-
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made
of the total cost to the Government of appealing to the
Supreme Court in the case of R (on the application of Miller
and another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European
Union.
-
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Exiting the European Union (Lord Bridges of Headley)
(Con)
My Lords, the figures for the total costs associated with the
case will be published in due course.
-
(Lab)
I live in hope. I had hoped that the welcome announcement
yesterday of a White Paper might have tempted the Minister
into answering my Question with another welcome U-turn today.
I want to put a serious issue to him. The Prime Minister has
been clear that she will invoke Article 50 by the end of
March. Given that that is a deadline of her choosing, does he
accept that it would have been more open and democratic if
the past two months had been used for parliamentary debate,
during the delay while this has been considered by judges in
the courts, rather than having the rushed process we have
now?
-
I am sorry to say that I dispute the premise upon which that
question is founded. The Government believed, as did a number
of others—including the Leader of the Opposition straight
after the referendum—that the triggering of Article 50 was a
matter for the royal prerogative. That was disputed. As I
said yesterday, people have a right to dispute these matters
in court. The matter was taken to court and the judgment has
been passed. I also dispute that the last few months have not
seen parliamentary scrutiny. I have very much enjoyed coming
to this House to answer Questions, give Statements and so on,
and I am sure we will continue to do so.
-
(Con)
Does my noble friend not think it extraordinary to have been
asked that question, given that the Leader of the Opposition
wanted to trigger Article 50 the week after the referendum
result?
-
My Lords, it was the day after the referendum result that he
said that. That is absolutely the case, so we were not alone
in assuming that we would be able to use the royal
prerogative on the triggering of Article 50.
-
(LD)
My Lords, the courts have required the Government to come to
Parliament to trigger the negotiating process, and the
Government have said that Parliament will have a vote at the
end of it. What plans do they have to involve and consult
Parliament during the negotiations, or will Parliament have
no significant role in influencing the negotiations for the
entire process?
-
I am sorry—I do not know whether I have been somewhere else
or the noble Lord has, but I have been answering Questions,
making Statements and responding to debates here, and that
will continue. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that
this House and the other place have ample opportunity to
scrutinise the negotiations as they proceed. Furthermore, as
I have set out on a number of occasions, there will also be
the great repeal Bill and the legislation that will flow from
it, which I assure the House will give your Lordships a great
amount of legislative fodder upon which we can all
deliberate.
-
(CB)
My Lords, in the circumstances, would it not have been a
folly not to have exhausted all legal channels, so as to
avoid any complication down the road?
-
I have a lot of sympathy with the noble Lord on that point.
The process also clarified the exact extent of the royal
prerogative. We now have that clarity and I am thankful for
it, although I am obviously disappointed with the outcome and
the ruling, and we shall now proceed.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that on pages 2 and 3 of the
judgment there is a list of some 80 names of people who were
at the Supreme Court, as are required to be listed? I have
two questions about when we find out the cost of this affair
at the Supreme Court. First, will we know which of these
people are paid for out of public funds? Secondly, does the
whole exercise cost more than when the House of Lords
Appellate Committee worked out of two rooms on the third
floor here and huddled around this part of the Chamber at
nine in the morning?
-
My Lords, when we publish the costs we will make them as
transparent as possible. On the question of previous
processes, I gently remind the House who changed those
processes to the situation we have now.
-
(CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister, because he does indeed
answer the questions very well, and the whole House is
grateful for that. Does he agree that it is not just a matter
of the enormous cost of leaving the European Union? In an 8
January article by the Prime Minister in the Sunday
Telegraph, she said in her first paragraph:
“When the British people voted in the referendum … they did
not simply vote to withdraw from the European Union; they
voted to change the way our country works … forever. It was a
quiet revolution by those who feel the system has been
stacked against them for too long”.
Therefore, there were many factors in that decision overall,
and the Government must exercise care, not least over the
fear of immigrants. Because of that mixture of feelings, the
Government must exercise wisdom and restraint on these
matters in the negotiations, because the Prime Minister is
not elected directly and the Government’s majority rests on a
voting population of 24%. The Government must proceed with
care.
-
I hear what the noble Lord says, and I repeat: we wish to
build a national consensus around our approach.
-
(Lab)
My Lords—
-
(UKIP)
My Lords—
-
The Minister stated clearly that he has come to this House
and answered a number of questions. I remind him of the
question that he failed to answer. I asked on Tuesday of this
week whether he would tell us exactly what the Conservative
manifesto said about membership of the European single
market. He prefaced his reply by saying, “Of course I
will”—and proceeded to do everything but.
-
I am sorry, but I dispute that. I made very clear what the
Conservative Party manifesto said and, given the result of
the referendum, we are honouring our commitment, as set out
in the manifesto, to respect the outcome.
