UK-EU Relations Committee Select Committees

Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to have you here. I will ask the first

question. First of all, welcome to your new job. You bring extensive

experience from the Foreign Office, but you have the challenge of coming

not only at a time of turbulence, but also only a few weeks before

your experienced deputy left for a new post. What have you been your

priorities in the last few months and the circumstances?

Pleased to be here, and of course, as you say, a huge privilege. It is

an honour for me to return for the fourth time. My priorities, you

allude to staffing. One important thing has been to make sure we have

our top team in place, and you will have seen that we have made two

appointments to complete our top team in recent weeks. We have

brought in Katrina Williams as the new DVR, and Simon case as DTE for

future relations with the EU and UK. That has been a priority for me, but

the priorities have been twofold. One has been a lot of ongoing

business which we need to continue to play our full part in, and that

has been taking up a lot of my time, as it quite rightly should, or

instructions from the minister and others, and also establishing

relationships around town, talking to people in the context of the

article 15 negotiations, which are imminent.

Rules taking care and attention of the continuing day to day business

and taking sure we are fully aligned for the negotiations. Are you having

the difficulties in experiencing difficulties negotiations with the

other member states throughout at the moment? Are they responsive? Are

they negative? What is your sense of the direction from the other member

states? I do not know if it is an ad vantage, -- advantage, and all

surprised to I'm fully engaged in the debates and to be honest, the

overwhelming sentiment is the position as we see it is that until

we leave the EU, we play our full part and we have the obligations and

rights of a member state and continue to exercise those. And how

do you see it? We will continue to be for members and have our rights

and obligations and fulfil those until we leave. It is a hugely

important resource for us. Are you finding the atmosphere that you

encounter when you meet them, either individually or collectively, is

reasonable? I think in the immediate wake of the to vote, there was a

sense of shock and it was clear that a lot of my counterparts had not

expected the result of that referendum were concerned. That's

changed and the atmosphere is now extremely cordial and businesslike

and the longer I am here the longer I can build relationships of my

counterparts. Interesting. Kate Green, no, sorry, Alan Brown first.

There have been other levels... Assertive is better placed and this,

but in the nature of things, there will be moves the Government

departments. As far as I've seen it, I've seen people coming and going

and I don't feel that this is unprecedented in terms of levels. We

staffed over 120 people and fully engaged all the committees and we

just completed the top team. Can you clarify how may people have left the

civil service? No. In what space of time? Since we moved into this

period following the vote. How many people have left? I'm not in a

position to answer that question today. I haven't got the

information. How many people are transferred at the departments?

Again, it is in the age of the civil service that officials will move

departments and there have been a number of movements in and out. I

have another figures. -- I have not got the start.

Clearly one would not wish her not to accept that sort of promotion. I

think this committee has already interviewed him and no doubt has

come to its own conclusions. I suppose what lies behind the

question is whether or not there has been any sense amongst those who've

been there over the last few years that they did not like the fact

there was a vote on the 23rd of June and as a result of that, they've

decided that they wanted to move on and do something else. I can

honestly say it is not something I detected in all my dealings with

officials there. It's not my impression either. It's a highly

motivated team who are committed to carrying out the business of the

Government. Thank you very much. Minister, where does the Department

have a role and whether the Foreign Office lead? The role is to support

the Prime Minister in the forthcoming negotiations. It is also

effectively taking over the function of the FCO with relations with the

European Union and in full all the functions previously fourfold.

How do you divide your time and loyalty between departments? I've

never found that to be a problem. I divide my time...

Within the context of those councils I talk to my ministers and business

across the board, but I work for HMV and it is my department at the

moment, so it is cross Government. Thank you. I would like to ask

another question about the name given to the Department. There is

this question of whether there should be a special department for

the European dimension after Brexit, in other words, whether we would

assume that when Brexit actually takes place, that you then cease to

have the same kind of relationship with Europe that we had before by a

very long way. In those circumstances, is it within the

Government's thinking at the moment that we might have a separate

department to deal with the EU as we do in one sense, or that it will

revert back to the Foreign Office? I have to say this is not a matter for

my department. The Prime Minister will be responsible for the

architecture of Government, just as she created this department, which

by the way is the Department for exiting the European Union and not

as a constituent wrote to me, congratulations on becoming a

minister of department for the exciting European Union. I'd be

overstepping the mark it all to speculate about the future

architecture of Government. Kate Green? After Brexit we will still

need to have a relationship with the EU. What is your vision for

post-Brexit? How will the relationship be managed? After we've

left, there will be a need for a strong British presence in Brussels.

