11/07/2016 House of Commons

centres is integrating the local services. Urgent question, Helen

Goodman. I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

if he would make a statement on whether or not the government will

seek Parliamentary approval before triggering Article 50? The question

of how to invoke Parliamentary discussion around triggering Article

50 has two distinct assets, one legal and the other Democratic. To

take the legal consideration first, everyone will be aware how about the

debate about whether Article 50 can be done through the royal

prerogative which is not legally parliamentary improvement approval,

or if it would need a Parliamentary approval. I believe the lawyers to

that highly paid dispute. The court case is already underway on this

issue, so the judges may reach a different view, but I would remark

that the government lawyers believe it is a royal prerogative issue. I

hope everyone here will agree that democratic principles should I drank

legal formalities. The Prime Minister has already said that

Parliament will have a role and it is right that a decision as momento

says this should be fully discussed in parliament. The precise format

and timing of those debates and discussions will need to be agreed

through the usual channels. I can't offer any more details today because

the discussion simply haven't happened yet. I will venture a

modest prediction that I strongly doubt they will be confined to a

single debate or a single occasion. There will be many important issues

about the timing and substance of different facets of the negotiations

that the government, the opposition and the back fence business

committee and maybe even you, Mr Speaker, will feel it is important

to discuss. The details of which topics on what dates and the

specific wording of the motions, we will have to wait and see. I thank

the Minister for that reply. If the Royal prerogative is used to trigger

Article 50, would this not be a clear breach of the promises made to

the public during the referendum campaign by the Brexiters that they

would take back control and restore Parliamentary sovereignty? Hike

could it be right to mitigate negotiations with important and

far-reaching significance for citizenship rights, immigration

rules, employment and social rights, agriculture, trading relations with

the EU, Scotland and Northern Ireland without seeking Parliament's

approach to the aims, objectives and red lines? The issues at stake are

the culmination of 40 years of legislation. Isn't epic strawberries

to suggest that changes to these do not come back to the house?

Trade-offs are extremely important to everyone living in the UK. Surely

he is not suggesting they should be decided in Whitehall behind closed

doors while Parliament is presented with a done deal? Isn't the

Minister's inability to say hi Brexit will be negotiated a clear

indication of the government's failure to do any contingency

planning? Why is the Chancellor of the Duchy wasting taxpayer money on

fighting a court case to keep the government's approached the Brexit

secret? We know he can say today what the red lines will be, but why

can't he at least be clear that Parliament's approval will be sought

before the negotiations begin? When will he be able to say what the

process will be? He says these are matters for a new government. Has

the right honourable member for Maidenhead been consulted anchored

the Minister tell the house when will we have a new government?

A considerable burden has been placed by the honourable lady on

Minister Penrose's shoulders. It would be good if we could hear his

response. Firstly, I would gently say to the honourable lady that it

is his difficult to argue that the government's approach to be said to

be secret if it is in court, as it will be out in public. These issues

will be revealed as we go forward with the new Prime Minister. The

point on which I hope I can reassure her about is that my right

honourable friend for Maidenhead has been very clear in saying that

Brexit means Brexit. What that means is that the destination to which we

are travelling is not in doubt. The means and how we get the will have

to be explained, but I think it is only fair to wait until she is Prime

Minister and has a chance to layout programme and the process, and

therefore when Parliament will have a chance to discuss and debate these

issues. At that point I am sure all will be revealed. Isn't the way to

take back control and seek Parliamentary approval to proceed

quickly to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act whilst transferrin

all European law relevant to the single market into British law, but

at the same time protecting our borders and keeping our

contributions? That is what we voted for. Will the new government deliver

that promptly? As I just said, the important thing to reassure my right

honourable friend about is the representative for Maidenhead means

that -- has said the Brexit means Brexit. The destination is not in

doubt. The question of how we get there and hope to run the

negotiations and the timings of what gets addressed when, I hope we can

allow our new Prime Minister time to sort that out. The outcome of the EU

referendum represented the most momentous constitutional change our

country has faced in the post-war era. Night is the time to take the

considered view on the future of the negotiations for the new government

to layout the timetable, including when they anticipate Article 50 will

be triggered. Article 50 should not be triggered until there is a clear

plan in place about what the UK will be negotiating for and how that is

going to be achieved. The government has already indicated it will

consult the devolved administration and the Mayor of London and it must

do the same with Her Majesty's official opposition. This is the

only way they can develop a consensus on what the negotiating

plan should be and that should be put to a vote on the size. The

priority must be team undertaking the most substantial set of

negotiations and are perhaps in modern history are fully equipped,

resourced and fully prepared to extract the best deal possible for

Britain. A trade agreements and I need to be really negotiated but it

is suggested that only 20 people across the whole of Whitehall have

the requisite experience to negotiate. We have deep concerns

that the Autumn Statement which outlined drastic cuts for Whitehall

long before Brexit materialised as a realistic possibility is no longer

fit for purpose. That is why labour are saying to this government while

discussions about article 50 are vital clearly what comes next

matters even more. It'd be an abdication of responsibility for

negotiating team do not have the resources they need and are forced

to spend vital time implementing brutal budget cuts at home when they

should be battling for Britain abroad. Let's properly resourced and

Civil Service and come up with a consensus for the way ahead for

Britain. I am pleased to hear her say that there is an opportunity

here for cross-party consensus. It is important that those we are

negotiating with no that Britain is speaking with one voice. I welcome

her comments on that. I would agree with that it is important that we

have a clear timetable as soon as our new Prime Minister is in place

only because that the details of the timetable have to be geared to

maximise our negotiation leveraged. That the new world we are gone but

the question is how do we get there and the order in which issues are

addressed and the timing of those has to be planned at incredibly

carefully to make sure we get the best deal possible. I would also

agree with her on this point of devolved government. We need to make

sure that they are involved as well so it is not merely a question of

consensus, cross-party consensus in Westminster, but consensus right the

way across the UK. The Prime Minister urged originally said that

he would trigger Article 50 immediately so I presume he felt he

had the full legal authority to do so. Those who want to have a vote

before Article 50 is triggered are not concerned with Parliamentary

sophistry, it is a clear temp two thwart the Democratic will of the

British people. They must be completely resisted by any real

Democrats. The referendum was not a consultation with the British people

it was an instruction from the British people that we have a duty

to obey. I would strongly agree with my right honourable friend and

Parliamentary neighbour that the question here is not the legal

power, which has the Prime Minister has previously said is available,

the question is what is politically and democratically right to reflect

the decision that was made in the referendum. While the Prime Minister

is sensibly saying that the timing and the method of triggering article

50 needs to be a decision taken by his successor, I think also that his

successor is very clear and also write to say that the British people

have spoken and that Brexit means Brexit. We are grateful to the

Minister for confirming that this will be done through royal

prerogative. Perhaps that is the way that we can determine the leadership

of the Labour Party. The exiting Prime Minister said that the

Scottish parliament will be fully consulted on any Brexit proposal.

Can you confirm that before any process has started an article 50

that the Scottish Government will give their consent before you move

forward? Scotland did not vote for this Tory inspired Brexit and it is

the Scottish people before us are sovereign. We are yet to hear any

minister say that they respect the Scottish result. This government

might we charged with taking the UK out of the EU but these ventures are

charged with ensuring that Scottish people always get what they voted

for, too. I am delighted to confirm that the Scottish Government will be

involved. I believe there are ready some early discussions under way. I

hope and expect that those will continue as they will with the other

devolved governments around the UK. I would gently remind the honourable

gentleman that this is a commitment to consult, but it is not the same

thing as an outright consent because as his own party has accepted

recently, this is an issue which is not a devolved issue, it is

something that is to be dealt with by this parliament and the UK as a

whole and is something which is therefore a decision that we have

taken as a country collectively. We are not seeking consensus as a term

but would be seeking consensus... It will almost certainly not be

forthcoming from the Scottish National benches. But he confirmed

that there is no escape by doing this via Article 50? Whatever other

Parliamentary processes that come behind that, it is a treaty

obligations that we have to meet three invoking article 50 which is

the instruction of the British people. Will he insure that is put

in place as soon as we have negotiating hand in place? I would

agree with my honourable friend and both of those points, that consensus

is always desirable and should be sought wherever possible and that

also article 50 and that route is to way of achieving Brexit. He is right

to point out that it is only the tip of a much larger iceberg. There are

a series of other things that have to wrap around that. I suspect we

will hear more of them in due course. Is it not the case that

referendums are advisory and that this Parliament is sovereign! Isn't

it a constitutional outrage and the supreme irony that those people over

there who base their argument for Brexit on Parliamentary sovereignty

now want to deny this House vote and have suggested an unelected Prime

Minister, unelected with no mandate, agrees to such a fundamental

decision for this country. It is a disgrace and they must not be

allowed to get away with that. Mr Speaker, with the greatest

possible respect to the honourable gentleman, who has the experience,

he might be right on legalities but democratically he is fundamentally

wrong. We have had a referendum, the people have spoken and it would be

unconscionable, impossible for us collect EUly for us to thumb our

noses at the British people and ignore the result of that democratic

verdict. Thank you Mr Speaker, can I point out that it would be extremely

odd for the first time in this Parliament's history to instructions

from the administrative court. Can I point out that were legislative

consent realised, we passed the EU referendums Act which established

the referendum and put the question before the British people? Well, Mr

Speaker, I will endeavour to tread carefully, as there are cases either

in train or planned. But I think that the fundamental political and

democratic point must be this, which is that the people have spoken.

