13/03/2017 House of Commons

ayes to the right, 331, the noes to the left, 232. The ayes to the

right, 331, the noes to the left, 102, so the ayes have it, the ayes

have it. The clerk will now read the waters for the day. I should inform

the house that neither a Lords amendment engages financial

privilege. Queens consent is required in respect of the Lords

amendment number two, queens consent. We will take the government

motion to disagree with Lords amendment number one with which we

will consider a Lords amendment number two and a government motion

to disagree. To move the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment

number one I called the Secretary of State for Exiting the European

Union, David Davis. I beg to move that this House disagrees with the

Lords amendments one and two. We introduced the most straightforward

possible bill necessary to enact the referendum results and respect the

Supreme Court's judgment. This bill has a simple purpose, to allow the

Prime Minister to notify under article 50 and start the two-year

negotiation process. The House of Commons has already accepted this,

voting overwhelmingly to pass this bill on end of last month. The house

accepted that the majority of people now want the Prime Minister to get

on with the job at hand and do so without any strings attached.

Despite the simple purpose of this bill it has generated many hours of

debate across both houses and quite properly so, I should say. Over the

last five weeks we have seen Parliament at its best. Honourable

and right honourable members and peers have spoken with passion,

sincerity and conviction. However I was disappointed that the House of

Lords voted to amend this bill. This bill is just the next step in the

long democratic process surrounding our exit from the European Union. It

will continue with future legislation, there will be a range

of specific bills on immigration and customs arrangements, for example.

Parliament will be closely involved with all of these important

discussions and decisions. As we embark. IIMACRO1 second. As we

embark on the forthcoming negotiations are guiding approach is

simple. We will not do anything which will undermine the national

interest, and we will not enter the negotiations with our hands tied.

This is not to say I don't appreciate the concerns that lie

behind these amendments. It is the means we disagree on and I will try

to address these individually. The Secretary of State will have heard

many members wanting to have a meaningful vote on the government's

terms of negotiation which he defined yesterday as either accept

the governments terms or WTO terms. When does he expect this vote to

come to this place and to all the other parliaments, when roughly

within the two-year period, does he expect the house to get the vote

open on his terms? I will come to the detail of the answer to that

later. In broad terms, the form of words which I crafted before it was

we intend and inspected to be before the European Parliaments votes on

the same matters. It will fit within the ratification process at the

beginning but as soon as we get the negotiation complete. It is too soon

to know when that will be. Amendment one that seeks to require the

government to act unilaterally to bring forward plans within three

months to secure the status of European Union and EEA citizens and

family members living in the United Kingdom. On this matter the

government has been clear, we want to secure the status of EU citizens

already living in Britain and the status of British nationals living

in other member states as early as we can. There will be a time limits

and many people want to speak so I will limit the number of

interventions I take. As somebody who you is married to an EU citizen

without a British passport can I say I wholeheartedly support Discover

and's approach to it and it is rightly get reciprocity before the

go-ahead with any agreement with the rest of the EU. I thank the

honourable gentleman both for his intervention and warming the house

up. European citizens already resident in the United Kingdom neck

a vital contribution to our economy and society. Including working in

crucial public services like the national health service. Without

them we would be poorer and public services... However, the European

Union has been clear that we can't open these discussions until the

Prime Minister has given formal notification that the UK which is to

withdraw from the European Union. We must pass this bill without

delays or the Prime Minister can get to work on the negotiations and we

can secure a quick deal that secures the status of EU citizens in the UK

and UK national living in the EU of which there are 1 million. I take

very seriously our modern responsibility to all 4 million

United Kingdom and European citizens. This will be one of the

top priorities. I welcome the encouraging words from across the

Channel, Poland and Sweden, which fill me with confidence that we will

reach a swift agreement. As the Polish Prime Minister said, these

guarantees will need to be reciprocal. It is important the

guarantees of British citizens are hard. I did undertake to give way to

the honourable gentleman and I will come back. Is he aware of the survey

showing two thirds of EU doctors are thinking of leaving and EU citizens

tend to be younger, wouldn't he accept there is a need to act in

good faith to set -- to set the agenda. As I said before, these

issues are serious and important and people hold their views passionately

and with good reason but the simple truth is the government has been

very plain in what it intends. It intends to guarantee the rights of

British and European citizens and it will do that as quickly as possible.

I'm delighted to hear what he had to say about prioritising the

negotiations as far as EU citizens are concerned. He said the

negotiations could stretch out for up to two years. There's no reason

why an agreement should not come a lot earlier as far as this is

concerned. Will he give a guarantee that once an agreement is made it

will be made public in order to put out of misery the trauma these

people may be facing. He makes a good point. When it changes and is

putting law. , I would aim to get all the member states to commit an

exchange so everybody knows what the rights will be. Deal with the issue

the honourable gentleman raised, quite properly, that people are

afraid of things they should not be afraid of. This is very dependent on

the commitment of other member states as well as ourselves. The

Polish Prime Minister has made the point publicly that every single

minister of every member state I've spoken to has reinforced the point

that they want this to be top of the agenda, dealt with first. That is

what we intend to do. Forgive me, I have to make some progress. This

amendment may force the UK to set out unilateral plans. Such an

approach would only serve to undermine and what I've been talking

about. I want to reassure people Parliament will have a clear

opportunity to debate and vote on this issue before anything else

happens. We will not change the situation. Nothing will change for

any EU citizen in the UK without Parliament's explicit approval

beforehand. Given the government track record on contingency planning

is as bad as the handling of the Brexit process, I wonder if I can

ask the Secretary of State that if it is the case that they will not

protect the position of EU nationals, has the Secretary of

State given consideration as to deportation process?

The honourable lady knows me very well. I think it is incredible that

anybody would imagine I would sign up to deportation. The answer is

simple and I make the point again. I take, as a moral responsibility, the

future guarantees of the future of all four of the European citizens.

If I may move onto the next issue, let me be clear from the outset,

this amendment does not seek to put what we've promised on the face of

the bill as was suggested by some. It seeks to go further. Let me begin

with subclauses, which do seek to put our commitment on the face of

the bill. I will repeat our commitment. We will bring forward a

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

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

happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the

final issue. This commitment could not be clearer and so the subclauses

are wholly unnecessary. This is our clear intention, and intentions

stated more than once, and by far the most likely outcome that will

bring a deal back to the house of parliament for them to improve --

approve. I am grateful to the Secretary of State. If he is so

confident about this why can't he allow the rest of us to be confident

by agreeing to the second amendment from the House of Lords? It is

unnecessary. When a minister gives an undertaking at this dispatch box

in this house that is binding on the government. Understand that? I do

not. We should not. Just on the more general point of thoughts, we should

not underestimate, I say this with some personal interest, we should

not underestimate the mechanisms at Parliament's disposal to ensure that

its voice is heard. To paraphrase Lord Howard's words, this place will

have its say. We do not need to put this into legislation. He is a

member of long standing in this files and he recognises that

Parliament will find a way to have a say in whether a deal is reached or

whether no deal is reached. If he recognised that would he agree with

me that it would be better if the government officially recognised

that position? I recognise the point. That is often -- that is a

matter for Parliament. It is not for a minister to do do that. Let me get

to the point behind this. I agree with her on that but what we cannot

have is what I'm coming to about the second aspect of this motion or this

amendment, any suggestion that the votes in either house will overturn

the result of the referendum. That's the key point. I give way. It would

completely cripple the government trying to get a good deal for the

UK. This is the time for Parliament to get behind the country that made

the decision, and get the best deal. You cannot do that if they can

undermine us. That brings me to the sub-clause. Let me deal with that.

