06/07/2016 House of Commons

that I have. Thank you to the Prime Minister and

to all colleagues to take part in these exchanges. Statement, the

Secretary of State for Health. Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

Thank you. In May, the Government and NHS employers reached an

historic agreement with the British Medical Association on a new

contract for junior doctors after more than three years of

negotiations and several days of damaging strike action. That

agreement was strongly endorsed as a good deal for junior doctors by the

leader of the BMA's junior doctor committee and was supported publicly

by the vast majority of medical Royal colleges. However, yesterday,

it was rejected in a ratification ballot. 58% voted against the

contract which means on the basis of a 68% turnout around one third of

serving junior doctors actively voted against the agreement. It is

worth outlining key elements of the agreement that was voted on. It does

indeed help the Government to deliver on its seven-day NHS

manifesto commitment. But it also does much more. It reduces the

maximum hours junior doctors can be asked to work. It introduces a new

post for every trust to make sure the hours at a junior doctors are

safe. It makes most remote child and family friendly and helps women who

take maternity off to catch up with their peers. The President of the

Royal College of physicians who opposed our previous proposal stated

publicly, if I were a trainee doctor now I would vote yes in the

referendum. Unfortunately, because of the vote, we are now left in a no

man's land which if it continues can only damage the NHS. An elected

government, whose main aim is to improve the safety and quality of

care for patients, has come up against a union which has stirred up

anger amongst its own members. It is now unable to pacify. I was not a

fan of the tactics used by the BMA, but to its credit their leader did,

in the end, negotiate a deal and work hard to get support for it. Now

he has resigned, it is not clear that there is anyone able to deliver

the support of BMA members for any negotiated settlement. Protracted

uncertainty at precisely the time we grappled with enormous consequences

of leaving the EU can only be damaging for those working in the

NHS and on the patients who depend on it. Last night, the President of

the Academy of the medical Royal colleges, said that the NHS and

junior doctors needed to move on from this dispute.

It should be implemented in a phase the way that allowed time to learn

from teething problems. After listening to this advice and further

careful considerations of the impact of the new contractor have this

morning decided the only realistic way to end this impasse is to

proceed with a phased introduction of the exact contract that was

negotiated, agreed and supported by the BMA leadership. It will be

introduced from October this year and then in November and December

for foundation year one doctors taking up new posts and foundation

year to doctors and the same waters as their current contract expires.

Paediatrics and society and psychology -- psychiatry will

proceed between February and April next year was remaining Chinese buy

2/2000 17. This is a difficult decision to make. Many people will

call for me to return to negotiations with the BMA and to

them I would like to see this. We have been talking are trying to talk

for well over three years. There is no consensus around a new contract.

After yesterday's vote it is not clear that any further discussions

could create one. However I do believe the agreement negotiated in

May is better for junior doctors and better for the NHS than the original

contract we planned to introduce in March. So rather than try to wind

the clock back to the March contract we will not change any of the new

terms agreed with the BMA. It is also important to note that even

though we are proceeding without consensus this decision is not a

rejection of the legitimate concerns of many junior doctors about their

working conditions. Junior doctors are some of the hardest working

staff in the NHS working some of the longest and most unsocial hours

including many weekends. They have many concerns, for example about

water gaps and rostering practices. In the May agreement NHS employers

agreed to work with the BMA to monitor the invitation of the

contract. -- implementation. Last month at the annual conference I set

out my expectation that all hospitals should invest in modern

rostering sisters Belinda Lexi is part of their first improve the way

they deploy staff. I hope the BMA will continue to participate in

discussions around all these areas. Norris is the session and rejection

the particular concerns of foundation year doctors who often

feel most disconnected in that period of training before they have

chosen a specialty. Again we will continue to make progress in

addressing these concerns and the leadership of health education

England and will continue to invite the BMA to attend those meetings. We

will also continue with a separate process to look at how we can help

the working lives of junior doctors more broadly led by the Minister for

care quality and are very much of the BMA will continue to participate

in that process as well. Nor will we let up in efforts to limit the

gender pay cap so today I will announce I shall commission and

report on how to reduce and eliminate that gap in the medical

profession and I will announce shortly who will be leading that

important piece of work which I will tell initial considerations from in

September. This is not a decision to stop any further docks and I welcome

Doctor Eleanor McCourt to her position as leader of the junior

doctors committee and had constructive conversations with

them. We need to proceed with the new contract tailor-made uncertainty

might ornamental to hire whoever takes over in September. -- my door

remains open to whoever takes over. To me personally and to everyone in

the size as to many others this is a matter of profound regret that time

of so many other challenges the BMA were unable to secure majority

support for the deal the agreed with the government and NHS employers.

But we are aware are. And I believe the course of action outlined at

this statement is the best way to help the NHS move on from this

long-running contractual dispute and focus our efforts on providing the

safest and highest quality care for patients and I commend the statement

to the House. The NHS is only as strong as the morale of its staff.

And the rejection of this contract by the junior doctors sadly reveals

that morale and trust in the government is at rock bottom.

Yesterday to mark the 60th anniversary of the NHS have visited

my local hospital and met some of the wonderful nurses and one of the

main concerns was the abolition of the bursary. They were also

generally worried that NHS staff are no longer valued. The Secretary of

State must accept that his handling of the junior doctor dispute has

exacerbated this feeling amongst all NHS staff and I have sat in this

chamber and have the Secretary of State say that junior doctors are

not read the new contract and don't understand the new contract have

been bamboozled by the leadership. But now that junior doctors have

rejected a renegotiated contract as recommended by the leadership the

Secretary of State must begin to understand that his handling of this

dispute has contributed to this impasse and should be no suggestion

that the junior doctors decision is somehow illegitimate. The turnout on

this ballot was higher than in the general election in 2015. I welcome

the fact that the jet Secretary of State will not let up on eliminating

the gender pay gap and will commission and a pen reporting had

religious and eliminate that pay gap as well as looking at the issue of

shared parental leave. That was a very important concern amongst

Doctor. I also welcome the fact that the imposition of the contract will

be faced. But at this time of general instability I would urge the

government to reconsider imposing this contract at all. It is not help

for the government to treat the junior doctors like the enemy within

and it is not help the morale to imply that at one time the only

barrier to our seven-day NHS is their reluctance to work weekends

when so many of them are already working unsocial hours and

sacrificing family life in the process. I am glad that the

Secretary of State acknowledges today that junior doctors are some

of the hardest working staff in the NHS, working some of the longest and

most unsocial hours including many weekends. But the road to reject the

latest contract is a rejection of the governments past approach. The

Secretary of State will no that the BMA remain opposed to the imposition

of any contract and that they believe that imposing a contract is

not been agreed as inherently unfair and is an indictment of the

Secretary of State 's handling of the situation. The junior doctors

committee meeting today to decide how they will take matters forward.

