Browse content similar to 07/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Line | From | To | |
---|---|---|---|
Owen, Gavin Robinson, Michael Tomlinson and myself, sir. | :00:00. | :00:25. | |
I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the order | :00:26. | :00:31. | |
paper. My Lords, according to the latest data from the office for | :00:32. | :00:36. | |
national statistics, income inequality in the UK is at its | :00:37. | :00:42. | |
lowest level since 1986. The key to economic success and to reducing | :00:43. | :00:47. | |
inequality is to improve activity which determines living standards in | :00:48. | :00:51. | |
the long run, that's why the Government has established a | :00:52. | :00:54. | |
national productivity investment fund and published a Green Paper on | :00:55. | :00:59. | |
industrial strategy highlighting the role of improved skills, of | :01:00. | :01:03. | |
infrastructure, investment and of R and D. My Lords, the resolution | :01:04. | :01:09. | |
foundation argues to prevent the biggest increase in inequality since | :01:10. | :01:15. | |
the 1980s, requires a shift in social policy choices, notably the | :01:16. | :01:19. | |
freeze in most working age benefits in the face of rising inflation. | :01:20. | :01:26. | |
Will the Government now follow the advice of Iain Duncan Smith and | :01:27. | :01:31. | |
reconsider the freeze because he warned that it was never intended, | :01:32. | :01:37. | |
it should have such a dramatic impact - effect on incomes, his | :01:38. | :01:43. | |
words. Wouldn't it be the right thing to do to protect low income | :01:44. | :01:46. | |
families in and out of work in this way for a Government that claims to | :01:47. | :01:52. | |
be working for everyone? My Lords, I think we have to have a | :01:53. | :01:57. | |
little bit of context, savings are necessary to reduce borrowing and to | :01:58. | :02:04. | |
put the public finances back on a sustainable footing after the | :02:05. | :02:11. | |
financial crisis and between 1980 and 2014 spending on welfare | :02:12. | :02:19. | |
actually trebled in real terms to ?96 billion whilst GDP increased by | :02:20. | :02:23. | |
much less. Our approach is a different one. We are committed to | :02:24. | :02:31. | |
supporting working families with a whole load of measures, getting | :02:32. | :02:37. | |
people back into work... Thank you. Innovating, growing and putting the | :02:38. | :02:41. | |
country on it a good footing. It's only a forecast from the resolution | :02:42. | :02:44. | |
foundation, forecasts aren't always right and we're determined to make | :02:45. | :02:47. | |
the changes we need for this country. | :02:48. | :02:55. | |
Going back to the exchange about inequality... My Lords, the Minister | :02:56. | :03:02. | |
said whether any assessment has been made of the effect of the national | :03:03. | :03:09. | |
living wage on which inequality and whether there is anything more that | :03:10. | :03:14. | |
can be done in this respect? I thank my Nobel friend, because I | :03:15. | :03:21. | |
believe that the national living wage, brought in in April last year, | :03:22. | :03:28. | |
is a fantastic example of policies that the Government has introduced | :03:29. | :03:32. | |
to make work pay. In terms of looking forward, it will rise again | :03:33. | :03:39. | |
to ?7. 50 next month and it has already given the working, many | :03:40. | :03:43. | |
working people in Britain the fastest pay rise in 20 years. | :03:44. | :03:49. | |
Observers will have noticed that there's a startling contradiction | :03:50. | :03:54. | |
between the presumption in the question that income inequality has | :03:55. | :03:59. | |
been growing very sharply and the resumption in the reply that it's | :04:00. | :04:04. | |
doing the opposite. There are different measures but most of them | :04:05. | :04:08. | |
do think that inequality is growing. Wouldn't it be useful if the ONS did | :04:09. | :04:15. | |
convene a panel of people to get a little more clarity as to why these | :04:16. | :04:21. | |
figures can be banded around with such different descriptions of what | :04:22. | :04:25. | |
is happening. I think the ONS keep is honest, they look at these | :04:26. | :04:31. | |
figures over time and they helpfully update and the OBR forecasts are | :04:32. | :04:34. | |
updated all the time so that we can see what's happening. I would like | :04:35. | :04:38. | |
to come back to the point which is that the resolution foundation is | :04:39. | :04:43. | |
looking at a forecast but if you look at what has happened, five | :04:44. | :04:47. | |
years ago it was predicted, I think by the IFS, that there would be a | :04:48. | :04:52. | |
rise in inequality. In fact, it hasn't happened. Things continued to | :04:53. | :04:59. | |
progress and we have seen a recoveriy and that's what we need to | :05:00. | :05:03. | |
continue by having the right policies which this Government is | :05:04. | :05:07. | |
pursuing under our new Prime Minister. My Lords, I am shocked | :05:08. | :05:13. | |
that the Minister doesn't recognise that young working families are | :05:14. | :05:16. | |
facing serious financial pressure and struggling and that it looks as | :05:17. | :05:19. | |
though it's going to be worse with inflation. But would she agree that | :05:20. | :05:24. | |
part of the reason are the very high rents that most of these families | :05:25. | :05:28. | |
face, and would she be willing in the budget tomorrow to permit local | :05:29. | :05:34. | |
councils to go out and borrow the necessary amounts of money to drive | :05:35. | :05:38. | |
forward development of affordable rental housing. She has often | :05:39. | :05:41. | |
acknowledged that the housing market is broken, but all the Government | :05:42. | :05:45. | |
solutions are on the demand side, supply doesn't increase, especially | :05:46. | :05:50. | |
not in the affordable area. I wouldn't want to steal the | :05:51. | :05:57. | |
Chancellor's thunder today. I think that there is certainly some | :05:58. | :05:59. | |
provision for Prudential borrowing but I would like to come back to the | :06:00. | :06:03. | |
support that we give to working families. The national living wage, | :06:04. | :06:08. | |
already mentioned by my noble friend, that's given the fastest pay | :06:09. | :06:15. | |
rise in 20 years. We have raised the personal allowance to ?12500 by the | :06:16. | :06:19. | |
end of parliament. We are introducing universal credit which | :06:20. | :06:24. | |
has the benefit of making work pay so that you go out and work, you | :06:25. | :06:31. | |
aren't held back by benefit dilemmas. We are committed to make | :06:32. | :06:35. | |
work pay and we believe that is the very best way forward for the people | :06:36. | :06:39. | |
of this country, for hard working families which I agree are our | :06:40. | :06:44. | |
priority. My Lords, the Minister cannot | :06:45. | :06:48. | |
discount the resolution foundation in such a cavalier manner, it | :06:49. | :06:55. | |
produced very - it's got a strong reputation and it produced very real | :06:56. | :07:02. | |
and well-backed analysis. It said that higher incomes will rise but | :07:03. | :07:07. | |
slowly, middle incomes are going to stag and low incomes are going to | :07:08. | :07:12. | |
stall. -- stagnate and low incomes are going to fall. We know how | :07:13. | :07:16. | |
little is the base for low incomes for them to be able to afford to | :07:17. | :07:21. | |
fall without poverty increasing substantially. They say, the | :07:22. | :07:27. | |
foundation says it will be the biggest rise in inequality since the | :07:28. | :07:33. | |
late 1980s. I do not need to remind the House which party was in power | :07:34. | :07:39. | |
during that period and which Prime Minister, many of whose Cabinet | :07:40. | :07:44. | |
members of course are still with us. LAUGHTER | :07:45. | :07:50. | |
I would add that the resolution foundation report also says, which | :07:51. | :07:54. | |
is a point I have been emphasising, that economic forecasts can change | :07:55. | :07:58. | |
dramatically and there is no way of knowing just how the future will | :07:59. | :08:04. | |
play out. I believe that the approach we now have, including | :08:05. | :08:12. | |
industrial strategy, investment in infrastructure, housing, digital, | :08:13. | :08:16. | |
transport, all of this is making a big difference. We have protected | :08:17. | :08:26. | |
the most vulnerable through benefits system which is highly distributive | :08:27. | :08:30. | |
so households get four times in support as spending while they pay | :08:31. | :08:33. | |
in tax whilst the highest pay five times as much in tax as they receive | :08:34. | :08:39. | |
in pay. We want a fairer society and getting workless households into | :08:40. | :08:42. | |
work and improving productivity and skills is to my mind the best way | :08:43. | :08:46. | |
forward. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the | :08:47. | :08:49. | |
question standing in my name on the order paper. | :08:50. | :08:53. | |
My Lords, the Government's White Paper on exiting the EU was | :08:54. | :08:59. | |
published on 2nd February. It sets out the Government's priorities and | :09:00. | :09:02. | |
the broad strategy for exiting the EU and made clear that we will take | :09:03. | :09:06. | |
back control of our own laws. There are a number of options as to how EU | :09:07. | :09:11. | |
immigration might work once we have exited the EU, we are considering | :09:12. | :09:15. | |
those options and will consult businesses and communities. | :09:16. | :09:18. | |
Parliament will also have a critical role to play. Of course the main | :09:19. | :09:24. | |
pressure so-called is really from non-EU migrants. Why didn't the | :09:25. | :09:30. | |
Government years ago use clause 45 of the TFEU and particularly section | :09:31. | :09:36. | |
three and three A, C and D, to improcess the necessary civilised | :09:37. | :09:40. | |
restraints on migrants coming in with authorisation so that none of | :09:41. | :09:44. | |
the horrendous hostility to immigrants from all over would have | :09:45. | :09:47. | |
been so evident in the referendum on 23rd June? | :09:48. | :09:55. | |
My Lords, I think the noble Lord, I can't be accountable for what | :09:56. | :10:00. | |
happened in the past, I think we have been a very generous country in | :10:01. | :10:04. | |
terms of letting people come here for the purposes of work. What I can | :10:05. | :10:08. | |
say is that there was very clear message last year which is about | :10:09. | :10:11. | |
controlling the numbers of people who come into this country, both | :10:12. | :10:17. | |
from the EU and from non-EU countries and that is what we intend | :10:18. | :10:23. | |
to do and to keep parliament fully involved in the process. On 12th | :10:24. | :10:29. | |
January the Government stated in response to an oral question that, | :10:30. | :10:34. | |
quote, the drekive sets out in order for an EU citizen to reside in | :10:35. | :10:38. | |
another member state beyond the three months they must be exercising | :10:39. | :10:44. | |
a treaty right. That is working self-employed, self-sufficient or a | :10:45. | :10:47. | |
student. After being asked three times why it did not implement this | :10:48. | :10:50. | |
three month rule for EU citizens still here without a job but not a | :10:51. | :10:54. | |
student the Government said ap I quote, it's not a failure to | :10:55. | :10:58. | |
implement, this country is more than generous in its implementation of | :10:59. | :11:02. | |
that directive. Close quotes. Firstly, why does the Government | :11:03. | :11:06. | |
maintain that only by leaving the EU can we reduce EU mu gracious, when | :11:07. | :11:11. | |
the Government accepts it has not applied the EU directive three month | :11:12. | :11:14. | |
rule as firmly as it could have done but instead considers that it has | :11:15. | :11:19. | |
been quote, more than generous in its implementation of that drekive, | :11:20. | :11:24. | |
close quote, how much lower would the figure have been in each of the | :11:25. | :11:29. | |
last five years if the Government had applied the EU three month rule | :11:30. | :11:33. | |
directive as firmly as it believes it was entitled to do so? | :11:34. | :11:40. | |
My Lords, as the noble Lord said, we have been a very generous country | :11:41. | :11:44. | |
and certainly whern Labour were in power they decided not to exercise | :11:45. | :11:48. | |
the opt-out as the noble Lord was asking. In terms of what would the | :11:49. | :11:56. | |
figures have been. Had we adopted a different process, my Lords, we are | :11:57. | :12:00. | |
where we are. The country has given us a very, very clear message in the | :12:01. | :12:06. | |
referendum and we intend to follow that through in terms of making sure | :12:07. | :12:10. | |
that net migration to this country is in the tens of thousands. My | :12:11. | :12:15. | |
Lords,ish endeavour to be helpful to the noble lady, the Minister. The | :12:16. | :12:19. | |
previous questions have been about the past. Could I ask about the | :12:20. | :12:24. | |
future. Article 45 of the treaty on the functioning of the European | :12:25. | :12:28. | |
Union relates to free movement of workers, not people generally. I | :12:29. | :12:33. | |
wonder what thought the Government has given to the excellent report by | :12:34. | :12:37. | |
the House of Commons Brexit committee which also talks about the | :12:38. | :12:45. | |
rights of EU and UK national citizens with aspects of immigration | :12:46. | :12:49. | |
policy, including students, family reunion and on EU spouses compared | :12:50. | :12:54. | |
with non-EU spouses and I declare my interests as listed in the register. | :12:55. | :13:03. | |
My Lords, it is absolutely right that we settle and I am glad she's | :13:04. | :13:07. | |
talking about the future by the way, and not the past, probably neither | :13:08. | :13:12. | |
of us, certainly I don't remember, but certainly in terms of the | :13:13. | :13:16. | |
directive which is about the movement of workers and their | :13:17. | :13:19. | |
families, I think the Prime Minister's made it absolutely clear | :13:20. | :13:24. | |
about protecting the rights of EU nationals living in this country but | :13:25. | :13:28. | |
we talked a lot the other day in committee about the fairness of the | :13:29. | :13:34. | |
process and therefore protecting the rights of UK nationals in return. | :13:35. | :13:39. | |
The Government does not want to do this on a unilateral basis and we | :13:40. | :13:42. | |
need to think about all the people, UK nationals living in the EU, and | :13:43. | :13:49. | |
EU nationals living here. My Lords, the Minister actually has | :13:50. | :13:54. | |
been very patient with the House over recent questions and explaining | :13:55. | :14:00. | |
to us the rights of residency after five years' work of European | :14:01. | :14:06. | |
citizens. And also about the right of citizenship after six years. Can | :14:07. | :14:13. | |
she tell the House whether as regards citizenship if a European | :14:14. | :14:17. | |
citizen becomes a citizen of the UK, does that mean he or she has the | :14:18. | :14:22. | |
right to remain in this country? The noble Lord, I am grateful to him, we | :14:23. | :14:26. | |
talked about this at length the other day, and of course in terms of | :14:27. | :14:34. | |
residency rights, the right of residency, a person and by the way, | :14:35. | :14:40. | |
this is an EU law, and not a UK law, so all the talk we have about | :14:41. | :14:45. | |
comprehensive sickness insurance, this is EU law which we implement, | :14:46. | :14:52. | |
after five years of abiding by treaty obligations, the Noble Lord | :14:53. | :14:56. | |
is right, a person living i an EU national living in this country has | :14:57. | :15:00. | |
permanent residency, they do not have to prove that permanent | :15:01. | :15:04. | |
residency. But then he goes on to make another point, which is very | :15:05. | :15:11. | |
valid, which is to swish that from applying for British citizenship and | :15:12. | :15:15. | |
in that application process, which is based in UK law, that person has | :15:16. | :15:23. | |
to prove residency and not to be breaking any immigration rules after | :15:24. | :15:28. | |
six years, they will then be granted UK citizenship and the noble Lord is | :15:29. | :15:31. | |
right, they have the right to remain here. | :15:32. | :15:37. | |
I beg you to ask the question in my name on the order paper. This | :15:38. | :15:43. | |
government is committed to working for everyone in all parts of the | :15:44. | :15:53. | |
country. I am grateful for the report on rural proofing. We will | :15:54. | :15:59. | |
better understand the needs in those communities. The government is | :16:00. | :16:05. | |
revising its commitment to rural proofing. I welcome the work the | :16:06. | :16:15. | |
Ministry is doing, but why do so many government departments fail to | :16:16. | :16:22. | |
realise the big barrier of transport costs on people with low incomes. | :16:23. | :16:33. | |
They are so often cut off and excluded by the cost of transport. | :16:34. | :16:38. | |
Surely we can't allow ourselves to stumble into a situation where you | :16:39. | :16:43. | |
have to be well off to live in the countryside? I entirely agree with | :16:44. | :16:47. | |
the noble lord. It is important we enhance accessibility. Sparsity and | :16:48. | :16:54. | |
the typography of the countryside means there are challenges and that | :16:55. | :16:58. | |
is why I am pleased that the community minibus fund which was | :16:59. | :17:04. | |
launched will enable I think 300 local charities and community groups | :17:05. | :17:08. | |
to receive a new minibus which I think is going to be very helpful, | :17:09. | :17:12. | |
but clearly there is more that we want to do. I should say that the | :17:13. | :17:20. | |
whole issue of transport and accessibility is important, that | :17:21. | :17:24. | |
ball incidents, that under the Post Office transformation, all post | :17:25. | :17:27. | |
offices will have banking facilities. There are ways in which | :17:28. | :17:36. | |
we can assist rural communities. International apprenticeship week, | :17:37. | :17:40. | |
what is the government doing to encourage apprenticeships in rural | :17:41. | :17:44. | |
areas? The government is committed to reaching 3 million apprenticeship | :17:45. | :17:53. | |
starts by 2020. This includes trebling the amount of | :17:54. | :18:00. | |
apprenticeships in food and farming from 6000 to 18,000. National parks | :18:01. | :18:04. | |
are looking to double the number of apprenticeships and it is important | :18:05. | :18:07. | |
that we encouraged not only this week, but we work with employers of | :18:08. | :18:12. | |
all sizes. There is a new apprenticeship levy coming into | :18:13. | :18:16. | |
force in April this year for the larger businesses. This is an | :18:17. | :18:19. | |
enormous opportunity and raising the skills of young people in the | :18:20. | :18:23. | |
countryside and across the nation is a force for good. The commission for | :18:24. | :18:30. | |
oral communities was established in 2005 by the last Labour | :18:31. | :18:32. | |
Administration to promote awareness of rural needs amongst the | :18:33. | :18:38. | |
decision-makers across government. It produced the report on rural | :18:39. | :18:44. | |
lives, highlighting those living in poverty in rural areas can be harder | :18:45. | :18:50. | |
to identify and help. But the coalition government scrapped the | :18:51. | :18:56. | |
CRC in 2013. With issues of agriculture, trade and food policy | :18:57. | :19:02. | |
on Brexit, what structures are in force to ensure the interests of all | :19:03. | :19:06. | |
communities are heard and acted upon during these negotiations? I will | :19:07. | :19:14. | |
make sure the noble lord a copy of the revived rural proofing guidance. | :19:15. | :19:22. | |
I have been working on this and it is important that all departments | :19:23. | :19:26. | |
understand the issues of rural communities and that is why, and | :19:27. | :19:32. | |
also as the Minister for oral affairs, I am on a number of task | :19:33. | :19:38. | |
forces, connectivity and housing to mention two, precisely to ensure the | :19:39. | :19:44. | |
rural voice is heard. Given what the Minister has just said, I wonder if | :19:45. | :19:49. | |
he is concerned by the fact that in many rural and underprivileged | :19:50. | :19:54. | |
areas, libraries and leisure centres are under threat. These are the very | :19:55. | :19:58. | |
places that offer a glimmer of light to people who lead rather dark lives | :19:59. | :20:04. | |
in terms of entertainment and education. This rather takes me back | :20:05. | :20:10. | |
to my DC MS days and one of the things that strikes me is very much | :20:11. | :20:16. | |
how vibrant so many rural communities are, certainly in my | :20:17. | :20:23. | |
part of Suffolk. The amount of cultural activities, dance, 30, | :20:24. | :20:27. | |
music, it is incredible. We all want to improve, we all want to have | :20:28. | :20:31. | |
greater access ability to those things, but the noble Lord may be | :20:32. | :20:35. | |
painting a rather too pessimistic picture. Making work pay is a very | :20:36. | :20:43. | |
seductive slogan, but is a minister not aware that many of the families | :20:44. | :20:48. | |
who are worst of in our country have someone working in the economy. What | :20:49. | :20:56. | |
steps can the government take to ensure people are paid properly and | :20:57. | :21:01. | |
indeed earn at least a living wage? My Lords, it is a national living | :21:02. | :21:05. | |
wage and it is an obligation and I am very pleased that it is going to | :21:06. | :21:12. | |
rise to ?7.05 in April. That is why we want to ensure people on low | :21:13. | :21:18. | |
incomes, the increasing tax allowance and further coming through | :21:19. | :21:22. | |
is precisely to ensure that we are helping those at the lower end of | :21:23. | :21:30. | |
the income range. Rural proofing doesn't seem to have reached local | :21:31. | :21:37. | |
government where many local services have been withdrawn from villages | :21:38. | :21:41. | |
into urban centres as a consequence of a very deep cut to local | :21:42. | :21:47. | |
government funding. I do wonder what advice the noble Lord the Minister | :21:48. | :21:54. | |
will provide to his fellow Secretary of State, or noble Lord Lord born | :21:55. | :22:04. | |
about funding for district councils and county councils to enable rural | :22:05. | :22:12. | |
proofing? As I say, the rural proofing guidance is to go across | :22:13. | :22:19. | |
Whitehall. DC old she is a very important government department in | :22:20. | :22:24. | |
that respect. The are considerable amounts of money going to these | :22:25. | :22:34. | |
organisations. We have to have a growing economy to afford all the | :22:35. | :22:39. | |
things we want to do. That is why this country is the fastest-growing | :22:40. | :22:43. | |
economy in the G7. That's important because it's only when we grow our | :22:44. | :22:47. | |
economy that we are going to have the resources to do many of the | :22:48. | :22:51. | |
things I'm sure your Lordships would wish to have done. With the Minister | :22:52. | :22:58. | |
care to correct his assertion about the national living wage and the | :22:59. | :23:05. | |
national minimum wage? Secondly, can the noble Lord the minister assure | :23:06. | :23:09. | |
me that when the government are putting in new free schools in areas | :23:10. | :23:16. | |
where there is no need in terms of numbers, they will have the needs of | :23:17. | :23:30. | |
the rural community in mind. I used to be the heads of the schools | :23:31. | :23:43. | |
committee in Lancashire. Come we be assured that the government enter | :23:44. | :23:49. | |
coming from Whitehall with little knowledge and step over the needs of | :23:50. | :23:54. | |
the local community. Some of those schools need money and investment. | :23:55. | :24:00. | |
My Lords, it is precisely why I suspect we are going to hear about | :24:01. | :24:05. | |
more investment because we want to enhance the opportunity of children | :24:06. | :24:09. | |
across the country and it is precisely why we have some schools | :24:10. | :24:12. | |
that are simply not up to the standard we want them to be and that | :24:13. | :24:16. | |
is why we will need to invest more and it is why I am a champion for | :24:17. | :24:21. | |
oral schools precisely because we want to ensure that there are | :24:22. | :24:26. | |
opportunities in rural areas in the same way they have them across the | :24:27. | :24:30. | |
rest of the country. As for the living wage, I will check Hansard, | :24:31. | :24:36. | |
but it will raise to ?7 50 per hour. I will ensure to see whether I've | :24:37. | :24:45. | |
made a mistake. My Lords, I take you to answer the question standing in | :24:46. | :24:52. | |
my name on the order paper. The police are operationally independent | :24:53. | :24:57. | |
of government. The investigation of allegations of sexual abuse and how | :24:58. | :25:00. | |
the police conduct these investigations including whether to | :25:01. | :25:04. | |
commission any form of internal enquiry are operational matters for | :25:05. | :25:10. | |
the relevant chief officer. It is for the Police and Crime | :25:11. | :25:13. | |
Commissioner to hold the force to accounts. My Lords, having served in | :25:14. | :25:19. | |
the Home Office for many years I the Home Office for many years I | :25:20. | :25:23. | |
understand about the operational understand about the operational | :25:24. | :25:27. | |
independence of the police, but, my Lords, it's gone beyond operational | :25:28. | :25:33. | |
affairs, it's become a matter of confidence in the police and the | :25:34. | :25:38. | |
police service. The Chief Constable of Wiltshire has gone beyond the | :25:39. | :25:44. | |
police duties of investigating allegations and following up | :25:45. | :25:47. | |
evidence and has pronounced a verdict of guilty on the late Sir | :25:48. | :25:54. | |
Edward Heath in respect of allegations of child abuse and has | :25:55. | :25:57. | |
done that even before he's enquiry is complete. The officer in charge | :25:58. | :26:06. | |
of the enquiry, having made a stupid mistake at the beginning, has now | :26:07. | :26:10. | |
been obliged to be withdrawn because of ill health. He is having, I | :26:11. | :26:16. | |
think, a nervous breakdown. Is it not high time the enquiry is being | :26:17. | :26:24. | |
pursued in a way which looks to many people more like a fishing | :26:25. | :26:28. | |
expedition than a serious pursuit of allegations and evidence. Is it not | :26:29. | :26:33. | |
time that this operation was reviewed independently? Either by a | :26:34. | :26:42. | |
retired judge, as in the case of operation Midland, or a retired | :26:43. | :26:51. | |
Chief Constable or recognised -- with efficiency and integrity. | :26:52. | :26:57. | |
Without talking about any single investigation, may I express my | :26:58. | :27:07. | |
concern of the people who have been wrongly named in the press and | :27:08. | :27:12. | |
certainly after they have died have had defamatory statements made about | :27:13. | :27:19. | |
them. In any investigation it is a matter for the police. If the... In | :27:20. | :27:29. | |
terms of complaints against the Chief officer, I took the bill | :27:30. | :27:39. | |
through myself and the act strengthens the independence of the | :27:40. | :27:46. | |
police complaints system. Any allegations of misconduct against | :27:47. | :27:49. | |
the Chief officer should be investigated by the IPC said. The | :27:50. | :27:57. | |
newspaper quotes last month came from an anonymous source claiming to | :27:58. | :28:13. | |
know... -- IPC C. I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister to | :28:14. | :28:16. | |
whom is this Chief Constable accountable? If not the Police and | :28:17. | :28:23. | |
Swindon, surely not secret and Swindon, surely not secret and | :28:24. | :28:31. | |
unnamed groups of people that he has decided to appoint. There are | :28:32. | :28:36. | |
conduct of this enquiry and we conduct of this enquiry and we | :28:37. | :28:40. | |
really need to know who is this Chief Constable accountable to? I | :28:41. | :28:46. | |
thank my noble friend for that question and he will know that it is | :28:47. | :28:49. | |
not appropriate for me to comment on individual operational matters, | :28:50. | :28:54. | |
these being out of the relevant chief officer, but chief officers | :28:55. | :29:00. | |
are, as I have said held to account in respect of operational matters by | :29:01. | :29:15. | |
the Police and Crime Commissioner. An independent | :29:16. | :29:16. | |
review was commissioned recently. It talked about the secret and unnamed | :29:17. | :29:26. | |
group. My Lords, it is recognised as best practice that, and Bush police | :29:27. | :29:32. | |
have done that, but they have engaged a panel of independent | :29:33. | :29:36. | |
experts outside of policing who are providing ongoing scrutiny of the | :29:37. | :29:42. | |
investigation to make sure it's proportionality is right. | :29:43. | :29:48. | |
The newspaper quotes came from an anonymous source claiming to know | :29:49. | :29:54. | |
the views of the Chief Constable for Wiltshire thchlt raised issue of the | :29:55. | :29:57. | |
relationship between the police and the national press and makes the | :29:58. | :30:00. | |
case for Leveson part two even stronger. | :30:01. | :30:03. | |
Can we come to the role of of the police and crime commissioner to | :30:04. | :30:07. | |
which the Minister has referred. Because a second issue relates to | :30:08. | :30:12. | |
the call for a Government instituted judicial inquiry into the | :30:13. | :30:15. | |
investigation which Wiltshire Police. Could the Government confirm | :30:16. | :30:19. | |
in fact the Wiltshire Police and crime commissioner has the power to | :30:20. | :30:25. | |
commission such a judicial inquiry into an operation by his own force. | :30:26. | :30:31. | |
The third issue is that if any hard evidence actually emerged that the | :30:32. | :30:35. | |
Chief Constable had made the comments claimed by the anonymous | :30:36. | :30:38. | |
newspaper source, could the Government confirm that the | :30:39. | :30:42. | |
Wiltshire Police and crime commissioner could, under his | :30:43. | :30:46. | |
powers, suspend or dismiss the Chief Constable? In other words, isn't the | :30:47. | :30:52. | |
ball very much in the elected Wiltshire Police and crime | :30:53. | :30:56. | |
commissioner's court? Well, I think the noble Lord raises a very good | :30:57. | :31:01. | |