This effectively seeks to prohibit the Prime Minister from walking away

from negotiations even if the Prime Minister thinks they are offering

her a very bad deal. The impact of this is unclear but even the -- the

intent goes far beyond what we could accept. The government will be

undertaking the negotiations and must have the freedom to walk away

from a deal which will punish the UK as some have suggested. We are

thinking a mutually beneficial relationship can and will work for

everyone but tying the government's hands in this way could be the worst

way to achieve that. Let's not forget in December this house passed

a moment that nothing should be done to undermine the negotiating

position of the government. I thank the Minister. He is asking us to

take him at his word. Given the record of the party opposite

recently on manifesto commitments, does the same principle of trust

apply? I said before and I will say it again, I take statements at this

dispatch box as binding. The idea that Parliament could force

government to accept a bad deal will only incentivise those on the other

side of the negotiating table to deliver that deal. As the select

committee said, the government will conduct the negotiations on behalf

of the United Kingdom and will need room to manoeuvre if it is to secure

a good outcome. I'm grateful to my right honourable friend forgiving

way. Nobody in this house wishes to fetter the government's hand in

negotiations or their right to walk away from negotiations. The issue in

sub-clause for is about the question of whether the government comes back

to this house to explain its plan on policy in the event of that

happening. I would expect that to be inevitable and yet when we've sought

assurances from the government that they would do that which seems to me

to be blinding obvious we are told they will not give that assurance. I

find that a bit awed and I wonder if you could clarify. My right

honourable friend is making a good point. The simple truth, as I've

said before is that nothing can constrain this house's right to

debate and vote on anything it sees fit. What I'm dealing with here is

sub-clause for. During the debate, the author of the house admitted he

did not know what would happen if Parliament voted against leaving the

EU without a deal. This is a strong argument against this but a

significant number of Lords supported this amendment, and they

made their intentions clear. If Parliament were to vote against

leaving without a deal the UK should seek to remain in the EU and reverse

the result of the referendum. The European Union member states and

institutions Read the proceedings of this house very closely and they

will have read that and it will have raised their interest because that

is what they would like to see happen. The reality is some would

seek to use this to overturn the result of the referendum. The

government. Good idea, comes from across the floor. That is exactly

what concerns us. The government and the Prime Minister have been crystal

clear. The people of the UK have decided to leave the European Union.

The government will seek to implement this decision in a way

that is most beneficial to both the United Kingdom and the European

Union. What we will not do is accept anything that will put the intention

to leave the UK in doubt. Will my honourable friends forgive me

because I'm coming to the end of my comments? Any prospect we might

actually decide to remain in the European Union will only serve to

encourage those on the other side to give us the worst possible deal.

I reiterate the three points, first to respect the Supreme Court, seven

days a moment or unnecessary as the government has a ready-made firm

commitments in regards to both of the two issues, third these

amendments will undermine the government position in the

negotiations to get the best deal for Britain. It is clear to the

government that we should send back to the House of Lords a clean bill.

I ask us all to repeat that support once more. The question is that this

House disagrees with the Lords in there amendment number one. I rise

to support both of the amendments passed on the other players. They

committee stage in this House. They committee stage in this House. They

will be supported by Labour MPs here today. The question is of Honourable

members opposite will listen to the arguments in favour of the

amendments which I know many are sympathetic to have concerns about.

Or will they go along with the Prime Minister's increasing obsession to

pass a clean bill on amended, even if that means ignoring amendments

that would improve the bill and provide much better protection. I

will make some progress because I know lots of members want to speak.

The government is about to embark on the most complex and challenging

undertaking of any British Government since the Second World

War. The deal is the government strikes will have profound

consequences upon almost every aspect of British life it is

therefore essential that government does not feel or take the country

down the wrong path. Starting negotiations by guaranteeing the

rights of EU nationals and ending negotiations with a meaningful vote

will help guard against that fate. On the amendment on EU nationals, my

question is, what is the problem? This is not about delay. The way to

prevent delay is to accept the Emma Pengelly on the pit. Secondly, what

is the amendment? It is to bring forth proposals within three months

of exercising the power to trigger article 50. The Secretary of State

says we want an early deal. If it is within three months, no problem with

the amendment. The amendment only affects the government's approach of

doesn't get an early deal. To convey or betrayed this as a delaying

tactic is not to read the amendment or what it says. Within three months

to bring forward proposals. I have listened carefully to the argument

he is making. 4 million people are affected by this. I would put to him

that all 4 million should be dealt with fairly and on a level playing

field and you'd only get that from reciprocity and this amendment is

not bad. Of course there is a shared concern about UK citizens living in

the EU, but this is a matter of principle. Are we prepared to use

one set of people, those that are here, as a bargaining chip to get

the right settlement for people in the EU? That is exactly what it is.

The whole argument about reciprocal rights is about bargaining, saying

we will not do what we should do until we get something in return for

it. That is a bargaining chip. The Minister seeks to persuade us that

it be because he has stated from the dispatch box that this will all be

fine and dandy but that is the end of the matter because as he said

several times quite inaccurately and ministerial statement from the

dispatch box as legally binding. Surely the truth is that it is no

more a legally binding them to say that it is legally binding from the

dispatch box. The Secretary of State said it was binding as far as he was

concerned. That is not the same as a legal commitment. Secretary of State

can change and governments can change. That is why we need a

commitments. Let me fast forward to the second Amendment on that point

because if there is really no problem with clauses one, two and

amendment to Clause four and put amendment to Clause four and put

them on the face of the bill? This is becoming an obsession with a

clean bill. Are built us not be amended even when it is right and

proper to do so. I will make progress because it is not fair...

How does he have said the Brexit Secretary's point this afternoon,

that was if and when we pass this bill and it is given Royal assent,

the first priority of the government will be to negotiate both the rights

of people here who are from Europe and also our citizens abroad? Does

he not accept that if we pass this tonight and give those rights the

European citizens here there is no incentive whatsoever for the other

European countries to conceded two hours? I think it is important to

focus on the words in the amendment which is to bring forward proposals

within three months, that doesn't tie the hands of anybody. If this is

resolved within three months, and I hope it is for the sake of EU

citizens living here, then this represents no problem. It only

presents a problem if the government doesn't succeed in an early

settlement. The Labour Party has been pushing the government to

A Labour motion was tabled back in A Labour motion was tabled back in

but the government has refused to but the government has refused to

take unilateral action. The international trade Secretary said

last year that are guaranteed these rights the EU citizens would be to

hand over one of our main cards in the negotiations. We do not believe

EU National Football Centre bargaining chips and I think many

honourable members agree. There are 3.2 EU National Football Centre who

have made their home in the United Kingdom, thousands doing vital jobs

in the NHS, our universities, our public sector. They are our friends,

colleagues and neighbours. They are also our society. This is a matter

of principle and decency and we should not bring unnecessary

uncertainty and distress. That is exactly what is happening as a

result of the government's approach. Let me read to the house an extract

from the Brexit Select Committee's report what they said they had heard

a wide range of concerns of EU nationals since the referendum

including stress and anxiety and feelings of depression, to practical

concerns about pension, health care, children being abused in school

playgrounds and worries about ability to work in the UK in the

future. What have we come to if we can't deal with that level of

anxiety and stress? Many members in this House would have seen this in

their own constituencies surgeries, I know I have. It is time for the

government to act. Increasingly, it is only the Prime Minister and

government to think otherwise. Trade unions have made a powerful and

compelling case for this to be dealt with now, as of course has the

Brexit Select Committee in its conclusions. Labour support this

amendment not only because it is the right thing to do in principle but

also because it would help of the negotiations by setting the right

to. We have to make it clear to our European partners that although we

are leaving the EU we are not severing our ties. We want to have a

cooperative future with our European partners. We want our nearest allies

to be strong and put the European Union to succeed and prosper. We

know that in the future citizens will be richer and happier if we

work together with EU partners to meet common challenges. The message

is vital. Does he agree with me that given the mixed record of our

Foreign Secretary both in terms... Both under ?350 million a week

savings promise, that it is right that we should choose leadership and

commitment by standing up for EU migrants in supporting this

amendment? I do agree and I have said a number of occasions that the

two and the government sets is very important as we go up to the

beginning of the negotiations. From my direct discussions with those

representatives in Brussels from other countries I can tell the house

that some of the jokes that have been made about the reasons why our

EU partners feel so strongly about the EU have not been well received.

Passing this amendment tonight would help sell the right tone. I will

move on to the question of the meaningful vote on the second

Amendment. I remind the house that as recently as December the Prime

Minister was refusing to guarantee that Parliament would be able to

vote on what every agreement the government reaches with the EU

Commission. Under pressure, that position changed earlier this year

but it was only when Labour tabled an amendment to the bill during

committee that the government made a set of commitments on the floor of

the house. They were set out at the member and repeated by the Secretary

of State that Parliament would be able to vote on the final draft

agreement, second that Parliament would get a vote not just on the

so-called divorce settlement, but also on a future agreement with the

European Union, and thirdly that the vote in this Parliament would take

place before any votes in the European Parliament. The Lords

amendments we are considering simply put these commitments on to the face

of the bill. That is why it is so wrong in principle for the

government to accept them. Is he aware of the poll published in the

last two hours which should a clear majority of the British public

support and meaningful vote on this, with 52% supporting it, only 27%

saying the other way? I had seen that poll. That is important but

this is a matter of principle. This is the question of whether this

House should be able to vote on the deal reached in two years before the

European Parliament votes and to have a meaningful say. That is what

it has been in principle from start to finish. This amendment does not

simply give the right to this House to vote on these matters, it gives

rights to the other place to vote on these matters. What would happen if

this House was the two except for the government wanted to do, but the

other place dug in and rejected it? What would happen then? There is a

reason that that amendment spells that I can that data because that is

precisely what was said from their last time this was debated, what was

said by the Minister should be the position. This carefully reflects

what the government says it is -- is its assurance so the question about

the membership be put to the Secretary of State who has agreed...

