Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

Hear, hear.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord True, for his encouragement—I have about half an hour now.

The serious point is that that was very helpful. This is a niche little amendment, but it is quite important. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, because I had not actually picked that up. It is a niche amendment but this is worth asking questions about, to get some detail from the Minister, and I am grateful for his response. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 91 I am grateful to my friends the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Blunkett, for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is in his seat and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was in touch with me today to apologise for not being able to be here this evening.

I want to keep my comments as short as possible, given the hour and the fact that some of the issues have already been debated in Committee. However, there is merit in discussing the value of a sunset provision, now that each of the Bill’s clauses has been scrutinised.

The fundamental issue, which I fear has not yet been fully addressed by the Government Benches, is that we are being asked to make a permanent judgment on the safety of Rwanda on the basis of the yet to be implemented arrangements outlined in the treaty. This is, of course, against the opinion of our highest court. Furthermore, it is simply not arguable on any rational basis that Rwanda is safe at present, when, as the Minister himself has conceded, Rwanda is moving towards having the required protections in place.

At present, it remains the opinion of this House that the treaty should not be ratified until Parliament is satisfied that the protections it provides have been fully implemented. This amendment simply probes what other mechanism could be used to enable Parliament to revise or review its judgment on the safety of Rwanda, if the Government do indeed proceed with ratification.

This is not a wrecking amendment; rather, it enables the Rwandan partnership to continue if the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees can confirm that Rwanda is fulfilling its obligations under the Rwanda treaty, even if, on these Benches, we do not believe this to be an approach befitting our nation’s values.

I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the UK or Rwanda in trying to fulfil these obligations, and they may well provide the basis for a future assessment of the safety of Rwanda, if fully realised. But good faith is no basis for a sound legal judgment, and this amendment therefore provides Parliament with the opportunity to revisit the issue after a fixed period. At present, the evidence simply is not there that the necessary steps have been taken to ensure that the treaty protections will be in place to protect a very vulnerable grouping from injustices.

The treaty itself envisages initial shortcomings, for which increased monitoring is proposed. UNHCR has yet to observe substantial changes in the practice of asylum adjudication that would overcome the concerns of the Supreme Court. Two years, then, seems a plausible timeframe in which to operationalise the required changes, given that the Minister has stated at the Dispatch Box that the Rwandan authorities are expediting the changes that are needed.

Importantly, the terms of reference for the monitoring committee also stipulate that it will cover the first two years of the partnership. If it is the opinion of the Government that a sunset clause is not necessary, I give the Minister another opportunity to answer the question posed by many in this Chamber: how will the Government ensure that the obligations of the treaty—here I quote the treaty—

“can both in practice be complied with and are in fact complied with”?

This is an even more critical question, given that any recommendations arising from the monitoring arrangements in the treaty are non-obligatory.

I remain of the belief that it is not the role of Parliament to impose a factual and legal determination on all courts, for the fundamental reason that—I hope noble Lords will forgive me for stating the obvious—declaring another nation state safe does not in fact make it so. But, if the Government are choosing to place what some have called a “judicial blindfold” on our courts, we must explore what independent and expert scrutiny can come to bear on the question of the safety of Rwanda. Other noble Lords have commented on what might be an appropriate mechanism, and I implore the Government to give due consideration to this. Surely, we cannot leave a conclusive legal fiction on the statute book, irrespective of the evidence.

By signing off Rwanda as safe without a method to evaluate whether the treaty has been fully implemented, we will expose asylum seekers to a real risk of refoulement, especially given that there is limited suspensive legal remedy for those facing removal. This is no light matter, given that they may go on to face torture or serious mistreatment, from which they once fled—a trauma that cannot be undone. Providing no legal or parliamentary accountability for the terms of the treaty is both absurd and an abdication of our nation’s commitment to justice. I therefore hope that a solution can be brought forward, ahead of Report, to this unprincipled omission. I beg leave to move my amendment.

[Lord True (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate obviously speaks with the authority of the Church of England. Is it the view of the Church of England that Rwanda is not safe?

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, I cannot speak on behalf of the Church of England. We are not whipped on these Benches, and I speak for myself. I do not know for certain whether Rwanda is safe or not, and our courts seem to think they cannot state whether it is safe or not. I suggest that we need to review that in two years when we have more evidence.

Queen’s Speech

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 13th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege as always to close another outstanding debate in the House of Lords, although, if noble Lords will allow me, I thought aspects of the personal attack on my right honourable friend the Prime Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, in terms that would have been ruled out of order in the other place, would probably have been better suited to the Twittersphere than to your Lordships’ House.

Given the large numbers who have spoken, I will not be able to name all individually in responding, but I assure noble Lords that I and my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart—who, with consummate respect for the House, has sat right through the debate—have heard all the speeches individually and will reflect on them individually. Given the time available, I cannot accept the offer from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in his interesting speech to explain the term “democracy”. I have to say to him that I probably would not select the Chamber of the House of Lords as the obvious lecture theatre.

I was also amused that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, devoted two minutes and 28 seconds of his speech—on the basis of a rather questionable construal of the 1999 Act—to committing the Labour Party to an all-appointed House in perpetuity, as their future House of Lords. If that is the new Keir Starmer appeal to the nation, bring it on.

We have had differences in this debate, but I think what everyone has shared or would share is the admiration and delight in seeing Her Majesty once again grace our House this week so soon after her sad loss. The Crown is, and will remain, the keystone of our constitution and the literal embodiment of what, please God, we will always be able to call our United Kingdom. I will come directly to that United Kingdom about which so many noble Lords have spoken with such great passion and profound knowledge. We will study the speeches and all suggestions that have been made very carefully.

The people of these islands have, as people across the world have, faced sore trials these last 15 months under the scourge of Covid. Parliament has assented to measures without constitutional precedent in peacetime. We all hope we can now see a path back to normality in every sense, including the constitutional. Next week, this House will debate what part noble Lords—I hope—are ready to play in that. As we have come through this crisis through the genius of science, the heroism and dedication of so many, and the forbearance of all, we have done so better as one United Kingdom, deploying the pooled resources of our historic union.

The response has thrown into sharp relief the collective strength of that union. Our shared values, beliefs and interests are rooted in mutual respect, as my noble friends Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Norton of Louth and others have said. As we chart a sustainable recovery from Covid, the Prime Minister is determined to build back better from this pandemic in a way that levels up and brings every corner of the United Kingdom closer together.

Recovering from the worst public health emergency in over a century is not going to be quick or easy. We need to be remorselessly focused on getting people back into work, getting businesses back on their feet, getting hospital waiting lists down and helping our young people—our future—catch up on the education they have missed.

These are challenges the United Kingdom faces together, and must face together as a family of nations. I so agree with many noble Lords that our collective priority now should be on tackling them together, not stoking old divisions or restarting an all-consuming constitutional debate. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean made strong criticisms of the role in office of the SNP, and that is a legitimate attack. But during the pandemic there is no question but that we were stronger as one United Kingdom. We were able to do more together by drawing on the particular skills of great shared institutions such as the NHS, the Armed Forces and the Civil Service, the unique power of the UK Treasury to support families and businesses in need, and the scientists behind the world-leading vaccine programme that is helping to bring us out of lockdown.

Politicians have worked closely across the devolved Administrations—as we have heard is necessary from the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and others—in a spirit of collaboration and co-operation for the common good, and this Government remain committed to doing so. I therefore strongly agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie in her splendid and perfectly modulated maiden speech about the spirit we now need. I give her the assurances she asked for. In fact already, since the elections, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has invited the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, and the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland, to a summit meeting in the coming weeks to address the shared challenges of recovery. Working together on that should surely be the priority for all. That was the sense I felt in your Lordships’ House today.

Some noble Lords spoke about one particular part of our union, Northern Ireland. This year, as my noble friend Lord Caine—a great unionist—reminded us, is the centenary of Northern Ireland, and therefore of the United Kingdom as we know it today.

The last time we had a State Opening of Parliament, the UK was still in the European Union. We are now constitutionally free of the EU and have exploited that freedom in the vaccine rollout. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, my noble friend Lord Lilley and others that we recognise the issues raised on the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol. The protocol is a unique and delicately balanced solution to a unique and sensitive set of problems. To operate effectively and safeguard both the Belfast agreement and the progress of the past 23 years, about which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, spoke so movingly, the protocol must be given effect in a pragmatic and proportionate way, as my noble friend Lord Frost reiterated this week.

That is why we are working through the structures of the withdrawal agreement to seek to resolve the outstanding issues. Discussions in recent weeks have begun to clarify those issues and some positive momentum has been established, although difficult issues remain. Our aim is to find common-sense risk-based approaches that enable us to agree a pragmatic way forward that substantially eases the burdens on Northern Ireland. This is how we will protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions, as the protocol itself requires. Of course, as we have set out publicly, if that does not prove possible, we will consider all our options in meeting our overriding responsibility for sustaining the peace and prosperity of everyone in Northern Ireland.