point in terms of what is the role of the police and crime commissioner | :31:02. | :31:08. | |
in this situation. Without talking about the specific case that the | :31:09. | :31:12. | |
noble Lord has asked about, it is for the police and crime | :31:13. | :31:16. | |
commissioner to make the decision to appoint, to suspend or to remove a | :31:17. | :31:22. | |
Chief Constable. In making the decision to compel a Chief Constable | :31:23. | :31:27. | |
to resign or to retire, a PCC is bound by certain requirements, | :31:28. | :31:31. | |
including acting reasonably and fairly and consulting the Chief | :31:32. | :31:36. | |
Constable and the local police and crime panel and a PCC may compel a | :31:37. | :31:43. | |
Chief Constable to resign or retire under section 38-3 of the police | :31:44. | :31:49. | |
reform and social responsibility ability of 2011. My Lords, before we | :31:50. | :31:58. | |
resume consideration of the bills report stage t may be for the | :31:59. | :32:03. | |
convenience of the House if I say a brief word about the arrangements | :32:04. | :32:08. | |
for its third reading, which we expect to take place this evening. | :32:09. | :32:13. | |
At the conclusion of report stage we will move to the question for short | :32:14. | :32:19. | |
debate in the name of the noble Lord. The legislation office will at | :32:20. | :32:25. | |
that point be working on making the bill available for noble Lords who | :32:26. | :32:30. | |
may wish to table amendments at third reading. The time scale for | :32:31. | :32:35. | |
this will depend on whether or not the bill needs to be reprinted. When | :32:36. | :32:41. | |
the bill is ready for amendments to be tabled, a notice will be put on | :32:42. | :32:47. | |
the announceator to say so as well as to give a reasonable deadline for | :32:48. | :32:52. | |
noble Lords to table any amendments. We will adjourn at the conclusion of | :32:53. | :32:58. | |
the noble Lord's debate with the time for the House to resume for the | :32:59. | :33:03. | |
third reading advertised on the announceator. I am grateful to the | :33:04. | :33:09. | |
House authorities, in particular those in the legislation office for | :33:10. | :33:15. | |
their hard work to support the House on this bill. Lastly, my Lords, I | :33:16. | :33:22. | |
should remind the House that the normal rules on report stage apply | :33:23. | :33:29. | |
when we resume in a moment. The relevant part of the companion were | :33:30. | :33:34. | |
printed in today's list which was published this morning. Further | :33:35. | :33:39. | |
consideration on report of the European Union note feeshgs of | :33:40. | :33:46. | |
withdrawal bill, Lord Bridges. I beg to move this bill do be | :33:47. | :33:51. | |
further considered on the report. The question is that this bill be | :33:52. | :33:55. | |
now further considered on report as many of that opinion will say | :33:56. | :34:00. | |
content. The contrary not content. The contents have it. After clause | :34:01. | :34:07. | |
one amendment three, Lord Pannick. My Lords, amendment three is in my | :34:08. | :34:19. | |
name and in the names of the noble lady, lady Atir Lord Oats and Lord | :34:20. | :34:24. | |
hail sham. My Lords, the purpose and effect of amendment three is very | :34:25. | :34:30. | |
simple. It is to ensure that at the end of the negotiating process, the | :34:31. | :34:37. | |
approval of parliament is required for the terms of our withdrawal from | :34:38. | :34:42. | |
the EU. The Prime Minister has accepted that | :34:43. | :34:49. | |
principle. She has undertaken that any agreement with the European | :34:50. | :34:55. | |
Union on the terms of our withdrawal and any agreement on our future | :34:56. | :35:01. | |
relationship with the EU will be put to both Houses of parliament for | :35:02. | :35:07. | |
their approval. She has also promised in respect of | :35:08. | :35:13. | |
the withdrawal agreement that this will occur before it is sent to the | :35:14. | :35:19. | |
European Parliament for its consent. My Lords, that must be right. This | :35:20. | :35:27. | |
parliament must have at least the same opportunity as the European | :35:28. | :35:32. | |
Parliament to disagree with the terms of any draft agreement. | :35:33. | :35:38. | |
The Prime Minister has given an undertaking but the Government is | :35:39. | :35:44. | |
refusing to include the commitment in the bill. Given the importance of | :35:45. | :35:50. | |
the decision to leave the EU and given the importance of the terms on | :35:51. | :35:57. | |
which we are to leave the EU, the role of parliament must surely be | :35:58. | :36:04. | |
written into the bill. No ifs, and no buts. This amendment has been | :36:05. | :36:13. | |
revised since the very helpful debate in committee last Wednesday | :36:14. | :36:19. | |
evening. As suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope during | :36:20. | :36:24. | |
that debate, sub-clauses one, two and three of this amendment set out | :36:25. | :36:32. | |
the undertaking given to the House of Commons by the Minister, Mr David | :36:33. | :36:40. | |
Jones, on 7th February at column 2-64. The only alteration to what | :36:41. | :36:47. | |
MrJones said is that the amendment does not commit the Government to | :36:48. | :36:53. | |
proceeding by way of a motion in both Houses. The amendment allows | :36:54. | :36:59. | |
the Government to decide what would be the best means of seeking and | :37:00. | :37:05. | |
obtaining approval from both Houses. And that is because of the points | :37:06. | :37:11. | |
made at committee stage last Wednesday night by the noble Lord, | :37:12. | :37:18. | |
Lord Lisvane with his knowledge and experience of parliamentary | :37:19. | :37:24. | |
procedure. Sub-clause 4, which has also been revised since the debate | :37:25. | :37:30. | |
last Wednesday, requires the approval of both Houses if the Prime | :37:31. | :37:36. | |
Minister decides that the United Kingdom should leave the EU without | :37:37. | :37:44. | |
an agreement as to the terms. Parliament must also have a role in | :37:45. | :37:50. | |
those circumstances. It must be for parliament to decide whether to | :37:51. | :37:55. | |
prefer no deal or the deal offered by the EU. My Lords, can I address a | :37:56. | :38:03. | |
point which has been raised with me by some noble Lords and the point is | :38:04. | :38:12. | |
this, what happens if the two Houses disagree when the agreement or the | :38:13. | :38:17. | |
lack of agreement is put to parliament? My Lords, it is, of | :38:18. | :38:24. | |
course, the Prime Minister who has decided that the terms of our | :38:25. | :38:29. | |
withdrawal are so important that the approval of both Houses of | :38:30. | :38:36. | |
parliament should be required. The White Paper says at paragraph 1-12, | :38:37. | :38:42. | |
I quote, the Government will put the final deal that is agreed between | :38:43. | :38:49. | |
the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of parliament. The Minister, | :38:50. | :38:55. | |
MrDavid Jones, stated in the House of Commons during the committee | :38:56. | :39:00. | |
stage of the bill, 7th February, column 2-64, again I quote, the | :39:01. | :39:05. | |
Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement to be | :39:06. | :39:14. | |
approved by both Houses of parliament before it is concluded. | :39:15. | :39:20. | |
In any event, my Lords, if this House were to agree this amendment | :39:21. | :39:25. | |
today, it is open to the Government if they're concerned about this | :39:26. | :39:32. | |
issue, to seek to amend this new clause in the Commons next week to | :39:33. | :39:39. | |
address what happens if the two Houses were to disagree. I am | :39:40. | :39:42. | |
grateful. This is a very important point. I am glad that he is | :39:43. | :39:46. | |
addressing it in such detail. But we can't make our judgment on the basis | :39:47. | :39:50. | |
of what the Government has said it might do. The judgment today has to | :39:51. | :39:57. | |
be on the basis of what is in this clause. So, I ask him from his | :39:58. | :40:02. | |
perspective, given that it repeatedly says the approval of both | :40:03. | :40:07. | |
Houses of parliament, in terms of this clause, can he tell us in his | :40:08. | :40:12. | |
judgment what would be the solution if one House said yes and the other | :40:13. | :40:17. | |
House said no? As I have said, this is the Prime Minister's undertaking, | :40:18. | :40:20. | |
but since the noble Lord asked me, and I don't have to tell the noble | :40:21. | :40:27. | |
Lord this, given his enormous experience, if the House of Commons | :40:28. | :40:30. | |
were to give its approval, this House would rightly be told, rightly | :40:31. | :40:35. | |
in my judgment, would rightly be told it should be very slow indeed | :40:36. | :40:40. | |
to take a different view to the elected House. If we were to | :40:41. | :40:46. | |
disagree with the Commons, I understand it would be open to the | :40:47. | :40:52. | |
Government immediately to take the matter back to the Commons for a | :40:53. | :40:57. | |
further confirmatory resolution, which if agreed, would lead to a | :40:58. | :41:02. | |
further approval motion in this House and I would expect it would be | :41:03. | :41:06. | |
exceptionally unlikely that this House would stand its ground. But I | :41:07. | :41:12. | |
repeat, if the Government are dissatisfied with that, which the | :41:13. | :41:18. | |
consequence of the undertaking given by the Prime Minister, it is open to | :41:19. | :41:22. | |
the Government to bring forward an amendment in the other place, indeed | :41:23. | :41:26. | |
it was open to the Government in this House to bring forward an | :41:27. | :41:32. | |
amendment to this amendment to deal with the matter. I am grateful to | :41:33. | :41:37. | |
the noble Lord for giving way. He says it's exceptionally unlikely | :41:38. | :41:42. | |
that this House would insist in those circumstances on having its | :41:43. | :41:48. | |
way. That falls some way short of dealing with the point raised by the | :41:49. | :41:53. | |
noble Lord opposite, does the noble Lord not agree that this new clause, | :41:54. | :41:59. | |
in effect, gives this House a statutory veto on the decision made | :42:00. | :42:03. | |
by the Prime Minister with the support of the other place to | :42:04. | :42:05. | |
implement the decision of the British people to leave the European | :42:06. | :42:09. | |
Union? The noble Lord will form his own judgment. I am putting to the | :42:10. | :42:15. | |
House that what this amendment does is to implement the undertaking | :42:16. | :42:20. | |
given by the Prime Minister. She has recognised, and in my view rightly | :42:21. | :42:26. | |
recognised, that so important are these matters that it is necessary, | :42:27. | :42:32. | |
it is imperative to obtain the approval of both Houses of | :42:33. | :42:36. | |
parliament. The constitutional realities, as I understand them, is | :42:37. | :42:41. | |
that this House is exceptionally unlikely to stand its ground against | :42:42. | :42:45. | |
the view of the elected House. But noble Lords will form their own | :42:46. | :42:49. | |
judgment. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Would he | :42:50. | :42:53. | |
also agree there is nothing in this new clause that precludes the | :42:54. | :42:57. | |
approval of both Houses being expressed in an act of parliament | :42:58. | :43:00. | |
and if that is correct the Parliament Act stands behind it? I | :43:01. | :43:06. | |
am very grateful to the noble Lord, as I have already said, this | :43:07. | :43:11. | |
amendment is different from the amendment that we had at committee | :43:12. | :43:18. | |
stage because it does not state what is the means by which the Government | :43:19. | :43:21. | |
must seek the approval of both Houses. The noble Viscount is right, | :43:22. | :43:27. | |
it's open to the Government to proceed by way of emergency | :43:28. | :43:32. | |
legislation. Yes, of course. The noble Lord is an exceedingly | :43:33. | :43:35. | |
distinguished lawyer as we all know in this place and I recognise | :43:36. | :43:41. | |
normally the legal profession seeks precision. Noble Lord is laying | :43:42. | :43:45. | |
before the House an amendment which is imprecise and he has admitted | :43:46. | :43:50. | |
that and it's been pointed out by Lord Howard, he uses terms extremely | :43:51. | :43:57. | |
unlikely. The constitutional reform act of 2010 has a clear device in | :43:58. | :44:07. | |
section 20 for breaking agreements - brokering a disagreement. The noble | :44:08. | :44:12. | |
Lord as a lawyer, is concerned with the precise not putting before | :44:13. | :44:16. | |
parliament precise legislation which deals with the matter he recognises | :44:17. | :44:20. | |
needs to be dealt with? I repeat to the noble Lord, what I have put in | :44:21. | :44:25. | |
this amendment is precisely the undertaking that the Prime Minister | :44:26. | :44:31. | |
has given. If the Prime Minister takes the view that it is | :44:32. | :44:37. | |
appropriate to address specifically in the amendment the means by which | :44:38. | :44:42. | |
any division of view between the two Houses can be broken, then it is | :44:43. | :44:46. | |
entirely up to her when this matter returns to the Commons, if it does, | :44:47. | :44:53. | |
to amend this provision so as to specify for example, section 20, but | :44:54. | :45:00. | |
I would expect, if I had put in this amendment a particular means of | :45:01. | :45:03. | |
breaking a deadlock between the two Houses, I would have been told by | :45:04. | :45:07. | |
the noble Lord and others that's not the particular solution that we | :45:08. | :45:08. | |
welcome. He has repeatedly said that what he | :45:09. | :45:23. | |
wants to put on the face of the bill is no different from what the Prime | :45:24. | :45:26. | |
Minister had indicated to the House of Commons. Surely the difference is | :45:27. | :45:30. | |
that the Prime Minister's undertaking was that there would be | :45:31. | :45:34. | |
a vote in both Houses on the issue of a deal, or indeed, falling back | :45:35. | :45:42. | |
on WTO. Reading his amendment, it is the difference between no deal, and | :45:43. | :45:46. | |
what happens is both could he explain? What happens, nobody knows | :45:47. | :45:50. | |
what is going to happen, that's the whole point of the difficulty that | :45:51. | :45:55. | |
we face in 21 months' time. I don't know what can happen, the Noble Lord | :45:56. | :45:58. | |
doesn't know what can happen. What I'm saying to the House is that what | :45:59. | :46:06. | |
is absolutely essential is that Parliament must have an opportunity | :46:07. | :46:11. | |
guaranteed by legislation to address the circumstances at that time. My | :46:12. | :46:19. | |
Lords... I know that some people in the House do not wish to see the | :46:20. | :46:27. | |
flaws in this, but the answer is that we end up rejecting the view | :46:28. | :46:32. | |
which British people voted for, that we should leave the European Union, | :46:33. | :46:36. | |
and that is the hidden agenda by this amendment. If the Noble Lord is | :46:37. | :46:40. | |
suggesting that I have some motivation, I can assure him that my | :46:41. | :46:45. | |
only motivation is to ensure that Parliament has a guaranteed | :46:46. | :46:49. | |
opportunity at the end of the negotiating process to decide | :46:50. | :46:54. | |
whether or not the terms of our withdrawal hasn't acceptable or not. | :46:55. | :47:01. | |
That's a basic question of Parliamentary sovereignty. My Lords, | :47:02. | :47:05. | |
this amendment will not delay notification of withdrawal from the | :47:06. | :47:09. | |
EU. This amendment does not commit the Government to adopt any specific | :47:10. | :47:18. | |
approach in the negotiations. It doesn't impede the Government in the | :47:19. | :47:21. | |
negotiations any more than the undertaking already given by the | :47:22. | :47:27. | |
Prime Minister. What this amendment will do, and crucially will do, is | :47:28. | :47:34. | |
guaranteed that the Government must come back to both Houses and seek | :47:35. | :47:38. | |
approval for the result of the negotiations. My Lords, let's not | :47:39. | :47:44. | |
forget, we are considering this bill... And I wish him a happy | :47:45. | :47:52. | |
birthday! Would I be right in thinking that the difference between | :47:53. | :47:58. | |
what he is advocating and what some Noble Lords are advocating is the | :47:59. | :48:00. | |
difference between Parliament authority and the royal prerogative? | :48:01. | :48:06. | |
And is he not doing exactly what the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom | :48:07. | :48:11. | |
said in Gina Miller's case that he won? I'm very grateful, I was | :48:12. | :48:15. | |
worried for a moment that he was going to sing at me, but I entirely | :48:16. | :48:20. | |
agree with his point. My Lords, we are considering this bill because | :48:21. | :48:24. | |
and only because, as the Noble Lord reminds the Supreme Court ruled as a | :48:25. | :48:28. | |
matter of law that Parliamentary sovereignty is required at this | :48:29. | :48:37. | |
stage of notification of withdrawal. I say not as a matter of law, | :48:38. | :48:40. | |
because I am not arguing a legal case, not as a matter of law but as | :48:41. | :48:49. | |
a matter of constitutional principle, that Parliamentary | :48:50. | :48:53. | |
sovereignty is as important as it is at the end of the negotiating | :48:54. | :49:00. | |
process. After clause one, insert the new clause, as printed. | :49:01. | :49:17. | |
Many of your Lordships have made the point that we are not here to | :49:18. | :49:22. | |
re-fight the referendum campaign. There is a clear mandate to trigger | :49:23. | :49:28. | |
Article 50. My own personal position has been clearly established since I | :49:29. | :49:33. | |
first joined the Conservative Party in 1951. I believe and always have | :49:34. | :49:41. | |
that Britain's national and self-interest is inextricably | :49:42. | :49:45. | |
interwoven with those of our European partners. I deeply regret | :49:46. | :49:51. | |
the outcome of the referendum. That said, within three days of that | :49:52. | :49:57. | |
outcome, I publicly made three points. First bubble I urged the | :49:58. | :50:04. | |
Government to get on with the disengagement process, not only | :50:05. | :50:08. | |
because it had a clear mandate to do so, but because I thought that delay | :50:09. | :50:16. | |
would only add uncertainty to the damage that the result itself had | :50:17. | :50:23. | |
produced. Secondly, I urged the Government to appoint Brexiteers to | :50:24. | :50:29. | |
the three Cabinet positions that would front negotiations. It was | :50:30. | :50:36. | |
clear to me then that failure to do so would open the door to the | :50:37. | :50:42. | |
allegation that if only the right people had been put in positions to | :50:43. | :50:48. | |
lead the charge, a much better deal would have been done. I also took | :50:49. | :50:52. | |
the view, perhaps naively, that as campaigners for Brexit, it was not | :50:53. | :50:58. | |
unreasonable to assume that they might have had answers to the | :50:59. | :51:04. | |
numerous questions that we faced. Lordships will be aware that both of | :51:05. | :51:11. | |
these events have now taken place, and I'm very pleased to say how | :51:12. | :51:15. | |
fully I support the Prime Minister in what she has done. And that only | :51:16. | :51:22. | |
leaves my third point, and the most ultra version of the three. I said | :51:23. | :51:33. | |
then that the fightback starts here. Like so many of your Lordships, I | :51:34. | :51:39. | |
have enjoyed the privilege of many years in Another Place, in my case, | :51:40. | :51:47. | |
35 years. I learned the limitations of government in a Parliamentary | :51:48. | :51:51. | |
democracy, and I learnt also the role of opposition in such | :51:52. | :51:56. | |
circumstances. Time and again, I have been involved along with many | :51:57. | :52:08. | |
of your Lordships on these benches opposing by every constitutional | :52:09. | :52:12. | |
means in our power the mandate of the elected government. Not only did | :52:13. | :52:19. | |
we oppose their mandate from the very first day that Parliament met, | :52:20. | :52:27. | |
we began the long process of repealing the acts of which we | :52:28. | :52:30. | |
disapprove to. In the end, it came down to a belief in the ultimate | :52:31. | :52:34. | |
sovereignty of Parliament. I must make clear that in accepting the | :52:35. | :52:41. | |
mandate to negotiate our withdrawal from the European Union, I do not | :52:42. | :52:49. | |
accept that the mandate runs for all time and in all circumstances. 48% | :52:50. | :52:57. | |
of our people reject it that concept last year. They have the same right | :52:58. | :53:04. | |
to be heard as I hope we recognised so many of us in those long years of | :53:05. | :53:15. | |
opposition in Another Place. We now face a protract did period of | :53:16. | :53:23. | |
negotiation. No-one has the first idea what deal will emerge. No-one | :53:24. | :53:33. | |
can even tell us what governments in Europe will be there to conclude | :53:34. | :53:36. | |
whatever deal emerges. No-one can say with certainty how British | :53:37. | :53:44. | |
public opinion will react to totally unproductive all events. Let me just | :53:45. | :53:50. | |
give one example. I am told that it took 240 regulations to introduce | :53:51. | :53:55. | |
the single market in the late 1980s, and I remember the resentment | :53:56. | :54:04. | |
particularly to the small and medium-sized companies. I understand | :54:05. | :54:09. | |
it may take 1600 regulations to unravel over 40 years of closer | :54:10. | :54:17. | |
union, and no-one can say how this vital small and medium-sized sector | :54:18. | :54:22. | |
of our economy will react to the circumstances that they will then | :54:23. | :54:30. | |
face. Everyone in this House knows that we now face the most momentous | :54:31. | :54:39. | |
piece time decision of our time, and this amendment, as the Noble Lord | :54:40. | :54:45. | |
has so clearly set out, secures in law the Government's commitment, | :54:46. | :54:50. | |
already made to Another Place, to ensure that Parliament is the | :54:51. | :54:55. | |
ultimate custodian of our national sovereignty. It ensures that | :54:56. | :55:01. | |
Parliament has a critical role in determining the future that we will | :55:02. | :55:06. | |
bequeath to generations of young people, and I urge your Lordships to | :55:07. | :55:17. | |
support the amendment. I rise to speak in support of the amendment | :55:18. | :55:26. | |
made by Lord Pannick for I will not take up too much time of the House, | :55:27. | :55:29. | |
not least because I think the issue at stake is really a rather simple | :55:30. | :55:33. | |
one. On the 17th of January this year, the Prime Minister confirmed | :55:34. | :55:36. | |
in her Lancaster house speech the Government's intention to put the | :55:37. | :55:41. | |
final deal that is agreed between the EU and the UK to a vote in both | :55:42. | :55:48. | |
Houses of Parliament. Is the Noble Lord Lord Pannick has said on the | :55:49. | :55:52. | |
7th of February, the minister of state for exiting the European Union | :55:53. | :55:55. | |
has stated that the vote will cover not only the withdrawal arrangements | :55:56. | :55:59. | |
but also the future relationship with the European Union. This | :56:00. | :56:05. | |
amendment merely gives legislative effect to the Government's pledged, | :56:06. | :56:10. | |
and in doing so it will assist the Prime Minister should she or any | :56:11. | :56:16. | |
successor be tempted to go back from it. The amendment will also provide | :56:17. | :56:20. | |
clarity that the Government will require prior approval of Parliament | :56:21. | :56:24. | |
should the Prime Minister decide to leave the European Union without any | :56:25. | :56:32. | |
agreement at all. My Lords, at committee stage, some Noble Lords on | :56:33. | :56:35. | |
the benches opposite questioned the need for legal underpinning of the | :56:36. | :56:41. | |
commitment given by the Government through a meaningful vote. The | :56:42. | :56:44. | |
reason is simple as that we don't trust the Government on this matter. | :56:45. | :56:47. | |
Not because we don't trust the integrity of individual members of | :56:48. | :56:53. | |
the Government, but because, as the Noble Lord Lord Burton pointed out | :56:54. | :56:58. | |
in the committee on this bill, we are only here discussing this matter | :56:59. | :57:02. | |
at all because the Government was forced by the courts, and the | :57:03. | :57:06. | |
arguments made by the Noble Lord Pannick to come to Parliament and | :57:07. | :57:13. | |
hear its voice on the matter at all. My Lords, if we want to ensure that | :57:14. | :57:18. | |
our sovereign Parliament, so often championed by the leave campaigners, | :57:19. | :57:24. | |
has a clear and decisive role in scrutinising the final outcome of | :57:25. | :57:30. | |
this process, then it must assert its rights in legislation. And if | :57:31. | :57:33. | |
the Government is genuine in its commitment that it has given on | :57:34. | :57:37. | |
these matters, then it should have no problem accepting the amendment. | :57:38. | :57:46. | |
But if it is not willing to do it will call into question the | :57:47. | :57:49. | |
sincerity of the Government's commitment on this matter, and only | :57:50. | :57:54. | |
strengthen the argument to pass this amendment into law. My Lords, as the | :57:55. | :58:04. | |
Noble Lord Hailsham reminded us last week, prime ministers can go, | :58:05. | :58:07. | |
ministers can be sacked, parliaments can change and governments can cease | :58:08. | :58:11. | |
to exist, one has to enshrine assurances that stand against | :58:12. | :58:16. | |
changes in circumstances. I wholeheartedly agree with the Noble | :58:17. | :58:21. | |
Lord Hailsham on that matter, and that's why I'm supporting this | :58:22. | :58:24. | |
amendment is, and I hope that your Lordships house will do so also. My | :58:25. | :58:38. | |
lord, I think just on the latter point that was made by the Noble | :58:39. | :58:41. | |
Lord, it is perhaps actually just worth recalling to the House what | :58:42. | :58:47. | |
the minister Mr David Jones said. And he said in the Other Place - the | :58:48. | :58:51. | |
Government have repeatedly committed from the dispatch box to a vote in | :58:52. | :58:55. | |
both Houses on the final deal before it comes into force. That I repeat | :58:56. | :59:00. | |
and confirmed will cover not only the withdrawal agreement, but the | :59:01. | :59:04. | |
future arrangement that we propose for the European Union. I confirm | :59:05. | :59:08. | |
again that the Government will bring forward a motion on the final | :59:09. | :59:10. | |
agreement to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is | :59:11. | :59:16. | |
concluded, and we expect and intend that that will happen before the | :59:17. | :59:19. | |
European Parliament debate and vote on the final agreement. And in the | :59:20. | :59:25. | |
course of the debate, the minister, Mr Jones, repeated those sentences | :59:26. | :59:29. | |
three times. And the Shadow Secretary of State, Keir Starmer, | :59:30. | :59:34. | |
whom I paid tribute to in the second reading debate, said - minister, I | :59:35. | :59:38. | |
am very grateful for that intervention. This is a huge and | :59:39. | :59:42. | |
very important concession about the process we are to embark on. The | :59:43. | :59:46. | |
argument I have made about a vote over the last three months is that | :59:47. | :59:50. | |
the vote most cover both the Article 50 deal and any future relationship. | :59:51. | :59:54. | |
I know that for many of my colleagues that is very important. | :59:55. | :59:58. | |
So, both Houses will get a vote on the final draft deal, and we do not | :59:59. | :59:59. | |
need any of these amendments. It is a complete distortion - in a | :00:00. | :00:11. | |
second. I will give way to the honourable gentleman if he let's me | :00:12. | :00:19. | |
finish my sentence. It is a complete distortion to suggest that the | :00:20. | :00:35. | |
Government are likely to ren -- reng. They do something completely | :00:36. | :00:39. | |
different. I give way to the noble Lord. I am most grateful to the | :00:40. | :00:44. | |
noble Lord for giving way. But having read out three times, I | :00:45. | :00:49. | |
think, what the Minister said in the House of Commons, he has revealed | :00:50. | :00:53. | |
that the Minister failed to answer the question that he and the noble | :00:54. | :00:59. | |
Lord, Lord Howard and others put to my noble friend, which is what | :01:00. | :01:03. | |
happens if there is a disagreement between the two Houses, could he | :01:04. | :01:06. | |
perhaps now address that and perhaps he could also put that question to | :01:07. | :01:10. | |
the right person to put it to, which is not my noble friend, but the | :01:11. | :01:14. | |
Minister who is going to reply to this debate and will have ample | :01:15. | :01:17. | |
opportunity to reply to it. I know that the noble Lord is very | :01:18. | :01:21. | |
experienced and if he doesn't know the difference between a resolution | :01:22. | :01:24. | |
in the House of Commons and putting in statute a power of veto for the | :01:25. | :01:28. | |
House of Lords then I am very surprised to hear him making that | :01:29. | :01:31. | |
point. The point about this amendment, the point about this | :01:32. | :01:38. | |
amendment which we are discussing, amendment three, is that it actually | :01:39. | :01:47. | |
- it is a - I am not going to give way. Could I just ask the noble Lord | :01:48. | :01:53. | |
how can it be a veto, since we can not in fact impose our will on the | :01:54. | :02:01. | |
House of Commons? Well, the noble Baroness is very experienced and she | :02:02. | :02:05. | |
should know that this House is able to impose its will on the House of | :02:06. | :02:10. | |
Commons by convention we do not do so and if we sought to do so we | :02:11. | :02:14. | |
would be in deep water and this amendment is taking us into deep | :02:15. | :02:17. | |
water. If I could just return to the issue under discussion which is the | :02:18. | :02:21. | |
amendment. If we look at paragraph one, the Prime Minister may not | :02:22. | :02:25. | |
conclude an agreement with the European Union under Article 50 on | :02:26. | :02:29. | |
the terms of the United Kingdom's withdrawal without the approval of | :02:30. | :02:32. | |
both Houses of parliament. So we get to the final hour at midnight when | :02:33. | :02:36. | |
the deal is being done and the Prime Minister says, hang on a second, I | :02:37. | :02:40. | |