Would he agree with me that given the high level of uncertainty this

is the only stage and proper thing to do to give us one more chance

before the European Parliament has an opportunity?

I would not put it as one last chance. What I would say is this.

These negotiations will lead to first, I hope, and Article 50

agreement. Second, I hope, transition arrangements, and third,

a final agreement between ourselves and the EU. That will define the

future of the UK for generations in Europe and beyond Europe. It is

imperative that this House has a vote on that before the end of the

two years. I will give way. I'm grateful to my honourable friend.

The discussion so far has been about the parliamentary vote in the view

of the government reaching a deal. Can I ask, is it his interpretation

of State's speech today that in the event of no deal, the government is

seeking the authority to default to WTO rules which are not rules used

by any major economy alone to trade with the EU. When it defaults to

those rules without this House having a say? I'm grateful for that

intervention. If that is the interpretation it causes me concern.

We need to be clear, Mr Speaker no deal is the worst of all possible

outcomes for Britain. The president of the CBI has described it as "The

worst case scenario" for which many firms cannot even prepared because,

"The cost of too high to even consider it". Just yesterday the

director of the CBI emphasised that no deal should not be plan B but

Plan Z. I could not agree more. Research published today by Open

Britain wants that leaving without a deal would cause great harm to trade

with the EU than with any due 20 country. And as the cross-party

committee warned on Sunday, a complete breakdown in negotiations

represent a very destructive outcome leading to mutually assured to

damage the EU and the UK. Both side could suffer economic losses and

harm to its reputation. This is why having a vote not only on a deal but

having a vote on no deal represents a check against the Prime Minister

trying to take this country down the most dangerous pass. That is why I

will ask those opposite to vote for the amendment, not against it. I

will give way. I thank the honourable member forgiving way.

Does he at least accept in principle that this Parliament made a contract

with the British people at the last referendum, a contract that we would

respect their wishes with or without a deal, and that those wishes would

be respected in this place. Does he agree with that or not? There was

one question on the ballot paper, should we stay in the EU leave.

There was no second question. It's impossible to extrapolate but I

would be staggered if most people thought this house should not have a

proper grip over the available options in two years' time and

hopefully beyond two years. I would expect that they said of course we

want Parliament to be fully involved, we expect accountability

and scrutiny and we expect a vote. Mr Speaker, I am going to conclude

because we only have to hours and other people want to come in. These

are simple amendments that would improve the Article 50 process, they

have achieved cross-party support and large majorities in the Lords,

they are vital amendments on important issues and the obsession

of an amended bill should not triumph over decency and principle.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. -- the obsession of an amended bill. Mr

Oliver Letwin. It's about amendments to that I want to speak. The

operative clause, as my right honourable friend said, is

sub-clause four. I just want to remind the house of this because

prior approval of Parliament should be required in relation to any

decision by the Prime Minister that the UK shall leave the European

Union without an agreement. I have already argued what my right

honourable friend argued today in past debates, namely if that is

sub-clause wouldn't have its intended effect it would be inimical

to the interests of this country because it would have the undoubted

effect of providing a massive incentive for our EU counterparts to

give us the worst possible agreement. I agree but I think the

situation is worse than the Secretary of State describes, far

worse. Because this operative sub-clause is deeply deficient as a

matter of law. And the reason for that is not just the one that Lord

Pannick half admitted to in the House of Lords but because under

plausible circumstances this sub-clause will have nothing like

its intended effect. I just want briefly to illustrate why that is

the case. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is for once in

treaties entirely clear in the third clause of that article, it says the

treaties shall cease to apply to the state in question. To years after

the notification, unless the European Council unanimously decides

to extend this period. Unless the European Council unanimously decides

to extend the period. Let us imagine what I help and what the Secretary

of State and the government and I suspect, and in fact why we are at

it all members opposite, all negotiations for a proper trade

agreement breakdown. We all hope that will not happen yet we cannot

exclude the possibility that it may. If it does I think all members on

either side of the house must have the emotional intelligence to

recognise that in probability that would be in circumstances of

acrimony. How likely is it, I ask, that under circumstances of the

agreement having broken down in some acrimony, that the EU council will

be able to achieve unanimous agreement to allow the UK to remain

a member beyond the two-year period? I speculate that this is very

unlikely. If we assume that that were to occur and we ask ourselves,

what would happen under those circumstances, one thing we can

predict with certainty is that there would be litigation. And the

litigation would ask the Supreme Court ultimately to decide the

question, what has happened here. As the Prime Minister made a decision

or has the Prime Minister not made a decision. The courts could decide

that in one of two ways. I think members on all sides would agree

with me that the court would either decide that the Prime Minister has

made the decision or not. Let's suppose that they decide that the

Prime Minister has not because the decision has been made instead by

the European Council. It is a plausible outcome of the court

proceedings. In that case clause four has no effect whatsoever

because what it does is to prevent the Prime Minister making a decision

without a vote. If the Prime Minister has come in the running of

the court, made no decision then it is not possible for her to have made

a decision that a vote, therefore it does not give Parliament any ability

to vote on the matter. I entirely agree with what might Wright friend

says. There is a further point which is, in relation to the competing

legislation at that point, it would be a question for the courts as to

whether or not the provisions in the Lisbon Treaty, which deal with the

question of Article 50, had somehow been amended or repealed by

subsequent enactment. I agree with my right honourable friend about

that but it seems to me that for this purpose we do not even need to

raise that question because there's only one other possibility in this

court action. And that is that the court decides that the Prime

Minister has implicitly made the decision. I don't know how the court

would get to that answer but they might speculate that had the Prime

Minister acted differently in the negotiations, the council would have

acted differently. Under those circumstances sub-clause forward

purportedly come into effect. And that is, I suppose, what its authors

intended. However, if the European Council had not, by the two-year

period made a unanimous decision, and the court decided that the Prime

Minister thereby implicitly decided, then the courts would require

Parliament to do something impossible to do. Namely, to get the

Prime Minister to reverse a decision which is a matter of ordinary

language the Prime Minister wouldn't have made, at a time when the Prime

Minister couldn't undo a decision because the European Council had

made it! I am perfectly aware, Mr Speaker, that it is of the greatest

importance that members of this house should show due deference to

the Other Place. And I also genuinely admire the skills of those

who are the authors of this amendment. But and put it to them

that even the House of Lords in all its majesty cannot compel the Prime

Minister to do something that is impossible -- I put it to them. That

is beyond the scope of any human agency! I give way to my honourable

friend. By Lord Patrick himself arguing in court that this is

irreversible. Again I agree with my right honourable friend although the

Supreme Court went to great pains not to refer that the ECJ. My point

is, this sub-clause, the important one and we are debating today,

either would have its intended effect, if it did it would be

inimical to the interests of this country because it would induce the

worst possible agreement to be offered, it will not have that

effect and the worst possible circumstances and if it doesn't it

is bad law. I put it to you Mr Speaker that there is House should

not pass legislation inimical to the interests of this country or

constituting Bradlaugh, so we should reject it. Mr Stephen Gethins. Thank

you, Mr Speaker. This is a very timely debate over these amendments

that go to the heart of the situation we find ourselves in.

