12/10/2016 House of Commons

It has come to my attention that this has now been changed. On the

4th of October, the four-dax system is now not even in place. There are

people who cannot feed their children or send them to school

because they don't have mondy for lunch and have to leave jobs because

they cannot afford childcard because of this mess. Can the Speakdr advice

me because my constituents cannot wait until the next question session

for an answer, what tools I can use to ensure the financial Tre`sury

comes to the House to clarify the Government position? I thank the

honourable member for giving me notice of this point of orddr. What

ministers and other honourable members say in this House is of

course their individual responsibility. If a ministdr has

inadvertently misled the Hotse, I would expect that minister to

correct the record. I am sure in the Financial Secretary would do so if

she felt this to be the casd. She will have the opportunity to hear

and study what the honourable member has today said. The honourable lady

asks for advice on how she can hold ministers to account for thdir

statements on this matter. The answer is that there are a number of

Ruth Sheen might usefully follow, however, she may wish to note, there

will be a debate on the performance of consent tricks in dealing with

tax credit claimants, nomin`ted by the Backbench Business Commhttee and

scheduled to take place next Tuesday at 9:30am, in Westminster H`ll. I

confidently predict that thd honourable lady will be in

Westminster Hall at that tile. And although I will not be chairing the

debate because the Speaker does not share such debates, I have ` keen

sense that the honourable l`dy's chances of being heard on that

occasion are pretty high. Mdanwhile, she has made her concern cldar and

it is on the record. We leave it there for now. In Prime Minhster's

Questions, the Leader of thd Opposition very kindly wishdd me

well and I thank him for th`t. But he then went on to imply th`t in

some way I had had special treatment under the NHS. Can I say th`t is

completely outrageous and is not the case? And perhaps the Leader of the

Opposition would like to cl`rify or even apologised to me and the NHS

workers who worked so well for my care. I did no such thing dtring

PMQs. I wish the honourable member well, as I wish everybody else well

who has been treated within the NHS. I love and value our NHS because it

treats everybody equally, ghves them the best possible care and the best

possible recovery, prospects, available to them. I said no such

thing and it is unfortunate if the honourable member thought I did We

can continue this debate. The honourable gentleman has rahsed his

concerns to which there has been a response. I cannot be expected to be

the arbiter of the contributions. The House will be reassured to know

that nothing disorderly has occurred.

The Minister asserted that H was in favour of a second break in the

referendum, I never have bedn and I am not -- Brexit referendum. I hope

the Prime Minister would he`r my remarks. Unfortunately we h`ve just

missed her. It is not the point of order for Lucia, however it is very

interesting. Notably to the honourable lady but because I also

take an anorak late interest in the pronouncements of each and dvery

member it is also of interest to me so I am grateful to her for what she

said. The date would not be complete without it. Mr Chris Bryant. I know

you take seriously your responsibility in protecting the

rights of the house and I do not know if you consult Facebook but if

you did you would find George Galloway, a former MP, still

describes himself as an MP. Would it not be in the interests of this

house to make it clear to f`ce the key is not an MP and it shotld not

claim that privilege. -- make it clear to Facebook. It is not my

responsibility but I am willing to write to the former member. He

cannot currently be heard in this place, when he was here he was hers,

frilly. And sometimes loudlx and with a very considerable eldgance

but he is not an MP and I al happy to put that on the record and if

there are continues to be an debut -- ambiguity they must be corrected.

I am looking for advice on how to hold the Government to accotnt and

get answers from ministers. On the 22nd of June night sent a ldtter on

behalf of the constituent to do then Home Secretary and if blockdd due to

low response I was advised that letter could not be found -, due to

low response. I am still aw`iting a response to the second. In June I

got notice of the ministeri`l letter from the Scottish Secretary and

responded to the e-mail. I responded immediately and I am still waiting

to hear. That is two examplds and it is unacceptable sort your advice

would be appreciated. My initial advice would be to say to

the honourable gentleman make a point in the presence of thd Leader

of the House but the gentlelan has anticipated me because that is what

he has done. The Leader of the House was listening intently. There is a

responsibility on ministers to provide timely and substanthve

answers to questions, previously the leaders of the house have chased

Government department which have fallen down in that regard `nd

knowing the esteem in which the winner of the household this place I

know he will do the same and I hope that will see a change in

performance to the satisfaction of the honourable gentleman. -, in

which the Leader of the House. We come to the ten minute rule motion.

To increase the maximum sentences in court. In fences. Stalking hs a

holeable -- horrible crime `nd can cause lasting mental harm and all

too often is a gateway to sdrious violence. It shatters lives. Despite

the vital progress made by the coalition government in crilinal I

is an stalking in 2012 the sentencing powers available to

protect the victims in the courts remain inadequate. It is high time

we did something about it. H began this campaign together with the

member for Gloucester after learning of what happened to my constituent,

each GP. Over the course of seven years she suffered a horrifhc ordeal

at the hands of her former patient. He turns up at her surgery over 100

times, post of foul items through the letterbox, fall on her own

patient visits, threads thrdatening e-mails and even appeared as the

children's birthday part a doctor was attending and he caused

exceptional anxiety and fear. After serving a short prison sentdnce and

in a not uncommon pattern, he restarted his campaign. Doctor

Karsten received packages at the surgery and home, one was

threatening and abusive and made clear that he knew were her children

went to school. The second package simply red, guess who is back. When

he was again arrested the phone is search, how long after it w`s

disappears and the presumed dead? She was suggested she changdd her

name and address and come off the GMC register and at one point had to

leave work and develop PTSD. And how did the justice system protdct her?

It is clear the judge himself thought he did not have the tools he

needed as when he passed sentence for the second time the judge

stated, I have no doubt you are dangerous in the sense you pose a

significant risk to her in ` future in terms of causing serious harm. I

am restricted the maximum sdntence is five years and if I could I would

give you longer. They then lies the problem. In practice a five year

maximum means a stalker who pleads guilty in the face of overwhelming

evidence for the worst imaghnable friends will in practice serve 8-20

months and in fact sentences are far shorter than the maximum anxway

typically ten months that mdan stalkers are out in five months

often unreformed, untreated and ready to carry on where thex left

off. There are three Central reasons the law should be changed. First,

the most fundamental imperative is to protect the victim. In a digital

age that is more opportunitx than ever to terrorise victims. @n

anonymous accounts can be used to send threatening messages, hn one

case I am aware of the stalker set up a fake Facebook profile hn the

name of the victim's dead f`ther. In an orderly stalker created `n

attempt to impersonate the victim and used it to send abusive messages

to work colleagues. -- in another. In conversations I have had with

victims I saw how they felt devastated and consumed by their

ordeal but also how they can only truly get on with their livds when

they bought their stalker c`nnot hurt them and you can see their

anxiety ratchets up the closer the release date gets. The courts are

frequently sentencing repeat offenders, fixation and obsdssion

means friend is often ignord repeated warnings by the police and

courts and ignore a short sdntences. According to a stop child the 4 % of

those convicted have gone on to reoffend. -- according to a charity.

The court with powers to reflect that in the length of sentence. .2

is bidding for rehabilitation, ultimately I want to see prhson

sentences reform the offenddr and address the underlying obsession

effectively but the evidencd from psychiatrists in our report suggests

repeat short sentences do not have that effect and can in fact make

things worse. Resentment can fester, ready to burst out. Longer sentences

when appropriate can providd a present service more opporttnity to

rehabilitate. The five year maximum does not make sense compared to

other offences. The equivaldnt maximum for shoplifting and seven

years. For fraud it is ten. Burglary is 14 years. For street robbery it

is life. The fact is, despite being a violating and interest of crime

and having the capacity to do such significant harm it is still treated

as a minor offence. That will not do. At least the maximum should be

increased to ten years. The call for greater powers for judges h`s been

backed by charities, criminologist and victims' grips. As for the

judiciary one recently retired circuit judge quoted in our report

stated, I entirely agree thd prison sentencing regime is quite

unsatisfactory. I consider parliament must revisit this matter

soon. Stalkers can be dangerous and delusional and often unpredhctable

and their behaviour can esc`late quickly. It is clear the Government

gets this. As Home Secretarx the Prime Minister said offenders need

to know they will be brought to justice and we will do all we can to

protect victims of stalking. The former Prime Minister in prhvate

Minister's question is calldd stalking a dreadful crime so it is

no surprise because Russian did more than any Government in history to

tackle stocking. There is still more to do. As long as the courts are

left in a sentencing straitjacket and forced to treat this as a minor

crime victims will not be properly protected. The task falls to us in

this chamber to get on and finish the job. We are grateful to the Jets

back. -- the honourable gentleman. As many as are of the opinion, say

"aye". To the contrary, "no". The ayes have it. Who will prep`re and

bring in the Bill? HE READS NAMES

Stalking sentencing bill. 28th of October. We now come to the

opposition Day motion in thd name of the Leader of the Opposition

relating to parliamentary scrutiny of the UK leaving the Europdan

union. I inform the house I have selected amendment be in thd name of

the Prime Minister. To move the motion I call the shadow secretary

of state for exiting the good union. -- the European Union.

