Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is right. One thing that I think people have missed and he has picked up on is that any change in those rights would require primary legislation in this House. In addition, our plan is to put through the great repeal Bill and have subsequent consequential primary legislation that will underpin those rights. I have made those points to many of my opposite numbers, the interlocutors for other member states, and said that this will be taken at the same time as protection of British rights abroad. They have all understood and welcomed that. I am very confident that we can get a deal that will protect all of the, I think, 4 million in very short order.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Let me pick up on that theme. As the Secretary of State knows, about 3 million EU nationals are very anxious about their status when we leave the EU. Labour would unilaterally guarantee their status from day one. Under this Government, all they can do is apply for consideration for permanent residency, but as the Brexit Select Committee warned in March:

“The current process for consideration of permanent residency applications is not fit for purpose”.

The Secretary of State knows how important this is. Have things improved?

[Mr Davis]

I respect the hon. and learned Gentleman’s concern in this area. Let me be clear about that. However, I would say to him that the system there now is not designed to deal with 3 million. That has been made plain. In fact, if he goes on the Home Office website, he will see that it says not to make an application now—there is no need to. When we move the primary legislation it will be a matter for the Home Office, but I believe it will be very simple when it comes to that point.

[Keir Starmer]

As the Financial Times reported yesterday, the Home Office is now saying, “Don’t apply”. Is that the Government’s official position for EU nationals—“Don’t apply for permanent residency”? Is that how they will deal with that anxiety?

[Mr Davis]

What that is about is a reflection of what is on the Home Office website, which essentially points out that EU citizens do not need to apply for their rights to be underpinned. That is the approach we are taking. The hon. and learned Gentleman should bear in mind that for the next two years, irrespective of anything that the Government do, all the existing rights and privileges continue to apply. There will be no change in that respect. Before we come to the point of exit from the European Union, we will have made that very clear in primary legislation.

Legislating for UK Withdrawal from the EU

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement and the White Paper.

Nobody underestimates the task of converting EU law into domestic law. The question is: how is it done and what is to be done? On the question of how, the White Paper gives sweeping powers to the Executive. They are sweeping because it proposes a power to use delegated legislation to “correct”, and thus change, primary legislation and devolved legislation, and because of the sheer scale of the exercise.

In those circumstances, one might expect some pretty rigorous safeguards for the use of those sweeping powers, but there are none to be found in the White Paper. On the contrary, paragraph 3.20 states:

“Given the scale of the changes that will be necessary and the finite amount of time available to make them, there is a balance that will have to be struck between the importance of scrutiny and the speed of this process.”

The White Paper goes on to say:

“The Government proposes using existing types of statutory instrument procedure.”

There are no enhanced safeguards for that sweeping use of powers.

In those circumstances, we have to go back to first principles. There should be no change to rights and protections without primary legislation—that is a starting and basic principle—and the same goes for policy. I add this: when we see the Bill, it must give no power to change rights, obligations and protections by delegated legislation. Will the Secretary of State provide assurances on those basic principles and look again at safeguards for the proposed delegated legislation procedures?

Again, there have to be clear principles for converting EU law into domestic law. All rights and protections derived from EU law must be converted into domestic law, with no limitations, no qualifications and no sunset clauses. This morning we need an assurance from the Secretary of State that he will face down those on his own side who will not be able to resist the temptation to water down those rights and protections before they are even put into the Bill. I remind him that the International Development Secretary said during the referendum campaign that we should

“halve the burdens of the EU social and employment legislation”.

The International Trade Secretary has said:

“we must begin by deregulating the labour market.”

We need an assurance that those temptations will be faced down before the Bill is put before the House.

I turn to the charter of fundamental rights which, it is proposed, will be left out altogether. The charter codifies in modern form all EU rights. It is not directly enforceable —it is a codification—but it is none the less influential, and it is wrong simply to leave it out. I note what is said at paragraph 1.12 of the White Paper, but I seek an assurance from the Secretary of State that all relevant rights—I accept that some are not relevant, such as the right to vote in the European Parliament—and all substantial rights in the charter will be converted into domestic law through the Bill.

Finally, on devolved bodies, Brexit should not be an excuse to hoard powers in Whitehall. There has to be a heavy presumption that devolved matters will remain devolved as powers and responsibilities transfer from the EU to the UK, so I ask the Secretary of State to give us an assurance about that.

[Mr Davis]

At the end of my statement, I said that I hoped the House would come together in making this task happen. I reiterate that point to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), my opposite number. He says that no change should be made to rights through delegated legislation, but I would have thought that that almost goes without saying. [Hon. Members: “Then say it!”] While I say that it almost goes without saying, I actually said that in my statement, if hon. Members read it.

Let me reiterate that the use of delegated legislation will be for technical changes—the sort of alteration whereby, for example, a reference to a regulatory body in the European Union clearly has to be replaced with a reference to a body in the UK. Frankly, I think that that is as plain as a pikestaff. The hon. and learned Gentleman changed his wording slightly by talking about “all relevant rights”, and he is quite right to do so, because things such as the right to stand as an MEP, the right to elect an MEP and, indeed, the right to make a direct application to the European Court will go automatically. He is a reasonable man, so I take it that he accepts that.

On charter rights, let me remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of what happened with the Lisbon treaty in 2007. The Labour Government of the day negotiated that treaty and a protocol to it, about which the Prime Minister of the day said:

“It is absolutely clear that we have an opt-out from both the charter and judicial and home affairs.”—[Official Report, 25 June 2007; Vol. 462, c. 37.]

Actually, Mr Tony Blair was wrong to say that; he had misunderstood the Labour Government’s own protocol, which guaranteed that no new rights arose as a result of the charter of fundamental rights. That was reiterated later by the then Government in court and by their then Europe Minister, who said:

“The Protocol confirms that since the Charter creates no rights, or circumstances in which those rights can be relied on before the courts, it does not change the status quo.”

The 2007 White Paper said the same thing, and only last year—I think in December—the Joint Committee on Human Rights reiterated that understanding.

We looked at that matter very carefully because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman might appreciate, it is an area that I take very seriously indeed. Aside from the undertakings that he has asked for, I make this offer to him: if, in the next two years, we find something that we have missed, we will put it right. On that basis, I do not think that we have an argument. I do not think that that will happen either, because a clause-by-clause search through the whole charter did not throw up any significant issues, other than things such as the MEP matter.

On the treatment of the devolved Administrations, the first thing to say is that no powers currently exercised by them will be taken away. We have said that time and again. We also expect that there will be a significant increase in the powers exercised by the devolved Administrations. However, I say this to the hon. and learned Gentleman: we have to maintain the United Kingdom internal market, too. That market is four times as important to Scottish businesses, for example, as the European market, and it is incredibly important to Northern Irish and Welsh businesses as well. The Administrations understand that. We will be holding discussions with them at length—we have already started those discussions—about how we execute this. I will be happy to talk to the hon. and learned Gentleman about the matter as well, if that would be useful to him. I reiterate that this is a difficult task, but it is by no means beyond the ability of the House to achieve this properly, respecting our democracy and delivering for the British people.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

Will hon. Members forgive me if I do not give way, because I am coming to the end of my comments?

Any prospect that we might actually decide to remain in the European Union would only serve to encourage those on the other side to give us the worst possible deal in the hope that we will do exactly that. This amendment would not only restrain the negotiating power of the Government but would create uncertainty and complications throughout the negotiating process while lessening the chances of the mutually beneficial deal we are seeking.

I reiterate the three key points. First, the Bill was brought forward to implement the referendum result, respect the Supreme Court judgment, and nothing else. Secondly, these amendments are unnecessary as the Government have already made firm commitments with regard to both of the two issues, and we will deliver on those commitments. Thirdly, these amendments would undermine the Government’s position in negotiations to get the best deal for Britain, and that cannot be in the national interest. Therefore, it is clear to the Government that we should send back to the House of Lords a clean Bill. This House has already expressed its support of this view in Committee, and I ask us all to repeat that support once more.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I rise to support both of the amendments that have been passed in the other place. They started life as Labour amendments at the Committee stage in this House, Labour peers led on them and voted for them in the other place, and they will be supported by Labour MPs here today.

The question is this: are Conservative Members willing to listen to the arguments in favour of the amendments, to which I know many are sympathetic and have concerns about, or will they go along with the Prime Minister’s increasing obsession to pass a clean Bill, unamended, even if that means ignoring amendments that would improve the Bill and provide much better protection?

