12/03/2018 House of Lords

that this House to adjourn.

Many of

that opinion say, I. The iPods might

have order, order.

-- the I's have it.

We will not be

going live to the House of Lords.

Remember you can watch recorded

coverage of all of today's business

in the Lords after the daily

politics later tonight.

I agree that

I think we will look at how we can

have the conversation and discussion

move this forward like my noble

friend Lord Forsyth I have grave

doubts and indeed we won't be moving

to the position of consent. I would

like to see us move to position

where we are certainly talking and

consulting and I'm happy to engage

at that. I think anon devolved areas

to move into a position of consent

would be dangerous. I think my noble

friend once again for what he said

and I totally agree that if you

thought this was difficult just wait

until we get to clause 11. I think

this is relatively straightforward

and I can see through this where we

would have wrought agreement and I

think also 11 again and look Lord

Griffis indicated it will be much

more difficult. I agree with him

that I think it is important that we

should move to a position where it

does relate to devolved areas. There

is a convention that has grown up

and widely accepted about consent. I

think that is absolutely right.

Think Lord Griffis for the clarity

and I agree with him about the

importance of the transparency and

of coming up with something that I

think is common sense which was

essentially what he was saying. I

don't disagree. Therefore, my lords,

I think we're probably reached

agreement on clause seven. In

relation to clause eight and clause

nine I am happy to look at the

points that were made and to discuss

further ahead of report but I would

ask in the meantime at the noble

lord noble lady would withdraw their

amendments.

I would like to thank the normal

Lord for his break

characteristically detailed and

courteous response and we look

forward to examining these

amendments in greater detail ahead

of report stage where we will

probably have many longer

discussions about these amendments I

report stage. In the meantime, I beg

leave to withdraw the amendment.

Let

this amendment be John. The

amendment I leave is John. I meant

90. -- drawn.

I moved a madman

across earlier today. I think I did.

-- the amendment. Some time ago. I'm

very grateful to all noble Lords who

have spoken in this debate. It seems

to me to some of very, very briefly

that there was a theme that ran

through various contributions which

I now bring to a point. I picked up

from the noble lord the point that

the Government had not really

carried the people with them in the

way they've responded to devolution

at least in Wales. And then Lord

Morris was saying that devolution

was yet to be taken seriously. The

Baroness was saying that the

atmosphere is becoming increasingly

negative. These are very unfortunate

phrases to be using any situation

where we are seeking to seek

agreement. But then Lord Wallace

said that, to accept these

amendments would be a step forward.

He was saying that it what it really

cost the Government much trouble to

accept the amendments. Given what

they have been saying about their

intentions and the use of powers

which have been given to the

Ministers of state by these three

causes. What's, my point is this. It

doesn't really look at the Minister

searches his conscious thoroughly

that they have very much to lose, if

anything. At the same time, there is

a lot to be gained because it would

help to at least change the

atmosphere which at the moment is so

negative. He is made a step forward

and clause seven which I appreciate

that he has done it because he says

he doesn't need to bother with the

Scotland act because it will go to a

report stage. I applaud that. Surely

he might take the same step with

clause nine and clause eight. But if

so, why not just say so? Why not put

these measures into the Bill and get

this all over with? There is bad to

take away from this debate. There's

one other point. If you do put a

closet this kind into clause seven,

then people will get clause eight

and nine say, it's not there. The

situation is different. There's a

lot in phrase for this... -- Lattin.

That means that if you put one thing

and you exclude the others. You need

to look rather carefully at the

wisdom of putting in a very sensible

amendment and not reproducing it in

clause eight and nine as well. These

are thoughts which I hope we can

take into discussions which I might

have with the noble lord, the

Minister. We look forward to the

report stage when you will come

forward with this other amendments.

I think suffers this evening is

concerned, that's as far as we can

take the matter. But for the time

being, I beg leave to withdraw the

amendment.

Let this amendment be

withdrawn. The amendment is by leave

with John. Amendments 92 and 93. Not

moved. Amendment 94. Lord Newby. Not

moved. Amendment 90 five. Not moved.

And 96. Not moved. 97. Not moved.

98. Not moved. 99.

know not moved amendment 101, not

moved.

101 A, not moved. 100 one B

is withdrawn. 102 I'm afraid I have

to introduce this very concisely.

There are two

to introduce this very concisely.

There are two amendments undermine

him at this group. Whether you seek

to do is to qualified the extent

given to Ministers to make... To

which these clauses refer asking

that they are not exercised without

her consent of Scottish or Welsh

Ministers. So far the provisions

would be... Within the meaning given

to that expression in the paragraph.

My lords, part of these amendments

is to respect the Constitution SI

cost additional importance. It seems

certainly in Cardiff and Edinburgh

as a responsibility of the devolved

authorities, they have that

responsibility by virtue of the

Democratic codes by virtue of which

there were elected. Their position,

and it seems to me, is that it

should not be for UK Ministers to

enter into that area, which is the

devolved to them, without their

consent. Especially in the exercise

and other power as I referred to, to

make any provision to clauses that

could be made by an act of

Parliament. I mentioned... In

practise, the principal has been

operated for quite a long time. In

the way the dilution system has been

developed to a fundamental statute.

The problem is that these clauses

fail to be reflected in practise and

that does need to be corrected. It's

just to accept the point in its

statutory context. So far as the

Ministers are concerned, this

section. The Scotland act of 1998

sets out the basic rule that insofar

as exercising a rule, they have to

be exercised by the Scottish

Ministers instead by Ministers of

the. Section 52 .1 but that rule is

qualified by section 57.1 in the

case of functions in relation to

observing and implementing

obligations under EU law. A member

of the Scottish Government has no

pride in making is subordinate...

What section 57.1 does is provide...

For the purposes set out in section

two, subsection two of the European

excerpt, 1972. No mention is made in

the statute, of the consent of

Scottish Ministers before that power

is exercised in relation to EU law.

But, this is how I am coming out to

have toward these matters in

practise, these brought the strike

provisions are operated in practise

by successive memoranda of

understanding of dilution between

the UK Government and the devolved

institutions. We must recall that to

begin with, the Government in an

umbrella and the Government in

Westminster were of the same

persuasion. That of course assisted

very much in the setting up a

memoranda at common understanding.

