07/03/2018 House of Commons

Order. Urgent question. Sir Vincent

cable.

The question is for the

Minister to make a statement on the

diplomatic relations with Saudi

Arabia.

Minister of State. The

Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Thank you, Mr Speaker and can I

thank the right honourable gentleman

for his question. I am responding

for the Foreign Secretary because he

is at an engagement at the Palace.

The Prime Minister has invited his

Royal Highness to the visit the

United Kingdom. We are delighted to

welcome him on his first official

visit to the UK taking place from

today until Friday. They will launch

its GJ partnership between our two

countries, which will allow us to

debate policy issues of mutual

interest. We have a close and

wide-ranging relationship with Saudi

Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the third

growing fastest market for exports

and we work together to discuss

regional issues. It will allow for a

discussion between the Prime

Minister and the Prince of how to

address the humanitarian crisis. The

UK supports the social and economic

reform programme. His visit is an

opportunity for him to underline his

vision of an outward looking Saudi

Arabia, one that embraces a tolerant

form of Islam and an inclusive

society. Greater freedom for women,

in line with the statements made by

the Crown Prince. We believe these

reforms are the best for the

prosperity of Saudi Arabia and it is

right the UK supports the Crown

Prince and his endeavours.

Mr

Speaker, further to the exchange,

can I say there will be widespread

concern across parties at the fact

that the dictatorial head of the

medieval regime is being the two

given the red carpet visit. Can I

ask if the Foreign Secretary will be

demanding of the ending of the

bombing of civilian targets in the

civil war, which the Prince

initiated. Can I also ask if he can

explain why the safeguards on the

use of British weapons, which were

introduced at the end of the call is

on at the assistance of myself and

my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I no

longer being applied? Will he insist

on the ending of the blockade of

ports in Yemen, which are

contributing to the devastating

humanitarian crisis and famine,

which we have heard much of this

house? Will he defend the nuclear

agreement with Iran, to which we are

a party and the Prince is seeking to

undermine. Will he condemn the

attempt by the Crown Prince to fan

the flames of sectarian conflict?

Can I ask if he has consulted the

economic service on the economic

position of Saudi Arabia, which is

no longer an oil producer, which is

running out of money and the main

potential long-term deal to the UK

is the flotation, which will only be

achieved by devaluing the standards

applied in the City of London?

Finally, on the threshold of

International Women's Day, can I ask

if he intends to endorse the Crown

Prince's view of modernisation, that

women should be allowed to go to

football matches but not allowed to

marry, divorce, have a driving

licence or operation without the

approval of their male relatives?

Minister of State. Thank you, Mr

Speaker. I thank him for his

question. His starting point and his

opening view of Saudi Arabia

represents one of the reasons why I

think the Crown Prince is here. Used

the medieval. The Crown Prince has

been conducting a series of reforms

and has made statements about where

he wants to take the kingdom of

Saudi Arabia. Everyone is aware of

the past but it is important to look

at the present, good things as well

as difficult things, but also point

the way forward he has with vision

2030. When he speaks about a

modernising country, supporting

moderate Islam, that should be taken

as seriously as any reference to the

kingdom in the past. He asked a

series of questions. He referred to

the war in Yemen being initiated by

Saudi Arabia. This is not correct.

Sorry, the war in Yemen, this is not

correct. What happened there was an

insurgency overthrew a legitimate

Government, backed by the UN, which

sought support from its neighbours

in order to deal with that

insurgency. The insurgency is cruel.

A number of people have been

executed, including the former

president of Yemen. They hold people

to run some in areas that they

occupy and have been preventing

people getting humanitarian aid. We

support the efforts of the Saudi led

coalition in order to defend Yemen

against the insurgency, but equally,

bring the conflict to an end. It is

the most important thing. It will

take both parties, not just Saudi

Arabia. In terms of weapons sales,

these are as strict as any in the

world, the right honourable

gentleman is aware of. We keep under

strict check to make sure to run a

teary in law is abided by to make

sure we can provide the support we

can... -- Trinitarian lark. --

humanitarian law. This should not be

forgotten. He referred to a

blockage. There is no blockade.

There are no restrictions on the

ports. The ports are open. There was

a restriction from the 19th of

December, following a missile attack

on the capital of Yemen. There is a

strong suspicion that weapons were

being struggled into the country,

that is why the restrictions were

there. It would of 50 ships since

then have now docked and the ports

are open. Humanitarian aid has been

coming in. We will defend this which

is in the interest of the region. In

relation to the economic prospects

of Saudi Arabia, we know the area is

changing and that is what vision

2030 is about. It is about moving in

time from an oil based economy to

something different. This provides

opportunities for the region and we

strongly support that. We would like

the option to be issued in the

United Kingdom and we will suggest

the city will be the best place for

it. The right honourable gentleman

mentioned international women's

date. It is obvious to ourselves

that some of the things related to

women in Saudi Arabia seem mundane,

attending a football match, mixed

spaces, the ability to drive. In a

Saudi context, these changes have

meant significance which we do not

always appreciate the need to make

reference to. Further progress seems

likely and it is in everyone's

minds. I do not think we should

judge the progress to date. The

engagement of women, not only in the

areas we have mentioned, but in

business, Government, makes a real

difference to the area. I think the

International Women's Day is

enhanced by the sort of changes we

have seen in Saudi Arabia and we

shall be sure that our Prime

Minister make sure the progress

gives every support from the United

Kingdom as we move forward.

Thank

you, Mr Speaker. Can I congratulate

my right honourable friend to the

answer. Is he as surprised as I am

that the question was short of the

context of the scale of the reforms

that are now taking place in Saudi

Arabia? Can I urge the Government to

continue our assistance to the

Government of Saudi Arabia to

deliver the astonishing scale of

ambition associated with vision

2030's I am grateful to my right

honourable friend who rightly sets

it in context.

No one denies that

are difficult aspects a to

relationship with the Kingdom of

Saudi Arabia, just as there are with

engagement is the United Kingdom has

whose countries and human rights

issues we do not always share. The

important point my right honourable

friend made is engagement.

Engagement to seek a common view of

a future. As he rightly says, a

future that is changing markedly and

in a way no one anticipated, because

of the arrival of the Crown Prince

and his position. He could have an

influence on the region for 30 years

and our engagement and support for

the modernising image she has is

important to all of us.

Thank you,

Mr Speaker. Thank you for granting

this urgent question. Let me

congratulate the member for securing

it, even if it was ahead of my

application.

Want to have a good diplomatic and

economic relationship with Saudi

Arabia. Like any good relationship

there must be honestly and most

important we must tell them that as

long as they continue the

indiscriminate bombing of

residential areas, farms, of markets

in Yemen, as long as they continue

to restrict the flow of food and

medical supplies to a population

suffering mass epidemics of money

division and cholera, it would not

expect our support in that war.

