Peers vote to give parliament veto over Brexit outcome - Summary and analysis
- Ministers have pledged to overturn two significant defeats in the House of Lords on the article 50 bill. This afternoon peers voted by a majority of 98 to support a Labour amendment, which had cross-party support, saying parliament should have a veto over the final Brexit outcome. Last week peers voted by a majority of 102 to guarantee the rights of EU nationals living in the UK after Brexit. David Davis, the Brexit secretary, said that it was clear some peers wanted to frustrate Brexit and that the government would seek to overturn these amendments when the bill returns to the Commons, which is set to happen on Monday next week. (See 6.59pm.)
- Lord Bridges, the Brexit minister, has effectively confirmed that the government is opposed to giving MPs and peers a vote on the Brexit outcome if there is no Brexit deal. In his winding up speech he argued that the first three clauses of the amendment (see 6.22pm) were unnecessary because they just duplicate the promise Theresa May has already made to give the Commons and the Lords a vote on the Brexit deal, and on any separate UK-EU trade deal. He made it clear that what the government really objected to was the fourth clause, saying parliament should also get a veto if the prime minister wants to leave the EU without a Brexit deal. (See 6.43pm.) Bridges said that this would generate uncertainty, because it was not clear what would happen if the Commons voted against the UK leaving the EU with no deal. The government says the UK is leaving, come what may, and by that point article 50 will have been triggered, meaning the UK will be on the slipway towards Brexit. Number 10 argue that, if there is a prospect of the UK staying in the EU, other EU countries will have an incentive to offer the UK a bad deal, in the hope it will stay. Supporters of the amendment mostly did not argue that it could lead to Brexit being reversed, but they did not have a clear answer as to what would happen if the Commons voted against leaving the EU with no deal. Lord Lawson, the Conservative former chancellor who opposed the amendment, argued (plausibly) that this would inevitably lead to an election. (See 4.32pm.)
- Lawson also argued that Britain leaving the EU without a Brexit deal was now by “far and away the most likely outcome”. (See 4.32pm.)
- Labour has indicated that the Lords will not back down immediately if the Commons next week reverses the two amendments to the bill passed in the upper house. A vote in the Commons to take out the amendments will lead to the bill going back to the Lords, and then shuttling back and forth until one side backs down, a process known as “ping pong”. Originally opposition peers indicated that they would fold quite quickly. But this evening Angela Smith, the Labour leader in the Lords, said she did not expect to see “extended ping pong”, implying that the Lords could send the bill back to the Commons at least once with the amendments still in. A Labour source said the Lords would want to be sure the government and the Commons had given “serious consideration” to its proposals before accepting the will of the Commons.
- The Lib Dems have said they will vote against the article 50 bill at the end of the third reading debate later tonight. (See 1.41pm.) Peers only vote against a bill at third reading very rarely. But, with the Tories and Labour both planning to vote for it, the government is confident of winning. Labour has always said it will not obstruct Brexit and the party does not want to lose the amendments that have been passed.
- Nigel Farage, the former Ukip leader, has claimed that an early election is now a “real possibility” in the light of the Lords vote.
After Lords vote, early general election now "a real possibility" @Nigel_Farage says on his @LBC show
— Phil Hornby (@philhornbyitv) March 7, 2017
This seems highly unlikely, for two reasons; Theresa May has repeatedly said she does not favour an early election (and, temperamentally, she is not prone to surprise or risk); and it would only happen if the government lost the votes on reversing the Lords amendments in the Commons next week, which seems very improbable. Last month the government defeated the proposal on EU nationals by 42 votes (with only three Tories rebelling) and it defeated the proposal on parliament getting a vote by 33 votes (with only seven Tories rebelling).
That’s all from me for tonight.
Thanks for the comments.
Updated
According to the BBC’s Jack Evans, Peter Kellner is not quite right about this being the biggest ever vote in the House of Lords. (See 6.52pm.) Evans says 635 votes were cast in a division on the Great Reform Bill in 1931. But many of those votes were proxies, he says, and so in terms of peers actually being present to vote, it may be the biggest ever division.
.@DArcyTiP @ChrisMasonBBC 635 Peers voted in the Great Reform Bill division in Oct 1831 (356 of those were proxies). https://t.co/fC8tC0yORE
— Jack Evans (@jackcevans) March 7, 2017
Here is Paul Nuttall, the Ukip leader, on the Lords vote.
Outrageous that 366 unelected peers think that 650 MPs are more meaningful than 17.5 million people #cleanbrexit https://t.co/PGH968QLBO
— Paul Nuttall (@paulnuttallukip) March 7, 2017
13 Conservative peers who voted with opposition for parliament getting veto over brexit over Brexit outcome
Here are the 13 Conservative peers who voted with the opposition on parliament getting a veto on the Brexit outcome.
Lady Altmann
Lord Bowness
Lord Cormack
Lord Deben (John Gummer)
Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint
Viscount Hailsham (Douglas Hogg)
Lord Heseltine
Lord Higgins
Lord Inglewood
Lady McIntosh of Pickering
Lord Northbrook
Duke of Wellington
Lady Wheatcroft
Here is my colleague Rowena Mason’s story on the vote.
Party breakdown showing how peers voted on parliament getting veto on Brexit outcome
The House of Lords has now published the figures showing how peers voted on the amendment, including a breakdown by party.
For the amendment on giving parliament a veto over the Brexit outcome
Labour: 160
Lib Dems: 95
Crossbenchers: 82
Others: 14
Conservatives: 13
Bishops: 2
Against the amendment
Cosnervatives: 208
Crossbenchers: 38
Others: 14
Bishops: 8
The Conservative MP Dominic Raab has put out this statement on behalf of the pro-leave Change Britain group. He said:
It’s undemocratic for the Lords to give themselves a veto over Brexit, and this flawed amendment would only encourage the EU to offer us a lousy deal. I expect MPs will reject it.
And the Lib Dem MP and former deputy prime minister Nick Clegg has put out this statement on behalf of Open Britain, which is campaigning for a “soft” Brexit.
The Lords have rightly stood up for parliamentary sovereignty and refused to write the Government a blank cheque for hard Brexit. The Commons must now find the nerve to do the same.
Our elected representatives must be offered more than just a bad-deal-or-no-deal ultimatum at the end of the negotiations – the parliamentary equivalent of being asked whether you would prefer to lose an arm or a leg.
I would urge MPs of all parties, including Brexiters who campaigned to Leave on the basis of parliamentary sovereignty, to stop Parliament being neutered.
Parliament has a long history of ratifying treaties. What is the government scared of? If they cannot bring back a deal they are prepared to put before MPs, then it cannot be a deal that is good enough for Britain.
David Davis says government will overturn Lords amendments in the Commons
David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has put out a statement saying the government will seek to overturn this result in the Commons. He said:
It is disappointing that the House of Lords has chosen to make further changes to a bill that the Commons passed without amendment. It has a straightforward purpose - to enact the referendum result and allow the government to get on with negotiating a new partnership with the EU.
It is clear that some in the Lords would seek to frustrate that process, and it is the government’s intention to ensure that does not happen. We will now aim to overturn these amendments in the House of Commons.
