14/03/2018 House of Commons

in that inquiry finding as to how it

relates to his I will be strategy.

Very happy to meet with the

honourable lady.

Perfect ending. We

now come to the ten minute rule

motion.

Thank you I beg to move that

leave be given to bring in a about

about supervised drug consumption

facilities. One of my constituents

mentioned to me on Monday that

Glasgow already has drug consumption

facilities behind the bushes near

his flat. They are in his close when

it rains and in bench Schettlers.

Public toilets where drug users can

grasp the tiny bit of privacy for as

long as it takes to prepare and

inject their fix. They are often

alone and too Regevly drug users

will die as a result. As a society

we can and we must do much better

than that. There is a real and

persistent issue in Glasgow. In 2016

there were 2,593 drug-related deaths

registered in England and Wales. 867

registered in Scotland. 257 in the

city of Glasgow. We have an ageing

population of people with long-term

problem drug use. They are

increasingly run be rabl and require

particular interventions to reduce

harm and encourage them to engage in

health services. This ageing

population who are in deteriorating

health. Due to their sustained drug

use they have aged 15 years greater

than their actual age. They have

above population incidents including

liver disease, skin infections,

depression and psychosis. They are

vulnerable to overdose and emergency

hospital admission. The Scottish

drugs forum carried out research

interviews with a group of older

people with a drug problem. They

feel strongly they have been left

behind and seen as aest with a of

space. There needs to be a

recognition by this House that the

programmes will not necessarily work

for everyone and that harm reduction

and support will be better and more

worthwhile interventions for a group

of people who have not managed to

eliminate drug use in the proceeding

decades. Evidence shows that

long-term engagement is a positive

factor. People in Glasgow who will

use this facility are not in

treatment. It would get them through

the door and provide social and

medical support tole stabilise their

lives. The report reducing

drug-related deaths in recommends

that.

The report. Cites evidence which

demonstrates the facilities reduce

injecting behaviours and overdose

fatalities. They have been estimated

to save more money than they cost

due to the reductions in deaths and

HIV infection they produce. They do

not increase injection, drug use or

crime rates. They can provide other

benefits such as reductions in blood

born viruses and primary care and

intensive form of drug treatments.

No deaths from overdoses have ever

occurred in such facilities. Madame

Deputy Speaker Glasgow has a

proposal. A well-worked through

business case which has supported by

the Scottish Government. Drug law

remains reserved to Westminster and

Scottish ministers have requested

permission from the Home Office to

allow for the proposal to go ahead.

It's not yet been granted. It has

potential to reduce deaths and

integrated service and as

recommended, not just a shooting

gallery. It will allow for

engagement with the population who

are not being assisted very well at

all. Medically trained staff who

supervise and minister drugs should

it be required. Some may say that

this is an unnecessary expense. I

should say to the ministers it will

cost them nothing. For Glasgow there

is a significant cost in not doing

this. A cost in treating the latest

HIVout break and treat be HepC and

other conditions. Hospital

admissions and ambulance call-outs

and police time dealing with

complaints. The significant cost in

clearing up discarded needles,

residents being charged by a problem

not of their making and the council

picking up the tab for public

spaces. Housing Associations are

clearing up areas of hundreds of

discarded syringes. A constituent

phoned me to say there are syringes

on her doorstep. Residents can be

pricked by a contaminated needle and

the cost in human lives. We should

consider all these cost that is we

are currently paying in a situation

that helps no-one. Heroin assisted

treatment has been mentioned as an

alternative to supervised drugs

consumption. Room. I would like to

touch on limitations for this. I

would like to stress while this can

be a treatment for whom many other

interventions have failed it's not

suitable for everyone. Capacity and

cost issues. Glasgow city centre is

thought to have a population in the

region of 500 injecting drug users.

The Glasgow health and social care

partnership believe they would have

capacity for 40 to 60 individuals

for heroin assisted treatment and

only when the service is running to

full capacity. That will not happen

sometime yet. It requires two

separate licences to operate, a

premises licence in the gift of the

Home Office and a prescribers

licence depending on the premises

licence. It's not a simple process.

It's been developed alongside the

proposal for a supervised drug

consumption facility. To operate

supervised drug consumption facility

requires the consent of the Home

Office. Operating, working in and

using the facility requires

protection in law.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the supporters

of this bill come from a range of

parties. In a letter I wrote to the

Home Secretary earlier this year, it

garnered the same cross-party

support from across Scotland. I'm

particularly grateful to the

honourable member from Stirling he

said we should reach out to those in

the grip of drug abuse and do what

we can to help them escape. This is

very much a step in that direction.

Madam Deputy Speaker, in my 11 years

as an elected member in Glasgow, the

issue of drug-taking has been a

constant. I have seen various police

initiatives shunt people around, I

have seen the council clear up the

mess at significant cost and

significant risks to their workers,

I have seen workers at their wits

end, worried about what they will

open the door to in the morning,

drug, excrement and used syringes on

their doorsteps regularly, daily. I

have seen vulnerable and desperate

men and women injecting into their

groin and head in public places as

they have nowhere else to go. And I

have listened to heartbreak and

families who have lost loved ones.

If it was their choice, they would

not have their loved one die alone

in a dirty backroom. They would want

a medical facility where help could

be sought. The status quo says none

of these people well. I cannot

accept that this is the best we can

do. It is unacceptable. We must try

something different. I accept that

it may not work but we must at least

try. Today, as international ask a

question day, my question of the UK

Government is this. Glasgow has a

plan which could reduce drug

nuisance to residents, reduce drug

use. Will the UK Government allow us

to get on with this?

The question is

that the honourable member has leave

to bring in the bill. As many of

that opinion is a aye. Aye. I think

the ayes habit. The ayes have it.

They will prepare and bring in the

Bill?

Crispin Blunt, Mr Alistair

Carmichael, Joanna Cherry, row and

Alan, Liz Lovell Roberts, Paul

Sweeney, and myself.

Supervised drug communities Bill.

Second reading which day? Friday

27th of April. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I

rise point of order to seek your

guidance as to what Parliamentary

procedure might be available to

available to me to get a reply from

the Home Office on matters relating

to my constituents. Four months ago

to the day I wrote to the then

Minister of State in the Home Office

asking him whether he would review

the support line at UK VI because

most staff were unable to get

information. Four months later I

have received no reply despite many

reminders. Madam Deputy Speaker, the

problem remains in the meantime and

I feel that this lack of support

from UK VI is compromising my

ability as an elected member to

represent my constituents who are in

very grave circumstances so I seek

your direction as to what can be

done to make the home Department to

respond.

