31/01/2017 House of Commons

minister now commit to a sector deals for the steel industry? I can

say I have already been having discussions with the steel industry

with precisely that purpose in mind. Order. We come now to the ten minute

rule motion and the honourable lady will be pleased she has such

uninterested, large and expectant audience. Ten minute rule motion.

Thank you. I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a Bill to make

provision to prohibit the term honour crimes in all official

publications, to extend extra territory jurisdiction in certain

circumstances crimes committed against UK citizens and to make

provision for the recap try Ocean of the bodies of women to allow an

investigation into suspicious deaths. Mr Speaker, language

matters. The use of the term honour to describe a violent criminal act

committed against a man but more often a woman can only be explained

as a means of self justification for the perpetrator. It diminishes the

victim and provides a convenient excuse for what in our society we

should actually call simply murder. Rape. Abuse. Enslavement. I want us

in this House to send a clear message that the excuses end here.

Even more than that, the term seems that violence in particular against

women is culturally sensitive. A sensitivity allowing the perpetrator

to further coerce the victim from seeking help. And it intimidated the

agencies of the state to pursue and prosecute these violent crimes. The

principles of treating every victim equally and with dignity and our law

enforcement agencies responding to every crime with equal vigour are

threatened when a separate set of cultural norms and practices are

accepted for some victims of domestic violence. We have one more

in our country, one law, and it applies to everyone, regardless of

their heritage and faith. This Bill builds on the progress

that's already been made by ending violence against women, tackling

FGM, forced marriage strategies, coercive control laws and the brave

work done by our Prime Minister to introduce the modern slaving slavery

act. I want to place on record my special thanks to the Minister for

Vulnerable people and the Secretary of State at the Home Office as well

as the Foreign Secretary and their teams for their continued support

and time. Between 2010 and 2015, 11,000

incidents of crime with the term "honour" being applied were recorded

in the UK. Members of this House during their constituency duties

will have encountered cases in which the police and other agencies,

including the CPS, have been reluctant to tackle domestic

violence in minority communities for fear of being accused of racism or

of provoking community unrest. Indeed the CPS has acknowledged that

it needs to improve its understanding response and support

to victims. Victims such as Saabjit who was abused throughout her

marriage. He was battered by her husband and treated as a domestic

servant. She was terrorised going to bed not knowing if she would be

alive the next day. She was told that the "honour" of her family was

at stake if she complained and that police would treat her as a number.

Saabjit told me she didn't feel alive but nor was she dead. When she

did sum up the courage, she called Crimestoppers as well as the police.

She risked her life in reaching out. But after statemented were taken,

she was returned home to her abusers because it was just a "cultural

misunderstanding". Shockingly the evidence of her abusers was believed

over hers. Saabjit was reduced to going to a temple, falling to her

knees and begging for help from community leaders. It was a

desperate act from a desperate woman. She was sent home again and

told to think of her family's "honour". She was trapped and once

she'd been let down by the authorities, she had nowhere to

turn. Her husband beat her and secured a second wife. Like many

domestic violence victims, she said she was treated with indifference as

it was dealt with as a community issue and honour crime. Not as she

hoped as bigamy and assault. She wanted equal treatment, and support

under our law, not cultural appropriate interventions. In what

way does the term "honour" describe these crimes? Except, as the

pathetic self-justification of the perpetrator, it is a term used by

those that see women as the property of men whose decisions, lives and

loves belong to the family, the community or religious institution.

This Bill commits us to describing the crimes for what they really are

and been clear to the police, the local authorities, the community

leaders and CPS and victims that cultural sensitivities are not a

barrier to justice. Mr Speaker, we have no record of how

many British women are taken overseas by families to be abused or

killed. However, we do know that when it happens, their assailants

believe that their crimes are beyond the reach of British justice. This

Bill will change that. It would extend the provisions of the modern

slavery act so that if someone is take foreign the UK to anywhere in

the world to be exploited, the offence can be investigated in the

UK because the planning and part of the trafficking took place here.

Seeta was subject to domestic violence throughout her marriage.

She was told to give her older son to her childless brother-in-law in

yaind. She'll be - Kerrsed into India and will be forced to return

home to return to her son. Her husband and his family saw this as a

question of honour. There is no official confirmation as to the

cause of Seeta's death. Her husband said it was a heart attack, but her

family bore witness to bruising around her neck and upper chest and

intended to bring her body home. But before they could, in the dead of

the night, Seeta was cremated by her husband. Whilst in shock and

grieving, the family reported her death to the Indian police as

suspicious. They saw this as a family matter and tried to reconcile

the families, even offering the return of Seeta's children in return

for dropping the allegation of murder. When that didn't work, the

case was simply closed. This Bill extends extra territorial

jurisdiction to domestic violence and I hope it will reemphasise our

responsibility to investigate murder, aggravated by domestic

violence. At present, these victims do not have the same level of

protection, commitment to investigate, to prosecute or to

provide desperately needed support to victims and families. Crucially,

the Bill ends the impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of domestic

violence who often, with the complicity of foreign states, seek

to escape justice by taking women abroad to continue committing their

crimes. Mr Speaker, in this country we make no distinction based on

faith, heritage or background. There can be no exceptions to

equality of treatment before the law, there can be no exceptions to

the pursuit of justice. The words we use and the actions we take must

reflect the values that we hold dear.

THE SPEAKER: The question is that the honourable member have leave to

bring in the Bill. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am afraid for

reasons I will set out, I oppose this particular Bill as it is

currently termed. For the benefit of the morons on Twitter, Mr Speaker,

and for some in this House, I should make it clear from the start that

obviously, I, along with everybody else opposes the women suffering

from honour-based violence. But it seems that I'm the only one in this

House at the moment who equally opposes honour-based violence

against men too. I certainly commend my right honourable friend for

Wealden for her wish to tackle the politically correct culture that

sometimes surrounds certain cultures in this country and can be a very

damaging thing for those caught up in it. I actually attended a meeting

that Baroness Cox organised where three very brave women, Muslim

women, explained how they'd been so badly treated by Shari'a courts.

Unfortunately, despite all the people who claim here to be

concerned about women, I was the only member of the House of Commons

at that meeting so concerned people were about the violence that those

women had faced from judgments from Shari'a courts. This motion deals

quite rightly with dangerous political correctness, as it does

not get any more serious than murder. I completely agree with my

right honourable friend about the term honour killing, there is

nothing honourable about murdering someone and I would encourage my

right honourable friend to keep making this point, as even without

legislation, she could make some progress.

But I'm afraid that whilst tackling one element of political

correctness, my right honourable friend's opened up another

politically correct can of worms. The main reason I oppose this motion

today is because it only relates to female victims and not all victims.

I fear that we are going to have a rerun of the debate on the Istanbul

convention that we had not so long ago in this House. We cannot let - I

know people don't like any other opinions being expressed but this is

a Parliament, this is a democracy. THE SPEAKER: I was keen to move on

from Question Time. I don't want matters to get out of hand. The

honourable gentleman must be heard. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We

cannot let this trend of having laws which are unjustifiably aimed at

dealing with just one gender take hold and I'll continue to oppose all

Bills and motions that continue to do the same. Why do we need to have

just females mentioned in this particular Bill? Why can't it be for

all victimles of these terrible crimes? We don't have an offence of

female murder or male murder, we just have murder.

Now, Mr Speaker, there are more male victims of murder in the UK than

female victims. If I introduced a Bill which said we were only going

to care about the families of the male victims because there are more

of them, I suspect most of the people complain on the other side

and will be up in arms about having just a Bill which only focussed on

the male victims of murder because they are in the majority and the

same should apply here. So yes of course, women are far more likely to

be a victim of an honour-based crime than men, but they are not

exclusively victims of honour-based crimes. As far as I'm concerned, all

of these things are just as bad as each other. Now, I'm no expert, but

I'm told that the term, which is the Pakistani term for so-called honour

killing literally means adulterer and adulturess. They cover both

sexes and are therefore not gender specific. The Home Affairs Select

Committee in 2008 said men are also victims of honour based violence.

The Henry Jackson Society published a report in January 2015 about

honour killings where they said men are also victims of honour killings

and, in the cases of male victims, the perpetrators usually include the

families of a current or ex-partner. They also went on to confirm that in

the UK, there were 22 female victims but seven male victims too.

The Government's Forced Marriage Unit say in their report that in

2015, 980 cases involved female victims and 240 cases involved male

victims. This highlights that men can also be forced into marriage.