By “these amendments”, he is referring to tonight’s, giving parliament a veto on the final Brexit outcome, and last week’s one guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals living in the UK after Brexit.
According to the pollster Peter Kellner, who is married to a former leader of the Lords, this was the biggest ever vote in the House of Lords, with 634 peers taking part.
634 peers voted today on Article 50. It's the biggest ever vote in the Lords. When, if ever, have more MPs voted on anything in the Commons?
— Peter Kellner (@PeterKellner1) March 7, 2017
In a statement on the result Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader, said:
The Liberal Democrats have fought for greater accountability at every step of this process. Theresa May cannot be allowed to get away with a back room deal on the biggest decision of a generation.
For all her talk of taking back control Theresa May is all too happy to silence parliament and the people.
Angela Smith, the Labour leader in the Lords, has just told the BBC that she does not expect to see an “extended ping pong” over the article 50 bill.
The government is expected to reverse tonight’s defeat in the Commons next week. Smith’s comment implies the Lords will back down soon afterwards - but also that it might send the bill back to the Commons one more time (ie, that it might defy the Commons once next week, before backing down.)
Updated
Bridges says it is 'totally unclear' what would happen if MPs tried to stop PM leaving EU with no Brexit deal
This is what Lord Bridges, the Brexit minister, said in his winding up speech about why the government objected so strongly to clause 4 of the amendment, saying that if the prime minister wants to leave the EU without a Brexit deal, parliament would have to approve that decision. He said:
It is unclear, totally unclear, if the House says no to walking away. What path must the prime minister then take? Is she to accept the terms on offer? Is she being told to secure a better deal? And, if so, what would happen if that can’t be achieved before the end of the two-year period?
Or, in the silence of the amendment on this matter, is she to find a means to remain a member of the European Union? My lords, we don’t know any of these points.
Peers vote to give parliament veto over final Brexit outcome by majority of 98
Peers have voted by 366 votes to 268 votes, a majority of 98, for parliament to have to agree outcome of Brexit talks - even if there is no deal.
The “no deal” bit is important because, as the Brexit minister Lord Bridges made clear in his winding up speech, this is the clause that the government finds most objectionable. See 6.14pm.
Updated
Peers vote on giving parliament a proper vote on outcome of Brexit talks
Peers are now voting on amendment 3, the Labour-led amendment with cross-party support saying parliament should have a proper vote on the outcome of the Brexit talks.
Here is the text of it.
Insert the following new Clause—
“Parliamentary approval for the outcome of negotiations with the European Union
(1) The prime minister may not conclude an agreement with the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, on the terms of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, without the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
(2) Such approval shall be required before the European Parliament debates and votes on that agreement.
(3) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to an agreement on the future relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Union.
(4) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms.
Lord Pannick is winding up now.
He says he finds it disappointing that those who assered the sovereignty of parliament so strongly during the referendum do not accept its sovereignty now.
He says, on clauses 1 to 3, on a matter of such importance, assurances are no substitute for legal certainty.
And, on clause 4, he says if the government wants to leave the EU with no deal, parliament should have a say.
He says he now wants to put this to a vote.
Updated
Bridges says clause 4 of the amendment goes beyond what the government has promised.
First, it could weaken the government’s hand at the negotiating table, he says.
He quotes from a Lords select committee saying any negotiator needs room to maneouvre.
He says by denying the prime minister’s opportunity to walk away from a bad deal, it would incentivise the EU to offer the prime minister a bad deal.
Some argue this will strengthen the government’s hand. They say this is like a CEO saying “My board won’t accept this deal.”
But in this case some parliamentarians are saying any deal would be better than a bad deal. So that argument does not apply.
If the UK leaves with no deal, the UK will leave the EU with no deal.
But it is not clear from this amendment what would happen if parliament voted against leaving the EU with no deal. Would she have to go back and try again? Or would they need to extend the negotiating time? Or would the UK have to stay in?
He says the government cannot accept something that would create so much uncertaintly.
He says article 50 will not be revoked. Any question as to whether it can be revoked is irrelevant, he says.
Parliament will decide on whether to accept or reject the deal, he says.
But these amendments would create uncertainty, and could be used by some to block Brexit, he says.
Brexit minister Lord Bridges' speech
Lord Bridges of Headley, the Brexit minister, is winding up for the government.
He says peers have now spent 44 hours debating the 137-word bill.
He says Britain will leave the EU, everything the government does will be in the national interest, and parliamentary sovereignty is key.
Turning to the amendments, he says the government’s commitment to giving both Houses of Parliament a vote on the final agreement is clear.
So there is no need for Lord Cormack’s amendment, or for the first three clauses of the Labour amendment, unless people do not trust the government.
All I can say is of course the government will honour our promise.
He says the Commons was happy to accept this assurance.
Ministers will regularly update parliament. And parliament will take decisions, such as through the great repeal bill, and other legislation on issues like immigration.
He says putting this amendment into the bill would provide a field day for lawyers. And getting the law involved in parliamentary process never ends well, he says.
He says the supreme court did not rule that any further legislation was required, beyond this bill, to satisfy the constitutional requirements.
Updated
Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, the Labour Brexit spokeswoman, is winding up now.
She says this amendment will just legislate to confirm the undertaking given by the prime minister.
Addressing Lord Grocott’s point about what would happen if the Lords and the Commons were to disagree (see 5.11am), she says she can make it clear on behalf of Labour that the will of the Commons must prevail.
If necessary, the bill could be amended to make this clear at third reading, she says.
But as an alternative to having peers stay up late tonight, they could allow the government to insert this in the Commons, she says.
Lady Ludford, the Lib Dem Brexit spokeswoman, is winding up now for the Lib Dems.
She says, if the phrase “I have to get this past my legislators” is good enough for the American president in a negotiation, it should be good enough for the prime minister.
Lord Howell of Guildford, a Conservative, says it seems obvious to him that if MPs were to reject the government’s Brexit deal, that would amount to a vote of no confidence, triggering a general election.
The former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has been tweeting today about the case for giving parliament a vote on the final Brexit deal. He was particularly critical of what Downing Street said yesterday about how legislating for parliament to have a vote could incentivise the EU to offer the UK a poor deal.
1/ Peers should reject this drivel from No 10 that a meaningful Parliamentary vote encourages a bad deal from the EU.
— Nick Clegg (@nick_clegg) March 7, 2017
2/ By that logic, only dictatorships should negotiate international treaties! Good deals and democracy are not incompatible.
— Nick Clegg (@nick_clegg) March 7, 2017
3/ Ponsonby Rule 1924 established principle of Parliamentary scrutiny of treaties. Constitutional Reform Act 2010 gave MPs right to veto.
— Nick Clegg (@nick_clegg) March 7, 2017
4/ We ratify +/- 30 treaties a year. What's HMG scared of? If Brexit deal is so bad it can't be put to MPs, it shouldn't be agreed at all.
— Nick Clegg (@nick_clegg) March 7, 2017
5/ Can Brexit hypocrisy stoop any lower? We were told quit EU to restore democracy. First thing they do: try to neuter Parliament. Honestly.
