Urgent Question on Parliamentary Vote on Brexit House of Commons

work to any of those including those

who perhaps settled out of court

would make it difficult for any work

to be undertaken.

Urgent questions,

Kier Starmer.

To ask the Secretary

of State for exiting the European

Union if you will make a statement

on the government's policy on a

meaningful vote in parliament to

agree the final withdrawal agreement

with the European Union?

Secretary

David Davis.

Thank you. We have been

very clear from the start of the

process that there will be a vote...

LAUGHTER

On the final deal that we

agree with the European Union.

I reiterate the commitment during

the Article 50 Bill when he said I

confirm the government will bring

forward a motion on the final

agreement to be approved by both

houses of Parliament. We intend this

will happen before the European

Parliament debates and votes on the

final agreement. Furthermore, we

intend it will cover not only the

withdrawal agreements but also the

future relationship with the

European Union. These remain our

commitments. The terms of the vote

were also clear. The Prime Minister

at the time said the choice will be

meaningful, whether we accept that

deal or move ahead without one. This

vote cannot happen until there is a

deal to vote upon. But we are

working to reach an agreement on the

final deal in good time before we

leave the European Union in March

2019. Clearly we cannot say for sure

at this stage whether this would be

agreed. As Michel Barnier said, he

hopes to get a draft deal agreed by

October 2018, and that is our aim is

well. We expect there will be a vote

in the UK Parliament before a vote

on the European Parliament and

before we leave the European Union.

As we have said before, this vote

will be over and above the

requirements of the constitutional

reform and governance act, 2010. We

have also said many times we want to

talk about future relationship as

soon as possible. We have also said

many times we want to talk about

fisheries relationship as soon as

possible. The EU has been clear that

any future relationship cannot

conclude until the UK becomes a

third country as the Prime Minister

herself said. Our aim is to have the

terms of our relationship agreed by

the time we leave but we recognise

that the ratification of that

agreement will take time and could

run into the implementation period

we are seeking. There can be no

doubt Parliament will be involved

throughout the process.

What a mess.

Shambles!

One thing one day, one

thing the next. Yesterday he was

asked could devote the after March

2019. The answer was yes. Yesterday

the Prime Minister had a go at

correcting him, then his own

spokesperson had to clarify the

remarks. That is not good enough.

Can I remind the Secretary of State

that the commitment he has referred

to which was made at this dispatch

box that we would have a meaningful

vote, was made when the government

was on the verge of losing a vote,

the Labour amendment to the Article

50 Bill, to give that vote. That

commitment cannot now casually be

dispensed with. The text of Article

50 is clear. There can be no deal

until European Parliament has

approved it and voted on it. The

nonsense yesterday about nanoseconds

has to be put in that proper

context. It will be completely

unacceptable that time was found for

the European Parliament to vote on

the deal before it is completed, but

time was not found for this House.

The Prime Minister expects us to

continue watching on our screens the

European Parliament proceedings

while we are told we do not have

time. I do not think some. We need a

guarantee that will not happen. The

Secretary of State has repeatedly

asked us to accept his word that the

dispatch box. Given the events of

the last 24 hours, will he now

accept the amendments then to

Withdrawal Bill that the Article 50

meaningful vote should be put into

law so we all know where to stand

and we do not have to repeat this

exercise?

The honourable gentleman I'm afraid

altered the quotation from

yesterday. What he said was, and I

refer to it the exactly, it is

possible that Parliament might not

vote on a deal until after 2019. I'm

summarising what you said, I said in

the event we don't do the deal

before then. That is the point I was

making. What I've also said and I

will take up his point on the

European Parliament. It is our

intent and expectation, those are

the words used, I crafted them, that

we will vote on this in this House

before the European Parliament. That

stands. If it goes to the time table

that Mr Barnier expects, which is

October of 2018, it is likely the

European Parliament will vote

December, January, we will vote on

that, we will have that before the

House before then. There is no doubt

about that. That undertaking is

absolutely cast iron. The issue that

I raised yesterday, because I take

it as a responsibility always to be

as forthright as open as I can, was

to go through what has happened in

the past in the treaty negotiations.