The latest of these memoranda was

published in October 2013. The

coordination of EU policy issues,

memoranda and states that the UK

Government wishes to invoke, the

devolved administration is directly

and directly as fully as possible on

decision-making on UK decision

matters that involve the devolved

areas. Amongst other things, it is

for the devolved administrations to

consider in consultation how the EU

obligations should be implemented

and enforced. Including, whether

they should be included by the

devolved administration themselves

separately, or by the UK or UK

legislation. Ever since devolution,

as I understand, it's been a matter

of routine between Scotland and

White Hall says these institutions

were set up. This is important

because it does enable the Scottish

Government to fulfil the

responsibilities that are being

devolved to them without there being

cut across by measures taken in

Whitehall with other agreement. I

think it's important to say that it

is a system that has worked

remarkably well, the cooperation

between civil servants on both sides

of the border and initiatives of

these political agreements is not

indicated for on both sides of the

border to. Now the context in which

the powers are given to Ministers of

the crown, the clause 7.8, is

different because we are leaving the

EU behind. This bill is about the

withdrawal process. We found that in

the Bill has it stands the moment,

section 15 seven .1, Scotland is

being committed.

... Their effect is that the power

of the Scottish Ministers will be

under restriction into EU, in

relation to EU law, to retain BU Law

which is similar to that in relation

to EU law the present. But when we

look at the clause, we see that the

Ministers of the crop will have

powers with those provisions to

modify, retain BU Law in areas of P

C Bass I policy. EU law. So the

amendments which I am putting

forward in this group, seeking to

deal with the problem. There are

provisions in schedules, and will

provide EU laws being treated the

same way as regards all competence.

The problem is that they fail to

recognise much of the problem with

retaining EU laws will return with

matters of the devolved competence

of Scottish and Welsh governments.

To deprive them of their... Would be

very unfortunate and would create a

situation where both in Cardiff and

Edinburgh regarded as quite

unacceptable. It would mean that

while policy areas are in devolved

competence that arrays no issues of

retaining EU lied all, would be

fully for the devolved

administration to do with

themselves. We have policy areas

within the same devolved areas which

would be subject to provisions in

the Bill without any need to get the

consent of the devolved government.

The point I'm trying to make as

briefly as I can, is that there is a

recipe for confusion and

mismanagement which would be in the

buddy 's interest. Milos, those

remarks that have been making art --

my lords. It applies to clause eight

as well. My point is really,, and on

these two clauses and seeking try to

avoid the risk of confusion and

mismanagement, which at the praise

and is avoided by the common

understanding of the memoranda which

works so well. My lords, I hope that

you are willing to accept these

amendments.

There has the best thing

to do I can do is back to move and

then we can get it to discussion.

Page six line 25 amendment 103, 102,

my lords I will speak to amendments

to the amendments tabled in my name.

I shall be extremely brief because

many of the arguments have already

been rehearsed. Again, I believe

these amendments raise issues that

are fundamental. Amendments to

include Northern Ireland, it was

very carefully constructed and

delicately balance as my balance.

The settlement the best interest of

people in Northern Ireland. Since

1998, the prowess of been enhanced,

with a transfer of police powers in

2010 to the Assembly, in an act go

to this Parliament allowing for.

Given the delicate negotiations that

took place to reach that settlement

and the very nature of identity

politics in Northern Ireland, I hope

the Ministers agree, should be to

give their consent to any move to

make red... Regulations that would

encroach on the Northern Ireland

assembly.... I beg to move.

I would

just like to ask whether it would be

possible to deal with his point by

dealing with the memorandum I can

see the force of that.

But I don't

know whether that is an option that

is available in the present time. So

far as reassuring the parties both

in Cardiff and entire Edinburgh,,

it's a matter of trying to find a

way of divine way to soften the

atmosphere. I haven't been

discussing clause 11 differently --

deliberately because it is

different.

Later tonight on it in

July of 1998, I was sitting, a Lord

junked his feet to respond the

amendment. The Scotland build he

said -- IM resisting that he said

clause 27 makes it clear that

dilution of legislative competence

to the Scottish Government does not

affect the ability of Westminster to

legislate for Scotland even in

relation to devolved matters. Indeed

as a paragraph of white papers

explain, there could be instances

where it would be more convenient

for legislation on devolved matter

to be passed by the United Kingdom

Parliament. However, as happened in

Northern Ireland early in the

century, we would expect a

convention to be established that

when Mr would not normally legislate

on devolved matter without the

consent of the Scottish Parliament.

He continued, if problems do arise

the solution, the Scottish solving

the matter through political

dialogue. That is the difference

between Parliaments. That is what

happened another political systems.

I cannot believe that it is belong

-- might our wit to develop such a

convention. It's the use of the word

normally was off the cuff and I

imagine that the Lord it would've

been a surprise, that will become

something that would be subject to

such intense examination as it has

become in subsequent years. .

The

word normally was certainly not

off-the-cuff. Lengthy debate that

we've had. You will find it was very

considerable debate. The wisdom of

including what he said,

I think the noble lord misses the

point. I'm saying that is where the

word normally first originated in

1998. No doubt hit has received

considerable debate sense. I have

listened to debate on the topic. My

lords, the problem is a lack of

trust. This is been mentioned by a

number of local Billy -- noble

Lords.

A number of interventions between

the United Kingdom government and

the Scottish Government and no doubt

a lack of trust between the laboured

government in Wales and the

Government in Westminster. It really

derives it seems to me from the

suggestion that there should be an

imposition by the Westminster

government on areas which are

currently devolved to the

Parliament. Lords, I look at the

leave campaign's open letter on the

14th of June, 2016, a week before

the referendum where they said there

is more than enough money to ensure

that those who now get funding from

the EU including universities,

scientist, family farmers, regional

farms, cultural organisations and

others will continue to do so while

also ensuring that we save money

that can be spent on our priorities.

The leader of the Conservatives and

Wales, Mr Andrew Davis said that

today's announcement is usually

welcome and further evidence that

Wales would be better off as the

European Union. We now know that

funding for reached in every part of

the UK including Wales will be safe

if we vote to leave. The First

Minister for Wales said this. Those

who signed this letter have no mark

power to deliver on it that my

children's pet cat. However, lords,

the referendum was one by the leaf

action and in the conservative

manifesto 2017 the proposal was to

set up a UK Shared Prosperity Fund.

This is from the manifesto of

austere said. We will use the

structural funds money that comes

back to the UK following Brexit to

create a United Kingdom Shared

Prosperity Fund specifically

designed to reduce inequalities

between communities across our four

nations. We will consult widely on

the design of the fund, including

with the devolved administrations,

local authorities, businesses and

public bodies. My lords, the word

that was used there in that

manifesto was consult. And not,

agree. Certainly there was no

suggestion that they would look for

consent. Similarly. And the

agreement with the DU peak, the

paper that was published in June

2017, the UK Government financial

support for Northern Ireland said,

Northern Ireland's needs will be

properly reflected in the fund which

will benefit all parts of the United

Kingdom. So it seems that the

intention as expressed in that

manifesto was for the United Kingdom

government at Westminster to hold

the money back so that the

structural funds and Dole at the

money as it thinks fit without any

requirement for agreement. That's

where the mistrust intensified. The

position is this, Lord Morris

mentioned it earlier, ... If in

taking over the rules and

regulations relating to regional

development, the money were to be

distributed on the formula, Wales

would be significantly worse off.