can't agree a deal, I have to consult the House of Commons. It is | :02:41. | :02:47. | |
ridiculous. It is ridiculous, a ridiculous proposal to suggest... It | :02:48. | :02:49. | |
is not the Prime Minister's proposal. It is a ridiculous | :02:50. | :02:54. | |
proposal to say that the Prime Minister may not conclude an | :02:55. | :02:57. | |
agreement until this has been sorted. | :02:58. | :03:03. | |
It is a well-known - no, I am not going to give way. I promise to give | :03:04. | :03:08. | |
way to nigh noble friend once I have made my points about the amendment. | :03:09. | :03:13. | |
It is a first rule of negotiation that you never negotiate with | :03:14. | :03:16. | |
someone who doesn't have authority to conclude the deal. The effect of | :03:17. | :03:21. | |
these proposals is to put ministers in a position where their authority | :03:22. | :03:27. | |
is in doubt and where, in effect, it makes this House and the House of | :03:28. | :03:30. | |
Commons parties to the negotiation and the negotiation has to be | :03:31. | :03:36. | |
conducted between ministers and people from the EU. If we turn to... | :03:37. | :03:42. | |
I wonder whether the noble Lord has realised that the Ministers with | :03:43. | :03:47. | |
whom this will be negotiated or the European officials with whom it will | :03:48. | :03:52. | |
be negotiated have all got to go back to every European Parliament | :03:53. | :03:55. | |
and the European Parliament before they can conclude a deal? I do | :03:56. | :04:01. | |
realise that. I have the utmost respect for my noble friend, helped | :04:02. | :04:09. | |
to get me elected in 83 which may not be one of the most important | :04:10. | :04:14. | |
things, he has served the party with great distinction, but I have to say | :04:15. | :04:18. | |
to him, that it is not the moment for this House to grab the mace and | :04:19. | :04:22. | |
challenge the authority of the House of Commons. | :04:23. | :04:35. | |
Now, on paragraph... On sub-section two, it says, such approval shall be | :04:36. | :04:39. | |
required before the European Parliament debates and votes on that | :04:40. | :04:43. | |
agreement. How are ministers supposed to deliver that? They're | :04:44. | :04:49. | |
not in control of the timetable for when the European Parliament debates | :04:50. | :04:52. | |
these matters and indeed it is an impossible condition for them to | :04:53. | :05:00. | |
meet. Then if we look at paragraph... I am grateful to him | :05:01. | :05:05. | |
for giving way, because the phrase this will happen before the European | :05:06. | :05:09. | |
Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement is set out in | :05:10. | :05:13. | |
Hansard in the statement, the undertaken given by David Jones on | :05:14. | :05:17. | |
7th February, the more the noble Lord makes his points, the more | :05:18. | :05:25. | |
important it seems to me to pass this amendment. Well... | :05:26. | :05:34. | |
If the noble Lord accepts my point, then the more importance there is in | :05:35. | :05:37. | |
not actually seeking to put it on statue. He didn't actually deal with | :05:38. | :05:42. | |
my point, which is how are ministers able to ensure that approval shall | :05:43. | :05:45. | |
be required before the European Parliament debates when they are not | :05:46. | :05:49. | |
in charge of the timetable for the European Parliament debates? I | :05:50. | :05:52. | |
happily give way if he would like to answer that point. He is arguing | :05:53. | :05:57. | |
they should be put on the statute and should be able to explain how | :05:58. | :06:00. | |
this can be achieved. I would love to continue with this discussion | :06:01. | :06:03. | |
until we reach an end of it but all I am doing is referring to the words | :06:04. | :06:08. | |
of the Minister himself and it's a him - it's for him to work out how | :06:09. | :06:13. | |
this undertaking which he gave to parliament and which fits exactly I | :06:14. | :06:16. | |
think with the wording in the White Paper, as well, should be conducted. | :06:17. | :06:22. | |
It is very important that we make this matter clear and I thought | :06:23. | :06:26. | |
myself that the best way of dealing with it, as Lord Pannick has done is | :06:27. | :06:32. | |
use the words of the Minister in clauses one to three and pass the | :06:33. | :06:35. | |
amendment in the House of Commons can look at it again if they wish | :06:36. | :06:40. | |
to. The noble Lord is normally very careful and precise, I read out at | :06:41. | :06:44. | |
the beginning the words that David Jones had used in the House and he | :06:45. | :06:50. | |
said, we expect and intend that will happen before the European | :06:51. | :06:53. | |
Parliament debates. This says, such approval shall be required before | :06:54. | :06:57. | |
the European Parliament debates. There is a big difference between | :06:58. | :07:03. | |
expect and intend. And shall be required. One is... I am grateful to | :07:04. | :07:08. | |
the noble Lord. Does he not agree that the vote in the European | :07:09. | :07:11. | |
Parliament will be about whether the deal is negotiated will be | :07:12. | :07:14. | |
acceptable, it will not be about whether or not the UK leaves the EU | :07:15. | :07:18. | |
or not? My noble friend is absolutely right | :07:19. | :07:27. | |
on that point. Just to move now to paragraph three, subparagraph three, | :07:28. | :07:31. | |
it says the approval of both Houses of parliament shall be required in | :07:32. | :07:37. | |
relation to an agreement on the future relation of the United | :07:38. | :07:40. | |
Kingdom within the European Union. The point I put in an intervention | :07:41. | :07:46. | |
to the noble Lord Pannick. This effectively gives this House and the | :07:47. | :07:50. | |
House of Commons a veto on Brexit. It gives it the ability to prevent | :07:51. | :07:54. | |
us from leaving the European Union, despite the fact that we have had | :07:55. | :07:58. | |
the biggest vote in our history from people requiring that. It will be | :07:59. | :08:03. | |
immense live destructive to the reputation of parliament and also to | :08:04. | :08:07. | |
this House. Then we go to paragraph four of section four, the prior | :08:08. | :08:12. | |
approval of both Houses of parliament shall also be required in | :08:13. | :08:16. | |
relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United | :08:17. | :08:19. | |
Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the | :08:20. | :08:25. | |
applicable terms. That means that Ministers are unable to walk away. | :08:26. | :08:29. | |
This was the mistake that David Cameron made. If David Cameron had | :08:30. | :08:33. | |
walked away, he might have been able to get a proper deal. Who knows? But | :08:34. | :08:38. | |
the fact is he didn't walk away and they knew he wasn't going to walk | :08:39. | :08:42. | |
away, it's why he got such a useless deal and this actually ensures | :08:43. | :08:48. | |
Ministers cannot walk away. For the Lord Pannick this is implementing | :08:49. | :08:51. | |
the Prime Minister's promise is a complete... I am sorry, I made it | :08:52. | :08:57. | |
very clear to the House that subclauses one to three implement | :08:58. | :09:00. | |
the undertaking, I made it very clear that's not the case in | :09:01. | :09:06. | |
relation to sub-clause four. I take the, noble Lords will form their own | :09:07. | :09:10. | |
judgment, but it's vital for this House and the other place to have a | :09:11. | :09:14. | |
say on whether we should leave with no deal or with the deal that's | :09:15. | :09:17. | |
being offered. I made that very clear to the House. Well, I have to | :09:18. | :09:21. | |
say to the noble Lord, we know what he is up to. We know what is going | :09:22. | :09:30. | |
on. We know - I appreciate that I am a minority in this House, not just | :09:31. | :09:34. | |
because I am a Scottish Tory, I am in a minority in this House because | :09:35. | :09:39. | |
I support the views of the majority of people in this country. This | :09:40. | :09:43. | |
House is absolutely full of people who still haven't come to terms with | :09:44. | :09:49. | |
the results of the referendum and this is a clever lawyer's confection | :09:50. | :09:53. | |
in order to reverse the results of the referendum. That's what we are | :09:54. | :09:59. | |
debating and that's what it is about. I gave way already. He can | :10:00. | :10:05. | |
make his own speech. What is going on... I am in the giving way to the | :10:06. | :10:10. | |
noble Lord. Order, order. All right, I will give | :10:11. | :10:15. | |
way. I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am sorry I am causing him | :10:16. | :10:20. | |
such frustration this afternoon. Even when - I don't think normally | :10:21. | :10:29. | |
in this House we speak from a sedantry position. My comment was | :10:30. | :10:34. | |
you are annoying the House, not just an individual member. Well, I am | :10:35. | :10:37. | |
most grateful to the noble Lord for having ashgated to himself the | :10:38. | :10:40. | |
decisions to what the rather hundreds of people around this place | :10:41. | :10:45. | |
leave. But the point I was going to raise and ask the noble Lord to | :10:46. | :10:49. | |
address is that of course the Prime Minister of this country has the | :10:50. | :10:55. | |
ability to ensure that we do leave the European Union without an | :10:56. | :10:58. | |
agreement because of the two-year time limit in Article 50, which he | :10:59. | :11:02. | |
has not addressed. That time limit is absolute. It will be triggered | :11:03. | :11:08. | |
within the next few days. And sometime in 2019 it will reach its | :11:09. | :11:13. | |
conclusion. The Prime Minister says it takes two to negotiate and the | :11:14. | :11:17. | |
Prime Minister will be one of them, and the 27 and the institutions of | :11:18. | :11:21. | |
the European Union will be the other, has the ability to ensure | :11:22. | :11:27. | |
that we leave without an agreement. That is the eventuality being dealt | :11:28. | :11:32. | |
with in this amendment. The noble Lord makes my point for me. If after | :11:33. | :11:38. | |
two years we have no agreement, then we will have left the European | :11:39. | :11:41. | |
Union. I need to conclude my remarks. | :11:42. | :11:45. | |
This place is beginning to be like the House of Commons! | :11:46. | :11:53. | |
What is going on here is like Gulliver. These amendments are | :11:54. | :11:56. | |
trying to tie down the Prime Minister, tie her down by her hair, | :11:57. | :12:01. | |
by her arms, by her legs, in every conceivable way, in order to prevent | :12:02. | :12:06. | |
her getting an agreement and in order to prevent us leaving the | :12:07. | :12:11. | |
European Union. The House should reject this amendment for what it | :12:12. | :12:15. | |
is, which is an unelected chamber trying to frustrate the will of the | :12:16. | :12:19. | |
democratically elected Government and of the people which has been | :12:20. | :12:23. | |
expressed in a huge vote in a referendum. | :12:24. | :12:34. | |
My Lords, My Lords... One of the reasons I wish to speak to amendment | :12:35. | :12:43. | |
four. One of the main reasons that we are over here now is that the | :12:44. | :12:47. | |
Prime Minister and the Government wanted to go ahead and use the | :12:48. | :12:53. | |
perogotive and it's because of a ruling in the Supreme Court that we | :12:54. | :12:57. | |
are here and what we are asking for in this amendment is to have | :12:58. | :13:01. | |
something put in statute to protect the uncertainty that is there in the | :13:02. | :13:07. | |
future. We have heard in all the discussions so far that questioning | :13:08. | :13:12. | |
the reason why voters voted would be insulting the voters. Remain or | :13:13. | :13:17. | |
leave. But, my Lords, this has not been a general election vote. In a | :13:18. | :13:24. | |
general election the party manifesto or an Ed Stone and his commandments, | :13:25. | :13:27. | |
if the people don't like the Government and they say they've not | :13:28. | :13:31. | |
lived up to their manifesto, or have not delivered, in five years' time, | :13:32. | :13:35. | |
they can throw them out. The difference here is this is a | :13:36. | :13:40. | |
permanent decision. Permanent in that the last time this happened was | :13:41. | :13:44. | |
1975, over four decades ago. But the difference is that the last time | :13:45. | :13:48. | |
this happened it was with a majority of 67%. If we had a super majority, | :13:49. | :13:52. | |
that was a super majority, that was achieved. It was a decisive | :13:53. | :13:58. | |
decision. There was certainty. Here, we are hearing this binary decision, | :13:59. | :14:04. | |
remain or leave, but the outcomes are anything but binary. One of the | :14:05. | :14:10. | |
outcomes is a hard Brexit. The main issue here is that people are | :14:11. | :14:15. | |
allowed to change their minds. My Lords, whether it is the Prime | :14:16. | :14:18. | |
Minister who changed her mind or the Ministers who change their mind or | :14:19. | :14:20. | |
members of the other place who want to change their minds or members of | :14:21. | :14:24. | |
this House who want to change their mind, it is our right to do so. In | :14:25. | :14:28. | |
fact, Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple said changing your mind is a | :14:29. | :14:34. | |
sign of intelligence. As cane said, when the facts change, I change my | :14:35. | :14:40. | |
mind. Here many facts as the noble Lord has said, many outcomes of this | :14:41. | :14:43. | |
negotiation are uncertain. The Dutch elections are coming up, the French | :14:44. | :14:48. | |
and German elections, the eurozone may collapse, Europe might even | :14:49. | :14:51. | |
reform immigration rules which we would like. It's only right that | :14:52. | :14:57. | |
parliament has a full say in the road ahead. This amendment covers | :14:58. | :15:01. | |
us, protects us from the potential outcomes. My Lords, I concluded my | :15:02. | :15:08. | |
second reading speech by quoting Professor of the Harvard business | :15:09. | :15:12. | |
school, a expert on negotiations, he said make sure you read a book | :15:13. | :15:17. | |
called The Guns of August about the beginning of the First World War. He | :15:18. | :15:21. | |
said reading that book is like watching a train crash in slow | :15:22. | :15:25. | |
motion. That is what we are seeing right now | :15:26. | :15:30. | |
with Brexit. I conclude, that we need to support this amendment more | :15:31. | :15:34. | |
than anything to protect the future... | :15:35. | :15:39. | |
I wonder whether in 1975, he knew about the Maastricht Treaty? 1975, I | :15:40. | :15:52. | |
was barely a teenager. My Lords, I would conclude by saying the main | :15:53. | :15:56. | |
reason we need to support this amendment is for the sake of future | :15:57. | :16:00. | |
generations. It is to protect future generations. Noble Lords, I'm sure | :16:01. | :16:04. | |
will have received several tweets, e-mails and letters from | :16:05. | :16:07. | |
individuals, and justice morning I received an e-mail saying, please | :16:08. | :16:13. | |
support Parliamentary democracy and our young people's future. My Lords, | :16:14. | :16:19. | |
one of our doorkeepers reminded me of an ancient Gaelic saying is birth | :16:20. | :16:25. | |
we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our | :16:26. | :16:31. | |
children. The Lord seemed to suggest that we should support this | :16:32. | :16:35. | |
amendment because Article 50 was not unilaterally irrevocable, that we | :16:36. | :16:40. | |
would have to leave the EU. Your argument was that we should support | :16:41. | :16:44. | |
the amendment because it IS unilaterally irrevocable - which is | :16:45. | :16:51. | |
it? This amendment covers all potential outcomes, and that I think | :16:52. | :17:01. | |
we should have. I wish to speak briefly to amendment for Bridge | :17:02. | :17:04. | |
stands in my name and that of Lord Russell. It is similar in intent to | :17:05. | :17:10. | |
the amendment which was moved very eloquently by Lord Pannick, but it | :17:11. | :17:14. | |
is shorter. Because what I have sought to do is merely to put on the | :17:15. | :17:24. | |
face of the bill the remarks of Mr Jones and other ministers, namely | :17:25. | :17:29. | |
that Parliament WILL have an absolute legal right, and that it | :17:30. | :17:35. | |
will exercise its right after the European Parliament, before the | :17:36. | :17:44. | |
European Parliament has exercised it. And I would just say in | :17:45. | :17:49. | |
parenthesis that we must remember, whatever is agreed will go around | :17:50. | :17:54. | |
every Parliament and indeed some regional parliaments under 27 | :17:55. | :17:57. | |
nations, and it go to the European Parliament, of course. We have a | :17:58. | :18:01. | |
system of Parliamentary democracy in which I take enormous pride. I shall | :18:02. | :18:06. | |
always be glad that I spent 40 years at the other end of the corridor, | :18:07. | :18:10. | |
not one of them in government, but always trying to play a part in | :18:11. | :18:18. | |
holding government to account. And that is the supreme task of | :18:19. | :18:24. | |
Parliament, both this House and the Other Place. Of course, as I have | :18:25. | :18:32. | |
repeatedly made plain in my interventions and in the debates on | :18:33. | :18:35. | |
this bill and in many others, the ultimate power and authority, the | :18:36. | :18:40. | |
supremacy is with the Other Place just in we neglect that fact, and it | :18:41. | :18:48. | |
is a fact, at our peril. But nevertheless my Lords, we have not | :18:49. | :18:51. | |
only a right but I believe the duties to ask the Other Place to | :18:52. | :18:56. | |
reconsider if we think they haven't got it right. And whilst I had no | :18:57. | :19:03. | |
hesitation this morning in voting against the referendum amendment, I | :19:04. | :19:10. | |
equally have no hesitation in moving this one, or speaking to this one. | :19:11. | :19:19. | |
Because all we are saying in this amendment and in the amendment so | :19:20. | :19:24. | |
well moved by Lord Pannick and supported by my Noble Friend Lord | :19:25. | :19:27. | |
has all Thailand others, all we are saying is that Parliament's right | :19:28. | :19:34. | |
and dew must be on the face of the bill. It is not a question of the | :19:35. | :19:39. | |
integrity of those who have made statements, of course I except that | :19:40. | :19:48. | |
without any question whatsoever. But there is a difference between a | :19:49. | :19:52. | |
statement expressing intent and a legal obligation. And that my Lords | :19:53. | :19:56. | |
is what we are seeking to insert in this bill - a legal obligation which | :19:57. | :20:05. | |
should be recognised. And I very, very much hope that even at this | :20:06. | :20:10. | |
late stage, my Noble Friend from the front bench will feel able to | :20:11. | :20:15. | |
acknowledge at least that there is some validity in what we are seeking | :20:16. | :20:19. | |
to say. And I very much hope that in the Other Place, they WILL | :20:20. | :20:24. | |
reconsider. It does not delay the passage of this bill by more than a | :20:25. | :20:30. | |
day. We can get it through this House in all its remaining stages | :20:31. | :20:34. | |
next week. It doesn't in any sense all to the intent or purpose of the | :20:35. | :20:39. | |
bill, because it gives to the Prime Minister what she has asked for. But | :20:40. | :20:48. | |
my Lords, whilst I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister is in rude | :20:49. | :20:51. | |
and vigorous health for many years to come, and is still in office long | :20:52. | :20:58. | |
after the saddest day when we have vacated the European Union, | :20:59. | :21:00. | |
nevertheless we cannot guarantee that that will be the case, and one | :21:01. | :21:05. | |
Prime Minister cannot necessarily buying her successor. Look at the | :21:06. | :21:09. | |
changes that took place in June and July of last year - how the mighty | :21:10. | :21:16. | |
have fallen! My Lords, I would urge, when we come to vote unless my Noble | :21:17. | :21:21. | |
Friend is able to give us the assurances that we seek, but we do | :21:22. | :21:25. | |
take to put Parliament in its rightful place. House of Commons | :21:26. | :21:31. | |
first, but the House of Lords, this noble house, in its proper position, | :21:32. | :21:38. | |
able to say, please reconsider. Able to say, we genuinely do not think | :21:39. | :21:48. | |
you have got this right. Of course, if they take a different line, we | :21:49. | :21:53. | |
recognise the limitations on our power, but my Lords, let us send a | :21:54. | :21:57. | |
message tonight to the Other Place. My Lords, I hope you will permit me | :21:58. | :22:22. | |
to think aloud. I heard that exchange between Lord Pannick and | :22:23. | :22:28. | |
Lord Forsyth. I am still wanting to work out some of the complications. | :22:29. | :22:36. | |
Amendment three I think for me provides the inclusion of Parliament | :22:37. | :22:41. | |
into negotiation processes in such a way that can prevent any deal ever | :22:42. | :22:48. | |
being reached. We are involving ourselves into the processes | :22:49. | :22:53. | |
themselves. It also, and the question has not been quite fully | :22:54. | :23:00. | |
answered, it says three times, without the approval of both Houses | :23:01. | :23:05. | |
of Parliament, prior to the approval of both Houses of Parliament, and | :23:06. | :23:12. | |
thirdly, the approval of both Houses of Parliament shall be required... | :23:13. | :23:15. | |
The question is yet to be answered - what happens when this House to not | :23:16. | :23:21. | |
agree with the other house? Somebody has got to answer that, because you | :23:22. | :23:29. | |
are saying, we don't agree with the other, it will give the unelected | :23:30. | :23:33. | |
house almost a veto on the procedure to reach an agreement with the EU, | :23:34. | :23:39. | |
which intern reflects the decision made by the electorate in the 2016 | :23:40. | :23:43. | |
referendum. That has got to be answered. The commitment by the | :23:44. | :23:49. | |
Prime Minister in January 2017 for a vote for Parliament, I think I want | :23:50. | :23:55. | |
to say, I think that commitment does above and beyond what is contained | :23:56. | :24:01. | |
in the Constitutional Reform And Governance Act of 2010. I think she | :24:02. | :24:06. | |
said more than what is allowed in that act. I want to suggest, it is | :24:07. | :24:13. | |
not in Parliament's gift to make this a condition. The Prime | :24:14. | :24:28. | |
Minister's spokesman said yesterday, we should not commit to any process | :24:29. | :24:34. | |
that will incentivise the EU to offer us a bad deal. It would give | :24:35. | :24:39. | |
strength to parties in the opposition. We believe it should be | :24:40. | :24:43. | |
a simple meal in relation to triggering Article 50, and nothing | :24:44. | :24:49. | |
else. -- simple deal. Triggering Article 50, for me, it seems, is an | :24:50. | :24:57. | |
irreversible act. Two years after triggering it, the UK will leave the | :24:58. | :25:02. | |
EU, and it will do so with or without a deal. Article 50 makes | :25:03. | :25:11. | |
clear that the treaties will cease to apply two years after it for some | :25:12. | :25:18. | |
it is possible that the 27 members might unanimously agreed to extend | :25:19. | :25:22. | |
the negotiation period, but this cannot be taken for granted, nor | :25:23. | :25:28. | |
should it be assumed that they will offer anything in way of an | :25:29. | :25:39. | |
extension. You have got to answer it, you have got to put it in. Yes, | :25:40. | :25:44. | |
it may sound like rubbish, but that answer has got to be given. Section | :25:45. | :25:54. | |
three, this amendment I think also overlooks that the European | :25:55. | :25:56. | |
Union?(Notification of Withdrawal)?Bill? is about | :25:57. | :25:58. | |
triggering Article 50 and the formal divorce settlement. Neither this | :25:59. | :26:04. | |
bill nor Article 50 is about negotiating a new agreement with the | :26:05. | :26:12. | |
EU. My Lords, will somebody explain, if I cannot get a clear answer on | :26:13. | :26:19. | |
those questions, I think I may find myself voting no. But if I am made | :26:20. | :26:26. | |
to understand, they now my vote yes. Like the Noble Lord Lord Forks, I | :26:27. | :26:30. | |
arrived this morning for amendment one not sure which way I would vote. | :26:31. | :26:35. | |
But very clear that I was going to be a strong supporter of this | :26:36. | :26:40. | |
amendment is. Like him also, I thought there was a link between the | :26:41. | :26:44. | |
two, but high-resolution was somewhat different, which is that I | :26:45. | :26:48. | |
did not vote for this morning's amendment, but I still strongly | :26:49. | :26:52. | |
support this. One of the difficulties that I have found with | :26:53. | :26:57. | |
these debates, as to hurl we should think about the finality of the vote | :26:58. | :27:02. | |
on the 23rd of June last year, is that I find myself disagreeing with | :27:03. | :27:08. | |
arguments on either side. On the side of those who, like me, voted | :27:09. | :27:15. | |
Remain, it is often suggested that there was something about that vote | :27:16. | :27:18. | |
which was less legitimate than other votes, because perhaps there was a | :27:19. | :27:26. | |
16- to 18-year-olds didn't have the vote, or because the Leave | :27:27. | :27:30. | |
sidelight. But I do not consider those reasonable arguments. You may | :27:31. | :27:34. | |
or not may not be in favour of 16- to 18-year-olds having the vote, but | :27:35. | :27:38. | |
our present system starts at 18 and that does not change the legitimacy | :27:39. | :27:45. | |
of any result. As for the argument that the Leave side exaggerated, or | :27:46. | :27:50. | |
perhaps with the NHS claim lied, well, I do think there were some | :27:51. | :27:53. | |
exaggerations on the other side as well, and I have to say that in | :27:54. | :27:57. | |
every general election I can ever remember, there have been | :27:58. | :28:01. | |
exaggerations on either side, some of which have verged on the | :28:02. | :28:04. | |
mendacious, but they have not invalidated the result of the | :28:05. | :28:11. | |
general election. Democracy is scrappy, it is imperfect, but it is | :28:12. | :28:15. | |
the best system we have. So I accept the result of what happened last | :28:16. | :28:20. | |
year as no more and no less legitimate than any general | :28:21. | :28:25. | |
election. But that means as well as being no less legitimate, it is also | :28:26. | :28:29. | |
no more. And it is the case that on the day after a general election, | :28:30. | :28:38. | |
and my Noble Lord Lord Heseltine has already said this, the opposition | :28:39. | :28:42. | |
party devote themselves the very next day to arguing against what was | :28:43. | :28:47. | |
just agreed by the majority of the population by putting down | :28:48. | :28:50. | |
amendments in the Commons or the Lords, I trying to delay things in | :28:51. | :28:57. | |
the Lords, and by working day after day to win the next general | :28:58. | :29:00. | |
election, and in some cases working very hard to bring it forward if | :29:01. | :29:05. | |
they possibly can. There is a very fine play that you can go and see in | :29:06. | :29:11. | |
London now which records this, from the days in the Commons of several | :29:12. | :29:14. | |
people presently in this House. So I do very much agree with the | :29:15. | :29:21. | |
sentiment of the Noble Lord Lord Kerr that any idea that the vote in | :29:22. | :29:26. | |
June last year reflects the will of the people, in some unanimous, | :29:27. | :29:33. | |
absolute and for ever and changing fashion, is, as my Noble Lord put | :29:34. | :29:39. | |
it, not democratic but regressive doctrine. And like him I have been a | :29:40. | :29:43. | |
bit surprised and depressed by the fact that this Brezhnev doctrine, | :29:44. | :29:48. | |
having been first propagated by some of our major newspapers, is now | :29:49. | :29:56. | |
finding an echo Chamber among some parts, though not all parts, of the | :29:57. | :30:00. | |
Conservative Party, who on the basis of what was said earlier, I do wish | :30:01. | :30:06. | |
would pay more attention to the intellectual lineage of Edmund Burke | :30:07. | :30:08. | |
fan of Mr Brezhnev. Any idea to have another referendum, | :30:09. | :30:21. | |
the idea that that is undemocratic is nonsense. Indeed, the idea that | :30:22. | :30:27. | |
you should reject that possibility, but reject the possibility of | :30:28. | :30:32. | |
another referendum in principle is in itself undemocratic. If there was | :30:33. | :30:39. | |
another referendum in three or five years in which there was a majority | :30:40. | :30:45. | |
for saying in the EU, that would be equally democratic than the vote on | :30:46. | :30:51. | |
June 23rd. Still I did not support amendment 1, because I'm not sure | :30:52. | :30:55. | |
that there should be a referendum in two or three or four years time aye | :30:56. | :31:01. | |
do not think that by a referendum we can resolve the uncertainties and | :31:02. | :31:06. | |
issues that will be faced in two years time, but I do think we can | :31:07. | :31:15. | |
resolve them and we should have them resolved by having extensive | :31:16. | :31:19. | |
Parliamentary debates. We don't know what will be the result of | :31:20. | :31:24. | |
negotiations. Nor do we know what the situation will be in two years | :31:25. | :31:29. | |
time. It maybe adverse consequences have emerged from leaving the EU, it | :31:30. | :31:33. | |
maybe that they will not. I do not know. And I therefore do not think | :31:34. | :31:38. | |
it would be appropriate now to commit to a future referendum, nor | :31:39. | :31:46. | |
do I think we can sure how we determine the result of a | :31:47. | :31:51. | |
referendum. I wonder if the noble Lord would... I think you have to | :31:52. | :31:56. | |
sit down. I am most grateful. I wonder if he has picked up the wrong | :31:57. | :32:01. | |
notes for the wrong speech, he seems to be talking about the second | :32:02. | :32:08. | |
referendum. I'm going to come shortly and briefly why I think | :32:09. | :32:13. | |
these arguments say we should is a debate. I do not think it is | :32:14. | :32:19. | |
appropriate now to commit to a future referendum. Would a no vote | :32:20. | :32:26. | |
be against the result which was too soft or too hard? I think the | :32:27. | :32:37. | |
arguments against... Sorry I know the Lord wanted to speak to | :32:38. | :32:43. | |
amendment 1 and perhaps it is a bit frustrating that he is actually now | :32:44. | :32:48. | |