And therefore there may not be bad department, but I love a lot British

representation. Do you envisage a larger team than its present at the

moment? That is a matter for the future and much depends upon how the

negotiations ultimately pan out and our continued relationship with the

EU. I think that's right, and would be interested to know what you both

think would be the core elements that might determine post-Brexit the

decisions we will make about representation. What are the main

element of that most likely to shape post-Brexit representation

requirements? I think the issue of the degree of access we have so the

single market may well be a factor that is influential in determining

the size and shape of our representation at brussels. One can

think of a whole host of conclusions to the negotiations that will have

an effect upon the four-man summit of our representation. This is

right. You can look at a variety of areas and there's the question of

internal and external security relations and other operators. The

truth around town as I've seen some of my colleagues, there are serious

omissions from other countries. I would expect to see a considerable

job still fought the UK in Brussels in terms of influence and in terms

of the shape of the new relationship. The name could not

possibly be accurate, because it will be another relationship for the

UK. We would be less brothers and sisters are more cousins if I can

put it that way. But does that not mean you will have to have a role

which is commensurate with other countries such as the US or for that

matter Russia, which have a lot of experience with and so on. In other

words, we form a completely new relationship post-Brexit, and I mean

at the end of the process altogether, but that we will be

distinctly looking through the prism of our own national interest as an

external operation and no longer part of the system itself? Yes,

that's right. Whatever happens, the European Union will be an important

trading partner of hours and we will have other interests in common. The

level of representation will depend on negotiations and it will be a

different relationship from the one we have now. We will be a third

country after all the relationship reflect that. In terms of the

devolved administrations, do you see a role for them in this new

relationship? I certainly think the devolved

administrations may well wish to continue to maintain a relationship

in Brussels just as they do in various cities in the United States.

Again, I think it depends very much on the outcome of negotiations and

what sort of relationship we have with the continuing EU after we

leave. We have the officers for our

devolved ministrations of Brussels right now and they are part of our

day-to-day business as colleagues and friends. So I expect that sort

of relationship to continue. I'm not going to be future, because much

will depend upon negotiations. We have had a focus on the UK's

readiness for these negotiations, but of course, the EU and 27

institutions also have to prepare. We've seen some difference of

opinion about the representation of the European Parliament in the

negotiations and there seems to be difference of opinion between the

Council of the Parliament on that. That is next and that the EU has to

get its House in order as well. How would you assess the readiness of

the EU as a negotiating partner? It seems to me they have progressed

substantially. They have established his own negotiating team. You are

absolutely right, they are institutions of the EU will have

various functions. I think it is a matter for them to decide how those

functions actually interact one with another. I think it very helpful and

important moment will be when the candle issues its guidelines after

the preserve of Article 50 has been triggered. At that particular stage,

we will be able to see how the choreography of the negotiations as

far as the EU is concerned. Be as clear as the Minister has said that

a lot of preparation has been done, people have known the timetable for

Article 50, a spokesman for one of the institutions to date has

underlined their readiness, the commission has its team readied the

negotiation, because has a structure to support that in order other

member states. The European parliament was just talking to MEPs

who are ready to prepare the resolution which they were all adopt

shortly after triggering Article 50 and the European Parliament has a

greater concern at the end of the process according to be procedures.

-- vote of consent. I don't think that is visible to us and it may

still be discussed. If I could come back on one area where the EU does

seem to be united as a rugby timetable and particularly this

issue of whether it is possible to do the divorce deal and the feature

framework deal before the spring of 2019. There seems to be a fairly

unanimous view coming out of the EU Government and institutions and that

is not going to be possible. Did you say a little bit more about the

actual timetable? Both the initial timetable, where are we going, when

will we first day back, be able to engage with the council, will it be

after the French elections? And a broader point on whether it is

possible to do both of the divorce and the feature framework within the

two-year frame. In terms of timescale, I think it was EU

indicated he wanted to see the entire negotiating concluded within

18 months. To allow a six-month period at the end of two years

prescribed by Article 50 four the necessary administrative and other

measures that had to be put in place in order to complete it. I don't

think he himself is so pessimistic as maybe some other people you have

been talking to. Again, it depends very much on how negotiations pan

out. My view is that Article 50 is quite clear, it talks about

negotiating the terms of withdrawal against the framework of our

continuing relation ship with the 27 and it is rather difficult to see

how one can negotiate against the framework of that sort unless one

talks about what the relationship is likely to be. We do believe that a

twin track approach to the negotiation is a chat -- correct.