— Nick Clegg (@nick_clegg) March 7, 2017
Michael Howard, the former Conservative leader and former home secretary, says some peers think it is an advantage not having been in the Commons. He says he has a message for them. Whatever happens in the Brexit talks, the other place (the Commons) will have its say, and the other place will have its way.
MPs do not need the word of David Jones, or Theresa May, or this amendment to guarantee that, he says. They will have their way because they are the Commons.
The Commons will not only have its say, the Commons will have its way,” said Lord Howard.
If the agreement that is reached by the government is unacceptable to a majority of the members of the House of Commons, they will vote accordingly.
And if the government proposes to leave the European Union on terms which are unacceptable to a majority of the members of the House of Commons, they will vote accordingly.
They don’t need the authority of David Jones for that, they don’t even need the authority of the prime minister for that - and they certainly don’t need this new clause for that.
And if this amendment is on the face of the bill, this matter would become justiciable. He says he has long given up trying to anticipate the ingenuity of the arguments used by people like Lord Pannick when they get into court.
He also says he agrees with what Lord Lawson said about the impact of sub-section 4 of the amendment. (See 4.32pm.) Parliament could keep telling the government, again and again, to go back to the EU to get a deal if this amendment were passed.
Updated
Lord Grocott, the Labour peer, says there is doubt as to what would happen if the Commons and the Lords were to vote differently on the Brexit deal. A solution would be to accept that the Commons has the final say, he says. He says that could be included in the bill at third reading.
Lord Kerr, the crossbencher and former diplomat credited with drafting article 50, says that whenever ministers are asked if article 50 can be revoked, they say as a matter of policy it won’t be revoked. And that amounts to an admission it can be revoked, he says. And he says that’s right; it can be.
He says he struggles to think of a deal that would be worse than leaving the EU with no deal. The head of the CBI said that leaving with no deal would be the worst possible deal, he says.
He says he supports the amendment. Parliament should get a vote, even if there is no deal, he says.
David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has been in the chamber to listen to the debate. This is from Sky’s Tom Boadle.
Eye spy: Brexit Secretary David Davis watching over the Lords as they debate his Bill. pic.twitter.com/KpcKUBl4kB
— Tom Boadle (@TomBoadle) March 7, 2017
Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the Conservative former lord chancellor, is speaking now.
He says the prime minister said she would give MPs and peers a vote on the final Brexit deal. But she did not say she would be bound by both votes.
But this amendment would lead to the prime minister being bound by votes in the Commons and the Lords, he says.
He says the newspapers have accused the Lords of wanting to block Brexit. But he says he wants to make it clear that peers are not trying to block Brexit.
So if there has to be an amendment on parliament having a vote, he says, it should just follow the wording given by the prime minister.
I have been beefing up some of the earlier posts with full quotes from the Press Association wire. To get the updates to show up, you may need to refresh the page.
Lawson says getting no Brexit deal is 'far and away the most likely outcome'
Lord Lawson, the Conservative former chancellor, says the very act of invoking article 50 will lead to Brexit two years later. That is what the supreme court decided.
But this new clause implies that triggering article 50 does not inevitably lead to Brexit, he says.
He says the “real mischief” in the amendment lives in sub-section 4. (See 3.10pm.)
If parliament refused to agree the deal struck by the government, that would not stop Brexit, he says. He says that is nothing to be scared about.
But he says he thinks “far and away the most likely outcome” is that there will not be a deal.
No agreement is in my opinion far and away the most likely outcome. As the prime minister made clear in her excellent Lancaster House speech, and as her subsequent white paper reiterated, no agreement would be better than a bad agreement. Sadly, the bad agreement is all that is likely to be on offer.
- Lord Lawson says getting no Brexit deal is “far and away the most likely outcome”.
But, in those circumstances, he says sub-section 4 would allow parliament to block Brexit. If it voted against leaving the EU with no deal, there would have to be an election, he says.
The mischief of sub-section 4 of this new clause is that it would not merely give parliament the power to reject a bad deal. It would also enable parliament to prevent Brexit altogether by refusing to allow the UK to leave the European Union without an agreement. This is not only in diametric opposition to the [principles] on which the bill rests. More importantly, it would be an unconscionable rejection of the referendum result, which would drive a far greater wedge between the political classes and the British people than the dangerous gulf that already exists ...
The only practical effect of sub-section 4 would be to create a political crisis causing highly damaging uncertainty to business and the economy and which could in practice be resolved only by a dissolution of parliament and a general election, something the opposition will always try to achieve.
- Lawson says giving MPs a vote on leaving without a deal could lead to a general election.
Updated
The Labour peer Lady Kennedy of the Shaws says this bill is a notification bill. It is not an authorisation bill. It does not authorise withdrawal from the EU.
So this matter has to come back to parliament, she says.
Lord Finkelstein, a Conservative, says the supreme court seemed to be taking the view that this legislation amounted to authorisation.
Kennedy says this is not a withdrawal bill; it is about authorisation.
Lord Hill, the Conservative former European commissioner, tells Hogg than anything that complicates the Brexit negotiation will not help.
And he says that having a third party, like parliament, involved in a negotiation might help if the third party is pushing for a tougher solution. That could help the government get what it wants. But in this case, if parliament has the final say, EU leaders will see it as pushing for a softer solution, and so that would undermine the government’s position.
Hogg responds by saying this country’s future should rest with parliament, not with ministers.
Douglas Hogg (Viscount Hailsham), the Conservative former cabinet minister, is speaking now. He has signed the Labour amendment on parliament having a proper vote. He says parliament should have the final say over Brexit.
He says he voted remain. But he accepts that the referendum was much more than advisory.
But he does not think it gave authority to leave the EU whatever the costs.
Parliament should have the final say, he says.
And, on a second referendum, he says if public opinion seems to have changed over two years, then parliament should put the matter to a second referendum. He says only dictatorships do not allow people to change their minds.
He says he does not accept the view that giving parliament a vote will undermine the government’s negotiating position.
Lord Turner of Ecchinswell, a crossbencher and the former head of the CBI, says after elections politicians continue to argue for what they want. So he does not accept that the referendum result cannot be over-turned. Agreeing with Lord Kerr earlier, he says this amounts to the Brezhnev doctrine. (See 12.29pm.) It is worrying that some papers back this, he says. And some Conservatives agree with it too. He says they should be backing Edmund Burke, not Leonid Brezhnev.
Any idea that the vote of last June reflects the will of the people in some unanimous, all the people together, Una Voce, unanimous, absolute and forever unchanging fashion is ... not democratic, but the Brezhnev doctrine.
I’m a bit surprised and depressed by the fact that this Brezhnev doctrine, having first been propagated by some of our major newspapers, is now finding an echo chamber among some parts, but definitely not all parts, of the Conservative party.
He says it would be ridiculous to say having a referendum in two years’ time would be undemocratic.
But he did not support the Lib Dem amendment proposing a second amendment that was put to a vote earlier, he says.
But he does support the current amendment. Peers should assert that there must be a detailed debate in parliament on the final deal.