I thank the honourable

member for giving me notice that he

wished to raise this matter. It is

obviously unsatisfactory that he has

had to wait for such a long time to

receive a response. But I am sure

his concern has been heard on the

Treasury bench and will be conveyed

to the Home Office? Thank you.

Meanwhile, he has obviously made his

dissatisfaction clear and is now on

the record. With no further points

of order, we now come to the general

debate on European affairs. The

theme of the day's debate is

International Trade and called a

minister.

Madam Deputy Speaker,

first, can I welcome that we are

having this debate and perhaps

returning to the tradition of

pre-European Council debate here in

the House of Commons. I used to take

part in those twice yearly debate

and I checked my last contribution

made in June 2000 and eight. And I

reminded myself that I, like so many

others on these benches, called for

a new approach in Europe in the

immediate aftermath of the Irish

rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. But

the purpose of the day's debaters

not to dwell on missed opportunities

in the past and reflect on what

might have been had the EU itself

reformed. We are here to look to the

future. The Department for

International Trade is that the very

centre of that bright future. Before

we turn to the future of our trade

with Europe and the negotiations

under way, I think it's important to

take stock of what we have achieved

so far. The joint report issued in

September that other financial

settlement just as we said we would.

It agrees to avoid a hard border in

Ireland was respecting the UK's

integrity which was added one of the

Government's priorities for these

negotiations. And, very importantly,

its safeguard the rights of EU

citizens living in the UK and UK

nationals living abroad which the

Prime Minister has always said was

her first priority. Indeed, Madam

Deputy Speaker, 17% of my

constituents in Chelsea and Phil are

nationals of other EU countries. I

have personally put in a lot of time

and effort in outreach to them.

Indeed, my wife is an EU national

and I can report to the House at the

December agreement landed very well

amongst EU nationals in Chelsea and

Phil. Madam Deputy Speaker, Ireland,

the budget and citizens rights.

These are the strong foundations for

the ongoing negotiations and we

should all welcome the progress made

on them. Of course.

Will the

Minister acknowledge that there are

still very serious concerns about

what is going to happen to preserve

an invisible border on the island of

Ireland, a border with no physical

infrastructure, and there is

actually seemingly a

misunderstanding in some parts

between what will actually meant by

the fallback option of full

alignment?

We have been absolutely

clear, we will of course be abiding

by the December agreement in full.

Just a reminder, the three

priorities that we laid out was a

strong commitment to avoid a hard

border, but also to preserve the

integrity of the UK market. I would

remind her that that is a very

important market for the people of

Northern Ireland, to have access to

the UK market, and also that no UK

Prime Minister could axe that a new

border down the Irish Sea. We are

also making strong progress now

trading relationships outside the

EU. My primary responsibility as the

Minister for trade policy is that

area.

Yes, of course. Following up

from that point, the Prime Minister

at Prime Minister's Questions

repeated her full commitment to the

December agreement on Ireland. Does

that therefore mean when he said no

hard border, that means no physical

infrastructure, I issued -- I

assume. Of course I accept there

will not be a border across the

Irish Sea, but does Harry accept

that if there is no other way of

achieving it, we will have the full

regulatory convergence to which the

Government signed up in December?

I

thank my right honourable friend for

his intervention. What I would say

and reiterate of course what the

Prime Minister said at Mansion House

and what you said at Prime

Minister's Questions this week of

course still stands. I refer my

right honourable friend back to the

papers published by the Department

for exiting the European Union last

summer in terms of how a border, a

proper border between the two parts

of Ireland, and the effectuate it

through the two possible types of

customs agreement between the UK and

the European Union.

Of course. I

asked the Prime Minister during the

statement and I have listened to her

about paragraph 27 of the December

agreement which talks about the

mapping exercise being undertaken

about North-South co-operation. Will

the Government commit to publishing

that mapping exercise?

Madam Deputy

Speaker, of course the Government is

undertaking analysis on so many

different factors involved in this

particular arrangement and this

particular question. We have always

made clear our commitment to ensure

that the House is properly appraised

of all other relevant facts when it

comes to examine the actual

withdrawal agreement in due course.

As are preparing the ground at the

Department of International trade,

Department of International trade

ministers have made over 100

overseas visits in the last year and

a half. We have set up 14 trade

working groups covering 21

countries. These are ones with

substantial market sums. None of

this would have been possible

without the excellent work of our

Department for International Trade

staff both at home and imposed in

108 countries around the world and I

would like first of all to put on

record my thanks for their hard

work, professionalism and invaluable

expertise. But Madam Deputy

Speaker... Of course give way.

I'm

grateful to the Minister for giving

way and he is right to pay tribute

to his department's staff and has he

need to the comments of the recent

former permanent secretary of his

department of the effect that non-EU

trade, if we are to leave the

European Union, will not be able to

make up for the lost trade with the

EU that we enjoy now? And secondly,

can I ask him with regards to the

Secretary of State, his Secretary of

State was part of a campaign which

promised we could start negotiating

new trade agreements with non-EU

countries as soon as we agreed to

leave. Can he tell me how many of

these are being negotiated right

now?

First of all, the honourable

member knows full well that it isn't

an either or situation. It is not a

choice between having trade with the

European Union or with the rest of

the world. The Government's

objectives are clear, which is to

secure a deep and cobranded

partnership with the European Union

whilst still being crucially outside

of the customs union to be able to

pursue an independent trade policy

and to secure those trade agreements

with the rest of the world. In terms

of what was said during campaigns,

all I would say to him is that I

believe that the payment of

International Trade has the

capability in place, we have built

up the department to make sure that

we are able to, I mentioned the 14

trade working groups, we are clearly

not able to carry out a tray biggish

nation whilst we are still members

of the European Union. So at the

same hand, he seems to be a

demanding that we are having these

negotiations and B, saying that we

should stay in the European Union,

which would prevent us from having

the negotiations on the first place.

I give way to my honourable friend.

I begged my honourable friend for

giving way. Does he agree with me

that given the incredible depth and

complexity of the UK's trade with

Europe, there is no off-the-shelf

solution from any other trade

relationship that fits? And were on

the issue of what happens at our

customs, does he agree that if we

are to have this frictionless trade,

there is clearly going to need to be

some form of agreement for what

happens at our customs, such as a

partnership or another type of

agreement butter I thank my

honourable friend for that

intervention.

She is right. There is

no off-the-shelf agreement that

would be suitable in this case. We

are clear that we are seeking a

bespoke arrangement between the

United Kingdom and the European

Union. Neither something like seater

or the EEA would be suitable. In

terms of a corporation, we are clear

in seeking to have a good agreement

with the European Union that creates

trade as frictionless as possible as

we go forward across all our

borders, not just the internal

border within the island of Ireland.

