05/07/2016 House of Lords

Hello and welcome to BBC Parliament live coverage and today it hs from

House of Lords. Piers are gdaring up for a debate on the outcome of the

referendum on membership of the European Union. Both the Prhme

Minister and the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage can have announced their

resignations. Whilst Jeremy Corbyn lost a vote of confidence alongst

his MPs last week. You can watch live coverage of the House of

Commons which. With questions to the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, now

on our website. All of todax's business will follow the dahly

politics on our overnight schedule from 1am. Join me for a round-up of

the day in both Houses of P`rliament at 11 o'clock this evening. We will

shortly go to the upper Chalber where the Leader of the House of

Lords will open the debate on the EU referendum.

Al debate today has the potdntial to be one of the most signific`nt in

the recent history of your lordship's house. I see tod`y as a

real opportunity for us as ` house to reflect on the decision that has

been made and to offer some clear thinking about the issues wd now

face as a country. It is an opportunity for the House of Lords

to show why it exists. In rdpeating several statements in the l`st week,

I have set out the views of Her Majesty's Government and I want

today to be much more than `n occasion for me to set thosd out

again. Over the next two ye`rs - two days, we are here primarily to

listen and stop in opening, I will try to start the process of

reflection by offering my perspective both on the votd itself

and on the responsibilities incumbent on this house as H see

them in the weeks and months ahead. To state the obvious first, the

referendum itself was a momdntous democratic exercise. Over the weeks

of the campaign, we saw passionate cases put forward by both shdes and

more importantly we saw votdrs engage with and enthusiasm we had

not seen for many years. More than 33 million people from across the UK

and Gibraltar exercised thehr democratic right. I appreci`te that

when the votes were counted, it was not the result many others lay have

wanted. 48% of us voted to remain. The result was clear. By a largin of

more than 1 million, 52% of the people who voted, voted for the UK

to leave the European Union. An instruction that this Government and

all of us must respect and seek to act on. It would be possibld...

It would be possible for us to go over the campaigns themselvds in

detail or to look for ways to re-examine the result or to pose

again questions of our EU membership. In my view, that would

be the wrong thing for us to do Not only would it distance us ftrther

from many of the people we `re here to serve, worse, it would bd a

missed opportunity to serve them better. Instead, we should take this

opportunity to play our part in shaping the way ahead. As I see it,

perform our duty to reassurd people about our country's future by

offering some clear thinking about that way ahead. Clearly there is

further work for us to do in determining our future relationship

with the European Union. As the Prime Minister said, we are leaving

the EU but not turning our backs on Europe. The next steps will not be

easy. There will be complex negotiations ahead. We should

approach them with a clear guiding principle, to ensure the best

possible outcome for the Brhtish people. As the Prime Ministdr has

made clear, the nature of ndgations -- negotiations would be for his

success and their Government. That is why when to trigger article 0

will be for them to decide. In the meantime, there is a lot of ground

to cover in examining the options available. When decisions are taken,

we put our best foot forward and maintain Britain's reputation as an

open, outward looking nation maintaining our strong partnerships

in Europe, continuing to pl`y our role in the world stage, holding

fast to our values of toler`nce and respect in showing that Britain

remains open for business. That is something we in Government will do

with the impact of all the devolved administrations. It is something I

hope this house will play an important part in as well. @mongst

the membership of this Housd of Lords, we have an unrivalled

expertise in EU and foreign affairs and a range of EU committees whose

dispassionate scrutiny is admired here in Brussels and around the

European Union. That means we are well placed to come forward with

ideas to make a future deal a success for all parts of thd United

Kingdom. I know noble Lords will have questions about the nature of

further Parliamentary involvement beyond that and the precise form it

will or should take, those of the questions and the debate among legal

minds has already begun. I know our Select Committee's may choose to

examine it. Those are questhons that will rightly be for the next Prime

Minister to address will stop I am clear as leader of this house that

Parliament should have an appropriate role but in deb`ting

what that role should be, wd should, in my view, be careful to show that

our focus remains on delivering the referendum result and on applying

all our knowledge and experhence to making our future a successful one

for the United Kingdom. That is an important point and brings le onto

the broader responsibility. We have to bear in mind this we proceed

particularly as an elected house. In the period since the vote, there has

been a lot of analysis and reflection about the reasons people

voted how they did. The headline from those who voted to leave was

clear. They wanted to leave the European Union. Their reasons will

have varied. Some people, those reasons would have developed over

many years. Whatever those reasons, we must take that message away and

deliver on the instruction we have been given and in doing so, we must

also consider that the vote reflected something else as well.

Frustration with the status quo A sense that voters felt dist`nt from

those who exercised power and misunderstood by the people who make

the decisions that affect them. Although we rightly must focus on

the question of our in Europe, as we do so, we must not lose sight of

that desire for people to bd better understood. If we are able to

address the challenges we f`ce with that in mind, we will, I believe,

build public confidence in parliament and this house whthin it.

That means demonstrating our focus is on delivering success for all the

people of the UK, whichever way they voted. And on finding soluthons that

fit with people's understanding of the choice the country made. For if

we do not we won't miss the opportunity before us and the gaps

this vote highlighted will only become more entrenched. Between old

and young, graduates and non-graduates and those livhng in

our major cities and elsewhdre. Or to put it another way, the gap

between those who have privhleged power and influence and those who

feel they do not. Noble Lords may ask how can we do all this? That, my

Lords, is where we can demonstrate the value of our experience and our

expertise. I was never of the view that the people are fed up with

experts but I do believe sole of those who fill that gap I jtst - I

just described may be fed up with experts not understanding them. In

times of uncertainty such as these, people rightly look to thosd in

positions of leadership to tse our knowledge and our understanding of

the challenges people face to deliver, develop and answer what

works for them. That, my lords, maybe the point on which to

conclude. It reflects the essential challenge we now face.

The result was for the UK to leave the EU. I campaigned for us to

Remain, as did many others. But I stand by the result of that

referendum, and I want to work hard now Templeman what has been decided.

As we proceed, we must not forget the views of the 16 million other

people who voted to stay. And the disappointed that many feel about

the outcome of the referendtm, there may be a temptation disciplhne leave

to others the consequences of the Brexit vote. After all, the result

told as clearly what people voting against, it did not give us a

specific view as to what people were voting for. Yet the public `s a

whole, no matter how they voted deserve more. With the referendum

result they have asked us to come together, to come up with a solution

which works for everyone. One that achieves the best outcome for

Britain on every possible front It is our duty as public servants to do

just that. There will be ch`llenges ahead, that I am sure. But ht is for

all of us to find a way forward to meet them, so that the Unitdd

Kingdom can continue to prosper as one nation in the years to come My

Lords, I beg to move. The question is is that this motion

be agreed to. My Lords. Recently, we have seen how

strong leadership, teamwork, thoughtful strategy and real skill

can be effective and successful Unfortunately, it has not come from

politics or governments, but the Welsh football team for somd much

needed each year to us all. My Lords, the debate over the next two

macro days is not for the rdferendum campaign, we are all still seeking

to understand what happens next where do we go from here. And what

alarms me, and I think is ftelling the uncertainty that fills so many

areas of our lives, is not happy answers the Government has, but how

few questions appear to havd been asked beforehand. This was something

that knowledge and expertisd, this was something that we in thhs House

recognised. When we asked, during the legislation, that the Government

prepared not only report on the impact of Brexit, but also

contingency plans. The Government declined to do so. So, my Lords is

it possible to address the uncertainty that the recognhtion of

false promises made on such a gigantic scale. The worst is the

insistence before the boat that ?350 million per week would be available

for the National Health Service before that's been denied whthin

hours of the polls closing. It is one thing to make policies hn good

faith, even if they can't l`ter be fully capped, it is quite another to

tell tall tales, knowing th`t they are complete fiction. But mx Lords,

both of those fuelled the ctrrent uncertainty. In questions l`st week,

the noble lord was asked about the 3 million uses dozens in the TK, and

the UK citizens living in the EU. Unable to offer any reassur`nces, he

merely implied that EU citizens in this country will be used as some

kind of bargaining chip when the negotiation of rights for British

citizens in other EU countrhes. My Lords, in this House, we all know

that is wrong. It is unacceptable and must be resolved urgently. The

longer this issue drags on, the more damaging it is. We have had to prime

ministerial statements on this issue. The fallout has filldd the

airwaves and conversations `round the country. Since the results, we

have less certainty, not more. And that is in part because of the week

it has been handled by the Government, with apparently no plan

to deal with the situation. Having sought further negotiations, the

Prime Minister then announcdd his resignation, saying it was ` matter

for his successor. My Lords, I feel very strongly that those who made

their case by relying on information that was known to be false, or made

promises they knew they would never be able to keep, have acted without

integrity. And when the Prile Minister, the new Prime Minhster,

comes to a point a new cabinets it should be other modes -- uppermost

in higher mind that the comlitment to truth is a central policx. We all

know we have a difficult ro`d ahead of us as we all must play otr part.

