07/03/2017 House of Lords

Owen, Gavin Robinson, Michael Tomlinson and myself, sir.

I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the order

paper. My Lords, according to the latest data from the office for

national statistics, income inequality in the UK is at its

lowest level since 1986. The key to economic success and to reducing

inequality is to improve activity which determines living standards in

the long run, that's why the Government has established a

national productivity investment fund and published a Green Paper on

industrial strategy highlighting the role of improved skills, of

infrastructure, investment and of R and D. My Lords, the resolution

foundation argues to prevent the biggest increase in inequality since

the 1980s, requires a shift in social policy choices, notably the

freeze in most working age benefits in the face of rising inflation.

Will the Government now follow the advice of Iain Duncan Smith and

reconsider the freeze because he warned that it was never intended,

it should have such a dramatic impact - effect on incomes, his

words. Wouldn't it be the right thing to do to protect low income

families in and out of work in this way for a Government that claims to

be working for everyone? My Lords, I think we have to have a

little bit of context, savings are necessary to reduce borrowing and to

put the public finances back on a sustainable footing after the

financial crisis and between 1980 and 2014 spending on welfare

actually trebled in real terms to ?96 billion whilst GDP increased by

much less. Our approach is a different one. We are committed to

supporting working families with a whole load of measures, getting

people back into work... Thank you. Innovating, growing and putting the

country on it a good footing. It's only a forecast from the resolution

foundation, forecasts aren't always right and we're determined to make

the changes we need for this country.

Going back to the exchange about inequality... My Lords, the Minister

said whether any assessment has been made of the effect of the national

living wage on which inequality and whether there is anything more that

can be done in this respect? I thank my Nobel friend, because I

believe that the national living wage, brought in in April last year,

is a fantastic example of policies that the Government has introduced

to make work pay. In terms of looking forward, it will rise again

to ?7. 50 next month and it has already given the working, many

working people in Britain the fastest pay rise in 20 years.

Observers will have noticed that there's a startling contradiction

between the presumption in the question that income inequality has

been growing very sharply and the resumption in the reply that it's

doing the opposite. There are different measures but most of them

do think that inequality is growing. Wouldn't it be useful if the ONS did

convene a panel of people to get a little more clarity as to why these

figures can be banded around with such different descriptions of what

is happening. I think the ONS keep is honest, they look at these

figures over time and they helpfully update and the OBR forecasts are

updated all the time so that we can see what's happening. I would like

to come back to the point which is that the resolution foundation is

looking at a forecast but if you look at what has happened, five

years ago it was predicted, I think by the IFS, that there would be a

rise in inequality. In fact, it hasn't happened. Things continued to

progress and we have seen a recoveriy and that's what we need to

continue by having the right policies which this Government is

pursuing under our new Prime Minister. My Lords, I am shocked

that the Minister doesn't recognise that young working families are

facing serious financial pressure and struggling and that it looks as

though it's going to be worse with inflation. But would she agree that

part of the reason are the very high rents that most of these families

face, and would she be willing in the budget tomorrow to permit local

councils to go out and borrow the necessary amounts of money to drive

forward development of affordable rental housing. She has often

acknowledged that the housing market is broken, but all the Government

solutions are on the demand side, supply doesn't increase, especially

not in the affordable area. I wouldn't want to steal the

Chancellor's thunder today. I think that there is certainly some

provision for Prudential borrowing but I would like to come back to the

support that we give to working families. The national living wage,

already mentioned by my noble friend, that's given the fastest pay

rise in 20 years. We have raised the personal allowance to ?12500 by the

end of parliament. We are introducing universal credit which

has the benefit of making work pay so that you go out and work, you

aren't held back by benefit dilemmas. We are committed to make

work pay and we believe that is the very best way forward for the people

of this country, for hard working families which I agree are our

priority. My Lords, the Minister cannot

discount the resolution foundation in such a cavalier manner, it

produced very - it's got a strong reputation and it produced very real

and well-backed analysis. It said that higher incomes will rise but

slowly, middle incomes are going to stag and low incomes are going to

stall. -- stagnate and low incomes are going to fall. We know how

little is the base for low incomes for them to be able to afford to

fall without poverty increasing substantially. They say, the

foundation says it will be the biggest rise in inequality since the

late 1980s. I do not need to remind the House which party was in power

during that period and which Prime Minister, many of whose Cabinet

members of course are still with us. LAUGHTER

I would add that the resolution foundation report also says, which

is a point I have been emphasising, that economic forecasts can change

dramatically and there is no way of knowing just how the future will

play out. I believe that the approach we now have, including

industrial strategy, investment in infrastructure, housing, digital,

transport, all of this is making a big difference. We have protected

the most vulnerable through benefits system which is highly distributive

so households get four times in support as spending while they pay

in tax whilst the highest pay five times as much in tax as they receive

in pay. We want a fairer society and getting workless households into

work and improving productivity and skills is to my mind the best way

forward. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the

question standing in my name on the order paper.

My Lords, the Government's White Paper on exiting the EU was

published on 2nd February. It sets out the Government's priorities and

the broad strategy for exiting the EU and made clear that we will take

back control of our own laws. There are a number of options as to how EU

immigration might work once we have exited the EU, we are considering

those options and will consult businesses and communities.

Parliament will also have a critical role to play. Of course the main

pressure so-called is really from non-EU migrants. Why didn't the

Government years ago use clause 45 of the TFEU and particularly section

three and three A, C and D, to improcess the necessary civilised

restraints on migrants coming in with authorisation so that none of

the horrendous hostility to immigrants from all over would have

been so evident in the referendum on 23rd June?

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, I can't be accountable for what

happened in the past, I think we have been a very generous country in

terms of letting people come here for the purposes of work. What I can

say is that there was very clear message last year which is about

controlling the numbers of people who come into this country, both

from the EU and from non-EU countries and that is what we intend

to do and to keep parliament fully involved in the process. On 12th

January the Government stated in response to an oral question that,

quote, the drekive sets out in order for an EU citizen to reside in

another member state beyond the three months they must be exercising

a treaty right. That is working self-employed, self-sufficient or a

student. After being asked three times why it did not implement this

three month rule for EU citizens still here without a job but not a

student the Government said ap I quote, it's not a failure to

implement, this country is more than generous in its implementation of

that directive. Close quotes. Firstly, why does the Government

maintain that only by leaving the EU can we reduce EU mu gracious, when

the Government accepts it has not applied the EU directive three month

rule as firmly as it could have done but instead considers that it has

been quote, more than generous in its implementation of that drekive,

close quote, how much lower would the figure have been in each of the

last five years if the Government had applied the EU three month rule

directive as firmly as it believes it was entitled to do so?

My Lords, as the noble Lord said, we have been a very generous country

and certainly whern Labour were in power they decided not to exercise

the opt-out as the noble Lord was asking. In terms of what would the

figures have been. Had we adopted a different process, my Lords, we are

where we are. The country has given us a very, very clear message in the

referendum and we intend to follow that through in terms of making sure

that net migration to this country is in the tens of thousands. My

Lords,ish endeavour to be helpful to the noble lady, the Minister. The

previous questions have been about the past. Could I ask about the

future. Article 45 of the treaty on the functioning of the European

Union relates to free movement of workers, not people generally. I

wonder what thought the Government has given to the excellent report by

the House of Commons Brexit committee which also talks about the

rights of EU and UK national citizens with aspects of immigration

policy, including students, family reunion and on EU spouses compared

with non-EU spouses and I declare my interests as listed in the register.

My Lords, it is absolutely right that we settle and I am glad she's

talking about the future by the way, and not the past, probably neither

of us, certainly I don't remember, but certainly in terms of the

directive which is about the movement of workers and their

families, I think the Prime Minister's made it absolutely clear

about protecting the rights of EU nationals living in this country but

we talked a lot the other day in committee about the fairness of the

process and therefore protecting the rights of UK nationals in return.

The Government does not want to do this on a unilateral basis and we

need to think about all the people, UK nationals living in the EU, and

EU nationals living here. My Lords, the Minister actually has

been very patient with the House over recent questions and explaining

to us the rights of residency after five years' work of European

citizens. And also about the right of citizenship after six years. Can

she tell the House whether as regards citizenship if a European

citizen becomes a citizen of the UK, does that mean he or she has the

right to remain in this country? The noble Lord, I am grateful to him, we

talked about this at length the other day, and of course in terms of

residency rights, the right of residency, a person and by the way,

this is an EU law, and not a UK law, so all the talk we have about

comprehensive sickness insurance, this is EU law which we implement,

after five years of abiding by treaty obligations, the Noble Lord

is right, a person living i an EU national living in this country has

permanent residency, they do not have to prove that permanent

residency. But then he goes on to make another point, which is very

valid, which is to swish that from applying for British citizenship and

in that application process, which is based in UK law, that person has

to prove residency and not to be breaking any immigration rules after

six years, they will then be granted UK citizenship and the noble Lord is

right, they have the right to remain here.

