05/07/2016 House of Lords

I shall write to him later! My Lords, may I just ask the noble Lord

on the junior doctors theme, my understanding was the vote was to

reject a 52% from 48% which was quite a large majority. -- 58 to

42%. On the issue of alcohol and the 14 units per week, my Lords, I

looked on the Department of Health website this morning, and although

its talks about the risk of alcohol, it actually does not specify what

are the additional risks, for instance, if the units are being

kept from them at 18 units fall the week. The principal research and

expert advice given to the Chief Medical Officer, looking at the Lay

summary, the game does not quantify the risk. It simply says there is a

raised risk. My Lord, would he accept that if in fact we are not

prepared to give the public the real facts, it is unlikely that the Chief

Medical Officer's advise will be taken seriously? I wondered if he

would have a look at this. On the first issue, I can't hear commits to

giving a statement, that depends on decisions elsewhere, but is

certainly true that if there was a statement in the House of Commons I

would expect there are a statement to be here. As far as concerns,

guidelines are based on real facts. Last time guidelines are given was

in 1995, and in between then and now the link between alcohol and cancer,

or the scientific link between cancer and alcohol, has changed. And

so, I think she feels that it is right to put the facts in the public

domain, and as I said, we are consulting now, on we actually word

those, word those guidelines to the public.

I beg leave to the question in my name on the order paper.

The Government has no plans to introduce identity cards for British

citizens. My Lords, with Brexit increasing

levels of immigration, concerns of international terrorism, personal

security frauds, and concerns over voter registration and access to

public services, do not advances in biometric details that the

collection now give us a new opportunity to consider introducing

identity cards? We need them now, we need them urgently. I believe the

majority of the public want them. The Liberal Democrats will not

clever so why not have rethink? The Government's focus is on

enhancing security of existing documents whilst recognising the

direction of travel towards a digital identities that may reduce

reliance on physical documents. 84% of the population in this country

who are UK citizens hold a UK passport, the majority of which are

biometric. Those who have immigration status in this country

hold biometric residence permits. It is not considered appropriate to

sleep this week in favour of identity cards. -- sweep this away.

And what he just said about passports that he recognised that in

order to defend our borders it is essential immigration officers

should be aware of who people are anti-British passport holder who has

multiple other nationalities -- and a passport holder, it is necessarily

those passport should be seen to be held when the British passport is

showing on the scanner? That is not currently the case and the Home

Office have resisted my attempts to introduce it, largely because they

do not like other people's ideas. When he kindly see something is

done, otherwise the Government is failing in a big way in its

responsibilities for defending our sovereignty and Borders?

The Home Office is always open to new ideas.

LAUGHTER Thank you, my Lords. It remains

open. Our borders are open to those who carry a British passport and

since the time of Henry V those present one are entitled to enter

country. -- those who present one. Noble lords will been appalled by

the murder of 32 April in Brussels in a march by terrorists. Any

country with the carrying of national identity card is

compulsory. Can the normal lobby ministers say how identity cards

would make us safer in the UK where they appear not to make people in

Belgium any safer? -- had the noble lord the Minister. He the position

of the Government is identity card and not something they would

contemplate introducing currently. If they believed there was a

increasing security of course their position would change.

Will be noble lord be surprised if the phone when I was a member of the

other place I held a consultation on identity cards in my constituency

and one of the responses which most surprise people was from married

woman, most a lot but not all, from minority ethnic communities who said

they had no access to their passports, did not have a bank card

or savings account, could not prove to the world. Indeed, saying that

when some of them have become victims of domestic violence they

were told they could not be rehoused because they could not prove who

they were. They said to me, if you are me to have an identity card I

would be someone. As the Government thought about those issues?

It is tragic to hear of victims of such intimidation and control but I

would observe those who are the subject of such are not likely to

have access to the identity card any more than they have access to their

passport. We have heard in the course of the

debate about the rise in attacks against minorities. One of the

things that concerned minorities was if you introduce an identity card it

opened the door to harassment or people who speak a foreign tongue,

and accent, you would have victimisation of people who have a

different colour of skin and a sense it would create those sorts of

problems for people from minorities. The answer to the issue raised is

surely you have better facilities for people experiencing domestic

violence, oppression within the communities and from their partners.

That is the answer, identity cards. The Government would agree the

answer is not the introduction of an identity cards.

Come by law to meet what the estimated cost would be of identity

cards? The estimated cost of following

through the original proposals which began in 2003 and implemented in

2009 were estimated in 2010 at just over ?840 million.

I except the plans for ID cards got out of hand for when they started --

I accept. But the Minister must know this country is one of the easiest

countries to work illegally in. One of the greatest Proulx factors for

the merchants of sometimes death in trafficking people. -- Proulx

factors. Couple that with no ID card and it is money in the bank for

these people. Stop it being made so easy to work illegally, number one,

and that goes hand in glove with securing people's identity, the two

things should be done together. The introduction of the new

immigration act has clamped down on the scope of illegal working in this

country. It is not considered appropriate that should be combined

with any system of identity cards. One of the main reasons to actually

have the card is for a person to protect their identity and get

access to all of the things now done digitally. We found when we get the

work of the banks when I started the cyber security policy is to have

cards for individuals which biometrics and could be used with

computers for their own security. All this other stuff about checking

up on people and everything is a signed line, as far as I'm

concerned. It is to save the identity and personal details of the

individual in this country. -- Eastside line. Enable them to get

digital access to the new system is coming and the only really fun to do

that with the banks and stock exchanges is have some sort of card

that has biometric details to let them do it safely.

It would appear matters have moved further because we are not in the

realms of digital identification were cards are not required and the

Governmentmy own website makes provision for digital

identification. Hashtag Government's own site. I beg

leave to ask the question in my name on the order paper.

The Government is committed to tackling hate crime. The UK has one

of the strongest legislative frameworks in the world. In terms of

recent events we are working across Government with police, including

national community tensions teams, the CPS and community partners, to

send out a clear message, the crime will not be tolerated and those who

commit these acts will face the full force of the law.

I fear many hit claims have came against a backdrop of a campaign

which give a rubber stamp to racism. That the Government make any

previous preparations for the rise of the claim before the referendum

and will the Minister agree we must ensure the status of the citizens

and other immigrants in this country and be assured of their status? --

preparations for the rise in hate crime.

The Government implemented a series of educational programmes which have

received the support of the National union of teachers who are close by

this afternoon, I believe. In the circumstances we have taken steps to

address this issue. In addition, across Government hate crime action

plan is about to be published. I understand the publication is

imminent and that will drive for what our proposals to deal with all

forms of hate crime. I came to this country in from India

as a 19-year-old. At the time of the referendum I received this tweet.

"You Are not the British-born sort your import -- input into the

British fort is of interested through British workers." They went

to the hospital with a broken finger at this weekend and was told by

someone next to her, you are reported to this country? Their

selection referendum has caused this. Will the Minister acknowledge

this is the case and is the Government doing enough to address

something I have not, in any way, witness for 30 years but I am now

witnessing. No matter what may divide us we are

united in this country by shared values of democracy, free speech,

mutual respect and opportunity and if we maintain those standards we

can drive out the criminals who perpetrate these sort of crimes the

noble lord referred to. If there had been no split on Europe within the

Conservative Party that would have been no Conservative Party

referendum. If there had been no referendum that would have been no

significant rise in hate crime. Will the Government now at least do the

decent thing and accept what is happening today is because party

interests was put in front of national interests and put the noble

lord tell us what specific new initiatives or decisions as opposed

to discussions, messages and plans, the Government has taken since the

referendum campaign to address the serious and damaging situation they

have helped create? With respect, it is not appropriate

to seek to draw the line between the referendum, referendum results and

those who have taken it as an opportunity to express xenophobia

and the races positions. May I say this, I think it is obvious to all

that the vote in that referendum can be attributed to a split in the

Labour Party and not in the Conservative Party.

There have been a five fold increase... There has been a five

fold increase in the reporting hate crime, 500%, and that is reported a

crime. The majority are not reported as I myself have also been abused

online, members of my family, people I know of all colours, race,

religion and no religion have been subjected to this. Could I ask the

noble lord the Minister if he would support the initiative by a national

coalition of race equality groups who have come together to ask for

leadership and solidarity from all politicians all around the house and

the other place and the media, to reject racism, hate crime and stop

pandering to intolerance and racism. We should have a zero tolerance to

this kind of behaviour. I would agree with the noble lady

that on all sides of this house we are ready to condemn racism and

xenophobia and we have a common interest and out so far as that is

concerned. With regard to the increase in reported a race crime

there has been a significant increases in the period 2010-2016,

but one must be careful with those statistics because much of that is

attributed to the fact we have introduced a better reporting system

including the reporting portal Through vision.