Their crown prince does not deserve

to have the red carpet rolled out to

him here in Britain. Let us look at

the man who the British Government

are bowing to today. The architect

of the blockade in Yemen, funding

jihadi groups, ordering his guards

to beat up the Prime Minister of

Lebanon, doubling the number of

executions in Saudi Arabia. If we

are supposed to ignore all of that,

we're supposed to ignore it because

of his proposal that Saudi women be

allowed to drive, just as they can

everywhere else in the world. The UK

Government prepared to back pretends

to care about human rights. But

there is nothing but a shameful

silence. We all know that all they

ultimately care about is how to plug

the hole in trade because of their

plans on Brexit. If the minister

wants to dispute that, can he answer

one simple question. When is the

Government going to stop bowing down

to Saudi Arabia and instead demand

an immediate ceasefire and end to

the blockade, proper peace talks and

a permanent end to this dreadful,

shameful

I thank the Right Honourable lady

for her words.

She started well in

terms of wanting to welcome a

relationship with the King of Saudi

Arabia. She might want to review

some of the personal comments that

you made after that. And wonder how

that might constitute a decent

relationship. Firstly, there is not

indiscriminate bombing of civilians

as has been alleged. It is

absolutely vital that we make sure

that in dealing with the military

aspect of the conflict, which was

not started by Saudi Arabia, but we

keep... That we are able to see in

terms of international humanitarian

law and that it is as helpful as

possible in trying to make sure that

the training is appropriate to do

that. In cases where there have been

allegations of civilian casualties,

these should be dealt with and

monitored in a manner completely

different to that in terms of Houthi

activity. In relation to the

humanitarian issues, there is not a

blockade, there is not a restriction

of God is coming in. -- there is not

a restriction of goods coming in. We

have worked very hard to try and

ensure that there is protection for

Saudi Arabia and in doing so give

them the confidence to allow more

ships to comment to deal with the

humanitarian issues. This seems to

be a more sensible approach than the

outright condemnation that the

honourable lady has come out with.

As I indicated to the right

honourable gentleman, who asked a

more serious set of questions, the

issue about women's progress is not

simply about a driving issue.

Driving in the Kingdom of Saudi

Arabia has a totemic importance for

many people. In terms of Yemen,

there has been no silence from the

United Kingdom. This is why we have

been working so hard for a

diplomatic solution and why we

welcome the new UN envoy which has

been appointed, which the honourable

lady did not mention. Inhalation to

a ceasefire, all of our evidence is

that ceasefires work when there is

some relation on the ground. Because

of the activity of the Houthi and

those who support them, it is not

possible for a ceasefire to have any

sense of purpose that it will

actually work.

I very gently say to

the Shadow Foreign Secretary who is

normally a restrained individual, I

understand how passionate years, I

feel sure that in a courtroom she

would not chunder miserly. --

noisily.

Let me be very

straightforward. Calling for a

ceasefire is not the same as having

one. We all want to see an end to

the conflict in Yemen. We support

the appointment of the new UN envoy.

Simply calling for it does not do

it. What you have to make sure is

that you have the facts on the

ground to make sure a ceasefire

actually works. It is for the

honourable lady to shake her head.

She has not faced with some of these

issues and knowledge to back nor is

she giving full credit. As we deal

with the difficulties of trying to

deal with the humanitarian crisis in

Yemen, that is what we are seeking

to do and we will bend all of our

efforts to that and continue to do

so, with or without her support.

I

am happy to confirm that there is no

prohibition of shaking or nodding of

heads. Another person who has been

chuntering from a sedentary position

cannot speak from her feet.

As you

know I am a feminist. I had the

honour to lead a delegation to Saudi

Arabia as a woman and at no time did

I find any prejudice or disrespect.

I was quite surprised. But the

Minister agree and I commend all his

fine words today. Would he agree

with me that whilst obviously we are

a long way from seeing the sort of

rights in the kingdom that we would

expect of any modern society, the

best way to achieve that and to

influence that country is to have

firm conversations and good

relations in private.

Over the

course of her visit,...

Can I thank

my honourable friend for her

question. Absolutely, I concur with

her sentiments. We talk very

friendly to counterparts, even the

most of the cult circumstances. It

is right that we express our

interest in how reforms are going.

The progress being made is

significant in the context of where

Saudi Arabia wants to go. And how it

wants to lead the region. Talking

about moderate Islam, in an area

where those who propose this are at

threat takes a degree of bravery

from the leadership of Saudi Arabia.

That is what we recognise. There is

more to go but as my right

honourable friends said making sure

it is done with engagement is a key

part of that process.

Thank you. He

will be aware that Yemen has been

described as the world's worst

man-made humanitarian disaster.

Members have been right in

highlighting women's rights in Saudi

Arabia. Will he be raising the

plight of women in Yemen as well. It

is reported that they often have to

choose which child to save because

of the cholera. UK arms sales have

outstripped its two Yemen eight

times over. Will he use that on

average and finally will he have

discussions. Back

two issues, if I

may. In relation to Yemen, no one

denies the scale of the humanitarian

crisis. We are as confident as we

can be that support to deal with the

next round of cholera is going to be

in place. None of this would be

necessary of the conflict was not

there. That of course is what we're

bending all of our efforts to. I do

genuinely wish it was a

straightforward as saying to one of

the parties, if you stop doing

everything everything will be all

right. I do not believe that to be

the answer. We have done all that we

can in relation to providing food

and fuel. The restrictions are

caused by the conflict and we will

do all that we can to break it down.

Full.

Does my honourable friend

welcomed the Crown prince 's

statement that his country is to --

that his goal is to build a country

of modern Islam.

I thank my

honourable friend for her question.

That statement about moderate Islam

is one that we would all take for

granted here. Setting it in the

context, where there are disputes

about the way Islam should go and

the propaganda that emerges from

those who would see Islam taken

quite a different course, but it

comes from someone who in time will

be the custodian of the mosques, is

quite significant.

We all want to

see a modernised regime in Saudi

Arabia. The Government however have

called for an extra eight

executioners to be appointed. Can

the Minister assure us that the

Government will be raising their

plight with the Saudi prince while

he is here?

United Kingdom stands

against the use of execution and

against the use of the death

penalty. Whether it is the king of

Saudi Arabia or anywhere else, we

make that clear. We have received

assurances in reference to minors.

We stand. Where against the death

penalty in any circumstances.

Those

of us who've been to Saudi Arabia

recently have seen how quickly

things are changing there. In such a

conditional country, with

International Women's Day tomorrow,

does my weight honourable friend

agree that this is a good

opportunity to...

