:00:23. > :00:35.Baroness Meacher. I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on
:00:36. > :00:39.the order paper. My Lords, the short answer to the question is no. Like
:00:40. > :00:42.previous governments we have always made clear that such legislation is
:00:43. > :00:50.a matter for Parliament, not government. If the other House
:00:51. > :00:57.considered a bill to legalise assisted dying, they rejected it by
:00:58. > :01:01.330 votes to 118. My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. As he
:01:02. > :01:05.has indicated, there has never been a government supported bill on this
:01:06. > :01:12.issue. The Minister will be aware of Noel Conway, a terminally ill,
:01:13. > :01:18.mentally incapacitated person who is taking his case to the High Court
:01:19. > :01:20.and the Supreme Court. The current law denies him his fundamental human
:01:21. > :01:30.right when his suffering becomes unbearable. Does the Minister agree
:01:31. > :01:34.that the 82% of the population, and it is 6% of disabled people who
:01:35. > :01:39.support Mr Conway and want a change in the law, so that when their turn
:01:40. > :01:43.comes to face their own death, they can live the last months in peace,
:01:44. > :01:46.safe in the knowledge that if they're suffering does become
:01:47. > :01:51.unbearable, they can have professional help to end it? Will
:01:52. > :01:57.the Minister seek the of his colleagues for an ethical bill along
:01:58. > :02:01.these lines in future? My Lords, it remains the Government's view that
:02:02. > :02:05.any change to the law in this area is an issue of individual conscience
:02:06. > :02:08.and a matter for Parliament to decide, rather than one for
:02:09. > :02:13.government policy. I am aware of the gaze of Noel Conway, as it is now in
:02:14. > :02:16.court, it would not be appropriate from me to comment on the
:02:17. > :02:28.circumstances of that case. -- the case. As my noble friend has said,
:02:29. > :02:32.it has been rejected. Should it ever be considered again, I think it is
:02:33. > :02:36.important that the medical profession be excluded from this.
:02:37. > :02:41.The majority of doctors do not wish to be associated with taking life.
:02:42. > :02:47.Their responsibility is to save life. While it is possible that
:02:48. > :02:52.there are those who might volunteer to undertake such a task, it is
:02:53. > :02:56.important that they should not be legislated for the majority of
:02:57. > :03:02.doctors are then required to undertake this, should that be the
:03:03. > :03:10.case. I note what the noble Lord has said, and of course I understand the
:03:11. > :03:13.reasoning behind his observations. I can only reiterate that this
:03:14. > :03:20.Government does not intend at this time to legislate in respect of this
:03:21. > :03:25.matter. The Government may be aware that I had to watch both my wife, my
:03:26. > :03:30.late wife and my father had died a lingering death, and can I suggest
:03:31. > :03:33.that the Government need to accept responsibility for that matter, do
:03:34. > :03:36.not doubt it and make a decision to give people the opportunity to make
:03:37. > :03:44.this important decision about how they die? Again, I can understand
:03:45. > :03:48.the noble Lord's interest and concern in respect of this matter,
:03:49. > :03:52.but I would observe that Parliament has twice addressed this issue in
:03:53. > :04:02.the recent past and has determined not to relax the provisions of
:04:03. > :04:11.section two of the suicide act. My Lords... Is the Minister aware that
:04:12. > :04:16.the campaign to legalise Assisted Suicide Bill assisted dying is not
:04:17. > :04:24.supported by one single organisation for people with progressive
:04:25. > :04:29.conditions, including motor neurone disease and the MS trust? The very
:04:30. > :04:35.people who would be the main beneficiaries of assisted dying. And
:04:36. > :04:38.the growing numbers of disabled people and their organisations are
:04:39. > :04:48.campaigning against such a bill because they feel it is desperately
:04:49. > :04:53.unsafe. I entirely understand the observations of the noble lady in
:04:54. > :04:58.this context and indeed, the whole question of risk associated with
:04:59. > :05:03.such legislation was a point addressed by the Supreme Court when
:05:04. > :05:06.they appoint in 2014 in the cases of Nicholson and land when both the
:05:07. > :05:13.President of the Supreme Court and also the noble Lord observed that
:05:14. > :05:18.the data on risk was plainly short of establishing that there was no
:05:19. > :05:24.risk as such -- of such legislation. It was observed that there were
:05:25. > :05:26.further societies engaged in this area who clearly had reservations
:05:27. > :05:35.about the development of any legislation on this matter.