Whichever side of the argument either members of this House or out

in the rest of the country were on, it is up to all of us to unite as a

country and make sure we respect the democratic decision and the

democratic will clearly expressed. The Minister is an honest man and

therefore when he says Brexit means Brexit he knows there are as many

versions of Brexit as there are members on his benches here today.

He needs to reaffirm parliamentary sovereignty and ensure that

Parliament can vote on the Government's negotiating stance. For

instance on the vexed and dangerous question of what happens at the

Irish border. Mr Speaker, as I said in my opening response to the

question, I'm sure that there will be many opportunities and many

different occasions when this chamber will want to discuss and

debate all sorts of different issues, including the one he just

mentioned. This negotiation will be an ongoing process, and therefore he

is right that there'll be many opportunities where specific issues

will become salient, where people in this chamber will have strong views,

people in devolved Governments will have strong views. These views will

be aired in that process. Would my right honourable friend agree there

is just the slightest chance that over the next few weeks we may be

capable of generating more heat than light on this subject? It isn't the

House of Commons, it isn't Parliament that will will be

negotiated with the European Union, but the Government would he ask our

recover the Chancellor of the Duchy to ensure that whilst Parliament

should be kept informed and while it may express its view, it will be for

the Prime Minister to carry out these negotiations once article 50

is triggered. Parliament should Nottingham per the negotiating

stance... Nottingham person. I think somebody wanted their lunch!

LAUGHTER Should not constrain the negotiating tactics of any

Government Minister. I think my right honourable friend gets the

parliamentary award for optimism, saying there is only the slightest

chance we might generate more heat than light over the next few weeks.

This is something Ministers need to take forward. I'm certain that the

Government and the opposition and the Backbench Business Committee and

others will take many different opportunities to make sure that

Parliament's views are forcefully expressed and the issues are debated

as we go. Thank you Mr Speaker, the Minister will know that the

triggering of article 50 will have profound consequences for the 3

million EU citizens who are currently living within the United

Kingdom. Has the Minister for Europe, who is sitting next to him

on the Treasury bench, had any representations from other EU

countries about the position of their nationalings here? And, if

not, will we be able to have clarity as to whether or not they have the

right to remain? At the moment Ministers are saying different

things, with regard to these rights. We need the certainty before any

triggering of article 50. Mr Speaker, the point of course is that

there will be ongoing discussions about this and many other issues.

The question about when those discussions might bear fruit, and

there were concerns about informal negotiation being appropriate,

that's something that will have to be resolved. As this stage I have to

give the reply that we need to make sure we have a programme to be laid

out by the Prime Minister as soon as she is in place. At that point I

hope she will give more detail and clarity on that point, along with

many others. Thank you flock. In terms of the doctrine of the

sovereignty of Parliament, isn't it true that it is a sovereignty

delegated by the British people, not given to us by twine right. It is

absurd to think of the sovereignty being of divine right and of Kings.

But the details of that mandate will no doubt be implemented by

legislation. Mr Speaker, I will defer to my honourable friend and

parliamentary neighbour on the details of the legalities of whether

the some of renty begins and ends and where it is delegated from and

to. The fundamental point is clear from his remarks and I hope mine

earlier, that people have spoken. There's a democratic decision which

we are now honour bound to deliver, and we should not try and resile

from that or step back from it. Speaker spikes, expect that the

Minister defers to his however friend on the matter of Hodge of

Kings. Caroline Lucas. Thank you, will the consider be considering the

proposal put forward by a thousand lawyers today which calls for an

independent body to receive evidence from a wide range of groups and

about the risks and benefits of triggering article 50 at different

times. And will he ensure that that will be able to report before

Parliament votes? Mr Speaker, I don't think I'm being overly cynical

to wonder whether a proposal by 1,000 lawyers for a commission to

deliberate at length might be a delaying tactic. The children be

that yes need not to tie the hands of the incoming new Prime Minister.

Or indeed of her negotiating team in the way that we approach this. As

the lady from the opposition frontbench pointed out earlier, we

need to make sure however we handle this it is aimed at getting the best

deal possible for this country. Not just with our European member states

but with other countries in the world as well. We've already got

controversy break out, but the Minister's been doing a great job

with his outpouring of common sense today on a heap of these questions.