Now that the ratification of the TCA is complete, the first meetings of the TCA committees, including the Partnership Council, will be agreed with the EU. As co-chair of that council, my noble friend Lord Frost will update Parliament on those meetings. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that we will work closely with the DAs, including on implementing the TCA where that involves matters of devolved competence.

The union is a living, breathing, political, cultural and economic success story, as many noble Lords have said. I think that, in their heart of hearts, the majority of people in every part of this kingdom know that to be true, and are proud both of what we have achieved together and of us as diverse nations. We are—indeed, I am—full of hope and ambition for our common future.

As my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart highlighted when he opened this debate, the Government were elected on a manifesto commitment—one made also by Her Majesty’s Opposition—to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. I express my own satisfaction in that; I hope that it will command support across the House. I think I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, got there first with a Bill; I look forward to his support for the legislation as we take it through. The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill will restore tried-and-tested constitutional arrangements that were in place long before the experiment of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which ended in such discord and confusion. The Bill will return us to the long-standing constitutional norm whereby the House of Commons can force an immediate election by withholding confidence and a Prime Minister can request a Dissolution of Parliament from the sovereign.

One effect of the Bill, which I respectfully suggest was not recognised fully by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, will therefore be that, even on the advice of the Prime Minister, a Dissolution will return power to the hands of the supreme authority in our democracy—the voting public—during critical moments for the country, preventing the kind of stalemates that we have seen lately in Parliament from paralysing democracy. Some have claimed that this will give an unfair advantage to an incumbent. However, 1951, 1974 and 2017 are just three examples that suggest otherwise; as I well remember, precious little was gained by clinging like limpets to the rocks in 1997 or, indeed, 2010.

The glory of our constitution, which has enabled extraordinary social change and progress peacefully, is its flexibility. As my noble friend Lord Horam reminded us, conventions play a great part in that; they operate effectively when they are commonly understood and there is tacit agreement that they should be respected irrespective of the political exigencies. This being the case, the Government outlined their understanding of the conventions that underpin Dissolution, again as part of their response to the valuable report of the Joint Committee so ably chaired by my noble friend Lord McLoughlin, that ensured that this Bill received comprehensive parliamentary scrutiny before it was introduced. Your Lordships will continue to have an important role to play in building consensus on conventions. I look forward to what will be fruitful discussions.

My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked, as they are wont to do, about the commission on the constitution. As I have said before, work is being carried forward in a series of in-depth workstreams, one of which was the independent review of administrative law chaired by my noble friend Lord Faulks. The Government will bring forward legislation relating to judicial review; that legislation is intended to protect the judiciary from being drawn into political questions and to preserve the integrity of judicial review for its intended purpose. It honours a commitment that this Government made in their manifesto.

The independent review panel identified some areas where the balance of the way in which the rules currently operate should be looked at. The government consultation probed some further areas where that balance could be said to benefit from a fresh perspective. However, I take this opportunity today to reassure noble Lords that the Government are absolutely committed to upholding the rule of law, which means that the courts should be and will remain able to hold the Government to account in the manner set out by Parliament. The government consultation closed on 29 April, and my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is currently considering the responses received and views expressed and, following that consideration, final decisions will be taken on which measures are suitable for inclusion in the Bill. Upholding the rule of the law will be central to those considerations.

Upholding the integrity and legitimacy of elections must also be among the prime concerns of any democratic Government. As stewards of the United Kingdom’s world-renowned democratic heritage, it is our responsibility to keep it in touch with modern times. I completely reject the conspiracy theories launched first in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and taken up by others, which were rebuffed with brio by my noble friend Lord Hannan and with great measure by my noble friend Lord Empey. The measures that will be brought before Parliament are intended to ensure that our democracy remains secure, fair, modern and transparent. They have participation by British citizens at their heart and will maintain public confidence in our elections.

Public trust in the electoral system is critical. The elections Bill is aimed to reinforce the integrity of the system in the modern age. It addresses a very real potential for electoral fraud, preventing harvesting of postal votes and delivering on our manifesto commitment to extend to the rest of the UK the proven practice in Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, told us, of a requirement for voter identification at the polling station.

We have heard claims today that asking voters to provide ID at polling stations would suppress votes and deny certain communities their democratic rights, and we reject that absolutely. It is not supported by the evidence. Yesterday we published the findings of a survey of 8,000 electors from across Great Britain, which found that 98% of people have a relevant form of identification document. When Labour in 2003 introduced the system in Northern Ireland, the then Minister said that if they believed that voters as a result of the measure would not be able to vote, they would not introduce it. They considered it rationally and introduced it.

The Government are absolutely clear that all those who are eligible to vote must and will be able to do so. The legislation will set out that a very wide range of identification will be accepted, even if it has expired, as long as the voter is still identifiable. There is no new national ID card, and I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that the Government have no intention to introduce one. In the limited cases where a voter does not possess such identification, councils will have a legal obligation to provide a free, local voter card.

We will continue to work with local authorities, the Electoral Commission and civil society organisations to ensure that we address any concerns and that these requirements are clearly communicated. That is vital. However, lack of identification opens up a clear opportunity for fraud in our system and that cannot be acceptable. Every person’s right to vote is theirs alone.

In securing our polls, we can also make them more inclusive. The Bill will therefore ensure that electors with disabilities can be better supported to exercise their right to vote. It will remove the arbitrary barrier to participation by overseas electors, removing the 15-year limit and making it easier for them to vote. It was not entirely clear to me from the opening of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, whether Labour is opposed to the principle of overseas voting. At times it sounded that way. The Bill will also make sure that the rising levels of intimidation we are seeing in public life do not deter candidates from participating in public life, by introducing measures to better protect against abuse.

We will protect the integrity of the democratic debate, increasing the transparency of political campaigning through the introduction of digital imprints.

A number of noble Lords spoke about the future role and place of the House of Lords. I have already praised the expert and invaluable role of this House as a revising Chamber. I hope there is broad agreement that our overriding goal is to offer clear and candid challenge and scrutiny rather than to obstruct. As was said, we are a House of revision, not of opposition.

It is important that the way this House is constituted continues to reflect that role and the primacy of the other place as the elected Chamber. Every Government draw their authority from their ability to command confidence in the other place, which itself holds primacy in our Parliament on the basis that it commands the confidence of the electorate, expressed at a general election.

We do not propose any reform of your Lordships’ House in this programme. The Government will not support any Bill that may come forward for piecemeal change this Session. We are committed in our manifesto to looking at the role of the Lords, but any reform needs careful consideration.

Some of your Lordships complain of the size of this House, although, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde reminded us, even with remote voting, Divisions do not reach the fabled 600. It pains me to stray on to a sensitive area but, given retirements and other departures —and indeed the age of many Members—some new Members are essential to maintain the customary expertise and vibrancy of the Lords.

Your Lordships have a vital role in scrutinising and revising legislation, while respecting, as this House must, the primacy of the other place and the conventions between the two Houses. Last Session, fresh from your Lordships’ struggles to obstruct Brexit, the House defeated an elected Government 96 times. As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde pointed out, this was, in a new Parliament’s first Session, bookended by stunning electoral mandates for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. This was the largest number of defeats for 45 years, and more than all the defeats your Lordships inflicted on the entire Government of Gordon Brown. No doubt, this is a matter on which some may reflect beyond today’s debate.

Her Majesty’s gracious Speech paints a bright future for the whole of this United Kingdom, including proud parts of our country that have been too long taken for granted and ignored. Outside the European Union, having turned the corner on the pandemic and with the economy tipped to grow this year at the fastest rate since the war, the Government will be able to target money for investment where it is needed most, to create a better future for overlooked families and communities that were in danger of being left behind. Our duty to those who are or who feel left behind involves us all in this House, and here I profoundly agree with the moving speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. She touched the spirit, which we should always seek to do.

Again, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I hope that in the Session to come we will all join in our common aim to create a safer, healthier United Kingdom for generations to come and to project our values—which so many millions of our citizens proudly affirm—around the world. I look forward to discussing these and other matters further with your Lordships in the weeks and months ahead.

Debate adjourned until Monday 17 May.

Queen’s Speech

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bichard; I much agree with what he has just said. I also associate myself with the remarks of my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, about the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. As a vice-chairman of the Local Government Association, I know how true that its.

I welcome the gracious Speech, its measures on crime and the victims of crime outside and inside the home, on good education and a clean environment, and its strong tone of humane concern for those who are sick and old. This is anything but a programme for an extreme Government.

