07/02/2017 House of Commons

State and colleagues whose saphenous enabled every would-be contributor

to take part -- pickiness. Point of order. I think that the only way we

can work is to respect the authority of the Speaker. Otherwise there will

be complete chaos. It may be that I have my own personal view,

personally, I think that the Queen has issued an invitation to Mr Trump

on the advice of her ministers and he is the president of the free

world and if we have entertained the president of China, we can entertain

him, and that is my view, but at the end of the day, we have to respect

and support the office of Speaker. Not sure there is, but I will take

it and come back to the honourable gentleman. Point of order. At

business questions last week, I raised the inability of ordinary

members of this House to express an opinion through the vote on what was

an unprecedented quick invitation to a head of state and I believe that

we owe you a debt of gratitude for deciding in this case that such an

invitation should not be supported by members of this House. We know

the reasons why it was done. It was done rapidly in order to avoid

political embarrassment for the Prime Minister. But this certainly

should not be extended, any invitation, to this House to such a

person as Donald Trump. First, in respect of the point of order just

raised by the honourable gentleman, can I thank him and add nearly that

I responded to a substantive point of order on this matter yesterday

and I think it only fair to say there is no need for me to provide a

running commentary today? In respect of the honourable gentleman, can I

also thank him for what he said? He does not mince his words. He says

what he thinks. He always has done. He is respected for that. Across the

House. Sometimes he agrees with me, sometimes he doesn't. But his

respect for and loyalty to the institutions of the country,

including the institutions within Parliament, is, I think, universally

acknowledged. I thank him for that and I think others will too. Point

of order. I agree entirely with what my right honourable friend has said

with respect to the Speaker and I am not always in agreement with the

Speaker either but there is a worrying breach of etiquette that

has broken out now over the last few months of members clapping in this

Chamber. Is there anything within this power to do anything about

that? Members should not do so and the answer is that maybe I should be

even more robust. I usually am pretty robust. The point was made

yesterday about clapping. It should not happen. One has to deal with

every situation as it arises and sometimes it is better to let a

thing pass and to make a song and dance about it. But I respect the

honourable gentleman's commitment to tradition. If people want to change

those traditions they should argue the case for such change. I am no

stranger to that phenomenon. Point of order. If ever a statement

deserved clapping, yours did yesterday, in my opinion. I want to

raise the question of irrevocable T because we are about to go into

committee of the full House when just about every amendment we will

discuss trends on the question of whether clause 50 is irrevocable or

not. We have had the Supreme Court silent on that matter. The

Government's guidance is, the Brexit Secretary said on committee, I

quote, it may not be revocable, I don't know. There is not much

guidance from the Government on the matter. Given the importance of the

amendments were about to discuss in committee and given they hang on

this question of whether or not clause 50 is irrevocable once

invoked, is there any way we can get some guidance from the chair or from

the government before we move into debate without that basic piece of

information which would be important for honourable members?

The Right Honourable gentleman raises an important point but I am

not convinced it is a point of order for the chair, but I have a sense

that on this occasion the right honourable gentleman is perhaps more

interested in what he has to say to me than anything I might have to say

to him. He has got his point on the record. The reason I am not

convinced it is not a matter for me, and I am looking to inspiration for

people with legal expertise, is that it is not for the speaker to seek to

interpret treaties, that does not fall within my auspices. And so I

think my best advice to the right honourable gentleman is that he

should follow his own instincts and counsel. He has been doing that for

some decades. And if he is dissatisfied with my answer, knowing

what persistence fellow he is rather imagine he will be pestering the

government front bench on this matter in the upcoming debates.

Point of order, Sir Gerald Howard. Further to the point made by my

honourable friend the games but are, I entirely support him, I have

enjoyed a very good relationship with the chair, yesterday did

however caused some of us some concern. It was noticeable there was

great enthusiasm on the other side and a rather subdued aspect on this

side. We want to support you in the chair. The relationship between the

United Kingdom and the United States is extremely important and the Prime

Minister in the view of many of us managed to secure a very favourable

outcome of what was undoubtedly a tricky visit. And whilst I was keen

yesterday not to accuse you of an executive order in respect of

another matter, I do hope Mr Speaker that you will help us to ensure that

we can have full confidence in your impartiality because that is the way

that this house has to proceed. The honourable gentleman is quite right.

The only thing I will say to the honourable gentleman and I say it in

a very understated way is this, I referred in the course of my

response yesterday to the lockers of the Speaker, the responsibility of

the speaker in respect of the matter that he was racing with me. They

whilst I completely understand that there can be different views about

this matter and we have heard some of them, which should always and be

treated with respect, I was commenting on a matter which does

fall within the remit of the chair. The house has always understood that

the chair has a role in these matters. If the honourable gentleman

disagrees with the means of my exercising it that is one point, or

if he does not approve of my manner, I cannot think he imagines me to

robust for his liking as he's no stranger to blunt speaking himself,

but if that is his view so it. But I was honestly and honourably seeking

to discharge my responsibilities to the house. I think in the interests

of the house we should move on to other matters but I thank him for

what he has said. If there are no further points of order we come now

to the ten minute rule motion, Holly Lynch. Thank you, I beg to move that

we'd be given to bring a bill to make certain offences, groovy is our

actual bodily harm and common assault, aggravated when perpetrated

against a constable, firefighter, doctor, paramedic or nurse and the

execution of his or her duty or against a person assisting these

people in their duty to make provisions to require those

suspected of certain assault which prose I help risk including spitting

to undergo blood tests and make it an offence without reasonable excuse

to refuse to undergo such tests to make provision about the sentences

of those convicted and for connected purposes. I come to the chamber once

again Madam Deputy Speaker to raise the profile of the risks facing

those working on the front line of our emergency services. I come to

seek approval for new legislation which would offer police officers,

firefighters, doctors and nurses and paramedics greater protection from

harm than existing legislation currently allows. Having been out

with all of the emergency services in my constituency can I start by

paying tribute to the work they do. Behind the uniform they are

dedicated and brave individuals who face risks they should not have do

an almost daily basis. They are routinely going above and beyond in

order to keep the public safe. Yet when someone sets out to

deliberately injure or assault and emergency responder the laws in

place must convey how unacceptable this is in the strongest possible

terms. This bill sets out to do just that. I want to take the opportunity

to thank the many members who on a cross-party basis when support my

campaign. I launched the campaign having spent a Friday evening in

August out on patrol with West Yorkshire Police. Into the evening I

joined a PC who was responding to a 999 col. A routine stop quickly

turned nasty and I was so concerned that I rang them a name myself to

stress just how urgently needed back-up. Thankfully other officers

arrived soon after to manage the situation and no injuries were

sustained on that occasion but I saw the dangers for myself and realise

how vulnerable officers are out on their own. Following that incident

and having secured a debate on this issue police officers from all over

the country started to contact me with their own harrowing stories of

being attacked whilst on Tuesday. What has most shocked me and

depresses police officers is that sentences handed down to offenders

for assaulting the police often fail to reflect the seriousness of the

crime or more crucially serve as a deterrent. To assault a police

officer is to show complete disregard for law and order. Our

shared values and democracy itself. That must be reflected in sentencing

particularly for those who are repeat offenders. Many officers

described feeling like they had suffered an injustice twice. Firstly

at the hands of the offender and then in the courts when sentences

were unduly lenient. Within two weeks of the incident involving the

PC and myself, another PC from Halifax was assaulted when during an

arrest and angry male grabbed his radio and used it to strike him

repeatedly in the head. I am delighted that that PC can join us

today to support this legislation change which would help to give him

and his colleagues INAUDIBLE . During the debate in October I

outlined the floors with the current system for collecting data about how

many assaults there were an Holly Sonders is so I am glad -- there

were on police officers. Official statistics produced by the Home

Office suggest they just over 23,000 assaults on police officers last

year. 450 a week, equating to an officer being assaulted every 22

minutes. Just this week the Police Federation published the results of

their welfare survey undertaken by 17,000 serving police officers. It

revealed it is actually closer to 6000 assault every day, and assault

every 13 seconds with an average police officer being assaulted 19

times a year. In the debate at the end of last year I remember my

honourable friend the member for Newport East telling the chamber

about the mother she had met who told their children that their dad

was the contest man in the world to explain his bruises on coming home

from work as a police officer. -- was the clumsiest man in the world.

