07/03/2017

:00:00. > :00:25.Owen, Gavin Robinson, Michael Tomlinson and myself, sir.

:00:26. > :00:31.I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the order

:00:32. > :00:36.paper. My Lords, according to the latest data from the office for

:00:37. > :00:42.national statistics, income inequality in the UK is at its

:00:43. > :00:47.lowest level since 1986. The key to economic success and to reducing

:00:48. > :00:51.inequality is to improve activity which determines living standards in

:00:52. > :00:54.the long run, that's why the Government has established a

:00:55. > :00:59.national productivity investment fund and published a Green Paper on

:01:00. > :01:03.industrial strategy highlighting the role of improved skills, of

:01:04. > :01:09.infrastructure, investment and of R and D. My Lords, the resolution

:01:10. > :01:15.foundation argues to prevent the biggest increase in inequality since

:01:16. > :01:19.the 1980s, requires a shift in social policy choices, notably the

:01:20. > :01:26.freeze in most working age benefits in the face of rising inflation.

:01:27. > :01:31.Will the Government now follow the advice of Iain Duncan Smith and

:01:32. > :01:37.reconsider the freeze because he warned that it was never intended,

:01:38. > :01:43.it should have such a dramatic impact - effect on incomes, his

:01:44. > :01:46.words. Wouldn't it be the right thing to do to protect low income

:01:47. > :01:52.families in and out of work in this way for a Government that claims to

:01:53. > :01:57.be working for everyone? My Lords, I think we have to have a

:01:58. > :02:04.little bit of context, savings are necessary to reduce borrowing and to

:02:05. > :02:11.put the public finances back on a sustainable footing after the

:02:12. > :02:19.financial crisis and between 1980 and 2014 spending on welfare

:02:20. > :02:23.actually trebled in real terms to ?96 billion whilst GDP increased by

:02:24. > :02:31.much less. Our approach is a different one. We are committed to

:02:32. > :02:37.supporting working families with a whole load of measures, getting

:02:38. > :02:41.people back into work... Thank you. Innovating, growing and putting the

:02:42. > :02:44.country on it a good footing. It's only a forecast from the resolution

:02:45. > :02:47.foundation, forecasts aren't always right and we're determined to make

:02:48. > :02:55.the changes we need for this country.

:02:56. > :03:02.Going back to the exchange about inequality... My Lords, the Minister

:03:03. > :03:09.said whether any assessment has been made of the effect of the national

:03:10. > :03:14.living wage on which inequality and whether there is anything more that

:03:15. > :03:21.can be done in this respect? I thank my Nobel friend, because I

:03:22. > :03:28.believe that the national living wage, brought in in April last year,

:03:29. > :03:32.is a fantastic example of policies that the Government has introduced

:03:33. > :03:39.to make work pay. In terms of looking forward, it will rise again

:03:40. > :03:43.to ?7. 50 next month and it has already given the working, many

:03:44. > :03:49.working people in Britain the fastest pay rise in 20 years.

:03:50. > :03:54.Observers will have noticed that there's a startling contradiction

:03:55. > :03:59.between the presumption in the question that income inequality has

:04:00. > :04:04.been growing very sharply and the resumption in the reply that it's

:04:05. > :04:08.doing the opposite. There are different measures but most of them

:04:09. > :04:15.do think that inequality is growing. Wouldn't it be useful if the ONS did

:04:16. > :04:21.convene a panel of people to get a little more clarity as to why these

:04:22. > :04:25.figures can be banded around with such different descriptions of what

:04:26. > :04:31.is happening. I think the ONS keep is honest, they look at these

:04:32. > :04:34.figures over time and they helpfully update and the OBR forecasts are

:04:35. > :04:38.updated all the time so that we can see what's happening. I would like

:04:39. > :04:43.to come back to the point which is that the resolution foundation is

:04:44. > :04:47.looking at a forecast but if you look at what has happened, five

:04:48. > :04:52.years ago it was predicted, I think by the IFS, that there would be a

:04:53. > :04:59.rise in inequality. In fact, it hasn't happened. Things continued to

:05:00. > :05:03.progress and we have seen a recoveriy and that's what we need to

:05:04. > :05:07.continue by having the right policies which this Government is

:05:08. > :05:13.pursuing under our new Prime Minister. My Lords, I am shocked

:05:14. > :05:16.that the Minister doesn't recognise that young working families are

:05:17. > :05:19.facing serious financial pressure and struggling and that it looks as

:05:20. > :05:24.though it's going to be worse with inflation. But would she agree that

:05:25. > :05:28.part of the reason are the very high rents that most of these families

:05:29. > :05:34.face, and would she be willing in the budget tomorrow to permit local

:05:35. > :05:38.councils to go out and borrow the necessary amounts of money to drive

:05:39. > :05:41.forward development of affordable rental housing. She has often

:05:42. > :05:45.acknowledged that the housing market is broken, but all the Government

:05:46. > :05:50.solutions are on the demand side, supply doesn't increase, especially

:05:51. > :05:57.not in the affordable area. I wouldn't want to steal the

:05:58. > :05:59.Chancellor's thunder today. I think that there is certainly some

:06:00. > :06:03.provision for Prudential borrowing but I would like to come back to the

:06:04. > :06:08.support that we give to working families. The national living wage,

:06:09. > :06:15.already mentioned by my noble friend, that's given the fastest pay

:06:16. > :06:19.rise in 20 years. We have raised the personal allowance to ?12500 by the

:06:20. > :06:24.end of parliament. We are introducing universal credit which

:06:25. > :06:31.has the benefit of making work pay so that you go out and work, you

:06:32. > :06:35.aren't held back by benefit dilemmas. We are committed to make

:06:36. > :06:39.work pay and we believe that is the very best way forward for the people

:06:40. > :06:44.of this country, for hard working families which I agree are our

:06:45. > :06:48.priority. My Lords, the Minister cannot

:06:49. > :06:55.discount the resolution foundation in such a cavalier manner, it

:06:56. > :07:02.produced very - it's got a strong reputation and it produced very real

:07:03. > :07:07.and well-backed analysis. It said that higher incomes will rise but

:07:08. > :07:12.slowly, middle incomes are going to stag and low incomes are going to

:07:13. > :07:16.stall. -- stagnate and low incomes are going to fall. We know how

:07:17. > :07:21.little is the base for low incomes for them to be able to afford to

:07:22. > :07:27.fall without poverty increasing substantially. They say, the

:07:28. > :07:33.foundation says it will be the biggest rise in inequality since the

:07:34. > :07:39.late 1980s. I do not need to remind the House which party was in power

:07:40. > :07:44.during that period and which Prime Minister, many of whose Cabinet

:07:45. > :07:50.members of course are still with us. LAUGHTER

:07:51. > :07:54.I would add that the resolution foundation report also says, which

:07:55. > :07:58.is a point I have been emphasising, that economic forecasts can change

:07:59. > :08:04.dramatically and there is no way of knowing just how the future will

:08:05. > :08:12.play out. I believe that the approach we now have, including

:08:13. > :08:16.industrial strategy, investment in infrastructure, housing, digital,

:08:17. > :08:26.transport, all of this is making a big difference. We have protected

:08:27. > :08:30.the most vulnerable through benefits system which is highly distributive

:08:31. > :08:33.so households get four times in support as spending while they pay

:08:34. > :08:39.in tax whilst the highest pay five times as much in tax as they receive

:08:40. > :08:42.in pay. We want a fairer society and getting workless households into

:08:43. > :08:46.work and improving productivity and skills is to my mind the best way

:08:47. > :08:49.forward. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the

:08:50. > :08:53.question standing in my name on the order paper.

:08:54. > :08:59.My Lords, the Government's White Paper on exiting the EU was

:09:00. > :09:02.published on 2nd February. It sets out the Government's priorities and

:09:03. > :09:06.the broad strategy for exiting the EU and made clear that we will take

:09:07. > :09:11.back control of our own laws. There are a number of options as to how EU

:09:12. > :09:15.immigration might work once we have exited the EU, we are considering

:09:16. > :09:18.those options and will consult businesses and communities.

:09:19. > :09:24.Parliament will also have a critical role to play. Of course the main

:09:25. > :09:30.pressure so-called is really from non-EU migrants. Why didn't the

:09:31. > :09:36.Government years ago use clause 45 of the TFEU and particularly section

:09:37. > :09:40.three and three A, C and D, to improcess the necessary civilised

:09:41. > :09:44.restraints on migrants coming in with authorisation so that none of

:09:45. > :09:47.the horrendous hostility to immigrants from all over would have

:09:48. > :09:55.been so evident in the referendum on 23rd June?

:09:56. > :10:00.My Lords, I think the noble Lord, I can't be accountable for what

:10:01. > :10:04.happened in the past, I think we have been a very generous country in

:10:05. > :10:08.terms of letting people come here for the purposes of work. What I can

:10:09. > :10:11.say is that there was very clear message last year which is about

:10:12. > :10:17.controlling the numbers of people who come into this country, both

:10:18. > :10:23.from the EU and from non-EU countries and that is what we intend

:10:24. > :10:29.to do and to keep parliament fully involved in the process. On 12th

:10:30. > :10:34.January the Government stated in response to an oral question that,

:10:35. > :10:38.quote, the drekive sets out in order for an EU citizen to reside in

:10:39. > :10:44.another member state beyond the three months they must be exercising

:10:45. > :10:47.a treaty right. That is working self-employed, self-sufficient or a

:10:48. > :10:50.student. After being asked three times why it did not implement this

:10:51. > :10:54.three month rule for EU citizens still here without a job but not a

:10:55. > :10:58.student the Government said ap I quote, it's not a failure to

:10:59. > :11:02.implement, this country is more than generous in its implementation of

:11:03. > :11:06.that directive. Close quotes. Firstly, why does the Government

:11:07. > :11:11.maintain that only by leaving the EU can we reduce EU mu gracious, when

:11:12. > :11:14.the Government accepts it has not applied the EU directive three month

:11:15. > :11:19.rule as firmly as it could have done but instead considers that it has

:11:20. > :11:24.been quote, more than generous in its implementation of that drekive,

:11:25. > :11:29.close quote, how much lower would the figure have been in each of the

:11:30. > :11:33.last five years if the Government had applied the EU three month rule

:11:34. > :11:40.directive as firmly as it believes it was entitled to do so?

:11:41. > :11:44.My Lords, as the noble Lord said, we have been a very generous country

:11:45. > :11:48.and certainly whern Labour were in power they decided not to exercise

:11:49. > :11:56.the opt-out as the noble Lord was asking. In terms of what would the

:11:57. > :12:00.figures have been. Had we adopted a different process, my Lords, we are

:12:01. > :12:06.where we are. The country has given us a very, very clear message in the

:12:07. > :12:10.referendum and we intend to follow that through in terms of making sure

:12:11. > :12:15.that net migration to this country is in the tens of thousands. My

:12:16. > :12:19.Lords,ish endeavour to be helpful to the noble lady, the Minister. The

:12:20. > :12:24.previous questions have been about the past. Could I ask about the

:12:25. > :12:28.future. Article 45 of the treaty on the functioning of the European

:12:29. > :12:33.Union relates to free movement of workers, not people generally. I

:12:34. > :12:37.wonder what thought the Government has given to the excellent report by

:12:38. > :12:45.the House of Commons Brexit committee which also talks about the

:12:46. > :12:49.rights of EU and UK national citizens with aspects of immigration

:12:50. > :12:54.policy, including students, family reunion and on EU spouses compared

:12:55. > :13:03.with non-EU spouses and I declare my interests as listed in the register.

:13:04. > :13:07.My Lords, it is absolutely right that we settle and I am glad she's

:13:08. > :13:12.talking about the future by the way, and not the past, probably neither

:13:13. > :13:16.of us, certainly I don't remember, but certainly in terms of the

:13:17. > :13:19.directive which is about the movement of workers and their

:13:20. > :13:24.families, I think the Prime Minister's made it absolutely clear

:13:25. > :13:28.about protecting the rights of EU nationals living in this country but

:13:29. > :13:34.we talked a lot the other day in committee about the fairness of the

:13:35. > :13:39.process and therefore protecting the rights of UK nationals in return.

:13:40. > :13:42.The Government does not want to do this on a unilateral basis and we

:13:43. > :13:49.need to think about all the people, UK nationals living in the EU, and

:13:50. > :13:54.EU nationals living here. My Lords, the Minister actually has

:13:55. > :14:00.been very patient with the House over recent questions and explaining

:14:01. > :14:06.to us the rights of residency after five years' work of European

:14:07. > :14:13.citizens. And also about the right of citizenship after six years. Can

:14:14. > :14:17.she tell the House whether as regards citizenship if a European

:14:18. > :14:22.citizen becomes a citizen of the UK, does that mean he or she has the

:14:23. > :14:26.right to remain in this country? The noble Lord, I am grateful to him, we

:14:27. > :14:34.talked about this at length the other day, and of course in terms of

:14:35. > :14:40.residency rights, the right of residency, a person and by the way,

:14:41. > :14:45.this is an EU law, and not a UK law, so all the talk we have about

:14:46. > :14:52.comprehensive sickness insurance, this is EU law which we implement,

:14:53. > :14:56.after five years of abiding by treaty obligations, the Noble Lord

:14:57. > :15:00.is right, a person living i an EU national living in this country has

:15:01. > :15:04.permanent residency, they do not have to prove that permanent

:15:05. > :15:11.residency. But then he goes on to make another point, which is very

:15:12. > :15:15.valid, which is to swish that from applying for British citizenship and

:15:16. > :15:23.in that application process, which is based in UK law, that person has

:15:24. > :15:28.to prove residency and not to be breaking any immigration rules after

:15:29. > :15:31.six years, they will then be granted UK citizenship and the noble Lord is

:15:32. > :15:37.right, they have the right to remain here.

:15:38. > :15:43.I beg you to ask the question in my name on the order paper. This

:15:44. > :15:53.government is committed to working for everyone in all parts of the

:15:54. > :15:59.country. I am grateful for the report on rural proofing. We will

:16:00. > :16:05.better understand the needs in those communities. The government is

:16:06. > :16:15.revising its commitment to rural proofing. I welcome the work the

:16:16. > :16:22.Ministry is doing, but why do so many government departments fail to

:16:23. > :16:33.realise the big barrier of transport costs on people with low incomes.

:16:34. > :16:38.They are so often cut off and excluded by the cost of transport.

:16:39. > :16:43.Surely we can't allow ourselves to stumble into a situation where you

:16:44. > :16:47.have to be well off to live in the countryside? I entirely agree with

:16:48. > :16:54.the noble lord. It is important we enhance accessibility. Sparsity and

:16:55. > :16:58.the typography of the countryside means there are challenges and that

:16:59. > :17:04.is why I am pleased that the community minibus fund which was

:17:05. > :17:08.launched will enable I think 300 local charities and community groups

:17:09. > :17:12.to receive a new minibus which I think is going to be very helpful,

:17:13. > :17:20.but clearly there is more that we want to do. I should say that the

:17:21. > :17:24.whole issue of transport and accessibility is important, that

:17:25. > :17:27.ball incidents, that under the Post Office transformation, all post

:17:28. > :17:36.offices will have banking facilities. There are ways in which

:17:37. > :17:40.we can assist rural communities. International apprenticeship week,

:17:41. > :17:44.what is the government doing to encourage apprenticeships in rural

:17:45. > :17:53.areas? The government is committed to reaching 3 million apprenticeship

:17:54. > :18:00.starts by 2020. This includes trebling the amount of

:18:01. > :18:04.apprenticeships in food and farming from 6000 to 18,000. National parks

:18:05. > :18:07.are looking to double the number of apprenticeships and it is important

:18:08. > :18:12.that we encouraged not only this week, but we work with employers of

:18:13. > :18:16.all sizes. There is a new apprenticeship levy coming into

:18:17. > :18:19.force in April this year for the larger businesses. This is an

:18:20. > :18:23.enormous opportunity and raising the skills of young people in the

:18:24. > :18:30.countryside and across the nation is a force for good. The commission for

:18:31. > :18:32.oral communities was established in 2005 by the last Labour

:18:33. > :18:38.Administration to promote awareness of rural needs amongst the

:18:39. > :18:44.decision-makers across government. It produced the report on rural

:18:45. > :18:50.lives, highlighting those living in poverty in rural areas can be harder

:18:51. > :18:56.to identify and help. But the coalition government scrapped the

:18:57. > :19:02.CRC in 2013. With issues of agriculture, trade and food policy

:19:03. > :19:06.on Brexit, what structures are in force to ensure the interests of all

:19:07. > :19:14.communities are heard and acted upon during these negotiations? I will

:19:15. > :19:22.make sure the noble lord a copy of the revived rural proofing guidance.

:19:23. > :19:26.I have been working on this and it is important that all departments

:19:27. > :19:32.understand the issues of rural communities and that is why, and

:19:33. > :19:38.also as the Minister for oral affairs, I am on a number of task

:19:39. > :19:44.forces, connectivity and housing to mention two, precisely to ensure the

:19:45. > :19:49.rural voice is heard. Given what the Minister has just said, I wonder if

:19:50. > :19:54.he is concerned by the fact that in many rural and underprivileged

:19:55. > :19:58.areas, libraries and leisure centres are under threat. These are the very

:19:59. > :20:04.places that offer a glimmer of light to people who lead rather dark lives

:20:05. > :20:10.in terms of entertainment and education. This rather takes me back

:20:11. > :20:16.to my DC MS days and one of the things that strikes me is very much

:20:17. > :20:23.how vibrant so many rural communities are, certainly in my

:20:24. > :20:27.part of Suffolk. The amount of cultural activities, dance, 30,

:20:28. > :20:31.music, it is incredible. We all want to improve, we all want to have

:20:32. > :20:35.greater access ability to those things, but the noble Lord may be

:20:36. > :20:43.painting a rather too pessimistic picture. Making work pay is a very

:20:44. > :20:48.seductive slogan, but is a minister not aware that many of the families

:20:49. > :20:56.who are worst of in our country have someone working in the economy. What

:20:57. > :21:01.steps can the government take to ensure people are paid properly and

:21:02. > :21:05.indeed earn at least a living wage? My Lords, it is a national living

:21:06. > :21:12.wage and it is an obligation and I am very pleased that it is going to

:21:13. > :21:18.rise to ?7.05 in April. That is why we want to ensure people on low

:21:19. > :21:22.incomes, the increasing tax allowance and further coming through

:21:23. > :21:30.is precisely to ensure that we are helping those at the lower end of

:21:31. > :21:37.the income range. Rural proofing doesn't seem to have reached local

:21:38. > :21:41.government where many local services have been withdrawn from villages

:21:42. > :21:47.into urban centres as a consequence of a very deep cut to local

:21:48. > :21:54.government funding. I do wonder what advice the noble Lord the Minister

:21:55. > :22:04.will provide to his fellow Secretary of State, or noble Lord Lord born

:22:05. > :22:12.about funding for district councils and county councils to enable rural

:22:13. > :22:19.proofing? As I say, the rural proofing guidance is to go across

:22:20. > :22:24.Whitehall. DC old she is a very important government department in

:22:25. > :22:34.that respect. The are considerable amounts of money going to these

:22:35. > :22:39.organisations. We have to have a growing economy to afford all the

:22:40. > :22:43.things we want to do. That is why this country is the fastest-growing

:22:44. > :22:47.economy in the G7. That's important because it's only when we grow our

:22:48. > :22:51.economy that we are going to have the resources to do many of the

:22:52. > :22:58.things I'm sure your Lordships would wish to have done. With the Minister

:22:59. > :23:05.care to correct his assertion about the national living wage and the

:23:06. > :23:09.national minimum wage? Secondly, can the noble Lord the minister assure

:23:10. > :23:16.me that when the government are putting in new free schools in areas

:23:17. > :23:30.where there is no need in terms of numbers, they will have the needs of

:23:31. > :23:43.the rural community in mind. I used to be the heads of the schools

:23:44. > :23:49.committee in Lancashire. Come we be assured that the government enter

:23:50. > :23:54.coming from Whitehall with little knowledge and step over the needs of

:23:55. > :24:00.the local community. Some of those schools need money and investment.

:24:01. > :24:05.My Lords, it is precisely why I suspect we are going to hear about

:24:06. > :24:09.more investment because we want to enhance the opportunity of children

:24:10. > :24:12.across the country and it is precisely why we have some schools

:24:13. > :24:16.that are simply not up to the standard we want them to be and that

:24:17. > :24:21.is why we will need to invest more and it is why I am a champion for

:24:22. > :24:26.oral schools precisely because we want to ensure that there are

:24:27. > :24:30.opportunities in rural areas in the same way they have them across the

:24:31. > :24:36.rest of the country. As for the living wage, I will check Hansard,

:24:37. > :24:45.but it will raise to ?7 50 per hour. I will ensure to see whether I've

:24:46. > :24:52.made a mistake. My Lords, I take you to answer the question standing in

:24:53. > :24:57.my name on the order paper. The police are operationally independent

:24:58. > :25:00.of government. The investigation of allegations of sexual abuse and how

:25:01. > :25:04.the police conduct these investigations including whether to

:25:05. > :25:10.commission any form of internal enquiry are operational matters for

:25:11. > :25:13.the relevant chief officer. It is for the Police and Crime

:25:14. > :25:19.Commissioner to hold the force to accounts. My Lords, having served in

:25:20. > :25:23.the Home Office for many years I the Home Office for many years I

:25:24. > :25:27.understand about the operational understand about the operational

:25:28. > :25:33.independence of the police, but, my Lords, it's gone beyond operational

:25:34. > :25:38.affairs, it's become a matter of confidence in the police and the

:25:39. > :25:44.police service. The Chief Constable of Wiltshire has gone beyond the

:25:45. > :25:47.police duties of investigating allegations and following up

:25:48. > :25:54.evidence and has pronounced a verdict of guilty on the late Sir

:25:55. > :25:57.Edward Heath in respect of allegations of child abuse and has

:25:58. > :26:06.done that even before he's enquiry is complete. The officer in charge

:26:07. > :26:10.of the enquiry, having made a stupid mistake at the beginning, has now

:26:11. > :26:16.been obliged to be withdrawn because of ill health. He is having, I

:26:17. > :26:24.think, a nervous breakdown. Is it not high time the enquiry is being

:26:25. > :26:28.pursued in a way which looks to many people more like a fishing

:26:29. > :26:33.expedition than a serious pursuit of allegations and evidence. Is it not

:26:34. > :26:42.time that this operation was reviewed independently? Either by a

:26:43. > :26:51.retired judge, as in the case of operation Midland, or a retired

:26:52. > :26:57.Chief Constable or recognised -- with efficiency and integrity.

:26:58. > :27:07.Without talking about any single investigation, may I express my

:27:08. > :27:12.concern of the people who have been wrongly named in the press and

:27:13. > :27:19.certainly after they have died have had defamatory statements made about

:27:20. > :27:29.them. In any investigation it is a matter for the police. If the... In

:27:30. > :27:39.terms of complaints against the Chief officer, I took the bill

:27:40. > :27:46.through myself and the act strengthens the independence of the

:27:47. > :27:49.police complaints system. Any allegations of misconduct against

:27:50. > :27:57.the Chief officer should be investigated by the IPC said. The

:27:58. > :28:13.newspaper quotes last month came from an anonymous source claiming to

:28:14. > :28:16.know... -- IPC C. I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister to

:28:17. > :28:23.whom is this Chief Constable accountable? If not the Police and

:28:24. > :28:31.Swindon, surely not secret and Swindon, surely not secret and

:28:32. > :28:36.unnamed groups of people that he has decided to appoint. There are

:28:37. > :28:40.conduct of this enquiry and we conduct of this enquiry and we

:28:41. > :28:46.really need to know who is this Chief Constable accountable to? I

:28:47. > :28:49.thank my noble friend for that question and he will know that it is

:28:50. > :28:54.not appropriate for me to comment on individual operational matters,

:28:55. > :29:00.these being out of the relevant chief officer, but chief officers

:29:01. > :29:15.are, as I have said held to account in respect of operational matters by

:29:16. > :29:16.the Police and Crime Commissioner. An independent

:29:17. > :29:26.review was commissioned recently. It talked about the secret and unnamed

:29:27. > :29:32.group. My Lords, it is recognised as best practice that, and Bush police

:29:33. > :29:36.have done that, but they have engaged a panel of independent

:29:37. > :29:42.experts outside of policing who are providing ongoing scrutiny of the

:29:43. > :29:48.investigation to make sure it's proportionality is right.

:29:49. > :29:54.The newspaper quotes came from an anonymous source claiming to know

:29:55. > :29:57.the views of the Chief Constable for Wiltshire thchlt raised issue of the

:29:58. > :30:00.relationship between the police and the national press and makes the

:30:01. > :30:03.case for Leveson part two even stronger.

:30:04. > :30:07.Can we come to the role of of the police and crime commissioner to

:30:08. > :30:12.which the Minister has referred. Because a second issue relates to

:30:13. > :30:15.the call for a Government instituted judicial inquiry into the

:30:16. > :30:19.investigation which Wiltshire Police. Could the Government confirm

:30:20. > :30:25.in fact the Wiltshire Police and crime commissioner has the power to

:30:26. > :30:31.commission such a judicial inquiry into an operation by his own force.

