Live Article 50 Statement House of Commons

Live Article 50 Statement

Similar Content

Browse content similar to Live Article 50 Statement. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



restore justice to victims. Statement, the Secretary of State


that the European Union. David Davis. I will make a statement on


the Government's responds to today's judgment by the Supreme Court. This


Government is determined to deliver on a decision taken by the people of


the UK in the referendum to lead the European Union. We will move swiftly


to do just that. I can announce today that we will surely need to do


is legislation allowing the Government to move ahead with


invoking article 50 which starts the formal process of withdrawing from


the European Union. We received the lengthy 96 page judgment a few hours


ago and Government lawyers are assessing it carefully. This would


be a straightforward bill. It is not about whether or not the UK should


leave the European Union, that decision has already been made by


the people of the UK. We will work with colleagues in both houses to


ensure this bill is passed in good time by the end of March this year.


This timetable has been supported by this house. Let me go through the


issues step-by-step. The Government's priority following bit


referendum was to respect the outcome and ensure it is delivered


in the interests of the whole country. This house voted by six to


want to put the decision in the hands of voters and that bill passed


the other place unopposed. 6-1. There can be never going back. The


point of no return was passed on June 23 last year. The Government


has been clear that we must leave by following the process set out in


article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. People want and expect us to


get on with incrementing the decisions made. Let me turn to the


process fight invoking article 50 and the issues that arise from


today's Supreme Court judgment. The Government's view was that it is


lawful and proper that the Government to give effect the


decision of the people by the use of prerogative powers to invoke Article


50. Today, the Supreme Court has agreed with the High Court's


judgment that the prerogative power alone is insufficient to give notice


under article 50. That legislation is it required to provide the


necessary authorisation for this step. In addition, the supreme court


look at the legislative in triggering Article 50. Relations


with the EU and other foreign affairs matters are reserved to the


UK Government and parliament not too involved institutions. The Supreme


Court summary goes on to say that affords letters serves to not have a


veto on the UK's decision to withdraw from the European Union. I


will come back to our collaboration later in this statement. The Comte


has been giving thought to the steps we would take in the event of the


Supreme Court Paulding the High Court's view. First of all let me be


clear that we believe in and value the independence of our judiciary,


the foundation upon which the rule of law is built. Of course, we will


respect this judgment. Second, this judgment does not change the fact


that the UK will be leaving the EU and it is our job to deliver on the


instruction the people of the UK have given us. We will within days


introduced legislation to give the Government legal power to trigger


article 50 and begin the formal process of withdrawal. It would be


separate to the great repeal bill that will be introduced. This will


be the most straightforward bill possible to give the decision of the


people and respect the Supreme Court's judgment. The purpose of


this bill is to give the Government the power to invoke -- evoke ten


want -- Article 50 and leave the EU. It is what they would expect.


Portman -- Parliament will dispute this legislation but I trust no one


will make a vehicle for attempt to thwart the will of the people or


frustrate or delay the process. Our timetable for evoking Article 50 by


the end of March still stands. That timetable has given valuable


certainty to citizens and businesses across Europe. It is understood by


European partners and provides a framework for planning that


negotiation ahead. This house backed that timetable by a majority of 373


in December and we will look forward to working closely with colleagues


to ensure the legislation Article 50 is passed in good time to allow us


to evoking by the end of March as planned. The Government's fifth and


final principle is to continue to ensure we deliver an exit in the


best interests of the whole of the UK. The Supreme Court has ruled in


favour of devolved legislative is in invoking Article 50. It in no way


diminishes our commitment to work closely with the people and


administrations as we move forward without withdrawal from the EU. Let


me conclude with the word on what the judgment means. I know this case


on an issue of such importance which arouses strong views on all sides


has not been without controversy. The court was asked the question, a


proper, thorough and independent process was gone through and it has


given its and set in law. We are law-abiding notion. Big UK is known


that the strength and independence of its judicial system. We will


build on this and are many other strengths as we leave the European


Union. We were once again be a fully independent sovereign country free


to make our own decisions. The parameter has set out a


comprehensive plan including our core negotiating objectives. --


Prime Minister. She has been clear she once in a constructive


partnership for the EU and the UK, a partnership that would be good for


the UK and the rest of Europe. Today we are taking the necessary step to


research -- respect the decision by announcing a bill. It will be at


this Parliament to respect the decision it entrusted to the people


of the UK competition may talk on June 23. I commend the statement of


the House. Can I thank the Secretary of State. This is a good day for


Parliamentary sovereignty three. The Supreme Court has ruled that we


should have a say in this house on the Article 50 issue. Given the


issues involved, that is quite right and the Prime Minister was wrong to


have attempted to sideline Parliament in this process. This


bill is only to be introduced because the Prime Minister has been


ordered to do so. I hope in the aftermath there will be the attacks


on our judges that they were when the High Court gave its ruling. It


is the duty of all of us to defend them if they do and to do so


quickly. I hope the Secretary of State will join me in that


endeavour. The question now moves on to the proper role of Parliament and


the Supreme Court said nothing about the form of legislation. On issues


as important as this, it would be wrong for the Government to try to


minimise the role of Parliament or to seek to avoid amendments. I ask


the Secretary of State to confirm he won't take that approach. This is a


question of substance, not process. Last week the Prime Minister


committed herself to swapping then known benefits of single market


membership and the customs union for the hoped-for benefits of a


free-trade agreement. With a fallback position of bread in our


economic model. That high risk. There are big gaps and


inconsistencies and unanswered questions in the Prime Minister's


approach. If the Prime Minister fails in her endeavour, the cost


will be borne by families, working people and communities throughout


the UK. The stakes are high and the role of this house in holding the


Prime Minister and the Government to account through the process is


crucial. Labour excerpts and respects the referendum result and


will not frustrate the process. We will be seeking to lay amendments to


ensure proper scrutiny and accountability throughout the


process. That starts with a white paper or plan, speech is not a white


paper or plan and we need something to hold the Government to account


throughout the process. We can't have a speech is the only basis for


accountability that two years or more. That is the first step. There


needs to be reporting back procedure and then used to be a minimal --


meaningful vote at the end of the exercise. The Government should


welcome such scrutiny, not try to resist it because the end result


would be better if scrutinised than it would otherwise be. I hope the


Secretary of State will confirm we will not seek to minimise


accountability. Whatever the court ruled, it is important that those


interests are taken into account. What a waste of time and money.


The High Court decision was 82 days ago. The Prime Minister could have


accepted them to introduce the bill. We could have debated the issues and


I would like the Secretary of State to lay out what a cost is to the


taxpayer of this appeal? Let me say this to the honourable gentleman.


The Prime Minister was not aiming to sideline democracy, she was


aiming... Order. The House is in an understandably excited and excitable


state. What I want to say to colleagues if they don't have to


look into the crystal ball when they can read the book. Member should


know that I always want to facilitate the fullest possible


questioning and scrutiny and it is right that it should happen. It is


also right that when the Secretary of State is responding to questions


come he was given a fair and courteous hearing. Aiming to carry


out the will of the people. 17.4 million people of them in the


national interest. If I may pick up on the point that the honourable


gentleman raised, the issue of our judges. I think I mentioned at


length three times in my statement that this is a nation of the rule of


law, independent judiciary is important and it is watched by other


countries as an example to themselves. All the people he could


criticise, I don't think I am at the front of the issue. Similarly on the


question of the process through Parliament, there is an interesting


litany through this whole process. Every single time I get up and I say


that I will give the House as much information as possible, subject to


not undermining the national interest will stop not undermining


our negotiating position and that is what we have done and what we will


continue to do. Not just through this bill but also through the great


repeal Bill, subsequent primary legislation, subsequent secretariat


-- second of legislation and the final vote at the end.


He told about membership of the single market. To have membership of


that, you have to give up control of borders, laws, rules, all of which


of course the Labour Party is single alert incapable of making a decision


on, let alone coming up with a policy on. As he talks about a plan.