The Crown Prosecution Service report on violence against women and girls

actually said that "where gender were recorded females were about 76%

and males about 24%". So this means nearly a quarter of all of the

victims of these particular crimes are men that. Is not an

insignificant number, Mr Speaker. It's not something that we should be

ignoring. I understand that this is also particularly an issue for gay

men and they would certainly not be included under the provisions of

this particular Bill. Now, as we are talking about crimes taking place

outside of this country, we ought to look at the victims of crime over

there. The Pakistani Human Rights Commission, which monitors reports

of these, they also came to the conclusion that in their country,

around about a quarter of all victims were men.

The Guardian have actually reported cases of male killings, so people

might want to bear that in mind as well. They cited the case of Ahmed

Bashir saying he died after he was attacked by a sword and mash ety in

the garden of his West London home. It's sad that people don't care

about him being killed by a machete. What kind of a Parliament have we

become when they don't care about the fact that he's a man.

About how male victims are included in honour -based crimes.

So I think, Mr Speaker, there are other issues with this Bill that I

don't have time to go into now. But I believe the discrimination of this

Bill, we should bring forward gender neutral legislation that seeks to

help all victims of crime, whether they be men or women, and to punish

all offenders of these crimes, whether they be men or women. We are

looking at the screen, Mr Speaker, it says crime, aggravated murder of

and violets against women. It doesn't include men. -- violence. It

is on the screen for members that cannot read.

Some people will say, why not support something that might help

somebody if not everybody? I say, why not help everybody from the

start. What possible reason is therefore not including men and

women in the terms of this particular Bill? So I end where I

started. Of course, we all oppose women suffering from honour -based

violence, but I for one equally opposed honour -based violence

against men. Having a strategy to deal with one but not the other is,

in my opinion, not acceptable and not justifiable.

The question is that the honourable member have leave to bring in the

Bill. I think the ayes have it. The ayes

have it. Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?

Mr Speaker, David Burrows, Michael Gove, Yvette Cooper, Tim Laut,

Robert generate, John Mann, Naz Shah, Craig Whittaker, James Berry,

Angus Brendan McMeel, Stuart C McDonald and me, Mr Speaker.

Crime, aggravated murder of and violence against women Bill. Second

reading, what they? Friday the 24th of March. Friday the 24th of March.

Thank you. The observation of the honourable

member for Shipley will be in here was, as I may say, superfluous. None

of us doubted it for a moment. Order.

We proceed to read the orders of the day. European Union notification of

withdrawal Bill second reading. Order.

I informed the House that I have selected the amendment in the name

of Mr Angus Robertson. In a moment, I will call the Secretary of State

for leaving the European Union to move the second reading of the Bill,

however, before I do so, I should just inform the House that no fewer

than 99 backbenchers are seeking to catch my eye today. That is to say,

without regard to how many might seek to contribute tomorrow. There

will have two be a tough time limit on backbenchers, and the severity of

that time limit will depend upon the level of consideration shown by

frontbenchers. So there is of course no pressure. The Secretary of State

for Exiting the EU opinion in, secretary David Davies.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move the Bill be read a second time. Given your

admonishment just now, I will give the House warning now and take many

interventions, some but not my normal two doesn't. This Bill

responds directly to the Supreme Court judgment 24th January, and

seeks to honour the commitment the government gave to respect the

outcome of the referendum held on 23rd June last year. It is not a

Bill about whether the UK should leave the European Union, or indeed,

how it should do so. It is simply about parliament empowering the

government to impairment a decision already made, a point of no return

already passed. We ask the people of the UK if they

wanted to leave the European Union, they decided they did. So at the

core of this Bill lies a very simple question, do we trust the people or

not? The democratic mandate is clear. The

electorate voted for a government to give them a referendum. Parliament

then voted to hold a referendum. The people voted in that referendum, and

we are now honouring result of that referendum. As we said we would.

This is the most straightforward possible Bill necessary to enact the

referendum result and respect the Supreme Court's adjustment. The

House of Commons has already overwhelmingly passed a motion to

support the triggering of Article 50 by 30 first March. We respect the

will of the people and implement their decision by 31st March.

Subsection of clause one Saint become first on the Prime Minister

the power to notify under Article 50 on the Treaty of the European Union,

the United Kingdom's intention to withdraw from the European Union.

Subsection two of clause one, the power to trigger the Article 50 may

confer with the Prime Minister regardless of restrictions in other

legislation, including the European Community's act, 1972.

Together, these clear and distinct powers will allow the Prime Minister

to begin the process of withdrawal from the European Union, respecting

the decision of the Supreme Court. This is just the beginning. The

beginning of a process to ensure the decision made by the people last

June is honoured. Given that this is, the result of a

referendum, triggering Article 50 is an inevitable consequence as a

result of the referendum, does he agree, whilst it might be honourable

to vote against triggering Article 50 would be entirely unacceptable

for those MPs that voted to put this matter to a referendum to then

renege on the result of that referendum.

My honourable friend makes his point in his own inimitable way. As he

knows, I always take the view that people's votes in this House are a

matter for their own honour and beliefs. For give me for the moment,

I will make some progress and give way.

I would like to draw members to the Bill, which set up the application

of the Bill. The Bill also gives the Prime Minister the power to stop the

process to leave. The Bill also makes clear that

invoking are to fulfil the -- Article 50, this is because of this

being established, using the same institutions. Including the Court of

Justice. That is why the 2008 EU Amendment act makes clear that in UK

law, membership of the European Union includes Euratom, and that is

why Article 50 applies to both the European Union... I will give way.

I received an e-mail yesterday from Professor John wheat, the head of

physics at Oxford University, who had the dubious job of being my

tutor in the late 1970s. Is there anyway we could postpone

leaving Euratom by a year or two? If that is not possible, what assurance

could the Secretary of State give to the Professor and his colleagues?

The first thing I would say to the honourable gentleman is that there

is a two-year timetable, anyway. We are already two years out from that.

But the Prime Minister has also said very, very clearly in her industrial

strategy and in her speech on Brexit that we intend to support the

scientific community and build as much support for that as we can, and

we will negotiate when we engage in negotiations after much, with the

European Union, with the aim of creating a mechanism that will allow

it to go on. I give way. I didn't want to have to keep saying

it, I know the Secretary of State is a most attentive minister, but can I

appeal to him at the start not to keep turning round, looking at

people behind him. It is incredibly frustrating for the House. I know

the natural temptation. Sorry? I am sure that was a valid point, but it

suffered from the disadvantage that I couldn't hear it.

The consequence of this Bill goes much further than the Secretary of

State was telling us. The reason the government finds itself in a

position of such basement to President Trump is that they have

decided to abandon the high ground of the single market place without

so much as a negotiating word being spoken. That's why they are

desperate to do a deal with anybody on any terms at any time. Why did

the secretary lead this country into a position of such weakness?

It's almost exactly the opposite of the case.

Since he picked up on Euratom, let me make a point in more elaborate

detail. Euratom passes through to its constituent countries. The

regular visions, rules and supervision, that it inherits as it

were from the International atomic in your 40, of which we a member.

When we come to negotiate with the EU on this matter, if it is not

possible to come to a conclusion with some sort of relationship with

Euratom, then we will no doubt be able to do one with the most

respected international body in the world.

I am afraid he is wrong on that. Our aims are clear. We will maintain

the closest possible nuclear cooperation with the European Union.

That relationship will take a number of different forms and will be

subject to negotiation, which will start after we are notified. I will

give way. Brexit affords huge opportunities for international

trade for global Britain, part of that global trade is with the single

European market. Whilst there may be access to the full market, hybrid

axis, could the Secretary of State confirmed that anything that

introduces new taxes, tariffs or duties on British goods is not in

our national economic interest. The answer to that is, yes, I will

give way to the honourable gentleman there.

Thank you for giving way. Can I urge him and the government to keep and

open mind on your bat. There is a danger that there will be years of

uncertainty that could put at risk the 21,000 new jobs which are slated

to come as part of the Moorside development.

I'd take that absolutely. He is right, there are a lot of jobs

involved. Also our standing in the scientific committee, international

reputation, all of those we seek to perturb. We will have the most open

mind possible. The difficulty that we face, of course, is that the

Euratom treaty is decided by unanimity. We have two win over the

entire group. We will set out to do that. I give him my word on that

matter. The primaries list has set out a

bold membership vision for the UK. Outlining objectives as we move to

establish a car brands of new partnership with the European Union.