That is what Article 50 seems to contemplate. In terms of timing

again, we have a huge advantage in that we are already members of the

European Union so in terms of standards, regularly requirements,

we are ready in perfect alignment so that actually should have the effect

of considerably reducing the time. But, again, we do need to wait for

the negotiations to start and to see what is contemplated in the

guidelines and then we will no doubt make our own representations. That

means we framework, there's been a lot of speculation about this. The

truth is no one has done this sort of negotiation, this negotiation

before, the speculation is based on a different sort of negotiation but

about countries which are not seeking to find a way to bridge

gaps. On the first day after withdrawal, there will be

convergence and therefore we are treating something different. We are

going to get on with it and there is a timetable in which everyone has

brought in two of two years and this is what we are going to do.

I question that occurs is some people are saying that they already

have a mandate but in relation to the preparation of these council

guidelines which are going to be incredibly important in terms of our

relationship mutually, are those guidelines themselves, numbers one

to six, whatever they are, do they need to be decided by the council of

ministers on qualified majority of those seen before before they are

actually put together and published and then presented to the

commission? Do you know the answer to that? No, I don't. The terms of

Article 50 are somewhat vague on that. And I think it is a question

of waiting to see how the council address that. Have you seen a draft?

The place does leak like a sieve. I have not seen a draft. They will

need to be prepared in accordance with what the UK right in the

Article 50 letter. The expectation is they will put out draft

guidelines pretty quickly. Those guidelines might be by unanimity

that they will be commission mandates to follow. That is the sort

of process we may well see. A similar theme to earlier and the

comments about being an unprecedented situation. Can I ask

both of you if you detect any willingness added EU level to

consider special agreements? But is not something I have discussed and I

think we have to make clear that we will be conducting these

negotiations as the United Kingdom. This is a United Kingdom confidence,

having said that, we will engage closely with the devolved

administrations as indeed we have already and no doubt we will

continue to do so throughout the course of the negotiations. So does

not come up with any discussions with yourself. No. We have not

trickled Article 50, the guidelines have not been issued. -- triggered.

We must await the triggering of Article 50 and the issuing of

guidelines. The milling with the EU mantra known negotiation before

notification, Brussels within that. They are clear that they talk to me

as a representative of the whole of the UK and it is my job to get the

best deal all parts of the UK and all citizens of the UK. Would you

ask the next question as well? Node negotiations but one thing I'm

conscious is what the Government has said is Northern Ireland and

Ireland, the travel area and they want a soft border as possible, and

invisible border to be maintained. I'm just wondering, has there been

any feedback from other member states? I think it is fair to say

that everybody recognises the individual circumstances of Northern

Ireland given that of course it will be the only line of the continuing

member state. The other historical factors that come into play when one

considers Northern Ireland. I think it is fair to say that I have a

great deal of understanding from the ministers I've spoken to and again

he himself as a commissioner, adviser in his own expense of

Northern Ireland and he is also made statements himself that he fully

understands the sensitivity of the Northern Ireland issue. It is the

same extremes to me to be honest. If we move on then, in terms of

relationship within the Council, the Government's expansionary tells us

that the UK will remain a member of the EU and engage fully in

negotiations until it exits. Even so, there were concerns that

departments are not necessarily providing instructions on

negotiations in good time and that was his concern. Is this still an

issue? I can only repeat that we will be fully engage with EU

business right up until the moment that we depart, we are full members

of the EU, we make contributions and we will certainly added to our

obligations but we will also insist upon the rights that we have. In

terms of the enthusiasm in which we will continue engaging with the EU,

I can only say that that will be undiminished. We will continue to

engage just as we already have. Our departments providing instructions

for negotiations in a timely manner? I can say with complete honesty that

I don't like four instructions. We are fully engaged, I said to the

committee, we have made sure we continue to do coordinating

functions between ourselves and Whitehall Mitchell business is

considered in the round and we continue to do so under the

leadership. I cannot talk for Ivan's period, I not there. We have strong

arrangements and DExEU has taken on some of the functions of the

coordinating role. We are fully engaged on that and we are getting

the instructions we require and we do require the instructions. In

terms of what is happening right now moving forward, we have seen the EU

27 quite often meet without the Prime Minister being in attendance.