dealing with amendment 3. But I do think it is important that he | :32:49. | :32:54. | |
addresses his remarks to amendment 3 and not to amendment 1, which is a | :32:55. | :33:01. | |
matter which this House has already decided. What I want to argue, if I | :33:02. | :33:06. | |
may, is that the very arguments why one should not commit to a future | :33:07. | :33:11. | |
referendum, the uncertainty of the situation that we will then face, is | :33:12. | :33:17. | |
however the argument why it is absolutely appropriate for us to | :33:18. | :33:21. | |
come back for a detailed debate in both houses of Parliament at that | :33:22. | :33:26. | |
time to deal with the uncertain circumstances that will then exist. | :33:27. | :33:30. | |
Like others around this House, I would in some ways prefer that this | :33:31. | :33:37. | |
referendum more clearly identified the relative powers of the Commons | :33:38. | :33:41. | |
and the Lords in that process. I would have preferred the earlier | :33:42. | :33:47. | |
version of the attempt which proposed there should be a | :33:48. | :33:53. | |
legislative process brought forward. But the most important principle is | :33:54. | :33:59. | |
that we should not treat June 23rd as providing absolute answers for | :34:00. | :34:02. | |
ever, or the answers to everything, and that it is therefore absolutely | :34:03. | :34:07. | |
appropriate for us to assert that there should be a process of | :34:08. | :34:11. | |
Parliamentary sovereignty, where the details of what it is propose rd | :34:12. | :34:18. | |
brought back to both houses of Parliament for debate at that time. | :34:19. | :34:25. | |
My lords, may I speak to new clause 3, which I set my name? May I speak | :34:26. | :34:42. | |
to... May lords. My noble friend is in fact a signature to this motion | :34:43. | :34:46. | |
before the House. I think it is right the House hear from him. | :34:47. | :34:49. | |
Perhaps then from the Labour benches and then perhaps one of my noble | :34:50. | :34:55. | |
friends from the Conservative benches. Those are putting their | :34:56. | :35:01. | |
names to new clause 3 are not seeking to stand in the way of this | :35:02. | :35:09. | |
bill. Our sole purpose is to ensure that the outcome is subject to the | :35:10. | :35:13. | |
unfetterred discretion of Parliament. It is in our view, the | :35:14. | :35:18. | |
Parliament and not the Executive which should be the final arbiter of | :35:19. | :35:24. | |
our country's future and ironically in this sense, we stand with the | :35:25. | :35:30. | |
campaigners in the Brexit campaign, who wanted Parliament to recover | :35:31. | :35:39. | |
control over policy and legislation and incidentally too we stand in | :35:40. | :35:47. | |
that long tradition of Parliamentarians who stood for | :35:48. | :35:50. | |
Parliament. In the old days that was a contest fought on the | :35:51. | :35:54. | |
battlefields. More recently in public debate and most recently of | :35:55. | :36:00. | |
all in the law courts. It is a conflict that never ceases. Had it | :36:01. | :36:07. | |
not been for the judiciary we wouldn't be debating this bill. Oh, | :36:08. | :36:12. | |
no, it was the Government's intention to trigger Article 50 | :36:13. | :36:20. | |
under the prerogative powers, that is the residual power of the crown. | :36:21. | :36:27. | |
It is central to this debate that we should determine the proper | :36:28. | :36:31. | |
interpretation to be give on the the referendum last June. I acknowledge | :36:32. | :36:38. | |
at once, albeit I was a remainor, that the referendum was much more | :36:39. | :36:43. | |
than mere think advisory expression of public opinion. It was much more | :36:44. | :36:50. | |
than that. However, I do deny that it was an authority to this | :36:51. | :36:56. | |
Government to leave the European Union whatever the cost, whatever | :36:57. | :37:01. | |
the terms, whatever the prejudice. That cannot be the case. Because the | :37:02. | :37:06. | |
public when it voted last June did not know the outcome. It could not | :37:07. | :37:12. | |
know the outcome. And in any event, the commitment by the Government to | :37:13. | :37:20. | |
subject the at mate decision to a -- ultimate decision a vote of | :37:21. | :37:22. | |
Parliament undercuts that proposition. I believe that the | :37:23. | :37:27. | |
proper interpretation of referendum is this, it is an instruction to | :37:28. | :37:33. | |
government to negotiate withdrawal on the best terms that it could get. | :37:34. | :37:40. | |
But that raises an absolutely fundamental question. To which this | :37:41. | :37:48. | |
new clause is directed. When the negotiations have crystallised, when | :37:49. | :37:53. | |
there are agreed terms, or perhaps no agreed terms, who determines the | :37:54. | :37:59. | |
way forward? Is it the Executive, is it Parliament? And that is the old | :38:00. | :38:06. | |
question we have to resolve. And in my view any believer in a democratic | :38:07. | :38:11. | |
state has to say that the authority lies with Parliament. Now, a very | :38:12. | :38:16. | |
brief reference to the second referendum, very brief. It may be | :38:17. | :38:21. | |
that Parliament two years down the track will decide that a second | :38:22. | :38:28. | |
referendum is necessary. They may be justified in doing so. The | :38:29. | :38:35. | |
circumstances may well change. Say in two years time there is a clear | :38:36. | :38:42. | |
change in public sentiment and say too the Parliament recognises that | :38:43. | :38:47. | |
fact, is Parliament not then under a duty to test the public opinion? And | :38:48. | :39:02. | |
may I quote Lord Tavern, who said this, only dictatorships do not | :39:03. | :39:05. | |
allow people to change their minds. In a democracy, no decision is | :39:06. | :39:17. | |
irreversible. I want to turn the argument from my honourable friend | :39:18. | :39:20. | |
Lord Hill, who is a very old friend of mine. Let me say at once that I | :39:21. | :39:28. | |
do acknowledge his experience and authority, which is recent. His | :39:29. | :39:34. | |
view, which I'm sure is going to be adopted by the Government, is if you | :39:35. | :39:38. | |
give to Parliament the kind of powers contemplated by this new | :39:39. | :39:45. | |
clause, you will undercut the negotiating position of the British | :39:46. | :39:48. | |
Government. Now, I have to say my lords and my Lord I do not agree | :39:49. | :39:57. | |
with that I video. -- view. I share the view expressed by Lord O'Donnell | :39:58. | :40:03. | |
and Kerr, both citing their own experience, that the existence of | :40:04. | :40:14. | |
the argument Parliament willed never wear this reinforces the position. | :40:15. | :40:26. | |
One of the most endearing characteristics of my noble friend | :40:27. | :40:33. | |
is he can't walk past a wasps' nest without poking wit a stick. There | :40:34. | :40:36. | |
are two points I would ask him to reflect on. The first is, which I'm | :40:37. | :40:42. | |
sure he would agree with me and I think all noble Lords with a few | :40:43. | :40:45. | |
exceptions would agree, this is going to be an extremely complex | :40:46. | :40:52. | |
negotiation. Anything that adds to that complexity is strongly to be | :40:53. | :40:58. | |
avoided in my opinion. I do not agree with those who say it will be | :40:59. | :41:03. | |
simple. This is going to be complicated, therefore we should | :41:04. | :41:09. | |
keep things as least complex as we can make them. This amendment, when | :41:10. | :41:15. | |
I listen to the noble Lord set it out, added to my sense that there is | :41:16. | :41:22. | |
complexity and uncertainty in this. My second response to my noble | :41:23. | :41:28. | |
friend about the... Would he perhaps agree with me that in terms of the | :41:29. | :41:32. | |
effect that this might have on the negotiation, the argument that some | :41:33. | :41:37. | |
people used to say that having a Parliament behind you or a board | :41:38. | :41:41. | |
behind you in a negotiation, enables you to have a stronger position, | :41:42. | :41:47. | |
that is normally when the board or the Parliament is adopting a harder | :41:48. | :41:51. | |
line than the person negotiating. In this case, I have to tell you, our | :41:52. | :41:59. | |
friends in Europe do read our debates and they're intelligence, | :42:00. | :42:02. | |
sophisticated negotiators, they know where people sit. So I say, I ask my | :42:03. | :42:07. | |
friend, when he says that it would weaken our position, can he not see | :42:08. | :42:12. | |
that there are indeed instances where it would weaken our position, | :42:13. | :42:19. | |
because it would make Parliament and player in this negotiation and add | :42:20. | :42:24. | |
complexity to what will already be complex. My noble has made a serious | :42:25. | :42:29. | |
point, which enables me to cut to the chase to one of the points I was | :42:30. | :42:35. | |
going to make. It is possible that my noble friend Lord Hill is right | :42:36. | :42:39. | |
and I would say this, there is sometimes a price to be paid for | :42:40. | :42:44. | |
democracy. Indeed, that is the argument that underpins many of the | :42:45. | :42:51. | |
assertions made by the Brexit supporters, they argue there may be | :42:52. | :42:55. | |
a cost, but it is more than compensated by the recovery of | :42:56. | :43:01. | |
democratic control. And that is an argument that also applies to the | :43:02. | :43:08. | |
process of negotiation. Of course I give way. I am grateful, in answer | :43:09. | :43:14. | |
to that question, can I ask him to remember 1991 when he and I were | :43:15. | :43:18. | |
both in the other place and I think he was a member of the Government. | :43:19. | :43:25. | |
On that occasion, the then Prime Minister, John Majorers, brought | :43:26. | :43:30. | |
Maastrict treaty to the House for approval twice. First in seeking a | :43:31. | :43:34. | |
mandate for negotiation and then in seeking the House's ray approval for | :43:35. | :43:44. | |
what had been agreed. If that did not weaken his Government. Why | :43:45. | :43:51. | |
should this weaken this one. It is koon consistent with the principle | :43:52. | :43:55. | |
under the act, that does require all treaties to be ratified by | :43:56. | :44:00. | |
Parliament. If I might make a little progress, this Government has in the | :44:01. | :44:05. | |
course of this pill made a very large number of concessionles and it | :44:06. | :44:10. | |
women be churlish not to welcome that fact. I hoped for more. But I | :44:11. | :44:16. | |
do agree with the views expressed by the noble lady and previously by the | :44:17. | :44:25. | |
noble Lord, Lord Panic, it is better by far that concessions of ministers | :44:26. | :44:31. | |
are expressed in statutory language, because as Lord Oakeses reminded the | :44:32. | :44:35. | |
House, political circumstances may change, ministers may move on, | :44:36. | :44:41. | |
governments may fall, statutory language is always to be preferred | :44:42. | :44:46. | |
to the comforting words of ministers. Finally, may I turn to my | :44:47. | :44:53. | |
noble friend, Lord Bridges, a friend of old standing of mine and I very | :44:54. | :44:58. | |
much hope I do not prejudice his future when I say he has conducted | :44:59. | :45:02. | |
the Government's case with great distinction. | :45:03. | :45:18. | |
But in his wind-up speech, my Noble Friend will doubtless argue that the | :45:19. | :45:29. | |
drafting of this new clause is defective in a number of ingenious | :45:30. | :45:32. | |
ways. It will surprise me if he does not put forward that argument. But I | :45:33. | :45:36. | |
say to Your Lordships' House, ignore that argument. I have carried | :45:37. | :45:41. | |
through several bills from Parliament. I have been party to | :45:42. | :45:46. | |
scores of bills going through Parliament. And the truth is this - | :45:47. | :45:56. | |
when a minister is weak on principle, that minister focuses on | :45:57. | :46:03. | |
the drafting. The reality is as follows - if Parliament as a whole | :46:04. | :46:08. | |
resolves that as a matter of principle, the ultimate authority to | :46:09. | :46:13. | |
determine the future of this country should rest with Parliament and not | :46:14. | :46:20. | |
with the executive, skilled Parliamentary council will be in | :46:21. | :46:26. | |
struck to ensure, and ensure very rapidly that the language of the | :46:27. | :46:29. | |
bill meets that objective. And so, my Lords, I ask your Lordships to | :46:30. | :46:37. | |
rest on the long contested principle, that this country's | :46:38. | :46:42. | |
future should rest with Parliament and not with ministers. And it is in | :46:43. | :46:47. | |
that spirit that I commend this new clause to Your Lordships' House. My | :46:48. | :46:57. | |
Lords, I think it is an occasion for the Labour benches. Can I start by | :46:58. | :46:59. | |
reminding this House that the Supreme Court gave us the benefit of | :47:00. | :47:06. | |
their wisdom on constitutional matters in the case that we have | :47:07. | :47:12. | |
heard about, the case of Gina Miller. And in that case, the | :47:13. | :47:17. | |
Supreme Court's principal conclusion was that rubbery legislation is | :47:18. | :47:22. | |
required to authorise the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. | :47:23. | :47:25. | |
I want to make it very clear that this bill is a notification bill, it | :47:26. | :47:32. | |
is not an authorisation bill. It does not authorise withdrawal from | :47:33. | :47:36. | |
the European Union. What it does is, it notifies other European Union | :47:37. | :47:42. | |
members that we are in a process of negotiation, and withdrawal must | :47:43. | :47:48. | |
come back before this Parliament. And I want to remind the House what | :47:49. | :47:54. | |
the Supreme Court judges said. They said that the reason why this was a | :47:55. | :48:01. | |
matter for Parliament, both notification and finally withdrawal, | :48:02. | :48:05. | |
was because any fundamental change to our laws that inevitably amend or | :48:06. | :48:18. | |
abrogate our individual rights require the approval of Parliament. | :48:19. | :48:22. | |
That is one of the essential constitutional principles under | :48:23. | :48:26. | |
which our system operates, that anything involving our rights, | :48:27. | :48:31. | |
whether it is to trade, to live or to travel in the European Union, we | :48:32. | :48:34. | |
have introduced those into domestic law. Therefore, because it involves | :48:35. | :48:38. | |
the rights of citizens, Parliament is the place that has to make the | :48:39. | :48:43. | |
decision and approve any changes to that. The concern that I raised at | :48:44. | :48:47. | |
the committee stage late at night, when most people were no longer hear | :48:48. | :48:53. | |
a, was that I heard repeatedly from ministers that if there wasn't a | :48:54. | :48:58. | |
deal to write if Parliament decided that a deal was not good enough, we | :48:59. | :49:05. | |
would walk away. And that therefore there was authorisation from the | :49:06. | :49:08. | |
people, having taken part in the referendum, to walk away. And I | :49:09. | :49:14. | |
think that flies in the face of what was being said by the constitutional | :49:15. | :49:18. | |
court of this country, the Supreme Court, dealing with constitutional | :49:19. | :49:23. | |
issues. Because walking away and embarking on an engagement in trade | :49:24. | :49:29. | |
worldwide under the WTO rules also involves an amendment, an abrogation | :49:30. | :49:37. | |
of some of the rights that citizens in this country have, it has | :49:38. | :49:40. | |
indications. That's why it's a constitutional matter, and that's | :49:41. | :49:44. | |
why this House particularly has a role to play. Perhaps I could remind | :49:45. | :49:51. | |
her of the limits of what the Supreme Court decided. In paragraph | :49:52. | :49:55. | |
three, they said, it is worth emphasising that this case has | :49:56. | :49:58. | |
nothing to do with the issues such as the wisdom of the decision to | :49:59. | :50:01. | |
withdraw from the European Union, the terms of withdrawal, the | :50:02. | :50:05. | |
timetable or arrangements rate the details of any future relationship | :50:06. | :50:08. | |
with the European Union. So there is a distinct limit to what they | :50:09. | :50:13. | |
decided, would the Noble Baroness agree? Of course, but in reaching | :50:14. | :50:18. | |
their decision, they laid out the principle that the reason why they | :50:19. | :50:21. | |
were engaging with the case at all was not because they had a view on | :50:22. | :50:26. | |
Brexit or not, but because of the constitutional principle. And the | :50:27. | :50:29. | |
principle is a very straightforward one, which is that when it comes to | :50:30. | :50:33. | |
our rights, Parliament is the place that you come to, Parliament makes | :50:34. | :50:37. | |
these decisions. And that's why when it comes to the end, and there is a | :50:38. | :50:43. | |
deal on the table, then it has to be voted upon by Parliament. But if | :50:44. | :50:49. | |
there is no deal, that, too. Becomes an issue, and I'm afraid it is not | :50:50. | :50:53. | |
good enough for our ministers of government to say, we just walk | :50:54. | :50:57. | |
away, as though it has no consequences. Walking away also has | :50:58. | :51:01. | |
consequences for the rights of citizens in this country. That's why | :51:02. | :51:04. | |
it is a matter for Parliament. That's why this new clause is so | :51:05. | :51:11. | |
important. She said at the beginning of her remarks that this is a | :51:12. | :51:16. | |
notification bill, not an authorisation bill - could she | :51:17. | :51:20. | |
explained therefore what an authorisation amendment is doing in | :51:21. | :51:24. | |
a notification bill? At the end of the process, there is going to be | :51:25. | :51:27. | |
and need to come back before Parliament. That has been | :51:28. | :51:31. | |
acknowledged by the Prime Minister and other ministers. And an | :51:32. | :51:39. | |
undertaking I understand has been given, as Viscount Hailsham has | :51:40. | :51:42. | |
said, I believe that having it in statutory form is the best way for | :51:43. | :51:45. | |
us to know exactly what is on offer. I have heard repeatedly from | :51:46. | :51:48. | |
ministers that the option of walking away involves no need to come back | :51:49. | :51:54. | |
before Parliament. I asked a question directly of the minister | :51:55. | :51:58. | |
and I have heard it said by other ministers in select committee. Wall | :51:59. | :52:02. | |
I am saying to this House is, that's why this amendment is so important. | :52:03. | :52:09. | |
And even important if no negotiation deal comes back before Parliament, | :52:10. | :52:18. | |
because no deal means the WTO, and the WTO has indications for citizens | :52:19. | :52:20. | |
of this country with regard to their rights. My Lords, as my Noble Friend | :52:21. | :52:29. | |
Viscount Hailsham, whose father was a highly respected colleague of | :52:30. | :52:36. | |
mine... Did the Noble Lord finish, because I was intervening on his | :52:37. | :52:43. | |
speech at...? I think that the Noble Lord wanted to come in on the points | :52:44. | :52:47. | |
that I was making. Actually I had more or less completed but if you | :52:48. | :52:55. | |
want to raise an issue... Wasn't the court's judgment based on the idea | :52:56. | :53:01. | |
that this was authorisation? The court would not have ruled as it did | :53:02. | :53:10. | |
if it had not assumed that this was unilaterally revocable. And the | :53:11. | :53:13. | |
court ruled specifically because of that that authorisation was | :53:14. | :53:18. | |
delivered by triggering Article 50. If they had not done so, they would | :53:19. | :53:22. | |
not have ruled as they did. Therefore it is absolutely crucial | :53:23. | :53:25. | |
to the understanding that this IS authorisation. It is notification of | :53:26. | :53:31. | |
withdrawal, it is not a withdrawal bill. My Lords, as I was saying, as | :53:32. | :53:41. | |
my Noble Friend Lord Hailsham, whose father I greatly respected as a | :53:42. | :53:47. | |
colleague of mine... Has reminded us! The reason we are debating this | :53:48. | :53:58. | |
new clause today is that the Noble Lord Lord Pannick, who move this | :53:59. | :54:02. | |
amendment, convinced first the High Court and subsequently the majority | :54:03. | :54:06. | |
of the Supreme Court, and the Government's intention to rely on | :54:07. | :54:10. | |
the prerogative wouldn't do. His argument was clear, and I think it | :54:11. | :54:15. | |
is helpful if I remind the House by quoting his words before the court - | :54:16. | :54:21. | |
my case is very simple, my case is that notification is the pulling of | :54:22. | :54:26. | |
the trigger, and once you have pulled the trigger, the consequence | :54:27. | :54:31. | |
follows. The bullet hits the target. It hits the target on the date | :54:32. | :54:39. | |
specified in Article 50. The triggering leads to the consequence | :54:40. | :54:46. | |
inevitably. Is a matter of law that the treaties cease to apply. In | :54:47. | :54:51. | |
short, the very act of invoking Article 50 in extra blue leads to | :54:52. | :54:58. | |
Brexit two years later. This was the principal basis on which the court | :54:59. | :55:05. | |
decided that the Government was wrong to rely on the prerogative. | :55:06. | :55:09. | |
And yet, my Lords, the new clause that we are now debating appears to | :55:10. | :55:15. | |
be seen exactly the opposite. It is saying that there is no | :55:16. | :55:20. | |
inevitability at all, triggering Article 52 is not inevitably, to use | :55:21. | :55:27. | |
Lord Pannick's word, the two Brexit. For the explicit purpose of the | :55:28. | :55:32. | |
clause is to ensure that even when Article 50 has been implemented, if | :55:33. | :55:37. | |
Parliament disapproves of the outcome of the negotiation, it can | :55:38. | :55:42. | |
stop the sack up. Indeed, as has been pointed out by a number of | :55:43. | :55:46. | |
speakers in this debate, on a strict interpretation of the clause, Your | :55:47. | :55:51. | |
Lordships' House alone could prevent Brexit, since the approval of both | :55:52. | :55:59. | |
Houses is required. I don't want to go down that of a new, because I | :56:00. | :56:03. | |
have no time. I have the greatest respect for the Noble Lord Lord | :56:04. | :56:09. | |
Pannick. He is an exceedingly clever lawyer who deploys his cleverness | :56:10. | :56:16. | |
with considerable charm. But is it possible for even him to have his | :56:17. | :56:27. | |
cake and eat it, too? I would like to develop my argument. The real | :56:28. | :56:34. | |
mischief lies in subsection four. Without subsection four, there is a | :56:35. | :56:42. | |
possible reconciliation with the original Lord Pannick thesis, as the | :56:43. | :56:46. | |
Noble Lord himself effectively conceded. Parliament would simply be | :56:47. | :56:52. | |
faced with a decision of whether or not it approved of the agreement | :56:53. | :56:57. | |
which the Government had putatively reached with the European Union. | :56:58. | :57:03. | |
Indeed, as the Noble Lord Lord Hope and one or two others have already | :57:04. | :57:06. | |
pointed out, the Government has pledged to put this before | :57:07. | :57:12. | |
Parliament when the time comes. The Government might, for example, have | :57:13. | :57:19. | |
agreed to pay the Barnier ransom demand, which our own European | :57:20. | :57:23. | |
affairs committee has recently confirmed we are under no legal | :57:24. | :57:27. | |
obligation to pay, a and in that case, Parliament might... But if, my | :57:28. | :57:34. | |
Lords, for whatever reason, Parliament refused to approve the | :57:35. | :57:38. | |
agreement the Government had reached with the EU, that would not prevent | :57:39. | :57:43. | |
Brexit. It would simply mean that we left the European Union without an | :57:44. | :57:49. | |
agreement. As I explained during the course of the second reading of this | :57:50. | :57:55. | |
bill, that is nothing to be scared about. So, far from jumping off a | :57:56. | :58:01. | |
nonexistent if into the unknown, trading under WTO rules is a very | :58:02. | :58:07. | |
satisfactory basis of most of the trade we do throughout the world | :58:08. | :58:12. | |
today. And no agreement... I give way. Would the Noble Lord accept | :58:13. | :58:19. | |
that the key question at this stage for the House this afternoon is, who | :58:20. | :58:25. | |
is to be master? Is it ministers or Parliament? I think that if the | :58:26. | :58:32. | |
Noble Lord will allow me to develop my argument, he will see exactly | :58:33. | :58:39. | |
what the problem is. As the Prime Minister... Because no agreement is | :58:40. | :58:45. | |
in my opinion far and away the most likely outcome. As the Prime | :58:46. | :58:49. | |
Minister made clear in her Ancaster house speech, and as the subsequent | :58:50. | :58:56. | |
white paper reiterated, no agreement is better than a bad agreement. And | :58:57. | :59:06. | |
sadly, a bad agreement is all that is likely to be on offer. For the | :59:07. | :59:11. | |
mischief, my Lords, or subsection four of this new clause, is that it | :59:12. | :59:16. | |
would not merely give Parliament the power to reject a bad deal, it would | :59:17. | :59:22. | |
also enable Parliament to prevent Brexit altogether by refusing to | :59:23. | :59:25. | |
allow the UK to leave the European Union without agreement. This is not | :59:26. | :59:31. | |
only in diametric opposition to the Lord Pannick thesis on which the | :59:32. | :59:36. | |
bill rests, more importantly, it would be an unconscionable rejection | :59:37. | :59:42. | |
of the referendum result, which would drive a far greater wedge | :59:43. | :59:46. | |
between the political classes and the British people than the | :59:47. | :59:48. | |
dangerous gulf that already exists. It could be argued we would be | :59:49. | :00:00. | |
instructing the Government to go back to Brussels and accept whatever | :00:01. | :00:06. | |
agreement, however bad the 26 are preparped to offer. -- 27 are | :00:07. | :00:12. | |
prepared to offer. That is constitutionally improper. The only | :00:13. | :00:17. | |
effect would be to create a political crisis causing damaging | :00:18. | :00:20. | |
uncertainty to business and the economy and which would in practice | :00:21. | :00:26. | |
be resolved only by a disillusion of Parliament and a general election. | :00:27. | :00:30. | |
Something the opposition can always try to achieve if that is what they | :00:31. | :00:36. | |
wish, without this clause, simply by moving and carrying a vote of no | :00:37. | :00:42. | |
confidence in the Government. My lords, this mischievous new clause | :00:43. | :00:51. | |
Mas Ca raiding an an assertion of Parliamentary sovereignty deserves | :00:52. | :01:02. | |
to be rejected out of hand. My lords. Speech. Sustain. I'm grateful | :01:03. | :01:14. | |
to my noble friend, no doubt she will have her opportunity in a | :01:15. | :01:18. | |
moment. After more than four decades in which I sought to make the most | :01:19. | :01:25. | |
modest of modest contributions to Parliament, I hope my credentials as | :01:26. | :01:31. | |
an advocate of Parliamentary sovereignty will not be challenged. | :01:32. | :01:40. | |
I'm grateful the Lord Pannick for his recasting of amendment 3, if | :01:41. | :01:46. | |
this amendment were made the means of approval would be in the hands of | :01:47. | :01:57. | |
Government. I hope he will forgive me if I repeat some of the issues. | :01:58. | :02:02. | |
It has been in the hands of a vote and a motion. That suggests | :02:03. | :02:08. | |
proceedings by resolution. If so the concerns I expressed in committee | :02:09. | :02:13. | |
are unallayed. What happens in one House votes one way, the other House | :02:14. | :02:19. | |
votes the other way? Is a qualified approval, perhaps with some | :02:20. | :02:23. | |
conditional rider, does that count as approval? Would bit acceptable in | :02:24. | :02:28. | |
those circumstances to give this House an effective veto over the | :02:29. | :02:34. | |
process? If on the other hand primary legislation is contemplate, | :02:35. | :02:42. | |
the issue of some qualified approval or the terms of approval reminutes. | :02:43. | :02:49. | |
Minute -- remains. Specific wording for a motion of confidence or no | :02:50. | :02:56. | |
confidence was inserted to avoid recourse to the courts. In matters | :02:57. | :03:08. | |
of present gravity, recourse to the courts would be unwelcome. My father | :03:09. | :03:15. | |
quoted what was alleged to be a rule at a University in Germany, which | :03:16. | :03:22. | |
said no one will tie anything whether a night watchman or not a | :03:23. | :03:29. | |
watchman to anything, will a lightning conductor at any time, | :03:30. | :03:32. | |
whether or not during a thunder storm. I don't ask for that degree | :03:33. | :03:39. | |
of specification, but if primary legislation is contemplated, then | :03:40. | :03:45. | |
the terms of approval need to be considered carefully. I'm torn as to | :03:46. | :03:53. | |
how to vote on this particular amendment. May I turn to our very | :03:54. | :04:00. | |
noble and able friend, the minister, to guide me in this respect. I | :04:01. | :04:06. | |
listened carefully to all the speakers, particularly Baroness Ken | :04:07. | :04:12. | |
can I di, these -- Kennedy, these amendments are based on a simple | :04:13. | :04:17. | |
proposition that rights given to British subjects by statute can only | :04:18. | :04:23. | |
be removed by statute. Of the alternatives available in particular | :04:24. | :04:28. | |
amendment 3, which I'm minded to support, a resolution passed by both | :04:29. | :04:32. | |
Houses or a bill to be passed by both Houses, the amendment needs to | :04:33. | :04:36. | |
the Government to determine the means to choose. I would argue and I | :04:37. | :04:43. | |
seek guidance from the minister and powerful arguments why it would not | :04:44. | :04:46. | |
be appropriate to include the amendment here on the face of this | :04:47. | :04:51. | |
bill. I say this, because this is the last procedural stage before we | :04:52. | :04:56. | |
embark on the substance and we are told there will not be just the | :04:57. | :05:02. | |
great repeal bill, but a number of pieces of legislation and multiple | :05:03. | :05:08. | |
secondary legislation to repeal some of the things we may wish no longer | :05:09. | :05:13. | |
to apply. Why is it important to write is on the bill, for so many | :05:14. | :05:20. | |
reasons, politics change and times change and we are being asked to | :05:21. | :05:26. | |
take a lot on trust in terms of a commitment from the Government and a | :05:27. | :05:30. | |
