Live Brexit Strategy Statement Questions and Statements

raise this with the Minister then. The secretary of state for exiting

the European Union, secretary David Davis. With permission I wish to

make a statement on the Government plans to exit the European Union.

Today we are publishing a government white paper on the exit and a new

partnership with the European Union. The Government has made clear it

will honour the choice made by the people of the United Kingdom. On the

23rd of June 2016, the United Kingdom will leave the European

Union. Note that is wrong. By April of, on the 23rd of June 2016 the

people voted for the leave of the European Union. This house... We

have two years of this to go don't worry.

LAUGHING This house is currently considering

a straightforward bill which would give the Prime Minister at the

authority to trigger article 50 of the European Union to begin the

negotiations of our exit. It is not a bill about whether or not we leave

the EU or if we do so but about implementing a decision taken of the

UK. We always have said we would eat out these aims and seek to build a

national consensus were possible. This paper sets those aims and the

thinking behind it. It confirms the Prime Minister's vision of a truly

global UK and Anna Bush 's future relationship with the European

Union. This is based on the 12 principles which will guide the

governments. Taking control of our own laws and statue book.

Maintaining the Common travel area. And the rights of UK nationals

living in the European Union. Protecting and enhancing existing

workers' rights and ensuring free trade with European markets was

forging a new strategic partnership with the European Union including a

bold and ambitious agreement and a beneficial customs agreement.

Forging free trade agreements with others across the world. Ensuring

the United Kingdom is the best place and cooperating against crime and

terrorism and finally delivering a smooth and orderly exit from the

European Union. These amount to one goal, a new positive and

constructive partnership with Britain and the European Union that

works in our mutual interest. All of them are qubits lets me highlight

some specific issues its reiterate our firm view that it is in the UK

interest for the European Union to succeed politically and

economically. That cannot be said to firmly. We want the EU to succeed

politically and economically. We want to work to an outcome for our

mutual benefit, we recognise the European union has principles for

freedom so United Kingdom will leave the single market, instead we seek a

new strategic partnership including a bold and ambitious free trade

agreement and a mutually and vicious trade agreements that insurers

free-trade and services as much as possible. That'll be to our mutual

benefit. As the white paper notes, we export billions of goods to the

EU while import billions from the EU every year. It also sets out how

after we leave the UK will look to increase its trade with the

fastest-growing export markets in the world. It cannot sign a new

trade deals were being a Member, we are preparing the ground freight

which means updating membership of the WTO. Modern free-trade

agreements are to stop disputes on both sides of the white paper

examines the precedence of this area and makes clear we will negotiate an

arrangement that respects UK sovereignty, in terms of clarity and

certainty will recognise the need to provide it wherever we can during

the period when and is inevitable. This legislation will mean the

repeal of the communities act or converting the existing EU law into

domestic law. That means the position we start from, a Common red

glittery framework is unprecedented. The negotiation will not be bringing

two divergent systems together, it is about finding the best way of the

comments to the Mac for the current system to trade with and operate in

each other's markets to continue and we leave the European Union. The

white paper also sets up that we will take control of our own laws,

to ensure that we can control the number of people coming to the

United Kingdom from the European Union. In a jurisdiction of the

European Court of Justice, the UK will come to an end. ... I have

stood at this dispatch box before and said there will be a number of

votes on policy to that earned the white paper makes clear that we will

bring forward separate legislation in areas such as customs and

immigration. Delivering smooth and mutually beneficial exits and

avoiding a disruptive cliff edge which will be the key. A

never-ending transitional status is emphatically not what we seek. But a

phase process of process of implementation of new process of

immigration controls, custom systems, the way we operate and

incorporate on civil justice matters and legal frameworks of business

will be necessary for both sides. As the white paper says, this time may

vary. One of the most important actors in Global Affairs, we will

continue to work with the European Union to preserve the security,

fight crime and terrorism and uphold justice. We must work more closely,

not less in these areas. We will continue to seek to build a national

consensus so we are talking another time to business, civil society,

public services, representatives. We have engaged the devolved

administrations and whilst part of the UK can have a veto, we are

determined to live an outcome which delivers for the whole of the

country. We continue to analyse the outcome of Brexit to shape our

negotiating position and to conclude, the referendum result was

not a vote to turn our back on Europe but was a vote of confidence

in the UK's ability to succeed in the world that our best days are

still to come, whatever the outcome of the negotiation we seek a more

outward looking and ferry UK that works for everyone. The white paper

is available on the Government website.