Can I take him back to the

appearance moment ago of the former

permanent secretary? When Mr

Connelly was interviewed on the

today programme that morning, so

keen worthy presenters to get his

sound bite about the packet of

crisps, they gave no analysis

whatsoever to his figures which were

about 10% awry from those issued by

the National statistics office. Did

the department do any digging into

where his figures came from?

I think

my honourable friend tempts me down

a path which I think I ought to

resist in terms of I'm not exactly

sure what figures the former

permanent secretary used, but what I

am clear run is that the figures are

clear. European Union trade is

extremely important to this country

but it is nonetheless a declining

part of our overall trade, down from

56% of our overall trade in 2006 to

just 43% today. Madam Deputy

Speaker, I'm going to make a little

bit of progress. We are not working

purely on non-EU trade. A common

misconception is that the de IT is a

purely Brexit apartment. Our ongoing

work encourages export to trade in

Europe and outside of it. The

Department of International Trade

has 300 staff across continental

Europe and I myself have visited 16

European visits to ten European

countries whilst being in this

position as have all of our

ministerial team including the

Secretary of State. We have

brilliant teams. Brilliant teams in

commercial centres right across

Europe. I give way to my right

honourable friend.

Can we just returned to the comments

made by Sir Martin Connolly? I don't

think the record will be accurate.

We have heard mention of a bag of

crisps. He said that based on his

experience, 15 years and beyond

specifically in the area of trade,

was that in effect our country was

embarking upon a course where we

were about to swap the equivalent of

a three course meal for a bag of

crisps. Could my right honourable

friend help us with this? Has he

seen the government's on analysis of

the various options available to us

that show, that even if we get a

trade deal with every single country

with whom we don't have one by

virtue of our membership of the

European Union, which is about 50,

we would still not be as prosperous

as we are now by virtue of our

membership of the European Union.

I

thank my right honourable friend for

that lengthy intervention. What I

would say is that there is no such

analysis, Madam Deputy Speaker, of

the kind she describes. What I am

clear on is it is our objective to

maintain frictionless trade with the

European Union as we go forward. It

is our objective to conduct an

independent trade policy, and to

seek a trade agreements when the

time is right with those partners.

It is also our objective is to seek

the continuity in existing EU trade

agreements for the UK, which I note

the party opposite voted against on

the second reading of the trade

bill, that they are actually opposed

to was seeking the continuity of

existing trade agreements. Martin

Depper disfigure... I will give way.

I am grateful. I would like to go

back to the analysis that was

published by the government, in

particular the risk presented by

nontariff barriers. It was clear in

the analysis that even if we had an

agreement, there would still be

damage to the UK economy. Is the

minister saying that he wants EA

plus?

Madine Deputy Speaker, I

understand the intervention board

the government has been clear from

more than a year since the Lancaster

House speech, that our objective is

not to seek an E E A start

agreement. It is our objective to

seek a deep and comprehensive

agreement with the European Union.

The like of which, I would remind my

honourable friend, who studies these

matters very carefully, the like of

which was not one modelled in those

analyses. That was the most

important point. I will give a few

examples of our work around Europe.

I promoted the UK defence industry

in Sweden. Visiting Saab, whose new

fighter jet could be worth £1.1

billion to UK industry. I and my

colleagues engaged with the Polish

government on behalf of UK

governments to discuss high-value

retail opportunities in the Czech

Republic. I have addressed Chambers

of commerce, and my colleagues from

the IT have addressed Chambers of

commerce, right the way across the

European Union, Austria, Hungary,

Bulgaria and others. And I enjoyed

making use of language skills when I

gave speeches in German. The

Department of trade's relationship

with Europe does not just extend to

export. The vote to leave the EU was

not evolved to undermine the EU. It

is important to undermine that --

underline that it is in our interest

to have a strong European Union. We

are continuing to engage

constructively in ongoing EU trade

policy, as we currently are a full

and equal member. We are working

closely with our European partners

as well as bilaterally to respond to

President Trump's decision to impose

tariffs on imported steel and

aluminium. We are committed to

ratifying the Ceta agreement which

provisionally came into effect in

September. I was delighted, Madam

Deputy Speaker, that when we did so

we were joined by 86 Labour MPs,

many in this chamber at the moment,

in defiance of their front bench to

support the EU trade agenda in

making sure that seat was passed in

defiance of the party whip. In 40 --

voting for this important agreement

with Justin Trudeau's Canada. I have

attended four trade ministers'

foreign affairs councils. The

commission has been particularly

focusing on agreements with South

America's union and with Mexico. We

continue to support the ongoing

negotiations were both free trade

agreements. On Mexico we would like

to see progress made wherever

possible in the negotiations,

although we recognise the complexity

of Nafta renegotiations running in

parallel. We will continue our

support for EU members at trade

negotiations and would like to

emphasise the urgent need to

progress the trade component. It is

essential to keep momentum and

achieved a swift political

agreement. Another high-profile

agreement is the EU Japan so it can

be signed during the Japanese

President's visit to Brussels this

year. As a champion of free trade

the UK has been one of the strongest

advocates, I actually believe the

strongest advocate, of this. We

warmly welcome the work of both

sides to reach this agreement, which

will support global prosperity. We

continue to engage constructively on

EU business and with our European

partners, and we continue to push UK

trade and investment to businesses

on the European continent. It is

important that our trade agreement

-- engagement includes Europe,

because our nearest and largest

neighbour will always be of great

importance. Now I often hear the

criticism that trade deals outside

the EU cannot make up for the loss

in EU trade. It has been referred to

by a couple of interventions

earlier. As I say, this is not an

either or choice. I can assure the

House that the government fully

understands the importance of EU

trade. The EU is our largest trading

partner, 43% of export and 54%

imports. This shows the importance

of making cross-border trade as free

and as frictionless as possible.

That is why it is important that we

get our relationship with Europe

right. And the right relationship...

I will give way.

Will the future of

frictionless trade be better than it

is now?

What I have said is we are

seeking a good comprehensive, deep,

wide trade partnership with the

European Union, as frictionless as

possible. That is why the right

relationship is this deep,

comprehensive and unique free-trade

agreement with Europe are based on

the principles the Prime Minister

set out throughout 2017, and in her

speech a fortnight ago, and opposing

Labour's latest Brexit policy of

keeping the UK in the Customs Union

with the EU. We want to have the

greatest possible tariff and barrier

free trade with our European

neighbours, as well as to negotiate

our own trade agreement around the

world. I give way to the member from

the Liberal Democrats.

In pursuit of

this future relationship, can he

update the House on the progress

that has been made in relation to

the continuity of trading terms,

especially in relation to product

designation orders and

geographically identifiable

products? Last week the Secretary of

State for Scotland told me there

would be absolutely no change and

that that can be guaranteed.