:05:36. > :05:42.The Minister will be aware that the CPS has looked at this policy in the
:05:43. > :05:49.cases of assisted suicide in very 2010 and October 20 13. It is well
:05:50. > :05:52.understood the reluctance to take this critical legislation. May I ask
:05:53. > :05:59.the Minister in consultation with his colleagues and the CPS, would
:06:00. > :06:05.they consider what requirements are necessary in relation to the CPS
:06:06. > :06:10.policy on assisted dying? My Lords, the matter of CPS policy must be
:06:11. > :06:13.left to the CPS to determine independently on Parliament, it is
:06:14. > :06:20.not for the government to dictate what that policy should be. It is
:06:21. > :06:28.regularly reviewed and I can say that, for example, in the period
:06:29. > :06:35.from 2009 to 2016, the very large majority of cases referred to the
:06:36. > :06:38.CPS were not proceeded with any context of prosecution. My Lords,
:06:39. > :06:44.with the Minister agree that we have to be very wary of these surveys
:06:45. > :06:55.that support the subject in hand? For instance, there was one survey
:06:56. > :07:00.which stated that 96% of the British people wished a pain free death?
:07:01. > :07:04.Does that leave us wondering what the 4% wanted?
:07:05. > :07:11.LAUGHTER .
:07:12. > :07:13.Well, it may be, my Lords, that the other 4% were not referring to
:07:14. > :07:20.themselves. LAUGHTER
:07:21. > :07:28.. But nevertheless, it is, of course,
:07:29. > :07:33.important... It is of course important that any such service
:07:34. > :07:35.should be carried out rigorously and by reference to did find terms
:07:36. > :07:42.otherwise the results can be misleading. -- to be find terms. If
:07:43. > :07:45.the government concerns that an overboard health service with a
:07:46. > :07:49.large number of old people, there is considerable risk about the
:07:50. > :07:55.attitudes of health giving staff within the NHS? I do not believe, my
:07:56. > :08:02.Lords, that any challenges faced by our health staff in hospitals well
:08:03. > :08:06.alter their view as to the issues of life and death, I do not believe
:08:07. > :08:12.that for one moment. My Lords, the supreme court case that the noble
:08:13. > :08:17.minister quoted a moment ago, 2014, amongst other things said that it
:08:18. > :08:21.was strongly implied that the current law is incompatible with
:08:22. > :08:26.human rights legislation and hinted very strongly that Parliament should
:08:27. > :08:30.resolve this issue, otherwise the courts themselves will do so. If
:08:31. > :08:35.there is an incompatibility between a blanket ban on assisted dying and
:08:36. > :08:42.human rights legislation, should it not be resolved in Parliament,
:08:43. > :08:47.rather than by judges? My Lords, in the case of Nicholson, the Supreme
:08:48. > :08:51.Court determined by majority of 72 that there should be no of
:08:52. > :08:56.incompatibility with the Convention on human rights. It did, of course,
:08:57. > :08:59.observe that it should be a matter looked at by Parliament and sends
:09:00. > :09:04.that judgment it has been looked at by Parliament on two distinct and
:09:05. > :09:08.separate locations, Parliament has expressed its views on this matter.
