01/02/2017 House of Commons

Order. Ten minute rule motion. Mr Peter Alldays. I beg to move that

lead be given to bring in a bill to require the inclusion of vehicle

fuel receipts on the amount of tax made to require all fuel pumps to

display the amount of taxes paid when dispensing fuel and for

connected purposes. Mr Speaker, this bill calls for all taxes to be

clearly shown on fuel receipts. Its principle is very simple. The tax

issue be clear to the people who pay them. At the moment they are not.

The bill provides motorists with a far better clarity on what they are

paid. A simple breakdown of fuel duty, VAT and VAT on duty. There is

no reason why these measures should be unnecessarily burdensome or

expensive to businesses. I understand for the Treasury who are

advising motorists contacting them in support of this build that it

will be in practical to introduce it. My response would be that VAT,

one of the taxes in question, is already shown on receipts and all

that is required for fuel duty to also be shown is a simple

calculation, multiplying the number of litres by the duty per litre. The

software cost of doing this is minimal. With prices at the pounds

rising to the highest levels for over two years and total taxation of

fuel bills hovering between 65 and 70%, it it is also important that

government are open and transparent. Surely it is right that the nation's

37 million drivers should see the magnitude of the tax that they pay

every time they fill up their tanks? The government must be commended for

freezing fuel duties since 2011. However the UK remains one of the

most costliest nations in which to fill up with diesel and petrol. This

is solely due to the high tax component in pump pricing. The

amount of tax remains a huge issue for drivers. This is a tax, Mr

Speaker, on a resource that over 70% of people have no choice to buy in

order to go about their everyday lives. Total fuel duty revenue is

approximately ?27 billion per annum, with an additional 20% VAT on the

duty itself, bringing in an extra ?5.24 billion. Once drivers find out

about the on fuel duty, a tax on a tax, it really perplexes and rankles

them. The bill aims to give motorists what my honourable friend

the member for Ipswich has secured for taxpayers in general as a result

of the statements of taxation bill but he presented on the 25th of

January 2012 and which was subsequently included in the 2012

budget and was introduced in 2014. As a result of his initiative,

taxpayers now see how the money is spent, broken down area by area of

government spending. Council taxpayers have the same

right, the bills they receive in spring itemise what which each

authority will receive and invariably the Bill comes with a

letter from council leaders explaining what they will do with

our money. It is only right that hard-pressed motorists are put on

the same level playing field rather than being continually exploited as

a cash cow. The member for Ipswich's initiative was an important step

along the road to full fuel tax transparency. It is now important to

complete this journey so that motorists are also able to hold

government to account. It must always be remembered that it is

their money, not the state's I commend my Right Honourable friend,

the member for Harlow who presented a very similar Bill to this on the

16th of October 2012. She has been a real champion for motorists and it's

important we build on the great work that he did in helping secure

successive increases of fuel duty. It is also appropriate to pay

tribute to the tremendous campaigning work of Fair Fuel Uk and

their founders Quentin Willson and Howard Cox, for standing up for

motorists at every turn of the road. I'm grateful for the support I've

been provided by the APPG for fair fuel, chaired by my honourable

friend, the member for Dover. It is also appropriate to highlight the

pump watch act fair fuel UK are launching to show how much UK

drivers would pay for the same number of litres that they have just

bought if they had bought them in 23 other countries. I'm afraid, Mr

Speaker, that the UK does not occupy a good position in this particular

league table. Mr Speaker, I will set out four reasons why I believe there

is a compelling case for introducing this Bill. Firstly, there is the

need for transparency. To be open, upfront and honest with who as

taxpayers have been taken for granted for too long. The magnitude

of the tax paid every time drivers fill up at the pumps has been hidden

from them for decades. UK drivers continue to pay the highest fuel

duty in the world for diesels and the fifth highest for petrol. There

is a need for transparency so that the country's 37 million drivers can

see how much they contribute to public services and our economy. The

traditional VAT only fuel receipts which are given to us at petrol

stations and which invariably we file away in the Glock compartment

must end now and be replaced by open and complete tax information. --

glove compartment. This time drivers will be able to see every time they

fill up their vehicles where their hard earned cash is going and going

in the Treasury and in what form. Fuel duty, VAT and VAT on duty. Mr

Speaker, when prices at the pumps fell to around ?1 per litre in 2016

the tax that the government took from drivers reached 75%. What other

huge tax contribution is kept hidden from those who pay it? I believe

that there is an obligation on government to be open with UK

drivers regarding the taxes that they pay. If drivers feel that they

are being taken for granted we are driving down a very dangerous road.

There is a need to be completely upfront to show motorists what they

are paying. Secondly, it is important to highlight the

progressive nature of fuel duty. In particular, it hits hard working

families and those Jams whose recent challenges we have highlighted. 90%

of journeys are by road, 70% of drivers have no choice but to use

their vehicles to go to work, to drive their children to school, to

take their elderly parents to hospital and to go out for the day

with their families. I see the problem for myself in my own way

from the constituency where wages are below the national average with

many people having no choice but to use their cars to get to work. Quite

often travelling long distances to places like Norwich, Ipswich and

Felixstowe. And where there is also a limited number of petrol stations

from which to buy fuel. Waveney motorists, like so many in similar

areas across the country, I hit hard by this triple whammy. Mr Speaker, I

sensed time is ticking. My third point is that it is important to

highlight the impact that fuel duty has on the economy. Since 2011 the

Treasury has listened to the carefully researched and evidence

-based fair fuel campaign to free duty, care fuel UK proved that the

level of fuel duty directly impacts on the success of the economy and

creation of jobs, level of job creation, investment by small and

medium-sized businesses and consumer spending. My fourth point, Mr Deputy

Speaker, is the enormous groundswell of support these measures have

across the country as a whole and around this chamber. In conclusion,

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill is targeted at the nation's 37 million

drivers, to all our constituents, so that they can see how much they are

contributing to the public purse. Our public services and promoting

economic growth. The clandestinely fuel tax receipt must end and must

be replaced with open, straightforward and complete tax

information for all drivers which they can see every time they fill up

their vehicles. It is a straightforward Bill. It will

provide straightforward transparency on fuel duty, on what people pay and

where their money goes. It will make the taxation system more honest. It

will spark a debate as to whether the motorist should continue to be

used as the nation's tax cow and how the money is spent. Mr Speaker, I

have expended your patience and I hope the whole house supports this

Bill. Mr Speaker the honourable gentleman has never strained my

patients, it is always a pleasure to listen to his mellifluous tones and

I noticed as he made his case he singled handedly relegated me to the

status of Deputy Speaker. For which, of course, I'm extremely grateful.

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

Bill. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". I

think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring

in the Bill. I apologise for that error. Mr Speaker, the Bill will be

brought in by Mr Alistair Carmichael, Angus Brendan MacNeil,

Martin Vickers, Danny Kinahan, Charlie Elphicke, Margaret Ritchie,

Maria Caulfield, Drew Hendry, Rishi Sunak, Jim Fitzpatrick, James

Cartlidge and myself. Vehicle fuel, publication of tax

information Bill, Second Reading. What a? 24th of February. -- what

Dave. 24th of February, thank you. The clerk will be the orders of the

day. European union withdrawal Bill, motion for Second Reading.

The original question was that the Bill be read a second time. Since

when an amendment has been proposed as on the order paper. The question

is that the amendment be made. Just before I call the Right Honourable

gentleman for Doncaster North who will open proceedings today, I

should point out that there is an initial, but it will be a very short

lived time limit on backbench speeches of eight minutes. Ed

Miliband. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to say at the outset of this