The Bevan foundation and their

report published in conjunction with

the Welsh local Government

Association last October said this,

the estimated allocation of funds

for Wales using the Barnard formula

between 2014 and 2020 would be not

the actual to .2 euros billion but

just 562 million euros. In other

words, if you up by the Barnard

formula to the structural funds,

Wales would of got a quarter of what

it actually did get or is promised

up until 2020. We really do not know

what is going to happen after that.

No commitments have been made. If

this clause remains unamended, the

United Kingdom government will have

the power to take over all the rules

and regulations relating to regional

development and to agriculture and

fisheries and many other areas and

change them and develop other

structures as it thinks fit. A B

that's a good thing, providing the

devolved administration's consent to

it. I cannot understand why the

Government will resist the concept

of consent, agreement. Surely that

is the way forward. I think the only

reason they do resist it is because

they don't trust the people that

they are negotiating with. They are

the Unionist party and United

Kingdom that doesn't show much for

United Kingdom if you can't trust to

the degree of getting sensible

agreement that the other partners to

the kingdom. That's what the fuss is

about. I support these amendments.

Following on what the noble lord has

said, surely it is a responsibility

of a government of the United

Kingdom and this is a point which is

often made by Scottish Nationalist

but one of the parties but by the

Scottish Nationalists is that we

mustn't leave the European Union

because we are so dependent on the

single market which is the European

Union. What I think we should be

focusing on here tonight is the

single market which is the United

Kingdom. Listening to the noble

lord, what would happen for example,

taking his point about the Barnard

formula, he's right the Barnard

formula is extremely generous to

Scotland and unfair to Wales. In my

opinion, resources should be

distributed according to need and

not according to some days that is

been amended according to

population. If it is to be the case

that the Welsh Parliament and the

Scottish Parliament are to have

vetoes on these matters, what is the

prospect of whales being able to get

a fairer share of its going to be

vetoed by Scotland? Is a matter for

the United Kingdom government to

decide for the United Kingdom as a

whole and for the single market that

is the United Kingdom as a whole. I

have to say to the noble lord, I

think his amendments are naive. We

are faced with the administration in

Scotland which is absolutely

determined to break up United

Kingdom. That is their purpose. We

can have all the talks until the

crack of doom with demonstration and

they will... This civil servants

will be taking exactly the kind of

sensible, tight medic, legalistic

approach that Lord Hope is doing.

The politician X have another

agenda. Which is to destroy the

United Kingdom. As seed Unionist, I

have an agenda to make sure that

every part of the United Kingdom is

treated fairly. And that there is no

veto for any part of the United

Kingdom. This we have for

Parliaments in the United Kingdom.

We only have fun United Kingdom

Parliament and that is this. When

lords who will produced his

convention he was greeted with great

enthusiasm by the Scottish

Parliament. At the noble lord looks

at the record, he will find this

Parliament has legislated for the

Scottish Parliament to a

considerable degree. Mainly because

they've only saw for one and a half

days a week until recently in

legislation and haven't had time to

do that. Now we are in the absurd

position where the posturing of

Ministers when a perfectly sensible

accommodation has been offered by

the United Kingdom Parliament...

It's about trying to create division

and turn everything into a

constitutional crisis. It's against

the interests of having a single

market. Single market which they say

is essential to the Scottish

economy. Their position is that they

don't want any of these... To come

to Wales or Scotland or to the

United Kingdom. They wish it to

remain in Brussels. It is an utterly

hypocritical stance. They would

rather this is decided in

Brussels... This is political

gamesmanship and we are foolish if

we accede to it. Why we should do is

proceed with the Bill unamended and

ensure that the United Kingdom

government can work with the

Parliaments of the various parts of

the United Kingdom to preserve that

single market which incidentally is

worth four times as much to the

people of Scotland in terms of

income and jobs and everything else

in the single market that they

report to defend which is that of

the European Union. This is a lot of

heat and waffle perpetrated by

people who don't like the results of

the referendum and two her terribly

keen on referendums but find it

difficult to accept the results of

referendums. The argument we have to

have another referendum on

independence, another referendum on

Europe, I do say to the noble lord

who is normally very courteous, to

the noble lord who is normally very

courteous, too described in the

terms that he did the 17 part 4

million people who to leave in the

United Kingdom. 400,000 of them were

Scottish Nationalists. To describe

them and us pejorative terms I think

he is following the course of his

leader who use disgraceful language

to insult the 17.4 VM people only

this week. I hope the House will

reject these moments and we can get

on with the task of making a success

of United Kingdom which at last has

the powers and authority to ensure

that all parts of our country

benefit from being able to determine

our own affairs.

I'm most grateful

to my noble friend. It was very

interesting speech that he gave but

it doesn't seem to bear any relation

to the amendments that are before

the House this evening. I think the

amendments go to the heart of

obtaining the consent of the

Scottish people as expressed through

the Scottish Parliament. He is a

Democrat and I am a Democrat. Does

he not agree that the amendments go

to the heart of devolution and that

is what we are trying to maintain in

particular, the amendments that Lord

Hope has moved this evening?

If the

noble lady would like me to repeat

my speech again when she is

listening then I will happily do so

but I don't think... When she says a

ghost heart of democracy, these are

matters for the night kingdom

Parliament. There is no veto for any

of the devolved administrations.

We've debated endlessly. This moment

would give a veto. It would mean

that the tail was wagging the dog.

It would mean that the Scottish

Parliament could prevent what was in

the interests of the rest of the

United Kingdom. That is not

democracy. The noble lady needs to

address the words on the order

paper, the words of the amendment

and listen to the arguments instead

of pursuing her ideological

determination to reverse the

decision of the British people.

I

hope very much that the speech made

by the global Lord will be reported

loud and clearly in Scotland. I have

no doubt there will only be one set

of winners coming from that. The

whole of the last debate in this

debate has centred around the

question of trust. I'm not sure

whether comments we have just heard

are going to help create that trust

in future. Lord Forsyth said that

his friends and Scotland were

ignoring the English single market

while building up the European

single market. But the European

single market includes the UK single

market. It is one single market.

It's a bigger one. Those were

looking to that single market are

looking outward, not just in word

and are restricting their boundaries

just around the coasts of these

islands.

I said no such thing. I

said that the single market which is

the European market is a quarter of

the size of the single market which

is the United Kingdom for Scotland.

It may well be but the European

single market includes England at

this point in time. In other words,

they are not losing anything. The

main point is a point made by Lord

Thomas with regard to resources.