First, the SNP have been clear that we wanted to see much more detailed

reassurance, maybe the occasional detail from the government and this

is the parliamentary scrutiny should have come in. They should also be

having a debate about the kind of country in which we want to live,

and the kind of country that Scotland and the UK becomes and that

is with the amendment on EU National 's comment. The Secretary of State

may have caught the statement by the First Minister today in which she

made it very clear that this is not the situation in which we wanted to

find ourselves. In fact the Scottish Parliament voted across political

parties, 92-0, that we should look at ways to secure our relationship

with Europe. It is a critical relationship that we have the boss,

European partners, one that impacts on and benefits each and every of

us. And yet almost nine months on from the EU referendum we still

don't have that much in the way of detail from an increasingly clueless

government. The most detailed response we have so far to the EU

referendum came in the form of a compromise from the Scottish

Government just before Christmas. This was a compromise, let's not

forget this, that when it meant Scotland leaving the EU against its

will to protect our place in the single market, that has a big

compromise, that took a lot from this side of the House to put that

Ford, especially given that Scotland voted overwhelmingly,

overwhelmingly, to remain part of the European Union. But we did that

to protect our place in the single market as a way of protecting jobs

and the economy and opportunities for young people and the environment

in the face of a hard Tory Brexit. It has been suggested that we could

lose up to 80,000 jobs in Scotland alone as a result of the plans on

the government side. We have a responsibility to protect those

jobs, to think about opportunities for young people, to think about the

rights we get from our memberships of the European Union. We have a

responsibility to protect those jobs, and not just roll over in the

face of a disastrous Tory plan. I will give weight to my honourable

friend. Last Friday met with major bus company in Scotland who said 70%

of their drivers were made of EU immigrants. He said the only reason

they won not seeing the same haemorrhaging of talents as their

counterparts down south was because of the First Minister's reasonable

and inclusive message that EU National 's are welcome. Does he

agree that the UK Government could also benefit from... My honourable

friend makes an excellent point, I will come onto EU marginals shortly.

She makes the point that it is not just Scotland where jobs are

threatened. In Parliament we have a responsibility to scrutinise, I will

give way... I thank the honourable gentleman. Perhaps he could tell us

on the same basis, how many jobs in Scotland would be lost if it left

the United Kingdom? This is an extraordinary basis... My honourable

colleague from the Foreign Affairs Committee forgets that it is his

government that is already tell the people of Ireland that they need not

to choose between the European Union and the UK, just as Scotland need

not to choose between trading and the rest of the European Union. I

want. I will make progress. -- I won't. There's a possibility that if

we pass this today we are passing this government a blank cheque. A

blank cheque on one of the most crucial issues that this parliament

has ever discussed and one that will have an impact on each and every one

of us and each and every one of our constituents. Let's not forget Mr

Speaker we are handing a blank cheque to a government forced to

deny its own tweets, correcting a White Paper not published and

bringing out yet another shambolic budget. That is a government that

you are handing a blank cheque to and this place would be handing a

blank cheque to. Frankie Mr Speaker I am not sure we can trust them to

run a bath, never mind very complex set of negotiations! The Secretary

of State said that he had seen the best of parliamentary debate in this

place and over the course of this bill. It is nice to say that he had

seen the best of debates because he's spent millions trying to

prevent us from having it in the first place! The basis of a

democracy is that we can scrutinise and not acquiesce in the face of

damaging plans which is what we will be doing by facing up to a blank

cheque. It's the House of Lords of all places who have given us another

opportunity today to save the House of Commons's blushes. We will be

voting for and meaningful vote today although of course we would also

have wanted to see a greater role for the devolved administrations as

well. The lack of respect for devolved administrations and the

promises made and subsequently broken during the independence

referendums and EU referendums have led us to where we are today. Giving

the independence referendum we were told the only way Scotland could

guarantee to remain part of the EU was to vote against independence. We

were told the only way to bring powers of immigration was to vote in

favour of leaving the European Union.

That is why the First Minister is right to be looking at the electoral

mandate that the SNP were given last year the hold another independence

referendum. The government may not be big on manifesto commitments, but

the SNP are. The SNP were returned to power with more votes, the

largest number of votes since devolution was established, with 47%

of the constituency vote, compared to a Tory government to have brought

this to the situation on a 36% of the votes, and less than 15% of the

vote in Scotland. Let me move on to EU nationals. We must not forget the

human elements of this. My honourable friend is talking about

the human element for EU nationals. On Friday afternoon a Lithuanian

attended my surgery saying the uncertainty caused by this

government and this Parliament is making her feel worse about personal

situation in Britain than she did in Lithuania under the Soviets. Does he

agree with me... It is the words of a constituent. Does he agree with me

that this Parliament should be ashamed is to be causing such

uncertainty? I would like to thank her for raising that point. Many of

us have listened to EU nationals who contribute so much financially and

culturally, who would be a loss to the whole of the UK if we were to

lose them. Therefore, I am not entirely sure why the government

cannot give us the basis. I feel very passionate about EU citizens

living in the United Kingdom being allowed to do so. The ad so much and

it would be a human tragedy if they were forced to leave, but there are

hundreds and thousands of Scottish people living in other EU countries.

Doesn't he believe that they too want to be given the same guarantee

at exactly the same time? He makes my point for me, the Scottish

Government is looking to protect Scotland's relationship with Europe.

If EU nationals are so important to them they will vote with us tonight

to give them the certainty that they need and the certainty that they

deserve and I look forward to him joining me. EU nationals who have

made Scotland or the rest of the UK there home contribute so much. It is

a better place in which to live and work. It makes our communities

better. These are people with families and jobs. To give them

certainty there is something simple that this side of the house can do,

join us for a change. This goes to the heart of the kind of country,

and normal members would do well to listen to this this time, goes to

the heart of the kind of country we want to live in. We want to live in

an open, inclusive country, or Age UK that is increasingly isolated in

Europe and abroad? It seemed that this is a choice that people in

Scotland are going to get. Today we are sitting on the edge of the abyss

with this vote. The question is whether or not Scotland is going to

be taken into the abyss with this Tory government. I'm glad that we on

this side of the house have an alternative. The alternative is

clear and respects the will of the people of Scotland, that seeks to

work with our partners on these islands and across Europe and

prosper as an equal and normal partner in the international

community of nations and therefore we will be opposing the government

tonight. Anna Sue Brie. I will keep my comments as short as possible so

as many people as possible can speak. Can I just say this, it is

surely perverse that we are in a situation whereby if there is a deal

it comes back to this place and this place can debated and voted on it.

But if there is the worse scenario, which is no deal, we are not

entitled to that say or that vote. That simply cannot be right.

actually isn't a debate about actually isn't a debate about

voted against my conscience so that voted against my conscience so that

I would honour the result and I voted for us to leave

Union. We have had that one and are Union. We have had that one and are

moving on. This is about Parliamentary sovereignty and there

are some uncomfortable truths need to be said. It took a few brave

souls, and the worst brief, to go to the High Court and Supreme Court to

establish parliamentary sophistry and that is why we have this bill,

not because we did it in this place, and history will record these

things, but because of what they did. To the credit to the government

they accepted that. I understand there is a good argument to be made

that this is a short and simple bill. The difficulty is because of

this inability to accept that in the worst case scenario this place is

not allowed to have a say. This Secretary of State, of all members

of this place, with his fine track record of establishing and fighting

at every opportunity for the sovereignty of Parliament to be

standing up and denying the stats on this particular item is ironic. Does

she not accept that this place made a contract with the British people

at that referendum, the SNP might not like it is true, therefore

whatever the deal, if there is a good deal we will take it if there

isn't the Prime Minister has made it clear we will not accept the bad

deal, we move on and be moved out of the EU. The honourable gentleman

forgets there was one question on the ballot paper, are we remaining

or leaving the EU? That people voted to leave, and that is what we are

doing. Some on the side have honoured that result and have voted

for us to leave. Now we are talking about the sovereignty of this

Parliament and what happens in the event that our Prime Minister

doesn't strike that deal? I trust our Prime Minister to do everything

that she can. Let us make no mistake about this and be under no

illusions, if she doesn't get to strike that deal there will be no

other alternative but WTO tariffs and regulation and rules and the

people in my constituency certainly did not vote for that. The

honourable gentleman from a secondary place says, so? I can

assure the honourable gentleman it is not just me but my Prime Minister

he takes the view that falling off the cliff edge is the worst possible

outcome for the people of this country and it is the one thing we

must, we must make sure doesn't happen. This place that event must

help and assist the government. What I really say to some honourable

members opposite is this, that we know that there is in the event of

no deal, and it would be a remarkable set of the gutsy agents

to get three bespoke deals within what will be an 18 month time frame,

but let us say that worst-case scenario happens and there are no

deals, what I would say to honourable members opposite

especially those in the north of Ireland is, in Northern Ireland, the

honourable gentleman is... The real danger we face is that cliff edge

and in that event the hard border that none of us wants an arrogant,

and it may well be that in two years' time things will have changed

remarkably in our country, not just politically but economically.

