This portion of the debate is 25 minutes. Thank you very much. I think the move to be now read a second time. I want to say at the start that every Single Member of this house, whatever view they hold on the fundamental question, the thought is trying as they act in the National Interest of their constituents. The problem, the reason why we are here is because each of us has a slightly different view of what those best interests are. I hope that we can debate this in a short amount of time. I can do no better than to quote a member who, on the third of april, said it can only be done at high speed, because there is no time left. I think wherever we stand on this issue, we know there is little time left, and following the decision, there is even less time that would have been available previously. Therefore, i hope we will treat each other, recognizing we have strongly held views with respect and consideration during this debate. The purpose of the bill is very simple. It is to ensure that the United Kingdom does not leave the European Union on the 31st of october without an agreement. The bill has wide cross party support. It is a pleasure to be involved on the list with the honorable member and its backed by members who have very different views on how the matter of brexit should finally resulting, including members who until very recently were senior members of the cabinet. You could describe it as a somewhat unlikely alliance, but what unites us is a conviction that there is no mandate for no deal, and the consequences for the economy and for our country would be highly damaging. Those supporting the bill believe that no deal is not in the National Interest. Of course, i will give way. When he talks about no deal, there are multiple sector deals. Does he not see that the sector deals are being multiple deals in their own right . I dont know where the sector deals are. My concern and the reason for this bill and the support i hope it will enjoy in the house today is because the Prime Minister has made it clear that he is prepared to leave on the 31st of october without a deal. Those of us who i hope will support the bill today do not wish that. I will give way. Would you agree that, in a sense, the debate has been going on for a long time and many of us have tried to learn lessons from them. And in that process, people have changed their minds to prevent a no deal brexit . One of the amendments today is to give people another look at what we might call the main path proposals that people turned down before at the time, but feel that if they had the experience they have now, they might have voted differently. With all the rush that necessarily has been, have you had the chance to look at that . The amendment now has quite a large amount of support and we should have another look at that as an alternative. I have not had a chance to read the final version, and it will be tabled through the course of the second reading today, but im aware of the intention of the amendments and i completely understand what my honorable friends are trying to achieve. We cannot continue to delay taking a decision and i will come back to that in the speech and i will listen to the debate during the committee stage. I will say this, however, the bill is deliberately open as to the purpose of the extension and provides a framework for support and debate, and if supported by honorable and right honorable members who have already voted for a deal and would vote for one again. It is important that we focus on the principal purpose which is to prevent a no deal brexit and to keep the coalition that shares that view together. I have more to say about that when we come to the end. I will give way. Thank you very much. Does the honorable gentleman believe that a matter of such importance, irrespective of speed at which this is being done, should be dealt with ultimately in the context of the general election . There may well be a general election at some point. But this legislation, in my view, needs to be passed, needs to go through committee and get royal assent and needs to be given effect. In other words, we must, in my opinion, secure the extension to article 50. Otherwise, there is a risk the election would result in us leaving without a deal which as it may turn out at 7 00 tonight is not what the house of commons wants and we should respect the view of the house of commons. I will give way. Im grateful for you giving way. If this bill does pass and its given royal assent, can you think of any other reason why the labour party would not accept a general election . I think ive just explained the reason. Its been made clear by the late leader of the labour party and others, because we must deal with first things first. Preventing a no deal brexit is the central most important question facing us today. Im very grateful to my honorable friend to allowing me to intervene. The reality is, an election at this stage or even next week undermines the statute and we cannot support it. I can only agree and im very grateful to the honorable gentleman for being one of the sponsors of the bill. I will take one more intervention because many people want to speak, and time is short. Im grateful. Can i applaud his call, because call for respect on both because we need to calm down this whole debate. I voted for the deal twice. He voted against the deal three times presumably because he thought it was not in the best interest of this country. So how does he think this procedure of delaying an agreement further is going to produce an offer from the eu that might actually tempt him into voting something because its even in the better interest of the u. K. Than all thats gone before. How can that possibly come about from