Mr Speaker, Norman Underwood thank the secretary of state that the

statements is nothing. A week ago the Prime Minister said there would

be a white paper, yesterday she said there would be a white paper

tomorrow and the white paper has not been delivered until four minutes

ago so we can meaningfully ask questions. For months we have been

calling for a plan. That was refused on the basis they would not be a

running commentary. Then the government agreed a plan but

delivered a speech. Then they were forced to concede under pressure

there would be a white paper. No white paper produced too late in the

day for us to ask meaningful questions here. That is completely

unacceptable. And the first fight about Brexit is great player, it is

a fight about giving this house a meaningful role in holding the

government to account. The government has been forced by the

supreme court to involve parliament at all, it has been forced to

produce a white paper and to concede a final vote. Before Christmas the

Secretary of State refused to confirm there would be a vote in

this house at the end of this exercise. The decision to leave was

taken on June 23 but what matters now is the terms agreed under

article 50 and the nature and extent of our new relationship with the EU.

The Prime Minister adopted a risky approach, with gaps and

inconsistencies and an unacceptable fallback position. We need time to

debate this white paper properly and we need a vote on its content. And

on the question of vote, flicking through the white paper IC at

paragraph 1.12 is all that is said is that the final deal that is

agreed will be put to a vote in both houses. We have amendments down next

week seeking a meaningful vote. A vote in this house before a vote is

taken in the European Parliament otherwise all honourable members

will have to watch on their screens as the European Parliament debates

are deal before we get to express any views on it. That is completely

unacceptable and is demeaning of this house. Finally Mr Speaker I

note there is nothing that progress is the position of EU nationals in

this country. We have been calling for unilateral action to be taken

before article 50 is triggered and yet the white paper disappoints on

that front. Let me start with the purpose of the white paper, that is

to inform all the debates, not just today, in the coming two years. The

shadow Brexit spokesman is exactly right, what matters above all else,

not the Labour Party or whatever, what matters are the terms we get

for this negotiation. That is about the future of Britain, that is what

this has should care about, first and foremost. Secondly he talks

about the meaningful vote, I have not yet understood that. I have

voted thousands of times in this house and I have never yet voted on

something I considered not meaningful. Every vote in this house

is meaningful. And there will be a meaningful vote at the end, he makes

much of the time it took. I was saying for a long time to the select

committee that it was inconceivable, the words are used, that we would

not have a meaningful vote at the end of this process. His last point

on the care of EU nationals, I also make you have got a track record of

defending the interests of people who are under pressure and indeed

the last thing pretty much the leader of his party did was go with

me to Washington to get lost grip out of Guantanamo Bay. I am not

going to throw people out of Britain and for him to suggest that is

outrageous. But let me say this, the European Union nationals I want to

see you have all the rights they currently have. But I also would sue

British citizens have their rights. And we owe a moral responsibility

and moral dared to EU nationals but also a moral and legal threats to

citizens of Britain abroad and we will protest vote. -- I will see. Mr

Speaker, I deeply welcome my right on and friend's statement and also

the white paper which is most emphatically in our national

interest. Tomorrow the heads of government of the 27 other member

state will convene in Malta and they propose to make a declaration about

their vision for the future of Europe. President task's letter of

January 31 is not bode well. Will my right honourable friend encourage

the 27 -- President Tusk. By promoting ever closer and more

centralised political union they are creating the very circumstances

which they claim they want to avoid and they are depriving themselves of

the trust of the other citizens who they claim to represent? The

effectively going in the wrong direction. Boyce my right honourable

friend is labelled this issue for 20 years at least, and he has always

said and honourable, straightforward and insightful view of the EU. On

what we have said is that we are going to be full members until the

moment we leave that means responsible members until the moment

we leave. That means we will exercise our influence on what we

think is the best interest of the EU until the moment we leave. Because

we want to see a European Union strong, stable and effective. In

this time of difficult international relations we need them as an anchor

and that is what we will pursue. I thank the Minister for his

