European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill: Part 1

:00:00. > :00:00.quickness. No constituent has ever expressed that to me. We should

:00:07. > :00:12.discuss this. First of all, can I thank the Right honourable gentleman

:00:13. > :00:17.not just for raising concerns about four courtesy of giving the advance

:00:18. > :00:23.notice of intention to do so. I would say to the right honourable

:00:24. > :00:30.gentleman for Aldershot, and Cotswold, with courtesy, on

:00:31. > :00:36.advice... This is a matter that can properly be decided by the speaker,

:00:37. > :00:41.and I thought it was proper to consult colleagues on the House of

:00:42. > :00:47.Commons commission, the strategic governing body. I have got to till

:00:48. > :00:52.both members that the House of Commons commission agreed with no

:00:53. > :00:59.objection to these two changes. The extension of those who serve at the

:01:00. > :01:06.table, removal of wigs. Beyond that, I would say to the rate honourable

:01:07. > :01:10.member for Aldershot, teasing him a tad, my understanding from one who

:01:11. > :01:15.has got considerable expertise in these matters is that although

:01:16. > :01:23.certainly over the last couple of hundred years it has been the norm

:01:24. > :01:28.for clerks at the table to wear wigs, going back several

:01:29. > :01:32.centuries... It is normally the enjoyable sport of the right

:01:33. > :01:37.honourable gentleman to do that, clerks did not wear wigs. And the

:01:38. > :01:50.final point is this. It was not an executive order, I request from the

:01:51. > :01:55.clerks themselves. I, and members of the House of Commons commission

:01:56. > :01:58.agreed. People are entitled to views, but the idea that this was

:01:59. > :02:05.something I came up with and sought to impose against the will of the

:02:06. > :02:14.clerks, 100% wrong. The right honourable gentleman should give the

:02:15. > :02:20.clerks some credit. The clerk open to constructive reform, and has been

:02:21. > :02:26.the champion of it in the skis. -- this case. Have you noted the deep

:02:27. > :02:39.concern expressed from members across the house, the 170 signing

:02:40. > :02:45.motion 190, regarding the potential offering of a speech to both Houses

:02:46. > :02:49.of Parliament? I wonder what approaches have been made to you,

:02:50. > :03:00.what conversations have taken place with relevant authorities for such

:03:01. > :03:03.an approach to go ahead? Whether or not those of us who have deep

:03:04. > :03:14.concerns about President Trump's comments could think? And address by

:03:15. > :03:24.a foreign leader to both doses of Parliament is not an automatic

:03:25. > :03:34.right. An earned honour. Moreover... Many presidents, for state visits to

:03:35. > :03:39.take place, which do not include an address to both houses of

:03:40. > :03:49.parliament. That was the first point. Second, relation to

:03:50. > :03:51.Westminster Hall, three key-holders. The Speaker of the House of Commons,

:03:52. > :04:02.the Speaker of the House of Lords, and the Lord Great Chamberlain.

:04:03. > :04:09.Ordinarily, we can work by consensus, hall used for a purpose,

:04:10. > :04:15.such as an address, by agreement of the three key-holders. Two all those

:04:16. > :04:24.who seemed that early day motion, on either side of the argument, before

:04:25. > :04:30.the imposition of the migrant ban I would myself have been strongly

:04:31. > :04:35.opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall. After the

:04:36. > :04:45.imposition of the migrant ban by President Trump, I am even more

:04:46. > :04:52.strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall.

:04:53. > :05:00.So far as the Royal Gallery is concerned, I do not perhaps have as

:05:01. > :05:04.strong a say in that matter. It is in a different part of the building,

:05:05. > :05:10.although customarily an invitation to the lethal to deliver an address

:05:11. > :05:17.would be issued in the names of the two Speakers. Eyes would not wish to

:05:18. > :05:23.issue an invitation to President Trump to speak in the Royal Gallery.

:05:24. > :05:32.And I conclude by saying to the honourable gentleman this... We

:05:33. > :05:40.value our relationship with the United States, and if a state visit

:05:41. > :05:44.takes place, that is going to be way beyond the paygrade of the Speaker.

:05:45. > :05:59.But as far as this place is consumed, if you very strongly -- I

:06:00. > :06:03.feel very strongly our opposition to racism and sexism, and independent

:06:04. > :06:13.judiciary are hugely important considerations.

:06:14. > :06:38.We should not have clapping. But sometimes it is just easier to let

:06:39. > :06:46.it go. No further points of order? Perhaps we can proceed, the clerk

:06:47. > :06:51.proceed to read the orders of the day. The European Union withdrawal

:06:52. > :07:20.committee. Order. Order! European Union notification

:07:21. > :07:29.of withdrawal bill. We began with new clause three. Order. Order! We

:07:30. > :07:34.began with the new clause three, with which it will be convenient to

:07:35. > :07:42.consider the new clauses and amendments on the selection paper.

:07:43. > :07:49.Matthew Penny Cook to move? Thank you Deputy Speaker. I beg to move

:07:50. > :07:53.clause three in my name and My right honourable friend 's. It concerns

:07:54. > :07:57.the issue of parliamentary negotiations following the

:07:58. > :08:00.triggering of article 50. It would require the government to report

:08:01. > :08:04.back to Parliament at least every two months, and reports before both

:08:05. > :08:14.doses of Parliament on both occasions. It is purpose to improve

:08:15. > :08:19.the bill. Effectively monitoring progress through those ago she shuns

:08:20. > :08:21.but actively contributing for success by giving substantive

:08:22. > :08:26.scrutiny that can positively influence the outcome. Madam Deputy

:08:27. > :08:31.Speaker, we are only debating this, and other clauses and amendments to

:08:32. > :08:36.the because the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's November ruling on

:08:37. > :08:40.the triggering of Article 50, confirming that only Parliament and

:08:41. > :08:45.not ministers using the rope to ten began the start of the native

:08:46. > :08:50.kingdom's exit from the European Union. I'm going to make progress.

:08:51. > :08:56.Supreme Court was correct to make clear that Parliament should accept

:08:57. > :09:00.democratic influence over Brexit. That should be killed at the start,

:09:01. > :09:06.through and most importantly at the end of the formal process of leaving

:09:07. > :09:12.the EU. On the side of the house, we believe that we must have three

:09:13. > :09:16.distinct pillars of accountability. Provision of a detailed plan, that

:09:17. > :09:24.can inform future debates and votes and be used as a point of reference.

:09:25. > :09:28.Secondly, I means of ensuring robust parliamentary oversight throughout

:09:29. > :09:32.the negotiation period. Third. Meaningful debate and vote in

:09:33. > :09:37.Parliament, therefore it is signed off with the European Council

:09:38. > :09:42.Parliament. I am most grateful to the right honourable gentleman for

:09:43. > :09:46.building with. Does he think that in a negotiation that can take many

:09:47. > :09:51.months and be extraordinarily complicated, it is in the best

:09:52. > :09:56.interests of the United Kingdom to have two reveal their hand every two

:09:57. > :10:03.months? We are not asking the government to reveal the

:10:04. > :10:10.negotiations, or the process. Under pressure, the government conceded

:10:11. > :10:14.the first request, white paper published on Thursday. My right

:10:15. > :10:18.honourable friend seeking to win agreement for another tomorrow. The

:10:19. > :10:22.purpose of clause three is to secure the second of those pillars,

:10:23. > :10:30.ensuring an enhanced role for honourable member 's.

:10:31. > :10:36.First, while ministers obviously need sufficient room for manoeuvre,

:10:37. > :10:42.and cannot therefore consent to the micro management of the process by

:10:43. > :10:45.Parliamentarians, I am going to make some progress, active and robust

:10:46. > :10:49.Parliamentary scrutiny will aid the negotiations by testing and

:10:50. > :10:56.strengthening the Government's evolving negotiating position and

:10:57. > :10:58.their hand with the European Union. Second, facilitating substantive

:10:59. > :11:01.Parliamentary scrutiny would in itself bind the wounds of the

:11:02. > :11:07.referendum and forge a genuine consensus? Consensus? Temperatures

:11:08. > :11:11.and years ahead by reassuring the public, particularly the 16.1

:11:12. > :11:16.million people who voted re-may main they will not be ignored burr they

:11:17. > :11:21.views will be taken into account and their interests championed by their

:11:22. > :11:27.representatives in Parliament. I thank the member for giving away.

:11:28. > :11:34.Could he explain if on regular intervals such as he has described,

:11:35. > :11:39.this House is to trail over the detailed negotiating position of the

:11:40. > :11:43.Government, to express its view on it which will be known then to those

:11:44. > :11:47.we are negotiating with, how that will not undermine the position of

:11:48. > :11:52.the Government when it comes to negotiations. If the honourable

:11:53. > :11:56.member would allow me to make progress, he would realise that is

:11:57. > :11:59.not what we are asking for and when it comes to sensitive confidential

:12:00. > :12:04.matters we hope there are mechanisms to allow the House to be able to

:12:05. > :12:09.view and respond to those. I am going to make a bit of proes.

:12:10. > :12:14.In departing the EU we need a deal and process that not just works for

:12:15. > :12:20.the 52% who voted leave or those who voted Remain but for everyone who

:12:21. > :12:22.has a stake in our country's future. No-one can reasonably accuse the

:12:23. > :12:27.Secretary of State of being unwilling to appear before the

:12:28. > :12:31.House. He has responded to every question put to him, even if to ape

:12:32. > :12:36.the language of the White Paper, it didn't always feel as if we got an

:12:37. > :12:40.answer. But what is required throughout the negotiations is

:12:41. > :12:44.something more, an opportunity for honourable members to play an active

:12:45. > :12:53.role in influencing the process rather than observing and commenting

:12:54. > :12:56.on it retrospectively. As a member argued, honourable members are not

:12:57. > :13:03.passive bystander, we should be active participants in this process.

:13:04. > :13:06.I thank him for giving way. Will my right honourable friend agree with

:13:07. > :13:09.me it is important that Parliament is sovereign throughout this whole

:13:10. > :13:14.process and gets a chance to have a look at the general direction, to

:13:15. > :13:16.which the Government is proceeding with withdrawal from the EU? My

:13:17. > :13:20.right honourable friend makes a good point. As she will a what we are

:13:21. > :13:25.asking for is no more happened no less than the European Parliament

:13:26. > :13:29.will see and I will come on to that. Sub Sanative Parliamentary scrutiny

:13:30. > :13:33.is not the same as accountability after the event. And new clause

:13:34. > :13:36.three is focussed on securing what is needed for the former. The

:13:37. > :13:40.Secretary of State has made clear on numerous occasions, that when it

:13:41. > :13:44.comes to the provision of information during the negotiations,

:13:45. > :13:47.it is his intention that honourable members will enjoy the same access

:13:48. > :13:51.to information as their counterparts in the European Union, but not only

:13:52. > :13:56.than that, the situation here will be an improvement upon what the

:13:57. > :13:59.European Parliament sees. Now we do not know precisely what the members

:14:00. > :14:03.of the European Parliament will see throughout the negotiation, but it

:14:04. > :14:08.is reasonable to assume their involvement is likely to be

:14:09. > :14:12.conducted in accordance with the provision of article 218 and that

:14:13. > :14:17.the detailed arrangements are likely to be similar to those set out in

:14:18. > :14:20.the 2010 framework agreement on relations between the European

:14:21. > :14:24.Parliament and the Commission. It is worth state fog fog record, what

:14:25. > :14:27.those involve. Paragraph 23 of the framework agreement makes clear that

:14:28. > :14:29.accordance with the provision of article 218 and that the detailed

:14:30. > :14:32.arrangements are likely to be similar to those set out in the 2010

:14:33. > :14:34.framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and

:14:35. > :14:36.the Commission. It is worth state fog fog record, what those involve.

:14:37. > :14:38.Paragraph 23 of the framework agreement makes clear that the

:14:39. > :14:40.accordance with the provision of article 218 and that the detailed

:14:41. > :14:43.arrangements are likely to be similar to those set out in the 2010

:14:44. > :14:45.framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and

:14:46. > :14:47.the Commission. It is worth state fog fog record, what those involve.

:14:48. > :14:49.Paragraph 23 of the framework agreement makes clear that the

:14:50. > :14:51.European Parliament shall be "Immediately and fully informed at

:14:52. > :14:52.all stages of the negotiation, and conclusion of international

:14:53. > :14:55.agreements." In addition, paragraph 24 requires that information should

:14:56. > :14:57.be provided to the It is worth state fog fog record, what those involve.

:14:58. > :14:59.Paragraph 23 of the framework agreement makes clear that the

:15:00. > :15:01.European Parliament shall be "Immediately and fully informed at

:15:02. > :15:03.all stages of the negotiation, and conclusion of international

:15:04. > :15:05.agreements." In addition, paragraph 24 requires that information should

:15:06. > :15:07.be provided to the European Parliament and I quote "In

:15:08. > :15:09.sufficient time for it to be able to express it point of view if

:15:10. > :15:12.appropriate and for the Commission to take into account Parliament's

:15:13. > :15:14.views as far as possible. " Lastly in order to facile they oversight of

:15:15. > :15:16.sensitive material, article 24 of the that information should be

:15:17. > :15:20.provided to the European Parliament and I quote "In sufficient time for

:15:21. > :15:22.it to be able to express it point of view if appropriate and for the

:15:23. > :15:24.Commission to take into account Parliament's views as far as

:15:25. > :15:26.possible." Lastly in order to facile they oversight of sensitive

:15:27. > :15:28.material, article 24 of the frame, who agreement states "That

:15:29. > :15:29.Parliament and the Commission undertake to establish appropriate

:15:30. > :15:31.procedures and safeguards for the forwarding of confidential

:15:32. > :15:33.information from the Commission, to Parliament." In short the Commission

:15:34. > :15:35.let's the European Parliament know in good time what it is proposing

:15:36. > :15:37.with provision for sensitive material and provides sufficient

:15:38. > :15:39.time for the Parliament to provide feedback and act upon if

:15:40. > :15:41.appropriate. That is the baseline of European Parliamentary scrutiny. The

:15:42. > :15:44.baseline that the Secretary of State has assured us this house cannot

:15:45. > :15:46.only expect to match but to surpass. I think you will find most European

:15:47. > :15:49.papers are published in English by the House of Commons library but he

:15:50. > :15:52.hasn't yet answers the question about with where he would draw his

:15:53. > :15:54.line in the sand, in relation to what he refers to as micro

:15:55. > :15:57.management, and material that should be discussed every two months.

:15:58. > :16:00.I have been clear, and it is up for the Government to determine what

:16:01. > :16:05.sensitive material would come before Members of Parliament, I will make a

:16:06. > :16:08.bit of progress if I can. That is the baseline of European

:16:09. > :16:10.Parliamentary scrutiny. Acknowledging the delicate balance

:16:11. > :16:14.between the need for robust Parliamentary oversight and the

:16:15. > :16:19.needs of the executive, it is that baseline of oversight that new

:16:20. > :16:26.clause three seeks to secure for this place. As the member for

:16:27. > :16:32.Beaconsfield argues process matter, the Government... Happy to give way.

:16:33. > :16:37.I respect the democratic result of the referendum but we owe it to our

:16:38. > :16:42.constituents to get the best deal for them. As the East Midlands

:16:43. > :16:46.exports 50% of good to the European Union I would be failing in my duty

:16:47. > :16:49.if I didn't havest chance to ensure those jobs are not jeopardised by

:16:50. > :16:54.the Government deal. Isn't that why jute anyis important? That is

:16:55. > :16:57.precisely why scrutiny is important. If the Government were approaching

:16:58. > :17:03.this in a reasonable and sensible manner they would welcome the

:17:04. > :17:07.Hoyle's input into the process -- honourable lady's input. The

:17:08. > :17:11.Government should embrace rather than resist agreeing to a proper

:17:12. > :17:17.process for engaging the House in the considerable challenge it face

:17:18. > :17:20.-- faces. The undertakings saw would ensure the active and constructive

:17:21. > :17:23.involvement of Parliament and increase the chances of securing the

:17:24. > :17:28.best possible deal for the British people. I hope the Government will

:17:29. > :17:32.consider new clause three in the spirit in which it is moved and I

:17:33. > :17:36.look forward to hearing the minister's thoughts on the matter. I

:17:37. > :17:40.would like to turn to the important matter of the rights of European

:17:41. > :17:46.nationals living in the UK, and in so doing speak to new clause eight

:17:47. > :17:51.but principally new clause six. As my right honourable friend the

:17:52. > :17:55.member for Hampstead and Kilburn argued so passionately during last

:17:56. > :17:59.week's second reading, EU nationals that have put down root in the UK

:18:00. > :18:04.are part of the fabric of our nations and community, they are o

:18:05. > :18:07.are our neighbour, many sustain the public services we rely on and they

:18:08. > :18:10.deserve to be treated with respect. They should not be used as

:18:11. > :18:13.bargaining chips in the negotiations.

:18:14. > :18:18.I have no doubt many honourable members of both side of the House

:18:19. > :18:22.have had EU nationals attending their advice surgeries to express

:18:23. > :18:27.the sense of trauma and anxiety they have felt every day since the 23rd

:18:28. > :18:31.June last year. And to seek reassurance. But while individual

:18:32. > :18:36.honourable members can and have thought to reassure we can provide

:18:37. > :18:39.EU nationals living in the UK with no guarantee, only the Government

:18:40. > :18:43.has it within its gift to do so. The purpose of new clause six is a

:18:44. > :18:49.simple one. I would ensure on the day section one of the act comes

:18:50. > :18:54.into force, the right of residence of EU nationals living in thek you

:18:55. > :19:01.or opportunities to obtain that will be guaranteed on the day which

:19:02. > :19:06.Article 50 notice is served. Even the Prime Minister's statement today

:19:07. > :19:10.did not provide certainty, what constituency -- constituents say to

:19:11. > :19:15.us, is they need certainty to know how they can plan their lives. Does

:19:16. > :19:20.he agree with me, that in any event, someone who has lived here for five

:19:21. > :19:25.years, can get permanent settlement and someone who has lived here six

:19:26. > :19:29.years lawfully can also be eligible for British citizen ship, so it is

:19:30. > :19:35.vital that the Government states this clearly.

:19:36. > :19:42.I agree 100% with my right honourable friend. I am great. .

:19:43. > :19:48.Could I urge him to look at a report, a commission organised by

:19:49. > :19:53.British future, and what we managed to do is have cross-party support

:19:54. > :20:00.across the chamber which would say on triggering Article 50, that is

:20:01. > :20:04.the point but a transition period of five years which allows people to

:20:05. > :20:11.normalise their status and have a special status to have a

:20:12. > :20:15.relationship with Ireland. That would be perceived as fair across

:20:16. > :20:20.the EU. That apes part of the situation we have made and it is

:20:21. > :20:24.picked up in other new clauses. I will make progress if with.

:20:25. > :20:30.Honourable members will know that perm innocent residence is a EU law

:20:31. > :20:35.concept similar to as indefinite leave to renon-in the UK for non-EU

:20:36. > :20:39.citizens. Citizens. It is not guaranteed that will don't exist

:20:40. > :20:42.after we leave the EU. We are not debating the complex legal issues

:20:43. > :20:46.that arise in this area. Instead we are debating a principle. How the

:20:47. > :20:53.rights associated with permanent residence are to guaranteed.

:20:54. > :20:58.We are not debating the detail but that is what he is proposing. He is

:20:59. > :21:03.proposing a wide blanket measure, which gives an unconditional right

:21:04. > :21:06.for many people to stay in the country, but specific we to him.

:21:07. > :21:13.What provision is he making in his new clause, I can't see any, for the

:21:14. > :21:16.over 4 thousand glou nationals who are in United Kingdom prisons, what

:21:17. > :21:20.the arrangementses will be when we leave the on your-of-European Union

:21:21. > :21:23.to make sure we can remove them from the United Kingdom which we can do

:21:24. > :21:27.under the prisoner framework transfer agreement.

:21:28. > :21:34.On this point he will know it depends what the terms of the

:21:35. > :21:37.sentence for. This is focussed in principle guarantee, guarantee from

:21:38. > :21:41.the Government to secure the rights of EU nationals. Madame Deputy

:21:42. > :21:47.Speaker, few would question the fact that Brexit has divided the country,

:21:48. > :21:50.but on this issue there is a clear consensus that the Government should

:21:51. > :21:54.act to provide certainty to EU nationals. A motion tabled by my

:21:55. > :21:59.right honourable friend the member for Leigh which caused on the

:22:00. > :22:03.Government to commit with urgy to giving EU nationals the right to

:22:04. > :22:08.remain, past the House overwhelmingly. That Parliamentary

:22:09. > :22:15.support is mirrored among the public, polling by British futures

:22:16. > :22:19.sows that 84% of British people, including 77% of leave voter support

:22:20. > :22:24.it. The Labour Party has called for the Government to act to end the

:22:25. > :22:30.uncertainty these individuals face, insuch is the level of consensus

:22:31. > :22:34.that even Migration Watch an Ukip have joined those calls. The only

:22:35. > :22:38.question that remains is whether the rights that flow from permanent

:22:39. > :22:42.residency and thosel jib to obtain the rights will be secured by means

:22:43. > :22:44.of a reciprocal agreement or unilaterally guaranteed by the

:22:45. > :22:49.Government. I won't give quay if that is OK. I

:22:50. > :22:55.know there are many honourable members who wish to get in.

:22:56. > :22:59.We recognise the efforts of the Prime Minister, and her ministers to

:23:00. > :23:04.achieve a reciprocal agreement with our EU partners that would guarantee

:23:05. > :23:08.the rights of UK nationals in other EU country, we owe a duty the our

:23:09. > :23:14.nationals and securing their rights must remain a priority, but with no

:23:15. > :23:19.reciprocal agreement reached, and with just weeks to go until the

:23:20. > :23:22.triggering of Article 50 we think the uncertainty must be brought to

:23:23. > :23:25.an end on the part of the Government. I am not going to give

:23:26. > :23:29.way any further. There are hard headed as well as

:23:30. > :23:34.moral reasons for doing so, guaranteeing in the right of

:23:35. > :23:38.residents of EU residents unilaterally as the date Article 50

:23:39. > :23:42.notice is given will not only end the uncertain thety it would ensure

:23:43. > :23:47.the best possible start to the negotiations and send a clear signal

:23:48. > :23:51.to the small minor the I who have treated it as a result to victimise

:23:52. > :23:57.other, that our fellow Europeans are welcome and will remain so. A number

:23:58. > :24:01.of other new clauses share the purpose outlined in new clause six,

:24:02. > :24:05.in seeking to protect the rights of EU national. Some add additional

:24:06. > :24:11.safeguards to the basic guarantee we seek. New clause 57, which stands in

:24:12. > :24:15.the name of my right honourable friend, which ensure the residents

:24:16. > :24:19.right of EU is it zens are protected but ensure they do not automatically

:24:20. > :24:23.fall away at the end of the Article 50 negotiating period, if no

:24:24. > :24:27.agreement has been reached. And if my right honourable friend were

:24:28. > :24:35.mined to push to it the vote we should have our support. What

:24:36. > :24:39.matters in the end is this is resolved urgently, and the distress

:24:40. > :24:43.that will be caused by uncertainty during the negotiation, I hope that

:24:44. > :24:46.ministers can provide us, and the thousands of EU nationals and their

:24:47. > :24:52.family members out there with a reassurances we seek on this matter.

:24:53. > :24:58.New clause Parliamentary oversight of negotiations.

:24:59. > :25:06.The question is that new clause three be read a second time. Mr Mark

:25:07. > :25:10.Harper. Thank you very much. I note that the group is a fairly hefty

:25:11. > :25:14.one, there are a large number of amends. I only wish to make five

:25:15. > :25:20.points so will attempt tot to take too much of the House's time.

:25:21. > :25:30.I want to address the point on Parliamentary scrutiny. And a number

:25:31. > :25:38.of the new clauses and amendments, talking about producing a raft of

:25:39. > :25:43.reports, including the large number of clauses from the rate honourable

:25:44. > :25:51.member for Nottingham East. I want to throughout, thought that adds to

:25:52. > :25:55.the process. It seems to me, having talked to constituents, this house

:25:56. > :26:01.has spent a lot of time, as is appropriate, defeating Brexit and

:26:02. > :26:06.the issues that fall from that. The Prime Minister has been here on a

:26:07. > :26:10.number of occasion, and the Secretary of State for exiting the

:26:11. > :26:20.union has made statements. It seems that ministers who have furnished

:26:21. > :26:23.the house with information, and in the white paper published last week

:26:24. > :26:31.we had a commitment to bring forward the repeal bill, wide in scope,

:26:32. > :26:36.enabling Parliament to debate these matters. Also primary legislation

:26:37. > :26:43.brought forward on immigration and Customs matters. That is going to be

:26:44. > :26:54.debated by the house. I would agree with him that there is a vast amount

:26:55. > :27:00.of information, but even if that cooperative attitude was to change,

:27:01. > :27:04.alternatives on the government side and opposition side to bring

:27:05. > :27:10.ministers to the dispatch box to provide explanations everybody

:27:11. > :27:18.expects. And it is hard to see how the opposition proposals, billed or

:27:19. > :27:20.add to mechanisms available? I completely agree with my right

:27:21. > :27:25.honourable friend. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that

:27:26. > :27:32.certainly the front bench on the other side was desperately looking

:27:33. > :27:35.for things that they could bring forward to amend the bill, wouldn't

:27:36. > :27:39.stop it in its tracks. I think this was about the best that they could

:27:40. > :27:47.come up with but it does not add much. A lot of new clauses, rather

:27:48. > :27:54.repetitive, talking about reports and information about a raft of EU

:27:55. > :28:06.constitutions. One moment to conclude... Cover and in any event.

