PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill - 6 February 2017 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 20—Financial services—reports—

“As from the day on which this Act comes into force the Secretary of State shall, at least once in every six months, lay before Parliament a report stating what, if any, steps are being taken by Her Majesty’s Government to defend and promote the access to European markets for the UK financial services sector as a consequence of the exercise of the power in section 1.”

This new clause would seek regular reports from Ministers about the impact of withdrawing from the European Union on the UK financial services sector.

New clause 22—Competition Policy—

“Following the exercise of the power in section 1, Her Majesty’s Government shall make an annual report to Parliament on its policy regarding state aid, government intervention in industry and fair competition arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from European Union competition regulations.”

This new clause seeks the publication of an annual report from Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the competition policy consequences of withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 29—Reporting to Parliament—

“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must undertake to report to Parliament each quarter on her progress in negotiations on Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.”

This new clause puts a requirement on the Prime Minister for quarterly reporting during the negotiating process.

New clause 51—Approval of White Paper on withdrawal from EU—

“(1) This Act comes into effect after each House of Parliament has approved by resolution the White Paper on withdrawal from the EU.

(2) The White Paper must, in particular, provide information on—

(a) the nature and extent of any tariffs that will or may be imposed on goods and services from the UK entering the EU and goods and services from the EU entering the UK;

(b) the terms of proposed trade agreements with the EU or EU Member States, and the expected timeframe for the negotiation and ratification of said trade agreements;

(c) the proposed status of rights guaranteed by the law of the European Union, including—

(i) labour rights,

(ii) health and safety at work,

(iii) the Working Time Directive,

(iv) consumer rights, and

(v) environmental standards;

(d) the proposed status of—

(i) EU citizens living in the UK and,

(ii) UK citizens living in the EU,

after the UK has exited the EU;

(e) estimates as to the impact of the UK leaving the EU on—

(i) the balance of trade,

(ii) GDP, and

(iii) unemployment.”

New clause 56—Notification of withdrawal from the EEA—

“The Prime Minister may not give the notification under section 1 until such time as Parliament has determined whether the UK should also seek to withdraw from the European Economic Area in accordance with Article 127 of the EEA Agreement.”

This new clause would allow for proper parliamentary debate and scrutiny of the United Kingdom’s membership of the Single Market and whether the UK should remain as a member of the European Economic Area prior to the Prime Minister triggering Article 50.

New clause 111—European Police Office (Europol)—report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Police Office (Europol).”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Police Office (Europol) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 112—European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) —report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) following the UK‘s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 113—European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)—report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK‘s participation in and engagement with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 114—Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) —report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO).”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK‘s participation in and engagement with the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) following the UK‘s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 115—European Medicines Agency (EMEA) —report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Medicines Agency (EMEA).”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 116—European Agency for Health and Safety at Work (EU-OSHA)—report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work (EU-OSHA).”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work (EU-OSHA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 117—European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) —report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 118—European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)—report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop).”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 119—European Police College (Cepol)—report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Police College (Cepol).”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Police College (Cepol) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 120—European Environment Agency (EEA) —report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Environment Agency (EEA).”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Environment Agency (EEA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 121—European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) —report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 122—European Investment Bank (EIB)—report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Investment Bank (EIB).”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Investment Bank (EIB) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 123—Eurojust—report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with Eurojust.”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the Eurojust following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 124—European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)—report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA).”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 125—European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)—report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 126—European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)—report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 127—European Satellite Centre (EUSC)—report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the European Satellite Centre (EUSC).”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Satellite Centre (EUSC) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 128—Protected designation of origin (PDO) scheme—report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the protected designation of origin (PDO) scheme.”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the protected designation of origin (PDO) scheme following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 129—Protected geographical indication (PGI) scheme—report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the protected geographical indication (PGI) scheme.”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the protected geographical indication (PGI) scheme following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 130—Traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG) scheme—report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG) scheme.”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG) scheme following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 134—Notification of withdrawal from the EEA—

“The Prime Minister may not give the notification at section (1) until such time as a Parliamentary vote has approved the withdrawal of the UK from the European Economic Area in accordance with Article 127 of the EEA Agreement.”

New clause 136—Approval of report on withdrawal from EU—

“(1) This Act comes into effect after each House of Parliament has approved by resolution the report on withdrawal from the EU.

(2) The report must, in particular, provide information on—

(a) EU citizens living in the UK and,

(b) UK citizens living in the EU, after the UK has exited the EU.”

New clause 151—Renewables—reports—

“As from the day on which this Act comes into force the Secretary of State shall, at least once in every six months, lay before Parliament a report stating what, if any, steps are being taken by Her Majesty’s Government to defend and promote the access to European markets for the UK renewables sector as a consequence of the exercise of the power in section 1.”

This new clause would seek regular reports from Ministers about the impact of withdrawing from the European Union on the UK renewables sector.

New clause 169—European Health Insurance Card (EHIC)—report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty‘s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) scheme.”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) scheme following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 171—Erasmus+ Programme—report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty‘s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the Erasmus+ Programme.”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the Erasmus+ Programme following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 173—European Research Area (ERA)—report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty‘s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the European Research Area (ERA).”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Research Area (ERA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 176—Requirement to have regard to Motions passed by Parliament—

“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to any motions passed by Parliament on the outcome of the negotiations associated with the notification of the UK’s intention to leave the European Union authorised by this Act”.

This new clause would require Her Majesty’s Government to have regard to any motions passed by Parliament on the outcome of the negotiations associated with the notification of the UK’s intention to leave the European Union authorised by this Act.

New clause 177—European Arrest Warrant—report—

“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty‘s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the European Arrest Warrant.”

This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Arrest Warrant following the UK‘s withdrawal from the European Union.

New clause 8—EU and United Kingdom nationals—

“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must resolve to guarantee the rights of residence of anyone who is lawfully resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which section 1 comes into force in accordance with or as consequence of any provision of a Treaty to which section 1 relates, and United Kingdom nationals living in the parts of the European Union that are not the United Kingdom before the European Council finalises their initial negotiating guidelines and directives.”

Amendment 83, in clause 1, page 1, line 2, leave out “the Prime Minister” and insert “Parliament”.

Amendment 45, page 1, line 3, at end insert—

“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until she has confirmed that EU nationals living and working in the United Kingdom on the date that the UK withdraws from the United Kingdom will be subject to the same citizenship rights that applied prior to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal.”

Amendment 78, page 1, line 3, at end insert—

“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until the Foreign Secretary has published a revised programme of work for the UK Permanent Representative to the European Union for the duration of the negotiating period, and laid a copy of the report before Parliament.”

Amendment 84, page 1, line 3, at end insert—

“(1A) The persons authorised to give notification under subsection (1) on behalf of Parliament are—

(a) The Speaker of the House of Commons, on behalf of the House of Commons, and

(b) the Lord Speaker, on behalf of the House of Lords.

(1B) Parliament may only give notification under subsection (1) if—

(a) both Houses of Parliament have passed resolutions approving notification; and

(b) votes in favour of notification have been passed by—

(i) the Scottish Parliament,

(ii) the National Assembly for Wales, and

(iii) the Northern Ireland Assembly.

(1C) A notification under subsection (1) must be given as soon as is practicable after the two Houses of Parliament have passed resolutions approving notification.”

Amendment 12, page 1, line 5, at end insert—

“(3) Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must lay before both Houses of Parliament a White Paper on the UK Exiting the EU.”

Amendment 17, page 1, line 5, at end insert —

“(3) Before exercising power under subsection (1), the Prime Minister must give undertakings that all EU citizens exercising their Treaty rights in the UK who—

(a) were resident in the UK on 23 June 2016, and

(b) had been resident since at least 23 December 2015

be granted permanent residence in the UK.”

Amendment 36, page 1, line 5, at end insert—

“(3) Before the Prime Minister issues a notification under this section, Her Majesty’s Government has a duty to lay before both Houses of Parliament a White Paper setting out its approach to any transitional arrangements with the European Union following the expiry of the two-year period specified in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union.”

This amendment would require the Government to set out, prior to triggering Article 50, a detailed plan for a transitional arrangement with the EU covering the period between the end of the two-year Article 50 negotiation period and the coming into force of a final Treaty on the UK’s new relationship with the EU.

Amendment 44, page 1, line 5, at end insert—

“(3) Before exercising the power under subsection (1), the Prime Minister must lay a report before Parliament on the Government’s proposed negotiation package, including detailed and specific information on—

(a) the proposed terms of the UK’s access to the Single Market (if any) or the negotiating mandate thereof;

(b) the nature and extent of any tariffs that will or may be imposed on goods and services from the UK entering the EU and goods and services from the EU entering the UK or the negotiating mandate thereof;

(c) the terms of proposed trade agreements with the EU or EU Member States, and the expected timeframe for the negotiation and ratification of said trade agreements or the negotiating mandate thereof;

(d) the proposed status of rights guaranteed by the law of the European Union, including—

(i) labour rights,

(ii) health and safety at work,

(iii) the Working Time Directive,

(iv) consumer rights, and

(v) environmental standards;

(e) the proposed status of—

(i) EU citizens living in the UK, and

(ii) UK citizens living in the EU,

after the UK has exited the EU or the negotiating mandate thereof;

(f) details of the Government’s internal estimates as to the impact of the above measures on—

(i) the balance of trade,

(ii) GDP, and

(iii) unemployment,

in the UK after the UK leaves the EU.

(4) The report in subsection (3) must set out the costs and benefits of holding a referendum which asks the public to decide between the proposed negotiation package or remaining a member of the European Union.

(5) The report in subsection (3) must not be laid before the House before 1 December 2017.”

New clause 6—EU citizens resident in the United Kingdom—

“(1) Anyone who is lawfully resident in the United Kingdom—

(a) on the day on which section 1 comes into force, and

(b) in accordance with or as consequence of any provision of a Treaty to which section 1 relates,

shall have no less favourable rights of residence or opportunities to obtain rights of residence than they currently enjoy.”

This new clause guarantees the rights of EU nationals living in the UK at the date when article 50 is triggered.

New clause 14—Rights for EU nationals—

“Her Majesty’s Government shall ensure that those persons who have a right to indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom by virtue of their EU citizenship on the day on which this Act is passed shall continue to have an indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.”

This new Clause would ensure that those persons who have a right to indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom by virtue of their EU citizenship on the day on which this Act is passed shall continue to have an indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

New clause 27—EU nationals in the United Kingdom—

“(1) The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under subsection 1(1) unless the Prime Minister is satisfied that arrangements are in place to secure that every individual who is—

(a) not a citizen of the United Kingdom, and

(b) on the date on which this Act comes into force (“the Commencement Date”), is resident in the United Kingdom pursuant to any right derived from the treaties,

shall, when the treaties cease to apply to the United Kingdom, continue to be entitled to reside in the United Kingdom on terms no less favourable than those applicable to that individual on the Commencement Date.”

New clause 33—Immigration—draft framework—

“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must set out a draft framework for the future relationship with the European Union which includes reference to how this will give the UK control over its immigration system.”

New clause 57—Effect of notification of withdrawal—

“Nothing in this Act shall affect the continuation of those residence rights enjoyed by EU citizens lawfully resident in the United Kingdom on 23 June 2016, under or by virtue of Directive 2004/38/EC, after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.”

This savings new clause is designed to protect the residence rights of those EU citizens who were lawfully resident in the United Kingdom on the date of the EU referendum. It would ensure that those rights do not fall away automatically two years after notice of withdrawal has been given, if no agreement is reached with the EU. This new clause would implement a recommendation made in paragraph 53 by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report ‘The human rights implications of Brexit’.

New clause 67—Indefinite leave to remain for EU citizens in Wales—

“Before the Prime Minister can exercise the power in section 1, the Prime Minister must commit to automatically granting indefinite leave to remain in the UK for EU citizens already lawfully resident in Wales.”

This new clause requires the Prime Minister to commit to implementing the Leave Campaign’s pledge to automatically grant indefinite leave to remain in the UK for EU citizens already lawfully resident in Wales before exercising the powers outlined in section 1.

New clause 108—Status of Irish citizens in the United Kingdom—

“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister shall commit to maintaining the current status, rights and entitlements of Irish citizens in the United Kingdom, inclusive of and in addition to their status, rights and entitlements as EU citizens.”

New clause 135—Effect of notification of withdrawal (No. 2)—

“Nothing in this Act shall affect the continuation of those rights of residence enjoyed by EU citizens lawfully resident in the United Kingdom and UK citizens lawfully resident in the EU on 23 June 2016 after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.”

New clause 142—EU Students in the UK—

“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1 until a Minister of the Crown has confirmed that EU students present in the UK on the date the United Kingdom withdraws from the EU will be granted visas to allow them residency rights for the full duration of their academic courses.”

New clause 146—Rights of EU citizens in the UK—

“Any citizen of an EU Member State lawfully resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which this Act comes into force shall have no less favourable rights of residence than they currently enjoy.”

New clause 3 concerns the parliamentary oversight of the negotiations that will follow the triggering of article 50. It would require the Government to report back to Parliament at least every two months on the progress of negotiations and to lay reports before both Houses of Parliament on each occasion. Let me be clear that the purpose is to improve the Bill by providing Parliament with the means not only to effectively monitor the Government’s progress throughout the negotiations, but to actively contribute to their success by facilitating substantive scrutiny that can positively influence the outcome.

We are here today debating this new clause and other new clauses and amendments to the Bill only because the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s November ruling on the triggering of article 50, confirming that only Parliament, not Ministers using the royal prerogative, can initiate the start of the UK’s exit from the EU.

I will not give way and will make a little progress, if that is okay.

The Supreme Court was right to make it clear that Parliament should exert democratic influence over Brexit. That influence should be felt at the start, throughout and, most importantly, at the end of the formal process of leaving the EU. In practice, the Opposition believe that there must be three distinct pillars of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability: first, the provision of a detailed plan published prior to the start of negotiations that can inform future debates and votes, and that can be used throughout as a point of reference; secondly, a means of ensuring robust parliamentary oversight throughout the formal negotiation period; and thirdly, a meaningful debate and vote in Parliament on the proposed deal before it is signed off with the European Council and Parliament.

Does the hon. Gentleman really think that in a negotiation that could take many months and which will be extraordinarily complicated it would be in the best interests of the UK to have to reveal its hand every two months?

I want to make it clear that we are not asking the Government to reveal the minutiae of the negotiations or to micromanage the process, and I will say more about that further on in my remarks.

Under pressure, the Government conceded the first of those requests in the form of the White Paper published on Thursday, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will seek to win agreement to the third tomorrow, when he moves new clause 1. The purpose of new clause 3 is to secure the second of those pillars and, in so doing, ensure an enhanced role for hon. Members throughout the process. The Government should welcome an enhanced role for Parliament throughout the negotiations for two reasons.

I will make some progress, if I may.

First, although Ministers obviously need sufficient room for manoeuvre, and understandably cannot therefore consent to the micromanagement of the process by parliamentarians, active and robust parliamentary scrutiny will aid the negotiations by testing and strengthening the Government’s evolving negotiating position and their hand with the EU. Secondly, facilitating substantive parliamentary scrutiny and accountability would help to bind the wounds of the referendum and forge a genuine consensus in the months and years ahead, by reassuring the public, particularly the 16.1 million people who voted remain, that they will not be marginalised or ignored but that their views will be taken into account and their interests championed by their representatives in Parliament.

If the House is to pore over the details of the Government’s negotiating position and express its view on them at regular intervals, that will be known to those with whom we are negotiating. How will that not undermine the Government’s position?

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress, he will see that that is not what we are asking for. When it comes to sensitive or confidential matters, we hope that there are mechanisms to allow the House to view and respond to those.

In leaving the EU, we need a deal and a process that work not just for the 52% who voted leave or the 48% who voted remain but for each and every person with a stake in our country’s future. No one can reasonably accuse the Secretary of State of being unwilling to appear before the House—he has responded to every question put to him on this subject, even if, to ape the language of the White Paper, it has not always felt as if we have got an answer—but we require something more throughout the formal negotiations: an opportunity for hon. Members to play an active role in scrutinising and influencing the process, rather than merely to observe and comment on it retrospectively. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) rightly argued on Second Reading, hon. Members are not passive bystanders, but should be active participants in the process.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that Parliament is sovereign throughout the whole process and has a chance to look at the general direction the Government are taking by withdrawing from the EU?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As she will see, we are asking for no more and no less than the European Parliament will get.

Substantive parliamentary scrutiny and accountability are not the same as accountability after the event, and new clause 3 is focused on securing what is needed for the former. The Secretary of State has made it clear on numerous occasions that when it comes to the provision of information during the negotiations it is his intention that hon. Members will enjoy not just the same access to information as their counterparts in the European Parliament, but that the situation here will be an improvement on what the European Parliament sees.

We do not know precisely what the Members of European Parliament will see throughout the negotiations, but it is reasonable to assume that their involvement is likely to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of article 218 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union and that the detailed arrangements are likely to be similar to those set out in the 2010 framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission. It is worth stating for the record, therefore, what that involves. Paragraph 23 of the framework agreement makes it clear that the European Parliament shall be

“immediately and fully informed at all stages of the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements”.

In addition, paragraph 24 requires that information shall be provided to the European Parliament

“in sufficient time for it to be able to express its point of view if appropriate, and for the Commission to be able to take Parliament’s views as far as possible into account”.

Lastly, in order to facilitate oversight of any sensitive material, article 24 of the framework agreement states:

“Parliament and the Commission undertake to establish appropriate procedures and safeguards for the forwarding of confidential information from the Commission to Parliament”.

In short, the Commission needs to let the European Parliament know in good time what it is proposing, with provisions made for sensitive or confidential material, and to give sufficient time for the Parliament to provide feedback, and then act upon it if appropriate. That is now the baseline of European parliamentary scrutiny—the baseline that the Secretary of State has assured us this House can expect not only to match, but to surpass.

I think the hon. Gentleman will find that most European papers are published in English by the House of Commons Library. He has not yet answered the question about where he would draw his line in the sand in respect of what he refers to as micromanagement and material that should be discussed every two months.

I have been absolutely clear about that, I am afraid, and it is up to the Government to determine what sensitive material would come before Members of Parliament in that process.

Let me make a little more progress, if I may.

In acknowledging the delicate balance between the need for robust parliamentary oversight and the needs of the Executive, it is that baseline of oversight that new clause 3 seeks to secure for this place. As the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) argued on Second Reading, process matters.

I respect the democratic result of the referendum, but we all owe it to our constituents to get the best deal for them. The east midlands exports 50% of its goods to the European Union, and I would be failing in my duty as an east midlands MP if I did not have a chance to ensure that those jobs are not jeopardised by the Government deal. Is that not why scrutiny is important?

That is precisely why scrutiny is important, and if the Government were approaching this in a reasonable and sensible manner, they would actively welcome my hon. Friend’s input into the process.

The Government should embrace rather than resist agreeing to a proper process for actively engaging the House in the considerable challenge it now faces. The undertakings sought in new clause 3 would ensure the active and constructive involvement of Parliament in that process and increase the chances of securing the best possible deal for the British people. I hope the Government will consider new clause 3 in the spirit in which it has been moved, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on the matter.

In turning to the important matter of the rights of European Union nationals living in the UK, I shall speak to new clause 8, but principally to new clause 6, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) argued so passionately during last week’s Second Reading debate, EU nationals who have put down roots in the UK are part of the fabric of our nations and our communities. They are our neighbours. Many of them sustain the public services we rely on and they deserve to be treated with respect. They should not be used as bargaining chips in the negotiations.

I have no doubt that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have had, as I have, EU nationals attending their constituency advice surgeries to express the sense of trauma and anxiety that they have felt every single day since 23 June last year, and to seek reassurance. While individual hon. Members can and, I am sure, have sought to reassure, we can provide EU nationals living in our constituencies with no guarantees. Only the Government have it within their gift to do so. The purpose of new clause 6 is therefore a simple one. It will ensure that on the day section 1 of the Act comes into force, the rights of residence of EU nationals living in the UK or the opportunities for those nationals to obtain such rights of residence will be guaranteed on the date on which article 50 notice is formally served.

Even the Prime Minister’s statement today did not provide certainty. What constituents who have lived here for a number of years say to us is that they need certainty, so that they can know how to plan their lives. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, in any event, someone who has lived here for five years should be able to get permanent settlement and that someone who has lawfully lived here six years should also be eligible for British citizenship? It is vital that the Government state this very clearly.

I agree 100% with my right hon. Friend.

May I urge my hon. Friend to look at the report of a commission organised by British Future, which I chaired? The report, which received cross-party support, said that the triggering of article 50 was the point at which rights would come in, but that there should be a transition period of about five years allowing people to normalise their status, and that there should be a special status to allow for our relationship with Ireland. We believed that that would be a way of giving certainty to EU citizens, and would also be perceived as fair throughout the EU.

I think that that echoes part of a suggestion that we have made. It is touched on in other new clauses, such as new clause 57.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall make a little progress, if I may.

Hon. Members will know that permanent residence is an EU law concept similar to, but not exactly the same as, indefinite leave to remain in the UK for non-EU citizens. It is not guaranteed that the concept itself will continue to exist after we leave the EU. However, we are not debating today the complex legal issues that arise in this area; instead, we are debating a principle. We are debating how the rights associated with permanent residence are to be guaranteed.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am happy to give way, but then I am going to make a bit of progress.

The hon. Gentleman says that we are not debating the detail, but I am afraid that that is what he is proposing. He is proposing a rather wide blanket measure which would give many people an unconditional right to stay in the country. What provision does his new clause make—I cannot see any—for the more than 4,000 EU nationals who are in United Kingdom prisons? What arrangements will there be when we leave the European Union to ensure that we can remove them from the United Kingdom, which we can currently do under the EU prisoner transfer agreement?

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, it depends on the terms of the sentence. New clause 6 seeks an in-principle guarantee from the Government that they will secure the rights of EU nationals.

Few would question the fact that Brexit has divided the country, but on this issue there is a clear consensus that the Government should act decisively to give certainty to EU nationals. A motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) in July last year, which called on the Government to commit themselves with urgency to giving EU nationals currently living in the UK the right to remain, was passed overwhelmingly in the House, and that parliamentary support is mirrored among the public. Polling by British Future shows that 84% of people, including 77% of leave voters, support the ability of existing EU nationals to stay in the UK. The Labour party has called repeatedly for the Government to act to end the uncertainty that those people face. Indeed, such is the level of consensus that even Migration Watch and the UK Independence party have joined those calls.

The only question that remains is whether the rights that flow from permanent residency, and the opportunity for those who are eligible to obtain those rights in the future, will be secured by means of a reciprocal agreement or unilaterally guaranteed by the Government.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I will not give way, if that is okay, because I know that many other Members wish to speak, and I do not think the Front Bench should take the majority of the time.

We recognise the efforts of the Prime Minister and her Ministers to achieve a reciprocal agreement with our EU partners that would also guarantee the rights of UK nationals in other EU countries. We owe a duty to our nationals in those EU countries, and securing their rights must remain a priority. However, with no reciprocal agreement reached and with just weeks to go until the triggering of article 50, we believe that the uncertainty must be brought to an end by unilateral action on the part of the Government.

I am not going to give way any further.

There are hard-headed as well as moral reasons for doing this. Guaranteeing the rights of residence of EU nationals unilaterally on the date on which the article 50 notice is given would not only end the uncertainty that millions now face. It would also ensure the best possible start to the negotiations that lie ahead, and would send a clear signal to the small minority who have treated the referendum result as a licence to victimise others that our fellow Europeans are welcome and will remain so.

A number of other new clauses and amendments share the purpose of new clause 6 in seeking to protect the rights of EU nationals living in the UK. Indeed, some add additional safeguards to the basic guarantee that we seek. In particular, new clause 57, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), would ensure not only that the residence rights of EU citizens were protected, but that those rights did not automatically fall away at the end of the article 50 negotiating period if no agreement had been reached. If my right hon. and learned Friend were minded to push the new clause to a vote, she would have our support.

What matters in the end is that this issue is resolved as a matter of urgency in order to end the anxiety that people are currently feeling, and the distress that will be caused by a prolonged period of uncertainty during the negotiations. I hope that Ministers will be able to give us, and the thousands of EU nationals and their families out there, the reassurances that we seek.

I note that this group is a fairly hefty one with a large number of amendments, but I wish to make only five points, so I will attempt not to take up too much of the House’s time.

The first point that I wish to address is that of parliamentary scrutiny, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) at the beginning of his remarks. A number of new clauses and amendments talk about producing a raft of reports, including the rather large number of new clauses from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). What I want to throw out there is the question of what that really adds to the process. It seems to me—I have also spoken to a number of my constituents about this—that this House has spent a lot of time, as is appropriate, debating Brexit and all the issues that flow from it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been here on a number of occasions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has made a number of statements, and it seems to me that Ministers have furnished the House with a significant amount of information. Moreover, in the White Paper published last week, which I read very carefully, there was a reiteration of the commitment to bring forward the great repeal Bill, which will be very wide in scope and will enable Parliament to debate these matters, and there was also the suggestion that it is very likely that there will be primary legislation on immigration and customs matters, which will, of course, be debated by the House.

I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is a vast amount of information already coming out. Does he agree that even if that co-operative attitude were to change, there are plenty of mechanisms—urgent questions and the like—available to both Government and Opposition Members to bring Ministers to the Dispatch Box to provide the kind of explanation that everybody here is expecting? Does he therefore agree that it is very hard to see how the Opposition’s proposals build on or add to those mechanisms which are already available to all of us?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, certainly the Opposition Front Bench was desperately looking around for amendments that would not stop the Bill in its tracks, and this was about the best they could come up with. But it does not really add very much and is rather unnecessary, and, as I have said, many of the new clauses are rather repetitive, talking about reports and information about a whole raft of EU institutions, which will, of course, be covered in any event.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the effect, if not the intent, of the Opposition new clause would be to make all these matters justiciable and therefore bring the courts into the question of whether the Government’s reports were sufficient and, indeed, appropriate?

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. Once we put things into primary legislation and set out the nature and terms of the report, it will, as we have seen, be justiciable, and it will allow people to go to court and argue—they might be successful, they might not—that what the Government have brought forward is not adequate, and we will then have a continuation of the legal arguments that we have seen.

Should not any Member of this House want as a minimum requirement access to information and opportunities at least equal to those of any Member of the European Parliament—surely no Member of this House can justify arguing for anything less?

The point I was making—and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) was agreeing—is that there are already well-established mechanisms in this House for ensuring that information is brought before Members. Indeed, if I simply judge my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union by what they have done so far, it seems to me that they have been in this House frequently talking about Brexit. I fear that, by the end of this process, certainly the general public will be willing it to end as might hon. Members.

Is not one of the problems that, in recent years, motions have regularly been carried by the House and then been completely and utterly ignored by the Government? We need more than just a simple yes or no vote at the end of this process. We need to be able to scrutinise whatever deal emerges line by line. That is exactly what the European Parliament will be able to do, so why on earth should not we be able to do it too?

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman rose to his feet, because I am about to turn away from my first point about the new clauses tabled by Opposition Front-Bench Members and to talk about the ones that I think could be much more damaging. Those include new clause 51, to which the hon. Gentleman has appended his name, and amendment 44.

In the Government’s amendment to the Opposition motion that was passed by the House on 7 December last year, the House agreed by 448 votes to 75 that the Government should indeed ensure that Parliament had the necessary information to scrutinise these matters properly. The instruction from the House also stated, however,

“that there should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK”.—[Official Report, 7 December 2016; Vol. 618, c. 220.]

This is an arguable matter, but my contention is that the detail called for in new clause 51 on, among other things, the terms of proposed trade agreements and the proposed status of citizens are details that we would not want to disclose during our negotiations. For example, we would not wish to disclose whether tariffs were to be introduced or at what level. To do so would be to reveal our negotiating hand, which would be counter to the strongly expressed view of the House. If new clause 51 or amendment 44 are put to a vote, I strongly urge the House to vote against them.

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned new clause 51, which has been tabled in my name and those of other Opposition Members. Given that, before the referendum, the Government of which he was a part estimated the damage to the UK’s GDP of our leaving the EU on World Trade Organisation terms at around 7.7% of GDP or perhaps as much as £66 billion, would he not think it sensible for the Government to allay the country’s concerns if they now believe that the effects will be far less serious?

The hon. Gentleman is picking out one aspect of his new clause. I was drawing out an aspect, to which I object, dealing with the effective disclosure of our hand in the discussion on future trading arrangements. That would not be very sensible while we are carrying out negotiations with our trading partners.

The hon. Gentleman tempts me.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for being tempted. Another big area in which the Government were very clear, prior to the referendum, was the impact on trade of our leaving the EU, yet now we have no information on whether there will be more or less trade with the EU or with its constituent countries. Does it not seem sensible to tell the country whether we will have more trade with the EU or less?

One of the flaws in the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion is that all the matters to which he refers are forecasts, estimates or guesses. A number of estimates and forecasts were made by both sides of the argument—leave and remain—before the referendum. I am not an expert on these matters, but it seems that not all of those forecasts and assessments have panned out exactly as people thought they would, so I really do not know why producing large documents full of equally erroneous forecasts would be helpful.

Has not this exchange demonstrated the foolhardiness of revealing our hand at this stage, given the fact that we cannot officially strike any kind of bilateral trade deal until we leave the EU? We must avoid talking our country down when every trade deal and every relationship we have—yes, even with the United States—will be of paramount importance. We should also do everything to resist the temptation to insult anyone from those countries who might be coming here.