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will make some progress because lots of Members want to speak, and the more I give way now, the more irritating it is for those who want to make their own contribution.

The Government are about to embark on the most complex and challenging undertaking of any British Government since the second world war. The decision the Government make and the deals they strike will have profound consequences for almost every aspect of British life. It is therefore essential that the Government do not fail or take the country down the wrong path. Starting negotiations by guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals and ending negotiations with a meaningful vote will help to guard against that fate.

Let me turn to the amendment on EU nationals. My question for the Secretary of State and for the Government is this: what is the problem? This is not about delay. The way to prevent delay is to accept the amendment and get on with it. The purpose of the amendment is to bring forward proposals

“Within three months of exercising the power”

to trigger article 50. The Secretary of State says that we want an early deal—well, if it is within three months, there is no problem with the amendment. The amendment only affects the Government’s approach if they do not get an early deal. That is why it is so important. To portray this as a delaying tactic is not to read the amendment and not to appreciate what it says: that the purpose is to bring forward proposals “Within three months”.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I have listened carefully to the argument the hon. and learned Gentleman is making. Four million people are affected by this. I put it to him that all 4 million should be dealt with fairly and on a level playing field, that we can only get that from reciprocity, and that this amendment would not achieve that.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention: let me deal with it straight on. Of course there is a shared concern about UK citizens living in the EU, but this is a matter of principle. Are we prepared—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I have not even set out the principle yet. Are we prepared to use one set of people—those who are living here—as a bargaining chip to get the right settlement for people in the UK? [Interruption.] That is exactly what it is. The whole argument about reciprocal rights is about bargaining and saying, “We will not do what we should do by this group of people until we get something in return for it.” That is a bargaining chip.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State seeks to persuade us that, simply because he has stated from the Dispatch Box that this will all be fine and dandy, that is the end of the matter. He said several times, quite inaccurately, that a ministerial statement from the Dispatch Box is legally binding. Surely the truth is that saying that something said from the Dispatch Box is legally binding does not make it so.

[Keir Starmer]

The Secretary of State said that it was binding so far as he was concerned. That is not the same as a legal commitment, and Secretaries of State and Governments can change. That is why we need a commitment on the face of the Bill.

Let me fast forward to the second amendment. If there is really no problem with proposed subsections (1), (2) and (3), why not accept them along with proposed subsection (4) and put them on the face of the Bill? This is becoming an obsession with having a clean Bill: “Our Bill must not be amended, even when it is proper, right and decent to do so.”

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

How does my hon. and learned Friend answer the Brexit Secretary’s point that if and when we pass the Bill and it is given Royal Assent, the Government’s first priority will be to negotiate the rights both of people here who are from Europe and of our citizens abroad? Does my hon. and learned Friend not accept that if we pass this amendment and give those rights to European citizens here, there will be no incentive whatsoever for other European countries to concede those rights to our citizens?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention, but it is important to focus on the words of the amendment, which asks Ministers to bring forward proposals within three months. That does not tie anybody’s hands or make anybody’s task more difficult. If the issue is resolved within three months—I hope that it is, for the sake of EU citizens living here and of UK citizens living abroad—the amendment represents no problem. It represents a problem only if the Government do not succeed in an early settlement of the issue.

The Labour party has been pushing the Government for many months to guarantee EU rights. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) first tabled a Labour motion on the issue back in July 2016, just weeks after the referendum, but the Government have refused to take unilateral action. I remind the House that the International Trade Secretary, who is sitting on the Government Front Bench, said last year that to guarantee those rights to EU citizens

“would be to hand over one of our main cards in the negotiations”.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

rose—

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to make progress. I have taken interventions on the issue and it would not be fair to take more.

We do not believe that EU nationals are bargaining chips, and I think many other hon. Members agree. There are 3.2 million EU nationals who have made their homes and careers in the United Kingdom. Thousands do vital jobs in the NHS and in our universities and public services. They are our friends, colleagues and neighbours—they are valued members of our communities. It is often said that they make a contribution to our society; they do. They are also our society. This is a matter of principle and decency.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to make some progress. We should not bring unnecessary uncertainty and distress into those people’s lives, but that is exactly what is happening as a result of the Government’s approach.

The Brexit Select Committee’s report states that it has heard

“a wide range of concerns of EU nationals since the referendum, including stress, and anxiety and feelings of depression to practical concerns about pensions and healthcare, children being abused in the school playground and worries over the ability to work in the UK in the future.”

What have we come to, if we cannot deal with those levels of anxiety and stress? Many Members will have seen that in their own constituency surgeries. I certainly have: families have come to me in tears about the situation in which they find themselves. It is time for the Government to act; increasingly, it is only the Prime Minister and the Government who think otherwise. Trade unions and campaigns such as the3million and New Europeans have made a very powerful and compelling case for this issue to be dealt with, as of course has the Brexit Committee in its report’s conclusions.

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to make some progress.

Labour supports Lords amendment 1 not only because it is right in principle, but because it would help the negotiations by setting the right tone. We have to make it clear to our European partners that although we are leaving the EU, we are not severing our ties. We want a collaborative and co-operative future with our European partners. We want our closest and nearest allies to be strong, and for the European Union to succeed and prosper. We know that citizens will be richer and happier in the future if we work together with our EU partners to meet common challenges. That message is vital in securing our nation’s future.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that given our Foreign Secretary’s mixed record—both in committing to the £350 million a week for the NHS, and in failing to deliver on that—and the Government’s poor relations with EU partners, it is right that we should show leadership and commitment by standing up for EU migrants and supporting this amendment?

[Keir Starmer]

I agree. I have said in the House on a number of occasions that the tone that the Government set is very important as we come up to the beginning of the negotiations. From my direct discussions with representatives of other countries in Brussels, I can tell the House that some of the jokes that have been made about the reasons why our EU partners feel so strongly about the EU have not been well received. Agreeing to the amendment would help to set the right tone.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to move on to the question of the meaningful vote in Lords amendment 2. I remind the House that as recently as December the Prime Minister was refusing to guarantee that Parliament would be able to vote on whatever agreement the Government reach with the European Commission. Under pressure, that position changed early this year, but it was only when Labour tabled an amendment to the Bill in Committee that the Government made a set of commitments on the Floor of the House.

Those commitments, which were set out by the Minister of State and have now been repeated by the Secretary of State, are: first, that Parliament would be able to vote on the final draft agreement; secondly, that Parliament would get a vote not just on the so-called divorce settlement—the article 50 agreement—but also on the agreement on the future relationship with the European Union; and, thirdly, that the votes in this Parliament would take place before any votes in the European Parliament. Lords amendment 2 will simply put those commitments into the Bill, which is why it is so wrong for the Government not to accept it in principle.

[Stephen Doughty]

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the ICM poll for Avaaz, published in just the past two hours, showing that a clear majority of the British public supports a meaningful vote, with 52% supporting such a vote and only 27% saying the opposite?

[Keir Starmer]

I have seen that poll, which is of course important, but this is a matter of principle. This is a question of whether this House should be able to vote on the deal reached in two years’ time before the European Parliament votes and should be able to have a meaningful say, and that is what it has been, in principle, from start to finish.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

The amendment does not simply give this House the right to vote on these matters; it also gives the other place the right to vote on these matters. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain what would happen if this House voted to accept what the Government want to do, but the other place dug in and rejected it? What would happen then?

[Keir Starmer]

There is a reason why the amendment spells that out in detail: it is precisely what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box should be the position last time this was debated. Lords amendment 2 carefully reflects what the Government say is their assurance, so such a question about the amendment should be put to the Secretary of State.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, given the high level of uncertainty, the only sage and proper thing to do is to give us one more chance before the European Parliament has an opportunity to—[Interruption.]

[Keir Starmer]

I would not put it as “one last chance”. The negotiations will lead first—I hope—to an article 50 agreement; secondly, to transitional arrangements; and thirdly to a final agreement between ourselves and the EU. That will define the future of the UK for generations in Europe and beyond Europe, and it is imperative that this House has a vote on that at the end of the two-year exercise.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving way. The discussion so far has been about a parliamentary vote in the event of the Government reaching a deal. Is it his interpretation of the Secretary of State’s speech today that, in the event of no deal, the Government seek the authority to default to WTO rules—which are not used by any major economy alone to trade with the EU—without this House having a say?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. That is my interpretation and it causes me great concern. We need to be clear: reaching no deal is the worst of all possible outcomes for Britain. The president of the CBI has described it as the “worst case scenario” for which many firms cannot even prepare because

“the cost of change is simply too high to even consider it”.