We must act in the best intdrest of our country, the best interdsts of

protesters hasn't here and `broad, and those who live and work here. --

British citizens. We also rdcognise that we cannot wait for Mr Cameron's

replacement to be in place. We look at constitutional issues, and that

is where absolute legal poshtion is required. How is the trigger for

Article 50 authorised? Is this a matter for Parliament or for the

executive? The current Primd Minister said that triggering

Article 50 as a matter for the new Prime Minister. So is it thd view of

the Government that the dechsion lies entirely within the hands of

the new Prime Minister? Why should such a fundamental decision not be a

matter for Parliament? Therd remains a lack of Coyote about the process

on when this takes effect. Last week the noble lord asked an extremely

important question. He asked for confirmation as to whether the UK's

departure from the EU would not be final until the end of the two year

negotiation process. And whdther the terms of departure were known, it

was the duty of Government to have the opportunity to consider those

terms? The question was not answered, other than to confirm what

we already know, to say that Article 50 was a two- your process `nd it

was the duty of the next Prhme Minister. Having a give people the

say in the process of initi`ting withdrawal, should the publhc wish

to debate and discuss and vote on the Times about withdrawal, will be

able to do so? On the advicd of senior legal opinion, that committee

made the point that withdrawal is final. Only once a withdraw`l

agreement enters into force. Set a member state that had given

notification under article 40 would be legally empowered to revdrse the

decision before that stage. But legal opinion published this week in

an article on UK constitutional law, entitled pulling the trigger on

Article 50 - Parliament's critical role - there are also clear that

once Article 50 is invoked `nd the clock starts ticking on the two

years of negotiation, if nice accessible withdrawal agreelent is

reached, membership ceases without agreement. So we have two

heavyweight, serious legal opinions in complete opposition. I al not a

liar, it is really not for le to judge which is correct. But sure the

Government must have clarifhed exactly how this worked before

embarking on the journey? And that can't be led just the next Prime to

clarify. So does the Governlent have a decision agreed with the DU, and

can the Government today confirm what that decision is? The noble

lady referred to the role of Parliament not yet been cle`r. That

has been confirmed across the board by a senior Conservative st`nding

for the leadership. This is a critical issue. It's not about

allowing time for debates. Ht is not even about scrutiny of decisions

taken by Government. These `re the most profound, complex negotiations

and manageable. We have 40 xears of confirmation, 40 years of joint

working, and 40 years of legislation to disentangle. My colleaguds in the

other place have asked the Prime Minister had that engagement could

be taken forward. So has thd Government considered new

parliamentary structures, stch as specialist committees to work on the

detail and seek advice from experts? And what consideration has been

given to the committees in the House to take advantage of the vast

expertise? Because as well of the legal process of disengagemdnt, we

have to examine areas as diverse as the environmental protection, rights

of work, security, transport. Alongside the all-important trade

discussions, including single market and freedom of movement. Thdn there

is legislation. Provided for through treaties that will need to be

confirmed in British law if we wish to keep it. Do we know how lany such

laws there are, and in which areas? As insanely hope that somewhere

someone in Whitehall is tryhng to compile -- sincerely hope, the

largest ring binder in history. That is where the role of Parlialent has

to be clear. Once Article 50 has to be triggered, we cannot afford to

wait six months while the Government starts to consider what the

processes and may be. In thd Parliament statements, therd was

more about the role of the civil service than in parliament. And what

about institutions are affected Local governments, national health

service, the TUC, science, education, arts and sport sdctors -

semi-decisions that affect our economic, social and social life are

now on hold. When Mr Cameron committed to staying on for the

negotiations, that was accepted as providing continuity. But know the

Conservative Party is having a contest for a new leader and Prime

Minister. Even the noble lord dolls has said that even he could not have

scripted the story. And he hnvented the House of cards. My Lords, the

role of Parliament has to bd taken under negotiation from thosd who

expect to be the next Prime Minister. Taking tenders were

starkly opposing views, even when negotiations should start. On Sunday

it was said, certainly not before the end of the year, we need to be

clear about other positions. Theresa May wasn't just a member of the

Cabinet that gave us the referendum - she was the Home Secretarx. So was

the Cabinet really so I'm clear when it made the decision about what our

position would be? And yestdrday, Andrea Leadsom said we should

trigger Article 50 and started negotiations straightaway. Ly Lords,

that is continuation of the act now, think later politics that are

created the instability we currently have. Last week I asked the Labour

leader about the guv's programme coming up. But everything h`s

changed, this is not business as usual. The legislation laid out in

the Queen's Speech continues to lump on without regulating the htge

amount of new worker needs to be undertaken. Senior civil servants

already believe that Brexit will consume their energies for xears to

come. It'll be the central focus of our policies, politics and

Government. A effort from everyone involved in Government that no part

of the civil service will bd able to avoid. From Whitehall to local

governments, gaps and funding from the EU have to be plugged,

regulation has to be done and I m done, everything has to be reworked.

It is absolutely right that the Prime Minister has said that the

brightest and best will be needed for that process. But we nedded

those brightest and best to work on housing policy. We needed them to

develop the UK as a new centre of technological advances. We need them

to deal with issues in our health service and demographic changes

which bring challenges to otr society. Just think what thdy could

be doing now. Not a single sector is currently being offered guidance or

support from the Government on what the EU result means for thel. There

is not answered yet for our businesses are public services which

employs thousands of EU cithzens. There are no plans advice for more

deprived areas about how thdy will manage with the withdrawal of EU

funding. Our restitution to end the scientific community need advice,

support and information. Large employers are already joining up

hands to leave the UK, and the Government's lack of certainty about

EU citizens working for global countries than the macro colpanies

here as to the confusion. The results of cultural and sochal

uncertainties are uglier sthll. Since the mat results, therd has

been a 57% rise in hate criles. For those invested so much in the ideals

of Europe, and those are nehther said the campaign, the currdnt

political enthusiasm and interest of harnessed for good. We want to see

focus in positive ways, not left blowing in the wind, or worse still,

fuelling a greater distrust of politics and politicians. I doubt

the local lady will be able to convince the House that the

Government understood all the implications of the leaflet before

the referendum. We need to understand the role of Parlhament. I

accept there are some issues where it is highly desirable to ldad to a

new primers are, but not thdse. One than ever, we need to unite under a

common purpose of decency. Ht is true of the uncertainty we face but

also the political uncertainty. And when the country is crying out for

direction and leadership, wd have a duty to answer.

We stand ready to play our part I thank the House for the momdnt to

discuss the outcome of the Duropean referendum. As I expressed during

our exchanges last week, I was devastated by the result. I.e.,

along with many of my noble friends and Liberal Democrats come have a

deep rooted commitment for partnership with our Europe`n

neighbours. Internationalisl is in our DNA. It is a commitment to the

beliefs and ideals of the Etropean Union undertaking, of a peaceful,

prosperous and United Europd. Promoting human rights and the rule

of law. That is something I and many of my noble friends have striven

for. The result of the referendum is felt very personally on these

benches. We cannot be expected to give up these core beliefs nor shall

we. We believe Britain should be an outward looking country which can

thrive, innovate, leading an open, global economy, a country which

works in partnership with those who share our values to overcomd common

adversaries and see future benefits with neighbours and partners.

Investing in economies and sharing prosperity so Britain can bd even

greater than it is now. The cry to take back our country is not one to

which I can subscribe because I do not believe I ever lost my country.

Reflecting on the words of ly much missed friend, Charles Kennddy, I

too have multiple identities of Scottish, British and Europdan. I am

also a Democrat so I accept and respect the result of the rdferendum

on the 23rd of June even if saddened by it. I approach the result with

some humility for I know I have to accept my share of responsible -

responsibility for the colldctive failure of politicians, institutions

and the media to make the positive case over many years for thd

European Union and the benefits it brings to this country. The

referendum should give everxone a public life pause for thought. Too

often the European Union has been used as a scapegoat on a distraction

from failures in Government. As my honourable friend has said, the vote

was a collective frustration at the political class and big bushness and

the global elites. My deep concern is as we go forward, there hs likely

to be more dissatisfaction `nd more frustration as people realise that

much of what they were promhsed during the referendum campahgn will

not be possible. The sad re`lity is the alternatives offered will do

nothing to help those in England's poorer regions because the league

campaign offered contradictory conditions outside of what the EU

will look like. This poses ` fundamental question for liberal

democracy and parliamentary democracy. Based on attention to

evidence, to reasoned debatd, the willingness to compromise and

tolerance. Politics involves a conversation in which we le`rn about

other people, see things from that point of view, trying to balance

their needs against our own. We recognise the existence of different

groups, different opinions `nd balancing these interests. Politics

is a way of ruling divided societies without undue violence. And yet we

have seen some very troubling and violent scenes since the 23rd of

June. We have seen the anger and frustration translated in some nasty

incidents of racism and xenophobia. Over the course of the weekdnd

following the vote, the Nathonal police chief Council has ruled that

hate crimes reported have rhsen 72%. The careless and rush languhsh of

some Brexit campaigners seels to have legitimised the prejudhce of

people to the point where they are targeting people who are visibly

different. It is only a small minority who perpetrate such

outrageous but to the impact -- to the victim, the impact is 100%. The

fear is all too real. This hs unacceptable and it must stop. It is

not my Britain. I believe there are many layers and facets to why many

people voted to leave the Etropean Union. The vote was symbolic of our

rejection of pretty much -- British multiculturalism, concerns on

pressure on our schools, hospitals and GP services. For me, thd answers

to these wider questions ard both domestic and international `nd there

is much that can be done in Westminster. Much that should be

done standing shoulder to shoulder with our European neighbours. If

those who led the campaign to leave you -- EU have answers, we need to

hear them now. Do we want to be in the single market or do thex not?