commitment given in the House of Commons that the Parliament and the | :05:31. | :05:34. | |
Government would hope to follow through. Surely it is op right that | :05:35. | :05:38. | |
it should be put on the face of bill. I would like the remind the | :05:39. | :05:42. | |
House that we spent about two hours and 30 minutes talking about the | :05:43. | :05:48. | |
rights of EU nationals. If the referendum had been held on the same | :05:49. | :05:52. | |
term ps as the European Parliament elections, all those EU nationals | :05:53. | :05:59. | |
living here would have been unable to vote. We by an amendment passed | :06:00. | :06:10. | |
in this House deprived those one million EU nationals from the right | :06:11. | :06:15. | |
to vote. In fact, that one million number could have changed the | :06:16. | :06:20. | |
outcome of the result of the referendum over night. Now, I would | :06:21. | :06:32. | |
refer to the words of the noble Lord Hope in summing up the, his second | :06:33. | :06:39. | |
reading, who expressed to the Government in I thought a very | :06:40. | :06:44. | |
helpful way, that the Supreme Court's decision in Miller goes | :06:45. | :06:48. | |
further than just this bill before us today, which embarks on the | :06:49. | :06:53. | |
negotiation procedure. I don't think anybody in the House, or the | :06:54. | :06:55. | |
majority of the House would not wish to stand in the way of triggering of | :06:56. | :07:04. | |
the process. But by the same token, Lord Hope said that... By not | :07:05. | :07:16. | |
writing into, I would argue on the face of the bill, that by obtaining | :07:17. | :07:22. | |
approval by resolution in Parliament is not the same as statutory | :07:23. | :07:29. | |
authority and that is why he cautioned the government into | :07:30. | :07:33. | |
thinking this bill will give the Government all the authority they | :07:34. | :07:36. | |
need to obtain approval for an agreement by resuing resolution of | :07:37. | :07:43. | |
the same thing as being given authority to conclude that | :07:44. | :07:48. | |
agreement. I would refer to an article written by five QCs, who | :07:49. | :07:55. | |
gave an opinion on this and I quote one paragraph, meaningful | :07:56. | :07:58. | |
Parliamentary decision-making cannot be achieved by Parliament | :07:59. | :08:04. | |
authorising exit from the EU, two years in advance on unknown terms. | :08:05. | :08:09. | |
Equally it cannot be achieved be asingle take it or leave it vote. | :08:10. | :08:18. | |
That whole article based three nights of five very eminent QCs, | :08:19. | :08:26. | |
argue straight forwardly, the constitutional requirements of the | :08:27. | :08:33. | |
decision to leave the EU include the enactment of primary legislation to | :08:34. | :08:36. | |
give terms to the effect of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom. So | :08:37. | :08:41. | |
in fact rather than being a wrecking amendment, I think this amendment | :08:42. | :08:44. | |
has been helpful to the Government, as preventing a situation that we | :08:45. | :08:50. | |
found ourselves in having lost now three to six months through a court | :08:51. | :08:55. | |
case and an appeal by writing on the face of the appeal that Parliament | :08:56. | :09:00. | |
will have the final say. These two Houses and it will be the | :09:01. | :09:04. | |
government's choosing, whether a resolution of both Houses, or an Act | :09:05. | :09:11. | |
of Parliament, what that should be. Otherwise there will be a lack of | :09:12. | :09:15. | |
clarity as to what the remaining rights that have been extended to | :09:16. | :09:19. | |
British subjects can continue to rely and I would go further going to | :09:20. | :09:23. | |
the reform bill, there will be a lack of clarity as to what the court | :09:24. | :09:30. | |
on which we should rely to make sure that those outstanding rights can be | :09:31. | :09:42. | |
enforced. This side. This side. This side. My Lords. This side. This | :09:43. | :09:54. | |
side. I think we will hear from the noble lady Baroness Teach and then | :09:55. | :10:03. | |
after that from the noble lady. And then from my learned friend Lord | :10:04. | :10:12. | |
McKay. I wish to say a few brief sad words about sovereignty and the | :10:13. | :10:17. | |
likely outcome if Parliament disapproves the deal in the end of | :10:18. | :10:21. | |
the negotiations in two years time. The sad fact is that because of the | :10:22. | :10:28. | |
construction of Article 50 we will not recover our Parliamentary | :10:29. | :10:32. | |
sovereignty in European matter until the process is over. If you | :10:33. | :10:36. | |
contemplate what might happen in two years, we will see only too sadly | :10:37. | :10:42. | |
that sovereignty lies with Europe. If this House or the other House | :10:43. | :10:46. | |
were to reject the deal, we will end up as puppets in their hands. Can it | :10:47. | :10:55. | |
honestly be imagined that if one or other House goes back to Europe in | :10:56. | :10:59. | |
just under two years and says, we don't like the deal. That the other | :11:00. | :11:04. | |
27 will say, oh dear, here is a much better one. Or that they will say, | :11:05. | :11:10. | |
let us all 27 now agree to extend the negotiation time. I don't think | :11:11. | :11:17. | |
that is the xas. The noble Lord Lord Oats indicated he did not trust the | :11:18. | :11:21. | |
Prime Minister. But I don't trust the other 27 members of EU to give | :11:22. | :11:26. | |
us a good deal or to care very nuch about what happens to us or our | :11:27. | :11:34. | |
nationals. Because their only declared spent has been, you must be | :11:35. | :11:39. | |
punished, the union must survive, no matter the cost. We will not be kind | :11:40. | :11:44. | |
to you. There is no vision, there is no mission. I read it in the papers | :11:45. | :12:01. | |
every day. Perhaps the noble Baroness would quote to Lord Lee | :12:02. | :12:05. | |
what president Francois Hollande said, he said there has to be a | :12:06. | :12:08. | |
price, there has to be a threat, there has to be a cost. Thank you. | :12:09. | :12:17. | |
Much of the argument turns on whether Article 50 is if | :12:18. | :12:32. | |
irrevocable. It would be the turning point at which it would run its | :12:33. | :12:36. | |
course. Indeed I know there has been a legal opinion from three knights | :12:37. | :12:51. | |
that Article 50 is rev cobble. But I heard the Lord who drafted the | :12:52. | :12:56. | |
article knows, in our system it is not the draftsman who declares what | :12:57. | :13:03. | |
the article means. It is the fact if Parliamentary approval were needed | :13:04. | :13:08. | |
at the end of the deal what might it look like some parts might deal with | :13:09. | :13:16. | |
European nationals. Only a few days ago we were expressing shock that | :13:17. | :13:22. | |
the position of European nationals may not be taken care of. Would we | :13:23. | :13:31. | |
throw them into disarray? I'm sorry to say that the noble Lord, Lord | :13:32. | :13:37. | |
Pannick, has departed from his usual clarity in legal matters. I think he | :13:38. | :13:41. | |
has tied himself and the House in knots. Because on the one hand he | :13:42. | :13:49. | |
says we always defer to the House of Commons, I wonder if we will hear | :13:50. | :13:54. | |
that this evening or next week if there is a head on clash between our | :13:55. | :13:58. | |
decision and what the House of Commons says? On the other hand, he | :13:59. | :14:03. | |
has also said that approval is better than having an Act of | :14:04. | :14:07. | |
Parliament, it leaves it open to the Prime Minister to decide what to do. | :14:08. | :14:14. | |
But with an Act of Parliament expressing what is in the argument, | :14:15. | :14:19. | |
the Parliament would prevail. So you can't have it both ways. The only | :14:20. | :14:24. | |
other possible outcome is no deal, the two year shutter comes down and | :14:25. | :14:30. | |
were off the cliff or there is a general outcome and others know how | :14:31. | :14:34. | |
difficult that would be. Our lack of sovereignty means if at the end of | :14:35. | :14:39. | |
two years the rest of European Union does not give us what we want and | :14:40. | :14:44. | |
either house rejects that deal, the European Union will for sure not | :14:45. | :14:52. | |
welcome us back with open arms, not necessarily accept a revocation of | :14:53. | :14:54. | |
Article 50 and not necessarily give us a better deal. That is the | :14:55. | :14:58. | |
reality of the situation. We will have to take what comes our way in | :14:59. | :15:05. | |
two years time. Plainly the amendments requiring a second | :15:06. | :15:08. | |
Parliamentary assent are designed to enable Brexit to be blocked in the | :15:09. | :15:12. | |
mistaken belief that the EU will roll over. | :15:13. | :15:20. | |
If this is enacted, it is more likely to lead to no deal at all. In | :15:21. | :15:26. | |
practice, it is unworkable and defies the result of the referendum. | :15:27. | :15:31. | |
The referendum was all a matter of principle, not details. It is | :15:32. | :15:36. | |
deep-lying with many of those who voted to leave, regardless of the | :15:37. | :15:40. | |
details - they want to separate themselves from the European Union. | :15:41. | :15:44. | |
And it is very unlikely that they will feel differently in two years, | :15:45. | :15:50. | |
especially if the union deals out a bad deal to the rest of us. I oppose | :15:51. | :15:57. | |
the amendment. My Lords, I don't know what people will feel like in | :15:58. | :16:01. | |
two years' time, we know that the demographics will have changed, we | :16:02. | :16:03. | |
know that young people will become in onto the electoral register, and | :16:04. | :16:08. | |
as we all know, young people have taken a very different view about | :16:09. | :16:13. | |
our leaving the EU to that which the older people have taken who will no | :16:14. | :16:17. | |
longer be able to vote. My Lords, what I want to do, if I may, is to | :16:18. | :16:23. | |
ask the minister, on two very specific points, in view of what the | :16:24. | :16:30. | |
Noble Lord Lord Lawson had to say about the Supreme Court judgment | :16:31. | :16:35. | |
that Article 50 was irrevocable, and a view just reiterated by Lady | :16:36. | :16:40. | |
Deitch, I did think that the Supreme Court judgment was rather more | :16:41. | :16:44. | |
nuanced than that, that it actually said that because the parties to the | :16:45. | :16:49. | |
action were prepared to use that as the basis for forming their | :16:50. | :16:56. | |
judgment, that they had not tested the arguments about the revoke | :16:57. | :17:00. | |
ability or otherwise of Article 50. So there was a quite clear statement | :17:01. | :17:05. | |
that they had not tested that argument. In second reading I asked | :17:06. | :17:10. | |
the Noble Lord what the Government's views were on this. And the Noble | :17:11. | :17:15. | |
Lord, in a very, very skilled response at the end of that debate, | :17:16. | :17:20. | |
said that it was the firm Bolasie of the government not to turn back once | :17:21. | :17:26. | |
having triggered. -- it was the firm policy. We are not asking about the | :17:27. | :17:36. | |
firm policy. What we need to know is, what is the Government's legal | :17:37. | :17:43. | |
view on the revoke ability or otherwise of article 54 it is a | :17:44. | :17:48. | |
crucial question, because if this issue does come back to Parliament, | :17:49. | :17:51. | |
we will be in a very different position if it is revoke a ball. So | :17:52. | :17:58. | |
I am asking the question, my Lords, and I hope that this time I might | :17:59. | :18:02. | |
have the answer. The second point I want to ask the minister about is | :18:03. | :18:06. | |
the position whereby the Government has sought to bypass Parliament, as | :18:07. | :18:13. | |
indeed it did, by saying that the prerogative powers were sufficient | :18:14. | :18:16. | |
to trigger Article 50. My Lords, it did indeed take private individuals, | :18:17. | :18:22. | |
represented by the Noble Lord Lord Pannick, to go to court to prevent | :18:23. | :18:26. | |
the Government going beyond its powers, beyond its powers, and to | :18:27. | :18:34. | |
bypass this Parliament. The Government had assumed it had powers | :18:35. | :18:39. | |
by using the prerogative and the Supreme Court was able to disabuse | :18:40. | :18:43. | |
the Government of that point. My Lords, in claiming that... Would she | :18:44. | :18:52. | |
accept that the reason the court made that judgment was because both | :18:53. | :18:57. | |
parties had agreed that it was not unilaterally revocable. That is the | :18:58. | :19:02. | |
reason why both parties had to agree to that, because otherwise, the | :19:03. | :19:05. | |
court would have ruled differently. They ruled that this was a | :19:06. | :19:08. | |
Parliamentary decision of authorisation, that is the reason | :19:09. | :19:12. | |
why it had to come back to Parliament, because it would change | :19:13. | :19:16. | |
law. The point the Supreme Court made was that it had not tested the | :19:17. | :19:21. | |
point about revoke ability. I would say that if it were to be asked to | :19:22. | :19:25. | |
do that, who knows what it would decide. -- about revokeability. My | :19:26. | :19:41. | |
Lords, the political position now is that the Supreme Court has not made | :19:42. | :19:48. | |
that judgment, and it took going to the court in order to get the views | :19:49. | :19:53. | |
that we have. My Lords wonder we get to the end of this whole | :19:54. | :19:59. | |
intervention, I wonder what the Noble Lord minister is going to be | :20:00. | :20:06. | |
able to say about our ability to trust the views of ministers. I'm | :20:07. | :20:08. | |
not saying that we don't believe that ministers really want to come | :20:09. | :20:13. | |
back to Parliament, but the only assurance we are going to have is by | :20:14. | :20:16. | |
putting this on the face of the bill. My Lords, the government has | :20:17. | :20:22. | |
not got good form over this, they have not got good form. They went to | :20:23. | :20:28. | |
the Supreme Court after the High Court had told them what the | :20:29. | :20:32. | |
judgment should be, and they foolishly went on, in my view. So we | :20:33. | :20:35. | |
need this on the face of the bill, because as I said, the Government | :20:36. | :20:40. | |
has form at bypassing Parliament and we need to know that that will not | :20:41. | :20:45. | |
happen again. My Lords, we need the best legal checks and balances that | :20:46. | :20:49. | |
we can get, not to stop Brexit, my Lords, but to make sure that we | :20:50. | :20:55. | |
obtain from Brexit the best this country can get. And that's why we | :20:56. | :20:59. | |
need to vote for this amendment today. It is why this amendment, if | :21:00. | :21:03. | |
it is successful in this House, I hope goes on to be successful in | :21:04. | :21:09. | |
Another Place. Because Britain relies on Parliamentary sovereignty, | :21:10. | :21:16. | |
and now is the moment, my Lords, for our Parliamentary sovereignty to be | :21:17. | :21:20. | |
fully asserted by this House, not in six months' time, not in 18 months, | :21:21. | :21:25. | |
not at the end of the period of negotiation, but we have to make | :21:26. | :21:28. | |
sure, legally, that Britain's best interests are protected and | :21:29. | :21:32. | |
safeguarded. That is the job of this Parliament. It is our job here | :21:33. | :21:38. | |
today, and I urge this House to vote for this amendment. My Lords, I | :21:39. | :21:48. | |
might first of all take up the point that the noble lady has just | :21:49. | :21:52. | |
mentioned from the judgment of the Supreme Court, because naturally I | :21:53. | :21:57. | |
have studied it with a certain amount of care. It was agreed as the | :21:58. | :22:03. | |
basis from both sides, the government side and the applicant's | :22:04. | :22:13. | |
side, that they should treat the Article 15 notification as | :22:14. | :22:18. | |
irrevocable. For Lord Reed pointed out clearly that that had not been | :22:19. | :22:23. | |
the subject of a decision by the court, but that for the point of | :22:24. | :22:30. | |
view of the judgment, it doesn't matter, so long as it was possible | :22:31. | :22:33. | |
that it was irrevocable. Because if that was the case, the danger to | :22:34. | :22:43. | |
Acts of Parliament was existing, even if it turned out that it might | :22:44. | :22:48. | |
be revocable. If it was possible that it was not revocable, then once | :22:49. | :22:51. | |
the thing was triggered, these Acts of Parliament came into danger. So, | :22:52. | :22:58. | |
it was as simple as that. I think that we must assume, I am prepared | :22:59. | :23:03. | |
anyway, to assume that the government lawyers took the view | :23:04. | :23:08. | |
that Article 15 notification was irrevocable, because it is on that | :23:09. | :23:12. | |
basis that they took the case. -- Article 50. Any doubt about that | :23:13. | :23:18. | |
might have helped them if they thought there was a real argument | :23:19. | :23:21. | |
that it was revocable and all the rest of it. And the decision might | :23:22. | :23:33. | |
not have occurred, as Lord Pannick was talking about. So the Government | :23:34. | :23:35. | |
definitely took the view I think that it was irrevocable. Anyway, the | :23:36. | :23:41. | |
point tonight is a different one. The Prime Minister and the minister | :23:42. | :23:49. | |
in the Commons both gave an undertaking that a motion would be | :23:50. | :23:52. | |
put before both Houses of Parliament for approval of the final deal. And | :23:53. | :24:01. | |
also for the way in which we might leave the European Union. They both | :24:02. | :24:08. | |
gave that undertaking, but they did not say that the Prime Minister | :24:09. | :24:13. | |
would necessarily be bound by the decision of both Houses. Now, the | :24:14. | :24:20. | |
difficulty in this amendment as I see it is that it does require | :24:21. | :24:24. | |
formerly the approval of both Houses. There is no question, that | :24:25. | :24:31. | |
is as clear as it can be. I am not a prophet and I do not claim to be, | :24:32. | :24:36. | |
and so exactly what will happen after two years, I don't know. All I | :24:37. | :24:41. | |
know is that I feel absolutely certain that the negotiations will | :24:42. | :24:45. | |
be quite difficult, and that it will be very difficult at this stage to | :24:46. | :24:49. | |
tell what sort of outcome we may get. If we can get such an agreement | :24:50. | :24:55. | |
in relation to economics, as the Prime Minister indicated in her | :24:56. | :25:00. | |
speech, then that might be very good. On the other hand, some people | :25:01. | :25:08. | |
who know more than I do about it think that may not be very likely. | :25:09. | :25:11. | |
As I've said, I don't know what's going to happen. The Prime Minister | :25:12. | :25:15. | |
and the minister has agreed that both Houses of Parliament should | :25:16. | :25:19. | |
have a motion put before them for approval, but neither of them said, | :25:20. | :25:25. | |
and I believe that that may be the reason why they phrased it as they | :25:26. | :25:29. | |
did, neither of them said that the approval of both Houses would be | :25:30. | :25:34. | |
necessary. My Lords, I want to point out the danger of not getting this | :25:35. | :25:39. | |
right. I see no reason why it should not be put right if people are | :25:40. | :25:44. | |
agreed that it isn't quite right and fat the House of Commons should be | :25:45. | :25:50. | |
the prime source of authority on this matter. Because your Lordships | :25:51. | :25:56. | |
will remember if you read the newspapers, and I'm sure most of us | :25:57. | :26:06. | |
do, the suggestion that this was all a scheme for this House, trying to | :26:07. | :26:13. | |
defeat the Brexit folk, and I don't want it to be said unnecessarily -- | :26:14. | :26:22. | |
the Brexit vote -- that we give colour to that. Because I feel | :26:23. | :26:25. | |
absolutely certain that nobody in this House wants to engineer a | :26:26. | :26:33. | |
blockage of the Brexit vote, as the Prime Minister goes ahead. I feel | :26:34. | :26:40. | |
sure of that, and I think I'm right. We were told this morning, somebody | :26:41. | :26:46. | |
talked about the tribal appearance. I don't feel myself as part of any | :26:47. | :26:50. | |
particular tribe, but I do feel clear that I want the matter to be | :26:51. | :26:55. | |
right, and if this amendment is sent back to the Commons, I would like it | :26:56. | :26:58. | |
to be correct, so that nobody could suggest that we were trying a scheme | :26:59. | :27:14. | |
which might - MIGHT - block Brexit. As I understand the Noble Lord's | :27:15. | :27:21. | |
speech, what he is saying is that provided the primacy of the House of | :27:22. | :27:24. | |
Commons is made clear, he would support the amendment, is that | :27:25. | :27:29. | |
right? Well, what I'm saying is that I think it would then simply | :27:30. | :27:36. | |
incorporate the Prime Minister and the minister's undertaken. Of | :27:37. | :27:42. | |
course, the bit at the end, that's a separate matter, and on the whole I | :27:43. | :27:47. | |
don't feel very inclined to get into it, because there is the problem | :27:48. | :27:54. | |
that, as was said, the Brexit business, once it is initiated, may | :27:55. | :28:01. | |
go out of hand. It may terminate without any voluntary agreement on | :28:02. | :28:04. | |
the part of the Prime Minister. And the amendment doesn't really deal | :28:05. | :28:11. | |
with that, but I don't see too much harm in that particular amendment. | :28:12. | :28:14. | |
As I said, I can't foresee exactly what's going to happen, and I would | :28:15. | :28:19. | |
sincerely hope that it's the first two branches of the amendment that | :28:20. | :28:24. | |
come into play in the end, and that there is an agreement that can be | :28:25. | :28:29. | |
put before the Houses of Parliament. But as I said, nobody knows. We can | :28:30. | :28:37. | |
only hope. But I think it would be very desirable for any amendment of | :28:38. | :28:45. | |
this kind, going from this House, to recognise this privacy of the House | :28:46. | :28:51. | |
of Commons. My Lords, I think it is this side. Two quick points. | :28:52. | :28:58. | |
First... I think my Noble Friend will find | :28:59. | :29:24. | |
that my noble and landed friend has sat down, and there will be an | :29:25. | :29:27. | |
opportunity for him to speak, but I did indicate earlier that I thought | :29:28. | :29:31. | |
we should hear at this stage from Lord Kerr. | :29:32. | :29:37. | |
Two points. On the issue of rev voxability. He told his readers in | :29:38. | :29:57. | |
the Times that we did not mention it at #5u8. Al. When Lord Pannick won | :29:58. | :30:09. | |
his case in the High Court and the No 10 spokesman was asked about | :30:10. | :30:15. | |
revokability, the spokesman said as a matter of firm policy, our noted | :30:16. | :30:21. | |
occasion to withdraw will not be withdrawn. The second reading after | :30:22. | :30:31. | |
our debate the minister put on the spot by Baroness Symons, could it be | :30:32. | :30:40. | |
revoked? He replied, as a matter of firm policy, our notification will | :30:41. | :30:46. | |
not be withdrawn. Very similar. To the No 10 spokesman. Always wise in | :30:47. | :30:52. | |
a minister! In committee, when the same issue of this was raised the | :30:53. | :30:58. | |
minister said, last Wednesday, replying to the debate on the | :30:59. | :31:05. | |
amendment as a matter of policy, we will not withdraw our notice to | :31:06. | :31:13. | |
leave. The wording is slightly wrong there. When the Government say as a | :31:14. | :31:20. | |
matter of policy, firm or infirm, they will not withdraw the | :31:21. | :31:25. | |
notification which this bill authorises, the Government every | :31:26. | :31:32. | |
time implicitly confirm that in law they could withdraw it and they | :31:33. | :31:39. | |
could if you want a definitive source, don't look at me, listen to | :31:40. | :31:43. | |
the president of the European council, who has said so on the | :31:44. | :31:49. | |
record. If you want a definitive EU legal view and this would be an EU | :31:50. | :31:56. | |
legal question, if it were tested, try the present head of council | :31:57. | :32:01. | |
legal service for the head of council legal services who advised | :32:02. | :32:04. | |
me when I was writing the wretched thing. It is revocable, just as a | :32:05. | :32:18. | |
point of clarification. Second in relation to the discussion, | :32:19. | :32:23. | |
particularly that of Lord Lawson of the last section, section 4 of the | :32:24. | :32:34. | |
Lord Pannick's amendment, in which he detected deep evil, it seem what | :32:35. | :32:41. | |
is is being said there is that the decision that no deal is better than | :32:42. | :32:47. | |
a bad deal is a decision for Parliament. It seems what is being | :32:48. | :32:54. | |
said there is that the judgment on whether the bad deal is a bad deal | :32:55. | :33:03. | |
and the chaos and disruption of leaving with no deal preferable, I | :33:04. | :33:08. | |
find it very hard, I struggle to think of the deal which could be | :33:09. | :33:12. | |
worse than no deal and I note that the president of the CBI last week | :33:13. | :33:18. | |
said that the worst possible scenario was leaving with no deal. | :33:19. | :33:23. | |
But that is not the point. The point is about Parliamentary sovereignty. | :33:24. | :33:27. | |
The issue of whether no deal is worse than this deal, the deal that | :33:28. | :33:31. | |
is available on the table on that date, is for Parliament to decide | :33:32. | :33:36. | |
and that's what section 4 of the amendment says and I support it. He | :33:37. | :33:54. | |
referred to sovereignty and I offer thoughts as a run of the mill | :33:55. | :34:00. | |
Parliamentarian, but I think that the phrase Parliamentary sovereignty | :34:01. | :34:04. | |
is something I couldn't possibly vote against, to agree to vote | :34:05. | :34:10. | |
against a motion like this would have an element of voting against | :34:11. | :34:17. | |
motherhood and apple pie, something I believe in, one o' of the reasons | :34:18. | :34:20. | |
that people were concerned during the course of the referendum, | :34:21. | :34:30. | |
because it seemed to me to be incontrovertible the way the EU | :34:31. | :34:35. | |
developed involved a steady erosion of Parliamentary sovereignty and it | :34:36. | :34:38. | |
would be difficult to disagree with that proposition. However, we come | :34:39. | :34:46. | |
to and have to when addressing this amendment, what a decision by | :34:47. | :34:52. | |
Parliament actually comprises and I'm forced to read the amendment as | :34:53. | :34:57. | |
it is written down here, sub section one refers to without the approval | :34:58. | :35:04. | |
of both Houses of Parliament. Sub section 3 requires the prior | :35:05. | :35:08. | |
approval of both Houses of Parliament. Sub section 4 refers to | :35:09. | :35:14. | |
the prior approval of both Houses of Parliament. Now, to propose this | :35:15. | :35:24. | |
amendment and I say it with great respect to the weight of legal | :35:25. | :35:28. | |
opinion that is being offered to propose it without being clear about | :35:29. | :35:33. | |
what's involved in the approval of both Houses of Parliament, is to | :35:34. | :35:39. | |
leave an ambiguity at the heart of this amendment, which really hardly | :35:40. | :35:44. | |
needs adding to what Lord McKay has already said. And if I could feel, I | :35:45. | :35:49. | |
felt concerned about this from the start, I raised it at committee | :35:50. | :35:53. | |
stage, there has been an attempt to move towards the answering of the | :35:54. | :35:59. | |
question what happens if the Commons said yes and the lords said no, but | :36:00. | :36:04. | |
the solution to it is not contained within these amendments. Now I did | :36:05. | :36:11. | |
make a admittedly inadequate attempt with the public bill office to see | :36:12. | :36:14. | |
if there was any way in which I could put down an amendment which | :36:15. | :36:21. | |
would satisfy or at least address this problem, which I see at the | :36:22. | :36:26. | |
heart of the bill. If the House will forgive me, for I shall conclude | :36:27. | :36:32. | |
shortly after I which read out the terms of defunct amendment at least | :36:33. | :36:38. | |
as of now. It would have said this, if under the provisions of sub | :36:39. | :36:43. | |
sections 1, 3 or 4 there is a disagreement between the House of | :36:44. | :36:47. | |
Commons of and the House of lords as to whether or not the agreement or | :36:48. | :36:51. | |
decision should be approved, the view of the House of Commons | :36:52. | :36:57. | |
prevails over the view of the House of Lords. That for me makes an | :36:58. | :37:03. | |
attempt to explain precisely or resolve I hope precisely the | :37:04. | :37:06. | |
ambiguity at the heart of this bill. I was following the argument that I | :37:07. | :37:28. | |
agree with in terms of lack of clarity on what happens if both | :37:29. | :37:32. | |
Houses disagree. Would he agree there is a further issue in relation | :37:33. | :37:37. | |
to different procedures of two Houses. In the House of Commons, the | :37:38. | :37:43. | |
Government controls the jeend. -- agenda. We heard from Lord Pannick | :37:44. | :37:50. | |
it would be up to the Government what happens. Any Lord can put down | :37:51. | :37:59. | |
an amendment to disapprove and in this House it can't be in the | :38:00. | :38:04. | |
control of the Government what might constitute approval or disapproval. | :38:05. | :38:07. | |
Isn't that a further difficulty? Yes. I can understand that point. | :38:08. | :38:17. | |
But I want to just emphasise the central problem which Lord McKay's | :38:18. | :38:22. | |
identified and to ask the House, or perhaps more specifically ask the | :38:23. | :38:27. | |
proposer of the motion whether something like that included at | :38:28. | :38:30. | |
third reading could solve the difficulty I think he would even | :38:31. | :38:36. | |
acknowledge was expressed in the various interventions that he dealt | :38:37. | :38:40. | |
with. But I will say one thing that is to some degree with my capacity | :38:41. | :38:46. | |
to influence, to my own front bench and to my very good noble friend | :38:47. | :38:52. | |
Baroness Hater who will be winding up, this is something that is not | :38:53. | :38:55. | |
within the control of the House, it is in the control of my be-Loved | :38:56. | :38:59. | |
Labour Party, which for as long as I have been in it has been clear about | :39:00. | :39:05. | |
the primacy of the elected House over the unelected House. That | :39:06. | :39:12. | |
