07/11/2017 House of Commons

and in ten and 15 years. We are on

track to and lead to achieve 94 and

93% of what we need to do. I think

it is good or that he will achieve

them.

Order. Just before BBD in the

urgent question in the name of

Matthew Penicuik, I do wish to

emphasise to the house that it is

narrowly focused. Colleagues sure

will of course I tend to the wording

and will have already at end of the

honourable gentleman's urgent

question which is on the matter of

when the Government will provide

impact assessments on leaving the

European Union arriving from

analyses provided by the ministers.

Questions must focus on that matter,

not an occasion for a general rerun

of Brexit related matters. Of which

I'm sure... We will meet many

examples in the days, weeks and

months to come but I'm sure

colleagues can it extend energy more

than adequately on the terms of

which the honourable gentleman has

drawn. Matthew Penicuik, urgent

question.

Thank you. They ask the

Secretary of State for Exiting the

European Union if you will make a

statement on when the Government

intends to provide the committee on

exiting the European Union with

impact assessment arriving from the

sectoral analysis carried out by Her

Majesty's ministers.

Mr Speaker, we

have this morning laid a written

ministerial statement on this issue

which set out the timeline and the

nature of response to last week's

notion. During the opposition they

debate, the Department of the

Secretary of State Robin Walker told

the house there has been some

misunderstanding as to what this

sectoral analysis actually is, it is

not a series of 58 impact

assessments. The Secretary of State

for exiting the EU made the same

point during his appearance before

the Lord's EU committee of ethics

over and during questions on

November two. Let me clarify exactly

what the sectoral analysis is. It is

a wide mix of qualitative and

quantitative analysis contained in a

range of documents developed at

different times since the

referendum. It means looking at 58

sectors to help inform our

negotiating positions. The analysis

examines the nature of activity in

the sectors, have a disconnected

with the EU currently. -- how trade

is conducted. And offers

alternatives to have we leave the EU

as well as looking at existing

precedents. Our analysis is

constantly evolving and being

updated. It is not and I have never

been a series of impact assessments

are examining the quantitative

assessment of Brexit on these

sectors. -- quantitative impact. It

will take the Government to collates

some -- it will take the Government

sometime to collate this information

in a way that will be presented to

the committee of your provider as

soon as possible. We have made

claims to the house authorities that

he can't they expect this to be no

more than three weeks.

Matthew

Penicuik.

Here we are again Mr is

eager. Members from across the house

have repeatedly asked that the

analyses undertaken by a governing

the release. On each occasion prior

to the debate on the motion on

Wednesday last week, ministers

argued that publication of these

analyses would compromise the

negotiating position. An delegation

did ministers either argue or

inferred the information did not

exist at this week documents.

Yesterday in his letter to the

charity site committee, that is what

the Secretary of State argued. Any

minister tell his house wide? If the

information call for does not exist

as a series of discrete impact

assessments, a clear impression that

the allied to develop over many

months that they do. In a response

they did 29 September 2017 Tribune

of information requests admitted to

my honourable friend, requesting

details about the publication of

analyses, the teams they did, and I

quote, a Department for exiting the

European Union home the information

you have requested. In his letter to

the charity selling committee, the

Secretary of State in visit will

take time to collate and bring

together the information the costs

on SL by other Government

departments of any Minister confirm

the information given by his

apartment's team is correct and that

the department hold the information?

If not, can you Minister tell the

house by the Department were

committed to state that the

information is held. If it is the

case that department hold some

information but not all, can you

Minister tell the house what is

preventing the information that is

available from being released to the

Brexit committee immediately? Mr

Speaker, this farce has dragged on

for far too long. Ministers cannot

use semantics and doublespeak to

avoid the clear instruction that

this house as given. There can be no

further delay. Ministers just need

to get on with it.

Mr Speaker, the

honourable gentleman said an

impression has been allowed to

develop. It was never a purpose to

allow such an impression to develop.

The situation, and if this teacher,

-- Mr Speaker, is that the

Government as I have explained

carried out a wide range of analysis

across the sectors to inform our

negotiating position. Our purpose is

to develop our negotiating capital,

not to create the kind of stories

which the honourable gentleman seems

to be pursuing. The Government holds

a wide range of information across a

wide range of documents. The

information is provided by the

apartment and collated by my

department. -- provided by

departments. It has never provided

quantitative forecasts on those

sectors. Mr Speaker, what I will say

is I think the public will get the

Labour Party today, look at what

they are asking for, they will get

the kind of narrative of which

members opposite of trying to create

and they will ask, whose side are

they on the? Sign John Whittingdale.

Thank you, as vice-chairman of

select committee of leaving the

European Union, can I thank my

friend for his answer? And SAB have

not actually discuss this matter

formally got from my own point of

view, can I tell him what he has

said to this now seems to be

entirely reasonable.

Mr Speaker, I'm

very grateful to my honourable

friend and I believe it is the case

that my honourable friend, the

Secretary of State, has spoken to

the chairman of the committee from

whom I'm sure we will here and I can

confirm another meeting has been

scheduled.

Mr Speaker, firstly, I

think it's an absolutely astonishing

that more than 500 days on from the

referendum, these are not prepared

yet. First of all, that is

astonishing. If they are scrabbling

together this in three weeks, were

the tide of all. -- will be tied.

Will he share -- the Secretary of

State for leaving the EU intimated

to the committee and can you confirm

what other assessments have been

made that the regional impact of

leaving the European Union as well?

Mr Speaker, first and foremost I

should say this criticism comes from

a party which decided to leave the

United Kingdom without deciding what

currency it would use. What I would

say to him at the sectoral analysis

has been discussed at the devolved

administrations and DJ MC and we

will give careful consideration as

and when we share that information

with the devolved administrations.

-- the JMC. The information we have

now does not and have never

comprised of quantitative forecast

of impact not an sectors or on any

region.

This is a storm in a teacup.

Given the extent of analysis, time

frame seems reasonable given the

incomplete picture presented, the

opposition would be the first to

criticise it and suggest you are

hiding something. What I also

suggested we should not want to

weaken our negotiating hand.

I'm

grateful to my honourable friend, he

is exactly right. It is the day is

to go forward and maximise our

negotiating capital in order to

deliver the best possible deal for

all people in the United Kingdom.

Thank you very much. We now know

what this material consists of what

I am concerned to read in the letter

the Secretary of State sent to me

that ministers now intend, and I

quote, to collate and bring together

this information in a way that is

accessible and informative for the

committee. Mr Speaker, I would

expect the committee to receive

these documents in the form they

were when the motion was carried. In

other words, an amended. As I lay

clear my to the secretary of state,

it is for the committee to decide in

what form they are published. -- not

amended. Any Minister confirm that

is what will happen and there will

be no further Anju Delay? -- undue

delay?