The bill today would not just protect police officers, it would

cover all blue light emergency responders. A report published by

the Yorkshire Ambulance Service just before Christmas revealed staff

based violence and aggression on a weekly basis. A 50% increase in

reported incidents of attacks on staff with 606 incidents reported in

2015-2016. A paramedic in Leeds told the BBC that he faced three serious

assaults in five years. He had been bitten, head-butted and threatened

with a knife. West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service have also

reported assaults. On bonfire night they received 1043 calls with crews

attending 265 incidents. It's disgraceful that on the busiest

night of the year with those pressures firefighters in West

Yorkshire were subject to 19 attacks overnight. This Bill will ensure

anyone who assaults and emergency service responder and is charged

with a crime will be eligible for a tougher sentence because an assault

on emergency service worker is an assault on society. It is

unacceptable public servants working in their communities protecting

people and helping the vulnerable would be subject to assault as they

go about their jobs and these changes would go some way to

reflecting that. The second part of this bill aims to deal with the

hideous act of spitting at emergency service workers. As well as being a

horrible, spitting blood and saliva add another human being can pose a

risk of transmitting a range of infectious diseases. Someone like

changing or a lethal consequences. At an event organised by the member

for Wolverhampton South West I met two police officers and they both

had blood spat in their faces was trying to arrest a violent offender.

They both had to undergo anti-viral treatments to reduce the risk of

contracting the disease and faced a six-month wait to find out the

treatment had been successful. During that time one was advised he

could not see his brother who was undergoing cancer treatment because

the risk of passing on an infection was too high. He was also advised

not to see his parents because they are in such read her contact with

his brother. There was a false positive results are happy to be and

for six months until conclusive test results came through he was

understandably reluctant to be close to his wife or children fearing for

their own well-being. I am pleased that both men are also here today to

lend their support to these changes. Which had they been in place at the

time might have saved them such an agonising wait. In previous speeches

I have made on this issue I shared with MP's the story of a police

officer in the Ukraine who died after contracting TB from an

offender who spat that whilst she was trying to arrest him. At the

moment if an emergency service worker is spat at the can only take

a blood sample from an individual with permission. Needless to say

that in the case I mentioned before in this country the offender was not

in a helpful mood so subjected them to treatments and a six-month wait.

Laws in Australia where refusal to provide a blood sample can result

any fine and custodial sentence. My bill will mean that refusing to

provide a blood sample in itself be a crime punished by a fine or

custodial sentence. If an emergency service worker, doctor or nurse has

had to endure being spat that this measure will hopefully save them

having to endure a six-month ordeal to wait to see the consequences are

serious. It has been made clear to me Madam Deputy Speaker that the

experience I had out on the streets in my constituency was not an

isolated incident. It reflects the daily challenge police officers

face. Sadly paramedics, firefighters, doctors and nurses

also need these protections but it's worth

remembering when they find themselves under the attack it is

the police who is called. I hope this change in sentencing will go as

well weighted givings dedicated public servants the protections they

should not require but sadly do. I am not naive to the nature of ten

minute rule Bill is nor am I out any allusions about where we are in the

parliamentary calendar but I hope my details have been heard today and

will be reflected on its merits. I commend this bill to the house. The

question is that the honourable member have lead to bring in the

bill. The ayes habit. -- habit. Who will prepare and bring in the bill?

Con again, live sub Oral Roberts, Michael Dugher, Scott Mann, Hannah

Badelj, Tom Blenkinsop, Tracy Braeburn, Jim Shannon, and myself.

Second reading what day? 24th March. 24th March. Thank you.

The clerk will proceed to read the orders of the day. European Union

notification of withdrawal Bill committee. Order.

Order. European Union Notification of Withdrawal Bill. We begin with

new clause one which it will be convenient to consider the new

clauses and amendments considered on the selection paper. Point of order.

Thank you. I would be grateful if you could explain to the House, not

just to the House, but to the country of of all the amendments

that have been grouped for debate today, the House will only be voting

on new clause 1 later. I think the honourable gentleman knows what the

answer will be to this. This is a very early start for points of order

before we've started, but as he knows, the way that the grouping has

been arranged was the subject of a programme motion which was debated,

which was voted on last week. So in fact, the grouping of the amendments

is as was on the programme motion. As he says the lead amendment will

be put for a division and subsequent amendments depends on what happens

in the rest of the debate. So we begin with new clause 1 which

will be it will be convenient to consider new clauses. Keir Starmer

to move new clause 1. Thank you. I rise to move new clause 1 in doing

so, I will obviously touch on other new clauses in the bucket. It is

important, I think, as we go lieu this debate today which is probably

the most important of the debates that we've had thus far and are

going to have in relation to these amendments that we remind ourselves

of the context. The negotiations that will take place under Article

50 will be the most difficult and the most complex and the most

important for decades. Arguably since the Second World War. Amongst

other things it's important that we ensure the best outcome for our

economy and jobs, the trading agreements and as I've said on a

number of occasions, what that entails is very clear. That we must

have access, tariff-free access to the single market, barrier-free

access, regulatory alignment and full access for services as well as

goods and in the White Paper, that was published last Thursday, the

Government accepts the strengths of those arguments about the trading

agreements. It's also important that we have the right ongoing future

relationship with our EU partners and Labour's has been forceful in

arguing for maintaining close collaboration with our parten nears

the fields of medicine, science, research, education, culture and

security as well as policing and counter-terrorism. Now, although

both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State maintain the idea

that all this can be agreed within two years, leaving just an

implementation stage, the reality is that we will two deals. The Article

50 agreement and a new UK-EU treaty setting out the new arrangements

along with transitional arrangements. But to be clear, we

all have a vested interest on behalf of all our constituents in getting

the right outcome. And that raises the proper role of Parliament in

this process. And that's why I've consistently argued for three

elements of scrutiny and accountability and this is the

debate that in a sense has been going on for the last three months.

The first element, the element I started the argument for last

October was that at the start we should have a plan or White Paper, a

formal document setting out the negotiating objectives. That we

should then have a system for reporting back during the course of

the negotiations and that we should have a vote at the end of the

exercise, they are the three elements. They are three elements of

scrutiny and accountability I have. I will give way. Is it the case that

if all his amendments are rejected by the Government, the Labour Party

are simply going to endorse the third reading and support the

Government? What's the point in making this case for these

amendments he's going to cave in to what the Government want in Article

50? I'm not sure how helpful interventions are like that to a

debate which is actually really important about the scrutiny and

accountability. And just to be sure, just to be clear, nagging away,

pushing votes, making the argument over three months, we have got a

White Paper. And it is important. Nagging away, making the arguments,

we have got commitments about reporting back. Nagging away and

making the arguments we have got a commitment to the vote at the end of

the exercise. So when the charge is levelled at the Opposition that they

have not made the case and are not succeeding on the case for scrutiny

and accountability that simply doesn't match what has happened over

the last three months. Thank you. And he's right to point out that

progress has been made, but does he agree with me that in order to make

a vote at the end of the process meaningful, we have to have

meaningful scrutiny as the process is going on? And we have as a

Parliament to have the chance to say to the Government you must go back

and try to do better. Having an all or nothing vote at the end when all

of the discussions and negotiations are over is not in my definition

meaningful scrutiny. Does he agree with me? I'm grateful for that

intervention and I will come to this, but the central theme of the

case I will seek to make this afternoon is that a vote in this

House must be before the deal is concluded. That is the dividing line

that makes the real difference here, but I will make progress because - I

will give way. I'm grateful to the Secretary of State and I think that

this maybe helpful - forgive me. The Shadow Secretary of State. I

hope that this will be helpful to him because he has mentioned the

fact that the Government has made a commitment to a vote at the end of

the procedure. Later when I address the House I will be outlining what I

intend that vote shall be, but it maybe of assistance to him to know

what is proposed. First of all, we intend that the vote will cover not

only the withdrawal arrangements, but also the future relationship

with the European Union. We furthermore, I can confirm that the

Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement to be

approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded

and we expect and intend that this will happen before the European

Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement. I hope that's of

assistance. I'm very grateful for that

intervention. That is a huge and very important concession about the

process that we are to embark on. The argument I have made about a

vote... The argument I've made about a vote over the last three months is

that the vote most cover both the Article 50 deal on any future

relationship and I know for my colleague that's very important and

that that vote must take place before the deal is concluded and I

take that from what has just been said. I will give way. Thank you

very much. Would my Right Honourable and learned gentleman, I nearly said

friend, but I have to be careful, first of all would he agree with me

it's really important that as a nation and a House we now come

together, putting aside all the party political differences to do

the right thing by our country, but most importantly perhaps on the very

point he makes. Does he share my concern in the event of no deal

being reached, that this House must also decide what happens next?