Yesterday, the minister of state at

Dev are said absolutely nothing

could be done. Which is correct? --

Defra.

It is a bit rich. On the one

hand he votes against EU Withdrawal

Bill, and then he calls for

something that is a consequence of

that not to happen. That is creating

a new scheme in the UK which we will

be doing in consultation with the

devolved administrations, to make

sure that we continue the protection

of the UK's 84 registered GIs within

the UK. That is the objective of

this government, which I would hope

he would support. I will make some

progress. I know there have been

questions as to why we would want a

bespoke trade agreement rather than

taking one of the shelf, which the

argument goes would be easier to

negotiate. I would like to remind

the House of the government's

reasons for choosing this over

existing models. And why whatever

model you choose, it must involve

leaving the Customs Union. In Norway

style deal may seem superficially

attractive but will be subject to

new rules the commission chose to

enact automatically and in their

entirety with no end point. Most

importantly, we would have little

influence on those rules and No

vote, which would be too much of a

loss of Democratic control, and also

no guarantee, far from it, that

whatever the EU 27 and it would also

be in the interest of UK business. I

will make some more progress. Nor

should we look to a Canadian style

agreement as the answer, even if it

were easier to achieve a Ceta deal,

we start from the unique position of

regulator ollie alignment with the

EU. We start from a position where

our systems are already the same. It

is precisely because the government

recognises our imported EU trade is,

that we must look to an ambitious

deal rather than starting a

relationship from scratch with

something like Ceta. However, as

important as trade with the EU is,

we must also look outside Europe.

The IMF, and this is a statistic you

will also find in the European

commission, 90% of global growth

will come from beyond the EU. China

has an economy the size of

Switzerland every year. There will

be over 1 billion middle-class

African consumers in the year 2060.

Commonwealth GDP is protected to hit

$13 trillion in two years. These are

unprecedented opportunities. Yet

these opportunities are harder to

reach from behind the EU's customs

wall. Only once we can sign our own

independent trade deals can we take

full advantage of this. Signing

those deals means being outside of

the Customs Union. We only need to

look to Turkey to see that being in

the Customs Union, in whole or in

part, can sometimes be the worst of

all worlds. The EU is currently

negotiating a deal with Japan, very

important to understand this, Madame

Deputy Speaker. If it finalises that

deal, and we are very strongly

supportive of that deal, Turkey will

need to reduce tariffs on Japanese

imports. But it will not get

reciprocal access to the Japanese

market. It will have to negotiate

its own access. But negotiating such

access will be more difficult as

Turkey will have already reduced its

tariffs, so it won't are have as

much to give in return. As the Prime

Minister set out repeatedly, we are

looking for a bespoke agreement. For

goods, this will be based on a

comprehensive agreement of mutual

recognition, so products only need

to be approved once. On services, we

have the opportunity to establish a

broader agreement than ever before.

I give way.

My right honourable

friend is very kind and generous in

giving way, especially as I am ready

not helping him. With the greatest

amount of respect he knows, as

everybody else knows, that we will

and can achieve all these deals with

countries like China as a member of

the European Union. I have met, by

way of example, the ambassador from

Australia. And of course he will do

or want to do a trade deal with our

great country. But they will be

looking for the first trade deal to

be done with the European Union with

its 500 million customers. Would he

not agree with me it's very

important that we make all these

things very clear to the British

people? We do trade deals at the

moment with countries by virtue of

our membership of the European

Union. The only reason we're leaving

the Customs Union just to chase

unicorn deals we can get in the EU.

The honourable lady knows her

intervention is too long, because

she said the last time.

It was a

long intervention. With respect to

my honourable friend she and I

served alongside each other in

government. The British people have

made the decision to leave the

European Union. It is now the

efforts of this government to ensure

that we have the best frictionless

trade deal with the union while

still take advantage of trade

opportunities beyond the EU. That is

what the objective of the Government

is. I really, I have used up 24

minutes. On services we have the

opportunity to establish a broader

agreement than ever and we recognise

we cannot have the rights of single

market membership such as

passporting and financial services,

just as we understand you can't have

all the benefits of single market

membership without the obligations.

But this does not mean she should be

shackled by existing precedents. The

main point to remember is that it is

strongly in European Union

countries' interest to sign and

agree such a deal. On the day we

leave we will become the EU's second

largest trade being partner. Larger

than any of China, Japan or India.

The commission estimates trade

between the UK and the EU 27 to be

812 billion euros. That is only 8%

behind the EU 27's main trading

partner, the United States. But it

is 60% more than China who come

third. Given the effort the EU has

put into deals with the likes of

Mexico, Vietnam and Singapore, all

of which we support, but each of

which are significantly less

important to them than we are, it

would be odd indeed for them to

reject proposals from us. Further,

both the EU and the UK need to be

sending a loud and clear message

that we are both strong believers in

free trade and what message would it

show if we couldn't agree a free

trade agreement? Even this

underestimates our importance to the

EU, it is the type of trade that

matters not just the volume. Our

advantages are in the business

professional and financial services

that other businesses need to grow

and in pharmaceutical goods that no

one wants to exclude. For an

advanced economy, good financial

infrastructure is as important as

physical infrastructure, even if it

is not as obvious. Restricting

Europe's access to the City's

infrastructure would be the act of a

latter day Beeching. The rest of

network could try and pick up the

slack, but that network and I know

because I have worked in sector has

less capacity and EU businesses

cannot connect to the capital market

that they need. Indeed, the EU talks

about a capital markets union. But

how tenable is this without access

to Europe's main capital market. But

our reputation goes beyond mutual

interest. Our membership is one part

of our relationship with Europe. We

can still be neighbours, 30

kilometres off the coast of France.

We will still be in the same core

organisations that the EU are part

of from the European court of human

rights to the UN to NATO from, the

IMF to the WTO. The economic

security and humanitarian links that

hold the international system

together. Nevertheless to conclude,

the department for international

trade is preparing... I'm going to

finish. The department of

international trade is preparing

this country for life outside of the

EU. We are taking forward trade and

customs bills to give as a

functioning customs regime on day

one. As you would expect, these have

been designed to prepare us for

every eventuality, although they

will be needed regardless of the

outcome of our negotiations with the

EU. They will give us a strong trade

remedy regime, free trade does not

mean trade without rules, but Labour

opposed these powers at second

reading. Our independent trade

remedies regime will allow us to

protect UK industry from unfair

dumping or subsidy and balancing the

interests of UK consumers and

businesses, delivered through an

independent authority and businesses

will have the confidence they need

that it will be impartial and not

act against the interests of wider

industry. I want to make sure this

new regime works as well as

businesses should from the start. We

are consulting on which existing EU

trade remedies we should carry over.