statement. He is not a man of few words but I a man of few meaningful

words. This is just another panicked U-turn. It is not much of an

achievement to be the second most chaotic party in this chamber when

it comes to matters of Europe. They have only had seven months to pull

it together and yet we only read it one minute before the minister got

on his feet. The secretary of state is more experience than me, but it

is very striking we get a white paper after the second reading and

two sitting days before the committee stage. We got this before

he got on his feet. The latter respect to Parliament we need to

question him on it but I find it an astonishing disrespect to Parliament

and one that the secretary of state would not put up with were he not on

the front page. But what I find surprising is what are they afraid

of? They do not want to give us the opportunity for scrutiny, they do

not have the courage of their convictions. Maybe Mr Speaker the

Secretary of State will tell us that since Scotland voted to remain, is

the red, white and blue Brexit, civil servants having to pull

together their approach and the secretary of state has said that

legislators will face the Mexican changes to the statement. Does that

mean that a legislative consent motion will now be required but not

-- significant changes. This is a mess and it is going to have an

impact on each and every one of us and people deserve better. Let me

start by saying that we have been in the EU for 40 years, this is that

reversing, not reversing but amending and dealing with 40 years

of accumulated policy and law. As for the second reading, he is

talking about the second reading of a bill to trigger the process, to do

no more than put into effect the British people's decision of June

last year. So I cannot see how he thinks that the white paper being

after the second reading is problematic at all. There will be

any number, any number of occurrences in this house when the

50 odd SNP members will have a chance to hold the government to

account, to make their views known on policy, to put the interests of

Scotland forward, whether it is with the great repeal Bill or other

legislation that follows from that. I do not think he can complain about

matters of democracy in this respect. Whatever his extensive

interest in the statement which I'm keen to come, that, to do so will

require relative from back and front benches alike, especially in light

of the subsequent business, which is very well subscribed and to which I

have to have regard. If we could have short questions and answers

that would help. Can I ask first of all commend the paper to my right

honourable friend. The complaints about it not being detailed enough

on about it only coming at the last moment are of course nonsense. The

Prime Minister set out most of the elements of this in her 12 point

speech so those who missed that need to go back and see that reflected in

this comment. But can I ask my right honourable friend the key concern in

areas like academia and the high added value low-volume areas are

that they get a much earlier statement about how flexible the

kind of permit system would be and I wonder if my right honourable friend

would take it a little further and say that these errors themselves

will see next to no change. It is below value and high-volume areas

that we need to control? If you were not here at the start you should not

be standing, that is an established part of proceedings. My right

honourable friend is another member of this house who has spent a long

time on this issue. The issue of migration is my job as it were to

bring the decision back to this house. It is not my job to make the

decisions thereafter but what is clear to me is that the policies of

controlling migration after our exit would be ones designed to further

our national interest. Britain is a science superpower, Britain is a

leading scientific centre in Europe and as a result we will want to

encourage petition for talent. In finance, and in engineering and

medicine, all the areas where there are skills that are at a premium we

will want to encourage the attraction of those people. So we do

not expect a policy to have any deleterious effect on industry at

all. The Secretary of State said we would have meaningful votes on a

whole range of things. How can it be that paragraph 8.43 commits us to

leaving the customs union, which will have a devastating effect on

manufacturing without any analysis or impact assessment? There has been

considerable analysis of this. They we just finished the point. The

point that is made in the policy paper is that we want to have the

customs grimmer. That will impinge directly as a result of the free

trade area and if we are successful in the free trade agreement and get

low or near zero tariffs, we should succeed in getting the customs

agreement which reflect that and makes it very straightforward to

continue trading. Can I say that I think we would be wise to get to the

end of the negotiations before we draw conclusions on what we have

come to. That would be the meaningful way, those who use the

word meaningful for times and speech are being rather meaningless. The