If

you're asked to trust up by giving a

veto to Westminster into the UK

Government which essentially is

what's coming through in a number of

these clauses whether David O will

be used at all and anyway, the power

to impose policies in areas that

have been that clearly is

was at we've had experience as the

noble lord mentioned of regional

policy.

The Baroness will remember.

The problem is that we had in the

early days. I'm getting Westminster

and Whitehall to pass over money

that is coming for Wales and not

falling into the Treasury in London.

It wasn't until Mr Barnier

intervened with the then Chancellor

Gordon Brown, then a £442 billion

was passed over to Wales and it was

held back and Whitehall in the

Treasury. And that is the background

of trust that we have. If we are

going to build a future of trusses I

want to see happen between the

nations of this Islands. It has to

be recognition that in some areas,

though leadership is coming from

crumbled regime. In other areas,

responsibility lies here. There will

be grey areas, but we have to make

sure that there was a mechanism that

respects each other for sorting out

those grey areas. And the attention

is not given to that side of the

argument. If we can concentrate on

that, I believe that amendment moved

by Lord Hall. If you could consider

their request -- Lord Hope. To

respond to his proposal in this

context as a way of showing goodwill

towards getting some understanding

of the other context will be coming

onto, then perhaps can start make

some progress. And I asked him noble

lord and Minister to invite those

who are interested in those matters

to meet the try to get some proposal

coming from here that could at least

go some way towards answering the

problems that are being felt in

Cardiff and Edinburgh. This is an

insoluble. But goodwill that it

isn't always Avenue -- evident here.

Two of the amendments are removed

some time ago now. -- that were

moved sometime. I should first

declare that I am a member of the

commission. And that commission was

mentioned and funding to Wales has

indeed been a concern. With regard

to these amendments in the core

issue of trust. It comes to mind

that there was a wise saying, trust

arise on foot and leaves on

horseback. It seems as if we'd had a

few galloping horses in this chamber

this evening. We do have to look

forward. In the new world that we

will face after Brexit, which will

not be easy, nobody is now

pretending that it will be easy. We

do need to be a United Kingdom, and

we do need to pull together. I do

hope that the Minister, given his

remarks to the previous group of the

members -- amendments. That he

intimated that he's that sincerely

want to bring parties together, and

have some restoration of trust and

some resolution of working with

forward, that he will be able to

work with others to achieve that.

And that he will give serious

consideration to these amendments,

because there were not put down to

divide, they were put down, with a

view to try to establish a degree of

reconciliation restored trust and to

find working with forward.

If I can

deny usually ebullient self with

particular point. Thus I if I can

be. I admit I being of washing

extraction, having a Welsh speaking

father. You spoke entirely from the

point of view of someone who has

been Bruce. I would be on the side

being bruised, by the activities, of

the Scottish Nationalists. But

actually I do think that there is

here a debate. A debate which is not

about, ... There is a debate about

trust. And I do say to my honourable

friend, to say we could all work

when this government, a coalition

government, a labour government

can't continue this utterly unfair

system of the Barnier formula that

has done such damage to Wales. And

label government retained as the

noble lord retained, large sums of

money rather than pass it on in the

system in which -- which were

previously had. My noble friend

knows very well that I believe in a

single market. I don't have the

view. I look for a single market

that continues with the whole of

Europe. Which is of course, is of

great benefit to all of us. And I am

sad that he should try to remove it

from us. But I don't think that it

helps in this debate to not to face

the issue of very, very considerable

lack of trust. In both Scotland and

Wales, there is a history of not,

getting except almost only by force,

a fair share. Scotland has now

managed to get its Avenue position

that we now feel is the opposite.

That's how the Barnier formula

works. I think it would be good for

the Government of Scotland to

occasionally recognise what a

favourable position history has

printed. But because of the way

these amendments are drawn and

indeed put together, I would've like

this House to fail to recognise the

specific and particular position of

Wales. Not least because of the

specialist position in which the

North of Ireland have managed to get

themselves for political reasons,

and the historic position in which

Scotland is in now. It's merely to

say to my noble friend the Minister

for whom have enormous respect, and

if I may say so his last speech in

summing up was an exemplary one show

out government can deal with issues

in a way which at least makes a

house feel that it is listened to,

and I'd like to thank you for that,

it was a very very different us.

There is a real feeling among people

in Wales that history doesn't help

people believe that the United

Kingdom government is going to be

entirely evenhanded in this issue.

Therefore, is there way in which in

this of withdrawal bill, where up

Wales has benefited very

significantly for its membership in

the European Union, if that is being

taken away, is that her way in which

the Government can at least give

greater confidence to Wales, because

if it doesn't I fear that the

ability to come to a compromise will

be very, very, considerably made

considerably more difficult. The

point I want to make, I do fear my

noble friend cup was partisan in a

way in which it concentrated only on

Scotland. He was kind enough to say

he knew about Wales. And I do about

Wales. Let me just say, could you

please give us more confidence and

if my noble friend who's all

named... I would very much like him

to give us a feeling that this

government will in some way find a

matter in which this is not

appropriate to give confidence

within this bill.

Viler is a

cosignature to the amendment. Let me

make a few points. To the record.

The Lord Hope of Craighead. He

said... There is a liberal Democrat

coalition has got his start

government that's an important

difference. -- in the Scottish

Government. But the memorandum of

understanding between the United

kingdom government and Scottish

Government foot. My experience in

the time,, I don't actually remember

any issue when there was any major

dispute. It's also fair to say. It

got very technical indeed since the

Scottish National Party,. Whole

range of technical issues, to

actually get some common-sense

agreement. That's what I do think,

we should persevere and try to that.

The point made by the Lady Byron is

Finley, the point underlying those

amendments, an effort tube building

blocks for trust. I want to repeat

what the point was made in a

previous debate. I want to say the

noble lord, that of very much

appreciate his response, Apple

responsive, cover has a response. He

did talk about allowing some veto

areas. Some modifications to the

couple night, I don't get anything I

said with getting those

applications. You wanted... I do

think that there is something we can

build on there.

I share low

dividends's admiration and the way

he responded to it. I thought he was

a rather brilliant performer of the

work of the fire extinguisher. There

was a moment spread over all of us.

And calm ensued. It was a brilliant

performance. I am sorry that this

time he has to deal with that sort

of pyrotechnics pyromaniac. Lord

Forsyth of Drumlean, I have always

thought it was rather a pity that

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean's attacks

on the party now governing Scotland

are responded to only by a Welshman.