Can I start with something H think we can all agree on at the outset of

this debate. The decision to be taken by the Government over the

next few months and years in relation to leaving the EU will have

profound implications for the country's futures, economy, people

and place in the world. We probably never seen such a set of significant

decisions as are going to bd made in this period since the end of the

Second World War. Todaydebate is about the proper of Parliamdnt and

this house in particular throat that process. It is about scrutiny and

accountability. -- throat that process. There was one question on

the ballot paper on the 23rd of June of this year. It was best, should

the UK remain a member of the European union or leave the European

Union? The majority of thosd voting voted to leave. That result has been

the accepted and respected, notwithstanding many, including

myself, campaigned for renaled. That is not the end of the matter. The

next and increasingly presshng question is, on what terms should we

leave the EU? That question was not on the ballot paper. Nor was it

addressed in the Conservative Party's 2015 manifesto, there was no

plan B in the event that thd referendum concluded with a lever

vote. Lord that the Prime Mhnister set out the terms for Brexit before

assuming others because of the nature of the exercise bike which

she assumed that office. Nor do we have the white paper setting out

proposed terms. Instead, hiding under the cloak of the prerogative,

the secretary of state has tntil now declined to give the house take

meaningful role in scrutinising the Government's opening terms for

negotiation and that matters. I am glad to see there is a Government

amendment now, amendment be, and that implies the Government is

taking a step in the right direction towards scrutiny.

I am grateful to him for giving way. What about an actual vote? H am

concerned the amendment does not mention a vote before Article 5 is

triggered. That must be crucial I am grateful for the intervention. I

will come onto the question of a vote because it is important. But

let's take one step at a tile. There is scrutiny and there is. The first

question is the plans, which the housemates to see and debatd. The

next question is what can the House do about it, which is

accountability. I hope that the amendment which has been tabled

today indicates the Governmdnt is going further down the routd of

scrutiny than they had been prepared to so far. If they are, I whll not

crow about it. Because I thhnk it is the right thing to do and it is in

the national interest. And we'll have a duty to make sure we get

right result for the countrx. Howwood Labour handle the

negotiation? I would happilx swap places with the Secretary of State.

And play a part in the negotiation. But we're not in Government, and I

will answer the first intervention, please, nor did we have in our

manifesto, a referendum without a plan for excerpts. And we nded to be

clear at the beginning the responsibility for the position we

find ourselves in lies with a previous Prime Minister who had no

plan for a No vote. I can ghve way to one person at a time. Th`nk you.

He mentioned the terms of otr exit and national interest. I cole from a

business background. I would like to get a sense on his approach to a

successful negotiation. Does he believe the national interest will

be best served by the Government explaining in precise detail its

negotiating positions beford we have even walked into the room? H will

deal with that. That is an dssential question that we need to discuss. I

don't think this should be `bout point-scoring across the Hotse.

We are debating a fundament`l question, whether the basic plans

for a negotiating position will be put before the House or not. That

really matters. Of course there is a degree of detail that cannot be gone

to, a degree of flexibility that has to be there in any negotiathon, and

of course the starting position may not be the imposition. We all accept

that. We all accept that. Wd're all grown up. But the question hs

whether the basic terms shotld be put before the House. Like the

previous Speaker, I also have.. Caroline Fairbairn said that if we

were to read into what we h`ve heard so far, it is that we're he`ding

towards a cliff edge in 2.5 years. Does he recognise, as I do, there

are businesses concerned about the lack of commentary and direction

from the Government? I'm gr`teful for that intervention. Therd are two

aspects of today's debate. The political aspect, and the qtestion

of uncertainty. It is clear that across business, across EU citizens

and the population as a whole, there is great uncertainty about the plans

and that uncertainty simply cannot be kept in place for the next three

years. It is growing uncert`inty. I will give way. I am grateful. I

wonder if he could set out from the House what scrutiny there w`s a very

Lisbon Treaty when that was ratified under the Gordon Brown Government?

There is different scrutiny for different treaties and provhsions.

One example is the scrutiny provided in relation to the original decision

to go into the EC. Because then as I am sure the abominable Woolnough,

command were put before the House. An economic impact assessment was

put before the House. Some of those command papers were voted on. The

idea that it cannot be done was not done in the past is wrong. He

mentioned uncertainty. I have been contacted by businesses in ly

constituency that have until recently been growing rapidly and

had plans to expand this autumn That has now been cancelled. Because

of the uncertainty about our future in the single market and wh`t they

see as the Government's headlong rush to a hard Grexit. What can my

honourable friend say about Labour's position to reassure those

businesses across the whole of Britain who are worried abott our

future in the single market. The priority should be the economy and

jobs and that means access to the single market. I am going to make

progress if I may. I have t`ken ten intervention is already unddr money

on page two. If you will be`r with me, I will press on. On Monday, the

Secretary of stake in friendly pregnancy will invoke Article 5 , no

later than the end of March of next year. Unless Parliament has a

meaningful role in shaping the terms of Grexit between now and then, it

will be too late. Because I can see what is going to happen. Once the

negotiating process is started, there will be a claim by thd

Secretary of State that it would be inappropriate to put anything before

the House by way of detail `nd once the process is over, any risks or

debate will be purely acadelic. On a point of information, that hs not

correct. I have said this already. I'm talking to the Lords colmittee

in September, I sent the Hotse would have at least the information

available to the European Parliament, so that would not be the

case. I read the transcript of the Secretary of State's evidence to

that select committee. Was put to him was that the European

Parliament, on one view, wotld have more answers than this Parlhament

because in 2010, as he knows, there was a framework agreement bdtween

the Commission and the European Parliament, which states, P`rliament

shall be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the

negotiation and conclusion of it, including the directives. Ott goes a

long way further than I unddrstood the Secretary of State's position to

be a Monday. If he can confhrm now that at least that part of scrutiny

is guaranteed I will be verx pleased to take that confirmation. H can.

Thank you. Why did you say the opposite? Mr Speaker, this hs not

just a matter of process. This is a matter of real substance. Both those

who voted to leave and thosd who voted to remain in the EU rdcognise

that different negotiating stances could provide radically different

outcomes. Each of which carry significant risks and opportunities.

That is why there is undoubtedly a keen debate going on behind the

scenes on the Government side because everybody recognises the

potential consequences of adopting the wrong opening stance. Thank you.

My honourable friend makes `n excellent case. Does he agrde that

the British people may have voted to leave the European Union but they

did not vote for their food to become more expensive, wages are low

paid workers to be hit and four jobs to be lost in the manufacturing

agricultural and banking sectors, which is what we are in danger of if

we choose the wrong exit from the European Union. I agree with that.

That is what is causing such great anxiety. I doubt there is anyone in

this House who has not had constituents, individuals or

businesses, approached them with real concerns about the sittation. I

am halfway through a sentence. There are different concerns from

different businesses and different individuals but I certainly haven't

met any... I think the Secrdtary of State would recognise the ddeper

levels of concern there are about the uncertainty of the future,

across the business community and across individual groups and

communities. I will give wax. I am sure I am not alone in having many

representations from individuals, amongst the millions of EU citizens

living in this country and Britons living abroad, who are deeply

insecure about their position. People should not be bargaining

chips. Do we not need to make a priority to ensure those individuals

and businesses have the sectrity they deserve? Many of us have had

anxious conversations with DU citizens or simply wanted to know

what their position is and want guarantees about the future. I will

make some progress. The moddls for exiting are, some of them, have been

discussed. The Norwegian model, the Swiss model, the Turkish model and

the Canadian model are the lost cited. It is unlikely that `ny deal

between the UK and the EU would replicate any of those models, nor

should it. But in negotiating our future relationship with thd EU the

Government will be defining the future of our country so thd terms

matters hugely. It is frankly astonishing that the Governlent

proposes to devise negotiathng terms of our exit from the EU, thdn to

negotiate, then to reach a deal without a vote in this Housd. And

this is where the opening rdmarks I made become important. Becatse

absent anything in the manifesto, absent any words from the Prime

Minister before she assumed office, where is the mandate? Nobodx public

or in this House, the referdndum is not the mandate for the terls. It is

the terms. We have been round this block. Everybody understands the

distinction. I have accepted there is a mandate for exit. Therd is no

mandate for the terms. It h`s never been put to the country, it has

never been put to the Secretary of State's political party and it has

not been put to this House, where is the mandate on the terms? Rdference

has been made to the Lisbon Treaty, which provides a useful precedent.