Will he just confirm that all common sense points not to triggering

article 50 until it is in the UK's national interest to do so, as the

Treasury committee has pointed out and reported on, and as the Governor

of the Bank of England and the large number of other people who've been

closely involved in these issues, having so concluded? Mr Speaker I'm

happy to confirm that this is not a question offive we leave the EU. It

is a question of how. And therefore the calculation which we all need to

take and which the new Prime Minister and her team need to take

is the best way to structure the negotiations and time those

negotiations to maximise our negotiating leverage. I'm sure

therefore she will, as we will all have read the Select Committee

report with great care and will take those fact into consideration. The

Minister said at the beginning of his first answer this wasn't just a

legal matter, it was a political matter. So I cannot see for the life

of me why the Government is challenging the legal case. Surely

it is just a complete waste of money to send lawyers, whether it is ten

or 1,000, it doesn't matter, why on earth is the Government wasting

money on trying to assert this is just a matter of royal prerogative

rather than accepting the political fact that yes bricks is it bricks

that. Mail the case, but the truth of the matter is he is far more

likely to get a good deal out of other European countries if he has

managed to bind all sides of this House and both houses into a strong

negotiating position? Mr Speaker, I had thought I had hoped that perhaps

when the honourable lady who spoke for the opposition frontbench she

was speaking for more people on her side and we were going to achieve

some degree of cross-party consensus on this, because I think it is

helpful if we can achieve some degree of country wide unanimity on

it. I'm sad it doesn't like like there is that degree of unanimity on

the opposition benches. The Attorney General is convinced that the

Government's case is strongly arguable. That's why we are taking

this case to court. We are many a strange situation where last week

the result of the referendum were so catastrophic for the Labour Party

where they passed a vote of no confidence that ir their leader

whereas today it is neither here nor there, and we can keep ourselves in

the EU because of parliamentary democracy. Perhaps they will make

their mind up soon. Doesn't what we've heard make the point that

these... THE SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear

the honourable gentleman. I don't care whether other people want to

hear him or not, but we are going hear the honourable gentleman the

Member for Shipley. It is as simple that. I don't care how long it

takes. Thank you Mr Speaker. These devices are not here to try and help

the Government implement the will of the public. What they are asking for

is the right to try and stop the will of the public being

implemented. If the Government doesn't implement this because

Labour frustrates the process, they'll be wiped out in the north of

England in a future general election. They might be help bent on

self destruction, but can I ask the Minister to save the Labour Party

and implements Brexit in full? Mr Speaker, there are many reasons for

implementing Brexit in full. That's the first time anyone has urged me

to do it to save the Labour Party. I'm delighted to hear it from my

honourable friend the Member for Shipley. I would also agree with him

that there will be a nagging concern in the minds of some people,

unworthy though it may be, that some of these proposals to delay or

subject to intricate parliamentary procedures might be to try and

frustrate the democratic expressed will of the people. And that would

be democratically entirely wrong. I supported Remain. I have no regrets

or apologies about that in the slightest. But is it not absolutely

essential that the majority decision taken rightly or wrongly should be

respected? Otherwise it makes a complete mockery of democracy. Mr

Speaker, beautifully and eloquently expressed. We are all, I hope,

Democrats first and foremost. Whichever side of the referendum

debate we were on, in this House or more broadly across the country as a

whole we have to respect the democratically expressed will of the

British people. I'm glad to see the Attorney General in his place on the

Treasury bench. Does the Minister dissent from the proposition put

forward by the formered head of the Government legal service and many

others, namely that article 50 is the only lawful route for exiting

the EU? That's a matter for the royal prerogative. The 2015

referendum Act is not of itself ad-Kuwait in law to constitute

notice under article 50, and finally that to unilaterally repeal the

European Communities Act other than through the article 50 process will

be a breach of a threaty obligation, something no Government has done in

300 years and would be wholly unconscionable. Mr Speaker, he asked

four questions. The answer to the first three is a straightforward

yes. The only gloss about how we might amend or repeal the European

Communities Act but others is they would require primary legislation to

do so. That will be brought forward when the time is right. Thank you Mr

Speaker. Reference has been made by the Minister to discussions with

devolved regions. Could the Minister outline what discussions have taken

place with the Northern Ireland Executive, the Northern Ireland

Assembly and the Irish Government? Because there are particular issues

there to do with the need for free movement of goods, services and

people, otherwise lit be very detrimental to the whole economy of

the island of Ireland. Mr Speaker, the honourable lady is absolutely

right, these are extremely ticklish and difficult cushion I can confirm

that the discussions have begun and I can't aim afraid go into huge

detail here as to however they've got or what the future plans are. If

she has any concerns or doubts about how they might be progresses in

future, I encourage her to come to me or the Northern Ireland Office

and I'm sure we can set her mind at rest. Does my right honourable

friend not agree it would be positively contemptuous of the will

of the British people so clearly expressed if this Government were to

refuse to trigger article 50? What does he feel would be the response

of the British people at the next general election who encouraged that

such contempt should be shown that their views?

It is essential for the health of our democracy as much as for the

future direction of this country for voters to understand and believe

that we hear hold their opinions in high regard and are beyond morally

bound to deliver on those views. If we ignore the Democratic consent, we

will be in a much bigger problem than we are currently. It be

something that undermine democratic consent which undermines this place.

Isn't this situation a little bit more than ticklish? This is the

biggest constitutional change for our country for half a century. Last

week John Chilcot criticised the legal process that led to the Iraq

war, the way that prerogative power work in the run-up to the Iraq war

and, most importantly, he criticised the fact that there was not a

sufficient plan once we had completed the inflation. On that

basis, is the Minister really saying that you should not come back to

Parliament so that individual members can come to a few of whether

we should trigger Article 50? I withdraw a distinction in my reply

between the question about whether or how. We have been clear and the

right honourable lady who represents Maidenhead has been very clear that

the destination is not in doubt, Brexit means Brexit. But how we get

there is a matter for discussion, for her to lay out when she is

behind the door at number ten. I'm sure she will do so and I think at

that stage the honourable gentleman will have more information on how

those announcements might be made. Switzerland had a referendum were

they determined to immigration, but because of the protracted

negotiations that they had with the EU the EU decided to start

retaliatory measures including removal from Rasmus schemes and so

forth. How long does the Minister we have before we can act is a good

Article 50 four of the EU start retaliatory measures must? My

honourable friend asked an extremely pertinent question. That will be one

of the questions that the incoming Prime Minister and her negotiating

team will be factoring into the decisions about how we do the timing

and order of play on the negotiations. It must clearly be an

issue and a case study which will be front and centre in the

considerations as they make their decisions. A majority of my

constituents still feel very angry. They feel that they were

misinformed. In view of that they feel that they need to know the

fact. One of the facts made to us in the foreign affairs Select Committee

was that the size of the Foreign Office will need to be doubled.

Given that in the Autumn Statement it was said that there would be

drastic cuts in Whitehall, shouldn't we have a new Autumn Statement to

spell out the implications of Brexit to the British people? It is clear

that many things will change in the New World that we are facing. The

country's trade orientation, its foreign policies will all have to be

re-addressed and potentially amended in the same way that many of our

businesses will have to reassess how they do business. There may have to

be some changes but I would just say to her that I don't want to

prefigure anything that the incoming Prime Minister might be able to

announce. She, like me, will have to wait until those announcements are

made. I would take that she said as the submission to the new Primus did

-- prime ministerial team. The shadow spokesman talked about a free

trade agreements that the to be re-negotiated. My understanding is

that there are about 167 independently recognise countries

outside the EU. The honourable lady for Bishop Auckland talked about,

suggested that the government may be something other than inclusive about

its process of discussing Brexit when we have had 34 million

participants to did he have given us a clear message. Does my honourable

friend agree with me that rather than spending time focusing on

whether we should invoke article 50 and whether we should adhere to the

mounted of the people, whether we should focus our efforts on a new

collaborative relationship with our European neighbours and grabbing the

opportunities from the rest of the world? By honourable friend is

right. The focus now must be on how we get this done and how we get it

done in the best and most constructive way possible. There

will be opportunities. There will be great new horizons which can be

addressed as a result of this decision and we need to make sure we

are clear about them and set up in the right way to grab those

opportunities as they present themselves. Britain will have two

years to withdraw from the European Union wants it invokes article 50.

But most analysts say it will take much longer than two years for

Britain to successfully extricate itself and have a new relationship.

Has the government thought about approaching member states for a

possible extension to that period? Any alteration to the process around

article 50 requires unanimity from the other EU member states, so that

there is inherently a pretty high bar that any government would need

to pass. While I'm sure it will be a fact you're considered by the new

incoming Prime Minister entertained there will be many other options

that they will want to consider as well in order to maximise our

negotiating beverage. As I said before, both of us will have to wait

until the new Prime Minister is ready to make announcements about

how she and team are going to approach those issues. The

referendum has been a deeply divisive and says, dividing city

against time, community against community and nation against nation.

With the Minister agree with me that we now need a cross-party approach

to dealing with the issue of when to invoke Article 50 and the basic

negotiating position around that, and then to hold the negotiating

team to account. Would he consider finding a special Parliamentary

committee to do both of those jobs? The current Prime Minister has said

that he believes it is very important that not just the current

government but also the devolved governments and indeed wherever

possible on a cross-party basis of the parties as well, are able to

contribute to this so we can speak as a nation with one voice. He is

also right to say that the referendum was a divisive of the and

that is something which is not just political parties need to knit

together again but also society needs to knit together again. I

don't share his enthusiasm for a Parliamentary committee as the

solution to achieve all of that, but I do share his conviction that a

degree of healing is required and all of us on all sides of the house

have a duty to make sure our respect of parties and the communities we

represent are able to come together for the good of the country in the

future. More than 60% of my electorate voted to leave the

European Union so I am very much honouring their views and opinions.

The triggering of Article 50 is uncharted waters for this government

and for the European Union. Wouldn't it make sense for the government to

be an open negotiation with their European counterparts to set out the

parameters, the process, areas of commonality and then to come back to

this House to set out what is the likely procedure so that we can make

sure that we get the very best deal for the people of Denton and

Redditch and people of the United Kingdom as we take forward the

referendum into reality? The honourable gentleman is right to say

that article 50 is uncharted waters. We are of necessity having to

address by new problems. I will take the rest of his remarks as admission

-- as a submission to the new Primus to and her negotiating team.

Whatever process they layout has to be founded on one central principle,

which is that it needs to maximise the negotiating strength of this

country as a whole to get the best deal possible. The Minister cannot

say what Brexit means Brexit really means, is it not therefore vital

that given that we have no idea what the terms of the spreads it will be

that it is properly scrutinised and voted on by the democratically

elected members of this House? I think I addressed that in my initial

remarks. There will be lots of opportunities over a long period on

many different facets of the negotiations for Parliament to

debate and discuss these issues. I am sure that she and many others

will have a chance to make their views known. When it comes to any

decisions that will be made I will have to wait for the new Prime

Minister to layout programme and timetable for that. I'm sure all

will be made clear and at that point we will be able to address any

decision points that may be offered. A majority of my constituents voted

to remain and whilst they are concerned about the result there

will be more concerned to think that Parliament would have anything less

than a full say in this process. I would like the Minister to explain

what role specifically does he see the Welsh Government ministers and

the Assembly itself having in making a decision on this final proposal?

As I mentioned in my response earlier, there are a series of

discussions already underway. We are endeavouring to seek consensus

wherever possible. It is also true that ultimately foreign policy is

something that is reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. Welton

wants to make sure that everybody has the chance to contribute will

want a collective view so we understand what the best

opportunities after the different constituent parts of the United

Kingdom. At the end of the day it has to come back to the United

Kingdom government and Parliament. Brexit means Brexit, but there is no

agreed definition of what it means. Is the ministers seriously proposing

that we should undergo such a momentous, seismic change has Brexit

provided having been defined to the British people before the referendum

or decided upon by Parliament after it? The honourable lady is

absolutely right that the details will become a great deal clearer as

a negotiation goes through. Therefore, all of us will discover

more about how rates it will impact on different parts of our lives as

those negotiations near completion in various different facets. I must

come back to the point I have made which is that we will not be able to

say how Parliament will engage with that until the new Prime Minister

has had the chance to lay timetable whereupon it will be possible to

assess when the opportunities for debate and discussion will occur.

