Brexit Committee Select Committees

Importantly, in the context of Article 27 what happens rarely

perfect across. I was talking to the secretary, very good friend of mine

20 months ago, talking about the issue of the citizens right and I

spend what we wanted to do he explained that you should come to

Austria and say that there is no body knows this in Austria. The

bigger problem is getting the argument across. The week after the

Monday after the Prime Minister announced the citizens rights

policy, every single embassy, 26/27, not Ireland because it is a

different policy, the 26th of the 27 published in a main newspaper in

every capital what the policy was, extensive pieces on it and every

ambassador was sent out to do into these obviously. To be honest the

real issue getting the message across is at that level. We had to

have the people understand, the people of Slovenia, the people of

Hungary, the people of France the people of the north-east. The people

of Wales. I'm carrying out negotiation on people pulling a half

from the north-east but not with them. The truth here is that what we

are trying to get is that point, successfully, looking not

immediately because there is a stand-off in the initial response, a

few days afterwards a view of those countries, most of those countries

had a positive response and that is what I have to worry about, the

clarity of what we have in the officer, we have a good offer. The

discussion that we have heard within government around a transition

agreement or implementation period, whatever you would like to call it

has varied enormously. Between chancel talking about no cliff edge

and therefore really raising the question of the single market and

the customs union membership continuing, whereas others say

others things, what you think we stand. We will find that if we leave

aside the briefings which I cannot speak for we will look at in the

public statements, it is very hard to put a cigarette paper between the

Jazz on myself, on translation or in fermentation of the agreement. We

discussed it at length come virtually weekly, since Christmas of

last year. Similarly you will find on other issues, in terms of

migration policy. We have said we have both said time and again,

bringing back control of migration policy isn't the same slamming the

door to the UK. We want to attract talent into British industry, and we

don't want to see labour shortages in the UK economy, or part of it, in

Northern Ireland for example. We must look past the briefing and what

the official statements are. That is what the real policy is, not what

you see some unnamed, unspecified beating from unknown people. We must

move on. Baroness Brown. The government has very much made it

clear from the beginning that home affairs and justice matters are

matters that are of a high priority for agreement, and since the

election has their been some movement in the approach to the

European Court of Justice because for example the European arrest

warrant is very hard to see how that could be maintained at the level it

is now without the European Court being involved. Is that an area

where you feel that there needs to be a bit more give and take, or a

softer line up? You are right, justice is very important. This by

Minister takes it very important, as do all, I would imagine. Let's take

the European arrest warrant, a good example. Our view on appropriate

jurisdiction is territorial. So, if we issue a European arrest warrant,

if we had some analog after 2019 which I think we will have, or maybe

after 2021 if that is when the transition runs out or whenever, if

we have some analogue after the conclusion of negotiations and

departure, then you would expect that within the European Union that

to be subject to the appeal all the way up through the normal national

courts, and from then to the ECJ inside the ECJ. If a Polish police

force subjects a request for a British citizen in Britain, or

someone can anyone in Britain are there that would go up to the

British Supreme Court. There, we have similar arrangements with the

United States, with extradition arrangements, which operate under

each court system. You don't need to have extraterritorial reach for a

court for it to work. You can have the same thing in data, let's

imagine we have data applications. Then the mole asking a foreign state

and an other states to you in pigeon batterer in -- asking a foreign

state to impinge on the rise of being the jewel, then we have the

courts to determine. We have taken evidence from lawyers that said if a

European Court is not the final arbiter, nonetheless lawyers going

into the UK courts would still wish to draw on the results of case law

as coming out of the European law courts, and I wonder what your

thoughts are. You like it is entirely up to the court. To the

extent to which it take that on board. Now, it will be entirely up

to the court, case-by-case. I should raise it, it's embarrassing, but I

have been in court with such an issue related to government before,

in which another court Bosman judgment, a Swiss court that time,

was taken into account, no relationship, but just at that court

had dealt with similar cases in this way, and I would expect British

courts to look at European case law but not to be bound by it. It is not

being bound by it is the issue, you're not bound by the decision of

another court. Lady four can I wanted to ask a question. -- Lady

Faulkner. You referred to Lord Boswell on that previous September

discussion that was had relating to the intelligence and security, I

recall, I maybe wrong, but let me put it on the table now in case we

didn't mention at the but we also discussed parliamentary scrutiny

committee weighed at trade talks happen in terms of interim as the