debate that this is clearly a fateful moment in the country's

history and I think the excellent speeches on day one of this debate

reflected the gravity of the moment. I also want to say, Mr Speaker, we

should all respect the way in which colleagues on all sides of the House

are wrestling with their consciences as they decide to vote on this Bill,

nobody should pretend it is easy. For me the actions I'm going to take

tonight I determined by the result on June the 23rd. In case the House

needs reminding, Mr Speaker, I didn't want this referendum. And

indeed, I made a strong case to my colleagues and indeed decided my

party would not support David Cameron's decision in the last

Parliament. The reason was that I felt the country had many, many

other problems if faced and that the referendum would become as much

about the state of the country is about Britain's place in Europe, and

indeed I believe that is partly what happened. But, Mr Speaker, I believe

that is water under the bridge. I took part in the referendum

campaign, I said I would accept the result, and I do. That is why I will

be voting for Second Reading tonight. I will in a moment... Part

of the reasons I will vote the way I will be voting tonight is I think

this referendum in part from a deep frustration about politics and a

sense of disaffection from politics that there is in the country. And

therefore, I think a heightened reason for saying that this process

must begin is we do not want to give the sense that people having voted

for Brexit, because they felt they had been ignored, are being ignored

once again. I'm grateful to my honourable friend for giving way and

I accept the result of the country and in my constituency. Does he

agree with me that nobody remain or leave, voted to become poorer and

the test for the government is to produce that prosperous pro Brexit

Britain and a deal that isn't the best interests of Britain? My

honourable friend puts the point very well and I wanted to come onto

that because our responsibilities don't end tonight or indeed with the

passing of this Bill, Mr Speaker. I believe it is deeply problematic

that the government is embarking on this process without an economic

analysis, objective analysis of its implications, without clarity on key

issues like the customs union, without any sense of what the

transitional arrangements might look like, and on the basis of what I

believe is a fanciful proposition that all of this can be tied up

within 18 months including the future arrangements. Now, a number

of speakers on day one powerfully made the point that given the

paucity of information we have been given before Article 50 is to be

triggered it is even more important that there is proper Parliament with

scrutiny, including a meaningful vote in this House before the end of

the process. The Prime Minister's apparent wish to say that choice

will be given is to accept that her deal, or face a hard Brexit on WTO

terms in my view would be quite wrong. That is a take it or leave it

option which flies completely in the face of the central proposition that

won this referendum which was take back control and Parliamentary

sovereignty. I hope members, and I particularly say this to members on

the other side, however they voted in this referendum, will support

amendments which seek to ensure there is proper Parliamentary

sovereignty throughout this process. I actually believe, Mr Speaker, that

Parliamentary scrutiny will help the government, it will improve any deal

that is made, it will strengthen their hand with the European Union

and actually it will make it more likely that the Prime Minister ends

up with a deal which has the support it needs in the country. With my

Right Honourable friend give way? Would he not agree with me that

without the safeguards that he seeks there may be a crock of something at

the end of the rainbow but it just may not be gold?

Well, she puts it very well. I think it is deeply uncertain, and I think

the truth is that the government has not really levelled with the country

about the trade-offs. At the moment they are saying they can have

everything and I fear that pretty soon in the negotiations we will

discover that is not the case. Mr Speaker, I want to focus on her

remarks, not on the economic questions which were well worn

yesterday, but on another equally important issue which has received

less attention in the debate but I think is absolutely crucial, which

is our place in the world and foreign policy relationships after

Brexit. The foundation of our foreign policy

for a generation has rested on a special relationship with the United

States and the European Union. Under the last government and this

government, a commitment to the rule of law on human rights, climate

change, all of these have been bound up with our relationship with the

European Union. I do think we should be under any illusions. There is a

real risk of our departure that our influence in the world is weakened.

I negotiated on climate change for the last Labour government. Our

strength, power and standing came through our membership of the

European Union because we were 10% of global emissions, not just 1% of

global emissions. I will give way in a second. Therefore I believe the

house should recognise that this question of what strategic

relationship comes after Brexit is fundamental to the issue of real

sovereignty. Our ability to have an effect on the things that will

affect us. I give way briefly. Is he not concerned though, and he raises

an important issue about the future of ourselves and the European Union,

but is he not concerned that the R 139 overseas posts and is he

asserting the authority of the European Union over the member

states. We will be reasserting sovereignty. The question is what

comes next in all of us need to address ourselves to that question.

Of course the terrible irony, in my view, is that our European

corporation is so clearly now needed with the election of President

Trump. -- cooperation. I believe in a special relationship with the

United States, but it must be based on values. The Foreign Secretary

said after the election of President Trump, he is a guy, that is

President Trump by the way, who believes in values that I believe in

as well. Freedom and democracy. I don't agree and I hope one

reflection after a few days of President Trump the Foreign

Secretary doesn't agree either. My central point is this. I can go

along with the Prime Minister that Brexit means Brexit, but I cannot go

along with the idea that Brexit means Trump, and nor do I believe

that that is... And nor do I believe that that is inevitable and nor do I

believe that that is what the British people want either. But the

danger of this, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister feels it is an

inevitable consequence that we are driven into the arms of President

Trump. So what should be done? The Lancaster house speech was no doubt

an improvement in tone on what had gone before, but not one of the

Prime Minister's 12 principal spoke about things like climate change. I

hope the government can come up with an architecture for foreign and

statistical operation with the European Union and not just an ad

hoc arrangement. This will be intergovernmental, but there are

many issues from Russia to refugees, climate to defence where we will be

stronger not weaker if we have institutions which mean cooperation

between ourselves and the European Union. We don't just mean the right

institutions, but they must be founded on strategic orientation

which continues to value our role in Europe. We must be willing, even as

we leave the EU, to join with our European allies whose values we

share on human rights and human law. Where has the co-ordinated response

to the Trump Muslim ban bin and why has the government not been pushing

for it? As I understand it... I will give way, but I want to get to the

end. Be dual citizenship exam shunned the UK has one will only be

extended to New Zealand, Australia and Canada. It's good we have the

exemption, but we should be standing in solidarity with our European

allies asking for this the end. In the wake of President Trump Ozma

election, foreign ministers agreed a joint statement on the continuing

need for a two state region. There were continually blocked. It is no

wonder that your fears we are throwing in our lot with President

Trump and turning our back on them and I said this, no good will come

of this. These are a test of who we are as a nation, our values and how

we intend to imply them in the years ahead. We have designed rules and

promoted them, but the alternative is far far worse. Incidentally,

surely there must be no more talk, particularly in the current context

where human rights in so much at risk of us leaving the European

Convention on human rights. I hope the government will have been

prompted by President Trump Ozma first few days in office to think

about the approach. History will judge us not only on the decisions

we make on this bill tonight, but beyond. The government has a heavy

responsibility. We expect them to exercise it on behalf of the whole

nation, not just the 52% and for that we will hold them to account in

the months and years ahead. The right Honourable gentleman spoke as

he always has with passion for an international Britain and European

solution to many of the problems we face. Democracy is easy to defend

when you agree with the majority because you have the advantage of

many other political systems like dictatorships that you get your way,

but you have the added advantage of legitimacy and popular consent.

Democracy is much more difficult when you disagree with the majority

and as people know, I argued passionately in this referendum that

I felt leaving the European Union would weaken Britain's trade and

commercial links, that it would diminish Britain on the world stage,

but it would make more difficult international approaches to things

like climate change, or atomic research and it would also weaken a

multilateral institution, the European Union, which has been vital

to our collective security for many decades. I made those arguments and

it saddens me that Britain and Brexit is bracketed in the same

group as other isolationists and nativists movements around the world

at the moment and we should strive to be, as the Prime Minister says, a

more global Britain. But I lost the case. I made it with passion, I

sacrificed my position in government for it and in the end we have to now

except... I bought make some progress and then take some

interventions. We had two accept that in a democracy, the majority

has spoken, and whilst I am a passionate believer in an open

internationalist free trading Britain, I am also a passionate

believer in Britain as a democracy and it is unfashionable in schools

these days to teach what I believe is a true tale of our nation's

history which stretches from the Magna Carta to the glorious

Revolution. The founding fathers of the American revolution, female

emancipation and the like, but we have given the modern world version

of democracy that has spread far beyond our shores. Therefore to vote

against the majority verdict of the largest democratic exercise in

British history, I think would risk putting parliament against people.

It will provoke a deep constitutional crisis in our

country. I think it would alienate people who already feel they are

alienated and I am not prepared to do that, Mr Speaker. So I will be

voting for the bill tonight. I wish to make some progress and I want

others to have a chance to speak, so I won't take interventions from the

other side or indeed my side. The point I would make however is this.

There was a mandate to leave the European Union, but that was the

only question that was asked of the British people in that referendum

and I don't think we can assume that there were a set of answers from the

British public to the questions we now face is a parliament. Indeed

those questions are now entrusted to us as we approach these

negotiations. I call the negotiations. Personally, I do think

they are going to resemble the negotiations we currently read about

in the media and in newspapers. The truth is that while Britain is

seeking the maximum possible access to the single market for goods and

for services and while we hope that the fact that we have a trade

deficit and a very important financial centre will count in our

favour, the government has chosen, and I respect this decision, not to

make economy the priority in this negotiation. They have prioritised

immigration control and removing European Court of Justice

jurisdiction from the United Kingdom and in that sense asserting

parliamentary sovereignty, although I would point out that Parliament

can choose to leave the EU as we are choosing to do in the coming days.