I'm grateful for that intervention and I do agree and have made, I do

agree that we all have a responsibility to bring this country

back together. We are a deeply divided... The United Kingdom... I'm

dealing with this intervention if you don't mind. It what is

significant about what has just been said is that it covers the Article

50 agreement and it covers any future relationship. That is the

first time we've heard this. It is a very significant position by the

Government and I'm grateful that it has been made and it is very

important that it has been made because certainly I think across the

House there has been real anxiety that it should cover both bases.

Whether it goes far enough for the full-back position I'll reflect on

and ideally one would want that covered, but I don't want to under

play the significance of what has just been said about the two deals

because it is the first time that clarity has been given. It's the

first time that has been conceded. It's an argument I've been making

for three months and it's very important that it has now been

conceded. It's important for my colleagues and I'm sure it's

important for people across the House. Equally important, equally

important, is the timing in that it should be before the deal is

concluded. The great fear is there would be a concluded deal which

would make any vote in this House meaningless. Now, what I hope can

now happen on the back of that concession is what I anticipate will

happen in the European Parliament. That is by regularly reporting up,

updating the House, setting ot the direction of travel, there can be

agreement about progress and that what happens at the end doesn't come

as a surprise to any of us in this House. But what has been said by the

minister is a very significant statement of position which meets in

large part everything I have been driving at in new clause 1. I will

give way. I welcome as my honourable friend does the concession from the

Government benches, but does he agree as well as timing it is the

scope of that vote which is going to be absolutely vital? If we're faced

with a choice between a hard Brexit and WTO, that is no choice. The

Government will have to go back and renegotiate.

At the moment I agree that we should have as big a say as possible on all

of this, but I don't want to under state what has been conceded in the

last ten minutes. I do take the point, but I think where we have

made significant progress on scrutiny and accountability we

should recognise where we've got to. I will give way. Whilst I echo what

the honourable gentleman has said would you agree that instantly

leaping on a concession maybe a little unwise until we're quite

clear what is amounts to. I record a concession on a plan led to a speech

in Lancaster House which didn't take us much furtherment I would like to

be persuaded that a major concession has been made. Does he agree with me

that it would be helpful because we don't know what we're debating if we

continue from now on if the minister would try to catch the chairman's

eye after the Right Honourable gentleman has sat down so he can

explain in more detail what he's proposing than the subsequent debate

on this group of amendments and we will be altogether better informed.

I'm grateful for that intervention and I accept the point and I think

far be it from me to say what the procedure would be, but that would

be helpful because some of what has been said has been heard for the

first time today and we need to reflect on it. If indeed it is a

significant concession then shouldn't it be added to the face of

the Bill? So as it can be properly examined and analysed and come to

the House in a report stage with every member having the ability to

look at it? I recognise the strength of the

points made and there are of course other opportunities to examine what

has been conceded and ensure it might find its way onto the face of

the legislation. So I think it would be sensible if we recognise what has

been said. Here a little more detail if we can, and reflect on that

during the course of this afternoon and of course this bill does not

complete its passage today or in this house. I will give way. It is a

fair point, if somebody says do something in good faith you take it

on board. And don't push too hard and take what is a valuable

concession INAUDIBLE . I am grateful for that

intervention, I think it is, when an assurance is given in a debate such

as this it is a significant assurance. That having been said, of

course something on the face of a statute at some later point is even

better. I will give way. I am grateful, I came into this chamber

with a full intention of supporting Amendment one and I still feel we

need to push this to a vote. However I feel what is being said and that

he wants to trust and believe this government. If we saw a manuscript

amendment before the end of the afternoon I would find it much more

easy to not vote on amendment one than I do at the moment. Does he

agree that a manuscript amendment would be helpful? I would take that

point. Can I make some progress because we have not got very far. So

far as the White Paper, I have not got very far! As far as the White

Paper is concerned, I am looking at the big picture and this is

important for trade unions and working people and constituents who

have raised these points, in the White Paper there is the commitment

to convert all EU derived rights including workers' rights into

domestic law of paragraph 7.1 and I don't think that commitment has been

heard loudly enough and we certainly intend to hold the government that

every step of the way along with other EU rights such as

environmental rights and consumer rights. I have also consistently

argued that the Prime Minister cannot in the Article 50

negotiations negotiate to change domestic law or policy which would

require primary legislation. In paragraph 1.8 of the White Paper it

is made clear that the government does not accept that the Prime

Minister would have that authority and expressly references separate

bills on immigration and on customs. I highlight that because there is a

huge concern amongst my colleagues about the threat made by the Prime

Minister to alter our social and economic model and turn the UK into

a tax haven. That cannot happen. That cannot happen without primary

legislation. It is important we note that. I rather agree with the other

members, given the government's position just outlined, would my

honourable friend agree that the only substantial reason for the

government not to agree to the new clause one is to deny the other

house vote on a resolution and therefore the minister should

explain why that is the position? I think we will have to wait and hear

from the Minister, I hear what is said in the intervention. So far as

the vote is concerned, there has been a change of position and it's

important I just set that out. Initially the Secretary of State was

saying back in October that he would observe the requirements of treaty

ratification. Then in December at this dispatch box he almost said we

would get a vote using the word that it was inconceivable that we would

not. Then just before Christmas at the liaison committee the Prime

Minister seemed to back away from that altogether under questioning

from the chairman of the Brexit select committee and the fact of a

vote was only conceded after Christmas. And then in paragraph

1.12 of the White Paper there was a commitment to a vote on the final

deal. Today it takes us a lot further forward and I think that

demonstrates how by chipping away and arguing away we are making

progress on accountability and scrutiny. I will. I thank my

honourable friend forgiving way, he may have been listening and had the

detail of what the ministers said in more detail than I did but could you

tell me was it clear whether or not we would actually get a vote in this

house if there was no deal? If the government failed to get a deal with

the EU, which none of us want to see, but if that happens was it

clear to him from what the Minister said whether or not we would get a

vote in parliament in those circumstances? No and I think we

need to press the Minister on that when he rises to his feet. I will.

He has just very ably outlined what the government position has been to

date, showing us all very ably that the government have made quite major

changes in positions today. Against the background of the situation

about that change of position appears to have taken place when we

are debating so many different venue -- differently nuanced amendments,

is it agreeable that the government should... Can I ask that

interventions be a bit more brief, we only have four hours and a lot of

people to get through. Just to make intervention is a bit more brief.

Here Starmer. I am grateful for that intervention, I think it it would be

helpful if we had both clarification and a written form if possible of

the gym session which has been made so we can all see -- of the

concession which has been made so we can all see what it is. Madam Deputy

Speaker, given that we do as the honourable lady was saying require

some sort of information as to what it is the government have actually

put forward, is there any way you can require the government to put

before us a manuscript amendment so we actually know what it is we are

debating for the rest of the afternoon? The Minister will be

speaking and I am sure he will explain them. Keir Starmer. Thank

you. I am sure the Minister hears what is being said, what has been

said this morning is significant, it is a concession and it does no need

to be reduced to writing. I think a great deal of this debate should be

spent probing the concession which has been made. I'm going to make

progress because I have barely got through two or three sentences

before giving way so I do not think anyone could accuse me of not

conceding. In the end this comes down to a very stark choice for this

house, if we are to have a vote. Either it is before the deal is

concluded or it is afterwards in which case it would be a feature

complete. And this concession appears to suggest it is before it

is concluded and I think that timing is critical. I recognise there are

other issues which come off the back of that but the timing is critical.