should we find ourselves in a situation after passing this | :39:13. | :39:15. | |
amendment as it is written, should we find ourselves in a situation in | :39:16. | :39:20. | |
two years time, where there is a clash between the House of Commons | :39:21. | :39:26. | |
and the House of Lord and the normal tests at attempts at a solution to | :39:27. | :39:31. | |
the differences had all been attempted, that this party at any | :39:32. | :39:36. | |
rate asserts quite clearly that ultimately the primacy of the House | :39:37. | :39:52. | |
of Commons must prevail. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord | :39:53. | :39:59. | |
and... I agree with have much of what he said. I do apologise, a lot | :40:00. | :40:05. | |
of people wanting to speak. I have tried to construct a sort of | :40:06. | :40:13. | |
speaking order. And I suggest that my noble friend Lord Howe speaks. I | :40:14. | :40:21. | |
see that the noble Baroness lady Jones also wants to speak and I | :40:22. | :40:28. | |
think it might be sensible then... Yes indeed. I will let the Lord | :40:29. | :40:39. | |
speak and include ladyEd aman in the list. My lords I long ago came to | :40:40. | :40:47. | |
the painful recognition that many members of your Lordships House | :40:48. | :40:51. | |
think to serve in this place without having served down the corridor in | :40:52. | :40:55. | |
the other place was an enormous advantage. So it is with some | :40:56. | :41:02. | |
temerity that I seek to draw on my experience in the other place, 27 | :41:03. | :41:10. | |
years, not as long as my noble friend Lord Heseltine, to make a | :41:11. | :41:17. | |
preliminary observation. At the end of the negotiations there will | :41:18. | :41:21. | |
either be an agreement or a decision by the Government to leave the EU | :41:22. | :41:27. | |
without an agreement and which ever of those scenarios comes about, the | :41:28. | :41:34. | |
other place will have its say. And the other place will not only have | :41:35. | :41:40. | |
its say, the other place will have its way. If the agreement that is | :41:41. | :41:45. | |
reached by the Government is unacceptable to a majority of the | :41:46. | :41:50. | |
members of the House of Commons, they will vote accordingly. And if | :41:51. | :41:58. | |
the Government proposes to leave on terms that are a unacceptable to a | :41:59. | :42:02. | |
majority of House of Commons, they will vote accordingly and they don't | :42:03. | :42:08. | |
need the authority of Mr David Jones for that, or even the Prime Minister | :42:09. | :42:13. | |
for that. And they certainly don't need this new clause for that. They | :42:14. | :42:19. | |
don't need any authority of that. They will have their say, they will | :42:20. | :42:26. | |
have their way. And for those of us who believe that Parliamentary | :42:27. | :42:31. | |
supremacy rests with the House of Commons, that is the ultimate | :42:32. | :42:36. | |
safeguard. Now, I want to make a couple of observations about the new | :42:37. | :42:43. | |
clause. I think the noble Lord in the end admitted, not quite | :42:44. | :42:48. | |
explicitly, but in effect admitted that it does provide in its present | :42:49. | :42:55. | |
form a veto for your Lordships' House. He said it would be unlikely | :42:56. | :43:00. | |
you would exercise that veto and in the end he was obliged to accept the | :43:01. | :43:13. | |
lifeline from viscount Hailsham. But when you examine a lifeline | :43:14. | :43:16. | |
sometimes it is not as effective as it appeared. The lifeline offered | :43:17. | :43:24. | |
was that the Government might enshrine the necessary motions, | :43:25. | :43:29. | |
motions necessary by virtue of this new clause in an Act of Parliament, | :43:30. | :43:34. | |
so that the Parliament Act could be activated. I ask your Lordships to | :43:35. | :43:40. | |
consider that situation. The Government will have agreed the | :43:41. | :43:44. | |
terms on which it is going to leave the European Union, the House of | :43:45. | :43:47. | |
Commons will have approved the terms, but this House will have | :43:48. | :43:52. | |
rejected them and we have to hang around for a year until the | :43:53. | :43:56. | |
Parliament Act can be used to ensure that the House of Commons gets its | :43:57. | :44:08. | |
way. That was superintendenting -- suggested by viscount Hailsham. We | :44:09. | :44:13. | |
all want the minimum of delay. And the notion that the nation should | :44:14. | :44:18. | |
stand around for a year wait fogger the Parliament Act to be invoked for | :44:19. | :44:25. | |
the House of Commons to get its way illustrates how unnecessary this | :44:26. | :44:29. | |
amendment and this new clause is. And I want to make one other general | :44:30. | :44:36. | |
point on the new clause. Of course, if we put the requirement for | :44:37. | :44:42. | |
approval by this House and by the other House and so on on the face of | :44:43. | :44:49. | |
the statute, if we put it on the statue book, then it becomes just | :44:50. | :44:58. | |
issuable. I have long ago given up any attempt to see the engenuinety | :44:59. | :45:06. | |
of the arguments of Lord Pannick, but think of the potential which | :45:07. | :45:11. | |
would exist for arguing that the motion that had been approved by one | :45:12. | :45:16. | |
House or the other didn't quite match up to this interpretation or | :45:17. | :45:21. | |
that of the new clause which would be on the the face of the statute. | :45:22. | :45:30. | |
Lord Lisburn he said he thought more intervention by the courts would not | :45:31. | :45:35. | |
be acceptable. I accept that view won't be shared by Lord Pannick, but | :45:36. | :45:40. | |
it has much to commend it. I don't think we should likely embark upon a | :45:41. | :45:46. | |
course which would not only run the risk of putting one House in | :45:47. | :45:51. | |
conflict with another, but of putting Parliament in conflict with | :45:52. | :45:52. | |
the courts. Just finally, before I sit down my | :45:53. | :46:07. | |
Lords. New clause 4, I agree with my learned friend Lord Lawson on that | :46:08. | :46:11. | |
and without repeating everything I said last week, we have still not | :46:12. | :46:16. | |
yet had an answer to the fact that sub-clause 4 of the new clause would | :46:17. | :46:22. | |
facilitate repeated coming and going between Parliament, Government and | :46:23. | :46:28. | |
the European Union. The Government would come along and say - we | :46:29. | :46:32. | |
haven't had a deal, we propose to leave. Parliament according to | :46:33. | :46:37. | |
sub-clause 4 would say - go back it the table and that would happen | :46:38. | :46:41. | |
again and again and it would be an absurd position to put our | :46:42. | :46:44. | |
Government in. So, my Lords, first of all, for the reasons I have tried | :46:45. | :46:48. | |
to express, I think this new clause is totally unnecessary. Secondly, I | :46:49. | :46:53. | |
think it is a recipe for conflict, for conflict between this House and | :46:54. | :46:57. | |
the other place and for conflict between Parliament and the courts | :46:58. | :47:01. | |
and I urge your Lordships to reject it. My Lords, it's an honour to | :47:02. | :47:08. | |
follow the noble Lord, Lord Howard. THE SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I did | :47:09. | :47:21. | |
indicate I was going to call the Noble Lady Baroness Jones. I will | :47:22. | :47:24. | |
indeed. I'm trying to compile a speaker's list. I hope people | :47:25. | :47:29. | |
understand it is a reasonable way of carrying on, seeing as so many | :47:30. | :47:32. | |
people vb contributed to me that they wish to contributed to the | :47:33. | :47:38. | |
debate It is an honour to follow the honourable Lord Howard with whom I | :47:39. | :47:42. | |
shared a platform on the referendum campaign but on this I have to | :47:43. | :47:46. | |
disagree. I rise to support Amendment 3. I think there is a lot | :47:47. | :47:51. | |
of merit in Amendment 4 that it seems the House is probably going to | :47:52. | :47:55. | |
go for something written by lawyers because apparently some of us do | :47:56. | :47:59. | |
still trust lawyers, which I think is sometimes a good move. I think | :48:00. | :48:11. | |
that - I am going to be brief and to the point and I'm taking a rather | :48:12. | :48:15. | |
simplistic attitude to this whole debate. I feel that during the | :48:16. | :48:19. | |
referendum we did vote for taking back kroe. It seems to me that | :48:20. | :48:25. | |
taking back control does not mean giving such momentous decision of | :48:26. | :48:30. | |
the future of the UK to a tiny cohort of the politicians. As we | :48:31. | :48:33. | |
have said the Government, the Prime Minister, did commit themselves to a | :48:34. | :48:37. | |
vote in both Houses. They must have thought that was an appropriate | :48:38. | :48:40. | |
thing to do. Therefore, I see no problem at all with a commitment | :48:41. | :48:47. | |
from this House. The fact is, people change, Governments change. There is | :48:48. | :48:52. | |
no - you know, we can't really be sure that the same people will be in | :48:53. | :48:56. | |
power at the time that this is actually finally happening, so I | :48:57. | :48:59. | |
think it is very important that we do get a commitment. Parliament has | :49:00. | :49:08. | |
to have scrutiny on this, it has to have a say on something that is so | :49:09. | :49:12. | |
incredibly important, a deal being thrashed out between the UK and EU | :49:13. | :49:15. | |
that will affect our futures forever. I also think it is a | :49:16. | :49:18. | |
mockery if the European Parliament gets a vote on this, and we don't. | :49:19. | :49:22. | |
That, again, is not taking back control. Now, one of the other | :49:23. | :49:30. | |
commitments during the referendum was of course the ?350 billion to | :49:31. | :49:36. | |
the NHS. I look forward to the Budget tomorrow because quite | :49:37. | :49:39. | |
honestly, that was the one of the things I voted for when I voted | :49:40. | :49:47. | |
Leave. My Lords, I spoke to intervene earlier, far more | :49:48. | :49:51. | |
aggressively than I would ever normally do, simply because I wish | :49:52. | :49:57. | |
to pursue the point made by my Lords and I think it is a very | :49:58. | :50:03. | |
considerable tactical, of importance n relation to the debate in which we | :50:04. | :50:08. | |
are having. I think there is very widespread agreement that there | :50:09. | :50:13. | |
should be parliamentary approval for the outcome of the negotiations. | :50:14. | :50:17. | |
Negotiations and the Prime Minister herself has actually made it clear | :50:18. | :50:25. | |
that she believes that should be so. And the noble Lord, Lord Pannick has | :50:26. | :50:29. | |
sought to incorporate that undertaking on the face of the Bill, | :50:30. | :50:34. | |
which, again, I believe is the right thing to do. The problem uks however | :50:35. | :50:47. | |
-- is, however in the drafting of Lord Pannick's amendment. And in | :50:48. | :50:50. | |
opening the debate he said he realised there were problems because | :50:51. | :50:53. | |
it seemed to give a veto to the House of Lords, which I think would | :50:54. | :50:58. | |
not be acceptable and, in particular, also, it failed to | :50:59. | :51:03. | |
recognise the relationship between the two Houses, whereby the House of | :51:04. | :51:08. | |
Commons must, at the end of the day, be supreme. | :51:09. | :51:13. | |
He suggested that we should agree to the amendment, which is before us | :51:14. | :51:18. | |
and then, of course, the House of Commons would sort it out. I think | :51:19. | :51:24. | |
there is a problem with that. It is a very simple problem - people are | :51:25. | :51:30. | |
less likely to vote for this amendment on that basis, than would | :51:31. | :51:34. | |
otherwise be the case. And, therefore, it may never get to the | :51:35. | :51:37. | |
House of Commons and they will not be able to put the matter right. So, | :51:38. | :51:44. | |
we have a very difficult situation it as we now stand, as to whether or | :51:45. | :51:50. | |
not we should support the amendment. Mine clings is still to do so -- my | :51:51. | :51:58. | |
inclination is still to do so, subject to what may be said | :51:59. | :52:01. | |
subsequently, because I think it is important to get the undertaking on | :52:02. | :52:07. | |
the face of the Bill but we have to resolve the problem of ensuring that | :52:08. | :52:11. | |
the House of Commons remains supreme and we cannot have a veto over what | :52:12. | :52:16. | |
is negotiated. It would be wholly inappropriate if the House of | :52:17. | :52:19. | |
Commons took the opposite view. And, therefore, one possibly solution is | :52:20. | :52:24. | |
to try and draft a manuscript amendment, or to amend the Bill at | :52:25. | :52:32. | |
some later stage in the proceedings. I fear that may be very difficult | :52:33. | :52:38. | |
but perhaps we might try. But it all pends - in any case, I think we | :52:39. | :52:42. | |
should probably agree to the amendment but I understand many | :52:43. | :52:46. | |
people will feel it is defective in the respect which we have mentioned | :52:47. | :52:50. | |
and that it would be very unfortunate if we don't have | :52:51. | :52:54. | |
anything, as a result of these debates, which will ensure that the | :52:55. | :52:59. | |
undertaking giving by the Prime Minister is absolutely clear, is on | :53:00. | :53:03. | |
the face of the Bill and there is no uncertainty about the situation in | :53:04. | :53:13. | |
the future. My Lords, I would like to preface my | :53:14. | :53:18. | |
remarks by stressing my belief that speaking in favour of any amendment | :53:19. | :53:23. | |
to do Bill does not amount to try to frustrate the referendum result or | :53:24. | :53:27. | |
to deny the will of the people. I respect the result and we are trying | :53:28. | :53:32. | |
to implement it as responsibly as we can in the interest of our great | :53:33. | :53:38. | |
country. The referendum was about taking back control and ensuring | :53:39. | :53:42. | |
parliamentary sovereignty. That is vital, to safeguard our democracy | :53:43. | :53:46. | |
and protect our national interests. The people want to be able to trust | :53:47. | :53:51. | |
our Parliament to look after their future. But in the context of this | :53:52. | :53:58. | |
bill, it seems to me that Parliament is in danger of abrigating its | :53:59. | :54:06. | |
responsibilities. I have heard the suggestion that parliamentary | :54:07. | :54:08. | |
oversight makes it inevitable that the EU will only offer us a bad | :54:09. | :54:13. | |
deal. However, I respectably disagree. Indeed, I believe the | :54:14. | :54:19. | |
likelihood is the other way around. If the negotiatedors and ministers | :54:20. | :54:22. | |
know that at the end of the day they will have to sell this deal to | :54:23. | :54:26. | |
Parliament, then I believe they will be properly incentivised to be more | :54:27. | :54:30. | |
likely to achieve a deal that is acceptable. As currently proposed, | :54:31. | :54:36. | |
this Bill will effectively hand responsibility for our future to a | :54:37. | :54:42. | |
group of negotiatedors and minister who apparently countenance with a | :54:43. | :55:01. | |
- with thinking that no deal is better than a bad deal. . We must | :55:02. | :55:13. | |
surely ask ourselves whether those negotiators will be sufficiently | :55:14. | :55:16. | |
incentivised to get a good deal for the country. My Lords, a no-deal | :55:17. | :55:22. | |
scenario was ever put to the British people. The white paper and the | :55:23. | :55:26. | |
referendum campaign have not considered the consequences, either. | :55:27. | :55:42. | |
Leaving the customs union, single market, have jobs for our economy, | :55:43. | :55:46. | |
the nuclear industry, for Northern Ireland and so much else, yet the | :55:47. | :55:50. | |
risks have been skirted over. Almost as if they do not really matter. But | :55:51. | :55:57. | |
my Lords, they do matter. In normal negotiation, corporate negotiators | :55:58. | :56:00. | |
would preserve the option of taking an offer back to their board, or a | :56:01. | :56:04. | |
lawyer to refer back to their client. I'm grateful to my learned | :56:05. | :56:15. | |
friend for allowing me to intervene. Can she explain how this squares | :56:16. | :56:20. | |
with what she said at the start of her speech about not challenging the | :56:21. | :56:23. | |
referendum I am not challenging the referendum. We are here to debate | :56:24. | :56:27. | |
and discuss how best to safeguard the interests of our country and | :56:28. | :56:32. | |
what might happen at the end of the negotiations and, in light of the | :56:33. | :56:37. | |
referendum, to make sure that we have parliamentary sovereignty and | :56:38. | :56:40. | |
that is what this debate and this amendment is about. Why we would | :56:41. | :56:48. | |
deny Parliament the heart of our democracy, the authority to approve | :56:49. | :56:52. | |
or push for a Bert deal, rather than accepting no deal, without a proper | :56:53. | :56:57. | |
say? This parliamentary route, giving Parliament and not the | :56:58. | :57:02. | |
executive, a meaningful final vote, is my preferred option, not a | :57:03. | :57:07. | |
referendum. Such a safety net, written into statute, would seem to | :57:08. | :57:12. | |
me to be the most responsible course to take, as we negotiate our EU exit | :57:13. | :57:19. | |
and I believe it is my duty, given the very serious concerns that have | :57:20. | :57:23. | |
been expressed, to ask the other place to reconsider the need for | :57:24. | :57:27. | |
elected MPs to take responsibility for the future of their | :57:28. | :57:32. | |
constituents. I do believe they must have the final say on this bill and | :57:33. | :57:36. | |
I would like to ask them to think again. | :57:37. | :57:48. | |
In the debate there was a that was asked at the beginning and to me it | :57:49. | :57:54. | |
is still unanswered, and it is this, the proposed #1k5789 amendment 3 (3) | :57:55. | :57:59. | |
reads "The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament should also be | :58:00. | :58:03. | |
required for the future relations of the UK and for the prior approval of | :58:04. | :58:07. | |
both Houses of Parliament should also be required in relation to any | :58:08. | :58:12. | |
decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom should leave." | :58:13. | :58:16. | |
Well assume the House of Commons and House of Lords are in agreement, | :58:17. | :58:22. | |
they say - we don't approve of the terms of the agreement, we don't | :58:23. | :58:24. | |
approve that the Prime Minister shall decide that we leave without | :58:25. | :58:28. | |
an agreement. My question is - what then? Is it implicit in this | :58:29. | :58:37. | |
amendment that Parliament may then decide to withdraw the Article 50 | :58:38. | :58:49. | |
notification? ? My Lords, whether article #r50's notification is | :58:50. | :58:54. | |
revokable, irrevocable as a matter of policy or law, I believe that we | :58:55. | :58:59. | |
could only interrupt the process of leaving the EU by another | :59:00. | :59:03. | |
referendum. I think this is the point that Lord Lawson talked about | :59:04. | :59:07. | |
and the beginning of the Baroness's speech also made the same point. If | :59:08. | :59:11. | |
we were to get in a situation in two years' time where Parliament was | :59:12. | :59:16. | |
seem to be blocking the departure of the UK, from the European Union, | :59:17. | :59:19. | |
without a referendum, I think there would be a serious political | :59:20. | :59:22. | |
situation in our country and I think that while we have talked in our | :59:23. | :59:26. | |
debate this afternoon about conflicts between the executive and | :59:27. | :59:31. | |
Parliament and between the executive and the Lords, and the two Houses, I | :59:32. | :59:37. | |
really agree, that it should be the House of Commons that should have | :59:38. | :59:41. | |
the vote. But to me there is a real potential for conflict with the | :59:42. | :59:43. | |
outcome of the referendum. We decided to have the referendum and | :59:44. | :59:48. | |
it seems to me we could only put that into reverse with another | :59:49. | :59:51. | |
referendum, which this morning, in a sense, we decided we didn't want to | :59:52. | :59:54. | |
do. I admire the Liberal Democrats who are consistent on this point and | :59:55. | :59:58. | |
they have their amendment and a third reading I notice. But at the | :59:59. | :00:05. | |
end of the day, we could be in a very serious difficult and sensitive | :00:06. | :00:11. | |
political situation and I'm not sure putting this clause into the bill | :00:12. | :00:15. | |
will actually help the handling of that political situation. | :00:16. | :00:20. | |
They have given an undertaking there will be Parliamentary approval for | :00:21. | :00:28. | |
whatever is proposed. I think that can be trusted. I wonder what the | :00:29. | :00:34. | |
advantages of setting this down, particularly in subclause 4, the | :00:35. | :00:38. | |
thought that Parliament will block the Article 50 process without going | :00:39. | :00:46. | |
back to the people. Now it was only 5248, that is another conflict that | :00:47. | :00:50. | |
we are handling. But in our debates we are not facing to the fundamental | :00:51. | :00:58. | |
fact of the referendum itself. I apologise for not being present for | :00:59. | :01:07. | |
second reading. In doing so... My lords not for the first time I | :01:08. | :01:15. | |
wholly agree with the analysis of my noble friend Lord Heseltine. I think | :01:16. | :01:19. | |
we entered the House of Commons on the same day over 50 years ago. So I | :01:20. | :01:26. | |
agree with his analysis, but I don't agree with his conclusion. What | :01:27. | :01:33. | |
amendments are clearly trying to do, with great sincerity and I | :01:34. | :01:37. | |
appreciate all they're aiming for, they're trying to impose a statutory | :01:38. | :01:43. | |
provision on a face of a bill that happens to be going through this | :01:44. | :01:48. | |
House on an uncertain future and events which are completely | :01:49. | :01:55. | |
unforeseen. As Lord Heseltine and others have said, we have absolutely | :01:56. | :02:00. | |
no grasp and no idea of where the world will be or where this issue | :02:01. | :02:05. | |
will be in years time. We don't know, starting the other side of the | :02:06. | :02:09. | |
channel, any commentary shows clearly that uncertainty as to who | :02:10. | :02:15. | |
is taking the lead is daily. There are quarrels between the national | :02:16. | :02:21. | |
capitals and Brussels, there are in fighting arrangements inside the | :02:22. | :02:28. | |
European Commission. There is talk of a different treaty. The last | :02:29. | :02:32. | |
hour, we have seen a blog saying that Spain and Poland want to join | :02:33. | :02:37. | |
together in a different approach to the negotiations from the approach | :02:38. | :02:42. | |
being offered by the European Commission. Uncertainty it is. And | :02:43. | :02:51. | |
there is the addition point that Lord Kerr made, that this can be in | :02:52. | :02:58. | |
certain circumstances almost inconceivable except under a | :02:59. | :03:01. | |
different Government this side of the channel that the whole project | :03:02. | :03:07. | |
with be a aborted. The truth which Lord Howard stated with great | :03:08. | :03:12. | |
frankness and eloquence that is in the House of Commons, in the House | :03:13. | :03:15. | |
of Commons, the Parliamentary majority can do what it likes. When | :03:16. | :03:20. | |
I say the majority, that is different from the word Parliament | :03:21. | :03:25. | |
that flows from legal lips as if it is an entity, Parliament is the | :03:26. | :03:31. | |
people controlling the majority, the managers managing the parties who | :03:32. | :03:37. | |
have a majority. That is what comes out at the end if you press the bunt | :03:38. | :03:42. | |
Parliament. I say -- press the button Parliament. I say I'm more | :03:43. | :03:54. | |
Burke than Breznev, but I'm a following of Carl Popper who spent a | :03:55. | :03:59. | |
lot of time warning us, as did others about the dangers of too much | :04:00. | :04:07. | |
inevitability, to much determinism. So telling the House of Commons what | :04:08. | :04:13. | |
to do by statute law about a situation that may be different from | :04:14. | :04:19. | |
anything we at present envisage, seems a noble but really futile | :04:20. | :04:27. | |
project. If Commons will decide by Parliamentary majority, it always | :04:28. | :04:33. | |
has, it, well not always, there have been fights in t past centuries | :04:34. | :04:40. | |
about royal prerogative, but since Parliament won that battle, | :04:41. | :04:42. | |
Parliament decides and that means the majority and that means as long | :04:43. | :04:48. | |
as the managers can control a majority and keep a majority in | :04:49. | :04:52. | |
place and it is big enough, that is the will of Parliament. My Lords, if | :04:53. | :04:58. | |
after two years, some kind of bundle emerges that would be divorce | :04:59. | :05:03. | |
papers, mixture and some new arrangements, it would be vastly | :05:04. | :05:09. | |
complex and have all sorts of uncompleted trails a aspects to it. | :05:10. | :05:14. | |
If after two years, some sort of major document comes forward, that | :05:15. | :05:21. | |
is the work after two years of ministers, slaving away, of vast | :05:22. | :05:28. | |
defendanty -- difficulty in negotiation and mutually beneficial | :05:29. | :05:33. | |
arrangements, if after that there is a vote in Parliament and the | :05:34. | :05:39. | |
Government loses the vote or the majority moves against it and fails | :05:40. | :05:44. | |
to give approval, I don't see how there can be any doubt of what then | :05:45. | :05:49. | |
happens. That is a declaration of no confidence. We have a five-year | :05:50. | :05:54. | |
rule, that would have to be changed, actually it wouldn't be have to be | :05:55. | :05:59. | |
unchanged if the no confidence was in ringing terms. Then we would have | :06:00. | :06:05. | |
a general election. That seems so obvious, that I can't understand | :06:06. | :06:09. | |
those talking about a world beyond rejection, a world in which | :06:10. | :06:15. | |
ministers, this is again inconceivable, ministers are sent | :06:16. | :06:20. | |
back to Brussels, saying well, our Parliament don't like it, but we are | :06:21. | :06:27. | |
carrying on. It woundn't wouldn't be the same government or minister. It | :06:28. | :06:32. | |
wouldn't be the same deal. Regardless of any statute | :06:33. | :06:34. | |
beautifully drafted by all the learned people sitting around me and | :06:35. | :06:39. | |
on the other side, however beautiful the drafting, it makes no difference | :06:40. | :06:44. | |
in reality at what is going to happen. I don't want to stray beyond | :06:45. | :06:52. | |
the confines of the report stage, but behind the longing, the concern | :06:53. | :06:58. | |
to get this into statute and pin it down on the the piece of paper is a | :06:59. | :07:04. | |
real concern. It is concern of those that fear the deal when it come back | :07:05. | :07:09. | |
will not include our membership of the single market and will not | :07:10. | :07:14. | |
include our membership of the customs union. That will brand it a | :07:15. | :07:21. | |
bad deal and leave a lot of people in the Commons to think about voting | :07:22. | :07:26. | |
it down. They won't succeed, but they will think about it. I will say | :07:27. | :07:30. | |
this to my friends in this House, there is room for doubt, and I say | :07:31. | :07:34. | |
this particularly to Lord Kerr, there is room for considerable doubt | :07:35. | :07:39. | |
as to whether being in or out of single market as it exists today in | :07:40. | :07:45. | |
this ocean of digital change, with vast new supply chains travelling in | :07:46. | :07:56. | |
every direction, with low tariffs and special arrangements and a new | :07:57. | :08:02. | |
pattern of trade, different from even ten years ago, there is a doubt | :08:03. | :08:05. | |
as to whether being inside or outside the single market is the end | :08:06. | :08:12. | |
of world. That the chairman of the chief economist of the Bank of | :08:13. | :08:18. | |
England, last week, was saying, Mr Haldane, was saying it doesn't | :08:19. | :08:22. | |
matter. Over the next three years, it is of no material difference to | :08:23. | :08:26. | |
the growth of British economy, whether it is in or out of the... | :08:27. | :08:37. | |
Single market. So I just put that as an aside. I appreciate that moves | :08:38. | :08:42. | |
from the amendment, but behind the concerns lies a genuine fear of the | :08:43. | :08:47. | |
nature of the single market as being some war we are going to be excluded | :08:48. | :08:51. | |
from. Look at the facts and what is actually happening now and we will | :08:52. | :08:54. | |
see that it is very different from what is being argued by those who | :08:55. | :09:01. | |
say it will be disaster and we will pay a colossal price and trade | :09:02. | :09:07. | |
halves in difference the distance. These generalities belong to the | :09:08. | :09:10. | |
past century and a world that no longer exists. The whole idea of | :09:11. | :09:15. | |
sending ministers back to Brussels to get us into the single market | :09:16. | :09:21. | |
again, if the deal, as arranged, outside, and not only is a fantasy, | :09:22. | :09:29. | |
in reality no such situation would ever arise, worthy of an animated | :09:30. | :09:34. | |
cartoon, but disadvantageous and there is a new pattern emerging, a | :09:35. | :09:45. | |
new world of, Government -- governed by the WTO which has not been | :09:46. | :09:49. | |
examined by this House. I want to finish by saying that for the House | :09:50. | :09:53. | |
to tell the House of Commons that this House to tell the House of | :09:54. | :09:57. | |
Commons what to do two years hence in a completely different situation | :09:58. | :10:03. | |
from anything we presently see is to make fooms of ourselves -- fools of | :10:04. | :10:07. | |
ourselves twice over. If that is what your Lordships want, so be it. | :10:08. | :10:16. | |
But it would be without me. I hope, my hope remains that we can | :10:17. | :10:21. | |
contribute unity to a very difficult challenge and a major new situation | :10:22. | :10:25. | |
for this country. That is what I hope for. But we perhaps we can't | :10:26. | :10:30. | |
deliver the unity in this amendment, but we can at least agree on the | :10:31. | :10:34. | |
facts and at the present the full facts are not being presented to us. | :10:35. | :10:46. | |