Economic and we could find that having had the buoyancy of the

devalued pound and people spending on the basis of their savings, that

inflation has kicked in and our economy is not in the fine fettle in

which it looks like it is now. Politically, we will find that it

had a great home of our nation that we will be facing the break-up of

this union with the possibility of the Scots going there a way with a

referendum and, tragically, for Northern Ireland, talk of a united

Ireland or a breakdown of the peace that has been left some years. In

that event, all options must remain open for us to debate and the side

because it could be we decide to restore the free movement of labour

and brief look at the benefits of the single market, which will solve

the problem for Northern Ireland and is for Scotland. Would she agreed

there is not only an issue of principle here of parliamentary

sophistry. There is also an issue of good practice and we shouldn't

swallow this incentive to offer the worst possible deal argument at all.

An amendment number two would instead -- would instil

accountability to the government. Interventions must be brief. ID find

that absolutely the idea that if we do the right thing, which is the

lies to have a say in the event of no deal, that somehow we weakened

Prime Minister's because the hand. All the divisions that still exist

in our country, they are not being reported throughout the whole of

Europe, as if that isn't happening. They know how divided our nation is.

They know about the deliberations in this place and the other place and

the also know that of those who voted, it was only 52% that voted

for us to leave the European Union. I would urge the government for the

sake of bringing unity, not just in these benches, but also to the

country at large, that they allow Parliament sovereignty to rain and

in the event of no deal we have a boat and a say. I declare an

interest because on the issue of EU citizens in the United Kingdom for

me the political is personal, as I expected this from any other

members. The two most important women in my life, my mother who is

Dutch are my Spanish wife are affected by this. Whilst there are

special to me I think that their and the uncertainty which which they

have endured is typical for many of our constituents. My mother has

lived here for more than 50 years, raised four children, work as a

teacher, Peter taxes, my wife loves this country, not the weather but

she loves this country, is raising children here, pay taxes and works

here. It simply beggars belief that people like them and millions like

him have had a question placed over their status, their peace of mind,

there well-being in our great country because of the action or the

shameful inaction of this government.

The? Is placed there by the EU not by the Government. If the EU said

our citizens abroad I received some or all of the EU citizens here. And

honourable member would stop blaming the back traffic on the EU, it is

absurd. We picked a fight, not the EU. One observation to be Secretary

of State, even if he gets the deal, which I by the way believe he wishes

to seek on this issue EU citizens here and EU citizens there, even if

that goes smoothly and quickly, I would press him on this point, there

is no earthly way that this Government can separate the 3

million EU citizens which are already here from the millions who

may after a certain cut-off date want to come and live and study and

work in the future without creating in mountainous volume of red tape.

Reminds me, that wasn't one of the principal reasons we were told by

the honourable member and so many others that we should leave the

European Union to free ourselves from red tape, yet this Government

is going to create tsunami wave of red tape which EU citizens,

including my mum and my wife in the future, will rightly resent just as

much as the always resented red tape in Brussels. In particular irony is

that the Right honourable member and myself worked very closely together

as an opposition party spokespeople 12 years ago in this chamber against

the then Government's attempt of opposing ID cards and I predict he

and his Government will have to introduce something not identical

but strikingly similar to trailer behind ID cards. And finally, Mr

Speaker, to the other and perhaps more meaningful amendment, Mr

Speaker, the double standards we have just heard on red tape is

duplicated several times over by the double standards of Brexit he was

saying we should free ourselves from the lack of Deco dad-mac Democratic

accountability, the first thing they do is undermined and weaken the

principle of democratic accountability in this House. I

listened closely to the Government's is projecting an amendment,

including today, there is no first principal argument against it

because we didn't concede the principle of a vote, they just don't

like us to have the freedom to decide what that vote should be on.

They have come up with some laughable argument we have heard

repeated here today, but if we have just the bog-standard plain vanilla

accountability exerted by the House of Commons and the other planes to

any announcement made by the Prime Minister in two years, it will serve

an incentive for the EU to give us a bad deal. By that logic, Mr Speaker,

the only Government that can successfully negotiate international

agreements are dictatorships. They are democracies, democracy can

coexist with a good international agreements. Mr Speaker, I have come

to the conclusion that the reason why the Government is digging its

heels in as stubbornly as it is it because it think it's going to strut

its stuff and impress our soon EU negotiating partners by indulging in

this Parliamentary and procedural machismo here. You didn't think

there are kidding? Doublethink angler Michael has put everything a

fight to look at the debate this afternoon? Look at the week number

ten is unceremoniously evicted Lord Heseltine. We better give them a

good deal! Does the Secretary of State think that a hard EU

negotiator, we better lower the price tag because they are being

sold half with their own people. It is a ludicrous assertion. I simply

cede to the Government benches at this last 59 seconds of the 11th

hour of this debate on this amendment is this, stubbornness can

be a sign of suspicion and weakness, not strength. Rejecting the rightful

conventional role of the House of Commons and the other place to apply

democratic accountability to the actions and decisions of the

executive can be a sign of weakness, not strength. And this specious

argument that condemns the lack of democratic accountability in

Brussels, whilst undermining it in here, in the mother of all

parliaments, is a slight of hand, which should not be lightly

forgotten! I am grateful, it is a particular pleasure to follow the

right honourable gentleman as he and I spent a number of years working

together in coalition Government, which I know it wasn't enormously

fruitful for all on my site and I think for his remarks. Mr Speaker,

let me just deal with the one opening point and then I will refer

to these specific amendments. Rather than making a general speech. One

observation would be that we said to be House of Lords, coming back to

the right honourable gentleman's point about process, in the short

and well drafted and tightly focused villa. The House of Lords's usual

argument and criticism of this House is that we send long, badly draft

did legislation which they have to be improved. It seems to me in this

case that we sent them a short tightly focused well drafted Bill

does one very specific thing and they made the Bill longer, poorly

drafted and reduced the quality of the legislation and he should help

them out this afternoon by getting rid of their poorly drafted

amendments and sending it back to them in the same expertly drafted

form it started. The simple truth is best, Deal or no Deal, vote or no

vote, positive vote or negative vote, this process is irreversible,

we are leaving the EU and that's what the people want. I am grateful

to my honourable friend. Let me deal now, Mr Speaker, with the two

amendments before us, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of

State is inviting the House to disagree with lordships. The first

one on EU nationals, I listen very carefully to the debate that we have

just had on this and I think I heard while the debate was underway the

member for pressure suggesting to the Secretary of State he could put

people's mind at rest by accepting the amendment. I disagree with that.