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. That demonstrates the expertise that he acquired when he was a Foreign Office Minister.

Moving on to number three of my five points, new clause 56 refers to our withdrawal from the EEA and tries to make that into a separate argument. We are a member of the EEA as a result of being a member of the EU. Given that the EEA agreement talks about the free movement of goods and persons and means that we are susceptible to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, if we were to remain within the EEA, we would in the view of most members of the public effectively not have left the EU at all—the things that they were concerned about would still be in force. Indeed, things would have got worse because we would have no ability to influence—[Interruption.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Let me just finish my point. We would have no ability to influence the rules that we would have to accept. Members who are talking about the EEA are simply trying to avoid the fact that we are going to be leaving the European Union; they are trying to remain in it by the back door.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Let me give way to the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who I think was first on his feet, and then to my hon. Friend.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Norway is not in the European Union, that Norway was cited by leading leave campaigners as an option that we could follow and that we could be like Norway and not within the European Union?

I can confirm to the House that Norway is not a member of the European Union. That is indeed true. Part of the reason why I was on the remain side of the argument was that the Norway deal is not very good at all and not a model to be followed. My view was that—[Interruption.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Let me finish answering the point of the hon. Member for Ilford South and then I will of course take an intervention. I did promise to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) first, but I will then give way to the hon. Lady.

The two best options are either to be in the EU and accept everything that comes with that, but with the ability to shape the rules, or to leave and not be in the single market, not have free movement of people and not be subject to the European Court of Justice. Norway’s EEA model is poor, because it is subject to the free movement of people, it has to accept the jurisdiction of the Court and it has no right at all to influence any of the rules. It is up to the Norwegians what model they want to adopt, but it is not one that would work for us or that I would recommend to the House.

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. Constructs such as the EEA are effectively antechambers. They are entry points into the EU. It would be inappropriate, given our size and our economy, for a country such as ours that is exiting the EU to rest in something that is unsuitable.

I could not have put it better myself. I will now give way to the hon. Lady.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether he believes that Parliament should vote on whether we leave the single market and the EEA before that happens—if that is what the Government want to see through?

I do not. I will put my cards on the table: I was on the remain side, but I am a democrat, so I accept the result. As a participant, I listened closely to the arguments in the referendum campaign and when David Cameron, then Prime Minister, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), then Chancellor, were leading the remain campaign, they were clear that if the country voted to leave the European Union, we would leave the single market. Both David Cameron and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton thought, erroneously as it turned out, that that argument would be the slam dunk. They thought that the British people would see that being in the single market was absolutely critical and therefore would vote to remain in the European Union.

If I can finish my answer, I will of course take an intervention.

However, the British public did not agree with David Cameron and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton. Therefore, it seems clear that the public accepted that we would be leaving the single market. Leading campaigners on the leave side made exactly the same point. I will now give way to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke).

It is quite right that the then Prime Minister and Chancellor warned that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market, but my recollection is that some leave campaigners just dismissed that as “Project Fear”. I particularly recollect that the current Foreign Secretary was totally dismissive of that argument and said that we would retain full membership of and full access to the market because Europe needed to sell us its Mercedes and prosecco wine. It is not true that everybody on the leave side acknowledged that we would put ourselves outside tariff and regulatory barriers.

My right hon. and learned Friend is right that not everybody on the leave side made that argument. The good news for me is that I was not on the leave side of the argument—neither was he—so I feel no obligation to defend any of the arguments made by anybody on that side of the campaign.

I specifically chose the former Prime Minister and the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, because they were on my side of the argument, but I think I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who led the official leave campaign, made exactly that argument, which is why I referred to it.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to the chair of the official leave campaign. Although many voices argued for leave, the official leave campaign, its chair and the co-chairs of its campaign committee made it very clear in public that voting to leave would mean leaving the single market.

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that helpful intervention, which rather proves my point. The British people’s decision in the referendum means leaving the EU, which means leaving the single market. That is the conclusion that the Prime Minister has drawn, and it is one that I support.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to move on to my fourth point, on the important issue of EU nationals. Given my experience as a former Immigration Minister, I have some questions, and I hope the Minister will be able to address them to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the House.

First, I completely agree that it would be desirable to be able to put at rest the minds and concerns of EU nationals in the United Kingdom who are here lawfully and who contribute to our country, but it is also important to be able to put at rest the concerns and worries of British citizens living elsewhere in the European Union. After all, the primary duty of the British Government is to look out for British citizens. That comes first, ahead of all else, and I fear that what the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich suggested—when he said that, if we cannot reach an early agreement, we should proceed anyway—might well put to rest the concerns of EU nationals in Britain, but would simply throw overboard the interests and concerns of UK citizens living elsewhere in the European Union. Doing that would not secure their interests, and it would throw away our ability to do so.

Some 15% of the academic staff, 5% of students and 10% of research students at Cardiff University in my constituency are from the EU. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a significant risk that those EU staff and their spouses will seek employment elsewhere, outside the UK, if they do not have certainty now from the Government? We would then lose all that intellectual capital.

I completely agree with the hon. Lady, which is why I am pleased that the Prime Minister, in her statement today and on a number of other occasions, has made it clear that she wants to reach an early agreement, and has been seeking to do so, with our European partners. But, in leading our country, the Prime Minister has to look to the interests of British citizens, as well as to the interests of citizens from other EU countries who are here. She does not serve the interests of British citizens by putting the interests of EU nationals ahead of them.

The right hon. Gentleman is courteous in giving way. I am a member of the Exiting the European Union Committee, and a few weeks ago we heard evidence from several British nationals living in Spain, Germany, Italy and France. They were members of representative organisations for British nationals, and every single one of them said that they felt that the other member states would reciprocate if the UK Government made a unilateral guarantee of the rights of EU nationals living here. Has he taken that evidence into account?

I have, and the hon. and learned Lady has now put it before the House, but the problem is that I have not seen any evidence to support that view. If I listened correctly to what the Prime Minister was saying, it sounds as though a number of European member state Governments are indeed of that view, but clearly more than one are not—or at least they are not now. Therefore, it is sensible to get this right.

There is another thing that Members of this House ought to be doing, and this picks up on the point made by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). There are already several mechanisms through which EU nationals who have lived in the UK for some time can sort out their residency status on a permanent basis. Rather than scaremongering and whipping up concern, hon. Members would do well to put that information in front of their constituents in order to reassure them.

The point that these British nationals living abroad made was that the British Government put this matter on the table—they put the rights of these people at issue—so they should take the lead by guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals living in the UK, and then other member states would follow suit. Those are not my words but the words of British nationals living abroad. What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say to that?

I go back to the premise of the hon. and learned Lady’s question; it was not the British Government who made this decision, as it was the decision of the British people—

It is the same thing—

No, with the greatest respect, it is not the same thing. These issues have arisen and there is a question about the rights of EU nationals and British citizens because the people of the United Kingdom decided that we were going to leave the EU. That is not a decision of the Government—

If Members will forgive me, I shall make a little progress.

I will give way to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, but then I must make some progress.

My right hon. Friend would agree, however, that other nationals should not be treated as bargaining chips, and I am sure he would also be aware that the Treasury Committee has heard a good deal of evidence to suggest that the failure to guarantee the rights of EU nationals is now beginning to damage the economy. Given that, and the overwhelming ethical case, does he not agree, on reflection, that the time has come just to protect those EU citizens’ rights?

I completely agree on the value to the economy. I also agree on this being an urgent matter, and I heard the Prime Minister say exactly that this afternoon. If I may conclude my remarks about EU nationals, perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) will see why I do not think precipitate action is very wise. It could open up a range of complexities which, far from putting people’s minds at rest and making things better, could make things worse.

The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister and he has been in negotiations. If we put on the table the kind of deal we would expect the other 27 to offer to UK citizens, we would set the template of what we think the right deal is and set the right tone for the negotiations; this is a different matter from trade.

I was listening carefully to what the Prime Minister said, and it sounds to me as though she and her Ministers are indeed talking to EU member states and trying to get this issue resolved. There is a two-stage process here: we need an agreement in principle by the UK Government with other EU member states—

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trying to intervene, but I need to finish replying to the right hon. Lady before I can take his intervention. I am also conscious of the fact that I have only one more point to make after I have finished my points about EU nationals, and I want to give other Members the chance to contribute to the debate. [Interruption.] I am giving way to take questions. This is a debate, and I cannot both make rapid progress and give way to Members, so let me just answer the point that the right hon. Lady made. It seems to me that the Prime Minister and her Ministers are indeed dealing with other European members and trying to get this issue resolved, but that is clearly not being entirely reciprocated by other members. The approach has two stages: we need an agreement in principle that we want to guarantee those rights; and then there is also an awful lot of detail to be worked out. These matters are very complicated.

I wish to draw the House’s attention to what happened last weekend. As far as I can tell, looking from the outside, it seems to me that part of the reason for the mess the US Administration have got themselves into is that they produced an Executive order that was not very well thought through. They do not seem to have taken proper legal advice, so got themselves into trouble in the courts. There was an impact on British citizens, before the intervention of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary resolved the matter. I do not want us to move precipitately without thinking things through.

I wish to give the House some examples that I think must be sorted out. First, the various amendments and new clauses refer to people who are lawfully resident in the United Kingdom under the existing treaties. People think that is straightforward, but it is actually quite complicated. Any EU national can come to Britain for any reason, for up to three months. If they want to stay here for longer than three months, they have to be either working, looking for work, self-sufficient or a student. If they are self-sufficient or a student, they are here lawfully only if they have comprehensive health insurance. We know from those people who have been trying to regularise their status, following the sensible advice from the right hon. Member for Leicester East, that many do not have that comprehensive health insurance so technically are not here lawfully at all. When we use these phrases, we need to be clear who we are granting the rights to, because people will not be aware of the complexity. If we are to give people clarity and certainty, we have to be clear about what we are doing.

Secondly, the national health service and healthcare are topical issues. We currently have a set of reciprocal arrangements with our European Union partners for people who are in those countries. We do not do the logging, administration and collecting of the money as well as they do. We want to ensure that that will work when we have left the European Union. I do not know where we will end up on that, but it is important.

Thirdly, in an intervention earlier I alluded to a point that must be thought about, because if we act hastily, we will come to regret it. At the end of March last year—these are the latest figures I was able to find—4,222 EU nationals were imprisoned in British jails. Under the EU prisoner transfer framework directive, we have the ability to transfer them when they are in prison, and when they come out we can start to take action to revoke their status in the United Kingdom. I want to make sure that in acting now we do not act hastily and make our ability to remove those people from the United Kingdom more difficult. I fear that the new clauses and amendments we are considering would not adequately deal with that issue, as was reflected in the answer from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich.

Finally, the Bill does one simple thing: it gives the Prime Minister the lawful authority to start the negotiation process. That is all it does. The Government have been generous in making available the time to debate that matter. The Bill does not need to be improved or amended in any way. I do not know which amendments and new clauses will be pressed to a vote, but I hope that I have set out some reasons why several of them should be rejected. If any of them are pressed, I urge the House to reject them.

I rise to support new clause 57, which was tabled in my name and the names of other members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, with the support of right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House.

This is about 3 million people and their families—EU citizens whose future here has been thrown into doubt by the decision in June that the UK should leave the EU. There is nothing about the cloud of uncertainty that they now live under that is their own fault. If we accept the new clause, we can put their minds at rest and let them look to the future.

Members on both sides of the House will know the people whose lives we are talking about. Some, such as those from France and Spain, have been here for decades. They have children and grandchildren living here. They work in and are part of their local community. It is unthinkable that they would be deported and their families divided because we have decided to leave the EU. Let us put their minds at rest and assure them and their families that our decision to leave the EU will not change their right to be here. Their anxiety is palpable. We have all seen it in our advice surgeries. One of my constituents, an Italian woman, has been here for 30 years. She cannot work anymore because she is ill, and her residency rights are now at risk. People from countries that have more recently joined the EU, such as Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, are working in sectors that could not manage without them—in agriculture, care homes and our tourism industry. Employers in food production are already reporting more difficulty in getting the workers they need. That is happening now.

New clause 57 was recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. My constituent who is a consultant paediatric surgeon from Sweden approached me over the new year in a state of distress because he was not sure about his future status —this is someone who performs really valuable services for the people of the west midlands and at Birmingham Children’s Hospital. He had been advised that he should seek the services of an immigration lawyer, and that advice had come from his trust.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There was plenty of other such evidence that came before us on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which he is a very valued member. This ongoing uncertainty around the status of EU residents here is allowing greater exploitation of vulnerable EU workers. Last week, appearing before the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Margaret Beels, chair of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, said that she is receiving evidence that gangmasters are telling fearful EU workers that they cannot complain about not being paid or about being subjected to unsafe conditions because if they do they will be deported as they no longer have the right to be here. We are not whipping up fears, but understanding fears and seeking to address them. It is no good, I am afraid, issuing warm words; people need certainty. They work in every part of our private sector. They contribute to our creative industries; they are artists and musicians. They work in our public services. Anyone who has been in hospital recently will very likely have awoken to find a Spanish or a Portuguese nurse at their bedside. If anyone has an older relative in a care home, they are likely to see them being cared for by someone from eastern Europe.

I have considerable sympathy with the point that the right hon. and learned Lady is making. We disagree on the fundamental point, which is that we should not do something unilateral here in the United Kingdom before we have agreement on our own residents in Spain and France and elsewhere, because we will potentially be undermining their position. No doubt they will be feeling the sense of vulnerability that she has just articulated about those living here.

I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s conclusion.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we also heard evidence in the Home Affairs Committee from groups representing the Polish community and other eastern European communities? They said that they had seen an increase in hate crime. They also said that extremists were exploiting the uncertainty and attacking people with phrases such as “Go home” and “Leave the country”. They said that the uncertainty that EU citizens felt made it harder for them to deal with these awful hate crimes.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

I am sure that many MPs in this Chamber have also had constituents from the EU who have tried to seek security by applying for permanent residency, but who have been turned down and received “prepare to leave” letters. The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) mentioned comprehensive health insurance. There is no such thing. A person cannot get 100% comprehensive health insurance. Previously, the NHS was recognised for giving health cover. Why can this House not give these people security at this end, and not threaten to throw them out?

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady.

It is not just EU nationals and their families who are worried about the uncertainty hanging over them; so are the employers for whom they work. How will our NHS find the nurses we need if they seek work elsewhere for fear that they will not be allowed to stay? It is not as if we are training them ourselves. With the cuts to bursaries, the number of student nurses has fallen by 23% this year.

I recently had a conversation with the chair and chief executive of the trust in my constituency, who said that Huddersfield Royal infirmary could not operate if it were not for young Spanish nurses. I also spoke to people at the London School of Economics who said that if the Europeans, who are good at maths and science, were to leave, 20% of the workforce of universities would go back home.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot say that we welcome them here to do such work, but use them as a bargaining chip in European negotiations.

My right hon. and learned Friend is being very generous with her time. Constituents have come to my surgeries in tears, fretting about what will happen to them and their jobs. Does she agree that it is not a British value to use people as bargaining chips in the negotiations?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

I will give way just once more.

The right hon. Lady is sending out a powerful message about British values and—this point is shared across the House—about giving certainty to EU nationals living here. May I press her, though, on the need to be careful not to send a message to British nationals living in the rest of the EU that they are somehow less important? Their concerns are equally valid and severely felt, and we are equally worried about what is happening to them. Are we not going to address or take account of any of those issues today?

We simply cannot trade one off against the other like that. This is not an economic trade negotiation.

The new clause is quite simple. It would provide that the rights of residence of EU citizens who were lawfully resident here before the referendum decision on 23 June remain unchanged. We need the clause in the Bill because the Government have been sending out mixed messages, and the Prime Minister did so again in her statement today. On the one hand, she says that anyone who is lawfully here has nothing to worry about. On the other hand, she says that she cannot commit to giving them residency rights because their future must be part of the negotiations.

It is in no way right to use the lives of 3 million people and their families as a bargaining chip. They and their families are not pawns in a game of poker with the EU. They cannot be used as a human shield as we battle it out in Europe for our UK citizens in other countries. We must decide what is fair and right for EU citizens here, and then do it. I thought we were supposed to be taking back control. If the Government reject the new clause, EU citizens will be right to draw the conclusion that their rights to continue to live here could be snatched away if our Government do not get what they want for our UK citizens living in each of the other countries in the European Union.

The new clause is not only the right thing to do as a matter of principle; it is legally necessary. The Government cannot bargain away people’s human rights. The right to family life is guaranteed by article 8 of the European convention on human rights. If the Government bargained them away, EU citizens living here would be able to go to our courts and seek to establish their rights to remain under article 8. If even 10% of those here did that, there would be 300,000 court challenges. There is no way that our court system could begin to cope with that. I hope that the Government accept the new clause. If not, I urge hon. Members of all parties to support it in the Lobby.

My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who was in the Chamber a short time ago, made an important point about new clause 3. When imposing legal requirements and duties on anybody—let alone the Prime Minister—one has be sure that those requirements are capable of being realised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and other hon. Members have dealt comprehensively with the difficulties that arise from the part of the new clause that mentions laying

“periodic reports…on the progress of the negotiations”.

I think that case has been made.

Let me move on to the next part. The real problem is subsection (c), which would

“make arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of confidential documents.”

As Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, I have had an enormous amount of trouble, over and over again, about documents that are marked as “LIMITÉ”. Although such documents are distributed, Parliaments other than the European Parliament are not allowed to refer to them because they are of a confidential nature. I have made it quite clear that I think some of this is overdone. However, to try to impose a legal duty on the Prime Minister to undertake to break the rules relating to limité documents is stretching a point to absurdity.

I ask the hon. Gentleman the same question that I asked the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) earlier: should he not be arguing, as somebody who has spent a great deal of his time in Parliament scrutinising the European Union, for Members of this House to have rights of scrutiny that are at least equal to those held by Members of the European Parliament?

I have enormous sympathy with that. In point of fact, the Secretary of State for Brexit gave evidence in the House of Lords, where, as I understand it, he made it abundantly clear that any document that would be made available to the European Parliament and its committees would, indeed, be made available to this House. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), but I believe such a measure to be unnecessary because an undertaking has already been given by the Secretary of State.

New clause 3(c) would

“make arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of confidential documents.”

Given my hon. Friend’s wide experience, for how long does he think the contents of those documents would remain confidential if they were made available for wide parliamentary scrutiny?

Well, they certainly would not. That is really the purpose of the limité restriction. Although I have reservations about the restriction in certain cases, I can think of a number of instances in which it is absolutely vital that the documents remain confidential. If there were any breach of that confidentiality —there would have to be an undertaking by the Prime Minister that she would release it—it could gum up the works to such an extent on matters of intelligence, security and all sorts of things that we would actually end up not receiving any limité documents at all.

With great respect, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who led from the Opposition Front Bench, may or may not have been dealing with these matters for some time, and I will not criticise him for that—[Interruption.] No, this is a perfectly fair point. All I am saying is that, in drafting this, if we end up with something that does not work and we have to comply with new clause 3(a), (b) and (c) to make it work, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, we would end up in the courts—and there would be a judicial review, believe me. It naturally follows that the new clause is simply nonsense, so it cannot be brought into effect. That is all I need to say about it.

My hon. Friends and I have also tabled some amendments. I am glad that we have the opportunity to discuss and debate the Bill over the coming days, although we have been given very little time in which to do so. It is fair to say that this is not scrutiny that the Government either welcomed or encouraged. It is good to have at least a short opportunity to debate this issue, although that has more to do with the Government’s confidence in their own arguments and their ability to deliver a better deal with our EU partners than the one we have at present than it does with a scrutiny process. The Government were dragged kicking and screaming to this Chamber just to have a vote on article 50 in the first place.

My hon. Friend is making some very valid points. Will we not also be judged on the leadership we give and on our humanity? Those EU citizens who are here are our friends, our neighbours and our work colleagues, and we have a duty to stand by their rights. The Prime Minister must send a clear message that those who are here are welcome to stay. We must remove the uncertainty, and do it now.

As usual, my hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point. I pay due respect to the work he has done for the Brain family and others in his constituency in some of the disgraceful immigration cases we have seen. These EU nationals have chosen to make the UK their home and Scotland their home. They make this a better place in which to live and work. It is a no-brainer that we should give them the certainty they deserve.

The hon. Gentleman is making a very cogent and well-structured argument, and I broadly agree with many of the points he is making, but would he not agree that this is really a Mexican stand-off with water pistols? There is no realistic chance that any signatory of the European convention on human rights—the United Kingdom is one; in fact, we drafted much of it—will kick out anybody. We are not going to kick out anybody from the United Kingdom, and nor are UK citizens in other parts of the European Union going to be expelled. Would it not be better for the House to recognise that the position of these EU nationals is not at risk? Would we not be much better off comforting those who are in doubt, rather than spreading fear?

The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. The ECHR is under threat from this very Government, so does it not make sense to come into the Lobby with us to support the right of EU nationals to live and work here? I look forward to his standing up for what he has just said and joining us in the Lobby.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, but I will say this to the hon. Gentleman, because he probably has a lot more influence on the Government Benches than I do—that is one thing I will give him. The Government are desperately in need of friends and good will. If we benefit financially from EU nationals being here, and if our society is richer for their being here, we want to keep them regardless—they are not bargaining chips, but that is something the Government seem to ignore. If EU nationals are not bargaining chips, I would encourage him to join us in the Lobby and give them the certainty they need and deserve.

The situation is even worse. While accepting what the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) said, pitting Elke Weston, an EU national in my constituency, against my friend Tracy de Jong Eglin in the Netherlands does not in any way give them succour; it makes their situations worse.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I am not surprised, given the amount of hard work he has done for EU nationals in his constituency.

If Conservative Members are so confident in the ECHR, which they now promise us they are, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman voting against his own Government. I do not trust Conservative Members entirely, but if there is not a problem under the ECHR, he and his colleagues will have absolutely no problem joining us in the Lobby.

We will debate the devolved process in the next tranche of proposals, but let me just say this about scrutiny. All this will have an impact on the devolution process, be it in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. If Ministers respect the devolution process, they should have no problem with the additional scrutiny that comes with it. Right now we are in a situation where the unelected House of Lords will have a greater say on this process than the elected Scottish Parliament and other devolved legislatures. No Government, regardless of their colour, have a monopoly on wisdom. The whole point of having a Parliament is that we scrutinise, with the courage of our convictions, and this place makes a contribution. If this Government are confident in what they are doing—or know what they are doing and have any kind of a plan—they should welcome scrutiny in the Chamber here and then elsewhere in these islands, because fundamentally that scrutiny will provide better legislation. On something of such enormity that we are about to undertake, they have a responsibility for it to be scrutinised as much as possible.

Let us not underestimate the impact of the decision that we are about to make this week. It will impact on our rights, on our economy, and on each and every one of us. We will encourage the strengthening of anything that increases scrutiny of this process. The Government’s record so far has not been good. I am not heartened by what I have seen, with a White Paper that was rushed out and could not even get its facts right. We therefore owe a debt of responsibility to people across the UK—and, indeed, beyond—to have more scrutiny than we are promised and more than we have at present.

Order. Before I call the next colleague, let me say that it will be obvious to the Committee that a great many people wish to speak. There are in excess of 50 new clauses and amendments to be discussed, and we have two hours and 45 minutes left to do so. I hope that Members will be courteous to others and keep their remarks as brief as possible. I appreciate that these are complicated matters, and it is good to have interventions and proper debate and discussion, but let us avoid repetition and rhetoric for its own sake.

On a point of order, Mrs Laing. It is quite obvious that the programme order will not allow for proper debate by the vast majority of Members. I have never known a debate on any European issue be given such limited time before. Has anyone approached you and asked to re-address the programme order so that we can have the sort of sensible, protracted discussion of these issues that we have had almost to excess on previous occasions such as the debates on the Maastricht treaty?

Further to that point of order, Mrs Laing. When I considered the Government’s programme motion, it seemed to me that for a two-clause Bill, two days—extraordinarily—on Second Reading and three full days of protected time to allow us to sit late where there are statements was, if anything, an excess of generosity.

The former Chief Whip makes a very good point. It is not a point of order for the Chair, but one that I would expect a former Chief Whip to make.

Let me set the mind of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) at rest on two points. First, although there are in excess of 50 amendments and new clauses, some of them address the same points as others, so we are not addressing more than 50 separate points of debate. The other point that I draw to his attention is that the House voted for and supported the programme motion, and that is not a matter for me. I am sure that I can now rely on Sir Hugo Swire to address the Committee briefly and pertinently.

I shall seek not to detain the Committee for too long so as not to repeat many of the arguments that hon. Friends and colleagues have made and will no doubt make again and again throughout this evening.

I wish to talk about the two new clauses that have dominated proceedings to date, one rather less emotional than the other. The unemotional one, I would submit, is new clause 3. We have talked about parliamentary oversight of the negotiations and heard the word “scrutiny” bandied around across the Chamber. I sometimes get the impression that some in this Chamber would seek to scrutinise every single line, cross every “t” and dot every “i” of the Government’s negotiating position. It would be interesting to conduct a straw poll as to how many Members in this Committee have ever taken part in a proper negotiation—a commercial negotiation—that requires, at times, one to keep one’s cards close to hand before declaring them. It is impossible, irresponsible and unthinkable to have to negotiate this in public, and particularly so to insert clauses such that anything discussed must be reported back to this House at intervals of

“no more than two months”—

eight weeks—each and every time. The new clause does not say what Parliament might then do if it does not like what the Government are reporting back. Do Members want a vote on it? We have heard about the possibility of legal involvement—judicial review. This is wholly unrealistic and undesirable.

I entirely agree that we need to sort this out very early on. Indeed, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said precisely that only a short while ago. Does my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) agree that part of the issue is the unwillingness of some of our interlocutors to engage in meaningful discussion prior to the triggering of article 50? This is surely a matter that can be dealt with early on, but that requires them to engage immediately and not to delay until the triggering of article 50.

I do agree, because this cuts both ways. It is cheap politicking to talk about bargaining chips—I do not think anyone is considering that—but this does require an early resolution. I was heartened when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier today that she intended to address it early on, but it has to be a negotiation between the other countries of the EU and us. It is just as important to us, as British parliamentarians—as the British Government—to defend the rights of British citizens living overseas. There are a lot of them, and not all of them are particularly contributing to the society they are in. A lot of them are retired, so they are even more vulnerable, in a sense, than many of the EU workers who are here actively working. It is the first duty of this House to look after British citizens, wherever they may be, while also being aware that we have a duty to EU nationals at the same time.

It would be completely wrong in terms of our negotiating position to declare unilaterally that all EU nationals can, up to a certain date, continue to live here without fear or favour. That would be unwise until such time as we can extract a similar agreement from the other countries of the EU where British nationals have lived, sometimes for very many years.

I am delighted to hear my right hon. Friend agree in ringing tones with what everybody has said so far, namely that absolutely nobody in this House wishes to cast any doubt on the right of EU nationals to continue living lawfully here if they are lawfully here now. Apparently, the only reason for his holding back—despite the fact that he entirely shares the sentiments of Opposition Members—is that he fears that if we declare that a Pole who has been living here for years can stay here, we will have thrown away our card and British nationals will be expelled by the Government of some unknown country. I have heard nobody suggest that any such country exists.

We have a pedantic problem of whether we can raise the matter before the process has started. If we just cleared the position of our EU nationals now, it would put the utmost pressure on every other country to clarify the thing as well. No one is going to take any reprisals against our British nationals.

I hope my right hon. and learned Friend is right. He has not always been right about everything, although he has been right about quite a lot. He and I were on the same side of the debate, and I know that he regrets, as I do, the fact that in all the discussions about migration and immigration during the campaign, some rather irresponsible points were made repeatedly about who would be able to come here from the Commonwealth, when there was absolutely no suggestion that that was behind anyone’s thinking. However, I fundamentally disagree with him in that I do not think that we should do anything unilateral before we get an agreement about the rights of British nationals living in the rest of the EU.

Does my right hon. Friend share my view that if the matter is as simple as some make out—if it is just a question of us making a simple declaration—why have the other 27 countries of the European Union not said that our citizens who are living overseas will be fine, and that there will be no repercussions for them? The fact that those countries will not make that commitment says something, does it not?

It may do, or it may not. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has said, there is no evidence to suggest that a single country would not behave in a good way. But there is absolutely no evidence that they will all behave in a good way; we simply do not know, because we have not yet had that conversation. Until we have had that debate and secured an agreement that similar rights will be granted to British citizens living in other EU countries, we should not move to allow every single EU national who lives here to continue doing so.

If the cynics among us genuinely believe that there could be countries out there that are not prepared to do this, should we not now, more than ever, lead by example?

I do not know whether my hon. Friend was here earlier when the Prime Minister was asked about the matter. The Prime Minister gave a very strong suggestion that securing such a deal was at the top of her negotiating priorities. At the end of the day, it is an agreement—it is a deal—and it has to be negotiated. I do not think that we would be right unilaterally to declare anything.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that a unilateral declaration would undo some of the damage that was done by the “list of foreign workers” stuff that came out of the Tory conference in Birmingham? That shocked a lot of our European partners and hardened their views against us. Surely a unilateral declaration might help.