Is he aware that the policy towards that treaty was debated repdatedly

on the floor of this House, beginning with the launch of the

European constitution. The Government was then account`ble to

this House and the treaty w`s debated days on end on the floor of

the House, with repeated votes at several stages in that procdss.

Nobody mentioned the words Royal Prerogative of Mercy throughout the

entire process. I will come onto that. I think it was debated for

about at least 20 days. I whll give way. The issue of the prerogative is

key here because in 1924, when there was a Labour Government, we insisted

all treaties would be laid before this House for 21 days, so this

House and the House of Lords could take a view. That was the Ponsonby

rule. Under a Conservative Government, they got rid of it. A

Labour Government then reintroduced it and put it on the statutd books.

Is it not worrying that minhsters have been going to the Housd of

Lords and this Chamber and relying solely on the prerogative in

relation to treaties? It is and I am going to deal with the prerogative

in some detail. Because the prerogative is not fixed. Its

changes over time. And in any event, even if the prerogative may legally

allow the executive to procded without scrutiny and accountability

in this House, it doesn't prevent scrutiny and accountability. It does

not require the Government to proceed in that way. It is being

used as a cloak in order to avoid the scrutiny that is needed. Mr

Speaker, I will give way... Some of us were here during the Maastricht

Treaty, when there were manx votes and where the Government forces of

the day were brilliantly whhpped by the present Secretary for Brexit in

favour of the Maastricht Trdaty Just to be clear, the honourable

gentleman, as I am minded to support his motion, is calling for ` vote on

the terms. Not just an examhnation but a vote on the terms before we

send the Secretary to negothate Absolutely, but I do take it in two

stages because both are important. Scrutiny really matters. Thdre is a

separate argument about the vote and I say there should be a votd but

what we must not do is get to a situation where in order to resist

the vote the secretary of state will not even put the plans before the

house. Is it not the case the convdntion is

very clearly established th`t a major treaty change must be

triggered by an affirmative resolution of this house and the

fact it may or may be a convention is still something that must be

respected and there are plenty of conventions, such as the ond in

Government resigns if it loses the vote of no-confidence is a lot more

than a convention but I think the members would be surprised hf those

circumstances were not to go. The prerogative has come up so I

will deal as it now and substance. Prerogative powers developed at a

time when the monarch was both a feudal Lord and head of state. They

have changed over time, yielding were necessary to the demands of

democratic accountability. There are plenty of examples in the courts of

that change. There is also `n example of the prerogative power to

commit troops and armed conflict. In theory the Prime Minister and

Cabinet retain the constitutional right to decide when and whdre to

fight action but in practicd Government in recent times have

ensured parliamentary debatd and a votes and responding to the Chilcot

earlier this year the then Prime Minister made the point that PMQ 's

when he said, I think we now have a set of arrangements and conventions

that put the country in a stronger position and it is now a cldar

convention we have a vote in this house which we dead on Iraq before

military action. -- we dead on Iraq. I will complete this section, if I

may. The underlying premise of the development of the prerogathve is

clear and obvious. The more significant the decision in question

and the more serious the possible consequences the greater thd need

for meaningful scrutiny. Th`t lies at the heart of it and it is hard to

think of the most significant set of decisions with serious consdquences

than the terms on which we leave the EU. All of this is well-known to the

secretary of state. She tabled a ten minute rule Bill in 1999 whhch

concern the exercise of certain powers of ministers of the Crown.

When he introduced the bill in 999 the right honourable member said and

I will quote him, "Executivd decisions by the Government should

be subject to scrutiny by P`rliament and many other areas. The bhll sets

out to make the bill is subject to parliamentary approval giving

Parliament right of approval for all excess power was not conferred by

statute for the ratification of treaties to the approval of others

and counsel to the appointmdnt of members of the Bank of Engl`nd,

etc." The secretary of statd has changed his position. Back then he

recognised the prerogative to be subject to Parliament. The

progressive movement is usu`lly in favour of greater accountabhlity and

not less. The fact he argued it 20 years ago is not against dohng it

now. That bill did not proceed btt the

principles are clear and set out. The prerogative is not fixed,

parliamentary practice and convention can change the

prerogative, it has done so, what I fall back on my primary point, which

is even if the prerogative permits the Government to withhold the plans

from Parliament, it does not require it to do and political

accountability requires the Government to put its plans before

the house. I will give way. I think he is

missing one rather important fact which there has been a vote of the

British people. A vote delegated to the... A vote delegated to the

British people by the terms of the referendum act. The questions he is

to answer, supposing that w`s a vote in this house, how would yot vote?

Would you vote against Article 0 importation or in favour? Ghve a

straight answer to that. I will not take long responding to

that. I have made the point, the mandate on the 23rd of June was not

a mandate on the terms. I think most people understand that. I w`nt to

make this point because that is the question of how would you vote and

what would you vote on and what happens if Parliament does not like

the terms. The secretary of state in his statement on the 5th of

September emphasised he was going to consult widely, including the

devolved countries, which are very important in this and deserves

scrutiny and how it will impact those countries, he said he would

consult widely and, strive to build a national consensus around our

approach. The question for the secretary of state is how to build a

consensus around your appro`ch if you will not help that housd what

you approach is? -- will not tell us house.

I am grateful to the honour`ble gentleman for giving way and he is a

first rate lawyer of intern`tional renown. It is a pleasure to hear

developers argument but I al interested in what he said `bout

devolved administrations. Does he agree the Scottish Government and

other devolved administrations should have a central role hn

negotiations on the UK's perms for exiting the EU and when he `nd his

party throw their weight behind that argument. I absolutely agred and we

will throw our weight behind it The Prime Minister signalled th`t by the

early advisers when she asstmed others. I was hesitant to ask that

encase I got relegated to sdcond or even third rate I will press on

I was just about to say to the honourable gentleman you will

remember that I obvious written -- reiterated the support of hhs

standing as a lawyer. I will give way.

Can I unreservedly withdraw the allegation

I made on Monday only on thd basis it was clumsy and not met about him

and I do not doubt for one loment his capabilities as a lawyer.

I am grateful for that and H can assure him and the house I was not

in the slightest bit concerned. I am grateful to the so many people who

were concerned but I was not in the slightest bit concerned. I consider

the matter closed. This question of the brawl... I will

press on because I am conschous that are very many people who want to

come in. I hope I will not relegated straightaway.

She said it was important for the Government to come before hdre and

specifically lay out their negotiating position. Can I ask is

simple question, when he saxs there was a simple question on thd ballot

paper about whether we should leave or not leave the EU will he tell us

what is the simple definition of leaving the EU? Is it the

non-application of European law Law, there are very different models

for leaving. -- load. We must be clear what is happening bec`use is

important when we come to the bottom of treaties because we're ldaving

one entreaty and almost certainly signing new treaties. It is not just

about exiting one treaty. I have not yet met anybody who suggestdd there

should be no relationship bdtween the UK and the EU and as soleone...

As someone who spent five ydars dealing with counterterrorism and

criminal offences across Europe it is inconceivable we will not be

signing new treaties with the EU because to do otherwise we would

undermine our situation. I will press on because I am conschous many

people want to come in and H have sat on the backbenches getthng

irritated by those on the front bench taking up all the timd. This

is a matter of parliamentarx sovereignty rate but not a political

point, albeit a very Baltic -- albeit an important politic`l point.

By proceeding in this manner the Government causes huge anxidty. In

the Conservative manifesto that was a commitment to safeguard British

interests in the single market in recent weeks the Government has

emphasised membership of thd single market may not be a prioritx for

Brexit negotiations. Among the secretary of state said it was not

necessary for the UK to rem`in a member of the single market and then

there was a telling exchangd between him and the honourable membdr for

Ilford North when the words of the Foreign Secretary were put to him in

relation to EU citizens. Thd secretary of state answered, I've

got the full answer because I was struck by it at the time, hd said,

the simple answer is we will seek to get the most open barrier free

market we can, that will be as good as a single market.

It is always hard to know whether the secretary of state is m`sking,

but if that is the position that is a significant statement and a

significant position and it lies with the approach apparentlx taken

by the Prime Minister who increasingly obvious to extrapolate

from the leave a vote that hs an overwhelming case for a hard Brexit

that does not prioritise jobs or strength of our economy.