If you read what the amendment says, as opposed to what people have

asserted it says, all it says is that the Government should bring

forward proposals within three months to deal with people who are

legally resident in Britain. Here is why I think this is faulty. First of

all, three months pits an arbitrary time limit which will be decided by

judges, if people challenge it. Which may be in the middle of the

negotiation process that the Secretary of State will carry out to

secure the rights of British citizens and could well disrupt that

process. Second and more importantly, it talks about those

who are legally resident in the country today and there are two

groups, one I would like to be more generous to, and one would like to

be less generous two. The first group, those we have discovered

perhaps didn't understand European Union legislation which says you are

legally resident here if are a student by self-sufficient, only if

you have comprehensive health insurance. Many people fail that

test. I think it would be sensible for us to take a generous approach

when we are legislating for people to be able to stay here. The

amendment, as drafted, does not suggest that we do that. I think the

Government could be more generous to EU nationals who are here making

their lives here and that amendment suggests. I think that would be

welcome. Does my right honourable friend agree with me that if we get

to the point where all our proceedings have to be put into

legislation on the subject we cannot proceed, we will cease to be

sovereign? That point is very well made. It leads me onto my second

point. There is another group of EU nationals, unlike the EU nationals

we have already been talking about who we all want to protect, those

who has here working and contributing, there are a

significant number, a small percentage, but a significant number

of EU nationals in Britain who have broken the criminal law. There are

four and a half thousand EU nationals in prison. They are

legally resident in this country. That amendment, as drafted, would

mean that when they are released from prison after serving their

sentence it would be very difficult for my right honourable friend the

Home Secretary, very difficult for her to remove their right to stay in

this country and deport them back to their home country, which frankly is

what I want to see us do. What I would like us to do as a country is

the more generous to those who come here to work and to contribute and

to study but I would like is to be less generous to those who come here

to break our laws, violate the welcoming trust we gave them. I

don't want to fetter the hands of ministers in doing that. The

amendment is poorly drafted, doesn't provide that reassurance and I ask

the House to rejected. The final thing on EU nationals referring to

the point the honourable and loaded lady from Edinburgh 's south-west,

all I would say, I listened very carefully to what she said about her

Lithuanian constituent, I hope your constituents will forgive me that I

didn't catch her name. I hope the honourable Leonard lady when she was

talking to her constituent was able to reassure her by explaining to her

the very clear assurances that a Prime Minister of her country has

placed on the record about wanting to make sure that constituent, I

hope she is able to confirm to the home she did say. I am happy to

confirm exactly what my constituents said. She cannot apply for permanent

residency because she does not have comprehensive sickness insurance. I

advised her the committee of which I am part, the exiting EU select

committee, has asked the Government to rectify that matter and they have

not as yet done so. I am very pleased actually the honourable lady

made that point because if she'd listened any remark that I need I

said there were constituents who thought they were here legally but

because they don't have comprehensive health insurance are

not actually legally resident. The amendment, as drafted, wouldn't

provide them with reassurance. But I actually said is a former

Immigration Minister I would be generous to constituents like her,

which is why I want that deal and I want my right honourable friend the

Home Secretary to bring forward that immigration legislation to sort that

out. This amendment doesn't do any such thing and people shouldn't

mislead people by telling people it does. I would say to my honourable

friend is that they should reject it. Let me just move on to the

second point. I am conscious there are others who want to speak. The

second amendment about a meaningful vote, it falls into two parts. There

are those parts where the Government has already said it would bring

forward decisions before the house if the Prime Minister strikes a good

deal. Both on our article 50 divorce negotiations but also on our future

trade relationships. There is a very good reason for not putting it in

statute. As soon as you put it in statute, you enable people to

challenge the process, to go to quoits, and to frustrate the ability

of this House and our Government to conclude those negotiations. The

final point, Mr Speaker, I would make reference to the final part of

that second amendment which my right honourable friend the member for

West Dorset set out very carefully. There are two parts to my

objections. The first part is I don't agree with the party opposite.

I do think if we say that either the House of Commons or the House of

Lords is able to frustrate us leaving the European Union by

getting a deal which we do not think is a good one, then I think they

will absolutely do so. I listened carefully to what my honourable

friend, the member for Broxton said, I couldn't help think that the

conclusion to her remarks, if we got a bad deal, was that she wanted us

to stay in the European Union. That seems to be the conclusion of what

she said. What I am seeing as if we don't get a deal, we should come

back here, consider all options, given the circumstances that we

would get ourselves in and it may well... I am so sorry. I thought we

lived in a democracy. It is unlikely to see how we would go back on our

decision to leave the EU. I listened carefully to what my honourable

friend says. It seems to me if I consider the question that was paid,

I have said this before in this House in a referendum, it was an

unconditional question about whether we should remain on whether we

should leave. We didn't see to the public, some people think maybe we

should have done, but we didn't. We didn't say if we get a fabulous

deal, and we should leave. It said, should we leave remain? I was on the

remaining side of the argument. But I accept that the people of the

United Kingdom made a different decision and it behoves us all,

balloons us to support the Prime Minister in getting the best

possible deal given that we are leaving, even if there is a bad deal

that we can't accept, we are still leaving the European Union, that is

why and would urge my honourable friend to disagree with the Lloyd's,

both of the amendments before us today. Only 40 minutes to remain. I

do need members to help each other. All all the arguments of supporting

these amendment be suggesting we should not do because they are got

back on that basis everything we put the legislation we might as well

pack up and go home. Mr Speaker I rise to support the two amendments.

I wish to draw the house's attention to the unanimous recommendation of

the select committee which I chaired, which said the Government

should now make a unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of

EU National is in the United Kingdom and I say to the Secretary of State,

the only argument for not doing that, is if someone is prepared to

put the status of those 3 million EU citizens into play in the

negotiations. That is the only argument because it raises the

question how would that be done and to what purpose? It is precisely

because the Minister and the Prime Minister have been so clear in

saying to the house, we intend to ensure the status and their rights,

but nobody in this chamber believes the Government would be prepared to

do that. If you are not prepared to put their status into play in

negotiations why not now do the right thing and tell them they can

stay? I will give way briefly. Is it not the case the Government's

position on EU citizens is based on a fiction because if they were not

to grant status to stay, presumably they would remove those who cannot

stay from the UK but the current Immigration Minister has said they

do not know where EU citizens are in order to remove them from the UK. It

is an empty threat so why cause all this stress? I agree with my friend

back entirely. It cannot be contemplated, the whole house knows

it cannot be contemplated under for the Government should follow the

advice of the select committee. Or the second Amendment, I listen

carefully to the arguments the Secretary of State advanced, but I

gently say to them I don't think they would have persuaded the right

honourable gentlemen himself in his previous incarnation before he

became the Secretary of State. On this point that the honourable

member for Sheffield, Hallam raised about incentive to offer a bad deal,

just pause for a moment. If that argument holds any sway whatsoever

it holds sway when ministers got up to the dispatch box and said, we

will give you a vote on a draft deal. It cannot be the case that if

the Government offers a vote on the draft of it does not raise the

possibility of a bad deal being offered, whereas in this house if we

choose to put back vote on the statute book it does raise the

possibility of there being a bad deal offered. The two are wholly

inconsistent as arguments and the house, I think, is not persuaded. My

final point, I listened so carefully to the language used by the

Secretary of State who I see is engaged in earnest conversations,

and talk about being able to act with out our hands being tied. The

top about being able to pass the bill without any strings attached. I

just say to them, this house, we are not strings, we are part of our

democracy and we are very attached to that democracy. And this

amendment, the second one, is not about seeking to reverse a decision

of the referendum. I and many others who voted, as the honourable member

for Broxtowe did, for this legislation because we respect the

outcome of the referendum, but it is about Parliament deciding how we

leave the EU. There is a terrible irony in hearing voices of those who

are in the course of the referendum used as one of the principal

argument we should vote to leave to restore sovereignty, for them now to

see their enthusiasm for that sovereignty disappear in a puff of

smoke, when the house is asked to put that sovereignty on the statute

book. Finally, I say to the right honourable gentlemen, it is now time

to put behind without we voted leave or remain in the referendum, come

together and put aside division, including resisting the division

that is now being urged upon us by others in this chamber. I say to

him, having Parliament behind you in these negotiations and knowing in

the end the Government was to come to Parliament for what they are able

to achieve in negotiations, is not a weakness for this country, it is a

strength and the sooner the Government recognises this the

better. I campaign for remain in the

referendum last year, believing it was in the best medium-term economic

interests of my constituents. I did this having stood in a manifesto

that promised the British people they can vote on membership of the

EU and which would honour the result of the referendum what about the

outcome. We must remember in this place a record number of people

turned out to vote, bottling of recent electoral trends. There were

a massive 72% of electors who turns out, many of my constituents who had

never ever voted before because they thought until then there are voices

and votes did not count. They did so for the first time. Contrary to what

commentators on both the left and the right may say, these people are

not simpletons, they are not children, they are adults would have

much right to vote as you and I. They knew the risks of voting to

leave and did so anyway and we must respect that decision not undermine

it. The bill before us... I will not give way because so many members

wish to speak. The bill before us is the legal mechanism to begin

negotiations. All members, which ever side of the house they sit on

and which information they represent, must wish these

negotiations are successful. There is no doubt there will be protracted

and they will be difficult. It is only in the best interests of all

others and the best interests of our constituents, we must give the Prime

Minister and her team of ministers the whole negotiating team the

strongest hand possible. The noble lord's second amendment hampers

this. The precondition... If the honourable Regulus and I will

elucidate. The preconditions mean whatever the negotiating team were

to say, our EU counterparts would think they could frustrate, delay or

even veto. Certainty was the number one priority and the Prime

Minister's Lancaster house speech and how can there be any certainty

for businesses, constituents or our European partners if there is the

prospect for endless review by this place. I will not give way. As the

noble lord Hill said on the debate on this bill, a man of great

experience, he said this of all European counterparts. They need to

know what our negotiators say they can deliver. I therefore urge all

members to reject the Lord' amendment and give the Prime

Minister the strongest possible hand.