Just yesterday, the director-general of the CBI, Carolyn Fairbairn, emphasised that no deal should not be “plan B”, but “plan Z”. I could not agree more.

Research published today by Open Britain warns that leaving the EU without a deal would leave Britain facing greater barriers to trade with the EU than any other G20 country. The cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee warned on Sunday that

“a complete breakdown in negotiations represents a very destructive outcome leading to mutually assured damage for the EU and the UK. Both sides would suffer economic losses and harm to their international reputations.”

That is why having a vote not only on a deal if there is one, but on no deal, is so important. It represents a check on the Prime Minister deciding to take the country down the most dangerous path. That is why I urge Members, including those on the Conservative Benches, to vote for the amendment.

[Mr Baron]

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept, at least in principle, that this Parliament made a contract with the British people at the referendum to respect their wishes with or without a deal? Does he agree?

[Keir Starmer]

There was one question on the ballot paper, and that was whether we should stay in the EU or leave the EU. There was no second question about the terms of leaving. It is impossible to extrapolate, but I would be staggered if most people thought that this House should not have a proper grip of the available options in two years’ time and hopefully beyond. I expect that they would have said, “Of course we want Parliament to be fully involved. We would expect accountability and scrutiny, and we would expect votes.”

I shall conclude, because we only have two hours and other people wish to speak. These are simple amendments that would improve the article 50 process. They have obtained cross-party support and large majorities in the Lords, they are the right amendments on vitally important issues, and the obsession with the idea of a clean, unamended Bill should not triumph over decency and principle.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about amendment 1, but I wish to speak about amendment 2. The operative provision is subsection (4) which states—I want to remind the House as it is material to what I am about to say:

“The prior approval of…Parliament shall…be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement”.

I have already argued in past debates exactly what my right hon. Friend argued today—namely, that if that subsection were to have its intended effect, it would be inimical to the interests of this country, because it would have the undoubted effect of providing a massive incentive for our EU counterparts to give us the worst possible agreement. I agree with him about that. However, I think that the situation is worse—far worse—than he described, because the operative subsection is deeply deficient as a matter of law. The reason for that is not just the one that Lord Pannick admitted, or half-admitted, in the House of Lords, but because under very plausible circumstances this subsection will not have anything like its intended effect. Let me briefly illustrate why that is the case.

Article 50 of the treaty on European Union is, for once in treaties, entirely clear. Paragraph 3 of the article states:

“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question…two years after the notification…unless the European Council… unanimously decides to extend this period.”

Let us imagine that what the Secretary of State, the Government, all my hon. Friends and, I suspect, all Opposition Members hope will not be the case—namely, that the negotiations for a proper comprehensive free trade agreement break down—actually happens. We all hope that will not happen, but we cannot preclude the possibility that it will happen. If it does happen, I think all Members on both sides of the House must have the emotional intelligence to recognise that in all probability that would be under circumstances of some acrimony.

How likely is it that under such circumstances, with agreement having broken down in some acrimony, the European Council would be able to achieve a unanimous agreement to allow the UK to remain a member beyond the two-year period? I speculate that it is very unlikely. If we assume that that were to occur, we need to ask ourselves what would actually happen under those circumstances. One thing can be predicted with certainty: there would be litigation. The litigation would ask, ultimately, the Supreme Court to decide the question, “What has happened here? Has the Prime Minister made a decision, or has the Prime Minister not made a decision?” That could be decided in one of two ways. I rather think that Members on both sides of the House would agree with me that the Supreme Court must decide either that the Prime Minister has made the decision or that the Prime Minister has not made the decision.

Let us suppose for a moment that the Supreme Court decides that the Prime Minister has not made a decision, because it has been made instead by the European Council—a perfectly plausible outcome of the Court’s proceedings. In that case, subsection (4) is totally inoperable. It has no effect whatsoever, because what it does, purportedly, is to prevent the Prime Minister from making a decision without a vote. If the Prime Minister has, in the ruling of the Court, made no decision, it is impossible for her to have made a decision without a vote; therefore, the law has been conformed with, and Parliament is not given any ability to vote on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

Yes, I can. I went to—I think—nine of our fellow member states in three weeks, and others have come to see me. The overarching response has been a positive one; it has been one of support for the general approach, and it has been one that seeks a constructive outcome, not the penalty outcome that was talked about by some earlier. It is certainly true that they also think of our approach as very logical, so I think that gives us great cause for optimism in the negotiations.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Clearly, the Government want to trigger article 50 next Wednesday or next Thursday. They will then have to set out their proposals in detail so that the EU can respond. For months, they have hidden behind the bland phrases “frictionless borders” and “frictionless trade”. This is the last opportunity before triggering for the Secretary of State to spell out what those phrases actually mean.

[Mr Davis]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is a very erudite chap and I would have thought that he would know what “frictionless” meant. It means trade with the minimum possible barriers and the minimum possible impediment, and that is what we will seek to achieve.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister has said that the approval of Parliament will be required for the final terms of our withdrawal agreement with the EU. She has also promised that that will occur before the withdrawal agreement is sent to the European Parliament for its consent. The House of Lords has now voted by a large majority to amend the article 50 Bill to reflect those commitments. All very straightforward. If the Prime Minister intends to keep to her commitments, why would the Government not support that amendment when it returns to this House on Monday?

[Mr Davis]

Because it is unnecessary.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)]

I think the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to his question. This is very early for points of order, as we have not even started. As he knows, the grouping of amendments was the subject of the programme motion that was voted on last week. As he says, there will be a Division on the lead amendment. As for subsequent amendments, it depends on what happens in the rest of the debate.

New Clause 1

Parliamentary approval for agreements with the Union

“(1) Where a Minister of the Crown proposes to conclude an agreement with the European Union setting out the arrangements for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union—

(a) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement of the proposed terms of the agreement, and

(b) no Minister of the Crown may conclude any such agreement unless the proposed terms have been approved by resolution of both Houses.

(2) The requirements of subsection (1) also apply where a Minister of the Crown proposes to conclude an agreement with the European Union for the future relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Union.

(3) In the case of a proposed agreement setting out the arrangements for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, the statement under subsection (1)(a) must be laid before the proposed terms are agreed with the Commission with a view to their approval by the European Parliament or the Council.”—(Keir Starmer.)

This new clause requires Ministers to seek the approval of Parliament of any proposed Withdrawal Agreement before final terms are agreed with the Commission and prior to endorsement by the European Parliament and Council.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

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

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 18—New Treaties with the European Union—

“So far as any of the provisions of any new treaty with the European Union may depend for ratification solely upon the exercise of prerogative, they shall not be ratified except with the express approval of Parliament.”

This new clause would ensure that any future treaties made with the European Union must be ratified with the express approval of Parliament.

New clause 19—Future relationship with the European Union—

“(1) Following the exercise of the power in section 1, any new treaty or relationship with the European Union must be subject to the express approval of Parliament.

(2) It shall be the policy of Her Majesty’s Government that, in the event of Parliament declining to approve such a new treaty or relationship, further time to continue negotiations with the European Union shall be sought.”

This new clause seeks to ensure that, if Parliament declines to give approval to any new deal or treaty following the negotiations in respect of the triggering of Article 50(2), that Her Majesty’s Government shall endeavour to seek further time to continue negotiations for an alternative relationship with the European Union.

New clause 28—Parliamentary sovereignty—

“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must undertake that a vote on the proposed agreement setting out—

(a) the arrangements for withdrawal, and

(b) the future relationship with the European Union

will take place in the House of Commons before any vote in the European Parliament.”

This new clause puts a requirement on the Prime Minister to ensure a vote on final terms takes place in the House of Commons before the European Parliament votes on the deal.

New clause 54—Negotiating timeframe—

“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must undertake that if Parliament does not approve the terms for withdrawal and the future relationship within 24 months of notifying the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU, she will request that the European Council extends the time period for negotiations.”

This new clause makes provision for a situation in which negotiations have not been concluded or in which Parliament has not approved the deal either because of time constraints or because it has declined to give approval. In any of these situations the Prime Minister would seek extra time to continue negotiations with the EU.