But, of course, when one listens to a gracious Speech, nothing strikes one more than the voice that reads it—that unique, unforgettable voice; how I dread the day when that should be stilled. It is the voice of serenity above turmoil, dignity above conniving, duty above self-interest, healing above rancour. It is the voice of stability, the voice of the United Kingdom.

The bedrock of our constitution is the Queen in Parliament. For my part, I have been sad in these last days to see the expressed will of the Queen in Parliament impeached and overturned. These are matters to which we must return, the fall-out from past legislation and recent decisions which we must review, but I do not want to dwell on them today.

I am deeply troubled by the tone and conduct of this Parliament. Each passing week, the problem seems more acute and the reputation of Parliament sinks lower, and the gulf between Parliament and much of the public grows wider. Was it not sad that on the one day that many of us had longed for, when people for once took some interest in the proceedings of Parliament when they were televised live to millions, a too-clever-by-half procedural device in the Commons denied the nation resolution and prolonged the agony that has surely rent our social fabric for far too long?

There are aspects of this deal that noble Lords will know I do not much care for, but enough—enough. The Spartans have sheathed their swords; let those on the other side show the same spirit of compromise. Let Fabius the Delayer come down from his high place and lay down his sword. Es ist genug. Let us move on.

Today, for the first time since May 1641 and profoundly mistakenly, we have a law that the House of Commons cannot be dissolved except by its own volition. Untouchability in the Commons did not serve us too well in the 1640s. That House avowed very high ideals, but it executed Ministers without trial, beheaded the Archbishop of Canterbury, committed regicide, abolished your Lordships’ House and dissolved into military dictatorship. I do not of course say that the House protected by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act—in my view, a written antidote to any cry for a written constitution—is capable of such excesses, but a sense of inviolability inevitably has a behavioural effect. The fixed-term Act protects a Commons reckless of past promises and the popular will. That is a view I know some contest, yet, unequivocally, as proved by its own votes, that inviolable House is unwilling to face the general election that Mr Johnson has offered and test the verdict of the people as to whom they trust to carry the nation forward.

Bad cases do not make good laws. The profound crisis provoked by this Parliament’s failure to do what the people by lawful majority asked should not stampede us to more incautious constitutional change. Before that—and how much I agreed with the wise speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—we should examine the harm and conflict flowing from some recent innovations thrust into our long-standing constitutional law and conventions. I do not exclude from that referendums, first or second.

I am an optimist. I believe that we can rebuild conventions, and the common sense and flexibility that convention both encourages and requires. We can treat our opponents with more respect. That should begin with a Prime Minister who backed Mrs May’s compromise and now offers us another, and who has been subjected to a campaign of personal vilification and who is no would-be dictator. Rather, he is a widely read, deeply civil, good humoured, humane and liberal-minded person, whose optimism appealed across all divides as a twice-elected Mayor of London and wishes to do so again.

We politicians cannot heal this nation without seeing in others opposite the sense of duty, decency, principle and concern for the common weal that motivates almost all who turn their hands to the hard, high vocation of public service. Healing cannot come without respect. Agreement cannot come without compromise. Conflict cannot be ended without permitting a 12 year- old boy to walk home with his father without a police escort.

“O wad some Power the giftie gie us

To see oursels as ithers see us!

It wad frae mony a blunder free us,

An’ foolish notion”.

I beg that we should hear and heed the tone of the gracious voice of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, I want to acquaint noble Lords with the position on the Urgent Question and Oral Statement. The Statement has not yet started in the House of Commons, so we will have to delay our Question and Oral Statement. Let us say that it will not be before 6.15 pm and hope that they will have started it by then. Otherwise, we will have to be flexible again.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 17th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I spoke against these amendments in Committee, and will not repeat all my arguments. But there are four strands in why I believe that these amendments are unwise and unwanted. Before proceeding, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson —who, again, introduced his amendment with great courtesy, charm and skill—that, on a point of fact, 16 out of 23 Prime Ministers of this country have first come to office without a general election, as a result of actions within their own party and within Parliament, including, I say for the benefit of the Liberals, David Lloyd George.

The idea, therefore, that the next Prime Minister would somehow be constitutionally dubious—a proposition that has been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—is, frankly, absurd.

[Lord Cormack]

I did not suggest that it would be improper. I was merely stating a fact. The next Prime Minister will be a Prime Minister of a minority Government—as the present Prime Minister is.

[Lord True]

The noble Lord also said other things, which the Hansard writers will record, including his saying that somehow a power was being conferred on Mr Johnson to do something that Mr Johnson has never said he would do, which is to advise the monarch to prorogue. That has been an inherent right of the Prime Minister and of the Crown for generations. It is an absurd statement, I am afraid, by my noble friend.

The first reason that these amendments should be resisted is, of course, one that I share but most of your Lordships will not: they are clearly designed to frustrate one route to Brexit on 31 October. That is freely admitted by all concerned. I can see that that is not a clinching argument with many of your Lordships, and, if we have learned anything in this House, it is that there is a dialogue of the deaf in this place between the remainer majority who wish to stop at nothing to prevent Brexit and those of us in the minority who believe that the vote of the public should be respected.

I fear that your Lordships’ House is getting itself into a worse and worse place in resisting Brexit. The very future of your Lordships’ House is now in play. That was made clear, not by me, but in the recent campaign for the European elections. I think these amendments take us to the outer fringe of where an unelected House should go.

The second strand of why I think they should be rejected is this canard of “constitutional outrage”, et cetera. This is an Aunt Sally. Mr Johnson—its target—has never said that he would use Prorogation to secure Brexit on 31 October. This danger, this threat, this crisis, this calamity, this catastrophe, this outrage—it is all got up by the remainers.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

What the noble Lord says is clearly true, and I do not dispute it. However, Mr Johnson has been invited on a number of occasions to say specifically, in terms, that he would not use that device, and he has declined to do so. Would the noble Lord agree that that is the case?

[Lord True]

I think in life it is never good to answer the question, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”. The incoming Prime Minister—I will come to this point later.

[Noble Lords]

Oh! Outrageous!

[Lord True]

Outrageous? Let us be grown-up here. Everybody understands the purport of the remark. Mr Johnson does not wish to prorogue Parliament. He has not said so, and he does not need to, because, following the Gina Miller case, there has been an Act of Parliament, passed by this Parliament, in this Session, requiring the UK by statute to leave the EU, as requested by the British people, on 31 October. It is simply rubbish to say that there might be an attempt stop Parliament legislating on Brexit. Parliament has already legislated, and talk about a so-called unlawful shutdown of Parliament or hyperbole about a ban on Parliament sitting reflects nothing Mr Johnson has ever said. It is so much chaff thrown up by the ditchers among the more extreme referendum deniers.

If Parliament wishes to stop Brexit, the route is open: a vote of no confidence in the Government, and the installation of a new Government. That new Government can turn to the British people and say, as I often hear people say in this House, “Sorry, 17.4 million, you are stupid, you did not know what you were voting for, you do not understand the facts as we clever people do, so, sorry, Brexit is off”. If you want to change the policy and say that and do that to the British people, change the Government. That is the proper way to proceed.

It is indicative of the state of the Labour Party—the consistent deliverer, as I said the other day, of 220 votes in Division after Division in the other place—that instead of taking that open and honest course, challenging the Government in a vote of no confidence, it footles around in the small print of a Northern Ireland Bill, shuffling courageously sideways under the genial cloak provided by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and into the arms of the Liberal Democrats, who, given half a chance, would snuff Labour out.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I would like to make two points. First, I voted for Brexit, not for a no-deal Brexit, and that must be true for a lot of other people. Can the noble Lord please stop dividing us into these two camps? Secondly—I am sure that this is unparliamentary—I cannot see the point of what the noble Lord is saying. He is ranging so far across this debate that he is losing sight of the very simple amendment before us, and he is not taking the House with him. I can think only that he is doing this for the newspapers or for—I do not know; do we have constituents?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I admitted at the outset that I am unlikely to take this House with me. However, there are certain things that someone who has the privilege, right and duty to be in Parliament and come to this place has the right and duty to say. While I may be saying things that are not congenial to many in this House, they are not disagreed with by some people in this country.

It is germane to point out certain facts about the Labour Party—a party that will campaign to remain in any election or referendum provoked by a Conservative Government, but which will campaign to leave in the unlikely event that it ever forms a Government. Brexit on Monday, remain on Tuesday, Brexit on Wednesday, will not say on Thursday, does not have a clue on Friday—that is the official policy of that apology of an Opposition on this great question of our times.