:28:07. > :28:11.Actually, the effect if not the intent of the opposition new clause

:28:12. > :28:23.would be to make all these matters judicial, getting courts, whether

:28:24. > :28:28.government reports appropriate. My right honourable friend makes a good

:28:29. > :28:31.point. Once you put things into primary legislation, setting out in

:28:32. > :28:35.each of the terms of the report then as we have seen it is going to be

:28:36. > :28:42.judicial, allowing people to go to court and argue. They may be

:28:43. > :28:48.successful. They may not. But they can argue that what the problem and

:28:49. > :28:57.has brought forward is not adequate. -- what the government. Should any

:28:58. > :29:02.member of this house, as a minimum requirement want to have access to

:29:03. > :29:07.information and opportunities at least equal to those of any member

:29:08. > :29:11.of the European Parliament? No member of this house can justify

:29:12. > :29:20.arguing for anything less. The point I was making, my right honourable

:29:21. > :29:24.friend was Adrian, already well-established mechanisms in this

:29:25. > :29:32.house for insuring information is brought before members. If I judge

:29:33. > :29:36.the Prime Minister and Secretary of State on what they have done so far,

:29:37. > :29:42.they have been in the house frequently talking about Brexit. At

:29:43. > :29:50.the end of this process I think the general public will be willing this

:29:51. > :29:53.to end. What we have had in recent years is that motions are carried by

:29:54. > :30:02.this house regularly and then utterly ignored by the government.

:30:03. > :30:09.What we need now, not just a simple vote at the end, we need to

:30:10. > :30:13.scrutinise the deal, line by line. That is precisely what the European

:30:14. > :30:20.Parliament can do, so why should we not be able to do that? I was going

:30:21. > :30:24.to turn away from my first point. The new clauses brought forward from

:30:25. > :30:29.the opposition front bench, to the ones I think I more damning, the new

:30:30. > :30:35.clause 51, on which the rate honourable member's name is amended.

:30:36. > :30:40.The motion passed by the house on the 7th of December, the government

:30:41. > :30:49.amendment to the opposition motion, the house agreed by 448 to 75 that

:30:50. > :30:52.the government should make sure that Parliament had the information

:30:53. > :30:56.available to scrutinise these matters. It also said and it was an

:30:57. > :31:01.instruction from the house, no disclosure of material that should

:31:02. > :31:09.be reasonably judged to damage the United Kingdom. It would be my

:31:10. > :31:14.contention that the new clause 51, with the detail, suggests that we

:31:15. > :31:17.bring forward future trading arrangements, trade agreements, the

:31:18. > :31:23.proposed status of citizens and so forth. These are measures that we

:31:24. > :31:27.would not want to disclose as we negotiate future trading

:31:28. > :31:32.arrangements. We would not want to disclose if there were going to be

:31:33. > :31:36.tariffs, that is giving away the negotiating hand. It is counter to

:31:37. > :31:45.the strongly expressed view of the house. I hope that if clause 51 or

:31:46. > :31:54.amendment 44 put to vote, I would answer the house to vote against

:31:55. > :32:03.him. -- urge. The new clause 51, in my name, and other honourable

:32:04. > :32:06.members. Given that the government he was part of the former referendum

:32:07. > :32:17.thought that the damage to the United Kingdom's GDP on leaving the

:32:18. > :32:24.European Union on WTE terms was 7%, 66 billion, with you not think it is

:32:25. > :32:29.sensible for the government to allay concerns if the effect is going to

:32:30. > :32:35.be less. The right honourable gentleman, picking out one aspect of

:32:36. > :32:41.his new clause. I was looking at one of the aspects that I objected to,

:32:42. > :32:47.about effectively disclosing our hand to get discussions for future

:32:48. > :32:59.trading arrangements. I do not think that is sensible. Moving to the

:33:00. > :33:07.third point... Trade is another area that the government was cleared,

:33:08. > :33:14.about what the government said but we have no information about more

:33:15. > :33:16.trade, Lay Street? Does it not simply seem sensible to till the

:33:17. > :33:25.country if we are going to have more trade with the European Union or

:33:26. > :33:36.less? The flaw in what he suggests, forecasts. Estimates, guesses, and

:33:37. > :33:43.all I would say is that a number of estimates and forecasts were made on

:33:44. > :33:48.both sides of the argument, Leave or Remain, prior to the referendum. I

:33:49. > :33:55.am not an expert but not all of those forecasts of entirely happened

:33:56. > :33:56.the way that people thought. While producing large documents, with

:33:57. > :34:05.erroneous forecasts would be helpful, I do not know. That

:34:06. > :34:12.exchange just revealed the foolhardiness of revealing our hand,

:34:13. > :34:16.as we cannot top bilateral trade deal until we leave the United

:34:17. > :34:25.Kingdom -- European Union. We want to talk

:34:26. > :34:33.Should do everything, to resist those countries coming here as well.

:34:34. > :34:37.I think that demonstrates the expertise he has acquired when he

:34:38. > :34:47.was a minister at the forum office. Moving to point number three. New

:34:48. > :34:53.clause 56 talks about the withdrawal from the EA. It seems to me, looking

:34:54. > :34:59.at the terms of our membership of the EEA, member of as a result of

:35:00. > :35:07.being a member of the European Union, given that the EEA agreement

:35:08. > :35:11.talks about the movement of goods and piercings and means we are

:35:12. > :35:14.susceptible to the jurisdictions of the Court of Justice, it seems to me

:35:15. > :35:21.that if we were to remain in the EEA we would effectively... In the view

:35:22. > :35:25.of most members of the public, not really have left the European Union

:35:26. > :35:28.at. The things that they were concerned about which still be in

:35:29. > :35:33.force. Things would have got worse. We would have no ability to

:35:34. > :35:42.influence. No ability to influence the rules that we brought them

:35:43. > :35:46.having to take. It seems to me, those members talking about the EEA

:35:47. > :35:49.simply trying to avoid the fact that we are going to be leaving the

:35:50. > :35:54.European Union, trying to remain by the back door. I will go to the

:35:55. > :36:08.right honourable gentleman first. Can he confirm that Norway is not in

:36:09. > :36:13.the EU? And that Norway has been sated, by Leave campaigners as an

:36:14. > :36:19.option we could have followed. We could have been like Norway? Norway

:36:20. > :36:25.is not a member of the European Union. That is true. Part of the

:36:26. > :36:30.reason why I was on the Remain side of the argument, I do not think the

:36:31. > :36:35.Norway deal is very good and should not be followed. Let me finish and

:36:36. > :36:41.showing this point. I promised my right honourable friend first. The

:36:42. > :36:49.point is that the two best options, you are either in the European Union

:36:50. > :36:54.and take everything but you can at least shape rules, or you leave and

:36:55. > :37:02.you're not in the single market, the free movement of people. What Norway

:37:03. > :37:06.has, I think it is a poor option. Subject to the free movement of

:37:07. > :37:13.people, you have got to accept the jurisdiction of the court and you

:37:14. > :37:18.have got no right to influence rules. It is part of the Norwegians,

:37:19. > :37:25.but I do not think that would work for us. I am actually in complete

:37:26. > :37:32.agreement on these particular points. Does he not also think that

:37:33. > :37:39.these constructs, effectively anti chambers? Entry points to the EU? It

:37:40. > :37:46.is inappropriate for a country of our size, to basically rest in

:37:47. > :37:57.something inappropriate? I could not have put that better myself. I just

:37:58. > :38:05.wonder if you could tell the house whether he belives parliament should

:38:06. > :38:14.vote on whether we leave the single market and EEA? I listened as a

:38:15. > :38:19.participant to the arguments in the referendum campaign clearly. And I

:38:20. > :38:24.was on the Remain side of the argument but I am a Democrat. I

:38:25. > :38:30.accept the result. It seems to me, David Cameron when he was Prime

:38:31. > :38:39.Minister, and the rate honourable member four, -- for Tatton, very

:38:40. > :38:44.clear that if the country decided to leave the European Union and B would

:38:45. > :38:49.be leaving the single market. Both David Cameron and my right

:38:50. > :38:55.honourable friend for Tatton, both thought erroneously that that

:38:56. > :38:58.argument would be the slam dunk. That British people would say the

:38:59. > :39:03.single market is absolutely critical and the British public would decide

:39:04. > :39:11.to Remain in the European Union. I will finish my answer. However, the

:39:12. > :39:17.British public are not agree -- did not agree with David Cameron and

:39:18. > :39:21.they accepted that we would be leaving the single market. And

:39:22. > :39:29.leading campaigners on the Leave side made exactly the same point. It

:39:30. > :39:31.is quite right that the then Prime Minister and Chancellor warned that

:39:32. > :39:37.we would be leaving the single market. What some of the Leave

:39:38. > :39:43.campaigners just dismiss that as project fear. And I recollect that

:39:44. > :39:47.the current Foreign Secretary was totally dismissive of that. He said

:39:48. > :39:55.obviously we would retain full membership, because they needed to

:39:56. > :39:58.sell Mercedes, wine! It is not true that everybody on the Leave seder

:39:59. > :40:08.acknowledged that it would be some sort of outside tariff barrier. My

:40:09. > :40:12.right honourable friend is of course correct, that not everybody on the

:40:13. > :40:16.Leave side made that argument. The good news is that I was not on the

:40:17. > :40:20.Leave side so I do not feel any obligation. I do not feel any

:40:21. > :40:27.obligation to defend any of the arguments made.

:40:28. > :40:34.I specifically to speed former pro Minister and former Chancellor

:40:35. > :40:38.because they were on my side of the argument. I think the right

:40:39. > :40:44.honourable member for Surrey Heath who was reading the official We've

:40:45. > :40:52.campaign that he was leading the argument. Giving way to Chair of the

:40:53. > :41:02.official We've campaign, there were many voices to argue for Leave,

:41:03. > :41:08.making it clear in public, voting to leave the single market. I am

:41:09. > :41:13.grateful to the honourable lady for that help for a division which

:41:14. > :41:16.proves my point. I think the decision British people made in the

:41:17. > :41:22.referendum meant leaving the EU which meant leaving the single

:41:23. > :41:27.market which the conclusion has been drawn by the perimeter, one I will

:41:28. > :41:30.support. If the honourable gentleman will forgive you, I want to move

:41:31. > :41:35.onto my fourth point, which is to talk about the issue of EU

:41:36. > :41:40.nationals. There is a number of issues there. I hope, given my

:41:41. > :41:44.experience as a former Immigration Minister, I can at least raise

:41:45. > :41:48.questions which I think those members participating in the debate,

:41:49. > :41:52.and I hope the Minister when he responds to this group of

:41:53. > :41:56.amendments, is able to do with to my satisfaction and the satisfaction of

:41:57. > :42:01.the House. The first point I would make is I completely agree. It would

:42:02. > :42:06.be desirable to be able to put at rest of the mines and concerns of EU

:42:07. > :42:11.nationals in the United Kingdom who are here lawfully and contribute

:42:12. > :42:15.into our country. I think that is important. Let me image by opening

:42:16. > :42:23.remarks and I will take your intervention. I also think it is

:42:24. > :42:26.important to that at rest of the concerns and worries are British

:42:27. > :42:31.citizens living elsewhere in the European Union. After all, the

:42:32. > :42:34.primary duty of the British Government is to look after British

:42:35. > :42:38.citizens. That comes first ahead of all else. I fear that was the

:42:39. > :42:42.honourable gentleman from the opposition front bench was

:42:43. > :42:46.suggesting was effectively, when he said if we couldn't reach an early

:42:47. > :42:51.agreement we should proceed anyway, was that may well put addressed the

:42:52. > :42:56.concerns of EU nationals in Britain, but it seemed to me it was simply

:42:57. > :43:00.throwing overboard the interests and concerns of UK citizens living

:43:01. > :43:04.elsewhere in the European Union. We would not have secured their

:43:05. > :43:12.interests and would have thrown away our ability to do so. The honourable

:43:13. > :43:16.lady. Thank you. 15% of academic staff, I present students and 10% of

:43:17. > :43:20.research students at Cardiff University are from the EU. That he

:43:21. > :43:24.agree with me that there is a significant risk that the EU staff

:43:25. > :43:27.and their spouses will seek employment elsewhere outside the UK

:43:28. > :43:34.if they don't have certainty now from the Government and removes all

:43:35. > :43:39.our intellectual capital. This is why I am pleased that the Prime

:43:40. > :43:43.Minister in her statement today and on other occasions has made it clear

:43:44. > :43:49.that she wants to reach an early agreement as has been seeking to do

:43:50. > :43:55.so with our European partners. What's the parameter has to do in

:43:56. > :44:02.leading our country is look at the interest of British citizens and

:44:03. > :44:12.citizens of... She does not serve British citizens by putting EU

:44:13. > :44:15.nationals are ahead of them. I am a member of the exiting be EU select

:44:16. > :44:19.committee and we heard evidence from a number of British nationals living

:44:20. > :44:24.in Spain, Germany Italy and France eight a few weeks ago. They were

:44:25. > :44:28.members of representative organisations of other British

:44:29. > :44:32.nationals and of them said that, if the UK Government made a unilateral

:44:33. > :44:38.guarantee of the right of UK nationals living year, then the

:44:39. > :44:43.other states would reciprocate. -- EU nationals. I have. The honourable

:44:44. > :44:47.lady has put it in front of the House. I have seen no evidence of

:44:48. > :44:52.that. If I listen to greatly to the pro Minister, it sounds -- correctly

:44:53. > :44:57.to the Prime Minister is as though there are other Government in need

:44:58. > :45:04.of that view. There are clearly more of one not in that view now. It is

:45:05. > :45:08.sensible to get this right was the lightning also, one of the things

:45:09. > :45:14.members of this House ought to be doing, picking up the point from the

:45:15. > :45:20.honourable gentleman from Leicester East, there are EU nationals living

:45:21. > :45:24.in the United Kingdom for some time to actually sort out their resident

:45:25. > :45:28.status on a permanent basis. Members of this House, rather than

:45:29. > :45:32.scaremongering, would do well to put that information in front of their

:45:33. > :45:36.constituents to reassure them, rather than whipping up concern.

:45:37. > :45:45.That meeting the honourable lady once more. The point about the

:45:46. > :45:50.British Government, the national surveys, is that the British

:45:51. > :45:55.Government should take the lead by guaranteeing the rights of EU

:45:56. > :45:59.nationals living in the UK and then other member states would follow

:46:00. > :46:04.suit. Those were the words of British nationals living abroad. It

:46:05. > :46:08.wasn't the British Government that made this decision, it was the

:46:09. > :46:12.decision of the British people far as macro to leave... It is the same

:46:13. > :46:23.thing -- it isn't the same thing. The reason this is, the rights, the

:46:24. > :46:26.people of the United Kingdom decided we were going to leave the European

:46:27. > :46:34.Union. It is not the decision of the Government. If members will forgive

:46:35. > :46:38.me, let me make... I will give way to the chairman of the Treasury

:46:39. > :46:44.Select Committee but then I must make process. He would agree,

:46:45. > :46:48.wouldn't he, that other nationals should not be used as bargaining

:46:49. > :46:59.chips? He will also be a steward at the Treasury Committee has not

:47:00. > :47:04.backed... Damaging the economy. Given that, doesn't he agree that

:47:05. > :47:10.the time has come now to protect these citizens' rights? I completely

:47:11. > :47:16.agree with the value to the economy. I agree with him that is an urgent

:47:17. > :47:23.matter. I have the Prime Minister say that. If I may conclude my

:47:24. > :47:25.remarks on EU nationals and perhaps my honourable friend will see why, I

:47:26. > :47:31.don't think there's a different action is very wise because it can

:47:32. > :47:35.open up a range of complexities which, far from... Let me just

:47:36. > :47:38.finish this, responding to the honourable gentleman before I take

:47:39. > :47:45.the honourable lady pot intervention. Path tonight far from

:47:46. > :47:52.putting people pot minds at rest, it could make things worse. If we are

:47:53. > :47:59.putting the kind of deal on the table which we would expect the

:48:00. > :48:05.other 27 members to offer to the UK citizens, we would set the template

:48:06. > :48:10.and the right tone from the negotiation. This is different from

:48:11. > :48:15.trade. Its as the me, I was listening carefully to the

:48:16. > :48:20.parameter, it sounds to me that the Prime Minister and her ministers are

:48:21. > :48:23.indeed talking to EU member states. And actually trying to get this

:48:24. > :48:28.issue resolved. It seems to be there is a 2-stage process. An agreement

:48:29. > :48:32.in principle by the United Kingdom Government with other EU member

:48:33. > :48:38.states. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman for trying to

:48:39. > :48:44.intervene if but I need to finish replying to the honourable lady. I

:48:45. > :48:49.need to make one more points after my EU nationals point. And I want to

:48:50. > :48:57.get other people be jazz to contribute.

:48:58. > :49:03.CHEERING -- CROWD JEERS

:49:04. > :49:14.Let me as the point. It seems that they are trying to get

:49:15. > :49:17.this issue resolved. It seems to me that it is clearly not being

:49:18. > :49:21.entirely reciprocated by other member states. The approach needs to

:49:22. > :49:27.be twofold. An agreement in principle that we want to guarantee

:49:28. > :49:31.those rights. But also there is a lot of detail to be worked out.

:49:32. > :49:35.These matters are very complicated. I want to draw the attention of the

:49:36. > :49:40.House to what happened last weekend. It seems to me that part of the

:49:41. > :49:44.reason for the mess that the US administration has got itself into

:49:45. > :49:50.is that it produced an executive order, as far as I can tell from

:49:51. > :49:55.outside, it doesn't seem to be have well -- been well thought through

:49:56. > :50:01.with proper legal advice. They have got themselves into trouble in

:50:02. > :50:06.court. Before the intervention of the Home Secretary and Foreign

:50:07. > :50:11.Secretary resolved that matter. I don't want us to move perceptively

:50:12. > :50:15.without thinking this through. I will give an example of things to be

:50:16. > :50:18.sorted out. The various amendments and new courses talk about people

:50:19. > :50:26.lawfully resident in the United Kingdom under the existing treaties

:50:27. > :50:30.-- treatise. That is, get it. Any EU national can come to Britain for any

:50:31. > :50:35.reason for up to three months. If they want to come here for longer

:50:36. > :50:38.than three months they have to be working, looking for work,

:50:39. > :50:41.self-sufficient or a student. If they are self sufficient or a

:50:42. > :50:45.student, they are only lawfully hear if they have come friends of health

:50:46. > :50:50.insurance. We know from those people trying to regularise their status

:50:51. > :50:53.following sensible advice from the Member for Leicester East, many

:50:54. > :50:57.people haven't got that comprehensive health insurance.

:50:58. > :51:02.Technically they are not lawfully hear. We have to be clear when we

:51:03. > :51:06.use these places, because people want to be aware of the complexity.

:51:07. > :51:10.Who are we granting rights to? If we are going to give people clarity and

:51:11. > :51:15.certainty, we have to be very clear about what it is we are doing.

:51:16. > :51:20.Second thing, and people will know this is topical at the moment, is

:51:21. > :51:24.about the NHS and health care. We have a set of reciprocal

:51:25. > :51:28.arrangements with our European union partners for people in those

:51:29. > :51:33.countries. We don't do as well as they do about lodging and doing the

:51:34. > :51:38.Administration and collecting the money. We also want to nature that

:51:39. > :51:41.is going to work. When we have left the European Union. I don't know

:51:42. > :51:46.where we will end up on that. It is important. The point I alluded to in

:51:47. > :51:50.the intervention earlier, it is something which has to be thought

:51:51. > :51:56.about or we will, if we Act hastily, come to regret it. There is, at the

:51:57. > :52:03.end of March last year, the latest figures I can find, there were over

:52:04. > :52:11.4000, 4222 EU nationals currently in prison in British jails. The EU

:52:12. > :52:15.prisoner transfer framework directive, we have the ability when

:52:16. > :52:20.they come out of this into transfer when they are in prison, but when

:52:21. > :52:23.they come out of prison we can start taking action to revoke their status

:52:24. > :52:28.in the United Kingdom. I want to make sure that's in acting out we

:52:29. > :52:33.don't Act hastily and make our ability to remove those people from

:52:34. > :52:39.the UK more difficult. I fear that the new courses and amendments on

:52:40. > :52:43.the order paper in front of us today don't adequately, I think that was

:52:44. > :52:45.reflected by the ads from the shadows mostly, don't adequately

:52:46. > :52:53.deal with that issue. The final point I will make is that the bill

:52:54. > :52:59.before us does one simple thing. Giving the parameter lawful

:53:00. > :53:03.authority to start the negotiation process. I think the Government has

:53:04. > :53:10.been very generous in the time they have made available to debate that

:53:11. > :53:19.matter I think the bill as Curly just does not need to be approved or

:53:20. > :53:24.amended in any way. I would urge... I hope I have sat out reasons why a

:53:25. > :53:29.number of them should be rejected. If any of them were put forward

:53:30. > :53:39.today, I would urge the House to reject them. I rise to support new

:53:40. > :53:42.clause 57 standing in my name and the names of other members of the

:53:43. > :53:46.joint committee on human rights with the support of honourable and Right

:53:47. > :53:50.honourable members on all sides of the House. This is about 3 million

:53:51. > :53:54.people and their families. EU citizens whose future here has been

:53:55. > :54:00.thrown into doubt by the decision in June that the EU should be left by

:54:01. > :54:07.the UK. There is nothing but the cloud of uncertainty which is their

:54:08. > :54:10.own fault. We can, if we agreed the new clause, put their minds at rest

:54:11. > :54:13.and let them look to the future. Honourable members on all sides of

:54:14. > :54:18.the House will know these people whose lives we are talking about

:54:19. > :54:20.here. Some like those from France and Spain have been here for

:54:21. > :54:26.decades. They have children and grandchildren here. They work in and

:54:27. > :54:33.are part of their local committee. It is unthinkable that their

:54:34. > :54:37.families can be divided because we have decided to leave the EU. Let's

:54:38. > :54:41.put their minds at rest and issue a them and their families that our

:54:42. > :54:45.decision to leave the EU want change their right to be here. Their

:54:46. > :54:50.anxiety is palpable. We have all seen it in our surgeries, like the

:54:51. > :54:53.Italian woman, my constituents who came to see me, who has been here

:54:54. > :55:04.for 13 years. Who can't work any more because she is now ill and

:55:05. > :55:06.whose residency rights are now at risk. Some, like those from

:55:07. > :55:09.countries that came recently into the EU like Poland, Romania and

:55:10. > :55:13.Bulgaria are working in sectors that good manage without them. In

:55:14. > :55:16.agriculture, care homes -- in our tourist industry as well. Employers

:55:17. > :55:19.in food production are reporting more difficulty in getting the

:55:20. > :55:21.workers they need. This is happening now. I give way to my honourable

:55:22. > :55:30.friend. This is an amendment that was

:55:31. > :55:34.recommended by the joint committee of human rights but would she agree

:55:35. > :55:37.we are seeing people such as my constituent who was a consultant

:55:38. > :55:42.paediatric surgeon from Sweden who approached me over the New Year most

:55:43. > :55:46.distressed because he wasn't sure about his future status, and he

:55:47. > :55:50.performs really valuable services to the people of the West Midlands in

:55:51. > :55:54.Birmingham Children's Hospital. He had been given advice to seek the

:55:55. > :55:59.services of an immigration lawyer, and that advice had come from his

:56:00. > :56:03.trust. The honourable member is right and there's plenty of evidence

:56:04. > :56:10.on this that came before us on the joint committee of human rights of

:56:11. > :56:13.which he is a valued member. This ongoing uncertainty around the

:56:14. > :56:17.status of EU residents here is allowing greater exploitation of

:56:18. > :56:21.vulnerable EU workers. Last week, appearing before the joint committee

:56:22. > :56:28.of human rights, Margaret Beales, chairman of the gang master

:56:29. > :56:32.licensing authority said evidence is coming to them that gang masters are

:56:33. > :56:37.telling fearful EU workers that they cannot complain about not being paid

:56:38. > :56:42.because if they do they will be deported as they no longer have the

:56:43. > :56:46.right to be here. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are not whipping up the

:56:47. > :56:55.years, we are understanding fears and speaking to address them. It is

:56:56. > :56:59.no good, I'm afraid, the Government issuing warm words. People need

:57:00. > :57:03.certainty. They work in every part of our private sector. They

:57:04. > :57:08.contribute to our creative industries. They are artists,

:57:09. > :57:12.musicians, they work in our public services. If you've been in hospital

:57:13. > :57:17.recently you will very likely have woken to find a Spanish or

:57:18. > :57:23.Portuguese nurse at your bedside. If you've got an older relative in a

:57:24. > :57:28.care you are very likely seeing them being cared for by someone from

:57:29. > :57:33.eastern Europe. I have considerable sympathy with the point the

:57:34. > :57:36.honourable lady is making but we disagree on the fundamental point I

:57:37. > :57:40.think, which is that surely we should not do something unilateral

:57:41. > :57:44.here in the United Kingdom before we have got an agreement about our own

:57:45. > :57:47.residence in Spain, France and elsewhere because we would be

:57:48. > :57:50.potentially undermining their position because they are no doubt

:57:51. > :57:57.feeling the same sense of vulnerability is the one she's just

:57:58. > :58:03.articulated about those living here. I disagree with the honourable

:58:04. > :58:09.gentleman's conclusion. I give way. We also heard evidence in the select

:58:10. > :58:13.committee from community groups representing Polish communities and

:58:14. > :58:16.other Eastern European communities who said they had seen an increase

:58:17. > :58:23.in hate crime, and that they experienced that extremists were

:58:24. > :58:29.exploiting the uncertainty to attack people with phrases like go home,

:58:30. > :58:32.and saying people should leave the country, and the uncertainty the EU

:58:33. > :58:38.citizens felt made it harder for them to deal with these awful hate

:58:39. > :58:40.crimes they were experiencing. My right honourable friend is

:58:41. > :58:50.absolutely right in the point she makes. I will give way. I'm sure

:58:51. > :58:55.many MPs in this chamber have also had constituents from the EU who

:58:56. > :59:00.have tried to seek security by applying for permanent residency and

:59:01. > :59:06.have been turned down, and have received prepared to leave letters.