There is an expectations by the

commission, there is an enSentive on

behalf of the countries to get this

done. And this an expectation from

ourselves. None of the undertakings

have been undermined. The issue here

is one of practicality and what we

control. What we control we will run

to give Parliament a prop erp and

meaning vote at the right time.

Mr

Dominic Grieve.

I understand my

honourable friend's concern about a

hypothetical situation that might

arise at the end of the negotiation.

Is not the reality if this

negotiation leads to an an

agreement, then it is necessary for

the European Parliament and

ourselves to act i accordance with

our constitution to do so. So having

reached a deal with the EU they

would hold news some strange way to

ransom, because we say we need time

to enact the statute. This flies in

the face of reality and it would

tone down the debate and bring some

rationality if we understood our

European partners would expect us to

reach our own conclusion.

The

reason, as I understand it, that Mr

Barnier wants to conclude the

negotiations, including that element

of Article 50 which refer to the

future arrangements, by October, is

in order to enable that

representation process to take

place. In that respect I agree with

him.

Secretary of State could he

face the House. I'm delighted to be

faced by the honourable gentleman,

but that should be enjoyed by the

House as a whole. Mr Peter Grant.

Thank you very much Mr Speaker. We

have a withdrawal bill which has not

been delayed, but hasn't come to the

House when we expected it to. We

have the former UK ambassador to the

EU telling us, that the Prime

Minister's approach to negotiations

is in danger of leaving the UK

screwed in the negotiations. The

negotiations have been led by

somebody who this Czechoslavakia is

one of the countries we are

negotiating with. But that country

is split into two part and the two

parts are still on speaking terms.

The government refuses to publish

the truth about the impact of

Brexit, saying it is confidential.

Despite publishing what will happen

in the event of Scottish

independence. And the Government

tries to bailout the failing

Secretary of State for Brexit. Will

Secretary of State to confirm for

any vote to be meaningful we must

have the facts and can we have sight

of an sis before that vote --

analysis before that vote. And the

three devolved nations will be

treated as equals and will have a

timeous and meaning vote before we

leave the EU?

Before I answer his

substantive question, may I correct

him, the minister involved, when he

talked about Czechoslavakia, he was

correcting somebody else. I would

prefer that to be on the record.

With the full facts? Absolutely.

That is why the vote must take

place. At that point we will know

what it is the withdrawal deal

amounts to and the frame work of the

future arrangement is.

Given the way

that the European Union have delayed

and delayed, it is no unreasonable

that my honourable friend should

consider they're going to carry on

delaying. Would he impress on Mr

Barnier that in fact it would be

much more preferable to conclude a

deal as early as possible, otherwise

any implementation period will be of

far less value if business is not

certain it is going to be available

to them sooner rather than later.

My

honourable friend is right and that

is one of the things I said to the

committee yesterday, that we will

try to get the commission to agree

the implementation period as soon as

possible.

The Secretary of State

said to the committee that the

Government's aim is to conclude one

agreement covering the divorce, the

transitional arrangements and the

new partnership with the EU. But he

has accepted also that the last of

those three has to be agreed by a

different process, because that deal

could not be finally concluded until

we had left the EU. Given that it

the is likely to be a mixed

agreement, only one Parliament

objecting to it would mean it

couldn't be concluded. Would in

those circumstances that bring down

the whole of deal and if that is the

case, is it not sensible to separate

out the divorce and the transition

which would not require the consent

of every Parliament of 27 and the

new partnership which ought to be

negotiated during the transition?

As

I think I said yesterday,

negotiating the transition would put

us in a negotiating disadvantage.

The point that the House was told or

the promise given to the House on

the approval of the negotiation was

that both elements, or all three

elements of it would be put to the

House together toe divorce, the

transition and the long-term

arrangement. And that's the best way

to assess this. The previous member

from the Scottish National Party

said the decision should be made

with all the facts. All the

decision, all the facts.