:30:32. > :30:35.The third issue is that if any hard evidence actually emerged that the

:30:36. > :30:38.Chief Constable had made the comments claimed by the anonymous

:30:39. > :30:42.newspaper source, could the Government confirm that the

:30:43. > :30:46.Wiltshire Police and crime commissioner could, under his

:30:47. > :30:52.powers, suspend or dismiss the Chief Constable? In other words, isn't the

:30:53. > :30:56.ball very much in the elected Wiltshire Police and crime

:30:57. > :31:01.commissioner's court? Well, I think the noble Lord raises a very good

:31:02. > :31:08.point in terms of what is the role of the police and crime commissioner

:31:09. > :31:12.in this situation. Without talking about the specific case that the

:31:13. > :31:16.noble Lord has asked about, it is for the police and crime

:31:17. > :31:22.commissioner to make the decision to appoint, to suspend or to remove a

:31:23. > :31:27.Chief Constable. In making the decision to compel a Chief Constable

:31:28. > :31:31.to resign or to retire, a PCC is bound by certain requirements,

:31:32. > :31:36.including acting reasonably and fairly and consulting the Chief

:31:37. > :31:43.Constable and the local police and crime panel and a PCC may compel a

:31:44. > :31:49.Chief Constable to resign or retire under section 38-3 of the police

:31:50. > :31:58.reform and social responsibility ability of 2011. My Lords, before we

:31:59. > :32:03.resume consideration of the bills report stage t may be for the

:32:04. > :32:08.convenience of the House if I say a brief word about the arrangements

:32:09. > :32:13.for its third reading, which we expect to take place this evening.

:32:14. > :32:19.At the conclusion of report stage we will move to the question for short

:32:20. > :32:25.debate in the name of the noble Lord. The legislation office will at

:32:26. > :32:30.that point be working on making the bill available for noble Lords who

:32:31. > :32:35.may wish to table amendments at third reading. The time scale for

:32:36. > :32:41.this will depend on whether or not the bill needs to be reprinted. When

:32:42. > :32:47.the bill is ready for amendments to be tabled, a notice will be put on

:32:48. > :32:52.the announceator to say so as well as to give a reasonable deadline for

:32:53. > :32:58.noble Lords to table any amendments. We will adjourn at the conclusion of

:32:59. > :33:03.the noble Lord's debate with the time for the House to resume for the

:33:04. > :33:09.third reading advertised on the announceator. I am grateful to the

:33:10. > :33:15.House authorities, in particular those in the legislation office for

:33:16. > :33:22.their hard work to support the House on this bill. Lastly, my Lords, I

:33:23. > :33:29.should remind the House that the normal rules on report stage apply

:33:30. > :33:34.when we resume in a moment. The relevant part of the companion were

:33:35. > :33:39.printed in today's list which was published this morning. Further

:33:40. > :33:46.consideration on report of the European Union note feeshgs of

:33:47. > :33:51.withdrawal bill, Lord Bridges. I beg to move this bill do be

:33:52. > :33:55.further considered on the report. The question is that this bill be

:33:56. > :34:00.now further considered on report as many of that opinion will say

:34:01. > :34:07.content. The contrary not content. The contents have it. After clause

:34:08. > :34:19.one amendment three, Lord Pannick. My Lords, amendment three is in my

:34:20. > :34:24.name and in the names of the noble lady, lady Atir Lord Oats and Lord

:34:25. > :34:30.hail sham. My Lords, the purpose and effect of amendment three is very

:34:31. > :34:37.simple. It is to ensure that at the end of the negotiating process, the

:34:38. > :34:42.approval of parliament is required for the terms of our withdrawal from

:34:43. > :34:49.the EU. The Prime Minister has accepted that

:34:50. > :34:55.principle. She has undertaken that any agreement with the European

:34:56. > :35:01.Union on the terms of our withdrawal and any agreement on our future

:35:02. > :35:07.relationship with the EU will be put to both Houses of parliament for

:35:08. > :35:13.their approval. She has also promised in respect of

:35:14. > :35:19.the withdrawal agreement that this will occur before it is sent to the

:35:20. > :35:27.European Parliament for its consent. My Lords, that must be right. This

:35:28. > :35:32.parliament must have at least the same opportunity as the European

:35:33. > :35:38.Parliament to disagree with the terms of any draft agreement.

:35:39. > :35:44.The Prime Minister has given an undertaking but the Government is

:35:45. > :35:50.refusing to include the commitment in the bill. Given the importance of

:35:51. > :35:57.the decision to leave the EU and given the importance of the terms on

:35:58. > :36:04.which we are to leave the EU, the role of parliament must surely be

:36:05. > :36:13.written into the bill. No ifs, and no buts. This amendment has been

:36:14. > :36:19.revised since the very helpful debate in committee last Wednesday

:36:20. > :36:24.evening. As suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope during

:36:25. > :36:32.that debate, sub-clauses one, two and three of this amendment set out

:36:33. > :36:40.the undertaking given to the House of Commons by the Minister, Mr David

:36:41. > :36:47.Jones, on 7th February at column 2-64. The only alteration to what

:36:48. > :36:53.MrJones said is that the amendment does not commit the Government to

:36:54. > :36:59.proceeding by way of a motion in both Houses. The amendment allows

:37:00. > :37:05.the Government to decide what would be the best means of seeking and

:37:06. > :37:11.obtaining approval from both Houses. And that is because of the points

:37:12. > :37:18.made at committee stage last Wednesday night by the noble Lord,

:37:19. > :37:24.Lord Lisvane with his knowledge and experience of parliamentary

:37:25. > :37:30.procedure. Sub-clause 4, which has also been revised since the debate

:37:31. > :37:36.last Wednesday, requires the approval of both Houses if the Prime

:37:37. > :37:44.Minister decides that the United Kingdom should leave the EU without

:37:45. > :37:50.an agreement as to the terms. Parliament must also have a role in

:37:51. > :37:55.those circumstances. It must be for parliament to decide whether to

:37:56. > :38:03.prefer no deal or the deal offered by the EU. My Lords, can I address a

:38:04. > :38:12.point which has been raised with me by some noble Lords and the point is

:38:13. > :38:17.this, what happens if the two Houses disagree when the agreement or the

:38:18. > :38:24.lack of agreement is put to parliament? My Lords, it is, of

:38:25. > :38:29.course, the Prime Minister who has decided that the terms of our

:38:30. > :38:36.withdrawal are so important that the approval of both Houses of

:38:37. > :38:42.parliament should be required. The White Paper says at paragraph 1-12,

:38:43. > :38:49.I quote, the Government will put the final deal that is agreed between

:38:50. > :38:55.the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of parliament. The Minister,

:38:56. > :39:00.MrDavid Jones, stated in the House of Commons during the committee

:39:01. > :39:05.stage of the bill, 7th February, column 2-64, again I quote, the

:39:06. > :39:14.Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement to be

:39:15. > :39:20.approved by both Houses of parliament before it is concluded.

:39:21. > :39:25.In any event, my Lords, if this House were to agree this amendment

:39:26. > :39:32.today, it is open to the Government if they're concerned about this

:39:33. > :39:39.issue, to seek to amend this new clause in the Commons next week to

:39:40. > :39:42.address what happens if the two Houses were to disagree. I am

:39:43. > :39:46.grateful. This is a very important point. I am glad that he is

:39:47. > :39:50.addressing it in such detail. But we can't make our judgment on the basis

:39:51. > :39:57.of what the Government has said it might do. The judgment today has to

:39:58. > :40:02.be on the basis of what is in this clause. So, I ask him from his

:40:03. > :40:07.perspective, given that it repeatedly says the approval of both

:40:08. > :40:12.Houses of parliament, in terms of this clause, can he tell us in his

:40:13. > :40:17.judgment what would be the solution if one House said yes and the other

:40:18. > :40:20.House said no? As I have said, this is the Prime Minister's undertaking,

:40:21. > :40:27.but since the noble Lord asked me, and I don't have to tell the noble

:40:28. > :40:30.Lord this, given his enormous experience, if the House of Commons

:40:31. > :40:35.were to give its approval, this House would rightly be told, rightly

:40:36. > :40:40.in my judgment, would rightly be told it should be very slow indeed

:40:41. > :40:46.to take a different view to the elected House. If we were to

:40:47. > :40:52.disagree with the Commons, I understand it would be open to the

:40:53. > :40:57.Government immediately to take the matter back to the Commons for a

:40:58. > :41:02.further confirmatory resolution, which if agreed, would lead to a

:41:03. > :41:06.further approval motion in this House and I would expect it would be

:41:07. > :41:12.exceptionally unlikely that this House would stand its ground. But I

:41:13. > :41:18.repeat, if the Government are dissatisfied with that, which the

:41:19. > :41:22.consequence of the undertaking given by the Prime Minister, it is open to

:41:23. > :41:26.the Government to bring forward an amendment in the other place, indeed

:41:27. > :41:32.it was open to the Government in this House to bring forward an

:41:33. > :41:37.amendment to this amendment to deal with the matter. I am grateful to

:41:38. > :41:42.the noble Lord for giving way. He says it's exceptionally unlikely

:41:43. > :41:48.that this House would insist in those circumstances on having its

:41:49. > :41:53.way. That falls some way short of dealing with the point raised by the

:41:54. > :41:59.noble Lord opposite, does the noble Lord not agree that this new clause,

:42:00. > :42:03.in effect, gives this House a statutory veto on the decision made

:42:04. > :42:05.by the Prime Minister with the support of the other place to

:42:06. > :42:09.implement the decision of the British people to leave the European

:42:10. > :42:15.Union? The noble Lord will form his own judgment. I am putting to the

:42:16. > :42:20.House that what this amendment does is to implement the undertaking

:42:21. > :42:26.given by the Prime Minister. She has recognised, and in my view rightly

:42:27. > :42:32.recognised, that so important are these matters that it is necessary,

:42:33. > :42:36.it is imperative to obtain the approval of both Houses of

:42:37. > :42:41.parliament. The constitutional realities, as I understand them, is

:42:42. > :42:45.that this House is exceptionally unlikely to stand its ground against

:42:46. > :42:49.the view of the elected House. But noble Lords will form their own

:42:50. > :42:53.judgment. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Would he

:42:54. > :42:57.also agree there is nothing in this new clause that precludes the

:42:58. > :43:00.approval of both Houses being expressed in an act of parliament

:43:01. > :43:06.and if that is correct the Parliament Act stands behind it? I

:43:07. > :43:11.am very grateful to the noble Lord, as I have already said, this

:43:12. > :43:18.amendment is different from the amendment that we had at committee

:43:19. > :43:21.stage because it does not state what is the means by which the Government

:43:22. > :43:27.must seek the approval of both Houses. The noble Viscount is right,

:43:28. > :43:32.it's open to the Government to proceed by way of emergency

:43:33. > :43:35.legislation. Yes, of course. The noble Lord is an exceedingly

:43:36. > :43:41.distinguished lawyer as we all know in this place and I recognise

:43:42. > :43:45.normally the legal profession seeks precision. Noble Lord is laying

:43:46. > :43:50.before the House an amendment which is imprecise and he has admitted

:43:51. > :43:57.that and it's been pointed out by Lord Howard, he uses terms extremely

:43:58. > :44:07.unlikely. The constitutional reform act of 2010 has a clear device in

:44:08. > :44:12.section 20 for breaking agreements - brokering a disagreement. The noble

:44:13. > :44:16.Lord as a lawyer, is concerned with the precise not putting before

:44:17. > :44:20.parliament precise legislation which deals with the matter he recognises

:44:21. > :44:25.needs to be dealt with? I repeat to the noble Lord, what I have put in

:44:26. > :44:31.this amendment is precisely the undertaking that the Prime Minister

:44:32. > :44:37.has given. If the Prime Minister takes the view that it is

:44:38. > :44:42.appropriate to address specifically in the amendment the means by which

:44:43. > :44:46.any division of view between the two Houses can be broken, then it is

:44:47. > :44:53.entirely up to her when this matter returns to the Commons, if it does,

:44:54. > :45:00.to amend this provision so as to specify for example, section 20, but

:45:01. > :45:03.I would expect, if I had put in this amendment a particular means of

:45:04. > :45:07.breaking a deadlock between the two Houses, I would have been told by

:45:08. > :45:08.the noble Lord and others that's not the particular solution that we

:45:09. > :45:23.welcome. He has repeatedly said that what he

:45:24. > :45:26.wants to put on the face of the bill is no different from what the Prime

:45:27. > :45:30.Minister had indicated to the House of Commons. Surely the difference is

:45:31. > :45:34.that the Prime Minister's undertaking was that there would be

:45:35. > :45:42.a vote in both Houses on the issue of a deal, or indeed, falling back

:45:43. > :45:46.on WTO. Reading his amendment, it is the difference between no deal, and

:45:47. > :45:50.what happens is both could he explain? What happens, nobody knows

:45:51. > :45:55.what is going to happen, that's the whole point of the difficulty that

:45:56. > :45:58.we face in 21 months' time. I don't know what can happen, the Noble Lord

:45:59. > :46:06.doesn't know what can happen. What I'm saying to the House is that what

:46:07. > :46:11.is absolutely essential is that Parliament must have an opportunity

:46:12. > :46:19.guaranteed by legislation to address the circumstances at that time. My

:46:20. > :46:27.Lords... I know that some people in the House do not wish to see the

:46:28. > :46:32.flaws in this, but the answer is that we end up rejecting the view

:46:33. > :46:36.which British people voted for, that we should leave the European Union,

:46:37. > :46:40.and that is the hidden agenda by this amendment. If the Noble Lord is

:46:41. > :46:45.suggesting that I have some motivation, I can assure him that my

:46:46. > :46:49.only motivation is to ensure that Parliament has a guaranteed

:46:50. > :46:54.opportunity at the end of the negotiating process to decide

:46:55. > :47:01.whether or not the terms of our withdrawal hasn't acceptable or not.

:47:02. > :47:05.That's a basic question of Parliamentary sovereignty. My Lords,

:47:06. > :47:09.this amendment will not delay notification of withdrawal from the

:47:10. > :47:18.EU. This amendment does not commit the Government to adopt any specific

:47:19. > :47:21.approach in the negotiations. It doesn't impede the Government in the

:47:22. > :47:27.negotiations any more than the undertaking already given by the

:47:28. > :47:34.Prime Minister. What this amendment will do, and crucially will do, is

:47:35. > :47:38.guaranteed that the Government must come back to both Houses and seek

:47:39. > :47:44.approval for the result of the negotiations. My Lords, let's not

:47:45. > :47:52.forget, we are considering this bill... And I wish him a happy

:47:53. > :47:58.birthday! Would I be right in thinking that the difference between

:47:59. > :48:00.what he is advocating and what some Noble Lords are advocating is the

:48:01. > :48:06.difference between Parliament authority and the royal prerogative?

:48:07. > :48:11.And is he not doing exactly what the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

:48:12. > :48:15.said in Gina Miller's case that he won? I'm very grateful, I was

:48:16. > :48:20.worried for a moment that he was going to sing at me, but I entirely

:48:21. > :48:24.agree with his point. My Lords, we are considering this bill because

:48:25. > :48:28.and only because, as the Noble Lord reminds the Supreme Court ruled as a

:48:29. > :48:37.matter of law that Parliamentary sovereignty is required at this

:48:38. > :48:40.stage of notification of withdrawal. I say not as a matter of law,

:48:41. > :48:49.because I am not arguing a legal case, not as a matter of law but as

:48:50. > :48:53.a matter of constitutional principle, that Parliamentary

:48:54. > :49:00.sovereignty is as important as it is at the end of the negotiating

:49:01. > :49:17.process. After clause one, insert the new clause, as printed.

:49:18. > :49:22.Many of your Lordships have made the point that we are not here to

:49:23. > :49:28.re-fight the referendum campaign. There is a clear mandate to trigger

:49:29. > :49:33.Article 50. My own personal position has been clearly established since I

:49:34. > :49:41.first joined the Conservative Party in 1951. I believe and always have

:49:42. > :49:45.that Britain's national and self-interest is inextricably

:49:46. > :49:51.interwoven with those of our European partners. I deeply regret

:49:52. > :49:57.the outcome of the referendum. That said, within three days of that

:49:58. > :50:04.outcome, I publicly made three points. First bubble I urged the

:50:05. > :50:08.Government to get on with the disengagement process, not only

:50:09. > :50:16.because it had a clear mandate to do so, but because I thought that delay

:50:17. > :50:23.would only add uncertainty to the damage that the result itself had

:50:24. > :50:29.produced. Secondly, I urged the Government to appoint Brexiteers to

:50:30. > :50:36.the three Cabinet positions that would front negotiations. It was

:50:37. > :50:42.clear to me then that failure to do so would open the door to the

:50:43. > :50:48.allegation that if only the right people had been put in positions to

:50:49. > :50:52.lead the charge, a much better deal would have been done. I also took

:50:53. > :50:58.the view, perhaps naively, that as campaigners for Brexit, it was not

:50:59. > :51:04.unreasonable to assume that they might have had answers to the

:51:05. > :51:11.numerous questions that we faced. Lordships will be aware that both of

:51:12. > :51:15.these events have now taken place, and I'm very pleased to say how

:51:16. > :51:22.fully I support the Prime Minister in what she has done. And that only

:51:23. > :51:33.leaves my third point, and the most ultra version of the three. I said

:51:34. > :51:39.then that the fightback starts here. Like so many of your Lordships, I

:51:40. > :51:47.have enjoyed the privilege of many years in Another Place, in my case,

:51:48. > :51:51.35 years. I learned the limitations of government in a Parliamentary

:51:52. > :51:56.democracy, and I learnt also the role of opposition in such

:51:57. > :52:08.circumstances. Time and again, I have been involved along with many

:52:09. > :52:12.of your Lordships on these benches opposing by every constitutional

:52:13. > :52:19.means in our power the mandate of the elected government. Not only did

:52:20. > :52:27.we oppose their mandate from the very first day that Parliament met,

:52:28. > :52:30.we began the long process of repealing the acts of which we

:52:31. > :52:34.disapprove to. In the end, it came down to a belief in the ultimate

:52:35. > :52:41.sovereignty of Parliament. I must make clear that in accepting the

:52:42. > :52:49.mandate to negotiate our withdrawal from the European Union, I do not

:52:50. > :52:57.accept that the mandate runs for all time and in all circumstances. 48%

:52:58. > :53:04.of our people reject it that concept last year. They have the same right

:53:05. > :53:15.to be heard as I hope we recognised so many of us in those long years of

:53:16. > :53:23.opposition in Another Place. We now face a protract did period of

:53:24. > :53:33.negotiation. No-one has the first idea what deal will emerge. No-one

:53:34. > :53:36.can even tell us what governments in Europe will be there to conclude

:53:37. > :53:44.whatever deal emerges. No-one can say with certainty how British

:53:45. > :53:50.public opinion will react to totally unproductive all events. Let me just

:53:51. > :53:55.give one example. I am told that it took 240 regulations to introduce

:53:56. > :54:04.the single market in the late 1980s, and I remember the resentment

:54:05. > :54:09.particularly to the small and medium-sized companies. I understand

:54:10. > :54:17.it may take 1600 regulations to unravel over 40 years of closer

:54:18. > :54:22.union, and no-one can say how this vital small and medium-sized sector

:54:23. > :54:30.of our economy will react to the circumstances that they will then

:54:31. > :54:39.face. Everyone in this House knows that we now face the most momentous

:54:40. > :54:45.piece time decision of our time, and this amendment, as the Noble Lord

:54:46. > :54:50.has so clearly set out, secures in law the Government's commitment,

:54:51. > :54:55.already made to Another Place, to ensure that Parliament is the

:54:56. > :55:01.ultimate custodian of our national sovereignty. It ensures that

:55:02. > :55:06.Parliament has a critical role in determining the future that we will

:55:07. > :55:17.bequeath to generations of young people, and I urge your Lordships to

:55:18. > :55:26.support the amendment. I rise to speak in support of the amendment

:55:27. > :55:29.made by Lord Pannick for I will not take up too much time of the House,

:55:30. > :55:33.not least because I think the issue at stake is really a rather simple

:55:34. > :55:36.one. On the 17th of January this year, the Prime Minister confirmed

:55:37. > :55:41.in her Lancaster house speech the Government's intention to put the

:55:42. > :55:48.final deal that is agreed between the EU and the UK to a vote in both

:55:49. > :55:52.Houses of Parliament. Is the Noble Lord Lord Pannick has said on the

:55:53. > :55:55.7th of February, the minister of state for exiting the European Union

:55:56. > :55:59.has stated that the vote will cover not only the withdrawal arrangements

:56:00. > :56:05.but also the future relationship with the European Union. This

:56:06. > :56:10.amendment merely gives legislative effect to the Government's pledged,

:56:11. > :56:16.and in doing so it will assist the Prime Minister should she or any

:56:17. > :56:20.successor be tempted to go back from it. The amendment will also provide

:56:21. > :56:24.clarity that the Government will require prior approval of Parliament

:56:25. > :56:32.should the Prime Minister decide to leave the European Union without any

:56:33. > :56:35.agreement at all. My Lords, at committee stage, some Noble Lords on

:56:36. > :56:41.the benches opposite questioned the need for legal underpinning of the

:56:42. > :56:44.commitment given by the Government through a meaningful vote. The

:56:45. > :56:47.reason is simple as that we don't trust the Government on this matter.

:56:48. > :56:53.Not because we don't trust the integrity of individual members of

:56:54. > :56:58.the Government, but because, as the Noble Lord Lord Burton pointed out

:56:59. > :57:02.in the committee on this bill, we are only here discussing this matter

:57:03. > :57:06.at all because the Government was forced by the courts, and the

:57:07. > :57:13.arguments made by the Noble Lord Pannick to come to Parliament and

:57:14. > :57:18.hear its voice on the matter at all. My Lords, if we want to ensure that

:57:19. > :57:24.our sovereign Parliament, so often championed by the leave campaigners,

:57:25. > :57:30.has a clear and decisive role in scrutinising the final outcome of

:57:31. > :57:33.this process, then it must assert its rights in legislation. And if

:57:34. > :57:37.the Government is genuine in its commitment that it has given on

:57:38. > :57:46.these matters, then it should have no problem accepting the amendment.

:57:47. > :57:49.But if it is not willing to do it will call into question the

:57:50. > :57:54.sincerity of the Government's commitment on this matter, and only

:57:55. > :58:04.strengthen the argument to pass this amendment into law. My Lords, as the

:58:05. > :58:07.Noble Lord Hailsham reminded us last week, prime ministers can go,

:58:08. > :58:11.ministers can be sacked, parliaments can change and governments can cease

:58:12. > :58:16.to exist, one has to enshrine assurances that stand against

:58:17. > :58:21.changes in circumstances. I wholeheartedly agree with the Noble

:58:22. > :58:24.Lord Hailsham on that matter, and that's why I'm supporting this

:58:25. > :58:38.amendment is, and I hope that your Lordships house will do so also. My

:58:39. > :58:41.lord, I think just on the latter point that was made by the Noble

:58:42. > :58:47.Lord, it is perhaps actually just worth recalling to the House what

:58:48. > :58:51.the minister Mr David Jones said. And he said in the Other Place - the

:58:52. > :58:55.Government have repeatedly committed from the dispatch box to a vote in

:58:56. > :59:00.both Houses on the final deal before it comes into force. That I repeat

:59:01. > :59:04.and confirmed will cover not only the withdrawal agreement, but the

:59:05. > :59:08.future arrangement that we propose for the European Union. I confirm

:59:09. > :59:10.again that the Government will bring forward a motion on the final

:59:11. > :59:16.agreement to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is

:59:17. > :59:19.concluded, and we expect and intend that that will happen before the

:59:20. > :59:25.European Parliament debate and vote on the final agreement. And in the

:59:26. > :59:29.course of the debate, the minister, Mr Jones, repeated those sentences

:59:30. > :59:34.three times. And the Shadow Secretary of State, Keir Starmer,

:59:35. > :59:38.whom I paid tribute to in the second reading debate, said - minister, I

:59:39. > :59:42.am very grateful for that intervention. This is a huge and

:59:43. > :59:46.very important concession about the process we are to embark on. The

:59:47. > :59:50.argument I have made about a vote over the last three months is that

:59:51. > :59:54.the vote most cover both the Article 50 deal and any future relationship.

:59:55. > :59:58.I know that for many of my colleagues that is very important.

:59:59. > :59:59.So, both Houses will get a vote on the final draft deal, and we do not

:00:00. > :00:11.need any of these amendments. It is a complete distortion - in a

:00:12. > :00:19.second. I will give way to the honourable gentleman if he let's me

:00:20. > :00:35.finish my sentence. It is a complete distortion to suggest that the

:00:36. > :00:39.Government are likely to ren -- reng. They do something completely

:00:40. > :00:44.different. I give way to the noble Lord. I am most grateful to the

:00:45. > :00:49.noble Lord for giving way. But having read out three times, I

:00:50. > :00:53.think, what the Minister said in the House of Commons, he has revealed

:00:54. > :00:59.that the Minister failed to answer the question that he and the noble

:01:00. > :01:03.Lord, Lord Howard and others put to my noble friend, which is what

:01:04. > :01:06.happens if there is a disagreement between the two Houses, could he

:01:07. > :01:10.perhaps now address that and perhaps he could also put that question to

:01:11. > :01:14.the right person to put it to, which is not my noble friend, but the

:01:15. > :01:17.Minister who is going to reply to this debate and will have ample

:01:18. > :01:21.opportunity to reply to it. I know that the noble Lord is very

:01:22. > :01:24.experienced and if he doesn't know the difference between a resolution

:01:25. > :01:28.in the House of Commons and putting in statute a power of veto for the

:01:29. > :01:31.House of Lords then I am very surprised to hear him making that

:01:32. > :01:38.point. The point about this amendment, the point about this

:01:39. > :01:47.amendment which we are discussing, amendment three, is that it actually

:01:48. > :01:53.- it is a - I am not going to give way. Could I just ask the noble Lord

:01:54. > :02:01.how can it be a veto, since we can not in fact impose our will on the

:02:02. > :02:05.House of Commons? Well, the noble Baroness is very experienced and she

:02:06. > :02:10.should know that this House is able to impose its will on the House of

:02:11. > :02:14.Commons by convention we do not do so and if we sought to do so we

:02:15. > :02:17.would be in deep water and this amendment is taking us into deep

:02:18. > :02:21.water. If I could just return to the issue under discussion which is the

:02:22. > :02:25.amendment. If we look at paragraph one, the Prime Minister may not

:02:26. > :02:29.conclude an agreement with the European Union under Article 50 on

:02:30. > :02:32.the terms of the United Kingdom's withdrawal without the approval of

:02:33. > :02:36.both Houses of parliament. So we get to the final hour at midnight when

:02:37. > :02:40.the deal is being done and the Prime Minister says, hang on a second, I

:02:41. > :02:47.can't agree a deal, I have to consult the House of Commons. It is

:02:48. > :02:49.ridiculous. It is ridiculous, a ridiculous proposal to suggest... It

:02:50. > :02:54.is not the Prime Minister's proposal. It is a ridiculous

:02:55. > :02:57.proposal to say that the Prime Minister may not conclude an

:02:58. > :03:03.agreement until this has been sorted.