The third strand of my argument against this amendment is that by floating claims that only use of the royal prerogative could secure Brexit and that Mr Johnson wants to do that, it is not him but the peddlers of that canard who risk dragging the monarchy into political controversy. Prorogation is perfectly normal after a Session so long, a new gracious Speech is normal, with the formation of a new ministry, and, heaven knows, we can surely do better than the ragbag of legislation and off home before dinner that has been the staple of both Houses lately. At some point, a new Prime Minister must be able to seek a Prorogation and a gracious Speech. That is the right and proper routine of our parliamentary life, and why should Mr Johnson be asked to deny himself that right? It does no service to that incontestable fact to besmirch the act of Prorogation as if it was some kind of shabby and little-known political manoeuvre. All of us, on every side of the argument, have a duty to show restraint in relation to the role of the Crown. As I said in Committee, I cannot conceive how the courts could, or wisely should, construe the motive for the advice given by a Prime Minister to a Sovereign in a private audience. I would rather we did not go there. We have the right to do many things in life, but we have the duty to ask ourselves sometimes, “Is it wise?”.

Here is the fourth and final strand of why I object to these amendments—the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, put his finger on it on Monday. What on earth are we doing here, discussing all this on a Bill that relates narrowly to the future of the Northern Ireland Executive? Only last week Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, to which I have the honour to belong, restated our concern—we all assented to the report, including the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is not in his place—about the persistent fast-tracking of legislation on Northern Ireland. Yet here we are, not only fast-tracking a Northern Ireland Bill but trying to festoon it like a Christmas tree with barely related measures which have never properly been considered. That is a bad way to treat Parliament—

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

May I put to my noble friend some alternatives to his four points? This amendment is not about stopping Brexit but about preventing the use of Parliament to force through a means of Brexit which has been expressly rejected by this House and which has no democratic mandate. If our future leaders have refused to rule out doing that, this is something which we in this House are faced with having to do, reluctantly. Prorogation is normal in Parliament, but will my noble friend recognise the difference between Prorogation in order to force through something that has been expressly rejected by Parliament rather than the normal means?

[Lord True]

I did not count how many words there were in her conditional thing about “expressly used to force through something that has been rejected by Parliament, blah blah blah”, if I may say so, with respect. That is a construct that was created, and we have heard it from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is not possible to construe what the motive of a Prime Minister in a private audience might be for seeking a Prorogation. I do not think we should ask the courts to do that, although we have the right to do so. On her other point, we have statute. This is not about stopping Parliament legislating. I tried to make this point earlier: after the Gina Miller case, Parliament legislated. We are leaving the European Union, and in law we are leaving on 31 October. I am afraid her arguments do not stand up.

I want to finish, and that will please noble Lords. I believe it is a bad way to treat Parliament to festoon a fast-tracked Bill with extraneous matters such as this. In my submission, it is a particularly insulting way, in this case, to treat the good people of Northern Ireland. They deserve far better than having their future provision made the plaything of others with other axes to grind. This is a Bill about the formation of a Northern Ireland Executive, which we all very much wish to see. We should return to that.

Amendments such as those before us were rejected in the House of Commons. Elected Members have had their say on this matter. Are your Lordships really going to reopen all this and slug it out on this Bill—this Northern Ireland Bill—day after day on a fast track in an undignified ping-pong to provide a battlefield for hardline remainers and devoted respecters of the people’s choice? Surely we can do better than that. Let us dispense with this parliamentary chicanery, reject these amendments and deal with the important business relating to Northern Ireland. The Commons rejected the amendments. Let us do the same and move on to the business in the Long Title of the Bill.

[Lord Goldsmith (Lab)]

My Lords, as I said on Monday, I reject the idea that this amendment does not have an important impact on Northern Ireland too, not only because it ensures that the supervision and reporting provisions that are now in the Bill can be considered constructively by Parliament, but because—and who has forgotten this?—Northern Ireland has been at the centre of all the debates that we have had in this House about Brexit. The possibility that we should be forced to leave without a deal, I would have thought we would all agree, is one that deeply affects the people of Northern Ireland.

I had thought that on this issue we were approaching something like unanimity that it would be constitutionally improper and wrong in principle to suspend Parliament in order to push through the final stages of the Brexit arrangements without Parliament being in a position to oversee, comment on or effectively have any role in that. Those who have said that this would be wrong are not only Cross-Benchers—the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, made it very clear, in an extremely good speech, why that was so—but others on this side of the House, such as the Liberal Democrats, as well as many distinguished Members of the Conservative Party. We all know about Sir John Major’s statement that he would judicially review an attempt to push through Brexit without a deal, and the noble Lord, Lord Howard, has been reported as saying that it would be wrong and a “very bad idea” to suspend Parliament, and I respectfully and fully agree with him.

As I said in the debate on Monday, none of this means that the amendment would stop Brexit taking place. There is, as others continually remind us, existing legislation. What is more, we cannot unilaterally stop our departure on 31 October because, as a matter of international law, unless that is extended by agreement between the EU and ourselves we will leave on that date. But that does not mean that Parliament should not have a role in what takes place. It can change its mind. It can do many things, including change the law. It would be grossly wrong—a perversion of our constitutional traditions—and irresponsible, in my view, to prevent Parliament being able to present, comment, oversee, supervise and, if it so chooses, take other action. That, and nothing else, is what this amendment is about.

Of course, the incoming Prime Minister—let us assume it is Mr Johnson—may wish to proceed without further inconvenience from Parliament. Let him persuade Parliament of that. Let him persuade Parliament that the route he has chosen will succeed. That is what parliamentarians should do and what we should do in a democracy. He cannot and should not adopt a royalist approach, as King Charles did. That is what we are trying to prevent, and so many Members of this House are concerned about that. It is Parliament that safeguards our freedoms and ensures that we remain a free land; that is how we do our democracy. To allow that to be set aside would be wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

Let me answer my noble friend Lord Elton. If we are not able to move it forward, it will not be just an instruction—he is quite right—but the law. That is different, because it will be the law that will move forward, and we as a Government will struggle with that deliver what we need, which is a safe and secure system that places women at its heart. We will not be able to do so in the time limit we have set out, and that is the reason we have a problem. My noble friend Lord Elton, is absolutely right: we are not talking about an instruction. This is a law that will come into force, which we will have some difficulty trying to maintain and will potentially allow itself to be opened up to further judicial interrogation and review. Ultimately, this will do a disservice to honourable Member in the other place who has tried to move this forward in the manner in which he has.

[Lord True]

This is a minor point, in some ways, but it is fundamental. Nothing can be law unless both Houses agree to it, so while this is not agreed by both Houses and assented to by the monarch, it is a law in the making. I am concerned about the process here, as I referred to in an earlier debate. It is not desirable. In the light of that, in a fast-track process we must have clarity. This has been asked by various Members in this House: what is the guarantee that there will not be a case in Northern Ireland where a child—or foetus, if the Minister likes—is aborted after more than 24 weeks in the period after the passage of this law? What is the guarantee? What is the safeguard in law? What is the case law on the subject? Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will able to advise the House before Third Reading.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The challenge that my noble friend sets me is a difficult one. I cannot give a guarantee in that regard because I am not in a position to control the situation in Northern Ireland nor the medical profession. It is beyond my ability to do so. What I have said is that before we have been able to bring in the necessary elements of the new regime, there will be a period during which we will be bound by the established earlier Act from the 1940s which will give the confidence that we are not seeking to undermine in any sense the practice that has gone on there. But we have to recognise that during that limbo period, health practitioners, doctors and others will not be in receipt of guidance from us because we will not be in a position to draft that guidance by that point and that will be the reality that we will face. It is not one, unfortunately, that I can answer or offer or afford any guarantees on.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 15th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has argued for so eloquently. This amendment, to which I set my name, has only one purpose: namely, to make it more difficult—

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, if I may, I tabled an amendment to this amendment, which I believe under procedure should be taken at the earliest opportunity.

[Viscount Hailsham]

I am very happy to sit down.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, we are speaking to Amendment 6 at the moment. The amendment is to Amendment 7.

[Lord True]

Sure. Okay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I invite the noble Lord, Lord True, to speak. All amendments are in the same group, and although the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said that the Amendment 7 had not been moved, it has been spoken to. If the noble Lord, Lord True, wishes to speak now, that would be appropriate.

[Lord True]

I thank the noble Lord. I think it would be helpful for the House to hear the other side of the river speak, as it were—the minority that we are. I was not minded to take part in this Bill, though I am troubled by the high-handed intervention in Ulster affairs and other parts of the Bill by MPs in another place, and will be listening carefully to what my noble friends say later.

I tabled my amendment because I am concerned by the attempt to hijack a Northern Ireland Bill to—let us be blunt—stop the UK leaving the EU on 31 October or to weaken our negotiating position. It was a move instigated by my right honourable friends Mr Grieve and Sir Oliver Letwin. They were supported by the usual galère of referendum-deniers and pushed towards the line by the votes of more than 220 Labour MPs. Yes, Labour again: with 76% of the votes for Mr Grieve, Labour has been, since 2017, the single greatest political force obstructing Brexit.