It is commercially sensitive

material and contains material which

is relevant to our negotiating

position. The hours as previously

noted not release information which

would be prejudicial to negotiating

position. What I would say to the

honourable gentleman is if we were

to give him and the committee the

original reports which were

commissioned at the beginning of the

department's live, he would find

that material was now incomplete and

out of date. It is our intention to

satisfy the motion by providing him

information which is relevant and

timely.

The minister does themselves no

favours by treating a privately

legitimate requests by the sovereign

parliament for information about the

most important negotiations to

affect this country for decades by

turning it into a partisan matter.

In the Secretary of State's letter

to the right honourable gentleman,

he talks about a wide mix of

qualitative and quantitative

analysis. And presumably one part of

that is the model the Chancellor of

30 when he gave evidence to the

Treasury committee recently that

there is a cross departmental model

that looks at different impact of

our economy. My understanding is

that model is available immediately.

While that model be disclosed

immediately?

The model to which my

right honourable friend has referred

is not contained within the

documents I carefully studied.

If

there is nothing of measure in these

documents then what is the point of

them? On the timing, you were very

clear last week after that votes,

you talked about days not weeks, and

was also discussion of ministers

being in contempt of Parliament.

Perhaps you would like to remind the

minister what the potential

sanctions are for a minister found

in contempt of Parliament?

I would

say first to him that he has put the

words of nothing of significance in

my mouth will stop I don't think I

have ever said that. What rising to

the House is that this central

analysis does not contain

quantitative rejections of impact as

the honourable gentleman's vinyl

gems question, that is a matter for

you, I think, Mr Speaker?

The motion

that has placed passed last week

without objection referred to the

impact assessments arising from

those analyses, referring to the

previous list. I can well imagine

that these assessments are scattered

around different departments and

different officials are looking at

different bits of work and saying

does this count as one of these

assessments or not? I think it would

be unconscionable for the Government

to have come to the House and

suggested that the Government was

not going to apply this motion and

was not going to release the

permission. Can I suggest there is

some private dialogue with the

highly respected chair of the Brexit

committee on Privy Council terms on

how to resolve this without this

becoming a matter of embarrassment

that actually disrupts the

negotiations?

It is our attention to

comply the will of the House, but we

cannot release what we do not have.

We will bring up for it material

which is timely, up to date and

informs the Committee. Steps were

being taken for it to carry out the

appropriate meetings. In response to

detailed questioning, Defra

ministers revealed the existence of

a sectoral analysis for waste and

chemical sectors. Given these two

analyses excess and have been read

by ministers, what is preventing

their immediate publication?

The

reports I have read on waste and

chemicals date back to the origins

of the Department and our therefore

as I said earlier, out of date and

do not reflect our current thinking

and we wish to inform the Commitee

with the latest information.

I

attended, unlike the minister, I

think, the entirety of the debate. I

have gone back on my phone, looking

at the words from the Minister, the

honourable member for Worcester. I

make it absolutely clear, Hansard is

absolutely clear, in its

recollection of that debate. The

nuts and bolts about it were of rich

action. The argument advanced by the

Government is that there was

material within these papers that

would be commercially sensitive,

possibly have some impact on the

negotiations. With the Minister

please take this matter seriously?

This is a gross content of this

place. The Government was

specifically asked that wasn't going

to vote against the motion then what

was its most receiver problem?

Disclose this information properly

and quickly.

What I say is that

she's possibly being unnecessarily

unkind to me. I did attend the

entire way. I may have possibly

slipped out briefly, I may perhaps

have to watch the entire video is be

the cause of the weekend. What I

potatoes that has been no suggestion

of redaction from the Treasury

bench, certainly not in the course

of that debate. They came from the

Opposition front bench... She says

it's not true. The records will show

that it was the right honourable and

learned gentleman from Saint Holborn

and St Pancras that stood at the

dispatch box and in violating his

experience as Director of Public

Prosecutions, and he offered

redaction, jesting and summaries,

and he did that in his opening

speech, whatever the honourable lady

might save.

There are times when

this Government has the stench of

death about it. Leaderless,

directionless and we learn today

that their defence is that they are

also contentless. But most

concerning of all is the most

APPLAUSE

Attempt today to come to the House

and say that those who ask for this

information should have their

patriotism questioned.

This will not stand and it cannot be

allowed to stand. The House gave the

minister and instruction. So my

question today is to show that in

this week of oh weeks, a modicum of

confidence and pass the studies to

the Commitee without redaction as

soon as possible. We have been given

an instruction and we are seeking to

comply with it and. What I would say

to him is that there is no question

of being content-free, what we need

to do is draw it together and

presented to Commitee in a form that

is useful. I do think it bears

repeating that it is time for this

House to come together and strife in

the national interest after

implementing the referendum result

not to seek after anything which

would undermine our negotiating

capital.

When they're published,

will the inform the negotiations in

anyway? And in that respect, as he

sometimes wonder who is side members

opposite are on?

I'm grateful to my

honourable friend. I think it's

very, very important that we end

this House did not do the work of

our negotiating partners for them.

We should go forward in the spirit

of friendship, but it is not our

place to do analysis of our own

negotiating capital for our

partners.

I'd actor like to commend

the Minister. I thought it was

impossible for this Government to

get more incompetent, but they are

making a very good go of it. When

they release the data, will explain

why they have done all this analysis

and none of it is quantitative,

because that does not bear any

credence whatsoever. You do not

undertake analysis in the do not

check what impact it has.

I'm glad I

so many honourable friends from

Scotland, I think that gives a

statement what the Scottish people

think of the competence of his own

party. What I would say, in so far

that there is quantitative analysis

in the document that I carefully

studied, it is a statement of the

facts as they are known at the time

another projects into the future.

I

think most fair-minded people would

accept it is reasonable that some of

this material may not be available

until three weeks have expired. But

Summers material could be available

now or sooner than three weeks. For

my honourable friend assured the

House that he will do his best to

make sure that material which is

available before the three-week

deadline available soon?

It is our

intention to make available again

here at and up to date set of

information within those three

weeks. -- a coherent and up to date

set of information.

I hesitate to

ask this question, because I have an

image on my mind of the most rocking

up to the office of the right

honourable member for at Central

with carrier bags asking him to sit

through them. Nevertheless, can be

honourable member issue meet that

went document is in is made

available it'll can contain

comparative information about the

sectoral impact of the different

forms Brexit that the Government has

considered but discounted?