I beg you to ask the question in my name on the order paper. This

government is committed to working for everyone in all parts of the

country. I am grateful for the report on rural proofing. We will

better understand the needs in those communities. The government is

revising its commitment to rural proofing. I welcome the work the

Ministry is doing, but why do so many government departments fail to

realise the big barrier of transport costs on people with low incomes.

They are so often cut off and excluded by the cost of transport.

Surely we can't allow ourselves to stumble into a situation where you

have to be well off to live in the countryside? I entirely agree with

the noble lord. It is important we enhance accessibility. Sparsity and

the typography of the countryside means there are challenges and that

is why I am pleased that the community minibus fund which was

launched will enable I think 300 local charities and community groups

to receive a new minibus which I think is going to be very helpful,

but clearly there is more that we want to do. I should say that the

whole issue of transport and accessibility is important, that

ball incidents, that under the Post Office transformation, all post

offices will have banking facilities. There are ways in which

we can assist rural communities. International apprenticeship week,

what is the government doing to encourage apprenticeships in rural

areas? The government is committed to reaching 3 million apprenticeship

starts by 2020. This includes trebling the amount of

apprenticeships in food and farming from 6000 to 18,000. National parks

are looking to double the number of apprenticeships and it is important

that we encouraged not only this week, but we work with employers of

all sizes. There is a new apprenticeship levy coming into

force in April this year for the larger businesses. This is an

enormous opportunity and raising the skills of young people in the

countryside and across the nation is a force for good. The commission for

oral communities was established in 2005 by the last Labour

Administration to promote awareness of rural needs amongst the

decision-makers across government. It produced the report on rural

lives, highlighting those living in poverty in rural areas can be harder

to identify and help. But the coalition government scrapped the

CRC in 2013. With issues of agriculture, trade and food policy

on Brexit, what structures are in force to ensure the interests of all

communities are heard and acted upon during these negotiations? I will

make sure the noble lord a copy of the revived rural proofing guidance.

I have been working on this and it is important that all departments

understand the issues of rural communities and that is why, and

also as the Minister for oral affairs, I am on a number of task

forces, connectivity and housing to mention two, precisely to ensure the

rural voice is heard. Given what the Minister has just said, I wonder if

he is concerned by the fact that in many rural and underprivileged

areas, libraries and leisure centres are under threat. These are the very

places that offer a glimmer of light to people who lead rather dark lives

in terms of entertainment and education. This rather takes me back

to my DC MS days and one of the things that strikes me is very much

how vibrant so many rural communities are, certainly in my

part of Suffolk. The amount of cultural activities, dance, 30,

music, it is incredible. We all want to improve, we all want to have

greater access ability to those things, but the noble Lord may be

painting a rather too pessimistic picture. Making work pay is a very

seductive slogan, but is a minister not aware that many of the families

who are worst of in our country have someone working in the economy. What

steps can the government take to ensure people are paid properly and

indeed earn at least a living wage? My Lords, it is a national living

wage and it is an obligation and I am very pleased that it is going to

rise to ?7.05 in April. That is why we want to ensure people on low

incomes, the increasing tax allowance and further coming through

is precisely to ensure that we are helping those at the lower end of

the income range. Rural proofing doesn't seem to have reached local

government where many local services have been withdrawn from villages

into urban centres as a consequence of a very deep cut to local

government funding. I do wonder what advice the noble Lord the Minister

will provide to his fellow Secretary of State, or noble Lord Lord born

about funding for district councils and county councils to enable rural

proofing? As I say, the rural proofing guidance is to go across

Whitehall. DC old she is a very important government department in

that respect. The are considerable amounts of money going to these

organisations. We have to have a growing economy to afford all the

things we want to do. That is why this country is the fastest-growing

economy in the G7. That's important because it's only when we grow our

economy that we are going to have the resources to do many of the

things I'm sure your Lordships would wish to have done. With the Minister

care to correct his assertion about the national living wage and the

national minimum wage? Secondly, can the noble Lord the minister assure

me that when the government are putting in new free schools in areas

where there is no need in terms of numbers, they will have the needs of

the rural community in mind. I used to be the heads of the schools

committee in Lancashire. Come we be assured that the government enter

coming from Whitehall with little knowledge and step over the needs of

the local community. Some of those schools need money and investment.

My Lords, it is precisely why I suspect we are going to hear about

more investment because we want to enhance the opportunity of children

across the country and it is precisely why we have some schools

that are simply not up to the standard we want them to be and that

is why we will need to invest more and it is why I am a champion for

oral schools precisely because we want to ensure that there are

opportunities in rural areas in the same way they have them across the

rest of the country. As for the living wage, I will check Hansard,

but it will raise to ?7 50 per hour. I will ensure to see whether I've

made a mistake. My Lords, I take you to answer the question standing in

my name on the order paper. The police are operationally independent

of government. The investigation of allegations of sexual abuse and how

the police conduct these investigations including whether to

commission any form of internal enquiry are operational matters for

the relevant chief officer. It is for the Police and Crime

Commissioner to hold the force to accounts. My Lords, having served in

the Home Office for many years I the Home Office for many years I

understand about the operational understand about the operational

independence of the police, but, my Lords, it's gone beyond operational

affairs, it's become a matter of confidence in the police and the

police service. The Chief Constable of Wiltshire has gone beyond the

police duties of investigating allegations and following up

evidence and has pronounced a verdict of guilty on the late Sir

Edward Heath in respect of allegations of child abuse and has

done that even before he's enquiry is complete. The officer in charge

of the enquiry, having made a stupid mistake at the beginning, has now

been obliged to be withdrawn because of ill health. He is having, I

think, a nervous breakdown. Is it not high time the enquiry is being

pursued in a way which looks to many people more like a fishing

expedition than a serious pursuit of allegations and evidence. Is it not

time that this operation was reviewed independently? Either by a

retired judge, as in the case of operation Midland, or a retired

Chief Constable or recognised -- with efficiency and integrity.

Without talking about any single investigation, may I express my

concern of the people who have been wrongly named in the press and

certainly after they have died have had defamatory statements made about

them. In any investigation it is a matter for the police. If the... In

terms of complaints against the Chief officer, I took the bill

through myself and the act strengthens the independence of the

police complaints system. Any allegations of misconduct against

the Chief officer should be investigated by the IPC said. The

newspaper quotes last month came from an anonymous source claiming to

know... -- IPC C. I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister to

whom is this Chief Constable accountable? If not the Police and

Swindon, surely not secret and Swindon, surely not secret and

unnamed groups of people that he has decided to appoint. There are

conduct of this enquiry and we conduct of this enquiry and we

really need to know who is this Chief Constable accountable to? I

thank my noble friend for that question and he will know that it is

not appropriate for me to comment on individual operational matters,

these being out of the relevant chief officer, but chief officers

are, as I have said held to account in respect of operational matters by

the Police and Crime Commissioner. An independent

review was commissioned recently. It talked about the secret and unnamed

group. My Lords, it is recognised as best practice that, and Bush police

have done that, but they have engaged a panel of independent

experts outside of policing who are providing ongoing scrutiny of the

investigation to make sure it's proportionality is right.

The newspaper quotes came from an anonymous source claiming to know

the views of the Chief Constable for Wiltshire thchlt raised issue of the

relationship between the police and the national press and makes the

case for Leveson part two even stronger.

Can we come to the role of of the police and crime commissioner to

which the Minister has referred. Because a second issue relates to

the call for a Government instituted judicial inquiry into the

investigation which Wiltshire Police. Could the Government confirm

in fact the Wiltshire Police and crime commissioner has the power to

commission such a judicial inquiry into an operation by his own force.