I am grateful to

my honourable friend for raising

that. The purpose of Parliamentary

visits, it is to get to see the

context of a country. In my

experience, not be giving a grandeur

of easy options. -- not be giving a

grand tour of easy options. In

relation to where women are going,

women in culture and music and in

business, it it is to see country

intends to take itself. A woman's

voice in relation to where it going

is an important one.

My constituents in Glasgow have all

been e-mailing me with deep concerns

over the hospitality being afforded

to the Crown Prince with the

backdrop of the bombs we are selling

them. What is the Government doing

to make sure the Saudi take out the

material response plan. Children of

Yemen are dying to frequently every

day and Yemen cannot wait.

I agree

with the honourable lady. Yemen

cannot wait. As I said earlier, if I

believed for a moment asking one

party to stop the activities would

bring an end to it, we would all

advocate that solution. I do not

believe that is the case. That has

to be a negotiated end. It should

come as quickly as possible and we

have been pressing this for some

considerable time. We are doing

everything we can to ease the

situation and we have seen, since my

right honourable friend was there in

December, she was able to explain to

the coalition what the international

community was doing to seek to

protect them. That used to an easing

of the restrictions. Nothing will

help the people of Yemen and to the

conflict comes to an end. Everyone

is right about that.

I am keen to

accommodate the colleagues. We are

appreciative of the fund of

knowledge and wisdom on display from

the right honourable gentleman.

There is also no procedural standing

order bar, where appropriate, on

single sentence and servers.

Thank

you. Does my right honourable friend

support the reforms and does he

confirm the Government will be

encouraging the authorities to go

further in this regard? The best way

to influence them is to keep the

door open. Out of interest, 52% of

all graduates in 2017 where women.

There are 30 women members of the

council, more than the Senate has,

and in the transformation camp there

is some very positive views on the

environment. These will have a far

reaching effect, not just on the

people of Saudi Arabia, but indeed

globally.

Minister of State. Mr

Speaker, as I could not put it any

better myself, I agree with my right

honourable friend. The UK will

continue to give support in the

direction she advocates.

Does the

Minister share my view that people

in positions of responsibility may

unwittingly put themselves on the

side of prolonging and potentially

worsening the crisis if they either,

by deceit or by design, choose to

ignore areas where the kingdom has,

in part, corrected what where at

times deplorable mistakes and their

initial conduct of the conflict?

The

honourable gentleman has a deep

knowledge of the area and the

complexities it involves. It does

require handling with balance, as

any of these difficult circumstances

are. We are right to understand what

caused the conflict, be concerns

that have been raised in the conduct

and things have changed since

international pressure. A situation

where an insurgency that brings in

external forces to attack his state,

that that could be left until with

would seem to be an unfortunate set

of consequences for the future. We

want to see the matter resolved with

the security of Saudi and Yemeni at

the heart of a future peace

arrangement.

I refer to my

declaration. Does my right

honourable friend acknowledge that

the intervention of Saudi Arabia and

its coalition partners in Yemen was

at the request of the legitimate

Government of that country? Does he

agree that the principal insurgents

and their allies are supplied by

Imran, whose actions are prolonging

the conflict in that country?

I am

grateful to my right honourable

friend for his observations. It is

right, although the circumstances in

Yemen are indeed dire and do call

for a conclusion to the conflict,

not to understand the origins of the

conflict, however it was started,

with the two failed to understand

how the conflict can properly be

brought to a conclusion. Outside

influences have been involved in

causing great danger and great fears

and concerns in the region is also

extremely clear.

Mr Speaker, the

Minister mentioned the two holy

places. Hundreds of thousands,

probably millions, of British

citizens aspire to, or will go

there. Will he be raising these

issues about their security and the

way in which they are treated during

these discussions? Will he also be

emphasising the importance that

Saudi Arabia revitalise the

initiative for a middle East peace

settlement?

In relation to his first

question, I do not know what is on

the agenda at the honourable

gentleman can be assured that safety

of those going from the United

Kingdom is always important and that

is raised by the ambassador. He

knows how important it is to all

that undertake the pogrom edge.

Pilgrimage. I am interested in how

Saudi Arabia might respond. So that

the peace initiative, that lies at

the base of the solutions remains in

the minds of everyone who wants to

see peace between the Palestinians

and Israel.

Historically Saudi

Arabia has channelled hundreds of

billions of pounds into the violent

end of the Islamic extremism all

around the world. In his assessment,

has that shifted visibly under the

Crown Prince?

I thank my honourable

friend. I think the short answer to

that is yes. I think as we are all

aware of recent history, and that

elements in Saudi Arabia may have

been involved in elements of violent

extremism, I think the setting of

his state against that by calling

for moderate Islam, modernisation,

which flies in the face of those

very extremists, I think that is

making clear the way in which Saudi

Arabia wants to deal with its past

and seek an alternative future.

There is no mention at all of human

rights in the Vision 2030 programme.

That involves the hundred people

being executed since it was

launched, including children and

protesters. I was not sure if he

said this was going to be raised and

can act as if it is and the

juveniles who have been on death row

for many years, this question will

be raised?

I did make clear to the

House that it has been mentioned by

us in relation to this and seeking a

situation where they might not be

executed and that matter remains

very much a matter of concern for

the United Kingdom. That is why we

talk about it and raise it privately

as well.

It was evident earlier that

propaganda has been affected.

There's anything we can learn from

that?

I defer to my right honourable

friend in his knowledge of

propaganda and how it might be used.

I am not sure whose voices are

listened to most in relation to

this. I think what it indicates is

because it is not a state what

you're talking about and not been

easy to target, a more comprehensive

picture of the conflict would lead

to different conclusions. The

conclusion however that we all want

the conflict to end so that there

can be peace and better security for

the people of Yemen who deserve

better governance is a matter of

importance to all of us.

There has

been huge disruption for access to

humanitarian aid. That is caused by

Saudi Arabian blockades mainly will

that be brought as a matter of

urgency with the Crown Prince, to

open the ports for the 22 million

people who need urgent assistance?

I

can assure at the right honourable

gentleman and the House. The reasons

for the restrictions were because of

the concerns of Saudi Arabia that

weapons that are directed against

them first smuggled into Yemen and

we wanted to give assurances that we

would do all we can to prevent that.

The restrictions of ships coming in

can be used and these have been used

and the ports are now open. 50 ships

have blocked since the restrictions

were imposed in December and we

shall do all we can and the United

Kingdom has taken a leading part in

reassuring the caller Shin and

talking about the crucial need for

human Terry and aid to enter Yemen.

In seeking to have a ceasefire, does

the UK believe Iran has broken

sanctions... Sorry, UN sanctions.