This will be in the best interests of the whole of the UK, and we will

involve the iteration to make sure the voices of Scotland, Wales and

Northern Ireland continue to be heard throughout the negotiation

process. I will come back to more detail later. I will take

interventions later. I made a statement to this House on

17th January about the negotiations ahead of us. I do not propose to

repeat it. Safe to say, we aim to take this opportunity for the UK to

emerge from this period of change stronger, fairer, more united and

more outward looking than ever before. I also set out our 12

objectives for those negotiations. They are to deliver certainty and

clarity where we can, to take control of our own laws, to protect

and strengthen the union, to maintain the Common travel area with

the Republic of Ireland. To control immigration, to protect the rights

of EU nationals in the UK and UK nationals in the EU. To protect

workers' rights, to allow free trade with European markets, to forge new

trade deals with other countries, to boost science and innovation, to

protect and enhance cooperation of a crime, terrorism and security, and

make the exits smooth and orderly. In due course, the government will

publish our plan for exit in a White Paper in this House, and the other

place. The normal noisy shouts from the

Foreign Secretary # Rashad -- Shadow Foreign Secretary of when. On the

17th of January the Prime Minister made it clear that this House and

the Other Place will have a vote on the deal the government negotiates

on the deal before it comes into force. The head of that parliament

will have key role in scrutinising and shaping the decisions made

through the work of both houses, through the Select Committees...

Government ministers will continue to provide regular updates to

Parliament. Since our proposal to shift the body of EU law into UK law

at the point we leave the EU, it will be Parliament for two term and

any changes to our domestic legislation in the national

interest. -- it will be for Parliament to determine. We will lay

out as much detail of the strategy as possible so long as it doesn't

damage our negotiating position. This approach has been endorsed by

this House a number of times. I thank him for being generous with

his time. Would he not agree there is no such thing as hard or soft

accent and we are going to make a success of it? -- hard or soft

Brexit. He is exactly right. I said I think last week that I view the

terms hard and soft Brexit as a propaganda terms. Would he agree

with me that the people need to be best informed about the impact of

our Brexit and at what point are the government going to publish the

analysis they are doing on the impact on jobs of us leaving the

single market? I would say to him first off, the assertions that

people like him made in the run-up to the referendum have all turned

out to be universally untrue so far so I don't think you should lecture

us on this matter. I turn now to the amendment tabled for the Member for

Moray. This bill simply seeks to determine the outcome of the

referendum, a decision the people of the UK have made. They will view any

attempt to halt its progress dimly. The Supreme Court judgment last week

made clear that foreign affairs are reserved to the UK Government. The

devolved legislative is do not have a veto on the UK decision to

withdraw from the EU. That does not mean we have not paid a great deal

of attention to them, we have consistently engaged with them

through the Joint Committee on Europol in negotiation and the joint

ministerial committee... The second of which met yesterday in Cardiff

and was attended by the first ministers of all of the devolved

administrations. Or so, there have been bilateral meetings between

myself and those devolved administrations and 79 official

level meetings to discuss this. Will he not accept that the people of

Scotland voted to remain in the EU and that respect has to be shown to

the Scottish people on the Scottish Government and the Scottish

Parliament? Why will he not negotiate and allow Scotland to

remain with access to the single market as we demand? I will remind

him, there was another referendum a little while ago and it was about

the people of Scotland deciding to stay within the UK and that is what

they are doing and that is what we expect them to continue to do. The

Prime Minister has committed to bring forward a white paper setting

out the government plan and this will be published in the near

future. Guaranteeing citizens' rights in the EU and EU citizens'

rights in the UK is one of the objectives set out. We remain ready

to reach such a deal now if other countries agree. Finally, there has

been continual Parliamentary scrutiny of the government on this

process. I have made statements in the House of Commons in more than

ten debates and over 30 Select Committee enquiries. I will continue

to support Parliament in its role. Does he accept that Northern Ireland

voted to stay in the unique -- the EU? My constituency voted 70% on a

70% turnout. Does he accept that we don't have a devolved administration

there at the moment and does he have any plans to resolve the damage done

to the Northern Ireland economy, particularly the agricultural

economy, in all of this? The position of Northern Ireland, the

piece process and all related issues, were all at the forefront of

the Prime Minister's mind when he went there and are at the forefront

of my mind and that is why we have guaranteed that we will retain the

Common travel area. In terms of continuing representation, although

there is no Executive, individual representatives remain in place. I

wrote to the Executive to send a representative to each of the joint

ministerial committee meetings. They have done so and they have made

serious and significant contributions to those meetings. We

take very seriously the analysis they provided of industries in

Northern Ireland and very special issues like the single Irish energy

market are the sort of issues we have front and centre in the list of

negotiating points to deal with. He made take it as read that we take

the issue of protecting Northern Ireland incredibly serious. -- he

may take it. There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no

attempt is to rejoin it through the back door no second referendum. Our

country voted to leave the EU and it is the duty of the government to

make sure we do just that. Finally we remain committed to the timetable

the Prime Minister set out to trigger Article 50 by no later than

the end of March. It is equally vital that members move swiftly to

adopt this legislation in keeping with the Prime Minister's timetable

for triggering Article 50 by the end of March. That provides certainty

both at home and in the EU. I conclude by saying the eyes of the

nation are on this chamber as we consider this bill. So many years

there has been a creeping sense in this country and in other countries

that politicians say one thing and do another. We voted to give the

people to determine our future in the referendum and we must honour

our side of the agreement to vote to deliver on the result. We consider

that very simple question, do we trust the people or not? The

generations my party has done so. Now that question is before every

member of this House. This bill provides the power for the Prime

Minister to begin that process and honour the decision made by the

people of the UK in June last. I commend it to the House, trust the

people. -- in June last year. The question now is that the bilby read

a second time. Keir Starmer. -- the bill be read. We have before us is

short and relatively simple bill. For the Labour Party it is a very

difficult bill, however. LAUGHTER

I would ask honourable members to be courteous as I try to set out the

position of the Labour Party in what are very difficult circumstances. I

will try to set that out clearly and I would expect people to be

courteous. We are a fiercely internationalist party, we are a

pro-European party, we believe that through our alliances we achieve

more together than we do alone. We believe in international cooperation

and collaboration. We believe in the international rule of law. These

believes will never change. That is why we campaigned to stay in the EU.

We recognised that the EU is our major trading partner and that the

single market and Customs union have benefited UK businesses than many

years. We recognise more widely the benefits of collaborative working

across the EU in research, medicine, technology, education, arts and

farming. We also recognise the role the EU plays and tackling common

threats such as climate change and serious organised crime. We share

values and identity with the EU. But we failed to persuade, we lost the

referendum. Yes, the result was close. Yes, there were lies and

half-truths, none worse than the false promise of ?350 million a week

for the NHS. Yes, technically the referendum is not legally binding

but the result was not technical, it was deeply political, and

politically the notion that the referendum was merely a consultation

exercise to inform Parliament holds no water. When I was imploring

people up and down the country to vote in the referendum and vote to

remain I told them their vote really mattered, that a decision was going

to be made. I was not inviting them to express a view. Although we are

fiercely internationalist and fiercely pro-European, we are in the

Labour Party above all Democrats. Had the outcome been to remain we

would have wanted the vote on it and that cuts both ways. The decision

was made in June last year to leave the EU. Two thirds of labour MPs

represent constituencies that voted to leave. One third represent

constituencies that voted to remain. This is obviously a difficult

decision. I wish the result had gone the other way. I campaigned

passionately for that. What is Democrats our party has two except

the result and it follows that the Prime Minister should not be blocked

from starting the article 15 negotiations. -- but as democrats.

That doesn't mean that she can do what she likes without constraint

from this House. Quite the opposite. The prime ministers accountable to

this House and that accountability is vital on the uncertain journey

that lies ahead. The Prime Minister fought to prevent the House having a

vote on this bill until she was forced to do so by the Supreme Court

last week. The Prime Minister resisted Labour's calls for a plan

and then a wider white paper until it became clear that she would lose

any battle forcing her to do so. Before Christmas she was resisting

giving this House a vote on the final deal. A position that she has

had to adjust. That is why the amendments tabled by the Labour

Party are so important. They are intended to establish an number of

key principles the government must seek to negotiate, including

security tariff free impediment free access to the single market,

ensuring there is robust and regular Parliamentary scrutiny by requiring

the Secretary of State to report to the House at least every two months

on request being made throughout the process and to provide documents

that are being provided to the European Parliament. It requires the

government to consult regularly with the governments of Wales, not

moderate and Scotland throughout the negotiations and I have recognised

on numerous occasions the specific concerns of those living in those

countries. -- Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. I support the

idea that they should be absolutely supported. I will press on for a

minute and then we will take interventions.