:03:04. > :03:08.It is a well-known - no, I am not going to give way. I promise to give

:03:09. > :03:13.way to nigh noble friend once I have made my points about the amendment.

:03:14. > :03:16.It is a first rule of negotiation that you never negotiate with

:03:17. > :03:21.someone who doesn't have authority to conclude the deal. The effect of

:03:22. > :03:27.these proposals is to put ministers in a position where their authority

:03:28. > :03:30.is in doubt and where, in effect, it makes this House and the House of

:03:31. > :03:36.Commons parties to the negotiation and the negotiation has to be

:03:37. > :03:42.conducted between ministers and people from the EU. If we turn to...

:03:43. > :03:47.I wonder whether the noble Lord has realised that the Ministers with

:03:48. > :03:52.whom this will be negotiated or the European officials with whom it will

:03:53. > :03:55.be negotiated have all got to go back to every European Parliament

:03:56. > :04:01.and the European Parliament before they can conclude a deal? I do

:04:02. > :04:09.realise that. I have the utmost respect for my noble friend, helped

:04:10. > :04:14.to get me elected in 83 which may not be one of the most important

:04:15. > :04:18.things, he has served the party with great distinction, but I have to say

:04:19. > :04:22.to him, that it is not the moment for this House to grab the mace and

:04:23. > :04:35.challenge the authority of the House of Commons.

:04:36. > :04:39.Now, on paragraph... On sub-section two, it says, such approval shall be

:04:40. > :04:43.required before the European Parliament debates and votes on that

:04:44. > :04:49.agreement. How are ministers supposed to deliver that? They're

:04:50. > :04:52.not in control of the timetable for when the European Parliament debates

:04:53. > :05:00.these matters and indeed it is an impossible condition for them to

:05:01. > :05:05.meet. Then if we look at paragraph... I am grateful to him

:05:06. > :05:09.for giving way, because the phrase this will happen before the European

:05:10. > :05:13.Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement is set out in

:05:14. > :05:17.Hansard in the statement, the undertaken given by David Jones on

:05:18. > :05:25.7th February, the more the noble Lord makes his points, the more

:05:26. > :05:34.important it seems to me to pass this amendment. Well...

:05:35. > :05:37.If the noble Lord accepts my point, then the more importance there is in

:05:38. > :05:42.not actually seeking to put it on statue. He didn't actually deal with

:05:43. > :05:45.my point, which is how are ministers able to ensure that approval shall

:05:46. > :05:49.be required before the European Parliament debates when they are not

:05:50. > :05:52.in charge of the timetable for the European Parliament debates? I

:05:53. > :05:57.happily give way if he would like to answer that point. He is arguing

:05:58. > :06:00.they should be put on the statute and should be able to explain how

:06:01. > :06:03.this can be achieved. I would love to continue with this discussion

:06:04. > :06:08.until we reach an end of it but all I am doing is referring to the words

:06:09. > :06:13.of the Minister himself and it's a him - it's for him to work out how

:06:14. > :06:16.this undertaking which he gave to parliament and which fits exactly I

:06:17. > :06:22.think with the wording in the White Paper, as well, should be conducted.

:06:23. > :06:26.It is very important that we make this matter clear and I thought

:06:27. > :06:32.myself that the best way of dealing with it, as Lord Pannick has done is

:06:33. > :06:35.use the words of the Minister in clauses one to three and pass the

:06:36. > :06:40.amendment in the House of Commons can look at it again if they wish

:06:41. > :06:44.to. The noble Lord is normally very careful and precise, I read out at

:06:45. > :06:50.the beginning the words that David Jones had used in the House and he

:06:51. > :06:53.said, we expect and intend that will happen before the European

:06:54. > :06:57.Parliament debates. This says, such approval shall be required before

:06:58. > :07:03.the European Parliament debates. There is a big difference between

:07:04. > :07:08.expect and intend. And shall be required. One is... I am grateful to

:07:09. > :07:11.the noble Lord. Does he not agree that the vote in the European

:07:12. > :07:14.Parliament will be about whether the deal is negotiated will be

:07:15. > :07:18.acceptable, it will not be about whether or not the UK leaves the EU

:07:19. > :07:27.or not? My noble friend is absolutely right

:07:28. > :07:31.on that point. Just to move now to paragraph three, subparagraph three,

:07:32. > :07:37.it says the approval of both Houses of parliament shall be required in

:07:38. > :07:40.relation to an agreement on the future relation of the United

:07:41. > :07:46.Kingdom within the European Union. The point I put in an intervention

:07:47. > :07:50.to the noble Lord Pannick. This effectively gives this House and the

:07:51. > :07:54.House of Commons a veto on Brexit. It gives it the ability to prevent

:07:55. > :07:58.us from leaving the European Union, despite the fact that we have had

:07:59. > :08:03.the biggest vote in our history from people requiring that. It will be

:08:04. > :08:07.immense live destructive to the reputation of parliament and also to

:08:08. > :08:12.this House. Then we go to paragraph four of section four, the prior

:08:13. > :08:16.approval of both Houses of parliament shall also be required in

:08:17. > :08:19.relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United

:08:20. > :08:25.Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the

:08:26. > :08:29.applicable terms. That means that Ministers are unable to walk away.

:08:30. > :08:33.This was the mistake that David Cameron made. If David Cameron had

:08:34. > :08:38.walked away, he might have been able to get a proper deal. Who knows? But

:08:39. > :08:42.the fact is he didn't walk away and they knew he wasn't going to walk

:08:43. > :08:48.away, it's why he got such a useless deal and this actually ensures

:08:49. > :08:51.Ministers cannot walk away. For the Lord Pannick this is implementing

:08:52. > :08:57.the Prime Minister's promise is a complete... I am sorry, I made it

:08:58. > :09:00.very clear to the House that subclauses one to three implement

:09:01. > :09:06.the undertaking, I made it very clear that's not the case in

:09:07. > :09:10.relation to sub-clause four. I take the, noble Lords will form their own

:09:11. > :09:14.judgment, but it's vital for this House and the other place to have a

:09:15. > :09:17.say on whether we should leave with no deal or with the deal that's

:09:18. > :09:21.being offered. I made that very clear to the House. Well, I have to

:09:22. > :09:30.say to the noble Lord, we know what he is up to. We know what is going

:09:31. > :09:34.on. We know - I appreciate that I am a minority in this House, not just

:09:35. > :09:39.because I am a Scottish Tory, I am in a minority in this House because

:09:40. > :09:43.I support the views of the majority of people in this country. This

:09:44. > :09:49.House is absolutely full of people who still haven't come to terms with

:09:50. > :09:53.the results of the referendum and this is a clever lawyer's confection

:09:54. > :09:59.in order to reverse the results of the referendum. That's what we are

:10:00. > :10:05.debating and that's what it is about. I gave way already. He can

:10:06. > :10:10.make his own speech. What is going on... I am in the giving way to the

:10:11. > :10:15.noble Lord. Order, order. All right, I will give

:10:16. > :10:20.way. I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am sorry I am causing him

:10:21. > :10:29.such frustration this afternoon. Even when - I don't think normally

:10:30. > :10:34.in this House we speak from a sedantry position. My comment was

:10:35. > :10:37.you are annoying the House, not just an individual member. Well, I am

:10:38. > :10:40.most grateful to the noble Lord for having ashgated to himself the

:10:41. > :10:45.decisions to what the rather hundreds of people around this place

:10:46. > :10:49.leave. But the point I was going to raise and ask the noble Lord to

:10:50. > :10:55.address is that of course the Prime Minister of this country has the

:10:56. > :10:58.ability to ensure that we do leave the European Union without an

:10:59. > :11:02.agreement because of the two-year time limit in Article 50, which he

:11:03. > :11:08.has not addressed. That time limit is absolute. It will be triggered

:11:09. > :11:13.within the next few days. And sometime in 2019 it will reach its

:11:14. > :11:17.conclusion. The Prime Minister says it takes two to negotiate and the

:11:18. > :11:21.Prime Minister will be one of them, and the 27 and the institutions of

:11:22. > :11:27.the European Union will be the other, has the ability to ensure

:11:28. > :11:32.that we leave without an agreement. That is the eventuality being dealt

:11:33. > :11:38.with in this amendment. The noble Lord makes my point for me. If after

:11:39. > :11:41.two years we have no agreement, then we will have left the European

:11:42. > :11:45.Union. I need to conclude my remarks.

:11:46. > :11:53.This place is beginning to be like the House of Commons!

:11:54. > :11:56.What is going on here is like Gulliver. These amendments are

:11:57. > :12:01.trying to tie down the Prime Minister, tie her down by her hair,

:12:02. > :12:06.by her arms, by her legs, in every conceivable way, in order to prevent

:12:07. > :12:11.her getting an agreement and in order to prevent us leaving the

:12:12. > :12:15.European Union. The House should reject this amendment for what it

:12:16. > :12:19.is, which is an unelected chamber trying to frustrate the will of the

:12:20. > :12:23.democratically elected Government and of the people which has been

:12:24. > :12:34.expressed in a huge vote in a referendum.

:12:35. > :12:43.My Lords, My Lords... One of the reasons I wish to speak to amendment

:12:44. > :12:47.four. One of the main reasons that we are over here now is that the

:12:48. > :12:53.Prime Minister and the Government wanted to go ahead and use the

:12:54. > :12:57.perogotive and it's because of a ruling in the Supreme Court that we

:12:58. > :13:01.are here and what we are asking for in this amendment is to have

:13:02. > :13:07.something put in statute to protect the uncertainty that is there in the

:13:08. > :13:12.future. We have heard in all the discussions so far that questioning

:13:13. > :13:17.the reason why voters voted would be insulting the voters. Remain or

:13:18. > :13:24.leave. But, my Lords, this has not been a general election vote. In a

:13:25. > :13:27.general election the party manifesto or an Ed Stone and his commandments,

:13:28. > :13:31.if the people don't like the Government and they say they've not

:13:32. > :13:35.lived up to their manifesto, or have not delivered, in five years' time,

:13:36. > :13:40.they can throw them out. The difference here is this is a

:13:41. > :13:44.permanent decision. Permanent in that the last time this happened was

:13:45. > :13:48.1975, over four decades ago. But the difference is that the last time

:13:49. > :13:52.this happened it was with a majority of 67%. If we had a super majority,

:13:53. > :13:58.that was a super majority, that was achieved. It was a decisive

:13:59. > :14:04.decision. There was certainty. Here, we are hearing this binary decision,

:14:05. > :14:10.remain or leave, but the outcomes are anything but binary. One of the

:14:11. > :14:15.outcomes is a hard Brexit. The main issue here is that people are

:14:16. > :14:18.allowed to change their minds. My Lords, whether it is the Prime

:14:19. > :14:20.Minister who changed her mind or the Ministers who change their mind or

:14:21. > :14:24.members of the other place who want to change their minds or members of

:14:25. > :14:28.this House who want to change their mind, it is our right to do so. In

:14:29. > :14:34.fact, Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple said changing your mind is a

:14:35. > :14:40.sign of intelligence. As cane said, when the facts change, I change my

:14:41. > :14:43.mind. Here many facts as the noble Lord has said, many outcomes of this

:14:44. > :14:48.negotiation are uncertain. The Dutch elections are coming up, the French

:14:49. > :14:51.and German elections, the eurozone may collapse, Europe might even

:14:52. > :14:57.reform immigration rules which we would like. It's only right that

:14:58. > :15:01.parliament has a full say in the road ahead. This amendment covers

:15:02. > :15:08.us, protects us from the potential outcomes. My Lords, I concluded my

:15:09. > :15:12.second reading speech by quoting Professor of the Harvard business

:15:13. > :15:17.school, a expert on negotiations, he said make sure you read a book

:15:18. > :15:21.called The Guns of August about the beginning of the First World War. He

:15:22. > :15:25.said reading that book is like watching a train crash in slow

:15:26. > :15:30.motion. That is what we are seeing right now

:15:31. > :15:34.with Brexit. I conclude, that we need to support this amendment more

:15:35. > :15:39.than anything to protect the future...

:15:40. > :15:52.I wonder whether in 1975, he knew about the Maastricht Treaty? 1975, I

:15:53. > :15:56.was barely a teenager. My Lords, I would conclude by saying the main

:15:57. > :16:00.reason we need to support this amendment is for the sake of future

:16:01. > :16:04.generations. It is to protect future generations. Noble Lords, I'm sure

:16:05. > :16:07.will have received several tweets, e-mails and letters from

:16:08. > :16:13.individuals, and justice morning I received an e-mail saying, please

:16:14. > :16:19.support Parliamentary democracy and our young people's future. My Lords,

:16:20. > :16:25.one of our doorkeepers reminded me of an ancient Gaelic saying is birth

:16:26. > :16:31.we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our

:16:32. > :16:35.children. The Lord seemed to suggest that we should support this

:16:36. > :16:40.amendment because Article 50 was not unilaterally irrevocable, that we

:16:41. > :16:44.would have to leave the EU. Your argument was that we should support

:16:45. > :16:51.the amendment because it IS unilaterally irrevocable - which is

:16:52. > :17:01.it? This amendment covers all potential outcomes, and that I think

:17:02. > :17:04.we should have. I wish to speak briefly to amendment for Bridge

:17:05. > :17:10.stands in my name and that of Lord Russell. It is similar in intent to

:17:11. > :17:14.the amendment which was moved very eloquently by Lord Pannick, but it

:17:15. > :17:24.is shorter. Because what I have sought to do is merely to put on the

:17:25. > :17:29.face of the bill the remarks of Mr Jones and other ministers, namely

:17:30. > :17:35.that Parliament WILL have an absolute legal right, and that it

:17:36. > :17:44.will exercise its right after the European Parliament, before the

:17:45. > :17:49.European Parliament has exercised it. And I would just say in

:17:50. > :17:54.parenthesis that we must remember, whatever is agreed will go around

:17:55. > :17:57.every Parliament and indeed some regional parliaments under 27

:17:58. > :18:01.nations, and it go to the European Parliament, of course. We have a

:18:02. > :18:06.system of Parliamentary democracy in which I take enormous pride. I shall

:18:07. > :18:10.always be glad that I spent 40 years at the other end of the corridor,

:18:11. > :18:18.not one of them in government, but always trying to play a part in

:18:19. > :18:24.holding government to account. And that is the supreme task of

:18:25. > :18:32.Parliament, both this House and the Other Place. Of course, as I have

:18:33. > :18:35.repeatedly made plain in my interventions and in the debates on

:18:36. > :18:40.this bill and in many others, the ultimate power and authority, the

:18:41. > :18:48.supremacy is with the Other Place just in we neglect that fact, and it

:18:49. > :18:51.is a fact, at our peril. But nevertheless my Lords, we have not

:18:52. > :18:56.only a right but I believe the duties to ask the Other Place to

:18:57. > :19:03.reconsider if we think they haven't got it right. And whilst I had no

:19:04. > :19:10.hesitation this morning in voting against the referendum amendment, I

:19:11. > :19:19.equally have no hesitation in moving this one, or speaking to this one.

:19:20. > :19:24.Because all we are saying in this amendment and in the amendment so

:19:25. > :19:27.well moved by Lord Pannick and supported by my Noble Friend Lord

:19:28. > :19:34.has all Thailand others, all we are saying is that Parliament's right

:19:35. > :19:39.and dew must be on the face of the bill. It is not a question of the

:19:40. > :19:48.integrity of those who have made statements, of course I except that

:19:49. > :19:52.without any question whatsoever. But there is a difference between a

:19:53. > :19:56.statement expressing intent and a legal obligation. And that my Lords

:19:57. > :20:05.is what we are seeking to insert in this bill - a legal obligation which

:20:06. > :20:10.should be recognised. And I very, very much hope that even at this

:20:11. > :20:15.late stage, my Noble Friend from the front bench will feel able to

:20:16. > :20:19.acknowledge at least that there is some validity in what we are seeking

:20:20. > :20:24.to say. And I very much hope that in the Other Place, they WILL

:20:25. > :20:30.reconsider. It does not delay the passage of this bill by more than a

:20:31. > :20:34.day. We can get it through this House in all its remaining stages

:20:35. > :20:39.next week. It doesn't in any sense all to the intent or purpose of the

:20:40. > :20:48.bill, because it gives to the Prime Minister what she has asked for. But

:20:49. > :20:51.my Lords, whilst I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister is in rude

:20:52. > :20:58.and vigorous health for many years to come, and is still in office long

:20:59. > :21:00.after the saddest day when we have vacated the European Union,

:21:01. > :21:05.nevertheless we cannot guarantee that that will be the case, and one

:21:06. > :21:09.Prime Minister cannot necessarily buying her successor. Look at the

:21:10. > :21:16.changes that took place in June and July of last year - how the mighty

:21:17. > :21:21.have fallen! My Lords, I would urge, when we come to vote unless my Noble

:21:22. > :21:25.Friend is able to give us the assurances that we seek, but we do

:21:26. > :21:31.take to put Parliament in its rightful place. House of Commons

:21:32. > :21:38.first, but the House of Lords, this noble house, in its proper position,

:21:39. > :21:48.able to say, please reconsider. Able to say, we genuinely do not think

:21:49. > :21:53.you have got this right. Of course, if they take a different line, we

:21:54. > :21:57.recognise the limitations on our power, but my Lords, let us send a

:21:58. > :22:22.message tonight to the Other Place. My Lords, I hope you will permit me

:22:23. > :22:28.to think aloud. I heard that exchange between Lord Pannick and

:22:29. > :22:36.Lord Forsyth. I am still wanting to work out some of the complications.

:22:37. > :22:41.Amendment three I think for me provides the inclusion of Parliament

:22:42. > :22:48.into negotiation processes in such a way that can prevent any deal ever

:22:49. > :22:53.being reached. We are involving ourselves into the processes

:22:54. > :23:00.themselves. It also, and the question has not been quite fully

:23:01. > :23:05.answered, it says three times, without the approval of both Houses

:23:06. > :23:12.of Parliament, prior to the approval of both Houses of Parliament, and

:23:13. > :23:15.thirdly, the approval of both Houses of Parliament shall be required...

:23:16. > :23:21.The question is yet to be answered - what happens when this House to not

:23:22. > :23:29.agree with the other house? Somebody has got to answer that, because you

:23:30. > :23:33.are saying, we don't agree with the other, it will give the unelected

:23:34. > :23:39.house almost a veto on the procedure to reach an agreement with the EU,

:23:40. > :23:43.which intern reflects the decision made by the electorate in the 2016

:23:44. > :23:49.referendum. That has got to be answered. The commitment by the

:23:50. > :23:55.Prime Minister in January 2017 for a vote for Parliament, I think I want

:23:56. > :24:01.to say, I think that commitment does above and beyond what is contained

:24:02. > :24:06.in the Constitutional Reform And Governance Act of 2010. I think she

:24:07. > :24:13.said more than what is allowed in that act. I want to suggest, it is

:24:14. > :24:28.not in Parliament's gift to make this a condition. The Prime

:24:29. > :24:34.Minister's spokesman said yesterday, we should not commit to any process

:24:35. > :24:39.that will incentivise the EU to offer us a bad deal. It would give

:24:40. > :24:43.strength to parties in the opposition. We believe it should be

:24:44. > :24:49.a simple meal in relation to triggering Article 50, and nothing

:24:50. > :24:57.else. -- simple deal. Triggering Article 50, for me, it seems, is an

:24:58. > :25:02.irreversible act. Two years after triggering it, the UK will leave the

:25:03. > :25:11.EU, and it will do so with or without a deal. Article 50 makes

:25:12. > :25:18.clear that the treaties will cease to apply two years after it for some

:25:19. > :25:22.it is possible that the 27 members might unanimously agreed to extend

:25:23. > :25:28.the negotiation period, but this cannot be taken for granted, nor

:25:29. > :25:39.should it be assumed that they will offer anything in way of an

:25:40. > :25:44.extension. You have got to answer it, you have got to put it in. Yes,

:25:45. > :25:54.it may sound like rubbish, but that answer has got to be given. Section

:25:55. > :25:56.three, this amendment I think also overlooks that the European

:25:57. > :25:58.Union?(Notification of Withdrawal)?Bill? is about

:25:59. > :26:04.triggering Article 50 and the formal divorce settlement. Neither this

:26:05. > :26:12.bill nor Article 50 is about negotiating a new agreement with the

:26:13. > :26:19.EU. My Lords, will somebody explain, if I cannot get a clear answer on

:26:20. > :26:26.those questions, I think I may find myself voting no. But if I am made

:26:27. > :26:30.to understand, they now my vote yes. Like the Noble Lord Lord Forks, I

:26:31. > :26:35.arrived this morning for amendment one not sure which way I would vote.

:26:36. > :26:40.But very clear that I was going to be a strong supporter of this

:26:41. > :26:44.amendment is. Like him also, I thought there was a link between the

:26:45. > :26:48.two, but high-resolution was somewhat different, which is that I

:26:49. > :26:52.did not vote for this morning's amendment, but I still strongly

:26:53. > :26:57.support this. One of the difficulties that I have found with

:26:58. > :27:02.these debates, as to hurl we should think about the finality of the vote

:27:03. > :27:08.on the 23rd of June last year, is that I find myself disagreeing with

:27:09. > :27:15.arguments on either side. On the side of those who, like me, voted

:27:16. > :27:18.Remain, it is often suggested that there was something about that vote

:27:19. > :27:26.which was less legitimate than other votes, because perhaps there was a

:27:27. > :27:30.16- to 18-year-olds didn't have the vote, or because the Leave

:27:31. > :27:34.sidelight. But I do not consider those reasonable arguments. You may

:27:35. > :27:38.or not may not be in favour of 16- to 18-year-olds having the vote, but

:27:39. > :27:45.our present system starts at 18 and that does not change the legitimacy

:27:46. > :27:50.of any result. As for the argument that the Leave side exaggerated, or

:27:51. > :27:53.perhaps with the NHS claim lied, well, I do think there were some

:27:54. > :27:57.exaggerations on the other side as well, and I have to say that in

:27:58. > :28:01.every general election I can ever remember, there have been

:28:02. > :28:04.exaggerations on either side, some of which have verged on the

:28:05. > :28:11.mendacious, but they have not invalidated the result of the

:28:12. > :28:15.general election. Democracy is scrappy, it is imperfect, but it is

:28:16. > :28:20.the best system we have. So I accept the result of what happened last

:28:21. > :28:25.year as no more and no less legitimate than any general

:28:26. > :28:29.election. But that means as well as being no less legitimate, it is also

:28:30. > :28:38.no more. And it is the case that on the day after a general election,

:28:39. > :28:42.and my Noble Lord Lord Heseltine has already said this, the opposition

:28:43. > :28:47.party devote themselves the very next day to arguing against what was

:28:48. > :28:50.just agreed by the majority of the population by putting down

:28:51. > :28:57.amendments in the Commons or the Lords, I trying to delay things in

:28:58. > :29:00.the Lords, and by working day after day to win the next general

:29:01. > :29:05.election, and in some cases working very hard to bring it forward if

:29:06. > :29:11.they possibly can. There is a very fine play that you can go and see in

:29:12. > :29:14.London now which records this, from the days in the Commons of several

:29:15. > :29:21.people presently in this House. So I do very much agree with the

:29:22. > :29:26.sentiment of the Noble Lord Lord Kerr that any idea that the vote in

:29:27. > :29:33.June last year reflects the will of the people, in some unanimous,

:29:34. > :29:39.absolute and for ever and changing fashion, is, as my Noble Lord put

:29:40. > :29:43.it, not democratic but regressive doctrine. And like him I have been a

:29:44. > :29:48.bit surprised and depressed by the fact that this Brezhnev doctrine,

:29:49. > :29:56.having been first propagated by some of our major newspapers, is now

:29:57. > :30:00.finding an echo Chamber among some parts, though not all parts, of the

:30:01. > :30:06.Conservative Party, who on the basis of what was said earlier, I do wish

:30:07. > :30:08.would pay more attention to the intellectual lineage of Edmund Burke

:30:09. > :30:21.fan of Mr Brezhnev. Any idea to have another referendum,

:30:22. > :30:27.the idea that that is undemocratic is nonsense. Indeed, the idea that

:30:28. > :30:32.you should reject that possibility, but reject the possibility of

:30:33. > :30:39.another referendum in principle is in itself undemocratic. If there was

:30:40. > :30:45.another referendum in three or five years in which there was a majority

:30:46. > :30:51.for saying in the EU, that would be equally democratic than the vote on

:30:52. > :30:55.June 23rd. Still I did not support amendment 1, because I'm not sure

:30:56. > :31:01.that there should be a referendum in two or three or four years time aye

:31:02. > :31:06.do not think that by a referendum we can resolve the uncertainties and

:31:07. > :31:15.issues that will be faced in two years time, but I do think we can

:31:16. > :31:19.resolve them and we should have them resolved by having extensive

:31:20. > :31:24.Parliamentary debates. We don't know what will be the result of

:31:25. > :31:29.negotiations. Nor do we know what the situation will be in two years

:31:30. > :31:33.time. It maybe adverse consequences have emerged from leaving the EU, it

:31:34. > :31:38.maybe that they will not. I do not know. And I therefore do not think

:31:39. > :31:46.it would be appropriate now to commit to a future referendum, nor

:31:47. > :31:51.do I think we can sure how we determine the result of a

:31:52. > :31:56.referendum. I wonder if the noble Lord would... I think you have to

:31:57. > :32:01.sit down. I am most grateful. I wonder if he has picked up the wrong

:32:02. > :32:08.notes for the wrong speech, he seems to be talking about the second

:32:09. > :32:13.referendum. I'm going to come shortly and briefly why I think

:32:14. > :32:19.these arguments say we should is a debate. I do not think it is

:32:20. > :32:26.appropriate now to commit to a future referendum. Would a no vote

:32:27. > :32:37.be against the result which was too soft or too hard? I think the

:32:38. > :32:43.arguments against... Sorry I know the Lord wanted to speak to

:32:44. > :32:48.amendment 1 and perhaps it is a bit frustrating that he is actually now

:32:49. > :32:54.dealing with amendment 3. But I do think it is important that he

:32:55. > :33:01.addresses his remarks to amendment 3 and not to amendment 1, which is a

:33:02. > :33:06.matter which this House has already decided. What I want to argue, if I

:33:07. > :33:11.may, is that the very arguments why one should not commit to a future

:33:12. > :33:17.referendum, the uncertainty of the situation that we will then face, is

:33:18. > :33:21.however the argument why it is absolutely appropriate for us to

:33:22. > :33:26.come back for a detailed debate in both houses of Parliament at that

:33:27. > :33:30.time to deal with the uncertain circumstances that will then exist.