There is a

way for the Government to put this

matter beyond doubt and that is to

accept the amendment 7 to the

withdrawal bill laid by my

honourable friend the member for

beckons field. Reports have reached

members on this side that the

Secretary of State doesn't think

those Conservative members are

serious about supporting it. Can I

tell him we are deadly serious and

it is better the Government adopt a

concession sooner rather than later

for all concerned.

I won't pre-empt

the discussions, but those reports

are not true.

With the minister of

state saying one thing tr that

dispatch on 7th February this year

and the Secretary of State saying

not one thing, but two things in the

space of 24 hours yesterday, it is

clear that ministerial assurances on

this matter are not enough. Does the

Secretary of State does agree that

after the shambles of the last 24

hours where he had to be rebutted by

his spokesman, the only way to

guarantee Parliament a meaningful

say and input into these most vital

of negotiations is to amend the EU

withdrawal bill?

No, I don't agree

with him on that. And his

description of events is also wrong.

There is one thing to give an

undertaking, which is binding and

another to say these are the

probabilities and difficulties we

face. I treated

absolute respect in outlining what

had happened previously. Not what we

expect or intend, not what the union

intends, but what had happened, a

risk we have to take on board and we

intend to meet all our undertakings.

I don't take it very well that he

suggests we don't.

How would we

approve an agreement before we have

an agreement?

My honourable friend

makes a very good point. We

wouldn't. That is why the House will

be given to approve at soon as

possible at the draft -- draft

stage.

Hardly a days goes by without

another example of the Government

being in a mulledle -- muddle. It is

not about leave or remain, but the

nation standing together, could the

Secretary of State confirm what he

understands by the term meaningful,

does it still mean a choice between

leaving the EU with a negotiated

deal or not? If Parliament votes

against a deal, what happens next?

In the case of no deal, would the

Government expect to leave the EU

without a vote of the UK Parliament

or would the Prime Minister seek

further time. Is the vote meaningful

if there is nothing it can change

and has he taken into account that

next year the European Parliament

will dissolving for elections if we

are delayed beyond October, won't

your deal be left in limbo.

Since, I

have lost count of questions, the

lady is challenging the status of

statements from the box. The choice

will be meaningful, whether to

accept the deal or move ahead

without it. Full stop. That was the

promise made before.

I listened to

the chairman of the select committee

and I wanted the House to know that

is his view and not everyone on the

committee. Well... In the past,

select committee chairman have come

to the House to represent the

committee and not their own personal

view. I'm diverging and wasting the

House's time. I will get to the

point. I would like the Secretary of

State to agree with the members on

the other side that in fact if we

don't have agreement by October

2018, it will be impossible to do a

deal. Would the Secretary of State

go back to Brussels and say, we

haven't got a deal by 26th October,

there won't be a deal and we will be

coming out without one?

The

honourable gentleman is trying to

tempt me. No, it is my job to get

the best deal possible. If it means

going to November, so be it. That is

what we will do.

There was a hubbub

a moment ago, to the matter to rest,

if the chair of a select committee

comes to the House to make a

statement, a relatively recent

innovation, of course the chair is

doing so on behalf of the committee.

However, it is perfectly commonplace

for sect committee chairs to come to

the chamber and to ask questions and

I think it is understood that they

are doing so on their own account

and taking responsibility for their

own words. A proposition to which...

To name but two at random, the

members of member for Highgate and

another can sign up.

The Foreign

Secretary went around this country

saying £350 extra a week for the NHS

if we voted to leave. That is not

going to happen. The Environment

Secretary said the 3 million EU

citizens in this country would be

granted the right to remain. That

has not happened. This Secretary of

State said this House will get a

vote on withdrawal before we leave

and that doesn't look like it is

guaranteed to happen either. Why

should we believe anything that is

said at this dispatch box? We have

to take what they say with a

lorry-load of salt.

As I understand

it, I think he was referring to the

leave campaigner, they weren't made

at the dispatch box. So that is not

correct. The undertaking I gave will

stand and does stand. No further.

I

believe that no deal would be a very

bad deal indeed for this country. If

the House votes on the final deal

and it rejects a final deal, is the

Secretary of State implying those

who vote against it are saying they

would like to leave with no deal at

all?