Updated
John Sentamu, the archbishop of York, says he is concerned that the amendment would effectively give the Lords a veto over the Brexit deal.
Lord Cormack, a Conservative, has also tabled an amendment saying parliament should have a vote on the final Brexit deal. It is being debated alongside the Labour one. (See 3.10pm.)
Here is the text of Cormack’s.
Insert the following new Clause—
“Parliamentary approval prior to agreement with the European Union
(1) No agreement with the European Union under Article 50(2) on the proposed arrangements for withdrawal from the European Union may be concluded without the approval of each House of Parliament.
(2) Such approval must be sought before the European Parliament gives consideration to the agreement.
Cormack is speaking now. He says he accepts the integrity of ministers how have made commitments to give parliament a vote. But there is a difference between a commitment and a legal obligation, he says.
He says passing this amendment will not delay the bill by more than a day.
The prime minister should welcome this, he says, because it just implements what the prime minister has already promised.
What would happen if the prime minister were replaced, he asks. He says no prime minister can bind their successor.
He says peers should send a message to the Commons on this. If the Commons reject this amendment, the Lords can then recognise the limit of its power (ie, back down.)
In the Commons the government has just won its vote on the Dubs amendment, the Press Association reports.
A potential Tory rebellion has fallen flat after the government defeated proposals designed to “bring back to life” a scheme to transfer unaccompanied child refugees to the UK.
MPs rejected moves seeking to require English councils to declare if they can house accompanied child refugees via an amendment to the Children and Social Work bill by 287 votes to 267, majority 20.
Tory Heidi Allen, who tabled the amendment, said the move would highlight the capacity of councils to accept more homes for child refugees under the Dubs scheme.
Angela Smith, the Labour leader in the Lords, thinks there is a message here for peers.
Meanwhile in the Lords Govt ask to be taken on trust on promise for Parliament to vote on final Brexit deal - no, should be in Bill https://t.co/X6gtjdU8Wo
— Angela Smith (@LadyBasildon) March 7, 2017
Lord Bilimoria, a crossbencher, says everyone has a right to change their mind. Steve Jobs said that changing one’s mind was a sign of intelligence, he says.
This is from ITV’s Robert Peston.
Most bad tempered Lords debate I have seen in long time - oh the joys of Brexit
— Robert Peston (@Peston) March 7, 2017
Forsyth says that line 4 of the amendment, saying there would have to be a parliamentary vote even if there is no deal, means the prime minister would not be able to walk away if offered an unacceptable deal.
That would put the prime minister in the same position as David Cameron. He got offered a bad deal by Europe because he was not willing to walk away.
He says the amendment is a “clever laywers’ confection” designed to reverse the results of the referendum.
This House is absolutely full of people who still haven’t come to terms with the results of the referendum, and this is a clever lawyer’s confection in order to reverse the results of the referendum ...
These amendments are trying to tie down the prime minister. Tie her down by her hair, by her arms, by her legs, in every conceivable way in order to prevent her getting an agreement, and in order to prevent us leaving the European Union.
Updated
This is from the BBC’s Norman Smith.
Its likeThatcher years re-visited watching Lords debate Brexit with Tory wets and Thatcherites clashing
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) March 7, 2017
Updated
Michael Forsyth, the Conservative former Scottish secretary, quotes what David Jones, the Brexit minister, said in the Commons last month about MPs and peers getting a vote on the final Brexit deal.
Jones said:
The government have committed to a vote on the final deal in both Houses before it comes into force. This will cover both the withdrawal agreement and our future relationship with the European Union. I can confirm that the government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement, to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded. We expect and intend that that will happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement.
Forsyth says this is a wrecking amendment.
Lord Heseltine says the EU ministers and officials negotiating with the UK will also have to return to their parliaments to get the final deal agreed.
Forsyth says Heseltine helped to get him elected as an MP. But this is not the moment for this House to “grab the mace” and challenge the elected House of Commons, he says, in reference to one of Heseltine’s more memorable parliamentary interventions.
The Lib Dem peer Lord Oates says this amendment needs to be passed because, although Theresa May has promised to give parliament a vote on the final Brexit deal, the government cannot be trusted.
Heseltine’s speech seemed to be based on this article he wrote for the Mail on Sunday last month setting out his reasons for backing the amendment.
Heseltine says we face a protracted period of negotiation.
We now face a protracted period of negotiation. No-one has the first idea of what will emerge.
No-one can even tell us what governments in Europe will be there to conclude whatever deal emerges.
No-one can say with certainty how British public opinion will react to totally unpredictable events.
It took 240 regulations to introduce the single market, he says. He says it could take 1,600 regulations to undo 40 years of membership of the EU.
He says this amendment would ensure parliament has the critical role in deciding what happens at the end of this process.
Everyone in this House knows that we now face the most momentous peacetime decision of our time.
And this amendment secures in law the government’s commitment ... to ensure that Parliament is the ultimate custodian of our national sovereignty.
It ensures that Parliament has the critical role in determining the future that we will bequeath to generations of young people.
UPDATE: Here is some video of Lord Heseltine.
Lord Heseltine is right: #Brexit is the most momentous decision we face. Let's not ensure that Parliament has a final say on the deal pic.twitter.com/kOeYKmNO4T
— Open Britain (@Open_Britain) March 7, 2017
Updated
Lord Heseltine's speech
Lord Heseltine, the Conservative former deputy prime minister, is speaking now.
He says he deeply regrets the vote to leave the EU.
My own personal position has been clearly established since I first joined the Conservative party in 1951.
I believe and always have that Britain’s national self-interest is inextricably interwoven with those of our European partners. I deeply regret the outcome of the referendum.
But, soon after the vote, he made three points.
First, the government should get on with withdrawal. Delay would be damagin, he says.
Second, he says he said the government should appoint Brexiteers to lead the negotiations. He thought that that was important so that they could not claim the process went wrong because they were not involved. He also hoped they might have answers to the problems thrown up.
Third, he said then that “the fightback starts here”.
He was in the Commons for 35 years, he says. He learnt the limitations of government in a parliamentary democracy, and the role of opposition.
I learned the limitations of government in a parliamentary democracy and I learned also the role of opposition in such circumstances.
Time and time again he has opposed an elected government, he says.
In government he repealed acts he did not agree with.
He says he believes in the ultimate sovereignty of parliament.
He does not think the mandate to leave lasts for all time.
I must make clear that in accepting the mandate to negotiate our withdrawal from the European Union, I do not accept that the mandate runs for all time and in all circumstances.
The 48% who voted to stay have a right to be heard, he says.
Updated
Pannick says the supreme court said parliamentary approval was needed at this stage for article 50 to be invoked.
He says he is arguing that it is just as important for parliament to be involved at the end of the process. He is not arguing that as a matter of law, he says. He is arguing that as a matter of principle.
Pannick says no one knows what will happen if there is no deal in 21 months’ time. He says parliament should be able to address this.
This amendment would not hold up the triggering of article 50, he says.
Theresa May is heading for the Lords, according to the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg.
Hear May heading back to Lords chamber to watch debate + Tory Remain rebels going too - glowering at Peers seems to be in fashion....