this procedure . The reason why i voted against the deal three times is not really to do with the withdrawal agreement. It was to do with the nature of the political declaration and the absolute lack of clarity about where the then Prime Minister wanted to take the country. Thats my view, and other members have got different views. If i could bring this back. Im not going to give way further at this point. I have been reasonably generous, and i am conscious of the time. The evidence before us about no deal, its important we acknowledge that, because it is the fundamental reason behind the bill. As we heard from my right honorable friend from castle ford when she moved her bill earlier this year, it was reported that the cabinet secretary and the National Security advisor had told the previous cabinet that no deal would make our country less safe. Now, if the National Security adviser says that to the cabinet, we have to pay attention. All of us have seen the governments own Economic Assessment makes it clear that no deal would cause the greatest loss to the economy. We know the body that represents british Manufacturing Industry has described no deal as an act of economic vandalism. Since we last debate of the question of an extension, new information is come to light about the consequences that no deal that government itself has now admitted it would be detrimental to companies because they are prepared to compensate certain businesses and industries. They acknowledge it will do economic damage. Operation yellow hammer, the report that was published in the sunday times, talked about the potential for protests, for significant delays, and we heard very powerful evidence on that subject only this morning in the Brexit Select Committee. The potential impact on medicine, decrease in the supply of fresh fruits and price rises, impact on petrol refineries, huge uncertainty for businesses, serious damage to farmers, and in some ways, given the progress Northern Ireland has made in the last 20 years, it has expressed the view that the current open border between Northern Ireland and the republic could be unsustainable because of economic, legal, and buyer security risks. I will give way to my honorable friend. He made the point about security. Is he aware we repeatedly have heard in the Home Affairs Committee from Senior Police officers and Security Officials about the devastating impact of a no deal brexit . We hear unilateral security measures. They are not in place. Others whoring from would exploit our National Security. I agree with my honorable friend completely. Its one of the many Unanswered Questions about what happens to the other side . Thats a point we will come back to later on. I give way. Can i just say that members of the party made comments in the media and he, i think said earlier that this bill stops no deal. Can we be clear that this bill does not stop no deal, it prolongs the date before we leave . The likelihood is, unless something dramatically changes, we will be exactly at this point a few weeks before the new deadline. The only way to stop no deal is to revoke article 50. Thats really what members of his side of the house want to happen. They should be honest. I would say to the honorable gentleman that if someone says you can jump off a cliff with all of the damaging consequences in a couple of weeks time or we could put it off for three months, which would you like . I think the sensible course of action given the damage it would do to the country is to put it off. I accept that we ultimately need to find a way forward. I have my own views as to others as to how that should be done, but that is not the purpose of this bill today although it would provide for a framework within which the government can decide what it will do. Three independent, highly respected bodies, they have written an open letter to all the mps setting out that there will be significant damage to Health Care Services from a no deal. And more importantly, to people who depend on them. I agree with the honorable lady, and i would simply say and other members will have lots of other experience of the potential consequences these are not risks that i think we should take with our economy. These are our livelihoods, and jobs, our health, and i hope they will mind that in the house today that with all the focus on process in motion and procedure, this is about the impact that a no deal brexit would have on the lives of the people we represent. I will, of course, give way. I thank the honorable gentleman. Isnt that the point, that while i can understand there is a political imperative to get this done, or to move on, the practical imperative is that no deal does not allow us to move on. It resolves nothing. It leads to many implications that he talked about and if we have no deal on 31st of october, we have to in november seek a withdrawal agreement. The gentleman is absolutely right. In a lot of this debate, we havent discussed anything like that to what happens to the other side on the 31st of october if the Prime Minister is able to get his way. I will come to that point in a moment. I will give way. He plans to prolong no damage as far as the 31st of january. The current deal weve got will damage the funding. The best way to stop any damage at all is to revoke article 50. I have written an amendment to that. It needs the Prime Ministers signature. And then this nightmare is over. I disagree, respectfully, with the honorable gentleman, because just as no deal is unacceptable in my opinion, i think revocation to cancel the whole result and referendum is not acceptable either. I have expressed previously in the house my view about how we should resolve this by going back to the people, but other