New clause 99—Parliamentary approval of the final terms of withdrawal from the EU—

“The United Kingdom shall withdraw from the EU once either—

(a) Royal Assent is granted to an Act of Parliament that approves—

(i) the arrangements for withdrawal, and

(ii) the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU

as agreed to between the United Kingdom and EU, or

(b) Royal Assent is granted to an Act of Parliament that approves the United Kingdom’s withdrawal without an agreement being reached between the United Kingdom and the EU.”

This new clause aims to embed parliamentary sovereignty throughout the process and requires primary legislation to give effect to any agreement on withdrawal or for withdrawal without such an agreement.

New clause 110—Future relationship with the European Union—

“(1) Following the exercise of the power in section 1, any new Treaty or relationship with the European Union must not be concluded unless the proposed terms have been subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(2) In the case of any new Treaty or relationship with the European Union, the proposed terms must be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament before they are agreed with the European Commission, with a view to their approval by the European Parliament or the European Council.”

This new clause seeks to ensure that Parliament must give approval to any new deal or Treaty following the negotiations in respect of the triggering of Article 50(2), and that any new Treaty or relationship must be approved by Parliament in advance of final agreement with the European Commission, European Parliament or European Council.

New clause 137—Future relationship with the European Union—

“(1) Following the exercise of the power in Section 1, any new treaty or relationship with the European Union must be subject to the express approval of Parliament.

(2) In the event of Parliament declining to approve the new treaty or relationship set out in subsection (1), Her Majesty’s Government shall seek to negotiate an alternative new agreement with the European Union.”

The Prime Minister has guaranteed that Parliament will have a vote on the final deal between the UK and the EU. This new clause is intended to make that vote meaningful by ensuring that if Parliament votes against the terms of such a deal, the Government shall try to negotiate an alternative future trading agreement and shall not default without agreement to the World Trade Organisation rules.

New clause 175—Request for Suspension of Authorisation—

“If Parliament has not approved terms on which the UK will leave the European Union within the two years specified in Clause 3 of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, or any extension of the negotiation period agreed in accordance with that clause, then the Government must request the European Council to consider the notification authorised by this Act as suspended.”

This new clause would require that Her Majesty’s Government request the European Council to suspend the notification of the United Kingdom’s intention to leave the European Union if Parliament does not approve the terms of departure.

New clause 180—UK—EU membership: reset (No.2)—

“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1(1) until she has sought an undertaking from the European Council that failure by the Parliament of the United Kingdom to approve the terms of exit for the UK will result in the maintenance of UK membership on existing terms.”

New clause 182—Parliamentary approval for agreements with the Union—

“(1) Where a Minister of the Crown proposes to conclude an agreement with the European Union setting out the arrangements for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union—

(a) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement of the proposed terms of the agreement, and

(b) no Minister of the Crown may conclude any such agreement unless the proposed terms have been approved by resolution of both Houses.

(2) The requirements of subsection (1) also apply where a Minister of the Crown proposes to conclude an agreement with the European Union for the future relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Union.

(3) In the case of a proposed agreement setting out the arrangements for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, the statement under subsection (1)(a) must be laid before the proposed terms are agreed with the Commission with a view to their approval by the European Parliament or the Council.

(4) In laying a statement before Parliament under subsection (1)(a), Her Majesty’s Government shall have regard to the requirements of Parliament for adequate time to consider the statement before the proposed terms are put to each House for approval under subsection (1)(b).”

This new clause is an alternative version of NC1 which provides for additional time being allowed for consideration by Parliament of the proposed terms of the agreement before the vote.

Amendment 50, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, at end insert—

“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until a Minister of the Crown has published an assessment on whether such a notification can later be revoked, and laid a copy of the assessment before Parliament.”

Amendment 20, page 1, line 5, at end insert—

“(3) If the power is exercised under subsection (1), the Prime Minister’s commitment to hold a vote in both Houses of Parliament on the outcome of the negotiations with the European Union shall include the option to retain membership of the EU.”

Recognising that the Government wishes to begin negotiations on a deal to leave the EU, and recognising the Supreme Court ruling on the sovereignty of Parliament, this amendment provides a safety net, ensuring that there is a real vote on the outcome deal that provides the option of the UK staying in a reformed EU should the final terms of the deal be detrimental to the UK’s national interest.

Amendment 43, page 1, line 5, at end insert—

“(3) Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must prepare and publish a report on the process for ratifying the United Kingdom’s new relationship with the European Union through a public referendum.”

[Keir Starmer]

In speaking to new clause 1, I will touch on other new clauses in the bucket. As we go through the debate on these amendments, which is probably the most important debate that we have had thus far and are going to have, it is important that we remind ourselves of the context. The negotiations that will take place under article 50 will be the most difficult, complex and important for decades—arguably, since the second world war. Among other things, it is important that we ensure the best outcome for our economy and jobs, and the trading agreements. As I have said on a number of occasions, what that entails is very clear; we must have tariff-free and barrier-free access to the single market, regulatory alignment, and full access for services and goods. In the White Paper published last Thursday, the Government accept the strength of those arguments about the trading agreements.

It is important that we have the right ongoing future relationship with our EU partners. Labour has been forceful in arguing for maintaining close collaboration with our partners in the fields of medicine, science, research, education, culture, security, policing and counter-terrorism. Although the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State maintain the idea that all this can be agreed within two years, leaving just an implementation stage, the reality is that we will have two deals: the article 50 agreement and a new UK-EU treaty setting out the new arrangements, along with transitional arrangements.

To be clear, we all have a vested interest, on behalf of all our constituents, in getting the right outcome, and that raises the proper role of Parliament in this process. That is why I have consistently argued for three elements of scrutiny and accountability, and this is a debate that, in a sense, has been going on for the last three months. The first element, which I started the argument for last October, was that, at the start, we should have a plan or White Paper—a formal document setting out the negotiating objectives. We should then have a system for reporting back during the negotiations, and we should have a vote at the end of the exercise. Those are the three elements of scrutiny and accountability that I have argued for.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Is it the case that if all the hon. and learned Gentleman’s proposals are rejected by the Government, the Labour party will simply endorse Third Reading and support the Government? What is the point, therefore, of making all this case for these proposals if he is just supinely going to cave in to what the Government want on article 50?

[Keir Starmer]

I am not sure how helpful interventions like that are to a debate, which is actually really important, about scrutiny and accountability. Just to be clear, nagging away, pushing votes and making the argument over three months, we have got a White Paper, and it is important. Nagging away and making the arguments, we have got commitments about reporting back. Nagging away and making the arguments, we have got a commitment to the vote at the end of the exercise. So when the charge is levelled at the Opposition that they have not made the case, and are not succeeding on the case, for scrutiny and accountability, that simply does not match what has happened over the last three months.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

My hon. and learned Friend is right to point out that progress has been made, but does he agree that to make a vote at the end of the process meaningful, we have to have meaningful scrutiny as the process goes on, and as a Parliament we have to have the chance to say to the Government, “You must go back and try to do better”? Having an all-or-nothing vote at the end, when all the discussions and negotiations are over, is not, in my definition, meaningful scrutiny. Does he agree?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I will come to that, but the central theme of the case I will seek to make this afternoon is that a vote in this House must be before the deal is concluded; that is the dividing line that makes the real difference here.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State, and I think that this may be helpful—[Interruption.] Forgive me, the shadow Secretary of State. I hope that this will be helpful to him. He has mentioned the fact that the Government have made a commitment to a vote at the end of the procedure. Later, when I address the House, I will be outlining what I intend that vote shall be, but it may be of assistance to him now to know what is proposed. First of all, we intend that the vote will cover not only the withdrawal arrangements but also the future relationship with the European Union. Furthermore, I can confirm that the Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement, to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded. We expect and intend that this will happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement. I hope that is of assistance.

[Keir Starmer]

Minister, I am very grateful for that intervention. That is a huge and very important concession about the process that we are to embark on. The argument I have made about a vote over the last three months is that the vote must cover both the article 50 deal and any future relationship—I know that, for my colleagues, that is very important—and that that vote must take place before the deal is concluded, and I take that from what has just been said.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman—I nearly said “Friend”; I will have to be careful—agree that it is really important that, as a nation and a House, we now come together, putting aside all the party political differences, to do the right thing by our country? But most importantly perhaps, on the very point he makes, does he share my concern that, in the event of no deal being reached, this House must also decide what happens next?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I do agree that we all have a responsibility to bring this country back together—we are deeply divided. [Interruption.] The United Kingdom.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I am dealing with this intervention, if you don’t mind.