The third issue is that if any hard evidence actually emerged that the

Chief Constable had made the comments claimed by the anonymous

newspaper source, could the Government confirm that the

Wiltshire Police and crime commissioner could, under his

powers, suspend or dismiss the Chief Constable? In other words, isn't the

ball very much in the elected Wiltshire Police and crime

commissioner's court? Well, I think the noble Lord raises a very good

point in terms of what is the role of the police and crime commissioner

in this situation. Without talking about the specific case that the

noble Lord has asked about, it is for the police and crime

commissioner to make the decision to appoint, to suspend or to remove a

Chief Constable. In making the decision to compel a Chief Constable

to resign or to retire, a PCC is bound by certain requirements,

including acting reasonably and fairly and consulting the Chief

Constable and the local police and crime panel and a PCC may compel a

Chief Constable to resign or retire under section 38-3 of the police

reform and social responsibility ability of 2011. My Lords, before we

resume consideration of the bills report stage t may be for the

convenience of the House if I say a brief word about the arrangements

for its third reading, which we expect to take place this evening.

At the conclusion of report stage we will move to the question for short

debate in the name of the noble Lord. The legislation office will at

that point be working on making the bill available for noble Lords who

may wish to table amendments at third reading. The time scale for

this will depend on whether or not the bill needs to be reprinted. When

the bill is ready for amendments to be tabled, a notice will be put on

the announceator to say so as well as to give a reasonable deadline for

noble Lords to table any amendments. We will adjourn at the conclusion of

the noble Lord's debate with the time for the House to resume for the

third reading advertised on the announceator. I am grateful to the

House authorities, in particular those in the legislation office for

their hard work to support the House on this bill. Lastly, my Lords, I

should remind the House that the normal rules on report stage apply

when we resume in a moment. The relevant part of the companion were

printed in today's list which was published this morning. Further

consideration on report of the European Union note feeshgs of

withdrawal bill, Lord Bridges. I beg to move this bill do be

further considered on the report. The question is that this bill be

now further considered on report as many of that opinion will say

content. The contrary not content. The contents have it. After clause

one amendment three, Lord Pannick. My Lords, amendment three is in my

name and in the names of the noble lady, lady Atir Lord Oats and Lord

hail sham. My Lords, the purpose and effect of amendment three is very

simple. It is to ensure that at the end of the negotiating process, the

approval of parliament is required for the terms of our withdrawal from

the EU. The Prime Minister has accepted that

principle. She has undertaken that any agreement with the European

Union on the terms of our withdrawal and any agreement on our future

relationship with the EU will be put to both Houses of parliament for

their approval. She has also promised in respect of

the withdrawal agreement that this will occur before it is sent to the

European Parliament for its consent. My Lords, that must be right. This

parliament must have at least the same opportunity as the European

Parliament to disagree with the terms of any draft agreement.

The Prime Minister has given an undertaking but the Government is

refusing to include the commitment in the bill. Given the importance of

the decision to leave the EU and given the importance of the terms on

which we are to leave the EU, the role of parliament must surely be

written into the bill. No ifs, and no buts. This amendment has been

revised since the very helpful debate in committee last Wednesday

evening. As suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope during

that debate, sub-clauses one, two and three of this amendment set out

the undertaking given to the House of Commons by the Minister, Mr David

Jones, on 7th February at column 2-64. The only alteration to what

MrJones said is that the amendment does not commit the Government to

proceeding by way of a motion in both Houses. The amendment allows

the Government to decide what would be the best means of seeking and

obtaining approval from both Houses. And that is because of the points

made at committee stage last Wednesday night by the noble Lord,

Lord Lisvane with his knowledge and experience of parliamentary

procedure. Sub-clause 4, which has also been revised since the debate

last Wednesday, requires the approval of both Houses if the Prime

Minister decides that the United Kingdom should leave the EU without

an agreement as to the terms. Parliament must also have a role in

those circumstances. It must be for parliament to decide whether to

prefer no deal or the deal offered by the EU. My Lords, can I address a

point which has been raised with me by some noble Lords and the point is

this, what happens if the two Houses disagree when the agreement or the

lack of agreement is put to parliament? My Lords, it is, of

course, the Prime Minister who has decided that the terms of our

withdrawal are so important that the approval of both Houses of

parliament should be required. The White Paper says at paragraph 1-12,

I quote, the Government will put the final deal that is agreed between

the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of parliament. The Minister,

MrDavid Jones, stated in the House of Commons during the committee

stage of the bill, 7th February, column 2-64, again I quote, the

Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement to be

approved by both Houses of parliament before it is concluded.

In any event, my Lords, if this House were to agree this amendment

today, it is open to the Government if they're concerned about this

issue, to seek to amend this new clause in the Commons next week to

address what happens if the two Houses were to disagree. I am

grateful. This is a very important point. I am glad that he is

addressing it in such detail. But we can't make our judgment on the basis

of what the Government has said it might do. The judgment today has to

be on the basis of what is in this clause. So, I ask him from his

perspective, given that it repeatedly says the approval of both

Houses of parliament, in terms of this clause, can he tell us in his

judgment what would be the solution if one House said yes and the other

House said no? As I have said, this is the Prime Minister's undertaking,

but since the noble Lord asked me, and I don't have to tell the noble

Lord this, given his enormous experience, if the House of Commons

were to give its approval, this House would rightly be told, rightly

in my judgment, would rightly be told it should be very slow indeed

to take a different view to the elected House. If we were to

disagree with the Commons, I understand it would be open to the

Government immediately to take the matter back to the Commons for a

further confirmatory resolution, which if agreed, would lead to a

further approval motion in this House and I would expect it would be

exceptionally unlikely that this House would stand its ground. But I

repeat, if the Government are dissatisfied with that, which the

consequence of the undertaking given by the Prime Minister, it is open to

the Government to bring forward an amendment in the other place, indeed

it was open to the Government in this House to bring forward an

amendment to this amendment to deal with the matter. I am grateful to

the noble Lord for giving way. He says it's exceptionally unlikely

that this House would insist in those circumstances on having its

way. That falls some way short of dealing with the point raised by the

noble Lord opposite, does the noble Lord not agree that this new clause,

in effect, gives this House a statutory veto on the decision made

by the Prime Minister with the support of the other place to

implement the decision of the British people to leave the European

Union? The noble Lord will form his own judgment. I am putting to the

House that what this amendment does is to implement the undertaking

given by the Prime Minister. She has recognised, and in my view rightly

recognised, that so important are these matters that it is necessary,

it is imperative to obtain the approval of both Houses of

parliament. The constitutional realities, as I understand them, is

that this House is exceptionally unlikely to stand its ground against

the view of the elected House. But noble Lords will form their own

judgment. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Would he

also agree there is nothing in this new clause that precludes the

approval of both Houses being expressed in an act of parliament

and if that is correct the Parliament Act stands behind it? I

am very grateful to the noble Lord, as I have already said, this

amendment is different from the amendment that we had at committee

stage because it does not state what is the means by which the Government

must seek the approval of both Houses. The noble Viscount is right,

it's open to the Government to proceed by way of emergency

legislation. Yes, of course. The noble Lord is an exceedingly

distinguished lawyer as we all know in this place and I recognise

normally the legal profession seeks precision. Noble Lord is laying

before the House an amendment which is imprecise and he has admitted

that and it's been pointed out by Lord Howard, he uses terms extremely

unlikely. The constitutional reform act of 2010 has a clear device in

section 20 for breaking agreements - brokering a disagreement. The noble

Lord as a lawyer, is concerned with the precise not putting before

parliament precise legislation which deals with the matter he recognises

needs to be dealt with? I repeat to the noble Lord, what I have put in

this amendment is precisely the undertaking that the Prime Minister

has given. If the Prime Minister takes the view that it is

appropriate to address specifically in the amendment the means by which

any division of view between the two Houses can be broken, then it is

entirely up to her when this matter returns to the Commons, if it does,

to amend this provision so as to specify for example, section 20, but

I would expect, if I had put in this amendment a particular means of

breaking a deadlock between the two Houses, I would have been told by

the noble Lord and others that's not the particular solution that we

welcome. He has repeatedly said that what he

wants to put on the face of the bill is no different from what the Prime

Minister had indicated to the House of Commons. Surely the difference is

that the Prime Minister's undertaking was that there would be

a vote in both Houses on the issue of a deal, or indeed, falling back

on WTO. Reading his amendment, it is the difference between no deal, and

what happens is both could he explain? What happens, nobody knows

what is going to happen, that's the whole point of the difficulty that

we face in 21 months' time. I don't know what can happen, the Noble Lord

doesn't know what can happen. What I'm saying to the House is that what

is absolutely essential is that Parliament must have an opportunity

guaranteed by legislation to address the circumstances at that time. My

Lords... I know that some people in the House do not wish to see the

flaws in this, but the answer is that we end up rejecting the view

which British people voted for, that we should leave the European Union,

and that is the hidden agenda by this amendment. If the Noble Lord is

suggesting that I have some motivation, I can assure him that my

only motivation is to ensure that Parliament has a guaranteed

opportunity at the end of the negotiating process to decide

whether or not the terms of our withdrawal hasn't acceptable or not.