trade talks commence, and continue, where you would go in without being

a privy Counsellor, parliamentarians are allowed to go into the room,

look at documents, see what is going on. That was the example. What I

think, and I'm sure Mr Starmer is going to be great in scrutinising

you come in Privy Council terms, but this committee has an important role

in the scrutiny process, and I think what people want to get from Europe

at the time was to have at least those kinds of arrangements, for the

comments to speak for itself, but let me say to me to this committee I

said 40 hours over this weekend getting to Estonia and back to speak

for three and a half minutes, but in order for the United Kingdom to bree

represented, because their committee and the body gets so the House of

Lords is rather more with it in that regard. But can I also dart I would

never disagree. I wonder whether you would be the right to a specifically

on this was I had to say that when we did these arrangements, I think

basically it was a private role in one of the departments where people

could go and hear no phone rains and all of that, at the moment, frankly,

I don't think that there is anything in this arrangement which is going

to be private for that long. I think it is more a question of timing. So

far, every publication that we have will hit the public domain at some

point, so for example next week as I say if we put in some submissions to

them, we will publish it. The day we put them in. Now, that may change

when we get to the later done table mat yes, and at that point I would

certainly look at that, absolutely, but at this stage there seems to be

no useful point. Later on I suggest I will think and maybe write to you

about it, but the levy forgets, nag me about it, but later on it may be

different. -- don't let me forget. We find in the interim, if we do

need to seize some documents I hope will keep the position. As you know,

my committee, the financial affairs committee can interact with the

financial services sector extensively. They are taking

decisions by the end of this year, so waiting for a decision later on

in negotiations as to whether there will be a transitional arrangement

or not may very well, they may have made their minds up and gone if they

need to go, in order to maintain passport and rights to work. Would

you consider... Yellow actress deciding now. Indeed, some are, I

hear that weekly. Would you consider besides whether it transitional

implementation, this would you consider that allowing the EU 27

that if you haven't made sufficient progress on the frame for a

transitional dealer, how long it will last by the end of this year,

and so on, perhaps contemplating that extension for one year? That is

allowed under Article 50. For the negotiations to continue. The arrow

only by unanimity. Yes, unanimity, but you keep talking about the will

and bilateral talks with the Bwe are in negotiation. I had this

conversation on Friday with the members of the national services,

and the ideal outcome from their point of view, not just theirs,

others do, but the ideal outcome from their broader view is that we

get to the of decision with enough time left for them to carry out

regulatory and physical changes that they need to. If we can we will, but

we are in a negotiation, and any point of leverage, and there is

goodwill, but it isn't infinite, any point of leverage, if we say, well

we had to have this, that will become a point of leverage. So, we

will seek to get that through. I said, we started off by explaining

to our European colleagues that we thought it was to their advantage as

well as ours in order to sort of them the incentive to do something

about it. Some of them of course to see it is their advantage to wait

because enough American banks in particular have said oh, we will

wait until Paris, good luck to them. Of course, they encourage the other

sides to hold back, say they want to do it. Yes, of course, we understand

the value of transition. We have been through this in excruciating

detail in terms of the effect of it done and we will do it as quickly as

we can, but it is a negotiation and I cannot, and like any area of

government yellow would say yes, I will do this or I will do that, I

cannot, but I will say that we will make our best endeavour. There was a

lot to be said for Paris by the way, but I think we need to move on. Are

you biased, sir? LAUGHTER Now the important of devolution and

the effect of Brexit. Thank you Chairman and thank you Secretary of

State. The Welsh and Scottish Government in the sake of Mark

Brayford and Michael Russell wrote to you on the 13th of June and it is

a letter with an awful lot of issues contained within it and I know a lot

of colleagues would like to quiz you a bit on it. Perhaps I can start the

ball rolling with starting with general concerns in the letter, the

general concern I suppose being what they viewed as a lack of

consultation with the general lack of engagement on the part of your

department with the devolved administrations, and the second

general thing was really a call for reform on their part, how the JNC EU

negotiations were going to work. I will if I could ask on that

narrative issue for your comment? Firstly, in January this year, my

department was created to July, one year ago, virtually, now, created,

as in announced, took a bit of time to build it up. But in January of

this year we have a JNC plenary to the ministerial committee, chaired

by the Prime Minister, and then since then we have had for the few

month running into the election we had three, I think, JM CEO Ed. --

JNC meeting. I think the first one the Scottish Government presented

its White Paper, presenting what they described as a compromised.