On the side of the House will forward to hearing the of that

meeting and how we can best continue to support them. Public opinion is

not on the government side. It is evident that the public what have

faith in its doctors long after they have lost faith in this are any

other government. It is not too late to change course. The government

needs to urgently address the recruitment and retention crisis and

scrap this contract and although I appreciate that it has been in

negotiation for many years the government should give talk with the

junior doctors one more chance. If you crush the morale of NHS staff

you crush the efficacy of the NHS itself. The Secretary of State. Can

I welcome her to her place for this first statement that she has

responded to. On the whole welcome and measured tone with one or two

exceptions but let me directly address the point she made. First of

all, she maintained, and indeed her predecessor who is in her place this

afternoon also maintained that somehow it was the governments

handling of this dispute that to blame. I think this was a narrative

that we have a lot in the last year. With the greatest of respect to her,

and I do understand that she is new to the post, it is analysis of that

has been comprehensively disproved ties the late messages that we now

know what it's changed between members of the junior doctors

committee earlier on this year at precisely the time when the official

opposition was saying that the government was being intransigent we

now know that the BMA had no interest in doing a deal in February

at ACAS talks and in their own words they were simply playing the

political game of looking reasonable, that is their words are

not ours. We also know that they wanted to provoke the government and

to imposing a contract as part of a plan to type the Department of

Health in knots for months and contrast the public claims that the

dispute was about patient safety window in their own words the only

real bread line was paid and I think that the benefit of that knowledge

she should be very careful about maintaining that somehow it is a

government that has not wanted to find a solution. We have had over 70

meetings in the last year and we have been trying to get a solution

for over four years. Then the question comes as to whether we

should negotiate or proceed with the introduction of new contracts. Let

me say to her very plainly indirectly that I believed

negotiations would work that is exactly what I would do. The reason

that I do not think they will work is that because it has become clear

that many of the issues that are upsetting junior doctors are in fact

nothing to do with the contract. Let me give your court that was put this

morning by one of the junior doctors leaders, a very fierce opponent of

the government, and she said, I'm no apologist for the government but I

do believe that many of the issues that are exercising junior doctors

are extracontractual and this contract was never intended to solve

every complaint and unhappiness and I'm not sure any single agreement

would have achieved universal accord with the junior doctor body. I think

we have to recognise that in the situation with a biggest opponents

of the government, and away the biggest firebrands in the BMA

support of the steel and were telling the raw members this was a

good deal, this got rid of some of the unfairness is in the current

contract, was better for women, all sorts of things, if the junior

doctors were not prepared to believe even them, that is really no

situation going forward for a rare going to be able to achieve a

consensus and I would also say to her, that if she wants to stand up

and say we should scrap this contract she is saying that we

should not proceed with a deal that reduces the maximum hours of junior

doctors can be asked to work and introduces safeguards to make sure

that blustering is safe that boosts opportunities for women and disabled

woman and doctors with caring responsibilities, at the other was

supported by nearly every single royal college, and of the

alternative from Labour is to do nothing then we will pass on the

opportunity to make real improvements would make a real

difference to the working lives of junior doctors. Finally, I would say

to that in the end both her and I have some of the more challenging

jobs, if I can put it that way, that you can in this chamber. She has

been the size for much longer than I have says she will know that there

just say that the litmus test in all these difficult decisions that we

face is whether or not you do the right thing for patients and indeed

for our owner of vulnerable constituents who desperately need a

seven-day service and that is what this dormant as determined to make

sure happens. I welcome today's statement and would like to thank

the Secretary of State for dealing with many of the extracontractual

issues which are blighted the lives of junior doctors and I join him in

regretting the outcome of the ballot. Like the Secretary of State

I welcome Doctor McCourt to have post another Secretary of State will

work constructively as he set out in order to try to resolve their

standing issues. In moving forward in a car full measured way with the

imposition of the contract could he set out if there are any issues

around patient safety that should arise due process of reduction that

he will deal with them. Thank you and I would like to thank you for

the measured tone she has taken an independent by she has been

throughout this dispute and I did speak to Doctor Eleanor McCourt

earlier this afternoon and I appreciate that she is a very

difficult situation but I would stress to her as I've to the House

this afternoon that my door remains open for talks about absolutely

anything and I'm keen to see of those are waved forward through

dialogue and I have lots of discussions were there when we were

negotiating this agreement in May and know she approached these

positions in a very positive spirit. We are set in place processes, and

that is one of the reasons why Professor Bailey was recommending a

phased in the mentation, so if there are any safety concerns we can

address them as we go along. My honourable friend the Minister for

care quality is leading a process that will keep looking at the issues

of quality-of-life for junior doctors. NHS employers is leading a

process that will look in detail at the way the contract is implemented

the point of these changes is to make care safer for patients and we

will continue to be keep an eye on it and make sure it does.

I 2am disappointed at the outcome of the ballots yesterday, and I think

it has to be recognised that this reflects a real desperation. -- I am

also disappointed. They are dealing with increased demand. They are

dealing with increased pressure. And they have felt at times the tone of

the negotiations has left a lot to be desired. The threat of imposition

was there from the start and they felt that hanging over them. I do

welcome several things in the statement and I absolutely welcomed

the tone of the statement, which I think is measured. I welcome the

attempt to tackle the gender pay gap, to deal with unhappy foundation

is. The biggest concern junior doctors is gaps. In some cases, this

is as high as one in four. Which means you have one doctor covering

the role of two. That is a real patient safety issue which is meant

to be the whole point of this. I do welcome that it will be faced, and I

call on the Secretary of State that as it goes forward he will

absolutely learn. Because their concern is how do you spread a short

working force across more days? I called for it to be phased in a

trial. It's been phased in a different way. But I think we do

need to recognise the pain that this boat represents.

-- this vote represents. I would like to thank her for all of her

constructive comments and her own NHS experience. She is right, we

phasing it carefully to ensure we learned the lessons that we do.

She's absolutely right to talk about rotor gaps. Unfortunately, they are

not something you can solve at the stroke of signing a contract. It is

to do with making sure we have a big enough supply of doctors in the NHS

to fill those rota gaps going forward. We do not have much greater

transparency about appropriate safety levels that we need in

different hospitals. That's one of the lessons we've learned post-mid

Staffs. We are investing more in the NHS. We have recruited more doctors

in the last Parliament and we are increasing our investment in the NHS

even more so we can continue to boost the doctor workforce in the

NHS. In the long run, that is the way we will deal with the rota.

Issue, but it's not something that can be done overnight. May I

congratulate the Secretary of State on taking the only responsible

decision he could take to bring this sad and extraordinarily long episode

to an end. May I also congratulate him on being conciliatory. He made

concessions in May to produce the final contract and now he's phasing

in the contract in an negotiated form. I hope we get back to a

peaceful settlement. Does he agree with me that the surprising fact

that so many dedicated junior doctors were prepared to take

industrial action over rather ill-defined problems with the

contract shows there is a problem of morale in the service must remark

will he also undertake the very welcome steps he's announced today

to try to address these wider issues won't just last for a few months

whilst the dust settles but will be part of a continuous process to

ensure we do restore the morale on which we all know the NHS relies?

As ever, my right honourable friend speaks with great wisdom and

experience on these issues. He is absolutely right to say that

tackling the morale deficit in the NHS has to be a key priority and I

think that's why we have two recognise that for doctors and,

particularly, for junior doctors starting out on the medical careers,

the most depressing and dispiriting thing of all is not able to give the

care they wish to to the patient in front of them. That's why we're

looking at a number of things to make it easier for them to improve

the quality of care. One of the things that is particularly

challenging which we in this house have got to think about and discuss

a lot more is how difficult doctors and nurses find it to speak out if

they see poor care, if they make a mistake, if one of their colleagues

makes a mistake, because they're frightened of litigation. Or they're

frightened of a GMC referable, or of disciplinary action by their Trust.

The problem with that is you then don't go through the learning

processes that are necessary to prevent those mistakes happening

again. The key is creating a supportive environment in hospitals

where learning can really help. If I believed that the benefits for

patients of pushing ahead with this contract outweighed the impact that

its imposition will have an junior doctor morale, recruitment and

retention, then I would stand here and support house secretary. But I

don't believe that. Can he tell the House which clause of which act of

Parliament gives him the power to force hospitals to introduce this

contract? And if he can't tell us that, can he outline the legislative

basis varies for health education England with holding funding to

trusts which might choose not to proceed with it?

Health education England are absolutely clear that they have two

were national training programmes, and that's why they have standard

contracts. As she won those from her previous role on the front bench, in

reality foundation trust have the legal right to set their own terms

and conditions we do currently follow a national contract. That is

their choice. Because they do that, I use the phrase this afternoon

"Introduction of a new contract", which I expect on the basis of

current practice will be adopted throughout the NHS. I enjoyed

working with her when she was Shadow Health Secretary. But she, on this

issue, was quite wrong. Because she saw the Watts that leaks that

revealed that there was no willingness or desire for a

negotiated settlement from the BMA in February at precisely the time

she was standing at the dispatch box and saying that I was the one that

was being intransigent. She gave a running commentary on this dispute

at every stage that when those leaks happened she said absolutely

nothing. I can she should set The Record straight and apologise to

this house for the fact that she got this issue totally wrong.