This House has the first say, and not the last say, on the deal that

is proposed at the end of the Article 50 negotiations.

We are also supporting amendments, I will give way in a minute. We are

also supporting amendments in relation to workplace rights and

environmental rights. And will make the case that the legal state of EU

nationals should be ensured before negotiations take place. I recognise

the government's position in relation to EU nationals and the

work that has gone on to have a reciprocal arrangement. That has not

worked. Now the Prime Minister should act unilaterally to give

assurance to those EU nationals living in this country.

All honourable members, I am sure, will have had in their surgeries EU

nationals in tears about the uncertainty of their situation. I've

had it at every public meeting I have had on the topic and at every

surgery. I do understand the constraints, but

we must now act unilaterally to secure their position. Taken

together, these amendments will put real accountability into the

process, and the government should welcome them, not reject them out of

hand. I will make some progress and then I will give way. I'm mindful of

the fact that 99 backbenchers want to get into this debate. It is

important on an issue such as this that I set out our position. It is

important to remember what this Bill does, and what it does not do. It

empowers the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50, no more and no

less. It is the start of the negotiating process, not the end. It

does not give the Prime Minister a blank cheque. Here I want to make a

point, a wider point, that's not been made clear enough so far in any

of the debate we had. No promise under Article 50 any other position,

can change domestic law through international negotiations. That can

only be done in this Parliament. If the Prime Minister seeks to

change our immigration laws, she will have to do so in this

Parliament, in primary legislation. If the Prime Minister seeks to

change our tax laws, she will have to do so in this Parliament in

primary legislation. If the Prime Minister seeks to change our

employment laws, our consumer protection laws or environmental

laws, she will have to do though in this Parliament in primary

legislation. And if the Prime Minister seeks to change our current

arrangements in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, she will have to

do so in Parliament in primary legislation. I will give way.

I thank the right honourable gentleman for giving way, but does

he not realise that the very point of us leaving the European Union is

so that this place can make decisions on those very points.

Yes. When the Secretary of State last week said that there would be

many votes on many pieces of legislation in the next few years,

he was not wrong. And in each of those votes, at every twist and

turn, Labour will argue that living standards must come first. We will

argue that all rights derived from EU law should be fully protected, no

qualifications, no limitations in... I thank my honourable friend for

giving way. He rightly points to the very necessary consultation that

must take place with the devolved administrations, but on 17th

January, I ask the Secretary of State what specific discussions he

had had with the north-east about the impact of leaving the single

market, giving 58% of our exports to the EU, does right honourable friend

agree that we do not have an answer for that question, whether he has

had the discussions, as well as many other questions?

I agree, and I urge on the Prime Minister and Secretary of State the

greatest consultation in relation to Wales, Northern Ireland and

Scotland. Each have specific areas and concerns that are well-known to

this House. The right honourable gentleman,

thank you for giving way. Does he share my concern is that at the end

of this process, if there is no deal that has been struck, all options

must remain open, and it will be for this place, and not for the

government, to decide what happens next? I am grateful for that

intervention. It is to ensure that this place has a meaningful role

that Labour has tabled the amendment it has in relation to the final

vote, to make sure that the issue comes here first rather than later.

I will give way. In that spirit, does he agree with

me that it is astonishing that the government have not told us when

they will be publishing a White Paper, and does he agree with me

that that White Paper should be published ahead of the committee

stage of this Bill, which is scheduled to be next week Rose I'm

grateful for that intervention, my view is clear, the White Paper ought

to be published before the committee stage is concluded.

I hope it will be. I am going to make some progress given the number

of honourable members who want to come in on this debate.

More broadly, Mr Speaker, Labour will argue for a strong future

relationship with the EU. In her Lancaster House speech, the Prime

Minister said she does not seek to hold onto bits of membership as we

leave. That is short-sighted. We are now finding that in relation to

Europe Tom -- Euratom. Why would we want to be outside the

European medicines agency, which ensures all medicines in the EU are

safe. Why would we want to be outside Europe and Euro just, which

I know our agencies that work closely together in the prevention

and detection of serious crime and terrorism? The same goes for the

European Environmental Agency Centres By. We Do Ask That

Consideration Be Given To Finding Ways To Ensure Of Staying Where We

Can Within These Agencies For The Very Obvious Benefit Is That They

Bring. . We will absolutely challenge any suggestion that the

Prime Minister has any authority whatsoever to rip up our economic

and social model and turn the UK into a tax haven economy.

So Mr Speaker, I come back to the vote on this Bill. It is a limited

vote. A vote to allow the Prime Minister to start the Article 50

process. It is not a vote on the outcome, nor it is a vote on the

wider issues which will be voted on separately, but it is a vote to

start the process. Mr Speaker, I know there are some colleagues on

the benches behind me who do not feel able to support this Bill. I

respect their views. Just as I respect the views of constituents

who feel the same way. I also understand and recognise the anxiety

of so many in the 48% who voted to remain about their future, their

values, and their identity. They did not vote themselves out of

their own future, and their views matter as much now as they did on

23rd June last year. I hope the respectful approach that

I have tried to adopt to colleagues and to the anxiety among the 48% is

reflected across the House, and that we will see a good deal less of

gloating from those who campaigned to leave than we have seen in the

past. It is our duty to accept and respect the outcome of the

referendum, but we remain a European country with a shared history, and

shared values. It is also our duty to fight for a new relationship with

our EU partners that reflects our values, our commitment to

internationalism, and our commitment to an open and honest society. Above

all, it is our duty to ensure an outcome that is not just for the

52%, or the 48%, but for the 100%. That we will do.

Order, the original question was that the Bill now be read a second

time in its is sorry? An amendment... order. An amendment

has been proposed on the order paper. The next Speaker is Mr

Kenneth Clarke. Mr Speaker, you will not be

surprised to know that it is my intention to vote against a second

reading of this hill if a vote is called, and I will support the

reasoned amendment which I think will be moved very shortly by the

Scottish Nationalists. Because of the rather measured

position, which the right honourable and learn it gentleman had to

present on the part of the official Labour Party, it falls to me to be

the first member of this House to set out the case why I believe, and

I hope I won't be the last Speaker, why I believe that it is in the

national interest for the United Kingdom to be a member of the

European Union. Why I believe we have benefited from that position

from the last 45 years, and why I believe future generations will

benefit if we actually succeed in remaining a member of the European

Union. It's a case that hardly received any

publicity during the extraordinary referendum campaign, but it does

actually go to the heart of the historic decision that the House is

being asked to make now. It so happens that my political

career entirely coincides with British involvement with the

European Union. I started over 50 years ago is aborting Harold

Macmillan's application to join, I helped get the majority cross-party

vote before we did join in 1973, and it looks like my last Parliament is

the parliament in which we leave. But I do not look back with any

regret. We made some very wise decisions. I believe that membership

of the European Union was a way that we got out of the appalling state we

were in when we discovered that we had no role in the world we were

clear about once we lost our empire, and that our economy was becoming a

laughing stock because we were falling behind the countries on the

continent that had been devastated in the war, but appeared to have a

better way of proceeding than we did.

And I believe that our membership of the European Union restored to us

our national self-confidence, gave us politically a role in the world

as a leading member of the union, which made us more valuable to our

allies, like the United States, and made our rivals like the Russians

take us more sinister, because of our role in leadership of the

European Union, and it helped to reinforce our own values as well.

Our economy benefited enormously and continued to benefit even more as

the market developed from our close and successful involvement in

developing trading relationships with the inhabitants of the

continent. I am fortunate to be called this early, I apologise to my

right honourable friend, but there are 93 other members still waiting

to be called. If you forgive me, I won't. In fact, the Conservative

governments in which I served made very positive contributions to the

development of the European Union. There were two areas in which we

were the leading contender and made a big difference. The first was when

the Thatcher government led away in the creation of the single market.

The customs union so-called Common market had served its purpose, but

regulatory barriers matter more than tariffs in the modern world. But for

the Thatcher government, the others would not have been induced to

remove those barriers, and I think the British benefited more from the

single market than any other member state. It has contributed to our

comparative economic success today. We are also always the leading

government after the fall of the Soviet Union in the process of

enlargement to Eastern Europe, taking in the former Soviet states.