Would it not be a good idea if we all took Her Majesty The Queen's

advice and just calmed down a little?

Even if I can respond to the question from the noble lord, yes.

It is not simply a question of the referendum campaign making

xenophobia and racism are respectable again, it is also the

responsibility of the noble lord the Minister's right Honourable friend

in the other place, who have consistently, the right honourable

Theresa May and the campaigns about the whole operas against illegal

immigrants, pandered in exactly the same way. -- home of this campaign.

The intervention in the me oral election in London talking about

extremists was all part of the same picture. If they're not a pattern

which has led to the increase in xenophobic incidents?

Nothing makes xenophobia and racism respectable, least of all the

referendum. My Lords, with the lead of the house I would like to repeat

an answer to an urgent question given in the other place by the

Minister of State for Schools in relation to the end you tea strike

going on today. There is absolutely no justification for this strike.

The Nu T asked for talks and we are having talks. Since made the

Department for Education has engaged in a new programme would be teaching

unions. Even before them we went to the roundtable discussions.

and yet the budget for this year was greater than last budget review in

2011, by ?4 billion. The government has shown its commitment to

education by protecting schools under it. We want to work with the

profession and the teaching unions, and have been doing so successfully

in our efforts to reduce unnecessary teacher workload, with 15,000 more

teachers profession than in 2010, teaching remains one of the most

popular and attractive professions into which work. This industrial

action by the NEDs pointless, but far from inconsequential. It

disrupts education bill inconveniences, and damages the

reputation of the profession in the eyes of the public. But because of

the dedication of the vast majority of teachers and head teachers, our

analysis shows that seven out of eight schools are refusing to close.

Our school workforces must remain a suitable person for the 21st century

by this action seeks to take the question back to the Taj trepidation

of the 20th century. This also does not have a democratic mandate even

from the new T members. It is based on a ballot with a turnout of 24.5%,

less than 10% of the total teacher workforce. Our ground-breaking

education reforms by improving pupil outcomes, challenging low

expectations, and poor pupil behaviour in schools, and

increasingly prestige of the teaching profession. This

anachronistic and unnecessary strike is a march back into the path that

nobody wants schools to revisit. I thank the noble Lord for repeating

that statement in which it was said that today's strike was politically

motivated. Frankly my law that is beyond irony from a government who

in March launched a white paper that was driven first and foremost by

political ideologies aiming divorce children into straitjackets and the

local councils. I can't see how this is a fair comparison. They were

faced with a government not acknowledging them, concerns as

teachers being not replaced when they leave, growing class sizes, and

an increasing workload contributing to major problems with staff

retention. The Secretary of State herself said there will be no real

terms cut in school but as yet the Institute for Fiscal Studies

calculated there will be a per people cut of 8% cut in the years

ahead. When will he addressed these existential issues that are

threatening the quality of the educational future of our children?

The noble Lord was met with 9.4% of teachers, and I'm personally

saddened by this strike, and I would like to promote teaching as a

profession and there is no doubt that the reputation of teachers is

harmed by this strike, or at least the reputation of the 90.6% of

teachers who didn't vote for this strike their reputation is affected

by the 9.4%. As far as funding is concerned, we have as I said

protected the schools budget, protected the per pupil premium,

substantial resources be made available three education funding

agency benchmarking information, and a great deal of advice is on offer

to help schools with challenges facing a lot of people, higher

pension costs, National Insurance, etc. Multi-Academy trusts are

particularly well placed to do this and many are particularly effective

in this regard. One of our most highly performing multi-Academy

trusts has a system called curriculum lead financial planning,

a sophisticated bottom-line modelling was also schools making

sure resources are focused on schools, front lines, and making

this free to other schools is improving resources for teachers.

Assad day for education, when teachers feel the need to strike

will stop it must not be ignored that those hit hardest by the strike

will be the pupils and students who miss out on part of their education,

and low income parents who do not have the disposable income to pay

for childcare at a whim. The Minister has said the strikes were

necessary as a school budget is as high as it has ever been but by

doing this he has steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the dire financial

situation faced by schools now. It was announced to me on the 9th of

May the costs of teachers salaries have risen by 25.4%. On the 25th of

May he proceeded to reiterate the government promise of a spending

review that they project scope budgets -- school budget in real

terms in this Parliament. Why is it then that the Institute for Fiscal

Studies forecast that school spending per pupil is going to fall

by 8% in real terms by 20 much better 2020 question macro does he

agree with the figure or not? We need to recognise that with on costs

and spending cuts, there are real challenges to spending, and we ask

him how he intends to give the promise made in the economic review.

I do intend to keep this entirely, and many schools and educational

authorities are facing these on costs, living as we do in a climate

of scarce resources, as I have intended to explain, and there are

many resources available to schools to improve their budgeting, and

schools are facing pressures on their budgets which for many of them

is far greater than they have ever faced. Most of us have been brought

up in eight climate of ever increasing income. Schools have

never had to go back to a bottom-up model of the schools, and what we

are finding when they do that they are finding significant savings, and

actually this results in money being spent where they want it to be

spent, rather than what has happened with other schools, with budgets

growing and growing like Topsy, and financial modelling available to

schools is resulting in much better focusing our resources in the

classroom. The minister was complaining that the teachers had a

democratic mandate of just 9.4%. Could he tell the house what his

democratic mandate is? Well, it's lot higher that, and I would have

thought as in our new legislation it would need to have a turnout of 50

cents -- 50% before you could take this seriously. Adjourn the debate

on the motion of the debate of the Lord Privy Seal. My Lords, the

referendum campaign on both sides in my view was appalling. It verged on

abuse, and the people of this country deserved better, and as a

political class, I believe we owe them a profound apology. Divisions

inevitably linger, and perhaps some are in danger of growing on

immigration. A few words yesterday, and with your leave, a few more

today. We condemn the outburst of intolerance, of course we do, but

much of the blame, in my view, rests squarely on the shoulders of the

political establishment which for 20 years has chosen largely to ignore

the problem. The left shouted down anyone who wanted to discuss the

issue, accused them of being racist, while we on the right offered up

glib, implausible promises. How did we, as conservatives, expect

ordinary people to react when at one moment we promised to reduce

immigration to tens, not hundreds of thousands will stop no ifs or buts.

And only a year later we deliver a net total in a single year of

330,000. We share the blame. I wept when I saw that dreadful referendum

poster of the refugees. Is it their fault? No, my Lords, not theirs. The

fault lies with us. We've been sleeping comfortably, without

consciences, and have slept too long. So today millions of people

who are legally and properly settled in Britain are afraid. Uncertain

what we might do with them, and to them. We don't deserve such

uncertainty. -- they don't deserve. At times politics climbs into bed

with some pretty uncomfortable bedfellows, and in the case of the

vote to leave, dare I suggest that some of my fellow campaigners forgot

to take off their boots. For me, my lord, my Lords, this referendum was

about freedom, and tolerance, not just for a few but for us all. It

was about the British sense of fair play, and flexibility, nothing to do

with racist bullying, and kicking out minorities. It was about moving

forward, not about cheating to dark old days when the island was

surrounded by stormy seas. It was above all about respect,

respectfully wishes of the people which requires respect for others.

No matter what their origins, their colour, their accidents. -- accents.