I will give way. I would like to reassure him and also congr`tulate

him on taking it very factu`l tone for this debate there are m`ny of us

on the Government benches who will do all they can to preserve the

benefits of access to the shngle market for local businesses. May I

also remind them of the party behind him, seven out of ten of his members

represent constituencies in order to leave and I think the pragm`tic

rather than procedural approach is to rid the Government's amendment,

suggesting it would be negotiating madness for their spouse to have a

blow by blow scrutiny for the terms of exit. Why does he not support the

Government's method which achieves what we all want, not a hard or soft

Brexit but a smart Brexit. I know there is a lot of sh`red

concern across the house about the terms of exit. I have looked at the

amendment and can I make it plain nothing in the motion is intended to

undermine or frustrates the vote on the 23rd of June. Nor is it intended

to frustrate the negotiations. We all understand they have today take

place and there will have to be a degree of confidentiality btt that

does not prevent the plans, basic outline, broad terms, being put

before the house. That is why I am waiting to see what the secretary of

state says. I heard the Prile Minister at the end of Primd

Minister's Questions indicating we had to statements from the secretary

of state, there was a select committee... To statements from the

secretary of state, that's what I thought I said. To statements, a

select committee -- two statements. If all the amendment means hs that

we will get similar statements to the two we have already had it does

not give much comfort. If wd are to get more we shall see. Let le move

on. Will he use this opportunitx to

outline clearly the Labour Party's position on single market mdmbership

because yesterday in the Evdning Standard we had the Mayor of London

warning against irresponsible hard Brexit and departure from the single

market being deeply irresponsible. Two weeks ago and the National

Assembly for Wales beheaded Labour Government warping of the Tory

Government against single m`rket membership -- we had the Welsh

Labour Government of voting but the Tory Government.

There has been understandable uncertainty in business,

universities, trade unions `nd investors on people on both sides of

the referendum. The head of the CBI warned hard Brexit would close the

door and open economy and an open letter signed by business ldaders

that leaving the EU without a preferential trade deal and

defaulting to WTO rules would have a significant cost for petition

exports and imports. These `re just the institutions. So partly

Government has made a broad statements concerning the principle

of protecting the rights of EU citizens already here. In hhs

statement on Monday the secretary of state suggested the Governmdnt is

doing everything possible to guarantee the position of ET

citizens resident in the UK but at the same time seeking to do the same

with British nationals in other parts of the EU. That tone hs at

odds with statements made bx other Government ministers, most notably

the secretary of state for international trade who is speaking

at the Conservative Party conference last week told Conservative Party

members that, we would like to give reassuring to EU national in the UK

but that depends on the way they deal with other countries, to give

them away before and that negotiations would be to hand over

one of our main parts. Putthng EU citizens as bargaining chips. That

is not good enough and many EU citizens in the UK for many years

and their kids deserve bettdr treatment than this.

We believe the Government should end this uncertainty in the market. We

accept concern about immigr`tion and freedom of movement where an

important issue in the referendum and that in light of the results,

adjustments to the freedom of movement will have to be part of a

negotiating process. We must establish their migration rtles as

part of new relationship thd EU But nobody voted on the 23rd of June to

take an axe to the economy or to destroy jobs and livelihoods. A

clear majority of Ashfield voted out and I respect that. Ashfield is an

ex-mining community. The good economic times were never fdlt as

good up there, the bad times where. We don't have good jobs as ht is. Is

it not imperative we do not lose the good jobs that we do have? H could

not agree more. I am grateftl for that intervention. I really don t

think I can be criticised for not taking enough interventions.

Concerns over freedom of movement must be balanced by concerns over

jobs, trade and the strength of our economy. Striking the balance and

navigating our exit from thd EU will not be easy and will requird shrewd

negotiation. The Government must not give up on the best possibld deal

for Britain before it has even started. The Government must put the

national interest first and not out of pressure from backbenchers, for

hard Brexit, this means prioritising access to the single market,

protecting workers' rights, ensuring that common police and security

measures are not weakened and ensuring our economy is abld to

trade with are most important market. I touched on the town of

discussions on Monday. Many people have been appalled at some of the

language used in relation to exiting the EU. An essential step in that

process is to publish the b`sic plans for Brexit and to seek the

confidence of the House of Commons. This motion is intended to dnsure

that scrutiny and that accountability. And I will listen,

of course, to what the Secrdtary of State says in relation to hhs

amendment and I will give w`y to him. A point of information, is his

motion requiring a guaranted of a vote? I'm not quite sure. A prior

vote? Is that what he is after? The motion before the House is clear as

to scrutiny. So, it is the first part. There is a question of event

and I will make it absolutely clear I am pressing for a vote th`t this

exercise will obviously be going on for some time. We will have plenty

of these skirmishes. I am anxious that we have first proper scrutiny

and also a vote. What I don't want to do is to jeopardise the scrutiny

by a vote against the vote. So, anybody in this House on all sides

who want scrutiny, can happhly support the motion and I will listen

carefully to what the Secretary of State says when he speaks about the

amendment. But this is a serious challenge. These are the most

important decisions for a generation. And the role of this

House is a fundamental important issue that we have to ensurd is

compatible with scrutiny and accountability. Thank you, Lr

Speaker. The question is as on the order paper. I call the Secretary of

State for Exiting the Europdan Union, David Davis. Thank you.

Another day, another outing. I knew they would like that. For the

avoidance of doubt, the Secretary of State moves the amendment. Thank

you. I am glad to hear the Labour Party spokesman is accepting we must

respect the decision of the people. I think that is important. H will

come back to why it is not clear in less than a minute. He also went on

to say we do not want to sed point-scoring. And I rather agree.

This is too important an issue for that. The House should know that

this morning I received a ldtter from the Shadow Secretary of State

and his predecessor, it was extremely flattering about ly

history of standing up for the rights of Parliament and so on. It

then went on to pounds 170 puestions about our negotiating. 170. To give

you an idea of how much of ` stunt this was, that one question derogate

from now until the triggering of Article 50. And worse than that ..

Some of the questions in thhs very long list, some of them are requests

to pre-emptively concede eldments of our negotiating strategy. I give

way. I am grateful for the Secretary of State giving way. The Sh`dow

Secretary of State would not do so. I have been listening careftlly to

this debate and the Shadow Secretary of State talked about respecting the

vote of 23rd of June. The vote was clear we are to leave the Etropean

Union. You cannot leave the EU without triggering Article 40. That

is where negotiations start. Therefore, the details he w`nts to

scrutinise begin at that pohnt. Therefore, should not be thd

Government's right to triggdr Article 50, as per the instruction

of the British people, to go ahead and then we begin the negothation?

My honourable friend is exactly right. That is the premise tpon

which we are advancing. That is not to say that if he waits for a moment

I will give way to him, the premise upon which we are advancing is that

we should have proper scruthny. I will go through that in a mhnute.

But it is not one in which we will allow anybody to veto the ddcision

of the British people. That is the point. I will now give way. If it is

really the case that Articld 50 at the start of the process and we can

start scrutinising after th`t, why is it that Article 50 will only be

triggered nine months after the vote? Surely it is because there is

a huge amount of preparation to be done? It is because it takes a

little while to prepare the negotiating strategy! A point I will

return to. I will give way. Can the Secretary of State address this If

there is not parliamentary ` centre for the negotiating position he

takes into the negotiations, how can there possibly be parliamentary a

cent for the result of the negotiations? Unless he pulls off

the remarkable trick of getting a better deal than he is asking for? I

will go through the stages of assent. It is a reasonable point.

One more time. Is a long-st`nding Brexiteer, might I take him back to

the reasons why the Governmdnt wants to so early action Article 40? What

is behind that? And is therd any possibility that this statelent

might take on the colour of the statement from the Home Secretary

about foreign workers? Now, I don't think so. He asked the question with

some seriousness. Part of the reasoning here is that the Prime

Minister quite reasonably fdels that the people want this process to be

under way. If you believe opinion polls, this is the case. Thd leader

of his party said we should trigger it immediately. What we are doing is

we're putting it together, the negotiating strategy which requires

an enormous amount of work. Some will become public as we go along. I

am determined, as you would expect, that Parliament be fully and

properly engaged in how we lake a success of Brexit. Turning to the

motion setup for this Opposhtion Day, the motion that I can broadly

welcome, but with important caveats. The caveats are why the Govdrnment

at the moment is necessary, to make sure the decision the peopld made on

June 23 is fully respected. That is the first key point. We need to be

explicit that while we commdnd and welcome parliamentary scruthny, but

must not be used as a vehicle to undermine the Government negotiating

position or to thwart Brexit. Both things are important. The

negotiation will be complex and difficult and we should do nothing

to jeopardise it. As I said on Monday, the honourable gentleman

quoted me many times, the sovereignty of Parliament and its

restoration is at the very heart of why the UK is withdrawing from the

European Union. Not for a moment. For decades, the primacy of the UK

Parliament has been superseded by decisions made in the EU

institutions but now, following the construction of voters under the

referendum of June 23, we c`n finally change that and put

Parliament unequivocally in charge. Now, that's exactly why we `nnounced

plans for the Great Repeal Bill last week. It is a clear commitmdnt to

end the primacy of EU law. Ht will return sovereignty to the

institutions of the UK becatse that's what the referendum was

about, about taking back control. Naturally, Parliament will oversee

the passage of that Bill, which will allow us to ensure our stattte book

is fit for purpose on the d`te we leave the European Union. Then it

will be for parliament allowed to determine what changes best suit the

national interest. Let me address that. The honourable gentlelan is

first? I am grateful. I havd long heard the honourable gentlelan's

support of the scrutiny of Parliament. Will he therefore

presented to Parliament and have a vote in parliament on the opening

position of the Government on the terms which he is presenting for

negotiation to the European Union? I will come back to some of that

later. But what I will not `llow is any party to have a veto on the

decision to leave the Europdan Union. That is the first kex

decision. I give way. I find this argument that somehow Parli`ment

wishes to thwart the will of the people a complete straw man. As has

been pointed out, seven out of ten Labour MPs are in constituencies

where a majority of people voted to leave. As a Democrat, I cannot

ignore that and accept the result. Therefore, while right honotrable

gentleman running scared of parliamentary scrutiny? Hardly

running scared of parliamentary scrutiny, two appearances bdfore a

select committee, in about two and half weeks of parliamentary session.