And that was an extremely important political contribution.

After the surprising collapse of the Soviet Union, Eastern and Central

Europe could have collapsed into its traditional anarchy, nationalist

rivals, military regimes, which have proceeded the Second World War. We

actually pressed the urgency of bringing these new independent

nations, giving them the goal of European Union, which meant liberal

democracy, free market trade and so on, and we made Europe a much more

stable place. That has been our role in the European Union. And I do

believe that it is a very, very bad move, particularly for our children

and grandchildren that we are all sitting here now saying that we are

embarking on a new unknown future, which I shall touch on in a moment,

but which I think is simply baffling. Every friend of the

British and the United Kingdom throughout the world. That is why I

shall vote against. Let me deal with the arguments that I should not

vote. That I am being undemocratic. This is quite wrong, the idea that I

am required to vote contrary to the views I have just given. We are told

this is because we had a referendum. My opposition to referendums as an

instrument of government is quite well-known has been frequently

repeated throughout my career. This referendum in particular, with such

an enormous question being asked for a simple yes-no answer on a single

day, with hundreds of complex issues wrapped up in it, was a most

suitable, particularly unsuitable? Reply beside of that kind --

particularly unsuitable example for a plebiscite of that kind. We did

not say that a referendum bound the House and that is why we should not

have a vote, because the referendum had always been described as

advisory. There is no constitutional standing to referendums in this

country, no sensible country has referendums, the US and Germany do

not. They went to the Supreme Court arguing the archaic institutional

principle of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. That the executive somehow

had absolute power when it came to dealing with treaties, and

unsurprisingly they lost. -- principle of the Royal prerogative.

Leave won the referendum campaign. I won't comment on the nature of the

campaign, those arguments which got publicity in the national media on

both sides, both sides were on the whole fairly pathetic. I have agreed

in conversation with the Secretary of State for Brexit that neither of

us used the dafter arguments being used by people we were aligned with.

I don't recall ?350 million a week for the health service coming from

the Secretary of State for Brexit. I didn't say we would have a budget to

put up income tax. All quite pathetic. Let me give an analogy, a

loose one but I think not totally loose, in explaining the position of

Members of Parliament after this referendum. I have fought Lord knows

how many elections over the past 50 years and I have always advocated

voting Conservative. The British public in their wisdom have

occasionally failed to take my advice and they have actually buy a

majority voted Labour and I have found myself here facing a Labour

government will stop I do not recall an occasion when I have been told it

was now my democratic duty to support Labour policies and the

Labour government on the other side of the House and I think that the

opposition put to the honourable member for Bolsover when he is in

opposition would have been treated with ridicule and scorn. I am now

being told that despite having voted as I did in the referendum I am

somehow an enemy of the people, ignoring my instructions to stick to

the opinions that I was expressing at least in my meetings rather

strongly, urging them to vote the other way, and I have no intention

of changing my opinion on the ground, indeed I personally am

convinced that the hard-core Eurosceptics in my party, with whom

I have enjoyed debating this the decades now, would not have felt

bound in the slightest by the outcome of the referendum to abandon

their arguments. I don't say that as criticism, I am on good terms with

them because I respect their sincerity and the passionate nature

of their beliefs, but if I ever need to see the honourable member for

stone to turn up here and vote in favour of Britain remaining in the

EU, well, I will retract what I say. Hot tongs would not make him vote

for remain. I am told that I should vote with my party, it is a three

line whip. I am a Conservative, decently Loi a pull over the years,

the last time I kicked over the traces was on the Lisbon Treaty,

where the party somehow got on the wrong side of the argument. --

decently loyal over the years. I am told that somehow I am being

disloyal by not voting in favour of this bill. I am merely propounding

the official policy of the Conservative Party for 50 years

until the 23rd of June 2015. I admire my colleagues who can

suddenly become enthusiastic Brexiteers, having seen a light on

the road to Damascus, on the day the vote was cast on the 23rd of June I

am afraid that light has been denied me. I feel the spirit of the former

colleague who I rather respected apart from one or two have his

extreme views, my former colleague Enoch Powell, the best speaker of

the Eurosceptic cause I probably ever heard in the House of Commons.

If he was here who probably would find it amazing to believe that his

party had become Eurosceptic and rather mildly anti-immigrant in a

very strange way in 2016. I am afraid on that I haven't followed

them and I don't intend to do so. There were very serious issues that

were not addressed by the referendum, the single market and

the customs union. That must be properly debated. It is absurd to

say that every elector actually knew what the difference was between the

customs union and the single market and had taken a careful and studied

view on the basis of our future trade relations with Europe. The

fact is, I admire the Prime Minister and her colleagues for their

constant propounding of the principles of free trade. We are

believers that free trade is a win-win situation, we are leading

advocates of liberal economic policies among the European powers,

so we are for free trade. It seems to me on arguable -- on arguable --

non-arguable that if you put between us and the biggest economic power in

the world new tariffs, new regulatory barriers, new customs

procedures, certificates of origin and so on, you are bound to be

weakening your economic position. That is why it is important that

that issue is particularly addressed. What I am told is

pessimistic, we are combining withdrawal from the single market

and customs union with this globalised future that offers

tremendous opportunities the us. Apparently you follow the rabbit

down the hole and you emerge in a wonderland where suddenly countries

the world are queueing up to give us trading advantages and access to

their markets, where previously we had never been able to achieve them

as part of the EU. A nice man like President Trump, President Erdogan,

they are in patient to abandon protectionism and give us Access.

Don't let me be too cynical, I hope it is right. I want the best outcome

for the United Kingdom from this process. No doubt somewhere there is

a Hatter holding a tea party with a dormouse... We need success in the

use trading negotiations to recoup at least some of the losses which we

will incur from leaving the single market. -- in these trading. If all

is lost on the main principle, that is the big principle, we must get

this addressed properly in debates from now on. I hope I have

adequately explained that my views have not been shaken very much on

this issue over the decades and actually somewhat strengthened. Most

people here are familiar with Burke 's address and I think every MP

should vote according to their view of the best national interest. I

never quote Burke but two Para craze him -- to paraphrase him, he said to

his constituents, if I don't give you the benefit of my judgment but

just simply followed your orders I am not serving you but trailing you.

I will be voting with my conscience on this vote and as we see what

happens as we leave the EU I hope that the consciences of other

Members of Parliament will be equally content. The amendment is

tabled in his name but I think that Mr Gethin 's is going to make his

oration. I moved to make the amendment in my name and the Member

for Moray and other colleagues including representatives of the

different constituent parts of the UK and I thank colleagues for

backing the amendment. Can I also say what a privilege it is to follow

the right honourable member for Rushcliffe, who has spoken huge

amount of sense to the House today and a great deal more than we hear

from these benches in recent times. He made some exceptional points, I

thank him for the points he has made and it is a privilege that he will

be voting with us tomorrow evening. In particular he made some good

points about the benefits of the EU and it is important that we reflect

even briefly on those. The EU has had an impact on all of us, from the

progress we have made on protecting rights, workers' rights, parents'