:33:31. > :33:37.Like others around this House, I would in some ways prefer that this

:33:38. > :33:41.referendum more clearly identified the relative powers of the Commons

:33:42. > :33:47.and the Lords in that process. I would have preferred the earlier

:33:48. > :33:53.version of the attempt which proposed there should be a

:33:54. > :33:59.legislative process brought forward. But the most important principle is

:34:00. > :34:02.that we should not treat June 23rd as providing absolute answers for

:34:03. > :34:07.ever, or the answers to everything, and that it is therefore absolutely

:34:08. > :34:11.appropriate for us to assert that there should be a process of

:34:12. > :34:18.Parliamentary sovereignty, where the details of what it is propose rd

:34:19. > :34:25.brought back to both houses of Parliament for debate at that time.

:34:26. > :34:42.My lords, may I speak to new clause 3, which I set my name? May I speak

:34:43. > :34:46.to... May lords. My noble friend is in fact a signature to this motion

:34:47. > :34:49.before the House. I think it is right the House hear from him.

:34:50. > :34:55.Perhaps then from the Labour benches and then perhaps one of my noble

:34:56. > :35:01.friends from the Conservative benches. Those are putting their

:35:02. > :35:09.names to new clause 3 are not seeking to stand in the way of this

:35:10. > :35:13.bill. Our sole purpose is to ensure that the outcome is subject to the

:35:14. > :35:18.unfetterred discretion of Parliament. It is in our view, the

:35:19. > :35:24.Parliament and not the Executive which should be the final arbiter of

:35:25. > :35:30.our country's future and ironically in this sense, we stand with the

:35:31. > :35:39.campaigners in the Brexit campaign, who wanted Parliament to recover

:35:40. > :35:47.control over policy and legislation and incidentally too we stand in

:35:48. > :35:50.that long tradition of Parliamentarians who stood for

:35:51. > :35:54.Parliament. In the old days that was a contest fought on the

:35:55. > :36:00.battlefields. More recently in public debate and most recently of

:36:01. > :36:07.all in the law courts. It is a conflict that never ceases. Had it

:36:08. > :36:12.not been for the judiciary we wouldn't be debating this bill. Oh,

:36:13. > :36:20.no, it was the Government's intention to trigger Article 50

:36:21. > :36:27.under the prerogative powers, that is the residual power of the crown.

:36:28. > :36:31.It is central to this debate that we should determine the proper

:36:32. > :36:38.interpretation to be give on the the referendum last June. I acknowledge

:36:39. > :36:43.at once, albeit I was a remainor, that the referendum was much more

:36:44. > :36:50.than mere think advisory expression of public opinion. It was much more

:36:51. > :36:56.than that. However, I do deny that it was an authority to this

:36:57. > :37:01.Government to leave the European Union whatever the cost, whatever

:37:02. > :37:06.the terms, whatever the prejudice. That cannot be the case. Because the

:37:07. > :37:12.public when it voted last June did not know the outcome. It could not

:37:13. > :37:20.know the outcome. And in any event, the commitment by the Government to

:37:21. > :37:22.subject the at mate decision to a -- ultimate decision a vote of

:37:23. > :37:27.Parliament undercuts that proposition. I believe that the

:37:28. > :37:33.proper interpretation of referendum is this, it is an instruction to

:37:34. > :37:40.government to negotiate withdrawal on the best terms that it could get.

:37:41. > :37:48.But that raises an absolutely fundamental question. To which this

:37:49. > :37:53.new clause is directed. When the negotiations have crystallised, when

:37:54. > :37:59.there are agreed terms, or perhaps no agreed terms, who determines the

:38:00. > :38:06.way forward? Is it the Executive, is it Parliament? And that is the old

:38:07. > :38:11.question we have to resolve. And in my view any believer in a democratic

:38:12. > :38:16.state has to say that the authority lies with Parliament. Now, a very

:38:17. > :38:21.brief reference to the second referendum, very brief. It may be

:38:22. > :38:28.that Parliament two years down the track will decide that a second

:38:29. > :38:35.referendum is necessary. They may be justified in doing so. The

:38:36. > :38:42.circumstances may well change. Say in two years time there is a clear

:38:43. > :38:47.change in public sentiment and say too the Parliament recognises that

:38:48. > :39:02.fact, is Parliament not then under a duty to test the public opinion? And

:39:03. > :39:05.may I quote Lord Tavern, who said this, only dictatorships do not

:39:06. > :39:17.allow people to change their minds. In a democracy, no decision is

:39:18. > :39:20.irreversible. I want to turn the argument from my honourable friend

:39:21. > :39:28.Lord Hill, who is a very old friend of mine. Let me say at once that I

:39:29. > :39:34.do acknowledge his experience and authority, which is recent. His

:39:35. > :39:38.view, which I'm sure is going to be adopted by the Government, is if you

:39:39. > :39:45.give to Parliament the kind of powers contemplated by this new

:39:46. > :39:48.clause, you will undercut the negotiating position of the British

:39:49. > :39:57.Government. Now, I have to say my lords and my Lord I do not agree

:39:58. > :40:03.with that I video. -- view. I share the view expressed by Lord O'Donnell

:40:04. > :40:14.and Kerr, both citing their own experience, that the existence of

:40:15. > :40:26.the argument Parliament willed never wear this reinforces the position.

:40:27. > :40:33.One of the most endearing characteristics of my noble friend

:40:34. > :40:36.is he can't walk past a wasps' nest without poking wit a stick. There

:40:37. > :40:42.are two points I would ask him to reflect on. The first is, which I'm

:40:43. > :40:45.sure he would agree with me and I think all noble Lords with a few

:40:46. > :40:52.exceptions would agree, this is going to be an extremely complex

:40:53. > :40:58.negotiation. Anything that adds to that complexity is strongly to be

:40:59. > :41:03.avoided in my opinion. I do not agree with those who say it will be

:41:04. > :41:09.simple. This is going to be complicated, therefore we should

:41:10. > :41:15.keep things as least complex as we can make them. This amendment, when

:41:16. > :41:22.I listen to the noble Lord set it out, added to my sense that there is

:41:23. > :41:28.complexity and uncertainty in this. My second response to my noble

:41:29. > :41:32.friend about the... Would he perhaps agree with me that in terms of the

:41:33. > :41:37.effect that this might have on the negotiation, the argument that some

:41:38. > :41:41.people used to say that having a Parliament behind you or a board

:41:42. > :41:47.behind you in a negotiation, enables you to have a stronger position,

:41:48. > :41:51.that is normally when the board or the Parliament is adopting a harder

:41:52. > :41:59.line than the person negotiating. In this case, I have to tell you, our

:42:00. > :42:02.friends in Europe do read our debates and they're intelligence,

:42:03. > :42:07.sophisticated negotiators, they know where people sit. So I say, I ask my

:42:08. > :42:12.friend, when he says that it would weaken our position, can he not see

:42:13. > :42:19.that there are indeed instances where it would weaken our position,

:42:20. > :42:24.because it would make Parliament and player in this negotiation and add

:42:25. > :42:29.complexity to what will already be complex. My noble has made a serious

:42:30. > :42:35.point, which enables me to cut to the chase to one of the points I was

:42:36. > :42:39.going to make. It is possible that my noble friend Lord Hill is right

:42:40. > :42:44.and I would say this, there is sometimes a price to be paid for

:42:45. > :42:51.democracy. Indeed, that is the argument that underpins many of the

:42:52. > :42:55.assertions made by the Brexit supporters, they argue there may be

:42:56. > :43:01.a cost, but it is more than compensated by the recovery of

:43:02. > :43:08.democratic control. And that is an argument that also applies to the

:43:09. > :43:14.process of negotiation. Of course I give way. I am grateful, in answer

:43:15. > :43:18.to that question, can I ask him to remember 1991 when he and I were

:43:19. > :43:25.both in the other place and I think he was a member of the Government.

:43:26. > :43:30.On that occasion, the then Prime Minister, John Majorers, brought

:43:31. > :43:34.Maastrict treaty to the House for approval twice. First in seeking a

:43:35. > :43:44.mandate for negotiation and then in seeking the House's ray approval for

:43:45. > :43:51.what had been agreed. If that did not weaken his Government. Why

:43:52. > :43:55.should this weaken this one. It is koon consistent with the principle

:43:56. > :44:00.under the act, that does require all treaties to be ratified by

:44:01. > :44:05.Parliament. If I might make a little progress, this Government has in the

:44:06. > :44:10.course of this pill made a very large number of concessionles and it

:44:11. > :44:16.women be churlish not to welcome that fact. I hoped for more. But I

:44:17. > :44:25.do agree with the views expressed by the noble lady and previously by the

:44:26. > :44:31.noble Lord, Lord Panic, it is better by far that concessions of ministers

:44:32. > :44:35.are expressed in statutory language, because as Lord Oakeses reminded the

:44:36. > :44:41.House, political circumstances may change, ministers may move on,

:44:42. > :44:46.governments may fall, statutory language is always to be preferred

:44:47. > :44:53.to the comforting words of ministers. Finally, may I turn to my

:44:54. > :44:58.noble friend, Lord Bridges, a friend of old standing of mine and I very

:44:59. > :45:02.much hope I do not prejudice his future when I say he has conducted

:45:03. > :45:18.the Government's case with great distinction.

:45:19. > :45:29.But in his wind-up speech, my Noble Friend will doubtless argue that the

:45:30. > :45:32.drafting of this new clause is defective in a number of ingenious

:45:33. > :45:36.ways. It will surprise me if he does not put forward that argument. But I

:45:37. > :45:41.say to Your Lordships' House, ignore that argument. I have carried

:45:42. > :45:46.through several bills from Parliament. I have been party to

:45:47. > :45:56.scores of bills going through Parliament. And the truth is this -

:45:57. > :46:03.when a minister is weak on principle, that minister focuses on

:46:04. > :46:08.the drafting. The reality is as follows - if Parliament as a whole

:46:09. > :46:13.resolves that as a matter of principle, the ultimate authority to

:46:14. > :46:20.determine the future of this country should rest with Parliament and not

:46:21. > :46:26.with the executive, skilled Parliamentary council will be in

:46:27. > :46:29.struck to ensure, and ensure very rapidly that the language of the

:46:30. > :46:37.bill meets that objective. And so, my Lords, I ask your Lordships to

:46:38. > :46:42.rest on the long contested principle, that this country's

:46:43. > :46:47.future should rest with Parliament and not with ministers. And it is in

:46:48. > :46:57.that spirit that I commend this new clause to Your Lordships' House. My

:46:58. > :46:59.Lords, I think it is an occasion for the Labour benches. Can I start by

:47:00. > :47:06.reminding this House that the Supreme Court gave us the benefit of

:47:07. > :47:12.their wisdom on constitutional matters in the case that we have

:47:13. > :47:17.heard about, the case of Gina Miller. And in that case, the

:47:18. > :47:22.Supreme Court's principal conclusion was that rubbery legislation is

:47:23. > :47:25.required to authorise the UK's withdrawal from the European Union.

:47:26. > :47:32.I want to make it very clear that this bill is a notification bill, it

:47:33. > :47:36.is not an authorisation bill. It does not authorise withdrawal from

:47:37. > :47:42.the European Union. What it does is, it notifies other European Union

:47:43. > :47:48.members that we are in a process of negotiation, and withdrawal must

:47:49. > :47:54.come back before this Parliament. And I want to remind the House what

:47:55. > :48:01.the Supreme Court judges said. They said that the reason why this was a

:48:02. > :48:05.matter for Parliament, both notification and finally withdrawal,

:48:06. > :48:18.was because any fundamental change to our laws that inevitably amend or

:48:19. > :48:22.abrogate our individual rights require the approval of Parliament.

:48:23. > :48:26.That is one of the essential constitutional principles under

:48:27. > :48:31.which our system operates, that anything involving our rights,

:48:32. > :48:34.whether it is to trade, to live or to travel in the European Union, we

:48:35. > :48:38.have introduced those into domestic law. Therefore, because it involves

:48:39. > :48:43.the rights of citizens, Parliament is the place that has to make the

:48:44. > :48:47.decision and approve any changes to that. The concern that I raised at

:48:48. > :48:53.the committee stage late at night, when most people were no longer hear

:48:54. > :48:58.a, was that I heard repeatedly from ministers that if there wasn't a

:48:59. > :49:05.deal to write if Parliament decided that a deal was not good enough, we

:49:06. > :49:08.would walk away. And that therefore there was authorisation from the

:49:09. > :49:14.people, having taken part in the referendum, to walk away. And I

:49:15. > :49:18.think that flies in the face of what was being said by the constitutional

:49:19. > :49:23.court of this country, the Supreme Court, dealing with constitutional

:49:24. > :49:29.issues. Because walking away and embarking on an engagement in trade

:49:30. > :49:37.worldwide under the WTO rules also involves an amendment, an abrogation

:49:38. > :49:40.of some of the rights that citizens in this country have, it has

:49:41. > :49:44.indications. That's why it's a constitutional matter, and that's

:49:45. > :49:51.why this House particularly has a role to play. Perhaps I could remind

:49:52. > :49:55.her of the limits of what the Supreme Court decided. In paragraph

:49:56. > :49:58.three, they said, it is worth emphasising that this case has

:49:59. > :50:01.nothing to do with the issues such as the wisdom of the decision to

:50:02. > :50:05.withdraw from the European Union, the terms of withdrawal, the

:50:06. > :50:08.timetable or arrangements rate the details of any future relationship

:50:09. > :50:13.with the European Union. So there is a distinct limit to what they

:50:14. > :50:18.decided, would the Noble Baroness agree? Of course, but in reaching

:50:19. > :50:21.their decision, they laid out the principle that the reason why they

:50:22. > :50:26.were engaging with the case at all was not because they had a view on

:50:27. > :50:29.Brexit or not, but because of the constitutional principle. And the

:50:30. > :50:33.principle is a very straightforward one, which is that when it comes to

:50:34. > :50:37.our rights, Parliament is the place that you come to, Parliament makes

:50:38. > :50:43.these decisions. And that's why when it comes to the end, and there is a

:50:44. > :50:49.deal on the table, then it has to be voted upon by Parliament. But if

:50:50. > :50:53.there is no deal, that, too. Becomes an issue, and I'm afraid it is not

:50:54. > :50:57.good enough for our ministers of government to say, we just walk

:50:58. > :51:01.away, as though it has no consequences. Walking away also has

:51:02. > :51:04.consequences for the rights of citizens in this country. That's why

:51:05. > :51:11.it is a matter for Parliament. That's why this new clause is so

:51:12. > :51:16.important. She said at the beginning of her remarks that this is a

:51:17. > :51:20.notification bill, not an authorisation bill - could she

:51:21. > :51:24.explained therefore what an authorisation amendment is doing in

:51:25. > :51:27.a notification bill? At the end of the process, there is going to be

:51:28. > :51:31.and need to come back before Parliament. That has been

:51:32. > :51:39.acknowledged by the Prime Minister and other ministers. And an

:51:40. > :51:42.undertaking I understand has been given, as Viscount Hailsham has

:51:43. > :51:45.said, I believe that having it in statutory form is the best way for

:51:46. > :51:48.us to know exactly what is on offer. I have heard repeatedly from

:51:49. > :51:54.ministers that the option of walking away involves no need to come back

:51:55. > :51:58.before Parliament. I asked a question directly of the minister

:51:59. > :52:02.and I have heard it said by other ministers in select committee. Wall

:52:03. > :52:09.I am saying to this House is, that's why this amendment is so important.

:52:10. > :52:18.And even important if no negotiation deal comes back before Parliament,

:52:19. > :52:20.because no deal means the WTO, and the WTO has indications for citizens

:52:21. > :52:29.of this country with regard to their rights. My Lords, as my Noble Friend

:52:30. > :52:36.Viscount Hailsham, whose father was a highly respected colleague of

:52:37. > :52:43.mine... Did the Noble Lord finish, because I was intervening on his

:52:44. > :52:47.speech at...? I think that the Noble Lord wanted to come in on the points

:52:48. > :52:55.that I was making. Actually I had more or less completed but if you

:52:56. > :53:01.want to raise an issue... Wasn't the court's judgment based on the idea

:53:02. > :53:10.that this was authorisation? The court would not have ruled as it did

:53:11. > :53:13.if it had not assumed that this was unilaterally revocable. And the

:53:14. > :53:18.court ruled specifically because of that that authorisation was

:53:19. > :53:22.delivered by triggering Article 50. If they had not done so, they would

:53:23. > :53:25.not have ruled as they did. Therefore it is absolutely crucial

:53:26. > :53:31.to the understanding that this IS authorisation. It is notification of

:53:32. > :53:41.withdrawal, it is not a withdrawal bill. My Lords, as I was saying, as

:53:42. > :53:47.my Noble Friend Lord Hailsham, whose father I greatly respected as a

:53:48. > :53:58.colleague of mine... Has reminded us! The reason we are debating this

:53:59. > :54:02.new clause today is that the Noble Lord Lord Pannick, who move this

:54:03. > :54:06.amendment, convinced first the High Court and subsequently the majority

:54:07. > :54:10.of the Supreme Court, and the Government's intention to rely on

:54:11. > :54:15.the prerogative wouldn't do. His argument was clear, and I think it

:54:16. > :54:21.is helpful if I remind the House by quoting his words before the court -

:54:22. > :54:26.my case is very simple, my case is that notification is the pulling of

:54:27. > :54:31.the trigger, and once you have pulled the trigger, the consequence

:54:32. > :54:39.follows. The bullet hits the target. It hits the target on the date

:54:40. > :54:46.specified in Article 50. The triggering leads to the consequence

:54:47. > :54:51.inevitably. Is a matter of law that the treaties cease to apply. In

:54:52. > :54:58.short, the very act of invoking Article 50 in extra blue leads to

:54:59. > :55:05.Brexit two years later. This was the principal basis on which the court

:55:06. > :55:09.decided that the Government was wrong to rely on the prerogative.

:55:10. > :55:15.And yet, my Lords, the new clause that we are now debating appears to

:55:16. > :55:20.be seen exactly the opposite. It is saying that there is no

:55:21. > :55:27.inevitability at all, triggering Article 52 is not inevitably, to use

:55:28. > :55:32.Lord Pannick's word, the two Brexit. For the explicit purpose of the

:55:33. > :55:37.clause is to ensure that even when Article 50 has been implemented, if

:55:38. > :55:42.Parliament disapproves of the outcome of the negotiation, it can

:55:43. > :55:46.stop the sack up. Indeed, as has been pointed out by a number of

:55:47. > :55:51.speakers in this debate, on a strict interpretation of the clause, Your

:55:52. > :55:59.Lordships' House alone could prevent Brexit, since the approval of both

:56:00. > :56:03.Houses is required. I don't want to go down that of a new, because I

:56:04. > :56:09.have no time. I have the greatest respect for the Noble Lord Lord

:56:10. > :56:16.Pannick. He is an exceedingly clever lawyer who deploys his cleverness

:56:17. > :56:27.with considerable charm. But is it possible for even him to have his

:56:28. > :56:34.cake and eat it, too? I would like to develop my argument. The real

:56:35. > :56:42.mischief lies in subsection four. Without subsection four, there is a

:56:43. > :56:46.possible reconciliation with the original Lord Pannick thesis, as the

:56:47. > :56:52.Noble Lord himself effectively conceded. Parliament would simply be

:56:53. > :56:57.faced with a decision of whether or not it approved of the agreement

:56:58. > :57:03.which the Government had putatively reached with the European Union.

:57:04. > :57:06.Indeed, as the Noble Lord Lord Hope and one or two others have already

:57:07. > :57:12.pointed out, the Government has pledged to put this before

:57:13. > :57:19.Parliament when the time comes. The Government might, for example, have

:57:20. > :57:23.agreed to pay the Barnier ransom demand, which our own European

:57:24. > :57:27.affairs committee has recently confirmed we are under no legal

:57:28. > :57:34.obligation to pay, a and in that case, Parliament might... But if, my

:57:35. > :57:38.Lords, for whatever reason, Parliament refused to approve the

:57:39. > :57:43.agreement the Government had reached with the EU, that would not prevent

:57:44. > :57:49.Brexit. It would simply mean that we left the European Union without an

:57:50. > :57:55.agreement. As I explained during the course of the second reading of this

:57:56. > :58:01.bill, that is nothing to be scared about. So, far from jumping off a

:58:02. > :58:07.nonexistent if into the unknown, trading under WTO rules is a very

:58:08. > :58:12.satisfactory basis of most of the trade we do throughout the world

:58:13. > :58:19.today. And no agreement... I give way. Would the Noble Lord accept

:58:20. > :58:25.that the key question at this stage for the House this afternoon is, who

:58:26. > :58:32.is to be master? Is it ministers or Parliament? I think that if the

:58:33. > :58:39.Noble Lord will allow me to develop my argument, he will see exactly

:58:40. > :58:45.what the problem is. As the Prime Minister... Because no agreement is

:58:46. > :58:49.in my opinion far and away the most likely outcome. As the Prime

:58:50. > :58:56.Minister made clear in her Ancaster house speech, and as the subsequent

:58:57. > :59:06.white paper reiterated, no agreement is better than a bad agreement. And

:59:07. > :59:11.sadly, a bad agreement is all that is likely to be on offer. For the

:59:12. > :59:16.mischief, my Lords, or subsection four of this new clause, is that it

:59:17. > :59:22.would not merely give Parliament the power to reject a bad deal, it would

:59:23. > :59:25.also enable Parliament to prevent Brexit altogether by refusing to

:59:26. > :59:31.allow the UK to leave the European Union without agreement. This is not

:59:32. > :59:36.only in diametric opposition to the Lord Pannick thesis on which the

:59:37. > :59:42.bill rests, more importantly, it would be an unconscionable rejection

:59:43. > :59:46.of the referendum result, which would drive a far greater wedge

:59:47. > :59:48.between the political classes and the British people than the

:59:49. > :00:00.dangerous gulf that already exists. It could be argued we would be

:00:01. > :00:06.instructing the Government to go back to Brussels and accept whatever

:00:07. > :00:12.agreement, however bad the 26 are preparped to offer. -- 27 are

:00:13. > :00:17.prepared to offer. That is constitutionally improper. The only

:00:18. > :00:20.effect would be to create a political crisis causing damaging

:00:21. > :00:26.uncertainty to business and the economy and which would in practice

:00:27. > :00:30.be resolved only by a disillusion of Parliament and a general election.

:00:31. > :00:36.Something the opposition can always try to achieve if that is what they

:00:37. > :00:42.wish, without this clause, simply by moving and carrying a vote of no

:00:43. > :00:51.confidence in the Government. My lords, this mischievous new clause

:00:52. > :01:02.Mas Ca raiding an an assertion of Parliamentary sovereignty deserves

:01:03. > :01:14.to be rejected out of hand. My lords. Speech. Sustain. I'm grateful

:01:15. > :01:18.to my noble friend, no doubt she will have her opportunity in a

:01:19. > :01:25.moment. After more than four decades in which I sought to make the most

:01:26. > :01:31.modest of modest contributions to Parliament, I hope my credentials as

:01:32. > :01:40.an advocate of Parliamentary sovereignty will not be challenged.

:01:41. > :01:46.I'm grateful the Lord Pannick for his recasting of amendment 3, if

:01:47. > :01:57.this amendment were made the means of approval would be in the hands of

:01:58. > :02:02.Government. I hope he will forgive me if I repeat some of the issues.

:02:03. > :02:08.It has been in the hands of a vote and a motion. That suggests

:02:09. > :02:13.proceedings by resolution. If so the concerns I expressed in committee

:02:14. > :02:19.are unallayed. What happens in one House votes one way, the other House

:02:20. > :02:23.votes the other way? Is a qualified approval, perhaps with some

:02:24. > :02:28.conditional rider, does that count as approval? Would bit acceptable in

:02:29. > :02:34.those circumstances to give this House an effective veto over the

:02:35. > :02:42.process? If on the other hand primary legislation is contemplate,

:02:43. > :02:49.the issue of some qualified approval or the terms of approval reminutes.