That's a basic question of Parliamentary sovereignty. My Lords,

this amendment will not delay notification of withdrawal from the

EU. This amendment does not commit the Government to adopt any specific

approach in the negotiations. It doesn't impede the Government in the

negotiations any more than the undertaking already given by the

Prime Minister. What this amendment will do, and crucially will do, is

guaranteed that the Government must come back to both Houses and seek

approval for the result of the negotiations. My Lords, let's not

forget, we are considering this bill... And I wish him a happy

birthday! Would I be right in thinking that the difference between

what he is advocating and what some Noble Lords are advocating is the

difference between Parliament authority and the royal prerogative?

And is he not doing exactly what the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

said in Gina Miller's case that he won? I'm very grateful, I was

worried for a moment that he was going to sing at me, but I entirely

agree with his point. My Lords, we are considering this bill because

and only because, as the Noble Lord reminds the Supreme Court ruled as a

matter of law that Parliamentary sovereignty is required at this

stage of notification of withdrawal. I say not as a matter of law,

because I am not arguing a legal case, not as a matter of law but as

a matter of constitutional principle, that Parliamentary

sovereignty is as important as it is at the end of the negotiating

process. After clause one, insert the new clause, as printed.

Many of your Lordships have made the point that we are not here to

re-fight the referendum campaign. There is a clear mandate to trigger

Article 50. My own personal position has been clearly established since I

first joined the Conservative Party in 1951. I believe and always have

that Britain's national and self-interest is inextricably

interwoven with those of our European partners. I deeply regret

the outcome of the referendum. That said, within three days of that

outcome, I publicly made three points. First bubble I urged the

Government to get on with the disengagement process, not only

because it had a clear mandate to do so, but because I thought that delay

would only add uncertainty to the damage that the result itself had

produced. Secondly, I urged the Government to appoint Brexiteers to

the three Cabinet positions that would front negotiations. It was

clear to me then that failure to do so would open the door to the

allegation that if only the right people had been put in positions to

lead the charge, a much better deal would have been done. I also took

the view, perhaps naively, that as campaigners for Brexit, it was not

unreasonable to assume that they might have had answers to the

numerous questions that we faced. Lordships will be aware that both of

these events have now taken place, and I'm very pleased to say how

fully I support the Prime Minister in what she has done. And that only

leaves my third point, and the most ultra version of the three. I said

then that the fightback starts here. Like so many of your Lordships, I

have enjoyed the privilege of many years in Another Place, in my case,

35 years. I learned the limitations of government in a Parliamentary

democracy, and I learnt also the role of opposition in such

circumstances. Time and again, I have been involved along with many

of your Lordships on these benches opposing by every constitutional

means in our power the mandate of the elected government. Not only did

we oppose their mandate from the very first day that Parliament met,

we began the long process of repealing the acts of which we

disapprove to. In the end, it came down to a belief in the ultimate

sovereignty of Parliament. I must make clear that in accepting the

mandate to negotiate our withdrawal from the European Union, I do not

accept that the mandate runs for all time and in all circumstances. 48%

of our people reject it that concept last year. They have the same right

to be heard as I hope we recognised so many of us in those long years of

opposition in Another Place. We now face a protract did period of

negotiation. No-one has the first idea what deal will emerge. No-one

can even tell us what governments in Europe will be there to conclude

whatever deal emerges. No-one can say with certainty how British

public opinion will react to totally unproductive all events. Let me just

give one example. I am told that it took 240 regulations to introduce

the single market in the late 1980s, and I remember the resentment

particularly to the small and medium-sized companies. I understand

it may take 1600 regulations to unravel over 40 years of closer

union, and no-one can say how this vital small and medium-sized sector

of our economy will react to the circumstances that they will then

face. Everyone in this House knows that we now face the most momentous

piece time decision of our time, and this amendment, as the Noble Lord

has so clearly set out, secures in law the Government's commitment,

already made to Another Place, to ensure that Parliament is the

ultimate custodian of our national sovereignty. It ensures that

Parliament has a critical role in determining the future that we will

bequeath to generations of young people, and I urge your Lordships to

support the amendment. I rise to speak in support of the amendment

made by Lord Pannick for I will not take up too much time of the House,

not least because I think the issue at stake is really a rather simple

one. On the 17th of January this year, the Prime Minister confirmed

in her Lancaster house speech the Government's intention to put the

final deal that is agreed between the EU and the UK to a vote in both

Houses of Parliament. Is the Noble Lord Lord Pannick has said on the

7th of February, the minister of state for exiting the European Union

has stated that the vote will cover not only the withdrawal arrangements

but also the future relationship with the European Union. This

amendment merely gives legislative effect to the Government's pledged,

and in doing so it will assist the Prime Minister should she or any

successor be tempted to go back from it. The amendment will also provide

clarity that the Government will require prior approval of Parliament

should the Prime Minister decide to leave the European Union without any

agreement at all. My Lords, at committee stage, some Noble Lords on

the benches opposite questioned the need for legal underpinning of the

commitment given by the Government through a meaningful vote. The

reason is simple as that we don't trust the Government on this matter.

Not because we don't trust the integrity of individual members of

the Government, but because, as the Noble Lord Lord Burton pointed out

in the committee on this bill, we are only here discussing this matter

at all because the Government was forced by the courts, and the

arguments made by the Noble Lord Pannick to come to Parliament and

hear its voice on the matter at all. My Lords, if we want to ensure that

our sovereign Parliament, so often championed by the leave campaigners,

has a clear and decisive role in scrutinising the final outcome of

this process, then it must assert its rights in legislation. And if

the Government is genuine in its commitment that it has given on

these matters, then it should have no problem accepting the amendment.

But if it is not willing to do it will call into question the

sincerity of the Government's commitment on this matter, and only

strengthen the argument to pass this amendment into law. My Lords, as the

Noble Lord Hailsham reminded us last week, prime ministers can go,

ministers can be sacked, parliaments can change and governments can cease

to exist, one has to enshrine assurances that stand against

changes in circumstances. I wholeheartedly agree with the Noble

Lord Hailsham on that matter, and that's why I'm supporting this

amendment is, and I hope that your Lordships house will do so also. My

lord, I think just on the latter point that was made by the Noble

Lord, it is perhaps actually just worth recalling to the House what

the minister Mr David Jones said. And he said in the Other Place - the

Government have repeatedly committed from the dispatch box to a vote in

both Houses on the final deal before it comes into force. That I repeat

and confirmed will cover not only the withdrawal agreement, but the

future arrangement that we propose for the European Union. I confirm

again that the Government will bring forward a motion on the final

agreement to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is

concluded, and we expect and intend that that will happen before the

European Parliament debate and vote on the final agreement. And in the

course of the debate, the minister, Mr Jones, repeated those sentences

three times. And the Shadow Secretary of State, Keir Starmer,

whom I paid tribute to in the second reading debate, said - minister, I

am very grateful for that intervention. This is a huge and

very important concession about the process we are to embark on. The

argument I have made about a vote over the last three months is that

the vote most cover both the Article 50 deal and any future relationship.

I know that for many of my colleagues that is very important.

So, both Houses will get a vote on the final draft deal, and we do not

need any of these amendments. It is a complete distortion - in a

second. I will give way to the honourable gentleman if he let's me

finish my sentence. It is a complete distortion to suggest that the

Government are likely to ren -- reng. They do something completely

different. I give way to the noble Lord. I am most grateful to the

noble Lord for giving way. But having read out three times, I

think, what the Minister said in the House of Commons, he has revealed

that the Minister failed to answer the question that he and the noble

Lord, Lord Howard and others put to my noble friend, which is what

happens if there is a disagreement between the two Houses, could he

perhaps now address that and perhaps he could also put that question to

the right person to put it to, which is not my noble friend, but the

Minister who is going to reply to this debate and will have ample

opportunity to reply to it. I know that the noble Lord is very

experienced and if he doesn't know the difference between a resolution

in the House of Commons and putting in statute a power of veto for the

House of Lords then I am very surprised to hear him making that

point. The point about this amendment, the point about this

amendment which we are discussing, amendment three, is that it actually

- it is a - I am not going to give way. Could I just ask the noble Lord

how can it be a veto, since we can not in fact impose our will on the

House of Commons? Well, the noble Baroness is very experienced and she

should know that this House is able to impose its will on the House of

Commons by convention we do not do so and if we sought to do so we

would be in deep water and this amendment is taking us into deep

water. If I could just return to the issue under discussion which is the

amendment. If we look at paragraph one, the Prime Minister may not

conclude an agreement with the European Union under Article 50 on

the terms of the United Kingdom's withdrawal without the approval of

both Houses of parliament. So we get to the final hour at midnight when

the deal is being done and the Prime Minister says, hang on a second, I

can't agree a deal, I have to consult the House of Commons. It is

ridiculous. It is ridiculous, a ridiculous proposal to suggest... It

is not the Prime Minister's proposal. It is a ridiculous

proposal to say that the Prime Minister may not conclude an

agreement until this has been sorted.