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) March 7, 2017
Lord Pannick, the crossbencher and QC who represented Gina Miller in the legal challenge that led to the government introducing the article 50 bill, is opening the debate. He has signed the Labour amendment. (See 3.10pm.)
He says this amendment says parliament would have to approve a final Brexit deal. But it does not specify how the prime minister would have to seek that parliamentary approval.
Peers debate call for MPs and peers to have a proper vote on Brexit deal
In the House of Lords peers have just resumed their debate on the article 50 bill.
They are now debating two amendments about giving MPs and peers a proper vote on the Brexit deal.
Theresa May has said that MPs and peers will get a vote on the final Brexit deal. But this promise has not been included in the legislation; the amendments would write it onto the face of the bill.
The main amendment, amendment 3, the Labour one, would also firm up the significance of the votes promised by the prime minister.
Here is the text of amendment 3.
Insert the following new Clause—
“Parliamentary approval for the outcome of negotiations with the European Union
(1) The prime minister may not conclude an agreement with the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, on the terms of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, without the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
(2) Such approval shall be required before the European Parliament debates and votes on that agreement.
(3) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to an agreement on the future relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Union.
(4) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms.
Updated
Fraser Nelson, the Spectator editor, tweeted this a few minutes ago.
A chart that should be in the #Budget tomorrow: proof that lowest-paid did the best under post-2010 Tory reforms. Richest fared the worst. pic.twitter.com/Bsi18F9dkt
— Fraser Nelson (@FraserNelson) March 7, 2017
And George Osborne, the former chancellor, has just retweeted it, with this comment.
We were all in this together ... https://t.co/CscHYlwf21
— George Osborne (@George_Osborne) March 7, 2017
That “were” is very telling. He seems to be questioning the government’s commitment to equality.
On the World at One Andrew Lansley, the Conservative former health secretary who is now in the House of Lords, said he agreed with William Hague about the case for an early election. (See 9.52am.) Lansley said:
I would say [it is a view] not very widely shared; specifically I think not very widely shared amongst Conservative members of parliament who feel they’ve got a job to do, they’ve got to get on with it, they’ve got to secure the deal.
I think, however, it will become apparent to them during the passage of the so-called great repeal bill that trying to manage the negotiations and the legislative context of those with a small majority becomes increasingly difficult.
And I don’t think you can leap into an election for example in the course of next year because it turns it into an election about the outcome of the negotiations, which is not the point - the point is to have a mandate to start the negotiations.
But Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader, told the Daily Politics that he was opposed to an early election because it would be a distraction from Brexit. He said:
I don’t agree with William, I’m afraid, on this; I think that I agree with Theresa May, I think that the British public would have a pretty dim view of us because there seems to be a short-term advantage.
Here is the full text of the archbishop of Canterbury’s speech in the debate this morning. (See 11.54am.)
And here is the Hansard from the debate. Currently it goes up to Lord Carlile’s speech, but further speeches will be added as the afternoon goes on.
22 Labour peers and 2 Tory peers who voted with Lib Dems for second referendum
Here are the 22 Labour peers who voted with the Lib Dems for a second referendum.
Lord Bach
Lady Bakewell
Lord Cashman
Lady Corston
Lady Crawley
Lord Davies of Stamford
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Lord Giddens
Lord Hain
Lord Irvine of Lairg
Lord Judd
Lady Kennedy of The Shaws
Lady Kinnock of Holyhead
Lord Liddle
Lord Lipsey
Lord Morgan
Lord Morris of Handsworth
Lord Rooker
Lady Royall of Blaisdon
Lord Tomlinson
Lord Watts
And here are the two Conservative peers who voted with the Lib Dems for a second referendum.
Lady Altmann
Lady Wheatcroft
Party breakdown showing how peers voted on second referendum amendment
The House of Lords has now published the figures showing how peers voted on the Lib Dem amendment calling for a second referendum on Brexit.
For the Lib Dem amendment
Lib Dems: 89
Labour: 22
Crossbenchers: 13
Others: 5
Conservatives: 2
Against the Lib Dem amendment
Conservatives: 220
Crossbenchers: 86
Others: 12
Labour: 9
Bishops: 7
Lib Dems: 2
‘There won’t be secrets’ during Brexit talks, minister tells peers
This is what Lord Keen of Elie, the advocate general for Scotland and a Ministry of Justice spokesman in the Lords, said in the debate a few minutes ago about ministers making statement to parliament during the Brexit talks.
He said, ultimately, there would not be any secrets during the Brexit process.
The noble baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to “secrets”. The noble baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to “nasty secrets”. This may reflect a difference of approach. But, at the end of the day, there won’t be secrets. You cannot conduct such a process in secret, ultimately, and you cannot then expect parliament to consider that it has been kept properly informed, as it should be, if you do have what are termed secrets. We are committed to keeping parliament at least as well informed as the European parliament.
- ‘There won’t be secrets’ during Brexit talks, minister tells peers.
This is not quite the line that Theresa May and others have taken in the past when they have stressed the importance of the government keeping its negotiating position secret. For example, this is what May said in her speech on Brexit to the Conservative party conference last year.
We will not be able to give a running commentary or a blow-by-blow account of the negotiations. Because we all know that isn’t how they work. But history is littered with negotiations that failed when the interlocutors predicted the outcome in detail and in advance.
Every stray word and every hyped up media report is going to make it harder for us to get the right deal for Britain.
Lady Hayter is winding up.
She says Keen indicated that he supported “the spirit” of the amendment. She would like to “bottle” that, she says.
She says, on that basis, she will not push the matter to a vote.
The debate has now been suspended until about 2.30pm.
Lord Keen of Elie, the advocate general for Scotland and a Ministry of Justice spokesman in the Lords, is responding.
He says it will be impossible to keep matters secret during the Brexit talks.
He says ministers already give statement to parliament. The prime minister gives a statement after every EU summit, Brexit ministers give statements, ministers appear before select committees and the government responds to select committee reports.
The Lib Dems have announced that they will vote against the article 50 bill at third reading tonight.
They voted against the bill at third reading in the House of Commons, and so in one respect this is not surprising. But, in terms of Lords protocol, it is quite an extreme move, because peers hardly ever vote against bills at third reading.
There is no real risk of the bill being defeated, because Labour are not supporting the Lib Dems, but this mean will that a lot of Tory peers will have to stay late for the final vote, which is due at about 10pm.
Lord Newby, the Lib Dem leader in the Lords, said:
The people started the process of Brexit and it is only right that they are given a say on the final deal.
Today the government have confirmed that the Brexit deal will be finalised behind closed doors in Westminster. This is not accountable, this is not democracy, and that is why the Liberal Democrats cannot support this bill.
And here is the amendment the Lib Dems will table at third reading.
That this House declines to allow the bill to pass, because it does not provide a mechanism for the people of the United Kingdom to have a vote, prior to the UK’s departure from the European Union, on the terms of the new relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, the shadow Brexit minister, opens the debate. She says this proposal goes alongside the Labour amendment being put to a vote later saying parliament should have a “meaningful” vote on the final Brexit deal.