:02:50. > :02:56.Minute -- remains. Specific wording for a motion of confidence or no

:02:57. > :03:08.confidence was inserted to avoid recourse to the courts. In matters

:03:09. > :03:15.of present gravity, recourse to the courts would be unwelcome. My father

:03:16. > :03:22.quoted what was alleged to be a rule at a University in Germany, which

:03:23. > :03:29.said no one will tie anything whether a night watchman or not a

:03:30. > :03:32.watchman to anything, will a lightning conductor at any time,

:03:33. > :03:39.whether or not during a thunder storm. I don't ask for that degree

:03:40. > :03:45.of specification, but if primary legislation is contemplated, then

:03:46. > :03:53.the terms of approval need to be considered carefully. I'm torn as to

:03:54. > :04:00.how to vote on this particular amendment. May I turn to our very

:04:01. > :04:06.noble and able friend, the minister, to guide me in this respect. I

:04:07. > :04:12.listened carefully to all the speakers, particularly Baroness Ken

:04:13. > :04:17.can I di, these -- Kennedy, these amendments are based on a simple

:04:18. > :04:23.proposition that rights given to British subjects by statute can only

:04:24. > :04:28.be removed by statute. Of the alternatives available in particular

:04:29. > :04:32.amendment 3, which I'm minded to support, a resolution passed by both

:04:33. > :04:36.Houses or a bill to be passed by both Houses, the amendment needs to

:04:37. > :04:43.the Government to determine the means to choose. I would argue and I

:04:44. > :04:46.seek guidance from the minister and powerful arguments why it would not

:04:47. > :04:51.be appropriate to include the amendment here on the face of this

:04:52. > :04:56.bill. I say this, because this is the last procedural stage before we

:04:57. > :05:02.embark on the substance and we are told there will not be just the

:05:03. > :05:08.great repeal bill, but a number of pieces of legislation and multiple

:05:09. > :05:13.secondary legislation to repeal some of the things we may wish no longer

:05:14. > :05:20.to apply. Why is it important to write is on the bill, for so many

:05:21. > :05:26.reasons, politics change and times change and we are being asked to

:05:27. > :05:30.take a lot on trust in terms of a commitment from the Government and a

:05:31. > :05:34.commitment given in the House of Commons that the Parliament and the

:05:35. > :05:38.Government would hope to follow through. Surely it is op right that

:05:39. > :05:42.it should be put on the face of bill. I would like the remind the

:05:43. > :05:48.House that we spent about two hours and 30 minutes talking about the

:05:49. > :05:52.rights of EU nationals. If the referendum had been held on the same

:05:53. > :05:59.term ps as the European Parliament elections, all those EU nationals

:06:00. > :06:10.living here would have been unable to vote. We by an amendment passed

:06:11. > :06:15.in this House deprived those one million EU nationals from the right

:06:16. > :06:20.to vote. In fact, that one million number could have changed the

:06:21. > :06:32.outcome of the result of the referendum over night. Now, I would

:06:33. > :06:39.refer to the words of the noble Lord Hope in summing up the, his second

:06:40. > :06:44.reading, who expressed to the Government in I thought a very

:06:45. > :06:48.helpful way, that the Supreme Court's decision in Miller goes

:06:49. > :06:53.further than just this bill before us today, which embarks on the

:06:54. > :06:55.negotiation procedure. I don't think anybody in the House, or the

:06:56. > :07:04.majority of the House would not wish to stand in the way of triggering of

:07:05. > :07:16.the process. But by the same token, Lord Hope said that... By not

:07:17. > :07:22.writing into, I would argue on the face of the bill, that by obtaining

:07:23. > :07:29.approval by resolution in Parliament is not the same as statutory

:07:30. > :07:33.authority and that is why he cautioned the government into

:07:34. > :07:36.thinking this bill will give the Government all the authority they

:07:37. > :07:43.need to obtain approval for an agreement by resuing resolution of

:07:44. > :07:48.the same thing as being given authority to conclude that

:07:49. > :07:55.agreement. I would refer to an article written by five QCs, who

:07:56. > :07:58.gave an opinion on this and I quote one paragraph, meaningful

:07:59. > :08:04.Parliamentary decision-making cannot be achieved by Parliament

:08:05. > :08:09.authorising exit from the EU, two years in advance on unknown terms.

:08:10. > :08:18.Equally it cannot be achieved be asingle take it or leave it vote.

:08:19. > :08:26.That whole article based three nights of five very eminent QCs,

:08:27. > :08:33.argue straight forwardly, the constitutional requirements of the

:08:34. > :08:36.decision to leave the EU include the enactment of primary legislation to

:08:37. > :08:41.give terms to the effect of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom. So

:08:42. > :08:44.in fact rather than being a wrecking amendment, I think this amendment

:08:45. > :08:50.has been helpful to the Government, as preventing a situation that we

:08:51. > :08:55.found ourselves in having lost now three to six months through a court

:08:56. > :09:00.case and an appeal by writing on the face of the appeal that Parliament

:09:01. > :09:04.will have the final say. These two Houses and it will be the

:09:05. > :09:11.government's choosing, whether a resolution of both Houses, or an Act

:09:12. > :09:15.of Parliament, what that should be. Otherwise there will be a lack of

:09:16. > :09:19.clarity as to what the remaining rights that have been extended to

:09:20. > :09:23.British subjects can continue to rely and I would go further going to

:09:24. > :09:30.the reform bill, there will be a lack of clarity as to what the court

:09:31. > :09:42.on which we should rely to make sure that those outstanding rights can be

:09:43. > :09:54.enforced. This side. This side. This side. My Lords. This side. This

:09:55. > :10:03.side. I think we will hear from the noble lady Baroness Teach and then

:10:04. > :10:12.after that from the noble lady. And then from my learned friend Lord

:10:13. > :10:17.McKay. I wish to say a few brief sad words about sovereignty and the

:10:18. > :10:21.likely outcome if Parliament disapproves the deal in the end of

:10:22. > :10:28.the negotiations in two years time. The sad fact is that because of the

:10:29. > :10:32.construction of Article 50 we will not recover our Parliamentary

:10:33. > :10:36.sovereignty in European matter until the process is over. If you

:10:37. > :10:42.contemplate what might happen in two years, we will see only too sadly

:10:43. > :10:46.that sovereignty lies with Europe. If this House or the other House

:10:47. > :10:55.were to reject the deal, we will end up as puppets in their hands. Can it

:10:56. > :10:59.honestly be imagined that if one or other House goes back to Europe in

:11:00. > :11:04.just under two years and says, we don't like the deal. That the other

:11:05. > :11:10.27 will say, oh dear, here is a much better one. Or that they will say,

:11:11. > :11:17.let us all 27 now agree to extend the negotiation time. I don't think

:11:18. > :11:21.that is the xas. The noble Lord Lord Oats indicated he did not trust the

:11:22. > :11:26.Prime Minister. But I don't trust the other 27 members of EU to give

:11:27. > :11:34.us a good deal or to care very nuch about what happens to us or our

:11:35. > :11:39.nationals. Because their only declared spent has been, you must be

:11:40. > :11:44.punished, the union must survive, no matter the cost. We will not be kind

:11:45. > :12:01.to you. There is no vision, there is no mission. I read it in the papers

:12:02. > :12:05.every day. Perhaps the noble Baroness would quote to Lord Lee

:12:06. > :12:08.what president Francois Hollande said, he said there has to be a

:12:09. > :12:17.price, there has to be a threat, there has to be a cost. Thank you.

:12:18. > :12:32.Much of the argument turns on whether Article 50 is if

:12:33. > :12:36.irrevocable. It would be the turning point at which it would run its

:12:37. > :12:51.course. Indeed I know there has been a legal opinion from three knights

:12:52. > :12:56.that Article 50 is rev cobble. But I heard the Lord who drafted the

:12:57. > :13:03.article knows, in our system it is not the draftsman who declares what

:13:04. > :13:08.the article means. It is the fact if Parliamentary approval were needed

:13:09. > :13:16.at the end of the deal what might it look like some parts might deal with

:13:17. > :13:22.European nationals. Only a few days ago we were expressing shock that

:13:23. > :13:31.the position of European nationals may not be taken care of. Would we

:13:32. > :13:37.throw them into disarray? I'm sorry to say that the noble Lord, Lord

:13:38. > :13:41.Pannick, has departed from his usual clarity in legal matters. I think he

:13:42. > :13:49.has tied himself and the House in knots. Because on the one hand he

:13:50. > :13:54.says we always defer to the House of Commons, I wonder if we will hear

:13:55. > :13:58.that this evening or next week if there is a head on clash between our

:13:59. > :14:03.decision and what the House of Commons says? On the other hand, he

:14:04. > :14:07.has also said that approval is better than having an Act of

:14:08. > :14:14.Parliament, it leaves it open to the Prime Minister to decide what to do.

:14:15. > :14:19.But with an Act of Parliament expressing what is in the argument,

:14:20. > :14:24.the Parliament would prevail. So you can't have it both ways. The only

:14:25. > :14:30.other possible outcome is no deal, the two year shutter comes down and

:14:31. > :14:34.were off the cliff or there is a general outcome and others know how

:14:35. > :14:39.difficult that would be. Our lack of sovereignty means if at the end of

:14:40. > :14:44.two years the rest of European Union does not give us what we want and

:14:45. > :14:52.either house rejects that deal, the European Union will for sure not

:14:53. > :14:54.welcome us back with open arms, not necessarily accept a revocation of

:14:55. > :14:58.Article 50 and not necessarily give us a better deal. That is the

:14:59. > :15:05.reality of the situation. We will have to take what comes our way in

:15:06. > :15:08.two years time. Plainly the amendments requiring a second

:15:09. > :15:12.Parliamentary assent are designed to enable Brexit to be blocked in the

:15:13. > :15:20.mistaken belief that the EU will roll over.

:15:21. > :15:26.If this is enacted, it is more likely to lead to no deal at all. In

:15:27. > :15:31.practice, it is unworkable and defies the result of the referendum.

:15:32. > :15:36.The referendum was all a matter of principle, not details. It is

:15:37. > :15:40.deep-lying with many of those who voted to leave, regardless of the

:15:41. > :15:44.details - they want to separate themselves from the European Union.

:15:45. > :15:50.And it is very unlikely that they will feel differently in two years,

:15:51. > :15:57.especially if the union deals out a bad deal to the rest of us. I oppose

:15:58. > :16:01.the amendment. My Lords, I don't know what people will feel like in

:16:02. > :16:03.two years' time, we know that the demographics will have changed, we

:16:04. > :16:08.know that young people will become in onto the electoral register, and

:16:09. > :16:13.as we all know, young people have taken a very different view about

:16:14. > :16:17.our leaving the EU to that which the older people have taken who will no

:16:18. > :16:23.longer be able to vote. My Lords, what I want to do, if I may, is to

:16:24. > :16:30.ask the minister, on two very specific points, in view of what the

:16:31. > :16:35.Noble Lord Lord Lawson had to say about the Supreme Court judgment

:16:36. > :16:40.that Article 50 was irrevocable, and a view just reiterated by Lady

:16:41. > :16:44.Deitch, I did think that the Supreme Court judgment was rather more

:16:45. > :16:49.nuanced than that, that it actually said that because the parties to the

:16:50. > :16:56.action were prepared to use that as the basis for forming their

:16:57. > :17:00.judgment, that they had not tested the arguments about the revoke

:17:01. > :17:05.ability or otherwise of Article 50. So there was a quite clear statement

:17:06. > :17:10.that they had not tested that argument. In second reading I asked

:17:11. > :17:15.the Noble Lord what the Government's views were on this. And the Noble

:17:16. > :17:20.Lord, in a very, very skilled response at the end of that debate,

:17:21. > :17:26.said that it was the firm Bolasie of the government not to turn back once

:17:27. > :17:36.having triggered. -- it was the firm policy. We are not asking about the

:17:37. > :17:43.firm policy. What we need to know is, what is the Government's legal

:17:44. > :17:48.view on the revoke ability or otherwise of article 54 it is a

:17:49. > :17:51.crucial question, because if this issue does come back to Parliament,

:17:52. > :17:58.we will be in a very different position if it is revoke a ball. So

:17:59. > :18:02.I am asking the question, my Lords, and I hope that this time I might

:18:03. > :18:06.have the answer. The second point I want to ask the minister about is

:18:07. > :18:13.the position whereby the Government has sought to bypass Parliament, as

:18:14. > :18:16.indeed it did, by saying that the prerogative powers were sufficient

:18:17. > :18:22.to trigger Article 50. My Lords, it did indeed take private individuals,

:18:23. > :18:26.represented by the Noble Lord Lord Pannick, to go to court to prevent

:18:27. > :18:34.the Government going beyond its powers, beyond its powers, and to

:18:35. > :18:39.bypass this Parliament. The Government had assumed it had powers

:18:40. > :18:43.by using the prerogative and the Supreme Court was able to disabuse

:18:44. > :18:52.the Government of that point. My Lords, in claiming that... Would she

:18:53. > :18:57.accept that the reason the court made that judgment was because both

:18:58. > :19:02.parties had agreed that it was not unilaterally revocable. That is the

:19:03. > :19:05.reason why both parties had to agree to that, because otherwise, the

:19:06. > :19:08.court would have ruled differently. They ruled that this was a

:19:09. > :19:12.Parliamentary decision of authorisation, that is the reason

:19:13. > :19:16.why it had to come back to Parliament, because it would change

:19:17. > :19:21.law. The point the Supreme Court made was that it had not tested the

:19:22. > :19:25.point about revoke ability. I would say that if it were to be asked to

:19:26. > :19:41.do that, who knows what it would decide. -- about revokeability. My

:19:42. > :19:48.Lords, the political position now is that the Supreme Court has not made

:19:49. > :19:53.that judgment, and it took going to the court in order to get the views

:19:54. > :19:59.that we have. My Lords wonder we get to the end of this whole

:20:00. > :20:06.intervention, I wonder what the Noble Lord minister is going to be

:20:07. > :20:08.able to say about our ability to trust the views of ministers. I'm

:20:09. > :20:13.not saying that we don't believe that ministers really want to come

:20:14. > :20:16.back to Parliament, but the only assurance we are going to have is by

:20:17. > :20:22.putting this on the face of the bill. My Lords, the government has

:20:23. > :20:28.not got good form over this, they have not got good form. They went to

:20:29. > :20:32.the Supreme Court after the High Court had told them what the

:20:33. > :20:35.judgment should be, and they foolishly went on, in my view. So we

:20:36. > :20:40.need this on the face of the bill, because as I said, the Government

:20:41. > :20:45.has form at bypassing Parliament and we need to know that that will not

:20:46. > :20:49.happen again. My Lords, we need the best legal checks and balances that

:20:50. > :20:55.we can get, not to stop Brexit, my Lords, but to make sure that we

:20:56. > :20:59.obtain from Brexit the best this country can get. And that's why we

:21:00. > :21:03.need to vote for this amendment today. It is why this amendment, if

:21:04. > :21:09.it is successful in this House, I hope goes on to be successful in

:21:10. > :21:16.Another Place. Because Britain relies on Parliamentary sovereignty,

:21:17. > :21:20.and now is the moment, my Lords, for our Parliamentary sovereignty to be

:21:21. > :21:25.fully asserted by this House, not in six months' time, not in 18 months,

:21:26. > :21:28.not at the end of the period of negotiation, but we have to make

:21:29. > :21:32.sure, legally, that Britain's best interests are protected and

:21:33. > :21:38.safeguarded. That is the job of this Parliament. It is our job here

:21:39. > :21:48.today, and I urge this House to vote for this amendment. My Lords, I

:21:49. > :21:52.might first of all take up the point that the noble lady has just

:21:53. > :21:57.mentioned from the judgment of the Supreme Court, because naturally I

:21:58. > :22:03.have studied it with a certain amount of care. It was agreed as the

:22:04. > :22:13.basis from both sides, the government side and the applicant's

:22:14. > :22:18.side, that they should treat the Article 15 notification as

:22:19. > :22:23.irrevocable. For Lord Reed pointed out clearly that that had not been

:22:24. > :22:30.the subject of a decision by the court, but that for the point of

:22:31. > :22:33.view of the judgment, it doesn't matter, so long as it was possible

:22:34. > :22:43.that it was irrevocable. Because if that was the case, the danger to

:22:44. > :22:48.Acts of Parliament was existing, even if it turned out that it might

:22:49. > :22:51.be revocable. If it was possible that it was not revocable, then once

:22:52. > :22:58.the thing was triggered, these Acts of Parliament came into danger. So,

:22:59. > :23:03.it was as simple as that. I think that we must assume, I am prepared

:23:04. > :23:08.anyway, to assume that the government lawyers took the view

:23:09. > :23:12.that Article 15 notification was irrevocable, because it is on that

:23:13. > :23:18.basis that they took the case. -- Article 50. Any doubt about that

:23:19. > :23:21.might have helped them if they thought there was a real argument

:23:22. > :23:33.that it was revocable and all the rest of it. And the decision might

:23:34. > :23:35.not have occurred, as Lord Pannick was talking about. So the Government

:23:36. > :23:41.definitely took the view I think that it was irrevocable. Anyway, the

:23:42. > :23:49.point tonight is a different one. The Prime Minister and the minister

:23:50. > :23:52.in the Commons both gave an undertaking that a motion would be

:23:53. > :24:01.put before both Houses of Parliament for approval of the final deal. And

:24:02. > :24:08.also for the way in which we might leave the European Union. They both

:24:09. > :24:13.gave that undertaking, but they did not say that the Prime Minister

:24:14. > :24:20.would necessarily be bound by the decision of both Houses. Now, the

:24:21. > :24:24.difficulty in this amendment as I see it is that it does require

:24:25. > :24:31.formerly the approval of both Houses. There is no question, that

:24:32. > :24:36.is as clear as it can be. I am not a prophet and I do not claim to be,

:24:37. > :24:41.and so exactly what will happen after two years, I don't know. All I

:24:42. > :24:45.know is that I feel absolutely certain that the negotiations will

:24:46. > :24:49.be quite difficult, and that it will be very difficult at this stage to

:24:50. > :24:55.tell what sort of outcome we may get. If we can get such an agreement

:24:56. > :25:00.in relation to economics, as the Prime Minister indicated in her

:25:01. > :25:08.speech, then that might be very good. On the other hand, some people

:25:09. > :25:11.who know more than I do about it think that may not be very likely.

:25:12. > :25:15.As I've said, I don't know what's going to happen. The Prime Minister

:25:16. > :25:19.and the minister has agreed that both Houses of Parliament should

:25:20. > :25:25.have a motion put before them for approval, but neither of them said,

:25:26. > :25:29.and I believe that that may be the reason why they phrased it as they

:25:30. > :25:34.did, neither of them said that the approval of both Houses would be

:25:35. > :25:39.necessary. My Lords, I want to point out the danger of not getting this

:25:40. > :25:44.right. I see no reason why it should not be put right if people are

:25:45. > :25:50.agreed that it isn't quite right and fat the House of Commons should be

:25:51. > :25:56.the prime source of authority on this matter. Because your Lordships

:25:57. > :26:06.will remember if you read the newspapers, and I'm sure most of us

:26:07. > :26:13.do, the suggestion that this was all a scheme for this House, trying to

:26:14. > :26:22.defeat the Brexit folk, and I don't want it to be said unnecessarily --

:26:23. > :26:25.the Brexit vote -- that we give colour to that. Because I feel

:26:26. > :26:33.absolutely certain that nobody in this House wants to engineer a

:26:34. > :26:40.blockage of the Brexit vote, as the Prime Minister goes ahead. I feel

:26:41. > :26:46.sure of that, and I think I'm right. We were told this morning, somebody

:26:47. > :26:50.talked about the tribal appearance. I don't feel myself as part of any

:26:51. > :26:55.particular tribe, but I do feel clear that I want the matter to be

:26:56. > :26:58.right, and if this amendment is sent back to the Commons, I would like it

:26:59. > :27:14.to be correct, so that nobody could suggest that we were trying a scheme

:27:15. > :27:21.which might - MIGHT - block Brexit. As I understand the Noble Lord's

:27:22. > :27:24.speech, what he is saying is that provided the primacy of the House of

:27:25. > :27:29.Commons is made clear, he would support the amendment, is that

:27:30. > :27:36.right? Well, what I'm saying is that I think it would then simply

:27:37. > :27:42.incorporate the Prime Minister and the minister's undertaken. Of

:27:43. > :27:47.course, the bit at the end, that's a separate matter, and on the whole I

:27:48. > :27:54.don't feel very inclined to get into it, because there is the problem

:27:55. > :28:01.that, as was said, the Brexit business, once it is initiated, may

:28:02. > :28:04.go out of hand. It may terminate without any voluntary agreement on

:28:05. > :28:11.the part of the Prime Minister. And the amendment doesn't really deal

:28:12. > :28:14.with that, but I don't see too much harm in that particular amendment.

:28:15. > :28:19.As I said, I can't foresee exactly what's going to happen, and I would

:28:20. > :28:24.sincerely hope that it's the first two branches of the amendment that

:28:25. > :28:29.come into play in the end, and that there is an agreement that can be

:28:30. > :28:37.put before the Houses of Parliament. But as I said, nobody knows. We can

:28:38. > :28:45.only hope. But I think it would be very desirable for any amendment of

:28:46. > :28:51.this kind, going from this House, to recognise this privacy of the House

:28:52. > :28:58.of Commons. My Lords, I think it is this side. Two quick points.

:28:59. > :29:24.First... I think my Noble Friend will find

:29:25. > :29:27.that my noble and landed friend has sat down, and there will be an

:29:28. > :29:31.opportunity for him to speak, but I did indicate earlier that I thought

:29:32. > :29:37.we should hear at this stage from Lord Kerr.

:29:38. > :29:57.Two points. On the issue of rev voxability. He told his readers in

:29:58. > :30:09.the Times that we did not mention it at #5u8. Al. When Lord Pannick won

:30:10. > :30:15.his case in the High Court and the No 10 spokesman was asked about

:30:16. > :30:21.revokability, the spokesman said as a matter of firm policy, our noted

:30:22. > :30:31.occasion to withdraw will not be withdrawn. The second reading after

:30:32. > :30:40.our debate the minister put on the spot by Baroness Symons, could it be

:30:41. > :30:46.revoked? He replied, as a matter of firm policy, our notification will

:30:47. > :30:52.not be withdrawn. Very similar. To the No 10 spokesman. Always wise in

:30:53. > :30:58.a minister! In committee, when the same issue of this was raised the

:30:59. > :31:05.minister said, last Wednesday, replying to the debate on the

:31:06. > :31:13.amendment as a matter of policy, we will not withdraw our notice to

:31:14. > :31:20.leave. The wording is slightly wrong there. When the Government say as a

:31:21. > :31:25.matter of policy, firm or infirm, they will not withdraw the

:31:26. > :31:32.notification which this bill authorises, the Government every

:31:33. > :31:39.time implicitly confirm that in law they could withdraw it and they

:31:40. > :31:43.could if you want a definitive source, don't look at me, listen to

:31:44. > :31:49.the president of the European council, who has said so on the

:31:50. > :31:56.record. If you want a definitive EU legal view and this would be an EU

:31:57. > :32:01.legal question, if it were tested, try the present head of council

:32:02. > :32:04.legal service for the head of council legal services who advised

:32:05. > :32:18.me when I was writing the wretched thing. It is revocable, just as a

:32:19. > :32:23.point of clarification. Second in relation to the discussion,

:32:24. > :32:34.particularly that of Lord Lawson of the last section, section 4 of the

:32:35. > :32:41.Lord Pannick's amendment, in which he detected deep evil, it seem what

:32:42. > :32:47.is is being said there is that the decision that no deal is better than

:32:48. > :32:54.a bad deal is a decision for Parliament. It seems what is being

:32:55. > :33:03.said there is that the judgment on whether the bad deal is a bad deal

:33:04. > :33:08.and the chaos and disruption of leaving with no deal preferable, I

:33:09. > :33:12.find it very hard, I struggle to think of the deal which could be

:33:13. > :33:18.worse than no deal and I note that the president of the CBI last week

:33:19. > :33:23.said that the worst possible scenario was leaving with no deal.

:33:24. > :33:27.But that is not the point. The point is about Parliamentary sovereignty.

:33:28. > :33:31.The issue of whether no deal is worse than this deal, the deal that

:33:32. > :33:36.is available on the table on that date, is for Parliament to decide

:33:37. > :33:54.and that's what section 4 of the amendment says and I support it. He

:33:55. > :34:00.referred to sovereignty and I offer thoughts as a run of the mill

:34:01. > :34:04.Parliamentarian, but I think that the phrase Parliamentary sovereignty

:34:05. > :34:10.is something I couldn't possibly vote against, to agree to vote

:34:11. > :34:17.against a motion like this would have an element of voting against

:34:18. > :34:20.motherhood and apple pie, something I believe in, one o' of the reasons

:34:21. > :34:30.that people were concerned during the course of the referendum,

:34:31. > :34:35.because it seemed to me to be incontrovertible the way the EU

:34:36. > :34:38.developed involved a steady erosion of Parliamentary sovereignty and it

:34:39. > :34:46.would be difficult to disagree with that proposition. However, we come

:34:47. > :34:52.to and have to when addressing this amendment, what a decision by

:34:53. > :34:57.Parliament actually comprises and I'm forced to read the amendment as

:34:58. > :35:04.it is written down here, sub section one refers to without the approval

:35:05. > :35:08.of both Houses of Parliament. Sub section 3 requires the prior

:35:09. > :35:14.approval of both Houses of Parliament. Sub section 4 refers to

:35:15. > :35:24.the prior approval of both Houses of Parliament. Now, to propose this

:35:25. > :35:28.amendment and I say it with great respect to the weight of legal

:35:29. > :35:33.opinion that is being offered to propose it without being clear about

:35:34. > :35:39.what's involved in the approval of both Houses of Parliament, is to

:35:40. > :35:44.leave an ambiguity at the heart of this amendment, which really hardly

:35:45. > :35:49.needs adding to what Lord McKay has already said. And if I could feel, I

:35:50. > :35:53.felt concerned about this from the start, I raised it at committee

:35:54. > :35:59.stage, there has been an attempt to move towards the answering of the

:36:00. > :36:04.question what happens if the Commons said yes and the lords said no, but

:36:05. > :36:11.the solution to it is not contained within these amendments. Now I did

:36:12. > :36:14.make a admittedly inadequate attempt with the public bill office to see

:36:15. > :36:21.if there was any way in which I could put down an amendment which

:36:22. > :36:26.would satisfy or at least address this problem, which I see at the

:36:27. > :36:32.heart of the bill. If the House will forgive me, for I shall conclude

:36:33. > :36:38.shortly after I which read out the terms of defunct amendment at least

:36:39. > :36:43.as of now. It would have said this, if under the provisions of sub

:36:44. > :36:47.sections 1, 3 or 4 there is a disagreement between the House of

:36:48. > :36:51.Commons of and the House of lords as to whether or not the agreement or

:36:52. > :36:57.decision should be approved, the view of the House of Commons

:36:58. > :37:03.prevails over the view of the House of Lords. That for me makes an

:37:04. > :37:06.attempt to explain precisely or resolve I hope precisely the

:37:07. > :37:28.ambiguity at the heart of this bill. I was following the argument that I

:37:29. > :37:32.agree with in terms of lack of clarity on what happens if both

:37:33. > :37:37.Houses disagree. Would he agree there is a further issue in relation

:37:38. > :37:43.to different procedures of two Houses. In the House of Commons, the

:37:44. > :37:50.Government controls the jeend. -- agenda. We heard from Lord Pannick

:37:51. > :37:59.it would be up to the Government what happens. Any Lord can put down

:38:00. > :38:04.an amendment to disapprove and in this House it can't be in the

:38:05. > :38:07.control of the Government what might constitute approval or disapproval.