It's an

interesting question, precisely

because we wish to avoid unnecessary

information on the Commitee that we

wish to take the time necessary to

bring together this information and

an appropriate form. That's what the

honourable lady said. The honourable

lady has asked for comparative

economic forecast, but I Bourdy said

repeatedly that this data does not

include quantitative economic

forecasts.

What the Minister has

said is perfectly reasonable, but I

do own, to release the documents in

full as soon as possible, because

redactions only inflame interest. I

lived through many of these rows,

and once these documents are

published, they are often found to

be very long and boring. When

parliament phone gets itself

involves in this odd passion, often

travelling is more fun than

arriving.

On his final points,

having carefully read the initial

analysis, I think I can say to him

with some certainty I have already

set of the House that I have read

the initial round of analysis. What

I would say to my honourable friend

is that, indeed on this case, I

think that the arrival will be far

less interesting than the journey.

The House will be handsomely

staggered to hear ministers say

today that it is not the case that

the sect analyses exist. This

secular state said the Prime

Minister had seen the summaries. He

said they comprised excruciating

detail and that the apartment and my

response to every of information

requests that the information is

concluded and as such all the

studies Roberto had been concluded.

Did the Minister confirm what it is

the Prime Minister is so when the

Department does not have an? And get

the studies Roberto be released to

the Select Committee today?

The

honourable lady is conflating

certain times. There is sent for

analysis, what there is not as a

quantitative impact analysis

forecasting the future. It might

help the House if I repeat what I

said earlier. It has been a wide mix

of quantitative and positive

analysis contained in documents at

different times since the

referendum. It exports the nature of

action within the sector is how

trade is currently conducted within

the EU and in many cases considered

the alternatives after we leave as

well is looking at existing

precedents.

The House has clearly

voted for these papers to be

released. My wits advise me not to

vote against that, so they had to be

released. The Minister is trying to

be helpful in providing additional

information. I would say ten that's

not what the House requires. It

requires lots of cardboard boxes

with the information for the Select

Committee to look at the Select

Committee would then decide what, if

any, be published.

I am very

grateful to my honourable friend,

but what I would say to him is that

the information we have enclosed

commercially sensitive information.

It includes information which is

material to our negotiating capital

and an add spice to ministers. I

think House must be very careful not

to establish precedents which

occurred coming to court, regret.

De-escalation for the delay is

frankly laughable and wasn't used in

rejecting my FOI request two weeks

ago. His explanation smacks of

cover-up and smoke screen. He

questions which side the Opposition

are on. We are on the side of the

public. When he gains the publishes

reports, we also publish a report

that the public can have which will

set out exactly for then the cost of

the Brexit that he so

enthusiastically endorses?

As I'd

not ceased to say, we are not in

possession of quantitative studies

forecasting impact of leading the

EU. But the public deserve is a

hapless House pulled together to

deliver a result that maximises our

negotiating capital, by not

releasing any information

prejudicial to the future of the

country.

Am Ali 's analysis do not contain

impact analysis, they may contain

private information. Can reconfirm

that the information in these

reports will be handled

appropriately with the public and

the committee?

I'm very grateful to

my honourable friend and as I

understand, anything has already

been arranged between the secretary

of state and the chairman of the

committee to do just that.

And

Geordie public on the whole will

with common-sense agree this timing

is reasonable. That's back I'm sure

the public. Can I have the Minister

to make it very clear that these

Government. Until you'll be sitting

up all night to read when there are

published, they will make no change

to the Government policy, the policy

of this country that we are leaving

the European Union, leaving the

single market and the customs union?

Am very grateful to agree with the

honourable lady anti-government

policy is as follows. It follows on

from the democratic decision to

leave the European Union, take back

control of our laws, borders, money

and trade policy and I'm confident

we'll make a success of it.

You have

said that this particular question

should focus on the issue of when.

The minister said within three

weeks. During that period, the

select committee will have a proper

debate about what they want to see

and in what format. There is going

to Brussels this afternoon will have

a candy firstly as Guy dropped that

what the man is the European Union

will have and Michel Barnier what

plans the commission will have

supervised the same answers. -- Guy

Verhofstadt. No one would want to

see us damage this type of

negotiation with another party.

I

agree with what he said.

For members

opposite as what size they are on an

assault exercise has been an

exercise in party with management

over the national interests. The

question is party interest on

national interests, what side are

they an? On any issue of timing, I'm

on the situation of British

businesses who have won the Treasury

that before Christmas in some

sectors, they are having to take

decisions that are potentially

irreversible and that worsens in

quarter one of next year. Is three

weeks really a reasonable time frame

and what could be a reasonable

exhalation for such critical

information not to be held in a way

that is readily available and

readily understood?

Mr Speaker, he

refers to an exercise in party

management but I have to just of the

last two years I very much enjoyed

working with members of Labour

leader and a Liberal leader. --

members of Labour Leave and Liberal

Leave full the weakening gauge with

businesses continuing me and I met

the sexy yesterday. The answer to

this question is the weeks

reasonable? Yes, -- amid the sector

yesterday. -- yes, it is reasonable.

Further to the question from my

honourable friend, the member from

Boston, is our honourable friend

aware of any request from the

opposition for those EU sectoral

documents.

No, not aware of any such

request.

The Minister confirmed in a

response to me on the 13th of

September that the department and

the analysis. He has confirmed two

day that he has seen the analysis.

He has then said that there is no

quantitative work that cat is it I

to the future. The question is why?

-- casts an eye to the future. Why

has that worked not been done to a

critical issue? Surely he is in

contempt of the house and we should

repurposed the calibre for his and

his department heads oche purpose.

-- 40 and his department heads's

purpose.

I refer to a range of

answers I have already given.

Thank

you. The sectoral announcements as

the minister confirms will need to

be released in relevant timing and

have correct information. With the

Minister agree that neither at

resolving this matter to the

satisfaction of the whole of this

house is the most important matter

and long-term damage to the UK is

what no one should be thinking?

As I

said to because of this debate,

members of this Government

parliamentarians first thing we do

is to satisfy the house that

whatever taken hers is the first

priority as a department of securing

the long-term future of this country

and it is do this and that they will

bend all our work.

I wonder if he

recognises that with his statement

to date, he has turned fast into a

new art form. When the axe what size

they are on, now can I also says we

are on the side of the 29 million

workers whose livelihoods absolutely

depend on the impact of Brexit on

the UK economy and can he tell us

pleased and recognise the is

treating not only the house with

contempt by the British public as

well.