Because the sequence of events at the end of the exercise is extremely

important in terms of what this house can meaningfully say or do

about the agreement which is put to us for a vote. I thank my honourable

friend forgiving way. Does he agree with me it's not just the issue of

the timing of the vote, it's what happens if this house declines to

accept the deal the government has put forward, the Prime Minister said

on the 25th of January if this parliament is not willing to accept

a deal that has been decided upon with the European Union then as I

have said we will have to fall back on other arrangements. That does not

guarantee this house has the final decision on our future relationship

with the EU. I am grateful for that intervention, I think that exchange

which was referred to as the cause of concern about the vote being

before the deal is concluded. But we will need greater clarification

about the extent of the vote. I'm going to press on because I am not

sure that me trying to explain what the Minister is going to tell us is

working particularly well. If it's of any assistance to the

honourable gentleman and to the committee, with your leave I would

very much hope to be able to speak immediately after the Shadow

Secretary of State for Health. -- Secretary of State. I have made the

case for a White Paper, made the case for reporting back, made the

case for a vote, we have now got this concession. I think the most

helpful thing is if honourable members are given the opportunity to

test what the Minister has said this morning. Thank you. New clause one,

parliamentary approval for agreements with the union. The

question is that new clause one B read a second time, Minister David

Jones. I am very grateful, I had hoped to speak at the end of this

debate but I think it may be of assistance to the committee if I

deal with some of the matter is the shadow secretary of state touched on

in his speech. However I don't want to go into the details of the

various amendments which other members will wish to speak to win.

With your consent I would like to address those at the end of the

session. Could I first of all repeat what I said to the honourable

gentleman when I intervened on him a few moments ago, the government has

repeatedly from this dispatch box committed to a vote on the final

deal, a vote in both houses before the deal comes into force. And this

I repeat and confirm will cover not only the withdrawal agreement but

also the future arrangement that we propose with the European Union. And

I can confirm again that the government will bring forward a

motion on the final agreement, if I can just finish the sentence. It's

rather important. A motion on the final agreement to be approved by

both houses of parliament before it is concluded and we expect and

intend that this will happen before the European Parliament debates and

votes on the final agreement. I give way to the Right honourable

gentleman. Stressed to the house again that this applies only to the

withdrawal agreement and a final agreement on the future relationship

between the UK and EU. It is my view the former is feasible within two

years, the latter is highly unlikely within two years, can he tell the

house what will happen in that case, I withdrawal agreement is agreed but

not a new future agreement between the UK and the EU? I must preface

that we do not expect we will not achieve such agreement. But my right

honourable friend the Prime Minister has already made clear that if we

cannot come to an agreement then clearly we will have to fall back on

other arrangements. That is something upon which... That is

something upon which the government has consistently been clear, I give

way. The conversation we had yesterday about the importance of

transitional arrangements, he cannot guarantee the trade agreement will

be concluded within two years so if you don't have a transitional

agreement it's like jumping out of an aeroplane without a parachute,

why will he not agree to negotiate the transitional arrangement now in

case we need it? What the honourable lady says is of course very true.

But clearly, an agreement is a matter which has to be no goatee --

negotiated by two sides and it's always possible we cannot achieve

such an agreement but I believe the will. But we have also made it clear

that what we do see as important is during the course of the

negotiations for what ever the new arrangements are that we consider

what implementation period may be necessary at the end of those

agreements. Again we have made that clear already. I give way to my

right honourable friend. I am grateful for intervening at this

stage and allowing us to have this process. He says that Parliament

will have a vote before the agreement is concluded, does that

mean before agreement has been reached with the other 27 or after a

agreement has been reached but before it's been put into effect? I

think what parliamentary sovereignty requires is that Parliament should

have the ability to influence the government's position before it

concludes the deal so that those with whom the government is dealing,

the other parties of the negotiation, now that the British

government has got to be able to produce an agreement which will get

the support of parliament. If you just wait until everything, hands

have been shaken with all the other Europeans, then you come here, then

it means Parliament is told if you reject it you have nothing. It's a

disaster. Which would give a government a majority but not a very

satisfactory conclusion. I fully appreciate the points. This

is clearly going to be a complex, lengthy and difficult. Can I deal

with my Right Honourable friend's point first? It will be a difficult

and complex agreement and it will be, of course, a matter that will a

negotiation that will from time to time be subject to reports to this

House, to the Brexit Select Committee and so on. But what we are

proposing and what I'm committing to from this dispatch box today is that

before that final agreement is concluded and it would, if you like,

but the final draft agreement, it would be put to a vote of this House

and a vote of the other place and that we intend will be before it is

put to the European Parliament and I think that that, I hope, is as clear

as I can be. I will give way to the honourable gentleman The EU 27 will

decide a deal in their interests. If that deal comes to this House and we

vote it down and subsequently the commission and the European

Parliament agree it and say like it or lump it, what will we do then?

I would have thought that in the circumstance that this House had

voted it down it would be highly unlikely that it would be put to the

European Parliament, but there are all sorts of sin aur yos that... I

give way. Just for clarification, I think the minister said there would

be a vote on the final draft agreement. I wanted to check I heard

him correctly when he said that? Before the agreement is finally

concluded in other words. That's the intention of this Parliament. I want

to come back to the point made about the two deals that are being

negotiated in parallel, the exit deal and the framework for our

future relationship about the timing. I think we're being

optimistic than the Right Honourable gentleman. In Article 50 it

envisages in the negotiation for the exit agreement that can only be done

taking into account the framework for the future relationship. So

Article 50 itself envisages those two agreements being negotiated in

parallel so I think what the minister set out has every prospect

of coming to fruition. Can I just implore members to keep

interventions short. I just implore people to just to keep it a bit

briefer. My Right Honourable friend is right Article 50 on the face of

it says the negotiations for the withdrawal, that the negotiations

for the withdrawal agreement should be set against the framework of the

continuing relationship. So on the face of Article 50, a twin track

approach is envisaged. I give way to the honourable gentleman. Could he

be clear, he raised our hopes for a second and I felt myself debated

when he said we will fall back on other arrangements. Can he be clear

about what he means by, "We would fall back on other arrangements"? If

there were no agreement at all which is a scenario I think is extremely

unlikely then ultimately it would be falling back upon World Trade

Organisation arrangements and this again is nothing new. It has been

made very clear previously including by my Right Honourable friend the

Prime Minister. I'm grateful to the minister. Can he clarify a point

which came up with from the Shadow Secretary of State which is

important to all of us here and that is, an agreement at the end of the

process might be an agreement that there isn't an agreement at all that

we go to the default position. What I believe he has announced from the

front bench covers the situation which will give the House a vote if

there is a deal or if indeed there is no deal. And I wonder if he could

confirm that the House would get the vote in these circumstances which is

what I understand the assurance to be? It's very hard to see what

meaningful vote could be given in a circumstance in which there what

been no deal at all, but I have, having said that, I have no doubt at

all that if the absence of any agreement whatever, that absence of

agreement would be the subject of statements to this House.

The minister's inflating and deflating people as he goes along.

Can he get back to this manuscript amendment? It really is important if

the concession is as significant as the minister is leading us to

believe. It comes forward as an amendment and if the Government is

not prepared to do that, then surely the message to the other place is

what the minister has said should be encapsulated in an amendment that

should be properly redebated here. I think that we are actually debating

this at considerable length now. I have on behalf of the Government

made what I believe is a serious commitment and I believe that it

should be accepted as such and frankly in those circumstances I see

no need for a further amendment. I'm grateful to the Minister for

giving way. Isn't the issue and the problem that the Government has and

indeed the House has that we don't know what at what stage the

negotiations could be concludedment they could be concluded with months

to go within the two year time frame. This House would be able to

consider the agreement before it was agreed with the Commission because

there was no time pressure, but we could end up with a situation where

the agreement is one minute to midnight at the end of the two year

period and if the Government doesn't conclude an agreement to bring it to

the House before, but before it goes to the European Parliament we

couldnd up with no deal. I feel, my honourable friend may agree with me,

the Government has a real dilemma and it is important that the House

should understand those limitations because they go to the question of

whether in fact an amendment can be reasonably crafted to meet that.

I think that my Right Honourable friend makes a very fair point. I

think that as we proceed we have to keep reminding ourselves that we are

where we are because the United Kingdom has voted to leave the

European Union. And what we are seeking to achieve is a departure

from the European Union on the best possible terms and I believe very

strongly that what the Government is proposing is as much as possible in

terms of a meaningful vote at the end of the process. I'd like to make

a little bit... I give way to the honourable gentleman. I thank the

Minister for giving way. Timing is only significant if it further

empowers Parliament to have a meaningful say on the negotiations.