It is a well-known - no, I am not going to give way. I promise to give

way to nigh noble friend once I have made my points about the amendment.

It is a first rule of negotiation that you never negotiate with

someone who doesn't have authority to conclude the deal. The effect of

these proposals is to put ministers in a position where their authority

is in doubt and where, in effect, it makes this House and the House of

Commons parties to the negotiation and the negotiation has to be

conducted between ministers and people from the EU. If we turn to...

I wonder whether the noble Lord has realised that the Ministers with

whom this will be negotiated or the European officials with whom it will

be negotiated have all got to go back to every European Parliament

and the European Parliament before they can conclude a deal? I do

realise that. I have the utmost respect for my noble friend, helped

to get me elected in 83 which may not be one of the most important

things, he has served the party with great distinction, but I have to say

to him, that it is not the moment for this House to grab the mace and

challenge the authority of the House of Commons.

Now, on paragraph... On sub-section two, it says, such approval shall be

required before the European Parliament debates and votes on that

agreement. How are ministers supposed to deliver that? They're

not in control of the timetable for when the European Parliament debates

these matters and indeed it is an impossible condition for them to

meet. Then if we look at paragraph... I am grateful to him

for giving way, because the phrase this will happen before the European

Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement is set out in

Hansard in the statement, the undertaken given by David Jones on

7th February, the more the noble Lord makes his points, the more

important it seems to me to pass this amendment. Well...

If the noble Lord accepts my point, then the more importance there is in

not actually seeking to put it on statue. He didn't actually deal with

my point, which is how are ministers able to ensure that approval shall

be required before the European Parliament debates when they are not

in charge of the timetable for the European Parliament debates? I

happily give way if he would like to answer that point. He is arguing

they should be put on the statute and should be able to explain how

this can be achieved. I would love to continue with this discussion

until we reach an end of it but all I am doing is referring to the words

of the Minister himself and it's a him - it's for him to work out how

this undertaking which he gave to parliament and which fits exactly I

think with the wording in the White Paper, as well, should be conducted.

It is very important that we make this matter clear and I thought

myself that the best way of dealing with it, as Lord Pannick has done is

use the words of the Minister in clauses one to three and pass the

amendment in the House of Commons can look at it again if they wish

to. The noble Lord is normally very careful and precise, I read out at

the beginning the words that David Jones had used in the House and he

said, we expect and intend that will happen before the European

Parliament debates. This says, such approval shall be required before

the European Parliament debates. There is a big difference between

expect and intend. And shall be required. One is... I am grateful to

the noble Lord. Does he not agree that the vote in the European

Parliament will be about whether the deal is negotiated will be

acceptable, it will not be about whether or not the UK leaves the EU

or not? My noble friend is absolutely right

on that point. Just to move now to paragraph three, subparagraph three,

it says the approval of both Houses of parliament shall be required in

relation to an agreement on the future relation of the United

Kingdom within the European Union. The point I put in an intervention

to the noble Lord Pannick. This effectively gives this House and the

House of Commons a veto on Brexit. It gives it the ability to prevent

us from leaving the European Union, despite the fact that we have had

the biggest vote in our history from people requiring that. It will be

immense live destructive to the reputation of parliament and also to

this House. Then we go to paragraph four of section four, the prior

approval of both Houses of parliament shall also be required in

relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United

Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the

applicable terms. That means that Ministers are unable to walk away.

This was the mistake that David Cameron made. If David Cameron had

walked away, he might have been able to get a proper deal. Who knows? But

the fact is he didn't walk away and they knew he wasn't going to walk

away, it's why he got such a useless deal and this actually ensures

Ministers cannot walk away. For the Lord Pannick this is implementing

the Prime Minister's promise is a complete... I am sorry, I made it

very clear to the House that subclauses one to three implement

the undertaking, I made it very clear that's not the case in

relation to sub-clause four. I take the, noble Lords will form their own

judgment, but it's vital for this House and the other place to have a

say on whether we should leave with no deal or with the deal that's

being offered. I made that very clear to the House. Well, I have to

say to the noble Lord, we know what he is up to. We know what is going

on. We know - I appreciate that I am a minority in this House, not just

because I am a Scottish Tory, I am in a minority in this House because

I support the views of the majority of people in this country. This

House is absolutely full of people who still haven't come to terms with

the results of the referendum and this is a clever lawyer's confection

in order to reverse the results of the referendum. That's what we are

debating and that's what it is about. I gave way already. He can

make his own speech. What is going on... I am in the giving way to the

noble Lord. Order, order. All right, I will give

way. I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am sorry I am causing him

such frustration this afternoon. Even when - I don't think normally

in this House we speak from a sedantry position. My comment was

you are annoying the House, not just an individual member. Well, I am

most grateful to the noble Lord for having ashgated to himself the

decisions to what the rather hundreds of people around this place

leave. But the point I was going to raise and ask the noble Lord to

address is that of course the Prime Minister of this country has the

ability to ensure that we do leave the European Union without an

agreement because of the two-year time limit in Article 50, which he

has not addressed. That time limit is absolute. It will be triggered

within the next few days. And sometime in 2019 it will reach its

conclusion. The Prime Minister says it takes two to negotiate and the

Prime Minister will be one of them, and the 27 and the institutions of

the European Union will be the other, has the ability to ensure

that we leave without an agreement. That is the eventuality being dealt

with in this amendment. The noble Lord makes my point for me. If after

two years we have no agreement, then we will have left the European

Union. I need to conclude my remarks.

This place is beginning to be like the House of Commons!

What is going on here is like Gulliver. These amendments are

trying to tie down the Prime Minister, tie her down by her hair,

by her arms, by her legs, in every conceivable way, in order to prevent

her getting an agreement and in order to prevent us leaving the

European Union. The House should reject this amendment for what it

is, which is an unelected chamber trying to frustrate the will of the

democratically elected Government and of the people which has been

expressed in a huge vote in a referendum.

My Lords, My Lords... One of the reasons I wish to speak to amendment

four. One of the main reasons that we are over here now is that the

Prime Minister and the Government wanted to go ahead and use the

perogotive and it's because of a ruling in the Supreme Court that we

are here and what we are asking for in this amendment is to have

something put in statute to protect the uncertainty that is there in the

future. We have heard in all the discussions so far that questioning

the reason why voters voted would be insulting the voters. Remain or

leave. But, my Lords, this has not been a general election vote. In a

general election the party manifesto or an Ed Stone and his commandments,

if the people don't like the Government and they say they've not

lived up to their manifesto, or have not delivered, in five years' time,

they can throw them out. The difference here is this is a

permanent decision. Permanent in that the last time this happened was

1975, over four decades ago. But the difference is that the last time

this happened it was with a majority of 67%. If we had a super majority,

that was a super majority, that was achieved. It was a decisive

decision. There was certainty. Here, we are hearing this binary decision,

remain or leave, but the outcomes are anything but binary. One of the

outcomes is a hard Brexit. The main issue here is that people are

allowed to change their minds. My Lords, whether it is the Prime

Minister who changed her mind or the Ministers who change their mind or

members of the other place who want to change their minds or members of

this House who want to change their mind, it is our right to do so. In

fact, Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple said changing your mind is a

sign of intelligence. As cane said, when the facts change, I change my

mind. Here many facts as the noble Lord has said, many outcomes of this

negotiation are uncertain. The Dutch elections are coming up, the French

and German elections, the eurozone may collapse, Europe might even

reform immigration rules which we would like. It's only right that

parliament has a full say in the road ahead. This amendment covers

us, protects us from the potential outcomes. My Lords, I concluded my

second reading speech by quoting Professor of the Harvard business

school, a expert on negotiations, he said make sure you read a book

called The Guns of August about the beginning of the First World War. He

said reading that book is like watching a train crash in slow

motion. That is what we are seeing right now

with Brexit. I conclude, that we need to support this amendment more

than anything to protect the future...