Al tell you and the house what

is turning fast into an artform and

that is blogging about the Greek

debt crisis under the hashtag, this

is a coup and supporting the

European Union as this lady has

done, that takes the public for

fools. What I would say to her is

they are all on the side of the

British public, the UK took a

democratic decision to leave the

European Union and he will now carry

through that decision.

When they

started are released as a result of

the opposition Day motion, a key

asset well have been handed to

negotiating partners within the EU.

When the minister in winning the

notion of this house, will you

ensure they take as much time as is

necessary to ensure that the leaky

and the Secretary of State continued

to act in the matter of national

interest?

We well as they seek to

satisfy the house and is motion and

it is to that end that the Secretary

of State will be meeting the

chairman of the select committee.

People are increasingly concerned

about jobs and the National health

service. The Minister has given some

very confusing information is

answers to day. Who will be the

centre of what the MPs in the public

are allowed to know about these

issues of national importance?

The

element have a proud record on jobs

and a proud record on the NHS and we

will continue to give those issues

the first importance.

My

constituents more than this one is

Government to get on with delivering

Brexit and can I say is that what

they told me was they were saddened

that this has had voted as it did

because it does not help our

negotiating position. What they

would like this house to get on with

doing and what they would like his

department's officials to get on

with doing is negotiating our best

possible deal rather than spending

the time facilitating wins of this

house.

Order! Order! There was an

unseemly atmosphere in the chamber.

I understand the rising passions on

the subject but as colleagues

although I visit schools across the

country and conduct Skype settings

with schools. One question is, why

do people feel the need to bawl at

each other? We ought to set a better

example to the next generation of

leaders. Minister.

Mr Speaker, I

listened carefully to my honourable

friends and what I would say is that

it is the case that officials and

ministers will have to spend some

time on this work over the next

three weeks which will of course

distract both ministers and

officials from the negotiation. That

is regrettable but we take seriously

the notion which the house has

passed and the ways in which I set

out, we are seeking to comply with

it.

This is outrageous. Whose side

are we on? We are on the side of the

truth being told. The side of the

British people. We are on the side,

we are on the side of British

workers and is not the case that the

Minister is simply making it up as

he goes along and treating

Parliament and the people of Britain

with other contempt.

No, it is not

the case.

Thank you. Is the Minister

for getting that this time in one

week, we will have three of 400

amendments before this house and

does he believe this is a good way

to start the committee stage of the

EU withdrawal Bill?

And very

conscious of the EU withdrawal Bill

coming forward. -- I'm very

conscious. I would like to begin

that stage in a positive spirit of

collaboration in order to deliver

any national interest. I have sought

to day to give straightforward

answers to the questions which have

been asked and I stand by what I

have said.

Sorry, this is turning

into the Government equivalent of

the dead Parliament sketch. -- dead

parrot sketch. We're comprising the

negotiating hand but could not turn

up to vote in the first place. The

secretary of state said the Scotland

offers just that when the basic Tory

analysis of the impact of the

economy of Scotland with regard to

Brexit existed and had been shared

with the Scottish Government. Could

I have him does that exist or does

it not? When will they release that

information?

As I have said

throughout this urgent questions, we

are not in possession of qualitative

forecasts of the impact of Brexit.

We are in possession of sectoral

analysis and it is that which we

will be reworking on in order to

satisfy the motion.

It is very, very

simple. Parliament has told the

Government to hand these documents

over to the committee. The governing

extracts it is a binding resolution

of the house and will have to do it.

The Government except the things

exist because the Minister said he

has read them and the Prime Minister

has read the outlines of them. It is

very simple. He has to hand them

over to the committee and he has to

do so any timely fashion but he

seems to think what he can do in the

meantime is rewrite all of these

documents because they are not good

enough. That is not good enough. If

I might just say to him, it is all

very well for him to smack, it is

all very well for him to sneer at is

about patriotism but if you hold

this housing contempt, he holds the

British public in contempt.

Mr

Speaker, there is absolutely no

question of us holding the housing

contempt. We seek earnestly to

deliver a tree house what has been

requested. I say a gain, what I have

read the initial analysis which is

conducted by departments at the

beginning of the department and what

is necessary is to hand to the

select committee not out of date

documents spread across multiple

documents reducing at different

times which is now not

representative of our latest

thinking. We will therefore bring

together the right information to

provide the select committee.

Listening to the Minister and his

slippery evasions... It seems to me

that it calls into question why his

department and he as a minister in

this at all. What is the point of

the Department if it is not doing

its job?

Order. The honourable

gentleman is in extremely versatile

and extras parliamentarian and

should not accuse the Minister of

slippery evasions because there is a

connotation there of alleged

dishonesty which the honourable

gentleman normally a good-natured

fellow should withdraw. He has

already got the thrust of this

point, withdrawal.

Happy to

withdraw.

Well done.

And most

grateful and I reiterate my

confidence to answer these questions

directly. The purpose of our

department is to deliver a

successful exit from the European

Union and I have the honourable

gentleman nobody opposes that cause

as he has a long gone but I have to

say to that we continue to work with

all our might to deliver a

successful exit from the EU which

works for everyone.

The quantitative

assessment that actually count is

one of the British people and they

are determined that -- they

determined that the Conservatives

should not have an overall majority

in this house and that is why a

majority of this house demanded that

the Minister make these documents

available to the select committee.

It is not beyond the wit of the

Minister to be able to negotiate

with the site committee clerks how

confidential information may be

handled and kept confidential and he

should proceed on that basis and

negotiate how these documents can be

handled, just exactly what is it he

fears that the site committee

members will do with the

confidential information?

As I

explained earlier, understand that

the Secretary of State has made

arrangements to meet the chair

select committee to these matters.

Thank you. We are currently fighting

for the survival of the Vauxhall car

plant in my constituency and we're

working to come up with a plan for

the future. Brexit is a huge part of

that. We'll be Minister share as

much as he can as soon as he can

limit any impact he has seen on the

automotive sector?

We would like to

get on with delivering the best

possible deal for his constituents

and you'll country. It's why we have

constantly sought to get onto

talking about the future

relationship and I will undertake to

come and visit at part with him at

the business of the house allows.

Mr

Speaker, this is astonishing,

dizzying levels of theatre from this

Government. We have had all sorts of

Brexit. We now see an improv Brexit

ahead of us, improvising and making

it up as you go along. No tangible

appreciation but away from here

Brexit is being played out in

everyday lives with a first for

practical guidance to Brexit. -- a

thirst. Three weeks seems enough

time to make it up and I quote from

we shall not publish to it is not

the case that these exist. What is

the Government's -- what is the

Government's quantitative analysis

actually quantify?