:59:07. > :59:09.The member from the Forest of Dean mentioned comprehensive health

:59:10. > :59:14.insurance, there is no such thing. You cannot get 100% comprehensive

:59:15. > :59:20.health insurance and previously the NHS was recognised as giving health

:59:21. > :59:23.cover, so why can we not, in this House, give these people are least

:59:24. > :59:29.security on the send and not threaten to throw them out? I

:59:30. > :59:33.absolutely agree with the honourable member. It is not just they and

:59:34. > :59:37.their families that are worried about the uncertainty hanging over

:59:38. > :59:42.them, so our employers for whom they are working. How well our NHS find

:59:43. > :59:46.the nurses they need if they seek work elsewhere because they fear

:59:47. > :59:51.they won't be allowed to stay? It's not as if we are training them

:59:52. > :59:55.ourselves. This year with the cuts in bursaries nursing student numbers

:59:56. > :00:05.have fallen by 23%. This new clause is quite simple... I will give way.

:00:06. > :00:11.Does she realise, I had a conversation recently with the

:00:12. > :00:16.chairman of my trust to set if it wasn't for the young Spanish nurses,

:00:17. > :00:20.Huddersfield Hospital couldn't operate, and another conversation

:00:21. > :00:24.with the LSE where they said if we don't have the Europeans who are

:00:25. > :00:30.good at maths and science, 20% of the workforce in universities would

:00:31. > :00:34.go back home. My honourable friend is right. We cannot be saying we

:00:35. > :00:45.welcome them here to do this work but use them in a bargaining chip in

:00:46. > :00:49.negotiations. Just on that point, I have heard in my surgery

:00:50. > :00:55.constituents coming in in tears and fretting over what will happen to

:00:56. > :00:58.them next in their job. It is not a British value that we use people as

:00:59. > :01:03.bargaining chips in these negotiations. I absolutely agree

:01:04. > :01:10.with my honourable friend. I will give way once more. The honourable

:01:11. > :01:13.lady are sending out a powerful message about British values, and a

:01:14. > :01:18.point that are shared across this House about the importance of giving

:01:19. > :01:23.certainty to EU nationals living here. Can I therefore pressed her

:01:24. > :01:26.about why we need to be careful not to send an equivalent message to

:01:27. > :01:32.British nationals living in the rest of the EU that they are somehow less

:01:33. > :01:34.important and that their concerns, equally valid, equally severely

:01:35. > :01:39.felt, equally worried about what will happen to them, are somehow not

:01:40. > :01:46.going to be any subject which we will address here today or take any

:01:47. > :01:51.count on? Because you simply cannot trade one off against the other like

:01:52. > :01:56.that. This is not an economic trade negotiation. This new clause is

:01:57. > :02:01.quite simple. It says that if you are an EU it soon and you are lawful

:02:02. > :02:06.resident here before the referendum decision on June the 23rd, then your

:02:07. > :02:10.rights of residents will remain unchanged. We need this clause in

:02:11. > :02:15.the bill because the Government has been sending out mixed messages and

:02:16. > :02:20.the Prime Minister did so again in her statement today. On the one hand

:02:21. > :02:25.she says no one who is lawfully here has anything to worry about. On the

:02:26. > :02:28.other hand she says she cannot commit to giving the residency

:02:29. > :02:34.rights because their future must be part of the negotiations. I just

:02:35. > :02:39.cannot feel that it is anyway right to use the lives of 3 million people

:02:40. > :02:44.and their families as a bargaining chip. They and their families are

:02:45. > :02:50.not pawns in a game of poker with the EU. They cannot be used as a

:02:51. > :02:54.human shield as we battle it out in Europe for our UK citizens in other

:02:55. > :03:00.countries abroad. We must decide what is fair and right for EU

:03:01. > :03:04.citizens here and then do it. I thought we were supposed to be

:03:05. > :03:09.taking back control. If the Government rejects this new clause,

:03:10. > :03:12.then EU citizens will be right to draw the conclusion that their

:03:13. > :03:17.rights to continue to live here could be snatched away if our

:03:18. > :03:21.government doesn't get what it wants for our UK citizens living in each

:03:22. > :03:26.of the other countries in Europe. This new clause is not only the

:03:27. > :03:31.right thing to do as a matter of principle, it is legally necessary.

:03:32. > :03:35.The Government cannot bargain away people's human rights. The right to

:03:36. > :03:41.family life is guaranteed by Article eight of the European Convention on

:03:42. > :03:45.human rights. If the Government bargained away, EU citizens living

:03:46. > :03:49.here would be able to go to our courts and seek to establish their

:03:50. > :03:57.rights to remain under Article eight. If even 10% of those he added

:03:58. > :04:00.that, there would be 300,000 court challenges. There is no way our

:04:01. > :04:07.court system could begin to cope with that. This new clause, I hope,

:04:08. > :04:11.will be accepted by the Government, but if not I urge members of all

:04:12. > :04:20.parties to support it in the division lobby. Sir William Cash.

:04:21. > :04:26.Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Could I simply say first of all that the

:04:27. > :04:30.Member for Dorset west was in the chamber a short time ago and made an

:04:31. > :04:36.important point on this particular clause. When you are imposing legal

:04:37. > :04:40.requirements and duties on anybody, let alone the Prime Minister, you

:04:41. > :04:49.have to be sure that what you are doing is actually capable of being

:04:50. > :04:52.realised. I'm afraid to say that certainly my right honourable friend

:04:53. > :04:58.the Member for Forest Dean dealt comprehensively with the question,

:04:59. > :05:04.asked other members, with the difficulties that arise in relation

:05:05. > :05:08.to this new clause which talks about laying periodic reports on the

:05:09. > :05:14.progress of negotiations. I think that case has been made. But when

:05:15. > :05:21.they move onto the next part, the real problem is this, that first of

:05:22. > :05:24.all with respect to subparagraph sea, to make arrangements for

:05:25. > :05:29.Parliamentary scrutiny of confidential documents, I have to

:05:30. > :05:33.say that as chairman of the European scrutiny committee I have had one

:05:34. > :05:39.enormous amount of trouble over and over again about what documents

:05:40. > :05:47.which are described as limitation, which means documents that are

:05:48. > :05:51.distributed but not allowed to be referred to by other parliaments

:05:52. > :05:54.when they are distributed because they have this nature of

:05:55. > :06:00.confidentiality. I happen to think some of this is overdone, and I've

:06:01. > :06:06.made that position quite clear, but I have to say that to try to impose

:06:07. > :06:14.a legal duty on the Prime Minister to give an undertaking to break the

:06:15. > :06:20.rules relating to limite documents is stretching the point to the point

:06:21. > :06:25.of absurdity. I just want to ask the same question I asked of his

:06:26. > :06:29.colleague who spoke earlier, and that is shouldn't he be arguing, as

:06:30. > :06:33.somebody who has spent a great deal of his time in Parliament

:06:34. > :06:37.scrutinising the European Union, the arguing for members of this House to

:06:38. > :06:51.have the same rights of scrutiny at least equal to those of the members

:06:52. > :06:54.of the European Parliament? My right honourable friend, the Member for

:06:55. > :06:58.Brexit, has made it clear, in the House of Lords he gave evidence and

:06:59. > :07:01.as I understand it he made it abundantly clear that any documents

:07:02. > :07:06.that would be made available to the European Parliament and its

:07:07. > :07:11.committees would indeed be made available to this House, so to that

:07:12. > :07:14.extent not only do I agree with the honourable gentleman but I also

:07:15. > :07:21.believe it is unnecessary and it is not necessary because it's already

:07:22. > :07:29.been given by way of an undertaking of the Secretary of State. Given

:07:30. > :07:32.that new clause three sections the says make arrangements for

:07:33. > :07:35.Parliamentary scrutiny of confidential documents, in his

:07:36. > :07:39.experience how long does he think the contents of those documents

:07:40. > :07:43.would remain confidential if they were made available for

:07:44. > :07:50.Parliamentary scrutiny? They certainly would not and that's

:07:51. > :07:54.really the purpose of this limite restriction. I can think of a number

:07:55. > :07:58.of instances where it is absolutely vital they remain confidential, and

:07:59. > :08:02.indeed if there were to be any breach of it, and it would have to

:08:03. > :08:06.be released by an undertaking by the Prime Minister that she would

:08:07. > :08:10.release it, it could actually completely gum up the works to such

:08:11. > :08:14.extent in relation to matters of intelligence and security and all

:08:15. > :08:16.sorts of things, that actually we would end up with not receiving any

:08:17. > :08:34.documents at all which came under the rubric

:08:35. > :08:37.of limite. I will say it is a perfectly fair point, but in

:08:38. > :08:45.drafting this if you end up with something that doesn't work and you

:08:46. > :08:51.have to comply with paragraphs A, B and C to make it work, you would end

:08:52. > :08:54.up in the course because there would be judicial review over this,

:08:55. > :09:00.believe me there would, it naturally follows, and it's all I need to say,

:09:01. > :09:03.the new clause simply is nonsense and it cannot therefore be brought

:09:04. > :09:07.into effect because it doesn't make sense and it cannot be brought into

:09:08. > :09:19.effect. That is all I need to say on that particular new clause. First of

:09:20. > :09:24.all, if I can move the amendments in my name and that of my honourable

:09:25. > :09:28.colleagues, and also say that I'm glad we have the opportunity to

:09:29. > :09:32.discuss and debate this issue over the coming days. We've been given

:09:33. > :09:37.very little time to do so but I think it is fair to say that this is

:09:38. > :09:41.not scrutiny that the Government either welcomed or encouraged, so it

:09:42. > :09:45.is good at least to have a short opportunity to debate this. I have

:09:46. > :09:48.to say that I think this says more about the confidence they have in

:09:49. > :09:52.their own arguments and ability to deliver a better deal with the EU

:09:53. > :09:58.partners than the one we have at present than it does anything to do

:09:59. > :10:00.with the scrutiny process. The Government have been dragged kicking

:10:01. > :10:06.and screaming to this chamber just to have a vote on Article 50 in the

:10:07. > :10:10.first place. We have the situation on Thursday, the last sitting day

:10:11. > :10:15.when the white paper was introduced, when we got the white paper as the

:10:16. > :10:18.Secretary of State was getting to his feet. I thought that was pretty

:10:19. > :10:29.disrespectful of the entire house. It failed to put my mentor the ease

:10:30. > :10:33.and the minds of many MPs in this House about the way the Government

:10:34. > :10:38.is conducting the process. But it is something of a metaphor for the

:10:39. > :10:43.entire Brexit process, rushed without proper scrutiny and didn't

:10:44. > :10:46.get its facts right. Quite remarkable considering the amount of

:10:47. > :10:51.time they had to prepare the white paper. This could not be a more

:10:52. > :10:56.important process, one of the most important that anyone in this House

:10:57. > :11:00.will ever take part in. I think it is a more important progress,

:11:01. > :11:14.certainly, about the debate over wages. -- wigs. This will have an

:11:15. > :11:20.impact on us all, jobs, taxes and economy. Against stiff competition,

:11:21. > :11:26.some have argued that is the craziest political decision of 2016

:11:27. > :11:31.was the one to elect Donald Trump president. One we have certainly

:11:32. > :11:36.welcome to the Speaker's announcement today. The good people

:11:37. > :11:40.of the United States, should they wish to do so, have the ability to

:11:41. > :11:44.reverse the decision that they made in November and is one we do not

:11:45. > :11:50.have any likelihood of reversing any time symptoms of a load the four

:11:51. > :11:55.years might seem a long way away for many in the United States, here, the

:11:56. > :12:00.mistakes made by the Government, any lack of scrutiny as a result will be

:12:01. > :12:03.felt down the generations of policymakers in this place we

:12:04. > :12:09.represent and time beyond. For such a big decision, the ability to have

:12:10. > :12:17.any meaning fills Brittany is woeful. The -- meaningful scrutiny.

:12:18. > :12:22.The entire point of as sitting here and having a parliament in the first

:12:23. > :12:29.place... I'll remind this side of the House that is the SNP won the

:12:30. > :12:37.election with 47% of the vote. The highest proportion of the vote. The

:12:38. > :12:42.Holyrood election took place this year which tells it all you need to

:12:43. > :12:52.know about the attention during this year. Also, in 2015, we won the vote

:12:53. > :12:59.with Ford is present, they won the election with 36% of the vote. I am

:13:00. > :13:07.pleased that Scotland track down the UK average. There is the role of

:13:08. > :13:14.opposition parties in Hollywood -- Holyrood to take account of

:13:15. > :13:18.decisions they make to impact everyone of us. Decision to leave

:13:19. > :13:23.the European Union will involve one of the greatest evils since this

:13:24. > :13:29.parliament came into existence in 1801. We should be given more time

:13:30. > :13:32.to consider the invitations on our constituents, the economy and on our

:13:33. > :13:39.European partners that we are being given. That is why on this side of

:13:40. > :13:42.the House we will back any moves to give the parliament more scrutiny

:13:43. > :13:47.over that. That's scrutiny and the importance of scrutiny is made all

:13:48. > :13:56.the more important is by the lack of detail that was provided by members

:13:57. > :14:00.of the vote Leave campaign. Responsibility of the members of

:14:01. > :14:07.previous Government and present members. Significant questions were

:14:08. > :14:13.left on as the debate and Votes We've didn't give us the details so

:14:14. > :14:27.we have responsibility as -- vote leave. She and other members of the

:14:28. > :14:32.House opposite were elected, the Prime Minister, is it the case

:14:33. > :14:38.Scotland would be allowed to discuss immigration numbers? How much extra

:14:39. > :14:47.cash are they getting? Before Article 50 took place, who are

:14:48. > :14:53.accountable for the promises made? I haven't heard an answer so far. On

:14:54. > :14:57.the point of EU nationals, and a number of my colleagues will want to

:14:58. > :15:02.touch upon this. It is easy to see why we are backing the amendments in

:15:03. > :15:06.order to give EU nationals the right to remain. We are richer financially

:15:07. > :15:16.and culturally as a result of European nationals in Scotland and

:15:17. > :15:20.other parts of the UK. My honourable friend makes some very valid points.

:15:21. > :15:26.Will we not also the judge by the leadership and humanity we give

:15:27. > :15:29.them? Those EU citizens here are our friends, our neighbours, our work

:15:30. > :15:33.colleagues and we have a duty to stand by the rights that they have.

:15:34. > :15:37.The Prime Minister must send out a clear message that those here are

:15:38. > :15:42.broken to stay here. We must remove that uncertainty and do it now. My

:15:43. > :15:54.honourable friend, as usual, makes a pertinent spite. Indeed, I won't

:15:55. > :16:00.studs let me deal with this point. My honourable friend makes a good

:16:01. > :16:09.point and I they do respect to the work he has done for the families

:16:10. > :16:12.and others in his constituency. EU nationals have chosen to make the UK

:16:13. > :16:17.and Scotland their home. They make it a better place in which to live

:16:18. > :16:22.and work. It strikes me as a no-brainer, Madam Deputy Speaker,

:16:23. > :16:28.that we give them about the EU nationals, the certainty they

:16:29. > :16:33.deserve. North East Fife member is making a note inside. I agree with

:16:34. > :16:37.many of the points, but would he agree it is a Mexican stand-off with

:16:38. > :16:46.water pistols? There is no hope, no realistic chance that any signatory

:16:47. > :16:52.of the... Is going to kick out anybody from the United Kingdom? Nor

:16:53. > :16:58.our European union citizens, UK citizens rather, in other parts of

:16:59. > :17:05.the EU going to be expelled. Their position is not address, will he

:17:06. > :17:09.recognise, wouldn't we be better comforting those in doubt rather

:17:10. > :17:19.than spreading fear? The honourable member makes my point for me. As of,

:17:20. > :17:23.there is threat from his very Government, does it not make sense

:17:24. > :17:28.to come into the lobbies with him, and I look forward to welcoming him,

:17:29. > :17:39.to support the right of due -- EU nationals delivered work. I thank

:17:40. > :17:46.him for joining us. He has more influence on the benches than I do,

:17:47. > :17:50.but the Government is in need of friends and goodwill. If we benefit

:17:51. > :17:57.financially from EU nationals being here, if hours society is richer for

:17:58. > :18:05.them, we want to keep them regardless. These are not bargaining

:18:06. > :18:09.chips. That is something. If EU nationals are not bargaining chips,

:18:10. > :18:15.I would encourage the member to join as in the lobbies and give them the

:18:16. > :18:22.uncertain -- certainty they need and deserve. The situation is made worse

:18:23. > :18:29.accepting what the honourable member said in the benches, to pick, for

:18:30. > :18:34.example, the EU National in my constituency, it's her against my

:18:35. > :18:47.friend in the Netherlands. Does not in any way studs it makes their

:18:48. > :18:51.suggestions worse. The honourable member makes a good point and I am

:18:52. > :18:56.not surprised because of the work he has done for EU nationals in his

:18:57. > :19:07.constituency. If members of that House are so confident

:19:08. > :19:15.in the ECHR, I look forward to him voting against his own Government. I

:19:16. > :19:21.look forward to the honourable member in joining us, if there is no

:19:22. > :19:25.problem in terms of the ECHR, they will have no problem whatsoever in

:19:26. > :19:36.joining ours in the voting lobbies. If I could move on. In terms of

:19:37. > :19:39.scrutiny. All of this will have an impact on the devilish and bruises,

:19:40. > :19:50.be it in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. -- devolution. We

:19:51. > :19:56.are in a situation where an unelected House of Lords will have a

:19:57. > :20:01.greater say on this process than the devolved legislatures. No Government

:20:02. > :20:05.regardless of colour has a monopoly on wisdom. The whole point of having

:20:06. > :20:09.a parliament is that we have scrutiny, courage of our

:20:10. > :20:15.convictions, and this place has a contribution. If this Government

:20:16. > :20:20.knows what it is doing and has any kind of the plan, it should welcome

:20:21. > :20:25.the scrutiny because fundamentally the scrutiny in the chamber here and

:20:26. > :20:32.elsewhere in these islands will provide better legislation.

:20:33. > :20:35.Something that is of such enormity that we will undertake, they have a

:20:36. > :20:40.responsible at it for this to be scrutinised as far as they can. Do

:20:41. > :20:44.not underestimate the impact of the decision that we are about to make

:20:45. > :20:53.this week. It will impact on our rights, on our economy, on each and

:20:54. > :20:56.every one of us. We will strengthen anything that encourages scrutiny

:20:57. > :21:01.over this process. The Government 's's Rickard has not been a good

:21:02. > :21:07.one. I am not heartened by what I have seen so far in terms of a white

:21:08. > :21:12.paper that couldn't get its facts right, and we owe a debt of this

:21:13. > :21:20.possibility to people across the UK and beyond -- responsibility to give

:21:21. > :21:25.more scrutiny, and I beg to move those amendments. Therefore I call

:21:26. > :21:30.the next colleague to speak, it will be obvious to the House that a great

:21:31. > :21:35.many people wish to take this afternoon. There are in excess of

:21:36. > :21:43.the new causes and amendments to be discussed. We have two hours and 45

:21:44. > :21:49.minutes left to do that. I hope that members will be courteous to other

:21:50. > :21:57.members and keep their remarks as brief as possible. I appreciate

:21:58. > :22:02.these are accommodated, it is good to have proper debate and

:22:03. > :22:13.discussion, but let's avoid rhetoric and repetition. Point of order, Mr

:22:14. > :22:17.Clark? I agree with you, it is quite obvious that the timetable motion we

:22:18. > :22:22.have is not going to allow proper debate by the vast majority of

:22:23. > :22:27.members of the House, I have never known a debate on any European issue

:22:28. > :22:35.to be given such limited time. Has anyone approached you to readdress

:22:36. > :22:38.the timetable motion on the House so we can have the sensible, protracted

:22:39. > :22:46.discussion on these issues that we have had almost to excess on the

:22:47. > :22:54.previous occasions? Just before... Let me take the further point of

:22:55. > :22:59.order first. When I was considering the Government lies motion, for a

:23:00. > :23:03.two course built, two days extraordinarily on second reading,

:23:04. > :23:13.three full days of protracted time to allow as to sit late with a

:23:14. > :23:18.finger, sees the light -- with a statement seems excessive. The Chief

:23:19. > :23:21.Whip makes a good point was not a point of order form the chair but

:23:22. > :23:27.one I would expect a Chief Whip to make. Let me set the right

:23:28. > :23:33.honourable gentleman's mind at rest on two points. The first is that,

:23:34. > :23:36.although there is in excess of 50 amendments and new causes, some of

:23:37. > :23:43.them addressed the same points as others. We are not addressing more

:23:44. > :23:48.than 50 separate point of debate. The other points which I would, of

:23:49. > :23:52.course, draw to the right honourable gentleman's attention is that the

:23:53. > :24:00.House has voted for and supported the programme motion, and it is not

:24:01. > :24:07.a matter for me. I am sure that I can rely on search Hugo Swire to

:24:08. > :24:12.adjust the House briefly. I will not repeat many of the arguments that my

:24:13. > :24:18.friends and colleagues have made. Again and again throughout this

:24:19. > :24:22.evening. I wish to talk about the two causes which have dominated

:24:23. > :24:28.proceedings to date. One rather less emotional than the other. The

:24:29. > :24:33.unemotional one being new clause three. We have thoughts about the

:24:34. > :24:38.parliamentary oversight of negotiation. We have heard scrutiny,

:24:39. > :24:43.the words that is about across the chamber this afternoon. I sometimes

:24:44. > :24:46.get the impression that there are some in the chamber who would seek

:24:47. > :24:52.to scrutinise every single line across in every -- cross every tea

:24:53. > :24:58.and. Every eye across the Government's position. How many

:24:59. > :25:05.members in this House have ever actually taken part in a commercial

:25:06. > :25:16.negotiation, one which requires at times to keep one's cars doing the

:25:17. > :25:24.cards close before declaring them. It is irresponsible... Inserting

:25:25. > :25:29.clauses so that anything discussed effectively has to be reported back

:25:30. > :25:33.to this House. At intervals of no more than two months. No more than

:25:34. > :25:38.eight weeks each and every time. What he doesn't say is what then are

:25:39. > :25:43.limits might actually do if they don't like what the Government is

:25:44. > :25:48.reporting back. Do they want to vote on it?

:25:49. > :25:56.We've heard about the possibility of legal involvement, judicial review.

:25:57. > :26:00.It is wholly unrealistic and undesirable. Subsection six make

:26:01. > :26:04.arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of confidential documents,

:26:05. > :26:11.I've already alluded to that. There are ways in this House where the

:26:12. > :26:15.Privy Council and so forth can see sensitive information. The former

:26:16. > :26:20.house could scrutinise confidential documents without those confidential

:26:21. > :26:25.documents leaking pretty quickly on Twitter or Facebook or into the

:26:26. > :26:33.national newspapers is again wholly unrealistic. How can you possibly

:26:34. > :26:37.conduct any sort of negotiation, particularly as difficult and

:26:38. > :26:44.sensitive as these negotiations are set to be in the glare of publicity,

:26:45. > :26:50.revealing to each and every member of this House, and no doubt there

:26:51. > :26:53.will be calls to do the same to devolved administrations of

:26:54. > :26:59.confidential documents. I think that would be completely crazy. A new

:27:00. > :27:05.clause six on the other hand, I do have considerable sympathy with

:27:06. > :27:11.those who have spoken about the uncertainty surrounding the status

:27:12. > :27:16.of EU nationals in this country as these negotiations begin. It is on

:27:17. > :27:24.suckling for a lot of these people, it is true that they do contribute

:27:25. > :27:30.enormously towards society, to our public sector, health sector, indeed

:27:31. > :27:35.to our agricultural businesses and so forth. We actually need them

:27:36. > :27:43.here, and I do have considerable sympathy with their predicament. I

:27:44. > :27:47.agree with my right honourable friend entirely, we need to sort

:27:48. > :27:51.this out very early on indeed. The Prime Minister said precisely that

:27:52. > :27:55.only a short while ago. Does he not agree with me part of the issue is

:27:56. > :27:59.the unwillingness of some of our interlocutors to engage in

:28:00. > :28:04.meaningful discussion prior to the triggering of Article 50 and surely

:28:05. > :28:09.this can be dealt with early on but it requires them to engage

:28:10. > :28:13.immediately and not delay until after Article 50. I do agree with

:28:14. > :28:18.that because it cuts both ways. I don't think anyone is talking about

:28:19. > :28:21.bargaining chips but it does require an early resolution and I was

:28:22. > :28:24.heartened by what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister

:28:25. > :28:29.said earlier today that this was something she intended to address

:28:30. > :28:37.early, but it has to be a negotiation between them and us. It

:28:38. > :28:40.is as important to us as rich as parliamentarians to defend the

:28:41. > :28:44.rights of British citizens living overseas and there are a lot of them

:28:45. > :28:47.and not all of them are contributing particularly to the society, a lot

:28:48. > :28:52.of them are retired so they are even more vulnerable innocents than many

:28:53. > :28:56.of the EU workers here actively working. It is the first duty of

:28:57. > :29:02.this House to look after British citizens wherever they may be but

:29:03. > :29:06.also being aware that we have a duty to EU nationals at the same time so

:29:07. > :29:12.I think again it would become clearly wrong in terms of

:29:13. > :29:15.negotiating, in terms of our negotiating position, to declare

:29:16. > :29:19.unilaterally that all EU nationals up to a certain date can continue to

:29:20. > :29:27.live here without any fear or favour. I think that would be unwise

:29:28. > :29:30.until such a time as we can extract a similar agreement from the other

:29:31. > :29:36.countries of the EU where British nationals have lived sometimes for

:29:37. > :29:41.many, many years. Of course I give way to my right honourable friend.