Leaving the EU is a momentots decision. Let's be clear we agree on

that. With such a huge turnout, 72%, with over 33 million people having

their say, there is an overwhelming mandate to put the will of the

British people into practicd. I spoke at length in my plan to make a

success of Brexit. As I said, first, we want to build a national

consensus around our position. I have already promised to listen to

all sides of the debate and make sure we fight our negotiation for

the best deal in the countrx. You cannot do that in secrecy. We will

put the national interest fhrst We will listen carefully to wh`t the

devolved administrations sax to us. My third aim is that wherevdr

possible, and it is not alw`ys possible, we will minimise

uncertainty. That is part of what the Great Repeal Bill is about.

Bringing existing EU law into domestic law. And empowering

Parliament to make the changes necessary to reflect our new

relationship. Finally, by the end of the process, when we have ldft the

EU, we will have put soverehgnty to Parliament. The ayes of the world

are upon us. I am, concerned about the Sterlings

and the Prime Minister's colments last week and many people in the

country do not think that is the policy in the national interest

there is a policy to put narrow ideological interests first. What

they are setting out is how we're going to predict but as jobs and

businesses and put ideology in the past, where it belongs.

I hardly think it is ideology. I do. I hardly think it is ideology to

reflect the will of the British people. I am very grateful to him

giving way. Woods he agreed with the Italian Prime Minister when he said

we had to make Brexit work for the EU and the UK because if we do not

it would make a mockery of democracy? That is not ideology He

is right and nobody in this exercise from the other side of the `rgument

has quite pointed out how odd it is fellow democracies, allies hndeed,

threatened to punish each other for the exercise of democratic rights. I

want to take up the honourable lady point. People naturally want to

understand where we are heading and we have been quite clear on the

overarching aims, not the ddtailed aims, we are not even at thd point

that is possible. The overarching themes IDs, bring back control of

laws to bring back decision over immigration, maintaining a strong

security cooperation with the EU and establishing the freest possible

market in goods and services with the EU and the rest of the world. I

cannot see how those are not very clear overarching objectives.

I thank the secretary of st`te for giving way and can I say it would be

helpful to businesses to give as much clarity as possible ovdr the

likely future trading arrangements. I was concerned to see it b`nk

announced yesterday the intdntion to locate activities outside of the UK.

So let me say, the more clarity we can give without prejudicing our

negotiating position the better it will be for British businesses

because there is a danger some minute decisions in the next three

or four months. I'd take his point and the hssue one

must bear in mind is we can get clarity as we go along about the

negotiating strategy and gr`nd terms but what we cannot do is tell

anybody, business or otherwhse, where we will arrive at bec`use it

is a negotiation. It is a negotiation and a negotiation is not

entirely within the control of one country. I give way.

The honourable gentleman for the look-mac has just said on the

politics show at lunchtime ht is likely the Government will publish a

green paper or white paper with its proposals to form the basis of

consultation before the triggering of article 50. Now, is this the

latest hand U-turn and what has the Minister got to say? Law is the

answer. A half your time is the right time, I think. -- calf U-turn.

I want to say this, one of the things we've sought to clarhfy early

which does not have the cost to the negotiating terms is the trdatment

of employment rights for workers and that we made clear in the shn, just

as I tried to do with the status of EU migrants here. We can do those

things are the status of EU migrants here. We can do those things are

they, we cannot, as he well knows as he is negotiated a number of things,

you cannot give away your negotiating strategy early. In a

moment. Not for the moment. Let me finish this section and then I will

give way. We have got these are the obvious

overarching strategic aims, they are clear, not remotely doubtful and

might only view but it must be Labour don't want to recognhse its

because some of them are uncomfortable with it. They have a

policy which is, at not quite entirely sure what it is, about

completely unspecified. I whll do. completely unspecified. I whll do.

Are we going to get more th`n laws four short sentences? Are wd going

to get a plan? That is the simple question. He will have to w`it for

that. At the moment of the reason this has not been promised before

the end of March is it takes time. We are meeting organisations across

the country from treated industry, telecoms, financial services,

agriculture, energy, Nation`l Council of voluntary organisations,

universities, TUC. All thesd organisations are putting to us

their concerns and some of them are incredibly serious concerns. We will

deal with them and we are focusing on doing with those concerns and

establishing what opportunities there are because there are

significant opportunities and then devising it negotiating str`tegy

that serves the interests of the whole country, all of them, not one

at the time. I give way. My constituency has the third

highest financial sector employment of any in the UK. As a shard my

concern at worst employees hn that sector do not do the detail of the

Government's position they do here from those employers who ard looking

to move out of this country? -- share my concern that those

employees? In the immediate aftermath of the vote there was an

extraordinary outpouring of grief but the blame Brexit Festiv`l, if

you like. We saw it ranging from the Italian Finance Minister bl`mes

others for the state of his bond markets, to banks in this country is

saying they are laying people off because of Brexit would turn out to

be entirely untrue. So I wotld have some sympathy with employees who

have made nervous by employdrs who are guessing the worst outcome. I

give way. I would urge him to take a lore

constructive approach with those who have sincere anxieties about the

future. In the Northeast 58$ of our exports go to EU countries,

regardless of how anyone voted in the referendum, they did not vote to

lose those jobs that all thd terms of eggs are essential and does the

secretary of state recognisdd parliamentary scrutiny is therefore

essential. -- therefore the terms of exit. I am in favour of

parliamentary scrutiny and part of the reason is a recognition of

concerns about their own job futures. That is why we havd said in

terms with want to get the free trade arrangement which is `t least

as good as what we have now both in terms of the EU but also outside. I

give way to the honourable lady Could I tempt him to just ptt some

flesh on to the bones on immigration? Has the Governlent

arrived at the decision to give EU citizens currently hear the rights

they have on June 23? Have `greed to break the link between tradd and

people? Have agreed EU citizen should have the same condithons for

immigration as non-EU citizdns? There must be some broad prhnciples

he could share the house. Let me deal with the first hssue she

raised, treatment of current EU migrants. I have said in terms and

it was quoted by the honour`ble gentleman, we seek to give them

guarantees as good as what they have now. The only condition is we get

the same guarantees for British citizens. Far from making pdople

bargaining chips, treating them as a group of boys making them b`rgaining

chips. In terms of other aspects of the immigration policy is to bring

the control back to the UK ,- treating them as a group stops them

being bargaining chips. It lust be decide what here in this hotse by a

British Government and subjdct to parliamentary oversight and control.

I will make some progress and give way in a moment.

The return to the opposition's motion, they say there should be a

full and transparent debate on the Government's plan for leaving the

EU. I agree. At the same tile I am sure we all agree nothing should be

done to compromising nation`l interest in a negotiation. H think

the honourable gentleman sahd that in his opening speech. I can list

the whole series of 100 questions answered, oral statements and the

house knows all this. We ard not as a department being... In a loment.

We're not being back with an appealing in front of the house the

house may not be overwhelmed with the detail of the answer yet, hardly

surprising, we are only a a few weeks into the process, six months

away from the end of the process. That does not surprise me, but the

simple truth is we are appe`ring regularly in front of your house and

seeking to give as much as they can. I give way.

I am grateful. He said a molent ago the repeal bill will give us some

certainty so, asked for somd certainty on environmental

legislation because even whdn EU legislation has been enshrined in EU

or -- UK law would need to know the extent of any future changes will be

subject to parliamentary scrutiny and vote and also what kind of

accountability mechanisms hd is imagining to be in place because

once we leave the EU we leave - lose access to the commission. How

is that become traditional? It is entirely subject to the will

of the house. Any Government seeking to alter it will have to get the

permission of the house and devote to the house. It will also be on the

British courts, which is thd other aspects she asked about.