This was not the question I was going to ask but given the response

by the Minister I want to press him on the extent to which devolved

institutions will be consulted. There are clearly some government

departments are much of the workers devolved, like and farming, yet in

terms of the EU it is Age UK Government negotiating position.

That really does need to be resolved. The honourable lady gives

a very good illustration of the sort of area where it is very important

to make sure that the constituent parts of the UK are closely involved

so that their views can be fact reading, if it is at devolved or

non-default issue, there will be plenty of occasions when Tuesday to

be fed back very carefully to inform the negotiation discussions. Urgent

question, Andy Slaughter. If the Secretary of State would make a

statement on the safety of staff and prisons. A central duty of the

Ministry of Justice is security in prison estate is imperative that the

dedicated professionals working in prisons are say. We need to

safeguard the welfare of those in custody. It is a profound concern to

me that serious assaults against that in prison have been on the

rise. In the 12 months to December 2015 there have been 625 incidents,

an increase of 31%. Those who work in our prisons are idealistic public

servants who run the risk of assault and abuse everyday but they continue

in their jobs because they are driven by a noble cause. They want

to reform and rehabilitate offenders, that is why we must stand

behind them. I know that members of the Prison Officers Association? And

other trade unions want rapid action taken to make the work safer. I

understand the frustration and I'm determined to help. Violence and

prisons has increased for a number of reasons. The nature of the

offenders in custody as one factor. Younger offenders involving

gang-related attack cities pose a particular concern. Another factor

is the widespread availability of new psychoactive substances.

Synthetically manufactured drugs more difficult to detect than

traditional cannabis and opiates. The former chief and prisons said

NPS is the greatest threat. It is also a consequence of prisoners'

boredom and lack of faith in the future. We are taking steps to

reform our prisons, to take account of our change prison population more

than 2,800 new prisoner officers have been recruited since January

2015, a net increase of 530. To keep them safer we are deploying body

worn cameras. And from May we outlawed psychoactive substances. In

June I allocated an extra ?10 million in new funding for prisoner

safety and the money has gone direct to governors. All these steps will I

believe help to improve safety. But first I want to stress that my

department's door will be open to staff and their representatives to

ensure that we work collaboratively together to improve conditions for

all in our Prince. Second, it is because I've seen for myself how

urgently we need to change our prisons for the better this

Government initiated a major reform programme. We'll be change ageing

and ineffective prisons with no establishments designed to foster

rehabilitation. We'll give governors greater scope to have greater

activity. And as we press ahead with this reform programme I'm confident

that we can ensure that our prisons can become what we can ensure that

our prisons can become what they should always be - safe and secure

places of redemption and rehabilitation. Thank you Mr

Speaker. The situation on our prison estate continues to deteriorate. As

the Secretary of State concedes. I'm sorry we've heard nothing new from

him today. Over the weekend prison staff had crisis meetings across the

country amid concerns about the security and safety in the

workplace. Indents of violence are reported on a daily basis. The

Ministry of Justice spokesman caused the action unlawful. I wonder if the

Secretary of State thinks that's an appropriate staff to members of

staff concerned about their welfare and indeed that of the inmates.

According to local staff that the prison in Liverpool, over the past

12 months there've been more assaults than in the previous 12

years. One member of staff was stabbed, others have been spat at,

punched, kicked and urine and faeces thrown over them. Riot officers were

certainty to a prison in Birmingham. And then a prisoner was found dead

in his cell. 5,000 and 6,000 prison officers had taken part in the

pre-shift meetings. The Secretary of State will also be that were a

freedom of information request last week revealed there had been many

accounts in the last five month, including that from Wormwood Scrubs.

Following that walkout in May and a serious assault on two officers, he

did announce ?10 million. But frankly the Secretary of State has

been absent in the last few weeks. We have had an inadequate and

reactive response to each crisis. We do need a full response to what is a

growing and increasing crisis. As he correctly says the growing number of

serious assaults. I hope we will hear that full strategy soon, for

the safety of our prison officers and prisoners. If we don't have

that, he is going the lose cell fully of the prison estate. Ky thank

the honourable gentleman for the detail and the tone of his remarks.

Now on the backbenches he continues the great work he did on the

frontbenches in making sure that the condition of our prisons is kept in

the forefront of our minds. Thank to his dell gent work and the justice

Select Committee a number of areas of concern have been brought to our

attention or highlighted or underlined. We've appointed a highly

experienced prisoner Governor in order to lead work to ensure that

our prisons are more secure. She set up a specific task force to visit

the prison which is face the greatest challenge. Prison Governors

are feeling reassured and strengthened they are having the

best advice to help them deal with the problems. We have rolled out a

specific interstrengths help prison officers de-escalate violent

incidents. It is pioneered by a first rate professional, Ross Kemp,

who is due to be Governor in front of a prison in Wales. We've been

given ?1.3 billion. I shall not run away from the fact we have a

difficult situation in our prisons. That'sy visited the BBC to visit our

prisons in recent weeks, in order to ensure we tackle this problem

fairly. I know the honourable gentleman is sincere and look

forward to working with him in that end. The Secretary of State's full

and prompt response to our Select Committee report on prison safety

published in May does great credit for his own personal commitment to

tackling this issue. His frankness about the level of the challenge

that we face. In going forward, will he perhaps give further updates as

to whether he is now able to take on board some of the recommendations in

the report. For example the Ministry of Justice and offender management

service producing an action plan to tackle the underlying cause of the

violence, staff retention issues and quarterly reports to this House, so

we can measure progress against specified and clear targets? I'm

grateful to the chairman of the Select Committee for his reports. E

chairman of the Select Committee for his reports. The - I agree we'll

bring forward an action plan, provide this House with regular

updates on the steps we are taking. Recruitment and retention of staff

is critical. Critical. I want to underline one of the points in

response to both the Member for Hammersmith and the chairman of the

Select Committee, I want to work with the prison Officers Association

and trade unions to ensure that all concerns are addressed. I also want

to ensure we can continue to attract high quality people into the prison

service it is a vital job. Mr Speaker, the situation in our

underfunded prisons is deteriorating. There have been

consequences to the Government's decision to cut ?900 million from

the min visit to justice Budget. Ecision to cut ?900 million from the

min visit to justice Budget. -- Ministry of Justice Budget. Assaults

are up. There are 13,000 less prison staff than in 200 but there are more

prisoners than we were in 200. This Government has made prisons less

safe for staff and for prisoners. There's a service crisis. On Friday

members of the prison Officers Association held meetings across the

country to discuss what they call the perpetual crisis in the prison

service. The Secretary of State has accepted there are significant

problems. The Chief Inspector has said prisons are a lot more

dangerous and has said staff shortages have had an impact. The

justice Select Committee has demanded an action plan. Given all

this, will the Secretary of State explain, has the Secretary of State

or the National Offender Management Service spoken to the prison

Officers Association since Friday's meetings outside prisons? What is

the Secretary of State's plan to reduce staff assaults, which have

increased by 36% in the past year? And on the ?10 million allocated to

safety, if he finds, as I suspect he will, significantly higher spending

he has experimentally allocated to Bristol and Rochester does indeed

have much greater impact, will the Secretary of State increase safety,

spending elsewhere. And in relation to the prisons identified for

greater operational freedom in the upcoming Bill, a process the

Secretary of State has liked to school academisation, will he

confirm that we will not see a watering down of staff terms and

conditions or creeping privatisation? Mr Speaker, isn't it

time this Government stopped failing prison staff, stopped failing

prisons and stopped failing our society in this regard? Can I first

of all welcome the honourable gentleman to the frontbench in his

new role. He has a distinguished legal career behind him, and some of

the questions he asked today go directly to the heart of the matter.