This was a copper wires that current prius are -- requiring Scotland to

have a completely separate manager to the single market. I think we

could negotiate it tomorrow if it were wanted, but there are issues --

interesting issues with the UK single market if it were such a

thing. We need to divide issues where we did agree with them, and

the next, or the second after that's JNC, we had a presentation of the

Welsh proposal. Was in many ways much more

practical. It was focus very clearly on employment in industry. We are

possible, we looked to pick out of these documents issues which we

could agree with, for example, the example of protection of employment

law. I have said are not least for occasions and the Prime Minister on

frequent occasions, there will be no reversal of that as a result of

departure from the European Union. In the same period, the Scottish

First Minister did everything possible to use that issue of Brexit

as a motor for another independence referendum. I basically take issue

with the thrust of Mike Russell. I think we have bent over backwards,

not to the tool, there will be no veto, a working for the people of

Scotland and Wales and in particular Northern Ireland, of which we have

not been able to engage with for some time. Once again, when you took

evidence in Cardiff and in Edinburgh, they were disturbing

criticisms of things like getting agendas on time and I repeat to you

that when you have battling parties, it is actually almost resetting that

we in which we can bring people together or at again and I would ask

you in a second if you would comment on that. To move on to a second

point, that is a suggestion of developing common positions and

devil part of that. I think devolution issues, if you take

fishing for example, although it is a slightly different mechanism,

telling everyone what has gone on after words, what would you comment

on Internet as well as the common suggestion of that? As long as there

is no contradiction between our aims. The serious fishing industries

around the United Kingdom, some want to be able to fish and other waters,

others just want restrictions on others coming into our water. There

has to be a compromise between that. In ongoing negotiations in Europe

with ongoing issues such as fishing, there is considerable consultation

and has been over many years and I would expect that consultation to go

on. When it goes to the ongoing relationship, we will have extensive

discussions with them. Thank you. I must mention a interest has been

in the Scottish parliament for the first eight years as an elected

member. How do you think of the Scottish and Welsh common request

that they should be more closely involved with negotiations? I will

be as diplomatic as I can be. The truth is, we will take into account

what they will have to see and worry also about the interests of the

Scottish people and the Welsh people. We will talk also to

industry and others in Scotland and Wales. When the Prime Minister came

into office last year, the first place she went was Scotland.

Northern Ireland was the first place I went. In the Republic of Ireland,

all with the aim of protecting the interests of the component nations

of the United Kingdom Honours level playing field as you could have, to

make sure we do not accidentally art and industry in a particular area.

It is more than just talking to them. He recently confirmed that the

repeal bill subject to legislation subject to the void -- devolved --

devolved legislators, what do you think would happen with that? I do

not want to go down hypothetical routes. I would think we would get

onto that early next year. Between knowing them, it is important to

see, to bring the committee up to speed, the repeal bill will be

published and there will be elements of it which are aimed at allowing

the decommissioning of what powers remain within the devolved

administration, which is in effect all the powers they currently have.

What powers will be further devolved to them once we are out of Europe

and what we need to have to have a United Kingdom level of decision. We

need that school preservation of the United Kingdom single Market or

comprising single international treaty agreements and that will

happen over the course of the next six to nine months. Do you think the

government is being sufficiently proactive in thinking up solutions

with regard to Ireland? Let me divide the problems into two groups.

Those relate to Northern Ireland and those that relate to the Republic.

In Northern Ireland, the first one is the preservation of the peace

process and the preservation of the Belfast agreement. One of the

primary elements for the preservation of the visible border

and whilst at the same time been able to maintain an external border

of the European Union. A lot will be according to how we can operate a

customs system and that could involve a variety of things, such as

whether we use in trusted trader schemes, to allow people to go

across the border without being stopped, of whether we can use

pre-tagged containers, that sort of thing. That is one area where

talking has started. That will slightly be changed by the new

government elected in Ireland. I talked to the new secretary of state

they are the other day and these discussions will continue. But these

are ongoing relationships. We are nowhere near any solution. But also

what happens to Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, exports? A lot

of them come to us but also go through the rest of the United

Kingdom to the continent. How do we maintain that? We are giving thought

to that as well. We are not nearer resolution on this because we have

had no Northern Ireland executive to help deal with it. There has also

been a change of government in the South. We will not actually have the

solution to the Ireland issues probably until near the end of the

Brexit negotiations. If we have a comprehensive free trade agreement,

we could get away with later customs agreements than we otherwise would.