So can I ask the minister again, what will happen if the House

declines to approve the draft agreement which he's intending to

bring before us? I think that I've already answered that extremely

clearly. There will be a meaningful vote. The

vote will be either to accept the deal that the Government will have

achieved and I repeat that that process of negotiation will not be

without frequent reports to this House or no deal and frankly that is

the choice that this House will have to make. That will be the most

meaningful vote that one could imagine.

I'd like, I will take one further intervention. I will take it from

the honourable gentleman. I think the point here is for this to be a

meaningful concession, what the House wants is the opportunity to

send the Government back to our EU partners to negotiate a deal if one

hasn't been reached. Going on to WTO rules I say to the minister will be

deeply damaging for our economy and wholly unacceptable. Well, I hear

what the honourable gentleman says, but frankingly I can't think of a

greater signal of weakness than for this House to send the Government

back to the European Union and to say we want to negotiate further. I

think that that would be seized upon as a sign of weakness and therefore,

I can't agree with it at all. I would like to make further progress.

I think I've taken a large number of interventions and I'm sure that

other honourable members wish to speak. Let me say this. This will be

a meaningful vote. It will be the choice between leaving the European

Union as I've said with a negotiated deal or not and as I've said to send

the Government back to the negotiating table would be the

surest way of undermining our negotiating position and delivering

a worst deal and in any case we can't extend our... I give way for

the final time to the Right Honourable gentleman.

Giving way. When he first revealed his concession to my honourable and

learned friend, there was a bit which he hasn't read out in the

speech he has just been giving which referred to timing intention and the

position of the European Parliament. Co please repeat what he said the

first time round? I think it is important that the House is able to

hear that. If it is of assistance to the honourable gentleman I read out

the same words twice, but nevertheless I will read them again

just so that he fully understands the commitment that the Government

has made. The Government has committed to a vote on the final

deal in both houses before it comes into force. This will cover both the

withdrawal agreement and our future relationship with the European

Union. I can confirm that the Government will bring forward a

motion on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses of

Parliament before it is concluded. We expect and intend that this will

happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the

final agreement and I hope - I will not take any further, I think I have

been more than generous. If I could turn to the amendments in

question and the honourable gentleman has referred to his

amendment, new clause 1, but new clauses 18, 19, 20, 110, 137, 175

and 182 and they all seek in one way or another to ensure that Parliament

will have a vote on the final deal that we agree with the European

Union. Let me assure the House again as I've ensured in answer to

interventions that will be involved throughout the entire process of

withdrawal and again, let me remind the House, what the extent of the

Secretary of State's engagements. A very brief question to the minister.

If the European Parliament votes down the deal, then Europe will

carry on negotiating. He is saying if the British Parliament votes down

the deal that's the end of the negotiations. We pride ourselves on

our sovereignty in this House, Madam Deputy Speaker and his position

seems to be a denial of that sovereignty. I'm not entirely sure

that the Right Honourable gentleman understands the process. The role of

the European Parliament would be to grant or withhold consent to the

deal that had been agreed by the European Council and there could be

no assurance that there would be further negotiations. May I say this

- we are come considerable way away from that position. As the

negotiations proceed, as I've said, there will be very many more

opportunities, many more, many more opportunities for this House and for

the other place to consider the negotiations. I'm afraid not because

I've already been very generous. I was reminding the honourable House

of What the Secretary of State has done. He made six oral statements

and there have been more ten debates, four in Government time.

There are over 30 Select Committee inquiries going on at the moment.

There will be many more votes on primary legislation to between now

and departure from the European Union. I suggest that the amendments

that I've referred to are unnecessary. I reiterate that both

House will get a vote on the final deal before it comes into force and

I can confirm once again that it will cover both the withdrawal

agreement and our future relationship, but we are confident

that we will bring back a deal which Parliament will want to support and

the choice will be meaningful and that choice will be whether to

accept that deal or to move ahead without a deal.

Can I move new clause 180 and amendment 50 in the name of my

honourable friends and myself and could I speak favourably about new

clause 110 in the name of the honourable member for Nottingham

East which is the strongest of a range of amendments albeit that any

amendments in this section which are put to the vote will have our

support because they are all trying to increase Parliamentary

supervision over the process. Now before the minister led us through

the dance of the seven veils I was trying to find out, I was going to

question him on the question of irrockability of Article 50 and I

still think goes to the heart of what we're debating. Can I say to

the minister in terms of what he described as a serious announcement.

If you make serious announcements in the course of a committee stage of a

Bill of this importance then these serious announcements should be

followed by an amendment. If we are here debating the Dangerous Dogs

Bill, and a serious announcement was made in the middle of the Dangerous

Dogs Bill then that serious announcement would be followed by an

amendment on the face of the Bill. If it was good enough for a Bill of

that description then how much more is it important to have such an

amendment in the biggest constitutional change facing this

country for half a century? So we thank the Minister for His

announcement. We thank him for the apparent concession. We don't doubt

for a second the seriousness with which he makes this serious

announcement, but I think most of us, I think the minister himself,

would think that such an announcement should be followed by

an amendment on the face of the Bill so this Bill can then go through its

proper processes with honourable members able and willing to debate

an announcement of such seriousness in the proper way. I give way to the

former Chief Whip. Who seems anxious to regain his

previous position. I can assure the right honourable gentleman I am

content to speak in the house on these matters. The question is, the

reason why it may not be sensible to have a detailed amendment, listening

to the range of interventions from colleagues there are clearly a large

number of scenarios which may arise, ones which will need to be dealt

with politically, I do not want detailed legislation so that this

goes back into the courts, I wanted debated in this house, not by a

judge. At least he is consistent, when he was Chief Whip he did not

want detailed amendments either in case democracy prevailed in terms of

these matters. I will give way in a second, but most people saying a

serious announcement from the front bench would expect it to be followed

by an amendment so the matter can be properly debated and tested. I give

way. I thank the honourable gentleman forgiving way and I agree

with the point about the manuscript amendment it would make things a lot

cleaner, but does he agree with me that having an announcement that we

may have a Hobson 's choice at the end of something is not really a

proper choice? I very much agree with the honourable lady and she has

conveniently led me right onto the next point I was going to make, I

think her point goes to the heart of the dilemma the house is going to

find itself in unless we find ourselves taking action to the

contrary. That does strike at the matter of whether clause 50 is

irrevocable or not. I tried to give a flavour of the government's

confusion in this matter but it was a brief point of order and therefore

I want to give the full flavour of the government 's confusion because

this Brexit secretary said when asked the specific point, he said,

and I quote, one of the virtues of the Article 50 process is that it

sets you own way. It is very difficult to see it being revoked,

we do not intend to the baulk it. It may be revoked the ball, I do not

know. That is the basis we are being asked to take this fundamental

decision affecting the future of this country. We have been all these

things because it determines the position the house will find itself

in. If it is, unless there is an agreement from the 27 members of the

European Union, negotiations stop, the guillotine comes down and you

are left with a bad deal or no Deal, then any vote in the house against

that sort of Damocles hanging over the house will not be a proper

informed judgment. Would he agree with me that triggering the Article

50 on the basis of possible Reebok ability is like walking down the M4

in the middle of the night and hoping you won't get killed. You

might not but better not to walk down there in the first place? I

think the analogy is there, and we now that the noble Lord Kerr

believes it to be revoke a ball. The judgment was based on that

proposition so does he agree it is irrevokable? I give way. The purpose

was for the purpose of those proceedings and I have to say that

we can derive nothing from that as to whether it is irrevokable or not

and indeed there is powerful legal argument that it is capable of being

revoked. The honourable gentleman should talk among themselves before

they come to a house with an agreed position but both of these people

are on the backbenches so it does not matter if they have alerted

debate after proceedings, what matters is a confusion in the front

bench and whatever the right Honourable member thinks, the Brexit

secretary did not know... One last time. The right honourable gentleman

is pursuing this relentlessly, but can he explain why he is doing so,

may I suggest that it is because he knows... To be said I am pursuing

something relentlessly is a component indeed, I shall treasure

it. It's about this house having a genuine choice at some stage and

looking at what the government has negotiated and then being able to

say yes bringing us back to where we are now

in terms of the referendum. An astute point. If I may say so, I

think the issue is even more fundamental, I think we have to know

what happens when we say no before we go ahead at the present moment.