:38:08. > :38:17.Isn't that a further difficulty? Yes. I can understand that point.

:38:18. > :38:22.But I want to just emphasise the central problem which Lord McKay's

:38:23. > :38:27.identified and to ask the House, or perhaps more specifically ask the

:38:28. > :38:30.proposer of the motion whether something like that included at

:38:31. > :38:36.third reading could solve the difficulty I think he would even

:38:37. > :38:40.acknowledge was expressed in the various interventions that he dealt

:38:41. > :38:46.with. But I will say one thing that is to some degree with my capacity

:38:47. > :38:52.to influence, to my own front bench and to my very good noble friend

:38:53. > :38:55.Baroness Hater who will be winding up, this is something that is not

:38:56. > :38:59.within the control of the House, it is in the control of my be-Loved

:39:00. > :39:05.Labour Party, which for as long as I have been in it has been clear about

:39:06. > :39:12.the primacy of the elected House over the unelected House. That

:39:13. > :39:15.should we find ourselves in a situation after passing this

:39:16. > :39:20.amendment as it is written, should we find ourselves in a situation in

:39:21. > :39:26.two years time, where there is a clash between the House of Commons

:39:27. > :39:31.and the House of Lord and the normal tests at attempts at a solution to

:39:32. > :39:36.the differences had all been attempted, that this party at any

:39:37. > :39:52.rate asserts quite clearly that ultimately the primacy of the House

:39:53. > :39:59.of Commons must prevail. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord

:40:00. > :40:05.and... I agree with have much of what he said. I do apologise, a lot

:40:06. > :40:13.of people wanting to speak. I have tried to construct a sort of

:40:14. > :40:21.speaking order. And I suggest that my noble friend Lord Howe speaks. I

:40:22. > :40:28.see that the noble Baroness lady Jones also wants to speak and I

:40:29. > :40:39.think it might be sensible then... Yes indeed. I will let the Lord

:40:40. > :40:47.speak and include ladyEd aman in the list. My lords I long ago came to

:40:48. > :40:51.the painful recognition that many members of your Lordships House

:40:52. > :40:55.think to serve in this place without having served down the corridor in

:40:56. > :41:02.the other place was an enormous advantage. So it is with some

:41:03. > :41:10.temerity that I seek to draw on my experience in the other place, 27

:41:11. > :41:17.years, not as long as my noble friend Lord Heseltine, to make a

:41:18. > :41:21.preliminary observation. At the end of the negotiations there will

:41:22. > :41:27.either be an agreement or a decision by the Government to leave the EU

:41:28. > :41:34.without an agreement and which ever of those scenarios comes about, the

:41:35. > :41:40.other place will have its say. And the other place will not only have

:41:41. > :41:45.its say, the other place will have its way. If the agreement that is

:41:46. > :41:50.reached by the Government is unacceptable to a majority of the

:41:51. > :41:58.members of the House of Commons, they will vote accordingly. And if

:41:59. > :42:02.the Government proposes to leave on terms that are a unacceptable to a

:42:03. > :42:08.majority of House of Commons, they will vote accordingly and they don't

:42:09. > :42:13.need the authority of Mr David Jones for that, or even the Prime Minister

:42:14. > :42:19.for that. And they certainly don't need this new clause for that. They

:42:20. > :42:26.don't need any authority of that. They will have their say, they will

:42:27. > :42:31.have their way. And for those of us who believe that Parliamentary

:42:32. > :42:36.supremacy rests with the House of Commons, that is the ultimate

:42:37. > :42:43.safeguard. Now, I want to make a couple of observations about the new

:42:44. > :42:48.clause. I think the noble Lord in the end admitted, not quite

:42:49. > :42:55.explicitly, but in effect admitted that it does provide in its present

:42:56. > :43:00.form a veto for your Lordships' House. He said it would be unlikely

:43:01. > :43:13.you would exercise that veto and in the end he was obliged to accept the

:43:14. > :43:16.lifeline from viscount Hailsham. But when you examine a lifeline

:43:17. > :43:24.sometimes it is not as effective as it appeared. The lifeline offered

:43:25. > :43:29.was that the Government might enshrine the necessary motions,

:43:30. > :43:34.motions necessary by virtue of this new clause in an Act of Parliament,

:43:35. > :43:40.so that the Parliament Act could be activated. I ask your Lordships to

:43:41. > :43:44.consider that situation. The Government will have agreed the

:43:45. > :43:47.terms on which it is going to leave the European Union, the House of

:43:48. > :43:52.Commons will have approved the terms, but this House will have

:43:53. > :43:56.rejected them and we have to hang around for a year until the

:43:57. > :44:08.Parliament Act can be used to ensure that the House of Commons gets its

:44:09. > :44:13.way. That was superintendenting -- suggested by viscount Hailsham. We

:44:14. > :44:18.all want the minimum of delay. And the notion that the nation should

:44:19. > :44:25.stand around for a year wait fogger the Parliament Act to be invoked for

:44:26. > :44:29.the House of Commons to get its way illustrates how unnecessary this

:44:30. > :44:36.amendment and this new clause is. And I want to make one other general

:44:37. > :44:42.point on the new clause. Of course, if we put the requirement for

:44:43. > :44:49.approval by this House and by the other House and so on on the face of

:44:50. > :44:58.the statute, if we put it on the statue book, then it becomes just

:44:59. > :45:06.issuable. I have long ago given up any attempt to see the engenuinety

:45:07. > :45:11.of the arguments of Lord Pannick, but think of the potential which

:45:12. > :45:16.would exist for arguing that the motion that had been approved by one

:45:17. > :45:21.House or the other didn't quite match up to this interpretation or

:45:22. > :45:30.that of the new clause which would be on the the face of the statute.

:45:31. > :45:35.Lord Lisburn he said he thought more intervention by the courts would not

:45:36. > :45:40.be acceptable. I accept that view won't be shared by Lord Pannick, but

:45:41. > :45:46.it has much to commend it. I don't think we should likely embark upon a

:45:47. > :45:51.course which would not only run the risk of putting one House in

:45:52. > :45:52.conflict with another, but of putting Parliament in conflict with

:45:53. > :46:07.the courts. Just finally, before I sit down my

:46:08. > :46:11.Lords. New clause 4, I agree with my learned friend Lord Lawson on that

:46:12. > :46:16.and without repeating everything I said last week, we have still not

:46:17. > :46:22.yet had an answer to the fact that sub-clause 4 of the new clause would

:46:23. > :46:28.facilitate repeated coming and going between Parliament, Government and

:46:29. > :46:32.the European Union. The Government would come along and say - we

:46:33. > :46:37.haven't had a deal, we propose to leave. Parliament according to

:46:38. > :46:41.sub-clause 4 would say - go back it the table and that would happen

:46:42. > :46:44.again and again and it would be an absurd position to put our

:46:45. > :46:48.Government in. So, my Lords, first of all, for the reasons I have tried

:46:49. > :46:53.to express, I think this new clause is totally unnecessary. Secondly, I

:46:54. > :46:57.think it is a recipe for conflict, for conflict between this House and

:46:58. > :47:01.the other place and for conflict between Parliament and the courts

:47:02. > :47:08.and I urge your Lordships to reject it. My Lords, it's an honour to

:47:09. > :47:21.follow the noble Lord, Lord Howard. THE SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I did

:47:22. > :47:24.indicate I was going to call the Noble Lady Baroness Jones. I will

:47:25. > :47:29.indeed. I'm trying to compile a speaker's list. I hope people

:47:30. > :47:32.understand it is a reasonable way of carrying on, seeing as so many

:47:33. > :47:38.people vb contributed to me that they wish to contributed to the

:47:39. > :47:42.debate It is an honour to follow the honourable Lord Howard with whom I

:47:43. > :47:46.shared a platform on the referendum campaign but on this I have to

:47:47. > :47:51.disagree. I rise to support Amendment 3. I think there is a lot

:47:52. > :47:55.of merit in Amendment 4 that it seems the House is probably going to

:47:56. > :47:59.go for something written by lawyers because apparently some of us do

:48:00. > :48:11.still trust lawyers, which I think is sometimes a good move. I think

:48:12. > :48:15.that - I am going to be brief and to the point and I'm taking a rather

:48:16. > :48:19.simplistic attitude to this whole debate. I feel that during the

:48:20. > :48:25.referendum we did vote for taking back kroe. It seems to me that

:48:26. > :48:30.taking back control does not mean giving such momentous decision of

:48:31. > :48:33.the future of the UK to a tiny cohort of the politicians. As we

:48:34. > :48:37.have said the Government, the Prime Minister, did commit themselves to a

:48:38. > :48:40.vote in both Houses. They must have thought that was an appropriate

:48:41. > :48:47.thing to do. Therefore, I see no problem at all with a commitment

:48:48. > :48:52.from this House. The fact is, people change, Governments change. There is

:48:53. > :48:56.no - you know, we can't really be sure that the same people will be in

:48:57. > :48:59.power at the time that this is actually finally happening, so I

:49:00. > :49:08.think it is very important that we do get a commitment. Parliament has

:49:09. > :49:12.to have scrutiny on this, it has to have a say on something that is so

:49:13. > :49:15.incredibly important, a deal being thrashed out between the UK and EU

:49:16. > :49:18.that will affect our futures forever. I also think it is a

:49:19. > :49:22.mockery if the European Parliament gets a vote on this, and we don't.

:49:23. > :49:30.That, again, is not taking back control. Now, one of the other

:49:31. > :49:36.commitments during the referendum was of course the ?350 billion to

:49:37. > :49:39.the NHS. I look forward to the Budget tomorrow because quite

:49:40. > :49:47.honestly, that was the one of the things I voted for when I voted

:49:48. > :49:51.Leave. My Lords, I spoke to intervene earlier, far more

:49:52. > :49:57.aggressively than I would ever normally do, simply because I wish

:49:58. > :50:03.to pursue the point made by my Lords and I think it is a very

:50:04. > :50:08.considerable tactical, of importance n relation to the debate in which we

:50:09. > :50:13.are having. I think there is very widespread agreement that there

:50:14. > :50:17.should be parliamentary approval for the outcome of the negotiations.

:50:18. > :50:25.Negotiations and the Prime Minister herself has actually made it clear

:50:26. > :50:29.that she believes that should be so. And the noble Lord, Lord Pannick has

:50:30. > :50:34.sought to incorporate that undertaking on the face of the Bill,

:50:35. > :50:47.which, again, I believe is the right thing to do. The problem uks however

:50:48. > :50:50.-- is, however in the drafting of Lord Pannick's amendment. And in

:50:51. > :50:53.opening the debate he said he realised there were problems because

:50:54. > :50:58.it seemed to give a veto to the House of Lords, which I think would

:50:59. > :51:03.not be acceptable and, in particular, also, it failed to

:51:04. > :51:08.recognise the relationship between the two Houses, whereby the House of

:51:09. > :51:13.Commons must, at the end of the day, be supreme.

:51:14. > :51:18.He suggested that we should agree to the amendment, which is before us

:51:19. > :51:24.and then, of course, the House of Commons would sort it out. I think

:51:25. > :51:30.there is a problem with that. It is a very simple problem - people are

:51:31. > :51:34.less likely to vote for this amendment on that basis, than would

:51:35. > :51:37.otherwise be the case. And, therefore, it may never get to the

:51:38. > :51:44.House of Commons and they will not be able to put the matter right. So,

:51:45. > :51:50.we have a very difficult situation it as we now stand, as to whether or

:51:51. > :51:58.not we should support the amendment. Mine clings is still to do so -- my

:51:59. > :52:01.inclination is still to do so, subject to what may be said

:52:02. > :52:07.subsequently, because I think it is important to get the undertaking on

:52:08. > :52:11.the face of the Bill but we have to resolve the problem of ensuring that

:52:12. > :52:16.the House of Commons remains supreme and we cannot have a veto over what

:52:17. > :52:19.is negotiated. It would be wholly inappropriate if the House of

:52:20. > :52:24.Commons took the opposite view. And, therefore, one possibly solution is

:52:25. > :52:32.to try and draft a manuscript amendment, or to amend the Bill at

:52:33. > :52:38.some later stage in the proceedings. I fear that may be very difficult

:52:39. > :52:42.but perhaps we might try. But it all pends - in any case, I think we

:52:43. > :52:46.should probably agree to the amendment but I understand many

:52:47. > :52:50.people will feel it is defective in the respect which we have mentioned

:52:51. > :52:54.and that it would be very unfortunate if we don't have

:52:55. > :52:59.anything, as a result of these debates, which will ensure that the

:53:00. > :53:03.undertaking giving by the Prime Minister is absolutely clear, is on

:53:04. > :53:13.the face of the Bill and there is no uncertainty about the situation in

:53:14. > :53:18.the future. My Lords, I would like to preface my

:53:19. > :53:23.remarks by stressing my belief that speaking in favour of any amendment

:53:24. > :53:27.to do Bill does not amount to try to frustrate the referendum result or

:53:28. > :53:32.to deny the will of the people. I respect the result and we are trying

:53:33. > :53:38.to implement it as responsibly as we can in the interest of our great

:53:39. > :53:42.country. The referendum was about taking back control and ensuring

:53:43. > :53:46.parliamentary sovereignty. That is vital, to safeguard our democracy

:53:47. > :53:51.and protect our national interests. The people want to be able to trust

:53:52. > :53:58.our Parliament to look after their future. But in the context of this

:53:59. > :54:06.bill, it seems to me that Parliament is in danger of abrigating its

:54:07. > :54:08.responsibilities. I have heard the suggestion that parliamentary

:54:09. > :54:13.oversight makes it inevitable that the EU will only offer us a bad

:54:14. > :54:19.deal. However, I respectably disagree. Indeed, I believe the

:54:20. > :54:22.likelihood is the other way around. If the negotiatedors and ministers

:54:23. > :54:26.know that at the end of the day they will have to sell this deal to

:54:27. > :54:30.Parliament, then I believe they will be properly incentivised to be more

:54:31. > :54:36.likely to achieve a deal that is acceptable. As currently proposed,

:54:37. > :54:42.this Bill will effectively hand responsibility for our future to a

:54:43. > :55:01.group of negotiatedors and minister who apparently countenance with a

:55:02. > :55:13.- with thinking that no deal is better than a bad deal. . We must

:55:14. > :55:16.surely ask ourselves whether those negotiators will be sufficiently

:55:17. > :55:22.incentivised to get a good deal for the country. My Lords, a no-deal

:55:23. > :55:26.scenario was ever put to the British people. The white paper and the

:55:27. > :55:42.referendum campaign have not considered the consequences, either.

:55:43. > :55:46.Leaving the customs union, single market, have jobs for our economy,

:55:47. > :55:50.the nuclear industry, for Northern Ireland and so much else, yet the

:55:51. > :55:57.risks have been skirted over. Almost as if they do not really matter. But

:55:58. > :56:00.my Lords, they do matter. In normal negotiation, corporate negotiators

:56:01. > :56:04.would preserve the option of taking an offer back to their board, or a

:56:05. > :56:15.lawyer to refer back to their client. I'm grateful to my learned

:56:16. > :56:20.friend for allowing me to intervene. Can she explain how this squares

:56:21. > :56:23.with what she said at the start of her speech about not challenging the

:56:24. > :56:27.referendum I am not challenging the referendum. We are here to debate

:56:28. > :56:32.and discuss how best to safeguard the interests of our country and

:56:33. > :56:37.what might happen at the end of the negotiations and, in light of the

:56:38. > :56:40.referendum, to make sure that we have parliamentary sovereignty and

:56:41. > :56:48.that is what this debate and this amendment is about. Why we would

:56:49. > :56:52.deny Parliament the heart of our democracy, the authority to approve

:56:53. > :56:57.or push for a Bert deal, rather than accepting no deal, without a proper

:56:58. > :57:02.say? This parliamentary route, giving Parliament and not the

:57:03. > :57:07.executive, a meaningful final vote, is my preferred option, not a

:57:08. > :57:12.referendum. Such a safety net, written into statute, would seem to

:57:13. > :57:19.me to be the most responsible course to take, as we negotiate our EU exit

:57:20. > :57:23.and I believe it is my duty, given the very serious concerns that have

:57:24. > :57:27.been expressed, to ask the other place to reconsider the need for

:57:28. > :57:32.elected MPs to take responsibility for the future of their

:57:33. > :57:36.constituents. I do believe they must have the final say on this bill and

:57:37. > :57:48.I would like to ask them to think again.

:57:49. > :57:54.In the debate there was a that was asked at the beginning and to me it

:57:55. > :57:59.is still unanswered, and it is this, the proposed #1k5789 amendment 3 (3)

:58:00. > :58:03.reads "The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament should also be

:58:04. > :58:07.required for the future relations of the UK and for the prior approval of

:58:08. > :58:12.both Houses of Parliament should also be required in relation to any

:58:13. > :58:16.decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom should leave."

:58:17. > :58:22.Well assume the House of Commons and House of Lords are in agreement,

:58:23. > :58:24.they say - we don't approve of the terms of the agreement, we don't

:58:25. > :58:28.approve that the Prime Minister shall decide that we leave without

:58:29. > :58:37.an agreement. My question is - what then? Is it implicit in this

:58:38. > :58:49.amendment that Parliament may then decide to withdraw the Article 50

:58:50. > :58:54.notification? ? My Lords, whether article #r50's notification is

:58:55. > :58:59.revokable, irrevocable as a matter of policy or law, I believe that we

:59:00. > :59:03.could only interrupt the process of leaving the EU by another

:59:04. > :59:07.referendum. I think this is the point that Lord Lawson talked about

:59:08. > :59:11.and the beginning of the Baroness's speech also made the same point. If

:59:12. > :59:16.we were to get in a situation in two years' time where Parliament was

:59:17. > :59:19.seem to be blocking the departure of the UK, from the European Union,

:59:20. > :59:22.without a referendum, I think there would be a serious political

:59:23. > :59:26.situation in our country and I think that while we have talked in our

:59:27. > :59:31.debate this afternoon about conflicts between the executive and

:59:32. > :59:37.Parliament and between the executive and the Lords, and the two Houses, I

:59:38. > :59:41.really agree, that it should be the House of Commons that should have

:59:42. > :59:43.the vote. But to me there is a real potential for conflict with the

:59:44. > :59:48.outcome of the referendum. We decided to have the referendum and

:59:49. > :59:51.it seems to me we could only put that into reverse with another

:59:52. > :59:54.referendum, which this morning, in a sense, we decided we didn't want to

:59:55. > :59:58.do. I admire the Liberal Democrats who are consistent on this point and

:59:59. > :00:05.they have their amendment and a third reading I notice. But at the

:00:06. > :00:11.end of the day, we could be in a very serious difficult and sensitive

:00:12. > :00:15.political situation and I'm not sure putting this clause into the bill

:00:16. > :00:20.will actually help the handling of that political situation.

:00:21. > :00:28.They have given an undertaking there will be Parliamentary approval for

:00:29. > :00:34.whatever is proposed. I think that can be trusted. I wonder what the

:00:35. > :00:38.advantages of setting this down, particularly in subclause 4, the

:00:39. > :00:46.thought that Parliament will block the Article 50 process without going

:00:47. > :00:50.back to the people. Now it was only 5248, that is another conflict that

:00:51. > :00:58.we are handling. But in our debates we are not facing to the fundamental

:00:59. > :01:07.fact of the referendum itself. I apologise for not being present for

:01:08. > :01:15.second reading. In doing so... My lords not for the first time I

:01:16. > :01:19.wholly agree with the analysis of my noble friend Lord Heseltine. I think

:01:20. > :01:26.we entered the House of Commons on the same day over 50 years ago. So I

:01:27. > :01:33.agree with his analysis, but I don't agree with his conclusion. What

:01:34. > :01:37.amendments are clearly trying to do, with great sincerity and I

:01:38. > :01:43.appreciate all they're aiming for, they're trying to impose a statutory

:01:44. > :01:48.provision on a face of a bill that happens to be going through this

:01:49. > :01:55.House on an uncertain future and events which are completely

:01:56. > :02:00.unforeseen. As Lord Heseltine and others have said, we have absolutely

:02:01. > :02:05.no grasp and no idea of where the world will be or where this issue

:02:06. > :02:09.will be in years time. We don't know, starting the other side of the

:02:10. > :02:15.channel, any commentary shows clearly that uncertainty as to who

:02:16. > :02:21.is taking the lead is daily. There are quarrels between the national

:02:22. > :02:28.capitals and Brussels, there are in fighting arrangements inside the

:02:29. > :02:32.European Commission. There is talk of a different treaty. The last

:02:33. > :02:37.hour, we have seen a blog saying that Spain and Poland want to join

:02:38. > :02:42.together in a different approach to the negotiations from the approach

:02:43. > :02:51.being offered by the European Commission. Uncertainty it is. And

:02:52. > :02:58.there is the addition point that Lord Kerr made, that this can be in

:02:59. > :03:01.certain circumstances almost inconceivable except under a

:03:02. > :03:07.different Government this side of the channel that the whole project

:03:08. > :03:12.with be a aborted. The truth which Lord Howard stated with great

:03:13. > :03:15.frankness and eloquence that is in the House of Commons, in the House

:03:16. > :03:20.of Commons, the Parliamentary majority can do what it likes. When

:03:21. > :03:25.I say the majority, that is different from the word Parliament

:03:26. > :03:31.that flows from legal lips as if it is an entity, Parliament is the

:03:32. > :03:37.people controlling the majority, the managers managing the parties who

:03:38. > :03:42.have a majority. That is what comes out at the end if you press the bunt

:03:43. > :03:54.Parliament. I say -- press the button Parliament. I say I'm more

:03:55. > :03:59.Burke than Breznev, but I'm a following of Carl Popper who spent a

:04:00. > :04:07.lot of time warning us, as did others about the dangers of too much

:04:08. > :04:13.inevitability, to much determinism. So telling the House of Commons what

:04:14. > :04:19.to do by statute law about a situation that may be different from

:04:20. > :04:27.anything we at present envisage, seems a noble but really futile

:04:28. > :04:33.project. If Commons will decide by Parliamentary majority, it always

:04:34. > :04:40.has, it, well not always, there have been fights in t past centuries

:04:41. > :04:42.about royal prerogative, but since Parliament won that battle,

:04:43. > :04:48.Parliament decides and that means the majority and that means as long

:04:49. > :04:52.as the managers can control a majority and keep a majority in

:04:53. > :04:58.place and it is big enough, that is the will of Parliament. My Lords, if

:04:59. > :05:03.after two years, some kind of bundle emerges that would be divorce

:05:04. > :05:09.papers, mixture and some new arrangements, it would be vastly

:05:10. > :05:14.complex and have all sorts of uncompleted trails a aspects to it.

:05:15. > :05:21.If after two years, some sort of major document comes forward, that

:05:22. > :05:28.is the work after two years of ministers, slaving away, of vast

:05:29. > :05:33.defendanty -- difficulty in negotiation and mutually beneficial

:05:34. > :05:39.arrangements, if after that there is a vote in Parliament and the

:05:40. > :05:44.Government loses the vote or the majority moves against it and fails

:05:45. > :05:49.to give approval, I don't see how there can be any doubt of what then

:05:50. > :05:54.happens. That is a declaration of no confidence. We have a five-year

:05:55. > :05:59.rule, that would have to be changed, actually it wouldn't be have to be

:06:00. > :06:05.unchanged if the no confidence was in ringing terms. Then we would have

:06:06. > :06:09.a general election. That seems so obvious, that I can't understand

:06:10. > :06:15.those talking about a world beyond rejection, a world in which

:06:16. > :06:20.ministers, this is again inconceivable, ministers are sent

:06:21. > :06:27.back to Brussels, saying well, our Parliament don't like it, but we are

:06:28. > :06:32.carrying on. It woundn't wouldn't be the same government or minister. It

:06:33. > :06:34.wouldn't be the same deal. Regardless of any statute

:06:35. > :06:39.beautifully drafted by all the learned people sitting around me and

:06:40. > :06:44.on the other side, however beautiful the drafting, it makes no difference

:06:45. > :06:52.in reality at what is going to happen. I don't want to stray beyond

:06:53. > :06:58.the confines of the report stage, but behind the longing, the concern

:06:59. > :07:04.to get this into statute and pin it down on the the piece of paper is a

:07:05. > :07:09.real concern. It is concern of those that fear the deal when it come back

:07:10. > :07:14.will not include our membership of the single market and will not

:07:15. > :07:21.include our membership of the customs union. That will brand it a

:07:22. > :07:26.bad deal and leave a lot of people in the Commons to think about voting

:07:27. > :07:30.it down. They won't succeed, but they will think about it. I will say

:07:31. > :07:34.this to my friends in this House, there is room for doubt, and I say

:07:35. > :07:39.this particularly to Lord Kerr, there is room for considerable doubt

:07:40. > :07:45.as to whether being in or out of single market as it exists today in

:07:46. > :07:56.this ocean of digital change, with vast new supply chains travelling in

:07:57. > :08:02.every direction, with low tariffs and special arrangements and a new

:08:03. > :08:05.pattern of trade, different from even ten years ago, there is a doubt

:08:06. > :08:12.as to whether being inside or outside the single market is the end

:08:13. > :08:18.of world. That the chairman of the chief economist of the Bank of

:08:19. > :08:22.England, last week, was saying, Mr Haldane, was saying it doesn't

:08:23. > :08:26.matter. Over the next three years, it is of no material difference to

:08:27. > :08:37.the growth of British economy, whether it is in or out of the...