How is the UK actually making its voice heard effectively? It is quite

understandable that as time passes and the closest we get to our

departure that they continue in 27 will want to conduct their own

business to the extent that it relates to our departure without the

United Kingdom being present. I think that is not unreasonable, it

is not something we would object to. So far as business is concerned that

relate to the whole 20 1027 member unions, we have made it clear that

we will insist on participating and I have no push back on that. I think

that the other 27 that where they are discussing business that affects

the concerns of the United Kingdom as part of the continuing European

Union then we must be around the table. On that as well,, how are

they negotiation within working groups? We are engaging robustly.

That is what we are there to do and we are starting up early as

expecting in working groups. The voices being heard. I think that

takes us back as you rightly allude to the other's point that goes a lot

of continuing business and we are paying full attention to that. We

are not finding that we don't have the instructions and it is the

centre part of my leadership that we will continue to do that. Is there

any attempt to do grey -- negotiations? It seems there is a

lot of plates spinning. That has not been reflected in the business I

have been involved in so far. The nature of ongoing negotiations on

existing business, do you or your officials identify any change in

attitude given that we are negotiating with one eye on the door

to leave when we are negotiating particularly in relation to matters

that will not affect us all only affect us for a very brief period of

time compared to negotiation when we were fairly committed to membership

for the indefinite future? To be honest, my colleagues in my

committee that I hear from working groups and the like is that people

are continuing to fully engage with us. We have the voting rights, we

have the obligations, we have the rights of other member states and

that hasn't set as a direction whether it be from the EU

institutions, member states of the presidency. We are fully part of the

conversation. It doesn't feel artificial in any way to be in deep

negotiation about something that has little bearing on us?

To be honest, I have genuinely found in my committee that as we put our

point of view forward, it it still takes into account... One of my

colleagues came to the table after discussion and debate which I've led

one side of and he said, business as usual. There is a lot of business

and we still do it very seriously and that is what we are still there

for as long as the forthcoming negotiations. Again, in the General

affairs Council, it is business as usual. And to be fair to the other

27, I never have any pushback, never any objection. We understand we will

be engaged up to the moment. To go negotiations and trade-offs, I'm

just wondering, within internal mechanisms, has there been

departmental red lines thrown up where each department is saying,

here is what I need to get from Brexit, has been collated in any

way? No. The various dossiers are dealt with on their own merits and

on the concerns of the UK and we are not designing our business to

reflect the fact that we are leaving. It is business as usual, as

Sir Tim said. We were always guided by the national interest. There may

be a different way in which these things will impact on us in the

future, but they matter to us and so we are going about our usual

business. Of course everyone knows the context, but so far, in my

experience, our voice is still heard and respected and we are part of the

full discussion. Now to move on to the question of the manner in which

we approach questions in relation to the moment when we have exited the

EU. In relation to what you've just said, does our approach differ

depending on whether or not a particular proposal is likely to be

implemented after 2019, by which people we were not -- are expected

to have left the EU? I'm trying to think of an example that might

indicate that is the case, Sir William. I cannot. But it may well

be that as time passes and as we get closer to the point of departure

that that will more frequently be the case. Having said that, we have

to recognise that we remain a full member of the EU and therefore our

negotiating position must also reflect that fact until the moment

we actually depart. I know that, but the same time, when you know you

want not actually going be implementing something which is in

the are going to have to adopt a different position. I mean, I just

want to start with one simple point, when this bell stops, if it only

would... Can you please ensure that every memorandum that is that the

benefit of those watching, that every single proposal which comes up

has to be put into an explanatory memorandum for the purposes of this

committee to explain where the Government stands on the position as

the proposal goes through. Can you ensure that every single explanatory

memorandum does include a section on Brexit, so that we know exactly

where the Government is coming from, which presumably we will be

discussing with Sir Tim as well in terms of value position yourself. We

believe that would not only help us as a committee, reporting to the

House of commons, but it would also ensure that officials dealing with

the dossiers in question would have to take account of their potential

effects on the third countries, which is what we will be fairly

soon. Can you tell me outright that you will ensure that that will

happen, because it would be hopeless if in fact in our national interest

it was clear that we were not going to take a position and we then found

that had something going through the process of Parliamentary scrutiny

based on false premises? -- based on false premise? That will become

clearer when we get closer to departure. I will take it on board.