She says she expects the Labour amendment to be passed this afternoon.
If parliament is to have a “meaningful” vote, it is important for MPs and peers to be kept updated on the talks, she says.
Peers begin debate on call for quarterly ministerial statements on Brexit talks
Peers are now debating amendment 2, a Labour amendment saying ministers should have to make quarterly statements to parliament about the Brexit talks and publish reports.
Here is the text of the amendment.
Once a notification has been given under subsection (1), ministers of the Crown must make a quarterly statement on the negotiations to each House of Parliament, with an accompanying report to be made available to relevant parliamentary committees.
Peers vote down call for second Brexit referendum by majority of 205
Peers have voted down the Lib Dem amendment calling for a referendum on the final Brexit deal by 336 votes to 131, a majority of 205.
There are some mixed messages from inside the Democratic Unionist Party on day two of the talks aimed at securing a post election deal to restore power sharing in Northern Ireland.
DUP leader and first minister in the last devolved government Arlene Foster is envisaging either a single unionist party or a formal electoral pact with other unionists in order to defend the pro union position.
“Ideally, I would like to see a renewed attempt to create unionist unity where the parties would come together. Failing that we need to agree transfer pacts where unionists transfer down the ballot paper to each other,” Foster writes in the Belfast Telegraph today.
But DUP North Antrim MP Ian Paisley casts a nostalgic look back today on the power sharing deal between his father, the party’s founder, the Rev Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness, the now gravely ill Sinn Fein chief negotiator during the peace process.
“My father and Martin McGuinness got over worse,” Paisley said in response to the deadlock at Stormont and the bad blood currently between Sinn Fein and the DUP.
It was time the son of Paisley said for some “humble pie to be eaten” by all sides in order to restore cross community government in Belfast.
Peers vote on amendment calling for second Brexit referendum
Peers are now voting on the Lib Dem amendment saying there should be a referendum on the final Brexit deal. See 11.03am for the text.
Updated
Lord Newby is winding up now.
He says Lord Carlile said earlier that parliament would get a vote on the final Brexit deal and that, if the government lost, there might be a confidence vote and a general election.
But elections are not good mechanisms for addressing specific policy decisions, he says.
He says the Lib Dems believe in trusting the people. He will put this to a vote.
The Labour peer Lord Liddle intervenes to ask if the government will rule out a second referendum in the event of the Brexit talks ending without the UK and the EU agreeing a deal.
Bridges says the UK is leaving the EU.
He urges peers to reject the Lib Dem amendment.
Lord Bridges of Headley, the Brexit minister, is winding up for the government now.
He says that at the time of the referendum David Cameron made it clear that this was a once-in-a-generation decision. Cameron said we should not have “neverendums”.
He says he does not accept the argument that a second referendum would heal divisions. He says the archbishop of Canterbury’s speech on this earlier (see 11.54am) was ‘very thoughtful”.
He says business does not want a second referendum, because it would generate uncertainty. He says the IoD has asked MPs and peers not to back a second referendum.
Smith says she was impressed by the speech from the archbishop of Canterbury. (See 11.54am.) She does not see why a second referendum would be any different in tone from the first one.
She says she cannot support the amendment. Labour will be abstaining, she says.
Angela Smith, the Labour leader in the Lords, is winding up now for the opposition.
She says when peers last debated this, she expressed her caution about politicians calling for referendums.
He says Lord Newby, in an article in the House magazine, was quite open about wanting a second referendum if public opinion shifted in favour of remaining in the EU.
But there is no evidence public opinion has shifted, she says.
After two years of difficult negotiations, a second referendum could end up as a referendum on whether we like our EU neighbours.
She says Labour is pushing for parliament to have a meaningful vote on Brexit. (Peers will vote on this later today.)
This, from the Times’ Lucy Fisher, is interesting.
New: Pro-Remain Tory MPs plan to head to the bar of the Lords at 2.30pm to show support for rebels. Reverse of the PM's "intimidation" stunt
— Lucy Fisher (@LOS_Fisher) March 7, 2017
But Tony Grew, who runs @ParlyApp, thinks the Tory MPs have got their timing wrong.
That's an odd time to turn up - at 2:30pm Lords stop debating #Article50Bill for 30 mins of questions to ministers https://t.co/qXHMoSpfcJ
— PARLY (@ParlyApp) March 7, 2017
Lord Faulks, a Conservative, says he is opposing the amendment. It is “opportunism”, he says.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, the former diplomat credited with drafting article 50, says that the government’s position reminds him of what was known as the Brezhnev doctrine when he was serving in Moscow. That said that, once you vote the Communists in, you cannot vote them out. It worked very well for a dictatorship, he says.
He says if people do not have the opportunity to change their mind, they are not living in a democracy.
Brexit will make people 30% poorer, peers told
Here is the quote from Lady Kennedy of the Shaws about Brexit making people 30% poorer.
And it goes back to that thing, did people vote to become poorer? I sat with two very distinguished businessmen, whose names will be on all of your lips, the other night who said that by 2025 the people of Great Britain, the middles classes as well as the working classes, will be be 30% poorer. Just think about that; 30% less well off. And we are lying to people if we don’t tell them the truth about it.
The Labour peer Lady Kennedy of the Shaws says she backs the idea of a referendum. If MPs and peers decided that the Brexit deal ought to be rejected, they should have to put that to the people.
She says she thinks a lot will change over the next few years. Public services are in crisis, and yet Brexit is going to impose huge costs.
She says she recently spoke to two very well-known businessmen (who she does not name) who told her that by 2025 people in Britain - the middle classes, as well as the working classes - would be 30% poorer as a result of Brexit.
The government faces a potential Commons defeat today over its decision to end the arrival of unaccompanied refugee children under the Dubs scheme, with up to 30 Conservative MPs possibly voting to kickstart the process again.
Conservative Heidi Allen, backed by almost two dozen other MPs, among them nine other Tories, including former education secretary Nicky Morgan and former business minister Anna Soubry has tabled an amendment saying local authorities should be audited in order to show their capacity for resettling children. Immigration minister Robert Goodwill said councils had told the government they had capacity for just 350 children, which has been disputed by many local authorities.
The prime minister’s spokesman told reporters this morning at lobby briefing that the government was not in favour of the audit.
We have a record of which we are justifiably proud in relation to refugees, giving sanctuary to 8000 last year, and children are continuing to arrive every year. This is not an amendment the government supports.
We don’t think this is the right approach, there’s the additional burden on local authorities and we are already committed to publishing regional breakdowns showing where unaccompanied asylum seeking children are being looked after and we think it is right we focus on protecting the children who are already in the UK and spreading that burden across the country evenly.
But the key point is that we are also making sure we don’t provide the incentive, as the prime minister said, for children to make perilous journeys in the hands of people traffickers to get to mainland Europe.
Asked by reporters whether Theresa May had been persuaded by any of the arguments made by William Hague in favour of an early general election (see 9.52am), he said: “I can’t shake my head more vigorously.”
Lord Taverne, the Lib Dem peer, says he is a follower of Edmund Burke and he once fought a byelection on his principles. He says in 1972 he was one of the Labour MPs who defied the party whip and joined Roy Jenkins in favour of Britain joining the EEC. He was then deselected by his local party, but he fought a byelection and won.