rights, the environment, to helping secure security, peace and

respiratory over 70 years, something that was never guaranteed. -- peace

and prosperity. I know that a number of my colleagues will be touching on

that over today and tomorrow. One of the big ones and main ones has to be

the question around scrutiny, for what is the purpose in having a

parliament, what is the purpose in us being here if not to scrutinise

the work of the government? I have to say that this government's

unwillingness to put this decision under any kind of rubber scrutiny

reflects a lack of confidence in their own position about the process

once this has been done. -- proper scrutiny. It is good to see that

despite the government's best efforts we will get a say in the

triggering of Article 50 but we had to drag them kicking and screaming

at great expense into this situation. I also think it is

imperative on all members in this House to reflect on the debt of

gratitude that we owe to Gina Miller, who has made this debate

today possible, and we should reflect on that. Primarily what we

want is scrutiny. In the white paper that is yet to be published, and it

is interesting that you are not publishing a white paper by the time

we have a debate and you want to have a white paper after we have had

a debate and after the bill has been passed, that must surely be

unprecedented. Secondly I will talk about the lack of respect for the

devolution settlement and the consequences of leaving the EU

without certainty and the kind of vision being created for the UK. One

enormous step the government could have made, which was touched on by

the Member for Rushcliffe and another member, is the position of

European National 's who contribute so much to our country. That would

have been quite... What they should do is give those EU nationals the

certainty we need. Let me reflect on why we are here with so much

uncertainty. The Leave campaign campaigned on a blank piece of

paper. That was gross responsibility and an act of negligence which has

been carried over by this government over the past nine months. That goes

to the heart of why we need a white paper and I have to say that Leave

ministers, those currently in government and previously in

government, have particular culpability around the uncertainty

in which we find ourselves. Will we get the white Paper before

the committee stage? Will they go through the normal process that we

see a white paper before a Bill is passed? It has certainly been the

practice in the past when this place has been given a say. The Member for

Rushcliffe was reflecting on European debates gone by. Maybe as a

reminder, I can tell members that before the Amsterdam Treaty

negotiations in 1996, John Major published a White Paper before he

went into those negotiations. Gordon Brown, the Foreign Secretary is not

in his place any more, it was Gordon Brown in charge of the Lisbon Treaty

when it went through, and he published a White Paper. What are

they afraid of? My right honourable friend, the Member for Gordon is in

his place right now, he has experience of referendums and of

scrutiny. This is what a proper White Paper looks like. 670 pages of

detail on what the country looks like published a year before the

referendum, instead of scrabbling about for the odd detail almost a

year after the referendum. That's a disgrace, and they should be

ashamed. I think the honourable gentleman for giving way. Could the

honourable gentleman tell this House what that White Paper told the

people of Scotland, what currency would they be using?

The honourable member raises a good point. Do you know what the White

Paper talked about, it talks about the currency, and he's right.

Actually, more than the White Paper, there was a fiscal commission. My

word, there was so much work put into it, so much more, and actually,

on the point of modernity and the progress for this country, I will

give way to the honourable gentleman.

I am grateful to the honourable gentleman, but I seem to remember

that the Scottish people blew a rather large was react that White

Paper. The Scottish people had the

opportunity to discuss it and debated, and I will say to the

honourable member, it is a great pity that he doesn't trust the

people enough to give them some details. Words on a blank page at

that. Can I gently remind the House this is a big deal. You are not

divvying up the box set, this has an impact on each and every one of us.

We publish the details, we reflect on that, you don't have the courage

of your convictions. And what about...

I know the honourable gentleman is in a state of great animation and

excitement, and I don't want to spoil that for him, but I have

always had the courage of my convictions, therefore his breach of

Parliament to protocol in this case is mildly offensive. Let me remind

him, the debate goes through the chair, the word, you, is not only

not require, it should be deleted. You of course have the courage of

his convictions every time. Well said, Mr Speaker. I am sure that you

will also agree that scrutiny is a good thing. It strengthens

governance and has a major role to play. Let me talk about the

devolution settlement. I am going to talk about what has been having. The

Minister earlier talked about listening. He said a great deal

about listening, but I have not seen anything that has changed so far

from all this listening that is going on. I have not seen any

changes. They were listening in Cardiff all day yesterday. We have

seen nothing. The core decision made the point that it is a political

decision, the devolved administrations should be a

political one. Scotland has also said that the Bill will put the

Sewell Convention on to a statutory footing. That was the case, and he

is true to his work, then we would not be in the situation we are in

right now. Only two plans have, forward. One from the Scottish

Government about Scotland's place in Europe, and I am going to pay credit

to Mike Plaid Cymru and labour colleagues that managed to pull

together a plan for the worse, does well. -- plan for Wales.

To maintain our place in the single market, to give new powers to the

Scottish Parliament, as suggested by the Member for Sutton Heath, and to

ensure that EU nationals can continue to stay.

Mr Speaker, I am somewhat confused. It has taken a long time for the

honourable gentleman to take my intervention, but I am somewhat

confused how he expects to get a 600 page White Paper on a two clause

Bill. The honourable lady says she is confused, I will make this point.

If the ministers comes forward with a White Paper that is not quite 670

pages, we will be OK with that on these benches. Any sort of White

Paper would be some progress. But she is a little bit confused, can I

remind her on a point of democracy on the Conservative benches, that

they got the worst general election result in Scotland since 1865. They

could do with a little bit of listening. They have been pulled by

the nose by Ukip who have never paid their Parliament to deposit. The

government 15% of the vote, and claim a victory on one in five

voters, and they want to bring power was back to this place and hand them

to the House of Lords. Mr Speaker, the consequences of leaving the EU

would be significant. I won't give way any more. On universities and

opportunities that I had and people should continue to have, our

environment and low carbon industries, this Bill is not

expected to have financial implications, Mr Speaker, that is a

courageous indeed. Finally on vision, this is a debate... the

honourable gentleman has made it clear that he is not giving way. Can

I gently say, there is an enormous amount of heckling taking place,

sometimes from the honourable gentleman's own benches. They are

echoing more loudly than I shout when I watch Britain in the Davis

Cup. And I don't do that when play is in progress.

Let me remind colleagues about this, in terms of winning any kind of vote

in Scotland, we are at a crossroads. And this House is at a crossroads

today. Are we to continue progress and prosperity, whereby maintaining

close relationships with partners in Europe, as set out by the Scottish

Government in its plans, one that was a compromise when we failed to

see any kind of copper mines from the other side. Political opponents

in Wales have been able to come most. The Scottish Government, in

spite of two thirds of constituents wanting to stay in Europe, have been

able to set out a comprise. Alternatively, the alternate to that

is a part of isolationism, grumbling around for friends. The Prime

Minister will note that the reaction to her visit to Washington on street

is the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. Going back in

history, Scotland has done well as an EU member state. I want to see us

continue with research, trade, political alliances going back

centuries, and we are sharing sovereignty, and that is a good

thing. Another lesson to the honourable gentleman, and I hope he

will listen this time, that sharing sovereignty, but isn't sharing

sovereignty is to force through a Trident missile submarine that the

Scottish people are against, and that 98.5% of Scottish MPs have

moved against. What isn't sovereign is being taken out of the European

Union against your will, and what isn't sovereign is having a Tory

government that has got one MP in charge of your state of affairs.

Mr Speaker, Europe is where our future lies. It is one where we

tackle inequality, climate change, refugees get help, areas that don't

get much hearing in Whitehall these days, pulling our sovereignty and

working together is a good thing. Passing this Bill and turning your

back on our amendment, that would turn its back on the progress made

and Ashley Beck the devilish this respect.

It is an act of constitutional and economic sabotage.

Order, the original question was that the Bill will now be read a

second time, since when an amendment has been proposed, the question is

that the amendment be made. I referenced earlier the very, very

large number of colleagues wishing to contribute, which does

necessitate the imposition with immediate effect on backbenchers of

a six minute time limit. Sir William Cash. This, Mr Speaker, has been for

me and many of us a very long journey. In my own case, 30 years

when I put down on the single European act and amendment to retain

the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. I have to say,

it was denied me. The amendment was not selected, but I had to say that

I look with interest at clause one of this Bill, which says, this

section has effect despite any provision made or under the European

Communities Act 1972 any other enactment. I believe that that

satisfies the requirement of sovereignty in respect of this Bill.

But Mr Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the honourable member for

Rushcliffe. I respect him. I respect the way which we have battled over

these matters overall these years, the same period of time, he a little

earlier than, I must admit, but we have been on different roads, and

now we have arrived at different destinations. For me, this

referendum was a massive peaceful resolution by consent of historic

proportions. This Bill that last endorses that revolution.

From the 17th-century, right the way through our history, through

Cornwalls, through the Parliamentary format, giving the vote to the

working class, the suffragettes, who got the vote in 1928, and then again

in the period of appeasement, these have all been great benchmarks of

British history. And they have all ultimately been determined by the

decisions that have been taken in this House, and if I may be

permitted to say so, by backbenchers. That is where the

decisions have so often been taken. The fact is, the fundamental

question on which we have fought, not only this referendum, but all

the battles back into the 1980s, have been who governs this country.

This Bill answers that question. I would like to simply say with

respect to the Bill itself that if one was to look at the Supreme Court

position, and I don't want to spend time on this, but just to make the

point, that it is quite clear from the manner in which that Supreme

Court ruling was given, and I think the Shadow Minister for Brexit made

the same point, this is not about timing, it is not about method. It

is not about our relationship with the European Union, it is not about

the terms of withdrawal, that is all set out in paragraphs two and three

of the judgment itself. It goes on to say in para 132, the power to

make these decisions lies exclusively with Parliament, and

that is where we are now embarking on yet another journey.