I agree with the hon. Lady that language and sensitivity are incredibly important. We are dealing with families, and with people who are married to EU citizens. We are dealing with people who live here and who do not know whether they have a future here. That is why we have to resolve the matter very early on. I have considerable sympathy, as I have said, with many people who have spoken about the contribution that EU nationals make. I very much hope that we can reach an agreement that will satisfy all who are here but, equally, I think that our first duty is to look after our citizens abroad.

The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the issues faced by British citizens whose partners are EU nationals, but does he agree that we are also talking about children? I have seen children in my constituency raise real concerns about whether they will be able to study in the same school, and about where their future will be. They do not know the country that their parents came from, and they are British in every sense of the word. This is causing huge uncertainty. We can tackle this, and we can do it this week.

We can all cite examples from our surgeries of individual cases, but I am not sure that to do so contributes to the greater argument. We need to get a policy in place that covers the whole thing. That can only be achieved by the Prime Minister making it a priority, as she has suggested she will, and getting an agreement from the other member states that involves the reciprocity we need for our British people living abroad.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to be concerned about the fate of British citizens living in the European Union, but I agree with others who have said that, surely, a goodwill gesture would be a really positive thing for this Government to make. Two of my constituents are a married couple who have been living together in this country for 30 years, and I consider the wife to be as British as anybody else. We should make it absolutely clear that it is inconceivable that this couple should be separated, and that their children should be left with separated parents.

Indeed, and no doubt there are similar examples of British people in not-dissimilar situations in Spain, France and elsewhere. We need to ensure that their rights are recognised as well.

I am not going to continue in this vein, because others wish to contribute. I have made my point. I have sympathy with the view that EU nationals contribute a lot to the economy. I hope that there is an early agreement that allows them to stay and to continue to work here. Equally, any such agreement, to my way of thinking, has to be part of a wider agreement that assures the future of British nationals living in other EU countries.

I rise to support new clauses 3 and 57. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for their speeches. The one thing I would add to the forceful case made by my right hon. and learned Friend is this: when the Exiting the European Union Committee took evidence from representatives of Brits living abroad, one might have expected them to make the argument that has just been advanced, but they said the opposite. They said that Britain should give a unilateral commitment now, because they felt that doing so would ease the process of negotiation.

I was not at that Committee hearing, and I am quite interested to know whether evidence was taken from ambassadors of EU countries about their Governments’ positions as part of the inquiry.

No, we have not taken evidence from ambassadors, but we have heard what has been said from the Government Dispatch Box, namely that—from memory—almost all member states are up for this, apart from one or two. We do not yet know who the one or two are, and I hope that they will change their minds so that we can make progress.

I want to address the arguments we have heard thus far in relation to new clause 3. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander)—she is no longer in her place—asked the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) whether we should be able to have a vote on certain aspects of the nature of our withdrawal. He said no, because during the referendum campaign it was made clear by leading participants what would happen if we voted to leave, and therefore it is gospel and we cannot argue with it. That is a very interesting argument. On that basis, the NHS will be getting £350 million a week, because that, it was said, would be the consequence of a leave vote—but I will leave that to one side.

The right hon. Gentleman’s central argument, which he made at the beginning of his speech, was to ask what new clause 3 added. I say to him sincerely that it adds accountability. It has been argued that the new clause is unnecessary because the Government are already doing what it would require. If that is true, I would ask why there is a problem with the Government accepting it.

The argument was made that the Government would be forced to reveal all sorts of stuff. All that the new clause says is that the Prime Minister

“shall give an undertaking to…lay before each House of Parliament periodic reports”.

The content of those reports will be for the Government to determine. There is nothing in the new clause about forcing the Government to reveal their hand. When it comes to getting in English the documents that the European Commission is giving to the European Parliament —probably in English, while we still have MEPs, and in the other languages of the European Union—surely there cannot be any argument about that at all. It is entirely sensible.

On the point about confidential documents, I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said. I raised the matter with the Secretary of State when I was first elected as the Chair of the Select Committee, and he replied to me in a letter that

“negotiations will be fast moving and will often cover sensitive material, so we will need to find the right ways of engaging Parliament.”

I welcomed that reply. All that new clause 3 says is that the Prime Minister shall

“make arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of confidential documents.”

The arrangements are for the Government to propose. Given the extent to which Brussels is a very leaky place and the fact that we will be negotiating with 27 other member states, I cannot help making the point that I suspect we will find out very shortly after the meeting has concluded where the negotiations have got to, so the Government’s arrangements will be to advise us all to buy certain newspapers, in which one will be able to read what was discussed during the course of the afternoon and evening.

The main point I was making, and I stand by it, is that new clause 3 imposes a legal obligation, enforceable by judicial review, on the Prime Minister effectively—and not just effectively, but actually and legally—to break the confidentiality imposed by, for example, limité documents. As I have said, I do not always subscribe to such degrees of confidentiality, but that is a personal view. The fact is that there is confidentiality, and it is a legal obligation.

I would say to the hon. Gentleman, who has great experience in these matters, that we know the Commission, in respect of trade negotiations, made arrangements with the European Parliament for certain documents to be made available, including in rooms where people could go and read them but could not take them away. The new clause is asking the Government to find a way of making this work in a way that is consistent, as of course it has to be, with any legal obligations, but confidentiality does not seem to me to be a very strong argument.

The argument that the new clause would make it all justiciable does not seem very strong either. Frankly, on that basis we might as well all go home tonight and never come back because Parliament legislates, and when Parliament legislates people can go to the courts and seek to suggest that the way in which the legislation is being implemented is not correct. That is not an argument against new clause 3, but against Parliament doing its job.

Having listened to speeches made by Conservative Members, I would gently say to the Minister of State, who is a reasonable man, that I hope he will not get up and repeat the arguments we have heard on new clause 3. Frankly, it is really simple and sensible stuff to help Parliament to do its job. On the frequency of reporting, as the Minister will know, when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) suggested every two months, the Secretary of State got up and said that that might be a rather modest objective. If it is a modest objective, I really do not see how the Government can oppose it.

I do not propose to speak for more than a few minutes. I have been wrestling with this matter for months, and in particular I have wrestled with it over the course of the weekend. This matter affects my constituents in South Leicestershire—and not just them—many of whom have come to see me to explain the problems, for example about children at school, which has been mentioned by other hon. Members.

I was the son of Italian immigrants in Glasgow in the 1970s, and I remember how it felt to be the only son of an immigrant in a classroom full of Scottish people. I do not want any EU national child across the United Kingdom to feel the way that I felt at times in school in the 1970s. However, there is more than simply anecdotal evidence that the situation now caused by Brexit is affecting the wellbeing of families. Such concerns have been raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), a fellow east midlands Member for whom I have nothing but the utmost respect. As I have argued with colleagues in the Chamber—we should be saying it far more loudly—EU nationals have contributed an enormous amount to the success and wellbeing of our United Kingdom, as did my parents over 50 years. I want to hear Members say that daily.

It was often said during the EU referendum that there was perhaps a cost consequence to having the 3 million-plus people from every one of the member states who have integrated here. I always believed that that was utter rubbish. We have benefited as a country by having immigrants come into the United Kingdom. The fact is that we will continue to benefit, because when all of this is over, we will still continue to have EU migrants coming into this country. The difference will be that this Parliament and Government—Conservative, Labour or otherwise—will determine the immigration rules. I cannot possibly foresee a situation where a competent British Government would attempt to reduce immigration to levels that would damage our economy. That leads me to a point made in a newspaper recently by an hon. Friend of mine about a promise made in the Conservative manifesto that we have not kept and cannot keep. We cannot get immigration down to the tens of thousands without damaging our economy.

However, I have decided to vote against the amendment on this matter. As I said at the outset, I have wrestled with this decision, because it affects my family personally. I will explain why I have decided to do this. Ultimately, it is because the deal that will be reached with the EU will be not just legal, but also political. It will be about personalities: about how the Prime Minister and her team get on with the other side.

Had I been Prime Minister last July, I might well have taken a different decision. However, I made a comment to the Prime Minister today in which I made it very clear that I am putting my entire trust in her and her Ministers to honour the promise that they are giving to the country about getting an early deal. I said to the leader of my party that it would be “a decisive mark of her negotiating skills and leadership qualities as our Prime Minister.” I believe that she will get a reciprocal deal that benefits citizens from Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales who live in other EU member states, and that protects my own family and friends, my own constituents and other EU nationals across the United Kingdom.

That is why I will vote against the amendment. Ultimately, it is a political matter, and it is for the Prime Minister to demonstrate her leadership and negotiating skills in getting this right, and coming back to the Dispatch Box within months—I repeat, within months—of triggering article 50 with an early deal on which we can all agree and for which we can thank her, that will be to the benefit of all our constituents living abroad and the benefit of EU nationals living in our constituencies.

I am just curious. I support the Prime Minister’s intentions and most definitely her sincerity in aiming to achieve such a deal, but does my hon. Friend agree that if that moment does not come as soon as she would like, she should review the idea of unilaterally offering EU citizens their rights and just put everybody out of their misery, because that is the right thing to do?

Again, I repeat the comment I made to the Prime Minister that it would be “a decisive mark of her negotiating skills and leadership qualities as our Prime Minister.” She must come back to the Dispatch Box early on with such a deal.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the conclusion that he has reached. The other thing the Prime Minister demonstrated when she was Home Secretary is her attention to detail. As I tried to set out for the Committee, this is actually a more complex matter than it at first appears. It is not just that the Prime Minister needs to get the principle right; she and her Ministers and officials need to get the detail right to ensure not only that my hon. Friend’s family and others like them have security now, but that there are no unforeseen consequences for them in the future. I think that he has made the right decision.

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, but a promise has been made about an early agreement, notwithstanding the complexities of the matter. As a lawyer—I am a former corporate lawyer—I know that when my clients came to me asking for me to negotiate, I had to offer solutions to problems. If I did not get the deals that my clients wanted, I would not have been used frequently by those very clients. It will be a mark of our leader, our Prime Minister, if she gets the early deal that she is promising our country, and that is why I am supporting her this evening.

The hon. Gentleman has obviously made a personal decision on this matter. He uses the analogy of being a lawyer and going to negotiate a deal, but does he not accept that the Prime Minister could just settle and give every EU national in our country right now the right to be here, without any further delay? There is an alternative attitude that would also deliver for his client, is there not?

As I mentioned, had I been Prime Minister in July, I might have started the whole process very differently.

I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) about the consequences of not getting an early deal on this matter. The consequence would be a tsunami of litigation against the Government. Politically, therefore, an early deal must be brought to this House. That is why I trust the Prime Minister to get that early deal.

The role of Parliament is also a political matter to which Ministers should give serious consideration. The European Parliament has a substantive role in the negotiations that we do not have. Some would say that the primary reason for that is that it represents 27 other nations, whereas we represent one sovereign country as the British Parliament. However, if we hear comments from the media, reporting on what European parliamentarians are being told about what our ministerial negotiating team are saying in Europe, it would become farcical if our Government did not report back to us.

Exactly.

I do not see a need to force the Government to do that. It would be politically impossible for the Government to function responsibly and appropriately without giving us at least the same information that we will be receiving from the media and the European Parliament. Again, it is a matter of politics and we should not bind the hands of the Government in a statutory manner that could be justiciable. That is why I trust my Government to come back to the House with sensible updates, no different from the updates that the European Parliament receives, so that we can continue to debate and discuss the matter.

My hon. Friend is on the right side of all these arguments, but he is a very trusting man. Does he not realise that the background to all this is that when the European Commission started negotiating the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, it took exactly the same line that the Government are now taking—that it could not possibly disclose any of these things as it would compromise the negotiations? The fact is that the European Parliament now gets the information because it was less trusting and is made of sterner stuff than this Parliament has so far proved to be. I do not think that that is in accordance with our parliamentary traditions.

I respect the judgments and comments of my right hon. and learned Friend. However, I read his recent article about his own thoughts on his first term in Parliament and how he would have dealt with a similar matter. I will leave it at that.

I have listened carefully to the valuable and honourable comments that have been made on this matter, particularly by Opposition Members, but I will support my Government and I will hold my Government to account in a way that I never see Opposition MPs from Scotland holding their Government to account.

It was touching to hear the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) talk about his hope and aspiration that EU nationals will be allowed to remain indefinitely, and of course he is right on that, yet he betrayed a little bit of fear of offending his Front Benchers were he to go so far as wanting to enshrine those rights in the Bill.

I commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for new clause 57. It is important and would provide the assurances that many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people residing in this country require. I tabled a similar new clause—new clause 14—which I hope the Committee will support.

The context of this debate, for which more than 50 substantive amendments on distinct and specific issues of great importance have been tabled, is the contrast between the desire of Members to raise these issues and the nonsensical four hours in which they have to be considered. There is something like four minutes for each topic. Nothing could demonstrate more clearly to Members in the House of Lords how important it is that they do the due diligence on this Bill that the House of Commons will clearly not be able to do.

Is it not worth noting that when it came to debating the Lisbon treaty and the Maastricht treaty, 30 days were allocated to discuss the issues in the House of Commons alone? Five days is a very poor comparison.

My hon. Friend is completely right. This Bill is far more important than all those treaties wrapped together, because it is about withdrawing from the European Union.

What made the situation worse was the White Paper we had from the Government. Let us not forget that it came the day after the vote on Second Reading. That was pretty shocking and quite contemptuous of the rights that the House of Commons should have. It is a lamentable document because of the lack of information it contains on so many of the important issues on which I and other hon. Members have tabled amendments.

We should use the time we have today to talk about what we need to know and to ask the Government what their plan is. That is why I will briefly go through some of the new clauses I have tabled. For the sake of argument, let us take the first one, new clause 20 on financial services. One could say that it is merely a small corner of Britain’s GDP, but it provides £67 billion of revenue for all our schools and hospitals. If we mess around with that sector in the wrong way, we will all be poorer and our public services will be poorer as a result.

New clause 20 suggests that there should be a report twice a year on where we are going on one of those questions that was not contained in the White Paper: “What is our progress towards a smooth transition from the existing open market access, where we have passports, to the new arrangements, whatever they are going to be?” The White Paper merely says, “We’d quite like to have the freest possible trade,” but it says nothing about what will happen on mutual co-operation, regulation and oversight; whether we will be able to have permanent equivalence rights for some trades; or whether UK firms will have time to adjust.

Those issues already pose a clear and present danger to our economy. HSBC says that 1,000 jobs are going to go, Lloyd’s of London is moving some of its activities, UBS is moving 1,000 jobs, and J.P. Morgan has said that potentially 4,000 jobs will go. Firms are voting with their feet already, yet the White Paper hardly touches on this question.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his diligence on this Bill and for tabling these important new clauses. If we boil it all down, this is not about passporting and the complicated legal framework around financial services, but about the tens of thousands of my constituents who are in highly skilled, highly paid jobs in the financial services sector and who are worried about their future employment.

Absolutely. When hon. Members are asked by their constituents, “What time did you have to debate financial services?”, they will have to say, “There was only a couple of hours or maybe just a few minutes. I didn’t say anything about it because of the ridiculous programme order that we put in place to curtail debate.”

Is it right that the hon. Gentleman talks down the City of London in this way? We all know about the threats that have been made, but not one of those jobs has left the City of London. The fact is that, given a choice between London, Frankfurt, Dublin or Paris, those companies will choose London every time.

I really hope that that is the case. I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s aspiration, but he should look at the press releases from HSBC, Lloyd’s of London, UBS and J.P. Morgan. These are not alternative facts; this is the real truth. These are people’s jobs and this is revenue for our country that we will potentially lose.

It is not talking down the City of London to highlight the report by TheCityUK emphasising that the best-case scenario, under the Government’s plan, is for 7,000 jobs losses, but that the worst-case scenario could be more than 70,000 job losses. That is not talking the City down but making the economic case for securing the best deal.

These are the realities we face.

Is it not my hon. Friend’s point that we are now a service economy? The service sector accounts for 88% of London’s economy, and the service sector can move. Prior to our joining the EU, we had things in the ground and we were a great manufacturing nation, but that is not the case today.

That is another issue that deserves a massive amount of consideration, but we just do not have the time to go through it today.

I will move on, then, to new clause 22, on competition policy—another small area of policy! The White Paper says absolutely nothing about what the UK will do, upon our exit from the EU, in respect of competition policy. It is totally silent. Will we change our attitude towards state aid for industry? What will our state aid rules be? If we make a change, will our trading partners baulk at the idea that we might be subsidising products in a particular way? Will we be undercutting their production? Would we not wish to do that? Will we take on the WTO disciplines on subsidies? Will we join the EEA scheme on subsidies? What about state aid rules, competition policy and the European Free Trade Association? This a big deal. I think of subjects that have come up recently such as Hinkley Point, the British investment bank and British steel. These are all questions we have to consider and decide upon. All I am saying in new clause 22 is that the Government should publish a report in one month on their attitude to competition policy. It is a pretty simple measure.



I have tabled other amendments that would require Ministers to set out their aspirations, within one month of Royal Assent, on other questions that will arise as we extract ourselves from some of these European partnerships, alliances and agencies. On law enforcement, for example, what will we do about Europol? New clause 111 touches on the benefits we currently enjoy from cross-border co-operation on cybercrime, terrorism, combating trafficking and other important activities. We deserve to know the Government’s approach to cross-border crime, as we do with respect to the European Police College, Eurojust, our co-operation with prosecuting authorities, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and the Agency for Fundamental Rights. The White Paper is totally silent on all those issues. We have no idea what the Government’s plan and negotiating stance will be, and yet we do not have the time to debate these matters properly.

I do not know what the Government are worried about. Anybody who knows anything about negotiations knows that each side can report back from time to time without necessarily giving away their negotiating hand. I do not know what they are scared of.

I think the Government might be scared of the debate. It also reflects their lack of awareness of the issues. The Government have not thought this through but instead are confronting issues as they bubble up, at a fairly random level, while giving a veneer of control—“We must not show our cards”, “I cannot give a running commentary”. Ministers use these phrases, but behind the curtain they are panicking and their feet are moving rapidly, because they do not have a clue.

By logical extension, the hon. Gentleman wants to unpick almost every single part of EU policy, legislation and co-operation with the UK, bring it to the House and get the Government to set out what they want to do about them. How long does he think it would take to dissociate ourselves from the EU if we were to take that line—two years or 20 years?

It would take more than the three days that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have given us to debate these questions. We are leaving the EU—that is what the Bill is for. He and his hon. Friends might be happy to trust the Prime Minister entirely, but Parliament is sovereign. The Supreme Court gave us this duty and said that we should do our due diligence, but the time constraints will prevent us from doing so.

I wish to raise a couple of other law enforcement issues. The big one, in new clause 177, concerns the Government’s policy on the European arrest warrant. The EAW, of course, is there to make sure we can transfer criminal suspects or sentenced persons from other countries and put them on trial here, and vice versa. The UK has extradited more than 8,000 individuals accused or convicted of criminal offences to the rest of the EU. I think of the case of Hussain Osman, found guilty of the Shepherd’s Bush tube bombing in July 2005, captured in Rome, extradited under the EAW and sentenced to 40 years. In 2014, the Prime Minister herself said that ditching the EAW would turn Britain into

“a honeypot for all of Europe’s criminals on the run from justice”.

From the Prime Minister’s own mouth! What will be our attitude towards the current level of participation? Will we want to continue with the EAW? There is nothing in the White Paper about it.

Is it not the agencies that will be the biggest problem? The Government describe moving everything over with a great repeal Bill, but what happens where that Bill refers to actions that depend on an EU agency, given that we will not have that agency?

That is the fallacy behind the reassurances to hon. Members. We are told, “Don’t worry. We can come to this in later legislation. It will all be fine. The great repeal Bill will deal with these things”.

Of course it will not. These are facilities and levels of co-operation and alliances that exist because of our membership of the EU, and yet we will not even have the time to debate the consequences.

I had better move on rapidly. On public health, what is the plan? What do the Government intend to do? Again, the White Paper said virtually nothing about a range of critical alliances, such as the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, as dealt with in new clause 113. During the outbreak of SARS in 2003, when the disease rapidly spread across several countries, we knew what to do because these EU-wide institutions and public health authorities were able to provide research and intelligence. There is nothing in the White Paper about the British Government’s attitude to such pan-European questions.

What will we do about the European Medicines Agency, as dealt with in new clause 115? Currently based in London, the EMA harmonises the work of national medical regulatory bodies across a range of issues including the application for marketing authorisations, support for medicines development, patents, monitoring the safety of medicines, providing medical information to healthcare professionals and so forth. Who will take on those responsibilities? What will happen? The White Paper was totally silent on that question.

The Health Secretary told the Health Committee the other day that he had already thrown in the towel on the EMA—that we were leaving it and giving up the headquarters in London, along with hundreds of jobs, meaning far slower approval of vital drugs in this country, and the loss of all our influence and all those jobs.

Yes, and, again, we have heard no strategic alternatives from the Government and have no idea what their plan will be.

Given that the Government have said that they will pull out of Euratom, because it is part of the EU, is not the logical extension of their position to pull out of all those agencies? If so, why does my hon. Friend think they do not want to face up to it? Is it because they do not want to face up to the cost of duplicating the work of 30-odd agencies?

I do not think Ministers know what to say about some of these questions. They hope that because the issues are fairly low level and very specialist, nobody will spot them, but they will start to affect very many people. Myriad issues will arise.

Is my hon. Friend aware that as a result of our leaving the EMA many jobs in the medical and drugs world will move out of Britain? I met people representing those interests only today, and they are very fearful of what will happen to British jobs.

I am afraid to say to my hon. Friend not only that he is right, but that the list goes on—the list of the consequences of withdrawing from the EU without Parliament even having the opportunity properly to debate it. Food safety is covered by the European Food Safety Authority, so we will be throwing in the towel on independent scientific advice on food chain issues and research that is currently in place through our involvement in the EFSA—and there is nothing in the White Paper about it.

Oh, the right hon. Gentleman knows what the plan is for the E111.

If the hon. Gentleman had read it, he would understand it perfectly as well as I do. The plan is very simple. All existing laws and requirements will be transferred into good British law. If we need a different adjudicator, that adjudicator can be selected and approved by Parliament. The great news for both of us is that nothing will change legally unless and until this Parliament debates it and wants to change it.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has actually left these shores and visited other countries: we do not control the sort of health insurance and health service schemes that happen in those other European countries, but we currently have a reciprocal health insurance arrangement that provides him, his family and his constituents with a certain degree of cover. That could well be ripped up because of the consequences of the legislation that we are potentially passing—without a word from the Government and with nothing in the White Paper.

My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the E111 scheme, because that will have a practical impact on our constituents. If my hon. Friend does not get a clear answer on that, I fear that many constituents will be forced into buying very expensive travel insurance policies to make sure that they are covered while the scheme is left in limbo.

The consequences of this aspect and many others are myriad. I hope that the House will begin to wake up and realise that we have been sold a pup with this programme order, which does not give us enough time to discuss all this. I have to move on.

The European Chemicals Agency is another example of something that will be ditched. Companies currently have to provide information about hazards, risks and the safe use of chemicals, but we will potentially leave that agency, with nothing in the White Paper about the alternative.

Another health and safety issue is aviation. What will we do about safe skies, and the regulation of aircraft parts, engines and many other aspects? What will we do about maritime safety? What happens if shipping disasters occur on or around our shores? What is the Government’s alternative? There is nothing in the White Paper.

Another minor issue—he said sarcastically—is the environment, and we will potentially leave the European Environment Agency. New clause 120 simply asks that we have a report within a month on what the Government’s plans should be.

I want to move on, if I may.

When it comes to education, science and research issues, we will leave the European Research Council, which is very important. Hon. Members may know about the Erasmus scheme, which means that all our constituents who currently want to study abroad for a few months can have that time recognised as part of their degree, but what will happen to that scheme? There is nothing in the White Paper. It does not say anything about students in our constituencies potentially losing out very significantly. What about satellite issues, plant variety issues, locational training and all sorts of issues?

My hon. Friend is indeed making an excellent speech and highlighting the complexity of the challenges we face. He referred to science, and I had a conversation yesterday with my constituent Clare, who is a scientist and was extremely concerned about how our collaboration will work and what projects we will be included in in the future. She was also concerned about the impact on our young people. Their future is ahead of them, and in a sense we are pulling the rug out from under their feet.

We should have the time, the space and the opportunity to discuss the consequences for my hon. Friend’s constituent, but we will not. My hon. Friend will have to tell her constituent that we did not have enough time in the House of Commons. Fingers crossed, there might be time for the House of Lords to do some of this work and put their concerns to Ministers in the other place.

My hon. Friend is doing an excellent job of trying to scrutinise the implications of this Bill, yet we have less time on the Floor of the House to debate it than we would have in Committee for much less important Bills. Does my hon. Friend agree that while we want all these issues to be sorted out within two years, that might not happen, which is why we need transitional arrangements as well as a vote on the final deal, so that this House can see whether the Government have done their job properly and truly got the best deal for Britain?

Exactly. We need to use the two-year negotiation period wisely. We shall come on in Committee tomorrow to some of those particular issues.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as well as having an environment policy, we need to make sure that it is enforceable? It is no good just moving it across, if we cannot bring enforcement to bear. Does he also agree with me that the European Investment Bank is a crucial issue, because it is a massive investor in renewable energy in this country? We need to know where we stand on that.

In that case, I will move on to new clause 122, which references the European Investment Bank. It deals with a series of economic and trade co-operation issues, which are again not referenced at all in the White Paper. Can you imagine, Mr Howarth, the Government producing a White Paper about the consequences of withdrawing from the European Union without even mentioning the European Investment Bank, in which, by the way, we currently have a 16% stake? It part-funds Crossrail and the Manchester Metrolink. This is a massively important institution, yet we are simply shrugging it off in a blasé way, saying “Trust the Prime Minister; it will all be fine”.

We should at least ask Ministers about the attitude of the British Government towards it, so I ask the Minister directly: what is the British Government’s attitude to our continued participation in the European Investment Bank? He needs to address that and other issues.

I had better move on and talk about a couple of other new clauses. I know that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, and it is frustrating that we do not have enough time properly to debate the issues. I am glad to see in their place a couple of hon. Members who might be interested in these things. New clauses 128 to 130 deal with the issue of the protected designation of the origins of goods and services—specifically, their protected geographical indication.

Hon. Members might well have relevant businesses within their constituencies. This is sometimes known as “the Stilton amendment”, so I am looking at the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara). I understand that Stilton is not necessarily made in North West Cambridgeshire, but the hon. Gentleman has the village of Stilton in his constituency. Similarly, the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) will be well aware of the wonders of Fal oysters, which are protected under the protected geographical indication—PGI—scheme that applies to European trade. Whether they are called “the Stilton amendment” or “the Scotch whisky amendment”, the new clauses simply ask what the Government’s plan is for those protected products—much-cherished and much-valued not just where they are produced, but where they are consumed worldwide—if they lose their protected status? We could end up having knock-off Scotch whisky sold around the world without that protection. The same might apply to Scotch beef, Welsh lamb, Melton Mowbray pork pies, Arbroath smokies, Yorkshire Wensleydale, Newcastle Brown Ale and the Cornish pasty.

As it happens, the protected status of Stilton cheese prohibits people living in the village of Stilton in my constituency from making it. They researched the cheese and found that it was originally made in the village, but they are prohibited from making it by the protected status to which the hon. Gentleman refers. When we leave the European Union, they will be able to make Stilton cheese in Stilton.

Finally, we get some sign of life from Conservative Members. They are finally interested in the consequences of withdrawing from the European Union. This is an issue that the House should have the opportunity to discuss. Many firms, industries and producers, on both sides of this question, will either benefit or—probably—lose out, as a result of our exiting from the European Union in this way.

Blessed are the cheesemakers, wherever they happen to live, but may I return my hon. Friend to new clause 112, which deals with the European Chemicals Agency, and alert him to the fact that the Environmental Audit Committee is looking into the issue? I have the 200 pages of evidence on what withdrawing from the European chemicals regulations will mean for the motor industry, the defence industry and the pharmaceuticals industry in this country, and it does not make pretty reading.

As my hon. Friend says, there are serious questions about hazards that could affect our constituents and substances that pose dangers because, for instance, they may be carcinogenic.

We are disappointed in the Government not only because of their White Paper, but because they are trying to gag Parliament and prevent it from debating these issues. Muzzling Members on both sides of the House on these questions means that we will end up far poorer and far worse off, and it sends a message to the Lords that they will have to do the job of scrutiny and due diligence that we were unable to do. This is our only substantive opportunity to debate the Bill. Parliament deserves more respect than the Government have shown in their insubstantial, inadequate White Paper, which does not touch on many of the questions in our new clauses. We simply want to know what they plan to do, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will answer our questions when he responds to the debate.

I want to speak briefly about new clauses 171, 173 and, principally, 57.

I am proud to represent my constituency, which is home to some of the most impressive academic and scientific research in the world. We attract and grow the most innovative brains, and we do that by looking outwards rather than inwards. I know that the Government have confirmed that all EU legislation will simply be transferred to UK law on the day of exit, but I feel that particular attention should be paid to planning our future academic and scientific collaborations.

New clauses 171 and 173 request reports from the Government on the future of the Erasmus+ scheme and participation in the European research area. Given that our academic and research industries are two of our greatest exports and feature heavily in the business, energy and industrial strategy, such reports should be very straightforward. We need to give clarity and reassurance to those sectors, which I know are exceptionally worried about the future. The University of Cambridge, the Babraham Institute, the Wellcome Genome Campus and the Laboratory of Molecular Biology, to mention just a few institutions in my constituency, are extremely important to national prosperity, and they deserve priority in the Government’s thinking.