:08:38. > :08:42.Single market. So I just put that as an aside. I appreciate that moves

:08:43. > :08:47.from the amendment, but behind the concerns lies a genuine fear of the

:08:48. > :08:51.nature of the single market as being some war we are going to be excluded

:08:52. > :08:54.from. Look at the facts and what is actually happening now and we will

:08:55. > :09:01.see that it is very different from what is being argued by those who

:09:02. > :09:07.say it will be disaster and we will pay a colossal price and trade

:09:08. > :09:10.halves in difference the distance. These generalities belong to the

:09:11. > :09:15.past century and a world that no longer exists. The whole idea of

:09:16. > :09:21.sending ministers back to Brussels to get us into the single market

:09:22. > :09:29.again, if the deal, as arranged, outside, and not only is a fantasy,

:09:30. > :09:34.in reality no such situation would ever arise, worthy of an animated

:09:35. > :09:45.cartoon, but disadvantageous and there is a new pattern emerging, a

:09:46. > :09:49.new world of, Government -- governed by the WTO which has not been

:09:50. > :09:53.examined by this House. I want to finish by saying that for the House

:09:54. > :09:57.to tell the House of Commons that this House to tell the House of

:09:58. > :10:03.Commons what to do two years hence in a completely different situation

:10:04. > :10:07.from anything we presently see is to make fooms of ourselves -- fools of

:10:08. > :10:16.ourselves twice over. If that is what your Lordships want, so be it.

:10:17. > :10:21.But it would be without me. I hope, my hope remains that we can

:10:22. > :10:25.contribute unity to a very difficult challenge and a major new situation

:10:26. > :10:30.for this country. That is what I hope for. But we perhaps we can't

:10:31. > :10:34.deliver the unity in this amendment, but we can at least agree on the

:10:35. > :10:46.facts and at the present the full facts are not being presented to us.

:10:47. > :10:52.I should remind noble Lords that it is report stage and we do not want

:10:53. > :10:58.second reading speeches. It is not appropriate that members should give

:10:59. > :11:02.second reading speeches. Apologise to my noble friend. I'm afraid there

:11:03. > :11:08.is still more people who have indicated they want to speak. My

:11:09. > :11:12.lords I will make a couple of points, I can see the house is

:11:13. > :11:21.getting to point where they're ready to hear from the front benches. I

:11:22. > :11:24.want to pick up on a phrase that viscount Hailsham used, although I

:11:25. > :11:29.disagreed with him, he talked about whether there is a price to pay and

:11:30. > :11:35.I think what we have to reflect on as a House as well, that if we

:11:36. > :11:42.support these amendments and particularly an amendment which

:11:43. > :11:44.gives us power ultimately to overturn the referendum result,

:11:45. > :11:51.there is a price that comes with that too. Because I think my Lords

:11:52. > :11:58.we have to decide what is most important to us. Is it that we want

:11:59. > :12:03.to influence the Prime Minister as she goes into these negotiations, or

:12:04. > :12:10.do we want the say now we want power to overturn that referendum result?

:12:11. > :12:15.I feel as I have said at committee stage, I feel very strongly that

:12:16. > :12:21.people in both these Houses, this House and the other place, and

:12:22. > :12:25.policy makers outside and leading figures, there is a lot of expertise

:12:26. > :12:31.and experience that needs to be heard by the Prime Minister, by the

:12:32. > :12:36.Government, over the next two years and be influential in that

:12:37. > :12:40.negotiation period and I worry my Lords that we will start to

:12:41. > :12:49.undermine the case for or the right for us to be heard in that way and I

:12:50. > :12:51.just say one final thing. Lord Turner referred to, as party

:12:52. > :12:57.politicians, referred to us being tribal and something that somebody

:12:58. > :13:03.else mentioned, I think we have to reflect carefully on what has

:13:04. > :13:08.changed since the referendum. And reflect more carefully on how we are

:13:09. > :13:13.seen by the electorate. I don't think they see us in party terms in

:13:14. > :13:19.the same way that they used to. I think there is almost a very clear

:13:20. > :13:24.two-set of politicians that people consider and listen to. One of those

:13:25. > :13:30.that they feel understand them and let me finish this point, one is

:13:31. > :13:36.people who feel that they understand them and the other group of people

:13:37. > :13:42.who they feel are against them. Now, I know that most of the people who

:13:43. > :13:48.are participating in these debates and working very hard to get the

:13:49. > :13:54.best result for this Brexit deal are not against the people. That we need

:13:55. > :13:58.to understand ourselves that they think that we are. And so we have to

:13:59. > :14:04.reflect what it is about us that we need to do differently and that is

:14:05. > :14:07.why I caution against supporting amendments that give Parliament

:14:08. > :14:14.power, not just this House and the other House, but Parliament and I

:14:15. > :14:21.would urge Lords to reflect on that. Will the noble lady agree with me

:14:22. > :14:28.that we should not ditch the principles of this House in order to

:14:29. > :14:34.please or -- pander to public opinion. I was not able to be

:14:35. > :14:38.present at the reading. In looking at this amendment, which what is

:14:39. > :14:48.this is about, my Lords it is this amendment that... We will hear from

:14:49. > :14:53.if noble Lord and then from the Lord Lord. Unless anybody else wishes to

:14:54. > :15:01.speak. We will move on to the front benches to conclude this debate. I

:15:02. > :15:08.shall be brief. But I concur with what my noble friend said, we forget

:15:09. > :15:13.the effect this is having on the ordinary people outside.

:15:14. > :15:21.Is They knew what they were voting about when they voted in the

:15:22. > :15:24.referendum. They were fed up with the way more striks and regulations

:15:25. > :15:26.were put on their life. They were fed up, whether they were

:15:27. > :15:31.individuals or whether they were businesses and we have to recognise

:15:32. > :15:41.that fact. Now, in relation to this amendment, it was my privilege, in

:15:42. > :15:44.the other place, 500 amendments to the Maastricht bill, many more

:15:45. > :15:47.chucked out. And they were thrown out, the ones that were not

:15:48. > :15:53.successful because they were out of order. They were wrecking

:15:54. > :15:58.amendments, they were amendments that were defective and I find it

:15:59. > :16:03.quite extraordinary that your Lordship is spending several hours

:16:04. > :16:14.here on what is basically a defective amendment. There are

:16:15. > :16:19.better ways. And if Lord Pannick isn't able to put down an amendment

:16:20. > :16:27.that isn't defective so be it. But he is a highly creative lawyer and

:16:28. > :16:31.there are other noble Lords who can create an amendment that should be

:16:32. > :16:38.rightly debated. But as we stand here today this amendment is

:16:39. > :16:42.defective in all four elements of it and noble Lords should bear in mind

:16:43. > :16:44.that it is not wise for our House to vote on amendments that have huge

:16:45. > :16:50.implications and which are defective. It would be much more

:16:51. > :16:56.sensible to take it back - maybe on another occasion find some means to

:16:57. > :17:01.move forward. And we come ultimately to the ultimate situation - I trust

:17:02. > :17:08.our Prime Minister. I trust the noble member, David Davis to

:17:09. > :17:13.negotiate well. I trust them to do their very best for the ordinary

:17:14. > :17:19.people who have voted for it all. And so, frankly, what we are doing

:17:20. > :17:25.this afternoon, if we are doing anything s undermining the public's

:17:26. > :17:29.confidence in this House. Now confidence is a very, very delicate

:17:30. > :17:33.flower and it affects not just us here, not just the public. It

:17:34. > :17:35.affects all the nation, all the businesses, all commerce and we

:17:36. > :17:39.should not be undermining that confidence. So I suggest, certainly,

:17:40. > :17:44.I will not be voting for this amendment.

:17:45. > :17:48.My Lords, as the House knows, I speak as one who very much regrets

:17:49. > :17:53.the result of the referendum and who now feels that we must put it behind

:17:54. > :17:58.us and we must work to create the best-possible relationship which we

:17:59. > :18:02.can with the European Union. And I feel that this amendment is muddying

:18:03. > :18:09.the waters. I would remind the House of the words of that very wise

:18:10. > :18:15.woman, George Elliott who said "Among all forms of mistake, pro-he

:18:16. > :18:20.iscy is the most gratuitous -- profescy." And this amendment goes

:18:21. > :18:25.down that road. We can have no idea how the negotiations are going to

:18:26. > :18:29.unfold. Personally I feel more optimistic about them than some

:18:30. > :18:33.people, but we can have no idea of how they are going to unfold and we

:18:34. > :18:36.can have no idea what the parliamentary situation, or the

:18:37. > :18:42.situation in the European Union, or anything else, will be in two years'

:18:43. > :18:49.time. We can only be certain of one thing and that is the point made by

:18:50. > :18:53.noble friend, Lord Howard. Now, Lord Howard and I generally speaking

:18:54. > :19:00.disagree on matters relating to Europe but he is of course quite

:19:01. > :19:06.right in the point he made and that is that the will stand or fall by

:19:07. > :19:08.the way in which it conducts these negotiations. Whether there is a

:19:09. > :19:11.deal or whether there isn't a deal, the House of Commons will pass

:19:12. > :19:16.judgment on the Government's performance. It will either support

:19:17. > :19:20.the Government or it will reject the Government but either way its will

:19:21. > :19:26.will prevail and this is a very simple matter. And that the

:19:27. > :19:31.amendment that we are is being put forward this evening is one that

:19:32. > :19:34.would put in complies a complicated structure which would make it very

:19:35. > :19:38.much more difficult for the House of Commons to assert its authority than

:19:39. > :19:42.would otherwise be the case. The purpose of the amendment, I

:19:43. > :19:46.quitunder stand that, the purpose of the amendment is to enhance the

:19:47. > :19:51.authority of Parliament. But the effect of the amendment would be to

:19:52. > :19:56.diminish the capacity of the House of Commons to hold the Government to

:19:57. > :20:03.account. And for that reason, I hope very much that the House will reject

:20:04. > :20:10.the amendment. My Lords, the amendment... Carry on.

:20:11. > :20:26.Frerge. Front bench. My Lords. Order, order. Order, order. Front

:20:27. > :20:29.bench. My Lords. I think I made it clear and the House has certainly

:20:30. > :20:38.made it clear, it is time for front bench. My Lords we have gone via all

:20:39. > :20:44.kinds of highways, byways, Aunt Sallies and red herrings, mixing my

:20:45. > :20:49.metaphors, no doubt but the central issue of this amendment is the words

:20:50. > :20:55.of my noble friend, Lord Lester, who is the master, ministers or

:20:56. > :20:59.Parliament? And the noble Viscount Lord Hailsham insisted that it was

:21:00. > :21:04.the implementation of taking back control for Parliament. And it

:21:05. > :21:13.shouldn't be taking back control for the executive. Parliament should be

:21:14. > :21:16.in charge, in the driving seat. And there have been various criticisms

:21:17. > :21:23.of the amendment which seemed to me to be more properly directed at the

:21:24. > :21:28.Prime Minister's assurance in the white paper, because - and I think

:21:29. > :21:31.the noble Lord, Lord Pannick originally used this phrase, "It

:21:32. > :21:39.gives the Prime Minister what she asked for." And to call, in the

:21:40. > :21:45.words of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Orford, it adds to the

:21:46. > :21:50.complexity, no, it was said that it made it more complicated and muddied

:21:51. > :21:54.the water, well then why did the Prime Minister pledge approval by

:21:55. > :22:00.both Houses of Parliament? As the noble Lord, Lord Cormac said and I

:22:01. > :22:06.think the noble lady, Baroness Mackintosh, this is putting an

:22:07. > :22:10.assurance, an undertaking, given by the Prime Minister, into a statutory

:22:11. > :22:20.obligation and it is wise and sensible so to do. And there is no

:22:21. > :22:25.basis whatsoever for the assertion, made by Lord Lawson, Lord Forsyth

:22:26. > :22:31.and right, Reverend pry mate, the Archbishop of York, that it would

:22:32. > :22:38.give this House a veto. The Government - given that the Prime

:22:39. > :22:41.Minister offered to give approval by both Houses of Parliament,

:22:42. > :22:45.presumably the Prime Minister - and she shared this with the Government,

:22:46. > :22:50.knows how that would work. And it is for the Government to deal with that

:22:51. > :22:55.process which, it could, of course, as other noble Lords have mentioned

:22:56. > :23:06.- be avoided if there was primary legislation, because then the roles

:23:07. > :23:10.are clear. The noble lady counselled against an amendment which gives

:23:11. > :23:16.Parliament power, which I found a strange piece of advice. Surely

:23:17. > :23:21.Parliament has the right to such power as we possess under the

:23:22. > :23:27.constitution but it seems to be that it is not normal to have

:23:28. > :23:33.parliamentary power in some kind of parallel universe that Brexit has

:23:34. > :23:38.created. It does not weaken the Government's bargaining position.

:23:39. > :23:43.The statement "I've got to get it past my legislators." Is perfectly

:23:44. > :23:46.good enough for a US President or EU negotiators and it should be more

:23:47. > :23:53.than good enough for the British Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord

:23:54. > :24:01.Hill said that our EU parters in read our debates. Yes, they might

:24:02. > :24:06.well do and they will in this case. But they know that we in this

:24:07. > :24:12.Parliament want a really substantial content to a future relationship. We

:24:13. > :24:17.might even stitch the Government's backbone in the negotiations. And I

:24:18. > :24:22.agree with the noble lady Baroness Symons, that getting the best deal

:24:23. > :24:27.and parliamentary sovereignty, far from being in conflict, go

:24:28. > :24:32.hand-in-hand. Finally, Brexiteers seem to claim it is a wicked plot by

:24:33. > :24:37.Remainers, but in fact some of them seem to find Parliament an

:24:38. > :24:42.inconvenient obstacle to their dream of crashing out of the EU altogether

:24:43. > :24:47.because they want the Government to be able to action no deal and they

:24:48. > :24:53.don't want Parliament to be able to say - hang on, is that actually a

:24:54. > :24:59.good idea? And that is why this amendment is extremely valid.

:25:00. > :25:02.My Lords, I feel we have actually heard this afternoon a really

:25:03. > :25:09.compelling case for what is actually quite a simple demand. The right of

:25:10. > :25:13.Parliament, rather than Government, to authorise the arrangements

:25:14. > :25:17.whereby the Article 50 negotiations conclude. Indeed, in fact no

:25:18. > :25:23.additional words probably are needed to strengthen the case made by the

:25:24. > :25:29.noble Lord, Lord Pannick, or indeed many of the others who have spoken.

:25:30. > :25:38.I won't mention them all, but you will forgive me for mentioning some,

:25:39. > :25:45.Baroness Symons, Baroness Altman, Baroness Mcinstore and Baroness

:25:46. > :25:51.Ludford and I must mention Baroness Seull, although she sadly wasn't

:25:52. > :25:57.able to support the case and essentially it is about implementing

:25:58. > :26:00.the Supreme Court view that withdrawal would require

:26:01. > :26:06.parliamentary authorisation. So, my Lords, the argument is

:26:07. > :26:09.straightforward, as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine said, it secures in

:26:10. > :26:14.law the Government's commitment that Parliament is the ultimate decider.

:26:15. > :26:19.Very shortly, maybe even next week, the Prime Minister will trigger

:26:20. > :26:25.Article 50 of the Treaty but neither that Treaty nor indeed any UK law

:26:26. > :26:33.states how the arrangements made by our Government should be made into

:26:34. > :26:37.law. What is written in the Treaty, in EU law, in other words, is that

:26:38. > :26:41.the final agreement will go to the Council and the European Parliament.

:26:42. > :26:46.So it is mandatory for that Parliament to give its consent but

:26:47. > :26:53.there is no similar requirement for this Parliament to give its consent.

:26:54. > :26:59.The Prime Minister has said she will allow a vote in both Houses and as

:27:00. > :27:04.the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth quoting Mr Jones saying it was the intent

:27:05. > :27:10.but that to me is not a very firm commitment, no matter how sincerely

:27:11. > :27:13.it was given. Indeed, when the noble Lord the Minster in committee said

:27:14. > :27:17.that the Government's oral commitment mirrors the powers of the

:27:18. > :27:23.European Parliament, he wasn't exactly right. Because their power

:27:24. > :27:28.is written in law. So, my Lords, all we are asking is for an equal

:27:29. > :27:33.legislative requirement for the exit deal to come to Parliament. It's

:27:34. > :27:45.basically about Crown prerogative against Parliament. And if I could

:27:46. > :27:48.turn twoeft Lothian - no, not the West Lothian question, the Growcott

:27:49. > :27:55.question. He no longer has a constituency. We'll have to call it

:27:56. > :28:00.the question and indeed raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. Now, my

:28:01. > :28:06.Lord, it is true that whether we are looking at the undertaking given by

:28:07. > :28:09.the Prime Minister, or this amendment, there would indeed be a

:28:10. > :28:15.problem if the House of Commons was to vote one way and your Lord ships'

:28:16. > :28:18.House another. I hope that isn't the case for lots of reasons,

:28:19. > :28:22.particularly, I hope by then, not just the country but Parliament has

:28:23. > :28:33.come together and we are of one view. Hear hear. But may I make it

:28:34. > :28:37.clear from these benches that if there was to be an outcome, we are

:28:38. > :28:41.absolutely clear that ultimately the will of the Commons must prevail.

:28:42. > :28:45.Hear hear. Furthermore f that is the only argument, given against this

:28:46. > :28:49.amendment - if that is the only argument.

:28:50. > :28:53.Can I conclude this? Then there are two ways of answering that. One is

:28:54. > :28:57.that we do a bit of hurried work this evening and we do an amendment,

:28:58. > :29:03.and if the Government was willing to accept that, that might be the

:29:04. > :29:09.easiest way to do, keeping all my friends here late into the night,

:29:10. > :29:15.however may not be the best way of achieving that end. And what we

:29:16. > :29:18.wouldn't want to is to risk voting down the idea of Commons' supremacy

:29:19. > :29:24.just because, very sensibly, everyone was back in their beds.

:29:25. > :29:29.But, the real issue is to get this principle into this Bill and down

:29:30. > :29:33.the road into the Commons and on approximate behalf of the

:29:34. > :29:38.Opposition, if that is the onlip point of dispute between us, given

:29:39. > :29:42.that we want the supremacy to be down there, rather than here, then

:29:43. > :29:47.we will happily work with the Government on a form of words to

:29:48. > :29:57.make that absolutely crystal clear. Hear hear. Be very brief. But

:29:58. > :30:03.bearing in mind the emphasis she has put quite rightly on the two Houses

:30:04. > :30:07.coming together, would it really be intrisically so nerve-wrecking,

:30:08. > :30:11.fearful and awesome for the Commons to, for once, accept a Lords'

:30:12. > :30:17.amendment like this? I think the Commons could certainly accept this

:30:18. > :30:23.amendment, albeit, I'm happy with the tweak to enforce, or to make

:30:24. > :30:27.certain the Commons' amendment. I think the most important thing is to

:30:28. > :30:29.get this amendment on the face of the bill so that we are absolutely

:30:30. > :30:40.clear about that. It's so simple, whatever the outcome

:30:41. > :30:44.of the negotiations, its parliament, not simply the government where

:30:45. > :30:49.authority lies, deal or no deal. I'm afraid I did not follow the minister

:30:50. > :30:52.'s response on this last week in committee. Questioning what would

:30:53. > :30:59.happen if the EU terminates the talks and refuses to extend the

:31:00. > :31:06.negotiations. He asked what then, it's pretty simple. Come back to

:31:07. > :31:11.Parliament. My Lords, stranger still is that the briefing coming out of

:31:12. > :31:15.number ten, with advisers arguing that giving legislators the power to

:31:16. > :31:19.veto the final Brexit deal and send the premier back to the negotiating

:31:20. > :31:26.table would undermine her and limit the possibility of a good deal.

:31:27. > :31:31.Indeed even pushing the EU to give bad Brexit deal. Incentivising at

:31:32. > :31:35.its seams in the hope it stops us leaving. That is what the Downing

:31:36. > :31:41.Street apparently told the Financial Times and I always believe the

:31:42. > :31:44.Financial Times. May I again remind the house that it was Theresa May

:31:45. > :31:50.who said that the deal would be put to a vote in both houses. So all of

:31:51. > :31:57.this is nonsense, the only issue is whether it is an undertaking in the

:31:58. > :32:04.Bill. All we are doing in this amendment is to put her pledge, I am

:32:05. > :32:07.absolutely sincerely given, I am not questioning that, put it on the face

:32:08. > :32:15.of the bell. It is hardly starting a revolution. It's certainly not

:32:16. > :32:19.ending the referendum. Any arguments that I think are actually in bad

:32:20. > :32:26.faith because what we are trying to do is put the Prime Minister's

:32:27. > :32:30.undertaking on the face of the bell. We do not want the government hands

:32:31. > :32:34.to be forced by the courts, we want people to be clearly in the bill

:32:35. > :32:38.ideally with the government 's blessing without even the need for

:32:39. > :32:43.us to divide because they need to provide the certainty at this stage

:32:44. > :32:49.so we are not back having this debate in 18 months' time. It's

:32:50. > :32:57.about authorising parliament, it is to put wheels on the outcome of the

:32:58. > :33:00.referendum. My Lords, the debate this afternoon has shown this house

:33:01. > :33:06.at its very, very best and I would like to thank all the noble lords

:33:07. > :33:10.who have spoken. After I think 44 hours of debate it shows how

:33:11. > :33:14.spritely your Lordships are. I would like briefly before I discussed the

:33:15. > :33:17.amendment is to set out three core principles governing our approach to

:33:18. > :33:23.this country's withdrawal from the European Union. First, the

:33:24. > :33:27.government is determined to honour and deliver on the result of the

:33:28. > :33:33.referendum. The United Kingdom is going to leave the European Union.

:33:34. > :33:38.Second, everything we do will be determined by our national interest.

:33:39. > :33:45.And we shall do nothing my Lords to undermine it. Third, parliamentary

:33:46. > :33:49.sovereignty is key. Parliament will have a role in scrutinising the

:33:50. > :33:53.government throughout the negotiations and in making

:33:54. > :33:58.decisions. A point on which I will return. Given this my Lords, let me

:33:59. > :34:08.now turn to the rationale and the motives behind my noble friend 's

:34:09. > :34:14.amendments. One basic tent is that the government should be legally

:34:15. > :34:16.bound on its commitment to give Parliament vote on the agreement and

:34:17. > :34:21.that government commitment is crystal clear will stop let me

:34:22. > :34:25.repeat it, to bring forward a motion on the final agreement to be

:34:26. > :34:30.approved by both houses of Parliament before it is concluded.

:34:31. > :34:33.We expect and intend that this will happen before the European

:34:34. > :34:41.Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement. So my large, the

:34:42. > :34:49.need for my noble friend 's amendment and the faster the clauses

:34:50. > :34:54.of the amendment comes down to a judgment as to whether ministers and

:34:55. > :34:59.the government can be trusted and for one to consider the consequences

:35:00. > :35:06.if the government were not to deliver on this commitment. All I

:35:07. > :35:10.can say is that of course we will honour our promise. And Parliament

:35:11. > :35:16.will hold the government to account for doing so. Let me go further,

:35:17. > :35:21.echoing a point very well made by my noble friend Lord Howard. At any

:35:22. > :35:26.point throughout this process Parliament will be able to express

:35:27. > :35:31.its views. Now my Lords, given all of this, the other place was happy

:35:32. > :35:37.with the state of affairs, they considered and rejected similar

:35:38. > :35:42.amendments. Furthermore Parliament will not be providing scrutiny in

:35:43. > :35:46.the dark. After all my Lords, this government has committed to keeping

:35:47. > :35:49.the UK Parliament at least as well-informed as the European

:35:50. > :35:53.Parliament as the negotiations progress. The government will

:35:54. > :35:58.continue to be accountable to Parliament by regular statements

:35:59. > :36:02.which I so enjoy, debates and select committee appearances and crucially

:36:03. > :36:07.Parliament's role will not be just one of scrutiny. My Lords, it will

:36:08. > :36:11.make decisions and shape the legislation required to give effect

:36:12. > :36:17.to our withdrawal from the European Union. The great repeal Bill and

:36:18. > :36:21.also legislation that will be required for significant policy

:36:22. > :36:27.changes such as an immigration and Customs. So with the greatest of

:36:28. > :36:34.respect to both my noble friend's, any amendment which attempts to

:36:35. > :36:37.transcribe the commitment into legislation is unnecessary. More

:36:38. > :36:42.than being unnecessary, and amendment which sought to put this

:36:43. > :36:45.commitment on the face of the bill could have unintended consequences

:36:46. > :36:51.and create as has been said a lucrative field day for lawyers. But

:36:52. > :36:56.I do not want to single out any particular lawyer in particular.

