands from his

:34:28.:34:30.

party who are in government currently throwing it into chaos. I

:34:31.:34:38.

finish by saying this, his prime minister goes around saying Brexit

:34:39.:34:42.

means Brexit, if Brexit means anything, it means that he and all

:34:43.:34:47.

his colleagues who campaigned to Vote Leave, these people need to

:34:48.:34:51.

deliver on their promises to put ?350 million extra per week in the

:34:52.:34:55.

NHS and I look forward to seeing him in a division lobbies. Order, order!

:34:56.:35:04.

We are about to be faced with a situation of last night, we have a

:35:05.:35:08.

large number of amendments, a large number of members who wish to speak,

:35:09.:35:14.

I understand entirely members have been generous taking interventions

:35:15.:35:18.

and it uses up time but I urge colleagues to shorten their speech

:35:19.:35:23.

is it possible to enable the maximum number of members to take part in

:35:24.:35:26.

what is an important debate. I could go. It is a pleasure to serve and

:35:27.:35:34.

your chairmanship and to follow the member for Streatham who made a

:35:35.:35:39.

characteristically authoritative and penetrating speech. I congratulate

:35:40.:35:44.

him on his leadership of the Labour in campaign in London, it is the

:35:45.:35:48.

case even though the UK voted to leave, some of the strongest

:35:49.:35:52.

resistance was in London and that is in no small part to his

:35:53.:35:57.

organisational ability. May I also say that I entirely agree with

:35:58.:36:06.

him... He said the whole of the UK, it is a union so not all of the

:36:07.:36:10.

United Kingdom and I hope he acknowledges not all of the UK

:36:11.:36:15.

because constituent parts were told that we were equal partners in the

:36:16.:36:23.

UK so not all... I accept the point he makes but it is striking the

:36:24.:36:26.

northernmost part of his own constituency voted to leave and also

:36:27.:36:37.

striking BBC striking that so many people in Scotland without any... I

:36:38.:36:44.

will not. Anyway... We have heard at length last night from the SNP about

:36:45.:36:50.

how Scotland voted and I would say a million people in Scotland voted to

:36:51.:36:55.

leave overall and simile people voted to leave and as was pointed

:36:56.:37:02.

out people want the vote to be expedited and the reason I am

:37:03.:37:05.

speaking tonight is that I am opposed to every new clause and

:37:06.:37:10.

amendments because they seek to frustrate the democratic will of the

:37:11.:37:14.

people. The member for Streatham is right, people do want us to take

:37:15.:37:17.

back control of the money which is spent on our behalf by the European

:37:18.:37:27.

Union. But if we accept his amendment, and every single other

:37:28.:37:30.

amendment and new clause, we will seek only to delay and to

:37:31.:37:37.

procrastinate and put off the day when we leave the European Union and

:37:38.:37:42.

can spend the additional money on the NHS or on any other priority.

:37:43.:37:47.

So, if any member of this house wants to see taxpayers money

:37:48.:37:52.

currently controlled by the European Union spent on the NHS or on

:37:53.:37:59.

reducing VAT on fuel or spent four example on improving infrastructure

:38:00.:38:04.

in the Western Isles, they have a duty to vote down the new clauses

:38:05.:38:07.

which will frustrate the sovereign will of the people being honoured

:38:08.:38:12.

and I will give way to gentleman on the frontbencher was first. He is

:38:13.:38:20.

kind. He bears some responsibility of course for the mess we are in.

:38:21.:38:28.

One area that he was clear run previously was Scotland should have

:38:29.:38:31.

more control over immigration, will you join us in campaigning for that?

:38:32.:38:38.

It is striking when he talks about the mess in which we are in, the Wii

:38:39.:38:45.

refers to the SNP because they are in a significant mass, support for

:38:46.:38:50.

independence has fallen, support for a second referendum is falling and

:38:51.:38:55.

therefore psychological displacement theory explains why they want to

:38:56.:38:58.

talk about anything else other than their own political failure. The

:38:59.:39:03.

reason why... I will make progress and then give way. The reason I

:39:04.:39:09.

oppose all the amendments is as was pointed out every single one of them

:39:10.:39:13.

is implemented would delay and frustrate the legislation because we

:39:14.:39:19.

have a huge list of impact assessments that require to be

:39:20.:39:22.

published and other work to be undertaken before we can trigger

:39:23.:39:28.