We have spoken to the prison Officers Association. Senior figures

in the National Offender Management Service have been in touch with the

... Service have been in touch with the

I found their approach to be constructive and cordial and I want

to maintain good relations with them in future. He makes the point that

?10 million may need to be expanded in staff safety. This money has been

spent to individual Governors to pend as they think fit. But of

course we'll do everything possible to ensure that the resources are

there to safeguard not just those who work in our prisons but the

appropriate welfare of those in custody. He asked about the prison

reform Bill and the six reformed prisons should have a greater degree

of autonomy. He asked if academisation is a prelude to

privatisation. It is the case that in these six prisons the governors

exercise a greater degree of autonomy, but not at the expense of

terms and conditions. Or safety of staff. We want staff to feel that

the work they do is valued and rewarded and the outstanding

governors taking forward change this these prisons live and breathe

respect for their staff every day. The prisons and brokenation

ombudsman told the Select Committee about the per ravesness n told the

Select Committee about the per ravesness of mental health -- the

per ravesness of ntal health -- the per ravesness of mental health

issues - pervasiveness of mental health issues. My honourable friend

makes a good point. One of the difficulties that we face is that

very many of the people who've in custody are people with mental

health problems. In some cases undiagnosed. It is often the case

that a prison regime by its nature with the restrictions imposed on

individuals, a prison regime may not be the most effective way of

tackling the mental health problems of those individuals and ensuring

which could not offend again. We are considering how we can better review

mental health provision within the prison estate. More announcements

will be forthcoming. One thing that was clear from the commitment in the

Gracious Speech is that Her Majesty laid out the fact that improving

outcomes for individuals with mental health problems in a criminal

justice system is a core wish of this Government. I wonder whether

the Secretary of State is prepared to acknowledge that the combination

of rising prisoner numbers and shrinking Budget is a major factor

impacting on the welfare and safety of prison officers and prisoners.

The Scottish Government is committed to reform of penal policy, by moving

from ineffective short term prison sentences in favour of community

sentences, which have been shown the be more effective at preventing

reoffending. In June the Scottish Government announced ?4 million of

extra funding to allow for an increase in community sentences. I

wonder whether the Secretary of State will acknowledge that the UK's

policies on prisons are not work. And making more effective use of

short-term, community alternatives rather than relying on prison

sentences. I have an enormous amount of respect for the honourable and

learned lady. She is right there is much we can learn in England and

Wales from other jurisdictions. I wouldn't say Scotland has everything

right in terms of criminal justice and penal policy. There are welcome

changes in Scotland not least with respect to the care and treatment of

female offenders. I hope in the near future to have the chance to talk to

leaders within the Scottish Prison Service and to visit some Scottish

Franz learn from the initiatives they've been piloting. Can the

Justice Secretary tell us how the number of attacks on staff nub

prisons compares to staff in other countries around the world and what

lessons might be learned from those countries? Can I invite him to look

at the punishments handed down by other countries to prisoners who

attack prison staff? They extend the sentences much more harshly. I

suspect that might lead to a decrease in attacks on prison staff.

I know he wants to operate in a constructive fashion. I am always

interested in learning from other jurisdictions. We don't collect

assault in a way that makes for an easy comparison. He poses a

particular challenge to us. I always want to be led by evident in shaping

policy and the evidence suggests to me that it is often the case of a

lack of hope or an inability to see high actions can lead to eventual

redemption that leads to violence. I will get back to him with evidence

and comparisons in order for us to conduct this debate better. One of

the most distressing things that can happen to you as a prison officer is

when you go to unlock an inmate and find that they have taken their own

lives. Lord Harris's review into deaths in custody made it clear

recommendation that ministers should temp two contact and speak with the

families especially of young people who have taken their own lives in

prison. It has yet, ministers have not adopted that recommendation.

Would you please reconsider? She makes a good point. I honourable

friend will be meeting relatives of someone who did take the life

custody recently. The one thing I would say is that there are

sometimes sensitivities about specific cases but as a general rule

it is something we would wish to do. My right honourable friend will from

his experience as Secretary of State have worked out that there is a

catalogue of reasons why the safety of prison staff is placed at risk.

Overcrowding in prisons is certainly one, mental health issues, the lack

of purposeful activities for prisoners. But he also accept that

the continuing uncertainty for prisoners on IAPP, making them the

most difficult of cohorts of prisoners to manage is something

that we should deal with quickly. Can we not arrange for them to be

resentenced quickly, or put before the parole board should the other

cases can be reviewed? This is a matter of urgent priority. I would

urge him to look at the IPP question that is causing such a lot of

disturbance in prison system. He probably would not have had an

opportunity to read the speech I gave to the governor is six weeks

ago. I outlined in that speech the urgent need for reform for IAPP.

Lord Duncan had acknowledged that the original intention when he

introduced the sentences have not manifested itself in the way those

sentences were applied. I will meet Nick Hardwick later this week to

expedite some changes which I hope that he and others in the house

might welcome. Will the Secretary of State place

copies of that speech in the library of the house? We all look forward to

reading this speech. The root cause of the problem is overcrowding and

that creates stress on the members of staff and prisoners. There are

currently 13,000 foreign national prisoners in our prisons and the

prisoner transfer arrangement with the EU has been so far point

painfully slow. We have decided to come out of the EU, what further

steps can be taken in order to get countries to take back their own

citizens? I will place a copy in the library. Copies for those people who

are even more eager to read it are available on the website of the

Ministry of Justice Butler will do everything to facilitate the

widespread dissemination and reading of that speech. He makes a good

point. There are four too many foreign national offenders in our

prisons. Sometimes countries outside the European Union, Albania outside

the European Union at the moment, have concluded good bilateral

arrangements with this country in order to facilitate the return of

criminals. It is not necessary to be within the European Union to have

good bilateral arrangements but it is vital as we move to a new

relationship with our European neighbours that we returned those

offenders who are not British citizens. The safety of prison staff

is a huge issue for me because there are three present in my

constituency. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that we will not

get the rehabilitation of prisoners that we all want to see unless

prison staff have the time and resources to enable it to happen.

When both they and prisoners feel safe enough to achieve it. This

process will not be helped with ongoing reductions in prison staff

numbers. She makes a fair point. I am delighted that we have been able

to give Durham prison and additional ?220,000 in order to help deal with

the current problems. She is right, that is why the even staff were

reduced in the last Parliament in order to meet benchmarking

requirements there has been a net increase in the number of prison

staff since January 2,000 15. We will be making more announcements in

due course to show how we are trying to recruit more people into this

job. Today has the Secretary of State how many times the national

tactical response unit has been called but this year. Last year it

was one for every day of the year. Has this figure gone up? I will turn

to make notes. The last year for which we have figures was 2,000 Ford

team and 15. It was called but 400 times in that year, so just over a

once every day. In my constituency there is not extra money for the

prison because it is closing. It has only been open ten years. In the

answers to letters I have written to his colleagues I have been told that

the staff would be expected to relocate to the new super prison in

Wrexham. The problem is it is over 70 miles away and there is no

prospect of many of the staff being able to relocate. Isn't this an

example of one of the problems of the planning he is carrying out. He

is closing a prison and the new one is opening but the staff will be

able to get there. How will this help with problems of overcrowding

and prison staff safety? I would be delighted to meet the honourable

gentleman in order to explain the reasons for closing the prison. We

need to make sure that we have modern and appropriate prisons for

our prisoners. There will be opportunities not just in the new

prison but elsewhere for staff who currently work in your constituency

to do the work for which I thank them. I am grateful to the Secretary

of State because I have spent a lot of time in prisons over the last few

months. Two things that staff raised with me. The first is that they are

optimistic about the reform context that the Secretary of State has

created a new should be congratulated for that. The second

thing they have raised repeatedly is staff numbers, which are fallen

substantially. In the new government that we expect to begin shortly,

does he hope to see that reform agenda continue, but is it also

possible my the -- now that we are moving away from austerity that

staff members could rise again? I am grateful to him for what he says and

for the work he is carrying out at the moment to ensure that black and

minority Ethnic individuals are treated fairly in the criminal

justice system. About the reform programme, I have been delighted by

the fact that across this House and throughout the government there has

been strong support for the reform programme that we are undertaking.