What freedom of movement do they want to see? Will taxes go tp? What

spending will go down? How would they secure a bright future for our

children and young people? One of the defining features has bden the

utter dismay and anger of young people who believe they havd been

deprived of the opportunitids and freedoms which our post-war

generation take for granted. Whichever side of the referdndum

divide we were on, we owe it to our people to keep alive hope and

established corporative links which will provide opportunity. There is

an ounce of questions and dtring this debate, a number of my noble

friends will want to pool expertise. I hope the Minister will take this

in the spirit it was contended - intended. Can I post some ftrther

constitutional questions and in particular the role of Parlhament.

Last week during our exchanges are at the lead of the House about the

process for triggering article 0 and I still await an answer. It

states any member state may withdraw from the union in accordancd with

its own constitutional requhrements. There is very little claritx as to

what the UK's requirements `re. Will this be done by the Prime Mhnister

acting alone using his own prerogative? Will there be

consultation with Parliament, debating both houses or just the

House of Commons? Should thdre be legislation? There has been legal

and academic debate as to how Article 50 will be triggered but to

date there is no certainty. Whilst I can see there is a case for leaving

to the new Prime Minister wdnt to trigger article 50, this

Administration must have a view as to how it should be triggerdd. In

February will last for less Administration. They might have

given it some attention and thought. It would be to the benefit of

Parliament and the country for the position to be clarified as soon as

possible. What will the rold of Parliament and this Housby hn

carrying out its scrutiny ftnctions and its constitutional duty of

holding the Government to count in the process of negotiation with

other EU member states. It will be helpful to have some indication from

the Government of the princhples which will go under Parliamdntary

scrutiny during this process. Which laws and regulations that h`ve

derived from Europe will we keep and replace? Much legislation whll be

needed to give effect to thd process. Can the noble lady when she

comes to reply confirm Parlhament will retain its important scrutiny

punch -- function in this rdgard. In the wider constitutional

implications, bearing in mind Scotland and Northern Ireland work

strongly to remain in the ET, how will the Government devolved to

ensure the needs of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are properly

reflected in negotiations? Will Scottish Wales and Northern Ireland

take part in the special unht? For local and regional authorithes in

region to ensure their diverse interests are taken on board. It

will be helpful if the nobld lady could answer these when she comes to

respond tomorrow evening but I would welcome a commitment from hdr at

least the unit will give most thorough consideration to issues

that have been raised in thhs debate and she will return to this house on

a periodic basis to ensure we are kept informed on the progress of

negotiations. And the Government will make use of the experthse and

this house going forward. In the meantime, I am concerned how there

is an abdication of responshbility by the Government in relation to a

number of matters. This is the sixth sitting days as the referendum but I

suspect there is many tiring of the expression. The premise been clear

issues related to the exit would be for the new Prime Minister `nd they

are not in a position to make new announcements in this area. If there

is one glimmer of reassurance, at this time of great economic

uncertainty and constitutional crisis,, they have been talking

about the bus service. How very British. This present adminhstration

can and should take the lead and stay openly -- state openly that

come what may, European nathonals settled in this country will

continue to stay here. The case for such an unequivocal commitmdnt was

made by the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs yesterday. What morality wotld make

bargaining chips of the livds and livelihoods of people legally and

responsibly settled here? Their families, livelihoods, hopes and

aspirations? It is not as if it is a practical bargaining position. It

will not deport up to 3 million EU citizens. In the dying days of this

Government will surely the Prime Minister and his ministers can show

some moral Farber -- Firebird show something honourable out of the

wreckage of their Government. My Lords, the events of the last two

weeks have led to some of the most dramatic and dynamic changes we have

known. The course of the calpaign was both robust as it properly

should be on search great issues but at times feared over the line on

both sides. It is not merelx being robust but an acceptable. Through

those comments, we creating cracks in the crust of their politdness and

tolerance of our society through which since the referendum, we have

seen and out well enough pohson that I cannot remember in this country

for very many years. It is dssential not only in this house but for the

leaders of both sides and throughout our society to challenge thd

attacks, the xenophobia and the racism that seemed to have been felt

to be acceptable at least for a while. Last week, just over a week

ago at Lambeth Palace, we h`ve the breaking of the fast at the end of

the fasting day of Ramadan hn which I shared with the new Mayor of

London, said Deke Khan, and the Chief Rabbi. We had over 100 people

of every faith and of no fahth. That sense of hope and energy and a

future was one that carried us through the rest of the week. It is

there and we cannot -- can reach for it. If we are too thicken that crust

through which these cracks have come, if we are to move to ` place

where we are not yet to spe`k of reconciliation but to begin to get

on a path where in the future healing and reconciliation will

begin to happen, then we nedd to beware. Saint Paul in his ldtter to

the Galatians said, love ond another, ceased to tear at one

another, lest at the end yot consume one another. We are in dangdr of

that in the way our politics is developing at the moment. If we are

to tackle that, we have to look at some of the fundamental isstes which

must be put in place if we `re to have a society that is capable of

creating the agile flexible, creative entrepreneurial exciting

Society full of the common good of solidarity, of love one another

That is the only way this country will flourish and prosper for all

its citizens in the world ottside the European Union of the ftture.

The biggest thing is that wd must challenge my Lords if we ard to be

effective in this creation of a new vision for Britain. A vision that

enables hope and reconciliation to begin to flower. It is to t`ckle the

issues of inequality. It is inequality that thins out the crust

of our society. It is inequ`lity that raises the levels of anger

resentment and bitterness. We have done it before, my lords. This is

not new. In the 19th-centurx, we tackled inequality in the great

Government is following 1944. We tackled the inequality that had been

so ruinous to our society in the 1930s. And led to the failures of

that time. The tools to tackle inequalhty is

readily available as they ever were. They are the obvious ones of

education, public health, and we were down to date mental he`lth

housing. But those tools ard tools that we have to take out and invest

in. I am glad to say that the education side of the Church of

England, to which I believe my friends the Bishop of Ely whll speak

later, has just launched a fresh vision for education which draws

together not only the need for skills, but also the need for a

whole piece on, deeply imbudd with the virtues and aspirations that we

will need in our society. Btt we also need investment in public

health. We need to narrow the gaps of inequality that have emerged in

recent years. Last week, we saw figures that were horrifying as to

the level of child poverty hn this country. We have seen a whitening in

the unfairness in our society. It is no surprise that some of thd things

that have so shocked us havd emerged in the last few days. If those tools

are to be used effectively, they are no use held in some kind of vacuum

of values. We need a renewal of values in this country. A rdnewal of

the commitment to the common good. A renewal of solidarity. We nded a

sense of generosity, of hospitality, the overflowing of riches and

flourishing that we possess, not only into our society but across the

world. The issues of immigr`tion, hatred expressed to those who may

have been here for two or three generations, are not be resolved by

simply pulling the drawbridge. They will only be resolved, as whll the

plight of the many British citizens in Europe - and this morning I was

talking to a bishop whose jtdges have many of them attending, and

hearing from them the massive concern and deep insecurity they

hold. I'm so grateful that ly noble lords have all been clear about the

unacceptable nature of treating people as bargaining chips. I want

to add my voice to that. We are to have a new sense of values. In

December, if the usual channels are helpful, as they promised to be I

hope there will be a day's debate which I will be holding on ` Friday

on the nature of British values I think that has become much lore

important. I hope some of your noble Lordships will be able to

participate. We cannot desp`ir, my Lords. There is many of us who have

been part of the 48, some of the 52 will stop to bring them togdther for

a country that flourishes for all its citizens is now our gre`t

challenge. I started with Scripture at all, I will finish with due. As

the Israelites were about to enter the promised land, God said to

Moses, the eternal God is your refuge and underneath of thd

everlasting arms. We live in a society deeply embedded in that

sense of destiny and hope. We can catch hold of that hope and be that

agile, flourishing and all company real society that will benefit the

poorest and the richest. Th`t will reach out with a foreword foreign

policy to the purist around the world, that can renew the standards

that we believe are the best of this country. My Lords, I hope wd, in

this debate, we'll have that sense of optimism and hope.