key point is that what we're after is what in these circumstances the

EU members will be after, which are arranged with that before then,

before us and before world. Here's exactly right and that is the aim of

our policy. He is right also that and be entered the house will be

able to hold the government to account and make the meaningful

decision about the policy. That will not be the only element, there will

be many points along the way that will debate everything from customs

grimaced through to immigration and other policies which arise out of

this process. And the house will be very, very much in control. My

honourable friend for Cockburn and St Pancras in the 60 seconds he had

to look through the white paper was spot on to zone in on the

obfuscation on page 11 about the lack of a meaningful vote for

Parliament at the end of the process. There is no point in having

a vote after he's already signed off with the EU, treating Parliament as

some sort of afterthought. So can he rule out now the government showing

such contempt for Parliament? This is now my sixth statement to this

house in less than six months. Let me finish. The house will have the

opportunity to vote on any number of pieces of legislation before we get

there and it'll have the vote at the end to decide whether or not it's

acceptable. On page 49 of the white paper, the

Government says we have an open mind on how we implement the new

arrangements with the European Union. For the avoidance of doubt,

will the Secretary of State confirm... He will see we exclude

ourselves... Can I welcome the principles in the white paper in

particularly protecting and enhancing workers' rights, would he

confirmed during the negotiations that there is nothing to negotiate

with other EU countries on workers' rights and protection because we

will be protecting them because they are already in our law and we must

stop the people telling us that this will be threatened. She is

absolutely right. The approach of the Government is to maintain every

single piece of protection that is, which is incidentally much better

than most European countries. And also to enhance that. Can I urge the

Secretary to give priority to the matters in chapter six of the white

paper in securing the rights of EU nationals, I have in mind one of my

constituents who was in EU national and for many years she has been

receiving a treatment for cancer and she wants to know if she will

continue to have access to the NHS. It is not just residents write or

talk about but access to health care. Thank you Mr Speaker, the end

is not yet and the best is yet to be, which is what any presbyteries

on the Ulster bench will welcome. Can I say I welcome the white paper

that he has produced today and particularly the three chapters

refer to the union, strengthening the relationship with the Republic

of Ireland and the other chapter on combating terrorism. Is he familiar

with the commentary of Ray Bassett, the former Irish ambassador and

Irish diplomat who made it clear that Ireland's position should be on

forging a new relationship with the United Kingdom because the other 26

parts of the European Union don't listen to Ireland. I'm not familiar

with the commentary he talks about but I welcome his views. It has been

one of the most important part of the preparation which has been

striking the relationship with Ireland which ensures we underpin

the peace process, maintain stability, keep an open border and

so on and I think it is incumbent on us because the Irish government in

the most difficult position and that is what we are doing. The white

paper paragraph eight point 43 makes it clear that we want to leave the

customs union so we can negotiate free-trade agreements around the

world, the actual position is if we leave the customs union then we will

be bound by an external tariff unless we negotiate otherwise, is

that the correct position? And WTO rules, this is the most favoured

negotiation but you are allowed to make free-trade agreements at

whatever level you seek. One of the things we seek to do is to ensure as

many of the existing free-trade agreements carry straight over so

that will also be lower. Given the old age dependency ratio and it's

important for the public finances and the absence of any concrete

information of paragraph 5.9 of this white paper, can the Secretary of

State inform us what he anticipates the level of net migration to be

across future years? It'll be a sustainable level, that is the

policy but the point to understand here is that those decisions you

make in a year by year basis because what is no part of the policy to

make the British economy suffer, or any of the above, it is perfectly

proper that the Government should control any migration property and

not leave open ended. The solution to the problem is she cites is not

just managing the problem. When the Government says its notice on the

European Union under Article 50, will the Government take that

opportunity to frame the negotiation by making it clear that we expect to

agree the framework of our future relationship as a specifies an

