UK Opt-in to the Proposed Council Decision on the Relocation of Migrants within the EU (EUC Report)

Lord Sewel Excerpts
Wednesday 22nd July 2015

(8 years, 10 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sewel Portrait The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)
- Hansard - -

Time is up. The Tellers for the Contents and for the Not Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order 53. A Division therefore cannot take place, and in accordance with Standing Order 56, which provides that the Question before the House shall be resolved in the negative unless there is a majority in favour of such rejection, I declare the Motion disagreed to. Happy Recess.

Motion disagreed.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Sewel Excerpts
Tuesday 27th November 2012

(11 years, 6 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Amendment 27 withdrawn.
Lord Sewel Portrait The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)
- Hansard - -

I have to inform the House that if Amendment 28 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 29 by reason of pre-emption.

Amendment 28

Moved by

Identity Documents Bill

Lord Sewel Excerpts
Tuesday 21st December 2010

(13 years, 5 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and other noble Lords speak with great authority on the Human Rights Act, the convention and our obligation to follow the Human Rights Act. On this issue, there are strong cases to be made on both sides and there are abstentions. The reason why the Government may have decided that the Bill is compatible with the Human Rights Act is simply that the Act is concerned with substantial matters; it is concerned with violation of rights of real value. Whatever one may say about the value of £30, I respectfully suggest to the House that that is not what the Human Rights Act is concerned with. That is one of the reasons why the Human Rights Act has not always been welcomed on all sides of the House.

Lord Sewel Portrait Lord Sewel
- Hansard - -

I briefly follow my noble friend Lord Howarth on the substantive issue of the Commons reason. This is a sensitive issue and there are clear conventions that we should not in this House criticise the proceedings of another place—and I would not dream of doing so. However, I wonder whether I can take Members of this House back to another period of Conservative government. I recognise that a declining number of Members of this House were in here at the time of the last Conservative Government. Those of us who were used to delight in the tussles between my noble friend Lady Hollis and my friend but, alas, noble opponent at the time, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on pensions legislation. Frequently, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish had to make concessions and was sometimes defeated. The effect of those concessions and defeats was that this House increased government expenditure. That Conservative Government never cried financial privilege.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart Portrait Lord Maclennan of Rogart
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, before the House reaches a judgment on the Commons reason, there ought to be absolute clarity about the intention of the House of Commons. It is far from clear in the reasons that have been provided that it is the intention of the House of Commons to claim financial privilege. A single reason is given and that is that the amendment that we are considering, which was carried in this place, would impose a charge on the public revenue. In opening the debate, my noble friend explained that as the Government giving priority consideration to the taxpayer over those who have paid for their identity cards. That does not sound like the invocation of the right of the House of Commons in respect of financial privilege. Without some greater authority indicating that that was the Government’s intention, there seems no bar to this House paying serious consideration to the law officers’ views on the legality of what is proposed under the terms of the human rights convention. I hope that the House will not be forced to take a decision without those views being made abundantly clear and without absolute clarity about the intentions of the Commons in bringing forward this sole reason for their disagreement. To my mind it is far from clear. We will establish a bad precedent if we determine that claims can be made lightly, not by the Commons themselves, that their privilege in this respect has been breached.

--- Later in debate ---
Baroness Neville-Jones Portrait Baroness Neville-Jones
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I think the House knows that it is a strong convention that we do not reveal the source of legal advice. I am confirming to the House that we believe that we are acting lawfully.

Lord Sewel Portrait Lord Sewel
- Hansard - -

As I understood it, it is quite right and proper that a Minister does not reveal the nature of the advice that has been received from law officers. It is another matter for the Minister to confirm whether or not advice has been sought, and it is that second question that the House wants an answer to.