It came a piece of legislation would be the rules of origin. We are

making this speed, all I can see. It is not as fast as perhaps I would

like. As far as the government agreement with the DUP what steps

are you taking to make sure the voice of the nationalist community

is being here? I tried to talk to both sides. The confidences apply

but does not really impinge on our policy because both sides of the

argument, of the executive in Northern Ireland, want to see that

open border maintained, so I do not think there is any controversy

there. I do not want to leap around in groups, because it is a very

sensitive area probably try and sort out the Northern Ireland executive,

we get through that, I will try and make arrangements to speak to both

the major components of the executive. Could you give is another

ten minutes to finish off the questions? The question on

citizenship are important. Citizens rights. I notice something of key

interest to yourself and to millions of people in this country and in the

European Union who are currently held in suspense were awaiting the

answers. The Justice committee recommended that unilateral

recommendation of confirming European Union citizens rates within

this country on the basis that its primary responsibility was for

British citizens within the European Union. Many felt that was not

helpful. There are reports today of how things are softening in the

restriction and duration of it, perhaps you could enlighten as

Mortimer. I guess my question is simply this, can you tell us where

we are with it, what things remain and what is the timetable for

getting the? How long will the suspense B is the question many

people love? We made a sustained effort to get that message across to

the people of the countries involved. For two reasons, one to

influence the government, but also because it impacted on people here.

In terms of the areas of difference, the first area we do not see the

European courts to be involved. It would be unique for them to be

involved in extraterritorial jurisdiction rather than on this

rather limited operations in Ukraine. We do not see any need and

many other member states do not see a need for it, but what they do want

is some guarantee that it is going to be sustained, that the rates

within the European Union will be sustained. We understand that and it

will be an act of Parliament. That will be enforced by the British

courts. But it will also be backed up by the treaty, so it will be

subject to international and European law in maintaining the

rates, so that is where we are. He vast proportion of the people did

not see a problem with the European Court issue. We want to give them

confidence that we will get past that hurdle. That is the

expectation. I could see our citizens are at the

behest of the Europeans on this bit and do not believe they will reverse

its either and I do believe the need to give everyone confidence. In

terms of the actual rights, we addressed that, there is a lot of

real if dues and a lot of mythology. When you hear about people being

deported which turned out to be security issue, so we try to deal

with the worries and one of them was the issue of people thinking somehow

we would treat European citizens in the UK are second-class citizens in

some way. What we are trying to do is make this as close to British

citizenship without the general election vote in every other

respect, in terms of employment rights, economic rights, welfare

rights, health rights, education rights. Pension rights, all of these

will be the same. That is what we set out to do but there is one

differential which is the question of the ability to bring the family

members from another country, that is the difference. At the moment we

do not have that right for British citizens as we agonised over this

and thought it would not be right to give 3 million people write British

citizens have not got. And they would not in Australia America or

somewhere. That is one of the areas of tension. The other one which we

have left open is exactly when the date falls. What we tried to do is

to say whatever it is it will not be before the accession date, the

Article 50 date. Because that gave people nine months or so after the

referendum results will be with known it was coming. We did not want

to say to anybody that had come here in good faith expecting their rights

to be preserved to lose the fundamental main rights. Where it

ends up, it will not be any earlier than that not later than the

departure date but where it ends up is up for discussion. We do not want

to give a date so far in the future that will attract people to come

here for welfare tourism. We try to be as fair as possible, we tried to

do it in such a way that does not lead to other misunderstandings, it

has, even so. We are trying to avoid that. We will be discussing that

next week. I shared this committee that created

the report on acquired rates of EU citizens. I worked on it. It sounds

to me as though this issue of the red line is one you to order the

European Court of Justice, that it is a red line for the Government and

you hold that view, even if others in your own Cabinet take a different

view. It seems unnecessary to be any

different. I wanted to point out areas it may

make a difference. There are people who may be listening who are living

in Spain or somewhere you might to hear with issues arise which they

take through to Spanish courts to do with their rights, you make it clear

to them the Spanish courts or the Polish courts are the only recourse

and they will not be an overarching court which deals with supranational

issues such as the right they feel they have acquired.

That decision is for Spain and the European Union itself. We think our

Supreme Court is probably good for that purpose.

You're seeing our Supreme Court is fine for Europeans living here but

you are basically saying to British people abroad, and in the same way

the court of Spain or OK to deal with you and Italy and Poland, that

is the message coming today. If I lived in the country I accept

the rule of law in that country. One of the things you said an

answering was if on the issue of the Euro warrant, it was basically

territorial and should not be European Court of Justice take a

different view, and you said there is nothing wrong with people

invoking law from other jurisdictions. Our courts... They do

that anyway. That is not right. We do it with regard to common law

matters from other courts, in relation to European matters when we

were in the year but not -- we do not for people in Britain of

Tanzania or the law of China -- invoke the law.

You will find it very rare our courts will do anything, but the

question being raised, the point of European dipping chords as there is

an anxiety that if we are going to be travelling, parallel lines and

trading with Europe and do things in the reciprocal basis we should be

travelling in the same direction on these issues to do with law, our law

should work in hand sweat developed in parallel lines. You agree or not?