The Prime Minister last week gave the 6500 word is closely argued


speech which has been recognised on all sides of this country and all


around Europe as an epitome of clarity, of very clear objectives,


vertically ends, very clear ambitions for this country. I don't


take that point at all. On the point more generally of scrutiny, we have


now had I think five statements, tender bits, as some 30 different


Selectric enquiries. -- ten debates. I hardly think that is an absence of


scrutiny of central government policy. And I have to say, the


honourable gentleman doesn't often surprise me, but for the ex-director


of the is to say that the Supreme Court is a waste of time, or taking


up matters is a waste of time, strikes me as quite extraordinary.


Quite extraordinary! Or the! I made this point over the last few


months many times. Taking the civil distance is in order to get the most


followed that of an clearest, crudest possible guidance in terms


of a major part of our Constitution. -- clearest, clearest possible


guidance. I don't think the gentleman has advanced the knowledge


of the House but look forward to the contribution of others. Mr Kenneth


Clarke. Mr Speaker, have you had the chance to know that my recently


published memoirs... LAUGHTER They are cited with approval in


paragraph 195. Do you share my surprise that that


is a minority dissenting judgment? More seriously do you accept that


parliamentary sovereignty has always meant that governments of the day


pursue broad policy objectives in the national interest and quite


willingly submit them to the judgment of the House, both debates


and two votes? And they only proceed with broad policy objectives when


they have the support of the majority in the House of Commons. So


would he gave me the government's assurance that this bill will be


drafted on the basis that it even proves the opportunities for the


government to give or withhold its consent to major policy objectives?


And will he pursue that approach in future years question actually


having one vote right at the end of the process with the highs will be


taught that either takes the deal the government has, or goes into the


alternative chaos of having no agreements with the EU or anybody


else, is not a very good substitute for the normal tradition of


consenting to the policy aims to the government aims of the day. We have


been skirmishing over this issue, I think for some 30 years. And was


with good humour. I will hope to respond to him in the same vein


today. Let me just take this characterisation. He repeated it on


television earlier. This characterisation of what the


government is proposing. We have already had ten debates and vast


numbers of other arguments. But in terms of what will happen going one


is a bill to authorise the triggering of Article 50. Then we


will have a great repeal Bill, Queen through the tyre corpus of European


law is as it applies to the United Kingdom, -- which will go through


all European law as it applies to United Kingdom, then major policy


change is coming, all again in front of the House, secondary legislation


again in front of both houses. And at the end of it, not just one vote,


but the vote that eventually decides whether the highs supports the


policy that we are proposing or not. That policy will be aimed solely at


advancing the interests of the United Kingdom. It gives the best


possible negotiated outcome that we can achieve. Having taken on board


the informing debate of this House of Commons over the entire two years


in the run-up to it. Firstly, can I welcome the judgment in anything


which strengthens parliamentary scrutiny over this process? There


was a time when the Secretary of State himself was a great champion


of parliamentary scrutiny, back in the dim and distant past. I'm sure


deep down inside he will be welcoming this judgment. I'm


wondering why. Why do they fear parliamentary scrutiny? Could they


be find out, and the Emperor has no clothes? That is talk of democracy,


and as a gentle reminder in terms of democracy, let me remind the


Secretary of State of this. When it comes to Scotland the Conservatives


got there was result at the General Election since 1865. -- worst


result. You have one MP! Furthermore what we are told today is that this


is a political decision. And as a political decision over the rule of


the devolved administrations, I hope this Parliament and government will


continue to continue to not legislate on areas that are the


responsibility of the Scottish parliament without its consent. And


that you believe the Judgment Day, Mr Speaker, said this should


enhanced devolution. If that is the case will be Secretary of State


killers today that no powers will be returned from the Scottish


Parliament to Westminster during the course of this process Chris Martin


will seek consent from the Scottish parliament before legislating on


areas over which it has responsibility? Again, I am


surprised the honourable gentleman said that. I thought the Scottish


National Party would give great importance to the electoral results


in the Scottish Parliament, in which the Conservative Party came second


this time, under the listed below -- under the great Britain Davidson. I


want to make two points to him. Firstly, the process that they have


gone through with the vote in the stations, the joint ministerial


process, it has been going on now for some months in the monthly


meetings, and the last one had a presentation from Mike Russell, the


Scottish Governor Minister, on the question of the Scottish and's


proposals, some of which we disagreed with, some we agreed with


absolutely, such as the protection of employment law, and some we will


debate the coming weeks and months. Most particularly to his point, the


question of devolution, and the vault powers, he knows he I support


devolution is and can say to him firmly that there will be no powers


existing in the devolved at the station will come back, but Pires


and the European Union which we have to decide where they are most


properly allowed. And the real issue there is that the practical


interests of all the nations in the United Kingdom, for example,


preserving the single market of the United Kingdom, preserving the


ability of the United Kingdom to do international deals, areas that are


just as important to the odd that is God as to the orderly English, Welsh


or Northern Irish citizen. -- important to the ordinary Scot.


Mr Speaker, can I say to my right honourable friend is that the very


fact that this was a split judgment shows that the Prime Minister was


absolutely right to take this case of the way to get a full decision.


And can I ask him to resist much respected friend and not over


complicating this? After all the question is should the government


trigger Article 50? So may I urge him, when he brings this in front of


us, to keep it short, keep it simple and most of all keep it swift? They


will keep it straight forward is what we will certainly do. He is


right, this was and is a unique circumstance in many ways. Unique in


terms of the importance to the kingdom but also the fact it is


carrying out the will of 17.5 billion who voted directly, summing


that has never before in our history. It was important to get the


full outcome from the Supreme Court. I will do everything in my power to


make sure it goes through swiftly. And that it is properly is


scrutinised but also it is a straightforward bill that delivers


the triggering of Article 50 by March 31. Having tried to argue in


court that Parliament should not decide on the triggering of Article


50 and lost, as will be Secretary of State now agreed to accept the


unanimous recommendation of the Rex off Select Committee and in the


process agree with himself before he got this job -- Brexit Select


Committee, and publish a white paper on the government objectives? Then


these can be considered alongside the legislation he has just


announced. Because of the government does not do so then I have to say to


him it would be showing a lack of respect for this House of Commons.


I don't often disagree with myself. But that we say this, -- let me say


this, the speech given last week by the Prime Minister was the clearest


exposition of negotiating strategy are have seen modern times. It laid


out very clearly what we judge the national interest to be, how we


intend to protect it, what we want to do, what we hope is not happen,


and how we are going to go about avoiding that. So I don't see that


this government has avoided answering any question, either from


his committee or indeed from the front bench. The only questions we


have been unable to answer our those which would be to the disadvantage


of the country in terms of undermining our negotiating


strategy. I will give one example. To the spokesman for the opposition.


On Channel 4 not very long ago, a couple of weeks ago, he said we want


to know whether the government will pay for access to the single market


and how much. If anything would undermine a negotiating position,


that would, and it is precisely that which we will avoid. We will


continue to give information to the House, I give his committee and


undertaking we will give at least that's bad information as we will


call to the European Parliament with, if indeed both. And we will


continue to keep the House involved throughout the process, which will


not be over in a few weeks, but last two years, and the House will be as


well informed on this as it has been on anything of such importance. The


Supreme Court the spawning ruled that the form of the bill is,


entirely a matter for Parliament, because also indicated by then that


the issues before the Supreme Court have nothing to do with the


political merits of the decision to withdraw or the timetable, terms of


so doing, or any future relationship between the UK and the EU. So will


my right honourable friend confirmed that with any potential amendments


the bill itself will be short and tightly drawn to give effect


exclusively to the Supreme Court decision itself? Well, the short


answer is yes. They were citing to me I think section 122 of the court


decision and its commentary. And the point of this bill is to meet the


requirements of the Supreme Court to deliver the instruction from the


nation at large and to do it in the national interest. That means a


straightforward easily comprehensible bill to the country


at large and they can see what Parliament is doing and what


position it is visiting on the government. That is what we will do.