I would encourage any business with

an interest to respond before that

consultation closes and for members

with interests to help publicise

this. The taxation cross border

trade bill will allow us to create a

UK trade preferences regime for

developing country. Also opposed by

Labour, the SNP and the Liberal

Democrats at second reading. The UK

is a proud advocate of supporting

developing countries to reduce

poverty through trade and I hope

Labour will reconsider its stance.

This will let us continue the scheme

of helping countries and removing

import tariffs and allowing us to

explore improvement on the EU's

system. Leaving the European Union

will allow us to negotiate trade

deals across the world, but this

government understands the

importance of trade with the EU.

That is why we are seeking a deep

and special partnership with the EU.

This is the only appropriate option.

We across all parties should be

optimistic that this can be

achieved. Thank you.

The question is

the House has considered European

affairs. Before I call the spokesman

for the opposition it will be

obvious to the House that a great

many people wish to speak and we

have limited time. There will be an

initial limit on backbench speeches

of eight minutes. Which is likely

then to reduce. I make this

announcement now that members can

tailor their speeches accordingly.

Thank you. It was a year ago

yesterday that this House voted to

give the Prime Minister the

authority to trigger Article 50. It

is almost a year since she did so

and 20 months since the referendum

result. The Government accepted the

EU time table, and while the cut off

point may slip by a week or two, the

draft withdrawal agreement including

the framework for the future

relationship will have to be wrapped

up in just seven months time. We

welcome the joint report published

in December and the progress it

represented. But the fact remains

that the Government is running out

of time and running out of road. So

it is extraordinary that despite the

scale of task that confronts us the

Government have decided the best use

of our time is two days of general

debate, without even the possibility

of a vote. While we welcome any and

every chance to debate Brexit and

Europe, it is a farcical situation.

No date has been set for the customs

or trade deals. The immigration bill

we are told will hopefully be with

us before Christmas, a year after it

was expected, but as the Home

Secretary made clear it may not even

be law by the day we leave. And

there is no sign of the fisheries or

agricultural bills or anything that

could reasonably be described as a

domestic legislative agenda. This is

an approach known to experiments as

"run away." The reason for this is

obvious. The party opposite remains

divide over Brexit and what the

future relationship with the EU 27

should be. I'm happy to give way.

Thank you. Let's, can he agree with

me, to be honest about this, there

is some division on these benches,

but there is division sill on those

benches as well. And while the move

to a customs union has been

welcomed, does he anticipate we

might see more movement to the

customs union and accepting that the

single market would also be a good

way to settle it?

I thank the

honourable lady for her

intervention. I think we need to be

honest about this and an issue of

this magnitude is bound to create

different views in all parties. But

I would argue that the divisions on

this side are nothing like the

fundamental divisions that are in

the Cabinet and on the Government

benches and certainly the divisions

on our side are not preventing

legislation from being brought

forward to allow us to vote on them.

The Prime Minister's...

Minister's... I want to make

progress. The Prime Minister's

speech was an amendment to muffle

those divisions as provi clarity. It

with was a more detail speech and

devoid of empty slogans No repeat of

earlier banalities of Brexit means

Brexit. The speech started to engage

with the hard truths, stressed the

need for compromise on all sides and

conceded trade offs will have to be

made. As with her Florence speech in

September, one wishes the content

could have been delivered earlier

and had it been, I suspect the

country would have been in a better

position today. Judging by the raft

of cherry and cake met afores we

heard, in response to her statement

on Monday, the Prime Minister's

speech may have succeeded in its

objective of holding together her

divided party and giving her a

degree of room to manoeuvre. But the

divisions remain. That is the

obvious, for if they were healed, we

would be considering the report

stage of the customs or trade bill,

rather than having a general debate.

Make no mistake, those divisions

will have to be confronted and the

sensible majority given the

opportunity to shape the Brexit

process sooner rather than later.

Because while the Prime Minister's

speech was more realistic in

important ways, it was still not

realistic enough. The theme of

today's debate is international

trade and arguably. I will give way.

Thank you. On the Prime Minister's

speech, she said that we will have

less access given the hard Brexit

that the Government is pursuing.

Will he agree that less market

access to our biggest market means

fewer jobs, less investment and less

economic growth?

Thank you. I agree.

I couldn't have put it better

myself. It was in the sections

relating to customs that were the

least convincing part of Prime

Minister's speech, in contrast to

other areas there was no attempt to

engage with the hard truths what

about leaving the customs union will

mean, particularly with that

decision on manufacturing and the

issue of Irish border. As the House

knows, the Prime Minister went back

to the two propositions the

Government set out in the paper in

August last year, a customs

partnership between the UK and the

EU or a highly streamlined customs

arrangement, where we would agree to

imMr implement a range of measures

for Northern Ireland. The first

untried and untested. By the

Government's own admission would

take at least five years to

implement and would be ripe for

abuse. It was rejected by the EU

last year. Not least because it

would require EU members to reckon

figure their own national customs

systems. It is not blue sky

thinking, it is pie in the sky

thinking. The second option would

according to the Chief Executive of

HMRC take three years to take place

and would result in friction on the

boarders and would require measures.

The Prime Minister in her speech

claimed that both options were

serious. But they were widely

rubbished in the wake of that speech

and the EU ruled them out as

non-starters. The truth is the

Government have no idea about what

to do when it custom and the Irish

border. The full back in the draft

legal Tex that the Northern Ireland

goes into into a customs union with

the south and the border is shifted

to somewhere in the Irish Sea is

unsip -- unacceptable. But so that

means that the Irish border issue

remained unresolved. One part of the

solution would be as the opposition

suggested to negotiate a new customs

union. It would ensure goods could

still be traded with the EU

tariff-free. The exact terms of such

a union would of course have to be

negotiated. But it represents a

pragmatic proposals, reflecting

current arrangements which has been

welcomed by trade unions and

businesses, including the

manufacturers organisation and the

CBI. A new union would not prevent

the UK from trading globally or

improving our export industry. Just

as the EU customs union has not

accepted Germany making China its

largest trading partner. Germany has

exports four times more to China

than the UK. The UK would still be

able to deal in property and

businesses could export to non-EU

markets. In short there is no

question the EU could and would

increase trade inside a customs

union. As the Secretary for

international trade said in relation

to the Prime Minister's visit to

China.

A new comprehensive UK the EU

Customs Union would acquire the UK

to adopt a common tariff system with

the EU. It is true that we would not

be able to negotiate independent

third-party trade deals. But as many

honourable members have already

mentioned, we need to face some hard

facts in this area. The notion that

future free-trade agreements will

offset the inevitable economic

cost... If I can finish this

point,... To say that it is simply

not an either or question does not

get to the heart of the question

that confront us.