Following up on the question from my right honourable friend for

Edgbaston, could be right honourable gentlemen please tell us now has the

Government 's turned its back on membership of the single market Yes

or no, please. I'm afraid that intervention is a

demonstration of what is ond of the problems we have of the language

over this. We have are people talking about hard Brexit and soft

Brexit, which means very little we have had an attempt to pigeonhole

what could be any one of a whole range of outcomes in market terms.

We have not started a negothation with the EU yet, not started the

negotiation and there is a whole spectrum from free-trade arda to

customs union to the single market arrangement. The honourable

gentleman, the spokesman for the opposition led out some of them We

will not go for a Norwegian option or a Scottish option audio ,- not go

for a Turkish option, we will go for a British option.

I am grateful to the right honourable gentlemen but he has not

answered the very reasonabld question from his honourabld friend

illustrating the point he is struggling to make them can be found

in these words from Andrew Khan who said, I find it shocking David

Cameron prohibited the civil service from doing preparatory work. It was

a humiliation for this country are partners in Europe should s`y you

have voted for this but you have no idea what you want. Can the right

honourable gentlemen give any plausible explanation for this

serious dereliction of duty by the former Prime Minister?

There are many things I will say at the dispatch box are critichsing

David Cameron is not one of them. -- box criticising David Cameron is not

one of them. In a moment. All right. I am most grateful. Cap and Neil

that line once and for all. The public administration and the select

committee took evidence frol Sir Jeremy Heywood 's and he confirms

senior civil servants were leeting before the referendum to discuss the

outcomes, including the possibility the country would vote to ldave the

EU. Plans and preparations were being made by the British chvil

service before the referendtm. I will... I will move on now to the

actual question of scrutiny. We have already got plans to, the

house, has plans to put in place the so-called Brexit select comlittee

which will take effect next month and we will appear regularlx in

front of that. It would be surprising to appear in front of it

and not be speaking about... We will also attend the Lords committee the

effect equivalent in the Lords. We welcome scrutiny but members of the

house will know I have conthnually and welcomed and champion the

extension of select committde powers since the publication of thd report

in 2009. The public expects ministers to engage with Parliament

and this week and will conthnue to do so. I also admit commitmdnt in

September that Parliament whll at least be as informed of progress in

negotiations. The honourabld gentleman did not appear to believe

that when I told the Lords but it was also confirmed in the sdlect

plain and we set up procedures for plain and we set up procedures for

when it becomes relevant, in a month or two, to make sure that h`ppens

and happens quickly and we `re not having to go to an EU website to

find what we want to know. That will be the minimum, that will bd the

minimum. We will be considerably beyond the minimum. I have... Any

moment. Hi should also tell the house, I

made the commitment for the parliament, to be at least `s

informed or better informed than the EU Parliament. I have also `sked the

Chief Whip through the usual channels, to ensure that we have a

series of debates so the hotse can air its views and again it would be

very surprising if we had those debates without presenting for the

house something to debate. H give way. I thank the Secretary of State

for giving way and I refer back to the honourable member from Brockel's

question, I don't think the second row straight answered it addquately

or not. You're either a member of the single market will not, the

government needs to spell ott, are you in favour being members of the

flat in favour of being members of the single market or not. It is

astonishing how linear or black or white they'd think this is. You have

got no way that is inside the single market and outside of the ctstoms

union, Turkey that is insidd that at outside the customs union btt inside

the single market. Switzerl`nd which is not in the single market but has

equivalent access for all of its productive and manufacturing

services. This is not a single entity, this is a spectrum of

outcomes and we will be livd to in to get the best of it. I th`nk the

Secretary of State for giving way, he will know, when this was being

discussed that the British public voted that they knew being ` member

of the single market meant that you had to have free movement. This was

one of the basic, basic principles of why people in their millhons

voted to leave. Is it not thme that we would actually straightforwardly

say that we want to access, the fullest possible access to the

single market but that we c`nnot keep your going to stop fred

movement which is what the people of this country wanted, then wd cannot

be members of the single market Broadly, the argument about full

access and control of RM borders is an argument that the Prime Linister

has already made, in the last few weeks, I don't think I need to

elaborate on that. Let us understand something about this. Where does

this argument go, sometimes we simply argue over which end of the

egg we open first. The argulent between us is where the divhding

line is between what we tell Parliament about. The honourable

gentleman recognised in terls that we could not give every det`il to

Parliament. Despite his letter we could not give a blow by blow, we

could not have Parliament dhctate how we deal with the trade-offs and

the terms and so on. So it hs fairly plain, that is what the criterion

is, despite the noise to his right. That is where the problem is. Let us

be clear how this applies. Hf you tell your negotiator, that xou

negotiate with your oppositd number in negotiation exactly what your

priorities are, exactly what your top priority is, then it will make

that top priority extremely expensive. All three people in their

ordinary lives probably do one big transaction themselves and that is

the purchase of a house. If you went to buy a house and you only looked

at one house and he told thd person that you were in love with xour

house, I suspect that the price would go up and that in a moment,

the price would go up. Similarly. In a moment. Similarly, if you make

pre-emptive indications that you are willing to make a concession on

something, you reduce the v`lue of that concession. So in many ways, we

cannot give details about how we are going to run a negotiation. I thank

my right honourable friend for giving way and he's right that

negotiations are rife fragile process. My select committed, is

looking very closely at the impact of Brexit on quality protections.

Something that I'm sure is not necessary height on his list at the

moment. We want to do some of that work with him. Will he undertake

today to do that work with ts and contribute to the select colmittee

because at the moment we ard finding it difficult to secure that

contribution from his department. I see no reason not to help the select

committee, it seems to me a sensible use of time and use of the select

committee's expertise. Of course we will do that but this is gohng to be

an issue across the board, pretty much every select committee is going

to have an interest, one wax or another, in the progress of Brexit

and what the outcome will bd. I will allow him. Can I just ask hhm about

timing, as I do stand it, the government intends us to have left

the European Union by the 1st of April 2019, the dossier is `llowed

for in article 50 will have transpired during that period but he

has already laid out loads of different areas which will have to

be legislated for as a result of those negotiations, after those

negotiations have happened, when he might be overturned in this house

will wrap the other end of the building.

How is he going to make surd that he carries the whole of the cotntry

with him at each of the bits and pieces of the detail if he hasn t

produced a draft of what he's aiming for in the first place? That is why

we made plain at the beginnhng of the process, that we would have a

great repeal bill that will put into UK law or domestic law more

accurately, what is currently the acquis communautaire, that hs the

start position. It may be for example there will be a fisheries

built or some other legislation and that will have to be argued

throughout the time. It is pretty straightforward. Forgive me but I

will give way in a second. H did actually promise him next. Xes.

Thank you to the Secretary of State. He said a moment ago that it would

be a mistake to the governmdnt to illustrate what is top priority in

the negotiations is, but isn't it the case that every speech `t

Conservative Party conference indicated that the top priority was

the control and limitation of immigration from the Europe`n Union.

Is that not the case? That Frankie will be within our own control, if

we leave the European Union it gives you control over that. The `ccess

back into the European Union, how to deal with it, how you trade with it

comes on from there. It is not an issue that actually... In a second.

The simple demonstration of what I am trying to, the point I'm trying

to make, is this. In Northern Ireland, where we have a re`lly

important issue to resolve, soft borders, right? There is a

circumstance where both sidds of the decision-making have, the

decision-makers have a similar interest. The Northern execttive,

and the Irish government. As a result, we can be very open about

that and we can indeed be vdry open about that. The Secretary of State

for Northern Ireland was quoted in the Guardian on Monday in ddtail

about what he is trying to `chieve in terms of customs arrangelents,

cross-border arrangements, the Common travel area, all of these

things. Very straightforward. Why? Because that doesn't give away any

of our negotiation cars bec`use it is between two people with the same

aim. That is a much better dxample of how we have to be careful about

what we say as we go into the decisions. You mention fishdries and

taking back control, is fisheries may be somewhere that might be

devolved to the Scottish Parliament that leaves the European Unhon, and

can he, rule out, that any power will be repatriated from thd

Scottish Parliament to this place as part of the Brexit process. I

wouldn't expect that is part of the Brexit process that will but it is

one other things, that we nded to discuss, with the devolved

administration. How we addrdss issues like fisheries, farmhng, hill

farming, sorts of issues whhch will alter, and the legal basis will

alter as we bring things back. To the United Kingdom. The poshtion,

the status quo as the sexual state well knows, is that everythhng is

devolved to Scotland unless it is reserved Aspas Secretary of State.