The hon. Lady is making a very important speech, but is she aware that it is not necessary to leave behind all those EU agencies? When it comes to research and development, for example, Israel belongs to Horizon 2020. Does the hon. Lady not think that the Government should look into that, and consider the granting of such a status to this country?

I entirely agree. I think that what is most important is for Ministers to listen to organisations such as those in my constituency in order to understand what they need. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has visited Cambridge twice since Christmas, because he is clearly listening, but we in the Chamber are not the experts. Those organisations are, and we should listen to what they say.

Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the problems that universities are experiencing is that PhD students and other academics are choosing not to come to Britain now? That means that our global universities are losing out to Harvard, Yale and Berkeley, and universities in other countries.

I regularly speak to members of the University of Cambridge, because a couple of its colleges are in my constituency. Although numbers have not fallen so far, I know that they are very worried about what will happen in a couple of years. Universities are a fundamental part of what is great about this country, and they deserve our protection. That is why we need to look fully at the implications for them, and the Government need to listen.

The debate on new clause 57 is probably one of the most important debates that we shall have, because it concerns the continuing rights of EU citizens lawfully residing here before or on 23 June last year. I recognise that the Prime Minister has said that seeking reciprocal rights will be her earliest negotiation priority, and I also recognise that many EU citizens already have an automatic right to remain. However, the issue will continue to keep many of my constituents awake at night until it is resolved.

Like, probably, the hon. Lady, I have been written to by a number of my constituents who are married to British citizens but are EU nationals, and they are very concerned. I should have thought that the Government would give them some sort of comfort, because this is certainly creating problems within families.

Absolutely. I speak as a woman with a German mother. I think that on some occasions my father would be quite pleased if my mother were sent back. [Laughter.] He would agree with me about that. However, I do understand the rifts that this is causing in the community, particularly in my constituency, which is bursting with citizens of every nation in the EU who have families and relatives. However, it is not just the EU citizens who are worried; the communities that wrap around them are worried as well.

Is not the issue solved by the Government’s current proposals? When everything is brought into UK law by the great repeal Bill, all EU nationals here will continue to have the right to reside unless Parliament legislates to take it away, which seems to me to be inconceivable.

I am sure that my hon. Friend has made an accurate point. I suppose the point I am trying to make is that while there may be legal and administrative realities ensuring that people would never be sent home, the perception and feeling of those people is more important. We should cut through the red tape and give them clarity, because that is what they deserve.

Can we put this in context, so that people listening at home will understand and not feel unduly nervous about what is happening? Does my hon. Friend agree that 61% of all EU nationals living in the UK already have a permanent right to reside in this country, and that by the time the UK leaves the EU, that figure will have risen to between 80% and 90%? A very large proportion of EU nationals who are already in this country have absolutely nothing to worry about.

That is a valid point, but this should not just be about a piece of paper and whether a form has been completed. We already know of cases in which people’s applications have been turned down. This is not just about citizens who have been here for five years or 10 years. Every day, brains and skills come to my constituency. Should I discriminate against someone who has been here for two years, or for five years? No. Those people have a right to be here, and we should honour that.

I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard what I said earlier, but I meant it very sincerely. More than 4,000 EU nationals do not fit the description that she has given. They are people who are here and have abused our hospitality by committing crimes for which they have been sent to prison. The problem with a blanket approach is that it will give those people the right to stay here. Having dealt with individual cases, I know that nothing will do more damage to the British people’s wish to welcome EU nationals than our not being able to deport people who came here as EU nationals and then committed serious crimes. Has my hon. Friend given any thought to that?

Order. In the brief time for which I have been in the Chair, I have noted that some of the interventions seem to be getting excessively long. I remind Members that interventions should be confined to a single point, and a short one at that.

You will be pleased to know that my speech is very short, Mr Howarth, so I do not have much more to get through.

I was talking about interventions, not speeches.

If the interventions are long, my speech will be short.

Let me say this to my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). Nothing is perfect, but should the policy that we make be based on a few bad apples or on the rights of thousands of fabulous citizens who come here and contribute? What we are discussing today is whether we should be offering unilateral rights to them before securing rights for our UK citizens abroad. I have a sense of what is the moral and right thing to do. I believe that we should be leading the way, and offering those rights unilaterally to EU citizens in the UK.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not. I wish to make a bit of progress, but I will give way again later.

Until we have that resolution, however and whenever it comes, this will prey on the minds of families and our NHS, and will damage the collaboration that is vital to the scientific and academic organisations in my constituency. Many of my constituents have lost all sense of direction, and are struggling to recognise the tolerant, open country of which they are normally so proud. The wounds of the referendum have not yet healed. Although I was grateful for the opportunity to probe the Prime Minister when she made her statement earlier today, I wish to repeat my request for her to keep a unilateral offer to EU citizens in her mind.

As time passes, I fear that the distasteful currency valuation of both our citizens and EU citizens will increase. If an early agreement is not reached—as the Prime Minister hopes it will—I will urge her to step in and halt the trading. We are talking about people. If the Prime Minister were to offer continued rights to EU citizens unilaterally, I believe she would pull the country in behind her. She would strengthen our collective resolve and push forward through the negotiations with the shared will of the 48% and the 52%. At the moment, those in the 48% in my constituency do not feel part of the conversation. Crucially, we would demonstrate that in this global turbulence Britain is, as it always has been, a beacon for humanity and for democracy, a principled and proud nation and—one day soon, I hope—leading the way with compassion and dignity.

My hon. and right hon. Friends have tabled several new clauses, but we have a remarkable range of amendments before us this evening, so I will confine my remarks to those relating to the position of EU nationals wishing to remain and their rights to remain.

I want to explain why this matters to me as a Liberal and an islander. Those representing island communities understand that things very often have to run to different rules and we have different priorities. One of the most important aspects of keeping an island community viable, prosperous and growing is maintaining a viable level of population, and in recent years and decades the contribution of EU citizens to growing and maintaining the services and businesses within the island communities that it is my privilege to represent has been enormously important. It matters to my communities, therefore, that the position of these EU nationals who live in our communities, and who contribute to our public services and businesses, should be clarified; they should be given the greatest possible reassurance at the earliest possible opportunity.

There is no aspect of island life these days in which we will not find EU nationals living and working. They work in our fish houses, they work in our hotels and bars, they work in our hospitals, our garages and building companies, and they teach in our schools. If we go into the admirable University of the Highlands and Islands, we will find them leading some groundbreaking research there, especially in the development of renewable energy—a future for our whole country. That is why the position of these people in our communities matters to the people I represent, and they matter to me and should matter to us all.

The right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, is making a very good point as regards EU nationals; indeed, many colleagues have said likewise. Does he not accept, however, that while we talk about securing the position of EU nationals living in Britain, we as British parliamentarians have a duty to British nationals living overseas—we have a duty to make sure that they, too, are looked after—and that if we secure the rights of foreigners living in this country before British nationals overseas are looked after, we are neglecting our duty?

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have worked in the past, and who I hold in some regard, that, bluntly, it is invidious to play the interests of one group of desperate people off against the interests of another group, and there is a danger of that emerging from what he is saying and the terms in which he puts it. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Chairman of the Exiting the European Union Committee, on which I also serve, reminded us, this was the evidence that we heard from British nationals currently living in other parts of the EU; this is what they want us to do, because they see that it is in their interests that we should do this. They see this move as the best, most immediate and speediest way in which their position can be given some degree of certainty.

The real importance of this move is the atmosphere that it would create. We cannot ignore the atmosphere that we have found in many of our communities since 23 June, and the spike we have seen in hate crime; and we must also think about the atmosphere in which the Prime Minister is going to open the negotiations after the triggering of article 50. The atmosphere will be so much better—so much improved—if we are able to say, “We enter this as a negotiation between friends and neighbours, and as such we offer you this important move for your citizens as a mark of our good faith and our good will.”

I also want to deal with one matter that was raised in the Select Committee, and which has been touched on today: the opportunity of EU nationals to secure their position by means of the permanent residence card. I say to the Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), that he should be talking about this to his colleagues in the Home Office, because there are enormous difficulties with it. [Interruption.] I see the Minister for Immigration is sitting on the Treasury Bench, too, and he will be aware that some 30% of the—expensive—applications that are necessary for permanent residence cards are currently refused. The evidence brought to the Select Committee was that this involves, I think, an 85-page form. The sheer volume of supporting documentation required for these applications is enormous. The level of detail that is asked about the occasions over the past five, 10, 15 or 20 years when people have left the country even on holiday and then returned, and the evidence required to support these dates, is unreasonable and is putting an enormous burden on those seeking this small measure of reassurance in the short to medium term. This needs to be revisited.

The unfairness of the situation came home to me when I saw a constituent on Friday, who brought to my office the letter she received in 1997 from the then Immigration and Nationality Directorate. She was told:

“You can now remain indefinitely in the United Kingdom. You do not need permission from a Government Department to take or change employment and you may engage in business or a profession as long as you comply with any general regulations for the business or professional activity.”

Nobody told my constituent in 1997 that 20 years later she was going to have to produce tickets to show that in 2005 she took a two-week holiday in Ibiza, or whatever, but that is the situation in which she now finds herself if she is going to achieve that small measure of security for her and her family.

The challenge facing our country at this point is how we go forward in a way that allows us to bring the 52% and the 48% back together. Our country faces an enormous challenge, and it is one that we cannot meet with the support of only half our population; we need all our people to be able to pull together. This would be one small measure that would allow the Government to bring the two sides together to get the best possible deal for all our citizens, whether they are British by birth or British by choice.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), although he might not entirely share the sentiment once I have finished my contribution. I promise that it will be a short contribution, in the interests of time and the number of Members who wish to have their say. I rise to speak against in particular new clauses 56 and 134.

There are some in the House who have said that the referendum result should not be respected because the people did not know what they were voting for. They are determined to find confusion where none exists. They say that the public voted to leave the European Union, but not the single market or the customs union. Members are arguing through these amendments that we in this House need to debate whether or not we leave the single market. I disagree.

The majority of voters who took part in the referendum said that they wanted to leave the European Union. Many of those who contacted me said that they wanted to restore our parliamentary sovereignty and sovereignty over our courts, to regain control over our immigration policy, and to strike out in the world and forge new deals with countries across the globe. Those aims are incompatible with remaining in the single market or in the customs union.

I do wish that the hon. Gentleman would not rewrite history. I have some lovely quotes here. The present Foreign Secretary said:

“I’d vote to stay in the single market. I’m in favour of the single market.”

The right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) said:

“Only a madman would actually leave the market”.

That one speaks for itself. Arron Banks stated:

“Increasingly the Norway option looks the best for the UK.”

What the hon. Gentleman is saying is simply not the case.

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but those were selective quotes, taken out of context. How could it not have been clear what the public were voting for?

Is my hon. Friend honestly saying that the good people of Colchester sat in a variety of places where they might go to enjoy themselves mulling over the finer points of the single market?

I think my right hon. Friend underestimates the intelligence of the people of Colchester.

I would be more sympathetic to those tabling the new clauses if they had not voted in favour of holding the referendum. However, they supported it. They agreed to entrust this question to the British people. I remember when some on the other side of the House, namely the Liberal Democrats—although I question that name in the context of this debate—were calling for a “real referendum”. Well, we had a real referendum—the biggest exercise in democracy in our nation’s history—and we have been given a result. Those hon. Members just do not like what they heard. We should respect the instruction we were given by the British people. We were told that we were going to leave the European Union and the single market, and leave we should.

The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that we are leaving the single market. Those on the Opposition Benches tabling these new clauses should perhaps listen to the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, the noble Lord Ashdown, who said that

“when the British people have spoken, you do what they command”.

We do not need this debate. It is simply an attempt to obfuscate and delay the process. That is why I cannot support new clauses 56 or 134, and I encourage colleagues to oppose them.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I should like to speak to new clauses 29 and 33, tabled in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. colleagues.

The Secretary of State—who is not here for this debate—said with his usual braggadocio that he would produce a Bill that was unamendable. Today, we have a list of amendments that is 145 pages long. The ratio of lines in the amendments to lines in the Bill 580:1, which must be an all-time record. It is certainly a tribute to the productivity of hon. Members on this side of the House. However, the chutzpah of the Secretary of State was exceeded by the civil servant who wrote paragraph 14 of the Bill’s explanatory notes, which states:

“The impact of the Bill itself will be both clear and limited”.

No. The effect of the Bill is not clear and it is certainly not limited. The fact that hon. Members have tabled so many new clauses and amendments demonstrates why this debate on parliamentary scrutiny is so important.

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), whose constituents voted leave in the referendum. Mine did too, and his speech was the perfect introduction to my own. I want to describe why it is also in the interests of those who voted leave that we should have proper parliamentary scrutiny. The referendum campaign was won on the slogan of taking back control and bringing back parliamentary sovereignty. We cannot do that without having proper parliamentary scrutiny.

New clause 29 is perfectly simple and straightforward: it proposes a quarterly reporting system during the negotiations. That would give the House a structured approach. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) complained about new clause 3—which was ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook)—saying that it would create problems of justiciability. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the requirement to produce a report once a quarter is not such a high or complex legal bar, and that it would not lead to extremely long litigation. It is a simple, practical measure.

Does the hon. Lady imagine that there would be no court cases about whether such quarterly reports conformed with the appropriate procedure? Is she aware of the chain of jurisprudence in judicial review that leads to the possibility of that kind of contest? What does she think would happen if the courts started intervening in the matter of whether the reports met the requirements of her new clause?

First, it is not clear that such cases would get leave of hearing. Secondly, any such case would be dismissed straight away, so long as the Government had abided by the requirement to produce quarterly reports. There simply would not be a case to answer. This is a simple and straightforward proposal.

So does the hon. Lady think that the Government would satisfy the conditions of her new clause if they simply produced one line saying, “This is our report”? Or does she believe that it would have to be an appropriate report? If that were the case, could not a court decide whether it was appropriate or not?

As the Chairman of the Select Committee said earlier, when we got into a discussion about the requests from the Opposition Front Bench, the nature of the report would be a matter for the Government. I am sure that the Government would behave in a reasonable manner if this provision were in the legislation.

As I was saying to the hon. Member for Colchester, my constituency voted leave. I voted for the Bill on Second Reading so that the Prime Minister would have the power to trigger our intention to withdraw from the European Union under article 50. However, the political legitimacy stemming from the result of last summer’s referendum does not extend to giving the Government a blank cheque for their negotiating objectives or for the way in which they conduct the negotiations. Everyone is clear that this will have major constitutional, political, economic and social implications for our relations with other countries and for the domestic framework of our legislation.

Given the lack of clarity, and the fact that there was no plan, I have consulted my constituents on their expectations and hopes, and on how they want these decisions to be taken. I wrote to 5,500 of them, and I held six public meetings. They felt strongly that they wanted Parliament to be involved. In fact, some of them thought that the negotiations should be conducted by a cross-party team. I said that I did not think that was terribly likely—

Given the quality of your Front Bench.

Let me tell the right hon. Lady about the views that were expressed in my constituency, even though they might be different from those being expressed in her own. When we discussed the social chapter and people’s employment rights, my constituents said, in terms, “You can’t trust the Tories.” It is because of that feeling—[Interruption.] Those were their words, not mine. It is because of that feeling that we need to have parliamentary involvement in the way this process is carried forward.

The Government have reluctantly come to the House with this Bill. I first requested that Parliament be involved on 11 July in an urgent question on article 50. The Government resisted, as everybody knows, and only came to the House because they were forced to by the Supreme Court. Some Government Back Benchers say that the negotiations are far too complex to do openly—the right hon. Member for West Dorset talked about 3D chess, for example—but I take the opposite view: it is precisely because the negotiations are complicated and multifaceted that lots of people should be involved.

The vast majority of the amendments—I think I counted 30—tabled by members of the Opposition basically call for a report within 30 days of the Bill coming into force setting out the Government’s approach in the negotiations. Does the hon. Lady imagine that Europe will publish reports on every one of these issues, setting out its approach in the negotiations? That would surely be giving away too much.

Had the hon. Gentleman been in his place to hear the fantastic speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), he would understand why my hon. Friend was proposing all those reports. I am speaking to new clause 29, which is about quarterly reporting by the Government once the negotiations get under way.

Another slight misconception among Government Members is that there is some best deal, but there is clearly no objective technical standard test. What is best in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) might be different from what is best in my constituency. I am not casting aspersions on the motivations of Government Members; I am being realistic. When the Prime Minister talks about building a better Britain and doing what is best for the country, I am sure that she is being completely sincere, but she stood in a general election in Durham in 1992 and received half as many votes as the Labour candidate. The truth of the matter is that the process is complicated and there are different interests. Parliament, which is the sovereign body of the country, should be able to participate fully in that process, and scrutiny is the basic first brick of it.

The net effect of the hon. Lady’s new clause is that the High Court, not Parliament, would decide on the adequacy or otherwise of the reporting. She would be ceding authority not to this place but to the independent High Court, which is contrary to what she is trying to achieve.

Look, I am sorry that Government Members feel so bad about losing the Supreme Court case last month. It is a shame. The Government were foolish to appeal after the High Court judgment. However, the fact that they have lost one case does not mean that they should become obsessed with the risk. It is as absurd as saying, “Well, we should stop having parliamentary questions for every Department once a month because they somehow undermine the Government.” Take Defence Question Time, for example. It happens every single month, but it does not undermine our security; it holds the Government to account. It is because the negotiations are so important that the Government should report back. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here. Unlike some Government Back Benchers, I think he understands that this is not a technical issue; it is a political process. Involving Parliament and having proper parliamentary scrutiny is the right thing to do to build a national consensus, which the Government state is their aim in the White Paper.

New clause 29 is simple and straightforward and would require a quarterly reporting system during the negotiations. While the Select Committees are doing fantastic work in considering particular issues in great detail, it is extremely important that the whole House gets a regular opportunity to see how things are going and to provide the perspective of the different communities we represent. Out of necessity, I drafted new clause 29 without having seen new clause 3, which is obviously tougher than new clause 29, so some people will prefer one over the other.

The hon. Lady refers to guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens, and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who is not in his place, stated the legal position. The Government could make that guarantee tonight, saying that my hon. Friend was correct, by stating that those rights would be grandfathered straight into the Immigration Act 2016. That may not be the preferred method for many in this House, but it would effectively guarantee EU citizens what they want. Does the hon. Lady agree?

I have not thought about that in as much detail as the hon. Gentleman, but it will be interesting to see what the Minister says when he responds to the debate from the Dispatch Box tonight.

As I was saying, we should have proper, structured scrutiny, and I am disappointed that we do not have slightly longer to consider all these matters in more detail.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who expressed her view with her usual forthrightness. She was one of the first Members in the House to raise the complex issue of the customs union, for which I am very grateful.

Last July, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) moved an Opposition motion on guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals in the UK, and I was one of five Conservative Members to support it. It was an excellent motion to propose at that time, and thanks to that motion tremendous progress has been made in the Government’s thinking and statements. We are debating an issue on which there is unanimity of view about what we want to achieve. It goes almost to the point of parody: everyone is agreeing on a point about which they are then going to disagree. The fundamental question is whether placing such a measure in this Bill is the right approach to continue the pressure and achieve what my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) spoke about so eloquently.

My hon. Friend asks whether the Bill is the right place for such a proposal. Should it be that we in this country need legislation to orientate our moral compass?

I think my hon. Friend knows my view, so I will not dwell on that.

As I looked through the many amendments, I noted that they fall into three main categories: those that ask for or require scrutiny of the Government’s approach; those that seek to frame a position for the Government in the negotiations; and those that seek answers to an imponderable list of questions—most notably those from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). Each of those groups in turn is less worthy of the House’s attention. Scrutiny is relevant to how the House sees things proceeding, and I will listen carefully to what the Front-Bench team says about that. I am concerned, however, by some of the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) to which he did not receive answers. The idea that we would involve the Government in the negotiations, then involve Parliament in the negotiations and then also involve the courts in the negotiations brings the words “dog’s” and “breakfast” close together very quickly.

On EU nationals here in the UK, many of the contributions to this debate have focused on the easiest side of the argument. My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) mentioned prisoners in the UK, and under last year’s motion those prisoners who have committed crimes in this country would be guaranteed the right to remain. We may want to do that, but it is a hard case to make that we should do that while not giving any consideration to British nationals in other EU countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire might say, we would then seem to be losing our moral compass through legislation.

A number of Members have cited specific examples of where prisoners would already be guaranteed rights in this country. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to reduce uncertainty as we go through the process of leaving the EU, and one practical way of doing that is by knowing what the circumstances are for each of our constituents who come to talk to us so that we can explain to them that there is no need for them to be concerned because their rights are secure—the proposal will not cover all of them, and it might not cover as large a proportion as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) mentioned, but it is a practical example of where we can help to reduce uncertainty.

The third argument on this issue of EU nationals who have the right to remain here, upon which we all agree, is that we have focused all our attention on the Government Front Bench. Hardly anyone has mentioned Angela Merkel. As I understand it, and I get this from two very reputable newspapers—The Sun and the Daily Express—so it must be true, it was Mrs Merkel who said no to a deal. Where are the voices talking about pressing the German Government to make an agreement? I have heard plenty of speeches today about Donald Trump and how terrible we feel about his policies. Well, here is something that affects British citizens in another country and not a word from anyone.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, by triggering article 50, we will simply give the EU27 all the rights to deliver our future? We would then have no negotiation, which is why we should delay article 50 and let the people have the final say on the negotiated package. As full members, we have negotiating rights. We would then have the power of time, and we would give the EU27 the incentive to come to the negotiating table because we might vote to stay in the EU.

The hon. Gentleman would not get a top mark in negotiation analysis at Harvard Business School. The last word the British public want to hear when it comes to this Bill is “delay.” Most people think we should get on with it, if they do not think we have done it already.

It is important for the Government to understand that messaging is important. There is uncertainty, and people feel that perhaps they do not have the right to remain here, so the Government must continue their progress in signalling to people not only that we welcome them here but that our intent is that everyone in the United Kingdom as a legal EU resident will be able to stay. We must not avoid, or fail to pursue, communicating that message.

Equally, the Government must avoid measures that give the optics to British citizens in other EU countries that they have been abandoned. One of the worst things of stating this in legislation is not that it is necessarily a bad thing but that the optics for British citizens in other countries would change dramatically. They would say, “Why have we not been protected?” They would feel even more vulnerable because of the inaction of EU Governments if the UK Government were, by statute, to have to take this measure.

I support the Government on this amendment, and I call on them to continue their progress on the issue to end uncertainty. Ending uncertainty is not just about the rights of EU nationals currently living in the UK; it is about wanting people in the European Union to come to the UK. The progressive message of this Government should not just end with the issues contained in the amendment. We should send a positive message that we will continue to welcome people from the European Union after we leave.

I support the new clauses and amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), and I will particularly address new clause 51, in the name of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith).

In particular, I support the argument for a White Paper that includes details of the expected trajectory for the UK’s balance of trade, gross domestic product and unemployment. A number of earlier contributions explained precisely why we need that. My hon. Friend said that Vote Leave failed to provide detailed answers to any of the key economic questions before the referendum and, of course, he is right.

The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is no longer in his place, demonstrated incredibly ably the confusion at the heart of Vote Leave and why taking a decision today is incredibly difficult. He effectively said—I have spoken to him, so this will come as no surprise to him—that no one in the leadership of the official leave campaign ever argued that we would join the EEA or have an EFTA-type agreement. It might be that the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), or one of the other senior figures, never quite said that, but to argue that the leave campaign did not suggest it, and suggest it strongly, is simply wrong. The leave campaign Lawyers for Britain said:

“We could apply to re-join with effect from the day after Brexit… EFTA membership would allow us to continue uninterrupted free trade relations”.

That was still on the website only a few weeks ago.

The former ambassador and Brexit supporter Charles Crawford appeared on “Newsnight” to argue that an EEA option may be the first step of Brexit. Roland Smith, the author of “The Liberal Case for ‘Leave’”, wrote an extended paper titled “Evolution Not Revolution: The case for the EEA option”, so I suspect that there were many people who, indeed, voted for Brexit believing that we were not voting for a hard Tory cliff-edge Brexit and that we would maintain membership of the EEA, EFTA or an equivalent. Given that that now no longer appears to be the case, it is absolutely right, as new clause 51 makes clear, that we have details of the expected trajectory of the balance of trade, GDP and unemployment. Those are not abstracts; they are at the heart of the measurement of our economy, of wages, of living standards and of economic growth. They are the platform for tax yield, which pays for our vital public services. All those words and concepts were almost entirely absent from what I will generously call the first White Paper.

I gently observe that it is not good enough for the Government to produce, after a referendum, a White Paper that is little more that the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech dressed up with a few pictures and a couple of graphs. That is not the basis for the economic plan necessary to mitigate the huge potential damage to the economy from a hard Tory Brexit. Make no mistake, that is what we are facing.

Did the Government leaflet, at great cost, not exactly make the point that single market membership was not an option and that access would be the result of a leave vote in the referendum?

Many things were said, which is my point. Some might argue that being in the EEA or a member of EFTA precisely gives one not just access to but membership of the single market—one could call it access if one likes. There was deep, deep confusion in the messaging of the no side, which must be rectified now with proper details on the trajectory of the key economic numbers before more decisions are taken.

I say that we are facing a hard Brexit, and let us understand what has been said. The leaked Treasury document last November suggested that the UK could lose up to £66 billion from a hard Tory Brexit and that GDP could fall by about 9.5% if the UK reverted to WTO rules. I accept that that is a worst-case scenario, but if the circumstances that lead us to that catastrophe occur and we do not have a plan to mitigate it, the guilt would lie with the Government for failing to plan. The final part of that—the “if we revert to WTO rules”—is key, because the Prime Minister has said that a bad deal is worse than no deal. That is very twisted logic, because no deal is the worst deal; it means we revert immediately to WTO rules, with all the tariffs and other regulatory burdens that that implies.

Order. I am anxious to get in as many of the people who have sat throughout the debate as possible. There is no time limit and I am not going to impose one, but if those who remain take five minutes, or preferably fewer, it might be possible to get everyone in.

I wish to start by reading something from a letter I have received from a constituent. He talks about his wife, who was born in the Netherlands. He writes:

“She has lived in this country for over 30 years, brought up three British children and is completely integrated into the life of her local town. She is not part of any ‘immigrant community’. She just lives here and is fully at home here. Until now, she has never seen herself as an outsider and has been able to participate fully in local life, thanks to her rights as an EU citizen. In two years’ time, she will lose those rights and be a foreigner, dependent on the good will of the Government of the day.”

I have written back to and met my constituent, because I think it is inconceivable that our Prime Minister would separate this family. However, many people are not reassured, and he and his wife sought for her to have permanent residency. This involved dealing with an 85-page document, including an English language test and a test about life in Britain, which is insulting to someone who has lived here most of her life and brought up three children here. This process is also very expensive, but the final sting in the tail is that she finds she is not eligible, because she has been self-employed and has not taken out comprehensive sickness insurance. This situation is unacceptable. We need to keep our compassion and keep this simple. It is inconceivable that families such as this would be separated, so we should be absolutely clear in saying so, up front.

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying about her constituency surgeries. I have had a similar experience and it is deeply upsetting in many respects, but will she join me in reflecting that the EU and Chancellor Merkel could have come to a deal on this earlier? The reality is that they have point-blank refused to discuss it before we trigger article 50.

I agree with that, and I have also heard from constituents of mine who are British citizens now living in the EU. But my point is that, come what may, it is inconceivable that we would seek to separate families such as this one. There is no doubt that many people are sleepless and sick with worry about this, and we have all seen them in our surgeries. [Interruption.] It is true. I am seeing these people in my surgery. We also need to consider the tsunami of paperwork that we will have to deal with in settling the rights of these citizens if we do not get on with this quickly. We need to keep this simple. There is no way that families such as this should be subjected to vast bureaucracy and vast expense. We all know that this needs to be settled, so in negotiating, surely, making a bold, open offer as a gesture of good will can do nothing but good in this situation.

I agree with my hon. Friend, but my question to her is: can she cast any thought on why the Chancellor of Germany refused the offer?

I have no idea why this is happening, but I am saying, as an important point to the Chancellor of Germany, that making this clear unilateral offer is the right thing to do, and we should get on and do it. There is no reason not to do so. Even if other countries were to take an obstructive and unreasonable line, it would still be inconceivable that our Prime Minister would separate families such as my constituents. So let us get on with this.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Prime Minister has given her word that this will be a priority and she clearly hears the compassion that my hon. Friend reflects for her constituent, as we all do for all our constituents? We must, as I certainly do, accept the word of the Prime Minister that this will be her priority and that she will sort it.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that. Like her, I do trust the Prime Minister, and that is why I have taken a very reassuring line with my constituents. However, there is no substitute for a clear statement from our Prime Minister that, come what may, families such as this will not be separated, because that is the reassurance they seek. I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but I think we should get on and make that offer, because it can be nothing but good to do so.

I also hope the Prime Minister will take further action on the issue of those who work in our NHS and social care. One in 10 of the doctors who works in our NHS comes from elsewhere in the EU, and I would like to say thank you, on behalf of the whole House, to all those workers and to all those who are working in social care. It would also be very much a positive move if we could say, up front, that those who are working here will be welcome to stay and make it very clear that we will continue to make it easy to welcome people from across the EU to work in social care and in our NHS.