Can I congratulate my right honourable friend for the patients

he has shown in this matter? It is a good deal. Does he agree with me

that it is indeed important to maintain morale in the health

service. He would be very careful about striking special deals for one

particular part of the workforce and the perception that it might be

unfair. Would you further agree with me that we need to avoid temptation

to address every single grievance that may occur in a particular

workforce, which is really the job of managers locally than the

Secretary of State? My honourable friend speaks from

experience of sensibly on this issue. When we talk about morale,

although in this house of course we think about the actions of

politicians, ministers and so on. For doctors in a hospital, the most

important component of their morale is the way they treated by their

direct line manager 's job I do think that one of the things that

worries me most in the NHS when we look at the staff survey is we still

seem 19% of NHS staff talk about the fact that they'd been bullied in the

last year. That is ridiculously high and we do need to think about why it

is and the BRC, I think, is it is very, very tough on the front line

at the moment. -- the reality, I think. We need to do everything we

can to support doctors and nurses doing a challenging job.

Instead of blaming the BMA, does the Secretary of State acknowledged that

yesterday's result was indicative of the fact that a significant

proportion of medical staff have lost confidence in him? More than

ever, the NHS requires the goodwill of the staff in order to run. I

wonder how he intends to restore confidence?

In my statement, I took the trouble to praise the BMA leaders who at the

outset I did not agree with their tactics. But they did have the

courage to negotiate a deal and try to get their members to accept it. I

respect them for doing that. Part of the problem was in the early stages

of this dispute, I was a lot of misinformation going around. There

were a lot of doctors who thought their salary would be cut by about

one third. That was never on the table and never the intention of the

Government. Many doctors for the would-be asked to be working longer

hours. That was the opposite of what we wanted to do. But created a very

bitter atmosphere. I simply say that in the end, the best way to restore

morale is to support doctors in giving better care for their

patience and that's what the NHS transformation plan is all about.

Around ten years ago, the mishandled introduction of MMC and the medical

training application service started some of the problems for junior

doctors. Can I pay tribute to the BMA, who in the discussions up to

May helped to agree with NHS England employers changes to the proposed

contract which were for the benefit of doctors in chaining. Can I say to

the Secretary of State and, through him to the employers, but they pay

attention to the extracontractual issues that are applicable to

doctors and that the BMA may catch up with the rest of us in trying to

think that rely on them to give a good service to our patients and

that they need to work together with everybody else and we will support

them in doing that. I am prepared to give that assurance

and I thank him for his comments. He's absolutely right. You look at

previous changes. You can even go further back and look at the

introduction of the European working Time directive and the shift system.

Which sensibly reduced some of the crazy hours that junior doctors were

being asked to work. Unfortunately, at the same time, it got rid of the

old firm system which went junior doctors had a sense of comedian

relative, there was a consultant that they knew. -- census, Marjorie.

That was disruptive when we with juiced the shift system and the

maximum hour limits. We do need to think about how we could recreate

some of that sense, which is missing for junior doctors in the first two

years of training before they join a specialty.

With morale amongst junior doctors at rock bottom, and Hull having a

historic problem with recruitment and retention, can the Secretary of

State Tommy what particular initiatives he's going to use to

allow the health service in Hull to have a number of doctors that we

need to function and provide the high quality care that we all want

to see? There is one very good doctor in the

Hull A Department, who has not taken over as leader of the junior

doctors committee. -- who has now taken over. There are particular

pressures that Hull. As you know, we've had management changes. So

far, we have not seen the improvement in Hull that we'd like.

There are problems with the infrastructure and the physical

buildings there. We will continue to work with the NHS locally and the

Trust to improve the situation there. You're absolutely right to

bring it to my attention. Can I join my right honourable

friend in expressing sadness that the decision in the vote. You'll

remember on previous occasions that I've raced with some family friendly

aspects about the lives of junior doctors. Does he agree with me that

it is important to look at the training situation where a couple

can be sent to different towns many miles apart poster mark the roster

ring which can make family lives difficult. And some of the problems

of returners to work or perhaps need their training needs to be properly

considered. Can he will be continuing to look at these issues?

And as the monitoring and phasing goes ahead, hill try and address

them. My right honourable friend is

absolutely right to raise that and I can reassure him that a subsequent

-- that subsequently we have started a big piece of work to look at those

issues. The difficulty is that junior doctors are rotated every six

months. That is particularly disruptive if you have family life,

a partner and one of you is sent to Sheffield and the other is sent to

Bristol or whatever it is. We are looking to see what we can do to

deal with that. The other issue where licking at is the issue of

people who, for family reasons, discover they have a caring

responsibility. -- the other issue we are looking at and they want to

switch specialty to a specialty that perhaps doesn't have quite so many

unsocial hours, and whether it's possible to navigate their training

across from one specialty to another but doesn't affect.

We are congratulating each other on the measured tone in which we

speaking, but the leader of the BMA has said in measured tones that

given the results, both sides must look again at the proposals and

there should be no transition to a new contract until further talks

take place. We'll be Health Secretary commit to further talks in

order to avoid further conflict, and the possibility that if he doesn't,

he may provoke further strike action? If you provoke further

action, the blame will lie fairly and squarely at his open

If I thought this would lead to a consensus of membership I wants is

what I would do given the consensus we are in the mac -- given the

position we are then when people were excepting this steel before and

were still not listen to the still no prospect and I need to take a

difficult decision that I have taken this afternoon. There has been a

negotiation in the Secretary of State has listen to the concerns of

junior doctors who now have a better contract and we have heard today

that will be a phased introduction of it. There degree that junior

doctors now need to move forwards and they should take up the offer to

be involved in work to improve the experience of junior doctors in

training? We know junior doctors do not feel valued. This should feel

violet and the need to play their part in McCain sure that they are

valued. She's absolutely right say that. One of the things that is very

clear to me is that the reason that we did mail is actually better than

the deal we were going to induce in February because of the involvement

of the BMA and the BMA leaders and Ashley telling us what the concerns

were of junior doctors at the coal face and the specific nickels and

annoyances, many of which we were able to sort out very

straightforwardly and so I very strongly hope junior doctors will

remain a normal discussions that we have going forward to try to get

even better solutions. At the start of his statement the Secretary of

State use sophistry to try to call into question the result of the

ballot by inferring that 50% did not provide legitimacy for the rejection

of a government contract offer at the very beginning of his statement.

This is regret using smoke and mirrors and a series agree that of

his flawed methodology was used rather actual processes he would not

be sitting on the size and wouldn't be a Tory government and we would

still be in the EU? I think is completely misinterpreting what I

said and I said in my statement 50% voted against contract and except

that was a majority of BMA members. I'll just hitting the fax that on a

60% turnout that means that around one third of seven junior doctors

actively voted against this contract. That is factually correct.