The government said yesterday it would be unwise to offer assurances

do you immigrants already hit without parallel assurances from

other European governments. But offering assurances is unwise? No,

my Lords, far from it. It would be an act of humanity of friendship,

and of leadership. What was Brexit about after all if not about

establishing a sovereign independent government capable of making up its

own mind? We don't need anybody else's imposition, those days are

gone, it is now our choice. I want to press the government and all

those who have ambition to lead it, for clear assurances that EU

immigrants already living in this country lawfully have no fear, they

are welcome. They will be so and continue to be. What are we to have,

for pity 's sake? Mass transportation like that we have

seen, vast lines of mothers, Bill will bid babes in arms crossing the

Channel in different directions? That is the way of madness. It is

worth repeating that these people aren't bargaining chips. Least of

all hostages. They are on neighbours and our friends. We conservatives

aren't dare I say the nasty party. And we mustn't become one. Any

future government which tries to introduce legislation to send back

legally settled immigrants would in my view be out of it's mind. It

would soon be out of office. Otherwise, my lords are you -- we

would lose the superb support that we enjoy in our health service, our

care services, the code reasons we get in every street in every town of

the country. Not least of all the superb service we get in our own

dining room. . It is not going to happen, get on with it. So, what

will happen? It is known in their one's interests to cut us off from

the EU. We are and will still be all of us Europeans. There is no reason

why that relationship should not be warm and productive. I would urge

the EU, its own interests to find a better means of dealing with this

crisis than through its unelected president. I don't wish to

personalise this but frankly if it hadn't been for President Younger's

conduct, and exquisite commentaries, and he has been at it again today,

if it hadn't been for him, I think remain would have won. This will be

and it must be a political process, balancing the rights of the UK and

the rights of the EU. Process requires vision, and not run by

bureaucracy but elected politicians, those who can feel the hot breath of

the people on their next stop. That means above all I would say to the

next promise that, if not next union, then Alliance. If not as one,

then at least together. And if we are no longer bound by law, then let

us be bound by bonds of overwhelming friendship. My Lords, we have a

mountain to climb, but the summit yet might prove awesome. My Lords,

it is a great pleasure to follow his speech, and I had endorse what he's

saying, at least in the first half of his. We must all work on these

issues. My Lords, my starting point is a bit different from those other

noble Lords who have spoken far. Their contributions if I might say

so I've been a bit local. My Lords, one cannot stress too strongly that

what is in happening in the aftermath of the referendum is being

watched around the globe. The country was heavily dependent as

ours is an overseas investment, should be paid attention to. Not too

many articles cut in the world press, to put it mildly, see Britain

and free from the tentacled monster from the EU. This pain is often

pervaded humour as we often know very well. It shows a plane with a

EU symbol on its side. The hatch door is open, and a man in a bowler

hat for some reason who the rest of the world thinks the British still

wear bowler hats, the door is open, and a man in a bowler hat waving a

tiny union Jack is poised to jump out. But without a parachute.

There is a huge repair job to do here, my lords, for all of us. This

House can take the lead in some of it. My lords, the metaphor of Basil

Fawlty jumping out of the playing might turn out to be worrying the

accurate -- jumping out of the aeroplane. The outcome of the

referendum will be determined by two things. Once Article 50 is invoked.

First, how other nations, global markets and international investors

respond. Second, what kind of deal the rest of the EU is able to come

up with. I should remind noble lords that the European Union is not that

mysterious entity brussels, but it is 27 nations collaborating. Over

many of the issues, individual member states or small groups of

them actually will have a detail. To be subject to this twin forces does

not look much like increased sovereignty to me. The world today

is so massively interdependent the real sovereignty comes only from

collaboration with others. Whether it is the EU, Nato or the UN. My

Lords, everybody sitting here... fundamental probes we face, and we

all know this, too, that those who advocated leaving the EU and who won

the day, have been quite unable to agree what Leave actually means. And

their differences are quite profound. They were not resolved

during the campaign but simply fudged. On the one side are the

radical free marketeers, I would include noble Lord Lawson in that

category, who think exiting the EU will free Britain to trade across

the world and who are willing to abandon the civil market altogether.

I exempt my noble Lord Lawson from my next comment which may not be

true but they care little for tradition or for the past and

certainly wouldn't agree with this, many are intuitively pro-migration.

On the other, on the other hand, are those who have a nostalga for

evaporating customs and life, who want to close the bored and retrieve

lost sovereign ti. They are hostile to big business. These yawning

ideological ditcheses my Lord account for the descent of the Leave

campaign, epitomised by Boris Johnson's absurd remark in

negotiations with the rest of the EU, he wanted to have his cake and

eat T well, I suppose it makes it easy on the digestion. My Lords, the

British people can only make a proper judgment when there is a

plausible plan on the table, a firm outline of which has been agreed and

accepted by the other 27 states in the EU.

The core dilemma, my Lords s well-known but quite possibly could

prove intractable. Not far off half of British exports go to the rest of

the EU. Most are services rather than goods. I rather strongly

disagree, again, with what the noble Lord Lawson says on this issue,

because passporting, the absence of regulatory barriers to business is

the key to success in this instance. That is not the same as the absence

of tariffs. My Lords, exiting the single market

even in the medium term would be hugely problematic, yet staying in

almost certainly involves accepting freedom of movement. If there is a

way out of this dilemma, no-one has discovered it yet.

My Lords, precisely because there is no plan, there must be some sort, in

my view, some sort of renewed and extensive public engaugement, if and

when a deal is agreed with the rest of the EU and starts its passage

through Parliament. I'm not sure, in my own mind what

this should be but I wouldn't write-off the possibility of another

referendum down the line, or an election in which this figures as

the prime issue. My Lords, the tone adopted by the

leading politicians at times, during the referendum debate was nothing

short of racial incitement to hatred and demonstrated the worst of

British politics. I was so dismayed and concerned by

the tone and exaggerations of the debate that I wrote to the Cabinet

Secretary Sir Jeremy Haywood on 13th June, drawing his attention to the

fact that some ministers were failing to comply with the

Ministerial Code and the seven principles of public life which

include maintaining the highest standards of integrity and honesty.

But, despite the scaremongering about minority groups, immigrants,

Turkey joining the EU and Turkish Muslims and I quote, "Swamping the

UK." We must not confuse the Leave vote as made of of people who are

entirely far route in their political views or who are mostly

racist or zenophobic. But I agree with my colleague, Tim

Farron who states, "It has been absolutely heart-breaking to see the

racist attacks following the referendum, many warn that the

rhetoric of Farage and the Leave campaign could lead to a rise in the

intolerance we are now seeing ""We must be clear that the outcome of

the referendum was not a green light to xenophobia. It must not be

allowed to damage the multicultural, multiethnic and multi-faith society

that Britain is and will remain. A vote to leave the EU is not and

should not be seen as a victory for the far right no. Serious leader

should fall back to regressive policies that demonise minorities,

communities or put in place policy which undermine our civil liberties.

The tone used in debates around immigration was disgraceful. And

those politicians who took part in such attacks should hang their heads

in disgrace. It's imperative now, that all politicians must give clear

leadership in uniting and condemning racism, xenophobia and work towards

stressing the importance of the key roles that EU nationals play in

making Britain, and the UK a success in every aspect of our daily lives.

We are all, my Lords, most lay nation of immigrants. It is merely a

question of time. But I accept that there are legitimate questions and

concerns about the state of our public sector and the services

within it. I just want it share some fact with you, o on polling. They

are thus: those working full-time port-time voted Remain in the EU.

Most of those not working voted to leave. More than half of those

retired, on a private pension, voted to leave. As did two-thirds of those

retired on a state pension. Around two-thirds of council and housing

association tennants voted to leave. Among those whose formal education

ended at secondary school or earlier, a large majority voted to

leave. There is a pattern here, my Lords. The polls demonstrate that

many disadvantaged people in poorer communities voted to leave the EU

because, as they say, and I have heard them say this - they had

nothing more to lose. David Camerons a often expressed the simple message

- if you want to work hard, get on in life, this Government will be on

your side. Yet, the terrible tax credit cuts which were envisaged by

the Chancellor and would have affected over 3 million Britons and

which supplemented low-paid work, exposed the who will yesness of this

claim. Although the Chancellor reversed these cuts, very

regrettably, when people move on to Universal Credit, many of the

larger, poorer families, will again be disadvantaged.

Yesterday, it was announced that there would be a cut in the

corporation tax. This is likely to mostly benefit larger businesses and

corporations. Benefits are not likely to translate into many more

jobs and so will do little for those needing help and support in

disadvantaged communities. Indeed, cuts in corporation tax may lead to

further cuts in public spending, such as in the NHS and in the

welfare budget, as the Chancellor tries to make difficult ends meet.

Clearly successive governments have failed to listen and to act on

improving the life of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our

society. You only have to visit places in the north of England to

see derelict housing, poor transport, infrastructure, and

struggling communities. Governments have talked the talk but talk and

slogans have not translated into concerted action. The northern

powerhouse is one such example. Of course, many people have legitimate

concerns about access for hospitals, access to GPs, access to good

schools, access to good transport, infrastructure. Access to affordable

housing and decent paid permanent jobs. But, my Lords, it is the poor

and the disadvantaged who feel these issues much more acutely because

they often find themselves and their families trapped in low-paid jobs,

inadequate and expensive housing and greater levels of ill-health.

Social justice and reform must work for everybody, ensuring that

everybody has the best chance of life. Surely, my Lords, it is right

of everybody, and not only the privilege of those with power and

influence. The results of the referendum to leave the EU is likely

to mean that inflation is likely to rise and benefits will continue to

be frozen. This will hit the spending power of people on

disability benefits, those who are job-seekers and those on low pay.