:09:09. > :09:14.My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the
:09:15. > :09:20.order paper. My Lords, the government supports art and culture
:09:21. > :09:24.for Arts Council England who are currently working with Walsall
:09:25. > :09:27.Council and local cultural organisations on the new Art
:09:28. > :09:33.gallery's future, helping culture to continue to flourish in Walsall. The
:09:34. > :09:37.Arts Council met the local council in December and await the Gallery's
:09:38. > :09:41.application to the national portfolio. The Arts Council has an
:09:42. > :09:46.principle agreed up to ?12,000 match funding to explore potential new
:09:47. > :09:51.fundraising and philanthropy opportunities in governance and
:09:52. > :09:54.management models. My Lords, when is the government going to allow
:09:55. > :10:00.councils enough money to do their job properly? Since the threat of
:10:01. > :10:04.closure of our regional museums, it is the direct result of continued
:10:05. > :10:08.cuts to government funding. With the Minister agree that if the new Art
:10:09. > :10:11.Gallery in Walsall, a museum of international stature, was the
:10:12. > :10:15.cause, it would be a terrible waste of a significant public investment,
:10:16. > :10:23.not the story begins which in these times needs as much support as
:10:24. > :10:27.possible? Well, of course, I agree it would be a terrible waste of the
:10:28. > :10:32.considerable amount of public money that Arts Council England have put
:10:33. > :10:37.into the new Art Gallery. As far as the... And that is why they are
:10:38. > :10:43.working very hard to prevent exactly that to occur. What we would like to
:10:44. > :10:47.do is to find new methods of joint partnership arrangements, not only
:10:48. > :10:50.by the Arts Council, but that other local organisations to enable Art
:10:51. > :10:59.galleries like the new Art Gallery to continue. Lords, given that the
:11:00. > :11:06.new Art Gallery in Walsall was absolutely fundamental to the
:11:07. > :11:10.regeneration of Walsall town centre, that it houses world-renowned
:11:11. > :11:13.collections, that it was a good example of collaboration between the
:11:14. > :11:17.local authority, the Art Gallery, the government and not forgetting
:11:18. > :11:25.the European Union who put substantial money into it, and that
:11:26. > :11:30.that collection there in that new Art Gallery, it would be an act of
:11:31. > :11:34.cultural vandalism if it were not allowed to be encouraged and
:11:35. > :11:40.survived? I completely agree that it is a very good thing that local art
:11:41. > :11:46.organisations are absolutely key to the regeneration and ongoing
:11:47. > :11:49.prosperity of the local organisation and just to put it into perspective,
:11:50. > :11:56.the amount of money we are talking about in Walsall is a reduction in
:11:57. > :12:00.funding, this is the proposal of ?163,000 a year in the next year,
:12:01. > :12:07.Arts Council England are contributing five times as much as
:12:08. > :12:15.that, over ?800,000. My Lords, can I add my plea to the other speaker,
:12:16. > :12:21.and the thousands of people in the Walsall area in the West Midlands,
:12:22. > :12:23.who, like me, have been inspired and delighted by this literally
:12:24. > :12:28.state-of-the-art new Art Gallery, which is only 15 years old? I would
:12:29. > :12:33.suggest this is not necessarily the moment to cast blame upon the local
:12:34. > :12:37.council, who, in turn, are blaming the government cuts or central
:12:38. > :12:42.government who are squeezing council budgets. But the people of Walsall
:12:43. > :12:48.have so very little in the way of cultural facilities to inspire them.
:12:49. > :12:52.So, could I ask the noble Lord, the minister, to please use his
:12:53. > :13:01.creativity to help us to find a solution? They are working with the
:13:02. > :13:05.Arts Council England to address these problems and get some kind of
:13:06. > :13:11.partnership with other organisations but there are other examples of
:13:12. > :13:16.local councils that are suffering cuts, as all local councils have
:13:17. > :13:20.done. For example, Stoke on Trent, a place where several noble lords may
:13:21. > :13:26.soon be visiting, the potteries Museum and Art Gallery was awarded
:13:27. > :13:30.?300,000 to support local arts and cultural organisations led by Stoke
:13:31. > :13:33.on Trent City Council to team up with councils, including cat
:13:34. > :13:37.gathered at Stoke and the potteries' Art Gallery, that is an example of
:13:38. > :13:48.where joint working together can make a difference. The birthplace of
:13:49. > :13:57.Jerome Valcke, a very special man, was Walsall. Perhaps the government
:13:58. > :14:02.can do better than the men in a boat than just looking at limited
:14:03. > :14:05.paintings and collections. I have already said that the government is
:14:06. > :14:11.putting in a considerable amount of money, and the last five years it
:14:12. > :14:19.has spelt -- spent ?12 million in the area of Walsall. Could I ask my
:14:20. > :14:24.noble friend to reflect that all over the country local authorities
:14:25. > :14:30.are under great pressure and can something be done fairly
:14:31. > :14:36.expeditiously to try and ensure that other galleries that are currently
:14:37. > :14:42.under threat do not go under? Because if we deprive people of the
:14:43. > :14:49.spiritual sustenance that galleries and museums bring, we are
:14:50. > :14:55.impoverishing them. Well, I completely agree with my noble
:14:56. > :15:01.friend and that is why this white paper was so keen in highlighting
:15:02. > :15:06.the importance to local communities of the arts and the heritage sector.