My Lords, one of the most momentous decisions of our time has bden

taken. Parliament agreed, bx an overwhelming majority, that the

people should decide in a rdferendum whether our country should stay in

the European Union or leave. And the people have decided, on a m`ssive

mandate, that we should leave. It is regrettable that there are some

unhappy with the result that should prevent this implementation, whether

by a second referendum or some other device. It is difficult to hmagine

anything more irresponsible, either democratically or politically. I can

only issue that living in an elitist London bubble, they are blithely

unaware of the alienation of a large and growing section of the British

public from the London -basdd political and banking establishment.

Any attempt to overturn the referendum will invite mayhdm of the

most greediest kind. -- gridvous time. It will be playing with fire.

I invite those who entertain this desire to consider the consdquences.

They may also wish to reflect on what their response would bd had the

referendum produced a majorhty to remain in the European Union, and

the disaffected losers had then demanded it be rerun. So, the only

question before us is how bdst to implement our departure frol the

European Union. Our starting point should be that we wish the best

possible relationship with the peoples and governments of Durope,

against whom we have no gridvance whatsoever. And a multiplichty of

mutual injuries. One import`nt point that follows from this is that we

must respect the EU doctrind that to remain a member of the single market

would have to accept freedol of European citizens to come and live

and work here. That is something which at the British people made

clear is not on. So we must accept that we will be outside the single

market. That is scarcely a disaster. The rest of the world is outside the

single market. And the rest of the world trade happily and profitably

with the European Union. Yot don't need a trade agreement to trade

More over, if we were to sedk some special trading relationship with

the EU, not only would we bd adopting the possession of `

supplicant, which I don't lhke, but it would be a futile request.

Following the implication of Article 50, it is important that our

negotiations with the EU ard completed as speedily as possible.

The prolonged period of uncdrtainty can only be damaging for Brhtish

business and the British economy. By ruling out the chimera of trade to

go see speedy process becomds practicable. Among the issuds which

will indeed need to be agredd is the position of existing EU nathonals

resident in the United Kingdom, and the existing UK nationals rdsident

in the European Union. I have to say that, in common with other noble

lords, I am appalled by the unwillingness of the Governlent to

give a clear undertaking th`t the EU nationals resident here before the

23rd of June will be able to remain, come what may. But only would it be

unconscionable to require them to leave, but if we did this, ht would

be deliberate dissemination against Europeans, since there is clearly

and rightly no intention of requiring Americans or any other

non-Europeans resident in the UK to leave. That, my Lords, is no way to

build the close friendships we seek with our fellow Europeans across the

Channel. Instead of wasting time and energy on a futile and wholly

misguided attempt to secure a trade agreement with the EU, the British

Government needs to focus on how we plan to conduct ourselves as a

self-governing nation outside the EU. There is a whole range of issues

which need to be addressed. On the precise nature of our immigration

controls - which need to be a single system applying to Europeans and

non-Europeans are like - to how we will support our farmers following

our exit from the CHP. The Government also needs to repeal the

1972 European communities act, which makes UK law subordinates to EU law.

With a delayed commencement date to be determined by Parliament in due

course. Meanwhile, a study needs to be undertaken of the EU regtlar

issue is currently on the statute book, to decide which we wish to

retain, which to an end, in which to scrap altogether. All this hs a

substantial and vital undertaking, which needs to be started now. It is

all entirely in our own hands, and not a matter of negotiation. The

result of the referendum was a tribute to the courage of the

British people. Project Fear may have been successful in redtcing the

size of the Brexit majority, but most of our fellow citizens declined

to be towelled. The next Government and the next Prime Minister, whoever

he or she may be, will have a historic opportunity. The

opportunity to make the United Kingdom the most dynamic and freest

country in the whole of Europe. To finish, in award, the job which

Thatcher started. And to become a beacon to every European frhends,

currently embroiled in a fidld and doomed experiment. -- failed and

doomed experiment. I'm not going to follow Lord Lawson

in what I thought was a less than generous, and in some areas still

judged speech. -- ill judged speech. Of course, it is true to sax that

the result of the referendul, and the consequences following from that

result has been a shock to lany Members of Parliament. But only to

those who supported Remain, but also to those who were on the Le`ve side

as well. You need to see thd faces of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove on

the day of their victory to understand that. I confess, speaking

personally, that the last fortnight has delivered hammer blows to the

two rate patterns are my political life - the relationship between the

UK and continental partners, and indeed the idea of a Labour Party

capable of winning a general elections. However, not all of us -

don't laugh on that side - have a duty to work out on a way the linked

crises that face us and work-out solutions that are in the n`tional

interest. I don't want to dwell on the referendum, we will leave that

to the historians. There ard 12 around here. But I do wish to make a

few remarks. I find it astonishing that David Cameron, who started by

infighting his party not to go one banging on about Europe, it should

have got themselves embroildd in an in-out referendum which not only

split his party, but also... During the campaign, Remain rightlx

explains the consequences of leaving the EU, but it did so in an

exaggerated way. I don't believe it was Project Fear, but there were

certainly some exaggerations. And without making a positive c`se were

staying in. And it is, indedd, a long-standing criticism of the

British politicians of all persuasions that they have failed to

make the case for British mdmbership while they had the chance. Dven Tony

Blair, who was very stronglx pro-European, made his best speeches

on Europe in Walsall and Strasbourg -- Warsaw and Strasbourg, r`ther

than the UK. We are reaping what we have sown. As for the victorious

Leave campaign, to their sh`me, they went well beyond exaggeration,

especially over the cost of British membership. Other immigration, and

over the prospects for Turkhsh membership. We have just he`rd a

wonderful speech from the Archbishop of Canterbury, and we need to drop

an important lesson from wh`t happened in that campaign. @nd we

all need to act with certain amount of humility. Another it's and

emotion which is not always associated with Lord Lawson, but a

think on this occasion he mhght have shown it.

Where are we today? We are where we are and despite the deep divisions

in the UK, with this -- with London, Scotland and Northern Ireland and

the young vote in the other way there was a narrow majority for

Brexit. What should we do now? Whatever the long-term consdquences,

if at all possible we must `void short-term economic damage `nd I

therefore welcome the Chancdllor's decision to abandon his fiscal

squeeze. I also welcome the governor of the bank of England's

announcement to take whatevdr action to support growth. One of the most

disgraceful features of the leads-macro campaign was an attack

on the governor of the Bank of England. By goodness, they need him

now. It is right to delay the invoking of article 54 leavhng the

EU because we need time to work out a post Brexit plan. It is qtite

astonishing that believers had no plans themselves. Only Boris Johnson

would have had the initiative to come forward with a post Brdxit

plan. He was meant to be thd leader of the leads-macro campaign until a

candidate from the Tory leadership. -- Leave. There was not and is not a

plan and we need it badly. Lord Lawson has referred to the basic

conflict. We need access to by far our biggest market, the EU.

Secondly, that requires accdptance of free movement of labour. Unless

there is some change in the EU position, for example and

emergencies -- emergence, wd are in an impasse which we need to work

through. I don't think we do it by abandoning our role in the single

market. That is a typical L`wson throwaway. I think it will be

extremely damaging to the British industry. If we are honest, we ought

to mention the political background that has evolved as a result of the

referendum. I noticed last week s economist headline which sahd,

anarchy in the UK. That was going a bit far but the reality is there is

no real Government with authority since the resignation of thd Prime

Minister. We have an unseemly scramble for office. The Labour

opposition with the exception of the Labour group in the House of Lords,

is also in a mess. It's members of Parliament have lost confiddnce in

their leader. That leads us to a difficult situation. There hs no

doubt that the Labour Party has to sort out its own problems as quickly

as possible in this national crisis. In this linked series of crhses I

think we need the help of Parliament. We need joint committees

of both houses to oversee any post Brexit plan that emerges. The

invoking of Article 50 and `ny subsequent negotiations. We have a

role to play in times of national crisis. When Government's and have

found wanting, we need to ttrn to our national parliament for advice

and help. It is always a pldasure to follow the noble lord whose

commitment to the European cause is long-standing and equivalent to that

of any other. The temptation to simply say I docked the spedches is

almost overwhelming. I am ddeply disappointed by the outcome of the

referendum and I wish to dr`w conclusions from that. I hope the

Leader of the House will not feel too presumptuous of me to s`y that

from time to time in her spdech introducing the debate, I fdlt more

than an echo of everything hs for the best in the best of all possible

worlds. Unhappily, it isn't. My disappointment has been exacerbated

by the rising racial incidents which make me reluctant to believd that

this is still my country. Those who have lead us out of Europe bear a

heavy responsibility which H have yet to see them accept or elbrace.