Brexit voting pensioners have already seen their annuity values

crashing. Clearly the disadvantaged people in every area who voted out

will be worst hit by job losses and high inflation. Can the noble lady

the Minister say what the Government is doing to mitigate against this?

The Government has set out its life chances strategy to tackle poverty,

aimed at Trounce transforming the lives of the poorest in Britain with

the role of tackling the root causes of poverty, drug and alcohol

addiction, serious personal debt, worklessness, family breakdown,

educational attainment. But it has admitted to include income as a

means of getting on in life. The Government, in my view, also needs

to look at Rhys Gilling and upscaling people in poorly paid

part-time jobs -- re-skilling. We need now a new and inclusive vision,

new and honest politics which gives hope to wall at our nation. Most

important, my Lords, to those who need as the most. Because we want

and inclusive, tolerant, equal and fair society committed to a new set

of values of their lives and hope. Fascinating speech, I am sure the

House is very impressed with it. But can she tell us where she got the

data from to see how individual voters voted, which way they voted

Wesley my Lords, it was from the polls that Lord Ashcroft took and

was mentioned in the Guardian newspaper as well. I agree, I pay

tribute to a remarkable speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury. I

cannot match that, and therefore it will be more mundane. I want to make

six points about article 50. First, the reference in the first clause of

Article 50 two the member state deciding in accordance with its own

constitutional requirements. This has been much discussed, including

this morning. The intention of the phrase was simply to make the point

about how the decision is reached is entirely a matter for the member

state. Just as with ratification procedures, there is no EU template.

So the question of whether a UK parliamentary procedure is required

is one for the UK Parliament, and nothing to do with anybody in

Brussels. There is no relevant EU law, it is not an EU issue. I myself

am inclined to agree, although I am not a lawyer, with the noble lord's

argument, that there should be a parliamentary procedure. But that is

not because I would wish to devote against leaving if there were a vote

here -- I would wish to vote. We are where we are, and in the light of

the referendum result I would be in favour of leaving. Of course I

believe it is a serious mistake, our influence across the world will be

much diminished. Of course I think it will be a disaster for our

economy and lead to a decade of economic and political uncertainty.

And of course I am sad and angry that the case against the

referendum, the case for representative government and

democracy has been conferred by a campaign marked by a responsibility,

a campaign in which assertion has trumped -- fact and argument. As the

justice Minister said, the people in the country are fed up with experts.

I am determined to be dispassionate today! We are where we are, and of

the Government acts with the Lord's advice and puts a resolution to the

House, I believe that that resolution should and would pass.

Second point, there are those who are due for a different question,

for the repeal of the 1972 act. Lord Lawson argues. I disagree for two

reasons. First, my understanding, supported by the report from the

committee is that where a treaty sets out a procedure, in this case

as a session procedure, other than by that procedure would break

international law as well as the EU law. It would of course also poison

the atmosphere for any continuing year shisha in Brussels. Also,

although -- any continuing negotiation. I do not believe it

would make sense to destroy the foundation on which so much law is

based, so many statutory intervals are based, without first deciding

which to relabel and retain, which to adjust and which to then fall.

And, my Lords, the small state anti-welfare libertarian avoid

saying which they would vote for, health care, protection, equality,

the environment, consumer protection, we know that they are

not just against Brussels regulation, some of them or against

regulation per se. That is easy to say in general terms. It is rather

hard when it comes down to specific regulations. I think we need a more

honest and deeper debate before the repeal of the act. My third point,

timing. Some in Brussels and some here say that we must immediately

press the article 50 bottom. And some over that say there must be no

talking to us until we have. This is errant nonsense. There is no legal

basis for it, it is entirely up to the member state to decide when to

issue the formal notification. And it seems to me that it would be very

wise for the new Prime Minister, whoever she is, first to take time

to study the issues and talk to her new colleagues. Mr Johnson complains

that the Government has no Brexit plan. How could it have a Brexit

plan when he issued no manifesto on which to base this by? And when,

judging by his article last week in the Daily Telegraph, he is still on

his consistent policy on Kate, our goods are to have free access

throughout the single market but we will not recognise the ECG, we will

play football but not bring ROV referee, our people will be free to

work across Europe but there's cannot come here. Lewis Carroll, the

red Queen, six impossible things before breakfast. We do need to

plan, but Brussels have to wait until we have got one, and it must

not be placed on Daily Mail thinking. Paul Baker told the

country last Saturday, he is no longer campaigning, he has won. Last

Saturday he told us that Brexit carried no terrorism because

services are not in the single market. I quote the Daily Mail

media, services are not in the single market. I think I have been

unfair to him, I had thought his campaign was driven by an insular

ideology, and I think it is probably just plain ignorance. I am being

dispassionate today. My dispassionate point is that the

timing of our triggering Article 50 is entirely up to us, whatever

Brussels says. .4, a point about sequencing. Article 50 is about

withdrawal, it is about divorce. Some in Brussels have said, wrongly

in my view, but there can be no trade talks with us until the

divorce is few. I refer them to article 50 paragraph two, the

reference for taking account of the framework for future relationships

of the union. How could the parties to the treaty respect that unless

they were in parallel agreeing such a framework, the architecture of the

future, the principles on which the new partnerships should be based?

Detailed discussion of future relations in trade, finance,

aviation, foreign policy, the fight against crime, all of that will take

years. But there is a treaty to establish the framework before the

arguments of the divorce terms are agreed, and the Brussels

institutions will have to accept that. I would add that rowing

preparations for that separate parallel subtle thingy is

negotiation with much, much more complex -- parallel negotiations.

Fifth point, the point in which I part company with the noble lord. In

his Times article he referred to them notification under article 50

is irrevocable. He used that as a flying buttress to support his

principal argument which I do agree with about his need for a prior act

of Parliament. I do not think he needs such a buttress, I also think

it is a rather fragile one. Nothing in the treaty says that a

notification cannot be withdrawn, nor does it say the opposite. If on

discovering from the article 50 framework negotiations what out

looks like we were to change our mind, I don't believe our partners

would say, too late, had you must go. Some might be unhappy, like the

prodigal sons, some might be tempted to seek a price or be speculative.

My point, highly academic books relevant to the concerns that the

Butler has been advancing, simply that there is no treaty basis for

regarding an article 50 notification as irrevocable. My last point has

already been made and it is brief. I pay tribute to Lord Dobbs, it gives

me great pleasure. EU citizens here, hate crime and bargaining chips.

This is no way to create a good atmosphere in a foreign negotiation.

I have to tell the House that incidents are being very well

reported across the continental press. I don't need to add to what

has been eloquently said from all sides of the House, but I do hope

the Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary are listening and will

reflect again on what they said yesterday. Student politics may have

trashed the country, but now it is time for the grown-ups to reassert

themselves, reassert our values and restore our reputation.

My Lords, in 1997I stood before you to deliver my maiden speech. My

priority was to draw attention to the ludicrous EU regulations that

were inflating the cost of theatre productions in mainland Europe,

almost doubling ticket prices as a consequence. Today, thanks to us

being forced to adopt some of these regulations, unfortunately our

ticket prices are creeping up to. Whilst EU practices have undoubtedly

cause problems, I am not here today to burden you with further industry

specific tales of woe. For these, as with almost every other issue, pale

into insignificance when impaired to what I believe to be the greatest

threat to our people for a generation. My Lords, this is on the

oubliette time of great uncertainty for a country. -- undoubtably. While

these issues are of its importance, I fear that if we continue to look

amongst ourselves and continue to work out what has happened to our

countries is the referendum, we are at the same time walking blindly

into a threat, the gravity of which far surpasses any of the issues

which we have indulged ourselves into date. My Lords, let us not

forget that last week's commemoration of the Somme, when

more than 70,000 British servicemen lost their lives, it is a stark

reminder when a continent was jeopardised for a generation. Today

my Lords, I believe Europe is once again facing a terrible threat, and

the security of the continent is in the balance. The greatest single

threat to peace in both the UK and Europe, and with a possibility and

safety, is Putin's unopposed meddling in Syria. While the

situation was not created by President Putin, his actions and

involvement remain a cause for huge concern. Over the past six months,

Russian bombs have decimated hospitals, schools, markets and

homes in Syria. It has killed many people. He has displaced millions

more, and in doing so has played an active role in fuelling the European

and migrant crisis. Whilst the United Kingdom and Europe oral over

what sort of trade agreements we mail may not have in a few years'

time, Putin's involvement is steadily destabilising our European

borders and unleashing a sinister echo of the Somme which we saw,

never again. Be under no illusion, my Lords, Putin's forces rage, not

just against those in combat but against civilians, too. When the

referendum was called, the Syrian migration crisis hadn't exploded.