Not prioritising the economy, although we hope the best possible

arrangement. The European Union is not prioritising the economy either

in these negotiations. Having spent the last couple of weeks in Berlin

and Paris talking to some of the French and political leaders it is

clear that while they understand that Britain is a very important

market for their businesses, the priority is to maintain the

integrity of the remaining 27 members of the European Union. They

are not interested in a long and complex hybrid agreement with the

United Kingdom and so therefore both sides at the moment are heading for

a clean break from the United -- from the European Union for the

United Kingdom. In the end the negotiations will come down to how

the break is achieved. The Prime Minister in her speech a couple of

weeks ago made it clear that Britain is seeking a transition agreement.

It's not possible for this Parliament to introduce all the

domestic legislation that will be required to replicate the

arrangements that we currently have with the European Union, even with

the great repeal act, and we will need to have some kind of bridge to

the free trade agreement that we seek with the European Union. At the

same time the European Union needs from us financial commitments that

it believes we entered into to pay for European projects that were

undertaken while we remember and in practice what that means is that the

negotiations will be a trade-off, as all divorce is art, between access

and money, and we will try and scale down our payments to the European

Union while scaling down our commitment to European Union rules

and access until we reach that free trade agreement which we hope to

negotiate. To be honest, I will just finished my speech and others can

speak. That's what the negotiations will be like. I suspect it will be

bitter. I spent four years negotiating with my French

counterpart and I would advise the Secretary of State to be well

briefed and packed a packet of pro plus because there will be long

nights ahead. We don't forget the fundamental reasons why Britain in

the first place wanted to be part of the European Common market, nor do

we allow the Europeans to forget there was a fundamental reason they

created a European Community, which was to bring the nations of Europe

together and that we try and keep those thoughts alive as we exited

the EU. The final thing I want to say is this. We have made a decision

to leave the European Union and as the successful Leave campaign put

it, to take back control. That does mean a series of issues will come to

this Parliament that completely divide Brexiteers from each other,

Remainers from each other, they divide conservatives and members of

other parties. We will have very lively debates about free trade. You

are beginning to seek a Prime Minister's Questions about what kind

of agricultural produce we want in the country, or the kind of public

procurement contracts we want. We'll have a lively debate about

immigration, how many people we want here and how do we welcome school

people? How do we support our universities and scientific research

institutions? We will argue about agricultural subsidies on whether we

are happy for the poorest people to pay taxes and subsidies to some of

the richest. I will be in those fights in the couple of years ahead.

Thank you. Mr Speaker: I start by congratulating the former Chancellor

on his speech which was a good deal shorter and a great deal less

lucrative than the ones he is used to giving these days. As has been

pointed out to the Tory benches, he is anything but cheap these days,

but can I say to the former Chancellor, they may have argued the

case with passion during the campaign, but it was his tendency to

take Treasury forecasts as to the long-term damage that will be done

by withdrawal from the single market in terms of GDP and wealth for this

country and turned them into apocalyptic emergency budget

scaremongering that was one of the main reasons they lost the campaign.

Campaigns have to be built on more than fear. I won't talk about the

politics, economics -- I want to talk about the politics, economy and

Scotland. There was a time when the house was gripped by collective

madness. That time of history was Iraq, when this house was mesmerised

by a strong Prime Minister into the blood and disaster of the Iraqi war,

but it's certainly not mesmerising rhetoric that is responsible for mad

MP disease in this case. One MP compared it to Alice in Wonderland,

but Alice only took herself into the hole. This Prime Minister is taking

virtually all of the Tory party, half the Labour Party and the entire

country into the hole. It is politically crazy what is being

done. It was said Britain had lost its

empire and was yet to find its role. Listening to the speeches of the

Tory backbenchers yesterday I wasn't sure if they were Rekik --

reconciled to the Empire's loss. Balancing that with a special

relationship with the United States of America. A German Chancellor once

said the relationship was special because only one side knew about it

and that is certainly true, but nonetheless it was a rational

policy. Some prime ministers took it far too far into the desert of Iran

but nonetheless it was a rational, logical policy. But you can't pursue

that policy of influence in Europe and all of the good things that come

from it as the Right Honourable member for Doncaster reminded us.

Cut Batov and then pursue the special relationship with the United

States of America. -- cut that offer. That Leeds Youth Court in the

headlights like the Prime Minister was earlier this week when asked to

condemn the obvious thing any human being would have condemned. She

refuses to do it three times in case she offends her new best friend in

the White House. -- that leaves you caught in the headlights. Moving

towards President like that will leave you

more and more embarrassed. And then there is the economic damage. Yes, I

will. Earlier on my honourable friend mentioned the issue about

climatic change in relationship the American President. He said he will

tear up those agreements and where will Britain stand Ben? What support

will it get? -- example of the embarrassments to come. There is

nothing wrong with the forecasts about coming out of the Single

Market place, even if there is a bespoke deal there will be a 6% loss

in GDP. Can my Right Honourable friend help my understanding that it

was the Tories that wanted to safeguard British interests in the

Single Market? Am I correct in recalling that in the manifesto? In

the Tory 2015 manifesto it is not my bedtime reading. But as I remember

it was Page 72 and it said we say yes to the Single Market and they

were right to say yes. It is funny yesterday that all of the

Conservative speakers remembered that commitment to a referendum and

not one of them remembered their commitment to the Single Market

place. And, of course, it wasn't the case that a withdrawal from the

European Community means a withdrawal from the Single Market

place. I had the pleasure during the campaign of debating with Daniel

Hannan NEP who said, absolutely nobody is talking about threatening

our place in the Single Market -- MEP. Of course it is possible to

honour the result of the referendum and stay within the Single Market

place. Even if you think they will be a Nexit from the Single Market

place it is madness in diplomatic negotiating terms to abandon that

position now. You should keep the place in the Single Market place and

allow the other European countries to negotiate you out of it, not give

it away before the first word is spoken in the negotiations. Next, Mr

Speaker, we come to the procedures of this House. This is the list of

amendments stretching to 100 and more pages, 103 now. We are told

this is to be debated in three days. The Scotland Bill which was not the

greatest constitutional change in history 18 months ago, six days of

debate. I would say to the members, like the honourable member for

Doncaster North who listed all of the things wrong with the

Government's approach, if you believe that now you should vote

against the government, or if you can't do that at least four

programme motion that would make it possible to make the sensible

changes that the Right Honourable gentleman outlined. So, procedurally

of course. This is deficient and it has been pointed out well yesterday.

It is not just deficient in terms of the time, it is also deficient in

terms of the question that will eventually be put before this House.

The final vote on the deal that comes back from a Prime Minister who

said no deal is better than a bad deal. And, therefore, the choice the

House will get us a bad Deal or no deal. And, therefore, it is crucial

that when the House debates that and comes to a decision there is a

meaningful vote, a vote that can make a difference as opposed to

Hobson's choice made with a metaphorical gun at this House's

head. One last thing. I am grateful to be Right Honourable member will

for giving way but on that point if we are in a situation where the only

deal on the table is a bad deal does he agree with me that the

responsibility for that being an eventuality will lie with the Prime

Minister. It is not as if she can deny responsibility for that being a

problem. Yes I would, but finding out it was the Prime Minister's

responsibility will avail this country of very little, far better

to make sure via our votes that we get a realistic choice that can

actually make a difference. Finally, Mr Speaker, I come to the situation

in Scotland. Scotland has a 1000 year history as a European nation

Sir William Wallace's unjust trial in this hall, for which presumably

he will get a pardon at some point soon, after his greatest victory in

the Battle of Stirling Bridge, which was a kin to Leicester winning the

Premier League last season in terms of an upset surprise, his first act

was not to hold a ceilidh but to write the Hanseatic league to secure

Scotland's trading concessions across Europe at that time Liebig

and elsewhere. The importance of Scotland's European connections

stretches back a millennium and we're not going to allow this

non-vision act of madness from this House take Scotland out of these

connections. The Scottish Government have book for the proposition

Scotland's place in Europe, which offers the Prime Minister the way

for Scotland to stay within the Single Market place regardless of

what she wants to do to this country. The Prime Minister said

today if ritual as border in Ireland was quite possible under the

circumstances without realising that, of course, if it is possible

in Ireland it's possible in Scotland as well and I see the honourable

member nodding because in the early hours of this morning I think I saw

him say much the same thing in a debate, or perhaps it was one of his

honourable friends in Hartog, a sad case of watching hard talk at 1am.