article 50 otherwise we are negotiating in the dark about the

divorce arrangements and indeed I don't think the European Union will

be have a sincere cooperation. What my right honourable friend conferred

tee refers to is the need to negotiate in parallel the ongoing

departure relationship and article 50 refers to having regarding the

ongoing relationships you cannot include negotiation departure before

concluding the ongoing arrangements. I've made this point already, I

think the Prime Minister has made the point already to a number of her

opposite numbers around the European Union, this'll be the first issue

that we need to resolve at the beginning of negotiations. Will

Parliaments get a vote on the Government's intended final deal

before they deal is struck with the European Union? I suspect the final

vote here... Their ratification process is much lower than ours. I'm

extremely pleased that the white paper is being published and I would

like to say thanks to him and his team as well for listening to

honourable friends on the side of the House in our calls for a white

paper, but would heal so join in sending a message to my constituents

at their views. Willie also clarify if they will report for me back to

the House? I'm not sure what well overall friend means by former

reporter this is my sixth statement to the House, I have said at every

opportunity what is going on, there will be substantial debates policy,

there will undoubtedly be other Brexit debates, we have more plans

already there is no question that the House will not be fully

informed, this an illusion we have given them a white paper and as we

said we have given them the answer on customs union and an answer on

single markets. I don't know how much more open and Booth without

being dissected. This government seems to be in a constant state of

delayed reaction, we finally do have a paper on strengthening trade with

the world that reads the retreat, a conspicuous amount of the space is

totally blank, does that reflect the thinking on Brexit. The Government

thinking on Brexit is very clear, one of the problems is when you

disagree with it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that is the

problem the SNP have had all the way through, they don't like it. I think

it occurs in every book I own. In welcoming this white paper I hope it

heralds both unity in the party and the approach in leaving the European

Union. May I commend all members the speech of the right honourable

friend from North East Bedfordshire who yesterday spoke as the epitome

of grace. I agree with him entirely on both accounts. Does Secretary of

State except that the best way for the benefits of the common system

and framework that enable UK and EU businesses, would be to stay in a

single markets, there will need to be mechanisms to ensure UK

regulations don't diverged from EU regulations and can explain what

happens to sovereignty. The answer to the first question

is no in terms of what the best relationship, we have laid this out

in the paper and bearing in mind we are starting from a position of

identity. He makes a good point we will publish that in due course, it

is perfectly possible without reject to. Could my honourable friend

inform the House so what the House will do to ensure the Gibraltar

position and the free trade deal between passenger brothel which

could happen before we leave? My honourable friend was giving

evidence at the House of Lords on precisely this. We will protect

their interests rigorously. The Secretary of State observes that the

UK was a founding Member of the WTO but forgets that we were the driving

force behind the completion of the single market. Does he understand

how angry British businesses are that he should abandon that before

negotiations even start. There is a lot of conflation that goes on

between membership of single market and access to single markets. What

British business wanted unfettered access, what German, French and

Italian businesses want our unfettered access to our markets.

In... Almost by definition because of coming out of the union that will

happen, that is not to say we will not be making your, -- new

arrangements, will be making arrangements with very clear in our

mind to keep terrorism, crime under control but we will no doubt protect

them. The local government Association has been asking for

meetings with ministers about the impact on these processes on

councils and how more powers can be devolved yet in the speech today I

didn't a single reference to a local council and I can't see a single

reference in the white paper having read it through quickly, or the

Secretary of State now commit that the Government will have meaningful

discussions with the LPGA and commit to the principle of subsidiarity as

well. In a limited statement there is only so much you can do. The

Minister of State in the department has already met with the LGA and has

said he cancelled the local councils. I said I am willing to

meet the mayors in the next round of elections so we're not putting the

regions to one side, the very first meeting I heard after became

secretary of state was in Blackburn talking to people in Lancashire.