Now the goalposts have moved, and they continue to move all around

Europe in many different ways. The present conflict in Ukraine, Moldova

and Georgia as well as the provocations to Nato members demand

that we recognise that the Moscow regime has been a huge threat to the

security and stability of Europe, and it is Putin who continues to

move the goalposts with ever more devastating consequences. Whilst we

ourselves else in the aftermath of a referendum on the rest of Europe

tries to make sense of our decision, Putin carries on his. Parents'

generation sacrificed their lives for peace. Now we must sure we are

trustworthy custodians. I shudder at how Putin must be looking at our

prevails with glee. He has directly or indirectly made historic

divisions bubbled to the surface again. Things are working out well

for him. He knew the refugee crisis with strained Europe to breaking

point, and he was right. In quitting Europe, I fear we are hastening

Putin's dream of the break-up of the EU, and potentially Western

civilisation. Austria recently missed collecting an extreme

right-wing president, I understand this election is to be rerun. Marina

-- Marine Le Pen could become President of France next year. The

Putin fuelled refugee crisis undermined Angela Merkel, once the

most powerful and stable politician in Europe, the German far right is

back in business. Now, more than ever, we must stand united as a

country and continent to on our reputation as a great kingdom and

provide the moderating voice Europe needs in order to remain peaceful.

I hope we don't look back at incredulity, whilst failing to help

those in desperate need and missing one of the greatest tlefts our

lifetime looming on the horizon. My Lords, our nation's safety and the

safety of our people has to be an overriding priority. . Discussions

about the future of our chin and our children's children are fool hardy

and misguided if first we have not addressed that safety. Much was

talked about during the referendum of securing their future. They will

have no future if Putin's continued involvement remains unchecked. So

instead, my Lords, we need to seize the nifsh and to quickly see

ourselves as a nation that -- initiative and see ourselves as a

nation that looks outwards geared for the danger and like our parents

before us, pull together despite the mayhem. I welcome the Defence

Committee's report regards to the Russian security. It questions our

Russian strategy. It expresses a fear that Putin is ememploying many

of the tactics that terrorised generations before us. The committee

has called for improved communication and a greater

understanding of the Russian mindset, which is also a vital one.

By contrast, the infamiliarly it tone of some of the spokes people in

Brussels, fills me with dread. Now more than ever, we need to build

bridges and the next Prime Minister needs to restore the faith, trust

and good will between this country and our European neighbours. Without

that we have nothing and I fear we leave ourselves and our children

open to an insecure and consequently frightening future. My Lords, I

honestly believe, we are in a race against time, which is why I feel

compelled to speak today with a very real sense of urgency. There is no

time to lose. While do not claim to have the answers, raising this

question in order that we tackle it head of on, United together is the

best way to avoid a situation that has the potential to be perilous,

not just for our people, not just for our country but for Europe at

large. There is a challenge in this country. A challenge with which we

in this particular House have to cope. What is now to come and how we

should deal with it. First, I commend to the House many of the

speeches that have given us a role of a special responsibility to help

restore confidence in our political system. Last Friday's Economist'

front page - anarchy in the UK. I read a lot of the continental press

every day of the week, for the last week to ten days, similar headlines

quite apart from a degree of consternation that exists within our

own country. Capacity for calm and reasoned debate is very necessary.

In particular, if the Government, because of their election of a

leader, do not institute significant action until September we have a

short and a long-term obligation. Next we should reassure all of us in

the polical system about principles and process. I suspect many that

voted Leave voted for their re-Septemberment not for their

appreciation of one side or the other.

We should resolve in the action that we need to take. A plan, not a plan

to have a plan, a plan that includes the basis of a coherent strategy.

Using professionalism, we should go out and recruit. There is no reason

why we shouldn't. We shouldn't be concerned by the competence of our

civil servants. Trade negotiations are conducted by trade experts, not

solicitors. By the way, we have one in the House. Lord Mandelson was

actually the Commissioner for trade in Europe for four years, and

negotiated with the PTO. So talking about cross-party Corporation is

almost professional involvement. Business and finance, especially

small business. Multinationals have the most direct effect on themselves

and on the workers, as well as the City of London. Let's base the

strategy on realities. If we are going to negotiate, I was for

Remain, but negotiation is hard talking. 60% of the continental

trade of the European Union comes to the UK. -- 16%. Over ?1 trillion of

assets is managed in London but there by European investors. German

cars, do we really think the Germans are going to give up on it? One of

there own confederations of business last week described an attempt to

strop that trade is very foolish if their own government supported it.

French wine, Spanish tourism. Italy. 20% of GDP is represented. The

growth Pact is no longer working. It is up the cost of the poorer

countries. We have to be realistic and tough, and I am a Remain man.

And lastly, in these negotiations we have to do walkabout alternatives.

-- we have to talk about. Of course we must be friends with the other,

but we tell the other side, this is what we want, what else? In the

negotiations themselves, President Eisenhower once said, fairness in

support of fundamentals, with flexibility and tactics and method

is the key to progress in negotiations. Firmness in

fundamentals and with flexibility. Timing, the way you put things from

one period to the next, is critical. Reporting back to Parliament,

indispensable. As you must do to maintain public confidence. And

then, the final deal, what is to happen then? Lastly, before I finish

on new markets, what about the effect of article 50 of our politics

generally? There is a period until which we trigger it, let's say three

to six months, there could be an early agreement, highly unlikely. Or

at the end of two years, we are out. Unless there is a unanimous mood to

extend it. Do we realise that runs through, until that alternative

occurs, pretty much the whole life of the rest of this Parliament?

Indeed, it could go into the next general election. What will that be

then compare to the referendum we have just had?

In the United States' Congress last Friday there was proposed a new Bill

by Republicans, by I understand with some Democratic support, which is

designed to open the prospect of a United States' agreement with the UK

on trade. That might bring us into or next to Mexico, Canada. I'm not

recommending it. I'm just pointing out that now there is an

alternative. Latin America, we built the place in the 19th Semplery. 500

million people. Vast energy, infrastructure and other prospects

that we could supply and lastly, China, the Commonwealth, India, all

of those are economic factors. One farewell factor, which is extremely

important, geopolitical issues, which bind us to Europe, whether we

are in the union or not - terrorism, human trafficking, the refugees from

conflict. They will still be there, if we leave the European Union. And

last of all, NATO. The Americans may talk to Germany and France out of

necessity if we leave but in fact they are, as far as we're concerned,

the preferred ally. Before I finish, can we just,

bearing that in mind, remember the German Foreign Minister, last

Friday, condemning NATO for war-mongering military exercises in

Poland. Europe is not going to go away, whatever we decide on this

particular issue. My Lords it is a pleasure for me to follow my noble

friend, Lord Brennan and the whole House will have appreciated his

profound insight. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd Webber made a compelling

speech about European Union cohesion which I and most other members of

this House will have whole heartedly endorsed. I should, my Lords, draw

the house's attention to my entries in the register of interests. My

Lords, I have always been against joining the European single Curran

sane campaigned against us joining. Nevertheless, I very much support

our continuing membership of the European Union on the terms

negotiated by the Prime Minister. The referendum was held at a

particularly inauspicious time. The Government's accumulated debt is in

excess of 1.5 trillion, which is over 80% of our GDP. The annual

deficit, ogt hitherto it has been following was ?79 billion in the

year it March 2015. Our current account deficit continues to run

dangerously high. In the past we have funded our huge current account

deficit with foreign direct investment, some of which is both

volatile and is able to be moved extremely fast. As the Governor of

the Bank of England said, during the referendum campaign, "We rely on the

kindness of strangers." Despite the referendum result, my Lords, and the

downgrading by the rating agencies, it appears that Government tenure

bonds can still be sold at a coupon of less than 1%. # the Chancellor

has abandoned the fiscal squeeze. The Governor of the Bank of England,

has stated that he will take all necessary actions to protect the

economy. My Lords, we are still credit-worthy

but I suspect that market sentiment will change, if we serve an Article

50 notice. Before the referendum and probably as a result of the

imspending referendum, the economy was showing signs of slowing down.

Since the referendum result, and from my experience and discussions

with business people, it appears that the slowdown is gathering pace.

Deals are falling through, or are being renegotiated, and I would draw

the House's attention to reports in last weekend's Financial Times of

major City of London property deals that have since the referendum

result, now fallen through. My Lords, asset prices, particularly

real property, often provide the underlying security for much lending

to small and medium-sized businesses. And companies.