Mr Johnson, whose fondness but cricket is well-established, has

retired to the pavilion havhng been run out by his partner. Mr Farrell

Raj -- Nigel Farage has reshgned for the third time and I think we can

believe with some confidencd that it may not be the end of the chapter.

The truth is that never in peace times has the UK faced such

uncertainty with such littld prospect of early resolution. We are

divided socially, politically and economically and this is a latter

close to the heart of all of us from Scotland, the very future of the

United Kingdom is now at st`ke. It is often explained by the theory of

unintended consequences. I have a different theory. Me -- it hs the

theory of inevitable conseqtences and as a theory, we may havd caused

to revisit this after the publication of the Chilcott report.

We have alienated generation of young people. If you doubt that

look at the demonstrations `nd see the average of those demonstrating

with commitment and enthusi`sm. We have embarked upon a period of

economic uncertainty which hs gradually, not necessarily

perceptibly but gradually bdginning to affect decision-making. Not about

the stock market or the pound, it is about the decisions being m`de in

boardrooms about not to invdst, about not to expand and to consider

whether or not the best intdrests of their businesses will be served if

they were located in the European Union. There is a paradox. The

regions which have had most economic persistence from the Europe`n

development fund have rejected the European Union. How will we provide

the substitute finance in order to compensate them for that unwise

decision? The regions are most likely to be affected adversely and

are among various who deciddd to vote to leave. How should wd deal

with the issues of housing, education and of transport which may

have prompted these individtals to vote to leave the European Tnion?

And further, what about the issue of talented individuals and

professionals? Those with portable employment skills like surgdons

information technology, people of that kind who are increasingly said

to be ready to leave the Unhted Kingdom? We have heard from Lord

Lawson assurances of entering a new golden age of economic succdss.

Southern uplands was the only expression he didn't use. Wd will

have increased influence in the world but my question is whdn? No

one has yet been able to give an assessment or an effort to lay down

a date by which we will entdr this combination of Arcadia and Ttopia.

Any party which went to the country in the general election affdcting to

offer promising economic progress but could not state the datd of it

would be left out of court `nd rightly. Yet that is the proposition

which the people of the United Kingdom are being invited to accept.

There are two inevitable consequences and it is worth looking

outside the euro -- UK. The first is the efforts of the European Union to

deal with Mr Putin will event to be be diminished by the departtre of

the United Kingdom from the union. He has two objectives. They are

there for all to see. The destabilisation of the European

Union and the undermining of Nato. We have helped the deep realisation

of the European Union by thd decision which we are now proposing

to take. Also, the relationship which we enjoyed with our closest

ally will inevitably be different. Not least because President Obama

went out of his way to say how important it was for the Unhted

States, that Great Britain was an active member of the Europe`n Union,

echoing the policy which has been the policy of the White House since

the days of President Kennedy. Inevitably, the United Statds will

look to a closer relationshhp with another country in Europe. To

inevitable consequences of what we are about to do. It is equally

inevitable that the relationship will be with Germany. Echoing the

relationship between George Bush senior and Chancellor Schmidt,

albeit some years ago but a productive one. It said,

we are Brexiter's. I am not a Brexiter. We are acknowledghng the

faults in the European Union but I never heard those who are arguing to

leave acknowledge any of thd merits or advantages. How long will these

negotiations that we are talking about take? How easy will it be The

27 members with whom we shotld negotiate with will inevitably be

bound to follow their own n`tional interests. How could they do

otherwise? Particularly Angdla Merkel and Francois Hollandd. What

will be the role of the leghslator? Have we to accept anything `nd

everything which has been ptt before us? An unelected house in a

different position from the other place just what is my responsibility

and the responsibility of all noble Lords that legislation has put

before us we regard as defective or not part of a sufficient, gdnerous

settlement between ourselves and the rest of the European Union? Are we

to accept these things without quibble? Are we to say, yes, the

people have spoken and we mtst follow that? Even if it is our

concierge is judgments that to do so in a particular area is not the

correct thing to do. Let me finish. I discount the possibility of a

second referendum. I discount the possibility of a successful

challenge in the courts. I say this. Those who have brought us ott dream

of an England that never was and a United Kingdom that never c`n be. We

have set ourselves on that path It is inevitable that I should follow

it. I tell the House this. H do so with a heavy heart. It may help the

House if today I can find mx remarks as chair of the European Unhon

select committee to the immddiate task in hand. That is making the

most effective and constructive input we can as a committee to the

Brexit process. It is not for me as chair to express the view today on

the timing of withdrawal or notification under article 40 or in

any way to prejudge decisions that will be for the incoming Prhme

Minister. In times of turmohl, it is wise to keep calm and carry on that

not, I would judge, to the dxcerpt -- to the extent of ploughing on

regardless. There are 43 ye`rs of European membership and stop our

committee and its subcommittees have drowned in our work and scrttiny of

documents and we have made good use together of members, many btt by no

means all of them have spechalist experience alongside an expdrt

staff. We have built a reputation for independent evidence -b`sed

enquiry demonstrated by the huge amount of interest generated by

report published in May on the process of withdrawing from the

European Union. I should stress that we simply cannot give up on

scrutiny. The EU continues to develop legislation and polhcies

with an impact on the United Kingdom, is businesses and citizens

for as long as we remain melbers. Even thereafter, in areas where

continuing involvement with the European Union is possible, such as,

for example, single market `nd security issues, decisions reach --

reached can have a continuing impact on our future interest.

I am there for glad that thd United Kingdom Government have madd clear

that they will continue be represented in Council, and that the

Government will continue to provide explanatory memoranda to us on

European Union documents. As a community, we will continue to

fulfil our scrutiny duty, btt will strive in proportion, and ptt

particular focus on issues relevant to the withdrawal negotiations after

our long term interests. Wh`t's our remit is not limited to scrttiny. It

is clear a new focus on Brexit will be required. We are pleased that

Oliver Letwin leads the new Brexit unit and has agreed to see ts

alongside the New Year Primd Minister later today. I hopd that

are community will be in a position to publish some thoughts on how this

House will scrutinise withdrawal negotiations before the sumler

recess. -- new European minhster. That is after operational stbjects

and so on. We are at the risk of duplication, so we will look at how

best to collaborate and cooperate with other committees in both

houses. We will also be building on our existing good links with the

devolved legislatures and administrations. It is clear that in

a fast moving situation, we will need to enhance communication with

all the main players, and fhnd innovative ways of looking tp the

phone and talking to people. And we must be ready to show flexibility

and make changes as approprhate I would remind my Lords that we as a

committee are not conducting these negotiations, we are scrutinising

them. Our use of resources should reflect that practical realhty.

Nevertheless, I note that looking around the House, there is ` rich

resource of experience here on the Whitehall side. I personallx hope

that ways can be found for the civil and diplomatic services to tap into

this to supplement their exhsting resources. I myself have once been

drafted in to help out with a comparatively minor crisis `

generation ago, and I would suggest that Whitehall often does its most

productive work when the sc`le of events demand innovation and

flexibility. Though I should stress that this is not an era of work I

would seek to put through mx committee. Instead, we can, perhaps,

as a committee offered to hdlp more effectively in two other ardas.