Yes, I thank my right honourable

friend for the question. The UN

panel of experts held within recent

weeks very clearly that Iran had not

been able to demonstrate that it had

abided by the resolution, about the

availability of weapons going to and

a rear... Going to Yemen. That was

the concern of the preach of UN

sanctions. It emphasises again

external... That should come to an

end as part of a peace agreement.

My

inbox has been flooded by

constituents wanting to see and

enter the ceasefire in Yemen. ...

The conflict in Yemen. How does you

square that Circa when this

Government has been facilitating 4.6

billion pounds worth of arms, making

us complicit in Yemen?

I understand

the question and let me repeat

again. The long-standing

relationship with the Kingdom of

Saudi Arabia, in terms of defence

and its place in a difficult and

hostile region is long-standing. In

relation to Yemen and the arms

export are covered by strict

guarantees and scrutiny of this

house and the courts. In relation to

the conflict, if it was as simple as

saying to one party, stop doing this

and all will be all right, when they

have on the borders, missiles

directed at them, I do not think he

would have any credibility. We must

continue to do all we can through

the UN to CNN in this conflict, in

which military pressure on the

insurgency has been part of the

process. As I said before, we do not

see a military solution to this, a

protest leading to negotiations and

an end to the conflict as soon as

possible.

The Crown Prince has been

clear that he wants to build a

moderate moderate future for Saudi

Arabia. That is something the whole

house would want to see him achieve.

Does the Minister agree that the

best way to see that happen is to

work with him and to assist them,

and not build diplomatic walls

between our two countries?

I agree

with my honourable friend. That is

the point of the engagement, which I

can assure the House covers the

positive parts of what is happening

in Saudi Arabia but also does not

shy away from the difficult things

that I know is on the minds of

members and constituents.

Thank you,

Mr Speaker. That is right that we

engage with the Kingdom of Saudi

Arabia and it would be unrealistic

to suggest we do not. The freedom of

religion and the right for people to

practice their own faith, can he say

these issues will be picked up in

this meeting?

I am grateful to my

honourable friend. Freedom of

religion is a difficult issue in

relation to the Kingdom of Saudi

Arabia because of its position as a

custodial of the two holy mosques.

We are clear, greater collagen and

throughout the region, one faith for

another is crucial if the region is

to move away from the path it

appears set. There will always be a

voice here for tolerance of other

faiths and progressive moves towards

freedom of faith throughout the

region.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I

referred to the register. This will

embarrass him but can I invite my

right honourable friend to comment

and reflect on those that relations

between countries will often depend

on the quality of diligence of our

diplomatic ambassadors overseas. We

are very lucky to have a first class

ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He has

converted to is lamb, undertaken and

I have seen the close and honest

relationship that he has with Saudi

Arabia. He is a pinnacle and best

example of our diplomatic corps and

we should be grateful to him. I

welcome this visit.

Mr Speaker, I am grateful. Behind

all of the efforts of the ministers

at the dispatch box is an

extraordinary ambassadorial team. I

fully endorse everything that my

honourable friend has said and also

mentioned the former ambassador to

Yemen's. It is a first-class team

and it is representative of a

first-class team throughout all of

the region.

I gather it relates to

the exchanges that have just taken

place.

It has just been on the

register. I did go on a delegation

to Saudi Arabia.

The house would

appreciate that. Thank you to the

Minister and colleagues. Urgent

question, Tom Watson.

Whilst

referring to my register, my entry

on the register, I would like to ask

the secretary of state to make a

statement on the allegations of

Barking. And the -- blagging.

This

morning we saw allegations of

behaviour that appears totally

unacceptable and potentially

criminal. The investigation is

therefore a matter for the police.

The house will understand that there

is only so far I can go on

discussing this significant details.

More broadly, some have said that we

should change policy. Policy should

be based on all available

information. Indeed, it was

precisely because of cases like this

that the Levenson enquiry was set

up. And that this sort of behaviour

was covered and Mr Ford's activities

were raised as part of the enquiry.

As we discussed last week, and again

on Monday, there have been three

detailed police investigations and

over 40 people were convicted and

many went to prison. To date's

revelations if proven are clearly

already covered by the law and

appear in contravention of sect

tweet section -- in contravention of

section 50 five. Once more, the fact

that this activity stopped in 2010,

underlines the fact that the world

has changed. Newspapers today are in

a very different position to run

these alerted offences took place.

This view is strengthened by today's

example, because the behaviour we

discovered today was before the

Levenson enquiry and an existing law

is in place to deal with that.

Criminal behaviour should be dealt

with by the police. Anyone who has

committed a criminal offence should

face the full force of the law. The

future of a vibrant, free press is

important to us all. We want to see

the higher standards and we must

face the challenges of today to

ensure that Britain has a

high-quality discourse to underpin

our democracy for the heirs to come.

Mr Speaker, the world has not

changed. When he announced last week

that he was dropping the Levenson

enquiry, the culture secretary said

he was doing so because the enquiry

looked into everything in this area.

It was followed by three police

investigations and we looked into

these things as a society and we had

a compliance of Levenson enquiry. He

told is that the matter was closed

and there was nothing more to say.

Overnight, the BBC has reported

allegations by another

whistle-blower, who says he was a

blagger for the Sunday Times for 15

years. He says that he obtained

information from Cabinet members. He

says that the information was

illegal, intrusive and ultimately

wrong. In his reference to the first

half of the enquiry, it was conceded

that Ford had worked for the paper

but have not done so for over a

decade. Today, the Sunday Times have

disputed these new claims. The

second half of the enquiry could

establish where the truth lies. That

is what it was set up to do. The

Government is closing down the

public enquiry before it has done

its work and despite the fact that

Sir Levenson says that he disagrees

with that decision. 130,000

concerned citizens have said it

should go ahead and the Secretary of

State has chosen to disregard them.

The secretary of state as

capitulating to the press barons who

want to use their raw power to close

down a national public enquiry. I

would likely ask him, in light of

these new allegations, we will --

will he reconsider? If not, how will

he is sure this house and the public

that this new allegation of criminal

behaviour by the Sunday Times will

be fully investigated? Is it not now

clear to him that too many questions

remain unanswered to justify this

decision to break David Cameron's

solemn promise to the victims of

press abuse?

Thank you. I think I

covered all of those questions in my

statement. As I mentioned, the

Levenson enquiry not only had terms

of reference which covered this type

of allegation, but indeed this

person was raised at the Levenson

enquiry and of course as he implies,

it is a matter for the police to

follow up any evidence of criminal

wrongdoing. He also asks, should we

therefore bring in an enquiry that

is backward looking and bring in

rules which will help to undermine

further the free press that we need,

notably section 40. The answer to

those questions last week was both

clearly no. The answer with this new

evidence of activity that took place

up to 2010, it appears, and

therefore up to seven years ago is

not a reason to reopen decisions

that were taken exactly on the basis

that the world has changed. If

anything, this evidence demonstrates

further just how much things have

changed.