Currently, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fix

a value for real property, except perhaps at a vastly discounted

price. This is a dangerous situation, and I am in differing

personally to advise borrowers and lenders and other commercial

businesses against the backdrop of these very difficult conditions.

There are reports of many companies freezing their recruitment, and in

some cases, unfortunately, job losses. The evidence for these

reports will start to come through in August, when the July figures are

published. I hope that the Bank of England and the Treasury will

monitor closely the effects of Brexit on our small and medium-sized

enterprises, which are the bedrock of our economy and provide so much

employment for our fellow citizens. My Lords, we are not alone in Europe

in having a crisis of confidence in globalisation, and, to some extent,

the institutions of the European Union. Support for the National

Front in France is rising in the polls. Support for the AFD in

Germany is rising in the polls. There will be elections in both

countries next year. The United Kingdom is the second largest

economy in the European Union, and is important to the European Union.

Italy is facing major problems with its banking industry. All the

foregoing is should act as incentives for the European Union,

with the United Kingdom, to negotiate some changes. That is even

changes in freedom of movement. The noble lord Lord Lawson gave us his

plan of what Brexit entails. He was quite clear that we should not

bother to endeavour to negotiate access to the single market, because

this would entail us allowing freedom of movement for EU user to

lose. It really is a great shame that this perspective was not put to

the British people before the 23rd of June.

I take the view that access to the single market is of greatest

importance to our economy, for jobs and opportunities for individuals

and businesses and for investment. It gives us great advantages, not

least in our ability to ensure relatively straightforwardly that RX

ports of goods and services to the single market are not unnecessarily

impeded. I joined other noble lords in asking the leader to ensure that

we have a definitive explanation as to whether Parliament has a role in

the Article 50 process and the extend of that. While she also

confirm that an amendment that -- and Article 50 notice, once

observed, can only be withdrawn with the unanimous and said with the

concern of the United Kingdom and all the other EU countries? My

Lords, I much regret the decision to leave the EU. We are part of Europe

and part of European civilisation. In an increasingly interconnected

world, it is a dreadful state culturally, economic league,

educationally, and for so many other reasons lost or abandoned the

European Union -- dreadful mistake. It will cause damage and hardship to

us all. Especially the younger generations, who voted in such large

numbers to remain. My Lords, I start by making clear

that while I joined Lord Bernat and other noble lords in greatly

regretting the outcome of the referendum, I believe that

Government and Parliament must accept it, and act on it. This means

that sooner or later, article 50 must be invoked. If an act of

Parliament has to be passed to do so, Parliament should pass such

legislation. I also accept that the campaign is over. Arguments of the

British people were misled into making the decision are fruitless.

The British people made their decision, and that is an end of the

campaign. But the question is, does the outcome of the referendum

prevent any further critical consideration of the decision to

leave in the light of the emerging terms of which we do so? Let us

imagine a possibility, which I acknowledge now seems unlikely, that

the EU partners decide that it is in their best interest to give us

access to the single market, combined with an acceptable degree

of control over migration into the United Kingdom. Is the Government

saying that our response has to be, no? The people have decided, albeit

by a narrow majority that we must leave, and that is an end to the

matter. Let us imagine, well, I'm afraid a may be more likely

scenario. Namely that it becomes apparent that or economy is being so

badly affected by our decision to leave that there is an overwhelming

public demand to be able to think again. Let us say a petition, not of

4 million people, but even of 17 or even 30 million people, let us

imagine a third scenario, as the noble lord Lord Barnett outlined.

The effect of the British decision causes such a climb up for reform,

the member countries that the EU is compelled to make such reforms --

causes such a clamour. For example, on free movement. Such reforms that

are continued membership would be acceptable two aces van Schoor

proportion of those who voted Leave. -- to as a central proportion. Is

the position of Parliament and Government going to be so rigid that

it says to the British people, no, you decided to my years ago to

leave, leave you must. It would be one thing for our European partners

to deny the British people the right to think again, although it is very

down for that they could do so. It would be quite another thing for the

British Government in two years' time to deny the British people any

opportunity to change course, even if it becomes apparent that the road

is leading over a cliff. My Lords, whatever the merits of a referendum

process, and there are some, we have also to acknowledge its weaknesses.

I'm grateful to a correspondent, who brought to my attention and article

by the late Lord Beloff, a greatly respected member of this House who

was Gladstone Professor of government and public administration

at the University of Oxford. In that article, he argued that a referendum

is only meaningful to the extent that clear alternatives are set

before the electorate. In the absence of such clarity, and I quote

Lord Beloff, the electorate would be indicating a very general bias, in

one way or the other, and nothing more. Now, it may be argued that the

referendum offered such clear alternatives. What could be clearer

than Remain or Leave? But a moment's thought shows that it did not. One

of the alternatives was clear. A modified business as usual by

remaining within the EU. The other was anything but clear. The Leave

alternative offers a whole range of different futures. Dependent on the

outcome of uncertain negotiations and unpredictable market decisions.

It is indeed a step into the unknown. So, let us go into the

negotiations in good faith. Determined to get the best deal we

can for the British people in accordance with their decision in

the referendum. But it is in nobody's interests, not ours nor

those of our partners, to rule out any possibility of a change of mind

in response to events as they unfold over the next two years. If

legislation has to be introduced to authorise the Government to trigger

to go 50, I shall supported. But I should also support an amendment --

to trigger Article 50. Provided that it does not become final until the

end of the negotiations, the British people have had a further

opportunity to make an informal decision through a general election

or further referendum. My Lords, there is one word which stands out

in reference to the recent EU referendum, and that word is

division. The Right Reverend Primate Archbishop and many noble lords have

stated this today. It was a divisive campaign. Some would say by both

sides, but the divisions were clearly already simmering and ready

to surface with the conditions allow them to. Divisions within our

political parties and within our society, and divisions along

national lines, where, in Scotland, the SNP government apparently

unwilling to accept the legitimacy of a UK wide referendum is already

calling out for another independence referendum, and fermenting fresh

divisions north of the border. Of course, I would like to think that

the majority who voted to remain in the EU or to leave did so purely on

a point of principle. For those like me, the economic argument for

staying in the EU was an obvious one. And as a former chairwoman of

CBI Scotland I have been making those arguments on numerous

occasions on behalf of members. But as the owner of a small company, I

can also understand why others with CBE you as an overly bureaucratic

machine -- would see the EU. It impacts small business in particular

in a negative way. But that is neither here nor there. We have the

result on the EU, and we must begin the task on developing a new

strategy to succeed economically and globally. And I would like to point

noble lords to a debate on Thursday on this particular subject. Today, I

would like to confine my remarks to that word, division. What has

emerged from this referendum is that a whole swathe of the population

have harboured real resentments, and the Vote Leave has been a means of

protest. The social and economic gap which has grown over recent decades

has created an inequitable society, and that is a right condition for

blame, and particularly for blaming those who look different or speak a

different language or have a different culture or religion. Of

course, the vast majority of British people who voted to leave the EU did

so as a consequence of their genuine concerns. But there were those on

the Leave side who disgracefully drew on those resentments and fears

when its sole focus became immigration. My Lords, there is only

one word for it, we don't like to use it, but it is the only one that

fits, and that is racism. Because this is not just about people from

the EU, that infamous poster with Nigel Farage said it all. And the

racist attacks and verbal abuse since this referendum reflects that

it is not just our EU citizens. The P and N words have been used

abundantly. And indeed, this has been of such concern in the days

since the referendum that the Prime Minister and other senior

politicians have made public payments condemning such behaviour.

Since 1968, successive governments in this country have worked hard to

bring more pleasing society -- to bring about a more cohesive society

through race relations and equality legislation. The United Kingdom has

been the most successful in Europe in giving equal rights to its

citizens. And that is why this is such a great country to live in, and

why anyone who comes here loved it and has such loyalty towards it. We

have come a long way from 1968, at Enoch Powell's rivers of blood

speech. What we don't want to do is to go backwards. I remembered that

time well, and the negative impact it had on me personally as a little

girl in primary school. When you are on the receiving end of prejudice,

it is a whole different perspective. It leads to feelings of rejection,

alienation, anxiety and depression. And make no mistake, it is not just

over racism, but covert racism which can be dust as damaging. -- overt.