As I said

earlier, the quantitative analysis

which is in the documents which we

have and which I have studied

reflect conditions at the time there

were written.

Urgent question,.

To ask the secular

state for International Development

Secretary woman make a statement on

the circumstances surrounding the

meetings in Israel and August 2017?

Mr Speaker, may I start by

explaining the Secretary of State is

on a prearranged Government visit to

Africa to focus on how we're

breaking down barriers. She's

presently in the air. She's on a

prearranged visit to Africa to focus

on how we're breaking down barriers

to trade, helping African countries

achieve their development ambitions,

reducing dependence on aid and

building Britain's trading partners

of the future. I welcome the

opportunity to update the house I am

on the Secretary of State as my trip

to Israel earlier this year. The

secondary statement of public

segment yesterday in that she

explained she had the opportunity to

meet a number of people and

organisations in Israel. A list of

who she met and what was covered was

published in yesterday's statement.

The Secretary of State realises, in

hindsight, these meetings were not

arranged following the usual

procedures and she has apologised

for that. The Foreign Office has

said that UK interest were not

damaged or affected by the meetings

on this visit. I hope, therefore,

that honourable members will now

agree that he has made that apology,

published details of the meetings,

and we should avatar that and move

on.

I thank the Minister for being

here, but it's simply unacceptable

that the Secretary of State is not

here before the house firm and so

this question and explain herself.

The British public outrage that the

Secretary of State held 12 meetings

in Israel, including whether

Israel's Prime Minister, Netanyahu,

without telling either the Foreign

Office or the Prime Minister. And

was accompanied by a pro-Israeli

lobbyist. She then misled the

British public the Commons yesterday

that yesterday she finally

corrected. It is now known that she

met her Israeli counterpart last

week without even knowing about the

secret meeting in August. We now

know that the credit status applied

pressure to her department to divert

humanitarian funding to the Israeli

army. So will the Minister tell the

House exactly what was discussed in

the secret meetings and exactly what

pressure the Secretary of State

applied on her department when she

returned to the UK? It is hard to

think of them all black and white

case of breaking the ministerial

code of conduct. But rather than

change the Minister, the Prime

Minister somehow decided last night

that it is the ministerial code it

self that needs changing. We have a

Prime Minister who has lost her

authority and her control of the

classroom. Does the Minister accept

it is time the Secretary of State

either faces a Cabinet Office

investigation, or does the decent

thing and just resigning?

First of

all, I again repeat that the

Secretary of State is already on her

way to Africa, a prearranged visit,

and she's already flying. Not

possible to deal with the question,

but that's why I'm here, and the

Secretary of State published a

statement yesterday with an apology.

Let me take the honourable lady's

questions as she produced then. The

Foreign & Commonwealth Office was

informed of the Secretary of State's

visit during the course of the

visit. But not before. The Secretary

of State has been a very clear and

absolute contrite in her statement

yesterday, she recognises that she

should have informed the Foreign

Office before the visit,, she

didn't, that is why the statement

was made and why she has apologised.

She is also in the statement given a

full details of the meeting she had.

They're not verbatim accounts, but

she gave details of who she saw and

the subjects discussed, which I

think is quite appropriate. I don't

think that means they were

particularly secret meetings,

particularly as the Foreign Office

was aware, during the course of the

visit, that she had been seeing

people in Israel. In relation to the

codes, International Development

Secretary has apologised to the

Prime Minister for the handling of

this matter. The Prime Minister has

accepted her apology. The Foreign

Office was aware of a visit to

Israel while it was under way, and

the Foreign Office is also clear

that UK interests were not damaged

or affected by this visit. The Prime

Minister regards the matter as

closed. A couple more things, if I

may. It you look at who my right

honourable friend met, from leading

politicians to the urgency, Terry in

aid NGO, work on water farming solar

hospital budgets in Africa, a visit

to save a child's colophon to talk

about a coexistence profit. A group

start-ups with a focus on Africa and

that it does the honourable lady

think that she should not have met

these people? All these people are

perfectly... This is... In I had

been in Israel and I have been on a

two-day visit, I would have wanted a

programme just like this. I went out

the ambassador, of I would. If you

look at the quality of meetings, if

you look at the quality of meetings,

whose you saw and what her job is,

these are all absolutely paramount

to that. May I make a last point, if

I may? The honourable lady racer

question press in the department

afterwards. As the most responsible

for the moment in that area, I can

say two issues were raised on the

Secretary of State does not return.

One was a currently being provided

by the Israeli army for those in

Syria who could not get medical

assistance and cross the border in

order to get it from the IDF, and

the other issues you raised was

whether or not there was room for

more corporation between the UK and

the Israeli aid agency. We looked at

both those issues, the Department's

view is that aid to the IDF is not

appropriate, we don't do that. That

was the advice given to the

Secretary of State. We're looking

hard to see if there is room to a

concrete with the Israeli aid

organisation as we do with others in

the region. There was no pressure

put on the departments, they were

pertinent questions to raise on her

return. She raised in an entirely

proper way with the Department and

with me, as we're dealing with it.

She's doing her job as the Roman

secretary, which is what she's doing

today and what those meetings

disclose.

The spotlight is on this

place and the proceedings of this

place and the behaviour of all of us

as never before. What people want is

transparency and accountability. So

does my right honourable friend not

agree with me that it is time,

finally, to address the issue of

access, privileged access and

lobbying and funding if we are not

to have this repeated time and time

again? And would he not agree with

me that all organisations involved

with active lobbying of members of

Parliament and ministers should open

their books, be entirely

transparent, so we can just see who

is lobbying to and who is providing

the funding?

Questions about

lobbying and transparency are really

important for the House and

important for ministers, which is

why is important to disclose as the

Secretary of State has whose she

met. Wider questions about lobbying

and funding are for others. But I

think the Secretary of State has

been transparent about her visit and

now she made the statement yesterday

and disclose what she has done.

I

shared the member for Edmonton's is

stylish and that the Secretary of

State is not here to defend herself.

This current has such little

credibility left that ministers are

now freelancing on foreign policy. I

wonder the most answer these

questions and as we confirm whether

the Chancellor was briefed about the

greatest development in UK aid

funding was to be given to the

Israeli army? What action is the

Prime Minister taking to ensure this

matters investigated in terms of the

material codes? And does he have

faith that the Secretary of State

still has the ability and

credibility to carry on?