Responded very well, but personally

as a Scotsman who does not support

the Scottish National Party, it

seems to me as rather easy trick to

score pyrotechnical victories

against an opponent who is not in

the room. I do feel also, that trust

is what this is all about. I can see

nothing wrong with this amendment. I

cannot see any reason why Ministers

should end by this amendment now. If

the cats, a discussion needs to

start and it seems to me that that

the party in office -- to install

the party in mode in office in

Edinburgh, maybe their motives,

maybe not the motives of the explain

with a published a perfectly

reasonable economic analysis at the

end of last year, which established,

I thought it established, very

clearly that damage would create a

Scotland from leaving the SIngle

Market. And the scale of the damage

was almost exactly the same as we

have now seen in the Treasury

analysis for the United Kingdom as a

whole. The same numbers pop up in

both studies. The Scots, they're not

being unreasonable or unnecessarily

malicious. When they say that they

prefer, they would prefer to remain

in the SIngle Market. Of course, the

market of the United Kingdom is more

important to Scotland than a market

of the rest of Europe that's not the

point. They don't want to have to

choose. And that seems to me to be

fairly reasonable position to adopt.

And I really don't think it helps

establish trust to insult them.

I

had no intention to speak. I want to

entirely indoors with the noble lord

said in moving this. I would also

like to refute any allegations that

I am an ideologue. I always

considered myself to be a prime at

this. I think it's also very unfair

to impute a position on a party that

is not represented in this House and

cannot answer back any of the

allegations that were made

previously. I believe that this

whole amendment goes to the heart of

consent and trust that has been

debated here at great length. I

think I should also declare that I

do have a vested interest in these

matters because I'm doing some work,

I visited the officers that Lord

Forsyth of Drumlean open, the water

commission for Scotland, is doing

some great work across the European

Union as indeed the Scottish --

Scottish water and providing us it

runs that -- assistance. Hopefully

that continues after Brexit day. I

do not see that this is moved or

spoken to by Lord Hope or any of the

other honourable members. This is

simply an effort to bring the

Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish

with the Government.

Good think the noble lord took

participated in the debate on this

group of amendments. In particular

think Lord Hope and the noble lady

for moving the amendment. I will

seek to deal with the substance of

this and try to pick up very briefly

some of the points that were made in

debate. Amendments 102, 120... Seek

to place requirement for UK

Ministers to the consent of all

Ministers when using clause 71 which

I think probably want arise now but

I'm happy to discuss that further

beach-side think we would have

exhausted that by ringing the

proposals forward our report. In

areas of devolved competence. I

should stress that the concurrent

powers in this bill do not in any

way undermine the devolution

settlements. They get the UK

Government and the devolved

administration the tools required to

respond to it is a shared challenge

of ensuring the functioning of our

statute book and a pragmatic and

collaborative manner which reflects

current practise and I stress has

been the norm for some time. I think

I made this point and the last group

of amendments. An example of this

can be found at the new schedule

three A in the Government of Wales

act 2006 which lists no less than 34

laws containing current functions

for United Kingdom and Welsh

Ministers including powers to make

subordinate legislation. I should

also highlight section two of the

European Communities Act 1972 itself

which is concurrent and has

routinely been used to make a single

second of regulations to implement

directives... Take for example the

marine Works environmental impact

assessments regulations 2007. If a

deficiency arises within the

statutory instrument we all agree on

the best way to correct it, it makes

little sense for demonstrations to

make poor sets up... This is of

course compounded by the volume of

legislation that will be needed in

this House and did deed and the

default legislators to ensure the

proper functioning of our laws after

exit day. Our approach in this bill

is to mirror that effect and can can

you working clapboard of Lee with

default administrations which is

certainly the norm full stop to

ensure that our statute book is

fully functioning on exit. This is

not been a cause of conflict in the

past. There is certainly been

differences. Few and far between. We

do not leave it to be a cause of

conflict and the future. We cannot

compromise the flexibility provided

for by the concurrent power that

allows us and that devolved

demonstrations to benefit from

shared working. This is crucial for

us to make it considerable task that

lies ahead in order to complete,

functioning statute book on exit

day. May I remind noble Lords of the

clear commitment the Government has

made that we will not normally use

the powers in this way without the

agreement of the devolved

administrations. Happy to restate

that. It's there in black and white

in the delegated powers memorandum

and in written evidence to the

Constitution committee. I've

repeated it here today. I do take

serious note about my noble friend

Lord MacKay suggested about the

possibility of a memorandum of

understanding and I would like to

take that away and have a look at

that. Noble lords have asked why

such a commitment is not involved on

the face of the Bill and I would be

happy to look at this with them.

There can be no doubt the commitment

the Government has made to seek the

agreement of the devolved

administration on these matters. I

hope that does offer some

reassurance. If I can pick up once

made by noble lords during the

debate. Thanking the noble lord Hope

for the constructive ways that he is

moved the set of amendments and

indicate I'm happy to talk about

this further ahead of research. The

bank the noble lady baroness. I

understand her seeking the best

interest for Northern Ireland and

they must be treated and precisely

the same way. For his suggestion

about the memorandum of

understanding which I would like to

take away and looked out further.

The noble lord Thomas very

far-reaching and points of Barnett

which certainly we made some headway

on this when I was in the Assembly.

Not because I was in the Assembly

but I do remember some headway being

made on that. It's an issue that is

still there. Far beyond this bellow.

Let alone this amendment. He made

the serious point as did others

about the importance of trust which

I take very seriously. I think the

noble lady. I think trust is

something that is important. We do

need to build. My noble friend of

his most deadly when he is seeking

the praise me. Bound to take that

and agree with them so I thank him

very much indeed for his kind

comments. He does speak with

authority and with understanding

particularly of Wales and once

again, of the importance of trust.

Again, I think the point made by

Lord Kerr of the importance of that

in our discussions and we can

discuss this further. I think Lord

Wallace for clarifying the point.

I'm sorry if I did... I take the

point. Lord Forsyth make some very

serious points about the dangers of

the unintended consequences of

legislation and we do have to be

careful about. I take that point.

That said, I think there are serious

issues as my noble friend Baroness

McIntosh also reminded us of the

importance of building up trust. She

reminded us of how we all have

interests in different parts of the

country. It isn't as if we are not

talking about a union that mean

something. We all have relations,

friends and interests in different

parts of our country. We have shared

interest in getting this right. I'm

happy to go way and report with the

suggestion Lord Wigley made about

engaging. I'm happy to do just that

along with officials to see if we

can't move it perhaps in the

direction of the member and note of

understanding which was a point I

think was validly made by my noble

and learned friend. I would in the

meantime asked noble lords if they

would perhaps withdraw their

amendments.

I would like to join in

the general complements to the noble

lord Prime Minister and thank him

very much for his courteous and

detailed replies this evening and

indeed for the Commandments to

engage further with noble lords

before report stage. We will no

doubt return to many of these issues

are clause 11 committee stage and no

doubt return again to these issues

during report but in the meantime I

beg leave to withdraw my amendments.

Amendment by leave with John.

Commitment 102. -- with John.