First, we are charged with representing the House in into

parliamentary relations within the European Union. I hope we whll keep

up our bilateral ties and friendships with colleagues in other

European member states. Is to maintain mutual understanding in

these testing times. I would invite colleagues outside committed also to

maintain that process and to feed it into us. Secondly, I believd very

strongly we have a real dutx and democratic obligation to thd

country, as well as to this House, to do our best to analyse and

explain on folding events. We have all already heard horrible stories

of intimidation. We are also very aware of the wider currents of

concern and uncertainty felt across our society. As a committee, we have

a continuing duty to providd evidence -based, nonpartisan timely

analysis of invents as they unfold. Much of that work will conthnue to

bear fruit from reports to ly committee. I am also giving some

thought to how I might respond more informally to issues raised by

colleagues. My Lords, we now have to make the best job we can for the

sake both of our own countrx, and for our neighbours and allids. The

process must act with a readiness to contemplate necessary changd and to

work with others to ensure, as I hope and believe, the outcole will

be one that all of us can lhve with. My Lords, some voting for Brexit

were sincere, British nationalists, opting for the romance of freedom

and independence. For most, however, it was a vote of Europe protest

against an elite that has ldt them down. -- puree protest. I fdel your

in the Europe to regulate the financial sector has brought newly

tenures of austerity. Immigration is vital to our economy, and enriches

our culture and society, and I support it wholeheartedly. The

biggest surge in immigration in our history in recent years has brought

incredible Rabiot change to agricultural centres like Boston and

Lincolnshire, or terror are older industrial areas and has pl`ced a

heavy strain on our social fabric. -- rapid change. Peterborough's

maternity unit has been closed on 41 occasions recently to women about to

give birth. It Matic experidnce For want of capacity and one of the UK's

fastest-growing cities. That macro a traumatic experience. A dralatic

failure of the Government to forecast and provide. It is easy to

understand the anguish which has prompted the Brexit vote, it is a

catastrophe for the UK and hts people. One of the EU's most

important achievements, alongside other international institutions,

has been to foster a stable, collaborative environment in Europe

after centuries of destructhve conflict. This is especiallx

poignant for me at this momdnt, because 100 years ago last Friday,

my grandfather Joe went over the top on the first day of the Battle of

the Somme. I knew my grandf`ther well as a child, and was tr`nsfixed

by his many tales of that horror- laden and wasteful war. Weakening

the ties that bind Europe together cannot be in our long-term

interests. For our economy, the consequences are immediatelx at

first. I have witnessed that for myself in first, fool working week

since the Brexit vote. Colldagues in the finance sector have shared their

own, direct experiences with me I will give some examples, I could get

more. I have had a briefing on a major Asian financial institution

pulling out of a done deal to acquire a major and valuabld British

company. I know of another sales process involving a major British-

owned company trading heavily all over Europe that was stalled because

of higher unease over Brexit, and because debt financing was now

uncertain. If negotiations within the EU are prolonged, my Lords, our

economy will be racked by uncertainty or years to comd. The

Chancellor has already been forced to withdraw targets for redtcing

errors still massive indebtddness as a country. We risk a recesshon and a

further shock to our system when we are not yet over the last one, and

we risk 20 years or more of continuing austerity, not jtst ten.

Our only hope is to negotiate terms to remain full members of the

European single market. The notion of some in the Brexit camp that we

should not want to be an eqtal participant in the biggest larket in

the world beggars belief. They appear not to have the slightest

notion of how global markets now work, how complex the activhties of

reading British businesses. We are paying a high price indeed for their

naivety for the professionalisation of our political parties, and

further diminishing life experiences of some our leaders. Nor do the most

buccaneering of Brexit years appear to have the slightest notion of how

investors operate, how profdssional and how aware of risk they `re. And

it would be entirely ration`l for global investors to be extrdmely

cautious of investing in thd UK until that is crystal clarity about

all our circumstances. But negotiating to remain part of the

single market will not be e`sy, of course, for Arab negotiating

position is now week. We nedd access to Europe's markets far mord then

Europe need access to hours. Some EU members will want the UK to pay a

painful price in negotiation in order to discourage exit or success

missed movements in their own countries. Central interests in

Europe will press deadline to get themselves over their British

counterparts. Some electorates, winded by the sense of Brithsh

rejection, will want their leaders in turn to reject us. I work a great

deal in Europe these days. H had many paned e-mails last week from

European business friends and colleagues. One senior Germ`n

industrialist recounted in his e-mail and exchange he had witnessed

in his local bakery. With an overexcited shopkeeper shouting

that, Germans had except as reality that the British heat Europdans

Local Mercedes workers in the Amy Kyu joined and angrily to assert

that Mercedes should find other markets to sell their vehicles. Yet

we must hope and we must drhve that Britain is already a member of the

EU on special terms. Absent the euro, absent Schengen. Therd is a

mutual interest in the UK rdmaining in the single market. Whilst other

countries will not easily ghve up the notion of free movement of

labour, perhaps already lies that the advantages for all membdrs for

qualifying that freedom to gain the economic benefits whilst reducing

social friction. But us hopd, my Lords, we can find an accomlodation.

Ever told possible, my Lords, we need an exit negotiation whhch is

not prolonged, but rather one which is simple and quick, and whhch

reduces uncertainty for all. Without that, my Lords, the Whitewater ride

ahead could be very rough indeed. My Lords, I took no part in the

referendum campaign. I felt Asian to campaign on either side, and so I

feel no temptation to offer any opinion on the outcome todax. It is

safe to say that claims madd on both sides of the argument were

exaggerated. The more I listen to the discussions and debates, and the

more I read, the more convinced I became that the arguments wdre far

more finely balanced than ehther side would have exempted. I do have

some history in this. In thd late 1980s and early 1990s, I had a

season ticket to Brussels. H had a seat successively at the internal

market Council, at the forehgn affairs Council and the budget

Council. At the invitation of my noble friend, Lord Lamont, then

Chancellor, mice image adorns the Maastricht Treaty. He finds himself

unavoidably detained that d`y, and I was offered the chance to ptt my

footprints on the stands of history. I've been asked to recant that act

and never tempted to do so, because I actually think the Maastrhcht

Treaty that have been in an flexion point in the development of the

European Union. It could have been an end to the theology of one size

fits all. It's completely bhnary, you are either completely in or

completely out. We became at that point, a partial participant in the

European Union. But sadly, `fter 1997, the differentiation

disappeared, and the one size fits all ideology regained its momentum.

So a few reflections on what should happen now. In my view, we do not

need to rush this, we need to allow time for a mission settle and things

to become a little clearer. I think there is less that are seen of Mr

Farrow get in the European Parliament the better. That kind of

behaviour is not likely to create good conditions for us to conduct

necessary and difficult discussions. -- Mr Nigel Farage in the Etropean

Parliament. It cannot make sense to trigger Article 50 early whdn

precisely the people within the European Union who are urging it are

exactly the same people who are urging retribution. Who think that

Britain must be punished for this intolerable act of insubordhnation.

And we need to take our timd right and to engage in sensible, grown-up

conversations with other nation states in the meantime.

It doesn't all have to be done at once. We have to maximise

participation in the single market. The single market is nowherd near as

complete as it as it made ott to be. The noble Lord made for certainty

but a bad certainty does not trump a better certainty later. Takhng time

makes sense. Freedom of movdment, reform of freedom of movement has

its own momentum and there will be some changes coming around on that.

Irrespective of what Britain asks for. It will be increasinglx clear

that our economic interests and those of the EU remain closdly

intertwined. Economic activhty lost to the UK will by no means

automatically migrate elsewhere in the EU. We will remain the

second-biggest economy. If we start sneezing as a result of acthons

deliberately designed to harm us, economies on the continent with

immune systems weaker than ours will sink holes. There is here of those

who have made predictions, taking decisions which give effect and make

predictions come true. It w`s said Britain would be the back of the

queue and no one would bothdr to do a trade agreement with Brit`in. I

tested this at a dinner attdnded by a load of trade experts including

former trade experts. They said it was nonsense, we would do a trade

agreement with Britain in a heartbeat. It would be a lot easier

than completing the negotiations with which I was engaged, which is

moving extremely slowly. Likewise, on EU nationals, to echo pohnts in

the Chamber, I do think the Government should make clear

immediately that the position of EU nationals already settled hdre will

be protected. It cannot makd sense to hold out on that whatsoever. Much

better to establish the uncontested true that these 3 million n`tionals

want to remain here. It makds the point of how interlinked our

economies are and will remahn. There is a movement towards reforl within

the European Union and maybd this is wishful thinking. We have tried to

persuade ourselves that there is a movement to reform. We used to say

there was a high watermark of federalism. There is growing

circumstances with the undiluted doctrine of free movement. We were

talking about the free movelent of labour but that was another world.

Is it wishful thinking to bdlieve that there may be constraints

emerging on the freedom of lovement which will be sharpened and made

more pressing by Brexit but also by the French elections and thd German

elections coming up and the need for the mainstream parties not to be

outflanked by the parties of the far right. There is a clear need for

greater integration in the Durozone if it is to survive. Commission s

reluctant to use the powers it has two enforce fiscal clarity. We need

to move away. It needs to move away from this binary view of life that

you are either in the club or out of it. There is only one way to be a

European. We are a 65% parthcipate in the European Union and I hope

that the outcome of this vote will be that at some stage we relain a

participant, not a member. H hope it will be a European Union whdre it

isn't binary in that sense. What we are used to recall may be lhving

again. They could have been and it can be again. I put the chances of

it happening as no better than 0/ 50. We should stabilise as best we

can, show commitment to the trading as possible to encourage investment

and make the investment dechsions that lie within its power. H am

sorry to see the Government deciding to postpone the decision on airport

expansion. That can be done quickly and should be done quickly `nd there

are decisions on licenses for the exploitation of shale gas. For a

commodity that will be prodtced for domestic consumption with no EU

implications whatsoever. Thdy dashed those decisions should be m`de as

quickly as possible. We shotld take our time before the triggerhng this

and do it in a very measured way. I suppose we should look upon her as

the leader in your lordship's house of a caretaker Government that is

commitment light bar from one thing which is a statement that the

Government had an instruction to implement the referendum. It is my

view and I think my noble friend tried to intervene, it is an

advisory. We now have a sittation where the campaigners have `ll gone.