Agriculture and fisheries are not reserved so they are devolvdd, so

unless, the government changes that positions, it will be autom`tic that

those powers to the Scottish Government? This is an area where we

have not addressed or talked to the domestic, devolved assembly at all

yet. We will do so, before we get to the position to bringing it back. It

is not just, the attitude on negotiating, data, is not shmply the

government, the Lords Europdan Union committee said the following "It is

clear that Parliamentary scrutiny of the negotiations has to strhke a

balance between the wrong h`nds the desire for transparency and on the

other the need to avoid unddrmining the UK negotiating position. So this

is hardly rocket science, it should hardly be controversial. It should

be straightforward. So everx stage of this process, I want this house

to being gauged and updated. And as I have made clear we will observe

the constitutional and legal conventions applying to any treaty,

any new treaty on the relathonship with the European Union. To address

the final part of the motion, the house is able to properly scrutinise

government plans from leaving the EU before article 50 is involvdd.

Article 50 sets out the process in which we leave the EU, that has been

decided by the British people, invoking it, is a job for the

government, leaving the EU, is what is involved and article 50 hs how we

do it. I'm very grateful to my right honourable friend for giving way and

I welcome the terms of the government 's amendment which seems

entirely sensible. Will he `ccept and is my understanding right that

he does accept that those of us who are raising concerns about the level

of debate that is necessary ahead of the triggering of article 50, are by

no means necessarily seeking to frustrate the will of the pdople.

Having accepted instructions of the British people, that we shotld leave

the European Union. However, what we seek is a full understanding of what

the government's negotiating ends are. I'm glad to hear him s`y that,

scrutiny of the strategic ahms of what this is about in truth.

Parliamentary and agement of the type that I am engaging, th`t form

the negotiating position, btt they have two be at a strategic level,

they cannot enter into, the individual detailed negotiations.

The I'm grateful for the Secretary of State give way, isn't thhs one of

the strange debates were both sides are agreeing with each other, that

we are having Parliamentary scrutiny and if the opposition are against

it, they can do opposition days backbench business, all of these

things. We are absolutely not disagreeing today, we will going to

accept the motion, what is going on is that there is a general lot of

noise but actually Parliament is agreeing that this process should go

forward and we shook scrutinise it properly. I think that is the gist.

Well to be frank I do, I thhnk we have been going round in circles

debating whether or not we `re going to debate. I give way to thd

honourable gentleman. I am grateful for the honourable gentleman giving

way, he mentioned a few minttes ago, hill farmers and also the fhshing

sector, I happen to be a crofter myself. Many other crofters will be

asking, will the financial support remain for hill sheep farmers for

the rest of post-Brexit, and fishermen will be asking thd same,

for purchasing and upgrading the fishing boats. So we have got to

make sure, that that money will come from the UK Government? I think the

honourable gentleman will know that we have already made undert`kings to

the 2020 round which of course is the end of the European guarantee,

beyond that I'm quite sure that the Treasury will be looking very hard

that the necessary economic 's of these industries in all devoted

ministrations and indeed in England too. Let me be clear, the spokesman

for the opposition, the shadow Secretary of State said: th`t the

British people did not vote for any particular on or off Brexit.

That was on the ballot paper. They would, I would think, have not

prisons about soft Brexit, hard Brexit, they would have asstmed that

the British government has set about the negotiation to do the bdst

possible for all parts of society. Although the United Kingdom,

including the devolved administrations. Industries,

sectors, manufacturing, and the right honourable lady has s`id yes,

because we all from the working class. I take a much more sdrious

view of the working class, than she has been supporting. The silple

truth, what the British govdrnment is doing is setting out to get the

best possible outcome, for security, baubles, Democratic and for access

to markets, across the European Union and its aid. The Brithsh

people voted for that, 17 and a half million. The original questhon was

on the paper, since Wayne Alendment -- since when the amendment has been

proposed, the question is that the amendment is made. Mr Speakdr, can I

start by welcoming the new spokesman, for the opposition. We

look forward to working togdther over these next crucial few months.

And I also want to thank hel for bringing this motion to the house.

We have a lot of doubts, and questions, but I thank him for this

debate, and this has been a stake in the correct direction. Thesd talks,

negotiations, this crucial period is going to have an impact across every

policy area, of the country. But we are seeing very little detahl. If

you were that this lack of detail -- if you were that this lack of detail

has more to do with the Cabhnet themselves than it does abott ideas

and the negotiating strategx. I am a new member of Parliament, btt others

could possibly tell me if it is normal for the Secretary of State,

spending some much time at the dispatch box without actually

telling us anything. I am none the wiser about what we are doing at the

moment. This seems remarkable. And the other thing about negothations,

be telling us that they are having negotiations, about the single

market. These questions, but they cannot answer the simple qudstions.

When you sit down with the Duropean partners, starting negotiathons

what have you been telling them What could you possibly be telling

them? We do not even have a starting point. Mr Speaker, I want to make

this point. He has made this point, to my right honourable friend, and

this is like buying a house. This is not like buying a house. Thhs is a

democratic process, impact hn on citizens, and we should be subject

to the most intense scrutinx and that goes for the devolved

administrations. I know that the member and his party have bden

resisting the will of the pdople, as expressed at this referendul, but

what has he found difficult about the Secretary of State's assurances

that as far as the government is concerned, to just take the single

market issue, seeking the m`ximum exposure to the single markdt for

British manufacturers and that is going to be the objective of the

negotiations. What isn't a fickle? -- what is so difficult? Many

reasons. One of them was th`t the irresponsibility for campaigning to

leave the European Union, the Secretary of State, who was

campaigning to leave the European Union, on the blank sheet of paper.

I have said this before and I will say it again. When we were

campaigning for independencd, we had the decency to produce, my right

honourable friend, this 670 page paper. People knew what thex were

going to be voting for. I al very grateful to my right honour`ble

friend. I am sure that the fishermen of Northern Ireland will be

concerned, just as much as those from the Outer Hebrides, about the

funding after 2020. That is a concern for people from all parts.

That is a very good point. Ht is a concern, for fishermen, farlers

universities and others who rely on this relationship with the Duropean

Union. Mr Speaker, we're de`ling with the campaign, with the act of

negligence and the government was providing us with gross

irresponsibility. And if yot can answer for that act of gross

irresponsibility I will givd way. As I recall, he has mentioned the fact

that his party produced this 60 page dossier, I heard of thd vote.

Absolutely. -- ahead of the vote. But when they were asked about

currency, be simply had no hdea No idea about the consequences of

independence. That is remarkable. My right honourable friend settp the

fiscal commission, I am surd we can make that we are to the members We

had Nobel laureates. How many do you have? Zero. Order. You are `n

exceptionally boisterous ch`racter, and in the voice of your behaviour,

you appear to be chewing sole sort of gum. I think you still h`ve some

distance to travel. Mr Speaker, just to round off, if you will forgive me

my cultural references then these from Brexit have got us into another

mess. And on this point, I will come to you and a moment, of the devolved

administrations then this is a significant point. My right

honourable friend raised thhs point and it was not answered. It is not a

matter for negotiation, on these islands, so do they go strahght to

the Scottish Parliament? Ard you going to have the change to the

Scotland act? And are you going to have a change to schedule ntmber

five of the Scotland act? You have got no answer. That is not ` matter

of negotiation, that is fact. You cannot give us that. This h`s been

extraordinarily disappointing for the devolved administrations, we

have gone from being involvdd, too consulted. I wonder if the Secretary

of State is going to tear w`s - going to tell us, if we are going to

have an agreed position. Solebody else could take some notes for him.

And what is the formal role of the Scottish Parliament? This place the

UK Government, does not havd a particularly good track record when

standing up for the fishermdn and farmers. The member for Orkney and

Shetland has raised the point that when we went into the Europdan

Union, Scottish fishermen wdre described as expendable. Thhs will

give the Secretary of State the opportunity to listen to qudstions.

But in the days after she bdcame Prime Minister, the Prime Mhnister

met with Scotland's First Mhnister and seemed to assure Scotland that

article 50 would not be triggered until we had the agreed poshtion

with the Scottish administr`tion. I think it is a reasonable pohnt for

the right honourable member to ask if that is still the governlent

policy, or if the government has been keen to run ended? -- has been

trained to amended? I will give way. The Prime Minister has shown clearly

how important she views the devolved administrations and she went to

Scotland and she said two things. We were going to consult and dhscuss

with the Scottish Government and the administration in detail before we

triggered Article 50 and before we brought the act. But we cannot get

anybody of the tool. -- a vdto. We will do everything possible to meet

the needs of the Scottish pdople, and the other devolved

administrations. Mr Speaker, more time at the dispatch box and even

less information. What we wdre told, was that we would have an agreed

position between the devolvdd nations. The Secretary of State

seems to be backtracking on that. He can perhaps tell us if we are going

to get an agreed position btt I do not want to get him into trouble

again. I am going to make some progress. I am going to makd some

progress. It is a valuable point that this place has got to learn.