All I was doing was repeating the

statement made at the dispatch box

at the time. Pat answer is not good

enough. This is a critical question.

He says of the House votes against

the deal, it could be a bad deal,

the government will move ahead

without a deal. Does that mean the

only choice is to crash out under

WTO terms, or does it leave open the

option to continue to negotiate or

stay in concurrent terms?

I said

exactly the answer to the question,

what was given by the Minister at

the time to the Article 50 debate.

Could he confirm it remains his

intention and that of the Prime

Minister to make regular reports to

the House of the negotiations with

the European Union, and does he

agree with me that it is always open

to have these negotiations under the

utmost scrutiny?

He knows the

subject better than most, given I

have been quoting him throughout

much of it. During the Article 50

Bill, I made the point number of

times that the will be many votes on

many aspects of the deal is coming

up. Pienaar reports coming up, the

Withdrawal Bill, the nuclear Rovers

Oversight bill and other primary

legislation. As well as what the

undertakens have been given, they

were given over and above the

constitutional reform and governance

act 2010. That means that any

treaty, and there may well be a

number, as the chairman said, any

treaty is subject to being denied

ratification by the vault of this

House. A point that should not be

forgotten in the process.

Does the

Secretary of State accept that a

meaningful vote will be a vote who

allows Parliament to send the

government back to the negotiating

table rather than the false choice

between a deal and no deal, and if

Parliament is offered a meaningful

vote, so should the public, a vote

on the facts.

I know his party's

policy has been for a second

referendum, I do not think any other

party believes that.

It was a

meaningful vote, in June 2016, and

on a 70% turnout, 61% of voters in

Kettering voted to leave. In

Kettering, people are honest and

plain speaking, can the Secretary of

State reassure them that we are

leaving the European Union in March

2019?

The answer to my honourable

friend is yes, and my task is to

respect the vote because it is the

biggest mandate given to a modern

government, and to deliver the best

deal possible which means a deal,

not no deal, the best deal possible

respecting their vote.

The wording

of amendment seven to the Withdrawal

Bill is clear, it says the prior

enactment of statute by parliament

approving the final terms of

withdrawal of the United Kingdom

from the European Union, which

should be of concern to all of us

across this House, whatever form

Brexit we want, whatever divorce

Bill we think is acceptable. This is

a simple matter, about Parliament

having its say and been guaranteed

about the bill, so will he accept

amendment seven put forward a

similar one to the government? Yes

or no?

I am not here to preview the

committee stage. But I take very

seriously the views of this House in

the matter, and I expect there will

be any number of votes, I have just

referred to the governance act as

one element of it, but it will not

be the only one,...

He said there

will be a vote at the right time.

Can he confirm that the right time

is before a deal being signed and

before we leave the European Union

in March 2019?

The right time has to

be when we have a draft treaty in

front of us. It will be prior to

ratification by the European

ratification process, starting with

the European Parliament. We have

made that undertaking. It has to be

after that is done in order for the

House to be involved. Otherwise it

will be as soon as possible, and

before the European Parliament has

this opportunity, therefore before

the process goes ahead.

Surely the

point is a fait accomplis is not

right, but it is being presented as

this. If he was not a government

minister, he would be signing the

honourable member's amendment, so

between now and then, just in case

he were to lose his job, would it

not be a good idea now that he is

going to sign up to that amendment?

Will I be signing someone else's

amendment? I'm not sure.

LAUGHTER

I think not.

The processes we are going to

designed to the House a great deal

of this process, including the

sequences of statements, appearances

of the select committee, urgent

questions and the like. He has

ignored that it gives the House the

great ability to reject it if she

chooses to.

The truth is that we

return a £70 billion trade deficit

with the European Union. Does he

believe that will help to focus

minds and keep these discussions and

deliberations on timetable?

He is

right in that it drives the views of

the member states to what they want

out of the negotiation. One of the

things that is happening between now

and December is the council will lay

down on the guidelines for the

process. Those guidelines were

particularly about the future trade

arrangement. In those guidelines it

may well be that the council says

something about the issues in front

of the House.