I was just a secretary when

we set up the Levenson enquiry and

we were promised the second stage of

the enquiry. By right honourable

friend will not be surprised to

discover that I share the

disappointment that the second stage

of the enquiry was postponed. Does

he really think that there is no

longer a sufficient public interest

in new allegations of this kind or

knowing which newspapers were

browbeating which policeman because

it was as long ago as seven years?

Does he think that the best

newspapers in this country will

accept that judgment for a moment if

it was applied to any other sector

of the economy? We have public

enquiries in hand at the moment

looking into much older allegations

of sexual abuse, paedophilia,

tragedy and other things. Will he

not wait until we have a new

allegation that his post-2011 before

at least thinking again about about

his decision? Wing of course, I

respect my right honourable friend's

view.

The question that faces us now

is what is the right thing to do now

going forward to ensure that we have

a high-quality democratic discourse,

when we have such great challenges

facing the press, to make sure that

we can tackle fake news and the Brit

disinformation -- and deliberate

misinformation. We are taking that

work forward but allegations of

behaviour like this where covered by

the original enquiry and looked into

and if it comes to another police

case into these allegations, the

existing law is already there to

cover it.

Clearly these new reports

are worrying, and the only add to

the serious concerns that many of us

have across this house in regard to

the behaviour of the press. We have

always said that individuals should

be able to seek redress when they

feel they have been the victim of

press malpractice. It benefits

everyone of us to have immediate

that is both transparent and

accountable. The Scottish Government

must be consulted and Scotland and

their distinct legal system

recognise. Under those circumstances

we would support efforts to

re-establish the enquiry. What

action, if any, is he proposing to

take on these new allegations and

can he guarantee that if the new

enquiry is established that it would

only happen with respect to

Scotland's distinct legal system.

There is action that is necessary as

a result of these allegations and it

is action for the police into

allegations of what appeared to be

criminal activities.

He is right to

say it is a matter for the police.

Is he listening to her called to

further strengthen her powers.

Of

course, we have a good working

relationship with the information

Commissioner and her powers are

being strengthened as a part of the

data protection Bill Popper for this

house. I'm sure that the level to

which they are being strengthened

and the ways in which they are being

strengthened will be properly

scrutinised as the Bill goes

through.

I would urge the secretary

of state to stop trying to hide

behind the Levenson enquiry, because

the man who was responsible for that

enquiry says he fundamentally

disagrees with them. It was a

remarkable letter that he wrote. He

said I have no doubt that there is a

legitimate expectation on behalf of

the public and of the alleged

victims and other unlawful conduct

that there will be a full public

enquiry and clear reassurances that

nothing of the same scale will occur

again. That is the point. Of course

the police can look at specific

instances, but the question is what

is the culture that allowed those

practices to happen and how come we

have reassurance that that culture

has changed? How come we have that

reassurance without an enquiry?

Not

only has already been a Levenson

enquiry into those areas, but that

culture has clearly changed. These

are historic practices. What we have

two address now is how do we ensure

that there is high-quality

journalism in the as to come rather

than going and revisiting a time

when he was at the height of his

powers.

Does my right honourable

friend agree that allegations of

blagging from reporters employed by

newspapers have been known about for

over ten years. And that that did

lead to prosecutions and

convictions. The newspapers today

are facing real challenges and it is

those that we should be looking at

through the enquiry that the

Government has set up rather than

revisiting events of a decade ago?

It was a great honour to serve in

Government with my right honourable

friend. He proceeded me in this job

and has great wisdom in this area.

He understands the challenges that

faced by having a high-quality media

with high-quality journalism that

must behave appropriately and where

people need to ensure that they can

have redress such as in the low-cost

arbitration system that now exists

and he put a lot of work into

putting all of that into place and I

bet paid tribute to him.

We have heard it was just one rogue

reporter, one rogue newspaper. No,

one rogue company. Now the truth is

because of the civil actions were

people have put their homes in

danger to take civil action, we

learn, and because of revelations

last night, we learned it was

extensive, including at the Sunday

Times which has always denied any

involvement in this activity. Last

week the Secretary of State said he

hopes there will be improvements to

the press conference system. What

improvements would you like to see?

I went to see the low cost

arbitration system that has been put

in place to work. At the moment, we

have not seen a full case go

through. It has just been put in

place in November. I want to see it

work better and when there are wrong

decisions made, that the

acknowledgement of that and apology

for it is properly done.

Those who

believe in a truly free press,

should not accept it and those who

don't believe in a truly free press

cannot accept it either. In the

light of these criminal confessions,

or make the Guardian and BBC

reported, will he not agree that

implementing section 48 would be

more in the spirit of building a

country that works for everyone,

then the system now where only the

very rich can challenge the press?

Well, I have a lot of time for my

honourable friend. On this...

LAUGHTER

I think in making sure a country

works for everyone, making sure the

press that can investigate people

and cannot be put off such

investigations by the threat of

costs, even though everything they

report is accurate. I think section

40 is not important. It is important

we have proper redress and the

recently brought in a new system. As

I said in my previous response, I

would like to see that working.

My

honourable gentleman will go about

his business with a spring in his

step.

Does he agree that the

behaviour described as John Ford is

being criminal would also be

actionable at civil law? Is section

40 were in force, it would be a

benefit to any member of the public

who is a potential claimant,

particularly if the publisher of the

Sunday Times was held liable.

The

honourable member has demonstrated

just how much this is a matter for

the courts. It is potential criminal

activity, she mentioned civil

action, that is how we deal with

this, that is potentially criminal

in this way.

Good my right

honourable friend confirm that if

the allegations that are published

are true, the would-be criminal acts

and prosecuted today without any

records for Leveson Inquiry or any

other. If there was concerned about

access to funds, might it not be the

case that Max Mosley and his

supporters might find such an

action? The allegations and what we

have read about our potentially

criminal and dealing with that is a

matter not for Ministers rightly for

police.

Hundreds of thousands of the

British people, lord Leveson and the

revelations make it clear that this

matter is not closed which might

lead the public to ask, what is

there to hide? Why would the

Secretary of State not let it take

place and chic and put a line under

it. -- and he can put a line under

it?

I am concentrating what we need

for the future and not what happened

years ago.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Sunday Times revelations are

disquieting that they are historic.

Can my right honourable friend

assure me that the victims of press

intrusion and those who face it at

times of bereavement, that the new

model introduced something Leveson

Inquiry makes the instances less

likely and there are sanctions in

place?