-- hard talk. It was the honourable member for Esher and Walton. It is

important to understand these examples are taking place in Europe

at the present moment. The Prime Minister has it within her power and

capacity to agree to accept the proposals, the compromise proposals

of the Scottish Government and allow Scotland as a nation to retain that

trading place within the European context. But if that is not happen

and if the South says we are going to go ahead with hard Tory Brexit or

full English Brexit as we are calling it in Scotland now, we are

going to sweep aside the concerns from across this House in terms of

economic and political damage, we're not going to accept the proposals

from Scotland to follow the votes of people in the nation of Scotland and

retain our European connection, we're not interested in Scottish

jobs or investment and preserving that. If that is the criteria and

attitude of government, if that is what this Prime Minister wants to do

with Scotland, if she is determined to throw down the gauntlet then she

can be absolutely sure that Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister will pick

it up. SPEAKER: Order. Maiden speech, Doctor Caroline Johnson.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Lease. Max Clifford Abdennour Pike is not only

the constituency that am proud to represent, it is my home. And I feel

a personal responsibility to nurture it -- Sleaford and North high come.

It is a predominantly agricultural area with pockets of industry and a

strong military tradition. The town of North Hykeham is built on top of

the old Roman road, the Fosse Way. To the south is Sleaford where one

is welcome by the Handley monument, it is a large ornate stone structure

with a statue of Henry Hanley within it. Who was the MP for South

Lincolnshire from 1832 to 1841. He was such a popular MP that the

townspeople created this memorial in his honour. It is not clear now

whether he was so popular for his innovative ideas regarding science

and technology in farming, or whether it was because of his strong

opposition to the taxation of malt. Nevertheless, it is clear that I

have a lot to live up to. My predecessor was Stephen Phillips,

who like his own predecessor Douglas Hogg, is a silk. They brought great

intellect and legal acumen to this House. Stephen is particularly to be

commended for his work on the Public Accounts Committee. But possibly his

greatest virtue is his sense of timing. He resigned at exactly the

right time for me to be able to stand for this seat.

LAUGHTER I would like to thank Stephen for

his personal encouragement which he has given to me in this endeavour. I

would also like to thank the many members of this House who has given

me wonderful support, especially those for Newark, Sherwood, Boston

and Skegness, to whom I'm very grateful. In these challenging

times, Mr Speaker, I promise to uphold the fine traditions of the

House and serve my constituents to the best of my ability, ensuring

that their voices are heard as we move forward. As a new MP it is

right for me to explain briefly who I am. I am a mother of three, a

farmer's wife and a product of a loving family. I am a consultant

paediatrician and, therefore, have particular interests in the health,

education and general well-being of children. I am also a committed

Brexit tear. And I am also interested in farming,

infrastructure and defence. I am not a silk, nor even a lawyer but I have

firm principles based on what I believe to be morally right and the

ideal of democracy under the rule of law. I've spent all my working life

as a doctor in the NHS and care passionately about it. The NHS is

not perfect. In fact, I doubt any organisation as large and so

dependent on human judgment ever could be. However, whilst there are

areas which could be improved I feel many are too quick to decried the

falls within the NHS without adequately recognising the brilliant

work which is done day in and day out, helping more people than ever

before. I look forward to contributing my knowledge and

experience to help ensure that the NHS goes from strength to strength.

Improving the well-being of children remains a topic close to my heart. I

am delighted with the Government's commitment to young people's

mental-health. We must ensure that young people with mental health

issues have access to right treatment. However, as with physical

health we must also focus on prevention, and in my view they

should include improvements in children's social care and helping

to foster resilience. Resilience is very important. I feel we let down

children with the old must have prizes culture. Young people should

be allowed to understand their strengths and weaknesses by being

allowed to compete and take control risks, to win, and also to lose, and

learn from that experience which better prepares them for the

challenges they face in life ahead. It is a privilege to give my maiden

speech today in this historic debate. As someone new to the world

of Westminster the greatest surprise to me was so many seemed surprised

by the results of this referendum. I was brought up to believe that a

good democracy is ruled by the majority with protection for

minorities. As I talk to my constituents, however, I

increasingly understand that they perceive we have ruled by a vote

called minority of each disregarding the views of the majority and they

are angry. Why is this important? Well, because so many seem to have

been surprised by the Brexit vote because they failed to understand

the genuine concerns of the majority. This disconnect with the

electorate has been seen not just here but also in the results of the

US presidential election and in the rise of far right parties throughout

Europe. There can be no democracy without understanding of the views

of the majority. These views must be respected, heard, and responded to

by the members of this House. There has been much debate recently as to

whether the referendum was mandatory or advisory. And the relative

authorities of the Government, the legislature and the judiciary. As I

said earlier I'm not a lawyer. But I fail to understand how one can ask

the electorate a question and then even consider disregarding the

result. I believe that the referendum is an

instruction to us. We asked the people and they set 80 honourable

and right Honourable members want to contribute to in consequence of

which it is necessary with immediate effect to impose a time limit. I

would add I'm trying to ensure that everybody has a chance on who have

already had the opportunity. What was said to the house is that it

those word to refrain self restraint might increase, and I'm sure all

congratulating the new member on an excellent maiden speech and I'm sure

she will do if that was was anything to go by. We now have a challenge

for this whole house over what we do over the next two years and whether

that strengthens our democracy, or whether it weakens it. Over the last

40 years Britain has worked with the EU, but we have done so by sharing

sovereignty because one we went into the European Union, or the 1970s, we

also had public consent, popular consent expressed through a

referendum. Last summer and that should be a lesson to all of those

of us who wanted to keep honourable member for Tatton, but on whether we

should have done more. We could not make the and we took for granted too

many of the the need for politics to In Pontefract, the home of the very

first secret ballot, we still have the first ballot box and we see it

as a symbol of peaceful democracy of asking people to be part of that

democratic process. That democratic process does not end with the

Article 50 vote and that is my concern about the Government's

approach. That what they are trying to do is to concentrate power in the

hands of the executive, when in fact we should be involving all of

Parliament and involving the public in the debate about what kind of

country we want to be about where our future lies. There will be

issues we will disagree on where I feel strongly, for example, that we

should stay inside the customs union because that will help our

manufacturing for the future. On issues, for example, about the

rights for EU citizens who live here already who we should not be leaving

hanging in the lurch while we start negotiations when we could put them

on a surer footing straightaway. There will be issues about how we

balance so many different things, about how we get our security right,

that we need to debate here in this House. But at the moment the process

that the Government has set out does not give us the secure opportunities

to have votes, to have debates, to ensure that we will not be left at

the end of this process with what the Prime Minister has described as

her way to change the British economic model if we don't get what

we like, which sounds from this side of the House far more like a tax

haven Britain that would undermine people's writes and undermined the

kind of British values that we want to stand up for. And so, therefore,

I would urge members on all sides of the House, not just to look at the

array of amendments we have got, not just to decide how we respect the

referendum result last summer, how we respect the different views of

our constituents, and people will have strongly held views on all

sides, but also how we, all of us from all sides of the House, vote

for the kinds of amendments that will ensure that Parliamentary

sovereignty is strengthened and that Parliament has a say. I would urge

members on the opposite side to vote for some of those amendments to make

sure we have a real vote on the final outcome, that we have real

choices that we can make. So much of this has been about how we defend

democracy by voting for Article 50. It should not be about that, it

should be about how we strengthen democracy over the next two years.

If this was about Parliamentary sovereignty for all of us, let us

have the strength and the confidence to use it. Whittingdale. It is a

pleasure to follow the right honourable lady. I didn't agree with

with everything she said, but I agree with her congratulations to

the honourable member. She made an excellent first speech and it is

probably the case she will never speak in a more important debate in

this house, no matter that she I am sure will have a long career here

ahead of her. My first political act was to take part in the referendum

campaign in 1975. I put leaflets through doors, calling on people to

vote yes in that referendum. I did so because I believed in free trade

and because I believed the assurances which were written on

those leaflets that the decision taken would not affect the

sovereignty of the UK Parliament. I was working for Margaret Thatcher

when she first delivered the Bruges speech which highlighted the fact

that that assurance was being steadily eroded and that the

European Community was heading in the wrong direction and as a result

of that when I entered this house I oppose the Maastricht Treaty as well

as other treaties because it was becoming steadily clearer that was

there may or may not have been economic benefits from our

membership, this was a political project heading in one direction and

that was towards the ever closer union. It was a project on which

British people had not been consulted and which they did not

support. I hope the Prime Minister David Cameron would have been able

to negotiate an arrangement which allowed us to opt out from the

elements we didn't want. He valiantly tried, but what he came

back within my view was not sufficient and left us with no

alternative. The result of the referendum was clear. In my own

constituency was nearly two to one. It doesn't matter that the majority

of younger people voted to remain, or people with degrees voted to

remain in some parts of the UK voted to remain. This was a nationwide

referendum and the British people spoke. I agree with Prime Minister

that we have no alternative but to be the single market as it is

essential that we have control over our borders once what we are no

longer subject to European law. I really am sorry, but it is very

brief. I also believe that we had to leave the customs union if the

condition that remaining in it is that we are not able to negotiate

our own trade agreements. I will point out that the new arrangements

between the European Union and Canada and between the European

Union and Ukraine offered no application of European law in those

countries, no free movement, but does give them access to the

internal market and allows them to negotiate their own trade agreement.