Thank you Mr Speaker. There are three British ambassadors in

Brussels, can I ask my right honourable friend if he thinks our

ambassador to the European Union will have his staff enhanced or

indeed might he be scrapped after we leave the European Union? I assume

he is talking about the upper ambassador and has 120 brilliant

staff who will work for me. I don't know what the arrangements will be,

what he refers to is an ambassador to Belgium, the Nato I assume and to

our crab, the UK representation. We will undoubtedly have close

relationships with the European Union and thereafter so it will be a

pretty sizeable embassy I would think that it's won't be what it is

now. Our current membership of the single market is governed by the EEA

agreement and a note is the Government contention we are a

Member by virtue, that may may not prove to be the case but can the

Secretary of State be clear about the implications of our own domestic

legislation in this regard, specifically the act of 1993, is the

Government going to repeal it, if so when and will we get a vote? The EEA

as it stands, once we are outside the European Union, whether we

automatically cease to be a Member or not, as far as I'm concerned, it

becomes an illegal empty vessel so we will look at that and if we do

propose to withdraw will come back to the House.

When European subjects have come to my surgery about their rights they

have left an agreement that those rights must go hand-in-hand with

UK's subjects living in their own countries. I hope he's got the

message. I've got the message and so, incidentally, have the leaders

of most of the countries. They also understand we have to protect

British rights at the same time as we protect their citizens' rights.

There is no question this is going to happen, it is a question of when

and we are doing it as quickly as possible. We welcome the White Paper

today and links with Ireland and trade and security and the wish for

unfettered access. At the Northern Ireland affairs committee this week

a custom specialist said the Irish for trading in goods would have to

have board appoints either between Northern Ireland and Ireland, or

much worse between Scotland and England and the island of Ireland.

With the Minister guarantee we will not have hard borders of that type?

We will not have hard borders. Two different levels, first the Common

Travel Area exists already and has existed since 1923. In that respect

nothing will change. In terms of goods there will be the softest and

most invisible and frictionless border we can find. There is lots of

technology these days ranging from a NPR ranging through to tagging of

containers and trusted trade arrangements across borders, these

things operate in Norway and Sweden, the US and Canada and so on,

countries with very amicable relationships and open borders and

we will do the same with Ireland. Doctor Andrew Mieres and. I thank

the Secretary of State, the Venn diagram on page 48 is particularly

insightful. People will know the European Union has concluded that

stomach pathetically small numbers of free-trade agreements with other

countries but there are some. Will he confirm there will either be a

continuity arrangement with those countries on Brexit, or that that

agreement will be the basis for an accelerated relationship with those

very few countries? Yes, my Right Honourable friend, the Secretary of

State for International Trade, has already been in touch with the most

important ones, South Korea and others like that, and they seem very

keen, both to maintain as it were grandfather rights, but also to

improve on the deal and make it very much more tailored and specific to

both our interests. Mr Speaker, I wanted to ask the question about the

so-called Great Repeal Bill. The White Paper says it will preserve EU

law which stands at the moment that we leave the European Union but goes

on to say it foresees two pieces of primary legislation being brought

forward. Then it goes on to say: they will be a problem with

secondary legislation of the great repeal Bill, deficiencies. What

deficiencies does he have in mind? Because the Great Repeal Bill will

pass through in its official wording it were referred to Europe

institutions or British institutions where necessary also it may refer

to, for example, local government has to publish its procurement

contracts in the European Journal. That would no longer be appropriate.