Perhaps I am in a position to move

amendment 102. I'm going to a chart

I should say. -- withdraw. First of

all I must thank all noble lords who

spoke in this rather... Particularly

the noble lord, the Minister for his

helpful way responding. I do

apologise to Lord Wallace for my

lapse of memory. He was absolutely

right. I reject Lord Forsyth's

criticism that I am being naive. He

amendment which I was purposing I

believe had cross party support in

Edinburgh. It is all about the

question of trust. If I picked up

the noble lord, the Minister

correctly. We're in the same

position of clause seven as we were

in the previous group because in

effect, he's going to the cost seven

problem will be exhausted and

therefore there is nothing to be

lost Ike going ahead and putting in

the same thing he is prepared to put

in about the Parliament. There is a

serious issue about cause aids which

I think would benefit from further

discussion but that's perhaps for

another day. Really on the basis

that we can stop talk about it, I

think the proper thing for me to do

is to which all the amendment. --

with draw.

Amendment by leave with

John. The Bush with John.

This about frontier controls.

Between the UK and the EU after

Brexit. India moment would require

Ministers to report to Parliament

how any new procedures can be

fermented with ever-increasing

delays and costs. It's a very

serious issue. I do regret there is

no separate bill so far on this as

we have are ready been discussing

the regulations bill. I think it

would be a useful forum for doing

it. Here we are tonight. Ministers

have stated time and time again and

there will be no border control

between the Republic and Northern

Ireland and I think they are rightly

say it. Also told the commission

that date don't want to remain in

the single market and the commission

has taken this into account and it's

dropped withdrawal agreement. To a

simple mind like me, since the

Republic will stay and eat you and

the UK does not and since the

Government insists we cannot remain

in the single market then there has

to be some kind of a frontier

between the Republic and the United

Kingdom. Whether that's between the

north and the South of Ireland or

down the Irish Sea is debated many

times but I can't see how a campy

fudged or cherry picked. The volumes

of traffic between the UK and the EU

are absolutely huge. The unitized

freight, import and export of 67

million tonnes in 2016 of which 14

million are temperature controlled.

A number of customs declarations in

2015 were 55 million UK ones and

their due to multiply by five after

Brexit. They all have to be checked

and controlled somewhere and can I

ask, can these be done

electronically? The British ports

Association has said one of the

biggest challenges the ports phase

is accommodating the new health

standard inspections of the borders.

Which obviously will cost more money

and time if it goes wrong. There is

3000 trucks a day estimated to be

carrying temperature control traffic

which might be checking for the

environmental health standards. I

have a couple of interesting

examples which have actually come

from the Irish exporters association

which seem to be more open with

ideas than people on this side of

the frontier. A lot of people have

talked about the benefits of the EU,

Canadian free-trade agreement. One

of the issues they found their is

that the need to track the

compliance of pallets used to carry

the product within the container

with the standard... If the load is

found to have one noncertified

pallets or 19 certified valid, the

whole lot is sent back to the

sender. I think that will cause

chaos. One has to question what

proportion of trucks would need

checking. The UK won't say. I have

hardly any information from the

Government. The Irish news says six

to 8% will need paperwork checked

and some visual inspections at the

frontiers. Which roughly looks like

1000 trucks a day to me in addition

to the temperature controlled. They

government says... My lords, I think

there is a real problem. If the UK

is not in the single market and the

Republic is, there has got to be

some control somewhere. I think it's

a great shame that we don't have

representatives of Sinn Fein in the

lordships House to give a wider view

of other problems are in Northern

Ireland. Rather like the noble

baroness regretted the lack of SNP

members here to have a good debate

about it. My lords, what is the

Government doing about this in terms

of IT systems because the tax

commentator Richard Murphy reported

85 IT systems at UK borders of which

30 will need to be replaced or

changed. I don't think I need to go

into detail IT systems we have had.

There is little evidence the Home

Office or the customs will be able

to have a system up and running. It

may take many, many years.

A word about railfreight and I

declare an interest in the

railfreight group, the problem is

the same but there an easier

solution which is to do the controls

at the inland terminals that exist

the security perspective. That would

be fine and discussions are

continuing but the authorities are

trying to make it as difficult as

possible, they will do security but

nothing else, and I hope that the

minister may be able to encourage

this along because it is an obvious

allusion to avoiding queues at the

front for

allusion to avoiding queues at the

front for. There is a ray of light,

the chartered Institute of Logistics

and transport, and I'm the vice

president, so I declare an interest

in the Bay have been working hard

with the industry and part of

government to develop what is called

an authorised operator status and

this could work very well if only

they could get some real bar in from

the other departments that will be

involved. Because it does mean that

there may be a way of getting

through frontiers without stopping

for those cargoes that qualify. The

other issue they raise is that of

self certification because HMRC

accept 's DAT self certification but

not regarding duty payments, so

maybe the minister could not get

that because it is also important

bash VAT.

The other issue is to do with

taxation, we have the taxation

cross-border trade bill which has

come to your lordship's house yet.

-- hasn't. It is very long 156

pages, I think, and rather more in

other documents, but there are a

couple of issues which have been

raised, the value of chargeable

goods and the other is something

called preferential origin, and I

won't go into those tonight, my

lords, you will be glad to hear, but

I'm worried about the delay in this

taxation Bill and therefore the

consequent inability for the

industry to plan these important tax

issues which may come next year, if

we have a longer period to do it, so

much the better, but we have to be

prepared. There are reasons for this

amendment, but I do hope that the

government can accept the need to

produce a detailed and complex full

report on how these frontier

procedures can be implemented and

keep to the costs and the programme.

Because there is very little

information at the moment. It is the

government's problem and they have

got to sort it out but I do hope

that the government will integrate

and work closely with the industry

and maybe even arrange some more

meetings before the report stage so

this can be discussed further. I beg

to move.

A member proposed, the

words are printed in the list. --

amendment proposed the logistics

industry

dominates our retailing and

most sophisticated industries like

the motor industry, and to organise

themselves on the multisite basis.

When we buy something in most shops

we start a process which means that

our purchase will trigger the order

for a replacement, stretching back

to the manufacturer or supplier.

This arrangement has become very

much more sophisticated since we

joined the EU 44 years ago. Supplies

of parts flow through a network as

complex as a spider's web,

throughout the community and beyond,

and that is what makes your orange

appear at breakfast or your new car

to come off the production line. We

are told in short terms by the

logistics industry and their

customers that the survival of this

system depends upon frictionless

trade -- we are told in shrill

terms. No stops at Borders and no

tariffs, they are the words of the

logistics industry, the Freight

Transport Association, and the

industry was tempted into a state of

complacency by the assurance of

ministers that this frictionless

trade would continue after March

2019, less than a year away. But

this complacency is swiftly turning

to panic as it becomes evident that

the assurances that are offered

concerning frictionless trade are

becoming less likely to be realised.