So the European Union is ultimately flexible and it is perfectly

possible the negotiations will be complicated. I'm concerned in the

areas I follow, for instance, we must have recognition of the

adequacy of our data protection soap data can continue to flow across

borders. I do believe that for European businesses it is vitally

important for them that they still have access to our markets and

therefore they will be putting pressure on their governments to

reach a sensible deal. The one thing I found most astonishing is when

Britain voted as it did to leave the European Union, the reaction of

other member states seems to be more to punish Britain than to ask the

question why. The European Union is a flawed... Geoffrey Robinson. Thank

you, Mr Speaker, I will be brief. We've had remarkable contributions,

there are two particular from yesterday I want to refer to fund

the former Deputy Prime Minister and the right honourable gentleman the

member for Rushcliffe. He has just left the Chamber and is not here to

hear my remarks. I will be voting to night and we should examine our

consciences. I voted for, argued for every menfolk. We lost it and we

have to face the consequences of it in a way that both the former Deputy

Prime Minister and the right honourable gentleman the member for

Rushcliffe feel we should not. We should examine our consciences and

the member for Doncaster nor said it is a conscience issue and to some

extent I regret we are voting on this on a three line whip. It is a

moral conscience issue we all have to take. I have more difficulty in

justifying my conscience if I were tonight to vote against the bill and

in favour if effectively delaying a frustrating the beginning of

negotiations the outcome. The whole process of coming out of the

European Union. You only have to reread what the referendum question

was. It is so simple. Should the United Kingdom remain a member of

the European union or leave the European Union. There are no ifs or

buts, is a simple question that was understood by everyone who took part

in that referendum. It is no good now turning round saying, we should

have a second referendum and all those things. I campaigned widely,

but only in the West Midlands, strongly on a remain ticket. I went

out of my way to warn the Leavers what would happen. There will be no

further bout of the cherry if we did not like the outcome. It's a matter

of conscience if we are on the remain site and we built on the

remain issue that we should act of conscience vote against the bill. On

the contrary I don't believe there is conceivable material than ever

doing so. To do so would betray the bases on which we conduct ourselves.

All members actively taking part in the referendum spoke. So how can

this house be involved in all influence the negotiations? In my

experience, it is unreal. We have to get real about it. The issues will

become clearer, choices will become clearer once we are in the

negotiations. The former Chancellor brings great advice and says perhaps

economics should be a big issue of the negotiations. The outcome on the

economic front is the essence of what this is about as far as the

working people in this country are concerned. My advice is soft Brexit

and a transition period. Anything else will predict a future which

will be really harsh and uncomfortable for the working people

of this country. As I said yesterday, perhaps I can be forgiven

for repeating it today. It will be appreciated if people stopped coming

up to the chair, either asking when they will be called orderings are

implicitly by enquiring whether it is OK for them to go to lunch, go to

the toilet or it a biscuit. It is not necessary. All I will say is

patience. Please be patient. I want to accommodate everyone, I am on

your side, but it doesn't help if people keep coming up to the chair,

especially when people are I understand we have to accept the

outcome of democratic elections however narrow the outcome. I have

to admit I was surprised by the leave result in the West Midlands

given the region is in substantial trade surplus with the EU. Of course

I'm delighted that the automotive industry has achieved so much

success that it exports 82% of all of its cars and most of those to the

other 27 countries of the EU. But it was immigration which dominated the

conversations I had, even standing outside the gates of the car

factory. No distinction was made between EU and non-EU migration

which we now account for about 50% each. I worry that our electors

expect taking back control to mean very few migrants arrive here.

Whereas, how his three as an empire means there are family obligations

to non-EU migrants and an absolute obligation through the Geneva and

Hague conventions to provide safe haven for the most vulnerable

people, many from different countries from which we drew the

lines on a map. I heard mixed motors for voting leave, some

second-generation migrants told me they didn't want more coming in. --

motives. There will be uncharted waters negotiating things that will

be vital for success, access to our principal market is key and the car

industry is desperately short of engineers as its success would be

choked if we can't get the skilled labour it needs. If we are honest

migrants are more willing to do some jobs such as picking fruit and

vegetables. A spring onion producer told me he can't rely on local

labour to get the harvest in. So he must make sure horticulture is not

destroyed by taking back control without being able to meet demand

for labour. These aren't easy things to say in public but we are about to

make a momentous decision and as the Prime Minister says we've got to

make success of it. That in turn will only be achieved if we are

honest about some of the problems we face. I am no starry eyed Europhile.

The political leadership in Europe failed to inspire its citizens about

the benefits of working together and other countries are seeing the rise

of the extreme right parties who promised to solve their problems.

This goes wider than Europe and the leadership of the rich nations

around the world are struggling to find the answers to globalisation.

In America Obama tried to extend health care to the poorest and here

we have the introduction of the Living Wage. But maybe it is to

places like Scandinavia we need to look for better models of wage

equality and fairness in society. These are the big question is left

when we exit the European Union and we will need to answer them in our

own way. I expect the EU will change after we are gone because it must

collectively try to find answers to the big questions of globalisation,

mass migration and robotics. But in contrast to the US with decided to

turn outward, not inward, partly because we have teeth, and because

our heritage is one of trade and exploration. -- have two. I hope the

electorate will be patient but they will judge our efforts by their

experience, not on our rhetoric. I hope that all that is great about

Britain is not sacrificed in pursuit of an unrealistic ambition to go

back to some mythical time when we were in control of all we surveyed.

SPEAKER: Tim Farron. Mr Speaker, she is not in her place now but I want

to pay tribute to an excellent maiden speech by the Honourable

member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. The Liberal Democrats have

always been proud internationalists, it was the Liberals who backed

Winston Churchill's European vision in the 1950s, even when his own

party did not do so. Since our foundation we have been champions of

Britain Buzz in the European Union for cooperation and openness with

our neighbours and with our allies. We have always believed the charges

Briton faces in the 21st-century, climate change, terrorism, economic

instability are best tackled working together as a member of the European

Union. Been proud Europeans is part of our identity as a party and

actually part of my personal identity too. I was utterly gutted

by the result personally. Some on the centre-left are squeamish about

patriotism, I am not, I am proud of my identity as a northerner, English

man, Brit and a European, all of those things are consistent. My

identity did not change on the 24th of June and neither did my values,

beliefs and what I believe is right for this country and for future

generations. I respect the outcome of the referendum. The vote was

clear, close but clear, and I accept it. But voting for departure is not

the same as voting for a destination. Will you give way? A

narrow majority voted to leave the EU but the Leave campaign had no

plans, no instructions, no prospectus and no vision. No one in

this government, no one in this House, no one in this country has

any idea what the deal the Prime Minister will negotiate with Europe

will be. It is completely unknown. How, then, can anyone pretend that

this undiscussed, unwritten, a negotiated deal in anyway has the

backing of the British people? The deal must be put to the British

people for them to have their say. That is the only way to hold the

government to account for the monumental decisions they will have

to take over the next two years. Will you give way?

I thank the Honourable member for giving way. Does he not think his

party is partly responsible for the outcome of referendum because

immigration became a proxy for issues like the pressure on the NHS

and inability to see a doctor, the inability to get into the right

class sizes because of the policies his party supported, the squeeze

public services and met people looked for somebody else to blame.