It will be central to the work of this government over the next few

years and I look forward to working with him and other colleagues to

make sure we make progress. It is of paramount importance that the

government does all it can do to ensure that prison staff are safe in

the place of work. He will know that the recent safety in custody figures

were quite shocking. Will he guarantee that when these figures

are published in future there will be full scrutiny of the statistics

in Parliament and will he commit to a frequent statement on what the

government is doing to improve the situation? Yes, I will do everything

possible to make sure that Parliament is fully informed. That

is in line with the recommendations that are welcomed from the Select

Committee. Statement, the Secretary of State for Defence. Secretary

Michael Fallon. With permission, I would like to make a statement on

the Nato summit held in Warsaw last Friday and Saturday. The 2015

strategic defence and Security review reaffirmed Peter's position

-- Nato's position. We are leaders in the Alliance. The range of

challenges the alliance faces including Daesh, migration and

Russian belligerence and that the summit was of major importance for

European and Atlantic security. The overwhelming message from Warsaw was

one of strength and unity. We believe that the summit has

delivered an alliance that is now more capable and project stability

beyond our borders based on stronger partnerships which collectively

protect our citizens and defend Europe. At the welsh summit in 2015

Nato put out of action plan to make sure that Nato can respond quickly

to new challenges. The United Kingdom is at the forefront. Our

typhoons are conducting Baltic missions from Estonia. Warships are

a significant contribution. We will lead Natohow Fred readiness joint

task force for next year. To demonstrate the solidarity of the

Allies and the ability to act in response to any aggression, Warsaw

builds on the Wales commitments by delivering enhanced forward presence

in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. I am proud that the United

Kingdom is one of four nations to lead a framework Battalion alongside

Canada, Germany and the United States. These battalions will be

defensive in nature but fully combat capable. The United Kingdom force

will be located in Estonia, with two UK companies, headquarters element

and equipment such as armoured vehicles, guided missiles. Denmark

and France have said they will provide trips to the UK Battalion.

In addition, we will be deploying a company group to Poland. This is our

response to Russian aggression. Nato's approaches based on balancing

strong defence and dialogue. Dialogue remains right where it is

in our interest to deliver hard messages to promote transparency and

to build understanding to reduce risks of miscalculation. Credible

alliance defence and deterrence depends on Nato's ability to adapt a

21st-century threats through both nuclear and conventional forces. The

summit recognise the important contribution to the United -- and

that the United Kingdom's Independent nuclear deterrent makes

to the overall security of the alliance, so I confirm that we

expect the house to have the opportunity to vote to endorse the

renewal of that deterrent next Monday. Initiatives on cyber and

hybrid warfare amongst others will give the alliance the capabilities

it needs to respond quickly and affect Ulster player ever, modelling

capabilities require appropriate funding and here good progress has

been made against the investment pledge, a key commitment from Wales.

Following this government's decision to spend 2% of GDP on defence and to

increase the defence budget in each year of this Parliament, cuts to

defence spending across the Alliance have now halted, with 20 Allies by

defence spending and eight Allies committing international plans to

reaching the 2% target. Delivering the best for our country also means

maximising the talent in our Armed Forces and the Prime Minister has

accepted the recommendation of the chief of the General staff to open

up ground close combat roles to women. Nato's rules preventing

conflict than tackling problems at source has become ever more

important as threats to Alliance Security droids of instability and

fragile or a weak states. Nato's defence capability building

initiative is a powerful tool in projecting stability and we in the

United Kingdom continue to provide significant support to Georgia, Iraq

and to Jordan. Building on this, the Allies agreed that Nato will conduct

training and capacity building inside Iraq. In Afghanistan, local

forces are taking responsibility for providing security across the

country. Our long-term commitment as part of Nato's resolute support

mission is crucial. Next year we will increase our current troop

const -- contribution of 450 by around 10% to help build the

capacity of the Afghan security institutions. The summit also

reiterated its support for a European partners including Ukraine

and Georgia and I was delighted that Montenegrin attended the summit as

an observer has a clear sign that Nato's door remains open.

The scale of Europe's security challenges means that NATO must work

with a range of partners to counter them. This summit sends a strong

message of NATO's willingness to build relationships with

international institutions. I welcome the joint declaration from

the NATO Secretary-General and the presidents of the European Union and

the European Commission on NATO-EU co-operation. We continue to support

a closer relationship between NATO and the EU to avoid unnecessary

duplication. Our strong message to our allies and partners was that the

result of the referendum will have no impact on any of our NATO

commitments and that NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence

policy. The United Kingdom will be leaving the European Union, but we

are not reducing our commitment to European security. We are not

turning our back on Europe or on the rest of the world. HMS Mersey will

deploy to the Aegean to continue our support for NATO's efforts to

counter illegal migration. We'll provide a second ship, RFA mounts

bay, in the central Mediterranean, and NATO has agreed in principle to

provide surveillance and reconnaissance support to that

operation too. It is a United Kingdom priority for NATO to do more

dense Daesh. NATO AWACS will more the counter David Cameron coalition.

Coalition. In addition to our efforts we'll continue what we can

do with capacity building of the Italian Coastguard. It is our firm

view that the alliance has the capacity and the will and the intent

to respond to the range of threats and challenges that it may face. The

summit also showed that Britain is stepping up its leading role in the

alliance by deploying more forces to NATO's eastern borders, to NATO's

support to Afghanistan, and in countering illegal migration. That

strong UK leadership Warsaw will be remembered for the concrete steps

taken to deliver a strong and unified alliance that remains the

cornerstone of European defence and security, and I commend this

statement to the House. THE SPEAKER: Clive Lewis. Lewis..

Thank you Mr Speaker. Can I thank the Secretary of State and his team

for the work they have done on the Warsaw summit this weekend. I would

like to remind the Secretary of State that rumours of me going AWOL

in the muddy fields of Glastonbury were greatly example rates. We on

this side of the House welcome the message from the Warsaw summit, that

NATO is determined to strengthen our commitment to its friends and allies

in Eastern Europe. Whatever the consequences of Brexit, and some

will be unforeseeable, one must not be that the UK is seen as retreating

into isolationism. We welcome the Government's readiness to make the

United Kingdom one of the four contributor nations of the new

rotational force. It will have an important symbolic value in

providing a visible reminder of article 5 commitment to defence. I

emphasised the word collective. That's because the basic values that

underpin NATO: Collective endeavour, human rights and democracy, are the

same values that underpin two cracy, are the same values that underpin

two of NATO's two founders - Clement Attlee's Labour Party and the new

Democrats. We are entitled to share some of the credit for helping build

these values into the alliance. Values we can get behind and

reaffirm. But Mr Speaker, back to the detail, if I may. Many questions

remain about how the deployment will work in practice. Particularly in

terms of equipment, training and rules of engage: I would be grateful

if the Secretary of State will commit to providing regular updates

to the House as these plans move forward. In light of ongoing

tensions between NATO and Russia, I'm pleased to hear the Secretary of

State mention the need for dialogue. It is a commitment echoed in the

summit communique, which recognised the risks of misunderstanding and

calls for a new commitment for dialogue, particularly through the

NATO Russia council. Can the Secretary of State tell the House

what steps the Government is taking to reduce the risk of misnappeding

between the UK and Russia or a possible miscalculation on defence

matters. It is over a decade since NATO took command of multinational

operations in Afghanistan, where 150 servicemen and women have been

killed since 2002. I spent some time in the neater of Afghanistan on

operation there is, so I have personal experience, having served a

try month tour in 2009 as part of the NATO deployment. As such it is

something I will draw upon in our future debates. Although the UK's

last remaining combat troops were withdrawn in 2014, hundreds have

stayed behind to help train Afghan security forces. The announcement

that a further 50 British troops be deployed to Afghanistan last year

and the planned withdrawal date pushed back from a second time will

be of concern to many. I note that UK troops will continue to be

deployed in noncombat Rogers I would be grateful if the Secretary of

State could safeguard against the mission creep, for a number of years

the UK has been the only major NATO power to continue excluding women

from ground close combat roles. We welcome Friday's announcement to

approve the integration of women across all front line combat roles.

The decision is a huge step forward not only for equality but the

effectiveness of the Armed Forces. In Iraq and Afghanistan and all over

the world women have served our armed forces with professionalism

and distinction. I would be grateful for any information the Secretary of

State can provide as to what specific steps he will help monitor

the smooth transimmigration of this process. Lp monitor the smooth

transimmigration of this process. -- transition of this process. We must

not lose sight of the foundation of NATO. Justice in the form of

freedom. Justice in the form of democracy. And justice in the form

of economic fairness. The Secretary of State was right to affirm the

UK's commitment to NATO. I hope that NATO he affirmed is one that stays

root to the vision of its founders. Because it is a vision we share on

this side of the House. I look forward to holding him to account in

the coming months ahead. I am grateful to the honourable

gentleman, and let me welcome him on his first appearance at the dispatch

box. I think the fourth Shadow Defence Secretary in the last couple

of years. Let me also welcome the broad welcome he has given to this

particular statement, and let me wholeheartedly welcome, his reminder

of the original establishment of NATO under a Labour Government,

which of course supported fully the nuclear deterrent at the time, and I

believe was ready under every Labour Government to commit that nuclear

deterrent to the overall defence of the alliance as well as the defence

of this country. I'm sure he'll be explaining all that in a little more

detail when we come to the debate on Wednesday.