I would like to thank my right honourable friend for all his

efforts in agreeing a deal that was acceptable for the junior doctors

leaders. They have voted against the law trade union. I like the way for

the Secretary of State is outlined today but will he reassure the House

that patients and will always be his number one priority? I am happy to

give that assurance and think one of the most exciting things in the NHS

despite a lot of the doom and gloom in the headlines is that we're

seeing a transformation in the safety culture we have an NHS and

we're now seeing for example that although we're doing for the half

thousand more operations every day the proportion of patients being

harmed down by about a third in three years serving brothers a lot

more to do do as I'm not no doubt going to hear. I'm quite shocked

that we're hearing it again. Ever look at the history, 90% of the

contract has been renegotiated and there have been years of

negotiations and this contract is far safer for patients and never

mind what the opposition 's benches say, they cannot lay on the

Secretary of State sounds of the decide to take strike action. We

should stop using the patients as pawns and actually put patients

first now. I should like to thank the Secretary of State for his

perseverance in this. And would like to ask my right honourable friend

who's relentless pursuit of partisan politics about the BMA took con and

put patients at rest. Do you agree? Think it is been very disappointing

outpatients have suffered with over 20,000 cancelled operations in this

process. I think she is absolutely right to campaign herself on issues

of hygiene and cleanliness which lead to so many tragedies when not

properly attended to. I hope we can move on and I do believe that

despite the disappointing rejection of the steel on the ballot that has

been some trusts established between the leaders of the BMA and the

government and we have had a very productive dialogue. We have made a

number of changes to the main contract since the announcement,

things they stress that we've agreed to and I would like to continue that

process and up that trust. Having been somewhat of a burden on the NHS

myself over the months due to playing football with the honourable

member for Ellesmere Port, unsuccessfully in December, I spent

an hour on the day of the light strike talking to junior doctors who

treated me and they asked me if I could pass on to the Secretary of

State and the BMA the need and desire for more talks. Can I find

the Secretary of State for showing that flight ability and he does

difficult job very well and has appreciated on these benches. I am

saddened that this contract has not been brokered in the way we thought

it would be in May. Can I asked the sector seek to ensure that those

junior doctors to move on this contract are made well aware how an

popular previous contract has been in the medical profession and that

these terms are well sold to junior doctors are well reassured and these

new terms? I'm more than happy to do that and I'm very happy that the

vast majority of junior doctors fingers attracted that has happened

and are very keen to move on and I hope they take motion says this

afternoon seriously that we will monitor at every stage the

implementation of this new contract and if there are things we can do to

improve data that is what contract that is good for them and for

patients. -- improve that. Which like the ones we've been living

through put other matters in perspective and ensure that secular

state would agree with me it is absolutely right for patients and

for the country that this dispute ends now and I am delighted to hear

that reluctantly he is now going to move to phase in the imposition of

the contract. Witty and usual conservatory manner note on the page

on this dispute and edit completely and build a new relationship with

your doctors and with the new interim head of the BMA 's doctor

committee? I think he speaks very wisely. I would certainly very much

like to do that and it does take two to tangle with several of the side

of the government who want to do everything we can to work with all

leaders are different bodies inside the medical profession. Part of the

reason which he says which is that the country is very preoccupied with

even bigger issues and partly because there is so much pressure on

the NHS front line it is just counter-productive to resource so

much energy on these disputes when actually we can talk around them and

avoid them. I'm very grateful for being asked to speak. As a Secretary

of State got any indication about how many junior doctors actually

read the contract rather than relying on the BMA rumours because

the weather of torture have not read it and one said it was too long. I

would first of all thank and it is last but not least for sure in her

case but I would say many junior doctors are aware of the bones of

the contract and ensure some of the Reddit just as others have but I

think the issue has been that a lot of them have read it and felt it

does not answer every single problem we face today as a junior doctor and

unfortunately that is no contract to consult every single question the

face of the struggle pen and I suspect that is why number of them

have voted to reject it and what is it to them as we have a contract

that is an improvement what we have for with that and try to address the

other issues is best in the quickly as we can. That's like an approval

to what we had before. -- an improvement. I asked the question on

the safety and custody and violence in the prisons following a walk-out

by officers on ones with scraps after assaulting two officers and

health and safety grounds. I was told that the government they would

treat these very seriously but I was told by the prison officers

Association Asian that the problems continue Wormwood Scrubs and BBC

report that there have been five walk-outs recently. I fully

understand why the government would not because Damon today given

pressing other business but what can you do to assist me in getting the

Secretary of State or Minister to come to this House and make a

statement on this issue which is not only very serious but now looks like

it is endemic within our prisons? And surely honourable gentleman is

sure this is not a point of order. I surely will be a business questions

tomorrow when he can as leader of a House for a statement. -- as leader

of the House. Earlier one as my question for Prime Minister I

specifically mentioned the two child policy and the rape laws. I'm sure

the Prime Minister did not mean to lead the sweet -- mislead a House

and his answer but he said the Scottish Parliament would be getting

powers and welfare to cover those issues. That is not the case in the

Scottish Parliament is only getting 15% of welfare powers and the power

to modify the tax credit system was not one of those I wonder if Madam

Deputy Speaker you could help obtain an answer from the Prime Minister. I

thank her for that point of order as is logically speaking a point of

order but she will put the matter on the record and ensure if the premise

was and would like to correct the wreck of the will be way of doing

so. Presentation of Bill, Geraint Davies. Terms of withdrawal from the

EU referendum Bill. Second reading what day? Friday 21st of October

2000 16. We now come to the motion in the name of the Leader of the

Opposition relating to EU nationals in the UK. I call Andy Burnham to

move the motion. I beg to move the motion standing my name and those in

my honourable and Right Honourable friends. This debate directly

affects the lives of millions of people living in this country is let

me start by inviting the House to join me to send a very clear message

to the EU nationals living in the UK that I think right now we need to

hear from this Parliament. You are truly valued members of our society

and you're very welcome here. Letters remember the people affected

are the mothers and fathers, and some uncles, grandmas and grandads

of British children like mine. They are friends and our neighbours,

valued members of local amenities, doctors and nurses who look after us

when we are L, teachers, educating our children, people run companies

who employ thousands of British workers. To throw any doubt over

their right to remain here in the future is to undermine family life,

the stability of our public services, our economy and our

society. Sadly it is what the Home Secretary has done. Instead of

showing leadership and sending out an immediate message of reassurance

in the aftermath of bread is it --Brexit she has added to the

uncertainty many people were feeling and left them feeling like a

bargaining chips at the massive Brussels. -- bargaining chips at the

mercy of Brussels. The Home Secretary has made certain

statements and other members of the government amid other statements and

the desert and sent this is the problem. If there was a clear

statement about the intent to keep the EU nationals here without any

further discussion that would actually help deal with the problems

that we have at the moment. It is that uncertainty that has led to a

lot of problems locally doing local committees which we had about debate

last night. I could not agree more, Madam Deputy Speaker, with the chair

of the home affairs select committee. People have been left

feeling uncertain which will onto later and it has created a hostile

climate on the streets of our committees. This is not what people

are looking for in someone who seeks to lead our nation. It will not be

lost on people that for the second time in three days the Home

Secretary has failed to come to this Saudis to clear up the confusion. I

think we were entitled to hear directly from her having call this

important debate. I will give way to the honourable gentleman to my

honourable friends. Can I join him in pain should be to all those

European nationals who work in Britain and essential Bible jobs,

52,000 of them in the NHS. Is not agree with me that we do need an

orderly settlement as part of this because Asian with the EU? -- and

vital jobs. There are 1.2 million British people out there in the EU

working other parts and they are doing valuable work as well no

doubt. We need an audit settlement and at the moment there is no

current rest to those who are living their idea until the final agreement

is our reach. -- rest. -- rest. --Risk. I thank him for giving way.

In the last week alone I have spoken to an Italian grandmother who has

been here for 46 years and is devastated at the thought she may

have to return to her home country. A Dutch DJ who makes street parties

and thought she may have to return to her home country. A Dutch DJ who

makes street parties in Walthamstow swing to stop a Danish climate

change scientist who is helping tackle the problem faces assault.

And that shatters it is beatable but challenging sculptors were

committed. -- and add a sculptor who makes beatable sculptures. It is a

crime and division which is not orderly and has no place in our

society but these people do and are very welcome here.

My honourable friend makes a very important point. I was reading in

the Guardian about a Dutch Allied health professional who said this.

Since the referendum, I wish I had not come to the UK. After population

does not want me here. I am tearful, if I have the chance, I would leave

now. That is not true, but that is how people have been left to feel. I

will take a couple more interventions.

I am very grateful to the honourable gentleman for bringing forward this

motion and I agree that we need to offer that reassurance. Would he

agree with me that assuming this motion passes today then that is a

great offer of reassurance from this whole parliament, as I get the

distinctive impression it will not be opposed?

I hope the right honourable gentleman is correct. I don't know

what the Government's intention is, but if we were to follow the logic

of what we heard from the Immigration Minister on Monday then

it will be imposing this motion. We will see. I think this house can

tonight remove the uncertainty from the people that my honourable friend

was just describing. It can send them a message tonight that they are

welcome here in our country, and it is precisely what we should do. I

give way. Would you agree with me that talking

about the comments the Home Secretary has made outside the

context of Brexit, it is one of the most extreme statements made by any

politician and it has caused fear not only with my constituents who

are EU nationals but by anybody, by the 46% of my constituents who were

born outside of the UK. Because if they conveyed is about one, they can

say it about another. I hope we have the result that he is asking for

today because this is a very serious matter.