Yesterday the

Secretary of State exiting the EU

select committee that he spoke with

leaders of various European

Parliament is because he knows that

they will have a vote on the final

deal, and he said he wanted to

discuss trade issues with them. Will

he involve the Scottish Parliament,

Welsh Assembly and the Northern

Irish assembly in relation to trade

matters, and will he confirm that

the Scottish Parliament, Welsh

Assembly and the Northern Irish

assembly will get a vote on the

final deal, as other regional

parliaments will?

I think I told her

yesterday that at the last joint

ministerial committee on European

committee I did talk about the

economic impact within each of the

devolved administrations and sports

about information exchanges to

influence that process.

My right

honourable friend will be aware of

the 18 Labour MEPs who recently

voted to hold up these key EU

negotiations, showing a distinct

lack of ambition about moving

forward on the key issue, which is

our trading agreements. We should be

pulling together in the national

interests to secure the best

possible deal and outcome, that is

what all the constituents want.

She's right, but let me say this, I

have never accused my opposite

number of being anything other than

interested in the national interest.

I should also say that I took his

views as his views, not the select

committee as well. It is very

important that we keep this on a

proper, stable, rational and

patriotically level, I think

everybody does.

Will he ignore the

voices of manic optimism that seem

to be compulsory on his side and

agree that the choice that will be

made on this final deal will be

very, very different to the choice

made on the 23rd of June, 2016, and

doesn't he believe that

well-informed second thoughts are

always superior to ill informed her

spots?

I respect the views of 17.5

million people and intend to uphold

them, unlike the honourable

gentleman.

Is it his view that since

the Florence speech there has been a

change of tone in UK capitals, and

Michel Barnier is far from alone is

wanting to secure as good a deal is

possible?

Yes, the speech had a

massive impact on the European Union

and commission. And certainly, Mr

Barnier, Mr Juncker and Mr Tusk have

said as much.

People in this House

think the promises he has given are

merely empty words, given that the

particle -- -- the problems

yesterday. Can remove on to other

issues, and can he give one good

reason that he will not put it on

the face of it?

They are not empty

words, they were said in the

undertakings. They were given in

those terms.

I would like to thank

the Secretary of State for the

tremendous amount of work he and his

team are doing to achieving the best

possible outcome for the United

Kingdom, and I know he is a true

parliamentarian and would expect us

to vote on the matter before we

leave the EU and not after. Could I

ask, there are three issues, the

issue of the withdrawal, the issue

of the transitional or

implementation, and the issue of the

final agreement. The first Welcome

to BBC Parliament's live coverage of

the House of Commons.

-- we should talk about this before

the details are sorted out.

As the

chairman of the select committee

said, there are three components of

this, but they are not unrelated.

With Article 50 itself saying that

taking into account the future of

the relationship. We attend that

they are conditional on one another.

The reason for that as it would have

a material impact on the negotiation

to separate them completely. That is

what was asked for during the

passage of the Article 50 Bill. With

respect to the future relationship,

as the Prime Minister said in

Florence, article 218 says it cannot

be signed until shortly after we are

third country in effect. It is also

the case that it is likely to be

more than one treaty for reasons of

interest and benefit to ourselves,

so the House will have multiple

occasions to look at that separately

to the overall decision, and I think

that is in the interests of

democracy.

The issue we debating

today goes to the heart of the trust

and confidence that the British

people should have in our

parliamentary democracy, and the sad

reality is that ministerial

assurances are no longer good

enough. The Secretary of State has

said he will not sign somebody

else's amendment, so why does he not

table his own amendment to the

Withdrawal Bill to give this House

and the British people the clarity

and coherence that is so desperately

needed?

He was there yesterday, he

saw that I was answering questions

as straightforwardly and factually

as possible. I described facts, not

promises. His own colleague said

yesterday, I do not doubt assurances

that the dispatch box. I think that

is the proper approach.

I wish the

Secretary of State well with his

negotiations with Mr Barnier, and I

pledge I will do nothing that could

ever be interpreted as trying to

undermine these negotiations with

him. We have had 11 referendums

since 1975, can he think of one that

we have gone against the wishes of

the British people? And we also

accept that as a Democrat, I am

deadly serious that at the end of

this process, we will be leaving the

European Union.