:29:42. > :29:46.I'm delighted to hear my honourable friend agree to what everyone has

:29:47. > :29:51.said so far, that there is nobody in this House who wishes to cast any

:29:52. > :29:56.doubt on the right of EU nationals to continue living lawful here if

:29:57. > :30:01.they are lawfully here now. Apparently the only reason for him

:30:02. > :30:05.holding back, despite the fact he shares sentiments of members

:30:06. > :30:10.opposite absolutely entirely, is he fears there is some unknown European

:30:11. > :30:15.country who, if we declare that a Polish person who's been living here

:30:16. > :30:19.for years can stay here, we've thrown away our card and British

:30:20. > :30:22.nationals we expel by the Government, I've heard nobody

:30:23. > :30:26.suggests that any such country exists. We have a pedantic problem

:30:27. > :30:30.about whether we can raise it before the process has started. If we just

:30:31. > :30:46.clear the position of our EU nationals now, Edward Butler -- it

:30:47. > :30:52.would put but most pressure on other countries to do the same. He and I

:30:53. > :30:56.were on the same side during this debate, and I would regret all of

:30:57. > :31:00.the discussions about immigration indeed some rather irresponsible

:31:01. > :31:03.points being made repeatedly during the whole Brexit debate about who

:31:04. > :31:08.would be able to come here from the Commonwealth when there was no such

:31:09. > :31:12.suggestion that this was behind anyone's thinking. But I

:31:13. > :31:16.fundamentally disagree with my right honourable friend, I do not think we

:31:17. > :31:19.should do anything unilateral before we get an agreement about the rights

:31:20. > :31:26.of British nationals living in the rest of the EU. Would my right

:31:27. > :31:31.honourable friend. Agree with me that if the matter was a simple of

:31:32. > :31:36.just making a simple declaration, why isn't it the European Union and

:31:37. > :31:41.other 27 countries don't say that our citizens who are living overseas

:31:42. > :31:51.will be fine? They won't make that commitment, so that say something.

:31:52. > :31:54.It may or it may not, and we have not seen any evidence a single

:31:55. > :31:59.country would not behave in a good way, but there is no evidence they

:32:00. > :32:03.will behave in a good way. We simply don't know because we have not yet

:32:04. > :32:10.have that conversation, and until we have that debate, and until we

:32:11. > :32:13.secure that agreement, we should not move to allow every single person in

:32:14. > :32:16.the EU to continue to live here until we have secured similar rights

:32:17. > :32:24.for British citizens living in other EU countries. If they genuinely

:32:25. > :32:28.believe that could be the case and there are countries who won't be

:32:29. > :32:33.prepared to do this, shouldn't we now more than ever lead by example?

:32:34. > :32:37.Earlier the Prime Minister was asked about this and she gave a very

:32:38. > :32:42.strong suggestion that this was at the top of her negotiating priority

:32:43. > :32:46.to secure such a deal, but at the end of the day it is a deal and it

:32:47. > :32:52.has to be negotiated and I do not think we would be right to

:32:53. > :32:59.unilaterally declare anything. Doesn't he think a unilateral

:33:00. > :33:06.declaration would actually undo some of the damage done by the list of

:33:07. > :33:11.foreign workers stuff that came out of the Tory conference in Birmingham

:33:12. > :33:18.that shot some of our EU partners and hardened their views against us?

:33:19. > :33:21.I agree, I do think the language and sensitivity is incredibly important.

:33:22. > :33:25.We are dealing with families here who are married to EU citizens, we

:33:26. > :33:30.are dealing with people who live here. We don't know if they've got a

:33:31. > :33:33.future here, this is why we have to resolve it early on and I have

:33:34. > :33:40.considerable sympathy with many people who have spoken on this about

:33:41. > :33:43.the contribution that EU nationals have, and I hope we can reach an

:33:44. > :33:47.agreement that will satisfy all those who are here but I think our

:33:48. > :33:54.first duty is to look after our citizens abroad. I thank the

:33:55. > :33:59.honourable member for giving way and he's talked about the issues

:34:00. > :34:05.citizens face when their partner is an EU national, but would he agree

:34:06. > :34:10.there are children, who have raised concerns about whether they will be

:34:11. > :34:16.studying in the same school, they don't know the country their parents

:34:17. > :34:23.grew up in, and this is giving huge uncertainty. We can do this, and we

:34:24. > :34:27.can do this this week. We can all cite examples about individuals

:34:28. > :34:31.cases and I'm not sure that contributes to the greater argument,

:34:32. > :34:34.what we need to get is a policy in place which covers this and that

:34:35. > :34:38.policy can only be achieved by the Prime Minister making it her

:34:39. > :34:41.priority, as she has suggested she would do, and getting an agreement

:34:42. > :34:45.from the other member states that this is something that would

:34:46. > :34:51.continue with the reciprocity that the need for British people abroad.

:34:52. > :34:55.My right honourable friend is right to be concerned about the fate of

:34:56. > :34:59.British citizens living in the European Union, but would he agree

:35:00. > :35:03.with me, I have a couple in my constituency who have been married,

:35:04. > :35:08.living together in this country for 30 years. I consider his wife to be

:35:09. > :35:12.as British as anybody else, and I agree with others who have said

:35:13. > :35:16.surely a goodwill gesture would be a really positive thing for this

:35:17. > :35:20.Government to make because I believe it is inconceivable for this couple

:35:21. > :35:24.to be separated and for their children to be left with their

:35:25. > :35:32.parents separated. We should make that absolutely clear. Indeed, no

:35:33. > :35:35.doubt there are not dissimilar situations in Spain and France

:35:36. > :35:39.elsewhere and we need to make sure their rights are recognised as well.

:35:40. > :35:44.I'm not going to continue in this vein because there are others who

:35:45. > :35:48.wish to come in. I have made my point, I have sympathy, I hope there

:35:49. > :35:53.is an early agreement EU nationals can stay and continue to work here.

:35:54. > :35:57.Any such agreement to my way of thinking has to be part of a wider

:35:58. > :36:10.agreement ensuring the future of EU nationals living in other countries.

:36:11. > :36:14.I would commend the speeches made by my honourable friend, but the one

:36:15. > :36:19.thing I would say to add to the case she put, when we have evidence

:36:20. > :36:23.before the select committee from people representing Brits living

:36:24. > :36:27.abroad, one might have expected them to make the argument we have just

:36:28. > :36:31.heard advanced, but actually they set the opposite, they said Britain

:36:32. > :36:42.should give a unilateral commitment now because they felt it would ease

:36:43. > :36:45.the process of negotiation. I wasn't at that committee, I'm quite

:36:46. > :37:00.interested, was evidence taken from the ambassadors form EU companies --

:37:01. > :37:06.from EU companies? No, evidence was not taken, but from memory almost

:37:07. > :37:10.all of the member states are up for this apart from one or two and I

:37:11. > :37:14.hope they will change their mind so we can make progress on this. Could

:37:15. > :37:21.I say to the honourable member for the Forest of Dean, on his answer to

:37:22. > :37:25.my honourable friend for Lewisham East when she said we should have a

:37:26. > :37:29.vote on certain aspects of the nature of our withdrawal, he said no

:37:30. > :37:32.because during the course of the referendum campaign it was made

:37:33. > :37:38.clear by leading participants that this is what would happen if we

:37:39. > :37:41.voted to leave. Therefore it is gospel, we cannot argue with it. I

:37:42. > :37:47.would say that's an interesting argument because on that basis the

:37:48. > :37:52.NHS will be getting ?350 million a week because that's what said would

:37:53. > :37:56.be the consequence of leaving. The central argument the honourable

:37:57. > :38:06.gentleman made at the beginning of his speech was to get up and say

:38:07. > :38:11.what is this adding, new clause three? I say it is about

:38:12. > :38:15.accountability. Insofar as it's been argued it is unnecessary because we

:38:16. > :38:20.are doing it already, well if we are doing it already why is there a

:38:21. > :38:25.problem about the Government accepting it? Then there was the

:38:26. > :38:33.argument the Government would be forced to reveal all sorts of stuff.

:38:34. > :38:37.All it says is, there would be periodic reports, the content of

:38:38. > :38:39.those reports would be for the Government to determine. There's

:38:40. > :38:47.nothing here about forcing the Government to reveal its hand, and

:38:48. > :38:50.when it comes to getting in English the documents which the European

:38:51. > :39:00.Commission is giving to the European Parliament in probably English,

:39:01. > :39:04.surely there cannot be any argument about that at all. It is entirely

:39:05. > :39:08.sensible. On the point about confidential documents, and I

:39:09. > :39:12.listened carefully to what he has said, the honourable member for

:39:13. > :39:15.stone, I raised this with the Secretary of State when I was

:39:16. > :39:19.elected as the chair of the select committee and he replied to me in a

:39:20. > :39:22.letter and said "Negotiations will be fast moving and often cover

:39:23. > :39:29.sensitive material so we will need to find the right ways of engaging

:39:30. > :39:33.Parliament," and I welcomed that reply, and all this says is the

:39:34. > :39:37.Government should make arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of

:39:38. > :39:41.confidential documents. I cannot help making the point that it may be

:39:42. > :39:46.the arrangements, given the extent to which Brussels is a very leaky

:39:47. > :39:49.place and when you are negotiating with 27 other member states, I

:39:50. > :39:55.suspect we will find out shortly after the meeting has concluded

:39:56. > :39:59.where the negotiations have got to. We can buy certain newspapers in

:40:00. > :40:03.which one can read what has been discussed during the course of the

:40:04. > :40:08.afternoon and evening. The main point I was making, and I stand by

:40:09. > :40:13.it is this, that new clause three imposes a legal obligation

:40:14. > :40:18.enforceable by judicial review on the Prime Minister effectively, not

:40:19. > :40:21.effectively but actually and legally, to break the

:40:22. > :40:29.confidentiality which is imposed for example by these limite documents

:40:30. > :40:33.and I'm quite sure that, as I said I don't subscribe to the degrees of

:40:34. > :40:35.confidentiality sometimes but that's a personal view, but the fact is it

:40:36. > :40:46.is a legal obligation. I would say to the Honourable

:40:47. > :40:57.general bull gentleman who has graded tunes in these matters, in

:40:58. > :41:01.terms of trading nations the last... Was this cause is sent to the

:41:02. > :41:04.Government, find a way of making it work which is consistent. Of course

:41:05. > :41:08.it will have to be consistent with any legal obligations that are. It

:41:09. > :41:15.doesn't seem to be a very shocked arguing, nor does the argument... On

:41:16. > :41:20.that basis, we might as well go home tonight and never come back because

:41:21. > :41:25.Parliament legislates, and when that happens, people can go to the courts

:41:26. > :41:28.and seek to suggest that the way the legislation has been in fermented is

:41:29. > :41:34.not great. That is not an argument against new clause, but an argument

:41:35. > :41:38.against Parliament is doing its job. Having listened to the speeches from

:41:39. > :41:41.that side, I would say to the reasonable minister, I hope we won't

:41:42. > :41:51.hear him getting up and repeats the arrogance we have it in terms of new

:41:52. > :41:55.clause three, but frankly it is simply an sensible staff to help

:41:56. > :41:59.Parliament to its job. As he will know, the Secretary of state, when

:42:00. > :42:05.Mike right honourable friend and Leonard friend from St Pancras, the

:42:06. > :42:10.Minister, the Secretary of state got up and said it may be a modest

:42:11. > :42:18.objective. If it is modest, I don't see how the Government can oppose

:42:19. > :42:25.it. I don't propose to speak for very long. Mr Gemma, I have been

:42:26. > :42:31.wrestling with this matter for months, in particular over the

:42:32. > :42:35.course of this weekend. This is a matter for this weekend. Not just

:42:36. > :42:40.affecting my constituents in South Leicestershire, many of them coming

:42:41. > :42:44.to me and explaining the problems, for example, as has been mentioned,

:42:45. > :42:49.children in school. I remember the 1970s being the son of Italian

:42:50. > :42:56.immigrants in Glasgow. I remember what it felt to be like the only son

:42:57. > :43:00.of an immigrant in a classroom full of Scottish people. And I don't want

:43:01. > :43:07.any EU national child across the United Kingdom feeling the way that

:43:08. > :43:14.I felt at times in school in the 1970s. But there is more than simply

:43:15. > :43:17.anecdotal at the back evidence that the situation caused because of

:43:18. > :43:22.Brexit is affecting the well-being of families. Concerns have been

:43:23. > :43:32.raised by the members for Rushcliffe, I have nothing but the

:43:33. > :43:38.utmost respect, EU nationals, as I have argued with colleagues in here,

:43:39. > :43:43.and we should be seeing more loudly, have didgeridoos like my parents

:43:44. > :43:55.over 50 years and enormous amount. -- have contributed. And I want to

:43:56. > :43:59.hear members saying that daily. Because those 3 million people plus,

:44:00. > :44:05.people who have integrated and have come from every one of the member

:44:06. > :44:09.states, it is often said during the EU referendum that perhaps there was

:44:10. > :44:14.a cost consequence to having them. I always believed that that was utter

:44:15. > :44:19.rubbish. We benefited as a country by having immigrants come into the

:44:20. > :44:24.United Kingdom. The fact is, we will continue to benefit because, when

:44:25. > :44:29.all of this is over, we will still continue to have EU migrants coming

:44:30. > :44:36.into this country. The difference will be, that it will be this

:44:37. > :44:39.Parliament and a Government, whether Conservative, Labour or otherwise,

:44:40. > :44:46.that will determine the immigration rules. I cannot foresee a situation

:44:47. > :44:51.where a competent British Government would attempt to reduce the levels

:44:52. > :44:57.of immigration that would damage our economy. Which leads me to the point

:44:58. > :45:01.made by an honourable friend of mine in a newspaper recently about a

:45:02. > :45:05.promise made in the Conservative manifesto which we did not keep and

:45:06. > :45:09.cannot keep. We cannot get immigration down to the tens of

:45:10. > :45:22.thousands without damaging our economy. However, I have decided to

:45:23. > :45:25.vote against the amendment. As I said at the outset, I wrestled with

:45:26. > :45:34.this decision because it affects my family personally. I have explained

:45:35. > :45:38.why -- I will explain why it was I have decided to do this because,

:45:39. > :45:46.ultimately, the deal that will be reached with the EU will not be

:45:47. > :45:50.wholly legal. It will be political. It will be about personalities. It

:45:51. > :45:54.will be about how the Prime Minister and her team get on with the other

:45:55. > :46:02.side. Had I been Prime Minister in July of last year, I'd may well have

:46:03. > :46:06.taken a different decision. But today, I made a comment to the

:46:07. > :46:09.finest of very clearly that I am putting my entire trust in her and

:46:10. > :46:14.her ministers to honour the promise that they are giving to the country

:46:15. > :46:20.to get an early deal. And I added to my leader of my party that it would

:46:21. > :46:25.be a decisive mark of her negotiating skills and leadership

:46:26. > :46:32.qualities as Prime Minister. I believe she will get a reciprocal

:46:33. > :46:37.deal that benefits citizens from Scotland, from Northern Ireland,

:46:38. > :46:42.from England and from Wales that lived in other EU member states, as

:46:43. > :46:45.well as protecting my own family and friends, my own constituents, and

:46:46. > :46:57.other EU nationals across the United Kingdom. So, Mr Deputy Chairman,

:46:58. > :47:01.that is why I am voting against this announcement. Ultimately, it is a

:47:02. > :47:04.political matter. It is for the Prime Minister to demonstrate her

:47:05. > :47:09.leadership skills, negotiation skills in getting this right. Coming

:47:10. > :47:14.back to this dispatch box within months of triggering Article 50,

:47:15. > :47:20.within months! With this early deal that we can all agree to and thank

:47:21. > :47:24.her for by the benefit of all our constituents living abroad and the

:47:25. > :47:28.benefits of EU nationals living in our constituents. I was just

:47:29. > :47:34.curious, does my honourable friend agree with me that, although I is

:47:35. > :47:39.support her attentions to ignite intentions and sincerity, if that

:47:40. > :47:45.moment doesn't come as soon as she would like, she should review

:47:46. > :47:49.unilaterally, but everyone as a remedy -- put everyone out of their

:47:50. > :47:55.misery? I repeat my comments to the perimeter. It will be a decisive

:47:56. > :47:59.mark of five negotiating skills and leadership qualities of Prime

:48:00. > :48:07.Minister. She must come back to the dispatch box early on with this

:48:08. > :48:12.deal. I am grateful to my honourable friend. I am grateful for the

:48:13. > :48:19.conclusion, but the other thing the banister Deveson -- represented as

:48:20. > :48:24.Home Secretary, this is actually a more complex matter than it appears

:48:25. > :48:28.at first orders. She needs to not just get the principle right, but

:48:29. > :48:32.she and her ministers and officials need to get the detail right to make

:48:33. > :48:37.sure that his family and others like them have the security. No

:48:38. > :48:42.unforeseen consequences in the future. That is the right decision.

:48:43. > :48:47.I agree with my right honourable friend, but the promise has been

:48:48. > :48:52.made of getting an early agreement. Notwithstanding the complexities of

:48:53. > :48:56.it. As a lawyer myself, and as a former corporate lawyer, when my

:48:57. > :49:01.clients came to me and asking me to negotiate, I had to offer solutions

:49:02. > :49:04.to problems. If I didn't get the deal that my clients wanted, I

:49:05. > :49:12.wouldn't have been used frequently by them. So it will be a mark of our

:49:13. > :49:16.Prime Minister to get the early deal that she is promising our country.

:49:17. > :49:26.That is why I am supporting her this evening. He has made a personal

:49:27. > :49:31.decision about this. Does he altered except, using the analogy of being a

:49:32. > :49:35.lawyer negotiating, the primaries could also just set up and give

:49:36. > :49:43.every EU national in our country the right to be here without any further

:49:44. > :49:46.delay. There is an alternative. Had I been Prime Minister in July, I

:49:47. > :49:50.might have started the whole process very differently. I would like to

:49:51. > :49:58.refer to the comments made by the right honourable member for Peckham.

:49:59. > :50:04.I agree with the consequences of not getting an early deal on this. The

:50:05. > :50:10.consequences will be a tsunami of litigation against this Government.

:50:11. > :50:14.Therefore, politically, there must be an early deal brought to this

:50:15. > :50:20.House. That is why I am trusting the Prime Minister to get that early

:50:21. > :50:27.deal. I would like to turn briefly to the role of Parliament. I also

:50:28. > :50:34.think that this is a political one for ministers to give very serious

:50:35. > :50:37.consideration to. The fact is, the European Parliament does have a

:50:38. > :50:44.substantive role in the negotiations that we don't have. Some would say

:50:45. > :50:49.that the primary reason for that is that they represent 27 other

:50:50. > :50:55.nations. Whereas we represent one sovereign country as the British

:50:56. > :50:59.Parliament. The fact is, if we hear comments coming from the media,

:51:00. > :51:03.reporting on what European parliamentarians are being told, of

:51:04. > :51:10.what our ministerial negotiating team are saying in Europe, it would

:51:11. > :51:19.become farcical if our Government doesn't report back to us. I don't

:51:20. > :51:23.see a need to in force them to do this. It will be politically

:51:24. > :51:27.impossible for the Government to function responsibly and

:51:28. > :51:32.appropriately without giving us at least the same information that we

:51:33. > :51:37.will receive from the media, from the European Parliament. Again, it

:51:38. > :51:42.is a matter of politics farther than finding the hands of the governments

:51:43. > :51:47.in a statutory manner which could be... That is why I think I am

:51:48. > :51:54.trusting my Government to come out to this House with sensible updates,

:51:55. > :51:58.no different from the updates which the European Parliament will

:51:59. > :52:04.receive. For us to continue to debate and discuss the matter. The

:52:05. > :52:15.right side of all these organs, very trusting. The background is always

:52:16. > :52:18.-- right side of the argument. They took exactly the same line that is

:52:19. > :52:26.the Government is now ticking, that they couldn't... The European

:52:27. > :52:31.Parliament now gets the information because the European Parliament is

:52:32. > :52:35.less trusting and made of sterner stuff than this Parliament has over

:52:36. > :52:40.proved to be. I don't think that is in accordance with our other

:52:41. > :52:44.literary tradition. I respect the judgments and comments made. I read

:52:45. > :52:49.his recent article, however, about his own thoughts, his own first term

:52:50. > :52:57.in Parliament and how he was dealing with a similar matter. I will leave

:52:58. > :53:06.it at that. A conclusion, Mr deputy chairman, I would say that I have

:53:07. > :53:09.listened carefully to the very vulnerable -- valuable comments made

:53:10. > :53:14.by the opposition. But I will support my Government and I will be

:53:15. > :53:19.holding my Government to account in a way that I never see opposition

:53:20. > :53:30.MPs holding their own Government to account in Scotland's. Thank you. It

:53:31. > :53:35.is very touching to hear the Member for South West Fisher writes that

:53:36. > :53:39.talking about, in particular, the issues of EU nationals and his hopes

:53:40. > :53:49.and aspirations that they shoot they allowed to remain indefinitely. And

:53:50. > :54:00.yet, he betrayed a bit a bit of fear of possibly offending his front

:54:01. > :54:03.bench by going so far as writing those rights onto the face of the

:54:04. > :54:12.bill. I would thank the Camberwell and Peckham representative for her

:54:13. > :54:19.support. It is important. Many tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of

:54:20. > :54:23.people require support. I tabled clause 14 and I hope the House will

:54:24. > :54:31.support its later. The wider context of this debate am really, that we

:54:32. > :54:34.are having today. With over 50 substantive amendments on very

:54:35. > :54:42.distinct and specific issues of great importance, is the contrast

:54:43. > :54:45.between the desire of members to raise these issues and the

:54:46. > :54:49.nonsensical for hours in which these questions have to be considered. I

:54:50. > :54:55.think something like about four minutes for each one of the

:54:56. > :54:59.particular topics that we have. I think nothing to demonstrate more

:55:00. > :55:04.clearly to members in the other place, in the House of Lords, Howell

:55:05. > :55:08.important it is they do the due diligence that the House of Commons

:55:09. > :55:12.clearly isn't going to be able to do. One of the most important pieces

:55:13. > :55:17.of legislation in our time. The EU withdrawal Bill. Let's remind

:55:18. > :55:24.ourselves what we are talking about- a Bill that may just have a simple

:55:25. > :55:28.cause or two, but with phenomenal ramifications for all of our

:55:29. > :55:31.constituents. If we fail to address those improper detail, we are

:55:32. > :55:36.failing in our duty to scrutinise the Government seriously.

:55:37. > :55:43.Is it not worth noting that when it came to debating the Treaty on

:55:44. > :55:47.Lisbon or the Treaty of Maastricht we had 30 days allocated in the

:55:48. > :55:53.House of Commons alone to discuss these issues, five days is a poor

:55:54. > :55:57.comparison. My right honourable friend is right, and this treaty is

:55:58. > :56:00.most important because it's about withdrawing from the European Union.

:56:01. > :56:04.What makes it worse is the white paper we had from the Government,

:56:05. > :56:10.don't forget this came the day after we had the vote on the second

:56:11. > :56:16.reading, pretty shocking, and I think quite contemptuous of the

:56:17. > :56:20.rights the House of Commons should have. A lamentable document because

:56:21. > :56:23.of the lack of information it contained on so many of the

:56:24. > :56:27.important issues that I have certainly tabled amendments on and

:56:28. > :56:31.honourable members have done the same so I think we should be using

:56:32. > :56:36.the time that we have today to talk about what we need to know and ask

:56:37. > :56:40.the Government what is their plan. That is why I briefly go through

:56:41. > :56:45.some of the new clauses I have tabled today. Take, for the sake of

:56:46. > :56:53.argument, new clause 20 on financial services. You could say merely a

:56:54. > :56:58.small corner of written's GDP, but it provides ?67 billion of revenue

:56:59. > :57:02.for all of our schools and hospitals. If we mess around with

:57:03. > :57:06.that particular sector in the right way, we will all be poorer and our

:57:07. > :57:14.public services will be poorer as a result. On the financial services

:57:15. > :57:19.issues, this new clause suggests a report twice a year on where we are

:57:20. > :57:23.going on some of these questions that weren't contained in the white

:57:24. > :57:30.paper. What is our progress towards a smooth transition to the new

:57:31. > :57:34.arrangements whatever they are going to be? The white paper merely says

:57:35. > :57:39.we would like to have the freest possible trade but doesn't say

:57:40. > :57:41.anything about the mutual cooperation, regulation, oversights,

:57:42. > :57:46.what's going to happen to those issues, are we going to be able to

:57:47. > :57:51.have permanent equivalent rights, will UK firms have time to adjust...