We make a new effort in new clause 180, new clause 180 is called the

reset amendment and when I asked We will only approve the deal once

the terms are such that we believe they are in the interest of this

country. The Prime Minister should be prepared not to present us with a

bad Deal or no Deal, not a bad deal for world trade terms, but a deal

that we know is going to be in the interest of our constituents and the

country. I think that's absolutely fundamental to this debate. I know

and understand political leadership but at the end of March, it came

about the Tory conference, people were getting flappy about whether

the Prime Minister was a born-again Brexit supporter or still a secret

submarine remain, I cannot understand why people think even

from the Brexit side, because presumably they want success for the

country and its economy, thinking it's a good idea to invoke article

50 and till you know what the end destination is going to be.

Similarly I cannot believe it's a good idea to leave the European

economic area which is governed by different areas and different

instruments until you know what the alternative is going to be. Instead

of giving these points away and putting all of the negotiating power

into the hands of those you are negotiating with and they are our

partners now but any negotiation is a tension between two parties. Any

negotiation depends on a card you will have in your hand and if the

other side know that after two years the sword of Damocles comes down it

puts them in a much more powerful position in terms of the

negotiation. That is why we try... I give way. I thank you forgiving way,

I agree with most of what he said which is why it is important we get

an amendment on this so the house and the public know exactly where we

are going. Why don't we put the government front bench on a course

with the TUC to learn how to negotiate. And astute point, I think

a lot could be learnt in terms of negotiating position and the prying

point is to not put yourself in a position of weakness. Do not put

yourself in a position of weakness with the European Union who are on

the whole honourable people and want what is in the interest of the

continent of Europe and it's not a good idea for the government to put

themselves in a position of weakness with the new president of the United

States who will take every possible advantage from an opponent he senses

as he will sense is negotiating from a position of weakness. In

conclusion, I would argue strongly for the new clause and the

amendments we put down. To secure the position at the end of the

negotiations before we embark on something which is going to leave

this house not just with a bad Deal or no Deal, but with the

metaphorical gun pointed at its head when it comes to address these

serious questions. We have to know the end position before we embark on

the fundamentally dangerous course. John Redwood. Thank you, I agree

fully with the right honourable member for Gordon that we should not

wish to do anything which weakens or undermines the British are

bargaining position and that all the efforts of this house as we try to

knit together should be designed to maximise the leverage as a newly

independent nation and securing the best possible future relationship

with our partners in the European Union which is why I find myself in

disagreement with many of the well-intentioned amendments before

us today. I think they are all trying to undermine or damage the UK

negotiating position, maybe inadvertently. One of my honourable

friend says nonsense, let me explain why it is dangerous if some of these

amendments were adopted. We are invited to believe that if the House

of Commons decided it did not like the deal which the government had

negotiated for our future relationship with the EU and voted

it down the rest of the EU would turn around and say sorry and offer

us a better deal. I just don't think it's practical politics, I don't

understand how they believe that is going to happen. What could happen

is that those in the rest of the EU who want to keep the EU and her

contributions in the EU might think it was a good idea to offer a very

poor deal to try to tempt Parliament into voting the deal down so that

then there was no Deal at all which might suit their particular agenda.

Why is he so worried about the House of Commons INAUDIBLE

? Isn't it right and proper we have a choice, informed or otherwise? I

am supporting the government offering the house vote and the

government cannot neither house a vote of the house wants to vote, the

house will vote. But it's important that those who want to go further

and press the government even more should understand it could be, let

me deal with one point at a time, it could be deeply damaging to the

United Kingdom negotiating position and is based on a completely unreal

view of how multinational negotiations go when a country is

leaving the European Union. I find it disappointing that those

passionate advocates of the European Union in this house who have many

fine contacts and networks across the continent and access to the

councils and wisdom of our European partners make no contribution to

these debates at all in the form of explaining to us more about the

attitudes of the other member states, what the weaknesses of their

negotiating position is and what their aims are in the negotiation,

to better inform the government position so we can do better for

them and for us. I give way. Making an articulate case as ever about the

dangers of a vote at the end of the process but could he explain why on

November 20, 2012 in a very interesting blogger post entitled

the double referendum on the EU, he advocated a second referendum with

the following question, do you want to accept the new negotiated

relationship with the EU or not? How on earth and why on earth has he

changed his mind since then? I do not disagree with that at all, I am

happy to have a vote on whether the new Deal is worth accepting or not

but that is within the context of leaving the European Union. I agree

with the Prime Minister that no deal is better than a bad deal and if the

best the government can do is a bad deal and might well want to vote

against that deal in favour of leaving without a deal and that is

exactly the choice which government ministers are offering this house.

It's a realistic choice, a democratic choice. It is no choice

to pretend that the house can rerun the referendum in this pulpit and

fought to stay in the EU. We will send the article 50 letter, the

public have voted to leave so if this house voted to stay in what

significance does that have and why should the member states turn around

and agree? I give way. Wouldn't it be better to delay

Article 50 until after the new German Government is elected in

October and the French in May because we've only got two years and

then we would have the power of time of the negotiation and the power of

being a member rather than giving it in and finally going back to his

former position, if we offered a referendum of the people before

Article 50 was triggered they would think perhaps we may stay in and

therefore, would come to the table before Article 50 was triggered. The

issue is the future relationship and I think this House is capable of

dealing with whether we accept the future relationship with the

Government which has negotiated or not, but the point that the

Opposition amendments and many of the Opposition MPs are missing is

that it is the case that once you have sent the Article 50 letter you

have notified your intention to leave and after two years if there

is no agreement we are out of the European Union. And the Right

Honourable gentleman raised the issue of is it irrevocable? He

didn't give his own answer to that. I find it disappointing that the SNP

who take a strong interest in these proceedings have no party view on

whether it is irry vokcable or not? I accept the testimony of the

Attorney-General and the noble lord who was the advocate for the remain

side in the Supreme Court case that it is irry vokcable and the House

has to take its decision in the light of that. And as far as I'm

concerned, it is irrevocable for another democratic reason and that

is that the public was told they were making the decision about

whether we stay in or leave the European Union. And 52% of the

public, if not others, are expecting this House to deliver their wishes.

That was what ministers told this House when we passed the referendum

Act. That is what every voter in the country was told by a leaflet at our

expense sent by the Government to that you the people are making the

decision and so this House rightly, when it was under the Supreme

Court's guidance given the opportunity to have a specific vote

on this matter, over whether we send the letter to leave the European

Union, it voted by a majority of 384 with just the SNP and a few others

in disagreement because it fully understood that this was a decision

the British people had already taken and it fully understood this House

of Commons has to do their bidding. I give way. I thank the Right

Honourable member. Isn't he assuming that all of the people in Europe

that we have been negotiating with are add var series which is perhaps

the wrong standing point to take. Isn't it the case that a vote, a

meaningful vote on the substance of any deal my equally focus the

Government's mind on what it can sell to this House and unite this

House and the people we represent in a very divided country.

Well, he has won that argue. We are going to have a vote on whether we

accept the deal or not. I hope it works out well. My criticism is not

of the Government decision to make that offer. I think it was a very

good offer to make in the circumstances the my criticism was

and is of those members who do not understand that constantly seeking

to undermine expose alleged weaknesses and do damage to the

United Kingdom case is not helpful and it would be very helpful because

many of them have talent and expertise from their many links with

the EU to do more talking about how we can meet the reasonable

objectives of the EU and deal with the unreasonable objectives that

some in the Commission and some member states hold. I give way to

the former leader of the SNP. The position is, despite the right hon

Raja's certainty about irrevok kabletity. The Right Honourable

member to his right-hand side former Attorney-General is not sure, but

doesn't agree with the honourable gentleman and the minister, the

Brexit minister doesn't know. Does this remind you of a certain

question in European history where one mass mad and one was dead and

the other had forgotten. Is that the basis on which the Right Honourable

gentleman wants to take us over a cliff edge? I note that the SNP

hasn't a clue and doesn't want to specify whether it is irrevocable or

not. Can I just remind him that the

Supreme Court did not rule on the matter.

It clearly did rule on the matter because the reason it found against

the Government was because they deemed it to be irrevocable.