Wildie honourable

member confirmed that when he is

saying he wants to stay in the

Customs Union with the EU, Izzy also

able to confirm that he will

continue to comply with EU state aid

and competition law as a condition

of staying in that the Customs

Union? Because I can't find a single

example of a country that is allowed

to stay in the Customs Union while

disregarding the state aid laws.

When it comes to state aid rules, I

think the honourable lady, and I

know she has great expertise in this

area, I think she has slightly

misjudged the fact that as I

understand that it is not about

customs, it is about the elements

that make up the single market. We

have said we would see in principle

to negotiate protections,

clarifications or exemptions were

necessary. I can't imagine a

situation where those exemptions

would be necessary. As the Leader of

the Opposition said some time ago,

there is nothing in the current

state aid rules that would prevent

us from implementing our manifesto.

As Sir Martin Donnelly and many

honourable members already

mentioned, the former permanent

secretary at the Department of

International trade says it is like

giving up a three course meal for a

packet of crisps. The EU constitutes

43% of exports and 53% of imports.

It must be our priority. Increases

to trade for a new free treat --

free-trade agreements with USA,

Canada, New Zealand and Australia

would... I will make some progress.

FTAs with the brick countries would

be worth just over 2%. Any such

trade deals, even if they were

secured in a reasonably quick time

frame, would in all likelihood

entailed detrimental trade-offs that

the British public would rightly

take issue with.

On the point about

regulation, the government analysis

paper outlines opportunities from

Brexit. It says that across

Whitehall they are working on these

opportunities. Does he not agree

this is a code for deregulation? The

Secretary of State cannot give us

any clarification on the

Environmental Protection Agency.

I

thank my honourable friend for that

intervention. That is certainly the

fear. I read the same analysis. I

had to surrender my phone to do so

and I found out it was released

publicly a week later. On -- there

are opportunities to deregulate.

Perhaps the Minister can tell us why

they are being the model of what

they might refer to? One only has to

listen to the noises coming from the

US government on issues ranging from

the replacement of the open skies

treaty to the inclusion of any

agriculture in any FTA to get an

indication of how difficult things

could be. That is irrespective of

who occupies the White House. The

prospect of new free-trade

agreements may give the

international trade Secretary

purpose but they would be good for

little else.

I want to go back to

the comments he has made about Sir

Martin Donnelly, who I worked with.

A civil servant of extreme mobility

and wisdom. But I think that when he

makes a reference to the bank would

first is the packet of crisps and

knowledge of what he's looking at to

a certain extent are some of the

gravity models used by the Treasury,

where they are looking at the simple

mathematical trade-off between

tariffs with EU and elsewhere. What

is missed in all of this debate is

the ability the UK confine itself at

the centre of a network of trade

deals. For example, a US

manufacturer needs to see the

advantage of moving their

manufacturing operations to the UK

to take advantage of UK Indian trade

deal, for example, where the trade

is better. That is the unknown that

we are struggling to analyse in

order to be able to get the true

comparison between one type of

relationship and the other.

I simply

don't think that stacks up. I

listened to Sir Martin's comments

very carefully. If the honourable

gentleman wants to make a longer

speech, I would be very interested

to hear the point he might make. I

am going to make some progress

because there are a lot of people

who want to come in. A sensible,

pragmatic government focused on the

economic welfare of the country

would consider the option of a new

comprehensive customs union along

the lines they -- over suggested. So

would any government committed, as

this government is, to the avoidance

of a hard border on the island of

Ireland, including physical

infrastructure or related checks and

controls. A border that is

frictionless. Not as frictionless as

possible. A border that has checks,

even, and I quote, very minimal

checks, as the Foreign Secretary

suggested to a business audience

last week, is still a border that

would require some kind of

infrastructure and patrols. A

version of the Canada US border, as

the Prime Minister suggested was

being explored, is simply not good

enough. The threat such an outcome

would pose to the economy and

politics of Ireland, as well as the

daily lives of citizens, are obvious

to both members -- members of this

House. We recognise a new

comprehensive customs union in

itself is not a complete solution to

the Irish border issue. To obviate

the need for physical infrastructure

on and checks on the border, and

uphold the Good Friday Agreement in

its entirety on all three stands,

would be required. That alignment

will of course have to be maintained

over time as EU legislation evolved.

That is one of the reasons why we

need to secure a new agreement that

gives us the closest possible

relationship with the single market.

Full access to European single

market -- European markets. No drop

in the standard protections. And no

prospect of falling behind them in

the future. Recognising that our

future economic relationship depends

on a level playing field and the

same standards that business wants.

But when it comes to goods, a

conversation with EU 27 about full

regulatory alignment, and the

institutional mechanisms that may be

required to facilitate them, is not

possible when the government have

ruled out membership of any customs

union. The idea that a comprehensive

system of bejewelled recognition,

something that even EU member states

do not even expect to each other, is

mistaken. There is no solution to

the Irish border issue that does not

involve some kind of customs union.

That is what the government must

reconsider its redline in this area.

If it doesn't, it is difficult to

see what the government's solution

to the Irish border issue, or indeed

the issue of customs at Dover, might

be. This matters, Madam Deputy

Speaker, because while the

government may be able to find some

of the difficult decisions for now,

the issue of the Irish border cannot

be forged. I am coming to a close.

The draft withdrawal agreement

merely needs to include a political

declaration on the future

relationship. That is all. The

details to be hammered out after the

UK has left the EU. The Irish border

issue is an integral part of the

withdrawal agreement. Without a

solution to it, it is difficult to

imagine how the government secures a

transition period or an orderly

exit. Thank you, Madam Debord is

bigger.

We now have a time limit of

eight minutes. I am very pleased to

speaking today's debate.

I will

focus specifically on the pension

asset management and long-term

savings industry. 24% of people

employed in the UK in the insurance

sector work in Scotland. Many of my

constituency. These industries want

a deal. No deal means banks,

insurance companies and phone

providers could not provide services

across the UK. Contracts for

derivatives would become

unenforceable. They could lose their

licence to do insurance.

Cross-border pension payments from

the UK into the EU and vice versa

could not be paid. It would defy

common sense not to have a Brexit

deal and financial services when the

insurance and savings sectors are so

closely allied and trading services

are vital to both parties. The UK

asset management industry is the

second-largest the world,

managing... Investment funds used by

pension providers are set up under

Irish law and other EU

jurisdictions. That is over 600

billion euros by UK managers in

Ireland on behalf of UK investors.

In no deal Brexit is unacceptable.