The I have only three points to make in terms of the time available. I

thought early and missed the bit when my friend from South Perthshire

asked the secretary of state whether he would be prepared to deport these

European national in our midst, he said of course not. Somebody... Of

course that is the case and that would be the case for every member

with perhaps one or two exceptions. But the vast majority would not

countenance ever doing that which is exactly why they cease to be any

sort of bargaining chip, even if we thought the international trade

Secretary was right to say they were an important card we must play, even

if that were acceptable language, it is not a card. It is like nuclear

deterrent, if you're not going to press the button it is not a

deterrent and if you're not prepared to follow through or to use people

in that way then it cannot be a bargaining chip or a card to play.

Therefore, the correct course of action for the Government has

unilaterally to accept and to secure the position of our fellow citizens

working and contributing among others, there is no possibility of

them being effectively used as a bargaining chip in negotiations. Do

the right thing. Accept the Lord' amendments. Yesterday the nation was

transfixed as we tried to interpret the latest Government policy on a

Brexit. Should we follow in one channel that the advice of the

Foreign Secretary when he said there will be no problem if we resort to

WTO terms, or should it be the advice of the international trade

secretary who admitted on another channel indeed it would be a

problem. We were all watching the wrong people. We should have been

watching the Brexit secretary on the Andrew Marr show when he was getting

to the guts of the problem we have. Andrew Marr, so what happens if they

do not accept it? Meaning if we vote down the deal the Government brings

to us in our meaningful vote. And so, well, then, that is what is

called the most favoured deal, what the World Trade Organisation. When

we had the committee stage of this debate they were trying to tempt out

of the Minister of State when he appeared at the dispatch box in a

flourish, or as much as a flourish of the minister does, then told us

the Government would have a meaningful vote. Member after member

said what happens in this vote if we reject the Government's terms?

Yesterday we had the answer from the Brexit secretary. Then it is WTO

terms. Our Deal or no Deal. Other way or the highway. It is absolutely

clear and no fault can be asked back no vote can be described as

meaningful if the alternative is the damage of WTO terms. Lastly,

thinking about the injunction of different with us to be brief, that

is we are asked why should we not just accept the words of the Brexit

secretary and these other chaps in the Government when they tell us

things and we do not need to put things into legislation. Can I quote

a bit of the history of the assurances we have been given in

Scotland in terms of this legislation? Telegraph, Theresa May

indicated and said she will not trigger the formal process for

leaving the EU until there is an entry to UK approach backed by

Scotland. 15th of July last year. I admit, that is not an answer but

surely the Daily Telegraph is the nearest the Tories can carve to an

official report? That promise has been swept away and that commitment

are broken. As indeed was the reaction to the Scottish

Government's action to keep us all in the single market. Not even

regarded seriously or consulted before the Prime Minister dismissed

that as an alternative. Then the compromise, that Scotland stay

within the single market place even if this Government is determined to

drag the rest of the UK out. Not even given serious consideration.

Over the last three months no substantive reply because in their

arrogance this Government believes the 48% across the UK, the members

of the House of Lords, the people of doubts on the own backbenchers, the

nations in this country, two of which voted for remain, our view

does not matter. It can be swept aside as we proceed headlong to be

heard Brexit cliff edge. Today in Scotland is perhaps the Government

were disabused of that notion because there might not be a real

vote in meaningful vote in this chamber but there shall be a

meaningful vote in Scotland to protect our millennium long history

as a European nation. With extreme brevity is now on both sides of the

house. This is a very simple bill, it is as

simple as triggering. The second thing as far as the question of

judicial review is concerned, the plain fact is this will be a gift to

the courts and the gift to the lawyers. It is completely

inappropriate. The third point regarding the question of

sovereignty of Parliament, the fact is that this is not this issue today

about parliamentary sovereignty, in fact, it is about undermining a

decision made by a referendum of the British people which was itself

confirmed by sovereign act of Parliament. That is the distinction

and what we need to concentrate on. The next point and the last point I

wanted to make this simply this, we cannot tie the Prime Minister's

hands. It is inconceivable we would actually legislate and make it

judicially reviewable and that the same time passed amendments to the

effect that introduce committee of Parliament deciding questions which

have to be decided by Government. We are it constitutional constitution

that works by governments, not by committee of Parliament or otherwise

we would go back to the 17th century and I invite people to look at the

bare-bones Parliament. How these two make two brief points.

The first is if we don't deal with the issue of EU nationals here or UK

nationals in the EU 27 now in the next three months, they will get

caught up in the negotiations because the council is due to

respond to the trigger an Article 50 in May or June after we have the

French elections on the 7th of May. We are expecting the council to give

a mandate around that time. If the Government continues to drag its

heels on this important issue and it is important for not only EU

nationals here but for our National is elsewhere, if they continue to

drag their heels, these people, their livelihoods, the certainty and

uncertainty this will provoke will cause them for two years. What is

the Government going to do once the formal negotiations and article 50

on the money and all the things that is going to be so much acrimony

about, how is the Government going to avoid EU nationals here and UK

nationals in the EU being part of that negotiation. I don't think the

Secretary of State provided an answer to that question. We have a

short window and it will probably start tomorrow and end sometime in

May or June. The second point I wanted to make was to reiterate

something be right honourable lady for Broxton said in her very

eloquent speech. I find it difficult actually impossible to concede and I

knows of the honourable member is benches want us to leave without a

deal, but what is the deal that is worse than no Deal? There isn't a

deal that is worse than no deal. She said it very clearly. Falling out on

WTO rules, with all the tariffs, with the obstructions to trade, is

that worse than, sorry better, than some other deal they can conceive

of? What is this weird deal they are talking about? There isn't one. This

hounds needs to have the same whether there is a deal or not a

deal. House. The Government has given clarity as to what happens if

and I have been to the are preparing for this eventuality, but what if

there isn't a deal that between the UK and our European partners cosmic

that would be the very worse still, I think, and I think in terms of

Parliamentary scrutiny, something the Secretary of State has spent his

political career espousing and promoting, used to before his

current position, in terms of Parliamentary sovereignty, could we

really leave the EU without a deal, without this parliament having a

say? Of course we couldn't. Why doesn't the Government admit this

includes new phase of the Bill? Aye easily minute limit on the back

bench will now apply. I want to support the Government in carrying

out an official and effective Brexit. Listening to some of the

contributions this afternoon, I do think I am living in Wonderland. The

first point and I want to focus solely on the second amendment and

Queloz four. The first thing to understand is that as matters stand

at the moment, there is to be not resolutions from this house but

primary legislation to complete the process. There is going to be a need

for primary legislation, even I suggest to the House, if we have no

deal at all. I don't know when the Government wants to deal with that,

it could conceivably try and do it during the course of the great

repeal bill but it hasn't suggested that the great repeal Bill, and

intended Bill, is all about. In those circumstances, it seems to me

at the end of the process, if there is no deal, there is going to have

to be primary legislation by this house of this hasn't already been

done. Fire from the Lloyds trying to lead to great litigation, the

amendment, if the Government bothers to read Lord Hope's speech, was of

the view that by tabling this amendment to providing for a

resolution mechanism at the end, litigation could be avoided. My

right honourable friend is to think that there is some way of getting

round litigation, I can promise them, they don't follow proper

constitutional process, there will be litigation and that litigation

will hold matters up. I am not go so concerned about these amendments,

the second Amendment, I am concerned about getting an assurance that at

the end of the process that there is no deal, which will be a very

significant moment in this country's history, Parliament has an

opportunity to debate and vote on that. - that being an obstruction to

the process, I would expect it to be part of the normal constitutional

process and the Government to be seeking the endorsement of the House

for that very significant act. I worry that my right honourable

friend who I think personally may well agree with me, has been

prevented from seeing that in the dispatch box. I am not prepared to

follow processes which appear to need to be frankly deranged. There

is a clear way of doing things, and if we follow them up with the right

decisions at each point, and if we don't, we're going to mire

ourselves... Very reluctantly, because I want to support the

Government, if we persist with this, I am going to have to say on the

second Amendment I cannot support the Government this evening. I am

very sorry about that. I would like to be able to do so because the

critique raised of the Lords amendment has some flaws, but

somebody has got to put down a marker that we have to follow a

proper process in the way in which we carry it on the Mac. I commend

him on his speech, notwithstanding my support for the Lords amendment

about EU nationals. I would urge honourable member is opposite to

think very carefully about what they are being asked to do by ministers.

In the bill, the Lords have inserted this amendment to give Parliament

the meaningful vote and ministers are asking them to avenge that out

of the Bill, to delete it. So the bill as it stands provides that

Parliamentary scrutiny and authority and I think they should ask

themselves, do they really want to actively go through the lobbies and

delete that from the text as the bill currently stands? Ministers

opposite has asked honourable member is to do a number of things. They

have said, don't tie the hands of the Prime Minister. Whatever you do,

it gave her unfettered power to negotiate in whatever way she likes.