article 50. I know the gentleman from the front bench said it was not

:39:29.:39:32.

the mission of the Labour Party to delay but he is in the position of

:39:33.:39:38.

what you organisations took a clean skin. An innocent who has been put

:39:39.:39:45.

in the way of gunfire by other wilier figures like the Chief Whip

:39:46.:39:51.

and his position and I am sure the honourable gentleman is sincere in

:39:52.:39:55.

his belief that these amendments and clauses would not delay legislation

:39:56.:39:59.

or complicate or frustrate the British people but he is wrong. He

:40:00.:40:08.

is in a position of the Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus, the

:40:09.:40:16.

delay. Everything he is doing, every single one of these new clauses and

:40:17.:40:20.

amendments seeks to delay. Let me draw attention briefly for example

:40:21.:40:27.

to new clause 48 in the name of the honourable lady for North West

:40:28.:40:33.

Durham and look in particular at subsection one, S. We're required to

:40:34.:40:41.

have an impact assessment of leaving the agency. It may have escaped the

:40:42.:40:47.

notice of the honourable lady but Britain is an island. He makes a

:40:48.:40:59.

very good point! The idea that we should spend an inordinate amount of

:41:00.:41:03.

time and money trying to determine whether or not this country will

:41:04.:41:07.

suffer or benefit by being free from the bureaucracy of that agency seems

:41:08.:41:11.

to be a massive misdirection of effort. And more than that, and I

:41:12.:41:18.

will give way, more than that, if we were to publish impact assessments

:41:19.:41:22.

on every single one of these areas, we would also be falling prey to a

:41:23.:41:27.

particular fallacy that politicians and officials for prey to which is

:41:28.:41:31.

imagining the diligent work of the civil servants can predict the

:41:32.:41:36.

future, a future where there are simile branching histories and

:41:37.:41:40.

contingent events and so many unknowns. If we produce an impact

:41:41.:41:43.

assessment on leaving the European Union how do we no how leaving that

:41:44.:41:50.

agency might be impacted by some of the proposals... Being brought

:41:51.:41:56.

forward by my right honourable friend the transport Secretary for

:41:57.:42:00.

the unification and cohesion of the transport network? We cannot know

:42:01.:42:03.

unless we have the fact in play but we do not yet know, because he is

:42:04.:42:10.

consulting, what the policy will be. What will be doing is commissioning

:42:11.:42:14.

the policy equivalent of a pig in a poke. And with that, I way. I'm

:42:15.:42:22.

quite surprised to hear him say he does not know because I thought

:42:23.:42:25.

everything was known after the vote and he will tell us the Berkman

:42:26.:42:30.

leaving a single market but given he knows what it means, does it mean

:42:31.:42:35.

the WTO or a deal from Europe because he says he knows, which will

:42:36.:42:41.

it be? You know. My argument throughout this is in seeking to

:42:42.:42:45.

find the certainty that he wants from the publication... I am a

:42:46.:42:50.

humble seeker after truth to recognise in a world where there are

:42:51.:42:55.

contending versions of it, for the SNP to the green version, the

:42:56.:42:58.

independent Unionist version the Labour Party version, there is, for

:42:59.:43:05.

all of us, responsibility to use reason in the face of so many

:43:06.:43:08.

attractive and is contending versions of the truth. I will, in a

:43:09.:43:15.

spirit of inclusion, sing to give way...

:43:16.:43:28.

I am deeply offended by being accused long delay of trying to

:43:29.:43:36.

frustrate the will of the people of the United Kingdom. I am a unionist

:43:37.:43:42.

and I would like to address the very serious issue, and that is Sinn Fein

:43:43.:43:47.

and the Republican party will use a hard Brexit to trigger a border poll

:43:48.:43:51.

in Northern Ireland, and we may see the United Kingdom by the rhetoric

:43:52.:43:56.

of the right honourable gentleman and others in this chamber. I wonder

:43:57.:44:02.

whether he could address that serious point? I do not know if it

:44:03.:44:08.

is relevant to the new clauses we are discussing but one thing I would

:44:09.:44:13.

say is that in the future and elsewhere, I will do everything I

:44:14.:44:17.

can to work with her in order to ensure we honour the whole of the

:44:18.:44:20.