We asked me four specific questions. So far as the bat alonto be deployed

in Estonia is concerned, yesly update the House on the precise

arrangements for that deployment, which will begin we hope in the

spring of next year. There is much detail to be finalised so far as the

command and control relationships are concerned. And the precise

activities that that bat alonwill be involved. In we will seep him and

the House up to date on that. That. He asked me about the dialogue with

Russia. I it wouldn't be clear. This cannot now because of the

aggression, the annexation of Ukraine, this cannot be business as

usual with Russia. There are issues we have in common, as we saw in the

refinement of the nuclear deal with Iran and on going discussions about

a political settlement in Syria. It is right that we continue to talk to

Russia in those areas where we have shared interests. I can confirm to

him that the next meeting of the NATO Russia council will be on 13th

July. We do continue the links that he referred to at ambassadorial

level to ensure that he referred to at ambassadorial level to ensure

that any misunderstand "be avoided. Thirdly, he asked me about

Afghanistan. Let me put on record my own tribute to his service. We are

increasing the number of troops that we are deploying in Afghanistan by

around 50. There is no danger here of mission creep, because these

additional 50 troops will be doing what the existingitional 50 troops

will be doing what the existing 450 are doing - supporting the security

institutions, providing advice and support to the fledgling Afghan Air

Force and continuing the important work of mentoring at the officer

Academy. A number of other allies have been able to increase the

support they are making available to Afghanistan. He will know of course

that the alliance also welcomed the change of heart in the American

position, that they were not going to reduce down to the level that was

originally forecast. Finally, he asked me about the decision to open

combat roles in the Army to women. I'm glad he has welcomed and-a-half

of course it is something we'll do on a phased basis, continuing the

research that is essential in order to set the right physical standards

as each role is opened up. But I am happy to keep him up to date on

that. I'm very much congratulate my right honourable friend on his

statement and thank him for emphasising the role of NATO in our

defence. He'll have had discussions with members who are part of the

European Union. I wonder what discussions he has had in relation

to those parts of the common security and defence policy that may

continue to be of mutual benefit. I'm thinking of elements of the

European defence agency and exercising with the EU battle

groups. Well, let me make clear that until we leave the European Union we

remain full members of the European union and we will remain committed

to the security that the European Union adds to the security that is

provided through NATO. That includes our participation in the EU battle

group. Group. Includes our participation in missions like

Operation Sophia in the central Mediterranean, to which we are

committing an additional ship. It also continues on, it also is seen

in our continuing work to get those two organisations to work more

closely together, to avoid unnecessary dupe implication andly

together, to avoid unnecessary dupe implication and to cop --

duplication and to co-operate more closely. Mr Speaker, paragraph 40 of

the Warsaw summit communique focuses on NATO's maritime security. With no

surface vessels or aircraft based in Scotland it is an area in which the

UK Government is failing in its duty. Did the Secretary of State

have discussions with his Norwegian counterpart or informed co-operation

in the maritime domain? In paragraph 10 of the communique, a number of

Russia's destabilising actions and policies are listed, including the

annexation of Crimea, large snail exercised, provocative military

activities near NATO borders, aggressive nuclear rhetoric and

violations of NATO airspace. Can the Secretary of State tell me which of

these actions have been deterred by Trident? Finally paragraph 64 of the

communique focuses on nuclear non-proliferation. What specific

discussion it's the Secretary of State have with NATO counterparts to

further nuclear disarm In the coming weeks myself and the colleagues will

vote not to renew Trident. Can I right him and those on the Labour

benches to join me in voting against it so we can achieve the alliance's

aim of a world without nuclear weapons? In teens the honourable

gentleman's first point, the defence of the United Kingdom is organised

on a United Kingdom basis. He should be in absolutely no doubt about

that. So far as our relationship with Norway is concerned, yes I had

a bilateral meeting with the Norwegian Minister. We work

extremely closely on defending our respective countries. And looking

for further areas of co-operation, particularly in the light of our

Strategic Defence Review and Norway's long-term plan, published

more recently. So far as maritime patrol aircraft is concerned, I hope

he will have caught one the announcement this morning that we

are to purchase nine Boeing P 8 aircraft, as announced by my right

honourable friend the Prime Minister with me in Farnborough at the

airshow this morning. I hope it will not be too long before those patrol

aircraft are able to help better protect our deterrent, as well as

protect our aircraft carriers and conduct our tasks.

Nonproliferation was not her subject for the Warsaw summit. We are

committed to a world without the killer weapons but I have to say to

him and his party there are 17,000 nuclear weapons out there. There are

states trying to develop nuclear weapons, there remains the dangers

that other people, terrorist groups, might try to get hold of nuclear

weapons and that is why I will be inviting the heights to vote next

Monday to continue the principle of the nuclear deterrent that has

served this country well and well protected in the years to come. Can

I say to my right honourable friend how delighted I am that we have

reaffirms our commitment to the Nato alliance by putting a strong signal

using our troops on the ground in Estonia and Poland. Can I further

thank my right honourable friend for making arrangements for French and

Danish troops to join our battle group in Estonia? I speak as perhaps

the only British officer to have commanded the first parachute

Battalion of the French Foreign Legion. Let me say to my honourable

friend, the purpose of this deployment is to reassure our allies

on the eastern border of Nato as much as to make Russia think twice

about any further aggression. Our deployment in Estonia, I can tell

him, was warmly welcomed, not simply by Estonia but by the other Baltic

states. We see night in near to a coming together of the Nato

countries committing to each other's formation, whether it is the high

readiness task force or the enhanced forward presence. We look forward to

working with French and Danish troops alongside our Battalion in

Estonia next year. The summit reiterated support for Georgia and

Ukraine, but in practical terms what steps are being taken to support

those countries in their bid for Nato membership and to ensure the

defence of the Borders? In terms of assisting both Georgia and Ukraine,

Georgia is and enhanced opportunity partner of Nato and there is a

package of measures in place to strengthen defence cooperation

between Nato and Georgia. We are seeing an increase in the capacity

of the Ukrainian forces. We are playing a large part on that. So far

as future access in the Nato is concerned, we have made it clear

that there can be no short cuts to Nato membership. There are criteria

to meet in any future applications require the unanimous consent of all

the existing members, but equally the accession of Montenegro sends a

clear message that nobody, certainly not Russia, has any kind of veto on

future membership. Has my right honourable friend seen the remarks

of Mikhail Gorbachev who has expressed his concern that we are

moving from a new Cold War to and you hot one? Speaking as somebody

who was a soldier in the Cold War, may I express my grave concern that

all we are really doing is irritating Russia outfitting a

number of troops on its border and that we have to recognise that

Russia does have a zone of influence which includes Ukraine and Belarus?