I'm staggered the honourable gentleman is speaking the language

of Nigel Farage, what a terrible disgrace. How dare you!? The deal

must be put to the British people for them to have their say. That is

the only way. The only way to hold the Government to account, for the

monumental decisions they will have monumental decisions they will have

to take over the next two years, to ensure that the cause they choose

serves the interest of all the people, however they voted. So here

is... I will not take any more interventions, other people need to

get in. Here is the likelihood we will have 48% of people not liking

the outcome of the deal and half of the 52% will feel they were betrayed

by the outcome of the deal. The only way to achieve democracy and closure

is for there to be a vote at the end. Because, the fact is the Prime

Minister is the one making the strongest case for giving people a

vote on the deal. She had the choice to pursue a form of Brexit that

united our country, that reflected the closeness of the vote and sought

to heal the divisions between Leave and Remain but instead she chose to

follow the hardest most divisive form of Brexit tearing us out of the

Single Market, leaving us isolated against the might of world

superpowers. Never mind six months ago she herself argued the case for

remaining in the EU, never mind the numerous campaigners who championed

in Norway and Swiss models and spent the referendum campaign assuring

voters we would not leave the Single Market. Never mind the 40% of

people, 16 million British people, wanted to stay in the EU. Never mind

that Britain Buzz and people who have more of a stake in our country

than most of us here voted three to one to remain. The Prime Minister

has made her choice. Fine, she has chosen hard Brexit -- Britain's

young people. But if you so confident what she is planning is

what people voted for she must give them a vote on a final deal. What

started with democracy must not end up with a government stitch up. When

all is said and done the decision on whether the deal the Prime Minister

negotiates is good enough will be decided by someone. Someone will

make that decision. Should it be the Prime Minister? Should it be those

privileged to be here, or should it be the British people who have to

live with that decision? I say it should be put to the people in a

referendum. That is why the Liberal Democrats are fighting for the

British people to have the final vote on a deal this government

negotiates. Give way! Democracy... Democracy... Democracy means

accepting the will of the people. At the beginning of the process and at

the end of the process. Democracy means respecting the majority and

democracy means not giving up your beliefs when the going gets tough.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, always a pleasure to follow the

honourable gentleman, he speaks with passion always but I can't put it

squarely on the table I will never vote for another referendum while I

am in this House given what we experienced last year. I agree with

those who have said this is a conscience vote, we asked the people

what they want to do, they said leave and as far as I'm concerned

that settled the matter and I will of course vote for the Bill this

evening. I want to make three quick points, Mr Speaker. The first is

that I believe the Prime Minister deserves personal credit for her

leadership on Brexit since she emerged last July. Cast our minds

back to the extraordinary events of last summer, we were shell-shocked

not knowing where the public vote would take us. Brexit means Brexit,

she said, and we are going to make a success of it, that phrase much

mocked in some quarters, gave a sufficient sense of direction to

steady the ship. It became apparent by January that we then needed a

more detailed plan and that just the right time the Prime Minister gave

her Lancaster house speech. It set out a clear, coherent and credible

plan for the way forward. It was one of the most significant speeches

I've heard in my 25 years in this House, it was a game changer for me

and for many people. The plan is ambitious and not without risk, and

in particular we will be leaving the Single Market, turning our backs on

free movement but seeking to negotiate a free trade agreement.

That is a high-risk strategy. But I recognise that to remain in the

Single Market would not properly reflect the desire of the majority

who voted to leave to control immigration. It is, however, vital

that in putting in place a bespoke free-trade agreement that is

successfully completed as part of the overall deal. The one fear that

companies in my constituency have is not so much tariffs, bad though they

might be, but it is nontariff barriers which can play havoc with

sensible trading arrangements that must be avoided if at all possible.

Now, one part of the Lancaster House speech has received insufficient

attention. The reference to transitional arrangements. I know

that there are some, and some in this chamber, or think this can all

be done in the blinking of an eye but it is complex, it will take

years and we have to exercise patience. Once we studied at

negotiations we should start to consider which parts we want to keep

and which we want to ditch, we are probably looking at a 10-year

project, Mr Speaker. We might well leave the EU in 2019 but we should

prepare ourselves substantial transitional arrangements and hope

that after for a positive working relationship. My second point, we

should now be brutally honest with the British people about the likely

short-term impact of Brexit. Not in an alarmist way but simply making

the point that because of uncertainty, because we have now

made clear that we will not be in the Single Market, there is likely

to be an impact on government spending for the next few years. We

know that tax receipts have fallen against forecasts since June and

that trend may well continue. It may well be that there will be long-term

gains of Brexit. I certainly hope so and we must strive for that end. But

there will most likely be short-term pain, especially now the phoney war

is coming to an end. International companies will weigh the certain

knowledge that we are leaving the Single Market against the hope of a

free-trade agreement and some of them have crunched back of volition

and will decide to invest or expand elsewhere. Some financial

institutions are already getting itchy feet. So there might be not as

much money available for the NHS and social care and schools as we would

like to see over the next 2-5 years and we should prepare the British

people for that fact. My final point very briefly is that living in these

very turbulent times when all kinds of issues are going on in our world

I would encourage the front bench, the negotiators, we have got a clear

plan but don't be slavish to it, let's be flexible and wise. It is

with great pleasure that I rise to speak in this debate on this

historic day for Parliament and for this country. None of us who believe

in withdrawal from the European Union believed we would ever see an

order paper in this House containing the words European Union

Notification of Withdrawal Bill Second Reading, and I think it is a

very historic landmark occasion. It is about incrementing a decision

which this Parliament decided to hand over to the people. It would be

utterly wrong, therefore, to reject what the people of the United

Kingdom have decided in a national vote. I utterly respect those who

have spoken. We campaigned hard, enthusiastically and vigorously to

Remain. But we are saying we must respect the will of the people since

Parliament handed that decision over to the people. I have little time

for those who argue that we should now engage in procedural games, that

we should engage in means of supporting the will of the people. I

think it's dishonest, I think it's undemocratic. I have to agree with

what the leader of the Liberal Democrats just said about believing

in democracy and listening to the will of the people, let's get on and

implement what the people have said. And let us not engage in efforts to

thwart what they have said. This was a national vote across the United

Kingdom. Everybody's vote was equal. I want to address the issues that

affect Northern Ireland particularly because it has been said that

Northern Ireland voted to remain by 56-44, and therefore Northern

Ireland should not be part of those withdrawal from the EU or should

have special status. I could think of nothing that would be more

calculator to undermine the union between Northern Ireland and the

rest of the United Kingdom than for Northern Ireland to be able to

thwart the will of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. That

would be deeply anti-unionist position to take. I think it is

right and proper that we respect the special needs of Northern Ireland.

They argue vigorously with government, they are engaged with

this House through ministers back home, and that is why I deplore the

fact that at this crucial juncture we have had the bringing down of our

locally devolved assembly and executive needlessly, and the people

who brought it down the very people who are now making speeches saying

Brexit undermines the Good Agreement. Thankfully the Secretary

of State for Northern Ireland has completely demolished that argument

ad made it clear there is nothing in the Good Friday Agreement, the Saint

Andrew agreement, or any of the agreements made that in any way is

impaired or imperilled by the sit, the decision to leave the European

Union. For those complaining the hardest about Northern Ireland they

have denied themselves a voice by not coming to the House to take the

seats and engage with ministers and have now dropped down out of the

elected government in Northern Ireland and don't have input that

way either. The reality is that of course this presents challenges for

Northern Ireland, but the fact is that when we remained in sterling

and the Irish Republic joined the euro along with other European

partner nations and states, we were told that this would hear massively

detrimental act, that this would cause all sorts of major problems on

the island of Ireland, this would lead to all sorts of disruption,

economic and political. Nunavut happened. People adapted. People

were told we would have to change currency at the border. There is a

different currency in Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic but

trade continues, trade is flourishing, the economy has gone on

and done extremely well. None of the dire predictions of those who

predicted terrible consequences came to pass. I am confident that in

relation to this issue as well that we will see a better future for the

United Kingdom and for Northern Ireland. I welcome very much the

Prime Minister's commitment to maintaining the Common Travel Area,

I reject the idea of a special status for Northern Ireland. I am

glad the Taoiseach also rejects it because it is code for separating

Northern Ireland from the rest of the U United Kingdom and undermining

both. This is the moment we begin to take

back control of our laws, our borders and our money. Once again we

be come a sovereign state in charge of our own destiny and I am

delighted about that. I was brought up in post-war Germany. I campaigned

to leave in the 1975 referendum and along with 45 others, I voted

against a single European act in 19 76. I have form. I am the last

remaining member of that band. So although Margaret Thatcher pushed

that Bill, I have no doubt if she was whether today, her response to

that bill would BB Joyce. -- Joyce. I salute also David Cameron for

honouring the commitments he gave the British people that he would

give them a referendum on the membership of the EU. Many said he

would renege on that, he kept his word. That referendum was not

advisory. It was an instruction to withdraw from the European Union.