I agree with the Minister that Parliament must respect the result


of the referendum but I hope you will also agree that the government


does not have a blank cheque either from Parliament or the public over


what kind of Brexit it now pursues. He has said that there will be votes


in the process, so can he tell us, given the government has said it is


ruling out being in the customs union, in the common external


tariff, and the common commercial policy, and he knows that there are


strongly held views on different sides about the impact that will


have on manufacturing industries which will be so crucial to our


future? When will he give Parliament the vote on that decision?


Firstly, we are to tell the House what our plan is and then we're told


we don't like that so we want to have a debate on that. The simple


truth... No, no, that's fine. The simple truth here is their will be


any number of votes. Too many to count in the next two years across a


whole range of issues. I can see the issues she is raising coming up in


the great repeal Bill. I can see it coming up in primary legislation,


maybe in major secondary legislation. I am sure there will be


votes in the next two years. If someone debates sending the letter,


are made voting against restoring the very Parliamentary sovereignty


three they call in aid? Doesn't the British people want a proper


parliament not a puppet parliament and swing to Brussels and map


requires sending the letter soon? What it requires leaving the


European Union and that's what we're going to do. Does the Minister and


accept that the public want us to get on with this and carry out what


they voted for? Does he accept that the public will not look likely


remembrance brought in by parties that want another referendum to


delay unnecessarily but do want amendments that clarify and make us


all aware of the Government's intentions? She goes right to the


heart of the matter. The public will not view well attempts to thwart


this process, to delay this process and confuse it. They will


hallucinate -- hallucinate helping the position and negotiation and


that is what the Government is going to do. There is a genuine desire I


believe the people to come together to support the Government, to build


a consensus, to get the best deal possible. The reality is we have


abandoned the single market, we have abandoned the free movement of


people without any debate, never mind a vote in this place. On that


basis... Somebody said we have had a referendum. There was one question


on the paper. Leads-macro or Remain. We are leaving the European Union.


As I have asked... I take my right honourable friend's take as a man of


his word, when I voted out -- in that motion in December, I didn't


agree that with the triggering of -- didn't agree with the triggering at


the end of March. I thought we would have a plan and I would like a White


Paper which we could debate. It will bring us together. What does my


right honourable friend have to lose on a White Paper? She holds


passionately a well formed view that firstly in terms of bringing people


together, a large part of the Prime Minister's speech was aimed at


creating a sense of this country which everybody can get behind.


Ranging from protection employment rights, through to a role in the


world. All of them very important. She laid out the clear future for us


and the future approach for us. I think that she did everything one


could ask the Prime Minister, to deliver on those undertakings. The


point I would make to her now is she says these things weren't on the


ballot paper. What was on the ballot paper was leaving the European


Union. It is difficult to see how you can do that and still stay


inside the single market with the commitments that go with that. What


we have come up with and I hope to persuade her, is this is well worth


game. There is the idea of a comprehensive free trade agreement


under a customs agreements which will deliver the exact benefits as


we have there but also enable my right honourable friend to go and


foremost trade deals with the rest of the world also. It is the upside


of living -- leaving the European Union. Last week in her speech the


Prime Minister said and I quote, "The Government will put the final


deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to vote in both Houses of


Parliament before it comes into force." Article 15 negotiation is


not the final deal. -- Article 50. It is the future trading agreement


between the UK and the EU. Can the Secretary of State confirm that


Parliament will get a vote on both the Article 50 agreement and as the


Prime Minister said, the final deal and what will happen if Parliament


says, no, to the terms of either of these agreements? The answer is yes.


We are standing by both of those. The point is they would be the only


votes. There will be a large number of other votes in between. The


Labour Party can ignore it till the cows come home but they will have


many, many votes on many different policy areas after very extensive


debate on primary legislation. The parliament will have a great


influence on this process and it will have the final say. That is a


democracy in action. Further to that last reply, my right honourable


friend has given Abril clarity on Article 50. Can he give more


information on the timetable of the great Repeal Bill. It will be in the


Queen's Speech. I expect it to be debated extensively and it will be


the centrepiece and the start of a major debate about the nature of


this country in the future and therefore it is important to get it


in the House very early. For the final vote offered by his Government


on the negotiated package, it is not a meaningful boat -- vote unless the


Government guarantees if there is a vote against the withdrawal treaty,


there will be an option to have continued talks for a better deal


rather than falling out with no deal at all. Can he guarantee we will


have bad vote in time for that further discussion to happen? Let me


make this point to the honourable lady. This is where those arguments


where we said we won't have a second referendum so can revisit. What it


does is it gives a price to somebody trying to put up the worst possible


negotiation for us. There are plenty of members in the EU who want to


force us into making us change our mind and going back inside. We do


not want to do anything which allows or encourages that to happen. She is


not right to say this boat is meaningless. The select committee


and the opposition both asps for it. Second hourly, it will be the last


of many, many votes and debates on major legislation. It means saying


that one is going to leave the European Union and actually doing


it. Soft Brexit means saying one is going to lead the European Union and


remaining in all but name. Which course does the Government intend to


follow? In his younger days, my honourable friend was an expert in


Soviet propaganda. I'm afraid I view hard Brexit and soft Brexit as terms


of propaganda. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that this house will


have the ability to both scrutinise and vote on the agreement between


the UK and the EU at the same time that that agreement is put before


the European Parliament? I will say it over and over again in a series


of primary legislation and finally on the vote itself. How the timing


of that will coincide with the European Parliament, I have not


given a great deal of thought too and I will do and I will write to


her. In the course of the court case, great stress was laid on the


irrevocably witty of Article 50. In those circumstances, the problem


facing the House is that in triggering Article 50, that


irrevocably to has to be matched against the excellent words of my


right honourable friend, the Prime Minister, setting out a plan which


is envisaging a future relationship with the European Union from outside


of it. In those circumstances, could I urge my right honourable friend to


keep in mind that the debate on Article 50 is likely to be greatly


facilitated if the ideas expressed by the Prime Minister are put into a


White Paper or similar document to which in fact reference can be made


in the triggering of Article 50. Without festering the Government's


discretion in its negotiations thereafter. This comes down to an


issue of trust and if the Government can build that trust, it will


greatly facilitate its task and those such as myself who wish to


help the Government, in what it is trying to achieve. My old friend


tempts me down a route but I will answer in these terms. In the case,


the report by the Government did not depend upon the irrevocably witty or


otherwise of the legal issue in front of us. It depended on the fact


that we view the moment as being June 23 last year. It is not in the


gift of the Government to change its mind. We have passed the point of no


return. I have said over and over again I will provide what


information I can, as much information as I can without


undermining our negotiated position. I will continue to do so through the


article process and beyond. We know negotiations of a two-way process


and we accept that our European partners may not be able to agree on


anything until the German and French elections are out of the way. In the


meantime, there is a logic to why Article 50 should be triggered by


the end of March. It has to do with a two-year process by the time we


put this next elections, we will have completed that process. It is


important not to remind colleagues in this house but pro -- colleagues


in the other house that there is logic to an end of March date. The


honourable lady gets the point of the matter. There are many reasons


for the triggering by the end of March. The rather obvious one is


that the public wants us to get on with it and that includes Leavers.