United Kingdom and at the same time work on the progress she has helped

:44:21.:44:29.

secure. What we do know is that the people on the 23rd of June did not

:44:30.:44:33.

vote to deliberately reduce environmental protection but we do

:44:34.:44:39.

know that Brexit will reduce environmental protection because we

:44:40.:44:43.

will not be part of the environmental agency. Is it not

:44:44.:44:49.

rather reckless to be contemptuous to make sure we have in place

:44:50.:44:53.

adequate safeguards for our environment before we trigger

:44:54.:44:57.

Article 50? I may not agree with the honourable lady on everything but it

:44:58.:45:01.

agreed effective environmental protection is a very important

:45:02.:45:06.

thing. I would say two things in particular in response to her

:45:07.:45:11.

intervention. It is entirely open to us to maintain the current standards

:45:12.:45:14.

of environmental protection but it is also open to us to enhance them.

:45:15.:45:21.

We can if we wish have higher standards of environmental

:45:22.:45:22.

protection, four example for moving livestock. Her party has campaigned

:45:23.:45:32.

against Common agricultural policy and against which her honourable

:45:33.:45:35.

friend on the Other Place has campaigned so brilliantly. We can

:45:36.:45:39.

replace the common agricultural policy with an approach to

:45:40.:45:44.

subsidising land use which is more environmentally sensitive and also

:45:45.:45:47.

more productive. I'm happy to give way. To be fair to the honourable

:45:48.:45:52.

gentleman, the next person kind enough to it is to intervene was the

:45:53.:45:59.

honourable member. Just before we proceed, it is customary and

:46:00.:46:03.

courtesy to allow the right honourable gentleman to respond

:46:04.:46:06.

before trying to make another intervention. I thank the honourable

:46:07.:46:19.

member for giving way. He describes himself as the humble seeker of

:46:20.:46:26.

truth and it does strike me as interesting that he campaigned so

:46:27.:46:30.

hard for the ?350 million a week for that to be an argument for voting

:46:31.:46:33.

Leave why you would therefore not support amendment 11 that the Prime

:46:34.:46:40.

Minister must prepare and publish a report on the effect of the United

:46:41.:46:45.

Kingdom's withdrawal from the EU on her national finances including the

:46:46.:46:50.

impact. Surely as a humble seeker of truth, you might want to know the

:46:51.:46:55.

answer to that? It is very important point but the point I sought to make

:46:56.:47:00.

earlier and her intervention gives me a chance to underlying the

:47:01.:47:04.

clarify, if we want more money spent on the NHS or anything else and we

:47:05.:47:10.

want to take back control of the money the EU controls, we should

:47:11.:47:14.

seek to expedite the will of the British people and leave the EU as

:47:15.:47:17.

quickly as possible because then we will have that money back and we can

:47:18.:47:21.

invest in the NHS more quickly. The honourable lady sought to intervene

:47:22.:47:24.

earlier but I suspect the point made was very much hers and that was an

:47:25.:47:28.

example of sisterly collaboration in example of sisterly collaboration

:47:29.:47:36.

and in the spirit of fraternal humility, I hand over to the member

:47:37.:47:41.

for hope. There are many members of the public who are also humble

:47:42.:47:45.

seekers of truth. If we do not get these clauses through, we do not

:47:46.:47:48.

have impact assessments, how do members of the public judge how

:47:49.:47:54.

Brexit is going? How will the judge what the impact on the health,

:47:55.:47:58.

education, transport, environment and the community will be if they

:47:59.:48:02.

have no information at all? This gets me back to part my argument,

:48:03.:48:10.

which is if one believes that the only authoritative evidence, the

:48:11.:48:14.

only view that matters on any issue is that which is produced by the

:48:15.:48:18.

government, then you are turning your back on 400 years of

:48:19.:48:22.

enlightened thinking. Is it not the case that there is a single view

:48:23.:48:27.

which is right in every respect? The whole point as was made clear

:48:28.:48:31.

earlier is that there is a clarification of use of the impact

:48:32.:48:35.

of leaving the EU in a number of different areas. And further beyond

:48:36.:48:42.

that, if we seek to have the government's policy advice in every

:48:43.:48:47.

area which is the inference behind the question published, that makes

:48:48.:48:51.

the business of government impossible. He may remember reading

:48:52.:48:57.

the words of the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in his

:48:58.:48:59.

autobiography in which he talked about the Freedom of Information Act

:49:00.:49:03.

and the way in which he thought it was the biggest mistake, I think

:49:04.:49:10.

there were bigger! I think that is one view which commands consensus

:49:11.:49:14.

around the House. But he handed weapon to his enemies, requiring

:49:15.:49:21.

confidential advice to be prepared by civil servants and accepted by

:49:22.:49:25.

ministers and it makes the business of government impossible. I would

:49:26.:49:29.

also say, however good the advice that any minister receives, and when

:49:30.:49:34.