I wonder whether in 1975, he knew about the Maastricht Treaty? 1975, I

was barely a teenager. My Lords, I would conclude by saying the main

reason we need to support this amendment is for the sake of future

generations. It is to protect future generations. Noble Lords, I'm sure

will have received several tweets, e-mails and letters from

individuals, and justice morning I received an e-mail saying, please

support Parliamentary democracy and our young people's future. My Lords,

one of our doorkeepers reminded me of an ancient Gaelic saying is birth

we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our

children. The Lord seemed to suggest that we should support this

amendment because Article 50 was not unilaterally irrevocable, that we

would have to leave the EU. Your argument was that we should support

the amendment because it IS unilaterally irrevocable - which is

it? This amendment covers all potential outcomes, and that I think

we should have. I wish to speak briefly to amendment for Bridge

stands in my name and that of Lord Russell. It is similar in intent to

the amendment which was moved very eloquently by Lord Pannick, but it

is shorter. Because what I have sought to do is merely to put on the

face of the bill the remarks of Mr Jones and other ministers, namely

that Parliament WILL have an absolute legal right, and that it

will exercise its right after the European Parliament, before the

European Parliament has exercised it. And I would just say in

parenthesis that we must remember, whatever is agreed will go around

every Parliament and indeed some regional parliaments under 27

nations, and it go to the European Parliament, of course. We have a

system of Parliamentary democracy in which I take enormous pride. I shall

always be glad that I spent 40 years at the other end of the corridor,

not one of them in government, but always trying to play a part in

holding government to account. And that is the supreme task of

Parliament, both this House and the Other Place. Of course, as I have

repeatedly made plain in my interventions and in the debates on

this bill and in many others, the ultimate power and authority, the

supremacy is with the Other Place just in we neglect that fact, and it

is a fact, at our peril. But nevertheless my Lords, we have not

only a right but I believe the duties to ask the Other Place to

reconsider if we think they haven't got it right. And whilst I had no

hesitation this morning in voting against the referendum amendment, I

equally have no hesitation in moving this one, or speaking to this one.

Because all we are saying in this amendment and in the amendment so

well moved by Lord Pannick and supported by my Noble Friend Lord

has all Thailand others, all we are saying is that Parliament's right

and dew must be on the face of the bill. It is not a question of the

integrity of those who have made statements, of course I except that

without any question whatsoever. But there is a difference between a

statement expressing intent and a legal obligation. And that my Lords

is what we are seeking to insert in this bill - a legal obligation which

should be recognised. And I very, very much hope that even at this

late stage, my Noble Friend from the front bench will feel able to

acknowledge at least that there is some validity in what we are seeking

to say. And I very much hope that in the Other Place, they WILL

reconsider. It does not delay the passage of this bill by more than a

day. We can get it through this House in all its remaining stages

next week. It doesn't in any sense all to the intent or purpose of the

bill, because it gives to the Prime Minister what she has asked for. But

my Lords, whilst I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister is in rude

and vigorous health for many years to come, and is still in office long

after the saddest day when we have vacated the European Union,

nevertheless we cannot guarantee that that will be the case, and one

Prime Minister cannot necessarily buying her successor. Look at the

changes that took place in June and July of last year - how the mighty

have fallen! My Lords, I would urge, when we come to vote unless my Noble

Friend is able to give us the assurances that we seek, but we do

take to put Parliament in its rightful place. House of Commons

first, but the House of Lords, this noble house, in its proper position,

able to say, please reconsider. Able to say, we genuinely do not think

you have got this right. Of course, if they take a different line, we

recognise the limitations on our power, but my Lords, let us send a

message tonight to the Other Place. My Lords, I hope you will permit me

to think aloud. I heard that exchange between Lord Pannick and

Lord Forsyth. I am still wanting to work out some of the complications.

Amendment three I think for me provides the inclusion of Parliament

into negotiation processes in such a way that can prevent any deal ever

being reached. We are involving ourselves into the processes

themselves. It also, and the question has not been quite fully

answered, it says three times, without the approval of both Houses

of Parliament, prior to the approval of both Houses of Parliament, and

thirdly, the approval of both Houses of Parliament shall be required...

The question is yet to be answered - what happens when this House to not

agree with the other house? Somebody has got to answer that, because you

are saying, we don't agree with the other, it will give the unelected

house almost a veto on the procedure to reach an agreement with the EU,

which intern reflects the decision made by the electorate in the 2016

referendum. That has got to be answered. The commitment by the

Prime Minister in January 2017 for a vote for Parliament, I think I want

to say, I think that commitment does above and beyond what is contained

in the Constitutional Reform And Governance Act of 2010. I think she

said more than what is allowed in that act. I want to suggest, it is

not in Parliament's gift to make this a condition. The Prime

Minister's spokesman said yesterday, we should not commit to any process

that will incentivise the EU to offer us a bad deal. It would give

strength to parties in the opposition. We believe it should be

a simple meal in relation to triggering Article 50, and nothing

else. -- simple deal. Triggering Article 50, for me, it seems, is an

irreversible act. Two years after triggering it, the UK will leave the

EU, and it will do so with or without a deal. Article 50 makes

clear that the treaties will cease to apply two years after it for some

it is possible that the 27 members might unanimously agreed to extend

the negotiation period, but this cannot be taken for granted, nor

should it be assumed that they will offer anything in way of an

extension. You have got to answer it, you have got to put it in. Yes,

it may sound like rubbish, but that answer has got to be given. Section

three, this amendment I think also overlooks that the European

Union?(Notification of Withdrawal)?Bill? is about

triggering Article 50 and the formal divorce settlement. Neither this

bill nor Article 50 is about negotiating a new agreement with the

EU. My Lords, will somebody explain, if I cannot get a clear answer on

those questions, I think I may find myself voting no. But if I am made

to understand, they now my vote yes. Like the Noble Lord Lord Forks, I

arrived this morning for amendment one not sure which way I would vote.