I shall make a short, pointed speech, because a lot of other Members have been present throughout the debate and wish to speak. It is extraordinary that we are debating one of the most, if not the most, important economic, social and strategic decisions that this House has had to make—certainly in the six years I have been here and arguably for 70 years—in a few short days and hours.

I shall speak to new clause 51, which I tabled. It is a simple, good-hearted new clause that would get the Government to come clean with the country and explain what they think the effect of Brexit is going to be for our constituents and for the national interest. It refers to labour rights, health and safety legislation, environmental protections and, most importantly, the impact we are likely to see on our GDP and balance of trade—the fundamental metrics that dictate whether we succeed or fail as a nation.

I tabled the new clause before we saw the abject, lamentable piece of work that the Government produced last Thursday: the 70-odd skimpy pages of the White Paper, 10% of which is actually white or blocked out. It is the whitest White Paper I think the House has ever seen. I contrast that with the 200-odd page report that the Treasury produced ahead of the referendum, which detailed the minutiae of all the impacts anticipated as a result of the changes in respect of GDP—[Interruption.] They chunter on the Government Front Bench, but when the Prime Minister was sat on that Bench as Home Secretary, she signed up to every line of that Treasury report, so it is entirely legitimate for the country to ask whether she is now living a lie as to what she thinks the impact of Brexit will be. Is she deceiving the country about whether this is going to turn out well for us, or not?

Let us not forget that the Treasury report suggested that the net impact on GDP of our leaving the European Union was going to be in the order of £45 billion per annum within 15 years. That is a third of the NHS budget. It would require a 10p increase in the basic rate of taxation to fill that black hole. It may well be entirely untrue. Perhaps it was just an estimate by experts in the Treasury that we should no longer believe, but if so, the Government need to come clean and tell us the current estimate.

Now that we know what the Government are planning to do—now that we know that we are gunning for the rock-hard Brexit that they hate to hear about on the Government Benches—what will the impact be? What will be the impact on trade? The Government were very clear about that previously. Under any circumstances, leaving the European Union will reduce trade by this country. It will make us “permanently poorer”, according to the Treasury, as a result of reduced trade, reduced activity and reduced receipts, which will force the Government to increase and prolong austerity. Those are the stakes we are playing for on behalf of our constituents in this debate.

It seems to me entirely right that if this House is to be worthy of the name of the Houses of Parliament, and if it is going to do its job as it is meant to and as it has done for centuries, we need to see the detail. We need to be clear about what this is going to mean for my constituents and for my children. If it is anything like the black picture that was previously painted, we must have a final, meaningful vote in this House on the terms.

We cannot allow this country to drift out of the European Union on a bad deal—on World Trade Organisation terms—which would mean that the £45 billion black hole in our public finances was realised. We cannot allow that to happen for future generations, and we will be held accountable by those future generations if this House sits by, supine and pusillanimous, allowing this legislation to be waved through the House for political purposes—that is, to end the 30-year civil war on the Tory Benches. I cannot stand for that, and we should not stand for that in this House. We should see the detail and hold the Government to account, and I will continue to do that throughout this debate.

I rise to speak to new clause 56, which was tabled in my name and the names of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope it will pick up cross-party support, because it places the future of our economy and of jobs and trade at the centre of the debate, which is where those matters should be. In leaving the European Union, as people have voted to do, there remains the outstanding question of what happens about our membership of the single market and the customs union. Contrary to what we were told earlier by the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), those were not clear issues during the referendum. There were differences of opinion on the remain side and on the leave side. Given that ambiguity on something so important, it is quite right that Parliament, in taking back control, should at least give the Government a steer about the future trading relationship we would like to see.

As members of the single market and customs union, we are part of the largest free trade area in the world, giving us unfettered access to half a billion consumers throughout the European continent.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is at best unfortunate that his Front-Bench team has not used its Opposition Supply days to have exactly that debate and, indeed, a vote on the single market, the customs union and the free movement of people?

I have a lot of respect for how the right hon. Lady has conducted herself during the debate, but her criticisms of our Front-Bench team, particularly the shadow Brexit Ministers, are particularly unfair. In any case, her criticism of our Front-Bench team would carry more weight if she was clearer about which voting Lobby she is going to be walking through on several crucial issues. It is all very well taking to the airways and speaking in the newspapers about the fight she will put up on these issues, but she has to put her vote where her mouth is.

I have made it clear that I very much hope the Government will see good sense, as is the case in much of the wording of new clause 110, and that some sort of compromise and sense can be achieved. I make it clear that in the absence of that I will perhaps find myself with no alternative but to go against my Government, which is the last thing I want to do.

That is terribly disappointing.

As members of the single market and customs union, we are part of the largest free trade area in the world. We have heard a lot about global trade and our relationship with the rest of the world, but what is often overlooked is that membership of the European single market and customs union facilitates global trade. In fact, the EU has more free trade agreements with the rest of the world than the United States of America, China, Canada, Japan, Russia, India and Brazil. Every single sector of our economy will be affected by the decisions that our Government make and the outcome of the negotiations.

Last week, the cat was let out of the bag—or should I say, with reference to the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), that the rabbit was let out of Alice’s wonderland? The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that the idea that we will leave the most advanced and sophisticated free trade agreement in the world and countries around the world will be queuing up to give us as favourable terms that are as good for our economy is fanciful.

If that were not bad enough, we should listen to the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne). My jaw dropped when I heard him utter these words. He said that the Prime Minister has chosen

“not to make the economy the priority in this negotiation.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2017; Vol. 620, c. 1034.]

We are leaving the European Union and there is a real risk that the Prime Minister is going to drive a coach and horses through the biggest single trade agreement and free trade area in the world, of which we are part, divorce us from the single market and the customs union, with implications for jobs, trade and investment, as well for the jobs of my constituents and the constituents of every Member of this House, and yet the economy is not the priority in this negotiation. That is an outrageous prospectus. How could any member of the Conservative party support a prospectus that does not place the economy at the forefront of our departure from the European Union? It is reckless and irresponsible. If the Opposition were behaving like that, the Government would attack us and say that we lack economic credibility. It is an absolute outrage that that lot on the Government Benches do not even put the economy on the agenda.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am sorry, but I have given way already, and I am really conscious that others want to contribute. The Government should be seeking to get the best possible trading relationship with the European Union. I cannot fathom why the Prime Minister is not setting out to keep Britain in a reformed single market. Margaret Thatcher was the architect—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not give way. I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion so that other Members can come in. By the way, Mr Howarth, it is outrageous that we have not had enough time to debate these substantial issues.

Margaret Thatcher was the architect of the single market. The Prime Minister could be the architect of a reformed single market. As for the consequences, the choices and the trade-offs that lie ahead, whether on rules, freedom of movement or our financial contribution, we should not give this Government a blank cheque. They have not earned it. Any Government who enter a process such as this and say that the economy is not the priority do not deserve the trust of this House, and do not deserve the trust of the British people.

I very much support the amendments that are designed to increase parliamentary scrutiny and I have put my name to many of them. I also support those amendments that would give the right to remain to EU nationals now here. That is a moral issue, which should be guaranteed now, not some kind of transactional calculation.

I wish to raise the issue of transitional arrangements, which has not yet been discussed and is covered by my new clause 36. I welcome the White Paper’s recognition that, if a deal can be successfully secured within a two-year period that starts when article 50 is triggered, we will not leave the EU literally overnight. There will be a phased implementation to give businesses the chance to adapt. That is not the same thing as needing a period of transition should two years not be sufficient time to reach an agreement. To have no idea of what that agreement will be is a glaring omission and that is what my new clause seeks to address. It would put in place a transitional arrangement to govern UK-EU trade relations during the period, if necessary, between when the UK leaves the EU and when a longer term agreement is concluded.

Given the short time available—it is expected to be two years, but in reality it will be more like 18 months given the requirement to bring the deal before MPs, the European Parliament and so on—the only option available if a deal has not been secured is to send Britain over a cliff edge. We would face having to leave the EU effectively overnight, crashing out of the EU on WTO-only terms. The Government have stated clearly in their White Paper that they want to avoid cliff edges, but at the moment they have done nothing to stay away from this one—perhaps they have been too busy looking the other way over the Atlantic and have simply not noticed it.

My new clause would provide a safety net. Given that both France and Germany will be preoccupied with national elections for much of this year and that the UK team has limited negotiating capacity and relative inexperience, it seems likely that two years will not be sufficient time to get the best deal for Britain. If we come to the end of the two-year period, we need a plan that is not just the default option of the wild west that is the WTO.

The Prime Minister says that she has unanimous agreement with the other 27 member states, and that getting that unanimous agreement is an option. We need to know that the option of continuing the negotiations has been specifically discussed, and we need to know it before we trigger article 50, otherwise we risk yet more uncertainty for our economy, for the citizens living in the EU and for all of our constituents. It is like jumping out of a plane to escape someone we have fallen out with but failing to double check that there is a parachute in the pack strapped on our back. What possible reason would anyone have for being so complacent or foolhardy?

Exiting the EU is really about two separate processes—

I will not give way, because there is no time.

Many in the EU want us to conclude the divorce element, which comes with a potential bill of €60 billion, before discussing a trade deal. We must not forget that this is a negotiation. Article 50 covers only administrative Brexit, not the legal or trade aspects. If, after two years, we do not even have a basic divorce deal, it is possible that tempers will fray and patience dwindle, and the prospect of starting negotiations on trade deals in such circumstances is unlikely—to put it mildly.

The 27 other countries are likely to want the divorce settlement agreed via the courts, so trade negotiations may not be possible even if the political will is there. For all of those reasons, we need these transitional arrangements in place. I did not give way to Members, because I wished to allow time for others to speak. Let me just reiterate how frustrating it is that, in a debate of this importance, we are having to rattle through it at a ridiculous rate.

I call Jim Shannon. Before he starts, may I say that there is one more Member to be accommodated in the time available? I realise that time is tight, but if he could be brief that would be helpful.

I must start by thanking the Government for keeping the promise in the referendum. The Government said that they would listen to the will of the people and, in true democratic form, they have adhered to that. People in the referendum said that they wanted article 50 to be triggered by 31 March. That is part of the exceptional circumstances under which we are operating, and that is why we are debating this matter tonight.

My constituency voted 54% to 46% to leave the EU—

No, I will not give way.

With that in mind, it is clear that we wish to see the Bill make progress. I hope that we will not face more efforts to derail the process today. The train is en route and is going at a steady pace. Our duty and the duty of Government is to set the tracks in the right way—a strong and safe track—to carry us out of Europe and back to independence.

As a Northern Ireland MP, specific issues relating to our border with the Republic of Ireland, our businesses, our farming community and other communities are unique to us. I have every faith in our Prime Minister and her team and the discussions that she had with the Taoiseach in the Republic of Ireland just last week. The body language and the verbal contact were positive, and we should have every faith in what goes forward.

I just want to refer to new clauses 6 and 14. There is an argument that they do not make it clear to whom the protections apply, and that is to do with their scope. I am proud of the fact that I hail from a constituency that has a massive agri-food industry, which includes businesses that not only supply to the UK, but are globally recognised and trusted. I have manufacturers which ship to the middle east, America and Europe, and are now branching out to the far east. Mash Direct, a major employer in my constituency, employs some 40% of its workforce from eastern Europe. For Willowbrook Foods, the figure is 60%. We also have Lakeland Dairies, which covers Pritchitts Foods and Rich Sauces. All those businesses provide some 2,000 jobs in total.

Some of the workers have met and married locals, so there must be no road blocks to their ability to remain and work in this country and live their lives. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs visited Northern Ireland a couple of months ago and saw some of those factories and spoke to the people. She told me that she was very keen to ensure that the people working in the factories will have security of tenure and I fully support that.

However, I must underline my opening remarks and say that those who are living, working and integrating in our society and local economy deserve our protection. The Prime Minister is well within her rights to ensure that those who live and work here, or who are married to a British person, should have the ability to remain. None the less, there is no doubt that we must curb migration, which does not enhance life in the UK in relation to economic migrants. We must also ensure that our paramount concern is allowing businesses to continue to retain their workforce without fear and to have the ability unequivocally to offer job security to that workforce in order to keep the workers right here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I will keep my comments brief as I am aware of the shortage of time. I was for remain in the referendum mainly because of the potential for short and medium-term economic dislocation, particularly within my constituency, which is likely to have among the highest trade surpluses with the EU, mostly off the bonnet of the Jaguar Land Rover cars that we sell into the single market. The debate was lost, and I still think we face difficult times ahead.

I believe in free trade. We have to strike out as best we can, but it will be tough in a world of growing protectionism. When we leave the EU, the key is to make the best possible deal. For me, that does not mean having membership of the single market. During the referendum campaign and for years before, the message on the doorsteps was loud and clear: no freedom of movement. People do not want freedom of movement, but the single market comes with that requirement so that is off the table straightaway, as the Prime Minister has made clear.

The difficulty with being in the customs union is that we would not be able to have our own trade deals with the rest of the world. We would be hamstrung. The European economic area, customs unions and single market membership are antechambers to entering the EU. We are leaving the EU. We are a country of 65 million people with a sophisticated, large economy, so it is completely inappropriate to have that type of model. We need our own model, and any attempts to frustrate that with amendments or to make the Government expose their hand too early, will damage our negotiations.

This short Bill has attracted a large number of new clauses that fall into a number of broad categories. I will first deal with the issue of parliamentary scrutiny, which has engaged the attention of a large number of hon. and right hon. Members. From listening to the debate, I am clear that there is actually a considerable amount of common ground across the Chamber. The Government also agree that parliamentary scrutiny is essential as we withdraw from the European Union. Indeed, the whole object of leaving the European Union is to ensure that our Parliament can take back our own laws. For that purpose, scrutiny is essential.

I recognise the thoughtfulness in the wording of many of the amendments that seek to formalise the mode of scrutiny, but it will probably surprise nobody that I will not accept any of them. This is a straightforward Bill that gives us the means to respect the result of the referendum and the judgment of the Supreme Court. As the Court made absolutely clear, this is about not whether we leave or the terms on which we leave, but simply the mechanics under which we trigger the process of leaving. In many cases, the amendments discussed today have virtually nothing to do with the Bill, and I resist them for two principal reasons. First, many are unnecessary in that what they seek to achieve is effectively already being done by the Government. No one can deny that the Secretary of State, as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) recognised, has been assiduous in his engagement with Parliament. The process has been the source of intense scrutiny over the past seven months.

Will the Minister tell us whether reassuring EU nationals is unnecessary?

I will come to EU nationals later. As I explained a moment ago, I am currently dealing with the issue of scrutiny, not with the issue of EU nationals.

One can see from the Secretary of State’s record of engagement that he has given an oral statement on an almost monthly basis—far more than the bimonthly or quarterly updates to Parliament requested in the new clauses. Ministers from across Government have been at this Dispatch Box many times to debate our EU exit. The Prime Minister has given a statement after every Council, including one today. That is in addition to holding debates on the EU exit in Government time, and 15 appearances at Select Committees by Ministers and officials from all Departments.

I am pleased that the Minister understands that parliamentary scrutiny is essential, but we have heard from Government Back Benchers that everything will have to close down once the negotiations begin. Therefore, what has happened in the past seven months is not, strictly speaking, relevant to what will happen over the next two years. The purpose of new clause 3 and new clause 28 is to provide forward-looking scrutiny.

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. However, it is not the case that everything will, as she puts it, “close down”. There will certainly be negotiations and it is important that they continue, to a certain extent, with privacy. At the same time, the Government have made it clear, time after time, that we fully appreciate the need for engagement with and scrutiny by Parliament, provided, of course, that it does not adversely affect the negotiations.

Does the Minister agree that the final deal should in fact be scrutinised by the British people, who should have the final say on whether it represents their reasonable expectations when they voted to leave? If it does not, they should have the chance to stay in the EU.

The British people have had their say very clearly: they have instructed this Parliament that they wish to leave the European Union. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like that result, but that is the hard fact.

We have aimed at all times scrupulously to fulfil Parliament’s legitimate need for information, and we will continue to do so. As well as keeping Parliament informed, we will pay regard to all the motions passed on the outcome of negotiations associated with the Bill—as proposed in new clause 176—just as we have already paid regard to the motions passed on Opposition days on 12 October and 7 December.

On the provisions of new clause 3 concerning information sharing, the Secretary of State has been clear since the very early days following the referendum that he will keep Parliament at least as well informed as the European Parliament as the negotiations progress. The new clause asks us to reaffirm that position so that Parliament receives the same documents that the European Parliament or any of its committees receive from the Council or the Commission.

The Government are absolutely resolute that the House will not be at an information disadvantage compared with the European Parliament, but the new clause is flawed, simply because the United Kingdom Government may not be privy to what information is passed confidentially between the Commission, or the other EU institutions, and the Parliament. In the same way, the House would not expect the Government to pass all our documents relating to a highly sensitive negotiation to the other side.

What I can do, however, is confirm that the Government will keep Parliament well informed, and as soon as we know how the EU institutions will share their information, we will give more information on what Parliament will receive and on the mechanisms for that, including on the provision of arrangements for the scrutiny of confidential documents.

The second category of amendments and new clauses, which, again, I must resist, because they pre-judge the negotiations to follow, ask for formal reporting on myriad subjects or for votes on unilateral commitments. The exact structure of the negotiations has not yet been determined and may very well be a matter for negotiation itself. Therefore, setting an arbitrary reporting framework makes no sense at all. There will be times when there is a great deal to report on, and times when there is very little. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have already made serious undertakings as to how they will report to the House.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I know there are a lot of issues to be covered. However, to take just the example of the European arrest warrant, could he at least give us an indication of what the Government’s objectives are? Does he want us to stay part of it?

Clearly, we require, and we are looking to achieve, close co-operation with the European Union on security matters, but, again, these will be a matter for negotiation, and as the negotiations progress, we will keep the House informed.

The commitments that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have given are important. That is why the Government published the White Paper on our negotiating position last week, with an introduction by the Prime Minister, once again stating our clear aims for the negotiations. That includes, for example, the implementation phases referred to by hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—those are part of our objectives.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I will not give way, because I have little time.

The Secretary of State announced in the recent White Paper that there will be a further White Paper published on the great repeal Bill so that Parliament can be fully informed of the provisions of the Bill in good time. After that, the Government will continue upholding their commitment through the primary and secondary legislation that will undoubtedly be required.

New clauses that ask for specific reporting to Parliament after article 50 is invoked, including new clauses 3, 20, 22, 29, 51, 111 to 130, and 151—on our relationship with EU agencies, competition policy, environmental regulations, the UK renewables sector and virtually every other aspect of our relationship with the EU—are dangerous. They would bind us to an inflexible timetable of updates as we try to navigate a complex set of negotiations.

I am following the Minister’s speech carefully. Does he agree that it is a mistake to put the procedures of this House into primary legislation, giving the courts an unnecessary locus to interfere with our affairs?

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. If these provisions were put into the Bill, there is no doubt that they would become justiciable, therefore leading to further delay. What this country requires at the moment is certainty and speed, and instead we would have uncertainty and delay.

Would the Minister acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that a new trade agreement will not be agreed in a very tight two-year period? If he does acknowledge that that is a risk, why will he not put in place a transitional arrangement to protect our businesses from crashing out of the EU without such an arrangement?

I can go no further than what I have already said. Of course, transitional arrangements require bilateral agreement. We have already indicated that that is what we are aiming at, but it takes two to tango in this regard.

Amendment 78 would require the Foreign Secretary to publish a work programme for UKRep for the duration of the negotiating period. This is simply an attempt to delay notification by creating new obligations on and impediments for the Government.

I turn now to a matter that has, quite understandably, exercised a large number of colleagues. I want to refer to these amendments and new clauses in detail. They relate to the status of EU citizens. Providing certainty for this group of people is an important issue for the Government. That is why the Prime Minister, in her speech, made it one of our 12 priority objectives for negotiations.

I will not give way, I am afraid—I have very little time.

While these amendments call for different cut-off dates and vary in wording and terminology, they all share the same aim—to guarantee the status of EU nationals currently in the UK. The Government wholeheartedly agree with this aim. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, most recently this very afternoon, securing the status of EU nationals is one of the foremost priorities of this Government. We have stood ready to reach an agreement from the beginning, because it is not in anyone’s interest to allow any uncertainty over this issue to continue.

I will not give way because I have little time.

As the Prime Minister told the House this afternoon, the Government recognise that European citizens who are resident in the UK make a vital contribution both to our economy and to our communities. That contribution was highlighted very personally in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). Without them, we would all be poorer, not least our important public services such as the national health service.

I will not give way any further.

This is less an issue of principle than of timing, with a few EU countries insisting that there can be no negotiation without notification, and that therefore nothing can be settled until article 50 is triggered. We could not be clearer about our determination to resolve this issue at the earliest possible opportunity, ensuring that the status of UK nationals in the EU is similarly protected. Some hon. Members have called for a unilateral guarantee now, but we have a very clear duty to UK citizens living in other EU member states, of whom there are about 1 million, to look after their interests and provide as much certainty as possible for their futures as well. Some hon. Members have suggested that we should, in effect, offer a unilateral guarantee to EU nationals in the UK while at the same time failing to achieve security for our own nationals abroad. That is a course that would carry the risk of a prolonged period of stressful uncertainty for them, which we are not prepared to accept. Only after we have passed this Bill into law can my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister trigger article 50—

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I will take no further interventions; I am sorry. Only after the Bill has become law can my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister trigger article 50 and thus provide certainty not only to EU nationals living within our borders, but to our nationals overseas.

New clause 33 calls on the Prime Minister to set out a draft framework, especially with regard to the new immigration system, prior to notification. We have already set out in our White Paper that we will introduce an immigration Bill, and I reassure colleagues that Parliament will have a clear opportunity to debate and vote on the matter. The great repeal Bill will not change our immigration system; that will be done by a separate immigration Bill and subsequent secondary legislation. Nothing will change for any EU citizen, whether they are already resident in the UK or moving from the UK, without Parliament’s approval.

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is doing a fantastic job in this position on behalf of the British people. We are all concerned about our constituents who are EU citizens and who want certainty on this matter, but I am advising my constituents who express concern to me that they should write to their own Governments, who are standing in the way of sorting out this problem. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that foreign Governments who are standing in the way of a settlement on the matter are left in no doubt that we find that objectionable?

My hon. Friend makes an important point.

Bear with me. This will be a matter for negotiation in due course, but ultimately we must all be conscious of the fact that we are dealing with human beings—families, and people who are concerned about their futures and their careers. Not only do we have a duty in that regard, but there is a duty right across the European Union to protect the interests of those individuals.

I will give way in a moment. I can tell the House that I have discussed the matter on numerous occasions with my EU counterparts. They assure me that they fully understand that it is an issue of simple humanity that must be put at the top of the agenda when the negotiations commence. We must wait until the negotiations commence, and until they do, we must not make any concessions.

I thank the Minister for finally giving way. I want to talk about my constituent Mr Joerg Nueter, who is from Germany and who came to see me on Friday. He has lived in Scotland for almost four years, and he is understandably concerned about his future and the uncertainty surrounding his residency. There is nothing preventing the Government from providing that certainty to him and to millions tonight. Will the Minister do that now?

We owe the primary responsibility to our citizens in EU countries, but we also owe a duty to EU nationals in this country to ensure that their interests are protected. Frankly, this is a matter for their Governments, too.

This has been an interesting, lengthy and important debate, but I must resist all the new clauses and amendments.

I will be very brief. I am pleased that the Minister has recognised the thoughtfulness of new clause 3 and other new clauses and amendments, and I note his intention to keep the House well informed. It is deeply disappointing that he has resisted new clause 3, however, so we seek to test the will of the Committee on the matter.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

On a point of order, Ms Engel. I seek your guidance on how right hon. and hon. Members can divide on some of these incredibly crucial issues. The knife in proceedings has curtailed not just debate but our opportunity to vote on such incredibly important matters as the European arrest warrant and the single market. What can be done? Why could we not have more votes on these new clauses?

Before I answer the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, I should say that any further points of order will bite into the next group of amendments.

The Chairs, the Temporary Chairs and the Clerks spent a long time looking at every amendment in detail over three days, and we decided that we would put the lead new clause to a Division today and then move on to the second group. I also just want to take this opportunity to say that the Committee will vote on the issue of EU nationals on Wednesday. It is not for the Chair to explain why a decision has been taken. It has been taken, and there will be no explanation of it.

Order. On that note, unless there are any new points of order, I think that we should move on. It is important that we allow as much time as possible to debate the next group of amendments.

Further to that point of order, Ms Engel. I am grateful to you. I do not think that any hon. Member would want to challenge the Chair’s decision. In the previous group, we discussed dozens of amendments, including my new clause 56 on our future relationship with the European economic area. The former Chancellor said that the economy was not the Government’s priority in the EU negotiations. What can we do to make sure the public are aware that we are taking our scrutiny seriously?

That is not a point of order. It is very close to challenging the decision of the Chair.

I am happy to take the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order, but the next group is on devolved legislatures, so he will be eating into the time for the minority parties.

There is no challenge to the Chair in any of these points of order. Hon. Members are entitled to point out that this programme order is railroading debate on the biggest constitutional decision facing this country for 50 years. The Chairman’s Panel might have no alternative but to follow the programme order, but hon. Members are entitled to challenge it.

Order. This is not about the programme motion on which the House voted. That was not a decision taken by the Chairs. I think we should move on.

Further to that point of order, Ms Engel. I simply seek clarification of something you said a few moments ago about the selection of the lead amendment to vote on in each case. Is it the case that in respect of all the groups of amendments we are going to debate over the next three days, only the lead amendment will be voted on? If so, I think it would be of great concern to all members of the Committee.

It may be, but it is not necessarily the case. For this group, we decided that only the lead amendment would lead to a Division. Let us move on.

Further to that point of order, Ms Engel. On that last point, we have to answer to our constituents. Many of them will not understand why many of the amendments that have been tabled, in which they are deeply interested, have not been chosen tonight in a very open or democratic manner.

I am going to move on. That is not a point of order. This was a decision taken by the Chair. It was a difficult decision, and I understand Members’ frustrations, but the points have been made and we really need to move on.

New Clause 4

Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations)

“(1) In negotiating and concluding any agreements in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must consult, and take into account the views of, a Joint Ministerial Committee at intervals of no less than two months and before signing any agreements with the European Commission.

(2) In the course of consulting under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must seek to reach a consensus with the devolved administrations on—

(a) the terms of withdrawal from the European Union, and

(b) the framework for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union.

(3) Subject to subsection (4) The Joint Ministerial Committee shall consist of—

(a) the Prime Minister,

(b) Ministers of the Crown,

(c) the First Minister of Scotland and a further representative of the Scottish Government,

(d) the First Minister of Wales and a further representative of the Welsh Government, and

(e) the First Minister of Northern Ireland, the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and a further representative of the Northern Ireland Executive.

(4) The Prime Minister may, for the purposes of this Act, determine that the Joint Ministerial Committee shall consist of representatives of the governing authorities of the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

(5) The Joint Ministerial Committee shall produce a communique after each meeting.”—(Jenny Chapman.)

This new clause would place the role of the Joint Ministerial Committee during Brexit negotiations on a statutory footing.

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 23—Duty to Consult Scottish Government on Article 50 negotiations applying to Scotland—

“(1) In negotiating an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, a Minister of the Crown must consult Scottish Government Ministers before beginning negotiations in any area that would make provisions applying to Scotland.

(2) A provision applies to Scotland if it—

(a) modifies the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament;

(b) modifies the functions of any member of the Scottish Government;

(c) modifies the legal status of EU nationals resident in Scotland, and Scottish nationals resident elsewhere in the EU;

(d) would have the effect of removing the UK from the EU single market.

(3) Where a Minister of the Crown consults Scottish Government Ministers on any of the provisions listed under subsection (2), or on any other matter relating to Article 50 negotiations, the discussions should be collaborative and discuss each government’s requirements of the future relationship with the EU.

(4) Where a Minister of the Crown has consulted Scottish Government Ministers on any of the provisions listed under subsection (2), the Minister of the Crown must lay a full report setting out the details of those consultations before both Houses of Parliament, and must provide a copy to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament.”

New clause 24—Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations)—duty to report—

“(1) The Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations) must publish regular reports on the impact of negotiations in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on the European Union on the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

(2) The reports shall be published at intervals of no less than two months, and a report must be published after every meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations).

(3) The reports shall include—

(a) a full minute from the most recent meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations);

(b) oversight of negotiations with the EU, to ensure, as far as possible, that outcomes agreed by all four governments are secured from these negotiations; and

(c) any other information that the members of the Committee, in concord, judge to be non-prejudicial to the progress of the Article 50 negotiations.

(4) The reports must be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and a copy of the reports must be transmitted to the Presiding Officers of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and the Northern Irish Assembly.”

New clause 26—Agreement of the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiation—

“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1(1) until at least one month after all members of the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiation have agreed a UK wide approach to, and objectives for, the UK’s negotiations for withdrawal from the EU.”

New clause 139—Requirement for debate on process for exiting the EU—

“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1 until—

(a) the Speaker of the House of Commons,

(b) the Lord Speaker of the House of Lords,

(c) the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament,

(d) the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales, and

(e) the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly

have each certified that a debate has been held in their respective legislatures in relation to the First Report of the House of Commons Exiting the European Union Committee, Session 2016-17, HC815.”