There are practical reasons of business uncertainties will stop the


longer we spin this out, the more difficult it is for businesses and


workers about their own future. She is right that it fits neatly in


terms of delivering an outcome which is in our interests in the European


timetable both in that there are roughly 15 elections between now and


the end of the process. Then there is a European Parliament election


which if we get too close to it, could compromise the vote at the


end. There is a series of reasons why the end of March is incredibly


important. It is not an arbitrary date, it is designed to uphold the


strength of their negotiations. As one who campaigns to remain in the


European Union, I welcome the decision of the court today which


gives me the opportunity to show I accept the result of the referendum


and I will vote for the bill triggering Article 50. Could I also


say at the risk of repetition, it would help further the authority of


the House and the authority of which the EU goes to the negotiations, it


will take on board the unanimous view of the select committee and the


expressed by the chairman of the select committee and others. The way


in which the Prime Minister set out with the clarity of her expression


about the plan, it is only enhanced and the work of the House is


endorsed by the Supreme Court judgment and it is enhanced by the


publication of that and the opportunity to debate and cover a


number of things which the bill cannot itself cover. I thank my


honourable friend for the tone of his question. The issue here is not


information. I have said over and over again, I will provide as much


information as is consistent with the previous motions on this. That


is what we will do. We will provide as much information as possible but


there remind that the Article 50 bill will be presented quickly to


the House. Today's ruling is a victory for transparency and


openness but a half-hour speech by the Prime Minister outside of this


house with a couple of questions to the media is no substitute the


Parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State take on board


their views of members of all size of this house and please bring


forward a White Paper which I think will unite this house in order to


forge a way forward? I have been at this dispatch box one


statement alone five times and I am at great risk of boring beehives.


But I would repeat to her what I have said already, the maximum


possible information and debate is what we will deliver. I think this


House should be grateful to both the Supreme Court and to the High Court


for a certain parliamentary sovereignty and allowing us to have


a say on the Article 50 process, and I agree with my friend who said he


will vote for Article 50, I will too, but with regards to the


question of a swift passage of the bill, and I would agree with him, do


you not agree that when Parliament voted, the Heysel voted for the


motion in December, not just in relation to the 31st of March


deadline but also in relation to the publication of a plan? I would


suggest to him that the passage of the bill will be swifter if a white


paper is published and debates happen on that too, and the bill


with the Article 50 process is separate. I hear what you said, I


just have to reiterate the same point, becoming very boring, but we


will provide as much possible information subject to not


undermining our position. In 2014 in Scotland, we were told we


had power is Parliament and with equal partner in the UK, but we are


not equal to the likes of Belgium and we will not be consulted on


Brexit. It is clear Scotland will be taken out against well. As the UK


Government pursues Brexit, Scotland must take the opportunity of an


independence referendum. And as the Scottish Parliament is not


consulted, will at least Scottish members of Parliament in this House


be taken into account and respected? Is the answer to the honourable


gentleman, another old friend of mine, is of course. I have spent a


great deal of time also speaking directly to the Scottish Government


and while we are at it the Welsh and Northern Ireland government. In this


process, it is important we protect the interests of the people he


represents, the people of Scotland, in this negotiation. I welcome the


Secretary of State's commitment, giving as much information as he can


to the House and its committees. Could he explain why the government


isn't providing any evidence to the foreign effect committee's enquiry


into practical consequences of leaving the European Union after no


agreement in place and how come that is a distinct possibility and one


over which the government cannot command the outcome? Surely it would


be best for the country and everyone affected by this in the land to


better understand the consequences as clearly as possible so they can


plan for it? As I said, we will provide as much information as we


can. One thing I will point out however is that this is the question


of negotiation, and we do not know what the endgame will be. Even the


rather stark example he cites might have aspects which are different. I


put and he is talking about the trade aspect. There are so many


different things to assess. It would be guesswork at this stage.


Today, the government has been humiliated in the Supreme Court. It


has been taught a lesson about the real meaning of parliamentary


sovereignty and taking back control. Will be Secretary of State now


accept this verdict in the spirit as well as the letter of the ruling and


finally concede that this House needs votes along the way, not


simply debates without votes, and proper parliamentary scrutiny? Then


together working across this House we can bring the country to the best


possible deal in the interests of all of our areas up and down this


country? Two things. Firstly I really recommend she read the


judgment rather than interpreting it with her own glass. The detail of


it, it is good and signed, as indeed I said in my opening statement. As


for giving continuous votes and information, I have said that all


the today. The bill should be brief and I'd come simple. Point of


principle. But as the Secretary of State aware that, if the opposition


parties can bind -- conveying to constrain the negotiating hand, for


instance by assisting on staying in the single market, which would been


effectively remaining in the EU, is he aware that many of us believe


that, in those circumstances, we should have an immediate General


Election put to the people? That can then concentrate the minds of the


Labour Party. He is asking media question which is way above my pay


grade, to say the lead. And the person suited for it has left for


now. But the point I would make is this, I would hope that every member


of the towers would actually see it as their duty to their own


constituents to deliver the best outcome. That is what the government


strategy is, delivering the best outcome for Britain in this


negotiations. First of all I am pleased by the case presented to


hand the veto to the Northern Ireland assembly, Britain attempt to


overturn the result of the referendum has failed. But can the


Secretary of State tell us that, now the Northern Ireland assembly has


been collapsed by Sinn Fein, what arrangements there will be to have


the issues which concern Northern Ireland raised prior to negotiations


and during those negotiations? With respect to his first point, it is


not above the court was unanimous, whilst it was 8-3 judgment on the


rest of the issue, it was unanimous on that matter of not allowing the


veto to the executive. In terms of maintaining, not so much and a


relationship, but understanding of the issues that relate to Northern


Ireland, last week when we had joined the Dennis Taylor committee I


wrote to the Northern Ireland Executive to ask them to continue to


send ministers to represent the interests of Northern Ireland. --


when I joined the Justice committee. When the First Minister and Deputy


First Minister disappear in the interim, other ministers remain.


Last week, they did turn up. I will continue to extend that invitation


to that end. If that doesn't work we will find some other bilateral way.


But take it as read, I take this as they are the top of my River Tees,


if not top, to preserve the situation in Northern Ireland,


preserving the border in its current state, not hardening it, and


preserving the interests of the Northern Irish people. No bill that


goes through parliamentary scrutiny is not a better bill before it


becomes an act of Parliament. Could the Secretary of State announced


when we will get a business statement question back then we know


the timetabling? Hopefully we can have a date for the second reading.


Can I urge the Secretary of State to say we will give ample time for the


committee stage so that the House can properly scrutinised it before


the bill goes through to the Lords? On his last point, that will be my


intention, certainly. On the first point, the business didn't, there


will be won on Thursday anyway. It is a 96 page judgment. Bring to this


Appeal Court was insuring we got an authoritative, detailed, final


judgment on what we need to do and how we need to do it. We have to


study that carefully. It will take a little tired but not much. Then we


will come back to the House as soon as possible. -- take a little time.


It is possible that the statement on Thursday will cover that. The


Secretary of State keeps talking about certainty. But for my


constituents, working in the manufacturing supply chain, given


the Prime Minister's statement specifically on the customs union,


they have nothing but uncertainty about their jobs. So what exactly is


wrong with the suggestion from the member for Rushcliffe that the


government to bring forward its policy on Brexit for a vote in this


House? Well, she talks about certainty, we have negotiations for


two years and nothing we can do to collapse that, nothing we should do,


so that means there is a limit to the extent at which we can introduce


certainty. I had not mentioned it up until then. And there will be debate


after debate. Article 50, debate on policy, the great repeal bill the


same, and in several subsequent pieces of primary legislation, no


shortage of debate or votes. The obligation placed on the


government's negotiating position during the passage of this bill may


subsequently be subject to judicial review with consequent delay. I hope


that my right honourable friend will judge the intentions that have been


announced to amend the bill in that light. As he knows, I view everybody


with a great charity and generosity and will continue to do so. Further


to the question from the honourable member from Wellingborough, when the


Labour government legislated for the Lisbon Treaty, Parliament had 25


days, including 11 days of the committee of the whole House. We


have 66 days now before the 31st of March. How many days as the


Secretary of State planning to give as? Two things first. Wasn't at the


Lisbon Treaty which was promised a referendum on, which we never got?