I should remind noble Lords that it is report stage and we do not want | :10:47. | :10:52. | |
second reading speeches. It is not appropriate that members should give | :10:53. | :10:58. | |
second reading speeches. Apologise to my noble friend. I'm afraid there | :10:59. | :11:02. | |
is still more people who have indicated they want to speak. My | :11:03. | :11:08. | |
lords I will make a couple of points, I can see the house is | :11:09. | :11:12. | |
getting to point where they're ready to hear from the front benches. I | :11:13. | :11:21. | |
want to pick up on a phrase that viscount Hailsham used, although I | :11:22. | :11:24. | |
disagreed with him, he talked about whether there is a price to pay and | :11:25. | :11:29. | |
I think what we have to reflect on as a House as well, that if we | :11:30. | :11:35. | |
support these amendments and particularly an amendment which | :11:36. | :11:42. | |
gives us power ultimately to overturn the referendum result, | :11:43. | :11:44. | |
there is a price that comes with that too. Because I think my Lords | :11:45. | :11:51. | |
we have to decide what is most important to us. Is it that we want | :11:52. | :11:58. | |
to influence the Prime Minister as she goes into these negotiations, or | :11:59. | :12:03. | |
do we want the say now we want power to overturn that referendum result? | :12:04. | :12:10. | |
I feel as I have said at committee stage, I feel very strongly that | :12:11. | :12:15. | |
people in both these Houses, this House and the other place, and | :12:16. | :12:21. | |
policy makers outside and leading figures, there is a lot of expertise | :12:22. | :12:25. | |
and experience that needs to be heard by the Prime Minister, by the | :12:26. | :12:31. | |
Government, over the next two years and be influential in that | :12:32. | :12:36. | |
negotiation period and I worry my Lords that we will start to | :12:37. | :12:40. | |
undermine the case for or the right for us to be heard in that way and I | :12:41. | :12:49. | |
just say one final thing. Lord Turner referred to, as party | :12:50. | :12:51. | |
politicians, referred to us being tribal and something that somebody | :12:52. | :12:57. | |
else mentioned, I think we have to reflect carefully on what has | :12:58. | :13:03. | |
changed since the referendum. And reflect more carefully on how we are | :13:04. | :13:08. | |
seen by the electorate. I don't think they see us in party terms in | :13:09. | :13:13. | |
the same way that they used to. I think there is almost a very clear | :13:14. | :13:19. | |
two-set of politicians that people consider and listen to. One of those | :13:20. | :13:24. | |
that they feel understand them and let me finish this point, one is | :13:25. | :13:30. | |
people who feel that they understand them and the other group of people | :13:31. | :13:36. | |
who they feel are against them. Now, I know that most of the people who | :13:37. | :13:42. | |
are participating in these debates and working very hard to get the | :13:43. | :13:48. | |
best result for this Brexit deal are not against the people. That we need | :13:49. | :13:54. | |
to understand ourselves that they think that we are. And so we have to | :13:55. | :13:58. | |
reflect what it is about us that we need to do differently and that is | :13:59. | :14:04. | |
why I caution against supporting amendments that give Parliament | :14:05. | :14:07. | |
power, not just this House and the other House, but Parliament and I | :14:08. | :14:14. | |
would urge Lords to reflect on that. Will the noble lady agree with me | :14:15. | :14:21. | |
that we should not ditch the principles of this House in order to | :14:22. | :14:28. | |
please or -- pander to public opinion. I was not able to be | :14:29. | :14:34. | |
present at the reading. In looking at this amendment, which what is | :14:35. | :14:38. | |
this is about, my Lords it is this amendment that... We will hear from | :14:39. | :14:48. | |
if noble Lord and then from the Lord Lord. Unless anybody else wishes to | :14:49. | :14:53. | |
speak. We will move on to the front benches to conclude this debate. I | :14:54. | :15:01. | |
shall be brief. But I concur with what my noble friend said, we forget | :15:02. | :15:08. | |
the effect this is having on the ordinary people outside. | :15:09. | :15:13. | |
Is They knew what they were voting about when they voted in the | :15:14. | :15:21. | |
referendum. They were fed up with the way more striks and regulations | :15:22. | :15:24. | |
were put on their life. They were fed up, whether they were | :15:25. | :15:26. | |
individuals or whether they were businesses and we have to recognise | :15:27. | :15:31. | |
that fact. Now, in relation to this amendment, it was my privilege, in | :15:32. | :15:41. | |
the other place, 500 amendments to the Maastricht bill, many more | :15:42. | :15:44. | |
chucked out. And they were thrown out, the ones that were not | :15:45. | :15:47. | |
successful because they were out of order. They were wrecking | :15:48. | :15:53. | |
amendments, they were amendments that were defective and I find it | :15:54. | :15:58. | |
quite extraordinary that your Lordship is spending several hours | :15:59. | :16:03. | |
here on what is basically a defective amendment. There are | :16:04. | :16:14. | |
better ways. And if Lord Pannick isn't able to put down an amendment | :16:15. | :16:19. | |
that isn't defective so be it. But he is a highly creative lawyer and | :16:20. | :16:27. | |
there are other noble Lords who can create an amendment that should be | :16:28. | :16:31. | |
rightly debated. But as we stand here today this amendment is | :16:32. | :16:38. | |
defective in all four elements of it and noble Lords should bear in mind | :16:39. | :16:42. | |
that it is not wise for our House to vote on amendments that have huge | :16:43. | :16:44. | |
implications and which are defective. It would be much more | :16:45. | :16:50. | |
sensible to take it back - maybe on another occasion find some means to | :16:51. | :16:56. | |
move forward. And we come ultimately to the ultimate situation - I trust | :16:57. | :17:01. | |
our Prime Minister. I trust the noble member, David Davis to | :17:02. | :17:08. | |
negotiate well. I trust them to do their very best for the ordinary | :17:09. | :17:13. | |
people who have voted for it all. And so, frankly, what we are doing | :17:14. | :17:19. | |
this afternoon, if we are doing anything s undermining the public's | :17:20. | :17:25. | |
confidence in this House. Now confidence is a very, very delicate | :17:26. | :17:29. | |
flower and it affects not just us here, not just the public. It | :17:30. | :17:33. | |
affects all the nation, all the businesses, all commerce and we | :17:34. | :17:35. | |
should not be undermining that confidence. So I suggest, certainly, | :17:36. | :17:39. | |
I will not be voting for this amendment. | :17:40. | :17:44. | |
My Lords, as the House knows, I speak as one who very much regrets | :17:45. | :17:48. | |
the result of the referendum and who now feels that we must put it behind | :17:49. | :17:53. | |
us and we must work to create the best-possible relationship which we | :17:54. | :17:58. | |
can with the European Union. And I feel that this amendment is muddying | :17:59. | :18:02. | |
the waters. I would remind the House of the words of that very wise | :18:03. | :18:09. | |
woman, George Elliott who said "Among all forms of mistake, pro-he | :18:10. | :18:15. | |
iscy is the most gratuitous -- profescy." And this amendment goes | :18:16. | :18:20. | |
down that road. We can have no idea how the negotiations are going to | :18:21. | :18:25. | |
unfold. Personally I feel more optimistic about them than some | :18:26. | :18:29. | |
people, but we can have no idea of how they are going to unfold and we | :18:30. | :18:33. | |
can have no idea what the parliamentary situation, or the | :18:34. | :18:36. | |
situation in the European Union, or anything else, will be in two years' | :18:37. | :18:42. | |
time. We can only be certain of one thing and that is the point made by | :18:43. | :18:49. | |
noble friend, Lord Howard. Now, Lord Howard and I generally speaking | :18:50. | :18:53. | |
disagree on matters relating to Europe but he is of course quite | :18:54. | :19:00. | |
right in the point he made and that is that the will stand or fall by | :19:01. | :19:06. | |
the way in which it conducts these negotiations. Whether there is a | :19:07. | :19:08. | |
deal or whether there isn't a deal, the House of Commons will pass | :19:09. | :19:11. | |
judgment on the Government's performance. It will either support | :19:12. | :19:16. | |
the Government or it will reject the Government but either way its will | :19:17. | :19:20. | |
will prevail and this is a very simple matter. And that the | :19:21. | :19:26. | |
amendment that we are is being put forward this evening is one that | :19:27. | :19:31. | |
would put in complies a complicated structure which would make it very | :19:32. | :19:34. | |
much more difficult for the House of Commons to assert its authority than | :19:35. | :19:38. | |
would otherwise be the case. The purpose of the amendment, I | :19:39. | :19:42. | |
quitunder stand that, the purpose of the amendment is to enhance the | :19:43. | :19:46. | |
authority of Parliament. But the effect of the amendment would be to | :19:47. | :19:51. | |
diminish the capacity of the House of Commons to hold the Government to | :19:52. | :19:56. | |
account. And for that reason, I hope very much that the House will reject | :19:57. | :20:03. | |
the amendment. My Lords, the amendment... Carry on. | :20:04. | :20:10. | |
Frerge. Front bench. My Lords. Order, order. Order, order. Front | :20:11. | :20:26. | |
bench. My Lords. I think I made it clear and the House has certainly | :20:27. | :20:29. | |
made it clear, it is time for front bench. My Lords we have gone via all | :20:30. | :20:38. | |
kinds of highways, byways, Aunt Sallies and red herrings, mixing my | :20:39. | :20:44. | |
metaphors, no doubt but the central issue of this amendment is the words | :20:45. | :20:49. | |
of my noble friend, Lord Lester, who is the master, ministers or | :20:50. | :20:55. | |
Parliament? And the noble Viscount Lord Hailsham insisted that it was | :20:56. | :20:59. | |
the implementation of taking back control for Parliament. And it | :21:00. | :21:04. | |
shouldn't be taking back control for the executive. Parliament should be | :21:05. | :21:13. | |
in charge, in the driving seat. And there have been various criticisms | :21:14. | :21:16. | |
of the amendment which seemed to me to be more properly directed at the | :21:17. | :21:23. | |
Prime Minister's assurance in the white paper, because - and I think | :21:24. | :21:28. | |
the noble Lord, Lord Pannick originally used this phrase, "It | :21:29. | :21:31. | |
gives the Prime Minister what she asked for." And to call, in the | :21:32. | :21:39. | |
words of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Orford, it adds to the | :21:40. | :21:45. | |
complexity, no, it was said that it made it more complicated and muddied | :21:46. | :21:50. | |
the water, well then why did the Prime Minister pledge approval by | :21:51. | :21:54. | |
both Houses of Parliament? As the noble Lord, Lord Cormac said and I | :21:55. | :22:00. | |
think the noble lady, Baroness Mackintosh, this is putting an | :22:01. | :22:06. | |
assurance, an undertaking, given by the Prime Minister, into a statutory | :22:07. | :22:10. | |
obligation and it is wise and sensible so to do. And there is no | :22:11. | :22:20. | |
basis whatsoever for the assertion, made by Lord Lawson, Lord Forsyth | :22:21. | :22:25. | |
and right, Reverend pry mate, the Archbishop of York, that it would | :22:26. | :22:31. | |
give this House a veto. The Government - given that the Prime | :22:32. | :22:38. | |
Minister offered to give approval by both Houses of Parliament, | :22:39. | :22:41. | |
presumably the Prime Minister - and she shared this with the Government, | :22:42. | :22:45. | |
knows how that would work. And it is for the Government to deal with that | :22:46. | :22:50. | |
process which, it could, of course, as other noble Lords have mentioned | :22:51. | :22:55. | |
- be avoided if there was primary legislation, because then the roles | :22:56. | :23:06. | |
are clear. The noble lady counselled against an amendment which gives | :23:07. | :23:10. | |
Parliament power, which I found a strange piece of advice. Surely | :23:11. | :23:16. | |
Parliament has the right to such power as we possess under the | :23:17. | :23:21. | |
constitution but it seems to be that it is not normal to have | :23:22. | :23:27. | |
parliamentary power in some kind of parallel universe that Brexit has | :23:28. | :23:33. | |
created. It does not weaken the Government's bargaining position. | :23:34. | :23:38. | |
The statement "I've got to get it past my legislators." Is perfectly | :23:39. | :23:43. | |
good enough for a US President or EU negotiators and it should be more | :23:44. | :23:46. | |
than good enough for the British Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord | :23:47. | :23:53. | |
Hill said that our EU parters in read our debates. Yes, they might | :23:54. | :24:01. | |
well do and they will in this case. But they know that we in this | :24:02. | :24:06. | |
Parliament want a really substantial content to a future relationship. We | :24:07. | :24:12. | |
might even stitch the Government's backbone in the negotiations. And I | :24:13. | :24:17. | |
agree with the noble lady Baroness Symons, that getting the best deal | :24:18. | :24:22. | |
and parliamentary sovereignty, far from being in conflict, go | :24:23. | :24:27. | |
hand-in-hand. Finally, Brexiteers seem to claim it is a wicked plot by | :24:28. | :24:32. | |
Remainers, but in fact some of them seem to find Parliament an | :24:33. | :24:37. | |
inconvenient obstacle to their dream of crashing out of the EU altogether | :24:38. | :24:42. | |
because they want the Government to be able to action no deal and they | :24:43. | :24:47. | |
don't want Parliament to be able to say - hang on, is that actually a | :24:48. | :24:53. | |
good idea? And that is why this amendment is extremely valid. | :24:54. | :24:59. | |
My Lords, I feel we have actually heard this afternoon a really | :25:00. | :25:02. | |
compelling case for what is actually quite a simple demand. The right of | :25:03. | :25:09. | |
Parliament, rather than Government, to authorise the arrangements | :25:10. | :25:13. | |
whereby the Article 50 negotiations conclude. Indeed, in fact no | :25:14. | :25:17. | |
additional words probably are needed to strengthen the case made by the | :25:18. | :25:23. | |
noble Lord, Lord Pannick, or indeed many of the others who have spoken. | :25:24. | :25:29. | |
I won't mention them all, but you will forgive me for mentioning some, | :25:30. | :25:38. | |
Baroness Symons, Baroness Altman, Baroness Mcinstore and Baroness | :25:39. | :25:45. | |
Ludford and I must mention Baroness Seull, although she sadly wasn't | :25:46. | :25:51. | |
able to support the case and essentially it is about implementing | :25:52. | :25:57. | |
the Supreme Court view that withdrawal would require | :25:58. | :26:00. | |
parliamentary authorisation. So, my Lords, the argument is | :26:01. | :26:06. | |
straightforward, as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine said, it secures in | :26:07. | :26:09. | |
law the Government's commitment that Parliament is the ultimate decider. | :26:10. | :26:14. | |
Very shortly, maybe even next week, the Prime Minister will trigger | :26:15. | :26:19. | |
Article 50 of the Treaty but neither that Treaty nor indeed any UK law | :26:20. | :26:25. | |
states how the arrangements made by our Government should be made into | :26:26. | :26:33. | |
law. What is written in the Treaty, in EU law, in other words, is that | :26:34. | :26:37. | |
the final agreement will go to the Council and the European Parliament. | :26:38. | :26:41. | |
So it is mandatory for that Parliament to give its consent but | :26:42. | :26:46. | |
there is no similar requirement for this Parliament to give its consent. | :26:47. | :26:53. | |
The Prime Minister has said she will allow a vote in both Houses and as | :26:54. | :26:59. | |
the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth quoting Mr Jones saying it was the intent | :27:00. | :27:04. | |
but that to me is not a very firm commitment, no matter how sincerely | :27:05. | :27:10. | |
it was given. Indeed, when the noble Lord the Minster in committee said | :27:11. | :27:13. | |
that the Government's oral commitment mirrors the powers of the | :27:14. | :27:17. | |
European Parliament, he wasn't exactly right. Because their power | :27:18. | :27:23. | |
is written in law. So, my Lords, all we are asking is for an equal | :27:24. | :27:28. | |
legislative requirement for the exit deal to come to Parliament. It's | :27:29. | :27:33. | |
basically about Crown prerogative against Parliament. And if I could | :27:34. | :27:45. | |
turn twoeft Lothian - no, not the West Lothian question, the Growcott | :27:46. | :27:48. | |
question. He no longer has a constituency. We'll have to call it | :27:49. | :27:55. | |
the question and indeed raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. Now, my | :27:56. | :28:00. | |
Lord, it is true that whether we are looking at the undertaking given by | :28:01. | :28:06. | |
the Prime Minister, or this amendment, there would indeed be a | :28:07. | :28:09. | |
problem if the House of Commons was to vote one way and your Lord ships' | :28:10. | :28:15. | |
House another. I hope that isn't the case for lots of reasons, | :28:16. | :28:18. | |
particularly, I hope by then, not just the country but Parliament has | :28:19. | :28:22. | |
come together and we are of one view. Hear hear. But may I make it | :28:23. | :28:33. | |
clear from these benches that if there was to be an outcome, we are | :28:34. | :28:37. | |
absolutely clear that ultimately the will of the Commons must prevail. | :28:38. | :28:41. | |
Hear hear. Furthermore f that is the only argument, given against this | :28:42. | :28:45. | |
amendment - if that is the only argument. | :28:46. | :28:49. | |
Can I conclude this? Then there are two ways of answering that. One is | :28:50. | :28:53. | |
that we do a bit of hurried work this evening and we do an amendment, | :28:54. | :28:57. | |
and if the Government was willing to accept that, that might be the | :28:58. | :29:03. | |
easiest way to do, keeping all my friends here late into the night, | :29:04. | :29:09. | |
however may not be the best way of achieving that end. And what we | :29:10. | :29:15. | |
wouldn't want to is to risk voting down the idea of Commons' supremacy | :29:16. | :29:18. | |
just because, very sensibly, everyone was back in their beds. | :29:19. | :29:24. | |
But, the real issue is to get this principle into this Bill and down | :29:25. | :29:29. | |
the road into the Commons and on approximate behalf of the | :29:30. | :29:33. | |
Opposition, if that is the onlip point of dispute between us, given | :29:34. | :29:38. | |
that we want the supremacy to be down there, rather than here, then | :29:39. | :29:42. | |
we will happily work with the Government on a form of words to | :29:43. | :29:47. | |
make that absolutely crystal clear. Hear hear. Be very brief. But | :29:48. | :29:57. | |
bearing in mind the emphasis she has put quite rightly on the two Houses | :29:58. | :30:03. | |
coming together, would it really be intrisically so nerve-wrecking, | :30:04. | :30:07. | |
fearful and awesome for the Commons to, for once, accept a Lords' | :30:08. | :30:11. | |
amendment like this? I think the Commons could certainly accept this | :30:12. | :30:17. | |
amendment, albeit, I'm happy with the tweak to enforce, or to make | :30:18. | :30:23. | |
certain the Commons' amendment. I think the most important thing is to | :30:24. | :30:27. | |
get this amendment on the face of the bill so that we are absolutely | :30:28. | :30:29. | |
clear about that. It's so simple, whatever the outcome | :30:30. | :30:40. | |
of the negotiations, its parliament, not simply the government where | :30:41. | :30:44. | |
authority lies, deal or no deal. I'm afraid I did not follow the minister | :30:45. | :30:49. | |
's response on this last week in committee. Questioning what would | :30:50. | :30:52. | |
happen if the EU terminates the talks and refuses to extend the | :30:53. | :30:59. | |
negotiations. He asked what then, it's pretty simple. Come back to | :31:00. | :31:06. | |
Parliament. My Lords, stranger still is that the briefing coming out of | :31:07. | :31:11. | |
number ten, with advisers arguing that giving legislators the power to | :31:12. | :31:15. | |
veto the final Brexit deal and send the premier back to the negotiating | :31:16. | :31:19. | |
table would undermine her and limit the possibility of a good deal. | :31:20. | :31:26. | |
Indeed even pushing the EU to give bad Brexit deal. Incentivising at | :31:27. | :31:31. | |
its seams in the hope it stops us leaving. That is what the Downing | :31:32. | :31:35. | |
Street apparently told the Financial Times and I always believe the | :31:36. | :31:41. | |
Financial Times. May I again remind the house that it was Theresa May | :31:42. | :31:44. | |
who said that the deal would be put to a vote in both houses. So all of | :31:45. | :31:50. | |
this is nonsense, the only issue is whether it is an undertaking in the | :31:51. | :31:57. | |
Bill. All we are doing in this amendment is to put her pledge, I am | :31:58. | :32:04. | |
absolutely sincerely given, I am not questioning that, put it on the face | :32:05. | :32:07. | |
of the bell. It is hardly starting a revolution. It's certainly not | :32:08. | :32:15. | |
ending the referendum. Any arguments that I think are actually in bad | :32:16. | :32:19. | |
faith because what we are trying to do is put the Prime Minister's | :32:20. | :32:26. | |
undertaking on the face of the bell. We do not want the government hands | :32:27. | :32:30. | |
to be forced by the courts, we want people to be clearly in the bill | :32:31. | :32:34. | |
ideally with the government 's blessing without even the need for | :32:35. | :32:38. | |
us to divide because they need to provide the certainty at this stage | :32:39. | :32:43. | |
so we are not back having this debate in 18 months' time. It's | :32:44. | :32:49. | |
about authorising parliament, it is to put wheels on the outcome of the | :32:50. | :32:57. | |
referendum. My Lords, the debate this afternoon has shown this house | :32:58. | :33:00. | |
at its very, very best and I would like to thank all the noble lords | :33:01. | :33:06. | |
who have spoken. After I think 44 hours of debate it shows how | :33:07. | :33:10. | |
spritely your Lordships are. I would like briefly before I discussed the | :33:11. | :33:14. | |
amendment is to set out three core principles governing our approach to | :33:15. | :33:17. | |
this country's withdrawal from the European Union. First, the | :33:18. | :33:23. | |
government is determined to honour and deliver on the result of the | :33:24. | :33:27. | |
referendum. The United Kingdom is going to leave the European Union. | :33:28. | :33:33. | |
Second, everything we do will be determined by our national interest. | :33:34. | :33:38. | |
And we shall do nothing my Lords to undermine it. Third, parliamentary | :33:39. | :33:45. | |
sovereignty is key. Parliament will have a role in scrutinising the | :33:46. | :33:49. | |
government throughout the negotiations and in making | :33:50. | :33:53. | |
decisions. A point on which I will return. Given this my Lords, let me | :33:54. | :33:58. | |
now turn to the rationale and the motives behind my noble friend 's | :33:59. | :34:08. | |
amendments. One basic tent is that the government should be legally | :34:09. | :34:14. | |
bound on its commitment to give Parliament vote on the agreement and | :34:15. | :34:16. | |
that government commitment is crystal clear will stop let me | :34:17. | :34:21. | |
repeat it, to bring forward a motion on the final agreement to be | :34:22. | :34:25. | |
approved by both houses of Parliament before it is concluded. | :34:26. | :34:30. | |
We expect and intend that this will happen before the European | :34:31. | :34:33. | |
Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement. So my large, the | :34:34. | :34:41. | |
need for my noble friend 's amendment and the faster the clauses | :34:42. | :34:49. | |
of the amendment comes down to a judgment as to whether ministers and | :34:50. | :34:54. | |
the government can be trusted and for one to consider the consequences | :34:55. | :34:59. | |
if the government were not to deliver on this commitment. All I | :35:00. | :35:06. | |
can say is that of course we will honour our promise. And Parliament | :35:07. | :35:10. | |
will hold the government to account for doing so. Let me go further, | :35:11. | :35:16. | |
echoing a point very well made by my noble friend Lord Howard. At any | :35:17. | :35:21. | |
point throughout this process Parliament will be able to express | :35:22. | :35:26. | |
its views. Now my Lords, given all of this, the other place was happy | :35:27. | :35:31. | |
with the state of affairs, they considered and rejected similar | :35:32. | :35:37. | |
amendments. Furthermore Parliament will not be providing scrutiny in | :35:38. | :35:42. | |
the dark. After all my Lords, this government has committed to keeping | :35:43. | :35:46. | |
the UK Parliament at least as well-informed as the European | :35:47. | :35:49. | |
Parliament as the negotiations progress. The government will | :35:50. | :35:53. | |
continue to be accountable to Parliament by regular statements | :35:54. | :35:58. | |
which I so enjoy, debates and select committee appearances and crucially | :35:59. | :36:02. | |
Parliament's role will not be just one of scrutiny. My Lords, it will | :36:03. | :36:07. | |
make decisions and shape the legislation required to give effect | :36:08. | :36:11. | |
to our withdrawal from the European Union. The great repeal Bill and | :36:12. | :36:17. | |
also legislation that will be required for significant policy | :36:18. | :36:21. | |
changes such as an immigration and Customs. So with the greatest of | :36:22. | :36:27. | |
respect to both my noble friend's, any amendment which attempts to | :36:28. | :36:34. | |
transcribe the commitment into legislation is unnecessary. More | :36:35. | :36:37. | |
than being unnecessary, and amendment which sought to put this | :36:38. | :36:42. | |
commitment on the face of the bill could have unintended consequences | :36:43. | :36:45. | |
and create as has been said a lucrative field day for lawyers. But | :36:46. | :36:51. | |
I do not want to single out any particular lawyer in particular. | :36:52. | :36:56. | |
Even now I have one in mind. As was so will put at committee, regulating | :36:57. | :37:02. | |
parliamentary proceedings by statute generally ends in some sort of | :37:03. | :37:09. | |
tears. Other noble Lords have lasted someone might argue whether we need | :37:10. | :37:12. | |
an act of Parliament to authorise our exit from the European Union and | :37:13. | :37:16. | |
whether this bill is sufficient for our withdrawal. My Lords, the | :37:17. | :37:20. | |
requirements of the judgment are entirely filled by this bill. The | :37:21. | :37:26. | |
Supreme Court ruled that because withdrawal from the EU revolves | :37:27. | :37:30. | |
removing a source of domestic law in the UK and because of the far | :37:31. | :37:34. | |
reaching effects of the European communities act, the authority of | :37:35. | :37:38. | |
primary legislation was needed before the government could decide | :37:39. | :37:43. | |
to give notice under article 50. The Supreme Court did not rule that | :37:44. | :37:50. | |
anything further was required to satisfy our constitutional | :37:51. | :37:52. | |
requirements. Let me now turn them to Klaus four of amendment three, | :37:53. | :38:01. | |
there is something about Labour and Klaus four, but we'll put that to | :38:02. | :38:09. | |
one side. The motive behind this was summarised at committee and it was | :38:10. | :38:14. | |
said at committee, "Is Parliament should decide whether we leave the | :38:15. | :38:18. | |
European Union with no agreement, or whether we leave the European Union | :38:19. | :38:22. | |
with whatever agreement is being offered to us by the European Union | :38:23. | :38:25. | |
that the government thinks is unacceptable". This clause goes | :38:26. | :38:32. | |
beyond what the government has committed to in the other place. | :38:33. | :38:36. | |
There are several problems my Lords with this clause. The first concerns | :38:37. | :38:42. | |
the government 's role as a negotiator and one of my first | :38:43. | :38:47. | |
principles, protecting our national interest. When considering this | :38:48. | :38:51. | |
amendment we must ask ourselves whether it will strengthen or and | :38:52. | :38:56. | |
the government 's hand at the negotiating table. Remember the wise | :38:57. | :39:03. | |
words of the house select committee, the government will conduct the | :39:04. | :39:07. | |
negotiations on the half of the United Kingdom and like any | :39:08. | :39:13. | |
negotiator it will need room to manoeuvre if it is to secure a good | :39:14. | :39:18. | |
outcome. Let us not forget the motion passed by the other place, | :39:19. | :39:22. | |
that nothing should be done to undermine the negotiating position | :39:23. | :39:26. | |
of the government. But this clause in this amendment my Lords would | :39:27. | :39:32. | |
just that. Let me continue please, by denying the Prime Minister's | :39:33. | :39:36. | |
ability to walk away from the negotiating table as Klaus four | :39:37. | :39:40. | |
would do this would only incentivise the European Union to do to offer us | :39:41. | :39:46. | |
a bad deal. The European Union must see there are a number of people in | :39:47. | :39:50. | |
Parliament to do think any deal is better than no deal. We have heard | :39:51. | :39:56. | |
some argue just now that to go to WTO terms would be bad for Britain. | :39:57. | :40:01. | |
Therefore surely my Lords this amendment simply makes the | :40:02. | :40:03. | |
negotiations much harder from the first day for the Prime Minister as | :40:04. | :40:08. | |
it increases the incentive for the European Union to offer nothing but | :40:09. | :40:13. | |
a bad deal. I know some have argued that this clause will strengthen the | :40:14. | :40:18. | |
government's hand. They say that this is like a CEO saying my board | :40:19. | :40:23. | |
will not agree with that deal. But this analogy is not correct, most | :40:24. | :40:28. | |
boards would say, we want to do a deal but not at any price. In this | :40:29. | :40:34. | |
case, a number of parliamentarians are seeing any deal is better than | :40:35. | :40:39. | |