I was a minister I received excellent advice, my mistakes were

:49:35.:49:41.

all my own, nevertheless, civil service advice is only one source of

:49:42.:49:46.

wisdom. Every minister worth their salt will want to consult widely,

:49:47.:49:52.

any minister that sought only to steer by civil service advice would

:49:53.:49:56.

quite rightly be held by this House to be a timid mouse, constrained by

:49:57.:50:02.

the brief, incapable of ranging more widely, incapable of making a

:50:03.:50:09.

judgment in the national interest. I thank the honourable member. On the

:50:10.:50:14.

issue of finance, does he agree with his own Secretary of State for

:50:15.:50:19.

Brexit, who is prepared to consider to have access to the single market?

:50:20.:50:23.

To be fair to both the honourable gentleman and my right on boyfriend,

:50:24.:50:27.

I think that as a mischaracterisation of what he said.

:50:28.:50:36.

-- right honourable friend. I make no criticism of the honourable

:50:37.:50:39.

gentleman but my interpretation was different. I think two fair-minded

:50:40.:50:48.

figures, the fact that we can on the played words reached to different

:50:49.:50:52.

conclusions, rather proves my point, which as we can ask for evidence but

:50:53.:50:57.

we cannot have a single definitive view and then tried to make the

:50:58.:51:00.

argument is these new clauses do we cannot proceed until we have is

:51:01.:51:07.

single definitive view. Can I just say to my right honourable friend,

:51:08.:51:11.

the most important word in this debate is accountability? Actually,

:51:12.:51:18.

we are not accountable to the House but our constituents, and it would

:51:19.:51:22.

be our constituents in the next General election and the one after

:51:23.:51:25.

that who would hold us to account in success or failure of Brexit. He

:51:26.:51:31.

makes a key point. It goes to the heart my argument which is, if by

:51:32.:51:36.

the time of the next election, we have not left the European Union,

:51:37.:51:40.

the British people feel that having been asked a decisive question and

:51:41.:51:45.

given a clear answer, we have dishonoured the mandate they gave

:51:46.:51:49.

us, we are not respecting the result. That leads directly to my

:51:50.:51:54.

concern about the amount of work required to, and not just the amount

:51:55.:51:58.

of work required, but also the tools which this work is to others outside

:51:59.:52:02.

this House who may wish further to frustrate the will of the people. I

:52:03.:52:10.

think what most of us campaigning, people just wanted us to get on with

:52:11.:52:14.

it. There was no way on that ballot paper did it say it should be tied

:52:15.:52:19.

down in knots for ever and a day. That is what they are seeking to do

:52:20.:52:23.

on the opposite side of the House in effect. My honourable friend is

:52:24.:52:27.

absolutely right and look at one of the new clauses standing in the name

:52:28.:52:32.

of the honourable lady, the Prime Minister must undertake before even

:52:33.:52:36.

exercising the power, before triggering Article 50, she will

:52:37.:52:39.

publish an impact assessment. How can we know... I take the lead from

:52:40.:52:49.

distinguished trade negotiators that actually leaving the customs union

:52:50.:52:55.

as they have argued, Freudian slip, will lead not just the GDP growth in

:52:56.:53:01.

the United Kingdom across world. But it is entirely open to others to

:53:02.:53:06.

take a different view and entirely open to Her Majesty's government to

:53:07.:53:10.

choose to follow policies which once we had left the customs union either

:53:11.:53:16.

maximise or minimise our GDP. Once again by insisting on a narrow focus

:53:17.:53:20.

on what they believe is one truth and holding up advancing this

:53:21.:53:26.

legislation as a result of it the promoters of this new cause seek

:53:27.:53:34.

once again to frustrate democracy. I thank my right honourable friend for

:53:35.:53:39.

giving way. I welcome his conversion to experts and listening to experts.

:53:40.:53:44.