So selling a false bill of goods is not a very good example to


parliaments around the world. This is Article 50, the triggering


process only, nothing more but the triggering process. There will be


vast quantities of legislation, much more than the Lisbon Treaty, between


now and the conclusion. Does he noticed that those who know talk


about parliamentary sovereignty mean the YouGov Brussels? When they say


scrutiny, they could mean delay. And with the spec, the mean


condescension. British people have voted and we must legislate, don't


you agree? As ever, my honourable friend speaks for England.


We are all trying to get the best deal for our constituents, and that


is why the Liberal Democrats will seek to amend the Article 50 bill to


give people their first say on the terms of the UK's future


relationship with the European Union and government plans to crash out of


the single market, under customs union, inflicting huge damage on


families and businesses up and down the country. Why did the government


take this opportunity to boost their democratic credentials and simply


agree to such a popular vote? I would ask the gentleman to exercise


his brain on this matter. The consequence of putting a second


referendum at the end of this negotiation is to invite every


single member of the European Union who do not want us to leave to put


the worst possible deal in the hope we change our mind. We're not to do


that. Today, we uphold the rule of law by respecting the Supreme Court


judgment. Will he agree with me that both Houses of Parliament must now


respect the result of the referendum by swiftly passing this necessary


act? He is as right as ever. You can see the phenomenal interest in the


House in this particular issue and you should not be afraid of


scrutiny. My honourable friend from Bishop Auckland asked how many days


would be committed to proper scrutiny of all the issues


surrounding Article 50 on the floor of the House. Can you accept that


this bill is more important than the Lisbon Treaty bill, the Maastricht


Treaty, and any attempts to curtail the opportunities for this House to


scrutinise those issues would betray the fear that the government has


offered proper debate? Is that received two things, firstly I don't


think I've ever been run away from scrutiny, I spent more time at this


dispatch box than any other Secretary of State in the last five


months. In terms of what he is saying about the importance, of


course it is important, and indeed I want to see as much time as we can


possibly get for it to be discussed but that's a matter for the usual


channels to discuss. But the point I would make is this, many people who


see this bill is included late -- as incredibly important are seeing it


as some sort of point of no return. The point of no return was passed on


June the 23rd last year, this is carrying out the instruction of the


British people. We will do so under full scrutiny of Parliament and its


authorisation and will give time for that. But don't conflate that with


the whole process the bill. Sorry, the negotiation. That will take


much, much more than was given to Lisbon, much more time, because that


number of legislation will take more time.


The honourable member talked about democracy.


He is the only representative of his political party here today. Will it


be undemocratic if he were to go down to the House of Lords and


encourage 120 unelected members to play ping-pong and mess about with


this bill? We must deliver what the British people have asked for they


will be looking at both houses. They will not have to delay the bill are


necessarily better web proper process of scrutiny and deliver on


the will of the people. The Supreme Court today has ruled clearly that


the devolved legislatures do not have legislative confidence and


capacity in relation to the UK leaving the European Union.


Therefore it must for logically that the procedure called English votes


the English laws should not be applicable when we come to the great


repeal Bill. It is demeaning to those members who represent Wales,


Scotland and Northern Ireland. When the Secretary of State has said and


I believe him, that every effort will be made by this Government to


hold together the United Kingdom, it will be helpful today if the Brexit


secretary could rule out clearly the use of evil in terms of the great


repeal Bill. I can't think of a circumstance where it might reply.


The point I would say is it rests on a ruling by the Speaker and not by


the Secretary of State. Could it releases from the acts such as our


membership of the EE a? Bet is a debatable matter of law. There may


be subsequent matters that arise after the triggering of Article 50


and if so, we will come back to it. There is no reason why it shouldn't


go to the end of March. Can I just urge the Secretary of State that


when the business managers come knocking and say we should condense


the processes that we should have several different stages on the same


day, that the old member who flourished for a 20 years on the


backbenches returns and fights hard for this house to say we will do the


process properly? I will thank him not to refer to me as the old


member. Of course I will ensure we get proper scrutiny. I think the


honourable gentleman has not got another birthday until December.


Today British judges in the highest court in the land decided a point of


historic constitutional importance which was unprecedented in law. It


was therefore right to seek the judgment of the Supreme Court to


enable them to discover the law as us lawyers euphemistically call it.


Crucially the Supreme Court recognise the limits of a Scotch


additional powers when it left the form of that legislation to this


Parliament. Is this not our Constitution thriving in action and


does it not bode well for the future? She goes to the point that I


made before the dispatch box. That is why we go to the Supreme Court.


It was not just the issue of Article 50 and the House of Commons but the


role of the devolved administrations which had to go to the Supreme Court


in any event. Is the Minister aware that many of us warmly congratulate


the judges, the Supreme Court and the High Court for upholding


Parliamentary sovereignty which the Government tried to bypass in


triggering Article 50? The judges are not the enemies of the people,


they are the defenders of Parliamentary democracy. I don't


think it goes back to this experience and he will finally ever


finally referring to the judges of the people as enemies. I welcome the


Secretary of State statement and the ruling which narrowed the scope of


the opaque High Court ruling and allows us to pass a short, sharp


bill to trigger Article 50. Does he agree that is is -- it is the


responsibility in both houses to give effect to the British people


bypassing that bill without delay? I agree. From my part, I will


endeavour to make this Bill is straightforward and as


comprehensible as possible. The reason I say this is because it is


the public will be watching us and the public will want to know what it


is we are voting on and to understand it. We will aim to


present these straightforward bills which will take place as far as is


consistent with proper scrutiny. Paragraph 151 of the ruling says the


convention has an important role for facilitating harmonious


relationships between the UK Parliament and the devolved


legislatures. What will you do to ensure that is a harmonious


relationship? Disagree -- agree with the ruling and write something down?


-- does he agree. That section ends with the phrase that nobody has a


veto. In terms of involving and looking after the interests of


devolved administrations and the people they represent, we have got a


whole process in place, a joint committee which is -- does nothing


but consider these matters, consider the interests of the nations of the


UK and to ensure that none of the political situation none of the


economic situations are harmed in any way. There has been a couple of


references to paragraph 122 of the Supreme Court judgment. It says


there is no equivalence between the constitutional importance of a


statute and its length or complexity. Under Article 50, it


could be very short. Does my right honourable friend agree that is a


very important message for members of the opposition? I will seek for


decisive action. The Prime Minister says that no deal is better than a


bad deal. Ending up on WTO rules could be the worst possible deal


hitting businesses and families hard. Can I press the Secretary of


State. Will there be a vote in this house at the end of the trade


negotiations, not just the Article 50 process but the trade


negotiations so that Parliament can decide what is in Britain's National


economic interest? Apart from correcting this, there would be a


simple trade negotiation. The European Union pretty much always


insists on nothing is agreed until everything is agreed so justice and


home affairs and security matters and a whole series of other issues


will be tied into it. There will be a vote at the end of it. We have


already agreed that. There has been a lot of talk of second referendums


on Article 50 from someone on the opposite side of the House. Will my


honourable friend reassure my constituents that the majority of


whom voted to leave, that he will category rule out any second


referendum? I take the view that the British people didn't know what they


were doing first time round. It is patronising and undemocratic. It is


improper. Rightly held by one of the smallest part is in the House. The


answer is I will not be supporting a second referendum. The Welsh Labour


Government and Plaid Cymru Bill have in good faith come together to


establish how Brexit ends. Why will he not do likewise? I spoke to


Carwyn Jones yesterday and I haven't had the chance to read it in detail.


It struck me as a constructive submission to the process and we


will be debating it at the next committee. Joy shall be in heaven


over one sinner that the Pentre. Will my right honourable friend join


with me in sharing my delight that those who had previously been happy


for sovereignty to be dispatched to Brussels now believe in the southern


tree of the UK Parliament? Apart from the fact that...