Not only is that what is put

in place but what must be put in

place. Making sure that happens and

the free press at the same time is

protected is extremely important.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Secretary

of State tells us that the world has

changed. Can I remind him when the

press Council was set up we were

assured the world had changed and

then when the PCC was set up we were

assured the same. We do not know it

has changed or this action has

stopped with the Leveson Inquiry.

Perhaps the only way we would know

if we had a second enquiry. Witty

reconsider?

With -- will he

reconsider? Policy is also

different. We have changes in the

behaviour of the rules around the

police, a new police code of ethics

and on the press side, the new

regulator and so the idea that

things are the same as the wearer is

underlined by the fact that this

activity is historic activity and

not weasel activity.

A free and

independent press and local press is

eight colour of our democracy. Press

should adhere to the highest

standards and any criminal

investigations are investigated. It

is a difficult balance to strike.

Can he reassure me it is that

difficult balance that he and his

predecessor have sought to strike?

That is right. We are always facing

the challenges that are in front of

us. The idea that we should put at

risk hundreds more of local

newspapers over and above the 200

that have shut since 205 -- 2005, it

is wrong to me. People who support

section 40 and its implementation

support the ending of the ability of

the local press to investigate

people locally and undermine the

businesses.

If these allegations are

proved true, not only would it mean

they had been a serious abuse of

power by major newspapers for a

period of the decade, it would also

mean the then editor of the Sunday

Times, now the editor of the times,

was only partially truthful in his

evidence to the enquiry. How will

the Secretary of State ensure the

full truth is finally revealed?

Well, as she knows, for these

allegations to be investigated, that

is a matter for the police. They

will therefore look into the

allegations. That is the right place

for this.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I

should declare that in the

allegations printed in the Guardian,

it is alleged that Mr Ford worked

for the Telegraph. Is it not in

itself a demonstration of how much

the culture has changed? We have our

newspapers reporting on the

allegations and we have a regulator

that provides the low-cost

arbitration that would provide the

redress for the victims?

He is spot

on. There is a group of people in

this house interested in the past

and there is a group interested in

the future. I am interested in

having high-quality journalism for

the future.

The father of the House

is completely right that the press

would not allow other institutions

or organisations to be judged by

such a low bar. Why is he satisfied

that the press is not being judged

by the sort of bar?

These are

allegations of criminal behaviour.

These were printed any newspaper and

a newspaper that supported the

approach we last Thursday. They are

printed by the media. They are being

discussed in this house and, of

course, allegations of criminal

behaviour should be dealt with

properly by the police in the normal

way.

Will he agree with me that it

would not only be costly and lengthy

but could also potentially undermine

the freedom of our press, being

disproportionate and too narrow,

given that newspaper circulations

have been declining but digital and

media consumption has been

increasing?

She is quite right we

have to make sure we have in place a

vibrant, high-quality journalism,

free press that can hold the

powerful to account. There are some

people who do not like that, but

that is an important part of having

a high-quality political discourse

and liberal democracy as we know it.

That is what we are focused on. She

mentions the cost. The potential

costs of another enquiry would

estimate around £5 million. I think

that money is better spent ensuring

there is is attainable future of

high-quality journalism.

The

Secretary of State says it is not

desirable to look at the past

because they are focusing on fake

news, why cannot we do both?

We have

already had a full investigation

through Leveson in what happened.

The question is now what we do next.

The Secretary of State excuse that

the world has changed is wrong but

ignores the fact that it was built

into the enquiry to allow a police

investigation. The revelations show

evidence is there to be

investigated. Doesn't have wilful

refusal to allow the enquiry to

proceed make it look like the media

has something to hide?

No, he says

that the evidence this morning shows

there needs to be further

investigation, and, of course, this

is why we have the police to

investigate and the courts if

necessary to ensure that justice is

done.

The Secretary of State stated

at the start that policy must be

based on all information, but how

can this possibly happen if there is

no second stage of the enquiry? Can

he stop contradicting himself and

get on with the job?

It is very hard

to add anything more that there will

be an investigation if the police

think what appear to be criminal

behaviour is deemed to be by the

police but the point is that as a

matter for the police in this

country, not a matter for Ministers.

The Secretary of State talks about

these being historic events but the

victims of the latest act only found

out about it yesterday and might not

even know about it at the moment.

That is not historic. Can I ask, Sir

Brian Leveson wrote to him and said

matters have not been fully

considered and we need a second

party. Why does you think he knows

better? -- why does he think he

knows better?

I have thought about

the recommendations from Sir Brian

and my judgment is we need to

concentrate on making sure we have a

sustainable, high-quality journalism

in the future. When he says these

things are current and not historic,

the activities that have been

alleged in the newspapers and by the

BBC this morning where activities

that, it says, were ended in 2010.

That is, indeed, historic.

Does he

not understand why I and my

colleagues find it odd that he

should decline at an enquiry on the

basis that these things happen

before 2010? By that logic, we would

never have had an Iraq enquiry,

child abuse enquiry, enquiry is by

definition examine events that have

happened in the past.

We have had an

enquiry that investigated what

happened in the past. It cost

millions of pounds. There was a

total of 48 million spent, including

on the police investigations, three

separate police investigations, over

40 convictions. The gentleman

mentioned this morning his issue was

raised in the Leveson Inquiry. The

idea that we therefore need to have

a new enquiry is actually undermined

by today's revelations, rather than

support it. I think that what

matters is we look forward to making

sure we have high-quality journalism

and sustainable business models for

that in the future.

Order. I will,

to the honourable gentleman. Point

of order.

In an oral statement on

social care in 2017, the then care

Minister, who is in her place on the

front bench, reply to a question I

asked about the Government

abandoning the killer strategy that

was due to be published in summer

2017. -- clearing strategy. The

Government said this, and I caught

her, we have listened to them and we

will consider what they have said in

bringing forward the paper. It is

important to put together what

support that is at present and

respond to that and we will publish

our action plan in January. Mr

Speaker, it is now March. This is

the second time I have raised this.

We have no prospect any more of a

strategy from the Government but

they have not met their own target.

It is a shabby way to treat them. I

want to ask if you have any

indication that the current minister

or any health Minister plans to come

to the House to update us on what,

if anything, the Government

proposals to do about this issue?

There is a health minister on the

Treasury bench who has heard what

the honourable lady has had to say

and she is welcome to respond that

she wishes but she's not under any

obligation to do so. What I would

say to the honourable lady he was an

experienced denizen of the house is

that there will be opportunities

through the business question and

subsequently for her to seek to draw

the attention of the house again and

perhaps a more detailed to their

concerns and to elicit a ministerial

reply.

I would ask your advice on

how the house on record: put the

manifesto in 2017 with its promise

to scrap Levenson to Mac produce the

results of the departments carry

out. How can we proceed and be sure

particularly the comments that this

decision was fairly reached and not

subject to judicial review?