This amendment does not touch the call for progress reports, but it prevents exaggerated machinery being added for repeated debates, which some have admitted is to stop Brexit on 31 October. Sir Oliver Letwin declared that these amendments would “prevent Prorogation”, and we have heard that argument today. But Mr Grieve freely admitted that his aim was to prevent Brexit on 31 October. Both rather arrogantly took it for granted that if they were defeated—as they were—your Lordships’ House would act as they instructed, and hey presto, here we are with Amendment 7. Your Lordships’ House is again invited to be the doormat for a defeated party in the other place.

The motive for all this is clear, whatever the pretence. One of the two men likely, though not certain, to become our next Prime Minister has said that he would honour the verdict of the referendum and take Britain out of the European Union on 31 October. The tablers of this amendment want to stop him. Some will tell us today, as we have heard already, “Oh, it is nothing to do with Brexit. It is all about protecting Parliament”—the very Parliament they wish to remain subjected to the superiority of EU law. Is it nothing to do with Brexit? I really do wonder.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who spoke eloquently, states on his website that he is an EU law nerd and veteran of more than 150 cases before the ECJ. He argued that, even if Brexit were delayed, the British people did not need to be given the chance to vote in EU elections—“Do not let the people speak”. The noble Lord described as moving my noble friend Lord Hailsham’s words, which were that Brexit was an act of national self-harm that moved him to anger, shame and distress. We may safely conclude that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is not an enthusiast for Brexit.

My noble friend Lord Hailsham has always been open. From the outset, he declared his wish to frustrate Brexit, as did the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I do not know about other noble Lords, but I have never seen the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on an amendment to do with the EU and concluded that it might be about advancing our exit. This amendment is designed to do one thing: to make it harder to leave the EU on 31 October. If, in the light of 17.4 million votes in a referendum and the result of the European elections, your Lordships’ House wishes to align itself with that objective, so be it. Our names will all be counted in the Division lists. Perhaps the days of this House will then also be counted.

The smokescreen of this amendment, as we have heard, is all about stopping Parliament being prorogued, so Parliament can have a say. Make no mistake that my right honourable friend Boris Johnson—as has been made clear by my noble friend Lord Hailsham—is the target of this, as he is the target of a relentless campaign of personal vilification. Mr Johnson, it is said, wants to prorogue Parliament to “force” Britain out of the EU. Mr Johnson, of course, has said no such thing, but we have since had the spectacle of a former Prime Minister, himself responsible for the longest political Prorogation in modern times, threatening legal action against one of his successors to prevent him giving considered advice to the sovereign. Is it not extraordinary for a former Prime Minister to argue that the duty to advise the Crown should be taken away from the elected Prime Minister and given to unelected judges?

We are now told that, seven days before seeing the sovereign, a Prime Minister must send a letter to Mishcon de Reya, which I gather is a law firm. I count myself fortunate to have had no dealings with it and, after this, I intend none. Who elected it? We were told that what a Prime Minister advises a sovereign must be subject to judicial review. What next? Will the Supreme Court require and subpoena transcripts of the weekly Audience to find out the purport of the advice the Prime Minister is giving? Will the Prime Minister’s advice have to be accompanied by an explanatory note from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick?

[Viscount Hailsham]

Will my noble friend tell your Lordships whether he favours suspending Parliament to prevent the House of Commons discussing, challenging and overriding the decision of Ministers? Where does he stand on this matter?

[Lord True]

I will come to Prorogation latter. It is reasonable to deploy an argument; it is also reasonable not to accept an imputed wish. Who can impute the purpose of a Prime Minister in advising on a Prorogation? I ask: will the Prime Minister’s advice have to be accompanied by an explanatory note from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—who we understand has been retained in this matter—telling Her Majesty what she may lawfully hear and what is subject to JR by Mishcon de Reya?

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said she is all for this procedure. Has she, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith—who will be speaking on the matter from the Front Bench—told her leader that? Can you imagine the hail of judicial reviews that would rain down on the Government, led by Mr Corbyn, and the advice he might tender Her Majesty about the use of the prerogative? “Ma’am, you must invite comrade President Maduro on a state visit, grant an honorary knighthood to Raúl Castro or appoint an ambassador to Hamas”. Will Mishcon de Reya ask for a letter about that advice?

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

As—I feel I should state—the husband of a former partner in Mishcon de Reya, can I ask the noble Lord, with his distinguished record of parliamentary and public service, how he would like to limit the ambit of judicial review, which is the way in which citizens challenge administrative action that has been called into doubt?

[Lord True]

Whether judicial review should be limited will be a matter for whichever judge the case is put before. My submission is that this is an inappropriate use. The irony when it comes to judicial review is that most JRs of Jeremy Corbyn would come from the Labour Party itself.

Amendment 7 is not a question of allowing Parliament to decide on Brexit. Parliament asked the people to decide the question; the people decided. Parliament voted to invoke Article 50. This Parliament, in this very Session, voted by overwhelming majorities to leave the EU. Parliament has set the law of the land that we should leave on 31 October. It is not a question of anyone stopping Parliament deciding; Parliament has already decided.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord True]

I need to make progress, but I shall take one more intervention.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

I am trying to follow my noble friend’s thoughts. Is he arguing in favour of an elected judiciary, or does he uphold the rule of law that we currently enjoy in this country? Does he not accept that, while a majority voted to leave the European Union, we have yet to decide by a majority the process by which we do so?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I construe the statute law that lies before us and have expounded it to the Committee just now.

Amendment 7 is a final clutching at straws by hard-line remainers to obstruct, delay and prevent this country doing on 31 October what its people have asked. I submit that this House should have none of it.

On Prorogation, which Sir Oliver Letwin—and, it now seems, others—want to prevent, we have already endured in this pestilential, shameful Session, which has so damaged the image of Parliament and trust in politics, the longest parliamentary Session since the 1640s. What judge will now dictate when or why a Prime Minister may be permitted to advise Her Majesty to bring this wearisome Session to an end? I looked at the record. Until the change of the parliamentary year in 2010, and leaving out election years, Parliament was prorogued in October or November in 24 out of 24 years since 1979. There is nothing unusual about an autumn Prorogation; what is unusual is not having an autumn Prorogation. The prerogative power to end the Session was left untouched by the Prorogation Act 1867 and the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Parliament could have limited or removed the power; it did not do so. It did not do so, because, until this desperate ploy by hard-line remainers, an October Prorogation was a normal part of parliamentary life. Allowing a new Government to have a new Session with a new gracious Speech and new legislation necessary for the times was a normal and healthy part of parliamentary life. Everyone, wherever they stand on Brexit, is surely agreed that, when it comes, there will have to be new legislation and time to consider it, which means a full and fresh parliamentary Session.

It would be a serious mistake for your Lordships’ House to be a party to continuing games in the House of Commons. Seven days’ notice to Mishcon de Reya before any advice is tendered to the sovereign so that lawyers may wrangle over it is not a wise form of government to implement in the 21st century; nor is trying to prevent the calling of a new parliamentary Session. I submit that this farrago should not be tacked on to a Northern Ireland Bill. The other place rejected it and this House should reject it, too.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I very much look forward to serving with the noble Lord, Lord True, on your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, to which he has recently been appointed. He will bring, I think it is fair to say, a fresh perspective to our deliberations.

I am very sorry that the noble Lord does not appear to understand the constitutional impropriety of a Prime Minister advising Her Majesty that Parliament should be prorogued for the express purpose of preventing Parliament expressing its views and taking action to prevent a no-deal Brexit. It is the motive for which such advice would be given that distinguishes such advice, and such Prorogation, from the examples he gave. The point is a very simple one.

I also much regret that the noble Lord sees fit to deprecate citizens of this country taking legal action to challenge the legality of conduct of the Prime Minister—

[Lord True]

Will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Pannick]

Can I just finish the sentence? The noble Lord referred as a matter of criticism, as he sees it, to unelected judges deciding matters. Judges are deciding the law of the land: that is their job and their responsibility. I think it is shameful, if I may say so, that a Member of this House should deprecate that process and the rule of law on which we pride ourselves.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I will deal with the noble Lord’s condescending condemnations later. I ask him to withdraw the statement that I deprecated the act of any citizen. I ask him what citizen I attacked in any part of my speech.

[Lord Pannick]

I am not referring to particular citizens; I am referring to the very clearly expressed statement, which I heard and I think other noble Lords heard, that it is inappropriate and wrong for “unelected judges”—those were his words—to decide on the law of the land. That is their job. We pride ourselves on the rule of law in this country, and that is a fundamental element of the rule of law. I say that not just because I have an interest in this matter: my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich referred to the fact that I have given advice to one particular citizen, Mrs Gina Miller, and I have given the legal advice that for a Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for the express purpose of preventing Parliament performing its constitutional responsibilities would be unlawful.