Trade deals even if these could be

negotiated seem very distant

prospect. Your orange at breakfast

has come from Spain, and the parts

to make and deliver your mini need

to arrive at Cowley every 20 minutes

for the production line to continue

otherwise it stops, and the prospect

of empty shelves in shops as we

witnessed only last week, the week

before, with the bad weather,

Wilbur, almost a certainty if there

is any interruption at ports or

similar points of entity -- entry

for the eye may suggest that

people's anger with those

politicians who have sold them a

false prospectus will be deep and

severe, and if people can't obtain

the groceries they have been

accustomed or if workers in

factories can't get a time critical

supply of spare parts and they are

laid off, there will be trouble. The

chance of protest in the streets as

these shortages become apparent

should be taken far more seriously

than the suggestion of unpopular

uprising if the concept of Brexit is

ultimately frustrated. The mantra

Europe needs us more than we need

them is perhaps best not put to the

test as there will be those who now

do business here, decided to seek

certainty of closer union with the

EU by moving their operations within

the border. The future of the

aircraft construction industry is a

example of that. The logistics

problem is very serious in respect

of Ireland to which Lord Berkeley

has referred, where a very large

amount of perishable material has

two transit via Great Britain on its

way to Europe, and if there are any

border checks necessary at Holyhead

or Dover, probably both, as things

stand, there will be very serious

implications for trade and it will

surely lead to the establishment of

direct ferry links between the

Republic and Europe to avoid using

those in Dover and other crossing

points. The government of the

Republic of Ireland is at this

moment giving serious consideration

to this possibility. Maybe those in

the logistics industry notably the

ports industry and the freighter and

the Association and the Road Haulage

Association, have kept quiet until

now because they have always trusted

and supported the party opposite and

have trusted the assurances of David

Davis and Liam Fox. But this

misplaced loyalty is about to be

tested possibly to the point where

these businesses will suffer

permanent damage. The purpose of

these amendments is to seek from the

government at this late stage the

humility to accept that the promises

about frictionless trade cannot be

delivered and bring back at report

stage a plan to keep Britain working

and supplied in the present

just-in-time way or to face the

possibility of defeat in this house.

At report stage. As the Freight

Transport Association has said, the

trial of acquisitions Bill to which

Lord Berkeley referred and which is

coming back to the house committee

stage next week, is not a viable

solution. As the Prime Minister said

last week we need certainty and I

submit to your lordship's house, we

are is far from that as ever. -- as.

I would like to build on what has

been said. 70% of the UK's food

imports by value are from the EU and

60-65% of the UK's agricultural

exports are to other member states,

and any risk of delays would put a

strain on our supply chain and raise

food prices, most probably. The

Channel Tunnel illustrates how

important timing is, 1.4 million

trucks and 2900 while freight trains

went through in 2014, transporting

approaching £100 billion worth of

goods between the UK and the

continent. Including almost £200

million of iron and steel and metal

products for Yorkshire and the

Humber. The time saved by using the

Channel Tunnel was the equivalent of

120 days in 2014, saving a lot of

money each crossing, so any delays,

any more customs checks would end

any financial projections and have

the downstream consequences. One of

the consequences of Brexit is the

huge complexity that it has caused

and these amendments are

highlighting the impact that will

have not just on the freight

industry but on us as the public

because the list of border

operations, safety and security,

environment and how, trade policy,

modern custom systems have got to

balance between providing the

security but also facilitating the

free flow of goods. 37 million

tonnes of trade in year passing

through Southampton alone including

more than a million containers, how

could you possibly inspect every

container? It would create delays

and blockages, and when you look at

the freighter and that goes between

in and out of the UK, 69% going to

the EU is lorry traffic, but non-EU,

99% is containers. If you look at

where it comes into the country,

huge proportions, 75-100% of annual

lorry traffic, the EU share, is to

Dover, the Channel Tunnel, Harwich

and Holyhead, this is where most of

it is going through and most of it

is going through to the EU semi

cannot possibly have any delays that

will make life more difficult for

our businesses -- so we cannot. The

requirement for food products are

just mentioned, then we will talk

about Ireland which has been

mentioned, and we will talk about

edge on sport later and rail in more

detail. -- air transport. The UK

will not be deemed a third country

until the end of any transition

period, if that exists, and even if

the UK were to remain in the customs

union it would still be a third

country and goods moving to and from

would be subject to checks.

Agriculture and police, freight

using the UK language would be

effectively it's the -- effectively

subject to nontariff barriers, this

is one disaster after another that

Brexit is going to cause, 2% of

cargo coming from third countries is

subject to physical exam and 4-6% of

such cargo is subject to documentary

checks but the Department of

agriculture is obliged to check up

to 50% of products that contain

fruit products within, and there is

100% check on animals including

pets. This is how complex the whole

area is. Revenue will prepare a list

of approved customs for use by

traders and traders will apply for

registration numbers. My Lord's this

would be absolutely disastrous and I

don't think people have comprehended

how difficult this is going to be.

The FDA that has been mentioned by

law Bradshaw, 50% of FDA members

operate more than 200,000 lorries,

half the UK fleet, they represent

90% of freight moved by rail, FTA

combined 70% of visible exports by

sea and 79% by air, they speak for

this industry. If we don't listen to

them that we are not listening to

the people who are doing this, my

Lord's, and how UK companies get

goods to the continent will be a

matter for negotiations but the

change to border controls and

Customs will affect our transport

efficiency, there is no denying

that, because at the moment we have

frictionless movement of goods to

and from the UK and unless a

solution can be agreed as a

free-trade agreement with the UK

moves outside the single market and

the customs union, that will change.

On top of the yet the immigration

checks that are now possibly going

to be there so you combined

immigration checks with all these

other checks, it's a disaster. Some

members of the FDA say that they

cross the border of four or five

times a day. Of course, the Irish

land bridge which I will come to.