If we do not find a way of negotiating with Russia we are only

going to make the danger of the new possibly hot war more likely and we

have to look at these realities? B paid tribute to my honourable

friend's former service in the military, but I do have to say to

him that Nato and to Russia and anybody else, that Nato remains a

defensive alliance. Nato isn't threatening anybody. But the

commitments that we have made to each other under Article 5 it is

important that we reassure, particularly those members of the

eastern flank of Nato, that we're ready to by those commitments and to

come to the aid and they have seen Russia trying to change

international borders by force, and mixing the Crimea, and interfering

in the Eastern Ukraine. It is very important we remind members of Nato

that Nato is committed to defend the territorial integrity and we do send

the message right across Europe to Moscow that we are not prepared to

see the sovereign integrity of these countries further impudence. The

Warsaw conference underline near to does my to consent. With the

secretary agree with me that for it to be effective, deterrence have to

be credible. Any suggestion that somehow our nuclear deterrent could

be... It could lead to its credibility being questioned and

threatened the nuclear posture of deterrence by Nato? I absolutely

agree with that. We did look under the previous government exhaustively

at the alternatives, the alternative systems of delivering that

deterrent, whether it could be done from the air, from land or with

fewer boats. The overwhelming conclusion was that the most of and

simplest form of deterrent is to contain our existing four boats

nuclear submarine fleet and that will be the motion that we will put

towards the house on Monday. I am grateful indeed for my right

honourable friend's robust statement on the Nato summit. Can he is surely

with the good news of more European nations pledging to spend 2% of

their GDP on defence spending and commitments to Trident that Nato

will remain an alliance of cooperation between European states

and Atlantic States? Yes, I am grateful to my honourable friend for

what he is said not least because I think we were on opposite sides of

the argument during the referendum. The most encouraging thing since the

Wales summit fully confirmed that Warsaw was the number of European

countries that have neither incentives to increase their

spending. The general decline in European defence spending has been

halted and has now been reversed. We see allies such as the Czech

Republic, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic

and Turkey putting in place plans to get to the 2% as we have done. With

your permission, it might be helpful just to pass on the news to the

house that the Unite trade union has just reaffirmed that strong

commitment to the building programme for the building in Barrow and

across the nation. That will be held to all of us on the size as we help

to fulfil our manifesto pledge to carry on a complete programme that

we began in government. On the vote, can I ask what is the view of the

government on what it would do to the UK's position in the new killer

alliance which Nato is, if the UK were suddenly to commit to

unilateral disarmament by scrapping the programme to create a new fleet

of boats. So far as his first point is confirmed, let me welcomed the

decision of Unite to support the renewal of the nuclear deterrent

which is important for security and the economy. There are over 200

companies already involved in the supplied change starting to deliver

some of the long lead items that the house has already authorised. There

are several thousand jobs already beginning to be committed to the

renewal of the deterrent. It is important that those are borne in

mind when we come to the debate on Monday. So far as his bigger point

is concerned, any decision by the size to withdraw from the position

of successive governments, Labour and Conservative, that we are

committed to the nuclear deterrence and to place that you could

deterrent in this supports of the Nato alliance as a whole would

fundamentally undermine that alliance. It would cause some very,

very serious repercussions for our relationship with our key allies,

especially the United States. Can I return the Secretary of State to the

Ukraine were the belligerence of Russia is a great interest in the

Council of Europe and that the last meeting we had the Ukrainian pilot

was arrested by the Russians. I want as Q what will the Nato involvement

in Ukraine be to achieve? I had the privilege of meeting the pilots in

Warsaw on Saturday. She attended with the president of the Ukraine

and the defence minister. Although Ukraine is not a member of Nato

there are a number of Nato allies working extremely hard to try to

reinforce the ability of Ukraine to defend itself. We are coordinating

our training effort between us and doing what we can to stand behind

the territorial integrity of Ukraine, not least through the

sanctions that the European Union continues to apply. May I also put

on record my welcome of the decision by Unite today to reconfirm the

position held by, dating back to Ernest Bevin. On the issue of

post-Brexit... Is there going to be rescheduling of assessment of the

programmes around the STS are? In terms of the nuclear deterrent I

hope we will as large a majority as possible to recommitting the nuclear

deterrent that has served us so well and send a further signal to the

rest of the world that Britain is prepared to continue to play its

part in the defence of Nato as well as the defence of her own country.

So far as the specific question about the cost of F 35, it is too

early to be sure of exactly where the sterling dollar exchange rate

will end up. Let me say to him that like any large commercial

organisation, we take precautions against fluctuations in the currency

but it is too early to say whether the currency is likely to be

sustained or not. Order. Point of order, Niall Griffiths. I have

notified the right honourable member of my intention to raise this issue.

On Friday and member of my staff had his past the activated. This e-mail

advised the pass offers to turn the passes of a number of staff working

for former members of the Shadow Cabinet. Can I seek your advice on

the propriety of members seeking to dear Sophia at the passes of other

members's staff? Would you be able to clarify the rules on this issue

as I was under the impression that the question of authorising passes

was the sole responsibility of the sponsoring member. I can say to the

honourable lady in response to her point of order that she is correct.

That is the basis on which these matters are handled. I understand, I

was conscious of this, but the passes of several members of staff

were incorrectly suspended temporarily on Friday. As soon as

the mistake came to light... Order! As soon as the matter came to light

the passes were reinstated. We do not discuss security matters on the

floor of the house so I do not propose to say any more on this

matter. Moreover, I don't need to do so. Because I have given the

information that the honourable lady salt and I have very specifically

answered the point that she raised in her point of order our -- her

point about where that lies. If there are no further points of order

we can move on. Presentation of ill. Mr Mark Williams. Sculptures -- the

Parthenon sculptures returned to Greece bill. Friday January 20 2017.

Thank you. Order. The court will not proceed to read the orders of the

day. We'll spill, committee. Order. Order. Wales Bill. We begin with

amendment 118 to clause 3 with which it would be convenient to include

others on the order paper. Paul Flynn to move amendment 8. Thank

you. Since we met last week there's been the wonderful celebration of

Wales's team's great achievements in the European Cup. This is a matter

of enormous pride to us as a nation and I was delighted to see the

celebrations last week in Saturday, the biggest things which have

happened in Cardiff since the VE Day and VJ Day which I'm sure we both

remember. The time when Cardiff won the cup in 1926. These are matters

on which there will be many benefits for the people of Wales. Not just

pride in the skills of our team, but in the behaviour of our fans that

were there. I did notice yesterday on the television that the Secretary

of State was, gave a performance dancing with a ball on his head and

on his foot. It seemed to be a wordless message. I didn't quite get

the point. It couldn't possibly be that he was auditioning for a future

job in the uncertain times that we are in politically as a circus

performer. It could have been a subliminal message saying that had

the Secretary of State substituted for Aaron Ramsay last week the

result of the Portugal game might have been different. But there we

are. A matter of great happiness for the country. It was a joy to see

that our beautiful national language and anthem was probably heard by

more people than at any time in its 3,000 year history. That has

intrigued many people but it has given Wales a sharper identity. This

Bill is proceeding in a consensual form. There's a great political

tumult going on in various years but here is an oasis of calm and good

sense as all parties support this beneficial bill, which will give

Wales another certain amount of devolution. The progress is slow and

endless but it is a step forward. I would like to speak first to

amendments 118 to 119. This amendment together with the

consequential amendments to reservation 6 in schedule 1,

paragraph of schedule 2 take us back to the issues from the Government

insisting on retaining the single legal jurisdiction of England and

Wales. Accepting that position following last Tuesday's division we

now need to ensure that the Assembly does have within the single

jurisdiction powers that enail its ave within the single jurisdiction

powers that enail its legislation to be -- enable its legislation to be

forcible and effective. The Bill is drafted to restrict the Assembly's

elective competence inappropriately in our view. It will reverse the

competence given to the Assembly under the Government of Wales Act

2006. Under the Act there's a provision in section 108-5 that

allows the Assembly to make what might be determined ancillary

provision. At present the Assembly has competence to legislate on

matters that relate to one or more of the listed subjects in Part 1 of

schedule 7 of the 2006 Act. The Act also provides that the Assembly has

powers to make provision about non-devolved matters if it is to do,

to make a devolved provision effective or to enforce it if the

provision is otherwise consequential or incidental to the devolved

provision. My understanding is that this is not the UK Government's

intention. Our old friend unintending consequences might well

result. I'm sure it is not their intention to making the Assembly to

enforce or to make effective devolved legislation, because that's

a wish that's common to all parties in the House. However, the Bill

before Parliament now either seeks to prevent that or makes unclear as

to whether the Assembly will have the same ability as it currently

does under the reserved power model and provision of an Assembly Act

will be outside competence if it relates to a reserved matter in

schedule 7 A. There is no express equivalent in section 108-5 of the

2006 Act in this Bill. A provision that relation to reserved matter

will be outside competence and not law, even if the provision in

question is confined to make legislation effective, or to enforce

it. There are other provisions in the Bill that seek to address this

issue. But Welsh Government officials have provided the Welsh

Office with several examples of instances where the Bill as drafted

would have prevented various uncontentious provisions in Assembly

greats being included in those acts. So these are not hypothetical

problems. We've had a strange history of legislation having

consequences of giving us legislation that was cumbersome and

slow, and also judge-driven legislation, where Acts went through

and were subject to adjudication by people outside of Wales. Unless the

Bill is amended the Assembly's ability to make its legislation

forcible and effective will be inappropriately constrained. I

believe this is not the Secretary of State's intention. We'll not be

pressing these amendments the a vote but I urge the Secretary of State to

take them away, give the issues which they raise very careful

consideration and instruct his officials to discuss them further

with Welsh Government officials and bring forward amendments at report

stage to reflect an agreed position on this important issue. I mentioned

some general principles which should apply to consideration of the

reservation schedule. In reserved power model it is for the UK

Government to explain why the relevant subject matter must be

reserved to the centre, to the UK Parliament and Government for

decision. Much of the content of the schedule is uncontroversial. On

matters such as foreign affairs, the Armed Forces, the UK's curt system,

it is common ground that these matters should be determined at UK

level. On others, the situation is more contested. Where reservations

impact on the current competence of the assembly, it is vital that the

case for them is made explicitly and that the drafting is precise and

specific. This is essential in order to protect the Assembly's ability to