:57:52. > :57:56.These are already issues which are presenting a clear and present

:57:57. > :58:06.danger to our economy. HSBC saying 1000 jobs will go, Lloyds of London

:58:07. > :58:10.moving their activities, UBS moving jobs, these firms are voting with

:58:11. > :58:15.their feet already and yet the white paper hardly touches on this

:58:16. > :58:18.particular question. Can I pay tribute to my honourable friend the

:58:19. > :58:23.kind of diligence he has put into this bill to bring forward these

:58:24. > :58:29.very important amendments, but if you boil all this down, isn't this

:58:30. > :58:34.not the sorry about sporting and the legal framework around financial

:58:35. > :58:50.services, but the tens of thousands constituents' jobs -- not about

:58:51. > :58:55.passports and the legal framework. If my constituents ask how long we

:58:56. > :59:05.had to debate these issues, I will have to say there was maybe five

:59:06. > :59:09.minutes... Is it right he talks down the City of London in this way? We

:59:10. > :59:13.know the threat that has been made but not one of those jobs has left

:59:14. > :59:18.the City of London and the fact of the matter is the choice between

:59:19. > :59:23.London, Frankfurt, Dublin or Paris, those companies will choose London

:59:24. > :59:28.every time. I hope that is the case, I would agree with him on that

:59:29. > :59:33.aspiration but he should look at the press releases from HSBC and Lloyd's

:59:34. > :59:38.of London, UPS and JP Morgan, these are not alternative facts. This is

:59:39. > :59:44.the real truth, these are people's jobs and revenues for our country

:59:45. > :59:48.that we are potentially leaving. On a very specific point, it is not

:59:49. > :59:54.talking down the City of London to highlight that the report emphasises

:59:55. > :59:58.the best case scenario for the Government 's plans is a 7000 job

:59:59. > :00:03.loss. The worst-case scenario could be more than 70,000 job losses,

:00:04. > :00:08.that's not talking the city down, it's making the economic case and

:00:09. > :00:14.ensuring the best deal is secured. I will give way briefly. Isn't the

:00:15. > :00:20.point my honourable friend is making that we are now a service economy?

:00:21. > :00:26.88% of London is the service sector. The service sector can move prior to

:00:27. > :00:29.joining the European Union we had things in the ground. We were a

:00:30. > :00:35.great manufacturing nation, that's not the case today. Again, an issue

:00:36. > :00:39.that deserves a massive amount of consideration but we don't have the

:00:40. > :00:45.time to go through it today. Move on to new clause 22 which is about

:00:46. > :00:48.again a small area of policy, competition policy. In the white

:00:49. > :00:54.paper, absolutely nothing said that all about what the UK will be doing

:00:55. > :00:59.on our exit from the European Union in respect of competition policy.

:01:00. > :01:05.Totally silent. Are we going to change our attitude towards state

:01:06. > :01:10.aid, what will our state aid rules be? If we change, will our partners

:01:11. > :01:18.baulk at the idea we will be subsidising products in a particular

:01:19. > :01:24.way? Are we going to take on the WTO disciplines on subsidies? Will we

:01:25. > :01:31.join me EA scheme for subsidies? This is a really big deal, Mr

:01:32. > :01:35.Howarth. Think of those subjects that have come up recently, Hinkley

:01:36. > :01:39.Point, British Steel, all of these are questions we have to make some

:01:40. > :01:43.decisions about and consider. All I'm saying in new clause 22 is that

:01:44. > :01:49.we should have a report from the Government in a month's time on what

:01:50. > :01:53.their attitude is to competition policy, a pretty simple measure.

:01:54. > :01:56.Then, Mr Howarth, I have put on a series of other amendments that

:01:57. > :02:03.would require ministers set out their aspirations on a series of

:02:04. > :02:07.other questions that rightly come up because we are about to extract

:02:08. > :02:13.ourselves from some of those European partnerships and alliances

:02:14. > :02:21.and agencies. Take the issue of law enforcement. What are we going to do

:02:22. > :02:26.in terms of Europol? New clause 111 talks about the benefits we get

:02:27. > :02:29.currently from the cross-border co-operation when it comes to cyber

:02:30. > :02:35.crime, when it comes to terrorist activities, combating trafficking.

:02:36. > :02:40.All of these are really important activities that go on and we deserve

:02:41. > :02:43.the right to know what the Government's approach will be when

:02:44. > :02:48.it comes to cross-border crime, as we do with the European police

:02:49. > :02:52.college, when it comes to our cooperation with prosecuting

:02:53. > :02:57.authorities, the European monitoring Centre for drugs and drug addiction,

:02:58. > :03:01.also the European agency on fundamental human rights as well.

:03:02. > :03:06.All issues on which the white paper is totally silent. The idea that we

:03:07. > :03:10.know the Government's plan, its negotiating stance, absolutely we

:03:11. > :03:15.don't and yet we don't have time to debate it substantively. I don't

:03:16. > :03:23.know what the Government is worried about because everybody knows in

:03:24. > :03:28.negotiations you report back from time to time, you don't necessarily

:03:29. > :03:32.give away your negotiating hand. They may well be scared of the

:03:33. > :03:36.debate, it's also a fact that reflects their lack of awareness

:03:37. > :03:41.about what indeed they are going to have to be engaging with here. I

:03:42. > :03:44.don't think the Government have thought this through, they are

:03:45. > :03:49.confronting issues as they bubble up on a fairly random level. They give

:03:50. > :03:54.the veneer of control, don't show what's on our cards, I cannot give a

:03:55. > :03:57.running commentary - these are all phrases used by ministers when

:03:58. > :04:02.actually behind the curtain they are panicking and their feet are moving

:04:03. > :04:07.rapidly because they haven't got a clue. By logical extension the

:04:08. > :04:11.honourable gentleman is saying he wants to unpick almost every single

:04:12. > :04:14.part of EU policy in legislation and cooperation with the UK and bring it

:04:15. > :04:20.to this House and get the Government to set out what it wants to do about

:04:21. > :04:26.it. How long does he think it will take to disassociate ourselves from

:04:27. > :04:33.the EU? Two years or 20 years to go down that line? It would take more

:04:34. > :04:37.time than his honourable friends have given to debate this, but we

:04:38. > :04:42.are leaving the European Union and that's what this is for. He may be

:04:43. > :04:46.happy to trust the Prime Minister entirely in all matters relating to

:04:47. > :04:49.these things but parliament is sovereign. The Supreme Court gave us

:04:50. > :04:54.this duty and said we should do our duty diligence of these questions

:04:55. > :05:09.but the time constraints will prevent us from doing so. The big

:05:10. > :05:18.one in clause 177 is what is on the European arrest warrant, which

:05:19. > :05:23.allows us to put people on trial in other countries. The UK extradited

:05:24. > :05:28.over 8000 individuals convicted of criminal offences to the rest of the

:05:29. > :05:33.UK. Think of the case up Hussain Osman, found guilty of the

:05:34. > :05:38.Shepherd's Bush Tube bombings in July 2005, only captured in Rome and

:05:39. > :05:43.extradited because of the European arrest warrant. He got 40 years'

:05:44. > :05:47.sentence as a result. The Prime Minister herself said that ditching

:05:48. > :05:51.the European arrest warrant would lead to Britain becoming a honey pot

:05:52. > :06:01.for all of Europe's criminals on the run from justice. What will be our

:06:02. > :06:07.attitude towards the current level of participation, whether we want to

:06:08. > :06:11.carry on with the European arrest warrant, nothing in the white paper

:06:12. > :06:15.about this issue. This is it not the agencies that are going to be the

:06:16. > :06:19.biggest problem? The Government describes moving everything over

:06:20. > :06:26.with a Great Repeal Bill but if the Great Repeal Bill refers to actions

:06:27. > :06:34.that depend on an EU agency, we don't have that agency. That's the

:06:35. > :06:38.policy of honourable members being reassured. Don't worry, we confront

:06:39. > :06:42.this in later legislation, the Great Repeal Bill will be able to deal

:06:43. > :06:47.with these things but of course it won't. These alliances exist because

:06:48. > :06:53.of our membership of the European Union and yet we won't even have the

:06:54. > :06:59.time to debate the consequences of these things. Public health issues,

:07:00. > :07:03.what's the plan? The white paper again said virtually nothing about a

:07:04. > :07:12.whole range of critical alliances. Disease control, the European centre

:07:13. > :07:20.for disease control. We had the outbreak of Sars in 2003, and we

:07:21. > :07:23.have helped to provide research and intelligence for public health

:07:24. > :07:27.authorities what we were going to do. No answer in the white paper

:07:28. > :07:31.about the British Government's attitude when it comes to that sort

:07:32. > :07:36.of pan-European question. What are they going to do about the medicines

:07:37. > :07:43.agency, new clause 115. Currently based in London, harmonises the work

:07:44. > :07:46.of regulatory bodies across a whole range of issues to do with the

:07:47. > :07:53.application for marketing authorisation, support for medicine

:07:54. > :07:56.development, monitoring safety of medicines, providing information to

:07:57. > :08:01.health care professionals and so forth... Who is going to take on

:08:02. > :08:19.this responsibility? The white paper was totally silent on this question.

:08:20. > :08:24.My noble -- there will be far slower approval of vital drugs in this

:08:25. > :08:28.country and a loss of all our influence and all those jobs. And

:08:29. > :08:32.again, no sense of strategic alternative from the Government, and

:08:33. > :08:42.no idea what the plan is going to be. Given that the Government have

:08:43. > :08:48.said they are pulling out of Euratom because it is part of the EU, isn't

:08:49. > :08:52.the logical extension of their position to pull out of all of these

:08:53. > :08:57.agencies? And if that's right, why does he think they don't want to

:08:58. > :09:01.face up to that? Is it because they don't want to face up to the cost of

:09:02. > :09:07.duplicating the work of 30 odd agencies? Firstly I don't think

:09:08. > :09:11.ministers really know what they will do about some of these questions.

:09:12. > :09:16.They are hoping it is fairly low level, nobody will particularly spot

:09:17. > :09:19.it, it is fairly specialist, but actually these are questions that

:09:20. > :09:30.will start to affect very many people and they are a myriad... I

:09:31. > :09:36.will give way. Talking about European medical agency, is he aware

:09:37. > :09:40.that because of the move of getting out of that, many jobs in the

:09:41. > :09:45.medical world in the drugs world will move out of Britain? I have met

:09:46. > :09:48.with people representing those interests only today, they are very

:09:49. > :09:53.fearful of what would happen to British jobs. And I'm afraid to say

:09:54. > :09:58.to my honourable friend not only is he right but the list goes on of the

:09:59. > :10:02.consequences of withdrawing from the EU without Parliament even having

:10:03. > :10:06.the opportunity to properly debate it. The European food safety

:10:07. > :10:12.authority, we will be throwing in the towel on the independent

:10:13. > :10:18.scientific advice on food trade issues we have, nothing in the white

:10:19. > :10:26.paper. What about that either 111 health insurance scheme, it is not

:10:27. > :10:29.just for tourists. Hauliers, students, what is the plan when our

:10:30. > :10:43.constituents go abroad? He will understand it as well as I

:10:44. > :10:47.do. It is simple, all existing laws and requirements would be translated

:10:48. > :10:51.into good British law if we need a different adjudicator. And the

:10:52. > :10:55.adjudicator approved and selected by Parliament. The good news is that

:10:56. > :11:01.nothing will change legally unless and until the parliament wants to

:11:02. > :11:06.change it. I don't know whether the right honourable gentleman has left

:11:07. > :11:10.these shores and visited other countries. We don't control the sort

:11:11. > :11:15.of health insurance schemes that happen in other European countries.

:11:16. > :11:18.But we do have a reciprocal health insurance arrangement that provides

:11:19. > :11:22.him and his family and constituents with a certain degree of cover. But

:11:23. > :11:26.that could well be ripped up because of the consequences of the

:11:27. > :11:34.legislation we are potentially batting today. Nothing in the white

:11:35. > :11:39.paper. -- patterning. The ten one scheme is practical for

:11:40. > :11:45.constituencies, many constituents if we don't have in answer will be

:11:46. > :11:48.forced into expensive travel insurance policies to ensure they

:11:49. > :11:57.are covered while they are left in limbo. The consequences are myriad.

:11:58. > :12:02.I hope the House will wake up and... We don't have time to discuss this.

:12:03. > :12:08.I have to move on. The European chemicals agency is something we

:12:09. > :12:11.will ditch. Companies have do provide information currently about

:12:12. > :12:14.hazards, risks, safe use of chemicals, nothing in the white

:12:15. > :12:19.paper about the alternative. Another issue to do with health hazards,

:12:20. > :12:24.aviation. What are we doing in terms of the safe skies. In terms of the

:12:25. > :12:29.regulation of the aircraft parts and engines and all of these other

:12:30. > :12:35.aspects? What about maritime safety, shipping? What happens if there are

:12:36. > :12:43.shipping disasters. Around our shores. Nothing in the white paper

:12:44. > :12:49.for the alternative. With another issue, the European Environment

:12:50. > :12:56.Agency we will leave as well. Simply asks we have a report within a month

:12:57. > :13:00.on what the ban should be. When it comes to education, science and

:13:01. > :13:04.research issues, we are potentially leaving the European research agency

:13:05. > :13:10.which is very important. Other members may know about the Erasmus

:13:11. > :13:16.scheme. That stands for European region action scheme for the ability

:13:17. > :13:21.of the university students. All of our students want to go and study

:13:22. > :13:25.abroad, they can still have that time recognised as part of their

:13:26. > :13:32.degree. What will happen to that skin? Nothing in the white paper.

:13:33. > :13:39.Our students and our constituencies losing out. Thes vocational training

:13:40. > :13:46.and more issues, nothing in the white paper. He is making an

:13:47. > :13:50.excellent Speech in terms of the complexity of these challenges that

:13:51. > :14:02.we face. He also has made reference to science. Will he agree with me in

:14:03. > :14:05.referring to a conversation I had a scientist in my constituency.

:14:06. > :14:09.Concerned about how collaboration will work and what projects they

:14:10. > :14:14.will be included in in the future. Secondly, what impact will this have

:14:15. > :14:19.on young people? We are taking the rug out from under their feet.

:14:20. > :14:23.Should we have the time and space and opportunity to discuss the

:14:24. > :14:27.consequences for her constituents, but my honourable friend will have

:14:28. > :14:30.do right back to her and say we didn't have time. Fingers crossed,

:14:31. > :14:39.the House of Lords will do some of this work. He is doing an excellent

:14:40. > :14:43.job, my honourable friend, trying to scrutinise the implications of this

:14:44. > :14:48.Bill with far too little time. We have less time on the floor of this

:14:49. > :14:52.House than we would in committees of much less important bills. Does he

:14:53. > :14:56.agree with me that, whilst we may want these issues sorted out within

:14:57. > :15:02.two years, this may not happen? Which is why the transitional

:15:03. > :15:06.arrangements must be in place as well as a vote on the final deal so

:15:07. > :15:10.that this House can see the Government has done its job properly

:15:11. > :15:13.and got the best deal for Britain? Exactly, we need to use that

:15:14. > :15:20.two-year negotiation period wisely. We will come out in committee

:15:21. > :15:24.tomorrow for some of those issues. Would he agree that, as well as the

:15:25. > :15:31.issue of the environment policy, we need to... It is not any good moving

:15:32. > :15:37.it across every can spring the enforcement. And the European

:15:38. > :15:46.investment bank, a massive issue. We need to know where the we stand in

:15:47. > :15:53.relation to that. New cars 122. That represents the European investment

:15:54. > :15:57.bank. -- close. Not referenced at all in the white paper, trade and

:15:58. > :16:02.investment issues those of the Government resisting a white paper

:16:03. > :16:09.about the consequences of withdrawing from the European Union

:16:10. > :16:14.and not even mention the data European investment bank says the

:16:15. > :16:19.site. It is part funding Crossrail, the Manchester metrolink, this is a

:16:20. > :16:25.massively important institution. In a blas way, we are shrugging,

:16:26. > :16:29.saying, trusted by Minister. It will be fine. We should at least ask

:16:30. > :16:37.ministers about the attitude of the British govern. What is the attitude

:16:38. > :16:43.of the British Government to our continued... I want to talk about

:16:44. > :16:55.new clauses. It is frustrating that we don't have the time. I am glad to

:16:56. > :16:59.see a couple of honourable members. New clauses deal with the protected

:17:00. > :17:04.designation of origin of goods and services. The projected geographic

:17:05. > :17:12.indication. Honourable members may well have businesses within their

:17:13. > :17:16.constituencies, for example, Skelton, known as the Stilton

:17:17. > :17:20.Amendment sometimes. Hilton isn't necessarily make in North West

:17:21. > :17:26.Cambridgeshire. The village of Stilton, is within its boundaries.

:17:27. > :17:37.And Truro and Falmouth, the honourable lady is aware of the

:17:38. > :17:45.oysters protected by the PGI scheme. Whether it is the Stilton amendment

:17:46. > :17:50.or the Scotch whiskey amendments, these new clauses simply ask, what

:17:51. > :17:56.is the Government's plan when these protective products, much cherished

:17:57. > :17:59.and values, not just where they are produced, but where they are

:18:00. > :18:06.consumed worldwide might lose their protected status. We end up with

:18:07. > :18:11.potentially knock of Scotch whiskey being sold around the world without

:18:12. > :18:17.the protection of those things. Beef, Welsh lamb, Melton Mowbray

:18:18. > :18:30.pork pies. Arbroath Smokies, Yorkshire, Wensleydale, Newcastle

:18:31. > :18:33.Brown Ale, the Cornish pasty. As it happens, the protected status of

:18:34. > :18:40.Stilton cheese prohibits people living in the village of still --

:18:41. > :18:48.Stilton it is the GC have researched the cheese, they cannot make the

:18:49. > :18:54.cheese because of the protected status they cannot make it. If we

:18:55. > :19:04.leave the EU, they can make Stilton cheese in Stilton! Finally, we get

:19:05. > :19:08.some sign of life from the other side. They are finally interested in

:19:09. > :19:14.the consequences of withdrawing from the European Union. It is an issue

:19:15. > :19:19.that the House really should have the opportunity to discuss. There

:19:20. > :19:22.are many firms and industries and produces on either side of this

:19:23. > :19:33.question of who will either benefit or probably was out as a result of

:19:34. > :19:44.ours -- us exiting. They said are the cheesemakers. -- blessedness.

:19:45. > :19:53.New clause 112, the committee is looking into this. I have 200 pages

:19:54. > :20:00.of evidence. Into white leaving the European chemicals regulations will

:20:01. > :20:13.need for the defence, motor and pharmaceuticals industry. Certain

:20:14. > :20:20.pages, can make carcinogenic as my honourable friend says. -- dangers.

:20:21. > :20:27.In their white paper and also, by trying to gag parliaments Bosman

:20:28. > :20:31.ability by debating these issues, muzzling members from covering these

:20:32. > :20:41.questions, we will end up far poorer and worse off. It sends a message to

:20:42. > :20:44.the noble lords in the other place to do scrutiny and due diligence

:20:45. > :20:51.that we were unable to do. This is our only substantive opportunity to

:20:52. > :20:59.debate the bill. Parliament deserves more respect than the Government has

:21:00. > :21:03.shown with this in substantive -- insubstantial white paper. We survey

:21:04. > :21:09.wanted to know what are they going to do, what is the plan and in

:21:10. > :21:18.response to the debate, I sincerely hope the Minister will tell us. I

:21:19. > :21:28.rise to speak briefly on amendments 171 and 173, and is 57. I've percent

:21:29. > :21:33.South Cambridge, home to scientific research, world leading. We have

:21:34. > :21:41.scientific brains, and we get them by looking outwards and not in

:21:42. > :21:51.words. Legislation will transfer to the UK in terms of access, we should

:21:52. > :21:59.have... Amendments 171 and 173 replaced -- request reports in terms

:22:00. > :22:04.of Rasmus. These are two of our greatest exploits and feature

:22:05. > :22:08.heavily in the B strategy, we need clarity and reassurance or annual

:22:09. > :22:15.are exceptionally wrote the future. University of Cambridge, Jean and

:22:16. > :22:30.Campus, to mention if you, they are so important to national prosperity

:22:31. > :22:37.#. Turning to 57. She is making an important Speech. Is she also aware

:22:38. > :22:42.that it is not necessary to read behind all these EU agencies? In any

:22:43. > :22:50.area of research and development, Israel belongs to Horizon 2020,

:22:51. > :22:57.doesn't she think such a status should be sought? The most about a

:22:58. > :23:02.thing is for ministers to recent organisations like mine in terms of

:23:03. > :23:05.what they need. I am pleased the Secretary of State for leaving the

:23:06. > :23:09.EU has visited Cambridge twice since Christmas and is listening to is

:23:10. > :23:17.that we are not the experts, and we should listen to the organisations.

:23:18. > :23:24.Does she also agree that one of the problems universities have is that

:23:25. > :23:29.Ph.D. Students, academics, they are choosing not to come to Britain now?

:23:30. > :23:40.Our global universities are losing is a Harvard, yell and others. I

:23:41. > :23:44.speak regularly to the University of chemistry is the they are very

:23:45. > :23:47.worried. They aren't a couple of years, they have concerns. It is a

:23:48. > :23:52.fundamental part of what is great about this country and they deserve

:23:53. > :23:57.protection. We need to look at the invitations for them. Government

:23:58. > :24:02.needs to listen. Amendment 50 seven. One of the most important debates we

:24:03. > :24:06.will have, the continuing rights of EU citizens lawfully residing here

:24:07. > :24:16.before or on the 23rd of June last year. I recognise the Prime Minister

:24:17. > :24:20.has said she will... Many EU citizens have an automatic right to

:24:21. > :24:27.remain already. This issue will continue to keep many of my

:24:28. > :24:32.constituents late at night and it is resolved. I have had a number of my

:24:33. > :24:38.constituents write to me who are married to British citizens but are

:24:39. > :24:42.EU nationals. I would have thought the Government would give them some

:24:43. > :24:46.sort of comfort. It is creating problems within families.

:24:47. > :24:51.Absolutely. I speak as a woman with a German mother. On some occasions,

:24:52. > :25:00.my mother the late-night father would be quite pleased to see my

:25:01. > :25:03.mother sent back. But I do understand the rifts this causes in

:25:04. > :25:08.the community. In South Cambridge, we are bursting with EU citizens

:25:09. > :25:11.from every nation. Family, relatives, and not just the EU

:25:12. > :25:20.citizens worry, it is the communities around them.

:25:21. > :25:27.Isn't this issue solved by the Government's proposals, that when

:25:28. > :25:31.everything is brought into UK law by the repel bill, all the EU nationals

:25:32. > :25:34.here will have the right to reside and they will continue to have that,

:25:35. > :25:41.unless Parliament legislated to take it away, which seems to me to be

:25:42. > :25:44.inconceivable. My honourable friend, I am sure,

:25:45. > :25:49.makes an accurate point. The point I am trying to make is while there may

:25:50. > :25:52.be legal and administrative realities as to why people would not

:25:53. > :25:58.be sent home, the perception and feeling of people is more important

:25:59. > :26:04.and we deserve to cut through that red tape. Just for content, so

:26:05. > :26:07.people listening at home can understand and not feel unduly

:26:08. > :26:13.nervous about what is happening, would she agree that 61% of all the

:26:14. > :26:17.EU nationals living in the UK already have permanent right to

:26:18. > :26:24.reside in this country? By the time the UK does leave, that figure would

:26:25. > :26:28.have risen between 80-90%. So a very, very large proportion of EU

:26:29. > :26:35.nationals in this country have absolutely nothing to worry about.

:26:36. > :26:38.There is a valid point my honourable friend friends. This shouldn't just

:26:39. > :26:42.be about a piece of paper and whether you have completed it or

:26:43. > :26:45.not. We have heard occasions where people's applications have been

:26:46. > :26:50.turned away. This is not just about citizens who have been five or ten

:26:51. > :26:53.years. Every day, brains and skills come to my constituency. Should I

:26:54. > :26:58.discriminate against one who has been here two or five years? No.

:26:59. > :27:02.They have a right to be here and we should honour that for them. I don't

:27:03. > :27:07.know whether my honourable friend was listening to the remarks I made

:27:08. > :27:11.earlier, I made them sincerely. There are 4,000 EU nationals who

:27:12. > :27:16.don't fit the description, people who are here and who have abused our

:27:17. > :27:19.hospitality by committing crimes for which they have sent to prison. The

:27:20. > :27:23.problem with a blanket approach is that will give those people the

:27:24. > :27:27.right to stay here. I know having dealt with individual cases, if

:27:28. > :27:31.someone is not entitled to be in the UK and they came here and commit a

:27:32. > :27:35.serious crime, nothing will do more damage to the views of British

:27:36. > :27:39.people about the welcome that they give to EU nationals if we cannot

:27:40. > :27:46.deport serious criminals. Has she given some thought to that?

:27:47. > :27:54.THE SPEAKER: I have noticed that some of the interventions seem to be

:27:55. > :27:58.getting excessively long. I should remind people that interventions

:27:59. > :28:04.should be confined to a single point and a short one at that.

:28:05. > :28:09.Thank you. Mr Chairman will be pleased to know my speech is very

:28:10. > :28:18.short. Yes, there is an element of that that there... My speech shall

:28:19. > :28:23.be short. Turning to my Right Honourable friend's point. Yes,

:28:24. > :28:30.nothing's perfect. But should we will making policy based op a few

:28:31. > :28:35.apple or the right of those who come here and contribute. What we are

:28:36. > :28:38.talking about is whether we should offer unilateral rights for them. I

:28:39. > :28:43.have a sense that it's the moral and the right thing to do that we should

:28:44. > :28:46.lead the way on this and offer unilaterally those rights. Forgive

:28:47. > :28:50.me, I won't. I wish to make progress. But I will come back.