The penchant and lifetime savings

Association was more blunt when it

said WTO would cause major

disruption. On no account could be

pension fund industry support a

regime based on WTO rules. It would

because economic harm, regulatory

barriers and undermine pension

support services. That is why the

industry welcomed the Lancaster

House speech. If we leave the single

market, passporting, a central

pillar, will end. There are

currently 336,421 passport held by

UK firms. Many hold multiple

passports from multiple states.

Recently published figures suggests

the UK insurance figure takes £14

billion of this each year. We need

to start talking about arrangements

with a transitional period for times

to adapt. Primary risk for

institutions... No equivalence

decision has been issued in time. It

will also affect elements of

financial services' infrastructure,

such as access to clearing spaces or

the provision of services to

clients. That must be a priority. At

the end of the day if we want to

remain and enhance this country's

position as a leading global

financial centre, we will need to

regulate it in accordance with the

highest global standards. That is

important not just for UK firms were

third country institutions such as

the US to Hong Kong which cannot

make use of the system and must

establish unauthorised presence in

an EU state. For this reason, many

countries have chosen to base

themselves in London through a UK

subsidiary. We want them to be able

to continue to do so. We also need

to agree success of arrangements for

passporting. Third country

recognition is absolutely vital in

the process for this needs to be

sorted out long before we have left.

A bespoke mutual recognition

agreement which would allow UK

entities to continue to fulfil roles

would be necessary. In terms of

pension schemes themselves, these

are subject to EU legislation as

institutional investors affected by

market regulations, and very

significantly, directly under the

onward placed pension scheme. During

the negotiation of UK were

successful in warding of the threat

of a regime for pensions, which

could have resulted in the bill for

British business up to 650 billion

euros. This remains on the agenda

for the EU pensions regulator

anybody. Everybody knows I would

like the best possible access but...

The worst-case scenario would be for

pension schemes to find themselves

outside of the EU... More broadly, a

good trade deal is vital to the

pensions industry because of its

significance to employers. A bad

Brexit will have huge detrimental

impact to these centres and put

pressures on employers' ability to

fund schemes. Pension schemes need

full access to the global market. So

they can manage their risks. We need

the UK financial services industry

to remain strong and vibrant as it

is today. I have spoken in recent

debates at Westminster Hall. I will

not repeat what I said. I do still

running of the view that the EU

referendum result was decisive was

not overwhelming. I want a Chris

Doak deal. -- a bespoke deal. If we

need a plan B it cannot be to crash

out on WTO terms. I believe the

Prime Minister should have the

maximum flexibility. She needs to do

the right deal and not be hemmed in

by individuals and groups.

Are they dancing in Clarkston at the

thought of Britain leaving the EU,

no. But they are not taking to their

beds. They need practical solutions

to be put forward. Pragmatism is

needed. This is a negotiation, but I

hope the EU will engage the

suggestions and we can at last move

forward at pace.

I'm glad the House

is much better behaved today than

yesterday, we are being observed

this afternoon by our colleagues and

friends from the Parliament of

Afghanistan, who I'm delighted to

welcome to Westminster and I hope

that they will find our

deliberations about Europe

inlightening. -- enlightening.

Thank

you. I would like to add our welcome

to our colleague and friends from

Afghanistan as well. I will reflect

that we have another European union

debate and I hop you don't mind me

saying I was elected almost three

years ago and after being appointed

Europe spokesman, the referendum

bill came through. So it has

dominated by time here. But that is

because it is important. Actually

almost three years on, I think it is

fairly safe to say that things are

not going terribly well for the

Government. The EU has brought us a

huge number of benefits and I'm

somebody who has enjoyed some of

those benefits to education and the

abscess from education, regardless

of background and financial means

from freedom of movement which we

benefit from terms of being able to

work and live throughout the EU and

our economy benefit, because of

benefits of people coming to the

United Kingdom to live and work as

well. The member for East

Renfrewshire was right in his speech

to highlight some of the

difficulties that financial services

face in his constituency with this.

Actually, this is something I'm

approached about regularly in my own

constituency. Issues where we still

don't have an answer on areas such

as seasonal workers and the food and

drink industry that relies on

seasonal workers and from freedom of

movement. We have had no clear

answers from the Government. This is

important now, because what we are

seeing is with some farmers have

told me a decline in seasonal

workers. What does it mean for crops

planted in advance for the following

years. Many of which need to be

taken by hand. Business decisions

need to be made now for after we

have left the EU. And there is

precious little certainty, precious

little decision-making about what is

going to happen after 29th March

next year. Crucially, in the harvest

period after that as well. There is

the tourist sector that relies on

those seasonal workers and on

freedom of movement. Higher

education and research and we must

reflect on the fact that our centres

of education rely on the excellence

it has brought by being able to tap

into a pool and to be able to tap

into freedom of movement and the

benefits that brings, as well as the

benefits brought by horizon 2020 and

the other means that are so

important. The biggest employer in

my constituency is the University of

St Andrews. A great deal of people

work at universities in the area. It

is a big industry. It is a big

employer. Actually, not only is

this, are these jobs at the moment

and that is important, not only are

they learning establishments where

young people and mature students can

grow and improve our economy, but it

is somewhere that benefits us in the

years to come as we get those break

throughs on issues like dementia,

dyslexia and helping children have a

better educational experience

through research done. I will give

way.

I'm grateful. Does he agree

that it is extraordinary to see a

Government so proudly leading the

country into a situation where we

are all going to be so much poorer

and poorer not just economically,

but in the terms he is describing,

in terms of richness of the

relationship we have with other

countries in research and elsewhere

is important and it will be the

young people, it is their futures

that are being closed down in the

most unforgiveable way.

As usual the

members makes an excellent and power

point and the benches opposite would

do well to listen to. The benches

beside her would do well to listen

to her. She makes a good point. I

want to touch upon that point and

the finances which she brought up.

Before I do, I want to talk about

the broader impact on public

services. On areas like access to

the single market which is so

important in term of decreasing red

tape. We hear a lot about red tape.

But a bg access to the single market

has reduced red tape. The impact on

services. Think about our doctors

and nurses who come from throughout

the EU. Dentists as well. It can

difficult to get a dentist. There is

one in Glenrothes made up of EU

nationals. The European Medicines

Agency which is based in London and

will be taken away and take jobs

with it. That is also important.

What about cash for public services.

The honourable lady raised. Now,

right now the UK Government is

talking of finding common ground

between the UK and the Scottish

Government. There is within area

where there is common ground and the

minister's right to look up at that

point. But that is in point that the

Scottish Government and the UK

Government agree in their analysis

that this will be devastating for

the economies of both Scotland and

the United Kingdom. The Scottish

Government figures and we were told

that the Scottish Government figures

were not right until the UK

Government figures agreed with the

Scottish figures. For every 1% hit

on our GDP will be devastating in

every scenario that has been set

out. It has been put that every 1%

reduction in GDP could hit tax by 8

billion. That doesn't even start to

address the amount of money that we

are having to shell out just to

leave the EU and reports of 40

billion pounds and the Chancellor

preparing to leave the EU with

initial costs of three billion

pounds. Now, the financial times

estimate Brexit is costing us a lot.