People should have the chance to change their minds on Brexit, he says.
He says there is a very real danger of a return to the protectionism and nationalism of the 1930s. Under Brexit we would be pushed into the hands of President Trump, he says. He says the UK should not go down that road.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom, a Conservative, says holding a second referendum would give the EU an incentive to offer the UK the “most appalling deal known to man” in the hope that people would then vote to remain in the EU.
Updated
Lord Foulkes, the Labour former minister, says that he came into the chamber unsure how to vote on a second referendum but that he is now in favour. He says he welcomes Lord Newby’s assurance that a bill would determine the terms of a second referendum. And he says he is worried that the Conservatives seem to be pushing for a hard Brexit.
Here is the ICM write-up of today’s polling, which I covered earlier. (See 9.22am and 10.29am.) And here are the tables (pdf).
Lady Falkner of Margravine, a Lib Dem peer, says she does not support a second referendum. Referendums should be held with great care, she says. She says they are not a good means of taking complicated decisions.
Archbishop of Canterbury says second referendum would add to divisions and 'deepen bitterness'
Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, is speaking now. He says he was sorry not to be in the Lords for the earlier debates.
He says the bishops may dress the same, but they are not a party and they have independent views. He is speaking for himself, he says.
He says this feels like the most divided country he has lived in in his lifetime.
We must have national reconciliation, he says.
The referendum campaign and its aftermath revealed deep divisions in our societies.
So how we conduct this process is as important as the outcome itself.
I believe it would be both dangerous and unwise and wrong to reduce the substance of the terms on which we exit the European Union to the result of a binary yes-no choice taken last summer.
And the government should avoid any inclination to oversimplify the outcome of the most complex peacetime negotiations, probably ever.
But neither is the complexity of a further referendum a good way of dealing with the process at the end of negotiation.
It will add to our divisions, it will deepen the bitterness. It is not democratic. It is unwise.
Even if circumstances change ... even if they change drastically, a dangerous and overcomplicated process is the result of a referendum.
He says a second referendum would not be democratic.
Those proposing a referendum are motivated by good principles, he says.
He says over many years he has worked in divided countries, sometimes countries divided by arms. He says, in tackling these problems, two common mistakes are made: complicating process, and trying to simplify complicated substance.
He says he is opposing a second referendum because it is not the right way to heal divisions.
Division of our country is not a mere fact to be navigated around like a rock in a stream, but something to be healed, to be challenged and to be changed.
On this amendment, I fear I believe we risk making the process too complex and the substance too simple.
- Justin Welby, archbishop of Canterbury, opposes second referendum.
Updated
Patience Wheatcroft, the Conservative peer and former Sunday Telegraph editor, says Brexit will make people poorer. People should have the chance to decide at that point whether they really want to go ahead with it, she says.
Although I am not an advocate of government by referendum, in this situation, having started the process with a referendum, it seems to me the only sensible way to bring the process to an end is to put the terms to the public.
Updated
Lord Carlile, the former Lib Dem peer who now sits as an independent, says he is opposed to a second referendum.
Lord Carlile tells Lib Dem peers demanding a second referendum "be careful what you wish for - your record ain't that good"
— steve hawkes (@steve_hawkes) March 7, 2017
Hain says backing second referendum is Labour policy
Peter Hain, the Labour former cabinet minister, says he is backing the amendment. When he was campaigning in the referendum he was struck by how people were planning to vote leave because they opposed something. They were not voting that way because they backed an alternative future.
He says in other referendums, like the ones for a Welsh assembly, a Scottish parliament or on AV, people either voted for change, or for the status quo.
This referendum is different, he says, because people did not know what leave would entail.
He says voters should have the final say on where Britain ends up. A process started by a referendum should be ended by one, he says.
He also says a motion at the last Labour conference, passed unanimously, backed the option of a second referendum. That is Labour party policy, he says, and he is speaking in favour of it.
He says he welcomes the fact that Angela Smith, the Labour leader in the Lords, left open the possibility of having a second referendum in an earlier speech. He calls her, mistakenly, the Labour leader, and then says he wishes she was Labour leader instead of the current one.
- Hain says backing a second referendum is Labour policy.
Hain is right about the Labour conference passing a motion backing a second referendum. No one noticed at the time until (I think) it was flagged up here, on my blog. The relevant passage in the composite motion said:
[Conference] recognises that many of those who voted to leave the EU were expressing dissatisfaction with EU or national policy and were voting for change, but believes that unless the final settlement proves to be acceptable then the option of retaining EU membership should be retained. The final settlement should therefore be subject to approval, through parliament and potentially through a general election, or a referendum.
But Hain neglected to say that, after this received publicity, Labour’s national executive committee put out a statement saying that the composite got through by mistake and that a second referendum was not Labour policy.
Updated
Lord Warner, the former Labour minister who is now a crossbencher, is now speaking and explaining why he is backing the amendment.
He says the government is reading too much into what the referendum result meant. And he says there are signs that people are changing their mind about Brexit.
He also says he is not sure that the government really wants a deal anyway. He thinks the cat was let out of the bag last week when David Davis, the Brexit secretary, told colleagues to prepare for the possibility of there being no deal.
People may well change their minds when they realise how badly affected they will be by leaving the EU, he says.
Updated
Newby says the idea that the referendum gave a “settled view” on what the final outcome should be is “extremely simplistic”.
The Conservative Lord Cormack asks if the EU would be willing to take us back.
Newby says other EU countries think the UK has made a very bad decision.
The Conservative Lord Hamilton says, if there is a chance of Brexit being reversed in a second referendum, other EU countries will have an incentive to offer the UK a bad deal.
Newby says he believes they will negotiate in good faith.
Peers debate holding a second referendum on Brexit
Lord Newby, the Lib Dem leader in the Lords, is opening the debate.
He says this is a simple proposition: that the people should have the final say over Brexit.
He says the Lib Dems are not proposing to sideline parliament.
But if parliament took the final decision, and sidelined the public, it would face justifiable anger.
Peers resume their debate on the article 50 bill
In the House of Lords peers are about to resume their debate on the article 50 bill.
They are debating the bill’s report stage. You can read the amendments that have been tabled here (pdf). And here is list showing how the amendments have been grouped for debate.
The first debate is on a Lib Dem amendment calling for a referendum on the final Brexit deal. It says:
No agreement with the European Union consequent on the use of the power under subsection (1) may be ratified unless it has been approved by a national referendum.
The amendment has been tabled by Lord Newby, the Lib Dem leader in the Lords, but it has also been signed by Peter Hain, the Labour former cabinet minister, Lord Warner, the former Labour health minister who now sits as a crossbencher and Patience Wheatcroft, the Conservative peer and former Sunday Telegraph editor.
Jeremy Corbyn gave a wide-ranging interview to the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire earlier. Here are the key points.
- Corbyn said he thought the Tories had “an issue” with disability benefits. They did not see the case for paying them, he suggested.
They seem to have an issue over disabilities because last year they did try to remove the personal independence payments by £4bn.