:28:51. > :28:54.Until we have that resolution, however and whenever it comes, it

:28:55. > :29:00.will pray on the minds of families and our NHS and it will damage the

:29:01. > :29:02.collaboration which is vital to the scientific and academic

:29:03. > :29:08.organisations in my constituencies. Many of my constituents have lost

:29:09. > :29:11.all sense of direction and they are struggling to recognise a tolerant,

:29:12. > :29:16.open country they are normally so proud of. The wounds of the

:29:17. > :29:19.referendum have not yet heeled. Although I was grateful for the

:29:20. > :29:23.opportunity to probe the Prime Minister in her statement to the

:29:24. > :29:27.House, I would like to repeat my request, that a unilateral offer to

:29:28. > :29:34.EU citizens must be kept in her mind. As time passes, I fear the

:29:35. > :29:38.distasteful currency value of both our citizens and EU citizens abroad

:29:39. > :29:42.will increase. And if an early agreement is not reached, as the

:29:43. > :29:50.Prime Minister hopes, I would urge h tore step in and halt the trading.

:29:51. > :29:54.We are talking about people. If the Prime Minister were to offer

:29:55. > :30:00.continued rights to EU citizens I believe she would pull the country

:30:01. > :30:03.in behind her. She would strengthen our collective resolve and push

:30:04. > :30:09.forward in the negotiations, with the shared will of the 48 and the

:30:10. > :30:15.52%. But at the moment the 48% in my constituency do not feel part of the

:30:16. > :30:19.conversation. And crucially, we will demonstrate that in this global

:30:20. > :30:25.turbulence, Britain is as it always has been, a beacon for humanity,

:30:26. > :30:30.democracy. A principled and proud nation and one day soon I hope

:30:31. > :30:37.leading the way with compassion and dignity.

:30:38. > :30:44.I beg to move those of new clauses standing in my name and the names of

:30:45. > :30:49.my honourable and right honourable friends. We have a quite remarkable

:30:50. > :30:55.range of arraignments before us this evening. So, I will confine my

:30:56. > :31:00.remarks merely to those relating to the position of EU nations wishing

:31:01. > :31:07.to remain under rights to remain in the European Union. I want to say

:31:08. > :31:14.why this matters to me as a liberal and as an islander. Because when you

:31:15. > :31:17.represent island communities, you understand that very often things

:31:18. > :31:22.have to run to different rules and we have different priorities. One of

:31:23. > :31:28.the most important things in keeping an island community viable and

:31:29. > :31:33.prosperous and growing is maintaining a viable level of

:31:34. > :31:38.population. And in recent years and decades, the contribution of EU

:31:39. > :31:41.citizens to growing and maintaining the services and the businesses

:31:42. > :31:48.within the island communities that it is my privilege to represent has

:31:49. > :31:52.been enormously important. It matters to my communities,

:31:53. > :31:57.therefore, that the position of these EU nations, who live in our

:31:58. > :32:01.communities, could contribute to our public services and businesses,

:32:02. > :32:04.should be clarified. They should be given the greatest possible

:32:05. > :32:08.reassurance at the earliest opportunity. There's no aspect of

:32:09. > :32:12.island life these days in which you will not find EU nationals living

:32:13. > :32:16.and working. They work in our fish houses, in our hotels and bars. They

:32:17. > :32:19.work in our hospitals. They work in our garages and our building

:32:20. > :32:27.companies. They teach in our schools. You go to the university of

:32:28. > :32:31.the Highlands and islands and you find them with ground-breaking

:32:32. > :32:37.research there, especially in renewable industry. A future for our

:32:38. > :32:40.whole country. That is why the position of these people in our

:32:41. > :32:44.communities matter to the people I represent and they matter to me and

:32:45. > :32:50.they should matter to us all. I gave way to -- give way to the honourable

:32:51. > :32:55.gentleman. He's making a very good point as

:32:56. > :33:01.regards EU nationals. Many colleagues have said likewise. Would

:33:02. > :33:06.he, however, not accept that whilst we talk about securing the position

:33:07. > :33:12.of EU nationals living in Britain, we, as British parliamentarians,

:33:13. > :33:15.have a duty to British nationals living overseas and that we have a

:33:16. > :33:19.duty to make sure that they too are looked after and that if we secure

:33:20. > :33:26.the rights of foreigners living in this country before they are looked

:33:27. > :33:30.after, we neglect our duty? I say it gently to the honourable gentleman,

:33:31. > :33:37.with whom I have worked in the past and whom I hold in some regard, that

:33:38. > :33:43.it is bluntly invidious to plea the interests of one group of desperate

:33:44. > :33:46.people off the interests of another group of desperate people and there

:33:47. > :33:51.is a danger of that emerging from what he is saying and the terms in

:33:52. > :33:53.which he puts it. Because, in fact, as The Right Honourable member for

:33:54. > :33:58.Leeds, the chairman of the Select Committee on leading the European

:33:59. > :34:02.Union, on which I also reminded us, that is the evidence that we heard

:34:03. > :34:05.from those who are currently British nationals living in other parts of

:34:06. > :34:10.the European Union. This is what they want us to do. Because they see

:34:11. > :34:18.that in fact it is in their interests that we should do this.

:34:19. > :34:23.They see this as being the best, most immediate and speedy way in

:34:24. > :34:27.which their position can be given some degree of certainty. And I

:34:28. > :34:33.think actually the real importance of it is this, it is all about the

:34:34. > :34:38.atmosphere to move such as this would create. We can't ignore the

:34:39. > :34:43.atmosphere that we have found in many of our communities since the

:34:44. > :34:48.23rd June, despite that we have seen in hate crime. We also have to think

:34:49. > :34:54.though about the atmosphere in which the Prime Minister is going to open

:34:55. > :34:58.the negotiations when she does so after the triggering of Article 50.

:34:59. > :35:05.And the atmosphere would be so much greater. It would be so much

:35:06. > :35:10.improved if we were able to say, we enter this as a negotiation between

:35:11. > :35:16.friends and neighbours and as such we offer you this important move for

:35:17. > :35:23.your citizens as a mark of our good faith and our goodwill. Now, I also

:35:24. > :35:27.want to deal though in one matter that was being raised in the Select

:35:28. > :35:34.Committee and it is, it has been touched on today, and it is the

:35:35. > :35:38.opportunity of EU nationals to secure their position by means of

:35:39. > :35:41.the permanent resident card. I say to the minister and the bench, this

:35:42. > :35:46.is something with which he should be talking to his colleagues in the

:35:47. > :35:49.Home Office about because there are enormous difficulties with this. I

:35:50. > :35:56.see the Immigration Minister on the bench. He will be aware that some

:35:57. > :36:02.30% of applications, the expensive applications that are necessary for

:36:03. > :36:05.permanent resident cards are currently refused. The evidence

:36:06. > :36:12.brought to the Select Committee was that this involves, I think, an

:36:13. > :36:20.85-page forum. The sheer value of supporting documentation is required

:36:21. > :36:24.for these applications, is enormous the level of detail asked about the

:36:25. > :36:32.occasions on which people over the last 20 years have left the country

:36:33. > :36:35.even on holiday and then returned and the evidence required to support

:36:36. > :36:41.these dates is quite unreasonable. It is putting an enormous purred on

:36:42. > :36:55.those who are seeking these, this small measure of reassurance in the

:36:56. > :37:03.short to medium term. It does require to be revisited. A

:37:04. > :37:08.constituency received a letter in 1997 from the then nationality

:37:09. > :37:11.directorate and she was told and I quote "You can now remain

:37:12. > :37:15.indefinitely in the United Kingdom. You do not need permission from a

:37:16. > :37:18.Government department to take or to change employment and you may engage

:37:19. > :37:23.in business or a profession as long as you comply with any general

:37:24. > :37:30.regulations for the business or professional activity." Nobody told

:37:31. > :37:37.my constituent in 1997 that 20 years later she was going to have to

:37:38. > :37:42.produce tickets to show that in 2005 she took a two-week holiday

:37:43. > :37:51.whatever, that though is the situation in which she finds herself

:37:52. > :37:57.if she's going to achieve that small measure of security for her and her

:37:58. > :38:03.family. The challenge that faces our country at this point is how we go

:38:04. > :38:06.forward in a way that allows us to bring the 52 and the 48%s back

:38:07. > :38:11.together. This is an enormous challenge for

:38:12. > :38:17.our country. It is one that we cannot meet simply with the support

:38:18. > :38:21.of half of our population. It is something for which we need all our

:38:22. > :38:27.people to be able to pool together. This would be one small measure that

:38:28. > :38:31.would allow the Government to bring the to sides together to get the

:38:32. > :38:33.best possible deal for all our citizens, whether they are British

:38:34. > :38:42.by birth or British by choice. Thank you, it is a pleasure to

:38:43. > :38:47.follow the honourable member for Orkney and Shetland, although he may

:38:48. > :38:51.not entirely share the sentiment once I finish my contribution. I

:38:52. > :38:54.promise it will be a short contribution in the interests of

:38:55. > :38:59.time and the number of people po want their say. I rise to speak

:39:00. > :39:04.against new clauses 56 and 134. There are some in this House who

:39:05. > :39:06.have said that the referendum shouldn't be respected because the

:39:07. > :39:12.people didn't know what they were voting for. They are determined to

:39:13. > :39:16.find confusion where none exists. They say that the public voted to

:39:17. > :39:22.leave the European Union, but not the single market or the customs

:39:23. > :39:26.union. Members are arguing with these emendments that we need to

:39:27. > :39:30.debate whether or not we leave the single market. I disagree. The

:39:31. > :39:34.majority of voters who took part in the referendum said they wanted us

:39:35. > :39:38.to leave the European Union. Many of those who contacted me said they

:39:39. > :39:42.wanted to restore our parliamentary sovereignty and indeed over our

:39:43. > :39:46.courts. Regain control over our immigration policy. To strike out in

:39:47. > :39:51.the world and forge new deals with countries across the globe. These

:39:52. > :39:56.aims are income patable with remaining in the single market or

:39:57. > :40:01.indeed the customs union. We choose to go to the people with this

:40:02. > :40:05.referendum. I did not campaign for either side in this referendum. But

:40:06. > :40:09.I followed the two campaigns closely.

:40:10. > :40:13.Throughout the referendum campaigns, those who were involved in the leave

:40:14. > :40:26.campaign said that we would be leaving the single market.

:40:27. > :40:38.David Cameron said, ... I wish he wouldn't rewrite history. I have

:40:39. > :40:42.quotes from the Foreign Secretary, I am in favour of the single market.

:40:43. > :40:47.The right honourable member for Shropshire North, only a madman

:40:48. > :40:50.would leave the single market. Increasingly, Norway is the model.

:40:51. > :40:56.It is not the case as he is trying It is not the case as he is trying

:40:57. > :41:02.to say that it is. Of course, they were selective quotes. Indeed, taken

:41:03. > :41:14.out of context. How could it not have been clear what the public were

:41:15. > :41:19.voting for? Is he honestly saying that the good people of Colchester

:41:20. > :41:25.sat in a variety of places where they might enjoy themselves, mulling

:41:26. > :41:33.over the final parts and point of the single market is? Is he telling

:41:34. > :41:41.us that? I think she underestimates the intelligence of Colchester. I

:41:42. > :41:45.would be more sympathetic to those people bringing forward these

:41:46. > :41:50.amendments if they had not voted in favour of holding this referendum

:41:51. > :41:54.is. However, they supported it and agreed to entrust this question to

:41:55. > :41:58.the British people. I remember when some on the other side of the House,

:41:59. > :42:01.namely the Liberal Democrats, although I somewhat question that

:42:02. > :42:09.name in the context of the debate, where calling for a real referendum.

:42:10. > :42:14.We had a real referendum. The biggest exercise in democracy in our

:42:15. > :42:18.nation's history. We have been given a result. They just don't like what

:42:19. > :42:22.they had. We should respect the instruction we have been given from

:42:23. > :42:27.the British people. They were told we were going to leave the European

:42:28. > :42:32.Union, the single market and leave we should. The Prime Minister has

:42:33. > :42:35.been clear on that. Those on other branches bringing forward this

:42:36. > :42:38.amendment should, in my view, perhaps listen to the former leader

:42:39. > :42:45.of the Liberal Democrats, Paddy Ashdown, when I quote, when the

:42:46. > :42:51.British people have spoken, you do what they command. We do not need

:42:52. > :43:00.this debate, it is simply a attempt to delay the process. That is why I

:43:01. > :43:08.cannot support 56 or 104, and I urge colleagues to do the same. It is a

:43:09. > :43:19.pleasure. I would like to speak to new clause 29 and stew close 33,

:43:20. > :43:25.standing in my name... The Secretary of State, who is not here for this

:43:26. > :43:34.debate, but with his usual bravado, he said he will produce a Bill that

:43:35. > :43:41.is an amended. We had a list of amendments 145 pages long. The ratio

:43:42. > :43:49.of lines in the build two lines of amendments is 180 21. It is a

:43:50. > :43:59.record. A view to the productivity of honourable members on this side

:44:00. > :44:04.of the House. Reading paragraph 14 of the explanatory notes, this says,

:44:05. > :44:13.the effect of the bill is clear and limited. No. The aspect of this Bill

:44:14. > :44:18.is not clear and certainly is not limited. The fact that honourable

:44:19. > :44:33.members have presented so many amendments and new closes --

:44:34. > :44:40.clauses. I am pleased with the honourable member of Colchester, who

:44:41. > :44:47.voted leave, I want to describe to honourable members why leave is also

:44:48. > :44:52.in the interest of those who voted leave in the referendum that we

:44:53. > :45:07.should have proper parliamentary scrutiny. The referendum campaign

:45:08. > :45:12.was won does that you cannot have proper parliamentary sovereignty

:45:13. > :45:16.without scrutiny. 29 is edging forward. Quarterly reporting system

:45:17. > :45:20.during the negotiations. This would during the negotiations. This would

:45:21. > :45:28.give the House is structured approach. The honourable member for

:45:29. > :45:43.West Dorset combined about close three. It created all the problems.

:45:44. > :45:50.I hope he will agree that being able... Not a complex legal bar. It

:45:51. > :45:57.will lead to extremely long litigation. It is a simple and

:45:58. > :46:01.practical measure. Very grateful. Does she imagine that there wouldn't

:46:02. > :46:08.be any court cases about whether the quarterly reports where, as a matter

:46:09. > :46:13.of fact, in conformity with the appropriate proceeding. Is she aware

:46:14. > :46:16.of the judicial review which leads to the ability of that kind of

:46:17. > :46:25.contest? What would happen if the courts did start interviewing in

:46:26. > :46:32.whether the amendments were met. It is not clear. It would be dismissed

:46:33. > :46:38.Government abided by bringing Government abided by bringing

:46:39. > :46:44.quarterly reports. There are simply wouldn't be a case to answer. It is

:46:45. > :46:46.simple and straightforward. Does the honourable lady mean that the

:46:47. > :46:49.Government would satisfy the Government would satisfy the

:46:50. > :46:53.conditions of her amendment if they simply produced one line saying,

:46:54. > :46:57.this is our report. Or does she have in mind they have to be appropriate.

:46:58. > :47:02.If it had to be an appropriate report, couldn't a court decide

:47:03. > :47:07.whether it is appropriate? As the chairman of the select committee

:47:08. > :47:10.said earlier when we got into a discussion about the requests from

:47:11. > :47:15.the opposition front bench, the nature of the report would be a

:47:16. > :47:18.matter for the Government. The Government, I am sure, would behave

:47:19. > :47:29.in every civil manner if this was in the legislation. -- a reasonable

:47:30. > :47:34.manner. As I was saying to the honourable member for Colchester, my

:47:35. > :47:39.constituency voted to leave. I voted for the bill at second reading in

:47:40. > :47:44.order for the Prime Minister to have the power to trigger our intention

:47:45. > :47:52.to withdraw from the European Union under Article 50. But the political

:47:53. > :47:54.referendum last summer does not referendum last summer does not

:47:55. > :48:01.extend to giving the Government a complete blank cheque. On their

:48:02. > :48:04.they conduct the negotiations. they conduct the negotiations.

:48:05. > :48:09.Obviously, everybody is clear that this will have major constitutional,

:48:10. > :48:15.political, economic and social invitations. For our relations with

:48:16. > :48:19.other countries, and for the domestic framework of our

:48:20. > :48:24.legislation. Given the lack of clarity, and the fact that there was

:48:25. > :48:27.no fan, I have consulted my constituents on their expectations

:48:28. > :48:35.and hopes, and how they want decisions to be taken. I read 2500,

:48:36. > :48:40.held six public meeting. They felt very strongly that they wanted

:48:41. > :48:44.parliament to be involved was that some of them thought that is the

:48:45. > :48:58.negotiating team ought to be a cross-party team. I said, well, I

:48:59. > :49:01.didn't think that was likely. For example, let me remind the

:49:02. > :49:07.honourable lady of the sort of views which might not be expressed in her

:49:08. > :49:12.constituency, but were expressed in my constituency. When we came to be

:49:13. > :49:16.looking at the social chapter and people's employment rights, where

:49:17. > :49:20.the said in terms you cannot trust the Tories. It is because there is

:49:21. > :49:27.that feeling, that is their words, not my words. It is because of that

:49:28. > :49:32.that we need to have parliamentary involvement in the way this process

:49:33. > :49:36.is carried forward. The Government have come very reluctantly to the

:49:37. > :49:44.House with this Bill. I first requested that an and to be involved

:49:45. > :49:49.on the 11th of July in terms of Article 50. They were reserves, they

:49:50. > :49:53.only came because they were so forced -- forced to do so by the

:49:54. > :49:56.Supreme Court. Some Government backbencher set the whole

:49:57. > :50:04.negotiation is too complex to do in an open way. The honourable member

:50:05. > :50:08.for Dorset West has talked about 3-D chess. I take the opposite view. It

:50:09. > :50:12.is because it is compensated, precisely because it is multifaceted

:50:13. > :50:19.that lots of people should be involved. In terms of the

:50:20. > :50:24.negotiations, the vast majority of the amendments, I think I counted 30

:50:25. > :50:28.boats down by members of the opposition, call for it reports

:50:29. > :50:33.within 30 days of this act coming out. Setting out the approach to be

:50:34. > :50:36.taken by the Government in terms of our negotiations. Does she imagine

:50:37. > :50:40.that Europe will be publishing reports on everyone of these issues

:50:41. > :50:46.setting out on their approach to the negotiations could actually it is

:50:47. > :50:50.giving away far too much is had the honourable member being in his post

:50:51. > :50:54.to hear the fantastic Speech by my honourable friend, the Member for

:50:55. > :50:59.Nottingham East, he would have understood why my honourable friend

:51:00. > :51:04.was proposing, as he did, all those reports. I am speaking to new clause

:51:05. > :51:12.29, which is about quarterly reporting from the Government once

:51:13. > :51:17.the negotiations get. Think another slight misconception on the other

:51:18. > :51:25.benches is that there is some best deal. As if there is some objective,

:51:26. > :51:31.technical standard test. Clearly, there is not. What is best in the

:51:32. > :51:36.honourable member's constituency of Gloucester, it may be different from

:51:37. > :51:40.what is best in my constituency of Bishop Auckland. This is not to cast

:51:41. > :51:44.aspersions on the motivations of the member of the Government, it is

:51:45. > :51:49.simply to be realistic. I'm sure when the Prime Minister talks about

:51:50. > :51:52.building a better Britain and doing the best for the country, I am quite

:51:53. > :51:59.sure she is being completely sincere. The fact is, in 1992, she

:52:00. > :52:05.came to Durham, she stood in a General Election, and she got half

:52:06. > :52:09.the number of seats, of votes, that's the Labour candidate got. The

:52:10. > :52:14.truth of the matter is that this is compensated, there are different

:52:15. > :52:18.interest, and parliaments, the sovereign body of the country,

:52:19. > :52:28.should be able to participate fully in the process. And scrutiny is the

:52:29. > :52:32.basic first break for this. I am grateful, but the net effect of the

:52:33. > :52:37.proposed new clause that it wouldn't be Parliament decided on the

:52:38. > :52:42.adequacy of the reporting back, but the High Court? In fact, she would

:52:43. > :52:58.be ceiling of 30 knots to this post but to the Independent High Court.

:52:59. > :53:03.# Jedinak. -- ceding. It is a shame that they lost last month. They were

:53:04. > :53:08.foolish to appeal after the High Court. The fact that they have lost

:53:09. > :53:15.one case does not mean that they should become obsessed with this

:53:16. > :53:18.risk. And it is as absurd as to say, well, we should stop having

:53:19. > :53:21.parliamentary questions for every department once a month because

:53:22. > :53:26.somehow we are undermining the Government. Defence questions, for

:53:27. > :53:32.example, which we have every single month. That is not undermining our

:53:33. > :53:35.security, it is holding the Government to account. Because these

:53:36. > :53:43.negotiations are so important, that is precisely what we should be

:53:44. > :53:47.doing. What I am arguing, and I think the Secretary of State, who I

:53:48. > :53:51.am sorry is not here, I think the Secretary of State, unlike some of

:53:52. > :53:54.the backbenchers, Government backbenchers, understands this is

:53:55. > :54:00.not a technical issue, this is a political process. Involving

:54:01. > :54:04.Parliament and having proper parliamentary scrutiny is the right

:54:05. > :54:09.thing to do to build the national consensus, which the white paper

:54:10. > :54:12.says is the Government's him. New clause 29 is very simple and

:54:13. > :54:19.straightforward. A quarterly reporting system, during the

:54:20. > :54:23.negotiations. And while the select committees are doing fantastic work

:54:24. > :54:27.looking at particular issues in great detail, it is extremely

:54:28. > :54:33.important that the whole House gets a regular opportunity to look at how

:54:34. > :54:40.things are going and to look, from the perspective of the different

:54:41. > :54:43.Out of necessity, I drafted new Out of necessity, I drafted new

:54:44. > :54:51.clause 29 without seeing new clause three. New clause three is obviously

:54:52. > :54:59.tougher than new clause 29, so some people will prepare -- prefer new

:55:00. > :55:04.clause three. Some people will prefer new clause 29 for that

:55:05. > :55:09.reason. A couple of words about new clause 30 three. New clause 33

:55:10. > :55:14.requires the Prime Minister to set out how the UK will have control

:55:15. > :55:18.over its immigration system. I tabled its because this is the major

:55:19. > :55:24.Particularly, very many people who Particularly, very many people who

:55:25. > :55:29.voted Leave. It seems right to refer in the draft framework to it on

:55:30. > :55:35.negotiating objectives which we must prepare for our future negotiations

:55:36. > :55:38.with the EU. We need to make it clear that in these discussions I

:55:39. > :55:41.have a my decisions, while this was a factor for some of them in the way

:55:42. > :55:48.they voted, they were equally committed to providing EU citizens

:55:49. > :55:53.have signed new clause 57, which my have signed new clause 57, which my

:55:54. > :55:58.right honourable and learned friend, the Member for Peckham, Camberwell

:55:59. > :56:11.and Peckham, has put down. These things are completely consistent.