Now if you have less money in GDP

and less in the tax take, you have

less money to spend on public

services. That is a basic. Now, in

Scotland at the moment and there are

legitimate points on this, the

Scottish Government has made changes

in tax where the majority are no

worse off or better off, but there

are changes in tax that will raise

an additional 164 million. I think

that is welcome. Because that is

only a drop in the ocean of the

amount of money that we will need to

try and save our public services

from the hits that are coming their

way and I would be delighted to hear

if anybody can tell me how they're

going to plug the gap in public

services. Would anybody like to

offer an intervention? I didn't

think so. Well go on.

I'm grateful

to the member. The whole premise of

what he is saying is based on

figures which do not take into

account at all what the Prime

Minister has set out to achieve,

which is a special and deep

partnership with the EU. The figures

you quote are the same figures that

members campaigned on in the

referendum and when you predicted

there would be recession and the

economy would fall off a cliff. You

were false prophets then and are

now.

Can I salute the member's

courage in bringing that up. I

salute his courage, but I'm using

his own Government's figures and I'm

using his own Government's figures

and I would like to make progress. I

would like to make progress. I will

come to the the honourable lady as

well. I'm using his own Government's

figures. And I think we need to have

a real and proper debate about how

we plug the gap in tax and how we

plug that gap in GDP. I will give

way.

Thank you. He has gone law

methodical process of working out

the effect of GDP on Brexit. Has he

worked out the effect of an empty

Tory slogan?

Well we have worked the

impact on the NHS, on education and

that will be devastating to our

public services, because of these

empty promises that were made that

each of us will pay for and I will

make a bit of progress. Another

issue and there are issues around

tax raised and GDP that we must

wrestle with in a serious manner.

Offering some suggestions. But right

now, the Government is not handling

some of the big issues. Time that

has been taken up with this issue is

strangling political debate as well.

The strikes in our Universities now

is a crucial issue for all parties.

The strikes in universities is

something we must take seriously.

Yet it is something as we look for a

fair solution to that and I will

make this point before I come to the

the honourable lady, that cannot be

a priority, because this Government

is so consumed by Brexit and what is

going on with leaving the EU that

other issues simply get ignored and

it strangles that proper and serious

debate. I will give way.

I'm

grateful. I didn't want the

impression to be given to the House

that the recent figures published by

the... Brexit committee were the

same as the figures that were used

pre-referendum. Two totally

different economic models were used

and it would be wrong for the record

in this House to suggest that the

figures used before the referendum

were the same as the once after.

Thank you. The honourable lady once

again and I know the differences I

sometimes have with her, but she

makes an honest point and I note the

correction from the members from her

benches who have been avoiding the

figures from her own government. The

member for Greenwich and I welcome

his remarks, I hope he will go to

the next step on the the single

market. I note his remarks on

Northern Ireland and I am grateful

for those. Because Northern Ireland

is one area that has been

overlooked. The danger to the peace

process is not something what any of

us should take lightly, regardless

of views different members have and

is something that we have to take

seriously. I know colleagues and my

honourable friends will talk about

the continuity bill in Holyrood. But

this is in Holyrood we find the

Conservatives utterly isolated in

their latest power-grab. When

challenged on this, they say that we

have to choose between the UK and

the EU. That is nonsense and

highlights the isolationism that is

at the heart of many of the members

opposite who reach out for this

ourselves alone approach. To in

conclusion we to look at where we

can make progress. There is one

silver lining and I pay credit to

members, I think in my short

experience I have seen members from

across this House seeking to work

together better than they have done

before and I know that where members

are trying it is not always easy to

put their differences aside and find

a way through this and I pay due and

I salute a number of members who

have been able to do this. If I

offer my own suggestion, which is

Scotland voted to remain part of EU.

And I note that is something that

has been noted by members in the

House and by members of Parliament

from across the European Union. What

I would suggested is bridges need to

be built with our European partners,

this has been a shock to the system

and that is important. We need to

build our economic ties. We would

like to see sup -- support for

immigration. But I think Scotland

stands ready to try and rebuild

ties. Our economic ties with the

rest of the United Kingdom are

important, but they're important

with the single market and the rest

of the EU. I would appeal to members

look look at your own figures and

the damage that has been done, reach

ouft to the devolved administrations

and other governments. This will hit

our public services and when you see

people switching off this debate,

they will not switch off when it

comes to a hit to the NHS and in

term of personnel and cash. A hit to

education and to other services as

well. We have devolution in the

United Kingdom, we should use it.

As the member of the Glasgow Central

pointed out earlier, it is

international ask a question day. My

question to the government is, do

you know what you are doing, and our

yorker of the devastating damage you

are doing?

-- are you aware.

I welcome the

opportunity to speak. I would like

to start by responding to the

honourable member who mentioned that

62% of the people in Scotland voted

to remain in the EU. What they

ordered her was for the UK to remain

in the EU. They did not vote for an

independent Scotland to remain in

the EU. As I said before, a majority

in my constituency out act --

actually did vote for the UK to

leave the European Union, based on

research conducted by the University

of East Anglia. It found 54% of

voters voted Leave in my

constituency. This should come as no

surprise when you consider my

constituency is home to fishing

communities and active ports. Around

50 per -- 54% of fisheries coming

through my constituency. 92% of

British fishermen planned to vote

leave. 68% of that sample was made

of Scottish fishermen. Fishing

communities in the UK have suffered

for decades under the Common

fisheries policy. This is an

historic run which would be put

right. We owe that to all fishing

communities. When we leave the EU,

we leave the common fisheries policy

and the common independent coastal

state. We must not weaken our hand

in the future by bargaining away

access to our exclusive economic

zone as part of a long term trade

deal with the EU. When it comes to

reciprocal access, compared to the

100,000 tonnes of fish brought into

EU waters by UK bus. British

fishermen catch only 40% of fish.

Compare that with 84% by Norwegian

vessels in their waters and

Icelandic vessels catch 95%. It is

not just the fishermen who wanted to

leave the EU. A survey of Scottish

farmers found that two thirds third

World Italy. The National Farmers'

Union of Scotland believe the result

may have been closer to 50-50. A

great many Scottish farmers will be

glad to see the back of the EU and

the the Common Agricultural Policy.

A policy which was designed to work

in a common way from the Arctic

Circle in the north to the

Mediterranean lead to an

overcomplicated, bureaucratic, one