What is significant about what has just been said is that it covers the article 50 agreement and it covers any future relationship. That is the first time we have heard this. It is a very significant position by the Government, and I am grateful that it has been made. It is very important that it has been made, because, on both sides of the House, there has been real anxiety that it should cover both bases.

Whether it goes far enough for the fall-back position, I will reflect on. Ideally, of course, one would want that covered, but I do not want to underplay the significance of what has just been said about the two deals, because this is the first time that clarity has been given; it is the first time the point has been conceded. It is an argument I have been making for three months, and it is very important that it has now been conceded: it is important for my colleagues, and I am sure it is important for people across the House.

Equally important is the timing—that the vote should be before the deal is concluded. The great fear was that there would be a concluded deal, which would make any vote in this House meaningless.

What I hope can now happen on the back of that concession is what I anticipate will happen in the European Parliament: by regularly reporting, updating the House and setting out the direction of travel, there can be agreement about progress, and what happens at the end will not come as a surprise to any of us in this House. But what has been said by the Minister is a very significant statement of the position, which meets in large part everything I have been driving at in new clause 1.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I welcome, as my hon. and learned Friend does, the concession from the Government Benches, but does he agree that, as well as the timing, it is the scope of that vote that will be absolutely vital? As the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) says, if we are faced with a choice between a hard Brexit and World Trade Organisation rules, that is no choice—the Government will have to go back and renegotiate.

[Keir Starmer]

At the moment, I agree that we should have as big a say as possible on all of this, but I do not want to understate what has been conceded in the last 10 minutes. I do take the point, but where we have made significant progress on scrutiny and accountability, we should recognise where we have got to.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

While I echo what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, would he agree that instantly leaping on a concession may be a little unwise until we are quite clear what it amounts to? I recall that a concession on a plan led to a speech in Lancaster House, which did not take us very much further. I would like to be persuaded that a major concession has been made. Does he agree that it would be helpful, as we will not know quite what we are debating if we continue now, if the Minister tried to catch the Chairman’s eye after the hon. and learned Gentleman has sat down, so that he can explain in more detail what he is proposing? The substance of the debate on this group of proposals will then be altogether better informed.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for the intervention, and I accept that point. Far be it from me to say what the procedure should be, but that would be helpful because some of what has been said has been heard for the first time today, and we need to reflect on it.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

If this is indeed a significant concession, should it not be added to the Bill so that it can be properly examined and analysed and so that by Report every Member has been able to look at it?

[Keir Starmer]

I recognise the strength of that point. There are of course other opportunities to examine what has been conceded, and to ensure that it might find its way into the Bill. I think it would be sensible to recognise the significance of what has been said, hear a little more detail if we can, and reflect on that during the course of the afternoon. Of course, the Bill does not complete its passage today, or in this House.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a fair point. I think he and I would accept, as advocates, that if somebody says something to us in good faith, we take it on board, bank it, and sometimes do not push too hard—we take a valuable concession and recognise it for what it is.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. When an assurance is given in a debate such as this, it is a significant assurance. That said, of course having something in statute at some later point would be even better.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I came into the Chamber with the full intention of supporting new clause 1, and I still feel that we need to press it to a vote. I hear what my hon. and learned Friend is saying—that he wants to trust and believe the Government. However, if we saw a manuscript amendment before the end of the afternoon, I would find it much easier not to have a vote on new clause 1. Does he agree that a manuscript amendment would be helpful?

[Keir Starmer]

That is in the hands of the Minister, but I certainly take the point.

Let me make some progress, because we have not got very far. [Interruption.] Well, I have not got very far. Looking again at the big picture, there is a commitment in paragraph 7.1 of the White Paper—this is important for trade unions, for working people and for constituents who have repeatedly raised these points—to convert all EU-derived rights, including workers’ rights, into domestic law. I do not think that commitment has been heard loudly enough. We certainly intend to hold the Government to that at every step of the way, along with other EU rights such as environmental and consumer rights.

I have consistently argued that the Prime Minister cannot, in the article 50 negotiations, negotiate to change domestic law or policy—that will require primary legislation. Paragraph 1.8 of the White Paper makes it clear that the Government do not accept that the Prime Minister would have that authority, and expressly refers to separate Bills on immigration and on customs. I highlight that because there is huge concern among my colleagues about the threat made by the Prime Minister to alter our social and economic model and turn the UK into a tax haven. That cannot happen without primary legislation. It is important that we note that.

[Paul Farrelly]

I rather agree with the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). Given the Government’s position, which has just been outlined, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the only substantive reason now for the Government not to agree to our new clause 1 is to deny the other House a vote on a resolution, and that the Minister should explain why that is the position?

[Keir Starmer]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. I think we will have to wait to hear from the Minister.

So far as the vote is concerned, there has been a change of position, and it is important that I set that out. Initially, the Secretary of State for Brexit said back in October that he would observe the requirements of treaty ratification. Then in December, at the Dispatch Box, he almost said that we would get a vote—he said that it was “inconceivable” that we would not. Then, just before Christmas at the Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister appeared to back away from that altogether under questioning from the Chairman of the Brexit Committee, and the fact of a vote was only conceded after Christmas. Then in paragraph 1.12 of the White Paper, there was a commitment to a vote on the final deal. Today has taken us a lot further forward. That demonstrates how, by chipping away and arguing away, we are making progress on accountability and scrutiny.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

My hon. and learned Friend may have heard what the Minister said in more detail than I did. Was it clear whether we would get a vote in this House if there was no deal? If the Government failed to get a deal with the EU—none of us wants that to happen, but if it did—was it clear to him from what the Minister said whether we would still get a vote in Parliament?

[Keir Starmer]

No, and we need to press the Minister on that when he rises to speak.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

The hon. and learned Gentleman has ably outlined the Government’s position to date. He has ably shown all of us that the Government have made quite a major change in their position today. That change in position appears to have taken place when we are debating many differently nuanced amendments about the circumstances surrounding a final vote, so does he agree that it is important for the Government to commit to exactly what their concession is in writing, and to do so in the appropriate way, which would be by way of a manuscript amendment?

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Could I ask that interventions be a bit more brief, because we have only four hours for this debate and a lot of people to get through?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for the intervention by the hon. and learned Lady. It would be helpful if we had both clarification and, if possible, a written form of the concession that has been made so that we can all see what it is.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Ms Engel. Given that, as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said, we require some sort of information as to what the Government are putting forward, is there any way in which you can require the Government to put before us a manuscript amendment so that we actually know what we are debating for the rest of the afternoon?

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

The Minister will be speaking later, and I am sure that he will explain then.

[Keir Starmer]

I am sure that the Minister hears what is being said. What has been said, today is significant—there has been a concession, and it now needs to be put in writing. A great deal of this debate should now be spent probing the concession that has been made.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to make some progress, because I barely got through two or three sentences before taking interventions. I do not think anybody could accuse me of not giving way.

In the end, there is stark choice for the House. If we are to have a vote, it will be either before the deal is concluded, or afterwards, in which case it will be a fait accompli. This concession appears to suggest that it will be before it is concluded. I recognise that there are other issues that flow off the back of that timing, but that is critical, because the sequence of events at the end of the exercise is extremely important to what the House can meaningfully say or do about the agreement that is put to us for a vote.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we must consider not just the timing of the vote but what happens if the House declines to accept the deal that the Government have put forward? The Prime Minister said on 25 January:

“If this Parliament is not willing to accept a deal that has been decided on…with the European Union, then, as I have said, we will have to fall back on other arrangements.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 295.]

That does not guarantee that this House will have the final decision on our future relationship with the EU.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. I think the exchange that my hon. Friend has referred to is the cause of the concern about the vote being held before the deal is concluded. We will need greater clarification about the extent of the vote.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to press on, because I am not sure that my trying to explain what the Minister is going to tell us is working particularly well.

[Mr David Jones]

If it is of any assistance to the shadow Secretary of State and to the Committee, may I say that with your leave, Ms Engel, I hope to be able to speak immediately after him?

[Keir Starmer]

I have made the case for accountability and scrutiny, I have made the case for a White Paper, I have made the case for reporting back and I have made the case for a vote. We have got this concession, and I think the most helpful thing, in the circumstances, would be for hon. Members to be given the opportunity to test what the Minister has said.