New clause 140—Meeting with the First Ministers of Devolved Administrations—

“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1 until—

(a) the Prime Minister has met with the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to discuss the formal notification process and;

(b) the Joint Ministerial Committee has unanimously agreed to the Prime Minister making such a notification.”

New clause 144—Representation of devolved administrations in withdrawal negotiations—

“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1 until she has committed to ensuring that the devolved administrations will have direct representation in the negotiations relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.”

New clause 147—Scottish Government ministers—

“For the purpose of Article 50(1) of the Treaty on the European Union the words ‘in accordance with its own constitutional requirements’ shall be deemed to require the inclusion of Scottish Government ministers in negotiations between the UK and the European Union on matters which would be reserved to the UK by virtue of any transposition from EU law but on which competence would otherwise be devolved to Scotland under any Act of Parliament.”

New clause 148—Welsh Government ministers—

“For the purpose of Article 50(1) of the Treaty on the European Union the words ‘in accordance with its own constitutional requirements’ shall be deemed to require the inclusion of Welsh Government ministers in negotiations between the UK and the European Union on matters which would be reserved to the UK by virtue of any transposition from EU law but on which competence would otherwise be devolved to Wales under any Act of Parliament.”

New clause 149—Northern Ireland Executive ministers—

“For the purpose of Article 50(1) of the Treaty on the European Union the words ‘in accordance with its own constitutional requirements’ shall be deemed to require the inclusion of Northern Ireland Executive ministers in negotiations between the UK and the European Union on matters which would be reserved to the UK by virtue of any transposition from EU law but on which competence would otherwise be devolved to Northern Ireland under any Act of Parliament.”

New clause 158—Continued levels of EU funding for Wales—

“Before the Prime Minister exercises the power under section 1, the Secretary of State must lay a report before—

(a) Parliament, and

(b) the National Assembly for Wales

outlining the effect of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on the National Assembly for Wales’ block grant.”

This new clause would require the UK Government to lay a report before the National Assembly for Wales outlining the effect of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU on Welsh finances, before exercising the power under section 1. This would allow for scrutiny of the Leave Campaign’s promise to maintain current levels of EU funding for Wales.

New clause 159—Differentiated agreement for Wales—

“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1 until a Minister of the Crown has confirmed that Her Majesty’s Government will conduct a consultation exploring a differentiated agreement for Wales to remain in the European Economic Area.”

This new clause would require the UK Government to conduct a consultation exploring a differentiated agreement for Wales to remain in the European Economic Area, before exercising the power under section 1.

New clause 160—Endorsement of the final deal for withdrawal from the EU by the devolved assemblies—

“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must give a commitment that Her Majesty’s Government shall submit the terms of any proposed agreement with the European Union on the UK’s withdrawal to—

(a) the National Assembly for Wales,

(b) the Northern Ireland Assembly, and

(c) the Scottish Parliament

and that the Government will not proceed with any agreement on those terms unless it has been approved by each of the devolved assemblies.”

This new clause would require the Prime Minister to commit to gaining the endorsement of the final deal for withdrawal from the EU by the devolved assemblies, before exercising the power under section 1.

New clause 162—Review into the UK constitution—

“Before the Prime Minister can exercise the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must commit to conducting a review into the constitution of the United Kingdom following the repatriation of powers from the European Union.”

This new clause would require the Prime Minister to commit to conducting a review into the constitution of the United Kingdom when leaving the European Union, before exercising the power under section 1.

New clause 168—National Convention—

“(1) Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must undertake to establish a National Convention on Exiting the European Union.

(2) The National Convention shall advise Her Majesty’s Government on its priorities during negotiations with the EU on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

(3) Ministers of the Crown must take into account the views of the National Convention before signing any agreements with the European Commission on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

(4) Membership of the National Convention shall be determined by the Secretary of State and shall include—

(a) elected mayors,

(b) elected representatives of local government,

(c) representatives of universities and higher education,

(d) representatives of universities and higher education,

(e) representatives of business organisations,

(f) members of the Scottish Parliament,

(g) members of the National Assembly of Wales,

(h) members of the Northern Ireland Assembly,

(i) members of the European Parliament,

(j) other representatives considered by the Secretary of State to represent expertise and experience of British civil society.

(5) The National Convention must convene before—

(a) 12 months have elapsed after this Act has received Royal Assent, or

(b) the day on which Her Majesty’s Government declares that agreement has been reached on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, whichever is the sooner.

(6) The National Convention shall meet in public.

(7) The National Convention must, following its convening, lay a report before Parliament before—

(a) 15 months have elapsed after this Act receives Royal Assent, or

(b) the day on which Her Majesty’s Government declares that agreement has been reached on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, whichever is the sooner.”

This new clause would require the Government to establish a National Convention of representatives across of levels of Government, regions and sectors, to meet and produce a report recommending negotiating priorities, to better reflect the needs of the regions of the UK.

New clause 145—Differentiated Agreement for Scotland—

“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1 until a Minister of the Crown has confirmed that the United Kingdom will seek a differentiated agreement for Scotland to remain in the European Economic Area.”

New clause 150—Priority in negotiations: Northern Ireland—

“It must be a priority in negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU for the Prime Minister to seek terms that would not give rise to any external impediment to the people of the island of Ireland exercising their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, to then be treated as a member State of the European Union, if that is their wish, subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.”

This new clause seeks to preserve the key constitutional precept of the Belfast Agreement, in respect of the principle of consent, applying to future EU membership of a united Ireland agreed by a referendum under the Belfast Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Amendment 88, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, at end insert

“, provided the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly is obtained prior to such notification regarding alterations to the legislative competence of that Assembly and the executive competence of the Northern Ireland Executive Committee, consistent with constitutional convention.”

This amendment would ensure that the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly to changes in the powers of the Assembly and powers of the Northern Ireland Executive would be obtained prior to triggering Article 50, consistent with constitutional convention.

Amendment 91, page 1, line 3, at end insert “following consultation with—

(a) the First Minister of Scotland,

(b) the First Minister of Wales,

(c) the First Minister of Northern Ireland and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland,

(d) the Chair of the English Local Government Association the Mayor of London.”

Amendment 46, page 1, line 3, at end insert—

“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) unless the Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly and National Assembly for Wales agree motions to consent to the notification.”

Amendment 55, page 1, line 3, at end insert—

“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until the Northern Ireland Executive has been formed following elections in Northern Ireland on 2 March 2017.”

Amendment 60, page 1, line 3, at end insert—

“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until the British-Irish Council has met to discuss the immediate effect of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on the United Kingdom’s land border with Ireland.”

Amendment 63, page 1, line 3, at end insert—

“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until she has addressed the Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly and National Assembly of Wales on the process of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.”

Amendment 90, page 1, line 3, at end insert—

“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until she has confirmed that Her Majesty’s Government will publish a report into the powers repatriated from the EU to the United Kingdom and which do not fall within the Reservations listed in Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006, outlining their impact on the competencies of the National Assembly for Wales.”

This amendment would require the UK Government to publish a report into the repatriated EU powers which fall under the competencies of the National Assembly for Wales before notifying under subsection (1).

Amendment 92, page 1, line 3, at end insert—

“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until she has laid before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of the powers expected to be repatriated from the EU to the United Kingdom which are within the competences of Northern Ireland Ministers and the Northern Ireland Assembly under the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”

Amendment 18, page 1, line 5, at end insert—

“(3) Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must publish and lay before the House a report setting out how the devolved nations of the United Kingdom will be consulted with, and involved, in the negotiations in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on the European Union.”

Amendment 86, page 1, line 5, at end insert

“with the exception of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and section 2 of the Ireland Act 1949, and subject to—

(a) the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland of 10 April 1998, and

(b) preserving acquired rights in Northern Ireland under European Union law.”

This amendment requires the power to notify withdrawal to be exercised with regard to the constitutional, institutional and rights provisions of the Belfast Agreement.

New clause 109—Provisions of the Good Friday Agreement—

“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister shall commit to maintaining the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent Agreements agreed between the United Kingdom and Ireland since 1998, including—

(a) the free movement of people, goods and services on the island of Ireland;

(b) citizenship rights;

(c) the preservation of institutions set up relating to strands 2 and 3 of the Good Friday Agreement;

(d) human rights and equality;

(e) the principle of consent; and

(f) the status of the Irish language.”

New clause 4, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, requires the Government to consult and take into account the views of a Joint Ministerial Committee at intervals of no less than two months and before signing any agreements with the European Union. The Labour party is trying to be reasonable in this new clause. We do not want to block Brexit, but to make sure that the Government do Brexit well. The new clause is very simple and, I think, very sensible.

Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales must be included and taken into account throughout the process by which the UK Government negotiate our terms of withdrawal from the European Union and, equally importantly, the framework for our future relationship with the EU. New clause 4 would place the Joint Ministerial Committee on a statutory footing. The Committee would include the Prime Minister, Ministers of the Crown, the First Minister of Scotland and an additional representative, the First Minister of Wales and an additional representative, the First Minister of Northern Ireland and their Deputy, and a further representative of Northern Ireland.

The Labour Party is committed to enabling the devolved Administrations to have their voices heard in this debate. Amendment 91, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), proposes that, in addition, the London Mayor should be consulted—and Labour would, of course, support this position.

The hon. Lady talked about voices being heard. Her party’s position on Second Reading was to vote for article 50 so that Labour could come forward with amendments. Those amendments in the last round have just been defeated. If all the amendments are defeated, will Labour stick to the line of walking through the Lobby with the Tories on Third Reading?

I have to say that the hon. Gentleman is incredibly defeatist. We intend to win with our amendments; we are not here to anticipate defeat. We have very sensible and very reasonable requests to put to the Government, and we expect them to accept our amendments.

In the Miller case, the Supreme Court decided unanimously that the devolved legislatures did not have a legal power to block the Government from triggering article 50, but that does not mean that devolved legislatures can be ignored. A veto does not exist, but it is only right for the Scottish Parliament and the Assemblies in Northern Ireland and Wales to be respected, and for the different desires, concerns, aspirations and needs of the devolved Administrations to be taken fully into account.

As the hon. Lady will know, the White Paper mentions the Northern Ireland First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and clearly states that they will be given the right to be consulted. Why does that need to be included in legislation?

I had anticipated that intervention from the hon. Gentleman, consistent as he is in raising such points. If he will forgive me, I shall deal with it later in my speech.

If the Government wish to proceed with article 50, and if SNP Members do not wish to proceed with it and that is the position of the Scottish Government, how are the United Kingdom Government meant to take this into account? What happens if someone takes into account the opposing view?

I agree that it is difficult. [Laughter.] I do not think it is funny, but it is difficult. Our amendment does not require consensus, and if the right hon. Gentleman reads it closely, he will see that it has been very carefully worded. The fact that consensus is not easy does not mean that we should not at least try.

Is there not a bigger issue here? Many of the areas that have heretofore been the responsibility of the European Union are entirely devolved within the United Kingdom—for instance, agriculture and environmental protection. There is no way in which the Government will be able to proceed effectively with a deal on behalf of the United Kingdom unless they have managed to take the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments with them.

Of course that is true. That is the spirit in which we tabled the new clause, and we hope it is the spirit in which the Government will consent to accept it.

I have given way a few times already. I shall make a bit of progress, and then I will be happy to give way again.

It is true that, as the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) pointed out, consensus may not be possible, but it is deeply desirable, and probably in the national interest. Although competing priorities may ultimately prevent it from being achieved, we really ought to try.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Oh, go on then.

Is it not the truth that the hon. Lady knows, we know and the whole House knows that the Scottish National party has no interest in reaching consensus on this point, and no desire to do so? She knew that before she put her name to the new clause. Conservative Members will be saying, “Surely this is just a wrecking new clause.”

The hon. Gentleman needs to read the new clause a bit more carefully. It is clearly not a wrecking new clause. Nothing that it desires cannot be achieved. The fact that consensus may not be possible—although we have not even tried—does not mean that the interests of the people of Scotland ought to be ignored.

I am spoilt for choice, but I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).

My hon. Friend is making a very strong speech. I support the desire of Labour Front Benchers to put these matters on a statutory footing, but does she agree that, particularly when Governments have come forward with a clear plan—as the First Minister of Wales has—and there are serious questions for the UK Government, the UK Government must come forward with some answers to enable a negotiation to proceed?

My hon. Friend is right. I am in danger of reading out my speech before I reach the part in question, but I can say that Wales has succeeded in reaching something close to a cross-party consensus.

Will the hon. Lady give way? I want to be helpful.

I want to say more about the issue of Wales. The Government owe it to the people of Wales, Scotland—[Hon. Members: “Alex is being helpful.”] Alex is being helpful, I am told. I will give way to him.

I know that the hon. Lady, unlike Conservative Members, will have read the paper that the Scottish Government released before Christmas—the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) is nodding—but does she not remember that on 15 July last year, the Prime Minister said that she would not invoke article 50 until there was an agreed UK position backed by the devolved Administrations? Are Conservative Members saying that the Prime Minister was being anything less than truthful?

That intervention would probably be better aimed at the Government Front Bench.

The Government owe it to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to be as accommodating as possible. For example, the financial support for deprived areas that has benefited communities for decades is now in question. Whether or not the Government deal with this issue as part of the passage of this Bill, they need to know that the Labour party will fight hard for the grants to such areas to be secured into the future.

I have given way quite a lot and would like to make a little more progress. Many Members will want to contribute to the debate.

New clauses 23 and 24, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), which would receive Labour Front-Bench support should he be able to test the will of the House on the matter, strengthen further the role of the Scottish Government in making them a statutory consultee and require the Joint Ministerial Committee to report on negotiations. These are reasonable demands that the Government ought to seek to meet, and the same status should of course be offered to the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland.

It is fair to say that the White Paper lacks substance or detail. That is particularly true on Northern Ireland. The land border, changes to competences and, perhaps most significant of all, the importance of ensuring continued adherence to agreements made as part of the Good Friday agreement and subsequent agreements must be maintained by the Government.

New clause 109, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), states that the Prime Minister must recommit to the Good Friday agreement. I can see no reason why the Government should not wish to do so, and hope that the Minister will indicate whether or not he intends to agree to my hon. Friends’ amendments when he responds this evening.

The hon. Lady mentions the Good Friday agreement and the commitments in it, but as it was between the parties in Northern Ireland, the Government at Westminster and the Government in the Irish Republic, how do our discussions about Brexit have any impact on the Good Friday agreement?

What we are asking for, and what new clause 109 asks for, is certainty. I do not think that that is too much to ask.

These amendments do not seek to obstruct the passage of this Bill—not in the least. They are born of a view that Brexit will be better for all the people of Britain if all communities up and down the country are properly involved. The Government should not hide away from this scrutiny; they ought to welcome it. Labour is not arguing for a veto; we are arguing for inclusion. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are not just another stakeholder group to be consulted. The four Governments, although they are not for this purpose equals, must work together.

The hon. Lady speaks of veto. She will be aware—she mentioned this earlier in her speech—that the Supreme Court was unanimous on the role of the devolved Assemblies and that the decision should be taken by this place. We all agree on consultation, but she cannot possibly be speaking of veto, because if she does so, she is challenging the decision of the Supreme Court.

I am not going to take it personally that the hon. Gentleman was not listening carefully to the beginning of my speech, but if he looks at the record he will find that his worries are unfounded. He also might like to read the amendment that we have tabled and find that he has nothing at all to worry about.

I understand the gentleness with which my hon. Friend is responding to the various interventions, but may I quietly, politely and in a modest sort of way remind her that if we read the Good Friday agreement in as much detail as many of us in the House have done, we can see that the EU is mentioned throughout, in line after line and paragraph after paragraph? The role of the EU in the peace process was crucial and must continue to be so.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I will give way, but only because I cannot find my place in my speech. This is the last intervention I will take.

I am delighted to be able to afford the hon. Lady time to find her place. Should she not think about disaggregating the Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in these discussions, because they are all different, particularly Scotland? Perhaps it is time, if we are genuinely to trust the Scottish National party Government in Edinburgh, for them to revisit their claim during the Brexit campaign that Scotland could somehow remain part of the EU outside the United Kingdom or have fast-track access to EU membership. That was one of the most shameful myths peddled by any party in the House.

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is going to have to put his misgivings about the Scottish National party to one side and focus on the people of Scotland, because it is their voices that we must ensure are heard in all this. This is going to require genuine commitment and goodwill. I can see that the right hon. Gentleman is going to find that difficult. I only hope that the Minister does not find it quite so difficult. I am sure that he already appreciates where the First Ministers will be coming from, but he needs to commit, through these new clauses and perhaps by bringing forth his own amendments as the Bill progresses, to embedding the role of the devolved Assemblies within the process. This has already been proved by the First Minister of Wales and the leader of the Welsh nationalists, who, writing together, said:

“The challenge we all face now is ensuring that as we prepare to leave the EU we secure the best possible deal for Wales. Together, we intend to rise to that challenge.”

If they can put party political differences aside and work together for the benefit of Wales, surely the Government can step up to the same challenge by accepting these new clauses and amendments. That is the right way to strengthen, and not weaken, our Union, as the Prime Minister herself says she wishes to do.

I am grateful to you for calling me to speak, Ms Engel. I can see that Members are looking forward to this. There are a number of new clauses and amendments in this group, and Members will be pleased to know that I do not plan on speaking to all of them. I shall group them in a way that I think is sensible. There are some that are unnecessary, some that arguably do very little but run a risk of doing harm, and some that are outright vetoes on the process, which is completely unacceptable. There is one about a national convention, about which I will speak briefly, and a couple of very important ones about Northern Ireland, which I would also like to speak to.

Starting with new clause 4, to which the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) has just spoken, I think my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) put his finger on it when he asked her about consensus. I think we need to explore this point further. The new clause proposes that

“the Secretary of State must seek to reach a consensus”.

My right hon. Friend pointed out that it was unlikely that any such consensus would be reached because the Scottish nationalists fundamentally disagree with our leaving the European Union. Not only that, but unlike the other First Ministers, they also do not wish to see a continuation of the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] They have just confirmed that verbally in the Chamber. So it seems unlikely that consensus would be reached. The problem with putting this new clause in statute is that it would then become justiciable, as my right hon. Friend said earlier. A court could then be asked to adjudicate on whether the Secretary of State had tried hard enough to reach consensus. Even if the court then ruled that everything was fine, this would still be just a way of delaying the process.

Did my right hon. Friend also notice that the Opposition spokesman referred to “embedding” the Scottish Government in the proposals? Does he agree that, roughly speaking, that is like Wellington being asked to embed Napoleon in his strategy for the Napoleonic wars?

My right hon. Friend has a much greater command of history than I do, but even with my limited reading I think he is probably about right.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) asked the hon. Member for Darlington to distinguish between the First Ministers of the different devolved nations, and I think the distinction is that the First Ministers of Northern Ireland and of Wales wish to see the continuation of the United Kingdom, but the First Minister of Scotland does not. That is material to the sensibleness of proceeding with new clause 4.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for praying me in aid; he is absolutely right. My real point is that neither the First Minister of Northern Ireland nor the First Minister of Wales sought to mislead their own communities by suggesting that they can join the EU outside the UK, which is what the SNP suggested throughout the campaign.

My right hon. Friend makes that point—[Interruption.]

On a point of order, Ms Engel. Was what the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) just said in order? He accused the First Minister of Scotland of misleading the country by stating something that Members of this House in the Scottish National party have also said, so is he by extension accusing me and my hon. Friends of misleading the Chamber?

It was not unparliamentary as the First Minister of Scotland is not a Member of this House.

I am conscious that I have taken interventions from the Government Benches but not from the Opposition Benches. I give way to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson).

May I provide an example? Policing in Scotland is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and policing in Northern Ireland is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The consensus may be that the Government want to withdraw from the European Union and therefore from agencies such as Eurojust and Europol, but there might need to be a view on such issues so that a consensus can be reached to enable Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have devolved issues, to maintain policing at a local level with Ireland and other parts of the European Union.

I have no issue with the Government seeking to reach a consensus. There are two issues. One, as I think the hon. Member for Darlington accepted, is that reaching a consensus is likely to be difficult, but we should try. I have no problem with Ministers trying to seek a consensus, but the danger of putting that in legislation is that we then hand over to a court the adjudication of whether Ministers have sought that consensus or whether they have tried hard enough. Even if the court ends up reaching what I would consider the right conclusion of not interfering in the process, it seems an obvious route for delay. The Prime Minister has made it clear that she will seek to take into account the views of the devolved Administrations, but I would not want that to be put into the legislation.

While the right hon. Gentleman is talking about distinctions, I want to make another distinction as a reminder to him and the House: the Scottish National party is not the entirety of Scotland—[Interruption.] It might like to think it is, which is evident from the reaction from the SNP Members just now. New clause 4 is carefully worded and states that the Government should seek a consensus for building the negotiation with the European Union. That is about letting the Scottish people into the process, not the Scottish National party, and the right hon. Gentleman should distinguish between the two.

While the Scottish nationalists are currently in government in Scotland, I completely agree that they are not the same as the Scottish people. On the new clause, the representatives on the Joint Ministerial Committee are the First Minister of Scotland and a further representative not of the Scottish people but of the Scottish Government, so there will be two members of the Scottish nationalists whose expressed purpose, as confirmed here today, is to destroy the United Kingdom.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand how serious this issue is? Does he not understand that he will not have a UK if he keeps going on with arrogance, with intolerance and with insensitivity? We spent 30 years getting a peace process together. We do not want to see any more dead bodies. Quite simply, what is going on here, with the intolerance that some Members are showing, is scaring me. I am asking myself why I am in this place at all.

I have not been intolerant to anyone. I have taken interventions from both sides of the House, and I said in my opening remarks that I will address new clauses 109 and 150, which specifically refer to Northern Ireland. I simply have not yet had a chance to get to them. I am a great supporter of the Union of the United Kingdom and, when I was Immigration Minister, I worked very closely with the Government of the Republic of Ireland to facilitate the common travel area and the close working together of the peoples of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that, and I wish to proceed on that basis.

Let me make some progress, because otherwise other Members will not have the opportunity to speak. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) was able to intervene on me. He is the lead name on new clause 23, on which I have a question. Subsection (2)(c) refers to

“the legal status of EU nationals resident in Scotland”.

It then refers to “Scottish nationals”. I do not quite understand what they are. I understand what UK nationals are, but I was not aware that there is a separate class of nationals of Scotland. Does he wish to explain to the Committee what they are? If for no other reason, not knowing what they are is reason enough to vote against the new clause.

It is people who were normally resident in Scotland before they moved abroad. It is quite simple.

“Scottish nationals” implies that they are somehow tied to Scotland other than by residence. If someone is English but happens to live in Scotland for five minutes, does that mean they are a Scottish national?

No.

But the hon. Gentleman just said that his definition of a Scottish national is someone who resided in Scotland before moving overseas. It seems to me that someone does not need to have any connection with Scotland bar the fact that they lived there for five minutes. This seems a very poorly worded new clause that is not worthy of support.

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman one more time.

I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that his Government’s pushing through the programme motion means that we cannot have a full debate on these issues. Whether it is a beautifully worded clause or a badly worded clause, EU nationals should be given the right to stay by this Government today, and we should be fighting to make sure that UK nationals living in the EU have their rights, too. The Government could do that now and, if they did, we would not need to press these new clauses.

I will not address that issue now, as we debated it at length with the previous group of amendments. A number of colleagues spoke, so it has had sufficient debate.

The next grouping contains a number of new clauses proposing various mechanisms for giving different parts of the United Kingdom a veto on the entire process and, for that reason, I do not think they should be accepted. New clause 26, tabled by the Scottish nationalists, would effectively give the Joint Ministerial Committee a veto on the process. That means a single member of the Joint Ministerial Committee could veto the entire process, which would not be welcome.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that, in presenting this proposal to the UK Government, the Scottish Government are very much seeking that consensus and compromise. We understand that the people of England have voted to leave the EU, and we do not seek to frustrate that, but what we ask is that this Parliament also recognises that not just the SNP but the Scottish Parliament has empowered the Government to act in our interests to make sure that we remain within the single market. That respect has to work two ways, and it is about the UK Government working with us. If they do not do that, we know what the answer is. Quite frankly, we should not be in this place.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me—I am sure my colleagues on the Government Benches will find this slightly repetitive—but he said that the people of England voted and I must point out that that is not the case. There was a United Kingdom referendum, one of two referendums over the past few years, both of whose outcomes I respect. There was a vote by the people of Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom, so it therefore follows that the referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the EU was a UK decision. It was a single vote and the UK decided to leave the EU. Scotland did not have a separate decision; it was a UK decision. I respect both referendums and I am going to proceed on that basis.

Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman to understand where Scottish National party Members are coming from. During the Scottish independence referendum, the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party, Ruth Davidson, told Scottish voters that the way to guarantee their EU citizenship was to vote to remain part of the UK. He enjoyed a cosy little exchange a moment ago about the First Minister allegedly misleading people, but it is clear that the leader of his party in Scotland misled voters during the independence referendum. Would he now like to take the opportunity to apologise for that misleading statement?

I would not. The leader of the Conservatives in Scotland—I am pleased to say that she is the Leader of the Opposition in the Scottish Parliament and the latest opinion polls are showing Conservative support rising and Labour support falling—campaigned strongly both for the maintenance of the UK and for the UK to remain in the EU. I was disappointed by the latter result, as was she, but I do not think she misled anybody and therefore I do not feel the need to apologise.

I have taken the hon. and learned Lady’s intervention and I will now make some progress.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Of course.

My right hon. Friend might not have had the chance to follow the Scottish independence referendum as closely as some of us. During that referendum the current SNP First Minister said that if the UK remained, the NHS in Scotland would be privatised. So if anyone should apologise for misleading the public, Nicola Sturgeon should.

As ever, my right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head.

Let me move relatively briefly through the other provisions. New clauses 139 and 140 would both, in effect, give a veto to different parts of the UK, and therefore are unacceptable.

When the right hon. Gentleman turns to the issues affecting Northern Ireland, will he take the opportunity to address the spurious point raised by the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who said that the Belfast agreement is peppered with references to the European Union? There is one such reference on page 16, and there are three references on page 7 to the European convention on human rights, which is nothing to do with the EU. Indeed, the references to the EU refer specifically to the mutual interdependence of the North South Ministerial Council and the Assembly. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to get into a lather over that matter.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for elucidating that for the House. Indeed, I detected from the expression on the face of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Darlington, that she had not found that intervention from the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) entirely helpful. Perhaps she shares the view of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley).

Finally, new clauses 160 and 161, tabled by the Welsh nationalists, talk about “future trade deals” and would also give a veto to the devolved Assemblies in the UK. On that basis, the Committee should not support them.

New clause 168 proposes a “National Convention”. As someone who has been involved in constitutional matters for some time, I could not help but smile at that, because when I was taking a number of constitutional items through the House, national conventions, conventional committees or some other variant were usually a way of delaying matters by involving a whole load of people in things. These were usually people who are already well involved in all those things, as most members of such conventions appear to be elected Members of some body or other. Those conventions seem an extraordinary excuse to make no progress whatever.

As the hon. Lady tabled the new clause, I will of course give way to her.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I look forward to discussing this matter further in my remarks later, but perhaps I could raise a point with him. I am sure he will appreciate, as I do, the paucity of quality debate about the referendum, which remains an issue. We need to engage people in the discussion over the next two years. We should not reach the end of the negotiation period with people saying they are as ill-informed at the end as they were at the start.

That is a helpful intervention, because the hon. Lady has tempted me to say a little more about her new clause, which I had not planned to do. I have looked at the membership of the national convention specified in the new clause, and it does not seem to involve any members of the public at all. It is all people who were very well represented in the referendum campaign: elected mayors; elected representatives of local government; people from universities and higher education; representatives of trade unions and trade bodies; representatives of business organisations; and Members of the Scottish Parliament—

Not them!

Yes, them, along with Members of the National Assembly of Wales and of the Northern Ireland Assembly; plus Members of the European Parliament. Finally, it gets to “other representatives”, but not just any representatives of civil society—only those determined by the Secretary of State. Interestingly, the hon. Lady wants to give Ministers the job of deciding who should represent civil society, which seems remarkably generous of her, although rather self-defeating.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is vital to have the regions of England involved as much as the nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in the national debate. I am sure that, on reflection, he will realise that there is great value in the idea of a greater national conversation in which elected representatives would be able to engage with their communities and represent their views.

To be honest, I thought there was quite a lot of national conversation last year. When I talked to my constituents, it seemed to me that by the end of that national conversation, they really did want to make a decision and move on. The most important thing that they want us to do is give notice under article 50 and start the negotiating process. The most common refrain I hear is from people who, because we had a referendum last year, wonder why we have not already left.

My right hon. Friend just ran through that list; does he agree that the people who were told that the referendum was an opportunity for them to express their opinion would find it perplexing, disturbing and not a little bit frustrating that new clause 168 would take that voice away from them and hand it back to people who are already very vocal?