There have been

references from the other side to my

commitment to Parliament, by making

commitment to Parliament is an

indirect commitment to the democracy

of the British people, and that is

what matters. 17.5 million people

voted for it. We have to deliver the

best outcome on that decision.

We mustn't allow this exchange to

allied into a general discussion of

the merits of EU membership or

withdrawal. That is not the subject

matter, the subject matter as I have

been helpfully reminded by our

procedural king the question of

whether there is a meaningful vote.

On a deal. That is the dmar narrow

question and questions should focus

on that matter.

In the bill the

Secretary o' of state is taking the

power to set the exit date. So will

he now acknowledge that he can allow

Parliament as much time as it needs

to take the primary legislation to

approve the new arrangements?

What

we are doing is, we are taking our

power, but the power doesn't give us

the right to overrule Article 50,

which takes us out of European Union

in March 2019.

Rob Blackman.

Under

the terms of the withdrawal, the

Government has announced measures,

some eight different bills that will

be brought before Parliament and go

through the Parliamentary

procedures, one of those is the

Immigration Bill. Is it the

Government's intention to take that

Immigration Bill through its

Parliamentary stages before we vote

on the final deal, or will that

Immigration Bill be brought before

Parliament after we have agreed a

deal, because that could affect our

negotiation strategy.

It will be

before. Before the... The deal I

would expect any way, unless it goes

much faster than I expect. That is

true not just with that but with

most of the eight bills he refers

to.

I think the general public will

be bemused at the contrived

controversy that has developed here,

because even the most uninformed

observer will know you vote have a

vote on an a agreement until you

have an agreement. A stand alone,

unspecified transitional arrangement

and the mixed messages about the

willingness to respect the wishes of

the people of the United Kingdom is

likely to encourage EU negotiators

to delay any agreement and the

consequences for that could be we

keep on paying money into the EU

when we don't need to.

I agree that

there is a degree of contrivance in

the fuss and noise from the other

side. That is not new I guess. With

respect to the ongoing transitional

period, he is right, that is why I

said if we let the negotiation go

into that period we will be at a

disadvantage, because the EU will be

receiving money presumably if that

was the arrange, over time and would

want the spin it out. We have to be

sensible if we intend to respect the

will of the British people and

deliver the best outcome for them.

The Secretary of State will know

more of my constituencies voted to

get us out of EU, does he agree as

more damaging is the idea we should

have a second referendum or start

talking about the idea that we may

not leave at all?

He is right, I

think he has take an more

outstanding stance, given his own

views and the views of his

constituents. We have to respect

that vote and not undermine it.

We

want to be assured that

Parliamentarians will have a

meaningful vote. My constituents

have understood all along that I

would come here to vote to represent

their best interests and that would

make a difference. Can I say to the

Secretary of State while I'm sure he

means what he is saying to the

House, the assurance can only be

there for the future if it is on the

face of the bill and ask him to

accept either amendment 7 or bring

forward his own amendment.

I accept

what the lady is meant. But the

intention of the Government is to

create a circumstance where this

House has an appropriate influence

without undermining the negotiation.

That is what we are trying to do.

Mr

Speaker, I'm sure the Secretary of

State will have reflected on the

fact that unlike many other

negotiations we start from a

position where we have the same

regulatory position and the same

law, would this mean there is plenty

of time to have a full and frank

negotiation and come to a deal and

to have a vote in the Parliament on

it?

Yes, exactly. This is a unique

trade negotiation in which two

things. One we are at the point of

having open trade at the moment.

Secondly there is a vast amount,

something like 600 billion euros of

trade going on at the moment. So

there is a strong vested interest in

protecting that.

May I say this in

friendly terms to the Secretary of

State, that we stop fudging. This is

a complex matter and the people of

this country deserve clarity. We

understand and sympathise why he

fudged yesterday and that is why he

is here today, because of the nest

of vipers behind him and in the

cabinet make him a fudger. Stop

fudging, be honest with the British

people.