But very clear that I was going to be a strong supporter of this

amendment is. Like him also, I thought there was a link between the

two, but high-resolution was somewhat different, which is that I

did not vote for this morning's amendment, but I still strongly

support this. One of the difficulties that I have found with

these debates, as to hurl we should think about the finality of the vote

on the 23rd of June last year, is that I find myself disagreeing with

arguments on either side. On the side of those who, like me, voted

Remain, it is often suggested that there was something about that vote

which was less legitimate than other votes, because perhaps there was a

16- to 18-year-olds didn't have the vote, or because the Leave

sidelight. But I do not consider those reasonable arguments. You may

or not may not be in favour of 16- to 18-year-olds having the vote, but

our present system starts at 18 and that does not change the legitimacy

of any result. As for the argument that the Leave side exaggerated, or

perhaps with the NHS claim lied, well, I do think there were some

exaggerations on the other side as well, and I have to say that in

every general election I can ever remember, there have been

exaggerations on either side, some of which have verged on the

mendacious, but they have not invalidated the result of the

general election. Democracy is scrappy, it is imperfect, but it is

the best system we have. So I accept the result of what happened last

year as no more and no less legitimate than any general

election. But that means as well as being no less legitimate, it is also

no more. And it is the case that on the day after a general election,

and my Noble Lord Lord Heseltine has already said this, the opposition

party devote themselves the very next day to arguing against what was

just agreed by the majority of the population by putting down

amendments in the Commons or the Lords, I trying to delay things in

the Lords, and by working day after day to win the next general

election, and in some cases working very hard to bring it forward if

they possibly can. There is a very fine play that you can go and see in

London now which records this, from the days in the Commons of several

people presently in this House. So I do very much agree with the

sentiment of the Noble Lord Lord Kerr that any idea that the vote in

June last year reflects the will of the people, in some unanimous,

absolute and for ever and changing fashion, is, as my Noble Lord put

it, not democratic but regressive doctrine. And like him I have been a

bit surprised and depressed by the fact that this Brezhnev doctrine,

having been first propagated by some of our major newspapers, is now

finding an echo Chamber among some parts, though not all parts, of the

Conservative Party, who on the basis of what was said earlier, I do wish

would pay more attention to the intellectual lineage of Edmund Burke

fan of Mr Brezhnev. Any idea to have another referendum,

the idea that that is undemocratic is nonsense. Indeed, the idea that

you should reject that possibility, but reject the possibility of

another referendum in principle is in itself undemocratic. If there was

another referendum in three or five years in which there was a majority

for saying in the EU, that would be equally democratic than the vote on

June 23rd. Still I did not support amendment 1, because I'm not sure

that there should be a referendum in two or three or four years time aye

do not think that by a referendum we can resolve the uncertainties and

issues that will be faced in two years time, but I do think we can

resolve them and we should have them resolved by having extensive

Parliamentary debates. We don't know what will be the result of

negotiations. Nor do we know what the situation will be in two years

time. It maybe adverse consequences have emerged from leaving the EU, it

maybe that they will not. I do not know. And I therefore do not think

it would be appropriate now to commit to a future referendum, nor

do I think we can sure how we determine the result of a

referendum. I wonder if the noble Lord would... I think you have to

sit down. I am most grateful. I wonder if he has picked up the wrong

notes for the wrong speech, he seems to be talking about the second

referendum. I'm going to come shortly and briefly why I think

these arguments say we should is a debate. I do not think it is

appropriate now to commit to a future referendum. Would a no vote

be against the result which was too soft or too hard? I think the

arguments against... Sorry I know the Lord wanted to speak to

amendment 1 and perhaps it is a bit frustrating that he is actually now

dealing with amendment 3. But I do think it is important that he

addresses his remarks to amendment 3 and not to amendment 1, which is a

matter which this House has already decided. What I want to argue, if I

may, is that the very arguments why one should not commit to a future

referendum, the uncertainty of the situation that we will then face, is

however the argument why it is absolutely appropriate for us to

come back for a detailed debate in both houses of Parliament at that

time to deal with the uncertain circumstances that will then exist.

Like others around this House, I would in some ways prefer that this

referendum more clearly identified the relative powers of the Commons

and the Lords in that process. I would have preferred the earlier

version of the attempt which proposed there should be a

legislative process brought forward. But the most important principle is

that we should not treat June 23rd as providing absolute answers for

ever, or the answers to everything, and that it is therefore absolutely

appropriate for us to assert that there should be a process of

Parliamentary sovereignty, where the details of what it is propose rd

brought back to both houses of Parliament for debate at that time.

My lords, may I speak to new clause 3, which I set my name? May I speak

to... May lords. My noble friend is in fact a signature to this motion

before the House. I think it is right the House hear from him.

Perhaps then from the Labour benches and then perhaps one of my noble

friends from the Conservative benches. Those are putting their

names to new clause 3 are not seeking to stand in the way of this

bill. Our sole purpose is to ensure that the outcome is subject to the

unfetterred discretion of Parliament. It is in our view, the

Parliament and not the Executive which should be the final arbiter of

our country's future and ironically in this sense, we stand with the

campaigners in the Brexit campaign, who wanted Parliament to recover

control over policy and legislation and incidentally too we stand in

that long tradition of Parliamentarians who stood for

Parliament. In the old days that was a contest fought on the

battlefields. More recently in public debate and most recently of

all in the law courts. It is a conflict that never ceases. Had it

not been for the judiciary we wouldn't be debating this bill. Oh,

no, it was the Government's intention to trigger Article 50

under the prerogative powers, that is the residual power of the crown.

It is central to this debate that we should determine the proper

interpretation to be give on the the referendum last June. I acknowledge

at once, albeit I was a remainor, that the referendum was much more

than mere think advisory expression of public opinion. It was much more

than that. However, I do deny that it was an authority to this

Government to leave the European Union whatever the cost, whatever

the terms, whatever the prejudice. That cannot be the case. Because the

public when it voted last June did not know the outcome. It could not

know the outcome. And in any event, the commitment by the Government to

subject the at mate decision to a -- ultimate decision a vote of

Parliament undercuts that proposition. I believe that the

proper interpretation of referendum is this, it is an instruction to

government to negotiate withdrawal on the best terms that it could get.

But that raises an absolutely fundamental question. To which this

new clause is directed. When the negotiations have crystallised, when

there are agreed terms, or perhaps no agreed terms, who determines the

way forward? Is it the Executive, is it Parliament? And that is the old

question we have to resolve. And in my view any believer in a democratic

state has to say that the authority lies with Parliament. Now, a very

brief reference to the second referendum, very brief. It may be

that Parliament two years down the track will decide that a second

referendum is necessary. They may be justified in doing so. The

circumstances may well change. Say in two years time there is a clear

change in public sentiment and say too the Parliament recognises that

fact, is Parliament not then under a duty to test the public opinion? And

may I quote Lord Tavern, who said this, only dictatorships do not

allow people to change their minds. In a democracy, no decision is

irreversible. I want to turn the argument from my honourable friend

Lord Hill, who is a very old friend of mine. Let me say at once that I

do acknowledge his experience and authority, which is recent. His

view, which I'm sure is going to be adopted by the Government, is if you

give to Parliament the kind of powers contemplated by this new

clause, you will undercut the negotiating position of the British

Government. Now, I have to say my lords and my Lord I do not agree

with that I video. -- view. I share the view expressed by Lord O'Donnell

and Kerr, both citing their own experience, that the existence of

the argument Parliament willed never wear this reinforces the position.

One of the most endearing characteristics of my noble friend

is he can't walk past a wasps' nest without poking wit a stick. There

are two points I would ask him to reflect on. The first is, which I'm

sure he would agree with me and I think all noble Lords with a few

exceptions would agree, this is going to be an extremely complex

negotiation. Anything that adds to that complexity is strongly to be

avoided in my opinion. I do not agree with those who say it will be

simple. This is going to be complicated, therefore we should

keep things as least complex as we can make them. This amendment, when

I listen to the noble Lord set it out, added to my sense that there is

complexity and uncertainty in this. My second response to my noble

friend about the... Would he perhaps agree with me that in terms of the

effect that this might have on the negotiation, the argument that some

people used to say that having a Parliament behind you or a board

behind you in a negotiation, enables you to have a stronger position,

that is normally when the board or the Parliament is adopting a harder

line than the person negotiating. In this case, I have to tell you, our

friends in Europe do read our debates and they're intelligence,

sophisticated negotiators, they know where people sit. So I say, I ask my

friend, when he says that it would weaken our position, can he not see

that there are indeed instances where it would weaken our position,

because it would make Parliament and player in this negotiation and add

complexity to what will already be complex. My noble has made a serious

point, which enables me to cut to the chase to one of the points I was

going to make. It is possible that my noble friend Lord Hill is right

and I would say this, there is sometimes a price to be paid for

democracy. Indeed, that is the argument that underpins many of the

assertions made by the Brexit supporters, they argue there may be

a cost, but it is more than compensated by the recovery of

democratic control. And that is an argument that also applies to the

process of negotiation. Of course I give way. I am grateful, in answer

to that question, can I ask him to remember 1991 when he and I were

both in the other place and I think he was a member of the Government.

On that occasion, the then Prime Minister, John Majorers, brought

Maastrict treaty to the House for approval twice. First in seeking a

mandate for negotiation and then in seeking the House's ray approval for

what had been agreed. If that did not weaken his Government. Why

should this weaken this one. It is koon consistent with the principle

under the act, that does require all treaties to be ratified by

Parliament. If I might make a little progress, this Government has in the

course of this pill made a very large number of concessionles and it

women be churlish not to welcome that fact. I hoped for more. But I

do agree with the views expressed by the noble lady and previously by the

noble Lord, Lord Panic, it is better by far that concessions of ministers

are expressed in statutory language, because as Lord Oakeses reminded the

House, political circumstances may change, ministers may move on,

governments may fall, statutory language is always to be preferred

to the comforting words of ministers. Finally, may I turn to my

noble friend, Lord Bridges, a friend of old standing of mine and I very

much hope I do not prejudice his future when I say he has conducted

the Government's case with great distinction.

But in his wind-up speech, my Noble Friend will doubtless argue that the

drafting of this new clause is defective in a number of ingenious

ways. It will surprise me if he does not put forward that argument. But I

say to Your Lordships' House, ignore that argument. I have carried

through several bills from Parliament. I have been party to

scores of bills going through Parliament. And the truth is this -

when a minister is weak on principle, that minister focuses on

the drafting. The reality is as follows - if Parliament as a whole

resolves that as a matter of principle, the ultimate authority to

determine the future of this country should rest with Parliament and not

with the executive, skilled Parliamentary council will be in

struck to ensure, and ensure very rapidly that the language of the

bill meets that objective. And so, my Lords, I ask your Lordships to

rest on the long contested principle, that this country's

future should rest with Parliament and not with ministers. And it is in

that spirit that I commend this new clause to Your Lordships' House. My

Lords, I think it is an occasion for the Labour benches. Can I start by

reminding this House that the Supreme Court gave us the benefit of

their wisdom on constitutional matters in the case that we have

heard about, the case of Gina Miller. And in that case, the

Supreme Court's principal conclusion was that rubbery legislation is

required to authorise the UK's withdrawal from the European Union.