However, we are not here today to debate the law; we are here to address, as my noble friend Lord Anderson rightly said, what would be a constitutional outrage. I strongly support the amendment in the name of my noble friend, which is a means by which this House can prevent such an appalling eventuality.

Further Developments in Discussions with the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I will not enter into that one, but I will declare my interest as a resident for nearly 40 years of Italy and a lover of that great country and its people. That experience has influenced my attitude to what the European Union has now become.

I have not spoken lately on the subject, but my view has not changed. It is simple: the British people were asked by Parliament to decide this question. In the greatest ever exercise of democracy in our history they did so, by a majority of 1.25 million. Parliament then made law for us to leave on 29 March—in 18 days’ time. Those are the facts, that is the expectation—and leave we should.

Again today, those of us who hold that view have been called “wild” or “extreme”. “Extreme” is a favourite adjective of those who do not want Britain to leave the European Union at all. I confess that I am extremely committed to the decision of the British people being respected in full, and not in name only. I am extremely depressed by the obduracy and arrogance of EU negotiators, and by the weakness of our own handling of negotiations. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, I am extremely concerned at the prospect of a humiliating draft agreement that would prolong rule-taking and wrangling for years, perhaps indefinitely. I am extremely distrustful of a Labour leader who promised to take Britain out, then in every Division in either House has whipped the bulk of Labour votes—the votes needed to break Labour’s word to the people. And I have to say that I am extremely dismayed that so many in this oh-so-superior-feeling Parliament have spent recent years plotting, week in, week out, to undermine and dilute the referendum result. Remember that? Leave—17.4 million times leave.

We have a Commons immune from dissolution, which, as my noble friend Lord Dobbs so powerfully said, has forgotten the promises on which it was elected and set itself against the people. In a crisis of Parliament against the people there is, in a democracy, only one party that must bend, or be made to bend, and that is Parliament—better by its own wise judgment before a general election, but, if necessary, after one. However many twists and turns there are in Westminster, on this great question the British people had their say and, in the end, they will have their way. How much better if that were to come on 29 March, as millions expect.

Nine hundred and ninety-one days after the referendum—what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, earlier called “instant gratification”—many today tell us that they want more time. How much time? Nine days? Ninety days? Nine hundred and ninety-nine days? On what conditions, and to what end? I share the worries of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, about that. But if there is a long delay—for which, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked—the chance surely must be taken for Britain, as a continuing member of the European Union, to take part in elections to the European Parliament. Let us see what manner of verdict the British people return at those elections and then judge the case for a second referendum.

We hear a call for trust. I fear that trust was a little dissipated along the road from Lancaster House to the backstop. Trust was certainly corroded by Project Fear’s calculated falsehoods. I think that trust would dissolve if the Cabinet, having lost their deal—although the Prime Minister alone could take that decision—sent a Minister to the Dispatch Box of the Commons to rub the 29 March exit day out of the expectations of the British people.

There is also a call for unity. Unity, such as I never recall in this party or Parliament, was squandered by clinging to the coat-tails of the very institution the British people voted to leave. Lately, unity has been undermined by a new doctrine of Cabinet irresponsibility, when Cabinet Ministers publicly declare opposition to Cabinet policy and are rewarded for it. Trust in politics would be best served if all, from the topmost in the land to the foreshores of Aberdeen and Hastings, returned to the bosom of country and party, where the majority voted not to remain, not to rule-take but to leave.

Every Member of the House of Commons must this week ask themselves, “Do I stand by the promises I gave my electors and let my country leave, as we in Parliament have already voted to do, on 29 March? Or do I continue in the weevil-ridden ship this Parliament has sadly become?”—a ship which it seems a piratical crew is now ready to seize to hoist the 12-starred banner of a second referendum, in which we heard today that leave would not be allowed on the ballot paper. Of course, we must examine whatever piece of paper the Prime Minister brings home this evening—but I, for my part, would respect the people’s call to leave. That must mean voting down the withdrawal agreement as it stands, rejecting the call to disarm Britain by taking a deal on WTO terms off the table and rejecting the call to delay for no certain purpose.

I have no doubt that the noble Baroness who will follow me—a European Unionist to my European—will say that that is irresponsible. But I could never count it irresponsible to do as the people have twice decided, once in a referendum and then in a general election. They still say that people did not know what they were doing when they voted to leave. I think that after 43 years’ experience of living in the EU, they had a pretty good idea of what they were leaving. As for not understanding, I ask: did they vote for more billions to be paid to the EU, to be rule-takers without any say in making the rules and for more influence for Brussels over Britain’s defence? Did they vote for foreign bureaucrats to try to divide our kingdom within itself, for us not to compete to attract business and create jobs and for us to have to beg for permission to leave? Did they vote to be still in 1,000 days later, or did they vote to be out—and out, frankly, long before 29 March?

When it comes to not understanding what people were voting about, I submit that the failure to understand lies not with what the British people said but with those in Parliament who do not want to listen: “There’s none so deaf as those who will not hear”. I hope even now that the Government and Commons will cashier Project Fear, reject delay, have the courage to come out of the EU in the manner that my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne so powerfully described earlier, and step into that free-trading world that is on offer—and do it just 18 days from now. Further delay would prolong uncertainty and have grave implications for our body politic.

Brexit: Negotiations

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, blinkered, ignorant, petulant, complacent, hypocritical, destructive—those were some of the adjectives thrown at those who share my position by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. You would wonder who was seeking to uphold the verdict of the British people and who to overturn it.

I cannot support this plan. It flows from a lack of confidence and competence in negotiation, as many have said, and a sense that the British people’s vote to escape the authority of Brussels was a cause for damage limitation and not an opportunity for the future. Yesterday, my right honourable friend Greg Clark said he saw advantage in remaining tied as an EU rule-taker until 2022, six and a half years after the vote to leave— longer than it took to win the Second World War. One does sense that the confidence in our country and the clarity of purpose of some of my right honourable friends is a little less than Churchillian. Once again we hear project panic, catastrophe and chaos let loose. It started with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and has run through this debate.

This Prime Minister—honourably—never joined in Project Fear. How sad it would be if she let her office reach for the manual of Mr Osborne. Like many others, I ask how long this agony must go on, but that does not lead me to arrive at the choice now being designed for the British people in high places. It is the same choice that has been advocated by so many in this debate: a binary choice in the Commons—and if it comes to it, the country—between this sad deal and staying in the European Union. It is a choice between accepting European rules without a voice or with one. That false choice is a snare and a delusion: a choice between spam and würstel, set before a British people who voted for beef and liberty.

There is another way forward: Peel’s vision of Britain as a champion of free trade, a policy built on the terms that most of the rest of the world uses, working to a mutually respectful free-trade offer such as that lately agreed between the EU and Canada. Instead, we have a clunking document in which there is much that is shared and valuable, but within it a catalogue of crucial concessions. It offers many billions for a product: the future relationship that is still, fatally, not fully defined. It perpetuates—crucially, potentially indefinitely —a customs union we promised to leave; my noble friend is right about trust. It delays trade deals, ties us to non-regression, a promise not to be competitive with the most uncompetitive part of the globe, and it volunteers Britain into the humiliating position that it may only ever leave if Luxembourg allows it. In addition, with an odour of dishonour, for which I would apologise to my unionist friends if they were in their places, it breaks a promise that there could never be any distinction in the way parts of our kingdom are treated. Like other promises, that has been forgotten in the small print with which Downing Street and the Cabinet Office have smothered the clarity of the vote to leave.

My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is a great public servant, and her belief that she is doing the right thing is beyond question. But I regret to say, like many in this House today, I am dismayed at the point to which this country has been led, and I have little faith that the necessary change of direction will be forthcoming from this quarter. I will not lend my support—in any way—to imposing these articles of dependency on a people who voted to leave.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 5th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I fear I must intervene at this point, having been restrained a little earlier. I did have some amendments down which I thought were rather germane to the transition period potentially, on which noble Lords could take different views, but in the interest of making progress I thought that those issues could be more intelligently addressed once we knew a bit more about the progress of negotiations.

I must point out that, prior to that, four groups of amendments had occupied your Lordships’ House for five and three-quarter hours. At that average rate of progress and with 85 groups still to consider on the Marshalled List, many of which have been tabled by noble Lords who are concerned about leaving the European Union, we will need 13 more days in Committee, sitting for nine hours until midnight every day, with no dinner break and without considering any other business. With all respect, I do not consider that that is a good way to make progress or that it is sufficient progress to make. I think that a number of your Lordships will probably agree privately with those reflections.

We have a 19-clause Bill here, to which already your Lordships’ have tabled 67 new clauses. Perhaps some of these statistics might be noted outside. The amendment to which I speak is such a new clause.