:15:07. > :15:11.But it is correct that when difficult decisions should be made,
:15:12. > :15:17.they should be made by local people, not centrally by ministers. Could
:15:18. > :15:21.the noble Lord, the minister, confirmed that if there is a problem
:15:22. > :15:24.sufficient to cause the closure of this wonderful gallery that the Arts
:15:25. > :15:29.Council will not be obliged to drop its matching funding and the
:15:30. > :15:33.civilians poured in, that they will not claw back some of the covered
:15:34. > :15:41.grant towards the building that it got recently? Well, the Arts Council
:15:42. > :15:45.funding as a partnership and effort in the unlikely event, I hope that
:15:46. > :15:49.is certainly the case, the closing, then obviously that it would be a
:15:50. > :15:55.problem in giving that money to an art gallery which was not open. I do
:15:56. > :16:03.not want to think about that, I think there is a very good incentive
:16:04. > :16:08.with local partners, to keep this very good Art Gallery going, which
:16:09. > :16:13.has some amazing and world-class art in it, and that should be
:16:14. > :16:18.encouraged. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name
:16:19. > :16:23.on the order paper. My Lords, while there are no current proposals to
:16:24. > :16:25.increase the maximum penalties for animal welfare offences, the
:16:26. > :16:29.government was busy court should the range of penalties available. We
:16:30. > :16:34.will continue to keep the maximum penalties for animal welfare
:16:35. > :16:39.offences under review. I thank the noble lord for that reply. But the
:16:40. > :16:45.maximum sentence available for extreme and premeditated cruelty is
:16:46. > :16:48.six months, we lag behind the rest of mainland Europe and Northern
:16:49. > :16:56.Ireland has a maximum sentence of five years. Given the committee has
:16:57. > :17:01.represented and promoted a sentence of five years, is it not time that
:17:02. > :17:05.the sentence match the crime? I have considerable sympathy at some of
:17:06. > :17:12.these examples of animal cruelty cases which are beyond belief,
:17:13. > :17:14.frankly, and I am very pleased that the independence sentencing council
:17:15. > :17:18.is ensuring that the most serious cases of animal cruelty could
:17:19. > :17:22.receive longer sentences within the maximum six months imprisonment. The
:17:23. > :17:25.council is currently considering the consultation responses and will
:17:26. > :17:32.draft the definitive guideline with a dual publication later this year.