[Mr Jones]

I had hoped to speak at the end of the debate, but it may be of assistance to the Committee if I deal with some of the matters that the shadow Secretary of State touched on. However, I do not want to go into the details of the various amendments that other hon. Members will no doubt wish to speak to. With your consent, Ms Engel, I will address them briefly at the end of the debate.

May I first repeat what I said to the shadow Secretary of State when I intervened on him a few moments ago? The Government have repeatedly committed from the Dispatch Box to a vote in both Houses on the final deal before it comes into force. That, I repeat and confirm, will cover not only the withdrawal agreement but the future arrangement that we propose with the European Union. I confirm again that the Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I would have thought that, in the circumstance that this House had voted down the agreement, it would be highly unlikely that it would ever be put to the European Parliament. Of course, there are all sorts of scenarios to be considered.

[Keir Starmer]

Just for clarification, I think the Minister said that there would be a vote on, as it were, the final draft agreement. I just wanted to check that I had heard him correctly.

[Mr Jones]

Yes—before the agreement is finally concluded, in other words. That is the intention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

We will, of course, consider all the recommendations of the Select Committee and respond formally to its report in due course.

We approach the negotiations not expecting failure, but anticipating success. Let me remind Members that we are seeking in the Bill to do one simple, straightforward thing: to follow the instructions we received from the British people in the referendum. Remaining a member of the European Union is not an option. The process for leaving the EU is set out in article 50, and it is not within our power unilaterally to extend the negotiations.

New clause 99 envisages yet another Act of Parliament to approve the arrangements for our withdrawal and our future relationship with the EU. It would require yet another Act of Parliament for us to withdraw from the EU in the absence of a negotiated deal. The new clause is wholly otiose. While we are ready for any outcome, an exit without a trade agreement is emphatically not what we seek. However, let me be clear that keeping open the prospect of staying in the EU, as is envisaged by new clause 99, would only encourage the EU to give us the worst possible deal in the hope that we would change our mind.

Amendment 43 calls for a referendum on our membership of the European Union after we have negotiated a final deal. That was tabled by the Liberal Democrats.

This has been an important debate. We have considered the new clauses and amendments very carefully but, for all the reasons I have given, we reject them and invite Members not to press them to a Division.

[Keir Starmer]

I have listened carefully to the debate. There are inevitable problems with an 11th-hour concession, and there have been claims and counter-claims about the nature of the concession made. Whatever No. 10 may or may not be briefing, until today there was never a commitment to a vote on both the article 50 deal and the future agreement with the EU; there was never a commitment to a vote, before the agreement was concluded, on a final agreed draft—it is simply rewriting history to suggest that there was—and there was never a commitment to a vote in this House that is intended and expected to take place before the vote of the European Parliament. Those three things have never been said before, and I have gone through all the records before making that assertion. For anybody to suggest that this is not a significant concession is to be blind to these developments.

I recognise that that leaves a number of unanswered questions, most importantly about the consequences and precise timing of the vote. As the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) says, to some extent we just do not know. From the various work I have done in Brussels, it is quite clear that the plan there is to have a deal that is capable of being put to the European Parliament in October 2018. That should be the ambition, because if a deal were put to this House in October 2018, there would be a number of consequences for the House to consider. I accept that there are questions. It is important that others reflect on the concessions that have been made and consider what kind of amendment might capture them.

In the circumstances, I will not press new clause 1 to a Division in the hope—although this is not my decision—that it will allow space for other new clauses to be put to the vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 110

Future relationship with the European Union

“(1) Following the exercise of the power in section 1, any new Treaty or relationship with the European Union must not be concluded unless the proposed terms have been subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(2) In the case of any new Treaty or relationship with the European Union, the proposed terms must be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament before they are agreed with the European Commission, with a view to their approval by the European Parliament or the European Council.”—(Chris Leslie.)

This new clause seeks to ensure that Parliament must give approval to any new deal or Treaty following the negotiations in respect of the triggering of Article 50(2), and that any new Treaty or relationship must be approved by Parliament in advance of final agreement with the European Commission, European Parliament or European Council.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Exiting the EU: New Partnership

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Normally I would thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement, but this statement says nothing. A week ago at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that there would be a White Paper. Yesterday she said that there would be a White Paper tomorrow, and the Secretary of State now makes a statement saying that there is a White Paper, but as the White Paper was not delivered until a few minutes ago, how can meaningful questions be asked about it?

For months we have been calling for a plan; that was refused on the basis that there would not be a running commentary. Then the Government agreed to a plan but delivered a speech. They were forced to concede under pressure that there would be a White Paper, but now a White Paper has been produced too late in the day for us to ask meaningful questions of the Secretary of State in this session. That is completely unacceptable.

The first fight on Brexit is very clear: it is a fight about giving this House a meaningful role in holding the Government to account. The Government had to be forced by the Supreme Court to involve Parliament at all in the article 50 process. They have been forced to produce a White Paper, and they have been forced to concede a final vote. Before Christmas, the Secretary of State was standing at the Dispatch Box refusing to confirm that there would be a vote in this House at the end of the exercise.

The decision to leave was taken on 23 June last year. What matters now are the terms agreed under article 50, and the nature and extent of our new relationship with the EU. In her Lancaster House speech, the Prime Minister adopted a risky approach—a wish list with gaps, inconsistencies and an unacceptable fall-back position. Now we need time to debate this White Paper properly in this House and a vote on its contents.

On the question of votes, from flicking through the White Paper, I see that all that is said about the final vote, at paragraph 1.12, is that the final deal that is agreed will be put to

“a vote in both Houses of Parliament.”

We have tabled amendments for consideration next week that seek a meaningful vote—a vote in this House before a vote is taken in the European Parliament. Without such a vote, all hon. Members will have to watch on their screens the European Parliament debating our deal before we get to express any views about it. That is completely unacceptable and it demeans this House.

Finally, I note from a perusal of the White Paper that there is nothing that progresses the situation of EU nationals in this country. We have been calling time and again for unilateral action to be taken before article 50 is triggered, yet the White Paper disappoints on that front.

[Mr Davis]

Let me start with the purpose of the White Paper: to inform all the debates—not just today’s—in the coming two years. The shadow Brexit spokesman is exactly right: what matters above all else is not the amour propre of the Labour party or whatever, but the terms that we get for this negotiation. That is about the future of Britain, and it is what this House should care about first and foremost.

The hon. and learned Gentleman talks about a meaningful vote, but I have not yet quite understood what he means by that. I have been here long enough to have voted thousands of times in this House and I have never yet voted on something that I considered not meaningful. Every vote in this House is meaningful.

There will be a meaningful vote at the end. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes much of the time that this has taken, but I have been saying for a long time to the Select Committee—its Chairman is not here—that it was inconceivable that we would not have a meaningful vote at the end of this process.

The hon. and learned Gentleman’s last point was on EU nationals. I have a track record of defending the interests of people who are under pressure. Indeed, the last thing—pretty much—the leader of his party did was to go with me to Washington to get the last Brit out of Guantanamo Bay. I am not going to be throwing people out of Britain, and for the hon. and learned Gentleman even to suggest that is outrageous. Let me say this to him: I want the European Union nationals here to have all the rights they currently have, but I also want British citizens in Europe to have their rights. We owe a moral debt to EU nationals here, but we owe a moral and legal debt to the citizens of Britain abroad. We will protect both.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

We have before us a short and relatively simple Bill, but, for the Labour party, this is a very difficult Bill. [Laughter.] I ask that hon. Members be courteous as I try to set out the position of the Labour party in what are very difficult circumstances. I will try to set that out clearly, and I expect people to be courteous.

We are a fiercely internationalist party. We are a pro-European party. We believe that through our alliances we achieve more together than we do alone. We believe in international co-operation and collaboration. We believe in the international rule of law. These beliefs will never change. That is why we campaigned to stay in the EU. We recognise that the EU is our major trading partner and that the single market and customs union have benefited UK businesses and our economy for many years. We recognise more widely the benefits of collaborative working across the EU in fields of research, medicine, technology, education, arts and farming. We also recognise the role that the EU plays in tackling common threats, such as climate change and serious organised crime. We share values and identity with the EU.

But we failed to persuade. We lost the referendum. Yes, the result was close. Yes, there were lies and half-truths—none worse than the false promise of an extra £350 million a week for the NHS. Yes, technically the referendum is not legally binding. But the result was not technical; it was deeply political, and politically the notion that the referendum was merely a consultation exercise to inform Parliament holds no water. When I was imploring people up and down the country to vote in the referendum and to vote to remain, I told them that their vote really mattered and that a decision was going to be made. I was not inviting them to express a view.