I would

say two things in response. Firstly,

I think he seeks and perhaps even

rather over generously expects from

me a degree of reassurance and

indeed even of wisdom, which is it

not within the capacity of the chair

to provide. Secondly, when the

honourable gentleman says how can

we, meaning a house as a whole, be

sure, I simply say, the honourable

gentleman who is no stranger to

these matters has raised something

of a philosophical question. The

matter of whether, when and to what

degree members can be confident of

certainty. These are not matters

that can be broached now from the

chair. However, insofar as the

honourable gentleman was seeking

thinking perhaps the puckish grin on

his face suggests, that he wish to

register his own concerns, he is

found a zone solvation.

At PMQs on

the 31st of January, I asked for a

meeting with the minister and I was

promised I could have that. I had a

letter some two or three weeks ago

saying that it had been passed to

help. I would seek your guidance or

anyone's guidance as to how I can

progress that because no meeting, no

date so far and it is five weeks ago

so I think I've been fairly patient.

You have certainly been patient. I

would say to the honourable lady

that raising a point of order in the

chamber and reminding the Treasury

engine of a promised meeting that

has not yet been delivered can be a

remarkably effective way of bringing

out about the said meeting. The

other advice I would offer to the

new member of the house is the

tabling of a written question. If

the honourable lady is interested in

exploring historic copies of the

official report, she will know that

speed then member for Manchester

Gorton, our late and dear friend Sir

Gerald Kaufman was fond of

highlighting unanswered

correspondence to which he demanded

a reply or unanswered questions to

which he demanded a reply or

undelivered meetings which he had

promised upon which he still

insisted of tabling. He was fond of

tabling questions to remind

ministers of these matters and to

enquire when that promised reply or

meeting would take place. In my

experience, Sir Gerald was

remarkably effective at obtaining

that response, as was indeed the

former member for Walsall South,

North, Mr David Winick. The

honourable lady can perhaps learned

usefully from there and many other

examples.

In January of this year

the Government announced plans to

incentivise local communities to

agree to explore the possibility of

storing radioactive nuclear waste

near their homes, an initiative

widely reported in the media. I was

anxious this could revive proposals

to soar nuclear waste under

thousands of homes in billing in my

constituency and I raise the issue

at PMQs on the 31st of January. The

Prime Minister attitude to it for

the Cabinet Office despite the

publicity and it being deemed

Government policy knew nothing about

this particular initiative by his

Government. But he promised to

investigate the matter and writes to

me. That was five weeks ago. Can you

advise me if it is unreasonable of

me to have expected an answer by

now?

Grateful to the honourable

gentleman free his point of order

and giving me the advance notice of

it. I think it is not unreasonable.

For an honourable member to expect a

response from ministers in five

weeks, ministerial correspondence is

the responsibility of the minister

concerned. The Chancellor of the

Duchy of Vista and Minister for the

Cabinet Office, who happens to me my

constituency neighbour, is normally

most courteous and I am sure that

his colleagues on the Treasury bench

including the representatives of the

patronage secretary will swiftly

alert the Right honourable gentleman

to this outstanding action. He

certainly should have had a reply

and he should now get one, sooner

rather than later. Meanwhile the

honourable gentleman has placed his

concern on the record. If there are

no further points of order, we come

now to the ten minute rule motion.

Mr Gareth Snell.

Moved to bringing a

bill to make provision of health

scrutiny by authorities including

decisions and connected purposes.

The 2012 health and social care act

introduced radical changes to the

way health care was organised.

Holidays of large Primary Care

Trusts and reasonable health and in

came smaller Doctor led

commissioning groups and with each

clinical commissioning group a

so-called accountable officer. There

are 207 CCG is in England and they

are responsible for two thirds of

all NHS spending. Decisions taken by

CCGs effect community care and

mental health support services as

well as waiting times. Ensuring that

health services reflect our needs of

those committees are sensible. All

providers of public services and

spenders of public money should be

accountable to the public they seek

to serve and decisions should be

made available for public scrutiny.

That is what this bill seeks to

achieve. The present system of

scrutiny by clinical commissioning

groups is opaque, cumbersome and

impenetrable to most. They are all

bound up in clause 20 39 of the

local authority regulations, which

sets up local authorities can set up

decisions of CCGs where they believe

that either proper consultation on

the service is not taken place

although they consider that the

proposal would not be in the

interest of health services in an

area. That sounds all very well but

in reality, it is the tapes will be

that scenario. Local authorities and

their memberships are not currently

empowered to do anything that

accepts decision or escalate it

straight the Secretary of State.

This binary approach does not make a

good scrutiny and nor does it allow

for councillors and local

authorities in helping CCGs make

better decisions. However, Madame

Depp to Speaker, that is not the

only flaw in the current system.

Should a local authority make a

mistake it is immediately referred

to a panel but since 2013 only 18

referrals have been received in the

last four referrals including my own

city of Stoke-on-Trent sought to

keep the most and the report from

the independent configurations panel

published. But I'm sure we'll all

agree is a totally unacceptable

weight and during which CCGs are

free to implement the decisions they

had taken despite being subject to

referral. This, is not scrutiny

process that I believe anyone would

see as being either fair or robust.

My bill therefore would seek to

impose a maximum 45 day referral

limit. It would also crucially seek

to put any decisions referred to the

Secretary of State on hold until

such time as the Independent

reconfiguration panel has made its

deliberations. I would like this

bill is go further. It was also

grand local authorities a new power

to call in decisions of CCGs to

their local health scrutiny

committee and compel accountable

officers to properly consider the

views of councillors before

progressing with decisions. This

would be no different to the

mechanisms that councils already

have the challenge decisions

regarding public health, which had

been a function of local Government

since 2013. No where would this new

power have been more welcome than in

my own city of Stoke-on-Trent. For

over two years now, the clinical

commissioning groups have been

pursuing a fraught and deeply

unpopular group preferred

decommissioning care beds. Across

many different hospitals have all

the lost. Over 200 in total. A

referral to the Secretary of State

of the disastrous my care my way

home first plan dreamt up by the

accountable officer was opposed by

both Stoke-on-Trent City Council and

Staffordshire Council and Newcastle

Borough Council. But the referral to

commit a year to be considered. I

want to thank the city councillors

who many people will remember

formerly of this place for their

help in achieving those referrals

from the county city councils.

During that year long will wait the

plan continued on and closed those

much-needed committee care beds.

When the fire Allport came back, it

was scathing about that process. It

is said that what been presented in

September 2013 was entirely

incorrect and misleading. It also

said that the circumstances of the

NHS's original decision was unclear.