:17:33. > :17:36.My Lords, whilst it is important we increase sanctions for animal
:17:37. > :17:39.welfare offences, sanctions are nothing without enforcement. My
:17:40. > :17:46.Lords, at the minute there is no statutory requirement for the local
:17:47. > :17:50.authorities or the police to enforce animal welfare legislation. Could I
:17:51. > :17:54.asked the noble lord, the minister, has the government any plans to
:17:55. > :17:59.introduce such a statutory requirement? My Lords, there are no
:18:00. > :18:02.current plans, but what I would like to see is that imprisonment is not
:18:03. > :18:07.the only penalty and I think this is very important, they increased to an
:18:08. > :18:12.unlimited fine committee service order, and order disqualifying
:18:13. > :18:17.people from ownership of dogs and animals for life, so there are a
:18:18. > :18:21.range of penalties, which I think are also very important if we are to
:18:22. > :18:26.address this matter. Does the government intends to issue updated
:18:27. > :18:35.guidance on the Animal Welfare Act to bear down more decisively on the
:18:36. > :18:45.appalling practice of polly farming? -- poppy farming what my noble
:18:46. > :18:49.friend has said about Care Not Killing farming is noted. The Animal
:18:50. > :18:52.Welfare Act as one of the most advanced pieces of legislation in
:18:53. > :18:58.the world, it was reviewed in 2010 and 2011 and I would, as my
:18:59. > :19:02.honourable friend said any other place, consider and review anything
:19:03. > :19:09.that does not address the situation. -- puppy farming. Last year I joined
:19:10. > :19:18.a group of cross-party MPs which called for eight Baron on the ivory
:19:19. > :19:23.sales to help stop the killing of elephants. There was a decline in
:19:24. > :19:27.the numbers of 30% of elephant numbers over seven years. The
:19:28. > :19:31.government has taken steps to ban new imports of ivory, it is clear
:19:32. > :19:35.that only a total ban can prevent that cruel trade from continuing.
:19:36. > :19:41.Will the noble lord, the minister, agreed to take back our plea for a
:19:42. > :19:48.total ban on ivory imports to prevent elephants becoming an
:19:49. > :19:52.endangered species, which I know would be of great regret. My Lords,
:19:53. > :19:55.whether elephants, rhinos or any endangered animals, it is our
:19:56. > :19:58.responsibility, power generation, to ensure they continue to have their
:19:59. > :20:01.place in the natural world. Of course, this country has been one of
:20:02. > :20:05.the leaders on the ivory matter and in fact, what we have said is that
:20:06. > :20:11.there should be a ban on the sale of ivory up to 70 years, 1947, when
:20:12. > :20:18.they were deemed to the antiques and it is very important that as part of
:20:19. > :20:23.our arrangement. You have raised the issue of endangered species. Is he
:20:24. > :20:32.concerned that talk about the level of sentencing in cases where people
:20:33. > :20:35.are caught, prosecuted and killing endangered birds and have the
:20:36. > :20:37.government considered switching the responsibility from possibly the
:20:38. > :20:46.gamekeeper to the landowner? All these matters are subject
:20:47. > :20:50.already to the law and there has not been a consideration about moving
:20:51. > :20:56.any liability other than where it is now, which is that we think we have
:20:57. > :21:05.a robust law in place. If there were any issues that needed to be
:21:06. > :21:09.reviewed, we would do so. My Lords, has been any reputable body which
:21:10. > :21:14.has said it is against the increase in the penalties, and if so, on what
:21:15. > :21:18.grounds? My Lords, I think it would be fair to say that most animal
:21:19. > :21:21.welfare organisations would like an increased but I think when I
:21:22. > :21:30.reflected on this, Northern Ireland has been mentioned, in fact, what
:21:31. > :21:33.the 66 infections between 2012 and 2016, only one offender received a
:21:34. > :21:40.prison sentence of over six months, which was suspended. -- 66
:21:41. > :21:43.convictions. An average custodial sentence of 3.3 months. We are
:21:44. > :21:50.looking to see whether there are ways in which managed rates can have
:21:51. > :21:54.enhanced guidelines. -- magistrates. Is it not true that many of those
:21:55. > :22:00.who have been guilty of torturing or killing human beings have done
:22:01. > :22:04.exactly the same to animals and that there is a linkage? I think cruelty,
:22:05. > :22:07.were the our fellow human beings or cruelty to animals, is equally
:22:08. > :22:13.reprehensible and I think there have been connections, which is why I
:22:14. > :22:16.think that some of the other remedies other than imprisonment
:22:17. > :22:25.have been very important, including in the community orders, things like
:22:26. > :22:27.programmes to change behaviour, exclusion, curfew, drug treatment,
:22:28. > :22:35.mental health treatment. There are a number of ways in which we can help.