Thank you. Relation to this national interest which we keep returning to,

these explanatory memoranda are very informative and we take them into

account and for that matter so do others elsewhere in the EU, because

it is a matter of general knowledge. Can you tell us for sure, because

I've mentioned this on a number of occasions, but I just want to tie

this writes down. Last time you appeared before us, were talking

about the ports regulation is a good example. This is manifestly not in

the UK's interest and it was decide upon as a result of representations

we made in this committee that the Government would state unequivocally

that we are going to vote against this, in other words, consensus is

no longer the order of the day and furthermore, that we would put down

and note in the reasons that we would give, which were then minuted,

so that people would know why it was that we object to a particular

proposal. So are you going to make that into a fairly general rule,

which is where the national interest is quite apparent and I see Sir Tim

very carefully at this point, that she will not only vote against, but

she will also record the fact that you've done so and make sure that

that is minuted so the public at large will know where we are as we

move from pipeline to Brexit? . Yes, the portal regulation was an example

contrary to the national interest, whether or not we left the EU. But

you are right, we voted against it and we stated the reason for doing

so. I think again your suggestion is a sensible one. I think that if we

do approach a particular measure, we should set out clearly our reasons

for doing so. And on some dossiers, the Government have said that while

it was against the proposals in principle, once it had realised it

could not secure blocking a minority, it was better to negotiate

the vote against. As that approached changed, too? The same principle

seems to apply. The same principle does apply and it is more likely to

apply, but closer we get to the departure. Richard Drax. The

structure of the negotiating team an allegation of resources can be

resolved as a matter of urgency. Minister, perhaps you could start.

What progress has been made in this direction? The issue of our

negotiating team will have two mirror whatever arrangements are put

in place by the continuing European Union. Clearly, the Minister with

overall responsibility for the negotiation will be the Prime

Minister and she will be supported by the Secretary of State and again,

this will be the whole of Government exercise, so depending on the

various issues that we are discussing, departments from across

Government will be engaged in the negotiation. In the negotiations

themselves, bearing in mind that the British position is extremely clear,

we want to leave the EU in every shape and form and become an

independent country again, negotiating with people who do not

want that, and are going to do everything they can to stop it, what

is your view on the difficult and that negotiation is obvious, but in

a sense that we going to have to compromise our very simple position,

which is that we want to leave, and if we can't, will we fall back on

World Trade Organisation rules? There's no room for negotiation,

that's my point. Would you agree? Identikit is possible for our

departure from the EU to be stopped. We have a right to leave it if we

should go at the Article 50 process and as you probably know, we will be

triggering that on the 29th of March. There is no means whereby any

part of the EU, any institution in the EU can actually stop our

departure. We want to secure the best possible deal for the United

Kingdom and the sort of deal that we are seeking has been set out by the

Prime Minister in her speech at Lancaster House on the 17th of

January, which of course has been fleshed out by the white paper

that... Which, by the way has been generally well received in the EU as

to giving a great deal of clarity to our position. So we've set out

already what we are seeking from our departure from the EU. There will be

negotiations that will follow, but what is absolutely clear is that our

departure cannot be stopped, because we have the right to leave. I don't

meeting recently with a corporation and the representative said to me

that they live the United Kingdom -- they love the United Kingdom. The

more serious point was that I asked if she was speaking to business in a

country that to maintain prosperity, wealth and jobs, which will be

crucial for all of us, that the negotiating team... Maggie Pollard

has already been engage various sectors of business in the UK. We've

had to deal with various companies that are headquartered in the

continuing EU. I think you are correct, the overwhelming impression

I get is that businesses, wherever they are, want to continue to do

business with us and why wouldn't they? It's in their interests and

bills of their shareholders that they should be profitable and they

would not want to cease all operations. That will be an

important part of the negotiations to reflect the fight there is a

stronger mutual interest in maintaining good business relations

between the UK and the EU. We will be one of the biggest export markets

for EU produced goods and services and we have different to remain that

way. I agree that it's important, not just business as, the --

businesses I think it's important that it's across the European Union

and the UK and elsewhere. But also communities such as science and

research. We need to talk about the shared interest we have in forging a

new partnership with the UK outside of the EU. If I could just say, I

think one of the advantages of having the commission as a

negotiating partner in this, so there was have an important role in

the negotiations. Whatever. Howard expects us to lead the negotiations?