It is an abdication of leadership for the Home Secretary not to be

here to hear what my honourable friend has just that. One can only

speculate that she made these comments in a bid to woo the

grassroots of the Tory party in her current situation. I don't know,

she's not here to contradict me, so I don't know. She could if she

wanted to, but she's not here. I do know that her comments of course a

lot of worry for people, as my honourable friend has said. There

are in danger of making us look to the rest of the world like a very

different country to the one that welcome to the world to London 2012

just four short years ago. A very different Britain to the decent,

open-minded, fair country that we are perceived or have been perceived

to be around the world. I give way. I, too, have 36,000 EU residents

living in the London Borough of Westminster. My postbag has been

flooded with people. It is hard to overstate how disappointed and

worried many of these people are at the message that is being sent out

and the lack of clarity. Can I just asking to reassure one constituent

who wrote to me this week to say that she has lived in her beloved

London for 14 years, educated Heslop, paid for herself, Hatay

taxes and supported local taxes. -- paid her taxes. I am probably not

the immigrant everyone fears, she says, but it does not change the

fact that I am an immigrant and now I worry for my future.

I find it terrible that that is how people in Britain in 2016 thinking

and feeling today as we have this debate. We should do something today

to give her some comfort and to send that message that she is indeed

valued here. I will give way one more time before making some

progress. I would just like to set on record

what I think has been said already that countless times the vote Leave

campaign gave exactly this reassurance to everybody from other

EU countries living and working here. It is very, very disappointing

but they should be called into question. I think it is absolutely

right to issue the strongest possible reassurance to EU nationals

in this country, not just for moral or humanitarian reasons, but for

very, very sound economic reasons as well. Their welcome, they're

necessary, they're a vital part of our society and I will be

passionately supporting this motion. I'm pleased to hear it. Let's not

rerun of the arguments of the referendum campaign today, although

it has given rise to the situation that we are now in. However, to be

fair to the honourable gentleman, he and others didn't argue that people

should be sent back. It was a very clear position that the Leave

campaign held during the referendum that there should be no question of

EU nationals having to return. My worry is why has his front bench

muddied the waters in the aftermath of this referendum? Why aren't they

providing a basic reassurance to millions of people living here? It

was entirely predictable that this question would arise following a

potential Brexit vote. The answer is to why they can't give a straight

answer can be found in last week's civil service world. Let me quote

from it. Downing Street on Monday reiterated that the civil servants

had not done separate contingency work for the wider process of

withdrawal, and think the new team will now lead on. A simple question

for the minister. Why on earth did they not do any contingency planning

so that it was in a position to give a straight answer to the people who

are now worried about their status? Yesterday, the right Honourable

member for West Dorset who was leading that work told the foreign

affairs select committee that the unit set up to deal with Brexit is

still looking at options for the next Prime Minister to consider.

That is not good enough. Can I remind the Conservative Party that

there is still a country to be run here. This will only add to the

feeling that they have abdicated their responsibility to lead the

country in the absence of the referendum and have plunged us into

chaos. I give way. Would you agree with me that this

level of incompetence is just frightening, and is causing genuine

distress amongst residents and our constituents? Also, in certain areas

like construction where 49% of construction workers building new

homes and European, this could lead to real dangers for the economy and

industry as well. My honourable friend puts her point

very well. If it was only people on this side of the House saying it,

the public might think it was partisan or point-scoring. But it's

not, is it? We just heard from somebody as senior as the honourable

member for Oxbridge. Yesterday, the member for Reigate said that the

failure to carry out any contingency planning amounted to gross

negligence and the dereliction of duty on the part of the Prime

Minister. He went on to say that there wasn't a majority in the

Conservative Party in support of the Home Secretary's current position.

We saw that for ourselves during the urgent question earlier this week.

If there was ever a day for Parliament to do the right thing,

surely it is today. I would hope that members opposite put their

conscience first and their constituents first and do the right

thing. While the Government may be awfully

unprepared for the consequences of the referendum outcome, my right

honourable friend will be interested to hear that a number of

non-government organisations and charities already putting in plans

to support worried EU residents, including citizens advice. Do you

join me in encouraging the Minister to meet these charities as quickly

as possible so that at the very least he can have some meaningful

discussions about the need for a security uncertainty that the people

they represent base? Somebody needs to provide some

leadership, don't they? -- the people they represent base. Somebody

needs to be meeting to need two groups. I hope you would listen to

what my honourable friend has said because the sheer lack of any action

at the moment is causing real difficulties on the streets of her

constituency, mine and others. The clearest explanation that we have

had so far... One last time, then I will make progress.

Three and a half thousand Eastern European citizens living in my

constituency and I have a huge amount of the busy for this motion.

But I think the Home Secretary's position is simply that this

requires a degree of consideration before proceeding. What is the

position of my honourable friend in position of my honourable friend in

the Labour Party? Is it to give all of our European citizens

indefinitely to remain tomorrow? To make them British citizens? Surely

this does require a degree of consideration.

Precisely that, that is my position. They came here when they were

perfectly legally entitled to do so. They are contributing to our

society. They, absolutely, should be allowed to stay. I'm amazed that it

is not his position as well. The clearest explanation came from the

Immigration Minister on Monday when he said this. It's been suggested

the Government could now fully guaranteed eg National is the right

to stay, but that would be unwise without a parallel assurance from EU

authorities regarding British nationals living in their countries.

I want to take the House through the logic. And what it means in

practice. Effectively, in the course of negotiations, if Britain was

unable to secure the rights of British nationals living abroad, it

would then consider sending home EU nationals in retaliation. That is

effectively what the Government is saying. To put it another way, the

Government is willing to put the lives of millions of people living

here in limbo, and also their dependents, to secure the position

of people who chosen to make their life elsewhere. How can that be

right? I have to say to the Government, it isn't good enough. We

had an expansion on the Government position elsewhere from a

spokesperson, who said this. At last my's meeting, to was very clear

about the position of EU nationals in Britain and argued it was equally

right to consider the rights of British nationals abroad. -- Theresa

May was very clear. I'm in favour of the Government doing all it can to

secure the rights of UK nationals living in the rest of Europe. But it

should not be at the expense of the families -- of the security of

families living here and paying taxes here. Priority should be

ordered. I would argue that the best way our own government can

strengthen the position of British nationals living would is to make a

decisive unilateral move now to secure the rights of those living

here from other countries. Surely, that would build trust and goodwill

that has been surely lacking in the aftermath of the Brexit vote. There

is no reason at all why this needs to get mixed up in negotiations with

Europe. It was this government's own decision to make these 3 million

people an issue in the negotiations, and it is entirely within the gift

of the UK Government to remove this uncertainty today and commit to

changing the immigration rules. While I understand the Minister's

argument that giving status to anyone who was here before the UK

formally leaves the EU could be an incentive for people to come here,

he can easily fix that by making it clear that those with a right to

stay would have to have been resident in this country before June

at the 23rd, referendum day. Very simple. A national insurance number

would prove it. According to international convention, people

shouldn't have their rights retrospectively eroded. Doesn't it

follow that people who've made a life here when it was perfectly

legal for them to do so should not have the rug pulled from underneath

them? There is another more serious implication of the failure to take

away the uncertainty. It will create the conditions for the climate of

hostility to continue and with it the potential for abuse and

violence. That is not something that any Home Secretary or Home Office

minister should put his or her name to. For the garment's formal

position to be that it might, in due course, ask people to go home, it

can only give encouragement to those who wish to start up division and

hatred. -- for the Government's formal position.

Do you agree with me that it's quite wrong for the Government to use

these people as pawns either in the Brexit negotiation or the leadership

contest? I couldn't agree with the honourable

Lady more. That is exactly how they do feel. Those quotes from people in

the papers saying that is the feeling they been left with. They

can go and work elsewhere, many of the people who work in our NHS or

schools or universities. These are sometimes very highly sought after

individuals. If we don't send a clear message to them, others will.

I'm grateful to him for giving way and I agree entirely with the thrust

of the argument makes. A wonderfully good comment on practical

consideration from this debate? I've many people in my constituency who

are now deciding they would wish to apply for permanent citizenship is

one of the options now available to them but they complain for example,

one of my constituents who has been here and 19 US and the Spanish born

and the senior researcher at the University of Edinburgh, she says

that in trying to fill in the application forms the soul combo

gated and they acquire information because she's been here for two

decades is not available any more and the fees are a bit of a worry.