This bill simply authorises an notice to leave. They are the same

people who for four decades have been complicit in the relentless

campaign to transfer power from this Parliament to Brussels. Does my

honourable friend not agree having asked the people to give us their

voice, we now need to respect that voice and get on with it? Absolutely

and I think there is an overwhelming view not only in this House but

across the country for that proposition. And number of speeches

during this debate, principally yesterday, have rerun the referendum

arguments. The government spent ?9 million of money on a brochure

riddled with inaccuracies and and amounted an extraordinary and

counter if fear campaign warning of desire # dire consequences if we

leave, none of which have come to Baz. My right honourable friend,

predicted profound economic shock across the country. A DIY recession,

nine of which happen. The economy has grown by 0.6%. Major companies

like Google, Nordisk and Nissan have announced significant investment in

the United Kingdom. Some have argued that the public was not told that

leave vote would require us to leave the single market. But recovering

control of our borders and restoring to this Parliament the

responsibility for the laws of the silence, a return of sovereignty,

was at the heart of the debate. Membership of the single market is

completely compatible with those objectives as Mike honourable friend

said yesterday, if people knew what they were voting for and it is

patronising to suggest otherwise. Some suggest that the validity of

referendum of over 23 million people voted is in doubt. It never troubled

in when Tory Blair secured a majority. We are leaving and they

will be no second referendum. Mr Speaker, we undoubtedly face

challenges ahead. But don't let's kid ourselves there would have been

major challenges if the United Kingdom had voted to remain. And

there are 70 billion reasons why our EU partners will want to reach a

mutually beneficial trade deal with us because they have a ?70 billion

surplus with us. I hope this country who are in large part or their

liberation from the Soviet Union to the Conservative Government of

Margaret Thatcher will respect our decision and help us forge a new

constructive relationship and I hope the same will apply to those whom we

helped rebuild after the Second World War. And free from the EU

customs union we will be able to embrace the world, negotiate trade

deals with the Commonwealth friends, encouraging fraid tear -- fair trade

deals. It will be hard graft. The US may be our closest ally but

commercially they'll be no pushover. The EU is determined to create a EU

defence policy. It poses a direct threat to European security, Nato,

and risks... I have been a member of this House for almost seven years

and rarely have I spoken on a bill of such great importance, not just

to the country in Scotland, but to my own constituents. It is a great

pleasure to follow the honourable gentleman from Aldershot. It is

right that we are able in this House to express those views on the Avenue

of constituents and the country. If that what taking back control is

about, let's talk about that democratic process, because we're

only here today and we were only here yesterday because the public in

this country were able to take this government to court to express their

railroading a decision in this railroading a decision in this

without the taking back the promised without the taking back the

to this Parliament. And we should to this Parliament. And we should

pay tribute to them that we are here able to make these arguments on the

half of our constituents. I campaigned vigorously for a remain

thought like many members and honourable members on this chip.

Someone who campaigned me -- save me was one of my party members, Gordon

die L. If I can pay tribute to Tam. Our thoughts are with the family.

The reason why I campaigned so further assist the Risley for the UK

to remain a member of the European Union is because it is an our

national interest to do so. I was tramping around the streets of my

constituency and 2010 and 2015, I was not promising my constituents

that I was elected to this House, I would do everything I can to make

their lives poorer. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer has said

on the record that nobody votes to make themselves poorer. So it is

incumbent on everyone on the size throughout this process, not just a

railroad this bill is that this does not matter. But to fight for every

single amendment on this mill, to make sure this House sends a strong

message, both to the Parliament and European members, that we will get

the best deal for our constituents. I will not give way because of the

timescales and other people wishing to speak. At the end of that process

in terms of the EU referendum, 78% of my constituents will tattoo the

mean. Many arguments across the chamber in the last day or so has

spoken about not respecting the will of the people, not retrospective the

democratic will of the people. As far as I am concerned, we are

representatives of constituents. None of these decisions in this

House are taking easily. It is whether heavy heart I will vote for

the triggering of Article 50 this evening. I will do so knowing that I

will be to look at my constituents in the eye and say to them I have

done everything I can possibly do to protect their jobs, to protect their

livelihoods and to protect the future further family. But when this

bill goes through as we know the bill will do, it will go through

after the third reading, I will work enthusiastically to make sure we can

get amendments to this bill and we can hold this government to account.

Because Brexit might mean Brexit, Mr Speaker. But to my constituents and

many across the country, Brexit does not mean Tony Brexit. The rhetoric

we have been getting from this government is wrong and I do not

think why they are fighting the people to stop this government

having a say. I do not know why they are reaching out across this chamber

to get a common voice to make sure that Britain can get the possible

deal from our European partners. I will vote no against triggering

Article 50. I will spend the rest of the time in this chamber fighting

for my constituent's lives. For speaking in a vote that I never

wanted to happen and vote I never wanted to cast. This summer I will

have been politicians are 30 years. I think this referendum had become

inevitable to. I supported David Cameron, I may have been wrong. I am

in a different place. I voted for the referendum Bill believing the

result would count. I argued to remain, saying we would honour the

result of the referendum. If I was required as an MP to vote on the

matter, we are and which I will. I am not giving up fighting. I want to

see the very best for my constituents out in the new

arrangements. That is why I stood for the Brexit select committee.