On this supreme red herring it doesn't matter whether the ECJ think

Article 50 is irrevocable or not, the British people have determined

that it is an irrevocable decision. I think that was a helpful

intervention. This legal wrangle is fascinating how those who wish to

resist or delay or cancel our departure from the EU are now

flipping their legal arguments since three or four weeks ago when they

were clear it was irrevocable. He is a man of coverage and he has a

long fine history of supporting sovereignty of this place. He says

that the Government is going to give us a vote in the event of a deal.

But why doesn't he agree with us, me, whoever, over here and indeed

over there, who want the same vote, sovereignty of this place in the

event of no deal being struck by the Government despite their finalest

efforts? That's the vote we have on second reading of this Bill. If you

are at all worried about leaving the EU, you should clearly not have

voted for this Bill on second reading. And that's the point of the

irrevocable debate. I give way. Can I just clarify and take him back

to his comments on his blog post in November 2012 when he argued in

favour of a referendum at the beginning of the process and at the

end. He just said he didn't think there should be a referendum on

whether we should leave the European Union. However, he did not

therefore, exclude his view perhaps still being that there should be a

referendum on the terms of the deal. Will he clarify whether he thinks

the people should have the final say?

No, I don't think on this occasion, 2012 is 2012 and we were trying all

sorts of things to try and get us out of the European Union and we

found one that worked and I'm grateful that we found one that

worked and now is now and you have to speak to the current conditions

and the state of the argument. It depends on what the two options

are. The honourable gentleman over to the other side of the House is

clear, his choices are you accept the deal or you stay in the European

Union. Although I was on the Remain side of the argument, there was an

unconditional question on that ballot paper. It said leave or

remain. My side of the argument lost. I accept that. We are leaving.

He really wants to re-run the referendum all over again and I

don't think that's acceptable. My final point is I do think people

are trying to make the negotiations far more complicated and long-winded

than we need. Because of the Prime Minister's admirable clarity and the

12 points we don't need to negotiate borders, money, taking back control

and sorting out our own laws and getting rid of ECJ jurisdiction.

That's mandated by the British people and that's something we do.

What we are going to be negotiating is just two things. One is there any

Bill at the end of it when we leave that we have to pay? May answer is

simply no, of course, there isn't. There is no legal power in the

treaties to charge Britain by bill and there is no legal power for any

minister to make a payment to the EU over and above the legal payment of

our contributions up to the date of our exit and the other thing that

the Government needs to sort out is, our future trading relationship with

the European Union where we will offer them the generous offer let's

carry on as we are and register it as a Free Trade Agreement. If they

don't like that, most favoured nation terms under the WTO is fine.

That's how we trade with the rest of the world. Very successfully at a

profit, at the moment, and so they should relax understand it could be

a lot easer why and there will not be economic damage. The Government

has taken an admirable position and it made wonderful concessions to the

other side and I hope they will accept them because they have had an

impact on this issue. I'd like to speak to new clauses 28,

54 and 99 standing in my name and that of other honourable and Right

Honourable colleagues. New clause 28 is about the sequencing of votes on

final terms. It's the issue on which we've had a concession this

afternoon from the minister. New clause 54 is about how to secure

extra time if we need it in our negotiations with the EU and new

clause 99 embeds Parliamentary sovereignty in the process. I was

disappointed, I'm pleased to follow the honourable member for Wokingham,

but I was disappointed that he didn't come clean to the House on

the fact that he has alternative an alternative Parliamentary process

which he hopes to use to secure the kind of Brexit he wants. He has not

referred to another blog which he has written recently in which he

wrote, "Being in the EU is a bit like being a student in a college.

All the time you belong to the college you have to pay fees. When

you depart, you have no further financial obligations. ." ." Putting

that to one side, he has not read the excellent paper by Alex Barker

of the Financial Times which points out the obligations that we will

fall into three categories, legally binding budget commitments and

contingent liabilities which indeed are arguable. I'm going to make a

little bit more progress. What the honourable member for Wokingham has

also pointed out and he's right about this, ministers can only

authorise spending and sign cheques with Parliamentary approval. He's

right about that. And it's right that we should have that say, but,

of course, what it means is that he's hoping that he can use that

moment to veto the withdrawal arrangements and scupper the kind of

future relationship which might be more constructive and more

productive. In second reading, the honourable member said like all

divorces it will be a trade off between access and money, but for

the honourable member for Wokingham and his friends, there isn't a trade

off, he doesn't want access and he doesn't want money either. Now, if I

can just return to new clause 54 which calls for extra time.

Honourable members have raised the need for extra time if Parliament

has declined the final terms. One in which the Government has not managed

to complete the negotiations within 24 hours specified in Article 50.

This is more likely than not. Almost everyone who has looked at this

matter in detail is incredulous at the idea that we can complete the

negotiations in 24 months. The record for completing trade deals is

not good and there are many more strands to this negotiation. It

would be patently absurd to flip to a damaging situation without an

agreement if we could see once we got into the negotiations and we

have the detailed work schedule that a further six or 12 months would

bring us to a successful conclusion. Similarly, it's possible that the

minister's optimism is well founded, but the while the negotiation have

been completed the Parliamentary process hasn't and in that instance

too we ought to have extra time. New clause 99 addresses a different

matter. It embeds Parliamentary sovereignty in the approval of the

final terms of withdrawal. It ensures that the UK with draws on

terms approved by Parliament. This was a major plank of the Brexit

campaign bringing back control and restoring Parliamentary sovereignty.

New clause 99 is the fulfilment of that promise, the working out in

practise of what was promised. The Prime Minister has already said that

Parliament should have a vote at the end of the process. New clause 99

strengthens that promise by requiring primary legislation to

give effect to any agreement on arrangements for withdrawal and even

more importantly, on the future relationship. This is important as

it means Parliament does not just have to give a metaphorical

thumbs-up which as my Right Honourable friend the member has

said could be meaningless. Instead, Parliament can undertake line by

line scrutiny. Brexit has major constitutional political economic

and social consequences. It is right that Parliament approves the way it

is done. Article 50 paragraph one states that

a member state may decide to withdraw from the union in

accordance with its own constitutional requirements. The

Supreme Court said in their judgment withdrawal makes a fundamental

change to the UK's constitutional arrangements. The UK constitution

requires such changes to be affected by Parliamentary legislation. In

line with the Supreme Court judgment new clause 99 in Parliamentary

approval as a constitutional requirement which the EU must

respect. New clause 99 also deals with the issue raised by the

Honourable member at the beginning of the debate, what we do in the

absence of any agreement. Either the Prime Minister's negotiations will

succeed in reaching a satisfactory conclusion or they will not. New

clause 99 provides for both scenarios. Legislation in the second

as well as the first. So that Parliament is in control and decides

the basis for leaving. The new clause does not block Brexit, it

does not slow down the negotiations, I voted to give the Bill a second

reading, my constituents are Leave voters, this is about Parliament

having sovereign control over the process. I am grateful for tabling

and speaking to this amendment, I think it's very important in terms

of the concerns expressed on all sides of the house about the

so-called concession offered early, can she confirmed she will push her

amendment to the vote? I may wish to test the will of the house on this

new clause when we come to the end of the debate. I think most rational

people would say the new relationship is more important than

the terms of withdrawal. She said a moment ago that new clause 99 does

not seek to delay our derail the leaving process. In the event of

section B of her new clause coming about, namely no deal, if Parliament

voted against it doesn't be effective new clause 99 clearly mean

that we would actually stop the process of leaving and thereby deny

the effect of the referendum? I do not think it does mean that and I

think that depends on whether extra time had been agreed with the

European Union or not. I think if he refers back to article 50 he will

see that we may get an extension of the other member states agree to

give us that unanimously. They may, they may not. As we stand here today

it's quite difficult to project ourselves forward into the situation

we will find in two years' time. Doubly grateful, but doesn't she

agree that in the event they do not give us extra time by mutual

agreement and in the event that Parliament has rejected withdraw

without an agreement, then the effect of section B of her new

clause is very clearly that the referendum result will be negated by

Parliament and doesn't that go against what she is voting for? I

don't think it does because it allows open the possibility of the

government going back to the drawing board and making a further new

arrangement. But as I say, I think for us now, when we have not

embarked on this, when we don't know what the deals are, it's extremely

difficult... Isn't it the case and that she agree with me that many of

the other 27 countries will be going to their Parliament's for approval,

for their approach to these negotiations and surely it would

strengthen our government's hand if the government involved themselves

in a process within this Parliament that could maximise the support

coming on all sides of the house for the government's approach and why

isn't that seen as a strength? I could not agree more, we know Angela

Merkel has to get parliamentary mandate for the way she conducts

herself in all her negotiations in the European Union and some of us

have tried over the years to improve the quality of our European

scrutiny. But it seems we are now only focusing it when we are about

to leave. I am grateful, assuming the house agrees this amendment, and

we do trickle Article 50 on the 31st of March and we do vote against the

deal and the commission and the European Parliament say sorry that

the deal you have, like it or lump it, what can we do about it? They

don't care, we haven't got these powers to stop them imposing the

deal they want to put on us once we've triggered Article 50. I think

what the Honourable gentleman is arguing is the same as the

Honourable member for walking, that Article 50 is irrevocable. If you

look at Article 50 paragraph three you will see it says unless the

European Council in agreement with the member states unanimously decide

to extend the period, this can happen. It will depend on how the

negotiations are undertaken, where we have got to and on the torn. --

on the torn. The Treaty of Lisbon sets out the term, whether it is

irrevocable or not is down to the weakness of the Treaty of Lisbon.