OK. No, I

don't think the Chancellor was

informed, because it never became a

policy or chance of being our policy

to find the Israeli defence Force.

Secondly, as I said a month ago, as

far as a zero code is concerned, the

Prime Minister has seen the

Secretary of State has apologies

again for not informing people for

hands, and the Prime Minister

regards the matter as closed, but

she is looking to tighten the

ministerial code. Do have full

confidence? Of course I do.

When I

met the Israeli Deputy Prime

Minister, he stormed out of the

meeting. The Secretary of State got

a much more cordial reception. Is it

just because she's a lady?

JEERING I'm not sure Mr Speaker in

it's appropriate for me to answer

either how my right honourable

friend was treated himself or the

reception for the Secretary of State

for International Development and.

I'm quite sure both meetings were

quite proper and appropriate.

It was

incredibly long list of meetings on

what I thought was supposed to be a

family holiday. Did she have any

meetings with the Palestinian side,

because he will appreciate the

importance of a wholly balanced

approach to the Middle East peace

process and not a one-sided one.

Also she could have delayed her

departure insurance and courtesy to

this House. It is important to know

which of the Secretary of State or

the Foreign Minister has the worst

relationship. If the premise wasn't

so weak, both would have been

sacked.

The Secretary of State says

in her statement of yesterday at you

was on a family holiday between 13

and 25th of August, which is well

days. She took two days out of that

holiday to have a series of meetings

with Israeli alterations and

political people and a number of

different charities, including Save

A Child's Heart which works with

Israeli and Palestinian children.

The list of meetings are published.

I did not see that she specifically

had separate meetings with those

representing Palestinian interests,

but of course, she has met those on

other occasions. It's a full

disclosure of work. She had two days

kick in the middle of the holiday,

which I suspect is not particularly

unusual is for ministers when they

may do other things. But US, of

course, that the Foreign Office know

in advance, which my right

honourable friend did not, and she

has apologies. But the meetings were

all burst into her work and British

interests.

Given we now have Foreign

Office ministers and international

wood office ministers whose share

responsibilities across departments,

we have to Secretary of State, is

right now need to clarify what the

position is in relation to ministers

visiting particular countries,

whether we informed the Foreign

Office about it, whether

international development is

informed about it, so we clear this

matter once and from?

Personally,

having been around a bit, I would

have the ministerial code would make

clear what the sequence of events

ought to be. I think actually most

members should let the local

embassies mass they're there just in

case something happens and I think

it is reasonable practice that you

do, sometimes even on holiday.

Certainly, if you want to have

meetings in a country, you need to

make it very clear you want to have

those meetings and get them said up.

And I would have thought that was

the appropriate process. Again, my

right honourable friend has said

clearly she did not do that and has

apologised for not doing that. I

suspect somebody will not be doing

this for a very long time. It's real

shame it's

the Minister acting as an

original to hear, and every reflect

later he will not be proud of what

he has done today. The honest truth

of the matter is that if the

Secretary of State had said in this

House what do you said in public

last week when she misled the

public, by now she would be referred

to the committee on. I honestly say

there is either a Government which

has collective responsibility in

which people talk to one another

before they meet intentionally

significant other people and other

governments, where there isn't a

Government. And there isn't around,

it hasn't question of whether she

should resign, it's question of

whether this should all resign.

I thank the honourable gentleman. It

is whether this is accepted that she

should have discussed the visit

before she went and made very clear

what she was going to do. In

relation to what he said to the

Guardian last week, again my

honourable friend Lewes make clear

that her words left to

misinterpretation and

misunderstanding which is why she

issued the statement yesterday that

is clarifying matters. You grep not

being clear and her language and

that is appropriate. I feel that as

a personal readable thing I have

been asked to do to day she carries

on her work as international

secretary abroad and would not be

here.

Then I welcome the apology

that is being given by the Secretary

of State and my honourable friend

will understand the importance that

we often come to this issue on

history and positions that are

taken. Especially in terms of the

issue around Israel and the

Secretary of State as strong

supporters of Israel. When they get

into those positions and the whole

of Government policy, my honourable

friend would understand just how

important it is to understand

perspectives around this conference

that is at the heart of problems

around the Middle East. He is

probably the most equipped of her

Minister's -- of her ministers to

take on this issue at hand. I hope

he does. I'm grateful to my

honourable friend and appreciate

that he welcomes my honourable

friend's apology. He's right. Many

people in the south have history in

relation to this terrible

long-standing conflict. -- those in

ministerial positions have to be

careful that whatever their

background is they apply themselves

honestly and objectively to your

shoes they deal with anything real

tragedy is out. We cannot pretend we

did not have affiliations but we do

make sure that when we are acting in

UK interest on a UK foreign policy,

that is organising life and nothing

else. I've seen nothing to suggest

the Secretary of State takes a

different view.

The Minister said

that the Foreign Office were made

aware of the Secretary of State's

visit to Israel during her visit.

Can he give us more information

about when the Foreign Office were

made aware? Was before or after

meetings with Israeli ministers and

politicians and at what level were

the Foreign & Commonwealth Office

may allow? Was that because someone

in the embassy found out or is it

because the Secretary of State told

a London that she was in Israel?

My

understanding is that the foreign

Commonwealth office officials became

aware of the Secretary of State from

development 's private visit, my

right honourable friend's visit on

the 24 the longest during the course

of her visit. I don't have the dates

of all the meetings. I suspect it is

after the meetings to place but I

believe it was my honourable

friend's who told the official she

was there and she was having the

visit. That is my understanding of

the case. Has guidance now been

reissued to ministers and Secretary

of State that they should not feel

as an foreign policy when they are

on holidays or indeed on policy in

relation to any ligament department

with a without Tory donors present?

Well, the Prime Minister said

yesterday that the ministerial code

be tightened in relation to this.

I'm quite sure it will be. The

common sense of what we are all

talking about is very clear and that

is where my honourable friend

recognises she should have done this

differently as I'm sure we all would

if we were in a similar position.

The Minister has been very clear

neither his department of the home

Department knew about these

meetings. They said they weren't set

up in the usual way. Could you tell

us how they were set up and in

relation to my friend from Milton

south's question when he said the

Foreign Office were made aware of

these meetings, is it very important

that the question is clarified?

Because if they knew beforehand,

with any attempt made by the embassy

to actually attend these meetings

and make sure the minister new

responsibilities?