:56:12. > :56:17.I am grateful for the lady for giving way. She has talked about

:56:18. > :56:21.guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens. There is a way around for

:56:22. > :56:25.the Government tonight to guarantee those rights, to say that he was

:56:26. > :56:31.correct, that they would guarantee that they would then move those

:56:32. > :56:36.rights into the immigration bill. That would give, it may not be the

:56:37. > :56:39.preferred method for many in this House, but it would guarantee EU

:56:40. > :56:44.citizens what they want, effectively. Does she not agree with

:56:45. > :56:47.me? I Well, I have not thought about it in as much detail as the

:56:48. > :56:51.honourable gentleman. It will be very interesting to see what the

:56:52. > :56:56.minister who responds to this debate says at the dispatch box tonight. As

:56:57. > :56:59.I was saying, think we should have proper scrutiny. We should have it

:57:00. > :57:04.in a structured way. I am very disappointed that we haven't got

:57:05. > :57:16.slightly longer to look at all these things in more detail. It is a

:57:17. > :57:19.pleasure to follow the lady. She expressed with outrightness. She

:57:20. > :57:25.raised the issue of the customs union. I am very grateful for her

:57:26. > :57:33.for doing that. I was one of five, Ah, last July it was. Last July The

:57:34. > :57:36.Right Honourable member for Lee proposed an amendment of the topic

:57:37. > :57:39.of guaranteeing rights in the UK. I was one of five Conservative Members

:57:40. > :57:44.of Parliament to support the opposition on their motion. I think

:57:45. > :57:48.that was an excellent motion to have been proposed at that time. I would

:57:49. > :57:52.thank out, thanks to that motion there's been tremendous progress

:57:53. > :57:56.made in terms of the thinking of the Government and most importantly the

:57:57. > :58:01.statement of the Government. It is perhaps the fact that we are here

:58:02. > :58:05.debating an issue where there is union themty of view about what we

:58:06. > :58:08.want to achieve. Almost to the point of parody that almost everyone is

:58:09. > :58:11.agreeing on a point they will then disagree about. The fundamental

:58:12. > :58:15.question is whether placing this on question is whether placing this on

:58:16. > :58:20.this bill is the right approach to continuing the pressure and progress

:58:21. > :58:26.to achieve what my honourable friend from Cambridgeshire south spoke

:58:27. > :58:30.about so eloquently... On that point will you give way. My honourable

:58:31. > :58:37.friend talks about whether it is the right place for this to be on this

:58:38. > :58:43.bill. Should it be we need legislation to orientate our moral

:58:44. > :58:49.compass? Let me not dwell too much. Woi sauld say as I look through the

:58:50. > :58:53.amendments ofs bill, they fall into three pools. Those asking or

:58:54. > :58:58.requiring scrutiny of the Government's approach. Those that

:58:59. > :59:03.seek to frame a position of the, for the Government in negotiations and

:59:04. > :59:07.thirdly those seeking answers to an inponderable list of questions, most

:59:08. > :59:13.notably those from the honourable member for Nottingham East. I think

:59:14. > :59:19.actually they are in declining issue of value of the attention of this

:59:20. > :59:24.House. The question of scrutiny I think is very reto how the House

:59:25. > :59:28.sees proceeding on this. I will listen very careful to see what the

:59:29. > :59:33.front bench talks about on scrutiny. I am concerned though from some of

:59:34. > :59:37.the comments made and not answered by the honourable member for Dorset

:59:38. > :59:41.West the idea that we would involve the Government in ge noshations and

:59:42. > :59:44.then involve Parliament -- in negotiations and then involve

:59:45. > :59:49.Parliament, and then the courts in negotiations seems to bring the

:59:50. > :59:53.words "dog" and "breakfast" together very quickly. I think on the issue

:59:54. > :59:58.of foreign nationals hooer in the UK, many of the contributions in the

:59:59. > :00:03.debate have focused on the easiest side of the arguments. As my Right

:00:04. > :00:09.Honourable friend, the member for rest of dean mentioned, the issue of

:00:10. > :00:12.prisoners in the UK. On the amendment, those prisoners who had

:00:13. > :00:16.committed crimes in this country would be guaranteed rights to remain

:00:17. > :00:20.in this country. We may want to do that, but I think it is a very hard

:00:21. > :00:24.case to make that we should do that whilst not giving any concern or

:00:25. > :00:28.consideration to those in other, British nationals in other EU

:00:29. > :00:32.countries. That seems to me, as my honourable friend said, losing our

:00:33. > :00:36.moral compass through legislation. I think we have underestimated,

:00:37. > :00:40.there have been a number of people who have cited specific examples in

:00:41. > :00:45.this debate, where those people would actually be guaranteed rights

:00:46. > :00:48.in this country. I think, as parliamentarians, we have a

:00:49. > :00:52.responsible to reduce uncertainty as we go through this process of

:00:53. > :00:57.leaving the EU and one very practical way we can do that is

:00:58. > :01:01.knowing what the circumstances are for each of our efficients who come

:01:02. > :01:04.and talk to us so we can explain there is no need for them to be

:01:05. > :01:09.concerned because their rights are secure. That will not cover all of

:01:10. > :01:16.them. It ma I not cover such a proportion as the member for Newark

:01:17. > :01:22.mentioned. I think I think the third argument is we have directed all our

:01:23. > :01:27.approaches on this issue of which we agree, of keeping those with the

:01:28. > :01:30.right to remain here. We have focussed all our attention on the

:01:31. > :01:34.Government's front bench. Hardly a person has mentioned Angela Merkel.

:01:35. > :01:38.Now, as I understand it, and I get it from two very reputable

:01:39. > :01:44.newspapers, the Sun and the Express, so it must be true. I understand

:01:45. > :01:52.that it was Mrs Merkel who said, no to a deal. So, where are our voice

:01:53. > :01:58.-- were our voices talking about pressuring the German Government on

:01:59. > :02:01.that? I have heard plenty of speeches talking about Donald Trump.

:02:02. > :02:04.Here is something which affects British it is zeps in another

:02:05. > :02:08.country and not a word from anyone -- in other countries and not an

:02:09. > :02:17.issue on that from anyone. Not a word. By triggering Article 50 we

:02:18. > :02:23.give all the rights to deliver our future. That is why we should delay

:02:24. > :02:27.Article 50 until the people have a final say on a negotiating package

:02:28. > :02:31.and we the negotiating writers for members, we have the power of time

:02:32. > :02:36.and we give them the incentive we might vote to stay in the EU so we

:02:37. > :02:43.might come to the negotiating table. I don't think the honourable member

:02:44. > :02:47.would have got a top mark in negotiation analysis at Harvard

:02:48. > :03:00.business school. And the last word the British want to hear when it

:03:01. > :03:04.comes is delay. It is important that messages here is important. There is

:03:05. > :03:08.uncertainty and people do feel that perhaps they don't have the right to

:03:09. > :03:12.remain here. So Government must continue its progress in signalling

:03:13. > :03:17.them here, but our intent, our them here, but our intent, our

:03:18. > :03:22.intent is that everyone who has, is in the United Kingdom, as a legal EU

:03:23. > :03:28.resident, will be able to stay in the Government. We must not avoid or

:03:29. > :03:34.not pursue communicating that message. But equally the Government

:03:35. > :03:38.must avoid state measures. Must avoid measures that give the optics

:03:39. > :03:42.to those British citizens in other EU countries that they have been

:03:43. > :03:46.abandoned. One of the worst things from supporting this in legislation

:03:47. > :03:50.is not that it is necessarily a bad thing, but that the optics of that

:03:51. > :03:54.for British citizens in other countries will change dramatically.

:03:55. > :03:58.They will say, why have we not been protected. They would feel more

:03:59. > :04:01.vulnerable because of the inaction of EU Governments if the UK

:04:02. > :04:07.Government was by statute to take this. So, I will be supporting the

:04:08. > :04:11.Government on this amendment. I call on the Government to continue with

:04:12. > :04:16.its progress on this issue, to end uncertainty. May I add to that, that

:04:17. > :04:20.in ending uncertainty, it isn't just about the rights of EU nationals

:04:21. > :04:26.currently living in the UK, it is about wanting people who are in the

:04:27. > :04:29.European Union to come to the UK. That message, that progressive

:04:30. > :04:34.message of this Government shouldn't just end with the issues that are

:04:35. > :04:38.constrained in the amendment proposed today. We should have a

:04:39. > :04:40.positive message that we will continue to welcome members of the

:04:41. > :04:53.European Union after we leave. Support the new clauses and

:04:54. > :04:58.amendments supported by my friend from North East Fife earlier today.

:04:59. > :05:01.I also wish to speak, in particular, to new clause 51, in the name of the

:05:02. > :05:07.honourable gentleman, the member for Pontypridd. In particular, I wish to

:05:08. > :05:15.support the argument that the White Paper must ensure details of the

:05:16. > :05:20.projected projectory for trade, GDP and unemployment. I think we saw

:05:21. > :05:25.contributions earlier today that would explain precisely why we need

:05:26. > :05:29.that. First was my honourable friend from North East Fife, who said that

:05:30. > :05:34.the vote leave campaign failed to provide detailed answers to any of

:05:35. > :05:39.the key economic questions before the referendum. And of course he's

:05:40. > :05:41.right. But there was also the contribution from The Right

:05:42. > :05:46.Honourable gentleman, the member for rest of dean, who is no longer in

:05:47. > :05:50.his place. And I think he demonstrated incredibly ably the

:05:51. > :05:54.confusion at the heart of the vote leave campaign, and why the decision

:05:55. > :06:00.taking today is incredibly difficult.

:06:01. > :06:04.He said, and I am paraphrasing. He effectively said, no-one in the

:06:05. > :06:09.leadership of the official leave campaign ever argued that we would

:06:10. > :06:15.join the EU or A have an agreement. Now, it may have been the that Right

:06:16. > :06:20.Honourable gentleman the member for sun any heath of one of these other

:06:21. > :06:24.senior figures never said that. But to argue the leave campaign did not

:06:25. > :06:29.suggest that and suggest it strongly, is simply wrong. The leave

:06:30. > :06:35.campaign lawyers for Britain said, we can apply to rejoin with effect

:06:36. > :06:41.from the day after Brexit. If the membership would allow us to

:06:42. > :06:47.continue uninterrupted free, etc. That was on the website only a few

:06:48. > :06:54.weeks ago. The former am bar Dr Appeared on Newsnight and argued an

:06:55. > :07:04.option may be the first step in Brexit. There was an extended paper,

:07:05. > :07:10.entitled, Evolution, not revolution. "Tie the case for the AAE option. I

:07:11. > :07:16.suspect there were many people who indeed voted for Brexit, believing

:07:17. > :07:22.we were not voting for a hard Tory cliff-edge Brexit. That we would

:07:23. > :07:26.maintain membership. And I think given that no longer appears to be

:07:27. > :07:31.the case, then it's absolutely right, as the honourable gentleman's

:07:32. > :07:37.motion, new clause makes clear, that we have details of the expected

:07:38. > :07:40.trajectory of the balance of trade, GDP and unemployment.

:07:41. > :07:45.I'll make a little progress, then I will. But these are not abstracts.

:07:46. > :07:49.They are at the heart of the measurement of our economy. Of

:07:50. > :07:55.wages, of living standards, of economic growth. They are the

:07:56. > :08:00.platform for tax yield, which pays for our vital public services. All

:08:01. > :08:05.those words and concepts were entirely absent from what I will

:08:06. > :08:11.call generously, the first White Paper. I may observe it is not good

:08:12. > :08:16.enough for the Government to produce a White Paper. After a referendum.

:08:17. > :08:20.After sets of votes, which is little more than a Prime Minister's

:08:21. > :08:26.Lancaster House speech, dressed up with a few pictures and a couple of

:08:27. > :08:30.graphs. This is not the basis for the economic plan necessary to

:08:31. > :08:35.mitigate the huge potential damage to the economy from a hard Tory

:08:36. > :08:42.Brexit. And make no mistake, that is what we're facing. I'll happily give

:08:43. > :08:45.way. Did the Government leaflet, great

:08:46. > :08:49.cost, not exactly make this point that single market membership was

:08:50. > :08:54.not an option but it was access that would be the result of the

:08:55. > :08:57.referendum and a leave vote? There may have been many things said.

:08:58. > :09:03.There was access to the single market. Some might argue been in the

:09:04. > :09:09.AAE precisely gives one not just access but membership of, one can

:09:10. > :09:13.call it access, if one likes. There was deep, deep confusion in the

:09:14. > :09:19.messages of the -- messaging of the no side, which must be rettyfied

:09:20. > :09:22.with the key numbers before more decisions are taken. I said we're

:09:23. > :09:29.facing a hard Brexit. Let's understand what it is that has been

:09:30. > :09:35.said. The leaked treasurely document last November suggested the UK could

:09:36. > :09:46.lose up to 66 billion from a hard Brexit. The GDP could fall 9.5% if

:09:47. > :09:50.reverted to WTO rules. This is worst case scenario. Without the plan to

:09:51. > :09:53.mitigate that, should the circumstances occur which lead us to

:09:54. > :09:57.that catastrophe, then the guilt would be on the part of the

:09:58. > :10:08.Government for failing If we revert to WTO rules, that is

:10:09. > :10:14.key because the Prime Minister said a bad deal is worse than no deal.

:10:15. > :10:18.That's very twisted logic, Mr Howard because no deal is the worst deal,

:10:19. > :10:24.it means we do revert immediately to WTO rules with all the tariffs and

:10:25. > :10:28.other regulatory word on that implies. The leaked Treasury

:10:29. > :10:33.document wasn't published in isolation. The LSE, the centre for

:10:34. > :10:40.economic performance published very similar numbers. They said in the

:10:41. > :10:42.long run reduced trade lowers productivity, already a huge problem

:10:43. > :10:58.for the UK, they said that -- increase cost of credit would be

:10:59. > :11:04.to a loss of 6.3 - 6.5% of GDP. Between 4200 and ?6,500 per

:11:05. > :11:11.household. When we consider that impact in terms of the impact on

:11:12. > :11:16.real people it begins to have a substantial measure of strength to

:11:17. > :11:18.the argument. The figures in Scotland, independently produced are

:11:19. > :11:25.in line with those other assessments. This suggest a hard

:11:26. > :11:31.read it could result in the loss of 80,000 Scottish jobs within a decade

:11:32. > :11:36.and a drop in wages up averaging around ?2000. I don't think any

:11:37. > :11:40.politician of any party would willingly say, let's embark on a

:11:41. > :11:45.course of action which will lead to the new impoverishment of many

:11:46. > :11:57.people in society. That is where we are with the hard Tory Brexit

:11:58. > :12:01.argument. I can hear the groans, we had year after year of long-term

:12:02. > :12:06.economic plan which failed at every turn. I think it's better if we

:12:07. > :12:13.argue that what we are facing today is a hard Brexit, a cliff edge

:12:14. > :12:18.Brexit and prepare for it. That makes sense. If we add to that, add

:12:19. > :12:22.to the assessments which have already been done, today's report,

:12:23. > :12:27.the senior executives in the FTSE 500 companies tell us the Brexit

:12:28. > :12:32.vote is already having a negative impact on business. That should have

:12:33. > :12:37.alarm bells ringing throughout government instead, there is simply

:12:38. > :12:42.complacency. The British Chambers report, almost half of businesses

:12:43. > :12:45.surveyed have already seen ahead to margins due to the devaluation

:12:46. > :12:52.caused by the fear of Brexit with more than half suggesting they will

:12:53. > :12:56.have two increase prices. All the more reason to have the kind of

:12:57. > :13:01.assessment and understanding of the trajectory of many of the key

:13:02. > :13:07.metrics and the plans to mitigate the worst impact. All of that Mr

:13:08. > :13:15.Howard is before we get to the vexed question of balance of trade. A

:13:16. > :13:21.current account for the last full year 80 billion in the red, a

:13:22. > :13:27.deficit in the trade in goods of 120 billion, yet we are faced with a

:13:28. > :13:30.Brexit which will make this worse. Ripping the UK and Scotland out of

:13:31. > :13:35.the world's largest and most successful trading block. To do this

:13:36. > :13:42.without the clear assessment asked four of the damage and any credible

:13:43. > :13:47.plan to mitigate it included in a comprehensive White Paper is in my

:13:48. > :13:57.view an act of wilful economic vandalism. Clear manga like I'm

:13:58. > :14:02.anxious to get those people who sat through throughout the debate and

:14:03. > :14:08.try to get in as many as possible. In order to do so, there is no time

:14:09. > :14:13.limit and I'm not going to impose one but if those who remain all take

:14:14. > :14:15.five minutes of preferably less, it might be possible to get all of them

:14:16. > :14:22.in. I'd like to start by reading from a

:14:23. > :14:25.letter I received from a constituent talking about his wife who was born

:14:26. > :14:30.in the Netherlands and he writes that she's lived in this country for

:14:31. > :14:33.over 30 years, brought up three British children and is completely

:14:34. > :14:38.integrated into the life of her local time. She is not part of any

:14:39. > :14:42.immigrant community, she just lives here and is fully at home here.

:14:43. > :14:52.Until now she's never seen herself as an outsider and has been able to

:14:53. > :14:55.participate fully in local life thanks to her rights as an EU

:14:56. > :14:57.citizen. On 99 years' time she'll lose those rights and the foreigner

:14:58. > :14:59.dependent on the goodwill of the government of the day. I have

:15:00. > :15:02.written back to my constricting and met with him because I think it's

:15:03. > :15:07.inconceivable that our Prime Minister would separate this family.

:15:08. > :15:13.However, many people are not reassured and he and his wife sought

:15:14. > :15:16.for her to have permanent residency an 85 page document including an

:15:17. > :15:22.English-language test and a test of life in Britain, insulting frankly

:15:23. > :15:25.to somebody who's lived here all of her life, most of her life and

:15:26. > :15:31.brought up three children here. Also very expensive. Then the final sting

:15:32. > :15:35.in the tail for this is that she finds she is not eligible because

:15:36. > :15:41.she's been self-employed and hasn't taken a comprehensive sickness

:15:42. > :15:45.insurance. I think this situation is frankly unacceptable. I think that

:15:46. > :15:49.what we need to do is to keep our compassion and to keep this simple.

:15:50. > :15:53.As I say, I think it's inconceivable that families such as this would be

:15:54. > :16:00.separated, so we should be absolutely clear in saying so

:16:01. > :16:05.upfront. I completely understand what she's saying in terms of her

:16:06. > :16:13.own constituencies. It is De Villiers betting but would you join

:16:14. > :16:16.me in reflecting that the EU and Chancellor Merkel, we could have

:16:17. > :16:19.come to deal about this earlier but the reality is that they have

:16:20. > :16:26.refused to discuss this before trigger Article 50. I'm agreed with

:16:27. > :16:29.this and I've also heard from British citizens who are in my

:16:30. > :16:36.constituents in the the European Union. Come what may, it's

:16:37. > :16:39.inconceivable that we would seek to separate families such as this and

:16:40. > :16:44.there's no doubt that many people that we are all seeing in our

:16:45. > :16:48.surgeries are sleepless, sick with worry about it, it's true. These are

:16:49. > :16:54.people that I see in my surgery on the other point that we need to make

:16:55. > :16:59.is just consider this years an of paperwork that we will have to deal

:17:00. > :17:03.with in settling the rights of the citizens if we don't get on with

:17:04. > :17:07.this quickly. We need to keep this simple. There is no way that

:17:08. > :17:14.families such as this to should be subjected to vast bureaucracy, vast

:17:15. > :17:20.expense. We all know that this needs to be settled and so I would say in

:17:21. > :17:25.negotiating, surely making a bold and open offer as a gesture of

:17:26. > :17:31.goodwill can do nothing but good in this situation. I agree with my

:17:32. > :17:34.honourable friend and my question is can she cast any thought about why

:17:35. > :17:43.the Chancellor of Germany refused the offer? I have no idea what is

:17:44. > :17:51.happening but what I'm saying to you is I think that as an important

:17:52. > :17:54.point to the Chancellor of Germany, making this clear unilateral offer

:17:55. > :17:59.is the right thing to do and that we should get on and do it. There is no

:18:00. > :18:03.reason not to do so because even if other countries were to take an

:18:04. > :18:08.obstructive and unreasonable lying here, I still feel it would be

:18:09. > :18:15.inconceivable that our Prime Minister would separate families

:18:16. > :18:17.such as my constituent. Does my honourable friend not agree with me

:18:18. > :18:22.that the Prime Minister has given her word that this will be a

:18:23. > :18:26.priority. She clearly hears the compassion that the honourable lady

:18:27. > :18:32.reflects on her constituency and all of ours. We must and I certainly

:18:33. > :18:37.accept the word of the Prime Minister that this will be her

:18:38. > :18:40.priority and she will sort it. I thank my honourable friend and I

:18:41. > :18:45.agree, I do trust the Prime Minister and that is why I have taken a very

:18:46. > :18:50.reassuring line with my constituents. However, there is no

:18:51. > :18:54.substitute for actually a very clear statement from our Prime Minister

:18:55. > :18:57.that come what may, family such at this will not be separated because I

:18:58. > :19:04.think this is the reassurance they seek. He ignored my honourable

:19:05. > :19:09.friend says, I think let's get on and make that offer, it can be

:19:10. > :19:14.nothing but good to do so. I also hope the Prime Minister will take

:19:15. > :19:19.further action on the issue of those who work in our NHS and social care.

:19:20. > :19:22.One in ten of the doctors that work on the NHS come from elsewhere in

:19:23. > :19:26.the European Union and I'd like to say thank you on behalf of the whole

:19:27. > :19:31.house to all of those workers. And also to those who are working in

:19:32. > :19:36.social care. I also think it would be very much a positive move if we

:19:37. > :19:41.could upfront say that those who are working here will be welcome to stay

:19:42. > :19:44.and make it very clear that we will continue to make it easy to welcome

:19:45. > :19:55.people from across the European Union to work in social care and our

:19:56. > :19:57.NHS. I'm going to try to make a very short pointed speech because I think

:19:58. > :20:02.a lot of honourable members have been here for this debate and I must

:20:03. > :20:06.say at the beginning that it's extraordinary that we are debating

:20:07. > :20:10.one of the most if not the most important economic social strategic

:20:11. > :20:15.decision this house has had to make certainly in the six years I've been

:20:16. > :20:21.here and arguably for 70 years and we're trying to do it in a few short

:20:22. > :20:25.days and hours. My amendment I want to speak about as new clause 51,

:20:26. > :20:29.it's a simple good-hearted amendment that seeks to get the government to

:20:30. > :20:34.come clean with the country and explain what it now thinks, what

:20:35. > :20:38.this government thinks the impact of Brexit is going to mean for our

:20:39. > :20:44.constituents and for our national interest. It talks about labour

:20:45. > :20:47.rights, health and safety legislation, environmental

:20:48. > :20:52.protections. Most importantly it talks about the impact that we are

:20:53. > :20:55.likely to seek on our GDP, on our balance of trade, those fundamental

:20:56. > :21:02.metrics that dictate whether we succeed or fail as a nation. I table

:21:03. > :21:05.this amendment before we saw the abject lamentable piece of work that

:21:06. > :21:11.the government produced last Thursday. The White Paper, the 70

:21:12. > :21:16.odd skimpy pages of white Paper, 10% of which is actually blocked out,

:21:17. > :21:22.the whitest white paper I think the House has ever seen. I contrasted

:21:23. > :21:28.with the 200 odd page report that the Treasury produced in advance the

:21:29. > :21:32.referendum detailing minute she, all of the impacts that were anticipated

:21:33. > :21:37.as a result of these changes in respect of GDP. The benches chunter

:21:38. > :21:41.on but when the Prime Minister was sacked on that bench as Home

:21:42. > :21:45.Secretary she signed up to every line of this, so I think it's

:21:46. > :21:49.entirely legitimate for the country to ask, is the Prime Minister now

:21:50. > :21:52.living a lie as to what she thinks the impact of Brexit would be. Is

:21:53. > :21:56.she deceiving the country about whether this is going to be turn out

:21:57. > :22:04.well for us or not? Let's not forget that this paper did suggest that the

:22:05. > :22:12.net impact of leaving the European Union on GDP was going to be in the

:22:13. > :22:18.order of ?45 billion per year within 15 years. That's a third of the

:22:19. > :22:23.budget of the NHS. It would require a 10p increase in the basic rate of

:22:24. > :22:27.taxation to fill that black hole. It may well be entirely untrue, perhaps

:22:28. > :22:31.it was just an estimate by experts in the Treasury who we shouldn't

:22:32. > :22:35.believe any longer but it saw the government needs to come clean and

:22:36. > :22:38.tell us what is the current estimate. Now we know what the

:22:39. > :22:42.government is planning to do, now we know it is the rock-hard Brexit that

:22:43. > :22:47.they hate to hear about on the other side that we are gunning for. What

:22:48. > :22:53.will be in fact be? What will the impact be on trade? The government

:22:54. > :22:58.was very clear. Under any circumstances, leaving the European

:22:59. > :23:06.Union will reduce trade by this country. It will make us permanently

:23:07. > :23:11.poor as a result of reduced trade, reduced activity, reduced receipts,

:23:12. > :23:14.forcing the government to increase and prolong austerity in this

:23:15. > :23:20.country. That's the stakes that we are playing for on behalf of our

:23:21. > :23:25.constituents in this place in this debate. It seems to me entirely

:23:26. > :23:31.right that if this house is to be worthy of the name of the houses of

:23:32. > :23:35.Parliament, if it is going to do its job as it's meant to, as it has done

:23:36. > :23:40.for centuries, we need to see the detail, we need to be clear about

:23:41. > :23:45.what this is going to mean for my constituents, for my children and if

:23:46. > :23:51.it is anything like the black picture that was previously painted,

:23:52. > :23:58.we must have a final meaningful vote in this house as to the terms. We

:23:59. > :24:03.cannot allow this country to drift out of the European Union on the bad

:24:04. > :24:09.deal of World Trade Organisation terms that would mean the ?45

:24:10. > :24:14.billion black hole was realised in our public finances. We cannot allow

:24:15. > :24:18.that to happen for future generations. We will be held

:24:19. > :24:23.accountable by those future generations if this has sits by

:24:24. > :24:30.supplying, pusillanimous allowing this to be waved through this house

:24:31. > :24:35.for political purposes to end the 30 year civil war on the Tory benches.

:24:36. > :24:39.I cannot stand for that in this house. We should not stand for that

:24:40. > :24:42.in this house. We should see the detail, we should hold the

:24:43. > :24:49.government to account and I will continue to do that throughout this

:24:50. > :24:53.debate. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and I rise

:24:54. > :24:56.to move new clause 56 tabled in my name and the names of honourable and

:24:57. > :25:01.right Honourable members from across the House and I hope this will pick

:25:02. > :25:05.up cross-party support because this amendment this is the future of our

:25:06. > :25:09.economy, the future of jobs and trade at the centre of the debate

:25:10. > :25:15.where I believe that it should be because in leaving the European

:25:16. > :25:20.Union as people have voted for us to do the remains an outstanding

:25:21. > :25:21.question of what happens in terms of our membership of the single market

:25:22. > :25:32.and the customs union. This was not a clear issue during

:25:33. > :25:36.the referendum. There were differences of opinion on the remain

:25:37. > :25:40.and the leave side. Given that am by guty, on something as important as

:25:41. > :25:44.this, it is right that Parliament, in taking whack control, should at

:25:45. > :25:48.least give the -- back control, should at least give the Government

:25:49. > :25:54.a steer in the direction we would like to see. We are part of the

:25:55. > :26:00.largest free trade area in the world, giving us unfetterred access

:26:01. > :26:06.to half a billion... Will the honourable gentleman give way? Would

:26:07. > :26:10.he not agree, at best unfortunate that his front bench has not used

:26:11. > :26:14.its opposition supply days to have exactly that debate and indeed a

:26:15. > :26:19.vote on the single market, the customs union and indeed the free

:26:20. > :26:24.movement of people? Well, I just say, with respect to the honourable

:26:25. > :26:29.lady, I have a lot of respect for the way she's conducted herself, her

:26:30. > :26:33.criticisms of our front bench and the shadow Brexit team, are unfair.