no deal. So my Lords I would argue this approach would weaken the | :40:40. | :40:44. | |
government position. But that is not the only problem, the amendment, | :40:45. | :40:47. | |
forgive me, the amendment is clear on one thing, one thing only. | :40:48. | :40:53. | |
Namely, if Parliament agrees with the Prime Minister that no deal is | :40:54. | :40:57. | |
better than the terms on offer the United Kingdom will leave with the | :40:58. | :41:00. | |
Europe, will leave the European Union without a deal but my Lords, | :41:01. | :41:06. | |
it is unclear, totally unclear on what happens if the house says no to | :41:07. | :41:16. | |
walking away. As the noble and learned friends asked, what path | :41:17. | :41:20. | |
muster premised then take? Is cheap to accept the terms on offer? Is she | :41:21. | :41:23. | |
being told to secure a better deal and if so what would happen if that | :41:24. | :41:28. | |
cannot be achieved before the end of the two year period? Or my Lords in | :41:29. | :41:33. | |
the silence on this matter is she to find a means to remain a member of | :41:34. | :41:38. | |
the European Union? My Lords we do not know any of these points and my | :41:39. | :41:43. | |
Lords my noble friend Lord Forsyth was entirely right to highlight | :41:44. | :41:51. | |
this. The government cannot possibly accept an amendment which is so | :41:52. | :41:55. | |
unclear on an issue of this importance, on what the Prime | :41:56. | :41:58. | |
Minister is to do if Parliament votes against leaving with no | :41:59. | :42:03. | |
agreement. With that risk let us remember at the first principle I | :42:04. | :42:08. | |
stated, the government is intent on delivering on the result of the | :42:09. | :42:15. | |
referendum. As a matter of foreign policy, and I almost turned to have | :42:16. | :42:23. | |
the words repeated, as a matter of foreign policy, Article 50 will not | :42:24. | :42:29. | |
be revoked and so my Lords any question of whether Article 50 is | :42:30. | :42:34. | |
legally reversible is irrelevant to the government. The parliamentary | :42:35. | :42:38. | |
vote we have promised will be a very meaningful vote, we will leave with | :42:39. | :42:42. | |
a deal we will leave without a deal. That my Lords is the choice on offer | :42:43. | :42:48. | |
but the choice offered by this amendment is unclear. So my Lords, | :42:49. | :42:53. | |
let me end by repeating line one of the White Paper, we do not approach | :42:54. | :42:58. | |
these negotiations expecting failure but anticipating success. Our clear | :42:59. | :43:03. | |
intent as I said is to negotiate and new partnership with the European | :43:04. | :43:07. | |
Union which enables us and Europe to continue to trade freely together | :43:08. | :43:11. | |
and to cooperate and collaborate where it is in our interests. | :43:12. | :43:16. | |
Parliament will decide on whether to accept or reject the agreement. The | :43:17. | :43:21. | |
purpose of this simple bill is to deliver on the results of the | :43:22. | :43:26. | |
referendum and to leave the EU but these amendments are unnecessary. | :43:27. | :43:30. | |
They are damaging to our national interest, they would create | :43:31. | :43:34. | |
uncertainty and may be used by some to block the wish of the British | :43:35. | :43:38. | |
people to leave the European Union. For these reasons my Lords I hope | :43:39. | :43:42. | |
the noble Lords will withdraw their amendment. Lords, I am very grateful | :43:43. | :43:48. | |
to all noble Lords who have contributed to this very full debate | :43:49. | :43:55. | |
and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, the minister, the | :43:56. | :44:00. | |
whole house recognises the skill and the expertise and indeed the | :44:01. | :44:04. | |
patients with which he has piloted this bill through the house and he | :44:05. | :44:09. | |
will need all those qualities over the next two years and I'm sure | :44:10. | :44:14. | |
whole house wishes him the best of luck. Lords, the essence of this | :44:15. | :44:19. | |
amendment is very clear, it has been clear from the start, it simply | :44:20. | :44:23. | |
seeks to ensure that Parliament and not ministers have control over the | :44:24. | :44:30. | |
terms of our withdrawal at the end of the negotiating process. I find | :44:31. | :44:36. | |
it disappointing that those who most loudly asserted the importance of | :44:37. | :44:43. | |
the sovereignty of Parliament during the referendum campaign are now so | :44:44. | :44:49. | |
alarmed by the prospect of the sovereignty of Parliament at the end | :44:50. | :44:54. | |
of the process. My Lords, we have had a very full debate, the minister | :44:55. | :45:01. | |
says and undertaken has been given an clause 1-3 and therefore this | :45:02. | :45:07. | |
amendment is not needed, but on a matter of this importance, and | :45:08. | :45:12. | |
undertaken is no substitute for a commitment in legislation. My Lords, | :45:13. | :45:18. | |
on sub-clause four it surely must be for Parliament, not ministers to | :45:19. | :45:23. | |
decide whether we leave on no terms or on the terms which have been | :45:24. | :45:24. | |
offered. My Lords, the minister concluded | :45:25. | :45:37. | |
that the approval would be needed by both Houses of Parliament and it was | :45:38. | :45:40. | |
north of the argument advanced by the minister in his winding up | :45:41. | :45:46. | |
speech to express any concern about the primacy of the House of Commons | :45:47. | :45:50. | |
not being recognised by this amendment. If the Government do | :45:51. | :45:54. | |
believe that that is a problem and if we pass this amendment, then the | :45:55. | :45:59. | |
Government are perfectly able to put a revise the amendment before the | :46:00. | :46:03. | |
other place next week. My Lords, your Lordships have heard the | :46:04. | :46:07. | |
argument, it is now time to test the opinion of the House. My Lords, the | :46:08. | :46:13. | |
question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that | :46:14. | :46:19. | |
opinion will say content. The contrary not content. Clear the bar. | :46:20. | :49:37. | |
My Lords, the question is that Amendment 3 be agreed, to as many of | :49:38. | :49:48. | |
that opinion will say Content. CONTENT The contrary Not Content. | :49:49. | :49:58. | |
NOT CONTENT. The contents will go to the right by the throne. : the not | :49:59. | :50:06. | |
contents to the left by the scoot bar. -- by the Bar. | :50:07. | :55:42. | |
My Lords, the question is that Amendment 3 be agreed to. | :55:43. | :06:25. | |
My Lords content, 366, not content 268 saw the content's habit. -- have | :06:26. | :06:44. | |
it. Amendment four, amendment five, I think if we might have just pause, | :06:45. | :06:49. | |
others might want to leave this stage. | :06:50. | :07:33. | |
I wish to speak to amendment five. Can I reassure your Lordships that | :07:34. | :07:43. | |
this is more in a probing amendment and I do not intend to consider | :07:44. | :07:52. | |
dividing on it. The Belfast Good Friday agreement of 1998 endorsed | :07:53. | :07:56. | |
also by a referendum in Northern Ireland included the rights of | :07:57. | :07:59. | |
people who were born in Northern Ireland to choose to be Irish or | :08:00. | :08:05. | |
British or choose to be both. Some choose to exercise exclusively one | :08:06. | :08:09. | |
of them. Indeed a British citizen whose parents were born in Ireland | :08:10. | :08:14. | |
could, as many have done since the referendum, apply for an Irish | :08:15. | :08:18. | |
passport without giving up their British citizenship because British | :08:19. | :08:22. | |
citizens are also allowed to hold dual citizenship. This means you do | :08:23. | :08:27. | |
not have the renown sure British citizenship to apply for an Irish | :08:28. | :08:30. | |
passport. But for those who choose to be British and Irish or just | :08:31. | :08:35. | |
Irish, will be also be citizens of the European Union are as they are | :08:36. | :08:41. | |
now? Presumably because the Minister will of course confirm I am sure | :08:42. | :08:45. | |
that Irish citizenship automatically confers EU citizenship rights, saw | :08:46. | :08:51. | |
that right to be a of the European Union will presumably remain. Can we | :08:52. | :08:56. | |
presume the EU would not object to EU citizen status or Irish citizens, | :08:57. | :09:02. | |
not only living in the Republic but also in Northern Ireland in what | :09:03. | :09:06. | |
will be after Brexit part of a non-member state, the United | :09:07. | :09:11. | |
Kingdom. Will those born in Northern Ireland claiming Irish Ederson 's | :09:12. | :09:14. | |
remain EU citizens obey living outside the EU? Can we presume it | :09:15. | :09:22. | |
will be like someone being able to apply for dual French and British | :09:23. | :09:26. | |
citizenship, if they were British with French parents for example, as | :09:27. | :09:30. | |
long as France remained in the European Union the French | :09:31. | :09:34. | |
citizenship would confer at the right EU citizenship by extension. | :09:35. | :09:40. | |
For Northern Ireland this will apply to a whole society, and not just | :09:41. | :09:46. | |
individuals claiming European citizenship through relatives. Can | :09:47. | :09:49. | |
the Minister give a guarantee that this right is maintained for people | :09:50. | :09:55. | |
from Northern Ireland. At all a comment EU identity has helped the | :09:56. | :09:58. | |
nationalists and unionists focus on what they have in common rather than | :09:59. | :10:04. | |
what has for centuries divided them. Irish citizenship may also be | :10:05. | :10:08. | |
available for those whose grandparents were born on the island | :10:09. | :10:13. | |
which includes Northern Ireland. I note the report of the excellent | :10:14. | :10:17. | |
House of Lords European Union committee on page 32 which said we | :10:18. | :10:22. | |
also consider the impact of Brexit on the current reciprocal rights for | :10:23. | :10:26. | |
UK and Irish citizens to live and work in each other's countries. Such | :10:27. | :10:30. | |
rights are underpinned in domestic law by the treatment of Irish | :10:31. | :10:35. | |
nationals as non-foreigners under the Ireland act 1949 and the | :10:36. | :10:40. | |
acknowledgement of their special status in subsequent legislation | :10:41. | :10:43. | |
including the immigration act 1971 as well as by the provisions of | :10:44. | :10:49. | |
British nationality act 1981 in addition under the terms of the | :10:50. | :10:52. | |
Belfast Good Friday agreement the people of Northern Ireland have the | :10:53. | :10:56. | |
right to identify as British, Irish or both and to claim citizenship | :10:57. | :11:02. | |
accordingly. Those who claim Irish citizenship would by extension be | :11:03. | :11:05. | |
able to claim EU citizenship. That is what the European union committee | :11:06. | :11:12. | |
said. Last week I raised the thorny issue of the border in the context | :11:13. | :11:19. | |
of Brexit. Nationalists and above all Republican by in to the peace | :11:20. | :11:23. | |
process has been cemented by an open borders since it normalises | :11:24. | :11:27. | |
relations between both parts. For them it is iconic and free unionists | :11:28. | :11:31. | |
either doing business are going about their daily lives it is also | :11:32. | :11:37. | |
extremely valuable. Similarly the right to be Irish has been a key | :11:38. | :11:41. | |
part of the Northern Ireland peace process. Furthermore does the | :11:42. | :11:46. | |
government agree with me that it is vital to retain and guarantee that | :11:47. | :11:49. | |
right, not just for those who currently enjoy it but for future | :11:50. | :11:55. | |
generations as well. Categorical assurances on all of these are | :11:56. | :12:00. | |
especially important after first the collapse of the power-sharing | :12:01. | :12:04. | |
executive into an election and then a seismic result in which for the | :12:05. | :12:08. | |
first time since 1922, unionists do not have a majority in the local | :12:09. | :12:15. | |
legislature. Is there hope that the two charismatic new female leaders | :12:16. | :12:22. | |
can broker a common ground with the DUP leaders to rescue a devolved | :12:23. | :12:29. | |
government? It is striking how male dominance in Northern Ireland's | :12:30. | :12:33. | |
politics has been vanquished. Meanwhile the issue of how to deal | :12:34. | :12:37. | |
with Northern Ireland's troubled and tangled past remains toxic. Long | :12:38. | :12:43. | |
retired British soldiers are being prosecuted provoking outrage amongst | :12:44. | :12:46. | |
families and unionists who perceive what they see as unjustified focus | :12:47. | :12:51. | |
on the state 's role in the conflict. What about prosecutions of | :12:52. | :12:58. | |
former IRA assassins is the. Both magnanimity and mutual respect is | :12:59. | :13:03. | |
needed otherwise Northern Ireland will get bogged down in its past | :13:04. | :13:07. | |
rather than supporting victims and building a new future at a time of | :13:08. | :13:13. | |
great Brexit uncertainty. To conclude, can I asked that the | :13:14. | :13:16. | |
Minister devs are proper and full explanation and guarantee about the | :13:17. | :13:25. | |
entitlement of people from Northern Ireland. The European Union has in | :13:26. | :13:30. | |
the past been very supportive in recognising Northern Ireland's | :13:31. | :13:32. | |
unique status and will certainly have to be supported in the future. | :13:33. | :13:41. | |
Insert a new clause in the words as printed. I am very pleased to follow | :13:42. | :13:50. | |
my noble colleague and former Secretary of State for Northern | :13:51. | :13:53. | |
Ireland in supporting this amendment. I would merely point out, | :13:54. | :14:01. | |
I think this is the third former Secretary of State certainly from | :14:02. | :14:05. | |
these benches to have supported the sentiments of this amendment since | :14:06. | :14:10. | |
my noble friend Lord Murphy also spoke on this last week. I do not | :14:11. | :14:15. | |
intend to address it in such detail as my noble colleague Lord Hain | :14:16. | :14:23. | |
because I want to confine my remarks, focus on three or four | :14:24. | :14:30. | |
strategic issues which I think are vitally important. We have spent a | :14:31. | :14:35. | |
great deal of time thinking and worrying, correctly, about the | :14:36. | :14:41. | |
implications of Brexit for Scotland and in my view not nearly enough | :14:42. | :14:47. | |
time thinking about the implications not only for Northern Ireland but | :14:48. | :14:51. | |
the whole of Ireland and our relationship which over the past 20 | :14:52. | :14:58. | |
years we have built in contrast to centuries prior to its of animosity | :14:59. | :15:04. | |
and antagonism. Therefore I would like to make a few points which I | :15:05. | :15:08. | |
hope ministers will convey to their colleagues in the spirit that my | :15:09. | :15:10. | |
noble colleague did earlier on. The first of this is if the whole | :15:11. | :15:22. | |
question of immigration is so central to the Government's view on | :15:23. | :15:30. | |
Brexit, and indeed they would imply to the public's view, then we ought | :15:31. | :15:38. | |
to be very careful that we pay sufficient attention to the fact | :15:39. | :15:42. | |
that the border between Europe and the United Kingdom will be across | :15:43. | :15:47. | |
the border between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland. And I say | :15:48. | :15:53. | |
that, of course, because the Government say to us - but there | :15:54. | :15:57. | |
will not be a hard border, we have no intention of bringing back a hard | :15:58. | :16:03. | |
border, by which they mean - noticing who passes from the South | :16:04. | :16:06. | |
to the North on the island of Ireland. I put it to the Government | :16:07. | :16:12. | |
their own logic suggests if they have no way of telling who is moving | :16:13. | :16:18. | |
from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland, it is really | :16:19. | :16:25. | |
difficult for them to ensure the British people are somehow going to | :16:26. | :16:28. | |
have control of immigration. So, I hope the minister will be able to | :16:29. | :16:31. | |
tell us how he squares that particular circle but that is not | :16:32. | :16:39. | |
just a matter of control of the numbers of immigration, of course, | :16:40. | :16:42. | |
it's a question of security as well. Because, if we are going to have | :16:43. | :16:46. | |
this dreadfully soft border between Europe, and in particular the | :16:47. | :16:49. | |
shengin area of Europe, to which I accept the Republic of Ireland is | :16:50. | :16:55. | |
not a member, then we must, almost by definition, enhance the security | :16:56. | :17:00. | |
threat, compared to the preexisting position. And it's also, in terms of | :17:01. | :17:08. | |
immigration, of extreme importance to Northern Ireland's economy and | :17:09. | :17:14. | |
industries. As we know, the province came through an extremely difficult | :17:15. | :17:23. | |
period of 30 years - actually in some ways, since 1168, since we | :17:24. | :17:28. | |
first arrived in that island, having run out of land on the mainland of | :17:29. | :17:33. | |
England and sailed into the estuary at Wexford and declared, with 400 | :17:34. | :17:40. | |
soldiers "it will be all over in a month." We have had a long history | :17:41. | :17:46. | |
of conflict and war there. And in the past ten to 15 years, Northern | :17:47. | :17:52. | |
Ireland has prospered. It is completely different now from what | :17:53. | :17:55. | |
it was, largely by reason of the development of the economy and the | :17:56. | :18:01. | |
introduction of equality in the Province of Ulster. But many of | :18:02. | :18:12. | |
those industries are entirely depend ient of bringing the best brains of | :18:13. | :18:15. | |
Europe to Northern Ireland. Something that didn't happen for | :18:16. | :18:21. | |
deck kands if we are not very care -- for decades, and if we are not | :18:22. | :18:25. | |
very careful, we will not be in the position where not only the best | :18:26. | :18:28. | |
brains are not coming to Northern Ireland but where Northern Ireland | :18:29. | :18:32. | |
companies are moving 50 or 100 miles south of the border into Ireland | :18:33. | :18:38. | |
itself and it'll do un-Todd damage to the economy of Northern Ireland. | :18:39. | :18:44. | |
Untold damage. The second question is fiscal difference s. It is easy | :18:45. | :18:50. | |
to say we'll have a soft border but if you have arrangement say that | :18:51. | :18:54. | |
have a vast variation in taxation in the North, compared to the South, | :18:55. | :18:59. | |
then there will be a very profitable industry for bringing goods into the | :19:00. | :19:03. | |
North and making a lot of money out of it. It may surprise ministers, | :19:04. | :19:08. | |
but this is how a lot of the terrorism in Northern Ireland was | :19:09. | :19:12. | |
funded. I won't go into detail on that, but merely to say anecdotally | :19:13. | :19:23. | |
that it was a very good idea to own a couple of fields that straddled | :19:24. | :19:28. | |
the border under your own ownership and anecdotally it is said that some | :19:29. | :19:32. | |
of the people who did so parked oil tankers at the bottom of their field | :19:33. | :19:40. | |
at dusk, which had mysteriously moved to the top of the field by day | :19:41. | :19:47. | |
break, thus causing a great deal of surplus, because of the taxation | :19:48. | :19:50. | |
differences between the North and the South. That problem will rise | :19:51. | :19:55. | |
again - smuggling and as I said, industries moving South. And | :19:56. | :20:01. | |
finally, what my noble colleague referred to, the Good Friday | :20:02. | :20:08. | |
Agreement. I will also call it the Belfast Agreement. The - as the | :20:09. | :20:16. | |
Minster knows there are two names for many things in Northern Ireland, | :20:17. | :20:21. | |
and if you use the wrong name you are accused of having a preference | :20:22. | :20:26. | |
one way or the other. So Derry and Londonderry and the Good Friday | :20:27. | :20:31. | |
Agreement and Belfast Agreement have to be encompassed in phraseology in | :20:32. | :20:35. | |
order to prove neutrality. But whatever you call that agreement, it | :20:36. | :20:39. | |
was historic and my worry about that is not just that it'll create the | :20:40. | :20:44. | |
perception that we are abandoning the rights and liberties which could | :20:45. | :20:49. | |
be guaranteed by recourse to the European Parliament. That I think is | :20:50. | :20:53. | |
arguable. I don't believe that will happen. I believe that this is such | :20:54. | :20:58. | |
an entrenched and embedded, historic agreement that those rights will be | :20:59. | :21:04. | |
maintained. Nevertheless, perception will grow, but more importantly, | :21:05. | :21:09. | |
although it was never articulated in explicit terms, the fact is that the | :21:10. | :21:23. | |
all-Ireland dimension of the Good Friday Agreement-Belfast-agreement | :21:24. | :21:26. | |
was absolutely essential that it brought all sides into T nationals, | :21:27. | :21:29. | |
republicans, the unionists and loyalists, so that Northern Ireland | :21:30. | :21:36. | |
stood as part of the United wing dom but the -- United Kingdom but the | :21:37. | :21:39. | |
solution to the problem was to encompass the all-Ireland dimension | :21:40. | :21:55. | |
of it and that all-Ireland dimension was underpinned by our dual | :21:56. | :21:57. | |
membership of the European Union. And therefore the divorce of the | :21:58. | :22:04. | |
European Union and the United Kingdom raises very serious issues | :22:05. | :22:07. | |
for the ministers, not just in the legal niceties of it but in the | :22:08. | :22:12. | |
underlying atmospherics and the all-Ireland dimension. Nigh noble | :22:13. | :22:15. | |
friend has made plain he does not intend to push this to a vote and | :22:16. | :22:20. | |
I'm glad about that and it is put in the spirit with which the Good | :22:21. | :22:24. | |
Friday Agreement was conducted and that is all parties on all sides, on | :22:25. | :22:31. | |
all parts of this island, as well as all parts of the island of Ireland, | :22:32. | :22:36. | |
advising each other as we see fit on the best way to avoid big, big traps | :22:37. | :22:46. | |
and to ensure the prosperity of Northern Ireland and of the Good | :22:47. | :22:50. | |
Friday and Belfast-agreement. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord for | :22:51. | :22:54. | |
tabling this amendment. Although I think things may not be quite as | :22:55. | :22:59. | |
difficult as he imagines, in that many of us, and I declare an | :23:00. | :23:04. | |
interest, our right of Irish citizenship is not contingent on the | :23:05. | :23:09. | |
Belfast Agreement T goes back much further to the establishment of the | :23:10. | :23:13. | |
common travel area and in order to set my own mind at rest, I actually | :23:14. | :23:17. | |
checked with the Irish Embassy after the Brexit vote to make sure of my | :23:18. | :23:24. | |
own status, I was born in County Antrim during the war years and the | :23:25. | :23:27. | |
answer is - you are a citizen, you have birth right. Now that didn't | :23:28. | :23:34. | |
continue indefinitely but many of us in the North have citizenship by | :23:35. | :23:38. | |
virtue of being born, I think when there was still a territorial claim | :23:39. | :23:44. | |
to the entire Ireland, I see the noble Lord, Lord Empy nodding behind | :23:45. | :23:47. | |
me. So that is actually very important to us, that the numbers we | :23:48. | :23:51. | |
are talking about are rather different from the suggestion that | :23:52. | :23:54. | |
this is a Belfast Agreement creation. However, I think that the | :23:55. | :24:00. | |
underlying problems are every bit as severe as noble Lords have suggested | :24:01. | :24:05. | |
and I think there are three - one is obviously the movement of people and | :24:06. | :24:09. | |
I have to say and I know that many in the Conservative Party think that | :24:10. | :24:17. | |
ID cards are a no-no, but I would suggest that many noble Lords carry | :24:18. | :24:22. | |
mobile phones which give away far more about their identity constantly | :24:23. | :24:26. | |
and I think we should grow up and realise that in the present age, | :24:27. | :24:32. | |
identity and identification is absolutely routine. We need to get | :24:33. | :24:36. | |
it right and enable people to travel. But, my Lords, it is not | :24:37. | :24:42. | |
only in order to identify the persons who have under whatever | :24:43. | :24:46. | |
dispensation we reach, no right to cross into the UK, I'm afraid that | :24:47. | :24:52. | |
this duty would fall upon all of us to be able to identify ourselves | :24:53. | :24:59. | |
probably when we do crucial things like register at a GP's surgery and | :25:00. | :25:07. | |
start a company or buy a property. Not merely when we travel. So I | :25:08. | :25:12. | |
think that topic really needs to be explored in full. The second topic | :25:13. | :25:16. | |
and I believe it is the most awkward of these, is the question of | :25:17. | :25:20. | |
tariffs. Of course, it depends upon the negotiation that we have been | :25:21. | :25:24. | |
talking about at some length today, what sort of issue that has to be, | :25:25. | :25:29. | |
how much of it can be electronic. But make no mistake, the economies | :25:30. | :25:34. | |
are interwoven and it cannot be a fault that you have a long cue at | :25:35. | :25:41. | |
300 border crossings - 260, I think, across 300 miles. That is not a | :25:42. | :25:46. | |
solution. Thirdly my Lords and I think this is a neglected but really | :25:47. | :25:51. | |
important topic, we may expect, in the event of a negotiation, that the | :25:52. | :25:55. | |
agriculture support systems North and South of the Irish border will | :25:56. | :26:01. | |
divert. That creates new incentives to do something that has long been | :26:02. | :26:05. | |
done and of which amusing stories can be told because it isn't only | :26:06. | :26:09. | |
oil tankers that was put into the field it is also of course beasts. I | :26:10. | :26:17. | |
think it is important that we address issues of bio-security very | :26:18. | :26:21. | |
early on in the negotiations. The economies both of the Republic and | :26:22. | :26:25. | |
of the North are highly-integrated in some respects, particularly | :26:26. | :26:31. | |
dairy. And it is very important that those supply lines can be maintained | :26:32. | :26:34. | |
without any risk to bio-security and of course it is not just the looming | :26:35. | :26:44. | |
possibility of foot-and-mouth but other horrible diseases that animals | :26:45. | :26:47. | |
get, swine flu, avian flu, you name it, it is possible and I hope we can | :26:48. | :26:57. | |
address this one soon. My Lords, it is an opportunity because of the | :26:58. | :27:01. | |
noble Lord, Lord Hain's speech, to once again concentrate our minds on | :27:02. | :27:11. | |
an aspect of our long debates on the EU and Brexit to realise the sigs of | :27:12. | :27:16. | |
a cameo within the bigger cameo. It's not just a question of | :27:17. | :27:21. | |
addressing the issue of United Kingdom and the EU but www. Within | :27:22. | :27:30. | |
the United Kingdom is a border which is going to become the frontier | :27:31. | :27:41. | |
between the knew kitted king -- United Kingdom and the EU. This | :27:42. | :27:46. | |
bored which is part of folklore, as it is political story, is much more | :27:47. | :27:51. | |
important as I said at second reading than a line in a map. It | :27:52. | :27:54. | |
represents something in peep's minds, people's aspirations and in | :27:55. | :28:01. | |
people's memory of the past. And what I believe the value of what | :28:02. | :28:05. | |
Lord Hain has said to us this afternoon is this - that border | :28:06. | :28:12. | |
presents perhaps the most important facet for the people of Northern | :28:13. | :28:21. | |
Ireland that is represented by Brexit. Northern Ireland will be | :28:22. | :28:30. | |
affected by Brexit more than any other part of the United Kingdom | :28:31. | :28:33. | |
simply because of geography. But more than jog graphy. It is going to | :28:34. | :28:36. | |
be affected by the cultural change, the economic change and, of course | :28:37. | :28:45. | |
the security question. . What I think it is important this afternoon | :28:46. | :28:49. | |
to emphasise and I'm glad the noble Lord, Lord Hain is not going to | :28:50. | :28:52. | |
press this to a division, but what I think is important in what he has | :28:53. | :28:56. | |
said to us and what lies behind the words of his amendment. Is that this | :28:57. | :29:01. | |
is a reminder of the part of the United Kingdom that is going to be | :29:02. | :29:08. | |
the first part to feel the affect of Brexit. The second part of that is | :29:09. | :29:12. | |
going to be the ongoing consequences, as the noble Baroness | :29:13. | :29:18. | |
has reminded us, the tariff question, the economy and of course | :29:19. | :29:22. | |
the proverbial oil tankers and horses and cows of the field. But | :29:23. | :29:32. | |
away from the romanticism of this n this House this afternoon are three | :29:33. | :29:35. | |
peers who have every reason to speak to us and remind us of the | :29:36. | :29:41. | |
sensitivities of what Brexit will do to the situation in Northern | :29:42. | :29:46. | |
Ireland. And I refer to those who have served and served us well as | :29:47. | :29:54. | |
Secretary of State over the years. What has been achieved in the | :29:55. | :30:00. | |
relations between North and South and East and West - it is equally | :30:01. | :30:05. | |
important, East and West. What has been achieved over years that was | :30:06. | :30:12. | |
full of blood and suffering and great suffering for people on both | :30:13. | :30:19. | |
sides, what has been achieved has been remarkable in the change of | :30:20. | :30:23. | |
relationships between the two parts of the island of Ireland. And what | :30:24. | :30:27. | |
the prayer of those of us who have worked most of our lifetime to try | :30:28. | :30:32. | |
to bring reconciliation and to bring progress, not only in the political | :30:33. | :30:38. | |
sense, but in that very, very wide and deep sense of people's | :30:39. | :30:42. | |
relationships, people's hopes and people's every day lives, what our | :30:43. | :30:48. | |
fear is, that if anything is done which will upset the balance of | :30:49. | :30:54. | |
those newly-achieved - yes, newly-achieved relationships, then a | :30:55. | :30:54. | |
lot of other people will suffer. Subtitles will resume at 11.00pm in | :30:55. | :31:11. | |
Tuesday in Parliament. | :31:12. | :31:19. |