Live Article 50 Statement House of Commons

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