Not on the government website and so on. It's that sort of concern we

principally aimed the secondary legislation at. The major areas of

policy change will be primarily in primary legislation and that's why

we cited both examples. I welcome my Right Honourable friend's

constructive approach and in that light could I draw his attention to

a report by the European Parliament, highlighting Europeans' reliance,

and urged negotiators to approach it in a constructive fashion. We intend

to do so and it's in the interest of ourselves and European Union we do

so. We don't want anything which causes instability in the Eurozone

anymore that anything that damages the city. Margaret Ferrier.

Remarkably the White Paper does not contain a single reference to

Eurojust or any real indication of our future cooperation with the EU

on criminal justice matters. It begs the question if something is so

significant has been omitted what else is missing? Never mind a White

Paper, this is a lightweight paper. She worked very hard to get her

sound bite out. There is a whole section on justice and home affairs

and we have made it very plain, over and over again, that we intend to

maintain close Corporation, I even said in my statement at the

beginning, closer cooperation with Europe, not less cooperation with

Europe on matters of security and crime and intelligence. Understand

that Europe has a great deal to gain from this. We are the intelligence

superpower in Europe, we have the most powerful intelligence agencies,

and therefore in things like crime and terrorism we are very important

to them, as we think they are to us too. Glyn Davies. Thank you, Mr

Speaker, my hearing is a bit defective. There has already been

significant discussion between the Prime Minister and Welsh government

following the referendum last June. And discussion within the Welsh

Parliament. I welcome this. In the interests of UK unity wells's

interests must be taken into account, including discussion of

this White Paper -- Wales's interests. Can you guarantee the

involvement of Wales and continued to feature in our discussions,

accepting that there can be no veto? He is absolutely right and that has

been the approach we have taken. We have had a number of meetings of the

joint Mysterio committee, two shared. Mike Cherry by the Prime

Minister and three of them by me -- joint ministerial committee. We have

been to Wales to see the Welsh government and talk about some of

these issues. My Right Honourable friend is appearing before the Welsh

Parliament, Welsh committee, sorry, on the 14th. We are taking the

interests of Wales extremely seriously. We will operate this

negotiation so that no part of the United Kingdom loses. That's the

aim. Madeleine Moon. If we are leaving the Single Market and

Customs union, can the Secretary of State guarantee that my workers who

make the steel for Nissan cars, two thirds of which are exported to the

European Union, will have tariff free access to the European Union

markets, or is it only promise to negotiate and seek? If she reads the

White Paper she will see it lays out the European export of goods and

services is 290 billion and hours to them is 230 billion so they clearly

have a strong interest from as we do, in a tariff free goods access.

For them goods are a much bigger part of it as well. This disparity

is over 60 billion. There is every reason to expect we will succeed in

what we want to do which is to protect jobs. Martin Vickers. My

Right Honourable friend will recall last week at promised questions I

asked about the seed sector that sector will be pleased with the

comment in paragraph 8:1.6 giving full support but he will also be

aware of the long-standing grievance of the fishing communities

up-and-down the country following their sell-out in the original

negotiations. Can he reiterate once again that that will not occur on

this occasion? Yes. Martin Docherty-Hughes. Thank you, Mr

Speaker. The Secretary of State makes much of the process and joked

that we might be at this for another two years, yet in that time the

unelected and unaccountable House of Lords will have more influence on

the implementation of the White Paper and the negotiations in

relationships we must forge for trade agreements than the

governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. How does that

strengthen the union? It's simply not the case. As I just said to my

honourable friend, we have regular monthly meetings with the Scottish

Government, the Welsh government, the Northern Irish executive when

they are in play and we are taking what they say very seriously. We

won't agree with everything they say, as you well know. We had the

Scottish Government's paper presented at the last meeting and

there were areas of agreement on employment protection, areas of

agreement on environmental to. There were disagreements over the concept

of a carve out of the Single Market and a discussion on the question of

how devolution will work. That is hardly not paying attention to the

Scottish Government. Mr Speaker, thank you. I welcome the White Paper

and I am glad the government has listened to members and may I say

that EU nationals play a vital part in a university's workplaces. Can I

ask the Secretary of State while I support the need for some control of

freedom of movement, will he ensure in negotiations that workers,

students, family members find that our borders remain open if they are

from the EU? After all, control does not mean arbitrary restrictions?