I want to make it very clear that this bill is a notification bill, it

is not an authorisation bill. It does not authorise withdrawal from

the European Union. What it does is, it notifies other European Union

members that we are in a process of negotiation, and withdrawal must

come back before this Parliament. And I want to remind the House what

the Supreme Court judges said. They said that the reason why this was a

matter for Parliament, both notification and finally withdrawal,

was because any fundamental change to our laws that inevitably amend or

abrogate our individual rights require the approval of Parliament.

That is one of the essential constitutional principles under

which our system operates, that anything involving our rights,

whether it is to trade, to live or to travel in the European Union, we

have introduced those into domestic law. Therefore, because it involves

the rights of citizens, Parliament is the place that has to make the

decision and approve any changes to that. The concern that I raised at

the committee stage late at night, when most people were no longer hear

a, was that I heard repeatedly from ministers that if there wasn't a

deal to write if Parliament decided that a deal was not good enough, we

would walk away. And that therefore there was authorisation from the

people, having taken part in the referendum, to walk away. And I

think that flies in the face of what was being said by the constitutional

court of this country, the Supreme Court, dealing with constitutional

issues. Because walking away and embarking on an engagement in trade

worldwide under the WTO rules also involves an amendment, an abrogation

of some of the rights that citizens in this country have, it has

indications. That's why it's a constitutional matter, and that's

why this House particularly has a role to play. Perhaps I could remind

her of the limits of what the Supreme Court decided. In paragraph

three, they said, it is worth emphasising that this case has

nothing to do with the issues such as the wisdom of the decision to

withdraw from the European Union, the terms of withdrawal, the

timetable or arrangements rate the details of any future relationship

with the European Union. So there is a distinct limit to what they

decided, would the Noble Baroness agree? Of course, but in reaching

their decision, they laid out the principle that the reason why they

were engaging with the case at all was not because they had a view on

Brexit or not, but because of the constitutional principle. And the

principle is a very straightforward one, which is that when it comes to

our rights, Parliament is the place that you come to, Parliament makes

these decisions. And that's why when it comes to the end, and there is a

deal on the table, then it has to be voted upon by Parliament. But if

there is no deal, that, too. Becomes an issue, and I'm afraid it is not

good enough for our ministers of government to say, we just walk

away, as though it has no consequences. Walking away also has

consequences for the rights of citizens in this country. That's why

it is a matter for Parliament. That's why this new clause is so

important. She said at the beginning of her remarks that this is a

notification bill, not an authorisation bill - could she

explained therefore what an authorisation amendment is doing in

a notification bill? At the end of the process, there is going to be

and need to come back before Parliament. That has been

acknowledged by the Prime Minister and other ministers. And an

undertaking I understand has been given, as Viscount Hailsham has

said, I believe that having it in statutory form is the best way for

us to know exactly what is on offer. I have heard repeatedly from

ministers that the option of walking away involves no need to come back

before Parliament. I asked a question directly of the minister

and I have heard it said by other ministers in select committee. Wall

I am saying to this House is, that's why this amendment is so important.

And even important if no negotiation deal comes back before Parliament,

because no deal means the WTO, and the WTO has indications for citizens

of this country with regard to their rights. My Lords, as my Noble Friend

Viscount Hailsham, whose father was a highly respected colleague of

mine... Did the Noble Lord finish, because I was intervening on his

speech at...? I think that the Noble Lord wanted to come in on the points

that I was making. Actually I had more or less completed but if you

want to raise an issue... Wasn't the court's judgment based on the idea

that this was authorisation? The court would not have ruled as it did

if it had not assumed that this was unilaterally revocable. And the

court ruled specifically because of that that authorisation was

delivered by triggering Article 50. If they had not done so, they would

not have ruled as they did. Therefore it is absolutely crucial

to the understanding that this IS authorisation. It is notification of

withdrawal, it is not a withdrawal bill. My Lords, as I was saying, as

my Noble Friend Lord Hailsham, whose father I greatly respected as a

colleague of mine... Has reminded us! The reason we are debating this

new clause today is that the Noble Lord Lord Pannick, who move this

amendment, convinced first the High Court and subsequently the majority

of the Supreme Court, and the Government's intention to rely on

the prerogative wouldn't do. His argument was clear, and I think it

is helpful if I remind the House by quoting his words before the court -

my case is very simple, my case is that notification is the pulling of

the trigger, and once you have pulled the trigger, the consequence

follows. The bullet hits the target. It hits the target on the date

specified in Article 50. The triggering leads to the consequence

inevitably. Is a matter of law that the treaties cease to apply. In

short, the very act of invoking Article 50 in extra blue leads to

Brexit two years later. This was the principal basis on which the court

decided that the Government was wrong to rely on the prerogative.

And yet, my Lords, the new clause that we are now debating appears to

be seen exactly the opposite. It is saying that there is no

inevitability at all, triggering Article 52 is not inevitably, to use

Lord Pannick's word, the two Brexit. For the explicit purpose of the

clause is to ensure that even when Article 50 has been implemented, if

Parliament disapproves of the outcome of the negotiation, it can

stop the sack up. Indeed, as has been pointed out by a number of

speakers in this debate, on a strict interpretation of the clause, Your

Lordships' House alone could prevent Brexit, since the approval of both

Houses is required. I don't want to go down that of a new, because I

have no time. I have the greatest respect for the Noble Lord Lord

Pannick. He is an exceedingly clever lawyer who deploys his cleverness

with considerable charm. But is it possible for even him to have his

cake and eat it, too? I would like to develop my argument. The real

mischief lies in subsection four. Without subsection four, there is a

possible reconciliation with the original Lord Pannick thesis, as the

Noble Lord himself effectively conceded. Parliament would simply be

faced with a decision of whether or not it approved of the agreement

which the Government had putatively reached with the European Union.

Indeed, as the Noble Lord Lord Hope and one or two others have already

pointed out, the Government has pledged to put this before

Parliament when the time comes. The Government might, for example, have

agreed to pay the Barnier ransom demand, which our own European

affairs committee has recently confirmed we are under no legal

obligation to pay, a and in that case, Parliament might... But if, my

Lords, for whatever reason, Parliament refused to approve the

agreement the Government had reached with the EU, that would not prevent

Brexit. It would simply mean that we left the European Union without an

agreement. As I explained during the course of the second reading of this

bill, that is nothing to be scared about. So, far from jumping off a

nonexistent if into the unknown, trading under WTO rules is a very

satisfactory basis of most of the trade we do throughout the world

today. And no agreement... I give way. Would the Noble Lord accept

that the key question at this stage for the House this afternoon is, who

is to be master? Is it ministers or Parliament? I think that if the

Noble Lord will allow me to develop my argument, he will see exactly

what the problem is. As the Prime Minister... Because no agreement is

in my opinion far and away the most likely outcome. As the Prime

Minister made clear in her Ancaster house speech, and as the subsequent

white paper reiterated, no agreement is better than a bad agreement. And

sadly, a bad agreement is all that is likely to be on offer. For the

mischief, my Lords, or subsection four of this new clause, is that it

would not merely give Parliament the power to reject a bad deal, it would

also enable Parliament to prevent Brexit altogether by refusing to

allow the UK to leave the European Union without agreement. This is not

only in diametric opposition to the Lord Pannick thesis on which the

bill rests, more importantly, it would be an unconscionable rejection

of the referendum result, which would drive a far greater wedge

between the political classes and the British people than the

dangerous gulf that already exists. It could be argued we would be

instructing the Government to go back to Brussels and accept whatever

agreement, however bad the 26 are preparped to offer. -- 27 are

prepared to offer. That is constitutionally improper. The only

effect would be to create a political crisis causing damaging

uncertainty to business and the economy and which would in practice

be resolved only by a disillusion of Parliament and a general election.

Something the opposition can always try to achieve if that is what they

wish, without this clause, simply by moving and carrying a vote of no

confidence in the Government. My lords, this mischievous new clause

Mas Ca raiding an an assertion of Parliamentary sovereignty deserves

to be rejected out of hand. My lords. Speech. Sustain. I'm grateful

to my noble friend, no doubt she will have her opportunity in a

moment. After more than four decades in which I sought to make the most

modest of modest contributions to Parliament, I hope my credentials as

an advocate of Parliamentary sovereignty will not be challenged.