Would it not be a statement of intent from the stomach that while

they are starting a domestic or at least commit to fast tracking

applications for British attention it from you nationals who made their

lives in this country apart with the fees and provide additional support

units in British offices to help processes? That would be something

and if the minister got up and said that perhaps it would make people

feel a little bit more valued than reveal today and we will have to

wait to see if anything is forthcoming. It is right for the

honourable gentleman to say that to put obstacles in the way and make

them pay fees just increases the sense of alienation from our country

and I do not believe that as anybody on the side of the House and I

suspect people on the other side as well will see it like that. There

continue to be a and the Metropolitan Police have been

receiving three calls an hour about abuse and since the referendum. --

attacks. Yesterday graffiti was sprayed alone health centre in

Torquay EU go home. -- saying EU rats going home. People who voted

leave did not vote for this. I did not vote for their country to become

a less welcoming and more hostile place but in the absence of action

and leadership from the government that is exactly what is beginning to

happen and it is only they can change it and the need to do so

today. -- they need to do so. I wish to end on a personal note. I will

give way. I thank my honourable friend for giving me a second time.

Does he not agree with me that it would immensely help the government

's bargaining position with the other EU countries if the next

British by Minister went to Brussels for the negotiations and said that

they have already granted the right to remain? The position of the 1.3

million British citizens would therefore be secured and it would

help them and not hinder them as the Home Secretary suggest. It is

impossible to deny simple power of what my honourable friend is said, a

generous and open-minded gesture now to see the people are welcome here

would not just improve our position negotiations and strengthen the

position of British national is living abroad but would say

something very important about our country and how it has not changed

after the referendum and that is why they should do it. I want to end on

a personal note, Madam Deputy Speaker. My wife is a Dutch national

and has been here for 26 years since we met at university. In that time

she's been a volunteer working with young people learning disabilities

and being involved in children schools and run the business of

implied people and following the death of a sister a decade ago has

raised thousands and thousands of pounds through race for life for

cancer research. She cried and cried after the Brexit result was

announced and although she has paid taxi for 20 years she has not able

to vote in that role and has not been able to vote in a general

election although she often threatens me she would not vote for

me she had bought. As a result of Brexit she and other foreign

nationals could also lose the right to vote. That old saying no taxation

without representation is not currently applied to the 3 million

EU nationals currently living amongst this. You could say that

this country is already treating them as second-class citizens. They

will be even worse if we do not rectify the situation we are talking

about today. I give way. I thank him for giving away because I can trace

back that alienation he mentions in response to my honourable friend

from Edinburgh used to the point where the House refused to give EU

nationals the boat on this referendum as we are Scotland did

during the independence referendum. Does he not know regret this

decision made by the governing benches? I think this is entirely

wrong, as I say, no taxation without representation. What happened to

that? I can't defend a situation where British nationals have the

boat even if they were living abroad but people living here and paying

taxes you cannot. There is a basic unfairness that that needs to be

corrected and I think we have got this wrong way round and I sincerely

hope the government will act soon to confirm the legal right of those

people be here. But rather than having a drug that grudgingly we

should take this moment to do the opposite and show them how much we

value them and give them that right to have their say at elections. And

also to go further as the IPPR has suggested and I think the honourable

members sing a moment ago Mark of Olympus assistantship for free to

any national working in a national health service are any of our other

public services. I will give way. -- or any other public services. I grew

very much with what he's saying. That is nationals in other countries

at the right to vote while EU nationals living here did not

underline the crass nature of using the EU nationals living here as a

bargaining chip in negotiations. It is despicable and should end. I

could not agree more. As I have been outlining the speech the thrust of

government policies are related to them as second-class citizens

because they do not have the same borders to board as other citizens.

If they are notably left in the lurch for two or three years at

these negotiations carry on how will they be left feeling at the end of

that process Christmas what think of our country and what other countries

come think of us? I do not think any of us on the side of the House one

that to be the case. There are big questions and they attract questions

for another day. For today we are very simple decision to make. We

have an opportunity to do the right thing and take away the Warriors by

constituents and improve the climate on the streets of our communities.

It is no secret that I have a high regard for the Home Secretary even

going so hot the mac -- far as giving a backhanded Doris went on

Twitter the weekend was that she has shown leadership and I urge her to

do it again tonight to give her MPs adjustable to take the uncertainty

away and return a degree of stability to an uncertain and what

is country. By passing the motion before as we can send a simple

message to those who have chosen to make their life here. We'll value

you and you are welcome here. I give way. I wonder whether my honourable

friend might be right also and invites the Secretary of State for

Health to provide a statement of support for those EU citizens who

are working in the health service and are at this moment receiving

abuse from patients with whom they are working on the grounds that

should not be working on the health service and they should be going on?

Could you please invite the Health Secretary to undertake a very strong

statement of support for all those EU citizens who are working in our

health service and should have the right to stay the first long as

there are services can be of good to this country? It is a crucially

important point and I have the comment from a German GP who says I

have lived and worked here for 16 years and it feels as a 50% of the

population the UK does not want me here any more and feel as if a rug

has been pulled out from my feet. If they felt no choice but to leave

because they did not feel welcome what would happen to our health

service? What would happen to the time that people are waiting for GP

appointments? What would happen to the pressure on a and E and the

pressure on hospital waiting list? Our NHS is utterly dependent on EU

nationals come to work here and if they were to leave that would put

the NHS and very severe risk and that is why this should act tonight.

It is right for our public services and that is right for those

individuals and their families and it is also right for us as a country

to take this function action tonight. We can send this message

out to load. People have expressed frustrations about the EU but our

country and as people have not changed. We're still that same place

that has been renowned world over for doing a fair and right thing and

doing the decent thing and it is admitted all the chaos in our

politics let's take a step back today towards sanity and pass this

emotion overwhelmingly. James broken shower. --Brokenshire. The party

opposite has called for a statement. I would echo some of the words from

the Right honourable gentleman. In underlining the EU nationals in this

country are truly valued members of our community and are welcome here.

I think those were the words that he used and those are words that our

sheer and wish to make at the outset of this debate. As today's motion

makes clear that are approximately 3 million European Union nationals

currently living in Britain. There can be no doubt that in this country

EU nationals make an unviable contribution to our economy, our

society and our daily lives. I would like to make some progress but I

will give way and interventions. Up and the United Kingdom people from

the European Union member states are caring for the elderly, then into

the second hospitals are teaching our children, volunteering for our

charities and setting up working in businesses and providing important

local services. There are nearly 250,000 EU workers in the public

server to -- sector. In September 2050 9.4% of NHS doctors and 6.3% of

NHS nurses in England were from an EU country and there are almost

125,000 EU students studying at UK universities. But more than this,

everybody in this House and people up and down the country will hold EU

nationals dear as friends, family members and members of their

communities. So we can all recognise the contribution made to this

country by EU nationals and they should be proud of the contribution

they make to. I spot for choice, I give way. Over 4000 of these EU

nationals live in my Banff and Buchan constituency and are doing

essential jobs in our NHS and skills but also working in the private

sector playing a critical role in our fish processing centres. The

failure of the government and providing assurance for the future

of these EU nationals is not just causing distress but also economic

uncertainties will the Minister guarantee that people already living

and working here will have the right to stay? I will come on to respond

to the point she makes but I certainly do recognise the

contribution so many EU citizens to make to be so many different aspects

of our lives and the economy and the example is she is provided like the

fishing industry in Scotland. I give way. As another case that both the

government and the opposition and minority parties have a

responsibility at this time to make sure that what we see and how we see

it, particularly to those listening to this debate and putting on it, it

is absolutely vital and can I welcome the fact that the mess of

state is said that anybody needs to return home and is recognised

contribution of new systems to both private and public sectors and I for

one can say they are very welcome and structure. My honourable friend

is absolute right. -- citizens. I will come on to come on to make more

points in relation to the poster government is taking this up I will

give way to the honourable gentleman. He will know that there

has been a huge increase in hate crimes not just against EU nationals

but against other foreign nationals as well in the UK. Mainly as a

result of those extreme views on the excesses of the political margins

becoming regretfully more mainstream as a result of the fallout from the

23rd of June. Is the right thing to do not courses for once and for all

to be we will put EU nationality issue to bed by seeing these people

are welcome in an open and fair United Kingdom?