I certainly welcome that. Does he agree with me but it would be no

:53:45.:53:48.

good for our British business or constituents if we do for the next

:53:49.:53:52.

two years is rehashed a result of the referendum or the debate? I am

:53:53.:54:00.

sure we will disagree on times to come but it will not help in terms

:54:01.:54:03.

of the outcome in terms of Brexit. I entirely agree. Of course we have

:54:04.:54:09.

that referendum and of course there were people who will feel so on the

:54:10.:54:15.

side of Remain, who will feel that somehow the result was not just a

:54:16.:54:21.

betrayal of the hoax but also one by means they do not endorse. It

:54:22.:54:27.

absolutely understand that there is a responsibility on those of us who

:54:28.:54:30.

argued for Leave to listen carefully, to seek to include in the

:54:31.:54:36.

type of new relationship the very best ambitions and aspirations that

:54:37.:54:42.

they put forward as reasons for staying. I think that can be done

:54:43.:54:46.

and I think this House has a critical role in it, but it can only

:54:47.:54:49.

be done once we have triggered Article 50. The right honourable

:54:50.:54:58.

member for Streatham spoke powerfully I thought about breaches

:54:59.:55:03.

of promise but is there no single bigger breach of promise them

:55:04.:55:08.

blocking Brexit by supporting these wretched amendments? There is one

:55:09.:55:16.

particular element to it as well. One of the important principles of

:55:17.:55:20.

our Constitution which I whole heartedly believe in is the

:55:21.:55:25.

principle of judicial review. It is absolutely right that executive

:55:26.:55:27.

action should be subject to judicial review. It is the only way, apart

:55:28.:55:32.

from the exercise of power in this House, that we can be certain that

:55:33.:55:36.

the Executive is following the rule of law and I'm one of those people

:55:37.:55:41.

will that I voted for us to leave the European Union that was pleased

:55:42.:55:45.

that the Supreme Court heard this government to account so that we

:55:46.:55:48.

have this legislation now. But having said all of that, I support

:55:49.:55:54.

the legislation and judicial review, if we accept any of these new

:55:55.:55:58.

clauses or amendments, we will subject the operation of article 52

:55:59.:56:03.

judicial review, and that would mean that if any single one of these

:56:04.:56:07.

impact assessments were not prepared in the right way at the right time,

:56:08.:56:11.

with appropriate care, then it could be the case that the hope process

:56:12.:56:18.

would be upended. And on this occasion, what different people have

:56:19.:56:24.

different views on experts, I made a number of mistakes as I said during

:56:25.:56:28.

my career, too much for us now to run over, given the fact the debate

:56:29.:56:33.

has to close at 9pm. But one of the things I do remember is that

:56:34.:56:43.

judicial review on the basis of a relatively small infraction of

:56:44.:56:50.

equality impact assessment nevertheless resulted in the

:56:51.:56:55.

paralysis of this government's school Capitol building programme.

:56:56.:57:04.

If we want to create a feast for lawyers and litigators, accept these

:57:05.:57:07.

new clauses, bring in these new amendments, and in so doing, see the

:57:08.:57:15.

tills changing as he hangs bring up and down the country as we have once

:57:16.:57:18.

again frustrated the will of the people. He makes a very powerful

:57:19.:57:25.

argument. Does the honourable gentleman remembered that during the

:57:26.:57:29.

campaign, there was an assessment of the economy given by the former

:57:30.:57:34.

Chancellor of the Exchequer? And to see remember whether it was accepted

:57:35.:57:37.

by the opposition party or whether the Leader of the opposition said he

:57:38.:57:42.

did not accept the assessment and would not implement it? Again, my

:57:43.:57:51.

honourable friend, who took the forbearance of comments by lawyers,

:57:52.:57:54.

is absolutely on the bottom. Are we to accept the first time ever

:57:55.:58:03.

an official government document will be taken by my friends on the SNP

:58:04.:58:10.

benches or the Labour party benches as holy writ? Will they say thank

:58:11.:58:15.

heavens, oh, this document bears the name of David Davis, it must be

:58:16.:58:20.

right. That is the only way I can form a judgment on whether or not we

:58:21.:58:24.

are leaving the European Union and it will be a success. Can I expect

:58:25.:58:34.

the member for Scotland and other parts, can expect him to say, the

:58:35.:58:40.

impact assessment from David Davis said axe and it is satisfied, I will

:58:41.:58:45.

accept the Secretary of State is right because everything he has done

:58:46.:58:48.

is in accordance with what he said he would do previously. I'm grateful

:58:49.:58:54.

to him but he talks about the fact members of government have made

:58:55.:58:58.

mistakes in the past, this is about the house holding the government to

:58:59.:59:02.

account. We have to recognise the reality of what has happened and he

:59:03.:59:06.

talks about the estimates that are out there but the reality is the

:59:07.:59:10.

currency has fallen substantially against the dollar, we know the

:59:11.:59:16.

impact on inflation and the impact assessments have to be informed by

:59:17.:59:20.

the impact. There is no plan to affect trade with Europe. Of course

:59:21.:59:24.

we need impact assessments to do the job properly. Order! May I again say

:59:25.:59:36.

there are large numbers, he has been extremely generous in giving way but

:59:37.:59:43.

