Brexit: Article 50

Debate between Lord Bridges of Headley and Lord Morris of Aberavon

Monday 7th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

The right reverend Prelate makes a good point. He points to a sin of omission here. I totally agree that we need to be looking at what is best for the communities of this country; that is why I am delighted that I have met with representatives of the Church of England to discuss this. Brexit raises a whole range of issues which are posing challenges for communities. I know that is so as regards EU funding. There are concerns across the board on various points. I am happy to discuss those with all faith groups and I am delighted that the Church of England has agreed to do so.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister inform the Prime Minister that she should invite the Minister for Justice to study her constitutional duties under the Constitutional Reform Act—particularly Section 3(1) and 3(6)—to defend the judiciary, in view of her half-hearted and delayed defence of the judiciary and her failure to rebut some of the inflammatory comments in the newspapers, in which she was joined by a senior Minister as well?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. I have made my position clear on this and I really do not have very much more to add.

Royal Prerogative

Debate between Lord Bridges of Headley and Lord Morris of Aberavon

Monday 18th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

The Government’s position is that there is no legal obligation to consult Parliament on triggering Article 50. I understand that, as the noble Baroness rightly alluded to, a court case is beginning to trundle its way through the courts, and obviously that will have to make its way. Beyond what I have said, I am sorry to say there is nothing further for me to add at this point.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already welcomed the Government’s decision, announced last week, on the need for the consent of Parliament to invoke Article 50 rather than rely on the royal prerogative. Since the Constitution Committee of this House proposed, following evidence from the late Lord Mayhew and from me, that the consent of Parliament was necessary to go to war—now a convention—rather than use of the royal prerogative, should not the same committee be asked to examine how the royal prerogative should be used in the future?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

How the royal prerogative might be used in the future is obviously a matter for the committee to consider. However, I am sorry to say to your Lordships that I cannot go further than what I have said so far. Our understanding is that there is no legal obligation to consult Parliament on triggering Article 50, as it affects the position in international and not domestic law.

Government Contracts: Steel Industry

Debate between Lord Bridges of Headley and Lord Morris of Aberavon

Thursday 25th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

Blow me down with a feather: my noble friend is wanting to leave the European Union. That is a surprise at quarter past 11. I am sure that he is right about his facts. The challenge at the moment is obviously Chinese steel. Chinese excess steel capacity is estimated to be roughly double the EU’s annual steel demand and 25 times the UK’s steel production. That is the real challenge we face.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, on the assumption that the Government made speedy and early representations to the European Commission regarding the dumping of Chinese steel, are they satisfied that the Commission has acted effectively and promptly to protect the British steel industry?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, there is always more that we can look towards the EU to do. For example, we are pleased that the European Commission is investigating where there is evidence that state support for steel industries is not compliant, as regards Italy and Belgium. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was one of the signatories to the letter to the European Commission only a few weeks ago that called for further action.

Chilcot Inquiry

Debate between Lord Bridges of Headley and Lord Morris of Aberavon

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress is being made regarding the publication of the Chilcot Report.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)]

My Lords, in his letter of 15 June to the Prime Minister, Sir John Chilcot indicated that he would only be in a position to provide a realistic timetable for publication once the inquiry had received and evaluated the remaining responses from those individuals who had been given the opportunity to respond to the inquiry’s provisional criticism. In his reply, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said,

“I … had hoped for publication of your report by now and we are fast losing patience”.

He also asked for an update from Sir John once the Maxwellisation process had been concluded.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Chancellor of the Exchequer also said that people were running out of patience with the inquiry. This must be particularly true of the families who lost lives. Will the Minister recall that, on 4 February 2015, Sir John Chilcot told a Commons Select Committee that there was,

“a settled body of evidence that may be added to, but it will not be subject to revision”.

Is it not deplorable that there was a 13-month argument with the former Cabinet Secretary about the disclosure of notes between Mr Bush and Mr Blair which proved unsustainable? Since Parliament is the ultimate guardian of the independence of any inquiry, and since this one seems incapable of reporting, should not the Prime Minister pull the plug, discharge the committee and, on the basis of the evidence already gathered, come to Parliament for its advice as to a way forward?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I start by saying that I entirely share the noble and learned Lord’s frustration, as I am sure do those who served and those who lost loved ones in Iraq. The general gist of his question—in fact, there were several questions rolled into one—was that we should scrap the inquiry. I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord on that. First, the inquiry is independent of government and, most importantly of all, it has taken a long time to get this far—on that we agree—but it needs to be able to complete its work as quickly as possible so we can learn the lessons. Removing its members from office or stopping the inquiry now is not in the best interests of this work. However, I am sure that those involved in the inquiry will heed the views of your Lordships, especially those of the noble and learned Lord, on how long this is all taking.