My hon. Friend put that well. The new clause would not involve members of the public at all; it would involve people who are well involved in the debate already.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I shall not give way to the hon. Lady again. I gave way to her twice, and we can look forward to her remarks—

On a point of order, Ms Engel. The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has been speaking for 22 minutes. Charming as he is, it seems that he has been filibustering the House, as he did in the previous debate, to prevent honest debate and opinion from being expressed this evening. What is going on?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are no time limits at this stage of a Bill. There is a limited amount of time available, as the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) knows. He has spoken at great length and he spoke at great length on the previous group. I have been listening very carefully and he has remained in order and spoken to the amendments and new clauses. There is nothing out of order in what he has said, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the mood of the Committee.

I have taken interventions from colleagues on both sides of the Chamber, just as I did in the previous group, but I will take your admonition, Ms Engel, and not take so many interventions from now on.

I set out the points that I wished to cover at the beginning of my remarks. Colleagues who have been following carefully will know that I have only one point left, and I will cover it, because it is on the very important matter of Northern Ireland. Colleagues will be pleased to know that that is the last point I will make.

Two new clauses have been put forward on Northern Ireland. New clause 150 is about priority in negotiations, and it would ensure that people in Northern Ireland would have no external impediment to exercising their right of self-determination. Although it talks about bringing about a united Ireland, with which I do not agree, nothing in the process of exiting the European Union would have any impact on that. The legislation that governs the mechanisms available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to do with border polls and so forth have nothing whatever to do with this process, so there is no need to accept this new clause.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will recall that, even in his own remarks, he talked about the questions that were raised in the context of the Scottish referendum. I am talking about whether or not an independent Scotland would have easy or ready access to the EU or whether it would have to negotiate, brand new, under article 49. If Northern Ireland were taken out of the EU as part of the UK, no article in the Lisbon treaty allows for part of a former member state entering the EU. Anybody could raise a question mark over whether or not a referendum in that context would admit Northern Ireland into the EU as part of a united Ireland. The question mark could be raised because the German precedent might not apply. The Taoiseach addressed that point last summer, and the British Government need to take it on board.

The hon. Gentleman may be guilty of jumping quite a lot of steps in advance. There is no evidence that the people of Northern Ireland have any intention, at any time in the foreseeable future, of joining the Republic of Ireland. I think that this is a case of inventing theoretical problems to get in the way of what is a perfectly sensible process.

I will take one more intervention from the hon. Gentleman and then I will make some progress.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the key wording in new clause 150 comes from the Good Friday agreement itself? The paragraph appears in the agreement not just once, but twice. It is in the constitutional issue section of the agreement and it is in the agreement between the British and Irish Governments. If it was good enough and important enough to be in the Good Friday agreement and to be endorsed by a referendum of the Irish people in the north and the south, why should it not be respected now when we are being asked to reflect on how English people voted in a referendum?

Again, I come back to what the hon. Gentleman just said about how the English people voted. If he looks at the separate parts of the United Kingdom, he will see that both England and Wales voted to leave the European Union. As I said earlier, this was a UK decision. The fact that different parts of the United Kingdom may have voted in different ways is not relevant. It was a United Kingdom decision, and the United Kingdom voted to leave.

I have one more new clause to talk to and then I will sit down.

New clause 109 talks about the provisions of the Good Friday agreement, and other agreements agreed between the UK and Ireland. It lists a whole load of issues. It seems to me that the free movement of people, goods and services and so forth on the island of Ireland and citizenship rights are not guaranteed by membership of the EU. In previous legislation, such as the Ireland Act 1949, it is clear that citizens of the Republic of Ireland and citizens of the United Kingdom have reciprocal —the word “reciprocal” is important—arrangements to live in each other’s countries and to vote in each other’s countries. Irish nationals in Britain can vote in our elections. If we were to go to live in the Irish Republic, we could vote in theirs. Those arrangements will be preserved when we leave the European Union. The new clause is unnecessary.

I am very disappointed to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his contribution, because, judging from the communications that I am receiving from constituents and voters in Scotland, every word he says is putting our vote through the roof and greatly increasing the cause of a second independence referendum. I urge him and those around him please to continue in the same vein, as it is doing us the world of good.

Based on the Twitter trolling that I receive, I suspect that most people contacting the hon. and learned Lady would already have supported the nationalists in the first place. With the successful campaigning efforts of my friend, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, it seems that those of a Unionist disposition in Scotland are very much moving to support the Conservative party in Scotland, which is why she is the Leader of the Opposition there.

Order. We really must get back to the group of amendments.

I have been tempted to speak for longer than I had intended.

I hope that, after running through the new clauses and amendments in this group, I have set out reasons why all of them should be opposed by those who wish to trigger article 50. If any of them are pressed to a Division, I hope the Committeee rejects them.

I will speak to the amendments tabled in my name and in the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends.

I take the House back to the morning of 24 June when the then Prime Minister, the then Chancellor and the current Foreign Secretary were missing in inaction, and the First Minister of Scotland took to the steps of Bute House to address the people of Scotland. Let us be clear: we absolutely respect how the people of England and Wales voted in the EU referendum. In turn, we ask that the way in which the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to be equally respected.

Forty-eight hours after assuming office, the Prime Minister travelled to Scotland to meet the First Minister. Ahead of her visit, the Prime Minister directly addressed the people of Scotland, stating that

“the government I lead will always be on your side. Every decision we take, every policy we take forward, we will stand up for you and your family—not the rich, the mighty or the powerful. That’s because I believe in a union, not just between the nations of the United Kingdom, but between all of our citizens.”

That is what she said then, but I turn the Committee’s attention to page 3 of what can only be described as an executive summary, as opposed to a White Paper, in which she refers to “one nation.” Hon. Members across this House would do well to understand that, as long as the Prime Minister and the Government continue to believe that this is one nation, they will make no progress whatever in their relationships with the rest of the United Kingdom. We are not one nation; we are a Union of nations. The Government need to remember that.

I am going to do something that I have never done before—quote an extract from The Daily Telegraph. It reported on 15 July last year:

“Theresa May has indicated that…she will not trigger the formal process for leaving the EU until there is an agreed ‘UK approach’ backed by Scotland.”

What does my hon. Friend think has happened to the Prime Minister’s commitment?

Interestingly, if hon. Members turn to page 17 of the so-called White Paper, they will see a change of wording. We have moved from having a “UK approach” to “seeking” to agree a UK approach—another change in the Prime Minister’s position.

On that basis, is my hon. Friend surprised that the UK Government now seem willing to seek separate deals not for Scotland or Northern Ireland, but for the car industry in Sunderland and for the City of London?

I will come to that issue in a moment.

The Scottish National party’s compromise amendments propose a UK approach for all of “Team UK”, which is what the Prime Minister would like to think we are. I say the amendments are a compromise because that is exactly what they are. We fundamentally believe that the best future for Scotland and, indeed, the whole United Kingdom is to remain in the EU. But in the spirit of reaching a consensus—I object to Members who have suggested that we are not participating in the process—we have tabled 50 amendments, to which my colleagues and I will now speak. That is our involvement in the process. The First Minister of Scotland was clear that she was laying out a number of options. The ball is in the Prime Minister’s court.

In retrospect, does the hon. Lady regret the SNP’s peddling of the myth during the Brexit campaign that Scotland alone could somehow remain in the EU without any of the sanctions in the Lisbon treaty—joining the single currency of the euro and so on? Does she regret proposing that to the Scottish people as a fact, rather than as fiction, which is what it was?

The only myths in the independence referendum in Scotland were those peddled by the right hon. Gentleman’s friends in the Conservative party and those in the Labour party—that is where the myths came from. I am grateful to him for reminding the Committee, and indeed all those who are watching, that that is precisely the case.

The First Minister of Scotland has laid out a number of options, which are included in the paper my colleagues will refer to. However, I would remind hon. Members that, before the independence referendum, the Scottish Government produced a 670-page document called “Scotland’s Future”. We knew then, and we know now, that we can make a success of an independent Scotland. Hon. Members should compare and contrast that with page 65 of the so-called White Paper, where this Government are already talking about failure and

“passing legislation as necessary to mitigate the effects of failing to reach a deal.”

That does not instil much confidence in anybody.

Specifically on the amendments and new clauses, new clause 26—the teamwork clause—would, if accepted, mean that article 50 was not triggered until the Team UK approach was agreed by each individual member of the team. Is that not what the Prime Minister said? On that basis, I hope we will have support on both sides of the Committee for the new clause.

Could the hon. Lady clarify whether new clause 26 would effectively give the First Minister of Scotland, if she refused to agree, a veto over the exercise of article 50?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose interventions are always astute. I refer him to the wording of the new clause, which refers specifically to

“a UK wide approach to, and objectives for, the UK’s negotiations”.

Those are the Prime Minister’s words.

New clause 139 would require a substantive vote on this matter to be held in each of the devolved Parliaments prior to article 50 being invoked, further strengthening the democratic mandate for that action. New clause 144 sets out a mechanism to ensure that all devolved Administrations will have direct representation in negotiations on leaving the EU, enabling the negotiating team to have expert input from each constituent part of the UK. Given what we have seen so far, this Government are in need of some expert input. Following that, new clause 145 would set in legislation what we already understand to be possible and deliverable—the negotiation of a differentiated agreement for Scotland, so that it can retain its vital access to the single market by remaining part of the European economic area.

Amendment 46 further strengthens the role of the devolved Parliaments in this process, while amendment 55 would specifically ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are represented in this process by the newly elected Northern Ireland Executive following the upcoming election. Amendment 60 would ensure formal cross-border discussion of the Government’s proposal to maintain a frictionless land border with Ireland. Lastly, amendment 63 would give Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly and Welsh Assembly Members the same opportunity to hear the Prime Minister address them on Brexit as she afforded members of the US Congress who attended the Republican party awayday in Philadelphia last month. That is only fair.

We know from last week’s brief White Paper that the Government still believe there should be a special deal for Northern Ireland in our negotiations with the EU. A frictionless border between the UK and Ireland remains their priority. We also know that the UK car industry and the City of London, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) alluded, have also been singled out for special attention in the negotiations. It is becoming clearer with each passing day that the Government will be willing to pay through the nose to secure a special arrangement where that is in their political or economic interests.

I hope my hon. Friend will press all these provisions to a vote, because everyone here loves trooping through the Lobby and exercising their parliamentary sovereignty. However, does she agree that a differentiated deal for Scotland, with Scotland retaining its access to the single market, would benefit the rest of the United Kingdom? The Government are very keen to retain a land border with the EU on the island of Ireland, so why would they not want a land border on the actual island of Great Britain so that England could trade over that border into the single market in Scotland?

As usual, my hon. Friend makes very salient comments, although I suspect they will fall on deaf ears, and we know what the result of that might well be.

The Scottish Government have been clear that they are willing to make fundamental compromises to ensure that we can agree a UK-wide approach. The Scottish Government’s White Paper, “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, sets out a series of options that could be taken, if this House so wished, to protect the precious Union that Members talk about so often—to protect Scotland’s political, social and economic interests in Europe while also remaining part of the United Kingdom. It is now time for this Whitehall Government to start to treat Scotland seriously and with respect. We know that such a differentiated deal is possible. Only yesterday, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who I am delighted to see in his place, said during a BBC interview—well, not much about anything in particular, but we did get this from it—that it is “not impossible” to have a differentiated deal for the constituent parts of the UK. The amendments tabled by the SNP set out a framework for us to work together in the interests of Scotland to deliver this.

We welcome the UK Government’s White Paper, which acknowledges the role of the Joint Ministerial Committee and states that it is in place to

“Seek to agree a UK approach to, and objectives for… negotiations”.

I refer the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), in relation to new clause 26, to those words of the Prime Minister. However, it simply was not acceptable for the Prime Minister to seem to dismiss the Scottish Government’s plan out of hand in her speech at Lancaster House before the JMC had even met to discuss it. The SNP does not believe that “involving” the devolved Administrations ends with the JMC. We want to see real, tangible efforts to develop a proposal acceptable to all the UK, not a toothless talking shop. That is why we have tabled an amendment calling for the devolved Administrations to have direct representation in the negotiations as we come to an agreed UK-wide deal.

Tomorrow the Scottish Parliament will vote on the triggering of article 50. The Prime Minister should respect that outcome. We also believe that the Prime Minister—

The hon. Lady talks about the Prime Minister respecting a decision. Will the hon. Lady respect the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court that the Prime Minister can decide, and that this is the place where we can decide, for the whole of the United Kingdom?

The hon. Gentleman has already made that intervention and was given an answer. Is it his position that the Scotland Act 2016 has no meaning—no value? Is it his position that notwithstanding the terms of the Scotland Act he is going to ignore the wishes of the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved legislatures?

No, the hon. Gentleman has had more than enough time.

I am not taking any more interventions. I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question.

We also believe that the Prime Minister should not trigger article 50 before the Northern Irish Assembly election on 2 March has taken place, and that there must be a meeting of the British-Irish Council to discuss urgently the immediate effect of the UK’s exit from the EU on the Irish border. That is because such a deal is not just possible but absolutely essential to Scotland, in a number of ways. It is essential for Scottish business. The British Chambers of Commerce’s “International Trade Survey” is further evidence of the damaging impact that the threat of a Tory hard Brexit is already having on Scottish and UK businesses. [Interruption.] It is not rubbish, as the hon. Gentleman says, unless he wants to rubbish the results of that survey, and with it the British Chambers of Commerce. I suspect not, hence he is still in a sedentary position. Published today, it reveals that of the 1,500 businesses surveyed, nearly half, or 44%, said that the devaluation of sterling since the EU referendum was having a negative impact on domestic sales margins, while over two thirds, or 68%, expect the fall in the pound to increase their cost base in the coming year, with more than half of companies—54%—expecting to have to increase the prices of their products as a result.

Such a deal is also essential for Scottish exports.

The hon. Lady is making a very passionate speech, but clearly if the pound devalues, that is very good for exporters, including exporters in Scotland. There are two sides to that coin.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as ever, for his recognition of a passionate speech, although I wish he would pay more attention to the words that I am using while I am delivering it. Is it the Tory Government’s policy to continue with a devalued pound? Is that their vision for the economy of the United Kingdom? That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I am not going to give way just now, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind.

In relation to Scottish exports, new figures published by the think-tank Centre for Cities last weekend show just how vital the EU single market is for Scotland’s four largest cities. Exports to the EU from Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow alone total nearly £7 billion. The report also stated that 61% of Aberdeen’s exports go to the EU, which shows the importance of that export market to Scotland. It is also essential to maintain Scotland’s skilled workforce.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I am not going to give way just now; allow me a few minutes to make some progress.

This morning, Holyrood’s cross-party Europe Committee published its latest report on Brexit, in which it recommended a bespoke Scottish immigration system—almost on cue; I believe, from memory, that that was something propagated by someone on the Government Benches during the campaign. We now know that those who campaigned to leave the EU, like those who campaigned against Scottish independence, were prepared to say anything to win the day and leave the rest of us to pick up the consequences. The findings of the report were based on extensive evidence heard by the Committee, which detailed the demographic crisis that Scotland would face without its EU citizens.

I have been listening very carefully to the points that the hon. Lady made with regard to Northern Ireland. If I heard her right, she indicated that until a new Northern Ireland Executive is established, the Government should not trigger article 50. Northern Ireland is at a difficult crossroads at the present time. If no Executive is ultimately established after 3 March, does she seriously believe that the whole United Kingdom should be held to ransom until that conundrum is resolved?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which I understand. However, I would also ask: why is the whole United Kingdom being held to ransom by the Prime Minister’s selection of some random date, with no view to the consequences for the whole of the country? We are required to work to that date, but it came about on a whim.

A deal such as I have described is essential for the fishing industry. I mention the fishing industry because for too long it has been ignored by this Government, who have not stood up for it in Europe. The White Paper seems to confirm the worst fears of our fishermen, who now believe that without a specific Scottish deal, their interests will be negotiated away once again, as they have been before.

It is clear that a differentiated deal for the constituent parts of the UK is optimal, deliverable and essential to protecting our interests. Now is the time for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to keep her promises to Scotland—as she said, a “UK approach” for all of “Team UK”. Be under no illusions; my colleagues and I were elected by our constituents to stand up for Scotland, and that is exactly what we will do. One way or another, Scotland’s interests will be protected.

The amendments and new clauses that we have tabled would strengthen the UK’s future negotiating position with the EU and provide a framework to serve the best interests of its constituent parts. Our proposals crystallise in legislative specifics the grand platitudes that the Prime Minister and others have spouted about Scotland’s place in the UK and our role in the process.

The hon. Lady referred earlier to the impact of the pound being devalued. Could she tell us which currency an independent Scotland would have? Would it be the pound, the euro or some other currency of her invention, or of the invention of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond)? [Interruption.]

As my colleagues are saying from a sedentary position, the right hon. Gentleman does not believe in expert opinion anyway. Perhaps he will agree—his mention of another independence referendum speaks to this fact—that the question that was posed to the people of Scotland in 2014 was about a United Kingdom different from the one that exists now. Of course, it is in the gift of the Government and Members from across the House to agree to our proposals. They offer a compromise position, if the right hon. Gentleman does not want another independence referendum. But if we do have one, the arguments will be put forward to the people of Scotland for them to make that decision. The proposals give the Government an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to respecting Scotland and the devolution process.

Quite simply, the UK is either a country that respects all its constituent parts or it is not—the question is as simple as that—and this Government need to decide today one way or another. We are waiting for our answer and, indeed, we are ready to respond, but if the UK Government decide to turn their back on the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, voters in Scotland will be left under no illusion about how this Government intend to deal with Scottish interests in future negotiations. If the Scottish people can no longer trust the UK Government to act in their interests, it will be for the people of Scotland to decide the best way to rectify this unsatisfactory situation of an increasingly disunited kingdom.

I support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). I thought he took the Committee patiently through a number of important amendments tabled by Opposition parties, and he explained why some of them are needless because the Government are perfectly well intentioned in relation to the other parts of the United Kingdom and wish to consult very widely, and how some of them would be positively damaging because they are designed as wrecking amendments to impede, delay or even prevent the implementation of the wishes of the people of the United Kingdom.

My disappointment about both the Labour and the Scottish National party amendments is that there is absolutely no mention of England in any of them. To have a happy Union—I am sure the Scottish nationalists can grasp this point—it is very important that the process and solution are fair to England as well as to Scotland. I of course understand why the Scottish nationalists, who want to break up the Union, would deliberately leave England out of their considerations of their model for consulting all parts of the United Kingdom. That is deliberate politics, as part of their cause to try to find another battering ram against the Union.

In the case of Labour, however, I find that extraordinarily insouciant and careless. The Labour party is now just an England and Wales party, with only one representative left in Scotland and none in Northern Ireland. Yet it seems to be ignoring the main source of its parliamentary power and authority because it does not say anything in its amendments that would give a special status to England alongside Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and provide proper consultation throughout all parts of the UK. The Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman)—she spoke very eloquently, and in a very friendly way—did not mention the word “England”, and she had no suggestion about how England should be properly represented and England’s views properly taken into account in the process that is about to unfold.

May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he were minded to bring forward any amendments dealing with his concerns about England, we would give them serious consideration?

I have not done so, because I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean and Government Front Benchers that the Government will, of course, do a perfectly good job in consulting and making sure that all parts of the UK are represented, and I am quite sure that Ministers who represent English constituencies will want to guarantee that the view of England is properly considered.

If we take the referendum as a national, UK-wide referendum, we will of course take into account the views of everybody because we are following the mandate of the United Kingdom referendum, in which a very large number of English votes are rather important—

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. The conventions are absolutely clear: the right hon. Gentleman will give way as and when he wishes, and hon. Members seeking to intervene should not remain standing.

I am very grateful to you, Sir Roger. I was trying to deal with the previous intervention. As a courtesy to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), I thought other Members should listen to my answer to her before I took another intervention. I am now happy to take another intervention.

The right hon. Gentleman has indicted the Labour party and the SNP for not, in this group of amendments, addressing questions in relation to England. Does he recognise that the grouping is headed, “Devolved administrations or legislatures”?

I am well aware of that, and I am well aware that we have different arrangements around the country, but it is still an injustice to England that under the model proposed by Opposition Members, the biggest part of the Union by far would not be consulted on the same basis as the rest of the United Kingdom. I quietly remind them that to have the happy Union that I want, that all Government Members want and that, I think, a lot of Labour Members want, when we change the arrangements and have special arrangements for some parts, we have to make sure that they are fair to England as well.

We must reflect on what we were told in 2014, and that is that we were asked to lead the Union. If we are to have respect for this place, which we do, this House has to respect that the people of Scotland have given a particular judgment. This is about the House reaching a compromise not with us as SNP MPs, but with the people of Scotland. I cannot see why the Government and Conservative Back Benchers see that as so difficult. Quite frankly, if they cannot reach that accommodation with the people of Scotland, the people of Scotland will make their own conclusion.

Some of the SNP Members do protest too much. I seem to remember that they actively fought two referendums in recent years and managed to lose both of them. For my part, I am very happy with the result of both referendums; I managed to find myself on the winning side in both cases. I believe in respecting the views of the Scottish people, who decided that they wished to remain part of the Union of the United Kingdom, and in respecting the views of voters in the United Kingdom, who said they did not wish to remain part of the European Union. That is a very clear set of messages.

This Union Parliament, in the interests of the special Scottish considerations, said that only Scottish voters would decide whether Scotland stayed in the Union or not. Although many of us had strong views and were pleased that they decided to stay, we deliberately decided that it was appropriate to let Scotland decide, because in a democracy, a country cannot be in a union that does not volunteer freely to belong to that union. The Scottish nationalists, by the same logic, must see that people like myself—the 52%—have exactly the same view on the European Union that they have on the Union of the United Kingdom. There has to be voluntary consent. When the point is reached where the majority of a country no longer wishes to belong to the European Union, it has to leave.

I would have been the first to have said, had the Scottish nationalists won the Scottish referendum, that I wanted the United Kingdom to make all due speed with a sensible solution so that Scotland could have her wishes. I think I would have wanted rather more independence for Scotland than the Scottish nationalists, because I think that if a country is going to be a properly independent—

On a point of order, Sir Roger. I keep hearing the right hon. Gentleman talking about the “Scottish nationalist party”. I do not know what party that is, but the Members on these Benches belong to the Scottish National party.

The hon. Gentleman will understand that that is not a point of order for the Chair.

I am delighted that another advert has been given for the Scottish National party. We understand the point that its Members are making: they are not happy with the result of either referendum. However, in a democracy, when we have trusted the Scottish people to decide whether they wish to leave our Union and we have trusted United Kingdom voters to decide whether they wish to leave the European Union, it is my view and the view of practically all my right hon. and hon. Friends, and many Labour MPs, that we need to respect both results.

The memory of the right hon. Gentleman serving as the governor-general of Wales is treasured because of his memorable attempt to sing the Welsh national anthem, but he did that job without the legitimacy of a single Welsh vote. Does he not recall that this House can now act as an English Parliament under the EVEL rules? However, that is a path to the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Yes, the United Kingdom, through this Parliament, has decided that there will be differential arrangements for different parts of the United Kingdom. To Scotland we have given a Parliament; to Wales and Northern Ireland we have given an Assembly; and to England we have given absolutely nothing. That, so far, is our constitutional settlement. We have accepted exactly what the SNP spokeswoman was seeking: special treatment for Scotland through a more powerful Parliament.

One of the disappointments about this debate on devolution is that the myriad amendments do not, as I understand them, deliver more devolved powers to the Scottish Parliament or to the Welsh or Northern Ireland Assemblies, yet that opportunity will be there for the taking as we proceed with the process of leaving the European Union.

I despair at the pessimism of so many people about this very exciting process of recreating an independent, democratic country. The SNP should understand that an area such as agriculture, which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) wrongly told us was fully devolved —of course, it is not fully devolved but almost completely centralised in Brussels, which makes all the crucial decisions and budgetary dispositions, which we then have to execute—

It is now.

The hon. Gentleman says it is now, but we are still in the EU, and that is the position we are about to change. This gives us a huge opportunity to devolve that power from Brussels. Some of it might go to the Union Parliament, some to the Welsh Assembly and some to the Scottish Parliament. That is to be decided, but would it not be a good idea if the SNP joined in positively the discussion about the appropriate areas to take those powers?

Does my right hon. Friend believe, like me, that the SNP will join in the discussion if, on exiting the EU, more money becomes available to spend in the UK? If more is spent in England, it will want a dividend for Scotland as well, through Barnett.

I suspect that that is exactly right. I look forward to the day when the SNP accepts the verdict of the Union and the wisdom of the majority of Union voters, and sees that there is more power in it for devolved Parliaments and Assemblies—and potentially more money, once we no longer have to send the net contributions—and that we have a great opportunity to develop the devolved version of Scotland that the Scottish people voted for, if not always the one that the SNP would like.

Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore join me and my colleagues in demanding that powers that might come back to this Parliament, in respect of agriculture and fisheries, be handed over to Scotland and that we get the money that should be coming to us? As part of that process, why do the UK Government not start by handing over the convergence uplift money from the EU that is supposed to come to Scottish farmers and crofters but which the UK has kept its filthy hands on?

It is not my job as an English MP to make that case, but I am glad that at last the SNP is making the case for an opportunity that would present, were it to allow us to get on with Brexit and create exactly that opportunity of more money for Scottish farmers.

Does my right hon. Friend share my puzzlement that the SNP is not welcoming back control over things such as fishing, or at least the possibility of getting it, but would prefer to leave it in Brussels? It would prefer to leave fisheries policy in Brussels, rather than grabbing the opportunity coming our way to sort out our own fishing resources.

Fishing is a prime example of a deeply damaging policy pursued over 45 years during our term in the EU. It has done a lot of damage to the Scottish industry, as well as to the English industry. Is there not a case for common cause here, to work on a Union-wide fishing policy, with appropriate devolution, so that we might all be better off and protect our fisheries better, ensure that more of the fish taken is landed and sold, ensure proper conservation, ensure a bigger Scottish, English and British component in the catch taken, and ensure proper and sensible national limits on our waters, which we have not been allowed to have in the EU?

The right hon. Gentleman will remember the famous civil service memo when Britain was negotiating entry into the Common Market that said that in the light of Britain’s wider European interests, “they”—the Scottish fishermen—were “expendable”. If that was the attitude on the way in, why will it not be the attitude of the British Government on the way out?

Because the British people have advised the British Government to be much more sensible on the way out than they were on the way in. As someone who opposed the way in and voted against it as a young man at the time, I am certainly not to blame for the enormous damage visited on the Scottish industry, which the right hon. Gentleman and his party have acquiesced in over many years by always saying that we should stay in the EU, which delivered that very bad policy for Scottish fisherman. I found, going around the country and making the case for our fishing industry, that this was an extremely potent issue, inland as well as in our coastal ports. It was a great sadness to me that so many stalwart defenders of the EU were prepared to sacrifice the Scottish and the British fishing industry.

I speak as the son and grandson of fish merchants, and I should point out that it was the Scottish nationalist party—[Interruption]—that wanted to keep us in the EU and to maintain the common fisheries policy, which has destroyed jobs and industries, and which is why 54% of people in the parliamentary constituency of Banff and Buchan voted to leave. [Interruption.]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making a powerful point and for making the Committee even noisier than I was able to make it by my modest remarks.

My final point—I am conscious of the time and I have taken a lot of interventions—is that a big confusion about single markets underlies the SNP amendments. We have this strange contradiction in their logic whereby staying in the single market of the European Union is crucial to the health of the Scottish economy, whereas leaving the single market with England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be fine as part of the process of independence. Far more of Scotland’s business, of course, is done with the single market of the United Kingdom than is done with the single market of the EU. Some SNP Members try to justify it by saying, “Well, of course we would be allowed to stay fully in the single market with the rest of the UK, so we would want to do exactly the same thing with the EU.” That would be a matter for discussion and negotiation, if there were to be a second referendum and if SNP Members were ever to get to the point where they could win one—two things that look extremely unlikely today.

SNP Members need to look very carefully at their contradictory position. My view in both cases is that what matters is access to the market, not membership of the market, because membership comes with budget contributions, acceptance of law making, acceptance of court powers and all the rest of it, which is true of our single market in the UK just as it is of the single market as designed in the EU. Successful independent trading countries just need very good access to markets, which is what can be got under most favoured nation rules under the WTO and probably even better access through the negotiation of a special free trade agreement. It should be much easier to negotiate a free trade agreement where there is already one de facto, because it is not necessary to remove tariffs that are difficult to remove. They have already been removed; we are just trying to protect them.

I thus urge the Scottish nationalists to think again about this issue and to understand that we are all on the same side: we want maximum access for Scottish whisky as well as for English beef or whatever the product. There is every possibility that we can achieve a good deal, and we are much more likely to achieve it without the amendments tabled by SNP Members, and with a concerted view from this place that we are going to get on with implementing the wishes of the United Kingdom voters. Their message to us is, “Just do it.” That should be the message from this week’s debate in this Chamber.

I rise to speak to new clause 109, tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I shall also speak to amendment 86 and new clause 150, tabled in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie). I will be brief, because I want to allow Members from Scotland, Wales and, of course, Northern Ireland to speak on these matters.

Before I come on to my substantive point about my new clause, I want to say that as a Member of Parliament representing an English constituency, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) gets a chance to speak to her new clause 168. In Merseyside and Greater Manchester, directly elected Mayors will be in place by the end of this May. My constituents in St Helens North, people in Greater Manchester, in the Liverpool city region and indeed people across the north-west of England will expect their views and those of their elected representatives to be taken into account as part of this process.