But some of the best deals reached in the EU have been at the 11th hour

and the one thing which will concentrate the minds of all

involved in these negotiations are the fact they had to happen by March

2019 or it will go on and on and on? Well, I don't think the threat of

the cliff edge is a positive in these negotiations. And I note the

Chancellor of the Exchequer has described this as a second-best

option and the white paper also says that crashing out is a second-best

option. Actually I think it's the worst option. What new clause 99

does is to level up the playing field so as well as having the vote

on the withdrawal terms and the money we will also be able to have

detailed scrutiny for this house on the future relationship. I have

consulted my constituents on the Brexit they want. They do not want

the cliff edge option, there are all sorts of things about Europe which

they light even though it was a majority leave voting constituency.

They like the customs union, the social chapter, cooperation and

collaboration. They particularly like the arrest warrant. Indeed. She

says she would like collaboration and supporting the government is

negotiation, does she think it's a good idea in a negotiation to say we

think we owe you a lot of money, tell us how much or is it better to

say I don't think we owe you anything. My experience of

negotiating is that one of the most important thing is that we

understand what the people on the other side of the table thank and I

think that's absolutely profound to making a success of this. It's not

to say we are going to give the person on the other side of the

table everything they want but we do need to be open to listening to what

they want as we go forward. Going back to a point about the different

approaches the European states adopted a negotiation, my

understanding, I am not a lawyer so I hesitate in the face of such

eminent legal presence in this chamber, but isn't it because in

countries like Germany where they have a legal culture where when they

make treaties they are directly applicable without further

legislation, but we have to legislate things into effect so is

that why they take a tougher approach for the authorise things

because once the government has signed up to the treaty it

automatically becomes law? I don't think this is an opportunity for a

seminar on the political institutions of the Federal

Republic. What I think is that new clause 99 is about embedding what is

basic to the British constitution as bound by the Supreme Court which is

parliamentary sovereignty throughout the process. In the end the

referendum was about trust. It was about the kind of settlement that

most voters want. I know what kind of Brexit deal my voters want, I

think new clause 99 is the best way to give it to them. Thank you ladies

and gentlemen. I hope the house will allow me to just mention the fact

that today is indeed the 7th of February which is 25 years to the

day from the signing of that fateful Maastricht Treaty and I am glad, I

see my right honourable friend looking over at me with a wry smile

on his face because of course I don't doubt for a minute he will

recall he once said, I hope I am not mistaken, that he had not read the

treaty but maybe he never said anything of the kind. I would be

more than happy to accept that. But I did eventually put down that

something like a or so amendments and I voted against it 47 or 50

times. I have to say I am not going to vote against this under any

circumstances whatsoever and indeed it's the first occasion in relation

to any European legislation since 1986 which included the single

European act where I put down a sovereignty amendment and I was not

even allowed to have it selected for debate which I found very difficult

to accept that the time. But the reality is we are now, we have moved

well ahead, we have now had a referendum which was accepted by 6-1

in this house. We have also had a vote on this very bill which was

passed by 498, 500 if you include the tellers, to 114 to agree the

principal of this bill. That is why I now move onto the next question, I

would like to make this other point that when I look at these new

clauses and I think in deference to other people who wish to speak,

going through the intricacies of these vast number of new clauses is

not going to help us very much. For a very simple reason that the bottom

line is that it would effectively give a veto to override the result

of a referendum. It's as simple as that. I would be happy to. Did he

not just say he had put down 150 amendments of his own back? Surely

he is diffusing his own argument? The whole point of this places to

challenge other point of principle things we don't believe in and that

is what we are trying to do and he should be supporting us. I am so

glad that the honourable lady has made that point because of course

the difference between what I was doing in those days and what is

happening now is that we were actually arguing against the

government's policy to implement European government which is what

the Maastricht treaty said and which by the way the electorate in the

referendum have now accepted. And the second point is that we were

arguing for a referendum which we've now got. So my amendments were

moving in the right direction in line with what the government have

now agreed and what the people themselves have also agreed. I will

give way. Clearly enjoying his day in the sun. I did not vote for the

referendum legislation like the right honourable member, but could

he tell us of his 40 years of campaigning what regard he has had

to the two thirds of people who when he started actually voted for the UK

to remain in the European Union? I can only say that in our democratic

system when 6-1 of this house and the House of Lords as well vote in

favour of a referendum by sovereign act of Parliament and give the

people in his constituency as well as in mine, not to mention

Stoke-on-Trent on which there is going to be quite an interesting

test in a few days' time, that the fact is that the decision was given

to those people by act of Parliament and they made that choice to leave.

That is definitive and I do not see any purpose I have to say and I am

not going to waste time on some of the intricate arguments we have

heard so far, many of which I think are going round in circles. The

question is do we implement the decision of the United Kingdom or

not, the answer is that we do and we must and that was conceded by this

house and all, almost everybody, I say with great respect to my right

honourable friend who did not, but the bottom line is we are giving

effect to the decision of the United Kingdom electorate.

He himself was one of these two-thirds back in 1975 when he

voted for the European Community. So all of these years he was

campaigning against the sovereignty against that decision and indeed he

was campaigning against his own sovereignty and against his own

decision! That's politics! As the honourable

gentleman knows only too well because he has a similar experience

with respect to his position with regard to Scotland. So the bottom

line is this, we are faced with a simple decision which is going to be

decided at a vote later today. I imagine. It maybe it will be p nart

tomorrow as well and then there will be a third reading and all these

attempts in my judgment to produce different versions of delay will

effectively, I hope, be overridden by the vote that's taken by this

House as a whole in line with a decision that was taken by the

British people which is the right way to proceed. I would just like to

add one other point though with respect to the Bill itself. I'm in

no way criticising the selection of amendments because I think it is

entirely right that we should have an opportunity to look at a variety

of perm tass before that vote is cast, but I have to remind the House

that this Bill, which was passed by 498 to 114 simply says to confer

power on the Prime Minister to notify under Article 50 of the

treaty and European Union, the United Kingdom's intention as

expressed by the referendum itself, to withdraw from the EU. And clause

1 simply says and no more, "The Prime Minister may notify under

Article 50 (2) on the treaty of the European Union the United Kingdom's

intention to withdraw interest the EU. It goes on to say to put this

matter to bed in case anyone tries to argue this could be overridden by

some other European Union gambit. This section which we've passed

already in principle has effect despite any provision made by or

under the community Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment. In

other words nothing is to stand in its way about which emulates from

the European Union and that's a very simple proposition and this Bill is

short because it should be short. I would like to make this last point

and that's to look back at what the Supreme Court said. The Supreme

Court made a judgment on one simple question - should it be by

prerogative that we express this intention to withdraw and notify

under Article 50 or should it be Bill? There was a big battle. Many

people took differing views. We respect the outcome of the Supreme

Court's decision and that is why we've got this Bill. The fact is

that that is final. But in paragraphs 2 and 3 of that very

judgment the court itself made it clear what this Bill was meant to be

about and it was whether it should be by Bill or prerogative and they

said by Bill. What they also added and these are my last words for the

moment on this subject and it's this - they said it was about one

particular issue and that's the one I mentioned. They then said it has

nothing to do with the terms of withdrawal. It has nothing to do

with the method. It has nothing to do the timing and it has nothing to