Well, I will go on to talk about some of the issues in our

communities. At this stage I want to give a very unequivocal message

against those who perpetrate hate and division in our communities and

in our societies. It is unacceptable that people should seek to cause

division, to bully, to harass, to put graffiti on people's walls as a

consequence simply of their nationality. It is why the police

have taken firm action, it does not represent the country I believe in,

and the Government will continue to take firm action against anybody who

has been involved in that sort of activity. I thank him for giving

way. In the week before the referendum vote, I spent time at 25

schools, and it was heartbreaking to hear the children talking in terms

of where my mum or dad have to go back. I never wanted this to occur

in any event, and I take it a little salty for people on the other side

of the camp you now proclaim the right to this. Can I asked him if he

will refer reaffirm the position and say there will be no immediate

changes of circumstances, nobody should be fearful right now? My

honourable friend is right. There are no changes in relation to the

current situation, we remain a member state of the EU, and

therefore there is remain whilst we remain a member of the EU. Perhaps

it would be helpful to the House if I could just respond very directly

to I think the false claims that this Government in some ways sees EU

citizens as bargaining chips. I will say this - in the approach the

Government Tate and the agreements we make, we will never treat EU

citizens as pawns in some kind of cynical game of negotiation chest.

That does not represent the values of this country or the values of

this Government in treating people who come to this country with

dignity and respect. I give way. Would he just apologise that the

Government has been woefully and inadequately underprepared on this

vital issue? What I would say to the honourable lady is that this

Government is taking these issues into very, very careful

consideration. I will come on to explain some of the challengers,

intricacies, and complexities that lie behind all of this. If I may

just make a bit more progress, I will be very generous with the

interventions, as I always am, we will look to secure a fair deal with

EU citizens as we secure a fair deal for British citizens within the EU.

That is a responsible approach and what we will do. We want to be able

to guarantee the legal status of EU nationals who are living in the UK,

and I am confident that we will be able to do just that. And we must

also win the same rights for British nationals living in European

countries, and it will be an early objective for the Government to

achieve those things together. As the Prime Minister and the Home

Secretary have made clear, and as I also stated on Monday, there will in

any event be no immediate changes in the circumstances of the European

nationals in the UK, and currently they can continue to enter and live

in the UK as they have been doing. I give way to the right honourable

gentleman. I am struggling to follow the logic of the Minister's

position. He made a very angry statement a minute ago that they

were not pawns, but he is saying explicitly that there is a

negotiation here and they are not going to make commitments until they

have got commitments over there. That is decidedly what they are. Why

is he linking the two Mac issues? Why does he not say to people

living, working and paying taxes here that they are welcome to stay

and deliver over the British rational is issue another day? As I

said in response to the urgent question earlier this week, it is

important that we look at the issues together. It is important that we

look at these matters in this way. As I have said, I am confident that

we will be able to work to Izaguirre guarantee the legal status of EU

nationals living here, in conjunction with the rights of

British citizens -- working to secure. It is important that the

Government actually does fights fight for the rights of British

citizens as well. I am genuinely surprised that the right honourable

gentleman is in some way questioning that. It is notable that in his

motion he does not make any reference to that at all. I should

also tell the House, and I would like to make this point, because I

think it is important to get this on record, it is important to tell the

House that those who are being continually, you lawfully resident

in the UK for five years qualify for permanent residency. I think that is

an important point to make for some of those people who have raised

points about their constituents or their family members who have been

in this country for a long time, that those rights already exist, and

therefore they should have no fear in that way. There is no current

requirement for them to apply for documentation from Home Office to

acquire the status. I will give way to my honourable friend. I am

grateful to him, and for the efforts that he is clearly making to fight

for the interests of both UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens

in the UK. I asked the Prime Minister earlier a question about

investment in this country, two of the largest inward investors in my

constituency have asked me to push for the strongest possible

negotiation on behalf of EU citizens already in this country being able

to say, many of whom alongside thousands of local people are there

employees in more stuff. I am grateful to the assurances he is

given, but -- they're in for use in Winchester. I ask for that to be a

priority. I can certainly give him precisely that reassurance. The

Government fully appreciates the importance of giving surgeons

certainty EU citizens -- giving certainty. Addressing this issue is

a priority that we intend to deal with as soon as possible. If I may

just finish this point, as the prime that has made clear, decisions on

issues relating to the UK's exit to the EU will need to be made by the

new Prime Minister. I'm grateful to my honourable friend. I think this

is the problem. He is going to need to give reassurance to EU citizens

in the United Kingdom long before the moment we leave the European

Union. And the problem about linking the problem of British citizens in

the EU is that it is very unlikely to be a deal last leaving the EU

until we actually leave the EU. Getting certainty about British

citizens cannot be linked to the positions of EU citizens. It is

wrong in principle, and we would be much better off securing their

position by making a generous statement now. I understand there

are legal implications of EU citizens coming to the UK from now,

perhaps that is the issue that we should be focusing on, understanding

those difficulties. It is the link with British citizens that is

causing all these problems. I think it is important that this government

does stand up for the rights of British citizens overseas. I am

surprised if in some way my honourable friend is questioning

that, it is the responsibility of Government to fight for the rights

of purchaser to them. As I have indicated, -- the rights of British

citizens. This will be a matter for the new Prime Minister. But this

will be an urgent priority, for all of the reasons the members have

said. I give way to the honourable lady. Thank you, Minister, for

giving way. You have been very generous with letting people

intervene. My constituent Mrs Pearson is a Maltese national who

has lived in the UK for 42 years. She has bowled her life in Scotland

and has contributed not only economic league but socially and

culturally. Does the Minister not agree with me that it is absolutely

absurd that my 78 old constituent is having to live in worried when the

Government can sort this out now. Will she have indefinitely to

remain? I hope that the honourable lady did note what I said earlier on

about those who have been here lawfully than five years having that

right of permanent residence. That was why I was very careful and firm

in making that point, because I think that there has been, there

have been people who have raised concerns in this way, well, as I did

in response to the urgent question, I wanted to make that point quite

specific and clear to give precisely that sort of reassurance that her

constituent I think needs, and I hope in saying what I have said that

does give that reassurance. I give way. He referred to European

students in his statement, a concern that I share, I think this is an

area of priority, I hope that we will be able to give students

reassurance that they can continue their degree courses. The Department

for business have been actively involved in precisely this issue in

giving reassurance to students who are about to embark on studies in

relation to this, and this was a point that I was intending to come

onto later on in my contribution. Of course I will give way, I will

always be generous to her. Thank you, Minister, for giving way. Does

he accept that there is a cruel irony in what he is saying today, in

that many of those who fought for Britain to vote to leave the

European Union did so on the principle that we would maintain

sovereignty over our own decision-making, but when we as a

House today could vote unconditionally to give the EU

citizens that are currently in the UK security about their status, he

is choosing to provide an link the decisions to the EU. If this House

votes for this motion, is that an unequivocal statement, the

sovereignty of the UK Parliament, and giving these people the safety

they deserve? I do say to her and reiterate that we will act fairly in

relation to the steps that we take, and it is important for us to do

this with a core micro head in a calm way to get the best outcomes

for EU citizens that are here -- in a court heard. As well as for

British citizens overseas. -- in a cool head. There are further

considerations which must be taken into account. As I said on Monday,

it has been suggested by members of this House and others beyond that

the Government could fully guarantee EU nationals the right to stay now.

But where would the right honourable gentleman draw the line? He has

suggested the 23rd of June, but what about the 24th of June, what about

EU nationals who arrived later than we, or those who arrive in the

autumn to study at our world-class universities, or should we draw the

line in the future for example, at the point at which Article 50

invoked? Alongside work to protect the rights of EU nationals in the

UK, it is the Goverment's duty to protect the rights of those UK

nationals currently residing in countries across the EU, just as EU

nationals are making a tremendous contribution to life, so, too, UK

nationals have contributed to the economies and societies of the

countries belonging to the EU. I give way once again. Surely the 23rd

of June was the moment the position changed. Therefore anybody who came

in before that date came in under a different situation. And you can

easily trace everything to that date. On this linkage with British

nationals, the Government has a responsibility to people who are

living here today who are worried about their future, who are feeling

insecure. Why is he saying that people who have chosen voluntarily

to make a life in another country are as important if not more

important to the Government than those already here in our

communities? Do I therefore understand that in some way the

right honourable gentleman is saying that we should not be standing up

for British citizens? They are British citizens, wherever they may

be in the world, and it is important that we ensure that there are

appropriate protections for British citizens, whether in off in the EU,

and also in relation to EU citizens who are here. So that I think is

important. Just to come back in quality to his point in relation to

the timing issue on the 23rd of June. I-mate the point that I did

about the 24th of June. We remain a member state, and we are subject to

all of the EU laws and requirements in that regard. What I savoury

firmly is that drawing cut-off dates is not as straightforward as he is

suggesting because of the continuing rights that would exist in relation

to EU citizens who have arrived since the referendum result in

ensuring that this issue is properly addressed. Of course I give way to

the right honourable lady. I thank him for giving way. He is right to

say that we should be concerned about the interests of British

expats. Perhaps he could tell the House whether he has been in touch

with the Spanish Interior Minister or other ministers across the EU, or

whether this is simply words and they

delaying strategy? And if he has been in touch with any of them, can

he tell us whether any of those other government want to play a

trading game about people's lives and other citizens? I don't believe

they do. If they don't, why can't he just get on with this, listen to all

the people on all sides of the House and just give some guarantees now to

the EU citizens who are subtle peer? -- who are settled here.