:36:57. > :37:02.Even now I have one in mind. As was so will put at committee, regulating

:37:03. > :37:09.parliamentary proceedings by statute generally ends in some sort of

:37:10. > :37:12.tears. Other noble Lords have lasted someone might argue whether we need

:37:13. > :37:16.an act of Parliament to authorise our exit from the European Union and

:37:17. > :37:20.whether this bill is sufficient for our withdrawal. My Lords, the

:37:21. > :37:26.requirements of the judgment are entirely filled by this bill. The

:37:27. > :37:30.Supreme Court ruled that because withdrawal from the EU revolves

:37:31. > :37:34.removing a source of domestic law in the UK and because of the far

:37:35. > :37:38.reaching effects of the European communities act, the authority of

:37:39. > :37:43.primary legislation was needed before the government could decide

:37:44. > :37:50.to give notice under article 50. The Supreme Court did not rule that

:37:51. > :37:52.anything further was required to satisfy our constitutional

:37:53. > :38:01.requirements. Let me now turn them to Klaus four of amendment three,

:38:02. > :38:09.there is something about Labour and Klaus four, but we'll put that to

:38:10. > :38:14.one side. The motive behind this was summarised at committee and it was

:38:15. > :38:18.said at committee, "Is Parliament should decide whether we leave the

:38:19. > :38:22.European Union with no agreement, or whether we leave the European Union

:38:23. > :38:25.with whatever agreement is being offered to us by the European Union

:38:26. > :38:32.that the government thinks is unacceptable". This clause goes

:38:33. > :38:36.beyond what the government has committed to in the other place.

:38:37. > :38:42.There are several problems my Lords with this clause. The first concerns

:38:43. > :38:47.the government 's role as a negotiator and one of my first

:38:48. > :38:51.principles, protecting our national interest. When considering this

:38:52. > :38:56.amendment we must ask ourselves whether it will strengthen or and

:38:57. > :39:03.the government 's hand at the negotiating table. Remember the wise

:39:04. > :39:07.words of the house select committee, the government will conduct the

:39:08. > :39:13.negotiations on the half of the United Kingdom and like any

:39:14. > :39:18.negotiator it will need room to manoeuvre if it is to secure a good

:39:19. > :39:22.outcome. Let us not forget the motion passed by the other place,

:39:23. > :39:26.that nothing should be done to undermine the negotiating position

:39:27. > :39:32.of the government. But this clause in this amendment my Lords would

:39:33. > :39:36.just that. Let me continue please, by denying the Prime Minister's

:39:37. > :39:40.ability to walk away from the negotiating table as Klaus four

:39:41. > :39:46.would do this would only incentivise the European Union to do to offer us

:39:47. > :39:50.a bad deal. The European Union must see there are a number of people in

:39:51. > :39:56.Parliament to do think any deal is better than no deal. We have heard

:39:57. > :40:01.some argue just now that to go to WTO terms would be bad for Britain.

:40:02. > :40:03.Therefore surely my Lords this amendment simply makes the

:40:04. > :40:08.negotiations much harder from the first day for the Prime Minister as

:40:09. > :40:13.it increases the incentive for the European Union to offer nothing but

:40:14. > :40:18.a bad deal. I know some have argued that this clause will strengthen the

:40:19. > :40:23.government's hand. They say that this is like a CEO saying my board

:40:24. > :40:28.will not agree with that deal. But this analogy is not correct, most

:40:29. > :40:34.boards would say, we want to do a deal but not at any price. In this

:40:35. > :40:39.case, a number of parliamentarians are seeing any deal is better than

:40:40. > :40:44.no deal. So my Lords I would argue this approach would weaken the

:40:45. > :40:47.government position. But that is not the only problem, the amendment,

:40:48. > :40:53.forgive me, the amendment is clear on one thing, one thing only.

:40:54. > :40:57.Namely, if Parliament agrees with the Prime Minister that no deal is

:40:58. > :41:00.better than the terms on offer the United Kingdom will leave with the

:41:01. > :41:06.Europe, will leave the European Union without a deal but my Lords,

:41:07. > :41:16.it is unclear, totally unclear on what happens if the house says no to

:41:17. > :41:20.walking away. As the noble and learned friends asked, what path

:41:21. > :41:23.muster premised then take? Is cheap to accept the terms on offer? Is she

:41:24. > :41:28.being told to secure a better deal and if so what would happen if that

:41:29. > :41:33.cannot be achieved before the end of the two year period? Or my Lords in

:41:34. > :41:38.the silence on this matter is she to find a means to remain a member of

:41:39. > :41:43.the European Union? My Lords we do not know any of these points and my

:41:44. > :41:51.Lords my noble friend Lord Forsyth was entirely right to highlight

:41:52. > :41:55.this. The government cannot possibly accept an amendment which is so

:41:56. > :41:58.unclear on an issue of this importance, on what the Prime

:41:59. > :42:03.Minister is to do if Parliament votes against leaving with no

:42:04. > :42:08.agreement. With that risk let us remember at the first principle I

:42:09. > :42:15.stated, the government is intent on delivering on the result of the

:42:16. > :42:23.referendum. As a matter of foreign policy, and I almost turned to have

:42:24. > :42:29.the words repeated, as a matter of foreign policy, Article 50 will not

:42:30. > :42:34.be revoked and so my Lords any question of whether Article 50 is

:42:35. > :42:38.legally reversible is irrelevant to the government. The parliamentary

:42:39. > :42:42.vote we have promised will be a very meaningful vote, we will leave with

:42:43. > :42:48.a deal we will leave without a deal. That my Lords is the choice on offer

:42:49. > :42:53.but the choice offered by this amendment is unclear. So my Lords,

:42:54. > :42:58.let me end by repeating line one of the White Paper, we do not approach

:42:59. > :43:03.these negotiations expecting failure but anticipating success. Our clear

:43:04. > :43:07.intent as I said is to negotiate and new partnership with the European

:43:08. > :43:11.Union which enables us and Europe to continue to trade freely together

:43:12. > :43:16.and to cooperate and collaborate where it is in our interests.

:43:17. > :43:21.Parliament will decide on whether to accept or reject the agreement. The

:43:22. > :43:26.purpose of this simple bill is to deliver on the results of the

:43:27. > :43:30.referendum and to leave the EU but these amendments are unnecessary.

:43:31. > :43:34.They are damaging to our national interest, they would create

:43:35. > :43:38.uncertainty and may be used by some to block the wish of the British

:43:39. > :43:42.people to leave the European Union. For these reasons my Lords I hope

:43:43. > :43:48.the noble Lords will withdraw their amendment. Lords, I am very grateful

:43:49. > :43:55.to all noble Lords who have contributed to this very full debate

:43:56. > :44:00.and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, the minister, the

:44:01. > :44:04.whole house recognises the skill and the expertise and indeed the

:44:05. > :44:09.patients with which he has piloted this bill through the house and he

:44:10. > :44:14.will need all those qualities over the next two years and I'm sure

:44:15. > :44:19.whole house wishes him the best of luck. Lords, the essence of this

:44:20. > :44:23.amendment is very clear, it has been clear from the start, it simply

:44:24. > :44:30.seeks to ensure that Parliament and not ministers have control over the

:44:31. > :44:36.terms of our withdrawal at the end of the negotiating process. I find

:44:37. > :44:43.it disappointing that those who most loudly asserted the importance of

:44:44. > :44:49.the sovereignty of Parliament during the referendum campaign are now so

:44:50. > :44:54.alarmed by the prospect of the sovereignty of Parliament at the end

:44:55. > :45:01.of the process. My Lords, we have had a very full debate, the minister

:45:02. > :45:07.says and undertaken has been given an clause 1-3 and therefore this

:45:08. > :45:12.amendment is not needed, but on a matter of this importance, and

:45:13. > :45:18.undertaken is no substitute for a commitment in legislation. My Lords,

:45:19. > :45:23.on sub-clause four it surely must be for Parliament, not ministers to

:45:24. > :45:24.decide whether we leave on no terms or on the terms which have been

:45:25. > :45:37.offered. My Lords, the minister concluded

:45:38. > :45:40.that the approval would be needed by both Houses of Parliament and it was

:45:41. > :45:46.north of the argument advanced by the minister in his winding up

:45:47. > :45:50.speech to express any concern about the primacy of the House of Commons

:45:51. > :45:54.not being recognised by this amendment. If the Government do

:45:55. > :45:59.believe that that is a problem and if we pass this amendment, then the

:46:00. > :46:03.Government are perfectly able to put a revise the amendment before the

:46:04. > :46:07.other place next week. My Lords, your Lordships have heard the

:46:08. > :46:13.argument, it is now time to test the opinion of the House. My Lords, the

:46:14. > :46:19.question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that

:46:20. > :49:37.opinion will say content. The contrary not content. Clear the bar.

:49:38. > :49:48.My Lords, the question is that Amendment 3 be agreed, to as many of

:49:49. > :49:58.that opinion will say Content. CONTENT The contrary Not Content.

:49:59. > :50:06.NOT CONTENT. The contents will go to the right by the throne. : the not

:50:07. > :55:42.contents to the left by the scoot bar. -- by the Bar.

:55:43. > :06:25.My Lords, the question is that Amendment 3 be agreed to.

:06:26. > :06:44.My Lords content, 366, not content 268 saw the content's habit. -- have

:06:45. > :06:49.it. Amendment four, amendment five, I think if we might have just pause,

:06:50. > :07:33.others might want to leave this stage.

:07:34. > :07:43.I wish to speak to amendment five. Can I reassure your Lordships that

:07:44. > :07:52.this is more in a probing amendment and I do not intend to consider

:07:53. > :07:56.dividing on it. The Belfast Good Friday agreement of 1998 endorsed

:07:57. > :07:59.also by a referendum in Northern Ireland included the rights of

:08:00. > :08:05.people who were born in Northern Ireland to choose to be Irish or

:08:06. > :08:09.British or choose to be both. Some choose to exercise exclusively one

:08:10. > :08:14.of them. Indeed a British citizen whose parents were born in Ireland

:08:15. > :08:18.could, as many have done since the referendum, apply for an Irish

:08:19. > :08:22.passport without giving up their British citizenship because British

:08:23. > :08:27.citizens are also allowed to hold dual citizenship. This means you do

:08:28. > :08:30.not have the renown sure British citizenship to apply for an Irish

:08:31. > :08:35.passport. But for those who choose to be British and Irish or just

:08:36. > :08:41.Irish, will be also be citizens of the European Union are as they are

:08:42. > :08:45.now? Presumably because the Minister will of course confirm I am sure

:08:46. > :08:51.that Irish citizenship automatically confers EU citizenship rights, saw

:08:52. > :08:56.that right to be a of the European Union will presumably remain. Can we

:08:57. > :09:02.presume the EU would not object to EU citizen status or Irish citizens,

:09:03. > :09:06.not only living in the Republic but also in Northern Ireland in what

:09:07. > :09:11.will be after Brexit part of a non-member state, the United

:09:12. > :09:14.Kingdom. Will those born in Northern Ireland claiming Irish Ederson 's

:09:15. > :09:22.remain EU citizens obey living outside the EU? Can we presume it

:09:23. > :09:26.will be like someone being able to apply for dual French and British

:09:27. > :09:30.citizenship, if they were British with French parents for example, as

:09:31. > :09:34.long as France remained in the European Union the French

:09:35. > :09:40.citizenship would confer at the right EU citizenship by extension.

:09:41. > :09:46.For Northern Ireland this will apply to a whole society, and not just

:09:47. > :09:49.individuals claiming European citizenship through relatives. Can

:09:50. > :09:55.the Minister give a guarantee that this right is maintained for people

:09:56. > :09:58.from Northern Ireland. At all a comment EU identity has helped the

:09:59. > :10:04.nationalists and unionists focus on what they have in common rather than

:10:05. > :10:08.what has for centuries divided them. Irish citizenship may also be

:10:09. > :10:13.available for those whose grandparents were born on the island

:10:14. > :10:17.which includes Northern Ireland. I note the report of the excellent

:10:18. > :10:22.House of Lords European Union committee on page 32 which said we

:10:23. > :10:26.also consider the impact of Brexit on the current reciprocal rights for

:10:27. > :10:30.UK and Irish citizens to live and work in each other's countries. Such

:10:31. > :10:35.rights are underpinned in domestic law by the treatment of Irish

:10:36. > :10:40.nationals as non-foreigners under the Ireland act 1949 and the

:10:41. > :10:43.acknowledgement of their special status in subsequent legislation

:10:44. > :10:49.including the immigration act 1971 as well as by the provisions of

:10:50. > :10:52.British nationality act 1981 in addition under the terms of the

:10:53. > :10:56.Belfast Good Friday agreement the people of Northern Ireland have the

:10:57. > :11:02.right to identify as British, Irish or both and to claim citizenship

:11:03. > :11:05.accordingly. Those who claim Irish citizenship would by extension be

:11:06. > :11:12.able to claim EU citizenship. That is what the European union committee

:11:13. > :11:19.said. Last week I raised the thorny issue of the border in the context

:11:20. > :11:23.of Brexit. Nationalists and above all Republican by in to the peace

:11:24. > :11:27.process has been cemented by an open borders since it normalises

:11:28. > :11:31.relations between both parts. For them it is iconic and free unionists

:11:32. > :11:37.either doing business are going about their daily lives it is also

:11:38. > :11:41.extremely valuable. Similarly the right to be Irish has been a key

:11:42. > :11:46.part of the Northern Ireland peace process. Furthermore does the

:11:47. > :11:49.government agree with me that it is vital to retain and guarantee that

:11:50. > :11:55.right, not just for those who currently enjoy it but for future

:11:56. > :12:00.generations as well. Categorical assurances on all of these are

:12:01. > :12:04.especially important after first the collapse of the power-sharing

:12:05. > :12:08.executive into an election and then a seismic result in which for the

:12:09. > :12:15.first time since 1922, unionists do not have a majority in the local

:12:16. > :12:22.legislature. Is there hope that the two charismatic new female leaders

:12:23. > :12:29.can broker a common ground with the DUP leaders to rescue a devolved

:12:30. > :12:33.government? It is striking how male dominance in Northern Ireland's

:12:34. > :12:37.politics has been vanquished. Meanwhile the issue of how to deal

:12:38. > :12:43.with Northern Ireland's troubled and tangled past remains toxic. Long

:12:44. > :12:46.retired British soldiers are being prosecuted provoking outrage amongst

:12:47. > :12:51.families and unionists who perceive what they see as unjustified focus

:12:52. > :12:58.on the state 's role in the conflict. What about prosecutions of

:12:59. > :13:03.former IRA assassins is the. Both magnanimity and mutual respect is

:13:04. > :13:07.needed otherwise Northern Ireland will get bogged down in its past

:13:08. > :13:13.rather than supporting victims and building a new future at a time of

:13:14. > :13:16.great Brexit uncertainty. To conclude, can I asked that the

:13:17. > :13:25.Minister devs are proper and full explanation and guarantee about the

:13:26. > :13:30.entitlement of people from Northern Ireland. The European Union has in

:13:31. > :13:32.the past been very supportive in recognising Northern Ireland's

:13:33. > :13:41.unique status and will certainly have to be supported in the future.

:13:42. > :13:50.Insert a new clause in the words as printed. I am very pleased to follow

:13:51. > :13:53.my noble colleague and former Secretary of State for Northern

:13:54. > :14:01.Ireland in supporting this amendment. I would merely point out,

:14:02. > :14:05.I think this is the third former Secretary of State certainly from

:14:06. > :14:10.these benches to have supported the sentiments of this amendment since

:14:11. > :14:15.my noble friend Lord Murphy also spoke on this last week. I do not

:14:16. > :14:23.intend to address it in such detail as my noble colleague Lord Hain

:14:24. > :14:30.because I want to confine my remarks, focus on three or four

:14:31. > :14:35.strategic issues which I think are vitally important. We have spent a

:14:36. > :14:41.great deal of time thinking and worrying, correctly, about the

:14:42. > :14:47.implications of Brexit for Scotland and in my view not nearly enough

:14:48. > :14:51.time thinking about the implications not only for Northern Ireland but

:14:52. > :14:58.the whole of Ireland and our relationship which over the past 20

:14:59. > :15:04.years we have built in contrast to centuries prior to its of animosity

:15:05. > :15:08.and antagonism. Therefore I would like to make a few points which I

:15:09. > :15:10.hope ministers will convey to their colleagues in the spirit that my

:15:11. > :15:22.noble colleague did earlier on. The first of this is if the whole

:15:23. > :15:30.question of immigration is so central to the Government's view on

:15:31. > :15:38.Brexit, and indeed they would imply to the public's view, then we ought

:15:39. > :15:42.to be very careful that we pay sufficient attention to the fact

:15:43. > :15:47.that the border between Europe and the United Kingdom will be across

:15:48. > :15:53.the border between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland. And I say

:15:54. > :15:57.that, of course, because the Government say to us - but there

:15:58. > :16:03.will not be a hard border, we have no intention of bringing back a hard

:16:04. > :16:06.border, by which they mean - noticing who passes from the South

:16:07. > :16:12.to the North on the island of Ireland. I put it to the Government

:16:13. > :16:18.their own logic suggests if they have no way of telling who is moving

:16:19. > :16:25.from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland, it is really

:16:26. > :16:28.difficult for them to ensure the British people are somehow going to

:16:29. > :16:31.have control of immigration. So, I hope the minister will be able to

:16:32. > :16:39.tell us how he squares that particular circle but that is not

:16:40. > :16:42.just a matter of control of the numbers of immigration, of course,

:16:43. > :16:46.it's a question of security as well. Because, if we are going to have

:16:47. > :16:49.this dreadfully soft border between Europe, and in particular the

:16:50. > :16:55.shengin area of Europe, to which I accept the Republic of Ireland is

:16:56. > :17:00.not a member, then we must, almost by definition, enhance the security

:17:01. > :17:08.threat, compared to the preexisting position. And it's also, in terms of

:17:09. > :17:14.immigration, of extreme importance to Northern Ireland's economy and

:17:15. > :17:23.industries. As we know, the province came through an extremely difficult

:17:24. > :17:28.period of 30 years - actually in some ways, since 1168, since we

:17:29. > :17:33.first arrived in that island, having run out of land on the mainland of

:17:34. > :17:40.England and sailed into the estuary at Wexford and declared, with 400

:17:41. > :17:46.soldiers "it will be all over in a month." We have had a long history

:17:47. > :17:52.of conflict and war there. And in the past ten to 15 years, Northern

:17:53. > :17:55.Ireland has prospered. It is completely different now from what

:17:56. > :18:01.it was, largely by reason of the development of the economy and the

:18:02. > :18:12.introduction of equality in the Province of Ulster. But many of

:18:13. > :18:15.those industries are entirely depend ient of bringing the best brains of

:18:16. > :18:21.Europe to Northern Ireland. Something that didn't happen for

:18:22. > :18:25.deck kands if we are not very care -- for decades, and if we are not

:18:26. > :18:28.very careful, we will not be in the position where not only the best

:18:29. > :18:32.brains are not coming to Northern Ireland but where Northern Ireland

:18:33. > :18:38.companies are moving 50 or 100 miles south of the border into Ireland

:18:39. > :18:44.itself and it'll do un-Todd damage to the economy of Northern Ireland.

:18:45. > :18:50.Untold damage. The second question is fiscal difference s. It is easy

:18:51. > :18:54.to say we'll have a soft border but if you have arrangement say that

:18:55. > :18:59.have a vast variation in taxation in the North, compared to the South,

:19:00. > :19:03.then there will be a very profitable industry for bringing goods into the

:19:04. > :19:08.North and making a lot of money out of it. It may surprise ministers,

:19:09. > :19:12.but this is how a lot of the terrorism in Northern Ireland was

:19:13. > :19:23.funded. I won't go into detail on that, but merely to say anecdotally

:19:24. > :19:28.that it was a very good idea to own a couple of fields that straddled

:19:29. > :19:32.the border under your own ownership and anecdotally it is said that some

:19:33. > :19:40.of the people who did so parked oil tankers at the bottom of their field

:19:41. > :19:47.at dusk, which had mysteriously moved to the top of the field by day

:19:48. > :19:50.break, thus causing a great deal of surplus, because of the taxation

:19:51. > :19:55.differences between the North and the South. That problem will rise

:19:56. > :20:01.again - smuggling and as I said, industries moving South. And

:20:02. > :20:08.finally, what my noble colleague referred to, the Good Friday

:20:09. > :20:16.Agreement. I will also call it the Belfast Agreement. The - as the

:20:17. > :20:21.Minster knows there are two names for many things in Northern Ireland,

:20:22. > :20:26.and if you use the wrong name you are accused of having a preference

:20:27. > :20:31.one way or the other. So Derry and Londonderry and the Good Friday

:20:32. > :20:35.Agreement and Belfast Agreement have to be encompassed in phraseology in

:20:36. > :20:39.order to prove neutrality. But whatever you call that agreement, it

:20:40. > :20:44.was historic and my worry about that is not just that it'll create the

:20:45. > :20:49.perception that we are abandoning the rights and liberties which could

:20:50. > :20:53.be guaranteed by recourse to the European Parliament. That I think is

:20:54. > :20:58.arguable. I don't believe that will happen. I believe that this is such

:20:59. > :21:04.an entrenched and embedded, historic agreement that those rights will be

:21:05. > :21:09.maintained. Nevertheless, perception will grow, but more importantly,

:21:10. > :21:23.although it was never articulated in explicit terms, the fact is that the

:21:24. > :21:26.all-Ireland dimension of the Good Friday Agreement-Belfast-agreement

:21:27. > :21:29.was absolutely essential that it brought all sides into T nationals,

:21:30. > :21:36.republicans, the unionists and loyalists, so that Northern Ireland

:21:37. > :21:39.stood as part of the United wing dom but the -- United Kingdom but the

:21:40. > :21:55.solution to the problem was to encompass the all-Ireland dimension

:21:56. > :21:57.of it and that all-Ireland dimension was underpinned by our dual

:21:58. > :22:04.membership of the European Union. And therefore the divorce of the

:22:05. > :22:07.European Union and the United Kingdom raises very serious issues

:22:08. > :22:12.for the ministers, not just in the legal niceties of it but in the

:22:13. > :22:15.underlying atmospherics and the all-Ireland dimension. Nigh noble

:22:16. > :22:20.friend has made plain he does not intend to push this to a vote and

:22:21. > :22:24.I'm glad about that and it is put in the spirit with which the Good

:22:25. > :22:31.Friday Agreement was conducted and that is all parties on all sides, on

:22:32. > :22:36.all parts of this island, as well as all parts of the island of Ireland,

:22:37. > :22:46.advising each other as we see fit on the best way to avoid big, big traps

:22:47. > :22:50.and to ensure the prosperity of Northern Ireland and of the Good

:22:51. > :22:54.Friday and Belfast-agreement. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord for

:22:55. > :22:59.tabling this amendment. Although I think things may not be quite as

:23:00. > :23:04.difficult as he imagines, in that many of us, and I declare an

:23:05. > :23:09.interest, our right of Irish citizenship is not contingent on the

:23:10. > :23:13.Belfast Agreement T goes back much further to the establishment of the

:23:14. > :23:17.common travel area and in order to set my own mind at rest, I actually

:23:18. > :23:24.checked with the Irish Embassy after the Brexit vote to make sure of my

:23:25. > :23:27.own status, I was born in County Antrim during the war years and the

:23:28. > :23:34.answer is - you are a citizen, you have birth right. Now that didn't

:23:35. > :23:38.continue indefinitely but many of us in the North have citizenship by

:23:39. > :23:44.virtue of being born, I think when there was still a territorial claim

:23:45. > :23:47.to the entire Ireland, I see the noble Lord, Lord Empy nodding behind

:23:48. > :23:51.me. So that is actually very important to us, that the numbers we

:23:52. > :23:54.are talking about are rather different from the suggestion that

:23:55. > :24:00.this is a Belfast Agreement creation. However, I think that the

:24:01. > :24:05.underlying problems are every bit as severe as noble Lords have suggested

:24:06. > :24:09.and I think there are three - one is obviously the movement of people and

:24:10. > :24:17.I have to say and I know that many in the Conservative Party think that

:24:18. > :24:22.ID cards are a no-no, but I would suggest that many noble Lords carry

:24:23. > :24:26.mobile phones which give away far more about their identity constantly

:24:27. > :24:32.and I think we should grow up and realise that in the present age,

:24:33. > :24:36.identity and identification is absolutely routine. We need to get

:24:37. > :24:42.it right and enable people to travel. But, my Lords, it is not

:24:43. > :24:46.only in order to identify the persons who have under whatever

:24:47. > :24:52.dispensation we reach, no right to cross into the UK, I'm afraid that

:24:53. > :24:59.this duty would fall upon all of us to be able to identify ourselves

:25:00. > :25:07.probably when we do crucial things like register at a GP's surgery and

:25:08. > :25:12.start a company or buy a property. Not merely when we travel. So I

:25:13. > :25:16.think that topic really needs to be explored in full. The second topic

:25:17. > :25:20.and I believe it is the most awkward of these, is the question of

:25:21. > :25:24.tariffs. Of course, it depends upon the negotiation that we have been

:25:25. > :25:29.talking about at some length today, what sort of issue that has to be,

:25:30. > :25:34.how much of it can be electronic. But make no mistake, the economies

:25:35. > :25:41.are interwoven and it cannot be a fault that you have a long cue at

:25:42. > :25:46.300 border crossings - 260, I think, across 300 miles. That is not a

:25:47. > :25:51.solution. Thirdly my Lords and I think this is a neglected but really

:25:52. > :25:55.important topic, we may expect, in the event of a negotiation, that the

:25:56. > :26:01.agriculture support systems North and South of the Irish border will

:26:02. > :26:05.divert. That creates new incentives to do something that has long been

:26:06. > :26:09.done and of which amusing stories can be told because it isn't only

:26:10. > :26:17.oil tankers that was put into the field it is also of course beasts. I