I trust he is nearing the end. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman

:59:44.:59:50.

who compares the roles of crofter and investment banker with skill.

:59:51.:59:57.

The pound has fallen. One reason many people in our shared country of

:59:58.:00:04.

birth rejected the SNP referendum promise in 2014 is at least we know

:00:05.:00:08.

what currency we have in this country, if Scotland were

:00:09.:00:13.

independent, Scotland would not have the pound, it could not have the

:00:14.:00:18.

Euro so we do not know what it would be left with, the Groat, a hole in

:00:19.:00:22.

the air! There was no answer to the question. This is critical. He

:00:23.:00:32.

argues the only way we can effectively scrutinise backbenchers

:00:33.:00:37.

and opposition spokesman and the government is through impact

:00:38.:00:41.

assessments. This is a grotesque misunderstanding of the

:00:42.:00:44.

opportunities available to us in this house. But a Freedom of

:00:45.:00:47.

information requests, Parliamentary questions, written or oral, the

:00:48.:00:54.

diligent use of all of the tools available to us to scrutinise the

:00:55.:01:00.

executive, the idea we are mute and blind until an impact assessment has

:01:01.:01:02.

been published, that there is no relevant tool available to us and no

:01:03.:01:07.

relevant source of information which we can quarry other than an impact

:01:08.:01:14.

assessment is actually amiss underestimation to use a phrase from

:01:15.:01:19.

George W Bush is of what each of us as members of this house are capable

:01:20.:01:25.

of. This brings me to my final point. And I will pause happily and

:01:26.:01:33.

give way. He is expounding the principle of this house entirely

:01:34.:01:37.

which is the principle of democracy and rule of law, not for the rule of

:01:38.:01:44.

lawyers. I could not agree more and this is an opportunity for me to

:01:45.:01:51.

commence him for the work he has done to draw attention to the way

:01:52.:01:56.

some lawyers have used some legislation to enrich themselves at

:01:57.:02:00.

the expense of those who were the Queens uniform and defend our

:02:01.:02:05.

liberties every day and can I say that his work in this field is

:02:06.:02:08.

commendable and as an example of what a backbencher can do because he

:02:09.:02:12.

did that work without any impact assessments having been published or

:02:13.:02:16.

waiting for the MoD to act, he did so because he believed it holding

:02:17.:02:21.

the executive to account. And the one thing all of us want to hold the

:02:22.:02:26.

executive to account for is triggering Article 50. So, if you

:02:27.:02:33.

want to have perennial judicial review, if you want the scorn of the

:02:34.:02:38.

public by putting pettifogging delay ahead of mandate... Yes! It is one

:02:39.:02:51.

of my favourite policy ballot synonyms for prevarication,

:02:52.:02:59.

procrastination or delay. If you actually want to get on with

:03:00.:03:02.

scrutinising what the government does, join us on the committee, put

:03:03.:03:10.

down written and Parliamentary questions, why not conduct a proper

:03:11.:03:19.

study of what not just this government but other governments,

:03:20.:03:23.

not as this government but civil society, not just this government

:03:24.:03:28.

but a variety of industries and enterprises across the country are

:03:29.:03:35.

saying. The idea that we should seek as these amendments and new clause

:03:36.:03:38.

is sick to do, to delay the will of the British people, I'm afraid

:03:39.:03:45.

rather than restoring confidence in this house, we would lower public

:03:46.:03:49.

confidence and for that reason because it would mean a glorious

:03:50.:03:58.

liberation was curdled, curdled by Parliamentary delaying tactics of a

:03:59.:04:02.

discredited kind, it is for that reason I hope the entire house will

:04:03.:04:07.

vote against these new clauses and all these amendments to uphold the

:04:08.:04:11.

sovereign will of the British people as freely expressed in June last

:04:12.:04:13.

year.

:04:14.:04:20.