I think to a large extent most of western law developed in parallel

lines but not the same lines. The point of the referendum was it was a

decision of control, of control of laws, control the borders, control

of money, those were the three big issues that dominated. That is what

I have to deliver. Not giving control to another legislative and

another judicial authority. I want to press you on this because

we have been the evidence on a number of matters to do with law and

one of the great things are across Europe which have enhanced our

world, and you do is to world civilisation, one of the great

civilising forces has been we actually have a reciprocal

fundamental principle and how we deal with matters of law and it has

been developed in a very impressive way which is envied by other parts

of the world. One of the things that happens is if a British person is

married to an Italian and they divorced and have children and the

British person is one thing, the mother of the children who wants her

tell your husband to pay for the maintenance of the children and he

is reluctant to do so, she can get an order in the courts here and the

order will be enforced in Italy. Because of this reciprocal

arrangements we have around enforcement. You cannot get back to

work in China or other places and it is because of the arrangements

developed over 40 years. In the new arrangements and negotiations has,

well you have that sort of thing in mind?

That is not quite the same. It is all to do the same sort of thing.

For a lawyer you are being very vague.

If you want to do things across borders and have trading

arrangements across borders, manages across borders and you want to have

law operating across those borders you end up having to have

overarching supranational courts and that is the bit of that that was

never discussed in the referendum and the piece that is missing in

much of what is being discussed now. If the ordinary people of Britain

realised some of this and enforcement of orders will not be

taking place they might actually be thinking if only I had no one that I

might have reached a very different decision in how I voted. I do not

accept your premise. The simple truth is the effective system of

judicial cooperation is perfectly achievable.

So what will you do with trading arrangements were you happy trading

arrangement with someone in Germany and that German company goes bust

and you want to get your compensation? We have arrangements

to make that possible currently and it is through the overarching

principles and overarching court. What would you do if the same thing

happened in New Zealand or America? Sometimes, as your colleague says,

you are told to go whistle. That is what happens. This is our Foreign

Secretary. I'm afraid you are making enormous

generalisations. I work in international trade and on many

occasion had to enforce judgments across other judicial areas and it

is perfectly possible all the time. It is all other than the EU is. I

suggest the enforcement arrangements across Europe have in fact, with

great success and lawyers in Britain are very anxious about what will

happen with those enforcement procedures.

We can do this without subjecting ourselves to foreign courts.

Can I pick up on the point that began this Salah said of questions

about the disappointment with the proposal on the rights of EU

citizens and ask two questions, the first one is the one about what

impact do you think this will have on staffing in the NHS, that is one

of the very silly questions. The second, and this may be a topic we

may be looking at, is do you consider it will be easy to sort out

reciprocal health arrangements for citizens in the EU and vice versa?

And adding to that, you may be aware we have been contacted by a number

of UK citizens living in Europe who said why are you willing to meet?

Do I think it will be easy? I will never see anything is easy in this

exercise but before I come back to the question on the NHS, we said in

our paper on citizens' rights we will seek to maintain reciprocal

health treatment and to try to either maintain or creates an

arrangement. That is quite explicit. On staffing, the difficulty here is

there are a whole series of issues that will affect whether people come

to work in the UK. Bluntly, after the referendum there were some

pretty unpleasant behaviour by some British citizens, I am ashamed to

say. Which the Government was very fierce about, and so it should be.

The pound has an effect, the value of the pound, right through to, with

nurses, there has been a new and rigorous language standard put in

place which may have been too rigorous, though that is not for me

to say. These have all had effects. The aim is to bring back control of

migration to the UK, not to slam the door shut. This country has had very

large numbers of European and other countries' migrants come here, they

do a very good job and an enormous value to society and in particular

to the NHS but also social care homes and other industries which we

rely on them and they should not see what I do in at stopping that, it is

simply aimed at managing it. May I ask you, Minister, how many

women are on the negotiating team? The photo in the Times what a

disgrace. I can't remember. Are there any?

Thank you very much indeed. You spent rather more claim that I think

you had hoped. It is a sign of the interest the committee takes in the

subject and we greatly look forward to our next hearing and discussion

with you. Thank you very much indeed.

With the Minister agree, like me, I have been very wary during the

Brexit process to committing the Government to something that may

adversely impact the industry? Essay that on a very positive day for my

constituents. There is no wish to do that either side of the house. There

is a general agreement on both sides of the house this must be a measure

which acts both in the interests of consumers but also in