Although we are fiercely internationalist and fiercely pro-European, we in the Labour party are, above all, democrats. Had the outcome been to remain, we would have expected the result to be honoured, and that cuts both ways. A decision was made on 23 June last year to leave the EU. Two thirds of Labour MPs represent constituencies that voted to leave; one third represent constituencies that voted to remain. This is obviously a difficult decision. I wish the result had gone the other way—I campaigned passionately for that—but as democrats we in the Labour party have to accept the result. It follows that the Prime Minister should not be blocked from starting the article 50 negotiations.

That does not mean, however, that the Prime Minister can do as she likes without restraint from the House—quite the opposite: she is accountable to the House, and that accountability will be vital on the uncertain journey that lies ahead. She fought to prevent the House from having a vote on the Bill until she was forced to do so by the Supreme Court last week. She resisted Labour’s calls for a plan and then a wider White Paper until it became clear that she would lose any battle to force her to do so. Just before Christmas, she was resisting giving the House a vote on the final deal—a position that she has had to adjust.

That is why the amendments tabled by the Labour party are so important. They are intended to establish a number of key principles that the Government must seek to negotiate during the process, including securing full tariff and impediment-free access to the single market. They are intended to ensure that there is robust and regular parliamentary scrutiny by requiring the Secretary of State to report to the House at least every two months on progress being made in the negotiations and to provide documents that are being given to the European Parliament. The amendments would also require the Government to consult regularly the Governments of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland throughout the Brexit negotiations. I have recognised on numerous occasions the specific issues and concerns of those living in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and I support the proposition that they should absolutely be consulted throughout the process and that their interests should be borne in mind.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I will press on for a minute and then take interventions.

The amendments would also ensure that this House has the first say, not the last say, on the deal proposed at the end of the article 50 negotiations.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way in a minute, but I want to make some progress, if I may.

We also support amendments in relation to workplace rights and environmental rights, and we will be making the case that the legal status of EU nationals should be resolved before negotiations take place. I recognise the Government’s position on EU nationals and the work done to try to ensure that there is a reciprocal arrangement, but that has not worked, and now the Prime Minister should act unilaterally to give assurance to EU nationals living in this country. I am sure that all hon. Members will have had, in their surgeries, EU nationals in tears over the uncertainty of their situation. I have seen it at every public meeting I have attended on the topic and at every surgery. I understand the constraints, but we must now act unilaterally to secure their position.

Taken together, the amendments would put real grip and accountability into the process, and the Government should welcome them, not reject them out of hand.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I will make some progress and then give way. I am mindful of the fact that 99 Back Benchers want to speak, and it is important, on such an issue, that I set out our position.

It is important to remember what the Bill does and does not do. It empowers the Prime Minister to trigger article 50—no more, no less. It is the start of the negotiating process, not the end. It does not give the Prime Minister a blank cheque—and here I want to make a wider point that has not been made clearly enough so far in any of our debates: no Prime Minister, under article 50 or any other provision, can change domestic law through international negotiations. That can only be done in this Parliament. If she seeks to change our immigration laws, she will have to do so in this Parliament in primary legislation. If she seeks to change our tax laws, she will have to do so in this Parliament in primary legislation. If she seeks to change our employment laws, our consumer protection laws or our environmental laws, she will have to do so in this Parliament in primary legislation. If she seeks to change our current arrangements in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, she will have to do so in Parliament in primary legislation.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that the very point of our leaving the EU is to ensure that this place can make decisions on those very points?

[Keir Starmer]

Yes.

When the Secretary of State last week said there would be many votes on many pieces of legislation in the next few years, he was not wrong. In each of those votes, at every twist and turn, Labour will argue that jobs, the economy and living standards must come first. We will argue that all the workers’ rights, consumer rights and environmental protections derived from EU law should be fully protected—no qualifications, limitations or sunset clauses.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

My hon. and learned Friend rightly points to the very necessary consultation that must take place with the devolved Administrations, but on 17 January I asked the Secretary of State what discussions he had had with the north-east about the impact of leaving the single market, given that 58% of our exports go to the EU. Does my hon. and learned Friend share my concern that we still do not have an answer to that question—whether the Secretary of State has even had those discussions—as well as many other questions?

[Keir Starmer]

I agree, and I urge the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to ensure that there is the greatest consultation in relation to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. They each have specific areas of concern, which are well known to this House.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman share my concern that if no deal has been struck at the end of this process, all options must remain open and it will be for this place, not the Government, to decide what happens next?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. It is to ensure that this place has a meaningful role that Labour has tabled these amendment, in relation to the final vote, to ensure that the issue comes here first, rather than later.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

In that spirit, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is astonishing that the Government have not told us when they will publish the White Paper? Does he agree that it should be published ahead of the Bill’s Committee stage, which is scheduled for next week?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. My view is clear: the White Paper ought to be published as soon as possible, and before the Committee stage is concluded, and I hope that it will be.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to make some progress, given the number of hon. Members who want to come in on this debate.

More broadly, Labour will be arguing for a strong, collaborative future relationship with the EU. In her Lancaster House speech, the Prime Minister said that she does not

“seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave”.

That is short-sighted, as we are now finding in relation to Euratom. Why would we want to be outside the European Aviation Safety Agency, which certifies aircraft before they are allowed to fly? Why would we want to be outside the European Medicines Agency, which ensures that all medicines in the EU market are safe and effective? Why would we want to be outside Europol and Eurojust, which, as the Prime Minister and I know, are agencies that work closely together in the prevention and detection of serious crime and terrorism? The same goes for the European Environment Agency and Euratom. We challenge the Prime Minister on these fronts and ask that consideration be given to finding ways to ensure that where we can we stay within those agencies, for the obvious benefits that they bring, and we will absolutely challenge any suggestion that the Prime Minister has any authority whatsoever to rip up our economic and social model and turn the UK into a tax-haven economy.

I come back to the vote on this Bill. It is a limited vote: a vote to allow the Prime Minister to start the article 50 process. It is not a vote on the outcome, nor is it a vote on wider issues, which will fall to be voted on separately, but it is a vote to start the process. I know that there are some colleagues on the Benches behind me who do not feel able to support the Bill. I respect their views, just as I respect the views of constituents who feel the same way. I also understand and recognise the anxiety of so many in the 48% who voted to remain about their future, their values and their identity. They did not vote themselves out of their own future, and their views matter as much now as they did on 23 June last year.

I hope that the respectful approach that I have tried to adopt to colleagues and to the anxiety among the 48% is reflected across the House and that we will see a good deal less of the gloating from those who campaigned to leave than we have seen in the past. It is our duty to accept and respect the outcome of the referendum, but we remain a European country, with a shared history and shared values. It is also our duty to fight for a new relationship with our EU partners that reflects our values, our commitment to internationalism and our commitment to an open and tolerant society. Above all, it is our duty to ensure an outcome that is not just for the 52% or for the 48%, but for the 100%. That we will do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)]

My hon. Friend is entirely right that there is significant two-way trade in agricultural products, and in food and drink products. I would imagine that it is just as much in the interests of the continuing EU as it is in the interests of the UK that sensible arrangements continue.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Now that we have a commitment to a White Paper, the role of Parliament in the article 50 process needs to be determined, which is why Labour will seek to table an amendment to the proposed article 50 Bill to require the Secretary of State to lay before the House periodic reports, at intervals of no less than two months, on the progress of the negotiations under article 50. Will the Secretary of State commit now to the principle of periodic reports? [Interruption.]

[Mr Davis]

From behind me I hear, “Like he’s not going to do that.” The hon. and learned Gentleman says two months. Since September, over five months, I have made five statements in front of this House, participated in 10 debates, and appeared in front of a number of Select Committees. That process will continue. I suspect that two months will be a rather unambitious aim.

[Keir Starmer]

The role of Parliament at the end of the exercise will also be important. The Prime Minister has said that MPs will have a vote on the final agreement. Will the Secretary of State today state categorically that MPs in this House will have no less involvement in the process and no less a say over the final article 50 agreement than MEPs in the European Parliament?

[Mr Davis]

The role of the MEPs will be somewhat limited and peripheral, in many respects. Mr Verhofstadt will be allowed at the treaty negotiations, but I do not think he will be making the decisions.