Those who were sensitive to it and know that it is directed at them

recognise it in just the most fleeting of an expression. We have

to question ourselves constantly about ROV prejudices, every of us,

if we want to build a strong society -- about own prejudices. Politicians

and the media have perhaps the biggest responsibility of all to

that end. My Lords, ethnic communities of many hues have

enriched the lives of this nation. The food that we eat, the colours

and close that we wear, the music that we listen to has changed beyond

recognition from the days that I came to live here as a child. The

many people who have come to these shores, the Irish, the Jews, the

Italians, those from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, those from the

Caribbean and the recent migrants from Poland and elsewhere in Europe

and all the many others from around the world have contributed immensely

to this country. Those that have made -- may have come to exploit or

a disgrace, but they are just a small minority. Overwhelmingly, but

what the newcomers bring is their energy and ambition to build a new

life, to do well, and that means having a strong work ethic. And also

is backed off in an entrepreneurial spirit. My late father came to this

country from Pakistan and worked hard, employing more than 500 people

in his various businesses in the 1970s and 80s. He paid his taxes. He

believed in public service, and was a model citizen.

That That worth he can ethic he shared with British society. He must

work on those ethics again. A final point, if we were to baton down the

hatches and now allow any more immigration than some would wish,

then a gentle reminder that the many of hundreds of jobs in the NHS, in

agriculture, in the hospitality industry, in transport and in every

sector, would still have to be done and enough home-grown Brits would

have to be willing to do them. I would urge the Government, under its

new leadership, to refrain from the scapegoating of immigrants, which

has been politically expedient to do so of late by some in our main

political parties and certain sections of the media. There is a

very positive story to be told about the huge contribution made by

immigrants to our country. It wasn't very well-told in the run-up to the

referendum but we can, together, get this message out now and as we move

forward, it is important that our Government clarifies its objectives

on immigration and the means by which to achieve these objectives.

This is a wake-up call, to mend our country, to tackle poverty, by

providing jobs, through small scale manufacturing and other means to

engender the work ethic and encourage enterprise. It is a huge

task but one that cannot be side stepped, if we are to avoid social

unrest and if we want to continue to be a great nation, we have to learn

arespect and value each other's contribution and our national

leaders have to lead the way. Hear, hear.

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow that speech from the noble

lady and the excellent speech from Lord Butler. Clearly my Lords this

is a time of political crisis. So far two party leaders have gone, my

own hope is that third time lucky and my own party is able to move

forward quickly. But we are also in a constitutional crisis as with the

rest of your Lordships when I was introduced to this place I took the

Oath of Allegiance to the Queen and signed up to the code of conduct for

your Lordship's House. That code is clear, what our duties are in

paragraph 7. I quote, "In the conduct of parliamentary duties,

members of the House shall base their actions on consideration of

the public interest and shall resolve any conflict between

personal interest and public interest at once and in favour of

the public interest." I do not equate public opinion and public

interest as being the same thing and they are currently potentially in

conflict. I believe that most of the 52% who voted to Leave, did so out

of a concern for the effect of migration. One of the failings of

the Remain campaign was to allow it to become a referendum on that

issue. Migration is a function of globalisation. The free movement of

labour alongside the free movement of capital and goods are founding

principles of the EU. I profoundly believe that the migration of

capital and, therefore, away from the UK s now a bigger threat than

the migration of workers. Hear, hear.

. It is not in the public interest for Parliament to ignore the outcome

of a referendum but if the outcome of a negotiated exit is an end to

the free movement of labour and with it, free trade, then the public

interest is not served by supporting that outcome and I like the notion,

put forward by the noble Lord Butler. Employers need access to

current skills and will migrate to access those skills in an

environment free of trade barriers. Maybe our negotiators will succeed

in persuading the EU to act against their founding principles and own

preservation by agreeing to free trade but not the free movement of

lain, but, my Lords, I doubt T Either way, this Parliament needs

both the assurance from the Government that it has a role in

both a negotiating position and in triggering article 50 so that we can

exercise our duties as parliamentarians And can I ask the

minister what consideration has been given to forming a Select Committee

of both houses to provide detailed scrutiny of this political process

or our nation? My Lords, the second huge concern raised by this flawed

referendum is the fallure of representative dome crasscy. We have

seen 75 country's parliamentary representatives, that were elected

just a year ago, ignored in their considered opinion. The two main

parties both failed to lead significant parts of their core

vote. They were joined by almost every expert in the economy and be a

domia and were still ignored in favour of dishonest, populist

messages. One of our representatives was murdered in the street and yet

this wasn't enough to cause people to pause for thought. Old model of

elected representatives making difficult decisions for us is under

strain but direct democracy is equally flawed. We do not know how

to inform the public to enable them and empower them to take a

considered view. It amuses when Tory friends campaigning to Remain

complained three-quarters of newspapers were against them. For

me, the response was - welcome to my world. The echo chamber is

distorting. On-demand TV has moved many away from watching the

international news. We defend on an air war, to drive ideas on education

and on a ground war to mobilise people behind the media campaign.

That paradigm is redundant this. House may seem a strange place it

talk about democracy. That's partly because we now think that Dementieva

crosscy is just about voting. -- democracy is just about voting. It

is not. It is one of the tools of democracy alongside freedom of

speech, juries and free access to ideas in libraries and now the

internet. We urgently need to review how our democracy works, so that we

can give everyone a sense that they matter, that their opinion counts.

But that we can also be engauged and informed so that we will ensure that

decisions are informed decisions. Finally, my Lords, we need to

urgently address the sense that the majority of electors fear the future

and the rapid change storm through society and economies. We need the

proceeds of growth to be more evenly-distributed. It is not

sustainable for business, for politics, or for society if the rich

continue to get richer and the poor get relatively poorer.

Mroument growth is insufficient if there is no security of income or of

housing. How do we do that? Well, there are

no easy answers. But I welcome the Government's acknowledgement that it

has a role in stimulating growth, as represented in the northern

powerhouse. Perhaps we need a national powerhouse. I also welcome

the ending of the surplus target by the Chancellor and hopefully with it

a loosening of austerity. I would also like to see a priority on

skills. I'm Chair of the Digital Engagement Charity the Tinder

Foundation, we work to get adults without digital skills confident to

use the internet that. Work needs accelerating to give those people a

sense of participation in the future. We need a much stronger

priority on adult ski.s if we listen to this referendum we'll have to

replace migrant skills with domestic one to stem the migration of jobs.

That needs urgent redesign of both education and skills in this country

to respond. In summary, my Lords, we need to respect the outcome of this

referendum, but without delifg object it, blind to the consequences

of the public interest. We need to rejuvenate our dome crass sane

inform and empower electorings and we need active Government refreshing

the parts of the economy other policies cannot reach.

My Lords, the referendum on Britain's membership of the European

Union has exposed our democracy to one of its fundamental weakness. We

define our democracy as a system of Government by the population working

to elect a Parliament. Any system or otherwise of our elected Government,

failed to give us a clear lead and opted for a referendum. My Lords,

what is beyond doubt is that this referendum can he sended into a

struggle for -- descended into a struggle for political leadership in

the Conservative Party, thus obscuring the real issues on what we

had to decide, the outcome. Oscar Wilde once said - that the truth is

rarely pure and never simple. How true. The national debate narrowed

on two issue, the economy and immigration. I shall leave the

economic aspect to our experts. Suffice to say at this stage, that

we are in unchartered waters and it is almost impossible to envisage

what the future holds for us. The issue that is concerning most is

the way the debate on immigration, migration, has been handled. Many

electors whether pro or anti-EU were seriously concerned on the national

debate which degenerated to xenophobia. The wider view about

jobs, investment and prices, which will have a profound affect for

generations to come, were overshadowed by irresponsible

statements from some of our leading politicians. I'm a keen supporter of

our membership of the European Union. Now this remains a distant

dream. I have never waivered from my belief of a stronger Europe and of

our role within the union. This is time we moved away from

being little Englanders and looked at the world and realised

globalisation is an every-Kay reality. We cannot ignore a market

of over 350 million people on our doorste. No-one owes Usmanov a

living. We are all interdependent on each other. The issues that affect

every citizen in our country are matters of global terrorism,

cross-border crimes, human rights and matters relating to trafficking

and drugs. These are the issues that have

destabilised our communities. It is the duty of every Government to

provide security for all its citizens, there is always strength

in numbers. Look at the large number of young

voters in this country, mistake 1. First of all, we declined a large

number of young voters in the country to vote at 15.

Those youngsters who will be working age, they are clear, that their

future was better safe-guarded by our membership of the European

Union. This has been now declined to them. Let me come back to the most

retro grade step about the way migration issues have been handled.

The United Kingdom is no longer united as far as that is concerned.