All we want to be able to give certainty at the earliest possible

opportunity but it is not as straightforward as he suggests for

the points I have already raised. There are conversations taking place

at different levels of Government with other member states as well and

clearly we want to see this certainty is provided for British

citizens in EU states as well as EU citizens here and that is why I make

the point about this being a priority. We should not pretend this

is a straightforward task. There are a range of practical, financial and

legal considerations. As part of this the Government will have to

consider the range of circumstances and the forms of protections. For

example, an EU student might have differing requirements to an EU

students just graduated from university rather than one just

embarking on a higher education course. Under free movement of all

EU citizens rights are far broader than just the right to reside in the

UK. There are employment rights, benefits and pensions, rights of

access to public services, rights to run a business which is closely

aligned to the Mac aligned with the ability to provide as the ability to

be joined by family members, in some cases are from countries outside the

EU. Under current arrangements this extends to EAA and Swiss nationals.

We must remember you do not have to register with the EU authorities to

enjoy basic rights to reside so we must work out how we identify the

people fairly and properly who defected.

It is possible to make life exceedingly difficult and that is

what the Immigration Minister is trying to do. Good he listen to what

the member for lady said which is straightforward, EU citizens rights

to residency from the 23rd of June, we acknowledge those rights.

I hear that desire for that simplicity but it is not as

straightforward as I think the honourable lady would like to

present and perhaps she might reflect on some of the themes I have

highlighted. It is important we get this right, not just for now but for

the years to come and that is why it is about getting the right deal, the

Fed deal for those here and that is what we remain committed to do. That

might be fearless to deal. There will be detailed and painstaking

work examining each of these rights and the circumstances people find

themselves in to make sure there are no unforeseen or unintended

consequences. The unit will work in close consultation with all

Government departments and it is important for the house today to

underline to EU nationals we do continue that will, for them here in

the UK. Alongside the statements made by the Prime Minister stating

that will be no immediate changes the circumstances of EU nationals,

the Department for business, innovation and skills has published

guidance for EU students to provide additional and the assurance that

those who are about to embark upon a course and I hope that is helpful to

my honourable friend and the point he has highlighted. I give way.

As if the London MP and show my right honourable friend has had many

letters from EU migrants working hard in this country but also from

former residents who live abroad. Does he agree that whole issue of EU

migrants living here and Brits living abroad should be separated

from the main negotiations and dealt with first and as a priority,

between heads of state, now. We all have an interest in preserving the

status of EU Brits though it might migrants here and Brits abroad. As

indicated in other interventions this is a priority for the

Government and we recognise the issues that have been highlighted by

colleagues across the house. That is why this is an issue that is being

given that emphasis and priority within Government for the reasons he

has highlighted today. It is important we do, despite those

across the house of whom sought, I think unfairly, to try to sort out

and create uncertainty, that there is... There is a message of the

assurance that we should take from the contributions that have been

made and the statements we give with the intent of resolving these issues

quickly. In recent days, I will make this one point and then give way to

the honourable gentleman. In recent days we have seen some appalling

hate crimes perpetrated against EU nationals and others in the UK.

These included damage to a Polish community centre in Hammersmith,

hateful leaflets being targeted at children in Cambridgeshire. As well

as abuse hurled at people walking in the streets. The Metropolitan Police

said 67 hit crimes are being reported every day to them. Hit

crime of any kind has no place in our society. -- hate crime. We will

not stand for that and they should be investigated. I will give way to

the honourable gentleman. He mentions the pack in Hammersmith

which has been extremely sobering. But we are waiting to hear whether

he will support the motion for the honourable gentleman from Oxbridge

tonight. It sounds like you once and he is under instructions not to

which makes it doubly bad that his boss is not here. I spoke to one of

my constituents in the education centre and many of their parents are

born outside of the UK and I saw your concern on their faces. That is

what we are living with and that is why it would need an answer to this

question today and not in two years' time.

As I indicated, this is a clear priority in relation to the

agreements with our EU partners and it is absolutely rights we condemn

the activities of anyone selling those sorts of incidents within the

honourable gentleman constituency -- sowing those sorts of incidents. I

believe we will be successful in securing those rights and the fair

way that we will seek to treat those EU national who are here. Hate crime

of any kind is the big Mac has no place in our society and we will not

stand for this tax and they will be dealt with firmly. I am grateful to

the Minister for different way. He highlighted the issues of hate crime

and the responsibility of us all to look after the citizens here. I say

to the Minister, when you come and meet the constituents we are. I had

a young French teacher in my constituency in fear and alarm as to

whether she can stay here long term. Why cannot we do the right thing

today and say those people who are here are citizens of our country and

deserve the full rights and support. This is nothing to do what

negotiation with Europe. Take that of the table and do the right thing

for those in this country. And that is why, as I have said on a

number of occasions during this debate, why we are working and will

work to guarantee the rights of those here, in conjunction with

protecting the rights of British citizens as well. I do remain

confident we will be able to do that and it is therefore that message of

the assurance that people should take from this in terms of the

intent of this Government is acting fairly and appropriately. Those are

the values I stand for and that is the approach we will take and the

approach we are seeking to achieve in relation to this. I give way to

my honourable friend. Can overcome the reassurances the

Minister has given to the house. It appears there is some sort of

misunderstanding about the status of EU nationals in the minds of some

Members of Parliament. If that is the case here that it is more likely

to be the case outside or as likely and I just wondered, on a practical

step, as the Home Office put something on the website to state

what their status as both now and in the future?

I can say to my honourable friend we are clear as to the existing rights

of EU citizens, as I made the points. I am also convening a

meeting with ambassadors of EU member states to explain the steps

we are taking an response to threats and communities and also to

undermine some of the key messages I have been living here today --

underlying. So they can get only assurance to their citizens and

their contacted in this way. The honourable gentleman wanted to -- I

will give way. I just want to clear one thing up before this exchange

conference. That is how the Government is proposing to vote on

this motion tonight because he has not mention that, although to listen

to him you would get the impression they are getting ready to vote

against it. I get the sense that maybe a suggestion the Government

might abstain. Can we be clear, if the Government abstained on this

notion it will be there be carried by this house and that should be the

message that goes out tonight that people are welcome here and will be

able to see you. -- be able to stay here.

Perhaps the honourable gentleman will follow this as I clarify it. EU

nationals can have powerful and reserve the to enter, work, study

and live in the UK remains unchanged. We value the tremendous

contribution they make every day in towns, cities and villages across

the country and we fully expect the legal status of EU nationals living

in the UK and that of UK nationals in EU member states will be properly

protected, given both the UK and the EU wants to maintain a close

relationship, we are confident we will work together and both EU and

British citizens will be protected through a reciprocal arrangements.

As part of the negotiations we want to be able to conclude these matters

as quickly as possible and therefore with those themes contained within

the right honourable gentlemen motion, we have great sympathy and

alignment with him. I do not think we are that far apart. Any decision

to pre-empt future negotiations with risk undermining our ability to

Nichols arrangements and put at risk EU and British nationals alike. That

is why, while I recognise a number of the points made in the right

honourable gentlemen's motion, we are unable to support his motion

tonight order. He has finished his speech. Can I

give advance notice there will be a six minute limit on backbench