The Good Friday agreement is, for me, at the heart of progress made in Northern Ireland and with respect to relations between Britain and Ireland. The progress made over the last number of decades has been forged by and through our common membership of the European Union. In speaking to my new clause, I am of course cognisant of the fact that this debate is taking place in the context of the implications of the referendum held last May. I voted in this Parliament to hold a referendum; I took part in that campaign; and I lost. Those who argued for a remain vote lost. I respect that fact, and I voted accordingly last week. I want to be constructive about working with the Government to get the best possible Brexit that we can for my constituents and for the United Kingdom.

However, I am also cognisant of the need for respect to be shown to a different referendum, the one that took place in Northern Ireland in 1998 on support for the Good Friday agreement. On the same day, there was another referendum which resulted in Ireland’s withdrawal of its territorial claim over Northern Ireland. That goes to the heart of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends in the Social Democratic and Labour party. So the people of Northern Ireland, through a referendum, endorsed the Good Friday agreement. Subsequent agreements have been made between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Ireland, supported by the efforts of my hon. Friends in all the Northern Ireland parties—and I call them my hon. Friends deliberately.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question about new clause 109? He is asking Her Majesty’s Government to commit themselves to the principles that are enshrined in the various agreements, but given that he accepts that they have committed themselves to all those principles—as, indeed, have Her Majesty’s Opposition—why is the new clause necessary?

I think it important to bear in mind the uncertainty that has been caused by the vote to leave the European Union, and the fact that the drafting and signing of the Good Friday agreement, and all the architecture surrounding it, were in the context of both the United Kingdom and Ireland being members of the European Union. Let me also say gently to my hon. Friend that people in Northern Ireland, like people in Scotland, voted to remain in the European Union. The vote that I cast in the House on article 50 was based on the vote in the United Kingdom as a whole, but I think that that is worth bearing in mind as well.

I hope that the Government will commit themselves to ensuring that some of the provisions of the Good Friday agreement will remain in place when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, and to upholding them in both letter and spirit. The first, which is the most practical and obvious, is the free movement of people, goods and services on the island of Ireland. Trade and tourism have increased. People in the United Kingdom, in Ireland and, indeed, in the world as a whole do not lead their lives, or inhabit their communities, on the basis of boundaries. I see very little difference between crossing the boundary between my local authority in St Helens and the local authority in Knowsley and crossing the border between Derry and Letterkenny, or between Newry and Dundalk.

My second point concerns citizenship rights, specifically in relation to Northern Ireland, although my new clause 108, which was included in the previous group, refers to the status, rights and privileges of the Irish community in Great Britain. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain, I would welcome an assurance from the Government. Migration from Ireland was taking place before we simultaneously joined the European Union. Although Irish citizens will still be EU citizens after the UK leaves the EU, it would be good to know that the rights, status and entitlements that they have enjoyed through legislation and through custom and practice over the last century—and for many centuries—will be maintained.

This is also about the rights of people who were born in Northern Ireland to choose to be Irish or British, or to choose to be both. I choose to exercise both those rights; some people choose to exercise, exclusively, one of them; but I think it important for those who wish to be Irish citizens, and will be EU citizens, who reside in and were born in Northern Ireland to be very much in the Government’s thoughts as they negotiate our withdrawal.

The third point is about the preservation of institutions relating to strands 2 and 3 of the Good Friday agreement, namely the North South Ministerial Council and the north-south bodies. The north-south bodies deal with, for instance, food safety, trade and business, inland waterways, the Ulster Scots and the Irish language. One would imagine that when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, the Special EU Programmes Body, which was set up to distribute European Union funds, will cease to exist. It was set up under strand 2 of the Good Friday agreement, which was passed by a referendum, and which is enshrined in legislation passed by the House of Commons.

In the context of strand 3, I think it crucially important for east-west relations between the United Kingdom and Ireland to continue. There is a new dynamic following devolution and the creation of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish and Welsh Governments, who play a role in the British-Irish Council and in forums such as the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. It is absolutely critical that this engagement continues. Taking on board the point of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), these engagements are taking place in the context of our joint European union, which has made all of this just so much easier. That is an indisputable fact.

One area that concerns me greatly in terms of the UK leaving the EU is the Good Friday agreement’s provisions on human rights and equality, given the Government mood music around the European convention on human rights. That is of course separate from and outside membership of the EU, but it is worrying that the Government have intimated that they would seek to roll back or reverse some of the commitments given on human rights in terms of both Northern Ireland in relation to this new clause and people across the UK as a whole.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be very appropriate if the Minister tonight confirmed that the Government are not going to leave the European convention on human rights and the Council of Europe, because there are strong feelings on both sides of the House about that and about leaving our place in the world somewhat exposed? It is important that the Minister gives an undertaking on that tonight.

I agree entirely and pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the valuable and important work she does in representing this place on the Council of Europe; we are very lucky to have her in that position.

On the principle of consent, having previously alluded to the Irish Government withdrawing their territorial claim, there is now no dispute—the Good Friday agreement makes this clear—by any parties in the Northern Ireland Executive or any parties in this House about the fact that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom until such time as the majority of people there decide otherwise. That is what is enshrined in the principle of consent, but it is for people in Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland as a whole to exercise that. My slight concern is that Northern Ireland leaving the European Union is a constitutional change that has been done without the consent of people in Northern Ireland, because they voted to remain. That again unsettles what has been a very delicate political balance that both Labour and Conservative Governments have sought to protect.

The new clause tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle, for South Down and for Belfast South goes to the heart of this as well. There is no provision for a part of a country that leaves the EU to re-join the EU. We must be explicitly clear on that, in respecting the principle of consent. If the wishes of people in Northern Ireland change and they wish to join a united Ireland, provision should be made for them to immediately become members of the EU, having expressed their wish to join the rest of the island of Ireland in a union.

Finally, it is very important to maintain the status of the Irish language. It is a full EU recognised language, and particular reference is made to it in the Good Friday agreement in terms of its being a regional and minority language.

I have tried to be constructive in my amendment, and I hope that what I have said tonight is constructive. I have huge respect for hon. and right hon. Friends from Northern Ireland. I understand that on this we will have different views, but in doing so I seek to protect the Good Friday agreement and the peace process, which I believe has given me and many others like me opportunities that we would not otherwise have had.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) for his considered and well-made speech; it was a pleasure to listen to it. I know that time is of the essence and I will therefore speak briefly to Plaid Cymru’s amendments in this group; they are new clauses 158, 159, 160 and 162 and amendment 90. With your permission, Sir Roger, we hope to press new clause 158 to a vote.

The Bill as it stands will be the biggest job-killing Act in Welsh economic history. It may be short, but it is loaded—loaded with a Brexit that pays no regard to the promises made during the Vote Leave campaign. This is not a Bill that ratifies the referendum result; it is a Bill that endorses the UK Government’s Brexit plan. We do not accept that the Prime Minister’s extreme Brexit is what drove people to vote leave. They were swayed by a torrent of false promises, and new clause 158 is designed to hold the Brexiteers’ feet to the fire. It would allow for proper scrutiny of the Government’s plans to uphold their pledge of continued levels of funding for Wales before triggering article 50.

The hon. Gentleman represents a rural constituency, as do I. Would he like to remind the House of the promises that were made to our rural communities, especially bearing in mind the fact that 90% of our exports go to the single market?

The hon. Gentleman has made a point that I shall make later in my speech. We were promised absolutely no detriment; that pledge was made to the people of Wales.

I wholeheartedly support new clause 158. It is a shame that my new clause 157 was not selected; it had a similar intent. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, despite repeated questions to the Government, they have refused to guarantee that Wales will not be left a penny worse off as a result of leaving the European Union?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and for his new clause, which we would have been delighted to support. That is exactly the point that I shall be making during my contribution on new clause 158.

Further to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) has just made, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have failed to guarantee EU funding post-2020, which is what was promised in the referendum?

That is a pertinent point, and I am happy that colleagues will support us in the Lobby if we get the opportunity to vote on my new clause later.

The UK Government’s White Paper, which was published only last Thursday, was a complete whitewash in relation to those pledges. Unsurprisingly, it made no commitment to uphold the funding pledges, which were no doubt very persuasive in Wales during the referendum. Let us remember that the estimated net benefit—I emphasise “net benefit”—to Wales from the EU in 2014 was around £245 million, or £79 per head. We will not accept a penny less from the UK Government, because that was the specific pledge by the leave campaign in our country. Not one single penny less.

Just over a week before the vote, amid huge publicity, the leader of the Conservatives in Wales said that

“funding for each and every part of the UK, including Wales, would be safe if we vote to leave.”

That statement was made following an open letter written by Tory Front Benchers, some of whom have now been promoted to the Cabinet and hold Brexit portfolios. They made the same promise.

I, too, will be supporting the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 158 in the Lobby this evening if a vote is called. I would also have supported new clause 157. He is making an important point. Does he agree that the Joint Ministerial Committee would be a vehicle for the Welsh First Minister, on behalf of the Welsh Assembly, to make that case and hold the Government to account?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I will be supporting the new clause tabled by the Labour Front Bench if it is pushed to a vote. He is completely right. At the moment, UK Government Ministers might as well go into those Joint Ministerial Committee meetings with their iPods on and their headphones in. They are not going to listen to a word that the Welsh or Scottish Governments say, or to the representatives from Northern Ireland. There is no leverage to what is discussed in those JMC meetings. We need to firm up those processes.

The extreme Brexit favoured by the UK Government takes no account of the geographical economic divergence that exists within the British state. The Welsh economy is heavily driven by exports, and two thirds of our goods go to Europe. To willingly block those vital economic arteries would be an act of calamitous self-harm, given that 200,000 jobs in Wales are sustained by our trade with Europe. As someone whose job it is to represent the interests of my constituents and compatriots, I have a responsibility to do all I can to mitigate this Bill’s intentions.

That brings me to new clause 159, which would require the Government to explore a differentiated deal for Wales within the European economic area. The unprecedented task that lies ahead for the UK will inevitably require flexibility and, indeed, imagination. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that if the UK Government give us the assurance that Wales will keep its membership of the single market and the customs union, we will support the Bill. The Government have already conceded, rightly, that flexibility will be required to avoid a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The joint Welsh Government-Plaid Cymru White Paper makes the case for the continuation of full participation—that is, membership—for Wales in the single market and the customs union.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the extraordinary attitude taken by the Government and the Prime Minister today on the status of the United Kingdom is entirely false? The United Kingdom does not exist as far as agriculture is concerned. The powers are exercised by the Welsh Government and the EU. If this goes through, it will be an attempt by the Government to take back powers that have already been devolved to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The hon. Gentleman is correct, as always, and I will come to that point later in my speech when I talk about shared competence and some of the constitutional reforms that will have to be made following Brexit.

In a similar manner, concessions have reportedly been made in certain sectors of the economy. We have already heard about Nissan in Sunderland and, as we would expect, the City of London. New clause 159 calls on the Government to show Wales a similar level of consideration by committing to consult on a territorial exemption when the Prime Minister drags the UK out of the single market.

Last week, I asked about guarantees about tariffs, specifically that there be no tariffs on Ford engines built in my constituency and exported out of Wales. I was told that there was no guarantee but that there was a commitment. Is a commitment good enough for Wales? Is it good enough for the United Kingdom given that we are now £1.8 trillion in debt—a national debt that is growing by more than £5,000 a second?

The hon. Lady is right to mention the fears about Ford because it is a major employer. I pay tribute to her for having the courage of her convictions when she voted against the Labour Whip last week.

Vote Leave campaigned on a platform of sovereignty, claiming that it wanted decisions made as closely to the people as possible. New clause 160 would allow precisely that by requiring the National Assembly for Wales to endorse any final agreement on the terms of exiting the European Union, thereby ensuring that Wales is fully involved in the process and that its needs are met. The Supreme Court ruling, which concluded that the Sewel convention holds no legal weight, confirms our long-held suspicion that devolution, and the principles it champions, is built on sand. Indeed, the UK Government went out of their way in their submission to the Court to emphasise the supremacy of this Westminster Parliament over the devolved Parliaments. Within the UK, it seems as though some Parliaments are more equal than others. Indeed, the Supreme Court ruling is why new clause 160 is necessary. If the British state is a partnership of equals, this is an opportunity for the UK Government to prove it.

The Prime Minister obviously recognises her political duty to consult the devolved Administrations—if only to save her own reputation. After all, she does not want to go down in history for breaking up two unions. Without the leverage of a vote on the final terms, Wales’ input holds no weight. The Brexiteers are ploughing ahead with the hardest of brutal Brexits. The Prime Minister’s “plan” speech on 17 January came before Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government had an opportunity to submit their White Paper for consideration.

New clause 162 and amendment 90 deal with repatriated powers and the constitutional future of the British state. On the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, powers will be repatriated to the UK, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), and a determination will need to be made about powers in devolved areas. At the moment, there is little experience within the British state of shared competence. Serious thought and consideration must be given to the future of the UK’s constitutional structures. If not, we are in danger of constitutional turmoil.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Does he agree that the problem with some speeches from Government Members is that they simply do not get that this is not a unity constitutional state anymore? We have separate Administrations, for example. How will the UK’s internal single market work? Have the Government given any thought to such matters? I do not think they have. Does he agree?

I completely agree. That is why new clause 162 is important in that wider debate. Government Members are riding roughshod over the views of Members of Parliament representing Wales and Scotland and setting a dangerous precedent.

In all the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, he skates over the fact that it was a referendum of the United Kingdom. The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. What is more, the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union. He ought to respect the people of Wales, who made that decision as much as did the people of the United Kingdom.

I am not questioning the referendum result. I am trying to work out what happens next in the interests of all the people I represent in Carmarthenshire and the people of my country, Wales.

Powers repatriated that straddle both devolved and reserved subject areas must be dealt with effectively, and the National Assembly must retain its autonomy. By “taking back control” the Prime Minister must not mean rolling back on devolution. New clause 162 would provide an avenue for that by committing the UK Government to conduct a review of the UK’s constitution.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the likely rejection of his amendment by Government Members, along with their put-down of every attempt to get some meaningful consultation with Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, belies a deep arrogance? They actually think that this process means that British Ministers can override Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on matters that pertain to those countries.

I agree exactly with the hon. Gentleman, but I would go further. My great fear is that Brexit will be used by the UK Government and by the Conservative party to derail and undermine devolution in its entirety.

In a similar manner to new clause 162, amendment 90 seeks clarity on laws repatriated from the EU.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he agree that what we need more than anything else at this moment is mutual respect of the devolution settlements and that we should do our best to achieve consensus wherever possible?

I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. The amendments tabled by the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Labour endeavour to achieve that, and it is a source of great regret tonight that they have been taken so badly by Government Members.

I do not usually make a habit of quoting the leader of the Conservatives in Wales, but in this instance he has made another fitting statement, and I will hold his party to account on it. He said in an LBC interview last month:

“No, this won’t be the last Wales Bill…. Brexit will require devolution changes to realign those responsibilities.”

There we have it. A devolution settlement meant to last a generation, and which received Royal Assent only last week, is already redundant.

I finish by reiterating that on 23 June nobody voted to lose their job or to become poorer. My colleagues and I will be doing everything possible to avoid that and to ensure that the interests of the people of Wales are protected.

I have listened to the debate with interest, but I had not intended to contribute, so I will be brief because other Members want to speak.

I say to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), the ex-leader of the SNP, that 17.4 million people voted to leave. The majority of the amendments that we are faced with this evening are wholly vexatious and are intended to frustrate the will of the people. What aspect of these three simple English words do the SNP not understand: “You lost twice”?

My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) just predicted exactly what the right hon. Gentleman was about to say, because apparently he said it a day or so ago. Does he remember the result of the general election in Scotland? Fifty-six out of 59 seats. Does he remember the result of the Scottish election? Nicola Sturgeon was resoundingly returned as First Minister of Scotland.

I like having a helpful intervention, which gives me another chance to remind the Committee that 17.4 million people across the UK voted for this result. The one thing that would be bad this evening is if we were to accept any of these amendments, because that would lead to uncertainty. What we need is clarity. After the vote last week, businesses, investors and those in jobs across the land need clarity and certainty, so I suggest that the SNP gets back to the day job. Look at the primary schools where literacy rates are declining. Look at the universities where the number of people from less well-off backgrounds is declining. Look at the great hospitals that are not performing. Look at the mess the SNP made of its police reforms. Go back and work on the day job.

Another narrative is creeping into this evening’s debates. It concerns Northern Ireland and is rather more serious than the pantomime of the SNP. I refer to some comments that have been made about the potential threat to the peace process, and I wish to put another point of view. The people who should be given the most credit are the incredibly brave professional people in our security forces who, under the most extraordinary provocation and in difficult circumstances, held the line and held the peace, which allowed the peace process to take place. I also pay tribute to all those in all parties in Northern Ireland who worked on the peace process; to the two leading parties in the UK, the Conservative party and the Labour party, which took a bipartisan approach; to the two main parties in the Dáil, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil; and to the two main parties in Washington, the Democrats and the Republicans. That extraordinary unity of purpose, over many years, has brought Northern Ireland to the better place it is in.

When I was shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I went to Northern Ireland every week for three years, and when I was Secretary of State I went every week for two years. In five years, I do not recall having a single meeting with any EU official; I do not recall any visit to Brussels on any issue. Obviously, the two years I spent at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were a complete contrast, as about 90% of what DEFRA does is implement EU law. So I wish to correct the idea about what would happen should the UK bring back powers and the money to this place. Obviously, there were significant EU funds, so we will have shedloads of money coming back, which we will continue to spend.

I wish to put on the record again the fact that in five years neither I, nor my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire), my stalwart Minister of State, can remember a single meeting with an EU official. That just puts into perspective the importance of the EU. I recall having the German ambassador to a successful dinner at Hillsborough where we talked about investors, but I honestly cannot recall a meeting with the EU. I did come in after the settlement had gone through and perhaps Labour Members who were involved remember interventions, but for me the key players in this were the UK security forces, the two main parties here, the two main parties in Dublin and the two main parties in Washington.

The right hon. Gentleman used the term “shedloads”. Will he tell the House how much “shedloads” is? Is it more or less than the £350 million for the NHS that was plastered on that now infamous bus?

The latest figure I saw was about £10 billion, so significant funds from the EU pass through the UK Government and those funds could be either spent at the same level or increased should we wish to do so. I therefore do not see that the money side will destabilise the peace process. We have heard talk that the process is unhelpful for Northern Ireland, but it has moved on to a completely different position. The main thing to concentrate on in Northern Ireland is getting the economy moving, and that is where the real efforts should be. It is also worth thinking about the position of the Republic—

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand or accept that direct negotiations would have taken place between EU officials, and the Northern Ireland Executive and the Ministers therein, rather than the Secretary of State or his deputy, because those EU matters were devolved matters?

Yes, I am perfectly happy to accept that. That was in the negotiation before I arrived. I worked closely with the former Member for St Helens South when he was Secretary of State and I was his shadow. As shadow, I spent a lot of time going to Dublin, talking to both parties, and to Washington, and that continued when I became Secretary of State. The point I am making is that in the time I have been around, the EU has not played a key negotiating role. Money has been going in that we can easily replicate and the peace process has moved on. I want to correct the narrative that the EU played a key role in the whole process.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a lot of the changes and things that must happen in future will have to come from the EU? We need article 50 to go through quickly so we can get on with it, but we need the EU to start looking after Ireland and fighting its corner so that we can all work together to find the best solution.

I am not sure that the words “looking after Ireland” will be that welcome in a proud independent state, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He has taken the point I made: uncertainty is not good for Northern Ireland, and I shall happily vote against all the amendments, because they would lead to uncertainty. If EU funds have been provided, we can pick them up. The key players are the two main parties in this House, the two main parties in the Dáil, and the two main parties in Washington. Those are the real guarantors of the peace process. With that, I look forward to voting against the amendments.

The real guarantors of the peace process were the people of Ireland when they voted by referendum in May 1998 to choose and underpin the agreement. Neither of the two main parties in this House had a vote in that referendum, and nor did the two parties in Washington, so let us be clear on who the real guarantors are. In the context of a debate in which we are told we have to go by the imperative of the referendum that took place on 23 June last year, let people recognise that there is still an imperative that goes back to the joint referendum—that articulated act of self-determination by the Irish people, who chose to underpin and agree to the Good Friday agreement.

The right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) says he does not want uncertainty, but as far as the Good Friday agreement is concerned, the uncertainty is being created by Brexit. Neither he nor anyone else in this House should be surprised when they start to hear that the negotiations that take place after the Assembly elections will not just deal with the questions of scandal, the lack of accountability and transparency, and the smugness and arrogance displayed by the parties in government, but will go to the core of the implications for the agreement as a result of Brexit.

The fact is that although the Good Friday agreement has been wrongly dismissed by others, the EU is mentioned in it. It is there in strands 1 and 2—one of the most expansive references is in relation to the competence of the North South Ministerial Council; it is there in strand 3; and, of course, it is there in the key preamble of the agreement between the Government of the UK and the Government of Ireland, which refers to their common membership of the EU. As John Hume always predicted, that provided both the model and the context for our peace process.

It is no accident that when John Hume, who drove so much of the principles and method into the Good Friday agreement, was awarded the Nobel peace prize—well, just look at that speech and how many references there were to the signal role of Europe and the special contribution it had made and would make, and to the role that the experience of common membership of the EU would play. That is why he said:

“I want to see Ireland—North and South—the wounds of violence healed, play its rightful role in a Europe that will, for all Irish people, be a shared bond of patriotism and new endeavour.”

When he enunciated those words in 1998, he was not talking about a new concept. We can look across the Chamber and see the plaque commemorating Tom Kettle, a former Member of this House who gave his life in the first world war. Before that war, he said that his programme for Ireland consisted in equal parts of home rule and the 10 commandments. He said:

“My only counsel to Ireland is, that to become deeply Irish, she must become European.”

Before he gave his life in the war, he said:

“Used with the wisdom that is sewn in tears and blood, this tragedy of Europe may be and must be the prologue to the two reconciliations of which all statesmen have dreamed, the reconciliation of Protestant Ulster with Ireland, and the reconciliation of Ireland with Great Britain.”

That reconciliation was best achieved and best expressed when we had the Good Friday agreement, which was so overwhelmingly endorsed in this House and in the referendum of the Irish people, north and south of the border. We know that some people did not endorse it, and that some have held back their endorsement and refused to recognise that referendum result. Some of them are the same people who are telling us now that we have to abide by the referendum result in respect of Brexit and that we have to ignore the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland in respect of remaining in the EU. It is the same as when they said that we had to ignore the wishes of the people in Northern Ireland in respect of the Good Friday agreement.

No one should be under any misapprehension that there are implications for the Good Friday agreement. When we hear this lip service that we get from the Government, the rest of us are meant to lip synch along with it and talk about frictionless borders and the common travel area. All those things about the border experience and the common travel area predate the agreement itself, so if we address those issues and those concerns, we must understand that the terms in which they are addressed are not reliable and that they are not relevant to protecting some of the aspects of the agreement itself, which is why the amendments in this group that we have tabled are so important.

The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has already referred to new clause 150, which appears on page 74 of the amendment paper. We have also tabled a key amendment, amendment 86, to which the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) referred when he addressed new clause 109. There are also amendments 88 and 92, which deal with questions around the competence of the devolved Assembly, and the need for consent in respect of any changes to the competence of that Assembly or of devolved Ministers. Those amendments are not about the question of the Assembly giving consent to the triggering of article 50, so it is not about the same question that went to the Supreme Court—but it is about issues and principles that were addressed and are expressed in the judgment of the Supreme Court that too many people have sought to ignore.

As a supposed co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement, the UK Government are meant to have a duty to protect and develop that agreement. Indeed, various Ministers have told us that they have no intention of allowing Brexit to undermine the agreement. If that is so, there should be no difficulty in having that commitment in the Bill. Politically, we all have to conclude from the Supreme Court judgment that no matter what principles have been agreed or established, none of us can have recourse to their legal adherence without their explicit inclusion in legislation and/or a treaty. We therefore have a duty to be vigilant against any legislative terms that could be used to relegate the crucial importance of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and/or the Belfast agreement more widely.

Those sponsoring and supporting this Bill do so arguing the need to respect the outcome of the referendum on 23 June. We make no apologies for highlighting the primacy that has to be accorded to the overwhelming endorsement in our referendum, when, on 22 May 1998, nearly 72% of people in Northern Ireland and 96% in the south of Ireland voted in favour of the Good Friday agreement.

The hon. Gentleman is talking about some extraordinarily challenging and difficult issues, which could have very serious implications in Northern Ireland. It seems to me that it is our duty—all of us who want to see Northern Ireland prosper and go forward—to recognise the fact that the UK is exiting the EU and that we have to make the most of it. Will he commit to the House that he will not make divisions over Brexit part of the SDLP campaign during the Northern Ireland elections?

The right hon. Gentleman has some neck to ask the Social Democratic and Labour party not to make divisions over Brexit an issue in the election. The wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, which were clearly expressed in the referendum last year, are being ignored. Are we now also to tell the people, “Ignore your own wishes”? The right hon. Gentleman obviously expects a party like the SDLP, which honourably fought a campaign to remain, to say, “Ignore your wishes. Set them aside. You have to be slaves to the impulses of a vote in England in response to some crazy argument.”

Clause 1(2) denies any regard whatever to protecting the constitutional, institutional or rights provisions of the Good Friday agreement or their due reflection in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which is why we tabled amendment 86. Clause 1(2) seeks to ensure that the Bill is not restricted by any other legislation whatever. Amendment 86 would create an exception for the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Crucially, it would uphold the collateral principles in the other part of the Good Friday agreement, which is between the Governments of the UK and Ireland, and is not fully reflected in the 1998 Act. The amendment would also exempt section 2 of the Ireland Act 1949 from the override power in the Bill or its outworkings. I admit that the amendment would act as a boundary to the powers provided to the Prime Minister by clause 1(1) and would galvanise the protection for the agreement but, given that the Prime Minister is trying to tell us that she would observe those boundaries, why should she fear that being on the face of the Bill?

New clause 150 draws on key language from the Good Friday agreement, as I made clear to the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean. It is intended to ensure that any future UK-EU treaty—we are told that the Government want to negotiate a new UK-EU treaty—will make explicit reference to upholding the fundamental constitutional precept of the Good Friday agreement, which is the principle of consent that affords a democratic route to a united Ireland if that ever becomes the wish of a majority of people in Northern Ireland. In the case of any such future referendum, no uncertainty whatever must hang over Northern Ireland’s direct admission to the EU as a consequence of a vote for a united Ireland. Nor, indeed, must there be any uncertainty over Ireland’s terms of membership of the European Union.

Such uncertainty was deployed during the Scottish independence referendum, when people said, “Don’t make assumptions about Scotland having an automatic place in the EU or that the process will be easy. Article 49 will make it very difficult.” The difference for Northern Ireland is that it does not have the choice of becoming a new state. Under the Good Friday agreement, its only choice is membership of the United Kingdom or membership of a united Ireland. That agreement was made at a time when both countries had common membership of the EU. Any future referendum will not take place in that situation. Lots of people can place question marks over whether Northern Ireland would have straightforward entry to the EU in that context. Under the terms of the Good Friday agreement, that could constitute an external impediment to the exercise of that choice or even to the choice of having a referendum.

The Taoiseach identified this issue at the MacGill Summer School last year. It will be an issue for the Irish Government, as one of the 27 member states, when they negotiate their side of the treaty. It would be an odd position for the Irish Government as a co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement to want this to be reflected in a new UK-EU treaty. This is not just an issue for the British Government as a co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement; it should be something that they are equally and comfortably committed to.

Let us remember that the key precept of the principle of consent and the democratic choice for a united Ireland, as reflected in a referendum in 1998, was the key point that turned it for those people who had locked themselves on to the nonsense idea that they supported violence sourced from a mandate from the 1918 election. That was the key for quite a number of people to say, “Physical force has no more place in the course of Irish politics.” Physical force is now parked because the Irish people as a whole have, in this generation, by articulated self-determination, upheld this agreement, and that gives them the right, by further articulated self-determination, to achieve unity in the future. Anything that diminishes or qualifies or damages that key precept will damage the agreement. People need to know the difference between a stud wall and a supporting wall: just knocking something through because it is convenient and gives a bit more space might be grand and might do, but if at some future point, when other pressures arise, things start coming down around us, people should not complain. We have to be diligent and vigilant on these matters.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that before there are any new bodies or any more reviews, the priority for the people of Northern Ireland should be to get a working Assembly and re-elect a working Executive to get on with running Northern Ireland, so that all these things can then be dealt with? Without that, there will be no more devolution of anything it seems.

Yes, and my party and I are fully pledged to doing that. Nobody worked harder to create the principles and the precepts of the agreement and to get those institutions established and up and running—and we did so, I have to tell the right hon. Member for North Shropshire, with very good assistance from the EU. As someone who was a Minister in Northern Ireland—both a Finance Minister and a Deputy First Minister—I had many negotiations with many people in the EU, including Michel Barnier, who was very constructive and helpful in relation to a number of funding issues. Yes, he had his particularisms about which one had to be careful and understand where he was coming from, and certainly his officials had to understand where he was coming from, but it was a useful and constructive contribution—one of many—from the EU.

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if article 50 is triggered we will no longer have InterTradeIreland, Waterways Ireland, Tourism Ireland, and the six bodies that were set up by the Belfast agreement? I do not see any threat to them from triggering article 50.