I would save only to those ministers urge honourable members but we

shouldn't be doing is putting power entirely in the hands of one person

in the Prime Minister without any insurance policy whatsoever, because

with the greatest respect to ministers, prime ministers decide

who are on her front bench and Parliamentary democracy is the

insurance policy that we need throughout this process, something

we shouldn't be frightened of, we shouldn't be shy and that, we should

welcome it, it is a strengthened part of the process. They say take

back control, Mr Speaker, and yet at the same time they are asking us to

muzzle Parliament for the next two year period to say, well, even if we

have no deal, whatever happens, Parliament may not have a say on

that. We could find ourselves in a circumstance where the European

Union offer a really good deal, but the Prime Minister, on her own,

singularly, or his home, depend that is in years' time, could see

absolutely no deal. And we in this Parliament have no choice but to

accept it, no say. The ministers say they accept our verbal assurances.

Ministers are here today and can be gone tomorrow. Might I even

speculate, Mr Speaker, that we could even have a different by Minister,

who goes by the time we get to spring 2009, the Foreign Secretary

nonetheless, it is possible he could be by Minister one day. He said on

the weekend, it would be perfectly OK if we weren't able to get an

agreement. It would be perfectly OK if we weren't able to get an

agreement. He could be Prime Minister. The honourable members

don't know opposite and would be the situation we would have to face, no

vote, no right for Parliament, verbal assurances are not

sufficient. I am going to be brief under your instructions. I rise to

deal with specifically the first Amendment. I thought the second

Amendment was well dealt with by my right honourable friend, member of

the Dorset side, and also for Forest of Dean. We have heard a lot in this

debate and we have heard a lot in the other place of the emotional end

of what it was to give EU citizens some kind of reassurance. I have

been on record saying I would like to have done that by this particular

point. Can I remind people that we also have UK to citizens and I for

one Soviet leader of the Liberal Democrats going on about his own

family, but I have a sister who has lived and worked in Italy all her

life and she remains there and has retired there. I don't think it is

on this place to dismiss their concerns and worries quite so

lightly as dismissed in the other place and have been dismissed here

today. I heard the reason why we shouldn't, from the other side

today, be so concerned about them is because many of them are older and

therefore pensioners and less important. That is wrong. Therefore,

I encourage the Government to stick to their plans to try and deal with

this together. The thing about this amendment, it's not actually what

all the regional -- emotional argument is for. People who want to

guarantee these rights, this is not the amendment. This amendment does

the opposite. For two reasons, first, actually it doesn't reassure

EU nationals over here. I have had conversations with various EU

nationals who don't feel the slightest bit reassured by the idea

you are going to call the Government back in three months' time at the

triggered Article 52 ask them what they planned to do. That is no

reassurance. -- Article 50. You are not voting to reassure them. The

second point is that it damages the Government's position in the

negotiation. There has been no agreement about what to do with UK

citizens. Now the Government on the three month mark, the EU commission

knows full well, they would be dragged back to the House, no

dramatic claim publicly what their plans are, regardless of what those

discussions and negotiations are. I can think of nothing worse than to

bind their hands in the worst way and make sure that UK nationals do

not get reciprocal arrangements. My point here is that whatever the

realities of what people want, both amendment, neither of them, satisfy

the requirement to protect either EU nationals or to give this Parliament

a vote that is made up without damaging the prospects of the

Government's negotiations. I would urge the house not to vote for

these. I remind those in the other place to talk endlessly about

parliamentary sovereignty for 25 years, I have sat in this place, and

have had all the arguments about EU dismissed on the bases we were not

allowed to amend a single European treaty. Thank you. I wish to speak

particularly to amendment number two, very similar to the new clauses

99 and 110, which we debated a month ago. Honourable member 's opposite

have complained about the drafting by Lloyds panic. I feel that when

ministers meet back complaints, it can be disingenuous because they had

the opportunity to amend the amendment. If they really felt that

the other place shouldn't be involved, we could have changed the

drafting to say not both Houses of Parliament but the houses of

comments only. They could have taken a subsection for Mac, which provides

for what we do if there isn't an agreement with the EU. We haven't

done that and therefore making the bar more difficult, I suspect, for

their colleagues sitting behind them. Either it is a problem that

the house of Lloyds has a veto because they are unelected chamber

or it is not a problem. It seems the Prime Minister made a promise that

the vote would come to both houses. She doesn't seem to think that is a

problem, I don't know why this is being put up as a problem now. The

honourable member for Dorset west took us on a long perambulation

about what might or might not happen. That was completely

unnecessary. If we were to put this on the face of the bill, we would be

making this part of the constitutional arrangements, which

under article 50, has to be respected by the EU counterparties

in the negotiations. She makes a very good point, because it seems to

me in the last debate we had we discuss the possibility of being up

against the wire. It seems to me on reflection if our own constitutional

processes are not finished, then in those circumstances we couldn't

simply fall off the edge of the cliff until we've done so. I believe

that a DVD of the lawyers in the European Commission as well.

I am grateful for that intervention and my point was it is obviously

reasonable for us in this house to have a vote, not just because we all

believe in democracy or just because the campaigners for leaving argued

on the basis of parliamentary sovereignty, but also because the EU

parliament will have a vote. How can ministers stand at the dispatch box

and say it is all right to have constitutional arrangements which

give MVP is a vote and do not give us a vote? There is one final thing

I want to see about leaving without an agreement. The honourable member

for Broxtowe set out what the problems are. I think they could be

even worse and I think it would be even worse than leaving on WTO

terms. For us to have an agreement with the WTO requires ever the

member of the WTO to agree we should have that. After everything that has

happened does the Minister really think the president of Russia is

going to do is that favour? It is not compulsory to speak for

the three full minutes and there is a prize for anyone who can do it in

one minute. Until the member for Gordon spoke I

was afraid I was only one who was having a flashback to the endless

nuclear arms control negotiations of the 1980s and there are indeed a

couple of parallels to which I will briefly alluded. The first is on

Amendment one, the question we are asking is should we make it one side

the gesture regardless of the fact it would leave our own citizens

exposed? We made it clear from the outset we would agree to guarantee

the rights of EU citizens here if other countries would do the same

for other citizens in other countries. Why is it that suggestion

has not been seized with both hands? The answer one has to say is that

indicates to us there are some problems with the way in which the

EU intends to go about the process of negotiations because the way

forwards would have been for them to say straightaway, yes, you are

making this offer, we accept that, no problem. The second point on the

second Amendment is the more important one. We have repeatedly

heard it said the opposition front bench and elsewhere in the chamber

no deal is the worst possible outcome for Britain. Put another

way, that is like saying any deal is better than no deal and I would just

like to draw a parallel to those arms negotiations in the 1980s

because the most successful negotiations were the ones that led

to the treaty in 1987 when we got rid of all the cruise missiles on

our side and the Russians got rid of their missiles. How that happens was

this, we carried out our threat in the negotiations, the other side

walked away from the negotiating table when they saw what we meant

that they came back and they gave us a better deal. So what we have to

remember is this, no deal may lead to a better deal one or two years

down the road. If you are determined to take any deal rather than no deal

you will end up with a much worse deal than you might otherwise have.

I shall vote against all the amendments on the simple bases this

bill has one purpose only, that is to give legal effect to the decision

of the people on the 23rd of June. Any amendments beyond that are

inappropriate for that bill. However, I would like to say to the

Secretary of State I look to him to give the firm assurances his first

priority will be the rights of EU citizens and he acknowledges it will

require a bespoke right to remain to accommodate such problems like

health insurance and we will do that as our opening gesture as we open

negotiations to set the right tone. Two speeches of two minute speech.

I will vote against the amendment and want to address the second one.

As others said it is quite wrong for the noble lords to abrogate for the

other place a right of unelected peers to veto Brexit at the 11th

hour but more than that I think it would be entirely counter-productive

as a matter of diplomatic practice. With Jean-Claude Jahnke are talking

about the possibility of the UK rejoining the EU, to start

negotiations are signalling a poor deal might lead us to the best

decision and that would be the surest way to elicit the worst

terms. I want to say I understand the legitimate concerns on all sides

of the house at this very delicate moment. The truth is, we cannot

legislate away legitimate concerns we have whether you voted leave