:22:36. > :22:40.Further to the question of my noble friend, I was involved in a case of
:22:41. > :22:44.animal cruelty recently and was told that while Trading Standards have
:22:45. > :22:48.the power to prosecute, they do not have the funds. I understand this
:22:49. > :22:52.happens particularly with farm animals. The farmers are advised
:22:53. > :22:58.rather than prosecuted. Or I can say is the animal welfare act 2006 is
:22:59. > :23:02.clear in that anyone who has any concerns about animal cruelty cases
:23:03. > :23:09.should report it to the local authority or the police. Would my
:23:10. > :23:17.noble friend agree that where a list is drafted to put species such as
:23:18. > :23:19.bats and newts onto the predicted basis, they should be kept under
:23:20. > :23:23.review at least every seven years? One was such a review last
:23:24. > :23:28.undertaken by Parliament? I will have to look into the precise
:23:29. > :23:34.question but obviously I think it is good practice that all laws should
:23:35. > :23:37.be kept under review. On the heart of the noble Lord Lord Dykes and
:23:38. > :23:43.that his request, I beg leave to ask the question standing under his name
:23:44. > :23:48.on the order paper. We do not need to be part of the EU Single Market.
:23:49. > :23:52.To have strong petition for workers's arise. The Government will
:23:53. > :24:01.not roll back the rights of workers in the workplace. It will be brought
:24:02. > :24:05.into UK law. My Lords and on behalf of myself and the noble Lord Lord
:24:06. > :24:08.Dykes, I thank the Minister for that reply. It follows also on from an
:24:09. > :24:15.article by the Prime Minister on January the 8th of the Sunday
:24:16. > :24:20.Telegraph. Would the Minister, indeed I think he has touched on
:24:21. > :24:26.this, go one step further, and reassure the House and indeed the
:24:27. > :24:30.TUC that all the directives contained and that are relevant to
:24:31. > :24:36.be contained in the great repeal Bill? The Prime Minister has said
:24:37. > :24:39.that under this Government we will see you workers' writes not eroded
:24:40. > :24:45.and not just protected but even enhanced. The commitment of this
:24:46. > :24:51.Government is clear, obviously the subsequent parliaments as we regain
:24:52. > :24:56.sovereignty will be able to make decisions. It is a sad day when the
:24:57. > :25:00.TUC no longer has faith in the Labour Party, the Liberal Party, and
:25:01. > :25:05.this British Parliament to defend the rights of British workers. Is it
:25:06. > :25:08.not the case that British workers enjoy rights far beyond the EU
:25:09. > :25:14.requirements, for example in respect of maternity pay? There are many
:25:15. > :25:19.examples where people who work in the UK have stronger rights than the
:25:20. > :25:24.rates that are guaranteed in the EU, maternity is one case but rights of
:25:25. > :25:32.statutory leave is another example. May I probe harder about how robust
:25:33. > :25:37.these assurances will be? I do think that the Chancellor, having said at
:25:38. > :25:41.the weekend that if there is a hard approach to the negotiations by the
:25:42. > :25:49.EU, then the British Government will have to go down-market and undercut
:25:50. > :25:53.on corporate tax are a new neighbours. -- EU. While not the
:25:54. > :26:00.same thing happen under Labour's standards? For the Government be
:26:01. > :26:06.forced under the logical Brexit into undercutting policies? I think it
:26:07. > :26:08.would be a huge misjudgement or mistake for any British government
:26:09. > :26:18.to think that eroding rights of workers and making work less engaged
:26:19. > :26:22.and less productive in the UK would contribute to us being more
:26:23. > :26:31.productive. We want to have a fully engaged, well-trained workforce. Is
:26:32. > :26:34.-- as the Minister has confirmed, the Prime Minister has agreed that
:26:35. > :26:39.all rights of workers enshrined in EU law will be transferred into UK
:26:40. > :26:44.law, but then it was added, where practical. Could the Minister tell
:26:45. > :26:50.us which rights of workers cannot be practically transferred into UK law?