Again, as far as

I'm aware, no officials sought to

attend the meeting and I think what

I said earlier, the Foreign Office

was aware of the visit after they

had taken place because that seems

to be appropriate thing but again,

the root of this is that my

honourable friend knows that she

should have told the embassy and the

Foreign Office in advance. I'm

sorry, I thought I did say clearly

what I understand to be the sequence

of events. The meetings were set up

by Lord Pollock through his contacts

and interests with Israel which are

widely known.

It appears to me that

there is a growth of the existing

ministerial of conduct and every

code of conduct are seen as a

minister of some nine years standing

in previous Government, I would have

thought this was a resigning matter.

Can the minister who have a lot of

respect for explain whether or not

he has just said no officials

attended, can you explain whether

the Secretary of State has divided a

full minutes to his department at

the Foreign Office, the Prime

Minister of the content of the

meetings that she appears to be

attended alone without any official

attendance to try and fulfil this

appalling gap she has created?

My

honourable friend has supplied a

statement yesterday a list of those

meetings and the subjects covered.

She has spoken... I don't think

anybody would expect a verbatim

account of those meetings and she

has spoken both to the Foreign &

Commonwealth Office and to the Prime

Minister about them. Again, drawing

attention to the house these

meetings which range from the

foreign ministry, the Prime Minister

for the sake of Israel, the Minister

of Public Security information and

should eject affairs and several

charities, I don't think there is

anything in this programme that

anyone interested in the subject of

Israel and the Middle East would

have any quibble with. The

difficulty was the meetings were not

spoken about in advance that my

right honourable friend recognises

that none of these meetings would be

considered in any way onto wards as

having taken place. That is why the

Prime Minister and Foreign Office

are satisfied there are any UK's

interest and nothing has happened

which is detrimental to the UK's

interest.

Eyes feel for the Minister

being sent you to answer these

questions but identikit is

unreasonable to expect the Minister

to arrive being able to furnish the

house in full detail about what was

disclosed, to whom, when and under

what circumstances and the Minister

says he has. In response to the

question from my honourable friend,

the member for -- and the member for

North West Durham, North Durham. He

has not been able to provide

accurate and factual responses about

who was met and about... Stop waving

bits of paper just for one moment at

getting hot under the collar. The

key questions are, at what point was

the Foreign Office informed. What

were they informed about, was at the

full-scale meetings and the content,

and at what stage and what

circumstances? I think that is the

key question. Finally if I may,

there has been some controversy

around the issue with the IDF, was

discussing findings with regard to

those meetings? If so it was not

disclosed.

The reason I held the

piece of paper is this is the what

was held yesterday. It is not a

verbatim account of what it is

pretty detailed as do the things

that she discussed. The embassy... I

gave the answer to the honourable

gentleman that the embassy was aware

on the 24th of August which I think

will be after some of these

meetings. Very clearly. The details

that have been provided in terms of

who was met and what was said but

again, I'm sure colleagues don't

believe that discussing with the

programme for global evasion,

discussing the emergency

humanitarian aid and the work that

they do, the visit to save a child's

heart, if I have is in Israel on

development terms, I would be

looking to have exactly the same

meetings. The root of this is not

having disclosed first of all, that

is what the concern is, that is what

my honourable friend has addressed

and that is at the heart of the

concern but the details of the

meetings have been made clear in a

statement.

Thank you. The deputy

Leader of the House earlier was

accusing members of the front bench

opposite of pursuing this little in

the league and I Israel. I freely

admit that I have some profound

disagreements with some of the

perspectives on this conflict from

some of my colleagues on this side

but let me say to him and to

everyone in the south, as a fuller

proud chair of Labour friends of

Israel, I have full by what has

happened and the Minister is indeed

right that these meetings involve

themselves with not a heinous thing

about the lack of accountability is

highly suspect. The Prime

Minister...

It is a most interesting

and engaging statement but we are

teetering on the brink of the

question.

Does he not agree that it

is beyond credibility that the

secretary thought it would be an

appropriate use of public funds to

pay... Divert UK funds to the Golden

Heights? This is surely an example

of the development secretary...

Apologies. The development secretary

seeking position within the

Conservative Party and bringing the

country into disrepute.

Marked as my

friend and would not expect me to

defend any suggestion that this is

being pursued because of an Israel

angle, it is a perfectly legitimate

question for the honourable lady to

have raised because the substance of

it is already a ministerial apology.

As you know, my honourable friend

except she got the sequence wrong

and should have done something

differently so I except the question

in a perfectly straightforward way

and I think it is then a stretch to

say that having learned on that trip

if my honourable friend didn't

already know of the work of the

Israeli army in looking after those

from Syria who cannot get medical

aid for their acute injuries in

Syria and come across the border,

and that aid is properly and freely

given by the Israeli defence Force,

that she should not have come back

and thought this was an

extraordinary humanitarian gesture,

is anything we should do about this?

To which the ad is known for the

reasons I gave earlier but not to

believe that is a perfectly genuine

question to ask honourable lady

carrying basis strikes me as

honestly a bit of a stretch.

It is a

dismal prospect seen the Minister,

is how to defend the indefensible in

this way and he's doing his very

best to put a gloss on this in a

positive way but could she really

clarify whether he believes the

Secretary of State didn't know or

didn't care that when she offered to

make a financial assistance

available to the Israel defence

Force, tea that settlement, did she

not know or did she not care that

the UK Government does not recognise

the legality of that? Can you

clarify that point?

Can I make clear

to the honourable lady is no

question supporting any settlement

around the Golan Heights. What the

Israeli Defence Secretary does is

that they find civilians in Syria

who come to them with their injured

who cannot get help on the outside

of the border and aspirin for

medical help from the defence Force

which they give. It's an

extraordinary humanitarian act and

has been going on for some time. My

honourable friend, I don't think was

unreasonable to get this work that

is going on and as if there was

something the United Kingdom could

do to assess this. Because the

record Golan Heights is occupied

territory and because they cannot

support Israeli occupation of to

give any support, the answer to your

query was no but I think it entirely

reasonable for her to come back and

have thought about it and of course

the Department provided the

appropriate answer.

Does the Minister understand the

concerns the public will have when

it seems that British foreign policy

on Israel and Powell Steyn is being

run by Conservative-Link lobby group

are not the civil service of the

Government. Is this not just another

example of the Government in

disarray with lobby group is not a

Downing Street running our country?

And finally, if I may, has the

Minister been referred for the

mysterious code of conduct to Sally

Allen?

The short answer to the

second part of a statement is no,

because the Prime Minister considers

the matter closed. The answer to the

first part of the question is that

it's palpably obvious that the

attitude towards Israel is not made

by the lobby group, but by the

Government. Since my right

honourable friend returned from

Israel, support for West Bank and

the urgency appeal from Gaza has

come from international development.