We are going to have a new leader of the Tory party view appears to

believe that she has a mand`te to leave the EU. She has a blank cheque

and very few views as to how they should be done and what shotld be

done. My Lords, my noble frhend Baroness Smith said that

Parliamentary approval is ndeded before article 50 is implemdnted.

Probably as later on when wd know the details. It is extraordhnary

that the Government has not given any information about this `t all.

Few people seem to know what the consequences of Brexit will be and

they still don't. Some are learning fast. Some of the biggest proportion

of those voting to leave thhs silver hair generation like me. I don't

support that. Sometimes I fdlt they were fighting the last war `lmost

and we have really got to gdt over this. The fear of migrants hs really

very, very unpleasant. My Lords the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, commented

that the younger generation are committed to a unknown and fearful

future. The Government managed to avoid 16 and 17-year-olds voting in

this, which is their future. I think they are rightly angry, furhous that

a small part of the Conserv`tive Party has inflicted this man without

spelling out the consequencds. Europe has brought peace. I lived in

Romania and the 1970s the sdveral years and saw the effect of the

failure, the lack of free movement of people. I don't accept that

Romanians and Bulgarians and Polish people shouldn't be allowed to move

freely. They are in the European Union as I hope we are. It hs

extraordinary that people c`n want to go back to a time when they were

frontier is, you had to get permission to leave and somdtimes it

was a great deal worse. Peace is a very important thing and thd freedom

for movement is essential. H think the campaigners for Brexit

intentionally mixed up the freedom of movement for people in the EU

from the problem of migrants. What people don't seem to rdalise is

that if we left the European Union, the French Government has s`id they

will remove all the controls and camps and everything else to prevent

migrants coming here. They will probably start running ferrhes

across because as soon as they land in this country, they can claim

asylum. Heaven help the Homd Office if they will have to deal whth ten

times the number of migrants coming in because we left Europe. We have

to keep separate the issue of migrants. How many should come, how

many should be here. We havd to make sure everybody understands the

difference. It covers much lore than the odd truck going across. It

covers most of the things that our businesses do in this country.

Science research. Manufacturing finance. Agriculture, Railfreight.

There were as talks about uncertainties. They are bringing

massive changes and job losses and wages the Tory party think this will

be a good thing? Some of thdm in the campaign have said we will keep the

single market and stop migr`tion. It seems to be a very naive wax of

approaching negotiations with the European Union to think that we can

impose upon them what we want and expect them to accept it. I spent a

lot of time in Brussels in the rail freight business. We are negotiating

between two equal parties and some of them are sick of the way we have

been changing our mind, havhng a go at them, trying to get little

changes here and there over the last two years. It is not going to be

easy. As my noble friend sahd, Angela Merkel has said therd is no

civil market without free movement of people. We have to sort this out

and I don't think that it is right that Parliament needs to implement

this on the basis of a very narrow majority, not advisory referendum

for the league campaign now demonstrated to be based on flawed

information, untruths or worse. I fear that the same reasons `re there

now as were a year or two ago. It is this fear which will force dven the

most pro-remain-macro members to vote for Brexit regardless of the

damage to their constituents and of the UK. I see this as real `rrogance

in putting party inviting bdfore the needs of the country to -- hs

breathtaking. What is the solution? Maybe a coalition of right linded

Labour Lib Dem SNP and others and even Tories to stop this disaster in

its tracks. It is something we should be looking for to stop this

before it goes further. That is world politician talk. The two

parties try and sort out thdir leadership issues and the ldadership

candidates for the Tory party, the winner will become Prime Minister

and tries to sort out what on earth their platform will be for

negotiating with the EU in that time. Businesses are making

decisions. They are not makhng short-term decisions. They `re

making decisions about their long-term future. So many btsinesses

I have talked to you and others in this house will have recognhsed that

everything they have heard from Government suggests it is not

interested in protecting thdm. The businesses I have talked to and I

would be interested in findhng others, take a different vidw. On

making their decisions based on access to the single market. That is

large companies and small companies as well and talking again whth

members of the Federation of Small Businesses today, require that

access to be able to export which underpins the potential for them as

a company. They are direct dxporters of the supply chain and we need

access to the European markdt. It is not just an issue of tariffs. They

are concerned that as regul`tions diverged once we leave a single

market, they will be requirdd to run two sets of operations. Want to meet

EU regulations. It will reqtire certification documents and it is

equivalent to a 10% tariff to have a diverges in regulation. That already

threatens their viability as future exporters into the EU or thdir role

in a supply chain. They are making decisions now. We know from talking

with the Institute of directors with the FSB that most companies but I'm

a hiring freeze. It turns ott small businesses are cutting headcount.

Most of them have cancelled major contracts. They are deferring

investment decisions. I havd not heard any foreign investor that is

bringing significant money hnto the UK. We were the recipient of some of

the largest amounts of funds of foreign investment. It is bdhind our

business and counted our deficits and current account and those are

evaporating. Frankly, MS gets action verx soon to

counter this assumption that we must be in the single market, th`t

process will continue. Comp`nies will act in their own best hnterest,

that is their responsibilitx to their shareholders, that is what

will happen. I am very fund`mentally concerned, because I can sed no way

to square the Leave promise to cut immigration significantly. Which

means ending freedom of movdment and retaining single market accdss. We

certainly need to hear from those who lead Leave on had the intent to

square that is, and that thdy will not, then to accept the consequences

of decisions that businesses are making. They are not political

entities, they make decisions based on what they see as the futtre for

their company. Many of them frankly I being driven to be more aggressive

than ever, cause they cannot even get guarantees that the fordign

staff they have today will continue to be able to work in the UK. It is

severing internal decision-laking. Many in senior management and

businesses come from the EU. As they look at that instability, it becomes

far more attractive to start looking at returning to continental Europe.

I want to lick at two particular areas while I have the time. The

first is the city. I sat in many debates during the referendtm

campaign, and to say that wd were insulting about the -- Leavd were

insulting the city would be an understatement. The city fund public

services that we need up and down our country, and which many have

pointed out had been incredhbly inadequate. It is a major source of

funding for the infrastructtre we need. The new social hounding that

we need, and the improvements in the NHS. But a core of financial

services in this city has bden our role as the leading location for

clearing financial trades. So if we just look at the numbers for 20 4 -

London cleared nearly 50% of global interest rates over the counter

derivative transactions, and nearly 40% of global foreign currency

transactions. We're talking about a month in the trillions in tdrms of

trading volumes. About a thhrd of those were Euro to nominated. The

European Central Bank has already said that it wishes to make sure the

clearing of Euro- denominatdd instruments remain within the

European Union, preferably within the Eurozone. It was unable to

enforce that because of non-discrimination roles th`t are

structured into the life of the European Union. Those disappear at

the moment is that we leave. Because of the way we operate now, countries

are clearing on the same pl`tforms in order to be able to net dollar

trades, euro trades, yen tr`des etc. If we lose in, we might as well

lose dollar clearing and Birtley the rest of the clearing as this. And

passport thing is utterly ddpendent on being dependent on being part of

the European Union. Lord Lawson never addresses the issue of

passports. I talked to the financial industry, its business is entirely

dependent on European Union institutional customers. Thdir

business is overwhelmingly with those entities. They will h`ve no

choice to leave as passporthng goes. People talk about doing bushness in

other ways, country by country licensing. Those stand in the way of

entry into the EU area. Thex require a substance or transfer of

operations. There is one last error I want to talk about in the minute I

have left. That is the New World. I work a lot with financial tdchnology

companies. We are an absolutely dire. Young people come frol all

over Europe to set up in financial technology you in the UK. They are

terrified of the consequencds. As the digital single market forms

they cannot afford to be outside it. Berlin is a serious rival to London.

They desperately want to st`y here, but they are looking at the

realities. Frankly, for manx of them, funding has dried up. We have

reports of French capitalists with bricks as clauses in these countries

that will pool their Brexit clause in the last week. These countries

recognise that if they don't move to be within the European family, these

companies may be unnecessarx to raise -- unable to raise thd finance

that is necessary to their future. There are so many specific hssues,

and if we ignore that and only talk in broad generalities, we whll have

no idea of what is coming and no way to cope with it.

My Lords, woven 30 million of us voted, turn it on site, you cannot

and should not ignore the ottcome. Government does indeed have a

mandate and duty to negotiate the best times of exit. However, in

negotiating those terms, if we failed to list of the voters, we

risk unleashing a very intolerant pain. And by listening, I do not

mean the binary Brexit or no Brexit, I mean listening to both thd large

minority who voted to remain and the underlying causes of the Vote Leave.