Absolutely, control does not mean slamming the door. As I said before,

it's in the UK interest to actually keep attracting talent, and when you

attract talent you attract their families. That goes without saying.

This is one of the things, I was asked if I could promise something

earlier to be negotiated, this is something we will decide in this

House for the first time in a couple of years' time. One crucial, I think

reasonable, question for the Secretary of State, is how does he

seek frictionless, unfettered trade with the EU continuing after we have

signed free-trade deals with other countries? Surely, Secretary of

State, the greater the divergence between ourselves and Single Market

in terms of external tariffs and standards the greater their need at

some point to impose customs duties on us. We seek to maintain some kind

of standard parity, whether it is by a measure of equivalence or whatever

depending on the product. The area where the deals outside and the

deals with the European Union conflict, if you like, is in the

area of rules of origin. We will have to have a good rules of origin

scheme, just as any other free-trade area has. For example, if you look

at the Canadian treaty it has specific rules of origin and we will

need to do the same. That is a very small burden by comparison with the

sort of things people are worrying about if we get the customs

agreement we seek. Thank you, Mr Speaker. When does my Right

Honourable thing, if ever, the European Union will issue an

equivalent White Paper setting out with equal clarity the agreed

negotiating objectives of the 27 other members? Well, his question

sort of answers itself. But I hope, I hope, once they have received the

Article 50 letter from us in April or May, in their case they will

receive it in March and respond in April.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know that today is Groundhog Day, but why are

we exiting the customs union in order to recreate the customs union?

It is to create a customs agreement, in order to enable us to develop

free-trade agreements with that huge portion of the world where there is

very fast growth and where we have a strong market presence. 40%, as much

of our trade now is with areas where we don't have

as it is with the European Union. It is a very large area and it is

growing, sometimes twice as fast, as the EU is. That's why we have to

talk about the implications of the referendum are young people. The

biggest application is the prospect of jobs in the future and many of

those will come from global markets, not just European ones. Nigel Evans.

Lots of the politicians in EU states say they are against torture but

don't they recognise the fact they are not willing to come to a deal

with him about EU citizens being allowed to stay, live and work here

and British citizens being allowed to live and stay and work in the EU

countries is a form of mental trauma and torture they are perpetrating

upon them? Will he redouble his efforts to get the deal done as

quickly as possible and make the announcement as quickly as possible.

If there is only one or two countries holding out for whatever

reason, will he be prepared to name and shame them in order that The

Citizens here can bring pressure upon them to get a deal done? I will

certainly do the first half, I will redouble my efforts, though they are

pretty intense anyway, to ensure that this happens quickly. He's

right, it's just a few, and I suspect their reasoning is the sort

of community reasoning of not starting anything before the

negotiations start and I hope that will be rapidly resolved thereafter.

Doctor Julian Lewis. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Doesn't the fact that so

many honourable members on both sides of the House who wanted us to

remain in the European Union, but nevertheless last night voted to

trigger Article 50, set a fine example that members of the

unelected upper house would do very well to follow? Mr Speaker, I am

sitting here calculating whether his question today was longer than his

speech yesterday. I think it was. Yes, I hope they pay attention.

Look, this Bill is a manifestation of the will of the people. Nearly

17.5 million people. I would expect the upper house, it has its place

and it has its rights quite properly, but I would expect the

upper house to respect that will. SPEAKER: I'm grateful to the

Secretary of State and two colleagues. We come now to the

Select Committee Statement. In a moment the chair of the public

administration and Constitutional affairs Select Committee of the

House, Mr Bernard Jenkin, will speak on his subject for up to ten minutes

during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of

his statement the chair will call members to put questions on the

subject of the statement and call Mr Jenkin to respond to these in turn.

Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be

questions and should be brief. The front bench may take part in

questioning. I call the