Democracy at the United Kingdom does not begin and end with this

Parliament. This has been the case for some time. But at the moment we

are in the situation when the unelected, the House of Lords are

long corridor almost have a greater say on what happens next th`n the

devolved administrations. The elected, devolved administr`tions.

And what is going to happen to the coastal communities, the fund? The

has been raised. What happens to the renewable obligations as Scotland is

going ahead from the rest of the United Kingdom, along with the

climate change obligations. What happens to the leading univdrsities

and I have got to mention S`int Andrews. Never heard of it. The

honourable member is clearlx in need of a better education. What happens

to the social protection? All of these questions are an unsolved and

yet we still have a question about the single market, and what happens

to the European nationals. H will give way. I am most grateful, for

giving way. He is raising ldgitimate points on a legitimate basis, that

democracy does exist at othdr parts of the United Kingdom. Independent

of this race. We need a respectful and constructive dialogue. ,- this

house. And indeed, we need respectful dialogue between this

Parliament and other parlialents of the United Kingdom. I have `lready

visited the Scottish Parlialent and I am actually offering to ghve

evidence to the Scottish Parliament on the evidence of these qudstions.

I hope that the dialogue shd wants is going to be in that spirht of

cooperation. Can I thank thd right honourable member for that, and for

visiting Edinburgh. And hopdfully we can continue to interact with

colleagues. I am glad to be able to see this, because I think hd makes a

reasonable point and I agred with them that that is what should

happen. I want to make some progress. But we have questhons

about the single market and I want to talk about European nationals.

European nationals have madd this country home. Contributing

significantly to social and financial well-being. Making society

all the richer. To be discl`imed by the international secretary in that

term was an acceptable. I al going to give way. On the point of these

structural funds, the government cannot even be straight abott this.

The Chancellor's later, issted this year with sales to funds th`t have

already been allocated. -- get referrals. Even on that, we have

confusion. And the north-east could lose hundreds of millions of pounds.

I thank the right honourabld member. That is a valuable point.

Universities, businesses, so many of cultural organisations such as the

Church in my community, thex are going to be looking at the next

steps for European funding. And they have to think about taking the next

steps without these answers. We need to climb beyond 2020. It is an

excellent point. This remains the of the issue for government about the

negotiating strategy. As well as the policy, they are responsibld for

negotiating on behalf of us all That is something that should

concern us. We have not seen any more details, we have not sden any

papers, we certainly have not. Think about the impact this is gohng to

have. The institute has said that in Scotland alone, and I know others

are going to have concerns that were going to have 3% fewer jobs when we

leave the European Union and this could cost 80,000 jobs. Affdcting

households, who solves could be 7% lower.

I'm very grateful to my honourable friend giving way, he will be aware,

that the financial services sector, supports 150,000 jobs. He whll also

be aware that there is concdrn in that sector about whether p`ssport

in rights will be lost or kdpt as a result of Brexit. Does he agree with

me that if the government are not successful, the passport in rights

for the financial sector, m`ny jobs are likely to lead Scotland and go

to the European continent. The honourable lady makes an excellent

point which particularly affects our constituency. Yes I do agred. And on

that point. And on that point, I want to quote Professor Graham Roy,

who said "Leaving the EU wotld have a significant negative impact on the

Scottish economy," and that rings true. And I will give way to the

honourable gentleman. Very grateful, he mentioned a moment ago that

people wanted to be certain beyond 2020. Is he aware that the framework

will not be renewed until 2020 and therefore there is uncertainty if we

remain in the European Union as to how funding will continue in that

date including for the honotrable gentleman. I congratulate the

honourable member on the latter point. But on the point on the 020,

it is right that already we have seen, universities who negotiate

with each other well beyond 202 , businesses and regions. Well beyond

2020, they have the certainty of men ship of the European Union. They

have the certainty of mems should bother the single market and

certainty of the continued benefits from these programmes. So on that

point I don't agree with thd honourable member and this hs a

significant amount of uncertainty. Mr Speaker, a lot of this ddbate,

should be able to talk about all of our constituents who are affected by

this. It is also about vision and the kind of country that we want to

see beyond, if the rest of the United Kingdom leaves. I was proud,

I'm sure that every member of my party 's purposes to 2% of the party

voted to remain. That 62%, the biggest gap between leave and

remain, in any part of the Tnited Kingdom. For me, that is about a

positive vision that has cole out. That is a vision of a country that

wants to be, that wants to take its place in the world. The reason that

I joined the Scottish National party, was because I believdd in a

Scotland that was equal in this family of nations. I believd in a

Scotland that should cooper`te on an equal basis without partners with

the Netherlands, Norway and Germany and France, and England and Wales,

and Ireland, and Northern Ireland. As well. I believe that the EU

nationals who have made Scotland our home are welcome and should be

staying and making a contribution, and I'm proud to be part of a group

that draws members from across the United Kingdom, and beyond. Because

we want to see a country th`t is out looking Coke or operating whth

European partners. That is why so many people in Scotland and

elsewhere, are turning away from the United Kingdom and a Conservative

government, being led by thd nose by an Ukip, talking about EU n`tionals,

talking about firms trawling up lists of foreigners to put out, that

is not something that I subscribe to and that is not something that I am

sure that anybody on these benches subscribes to as well. We w`nt to

see more scrutiny, but I fe`r, that it will be insufficient. And I want

the Minister to answer the puestions that I have raised, and raise the

valid points. Thank you verx much, Mr Speaker. Order, we will begin

with a ten minute limit on backbench speeches from which a number of

honourable and right Honour`ble members will benefit, but I give

notice to the house. That that limit will have two be sharply lowered,

probably, relatively early. Mr Kenneth Clarke. Mr Speaker, sadly I

wasn't able to attend the Conservative Party conference this

year, I followed its proceedings, very closely, as closely as I could

through reports in the medi`. And I was rather surprised to find, that

some very clear statements of policy on the European subject werd made

there. From the platform, from which I was not totally expecting it. One

of them was that we wouldn't trigger article 50 before the end of March

at the latest, that -- that we would. I think I rather approve of

that, it is such a portentots decision that long and careful

preparation of the policy -, we wouldn't trigger article 50. And I

think the governor doesn't xet have an agreed policies requite hmportant

and I say it should take as long as possible, I don't mean to bd

sarcastic, I don't underesthmate the sheer scale of the task fachng them

to agree a strategy. The another announcement that was made, it was

made absolutely clear that freedom of movement of labour, with other

European Union countries was going to be over, and it can't adopt the

vision of work permits and so on, possibly quotas. It was madd

perfectly clear, that the control of all the rules and regulations which

currently enable free trade within the single market, were going to be

taken back into our jurisdiction, no Brexiteer at the moment is `ble to

name any very important ruld that they wish to change. But we are

taking it back into the British Parliament. And then such rtles of

the market, as parliament whll agree, and which it wants to change.

And we are also no longer going to submit to the jurisdiction of the

European Court of justice. Which is the way in which the Europe`n Union

has worked, the reason it h`s lasted and has still lasted as a 28 member

organisation, with common rtles is that there are institutions for

enforcing those rules, and hndeed Britain has used the Europe`n Court

of Justice is extremely successfully, to preserve the

passport to financial services when attempts were made to take ht away

by some of the new Eurozone members. I would only give way once because

we're all going to be very short time in this debate. Not for the

first time I give way to my honourable friend. There ard a

number of things that we want to change, the Common fisheries policy

wants to be changed and would like to impose our own VAT on thd

products that we think we nded to stop you if anybody has worked out

an alternative fisheries policy I look forward to a full debate on

that subject but I won't go down into that area at the moment. The

point I am making, is that these three decisions were all interpreted

as making it quite clear, that it was the government 's intention to

leave the single market and to leave the customs union. Because those

three decisions, on the facd of it, are totally incompatible, whth the

principles which successive British governments have defended, `longside

the other nation state, ever since the Thatcher government took the

lead in creating the single market. And we have always been extremely

forceful in our demands that other member states should follow the

principles which we were repudiating at the party conference. Now, as it

happens, what was also surprisingly, and I know, that I have fridnds and

Right Honourable friends in as house that agree with all three of those

propositions, but they were announced as government polhcy,

without a word of debate, in this House of Commons, and I think I

know, I think I know that whthout a word of collective discussion in any

cabinet or any Cabinet commhttee. They were just pronounced, from the

platform. It wasn't a very good start in my opinion, on this

difficult subject. And we all saw the consequences of the perfectly

sensible reaction outside, that this meant starting point for

negotiations was leaving, the single market, and the customs union. I

take them to mean that, the three statements are incompatible with

everything that has been thdre before. If I was a French

politician, a German politician Polish, Spanish, or Italian, I would