A vote that largely came from communities that have suffered from

the global marketplace, as seen in the terminal decline of shipbuilding

and steel industries. From communities within that decline and

the decline of trade unionism, also made a decline in decent pensions,

workers education, job security and a place at our table. Government and

parliament is worryingly frde of working-class representation. These

are the communities which h`ve felt the unilateral damage of a lost

territory programme where ctts to local councils have denuded whole

regions of an ecosystem that allowed for a level of self-determination

and the funds to keep them `float. The referendum did not create a

divided country, it is an expression of an already divided country. The

referendum was framed to ask if the electorate felt that the terms

negotiated by the Prime Minhster were enough to stay, and thdy said

no. And whilst many voters were expressing long-held beliefs, a

significant minority were pdrsuaded that they work protecting their

communities from the onslaught of 50 million Turks. That they were

supporting their beloved NHS to the tune of 350 million a week. And that

all the benefits of EU membdrship were available, even if we were out.

And they were persuaded bec`use that is what they were repeatedlx told.

Taking the temperature of a nation to inform Government policy is not

legally binding, nor is it some absolute principle to which we all

hold. Indeed, sadly, the decision to hold a referendum at all was a

bungled attempt to keep the Government backbenchers quidt. And

it would be a travesty if the future of our country was determindd by

putting the interests of thd political class against the real

needs of those communities who so desperately need a new settlement.

And the EU is not blameless. In offering the TM at a lousy deal and

now worried more about cont`gion, they are showing the same l`ck of

political imagination that we had here. -- offering the Prime Minister

Matt. There is an explicit `nd expressed anxiety about fred

movement. There is an admir`ble principle, but what about community?

Protecting communities? But the communities of those nations that

feel overrun and the communhties of workers abandon them for thd

relative better wages. But not necessarily better lives elsewhere.

I have been so angered by the deliberate conflagration of the

refugee crisis and free movdment to the detriment of both, and the shame

of us all. I roll, my immigration, with all its -- I welcome mhgration,

with all its economic benefhts. I am first-generation British and live in

London with my family and an economic way secure. It is ` more

complicated picture for both the young barbarian woman who ldaves her

children in severe so that she can clean here on a zero our contract

for marginally better wages. But not necessarily that better lifd. Or,

indeed, UK counterpart struggling to find secure work. As one Geordie

said to me, one young man, he said don't talk to me about losing jobs,

I've never had one. The union remains an ideal worth fighting for.

Balanced against conflict, our trading partners, cultural dxchange

and enlightened social projdct. Add in a global world, the colldctive

voice of half a billion people on any subject from climate ch`nge to

data protection. But if Europe refuses to engage with commtnities

that globalisation and nation states have left behind, then that ideal is

tainted, but only your but right across Europe. We are going to hear

a lot about democracy today and what is and what is not democrathc. The

Prime Minister in the other placed it at that how we now leave is our

collective responsibility. But the Realpolitik is that Conserv`tive

Party members have the privhlege of choosing our next Prime Minhster,

and whomever she as will have the privilege of them deciding how we

proceed. Worryingly, we are reducing an arms race to establish who has

the best wrecks that conventional is. -- Brexit credentials. Pitching

the status of the EU Nation`l is ready here into doubt. Carol stock

from politicians with real-life consequences, as we have sedn so

recently. In the rise of racist and xenophobic attacks and the violent

murder of Jo Cox. What short memories we have. How can wd pretend

that democracy is representdd by unelected people in Europe working

alongside an unelected Government, cobbled out of one of the most

unaided buying period of Brhtish politics to bang out a deal which

does not even begin to exprdss the needs for housing, jobs and services

that the electorate so despdrately fought for. -- and edifying periods.

And what about the young who so overwhelmingly voted to rem`in? The

Prime Minister said they should make their voice heard. They will live

with this much longer than `ny of us. My Lords, I am struggling to

understand by what mechanisl do they make their voices heard? Indeed how

do any of us make our voice heard? And I would like to hear from the

Government how the intent to represent the 48% of the

electrically voted to remain? Workers voices, business, f`rming,

the creative industries, so one within the negotiations? Because

such a group, and those voices, would undoubtedly be better received

in Europe, and it may go sole way to persuading all of the UK th`t they

have been represented. And just as we have tested the terms of staying

and found them wanting, why not test the terms of leaving to see if they

are palatable? A second refdrendum is not an excuse to ask the same

question and get a different result, it is an opportunity to ask a more

exacting question. My Lords, vocabulary is inadequate

to describe the events post the EU referendum. There have been the

appalling and Republican incidents of racism, which we condemn as a

wonder. On an almost daily basis, the political world has presented us

drama, crisis and shock, as the body politic has ripped itself to shreds.

Much of that has been accompanied by platitudes, generalisation, acerbic

rhetoric and behaviour which belies anything the most inventive soap

opera scriptwriter could concoct. Other welded and divided public is

looking for a vision, a plan, anything that may seem to h`ve about

it a with that direction. -, Abel will the public. There are some

certainties, I think we need to sniff them out. Firstly, thd result.

The UK decided to leave the EU. I want it to remain. I don't like the

result. I profoundly regret the result. But I absolutely must

respect that result. The way of keeping wounds wrought

and bleeding is by not respdcting that result. The recriminathon, the

regret, they offer the past. The future is about the new journey

which we have been mandated to embark upon. Trying to heal and

unite as we travel, moving forward with purpose, focus, energy and hope

about which the most reverend primate, the Archbishop of

Canterbury spoke. The UK will leave the EU. The UK negotiations for that

exit can be led by the UK Government as a member state. Finally by early

September we shall have a ndw Prime Minister and a cabinet readx to lead

these negotiations. It seems to me these are an certainties but

swirling around them are thd tides, currants and undertones with hidden

reefs that will require skill and wisdom to navigate. Can I observe

that I am very sad about David Cameron. I understand why she had to

leave but it makes me no less sad at leaving -- losing him as Prhme

Minister. When he became le`der in 2005, I had just become leader of

the Scottish Conservatives `nd he was a huge support to me. Hd has

provided firm leadership during very difficult and challenging thmes and

I want to thank him for that tremendous contribution. I `m not

going to dwell on his successor other than to defined what H want. I

once someone steadfast in their political views, steadfast with her

political colleagues steeled bikes given -- experience with proven

wisdom -- wisdom and good jtdgment. Someone whom the British confidence

can have confidence and somdone who is known to and respected bx

international leaders including those in the remaining EU countries.

I find one person satisfying that and it is Theresa May. Diffdrent

comp attributed to this deb`te will want to focus on particular aspects

that will surprise no one. H want to talk about Scotland which ddcided to

vote to staying in the EU. H interpret that very differently I

voted to remain but on the basis that the UK would be the melber

state. That was a question before me. I read the ballot paper and I

don't recall any explanatorx note saying, your vote would be landate

to be a Nicolas state. What a flawed proposition. An EU without the UK as

a member state is a altered and changed EU. Who knows what shape it

will take? Who knows what shape it will be in. When Nicola Sturgeon she

has a mandate to keep Scotl`nd within the EU, I say, simmer down,

you are nothing of the sort. Watch this is us see to do all shd can to

ensure Scotland's best interests are at the heart of the leave

negotiations. That involvemdnt can only be as part of a new UK

negotiation. The charm offensive in Brussels may assist these

negotiations. The responsibhlity is to keep the Scottish dimenshon at

the forefront, not some diplomatic X six frolic of our own. Many may have

doubted how devices of referendum campaign can be. I have livdd

through two doses of corroshve referendum acrimony. One is the

healing and measured crisis. She wants to prepare for another

independence referendum. It is a misjudged a house -- response. It

disturbs... 1.6 million votds of Scotland to remain in the ET do not

cancel out 2 million votes to stay in the UK. The union she wants to

leave accounts the two sets of Scotland's exports, the union she

Scotland's exports. Thirdly the Scotland's exports. Thirdly the

fundamental flaws of the separation remain unaltered and every bit as

stock. No central Bank, no currency, worsening budget deficit of ?15

billion and business jitters. My message to nebulous virgin hs this.

Your can -- my message to Nhcola Sturgeon is theirs. Your duty is to

your country. Protect Scotl`nd and promote Scotland by being at the

heart of the UK negotiations. Considerable skill should bd used to

form and influence these discussions. Use your posithon to

reassure the business community and engender stability and abovd all

else do not direct that poshtive platform for progress by rehgniting

the destructive and divisivd process of an independence referendtm. We

may have made a decision to leave one union. That decision is

precisely the reason why we must strain every sinew to protect and

preserve our remaining Unitdd Kingdom union. I was very pleased to

be following shortly the relarks of the noble Baroness. I, like her

wanted largely to focus on the state of the nation following the vote. We

will have all sorts of views rightly about the constitution,

international relations, Europe Actually, we also need to t`ke

account what the vote reveals. Like many of my friends and colldagues, I

was devastated by the result. I speak as someone who against the

views of most of my party c`mpaigned in 1975 to join. Even when H have

some responsibility, I don't ever recall crying at the result but I