A lot will be done by them clearly. It depends on how the negotiations

pan out. They will be operating the ministerial direction. I don't in

the usual arrangements will be affected. On the question, who is

going to be the Government Sherpa in the negotiations?

Perhaps the Minister would like to answer. Or both of you. I think it

is clear that both have an extremely important role in this process and

I'm sure Tim will agree they will be working very much as a team.

Absolutely right, we are already working as a team. He has the full

role of Sherpa, I representative. There will be plenty of us to do

together in this negotiation. The point is we and other officials will

be acting under direct ministerial guidance for this negotiation. It

has not escaped my notice to observe that a fact which was with very few

exceptions, former civil servants and former secretaries of the

Cabinet, I think to a man but there may be one who did not, all voted

against the House of Commons on the amendments. Now, that strongly

suggest to anybody who has eyes to see and ears to hear that there is a

very powerful sense of Sir Humphrey in the civil service which quite

clearly at the very highest level did not want the House of Commons

effectively to be supreme in these matters until they have capitulated

as a whole in the House of Lords. Can you give me a sense and I think

I ought to direct this to the Minister that in the light of these

protestations and I don't mean that cynically that the civil service is

doing everything in its power to assist ministers under its

instructions which is what they have to do as Crown servants, that that

is embedded in the thinking of the civil service now and that the whole

of these negotiations in new shape or form would be influenced or

mitigated in terms of the decision to leave so we can be quite clear

the civil service is 100% behind the Government and there will be no

attempts whatever to get in the way? You know my background in the Brexit

debate. I am sure that you will accept it when I tell you that I

have never had any doubt whatsoever as to the loyalty of the civil

service. Their complete willingness and determination to follow the

instructions of ministers and to support ministers in this regard. I

think that the British civil service is a huge asset to this country and

I am really glad that we have got them on our side in these

negotiations. That is the most encouraging answer, if I may say so.

Good afternoon. Do you think the negotiation will be primarily

political or primarily legal? I think there will be plenty of

political discussion but there will be technical which I think is part

what you meant by legal perhaps but a lot of it will be technical work.