I have to say with respect to the referendum that back in 1990, I

formed a view come and it was this: looking at the House of Commons as a

whole, looking at the front bench Party and the front bench of the

Conservative Party, I came to the conclusion that nothing was going to

break the collusion between those two frontbenchers on the European

issue, or the question of sovereignty. There had to be a

strategic decision, so I set up the Maastricht referendum campaign.

We have now, after many, many years, I believe largely on account of the

efforts made, and I want to pay tribute to all my honourable friend

's on the side of the House, and I use the same aggression with respect

to those on the other side of the House who have fought the same

battle in the same way. And the member for Vauxhall. Bob

Cryer, the member for Luton North and so on. This has been a huge

battle. I don't disrespect the government for the decisions they

have taken in this period of time. On either side of the House because

they have been forming judgments which although they fell short of

what we needed in this country, what I do say is that we have in this

democratic cockpit to fight our battles. To stand up for our own

constituents. To stand up for what we believe in. Conscience,

decisions. Principals, conviction. That is what has to drive our

decision-making. With respect to the honourable gentleman, I will give

way in a moment. For those who vote against this bill, such as they are,

simply do not get the scale of what this revolution involves. I would

simply say that they say they respect it and accept it but they do

not. I will give way. Will he accept that there has been a vote to leave

the EU but there hasn't been a vote on the terms of withdrawal from the

EU Anderson is Article 50 is triggered, those terms of withdrawal

will be decided by the EU 27, not in here, what sort of the Marcus Louis

is that? One of my major objections from the beginning is that so much

has been taken by the European scrutiny committee, he knows I have

complained vigorously for ever about the fact that decisions are taken

behind closed doors in the EU. It is our sovereignty, their sovereignty

has been imposed on us, that is why I have objected to it and why we are

standing here today. I want to conclude by saying this, we fought

for a referendum on Maastricht. I wanted to say before my honourable

friend gave way that Eurosceptics in this House O a great debt of

gratitude to the honourable gentleman for Stone who has been our

leader in this issue over so many decades. I am very touched by that

if I may say so. I would say this, we fought for a referendum on

Maastricht and arguments. And for unsettling the United Kingdom from

an increasingly undemocratic European governance. Those who vote

in practice against this bill are voting against the outcome of that

referendum. And my right honourable friend is absolutely right, we must

trust the people. What they will be doing is voting against the people

and their views expressed in the referendum. If the House of Lords

was to do the same, they would be committing political suicide if they

stand in the way of the will of the British people. This Westminster

parliament is now the focus where it instructions of the British people

have to be carried out. That is what we will do. And if I may say, once

again, those famous words of William Pitt in the Guildhall speech in

1805, "England has saved herself by her exertions and will I trust, save

Europe and the United Kingdom by her example." Before I called the member

for Leeds Central, can I appeal to members, please not to keep coming

up to the chair and asking where they are on the list. Not doing so

explicitly and not doing so by the back door, asking if it is all right

if they can have a cup of tea. I'm going to do my best to accommodate

everybody in the substantial time available but I appeal to colleagues

to show a little bit of patience and some regard for the chair to

concentrate on the debate. I will get you in if I possibly can and so

will other occupants of the chair. Thank you Mr Speaker. Our

relationship with Europe has run like a contentious thread through

our politics for more than 60 years. The referendum revealed a nation

that remains divided. It pains me to say it, for the reasons I have to

say, ably set out by the Right Honourable gentleman for Rushcliffe

in his speech, though it pains me to say, we are

leaving the European Union. Our task is to now try and bring people

together. That means that whether we voted leave or remain, we have a

responsibility to hold in our minds the views and the concerns and the

hopes of everyone in this country, whether they voted leave or remain.

Mr Speaker, the Supreme Court, rightly in my view, that a decision

of this magnitude should be taken by Parliament and not the executive.

With that power comes a responsibility to respect the

outcome of the referendum. However much some of us may disagree with

it. This is about democracy. It is about faith in our politics. Not

just in the United Kingdom but across the western world. Where, if

we are honest with each other, it is not in very good shape. If this

Parliament were to say to the people you didn't know what you are doing,

and it was only advisory and there were lots of lies, whether anyone

agrees or disagrees with those assertions, we really would have a

crisis of confidence in our politics. For the reasons so

eloquently set out by my right honourable friend for Hogan and

Saint pancreas, that is why the democratic thing to do is vote for

this bill, which I will do so. But, the referendum decided only one

thing, the fact that we are leaving the institutions of the European

Union. It did not discuss the terms on which we leave and it did not

decide the new relationship we will have with the other 27 member

states. That is why we have to get our objective is right and the

process right as we start this great negotiation. And I have to say, the

government handling of this thus far has not shown sufficient respect for

Parliament. The number of Secretary of State has come to the

dispatch box, ministers seemed to believe saying that we would not get

a running commentary and if you ask for greater clarity, in the words of

the number ten spokesman "You are not backing the UK team." Was the

right way to approach it. It wasn't. At every single state, the

commitments that have eventually been given to set out objectives and

seek transitional arrangements and publish a white paper. To confirm

parliament will have a vote, all things the select committee that I

chair called for. Rather than being freely made, were reluctantly

conceded, usually a day or two after the Secretary of State had resisted

them from the dispatch box. He refers to the fact that the

government will say there will be a deal, I am missing in what the

government meant means that under the provisions of the 2010

Constitutional reform act that there will be a single vote on and another

normal -- an amendable bill. I think if the European Parliament and

European parliaments will have the right to consider a treaty line by

line, this House should have the right to consider it line by line. I

agree that the House must have a proper and in the words are my front

bench colleague, a meaningful opportunity to scrutinise the

agreement in draft and not to be presented with a fait accompli at

the end of the process. This is one example of how the government has

had to be pushed and cajoled into giving Parliament a proper role. I

say to the secretary of the state, it may not be his fault, but it is

extraordinary that we meet here today, being asked to vote for this

bill when not a single government document has been published setting

out the consequences. Not a single economic assessment. No analysis of

the options. No White Paper. Seven months after the British people

reached their decision. This is not the way to do things and it is an

attitude that has to change. The government needs to give more

recognition to Parliament's place. Not to be a bystander but a

participant in this the most convex and significant negotiation this

country has probably ever faced. We have to unwind and recast 43 years

of relationships with our neighbours. Every area of our

national life, every part of the country. Every community, every

business, the incomes on which they depend. Therefore it is essential we

have unity of purpose in trying to get the best deal for Britain

despite the inevitable uncertainty of the outcome. We come to the

issues of substance, what does this special access to the single market

mean? How exactly does seeking to remain in the customs union and

leave the customs union at one and the same time going to work? I say

to ministers, if it is their priority to ensure barrier free

trade, if they come back and say can't have your cake and eat it, you

have to choose, I trust the government will choose in the end to

remain in the customs union. How are we going to continue to operate with

our neighbours when the world is more uncertain than at any time in

the last two years on foreign policy? The fight against terrorism?

The final point I wanted to make is this, this referendum result reveal

something else, there are two great little forces in the Western world

that are reflected in our politics. On one hand, the desire that people

have for greater devolution and great control in a world that seems

to many people that we barely have any control at all because of the

pace of change. In our world and in our lives. On the other hand, the

understanding that every single member of this has, whether we voted

leave or remain, that in the modern world, we have to incorporate with

our neighbours to deal with the challenges we face in the years and

centuries ahead. Leaving the European Union may change the

balance tween the two. But it is not going to change the necessity to

embrace both as we look to the future. Iain Duncan Smith. Mr

Speaker, I rise to follow the right honourable gentleman for the

central. Not that I will agree with much of what he said, but I have to

say I fully respect his ability and his strength of purpose in line to

stand by his convictions. Today is also a privilege for me as it is for

many colleagues, to speak in this bill. I rise without any doubt to

support the government and support the passage of this bill. I commend

the right honourable gentleman, the spokesman for the opposition. I

thought he made a particular measured speech with regards to what

this bill was about and what it was not about. I thought the right

honourable gentleman, in his words, was very clear. I commend him for it

because I agree with them. That it is about giving the government the

right to invoke article 50, not about anything more. He talked in

his interesting speech that no place but here can have the right to

change the domestic laws. I agree with him on that. That is the vital

point. I want to ensure that we repeal one at at the time, that was

not necessary under article 50 but domestically it is the right thing

to do. It answers those who say "What will we do about all of these

issues?" The 72 act, our membership of the European Union is in that act

and I am sure the House will debate this till long after the hours close

and we have a decision on that. Also, my right honourable and

learned friend for Rushcliffe, a huge amount of respect for them, we

have served in the same government and debated this issue for a long

time. There is nobody I respect more in this House than my right

honourable friend. He is as constant as a compass. There is no way he

would have any doubt as to where he was going to be on any of these

positions even specifically on this but many others. When we were in

coalition as I look onto my right honourable friend at that time, he

would agree that in Cabinet, you knew where my right honourable and

learned friend would be. I give way. Not only is he respected for his

views but he has been entirely consistent and courteous. One of the

most remarkable chancellors of the Exchequer the country has seen.