So ministers quite properly make the

policy informed by lots of people,

but they make the policy, not

lobbyists.

It feels like another

case of shooting the manager, but

are we supposed to believe,

according to the Minister that the

Secretary of State had meetings were

so beneficial and worthwhile, but

she didn't fill a brief what do you

came back, it's never come up and

Parliamentary questions at all? Also

she is so incapable of carrying out

her role, but were also to believe

it was a good idea to get IDF money

in the Golan Heights, but we can't

because we don't as dieters

legitimate territory. I ask one

question on on the subject of

villages, where they raise about

concerns about international aid

money?

I can't answer the last part

of the honourable gentleman was my

question because I don't have the

verbatim account of all meetings.

Then I can say the Secretary of

State is firmly behind the

Government's policy which is to

oppose demolitions in occupied

villages and the policy hasn't

changed in relation to that. In

relation to the issue of the IDF,

the Secretary of State should see,

as we all have, my right and wrong

friends should see, rather, there is

viable work going on to provide,

Terran assistance and say people

from debt they would have suffered

if they had not been treated.

Wherever that support has come from,

with the UK be able to contribute to

that, that strikes me as a

reasonable request. We cannot do it

for reasons I have given.

The

Minister speaks from that dispatch

box, the issues become less QI

rather than more. It seems to me the

Secretary of State informed the

Foreign Office her trip the day

before she left committing to me

because she got caught. In the

interests of transparency, could the

Minister provide the full timeline

of her trip to Israel, when she met

the organisation she met, and that

timing should start with the first

correspondence between the Secretary

of State and whoever organised these

trips and whether she used official

legal addresses or unofficial legal

addresses?

OK. Firstly, I have to

say my right honourable friend did

not suddenly contrive a long planned

visit to Africa in the course of the

last 24 hours, I can genuinely

reassure... Yes, you did. You

implied she suddenly found a reason

to go to Africa, and that's not

fair. In relation to other

questions, there is no reason why

further questions may not be asked

through written Parliamentary

questions or the like. If more

information is needed. Again, I draw

the attention, it was a full

statement and apology made by my

right honourable friend who

recognise that what she did was not

the right sequence, the details of

who she saw and I'm sure is more

information is sought by calling so

will be answered in the appropriate

way.

We'll get to the honourable

gentleman. Very difficult!

I also

have great respect for the

honourable gentleman, but even he

must concede the malt we pull about

this affair the murkier it begins to

sound. Kerry have assurance that

apartments will publish a summary of

all discussions which take place in

the month prior to this holiday that

had any connection to Israel are any

organisations in Israel, and can we

have a summary of all discussion

that have taken place within the

Department since the holiday?

The

honourable gentleman can ask these

questions. I have to say we discuss

issues relating to Israel virtually

all the time. As we look at the

long-standing relationships between

them and the aid we get to the West

Bank and Gaza for emergency appeals

and long-standing development

programmes. That is all open and

public and clear. The honourable

gentleman would like to ask further

questions, he can, but the

information and support given to the

area is well-known. And that policy

has not changed in anyway since my

right honourable friend came back.

I

really feel for the Minister who is

a very decent man when here's

brought here to answer questions

about significant failings about the

Secretary of State who, frankly,

should be here today. At that meant

cancelling or postponing a flight,

then so be it. Can I press him about

when the Secretary of State bust

formed her own department of these

meetings and whether she received

any advice?

I know the Secretary of

State... Can I thank her for

generous remarks, I appreciate it

very much. My right honourable

friend informs the Foreign Office on

the 24th of August. If I recall

rightly, the SCO said to make the

matter known tyrant department and

to the rest of the FCO. It was known

at that stage and would seem clear

that discussions would not held in

advance and that is what my right

honourable friend has apologised for

an recognise as she got wrong. That

is what we have been trying to make

clear during the course of the

statements, as best I can, and also

the purpose of a statement

yesterday.

I take the point of order

if it relates to these matters? The

honourable gentleman is nodding.

Point of order?

I don't wish to

delay the House, but the Minister

has given a number of answers to

myself and other colleagues whereby

there is some lack of quality and

some uncertainty. Then I seek your

advice, Mr Speaker, how can we best

ensure that the House gets the full

facts about the timing of the role

of the two departments in the period

up to, during and at the end of this

hysteria will private visit to

Israel -- ministerial private visit

to Israel?

The answer is that

ministers can table questions either

written or oral or both. If the

honourable gentleman is

dissatisfied, he can, when the House

returns next week, seek by one or

other means of the various types of

questions available, attempt to

procure the information that he

seeks. In all likelihood from the

Secretary of State for International

Development woman herself. I am not

sure that there is, but I will give

the honourable Gentlemen at Arms.

Point of order?

Just to clarify,

when he gave his statement and

announced questions, he said the

Foreign Office in Israel found out

about these men things as they were

going on. It was quite clear that

they found out it had actually after

taking place. It was just to get

piracy in terms of when they did

find out?

In answer to the right

honourable gentleman, the Minister

can Tymon if he wishes, when he was

first put to him and, effectively

acknowledge the likelihood that was

so. I do think it is regarded as an

issue in the course of the

questioning. The right honourable

gentleman reiterated the same point.

So all of them may not be

specificity today about precise

dates, on the concept involves, I

think the right honourable gentleman

was clear that it is open to

members, as I have just said, to

return to these matters in the

normal way through written and oral

interrogation. And the right

honourable gentleman will have to be

only modestly patient. But I think

we should preserve the last words on

this matter for the Minister of

State, who's emollient tone we will

now hear.

I very grateful and will

do the best I can with being as

clear as I can. The information I

have is that my right honourable

friend told Foreign Office officials

on the 24th of August that she was

on a visit. It seems likely that the

meetings took place beforehand. And

that is why, and that is the reason

for this statement and her

expiration yesterday is that she

recognises that she should have told

people beforehand. There's no doubt

about that, that is what the

escalation is for, that's what the

statement is for, and's apologised

for that, and she got that wrong. I

don't think there is any lack of

clarity on the sequence now.

I'm

grateful to the right honourable

gentleman. Finally, at this point,

point of order?

Bearing a mind for

the Minister has just said and about

giving advance notice, wouldn't just

be nice and rather charming the

Secretary of State told you, today

for instance, that she was going to

come and make a statement next

Monday so all this could be cleared

up and around?

I always welcome

communication from the right of the