I feel that, with all respect—

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord True]

The noble Lord has spoken a great deal in the past few days; I would like to continue my remarks, if I may.

The important issue that is raised here is a perfectly good issue on which to have a debate in the Moses Room or on an Unstarred Question. These are matters of great importance. I strongly disagree with the noble Baroness who said that we had not made progress in this country: we have made a great deal of progress in this country. The performance of this country on gender equality, work/life balance and carers has been transformed in my lifetime. It needs to go further, but I cannot accept—

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does the noble Lord accept that a great deal of the progress that we have made—for example, on gender equality—has been because of the judgments of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, which has imposed standards that our Parliament has not imposed?

[Lord True]

I do not necessarily accept that at all. I do not think that the progress of—

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

Why has the noble Lord singled out this set of amendments to be, in an ideal world, debated in a committee room rather than on the Floor of the House? Nobody has made that suggestion about any other set of amendments so far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

I did not make that suggestion, and the record will show it. I was coming to make some suggestions about how we could address this as a House. We have had some outstanding debates in this House from committees of your Lordships’ House on broader policy questions that arise from this difficult exit process. This is an extremely important issue, as I acknowledged at the outset, which deserves to be considered and continually considered in your Lordships’ House. I am merely saying, with great respect, that perhaps the usual channels should give some consideration to ways in which some of the issues that have been raised on this quite narrow Bill could be discussed—but, since I have been invited to explain why, it is nothing to do with the matters concerned.

By the way, the noble Lord cannot argue that because progress has been made by one judicial process it would not have been made by other processes. After all, huge progress has been made in the United States of America, which does not accept the judicial authority of Luxembourg.

This worthy amendment seeks to raise and bring before your Lordships’ House an important subject that your Lordships should consider and hold dear. However, the amendment is absurd in what it asks the Government to do—and that would be true if it was applied to any other field of public policy. So far in Committee we have had a series of general public policy debates. We have had several today which have been cloned, as it were, on to the Bill. The amendment wants Ministers to be required by law to watch only EU law as it develops and give regular reports to your Lordships’ House whenever a proposal comes forward on what should happen. A new principle is being grafted on to the law for this one issue.

I could reverse the question: why for this worthy policy only? Will it be submitted in the rest of Committee as we proceed on different aspects of public policy on all these new clauses that we should have a process whereby Ministers are required to watch and report on this and that after we have left the European Union? That is not very sensible. Our Ministers and Government should watch the legislation brought forward in every advanced country of the world, not only among our European partners, but not have this specific process clogging up the statute book.

The remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown—I am sorry, I can never remember his full title; I know it has got something to do with living in a leafy place with a wood nearby—on the previous group were absolutely correct. He made the point that we had discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights before.

So, with the greatest respect, I oppose this amendment for the reasons I have given. It is not a sensible process on any aspect of law to ask any future Government to specifically watch the development of debates on future policy within the European Union and bring reports to your Lordships’ House. That is simply not practical legislation.

I have the highest esteem for the noble Baroness, as she knows. I recognise that she is passionately committed to these issues, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Burt. They are trying to bring issues they care about before the House, but they do not have to do so on this Bill—and certainly not in the context of an amendment that will not work in practical terms.

We have been sent a Bill by the other place that is to provide for withdrawal from the European Union—not to provide a basis for a series of lengthy Second Reading-like debates on different aspects of public policy. That is the way we are drifting. It is why we took five and three-quarter hours to debate the first four groups and why, if we continued at that rate, we would have another 13 days to get through. The amendment is not practical and will not work. It raises an important issue, but we should move on. I will give way to the noble Lord now.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has been implying—rather more than implying—that noble Lords in this debate have been wasting time; that they have not been getting to the bottom of the subject or have been talking about irrelevancies. Is that what the noble Lord means to say—in other words, that we have not been doing a good job on this Bill? It seems to me that we have fairly elucidated the quite complex details in this proposed legislation so far. It is an enormously important matter and we can scarcely be accused of spending too much time on it. Our debates are being followed carefully by the country as a whole—and rightly so. If the noble Lord has any evidence of someone who has been filibustering or wasting time, I hope that he will bring it forward.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I could well be tempted and I suppose that it depends on how quickly you can see paint dry. I leave it to people outside your Lordships’ House to judge the progress that we have made in the first four days, despite some of the undertakings and understandings of the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps I may say that I greatly value and respect the Bench whose behaviour has been absolutely admirable and exemplary. I do not think that we have made fast enough progress, which is not justified. There are important issues to raise and I have simply suggested that these are some things that, as with the reports of your Lordships’ committees, could be discussed in other forums—but surely not during consideration of this little 19-clause Bill with a rather narrowly defined purpose and given all the other legislation that we have coming forward.

I oppose this amendment. It suggests a new mechanism for the Government in relation to our future relations with the EU which is unnecessary. I look forward to seeing the progress that the noble Baroness wishes to see being made.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 89A, 129A and 157A in the group and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Burt, for their support. Many noble Lords have already referred to the executive powers in this Bill which go beyond those needed to deliver the intent of preserving and converting existing EU law into domestic law to provide legal continuity on exit day. Clause 7, for example, gives Ministers corrective powers to do whatever they consider appropriate to address a deficiency in retained law. As the Constitution Committee has observed, as wide a subjective concept as “appropriate”, applied to such a broad term as “deficiency”, makes Ministers’ regulation-making powers potentially open-ended. Ministerial assurances on their use cannot substitute for a provision in the Bill to prevent the correcting powers being used to effect substantial changes to implement government policy outwith the stated intention of this Bill.

There are many areas of substantive policy which could be impacted by these open-ended powers, a concern that is captured in the long list of amendments to the Bill. I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that if the Government more quickly took action to restrain the powers in Clauses 7, 8, 9 and elsewhere, and reflected the concerns that people have, the list of amendments that the Committee is debating might actually reduce in number. I am sure that he did not intend it, but choosing his moment at 10.25 pm to express his frustration at the amount of time spent on certain amendments, just at the point when we are discussing women’s and family issues, does not help the case that there is increasing anxiety that the Conservatives want to cut back on employment rights, particularly as they are afforded to pregnant women and mothers.

The particular focus of these amendments is to prevent powers in Clauses 7, 8 and 9 being used to limit the scope of or to weaken rights relating to maternity, paternity, adoption, parental rights, the rights of pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers. Such rights are important because they affect the status of half of the population of this country. That is not a small or minority group, it is half of the population. When millions of women voted in the EU referendum to remain or to leave, I doubt that many will have done so in the belief that the result could prejudice their rights or status. These amendments reflect real concerns about the potential impact of Brexit and the application of this Bill on women, expressed by a broad coalition of women and equality organisations such as the Fawcett Society, Women on Boards, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Girlguiding and many others. Bodies such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission share an anxiety that in setting the future of the UK economy, the Government could weaken women’s status in their vision of a differently regulated country.

The treatment of women who are pregnant and who care for children is fundamental to their ability to achieve social and economic equality. The penalty paid for child-bearing and caring is at the heart of the discrimination and loss of opportunity that many women continue to experience. It affects women who have been pregnant, are pregnant, may become pregnant and, by gender association, who do not have children. They all experience the consequences of a collective stereotyping of women.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 40, 89A, 129A and 157A, to which I have added my name. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady Drake, Lady Burt and Lady Greengross, whose names are also on the amendments. These amendments deal with issues that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, so passionately and rightly said, will impact half the population of this country and would potentially reintroduce rights that would otherwise be lost for women, carers and parents. These measures have support from many groups representing women’s interests. I am grateful for briefings from the National Alliance of Women’s Organisations, Working Families, Carers UK and the Fawcett Society, among others. It is vital that we protect existing protections and equality law for women and carers, and maintain these protections into the future.

The EU has been a leader in equal rights for women. I am proud that the UK has been a principal player in Europe on this agenda. Measures such as rights for part-time workers, sex discrimination laws that put the burden of proof on the defendant and the right to request flexible working have all contributed to a far more female-friendly and family-friendly working environment for millions of employees across the UK. Brexit must not put women’s progress and prosperity at risk. It must also not dilute parental and paternity rights.

The Bill as drafted does not provide sufficient protection for hard-won equal rights that we have already attained. It introduces risks that rights will be weakened in future and fails to contain safeguards to ensure that the UK does not fall behind future EU advances on these issues. That is why these amendments seek to put in the Bill specific protections for the rights of important groups, including part-time workers and carers. The Government said that they intend to retain the current rights and protections, but why would they then resist putting them into the Bill explicitly? I hope that the Minister will come back on Report with his own proposals to this effect.