So successful was he that he managed to tie up the following government

as they managed to follow his policies without any drive or

intelligence to do it. My purpose today is to explain that I oppose

the Maastricht Treaty, and I felt for some time that I did not

actually want to leave the EU. And I actually originally voted to join

the EU, or as it was, the common market. In Maastricht I decided

there was something fundamentally wrong with the direction of travel.

I will raise a name of an individual that not many people in this House

ever debate. He was the architect of the single European act and the

Maastricht Treaty. The reality was that his purpose was quite clear. He

believed, and I want to quote him, the whole purpose of the European

project was very much about the eradication of the nature of the

nation state. And he said, if post-war order was established in

which each state retains its national sovereignty, the basis for

a third world war would still exist. I don't agree with him and I never

did. My sense about this was the reason why we fell into that

categories of the Second World War following the great depression --

that cataclysm. It would be absence of democracy and robust democratic

institutions. It has always been my view that where we have democracy

and strong democratic institutions with opening trade where people

trade with each other, war will never happen. It is because those

democracies will simply not do that. And therefore I sense that the

direction of travel of the EU from the moment of Maastricht was bound

on a course that was going to lead to the UK ultimately deciding that

it could no longer stay within it. And therefore I agree with much of

what my right honourable friend said. Yes, I come to a different

conclusion. But I want to say from the start, I fully respect any of

those who decide today to vote against the triggering of Article

50. They were sent here to use their judgment. And no matter what else,

yes, I believe the British people have made that decision. But

nonetheless, as MPs, I have to say, our job is to use our judgment on

these matters. If somebody chooses to oppose it, I respect that. I

disagree with them, but I think they deserve a hearing and we should in

no way attempt to shout them down whatsoever. Can I just they got my

Gasmi I will give weight. I thank the honourable member for giving

way. And his thoughts on democracy. Would he accept that in this House,

members of Parliament have less information on this crucial decision

than the average local ward councillor on their budgets, their

annual budget was --? I don't actually be Greek, -- agree. If

anybody does not have to make a decision about this, I wonder where

they have been in the last 40 years all the years that they have spent

here. Of course we have enough information. The question she is

referring to is the publication of the white paper, and the Government

have said they will publish it. I stand by that, it is good idea,

although my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made a pretty

good fist of it in her recent speech in which she sat up 12 points that

would guide her negotiation. I hope the Government reprints that with a

couple of diagrams and a Nice picture and that will make an

excellent white paper! The important point about this is that I don't

agree with my honourable friend, is that my party is anti-immigrant,

absolutely not. That is the one area I would say not. When I was in

government with him, in collision and subsequently, this Government

has done more to help those were dispossessed as a result of the war

in Syria and Libya and Afghanistan than any other country I can

imagine. And I think there are four as a Government and as a country we

should be proud of our support -- therefore. Whatever other countries

choose to do, we put ourselves on the side of those who flee terror. I

thank him for giving way and for that clarification. We are not

anti-immigrant, I don't think anybody is he voted to leave the

European Union. There is a big difference between being

anti-immigrant and co uncontrolled immigration. And it was that that

the British Government plan to. They wanted control. And many of

different grounds voted to leave the European Union. That is the point,

they wanted to take back control. They are not anti-immigration, they

simply wanted to make sure it is controlled migration at a level that

the country can absorb without any other difficulties. And that's where

we should be on this, that's where my party should be and where we

stand and I intend to pursue that is controlled migration. I'm not going

to give way, I have literally a matter of seconds. The only thing

that I disagree is that we are not the House's tea party. The Hatters

tea party is sitting in the opposition at the moment. And I want

to conclude by simply saying that having listened throughout all of

these debates, I tonight will be voting to trigger to go 50 tomorrow.

I will be voting to trigger article 50s Imbula because I believe that

all the mistakes of the past, somehow you can place your trust in

a larger body and they will do a lot of your protections for you. You

cannot. As a nation state, we can be in Europe but not run by the

European Union, and that is why I'm voting to trigger article 50s. Since

this is the formal beginning of a process which will most likely lead

to the end of Britain's leading role in the heart of Europe and the

European Union, of course I have a and defended all my political life

both in opposition and in government, I have to confess of

course I feel sad that we've come to this point in time, much as I was

surprised and saddened, as many people were, by the outcome of the

referendum last summer. But I have to say, that sadness is increasingly

mixed with a growing sense of anger by what I consider to be the

Goverment's deliver -- deliberate distortion of the mandate it

received from the British people in a way in which I think is divisive,

damaging and self-serving. Let me be clear, the British people gave the

Government the mandate to pull the UK out of the European Union. The

British people did not give this Government the mandate to threaten

to turn our country into some tawdry, low regulation, low tax

cowboy economy. The British people did not vote to make themselves

poorer by pulling ourselves out of the greatest free trading Single

Market the world has ever seen. Incidentally, that is one of the

many reasons why the Liberal Democrats believe the British people

should be given a stay at the end of the process much as they were given

at the beginning. And the British people most certainly did not give a

mandate to the Government to indulge in this ludicrous sycophantic farce

we have seen in recent days in which this Government, having burnt every

bridge left with our friends in Europe, Russia is across the

Atlantic disciple next to a US president who they don't seem to be

aware whose nativism, isolationism and protectionism is diametrically

opposed to the long-term strategic interests of the United Kingdom. I

will give way. I'm very grateful to the honourable gentleman for giving

way. Can he explain to me why my constituents, the majority who voted

to leave, reject now the call of his party to hold a second referendum?

Isn't it... I really believe, I really believe that it's an insult

to the integrity of my constituents to promote that? The insult was that

the Brexit campaigners deliberately withheld from the British people

what they meant by Brexit. It was a deliberate, it was an effective but

highly cynical tactic. We never received the manifesto with the

views of Nigel Farage, the Foreign Secretary, the former Education

Secretary, as one explaining what Brexit men. And therefore when we

finally know what Brexit really means in substance, rather than in

utopian promise, of course the British people should have their

say. And that is the reason... I wish to make some progress. That is

the reason why I believe this House does not have a choice, but has a

duty to withhold from the Government the right to proceed with Brexit in

the way that they have planned. That would not stop Brexit, it would

simply urge them to go back to the drawing board and come back to this

House with a more sensible and moderate approach to Brexit. Some

people I hear... I will wish to make some progress, I only have four

minutes. Some people say there is no alternative, we must leave the

Single Market, there is no remote chance that we could find an

accommodation with our European partners. Nonsense. I will for

instance confirm to the House that I have recently heard on very good

authority that senior German decision makers are, shortly after

the Prime Minister, no doubt her surprise, finding herself as Prime

Minister without a shot or indeed a vote being fired, working to explore

ways to deliver an emergency brake to the new UK Prime Minister, in

return what they hoped for was in an disruptive economic Brexit. But what

did this Government choose to do? What did this Government do? It

decided to spurn all friendship links with Europe. It decided to

disregard the needs of Scotland, of Northern Ireland, and indeed of our

great capital here, Munden. It decided to placate parts of the

Conservative Party rather than serve the long-term strategic interests of

this country. It decided to pander to the eye-popping vitriol and by

all we see every day for people like Mr Dacre, the editor of the Daily

Mail, and the other members of the moneyed elite that run the Brexit

right-wing institutions of this country. And this Government is, has

become too slavishly preoccupied with their opinions. But above all,

this Government has decided to disregard the hopes, dreams and the

aspirations of 16.1 million of our fellow citizens. That is more than

have ever voted for a winning party in a general election. 242

Westminster gadgets to its is represented here voted for Remain.

-- Westminster constituencies. No, I have only got two minutes... All

right! My apologies. I have a very simple questions was while he gets

the rest of his minute, does he recalled that during the course of

the referendum campaign, the then Prime Minister and many others on