The Process for Triggering Article 50

Debate between Lord Bridges of Headley and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I agree with the noble Lord but although I am a relative newcomer to your Lordships’ House I certainly would not call it a sub-committee. I believe that this House performs a valuable role in scrutinising legislation and, as I have said all along, in kicking the tyres of government policy to see that it is both roadworthy and does the right thing. That is something the Government wish to see right the way through the process of Brexit and I am delighted with, and thankful for, the contribution your Lordships have made so far.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Does my noble friend accept that if Parliament were to accept the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to treat the referendum as advisory and then decided that this country should not leave the EU, there would be no option for those of us who were in the majority in voting to leave other than to take to the streets and probably start breaking things?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, I can only say that I very much hope that that does not happen. Considering the comments that your Lordships have made and the very constructive approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, I am sure that we will avoid it.

Brexit: Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010

Debate between Lord Bridges of Headley and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Tuesday 13th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I am certainly not frit: I am here to answer questions and I will remain here to answer questions from the noble Lord and others.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, are there not great dangers in setting out specifically what we want from these negotiations when many European countries are holding elections and will go to great lengths to tell us that we cannot have anything we are asking for?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, my noble friend is right that we obviously need to strike a balance in the plan between providing your Lordships, the other place and the public as a whole with our overall broad strategic direction and ensuring that the Government still have a negotiating position that preserves the national interest in the negotiations.

Brexit: Single Market

Debate between Lord Bridges of Headley and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Monday 24th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I am sorry but the noble Lord is wrong in the eyes of 17.4 million people. I also disagree with him on the point about our future. There are obviously challenges ahead but the Government are determined to build on the progress we have been making in the economy over the last five to 10 years and to ensure that we deliver a smooth and orderly transition for Brexit.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Will my noble friend confirm that the United States has access to the single market without being a member of it?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My noble friend is absolutely correct. He makes a very good point that precision on language in the weeks and months ahead is key. We need to differentiate between membership of, access to and special access to the single market. It is critical that that point is made.

Public Bodies: Israel Boycotts

Debate between Lord Bridges of Headley and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Thursday 25th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

The noble Lord raises lots of issues, but this is about boycotts being conducted by local authorities, which I would argue are counterproductive. They widen gaps in understanding, poison and polarise debate, and block opportunities for co-operation and collaboration.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I was in Israel last week as a guest of the Israeli Government when my right honourable friend Matt Hancock announced this guidance that he was giving to local authorities. As both Israel and the United Kingdom are members of the WTO, surely it is illegal to impose these boycotts. They would actually be against the law.

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My noble friend is absolutely right. Such boycotts would be open to judicial review.

Security: State Procession

Debate between Lord Bridges of Headley and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Thursday 9th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I apologise if I have caused offence but I was being accused of privatisation. I would, however, beg to differ. I do not believe that these decisions have put the national security at risk and I have been assured that they have gone through the appropriate processes. The properties were designated surplus to requirements, following a thorough review which concluded that the buildings could not within the bounds of costs and internal planning be updated to deliver an acceptable, efficient standard of office accommodation for use in government. The commercial arrangements with the private sector allow for government to incorporate security measures, alongside the Metropolitan Police.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Has my noble friend denoted a massive security risk from the Royal Horseguards hotel, which is just round the corner from the Old War Office?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, I cannot comment on particular aspects of security but I assure your Lordships that all matters of security within the Westminster area are always taken under review.