The whole red tape is likely to

increase. Here we have brexiteer is

talking about EU red tape. This will

create red tape that you can dream

up. My lords, British manufacturers

from all over the country, to list

geographical origin of each

component or a gradient of finished

products, to specify how many

imported products were modified in

the UK. Can we start to imagine all

this? If we look at the FDA warning

a 15 mile queues at the border if

border checks are introduced after

Brexit, this I think should be a

wake-up call. Checks at Calle could

result of traffic queues of more

than 15 miles. The FDA is so

concerned about it it is created its

own ten point manifesto. The

gridlock that could be created at

Dover, the queues could be 30 miles

going towards London. Two points 6

million trucks cost to the ports

every gear and as I said, 1.6

million with the euro tunnel. On one

side of the euro tunnel we have an

area of outstanding beauty. How we

create infrastructure to be able to

do with all these properties? The

problem for business is not just the

prospect of terrorists as I say but

the disruption of the free flow of

goods. We only need to look back to

2015 when a French ferry worker

strike led to more than 7000 trucks

backed up the motorway as far as

Maidstone. With as many as 16,000

trucks using Dover, a potential

repeat of that would be absolutely

alarming. You're looking at stopping

the economy. Business lost £21

million of stock due to the traffic

chaos in 2015. Live shellfish which

was meant to go to Paris had to be

dumped. This is the sort of problem

we could be facing. Asked if you

would be ready for an introduction

of customs and two years, experts

have said, you make me laugh. UNE at

least doubled the number of customs

officials but you have now. They

will need to be recruited and

trained and that takes time. If

trucks coming from the age you are

treated like none EU, the ports will

be impermanent gridlock according to

local customs expert. With Brexit

this is the irony of it all, we are

potentially coming full circle,

returning to the pre-1993 system.

That is just going backwards, not

forwards. Agent, customs and freight

agents. What about the stuff they

will need to recruit? What about the

documentation? My lords, this is

absolutely awful. If big government

are able to implement a viable

system of checks, that would cost

traders a another £45. Currently,

none EU trucks take up to 20 minutes

to go to Dover. If we start doing

that for all our trucks, can you

imagine the disruption that will

cause. On top of this, Lori traffic

in Dover is increased by a third in

the past five years. If traffic is

increased and it is projected to

increase, how will be managed to do

with all those increases? These

amendments are really serious and

should be a top priority for the

Government. Two quick examples,

Honda UK. It relies on 350 trucks a

day of arriving from Europe to keep

its wind and factory operating with

just one hours worth of parts held

in the production line. I conclude

with the Islands British bridge to

European markets. Many Irish farmers

and fuel producers use Britain as a

time-saving flyover to get to

Europe. Dublin is seriously worried

about this. If they have to go

around, attorney from Dublin to the

continent would take ten hours. If

they have to go around without going

through Britain it will take 40

hours. Ireland would just not be

able to manage without. The Dublin

Port would just not be able to cope

with that. So my lords, the revenue

chairman in Ireland told the

committee in Ireland's Parliament

that customs and truck freight with

the one of the biggest challenges

post Brexit. I conclude with another

Irish quote. If you don't like

facing reality, this is the reality

I am talking about as a businessman

who imports and exports to Europe. I

will be affected, the consumers will

be affected so laugh as much as he

wants but this is the reality. Flynn

wanted the prospects of a deal. This

is the quote, we are all looking for

transition in terms of whatever

changes are required but effectively

omit if there's no likelihood of a

plan by October 2018 in terms of UK,

EU negotiations you will be without

a doubt going into a cliff edge

situation.

The noble lord Berkeley

has raised a very good point about

freight transport crossing the

border between the Republic of

Ireland and Northern Ireland. I

think it's a very legitimate issue

to raise and I hope the Government

listens. He is also identified that

this can be solved with modern IT.

But, what I would like to

particularly bring the House's

attention to is the reality of the

border in Northern Ireland. I was

working in the Northern Ireland

Office dust over three years ago and

I said to my office... They said, Mr

that's a bad thing. But I went. That

used to be referred to as bandit

country. Three and a half years ago

it certainly was still bandit

country. I was with a lot of police

and a helicopter overhead and the

police are still in fear of their

lives there because there are booby

traps and things laid for them. The

particular point I want to focus on

is the smuggling. We followed a

truck around one of the little lanes

from the Republic into the North.

Please said, I will be smuggling. We

saw the impact of smuggling diesel

because there are different duties.

Huge amounts of diesel imported from

the South to North. A lot of red

diesel which is then has the red

taken out of it which has a huge

environmental impact. There are

still different subsidies. Cattle

get smuggled back and forth across

the border because you can make a

lot of money if you smuggle stuff

across the border. There are customs

on the border. Not sitting and post

like they used to be. Not doing very

much it has to be said because there

is less to do since we were... I

would sate their art, I believe, 275

different crossing points between

the South and the North of Ireland.

On a border of some 305 miles. It

has never been possible between 1922

and 1972 to please everyone. During

the troubles and I was serving at

there for a bit, it was impossible

to stop the terrorists crossing the

border. We step out concrete blocks

across the border and it did not

work because people came across the

border. I would also remind noble

Lords that this is a different

currency unit. Ireland uses the euro

and we use the pound and people

manage quite easily to get past this

and they will manage in future as

well. When people say, the border in

Ireland is a huge problem. The

border in Ireland is only going to

be a problem woman leave the

European Union if people wish it to

be. It does not have to be in

goodwill on both sides and common

sense will show... For Northern

Ireland and the Republic of Ireland

to coexist quite happily and trade

between each other as they have been

doing before 1922 and since.

I

haven't spoken on this bill at all

yet.

I would like to intervene on

this issue. I've made a point of not

speaking. I want to raise one issue.

That's the issue of trusted trader

status. The Government have told us

that they intend to establish a

system on the Northern Ireland and

southern border of trusted status.

And there will be an exemption. And

exemption we are told what apply to

small and medium-size enterprises

involved in cross-border trade. In

the Government say it is possible to

manage the allegation that there

will be substantial fraud under such

a system. Where can we find a

definition of what constitutes a

small or medium-sized enterprise?

That's very important we know that

in advance. Secondly, do we know the

percentage of trade will fall under

that particular description?

Thirdly, when they talk about

managing fraud and managing a system

whereby there is an fraud, what kind

of management arrangements to they

intend to set in place to ensure

that fraud does not take place?

Finally, what will happen when it

actually comes to customs entries

for those firms that are not covered

I trusted trader status. Will do

clearance and entry arrangements for

those goods coming in over the

border actually be on the border

post? I presume if some businesses

of which are exempt then there must

be some actual control on the border

itself. I think these issues need to

be answered at a very early stage in

the procedure. I have truncated much

of what I wanted to say I wanted to

get that on the record.

My

intervention at this stage will be

extraordinarily brave. What I say

about amendment 104 which art and

the two consecutive groups. There is

a great deal of merit and requiring

these reports but, there is no

reason at all why they should be

linked to the initiation of the

regulations. That is slightly

misconceived. But I actually think

and if I may say to the noble lord

to put their names and indeed my

noble friend to par her name to the

amendment, they are lacking

ambition. What they should do is to

require these reports to be

published in any event before Brexit

date. Because this committee will

know later on in this debate we are

going to come to the point of

Parliamentary control and Parliament

can only exercise full control if it

is in possession of Fox and the fax

will be furnished by these reports.

So if I may say this to the noble

lord to put their names to this

amendment and to my noble friend,