The judgment is welcome in establishing that the will of this


house is superior, is sovereign to the Royal prerogative but is


unwelcoming seeking to take back from Wales, Scotland and Northern


Ireland, powers that have been devolved to them. Can we promised


that the special needs of Wales, who will be hit most severely and


withdraw from the single market, we have a Brexit that is not just a


red, white and blue Brexit, but a red white and green Brexit is that


meets the needs of Wales also? Firstly I think you misread the


judgment. It doesn't talk about taking back powers from the devolved


administrations at all. As for... As I answered, the interests of the


people of Wales have been put together in a paper which has been


submitted to the joint ministerial committee and will be debated at the


next meeting of the European negotiating arm of that committee.


The Supreme Court judgment was decisive in its reference in the


position of the devolved assemblies. Given that is the case, what my


right honourable friend agree that now was the time for the states men


and women of the devolved assemblies to respect the decision of the


Supreme Court and to work constructively with the Government


for the greater good of the UK of which they are very much a part? I


could not have put it better myself. I will vote to trigger Article 50


but I also have a duty to scrutinise the Government deal to ensure it


does not make my constituents poorer. My constituents have a right


to know how much the Supreme Court appeal cost them. Would he tell us?


I don't have that number in my mind. I don't. I have been studying the


agreement today, not the agreement, the judgment. I will provide it to


her as soon as I can. About the spending of money on a Supreme Court


judgment, I'm sure it will be expensive on one level. Lawyers are


expensive. I'm sure he is a much more expensive lawyer. It is the


greatest compliment I can pay him. Let me make a fundamental point.


When we are dealing with something as important as this, I don't think


anybody in the House questions the importance of the constitutional


decision that has been made today. It is incredibly pump -- important


it has been made on solid ground and with proper authority, made in a way


which the Government can interpret properly to deliver the right


outcome. I have made this point more than once to stop therefore,


frankly, it will be worth whatever we pay for it. He is the right man


in the right place at the right time. 61% of the people in Kettering


voted to leave the European Union. They will take comfort that there is


nothing in today's judgment that will delay the process and they were


like the fact that their member of Parliament will obey their


instructions and vote to trigger Article 50. I commend all other


members to do the same. All I can say is I am surprised it was only


61% in his constituency. The judgment's terms tell us we should


not rely on mere political convention for legal adherents or


political confirmation on key matters. That means it will be


meaningless in the context of the great Repeal Bill but does he


recognise that the key constitutional precept of the Good


Friday agreement in terms of the principle of consent and that


potential for united Ireland, is something that will have to be


explicitly included in any new UK treaty. If those provisions are a


matter that the people of Ireland without impediment or fully


reflected under the terms of the Supreme Court judgment properly


reflected. I am not going to reiterate the fact of the Supreme


Court judgment on the Irish aspect in question today. He can read that


more authoritatively in the judgment. I have said to him before


in this house. There is more than one guarantee on this. The British


Government is determined to preserve the peace settlement and all that


underpins it. The Irish Government is determined to underpin it. And so


is the commission. I will say something nice about the commission


on this. When I spoke to my opposite number, he was reminding me that he


was involved in the original peace process himself. And so all of the


parties to this have a vested interest in delivering what he


wants. He extolled last week he liked to


please his boss, and has wonderful speech last week, and could I say to


him he could unify the whole side of the host by publishing a white paper


based on are both' excellent speech, which I'm sure will make an even


more popular with our boss? I thought I was actually rather


restrained given she was sitting there. But I wasn't prompted by the


honourable lady who gave me the line last time about Her Majesty, I think


it was. Nearly. I nearly said, absolutely. I will not rehearse all


of the arguments again. I will provide whatever information I can,


as much as I can, as promptly as I can, bearing in mind this process is


likely to start next week. I agree with the Secretary of State, the


Prime Minister was very, very clear last week in her speech that we are


now leaving the single market, and likely the customs union. Before the


referendum his government said that that would cost the British people


?66 billion, or roughly half the cost of the NHS per year, and does


the government stand by that estimate is that a different one and


could you tell us what it is today? Two things, first thing is I think


the deputy governor of the Bank of England spoke about the Michael Fish


moment for economic forecasters. Maybe he could elaborate on that


next time he is asked. The second point is this economic models and


forecasts are only as good as the assumptions going into them. The


point that the Prime Minister was making last week was not just that


we will not be members of the single market but that we will seek the


freest and most barrier free access in the interests of the people of


Wales and others. They are going to seek that. But the negotiation is


not complete yet. We will seek that, and if we succeed, it will be hugely


valuable for the people of Wales. The EU referendum saw a 72% turnout


for a clear vote for leaving the European Union. It showed a strongly


held at will by the British people. Do you agree with me that the


Liberal Democrat call for a second referendum, I think one honourable


member turned up today, no not here, it shows they do not care about the


public view unless they get their way. I am tempted looking across the


chamber to say, what Liberal Democrat? And as she said there was


only one here at most, showing is they did take this incredibly


important issue. I think the public at large will take a view of the


Liberal Democrats on this, as they are using it for the want to go


purpose, not the national interest. There have been a lot of questions


understandably today about process, but also an emerging Brexit reality


in the country for which this government is responsible. 1000 jobs


going from London to Paris with HSBC. Toyota, Lloyd's of London, UBS


and Nissan all reviewing their operations. Exactly how many jobs as


the government prepared to lose to other European countries whilst we


negotiate our exit from the European Union? I could stand here for ten


minutes saying things like Google, Microsoft, all those companies who


have decided, McDonald's, decided to be here. I will say this, we have


the highest employment and lowest unemployment for a considerable


time, completely contrary to the pessimistic predictions of many


people after the Brexit results. I'm afraid if you want to look at a


dominant station of high badly wrong -- demonstration of how badly wrong


the establishment of Britain got this, just look at those numbers.


Exiting the EU is uncharted territory. There will be naturally


uncertainties and challenges, and will you tell the House what steps


you are taking and the government is taking to communicate with British


businesses to ensure that we can build confidence and foster economic


growth in the months ahead? To be frank, I can sense in the numbers,


but they are beyond counting now. The number of meetings, with


manufacturing, aviation, tours and, finance, banking, and so on, but not


just ministers in my department but all across government, they are


talking to their own client industries as it were to ensure that


they know what their concerns are, what the opportunities are, and what


policy measures we have to take to maximise the opportunities and


mitigate concerns. And what we are beginning to see, it took a few


months, but we are beginning to see a change in mood and to see the


opportunity rather than the concern, which is an incredibly important


change in mood in the country. You have twice said that the point of no


return was on June the 23rd. He has ruled out a white paper, ruled out


of order on the plan. Does he agree that neither the words customs


union, nor a single market, were on the ballot paper? And if this House


decides that it does not wish to proceed at some point with the


process after Article 50 has been triggered, do we then leave


automatically or is it reversible? Let me say firstly about what was


not on the ballot paper. Listing two people say this is rather like say,


you said you would sell the car, but the engine and the tyres as well.


These components, these elements of the common external tariff barrier,


the common commercial policy, the will of the European Court of


Justice, all of these things are components of the UPN union, which


the public voted to leave. -- of the European Union. That is the first


thing I would say. But beyond that, he also miss quotes me in terms of


what I have said about votes and debates. There will be any number of


votes and debates in the coming two years, many of them about the issues


he talks about. I fully support the words from all quarters today in


support of judges who really are the best, most inscrutable and highest


quality I've seen anywhere in the world. But those warm words need to


be matched by action by all members in the House today, and in


particular just as the government is supporting and accepting the verdict


today, that members accept the words of the Supreme Court in respect of


the fight but a small bill can have just the power of a larger one and


that those from some of the devolved parts of the United Kingdom accept


the verdict as well. And in terms of cost, if he is publishing the costs


of the government in the Supreme Court, ask the devolved assemblies


particularly in Scotland to publish how much taxpayers money has been


spent on joining the action? I will pick up cost. I will provide those


numbers, no problem. But I will make one point in all of this. They were


not the people who put the case. We were not the people who put the


case! So the cost of this is a direct outcome of that. I am not one


of those, with animal noises from the other side notwithstanding, I am


not one of those who criticise those who brought the case. It was an


important constitutional case which is why I think whatever because it


was worth doing. But don't say to the government why did you defend


the case? Cause a massively important constitutional issue was


at stake. My honourable friend is right that we should take it


seriously and as the status of our law today and will be. We are


supposed to have the most important devolved parliament in the world.


