ANY QUOTES USED MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO SOPHY RIDGE ON SUNDAY, SKY NEWS

SOPHY RIDGE: Now this week the government’s Article 50 Bill sailed through the House of Commons and all eyes are now turning to the House of Lords and we’re joined in the studio by the Lib Dem leader in the House of Lords Lord Newby and the Conservative former Chancellor Lord Lamont, thank you both for being with us. Now Lord Newby, there was a referendum, people voted to leave, the elected House of Commons voted Article 50 through, it wouldn’t be very democratic for the House of Lords to block that would it?

LORD NEWBY: No, but nobody is talking about the House of Lords blocking it, what the House of Lords will do is fulfil its constitutional duty of subjecting the Bill to scrutiny, putting forward amendments, discussing them and if we can win arguments to change things we’ll win votes in the House of Lords and send the Bill back amended for the Commons to think again.

SR: Do you accept this, that it’s just trying to amend or improve the legislation or do you think actually there is something more sinister going on?

LORD LAMONT: Well I think a lot of the amendments that are put forward are really designed to obstruct the Bill and everybody knows that if the Bill is delayed that will scupper the whole negotiation and I’m not saying that is Lord Newby’s motive but it is the motive of some of the people putting forward some of the amendments, it’s to get embroiled in a time wasting, time delaying exercise.

SR: And if that does happen, if people try to obstruct the Bill, do you think that the future  of the House of Lords should be looked at?  Should it be abolished?

LORD LAMONT: I think if the House of Lords effectively blocks the Bill by causing delay I think there would be outrage in public opinion and outrage in the House of Commons and I think there would be demands for the whole set-up in the House of Lords to be considered again.

SR: What do you make of that, the whole future of the House of Lords could be at stake here?

LORD NEWBY: Well if you take the amendments that we’re going to be pressing, they don’t have that effect in terms of blocking the Bill at all.  We are trying to get an amendment to the Bill which says at the end of the process there should be a further vote of the people and we are trying to get an amendment to the Bill which says that EU nationals currently in the UK should be allowed to stay.  Passing those amendments doesn’t delay the process for a second and so to a certain extent I think it’s an Aunt Sally, the idea that amending a Bill blocks it, it doesn’t at all.

SR: And do you think though that there is a wider responsibility here for the Lib Dems who, let’s be honest, had a pretty abysmal election in 2015?  Voters made it pretty clear what they thought of Lib Dems policy making and yet there are plenty of Lib Dem peers in the House of Lords, is it time for them to step back?

LORD NEWBY: Well the irony of course is that when we were in government we tried to amend the basis of the House of Lords so that we were elected.  If we’d had our way there would have been elections to the House of Lords by now but the Tories and Labour stopped us doing that in the Commons so we’re stuck with it.  And as to whether we’ve got a mandate, we recently fought a by-election in Richmond and won hands down by campaigning to get Britain to stay in the EU if possible via a further vote but certainly not to have the kind of Brexit that the government has chosen to go down.

SR: At the same time though, if you are saying that the House of Lords should be reformed, that it should be elected, you are now effectively using the House of Lords as an elected chamber when it suits you.

LORD NEWBY: But that’s like saying that we shouldn’t be standing for the House of Commons because we want proportional representation.  Politics runs by rules, we’re playing in the game with the other parties so we’ve got to abide by the same rules as the other parties.  We tried to change them, we failed so we stick to the rules we’ve got.

SR: I’m interested as well with your position, Lord Lamont, critical of the House of Lords trying to potentially obstruct the Bill as you see it because you have previously been a very strong supporter of the House of Lords and its function of examining legislation.  In 2012 for example you argued against reform, said it was good that it was more detached, less political, better informed.  Are you just changing your position because you disagree with what the Lords is doing?

LORD LAMONT: No, I’m not, I’m not changing my position. I would prefer the House of Lords to remain as it is, I think it does a good job but I think it would be untenable if it votes down or obstructs or causes great delay in a measure that has been passed by one of the biggest ever majorities in the whole history of parliament.  We had one majority of 384 and one of 372, by the standards of history these are massive majorities and that is something the House of Lords has to take into account.  This is the will of the elected House based on a referendum in which it was clearly stated the result would be binding.  That was said in the official leaflet sent to every house, it was said by the Prime Minister at the time so there is no excuse for this.  Amending a Bill of two clauses in 150 words is sort of really I think a little ridiculous.  They are not really amendments, they are trying to attach conditions to the negotiation.  

SR: He says that your position is ridiculous, what do you make of that?

LORD NEWBY: Well he would wouldn’t he?  No, what we’re trying to do, we’ve got a job, if we’ve got any job in the House of Lords it’s to amend things if we think the government has got it wrong and ask the Commons to think again.  If you take the great tax credits vote in the House of Lords, that sailed through the House of Commons with zero opposition, it came to the House of Lords and we said hang on a second, we’re not sure whether this is a good idea, have another look at it and the government completely capitulated.

SR: Well what do we think is going to happen?  Quick thought from you, Lord Lamont, how do you think the House of Lords will behave?

LORD LAMONT: Well I hope that the amendments will be roundly defeated in the House of Lords and I think they are playing with fire if they want the House of Lords to survive.  I don't think it will deserve to survive if they wreck this Bill.

SR: Okay, strong words from both of you.  Lord Newby, Lord Lamont, thank you very much for coming on the programme.