They then reversed that cut after Iain Duncan Smith resigned a few days later and then agreed to carry on paying it, so there is a deficit built in to the budget already because of that.
They then see this as a further opportunity to prevent the bill rising further; well, I think they just need to think about the kind of society we are, the way we support people.
- He said the government was “barking up the wrong tree” on education.
This issue is of school funding and school places. The issue isn’t going around to develop selective education, the issue is supporting the schools that we’ve got and supporting the principle of local community schools rather than selection.
There is no great public support for selection, because they realise if you have selection for one group of people, somebody else doesn’t get selected.
- He said he was “very confident” that Labour could win an election.
We are very confident of the support we can get in order to win an election, to take our case to the British people. Don’t underestimate the support there is for the Labour Party, don’t underestimate the anger there is out there at the levels of inequality and injustice in our society. We’ll expose all of that, that’s where our case is very strong.
- He set out health, social care, education and housing as his budget priorities. Asked about his wish list for the budget, he replied:
What I would like to see is sufficient funding for the NHS and social care. I think that’s a key. What I would also like to see is addressing the issues of the school funding crisis, which means that many schools are now faced with the horrible prospect of laying off teachers or teaching assistants, classes getting bigger and children’s support in education getting less. I want to see those issues addressed.
I also want to see something very positive about housing, particularly development of council housing, so that people can get somewhere decent to live, rather than having to pay often very excessive rents for inadequate-quality private rented accommodation.
Four out of 10 votes back higher taxes to fund better adult social care, poll suggests
Coming back to today’s Guardian/ICM poll, we also asked two questions about funding social care.
People were asked, when it came to the funding of social care, which of these options they preferred.
Raising taxes for everyone, young and old, to fund better adult social care: 39%
Higher charges or taxes for those reliant on adult social care to fund better services: 10%
Carrying on with the current system, with funding staying roughly at the level it is now: 23%
Don’t know: 28%
And they were also asked about the proposal dubbed the “death tax”, although ICM did not use the phrase in its question. It asked if people supported a “new inheritance tax” that would involve anyone inheriting property having to pay a tax to help fund social care.
Support: 28%
Oppose: 41%
Don’t know: 31%
A recent article in the Economist describes the “death tax” as an idea “based on the argument that young people with neither houses nor pensions should not have to pay more tax so that older people who have both can avoid drawing on them to pay for their social care”. But these two poll findings suggest that members of the public do not see it like that, and that they would prefer any extra money for social care to come from general taxation, not a specific tax on estates. They also help to explain why, although there has been some briefing saying that ministers are interested in the “death tax” idea, the latest smoke signals from Westminster suggest it will not happen any time soon.
- Four out of 10 votes back higher taxes to fund better adult social care, poll suggests.
- Voters oppose a new inheritance tax (aka the “death tax”) to fund social care by 41% to 28%.
ICM Unlimited interviewed 2,028 adults aged 18+ online on 3 to 5 March 2017. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
Updated
The OECD has revised up its UK growth forecast for 2017, my colleague Katie Allen reports.
No 10 rules out early election after Hague proposes repealing the Fixed-terms Parliaments Act
In an article in the Daily Telegraph today, William Hague, the Conservative former foreign secretary, says the government should repeal the Fixed-terms Parliaments Act so that the prime minister can hold a general election before 2020.
He says an election now would suit the Conservatives.
We have a new prime minister and Cabinet facing the most complex challenges of modern times: Brexit negotiations, the Trump administration, the threat from Scottish nationalists, and many other issues.
There is no doubt that they would be in a stronger position to take the country through these challenges successfully if they had a large and decisive majority in the Commons and a new full term ahead of them.
Hague accepts that an “imminent election” is not on the cards. His main argument is that Theresa May might want the option of holding an election before the end of the Brexit, because otherwise she is at risk of having her Brexit plans overturned by parliament.
Being a card that only the prime minister can play, it [an election] would strengthen the government’s hand at home and abroad. Used to resolve a clash between ministers and parliament over the exit terms from the EU, it would require all parties to say what they would do if they won, rather than just oppose the agreement.
But Number 10 is ruling out an election election. This is from the BBC’s Norman Smith.
No 10 dismiss call by William Hague for PM to hold early general election. "Its not something she plans to do or wishes to do."
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) March 7, 2017
Tories have 31-pt lead over Labour on economic competence, poll suggests
The latest Guardian/ICM polling figures are out, and the headline state-of-the-parties figures suggest that the Conservatives’ lead remains huge, albeit not quite as humungous as it was two weeks ago. Here are the figures.
Conservatives: 44% (no change from Guardian/ICM two weeks ago)
Labour: 28% (up 2)
Ukip: 11% (down 2)
Lib Dems: 8% (no change)
Greens: 5% (up 1)
Conservative lead: 16 points (down 2)
Commenting on these figures, ICM’s director Martin Boon says: “Whether Labour’s upward move is mere sampling variation or some kind of reaction to Stoke and Copeland is not something that we can rule in or out until further evidence emerges.”
But what perhaps are even more worrying for Labour are the figures on economic competence. With the budget due tomorrow, ICM asked people which team they thought was better able to manage the economy properly. The results were:
Theresa May and Philip Hammond: 43%
Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell: 12%
Neither: 29%
Don’t know: 17%
Conservative lead: 31 points
This is obviously a terrible figure for Labour, not least because many people believe that economic competence figures provide a better guide to who will win a general election than headline polling figures. The ICM tables, which will go online later this morning, suggest that even among those who voted Labour in 2015, only 26% think Corbyn and McDonnell are better able to manage the economy properly.
ICM asked the same question in a poll in July last year (pdf). In that poll Corbyn and McDonnell were on 15%, so they have gone down 3 points.
But is it not all good news for the Conservatives. In July May and Hammond were on 53%. Their figures has fallen by 10 points over the last eight months.
That might be because their “honeymoon” is over, or it might be because people are feeling more sceptical about the prospects of anyone managing the economy properly. In July last year 16% responded “neither” to the question. That figure has now gone up 13 points to 29%.
There were some more figures in the poll on social care. I will post them soon.
ICM Unlimited interviewed 2,028 adults aged 18+ online on 3 to 5 March 2017. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The OECD publishes its interim economic outlook.
11am: Peers resume their debate on the article 50 bill. A vote is likely at around 12pm on a Lib Dem call for a second referendum and then another is due at around 5pm on giving parliament a vote on the Brexit deal. This is the vote the government is expected to lose. Later peers will debate the third reading of the bill and by the end of the evening it will have cleared its passage through the Lords and be ready to return to the commons.
12.45pm: MPs debate the child and social work bill’s report stage. Some Tory MPs are backing an amendment that would require councils to say whether they can take more children under the Dubs scheme, although it is not clear yet whether this will be put to a vote.
4pm: Rob Wainwright, head of Europol, gives evidence to the Commons home affairs committee.
4.30pm: The Labour MP Lisa Nandy gives a speech to the IPPR.
I will be focusing on the Lords debate mostly today but, as usual, I will also be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.
You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time. Alternatively you could post a question to me on Twitter.
Updated