I have known the honourable

gentleman a long time and I always

get nervous when he starts a

question, may I put in the

friendliest of terms! And I think we

are having this discussion because I

didn't fudge yesterday. I told the

committee what I saw the facts were

and it is no way changed our intent

or our commitment to the House.

There was a certain amount of

harumph-ing, and I observe that none

of my Parliamentary colleagues is a

viper. However I would say this is a

matter of taste raer rather than

order.

Would the Secretary of State

agree that if we are to have a

meaningful vote on the final deal,

it would be better if all members of

the House engaged constructively in

the proceedings, rather than seek to

frustrate the will of the British

people.

I couldn't put it better

myself.

Given the confusion from

yesterday, will the Secretary of

State publish a written time table

of what he expects the sequence of

decision-making will be both here in

the UK and in the European

Parliament and just in case he is

inclined to say no, why not.

If I

controlled the time table I would do

so, but it is a negotiation, so I

don't.

It is a dangerous and

sinister anti-intellectualism. Will

the Secretary of State undertake

before a meaningful vote he will

publish his own Government's impacts

assessment on the effects of Brexit?

It is not anti-intellectual. I will

abide by the instruction I guess of

this House, which it passed by a

large majority last year to provide

as much information as possible

without undermining the interests of

the country.

The UK Government has

got itself into an unnecessary

muddle, as has been set out, if

there is a final deal it must be

ratified by the EU 27, six months

have been allocated to that. To

ensure the future relationship works

for every part of British state,

does he not agree that formal

endorsement of National Assembly of

Wales and the Northern Irish

Assembly should be sought before a

deal is sought or is it a case of

Westminster knows best?

To the first

half of his question, one of the

reasons we said that it, we would

put a draft deal to the House is

because we want to give the House

the first say before the European

Parliament and other institutions

came to it. And this is a treaty for

the United Kingdom.

In his

discussions with Michel Barnier,

what is the late date this

Parliament can have a vote before

the European Parliament has its

ratification vote?

As I said, what

Mr Barnier is aiming for is October

of next year as a draft, as outcome

for the draft agreement. If we hit

that, then the lightly time table,

as I think I said to the honourable

gentleman, is the European

Parliament would address that in

December or January or even later.

And the undertaking I gave was we

would come to this House before

then.

Mr Alan Brown.

Thank you Mr

Speaker, the Secretary of State's

pledge that the meaningful will be

taken and we will have full

knowledge of all the facts, so when

will he issue impact analysis the

Government has taken that shows the

possible detriment to Scotland so I

can explain to my constituents the

reasons for making the vote that I'm

going to make?

As I said yesterday,

the last, we did discuss some of the

matters with the devolved

administrations at an official level

before we do into the negotiation.

So they can influence the

negotiation. Take into account the

impact of it by sector and by

country.

Karen Smith.

I think we

have learned that the Government

will not accept amendment 7 in the

name of the member and the

Government will not table its own

amendment. Can the Secretary of

State guarantee at least we will

have a vote on a deal-deal strategy?

She starts by attributing to me a

lot of things I have not said,

because I have not gone into the

questions of whoo what would be the

House at committee stage. And the

meaningful vote will be as laid out

in the undertaking to the House by

my honourable friend the minister at

the time.

Jeff Smith.

The Secretary

of State can keep parroting the

words, the undertaken given to this

House, be I but that is meaningless

unless we know what happens after

the a vote. What does he mean by we

move ahead without a deal?

Well, I

would have thought that would have

been self-evident. What we intent

however is that the House will have

put to bitty Government the deal we

will negotiate, which will be the

best deal we can get respecting the

decision of 17 and a half million.

So bring back control to this

country and deal with the borders

issue and money and the future

relationship. And the House will

decide whether it approves of that.

Point.

A new criteria that a point of order

be made. I will give him the benefit

of doubt.

How can I get it on to the

record that I'm in fact the

Parliamentary species champion for

the smooth snake and not the Viper?

The honourable gentleman has

achieved the early gratification

that he sought. I'm sure his

observations will be of consuming

interest, not least to scribblers.