The reconfiguration panel also said

of the consultation that he did not

include any meaningful reference to

the impact of community beds and

hospitals. Frankly, if you or I or

any local council for that matter

was subjected to a report that said

we had missed out the public in the

way that we had spent taxpayer

money, we would be out of a job and

frankly I see no difference weight

Marcus Warner should be any

different. Against the wishes of the

local authorities, to be the single

accountable at office of the polar

Staffordshire. A huge amount of

power into an entirely unaccountable

individual. In Staffordshire...

Case, absolute power is easing

traffic chaos. Last week, led by

Andy day, came to Parliament to

protest against these bed closures

because they do not have the faith

of the current scrutiny system is

working. This is just one example

from Staffordshire and there are

many more. The botched privatisation

of cancer care programmes or the

continuation of the clinical

commissioning group to find our

local hospital millions of pounds

for missed targets. There are other

examples. The Shadow Health

Secretary expose last week but CCGs

would paying GPs not to refer people

to hospital. This is an example of

how CCGs are in fermenting dangerous

policies and the NHS without proper

scrutiny. They should have no place

in how GPs should be practising and

use. Practice like this should be

blocked and that is why believe this

bill is necessary. It will provide

local accountability of the

decisions being taken by CCGs. It

will provide new scrutiny power to

elected councils to rein in

unaccountable CCGs officers. It will

make sure that they are scrutinising

the same way as other public health

services. This bill will come too

late to challenge the decisions in

North Staffordshire or support the

70 referrals that came before it but

it could help ensure that future

decisions by all CCGs are genuinely

in the interest of communities that

they are there to serve. There are

still lots more to do and to turn

genuine accountability to the NHS

but this bill could be the start. I

beg to move.

The question is that,

it is not the honourable gentleman's

fault, it is mine for hesitating, I

beg your pardon. The question is

that the honourable member has leave

to bring in a bill. As many as are

of the opinion, say "aye". To the

contrary, "no" on the contrary say

no. The ayes have it. He will

prepare and bring in the bill?

Diana

Johnson, Rosie Cooper, Mike Gates,

and myself.

Mr Gareth Snell.

Local health scrutiny bill.

Second

reading, when? Friday the 6th of

July. We now come to the motion in

the name of the leader of applied

Cymru on EU citizenship.

I have a very bad head cold which

also renders me slightly deaf. I

caution anyone who intervenes might

have difficulty.

It calls for us to retain our

European citizenship after we leave

the European Union, and the keyword

here is retained. Retain what we

already have. It is supported by a

wide range of organisations and

individuals. The SNP, Liberal

Democrats and Green Party, open

Britain, best for Britain and the

European movement, Wales for Europe,

the new Europeans, our future, our

choice. It is a very wide range of

organisations that has got behind us

and included with this the QC of the

project and Professor, two of the

authors of the EU citizenship report

commissioned by my good friend Jill

Evans, MEP. They have been arguing

the case for retention of EU

citizenship consistently since the

referendum. I have referred to the

report commissioned by my European

friend. It is now disappeared. Here

it is. And I would recommend it as

an interesting read for anyone who

wishes to pursue this argument. For

the relief of hard-pressed members,

I would say there is also an

executive summary which is very

good. The crux of our argument is

that, although we are leaving the

European Union, the European

citizenship rights conferred on

citizens are not distinguished.

Continuing citizenship is the more

convincing interpretation of

international and European law.

Indeed, the principal that it might

be brought to an end, the rights

conferred by it, is enshrined

strongly in international law. I

refer members to the 1969 Vienna

Convention on the Law of treaties,

which will be binding on member

states in the UK and EU post-Brexit.

Article 70, one B of that

convention, provides that legal

situation is created with the

currency of treaties continue after

the withdrawal. That is the

principal and the Vienna Convention,

as the professor said the report on

page five, this interpretation of

the the ongoing situation, is

supported by the overriding

objective of ensuring legal

certainty and preventing withdrawals

from treaties having an effect. It

is also supported by state practice.

That is a crucial aspect of

international law, governments by

withdrawing from treaties just

cannot abandon the rights which the

citizens already have. Professor

Auburn tells me that this article

was drawn up with a prominent

participation of British legal

experts. There is however an

alternative reading that Article 50

extinguishers or rights of

individuals. In that case, but the

EU and international law would

demand that the treaty be negotiated

an associate union citizenship

bringing with it rights that would

bring very little difference for

those that have full citizenship one

way or the other. We think the EU

citizenship of the sort is required.

Now, the European Union could

legislate citizenship post-Brexit.

This legislation would protect UK

nationals in the EU, but has no

binding effect of the UK

post-Brexit. By definition, we would

have left. So we would ask the

government rather to look at

achieving continuity and citizenship

through the withdrawal agreement.

That is why this debate today is

particularly timely. The report

concludes that neither continuity

now associated citizenship would

require any revision of the founding

treaties. There is a great deal more

detail and the report which I will

not going to today, but will become

pertinent if the government

recognises the force of our argument

and proceeds as we recommend.

However, for now, I wish to set the

context for our position as a party

and see plainly from the start that

my party campaign to stay in the EU,

this was consistent with our

long-term pro-European policy.

Indeed, our policy from our very

establishment in 1825. We have

always been aware of our European

history and heritage as a nation,

and I have sat great store by it as

it has influenced our party

profoundly. The member would rarely

miss the opportunity to remind

people of Wales of our European

heritage as a people with our own

language and culture from beginnings

onwards to the present day. In fact,

his speeches would often consist of

retelling our history and I am

reminded by a small joke made by two

valleys members during a speech. One

valley member saying to another, 20

minutes in and we are only in the

ninth century!

I am extremely

grateful to my honourable friend the

giving way. He is making his usual

excellent case. We could go further

back even to the president before

when Evans. So does of course saw

our European heritage is vital to

his for Wales for the future, partly

driven by his time in the trenches

in the First World War and his

desire not to seek another

generation of Welshmen die at

foreign hands.

He makes very good

point. I was going refer later on to

the fact that the European Union has

of course helped prevent war on the

European continent 's, but there are

exceptions such as the former

Yugoslavia, which were not members

of the time. But he makes a

pertinent point about Saunders

Lewis's profound experience in the

trenches. This was one of the

reasons why him and his friends set

up Plaid Cymru in August 1925 and my

hometown. I might as will also say

while I am on my feet, that our

profound lack of the Lisbon reality

at that time meant that in the

country that was almost exclusively

nonconformist, the total and in

favour of the British Empire, we had

as our president a wine drinking

Catholic! I think Machiavelli was

still retreating in his grave! The

roots of our pro-European stance a

very deep indeed.

Given that his

party exists for the fundamental

purpose of trying to remove British

citizenship and the people of Wales,

something which is of more

importance to them than their

European identity, isn't as argument