While I work with others with the work that has then landed on this to

get the best of it. I do not think it provides the best of opportunity

for negotiation. The government needs an open hand. 12 amendments

might help the government to retain Parliamentary support. I will fight

for a negotiated settlement, watching for any sign that no deal

is moving up the agenda. I want the government to be as open as possible

to as many options as possible. The degree of detail to be covered is

staggering, both for us and our partners and new consequences are

being uncovered every day. It is way more complicated than some of

conflict -- league's wanted to believe. All the consequences will

not be beneficial. There is one fight I want to see an end of an

which I'm calling time. I do not believe there is any realistic

prospect of the UK remaining in rejoining the EU not in my lifetime

in the House. I should place my support on a different footing on

which recognises the reality of what we have done. I am going to work for

the future prosperity of the EU, for a partnership relationship with it,

for all the things we need to do together from that new position. I

will defend it against those wanting to wish it further harm, those who

believe further separation of the EU is worth it. I have decided I am not

going to fight for the UK at present to find a quick way back into the

EU. Let me be clear, I believe the decision of those who voted out was

wrong. I am reconciled to Brexit. I am not yet persuaded of the wisdom

of the decision. However spending the next few years reversing the

decision does not seem to be in the UK's and trust. I do not want an

already divided country to be more so. The national debate has become

sad and dispirited. As a confirmed remain and supporter of the EU, I do

not want the next generation of Conservative MPs to have the blight

of this argument dogging them, their associations, their members and

voters in the same way as it has dogged us. It has soured friendships

and damaged relationships and I swore at a meet in the tearoom. And

I am sorry. Instead, I want to work towards a new partnership with the

EU which. To command every tracing support. We should aim higher than

minimum support. We should look towards the vast mid-jaunty looking

to support such a relationship. It is time to be proud to be British

without hating the EU. I hope it helps if some of us who lost today

to take that of opportunity to create something better out of what

is happening. Whether heavy heart that the relationship I am looking

for. Thank you. A lot has focused on

process and procedure. I made a simple promise in 2015 that I would

never support anything here that would damage them and their lives

and children and I stand by that. I made that promise precisely because

I followed the Liberal Democrat who backed Tory measures like the

bedroom tax, which damaged my community, so I make that promise

and stand by and hear from people day in and day out about the damage

since the referendum, like the universities in my constituency who

are worried about research funding from the European Union, worried

about Erasmus, worried about a drop in international student numbers

which could mean higher fees for British students, that was not in

the referendum. I hear from many medical professionals worried about

recruitment. An NHS that is not getting ?350 million a week but is

struggling. They are worried about future recruitment. I hear from the

financial sector. I hear from them 7000 jobs already gone, nobody voted

to lose their job. I hear from importers, food importers who have

seen costs rise since the referendum, costs that are being

passed onto and customers. People did not vote for a higher cost for a

dinner out and I hear from hotels. While tourism has gone up there are

many non-E -- non-EU nationals employed and are simply not enough

unemployed Londoners to fill those jobs should really. I also hear from

exporters who worry about future costs of things like having to print

different labels for beer bottles going into the EU market. I hear

from people who are very worried about their future economic

prospects, Young Conservatives support of the Conservative Party

who are now politically homeless. The former Prime Minister John Major

refer to the likes of them as bustards. He could not have known

that has party would become a whole government who are causing problems

for my constituency and for the whole country. And that the risk of

offending my wand frontbenchers as well as the government front bench,

I see this. My members campaigned vigorously to remain in the European

Union and they deserve a front bench position that is not to sign up to

the government's position and timetable. It is a disgrace. There

is no need for the point of order. Can I say to the honourable member

that he shouldn't have used the word he used, he tried to wrap it up in a

quote but it was unseemly and undignified and he shouldn't have

done it and he should apologise. While I share the sentiment I

apologise if it is unparliamentary. He shouldn't do it again, has he

finished? Thank you. Although he is not on the bench as I want to pay

tribute to the wonderful speech from the late honourable member and my

neighbour for Rushcliffe, because he shows us how it is all done. This is

a short spell with huge ramifications for all of us for

years to come. I campaigned like others on this site for remain but I

accept the Democratic vote and we should accept the notice to be

triggered. I agree with those that if we do not do that a crisis in our

democracy would help no one. The Secretary of State talked about the

outcome he wanted as being to agree a stronger, more united and more

outward looking country. I agree with him. Negotiations must lead to

that outcome and parliament must, as other colleagues have said, be

involved, not just at the start of this process but throughout and

particularly at the end. The manner of that vote at the end is

important. I hope that we will be able to add to the Prime Minister's

what's on this weather in the closing speech tonight in the course

of the committee stage next week. I want to welcome the White Paper

publication particularly the announcement that it will be

published tomorrow. That is also very welcome. I have been clear that

this bill in the White Paper which will set out the Prime Minister's 12

colours are separate and should be considered as such. For me, the

tests leading to a successful new relationship with the European Union

are threefold. Firstly, leaving must not undermine the economy. It must

not unduly affect the jobs and household finances and financial

security of our constituents. I hope we will get a chance to debate that

is part of the debates on the White Paper. Secondly. Leading must not

undermine our Constitution. That was tested in the courts and I welcome

the decision of the High Court which is upheld by the Supreme Court.

Finally, it must not undermine our values as a country. The honourable

member for Tottenham spoke very powerfully about values as have

others on both sides of the House in the course of yesterday and today.

In terms of values and upholding them, it is up to us as members of

this house and to government and to ministers. I have to be honest,

never in my adult life have I felt so concerned about the stability and

state of the world in which we live. I have to say that with the Brexit

foot we have added an extra layer of uncertainty to our world. But I want

to take the Secretary of State, what he said yesterday, at his word. This

is the beginning which means that this is not, to paraphrase a great

former Prime Minister who believed in a united Europe, the beginning of

the end, but this bill may be the end of the beginning of this Brexit

process. It is indeed the case that I didn't

intend to speak yesterday but as I listened to yesterday's speeches it

occurred to me clearly that the House of Commons has taken leave of

its senses and this happens at times. The danger is that the public

trust the House of Commons at moments like this, it be House of

Commons at a rat when it had left -- taken leave of its senses and during

the introduction of the poll tax. Iraq currently still lies in ruins

and it is at a time when the opposition unites with the

government that it has particularly taken leave of its senses. I

listened carefully to the honourable member, not in his place, a man who

gambled with skier stories on the EU and in Scotland. In Scotland he won

and the EU we lost but are we feeling Lucky? The deal is not in

the guest of the UK Government. It is in the gift of 38 regional

parliaments across Europe, and only EU Parliament. We have one in 67

voices and we have to get that into our heads because the Prime Minister

has said that no deal is better than a bad deal, but no deal means

farmers, fish will be particularly affected, 12% tariffs, and people

assume the House of Commons knows what it is doing but it doesn't, it

is crossing its fingers and hoping for the best. Perhaps they knew what

they were voting for but they certainly didn't know the

destination and this house doesn't know the destination. The committee

I am cheered off doesn't know the destination, the Department for

trade doesn't know the Prime Minister know. The pretence that

because people voted to leave the EU that they knew the destination is

beyond facile. Manchester Airport group, the CBI, the Society of motor

Manufacturers, the British Chamber of Commerce, the Law Society, they

do not know what the destination is for the UK. The UK is currently on a

precipice. I will give way. He is speaking as this is a great

perception. Has he ever come across a negotiation between two parties

where it was possible to predict in advance outcome? Precisely! I am

grateful to him for that. He might be able to tell me, how many states

of the native nations are not currently in a regional trade

agreement. Anybody? You know. This gentleman knows and was unlike

committee. There are only six members of the United Nations not in

a regional trade agreements. Mauritania, Somalia, South Sudan,

East Timor, and soon to join this illustrious group, the United

Kingdom! Cross your fingers and hope that works out for the best. The UK

will find itself the first time since 1960 not in a free trade

agreement. Joined Nafta in 1960 and has been there since. From the House

of Commons library, every member of the OCD is in a regional trade

agreement and even North Korea signed up to one in 1988. The UK is

boldly going where even North Korea feels to go. And if that is not

giving members pause for thought, what well? The head over the edge of

the cliff as they take their constituents and the poorest in

society with them. Who paid for the bankers? The poorest. They will be

paying for Brexit. It is crossing our fingers and is not the best deal

for the UK and remember the best deal for the UK is after smashing up

the Rolls-Royce, what we have with Europe now. Now we will head down to

the second-hand car dealer and ask him for the best motor they have

because we have thrown the Rolls-Royce to one side. We refuse

to travel in the best transport possible and are now heading for the

best left afterwords. This house has taken leave of its senses as it dead

at a rat and the poll tax and the bedroom tax, but the people who will

pay for it are not here. Members are on going to any destination as

destination as long as it is leaving the EU and it is gross

irresponsibility and it is only one thing that can save Scotland, and

that is independence and independence very soon.

I am looking forward to voting tonight and I am also looking

forward to the debates taking place in this chamber going forward over

the next two years on universities and education, immigration and the

economy, because I feel lousy result of this referendum we as an entity

are closer to the people now than we have ever been. I believe that they

will be watching those debates, watching what we are talking about

and that we will be responding to a mandate given to us by the people so

I am looking forward to tonight. But I cannot stand here without

responding to the waiter of the Liberal Democrats. He called for a

second referendum. Does anybody remember the honourable member

calling for the referendum in 2010? Has leaflets and posters for the

party said, time for a real referendum. They also called a

referendum in 2011 on alternative vote. You lost that, and the most

recent referendum, you have had the best of the two time to stop calling

for a referendum this. He spoke with passion in the same way he spoke

with passion about tuition fees, and as we are speaking, news is

breaking, that some members of the Liberal Democrats are going to

abstain, some voting for run some voting against. The honourable

member has divided his party of only nine MPs in a far more efficient

manner than the party opposite happens. What an achievement. That

brings me onto the party opposite. In 2005 and I have an even better

example than my friend used, 9.5 million people voted for the party

opposite, for Tony Blair to lead the government. 17.2 million voted

against. More people voted for Brexit than voted for the party

opposite in government in 2005. The point of that is this. Some members

opposite tonight served as ministers and that government and voted for

the referendum and tonight are going to vote against the result and the

mandate given to them by the people. I think it is slightly rich,

slightly rich that having served as a minister in a party and the

government were you only achieved 9 million votes but did anybody call

for a second referendum? They did not. Did anybody revert to the rule

of law, because people respect in this country a democratic vote. And

it is, I apologise, for an alteration in tone but it is with

some dismay I woke this morning to the news that a former Prime

Minister had tried to skew and influence the outcome of the

referendum by attempting to have the editor of the Daily Mail removed

from his post. I say with a degree of shame that a leader of this party

attempted to manipulate and distort the freedom of the press, not the

editor of the Guardian or the matter only paper that subscribe to his

worldview but a member of the Daily Mail.

For Mr Carney's inaccurate forecast. I would caution those thinking of

voting against tonight to be careful what they wish for and to be careful

for wishing first Africa and referendum. The people are advocates

for free speech and a powerful they failed to build a

British version for a reformed EU. And they failed to build a credible

immigration policy with the public. They fed the beast the roared last

June and we all have some responsibility in that. Then the

fear of the hard right in the Conservative Party has led to prime

ministers to recklessly gamble with the future of country. One called

the referendum, he thought he would never lose. The other has pushed

into triggering Brexit even before thinking through how it will

actually happen. Weakness and incompetence, weakness and

incompetence then. One lesson we should all learn is never again

should a complex economic and international issue be reduced to an

X Factor style competition. Last week the British government was cot

acting in constitutionally by the Supreme Court when trying to use a

trampy and style executive order to bypass Parliament on Brexit.

Government was Mac fear of Parliament led to wasted months

fighting a legal action when every MP could have been put to work

helping to craft the best exit deal for the UK. Time which the Prime