That is conventionally have these things are done, we have to get to

levels of understanding which influences political decisions to

take place. The legal part is interesting which was written by

this committee's, legal adviser, who provided the encouraging legal

opinion to say that it is matter of law we would not only the European

Union any money. I just wondered whether that will be an important

part of your opening negotiating strategy. That is why I want to know

if your database on the legal principle or whether it is going to

be a political, we are decent chaps. I think that report was certainly

not unhelpful. I think what was quite clear from the report is that

it is possible to have a range of views as to the legal position, but

certainly as a starting but it is very helpful. There is no doubt

however I've heard that there will be a big political element to the

discussion and as the negotiations progress, it will be interesting to

see how we balance actually develops between the political and technical

or legal and where we ultimately land in negotiations. What are the

count about saying about this if anything? -- counterparts. They have

an interest in the legal opinions which have become forthcoming. There

is plenty of discussion but I think most counterparts would agree there

is legal and technical as part of this negotiation. I wonder if you

might help clarify within the legal side and technical area back to the

point they came up earlier between the twin track of bridge and they do

not mind which to view answers this. Am I right in thinking that the

great advantage of the twin track approach is that it is on the

enhanced quality majority and can encompass anything in relation to

the framework of the future relationship with the European

Union? But that anything that is not within the Article 50 agreement may

then be subject to different requirements and then with a train

agreement may be required to have the anonymity? I think that there

will probably more like to be relevant to the continued

relationship. Again, I think it is a question of seeing how the

negotiations develop. I think that there is no doubt that our terms of

departure are far more realistic in terms of the likely outcome but

clearly we want to continued relation with the EU and I think you

are right, the issue of national parliaments and sub national

parliaments will be irrelevant. The framework under Article 50 is

covered under the same as 18 as the separation agreement, correct? So

that would not bring in the national parliament? No, no, please. You will

not be surprised to hear that there are varying legal opinions on this

and one of the argument is the more that comes into either withdraw

treaty regard to future continuing relation takes you into mixed

agreement territory that there are brings in the different voting you

discussed. Part of it depends upon content and where negotiations take

us. I can see frustration. Can it be a mixed treaty if it is a treaty

specifically provided for under the treaties on the European Union that

provide for it to be a union of competence which I would suggest

article $50? Or is this an argument that lawyers will have in the future

where it is not quite clear at this stage? I think there is an argument

for lawyers, the argument will be about how much of the future can

come to withdraw. You can take a very legalistic view that because of

the nature of the voting that actually not that much of the future

could be brought into the treaty and therefore you need separate

arrangements that will be mixed. If you bring more of the future into

the withdraw treaty, does that make an mixed agreement and among

different ratifications? That is in some the product of quite a lot of

legal discussion I have had in the last weeks. Is it to some extent how

you define a framework? It is within the Article 50, it might be beyond

it. I think I will be doing the law is a disservice if I said it was a

straightforward as that. -- lawyers. Could you give us the latest gossip?

I imagine that you told your colleague over the weekend that the

date for Article 50 being given was the 29th of March I'm very curious

to know what the initial reaction was and what they might be looking

at in terms of negotiating timetable from the sort of very early

conversations in Brussels? I did not tell my colleagues. With regard to

the date over the weekend. I had some conversations this morning as

you will see from the releases and there was a welcome for the clarity

of that date which fits full square in the commitment we have given the

Prime Minister in the timetable. Insofar as that is gossip, that is

the news from Brussels this morning. Thank you very much. Just ask them,

the negotiations going forward, on the 20 47 new cycle, someone likes

to tell someone something, can we get a commitment from yourself,

Minister, that if it is to occur, that you will make a statement to

the House of Commons are thoroughly examine negotiations going forward?

I think it is impossible to give a blanket assurance. It depends very

much on what we are talking about. It is easy to foresee and

circumstances what a statement would be appropriate but I think to go

into it in more detail at this moment is almost impossible. On this

question of how much we owe as people put it, expressed by the

House of Lords community but also by other people as well, essentially is

it not just a legal question, it's also a political issue and there

have been some extravagant statements, some would say, bring up

as high as 60 billion as the money issue. Has anybody pointed out to

them would you make sure that they do understand that we have been net

contributors for many decades to the tune of what is now running at

around nine or 10 billion a year, that are accumulated liabilities are

offset by the extent to which we made these massive contributions?

Perhaps also to bear in mind that back in 1953, there was nothing

could be London debt agreement where Germany for all its malfeasance

during the Second World War and its unprovoked aggression, found that in

1953 in circumstances which were quite remarkable that we remitted

one half of all German debt and that therefore if you compare that

situation with what it is now, and giving Germany's extremely dominant

role in the European Union at the moment, but it might be worth

tactfully, not one of my strongest points, tactfully reminding people

that there is a realistic position here in which we really do not owe

anything to the European Union, whether it's legal or political. I

am not entirely sure how tactful what can be when one is mentoring

the London debt agreement. Nevertheless, clearly there are

whole of issues will stop. I will probably prefer to Sir William.

There are whole range that must emerge in the negotiations,

certainly be House of Lords committee report was extremely

helpful. I'm sure that it has not gone unnoticed in Brussels. And

other European capitals for that matter. Thank you very much. We know

that the Government intends to translate European law by a repeal

Bill on the moment of Brexit and we have also understood that it is

intended to secondary legislation predominantly of making EU law

operable, major policy changes are needed, that will be done. It is

then suggested that could amount to a legislation burden to this

parliament, suggestions of between ten and 15 new bills. What is the

Government's plan in relation to managing that legislation? You are

right. There will be two elements. A secondary legislation and probably

quite a lot of it. There were also certainly be the need for primary

legislation, whether the figures that the Institute for Government

have come up with are accurate or not, I cannot say with any certainty

at the moment but there will be a lot of that. There was a very

helpful report by the House of Lords Constitution committee recently

which he very probably have read. Which I thought was a very helpful

contribution to the debate and certainly the proposals in that

report are being given careful consideration by the Government.

Because you are right, management will be a challenging issue. I don't

think anyone expect that our withdraw from the European Union

after 44 years is going to be anything other than challenging.