Article 50

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. This is a good day for parliamentary sovereignty, as the Supreme Court has ruled that we shall have a say in this House on article 50. Given the issues that are involved, that is quite right and the Prime Minister was wrong to have attempted to sideline Parliament in this process. This Bill is to be introduced only because the Prime Minister has been ordered to do so. I hope that, in the aftermath, there will not be the attacks on our judges that there were when the High Court gave its ruling. It is the duty of all of us to defend them if there are such attacks, and to do so quickly. I hope that the Secretary of State will join me in that endeavour.

The question now moves on to the proper role of Parliament. The Supreme Court said nothing about the particular form of legislation. On issues as important as this, it would be wrong for the Government to try to minimise the role of Parliament, or to seek to avoid amendments. I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that he will not take that approach.

This is a question of substance, not of process. Last week, the Prime Minister committed herself to swapping the known benefits of single market membership and the customs union for the hoped-for benefits of a free trade agreement, with a fall-back position of breaking our economic model. That is high risk, and there are big gaps, inconsistencies and unanswered questions in her approach.

If the Prime Minister fails in her endeavour, the cost will be borne by families and working people and communities throughout the UK. The stakes are high, and the role of this House in holding the Prime Minister and the Government to account throughout the process is crucial.

Labour accepts and respects the referendum result, and will not frustrate the process, but we will be seeking to lay amendments to ensure proper scrutiny and accountability throughout the process. That starts with a White Paper or plan—a speech is not a White Paper or plan. We need something on which to hold the Government to account throughout the process. We cannot have a speech as the only basis for accountability for two years or more. That is the first step. There needs to be a reporting-back procedure and a meaningful vote at the end of the exercise. The Government should welcome such scrutiny, and not try to resist it, because the end result will be better if scrutinised than it would otherwise be. I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm that he will not seek to minimise scrutiny and accountability.

I will leave it to others to talk about the devolved Administrations, but whatever the Court ruled it is important that those interests are taken properly into account.

I end with this: what a waste of time and money. The High Court decision was 82 days ago. The Prime Minister could have accepted then the need to introduce a Bill, and we could have debated the issues. I would like the Secretary of State to lay out what the cost to the taxpayer has been of this appeal.

New Partnership with the EU

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. The speech that the Prime Minister has just made is the most important she has ever given. It was about the future of our relationship with the EU and our position in the world. The place for such a speech is here, at the Dispatch Box. That is not just a convention; it is so that MPs across the House can question the Prime Minister on their constituents’ behalf about her plans for their future, and there are many questions.

For many months Labour has been demanding the fullest possible access to the single market, emphasising the risks of leaving the customs union, arguing for a collaborative relationship with our EU partners, and emphasising the need for transitional arrangements and to entrench workers’ rights. Today the Prime Minister has rightly accepted those in her plan, and I acknowledge that, but she has given little detail about how that is to be achieved, and there are some unanswered questions and big gaps. In truth, it is a half-in, half-out plan.

Let me give an example. The Prime Minister says that she does not want the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, but she wants a comprehensive trade agreement. Sooner or later, she and others will have to face up to the fact that any such agreement will have a disputes resolution clause, and that will have to be independent of this country; it will not be by reason and resolution in the High Court in London according to English law. She has avoided fronting up to some of these essential questions.

If the Prime Minister achieves all that she has set out to achieve, she will fall far short of the hard Brexit that many businesses and trade unions have feared—the Brexit of no deal, a bare trade agreement, out of any customs union and at arm’s length from our EU relations. It is good that she has ruled out that hard Brexit at this stage. However, as she knows, setting out ambitions is the easy bit; delivery is much more difficult. She is taking the precarious course of taking the UK out of single market membership and changing the customs arrangements. That will cause concern to businesses, as the Secretary of State knows, and trade unions. The Prime Minister should have been more ambitious.

However, I accept that form follows function, so let me set out in terms what Labour will hold the Prime Minister to account for, as far as trade is concerned: tariff-free access to the single market; access to the single market unencumbered by impediment—that is what was in the exchange of letters with Nissan, and it is what all businesses want, and what all trade unions want for those dealing in goods and services; alignment of regulatory bodies to avoid dual bureaucracy or, worse, divergence; and a deal that works for goods and services. That is the test we set out today, the test we will return to throughout the negotiations, and the test to be applied when a deal is reached. That is why the concession on a vote at the end of the negotiations is significant. We have been demanding that for months, and it has not been given before today. It is significant because it means that we can ensure that those tests are met throughout the process and at the end.

The sting in the tail in this morning’s plan was the threat to destroy the economic model that has been in place for many decades if that ambition is not reached. That is a very serious threat. That model—a shared model on which there has been consensus for decades across this House—is designed to share prosperity, protect workers’ rights and improve living standards. There is no mandate for reckless disregard of that model and of so much of what this country stands for. The Prime Minister described that as resulting in self-harm for the EU. It would be an act of huge self-harm for the UK to abandon the economic model that we have had in place for so many years. It is also totally inconsistent with any meaningful commitment to workers’ rights and a fairer society. That threat—that sting in the tail—undermines the ambition in the plan that I recognise.

Let me touch on wider issues. The UK and the EU have hugely benefited from our collaborative work in the fields of criminal justice, anti-terrorism, research, medicine, science, technology, arts and culture, and much else. We should be seeking to preserve that collaboration, not destroy it, yet the Prime Minister said today:

“We do not seek to hold onto bits of membership as we leave.”

Let me give some examples of the bits that she should seek to retain—

[Mr Speaker]

Well, not many and not for long. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman is a learned, celebrated and cerebral individual, and I do not want to interrupt him, but the convention is that the reply is normally half the length of the statement. I can indulge him modestly—there is usually a bit of latitude—but I was a bit concerned when he said “some examples”, particularly as he is a lawyer.

[Keir Starmer]

Mr Speaker, let me give three examples without the details: the European Aviation Safety Agency, which deals with safety; the European Medicines Agency; and Europol, which I worked with for many years. Those are the bits of the EU that we should be seeking to retain, not throw away.

It was the previous Prime Minister who got us to this place without any forethought or planning. This Prime Minister has now chosen a risky implementation plan. She owns the consequences now, in 2019 and beyond.

[Mr Davis]

When we started down this route, I said to the House that the Government had been given a national instruction that we would attempt to interpret in the national interest. That seemed to me to be the right approach. Rather than a 52/48 approach, it is an approach that encompasses everybody’s interests. I hope that we have done that today.

The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) is a very talented man, and his questions were as forensic as we would expect. He asked about membership of the single market, so we answered that. We laid out the claims on the customs union, which was another of his questions. He asked for detail to scrutinise the plan to see where we are going. Within the context of not undermining our negotiation, that is entirely what we have tried to do. I had hoped to see some Opposition Members support what we think is a responsible, thoughtful but realistic plan that takes on board the instruction that we have been given by the British people to take us out of the European Union, but in a way that preserves our interests as best we can, whether security interests, economic interests or whatever.

Let me deal with some of the specific points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I will put aside my disappointment at the tone. He says that a free trade agreement will need to have a disputes resolution procedure. So it will; they nearly all do. It does not have to be the European Court of Justice, though. We can agree that he has just got the thrust of it wrong. As for the other things: tariff-free, I agree; impediment-free, I agree. Alignment of regulation? That may well be necessary in some aspects, but we will see as the negotiation develops. On goods and services, I agree. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not putting up any hurdle that, frankly, we do not intend to cross ourselves.

Now, on this question of threats, this was not a threat. It was the Chancellor saying in an interview, “Well, if you go down the route of a punitive approach, this is the consequence and this is what will happen.” Nations defend themselves. Nobody says it is what we want to do. It is specifically not what we want to do. We want the freest, most friendly possible relationship we can get, and that is what we will set out to do.

The other areas, including questions on matters such as criminal justice, home affairs issues and so on, will develop as we go through the negotiation. The Prime Minister is a very distinguished ex-Home Secretary—the longest-lasting Home Secretary in modern times—and she has as good a grip of our home affairs needs as the ex-Director of Public Prosecutions has. He can take it as read that we will, over time in this House and, most particularly, in the negotiating chamber with the Europeans, address all the issues he raised. I happen to think that they will have as much interest in resolving those issues as we do. The negotiation is predicated on us doing what is in the interests of everybody: ourselves, the Europeans and all our neighbours in our part of the globe. That is what we intend to do and what we intend to deliver on.