The Scotland act or does this all convention is embedded into law. We


now know that those acts as really worth the paper they are written on.


When will you do something and act? If you do not accept the very


reasonable proposals be put to him the Scottish people will ask quickly


what is the point of being here at all? The first thing I would say to


him is, if I remember it correctly, the Supreme Court's comments on the


convention is it was not for the judges to decide, but the point I


would make is also this but I listened last week at great length


to the Scottish Government Minister present the arguments in their


paper. And as I said earlier to one of his colleagues, there are bits of


that they disagreed with. There are bits of it that we are absolutely


agreeing that, the most obvious one from my point of view is protection


of employment law, which I take very, very seriously and we are on


the same place on that. I talked through with him and others in the


committee the issue of devolution. And the clear point was no existing


devolved powers were going to be withdrawn or retracted. Of course


that will not happen. But of course we have to think in rational terms


in the interests of the Scottish people and the wider citizens of the


United Kingdom. We need to have decisions on where the best place to


make those decisions is. I would like to devolved powers but in some


cases it is not practical and that is what we have to do, what is right


for the people, not what's its political interest. -- not what


suits. I am confident that every member of


this House will vote to trigger Article 50. Who would they go


against the will of the people? Do you share my one concern that the


implications of this case could have an affect on, for example, the


government's decision to go to war? Could that be challenged by example


by a member of the public? No, I don't think he's right on that. It


is a 96 page judgment which we have to go through the detail on. But


this was confined to two aspects, or at least the major part of the case


that. The implication specifically for the ECA, and for those treaties


which have an effect on the domestic legal rights of citizens. I don't


think that the decision to go to war would fall within that. However, he


raises more broadly a very important point, because we are in an era when


the exact feature of the Royal Troon it has to be established and


understood, particularly when we are understood in complete command of an


future. -- when the exact feature of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy be


established. We have to consider where we have to go back for


authorisation and one of the reasons why we're taking time to be


detergent. The Secretary of State has mentioned a few times about this


being a massive exercise in democracy. I just want to put to him


that are very useful tool in a participatory democracy is issuing


White papers. I really do not understand why the Secretary of


State has set his face so against doing that when they are about to


make the most important decision of many, many generations and trigger


Article 50. One of the things that were said by the chairman of the


Select Committee, unfortunately not here now, was that they wanted the


plan as quickly as possible, before the middle of February. I said it


would be difficult to turn out if full White Paper before then. One of


the virtues of delivering this through the prime ministerial speech


of some length was that we can do it quickly, make it very clear and


everybody would understand it, and it got coverage around the world in


a Kiwi which wouldn't have been available for any other medium. --


in a way which. But the point that matters here is that people remain


free, and something to tease me of course, about my history as an


activist for parliamentary votes. -- people remain to be. The point of a


member is the only here because we represent constituents, and people's


interests, and what I have done, or tried to do so far, is to provide as


much information as possible. I keep repeating that. Let's take the plan


with respect to what was asked by the Labour front bench and by what


was asked by the Labour front bench and by they asked what we would do


about the single market. Hopefully that there is no plane. The customs


front bench and by what was asked by the Labour front bench and by what


was asked by the Labour front bench and by they asked what they would do


about the single market. Hopefully that is now plain. The customs


union? Hopefully that is now clear. What role do we see for Britain in


the world question mark hopefully that is now clear. But they cannot


see what the outcome will be. We can give levels of certainty, as we have


and will, as to what the aims and strategic objectives are, and we


have done that. I also welcome the judgment today by


the Supreme Court and I would like to lend my support to the Supreme


Court but judges and I hope we do not see any repeat of the bile that


was directed towards the High Court judges last year in the papers


tomorrow. I welcomed the Prime Minister 's speech last week


outlining a free trade agreement but I have received thousands of e-mails


from constituents all wanting to have their say on this because 70%


of them voted to remain inside the European Union. Does my Right


Honourable Friend agree, without wishing to make him repeat himself


again, that the best way to do this is to make sure that my constituents


have their views heard by the use of a white paper? I'm afraid he has


failed in not making me repeat myself! What the House has


determined I would say, in is it just a minute or the quiz, I


reiterate, the facts of the matter, it is the plan that matters, it is


answering Parliament was my that matter. We have done all of those


things. I will continue to provide whatever information I can without


compromising our negotiating position. I will do that. I thank


the Secretary of State for his answer when he said he has written


to the Northern Ireland executive, but would he recognise that it has


collapsed after eight months and may not have the confidence of the


people of Northern Ireland, and the fact that they have no joint plan,


with the Secretary of State make sure that the rights to all parties


so that we get something that tells all of us where we are going? We


accept the result, we need a quick resolution, but we must all be


included. Would he do so? He raises an interesting point. Before I


answer directly, may I say this? Of course I have sought to get the


parties in the executive to continue sending a minister to the joint


ministerial committee, but that is only one mechanism. There are


others. We will be speaking, we have plans to speak to the Taoiseach next


week so the Irish government interest will be represented and I


will talk to others more directly. I went over this early on in my time


in this Chair. I am inclined to say yes to him. Let me consider


carefully, I am not going to land myself in some problem. The reason I


am being cautious is because there is now an election underway and I


have got to be very wary of the British Government appealing to sort


of medal in any aspect of the election. Let me take pause and


think about that and I will do what I judge is in the best interests of


Northern Ireland and you must take that as my promise. The pace has


slowed terribly in the last few minutes. What is required is a pithy


question of the kind in which a Queens Counsel should specialise.