The Government fully intends to carry out its legislative programme

as indicated in this manifesto. But again, I am under no illusions it is

going to be challenging. Won I would agree. Over what period that the

Government assess the legislation to affect EU law and policy

consequences might need to take place? That depends on the progress

of negotiations. Legislation will have to reflect what is agreed. But

all I can say is before the end of this Parliament. Where currently our

position is position by some reciprocal arrangement, or that fall

away at the moment Brexit be replaced? Or we may be in a vacuum.

I think ensuring the whole of the British statute works properly and

that will be a priority it is hard to see how anything could be more of

a priority. British law must work effectively at the moment of our

departure and that is what we are aiming to do. There's going to be a

pipeline problem. Have you set up the build teams? And how many? Yes,

we have an active one within DexU, but there will be other departments

need to put in place their own teams, because there is the digital

Government indicated in its report, this will be departmental exercise

and I'm sure those teams are in place... If you don't know, can you

tell us? I can assist. On that point, can I ask this, you get

through Article 50 and then get into the negotiations, but as we

understand it, there will be a white paper soon. And in our white paper,

there will be a number of guidelines as to the kind of procedures that

will follow. In the Queen's speech, he said, so we hear, that there

would be an announcement to the repeal bill. So one might expect

that would be in May or early June. The question of dealing with the

article 15 negotiations and the repeal Bill requires a break points,

in other words, you have to have a completely separate procedure and

have a boat which, as you know, I've prepared back in May last year and

which seems to have been accepted by the Government as a matter of

principle. No doubt Parliamentary Counsel had their own way going

about it, but the object as we understand it is that it ought to be

short and it ought to be clear and should deal with the position of the

repeal and the withdrawal, but also the Henry VIII type clauses and I

will be grateful if you could give some slight indication as to what

the thinking is on that and also that completely separate from that,

and I think there's some confusion in the public mind that the... But

there is a kind of fuzziness in the boundaries. The fact is, there has

to be a clear-cut point at which the Brexit takes place and only then

that you bring in the bills to deal with immigration. Could you just

look at that with us for a moment and give us an indication of where

you see these break points taking place and the sequence of events?

The Brexit bill, the great repeal Bill has got one primary objective,

and that is to cease the operation to repeal the European Communities

Act of 1972. That is its primary function. It also has to put in

place arrangements, as you rightly say, by making provision for

secondary legislation, whereby an cause distances in legislation that

would otherwise arise are blocked and that means of course dealing

with a wide range of legislation, where there may be references to EU

institutions or whatever. Those will all be taking effect at the moment

of our departure from the European Union at the conclusion of the two

year process or earlier if terms can be agreed for our early departure.

So that is the purpose of the repeal of the Limassol. Clearly policy

changes will be affected by stand-alone legislation and, in

other words, we don't anticipate policy will be addressed in the

repeal Bill itself. The repeal of all itself well focused primarily on

practicalities and that is why we heard from the institute of the

Government today that there will be a larger number of bills to provide

the primary legislative vehicle to take account of changes in policy

that will also have to occur again at the moment of our departure.

Whatever later period be agreed in the context of the negotiations.

There's lots of talk about congestion, because we will have to

deal with so many bills and people love it in their minds that there is

going to be repeal Bill and a whole lot of the parallel of bills going

on at the same time. Could you make it as clear as you possibly can in

advance of the white paper is exactly what the liner will be? In

other words, you get Article 50, have the negotiations, then the

introduction of the great repeal bill based on the white paper and

then, when all that is completed, you move -- move on to primary

legislation. Is the intention? Yes. Having said that, the white paper is

itself will provide a great deal more clarity and that will be

rubbish soon. What preparations are being made to make sure the UK order

for the consequences if there was to be no deal at all? Does a lot of

work going on to address all sorts of eventualities. It's possible that

the negotiations will turn out to be impossible to conclude or there may

well be a negotiated settlement whereby we leave on other terms.

That is why my department has been carrying out a huge amount of work

over the last seven or eight months engaging with over 50 separate

sectors of the economy, many of which have got crosscutting issues

that must be addressed to ensure we are in a position to plan for

whatever eventualities may take place. I must say I do not

anticipate we will believe you without a deal, because, as I've

already indicated, it is manifestly in the interests not just of the UK,

but of the continuing EU that there should be a sensible resolution of

our withdrawal. Thank you both for coming, it has been interesting.