members have different views and that is not the issue. I will give way. Im particularly grateful to the right honorable gentleman in which he is chairing the Brexit Select Committee and taking this vital evidence. Isnt that really the point . This is precisely the sort of work that should be done. Questions should be asked, and this place should be making sure that we are ready for no deal and yet what we are seeing is we are being closed down next week when in fact we should be sitting, asking the questions and his committee and others should be able to do that valuable work. You are absolutely right. One of the consequences is that committees can be. We cannot scrutinize the government. Exactly. Does the honorable gentleman agree that it would be surprising that there are to be those in his house and no more about making cars than those and make cars, more about building planes than those who build planes, more about engineering than the engineers, and that the simple truth is, the overwhelming and unmistakable voice of the world work industry and all the employers organizations and the trade unions is that a no deal brexit would have catastrophic consequences with tens of thousands of workers losing their jobs, making our country a poorer country in every sense of the word for years to come. My honorable friend makes a powerful point, and those industries and sectors and we have all met them, are troubled that the message that comes from their expertise and knowledge, they are the people creating the wealth in the country, and its not being heard by a government that says we are prepared to leave with no deal on the 31st of october. My honorable friend is in the room next door to me, and i will give way and then i will make progress. Thank you for giving way. I received a letter from the northeast this morning from the England Chamber of commerce. They say over the last three years, we have been clear and consistent preserving the trading conditions and relationship we currently enjoy it with the eu ought to be the primary objective of any brexit outcome. The governments willingness to embrace no deal without an acceptable end to the agreement flies in the face of this. They say is a disastrous outcome for the northeast of england. Do these comments not prove that the bill is an absolute necessity . I think they absolutely do. It concluded a reflection on other consequences of no deal, i want to turn to what the bill actually does. It intends to stop this happening by seeking the extension to article 50 in certain very specific circumstances. Its important to understand that the bill allows the Prime Minister the opportunity to reach a new agreement with the European Union at the European Council and to seek parliaments consent. That is condition one. It also allows the government to bring a motion to the house of commons to seek our consent for leaving without a deal. If discussions with the European Council proved unsuccessful. I think the government would find it difficult to get such a motion through the house of commons but the bill allows us to do that. Clause one specifically provides for those eventualities and if either of those conditions is met, then there can be no further extension. If, however, neither of these conditions have been met by the 19th of october, chosen today deliberately, it is the day after the conclusion of the European Council, then the Prime Minister must ask the eu for a further extension until the 31st of january 2020 in the form of a letter set up in the schedule to the bill. Clause three deals with what happens next. If the European Council exceeds that request, then the Prime Minister must agree to it. If however counsel proposes an extension to a different date, and the Prime Minister must agree to that as well unless the house of commons decides not to pass the motion agreeing to it. Thats what subsection three does. It has been wrongly claimed that the eu could propose an extension of any length, six months, 20 years, a millennium, and the Prime Minister would be required to accept it. Not so. In those circumstances, the house could decide. Furthermore, if a deal is reached after the Prime Minister has asked for an extension, then it would override an extension. So it also allows him, if he can, to reach a deal after the European Council concludes on the 18th of october. In other words, the bill gives the Prime Minister the flexibility that he wants and needs to get a deal if he can. What it does not render is it does not render further negotiation pointless. It seems to me is if the Prime Minister refuses to put together any proposals, which is an odd state of affairs. Of course, i will give way. Clause 32 is very clear that the period of two days begins with the end of the day of the day on which the European Council decision is made. We were told very clearly during proceedings on the change of date after the two previous occasions that the government accepted an extension that we were merely implementing a decision that was already made in European Community law. What his proposal depends upon is the European Union making a conditional offer that only comes into force if they choose to make it conditional on subsequent approval by the house of commons. He has no way of binding the European Unions procedures by domestic piece of legislation. The purpose of that is if the bill is passed, it will pass in the knowledge it is seeking in the circumstances for an extension to the 31st of january. If, however, the European Union proposes a different date, it seems to be only right and proper that the Prime Minister should be able to say thats fine by me or i will need to go back and check. I agree with the right honorable gentleman that