:26:51. > :26:55.I do not think... I think of any rights that would not fall into the
:26:56. > :27:03.practical area. The Prime Minister went further, she is committed to
:27:04. > :27:06.bringing decent, well paid skilled jobs to Britain, to many parts of
:27:07. > :27:15.the country where they have been depleted over many years. The Single
:27:16. > :27:19.Market, which imposes Brussels of a rig Ocean, and the 90% of our
:27:20. > :27:22.economy which does not go into it. Does the Government know how many
:27:23. > :27:30.jobs that has cost us over the years? I cannot answer that question
:27:31. > :27:36.specifically. Clearly, being part of the Single Market has increased the
:27:37. > :27:39.number of jobs in this country. But the Prime Minister is making a
:27:40. > :27:44.speech tomorrow about global Britain, I think, and we are clear
:27:45. > :27:47.that being part of the global economy that we believe fully in
:27:48. > :27:59.free trade and that our country must be more competitive. This side. This
:28:00. > :28:04.site. Should the trades union leaders not be very careful about
:28:05. > :28:08.calling for the UK to remain in the Single Market when it brings with it
:28:09. > :28:12.free movement of labour and some any of their members voted to leave
:28:13. > :28:20.because they were alarmed by unlimited immigration? He does raise
:28:21. > :28:23.an interesting point. A number of trade union leaders do recognise the
:28:24. > :28:26.issue but unquestionably there are parts of the country where high
:28:27. > :28:30.levels of immigration have undermined wage rates of local
:28:31. > :28:33.people and I think we would agree that one of the benefits of having
:28:34. > :28:38.control over our immigration policy is that we can have a policy which
:28:39. > :28:43.is more directly suited to our own requirements. Bylaws, I find it
:28:44. > :28:49.difficult to believe every word I have just heard. -- my lord. It
:28:50. > :28:54.sounds great and I'm sure the parsnips are waiting to be buttered
:28:55. > :28:58.but this is not a very convincing argument from the party that before
:28:59. > :29:03.the TUC bill. Is this not really about the question of what it is we
:29:04. > :29:07.will be negotiating for? The TUC had no problem in setting out what the
:29:08. > :29:11.negotiating position should be. Why can the government not? I think the
:29:12. > :29:15.Prime Minister in her speech tomorrow will set out the strategic
:29:16. > :29:21.objectives of our negotiations and what we are trying to get out the
:29:22. > :29:30.negotiating is, it would be foolish to speculate about what those are.
:29:31. > :29:34.Given the reality of the global economy, surely the only effective
:29:35. > :29:39.way of protecting employees' writes is through international agreements?
:29:40. > :29:45.And to avoid international agreements is merely to undermine
:29:46. > :29:48.the sovereignty of this country. There are many other aspects apart
:29:49. > :29:52.from international agreements. If you look at the performance of the
:29:53. > :29:57.UK economy, what does stand out above all else is that in many
:29:58. > :30:02.industries, we... Our productivity levels are too low and I think
:30:03. > :30:06.increasing productivity in this country, partly through better
:30:07. > :30:09.training and skills but also more investment in our research base, is
:30:10. > :30:16.the best way in which we can increase our trade overseas. My
:30:17. > :30:20.Lords, would he accept that I get very confused at times, being a
:30:21. > :30:26.simple-minded fellow... All these rights that people have been talking
:30:27. > :30:29.about, is it not the case that for instance in the United States,
:30:30. > :30:33.Volkswagen has pleaded guilty to criminal misconduct about emissions,
:30:34. > :30:40.has paid a fine of nearly ?4 billion, and has offered consumers
:30:41. > :30:43.more than ?12 billion in compensation, and yet in the EU,
:30:44. > :30:47.with all of our rights for consumers and everyone else, so far, the
:30:48. > :30:54.consumer has been offered absolutely nothing. Could he clear of my
:30:55. > :31:02.confusion and tell me why? I fear that clearing up his confusion might
:31:03. > :31:06.take me longer than I have. There is no doubt that consumers do have
:31:07. > :31:11.strong rights in the US and that having a very strong competitive
:31:12. > :31:12.market is probably the best way to ensure that companies like
:31:13. > :31:15.Volkswagen behave properly.