As we debated last week, the UK must not lose rights derived from the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. I suggest to my noble friend Lord True that the reason why there has been such a lengthy debate on individual areas of UK rights, including this series of amendments about women and carers—I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake—is that the Government have chosen to exclude the charter of fundamental rights and unfortunately have raised suspicions that they seek to weaken rights after Brexit. Ministers must not be given powers that could enable them to bypass Parliament to weaken such rights. It is true that the charter covers rights contained in other UN treaties that have been ratified by the Government. However, those treaties are not incorporated into UK law. Therefore, they do not provide the same protections. These amendments aim to introduce specific safeguards into the Bill. I am sorry if my noble friend believes that these issues are not sufficiently worthy to be debated in this Chamber.

[Lord True]

I have made it absolutely clear that I consider these to be important issues. The points I made were entirely about the way in which progress is being made on this Bill. I would be extremely grateful if my noble friend did not impute to me things that I did not say and do not think.

[Baroness Altmann]

I am most reassured to hear my noble friend’s words, but it is unfortunate that that issue was raised on this set of amendments about women, with the suggestion of moving to the Moses Room. I assure him that there are many on these Benches and across the Chamber who believe these issues to be extremely important for our country.

Many noble Lords across the House are concerned that the UK must not fall behind on gender equality and women’s rights. As we have seen recently, there is still some way to go before we can say that we have achieved gender pay parity and there remains a need further to improve women’s rights. Sadly, I have seen all too often women’s issues fall under the radar of policymakers. There are many loopholes in UK law which penalise women predominantly. For example, in the area of pensions, part-time workers, usually women, still fall through cracks in both the national insurance and auto-enrolment pension systems, leaving them disadvantaged. Any weakening of women’s rights and protections is moving entirely in the wrong direction.

The new clause proposed by Amendment 40 would help protect us from falling behind the EU. A practical example is the directive on work/life balance for carers and parents which the EU will bring in but not until after March 2019. The majority of carers for elderly parents tend to be oldest daughters in their late 50s or early 60s—I declare an interest as one such. The forthcoming EU directive would introduce carer’s leave, which can be so important to help women who might otherwise have to leave work altogether. Women who stop work to care for loved ones when they are in their 50s or beyond usually never return to the workplace, denying them the chance of a richer retirement and wasting their valuable skills. Ensuring that we do not fall behind when the EU introduces protections for carer’s leave is extremely important for women. We should not weaken rights and protections which they would otherwise enjoy. The amendments would not force the Government to adopt new EU laws and regulations, but they would ensure that Parliament had the opportunity to protect the position of the UK and keep pace with, or even exceed, improvements in these areas in the EU in future.

This Bill and earlier debates this evening highlight vividly that the Government’s proposed legislation does not ensure the objective of transferring EU law into domestic law in all its aspects, nor does it achieve the same protections and rights as citizens have at the moment. There will be a watering-down, which is not appropriate for a country that has spent so much time and energy on enhancing the rights, protections and position of women, part-time workers, carers and families. To countenance measures that put those achievements at risk is unacceptable. I hope that the Government do not wish to risk the UK falling behind or moving backwards on these issues, and that my noble friend the Minister will return on Report with proposals of his own which can achieve the aims of the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken from across the Committee in support of this amendment—with one exception of course, the noble Lord, Lord True. I cannot help but point out that there is a certain irony that the longest speech came from the noble Lord who complained that we were wasting time. He took, I think, nearly a fifth of the non-ministerial time in order to tell us we were wasting time.

[Lord True]

I will rise to the bait. It is clear that one is going to be characterised and monstered, but the reality is that I very clearly set the remarks I made in the context of the four days that we have already had and the 13 days, at this rate of progress, it will take to complete Committee. I also made it very clear that I regarded the rights that are being discussed as important and hoped that the noble Baroness would see all that she hoped for come to fruition. I was as delighted as the rest of the Committee by what we heard from the Front Bench.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

As some of my noble friends have said, it is odd that it is this amendment, when we are talking about women, families and carers—

[Lord True]

My Lords—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I think I should carry on. The noble Lord asked a question, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, gave a very clear answer, but perhaps the best answer came from the Minister himself. I thank him for his very courteous response and for his acknowledgement that this is a very valid amendment and debate, which we should be having. I very much welcome his categorical assurance that there will not be a watering down of the working time directive, and I know many other noble Lords welcome that as well. But I am puzzled. Yes, he has given assurances about not watering down existing rights, which is very welcome indeed, but I have not heard an argument against my amendment about keeping pace with what is happening in the European Union in the future. He was asked why he was not able to support the amendments, given the very positive stance he was taking, and I did not hear an answer to that. I am not going to pursue it now, but given his positive stance, and at the same time his failure to give arguments against this amendment, we may well want to return to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, has the noble Lord considered that, rather than resorting to his mythical thing of worry and terror about the Conservative Party, his arguments might gain more traction with some of us on these Benches if he considered the threat to property rights put forward by the leader of his party and the threat of the expropriation of value put forward by the shadow Chancellor in relation to the nationalisation proposals? The noble Lord talks about retaining regulation and parliamentary protections perhaps being helpful. Is he worried or terrified by a Labour Government having these powers to act without the kind of protections that he talks about?

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

My Lords, we have already heard that this amendment is necessary, for some of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned. I shall speak in favour of Amendments 21, which has my name on it, and 22. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, I propose not to talk much about the details of areas that should not be amended, other than by a parliamentary role, but to focus a little more on the role of Parliament and the importance of ensuring that retained legislation should not be amended other than with clear parliamentary engagement, either through primary legislation or, as subsection (4) of the new clause in Amendment 21 suggests:

“Regulations … may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament”.


One thing about the vote to leave the EU, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, pointed out in Committee on Monday, is that the people of this country voted to bring back control of our laws because they believed that Parliament was capable of making better laws than the EU. Not all of us in your Lordships’ House necessarily agree that we wanted to bring back control. But, to the extent that the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, surely the importance of the Bill is in ensuring not just that legislation is on the statute book but that there is no Executive power grab and that Henry VIII clauses and other opportunities—as in Schedule 8, outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick —should not enable Ministers to make decisions that subvert the legislation without full parliamentary engagement.

It is hugely important that the rights and duties that have been outlined in existing legislation cannot be changed by ministerial fiat. If this amendment is not accepted, it is therefore important that the Government bring forward some other suitable amendment on Report that enables us to be reassured that the aim of the withdrawal Bill is not to give more powers to Ministers but, rather, to take back control to Parliament.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 26th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick]

My answer is very simple: yes, of course. The whole point of the Bill is to read across the EU law which currently applies to this country and for it to continue to apply. That is the Government’s objective. It is their objective because they—very sensibly, in my view—wish to ensure legal certainty and clarity on exit day. That is exactly the legal position. It is not my idea; it is the Government’s intention in this Bill.

As to all the concerns about what the charter might or might not do, one should bear in mind that the charter has been applicable in the courts of this country for many years. No one has suggested that there is some case or principle which is so objectionable that we need now to make an exception for the charter, when the Government’s intention in the Bill is to read across all retained EU law to ensure a functioning statute book that preserves the legal position and ensures clarity, certainty and continuity. That is what this Bill is about.

[Lord True (Con)]

There is, I think, a fourth question. As a layman, I have been listening for 51 minutes to extensive legal argument on these questions—and who am I to judge, in a sense?—and I was persuaded by the distinguished arguments of two former Law Lords that I heard. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to three arguments but there is surely a fourth argument which has not been adduced by any of the noble and learned Lords who have spoken, and that is that 17.4 million British people voted to leave the European Union, and that means coming out from under the jurisdiction of entities which are not subject to the Crown, Parliament and UK law.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, smiles and laughs. All the arguments that we have heard in this Chamber over the past two days in Committee come from those who do not wish that to happen, but the fact is that the British people sought a future in which they and their Parliament will make UK laws, and UK judges, under the Crown, will judge those. We have no need of any charter which has been made outside, something that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, argued for repeatedly when he was Attorney-General.

[Lord Pannick]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. The reason I am smiling is that he clearly has not read this Bill. The Government’s Bill reads across the entire content of EU law that applies as at the exit date; it becomes part of our law. It is the whole point of the Bill.

[Lord True]

If I may—

[Lord Pannick]

I am sorry; let me complete the point. The noble Lord has made a point and he is simply wrong. The Government’s Bill reads across the whole of EU law. It removes the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice—I do not suggest to the contrary—and the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has absolutely nothing to do with the role of the European Court of Justice. It will be the role of our courts and our judges to decide from now on the meaning and effect of the retained EU law which this Bill reads across. It will then be in later legislation for Parliament, as it sees fit, to amend or repeal that law. But as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, indicated, the Prime Minister said that this Bill is not an occasion for changing the law, it is an occasion for ensuring that on exit day we have a workable, certain, continuing system of law. The real question is why this Bill should make an exception for one element of European Union law, the charter. There is no justification for that whatsoever.