We saw the variation in voting patterns, particularly in Scotland

and until Northern Ireland. But there is more to this. It has

put fear in the black and ethnic minority communities in Britain. And

I admire the contribution made by the baronesses on this particular

rare u. My Lords, attacks on our Polish

communities, first at a children's playground, and attacks on mosques

and temples bring back the memory of early days of migration in the

United Kingdom. Racial attacks and racial discrimination is now an

everyday reality in the lives of many migrants. Geographicically and

economically, they occupy the most deprived areas of our country R

added to this, the spitting, swearing, shoving and abuse migrants

face almost routinely, immigration has played a crucial role in

successive governments from the late '40s and early '50s. The difference

this time is that third and fourth generations born and brought up in

Britain, are now the victims. My Lords, there are limits to their

endurance. Sooner or later the matter could degenerate into public

disorder. For those born and educated here are more likely to

challenge their treatment than their parents Z my Lords there is a

dramatic rise in race-related crimes, the figures have been given

a number of times in this debate. Cases are reported daily about the

abuse suffered by minorities. The picture of fleeing. And the poster

issued by Ukip and to classify London mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan

as a terrorist risk is simply not acceptable. We must put the blame

squarely on our politicians. Of course, we have tough laws on

incitement and racial hatred. But there is a thin dividing line on

what is acceptable and what is not. When it comes to the generation

being born and bred here suffering abuse, this is not acceptable. This

is surely a recipe for disaster. It is no longer a valid argument to

talk about an integrated society if you continue to single out

minorities as a scapegoat for your own failures. Like it or not, my

Lords, immigration and free movement of people is even more nurses Eric

in the face of change resulting from the growth of the global economy --

is even more necessary. The global economy increasingly relies on

skills of people, wherever they are available. An international movement

is a key feature of some economies. My Lords, few other political issues

pay the same attention and emotions as immigration. These are the three

reasons for that. First, the unending discussion about numbers

now focused on others coming from Europe. Second, our role in the

international community. Do we face towards Europe, or look for

alternative markets? And third, the worry about national identity. The

referendum has proved that leadership in all out is at an ease

when confronted with the issue of migration. There is a failure in the

response to immigration on the one hand and community cohesion and

society on the other. My Lords, migration policy plays into public

fears about mass immigration found by some of the media. The liberal

elements welcoming diversity, they make minorities feel targeted is a

problem, there still is and perspectives are no longer welcome.

The progress we have made in our society is too valuable to play in

such a cynical manner by politicians. They must share the

blame for this. In our society -- no society can live in peace or be at

ease with itself if a section of the population continue to live in fear

of being abused. My Lords, the 23rd of June was not Independence Day for

Britain, it was the day the UK shot itself in the foot. Or economy has

been doing so well. In fact, well the European economy has been doing

badly we had the accumulated growth rate of 63%. We didn't lose our

sovereignty, we have the best of both worlds, we have been in the EU

but not in Schengen, we pour our beer in pints and we measure our

roads in miles. And yet this vote in claim of red tape, regulations, I

have seen for ten years in this House, laws that we make that affect

our daily lives are made by us right here, right now in this House and in

this Parliament. And then we take for granted 1.2 million

of our citizens living in Europe, and we have 3 billion European

citizens living here. How dare people even think of sending these

people back? These are people who have left these families, come here,

but in five times more than they have taken out, contributed to or

economy. How ungrateful can we ever be? We should be grateful to them

and they are welcome to stay here. We have for many years been saying,

take control of our borders. I believe we have lost control of our

borders. I have been saying for many years, illegal immigration is the

very issue. Let's bring back exit checks, let's scan every issue.

Let's not make immigration the excuse that we have. Our

universities are going to suffer. Already we have lost our triple a

rating, 11 of our universities have already lost their ratings.

International students, I am president of an association, I'm

sorry, I don't have much time, we have 500,000 international students

in this country, 107% from the EU. In the finance sector, big banks

have already begun to make plans to move staff out. The Royal Bank of

Scotland have lost value of ?100 billion. The biggest lie of all,

than ?350 million that we give to the EU in blaze and on that Brexit

bus, let's give that manage the NHS instead. The Vote Leave advertising

film showing the NHS inside and outside of the EU. My Lords, what is

going on? It is completely misleading. It is a lie. It is a net

contribution of ?8 billion per year, 1% of our annual government

expenditure per year. What was the election commission doing? That is

what I would like to is noble lord the Minister. In India, the election

commissioner is the most powerful person in the country. Here, we have

an electoral commission asleep on the job. Surely we need to look for

the role of the electoral commission, then the result would be

completely different. I have come across people who said, I voted to

leave to save the NHS. We rely hugely on inward investment. The

referendum saw the pound plummet to levels of the 1980s, when the UK

with the sick man of Europe. When this country had a glass ceiling for

foreigners. Today in this country anybody can get anywhere regardless

of background, and yet we hear of this awful hate crimes,

discrimination which I myself have experienced. Do we want to wind the

clock back? We have seen in this referendum that 73% of voters under

25 want to devote to remain in the European Union, but sadly just over

one third of them turned out to vote. Whereas 83% of over-65s

-year-old standout to vote and they overwhelmingly voted to leave. In

future, I hope the use of this country have learnt their lesson

forever, that that pressure is right to vote they have two exercise and

they must come out regardless of it is in turn time or out of term time.

If we let the EU, it would threaten the EU itself. Already many

countries in Europe are demanding the referendum which could lead to

the break-up of the European Union and the greatest financial crisis

the world has ever seen. Northern Ireland, which voted to remain,

talks merging with Ireland. Isn't it gut-wrenching to see Nigel Farage,

who was so responsible for creating the mess that we are in, resigning

as leader of Ukip and this weekend wearing union Jack shoes when he

could be responsible for the break-up of a union. Look at the

treacherous saviour of the Leave campaign. Boris Johnson resigns,

Andrea Leadsom is a hypocrite talking about leaving the European

Union being a disaster. I don't think the UK should leave the EU, it

would be a disaster for our economy and lead to a decade of political

uncertainty. While. When Michael Gove stabbed Boris Johnson in the

back. What were people thinking? Project fear, my Lords? Project

reality. The referendum is advisory, and when Remain MPs outnumber Leave

MPs, there is a strong legal case, as we have heard, that end-macro

cannot be triggered until Parliament votes. -- Article 50. With the

turmoil that has been caused, while a responsible Parliament do this

built on such shaky grounds. With hindsight, a point which has not

been bought up by anybody, a decision important as this should

have had a two thirds hurdle. Changing the fixture of the

Parliament you need a two thirds majority. This would have then been

a definitive result. As for the opposition, please forgive me, that

Jeremy Corbyn has been absolutely useless as a leader and his role in

the referendum was pathetic. That would have changed the whole

picture. And look at the time or the Labour Party is in. On top of all of

this we have a referendum and a petition of 4 million people signing

asking for a second referendum. There is no legal obstacle for a

second referendum to be held. The general election could even be

treated as a proxy second referendum on the issue, would the noble

Minister agree? And a Mori poll says that 40% of leaders agree that there

should be a general election before Britain begins exit Mac pro

negotiations. A Newsnight poll says that a third of voters believe that

the UK will not leave the EU. According to the Financial Times,

the UK is headed towards lower gross, week in monetary policy. This

is just what I said in my last speech -- week monitoring cause. A

will damage or economy, our businesses, and are standing in the

world -- Brexit. The Bank of England talks of economic post-traumatic

stress disorder. Economic in terms of it projects 6% contraction.

Brexit is now the central focus of politics and government for years to

come. Just think of the opportunity cost for all that time but our civil

servants could be spent improving lives. Switzerland voted years ago

with 50.3 to modify freedom of movement of people, two years later

they got nowhere. I conclude my Lords, this decision of 52-48 vote

to leave will not actually achieve the slogan of Vote Leave, take back

control. We have actually lost control and will lose more control.

The irony of it all, the chief Brexiteer publication, the somewhat

on it, published a poll showing that 60s of the people -- 60s of

people believe the priority of the new Prime Minister should be steady

in the economy. Only 7% want him to tackle immigration. The irony of

that is unbelievable. This wretched referendum was a dreadful decision,

my lords. This country have the wool pulled over their eyes, misled by a

buffoon and the court just. Leading our people over the white cliffs of

Dover. -- court jester. Now is time to take back control. We need strong

leadership, to negotiate with the European Union before getting

anywhere near article 50, and then whether staying in the economic area

with restricted movement of people or staying in the EU, we can go

through a general election properly supervised by an effective electoral

commission so that people can make an informed decision about our