I am most grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I think I heard her say that there will now be an opportunity to consider the objectives the Government are pursuing in their negotiations—when they are able to conduct them—with Australia, New Zealand and the United States. That is very helpful, but she seems to be making rather heavy weather about the word “mandate”. She gave us a very lengthy exposition of the royal prerogative, which is something that is behind us but is now exercised, of course, by the Government. Could she not possibly think a little more carefully about ways in which this objective could be achieved? She has said already, I think, that the Government intend to set out their objectives in the negotiation. Why can they not say that they would seek the view of both Houses of Parliament on their objectives, which would be a mandate for the negotiations? That is all that is being suggested.
Trade Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 6 March 2019.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Trade Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
796 c673 Session
2017-19Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2019-03-13 11:40:23 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2019-03-06/19030677000061
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2019-03-06/19030677000061
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2019-03-06/19030677000061