:26:34. > :26:37.Her criticism of our front bench would carry more weight in this

:26:38. > :26:41.House if she was clearer about which voting lobby she will walk through

:26:42. > :26:46.on a number of crucial issues. It's all very well taking to the airways

:26:47. > :26:51.and speaking to the newspaper about the fight she will put up on these

:26:52. > :26:55.issues, but she has to vote where her mouth is.

:26:56. > :26:58.I've made it very clear that I very much hope that the Government will

:26:59. > :27:04.see the good sense, as has been put forward in much of the wording of

:27:05. > :27:09.new clause 110 and some sort of compromise and sense can be

:27:10. > :27:14.achieved. I make it very clear n the aboutence of that, I will find --

:27:15. > :27:17.absence of that, I will find myself with no alternative but to go

:27:18. > :27:24.against my Government. The last thing I want to do. We are part of

:27:25. > :27:28.the largest free trade area in the world. We've heard a lot about

:27:29. > :27:34.global trade and our relationship with the rest of the world. What is

:27:35. > :27:37.often overlooked is membership facilitate global trade. In fact it

:27:38. > :27:43.has more free trade agreements with the rest of the world than the

:27:44. > :27:48.United States, China, Canada, Japan, Russia, India and Brazil. Every

:27:49. > :27:52.single sector of our why will be affected by the decisions and the

:27:53. > :27:57.outcome of the negotiations that our Government make. Last week the cat

:27:58. > :28:02.was let out of the bag, or should I say in the case of The Right

:28:03. > :28:07.Honourable member of Rushcliffe, the rabbit was let out of Alice's wonder

:28:08. > :28:11.land. The Right Honourable member for Rushcliffe pointed out that the

:28:12. > :28:15.idea that we will leave the most advanced and sophisticated free

:28:16. > :28:19.trade agreement in the world and there will be queueing up, countries

:28:20. > :28:24.around the world, that will give us as favourable terms, as good for our

:28:25. > :28:29.economy is fanciful. If that were not bad enough, we should listen to

:28:30. > :28:33.The Right Honourable member for Tatton, because my jaw dropped. He

:28:34. > :28:38.said, the Prime Minister has chosen not to make the economy the priority

:28:39. > :28:42.in this negotiation. I am just going to repeat this. Not to make the

:28:43. > :28:46.economy the priority in this negotiation. We are leaving the

:28:47. > :28:52.European Union. There is a real risk that the Prime Minister is going to

:28:53. > :28:57.drive a coach and horses through the biggest single trade agreement and

:28:58. > :29:01.free trade area in the world. She will drive a horse and coaches

:29:02. > :29:07.through that. Divorce us from the single market, from the custom

:29:08. > :29:13.union, for jobs, investment, for the jobs of my efficients, for the job

:29:14. > :29:17.of every constituency, every member of this House. And yet the economy

:29:18. > :29:23.is not the priority in this negotiation. I think this is an

:29:24. > :29:28.outrageous prospectus. How could any member of the party opposite support

:29:29. > :29:31.a prospectus that does not place the economy at the forefront of our

:29:32. > :29:37.departure from the European Union? It is reckless. It is irresponsible.

:29:38. > :29:41.If we were behaving like this, they would be attacking us. And saying

:29:42. > :29:45.that we lack economic credibility. This lot don't even put the economy

:29:46. > :29:49.on the agenda. It's an absolute outrage. I am

:29:50. > :29:54.really conscious that other people want to come in.

:29:55. > :29:57.The Government should be seeking to get the best possible trading

:29:58. > :30:04.relationship with the European Union. I cannot fathom why the Prime

:30:05. > :30:09.Minister is not setting out to keep Britain in a reformed single market.

:30:10. > :30:14.Margaret Thatcher was the architect... I won't give away. I

:30:15. > :30:18.want to draw my remarks to a conclusion. I think by the way Mr

:30:19. > :30:22.Chairman, it is outrageous that we've not had enough time to debate

:30:23. > :30:26.these substantial issues. I would just say Margaret Thatcher was the

:30:27. > :30:28.architect of the single market. The Prime Minister could be the

:30:29. > :30:33.architect of a reformed single market. And in terms of the

:30:34. > :30:38.consequences and the choices and the trade-offs that lie ahead, whether

:30:39. > :30:41.on rules, on freedom of movement, on financial contribution, we should

:30:42. > :30:45.not give this Government a blank cheque. They have not earned it. Any

:30:46. > :30:49.Government that enters a process like this and says that the economy

:30:50. > :30:52.is not the priority does not deserve the trust of this House and does not

:30:53. > :30:58.deserve the trust of the British people.

:30:59. > :31:00.Thank you very much. I very much support the amendments that are

:31:01. > :31:06.designed to increase parliamentary scrutiny. I've signed many of them.

:31:07. > :31:10.I very much support the amendments about giving the rights to EU

:31:11. > :31:14.nations now to remain. This is a moral issue, not some kind of

:31:15. > :31:20.transactional calculation. That should be guaranteed now. But I rise

:31:21. > :31:24.to raise an issue which has not yet been discussed and in clause 36. It

:31:25. > :31:29.is the issue of transitional arrangements. Now I welcome the

:31:30. > :31:34.White Paper's recognition if a deal can be secured within the two-year

:31:35. > :31:40.period once Article 50 is triggered, then we will not leave the EU

:31:41. > :31:43.overnight. There'll be a phased - that is not the same thing as

:31:44. > :31:47.needing a period of transition should two years not provide

:31:48. > :31:51.sufficient to reach an agreement. And to have no idea of what that

:31:52. > :31:57.agreement is going to be is a glaring omission. That is what my

:31:58. > :32:01.amendment seeks to address, a transitional arrangement to govern

:32:02. > :32:06.EU trade negotiations during the period, if necessary, between when

:32:07. > :32:10.the UK leaves the EU and when a longer perm a-- term agreement is

:32:11. > :32:15.concluded. When we hit the two-year mark, which in reality is more like

:32:16. > :32:18.18 months, given the requirement to bring the deal before MP, the

:32:19. > :32:23.European Parliament and so on, given that very short amount of time the

:32:24. > :32:25.only option if a deal has not been secured is essentially to send

:32:26. > :32:31.Britain over a cliff edge. We face having to leave the EU effectively

:32:32. > :32:35.overnight, crashing out on terms. The Government has stated very

:32:36. > :32:39.clearly in its White Paper that it wants to avoid cliff edges, but at

:32:40. > :32:44.the moment it's done nothing to avoid to stay away from this one.

:32:45. > :32:48.Perhaps it's been to busy looking over the Atlantic and has not

:32:49. > :32:52.noticed it. Given that both France and Germany are going to be

:32:53. > :32:59.preoccupied with national elections for much of this year, coupled with

:33:00. > :33:03.the limited negotiating capacity and relative inexperience of the UK team

:33:04. > :33:07.it seems that two years will not be sufficient time to get the best deal

:33:08. > :33:10.for Britain. If we come to the end of the two-year period we need a

:33:11. > :33:16.plan which is not just the default option of the Wild West, that is the

:33:17. > :33:19.WTO. Now, the Prime Minister says she has unanimous agreement with the

:33:20. > :33:24.other member-states that getting that agreement is an option. We need

:33:25. > :33:28.to know that's been specifically discussed. That option of continuing

:33:29. > :33:33.the negotiations. We need to know that before we secure article, and

:33:34. > :33:37.before we trigger Article 50. Otherwise we risk yet more

:33:38. > :33:41.uncertainty for our economy, for the citizens living in the EU and for

:33:42. > :33:45.all of our constituents. It is very much like jumping out of a plane to

:33:46. > :33:49.escape somebody you have fallen out with and failing to double-check

:33:50. > :33:54.there's a parachute and a pack they have strapped on your back. Now what

:33:55. > :34:01.possible reason would anyone have for being so complacent or

:34:02. > :34:06.foolhardy? Xiting the EU is: -- ex-exiting the EU is... Many want us

:34:07. > :34:10.to conclude the element which comes with a potential bill of 16 billion

:34:11. > :34:14.ours before discussing a trade deal. This is a negotiation. Article 50

:34:15. > :34:19.only covers administrative Brexit, no t the legal or trade aspects. So,

:34:20. > :34:24.if after two years, we don't even have a basic divorce deal, it is

:34:25. > :34:27.possible there'll be frayed tempers, dwindling patience and in such

:34:28. > :34:30.circumstances the prospect of starting negotiations on starting

:34:31. > :34:35.trade deals is unlikely to put it mildly. 27 other countries will

:34:36. > :34:38.likely want to get agreement on the divorce settlement agreed via the

:34:39. > :34:43.courts to trade negotiations may not be possible even if the political

:34:44. > :34:47.will is there. For all of those reasons we absolutely need to have

:34:48. > :34:54.this transition arrangement in place. I didn't give way. Let me

:34:55. > :34:58.reiterate how frustrating it is that a debate of this importance we have

:34:59. > :35:02.to rattle through it at this ridiculous rate!

:35:03. > :35:06.Could I, before the honourable member starts, could I say there is

:35:07. > :35:10.one further member to be accommodated in the time available.

:35:11. > :35:14.I realise it is very tight. If he could be brief, that would be

:35:15. > :35:18.helpful. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I must thank the

:35:19. > :35:21.Government for the opportunity to and to the promise in the referendum

:35:22. > :35:25.that was given. Quite clearly the Government said they would list on

:35:26. > :35:29.the the will of the people in a true democratic form. People in the

:35:30. > :35:32.referendum said they wanted Article 50 to be triggered for 31st March.

:35:33. > :35:36.That is part of the exceptional circumstances we V that is why we're

:35:37. > :35:43.debating this here tonight as well. I come from a constituency, 54%, 64%

:35:44. > :35:47.to leave the EU. No, and with the other nine, it is very, very clear

:35:48. > :35:52.that we wish to see this going forward. I hope today we will not

:35:53. > :35:57.face efforts to derail the process. The train is going at a steady pace.

:35:58. > :36:02.The job of Government is to set the tracks in a Safeway to carry us out

:36:03. > :36:07.of Europe and back to independence. As a Northern Ireland MP there is

:36:08. > :36:13.clearly specific issues relating with our border with Ireland and the

:36:14. > :36:15.communities are unique to us. We have every faith in the Prime

:36:16. > :36:19.Minister and the team and the discussions that she and the Prime

:36:20. > :36:23.Minister had with the Taoiseach in the Republic of Ireland last week.

:36:24. > :36:27.Those were clearly the language was positive. The verbal contact was

:36:28. > :36:32.positive. We should have every faith in what goes forward. At the same

:36:33. > :36:37.time I want, if I can, Mr Chairman, refer to the clause, new clause six

:36:38. > :36:40.and new clause 14. There is the argument this amendment does not

:36:41. > :36:45.make clear who the protection applies to. The scope of the

:36:46. > :36:50.amendment. I am proud of the fact I con from a constituency which supply

:36:51. > :36:56.not simply the UK but globally recognised and trusted.

:36:57. > :37:00.Manufacturers who ship to the Middle East, and branching out to the Far

:37:01. > :37:07.East. One of the biggest employers in my constituency employs 40% of

:37:08. > :37:12.their workforce from Eastern Europe. We have asked those who look after,

:37:13. > :37:19.all these contribute to some 2,000 jobs. Some of the workers I have

:37:20. > :37:23.met, there must be no road blocks to them working in the country and live

:37:24. > :37:27.their lives. I spoke to the deputy minister when she came to Northern

:37:28. > :37:30.Ireland a couple of months ago, when she visited some of those factories

:37:31. > :37:35.and spoke to the people. She said she was very keen to ensure the

:37:36. > :37:39.people working in the factories had security and tenure. I support. This

:37:40. > :37:43.however, in saying all this, I must hold the line, my opening remarks

:37:44. > :37:48.are not, those who are living and working and getting into society and

:37:49. > :37:51.the local why, deserve this protection and I believe the PM is

:37:52. > :37:55.within her rights to ensure those who live and work here are married

:37:56. > :37:59.to a British person should have the ability to remain. With that in

:38:00. > :38:04.mind, and I conclude, there is no doubt they must curb migration,

:38:05. > :38:08.which does not enhance life in the UK, in relation to economic migrants

:38:09. > :38:12.but ensure that it will allow businesses to retain their

:38:13. > :38:16.workforce, without fear and have the ability to unequivocally offer job

:38:17. > :38:19.security to that workforce in order to keep their workers near in Great

:38:20. > :38:32.Britain and Northern Ireland. I keep my comments short. I was for

:38:33. > :38:34.remain, mainly because of the potential for short and medium-term,

:38:35. > :38:41.particularly in my constituency, which I have to say is likely to be

:38:42. > :38:47.a efficiency which has amongstst the highest -- amongst the highest trade

:38:48. > :38:52.surof the EU mainly from Jaguar Land Rover. I was for remain. However,

:38:53. > :38:56.that debate was lost. I still think we do face difficult times ahead. I

:38:57. > :39:02.do believe in free trade. We have to strike out the best we can do. It

:39:03. > :39:04.will be tough in a world of protectionism or growing

:39:05. > :39:10.protectionism. But the key is, when we are leaving the EU, we have to

:39:11. > :39:14.make the best possible deal. And for me it does not mean we have

:39:15. > :39:18.membership of the single market because on the doorsteps, the

:39:19. > :39:25.referendum campaign andvy to say, for years before, the message was

:39:26. > :39:27.loud and clear. - no freedom of movement people don't want freedom

:39:28. > :39:32.of movement. And the single market comes with that requirement.

:39:33. > :39:36.So, that is off the table straightaway, as the Prime Minister

:39:37. > :39:40.has made very clear. As for the customs union, the difficulties with

:39:41. > :39:44.that are effectively we wouldn't be able to therefore have our own trade

:39:45. > :39:52.deals with the rest of the world. We would be hamstrung and I have to say

:39:53. > :39:56.this whole idea of the AEA and single market membership, many are

:39:57. > :40:02.antechambers to entering the EU. We are leaving the EU. We are a country

:40:03. > :40:06.of 65 million people. A sophisticated, large economy. It is

:40:07. > :40:11.completely inappropriate to have that type of model. We need our own

:40:12. > :40:15.model. Any attempts to frustrate that through these amendments or to

:40:16. > :40:17.allow to have the Government expose its hand too early will damage our

:40:18. > :40:31.negotiation in that respect. This is a short bill which has

:40:32. > :40:36.attracted a very large number of amendments. They do fall into a

:40:37. > :40:41.number of broad categories and I'll deal first of all with the issue of

:40:42. > :40:43.Parliamentary scrutiny which has engaged the attention of a large

:40:44. > :40:50.number of honourable and Right Honourable members. Listening to the

:40:51. > :40:55.debate, it's very clear that there is actually a considerable amount of

:40:56. > :40:58.common ground across the chamber. The government believes also that

:40:59. > :41:03.Parliamentary scrutiny is essential as we withdraw from the European

:41:04. > :41:07.Union. Indeed, the whole object of leaving the European Union is to

:41:08. > :41:12.ensure that our parliament can take back our own laws on for that

:41:13. > :41:17.purpose scrutiny is essential. I recognise the thoughtfulness of the

:41:18. > :41:23.wording of many of the amendments which we have considered this

:41:24. > :41:28.afternoon, which seek to formalise the mould of scrutiny but I think it

:41:29. > :41:34.will probably surprise nobody that I will not be accepting any of them.

:41:35. > :41:40.This is a straightforward bill which gives us the means to respect the

:41:41. > :41:43.result of the referendum and also the judgment of the Supreme Court

:41:44. > :41:48.and as the court itself made absolutely clear, this is not about

:41:49. > :41:52.whether we leave on the terms upon which we lead but simply about the

:41:53. > :41:59.mechanics under which we trigger the process of leaving and in many cases

:42:00. > :42:04.the amendments which we've discussed today have virtually nothing to do

:42:05. > :42:10.with the bill. I resist the amendments in this group for two

:42:11. > :42:14.principal reasons. Firstly a lot of them are unnecessary in that what

:42:15. > :42:20.they are seeking to achieve is effectively already being done by

:42:21. > :42:25.the government. No one can deny that my right honourable friend, the

:42:26. > :42:29.Secretary of State, as indeed the honourable gentleman from Greenwich

:42:30. > :42:33.and Woolwich recognised, has been absolutely assiduous in his

:42:34. > :42:37.engagement with Parliament. It's been the source of intense scrutiny

:42:38. > :42:46.over the past seven months and I would suggest. I'm wondering if the

:42:47. > :42:52.Minister can tell us of reassuring EU nationals is unnecessary? I will

:42:53. > :42:56.come to EU nationals later but I as I explain the moment ago I'm dealing

:42:57. > :43:01.with the issue of scrutiny and not with the details of EU nationals.

:43:02. > :43:05.One can see from the Secretary of State's record of engagement that

:43:06. > :43:10.he's given an oral statement on almost monthly basis, far more than

:43:11. > :43:14.the monthly by monthly or quarterly updates to Parliament requested in

:43:15. > :43:19.these amendments. Ministers from across government have been at this

:43:20. > :43:22.dispatch box many times to debate our EU exit. The Prime Minister has

:43:23. > :43:27.given a statement after every council including one today and

:43:28. > :43:32.that's in addition to holding debates on the EU exit in government

:43:33. > :43:38.time. 15 appearances at select committees by ministers and

:43:39. > :43:42.officials from all departments. I'm pleased that he understands that

:43:43. > :43:47.Parliamentary scrutiny is essential. But what we've heard from government

:43:48. > :43:53.backbenchers is that once the Goucher shins begin everything has

:43:54. > :43:58.to close down. And therefore what has happened in the last seven

:43:59. > :44:01.months is not strictly speaking relevant to what will happen over

:44:02. > :44:08.the next two years and therefore the purpose of the new clauses is a

:44:09. > :44:11.forward-looking scrutiny. May I say to the honourable lady that I

:44:12. > :44:15.understand the point that cheesemaking. It is not however the

:44:16. > :44:21.case that everything is going as she puts it to close down -- that she is

:44:22. > :44:24.making. There will be negotiations and it's important those

:44:25. > :44:29.negotiations do continue to a certain extent in terms of privacy.

:44:30. > :44:33.At the same time, this government has made it absolutely clear, time

:44:34. > :44:38.after time, that we fully appreciate the need for engagement with this

:44:39. > :44:40.Parliament and for scrutiny by this Parliament provided of course it

:44:41. > :44:48.does not adversely affect those negotiations. Will he agree that the

:44:49. > :44:52.final deal should in fact be scrutinised by the British people,

:44:53. > :44:56.he should have the final say on whether this deal represents the

:44:57. > :44:59.reasonable expectations when they voted to leave? And if it doesn't

:45:00. > :45:05.they should have the chance to stay in the EU. The British people have

:45:06. > :45:08.had their say. They've had their say very clearly, they have instructed

:45:09. > :45:10.this Parliament that they wish to leave the European Union. I know

:45:11. > :45:17.that the honourable gentleman doesn't like that result but that is

:45:18. > :45:20.the hard fact. We have aimed at all times skew previously to fulfil

:45:21. > :45:25.Parliament's legitimate need for information and we'll continue to do

:45:26. > :45:30.so. As well as keeping Parliament in form, we'll pay regard to all the

:45:31. > :45:34.motions passed on the outcome of negotiations associated by the bill,

:45:35. > :45:39.as proposed in new clause 176, just as we've always paid regard to the

:45:40. > :45:46.motions passed on opposition days on the 12th of October on the 7th of

:45:47. > :45:49.December. On the provisions of new clause three concerning information

:45:50. > :45:54.sharing, the Secretary of State has been clear since the very early days

:45:55. > :46:00.following the referendum that he will keep Parliament at least as

:46:01. > :46:03.well-informed as the European Parliament as the negotiations

:46:04. > :46:06.progress. The amendment today as Custer reaffirmed this position so

:46:07. > :46:10.that Parliament receives the same documents that the European

:46:11. > :46:15.Parliament or any of its committees received from the Council from the

:46:16. > :46:19.commission. The government is absolutely resolute that this house

:46:20. > :46:24.will not be at an information disadvantage as compared with the

:46:25. > :46:29.European Parliament. The amendment is actually flawed. Simply because

:46:30. > :46:34.the United Kingdom government may not be privy to what information is

:46:35. > :46:37.passed confidentially between the commission or the other EU

:46:38. > :46:42.institutions and the Parliament itself, just as this house would not

:46:43. > :46:45.expect the government to pass all our documents relating to a highly

:46:46. > :46:52.sensitive negotiation to the other side. What I can do, however, is to

:46:53. > :46:55.confirm that the government will keep Parliament well-informed and as

:46:56. > :46:59.soon as we know how the EU institutions will share their

:47:00. > :47:03.information, we will get more information on what Parliament will

:47:04. > :47:05.receive and the mechanisms for it. Including the provision of

:47:06. > :47:12.arrangements for scrutiny of confidential documents. The second

:47:13. > :47:18.category of amendments, which again I must resist because they prejudge

:47:19. > :47:23.the negotiations to follow, are amendments that ask for a formal

:47:24. > :47:27.reporting on a myriad of subjects or four ports on unilateral

:47:28. > :47:30.commitments. The exact structure of the negotiations hasn't been

:47:31. > :47:34.determined and may very well be a matter for negotiation itself and

:47:35. > :47:37.therefore setting an arbitrary report in framework makes no sense

:47:38. > :47:41.at all. There will be times when there will be a great deal to report

:47:42. > :47:46.on an times when there is very little. The Prime Minister on the

:47:47. > :47:51.Secretary of State have already made serious undertakings and they will

:47:52. > :47:55.report to this house. And grateful to the minister because there were a

:47:56. > :47:58.lot of issues to be covered but just take one example of the European

:47:59. > :48:03.arrest warrant. Could you at least give us an indication of what the

:48:04. > :48:08.government's objectives are, does he want us to stay as part of it as we

:48:09. > :48:13.are at present? Clearly we require and we're looking to achieve close

:48:14. > :48:20.cooperation with the European Union on security matters. Again, these

:48:21. > :48:24.will be a matter for negotiation. These will be a matter for

:48:25. > :48:30.negotiation and as the negotiations progress then we will keep the House

:48:31. > :48:33.informed. The commitments that the Prime Minister and Secretary of

:48:34. > :48:38.State are given are important, that is why the government published a

:48:39. > :48:50.White Paper. An introduction by the Prime Minister.

:48:51. > :48:58.It is implementation phases, those are part of our objectives. I have

:48:59. > :49:02.little time to give way. The Secretary of State announced in the

:49:03. > :49:06.recent White Paper that there will be a further White Paper published

:49:07. > :49:08.on the greater repeal Bill so that Parliament can be kept fully

:49:09. > :49:13.informed of the provisions of the Bill in good time. After that the

:49:14. > :49:17.government will continue upholding this commitment through the primary

:49:18. > :49:23.and secondary legislation that will undoubtedly be required. Amendments

:49:24. > :49:29.that ask for specific reporting to Parliament after invoking the

:49:30. > :49:38.article 50, including new clauses 320, 22, 29, 51, 111-100 and 30, on

:49:39. > :49:41.a relationship with EU agencies on competition policy, environmental

:49:42. > :49:45.regulations, the UK's renewable sector and virtually every other

:49:46. > :49:50.aspect of our relationship with the EU are dangerous. They would bind us

:49:51. > :49:56.to an inflexible timetable of updates as we try to navigate a

:49:57. > :50:00.complex set of negotiations. Following the minister's speech,

:50:01. > :50:04.does he agrees me that it is a mistake to put the procedures of

:50:05. > :50:11.house into primary legislation which will give the courts and unnecessary

:50:12. > :50:15.focus to interfere with our affairs. He makes an extremely important

:50:16. > :50:19.point. If these provisions are put on the face of the bill then there

:50:20. > :50:23.is no doubt that they become justiciable and that therefore would

:50:24. > :50:26.lead to further delay. What this country requires at the moment is

:50:27. > :50:35.certainty and speed and instead we would have uncertainty and delay.

:50:36. > :50:38.I'll give away one last time. Would he acknowledged that there is at

:50:39. > :50:43.least a possibility that a new trade agreement that want to be agreed in

:50:44. > :50:47.a very tight 99-year period and if he acknowledges that is a risk, why

:50:48. > :50:50.would he put in place a transitional arrangement to protect our

:50:51. > :50:56.businesses from crashing out of the EU without any transition? I can go

:50:57. > :51:01.no further than what I have already said. Transitional arrangements

:51:02. > :51:05.require bilateral agreement. We have already indicated that is what we

:51:06. > :51:12.are aiming at but frankly it takes two to tangle in this regard.

:51:13. > :51:16.Amendments date would require the Foreign Secretary to publish a work

:51:17. > :51:21.programme are kept for the duration of the negotiating period and this

:51:22. > :51:23.is simply an attempt to delay notification by creating new

:51:24. > :51:32.obligations and impediments for the government. I turn now to a matter

:51:33. > :51:36.which exercised a large number of colleagues quite understandably and

:51:37. > :51:42.I want to refer to these amendments and clauses in detail on these

:51:43. > :51:47.relate to the status of EU citizens. Providing certainty for this group

:51:48. > :51:50.of people is an important issue for the government and its wider Prime