Let us hear about the context of the textbook pithily, Lucy Fraser. The


Supreme Court on the first page of a judgment stated that it wanted to


emphasise the case is nothing to do with the terms of withdrawal, the


arrangements for withdrawal or the detail as to any future relationship


with Europe. In those circumstances, does the Secretary of State agree


with me that all the Supreme Court decided was that, before pulling the


trigger, they needed authorisation by Act of Parliament, and under the


terms of the judgment at least, there is no obligation to set out


the detail any deeper? With him today was my judgment it says that


notwithstanding you legislative constraints, and I quote "The EU


will enhance the double competence" I asked the Secretary of State the


same question last week and I was dismayed that he was only able to


provide his presumptions, so can you now provide actual, concrete


examples of which types of powers will be devolved to the devolved


administrations following our exit to the European Union? I rather


suspect she missed richly from last week. What I should of said was that


there are some elements -- that she misquotes me from last week. Some


elements will stay in the centre, but there will be a number well


we're going to have to debate the matter and the side and that will


happen in the first instance in the joint ministerial committee. Single


sentence questions with the abandonment of any preamble that


comics might have had in mind. Once the Secretary of State should take


seriously amendments to the legislation proposed in good faith


he should give short shrift to those who seek to use amendments to derail


or delay the process. I will. The Secretary of State has already


attempted a sideline Parliament by refusing to publish a white paper so


can he be very clear, will the bill be drafted in such terms as to allow


not just amendments but substantive amendments, yes or no? I've been


here 30 years. If you knows how to draft a bill that withstands any


amendments I would like to hear about it. -- if he knows how. In any


negotiation it is worth thinking about the other side. Lord Hill came


to our committee and said that their strategy for negotiation is to come


together with decisions being made otherwise we will be sending mixed


messages. Does the Secretary of State agree? Yes, and I would hope


that once we get through the article 50 process we will see a more


collegiate attitude from all parts of the political spectrum. This is,


after all, our national interest that is engaged. The Secretary of


State reminded us that our job is to do what is in the best interests of


our constituents. The city I represent has 8.5 million visitors


each year, two universities and an economy that includes the head


offices of EDF and MX. If I don't think that the guarantees offered by


this government will protect everything that is great about my


city will be agree that I cannot support this timescale? I am not


about to protect him from his constituents, I am afraid. My


comment to him is this. We are in negotiation. If he can point to me


and negotiation can guarantee before it started I would be interested to


hear it. I'm sure the Secretary of State would agree that it seems


strange many are unaware that legislative changes will be needed


on a whole range of issues as we meet, not just on the article 50


point. If people try to use tricksy procedure in this House or anywhere


else to try and restrict Article 50, it will just fuel scepticism and


push people to vote lead. That is true and I think his constituents


will notice. Someone who has been waiting a long time and must work


out how to do it in a short sentence. Given that the legislative


consent motion is now a political decision and there is no impediment


for the government to bring one, can you advise a House of the government


had a legislative consent contingency in place before the


Supreme Court ruling, and why on Earth would he rule out bringing on


-- bringing one now? Because I said that no component part of the United


Kingdom has a veto. I have said that dozens of times in this House, if he


had been listening. Can my Right Honourable Friend assure my


constituents, a majority of whom voted to leave that he will allow


nothing to get in the way of ensuring that the bill that he has


announced will be passed as quickly as possible? Yes. Mr Speaker, the


Secretary of State said in a statement that this government is


determined to deliver the decision taken by the people of the United


Kingdom, but of course, in Scotland, the country that those of us on


these benches represent, voted to remain within the United Kingdom and


the Scottish Government has been empowered by the Parliament to make


sure that we remain within the single market. Why is he acting


against the best interests of the Scottish people and will he not


understand that, in refusing to accept our will,... Too long, too


loud! We don't want to hear it, enough. Secretary of State. Number


one, I don't think the interest of the Scottish National Party are the


same as those of the Scottish people. Number two, as I remember,


the Scottish nation voted to stay inside the United Kingdom. That


United Kingdom which voted to leave the European Union. The World Trade


Organisation has done a fantastic amount of work to reduce trade


barriers around the world. It is the basis of our trading relationship


with the US, where we have a trade surplus. Would my Right Honourable


Friend agree with me that this is a great foundation for a trade deal


with the EU, and it is for the EU now to do something about that? I


agree. The Secretary of State has spoken a great deal about listening


to the devolved nations, but will you listen to what they have to say


about the importance of unfettered access to the single market? We


already have. That was the point the Prime Minister was making when she


said she wanted a barrier free, most facilitated trade with the EU. Mr


Speaker, can my Right Honourable Friend is sure the 70% of my


decisions who voted for Brexit that, if the Upper House were to attempt


to thwart or delay that bill he has a contingency plan to make sure that


we meet the March deadline? From what I remember of his constituency


he has enough members of the Upper House in it to tell them himself!


Will the Secretary of State recognise that 62% of people in


Scotland voted to skate. The Scottish Government is not asking


for a veto, it is asking for a compromise of Scotland maintaining


membership of the single union. When will he actually work with them to


achieve that? As I have said to several of his colleagues, we work


at the joint ministerial committee, woo hoo we worked bilaterally, we


seek to protect the influence of the older the Kingdom including, not


least, Scotland. I don't want to frustrate the protest, but does he


feel that the referendum result is the only factor that should govern


the article with the vote, and isn't that tantamount to signing a blank


cheque setting aside the views of our constituents? I don't want to


frustrate the process but his question starts... That tells you


something in its own right. This is the government seeking authorisation


to trigger the start of the new negotiation which was what the


British people voted for last year. It is not the only issue but it is


the most important issue. This judgment rode roughshod through the


school convention, so can the Minister assure me that he will seek


meaningful discussions with the Scottish Government, discussions


that respect and reflect the desire of the Scottish electorate to remain


in the EU? I think the Scottish Government will be represented, it's


case was represented to the Supreme Court and unlike the honourable


gentleman, I don't pick and choose which bits I like or don't like, I


go along with the Supreme Court because it is the highest court in


the land, and we have to obey. The country voted to leave but my


constituents did not vote for a cut in their living standards. There are


genuine, serious concerns about the impact on the economy,


manufacturing, higher education and research if the UK left the EU


without a deal and fell back onto WTO rules. What assessment has he


made of the risks of leaving with no deal in place, and will be published


subject to proper scrutiny? Number subject to proper scrutiny? Number


one, there were a great number of forecasts of how terrible things


would be if people voted for Brexit. They were all...


Not to fail to do so but the get one and that is what will protect her


constituents if she's willing to pay attention to it. The Secretary of


State the to the fact that he wants to reserve the interest of the


people of Northern Ireland and that he understands that the peace


settlement. Currently we are in an election which will be quickly


followed by negotiations which Brexit will form an important part.


In discussions with the Taoiseach and with the Irish government, will


he ensure that special status is well considered for Northern


Ireland, as part of those negotiations ensuing from the


elections? There are many special circumstances that apply, and when I


went to visit Northern Ireland, since I have been in this post, the


sort of things that came out were the importance of the border, the


single energy market, a series of things like that and we will


continue to pay attention to them. I am going to be careful about asking


questions because of the ongoing election, but I think she should


take it as read that we take this very seriously indeed. The Secretary


of State for Scotland is no longer in his place. He stole this House or


at least five occasions that the school convention was being placed


on a statutory footing by the Scotland Act. The Supreme Court


today has said that it is not. Which of these two contradictory judgments


currently holds the confidence of Her Majesty's government? It is not


a contradictory judgment. This is a reserved matter. Surely the ruling


confirms that Brexit means Brexit has been totally inadequate as any


explanation to Parliament or its people. The devil is often in the


detail, particularly the Tory detail. Surely that the Dell should


be given in a form of a white paper. The strategic aims are very clear


and they are designed to protect the interest of the people she


represents. I notice that the judgment was issued during the


course... And hope somebody will explain that. I wonder if he can


tell us by the unelected Lords will have more of a say over the article


50 processed only members the devolved institutions? I am trying


to think of the significance in terms of the chairman of the Select


Committee on Brexit. I did not hear half of his question so I will have


to write to him on that. I could not hear that either. I will answer


later. The rules in place means that Parliament construes nice


legislation as it passes through this House. Will they commit to make


sure there are two weekends between the first and second reading? That


is not a matter for me. The Scottish Government has published a set of


proposals to maximise the relationship of the European Union.


Does the Secretary of State realise that not publishing a white paper is


tantamount to political cowardice question I have never been accused


of cowardice before so I do not know how to respond but the answer no


Mac. Supporters of the Government's you


are trying to delegitimise the opinions of others to thwart the


decision to leave the European Union. Can I ask to conform to this


House, having read the Scottish Government's position, there is no


part of that document suggest that either Scotland or any other part of


the United Kingdom should do anything other than leave the


European Union? I am being very careful in the period since I have


received that document not to criticise it publicly. I wanted to


have that debate. I was cheering that Committee. I did not want to


colour the cheering of the debate. You can put it into three


categories. That I did not think would work, bits that were subject


to debate, particularly about devolution issues, and that's that


we are on the same page on matters like employment law. There are


elements of the paper which will have run into problems, not just


with the United Kingdom Government but other members of the European


Union. It was criticised by the Spanish Minister. And also


implicitly criticised by senior Norwegians. I do not think you can


hold it up, some sort of ideal model of a perfect outcome. I am


grateful to all 84 backbench members who took part in this series of


exchanges. On the point of order, Mr Speaker, I told the House in good


faith, Sir Craig Oliver vehemently denies that he or any other member


of David Cameron's media team knew about the aborted trident test last


June. He has said this to my parliamentary office staff in terms


bordering on the rudeness. However, when he was invited to appear before


the defence Committee today, he told the defence Committee clerk that he


did not wish to attend as he had said he had left Number Ten to work


for the iron maiden campaign before the test fired into place. Can I


correct the record and assure the House that we held the most


Download Subtitles